This NYT report on the Italian case in which a number of CIA agents have been indicted for kidnapping a cleric suspected of involvement in terrorism has one item of particular relevance to Australia.
In addition to their objections to the American rendition policy [sending suspects overseas for torture], European counterterrorism officials also partly blame a lack of access to terrorism suspects and information held by the United States for their failure to convict a number of their own high-profile terrorism suspects.
The acquittal on most serious charges of Abu Bashir, spiritual leader of the Indonesian terrorists responsible for the Bali bombing was due primarily to the fact that the operational chief Hambali was not a witness, since the US Administration which holds him would not hand him over, even temporarily.
The Hambali case completely undermines for the official rationale for the US policy of rendition. In theory, the claim is that terrorists suspects, wanted in their own countries, are transferred there. But here’s a case of a leading Indonesian terrorist, wanted by Indonesia for crimes committed in Indonesia, and the US Administration won’t hand him over.
The demands of justice in relation to the Australian victims of the Bali bombing were similarly ignored.
It seems likely that Bashir will be released soon, and the operation of the rendition policy is largely to blame for this travesty of justice.
John Quiggin 
Quite right, Professor Q. The Global War On Terror is being waged by a bunch of leaders who give every indication of gobsmacking ineptitude as well as the by now well-known pathological mendacity and cynical amorality. It’s enough to prompt the thought that perhaps fighting terrorists is not really the main game. Keep up the acute analysis, although as usual I suspect it means we now have the sad duty of plowing through some thesis-length anagram-packed posts defending the indefensible.
Isn’t it the case that asylum seekers in Nauru have been unable to get their case heard because they have not been able to pick their legal representatives?
The way the executive arm of government runs in our so-called democracy often flouts the rule of law. When are the justices of the world going to cooperate on this?
The justfication for the gross hypocrisy of the Bush clique goes something like this:
‘You voluntary exiles from the “faith-based community” lack the “moral clarity” to foresee that you’ll all have to eat humble pie when we declare “Mission Accomplished” in the victorious Global war on Terror.’
Moral absolutism of this kind is impervious to doubt, intolerant of debate, immune from the truth.