Below, Lenny writes something that I suspect is widely accepted, even modest compared to the more hysterical responses to the recent airliner attacks (E.g., Thomas Friedman in the NYT: "Does my country really understand that this is World War III? And if this attack was the Pearl Harbor of World War III, it means there is a long, long war ahead." This from the liberal press).


Lenny wrote (presuming, I think, that Bin Laden is somehow guilty): "Would anyone who knows his whereabouts and his contacts, yet chooses not to interfere be innocent?" He also said: "I don't advocate killing every person who falls under one of the categories listed above, though I do advocate killing some of them, imprisoning many of them, and suitably punishing the rest. This would include removing from power the leaders of any country which has aided terrorists. How can we do any less?"


I think the following quesions are basic to this topic:


1. If a foreign state, group or individual committed terrorism on U.S. soil, which I'll define as the deliberate killing of civilians and property destruction without military pretext in order to create widespread fear, and foreign legal process failed to inflict suitable punishment on those responsible, should the U.S. as a matter of principle accept the result? Or does the U.S. have a moral right to use military force to inflict punishment?


2. If the latter, do we believe that the foregoing standard applies to all countries or just countries other than the U.S.?


3. If the United States facilitated or committed terrorism on foreign soil, do we think that punishment should be limited to those directly responsible or should it also be inflicted, as Lenny implied, on those who had the ability but chose to refrain from interfering or hindering such acts?


4. Do we believe that those responsible for U.S. political and military actions are (1) officials only; (2) officials and those with the greatest ability to influence them; or (3) all people with an ability to influence U.S. officials?


5. If (a) the U.S. facilitated or committed terrorism and (b) it's legal process failed to inflict suitable punishment on those responsible, should foreign governments as a matter of principle accept the result or do they have at least the moral right to use military force to inflict punishment?


6. If (a) the U.S. facilitated or committed terrorism, (b) U.S. legal process failed to inflict suitable punishment on those responsible, (c) foreign governments have a moral right to use military force to inflict punishment but (d) such foreign governments had no effective means of inflicting a suitable punishment on the U.S., or if the victims and their sympathizers don't have access to or control over their governnment, should foreign citizens as a matter of principle accept the result or do they have the moral right to inflict suitable punishment in the form of violence against those responsible?


7. If the U.S. committed terrorism and but we nevertheless deny that foreign governments or citizens have a right to invoke violence in response, should we be surprised if they did so? If we should not be surprised, should we be outraged?


8. Are allegations of U.S. complicity and responsibility for terrorism relevant to recent events and worthy of discussion or should discussion be concentrated on whom to punish and how to punish them?


9. If (a) allegations of U.S. complicity and responsibility for terrorism are in fact relevant to recent events and worthy of discussion but (b) are not as a general matter being discussed by officials, pundits and media gadflys, is it better to ask "why not?" or should we concentrate on whom to punish and how to punish them?