NP FWD: Keyser Soze would know what to do

[Paul Mackin]

The "Usual Suspects" approach to maintaining International Order, which
Henry describes, has the important merit of getting the emphasis in the
right place in our choosing of a desirable reaction to the carnage of 9/11.
The word is deterence. I beleive vengence should have a low priority.
Killing the perps (and their relatives) would only be valuable (and
permissible many will say) if it can stop future 9/11s. Unfortunately in a
society of laws the "Usual Suspects" formula, without extensive crippling
modification, would run into a slew of constitutonal problems. Don't quite
know which amendment they would thow in your path to strike down a
conviction for a felony (punishable by death no less) based on the
circumstance of family relationship but feel in my gut the bastards would
find one. Too bad W isn't  smarter. He might think of a way around the
Constitution. Reminds me (though there's really no valid reason or
comparison) that back in the 30s the country was in even more dire straights
than it is today. FDR had a number of ideas for remedying the problems but
many were thought to be unconstitutional . So FDR tried to "pack" the
Surpreme Court with more as well as more pliable justices. Didn't get away
with it exactly. But ways were found.

        P.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Mu" <scuffling at hotmail.com>
To: "Pynchon List" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 5:43 PM
Subject: NP FWD: Keyser Soze would know what to do


> If you saw "Usual Suspects," then you know that Keyser Soze is a
> legendary badass, e.g. "And then he showed these men of will what will
> really is." When Soze's family is brutalized, he kills them, their
> attackers (all except one) and then seeks out and kills the attacker's
> families and friends.
>
> Everybody is wondering about the new suicide terrorist profile that
> includes older, educated men with families; how can they do it? We need
> to make sure that their families aren't benefiting, that "life
> insurance" benefits aren't being paid by terrorist organizations to
> their families. If that doesn't work; take out the friends and families
> of the hijackers. If that doesn't work, take out the people that helped
> the hijackers and THEIR families and friends. Not many would-be
> terrorists would have the stomach to do what they do if they knew that
> there would be dire consequences for their immediate families rather
> than just a general war against the country that harbors the
> organization that trained them.
>
> Harsh? Terrible? Absolutely! But I hope that this is our plan; history
> and finger-pointing aside, there would be less loss on both sides than
> any alternative plan that I can think of. What do you think?