[ This is why I have trouble with the whole concept of terrorism as a crime. Isn’t one man’s terrorist another man’s Vice President? Isn’t the distinction mainly political? Why is bombing an airliner in furtherance of worldwide jihad any different from bombing an airliner for insurance money? Why is burning a ski lodge for your radical ecological ideology more heinous than doing it for a lark or, again, for the insurance? The difference is one of belief and of ideas in each case, which are supposed to be free in our society. I say, punish the crime, ignore the cause ]

this is my belief – terrorism is the war of the less powerful against the powerful.

if you don’t have an army and can’t fund one, you fight as you can to influence the outcome you desire. is this really that hard to understand?

what constitutes a “terrorist” is entirely relative.

it would be nice if we americans could have an understanding of that.

boston tea party participants?

WWII resistance fighters in france, belgium, norway, germany?

jews from europe who migrated to palestine and began using WWII “resistance, aka terrorism” measure against arabs?

palestinians cooped up in gaza conducting suicide bombings in israel?

american indians who attacked civilians invading their territory?

western supremicists of various stripes who threaten local, state, and federal officials?

anti-abortion activists who intimidate, threaten, and kill doctors who support abortion rights?

environmentalists who sabotage or destroy property?

one question?

have we ever seen in the u.s. of a. the same outrage directed to an amrican military attack of a town or village – say, my lai or fallujah, that our media and we ourselves direct at “despicable actions of terrorists?

but that’s just me ymmv
heh

Rendition after torture is novel and rendition for fraud is novel. The thing strikes me as stupid and expensive but not all that significant in context of all other irregular and outrageous stuff that have sort of not gone completely away.

Obama claims that the Afghan state’s government, such as it is, consented to and cooperated in this process. But it seems to have taken place without due process under local law and without the involvement of the host government’s police or judiciary, if they exist. Certainly, it took place without notice, without the victims knowing the claims made against them, and without the opportunity to contest them.

Before Bush, extraordinary rendition, a euphemism for state-sanctioned violent kidnapping, was reserved for dangerous violent criminals who had co-opted local law enforcement and judges and who could not be detained or extradited under normal treaty procedures. Those facts don’t seem present here, except for the Bush-administration like violent force used to kidnap. I would call that an extraordinary rendition.

To use such extreme force for petty fraud – especially when compared to the significantly larger alleged frauds perpetrated by substantially larger, but more well-connected players – is grandstanding and abuse of process.

As bmaz and related articles suggest, it also expresses an absurd mismatch of cost vs. potential harm avoided or prosecuted. The amount claimed lost to fraud in this case is about US$100,000. As with the Spitzer case, the government spent much more than that mounting this arrest and transporting the alleged perpetrators to the US. Costs to hold them in prison and prosecute them will add heavily to the taxpayers’ bill.

I don’t think this focus or allocation of resources will scare Blackwater/Xe or Halliburton. This is not a shot across the bow at them or an advance warning that they should obstruct justice by destroying their records. It’s virtually a statement that Obama, like Bush, intends to go after only the little guys. As with the banksters, it’s business as usual for the good ole boys.

Jus’ sayin…I know, I know…..I watched The International last night, and…..

hence my suspicions posted at 65.

horton also noted that he had suspected that the obama admin had not stopped the renditions completely, instead walking them back from the bush to the clinton and bush 41 years when renditions were done for high target individuals, but they were rendered for the purpose of standing trial, not disappeared. and, presumably, not tortured.

how much of this kind of stuff could be just a matter of all those bad guys unleashed under cheney and still not reined in? same question applies to a lot that’s going on at doj.

I vote for “extraordinary rendezvous”. *G*

i’ve made this argument here before in terms of trying to consider how i would handle myself in their position. i honestly cannot say. it seems so easy to assert that i’d be pristine in my integrity and aggressively vocal in my actions. but if someone threatened my family, and pointed out that i couldn’t really report this threat to the fbi because, gosh, you know they’re in on it, i don’t know what i would do. if they threatened to expose ancient pot smoking or an illegal nanny, i’d have to weigh the consequences of that against the fallout, lose my seat to someone of their choosing, decreasing further chances of reversing this hellish trend.

in practice, i’m one of those who will not compromise even small bits of integrity, hence i find myself now (still) jobless and homeless. hard to effect any real changes from this impractical position, yet i would have it no other way. still, i can’t help but consider all the various possibilities for those in elected office these days, and none of them even approach comfortable.

our democratic republic, heading to hell in a handbasket, really. a comfy cozy corporate handbasket.