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

Bertster7 wrote:

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.

Do you have any notion of the concept of "discovery" and "defense preparation"? Allowing a trial in absentia basically does away with those two key pieces of defense doctrine. The defense in absentia then consists of : "My client didn't do what the prosecution says they did"

Utter fucking joke of "justice". The fact that you would defend that removes any credibility you might have had to criticize US due process WRT GITMO. At least we allow the defendants to prepare a defense before we try them. You have institutionalized kangaroo courts.

Bertster7 wrote:

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.

The sad part is that you can't see it.

It's sad, but utterly predictable, unfortunately.

Bertster7 wrote:

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.

If they aren't there, you can't try them. It's that fucking simple. That's why you have extradition. If they don't have to be there, you don't need extradition.

I'm not missing the point. I'm focusing on the key point here: hypocrisy on this issue on this forum. It's all fine and dandy when it's a European country's law that seems daft, but it's the end of the fucking world when it's the US's.

Similar reporting on similar cases with attitudes from you guys that are 180 degrees out, based solely on the nationalities of who is the prosecution and who is the defense. But there's "no hypocrisy here". It's the fucking working definition of the term and you can't even see it.

Vilham wrote:

Um Feos. American courts have also passed conviction on plenty of people who didn't turn up due to failed extradition...

This isnt an unusual situation in western democracy's.

Source/cases please.

Was it failed extradition or no extradition agreements?

If it's not unusual, why haven't these terrorists been tried in absentia? Why hasn't every criminal who's on the run been tried in absentia?

Must be somewhat unusual, since it doesn't happen very often.

Vilham wrote:

Because the only point is you can then arrest them and lock them up if they come to your country or any country that has extradition agreements with you.

What you think terrorists are gunna come on holiday to Europe or America?

They already do, apparently.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And I'm saying that law is an abomination of due process. And you people still have the stones to complain about how the US runs its legal system...

Don't like the laws don't enter the country and commit a crime there.

UN diplomats do it all the time, but they don't get tried in the courts here. Why? Because it's a diplomatic issue. When a government agent is acting on government direction, it's not an individual civil criminal matter, it's a diplomatic issue, to be handled via diplomatic channels.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The US has similar in absentia laws BTW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_absentia

Did you actually bother to read the part about in absentia law as it applies in the US, btw? Clearly you didn't. Go back and read it again.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its pretty well standard across Europe, if you're charged you can either turn up or risk conviction and not be able to travel to that country again.

I'm sure those guys aren't going to Italy again any time soon. So just what did Italy achieve by trying people who aren't there to offer up any kind of a defense? Nothing.

Dilbert_X wrote:

We attempted to deal with 9/11 diplomatically.

Barely.

That's more than can be said here.

Face it. Italy's judiciary wanted to make a political statement, not a legal one.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

UN diplomats do it all the time, but they don't get tried in the courts here. Why? Because it's a diplomatic issue. When a government agent is acting on government direction, it's not an individual civil criminal matter, it's a diplomatic issue, to be handled via diplomatic channels.

Wrong, they have to sign up and be recognised as diplomats, otherwise they are treated as criminals.
Diplomats are expected not to indulge in crimes BTW.

So the next time Italian official or non-official cover agents do anything sideways with the law in the US, we'll be sure not to deal with it the way it's normally handled (diplomatically). We'll just throw them in jail. Or better yet, let them go back to Italy and hold a trial without them here, declare them guilty and show the world how "enlightened" we are.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Did you actually bother to read the part about in absentia law as it applies in the US, btw? Clearly you didn't. Go back and read it again.

I said 'similar'.

And I said "go back and read it again". I shouldn't have said "again", since that implied you read it to begin with.

It's not at all similar, in that while we have one on the books, it pretty much is non-enactable.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm sure those guys aren't going to Italy again any time soon. So just what did Italy achieve by trying people who aren't there to offer up any kind of a defense? Nothing.

They prevented them travelling to Europe and committing further crimes, they most probably deterred others from travelling to Europe to commit similar crimes. Prevention and deterrence, part of the function of the justice system.

This was never about prevention and deterrence for those individuals. Hell, it wasn't even really about punishment for them. It was a political statement about Italy's displeasure with the Bush administration's policies. Period.

Dilbert_X wrote:

That's more than can be said here.

It wasn't a diplomatic matter, end of story.

No, it wasn't. It should've been. End of story.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So the next time Italian official or non-official cover agents do anything sideways with the law in the US, we'll be sure not to deal with it the way it's normally handled (diplomatically). We'll just throw them in jail. Or better yet, let them go back to Italy and hold a trial without them here, declare them guilty and show the world how "enlightened" we are.

You can do whatever you like.

I'm not the US legal system. I wonder how Euros would respond if we were to act in kind, though. Probably up in arms about the unfair nature of it all, most likely.

Dilbert_X wrote:

It's not at all similar, in that while we have one on the books, it pretty much is non-enactable.

Its on the books, that its a mess is irrelevant.

That's why I said read it. If you read the very short wiki entry there, it's very clear that there is no real in absentia statute in US law. But you didn't bother to read it, did you? You saw "US"...some words..."in absentia"...some words...EUREKA! Too bad you didn't bother to actually read those words, Dilbert.

Dilbert_X wrote:

This was never about prevention and deterrence for those individuals. Hell, it wasn't even really about punishment for them. It was a political statement about Italy's displeasure with the Bush administration's policies.

According to you. Half the trial took place under Obama.

The "crime" took place under Bush and was directed by the Bush administration. When the trial took place is irrelevant. You know that.

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, it wasn't. It should've been.

Apparently the Italian govt and court disagree with you.

The Euros here have said they're a bunch of incompetent knuckleheads...I'm OK with people like that disagreeing with me. Hell, you disagree with me constantly.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11 … n.verdict/

None of the Americans is in custody in Italy and the Italian government did not ask for their extradition; they were tried in absentia.

Not even an attempt at due process, ffs. No attempt at extradition. Indicted, tried, and convicted with no attempt to bring them before the court. Take your criticism of the US “abuse” of due process at GITMO and shove it. You have no moral ground to stand on if you support this nonsense as “justice served” and then decry a system that does at least no worse.

Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer told CNN in the past that the Italian military secret service had approved the operation involving Hassan, and CIA sources who refused to be named told CNN in 2005 that the agency had briefed and sought approval from its Italian counterpart for such an abduction.

Information conveniently deemed “inadmissible” by the court, whose clear goal was political, not judicial.

http://www.slate.com/id/2084605/

Trials in absentia are exceedingly rare—most judges and attorneys will never be involved with one. The procedure doesn't jibe with the notion of due process, especially the constitutional right of the accused to confront witnesses.

--------------------------

Nor can globe-trotting criminals be tried in absentia by the International Criminal Court. Article 63 of the Rome Statute, which governs the ICC's operation, simply states, "The accused shall be present during the trial." Of course, it's doubtful that anyone high-profile enough to merit the ICC's attention would be afforded the chance to skip out on bail.

-------------------------

As for a fugitive who has never been in custody, such as Osama Bin Laden, odds are slim to none that any U.S. court would permit his trial in absentia, regardless of the strength of the evidence.

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm

Article 63: The accused shall be present during the trial.

Interesting reading. Apparently, Italy doesn’t have to abide by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Irony is ironic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world … italy.html

Citing state secrecy, the judge did not convict five high-ranking Italians charged in the abduction, including a former head of Italian military intelligence, Nicolò Pollari.

So Italian military intelligence was involved, but they weren’t convicted, due to “state secrecy”. Good enough for Italy, but not good enough for Italy’s friends, apparently. Hypocrisy.

In May, Mr. Magi ruled that there was enough evidence to proceed with the case even after Italy’s Constitutional Court ruled in March that any evidence of coordination between the Italian secret services and the C.I.A. violated state secrecy rules and was therefore inadmissible.

Interesting. Evidence that would’ve likely shown it to be a state-to-state, security-related, cooperative operation, not the criminal activity it was portrayed and ultimately prosecuted as. Inadmissable. But the Italians can’t be convicted…for the same reasons the probable exonerating evidence can’t come to light. And that’s OK to the Euros here. Completely different than keeping terrorism-related intelligence info secret from the press during court proceedings at GITMO. Check your hypocrisy meters, my European comrades…they’ve pegged. Again.

FEOS wrote:

Trials in absentia are exceedingly rare—most judges and attorneys will never be involved with one. The procedure doesn't jibe with the notion of due process, especially the constitutional right of the accused to confront witnesses.

--------------------------

Nor can globe-trotting criminals be tried in absentia by the International Criminal Court. Article 63 of the Rome Statute, which governs the ICC's operation, simply states, "The accused shall be present during the trial." Of course, it's doubtful that anyone high-profile enough to merit the ICC's attention would be afforded the chance to skip out on bail.

-------------------------

As for a fugitive who has never been in custody, such as Osama Bin Laden, odds are slim to none that any U.S. court would permit his trial in absentia, regardless of the strength of the evidence.

That's not true....

Case in point, Radavan Karadic - who boycotted his trial and they carried on without him, even though he was conducting his own defence....

Dilbert_X wrote:

US law and the ICC court are irrelvant to Italian law.

Evidence that would’ve likely shown it to be a state-to-state, security-related, cooperative operation, not the criminal activity it was portrayed and ultimately prosecuted as.

The state does not get to pick and choose which laws to follow, so it is all probably still criminal, which is why the CIA guys involved in torture may yet be prosecuted.

Oh, now wait a minute...

So now you're saying a sovereign state has the right to handle the issues as it sees fit, according to its own laws and agreements?

I guess that's acceptable when it's a European country, but not the US, right?

FEOS wrote:

So now you're saying a sovereign state has the right to handle the issues as it sees fit, according to its own laws and agreements?

'How it sees fit' and 'according to its own laws and agreements' are two different things.
The ICC is irrelevant to Italian domestic law BTW.

These CIA agents committed crimes according to Italian law apparently, and were convicted in an open trial according to the existing laws of Italy.
It barely compares with abducting and torturing taxi-drivers and farm boys, then prosecuting them using laws and procedures made up on the spot.

Many countries allow trial in absentia, not just European ones, and the US used to so quit yer whining.

Maybe the US should stop pussying around and extradite this guy and he wouldn't need to be tried in absentia.
http://www.securitylawbrief.com/main/20 … arges.html
Oh wait, he's a US stooge, won't happen.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-17 03:52:56)

FEOS wrote:

But you take issue with the US detaining people and treating them better than is required by governing international laws.

Thats a joke right?

Convention on Torture - No ifs and buts in that.
Geneva convention - which doesn't say what the US says it does.

I'm sure I can find other conventions the US has broken, for example attacking Iraq without a UN mandate.
Not going through it all again.

You mention the UNDHR, here's the thing - People dream up that kind of thing and then observe it not because its international law but because its the right and moral thing to do, same as you presumably follow the bible not because its legally binding but because you think its the decent and honourable thing to do.

Here's an idea, have a read through your bible and find the bit which says abducting and torturing random people, teenagers, taxi drivers, people you know for certain are innocent of any crime is treating them better than you should do.

PS Seems your govt realises its fucked up too since KSM is going to be tried in New York.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-17 19:37:23)

Oh boy, we have to do this again.
Torture is not open to interpretation, in any case your govt has admitted it used torture according to the definition. No-one has been prosecuted - yet.
There was no UN resolution authorising the invasion of Iraq and the deposing of Saddam, the US agreed to put a resolution to the UNSC but reneged, hence there was nothing to veto. Relying on a 12 year old UN resolution and concocting evidence to suit it is pretty lame TBH. According to the insiders the resolution was never about WMD in the first place, more about screwing over Saddam because Bush I had a micro-dick complex.
There is nothing immoral about trial in absentia, its on the US statutes and is in Europe, your yakking about the ICC is irrelevant to Italian domestic law.
KSM Is Relevant since its a move away from the illegal military tribunals to a proper legal framework for a trial - you know one which might not backfire spectacularly as everything at Guantanamo has so far.

Last edited by DonFck (2009-11-19 04:25:12)