What the Media is Not Telling You About the CIA Trial in Italy
An Italian judge has temporarily suspended the trial of 26 CIA agents in Italy while awaiting a ruling over whether the prosecution violated Italian secrecy laws while gathering evidence. Apparently, the prosecutors may be fulfilling their role a little too zealously.
If you are unfamiliar with the case, here is a quick summary: the CIA agents and 6 Italians are on trial in Italy, accused of kidnapping an Imam, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, in Milan and flying him to his home country of Egypt, where he was allegedly tortured. He claims he was beaten, given electric shocks, and threatened with rape while held in Egypt. With impeccable timing, the trial began just as George Bush arrived in Italy earlier this month for a visit in conjunction with the G8 summit. The accused agents all left Italy a long time ago, and are being tried in absentia. In other words, the trial is going on without them being there. Italy has not announced if it will seek their extradition, but it is a rather moot point, since the US has already announced it would not be granted. The trial has set off a press frenzy in Italy, where the call it the "Imam Rapito", or the "kidnapped Imam" affair.
The kidnapping was an example of the policy of "extraordinary rendition", which means bypassing the normal extradition process and secretly transporting a suspect to another nation in order to face trial or questioning. The Bush administration has come under heavy criticism for this policy, particularly when the suspects are delivered to nations which are likely to torture.
News of the trial was wildly celebrated by a collection of left-wing and anti-American groups, who see the trial as a proxy for putting Bush and Cheney on trial, which has so far been a frustrated goal.
I have a question. When are these same prosecutors, or for that matter the rest of the world's media, going to focus on Egypt's actions (e.g. the torture) in this matter? Or is turning the channel away from US bashing for a minute a little too much to ask? At least Italy has the excuse that the "crime" happened on Italian soil; what is everyone else's excuse? While researching this article I poured over hundreds of accounts and opinions, and while most criticized the US or Italy, I could find very few that criticized Egypt and none that did it above criticism of the United States. Not a single one. If someone can prove otherwise, please let me know. I'm all ears.
Of course, the irony here is that if the USA is a torturer, a rogue state, and the world's biggest terrorist, as Andrew Sullivan, Noam Chomsky, Cindy Sheehan, Hugo Chavez, and many others claim, then taking prisoners anywhere else but the US would be an improvement, wouldn't it? But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for anyone to answer that...
In any case, there are some facts about this case and the actors involved that the media is distorting and/or isn't telling you.
First of all, in spite of how many people commonly misunderstand the news of this trial, no one is alleging that the United States tortured anyone here. What is on trial is the legality of the renditions or "kidnappings".
To help keep a historical perspective, it should be noted that this was exactly the same process the Mossad used to remove the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann from Argentina and bring him to face trial in Israel in 1960. The French also conducted an extraordinary rendition in 1994 to capture the terrorist "Carlos the Jackal" in Sudan and deliver him to face justice in France.
Nevertheless, Dick Marty, a special prosecutor investigating the CIA's "secret prisons" in Europe, has called Nasr's case a "perfect example of extraordinary rendition" and strongly criticized US policy (heaven forbid he might actually utter a word about Egyptian torture). But Mr. Marty has particular trouble proving his many allegations against the US; you can read more about that here.
And if what Dana Priest claimed in the Washington Post is true, that the Italian authorities knew of the operation and consented to it, then the trial shouldn't be going on at all; the CIA agents are essentially legally immune from prosecution. Arresting anyone is only illegal if the host nation does not grant permission. In fact, it would be difficult for the prosecution to argue otherwise, since they also put six Italian officials on trial, and one other Italian, a policeman, has already made a plea bargain. But the prosecuting attorneys may be spared from having to explain such inconsistencies; since the Americans are not even going to show up at the trial, it is doubtful the defense will expend much effort in defending them.
