Dish. I have a thirty one fifty five krc DE talk station. Chuck Ingram's on vacation. Judge Jennita Polatana, Heather didn't do a personalized message for you today because she she's filling in.
So my stomach was churning, not knowing what to expect. Instead of a madman, I heard the voice of a lovely lady.
Yeah, and apparently, you know, like Chuck Ingram does the traffic for like the entire United States, I'm overstating the case, but he does lots of the city. She apparently is in Detroit, so she is not closely following the content of the fifty five Carcey Morning Show, but we do.
And everybody knows. It's it's appointment listening time on the fifty five Carsy Morning Show because Judge Enita Polatana joins us every Wednesday at this time, and I really enjoyed your column this morning, so I always enjoy your column, you know, I love it. Searching for Monsters is the title, but it involves a subject matter over which I really didn't have a whole lot of knowledge and familiarity, and that's the whether it's lawful or not for us to
go to some foreign country and kidnap some one. And I know we've done this before, and you cite a bunch of illustrations and it almost seems like and I know it's against natural law, and you make a great argument that this isn't right. But if someone has committed a harm against our country, I hear about people fleeing to countries that don't have an extradition treaty with the United States. That means we can't negotiate with the country to have them export the guy and bring him back here.
But what of going to that country and just picking him up and bringing him back. Now, if you got harmed under our country, one can make a moral argument that, well, that seems okay. They won't extra di ite hm because we don't have a treaty. But the guy did us harm, Let's go pick him up and bring him back and put him to trial. But as you explain, and this is puzzling to me, crime is committed against someone outside of the United States, not against the United States or
its interest. We can go and grab that person and try him in our country for crimes committed against some other government or some other outside the United States interest.
I yes, yes, as absurd as that sounds. And I gave an example, and it was the back pages of the New York Times. If you didn't know the background, you would say, oh, some Venezuela in general just pleaded guilty to drug dealing in Manhattan. I'm glad they caught the guy. However, he pleaded guilty to distributing drugs in Venezuela, not in the United States.
Yeah.
He then left Venezuela retired in Spain. The United States tried to extrad item in the Spanish courts said no, you have no jurisdiction over him, so they kidnapped him. Anyway, he shows up in an American court. He says, I was kidnapped. The court said, well, I don't care. The FEDS can kidnap you. He pleads guilty to these crimes
in Venezuela. So far there is no connection to the United States except the Congress enacted in the Bidenministration legislation telling federal judges, if the FEDS, the FBI, and an assistant US attorney walk into your courtroom with a human being and an indictment, you have to try that person. Even at the human beings never been in the United States, never harmed a person in the United States, never harmed assets in the United States, and all the events took
place in another country. Now, why is the government doing this? They probably want him to trade information against their real target, who's his former boss, Nicholas Maduro, who is the president slash dictator of Venezuela. In the meantime, kidnapping, exhaustion of a tremendous amount of resources and assets to get this
guy here, and the use of the federal courts. As a point, this also allows the President of the United States, who is the ultimate person running the Department of Justice, to pick anybody wants around the world and say, indict that guy for some crime he committed in some other country and for which he wasn't prosecuted, and get him here. That's what's happening.
I don't understand how that represents a judicial controversy in a US court. How do you get an indictment against someone for a crime committed under somebody of some other committed in some other country. Okay, drug trafficking is illegal in the United States, but you know that's a US law. I don't know what the status of the law is in Venezuela, but picking up a guy in Spain for a crime he committed in Venezuela in violation of Venezuela
in law. I mean, I'm just perplexed by this. And you pointed out the US Supreme Court does not care a wit about what happened behind the scenes as long as that person's in front of the court itself. They don't care if he was kidnapped or had his due process rights violent, or anything else.
Correct, The Supreme Court does not care how a person got in to the courtroom. This has been a longstanding and complaint by the natural law libertarian small government people of which you and I are two in American jurisprudence. But it's been a consistent understanding of federal courts. The Feds can kidnap anybody and bring him into the courtroom, and his complaint that I was kidnapped these people violated the very laws that they are attempting to enforce, will
fall on deaf ears. The Feds often commit crimes in order to solve crimes. Let's face it. The classic case is a federal judge in Denver, this is now twenty five years ago, tried for bribery, and in that case, the Feds bribed a witness to testify against him. He was convicted, and the Tenth Circuit overturned it. So this stuff happens all the time. They almost always get away with it. We'll see where the case of this general goes. He's still in Manhattan, he's still in a jail here.
