> I wanted to clarify that Matt was looking for an a priori distinction
> between "act of war" and "crime" in the case of the attack on the WTC.
> I think it's clear that the workers in the WTC were neither armed
> combatants (even if you believe that it was an act of war, which I
> don't) nor "merely" collateral damage: they were the primary target.
>
> That's what makes it a crime.
The Pentagon fails that test, no?
If it imperialistic to hold ObL Inc. (to use Kel's convention) to the US form of justice, isn't it equally problematic to do the same with something like the Geneva Convention? ObL Inc. did not sign any such treaty.
I'm partly Devil's Advocate here, as I'd like the bombing to stop and ObL Inc. to quietly disappear for what they've done combined with a serious change in US policy in the M.E.. But I am confused as to how we distinguish between crimes and warfare in the 21st century, and how we can communicate that difference to others. I think this is a large issue at hand and Kel's posts re: assymetrical warfare are hitting some of the important points - but the "crime" spin seems to be begging that question still.
Matt
-- Matt Cramer <cramer at voicenet.com> http://www.voicenet.com/~cramer/ PGP RSA Key ID: 0x1F6A4471 aim: beyondzero123 PGP DH/DSS Key ID: 0xAFF35DF2 icq: 120941588
yahoo msg: beyondzero123 There are only two kinds of artists: the plagiarists and the revolutionaries.
-Paul Gauguin