Wikileaks Reveals That The US Won't Comply With Treaty Obligations Concerning Investigations Into CIA Rendition

from the moral-high-ground? dept

This is hardly a surprise, but it’s increasingly being confirmed by the various State Department cable leaks that the US Justice Department is failing to comply with its treaty obligations with other countries in their investigations into US (mainly CIA) “rendition” operations, where they take people captured elsewhere and find some place to torture them. Related to this, of course, is that US diplomats worked overtime to suppress any investigations, and put strong diplomatic pressure on countries not to investigate. And yet, some still did, and the US simply refused to cooperate, despite requirements under various treaties. This is, of course, nothing new. The US has a history of ignoring treaties when it doesn’t like what they say. This is seriously going to come back to haunt the US. It’s amazing how upset the US gets when others ignore treaty provisions, but it does the same all too often.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: wikileaks

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Wikileaks Reveals That The US Won't Comply With Treaty Obligations Concerning Investigations Into CIA Rendition”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
:Lobo Santo (profile) says:


If history is an indicator, it won’t happen.

Once the US government spawns a new tick, er, I mean, bureaucracy to suckle at the teat of public taxation; said blood-sucker never ever goes away. Ever. Doesn’t matter how useless or redundant the new government agency is/becomes, it will be sucking up your tax money from now until the end of… time.

Luffy (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

WOW. No one’s perfect, and all should answer for their actions – but sometimes rules have to be broken in order to achieve peace. Rules may be the same for all people, and I know this will shock some of you, but there are some VERY BAD PEOPLE out there who want to KILL innocent people – not just a few either, hundreds or thousands just to make some sort of point. My government has done some ill things, no different than any other country. Not proud of those decisions, but I won’t cower behind a mistake when so much we do is for the betterment of the world, to help establish peaceful coexistence – My country is great, if you are not violating humanitarian rights, then so is yours. If you’re from USA and putting it down – LEAVE. Find a place that suits you better. It really stinks that so many people judge an entire country of people, on a governments action. Thus, war, and unnecessary loss of innocent life, and plain dumb suggestions like dissolving the CIA. Do you sleep good at night? Do you ever wonder why? Hopefully, the actions our respective countries take which bend treaty rules, are justified in the results – and done in only extreme cases in efforts to PROTECT our, and our allies, citizens. I believe in UN and think it is justified in judging government – and penalizing them for unjust actions. All you soap box posters should know – the wiki crap is half the story – what of the rest? no one cares. USA is strong, and sometimes wrong, but always there to help. Does the rest of the world really want THAT to change?

DJ (profile) says:

It already has....

“The US has a history of ignoring treaties, when it doesn’t like what they say. This is seriously going to come back to haunt the US.”

So, IMHO, the biggest “treaty” the Federal governemnt is currently violating is it’s own: The Constitution.
Many people are being arrested nationwide for voicing opinions that others find “offensive”: First Amendment violation.
Millions of travelers are subjected to unlawful search and seizure of their persons: Fourth Amendment violation
Or how about all the laws restricting weapon(not just gun) ownership? “Congress shall make no law…”

There are certainly more, but these are just off the top of my head. Once again we need to pay more attention to what’s going on at home than overseas.

scarr (profile) says:


The first link here points to a page with the following blue, hyperlinked text:
“Polish Radio reports:” (the basis of your complaint), “Polish air traffic control in Warsaw confirmed”, and “WikiLeaks disclosed cables showing” (the exact point the article here is making).

Clearly, you didn’t read the main story referenced. At least not completely.

Rose M. Welch (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

Ahh, I see. You’re an ‘Ends justify the means.’ guy, then?

Screw you. If you don’t believe in the Constitution and the laws that spring from it, then you leave.

As for the judging the people by the government? This is America. The people are the government.

And you’re an example of the people. Isn’t that sad?

The Invisible Hand (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

“No one’s perfect, and all should answer for their actions – but sometimes rules have to be broken in order to achieve peace.”

