Italian judge orders arrest of 13 CIA agents for kidnapping terrorist suspect

[Drewcifer]

Perhaps some Americans need a reminder of the meanings of some words (from the American Heritage College Dictionary):

Ally 1.To place in a friendly association, as by treaty.

Vassal 1. A person who held land from a feudal lord and received protection in return for homage and allegiance. 2. A bondsman, a slave. 3. A subordinate or dependant.

Sometimes allies disagree. The idea is that despite those disagreements you have common bonds and common goals that transcend those disagreements.

If you treat your allies as vassals they quickly become enemies.

 

[mitsho]

I am quite shocked by the stance of some Americans (mostly, correct?) in here. The goal never never justifies the means!

You seem to forget two important points:

1) Democracy only functions if there is a division of powere. And the judicial part of this is probably the most important because they/it guards the democracy itself. Spoken this way, the judge had to order the arrest of the CIA men, because they did a kidnap and should be suspended from duty,

2) Because they did something illegal, they disrespected the sovereignity of a foreign power/country. Or what would you Americans say (to give the opposite example), if an Italian intelligence corps would arrest Rumsfeld in Washington D.C. and put him into some European jail, because we/they think he is a mass murderer. Or could become one.

Human rights, Geneva convention, ... all say that if you arrest someone, there MUST be a reason. The soviets, nazis et altera arrested people without reason! If we do not do this, we are nothing more than animals and don't deserve to live in a free (!) democracy!

mitsho

 

[wit>trope]

So what?! That doesn't give us the right to kidnap someone from their territory?

Well the US Supreme Court has ruled that the US government can basically forcefully take a wanted person in other countries' territory without that other country's permission. I'm not sure how that ruling would apply to this particular case since I'm not sure if there was any arrest warrant or anything like that for the man.

Someone said there's no jurisdiction. Well there is. As mentioned above the US Supreme Court has ruled that the US can forcefully take a wanted person without the other country's permission -- that means that the US has jurisdiction whether the other country recognizes it or not. Jurisdictional claims can sometimes conflict and jurisdiction can sometimes overlap. It happens in movies all the time and it happens in real life all the time.

 

[Drewcifer]

Well the US Supreme Court has ruled that the US government can basically forcefully take a wanted person in other countries' territory without that other country's permission. I'm not sure how that ruling would apply to this particular case since I'm not sure if there was any arrest warrant or anything like that for the man.

Someone said there's no jurisdiction. Well there is. As mentioned above the US Supreme Court has ruled that the US can forcefully take a wanted person without the other country's permission -- that means that the US has jurisdiction whether the other country recognizes it or not. Jurisdictional claims can sometimes conflict and jurisdiction can sometimes overlap. It happens in movies all the time and it happens in real life all the time.

I understand that there may be some overlap. People should not be able to commit crimes against Americans and then find refuge elsewhere. At the same time though how do you feel about the idea that the US may be under the jurisdiction of every court of every other country in the world? Don't we have extradition treaties for a reason? What would happen if a future democratic Iraq were to indict Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. for crimes against humanity there? Would they have the right to kidnap them?

 

[h4ppy]

(..)If you never saw the "power of nightmares" series here are the links to the BBC (it's a "must see"):

The Power of Nightmares: Baby It's Cold Outside
The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory
The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows In The Cave

I thought the BBC was supposed to be unbiased.

 

[anarres]

"And justice for all"

Edit

-> Interesting programme. Too bad there isn't a way to watch those programms. I'd love to see them.

You can watch it

The first avi link I checked and is valid, although if you have bittorrent I'd try the high quality torrent first.

http://blogs.linux.ie/xeer/2004/10/23/the-power-of-nightmares/

The Power of Nightmares

BBC programme that ran on wednesday

Lo-Fi (but Full-Screen watchable!)

