Iceland Kicked Out FBI Agents Who Flew in Unannounced to Investigate WikiLeaks
clevelandleader.com
clevelandleader.com
Edit: There's been numerous news reports all over the world about FBI/CIA agents doing police-work without reporting to local authorities in countries which are not the US, where they have no rights and no jurisdiction, as if it was their own turf.
CIA operatives have been charged in numerous European countries for kidnapping and abducting people not guilty on anything by local laws. Because the US wanted them silenced, because of "terror" or whatever.
I'm going to pressume this is what happened here as well.
I can assure you that if anyone had done the same in the US, they wouldn't merely be kicked out, they would be jailed for being in violation of the law.
... and allegedly doing worst things, sadly.
A lot of people are very upset with the idea of having black sites without any respect for the law in your own country.
As a European, I'll bet you whatever you want they were doing this with the full knowledge of the government and intelligence departments of the aforementionned countries.
Just because you are the secret service, it doesn't mean you can ignore the law.
Google Murat Kurnaz. There was a whole network of CIA prisons with torture in Europe.
Secret services are hardly all about "abducting people and torturing them", that's actually an aberration of their role. Most of what they do is signal-intelligence of various sorts, and the most silently they can do it, the better. "Abducting and torturing" are all but silent activities; you are basically shouting at your enemy to go fuck himself, the intelligence equivalent of yokels shooting in the air. Abducting and torturing is what a secret police does, the sort of stuff you see in clueless dictatorial countries. Albeit it might be considered effective in the short term, it makes you powerless in the long run, when you've abducted/tortured/killed all the enemies you knew but you don't know anything about the new enemies.
Of course, the fact that it's perfectly unethical entails a heavy cost in terms of image, especially for modern democracies.
Not so. It is remarkably easy to assess, and everyone who cares to know already knows the answer.
After you break under torture, the victim will tell the torturer anything they think the torturer wants to hear, and has very little sense of what is or is not true. "Beating" torture is simple - pretend break early and tell interesting lies. When you really break you'll no longer know truth from fiction - nor can a questioner who has no idea which leads are true and false. Once you've hit that point then absolutely no method of getting information can work.
We have much, much more reliable interrogation techniques. Ones that we can use without giving propaganda benefits to our enemies. Admittedly no other technique gives the same visceral satisfaction of making someone pay. But once you've gone the torture route, you can't undo that choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Chapman_attack
etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
Please read carefully, this is gold mine for all interested in work of US/UK puppet masters. Also it has nothing to do with communism and other ideologies, it has to do with destabilize EU over decades and even now.
Can you assure us that based on an actual law with a citation, or an actual case reported in the news with a link to the news report? The most usual disposition, all over the world, for an overt government operative of a foreign government operating on your territory in a way your country doesn't like is for the operative to be expelled as persona non grata. That's all. Most foreign intelligence operatives in most countries operate in a half-overt way, with "diplomatic cover," and many others operate under liaison agreements built into international treaties. It's fine for each country to decide which foreign nationals get to stay on their territory (I had to deal with that during the years when I lived as an American overseas), but it's exceedingly uncommon for people to be put into jail simply for activities inconsistent with their visa status of that nature.
As in, you had to get an employment/education/whatever visa? I'm snickering at this: I've found that we Americans have a really easy time getting whatever visas we want whenever we want. Some nations will issue a month (or longer) visa just from the airline informing them, "we have an American on board this flight". Some will issue a visa at the immigration gate. For a many-year work visa you'll typically have to go through an embassy or consulate, but as long as you don't get stuck in the same line as the Indians (this is not a statement about Indians, but about how I've seen them treated in embassies!) you're not going to have much trouble.
...it's exceedingly uncommon for people to be put into jail simply for activities inconsistent with their visa status...
Which visa is it that allows a foreign national to harass, detain, and kidnap citizens without the due process of law? Does 007 have that visa? I could actually understand it if there were a more involved process for obtaining that one.
Can you please tell us the name of one nation out of those? In my understanding, the Visa rules followed by country X in issuing Visa to US citizens is similar to the rules followed by US while issuing Visa to citizens of country X.
E.g., if US issues 10 year visitor visas to Indians, then India also issues 10 year visitor via to Americans. I haven't done extensive research on this so this may not hold in some instances.
I think in general the reciprocity policy you mention is a good rule of thumb, although I'm sure there are exceptions.
That's not "police work"! That's criminal activity. But I can tell I'm preaching to the choir.
Hilariously bad mapping for a geography web site. The weird blob west of Portugal is supposed to be a marking where north is.
if i were a market analyst who flew to iceland (private plane or not - what has that got to do with it?) to study local opinions on some new product, say, would that get a similar reaction? would it be ok as long as i didn't ask to speak to govt officials?
is there some kind of international convention / agreement that says that policemen don't work abroad? is it that the request for cooperation was at too low a level? [edit: ok, i added this just as it was suggested in a reply; thanks]
i'm having a hard time understanding what the problem was here from the article, which seems to assume that something was obviously wrong.
