Would you cheer a "snatch and grab" if it brought war criminals to justice?

[Arctic Dave]

I ask in light of recent news stories about how the US used flawed legal advice to justify torture and other crimes.

Bonus question: Would you participate in an a "snatch and grab" to bring a war criminal to justice?

[Cleita]

1. Not really. The ends never justifies the means, never. n/t

[atreides1]

5. Really?

Then what about Eichmann?

Wasn't that justified?

[Cleita]

9. Nope, because he was kidnapped not extradited. I know everyone thought it was the right

thing to do but when it's your guy who gets kidnapped and put on trial somewhere you might see what I'm talking about. What if Prez Obama is kidnapped by some ME nation unfriendly to us like Iran and puts him on trial for war crimes? What would you think then?

[Arctic Dave]

11. What if he was convicted in abstentia in the Hague or ICC?

[Cleita]

15. As I said answering you on your other post, it seems we would have

a duty to extradite him, but would we? Our government is very corrupt but it still doesn't give other governments like the Netherlands the right to kidnap him and the Hague understands that very well.

[Arctic Dave]

19. What would be your opinion if the people doing it were from the same country

as the convicted and turned them over to the authorities to serve their sentence?

[Juche]

30. You're comparing Obama to Eichmann?

The same Eichmann who engineered the holocaust?

If a US official is guilty of major war crimes, then I could care less if India or Russia sends soldiers to kidnap him on US territory. Just as long as the prosecutions are not politically motivated and are for real abuses.

If Obama engineers a holocaust that kills 12 million people, then I will offer his kidnappers (who bring him to trial somewhere) donuts and pepsi, and will greet them as liberators.

[EFerrari]

33. She's comparing extra legal use of force, kidnapping, to kidnapping.

You either have the rule of law or you don't. Or you just say you do and are a Republican. :silly:

[Juche]

40. I don't agree

If Argentina had been willing to hand over Eichmann, then great. But Eichmann was living under a phony name. And if they had tried, Eichmann may have gone underground. In fact Israel knew where Mengele was but couldn't get him because after they got Eichmann, Mengele went underground. Had they asked Argentina to bring him in (Argentina was a corrupt country at the time), he would've just gone underground.

Then again, I support death squads. So I'm biased.

Eichmann was living under an assumed name and as a result there was no legal way to arrest and extradite him. What do you do?

[EFerrari]

43. You know, I think I understand your position.

But I don't think I could support the erosion of the rule of law even to catch those monsters. Because the blowback is always bad. I'm trying to think of a country who used kidnapping and who didn't eventually resort to kidnapping its political enemies and innocent people. I can't think of one. Can you?

On the other hand, as I posted above, the second Cheney or any of that cabal is indicted, I'm fully prepared to start training people to do a citizen's arrest and on a massive scale. To go anywhere and train any group no matter how small and to make it into a mission and a movement until we either arrest the bastard or shame our government into action.

[Juche]

45. NATO troops have kidnapped war criminals for years

And so far none of them use those tactics on political opponents.

The sad part about the erosion of the rule of law is that it has already happened. If we had a strong rule of law people would be extradited, arrested and prevented from committing war crimes in the first place.

If the world had a functioning rule of law we wouldn't need kidnap squads. Eichmann (and Mengele) could've been arrested and handed over. However laws are manmade and full of corruption, double standards and oligarchical loopholes.

[EFerrari]

49. Off the top of my head, NATO has been in constant trouble

for abuses in Haiti.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN0259118620071102

And weren't NATO troops involved in the round up of what turned out to be innocent people who were shipped to Gitmo? People who were sold, basically, for a bounty and turned out to be bakers and tourists and grandpas? Yes, they have grabbed innocent people although that isn't exactly the same as kidnapping.

And look at this defender of human rights:

Canadians shouldn't worry about Afghan torture: NATO chief

http://www.canada.com/news/Canadians+shouldn+worry+about+Afghan+torture+NATO+chief/2438492/story.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+canwest%2FF75+%28canada.com+National+News%29

They're also hiding evidence in the matter of their use of white phosphorus:

Afghanistan: NATO Should ‘Come Clean’ on White Phosphorus
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/08/afghanistan-nato-should-come-clean-white-phosphorus

Unfortunately, NATO is filthy.

[Juche]

76. I don't agree with your links

The first one referenced Sri Lankan soldiers. By NATO, I am referring to developed western democracies. Developing nations with iffy human rights records are a different category. Sri Lanka isn't in NATO anyway.

The second article about Canadians and torture was basically just the general saying there are rules to prevent torture. He wasn't saying Canadians should ignore torture, he was saying there are rules to prevent it.

The white phosphorous issue should be addressed, but it is not the same thing as the topic in discussion. Canadian or French troops can perform kidnap missions on human rights violators and still not engage in those policies towards their own citizens for their political beliefs.

[EFerrari]

84. Here's two more: Travers: Did we turn a blind eye to Afghan prisoners?

Published On Thu Feb 25 2010


Members of Canada’s secretive JTF2 unit escort three detainees across the tarmac at the airport in Kandahar, Afghanistan, on Jan. 21, 2002.

By James Travers National Affairs Columnist

OTTAWA–In the winter of 2007, three insurgents captured by Canada's top-secret Joint Task Force Two disappeared into the notorious Afghan prison system. Three years later, Prime Minister Stephen Harper suspended Parliament rather than release related documents that raise difficult questions about the role of this country's special forces and spies in targeting, capturing and interrogating key enemies.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/771199--travers-smoking-gun-documents-in-prisoner-abuse-scandal

Stopping Human Trafficking, Sexual Exploitation, and Abuse by International Peacekeepers

Trafficking in Persons Report
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
June 4, 2008

In response to Congressional mandate, this section summarizes actions taken by the United Nations (UN), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to prevent trafficking in persons. Beginning this year, individual country narratives in this Report will, when applicable, describe efforts by governments to ensure that nationals deployed abroad as part of a peacekeeping or similar mission do not engage in, or facilitate, severe forms of trafficking in persons or exploit victims of such trafficking, as well as efforts to hold accountable nationals who engage in such conduct. This analysis is included if the government has 100 or more military personnel deployed in peacekeeping missions. Governments are ultimately responsible for holding civilian and military personnel accountable for acts of misconduct while on peacekeeping or humanitarian missions.

http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2008/105393.htm

I'm not finding the Haiti story that I remember but that's the way it goes. :)

[Juche]

89. Thanks

I realize we need really good oversight and checks and balances. The second article was about efforts by groups like NATO to implement those oversights and checks/balances. Extra legal kidnapping, detention in black sites, torture and no documentation are problems. I know the CIA destroyed evidence of waterboarding not long ago.

However, I would prefer to live in a world where human rights abusers (who are usually politicians or in the military in various countries) live in fear of being kidnapped and brought to trial.

To me, it feels like those are the only options. Either let people go free, or use kidnap squads. And the kidnap squads are the lesser of the two evils. If there is a middle road, great. But usually countries are not going to hand over human rights abusers since they are the ones running the countries in question.

So I'm still convinced we need kidnap squads, but to bring people to fair and open trials (like was done with Ex-nazis or people involved in what happened in Rwanda or Yugoslavia).

[MattBaggins]

125. Support death squads? Seriously?

Are you certain that DU is the proper forum for you?

[walldude]

86. Yeah but kidnapping? Wouldn't you just call it bringing a criminal

to justice? I'm not really familiar with the hows of Eichmann's capture but he was being tried for war crimes in a World Court, so isn't wherever he's hiding in the world part of that jurisdiction?

[EFerrari]

114. Well, the problem with that is if you're picked up extra-legally

then the PTB can just call it "bringing a criminal to justice". Which flies in the face of our (so called) tradition of the presumption of innocence.

Do you remember that Canadian guy, Mahar Arar, who was "brought to justice" and sent to a hole in Syria where he was tortured and basically made to live in a grave for a year?

He was completely innocent of anything but his ethnicity.

http://www.maherarar.ca/

And there are far more Arars than Eichmanns in the world. So, who do we make the rules for?

:shrug:

[Xipe Totec]

16. Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Wife: Arrest him!

More: For what?

Wife: He's dangerous!

Roper: For all we know he's a spy!

Daughter: Father, that man's bad!

More: There's no law against that!

Roper: There is, God's law!

More: Then let God arrest him!

Wife: While you talk he's gone!

More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would
you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

- A Man for All Seasons

[jwirr]

32. He is the one I thought about. There were other WWII criminals that

were taken that way. I look at it this way: criminals are arrested all the time - why would this be different?

[Arctic Dave]

8. So if a war criminal walks free because the gov't doesn't do it's job is OK?

We hear how known war criminals walk free all over the world because the host country refuses to hand them over. South and Central American countries come to mind.

[Cleita]

12. And that happens. Nothing would have made me happier than

Pinnochet being put on trial by Great Britain when he was arrested but they thought better of the legality of it. It sets a precedent and the next head of state to be kidnapped might be ours although in the case of Cheney I wouldn't have minded too much. It's still wrong. In the case of Bush/Cheney it's up to our Attorney General to get the cojones to investigate them and arrest them for war crimes. It is our duty and no one else's. If Iraq can make a case to the Hague to hear them for war crimes then we should have a duty to extradite them to the Hague, but I doubt if we will.

[Arctic Dave]

17. So lets's say Iraq goes to the Hague and makes a case for war crimes and they win.

IMO the US should extradite the convicted to serve their sentence but they don't. Would this be acceptable for us to do nothing as a citizen of this country to allow the convicted to roam free?

[EFerrari]

41. Don't we have an agreement with Interpol?

If there is an Interpol warrant out and our government doesn't honor it (which happens all the time, I think) then that's a problem for social pressure at home and in the community of nations. In fact, the minute Spain or someone convicts Cheney in absentia, we need to organize and train people all over the country on how to do citizen's arrests.

[Arctic Dave]

48. Sounds fair to me. n/t

[EFerrari]

51. Just setting up training sessions all over the place and keeping up the buzz

would be worth the effort. Let him sweat it out. Let the government know that we're not ignorant or stupid or apathetic and that we want this cancer in our government TREATED.

[Arctic Dave]

53. Maybe we should set up a poll to see what the opinion is each week.

And keep the thought of it in everyone's head. :)

[EFerrari]

54. Exactly. Normalize it.

Put up "HowToArrestWarCriminals.org"

The other side works constantly at normalizing the idea that torturers are not criminals. Or as Margolis said about Yoo the other day, it's just a "disagreement". :shrug:

[Arctic Dave]

55. I do believe you are on to something.

I think I will start a weekly poll about it. Thank you.

[EFerrari]

29. Anyone who is Afghani or was a victim on Afghani soil has standing

at the ICC because Afghanistan is a signor. I don't know about Iraq. I don't think they are.

[EFerrari]

2. No.

[atreides1]

3. Yes I would cheer

No, I don't think I would take an active role in it.

But then again, that's how the Israeli's got Eichmann.

[Arctic Dave]

So you not have a problem with it in general.

Would you provide information on a war criminal? It seems like that would be the most useful participation.

[Journeyman]

4. As was done with Adolf Eichmann?. . .

[sam sarrha]

6. you'd never get near Chaney... anyway

[FormerDittoHead]

111. Award for being 1st to see through the analogy. n/t

[veganpuffs]

7. Is facism really the way to end fascism?

[Arctic Dave]

10. How does this equate to fascism?

If a host country doesn't uphold the law wouldn't this be more akin to fascism? Maybe anarchism?

