It seems to me we are doing anything it takes. President Clinton had ordered the assassination of bin Laden. We stage revolutions as is convenient for us. The whole Rumsfeld deal says do anything (it took him 8 days to look at the pictures, he doesn't care if there's torture). All anything it takes does is consolidate the Arabs against us. We're spread too thin, we're barking up the wrong tree, and we used our last resort first, and in the wrong country. Al Qaeda doesn't use WMD and that's what we've been chasing. They use suitcases and cell phones and other unglamorous items. Plus invading Iraq allowed al Qaeda to morph into a many-headed hydra, according to Clark. We the U.S. looked at the map and followed it blindly and here we are, doing everything it takes. Andy -----Original Message----- From: Scribe1865@xxxxxxx Sent: May 16, 2004 2:53 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Hersh and the Devil's Advocate 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html