The WSJ raises some serious questions about today's NATO

In today's Wall Street Journal, the editors discuss the implications of Italy's decision to indict the 25 CIA agents, U.S. Air Force officer, and five Italian intelligence agents who allegedly kidnapped a terrorist recruiter in 2003 and "rendered" him to his native Egypt, so they could torture him to extract information about his various activities.

The WSJ characterizes the charges as "Exhibit A in how European politicians are working against the U.S., undermining the fight against Islamic terrorism and endangering the NATO alliance." As the WSJ points out:

[No] one, including the Italian prosecutors, doubts that [the recruiter, Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr,] posed a security risk. In 2005, a Milan court, at [the prosecutor's] behest, issued an arrest warrant for Nasr, charging him with building a terrorist network in Europe that actively recruited terrorists, including for Iraq. Eight of his accomplices have been sentenced to up to 10 years in prison on similar charges, and Italian authorities believe more are at large.

The WSJ acknowledges that the strategy in dealing with Nasr this way isn't obvious. To quote the Journal:

Why Nasr was captured rather than arrested in 2003 isn't clear. According to a July 2005 story in the New York Times, which cited unnamed current and former American officials, the CIA was concerned that Nasr was plotting to attack the U.S. Embassy in Rome. For whatever reason, the U.S. wanted him off the streets while the Italians weren't ready to arrest him. The CIA won't comment. The government of Silvio Berlusconi -- who was Prime Minister at the time -- denied any foreknowledge of the rendition.

But regardless of the reasons for the action, as the WSJ goes on to explain:

No one seriously claims, however, that the CIA agents were in Italy without the explicit knowledge and participation of Italy's security services. This is the crucial point -- and explains why the indictments are a hostile act against the U.S. By long-established international legal practice, the official agents of one country operating in another with that state's permission are immune from prosecution.

As the WSJ concludes:

European politicians are more at fault here than any prosecutor. Since the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., many European leaders have been playing a double game, working with the U.S. to root out terrorist plots on the sly -- and saving countless lives -- while publicly condemning "American methods" in rhetoric that has fed rising anti-Americanism...

European officials need to understand the risks they're running if they keep this up. Italy and the U.S. are NATO partners, but such an alliance is meaningless if "allies" make a habit of prosecuting each other for cooperating against a common threat. Italy's political grandstanding is endangering NATO, as well as the lives of millions on both sides of the Atlantic.

But do read the whole thing.