>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/1
>
>And you consider The Guardian a right wing paper ? {bg}
>
>seems to me there is really a difference in emphasis and goals. Is it more important to try them or to kill them and sieze whatever intelligence can be obtained on site before it is relocated or destroyed. I agree that in criminal cases you should do everything possible to secure conviction and that means not doing anything precipitous to foul evidence or admissablility of testimony. But if your goal is to achieve surprise, kick down and door and kill people, it really is better sometimes (though not always) to act a a key moment. Of course in both cases you are going to get it wrong sometimes. This is really new territory for law enforcement and intelligence operatives.

I don't think any legal system should be allowed new territory. They should stay at home. First you have the territory and the people, then you build a country and the legal system. If you're having new territory after you got the legal system in place... are you sure the steps were taken in proper order, and that all the steps were actually legal?

Because, if you failed to notice, territory is not manufactured much anymore. The Saudis are making an island, there are few oil platforms, but they are all within existing jurisdictions. So, any new territory for one legal system is most probably old territory for another legal system which already existed there.

Now if you say that under "territory" you meant "subject matter"... that's exactly what's wrong. Operating in another country without respecting its laws - how exactly is it different from a turning that country into a colony?