Delvy:

Re the World Court, now you know why this lawyer considers that entity a farce. That's the mild description. The not so mild is, WC = shaqatsu [Akkadian; meaning, to be of bad appearance, hence detestable, an abomination]. And no doubt that some lodging the complaint[s] against us have hands even more bloody, yes? So there it is, for all with eyes to see, shaqatsu. And so we don't touch it, not even with that proverbial ten foot pole. Not saying that we're innocent, simply calling the prosecution rather selective, some of the jurors biased, and, well, the plaintiff, he's not worthy or entitled to relief, since he seeking equity must first do equity and his hands are bloodier than mine.





Now, to include the rest, the answer to the first question is, simply, it depends. I mean, if I was CEO of the nation, and I got word that Osama and some others sent us a message asking to talk, then we'd talk. Then we'd see what the deal was, and if we could save some lives, well, then maybe Osama gets whatever it is that's behind door no. 3, and so what do we have for our lucky contestant... Otherwise hard to answer this one in the abstract, but the public posture ALWAYS must be that we don't negotiate with terrorists or any criminal, since no reason that I can see why we would want to explicity and expressly tell them that they can get something from us by being criminal. Osama is just lucky that he's in a cave on the other side of the world, since if it was Arkansas, we'd simply wait him out, with the place surrounded. So maybe if Osama was sincere, and we could save some lives and he'd otherwise stop killing, then he'd get that all expense paid trip to Tahiti, the new Mercedes, a minor role in a major Hollywod action film, and we'd save some lives, his included, and if we're truly lucky, he uses the remainder of his life to atone for the life lived prior. The only item left is that we'd also spend some time at the graves of our loved ones and friends explaining to them why we needed to do this and asking for their understanding. I think that's about how it would play out, if I were the CEO and a sincere Osama wanted to talk, and we could save some lives, he'd otherwise stop killing, but again, it all depends on the particular circumstance. Let no one otherwise think that there is profit in criminal activity, since who knows, you might just catch me on a bad day, and you get crushed like a bug. So it depends and those thinking criminal profit take their chances.

Do you believe we should negotiate with terrorists?

Why or why not.

A better world in the end, matters more then anything else. If it can be achieved in some cases by negotiating with terrorists, then so be it. Certainly, Iran and Syria having disagreeable governments are realities that we just have to accept, as we aren't willing to make the sacrifices needed to make them more moderate (indeed if we even can). Talking doesn't mean we can't continue to persue coercive actions against them, and if us not talking to them, is not a powerful enough coercive action to have any effect on them, we might as well not do it. Negotiation could achieve something; silence is useless.