Does the United States have the right to kidnap people abroad?

u u u

Even in those 19th-century days, much celebrated in 20th-century "Western" films, the abduction and rendition principle was generally applied only to warranted felonies, that is, really serious offenses such as homicide, felonious assault, violent bank and train robberies.

Although perhaps desirable, bounty hunting was not yet in vogue for corporate fraud or tax evasion, as the SEC, FTC and IRS had not yet been invented. Nor had the terms "homeland security," "unlawful enemy combatant" or "extraordinary rendition" yet been coined. Those are a more recent U.S. invention. The question is, is this kind of "cowboy" style justice still the law of the land?

In thinking about this question, the Bush administration might well consider what has transpired in national and international law and diplomacy since the heady days of frontier justice, Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday. In those days, we had no extradition treaties with, say, Mexico, Canada or Great Britain. Today we do. That makes a big difference. We are urged by the civilized nations to play by the rules. That's not always to our liking. The legal extradition process doesn't always reach the desired result.

u u u

For instance, Canada recently refused a Bush administration demand for extradition of a "proven" criminal who had committed a specific crime on a specific day. Unfortunately, as it turned out, the Canadians knew that the accused person was safely incarcerated in prison on the day of the alleged offense, and therefore could not possibly have committed the crime. Under these circumstances, the Canadians were not overly enthusiastic about the prospects of U.S. justice in the particular case. They suspected that some other motivation was afoot.

A well-recognized grounds for refusing a request for extradition from country A to country B is country A's belief that the defendant cannot be expected to receive a fair trial in the court of country B. When the court in question is a military tribunal, and especially when there is no right of appeal, there's even less confidence in the likelihood of due process for the accused. The greater the reluctance of country A to trust the courts of country B, the greater the temptation for country B - the United States in this case - to resort to cowboy-style abduction from country A. But, please, lead us not into temptation.

u u u

One of the fundamental reasons for respecting the international law and rules of the game of extradition between countries is the familiar one of reciprocity: "Do unto others." We don't "do" torture, because we don't want others to do it to us. We don't kidnap people abroad, because we don't want others to kidnap us, whether abroad or in this country. The principle is not really all that difficult to understand.

In these kinds of conflicts of law situations, the Bush administration needs to consider not only what the law and basic morality dictate, but also what are the simple, practical consequences for all Americans everywhere, whenever the shoe is on the other foot.