Yeah, I'm going to do an interview, I just need more time to carefully choose my target and the questions.
Here's a new sig idea for you;Bubbalo wrote:
Yeah, I'm going to do an interview, I just need more time to carefully choose my target and the questions.
Nice!!!ATG wrote:
Here's a new sig idea for you;Bubbalo wrote:
Yeah, I'm going to do an interview, I just need more time to carefully choose my target and the questions.
http://i19.tinypic.com/2rzpaps.jpghttp://i19.tinypic.com/30mtzt3.jpg
Vilham wrote:
Ive already ended this argument on the first page people.
They broke the law! END OF!
I'd just like to point out a few things.Bubbalo wrote:
How do you know he was guilty?
UDHR declares that all people have the right to presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a public trial.
1. The station chiefs that are mentioned by name in the article would have been covered by diplomatic immunity. They could have chopped his balls off in the middle of the street, and fried them and served them to him, and still would not be liable under Italian law.
2. The other men named in the indictment (presumably not covered by said diplomatic immunity) were operating in coordination with the national intelligence agency of the country in which they were located.
3. The prosecutor also wants to go after the head of security of the US airbase in nothern Italy. For allowing the agents and their prisoner onto the base, and then putting the lot of them on the plane. He would be subject to the UCMJ and not Italian law.
They are SUSPECTED of breaking the law. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? It is for the judiciary process to determine whether they broke the law.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bullshit. If they broke the law they should stand trial. And, I'm afraid, kidnap and torture are against the law, even for CIA agents.
And the guy they picked up and tortured isn`t innocent until proven guilty by trial ?aardfrith wrote:
They are SUSPECTED of breaking the law. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? It is for the judiciary process to determine whether they broke the law.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bullshit. If they broke the law they should stand trial. And, I'm afraid, kidnap and torture are against the law, even for CIA agents.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Yeah which means they need to go stand trial in Italy and not just be declared innocent by the US.aardfrith wrote:
They are SUSPECTED of breaking the law. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? It is for the judiciary process to determine whether they broke the law.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bullshit. If they broke the law they should stand trial. And, I'm afraid, kidnap and torture are against the law, even for CIA agents.
Which would rightly be considered an act of war.Vilham wrote:
Yeah which means they need to go stand trial in Italy and not just be declared innocent by the US.aardfrith wrote:
They are SUSPECTED of breaking the law. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? It is for the judiciary process to determine whether they broke the law.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bullshit. If they broke the law they should stand trial. And, I'm afraid, kidnap and torture are against the law, even for CIA agents.
huh did i miss something.....?ATG wrote:
Which would rightly be considered an act of war.Vilham wrote:
Yeah which means they need to go stand trial in Italy and not just be declared innocent by the US.aardfrith wrote:
They are SUSPECTED of breaking the law. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? It is for the judiciary process to determine whether they broke the law.
Help me out here i don't understand how -- the US stating they are innocent -- is an act of war :S
I've been 100% with ATG thus far, but I don't know that this would be an act of war. It's not committed by the government, but the independent judiciary.ATG wrote:
Which would rightly be considered an act of war.Vilham wrote:
Yeah which means they need to go stand trial in Italy and not just be declared innocent by the US.aardfrith wrote:
They are SUSPECTED of breaking the law. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? It is for the judiciary process to determine whether they broke the law.
Moreover, all the US has to say is that all of their dudes that were charged are covered by diplomatic immunity. There's nothing the Italians would be able to do. Their most extreme action would be to declare those folks PNG and refuse to let them back into the country.
Hell, foreign diplomats kill folks over here all the time. The UN in infamous for having diplomats that get loaded and go driving, and run down American citizens. We don't get to prosecute them for murder. Hell, foreign missions to the US don't even pay their speeding tickets.
Which is my favorite reason we won't pay the full amount the UN charges us.
I'm saying that if say, Italian commandos abducted our folks here or abroad, and i were president, I would consider it an act of war.Fen321 wrote:
huh did i miss something.....?ATG wrote:
Which would rightly be considered an act of war.Vilham wrote:
Yeah which means they need to go stand trial in Italy and not just be declared innocent by the US.
Help me out here i don't understand how -- the US stating they are innocent -- is an act of war :S
I would not feel the same about the Italian authorities capturing mafia types or drug smugglers.
There are a different set of rules for people who believe suicide bombing is an acceptable form of politics.
I'm saying I'm fine with our guys going to Italy, abducting fanatics for questioning in another country.
Shitty time right now, what else can I say.
Think its the method being used that is in question here, not that fact that we should question fanatics but the way we do it !
What kind of picture are we drawing to unstable governments in the middle east when we lower ourselves to the exact same things we critisize them for doing, kidnappings, torture and maybe even assasinations.
