• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

European Parliament Calls for Investigation of Secret CIA Torture Sites

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
[FONT=TIActuBeta-ExBold_web]THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT[/FONT] on Wednesday condemned the “apathy shown by member states and EU institutions” over torture in secret CIA prisons in Europe.A non-binding resolution, which passed 329-299, urged member states to “investigate, insuring full transparency, the allegations that there were secret prisons on their territory in which people were held under the CIA programme.” It also called on the European Union to undertake fact-finding missions into countries that were known to house American black sites.
The resolution named Lithuania, Poland, Italy, and the United Kingdom as countries complicit in CIA operations.
The Parliament also expressed “regret” that none of the architects of the U.S. torture program faced criminal charges, and that the U.S. has failed to cooperate with European criminal probes.

Read more @: European Parliament Calls for Investigation of Secret CIA Torture Sites

At least someone is attempting to hold us accountable for our crimes... :applaudHopefully an investigation will begin to start. Although justice for those individuals who were tortured in these sites will not be given a full sense of justice, its definitely a start.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Read more @: European Parliament Calls for Investigation of Secret CIA Torture Sites

At least someone is attempting to hold us accountable for our crimes... :applaudHopefully an investigation will begin to start. Although justice for those individuals who were tortured in these sites will not be given a full sense of justice, its definitely a start.

You are quite right. Crimes must be punished. But first you should be more honest.
What crimes? There might have been individuals that did use more intense interrogation methods than they should have. There were certainly cases, where prisoners were lent to the Syrians and other autocrats by European agencies for questioning and quite probably Americans did so too in some cases.
And it is probably true that the CIA used methods of interrogation in EU countries that were forbidden under EU regulations. But like the data use by NSA the sites were well known and used by the local agencies that seem also to have undertaken the chores interrogation as they did the data collection. And, where the Americans remained within American regulations the European agencies represented the host countries officially and would be responsible for their laws.

This has become quite clear in the data scandal in Germany, which is more advanced than this situation.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,278
Reaction score
12,596
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Before the usual suspects go nuts over this.... it is a NON BINDING resolution.

There is no investigative unit or organisation that could do this within the EU.. it would have to be handled fully by national governments and we know already that certain countries like the Poles, would never ever cooperate because they have their heads so far up the US asses (On this issue) that they cant see daylight.

Now what would be interesting is who voted for it and who did not.. block wise...
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
You are quite right. Crimes must be punished. But first you should be more honest.
What crimes? There might have been individuals that did use more intense interrogation methods than they should have. There were certainly cases, where prisoners were lent to the Syrians and other autocrats by European agencies for questioning and quite probably Americans did so too in some cases.
And it is probably true that the CIA used methods of interrogation in EU countries that were forbidden under EU regulations. But like the data use by NSA the sites were well known and used by the local agencies that seem also to have undertaken the chores interrogation as they did the data collection. And, where the Americans remained within American regulations the European agencies represented the host countries officially and would be responsible for their laws.

This has become quite clear in the data scandal in Germany, which is more advanced than this situation.

"Considerable evidence exists that CIA officers and interrogators tortured detainees in ways that went beyond what was authorized... CIA personnel also engaged in practices that went well beyond the illegal techniques “authorized” by the Torture Memos. Practices such as “rectal feedings,” use of water to induce near suffocation, and certain painful stress positions, were either not authorized or administered in ways that were not authorized. As such, the memos should not even be contemplated as a defense for such actions." https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/12/01/no-more-excuses/roadmap-justice-cia-torture

