In the age of terrorism what standard of threat should be required to kill

[Guaranteed]

a "suspected terrorist?"

The established law for use of deadly force by police officers against suspects in the United States is set out by Tennessee v. Garner (1985). It states:

"A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given." Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1985).

Thus, it is the law in the United States that, in order for deadly force to be used against a suspect, the officer must have probable cause to believe that either the officer or the community is being seriously endangered.

In the age of terrorism, do you believe that this law should remain the standard to hold our police officers to, and do you believe that the shooting of the Brazilian man in London met this standard?

[sintax]

1. The Age of Terrorism? Wha?

A small child in mesopotamia covers his ears and screams as an F-16 scorches the sky above and the ground below.

Only a people with no ethos require law.

[Guaranteed]

2. Oh, come on.

I have an "ethos." Thus, my fascination with the actual law.

Laws give society structure. We agree upon them, more or less, so that we can all get along.

That's anarchy stuff you're talking.

[sintax]

6. I'm not talking about you

and "the law" is drafted and codified by the "Powers that be" written and processed by the narrow system created by those same powers.

Aldo Leopold was not an anarchist.

Anarchy is not what most people understand it to be.

[Guaranteed]

7. What are you saying, then?

Because it seems as if you're saying that we shouldn't have established standards as to what is required for police officers to use deadly force against a suspect, if not many less standards than that.

[sintax]

12. What I am suggesting is that

once we get into the realm of legality and legalese we have entered the narrow parameters of discussing -addressing a certain situation in the relatively narrow spectrum of the current structures that dictate how we come to resolve our grievances be they individual or collective. In your particular example I have a problem with the actual phrasing "age of terrorism", though I hope we might agree on the fallacy of that framing.

On another level let us look at why we need policing and who those agents, THE POLICE, are here to serve.

[Guaranteed]

18. We're dealing with terrorism in the United States and Britain.

Are you happier with that?

In lieu of that, is the standard set by the SCOTUS in 1985 in the above case the correct one?

[T Town Jake]

3. "Only a people with no ethos require law"...

...what kind of horseshit statement is that?

[kevsand]

4. Only a people with no food require dietary restrictions.

Wait, let me rephrase that...

[Disturbed]

8. If this relates to the person that was executed...

I repeat that he could have been contained by restricting his arms. Israelis have teams that work on stopping suicide bombers. I saw this on TV. There are ways to subdue a person without executing them. What happened in the UK was from lack of proper training.

[Guaranteed]

9. For me, if he had actually HAD a bomb- for SURE, or damned near it....

I wouldn't have been playing the "let's restrain him" game, either.

I would have killed him- probably by shooting him as many times as I could in the head.

HOWEVER- that was NOT the case, here, clearly.

[Guaranteed]

5. For those who believe that the standard of "probable cause" was met as far

the community being threatened by the Brazilian man, can you please explain for the rest of us how it was that the information known by the officers who shot him established that probable cause?

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Ok let me give you a summary

he left a house under surveillance, ok so far only PC.. oh and he was wearing a thick coat.. it is summer I may remind you

He was given verbal commands at which point he took off

He jumped over a barrier and entered a subway station

He then entered a train where he was tackled. At this point this was hot pursuit and if he had a bomb, (their assumption) he may have had a dead man switch... procedure calls for precisely a head shot or five (that part was probably excesive) to try to disable motor functions. I am being Clinical I know.

Now remember the officers involved had seconds to make the decision you are questioning

For the record, because of the result (deadly force with an innocent man) you can bet your sweet potatoes that Scotland Yard is doing a deep review of procedure as we type

Further disclosure, I worked in the field as an EMS worker for 10 years in some cases along side law enforcement. I know for a fact that there are times they make decs ions that are not the correct ones, but they are made under incredible stress.

Now I also suspect that they will have to review training and procedures but they did have Probable Cause

Now why did he run? I will be brutally honest, I think you can in some ways blame Scotland Yard, but in some ways Brazilian Police... they are infamous for not quite being the most friendly of officers if you catch my drift. Heck the Brazilian police is known to this this in the Favelas on a regular basis with street kids.

