European Court Says CIA Ran Secret Jail in a Polish Forest(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
European Court Says CIA Ran Secret Jail in a Polish Forest
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2014/07/24/world/24reuters-cia-jails-poland.html
6 comments
Prosecution for "war crimes" is something that only happens if you lose a war. That's not a cynical statement; it falls out of trying to reconcile the concept of "war crimes" with our concept of a world of sovereign nations. Sovereign nations aren't bound by any higher sovereignty that can set rules and subject violators to legal process. The only context in which a nation, or its leaders, can be punished for "war crimes" is when it loses a war and is temporarily inferior to the victors, who can impose prosecution as punishment for conduct during the war.
This is simply not true. Prosecutions for war crimes have happened both for winners and losers of wars. The truth, to be more exact, is that the losers are overwhelmingly more prosecuted than the winners (by the winners), but the winners now have the option to be brought before the ICC in the Hague.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
Of course the chances of countries being signatory to (and having ratified) that particular treaty are roughly proportional to the inverse of their activities regarding such crimes in the recent past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
Of course the chances of countries being signatory to (and having ratified) that particular treaty are roughly proportional to the inverse of their activities regarding such crimes in the recent past.
You ever heard of the "Hague Invasion Act"?
"U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.
In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution."
http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-bec...
"U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.
In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution."
http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-bec...
I think that sounds like a good thing.
If anybody doesn't, have you ever actually looked at the laws enforced by the ICC and how the judges and prosecutors are appointed? And who has the authority to change those laws? Just because you call something the International Criminal Court doesn't mean that it isn't a ridiculous Kangaroo court.
Without going into a detailed review, the laws all look so vague that any participant in any kind of conflict could be changed with a huge pile of crimes, depending on the whim of the judges and prosecutors. Most sane legal systems require that any law be defined strictly enough that an individual can always be sure whether an act he is planning to commit does or does not violate the law, and I think this body of laws is far, far away from that point.
As for the governing bodies, it seems the primary authority is a body in which every member nation has a single representative and a single vote (the Assembly of States Parties). Uh yeah, I bet about 10 seconds after this court was given any real power, the dictatorships of the world would horse-trade enough votes to change anybody who was politically unpopular with them with a huge pile of crimes whose definition is so vague that it's impossible to know whether you've committed them or to defend against the accusation of them.
If anybody doesn't, have you ever actually looked at the laws enforced by the ICC and how the judges and prosecutors are appointed? And who has the authority to change those laws? Just because you call something the International Criminal Court doesn't mean that it isn't a ridiculous Kangaroo court.
Without going into a detailed review, the laws all look so vague that any participant in any kind of conflict could be changed with a huge pile of crimes, depending on the whim of the judges and prosecutors. Most sane legal systems require that any law be defined strictly enough that an individual can always be sure whether an act he is planning to commit does or does not violate the law, and I think this body of laws is far, far away from that point.
As for the governing bodies, it seems the primary authority is a body in which every member nation has a single representative and a single vote (the Assembly of States Parties). Uh yeah, I bet about 10 seconds after this court was given any real power, the dictatorships of the world would horse-trade enough votes to change anybody who was politically unpopular with them with a huge pile of crimes whose definition is so vague that it's impossible to know whether you've committed them or to defend against the accusation of them.
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
> Prosecutions for war crimes have happened both for winners and losers of wars.
Technically true. But to date the ICC has only ever prosecuted Africans. This can be seen as a continuation of Europe's colonial tendencies to treat African nations as inferior sovereigns.
Technically true. But to date the ICC has only ever prosecuted Africans. This can be seen as a continuation of Europe's colonial tendencies to treat African nations as inferior sovereigns.
Well, this is easy to answer.
Most major wars since WW2 have been initiated or led by the US, who have not signed the ICC treaties.
Yugoslavia has had its own court, as well as the Khmer stuff and the Spanish regime.
That only leaves African wars to be dealt with.
Most major wars since WW2 have been initiated or led by the US, who have not signed the ICC treaties.
Yugoslavia has had its own court, as well as the Khmer stuff and the Spanish regime.
That only leaves African wars to be dealt with.
