Court Sentences 22 CIA Agents, 1 USAF Colonel
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.
[...]
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.
A little more information that the BBC omits is available from this article at Al-Jazeera. For one thing the three Americans who were acquitted actually got a pass for having diplomatic immunity. For another the five Italians were acquitted because they were "protected by State Secrecy rules." Which leads one to wonder why the 2 convicted Italian agents were not covered by that umbrella. Hmmm…
The US State Department may be disappointed by the verdict, but I’m quite frankly delighted. And I’ll tell you why. For more than three years now, over several posts, I’ve been saying that the weasel-word ‘rendition’ really means kidnapping, and should not be given any distinction any higher than that of an extreme criminal act. It’s nice that a judge and jury agree. And as to the disappointment expressed by the US government, I already covered that in that post from Sept. 19, 2006.
In America we see a government that continues to deny their own criminal activity. Then when it becomes undeniable, they deny that there is anything illegal about it. Then, when THAT becomes undeniable, they try to retroactively make legal the most egregiously despicable actions. Sickening. As Glenn Greenwald asks, "How can you be an American citizen and not be completely outraged, embarrassed, and disgusted by this conduct?"
What they’re disappointed with, frankly, is that their depraved indifference to the rule of law cannot be forcibly extended to other jurisdictions.
In an e-mail about this story Len Hart expressed the fervent hope, "Perhaps the CIA will –at last –be held accountable for its TERRORIST activities." I wouldn’t advise him to hold his breath. Not with the kind of MSM reporting on the story that is exemplified by this exchange on CNN’s The Situation Room.
(Sorry, I have no transcript so this is paraphrased from memory but it’s pretty accurate as to the intent of what was said.) Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Jeffery Toobin, whose legal expertise puts him in a class with John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Orly Taitz.
Toobin: "the bad thing about this is that because of Interpol the [convicted criminals] now have to avoid travel not only in Italy but most of the rest of Europe as well.
Blitzer: It’s part of the job description of the CIA that they go into other countries, and break the law. They break and enter. They engage in bribery, and so forth. Italy is an ally. They’re supposed to have an agreement with the US about things like this. The system failed somehow."
The only agreement that any foreign country might have with the US (at least so far as international law is concerned) about spies is this — if a spy has an official embassy cover, when caught spying they are not charged, but simply declared Persona Non Grata and expelled from the country. As noted above this is what happened to the three CIA criminals who had diplomatic immunity. The others had to have been what is known as NOC’s (meaning non-official cover,) and should have known that they were vulnerable to charges if they broke Italian law.
Any argument to the contrary can be boiled down to two words; American Exceptionalism. Which, you may be surprised to find out (assuming you’re an American) has no foundation whatsoever in international law. None. And ‘legal expert’ Toobin had to have known that. So he’s either an incredibly incompetent attorney or he’s a liar. Or both. At any rate, there is an presumption by both Toobin and Blitzer that extradition of these criminals should not even be considered, and that the American people should be perfectly OK with that. It’s unlikely that many CNN viewers will disagree.
There are other elements to this story that I’ll just touch on here. First, what an incredibly ill-conceived and counter-productive operation this was. Kidnapping and torturing a Muslim cleric?! What the HECK were they thinking?
The thought that comes to my mind is that infamous 9/12/01 quote from the Shrub, "If you’re not with us you’re with the terrorists." This adds the qualifier, "and if you’re not with the terrorists YET, just wait til you see what we’re planning."
Second, while I generally agree with the outcome of the case I’m a bit disconcerted about the relative weight of sentencing. It was my understanding that this kidnapping was carried out over the strenuous objections of Robert Seldon Lady, the Milan CIA station chief — who rightly "saw it as ill-conceived and counter-productive." He was over-ruled by some political authority that one must assume extended right up to the White House, probably the OVP. Why then should he have gotten eight years when the doofuses who actually committed the crime got five? For that matter, if you’re trying leaders in absentia anyway, why were Bush the Lesser and Shooter Dick not charged? This was nicely covered at Crooks and Liars last April.
