Rendition on trial

[Zaknafien]

there was an article about this in, I think it was GQ a couple months ago. It was a great article. Good on the Italian government for not putting up with the CIA's BS.

[Odin]

Good on the Italian government for not putting up with the CIA's BS.

Funny, I thought they were in cohoots, but I have to remember its only the U.S. that participates in these little ugly realities, everyone else is forced to go along, to hell with thier soveriegn status.

the fact that rendition has gone on in europe is not entirely the U.S. fault. While it may be a U.S. policy, compliance, acknowledgement, and cooperation must have played a role for it to have been so wide spread and successful.

But dont let me muck up another U.S. evil policy rant, I mean after all the democratically elected leaders of the EU who allowed it to go on were forced to by the overwhelming pressure of the Bush administration.

Good for the italians, lets hope those members of the italian government who helped in the process, and other europeans who helped in the overall rendition program are brought to trial as well.

But that would sell as many papers would it?

[KafirChobee]

Odin, I really would like to agree with you here. But, the question is, is rendition necessary in countries where we have extradition agreements? Seriously, if we have real proof of a person being a threat to our or another nations security why secretly kidnap them? Why send them to where they can be tortured, and why do something illegally when we could do the same thing within the onfines of international law? Without the torture bit, which seems to be frowned upon by most civilized nations.

Expediency is never an answer, only an excuse for illegal activity (s). Alienating an ally is never a possitive outcome for any policy. It is obvious this is just another arrogant, unthought out illegal process justified by 9/11. Even though past administrations (as the example of Clinton? 1993) have used rendition, it was either with the knowledge of the nation thats soil we were taking the suspect from, or from a region without an extradition agreement. There is a huge difference.

What we did in Italy is unjustifiable at so many levels of moral national conduct and international law that any attempt to justify it is incomprehensible.

Then again, since the present administration pays no attention to our own laws or the Constitution, why should they concern themselves with the soverienty of others?

Personally, the 9/11 justifys the means and end cause all is getting more than a bit shreaded.

[Odin]

Odin, I really would like to agree with you here. But, the question is, is rendition necessary in countries where we have extradition agreements? Seriously, if we have real proof of a person being a threat to our or another nations security why secretly kidnap them? Why send them to where they can be tortured, and why do something illegally when we could do the same thing within the onfines of international law? Without the torture bit, which seems to be frowned upon by most civilized nations.

Your first question is answered by your second, and that is we dont have "real proof" of them being a threat. I dont think rendition is a spectacular slam dunk policy, by any means, but (and here comes the but), If i have agreement (written or not) with the host country of the individual to grab them, Im all in favor.

I dont believe in torture, unless its proven this person is a threat and has information that will lead to others who are a threat, Sadly bush mucked it up by shipping them off and not lending some modicum of creadability to it by interrogation at the host countries locale (EU could have saved a little face with thier complicity then)

Expediency is never an answer, only an excuse for illegal activity (s). Alienating an ally is never a possitive outcome for any policy

.

Yes and yes, but my point is whos doing the alienation here? This policy isnt an exclusive U.S. operation, it couldnt be, unless the EU is not aware of US operatives in thier borders, whom they share intelligence with.

It is obvious this is just another arrogant, unthought out illegal process justified by 9/11. Even though past administrations (as the example of Clinton? 1993) have used rendition, it was either with the knowledge of the nation thats soil we were taking the suspect from, or from a region without an extradition agreement. There is a huge difference.

I agree, my position is that the current rendition program is with the knowledge of the host countries, certainly the italians in the cited link.

What we did in Italy is unjustifiable at so many levels of moral national conduct and international law that any attempt to justify it is incomprehensible.

Let me say KC, you make very well thought out posts, but from time to time you tuck in absolute statements like these that, if taken seriously make 1. further discussion not necessary, and 2. your position unassailable. Neither of which is condusive to discussion. (I think its in context to my posting my position, if its in reference to the Bush policy as a whole, okay I retract the rebuttal)

Then again, since the present administration pays no attention to our own laws or the Constitution, why should they concern themselves with the soverienty of others?

Because the caretakers of "the soverienty of others" were in on it. Unless you believe rendition is soely a U.S. operation? By default, your giving the Bush admin and its mechnisms far more credit then I would.

[Slyspy]

Of course it wasn't solely a US exercise - the native authorities had to be involved. But to what extent was this involvment officially acknowledged? At what level was consent given?

The fact also remains that the ex-head of the CIA in Europe himself has stated that this practice soured the working relationship between the US and the host countries and that, of course, the negative publicity generated by the disclosures is hardly helpful either.

[Odin]

Of course it wasn't solely a US exercise - the native authorities had to be involved. But to what extent was this involvment officially acknowledged? At what level was consent given?

Its about 1 am here Im about off to bed, but isnt the former head of italian intelligence part of the inditment right? So that should answer your questions...

Curious the article dosent get around to that part of the equation does it? Its a discussion of the CIA rendition program, exclusively executed by americans on foreign soil. Again I'll reread it later but the presentation of the article is clearly biased and is not an equitable representation of the situation.

Again, hate to break up another seemingly harmless anti us policy posting fella's, but you know this is one of the cases where more then one hand was caught in the cookie jar.

But I'm game, lets expose the whole thing, love to see the BBC/ EU op ed pieces on the evil policies of the compliant and cooperative democratically elected european officials who went along.

The fact also remains that the ex-head of the CIA in Europe himself has stated that this practice soured the working relationship between the US and the host countries and that, of course, the negative publicity generated by the disclosures is hardly helpful either.

Im sure it did, but in make this admission he indirectly implicates those host countries were aware of the policy.

Was one of them the country you live in (anyone not just you sly)? If so

Great damage has again been caused to many relationships that actually further the efforts against terrorism for little if any, gain.

It casts the topic and the article in a little bit different light when everyone is afforded thier portion of the mess.

[Slyspy]

I suspect that the US were the movers and shakers in this particular programme and so do alot of others. Hence the emphasis on CIA activity. However where found out I think you'll find that the local agencies have also come in for some flak as accomplices.

In further news the police here in the UK have decided that there is no evidence of rendition flights landing in the UK. Then again they have also refused to investigate. How you can know one without doing the other I don't know.

Edit:

I do not see the anti-US statements which you claim riddle the topic.

Edit:

Oh, I see. You regard it as wrong to criticise US policy.