[LisaL]

11. He left the apartment complex under surveillance, not the house.

He took off, but police officers were not wearing uniforms, so, most likely, the poor guy had no idea armed people running after him were the policemen. THey apprehended him, he was on the ground, and they shot him five times in the head. I would say they need to review their procedure,because if they keep acting like that, they might kill a lot of innocent men but won't catch any terrorists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Oh there will be a procedure review there is no doubt

about it, but the actions of the victim and the officers combined themselves in a perfect storm of high risk, and threat level

[LisaL]

15. Well, the shoot to kill policy isn't going to go away.

More innocent people could be killed, according to the police.
"LONDON, July 25 (Reuters) - British police say more members of the public could be shot in error as they escalate their battle against terrorism and hunt for four men who tried to set off explosions on London's transport system last week.

The warning comes after police, who are engaged in one of the biggest manhunts in British history, mistakenly shot dead a Brazilian man on Friday, thinking he was a suicide bomber.

Britain's most senior policeman, Ian Blair, defended the shoot-to-kill policy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers and said police were in a race against time to find those behind last Thursday's attempted bombings of three underground trains and a bus, the second attack on the capital in two weeks."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L25492556.htm
What exactly makes the police any different from terrorists they are trying to hunt, if they admit they likely will kill innocent people to reach their goal?

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. that poliicy will not go away I fear

read the American standard above... use of lethal force scross the world was most likely met, even if just barely... but I suspect they will be reviewing the procedure and training for detaining bombers until the next one goes off. I suspect they will refine training and ASK those with even more experience than them , or next time try Met Uniformed Police... instead of undercover Scottland Yard or worst case MI 5... oh and they won't tell you either where or how the procedures changed for very good reasons

Another disclosure, I have been close to these messes, and the only reason I am alive is two fold, the dead man switch failed and remembered my brief, don't use a radio (these days don't use a cell phone)

[LisaL]

26. The police doesn't even try to reassure the public.

Sounds like the police think killing of innocent people is no big deal, as long as they are hunting terrorists.
I imagine dark skinned people in London are way more scared of police killing them, then of actual terrorists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Wrong

it is not that they are not reassuring the public

Let me take you down the procedure

1.- Officer is put on administrative leave standard
2.- Internal affairs is running an investigation
3.- DA has opened a murder investigation
4.- Until they finish any of this, they cannot comment, not even to reassure

But they are also, I can bet on this, doing a full procedure review.

[LisaL]

33. I am talking about their statements that they can kill more

innocent men while hunting for terrorists.
That doesn't sound reassuring to me at the least.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. That is wrong

but I don't expect them to be in the reasuring mode right now... so they are going back to the good ol days of the IRA... that is wrong

[Guaranteed]

17. Running doesn't establish probable cause for anything.

It DOES establish a reasonable suspicion with which to STOP someone- but remember that not only is that not probable cause, it's FURTHER not probable cause to SHOOT someone for being a serious danger to the community.

As far as where he left from, it was an apartment complex, I believe, that was under surveillance, and many people come and go from there throughout the day. That's hardly any kind of suspicion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Right, you run from the police anywhere in the US

and taht is probably cause, free tip for the day, DON'T

[Guaranteed]

24. It's not probable cause. It constitutes reasonable suspicion to stop

the person. On edit: In fact, it's not even that, only nearly that, in the United States.

Also, again, keep in mind that we're talking about two different kinds of probable cause, here- probable cause for arrest, and probable cause for the use of deadly force.

Probable cause for the use of deadly force is what is required to use deadly force on someone, as opposed to arresting them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Yes from the point of view of the cop

The victims actions combined with the fear generated by the bombings constituted an environment that actually barely met the deadly force standard, The officer was afraid for his life and that of those around him.

The jacket, leaving a house under surveillance was PC to stop him, you don't need PC to apply deadly force, just to fear for your life. The fact he ran, into a station was PC to continue the chase. And I am not blaming the victim, and not saying he should have known better. There were plenty of steps on both the officer's and victim's sides where this could have been defused... the first the person not running from the cops... after that there were plenty of places... but every step taken took both further down that road and making the officers increasingly afraid. But it did fall, just barely, in the deadly force matrix... and just barely... and it did because of the bombings... it is amazing how an OMG event changes the matrix ever so slightly.

