Attacking 'terrorists' in Somalia....
Today there were several news stories of the United States military conducting attacks on suspected Al Queda terrorists leaders in Somalia. Several unconfirmed sources report that civilians and even children may have been killed. This one has the makings of another American p.r. fiasco in the Islamic world. See the N.Y. TImes Article....
The targets of the attack were the reported leaders of the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa that killed 257 people, and wounded over 4,000. (See THIS ARTICLE) Specifically, Abu Taha al-Sudan was thought to be present.
I started off thinking I would rant against these attacks, which I thought had been done absent any real proof or conviction. Imagine my surprise when I learned that there was at least a semblance, during the Clinton administration, of actually following the 'Rule of Law' here. The leaders of the 1998 bombings were charged, several were arrested and rendered to U.S. custody, tried, and convicted in these bombings. Several have never been caught, including Osama bin Laden. Warrants of arrest are outstanding....
Is it o.k. to launch a ferocious gunship attack on a convoy of vehicles to try to kill bad terorists that stand convicted, in absentia, of severe terrorist crimes? What about innocent thrid party casualties? It can certainly be argued these terrorists had no regard for civilians in 1998, and they were using these civilians as human shields for their own protection. These attacks may well also disrupt future terror plots and save other innocent lives.
It can also be argued that two wrongs don't make a right. We are little better than terrorists ourselves when we conduct militaty attacks in third world countries, with no declaration of war, with the express purpsoe of killing our enemies. It can also be argued that the goal of ridding ourselves of dangerous extremist Islamic groups will not be achieved. The bad publicity of these attacks could well lead to another surge of membership to Al Queda, by relatives and friends of the victims, to try to get revenge for these killings. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind....
It really is a tough issue. What do all of you readers think?
The targets of the attack were the reported leaders of the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa that killed 257 people, and wounded over 4,000. (See THIS ARTICLE) Specifically, Abu Taha al-Sudan was thought to be present.
I started off thinking I would rant against these attacks, which I thought had been done absent any real proof or conviction. Imagine my surprise when I learned that there was at least a semblance, during the Clinton administration, of actually following the 'Rule of Law' here. The leaders of the 1998 bombings were charged, several were arrested and rendered to U.S. custody, tried, and convicted in these bombings. Several have never been caught, including Osama bin Laden. Warrants of arrest are outstanding....
Is it o.k. to launch a ferocious gunship attack on a convoy of vehicles to try to kill bad terorists that stand convicted, in absentia, of severe terrorist crimes? What about innocent thrid party casualties? It can certainly be argued these terrorists had no regard for civilians in 1998, and they were using these civilians as human shields for their own protection. These attacks may well also disrupt future terror plots and save other innocent lives.
It can also be argued that two wrongs don't make a right. We are little better than terrorists ourselves when we conduct militaty attacks in third world countries, with no declaration of war, with the express purpsoe of killing our enemies. It can also be argued that the goal of ridding ourselves of dangerous extremist Islamic groups will not be achieved. The bad publicity of these attacks could well lead to another surge of membership to Al Queda, by relatives and friends of the victims, to try to get revenge for these killings. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind....
It really is a tough issue. What do all of you readers think?
posted by Mike Grayson @ 11:52 PM
0 comments
