I have blue links too!!!

I would not send a suspect of any kind to this country.

and don't respect our authority

Our government lies and engages in torture every single day. Nothing has changed since Obama took over. I support him in so many areas but he has bought into the whole "war on terror" game to his peril. History will not be kind to him on this as well it should be.

arrested by the Pakistanis, so it's dangerous to send him to the United States.

The appeals court in The Hague said he could not be extradited to the US "because too much is unclear regarding the role of the American authorities in Sabir's torture"



.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23422983

There's no evidence of any US role in his torture.

Seems like a very flimsy pretext to set a suspected terrorist free so he can continue his work.

I guess every terrorist on the planet should try to get into the Netherlands, which is declaring itself a safe haven for them.

We hate's them

in Pakistan, by the Pakistanis.

New reports confirmed that Pakistan was among the 54 nations actively participating in the CIA’s extraordinary renditions and tortures, but the details show an almost shocking level of involvement in the program.

The reports say that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, the military intelligence operation with virtual independence from both Pakistan’s military and its government, not only allowed the CIA use of their airports, but also detained and tortured hundreds of people on the CIA’s behalf.

This should perhaps not be so surprising, after all the CIA provides roughly one third of the ISI’s operating budget in any given year. But the revelation will likely add to the sentiment that the US wields undue influence in Pakistan.



http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/15/world/fg-cia-pakistan15


http://dawn.com/news/784301/cia-used-isi-facilities-in-karachi-says-us-report

Or maybe I missed it.

We picked up any number of people and handed them off to other people to be tortured...and the links these people had to actual terrorism were flimsy to non-existent.

Tell me, are you actually scared of these many and untryable in court "terrorists"?

I guess I don't belong to your "no such thing as terrorists" school of thought.

The Drone program is supposed to kill all of these millions of Al-Qaeda fighters, but we find out that they are killing random civs and groups of people who might be able to hold weapons.

Where was the NSA at the Boston Bombing? They knew about the suspect and had a tipoff. Couldn't fit it into their busy schedule of spying on us?

How about the people the FBI put up to terrorist plots? Jose Padilla's dirty bomb?

I'm not saying there aren't people blowing things up. We hire a lot of people to do that for us. I don't buy into the idea that this is some cold war level plague that's spreading through the populace like the communist plague was supposed to have. The Gov't is magnifying and exaggerating the problem as an excuse to keep us on a wartime footing that is neither necessary nor justified. They're doing it to line their pockets and to increase their power.

The 9/11 Terrorists were identified by the FBI using the laws that were on the books and basic police work. The fact that the Bush Admin ignored and blocked them is a treason level crime that should have been dealt with.

We don't have a terrorism problem. We have a gov't out of control.

smoke pot and have brothels so that might explain the court's concern.

But I don't think that's even relevant.

It has used some 50 countries in the past to illegally kidnap, move and torture. The concern is well founded and the logic sound.

I guess we're now winning them in Western Europe as well!

knr

arrest, I guess they can deal with the consequences.

We call it "going to the dentist".

Because I'm not seeing it.

... not prosecuting the Bush/Cheney cabal for torture. It will forever be ingrained in the minds of the rest of the world. This ruling from the Dutch court is just one of the repercussions. More importantly is that the next Republican president WILL employ torture. Torture is immoral and so is not prosecuting war criminals.

That words and definitions need to evolve with our actions over time, for instance the ignorant once thought that a President ordering the testicles of a child to be crushed would be illegal under torture laws, reasonable men such as John Yoo put that old fashioned misconception to rest by explaining that the meaning of the act depends entirely on why the balls are being crushed.

I am sure that Holder consults the office of legal counsel (and possibly noted torture experts such as John Yoo) to make sure any actions taken against someone once in custody would not be considered torture under current law due to the pressing security concerns that may require "certain actions".

That the ignorant may misinterpret such actions as torture using quant but outdated notions of how torture was defined before pressing needs redefined the meaning of words to match the post 911 reality is unfortunate but naive.

There are similar misconceptions regarding old definitions of the word reasonable before the meaning was modified to keep up with modern spy technology.

A more current and accurate definition is obviously that everything is reasonable and so all searches are reasonable regardless of the size of the net or lack of probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The office of legal council will assure that extradited prisoners will most assuredly not be tortured as defined by them, and they are always right about such things. Other countries should simply defer to this axiom.