Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Italy upholds verdict on CIA agents in rendition case

page: 1
12

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Italy upholds verdict on CIA agents in rendition case


www.bbc.co.uk

Italy's highest appeals court has upheld guilty verdicts on 23 Americans, all but one of them CIA agents, accused of kidnapping a terror suspect.

Their case related to the abduction of an Egyptian cleric in Milan in 2003.

The man, known as Abu Omar, was allegedly flown to Egypt and tortured.

The Americans were tried in absentia, in the first trial involving extraordinary rendition, the CIA's practice of transferring suspects to countries where torture is permitted.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Well this is a "no shirt" headline - surprisingly it seems that working for the CIA in another country does nto actually give you immunity from that country's laws - who wouulda thought that??
(in the absence of any agreement otherwise of course!)


The group of Americans - 22 of whom were CIA agents and one an Air Force pilot - are believed to be living in the US and are unlikely to serve their sentences.

Italy has never requested their extradition but they will be unable to travel to Europe without risking arrest.

The group include the former station chief of CIA operations in Milan, Robert Seldon Lady.


What's more even if you are an Italian agent you don't get a free pass to kidnap people in Italy:


The Court of Cassation also ruled that five senior Italian secret service agents - including the former head of the country's military intelligence agency - should be tried for their role in the kidnapping.


www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Also see this ATS thread from 2009 for the initial convictions (see - I did search!!)
edit on 19-9-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
good show italy ... about time that someone hold C(aught) I(n the) A(ct) accountable for their crimes .... now the countdown to the americans invading italy begins....



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I do not see this thread getting much attention. It should get more. The US is happy to try criminals in international courts but refuses to obey these laws themselves... No person or country should be above or below the law...s/f



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
That is why doing anything for the CIA or the military outside the US is risky business. This is where the difference between clandestine and covert becomes very important.

Clandestine actions are those that could possibly be traced back to the US because say one is a Soldier and not supposed to be seen. Or even perhaps having a cover but because of language issues they use a US cover passports and/or US made issued equipment. In this case it appears they were under the impression that no covers were needed at all it seems.

Covert is that your cover is designed in such a way as to give the US plausible deniability of any involvement in the action. Say using a false Russian (and speaking Russian) passport and having gear from Angola and clothing from India. Totally sterile of any US involvement.

Say for example one is in SF in the late 80's conducting clandestine surveillance operations in Sudan and crossed the border inadvertently into Egypt and get confronted by the border guards. Its either surrender or get in a gunfight. It’s clandestine because you have no cover. Clearly you are a US Soldier with US equipment etc. - but not at all supposed to be there.

Since the US can't deny your existance in this case the embassy will get you out of course - after 48-72 hours of very inhospitable treatment by the border guards I would wager.

One can imagine that, countries even those with whom we have good relationships would not take kindly to heavily armed American Soldiers being in their country uninvited and unannounced. In a stolen vehicle...from say an angry drug dealing arms dealer.

It results in PNG status for the individual or Soldier - nothing more. Would be a shame for the individual. No more visiting the pyramids. Egypt is a beautiful country if you can get past all the feces in the streets. However, no show trials or anything... But that was in the 80's when people feared and respected our POTUS. Regan was the bomb in more ways than one.

This is all show for the Italians - flexing their moustaches or something. Who knows what the Italians think? Maybe they are kissing up the the Muslims in hopes that after they take over Europe they get spared?

As for the CIA guys – they will also be put on the PNG list for Italy and now have to manage their careers around avoiding the country. Very inconvenient for someone in the trade I’d wager.

However, no one is going to be extradited – I don’t think even Amateur-in-Chief would want to set that precedent.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
I do not see this thread getting much attention.
Neither do I but for different reasons.



Originally posted by purplemer
It should get more.
No it should not.



Originally posted by purplemer
The US is happy to try criminals in international courts
Really? Who is the US trying in an international court? Being the Us is not a signatory to the ICC I am curious what you are referring to. Link / source please.



Originally posted by purplemer
but refuses to obey these laws themselves...

The US is happy to try criminals in international courts Really? Who is the US trying in an international court? Being the Us is not a signatory to the ICC I am curious what you are referring to. Link / source please.