I am not justifying the officer but I can certainly understand where this is coming from and why they are right now reviewing procedure. You can bet your sweet ass they are. My hope is that they learn from it and prevent further unnecessary bloodshed... but mine is not a knee jerk reaction, maybe since I have worked side by side with he cops (wonderful place too, Tijuana Mexico, ever watch Traffic will give you an idea)

Further disclosure I come from a police family... we had this discussion this morning as to how this could have gone south this badly.

[Guaranteed]

31. Look, I can understand the fear...

But the justification you're giving seems confused. I don't know exactly what the officers saw, but they haven't said, for one, and most importantly, that they actually saw a bomb. And, if you don't see a bomb, and you've been surveilling an entire apartment complex, you don't have the needed cause to shoot them, especially to kill. It sounds as if they were acting on paranoia, or their imaginations. Or maybe even they just really wanted to be heroes.

By the facts, by the numbers, this shooting was way, way off. It was totally unjustified.

I'm VERY glad that they're going to reviewing their procedures. Someone from their office did say something to the effect that more people could be shot, though, and that doesn't sound good.

The police are supposed to protect their citizens, not shoot them. That's job #1.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Have you ever seen a bomb

Let me take you to a situation I was involved

The cops shot the driver, police, actually army sniper. There was no way they could see the driver or inside the car. By your standard they should not have fired. You don't see what you are looking for all the time when you are in the field. Did I mention there was enough C-4 there to really ruin plenty of people's afternoon?

Their standard was, a thick coat, that led them to believe there was a bomb in there. Thick coat, if there was one, they would not have been able to see the wires, or the bomb. Just like that Car I referred to. They did not know for sure that there was C-4 in there, let alone the amount, until well after the body was removed by bomb techs. They knew there was one when they did a very informal field debrief and we described what we saw apart of the exploded brain case that is.

That is the problem... and quite honestly they will need to work around that one.

[Guaranteed]

34. You got lucky, then.

Because if you didn't know what you were shooting at, you shouldn't have been shooting.

That very well could have been an innocent person, and, as far as the percentages go, SHOULD have been an innocent person.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. They got luky

I got lucky as the medical team member that the switch failed and I remembered not to use the radio

but maybe that is why I am not so knee jerk about it, not until I see the report

[LisaL]

35. The articles I saw state this guy was wearing a jacket.

[puddycat]

38. cops kill people all the time and get away with it

they killed a young woman last year with one of those rubber bullets, they killed a child just recently, they killed a woman in Baltimore a few years back whose only crime was that she was old and alone and her neighbor didn't like her and reported her to the police and she wouldn't open the door and when the police burst in she had a knife in her hand and they shot her to death on her own stairway.

And then there are the sensational cases where the government murders people, like in Philadelphia (Mayor Goode) or Ruby Ridge, or Waco, Texas. I keep telling people, the government is NOT your friend and neither are the police. The police are there to protect the STATE, not the citizens. (this is not to say that individual police are not your friends, but as an institution)

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Lets review the cases you gave

Rubber bullets are less than lethal, they will kill less often but that does not mean they are not lethal

The shooting in LA, the father was as responsible as the cops and yes he used that baby as a shield

The woman with a knife, a knife last time I checked is a deadly weapon. Now if a police department has bean bag available, they sometimes choose to use those, as it may disarm (and at times break a limb) If they don't, well yes I am sure the DA said that was justified, she had a deadly weapon. Is it a tragedy? you betcha, but she was still armed.

as to the government not being your friend yep you have a case, tell me what are you going to do if you are a victim of a robbery or assault? Who are you going to call?

[puddycat]

42. I was stating facts, not attacking police's role in society

I have in my family (or have had) policemen, military, etc, and that is how I came to understand the role of policemen in the first place. Their role is to protect the STATE, not protect the citizen.
Think about it.