Ouch. I’d hate to live in a country where those in charge of keeping the law are exempt from following it. Rules exist to ensure that society can operate as harmoniously as possible, and those in charge of creating and enforcing those rules MUST BE the first ones to obey them, no matter the cost. If they do not obey their own laws, why should “the people”?

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

So you think a government that is violating humanitarian rights is justified if it’s to stop “vary bad people”? This country has become “vary bad people” to stop other “vary bad people”. Not only that, but it refuses to listen to the UN you love so much when they want to punish the unjust.

Don’t give me this shit about “If you’re from USA and putting it down – LEAVE”. Ignoring the problem just lets it grow worse. Knowing of the problem and doing nothing makes you as bad as those who do these things. If you’re from the US, you’re a traitor to our flag for saying that.

Anonymous Coward says:


Again, another link to another harpers story, which is already more than a month old, about Spanish involvement. This new story isn’t about wikileaks directly, but about what was reported on Polish Radio.

It should be noted that both stories are written by the same guy, and contain plenty of wishy-washy terms like “apparently”, which is a nice way of saying he is filling in the blanks. Are these actual news stories, or opinion columns? Yup, it’s a US based lawyer writing an opinion piece.

See? This is the same problem I have with TD. Pile enough opinion up, and others will refer to it as fact.

Jay says:

USA no different than any other Government


You REALLY stepped into it for your first post didn’t you?

The US has a false sense of security governed by the TSA.
We allow for covert assassinations through the CIA.
We are strong armed and bullied through the FBI.
We lose our rights through the DHS.

And yet, you’re okay with this?

Maybe it’s time to read a little more information on the four subjects above rather than come to uninformed conclusions that make you look rather dumb.

:Lobo Santo (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

To play devil’s advocate:

Vlaad the Impaler ran an amazingly crime free society… Rumor has it he left a golden goblet sitting on a pedestal in the town square; and nobody stole it.

Mainly because everybody know the entire town would be punished if any idiot was stupid enough to take the golden goblet…

Or something like that. My memory on the specifics is a tad fuzzy.

Luffy (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

uhm…USA troops are not terrorists. Why are they being equated? The whole thing about all people being equal is true, I’ll give you that – in the eyes of the great whoever you choose to worship. However, we’re just people, trying to protect other people. I’m not trying to say it’s ok to torture people at free will – but there is no doubt a necessary amount of force that MAY have been used in an effort to avoid a terrorist attack. Is this ok? You can’t say 100% because you don’t know, you weren’t there, and neither was I. It may have been 100% wrong – but Wiki needs to stop because they DONT have the whole story. Or, they need to get the whole story I guess – leak it all!

DJ (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

“I won’t cower behind a mistake when so much we do is for the betterment of the world”

I stopped reading there for the following points:
1) I am a citizen of the United States of America, and, while I do care about people abroad, I care more for my fellow citizens.
2)The ends DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT justify the means. They never have. They never will.
3)The simple fact that my government has done some ill things means that they need to STOP DOING THESE THINGS. We are a nation of laws and not of men (paraphrased). Which means your very first sentence — prior to the hyphen — is correct; after the hyphen is so very very WRONG.

I have now read the rest of your statement, and, for brevity’s sake, all I will say is there is so much more that is severely misguided –at times accidentally correct.

scarr (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

First off, who says the tortured individuals were terrorists? Or are you using the reverse (fallacious) logic that if they were being tortured, they must’ve been terrorists?

Second, the US troops aren’t terrorists *in our eyes*. Who’s to say they (or the other people I mentioned) aren’t “terrorists” or “criminals” to someone else? If we get to set standards by which we deem a person not worthy of the basic rights of humans, then why aren’t others allowed to deem people they don’t like unworthy?

DJ (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government


I’ll spare you the definition, but a terrorist is someone whose goal it is to subjugate others by way of fear (terror). In other words their GOAL is for the general population to be afraid of them.

With soldiers, fear is (sometimes) a side-effect, for which we have people whose entire job it is to alleviate that fear. US troops NEVER get used to terrorize the masses; yes, sometimes we are used for “shock and awe” and other such tactics, but our target is MILITARY and NEVER civilian.

