Italian judge issues EU arrest warrants for 22 CIA agents [article]

lazydaisy

This is to EVERYONE:

Well since a lot of this talk is about guilty before proven innocent or innocent before proven guilty why doesnt everyone start practising what they preach.

If you are going to apply innocent before proven guilty to Italy then do it for the US as well.

If you are going to apply guilty before proven innocent to the US then you should apply it to Italy as well.

That way you can back up by example all your posturing about equality and fairness.

Hobbes -Im purposely avoiding your questions because they are silly and a waste of time.

If that US citizen was going to hijac a plane and fly it into the chrysler building or blow up the subways or any other atrocity Al Q did on 911. After all, several of the 911 men were US citizens. And if he had done these things in the past, I would help the North Korean torture him.

Hobbes

If you are going to apply guilty before proven innocent to the US then you should apply it to Italy as well.

*shrug* So why would someone who is guilty ask for the guy back and warrents for the arrest of the people who kidnapped a national? Or for that matter an official complaint to the US embassy. To hide that guilt? o_O

As for innocent until Proven guilty. The fact of the matter is the guy was Kidnapped by the CIA on Italian soil. Witnesses and admission by the CIA themselves.

This makes them innocent how exactly?

If that US citizen was going to hijac a plane and fly it into the chrysler building or blow up the subways or any other atrocity Al Q did on 911. After all, several of the 911 men were US citizens. And if he had done these things in the past, I would help the North Korean torture him.

Which is not what I asked, the US person in question did something against North Korea not the US. Which would be in line with the guy being kidnapped in Italy.

So your point is kind of pointless. You are basically saying you would only condone it if it was US citizens lives at risk.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

Well since a lot of this talk is about guilty before proven innocent or innocent before proven guilty why doesnt everyone start practising what they preach.

I think it was yourself and Nox that took this issue off topic with talk about the Europeans being unfair to the Americans and double standards. Most others were happy to discuss this actual case.

In this instance it looks like the CIA kidnapped an Eygptian cleric living in Italy without the consent of the Italian police, flew him out of the country to Eygpt where he claims he was tortured. As far as we know he is still in Eygpt.

How about instead of all this saber rattling and chest beating about "Euros" having a decades old grudge against the US, we discuss the facts of this case.

If yourself or Nox have any proper arguments to back up the idea that either the a) the CIA were not involved in this event, b) the CIA did do this, but had consent of the Italian government c) the Italian judges are out to get the US, please please please present them instead of going on about how we should assume the CIA did nothing wrong until it is proven in a court of law they did. This discussion board is not a court of law The CIA have a long history of doing things like this, the Italian legal system certainly seem to think they did it, it would not a great surprise if in fact they did. It would certainly be more of a surprise if it turned out the Italians were lying all along. But again if yourself or Nox have any reason to think this please present the arguents for that position rather than merely attack the other side for being bias and hypocrates.

I mean yourself and Nox seem to be saying it is very unreasonable for people to suspect the CIA did this, and very unreasonable to believe the Italian prosecutor and police. Why? Please back up this with something substantal.

All we have from either of you so far is that it is very unreasonable because everyone knows Europeans dislike America. That isn't much of an argument., especially when faced with the facts of the case.

lazydaisy wrote:

And if he had done these things in the past, I would help the North Korean torture him.

Would you allow N.K to take a US citizen away to be tortured because they suspected he is linked to a terrorist? What if they were wrong? Is that a price that you feel is worth paying (the torture of innocent US citizens) in the fight against terrorism?

You seem quite concerned that we don't judge the CIA guilty before all the facts emerge about this case. What about torturing someone before their case has been heard in an open court with a right to defend themselves? Is losing that right a price worth paying in the fight against terrorism?

lazydaisy

Whatver you want to make of it. I already know you dont understand context and I already know that you like making stuff up about what I say. When you start making sense I'll consider responding to you again.

WK- I was making a suggestion not an accusation. Ok, Im not the only one, and neither is Nox, who took it off topic, there were a number of participants in that, including yourself,so dont start with the blame game here.

And no, there has been a double standard. The assumption has been Italy is telling the truth and the US is lying. So, what Im saying is choose your assumption, but apply it to both equitably.

WK- I did not say anything of the sort. Are we back to this again. If so, Im not continuing and Im withdrawing from this. Goodbye.