By the way, if I am being robbed, my first thought is not to "call the police" because by the time they get there my butt will be robbed, dead, etc.--my first thought is to survive any which way I can. The police, even if it were their job to protect me (which it isn't) aren't going to be there standing by my side 24/7.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. No you were not stating fully facts

The only case you mentioned you had any standing was philadelphia... the rest sorry... you were not, even if Waco was a tragedy

Now you are a pure libertarian I take it, or anarchist...

As to their role in society yes and no, depends on what society you are talking about, the one emerging you are right, the one that existed you are wrong, and it also depends where in the country

As always there are better police departments than others...

And you also said that a woman armed with a deadly weapon was murdered, what part of deadly weapon did you miss? Given I have been assaulted by some of these outstanding citizens and used force....

[puddycat]

46. I have explained that in another post to you.

Police work and the current style "volunteer" armies attract a certain kind of authoritarian personality, and once fascism becomes more and more "outed" then those personalities will become more and more uncontrolled. Think about it. It may not be pleasant for you to do so, because the individual police that you know are probably good and decent people, but that isn't the point. We are talking about institutional thinking, group think.

As far as you accusing me of being liberatarian, anarchist, who the shit cares about your desire to label me? All I know is that I oppose this current administration and I oppose fascist totalitarianism and the police will become a big part of that as we sink deeper into the morass.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Group think

Look I have worked along side police, and institutionally some departments are liable to what you are talking about, and you are also making huge assumptions. I guess every soldier and cop is a Republican right? WRONG

You have no idea why some things have not happened that they wish they could have done, including interning Muslims after 9.11.

You really have no idea.

Now keep doing this and you will bring forth a self fulfilling prophecy.

[puddycat]

50. its puzzling why you feel the need to defend police-state actions

I said nothing about "Republicans". This has little to do with Republicans or Democrats--it has to do with the kind of authoritarian personalities that police work attracts, personalities that are normally usually restrained, but in a full-fledged fascist police state the darkest sides of their personalities will have free-reign to terrorize the population (& much of that in orders from the top down).
It would help if you would stop thinking of the individual policemen you know. This is not an attack on them personally in any way--it is a disussion of what happens in a police state, which the UK and the USA are sliding into.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. I know what happens in a police state

far better than you probably do. So far msot police departments in this coutry are not what you describe... there are some, in fact some large metropolitan PDs but you are taking yoru fights in the wrong place...

And yuo are confusing a threat matrix, with a police state... you truly are.

[puddycat]

44. also, the point was the old woman likely thought the police were intruders

that is the point, that the police act like what they are --enforcers of the STATE--and that's how they get away with what they do

we are only a hair away from becoming a total fascist state, and this whole "terrorism" thing has just brought us that much closer. The police will start becoming more and more trigger happy, as personalities emerge within their ranks that are from, as they say in the Star Wars universe, the "dark side"

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. The woman was armed

the threat was met, I know you have a problem understanding this

Look I just saw the training, you realize how many hours are spent on your civil rights and what they can do legally?

Now the problem is that many officers develop an attitude where everybody becomes like the five percent of the population that does not play well with others... and I am not talking people protesting, I am talking the real scum, that every society has

By the way locally five years ago that woman would have been shot, today they have Less than Lethal rounds and when used people still scream so what do you want, a broken arm or a bullet?

[puddycat]

48. the police are trained to shoot to kill an OLD woman with a little knife

and that is a crime in and of itself. Why defend that? The police had NO right morally to murder that woman in her own home. She had been harassed for years by her neighbors. She lived in fear. And the police burst into her home on a suspicion that wasn't even warranted and shot her dead as she stood, bewildered, on her steps. THAT is what the police state is all about, and its going to get worse. Stop defending it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Given that a drunk could have killed me with a broken bottle

look there is this thing called a deadly force matrix, and a knife is a deadly weapon, you don't believe me, ask the couple patients I declared, io ne with a slashed throat and the other with multiple stab wounds. Oh sorry you can't. Maybe you would ask the guy I had to defend myself from... and I am not a cop. I was still assaulted.

What gets you is that this is an old lady, what could she do?

I am not defending the police state, but she would have been shot in many other places around the world, (yes even Canada) for the same reason, she was armed and posed a thread. Ask your police department to get bean bags for their shotguns and allow them to use less than lethal force, they will actually thank you.

