>
>As for my "considerable use of force," I think it would come after a
>thorough investigation of who did what. That would include
>police-style investigations of the sort going on around the world
>right now, internationally coordinated. If and when the truth were
>uncovered, I think some force, under UN auspices, would have to
>capture the perps and maybe displace the Taliban. That could be
>messy, a point that a lot of cops-and-courts partisans don't talk
>about. When I asked David McReynolds about that, he conceded that was
>the "sore point" of his position. Is this imperialist? In some sense,
>I guess it is, but it would be good.
I sort of agree with Doug. As you all know, I am a big court-and-cops guy on this, and generally with regard to criminal procedure. If there is any claim that the US has to be the good guys, it is that on paper we have pretty good due process protections for criminal suspects and defendants. These are watered down a lot in practice, and the criminal justice system as it operates is a disgrace, but notions like no search or seizure (arrest) without probable cause, right to remain silent, provision of attorneys for the indigent, right to confront the witnesses against you, jury trials, rights to an appeal and habeas corpus (however gutted), are precious victories.
It really outrages me when Bush says things like, No negotiations, hand him over, we know he's guilty, or well destroy you--not just because it's arrogant and imperialist, but because it tramples on everything that gives the US a claim to moral superiority in this incident. I mean, what would we say if the Afghans or someone else came to us with a similar demand to hand over a foreigner residing here whom they suspected of some evil deeds in their country? Probably "Fuck you" would be on the polite side. ANd that would be without the threat to do us harm.
That said, suppose we did the investigation and determined that there aws probable cause that ObL planned the 9/11 attack. I am now inclined to think this is true. Independent foreign press has said that "follow the money" investigations and inquiries into the connections of the hijackers to al-Qaeda indicate a pretty strong connection. None of thsi involves confidential informants whose lives would be endangered by revealing the information to a hostile government. Suppose we then gave the informationto the Taliban, and demanded extradition or its close analogue, whatever you dow hen there isn't a formal treaty. No threats of further attack, just a firm but polite request, one sovereign nation to another. And they said, no way Jose. If negotiations about a possible trial in an international court failed, then I think that the US would be on decent moral ground, and possibily, thoughI don't know this for sure, decent international legal ground, to use force to seek out and arrest ObL. Would that be imperialist?
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp