What Should Be Done with the Remorseless, Failed Jordanian Bomber Widow?

Pretty straightforward, really.

xpost: exactly

Sending the cops after them and handling it as a criminal matter, with enforcement of laws both local & international

vs

Militarizing that shit, and dumping troops into a buncha countries that may not want us there

Hi-ho, and up she rises,
Hi-ho, and up she rises,
Hi-ho, and up she rises,
Earli in the morning.

i don't really know what to do with this kind of humour when a "vigorous pistol-whipping" or something quite like it or worse is pretty fucking likely

Ditto.

i don't really know what to do with this kind of humour when a "vigorous pistol-whipping" or something quite like it or worse is pretty fucking likely

This wasn't an attempt at humor.

"Yeah!"

"I say we hang her, THEN we kill her!"

"Yeah!"

"I say we stomp her..."

"Yeah!"

"...then we tattoo her..."

"Yeah!"

"...then we hang her..."

"Yeah!"

"...THEN we kill her!"

"Yeah!"

"I say you let ME have her FIRST."

"Yeah!!!"

"I say we let her go!"

"Noooooo!!!!!!!"

http://louvre.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/983/5db/9835db60-91d7-49c5-b87d-4bd2bb8f9b13.medium

*hi-fives alex*

You have to differentiate between torturing people who have been *accused of sympathising with a cause - vs- roughing up people who have confessed to terrorism/attempted murder. I mean, whichever side you're on here, you can't equate the two.

xposts

i don't think people who are in custody should be roughed up either way!!

"Failed" was a word taken out of her own description of events.

You're right. They're both equally indefensible.

D.I.Y. what the fuck: that post implies you're in favor of beating people who confess to attempted murder?

Im lost.

xxxxpost

I'm not advocating the beatings or the pistol whiping - I'm pointing out that the argument against it on this thread was incongruous.

And you're absolutely right, of course. And the points you are making are cogent ones -- but I suppose I was more interested in gauging people's emotional reactions to this particular news story. As I watched it repeated ad nauseum on CNN and MSNBC this morning, I found that it welled up so many emotions of horror and disgust in me that I find my proposed reaction (vigorous pistol-whipping) positively appropriate. Now, perhaps I'm simply being manipulated by hysteric media, but how do else do you respond to such a story?

And perhaps I'm speaking too soon. From the snippet alone, we see no remorse, but who is to say why her explosive device "failed" (once again, her own terminology). Did she wimp out? Was she struck by a fleeting moment of compassion? It's too early to say.

But what are YOU'RE reactions when you hear of these things? I suppose that's what I'm getting at.

Fair point.

Sorry, that should've been YOUR up there, not YOU'RE. Ugh.

So, you're saying the advocation of pistol-whipping cancels out the condemnation of suicide bombing? One is rather significantly worse than the other, I'd suggest.

Does her confession absolve her of the crime to your mind, Nab?

Anyway the best way to resolve this issue would be to put Alex alone in a room with this woman and an unloaded pistol, and see what happens.

D.I.Y. I don't know that it's incongruous; I think people are essentially advocating that unless there's compelling reason to do otherwise (!), we should want terrorists to be treated along the same crime-and-justice values we advance at home and suggest to the rest of the world. And there's no real compelling security or intelligence reason to hand out random payback beatings to them. (Other stuff, like interrogation methods, that's a whole other issue.)

Alex to be honest reading that just made me sad. I was surprised to see you used the word "remorseless," since her confession is really value-free, and reads like it comes from specific factual questions about what took place (she isn't defiant, or regretful that the bomb didn't go off; on the other hand, she doesn't sound regretful about taking part in this; it's pretty blank and factual). It mostly just made me wonder about any number of other things I'll probably never learn: how her husband was involved in this, to what degree she was an equal participant and to what degree she was married into it, what sort of marriage dynamic exists between two people off to kill themselves, etc. The whole thing is ridiculously foreign and complicated to me (and I assume to all of us), and so thinking "god, someone should hurt her" strikes me as a way to shut the whole thing off and not think about it, in order to avoid digging into all those details that my knowledge and imagination can't hope to actually supply.

Do we have any reason to think that her confession wasn't compelled by torture? I have my doubts.

Think, Alex, think. You identify her intention as criminal, even horrific. Good job. Then you advocate that we participate in a horrifically criminal act as retribution. This is not good.

If we willingly and publically become criminals in the name of justice and commit crimes equal to the ones we claim to punish, then we justify the same acts being visited upon us, for the same reasons. This is classic vendetta thinking and it never, ever leads to a good conclusion. Vendettas only end when one side is snuffed out.

(xpost D.I.Y. I fully agree with you about that; there are a lot of crimes with much lesser penalties if you don't actually pull them off, and I'm not sure what the conceptual basis is for that.)

Think, Alex, think. You identify her intention as criminal, even horrific. Good job.

Her intention was criminal and horrific. I don't think there's a grey area about it.

Then you advocate that we participate in a horrifically criminal act as retribution. This is not good.

I think being smacked across the jaw with a fistful of cold steel doesn't even begin to compensate for trying to kill as many innocent, unarmed and unwarned bystanders as possible with explosive strapped to your torso, augemented with ball bearings to inflict extra shrapnel. She's earned worse, I'd suggest. I'm sorry, that's just my emotional response. Obviously, if all crimes were treated with this methodology, we'd have a huge mess on our hands, but I can't help feeling that this woman deserves every conceivable nastiness.

Again, reasoned and fair points. I don't think I'm really arguing with you, Nabisco. I am intrigued, however, by how people keep their cool when dealing with these crimes. How does once divorce oneself from emotional response when deal with this sort of criminal act?

so does that extend to rape?

Don't put words in my mouth, Slocki.

And if not, save this idea for a "Mad Max" sequel.

Sure, Alex, that's fine as an emotional reaction. And I'm assuming it's purely emotional and fantastical, like I suggested upthread: if we put you in a room with this woman and an unloaded pistol, would you really be able to get started on her?

All we have to do is separate that kind of emotional response from what we (or, rather, Jordan) "should" do. Which is a whole other issue. Of law and justice and punishment, none of which have ever really been about giving people what they've "earned."

In any case that's an almost dangerously idiotic bit of sanctimonious territory for you to stake out: you're so concerned with the victims of terrorism that you have no interest in such useful information as how people turn out to be terrorists in the first place? I can't fathom how this wouldn't be the interesting part. On the one hand we have ordinary people going about their business in ordinary fashion -- nothing we'd normally be fascinated by. And then, moments later: they're killed, violently and brutally. The obvious question seems to me to be: why? What exactly makes this happen? And how can we make it not happen?

Precisely. That's what the judicial system is for.

Now, since I know shit about the Jordanian legal system, I have no idea whether she'll get a fair trial. Look at the Saddam farce.

And while I can understand how one might be apprehensive about letting an attempted murderer out on the street sooner than an actual murderer, nailing people for crimes they DIDN'T COMMIT is a slippery slope into pre-cog fascism. Because I'd wager that MOST of the time (tho not this one, probs), the reason the criminal was unsucessful stemmed from an inability to actually pull the trigger (so to speak). Which is why nabisco's challenge to Alex is so apt: would you bring yourself to beat up this woman? No, is my guess. But, if, in a moment of emotional rage, you picked up the gun and swung it at her head -- missing at the last second because you're actually a softie at heart -- you're OBJECTIVELY no different from an assailant that truly meant harm but, like, slipped on a banana peel or something.

Probably not, actually. I'd probably scream at her, which wouldn't do a great deal of good, as she probably doesn't speak English. But this, invariably, has more to do with me probably not having the moxy to pistol-whip her. That said, had it been my beloved that perished in the wedding party that she and her co-horts blew up, I'd probably find the balls to execute the task.

Did she turn herself in or was she apprehended?

(xp)

no matter how obvious it may appear someone is guilty. otherwise, hey, lets skip that justice part, right?

if found guilty, uh, a jail sentence? dont know what the physical violence fantasies on the thread are all about.

Uses of "we" that you seem bent out of shape about. On the one hand we have ordinary people -- that "we" refers to you, Paul, and me, Nabisco. nothing we'd normally be fascinated by -- that "we" refers to most of the planet, I suppose, but also just you and me, since we weren't having threads about Jordanian hotel clientele last week. And how can we make it not happen? -- that "we" refers to everyone who would like terrorist acts like this to stop.

WTF?!?!?!!!!!!1111

...I wasn't saying that conspiring to commit murder shouldn't be a crime, I was saying that it shouldn't be a crime ON PAR with actual murder. Poopface.

And there wasn't a royal we. A royal we is used in place of "I." We, as used above, means "we people." (xpost)

Nabisco, there are apologists out there who almost singly blame terrorism on American / Western political interests. This is daft, of course. The social conditions created within societies with little freedom, a great deal of unpunished violence, lack of education beyond religion, etc are what, in the main, create terrorism. Those reasons don't mean great soul-searching on the part of "everyone who would like terrorist acts to stop."

They mean censure and non-cooperation with such states, and their leaders. They mean extreme pressure on those leaders to provide free education, punishable fair law, passports and visas for their citizens, enforceable work place law etc etc.

Huh. That insult strikes me as a particularly bad idea.

revenge has to be taken out of the equation. punishment needs to be about public safety and that is all. ergo, the death penalty only if the murderer is an actual super-villain whose radioactive powers can defeat the defenses of any penitentiary.

Okay I feel better now k thankx bye PS don't be a dick.

yes. arrested and charged. but lets remember, at this stage, nothing more

revenge has to be taken out of the equation. punishment needs to be about public safety and that is all.

i'm not actually sure about this! i think society has a cathartic need for there to be a degree of 'revenge' in its punishment, and that if this need is not exacted, society isn't 'healed' properly, and there is a sense of injustice, and, ultimately, of vigilanteism. criminals going 'insufficiently unpunished' causes societal unrest, and thats not really about public safety, but about public...equilibrium.

i think there is a need for this to be reflected in some way (i understand that this can be argued as 'acquiescing to the hate mob', but i do think its something that has been built into our system anyway, and isnt something i'm arguing 'should' be introduced)

I knew that Ouija board would come in handy.

But I'm sure I'd have had the same response about any person taking any action that was (a) "common" and "important," in the senses that terrorism is, and (b) mysterious to me. The only thing that would keep American rapists and wife-beaters from falling under that rubric is that I feel like I already have a little bit more of a sense of who those people are.

And if not, save this idea for a "Mad Max" sequel.

That's not "Mad Max", that's "Saw".

Nabisco, I guess it's fine if you want to search her soul, but the world is filled with humiliated, misguided, sad, vengeful people, and many of them even live within a mile or two if you! Why the fascination with her?

When did Paul become an idiot????

but i've always believed that people charged with premeditated murder -- all -- to a man and woman -- are crazy. i mean you have to be. who in their right mind could do such a thing themself. and look at this woman. i mean honestly.

haha when was he not?

if you hate her enough you'd probably find out what language she speaks and learn how to say "you subhuman bitch i hate you" before screaming at her with it. probably cheaper than buying a pistol to whip her with.

does a pistol really hurt more than a regular lump of steel anyway?

i say we all make him feel guilty as punishment.

But I don't see what shooting anyone achieves.

Jordanian wedding parties must be stopped at all costs?

I must kill Jordanians. I must kill Palestinians. Can I be the one to blow the bride's head off? Please! Please!

she should just have the lynddie done to her every day, as a punishment.

Nothing to do with the fact that it's so much easier to blow up a Jordanian bride than an American soldier

"We will go and kill some other Arabs, how d'ya like them apples American devils!"