[seeinfweggos]

14. invest in a dictionary

it will prevent such embarrassments in the future.

[EFerrari]

25. Welome to DU, veganpuffs.

Great. Now I'm hungry.

lol

[anonymous171]

61. Fascism is much more than authoritarianism. nt

[dysfunctional press]

13. "snatch and grab"...? is that anything like "scooping"...?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7789565&mesg_id=7789565

[hootinholler]

92. No that would be grabin snatch. n/t

[bemildred]

18. No.

Principles don't mean shit unless you follow them when it is NOT what you want to do.

[Arctic Dave]

22. Wouldn't the principled thing to do would hand them over for prosecution?

If a person is wanted for war crimes and the host government refuses to give them over does this seem OK? If the people doing the S&G are from the same country and hand them over for prosecution does this change your opinion?

[bemildred]

31. The question was would I cheer, not would I have a conniption over it.

The principled thing is always to be cheered, but "snatch and grab" is not the principled thing in my view. You believe in the rule of law or you believe in expediency, you really cannot have both. Eichmann was a pimple on the ass of creation and I have no particular problem with what happened to him, however I would never give up the rule of law just to get him.

[Arctic Dave]

35. So what if it was the people in the host nation, not the gov't, did the S&G.

Something like a citizens arrest on an international scale?

[bemildred]

36. No, you have to have some sort of supra-national legitimating factor.

Vigilante justice is not the rule of law. As I said below, I could see giving teeth to the ICC, under certain circumstances.

[Arctic Dave]

37. Fair enough. Thank you for your input. n/t

[bemildred]

38. My pleasure, Sir. nt

[Juche]

24. How are they comparable?

If you commit a war crime, and a commando unit kidnaps you and brings you to trial, how is that the same thing? That is just an arrest done internationally. Police do it all the time.

The impression I'm getting is people here think giving the military the power to arrest war criminals is overreaching. Maybe others have a different definition of snatch & grab. To me it means using a military unit to kidnap someone to bring them to trial.

[bemildred]

34. It is true that the terms of the argument are ambiguous.

I'm all for the ICC, and I would support "arrest" of ICC indicted persons under certain circumstances. As with so many of these emotional issues, it all depends on who decides and how it is decided. OTOH, I cannot support any country unilaterally taking the law into it's own hands.

[lonestarnot]

20. That is redundant.

[Arctic Dave]

27. Are you referring to the "S&G"?

Yes, it is redundant but that is what they call them. Why, I don't know.

[lonestarnot]

58. Yes, if you snatch someone, you've already knabbed, grabbed or slabbed 'em.

:)

[Juche]

21. Hell yes

Political leaders have always gotten off for crimes against humanity in human history.

I'd love it if the ICC had a military arm to perform snatch & grab operations.

I'd participate if I was qualified.

[Arctic Dave]

23. So it wouldn't matter if the people involved were from the same country

or from another as long as the person is brought to justice?

[Juche]

26. Not really

I'd fully support kidnap missions to bring major war criminals and human rights abusers to justice.

I'm not sure why it'd matter which country they were from.

[Arctic Dave]

28. I ask because someone brought up the possibility of another country doing the S&G

and they were not really in favor of it.

[spanone]

39. we know where bu$h* & cheney live

[Cleita]

44. Yes, we do and we probably should be doing extraditions to Spain but

we aren't. It would seem we are at fault.

[stray cat]

42. Yes - if we could get the "good doctor" and Bin Laden I would not sit on my butt and let them walk

[Arctic Dave]

47. Good point.

I believe everyone in the US would have cheered and partied for a week if someone turned them in.

[galileoreloaded]

46. Let the conditional ethics rationalizing begin....n/t

[mike_c]

50. absolutely yes....

And yes, I would participate if I could help ensure that the Bush administration war criminals-- and others-- were at least prosecuted and judged by an international court.

