Italian Supreme Court upholds guilty verdict against 23 (CIA) Americans in absentia for kidnapping a - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Rome (CNN) -- The Italian Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the 2009 convictions of 23 Americans whom a lower court convicted in absentia of kidnapping a terrorist suspect in Milan in 2003. It's unlikely the court ruling will have much effect on the lives of any of the Americans. None of them appeared at the original 2009 trial, nor were any of them taken into custody, and the Italian government did not ask for their extradition. The CIA declined to comment on the ruling Wednesday. The trial was the first to deal with a practice that human rights groups call "extraordinary rendition." They say the United States has often transferred terrorism suspects to countries that practice torture. Washington has acknowledged making secret "rendition" transfers of terrorism suspects between countries but denies using torture or handing suspects over to countries that do. The case centered on the alleged extraordinary rendition of a Muslim cleric, Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr, or Abu Omar, who said he was seized on the streets of Milan in 2003 and then transferred to Egypt and tortured. 2005: Italy seeks Americans over abduction, source says. Abu Omar was suspected of recruiting men to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and was under heavy surveillance by Italy's intelligence agency. Prosecutors said he was nabbed by a CIA team working with Italian intelligence officials. "Today's ruling highlights the lack of accountability in the U.S. courts for serious crimes committed by government officials in the name of national security, such as kidnapping and torture," said Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU Human Rights Program. "U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks showed that Washington tried to derail the Italian investigation instead of supporting the interests of justice. Though legal questions remain, such as the validity of trials in absentia, American officials would be wise to heed the Italian court's message that those who violate the law will be called to answer." In the 2009 trial, the Italian court sentenced 22 of the Americans to five years in prison each for their role in the abduction. Prosecutor Armando Spataro said Robert Seldon Lady, who prosecutors say was the CIA station chief in Milan, was sentenced to eight years. Each of the 23 Americans was ordered to pay 1 million euros (about $1.3 million) to Abu Omar, plus 500,000 euros to his wife.[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/world/europe/italy-us-rendition-convictions/index.html?hpt=wo_c2[/url]

So the Italians were looking for him and trying to capture him, but they charge the CIA operatives with kidnapping? What exactly were the charges anyway? What were the Italians planning on doing with the terrorist if they got him, if not capture him?

Their problem is that it was an illegal extradition

Kidnapping is fine, but only when we do it.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37730456]So the Italians were looking for him and trying to capture him, but they charge the CIA operatives with kidnapping? What exactly were the charges anyway? What were the Italians planning on doing with the terrorist if they got him, if not capture him?[/QUOTE] Probably something not along the lines of [I]not torturing him. [/I]This may also come as a shock to you but the CIA can't abduct someone and secretly remove them from any country they want without that sovereignty's permission.

Well, actually, the CIA [i]can[/i]. They don't exactly listen to the rules do they?, this is a prime example

[QUOTE=download;37736404]Well, actually, the CIA [i]can[/i]. They don't exactly listen to the rules do they?, this is a prime example[/QUOTE] [i]Can[/i] (capable of) is very different from [i]allowed by law[/i]. Obviously, these terrorism suspects were removed in violation of some laws, whether Italian or international.

CIA is not a very succesfull intelligence agency if history has shown anything, too much show, too little professionals in the ranks and some pretty massive fuck ups on their tab since the beginning of the cold war. There's a reason NSA was formed.

[QUOTE=Falchion;37736621]CIA is not a very succesfull intelligence agency if history has shown anything, too much show, too little professionals in the ranks and some pretty massive fuck ups on their tab since the beginning of the cold war. There's a reason NSA was formed.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what would qualify it as an unsuccessful agency. The CIA has gotten shit done, regardless if you agree with what they are doing or not. Hell the what happen in the article was successful operation. Also the CIA had only been in existence for a couple years before the NSA, so you could hardly base the effectiveness of a agency on its first few years.

[QUOTE=Falchion;37736621]CIA is not a very succesfull intelligence agency if history has shown anything, too much show, too little professionals in the ranks and some pretty massive fuck ups on their tab since the beginning of the cold war. There's a reason NSA was formed.[/QUOTE] The NSA is almost exclusively cyber security. The CIA is the offensive intelligence branch while the FBI is the defensive intelligence branch. The CIA largely seems to be excellent at achieving their objectives. I don't know how the NSA plays into this in your head.

