BF2S Forums 22 CIA Agents convicted of kidnapping in extraordinary rendition trial

mikkel wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Well you're the one being a hypocrite about those situations, not me. I'm never usually the type of person to jump in to defend someone after a court ruling. You guys are usually the one's to defend the court/police/authorities all the time. I don't really get involved much in those sort of topics.

FEOS doesn't know how to backpedal. He just drives the same broken bike in another direction for the sake of posture.

Can we stick to the topic?

FEOS wrote:

Where did I defend the CIA people on trial? Point it out. I didn't.

I addressed the reporting in the article.

Methinks my comparison hit a little too close for comfort.

You didn't. You just attacked the source and the Italian justice system (something it sounds as though you know very little about).

Why isn't the CIA being put on trial, or did these men act outside of their orders?

jsnipy wrote:

Why isn't the CIA being put on trial, or did these men act outside of their orders?

Italy would face a shitstorm if they tried to pull some shit.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Really though, a US court would do the same thing if this shit was found to have happened within the US too.

Yeah, but remember US has way more political and economical influence than any other country.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Where did I defend the CIA people on trial? Point it out. I didn't.

I addressed the reporting in the article.

Since you ask, you said there was no evidence, based on reading an article which didn't mention evidence.

Lets follow the logic that if they were charged there must be evidence, just as if they had been abducted and transported to Gitmo there might have been some evidence. Then again maybe not.

Funny that you invariably blindly accept anything put forward by the US govt but blindly condemn anything put forward by anyone else.

Replace US with "any European" and "anyone else" with "US" and go back in time several months.

Then check your hypocrisy meter.

For all you Euros with your thongs in a bunch...I'm not defending the CIA's actions in the matter, nor am I decrying the Italian court system--I'm not even really too worried about the reporting. I'm simply pointing out how you all are lapping this shit up like pigs at a trough when you shot holes in exactly the same kinds of stories a while back--for exactly the same reasons...simply because the sources, defendants and courts were different.

The only consistency here is hypocrisy.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Where did I defend the CIA people on trial? Point it out. I didn't.

I addressed the reporting in the article.

Since you ask, you said there was no evidence, based on reading an article which didn't mention evidence.

Lets follow the logic that if they were charged there must be evidence, just as if they had been abducted and transported to Gitmo there might have been some evidence. Then again maybe not.

Funny that you invariably blindly accept anything put forward by the US govt but blindly condemn anything put forward by anyone else.

Replace US with "any European" and "anyone else" with "US" and go back in time several months.

Then check your hypocrisy meter.

For all you Euros with your thongs in a bunch...I'm not defending the CIA's actions in the matter, nor am I decrying the Italian court system--I'm not even really too worried about the reporting. I'm simply pointing out how you all are lapping this shit up like pigs at a trough when you shot holes in exactly the same kinds of stories a while back--for exactly the same reasons...simply because the sources, defendants and courts were different.

The only consistency here is hypocrisy.

Give a solid, concrete example of hypocrisy here.

Who shot holes in exactly the same kinds of stories for what reasons? Give examples. Make your case.

I think you're talking bollocks though.

FEOS wrote:

Fairly one-sided story. I thought court cases were supposed to examine evidence from both sides of the story.

FEOS wrote:

But there should be evidence, shouldn't there? I mean, other than "we think they did this"?
Or is it normal for European countries to try people based on hearsay?

The report didn't cover the evidence, no doubt you're free to research it yourself as it was in open court, there will be a transcript available and presumably its been reported elsewhere.
Since they were convicted presumably it amounted to more than hearsay.  If you think so off you toddle.

Pretty sure the Italians didn't abduct anyone, torture them or witnesses, or keep the evidence against them secret from them so they couldn't mount a defence.
Nor did they transport them to a rented island where normal Italian law did not apply and try them according to new laws and systems they'd made up on the spot.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-11 05:32:51)

When has anyone said that?
BTW There is a difference between not being reported in the press and being kept secret from everyone including the defendant.

FEOS wrote:

But it wasn't reported in open press, so it surely didn't happen.

That's the "logic" that was followed before.

