In the comments on my post yesterday, Prakhar Goel, Patrick R. Sullivan, and Shayne Cook were critical of my views on U.S. foreign policy. All three implicitly or explicitly seemed to favor the U.S. government's attack on Afghanistan in 2001. So here's my question to them. I promise that I'll say more about my response in a follow-on post, but I'd like to hear their answers and/or the answers of those who agree with their criticism of my foreign policy views. Here's the set-up hypothetical, a question, and my answer to the hypothetical:
Consider the following hypothetical case. A terrorist blows up an airplane flying from country A and everyone on board is killed. A man from country B is alleged to be the head terrorist. He lives in country C. The government of country A has no extradition treaty with the government of country C. However, the government of country B, where the alleged terrorist is a citizen, does have such a treaty with country C and attempts to extradite him. Country C's government, however, refuses to extradite him, and the alleged terrorist is free to live in country C.
Does country C's unwillingness to extradite the alleged terrorist justify country B's government bombing or invading country C?
I believe that it does not. Bombing or invading will threaten or even kill thousands of innocent people in an attempt to apprehend one guilty person.
Prakhar, Patrick, and Shayne: what is your answer to this hypothetical?