Cat's out of the bag

[Diuretic]

This should be fun to watch

http://tinyurl.com/2alfjz

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

More at link.

 

[jillian]

Huh??? Where did the Supreme Court sanction kidnapping?

 

[Gunny]

Huh??? Where did the Supreme Court sanction kidnapping?

It appears the Supreme Court ruled only on remedial action after the fact, and not on the issue of what they are labelling "extraordinary rendition." The only "ruling" on the act itself is basically a lawyer's opinion.

There's a whole lot of vaguery in the article which leads to much assumption.

 

[jillian]

It appears the Supreme Court ruled only on remedial action after the fact, and not on the issue of what they are labelling "extraordinary rendition." The only "ruling" on the act itself is basically a lawyer's opinion.

There's a whole lot of vaguery in the article which leads to much assumption.

Thanks. I did a google on it and near as I can tell, the supreme court hasn't taken any cases regarding the issue.

I hope when they do, they make clear this isn't acceptable.

 

[Gunny]

Thanks. I did a google on it and near as I can tell, the supreme court hasn't taken any cases regarding the issue.

I hope when they do, they make clear this isn't acceptable.

I wouldn't bet any money hoping for your desired ruling. The safe bet would be that the Supremes will in fact uphold it.

Personally, I don't really have a problem with it. And haven't I see you express your desire to capture and bring to trial bin Laden? This very rule, IMO, would be the one justifying such a thing.

So I could see justification on a case-by-case basis, but maybe not blanket authority.

 

[jillian]

I wouldn't bet any money hoping for your desired ruling. The safe bet would be that the Supremes will in fact uphold it.

Personally, I don't really have a problem with it. And haven't I see you express your desire to capture and bring to trial bin Laden? This very rule, IMO, would be the one justifying such a thing.

So I could see justification on a case-by-case basis, but maybe not blanket authority.

I always thought they should capture Bin Laden. But Baby Bush "doesn't spend much time thinking about him".

I think it violates the sovreignty of foreign nations. How would people in this country react if foreign nationals came here and kidnapped OUR citizens?

I'd suggest there'd be a major uproar...and rightfully so.

As for the Court ruling, I wouldn't hold my breath for this Court to uphold ANY rights, unless we're talking about corporations and governmental trampling on our rights.

 

[Gunny]

I always thought they should capture Bin Laden. But Baby Bush "doesn't spend much time thinking about him".

I think it violates the sovreignty of foreign nations. How would people in this country react if foreign nationals came here and kidnapped OUR citizens?

I'd suggest there'd be a major uproar...and rightfully so.

As for the Court ruling, I wouldn't hold my breath for this Court to uphold ANY rights, unless we're talking about corporations and governmental trampling on our rights.

IMO, too much time has been given over to the inflated importance of bin Laden. I guess you think Bush should go over and personally lead the manhunt?

But what is the difference between capturing and whisking away to the US OBL and any other foreign national? None.

I think I'll stick with the case-by-case opinion.

And this court hasn't trampled any of our rights any more or less than the last one did.

 

[Annie]

IMO, too much time has been given over to the inflated importance of bin Laden. I guess you think Bush should go over and personally lead the manhunt?

But what is the difference between capturing and whisking away to the US OBL and any other foreign national? None.

I think I'll stick with the case-by-case opinion.

And this court hasn't trampled any of our rights any more or less than the last one did.

I agree. The thinking though of the public is weird. 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it says. Abortion is a right that isn't stated, but somehow implied. Sometimes I get so confused!

 

[William Joyce]

Huh??? Where did the Supreme Court sanction kidnapping?

A few years ago.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_339/

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A few years ago.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_339/

And LOOK who ruled that it was ok. Where ya at Jillian?

 

[Larkinn]

But what is the difference between capturing and whisking away to the US OBL and any other foreign national? None.

OBL killed 3,000 Americans is the difference. Its understandable for us to whisk away OBL, its not understandable for us to whisk away someone because they haven't paid us taxes.