Incidentally, in absentia is a dubious way to put someone on trial anyway, especially when you can't be certain of their real identities (this is the CIA, after all). Furthermore, I'm no expert on Italian law, but it should be noted that France, Italy's partner both in the EU, and the European Court of Human Rights, considered trials in absentia such a violation of human rights that they allowed the convicted murderer Ira Einhorn, the "unicorn killer" to freely walk their streets for more than 20 years, refusing to extradite him to the United States because he wasn't present at his trial. And in that case, the State of Pennsylvania had a very good reason for conducting it in his absence; Einhorn had agreed to appear but skipped bail just prior to the start of the trial. In 2001, he was finally extradited to the USA, after the State of Pennsylvania passed a special law covering his case, and prosecutors agreed to retry him. (Personally, during the many years that France shielded him I think Einhorn should have been kidnapped and taken to the US to face justice, but since his entire defense consisted of CIA accusations and conspiracy theories, this would have just fed further into world paranoia.)
Finally, exactly who is Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr?
I saved the best for last. Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr is a member of the "Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiyya" an Islamic extremist group that seeks to overthrow the Egyptian government. It is listed as a terrorist organization by both the United States and the European Union. It claimed responsibility for the 1997 Luxor Massacre in which terrorists attacked the tourists at Egypt's most visited archeological site, the ruins of the temple in Southern Luxor, and killed 58 people, most of them Swiss citizens. Since tourism is vital for Egypt's economy, it's likely they targeted tourists in order to destabilize the country. In this context, it is clear why the Egyptian government is interested in wiping out the movement, aside from their simple penchant for murder. Incidentally, its likely the Luxor operation was financed by Osama Bin Laden. It should also be noted that one of the leaders of the group is Omar Abdel-Rahman, the "blind sheik" who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in the US.
Now, skip ahead to February 2003. Nasr was on his way to mosque prayers in Milan when he was captured. He was living in Italy after fleeing Egyptian justice and applying for asylum. Why wasn't he in jail? The irony is, at least in jail, it is unlikely he could have been kidnapped by the CIA. The asylum claim pushes the irony further here too - since the asylum system was originally set up for people who needed to flee from terrorists and their sympathizers like Nasr...
Two years after Nasr was taken to Egypt, Italian authorities did belatedly decide to charge him with terrorism related offenses.
Nasr spent four years total in an Egyptian prison and is now free there. In fact, just two days ago, in a great act of chutzpah, his attorney announced that Nasr is seeking damages in court from the Italian state for his "kidnap" (once again, I am mystified over why he hasn't at least attempted to file damage claims against Egypt, the nation that allegedly tortured him). Nasr's attorney landed in Rome to file the claim; he says that his client wishes to return to Italy to testify, even if it means his arrest on the terrorism warrant, but that he can't make it because Egypt refuses to release his passport.
Heck, there's an easy solution - just call the CIA to extraordinarily rendite him again...
Like what you see? Click on any of the labels below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed
4 comments:
If Egyptian society was not islamic enough for this guy, then I don't think he will fit in very well in Italy...
"When are these same prosecutors, or for that matter the rest of the world's media, going to focus on Egypt's actions (e.g. the torture) in this matter?" - Never, probably, because the Egyptian torture was not an illegal act conducted on Italian soil. It is a matter of jurisdiction, and of enforcing Italian law.
... which I addressed in the very next statement. I understand Italy's reason. What about everyone else (including Mr. Nasr)? Every commentary I have read, from CNN to Al-Jazzera, condemns the US for this "kidnapping and torture" but say next to nothing about Egypt's actions.
This trial has lasted too long- I could have sorted through this in one day- here goes:
Fact:
The kidnapping took place in Italy.
Egypt did the torturing.
The CIA men were following orders.
The man kidnapped was a dangerous man who was already being watched for terrorist activity.
The agents were following orders. The men at the top planned this (none of which are on trial).
Ruling:
Provide amnesty for all the agents and then interview them to find out who was behind this at the top. Go after that person or group and hold them accountable for a failed plan and bad practices (I don't care what their title is or how much money or banks they own). Egypt violated human rights- go after Egypt with sanctions and public disapproval and an apology to the world for taking part of a bad practice.
Ok- now where do I send the bill?- Perhaps I could ask for some from the bailout money- no one will miss it along with the jet, vacations, and bonuses.
Post a Comment