But alas, none of them will ever see any jail time, nor will they pay the fine. Of course, some humans are born immune from any prosecution because of their skin color and/or citizenship, even though they may persecute others. This is today's world/justice/democracy/human rights/etc.

And Ian Kelly, FUCK YOU. (and all those behind you all the way to the top, as you are just a lowly 'spokeman')

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8343123.stm

CIA agents guilty of Italy kidnap

Quote :

"An Italian judge has convicted 23 Americans - all but one of them CIA agents - and two Italian secret agents for the 2003 kidnap of a Muslim cleric. The agents were accused of abducting Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, known as Abu Omar, from Milan and sending him to Egypt, where he was allegedly tortured. The trial, which began in June 2007, is the first involving the CIA's so-called "extraordinary rendition" programme. The Obama administration has expressed its disappointment at the convictions. "We are disappointed by the verdicts," state department spokesman Ian Kelly said in Washington. He declined to comment further pending a written opinion from the judge, but said an appeal was likely. Three Americans and five Italians were acquitted by the court in Milan. Symbolic ruling The Americans were all tried in their absence as they have not been extradited from the US to Italy. “ For us, this first case puts the war on terror on trial ” Joanne Mariner Human Rights Watch spokeswoman The CIA's Milan station chief at the time, Robert Lady, was given an eight-year term, while the other 22 Americans convicted - one of them a US air force colonel - were sentenced to five years in prison. Lawyers for the 23 Americans said they would appeal against their convictions. The two Italian agents, who were convicted as accomplices to kidnapping, were given three-year prison terms. The court also ruled that those convicted must pay 1m euros ($1.5m) in damages to Abu Omar and 500,000 euros to his wife. CIA spokesman George Little in Washington declined to comment on the convictions, telling the Associated Press news agency: "The CIA has not commented on any of the allegations surrounding Abu Omar." Secrecy laws Italian prosecutors said Abu Omar was taken as part of a series of extraordinary renditions carried out by the CIA - when terror suspects were moved between countries without any public legal process. They told the court he had been kidnapped in daylight on a Milan street in February 2003 and flown to Germany, and then Cairo, where he was held for years until being released without charge. Judge Oscar Magi acquitted the CIA chief for Rome, Jeffrey Castelli, saying he was protected by state secrecy rules, as were the former head of Italy's military intelligence agency, Nicolo Pollari, and his deputy, Marco Mancini. Mr Pollari, who resigned over the affair, told the court earlier this year that documents showing he had no involvement in the kidnapping were classified under secrecy laws. Prosecutor Armando Spataro rejected the argument that legal provisions could shield those accused from prosecution, saying any agreement to carry out a kidnapping was "absolutely against Italian law". He had sought a 13-year jail term for Mr Castelli and Mr Pollari and 12 years for Robert Lady. Activist group Human Rights Watch welcomed the verdict, saying it sent "a strong signal of the crimes committed by the CIA in Europe". Spokeswoman Joanne Mariner said: "For us, this first case puts the war on terror on trial." "

11/5/2009 9:07:34 PM

bitter much

11/5/2009 9:10:55 PM

Italy should send secret agents over here to kidnap them.

11/5/2009 9:20:20 PM

Italy has bigger problems to worry about than one suspected terrorist being dealt with. Other countries would have just exterminated him once they were through interrogating him.

11/5/2009 9:32:50 PM

good riddance to those terrorists. god bless the US servicemen and intelligence agents who have put their lives and freedom on the line to protect us from scumbags like Nasr. He deserved whatever he falsely claims to have gotten.

11/5/2009 9:41:47 PM

is this a case of "regular old kidnapping" in which the kidnappers should obviously be punished?

or is this a case of US government detaining a terrorist suspect / known terrorist for interrogation for reasons of (inter)national security?

11/5/2009 9:45:14 PM

i'm always so stunned to see americans who are so quick to accept the torture of prisoners in american captivity.

11/5/2009 9:45:34 PM

he wasn't tortured, friend. he's lying - that's what they are trained to do and that's what they do. Of course they are lying. It doesn't take any effort at all to make up a torture story and its been done time and time again, falsely.

11/5/2009 9:46:48 PM

whether or not we tortured him, the article says the torture was alleged...they weren't charged with torture, they were charged with kidnapping

to play devil's advocate sarijoul, i could say i'm amazed at the number of people who take the allegations as fact when they weren't found in a court of law to actually have tortured the prisoner / terrorist suspect

11/5/2009 9:48:31 PM

i'm sorry. i'm sorry. his interrogation was enhanced.

and there has been documented torture at guantanamo. bush basically ordained that it's all cool to torture terrorists if they aren't a part of an army. why do you think we haven't put lots of those detainees on trial? i don't know if this specific guy was tortured or not. but american officials have authorized and carried out torture of prisoners in our captivity.

