Professors Cohen and Gershman make a reasonable argument that the government should honor its promises; however, they never explicitly say that the government made those promises. They state that Mr. Noorzai was lured to the United States "by two freelance "contractors" associated with the FBI, who told Noorzai they were FBI and Defense Department agents."

Being promised something by someone "associated with" an agency of the government does not mean that the promise is made by the government. "Associated" can mean many different things.

Further, it has been my understanding that police officers often lie in the course of duty: undercover police are often asked by the people whom they are investigating if they are "cops." The officers routinely deny that, and the courts routinely allow them to do that. Officers also make representations, if not outright promises, during investigations and interrogations; these are also allowed. When suspects discover the untruth and confront the officer, the standard response is "I lied."

Finally, my recollection is that the U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld all kinds of "underhanded" practices used by law enforcement to bring people back into the United States, including downright forcible kidnapping. Thus it seems to me that the professors should address the "settled law," rather than ignore it in their article. The issue may be one worth discussion, but the discussion should start with all the facts, not just those that the professors believe buttress their argument.