We got written laws, we got moral norms and we got loopholes in laws. Now, we're once again in a situation where we can talk what's right and what's wrong.

 

 

 

Mr. X was born in Libanon but gotten the citizenship of one country that belongs to the European Union. A forgein intelligency agency kidnapped him, tortured for months and later released without any charges.

 

 

 

What kind of a country can send their agents to kidnap a citizen of an European Union party country? How can they just release him after torturing for months and not get punished for mistakes? In January 2007 the jury of this European country ordered 13 agents to be arrested.

 

 

 

I'll later reveal the countries and names in this case, but now I'd like to get some comments. What would be a right thing to do to this country that sent those agents? Is it right to send agents to kidnap a citizen of a foreign country, torture him for monts and then release after realising the mistake?

Technically I'd consider that an act of terrorism.

 

 

 

It's seriously no different to what all the "terrorist" groups have done to numberous people over the last few years. I'd all be having the person who gave the order executed by means of torture, as for the people who had to go get Mr. X, break their knees, or remove parts of their fingers.

I'm going out on a limb here: The culprit country is either the USA or Russia.

 

 

 

As for your question, the persons involved in the case (everyone, from field agents to bureaucrats) would have to be tried by courts in both the EU country and Lebanon, since the act violated a person of citizenship of both of those countries, and is probable to be conceived as an act of terrorism like Rick said. Penalties would probably be jail time for everyone, shorter terms for the field agents since they would be likely to plead that they were obeying orders from a superior, and longer times for the bureaucrats, who would be seen as the creators of the action.

 

 

 

I'm probably wrong, since I know nothing about law.

I also thought USA or Russia, but Russia tends not to return people.

I agree with KCHughes and Rick about it being Russia or the USA. But granted this was posted by a Fin I'm tending to lean more along the lines of Russia.

 

 

 

But if they've been tried in court I'd expect Russia to pull a fast one or some tricks over the USA, probably prolonging the event, so my best bet is Russia.

Good guesses, it was USA and this Mr. X is Khalid El-Masri, a Lebanon born German. His name was something similar to a terrorist so he was captured during his vacation to Macedonia.

 

 

 

If you ask me, it could be considered as an act of international terrorism. No goverment should be allowed to send their agents to capture a citizen of some other country just because he is suspected to be something. Here's some links to it and you can find one version of his story from Wikipedia by searching articles with his name.

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02107.html

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/artic ... 58,00.html

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999272/site/newsweek/

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/ ... 8155.shtml

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spi ... 85,00.html

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNew ... 9720070625

 

^last one being newest

 

 

 

In my eyes this is now about more than just one random person being kidnapped and tortured. It shows that we still got goverments that are willing to do things against their own laws (fair trials, innocent until proven guilty, torture, etc), hunt foreign people from foreign countries and so on.

 

 

 

Some may wonder why did I choose that title. The reason is simple: now when we, the western world, do something like this, it tends to be ok. We don't talk about it in media and we try to hide facts like this. However if this had crime was commit by some of them, the countries we don't count to be part of the western world, we'd see it at the frontpage of every magazine. We're blind to see the mistakes done by us, but we see every mistake done by the others.

 

 

 

I personally don't believe we guilty ones will ever be punished for this in a way they should. Most news companies don't write a single line about it and the goverment of USA or CIA will probably be silent or give some apologies and fire one or two random people for it.

If he suppects him of a crime, then idk inquire about it, talk to the person's government, but don't just kidnap him and torture him. Definitively, a country should not get away with that, but no point in punish the agents who tortured him, punish the person who sent the agents.

Reading this, I'm ashamed to be an American. I don't like how my government represents me.

 

 

 

*By me, I basically mean everybody in the country.

who is up for making an artificial island, and making a new country???

who is up for making an artificial island, and making a new country???

 

 

 

Ohh me.

 

 

 

Can I be Senior Vice President?

who is up for making an artificial island, and making a new country???

 

 

 

Ohh me.

 

 

 

Can I be Senior Vice President?

 

 

 

We shall call it, Yoruga. It will be located near Tonga.

Yay! It wasn't Russia!

who is up for making an artificial island, and making a new country???

 

 

 

And what does that have to do with international crimes? :P

who is up for making an artificial island, and making a new country???

 

 

 

And what does that have to do with international crimes? :P

 

 

 

Get out of the US? And have full control over a country? :wink:

Get out of the US? And have full control over a country? :wink:

 

 

 

Good luck on ruling the world from your little island then :P

Get out of the US? And have full control over a country? :wink:

 

 

 

Good luck on ruling the world from your little island then :P

USA would probably invade and install democracy in their terrorist state :mamoru:

It's times like these I'm ashamed to be an American :(

Reading this, I'm ashamed to be an American. I don't like how my government represents me.

 

 

 

*By me, I basically mean everybody in the country.

 

 

 

Word. I was going to say the exact same thing.

USA would probably invade and install democracy in their terrorist state :mamoru:

 

 

 

Or kidnap all our citizens one by one and torture them in an Afghan jail :P

God only knows how long things like this have been going on in guantanamo bay. They are hopefully, finally going to close that hell hole.

 

 

 

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /706230355

This isn't an act of international terrorism because the definition of terrorism the US has so conveniently devised restricts terrorist activity to activity of subnational groups. This, of course, means the the United States, a nation in its own right, can't commit terrorist acts by definition.

 

 

 

This is, of course, a ridiculous loophole - but then, the line between terrorist activity and war is and has always been quite a fine one. (If you try to suggest that terrorist activity is that which intentionally targets civilians, I would remind you of the Dresden firebombing or Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) What is terrorism that the US has "waged war" on? Turns out, it's not terrorism (do you see us going after the IRA in Ireland) as much as a war on a certain culture (Arab Islam - or civilization, if you take Huntington's thesis to be true) that we find threatening.

Totally agreed with you. The word "terrorism" has gone through a serious inflation. It's used far too much, new meanings are given to it and we don't even seem to know what's terrorism anymore.

 

 

 

This wasn't the first crime USA commited, this wasn't the first time when media closed their eyes and this most likely wasn't last time either. Google or Noam Chomky's books for example could tell what USA has done at the backround in South America and same time fight against same kind of things when they are against them.

 

 

 

If a citizen of USA had been captured by for example Libyan goverment, it would have been an international scandal and we'd see reports in media how different terrorist groups have tortured people in the past, how they killed some and how USA should strike back.

 

 

 

How can USA bring democracy to places like Iraq when they don't even give fair trials or the chances to defend for those who are suspectedof doing something? This person was just one victim of the system, but as he's a german, his voice could be heard unlike those who are from countries from the middle east.

 

 

 

edit: And at least I find Huntington's theory a bit too black and white. At the moment it looks like most wars are culture against culture/nation, like in Balkan or USA against its current enemies. However that's a bit black and white thinking. In the view of USA, islam is today's communism: it's their enemy on their way to their goals. It's their enemy because of it has spread a lot and in right places, has power and doesn't fall under their will, exactly like communism was. My point here is that currently different civilizations are enemies instead of other countries or ideologies, but that's because of current world situation. If some other national country or ideology grew strong and big enough, it would either become the 3rd big or replace either USA or islam depending how their rivalry ended. Note that I haven't really gone into Huntington yet, so sorry if he talks about these kind of things too :P

It's times like this I'm ashamed to be America's lapdog :(

It's times like this I'm ashamed to be America's lapdog :(

 

 

 

Times when it happens or when talk and prove it? :P

edit: And at least I find Huntington's theory a bit too black and white. At the moment it looks like most wars are culture against culture/nation, like in Balkan or USA against its current enemies. However that's a bit black and white thinking. In the view of USA, islam is today's communism: it's their enemy on their way to their goals. It's their enemy because of it has spread a lot and in right places, has power and doesn't fall under their will, exactly like communism was. My point here is that currently different civilizations are enemies instead of other countries or ideologies, but that's because of current world situation. If some other national country or ideology grew strong and big enough, it would either become the 3rd big or replace either USA or islam depending how their rivalry ended. Note that I haven't really gone into Huntington yet, so sorry if he talks about these kind of things too :P

 

 

 

Yeah, I agree with you there. :D I don't know much about Huntington or really any political theorists, as it's kind of far from the subjects I'm studying - but it does seem to me that neatly dividing things into "civilizations" is arbitrary in today's intensely globalized society, where divisions are more and more fading away. A "clash of civilizations" is just a new way to otherize a group, in a way, though I'm sure that wasn't Huntington's intention.

 

 

 

Anyway. I agree with you very much that the USA needs to (a) create hard and fast laws that provide basic human rights and the democracy/freedom it claims to embody and (B) follow those laws, including international law already set in place. I also find it hard to understand how we are criticizing Iraq and other "uncivilized" (in quotes because of the haunting historical ring that should have) nations for practices that we are ourselves guilty of - if we aren't ourselves being decent role models.

 

 

 

So yeah. Basically, I agree with you, hohto :D Well said, and thanks for bringing this particular case to my attention.