[Arctic Dave]

52. Honest and straight forward. Thank you.

So you wouldn't if another country did the S&G?

[mike_c]

69. I'd be grateful to them....

eom

[EFerrari]

59. I don't think that would work. The conditions of the apprehension

would probably vitiate the caae, wouldn't it?

[Ozymanithrax]

56. What to do you do after a snatch and grab? What country would try the individual?

That is called kidnapping, and snatching and grabbing someone, then taking them across a state line, or national border could see you facing the death penalty.

If there were a legal warrant for the arrest of one of our dear war criminals, maybe.

But doing so would certainly be in violation of U.S. Law and the people who did it would never be able to come back. They would be facing warrants for their arrest.

[Arctic Dave]

60. Were they would sent depends on the origin of the prosecution.

As for the death penalty for kidnapping, this is the first I have heard of such a thing. Kidnapping as far as I know is not a capital crime. However, if it is, why would expect another country to turn over war criminals or any other criminal to us without an agreement in place. I take it the people in general being war criminals doesn't have a bering on your opinion?

[RedRocco]

74. it's not kidnapping if you have a warrant

if the ICC issued a warrant wouldn't it then fall to INTERPOL to execute it?

[Ozymanithrax]

75. First, the U.S. does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Second, Interpol doesn't work that way. They must follow the laws of the country they are working in. In order to arrest one of our war criminals, they would have to seek permission from the Justice department and request extradition on a warrant from a country whose jurisdiction we recognize. A person in the U.S. with real police authority (say the FBI) would handle the arrest. They simply can not waltz in and arrest anyone, no matter how many warrants have been issued in other countries.

Before you could snatch and grab without entering all kinds of legal jeopardy, you would have to have a warrant. Since the U.S. doesn't recognize the ICC, it could originate in, say, Spain. Spain has laws that allows it to charge people in other countries for crimes against humanity. But, unless you worked with the department of Justice and the State Department, you would still be committing a kidnapping. I don't think the Obama administration, or any administration, would allow a foreign country to come into the U.S. to detain and arrest a member or members of the Bush Administration. Now, if anyone of them should visit a country where they have warrants for their arrest, the police of that country could arrest them. It is also possible, depending on who was being snatched, to face Secret Servicemen who would deal violently with any attempt.

And, for those that do not know it, kidnapping someone and taking them across state lines makes it a Federal Crime punishable in federal courts. Anyone that did a "Snatch and Grab" would also be charged with false imprisonment.

Thinks like "snatch and grab" was one of the crimes of the Bush administration, as is false imprisonment. Do we really want to be like them?

[Arctic Dave]

83. Are we not complacent if we don't prosecute them?

"Thinks like "snatch and grab" was one of the crimes of the Bush administration, as is false imprisonment. Do we really want to be like them?"

That would seem to me that the US is snubbing the rule of law if we do nothing to rectify the laws that were broken.

[Blue_Tires]

57. nope... you go along with that and you have no moral leg to stand on

when they start doing it to innocent people...

[Arctic Dave]

62. So grabbing a known criminal and sending them to face prosecution

holds no merit for you? How about citizens arrest?

[Blue_Tires]

68. maybe we're thinking about two different kinds of "snatch and grab"

i'm thinking of the CIA going into a country where they have no jurisdiction (let's say Turkey for the sake of argument), kicking down someone's door; putting the black mask on him, flying him out, and by the next morning he has a VIP seat at one of our secret interrogation centers...

[Arctic Dave]

80. Similar, someone being grabbed but not taken an "interrogation cell"

but a front row seat at the ICC or the Hague doorstep.
It doesn't even have to be a person from another country, it could be people from the same country doing it.

[davepc]

97. So what Israel did to Nazi war criminals hiding in Argentina?

Eichmann comes to mind.