It’s not easy for me to generate a lot of sympathy for a CIA man involved in a kidnapping, but I feel sorry for Bob Lady.
[...]
He and his wife loved Italy so much they bought a house in the foothills of the Alps and retired there in 2004. Months later an urgent call came, warning Lady to get out of Dodge — don’t even pack. The cops were on their way.Tipped off, the Ladys successfully fled the country. But they left behind a bonanza of evidence in their dream home, not the least of which was a CIA surveillance photo of the kidnap victim, Osama Mustafa Hasan Nasr, known as Abu Omar…
The little guy stuck carrying out the operation (that he objected to) had to flee his home to avoid imprisonment, not to mention lost his wife, and all their property in Italy may go to Omar as restitution for his rendition…And the CIA abandoned Lady, disowning him as an employee and refusing to assist him in any way.
So, as with Abu Ghraib, the accountability begins and ends with the least powerful and never makes it up to the top decision makers.
As with everything the administration of Bush the Lesser touched, in this case loyalty only ever worked in one direction. Some days it just sucks to be Mr. Phelps.
"Good morning, Mr. Phelps. We have a mission for you.
…
…
As always, if you’re caught or killed the secretary will disavow all knowledge of your actions."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDENDUM:
With any post that involves torture one feels compelled to remind readers that it is not only despicably inhuman, but is totally ineffective as an intelligence tool. Here’s a quote on point from Nineteen Eighty-Four:
He became simply a mouth that uttered, a hand that signed, whatever was demanded of him. His sole concern was to find out what they wanted him to confess, and then confess it quickly, before the bullying started anew. He confessed to the assassination of eminent Party members, the distribution of seditious pamphlets, embezzlement of public funds, sale of military secrets, sabotage of every kind. He confessed that he had been a spy in the pay of the Eastasian government as far back as 1968. He confessed that he was a religious believer, an admirer of capitalism, and a sexual pervert. He confessed that he had murdered his wife, although he knew, and his questioners must have known, that his wife was still alive…It was easier to confess everything and implicate everybody.



11 Comments







Helpful background. thanks.
I absolutely agree. The people who “actually committed the crime” should be charged. What I don’t understand is why progressives completely disagree when it comes to the Iraq and Afghan wars? Why do they immediately shift to saying the soldiers were “just following orders” and therefore ought to be not only not charged but not even morally condemned for their part in a far FAR more horrible crime that resulted in the death of over a million people, to say nothing of vast amounts of terrorism, torture, kidnapping, rape, and so on.
When I asked who would condemn the troops most people here instead said that to even suggest the troops had done anything wrong made me some sort of “troll”. Do you agree? And if so how do you respond to someone who calls you unpatriotic because you condemn the CIA? On what basis do you decide which evil acts carried out in the name of empire get someone a pass and which do not?
I’m a Canadian David, and most of us are more than a bit bewildered at the way your culture conditions you to genuflect at the military from an early age. I think it’s actually a form of propaganda similar to the magazine training* of a lab rat.
*(If you’ve never done Operant Conditioning in Psych 101, that’s the Pavlovian (classical conditioning) step where you get Sniffy to respond to a clicker as though it were food. You can then train Sniffy to more complex behaviors by pressing the clicker. It’s easier and quicker than interrupting the experiment to present a pellet of food, and Sniffy doesn’t end up getting too fat.)
My point is that this learned reflex (for some) to honor the brave soldier (who historically is just a mindless thug in a uniform) can easily be transferred onto honoring or at least accepting the orders he is given and even the policies that led to those orders. I’m sure you would agree that that is a psychological tactic that was used extensively by the Bush administration. So the conversation turns into something like this:
You:>You’ve invaded a country that didn’t threaten us, and now you’re stealing their oil. Meanwhile your cronies are getting lucrative no-bid contracts and the taxpayers are footing the bill.
Them:>>Are you telling me all those (insert ever-increasing number here) brave soldiers died for nothing? Your questioning the mission is unpatriotic, and dishonors their noble sacrifice. Shame on you!!
> *sputter* Whaa?!?