Milosevic was prosecuted by the ICC and died in jail four months before an almost certain conviction. The Pinochet case predates the ICC, but although the British government intervened to temporarily "halt" his extradition to Spain, the speed of his subsequent exit (he flew back to Santiago within hours) suggests the move was a political one to push things back to Chile, where Pinochet faced subsequent prosecution and died under house arrest.
So some cynicism is certainly deserved, but it is probably more accurate to say that the more political influence someone has, and the more dirt they hold on other countries, the more protracted the entire judicial process becomes.
So some cynicism is certainly deserved, but it is probably more accurate to say that the more political influence someone has, and the more dirt they hold on other countries, the more protracted the entire judicial process becomes.
Milošević was prosecuted at the ICTY, a special-purpose tribunal for Yugoslavia.
Mirko Norac "is a former general of the Croatian Army. He was the first Croatian Army general to be found guilty of war crimes by a Croatian court." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirko_Norac )
The Gospić massacre took place in Croatia, and "[t]he trial was seen by a BBC News analysis as indicating a willingness on the part of the Croatian government to deal with war crimes committed by its nationals, following a long period of inactivity described by Rijeka County Court judge Ika Šarić as a "conspiracy of silence"." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospi%C4%87_massacre )
Isn't that a counter-example?
Ahh, you said "a nation, or its leaders", but not other citizens of the nation. So what about Efrain Rios Montt of Guatemala? Quoting Reuters, "He is the first former head of state to be convicted on genocide charges in his own country", and genocide is a war crime.
Isn't that a counter-example?
While it was a civil war, you said war crime only makes sense when a sovereign nation loses a war and is 'temporarily inferior' to another nation, which is not the case in Guatemala. To be certain, the judgement was overturned, but your statement was limited to prosecution, and Rios Montt was definitely prosecuted for war crimes.
The Gospić massacre took place in Croatia, and "[t]he trial was seen by a BBC News analysis as indicating a willingness on the part of the Croatian government to deal with war crimes committed by its nationals, following a long period of inactivity described by Rijeka County Court judge Ika Šarić as a "conspiracy of silence"." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospi%C4%87_massacre )
Isn't that a counter-example?
Ahh, you said "a nation, or its leaders", but not other citizens of the nation. So what about Efrain Rios Montt of Guatemala? Quoting Reuters, "He is the first former head of state to be convicted on genocide charges in his own country", and genocide is a war crime.
Isn't that a counter-example?
While it was a civil war, you said war crime only makes sense when a sovereign nation loses a war and is 'temporarily inferior' to another nation, which is not the case in Guatemala. To be certain, the judgement was overturned, but your statement was limited to prosecution, and Rios Montt was definitely prosecuted for war crimes.
I read the OP's "we'll continue to absolve any American president of war crimes" as referring to an external prosecution, but on second thought it could very well mean domestic prosecution. In which case you're right, of course, that countries can punish their own leaders for whatever they want, war crimes or otherwise. I was thinking more about external punishment ala the International Criminal Court, the Nuremberg trials, etc.
I took the "we" to be "we as US citizens", but even without that, a Spanish court under the principle of universal jurisdiction famously indicted Augusto Pinochet for crimes against humanity. Pinochet was then arrested in the UK.
That's lead to worries "that Spain's judicial system was being hijacked by activist judges pursuing a political agenda. " http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4149/spain-universal-juris... (Kissinger, of course, doesn't like this idea one bit.)
In that same link you'll see mention that "In March 2009, Baltasar Garzón, Spain's most high-profile judge at the time, invoked the principle of universal jurisdiction to investigate six former Bush administration officials for allegedly giving legal cover to torture committed at the U.S. detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba."
So in principle a court in, say, Switzerland could indict the US president for war crimes and attempt to prosecute it.
Thus, I still think the definitional interpretation you gave is incorrect.
That's lead to worries "that Spain's judicial system was being hijacked by activist judges pursuing a political agenda. " http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4149/spain-universal-juris... (Kissinger, of course, doesn't like this idea one bit.)
In that same link you'll see mention that "In March 2009, Baltasar Garzón, Spain's most high-profile judge at the time, invoked the principle of universal jurisdiction to investigate six former Bush administration officials for allegedly giving legal cover to torture committed at the U.S. detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba."
