So Farragut endorses the treatment given to Mohammed Jawad?

Not only that, Mr. Tough Guy super-genius is apparently untroubled that the Bush administration has failed to prosecute the two guys who actually did unlawfully attack and injure the US soldiers.

Why do you hate our men and women in uniform, Farragut?

It doesn't really matter that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery because . . . he isn't really president!

Because he didn't recite the oath of office correctly!!

In Glenn's hypothetical I think the interests of justice are best served by OBL's rendition to the US to stand trial for his involvement in 9/11 and any other illegal activities for which there is probable cause to suspect him.

That way, a person who probably orchestrated the deaths of 3000 civilians is brought to justice (assuming Obama does away with Guantanamo and tribunals).

I think that scenario is quite preferable to 1) trying to drop a bomb on him which we know from experience has a high likelihood of missing or taking a bunch of innocent lives with him (or both) and 2) letting him get away.

Need a clarification:

In your hypothetical, you say Pakistan is "unwilling or unable" to capture OBL and provide him to US authorities. But are they consenting to us going in and grabbing him for the purpose of extraditing him to the US, or are they opposed?

If they consent I don't think there's much of an issue. If they are opposed, then your hypothetical becomes more controversial.

Whether it's Osama or one of his lieutenants, or Ahmadinejad or simply someone you personally detest (bush?), is irrelevant. The point is YOU have now set yourself up as the extralegal judge or star chamber which authorizes itself to break the law because it has decided this person or that one is too dangerous to apprehend or extradite legally.

Let me ask you: what legitimate reason does Pakistan have - in the scenario where they do not consent to extraditing OBL by normal routes - to refuse extradition? When the US has 1) made it clear OBL will get a full, fair trial in the US, and 2) the US has made it clear that they are prepared to strike militarily to try to take him out, putting innocent lives at stake and creating the possibility that one of the most notorious murderers in the world can continue to elude justice?

Just because it may be wrong to disregard Pakistan's position does not mean Pakistan's position is not more wrong, on balance. I don't think there's an easy answer to this (although it's obviously not a hard call for me) which is why I think it's an excellent hypo.

Glenn: thanks for the clarification -- though I don't think there's much of a controversy unless Pakistan does not consent to extradition.

What possible relevance does a marijuana case have to the hypothetical we are discussing?

I pray you do not think a weed case is the same thing as 9/11.

Pakistan simply has the right to say no, end of story.

Unfortunately, it is not the end of the story. Pakistan says no. The US bombs the area in Pakistan they believe OBL to be. They miss him, because Pakistani authorities have tipped him off and he has moved, but end up killing innocent civilians.

Or, we don't strike, and OBL just continues to elude justice. What possibly legitimate rationale can Pakistan offer for either of these outcomes?

You think it is perfectly acceptable for a corrupt regime to harbor a mass-murderer of 3000 innocent civilians? Forget international law for a second. In what moral or ethical universe does that make any sense?

Yes, i agree, laws are meaningless if the President decides he has the moral (if not legal) authority to do what's right. Great plan, that always works out well.

I'm sure German law in 1944 frowned upon foreign armies invading their occupied territories.

Are you saying we should not have ordered the invasion of Normandy?

In the first place, we have never proven Bin Laden did the 9-11 job. He claimed he did not do it. We could have tried him, but we don't have the evidence so we never have put him on trial.

That is incorrect. Bin Laden initially denied ordering 9/11 but in 2004 he reversed himself and admitted to directing the attacks.

I think the really big point that the people who are disagreeing with me here are missing is that harboring a wanted criminal suspect is illegal. I don't know but I'm pretty sure it's illegal under Pakistani law.

It can't be argued that there is not legitimate evidence to bring OBL to trial for 9/11. There is, that's just a fact, and if you don't believe me, you should do some research.

People who are arguing that we wouldn't have a right to snatch OBL must square that argument with the fact that Pakistan would also be wrong to harbor bin Laden.

Those who contend that the U.S. would have the right to "render" Osama bin Laden from Pakistan in my example should address whether Afghanistan (or Iraq, or any other country whose citizens were tortured by the U.S.) would have the same right with regard to George Bush.

In principle, yes. I think the question becomes whether the nation or body requesting rendition has a justice system that guarantees human rights. I'm not sure about Afghanistan and Iraq, not knowing much about their systmes of justice.

By the same token, I do not believe we would have the right to snatch bin Laden just to torture him in Gitmo or subject him to a military kangaroo tribunal - only to try him in a constitutional court.

I think if Bush was indicted on legitimate evidence by, say, the International Court, then I think we would be obligated to extradite him. Yes.