> Very few people are thinking about this, whether it's the cretins in
> the administration who can do little more than order bombing runs, or
> the folks on the left who exhume ancient and largely irrelevant
> slogans, relics from anti-intervention struggles, apparently not
> noticing that we were attacked, which changes everything. And the
> partisans of the cops-and-courts approach, among whom I number
> myself, apparently haven't thought through just how you go about
> "bringing them to justice" - when the them in question could be
> thousands of heavily armed, well-hidden fanatics who will fight to
> the death.
>
Alright--I'll put my head in the noose:
One thing that keeps circling around in my mind is that many of those who should be "brought to justice" are likely still here in the US. The Taleban and al Qaeda may be willing to fight to the death, but I'm not so sure about the remainder here--but even if they are, finding out who they are would be a good first step in establishing a *real* chain of evidence back to the ones ultimately responsible. So a first step would be a greater emphasis on what needs be done in the US to expose and breakup what cells remain here. And all that *without* Ashcroft's lousy anti-terrorism bill or any shiny new toys for the FBI or the other agencies (e.g., CARNIVORE)--these agencies had necessary access and data; what they lacked was decent analysis. After 9/11, I think claims for new toys or further license to trample rights should be met with that criticism.
That may sound either pointlessly limited, or something one would like to whisper in a power broker's ear, but I think it could be something to organize around, and worth organizing around. I worry about my safety, the people I know worry about their safety--we make bad jokes about anthrax and who we wish would get a powder dusting in the mail, but the fear is there. But we're all scared, and I'll be damned if I can figure out how bombing abandoned bases in Afghanistan is going to do a damn thing to make US citizens more secure. In other words, flip around the Franklin aphorism that been making the rounds these days, and make the claim that peace *is* the risk that must be taken now to ensure lasting liberty and security. Concentrating on through and just efforts to collect evidence and secure the general population has to be the first priority; pointless bombing undermines it. I know this point may be a hard sell now, but I think its stock will rise as military efforts flounder.
Another thing that keeps rattling around my head is: how does a nation with an obviously illegitimate government appear to the world? What kind of resolve and taste for liberty does that nation's people show when they just acquiesce to ballot fraud and go about their lives? If notions spread like Dawkins' memes (ugh), I wish I could sew the wind with this one. I'm not and never was a Gore partisan (wrote in some friends at the top of the ticket because of Nader's anti-union stance), but I think the lack of a consistent and continued opposition to Bush is a terrible sign of weakness.
I realize this is comes nowhere close to putting those responsible for the WTC attack in the dock, or changing our MidEast policy. But just as the lack of viable left parties in other parts of the world has contributed to destabilization abroad, I think the same is true for the US. -- Curtiss, thinking out loud