Didn't they try to capture him for prosecution? That failed and more loss of life occurred. Even if they did capture him what might have happened? Terrorists hijack something and demand his release? He continues to control his operations in Jail through persons who sympathize. What good does that do. I don't think you can look at terrorists with the same logic as a criminal in our countries. When someone here commits a murder they know its murder, and try to cover it up hoping they don't get caught. Those types of people can be put on trial. However someone who believe's they are fighting a war should expect to be killed not put on trial. Thats why I have always had a hard time understanding being put on trial for war crimes.....
Your almost sounding like a conspiracy theorist. However there were more than just US forces making this decision. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/06/02 10:11AM >>> Michael Ross wrote: > At what point do you stop taking punch's in the head and hit back. That is indeed the core-issue (which is why I split the response). I think at the point where you can pinpoint those responsible and can proof they are responsible. At that point you try to apprehend them and put them on trial. If apprehending them is not possible, the law should have provisions for a 'trial in absense' (I am sure there is some nice Latin word for that) and you do that. The outcome of such a trial should guide further actions, and an assasination might very well be an appropriate way of executing the verdict. Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
