I suggested that we propose, as an alternative to war, following international law, and treating the T as if they were not enemies of the human race, but jsut another sovereig national. Shane helpfully replies with a version of Exterminate the Brutes! Him and George W. Bush. I'm sure George is happy to have you on the war wagon, Shane.
If I were to treat this answer with more seriousness than it deserves, I'd say something like this. First, yeah, the T are pond scum. But, fact of the matter, so is the US govt (my esteemed employers at present), and far more dangerous, as they are showing in Afghanistan. Obviously this does not justify by a hairsbreath the atrocity of 9/11, but it does raise questions about whether the pirates who rule are are fit to deal with the pirates who rule Afghanistan. Remember St. Augustine's parable about the pirate and the emperor? I would not trust the US to exercise military force as far as I could throw it. I would rather embarass our leaders by demanding that they will up to their own professed standards.
Second, the war war have as very little to do with capturing or killing OlB, bringing down the T, or ending "terrorism." It is in fact the war that Orwell warneda bout in 1984: "Ocean is at war with Eastasia; Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." Or so our rulers hope. They didn't welcome 9/11, but they sure are opportunistically glomming on to it to open up a protracted, open-ended covert and overt war against any and all targets of opportunity, swat civil liberties, blled the welfare state, squash and intimidare dissent,a nd raid the kitty for the military. If Shane wants taht war, he's free to join in the Five Minute Hate. Not me. I don't love Big Brother or, as is more apt here, Little George.
Third, we are talking about rhetorical strategies here. If we want to sell the antiwar option here--and maybe Shane doesn't--we need a story. My story, which I also believe to be true, although at this point suggesting the alternative the US should have pursued is sort of idle, is this: we have a crime, treat it like a crime with diplomatic complications. As another Churchill (Winston) once said, better jaw jaw than war war. The fact that the people we have to traet with are not nice is beside the point, first because we're not nice, but second because there's no way to avoid deal ing with pond scum. You thing our pals in this venture are so wonderful?
Disappointedly,
jks
>Justin wrote:
>
>"Suppose we then gave the informationto the Taliban, and demanded
>extradition or its close analogue, whatever you do when there isn't a
>formal treaty. No threats of further attack, just a firm but polite
>request, one sovereign nation to another."
>
>What sovereign nation? The Taliban, that piratical gang, is not an
>internationally recognized government (unless you count the
>Saudi royalty and the Pakistani secret police as speaking for you).
>But Afghanistan has an internationally recognized government,
>accepted as such by the United Nations as well, and controlling
>a substantial part of its national territory (however deplorable
>the record of its soldiers from 1978 to 1995). The legal status
>of pirates, under customary international law, is that of enemies
>of the human race. It is not only the right but even the duty,
>of every power (even those who until now have tolerated and
>even aided those pirates) to crush them (and not to seek a
>deal with the "moderate" pirates among them).
>
>Shane Mage
>
>Écrasez l'infâme!
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp