>Use of power is unavoidable on both international and domestic level -
>anyothe who thinks otherwise is dreaming.
Sorry, Wojtek, but I don't think the issue at hand is simply "the use of power."
>The point is to use power
>judiciously (that does not necessarily mean judicially)
Yes. So judgement is involved. Fine, but not the issue.
The issue here is the use of that power to kill a suspected murderer without trial, without oversight, without proof. The man was simply a target to be disposed of, never mind all that malarkey about due process.
Maybe I have less faith in humans than you do to use power judiciously, which is why I demand a damn good reason why someone has to be killed when they could easily be jailed. I don't recall the statute of limitations running out soon on murder or suspected murder.
Is killing this person and others supposed to deter others? Has that logic worked in Israel lately?
>- an
>assassination of people who are about to launch a terrorist attack is >a
>judicious use of power, while assassiantion of political opponents is
>not. Assassination of terrorists that causes civilian casualties is in
>between. In the same vein, shooting a guy who is about to rape you is >a
>juducious use of lethal weapon even if it amount to an extra-judicial
>execution, while shooting a kid throwing up a grafitti on a wall is >not.
"About to launch a terrorist attack" How do you know? And if that's the "reasoning" than there's to be no end of murder, since we'll never know for sure if our killings will stop their killings. We'll always be on the edge of our seats, waiting for something that may or may not come, murdering people, guilty of crimes or not, out of sheer terror of what "might" happen.
Dennis said:
>I knew it -- the wiping out of a handful of al-Q thugs, at the hands >of
>the US, incites all manner of "legalistic" hand-wringing, at least >from
>the rational left.
Wow. I'm rational. Irrational's better though, eh, Dennis?
As for laws? Who needs 'em?! They just get in the way when real men know what needs to be done . . . .
>We have yet to hear from the ultra faction, >but I'm sure the >sentiment is
>the same (though wasn't when the Red >Army did this and >much worse).
I can't speak with certainty as that was before my time as a leftie, but I like to think I'd have laid into them with the same criticism.
>Just a reminder: al-Q is at war with us. They said so quite explicitly >in
>1998, and offered a hard reminder in 2001.
Yup. But is the US at war with them? I don't recall a declaration being made. And I thought a state could really only declare war on another state or something like that. Then there's the non-POWs in Camp X-Ray. If the US is at war, it's not treating the prisoners properly (Ooops! More legalistic hand-wringing!); if it's not at war, then it openly committed murder, invaded a sovereign nation, and probably a few others lately.
>I suppose you could cry about a bunch of Nazi officials getting blown >up
>in their jeep by Allied artillery -- after all, why not arrest them >and
>put them on trial? Oh damn, then there's that tangle of "victor's >justice"
>and all that icky Nuremberg junk.
>
>Wring, wring . . .
Oops. Godwin's Law. I win the argument.
BTW, your original post's link also mentioned the arrest of bin Laden's youngest wife. Since you pooh-pooh law and seem hell-bent on revenge, what do you think should be done with her? Paraded down the streets of New York, wearing nothing but chains, to be spat on? Would that satisfy your sense of "right"? Nothing too bad for Al-Q and those associated with them, right?
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963