[Arctic Dave]

63. Woohoo! I have a negative rec thread. It really must have pissed people off. Yippee!

[old mark]

64. Yes. nt

[JDPriestly]

65. No, Arctic Dave. I do not support snatch and grab under any circumstances.

[Juche]

78. Is it the legality, or something else?

Do you support a domestic arrest of a war criminal done using lawful means (a warrant and police), then extraditing him to a foreign country to stand trial?

Do you support an international force given permission by an international legal body (like the ICC or nations like Belgium who can prosecute crimes against humanity anywhere) going into the person's home nation and arresting the person?

[warm regards]

66. I would like to see them put the ol' snatch and grab on Bin Laden.

[mmonk]

67. If there can be a standing order to lead to a trial (a warrant for arrest).

[RainDog]

70. if you're talking about Cheney, fuck yeah

since our govt has demonstrated it has no respect for the laws it was sworn to uphold.

[Pavulon]

71. I support the use of force up to death

available to nations to protect their interests. Torture is illegal and non productive. Killing people who pay for the taliban and al-quida is more productive than killing goat herders in Afghanistan.

If that means killing someone in Zurich in an office building (slip and fall down stairs) or out right putting a person in a car trunk and flying them out of a country on a military aircraft I support that.

Our governments use these methods now and have for decades and will continue to use them.

[Arctic Dave]

81. Then you have no problem if a US citizen receives the same fate? n/t

[Pavulon]

85. The already have.

that is why we kill people with predator drones publicly and I would bet we kill others privately.

[Arctic Dave]

87. Not following you.

What does killing someone with a drone have to with someone doing an S&G on a US citizen to face prosecution in another country?

[Pavulon]

88. Ohh, the OP was vague. That happens but much less often.

a grab of any political citizen would result in a significant response from the US. There is a process in place to cover this, extradition. Unless a government is harboring a person or is unable to control the area they are in, like sudan or Somalia.

All depends on who the person is.

[Arctic Dave]

94. Tried to keep it as vague s possible to see what kind of answers I would get.

My bad on that.

What if the people doing the S&G were from the same country, something of a citizens arrest (or kidnapping if you want to be blunt), and let them as a present on the door of the Hague or the ICC?

[Pavulon]

96. There is not ICC prosecution of anyone in the US

I would think a warrant would be needed, like the president of sudan has. Any attempt to kidnap political figures in the us would be met with lethal force by the people who protect them.

[Arctic Dave]

98. Seems a shame that someone would kill for a war criminal.

However, I don't think all war criminals are political leaders(speaking worldwide, not in the US).

[Arctic Dave]

102. So they would have to issue a warrant.

So you don't approve of rendition or any other form of detention without authority from the host country?

[Pavulon]

106. We are in a grey area. Lets name names.

if you have some illusion that a member of a former administration (bush, cheney, yoo) would be indicted never mind actually tried by a ICC you are not dealing with reality. If someone tried to abduct that person they would be killed on the spot, or hunted down and killed by people who do that work. No trial would take place under any circumstance currently close to the real world.

Now if we are talking about the guy who ICC did indict for the darfur situation who is still in power the situation is a bit different. If someone put him in a black bag and dropped him off in zip ties they may actually do something.

Who knows.

[Arctic Dave]

107. Why Pavulon, I do believe you are being hypocritical.

Good for them, not for us. :P

[Pavulon]

108. Just being realistic. There are some firm realities out there

the NSA will not be forced into discovery over eavesdropping practices, ever. The former vice president will not be taken to another country to stand trial for anything. If the US courts are not dealing with these issues, they will not be dealt with.

Attempting to "take" someone like a former VP would result in a person being shot, and not in the face with birdshot.

Again there is not even an indictment against any former administration official, here or at ICC.

[Arctic Dave]

110. So what is your take the US intervening in Panama and arresting

Noriega or the US going to Iraq after Saddam?

[Pavulon]

117. Iraq is a waste of energy and lives

it does not serve the national interest. Quite the opposite. Don't know the Panama intervention to the level of detail I would like to comment. Not dodging, I need to read up.

