🚀 go-pugleaf

TarlaStar wrote:
 
> bralph@home.com (Ralph) wrote:
 
> >"John Roberts" <jroberts@nosp.ionet.net> wrote:
 
> >>As I see it, the real problem with all of this is that the U.S. can't "win"
> >>in a war against terrorism - in fact, we can't even compete.  Our national
> >>policy won't let us fight "dirty" enough (at the risk of negative world
> >>opinion) to make it possible.
 
> >What we need to do is set up a "special tactics" force that really
> >works. That is, we identify the terrorists, then we take then out. No
> >if's ands or buts. We don't need to bomb cities. Just send in a good
> >assassination team and be done with it. Airplanes and cruise missles
> >have "USA" written all over them, but a damned good assassination
> >squad is as anonomous as these damned terrorists.

Where is the Impossible Mission Force when you need it ???? <g>
 
> An assassination team...funded by the Government? Sorry, there are
> laws against that for a reason. Ever hear of National Sovereignty? We
> don't have any right to go into another county and assassinate people
> without officially declaring war against them. You want us to become
> our enemies. How, then, do we tell the two apart?

Actually, there aren't.  There IS a Carter-era Presidential Directive
prohibiting assasination of Foreign leaders, but that's pretty much it.
And you seem to assume that there are not Assassins out there who
work for Uncle Sam.  I don't know if there are or there aren't, but it
would likely be so "black" we'd never hear about it anyway. . .
 
> If we believe that a country is abetting terrorists, then we can
> either make certain challenges to that country, work it out
> diplomatically, or declare war. We have no right to enter their
> territory and kill their citizens. Otherwise, they have that same
> right with regards to us.

Technically, from a legal sense, you're correct.  However, the US **IS**
the 2000-pound gorilla, and can get away with much, especially if the
enemy is unpopular and/or Third World. . . .