Germany Seeks to Arrest 13 CIA Agents

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

You don't think America worked with the German gvt to "extraordinarily render" suspected terrorists?

I don't really think that is relevant, the governments would be required to work within the confines of German law.

Originally Posted by JSmythe

I think you forget this is an independant prosecutor who has also criticized the role of the German government in cooperating with America. What they did may have been against the law, but I don't think you can say they weren't given permission, without being directly involved in the situation as a high ranking member of the German or American intelligence service.

The government of Germany cannot grant permission to break German law.

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Besides, once again it is not the actions of the individual agents, but the policy that lead to it that should be criticized. Intelligence service agents should not have to worry about facing charges for following orders in the field, that would be an unnecessary distraction.

It isn't relevant, they were individuals who broke German law and don't have an exemption. Just because the governments are involved does not nullify law.

I agree they shouldn't have to worry about it, it is something the government should be required maintain, the government put them in a situation were they were required to break law (illegal orders, basically) and unfortunately the law of another nation still has effect on US citizens, even military, unless there an exemption

[JSmythe]

The point is not that what happened was at all legal. OF course it was illegal. What I am trying to get you to consider is that governments, ecsp. intelligence agencies, don't give a fuck what is and is not legal, and that while we as citizens can look at their actions and wonder what they were thinking or how they managed to do it and cover it up for so long, but for them its child's play. The decision makers in the agency aren't getting touched, nor will the field agents on the ground, so in all practicality, they are above the law. And they should be.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

The point is not that what happened was at all legal. OF course it was illegal. What I am trying to get you to consider is that governments, ecsp. intelligence agencies, don't give a fuck what is and is not legal, and that while we as citizens can look at their actions and wonder what they were thinking or how they managed to do it and cover it up for so long, but for them its child's play. The decision makers in the agency aren't getting touched, nor will the field agents on the ground, so in all practicality, they are above the law. And they should be.

No, the law should apply to everyone, to argue otherwise is to invalidate the purpose of law.

[PetriW]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

The point is not that what happened was at all legal. OF course it was illegal. What I am trying to get you to consider is that governments, ecsp. intelligence agencies, don't give a fuck what is and is not legal, and that while we as citizens can look at their actions and wonder what they were thinking or how they managed to do it and cover it up for so long, but for them its child's play. The decision makers in the agency aren't getting touched, nor will the field agents on the ground, so in all practicality, they are above the law. And they should be.

So umm... If the CIA decided to liquidate a few politicians that they felt were cooperating with terrorists by not approving proposals by Bush... Would that then not be a problem as the intelligence agency is above the law? They'll just keep it a secret for 20 or so years and all is well? How many politicians could they kill before it's a problem? If killing politicians is a problem, is killing anti-Bush activists a problem? If killing anti-Bush activists is a problem, is kidnapping them and torturing them a problem? Oh, and how would the CIA know where the limit is if there is no law that regulates them?

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by PetriW

So umm... If the CIA decided to liquidate a few politicians that they felt were cooperating with terrorists by not approving proposals by Bush... Would that then not be a problem as the intelligence agency is above the law? They'll just keep it a secret for 20 or so years and all is well? How many politicians could they kill before it's a problem? If killing politicians is a problem, is killing anti-Bush activists a problem? If killing anti-Bush activists is a problem, is kidnapping them and torturing them a problem? Oh, and how would the CIA know where the limit is if there is no law that regulates them?

The CIA doesn't operate inside the US.

[PetriW]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

The CIA doesn't operate inside the US.

So what? Why should they care? And if they do care, just kill them when they're out traveling.
They don't have to follow laws after all.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by PetriW

So what? Why should they care? And if they do care, just kill them when they're out traveling.
They don't have to follow laws after all.

The CIA agents didn't murder the guy did they? And of course there are different rules should the suspect be an American. The CIA in this case had the acquiescence of the german gov. so they really had/have no reason to expect that what they did would be punishable, even if it was illegal.

[PetriW]

I'm trying to give you an example of why having a government organization which is above the law is bad... But I don't think it'd be possible to even make you recognize there might be a problem.

Anyway, as long as we europeans can kidnap, turture then dump american citizens in faraway countries too all is well.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

The CIA in this case had the acquiescence of the german gov. so they really had/have no reason to expect that what they did would be punishable, even if it was illegal.