Originally posted by purplemer
No person or country should be above or below the law...s/f

Agreed.. Now if we can just get you and the others to practice what you preach and stop concentrating solely on the US
.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Hello Xcatharda hows you.




Really? Who is the US trying in an international court? Being the Us is not a signatory to the ICC I am curious what you are referring to. Link / source please.


Was refering to the US voting at the Security Council to order the ICC to indict Qaddafi....




Agreed.. Now if we can just get you and the others to practice what you preach and stop concentrating solely on the US


Its the US that sends its troops half way round the world in order to bring peace and democracy. I have every right to concentration on them.. You really think leaders should get away with the likes of the below and not be prosecuted...




posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer I have every right to concentration on them.. You really think leaders should get away with the likes of the below and not be prosecuted...


I am fairly certain that all of the individual Soldiers, Non-commissioned Officers, and Officers were either prosecuted under a Court Martial or given appropriate non-judicial punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice which governs the conduct of Soldiers.

You might not agree with the severity of their punishment but then again a lot of people (me included) do not equate the level of their infractions with criminal acts. They were wrong sure but not criminal torture like lopping off heads and crap.

They were in effect in most cases guilty of the same level of hazing that takes place in a fraternity or military unit.

The Officers and NCO’s who allowed it to happen and either did know or should have known have been appropriately relieved and are no longer in the service.

We don't need the the ICC to police our ranks we do it ourselves prety well.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


I think that just prosecuting soldiers and Officers is to use people as scape goats. The command should have been followed to the top. Wikileaks exposed that torture was known about and that it was standard practise. Bradley Mannning tried to expose it via the correct channels and told to shut up. That is why he leaked the info.

What about extraordinary rendition. The practise of sending detainees to other countries by the US so that they can be tortured. Do you agree with that..

Look at Geneva Conventions bars it torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against the human dignity of prisoners of war.

One day US soliders and those that commanded such attoricities in government will be held to account for there actions. As much as the US might like to think it does not have to abide by these rules. It does. The reason it does not abide at the moment is because no one has a bigger stick than the US. But the world is changing fast. Remember Germany and the Nuremberg trials.. The US has just fought in two illegal wars and caused the death of nearly 2 million Iraqi and Afgan people. This has been done for oil and profit....



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
I'm glad to see that rendition is getting press, at least somewhere in the world. It is, in my opinion, the dirtiest trick currently in the US playbook.

When anyone claims a morally viable "war" and then uses dirty tactics - it usually means that the claims of morality are bogus.

If there are threats to us abroad, great. Send in SEALS and eliminate them. The guise of intelligence gathering is losing credibility greatly here. Torture does not produce viable intelligence and in a digital age we've much more effective means of gaining information.

Rendition should be addressed, disavowed, and banned by the US and all legitimate governments, universally.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
Hello Xcatharda hows you.

Just another day in paradise...



Originally posted by purplemer
Was refering to the US voting at the Security Council to order the ICC to indict Qaddafi....

Source please... The ICC is NOT a part of the United Nations and the Security Council cannot order them to indict anyone.



Originally posted by purplemer
Its the US that sends its troops half way round the world in order to bring peace and democracy. I have every right to concentration on them.. You really think leaders should get away with the likes of the below and not be prosecuted...

What I am pointing out is how you ignore any and all other participants while at the same time expanding the US role to levels beyond our actual involvement. Like your comment about the Security Council ordering an indictment when its impossible for them to do so.

And again, please provide your sources / links to support the claims I pointed out in my first response that you saw fit to ignore in your response.
edit on 21-9-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
I think that just prosecuting soldiers and Officers is to use people as scape goats. The command should have been followed to the top. Wikileaks exposed that torture was known about and that it was standard practise.


No elected officials will ever be “tried” for any decisions they make. Not going to ever happen. The “torture” to which you refereeing was deemed to be enhanced interrogation by competent legal counsel. What was happening at Abu G was something different done by unqualified personnel without the intent to illicit information but to harass the detainees who were low level and without usable information. That is why they were punished.


Originally posted by purplemer
Bradley Mannning tried to expose it via the correct channels and told to shut up. That is why he leaked the info.


That is because Brad is a Private and knows about as much as one would expect a Private to know about the necessity and proper use of enhanced interrogation. He violated his NDA and is therefore in prison awaiting his trial after which he will go right back to enjoy the rest of his life there. He is an idiot and a traitor.


