Re: Bertrand Russell on class war

["Justin Schwartz" <jkschw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I hate to sound like the wimpy bourgeois liberal I am, but what's wrong with
the usual rule that when a crime, even a very terrible crime, has been
committed, the government has to gatherevidence, make a showing of probable
cause that they have the right guy, then make a  serious effort to have him
brought to trial, tried fairly,and punished, if guilty, according to law? I
mean, rather than shouldering in with muscle and trying to kill someone that
we know is a generally bad guy, but for all we know, has nothingto dow ith
this, meanwhile violating the sovereignty of, and indeed, in your dismissive
aside, verhrowing,a  government that merely insists that the legalities like
due process and reasonable evidence be respected? Would we give up a
foreigner whom the Afghans accused without proof of having committed a crime
in Afghanistan? Why should they? I'm as patriotic as the next fella, and a
lot more than many on this list, but what makes me proud insofar as I am is
that we respect due process, not that we think we can jsut kill whoever
regardless of proof.

--jks
?
> For the record, I support the limited military intervention that George
> W. Bush has proposed. My understanding is that we will attack
> Afghanistan with the purpose of extracting Bin Laden & Co. That sounds
> like a relatively clear mission. If we have to depose the Taliban
> government to complete the mission, so be it.
>
> I'm an American citizen. I feel that we have to do something. My
> support for intervention is contingent on its limited nature, however.
> We cannot let the war devolve into the conflict Russell foresaw.
>
> Does anyone here believe that an international class war will spring up
> as an inevitable result of US military action?
>
> Andrew Hagen
> xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp