Teemu wrote: >Response to threat would preferably be preceded by threat analysis of some kind, which would certainly include an assessment of not only potential attackers will but also their ability to to inflict damage. That "Islamic Theofascism" or whatever seeks the end of Western Civilization (or whatever) is a long way from being actually able to carry it out. How long after Iran develops its nuclear weapons capacity will nuclear devices explode in US cities? Or UK cities? It could be sooner than any of us think. Teemu writes: "arguments for removing various legal limits tend to assume that everything would go more smoothly if only police, army, intelligence agencies, etc. wouldn't have rules constraining their behaviour. And I've never seen this assumption backed in any way." The failure to kill Mullah Omar is a good example of bureaucratic constraint losing an objective. However, Teemu's point is well made. Constraint is there for a reason, namely to reign in incompetence and to make people accountable. How to reconcile this? I read recently that US intel operates on a three-day decision cycle; meaning that it takes us three days to process intelligence, verify it, and act upon it, but that the terrorists are operating "inside our intelligence cycle," meaning that they mobilize, act, and disperse before we are able to commit forces to counter them. Wondering if that was Sarin in the fog of war, Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html