"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?"
Surely this question arises in any 'criminal' case? If the evidence doesn't meet the 'grade' then let the suspects go. What are the consequences of such an outcome? Not much I would think. By the time the court outcome is known the American public would have calmed down....hopefully. With no outcome from a court case there might be some constructive focus on changes in:
foreign policy; domestic policy that gives over such much power to the military/Pentagon; global governance on issues of human rights and economic justice; corporate governance (including the banning of international cartels of all kinds).
I don't believe the current US administration will like the idea of an effective international court/global governance because it will implicate criminals and criminal policy on the home turf. But it sure looks like a politically-winning proposition for ordinary citizens who seek a move away from imperialism and their consequent/inevitable exposure to continuing terrorism. In any case, there probably won't be a choice but to continue moving toward the self-interest of all for the survival of a liveable habitat.
Would it be a good idea to change the US Constitution to ban wars on 'unspecified enemies'?
BJR
PS: On the evening news tonight: Poverty growing in Australia: 10% of Australians rely on Social Security to survive (I would have thought it was much higher than that! It's 60% in Wynyard Tasmania and not much different in neighbouring towns on the NW coast of the state). Poverty is growing despite an unemployment rate of under 7%. 50% of those that live in poverty come from families where one or both adults work.