[QUOTE=Falchion;37736621]CIA is not a very succesfull intelligence agency if history has shown anything, too much show, too little professionals in the ranks and some pretty massive fuck ups on their tab since the beginning of the cold war. There's a reason NSA was formed.[/QUOTE] The NSA is exclusively used for signals collection whereas the CIA is analysis and action. Judging the success of the CIA by their public failures is part of the reason why people hate the CIA. How many successful operations have you heard of? That's right, not more than a handful. That's because when the CIA succeeds, the information stays within the organization and those in charge. However, a failure is widely publicized. A successful operation is only known decades later when the information is declassified.

[QUOTE=GunFox;37737990]The NSA is almost exclusively cyber security. The CIA is the offensive intelligence branch while the FBI is the defensive intelligence branch. The CIA largely seems to be excellent at achieving their objectives. I don't know how the NSA plays into this in your head.[/QUOTE] You could read some history books on the matter if you can take the time off gun manuals. CIA's "resumé" is a pretty sad list, they just have always had the budget to keep up their amazing reputation. [QUOTE=Edthefirst;37738183] Judging the success of the CIA by their public failures is part of the reason why people hate the CIA. How many successful operations have you heard of? That's right, not more than a handful. That's because when the CIA succeeds, the information stays within the organization and those in charge. However, a failure is widely publicized. A successful operation is only known decades later when the information is declassified.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the cold war period while also referring to the false information believed true that were Iraq's WMDs.

[QUOTE=Falchion;37736621]CIA is not a very succesfull intelligence agency if history has shown anything, too much show, too little professionals in the ranks and some pretty massive fuck ups on their tab since the beginning of the cold war. There's a reason NSA was formed.[/QUOTE] CIA fuckups reach the news, successes by their very nature do not. There's a lot going on that will likely never be declassified or publicized. Not to mention NSA has nothing whatsoever to do with the CIA.

If the CIA can get away with kidnapping terror suspects, why don't they just kidnap all the agents being held for kidnapping the terror suspect?

[QUOTE=entertainer89;37738394]If the CIA can get away with kidnapping terror suspects, why don't they just kidnap all the agents being held for kidnapping the terror suspect?[/QUOTE] [i]Third[/i] sentence of the article. [quote]None of them appeared at the original 2009 trial, nor were any of them taken into custody, and the Italian government did not ask for their extradition.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Falchion;37738297]You could read some history books on the matter if you can take the time off gun manuals. CIA's "resumé" is a pretty sad list, they just have always had the budget to keep up their amazing reputation. I'm talking about the cold war period while also referring to the false information believed true that were Iraq's WMDs.[/QUOTE] Well, the NSA also believed the Iraqi's had WMDs. All but 3 of the 16 organizations believed the Iraqi's had WMDs. Air Force, dept. of energy, and the I&A were the only dissenting opinions. Can't pin the blame on the solely CIA for that one, especially since the government was bent on finding weapons that didn't exist.

[QUOTE=Falchion;37738297]You could read some history books on the matter if you can take the time off gun manuals. CIA's "resumé" is a pretty sad list, they just have always had the budget to keep up their amazing reputation. [/QUOTE] One of the largest intelligence agencies in existence has fucked up occasionally. No shit. You have yet to make a remotely functional argument. I'm still curious how the NSA plays into this at all. Or are you just going to get increasingly hostile when I continue to point out that you have no idea what you are talking about?

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37737878]I'm not sure what would qualify it as an unsuccessful agency. The CIA has gotten shit done, regardless if you agree with what they are doing or not. Hell the what happen in the article was successful operation. Also the CIA had only been in existence for a couple years before the NSA, so you could hardly base the effectiveness of a agency on its first few years.[/QUOTE] Someone's been watching a little bit too much Chuck, don't you think? The CIA is a very effective organization. It's only it's failures that are most widely known, such as the Bay of Pigs.

[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37741823]Someone's been watching a little bit too much Chuck, don't you think? The CIA is a very effective organization. It's only it's failures that are most widely known, such as the Bay of Pigs.[/QUOTE] Well, there's a significantly larger amount of failures than that, but more-so as intelligence community failures rather than specific CIA failures. Failing to predict the Cuban Missile crisis, 9/11, the whole WMD thing, failure to predict Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, etc. That being said, those are intelligence failures rather than operations failures. As far as operational history the CIA has been largely successful.

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;37741937]Well, there's a significantly larger amount of failures than that, but more-so as intelligence community failures rather than specific CIA failures. Failing to predict the Cuban Missile crisis, 9/11, the whole WMD thing, failure to predict Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, etc. That being said, those are intelligence failures rather than operations failures. As far as operational history the CIA has been largely successful.[/QUOTE] And yet the large amount of successes, both in intelligence and operations, go unnoticed, many of them classified so that they can continue operating successfully without everyone realizing their practices and how to get away with them.