Babe's Eye View article

A couple of days ago, an Italian court convicted in absentia 23 Americans—22 are CIA agents while one is an Air Force colonel and found them guilty for the 2003 kidnapping of an Egyptian-born Muslim cleric near a mosque in Milan. Court records show Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar—was pepper sprayed and bundled into a white van where he was driven to Aviano Air Base. From there, he was transported to the Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany, then “rendered” to Cairo where he was imprisoned for four years without charges, repeatedly tortured and subjected to electroshocks.

It was the first time CIA operatives were criminally tried and convicted for the extralegal kidnapping of a terror suspect or what is euphemistically known as “extraordinary rendition,” a practice popularized during the administration of George W. Bush. After the 9-11 attacks, Bush signed a classified directive which broadened the CIA’s authority to arrest, detain, interrogate and render to the custody of other countries (like Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Syria) terror suspects abroad.

In the beginning, everyone was sympathetic to the cause of the US. But subsequent reports of human rights abuses and the release of the Abu Ghraib prison photos and videos showing suspects being psychologically and sexually abused sparked worldwide shock and indignation, with countries condemning the US for its double standard. In the eyes of many, the US had no business preaching about upholding the law and espousing human rights when it was in reality a violator.

The case of Abu Omar also highlighted the fact that when a superpower decides to flex its muscles, it will do so even if it contravenes internationally accepted legal standards. It’s as if the US is saying, “kami pwede, kayo hindi” (akin to the whole “cacique mentality” of the so-called elite landlords during the Spanish colonial times who required certain standards from other people which they themselves did not practice).

When push comes to shove, any government will certainly try to protect its citizens facing criminal charges abroad especially people like Air Force Lt. Col. Joseph Romano who, according to the Pentagon, should not have been tried by an Italian court since he is covered by a NATO Status of Forces Agreement.

Barack Obama had tried to downplay the issue of abuses against terrorist suspects, ordering the closure of secret prisons and forbidding “enhanced interrogation” (CIA jargon that actually refers to torture, much like the use of “extreme prejudice” to authorize an assassination) in questioning prisoners. But pressure from hard-core military—plus the belief that terrorism continues to be a major threat to the US—may have compelled Obama to retain counter-terrorism measures like Predator missile attacks and the highly-controversial “extraordinary rendition” to take suspected terrorists into custody, with assurances that they would not be subjected to torture or abuses.

But over the years, botched kidnappings plus mistaken identities have been a source of embarrassment for the US, with the European Parliament denouncing the renditions as “an illegal instrument.” Prisoners have also sued private entities, like a flight planning company called Jeppesen Dataplan accused of providing flight and logistical services for the CIA in transferring suspects to US-controlled facilities in other countries.

From the beginning, the trial of the American agents which began in 2004 has been politically charged, with members of Italy’s secret service SISMI, including its former head, also charged of approving and carrying out the abduction. Prosecutors had also accused the government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of complicity and trying to derail the prosecution, at one point seeking to dismiss the case because it might disclose classified information that could compromise national security.

In March, the Constitutional Court ruled that certain evidences gathered by the prosecutors are classified state secrets and thus inadmissible—leading to the acquittal of top Italian military intelligence officials. Charges against two other Americans were also dismissed because they had diplomatic immunity—leading to criticisms that such immunity should not be used to protect those guilty of grave human rights abuses.

Will the guilty verdict result in diplomatic problems between the US and Italy? Probably not, because Berlusconi had repeatedly ignored the prosecutor’s requests for extradition. Besides which, the Italian government would not want to disclose embarrassing details of its participation in the kidnapping, plus the fact that it faces a scandal regarding secret payments made to Taliban fighters to keep the region relatively peaceful—leaving the French soldiers (who replaced the departing Italians) highly vulnerable to ambushes.

Prior to the verdict, observers said the Abu Omar case is a test on the judicial independence of Italian courts, and whether the Italian law prohibiting kidnapping would prevail over the US practice of rendition. Human rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, are demanding for Obama to repudiate the practice of extraordinary rendition.

As an Amnesty International official pointed out, continuing these practices would have “a chilling effect on countries’ willingness to work with the United States.” Besides, a foreign court is not needed to tell Americans what is right or wrong. After all, if the US resorts to torture, kidnappings and other such practices (though they are masked by benign-sounding terms as “enhanced interrogation” and “extraordinary rendition”), then it is no better than the people whom it condemns and accuses of being terrorists and criminals. This is really no different from the centuries-old “cacique mentality” that reeks of double standards, where powerful landlords adopt the “kami pwede, kayo hindi” attitude which continues to be practiced by some of the powerful and elite members of our society today.