Talk:Extraordinary rendition/Archive 1

objectivity

I wonder at the objectivity of the discussion on this page. The whole sentence in the opening paragraph, "It is acknowledged and even expected that these suspects may be tortured despite official assurances to the contrary.", seems completely unsupported, acknowledged and expected by _whom_?

"Expected_by_whom_?: By the whole world! That is why the EU have asked questions, because it is not only an infringement of soverignty and the laws of each state, to transport "kidnapped" (the legal definition of someone not brought before thw courts), people through each countries airspace. But for individuals including officials and government ministers, to permit or assist such activity, they themselves are guilty of aiding and abetting the crime, "as if they had committed the crime themselves".

The USA is accused by the UN and EU states of conduction such actions!

---Rich

I would like to change this, but I don't know what to given that I don't know where these 'facts' are coming from. The article begins to sound like a diatribe. I have made some grammar edits to --Nomen Nescio 02:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)balance the tone, but there seems to be a need for major editing here. Perhaps someone else can weigh in on this? -cyferx, 7 June 2005

By whom? By the USG officials involved in the procedure of course. I think this is clear in the intro.

Part of the problem may be that a policy like this isn't official in the sense there is no standard agreement on how it is done by whom to whom. Hence, there isn't much in the way of formal responsibity and accountability. I recommend you read some of the cited references, such as the New Yorker material, to get a sense of how it is described in the media. HTH, -- Viajero | Talk 12:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting this article under POV check, since I feel it seems biased, but would like more opinions before I use NPOV.--24.118.206.25 08:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this article breaches NPOV. Specifically , an article on "Extraordinary rendition" ought to concentrate on that practice. It might legitimately note that accusations have been made that the USA uses extraordinary rendition for torture and link to an article on torture (although even retailing the accusation is questionable unless serious sources can be identified), but to engage in a detailed discussion about torture and why it is bad is a transparent attempt to propagandise.Msahutty 18:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. To explain this expression "Extraordinary Rendition", it is necessary to explain the contraversy. After all the expression "Extraordinary Rendition" is an inventive on legal expression. The advocacy of the expression raised significant legal concerns, not only issues of soverignty, but of kidnap also. It is improtant to discuss the issue, as the issue has not been conslted publicly previously.

--suamr

This piece, as it now stands, doesn't read like a diatribe to me. Diatribes tend to be short on facts and long on rhetoric. This article is quite the reverse, detailing a series of cases that have been widely discussed in the media. Clearly the debate over torture is a controversial one, but I believe the article does justice to this fact, giving arguments on both sides. What is not controversial is that "extraordinary rendition" is going on, and that there is a serious debate over the legal, moral and practical implications of the policy. It would be a shame if wikipedia were not permitted to cover this topic, as it's one that concerns many. - 17 Jun 2005, anon

Alright, but I'm going to change some of the wordings. Especially in the first paragraph, they seem particularily "loaded". --Vaergoth 4 July 2005 07:24 (UTC) (AKA 24.118.206.25)

I changed some wordings and moved the treaty obligations section to near the end, because I thought that explaining something, and then immediately bringing up how illegal it is is too POV. Bring it up here if you have a problem with it. --Vaergoth 4 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)

I made some additional edits but again reach a road block when getting to the last part of the 9/11 section where 'proponents of extraordinary rendition' supposedly accept torture as a necessary means. This needs citation. I am tempted to delete this sentence from the article as unsupported, but perhaps someone can corroborate this contention? The research I have done for this (admittedly only one op-ed piece, which I include and cite) is that proponents believe there are justifiable non-torturous reasons for rendering people back to their home countries, and the reports do seem to support that Egyptians go to Egypt and Syrians go to Syria and so on. Of course, this may be a cover, but without evidence we cannot say definitely what rendition is, especially in an encyclopedia, but rather merely report on the controversy from both sides without taking a stand on which way it 'really is'. We should be dispassionate observers of the subject. Any thoughts? Cyferx 00:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Kidnapping?

