> >Besides, nobody is saying the US shouldn't use force in its response to the
> >9/11 attacks. ..
Ok, I'll say that. I don't think the U.S. has any right to use force in response to those attacks. I base my assertion on the following reasons:
1) The U.S. needs to: a) turn over its own war criminals to some kind of international court; b) close its terrorist training facilities at Fort Benning, Langley, and elsewhere; c) publicly admit its role in facilitating international terrorism, for instance, against the people of Nicaragua. Only then should we consider any moral or political arguments about the U.S.'s "right" to use force. I'm not even making an anarchist argument here, because I really don't think the American state has any "rights." 2) The United States need to end its aid to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other authoritarian regimes in the region. 3) The United States needs to admit that it has killed 500,000 Iraqis with its sanctions. 4) The use of force by the U.S. is only inflaming anti-U.S. sentiments around the world. An international volunteer force of specially-trained military forces would be better suited politically to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. 5) The U.S. is fighting a 21st century conventional war against a terrorist *network.* This network extends around the world. 6) Supporting the use of force by the United States, however limited, grants legitimacy to the state's claim that it has an interest in acting against enemies, foreign and domestic. We on the Left don't get a say at the cabinet level on who will be defined as a domestic enemy. 7) The "Left" should be supporting alternatives, like funding of RAWA.
Those are just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
Chuck0