So in principle a court in, say, Switzerland could indict the US president for war crimes and attempt to prosecute it.
Thus, I still think the definitional interpretation you gave is incorrect.
[deleted]
As a Polish person - I feel really bad that my country has in any way or form participated in this and helped CIA. Our country is known to bend over to America's requests, getting absolutely nothing back, and it upsets me deeply.
If it makes you feel better the governments in most countries around the world are quite pathetic when it comes to agreeing to do almost anything for the United States.
Or the IOC (olympics), FIFA, or any company with turnover in the billions, or arms manufacturers, or friends who they went to school with, etc.
There was a thread in HN today about how companies are run so illogically. I think (hope) in the next few decades there will be major changes in governance when the cost of monitoring government activities leads to an increase in transparency and a decrease in illegal and immoral behaviour.
Or the IOC (olympics), FIFA, or any company with turnover in the billions, or arms manufacturers, or friends who they went to school with, etc.
There was a thread in HN today about how companies are run so illogically. I think (hope) in the next few decades there will be major changes in governance when the cost of monitoring government activities leads to an increase in transparency and a decrease in illegal and immoral behaviour.
First, I'm not american and I don't make excuses for the US here but my feeling is that if what Poland gave to US was secret, then it's very likely that what Poland received from US in return is secret too. Apart from that, what we see here is that governments aren't really bounded by laws, treaties nor conventions(not even constitutions). The only thing that bounds a "willing" government is another government with a bigger army or some nukes.
The atmosphere in Poland has been rather gung-ho pro American no matter what, this is likely related to the proximity of America's (former?) arch enemy Russia with whom the Poles have an extremely uneasy relationship, mostly due to having been repeatedly run over from the East (as well as the West) in living memory.
See the statements of Polish politicians regarding the missile shield for some good examples of this.
See the statements of Polish politicians regarding the missile shield for some good examples of this.
What annoys a lot of central European countries (ex eastern block countries) is the fact that their enthusiasm for the US is greeted with complete indifference.
Czechs, Poles and others still need an US visa, despite the fact that they are fully fledged EU members and part of the Schengen treaty.
So the general attitude is no more quite as gung-ho as it was in the beginning of the millenium.
Czechs, Poles and others still need an US visa, despite the fact that they are fully fledged EU members and part of the Schengen treaty.
So the general attitude is no more quite as gung-ho as it was in the beginning of the millenium.
Fwiw, Czechs no longer do. Six ex-eastern-bloc countries were added to the visa-waiver program in 2008: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia.
I stand corrected.
Thanks
Thanks
Like this one? J
The latest revelations concern Radosław Sikorski, Poland’s Oxford-educated foreign minister, who was caught dismissing Poland’s relationship with the United States as “worthless.” “Complete bullshit. We'll get in conflict with the Germans, Russians, and we'll think that everything is super because we gave the Americans a blow job,” he allegedly says in the recording from January 2014, published in Wprost on June 23. “Losers. Complete losers.”
http://www.vice.com/read/polands-wiretapping-scandal-governm...
The latest revelations concern Radosław Sikorski, Poland’s Oxford-educated foreign minister, who was caught dismissing Poland’s relationship with the United States as “worthless.” “Complete bullshit. We'll get in conflict with the Germans, Russians, and we'll think that everything is super because we gave the Americans a blow job,” he allegedly says in the recording from January 2014, published in Wprost on June 23. “Losers. Complete losers.”
http://www.vice.com/read/polands-wiretapping-scandal-governm...
Yes, I think NATO membership counts as getting something in return.
If all Poland got in return for running a secret CIA jail including torture of prisoners on their soil was a NATO membership I would consider that to be a very bad trade.
If a NATO membership with the implication of American military support deters Russia from, say, invading Poland, or demanding that they do things much worse than running a prison under threat of invasion, then it sounds priceless.
Makes you wonder what would have happened if Ukraine had been part of NATO in the current circumstances.
Would the 'separatists' have had any chance at all?
Or would the situation be the same as it is today?
Effectively it is Russia calling the shots in the separatist movement, the two people heading it are native Russians that have conveniently moved to the Crimea just at the time the uprising started.
Interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
No NATO member country has been attacked before like this, and Poland does not have a large contingent of ethnic Russians that could be used to stage a similar situation there as far as I know.
