Where we the people do have a direct vote nationally is the legislative branch by voting directly for our senators and representatives who populate Congress. This obsession with the President is partly the problem, IMO, with nothing getting done because a large part of the populace erroneously thinks that what amounts to a political statement is somehow going to affect real change in terms of power. Instead, it’s a bait-and-switch tactic by the mass media and the corporations who control them to lure people away from how to really get things done.

Dennis Kucinich has the nuts to actually put forth articles of impeachment for what are most definitely war crimes and treasonous acts. Unfortunately, the Congressional representatives that Democratic Party voters voted in to do something about the war and the worst abuses of this Presidential administration are, for the most part, doing nothing about them, such as Pelosi, Feinstein.. pretty much all of them. Probably, this is to avoid rocking the boat to assure a smooth transfer of power to Hillary and her minions, who are just going to give us more of the same except with slightly less warmongering rhetoric.

Bottom line: talk to your Congress critters. Send them emails, signed letters and organize with other people to pressure them to bear out your will as that is their job. All this talk about the dog and pony show that is Presidential politics is not getting us anywhere – go back to your Civics classes and understand how the political process works before you no longer have that option.

Here’s the question: are we prepared to let foreign countries kidnap people in the United States — no extradition hearings, just grab ‘em and run — if that country says afterward that they’ve been accused or convicted of crimes under the laws back home?

I can’t imagine the answer is anything but “no.” And if that’s the case, then we don’t have the right to do it to them, either.

But suppose we decided it was acceptable. Under that system, how would we distinguish between (1.) a legal kidnapping carried out by agents of a foreign country’s judicial system, and (2.) a private kidnapping by thugs hired to grab (say) a wealthy ex-wife who’s bailed on a bad marriage and is fighting to keep control of her dowry property?

The answer is that there’s no way we could tell. It isn’t a legal procedure; it’s a kidnapping. It’s only established as a legal procedure after the fact, when that other country’s court system says that that’s what it was. We could complain at that point, but if the person in question has been taken to that country and is in the hands of their courts, we’ll have bleep-all leverage. If their courts didn’t say it was legal, the kidnapped person would still be in unfriendly hands in a foreign country. It’s just not good.

As Noen explained, Mr. Tollman successfully fought extradition in the Canadian courts. It was already clear that the US was trying to dodge Canadian extradition laws, which means they can’t have had a good case.

Throwing in the part about how no US court can rule that an abduction was illegal and free the prisoner is (1.) pretty much an abrogation of our entire legal structure; (2.) further indication that their case wouldn’t stand up under scrutiny; and (3.) an insanely bad legal precedent, since it doesn’t allow for the correction of errors.

Don’t let anyone tell you this is legit. We went to war in 1812 over less.

In other words, a rejection of the rule of law, the whole concept of international law, and of the rights of sovereign nations. We can do what we want, ’cause you can’t stop us.

If you don’t cooperate (are you listening, Frenchie? You too, you Paki bastards!) then you, too, are the enemy.

I mean, we could try the other approach, which is to assume that the laws of the United States apply in the United Kingdom. Where should we send the summons to Elizabeth Windsor for the hearing on tax evasion? She seems to have utterly failed to file a 1040 at any point in her life . . .

After all, the US has got a very favourable extradition treaty with the UK and it can lawfully demand the extradition of wanted people.

If the US is going to cut corners in bringing people to trial, the proceedings have no legitimacy.

Also, payback’s a mofo, yo. If it’s OK for us to do it, we can’t really object to them doing too. Let’s watch the Chinese grab some expatriate dissidents, or the Saudis chase down some errant wives. Good entertainment for all!

OK, but it clearly did violate British law, and kidnapping isn’t one of those slap-on-the-wrist offences. I presume there’s a fairly broad extradition treaty between the US and UK. What would happen if the UK gov’t filed charges, and formally sought extradition?

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Yes, this in Britain, but the Constitution applies to the government, and I notice it says “people”, not citizen there. The Constitution uses citizen in very few places.

–Trey Parker

It’s legal because if the president say it’s legal, it is. That’s what makes Empire so much fun.

There has been a coup. The criminal gang in the White House are guilty of crimes, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I hope you’re under the impression that this was a clandestine operation involving parachutes, night vision and several black helicopters. I hope that about everyone who has said something nasty about the US because of this article…

The guy went to Canada, the Canadians where told to hold him and they did (which is presumably legal under Canadian law), then Cory wrote a post that sounds really terrible, but if you think about it for a minute is completely reasonable.

“Canadians where told to hold him and they did (which is presumably legal under Canadian law)”

Try again.

Ottawa Citizen
Mr. Tollman successfully fought an attempt to extradite him in a quiet court case last year, when a judge slammed the actions of U.S. officials and made an exceptional ruling of “abuse of process,” after a trail of e-mails and notes made clear their attempt to avoid Canadian extradition laws.

The reason that you have treaties with other nations is because if you run around violating their laws things can escalate into open hostilities. Of course, if you think you are sent by God to save the world, that you have no obligation to respect any other nation, that you have the right to do whatever you want… and you have the power to back that up. That has another name. It’s called Imperialism.

The US rejects the UN as being contrary to national sovereignty….unless, of course, we want to ram something down someone’s throat (ie. WTO, WIPO, etc.).

Instead of negotiating with countries for their natural resources, or to defuse a potentially dangerous situation, the US goes to war with them instead (ie. Iraq, Iran, sabre-rattling on N. Korea). In some cases, like Venezuela, the US tries engineering a coup instead.

Finally, the US has just now acknowledged that it can kidnap citizens of other countries with impunity, despite a formal process for requesting their extradition.

So…why does the US have a State Department anymore? It seems like they’ve all but abandoned diplomacy as a means of policy change. I haven’t seen Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell doing anything to advance the cause of diplomacy (except when it’s to put a multilateral face on a US-prosecuted war). So why even bother? To fool other countries into thinking the US is still committed to diplomacy? You’d have to be a complete moron of a world leader to believe that the US wants to negotiate with countries in good faith.

The US is an empire. The sooner they admit to that, the better.

PS to Mods: Would it be possible to get HTML list tags (ul, ol, li) on the approved list?

Oh, another thing: when you finally decide to nuke us, I would like to request that you email me in advance so I and my cats can flee to Canada. Thanks!

I imagine the same thing would happen as when Italy filed charges and formally sought extradition. That is to say, nothing.

No I’m pretty sure the post is about the quote “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.” which is understandable and reasonable if you think for a second.

Why should a court care about foreign laws that where broken when procuring a person charged with a crime in their locality? does a crime simply disappear when a law in another country is broken? Where in the world would a court not be legally allowed to continue with a case because the person charged with a crime was brought forth contrary to a law in another country?

I definitely have a problem with it not going through the official diplomatic channels, but that a law doesn’t exist in the US that says something to the effect of “since the Canadians who handed you over broke a Canadian law, we wont here this case” isn’t surprising in the least, and I seriously doubt it would be different anywhere else in the world.

If another nation made the equivalent claim–if, say, Saudi Arabia claimed that it had the right to snatch people off the streets of Washington and take them to Riyadh to punish them for blasphemy or bank robbery–Americans would be outraged.

I think someone needs to build a website where Americans who feel this way (as I do) can sign their names, and make it clear to the rest of the world that we’re doing the best we can, via our totally broken and corrupt political process, to take our country back from these fascists.

(Though we might want to change that name.)