[oh noes - someone asking questions! better downvote! sigh...]
This, incidentally, is one of the outrageous elements in the raid of Kim Dotcom's house: US authorities pretty much disregarded all local New Zealand laws on the matter (and somebody in NZ let it happen, they were only slammed in court during subsequent appeals).
So you have a pattern: federal US authorities investigating copyright "crimes" will blatantly ignore traditional jurisdiction rules. The Hollywood Empire does not recognise any equal power, so to speak.
If you're only staying for a short period and your own nation is on friendly terms with the place you're visiting, you can often expect to get a (limited) visa automatically. If you try and sneak in without one, that's called "illegal immigration".
[ooh more downvotes for posting facts. because that's what hn is all about.]
Iceland does not have a visa, automatic or otherwise, for Americans on a short visit. Quoting from the Icelandic Útlendingastofnun at http://utl.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&... : "Who does not need a visa to enter Iceland?" ... "Nationals of the following countries are exempted from the obligation to carry a visa on arrival in Iceland for a stay of up to three months in all within the Schengen area." ... "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."
So no, US citizens visiting Iceland do not need a visa to enter Iceland.
"Business travel" precludes several things, including work.
(of course, several duties in a business travel can be considered work, but they're usually spelled out). Basically you can't be compensated by your activities directly by someone in the receiving country.
But I'm sure doing an investigating in another country under government orders does not count as business.
Source: http://www.utl.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti...
As to your point, I have no idea about the legalities, but it seems to me that if law enforcement officials are going to operate in a foreign country they might want to go through official channels before turning up.
Regarding the private plane, I would imagine that the article mentions it because it (accurately or otherwise) enables me to better visualise a group of brash Americans turning up via the most expensive mode of transport and expecting the little Icelanders to be so awed by the powerful FBI that they won't ask for little things like, you know, governmental authorisation.
I really want to like America. There are so many things to love about it, especially on paper. And then I read about stuff like this and wonder if it really is that much of a mystery why much of the world has such distaste for the country and the people.
Not that I'm claiming the UK is any better, mind. And our teeth are much worse.
The Reykjavík airport is a domestic airport. International flights are done at Keflavík.
They probably landed, and didn't go through customs or anything.
This could have turned into a major diplomatic incident, it is not something you do no matter how upset you are about people leaking your stuff over the internet. Basic common courtesy - you ask first.
In this particular case, it is bad manners for a state to send its agents to another sovereign state in any capacity without getting some sort of a permission from the latter.
Do you really think that a top government official would have been notified of a market analyst arriving in the country?
It sounds like the consensus of the responders here is that it is the fact that they are an arm of the US gov't. So, for example, if the FDA sent somebody to inquire about food processing, say regarding Mad Cow disease, we could also expect that the Icelandic government would be pissed if they weren't in the loop.
Just being there at a time that a member of Iceland's parliament is afraid to step outside Icelandic borders because she might be arrested by the United States seems like a pretty good reason...
You will have to forgive me as a uk taxpayer who is having to cover icleands debts - I personally don't give a fuck that the wheels came of there ponzie scheme.
You don't send law enforcement into someone else's territory without being invited. It's an issue of sovereignty really.
Security there is also almost non-existent, but customs authorities are notified and dispatched when international flights are expected.
If the agents would have used a regular scheduled flight there would probably have been much more security and scrutiny regarding their arrival.
I think you have got it backwards. There is no agreement saying that they can.
Staying in a foreign country is a privilege not a right. You are only permitted to do whatever your visa says you can do. In case of visa-waiver agreements, you can only do what the agreement states you can do, on top of that the government can pretty much kick you out at its own discretion citing vague reasons like national security.
Does the US allow foreign agents to arrive quietly unannounced by private plane to disappear in to the US for unknown reasons? I do hope not.
This really is the sort of thing that destroys good will to the US, and feeds the international bully,arrogance and hypocrisy monster. If any one dared to try to pull this on US soil, all hell would break loose. Why then does the US think its allowed to do it? Why even try?
Although, as I type this, in the back of my mind is how the US authorities bully their own citizens in to suicide. So.... <shrug>
> Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you.
A: Jurisdiction
[edit: argument removed; Nursie is correct, in that it only allows indirect access. sorry.]
Also please read the options for contact with a witness -
- Travel to the United Kingdom to make a statement
- Statement at a British embassy
- Statement by telephone or email
--edit-- thanks for the link, that was informative reading
--edit2-- All that said, even Brit cops do go to other countries for their investigations from time to time, just this week I heard about some going to Libya for continuing investigation into the Lockerbie bombing - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-2128117... Presumably this is with the full knowledge and cooperation of the (new) Libyan government though. I wonder what use it can possibly be after so long.