You both make an awful lot of assumptions, fictionalising, blaming, finger pointing, and interrogating. When you can learn to stop projecting then we will be able to talk.

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Whatver you want to make of it. I already know you dont understand context and I already know that you like making stuff up about what I say. When you start making sense I'll consider responding to you again.

It appears quite clear from your description that you have no problem a forgien country kidnapping providing it is only in the instance where it suits US interests. Which is totally unrelated to the kidnapping in question, but even if it was you are basically condoning another country to break US laws. By that rationale renditions should be fine too.

But if I am so wrong please try to spell out clearly for the stupid people (like myself :rolleyes: ) in the audience.

Or if you want you can continue to avoid the question if you are unable to answer it.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

The assumption has been Italy is telling the truth and the US is lying

And that "assumption" is based on the facts of the case.

People are not just assuming the CIA are lying about this for the hell of, it looks very much like the CIA are lying about this.

I mean if you came home and found a burgler in your house and the place wrecked would you give him the benefit of the doubt if he said "I didn't do it, it was someone else". Would you go "well I don't want to jump to assumptions so I am going to believe what you are telling me"

So far yourself and Nox have not put forward any argument or reason to believe that the Italians are lying about the CIA having cleared the operation with them. Without that it is not a great stretch to believe the CIA are now lying about it because they in fact got caught doing it.

lazydaisy wrote:

So, what Im saying is choose your assumption, but apply it to both equitably.

But there is no reason to believe the Italians were lying, and every reason to believe the CIA are lying (unless, as I have said, you can provide an argument for the Italians to be stupid enough to make something like this up).

lazydaisy wrote:

WK- I did not say anything of the sort.

Lazydaisy you really have to learn how to use the QUOTE system on Boards.ie, I have no idea what part of my last post (or even if it is my last post) you are actually referring too.

Nox

lazydaisy wrote:

This is to EVERYONE:

Well since a lot of this talk is about guilty before proven innocent or innocent before proven guilty why doesnt everyone start practising what they preach.

I just went back to the first of this thread and read forward. I suggest you try it yourself. Look at how the points we have made have been distorted. Look at the factually false statements made by those who argue against us. All of the back and forth centers around the point that the Euro's believe the Italians ... we do not. Your point about innocence is totally lost on this group. They have rationalized their opinions into facts of guilt. It does not matter what we say. Their constant retort is 'prove it'. If we challenge them to do the same their 'proof' is a rehash of the same o, same o. I am beginning to wonder if we are not dealing with a bunch of frat kids.

Your point is totally correct ... and from what I've read in the interveining posts ... it has already been lost.

O well.

Nox

lazydaisy

Yes and turn out to be B O Reilly's greatest asset, as WK, BTS,Hobbes, and others just prove him right. The republican party should send you guys a thank you, you may have just gotten them another vote in the next election, and Im sure you're doing that unwittingly far more than you know.

Nox

Nox wrote:

The fact that at this point in time I am unable to prove my statement via News Journal links (they do not keep open files), I guess I must say that I am a pitful liar and have attempted to deceive others with unverifiable allegations.

No you must say that you are posting opinion and not fact.
The charter/guidelines on this forum are clear , we do not allow posters to post opinion as fact.
We expect opinion to be stated as opinion and fact to be stated as fact.
As you are new here,I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.
But please read this and use it.
I'll quote you the relevant part and explain it to you.

When offering an opinion, please state so. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flamage.

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.

In other words you are but a source of information, an opinion amongst many opinions.
If one person posts an opinion based on what they perceive as a fact , it may not be accepted by others as a fact especially when the other poster or posters back up their own opinion with credible sources and the other doesn't.

Please take note of the other guidelines aswell.

Manic Moran

If you are so sure there are WMD, can you do me a favour. TELL BUSH. I am sure he would love to know where they are to vidicate his war. Especially after his own inspection teams he planted into Iraq said there weren't any.

I'm sure there were items of WMD note in Iraq, even after the invasion, but even if the US did announce "Hey! Look what we found!?" who the hell is going to believe them after a couple of years?

NTM

Nox

Earthman wrote:

No you must say that you are posting opinion and not fact.

Thank you for the information.

I will also thank you to make sure that the rest of the posters in this topic are aware of same.