Yeah, I'm mad at an unrepentant attempted-mass murderer. I must be crazy. LOCK ME UP!

i don't even know what 'subhuman' means.

By calling her 'subhuman,' I was implying that her intentions were so reprehensbily vile that I fail to see how she could still be considered human. Sorry, that's just the way I feel about it.

i don't understand the compulsion to torture this woman either.

It's called vengeance. It's not pretty, but I don't think it's necessarily difficult to fathom.

she is dangerous, and if the police had shot her while she was making the attack, i wouldn't have minded.

Awfully big of you.

but why she should be tortured, and how she differs, by implication, from US forces, who also kill civilians with impunity, i don't know.

I'd argue that terrorism and collateral damage are two different things, but you'll obviously disagree with that point.

We will go and kill some other Arabs, how d'ya like them apples American devils!
So, you're saying that you don't care if she kills other Arabs?

It's called vengeance. It's not pretty, but I don't think it's necessarily difficult to fathom.

I mean I guess there are four types of terrorism. (1) Ultra-ambitious, symbolic terrorism, like the WTC or the Munich Olympics, where the terrorists seem to want to create some Hollywood spectacle in which they exert "power" over whoever they're mad ad. (2) Specific act-of-warfare quasi-terrorism, like the Cole, where the methods are terroristic but the target is enough of a legitimate military entity that they can imagine it's genuine opposition. (3) Constant genuine-terror disruption, like the intifada or bombings in Iraq or abortion-clinic shooters or what some probably hoped to accomplish in London -- which in some fucked-up way is probably meant to be equivalent to ongoing "protest." (4) And then something like this, which is more of an undirected lashing-out -- kind of like #1 for people without the resources to actually make a grander gesture out of it. This is disturbing because it seems least connected to any kind of "plan" or "movement" that we can deal with -- all it takes is a small group of disgruntled people (and maybe some tangential movement just to get them easy access to their tools) to decide to write their problems large on everyone else.

(I'm having trouble deciding which of those categories to slot some Americans into -- McVeigh is a cross between #1 and #4, maybe, and the Unabomber is shades of #3 and #4, though both would probably claim to be #2.)

It's called vengeance. It's not pretty, but I don't think it's necessarily difficult to fathom.

Reeking vengeance on individuals who had nothing to do with her particular grievance is unacceptable.

I never suggested it did.

Alex in NYC yesterday, right.

-- Alex in NYC (vassife...), November 15th, 2005.

the people killed in iraq every day don't deserve it either, having played no part in 9/11, saddam's wmd program, etc etc.

i still don't see why you think she needs a pistol-whipping, why her crime is particularly awful as to justify torture, why this person is more subhuman than anyone else.

See, while I think that's fair, on a totally opposite tangent, why did you feel the need to seek vengence for a bunch of people who have nothing to do with you? (unless you are personally involved with some of those who were killed? in that case i'm sorry!)

Did I say they did? Did I say I was in favor of the War in Iraq? No, I don't believe I did. I'm decrying this particular instance of suicided bombing which -- to my mind, evidently not to yours --- is NEVER justifiable.

i still don't see why you think she needs a pistol-whipping,

Punnishment.

why her crime is particularly awful as to justify torture, why this person is more subhuman than anyone else.

You don't find her crime to be particularly awful? Okay, whatever you say.

Look, let's put this thing to bed. I posted this initial thread prompted by feelilngs of venomous disgust inspired by the reports of this story on CNN/MSNBC, etc. etc. Yes, the notion of handling these types of crimes via manhandling/pistol-whipping is not a practical, prudent or particularly moral way to go about things. As I mentioned before, my reaction was a visceral, emotional one. And as Nabisco handily pointed out, I'm probably too much of a softie to actually carry out such a task myself. Be that as it may, I'm still somewhat surprised at the amount of sympathy and understanding this woman is entertaining on this thread, which sort've chills me to the bone. As far as I'm concerned, not matter how unjustified the U.S.'s presence in Iraq is, no matter how many of her family members were slaughtered under the umbrella of "collateral damage" (if that is indeed the case, though I don't believe it is -- she is supposedly the sister of an insurgent), no matter how horrible the events that have thus far befallen her -- SUICIDE BOMBING INNOCENTS IN JORDAN IS NOT THE ANSWER! And it is such an act of barbarism, that it renders all of her other plights MOOT (in my opinion). Hence the thread.

