States have a duty to protect their citizens and a right to self-defence.

Which is exactly why OTHER states should not be attacking and capturing their civilians. When a state or government itself is NOT responsible for nor guilty of terrorism, why should its borders be disrespected or its people killed and kidnapped? If there are terrorists in a Country, it is a local problem , that Country's government should/can be aided to tackle the problem but to violate international law, that Country's laws and the captor country's own laws(arrest without a warrant or informing the captive's family. A lot of these nabbed terror-suspects are treated as 'missing persons') is simply unacceptable. To claim that your citizens cannot be attacked by terrorists and then go ahead and attack mostly innocent civilians to capture the same terrorists in another Country: is more-than-a-double-standard. And then to send those suspected terrorists to a THIRD country , where they are brutally stripped of their basic human rights.How does this qualify as self-defense? 'We do not doubt the ethics of self-defense. International law recognizes that a state can resort to self-defense when attacked by another state. Why should the right to self-defense disappear if the security threat is a non-state actor' because you are not attacking the non-state actors , you are attacking the STATE. Maybe South Africa should attack the U.S.A for allowing The K.K.K to stage public protests (because of freedom of speech) and aggravate racial crime/tension therefore.Obama is a State rep , where as the KLU KLUX KLAN are non-state actors, responsible for race-oriented crime the world over.If the KLAN commits a crime in Africa it is dealt with in Africa. To attack a state/Country/U.S.A that isn't involved nor responsible, that is vociferously against racism (Just as the states/Countries/governments of Pakistan & Afghanistan are against terrorism) is absurd and most certainly wrong. I reiterate the point in simple language: self-defense can only be against the non-state attackers, not the State itself. You are defending the act of attacking a state because it has a few bad eggs.Obviously those bad eggs were initially or at some point in the Self-defending State. Since the State claiming 'Self-defense' couldn't do anything about these terror-suspects while they were within HER OWN borders. She has no right to attack other States that these suspects flee to , or criticize these other States for not being able to contain the suspects(Since I repeat once again , She herself couldn't when they were on her soil). Extra-territorial rendition only gives the State claiming Self-defense the freedom to do to citizens of other countries, on foreign soil(murdering masses in the name of collateral damage/self-defense/'It need be done to capture terrorists); what She, the State couldn't do on her OWN soil when the suspects were there. The policy is: I'm a big Country, I can't go about killing MY civilians in the pursuit of suspected-terrorists, when they are on MY soil. So I wait until they flee to another Country whose civilians I couldn't give a hoot about. This attitude should NOT under any circumstances be tolerated by the international community and it isn't, not by international law nor Harvard Law nor any of the other authorities, we've quoted earlier. I reiterate that there is NO recorded evidence that 'extra-ordinary rendition' has prevented even one act/plan/plot of terrorism.