The last time you singled me out, one of your fellows used that in a cheap attempt to make me look like the only guilty.

If you were to review the posts in this topic as I have, you will find that plenty of your 'long timers' are very guilty of that which you accuse me. Prime example ... the folks that claim the Italians are truthing and the CIA is lying.

Nox

Zombrex

Nox wrote:

And the intel services ... ever hear of a cover story?

Actually I think you will find that massive government conspiricies that involve hundreds of men in different government departments working for different government agencies, all working to keep secret a small bit of information that would actually strengthen the governments standing nationally and internations, are rather rare.

Nox wrote:

a) There would not be 24/7 coverage by Predators of that part of the Syrian Desert if there wasn't anything there.

Assuming there actually is 24/7 unmanned Predator coverage of a large chunk of the Syrian desert, that something that must be there just has to be WMD ... why exactly?

Nox wrote:

ALL of the high government officials do not deny the WMD's existence. They give a brush off answer and refuse to state no.

High government officals have been asked if WMDs exist hidden in the Syrian desert and they said "no comment"? ... when?

Nox wrote:

Look at the wording carefully. "officials" is hardly the OFFICIAL statement.

Its not an offical statement because the offical statement from the US government is yes he had WMDs, that why we went to war after all.

Nox wrote:

These are a bunch of unnamed folks. For your point to be true ... then Senator (fill in the name) on the Intelligence oversight committee said thus and so. This is called plausible deniability. And you notice the word 'unlikely'. Far from a definate. This is political double-speak at its finest.

For a start, they are not unnanmed

Secondly, you are assuming they are lying or incorrect ... may I ask why? It would serve the interests of the government much more if Sadam had WMD and moved them to a secret base in the desert.

In fact if that were true that would be all of Bush's christmasses and birthdays come at once.

Nox wrote:

False. Those are not my words.

So you don't think the Italians are lying and you do think the CIA probably carried this out ... ok then ...

Nox wrote:

Just as much as you have to say they are truthing. Your argument says the CIA did stuff in the past. Same can be said of the Italians.

The Italians have lied about giving US intelligence services permission to carry out opperations in Italy in the past? When?

Nox wrote:

Let me get this straight ... you are claiming that YOUR speculation constitutes a valid argument while mine does not? Hmmm ...

I am claiming that my speculation is backed up by a plausable argument based on the facts of the case, and that your speculation (which you seeming above are claiming you didn't actually make) has not even had an argument put forward to back it up in the first place, plausable or not.

Nox wrote:

And I have ... you just don't accept it.

I can't accept or reject any argument because you haven't made one yet. You have simply said that it is your opinion that the Italians might be lying, that it is possible. It is possible that all Italians are really Communists from Mars, but to consider that plausable possibility you would have to come with a good argument.

In fact as far as your comments above seem to say, it isn't even your opinion in the first place, you were just throwing the idea that the Italians might be lying out there for the hell of it, seemingly.

Nox wrote:

No. You folks are in lock-step about believing the Italian version. I am not.

And yet so far you have not put forward any argument as to why people should not to believe the Italian version, except that Italians (euros actually) don't like America.

Nox wrote:

And if you read closely, my point was ... maybe the Italians aren't truthing.

Again, based on what exactly.

I believe the Italians could by lying about this. My justification for this position is that I believe the Italians could be lying.

Can you see why people are having trouble with that position ...

Nox wrote:

It is the same logic you use.

That the Italian police and government have a long history of lying about US involvement in internal police matters? Really? I was not aware of that

Nox wrote:

For some reason you are under the assumption that because you believe it, I should too.

No I am under the assumption that if you are going to post a position stating that you believe the Italian government are lying you should really back that up with a better argument than I believe it because it is possible

I mean if I posted saying "I think it is pretty clear from the evidence that it is quite probably that George Bush rapes children" people on this board might expect me to back that up with something other than thats my opinon you should accept that it is a possibility

Zombrex

Nox wrote:

All of the back and forth centers around the point that the Euro's believe the Italians ... we do not.

No, all this back and forth centres on the point that when you were asked as to why do you not believe the Italians you could not/did not present an answer. And when people called you on this you went on a rant about "Euro's" being nasty or some such

In fact so far you have still not present your logic or argument as to why you do not believe the Italian claim that they did not know about the CIA operation, or why you believe the Italians would lying about this.