>>(humming “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”) Now show some respect for YOUR Commander in Chief. (And BTW, unless you’re in the military yourself, he’s decidedly NOT ‘your’ C-in-C.)
Now the transference is complete. You have been conned into thinking Codpiece Commander George and 5-Deferment Dick deserve the same respect that you give to the flag-draped coffin.
Well, not you David – you’ve got more brain cells than a lab rat after all. But some of those other people who are calling you a troll, I’m not so sure.
-
-
What was the question again? ;-)
SBT! Good post. FYI @2 is a bit trollish, just so you know where to spend resources.
I was thinking of you yesterday when the Maher Arar decision came out of the 2nd circuit. You cooking on that yet?
Cheers!
Those folks will be looking over their shoulders for a lonnng, lonnng time.
I wonder how many “diplomatic” posts they can be sent to for the rest of their careers to avoid extradition? As for Lady, I wonder how many other illegal activities he just threw his hands up over and shrugged off?
I’m hiding in Honduras, I’m a desperate man.
Send lawyers, guns and money, the $%!t has hit the fan…
Were Wolf Blitzer and David Ignatius separated at birth?
Kinda wish they’d check their ideas out the guy who signed the CIA into existence:
Thanks for the quotes – I had no idea they existed, and I’m a bit of a quote collector.
It’s kind of an extension of what Eisenhower said about the Military Industrial Complex isn’t it? And in both cases the criticism comes from someone who was as familiar as it was possible to be with the subject.
And in both cases it comes across as a totally disingenuous piece of bullshit. In both cases it wasn’t just an “insider” saying it but the people responsible for the state of affairs they pretend to criticise! And people too, in a position to stop the evil they themselves created — if they really held the sentiments expressed.
Obama wasn’t the first US politician to say one thing and do the exact opposite.
Here’s a beautiful quote for you:
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1632.html
– Helen Keller
That link calls here a “US blind & deaf educator”. The reality is that she was a leader in the communist movement that was crushed by the US (it is still a crime to be a communist in the US).
You know what’s funny about the Truman quotes? I tried to post them twice on a JFK story on Huffington Post this last weekend. They were never approved and did not show. First I thought it might be an automatic filter catching on the word Gestapo, but I rewrote/requoted and it still did not take. Yet two other comments I made about Jackie and Lady Bird in that same thread posted at about the same time did get approved. What’s up with that?
Also, as to the veracity of the quotes… I tried to google more info on them once and found one source on the WaPo column who said it was ghostwritten for Harry (he was very old then) and that he disagreed with it when somebody confronted him with it. So now it’s dueling electrons but I’m siding with WaPo Harry. The other quote, about the American Gestapo, I think I saw that addressed on Snopes or some such site where they said it couldn’t be verified verbatim but that it was in line with other things Truman was known to have said around that time.
Last thing, quotewise, I didn’t realize that JFK had made his own anti-CIA statement, about wanting to shred or splinter “the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind. …” but someone posted that in the same HuffPo thread I referred to above. Learn something new… though again, why can that guy quote anti-CIA JFK on HuffPo but I can’t quote anti-CIA Truman–in the same thread? HuffPo is weird.
David Byron, you’re absolutely correct about “support the troops.” And I was one once.
Thanks to you and SadButTrue.
I hope and expect to eventually shame the rest of them into changing their minds too which it seems is the only way anything ever progresses (apart from the old generation simply dying off and being replaced by the young for whom there is never even a question). Well not me of course but I do expect this attitude to change although it might take 50 years. Until then I’ll be a “troll” and I’ll add my tiny little weight to pushing in the right direction, not the wrong one.
This case is quite telling IMO and I’ll probably return to it. WHY do progressives have such a huge store of sympathy for soldiers but none at all for the CIA dogs? I saw the same thing with the mercenary force Xe (Blackwater). They are not shown sympathy although I dare say almost all are former US soldiers trying to make a living. This uniform produces sympathy, this does not. Why? I can only think it is because the US Army has a bigger budget for advertising. It’s like comparing Coke and Pepsi with a store brand of Cola.