Would the 'separatists' have had any chance at all?
Or would the situation be the same as it is today?
Effectively it is Russia calling the shots in the separatist movement, the two people heading it are native Russians that have conveniently moved to the Crimea just at the time the uprising started.
Interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
No NATO member country has been attacked before like this, and Poland does not have a large contingent of ethnic Russians that could be used to stage a similar situation there as far as I know.
The very idea of it is fraught with geopolitical tension for just that reason.
As it stands, NATO membership comes with the implication that the US and Western Europe will respond to any invasion with their full force, up to and including strategic nuclear warfare if needed. Russia would surely see the very proposal to include Ukraine as intensely threatening. It could be a giant bluff in a way - would we dare to include Ukraine, knowing how deeply it threatens Russia? Would Russia dare to do anything direct about it, like a preemptive invasion, maybe before they were a full member? If they did, would we respond, drawing ourselves into a large war, or ignore it, potentially diluting the meaning of NATO and tempting Russia to try invading other NATO members as well? Would Russia respond vigorously but indirectly, essentially starting a new Cold War?
As it stands, NATO membership comes with the implication that the US and Western Europe will respond to any invasion with their full force, up to and including strategic nuclear warfare if needed. Russia would surely see the very proposal to include Ukraine as intensely threatening. It could be a giant bluff in a way - would we dare to include Ukraine, knowing how deeply it threatens Russia? Would Russia dare to do anything direct about it, like a preemptive invasion, maybe before they were a full member? If they did, would we respond, drawing ourselves into a large war, or ignore it, potentially diluting the meaning of NATO and tempting Russia to try invading other NATO members as well? Would Russia respond vigorously but indirectly, essentially starting a new Cold War?
Contemplating the vast expansion of NATO in tranches four and five is indeed interesting, if not daunting. Would the US really come to the aid of a former Soviet Union nation if Russia were hell-bent of taking it back?
The book, "The Eagle Unbowed" [1], is an excellent history of Poland (and the Polish people) during the Second World War - I've only read about half the book, but gives valuable insights into the geopolitical atmosphere of Eastern Europe.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/nov/09/the-eagle-unbow...
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/nov/09/the-eagle-unbow...
As a "romanian person" I'm very familiar with that atmosphere too and in my opinion there is an ongoing "security" trade between US and Poland, Romania and other countries in the area in the sense that US provides the security guarantees (and who knows what else) and the partner countries compensate through favorable contracts for US corporations, various political concessions (and who knows what else).
I'm there with you on this as another romanian&american person. This seems to all have started showing more with the air defense strategy in the region pushed by US some time ago but i am sure this goes back even more than that.
At the same time these deals do sound like they are a bit one sided, in favor of US.
Same here. This is deeply unsettling. Given our history and aspirations to high moral standards, we should be ashamed.
I want my country to work with other countries (including the USA), but while respecting human rights.
I want my country to work with other countries (including the USA), but while respecting human rights.
This story has no more connection to HN than any other political, human rights, or current events story. There's a whole Internet full of venues to have discussions about these kinds of stories. They don't need to be on the HN front page. Which is why the guidelines say they shouldn't be.
And a comment similar to this shows up every time there's a political, human rights, or current events story. Which is why the guidelines also say this:
Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
I thought it was interesting. I imagine that the people who voted it to the front page thought so too.
The bar is higher than "interesting enough to garner upvotes".
Here's what moderator 'dang said about this issue a few weeks back:
Some of you feel that such stories are so important that the flamewars around them should just be allowed to burn. Our experience and observation suggest the contrary: they are bad—existentially bad—for the site. Like fire in general, they lead to more of the same. So the alternative to the current policy is conflagration. The best aspects of HN, in our view, would not survive this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8012898
Here's what moderator 'dang said about this issue a few weeks back:
Some of you feel that such stories are so important that the flamewars around them should just be allowed to burn. Our experience and observation suggest the contrary: they are bad—existentially bad—for the site. Like fire in general, they lead to more of the same. So the alternative to the current policy is conflagration. The best aspects of HN, in our view, would not survive this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8012898
WHAT?!??! Illegal kidnapping, torture and demonstrated government complicity: and all I got was this lousy 100,000EUR? They obviously need some decent lawyers.
