----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Remick" <carlremick at hotmail.com>
> What? There's every reason to call for an end to the bombing, but
the
> proposal you stated earlier seems oblivious to the fact that the
bombing
> *is* going on. You use entirely conditional terms in saying: "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."
========== Well there are problems with this because what if the evidence presented can't make the evidentiary hurdle. The NC talk that was posted also goes into the contradictions involved if the US wants to go the legal route; the can or worms it opens is just too big. The leaderless paradgim is damn effective in frustrating the legal approach.
> To make things nice and legal again, we would have to: *stop*
bombing and
> sending in troops unilaterally (or with just our trusty sidekick the
UK);
> complete the essential due-process preliminaries ("detective work,
arresting
> suspects, interrogating possible witnesses," as you mention in a
later
> post); present the total accumulated evidence to the UN and lay it
out in
> public for all the world to see; and get the UN to authorize and
direct the
> multinational force needed to seize the duly indicted terrorists
wherever
> they may be.
>
> Carl
=======
Definitely need to stop the bombing precisely on the grounds given by
NC. Pursue all legal remedies but be prepared for comin' up with
zilch. Then what?
Ian