I’m disappointed. Usually you’re the one to get the facts straight before you make such a blanket statement.

Luffy (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

Ya, It was a bad one to reply to as a first. I don’t have enough facts to argue for the CIA, FBI, DHS or any of them. I’m a redneck. I don’t approve of torture, but it’s wrong I feel to say that if I don’t know the entire situation. That does sound bad. But there are situations that I could understand ‘why’ it happened. 1 Nuclear bomb, in the middle of Detroit, set to go off in 2 hrs, 1 person linked to the bomb – you ask them and they tell you they know anything. What would you do? I don’t know, but seems like a little force may be necessary. That may NOT have been the case, we, none of us seem to know. But, USA is being bashed for it, because Wiki leaks shows PART of the story. I SHOULD NOT HAVE COMMENTED, man…I’m not politically smart enough, and my morals are prioritized. And I feel that people who want to live are more important than people who want to take life from others. – I’m only replying now to hopefully explain myself a little clearer. It won’t work, I’ve read enough to know it will be torn out of context.

DJ (profile) says:


“Pile enough opinion up, and others will refer to it as fact.”

While I’m sure that is an easily-observable phenomenon, and while people do sometimes form opinions based on someone else’s opinion, most people like to have at least an inkling of fact first.
My point? If there’s a link provided and you want to know more, click on it. Even if that one doesn’t take you straight to the facts, there’s likely to be one or two more that will. So if you don’t like the opinion, you can look at the facts for yourself and form your own.

Anonymous Coward says:


What are you trying to argue here AC? — That you can’t see how Wikileaks has anything to do with this story,… and because TD said the source was Wikileaks rather than Polish radio or Harper’s, therefore TD must be an unreliable opinion site?

Following the Harper’s references it is apparent that this concerns the El-Masri cable issue, discussed here by the Washington Post.
The actual text of the cable can be read here.

Again, check your facts before you spout.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

We see those people as terrorist, they see themselves as heroes. We see our troops as heroes, others see them as terrorists. Who’s right? You think we never use our troops to terrorize, while not true let’s assume it is. What do the people on the other side see? They see our troops attacking their families, their friends. They see fear and hatred. They see a war when we only say “police action”. Sounds like what we’re seeing from them.

pixelpusher220 (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

If the Bush administration has simply come out and said “yes we tortured, but we had to and here’s why”, there would be a lot less hubbub about it. Or even “We’re going to torture these people and why”. They have instead explicitly denied it until evidence came out, then destroyed the evidence (FBI videos) when that became problematic.

The problem is that it is well known that torture produces 2 things. Either the exact thing you want to hear or the death of the subject. It is also well documented (by the US) as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. You simply can’t refute that. Torture is a wildly unsuccessful way to get the truth out of someone.

Likewise our ‘interrogation methods’ came not from proven methods, but from a training program for pilots who could be captured by enemies who actually did torture their prisoners. It was an attempt to help the pilots prepare for and resist what their captors might try.

As for your statement that “If you don’t like the US – LEAVE” – how very anti-american of you. We are built on criticism of our leaders and gov’t. Which is why we allow the intolerant people like you to be here.

DJ (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

Umm everyone involved in the Times Square thing acted correctly. In case you didn’t notice:
A) the bomb did not detonate
B) no one died

It’s also worthy of noting the the guy involved is a US citizen (legal immigrant) and was granted his rights as such. Admittedly, I say that with certainty solely based on the ABSENCE of any reports about his rights being violated; not even trumped-up reports.

Anonymous Coward says:

USA no different than any other Government

Hopefully, the actions our respective countries take which bend treaty rules, are justified in the results

sorry, but the ends don’t justify the means.

you say rules have to be broken to achieve peace. but the USG is not interested in peace, just more war. i’m an american, and i love my COUNTRY and its PEOPLE, but not the current government. it has become the military-industrial complex we were warned about. it is becoming increasingly tyrannical and violent, sacrificing all for the illusion of “security”–sacrificing our freedoms, sacrificing our economic solvency, sacrificing our soldiers’ lives, sacrificing the lives of millions of people around the globe. meanwhile, we are distracted from the real issues by partisan theatrics and mass-produced entertainment.

so no, we’re not such a great country anymore. maybe someday we will be again, though.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

What if you were that person in the chair? You know nothing about a hypothetical bomb in the middle of Detroit, but they think you do. So you lose your rights, you possibly die, and they get nothing. Our rules aren’t created just to protect the guilty, they’re to protect the innocent as well. We remove a right for one, we remove it for all.

We’ve already stepped over the line and created a new one. What’s to stop us from stepping a little over that line and creating another new one?

DJ (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

I will wholeheartedly admit that the difference is a gray area.
However, the difference is also definable, which, as I’ve said lies in the GOAL of the action. I’m not talking about ends justifying means, though.
A terrorist ONLY cares whether or not people are afraid. Unlike terrorists, we do understand that there are people who view it as you’ve said, and we take action to try and calm people’s fears.
A terrorists TARGET is the civilian population. Unlike terrorists, our only target is other militaries; a part of our job as troops is to go out of our way to avoid civilian casualties.
A terrorist doesn’t care who gets hurt as long as their goal is acheived. Unlike terrorsts, when civilian casualties occur, we feel it ourselves.

scarr (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

Since when does US law apply to foreign countries?

I’m talking about foreigners in their native countries attacking people they see as invading their country. It’s all perspective. To them, the US is the villain terrorizing their native land. The only ground we can stand on in saying how they should treat us/our people (military or otherwise) is by setting an example for what is acceptable.

If we torture anyone, we give up the ground to say that is unacceptable to do to us.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

“A terrorists TARGET is the civilian population. Unlike terrorists, our only target is other militaries;”

I would like to point out two vary large exceptions to that rule; Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don’t think they qualified as military targets.

The US likes to say they only target military, but it’s not true. Plus, in this current war, what is defined as a military outpost is way in the gray area.

Even though we are not terrorists by our definition, they may have a different definition, plus they may have different requirements to torture captives. Why is ours the only right one (if it can be called that)?

Jay says:

USA no different than any other Government

I’m not trying to be particularly harsh on you. But you have to realize that the information in the “leaks” help to explain what we were kept in the dark from. Something that isn’t conducive to a democratic government. When the only people allowed to see “secret” information is a career politician that has every incentive to keep that info hidden, there’s a problem. When the other info is kept secret to hide the evidence of wrongdoing, that’s a particular problem.

What is it that the leaks are showing us? How can we use this information to stop bad info from spreading? Information such as bad laws on copyright or that it’s allowable to block FOIA requests to show wrong doing?

The leaks happened. The information is now out there. The US government now can decide to tell everyone to look at the info with some redaction such as names OR it can continue to complain now that the info is out. Whatever it decides, life goes on with people fighting for what’s just.

I don’t think that actually means we look down upon people’s opinions. It just means we want people to understand the viewpoints involved when they draw their own conclusions.

Anonymous Coward says:

USA no different than any other Government

If a large Taliban army came to US soil trying to eliminate our military and establish a new government through force, I’d call them terrorists, albeit on a larger scale.

What do you think Iraqis think of the Good Ole U.S.?? Not very highly I would imagine.

If we defend ourselves, that’s cool. Toppling other nation’s governments preemptively and without just cause is bullshit and essentially amounts to grand scale terrorism. Establish a government suitable and favorable to us or we blow you and everything around you up. Is that not terrorism to you? Have fun in your blissful, boy-howdy, ‘patriotic’ dreamworld.

Remember also that as the US dissolves other countries subversively, ‘diplomatically’ and through sheer force, they also chisel away every freedom we are entitled to. They run us now, instead of the other way around.

America! Fuck Yeah!


Darryl says:

USA no different than any other Government

It really stinks that so many people judge an entire country of people, on a governments action. Thus, war, and unnecessary loss of innocent life,

Yes it does, especially when it is the USA judging IRAQ, the entire country, on a governments action, (that is was found out later they did not even DO !!!).. (ie WMD’s)

My country is great, if you are not violating humanitarian rights, then so is yours.

