Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ray
From: ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: America Strikes Back!
Message-ID: <12340@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 10:08:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocheste.12340
Posted: Tue Oct 15 10:08:38 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 07:50:24 EDT
References: <727@bu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 40

> 
> The general consensus in the country (and on the net) seems
> to be that capturing those terrorists was an action long overdue.
> 
Right on. 

> Egypt is *enraged* that the U.S. hijacked their plane.

Why aren't they outraged about the innocent people who are being torn apart and
killed  by terrorists?  Has a very loud ring of hypocrisy to it. 
> 
> "Well sure," you say, "but we had to do SOMETHING. The ends justify the
> means." Really? After the last terrorist plane hijacking, some of the
> folks in the administration were talking about putting contracts out
> on each known terrorist. Where do we stop? Do we assemble death squads,
> to roam the globe, seeking identified terrorists and killing them?
> That surely would get rid of some terrorists, but I don't think it would
> deter terrorism any more than the death penalty deters murder in the
> United States.
> 
You're right, it probably won't halt terrorism just as the death penalty here
in the US seems not to deter murder.   BUT, in no way should those murderers
here in the US be free to kill again and in no way should those terrorists be
aloud to roam freely to terrorize again.  Get'em off the street where they can
no longer carry out their doctrines of death.

> Besides, where would it end? Let's say that commandeering other countries'
> aircraft became an accepted anti-terrorist measure. Then, shooting down
> planes which resist won't seem so bad (sailors on the Saratoga claim the
> jets had orders to shoot if the plane didn't follow instructions). As the
> number of terrorist acts committed in *this* country rises, it won't seem
> so unreasonable to restrict freedom of travel. Law enforcement agencies
> acting "against terrorism" won't need much evidence to get arrest and search
> warrants. 
> 
> 
Who says it well end in any forseeable time frame.  It will most likely get
worse before it gets better.  And yes, as more terrorism occurs, more rules
will be bent, just as in any war.  "What war you say?"  The new face of war
called international terrorism, that's what war.