There is no way the Jordanian justice system can mete out a punnishment that fits her particular crime. That wedding party that she helped blow up....where was their fair day in court? Where was their equal time?

yhy did you feel the need to seek vengence for a bunch of people who have nothing to do with you?

Are you so divorced from the circumstances of others that you cannot recognize that barbarity of the action? This is a damn strange comment.

And I consider being compared to Justin Sullivan of N.M.A a complement, incidentally

Her actions and intentions do, though.

Strictly speaking, she didn't actually get the opportunity to help blow them up what with the equipment failure and all.

Are you so divorced from the circumstances of others that you cannot recognize that barbarity of the action? This is a damn strange comment.

sure i do recognize the barbarity. But perhaps I have misunderstood when I thought that you feel some need to punish her personally. I mean, is that what you mean? so if you do conjure up the courage(?) or whatever to actual pistol whip this woman, am i allowed to slap you in the face for having done the pistol whipping which to me is inexcusable? it's absurd.

or do you just mean that current laws aren't good enough? or what?

Other line-setting question still awaiting your attention:

If a "vigorous pistol-whipping" is a "good place to start" on an unconvicted terrorist suspect that you wish to visit "every conceivable nastiness" on, where is a good place to finish?
-- Onimo (ger...), November 16th, 2005 10:39 AM. (later)

I dunno. I just think a little suffering is warranted. I wouldn't give her the satisfaction of fulfilling her aspired martyrdom, however.

There is a big difference between individuals commiting crimes and states doing the same things. The best thing to do for all that the state protects may be similar to something that is always bad for an individual to decide to do.

Alex, who on this thread has offered "sympathy" in this woman's direction? The bulk of the talk from the non-pistol-whip side has simply been arguing for the usual values of justice: fair treatment, fair trial, and no retributive torture or beating.

If you interpret that as "sympathy," something is deeply wrong; it's not "sympathy" for the wrongdoer to believe in basic principles of justice! And if you interpret that as "sympathy," then you're hopping on a tactic already well-worn by the Bush administration -- that questioning any old suggestion (right up to "she should be pistol-whipped") constitutes siding with the enemy.

And if you interpret something like my wanting to understand her story as "sympathy," there's still something wrong; why this free-floating idea that trying to understand someone means taking their side? This is the thinking of a reality-TV nation, basically, where whoever the camera stays on is the star -- where attention is the same thing as approval. But you asked our response to reading the woman's confession, and one response that seems perfectly natural to me is: who the hell is she? How does someone get born and then wind up here? What happens along the way?

Seriously, Alex, before your bones chill too much, I'm really curious as to what specific things on this thread you're interpreting as "sympathy" for this woman. Maybe there are one or two I'm skimming over, but I don't see anything of the sort.

I didn't suggest that. I'd like to understand her story as well. That doesn't make her actions any less reprehensible to me. Again, my pistol-whipping comment was based on my emotional reaction to her deeds and intentions.

In terms of people expressing sympathy...

yeah, i feel really sorry for her...
damned reactionary lefties (also see the five questions for islam...thread)

-- paulhw (pppso...), November 14th, 2005. (later)

This could've been a wind-up, I suppose.