As a person born in Poland and living in the US, I'm proud that these two countries cooperate to advance common goals, and I can only wish that we work closer together (both openly or secretly).
As to what happened in those secret locations, the European Court is free to investigate (and potentially prosecute) CIA, which is the organization directly responsible. But then, wouldn't it make more sense to go after Guantanamo (or eastern Ukraine these days) first?
As to what happened in those secret locations, the European Court is free to investigate (and potentially prosecute) CIA, which is the organization directly responsible. But then, wouldn't it make more sense to go after Guantanamo (or eastern Ukraine these days) first?
I don't get it how a court can rule that a <natural fact> can be either true or false.
If you don't get that then you probably don't get how any court decision is ever possible. The correct interpretation of the headline is that the court found that the evidence documenting this particular fact is strong enough to support the decision to collapse the true/false options to just 'true'.
Courts are messy, they deal with uncertainties all the time, so we ask them to clarify what their view is on the veracity of certain facts and the courts then rule based upon the evidence and their interpretation thereof and then we proceed from that new base of certainty. Of course courts err (miscarriages of justice) but this is a low enough incidence that we continue to believe that when a court rules something is 'true' that it did in fact happen.
Tricky concept, courts! In the end it's still people and people make mistakes but these people are experts trained to sift fact from fiction.
Courts are messy, they deal with uncertainties all the time, so we ask them to clarify what their view is on the veracity of certain facts and the courts then rule based upon the evidence and their interpretation thereof and then we proceed from that new base of certainty. Of course courts err (miscarriages of justice) but this is a low enough incidence that we continue to believe that when a court rules something is 'true' that it did in fact happen.
Tricky concept, courts! In the end it's still people and people make mistakes but these people are experts trained to sift fact from fiction.
I understand how most court decisions are made, e.g. those involving legality (or morality) of some action. E.g. it's clear to me why a court could find it legal/illegal that the CIA had a jail in Poland.
In this case, however, the court is deciding on facts. I guess what happened here, as vidarh's comment implies, is that the court had some indirect evidence presented, and based on that evidence, ruled that it is more likely than not that the CIA had a jail in Poland (and is concealing the real, definite evidence).
In this case, however, the court is deciding on facts. I guess what happened here, as vidarh's comment implies, is that the court had some indirect evidence presented, and based on that evidence, ruled that it is more likely than not that the CIA had a jail in Poland (and is concealing the real, definite evidence).
Well, courts have to decide who killed someone. That's a fact that needs to be decided upon.
But no one pretends that courts decide in the "fact" - they just determine who is "guilty" of murder. In the US, for example, you have to be certain up to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt", but even that standard, albeit high, means that the court don't establish facts, but only what the fact is most likely to be.
How can you be guilty of murder if you did not, in fact, kill the victim? Absolute certainty is an illusion. The word "fact" is never meant literally by people who've thought about the subject for a while.
It doesn't. The court has ruled that for the purposes of the legal process involved, it is to be considered fact.
All it means is that the court believes that the presented evidence meets the pre-requisite standard.
All it means is that the court believes that the presented evidence meets the pre-requisite standard.
To expand on your, correct, point, making findings of fact is a way to compartmentalize the aspects of reasoning that lead to a conclusion. If you've ever argued with someone, you know that disputes as to facts or reasoning get mixed together and continually rehashed. But disputes can be broken down into disagreements about what happened, and disagreements of what logically follows from certain premises. Then, resolving each of those disagreements individually, usually by weighing evidence against some standard, ensures forward progress towards a conclusion.
because a court opinion can't be dismissed, while a media one can.
We'll hand out punishments to enlisted personnel operating under the aegis of their superior officers, while superior officers avoid serious punishment.
We forgive and forget the lawyers who authored the decisions that allowed this horror in the first place.
And they call us the good guys. More like "the didn't-get-found-out-by-decent-people" guys.
I'll admit to my own days of wanting glass parking lots in war zones or delivering godlike wrath on foreign opposition, but I don't actually have the power to make that happen. I also generally keep it to myself, because hey, coffee solves a lot of problems.
But nobody's even trying to prosecute our officials for their involvement in war crimes.