> ... 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.
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.
It makes total sense to me that committing terrible crimes should be punishable. When a criminal per domestic law resides in a different country (and the issue crosses national borders), it seems to me (not a lawyer) that the determination of appropriate force must be decided by an international group.
Otherwise, what's chilling to me is... what stops a country from unilaterally abducting anyone they want? The country doing the abducting determines the laws that have been violated, after all. In this document, we've explicitly determined that international law has no bearing on domestic consequences. So do whatever you want, so to speak. Freaky stuff.
Mind you, his messaging on corruption in government, domestic terrorism, Ukraine, and the free-market economy in the U.S. is all over the place.
