That's fucked up on so many levels. And obviously totally illegal, to the point of qualifying for a felony. I think the Civil Enforcement's unavoidavble court case will prove interesting. I'm not familiar with UK's legal system: what will they be sued for, exactly?

What to say? I think one of the best ways to evaluate famous people as persons is to examine what they do with their fame. In this respect, Neil Gaiman earns lots of kudos with his participation to this wonderful plot.
An author isn't subjected to the whim of his fans, but what kind of author would pass the opportunity to make such a georgeous story real?
Talk about bringing magic to his fans, heh.

Yeah, abusing toys is a sad and mean thing to do. They turn insane and finish in a psychiatric clinic.

Are you speaking of the reason why Dog and his crew were arrested and prosecuted in Mexico? Yeah, fun stuff really.

So how it is different? Basically, it's not: just plain criminal.

Except that, when it's done by official agents on duty, it's pretty close to an act of war.

It would be tremendously ironic if agents sent on such a kidnapping mission found themselves shot down by local law enforcers in the attempt.
Hell of a diplomatic mess I can barely imagine. And to be true, I'd like to see it, which makes me feel a bit bad because it implies people are killed, and as a matter of principle I try my best not to wish such things.
Then there's the fiction option. So, I claim to any writer who'd read this and find they could use this as a plot element: feel free to do so.

André Franquin used the same gag (with gulls, that he loved to draw) in his Idées Noires series in the early 80', except that there was a skeleton in the final panel.

#13 Now that you mention it, and considering Jeunet and Caro's background,I'd say I barely wonder that.
I'm merely wondering if they have been actively part of that stuff or if it was only friends of theirs.

Oh wow! It's been less than three weeks since I created my FaceBook account, and I carefully read their terms of service before doing so: they pretend to comply to the Safe Harbor Principles, dammit! It seems that, actually, they don't. For this, they could be denied the right to any activity in the Europe Union. Maybe it's a threat that they'd take seriously.

"Schmorgluck, we are gaining valuable, verifiable information (including the locations of weapon caches, as detailed earlier) simply by making someone uncomfortable for a few hours."
Bullshit. No reliable information has ever been gained by means of torture. Expert in the field have said it many times. You seem to be unaware that there are many interrogation techniques that are not based on torture. Fortunately, some people know their job. Not in Guantanamo, apparently.

"I'm in favor of that. I'm not in favor of harsh techniques or torture for the purpose of extracting confessions (since such confessions would be worthless)."
The technique involved here are harsh techniques of torture, aimed at causing huge pain and extreme distress. The one and only real difference between these methods and, say, those used by French army in Algeria, is that they cause lower casualties (still some casualties, though).

By the way, to answer to yet another piece of bullshit you dropped earlier: Spain's withdrawal has little to do with the train bombing and mainly to do with a change in government not unrelated to the fact that the invasion of Iraq was highly impopular to Spanish people from the very beginning, like it was to most people in the world, actually.

"Yes, terrorism is a tactic, and it's a tactic that we're working to prove does not work and should not be used in the future by any group that wants to accomplish anything other than their own crushing defeat."
I fail to see how it is coherent with your approval of the endorsement of terrorism by US government. Because, just so you know, the purpose of torture is terrorist. It has nothing to do with gaining information. It's all about sending a message, a message of terror against any dissent in target countries. Which is the very definition of terrorism, no matter how Bush and his minions try to twist the words.

Speaking of words: terrorism isn't a tactic, it's a strategy. Various tactics can be involved in this strategy, like bombing, torture, mutilations en masse, or methodic execution of dissenters (1793-94, France, the... Terror - the origin of the word "terrorism", FYI).

Or we could call that "reverse vandalism" (which I guess could count as an anticrime).

One thing that's especially funny is that, while to enter the building they sometimes resorted to some illegal means, entering it wasn't, and still isn't, illegal by itself, in the absence of any written law on the matter (yet).

Having no more friends at all : priceless!

Yeah, I know: that was an easy one.

I wonder if this is going far enough that this measures could be considered significant and permit invoking the laws (and a European directive, and international treaties) that prevent important decision involving people to be automated. Sadly, I doubt it. I'll have to ask to French lawyers I know.

Seriously, pretending to get rid of terrorism by turning yourself into a terrorist is not something I'd qualify as a very good move in terms of:
1) ethics
2) efficiency
3) well, basic sanity, really

Then again, the Bush clique hasn't proved strong in any of these areas, anyway.