USA says it has the right to kidnap people in foreign countries

[Wezil]

Good question. We have bail but not bondsmen. If you flee it is your money lost (our your family's money...).

[Elok]

Words cannot express how utterly I fail to give a rat's arse about Dog the Bounty Hunter and his reality-show based Mexican invasions. He shouldn't do it, neither should we, that's all.

[DanS]

I have no problem with substance of this law. IMO, the real problem lies in the difficulty of utilizing this law uniformly. If it's a respectable law, it should be utilized equally to arrest terrorists in Afghanistan and bankers in the City. If some remain free, while others are arrested, the question is begged of whether there is favoritism under the law being shown.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by BeBro
No wonder our population isn't growing

[snoopy369]

Something can be legal in the US and illegal in another country... so if we kidnapped a foreign national for prosecution in the US, the kidnapper would now be a criminal in the other country but not here.

I personally think they were just answering a question about what was in theory possible, not what we actually would do. Lawyers like that sort of discussion

[Riesstiu IV]

It's not "kidnapping", but rather freedom detainment time. In fact, they should be thankful more than anything. People struggle all their lives to get into this country and we give them an immediate opportunity to enter with government escorts. What an honor.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov Here's to small countries like Israel

Hey now, we didn't kidnap the guy. And I'm not really sure if we poisoned him, actually.

[Vesayen]

Please don't lump the behavior of Bush with "Americans".

We hate him as much as you limey bastards do.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Vesayen
We hate him as much as you limey bastards do.

limey?

Is this now a general purpose euphemism for the rest of the world?

[Alinestra Covelia]

This is an interesting issue of International Law, which I'm studying this semester.

It has been recognized that a state can assert claims against an individual for damages done against it. It also has been recognized that a state can extend its own jurisdiction against an individual even if that individual is not physically on that state's territory (provided that the individual's activities have an effect on that state, or that a substantial part of the preparation and planning occurred in that state's territory).

It's fuzzier whether or not a state is allowed to capture or forcibly remove somebody against their will from another state's territory. The Israeli secret service was able to capture Adolf Eichmann from Argentina, and the Israeli high court ruled that an illegal arrest does not remove the case from the court's jurisdiction (because the jurisdiction existed already even before the arrest occurred).

In the aftermath of the Yugoslavian breakup, there was a Serbian leader whose name I forget [Edit: His name was Slavko Dokmanovic] who was wanted for war crimes and genocide. They tricked him into submitting himself to their jurisdiction by sending a car to pick him up and fabricating a discussion about an unrelated deal.

Once in the car, he was under arrest. There was no question of his consent at trial, because he willingly entered the car even if for the wrong reasons.

So the bottom line seems to be that use of force to arrest somebody against their will APPEARS to be a legal act in some cases. And use of duplicity to arrest somebody with their mistaken consent is almost always legal.

As a note, the Israeli officers sent to kidnap Eichmann originally had a back up plan if they were discovered, in that they would secure him to themselves with handcuffs and make a confession to the Argentine officials. Later at the trial in Israel, it was considered to be an important issue that Argentina never lodged any official juridical complaint against his arrest.

If Argentina had complained about it, it may have extended the analysis in the courtroom.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


limey?

Is this now a general purpose euphemism for the rest of the world?

No, just for the British.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by onodera

Hey now, we didn't kidnap the guy.

Much more effective

And I'm not really sure if we poisoned him, actually.

Of course not.

It was those evil anti-Kremlin oligarchs, that want Russia to appear dictatorial.

You know, the same ones that falsified election results in Chechnya to be 99% in favor of Putin, just to make him look like a dictator.

[Sirotnikov]

As a note, the Israeli officers sent to kidnap Eichmann originally had a back up plan if they were discovered, in that they would secure him to themselves with handcuffs and make a confession to the Argentine officials. Later at the trial in Israel, it was considered to be an important issue that Argentina never lodged any official juridical complaint against his arrest.

I read that during the payback for Munich 72 Olympics, all the Mossad assassin teams carried documents with evidence implicating the assassination target in crime, just in case they were caught.

[Dinner]

Bush is acting crazy again.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
I can't believe that you are still surprised by hypocritical behavior of the Bush Administration.

Fixed to reflect reality. If it matters most Americans hate Bush too as his approval rating was down to 25% last I saw.