>I see you missed my point.
>
>That's OUR definition (broadly) of a "warrant". President Bush's boys and girls may well find it advantageous to apply some other definition for the same word. We'll only find out by accident, if ever, should that happen.
>
>Look at the government word (and not a Bush creation, as I understand it) "rendition". Some government official can stand at a microphone and say "Oh, that guy. He's been sent for rendition" quite confidently. Who's going to show their stupidity by asking 'what is rendition'? And if someone does, an answer like "we have an agreement with various governments to return their native-born detainees to them" will handily put it to rest. MEANWHILE, it means that the guy has been bound and hooded and transported to a country that does TORTURE so that information can be gained more expeditiously.
>

Yes. The USA will even go to another country and kidnap someone & take them to another contry to be tortured.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=12294




>
>>Warrants are issued for specifics. For example, it a warrant is issued to search someone's home and the police search the car and find evidence, that evidence is not admissible as the warrant didn't cover the car.
>>
>>>The current Administration has already shown how it plays 'fast and loose' with interpretations (like of the Geneva Conventions) and directives (as when the Supreme Court said that GITMO folks were ENTITLED to some form of "due prcess".
>>>It would be totally in their "character" to call something a "warrant" on some flimsy basis that was totally outside the spirit/intentions of a 'real' warrant.
>>>
>>>To trust Government these days is perilous, and to trust the current U.S. government is downright stupid.
>>>