On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:02:57 -0400 Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> writes:
>
> 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.
So what would this "considerable force" look like Doug? And why shouldn't we expect that in practice it wouldn't be all that different from what Bush is actually doing right now, for the reasons that I gave in my earlier post? At least when Hitchens decided to enlist in the War Party, he acknowledged, in not so many words that he was siding with Bush & Blair. I am getting the feeling that you are attempting to do the same thing but in a more round about way.
Jim F.
>
> Doug
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.