Doesn't this evaluation depend on what we actually do and the result?



Please inform me fwhat this even means. Is it related to defence?

Daniel:

I just don't think it's so clear yet that this plan will fail, which is why I'm willing to give it some time--and one shot. But I understand given the history why others are less willing to do so.

The reader may wonder what he might do if he were president and heard and saw the briefings that the president did. Yet Colin Powell, no less intelligent than the president, relayed to the public the bullshit that he was fed, to his lifelong embarrassment.

___________________________________________________________________


And you know Tom Tomorrow has something to say about this.

One should be able to tell in 18 months whether there is progress. One should be able to tell in 18 months whether it's possible to train local people adequately to start taking over security responsibilities (one would hope that was one of the questions the administration was evaluating before the decision was made). If we can't figure out these things in 18 months, then we've got far more serious systemic problems with our own government than we thought. And if there isn't progress, then there's no more we can do, and we should start getting out anyway (since we can't stay indefinitely).



Maybe it's just a little thing like living up to our own values. The lack of faith some people have in our own justice system is astounding to me. Our criminal justice system has already tried plenty of terrorists--including several here in New York--quite successfully. I recommend this Slate article on the topic. If we think we have the best justice system for sorting out the guilty from the not guilty, then it should apply to everyone. When we start making exceptions, others rightly point to us as hypocrites.

As for the threat of another terrorist attack...as if NYC isn't already a target? And even if a trial marginally increases that risk, as someone who lives in NY that's a risk I'm willing to take to stand up for the values that make this country worth defending in the first place. If security were the ultimate reason for government, this nation would never have gotten off the ground because the Founders could all have lived far more securely under the British. Sometimes we have to put something on the line for the values we supposedly believe in.

Need anyone justify a NYC civilian trial for these defendants on a basis other than that the law demands it be done this way?

I can pin Gore's loss on his inability to carry his own state (though I could pick any other state he didn't win as well). Or on the "butterfly ballot" that confused people into voting for Buchanan. Or on the failure of Gore to try to recount overvotes as well as undervotes (apparently Gore would still have lost if only undervotes were recounted, which was the only course considered by either party). Or on Nader, without whom Gore would almost certainly have won a majority in Florida.

Just because there are multiple causes doesn't mean each cause gets the other off the hook. Had the butterfly ballot been differently designed, Gore probably would have won. Had the campaign tried to get overvotes counted, Gore probably would have won (assuming it hadn't been stopped by the Supreme Court, which after all stopped the recount that was going on at the time). And had Nader not run, Gore probably would have won. I see no reason to privilege one of these causes over the others.



Perhaps you think that's the only objective, and you're entitled to believe that, as many others do. Others think getting bin Laden is moot at this point and that al Qaeda can operate as independent cells (whether that cuts before or against escalation is subject to debate). Still others think the objective is to prevent the Taliban from having a base from which to destabilize Pakistan, which has nukes, which could draw in India, which also has nukes.

I'm not saying what point of view is right, only that reasonable people can disagree, and that there are other conceivable "objectives" out there. Whether they're worth American lives and money, well, that's what makes this issue so difficult. But I think it's wrong to dismiss them out of hand.

I believe the argument is that the WTC attack is akin to an act of war, therefore a civilian trial is not required.

Might the St.Valentine's Day Massacre be deemed akin to an act of war as well?

Ummm...based on what?

Yeah. And if you like your messages ultra-simplistic ...

A similar idea with a different slant