"Defenders of the program and the memos that authorized them argue that U.S. criminal laws do not apply outside of U.S. territory — and the CIA interrogations in question occurred at secret black sites overseas. But the 4th Circuit Court in 2006 rejected the extraterritoriality argument in United States v. Pessaro, the first and only case in which a person connected with the CIA was convicted in connection to the "war on terrorism" that began after the Sept. 11 attacks. In that case, CIA contractor David Pessaro was charged with assault in connection with the 2003 death of Abdul Wali while in the custody of U.S. officials in Afghanistan. In his defense, Pessaro relied on some of the authorizations in the torture memos, which included the argument that U.S. nationals can't be tried for conduct committed on foreign soil. But the court found that two laws expanded the territorial jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts, thus allowing for criminal prosecution of torture acts committed abroad. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (MEJA) asserts federal district court jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the armed forces overseas, including military contractors. MEJA’S broad territorial definition was made possible through a 2001 amendment to the Patriot Act. Title 18 of the Patriot Act expanded the court's territorial jurisdiction to cover certain U.S. government installations located abroad. It also removed the statute of limitations on prosecution for any terrorist offense that led to the death or serious bodily injury of any person." Did CIA interrogation methods break the law? | Al Jazeera America
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
"Considerable evidence exists that CIA officers and interrogators tortured detainees in ways that went beyond what was authorized... CIA personnel also engaged in practices that went well beyond the illegal techniques “authorized” by the Torture Memos. Practices such as “rectal feedings,” use of water to induce near suffocation, and certain painful stress positions, were either not authorized or administered in ways that were not authorized. As such, the memos should not even be contemplated as a defense for such actions." https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/12/01/no-more-excuses/roadmap-justice-cia-torture

"Defenders of the program and the memos that authorized them argue that U.S. criminal laws do not apply outside of U.S. territory — and the CIA interrogations in question occurred at secret black sites overseas. But the 4th Circuit Court in 2006 rejected the extraterritoriality argument in United States v. Pessaro, the first and only case in which a person connected with the CIA was convicted in connection to the "war on terrorism" that began after the Sept. 11 attacks. In that case, CIA contractor David Pessaro was charged with assault in connection with the 2003 death of Abdul Wali while in the custody of U.S. officials in Afghanistan. In his defense, Pessaro relied on some of the authorizations in the torture memos, which included the argument that U.S. nationals can't be tried for conduct committed on foreign soil. But the court found that two laws expanded the territorial jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts, thus allowing for criminal prosecution of torture acts committed abroad. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (MEJA) asserts federal district court jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the armed forces overseas, including military contractors. MEJA’S broad territorial definition was made possible through a 2001 amendment to the Patriot Act. Title 18 of the Patriot Act expanded the court's territorial jurisdiction to cover certain U.S. government installations located abroad. It also removed the statute of limitations on prosecution for any terrorist offense that led to the death or serious bodily injury of any person." Did CIA interrogation methods break the law? | Al Jazeera America

1) As I pointed out, where US law was broken, the crime must be punished. If it was allowed under US law, it should not be punished.
2) Where official personnel of the host country was involved, responsibility for the local law belongs to those officials.

I know a number of the people that are pushing the EU parliamentary interest in this. It is a very different agenda they are following than the one being trumpeted and much more to do with a desire to destabilize the alliance with the USA. And I suspect from the consistent similarity of your posts and the Russia Today propaganda that your agenda has very little to do with legitimacy of the discussed activities as well.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Before the usual suspects go nuts over this.... it is a NON BINDING resolution.

There is no investigative unit or organisation that could do this within the EU.. it would have to be handled fully by national governments and we know already that certain countries like the Poles, would never ever cooperate because they have their heads so far up the US asses (On this issue) that they cant see daylight.

Now what would be interesting is who voted for it and who did not.. block wise...

Well, since it is only important to the people pushing it as populist tool, its being non-binding is preferable. That way they can say anything they want without having to fear consequences becoming necessary.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
2) Where official personnel of the host country was involved, responsibility for the local law belongs to those officials.
And as I pointed out this is not valid: "The 4th Circuit Court in 2006 rejected the extraterritoriality argument in United States v. Pessaro, the first and only case in which a person connected with the CIA was convicted in connection to the "war on terrorism" that began after the Sept. 11 attacks. In that case, CIA contractor David Pessaro was charged with assault in connection with the 2003 death of Abdul Wali while in the custody of U.S. officials in Afghanistan. In his defense, Pessaro relied on some of the authorizations in the torture memos, which included the argument that U.S. nationals can't be tried for conduct committed on foreign soil. But the court found that two laws expanded the territorial jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts, thus allowing for criminal prosecution of torture acts committed abroad. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (MEJA) asserts federal district court jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the armed forces overseas, including military contractors. MEJA’S broad territorial definition was made possible through a 2001 amendment to the Patriot Act. Title 18 of the Patriot Act expanded the court's territorial jurisdiction to cover certain U.S. government installations located abroad. It also removed the statute of limitations on prosecution for any terrorist offense that led to the death or serious bodily injury of any person."

I know a number of the people that are pushing the EU parliamentary interest in this. It is a very different agenda they are following than the one being trumpeted and much more to do with a desire to destabilize the alliance with the USA. And I suspect from the consistent similarity of your posts and the Russia Today propaganda that your agenda has very little to do with legitimacy of the discussed activities as well.
Ohhh puhlease. :roll:
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,278
Reaction score
12,596
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well, since it is only important to the people pushing it as populist tool, its being non-binding is preferable. That way they can say anything they want without having to fear consequences becoming necessary.

And thank you yet again for showing how little you actually know..... The EU parliament can only do this as a non-binding issue... as the EU does not even remotely cover this as part of its mandate...

But nice to see you are for torture and kidnapping.. good to know..
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
And as I pointed out this is not valid: "The 4th Circuit Court in 2006 rejected the extraterritoriality argument in United States v. Pessaro, the first and only case in which a person connected with the CIA was convicted in connection to the "war on terrorism" that began after the Sept. 11 attacks. In that case, CIA contractor David Pessaro was charged with assault in connection with the 2003 death of Abdul Wali while in the custody of U.S. officials in Afghanistan. In his defense, Pessaro relied on some of the authorizations in the torture memos, which included the argument that U.S. nationals can't be tried for conduct committed on foreign soil. But the court found that two laws expanded the territorial jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts, thus allowing for criminal prosecution of torture acts committed abroad. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (MEJA) asserts federal district court jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the armed forces overseas, including military contractors. MEJA’S broad territorial definition was made possible through a 2001 amendment to the Patriot Act. Title 18 of the Patriot Act expanded the court's territorial jurisdiction to cover certain U.S. government installations located abroad. It also removed the statute of limitations on prosecution for any terrorist offense that led to the death or serious bodily injury of any person."


Ohhh puhlease. :roll:

1) In what way does that copy paste contradict the statement?
2) If you were not so consistently in step with RT in the opinions you voice, I would not be so convinced that your opinions are connected.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
And thank you yet again for showing how little you actually know..... The EU parliament can only do this as a non-binding issue... as the EU does not even remotely cover this as part of its mandate...

But nice to see you are for torture and kidnapping.. good to know..

Nice to see that you are so disinterested that you have not looked into the details of enhanced interrogation. But that is normal in a number of EU countries, where the discussion is only possible in a very pc fashion.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
1) In what way does that copy paste contradict the statement?
Well one it completely refutes your statement ("2) Where official personnel of the host country was involved, responsibility for the local law belongs to those officials.")
1.)The person found guilty relied on "authorization" from the torture memos which stated US nationals cant be tried for conduct committed on foreign soil. The court through this argument out and found him guilty. So in fact, its not as crystal clear as "responsibility for local law belongs to those officials".
And also more evidence to show that those taking part in CIA torture overseas at "black sites" can be brought to justice with US laws: " In a decision today that is unprecedented for a lawsuit involving CIA torture, a federal judge said that he would allow a lawsuit against the two psychologists who designed and implemented the CIA program to move forward... Mitchell and Jessen helped convince the agency to adopt torture as official policy, making millions of dollars in the process. The two men, who had previously worked for the U.S. military, designed the torture methods and performed illegal human experimentation on CIA prisoners to test and refine the program. They personally took part in torture sessions and oversaw the program’s implementation for the CIA." Court Rules ACLU Lawsuit Against CIA Torture Psychologists Can Proceed | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

2) If you were not so consistently in step with RT in the opinions you voice, I would not be so convinced that your opinions are connected.
Oh boy RT reported on it! Didnt even know that. Trying to dismiss this as "RT propaganda" is pretty pathetic.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,278
Reaction score
12,596
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Nice to see that you are so disinterested that you have not looked into the details of enhanced interrogation. But that is normal in a number of EU countries, where the discussion is only possible in a very pc fashion.

Oh I know exactly what "enhanced interrogation" is.. it is torture. And again, the EU has nothing to do with it... individual member countries have, and should be ashamed. But those member countries are also members of the UN, NATO, WHO, The Postal Union and many other organisations.. why is it you dont mention those, since they have about the same amount of "doing with the issue" as the EU..
 