So are you saying that the US of A is not violating humanitarian rights ? or are you saying that even though your country is violation humanitarian rights, it is still great ?

If you’re from USA and putting it down – LEAVE.

You ‘free speech’ and constitution tell me, that if I am a US citizen I have a RIGHT to ‘put it down’, that is set out in my constitution.. have you heard of that,, your constitution?

Do you sleep good at night? Do you ever wonder why? Hopefully, the actions our respective countries take which bend treaty rules, are justified in the results – and done in only extreme cases in efforts to PROTECT our, and our allies, citizens.

So you sleep well at night !! because why ?? oh, I see because your respective countries ‘take which bend treaty rules’.

Oh so you sleep well at night because your country bends treaty rules ???

But only in extreem cases to protect out allies, ….

So its OK, to do what you like, break the rules, as long as you feel you are right !!!.

What happens then if you feel like you are right (like with weapons of mass destruction), but you KNOW that you are wrong, (ie you know the truth), but you act anyway, based on a known lie, and faulsehood. Yes you still disregard the rules and act.

So what if you lived in Iraq, would you feel the same way about your government, and believe (rightly) they are right in their beliefs and idealogies ? would you defend them in the same way ?

IS it right for the USA to invade Iraq based of the false premise that there were weapons of mass destruction, when at the time of the invasion it was clear to the US government, the UK Government, and the Australian Government that there were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq ?

Did that stop the US invading Iraq ?? hell no.

Did the fact the US government was lying to its people, to allow this invasion make you think for a second ? I guess not.

I bet you are one of those (few) people left who still think Iraq has or had weapons of mass destruction, but after 10 plus year’s, NONE HAVE EVER BEEN FOUND !!!.

It was a blatent lie, and those that made that lie have since admitted it..

I do not feel safer at night because of the USA, particularly if I resided in the USA. The US does not really care about the safty of its citizens, after all it has very free gun laws, that help keep your numbers down.

The USA does not generally need any reason to do anything, and if no easy reason is found, they will simply make something up. (like WMD’s) and invade anyway..

As for this haveing anything to do with wikileaks, this ‘special rendition’ tricks was an attempt at finding and exploiting legal loopholes, same as Gitmo, was in another country so it was not under US law.

Same as “enemy combatants” is an invented term to get around international laws and rules of engagement.

As for ‘treaties’ the US has a long and proud history of disregarding treaties, and it does not take wikileaks to reveal them.

Just as it did not take wikileaks to reveal special rendition and gitmo, we are all aware of what has and is happending, wikileaks did not add anything to this.

And if you think diplomats would not be discussing these issues you do not understand what a diplomat is..

A diplomat is not someone who is there just to agree with and look good in another country.

They are that other countries representative, of that government, countries and governments like to work with each other in trade, politics, governments, policy, laws and so on.

Its not pressure, its help, its working with other countries to understand that countries goals, desires, and to make them work with your own countries goals and desires and future, and laws..

What do you think diplomats do if they do not work to allow countries, and governments work better with each other.

It stops things like wars, it solves problems before they get out of hand, it helps people who are in that country but who are citizens of the other country if they have problems.

diplomats balance, cultural, political, social, and international concepts throughtout the world, they work to solve differences and issues between countries, between the laws of various countries, and they make the world work in a much more efficient, and viable, and social manner.

What do people here who are critical of what has been said that diplomats do,, what do you think Diplomats DO ???

What do they do, do they sit in their embassy and do nothing, not talk to the local government, not talk about their laws, and rules and ideals, dont they talk about how the two countries can work more closely together for mutual benefit ?

What do you think a diplomat does ?

Ofcourse, sometimes they apply pressure, sometimes they would have pressure applied to them, that is negiotation, that is the diplomatic process.

That is what happens in virtually every human encounter, people ask questions, make suggestions, give reason for those suggests, receive suggestions, and their reasons, they discuss those issues and they come to a diplomatic agreement. they find common ground, they may not agree on every issue, but they also may agree on some issues.

