Law Dog and George . . .
With great respect for both of you fellows -- and for your intelligence and judiciousness in many past posts -- I civilly disagree.
> The fundamental issue we must confront is simple: Yesterday's events were acts of war, not criminal acts alone.
> Therefore, the recognized law of war is applicable.
> Under the law of war "innocents" are legitimate collateral targets, as evidenced by US actions in Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi and so forth; while the judicial system may not sanction such actions, the conduct of war does.
> Since clear acts of war have been perpetrated on our nation and its people, it is absolutely legitimate for so-called innocents to be collaterally killed in the prosecution of this conflict.
> In fact, modern war inherently risks innocents, which is a principal reason those who would be our adversaries should refrain from belligerent actions.
> The alternative to a robust US military response is to enhance the third world's perception of the United States as a cowardly, indolent, decadent and indecisive county -- in its decadency. That will only encourage further terrorism committed on our citizens.
> It is far wiser for our nation to seek universal respect, even through fear, than unanimous love.
With best regards -- Roy