Making a nation democratic (was: Why Do They Hate Us?)
Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:51:11 +0000
Gary Murphy writes:
>Ok, but I also know the bulk of our North American families, including the
>mis-named Aboriginal peoples, all came to this part of the world to avoid
>such Old World rules ..
To my knowledge, I'm describing law as it is written in
most of the states. If someone is shooting at others while
holding a hostage as a shield, you're allowed to shoot
through the hostage to kill the kidnapper. You're not
required to do this. But neither are you required to
place the hostage's life above other innocents. I don't
see how this has much at all to do with Old World versus
New. I don't recall any movement in the New World that
was a rejection of this legal principle.
>Thus far, if I'm not mistaken, the Taleban crimes are ..
They are the government that is supporting and harboring a
group that is waging war on the US.
>.. fuzzy definitions of endangered
Why don't you propose what you consider a reasonable
definition, and then we'll see if another act like the
World Trade Center bombing falls under it.
>they were unable/unwilling to deliver those accused
>of crimes in other lands.
"Unable" is one thing. "Unwilling" another. Had the Afghan
authorities been chasing bin Laden for the last few years
without success, that would have been a different. They
haven't. Instead, they have sheltered him, provisioned him,
help him recruit, provided him communication and transport,
and defended him. The Taliban is not neutral with regard to
the Al Queda. Nor do they support it only ideologically.
They actively provide it a home.
One of this nation's first wars was to go into a distant
Islamic state to route out the pirates that were harbored
there. Can you explain what was so wrong with that, or why
this is different?
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp