RANGER AGAINST WAR: CIA Kidnapping, Pt. II <

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

CIA Kidnapping, Pt. II

--Freedom for Sale,
Pavel Constantin (Romania)
___________________

[continuation ... ]

Would it not be more correct to arrest with police powers after an investigation, and subsequent extradition of the subject for a transparent and correct trial by jury?  Isn't this why there is a United States Department of Justice?

Doing this operation within the parameters of international law would be a slower but surer method of conducting a counter-terror operation, that is, if it is a legitimate operation.

Immunity was conferred upon some members of the snatch-team, "like Col. Joseph L. Romano III, a former Air Force commander who allegedly helped smuggle the kidnapping team onto Aviano Air Base, from which Omar was flown out of Italy," but not for De Sousa.

"Well before her conviction, she lobbied hard for immunity. In May 2008, Jonathan C. Rose, now the chief of the rules support office in the U.S. court system, wrote an angry letter on her behalf to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rose called Rice out for allegedly approving Omar’s rendition at the CIA’s behest. ..."

Curious that Secretary Rice gave State Department approval to execute a kidnapping; can you spell "failed state"?  This should not be State Department function; no one in the U.S. system should be authorized to allow or to conduct criminal activity for any purpose (this includes President Obama's kill lists.) The CIA told De Sousa in '08 that “intelligence activities are not covered by diplomatic immunity.”  If Col. Romano was military operating with the CIA, how then did he invoke diplomatic immunity?

"[De Sousa] is fully aware that some in the Foreign Service believe she is unwilling to deal with the natural perils of their profession. With a mother in India and sisters in Germany and Canada, she says she never would have taken on any assignment that could have jeopardized her ability to travel freely. Her critics, she says, cannot understand what it’s like for an immigrant to be stuck in the United States and barred from visiting family abroad"

Criminal behavior is not a natural peril of intel service.  The U.S. is not Nazi Germany or the Stasi or Bulgarian assassins. How does De Sousa claim to be "stuck in the U.S."?  Apparently the irony of her participation in the deprivation of a man's liberty is lost upon her.  Such a mama's girl for someone willing to aid in a man's kidnapping and certain torture.

Criminal behavior is criminal, even for U.S. diplomats and intel functionaries.

Labels: , , , ,

18 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ranger, Here's a question for you,and it's genuinely a question; not a vieled counter-urgument.

How do you envision normal (i.e. Constitutional) legal/judicial processes being employed in these cases w/o a compromise of national security assets?

Any defense lawyer is going to ask where the evidence came from, how it was obtained, cross-examine witnesses, agents, etc

Thanks.

avedis

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 9:58:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Avedis,
It's all natn'l priority.
Are we fighting a war or is T a crime.
It can't be both.We need to determine if we are a security state , or do we believe our Constitution.
IMO we all have the right to face our accuser, even if he's the CNI.
Pls remember that most T's do not even fall under US jurisdiction, so we must rely on foreign gov'ts to implement the law.
WE can't exactly oppose T illegality with US gov't equivalent actions.
I stand on bedrock when i say-if it's wrong for T's to kidnap then so too is it illegal for US agents to kidnap.
I'm kinda simple minded when dealing with these concepts.
jim

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:32:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Avedis,
To clarify- in a sense it can be both crim and war IF we realize that the folks we meet in combat may have terror links and are military assets then the they become POW,s. Pretty simple.
The real threat to US security ain't the bimbos shooting at your son, they are the western trained and educated radicals with the intent and capability to do real damage beyond AK range.
Think KSM, and i doubt he'll ever get his day in court.I admit that the system is fubar. If legality were the issue why not leave the prosecution of KSM to the PAK Ntn'l Courts in the first place?
We can't have a statue of liberty in NY harbor and secret prison's in US embassies like that of Benkazi,or anywhere else.
It's all a comedy the way we've fucked up the entire concept,from the POTUS down to fire team leader.
Thanks for your comment.
It's your turn now.
jim

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:41:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Blakenator said...

I would ask do you mean "national security" as a legitimate concern or "national security" as the cloak to hide things that are illegal (such as this) or embarassing. Our PWOT has provided the cover for some heinous acts. To steal a quote from the old show "The Naked City" (yes, I'll date myself): There are eight million stories in the PWOT, this is just one of them.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:24:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, what follows is a fragment of a counter point to yours.

What about Article 4 3rd Geneva Convention? How do you reconcile its potential with your position (if you do at all)?

By international law members of irregular forces are only accorded POW status *if* thet are commanded by a person recognized as responsible for his subordinates, have fixed distinctive sig recognized at a distance, carry arms penly and conduct their operation in accordance with laws and customs of war. If all of the above conditions are not met, they may be considered franc-tireurs and may be subject to summary execution and/or other punishments avalable under a military jurisdiction.

So, if it's a war, then it seems that a terrorist, wherever he his found, can, by international law, be hit be a drone, shot, thrown in irons in some hidden stinking hole, etc.

If it's not a war per se, then I think your perspective is, indeed, on solid bedrock.

avedis

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:29:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I would ask do you mean "national security" as a legitimate concern or "national security" as the cloak to hide things .."

Agreed 100%. Of course, I meant legit security concerns.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 12:31:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

I think this particular crime falls under the heading of "crime" because of where it took place.

Italy is a functioning state with a functioning judicial system, and at least a nominal politico-military ally (as part of NATO) of the U.S.

In a friendly functioning state this is pretty simple; you go to the local judiciary, produce your evidence, and request that they arrest the guy you want and then go through the process of extraditing him or her.

If the locals refuse either to arrest or expedite, game over. Period.

You don't do some sort of silly James Bond shit like this; it makes you look nasty if it works and stupid if it doesn't.

And as for the larger question of "what do you do about bad people outside your jurisdiction in a hostile state or lawless region?"...that's a little less black-and-white and comes back to jim's question about what we want to conclude we're doing in re: these jihadis.

IMO to accord them "soldier" status is too much respect. They'd LIKE that, but, really, this isn't a "war" any more than the Baader-Meinhof people or the Brigati Rossi, the Shining Path, or the Mexican narcotraficantes were/are at "war" with us. So the notion of either bombing them at random or capturing them and sticking them in POW camps seems pretty sketchy; it puts the U.S. on a permanent secret war footing and everyone from the Founders on down knows what happens to democracy and liberty in war. Nothing good.

But these guys DO need to be kept an eye on, and, where they get in a position to do some serious harm need to be caught or - if they can't be caught - killed. And I'm not sure how you do that without starting down that slippery slope. You can't do this without secrecy and without oversight it's ridiculously easy to slide over the border from CIA to KGB...

So - short answer; I don't know the "right" solution in ALL these cases. But the solution used in THIS case was about as "wrong" as it could have been...

Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 3:37:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Avedis,
Insurgents are covered by the GC,s Thats a given and a recognised fact.
Before they were we honored the GC,s in RVN and treated POW's aslegit combatants.
When i was in the 24th evac. we had VC(not nva) wounded on our ward. That was a strange experience for me , but it was correct and what we do. Contrast that with the treatment given insurgents in Fallujah. In 1 instance a US Marine put a long suffering wounded insurgent down with a burst to the chest. The Marines denied the insurgents use of medical facilities.
OK so much of that.
None of the ass hats that bring the violence to the USA are insurgents. They are simply criminals.
Now to Chief,
How do we deal with the enemy amongst us like the perceived threat in this post.?I reckon u can put them on the dole like they do in Britain and watch them between checks.(Just funnin')
Really the only thing that i'd suggest is association matrix's on all of them and pull their passports,and /or deport them.Also have restrictive travel from threat areas. Use shorter term visa's. Don't allow anyone time to become operational. We are VERY weak in this arena. Think Carlos the Jackal in France.BTW Chief u left AD off your euro terror list.
The Brits have a good system of following potential active persons.
The Brits also have a larger threat population if 1 wants to view this in such a manner.
IMO action figures are basically isolated here in CONUS b/c they lack active and passive support , if one factors out FBI/HLS agent provocatuers. We have egress and entrance controls that are fine factors in eliminating active cells.
Just yesterday i saw a FL DOT patrollman searching a truck on the Federal highway. We have levels of protection that can snare operatives inadvertantly.
But this ain't the problem. I agree with Chief and u must look at Britain again. They recently extradited a radical cleric(whatever that is) but wouldn't give up a hacker who infiltrated DOD computers. This in itself is interesting b/c the hacker has been adjudicated as mentally ill but still was a major threat, and probably will be for life,but yet they gave us a nothing in a larger sense of the scheme of things.
In a free society we must live by the rule of law or we must become other than what we are supposed to be.
I find it strange that i've been thinking about this topic since the middle 80's, and no one in the command authority ever gives it more than a wink and a nod.
My RAW efforts began with the resurrection of my MP Journal article entitled-T is it war. Found in the early archives.
I must close with my standard mantra. In the Spectrum of war LIC and counter insurgency must be understood as level 1 threats until they transition to military levels of organization and operational capabilities.
To date even the Taliban never operate above Reinforced company level, and this is so only if you stretch the limits of your thinking.
I hate to think what they would do with Regt. organization, but in reality they have no need to do so b/c we are so fucked up all they need is to keep the pot simmering.
WE always bring the mess to the boiling point.
Or so it seems to me.
jim

Friday, November 30, 2012 at 10:40:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Avedis,
Do u think that we're fighting a war?
Be careful i've set some back trail demo with time fuses.
What do u see as a c/a?
jim

Friday, November 30, 2012 at 10:42:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, even a pogue knows to not come out the same way he went in.

I don't think we are fighting a war. The primitive idiots shooting at my son are only doing so because he's there, in their country, making a target of his infidel self.

They lack the sophistication, means and probably even the will to come over here and shoot at you, me or the good citizens of our respective towns (or any other).