Again...hypocrisy.

And again...you aren't willing to own up to it, despite the overwhelming obviousness of it.

It was reported in the open press. Which logic that followed before?

Enough of the vague bullshit, give real examples, backed up with supporting evidence.

Put up or shut up.

Let's see...a government with a sketchy moral history tries a group of people without allowing them a real defense of any sort.

Lauded as "justice" by Euros here.

A government with a fairly strong moral history but some recent issues tries a group of people, allowing them a real defense, to include government-provided counsel, discovery process, access to evidence, etc.

Decried as an abomination of justice by Euros here.

Nope. No hypocrisy whatsoever.

A news report says a group of Americans were tried in absentia by a (as stated by Euros here) morally bankrupt government, resulting in a conviction. No report of evidence or defense.

Lauded as "justice" by Euros here.

Multiple news reports of a group of non-Americans tried in person by (for argument's sake) a morally questionable government, resulting in acquittals and convictions. Much of the evidence reported in the open press--some not (when it isn't, decried by Euros here as "cover up"...note the hypocrisy). Defense provided for. When defendants aren't there, trials aren't held until they are.

Decried as injustice by Euros here.

Nope. No hypocrisy here.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

The bottomline is that the Italian government should have handled this via diplomatic channels. If this were truly CIA actions, then it is a diplomatic matter, as it would have been sanctioned by the US government. It was handled the way it was handled to make a political statement. Nothing more. And just WTF is up with in absentia trials? Europe big on not allowing the defendant the opportunity to put on a defense before they convict people? If so, kindly shut yer yappers about due process, then.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Put up or shut up what?
You're making the accusations, you need to back them up for once.

Dilbert_X wrote:

BTW There is a difference between not being reported in the press and being kept secret from everyone including the defendant.

I've heard Alzheimer's is a form of dementia. There are medications to help, Dilbert.

FEOS wrote:

Let's see...a government with a sketchy moral history tries a group of people without allowing them a real defense of any sort.

Lauded as "justice" by Euros here.

A government with a fairly strong moral history but some recent issues tries a group of people, allowing them a real defense, to include government-provided counsel, discovery process, access to evidence, etc.

Decried as an abomination of justice by Euros here.

Those aren't examples. You haven't said what they are for a start. So we have to guess. Italy and Gitmo, perhaps?

The comparison between the two governments is completely subjective and bears no relevance whatsoever.

The agents on trial did have a real defence (since they didn't show up they had government provided defence - or their own lawyers, in the case of the Italian agents who did show up). The whole process in Italy was completely transparent and was a completely normal criminal trial - aside from the fact most of the defendants did not turn up to court.

So on the one hand we have a completely transparent and typical criminal trial in a court system that is as good as any you will find.

On the other hand you have a group of people held without charge for extreme periods in poor conditions, in many cases without trial. People held under the authority of the SCR Tribunals which the Supreme Court found to be an inadequate substitute for Habeus Corpus - which is required since the Supreme Court also ruled that the inmates of Gitmo should be afforded all the protections of the US constitution - which they were not.

FEOS wrote:

Nope. No hypocrisy whatsoever.

Certainly none that I can see.

I'm going to ignore your other "examples", since they aren't examples of anything.

FEOS wrote:

The bottomline is that the Italian government should have handled this via diplomatic channels. If this were truly CIA actions, then it is a diplomatic matter, as it would have been sanctioned by the US government. It was handled the way it was handled to make a political statement. Nothing more. And just WTF is up with in absentia trials? Europe big on not allowing the defendant the opportunity to put on a defense before they convict people? If so, kindly shut yer yappers about due process, then.

This has nothing to do with the Italian government. They wouldn't persue something like this at all. The court system is independent and chooses who they prosecute based on who breaks the law.

What's up with in absentia trials? They're what happens when people don't turn up to court. Obviously if you have someone in custody, as some of the defendants in this case were (you seem to have completely missed the point it wasn't just Americans on trial here) it is quite easy to get them to show up in court - if they are in another country with no extradition treaty then it's not so easy. They were informed of the trials and their prescence requested, they chose not to attend.