> I'm the one who jumped on your case. Carrol did,
> too.
So did Dennis and Luke (and Doug), basically on the grounds that I was being soft on terrorism.
It's under the
> thread, "Re: Is there a nonviolent response to
> September 11?" (october
> 10ish) I don't know who else criticized you so maybe
> you could find the
> posts in the archive or your critics might step
> forward. But, to my
> recollection, the overwhelming responses were:
>
> 1. just say no to war AND bringing them to justice
> in any way whatsoever
> 2. pursuing them through conventional juridico-legal
> mechanisms
>
> You, yourself, suggested the use of Rangers to root
> them out.
>
No, I didn't rule that out. I said it wasn't a first option. First, I said, explore and exhaust the usual diplomatic and criminal pricedures. I would not coinsider use of Rangers to be part of a criminal investigation.
>
> >Sure it would have been less violent and murderous.
>
> You proposed it as a non-violent approach on a
> thread asking if there were
> any non-violent approaches. I criticized you and
> others for thinking it a
> non-violent solutions.
The thread title was not mine. I am not under any illusions about criminal procedure being non-violent, although I do not hsre your quaint notion that all cops are psykkko pig fascist racist murderers, slathering at the possibility of offing innocent minority children.
>
I wasn't about to
> lie
> > > to myself and suggest
> > > that it would be necessarily less bloody.
> > >
> >
> >"Necessarily," that's a nice weasel word.
>
> It's not a weasel word--not if you look at the
> examples I gave as to why
> not to trust the US as "police" and "criminal
> investigators".
Yes it is. Even at their bloodiest and craziest (the attack on MOVE, the Days of Rage, the FBI at Waco), the cops have nothing like the firepower of the military. ANd their normal procedure is not bloody or crazy. "Kill em all" may be a sensible military approach, but it's no substitute for police work.
>
> > Why did you
> >prefer a police investigation if you thought it
> would
> >be the same?
>
>
> Actually, now that I look back on it, what I
> advocated was that we posture
> with "Come and get us again on our turf fuckers"
> and, otherwise, nothing.
> It's a classic pacifist position where the defense
> is acceptable.
I don't understand. WAs your idea that if we caught foreign terrorists in the territorial US, we could arrest them or kill them or something, but if they got over the border, then we shouldn't do anything at all?
jks
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com