From Counterpunch, the source of Dennis' reference:

After a tirade on how we trained the Taliban (which was arguably not a good idea, but makes it even more imperative that we shoot our own rabid dog) we are treated to this "solution:"

Remarkably enough, people who criticize the mass murder being undertaken by Washington are often confronted with the question, "Well, what would you do, after September 11?" My first response is, Try to dissuade my government from killing many, many more people than died on that day. But the questioner usually wants to know what's to be done to stop terrorism.



Of course there was another way. Rather than purposely flouting it, the US should have

(a) used the resources of domestic and international law to apprehend and prosecute anyone left alive who was responsible for this crime; and

(b) made an effort to understand the causes, motives, and reasons for the crime so that they can be removed, lessening the chance of a repetition.

A practical program for (a) would have been:

Before killing anyone, take the matter to the UN Security Council, as the US is bound to do by treaty, and insist on the delivery to a court of justice of anyone responsible for the crimes. If no appropriate court could be found, then one could be created, as they were for the Lockerbie terrorist attack and the Balkan war crimes.

If the US has evidence that a state was involved, it should be presented to the International Court of Justice, the World Court, which has declared states guilty of terrorism before and demanded that they make restitution. (Admittedly, it was the US that was judged guilty of terrorism.)

Suppose that the effective government of Afghanistan, say, although it said that it was willing to turn over Osama bin Laden to a court if the US produces evidence, refuses the Security Council's demand to do so. At this point a UN military force, drawn from disinterested countries -- i.e., no Russians, Americans, Pakistanis, or Iranians, all of whom have territorial interests in Afghanistan -- should be authorized by the Security Council to retrieve those people whom it denominates.

Instead, the US has launched a war that may result in the deaths of millions in the next few months. And then this week the FBI floated a trial balloon, suggesting that it might have to use torture on some of more than 1,130 people detained, many illegally, in the course of the investigation!



So, the plan is to write nasty letters, and upon presenting evidence, wait for the Taliban to ship us the bad guys. Of course when we asked the Taliban to turn them over, we were told to go piss up a rope, which has historically been the standard answer by thugs the world over when we try to do things by the "Firmly Worded Letter" route.

Then, the backup plan after being told to go piss up a rope, is to assemble an army from "disinterested countries," or basically all those nations who don't have armies, and "retrieve those people whom it denominates."

Why a country with no "interest" in this war would obey the U.N. and throw its people into this hellhole while the U.S. sits on its hands is not a problem given much consideration in this article.

Neither is the problem of how exactly this "retrieval" is to take place without any violence or harm to innocent people or the poor Third-World army drafted to pull this off. Lock onto bin Laden with the transporters and beam him out, maybe.

Of course, these and other $64,000 questions won't be answered. Odds are if you asked them to the face of the writer, you would get the standard, glassy-eyed stare and then the pre-recorded parrot rhetoric.

As for (b) above, we already understand their motives. We are Western Civilization and they want us dead, dead, dead. Any crap about Palestine, Israel, and other such is simply window dressing. Next question?

Pointing out the stupidity of stuff like this is like shooting fish in a glass bowl with a chain gun, but then most leftists shut off their forebrains many years ago, so it's not a major accomplishment.