Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen wrote:No, you don't. Neither do I, Dogma, Sebster or anyone on this board. None of us are privy to CIA operations.

And also:

It's not "kidnapping" when a government agency picks you up in relation to an investigation.

It's called "arrest". At the very most, the agents could be tried for false imprisonment.

When they're taken into federal custody and put through due process it's an arrest. When they're secretly grabben and taken to an undisclosed location in a third country and tortured it is something very different. Call it kidnapping or don't. Possibly if you really crave absolute accuracy call it 'secretly grabbing someone, taking them to an undisclosed third country and torturing them'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:Something can have inherent value, without having specific value.

Possibly, I don't know. To be perfectly blunt I don't care.

The concept of human rights is a shorthand for obligations and limitations placed on government, based on things we value as a society. When a person is taken by government agents in secret and then tortured people will often say 'his human rights were violated'. Whether or not there is some objective, absolute meaning to human rights is besides the point, what matters is that government did something it must not be allowed to do.

Kanluwen wrote:
You've read the book. You tell me. Chapter Five/Six.

So your thoughts on this matter are limited to a single book that was, at best, mediocre? I'd suggest you broaden your exposure a bit.

In any case, offender profiles are useful when they are constructed from sound data over an extended period of time. This means keeping extensive records across various jurisdictions with respect to any given offense. There may have been cause for those speeding tickets to be uploaded to a central database, but there was no reason for them to be forwarded to the desk of a Homeland Security employee. Unless, again, you're going to review every rental vehicle that receives a traffic ticket. So yeah, if what you're saying is that there should be a central database for criminal/civil offenses I agree with you, but that's not the same as forwarding offenses to the federal level.

Also, never mention chapter 6 of that book. Its godawful.

Kanluwen wrote:
It's not "kidnapping" when a government agency picks you up in relation to an investigation.

It's called "arrest". At the very most, the agents could be tried for false imprisonment.

The CIA doesn't investigate under any legal consideration of the term. Technically there aren't any laws being violated when they abduct someone not residing in the United States, so they can't be charged with any criminal offense in the US. Obviously, the same does not apply in other nations.

ShumaGorath wrote:Extrajudicial arrest and incarceration is kidnapping isn't it? Just because they are officers of the law doesn't mean that it's called something different when they break it.

Uh, the CIA's jurisdiction is international.

If the FBI had snatched the guy, it might be a valid case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
You've read the book. You tell me. Chapter Five/Six.

So your thoughts on this matter are limited to a single book that was, at best, mediocre? I'd suggest you broaden your exposure a bit.

In any case, offender profiles are useful when they are constructed from sound data over an extended period of time. This means keeping extensive records across various jurisdictions with respect to any given offense. There may have been cause for those speeding tickets to be uploaded to a central database, but there was no reason for them to be forwarded to the desk of a Homeland Security employee. Unless, again, you're going to review every rental vehicle that receives a traffic ticket. So yeah, if what you're saying is that there should be a central database for criminal/civil offenses I agree with you, but that's not the same as forwarding offenses to the federal level.

Also, never mention chapter 6 of that book. Its godawful.

Actually, my knowledge is confined to the book due to it being my first real introduction to this matter so far. I've got a lot to learn, and I'm tryin'.

dogma wrote:

It's not "kidnapping" when a government agency picks you up in relation to an investigation.

It's called "arrest". At the very most, the agents could be tried for false imprisonment.

The CIA doesn't investigate under any legal consideration of the term. Technically there aren't any laws being violated when they abduct someone not residing in the United States, so they can't be charged with any criminal offense in the US. Obviously, the same does not apply in other nations.

Except in order to be charged(in my understanding at least) they'd have to be tried under the laws that their agency operates, not the country they're operating in.

Kanluwen wrote:
Uh, the CIA's jurisdiction is international.

Technically the CIA doesn't have a jurisdiction. They are forbidden from operating within the United States, but that's pretty much it. Their activity is considered extralegal with respect to US law. Obviously excepting those instances where they choose to violate the stipulations of their mandate, but that hasn't happened yet according to public knowledge (it probably hasn't, the FBI has claws).

Kanluwen wrote:
Except in order to be charged(in my understanding at least) they'd have to be tried under the laws that their agency operates, not the country they're operating in.

Its a gray area. There isn't really any law governing the treatment of spies outside of wartime. In general, where a trial is considered, the model to be followed is that of the Geneva Conventions (as espionage is considered a necessarily hostile activity), which only specify the right to a fair and speedy trial. It can be assumed, outside the interference of a protecting power, that any trial would be carried out under the law of the state in which the spy was caught. Of course, as spies operate away from prying eyes, any compliance with conventional procedure is purely dependent on the detaining state.

The CIA is a special case, given that US power gives it's agents a bit of protection from permanent detention.

Kanluwen wrote:Uh, the CIA's jurisdiction is international.

.... therefore it's correct to call it arrest when they're secretly grabbed and taken to an undisclosed location to be tortured.

Robert Seldon Lady, the CIA station chief, said in a 2009 interview, "I'm not guilty. I'm only responsible for carrying out orders that I received from my superiors." hmm....where have I heard this before...oh yes--here:

"From my childhood, obedience was something I could not get out of my system. When I entered the armed service at the age of twenty-seven, I found being obedient not a bit more difficult than it had been during my life to that point. It was unthinkable that I would not follow orders.” Adolph Eichmann

Why are these CIA criminals cocmplete morons bereft of any knowledge of history?

Well, that was an unexpected pseudo-Godwin.

dogma wrote:Well, that was an unexpected pseudo-Godwin.

I'm sorry. I tried to restrain myself.

Nelson:HAW-HAW

dogma wrote:Well, that was an unexpected pseudo-Godwin.

Not unexpected.

T'would seem this thread has reached the end of it's usefulness.

..5 pages..not bad for us OT denizens.