I am no lawyer. Let me make that clear. Rendition (kidnapping) that is done in collaboration with local officials and 'in accordance with international law' still has some degree of taint as to being illegal. If the argument is that it merely takes extra time and inconvenience to go throught the legal motions, is that suffieicnt reason to say that those obligations do not need to be adhered to?

Are we actually able to judge that things are being done in accordance with international law anyway, when the nature of the rendition process is that of secrecy? The offical position is usually one of denial, or in the infamous words of Gonzalez, "I don't recall". Can we rely on Richard Clarke presenting actual facts, or is he simply expressing his 'offical' understandiong of what has happened?

Renditions are done below the radar, outside the view of the public. The reason for this is suspicious. One has to wonder whether or not this is because the actions are not legal. What reason to hide what you are doing except that you are trying to not get caught, or to cover something up? Expediting the law frequently means breaking the law.

The other problem that everyone always seems to forget is that all of those who are 'rendered', and never given access to the court system, are presumed to be guilty rather than innocent. This is the exact opposite of what the common judicial practice is supposed to be. And as is frequently being found, many of these people, when you examine their cases, are not guilty of anything except being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

When the state resorts to hiding its actions, then you are in danger of losing what little you have left in the way of democracy. It is not hard to imagine that any one of us could be on the receiving end of an 'official' rendition.

You sound like a lawyer. Here is another one for you to ponder. Consider the case of a man wanted in Venezuela to answer to charges of a criminal act causing destruction of an airliner. Wanted man in the USA. I am unaware if the USA has an extradition treaty with Venezuela, but the US refuses to extradite anyway. Does Venezuela have the right to 'render' him?

must be getting a good laugh about this today. I argued in the past that if he were not impeached, then the next president would have license to do exactly the same, and continue the commission of crimes against the people. It is hard to see where this can lead, except that there are still other countries where these criminals can be brought to trial. In Britain, they are likely to face their comeuppance sooner than here in North America.

It will take an unprecedented revolution of thought and action from the masses to change the system, or else some hero who is willing to be sacrifed in order to change the world. Who might it be, and when will he/she step forward?

I must say I admire your tenacity. Keep at them.

I must say that I am almost beginning to applaud the mainstream press. The opinions that are promulgated are so inaccurate that they will almost certainly lead to its demise. Only when people can see the lies that are put forth to such a degree, can they shed the blinkers that have kept them chained for so long. The media will be the authors of the destruction of the current system as we know it. As always, best wishes...

Today's thread is fascinating! My first observation: You do not usually stay in the thick of things and comment for so long. This topic must really raise your ire. Number two, it is possible to see the point made by Milton, and perhaps to expand, it may be useful for Obama to have his DOJ exhaust all its possibilities, by getting into really frivolous appeals so that it becomes clear to everyone that the DOJ position is untenable. Perhaps then the judiciary will be forced to rule against the Bush model of state secrecy. The other important point is that Obama is not really in control of all the dirty beauraucrats that Bush left in power. He may be watching carefully to see who he will be able to trust in the future, and who he will have to turf over the side.

If the stakes were not so high, I would enjoy the intrigue more. As it is, the USA is certainly on the precipice of tyrannical rule. Democracy seems to be a thing of the distant past. Even in Britain, the cloak of democratic ideals is beginning to look quite threadbare. Eventually there will be a silver lining, though. The question is, when... Cheers!

Other countries may feel some obligation to expose and prosecute the Crimes of the Bush administration, even if Obama and the American elites do not. After all, there are many countries that are signatories to all those international treaties that prohibit war crimes, etc.

George Bush is supposed to be coming to Calgary, in Alberta, Canada, to lecture on March 17th. I advocate for him not to be let across the border into Canada, or for him to be arrested when he gets here, and taken to the Hague. A grassroots effort needs to take off that will haunt him and the other criminals til they get the judicial trails that they deserve. Who is with me?