He cites Afghanistan, a textbook example of “lie down with dogs, get up with fleas” if ever there was one. We opposed the Soviets, so we supported (in many ways) the muj. We all know what came of that. Then the opportunity came to support another group with iffy credentials to get rid of the first group. Was it right not to do it? Reasonable people can differ. But I think we can all agree that it was a morally ambiguous situation at best.

To answer your question, no, I don’t think bribing a terrorist is the same as negotiating with a terrorist. That’s a question of getting our hands dirty. I have no problem with dirty hands. I have a big problem with rewarding terrorism. If a terrorist says “Release prisoners or I’ll bomb you,” then he bombs you, and you say, “Okay, we’ll release prisoners,” that’s rewarding terrorism.

Remember, terrorism is a very narrowly defined thing. Terrorism is covert attacks against “soft” targets to induce fear, thereby achieving a political or social goal. I think what Marshall is saying here is that the tactic should never result in the achievement of the underlying goal. Iraqi terrorists aren’t fighting for amnesty. They’re fighting for theocracy, or to bring down the new government, or whatever. Granting them amnesty isn’t giving them what they want. It’s offering them terms for their surrender.

I have yet to figure out how to explain this properly. Maybe one of you three wise gentlemen can sort it.

It seems to me self-evident that some people ARE worth more than others, not because of their ethnicity or their religion or their what-have-you, but because of their actions. We might all be created equal, but we define ourselves as good or bad by what we do.

And I say that well aware that in my time I’ve put myself firmly on the wrong side of that line. My own shame burdens me in many ways, but it hasn’t stripped me of my ability to see clearly.

Take two men. Hell, make ‘em identical twins. Put them in precisely the same situation. Observe as one suffers with dignity, or tries to alter his environment through reasonable and peaceful means. Maybe he even joins an army and wages war on behalf of his nation.

But see how the other one becomes a terrorist. See how the other one lobs unguided mortars into a residential neighborhood with no intent other than to maim and terrify and, if he could be so lucky, kill.

What’s the difference between a bomb dropped in war and a bomb launched by a terrorist? The intent behind the attack.

Some people are bad and some people are good. Not because of who they are, but because of what they choose to do.

Bad people should never, in a just world, get their way.

Sometimes it’s hard to decide whether an act was bad or good. The teenaged girl killed her stepfather. Bad, right? But if her stepfather was beating her mother and raping her, it gets a little murky.

Firing rockets into towns just because you can isn’t murky. And the fact that the same group that fires rockets also builds schools doesn’t make it any murkier. It’s just plain evil.

The ability to spot evil, and the willingness to say so out loud, seems to be a lost art these days. Am I wrong to adopt this attitude? Is there really no difference between the victims of 9/11 (murdered with malice aforethought and brutality seldom seen in all of recorded history) and innocent civilians killed during a precision bombing run? Is the difference I find so blindingly obvious — that difference being INTENT — just a red herring?

I just don’t know any more. I’ve lost the ability to be confident about stuff like this.