Judge Napolitano - Searching for Monsters

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
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.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
So my stomach was churning, not knowing what to expect.
Instead of a madman, I heard the voice of a
lovely lady.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
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

(00:42):
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

(01:03):
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.

(01:24):
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

(01:49):
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.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
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,

(02:28):
not in the United States.

Speaker 1 (02:30):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:30):
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

(02:52):
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.

(03:14):
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

(03:37):
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,

(04:01):
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.

Speaker 1 (04:11):
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

(04:31):
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

(04:52):
process rights violent, or anything else.

Speaker 2 (04:54):
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

(05:16):
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

(05:38):
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.

(06:01):
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.

Speaker 1 (06:18):
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?

Speaker 2 (06:32):
Me right?

Speaker 1 (06:33):
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.

Speaker 2 (06:43):
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.

(07:07):
He probably didn't even violate any Venezuelan laws the way
they are understood and enforced in Venezuela.

Speaker 1 (07:17):
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

(07:40):
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.

Speaker 2 (08:01):
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

(08:22):
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.

Speaker 1 (08:40):
So we've extended federal courts authority over foreign lands and
over foreign crimes.

Speaker 2 (08:47):
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.

Speaker 1 (09:09):
Wow. And I presume the CIA the ones responsible for
going out and doing the kidnapping in most of these cases.

Speaker 2 (09:16):
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.

(09:37):
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.

Speaker 1 (09:48):
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.

Speaker 2 (10:01):
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

(10:21):
they'll be convicted because what they did is on tape.

Speaker 1 (10:25):
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.

(10:46):
Judge entered Apolitano judging Freedom is his podcasts. Who are
you going to be talking to today, your honor?

Speaker 2 (10:51):
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.

Speaker 1 (11:08):
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.

Speaker 2 (11:20):
Thank you, Brian, all the best.

Speaker 1 (11:21):
Thank you, sir. Eight forty two Right now fifty five
KRC the talk station, don't go away.

Speaker 2 (11:24):
I'd be right back fifty five KRC dot Com