11/5/2009 9:49:30 PM

similar to how its much more difficult to fight a war with guerrillas than it is with armed national military (ie, the bad guy's all wear the same uniforms), i think theres some legal conflicts with how those people are tried and handled

if Abu Omar is completely innocent, then what they did is obviously fucked up...but if he is a citizen / non-military who happens to have strong ties to terrorism, how do you properly, and legally, handle him, while also doing YOUR job and looking out for national security?

11/5/2009 9:52:08 PM

there has been no documented torture at guantanamo


abu graib, yes - and the perpetrators were severely punished. gitmo, no. waterboarding is not torture.


I swear to god, sometimes I think we need a proper goddamned war on our own soil to wake some of you dumb motherfuckers up. Maybe if your mortality was immediately threatened you'd have a little more appreciation for what people do for your stupid ass.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 9:55 PM. Reason : s]

11/5/2009 9:53:09 PM

there's no excuse for the torture. holding them in prison as an enemy combatant is potentially defensible if the person really is a danger. but something tells me that if we knew that, we could put them on trial in a federal court. it's not like our bar is incredibly high to convict terrorists in our courts. judges/juries are pretty trusting of our military/intelligence services. something tells me (logic i think) that the reason that these people are being held without charge is that much of the evidence gathered against them was gotten under torture (or they don't have much evidence to begin with).

but again, i can't see any reasonable defense for torture.

Quote :

"abu graib, yes - and the perpetrators were severely punished."

and according to people at the base, high ranking officials saw similar actions regularly and said nothing (and implicitly approved of this treatment).

Quote :

" gitmo, no. waterboarding is not torture."

united states after ww2 disagrees with you.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 9:56 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 9:57 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 9:55:56 PM

apparently Obama agrees with me. go fuck yourself.

bush + obama = if that's not america then wtf is... oh, code pink? yea. that's a brilliant cross-section of post-ww2 america.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 9:57 PM. Reason : s]

11/5/2009 9:56:40 PM

Quote :

"holding them in prison as an enemy combatant is potentially defensible if the person really is a danger"

but when we do this, we have plenty of critics who say they're being unjustly held without a trial

11/5/2009 9:57:32 PM

and i think those critics are likely justified. you guys trust your government to do the right thing far too much. what would you think if another country treated our citizens in the same way?

11/5/2009 9:58:36 PM

Expected responses from the trolls.

BTW, Solinari comes up with new definitions of 'severely' and 'torture' in this thread.

This thread is not for deciding whether waterboarding is torture or not, as this has nothing to do with it. And there is/was another thread for that purpose anyway, so go there to tell us how you feel about waterboarding.


[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 9:59 PM. Reason : No point in arguing with Trollinari]

11/5/2009 9:58:59 PM

^^^ exactly, and then they come up with these history channel style "ufo testimony" of how some retired general witnessed torture during the detention....

right, and everybody in prison is innocent... mmmhmmm you gullible fuck, sarijoul


[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:04 PM. Reason : s]

11/5/2009 9:59:39 PM

Quote :

"bush + obama = if that's not america then wtf is... oh, code pink? yea. that's a brilliant cross-section of post-ww2 america."

we used waterboarding as evidence of war crimes of the japanese. so. . .

Quote :

"right, and everybody in prison is innocent... mmmhmmm you gullible fuck, sarijoul"

if they haven't been charged or found guilty then yes. that's pretty fundamentally american.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:01 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 10:00:14 PM

Quote :

"and i think those critics are likely justified"

but you just said it might be defensible to hold terrorist suspects if they are a danger to others

Quote :

"you guys trust your government to do the right thing far too much"

i definitely don't...but i also don't take the other extreme and think they always do corrupt shit...there ARE terrorists out there and we DO catch, imprison, torture, interrogate whatever some of them

whether or not this particular Muslim cleric has terrorist ties, I have no idea...but I also don't think the CIA just gets their kicks from torturing innocent Muslims just because they're Muslims...I think by and large they have US security in mind as their main priority

11/5/2009 10:03:12 PM

Quote :

"you guys trust your government to do the right thing far too much."

It's not so much that I trust the government too much, its that I get royally pissed off when I see dumbass comfortable motherfuckers like yourself giving the benefit of the doubt to sworn enemies to your petty life while you constantly condemn on the slightest rumor the honor and dignity of the servicemen who defend you thanklessly day in and day out. Who deserves the benefit of the doubt? Get over your teenage angst and grow up - people are defending your life while you're stuck in "i hate daddy" mode over the military.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:04 PM. Reason : s]

11/5/2009 10:04:19 PM

well i have a pretty high bar for practically spitting on the geneva conventions.

^wtf are you even talking about. i think torture isn't justified. it's pretty clear that we have done that as far as the geneva conventions are concerned. i don't care how bush re-defined what torture was so that he could have people tortured to find links between al qaeda and iraq where they didn't exist.

it's not the military i have contempt for. it's much further up in the executive (namely the last two presidents). the military does what they're told more or less.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:07 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 10:04:42 PM

Quote :

"well i have a pretty high bar for practically spitting on the geneva conventions."

oh wait... are you talking about the islamic militants who don't give a motherfucking shit about the conventions or about our uniformed military?

I think your answer will explain everything about you, you fucking scumbag.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:08 PM. Reason : s]

11/5/2009 10:05:46 PM

yes. believe it or not, i think adhering to basic human rights of our prisoners (of war) helps us in the long run with international relations. not to mention the basic morality of not advocating for torture of anyone.

11/5/2009 10:08:58 PM

Quote :

"Get over your teenage angst and grow up "

There is only one person displaying teenage angst in here, and needs to grow up and learn to not talk like an angry teenager every other sentence.

11/5/2009 10:10:50 PM

^^ yea, that's what I thought.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:13 PM. Reason : s]

11/5/2009 10:11:02 PM

i don't know what you're even talking about anymore.

11/5/2009 10:11:45 PM

so is it ever acceptable to imprison terrorist suspects?

11/5/2009 10:12:13 PM

certainly.

11/5/2009 10:12:39 PM

You don't know what I'm talking about?

This is what I'm talking about - answer the goddamn question

Quote :

"well i have a pretty high bar for practically spitting on the geneva conventions."

Are you talking about the islamic militants who don't give a motherfucking shit about the conventions or about our uniformed military?

11/5/2009 10:13:26 PM

i just see some contradicting posts by you...you say that if they're a danger, it could be ok to do imprison them and hold them (as opposed to torturing them)...then you say critics of that would probably be right...i don't quite get it

^i think he's saying we should take the moral high ground above those terrorists, which is a great way of thinking, but i think its pretty naive personally

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:14 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 10:13:29 PM

^^i'm talking about our executive branch who have allowed this to happen. i addressed this a few posts up.

^we should make our officials feel it when they have to use extreme tactics. it should not be easy for them. if these people are truly a danger to america, then they can explain how and why (within the limits of what is a danger to immediate intelligence). these secret detentions practically guarantee some mistakes/abuse.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:16 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 10:14:13 PM

No, its saying, when you have sworn enemies who have blatantly disregarded the conventions as routine procedure and made no pretense of caring about them, vs. someone who is laying his life on the line to defend you and is sworn to follow the conventions.... WHY in the fuck do you spend your energy assaulting the honor of the person who is defending you based on what the terrorist who doesn't give a fuck says?

I just can't understand the mental gyrations needed to justify this kind of nationalistic self-loathing.

I never see these bleeding heart liberals decrying the terrorist tactics - instead its all, "United States sucks this" and "America sucks that" and "CIA tortures" bla bla bla when there's a billion goddamn videos on youtube of the islamists hacking people's heads off with a dull knife! What in the FUCK?!

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:19 PM. Reason : s]

11/5/2009 10:16:40 PM

i actually had almost this same discussion with multiple active military this morning. they didn't seem particularly dishonored. nor did they disagree with me all that much.

and how exactly am i dishonoring any military? i disagree with what their boss has told them to do. that's all.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:19 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 10:17:57 PM

why should we believe you? you're just a dirkadirka anyway

11/5/2009 10:19:43 PM

^^ Yea and I've got a minority best friend so I have carte blanche to make racist jokes

get over yourself

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:20 PM. Reason : s]

11/5/2009 10:20:00 PM

Quote :

"we should make our officials feel it when they have to use extreme tactics. it should not be easy for them"

again, i think thats a kind way of thinking, but not realistic in all circumstances...i get that you're looking out for the US's image, that we're better than the terrorists, that we don't have to resort to the same tactics that they do...but at other times, when the suspects are known terrorists, we have to do what we have to do in order to prevent, for example, an attack on US soil that kills thousands more American citizens

and other times, when there IS a real terrorist in custody, we can give reasons for a prisoner's danger to others, we can point to them having ties and knowledge about terrorist activities...but their lawyers will claim its not true

i think some of it comes down to legal justice versus real justice...me personally? i'll take bending some laws if the means are justified by an ends of preventing the loss of thousands of American lives


[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:22 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 10:20:53 PM

^^i work at a military base. i talk to lots of active military every day.