If you don't expect to have to back up your position with solid arguments don't post on a politics discussion board :rolleyes:

Nox

Wicknight wrote:

No, all this back and forth centres on the point that when you were asked as to why do you not believe the Italians you could not/did not present an answer. And when people called you on this fact you went on a rant about "Euro's" being nasty or some such

If you don't expect to have to back up your position with solid arguments don't post on a politics discussion board :rolleyes:

Enough of your tripe and lies.

By the way ... who died and made you God that you can tell me that I can't post.

Seems to me that this is an open invitation to a flame war. Hey Earthman ... where are you?

Nox

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

this is exactly what osama bin laden wants us to be doing

Zombrex

Nox wrote:

By the way ... who died and made you God that you can tell me that I can't post.

I am not saying you cannot post, far from it I wish you would post your reasoning and justifications

I am saying don't get up in arms because people don't just accept your position when you have given them no argument or justification for your position to start with.

lazydaisy

Mordeth wrote:

this is exactly what osama bin laden wants us to be doing

Thank you. I was thinking the same thing.

WK- There were plenty of arguments and back ups given but you chose to a)misread them b) misrepresent them c) refuse to acknowlege them.

Take some responsibility.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

WK- There were plenty of arguments and back ups given but you chose to a)misread them b) misrepresent them c) refuse to acknowlege them.

Where?

Please link to the posts where Nox backed up his points with an argument and I will gladly address his arguments. I must have just missed them. You can use the little number "#00" in the corner of each post to link to them

Nox

lazydaisy wrote:

Thank you. I was thinking the same thing.

WK- There were plenty of arguments and back ups given but you chose to a)misread them b) misrepresent them c) refuse to acknowlege them.

Take some responsibility.

Do yourself a favor and ignore this:

Wicknight wrote:

Where?

Please link to the posts where Nox backed up his points with an argument and I will gladly address his arguments. I must have just missed them. You can use the little number "#00" in the corner of each post to link to them

Nox

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Thank you. I was thinking the same thing.

So if you are thinking that is OBL expected reactions why then are you in agreement that kidnapping is ok?

Nox wrote:

Do yourself a favor and ignore this:

A recap is good especially after 12 pages.

Nox wrote:

Thank you for the information.

I will also thank you to make sure that the rest of the posters in this topic are aware of same.

I can assure you that Earthman and other mods here will happly jump on anyone breaking the charter.. which reminds me you asked me earlier about Bushes comment. I had a look for it again but could only find a wikipedia reference (see suicide bombers) which doesn't list a source. Without more sources consider it retracted.

GuanYin

Nox wrote:

Do yourself a favor and ignore this:

I believe laisydaisy had made an accusation that she needs to back up.

Why do you resist this, are you trying to get her banned?

Nox

Hobbes wrote:

I can assure you that Earthman and other mods here will happly jump on anyone breaking the charter.

Really?

How about an open invitation to a flame war? I guess that doesn't count since it was a Euro who did it.

Boy, am I ever "assured".

O well.

Nox

Nox

psi wrote:

Why do you resist this, are you trying to get her banned?

Good point ... a non-Euro would get banned.

I haven't seen you Euro's posting facts to support your opinions. In fact, even when you guy's post a flagrant lie ... no one cares. Examples ... TWO of you rocket scientists claimed the kidnap victim was an Italian Citizen. ONE of you claim that a witness said the victim was peppersprayed ... and another picked up on it. You guys can make all kinds of factual errors and then get all uppitty about an opinion.

O well ... it's just an example of Euro-logic .005 (and we'll see if the frat boy conglomerate can figure that one out).

Nox

GuanYin

Nox wrote:

False. This lying slime-bag ADMITTED to this in testimony before the US Senate in the 1970's.

No, in a 1971 address to congress he reported testimonys of some vets pertaining to war crimes.

He never himself admitted liability.

This was twisted by the media in reports coming up to the election suggesting that Kerry had labelled ALL vets war criminals. This is not the case.

If you have sources that say otherwise (and I don't mean the partisans letters, I mean actual state records to back up your accusation - you did after all say he admitted it to the senate, then please post them).

Not only that ... but the LIAR never spent the Christmas that he "so vividly remembers" in Cambodia.