Source: relatives and friends who have had to work with them.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/08/fbi_indymedia_raids/
P.s I've no idea if the story is factually correct. I'm just using it as an example. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/12/bush-convicte...
I'm not sure why gathering information would be a serious problem if they followed the laws.
The UK used to have something similar; British law specifically said that no power on Earth could be superior to (English/British) Parliament in any case. Albeit originally meant to nullify papal (and aristocratic...) claims, so to speak, that provision came to define the UK approach to foreign policy for centuries. Nowadays there are umpteen exceptions for EU, UN and whatnot, the British Empire is gone and with it the hubris, but coming from a much "weaker" country, I feel that approach can be quite beneficial in many ways.
British imperialism didn't work well for anyone. I certainly hope America abandons its imperial pretensions. As an American, it doesn't make me proud.
1. Guy with a court date for menacing with a weapon is allowed to keep the weapon, shoots up a bus and abducts a kid: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/01/us/alabama-child-hostage/index...
2. No Executive anywhere on the planet has yet to do prison time for any action, decision or behavior relating to the largest manufactured Financial Crisis since 1929. Because when prosicuting the best and brightest who use the law to subvert justice, it's like trying to nail a vapor to the wall: http://www.propublica.org/article/why-no-financial-crisis-pr...
But on the plus side, there hasn't been many terrorist attacks as have been in the middle east, so they're doing an upstanding job there. Who checks the power of a dysfunctional FBI and smacks them around when they step out of line? What's the process even if it's only possible in theory? I know the FBI has to be irreproachable enough to resist the collective action of Mafias and cults/sects, which would make it a tough system to get rid of, even if it devolves into the Ministry of life/Ministry of truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth)
Wrong! Iceland imprisoned multiple executives, among others.
http://www.icenews.is/2011/04/07/first-iceland-bank-crash-pr...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-07/iceland-court-sente...
It doesn't really teach responsibility.
Yes, people should have been more wary of taking out foreign currency-denominated loans. These banks were the reason they could never pay the loans off, though.
http://www.economist.com/node/12382011?story_id=12382011
So while there were many factors involved in why these banks failed, the citizens of Iceland played a key role.
Even if you hold these citizens fully accountable, at least in Iceland the people who so irresponsibly led themselves to financial ruin were bailed out, rather than the banks who so irresponsibly led themselves to financial ruin.
"The analysis suggests that the share of indebted households in distress grew from 12½ per cent in early 2007 to 23½ per cent on the eve of the banking collapse in the autumn of 2008, when the lion’s share of the balance sheet shocks had already taken place. The extent of acute distress nearly quadrupled over the same period. Forbearance efforts provided temporary breathing space, but the share in distress is estimated to have peaked at 27½ per cent in autumn 2009, before declining to 20 per cent at yearend 2010 due to policy and legal interventions. Financial distress is found to be inversely related to income and age, as well as being higher among families with children and those with foreigndenominated debt than among childless couples and those with ISK-denominated loans only. Parents of every fifth child in Iceland were in distress at year-end 2010. The incidence of negative housing equity increased dramatically, from roughly 6 to 37 per cent of indebted homeowners, over the four-year period. Negative housing equity is more widespread among high-income than low-income households. The share of homeowners simultaneously in distress and negative equity rose from roughly 1 to 14 per cent but declined to 10 per cent by the end of the period. Middleincome families with children, most of which had foreign-denominated loans, and low-income singles seem especially vulnerable. Some of the seeds of households’ financial difficulties were sown by imprudent lending in 2007 and 2008, when 16 per cent of the total amount of new loans was granted to households already in distress. Up to 34 per cent of households in distress at yearend 2010 were granted loans in 2007-2008, when they were already financially distressed." http://www.cb.is/library/Skr%C3%A1arsafn---EN/Working-Papers...
It doesn't really teach responsibility.
Bailing out the banks by putting whole populations into long term debt "doesn't really teach responsibility".
"Iceland told the banks to f* off, why can't USA do the same" is a nice story. The truth is usually more complicated.
When everyone went underwater, they lowered the water level instead of putting people on stilts.
There are lots and lots of people in the US, for example, who should be prosecuted for their financial crimes, but are not, and will not be because that's how the world works these days.
Most of the cases the FBI has prosecuted for terrorism in the US have been entrapment cases where they supplied most all the material and know how to carry out a "bombing".
That word does not mean what you think it means. Entrapment only applies if someone is coerced to commit a crime they otherwise would not have.
