to it Greetings Dave, (as always - for editing/posting if you see fit) Victor Marks' email brought up interesting news about the European Parliament investigation into US/EU 'rendition' cooperation, especially in light of some of the other rather explosive testimony & findings heard last week. It turns out that at least one EU member state has FORMALLY (though not yet publicly) admitted to illegally turning suspects over to the CIA for rendition. The Council of Europe's rendition investigation, one of two currently running in parallel, has formally determined renditions did occur. The Council of Europe's Secretary General Terry Davis' statement Tuesday perhaps says it best: " I am now in position to say that we no longer need to speak about 'alleged' cases of rendition. ... we have received official acknowledgment..." from at least one member country. http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/Files/Events/2006-cia/ and http://www.localnewsleader.com/elytimes/stories/index.php? action=fullnews&id=174943 or (the major German paper) Deutsche Welle http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1969430,00.html Mr Marks' email discusses the parallel European Parliment (EP) investigation - the one more covered in the US media. The ongoing EP committee holding hearings on EU cooperation with CIA rendition flights has heard a LOT of testimony. On Thursday they heard from, among others, Gijs de Vries, the EC anti-terrorism coordinator. It should be noted that Mr. de Vries' position is 'non-operational,' - he does not interact with the secret services of individual states. A good US analogy would be a politically-appointed head of an advisory committee. His carefully worded testimony has been almost the only testimony to dispute US-EU cooperation in such a program. Specifically, he testified "It [cooperation] does not appear to be proven beyond reasonable doubt." This carefully chose wording refers to proof of a level high enough to win a criminal conviction. News articles covering his testimony are pointing out his unwillingness to deny cooperation, and his insisting instead that it 'can't be proven' to a standard sufficient for criminal conviction. The testimony preceding Mr. deVries may be much more enlightening. Ex-UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray testified that western secret services, including the US, UK and Germany, were using intelligence obtained under torture from renditioned detainees in Uzbekistan. Mr. Murray testified he had reviewed the classified and official US and UK policy papers deciding that, while the US and UK would not torture, intelligence gathered by 3rd party torturers, including Uzbekistan, would be used. "I say this with great pain but with absolute certainty," the ex-ambassador stated. Excellent summary and links at the (excellent for legal news) UPitt. Law news website JURIST: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/04/eu-terrorism-chief- denies-existence-of.php for more MSM coverage (here and in the EU): http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php? StoryID=20060421-090811-1005r or http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-154518-16&type=News or http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp? subchannel_id=52&story_id=29434&name=Germany+uses+torture+to+get +intelligence%3A+claim or http://euobserver.com/22/21401 Meanwhile, it turns out the UK government has also admitted _in writing_ to cooperating with US seizures and renditions, though not necessarily in the EU. The UK did an about face, admitted to passing false info to the US that led to a CIA seizure and rendition of 2 UK nationals in Gambia. It turns out that the UK now wants them back - one was apparently a MI5 informer. http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php? StoryID=20060328-123008-5276r and http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1757234,00.html I wholly agree with Mr. Marks on the last (and possibly most important) point: Final EU Parliament findings will (hopefully) be released in June. -Ethan Ackerman On 4/22/06, David Farber <dave@farber.net> wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: L Victor Marks <victor@victormarks.com> Date: April 21, 2006 10:19:24 PM EDT To: dave@farber.net Subject: Re: [IP] CIA fires leaker; shades of confidentiality/privacy

...

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/04/21/ eu_official_no_evidence_of_illegal_cia_action/

The EU has found no evidence of illegal CIA action.

Secret renditions? None found. Violations of human rights? None found. Final findings will be released in June.

So, if the final findings confirm what the EU antiterrorism coordinator has said publicly, what we have is a leaker who leaked a falsehood that caused embarrassment, made a serious allegation, and wasn't even factual.

I imagine if I embarrassed my employer with a false accusation that I too would be fired. But state and federal employees get a different standard, whistleblower protection. From what little I know of whistleblower protection, I understand that the whistleblower has to report the alleged illegal act to the proper authority, not the press.

------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen@leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]