Originally posted by purplemer
What about extraordinary rendition. The practise of sending detainees to other countries by the US so that they can be tortured. Do you agree with that..


Yep, I do actually if you haven’t read any of my past history I was in both Special Forces and Military Intelligence and oversaw was a liaison officer for a program in Uzbekistan for that very purpose. When Barry took away our ability to do it in a controlled environment we just outsourced it to people who don’t just do enhanced interrogations they go for broke and use real torture. We never lopped off body parts but guess who did?


Originally posted by purplemer
Look at Geneva Conventions bars it torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against the human dignity of prisoners of war.


You and I would be in agreement on that – however, to have protection of the convention one must actually be a combatant and terrorists and insurgents do not meet that threshold of the legal definition. So they have zero rights or protections under the convention. They are not Prisoners of War - they don't meet the definition under the rules of the convention. Too bad so sad.


Originally posted by purplemer
One day US soliders and those that commanded such attoricities in government will be held to account for there actions. As much as the US might like to think it does not have to abide by these rules. It does. The reason it does not abide at the moment is because no one has a bigger stick than the US. But the world is changing fast. Remember Germany and the Nuremberg trials..


Perhaps if the flag of another country ever flys over the White House we will worry about that then.

The victors set the conditions for the losers - that is the way war works.

Until someone conquers us I will remain unconcerned. I personally hope the next POTUS brings rendition and enhanced interrogation. It works – where do you think we got the information to conduct the Osama raid? We asked nicely?

Barry canceled the program yet wasted no time spiking the ball and high fiving himself (surprised he didn't strain a muscle) after using the fruits of the intelligence gathered from the program to up his international “street cred”.

The Douche-in-Chief should be sent for a session or two to see if we can figure out where he is from and what his agenda is.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Yes God forbid we develop tactics to win a war where the enemy plays by a different rule book. By the way since you and some others dont seem to grasp this concept the enemies we are fighting are not members of the UN nor are they signatories to the UN treaties, like the Geneva conventions, CAT, etc etc etc. If people did research beyond their own hatred of the US actions they might notice there are provisions in those treaties, especiallt eh Geneva conventions, that allow tit for tat when one side violates the treaty.

Waterboarding is by far better than having your throat cut and used in propoganda videos. Where is the outrage at those tactics?

Or am I missing the point in that all people want to do is bitch about the US? If thats the case dont we have enough threads on this site already? Granted they might be mixed in with the anti Israeli threads but still...
edit on 21-9-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-9-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


so called rebels and insurgents are FREEDOM FIGHTERS they are fighting an invading army and they have every right to resist .

are you stating that unless they wear a uniform whilst fighting they have no rights to be treated as a prisoner of war ?

during ww2 would you class the french resistance as rebels and insurgents or freedom fighters ?

if your country was invaded are you saying that anyone not wearing a uniform has no right to resist ?



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1.Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2.Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a)that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Removed for space reasons by me…(Not really relevant to the discussion)
4. Removed for space reasons by me…(Not really relevant to the discussion)
5. Removed for space reasons by me…(Not really relevant to the discussion)

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

www.icrc.org...



Originally posted by tom.farnhill
so called rebels and insurgents are FREEDOM FIGHTERS they are fighting an invading army and they have every right to resist .


Of course they do, resist and fight away...

I would and I would fight to the death because I know the convention and not being in an organized force with an established chain of command (Art 4 A (2) (a) who take responsibility for the actions of his subordinates.

Wearing no identifiable fixed sign (Flags, rank, ID cards, uniforms and unit and insignia), according to Art 4 A (2) (b) we could blend into the civilian population and decide to as it suits our needs to carry arms only when necessary Art 4 A (2) (c) and conduct raids sabotage, assassination, and or kidnapping and bombings of non-military targets (aid stations, hospitals, civilian support staff barracks etc.) therefore be acting out side of the laws and customs of war Art 4 A (2) (d).

Therefore it would be no real surprise to me that should I be captured I would not be entitled to POW status (thus tortured and killed) as was often the case when I was on active duty in Special Forces or Military Intelligence operating in civilian clothing with a cover identity doing things that are clearly outside the customs and laws of war. However, I made that choice freely knowing the hazards of my profession.


