>(I said): I do not support war, but there is
>>a
>>fairly well-established protolocal for a criminal investigation.
>
>Why bother with a criminal investigation? Do you actually believe that
>doing so might deter or prevent future terrorism? Or are you of the mind
>that there exists some reducable material fact legitimating deserts as a
>coherent concept and thus making punishment obligatory?
Firstly, yes, I am a retributivist. I don't know about a "redicible material fact," whatever that is, that explains this, but I do think that if you do evil, you deserve to be punished, other things being equal. Secondly, although I do not think that criminal sanctions will deter OBL or his ilk, they may incapacitate them. ANd it would answer to popular demand taht something be done, which counts from a consequentialist point of view.
>
>
>>You gather evidence, identify suspects with probable cause, find 'em, and
>>bust 'em. In this case there is the added problem that they are
>>(apparently) under the protection of a hostile nation. By "apparently," I
>>meand if it's OBL. The Guardian and Le Monde think there's pretty decent
>>evidence;
>
>Even if there was none in regards to 9/11, I've seen nothing to suggest
>that the other charges against him are fallacious.
>
>
Well, no one was really pushing it on the others, And there is more evidence now tying him to 9/11.
jks
>This is what I don't understand. The reason I most viscerally reject the
>"blowback" analysis is because it has the unintended consequence of
>trivializing the prior crimes it depends on for whatever force it may be
>said to possess.
ANd you call yourself a consequentialist. Fact is, blowback is _real_,and we better understand it if we don'twant more of the same.
Supporting Islamic radicals in an insurgency
>against
>relatively benign Soviet imperialism was wrong for reasons having nothing
>to do with the unforseeable consequences of 9/11.
Sure, generic anti-imperialsim did the work there, also the fact that we were supporting bad guys.
Preventing the
>Palestinians from obtaining a state was and is wrong for reasons having
>nothing to do with 9/11.
Yes, and?
Smashing the Taliban while taking care to
>cause
>as little suffering as possible and trying to ensure that a better regime
>takes its place was and is right for reasons having nothing to do with
>9/11.
Oh, no. The US cannot, CANNOT, be trusted to do the right thing. The T is dreadful beyong measure, but the Afghan people have to dael with him. The best thing we can do is stay out of their way.
Of course, I know most here disagree with that last
>statement. But
>I think the dissent stems entirely from a mostly well-founded mistrust of
>the US and not the worthiness of the goal.
>
Who wills the means wills the end: you ask for US imperialist means, you get US imperial ends.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp