Fw:WRL on Attacks

[Manuel V. Cabrera Jr.]

For my part, I would be satisfied if those responsible for the attacks were
extradited and given fair trials.  It also seems appropriate to engage in
military action against nations whose governments are proved to harbor
violators of international law, such as is clearly the case here.  However,
military action by the U.S. is typically characterized by the attack of
civilian targets and the violation of the Geneva Convention and the
International Declaration of Human Rights.
    Not to take this onto an unnecessarily abstract plane, but what little I
know of debates on complicated issues surrounding how the political and
juridical spheres (in the latter case, the enforcement of international law)
seems to be very relevant here.  In the case of the Oklahoma City bombing, the
procedure was clear and within the bounds of a well-established intranational
juridical proces: Timothy McVeigh was given a fair trial and given a punishment
thereby.  But how should nations act when they are the targets of attacks that
are akin to those typical of war, but when their enemies aren't other nations
or political entities but rather a scattered group of rogue criminals?  There
is the impulse to a military response, but when is such a response warranted
and when should we treat such incidents as criminal actions proper to a
juridical treatment (the bringing to trial of these criminals as opposed to
their being the objects of a political, military response)?
    I don't really know shit from shinola when it comes to this, but I think
that certainly how this attack is treated may just set important precedents
about this set of issues, issues that have been more and more on the minds of
political and legal theorists, as well as of course on the minds of world
leaders.  What exposure I have principally comes from a newish book entitled
_Empire_, one that has garnered quite a bit of attention in certain circles.

            mandel

David Morris wrote:

> You have made half a point.  Would you care to continue?  Do you wish to
> discuss the rules of war?  Do you think War actions require court rulings?
> How would you advise we legally conduct our war?
>
> David Morris
>
> >From: "Dan Jizzenberry"
> >
> >Correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. did sign on to the Geneva
> >Convention's rules on war, did they not? Or is this just a quote from Mein
> >Kampf?
> >
> >From: "David Morris"
> >
> >In a state of war "due process" begins once the enemy has been defeated.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp