[lit-ideas] Hersh and the Devil's Advocate
- From: Scribe1865@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 14:53:43 EDT
Assuming that SH is correct in his New Yorker piece, what's the problem?
National survival comes first. The Devil's Advocate says that If the
international
law isn't adequate to deal with a new situation -- international terror
groups with access to WMD -- act first, then shape the law to reflect standards
for
the new type of conflict.
The US is fighting an "asymmetrical" war with sophisticated terrorist groups
who have no particular national affiliation. The Devil's Advocate argues that
the military should be able to do ANYTHING short of civilian atrocities to
fight al-Qaeda. ANYTHING, including assassination of foreign citizens, forceful
interrogation of captured al-Qaeda, holding families of wanted terrorists, or
anything else that will win.
Change the iconic hate figures here. Subtract the Bush Presidency. Imagine
that we have a good Democrat in office. Imagine that we are not fighting
Islamic
Theofascists but International Dianetics (L. Ron Hubbard) Terrorists.
Got that? Okay. Now do you want the US to subdue the Dianetics Terrorists or
do you want the Dianetics Terrorists to defeat the US?
If we cannot fight the murderous followers of L. Ron Hubbard using current
standards of international law, should we let them win rather than violate
those
standards? If the US wins it can always improve its standards and practices;
if the US loses, you better brush up on your scientology.
To insist on legal niceties in an unprecedented situation is like driving
your car off a cliff because the map you have says a road should be there.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
