No. If Pakistan deliberately refused to turn over for trial someone who attacked the U.S. and planned to do so again, we would not be the "aggressor" by entering that country to apprehend him for trial.

All laws of war recognize self-defense as a legitimate grounds for war.

I'm not a lawyer, but this just doesn't sound right. This sounds like preventive war (like we waged on Iraq), not self-defense. Self-defense as I understand it requires you to be in imminent danger - i.e., actually under attack. Those kinds of distinctions are usually very important legally.

So what would you do -- specifically -- under the scenario where Pakistan refuses to turn over OBL for trial where we are convinced he is responsible for 9/11 and is plotting another similar attack? Nothing?

This isn't right. Your options aren't limited to a military operation to grab him and doing nothing. You take your case to the UN, you go on a PR blitz against Pakistan, you make sure you get sanctions against Pakistan from all your allies, you put as much heat on them as possible. Isolate them internationally.

This kind of pressure usually works. Even if not right away, then over time as sanctions bite and Pakistan suffers the consequences of being a pariah nation.

If worst comes to worst, and there is another attack which can be reasonably attributed to OBL, then I'd be OK with a declaration of war on Pakistan.

Where do you come down on this hypothetical? Sounds like you're willing to send in the Marines, at least that's my guess from your blog entry.

Assuming I'm right, are you OK with a foreign mission to nab someone in the US?

Bottom line with all these hypotheticals - follow the law, it's there for a reason. The law may not be well suited for some kind of new situation that may arise, but the course of action to take in these cases is simple.

CHANGE.....THE......LAW.

Violating the law just makes a mockery of the whole legal system - why have laws if you are just going to violate them when it suits you?

The alternative, of course, is the rule of man, or might makes right. This scares me a lot more than OBL remaining a free man in Pakistan.

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

No, of course not.

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

You claimed that Pakistan was more wrong to want to keep OBL despite American assurances that he was responsible for 9/11. I say, Pakistan is a sovereign country, and can do what it damn well pleases as long as OBL is living inside Pakistan. That's what SOVEREIGN means, after all.

The point of my hypothetical was to offer up a case where you, or if not you, many people, would NOT favor extradition. The case of the dope smoking student might be such a case because getting the chair for taking a hit is pretty harsh punishment. At least most Americans would think so, IMHO. The hypothetical assumes the student is guilty, and would get a fair trial.

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?

Pakistan simply has the right to say no, end of story. The person is living in their territory.

Here's a hypothetical for you.

An American university student scores some marijuana while overseas (say, for lack of anything better, Singapore) from a local student. He takes a hit, then offers some to another Singaporese student.

Assume further that the penalty for offering illegal drugs to another person is punishable by death in Singapore. Should the US extradite the young man back the Singapore (assuming this all came to light after he arrived safely back in the US)? The Singapore authorities have promised to give the young man a fair trial.

I don't think much of Glenn's hypothetical. I agree with an earlier poster - you follow the law, and if you don't like current law, you work to change it for the cases you're interested in.

Otherwise, you're simply left with might makes right.

A good example of "the system being irrevocably corrupted" argument can be found in Chris Hedges' (not to be confused with Hitchens) column on Truthdig today entitled "It’s Not Going to Be OK". He's basically resigned to the “fact” America as we know it is over, so lets wait until the apes get here and rename NYC the Forbidden Zone... People seem to be outdoing themselves in seeing who can predict the most dire, irrevocable outcome to the current economic clusterfuck.

Whatever - the facts are the facts, and the facts say the future is (almost certainly) grim. The planet will warm whether or not you are optimistic.

Glenn was talking about the differences between the two parties, anyway. I agree and disagree. Of course there are differences. The question is whether or not they are merely cosmetic. The answer depends on the issue at stake.

Will it make a difference in your tax rates? Yes. In whether or not there is massive lawbreaking a la Bush? Yes. So, differences, and meaningful ones.

Will either party save us from climate change? No. Will either party dismantle capitalism and work towards a sustainable economy? No. So, no difference.