Originally posted by tom.farnhill
are you stating that unless they wear a uniform whilst fighting they have no rights to be treated as a prisoner of war ?


Correct – see Art 4 A (2) (b) regarding operating either in civilian clothing or captured uniforms means you are a spy and not a POW as you do not meet the conditions of the article. Volunteer for special missions take special risks.


Originally posted by tom.farnhill
during ww2 would you class the french resistance as rebels and insurgents or freedom fighters ?


They were both…fighting for the freedom of their country but operating as illegal combatants.

For a person to be entitled to the status of a Prisoner of War they must follow act according to the convention and follow the strict guidelines. They are not Soldiers in a military, they were civilian clothes, carry out covert missions without weapons to collect intelligence and while they have “leaders” the nature of operational cells means their chain of command extends only to that cell as they may not even know from whom they receive their orders. Therefore they were spies, saboteurs and illegal combatants not entitled to protection under the convention or entitled to POW status if captured.

This does not make their cause un just it’s is simply that they take their actions voluntarily knowing their status as illegal combatants gives them no protection under the convention.

Continued below sorry...this is a complicated response (bear with me).



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
(Con't from above)


Originally posted by tom.farnhill
if your country was invaded are you saying that anyone not wearing a uniform has no right to resist ?


Not at all – everyone has the right to resist as would I; however, they don’t have the right to have it both ways. Either join the military, follow the rules wear a uniform, follow the customs and laws of war answer to an identifiable chain of command and enjoy the protection of the conventions – or….

Operate as a resistance wearing what you have operating with what you can scrounge and take your chances knowing you lack status as a legal combatant. Tough call – but people are more than willing to make it all the time.

These brave individuals (and I consider the Taliban brave) can’t have it both ways. Can’t fight in civilian clothes, plant IEDs killing civilians, use human shields, ditch your weapons at the first sign of getting your ass kicked, work for “leaders” who hide and issue anonymous orders through layers of cells to protect their own asses capture Soldiers, cut off their heads, demand ransoms and hang their bodies from bridge abutments then claim – we are Soldiers what happened to our POW status?

Sorry – Military Law is something I learned as necessity as I both operated within and sometimes outside of it operating in a sterile situation. IN those cases I knew the government would deny my existence and I was on my own and totally lacking the POW protection and status.

I am afraid you lack an understanding of the convention. Especially applies to unconventional warfare and insurgency. I made a lifetime career of practicing it 24 years in the Military 17 in Special Operations the rest in MI and Infantry.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by XcathdraWaterboarding is by far better than having your throat cut and used in propoganda videos. Where is the outrage at those tactics?


I have been water boarded and experienced may other of the "tortures" we were authorized to use. Scary, # yea, uncomfortable and terrifying - yep. Going to kill you or permanently maim/scar you - nope.

One must suffer these techniques before one is qualified, trained and authorized to use them. That way one knows the effect they have and what to look for.

I was once in a small box for what seemed hours - during the debrief I was told it was all of 24 minutes.

The point of training our high risk agents and Soldiers (and there are levels above what people get to experience at normal SERE school but such programs are not acknowledged as they do go all out on the agents and operators ) in those type units is to make one thing very clear.

No matter how hard core these woodpecker lipped operators think they are having graduated from Ranger school and the Q course - one constant remains, they talk...everyone does some do in minutes some take hours some take days and these are some of the toughest men in the military.

The lesson is death is preferable to capture by the people we fight - they don't hold the convention in high regard....

The best tool an interrogator has is the uncertainly of his subject - they need to fear that you can and will do anything to them and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Showing some tools and making some threats is usually enough - but since out Dip#-in-Chief took away that uncertainty we have to outsource to people who might do more than make threats...

It’s still going to happen we used to be able to control it and in 99% of the cases the threat was enough. Only 3 detainees were boarded under our program.

However, since we had to outsource they get real and bona fide torture at the hands of people who have no problem with it. Excellent decision making Barry.

Pretty dumb...but then again its been a comedy of amateur hour decisions at the White House for the last 4 years of military policy.

What do you expect when we elect a person who has never served a day in uniform. That should be a requirement for POTUS along with the others.
edit on 21/9/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
12

log in

join