Rendition...

Let's suppose that we have a known terrorist in a country hostile to the US without an extradition treaty. That his capture would violate some international law. Let's suppose there is no question of torture involved. What do we do?

From my original post:

"I believe torture is wrong. I know that the information obtained is often useless. I believe when the US tortures innocents, it is terrible for our moral image in the world."

Everyone seems to be ignoring the many times I said in my original post that I thought torture was morally and strategically wrong.

Personally, I would have a more passionate, and perhaps irrational, reaction. I had a good friend killed in Tower Two. I'm still angry about it. That's why I have little patience with terrorists. It's an emotional response I know, but a valid one.

Before 9/11... the people attacking the US used to mock our laws and due process as weak and ineffectual. This is a fact. So my question is... how do we deal with that? You are facing an enemy that exploits that as weakness.

@PDA... terrorists by their nature try to inflict the maximum of harm on innocent people. While I agree many guilty go free because of due process, and you mention murder, most murders are not random events and involve only one other person... does the fact that one individual with a suitcase nuke can take out a city up the anti so much that the equations of due process need to be reevaluated?

@omooex... I agree that US policy has been terrible and the US is not guiltless... that does not justify 9/11. I would add to your observations that Palestinians are not guiltless either. I believe yes... let's start first with ourselves... but sometimes the correct political decision is to deal from strength. Bush was an unmitigated disaster... this does not mean we should now veer off too far in the other direction.

@bamage... Hugh?

"If there is no question of torture involved, it becomes like the PDD-39 rendition that the Clinton administration practiced as long as the goal is to put the person on trial."

So then you would be ok with that? There are instances where you believe the US should ignore international law?

"No we're not, you ignored it in your original post when you set up a hypothetical that plays "the lawyer and the whore" scenario as an argument."

I was trying to distinguish personal feelings I thought were a 'sin', therefore my confession, from public policy. Believe me... I felt the same disgust looking at those pictures of Abu Ghraib that I'm sure you did. But would I punch a guys lights out attacking my family? You bet. These guys make me angry. That is a fact. Does that justify cruelty? No.

"You don't seem to mind cruelty when you feel justified, am I right?"

No... I do mind it. I was asking just what is justified. Is this something we need to confront? We agree Bush policy went too far. You seem to say what Clinton did was ok. I think that even Clinton played a little with rendition sending them to countries where he knew they would be roughed up no?

"It's one of those things you learn in grade school, about "Sticks and stones can break my bones..."

No... the weakness of the US was used to recruit. see 'Ghost Wars' by Steve Coll for an excellent pre 9/11 history.

"I don't think you're genuine. I don't believe you really walked into this moral dilemma by reading Glenn's column today while watching the Bali bombers on CNN. I think you came to prove the ticking bomb scenario to us."

Sorry but that is exactly how it happened. I had CNN on in the background and was reading Glenn at the same time. I don't know how i can prove that to you... but there you go.

Ok... how about five guys flying a plane into a building and killing 3,000+ people?

And while your jokes are cute... and the suitcase nuke is an exaggeration, for now (but sadly not the bomb on a boat)... the dirty bomb scenario is quite real. That's still one guy with a suitcase...

Technology has changed terrorism. Just sayin'...

"No-one has a monopoly on outrage over 9/11, slancio103"

No, of course not. I was merely pointing out these feelings were for personal reasons... not claiming to be the only one.

You are right of course. I agree with all of your points at the end of your post.

But why do I have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that it won't be enough? Your certitude is enviable.

So... you would be against rendition under any circumstance?

"Thank you. Yes, it's a good book. No it does not say that U.S. observance of the rule of law was instrumental in recruiting terrorists. Actually, it describes a large U.S. intelligence screw up over 22 years. It does not give pretext for torture."

I seem to remember a quote about US weakness in reference to law... sorry I don't have the book here. The main thrust of it is as you say. Could I be thinking of 'The Looming Tower'? Maybe...

@PDA... who says anything about perfect safety? Don't you think that we should be thinking about what sorts of plans terrorists could be plotting against the US... and what the best way to confront those threats is? President Elect Obama has said there are areas of security... one of them being the Ports... he is not happy with.

Guess there's a reason never to confess in public!