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,549
Reaction score
2,878
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh I know exactly what "enhanced interrogation" is.. it is torture. And again, the EU has nothing to do with it... individual member countries have, and should be ashamed. But those member countries are also members of the UN, NATO, WHO, The Postal Union and many other organisations.. why is it you dont mention those, since they have about the same amount of "doing with the issue" as the EU..

I love how some people have this 'fluffy' view of the world :lol: It's OK Pete, you sleep safe.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,278
Reaction score
12,596
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I love how some people have this 'fluffy' view of the world :lol: It's OK Pete, you sleep safe.

If by fluffy mean a realistic factual view of the world.. then sure. The only ones being "fluffy" in the world view are the anti-Europe bunch who think things were better 100 years ago..
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Well one it completely refutes your statement ("2) Where official personnel of the host country was involved, responsibility for the local law belongs to those officials.")
1.)The person found guilty relied on "authorization" from the torture memos which stated US nationals cant be tried for conduct committed on foreign soil. The court through this argument out and found him guilty. So in fact, its not as crystal clear as "responsibility for local law belongs to those officials".
And also more evidence to show that those taking part in CIA torture overseas at "black sites" can be brought to justice with US laws: " In a decision today that is unprecedented for a lawsuit involving CIA torture, a federal judge said that he would allow a lawsuit against the two psychologists who designed and implemented the CIA program to move forward... Mitchell and Jessen helped convince the agency to adopt torture as official policy, making millions of dollars in the process. The two men, who had previously worked for the U.S. military, designed the torture methods and performed illegal human experimentation on CIA prisoners to test and refine the program. They personally took part in torture sessions and oversaw the program’s implementation for the CIA." Court Rules ACLU Lawsuit Against CIA Torture Psychologists Can Proceed | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community


Oh boy RT reported on it! Didnt even know that. Trying to dismiss this as "RT propaganda" is pretty pathetic.

As I have pointed out many times, those individuals that did break US law must be punished.

If the consistency of yours and that of RT were on only a few points and not on so many, it would not be so evident. And it is true that in individual cases it is very difficult to show with certainty, the large number of opinions that conform to Russian policy of disinformation is remarkable.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh I know exactly what "enhanced interrogation" is.. it is torture. And again, .......

And again you snatched up the populist spin without thinking the thought. You are a jewel! ;)
 

Chagos

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
29,784
Reaction score
7,956
Location
in expatria
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Whole thing reminds me of an overall benevolent aunt of years ago who had an opinion on everything and garnished it with dark hints and meaningful insinuations over possessing knowledge superior to that of any other. She also never went beyond smugly dismissing that which others presented and never bothered refuting what was held to be factual by bringing a more forceful argument in counter-balance.

On the rare occasions where unfounded over-confidence actually led her to commit herself with an opinion going beyond this MO, she inevitably had not just her face smothered in egg. So she gave up such dangerous behavior altogether.

Needless to say nothing cured her. Not of her arrogance, not of her being the target of dismissal.

:mrgreen:
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
You are quite right. Crimes must be punished. But first you should be more honest.
What crimes?
You just listed a few.

There might have been individuals that did use more intense interrogation methods than they should have.
That's a crime.

There were certainly cases, where prisoners were lent to the Syrians and other autocrats by European agencies for questioning and quite probably Americans did so too in some cases.
That's a crime.

And it is probably true that the CIA used methods of interrogation in EU countries that were forbidden under EU regulations.
That's a crime.

But like the data use by NSA the sites were well known and used by the local agencies that seem also to have undertaken the chores interrogation as they did the data collection. And, where the Americans remained within American regulations the European agencies represented the host countries officially and would be responsible for their laws.
No one is arguing that prosecutions should be limited to American operatives or commanders.
 

Chagos

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
29,784
Reaction score
7,956
Location
in expatria
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
...............~No one is arguing that prosecutions should be limited to American operatives or commanders.
In addition to which there is only one in here so far arguing the position that US agents only be pursued if they broke US laws. To hold that position is not a crime by any means but it's absolutely stupid on logic alone. Any agent (foreign or domestic) is subject to the laws of the country s/he operates in.

