It's kind of a curious notion...
Yes, I understand. Free speech and all that.
But we have laws against some kinds of speech.
"Shouting fire in a crowded theatre"
Libellous and defamatory language.
Sharing state secrets.
Conspiracy to commit a crime.

And yes... inciting a riot.

And well, there was this war we had. Apparently still have.
Against terror. Well, it wasn't really a war except on the business end
because we didn't want to treat captives
with the due process of being P.O.W.s.

No, we wanted to put them in cages and
Make them listen to Barney for hours
whether they were kids or not,
and waterboard them and shock their genitals,
sic dogs on them, threaten them with rape and death....
All those things you can't do to a P.O.W.
So we called them "Illegal combatants,"
So we could have our war-cake and eat it, too.

Sometimes you could become an illegal combatant
simply by inciting violence against us,
and sometimes, we'd send you to Syria or Libya
to be really good and properly tortured
even though sometimes we got your name wrong.
Sorry about that, and please forget
that we were being friendly with Bashar and Muhamar
when they were useful. We're trying to fix that.

So, I wonder. Can you hold people responsible
for inciting a riot in another country?
It's a pretty open-and-shut case, where they've
admitted to intentionally trying to provoke violence
to prove their point.

I suppose an extradition request could be made
through Interpol. But I think there's precedent
and legal frameworks established during Dubya's term
for simply whisking into their houses
in the middle of the night and flying them
in a straight-jacket and hood to an undisclosed location
to be tortured for years until they reveal
names of all the fundamentalist militants they know,
and the attacks they were planning.

After all, what's sauce for the gander
Is sauce for the goose, isn't it?

Or do you really think that brown people
with beards and hijabs
don't deserve the same degree of justice?