You are confusing a police state (line many Americans) with a threat matrix... a police state (where we are heading) includes detentions with no probable cause (they want to get rid of habeas corpus for instance which will make renditions and disappearances all the easier) So here is where the test will come, as police officers in the US take an oath to the Constitution, and the courts.

Them using a threat matrix is NOT a police state... most Americans have no clue what that means.

Are we close? Yes, but not because of the police, but what is going on in DC.

[puddycat]

52. the police are trained to shoot to kill, and that is wrong IMHO

The police have shot and killed many many people that they EASILY could have disarmed with shots to the legs, etc. But they are trained to shoot to kill. Why? Threat matrix be damned. A little old lady who is shot on her own steps trying (she thought) to defend her home the best way she knew how has been EXECUTED BY THE POLICE. And it sickens me that someone here at DU keeps defending it.

This is an institutionalized crime, and your defense using the "threat matrix" lingo is just proof of how institutionalized it is. Murder by police is culturally acceptable because the police have targeted people they believe society doesn't care about--the homeless, old single ladies, alcoholics, the mentally ill, etc., petty criminals--ALL have been targeted and murdered by police. It reminds me of Abu Ghraib, this excuse making by the people who commit the atrocities.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. So you want them to give the bad guys lollipops?

And some of them are really bad guys... but hey I think next time I see Carlos Arellano I will give him some lollypops never mind he is responsible for more deaths than most departments in a decade, even large metropolitan departments.

You claim to know people in the police, do me a favor and do a ride along or two.

And by the way, if the person presents a threat, my local police has far more choices because we citizens demanded them to reduce the incidence of deadly force

So today they have a choice of using a wonderful little bag that is loaded in a standard shot gun shell. This is now used with people like the woman you referred to. These are called less than lethal rounds, why LTL they can still kill under very specific circumstances, so if a person, lets say your old lady, posses a threat to the officer instead of the officer having one choice only (bullet) he now can use that round, which will disarm the lady and then they will be able to deal with it and everybody goes home happy.

You want the police to have those tools so they can avoid what you call executions? Give them the damn tools.

Your problem is NOT the police nine times out of ten (bad officers do exist in every department), your problem right now is in DC. Now the jails taht is a different ballgame, especially privatized ones, which are the worst out there.

[puddycat]

56. your extreme prejudice is showing. and its disgusting

you must really really have a hatred for the homeless, for old single ladies, for anyone with brown/black skin, for anyone different--because these are most of the people who get murdered by policemen. Most hardened criminals do NOT get murdered by policemen--they are too sociopathically crafty to get caught, or else they give up quietly because they are cowards. Its people with life problems that are the ones attacked and murdered.

So do me a favor and stop responding to my posts. You fucking make me sick with your prejudices

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. No, you know who carlos arellano is, don't you

He is the leader of the Tijuana Cartel, he is responsible for at the vary least 500 deaths that the police can pin on him. I am not even including all the incidental deaths from the crap he markets. He is the one that I should give a lollipop to?

Look I feel for the homeless and that is why my police department now has options. Unfortunately we also have a problem, not enough housing and not enough psychiatric facilities. You are the one blinded and not seeing the problem with this is DC, not your local cops.

When you give the cops the tools they need death rates from lethal shoot outs go down. But hey if you think I should give Arellano a lollipop I will... when I meet him in the ninth circle of hell according to you. Given I spent ten years of my life going to places you can only dream off, I think I can you to take your blinders off, the police is NOT your enemy, but the current Executive is.

Oh and one more thing, you are not living in a police state yet, but you are helping it along.

[Massacure]

13. Probable cause was met, but he shouldn't have been shot after restraint.

From what I understand, the guy was under surveillance and at the time of the incident was wearing a heavy coat, even though it is July, and when a police officer walked up to him the man ran away. It is plausible that a person wearing a heavy coat in July may have a bomb strapped to them.

However, it also appears the man was pinned down and then shot. He should have been shot on site rather than being restrained and then shot. The guy made it into a subway car, had he been a real suicide bomber he would have had plenty of time to blow himself up.

No matter how you look at it, the police screwed up.

