> Of course not. You and others are making the blanket
> statements, not me.
> I've dealt with a specific instance, and you
> disagree. Fine. And when al-Q
> makes its next hit, whatever it is, I'm sure you'll
> find some way to blame
> the US or even little ol' me. Whatever floats that
> rickety boat you're in.
>
>
So, is al Q a special case, sui generis, or is OK for the US to assassinate anyone, or at least any leader, or anyway any suspected leader, in any group that "declares war" on the US? Or is the criteria that they have to do more than declare war, they have to commit some definitive act? What sort of act, then? Does it have to be an act on the magnitude of 9/11, or would something like the attack on the Cole do? Do they have to actually commit the act, or would it be enough to warrant assassination if the govt assured us that it had reliable information that such an attack was planned? How suspected does the suspect have to be, or do we just have to take the govt's word about whom it assassinates because that's war, as you say, dude? How many collateral casualties are OK. Six? Sixty? Six hundred? Inquiring minds want to know, Dennis. i want ti support murder and vigilantesism too, but, have top be clear on the parameters. Have you thought thsi through, or does that go by the way as well because this is "war"? (It usually does.) jks
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2