In any event, I suppose my reaction was less reasoned and more pronounced than all of you evidently ever-even-keeled individuals, which is probably as good a reason as any that I don't work in law enforcement. Regardless of cause or creed, suicide bombing innocents is flatly indefensible (in my opinion). My gut reaction is that any invidual that coldly entertains the notion of killing innocent, unwarned and unarmed civilians, to my mind, waives their own right to be treated with respect (hence my hotly-debated "subhuman" comment). This was just me thinking out loud, so to speak, and ultimately has nothing to do with how the woman ought to be treated in a legal capacity. For her crimes, I'm of the mindset that she deserves to suffer -- be that in a jail cell or via being slapped across the gums with a pistol. Yeah, it's a tasteless comment, I'll grant you, and perhaps I stated it too flippantly up top. I just think she's a monster. That's it.

Like I said, though, I really do worry about writing people off as "monsters" or "subhuman" or whatever. I know it's mostly metaphor, just a way of stating how deeply we disapprove of something they've done. But I worry that it's also a way of trying to oversimplify the world, to say some people are just evil and that's it, and to draw stark easy lines between them and us. Whereas of course this woman isn't inherently evil; she wasn't born that way. She did (or attempted to do) something terrifically evil, and that's why the story behind that interests me. I mean, there's no "subhuman" -- this woman is exactly as human as you or me, and some specific set of things learned and circumstances lived through and lies told and manipulations experienced ... something leads conventional humans to this point, you know? And it's not some mystical inner monstrousness or sub-humanity -- in fact, I think it's something very, very human.

This is how I understood your comments from the very beginning, but 200 posts later ...

Feeling as though the woman needs the shit beat out of her is a purely visceral, completely human reaction that in turn has no bearing on anyone's concept of appropriate justice. Nobody is lowering themselves to subhuman levels by feeling this way. That's it.

::joke::

-- MindInRewind (mbvarkestra197...), November 16th, 2005.

what IS all this 'human' shit?

Her actions and intentions are a result of her being misguided. That's the point, dude.

US pilots?

And to the people giving those orders, I don't believe they are purposely targeting innocent civilians. If they are, then they are evil.

I laughed for a good ten minutes at this. Well, maybe it was only ten seconds, but they were solidly satisfying belly laughs.

Seriously though - Intentionally killing people who have nothing to do with the war you're fighting IS evil.

But I'm getting confused. Are we arguing whether or not this woman is evil or whether or not the US is evil? Because I'm saying "yes" and "sometimes".

I'm normally not in the business of defending the U.S. military, but once again -- U.S. Pilots (or any air force's pilots, for that matter) aren't the decision makers. They may very well consider the moral implications of their actions, but they are ultimately powerless to question them. Don't blame the pilots, blame the policy-makers. It may ring hollow, but once again, U.S. Pilots (and infantrymen and marines etc. etc.) are simply following orders. Some probably do so with more zeal than others, but that's a whole `nother thread.

So that makes it alright to you, I guess?

That's the first I've heard of there being a specific, strategic target in mind.

Nuremberg Defence

(xpost: FUCK)

what the fuck? you sign up the the AF, that absolves you of all moral responsibility? why?

Gents, I'm not saying it's right. But, that's the way it is.

maybe she was following orders.

Fair point, but in much the same way U.S. forces get taken to task (or should be taken to task) for targetting civilians, so should she (and her since-departed co-horts).

Were you always Calum as well as Aja?

Well, if you're still sticking with the parallel of her services with the military, I'd say targetting civilians is diametrically opposed to standard rules of engagement, so she's still in the wrong.

why do you think this, re 'following orders'?

no-one on this thread has said they think she was doing the right thing, btw. but if there's an abstract sense in which wrongdoing should not go unpunished, the US are the last people who have the moral authority to do the punishing here.

xxpost

Law of Armed Conflict? Geneva Conventions?

I'm not disagreeing with you. Once again, however, I'd just like to point out in my defense that just because I find her particular crime so reprehensible, that does not mean by any stretch that I am in favor of the war in Iraq or the Bush Administration's handling of the "War on Terror" at all. I don't think we should be in Iraq any more than she probably does. Still, there are no justifications for her actions, as far as I'm concerned.

It is impossible for diplomatic or non-violent means to succeed 100% of the time.