In the case of the FBI's terrorism stings, the suspect was looking for allies to carry out an attack, and unknowingly contacted an undercover officer. The FBI might have supplied the "materials" and the "knowledge", but the action is all on the suspect. The FBI doesn't even swoop in for the arrest until the suspect actually tries to detonate the fake bomb.
Even in the instance of a much weaker case, where a hypothetical "radical" says "Hmm, it would be neat to blow up $building" and a hypothetical undercover officer says "Really? Well I know a guy.."
I'm finding it hard to call foul. Any sane person should recoil at the thought of indiscriminate killing and damage.
It's a story of a sting/long con op gone really bad. Have a listen and see that it is nothing like the hypothetical that you posted.
Edit: If anyone is interested, more similar stories can be found in democracynow.org and bestoftheleft.com podcast archives.
He obviously didn't commit an act of terrorism. I don't even think you can claim he /attempted/ to commit such an act since the FBI gave him a fake. So we're left with what, the desire to commit an act of terror?
If you get behind the wheel of a car drunk but get home safely, what crime did you commit?
You needn't actually cause damage to break the law.
>I don't even think you can claim he /attempted/ to commit such an act since the FBI gave him a fake.
Whether the bomb or not was real doesn't change the fact that he has the mens rea to blow up a building, and considering he thought the bomb was real and took positive steps to set it up, the reus actus as well.
A more accurate analogy would be that the FBI has been supplying you with lots of drink though a 3rd party informant that they pay, in cash or reduced sentencing time or both. That informant is always talking about drinking and telling you how you should drink, and then they supply you with all the liquor you could handle. Then the informant mentions you really ought to head home, why not drive? The minute you get into the car and start to drive, the authorities show up and arrest you, as they have been watching you covertly for several months while the informant does his work. Oh, and they likely selected you based on your skin color and/or religious affiliation.
> Whether the bomb or not was real doesn't change the fact that he has the mens rea to blow up a building, and considering he thought the bomb was real and took positive steps to set it up, the reus actus as well.
While this is true, some of the cases to date the FBI has prosecuted are really likely to have never occurred if informants weren't being paid to intentionally push someone towards an illegal act. Even if someone were to go through with it even without a paid informant involved, it is incredibly unethical for a policing organization to pay people to mislead people into breaking the law.
Without laboring the analogy too far (which was only a throwaway intended to show that you don't need to cause harm to commit crime), what would any reasonable person do in this situation, if we replace "drinking" with "blowing shit up"?
The reasonable response here is "Get away from me, you psycho moron."
If you collude with that? Willingly? To the point of setting up a "bomb" and blowing it up?
The informant didn't shove the detonator in the suspect's hands and press the button. The informant didn't set up the bomb.
>Oh, and they likely selected you based on your skin color and/or religious affiliation.
Huge citeplz here.
>While this is true, some of the cases to date the FBI has prosecuted are really likely to have never occurred if informants weren't being paid to intentionally push someone towards an illegal act.
Yours and my definition of "intentionally push" must be worlds apart. But then again, if your mindset is such that you can be convinced verbally to blow up a building that you and the person "pushing" you agree is full of innocent people that would "die".. well, let's say I don't have a lot of sympathy for that person.
Perhaps they should be involuntarily committed to a mental health institution instead of imprisoned, but this person is a danger to themselves and others.
>it is incredibly unethical for a policing organization to pay people to mislead people into breaking the law.
There's no misleading here. The people convicted so far were not "misled".
> FBI Agents are busy flying to Iceland working on Hollywood's vision for the future of who owns the internet, data, and computers
Wikileaks has very little to do with Hollywood. Whether you sympathize with Wikileaks or not, hopefully it makes sense that since they have publicly released federal secrets, the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be charged with investigating them, right?
I make no comment on whether the handling of the investigation has been appropriate.
As for the rest of the post, I think you're trying to make the point that our "national effort" (of which there is seemingly be a finite pool) is being expended on an overseas investigations, so we couldn't fix weapons legislation or prosecute white-collar criminals.
I disagree. There's nothing to suggest that either of those problems would be fixed if those FBI agents were doing anything else. Frankly, neither of those problems exist for lack of effort.
> I know the FBI has to be irreproachable enough to resist the collective action of Mafias and cults/sects, which would make it a tough system to get rid of, even if it devolves into the Ministry of life/Ministry of truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth)
Could you explain, specifically, how the FBI is becoming substantially similar to the Ministry of Truth? It would help if you could explain who, by name, and what initiatives are responsible for this.
People hear CIA and thoughts of horrible conspiracy theories overwhelm. But it is in abstract principle the more appropriate organization to have gotten involved.
And by the way: Are the "take the guns away" arguments really that popular now? It almost seems to take forms of the "but think of the children" meme, where people try to connect on thing to a completely unrelated subject in order to support the alleged moral superiority of their argument.
You're acting as if the FBI devoted all of their efforts towards this.