6meg
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/video/2/power_of_nightmares_1_1of3.avi
30meg
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/video/3/power_of_nightmares_1_2of3.avi
29meg
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/video/4/power_of_nightmares_1_3of3.avi

Higher Quality
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2842/The_Power_Of_Nightmares_pt1-avi.torrent

Another Low Quality one:

* Name: BBC The Power Of Nightmares pt1[RMVB].rmvb
* Info Hash: 71f5e02006a2113bc71dbf82eec478b5474eccd5
* Added: 2004 10/22 04:18:28
* Size: 64.72 MB

DOWNLOAD TORRENT
http://politics.no-ip.info:6969/stats.html?info_hash=71f5e02006a2113bc71dbf82eec478b5474eccd5
http://politics.no-ip.info:6969/torrent.html?info_hash=71f5e02006a2113bc71dbf82eec478b5474eccd5

More Sources:
http://search.suprnova.org//search...._id]=0&data[orderby]=Date&data[orderDir]=desc

 

[Rik Meleet]

Well the US Supreme Court has ruled that the US government can basically forcefully take a wanted person in other countries' territory without that other country's permission. I'm not sure how that ruling would apply to this particular case since I'm not sure if there was any arrest warrant or anything like that for the man.

Someone said there's no jurisdiction. Well there is. As mentioned above the US Supreme Court has ruled that the US can forcefully take a wanted person without the other country's permission -- that means that the US has jurisdiction whether the other country recognizes it or not. Jurisdictional claims can sometimes conflict and jurisdiction can sometimes overlap. It happens in movies all the time and it happens in real life all the time.

That only means that the 13 kidnappers won't be trialed in the USA. IT is still a crime to kidnap in Italy, thus -if caught- they will be trialled in Italy.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Well the US Supreme Court has ruled that the US government can basically forcefully take a wanted person in other countries' territory without that other country's permission.

NOW then of course, it's fine.
Hmm...what if the North Korean Supreme Court decides it is legal to nuke the United States?

C'mon, if the US laws allow for something that blatantly violates the sovereignity and laws of other countries, it may be justified to use such means against enemies.
But for allies?

 

[stormbind]

CIA intelligence might be wrong. If they have something to share, or a concern to raise, they can do that through official channels. Seizing power and undermining authority is a disrespectful violation of sovereignty. It damages international relations and damages the reputation of future Americans.

It would be easy to catch them. Just arrest whoever buys Twinkies.

 

[Uiler]

Several comments here:

1) About the Supreme Court ruling. Wow, I didn't realise that a US court has jurisdiction over actions taken on non-US soil. I never knew the US ruled the world...

2) Sure the US has the strength to do whatever it wants. The thing is though the more it acts like it is the ruler of the world and can do whatever it wants even on non-US soil, this the more its "allies" will stop helping it, out of national pride if nothing else. If all the European governments try to kick out as many CIA agents as possible, try to actively hinder the US government actions as much as possible and refuse to hand over suspects or share information because of domestic outcry over illegal US actions on their soil it will make the "war against terror" much more difficult and will do even more damage to the US' reputation. Respecting your allies is a mere matter of practicality so that they will help you rather than hinder you. The question is - do you want friendly allies eager to cooperate with you or do you want vassal states ruled with military and economic might but greatly resenting of their situation and looking for anyway to break free and only grudgingly doing the barest minimum possible? The first is like a volunteer professional army. The second is like a conscript and I know which one I'd rather have at my back on the battlefield. Any ally will turn against you if you treat them like a servant or slave. From Sima Guang's history of China,

"Xi Zuochi discusses this:99 In the past, Huan of Qi once boasted of his own good work, and so nine states turned rebel.100 For a short time Cao Cao made show of his pride, and so the empire divided into three. Both worked hard for many years, and yet they lost it all in a nod. Is that not sad?"

That is for many years, both Huan of Qi and Cao Cao worked hard to gain power and unite the country. However for a short time ego and pride got got a hold of them ("the good work" is when Huan of Qi started bullying his allies) and they treated their allies like servants and made great boast about this. This pissed their allies off so much that they turned against them and so all the years of hard work in military action and diplomacy they used to build their alliances came to nought in a short time due to pride and arrogance.

