--- kelley <jimmyjames at softhome.net> wrote:
> At 07:29 PM 1/21/03 -0800, andie nachgeborenen
> wrote:
>
> >It's jsut possible that people in power realized
> that the only way to deal
> >with a criminal organization is through criminal
> investigation, not
> >military action. I recall being roundly razzed
> about this suggestion when
> >I made it in the aftermath of 9/11.
> >
> >jks
>
> You were roundly razzed for supposing that it would
> be less violent or
> murderous. When the sizzlean shoot dogs in this
> country--not to mention all
> the people of color and poor people they shoot
> regularly--and with the CIAs
> history it was always a little hard to understand
> how police investigation
> is morally superior.
You are mistaken about the grounds on which I was criticized. Several people on thist lsit suggested that I was naive to think anything less than military force would do to root out al Qaida. No one that I recall said taht there was no difference between the two approaches.
Sure it would have been less violent and murderous. The spooks and the cops don't have B-52s and helicopter gunships and the like. The collateral damage would have been a lot less. Moreover, it's morally superior to respond to crime as a crime rather than a declaratiuon of war, with all that entails.
>
> Now mind you, that's what I preferred--criminal
> investigation. The
> difference, for me, was that I wasn't about to lie
> to myself and suggest
> that it would be necessarily less bloody.
>
"Necessarily," that's a nice weasel word. Why did you prefer a police investigation if you thought it would be the same?
jks
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com