last night i watched a documentary about the german constitutional court, a bunch of eight judges, being something like an ultimate instance of adjucation (nevertheless it's not a divine power and it made some remarkably bad decisions as well).

although the court is not involved in any trial about germany's role in the upcoming war actions (at least at the moment), one of the judges (which seem to be very deliberate and smart people, btw. – as far as i can tell) said something very insightful about the difficulties to find the right sentence on controversal issues: you have to argue with the other judges, to wriggle with their arguments, to step into the "purgatory of decision making" – because there is so much at stake.

now back to the war mongers in the us and europe: many leaders recently were empowered by parliament or senate to have exclusive control over military action to be taken. they don't have to negotiate about controversial issues with anyone of their staff anymore (although they still can).

reminder: the overall tenor in mainstream media and the public concerning what to do with the terrorists (and especially the countries that became suspects of nurturing terror) was "act now, negotiate later".

i think this was the wrong approach. sure, there was a lot of action to be taken immediately to prevent further attacks (aka defense). sure you defend yourself! but concerning the upcoming raids of the oh so "civilised western world", this "purgatory of decision making" would have been more than just necessary. for the media, for the public and especially for politicians. not despite – but because there is so much at stake.