Progress has been made, and that progress would not have been possible if it were not for diplomats doing what diplomats do, take pressure, apply pressure, make arguments, present idea’s, receive idea’s, make agreements that are mutually benificial and so on.

A diplomat that just applied pressure, or wrote threatening letter to politicians is not a diplomat and would not stay in that position for very long.

one that engages the country they are in, debates, asseses, advises, and takes advice, works out fair and even rule and ideas and so on.

USA is strong, and sometimes wrong, but always there to help. Does the rest of the world really want THAT to change?

The US is not that strong, it is in massive financial problems right now, it cannot make ends meet, it cannot balance its budget, it cannot affort to care for its aged and ill people. It owes trillions of dollars to china, and it appears it will be many years until the US is able to survive without borrowing huge sums of money overseas.

US manufacturing is collapsing, US housing market has collapsed, US financial markets have collapsed.

You are spending $10 billion dollars per month on a war in Iraq that was based on a lie.

Yet you give tax cuts to the mega rich, and offer no economic stumulation to reboot your failed economy.

Normally a war is good for the US economy, historically so.. WW2 got you out of the great depression.

But that does not work when you borrow the money for that war off china, you are not stimulating your economy, you ARE stimulating China’s economy, and Iraq’s, and the middle east’s.

But not the US’s, The US was stong once, and yes, often WRONG, but certainly NOT always there to help.. (were they helping iraq ?)

Does the rest of the world really want that to change, ??

HELL YES,, my god, what are you yanks thinking ?? ‘lets borrow billions of dollars off china to find a war in iraq, and let our domestic economy collapse as a result’..

good work,

there are many countries that would be quite happy if the US or A did not ‘come and help’ them !!!..

ww2,Bonsnia, middle east, iraq, iran, vietnam, mexico, cuba, america, india, afganistan…. (yes you have had wars with yourself), most you lose, most cost ALOT..

Darryl says:

USA no different than any other Government

The difference is the US military are not in the US, they are in a foreign country.

so what they are saying, “if we invade your country, and you fight back, you are a terrorist, and we can do with you what we like”.

No USA, it does not work that way, just because someone fights back when you invade their country does not make them wrong and you write.

If a large group from Iraq, flew over to new york and attacked it, would you fight back or would you accept the attack as OK ?

You would fight back, of course. so why is it wrong for someone in Iraq to fight back when they are invaded.

Even if it is by the USA, does it matter, an invasion is an invasion, you can lie down and die, or you can fight back.

But fighting back does not make you wrong, or a terrorist, or a ‘really bad person’.. It might be considered that those that are invading could be considered terrorists, and really bad people..

So its ok if you do it to someone else, but its not ok if someone does it to you..

Darryl says:

USA no different than any other Government

The US, terms “enemy combatants” and used “special renditions” to get around the Geneva convention, and for the same reason why they put in gitmo, because it was not on US soil, so they could both breach the geneva convention and the US constitution..

at the same time.

So who are the terrorists ??

Michael says:

Its not just National defense matters

The US government has avoided treaties concerning trade with its allies 100’s of times as well. Its whole game plan is to go to the table, agree to a treaty, reap the benefits, and then bail on the treaty and tie things up committee’s until they get a better deal. Canada lost BILLIONS on the soft wood agreements very recently because the US decided it no longer wanted to pay its agreed tariffs on the lumber, leaving thousands of workers holding the bill.

Eldakka (profile) says:

USA no different than any other Government

Here’s my take on this.

There is a difference between an action to prevent an immediate threat (the nuke going off in 2 hours) against a person that you’re sure planted the bomb vs actions against someone who MIGHT be a member of an organization or that MIGHT have information about an organization that is just another lead in a long, involved ongoing investigation.

The problem is that torture seems to have become institutionalized, accepted, part of standard practice. Therefore if in doubt, torture, as you won’t get prosecuted for it as it’s allowed, legal.

I think it should still be considered an extreme, illegal act.