If you do not disagree with this statement, are you opposed to the concept of a military?

If you do disagree with this statement, where is this fantasy world where human beings can always be talked into doing what you want them to do and can I please move there and become lord and master?

but wasn't she from iraq? or you mean she does in jordan?

If you do disagree with this statement, where is this fantasy world where human beings can always be talked into doing what you want them to do and can I please move there and become lord and master?

if you have enough money you can move to the USA.

in this case the righteousness of the overall project is dubious, imo, and while bomber lady did wrong, it's weird to a) single her out and b) propose she be pistol-whipped. even the nazis put us/uk airmen in prison camps (without beating them) when their task was *specifically and unequivocally* to kill civilians.

She's Iraqi, I believe, and her actions were pointed at Jordan who -- I gather -- are perceived as chief collaborators with the U.S. in terms of Iraq.

Also, Alex et al stating his opinion about what should be done with her is not the US, exerting its moral authority.

xxxxposts, you poxy fule.

And I've already stated up thread that my feeling that she needed to be pistol-whipped stem from my own emotional reactions and do not reflect any serious legal considerations regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.

Also, Alex et al stating his opinion about what should be done with her is not the US, exerting its moral authority.

Precisely.

Just as a passing note, I think the bomber-pilot moral-responsibility issue here is a little off: they get their targets handed to them, and are presumably acting on trust that their work's being used in a morally responsible way. The only time their personal responsibility would enter into it would be if they managed to confirm, somehow, that their targets were really things they'd be opposed to bombing -- and barring pilots with their own intelligence staffs, I can't imagine that's likely to happen.

I'm not really sure how that moral-responsibility argument is even working here, though, so I'm just tossing that in. Terrorism is bad, mmkay?

And I'm in no way an expert on bomber piloting either, but I do know that they don't just arbitrarily fly around bombing (or not bombing) the snots out of whatever they see fit. They may indeed be deeply conflicted about their actions, but they are ultimately merely vehicles for the military strategists. In other words, they are the messengers. That the message happens to be a megaton of death isn't the point.

In WWII, where the consensus opinion is that we were the good guys, we firebombed Tokyo and Dresden and nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima, thereby killing people (children, the infirm, etc...) who had nothing whatsoever to do with the Japanese Imperial war effort.

I think the bomber-pilot moral-responsibility issue here is a little off: they get their targets handed to them, and are presumably acting on trust that their work's being used in a morally responsible way.

I'm sure this lady could make a similar argument. To her lights, the Koran and the defense of her native land from foreign aggression may necessitate or excuse hitherto repugnant acts. Let's not forget that 'patriots' committed atrocities against 'tory' loyalists during the American Revolution, including tarring and feathering people - a brutal form of abuse that leads to body-wide burns, and more often than not, death.

I agree that sometimes violence is required to solve problems. I prefer it not be used as a first resort and that its ramifications be well considered. Cheney justifying torture is pig-headed and ignorant of a good many cases in history, one recent one being that of a certain Ayman Al-Zawahiri, whose torture at the hands of the Egyptians seems to be one of the sources of his venemous hatred of the U.S. and the states that we support. This lady and her husband targetting mostly Jordanians for associating themselves with the West by going to one of our hotel chains is not only homicidal (even murderous) but small-minded and strategically stupid. This will not change Jordan's position. It will not swing it in their direction but against it. It will not demoralize them but antagonize them. They have not only killed in cold blood and not just in vain, but counter-productively. (Was it Talleyrand or Fouché who said of the assassination of Enghien that it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder?)

The urge to kill and harm those who have harmed us and ours is understandable. Going forward with such acts of retribution when we have struggled centuries to stamp out cycles of violence and enunciate principles and create equitable institutions is just to return to barbarism in a petulant act of moral devolution. It's just stupid. Considering the stakes of this 'war on terror' why doesn't someone try to learn some lessons from history and try to WIN instead of just justifying every stupid ass thing they continue to do out of animal hatred.