Why don’t they bring “suit” in the world court at the Hague. Wouldn’t that be more appropriate venue for their underlying “cause”?

It’s all about the “game” they play deconstructing institutions and traditions “they” (who are they anyways?) don’t agree with. It has absolutely nothing to do with law OR principle. God forbid you apply a little commonsense or (shudder)morality to any argument. Why do they do it? Because they can and have…with some success I might add.

Who funds these folks? What kind of a fool would personally fund such an organization?

B2

Hat tip: The Political Pitbull
The leftwing blogs and MSM are celebrating the latest from the ACLU! Crooks and Liars has a video
NY Times German man sued former CIA Director George Tenet and other U.S. spy agency officials on Tuesday for wrongful i…

Seriously: This is an area full of misgivings for me, full of deepening shades of grey. I would not have it that we became indistinguishable from that which we fight against, to supplant one kind of absolutist tyranny for another. And yet…

And yet, if the federal constable has reason to believe that a foreign citizen is actively a member of a international terrorist organization in an avowed and apparent state of war with the United States and its citizens, and sees the fleeting opportunity to (arrest? kidnap?) take him into custody while in a third country, should he decline to do so, or seek permission? What if that third country has given him permission to do so? What if his naturalized country has permitted it? What if neither will admit it, for reasons of state?

Is it evil in intent to have been found wrong in fact if the constable errs in good faith? Is it evil to make a mistake, when the penalty for not acting can be so very severe?

These “renditions” are not per se extrajudicial – they are unusual and therefore should be subject to greater scrutiny, I suppose. But I do find the implicit assumption behind the political histrionics – that America is somehow the root of all evil, rather than those who slit throats and crash airplanes into skyscrapers – deeply offensive.

Whether we leave these questions up to law enforcement tends to questions of motive, ultimately: I believe that those who we are trying to capture are trying to kill us, while those who are trying to capture them are trying to protect us.

Others may disagree, I suppose.

Do we really want to allow the charge of terrorism to be a blank check, as it were, for law enforcement? Do we really want to leave use of this power up to the discretion of law enforcement?