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

FEOS wrote:

It was a restriction of previously approved techniques.

The were banned for decades, they were briefly unbanned and in contravention of various agreements the US had signed, then they were banned again =/= 'approved techniques'.

You're right. There was no single UN resolution. There were about 18 that he violated.

Except Saddam did not violate a single one.
As we now know, the resolutions and sanctions were put in place to bring about regime change not to control WMD.
Even Bush admitted if Saddam complied with the letter of everything then sanctions would still not be lifted.
We also know Saddam had destroyed his WMD - as determined by the inspection teams your govt was determined to ignore.

There absolutely is something immoral about trial in absentia. Our statutes do not allow a trial to begin without the defendant present.

Too bad, its been law in Europe since before the US was founded, it was US law until relatively recently and still is in a slightly adapted form. If you don't like a country's law don't do a crime there. Its like blubbing about the death penalty being immoral after you've travelled to Texas to murder someone.
In any case its not immoral, the person is free to attend if they wish or not enter that country again if they don't want to.

Why wouldn't this fall under ICC jurisdiction? Seems pretty clear cut that it's an international matter.

Because the US hasn't signed up to the ICC? The ICC is in any case irrelevant, its Italian domestic law which matters.
Really if you're going to spout about stuff it really should be something your country has signed up to.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-21 23:05:43)

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Why wouldn't this fall under ICC jurisdiction? Seems pretty clear cut that it's an international matter.

Because the US hasn't signed up to the ICC? The ICC is in any case irrelevant, its Italian domestic law which matters.
Really if you're going to spout about stuff it really should be something your country has signed up to.

You're still blind to your own hypocrisy. You focus on other things to detract from it. It's absolutely hilarious.

International law is the pinnacle. Must be followed. Except when it's convenient. Then national sovereignty is of the utmost importance. Except when it's inconvenient. Laughable, really.

Hasn't Italy signed up to the ICC? They have, haven't they? Doesn't that mean they should follow its tenets? I mean, international law and agreements trump all, right? Oh, that's right...except when it's convenient.

This isn't a domestic law issue. The details of the case make that clear. The Italian government and the US government were working together--it is an international diplomatic issue.

"The Italian government and the US government were working together"

Not according to the Italian government they weren't.

It is absolutely a domestic law issue. This is not the kind of case the international courts ever deal with.

People were kidnapped in Italy. That's an issue for their domestic legal system - whoever did the kidnapping. Plain and simple. Trying to pretend this is an issue for the ICC is laughable. It's not related to genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity - that is all the ICC cover. Didn't you know that?

Foreign intelligence agents commiting crimes in other countries have never been tried in front of the ICC - but have frequently been tried by the domestic legal apparatus of the country where the crimes were committed. There are countless examples of this.

Please explain why you mistakenly believe this should have anything to do with the ICC?

FEOS wrote:

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?

A sovereign state has the right to handle crimes committed in their borders according to their laws. Which is exactly what has happened here.

FEOS wrote:

It's OK for Italy to do that, but not OK for the US to what it did, even though both acted "according to (their) own laws and agreements" in both cases.

But they didn't. The supreme court ruled that the all sorts of aspects of Gitmo were in contravention of US law. That's not a case of acting according to their own laws. If your highest legal authority rules that something isn't legal according to your laws then if you are doing it you are not acting according to those laws.

On top of that, you have international treaties such as the UDHR...

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Why wouldn't this fall under ICC jurisdiction? Seems pretty clear cut that it's an international matter.

Because the US hasn't signed up to the ICC? The ICC is in any case irrelevant, its Italian domestic law which matters.
Really if you're going to spout about stuff it really should be something your country has signed up to.

You're still blind to your own hypocrisy. You focus on other things to detract from it. It's absolutely hilarious.

International law is the pinnacle. Must be followed. Except when it's convenient. Then national sovereignty is of the utmost importance. Except when it's inconvenient. Laughable, really.

Hasn't Italy signed up to the ICC? They have, haven't they? Doesn't that mean they should follow its tenets? I mean, international law and agreements trump all, right? Oh, that's right...except when it's convenient.

This isn't a domestic law issue. The details of the case make that clear. The Italian government and the US government were working together--it is an international diplomatic issue.

"The Italian government and the US government were working together"

Not according to the Italian government they weren't.

You clearly haven't read the articles I linked earlier. Go ahead and read those then come back.

Bertster7 wrote:

It is absolutely a domestic law issue. This is not the kind of case the international courts ever deal with.

Only if you assert that the two governments weren't working together. But they were...otherwise, there would be no reason for Italian government employees to be charged and then not convicted due to the State Secrets Act.

Bertster7 wrote:

People were kidnapped in Italy. That's an issue for their domestic legal system - whoever did the kidnapping. Plain and simple. Trying to pretend this is an issue for the ICC is laughable. It's not related to genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity - that is all the ICC cover. Didn't you know that?

But international law and agreements override domestic equities...that's what everyone says here. At least when it involves the US.

Damn it. There's that stinkin' hypocrisy again. Keeps cropping up.

Bertster7 wrote:

Foreign intelligence agents commiting crimes in other countries have never been tried in front of the ICC - but have frequently been tried by the domestic legal apparatus of the country where the crimes were committed. There are countless examples of this.

Please explain why you mistakenly believe this should have anything to do with the ICC?

I'm not saying it has to be tried in front of the ICC. I'm saying the ICC's guidelines for in absentia trials are more stringent than what Italy applies domestically, even though Italy is a signatory for the ICC. There is a disconnect. To allow a trial to begin without the defendant present is a travesty of justice, plain and simple. As much as you trashed the US, even we don't do that.

So once again, the hypocrisy of the Euros here: It's perfectly OK to try someone without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves, but God forbid you hold someone for an extended period of time in conditions better than they are warranted under existing international law--that's a fucking war crime...even though it's not. Hypocrisy. You give Italy a pass for what they do and piss on any little thing the US does, even though both have equal justification, in their own ways.

You can't have it both ways.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

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

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?

A sovereign state has the right to handle crimes committed in their borders according to their laws. Which is exactly what has happened here.

FEOS wrote:

It's OK for Italy to do that, but not OK for the US to what it did, even though both acted "according to (their) own laws and agreements" in both cases.

But they didn't. The supreme court ruled that the all sorts of aspects of Gitmo were in contravention of US law. That's not a case of acting according to their own laws. If your highest legal authority rules that something isn't legal according to your laws then if you are doing it you are not acting according to those laws.

That's putting an interesting spin on it. I'd say you've read a bit too much Huffington Post, Bert. Go back and read the actual SCOTUS ruling again.

Bertster7 wrote:

On top of that, you have international treaties such as the UDHR...

Except the UDHR isn't a treaty and therefore isn't law.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

On top of that, you have international treaties such as the UDHR...

Except the UDHR isn't a treaty and therefore isn't law.

Except for the fact it is.

Since 1976 the entire International Bill of Human Rights, of which the UDHR is a part, is a treaty and is has been a part of international law for 33 years.

I recommend you go back and read the UDHR again. It's not a treaty. Nor is the IBHR. The ICESCR is and the ICCPR is. See, those are treaties, not just resolutions. Treaties are laws and are always binding to the signatories. Resolutions can be either...and as is the case with UN resolutions, are more often than not non-binding on the members.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Oh its non-binding, feel free to ignore the UDHR then.

Its a declaration, a statement of inalienable undisputed facts.

Way to overlook the point of debate there, Dilbert.

And if you're going to wave that flag, then perhaps the Italian judiciary should read the UDHR (and other non-binding international frameworks, such as the ICC) when trying people who aren't there.

Hypocrisy.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Except the UDHR isn't a treaty and therefore isn't law.

Except for the fact it is.

Since 1976 the entire International Bill of Human Rights, of which the UDHR is a part, is a treaty and is has been a part of international law for 33 years.

I recommend you go back and read the UDHR again. It's not a treaty. Nor is the IBHR. The ICESCR is and the ICCPR is. See, those are treaties, not just resolutions. Treaties are laws and are always binding to the signatories. Resolutions can be either...and as is the case with UN resolutions, are more often than not non-binding on the members.

It is law, it is binding.

It has been since 1976. You really seem to struggle with the concepts of international law. You persistently get this stuff wrong, time after time.

It makes you look very silly.

It's even summed up in the opening of its Wikipedia page.

The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.

Took on the force of international law. Which means is legally binding. Which means you are talking out of your arse.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-12-07 09:55:29)

General Assembly resolutions are never legally binding. Only Security Council resolutions are legally binding.