As you note, these are not the people we have to be concerned about.

A for the the true Ts that pose a threat, they see themselves as jihadists (at least that the image they like to project publicly) and thus are, in some way/shape/form irregular forces.

Do we need to buy into their self definition? No. Nor should we.

They are, indeed, glorified international criminals and should be dealt with as such.

How does one deal with such international criminals?

There are some established methods that will contribute to the solution, but I also think that we are faced with a threat that is unprecedented in its scale and scope and therefore requires some new evolving approaches. Some of what we are seeing, for better or worse, is the evolutionary process in action.

Aside from punitive aspects, going into A-stan was about denying Ts a base of operations. A good idea if you can pull it off. Turns out that it couldn't be achieved. So there's a failed approach. Strategic Darwinism.

Another approach is assassination by drone. I suspect that this one will ultimately fail too for reasons we have discussed on this forum.

That said, your heart and soul are i the right place. I'm with you. In exploring and implementing new tactics we should sacrifice our fundemental morals/values. This can't be said often or loudly enough. I'm glad you are saying it.

avedis

Friday, November 30, 2012 at 12:36:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NOT sacrifice our fundemental morals/values

avedis

Friday, November 30, 2012 at 12:37:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re; back trail demo - I wasn't clear. I'm saying were on the same trail/same patrol walking five paces apart.

Sometimes being the devil's advocate helps elucidate.

avedis

Friday, November 30, 2012 at 1:50:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Avedis,
We're in the same grid square EXCEPT i do not view the threat to be as vital as portrayed by the administrations and media outlets.
Recently i was reviewing my essay on the failures of Anaconda/roberts ridge and a young Marine who fought there claimed that AQ were present in large numbers and were killed in a big way. I doubted that at the time and still do. I don't think AQ ever had more than 200 operatives world wide of anything approaching operational sophistication.
CIA NIE at the outside have only id'd 200 ww operatives.My take is that they were simply wannabees.
And of course these guys cause problems as the shoe and under wear bombers show us- but they are weak on capabilities.
jim

Friday, November 30, 2012 at 8:17:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

Avedis: I'd argue that the original actions in A-stan in '02 DID work; we used the Tajiks and Hazaras as footsoldiers and ran the Pashtun Taliban out of Kabul, disrupted and destroyed a lot of the original AQ infrastructure and cadres.

The occupation was and is a colossal blunder, but what occupation of Afghanistan ISN'T?

Saturday, December 1, 2012 at 12:56:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Chief,
Sure the tactical application of the campaign plan worked,EXCEPT there was no strategic value to the victory, if u call it a victory.
The orig invasion by a CIA/SF/rented army augmented by contractors was a totally new template for an invasion and it was faulty and ad hoc from the gitgo. Same can be said for the invasion of IRQ.
In AFGH the initial invasion was linked to cooperation with Iranian linked war lords.The whole thing hinged on which band of cretins was gonna end up in the cat bird seat.
I ask-why in the hell would we allow a CIA sponsored bunch of drug lords support our invasion.
The

Avedis-
The only reason i mentioned Anaconda before is that from the gitgo the powers that be tried to convince the world that the AQ were battle assets and could be defeated on the battlefield.
WRONG. T's avoid trained soldiers,and if they fought it was only to retrograde and to get out of the AO.
All this proved is that the CIA can work with world class killers willing to do anything for money.
BTW- did the early troops get invasion arrowheads on their campaign medals? I've always wondered about this.
jim

Saturday, December 1, 2012 at 8:04:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous CholoAzul said...

I blame Frank Knox.

Sunday, December 2, 2012 at 2:54:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

Well, I'd argue that the gain (removing a hostile nuisance from Kabul) for the cost (miniscule) of '02 was reasonable. The strategic stupidity was NOT working with the locals and the Iranians to keep withholding a stable host nation from the salafi jihadis (i.e. AQ and their siderunners). We got grabby in thinking that we could "stabilize" Afghanistan as a Western partner - THAT really was stupid.

The original Umpteenth Afghan War (or whatever genuinely accurate name you want to give for the 2002 OEF) was a punitive expedition and could have succeeded on that level if we'd had the foresight to conceive of it that way and the discipline to continue pursuing it as such.

I will agree that the Third Gulf War NEVER made a lick of geopolitical sense. knowing what we knew then about Iraq.

Monday, December 3, 2012 at 9:55:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

As for the aftermath of OEF...what difference would it have made which scumbag we put on the gaddi in Kabul? Like there was ever an opportunity to put some Afghan Good King Wenceslaus in charge? Afghan politics has been all about vicious pragmatic bastards since Babur's day.

What we NEEDED was the most avaricious and competent sonofabitch in the country. What we got was Karzai. That was a clusterfuck, but one we made by kidding ourselves that we needed to do anything but kick Talib ass, install a dictator who would stay bought AND continue to mercilessly kill the jihadis, and leave...

Monday, December 3, 2012 at 9:59:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home