>
>This is just the point that got me in trouble when Rick Perlstein
>quoted me in the NY Observer saying that it would take considerable
>force to capture these motherfuckers. You can't just parachute in and
>arrest thousands of heavily armed, resourceful people who will fight
>to the death. The crime/police action contingent were never very
>clear on this.
>
i think largely the point was that this option was never considered. military action may have been justified if say the U.S. had presented evidence and went through whatever channels that are set up for situations such as these and only considered unilateral force as a last resort that is one thing but unilateral force as the first and only option is an altogether different matter. i'm not that knowledgeable about international law but i assume there are ways to deal with it according to those principles.
i don't think the crime/police advocates were saying it would have definately worked but that it was dismissed so quickly without any debate on the matter. it might not have worked but ofcourse we will never know. if it hadn't worked it would point to serious flaws and weakness of international law which would bring up alot more problematic issues especially for the U.S. if it had worked then there is a precedent set and who knows what would happen. vietnam could present evidence and ask that Henry Kisssinger be turned over. etc etc.
~M.E.