[Guaranteed]

21. If they had actually had probable cause, I would have agreed with them.

If one of them had seen a bomb on the guy (and he actually ended up HAVING one on him), and he was shot in such close range, I would not only have said the guy did the right thing, but have given him a medal.

That wasn't anything near what happened, though.

[Alcibiades]

16. No probable cause

Clearly, our standard was not met, but I think the British probably have a looser standard--then again, their cops don't go around armed most of the time, so a looser standard is probably safe there, most of the time.

The probable cause? He looked foreign. And that's the problem with all those people on the right who argue that we should get rid of civil liberties protections and only target "likely terrorists." How can you tell the difference between an Arab and a non-Arab? It would be a license to harass every swarthy, dark-haired man under age 50.

And the perpetrators of this atrocity were the elite of the London police! Hell, no wonder they don't let them have guns!

His family deserves their son back--failing that, they should be awarded millions of pounds by the British Government. Of course, when an innocent civilian gets killed in London, it's a tragedy, and when it happens in Iraq, it's not even newsworthy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. I'd like to think that if he was white the same resuilt would have

come to be... as is London is on edge...

[Alcibiades]

39. They did say something about wires

and he was an electrician, so it may have been that he had a loose wire to two on his person.

He was a good-looking kid--dark, curly hair. Maybe he was white, I don't know. He could probably pass for several dozen different nationalities. Not that it really matters, but if he were blonde and fair, I don't think they would have been so quick to assume that he's an Arab terrorist, no.

I went to school in another country--army brat--and we had a teacher from the middle east. Young, dapper, always wore a natty suit and carried a briefcase. Well, for a while, there was some geopolitical tension, so we had some soldiers guarding the school. I remember one of them tackling this teacher to the ground one afternoon--they nearly capped him. He looked every bit the young intellectual rather than the young terrorist, but that's the point: you don't know what a terrorist is going to look like. So in moments of stress and panic, folks let prejudices take over, and see in any vaguely foreign-looking person the enemy.

I'd like to think that we, and the UK, are color-blind, but that's simply not the case. If anything, though, I do think that this case does strengthen the argument against targeting "only Arabs" or "only muslims" because here 20 trained observers mistook a young Brazilian tradesman for a wild-eyed, Arab extremist terrorist. Dangerous times to be a person of color--or even to have too good a tan!

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. That is why I said I'd like to think, I know better

we are not a color blind society...

A tragedy happened and as usual we have months to debate this when the officer had seconds...

[Guaranteed]

28. I think they not only got scared, but put too much creedence

in what they thought they knew.

That's what always scares me, as far as police officers doing their jobs. Them acting on what they THINK they know, when they don't.

[electron_blue]

23. "age of terrorism" - was brilliant move by BushCheney

for even getting us to think like this. We are at War. By calling it fighting terrorism instead (or even more bizarely - the War against Terror), he got Americans to give up rights and protections by law as long as they say it's related to terrorism.

I tell ya - this all started with the Patriot Act, shoved through right after 9/11.

[Guaranteed]

25. But look at us standing up against that and saying that the standards

ought to remain the same.

And they should.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Au contraire

As i said I am willing to bet there is right now a full procedure review, as well as a criminal investigation. The fact they are not telling you does not mean it is not happening.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. I gotta say, if this had been in the US, they would've used a taser

One of the few instances in which using a taser would be appropriate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Yep they would have

But they did not have CS gas or tasers, so they had one tool and only one tool, a nine millimter automatic

If they had it they may have even used a bean bag shotgun

[gulliver]

58. It's irrelevant. No standard of threat, and no killing can stop it.

The world was not designed for the kind of security we need under a Bushian approach to U.S. leadership. We are looking at a lot more of this as long as George and Bar's little feller is in charge. He likes to pick fights (and have other people fight them).

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Yeah but that is outside the very narrow question

We need to get out of Iraq, the ME, Afghanistan and bring the troops home. Reality is our moral authority in the world can only be recovered somewhat when we turn these boys to the Hague... what is the threat matrix for arresting a former head of state and practicing extradition on him?

Inquiring minds want to know, since there is no precedent in US history... and yes let the brits deal with poodle and his gang