Share This Page

Guilty verdicts for 3 CIA agents upheld in Italy

| Tuesday, March 11, 2014, 5:42 p.m.

MILAN — Italy's highest court upheld guilty verdicts on Tuesday against the final three U.S. defendants in the 2003 extraordinary rendition kidnapping of an Egyptian terror suspect.

The decision, after a series of trials spanning six and a half years, brought to a close the only prosecution to date against the Bush administration's practice of abducting terror suspects and moving them to third countries that permitted torture.

The court upheld guilty verdicts and confirmed the seven-year sentence against the CIA's former Rome station chief Jeff Castelli and six-year sentences against two others identified as CIA agents. All three had been acquitted in the original trial becaue of diplomatic immunity.

The three are among 26 Americans, mostly CIA agents, who have been found guilty in absentia of kidnapping Milan cleric Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, known as Abu Omar, in broad daylight from a Milan street on Feb. 17, 2003. They received sentences of six to nine years.

Though lower courts found the CIA had worked alongside Italian secret services, the high court last month acquitted Italy's former head of military intelligence and the former head of counter-intelligence, as well as three Italian agents, after the Constitutional Court ruled key testimony was classified as state secret.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.