In the example given, of the bomb. The agents actions in roughing up, lets say torturing, the suspect should be illegal and should be prosecuted. However, upon being found guilty (making the assumption that the jury doesn’t use jury nullification and they are found guilty) then any, or all, of the following should occur:
assuming the agent was right and the torture prevented the bomb going off:
1) the sentencing judge should note the mitigating factors and the sentence should be symbolic (e.g. 1 day) or even just time served awaiting trial;
2) the agent should receive a presedential pardon, and even commendation, for their actions.

There are already measures in place, such as the above, for recognizing the rare instance that necessitate extreme acts in extreme immediate emergencies.

Therefore if you absolutely know that a person has information you need to stop an immediate, catastrophic threat, then you can rest assured that you will be taken care of, pardoned. However, if it’s just a fishing expedition, or you are mostly sure that this person could provide just a little piece of a long ongoing investigation, then don’t do it.

Darryl says:

They did not break any treaty - read it yourself.

On 7 October, reports the PAP news agency, the US informed prosecutors that the motion had been rejected on the basis of the international Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and that the U.S. authorities consider the matter ?to be closed?.

According to the agreement, a country has the right to refuse to provide legal assistance if the execution of the request would encroach on this country?s security or another interest of this country.

That is what they all agreed too, so what is your problem ?

They did not break any treaty and they did not break any agreement, they had previously agreed that any country could refuse to help on this basis, and they accepted that agreement.

So, Mike once again, you are not being very accurate, or truthfull here are you !!!

The US complied with the set out agreements, and did not break any rules or laws, or agreements.

Darryl says:

Does it matter if they fought anyone who signed or not, they signed !!.

Every country is responsible for their own moral obligations in war, it does not matter what the ‘enemy’ does, that should not determine how you act.

You should have risen above that socially, you know, that you’re better than the enemy. And just because the enemy does it to you, does not mean it is righ tto do, and therefore you should do it to them.

Because, when you have your president saying “if you are not one of us, you are one of them” that makes everyone who does not agree with him a potential target for anything, anyone has EVER done to a US citizen..

If it is not right for someone to cut someone’s head off and put it on the internet, it is equally not right for the US to do it back to them..

the reason why they were called enemy combatants and were housed in Gitmo, was to allow bush to get around the Geneva conventions for the fair treatment of prisioners of war.

The convention is intended to protect your own people, to expect that if you are captured you will be treated with some decency.

Therefore you treat any prisinors you take the same way, it actually happend in WW2 in gernamy, in japan, of course in some places they were treated very badly, (especially in japan), but there were still rules, and we did not change greatly the way we treated our prisoners because of their actions.

But in this particular case, the US played exactly by the rules and the set in place agreements.. its what they had all agreed to, and its what they did.

And since when has treating your prisinors of war badly, or with torture, has resulted in a shorter, or cleaner, or more moral war ? or less deaths, or a win ?

Historically, the country that treats its prisinors the best tend to win the wars, and the ones who do not tend to lose, both the war, and public support for their cause.

One day the US might work that out, after they lose enough wars, as I said historically the US is not that good at wars, well winning them that is..

Darryl says:

USA no different than any other Government

That is what can happen when you dont follow the fair rules of engagement, and when you consider it fair game if they ‘did it first’.

In world war 2, when germany was bombing england, it was a navigation error from the German pilots, and on the first night, 1 or 2 bombs fell in the wrong place, not the industrial area, but in populated area’s.

Hitler was furious about this error, because he guessed what was going to happen next, that’s right, Churchill ordered a blanket bombin of dresden, or berlin or somewhere that has a big city full of civilians.

So the blitz was started by england, in retaliation for a navigation error from a newbie german pilot.

So england, USA and many others, will kill innocent citizens when they feel it is right.

But in modern times, with smart technologies and up to date Intel, it should be possible to reduce civilian deaths.

but if you want to change a country, its society, its religions, its government, and everything else, then you have little choice, but to clean house, so you can start again on their behalf, if they like it, or want it or not.

Too bad, the US sticks its nose in and you know you’re country is screwed.. you will be assimilated, resistance is futile.. you might as well wait, the US will seft destruct before it is destroyed by a hostile outside force.

China will just ask for its loans back, and you’re screwed.. you’ll just have to hand over your country..

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...