In criminal law, all arguments are reduced to "social welfare-ism" vs. "classical liberalism."  Classical liberalism broadens the scope of investigation and looks at the defendant's background to explain and potentially exculpate the defendant.  (e.i., He stole food because he was starving, or she killed her husband in cold blood because she suffered from battered wife syndrome and thought she was acting in self defense.)  Classical liberalism is a philosophy that individual rights are paramount -- even if society has to suffer (i.e., criminals are release on technicalities or because of wacky defenses).  Social Welfare-ism places the interests of society ahead of the interests of the individual.  (We have to stop the madman with the chain-saw BEFORE he gets onto the school playground.  We have to lock up those who are a threat to society.  We have to set up up internet sites so that everyone can be aware of the people in their neighborhood who have a sexual offense on their record.)  According to Social Welfare-ism,  an individual's rights are not as important as protecting society as a whole from those who would do it harm.

I had a brilliant criminal law professor at the University of Texas.  Everyone in the class HATED him, because all he would talk about was this duality.  He did not teach us the elements of crimes or the conditions necessary to find a conspiracy.  All he talked about was Classical liberalism vs. Social welfare-ism.  The knuckle-heads in my class who just wanted to pass the bar and get a high paying associate job were about to revolt, and numerous complaints were filed with the Dean about this teacher.  Out of a class of about 150 very bright students, I was the only one who understood what he was driving at.  ALL ARGUMENTS ARE ENCOMPASSED BY THIS DUALITY

Should a defendant's family history be admissible?   Classical liberalism vs. social welfare-ism.
Is an overt act necessary to establish a conspiracy?   Classical liberalism vs. social welfare-ism.
Should we build more prisons?    Classical liberalism vs. social welfare-ism.
Should we buy more bombs?    Classical liberalism vs. social welfare-ism.
Should there be a draft?  Classical liberalism vs. social welfare-ism.
Should we let another drowning passenger on our life boat?  Classical liberalism vs. social welfare-ism.
Should we throw a trouble-maker off our lifeboat?   Classical liberalism vs. social welfare-ism.
Should we throw an innocent off our over-crowed and sinking lifeboat?    Classical liberalism vs. social welfare-ism.
Should we destroy our own buildings and kill our own people to save the rest of the Western civilization from Islam?   Classical liberalism vs. social welfare-ism.

You tell me which argument and what result you are looking for, and I'll pull out either the classical liberalism or social welfare-ism arguments and just plug it into the argument in question. 

Fundamental Islam is a threat to Western civilization.  Prior to 9/11, it was not a dramatic, easily-perceived threat.  It was a creeping, slow-moving threat.  Unchecked immigration into Europe.  Failure to assimilate into Western culture.  Skyrocketing birthrates in European Muslin communities.  Declining birthrates among "white" Europeans.  Slowly changing make-up of European society.  Self-loathing "white" Europeans wracked with guilt over prior generations of imperialism, militarism, and exploitation have left them unable or unwilling to defend their own institutions.  The pendulum between classical liberalism and social welfare-ism had swung so far to the classical liberalism side that the overly liberal societies were allowing into it (and actually protecting) the very elements that want to destroy Western Civilization, destroy classical liberalism, and impose the oppression of sharia on all in a world-wide Taliban-like government.  The West needed to wake-up and realize the very real threat that was posed to destroy it.  The only way to marshal the power of the West is to convert this creeping threat into a cataclysmic event that would pull the West out of its coma before it is too late.  If 9/11 had not happened in 2001, but had happened in 2050, the EU would have sided with the Muslins, because by then, the EU would be a large Muslin state that allows sharia law to be imposed on its population.

Since 9/11, the world has awoken to the threat of Islam.  It is no longer a creeping threat.  We (this includes all of Europe) have collectively stood up to fight off this impending doom.  The EU nations have more or less cooperated in the war on terror.  The EU nations have cooperated with the CIA rendition of dangerous radical clerics to their home nations where information about their plans can be effectively extracted.  The Dutch are finally rising to protect their institutions from Muslin encroachment.  The world is aware of the threat and should now be able to guard against it.  As a result of 9/11, the West has arisen in defense of classical liberalism and is even making an effort to spread those institution into the heart of the Middle East.  If this essential revival of Western Civilization and the institutions of classical liberalism was made possible because those buildings were allowed to fall, then the Social Welfare-ist in me says. "PULL IT!" 
   

On Jun 13, 2006, at 4:19 PM, xxxx wrote:
"Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.”  Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building."
 
Rather than say...."Get the firemen out of the building?"
 
You blindly belive in america, you fact-fucked SHEEP!
 
YOU are the conspiracy theorist.
 
You are behind the bell-curve of intelligence.  The next step for you is actually to DEFEND why the american gov't set up 9-11, NOT to dispute it. 
 
A hole in the Pentagon is 16 feet.  Fuck you, Tom:  "A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack."    YEAH, and where is the fucking plane, forensic specialists???  How did it go thru a 16 foot hole?  Bullshit.
 
Tom, you disgust me.  Your intelligence is something I believe in - I really think you are quite smart. 
I am dumbfounded as to how a guy like you can't see thru this blizzard of BS.  I feel it is you trying to get a rise out of me at this time, and if so, it has worked.  I've worked my way up to thinking you are a sheep;  like half the damn country in america that voted for the moron in office - TWICE. 
 
You don't get it:  I feel sorry for you.   Living under a King who is a moron.  Breathing your anti-Kyoto air (as if that would have made a difference) and getting searched like common criminals to travel, enter your highschools, and visit ballgames. 
 
Fascism.  It's already there.  In NYC, back when I lived there (99-01) you already needed a city permit for a group of 25 to gather in Central Park.  The cops can bust you regardless - without the permit.  Now what is that like?  
 
You know how your privacy is now compromised, no need to go further. 
 
Tom, you are given the right to prosecute 9-11,  chew on that a while.  Do your best to prove your case in court.  
 
I believe you would win that case.  I believe you could prove without a shadow of doubt that america planned those "attacks".
 
Can't say I don't believe in your capabilities, can you?  
 
DR