Quote from the opinion article:
'No one seriously claims, however, that the CIA agents were in Italy without the explicit knowledge and participation of Italy's security services. This is the crucial point -- and explains why the indictments are a hostile act against the U.S. By long-established international legal practice, the official agents of one country operating in another with that state's permission are immune from prosecution. The status of forces agreement that governs U.S. troops stationed in Italy enshrines this principle at least for official conduct'.
I am neither a lawyer or an Italian, but it is clear to me there is a great difference between an inter-government status of forces agreement (common across NATO) and intelligence agents working with host security services. Very different rules apply, I would be suprised if those rules have any external, let alone parliamentary oversight. No, there is no 'long established international legal practice...(giving) immunity from prosecution' unless those agents hold diplomatic immunity.
Imagine the furore in the U.S.A., if during the Irish conflict, had British agents kidnapped a Provisional IRA supporter, say in Boston and flown him back to Northern Ireland, to be interned or put on trial. Would that be the same? No. Would Senator Kennedy have remained silent, because of our alliance? Hell no.
Partnership means partnership, not unillateral action. If Italian agenst co-operated in the kidnap they ignored Italian law.
I will leave aside the apparent lack of field-craft of the CIA agents in Italy, which is reported as making the prosecutors task that much easier.
Davidbfpo
Bookmarks