>Well, Kells, there was a possibility before we sent in the bombers of
>treating this as a criminal investigation, as it should have been. If the
>guy had been French, and not hiding out in the Third World, do you think
>they would be bombing Paris? Notta fukin chance. So don't tell me there
>was no other way, even to get a bad guy who won't stop. Of course,
>talking about how it could have been is idle in a sense. But makes an
>important rhetorical point about the kind of war we have and the kind of
>government we have.
ahh hogwash. the french wouldn't have protected them, end of story.
i'm talking about what to do in very pragmatic terms because all this talk about what might have happened before they started dropping bombs is silly. in the first place, some military action would be necessary to get ObL Inc out of that country. That you or anyone else denies it is absurd on its face. You just don't go knocking on the Taliban's door and say, "We've come to arrest ObL Inc. Here are our papers." Lots of luck. did you even consider the anthropological interpretation of what the Taliban think they are doing when they protect ObL? Inc.? Different normative code, for these guys.
so be specific about what you really mean here wrt military action -- since, really, special ops would have been inevitable. it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise, even before the bombing began.
We wouldn't have arrested him because we couldn't just do it without the use of force and we couldn't have kept them in the US waiting for trial without one major league nightmare on our hands. for years this would have gone on, unless we automatically ruled out the death penalty and sent them to life in prison. and where exactly would the guy go? and then you'd still have the constant threat of hostage-taking. absurd position to put ourselves in.
kelley