You are completely missing the point. Your suggestion above does not solve the problem. By going the diplomatic route you presumably tip off the fugitive that he has been located so he can disappear again, which is exactly what happened in the case of KSM which Richard Clarke described. The 9/11 attacks may have been averted is we had done what I am urging, instead of what you prefer.

So what? If KSM flees the country, he has to go somewhere else, right? Maybe we could get him at his new location. Just because you meet some resistance doesn't give you carte blanch to go in and get the guy.

You go through the proper procedures. Then, if you get the guy, you can feel good about it. Also, it breeds respect internationally, which makes cooperation more likely in the future. Going and taking people in other countries by force is usually resented.

Finally, it ultimately protects US citizens and residents from the same treatment. If we respect other nation's sovereignty, they are more likely to respect ours.

Dude, don't "what if blah blah" me - you're the one who, in the paragraph above, advocated "hell, even start a war" instead of rendition. That's a great idea: invade a country and kill their people so that we may respect their sovereignty. Did you think any of this through before posting? And if the guy is innocent he should get acquitted - remember, we're arguing rendition to give someone a trial, not to put them in a black hole.

I didn't mean to insult you, I'm just tired of the what if? game. What if the guy was going to kill a million people? Then obviously you'd want to get him. But in the real world, you never have that kind of certainty. And my fear of governments abusing their power to simply grab people and make them disappear is greater than my fear of some muslim fanatic living in a cave somewhere.

Regarding the start a war comment - you asked, if you can't rendition, then what? I was answering the question, but the answer depends on the situation. As I mentioned in a previous post, if a particular country is harboring terrorists and actively helping them plan and carry out attacks on your country, then a declaration of war against them seems pretty reasonable to me. I never meant that instead of rendering a person of interest we should simply send in the army.

Anyway, the idea that a war may be avoided by rendition isn't so far-fetched: I can think of one, possibly two wars that we are fighting now which might have been avoided if we had just grabbed KSM when we had the chance, instead of giving Qatar the heads up.

If you're referring to Iraq and Afghanistan, you're totally guessing. Even if we had nabbed KSM in Qatar, that does not mean 9/11 would have been avoided. Perhaps, and perhaps not. Secondly, it is the US who bears responsibility for those wars, which were unjustified to begin with. Just because we get hit by a terrorist, that doesn't give us the right to start invading other nations. Anti-terrorism is a job for law enforcement, not the military.

>>And my fear of governments abusing their power to simply grab people and make them disappear is greater than my fear of some muslim fanatic living in a cave somewhere.

-- zeroworker

You're still not understanding the difference between Rendition for the purpose of trial, as opposed to "Extraordinary Rendition" for the purpose of torturing and or disappearing?

You are correct to bring up the distinction, and I apologize for the "make them disappear" language.

But, in the end, it doesn't matter. I oppose grabbing someone from another country, without that country's permission, even if you give them a trial later.

First off, it's OK with me not to extradite someone if the punishment in the country where the crime has been committed is too severe. Some european countries will not extradite criminals to the US unless the US promises to take the death penalty off the table. Good for them. Refusing to extradite someone to a country that engages in torture would be another good example.

Secondly, it's entirely possible for governments to go after people for political reasons. Even if the evidence against someone is flimsy, but there is a public outcry to get him or her because, for whatever reason, public opinion is convinced he or she is guilty, then extradition may not be warranted.

And finally, the possibilities for outright abuse are too great. If the US can pluck anyone off the street and bring them here for trial, it's just too much power in the hands of the government. Even if you rule out kangaroo courts (which, in practice, you can't do, especially lately in the US), it is still a major imposition on someone else's life. If ultimately ruled innocent, that person would have been forcefully taken away from his/her life (family and friends), for who knows how long, put in a cell or some kind of detention while awaiting and during trial, at the very least. Who knows what kind of financial damage they might suffer from lost business, loss of their home back home due to not paying the rent, whatever.

Not acceptable.

This exact argument could be made about all U.S. arrests, even domestic ones, and, actually, about all arrests by anyone, anywhere. It has nothing to do with renditions. Are you opposed to all apprehension then? How does that fit with the rule of law?

LondonLad basically covered my response already, so I'll just add one more tidbit. I've repeatedly stated over many posts that it's OK to get someone in a foreign country to come stand trial in the US as long as you have the permission of the foreign country. But without that permission, it should not be allowed.