Stewarding at Hay (Part 2)

Great day at Hay yesterday, I caught Orhan Pamuk - terrific, David Putnam - thought-provoking, and Richard Perle - considered.

Richard Perle attempted to justify the notion of pre-emptive strikes on terrorists by claiming that acts of terror are likely to originate entirely from within a particular nation state, and since conventional combat cannot apply in such circumstances, then pre-emption, presumably intelligence-led, is the only weapon a state has to protect its citizens under such circumstances. I paraphrase what I think he said.

This does raise the interesting notion that if the justice system cannot act as a deterrent for such acts of terror, it can only deal with their aftermath, how can a state prevent such acts other than by pre-emption and the horrible fact of detention without trial a la Guantanamo? Now I'm way out of my depth with this sort of argument but I do think it is a debate that we need to have. Any comments?