In Three Kingdoms the great leaders like Cao Cao (well except for the above incident) and Liu Bei made great show of their respect for their allies. For example if a general came over from the other side to join them they would make great ceremony and may even bow and kneel before them. Generally this made their allies feel like that they were respected and made them more loyal. In fact Cao Cao in particularly made an art form of stealing away talented generals and advisors who were being treated badly by his rivals who were often arrogant warlords belong to the "old nobility" whilst Cao Cao was a new man from the edges of noble society and so personally cared much more for talent rather than blood or family (since he personally didn't have that much of it anyway). So when a general or advisor who was being treated disrespectfully met Cao Cao who would bow and flatter them they were very willing to follow Cao Cao and were very loyal to him because they thought "Aha, finally here is a man that appreciates my talents and will treat me with the respect I deserve."

 

[Strider]

Without the rule of law we have dictatorship, even if our government is elected. It is a concept we have fought wars and written a constitution to uphold, it should not be disregarded so casually. If we can ignore our allies laws to apprehend those who we cannot extradite we can jail those at home who we cannot convict. We should not abandon the core principles our nation was founded upon for short term reasons, there is no guarentee we will get them back. What kind of country do you want to live in? A free one? A just one?

The moral high ground is the only thing in life worth fighting for.

Abu Abbas, responsible for the hijacking of the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro, inwhich he shot and killed handicapped Jewish American Leon Klinghoffer. The hijackers escaped, and headed in a plane for Turkey. U.S. jets intercepted them and forced them to land in Italy, where they were turned over to Italian officials.

Italy then went and let Abu Abbas go, the Prime Minister (at that time) Bettino Craxi explained it like this: "Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport…The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.”

Craxi then rejected the US extradition order and let one of the world's most dangerous terrorists Abu Abbas flee to Yugoslavia and then to Iraq. He we later convicted in Italy in absentia. Some justice for the victims of the Achille Lauro highjacking was done when the United Sates Military did what the incompetent Craxi's Government never could and brought Abbas to justice. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your politics) he died in US custody, following operation Iraq Freedom. Also fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your politics) Craxi was never charged for his role after the highjacking. This event strained US-Italian relations; many Americans felt "burn" by the Craxi Government, for the Sigonella incident and the eventual escape of all highjackers. This event is chronicled by the commander of the US Special Forces during the Sigonella incident now retained General Carl Stiner, in the book Shadow Warriors.

Italy has already proved once it's not capable of dealing with terrorists, why should we give them another attempt?

 

[mitsho]

@strider Why are they incompetent? I would've acted the same!

If they had punished him despite him having diplomatic immunity, this would put into danger the system of diplomatic immunity and give a free-pass for all the dictators of the World to kidnap every western diplomat, "Italy has done the same!".

Terrorists do not respect principles, but what defines a democracy is that it holds onto the rules and principles! If we spoil our system of justice, we spoil everything we fight for, we spoil freedom!

Remember, everyone has to be treated the same, basic principle of the human rights!

mfG m

 

[Strider]

@strider Why are they incompetent? I would've acted the same!

If they had punished him despite him having diplomatic immunity, this would put into danger the system of diplomatic immunity and give a free-pass for all the dictators of the World to kidnap every western diplomat, "Italy has done the same!".

Terrorists do not respect principles, but what defines a democracy is that it holds onto the rules and principles! If we spoil our system of justice, we spoil everything we fight for, we spoil freedom!

Remember, everyone has to be treated the same, basic principle of the human rights!

mfG m

Saddam gave him diplomatic immunity for that reason alone. Why should we hold-fast to principles when no one else is? This didn't mean the differance between a dictatorship or democracy, this meant the differance between hundreds of people dying from this mans later terrorist activities or not.

Anyone who can throw hundreds of other peoples lives away in the name of there Rules and Principles really needs to go back and check there moral standing.

 

[muppet]

What would happen if a future democratic Iraq were to indict Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. for crimes against humanity there? Would they have the right to kidnap them?

No. Absolutely not.

The rest of the world simply does not have the economic or military influence to infringe upon American sovereignty. America may see itself as the land of the free, but the rest of the world will regard it as the home of the hypocrites.

 

[tR1cKy]

Italy has already proved once it's not capable of dealing with terrorists, why should we give them another attempt?