That is just foolish to think, the agents should realize if they break the laws in other nations there is a risk they will be prosecuted. After all the German government would be unable to do anything if they were caught, and the German authorities are should persue them because they did ideed break the law.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by PetriW

I'm trying to give you an example of why having a government organization which is above the law is bad... But I don't think it'd be possible to even make you recognize there might be a problem.

Anyway, as long as we europeans can kidnap, turture then dump american citizens in faraway countries too all is well.

I am arguing for the agents themselves, not the agency as a whole. The agents should have immunity.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

I am arguing for the agents themselves, not the agency as a whole. The agents should have immunity.

The agents broke the law in another nation (and any permission given was invalid as you cannot grant authority you do not have) and that nation should have the right to try them for committing a crime.

It does not matter they were following orders or that the German government was involved that didn't make what they do any less illegal and unless there an exemption in the law itself so it is in fact legal they are still responsible for their actions.

In Iraq, there is an exemption for US soldiers from Iraqi law, in Germany no such exemption exists. The agents would have to be aware that operating in another nation entails a certain degree of risk. If they were somehow caught during the operation it may have turned out differently.

The German authorities are right to persue prosecution however

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The agents broke the law in another nation (and any permission given was invalid as you cannot grant authority you do not have) and that nation should have the right to try them for committing a crime.

Of course if they would have been caught things would be different. However, we have clearly arrived at an impasse where neither side in this argument can prove to the other that they are wrong. You are citing the rule of law, and the basic premise of my argument is that there is more than the law when dealing with intelligence services and secret agreements between governments.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Of course if they would have been caught things would be different. However, we have clearly arrived at an impasse where neither side in this argument can prove to the other that they are wrong. You are citing the rule of law, and the basic premise of my argument is that there is more than the law when dealing with intelligence services and secret agreements between governments.

Certainly I don't expect the US to give them up, but I agree the prosecutor's call to have them charged. It is his job to do that.

While there is "more than law" involved, Governments can face consequences when they ignore law.

If the German government admits to involvement it will have local political ramifications so they will be under pressure to try and get the agents charged. While the US will not bow to this pressure it make make it more difficult for those agents to visit Germany in the future

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Certainly I don't expect the US to give them up, but I agree the prosecutor's call to have them charged. It is his job to do that.

While there is "more than law" involved, Governments can face consequences when they ignore law.

If the German government admits to involvement it will have local political ramifications so they will be under pressure to try and get the agents charged. While the US will not bow to this pressure it make make it more difficult for those agents to visit Germany in the future

Truth. The prosecutor is just doing his job, and there probably will be political ramifications.

[Kytro]

Another interesting question is if the identities of the agents can be confirmed do politicians decide on extradition cases or is this decided by prosecutors and judges?

I doubt they will ever be held to account, but I don't know who pulls those strings

[PetriW]

Italy joins germany:

Italian judge orders CIA kidnapping trial - International Herald Tribune

MILAN, Italy: An Italian judge on Friday ordered a trial for 26 Americans and five Italians over the alleged abduction of an Egyptian cleric in what will be the first criminal trial over the CIA's extraordinary rendition program.
Prosecutors allege that five Italian intelligence officials worked with the Americans — almost all CIA agents — to abduct terror suspect Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr from a Milan street on Feb. 17, 2003.
However, even if a request is made for the Americans' extradition — a move bound to irritate U.S.-Italian relations — it is unlikely that the United States would turn over the CIA agents for a trial abroad. In Italy, defendants can be tried in absentia.
The CIA has refused to comment on the case.
The trial is set to begin on June 8, but the proceedings could be suspended by Italy's Constitutional Court, which has been asked by the government to rule on whether prosecutors overstepped their bounds in the case by ordering wiretaps of Italian agents' phone calls.
Nasr was allegedly snatched from a street in Milan and driven to the Aviano Air Force base near Venice, from where he was flown to Ramstein Air Base in Germany, and then on to Egypt, where his lawyers say he was tortured.
All but one of the American suspects have been identified as CIA agents, including the former station chiefs in Rome and Milan. The other is a U.S. Air Force officer stationed at the time at Aviano.
Prosecutors say the alleged kidnapping operation was a breach of Italian sovereignty that compromised Italy's own anti-terrorism efforts.
Nasr was under investigation for terrorism-related activities at the time of his abduction, and Milan prosecutors issued a warrant for his arrest more than two years after he disappeared from Milan, while he was in Egyptian custody.
Nasr, who allegedly was tortured during four years' imprisonment in Egypt, was released earlier this week from jail. His lawyer in Egypt said in an interview on Italian state TV that he wants to return to Italy, where he had been granted the status of political refugee.
The case has put an uncomfortable spotlight on intelligence operations, as prosecutors press the Italian government to seek the extradition of the U.S. agents. The previous government of Silvio Berlusconi refused, and Premier Romano Prodi's center-left government has yet to make its decision.
The U.S. agents all have court-appointed lawyers, who have acknowledged having no contact with their clients.
But having a trial will mean that the agents' side of the story can be heard, said lawyer Alessia Sorgato.
"I'm happy because I will be able to fully argue the case," said Sorgato, who represents three of the Americans but has had to mount a defense without speaking with any of them.
Sorgato and fellow lawyer Guido Meroni, who represents six Americans, have argued that the evidence connecting their clients to Nasr's disappearance was circumstantial, based on phone records and their presence in locations in Italy before the abduction.
Among those indicted by Milan Judge Caterina Interlandi was the former Italian chief of military intelligence, Nicolo Pollari, and his former deputy Marco Mancini.
Pollari, the only defendant who appeared during the preliminary hearing, has insisted that Italian intelligence played no role in the alleged abduction, and told the judge he was unable to defend himself properly because documents clarifying his position had been excluded from the proceedings because they contain state secrets.
Two other suspects in the case reached plea bargains; an Italian police officer who admitted stopping Nasr and request his identity papers during the course of the abduction was given a suspended sentence of one year, nine months and a day. A former reporter accused as an accessory was given a six month sentence that was converted into a fine.
Two other Italian intelligence agents also were indicted on lesser charges as accessories.
Earlier this week, the Swiss government approved prosecutors' plans to investigate the flight that allegedly took Nasr over Swiss air space from Italy to Germany.
And a Munich prosecutor recently issued arrest warrants for 13 people in connection with another alleged CIA-orchestrated kidnapping — of a German citizen who says he was abducted in December 2003 at the Serbian-Macedonia border and flown to Afghanistan.

[JSmythe]

Disregarding my defense of America's intelligence service, the extraordinary rendition program was one of the greatest and most blatant trampling of inherent human rights under government. Bush should be impeached just for that shit alone.

[RX Bandit]

I am a fan of the rendition program. I know its not a popular or probably even wise thing to say, so obviously defending that position would take pages and pages. So to cut to the core of my position I offer you a parable from Buddhism which underscores most of my foreign policy stances...and I am rather well read in Buddhist "scriptures" and Nagarjuna but this is the most simplistic estimation and example of some of the Buddhist thought I have incorporated into ethics in foreign policy.

The parable of the arhat goes as such (for reference an arhat is an enlightened Buddhist, infallible):
The arhat is out walking on a path from the pier into a town. As he walks he comes across a man coming the other way, headed towards the pier where a boat has just docked filled with women and children. In an instant the arhat knows that the man is going to kill all of the women and children on the boat - this man is a murdered. There is nobody else around to protect the women or children. The arhat in a split decision makes a decision to walk on towards the town as a non-interventionist and the women and children will be slaughtered; or the arhat draws his sword and kills the man on the path quickly.

Every time, for always and forever, the answer is to kill the man you know will do harm. Obviously in real life you never have 100% knowledge of arhat but you do have working intelligence and reconnaissance systems. Also in the real world you get the option of whisking away suspected enemy combatants to gain information from to further intelligence analysis.

Go ahead and rebut but by doing so you affirm that unregistered enemy combatants lives and their well being means more than an innocent American child's life. Ethically I believe that the right to security of American women and children (and proxies of the US) outweighs the liberty of foreign citizens who are unregistered and suspected enemy combatants. This argument does not apply to liberty vs security for US citizens, since that is a different case - I am speaking only about rendition as applied to foreigners.

Germany and Italy cannot press the CIA to stop rendition - they can only further aggregate complicated foreign relations by trying to instill their decidedly pacifist and less than progressive intelligence systems upon us.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Kytro

That is just foolish to think, the agents should realize if they break the laws in other nations there is a risk they will be prosecuted. After all the German government would be unable to do anything if they were caught, and the German authorities are should persue them because they did ideed break the law.

What happened to the good old days when the CIA could easily get away with this shit?

The East German Government was better at looking the other way if we played along. Tit for Tat!