17/11/2025
Your post is the kind of argument that starts loud, ends confused, and collapses halfway like a generator with fake oil. It is full of confidence but empty of coherence — a long sermon built on a rotten foundation and decorated with pseudo-legal ornaments to make it look intelligent to people who don’t read.
Let’s tear it apart line by line, logic by logic, delusion by delusion.
1. YOU ADMIT THE CRIME, THEN PRETEND IT DOESN’T MATTER
You start by boldly declaring:
> “EVERYBODY AGREES THE EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION WAS UNLAWFUL.”
Good.
That’s the one correct sentence.
But immediately after announcing that the government:
broke international law,
violated treaties,
dishonored Kenya’s sovereignty,
abused human rights,
and kidnapped a citizen…
…you jump to the breathtakingly idiotic conclusion:
> “But he should still be tried.”
So let me understand your logic:
The state committed a crime.
But because the state benefits from the crime, the crime shouldn’t have consequences.
This is not reasoning.
This is government bootlicking dressed up as legal analysis.
2. COMPARING EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION TO UNLAWFUL ARREST IS AN INSULT TO INTELLIGENCE
Your attempt to reduce a cross-border kidnapping to “an unlawful arrest” is the most embarrassing part of the entire piece.
An unlawful arrest is:
a procedural mistake,
within a country,
by law enforcement.
Extraordinary rendition is:
an international crime,
executed by a state,
across national borders,
bypassing extradition,
violating UN conventions.
Putting the two in the same category is like comparing:
Stealing pure water
to
Looting the Central Bank.
You don't just misunderstand the law — you misunderstand basic reality.
3. YOUR “SUPREME COURT SAID SO” DEFENSE IS WEAK AND CHILDISH
You throw around “Supreme Court” as if the mere mention of it magically transforms illegality into legitimacy.
Let me educate you:
A court being final does not make it correct.
A political verdict does not become