He's probably trying to give them enough information so they'll say to the federal judge before whom he pleaded guilty last week and let him go back to Spain. Whole thing is a farce. It's an abuse of of the rule of law.
Well, and you raise an excellent point in your uh, in your rhetorical question. Is it lawful for the Chinese government to enter Hawaii and kidnap an American tech executive or politician for some crime that they claim has been done and violations to the US law for example?
Me right?
That it's just it becomes a question whose ox is being going? Oh no, we would screen bloody murder if that happened. That what the Chinese kidnap somebody and took them to China. This is an outrage.
You're you're exactly You're exactly right. And and these these cases should be on the front page so that the public as has outraged as you and I, rather than on the back page. And if you read the article, not knowing the background, you think, oh, well, they picked up another drug trafficker and he's an ex general. I'm blate, it's going to jail. No, he didn't violate any American laws. He probably didn't even violate any Venezuelan laws the way they are understood and enforced in Venezuela.
Yeah, and that's what I was alluding to earlier. I obviously do not know the state of Venezuelan law. But the idea that we were trying a guy for committing crime, allegedly committing crimes in Venezuela in a US court that we kidnapped, it's I just am sitting here totally in sense, in my mind is blown that that exists. It used to be, though there was a limitation, it was justified to redress criminal harm actually caused by the kidnapp person to an American person or property, or he pointed out
earlier in the Biden administration. In twenty twenty two, Congress extended that authority in federal courts to cover crimes committed in foreign countries against foreign persons. So there's a law on the books that authorized.
Yes, it not only authorizes it, it tells federal judges that Jay, they have jurisdiction under that clause in the Constitution that lamentable Jimmy Madison, clause that lets the Congress expand or contract federal judicial jurisdiction. They expanded it and said you will try it. I would throw it out and say it's not just issiable. But that's me and I was not a federal judge. I was a state judges, you know, and I never had anything like this. This
stuff is of relatively recent vintage. The statute that I cite is only three years old. Wow.
So we've extended federal courts authority over foreign lands and over foreign crimes.
Correct. So expect the Feds to pick up a Russian soldier who killed a Ukrainian civilian and they'll be tried in the Eastern District of Virginia where the Feds never lose, and will be sentenced to jail for the rest of his life. And then they'll trade him with some American basketball player that's in a Moscow jail.
Wow. And I presume the CIA the ones responsible for going out and doing the kidnapping in most of these cases.
Sadly, yes, yes, there are six CIA agents who can't go to Europe because a European wide indictment still stands for their having kidnapped an Egyptian cleric, brought him to Egypt for torture, and then came back to the United States. They've been indicted by Italian magistrates and that indictment still stands. George Bush can't go to Europe because he and Dick Cheney and indicted by a Spanish magistrates.
So well, under our theory, then it will be aoka for whatever Italy has by way of special forces to come in here and kidnap those CIA agents and bring them back to Italy.
Yes it would, Yes, it would. If the logic behind the American use of kidnapping applies universally, it would make perfect sense for the Italian intel people to kidnap these CIA guys and put them on trial in Italy, and they'll be convicted because what they did is on tape.
Judge of Polton an enlightening discussion, again an area that I was really not familiar with at all, and it's obviously I share with you this outrageous a system and the state of the law that we were living under right now in the United States. It's just mind blowing but refreshing to talk with you about it and bring it to everybody's attention so more people know about it. Judge entered Apolitano judging Freedom is his podcasts. Who are you going to be talking to today, your honor?
I have Max blumouthal of Colonel Larry Wilgerson, the former chief of staff for Colon Powell, and the great filled CIA agent who told George Bush that Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction, whereupon Bush threw him out of the Oval office.
Yes, indeed, it's amazing what we actually learn over time, isn't it. It's refreshing at least get the information out, even if it's way past due until next Wednesday, my dear friend, have a wonderful week you as well.
Thank you, Brian, all the best.
Thank you, sir. Eight forty two Right now fifty five KRC the talk station, don't go away.
I'd be right back fifty five KRC dot Com