^and if active military did this and stood trial for it and presented the immediate danger that they were likely to prevent, then i don't think it would be out of line to find that person not guilty (or a severely light sentence). but it should not be an easy decision for our military to torture.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:23 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 10:21:11 PM

^^ Why are you even accepting the premise that the rules were bent??? The benefit of the doubt should be given to our uniformed military, BY FAR... compared to the beheading suicide bombing civilian raping terrorists.

jesus christ, why is this even up for discussion?

because 90% of our population is stuck in adolescent rebellion against "authority" no matter what.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:25 PM. Reason : s]

11/5/2009 10:24:14 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_Memo

11/5/2009 10:25:28 PM

Obama agrees with me. So does Bush. Left and Right agree, no torture. You lose. Game over. You blamed our military before you even said one negative thing about the islamist extremists. GTFO.

11/5/2009 10:26:44 PM

DIRKADIRKAJIHAAAD

11/5/2009 10:26:49 PM

I'm just saying I'm down to bend some rules, when some of them are unjust, if the result is saving countless American lives. I also don't think the same rules always apply universally to all Americans...I see a big difference in an average joe kidnapping some other average joe for a ransom or something...with some government officials doing it to prevent a terrorist attack...its like saying that Steve Smith punching Ken Lucas should be treated the same way is if you punched out a co-worker at your office...optimally you would, but common sense would tell you they're completely different scenarios

Besides, what does this Italian judge know about being fair and just? He basically protected most of his agents for reasons of not violating "state secrecy rules". What about protecting our agents for reasons of not violating essentially compromising an investigation into these terror suspects?

OEP are you just as outraged at the Italian judge for getting his boys off as you are at Ian Kelly for saying he's disappointed at the verdicts?


[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:28 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 10:27:00 PM

Quote :

"Judge Oscar Magi acquitted the CIA chief for Rome, Jeffrey Castelli, saying he was protected by state secrecy rules, as were the former head of Italy's military intelligence agency, Nicolo Pollari, and his deputy, Marco Mancini. "

He also acquitted the CIA chief, along with the 2 Italians. Yes, I am outraged at the 2 Italians being acquitted, as well as the CIA chief. Why would you even think that I would have a soft spot for the Italians?

11/5/2009 10:32:15 PM

I wouldn't, I just didn't see you call out the judge for protecting his paisans, I just saw in your initial post where you told Ian Kelly fuck you for essentially verbally protecting his boys

and its the CIA chief for ROME...its not the Director of the CIA...its basically the head of operations in Italy...not exactly a random CIA person, he has ties with Italy

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 10:34 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 10:33:33 PM

He convicted some of his boys, acquitted some. And he convicted some Americans, and acquitted some/one.

11/5/2009 10:35:02 PM

CIA officers are civilians

just wanted to point that out. the term military is being throw around in here a lot. I'm certain no one has displayed any resentment of the military in here, so i'm not sure why it keeps being brought up.

and i agree with this:

Quote :

"There is only one person displaying teenage angst in here, and needs to grow up and learn to not talk like an angry teenager every other sentence."

also, regardless of how you feel about what happened to him in custody, this is still badass:

Quote :

"Italian prosecutors said Abu Omar was taken as part of a series of extraordinary renditions carried out by the CIA - when terror suspects were moved between countries without any public legal process. They told the court he had been kidnapped in daylight on a Milan street in February 2003 and flown to Germany, and then Cairo"

it's like in a movie when shit like that happens and you think, pffft, there's no way that happens in real life, right?

11/5/2009 10:35:58 PM

Yes, he convicted 50% of the Italians and 96% of the Americans

11/5/2009 10:36:42 PM

Quote :

"Obama agrees with me. So does Bush. Left and Right agree, no torture. You lose. Game over. You blamed our military before you even said one negative thing about the islamist extremists. GTFO."

well i don't. and i don't hold the words of my leaders as gospel. i voted for and supported obama. and this is one (of quite a few) things i vehemently disagree with him about. and where did i blame our military? i was pretty explicit about blaming the people who authorized these actions (ie the offices of bush and to an extent, obama)

11/5/2009 10:38:22 PM

DIRKA DIRKA!!!!!!!!

11/5/2009 10:39:21 PM