Well his service record shows he was shot during the christmas ceasefire that year and the testimony of his crewmen conflict.

Just to save a few keystrokes ... get a geograpical map of Viet Nam and take a look at Cam Rahn Bay, the Mekong, and Cambodia. You don't even have to believe what's written in 'Unfit for Command' ... just let your own lying eyes make your determination.

Kerry's swift boat was running operations in the region and although the crew are unable to agree, its worth noting that John O'Neill, who had "debunked" the notion of Kerry making it past the checkpoints into cambodia was found to have admitted specifically to Nixon in an earlier recorded interview that he was in cambodia.

I say again ... WAR CRIMINAL ... and add ... 'SELF CONFESSED'.

Again, you are wrong that he is self confessed and the accounts regarding the man he shot (or rather the circumstances around it) only surfaced in the year of the election. Not before.

If you can provide any sources or evidence on record where Kerry was convicted of war crimes, please supply them (they will be on public record if they exist).

If not, then you have commited slander.

See above. There is ZERO subterfuge ... and what you call "mud-slinging" is called in reality ... FACT. A fact that apparently you choose to not accept.

I see nothing that suggests it is fact.

Now you have made an accusation, forum rules dictate that you back them up.

Provide links and evidence please. If your accusation is true, he admitted in front of congress that he (specifically) committed war crimes, please link the records or an accountof the records.

[sarcasm]Be advised ... using YOUR rule ... I expect YOU to source all of your statements ... lest YOU loose YOUR credibility.

Everything I have stated above is public record. I'll link a wiki article at the bottom of this post, that in turn references source material. Some partisan, some unbiased. The state records speak for themselves.

Incidently, I'm pretty sure that it would be deemed unreasonable in any scenario for someone who commits slander and refuses to back it up, pass the onus on to other to prove the slander wrong.

Again, please provide the state records to the "SENATE" hearing you mentioned.

The fact that at this point in time I am unable to prove my statement via News Journal links (they do not keep open files), I guess I must say that I am a pitful liar and have attempted to deceive others with unverifiable allegations.[/sarcasm]

But you said it was FACT ( you used capital letters to emphasise this) so if it is FACT, surely there are more than news journal references.

specifically, any charges or admission to the senate would be a matter of public record.

Please provide them.

I do not remember using the phrase "we americans" but I'll take your word for it.

Selective memory.

Let me refresh it for you. Post 178

Nox wrote:

And here is a huge difference of opinion. We Americans do indeed see ourselves as expanding democracy. You Euros see, as you describe, "an expanding dictating empire". That's why, every time we hear something about the great and wonderful EU ... some of us laugh. I even laugh about the claim that European is and ethnicity ... but that's just me.

Incidently, I notice that you can spell European fine, but seem to prefer referring to them with the insulting connotation of "Euro".

Any reason for this?

I have used the phrase Euro's on more than several occasions. I should probably be more specific in identifying geographic locations ... but since I am not in receipt of any information about contrary opinions coming from Europe (your press seems as monlithic as ours minus the WSJ) it is easy for me to lump you all together keeping in mind that there is no such thing as unanimity of opinion.

So you're using the "Nelly is a pink elephant, therefore all elephants are pink".

And on this basis anyone should take you seriously, why exactly?

And as far as 'nationally' ... my view from this side of the pond is that they (European governments - at least in public) are in lock-step when it comes to the US. Individually and behind the scenes may be a different story, but like you, I am not privy to that information.

Well then don't pretend to portray that you are.

True. Unlike you, I have already had it pointed out to me that I was not being civil by a mod.

That is because I have not been uncivil.

However, that did not prevent one of the other "civil" posters to shove that down my throat with the implication that only I was guilty. Now, you may be of the personality type to ignore that. I am not.

There is a report post function that deals with such matters. Two wrongs dont make a right.

Now in terms of credibilty of/for argument ... now YOU have to decide on whether you are going to judge a post by substance or by style. You have made the point already about linking ... and I understand that ... now if you are going to link style to substance, then how does that principle apply to legal contests? And since we battle semantics here ... the analogy is sound.

No argument you have made would last a second in a legal setting.

You bring forward unsubstatiated conjecture, hearsay and opinion and then pass the onus on to the opposition to supply the burden of evidence all the while attempting to debunk with opinion (which you portray as fact).

