CIA Follies
One of the 22 CIA agents wanted in Italy over the kidnapping of Egyptian imam Abu Omar from a street in Milan in February 2003 has claimed in his defence that the Italian authorities were well aware of the operation. The lawyer for Robert Seldon Lady, who headed the CIA's Milan station from 2000 to January 2004, made the claim while challenging the warrant issued for his arrest by Italian prosecutors in June this year, saying his actions had "explicit, or at least implicit authorisation from the Italian government."
However, Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reports that "the CIA has lost the first legal round" in its fight to legitimise its practice of 'extraordinary renditions', which involves the capturing and deporting of foreign terror suspects without any trial to countries where they could be tortured.
Milan judge Enrico Manzi rejected the first line of defence used by Lady's lawyer, with a verdict establishing that no diplomatic immunity or state secret can authorise "the capture of suspects outside of every judiciary control" by either Italian or foreign secret services. Manzi therefore declared the rendition "an act of force" which "violates the sovereignty of Italy" and cannot be justified.
Omar was already under surveillance by Italian police when he was kidnapped, suspected of having links with terrorist groups and recruiting young people to be used as martyrs in Iraq. Milan investigating magistrates say he was first taken to the Aviano American air base in northern Italy and transferred to a military base at Ramstein in Germany, from where he was then flown to Egypt in a private plane hired by the CIA. Since then he has been held at the high security Tora prison, where, he told a friend when he was briefly released, he was tortured to the point of being left partially paralysed.
Pressure has been growing for an explanation into dozens of CIA flights through Europe thought to have picked up and delivered terror suspects to prisons in countries where they may subsequently have been tortured. An investigation has been opened in Germany into the use of the Ramstein base in the Abu Omar rendition.
Italian investigators found a photograph of Abu Omar on Lady's computer, taken on the street he was seized from 33 days before he disappeared. His wife had deleted all the files on his computer, but on rebuilding the hard drive, police are reported to have found evidence that he had run searches for the shortest route from the Milan street where Omar was kidnapped to Aviano. A list of the luxurious hotels in Milan the agents accused of being involved in the kidnapping stayed in was also found in the rubbish bin in his garage.
Evidence has also been uncovered that Lady was in Cairo during the two weeks when Omar is said to have suffered the most violent interrogation. Investigators tracked down two airplane tickets showing that he flew to Cairo from Zurich on 24 February 2003, and returned to Italy on 7 March.
In her first appeal, Lady's lawyer Daria Pesce, claimed he was innocent or "only following orders" and was occupying the role of consul at the time, giving him "diplomatic immunity" which also covered him for "special missions". However, this argument was rejected by the judge, who decreed that immunity does not cover "serious crimes like kidnapping". State secrets, he argued, protect "the security of Italian democracy" and not "actions carried out by foreign operatives".
The Italian government and intelligence service SISMI have always denied knowledge of the operation to capture Abu Omar. However, Lady's lawyer stated twice in his defence that "Lady, in his consular role as intelligence supervisor, undoubtedly enjoyed the authorisation of the US government in agreement with the political authorities of the Italian state" and this "Italian approval" was "indispensible" for a "special mission sent by the United States".
Italy's La Repubblica newspaper speculated on Wednesday that Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi could soon find himself forced to make a difficult choice: "Turn the whole affair into a state secret, thereby admitting that Palazzo Chigi [the Prime Minister's office] knew, or alternatively, hand over to the Milan prosecutor's office the names of those who authorised or kept quiet about the kidnapping of Abu Omar."
While the Bush administration has publicly defended the extraordinary rendition practice, it has always denied complicity in any torture the suspect may later have suffered in the country he was sent to.
In the UK Allegations that the CIA has been using the UK as a stopping point for flights on their way to secret jails have raised a complex legal debate.
It is not in dispute that the infliction of torture - for whatever purpose - is unlawful under the UN Torture Convention of 1984, to which Britain, in common with 140 states, is a party.
The law was used as recently as last summer to underpin the prosecution of an Afghan warlord arrested in London. Article 4 of the UN Convention makes complicity in torture an offence.
In principle, then, if it can be established that the government knowingly allowed CIA " torture flights" to land in Britain or use British airspace, there must be a case to bring before the UK courts.
Professor Philippe Sands, an authority on human rights and the law, says: "I would go further and argue that international law imposes a positive obligation on the government to investigate these allegations of torture."
But lawyer Khawar Qureshi points out that the UK courts "through long established case law have refrained from adjudicating on acts of the executive which are rooted in policy and national interest consideration".
A string of British airports have allegedly been used
If Liberty goes ahead with a judicial review application, its chances of success will be in the balance.
It is becoming evident that the US administration is also anxious to find an answer to the moral and legal problems raised by the process of so-called " extraordinary rendition" - where captives are interrogated in third countries.
One reported suggestion, from Vice-president Dick Cheney, is that the CIA should be authorised to do the questioning itself in circumstances where the suspects are not US citizens and they are being held as part of counterterrorism operations abroad.
Unresolved issue
The proposal, made to senior Republican senator John McCain, who is sponsoring a law which would ban inhumane treatment and oblige all US agencies to abide by the UN Torture Convention, was rejected.
The use of evidence obtained under torture is an unresolved issue.
It is claimed that the federal prosecuting authorities decided not to charge a man, held for three years as an "enemy combatant", with planning to detonate a "dirty bomb", because the evidence against him was extracted under torture.
And the House of Lords will shortly give a landmark ruling on the same issue. Can such evidence obtained abroad be admissible in the British courts?
The Appeal Court said that it could because the UN Torture Convention has not been incorporated into UK law.
If the ruling is upheld by the law lords, the ambition of human rights groups to place legal curbs around the apparently growing use of torture will be thwarted.
However, Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reports that "the CIA has lost the first legal round" in its fight to legitimise its practice of 'extraordinary renditions', which involves the capturing and deporting of foreign terror suspects without any trial to countries where they could be tortured.
Milan judge Enrico Manzi rejected the first line of defence used by Lady's lawyer, with a verdict establishing that no diplomatic immunity or state secret can authorise "the capture of suspects outside of every judiciary control" by either Italian or foreign secret services. Manzi therefore declared the rendition "an act of force" which "violates the sovereignty of Italy" and cannot be justified.
Omar was already under surveillance by Italian police when he was kidnapped, suspected of having links with terrorist groups and recruiting young people to be used as martyrs in Iraq. Milan investigating magistrates say he was first taken to the Aviano American air base in northern Italy and transferred to a military base at Ramstein in Germany, from where he was then flown to Egypt in a private plane hired by the CIA. Since then he has been held at the high security Tora prison, where, he told a friend when he was briefly released, he was tortured to the point of being left partially paralysed.
Pressure has been growing for an explanation into dozens of CIA flights through Europe thought to have picked up and delivered terror suspects to prisons in countries where they may subsequently have been tortured. An investigation has been opened in Germany into the use of the Ramstein base in the Abu Omar rendition.
Italian investigators found a photograph of Abu Omar on Lady's computer, taken on the street he was seized from 33 days before he disappeared. His wife had deleted all the files on his computer, but on rebuilding the hard drive, police are reported to have found evidence that he had run searches for the shortest route from the Milan street where Omar was kidnapped to Aviano. A list of the luxurious hotels in Milan the agents accused of being involved in the kidnapping stayed in was also found in the rubbish bin in his garage.
Evidence has also been uncovered that Lady was in Cairo during the two weeks when Omar is said to have suffered the most violent interrogation. Investigators tracked down two airplane tickets showing that he flew to Cairo from Zurich on 24 February 2003, and returned to Italy on 7 March.
In her first appeal, Lady's lawyer Daria Pesce, claimed he was innocent or "only following orders" and was occupying the role of consul at the time, giving him "diplomatic immunity" which also covered him for "special missions". However, this argument was rejected by the judge, who decreed that immunity does not cover "serious crimes like kidnapping". State secrets, he argued, protect "the security of Italian democracy" and not "actions carried out by foreign operatives".
The Italian government and intelligence service SISMI have always denied knowledge of the operation to capture Abu Omar. However, Lady's lawyer stated twice in his defence that "Lady, in his consular role as intelligence supervisor, undoubtedly enjoyed the authorisation of the US government in agreement with the political authorities of the Italian state" and this "Italian approval" was "indispensible" for a "special mission sent by the United States".
Italy's La Repubblica newspaper speculated on Wednesday that Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi could soon find himself forced to make a difficult choice: "Turn the whole affair into a state secret, thereby admitting that Palazzo Chigi [the Prime Minister's office] knew, or alternatively, hand over to the Milan prosecutor's office the names of those who authorised or kept quiet about the kidnapping of Abu Omar."
While the Bush administration has publicly defended the extraordinary rendition practice, it has always denied complicity in any torture the suspect may later have suffered in the country he was sent to.
In the UK Allegations that the CIA has been using the UK as a stopping point for flights on their way to secret jails have raised a complex legal debate.
It is not in dispute that the infliction of torture - for whatever purpose - is unlawful under the UN Torture Convention of 1984, to which Britain, in common with 140 states, is a party.
The law was used as recently as last summer to underpin the prosecution of an Afghan warlord arrested in London. Article 4 of the UN Convention makes complicity in torture an offence.
In principle, then, if it can be established that the government knowingly allowed CIA " torture flights" to land in Britain or use British airspace, there must be a case to bring before the UK courts.
Professor Philippe Sands, an authority on human rights and the law, says: "I would go further and argue that international law imposes a positive obligation on the government to investigate these allegations of torture."
But lawyer Khawar Qureshi points out that the UK courts "through long established case law have refrained from adjudicating on acts of the executive which are rooted in policy and national interest consideration".
A string of British airports have allegedly been used
If Liberty goes ahead with a judicial review application, its chances of success will be in the balance.
It is becoming evident that the US administration is also anxious to find an answer to the moral and legal problems raised by the process of so-called " extraordinary rendition" - where captives are interrogated in third countries.
One reported suggestion, from Vice-president Dick Cheney, is that the CIA should be authorised to do the questioning itself in circumstances where the suspects are not US citizens and they are being held as part of counterterrorism operations abroad.
Unresolved issue
The proposal, made to senior Republican senator John McCain, who is sponsoring a law which would ban inhumane treatment and oblige all US agencies to abide by the UN Torture Convention, was rejected.
The use of evidence obtained under torture is an unresolved issue.
It is claimed that the federal prosecuting authorities decided not to charge a man, held for three years as an "enemy combatant", with planning to detonate a "dirty bomb", because the evidence against him was extracted under torture.
And the House of Lords will shortly give a landmark ruling on the same issue. Can such evidence obtained abroad be admissible in the British courts?
The Appeal Court said that it could because the UN Torture Convention has not been incorporated into UK law.
If the ruling is upheld by the law lords, the ambition of human rights groups to place legal curbs around the apparently growing use of torture will be thwarted.
posted by professor rat at 7:35 PM
<< Home