From: "Antti Kurenniemi" 

"Geo."  wrote in message news:3eac7bd2{at}w3.nls.net...
> what I want is to defeat al Qaeda.

I know that's what you want. What *I* want is to have a world where al
qaeda would have never done what they did.


> I believe they are a different kind of
> enemy and require a different kind of action to stop them.

Agree on that.


> > You'll never know if they will attack, and if you take them
> > out just in case you'll never know if they ever even would
> > have attacked.
>
> Prior to 9/11 I didn't know if they would attack, I do know now.

No you don't. Now you know they *did*, but you don't know if they will every again.


> Not at all what I'm saying. what I'm saying is when we know we have
> an active al Qaeda

You *think* you know this.


> and we know he is involved in a plot to kill americans

You *think* you know this.


> I'm game to do whatever it takes to get the information out of him
> if and this part is important, if there is an immanent danger of the
> attack.

Or if you *think* that there is imminent danger. It's not very likely that
they would announce the attack beforehand.


> If we have time then more humane methods can be used to
> question him.

How do you know you don't have time?

I mean, this is all just maybe's and might's and possibly's. You don't know
if someone is going to attack, you are not currently being attacked, nor
can you say that you ever will be attacked. You don't even know if any of
the al qaeda is alive anymore.


> > I think it is important that we are better than the terrorists,
>
> I don't, I watch movies like red dawn and I have no trouble
> seeing situations where I would be considered the terrorist.
> It's just a method of fighting, nothing more.

Torture? No it's not, it's a crime. Fighting crime with crime may work in
the movies, but I doubt it would fly in reality.


> > UN. If the US would stand with the UN, it would even have
> > some power. But this is too silly a scenario, we can go "is
> > too - is not" over this one forever.
>
> That's fine if you have the time, but the UN is slow to respond to
> anything. It takes them 2 weeks just to figure out when to get
> together to discuss something. The situations I'm saying torture
> would be OK are situations where you don't have that kind of
> time to respond.

Your example was that osama bin laden had just been elected security
minister, it's not like he's going anywhere, so what's the rush? How do you
know there is a rush?


> I agree, it's a risk and you have to look at that risk vs the risk of
> not getting the informaiton. I simply believe there are times when
> the risk of not getting the information is greater than the risk of
> abuse of torture.

I can almost agree to that, but with the condition that those kinds of
times are far far from what we or you have today.


> You can't undo 9/11 either. Like it or not this is a game that is
> played for keeps.

It's not a game.


> > You think. But these would be real people making that judgement,
> > people who are quite capable of making mistakes.
>
> People who deal with terrorism day in and day out. These are the
> best qualified people to have making the decision as long as they
> don't take it lightly.

Ha. People are still people, and they do make mistakes no matter what.



Antti Kurenniemi

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4