Unused and Probably Unusable

I see from a Reuters article (Italy prosecutors seek extradition of CIA agents) that there is trouble brewing over what I can only describe as allegations of

the forcible kidnapping by Americans of an Egyptian-born terrorism suspect from Italy, the removal of the same to Egypt, and the interrogation under torture of that same gentleman

Now, this may not come as a surprise to any who were attending to the news in the last year, as reports about "extraordinary rendition" came bubbling to the surface. We were apparently bypassing the difficult obstacle that torture is illegal, and the problem of sullying our hands by enlisting foreign police and military interrogators to do our dirty work. Kidnapping would necessarily be involved.

This story, however, points up an issue that I had not considered. Where are these victims, these alleged bad persons? Were they in international airspace? In the U.S.? Some of them, sometimes. But generally they are somewhere, within a country, when we grab them and send them off to be, uh, questioned.

Kidnapping is apparently something that we "do." Are we okay with that? Do we deny that we do it? Is it in line with our highest standards? Is it necessary?

An aside on torture itself:

In the process of losing our souls, what else are we doing wrong?

Well, kidnapping. Big issue. We did it in Mexico, and got away with it once - sort of. See the fascinating and horrifying case of Humberto Alvarez-Machain, who was kidnapped from Mexico by order of the DEA, in order to stand trial in the U.S. A transnational conspiracy to do what could not be done legally? Apparently that was not a problem as far as preventing his legal prosecution in this country, on charges that were admittedly very serious, involving a DEA agent who was tortured and murdered. But after his acquittal on the charges for which he was brought to stand trial under, he sued under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789. Paul Hoffman, lead counsel for Alvarez, provides this interesting summary of the legal issues underlying the claim in the case and in related ones.

Is it okay to kidnap the citizens of one country in order to force them to stand trial in another? I always thought we had other mechanisms for that sort of thing. Extradition, where there is bilateral agreement. Victory in war, when war crimes are at issue. Not, you know, kidnapping. That's more of a tactic used by, I would have conjectured, rebels, militants, criminals, and of course terrorists. And it's not the sort of thing any country likes to see.

Comparison: how would the U.S. feel if legal American residents were kidnapped out of the country to stand trial on charges that are either not crimes here (speaking negatively about the ruling party of, say, Myanmar or China or North Korea or...) or are likely to be punished far more harshly, or the trial will lack important legal protections?

Wouldn't we consider that a major affront to our sovereignty, indeed our geographical integrity? How dare they, we might say.

When we pursue the Drug War, or the Terror War, into other countries, we are apparently not always very concerned with the rights and interests of those countries.

Those who give succor to our enemies, Bush warned and as I might agree to a limited extent, are against us as well. But who are the enemies? Do we even know? The folks we kidnap off a city street are not the ones making announcements about how evil we are. What about trials? What about the truth? And is Italy an enemy state giving material support and cover to terrorism, like Afghanistan under the Taliban?

How far is too far?

Ultimate answers, as always, may be a long time in coming.