🚀 go-pugleaf

Keith A. Glass wrote:

> 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. . . .

One of the Administration talking heads (Sandy Burger maybe?) said on a talk show
Sunday that since we are "at war" with the terrorist, it would be acceptable to
target Mr. bin-whatshisname.  Anyway, he isn't a head of state of any country.
Just another civilian who might get in the way of a missle.