Luke,
It might be helpful to expand further on what I think are appropriate and inappropriate responses for the US to pursue. I'd be interested in comments from others on the list, too.
Appropriate responses:
1. Tighten security in US airports. Being from Boston, I know firsthand how lax airport security can be, although I'm sure it's much the same around the country. I support a lot of suggestions people have made, such as hiring better trained security personnel to work in our airports, to sealing off the cockpit from the passenger cabin.
2. Support the international effort to find the people who were involved in the attack and bring them to justice.
3. Put pressure on the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. Evidence should be provided for all the world to see (none of this "we don't need to meet the usual legal standards in this case" crap which I saw one administration official quoted as saying in a recent issue of the Boston Globe). This should be easy to provide - even if we don't have enough evidence on the WTC attacks yet, I understand we have excellent evidence of his involvement in the embassy bombings a few years back. And if we obtain evidence of his guilt in the WTC attacks, we should provide that as well.
Certainly we should put an immediate ban on weapons sales to the Taliban (if they are not already in place) and pressure other countries to cut diplomatic ties and military support. Targeted military action (operations designed specifically to extract bin Laden and other guilty parties) would even be OK as long as it is sanctioned by the UN.
4. We should attempt to win over the goodwill of the Arab Muslim world by immediately reversing some of our policies in the Middle East. We should rescind our support of the Israeli occupation of the occupied territories and end the sanctions on Iraq, for starters.
Responses which are not appropriate:
A) A war against the Taliban, and therefore against the Afghan people in general. The general population of Afghanistan had nothing to do with the WTC attacks, and there is no justification for punishing them in any way (this includes economic sanctions).
B) Support for the Northern Alliance. From the sources I've seen so far, getting rid of the Taliban would only lead to a power vacuum which the NA can't fill since it is comprised of several factions which would be fighting each other (and have in the past) if it weren't for the existence of a common enemy. Ousting the Taliban could lead to further civil war in Afghanistan, which might make the Afghan situation worse than it is currently.
C) Limiting domestic civil liberties.
The Bush administration appears to be doing 1) and 2), and at least some of 3). But unfortunately it is also going ahead with A), B) and C), and will never even contemplate 4).
Brett