Skip to main content

View Diary: Former CIA Milan Office Chief Arrested (176 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Perhaps Because No Extradition Treaty Exist (2+ / 0-)

    between Panama and Italy.

    This "diary" is full of inaccuracies. I suggest checking out the HuffPo article  for a more factual account of this incident.

    I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

    by OnlyWords on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:27:15 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Extradition doesn't require a treaty (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, Miggles, TheMomCat

      Treaties formalize the process between two countries but they are by no means necessary. We don't have an extradition treaty with Russia.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:35:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  OW - thanks for the link (0+ / 0-)

      Looks like he may not be sent to Italy. I'd like to see Lady safely back in the USA.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:12:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why? So we can continue to protect torturers (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, happymisanthropy, Miggles, lysias

        and their enablers?

        Or do we need to keep looking forward?

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:18:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have great empathy for people in the (0+ / 0-)

          armed forces, or the CIA, who are at the tip of the spear. It's a lonely place. I always want to see them safely home.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:43:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, this explains a lot (0+ / 0-)

            You aren't so big of a fan of the rule of law when it comes to enablers of torture.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:47:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Was Lady accused of a crime in the US? (0+ / 0-)

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:00:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Was Bush? (0+ / 0-)

                He sent people to be tortured and you want to ignore the laws of other countries because he might have to serve some time. And as far as I know enabling torture is a crime according to US law. A crime which the president has decided we won't prosecute for. For all practical purposes you're saying that he should face absolutely no punishment. You can hide behind your legalism and "patriotism" but you're supporting torture.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:37:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Enabling torture is a crime under international (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lysias

                  treaties signed and ratified by the US, which makes them, per the Constitution, not only US law, but the highest law of the land. Said treaties make it a positive duty, not an option, for US DoJ and other law enforcement to apprehend and prosecute offenders, or turn them over to another appropriate court.

                  None of that actually matters, of course. He's a spook. Breaking the law was his job. And Obama, breaking a campaign promise, announced almost as soon as he was inaugurated the first time that he would not have DoJ pursue any investigations or prosecutions for torture. (I blame Gerald Ford for setting a precedent by pardoning Nixon.)

                  The Constitution as Catch-22

                  It doesn't matter what the laws say if we don't have sufficient political will to throw out anybody who won't enforce them.

                  Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

                  by Mokurai on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 12:32:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Besides he vas chust vollowing orders. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Miggles, lysias

            You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

            by Johnny Q on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:56:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Really? No matter what they're accused of doing? (0+ / 0-)

            Even if after a fair trial they're found guilty?

            Honestly, I think that attitude does no favors to the members of the armed forces or the CIA who DO acquit themselves with honor and integrity.

            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

            by PhilJD on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:00:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I certainly don't know enough about the actual (0+ / 0-)

              facts of Lady's involvement in the snatch and grab, and what arrangements were made with the Italian administration at the that time, to have a view about this. I know that the US does not recognize trials in absentia and I think they are bogus. If Lady is going to be tried in Italy, or anywhere else in the world, lets make sure he has the best international defense lawyers in the US government with him. If Lady was operating at the request of the US government, it has a duty to protect him.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:14:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  NO! The "just following orders" defense didn't (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheMomCat

            fly in Nuremburg, and it shouldn't apply to this former station chief either.

            •  Miggles - the in absentia trial in Italy that (0+ / 0-)

              convicted the CIA agents was kabuki theater solely for political purposes. How vigorous and expert a defense team do believe were present on behalf of Lady and the other CIA agents during the in absentia trial? There is a reason that the US does not have such trials and does not recognize them as valid.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:01:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What is there to suggest that this was some (0+ / 0-)

                kangaroo trial or that rule of law was ignored?  Just because it didn't take place in the US doesn't mean it's invalid.  And the accused could have mounted a defense instead of ignoring the whole thing.  And even in the US, if one side doesn't show up in court, they lose.  That doesn't mean it was a kangaroo trial.

                •  Miggles -in the US we don't have serious criminal (0+ / 0-)

                  trials without the defendant present. It's in the Constitution.

                  You can get a judgement for monetary damages against a defendant who, after a lot of process, doesn't show up, but never someone accused of a serious crime.

                  "let's talk about that"

                  by VClib on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:28:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Why? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miggles
        I'd like to see Lady safely back in the USA.

        When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

        by PhilJD on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:25:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site