>On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> >... It is devilishly hard to combine an acknowledgment
>> >of the role of U.S. policy in creating the conditions in which
>> >terrorists can arise with a sense that justice requires the
>> >perpetrators be punished and future acts of mass murder prevented.
>
>Exactly right. But surely the US is bound by treaty to do that through
>the Security Council, perhaps by means of a special court like those
>formed for Lockerbie or the FRY, and SC authorization for the
>apprehension of the 9/11 criminals. --CGE
Is that a legal requirement, or is the U.S. entitled under international law to retaliate against an attack?
Legalities aside, politically and ethically I agree with you; I don't support the bombing or what someone called the fill-in-the-blanks declaration of war that Congress passed. I think people who hold this position, though, have to acknowledge that apprehending the 9/11 criminals probably won't be like serving a warrant on someone for insider trading; that's where the "considerable force" I mentioned to Rick Perlstein would come in.
Doug