It was not insane to kidnap Abu Omar. From what I can tell, it was coldly rational and warranted in a cost/benefit sense, based on the evidence available to the

It was not insane to kidnap Abu Omar. From what I can tell, it was coldly rational and warranted in a cost/benefit sense, based on the evidence available to the government at the time. I do not see how it could be rational. Based on years of torture, we apparently have learned nothing that could justify a conviction in even a kangaroo court. Look, I know that many people believe that everyone who any government anywhere ever declares to be a terrorist is automatically guilty. But really now: he hasn't been convicted of anything. Even though he was tortured for years. Even though was under the control of a police state that has a long reputation of convicting innocent people the state doesn't care for. And despite all that: no convictions. Which means he never should have been kidnapped and tortured. When you kidnap and torture innocent people, you are doing something wrong. All you can do is posit that something like that might happen, and sit back waiting for everyone else on the message board to try to prove the negative. Isn't that fun? Again, you seem very confused. I'm not trying to disprove your larger assertion. I'm calling into question subsidiary arguments that you've made. Those subsidiary arguments are not proving a negative, so you need not weep any more on that score. Now, since you've made many many subsidiary arguments, I don't think that calling a handful of them into question seriously damages your larger claim, but if you believe otherwise....