It's surreal to read written arguments defending an "extraordinary rendition" using the military in terms of domestic criminal cases. And to so plainly state that international law ought not apply to the leader of the free world, effectively because we think we can and our interests come first, is distressing. If this is an "arrest" of a "fugitive", to keep with the DOJ analogy, it should be subject to the laws of its jurisdiction. Not the laws of whomever has air superiority.
> ... international law does not prevent [us] ... from ... arrest[ing] individuals [residing in a foreign state] for violations of United States law.
God, that's chilling.
> Congress has declined to amend relevant statutes to deny the Executive the ability to engage in rendition.
> Congress's continued appropriation of funds to the agencies known to engage in the practice should be taken as (at minimum) acquiescence.
So, because our Congress can't pass a bill handed from God himself unless it fills their coffers, we're silently consenting to this baloney?
And I get that legal precedence is a thing, but we shouldn't be looking at military operations in Haiti, or Libya, or Iraq as justification for more international shit-stirring. It's a slippery slope.
Albeit semantics, rebranding to the War Department is not good optics if one intends receive said department's advice before carrying out "a use of force that ... does not rise to the level of war in a constitutional sense". This nonsense is maddening.
hackingonempty|1 month ago
0hijinks|1 month ago
> ... international law does not prevent [us] ... from ... arrest[ing] individuals [residing in a foreign state] for violations of United States law.
God, that's chilling.
> Congress has declined to amend relevant statutes to deny the Executive the ability to engage in rendition.
> Congress's continued appropriation of funds to the agencies known to engage in the practice should be taken as (at minimum) acquiescence.
So, because our Congress can't pass a bill handed from God himself unless it fills their coffers, we're silently consenting to this baloney?
And I get that legal precedence is a thing, but we shouldn't be looking at military operations in Haiti, or Libya, or Iraq as justification for more international shit-stirring. It's a slippery slope.
Albeit semantics, rebranding to the War Department is not good optics if one intends receive said department's advice before carrying out "a use of force that ... does not rise to the level of war in a constitutional sense". This nonsense is maddening.
ranger_danger|1 month ago
That statement can be true if there is an extradition treaty though, which I think most countries have with the US. Assange faced the same problem.
SanjayMehta|1 month ago
josefritzishere|1 month ago