Strider, with all the due respect, this is quite a naive statement of yours.

Please bear in mind that Italian officials cannot do nothing but uphold the law. As you said:

Italy then went and let Abu Abbas go, the Prime Minister (at that time) Bettino Craxi explained it like this: "Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport…The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.”

Being the situation as you describe it, Craxi could do nothing else but release Abu Abbas, because the Italian law mandated him to do so. In fact, he could have been charged if he didn't do that.

Obviously, i'm not saying that Italy did everything "right". The whole operation was conducted with obvious mistakes. First, USA officials should have known that, under Italian laws, Abu Abbas would have been released (i don't think that U.S. Intelligence is short of experts in foreign or international laws...), and so they should have diverted the plane to a different destination (Turkey, perhaps). Or they should have covered the operation differently, not informing Italy that Abu Abbas was on the flight. Once Italy knows, it can do nothing but uphold the Italian law.

But in the Italian side, a little bit of creativity could have been helped. Say that the diplomatic passport "disappear" somewhere, or it's claimed as a false, and so Abu Abbas is given to the U.S. forces (obviously, Italy should have recognized the "error" and apologize later, but in the meantime Abu Abbas could have been put safely into American hands).

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I am quite shocked by the stance of some Americans (mostly, correct?) in here. The goal never never justifies the means!

You seem to forget two important points:

1) Democracy only functions if there is a division of powere. And the judicial part of this is probably the most important because they/it guards the democracy itself. Spoken this way, the judge had to order the arrest of the CIA men, because they did a kidnap and should be suspended from duty,

2) Because they did something illegal, they disrespected the sovereignity of a foreign power/country. Or what would you Americans say (to give the opposite example), if an Italian intelligence corps would arrest Rumsfeld in Washington D.C. and put him into some European jail, because we/they think he is a mass murderer. Or could become one.

Human rights, Geneva convention, ... all say that if you arrest someone, there MUST be a reason. The soviets, nazis et altera arrested people without reason! If we do not do this, we are nothing more than animals and don't deserve to live in a free (!) democracy!

mitsho

Hah. I'm sure just about everything they do is illegal. Suspend CIA agents from duty for kidnapping someone? Do you have any idea what they CIA does? If all they did was kidnap somebody I could care less. Thats what they do. Shady covert operations. Upholding or even respecting foreign laws contradits their existence.

Now comparing the kidnapping of this guy to kidnapping Donald Rumsfeld, I'm not sure why you would do that. I'm sure a lot of peole would like to arrest him. Go ahead and try. When it comes to intelligence agencies arresting people, they do what they are capable of, not what is legal or justified.

 

[Strider]

Strider, with all the due respect, this is quite a naive statement of yours.

Please bear in mind that Italian officials cannot do nothing but uphold the law. As you said:

Being the situation as you describe it, Craxi could do nothing else but release Abu Abbas, because the Italian law mandated him to do so. In fact, he could have been charged if he didn't do that.

Obviously, i'm not saying that Italy did everything "right". The whole operation was conducted with obvious mistakes. First, USA officials should have known that, under Italian laws, Abu Abbas would have been released (i don't think that U.S. Intelligence is short of experts in foreign or international laws...), and so they should have diverted the plane to a different destination (Turkey, perhaps). Or they should have covered the operation differently, not informing Italy that Abu Abbas was on the flight. Once Italy knows, it can do nothing but uphold the Italian law.

But in the Italian side, a little bit of creativity could have been helped. Say that the diplomatic passport "disappear" somewhere, or it's claimed as a false, and so Abu Abbas is given to the U.S. forces (obviously, Italy should have recognized the "error" and apologize later, but in the meantime Abu Abbas could have been put safely into American hands).

It was under Italy's jurisidicition. Those U.S. jets had no choice where to land, you have to remember they hijacked a Italian cruise liner and then took that to Egypt where they then boarded the plane. Last time I checked, cruise liners are not the fastest ships on the sea. Italy knew about the hijacking already, and they knew who did it. The U.S. jets that were launched to intercept the place was from a NATO airbase (and that was also where they landed). I believe the base was on (or is) Sigonella. Which is why it's called the Sigonella incident.