Where not much may come of this or any other past issue, something being permissible by US law means diddly squat if it's not permissible elsewhere and the acts under question are committed there.

Not addressed at you, just using this post to hang that point onto.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You just listed a few.

That's a crime.

That's a crime.

That's a crime.

No one is arguing that prosecutions should be limited to American operatives or commanders.

And I pointed out that those that broke US law should be punished. So, where is the problem. And you see, if your prescription had been taken and the thing rolled out by prosecuting one's own and then proceeding to prosecute the foreigners in France, the US and other countries, the situation would not look so shabby. But in the EU member countries the hysteria broke out to hate levels (at least in Germany, where I followed it closely) against the US, though, in most cases the local agencies were driving forces sometimes even using the US to circumvent their own laws sometime the acting parties relaying information to the US. It also is turning out that much of the hullabaloo was about totally legal activities from an American standpoint and covered by an agreement signed off by Schröder's chancellery and others.

The unfolding of this scandal is highly dishonest from the European side and has the feel of being part of activities under the Grasimov Doctrine.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
As I have pointed out many times, those individuals that did break US law must be punished.

If the consistency of yours and that of RT were on only a few points and not on so many, it would not be so evident. And it is true that in individual cases it is very difficult to show with certainty, the large number of opinions that conform to Russian policy of disinformation is remarkable.

I havent used RT in this discussion at all. So I have no idea why you keep bringing it up
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
And I pointed out that those that broke US law should be punished. So, where is the problem. And you see, if your prescription had been taken and the thing rolled out by prosecuting one's own and then proceeding to prosecute the foreigners in France, the US and other countries, the situation would not look so shabby. But in the EU member countries the hysteria broke out to hate levels (at least in Germany, where I followed it closely) against the US, though, in most cases the local agencies were driving forces sometimes even using the US to circumvent their own laws sometime the acting parties relaying information to the US. It also is turning out that much of the hullabaloo was about totally legal activities from an American standpoint and covered by an agreement signed off by Schröder's chancellery and others.

The unfolding of this scandal is highly dishonest from the European side and has the feel of being part of activities under the Grasimov Doctrine.

If anyone commits a crime they should be prosecuted by the state in which they committed that crime. They may well, and arguably should, also be prosecuted by their home state, as happens, for example, with sex tourism offenders in the UK and other states.

There's really no scandal here, merely the working out of how European nations deal with unresolved crimes.

I've never heard of the Grasimov Doctrine. Do you mean the Sinatra Doctrine authored by Gennady Gerasimov? If not, what is this doctrine to which you refer?
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I havent used RT in this discussion at all. So I have no idea why you keep bringing it up

I was not noting that you had used it here. I was only pointing out the similarity between the opinions you offer and those issued by RT, which is a notable instrument of Russian hybrid aggression.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
su
If anyone commits a crime they should be prosecuted by the state in which they committed that crime. They may well, and arguably should, also be prosecuted by their home state, as happens, for example, with sex tourism offenders in the UK and other states.

There's really no scandal here, merely the working out of how European nations deal with unresolved crimes.

I've never heard of the Grasimov Doctrine. Do you mean the Sinatra Doctrine authored by Gennady Gerasimov? If not, what is this doctrine to which you refer?

By the law of many countries spying on them is an offense. In other words, most activities of a foreign agency are illegal.

The working out would be okay and even laudable, had it not been used to whip up a frenzy, which it was.

I am sorry about the typo. IT is Gerasimov Doctrine. It deals with the strategic use of hybrid warfare.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
su

By the law of many countries spying on them is an offense. In other words, most activities of a foreign agency are illegal.
Yes. I'd say it is illegal to engage in spying in every country. If it's done by nationals, it's treason. So what?

The working out would be okay and even laudable, had it not been used to whip up a frenzy, which it was.
You want to create legislation and prosecute based on the possible reactions to those legal actions? That's a bit bizarre.

I am sorry about the typo. IT is Gerasimov Doctrine. It deals with the strategic use of hybrid warfare.
Yeah, I've looked into it. I can't see how this is very relevant. Do you mean that those war crimes should not be prosecuted because the nature of warfare has changed, lines blurred and that the actions being discussed should nowadays be accepted as a natural evolution of the prosecution of war?
 
Top Bottom