Apprehending Criminals Re: Doug: "Whuppass those mofos!"

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>>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

Do you support the use of "considerable force" to apprehend those who 
authorized or committed the crimes of U.S. imperialism (current & 
former U.S. presidents, congresspersons, generals, etc.)?  If so, who 
is to use "considerable force" _now_ to do the apprehending?  If not, 
why not?  Should we "do nothing" _today_ in response to terrors of 
U.S. imperialism?