Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

The Italian Job

Michael Young | 6.26.2005 1:51 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

How many agents does it take to capture an Egyptian cleric living in Italy? 19. How much does it cost? Around $42,000, in one Milan hotel alone, followed by soujourns in Italian cities, or the Alps, once the job is done. Now we know why morale in the CIA has hit rock bottom.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Ink-Stained Retches

Michael Young is a contributing editor at Reason.

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (21)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. rey   20 years ago

    But who will be fired?

  2. kwais   20 years ago

    That is very embarassing. But I don't know if you can say from that story that you know why morale has hitten rock bottom. I mean, it appears that the agents were having a grand old time at taxpayers expense.

  3. Jim Henley   20 years ago

    It's like goldy and bronzey, only made of iron.

  4. tros   20 years ago

    I mean, it appears that the agents were having a grand old time at taxpayers expense.

    Except it's in the Washington Post now, so they are obligated to feel guilty about it. Also, I this gives us a working definition for "Key Ally In The War On Terror".

  5. Dave   20 years ago

    feel guilty about this incident, maybe...
    do it again, certainly...

  6. sim   20 years ago

    I had eight cops on me the last time I was pulled over for running a red light, plus the aid of a dispatcher. That they would need 19 agents to yank this guy off the street in Italian with some sort of stealth and ship him off to the ME isn't very shocking at all. And the pricetag of $42,000 doesn't even seem that high for govt work. How much should something like that cost? Anybody have a more reasonable estimate? Care to explain how you came up with it?

    Sure, whole deal may have been of questionable legality, but this would only mean it would likely take more manpower and money to do. When the govt makes something illegal, like foreign agents kidnapping and extradicting a religious leader, it tends to artificially run up the cost. Jesus, I thought this was a libertarian board, that's basic 101 right there.

    Dicker about the legality if you like, but crying about the price in money and manpower seems like you're missing the point.

  7. Dave   20 years ago

    $42,000 doesn't even seem that high for govt work.

    Reread the post again that was the bill for one hotel. The point here is that when you are spending money that is not yours on things for yourself what is gained by being frugal?

  8. Adam   20 years ago

    It was $42,000 for seven people...I'd like to know more about why the identities they assumed necessitated a lavish lifestyle, but how can anyone flat-out reject the possibility with the information provided in the article? The details are sketchy at best.

  9. DnB   20 years ago

    $42,000? That's a lot of donuts, even in Italy. Oh, for seven agents. That explains it.

  10. tros   20 years ago

    The point here is that when you are spending money that is not yours on things for yourself what is gained by being frugal?

    Yeah! That's the sort of thing that turns upper middle class "liberal" children into "hippies" when their parents pay them for good grades. In college they find themselves unable to get a job, and everyone thinks their killing their brain with all those "drugs".

  11. narciso   20 years ago

    More interesting is which reporter will be put before Pat Fitgerald''s grand jury. After all
    how many '51 year Honduran born station chief's under political or consular cover, have served
    in Rome. They didn't name him, but they did every
    thing but; they burned yet another source; will
    Cannistraro and Johnson, McGovern et al; cry foul;
    how about Krugman, Kristoff and co. These folks
    are starting to make Linda Foley's and Sra. Guilena suggestion, seem probable

  12. Jim Henley   20 years ago

    They didn't name him, but they did every
    thing but; they burned yet another source; will
    Cannistraro and Johnson, McGovern et al; cry foul;
    how about Krugman, Kristoff and co.

    Corriere Della Serra already named the CIA station chief and the other dozen indictees. The American papers are complying with the letter of the Agee Law, but to no purpose: that cat is now a formerly bagged cat.

  13. Ken Shultz   20 years ago

    "Opposition politicians in Rome have asked the parliamentary intelligence oversight committee to question Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu and Defense Minister Antonio Martino about whether they were aware of and had approved the operation, known in CIA parlance as an "extraordinary rendition."

    I'm curious as to what extent, if any, Berlusconi was complicit in this.

  14. wlpeak   20 years ago

    What a crock.
    The entire story is sourced from the Italian Court and everyone just assumes it must be true.
    They must be CIA because....well....The Italians said so!

    And Oriana Fallaci must be a racist! 'cause, well, she said mean things about Islam.

    I hate to break it to you all but this evidence is not. Oh, and FYI, just because it might seem to be advantagous to the US to capture this thug, doesn't mean the US did the grab. We have plenty of allies out there. And even if the US did it, the CIA isn't the only organization that does this sort of thing.

    Anyway it begs the question, the CIA they can find but terrorists...

  15. Mr. Nice Guy   20 years ago

    I don't know why this is an issue. Bentlys retrofitted with secret technology don't come cheap, you know, and Q is always pissed off that they aren't returned in one piece, if at all.

  16. R C Dean   20 years ago

    I thought "extraordinary rendition" was when we use clandestine means to dump terrorists on other countries, not when we use clandestine means to grab terrorists from other countries.

  17. zach   20 years ago

    i tend to believe that the italians are full of shit by default.

    anyway kwais, i think he was being sarcastic about the morale thing...

  18. zach   20 years ago

    also, as jealous as i am about the use of my tax dollars, i would rather they be spent on something like this than given to terrorists as ransom.

  19. gaius marius   20 years ago

    I thought "extraordinary rendition" was when we use clandestine means to dump terrorists on other countries, not when we use clandestine means to grab terrorists from other countries.

    usually, mr dean, the grabbing is part 1, the dumping part 2.

    mr wlpeak, the cia makes no bones about extraordinary rendition -- which is no longer extraordinary, by some measures. it's a post-9/11 strategy. it's up to the reader, i suppose, to judge whether or not america should be disappearing people a la the good old totalitarian fear states of old.

  20. zach   20 years ago

    since we never, ever did it during the cold war.

  21. Peter K.   20 years ago

    i tend to believe that the italians are full of shit by default.

    I see no reason not to trust the Italians on this.

    (Although for some reason, the mere mention of Italians always bring to mind a guy riding around on a scooter saying "Ciao".)

    Opponent of the Iraq War, former CIA employee, and author of Imperial Hubris, Michael "Anonymous" Scheuer thinks renditions are a great idea and work wonderfully. He's wrong on both accounts.

    I believe it was Justice Louis Brandeis who said governments that break laws breed contempt for law.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Making GLP-1s Available Over the Counter Can Unlock Their Full Potential

Jeffrey A. Singer | From the June 2025 issue

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is the Latest Example of Forcing Religious Texts In Public Schools

Emma Camp | 5.30.2025 3:46 PM

DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending

Jacob Sullum | 5.30.2025 3:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!