Kidnapping someone from a foreign country sets an extremely bad precedent and one that will come back to bite the US in the ass. What happens when France decides to kidnap Rumsfeld to answer for crimes back in France? Are we willing to go to war with Europe for Rumsfeld? Especially considering we will be doing it alone since its hard to get backers to invade a country because they have the same policy you yourself have.

As to the case...the Supremes didn't so much sanction the process, as they did fail to disallow the practice. Its a pretty wishy washy opinion and one where they seem to make it as narrow as possible. Their main holding seems to be less that the US government was allowed to do what it did, and more that there is no private cause of action if a law was broken (i.e. the guy who was kidnapped can't sue over it, even if it was illegal).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Jillian of course missed this thread, funny, considering her liberal buddies on the Court are the very ones that said we can get away with it. Now where is that rant about how the Conservatives are such a danger?

 

[Diuretic]

What gets me is not so much that the US Supreme Court accepted it, they must have done so on the basis of their interpretation of the law as it was and is. I'm more concerned that the Congress hasn't seen fit to change the law to explicitly prohibit kidnapping of foreign nationals (or US nationals for that matter) where formal extradition processes either didn't work (eg Mexico won't send an alleged murderer back to a jurisdiction where the death penalty may be invoked) or where there is no extradition treaty. I mean, that's not justice, that's bloody piracy.

The exclusionary rules concerning booting evidence out where it's obtained in contravention of the law in the US are excruciating in their detail but here, where someone is kidnapped and dragged back to the States then it's consider quite acceptable? Gimme a break. Congress should realise that that Dog (pun intended) ain't gonna hunt.

 

[Larkinn]

Jillian of course missed this thread, funny, considering her liberal buddies on the Court are the very ones that said we can get away with it. Now where is that rant about how the Conservatives are such a danger?

Actually they all said we could get away with it. I'm not sure why the website that was linked to said that Scalia/Thomas/Rehnquist dissented, but they didn't. Scalia authored a concurring opinion which Thomas and Rehnquist joined, and Ginsburg authored a concurring opinion which Bryer joined.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

What gets me is not so much that the US Supreme Court accepted it, they must have done so on the basis of their interpretation of the law as it was and is. I'm more concerned that the Congress hasn't seen fit to change the law to explicitly prohibit kidnapping of foreign nationals (or US nationals for that matter) where formal extradition processes either didn't work (eg Mexico won't send an alleged murderer back to a jurisdiction where the death penalty may be invoked) or where there is no extradition treaty. I mean, that's not justice, that's bloody piracy.

The exclusionary rules concerning booting evidence out where it's obtained in contravention of the law in the US are excruciating in their detail but here, where someone is kidnapped and dragged back to the States then it's consider quite acceptable? Gimme a break. Congress should realise that that Dog (pun intended) ain't gonna hunt.

Sheez, Dee. Why do you persist in expecting a reasoned response, characteristic of a people capable of dispassionate introspection/self-criticism, in this mutual admiration cyber society?

The only way there would have been the outrage at your post, that you obviously and quite correctly expected, would have been if, say, the Russian Supreme Court was turning a blind eye to the KGB kidnapping American citizens.

Hey, did you see that Fran Bailey, the sitting Liberal member in McEwen, got rolled by the Labor candidate by 7 (seven!) votes

"Free beer for all the workers, when the Red Revolution comes...!"

 

[eots]

IMO, too much time has been given over to the inflated importance of bin Laden. I guess you think Bush should go over and personally lead the manhunt?

But what is the difference between capturing and whisking away to the US OBL and any other foreign national? None.

I think I'll stick with the case-by-case opinion.

And this court hasn't trampled any of our rights any more or less than the last one did.

wow that was exactly the spin the White house and fox put on the bin laden situation to mute the lack of his capture and another nice fox spin by making a ridiculous statement like expecting bush to lead the search party and try a connect it with the logical and reasonable question of if bin laden is indeed responsible for Mass murder why has justice not been served...nice work