----- Original Message ----- From: "James Heartfield" <Jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 12:14 PM Subject: Should OBL be pursued?
>
> Yes, I'm opposed.
>
> It's a simple liberal position, really.
>
> Anyone interested in freedom ought to have an attitude towards the
state
> of extreme distrust.
>
> Those who say 'get bin Laden' are handing over their authority to a
> power that is not their own.
>
> It will rebound upon them.
=============== < http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/outgoing/cox/PhaseIIIFR.pdf >
> In pursuit of the overriding moral imperative 'get bin Laden',
ordinary
> people's rights will be trampled.
=========
Getting whoever did this is not a "moral imperative," anymore than the attack was morally motivated. Last Tuesday shows the limits of moral discourse in the relations between empires and their resistors. Was George Washington a terrorist? Was/is anyone who sought/seeks to destabilize power they perceive[d] as illegitimate a terrorist?
>
> Pursuing bin Laden means extra-territorial action.
>
> Presuming that the US govt. is not proposing to seek extradition -
nor
> indeed satisfy the Afghan government's wholly justified request for
> proof - 'get bin Laden' means 'in breach of the sovereignty of
whichever
> country he is living in'.
>
> It would be naive to think that the US military-state machinery
would be
> constrained to arresting bin Laden, but would be free to interfere
in
> all aspects of the country invaded - all in the name of getting bin
> Laden.
>
> Is the US state to be trusted in dealing with bin Laden justly? No.
The
> political atmosphere is poisoned, suggesting that a 'not guilty'
verdict
> would be impossible - hence there is no justice.
>
> Finally, what is the likelihood of proper evidence? Since one
presumes
> that whoever was involved in the decisions to attack the Pentagon
and
> WTC - outside of those who died in the incident - acted
conspiratorially
> it is unlikely that there will be a direct order in existence.
>
> In that case the likelihood would be that bin Laden would be charged
on
> evidence of guilt by association. The prosecution would assume the
> character of a political show trial.
>
> Their is a parallel. It is widely asserted that Sinn Fein leaders
Gerry
> Adams and Martin McGuinness are also de facto leaders of the
provisional
> IRA.
>
> Consider whether the British government would have been right or
> justified in seizing and trying Adams and McGuinness for the many
> violent attacks, both on servicemen, and sometimes on civilians, by
> members of the IRA.
>
> I think most people would understand that that was a political
attack
> masquerading as justice.
>
> The difficult thing for the US public is that the actual
perpetrators of
> the attack are well-known to us, and beyond justice.
========
Thus the term terrorism is an empty signifier. As is the use of the
term war by our "hermeneuticist-in-chief"
>
> Frustration at that does not give you the right to associate someone
> with the 'political' aims of the attackers, and try that person for
the
> action.
>
> As long as working class people in America fail to develop a
distinct
> political agenda from their rulers, they will not free themselves.
========= Political agendas lead to unfreedom too...
Ian