However , the killing, kidnapping, and interrogation (not torture) of people who fund or support al quieda or other groups that kill americans is not a problem for me.

[Arctic Dave]

118. Agree.

[Posteritatis]

113. Can't really support one without the other

Short of believing Americans are somehow exempt or superior or whathaveyou.

[Arctic Dave]

119. Unfortunately, we have a few here that believe we are. n/t

[Iggo]

72. No. I would not cheer. (n/t)

[Iggo]

73. No. I would not cheer. (n/t)

[Individualist]

77. No.

[librechik]

79. no. DOJ took a major wrong turn under Bush, now all tangled in the briar patch

they keep getting more and more tangled the longer they try to prolong this farce of unequal prosecution and defiance of basic constitutional rights.

I don't think any illegal acts would be involved in the arrest of a suspected war criminal by officials of the court which is tasked with bringing such criminals to justice. And I insist the suspect be read his rights on arrest. The American Justice system is a thing of beauty, when it's respected.

[Arctic Dave]

82. Sounds reasonable.

For discussion sake, let's say in ten years the US does nothing to prosecute war crimes, would you accept grabbing someone from off the street and forcing them to another country for prosecution?

[librechik]

90. Representatives of the ICC even tho we are not signed on? Sure.

Just because outlaws here in the states refuse to recognize international standards doesn't mean they don't still apply.

BTW< I am opposed to rendering "terror suspects" in general, for example, the CIA grabbing folks for questioning. That was (is) wrong. Breaking the law to save our security is unAmerican, and any hero, if he chooses to break the law to save lives, for example, should be prepared to be prosecuted and make his case and pay the consequences.

However, recognized war criminals have special protections which I am in favor of surmounting by legal means. Eichmann, for example--that was arguably a "good" rendering. If Cheney slips up and flies to Paris (or Spain) one day I hope ICC marshals are present to place him in custody.

[Arctic Dave]

93. Sounds fair to me. Thank you for your input. n/t

[hootinholler]

91. Cheer? No. Volunteer? Hell yeah.

I see no difference between this and Rendition. Sauce for the goose...

-Hoot

[Arctic Dave]

101. If not cheer, maybe crack open a beer? :)

[hootinholler]

120. After the conviction perhaps.

I really don't find anything to cheer about in such somber work.

-Hoot

[calimary]

105. Works for me. If they're war criminals, all bets are off. Especially if they're unrepentant

war criminals - like bush and cheney. cheney's already incriminated himself by openly admitting his part in torture, and his approval of it. And yes, I think whatever brings these bastards to justice is actually a good thing. I'd like to see them both wind up in Gitmo, since they thought that was such a great place. Sauce for the goose...

[ThomWV]

95. Call it what it is - abduction

No, I don't support it and particularly not if the intent is to abduct in order to take one to justice. You certainly can not begin the process of bringing justice with an unjust act.

[Arctic Dave]

99. What if they called it "citizens arrest"?

[davepc]

100. So it would of been better for Adolf Eichmann to die of old age in his bed in Argentina

then for the Mossad to capture him and make him answer for his Nazi war crimes.

[Marr]

103. Yep.

[Arctic Dave]

104. Now that is logical and consistent answer. LOL

;)

[Xenotime]

109. I think it would make for great TV

[Arctic Dave]

112. Would play like an episode of "Law and Order".

What would this spin off be called?

[rcrush]

115. How long before The "Snatch and Grabs" are targeted at citizens?

It'll happen.

[Arctic Dave]

116. Do you mean civilians?

If they are wanted for war crimes should it matter?

[philly_bob]

121. Not in U.S. domestic context. No consensus on who are war criminals. /nt

[Arctic Dave]

122. What threshold needs to be crossed for consensus?

[philly_bob]

124. How about: Editorials in most major newspaper call for it. /nt

Good question, Dave.

[Chemical Bill]

123. Bush and Cheney! n/t