You commit slander and then ask others to disprove your slander.

Don't know of anywhere with a legal system that would tolerate such behaviour.

Now back to the question ... YES, I view my opinion of the 'Facts' as FACT. Just as you do of YOUR opinion. If you did not ... it would not be your opinion.

No, my opinion is my opinion, my reporting of the facts are the facts.

Your opinion is, whatever you want it to be, just your opinion and reporting it as fact will have me hitting the "report post" button to the mods, every time.

And whenever or wherever you can point out to me ANY unbiased source ... I PROMISE that I will always use that one.

Even if it is contrary to your fact, I mean opinons?

And from what I have gathered from reading your replies (about Kerry) ... YOUR sources are liberal/Democratic leaning. Therefore, you have the same guilt as I.

No, I'm liberal maybe, but not democrat. My sources are in both, but by and large I reject ANY partisan reporting. It disgusts me to be honest.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy

Nox

Nox wrote:

Enough of your tripe and lies.

By the way ... who died and made you God that you can tell me that I can't post.

Seems to me that this is an open invitation to a flame war. Hey Earthman ... where are you?

Nox

I'm not sure who died but your right to post here has for 2 weeks on account of that outburst.

Zombrex

Nox wrote:

I haven't seen you Euro's posting facts to support your opinions.

Arguments used to support the idea that the CIA did not having legal permission to carry out kidnapping in the country :-

- All but 2 of the suspected CIA agents were in Italy on false passports. This is unusual when they are seemingly part of an international police operation.

- On 1st June the US ambassador Mel Sembler was called to the Prime Ministers office to explain the event. Berlusconi is reported to have stated to the ambassador that the US must "fully respect Italian sovereignty"

- Berlusconi has repeatable said the US did not have permission to carry out the operation, but has stone walled efforts to actually fufill the warrents for the CIA agents. This has been put down to his pro-US administration stance in the "war on terror". He was quoted as saying the US government should not have to fight terrorism "with a law book in hand." Basically he is saying they didn't have permission but really we shouldn't get too worked up about this because it is for the greater good. This stance would not make any political sense if they had actually been given permission by an Italian judge.

- Many Italians believe Berlusconi knew the US were carrying out this operation (not the same as having legal permission) but cannot say he knew because that would implicate him as part of the conspiricy. This event has been a nightmare for Berlusconi as it is making him look either weak or a lap dog of America. If the CIA had legal permission to carry out this kidnapping do you not think Berlusconi would have come forward with that by now.

- The anti-terrorist branch of the Milian police has responded very bitterly to the kidnapping, saying they themselves were just weeks away from arresting Omar, and that that arrest could have lead to a seriously blow to the Al Queda network in Italy. So they obviously didn't know the CIA were moving, because even if the CIA had permission to operate, it is extremely doubtful they would have been given permission to move on Omar over the Milian police themselves.

- The CIA agents, despite being heavily criticised by CIA boss Porter Goss for their sloppy handling of the case, frequently changed hotels. This is a tactic used by CIA to avoid detection by local police, not to avoid groups like Al Queda. If the CIA had legal permission to carry out an operation in Milian, why were they hiding from the police, and why did the Milian police have no idea they were even there until 2004

- In 2004 when the investigation was re-opened after stalling in 2003, court documents said the Italian police were not even sure if Omar had been taken by the CIA. If the CIA had been given permission to carry out opperations in Milian surely that would have been clear from the start. It was only after Omar himself told his wife he was driven for 5 hours out of Milian (another sloppy job by the seemingly rookie CIA agents, leaving his watch on), that Police started to realise he had been driven to a NATO air base.

- An finally, the US cannot admit the CIA did not have legal permission to carry out the kidnapping because there would be no legal grounds to stop an extradition of the CIA agents back to Italy. You may notice (since you seem to put a lot of weight in plausable deniability) that the US government has never actually said "we had legal permission" .. it would be very easy to provide this, you just say what minister or judge approved the operation. Instead they have claimed a number of different statements, from not violating soveritey to not breaking Italian law.

lili

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm sure there were items of WMD note in Iraq, even after the invasion, but even if the US did announce "Hey! Look what we found!?" who the hell is going to believe them after a couple of years?

NTM

saddam failt to use WMD to defend his country apparently.
actually, the side which owned WMD, was the US side.