General Discussion

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)

55. There was never a request made, it was requested by the prosecutors and refused by the Minister.

Sat Feb 1, 2014, 10:22 PM

Feb 2014

The Italian government originally denied having played any role in the abduction. However Italian prosecutors Armando Spataro and Ferdinand Enrico Pomarici indicted 26 CIA agents, including the Rome station chief and head of CIA in Italy until 2003, Jeffrey W. Castelli, and Milan station chief Robert Seldon Lady, as well as SISMI head General Nicolò Pollari, his second Marco Mancini and station chiefs Raffaele Ditroia, Luciano Di Gregori and Giuseppe Ciorra.[4] Referring to the Italian military intelligence agency, the Italian press has talked of a "CIA-SISMI concerted operation." The prosecutors sent extradition requests for the indicted American citizens to the Italian Ministry of Justice, then headed by Roberto Castelli, for onward transmission to Washington. However Castelli refused to forward the demand for extradition.

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

EVERY Extradition Treaty Means The Same Thing: We Trust Your System, and You Trust Ours. [View all] Fred Sanders Feb 2014 OP

Why does this mean so much to you? Cooley Hurd Feb 2014 #1

Knox knox. Who's there? Amanda. Amanda who? Electric Monk Feb 2014 #4

Perhaps this will help. DURHAM D Feb 2014 #9

Being so concerned about my edits seems to confound your ability to look at the evidence. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #14

I am not "concerned" Fred. I think you are funny. DURHAM D Feb 2014 #15

I'm going to echo cali's response to you... Cooley Hurd Feb 2014 #22

He joined DU last month and this is his third anti-Amanda OP in three or four days. pnwmom Feb 2014 #47

You seem very attached to this case. Is there some sort of MineralMan Feb 2014 #2

It's pretty funny that he thinks he'll appeal to us by citing RAYGUN. pnwmom Feb 2014 #51

Because I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of media. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #3

So where do you stand on Clapper lying to Congress? n/t Fumesucker Feb 2014 #6

And the law will take its due course, as usual. MineralMan Feb 2014 #8

Too bad the rule of law wasn't followed in this case huh? sked14 Feb 2014 #16

+1. n/r pnwmom Feb 2014 #52

That's hilarious considering she was convicted in the Euro press Bonx Feb 2014 #17

And yet this "conviction" was all about the Euro media. Adrahil Feb 2014 #35

Italy hasn't been following its own law, so there goes that argument. pnwmom Feb 2014 #48

Umm. Reagan? Trust? Rule of law? Those don't go together at all. suffragette Feb 2014 #89

If you're going to quote a president, you should spell his name correctly. smokey nj Feb 2014 #5

Oh, I guess I'll have to jump in Cha Feb 2014 #39

No, it's RonnieRaygunRotInHell. Just thought I'd clear that one up. freshwest Feb 2014 #71

thanks! Cha Feb 2014 #72

do you have something against attractive women that are sexually active? Whisp Feb 2014 #7

No more than against attractive men that are sexually active. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #10

something really bothersome about your obsession Whisp Feb 2014 #11

Are they "sex fiends", too? Ikonoklast Feb 2014 #105

Sorry, I don't want to see Amanda Knox sacrificed on the altar of legalism. Comrade Grumpy Feb 2014 #12

Exactly cpwm17 Feb 2014 #18

They don't have to "fight it tooth and nail". They can simply disregard the treaty. Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #20

You'll find that no extradition treaty says 'you ask, we deliver' and that cases of trials without Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #26

There's nothing in the treaty about being "convinced it's a just conviction". Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #28

Being objective about the application of extradition law seems to beyond too many, now they mock... Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #29

Article 10 requires Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #34

That provision applies only to "a person who has not yet been convicted". Read it. (nt) Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #41

Nope, they don't have to disregard anything. Adrahil Feb 2014 #36

You've never heard of someone being retried in the USA, following an overturned conviction, Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #42

Please post a cite. Adrahil Feb 2014 #43

OK, that took seconds. "Man who murdered girlfriend found guilty again after retrial". Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #44

There's a key difference. Adrahil Feb 2014 #45

You said "in the USA, you cannot be retried for the same crime". Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #46

Well, I'll accept that criticism, but.... Adrahil Feb 2014 #49

No, it's been disregarded before in particular cases. It will be followed when it makes sense. pnwmom Feb 2014 #50

Which is EXACTLY why, when Italy requested the extradition lapfog_1 Feb 2014 #13

Under the NATO charter, he was courtmartialed in the US (nt) Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #19

but was not extradited to Italy lapfog_1 Feb 2014 #21

The courts ruled that the NATO charter overrode the extradition treaty. Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #23

but you agree that there is precedent to ignore the extradition request. lapfog_1 Feb 2014 #24

