by hilzoy
I said in my post on Condoleeza Rice’s speech that I was not going to track down all the false statements she made. One that I decided not to bother with was this:
“For decades, the United States and other countries have used “renditions” to transport terrorist suspects from the country where they were captured to their home country or to other countries where they can be questioned, held, or brought to justice.
In some situations a terrorist suspect can be extradited according to traditional judicial procedures. But there have long been many other cases where, for some reason, the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extradition is not a good option. In those cases the local government can make the sovereign choice to cooperate in a rendition. Such renditions are permissible under international law and are consistent with the responsibilities of those governments to protect their citizens.”
Now: Rice does not actually come out and say that we only conduct renditions when, “for some reason, the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extradition is not a good option.” Nor does she say that all renditions are carried out with the cooperation of the host government. (The fact that she didn’t state it explicitly is one reason I decided not to address it last night.) But she pretty clearly leaves that impression.
Today, as luck would have it, there’s a story that makes it clear that that’s not true:
” In March 2003, the Italian national anti-terrorism police received an urgent message from the CIA about a radical Islamic cleric who had mysteriously vanished from Milan a few weeks before. The CIA reported that it had reliable information that the cleric, the target of an Italian criminal investigation, had fled to an unknown location in the Balkans.
In fact, according to Italian court documents and interviews with investigators, the CIA’s tip was a deliberate lie, part of a ruse designed to stymie efforts by the Italian anti-terrorism police to track down the cleric, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, an Egyptian refugee known as Abu Omar.
The strategy worked for more than a year until Italian investigators learned that Nasr had not gone to the Balkans after all. Instead, prosecutors here have charged, he was abducted off a street in Milan by a team of CIA operatives who took him to two U.S. military bases in succession and then flew him to Egypt, where he was interrogated and allegedly tortured by Egyptian security agents before being released to house arrest.
Italian judicial authorities publicly disclosed the CIA operation in the spring. But a review of recently filed court documents and interviews in Milan offer fresh details about how the CIA allegedly spread disinformation to cover its tracks and how its actions in Milan disrupted and damaged a major Italian investigation.
“The kidnapping of Abu Omar was not only a serious crime against Italian sovereignty and human rights, but it also seriously damaged counterterrorism efforts in Italy and Europe,” said Armando Spataro, the lead prosecutor in Milan. “In fact, if Abu Omar had not been kidnapped, he would now be in prison, subject to a regular trial, and we would have probably identified his other accomplices.” (…)
Italian anti-terrorism police said they were close to arresting Nasr at the time he disappeared. They had him under regular surveillance, with wiretaps on his home telephone, as part of an investigation into a network of Islamic extremists in northern Italy. His disappearance meant that Italian authorities lost a valuable window into the Islamic underground, prosecutors say.”
So much for only abducting people when “the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect”. I mean, who could expect a lawless country like Italy to track down and prosecute someone who was hiding out in a remote jungle fastness in the wilds of, um, downtown Milan?
Moreover, as Kevin Drum notes, “The Italians supported George Bush, supported the war in Iraq, and have been firm allies in the war on terror. One might wonder: what’s the point of being a steadfast U.S. ally if this is how you get treated? I’ll bet the Italians aren’t the only ones wondering.”
On the other hand, we may not be witnessing the end of civilization, just life imitating art, i.e. Animal House the Presidency, or Vacation, the Presidency. . . Road Trip!
The US has never been known for its loyalty and kind behavior to its allies. Consider how they’re treating their erstwhile ally and defender against the evil Iranians Saddam Hussein.
Did someone say loyalty! Is the US govt. loyal even to it’s own citizens? Look no further than the recent episode of New Orleans. Not to mention episodes of the past.
It should be obvious that we have no idea if the question of whether some level or other of the Italian government is engaging in deniability is relevant here.
That is, obviously the question is nothing but relevant; we simply have little idea what the answer is (although I have strong suspicions, based on history, myself).
I’m a bit puzzled that no one in this thread mentions this most obvious point when discussing a “covert” operation, although perhaps I’m not seeing it. But taking governmental statements, from any government, about covert ops, at face value, seems inexplicable to me.
Unless one wants to ask Gary Powers how he enjoyed his weather balloon.