Follow the Bouncing Ball

Secretary of State Rice's comments before leaving for Europe:

The individuals come from many countries and are often captured far from their original homes. Among them are those who are effectively stateless, owing allegiance only to the extremist cause of transnational terrorism. Many are extremely dangerous. And some have information that may save lives, perhaps even thousands of lives.

The captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice, which were designed for different needs. We have to adapt. Other governments are now also facing this challenge.

We consider the captured members of al-Qaida and its affiliates to be unlawful combatants who may be held, in accordance with the law of war, to keep them from killing innocents. We must treat them in accordance with our laws, which reflect the values of the American people. We must question them to gather potentially significant, lifesaving, intelligence. We must bring terrorists to justice wherever possible.

For decades, the United States and other countries have used ''renditions'' to transport terrorist suspects from the country where they were captured to their home country or to other countries where they can be questioned, held or brought to justice.

In some situations a terrorist suspect can be extradited according to traditional judicial procedures. But there have long been many other cases where, for some reason, the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extradition is not a good option. In those cases the local government can make the sovereign choice to cooperate in a rendition. Such renditions are permissible under international law and are consistent with the responsibilities of those governments to protect their citizens.

Rendition is a vital tool in combating transnational terrorism. Its use is not unique to the United States, or to the current administration. Last year, then Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet recalled that our earlier counterterrorism successes included ''the rendition of many dozens of terrorists prior to September 11, 2001.''

What about those detention centers?

Throughout Monday, Rice refused any outright answer to the underlying question European governments have asked: Did the United States run clandestine detention sites on the continent?

''Were I to confirm or deny, say yes or say no, then I would be compromising intelligence information, and I'm not going to do that,'' she said on her plane to Germany.

Well, no, she didn't confirm their existence. However:

Ms. Rice did not explicitly confirm the existence of the detention centers, first described in news reports early last month. But acknowledgment of them was implicit in her remarks. Without the debate over the covert jails, there would have been no reason for her statement.

And notice that she only denies their existence now. There is a reason for that, too.

The United States held captured al Qaeda suspects at two secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe until last month when the facilities were shut down after media reports of their existence, ABC News reported on Monday, citing current and former CIA agents.

Condi also forgets she's not dealing with the United States of America, where "sovereignty" and "jurisdiction" are shifting matters of covnenience (and she unconsciously echoes the language of "states' rights" from the '50's and '60's):

"We must bring terrorists to justice wherever possible," she said, "but there have been many cases where the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extradition is not a good option."

"In those cases," she added, "the local government can make the sovereign choice to cooperate in" the transfer of a suspect to a third country, which is known as a rendition.

So much for honoring international law.

But Ms. Rice can't help herself. "Law," too, is a flexible concept, applicable where needed; to be ignored where it is inconvenient:

"One of the difficult issues in this new kind of conflict is what to do with captured individuals who we know or believe to be terrorists," she said. Many are "essentially stateless, owing their allegiance to the extremist cause of transnational terrorism."

The ultimate redoubt: we honor the law, but the law does not apply to certain persons. So if we appear not to honor the law, we have our reasons.

As I say, unconsciously echoing the "states' rights" advocates of an earlier age. And notice that "justice" has now become entirely a matter of "punishment."