If there is another treaty that happens to apply in this case, Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #27

She was denied a multitude of Constitutional protections. Adrahil Feb 2014 #37

There was never a request made, it was requested by the prosecutors and refused by the Minister. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #55

different case... please reread my post - n/t lapfog_1 Feb 2014 #66

Italian prosecutors wanted the four Marines to stand trial in Italy but an Italian court recognized Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #68

Fred I feel for ya, I really do, but you gotta let it go tkmorris Feb 2014 #25

At least three anti-Amanda OP's in the last few days. He's on a roll. pnwmom Feb 2014 #53

This has now moved into the realm of pathology. 11 Bravo Feb 2014 #30

... freshwest Feb 2014 #75

She would have NEVER EVER been found guilty under our justice system tandot Feb 2014 #31

Ob·ses·sion [uhb-sesh-uhn] WillowTree Feb 2014 #32

I refer you and your obsession to this. hobbit709 Feb 2014 #33

why is this so important to warrant 2 separate threads about it? La Lioness Priyanka Feb 2014 #38

Actually Fred has started three OPs on this subject. DURHAM D Feb 2014 #40

His third in a few days, actually. The first was locked. n/t pnwmom Feb 2014 #54

OMG! ARE WE DOING THIS AGAIN!?!? bravenak Feb 2014 #56

Well. Many have, the ones not drinking from the American media fountain of misinformation. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #59

Dude, you used Reagan to make your point. bravenak Feb 2014 #60

He signed the extradition treaty after confirmation from Congress, so what, I should change history? Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #61

I'm not clever? bravenak Feb 2014 #63

Three threads is obsessive? You need to find another dictionary. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #65

Yes. Three threads in two days on the same subject by a poster is Obsessive. bravenak Feb 2014 #67

Your definition seems to demand you look in the mirror.....about my three OP's. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #69

That doesn't make sense. bravenak Feb 2014 #70

!!! freshwest Feb 2014 #78

YES! Especially when it's the SAME thing Blue_Roses Feb 2014 #74

Yes. You are being scary obsessed with this story. I haven't been logged in often ScreamingMeemie Feb 2014 #82

To put all of the theories to rest I did not get turned down by Amanada, I did not kick the dog, Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #90

Scary obsessed it is then. ScreamingMeemie Feb 2014 #92

Oh, no! You did not say that to her! And I was going to defend your rights. n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #77

Yeah, sure you were. How offended are you by the hateful comments about me? Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #91

I didn't agree with any of them. But now that you have decided to sneer at me, too, it freshwest Feb 2014 #94

Sir, I apologize if I offended you. Not my style. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #95

Thank you and keep on keeping on. We're cool. n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #103

It's nice to have something reliable, isn't it? I hope to see many more of these. n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #76

They are fun. bravenak Feb 2014 #81

Until he dissed you, but you handled it very well. n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #83

Poor guy. bravenak Feb 2014 #84

Muahaha! Hey, are you in the Pacific Time Zone? Or something else? n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #85

Alaska Standard Time. bravenak Feb 2014 #86

I knew there was a difference, didn't know how much. When I lived in CTZ I used to get calls in the freshwest Feb 2014 #87

That's funny. bravenak Feb 2014 #88

In the future, can you please put the word "Knox" in all your thread titles? Contrary1 Feb 2014 #57

LOL ohheckyeah Feb 2014 #58

No kidding. jsr Feb 2014 #62

Obsessions ohheckyeah Feb 2014 #64

Reagan the Trustworthy? Whisp Feb 2014 #73

Gee a treaty from 30 years ago bluestateguy Feb 2014 #79

Now, now, we don't wanna be a rogue nation! (Oops...) n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #80

Article X, Section 5 rug Feb 2014 #93

This message was self-deleted by its author Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #96

No. It simply means being convicted in absentia/noncompliance is exactly the same as if you were Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #97

For purposes of a conviction, yes. For purposes of extradition, no. rug Feb 2014 #98

No need to mock. The treaty is clear, the paperwork procedure is a formaility. How do you get Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #99

Well, you can seek extradition to prosecute if you have a warrant, rug Feb 2014 #101

Agreed, but the process of the additional information is nothing more than affirmation from the Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #102

It's more than that. rug Feb 2014 #106

Agreed, the final step is approval by the State Department, then the politics begin, but I thought Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #107

oy spanone Feb 2014 #100

The State Department and John Kerry have is sign off Gothmog Feb 2014 #104