And suicide bombings are the act of a desperate population and is one of the few means of retalliation they`ve got, it`s not allright to do it but i can understand why they do it ...... a palestinian with a nuclear sub and cruise missiles wouldn`t commit suicide bombing i`m sure if it wasn`t for the fact it`s close to the only weapon they`ve got ....
What kind of picture are we drawing to unstable governments in the middle east when we lower ourselves to the exact same things we critisize them for doing, kidnappings, torture and maybe even assasinations.
And suicide bombings are the act of a desperate population and is one of the few means of retalliation they`ve got, it`s not allright to do it but i can understand why they do it ...... a palestinian with a nuclear sub and cruise missiles wouldn`t commit suicide bombing i`m sure if it wasn`t for the fact it`s close to the only weapon they`ve got ....
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Finally SOMEONE who understands the targeting and murder of innocent civilians. I was starting to think this world was going mad.Varegg wrote:
Think its the method being used that is in question here, not that fact that we should question fanatics but the way we do it !
What kind of picture are we drawing to unstable governments in the middle east when we lower ourselves to the exact same things we critisize them for doing, kidnappings, torture and maybe even assasinations.
And suicide bombings are the act of a desperate population and is one of the few means of retalliation they`ve got, it`s not allright to do it but i can understand why they do it ...... a palestinian with a nuclear sub and cruise missiles wouldn`t commit suicide bombing i`m sure if it wasn`t for the fact it`s close to the only weapon they`ve got ....
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It being a "shitty time right now" is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.ATG wrote:
Shitty time right now, what else can I say.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but CIA agents are not Diplomats hence not protected with Diplomatic immunities.blisteringsilence wrote:
I've been 100% with ATG thus far, but I don't know that this would be an act of war. It's not committed by the government, but the independent judiciary.ATG wrote:
Which would rightly be considered an act of war.Vilham wrote:
Yeah which means they need to go stand trial in Italy and not just be declared innocent by the US.
Moreover, all the US has to say is that all of their dudes that were charged are covered by diplomatic immunity. There's nothing the Italians would be able to do. Their most extreme action would be to declare those folks PNG and refuse to let them back into the country.
Hell, foreign diplomats kill folks over here all the time. The UN in infamous for having diplomats that get loaded and go driving, and run down American citizens. We don't get to prosecute them for murder. Hell, foreign missions to the US don't even pay their speeding tickets.
Which is my favorite reason we won't pay the full amount the UN charges us.
oh and by the way Diplomatic immunities do not equate to a get out of Jail card. It simply means that LOCAL jurisdiction does not apply hence the sending country would then in turn prosecute the Diplomat.
Unless
1. They chose to waive immunity
2. Don't prosecute the individual which in turn the state that has been harmed will then most likely cut diplomatic ties or not prosecute one of its diplomats.
Last edited by Fen321 (2007-02-19 16:52:45)
Any member of a diplomatic mission is a diplomat, and hence covered by diplomatic immunity. It's the distinction between "legal" agents and "illegal" agents.Fen321 wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something here, but CIA agents are not Diplomats hence not protected with Diplomatic immunities.
oh and by the way Diplomatic immunities do not equate to a get out of Jail card. It simply means that LOCAL jurisdiction does not apply hence the sending country would then in turn prosecute the Diplomat.
Unless
1. They chose to waive immunity
2. Don't prosecute the individual which in turn the state that has been harmed will then most likely cut diplomatic ties or not prosecute one of its diplomats.
From what I've read and learned, this is how it works, in, say, Italy.
An Italian national decides to spy for the US government. He gathers information and forwards it through a network of cutouts, who are also Italian nationals. At some point in the chain, the information is passed to the case officer, who is a CIA agent that works in some job at the embassy. Cultural attache, perhaps. He then forwards the information up the line through state department/cia encrypted lines.
In this case, both US citizens mentioned in the article were diplomatic officers, in that they worked for the embassy.
So, the question becomes, will the US waive immunity? I'm going to guess that, since the officials in question were working with the Italian government, we won't. And since we were working in cooperation with the Italian government, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that no ties will be cut either.
They still broke the law, it's just a matter of prosecution. Typically, all they could do is expel the offender, but the immunity is granted under international law, not diplomatic law. That is to say: they only have that immunity due to an agreement signed by Italy that Italy can choose to ignore (kinda poetic justice in the case of US citizens). Finally, the US is not offering to prosecute them itself, which is has the ability to do.blisteringsilence wrote:
1. The station chiefs that are mentioned by name in the article would have been covered by diplomatic immunity. They could have chopped his balls off in the middle of the street, and fried them and served them to him, and still would not be liable under Italian law.
Your point? Local organisations are being taken to court too.blisteringsilence wrote:
2. The other men named in the indictment (presumably not covered by said diplomatic immunity) were operating in coordination with the national intelligence agency of the country in which they were located.
Again, this is the case because Italy allows it. Italy is welcome to make this demand: and the US is welcome to refuse it.blisteringsilence wrote:
3. The prosecutor also wants to go after the head of security of the US airbase in nothern Italy. For allowing the agents and their prisoner onto the base, and then putting the lot of them on the plane. He would be subject to the UCMJ and not Italian law.
So far as I can tell they working working with Italian intelligence officers, as opposed to the government.blisteringsilence wrote:
I'm going to guess that, since the officials in question were working with the Italian government, we won't.
If european governments showed a spine in the first place, the americans wouldn't even need to be here.
We give in on every muslim subject. Within 20 years, my home country will not be so 'home' anymore, because of weak politicians, unable to defend our countries soul.
Time to migrate. Any suggestion besides Key-West, FL because that is allready on my possible list
We give in on every muslim subject. Within 20 years, my home country will not be so 'home' anymore, because of weak politicians, unable to defend our countries soul.
Time to migrate. Any suggestion besides Key-West, FL because that is allready on my possible list
Whose law? Should we live be US law, UK law, Chinese Law or Sharia? There are plenty of bad laws out there as well. To say the law is always right is to live in ignorance.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bullshit. If they broke the law they should stand trial. And, I'm afraid, kidnap and torture are against the law, even for CIA agents.
Regardless, if that detention made in Italy prevented a terrorist attack in Italy but broke Italian law do you think they would be complaining?
Maybe you all are not realizing that the governments that are fighting the very real and very present danger of terrorism know more than BBC.
Could you elaborate a bit?Bernadictus wrote:
Within 20 years, my home country will not be so 'home' anymore
What are the elements of 'home' you expect to lose in 20 years? Language? Religion?
The guy that was abducted and tortured is, of course, protected by the same precept - innocent until proven guilty. I am not diminishing his experiences in any way, shape or form but I am saying that this precept that we all hold so dear applies to the CIA officers just as equally as it does to the residents of camp Gitmo, or to you or I. This is a basic right that has held true since Magna Carta was signed and has been adopted by most of the Western World (and some besides). It's just the USA that wants to throw it out the window now.Varegg wrote:
And the guy they picked up and tortured isn`t innocent until proven guilty by trial ?aardfrith wrote:
They are SUSPECTED of breaking the law. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? It is for the judiciary process to determine whether they broke the law.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bullshit. If they broke the law they should stand trial. And, I'm afraid, kidnap and torture are against the law, even for CIA agents.
You could say it's one rule for US and another rule for the rest of the world. Oh wait, that's exactly what you've said. And you wonder why the whole world is against you?ATG wrote:
I'm saying that if say, Italian commandos abducted our folks here or abroad, and i were president, I would consider it an act of war.ATG wrote:
Which would rightly be considered an act of war.Vilham wrote:
Yeah which means they need to go stand trial in Italy and not just be declared innocent by the US.
I would not feel the same about the Italian authorities capturing mafia types or drug smugglers.
There are a different set of rules for people who believe suicide bombing is an acceptable form of politics.
I'm saying I'm fine with our guys going to Italy, abducting fanatics for questioning in another country.
Shitty time right now, what else can I say.
Hah.Superman wrote:
Truth, justice and the American way
Whose law? Italian law. It was Italian laws that were broken, in Italy. The USA has not declared war on Italy so its citizens are legally bound by Italian law, when in Italy. Just as Italians in the US would be bound by US law.devildogfo wrote:
Whose law? Should we live be US law, UK law, Chinese Law or Sharia? There are plenty of bad laws out there as well. To say the law is always right is to live in ignorance.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bullshit. If they broke the law they should stand trial. And, I'm afraid, kidnap and torture are against the law, even for CIA agents.
Regardless, if that detention made in Italy prevented a terrorist attack in Italy but broke Italian law do you think they would be complaining?
Maybe you all are not realizing that the governments that are fighting the very real and very present danger of terrorism know more than BBC.
It's simple.
The CIA men involved were just carrying out a command handed down all the way from the top. It should be the administration that stands trial, the generals, not the foot solders. Couldn't Rummy be Fed to them to keep them happy?
Yeah. Badly worded on my part - though I did say "If they broke the law..." - what I meant was "If they're accused of breaking the law..."aardfrith wrote:
They are SUSPECTED of breaking the law. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? It is for the judiciary process to determine whether they broke the law.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bullshit. If they broke the law they should stand trial. And, I'm afraid, kidnap and torture are against the law, even for CIA agents.