Craxi ordered Italian soldiers to surround the NATO troops guarding the plane, and arrest them. Then, after taking them hostage (the american soldiers), he released all of the hijackers. Not just Abu Abbas, the *only* one with diplomatic immunity, but all of the hijackers.

The U.S. jets landed inside of a military base that was under U.S. control. If Craxi had completely left them alone, Italy would not have taken any blame, for anything. They were under U.S. custody inside of a U.S. air-base.

As I said before, Italy completely screwed it up.

 

[mitsho]

That something is used often doesn't make it right!

 

[tR1cKy]

Yes, it's Sigonella. I remeber it, i was a boy and saw on TV

Now, you say that the American jets could not land anywhere but Sigonella. Please explain why. There were other NATO bases in the Mediterranean. They could have flown to Turkey and direct the plane there, just to say one. A fly from Egypt to Tunisia (the intended destination of the hijackers) is longer that a fly to Turkey, so fuel wasn't a problem.

About the jurisdiction issue, i have the impression that you're confusing things a little, and forgive me if i'm wrong. Just in case, let's try to clarify things.

Guantanamo Bay. Have you ever wondered why the Americans have been able to mantain a military base in a country that has been so long a strong ally of the Soviets? Why didn't Cuba, or the Soviets, kick the Americans offshore? The answer is simple: Guantanamo was sovereign USA territory. Cuba or USSR couldn't lead away the american forces without committing an act of war. The consequences are easy to figure out.

OTOH, Sigonella wasn't American soil. It was (and still is!) under Italian sovereignity. Now, being it a NATO base, it wasn't exactly as a common Italian soil either. In such a case, there are precise international agreements between the involved countries dealing with problems, jurisdition conflict etc. The details of such an agreement are beyond my knowledge, but i can suppose that an incident like the one we're arguing about wasn't clearly covered by the agreement. And so, both the American forces and the Italian government acted in the way they thought to be the right one.

At the end, unwilling to trigger an international incident, the USA forces agreed to recognize the Italian sovereignity and let the italian Carabinieri (which also have functions of Military Police, so they had every right to stay there) take control of the plane.

I'm not saying that Italy acted in the best way it could. Probably the matter could have been handled better, while staying in full respect of the Italian law. Honestly, can't say it. But the first to screw up were surely the American, as they did often even in present days

What i can state for sure is that Craxi didn't want to embarass America. He did what he thought it was the right thing to do. Please note that in 1985 the Soviets were still a menace. There were still Soviet SS-20 aimed at the main european cities, and in such a scenario, the alliance wasn't under questioning at all.

 

[Elrohir]

I am quite shocked by the stance of some Americans (mostly, correct?) in here. The goal never never justifies the means!

You seem to forget two important points:

1) Democracy only functions if there is a division of powere. And the judicial part of this is probably the most important because they/it guards the democracy itself. Spoken this way, the judge had to order the arrest of the CIA men, because they did a kidnap and should be suspended from duty,

2) Because they did something illegal, they disrespected the sovereignity of a foreign power/country. Or what would you Americans say (to give the opposite example), if an Italian intelligence corps would arrest Rumsfeld in Washington D.C. and put him into some European jail, because we/they think he is a mass murderer. Or could become one.

Human rights, Geneva convention, ... all say that if you arrest someone, there MUST be a reason. The soviets, nazis et altera arrested people without reason! If we do not do this, we are nothing more than animals and don't deserve to live in a free (!) democracy!

mitsho

1. This is the kind of thinking that really worries me: The Judiciary is not the most important of the branches of government, the Legislative branch is. The Judiciary decides how to interpet the laws, the Legislature makes the laws. (At least that's how it should be )

2. If they did that (Which they wouldn't) and refused to hand him over then they would find the Marines storming Rome with F-16's roaring overhead. That is hardly a good example, this was not a member of the Italian government, he was a radical Imam who was a suspected terrorist.

He was a suspected terrorist. Sounds like a good reason to arrest and interrogate to me.

I thought the BBC was supposed to be unbiased.

*Collapses laughing* Nice one H4ppy!