> the answer is "yes": the U.S. has an obligation under
> international law to hand him over; a Haitian war against the U.S. in
> response to the U.S. failure to live up to its obligations would be
> "just", according to standard just-war theory.
.
Ok, good.
.
> As you know, the analogy is a lousy and tendentious one: Emmanuel
> Constant is not planning further large-scale atrocities. He is not
> being provided with weapons and ammunition by the U.S. government. He
> is not being provided with land and buildings for training camps. The
> primary interest of the United States is in preventing further
> atrocities by the insane fucks of Al-Qaeda; bringing the perpetrators
> of 9/11 and their accomplices to book is only a secondary interest.
> Thus--as you know--the offense committed by the U.S. in retaining
> Emmanuel Constant is at least an order of magnitude less than the
> offense committed by the Taliban. And the case for a "just war" to
> correct the offense is at least an order of magnitude weaker.
.
Sure, sure. It's a whole different ballgame.
Now, if you were trying to think of a US-harbored terrorist who is known to be planning further attacks, you'd have to pick a Donald Rumsfeld or a John Negroponte.
Seth