Fen321 wrote:
blisteringsilence wrote:
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.
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.
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.
While i understand where you are coming from, there is a fine line that dictates the applicability of immunity to an individual working in an Embassy. The individuals rank will determine to some extent how/what he/she will be protected against with diplomatic immunity -- but there is always a catch to this you see. If the diplomat was not acting within his duties when this acts were committed then it is
not covered by diplomatic immunities.
Also with regards to the cooperation with Italian agents this will undoubtedly effect the case as it progresses -- while they may be working with them this may not sit too well with the Italian population or other parts of the leading administration. Granted this is all speculation on my behalf.
I read the article and from it i could not gather that any of the alleged CIA agents were diplomatic personal -- i may be wrong but can you point to where you are getting this impression it would probably help me out in terms of how much "protection" they will have.
Here's my line of thought:
1. From the article:
"WHO ARE THE SUSPECTS?
Americans include former CIA station chiefs in Rome and Milan, Jeff Castelli and Robert Lady, and head of security at the U.S. air base in Aviano in northern Italy.
2. The US Embassies do not have a position titled "station chief."
3. The state department has not, and does not, identify the names or positions of CIA officers that have cover jobs in the embassy. These officers are given jobs that have minimal workloads, or can be done by others. Jobs like cultural attache, second press attache, etc.
4. Diplomatic immunity extends beyond official acts for most high-ranking embassy personel. When I was in college, I worked as an intern for the DOJ in the US Embassy in Bridgetown, Barbados. The longest part of my training before I left was from the state department on what
not to do, as I was covered by diplomatic immunity, and therfore immune to prosecution. Now, had I really screwed up, I have no doubt the state department would have brought me home to prosecute me. I was a peon, outranked by secretaries (except mine, Melinda was awesome. Made the best coffee and rum punch on the planet. But I digress). Anyway, the point is that I could have been on my way to the club at night, run someone down in my car, killed them, and would have been immune to prosecution by the local authorities. I would have had my ass shipped home and convicted in a court in the US.
5. ??????
6. Profit!!!!
7. So, my thinking is this: The agents indicted were covered by diplomatic immunity, and therefore immune to local jurisdiction without the US waiving the right to prosecute them. They were following legal orders, and acting in concert and cooperation with the government of the state in which the act was committed, so the US has no reason to prosecute them, nor any reason to waive immunity for its agents.
8. So, this prosecuter got his panties in a twist (want to bet on whether or not he runs for office in the next election cycle?) and went after folks that would get him as much press as possible. It happens here all the time, its just the victims are big business, developers, etc.
It's a lot of hot air, from which nothing will come.