On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:16:31 +0000, Jose wrote:

We'd not find it acceptable should the police do nothing about a hostage
situation in our home town, eh?

I don't know. If there's a murder in your home town, would you want the
police from the neighboring state to drive in and blow up all the houses
that look like crack houses, in case the murder were drug related?

The end result may be a safer and more peaceful city. But there is a
price.

You don't need to introduce the "neighboring state" metaphor. Think
"Philadelphia" and "MOVE". I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

I'm not sure where this takes the discussion, however. Perhaps: don't
underestimate the population's willingness to see houses bombed as long as
(1) it is someone else's house and (2) it is supposed to make them safer.
Consider those that respond to the current administrations warrant-free
searches with "well, if you've nothing to hide...".

Then there's the ADIZ, which makes the DC area safe from law-abiding
pilots. Or the invasion of Iraq, which makes the US safe from all those
WMD-carrying terrorists that attacked the US in 2001/09.

Populations aren't all that discerning. And what does *that* mean for the
promotion of democracy laugh?

- Andrew