I think that the introduction should include something about the use of kidnapping by US intelligence agencies of suspects on foreign soil without the knowledge of that foreign government.

There are many cases but the one most in the news at the moment concerns an Egyptian cleric forcibly taken off the street in Milan Italy earlier this year. In June 2005 an Italian judge has called for the arrest of 13 U.S. C.I.A. agents for kidnapping.

Here is one article on the case, though there are many others: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400484.html

--Fluxaviator 20:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Find more. Also, "Kidnapping", though concice and possibly accurate, is a word that would ignite powerful passions about the subject. Using a more neutral word like "abduct" would be appropriate. --Vaergoth 19:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with the word "abduct".

More articles on the Milan abduction, did you mean other abductions?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4619377.stm

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0528,hentoff,65755,6.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/24/world/main703982.shtml

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/24/italy.arrests/

--Fluxaviator 20:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Relation to "Rendition" article?

Looking at this article and the "rendition" article, I think the distinction is quite unclear. Is there a distinction at all? If so, it should be highlighted better, and if not then the two articles should be merged.

The distinction is this: the Rendition article is NPOV and concerns only the practice of removing someone from a country for whatever purposes. Extraordinary Rendition is nowhere close to NPOV and concerns the practice of removing someone for the purpose of torture. They ought to remain separate for the near future. —thames 13:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

As a note, in November 2005 I rewrote the rendition article to more clearly reflect its neutral usage. --Dhartung | Talk 10:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Article POV

This is article claims

"Extraordinary rendition, which has been called a euphemism for torture by proxy, refers to a procedure practiced by the government of the United States (and possibly aided by other western countries, though this is not known, see Other Countries section) whereby suspects are sent to countries in which torture is routinely used in interrogation. "

I don't see substantial evidence that this takes place routinely. On the contrary only a few instances have substantial proof that it has happened. After looking througout the article one source(the Washington Post) even included rebuttal arguements to toture being used.

"As described in various reports in the media, suspects have been arrested, blindfolded, shackled, and sedated, and transported by private jet or other means to the destination country. The reports also say that U.S. agencies have provided interrogators with lists of questions. Although Egypt has been the most common destination, suspected terrorists have been renditioned to other countries, such as Jordan and Syria."

So the media is the same as Newsweek and the NY times? I would be careful with the statement as described by the media. The media is often not NPOV. Now, I don't dispute the rest.

The First paragraph of the 1990 section can't be used without a POV tag because there is no proof in the article for toture. In the last example of rendidtion regarding the Italian judge it should also be noted there that one source above states that Italy may have known that was going to be taken place which would make that not a breach on soveirngty. These are some of the problems I have. Keep in mind I am not denying that toture takes place but I disagree with the scale of it implied by the article. Falphin 19:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The practise of extraordinary rendition has been widely reported in media throughout the world. The practise of torture in countries such as Egypt and Syria has been thoroughly documented by any number of human rights organizations. Reading coverage of the Canadian enquiry into the Maher Arar case (an apparently innocent computer programmer who was whisked off to Syria as he was passing through New York) I was struck by the flimsy pretext for his rendition and the routine nature of the process. The WP article suggests that is has been used for perhaps a hundred or more cases which seems entirely plausible to me. --Lee Hunter 21:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendidtion has taken place, but if it was so widely reported wouldn't it regularly appear on MNBC, CNN or Fox? like Gitmo and Abu Grahib. There are credible cases for Egypt and maybe for Syria, but the few that are don't amount to much beyond it has happened, there is no credible proof for it being widespread just allegations. 100 cases is not that plausible right now(without proff), 10 or so is.(adding in questionable cases). There is no proof of 100+ cases beyond the biased reports (sorry I rarely use that term in a discussion on wikipedia but it is true) of the Amnesty International who considers Gitmo, America's Soviet Gulag. The other main group involved is the Human Rights Watch but I've haven't seen them suggest the 120+ figure. Falphin 23:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying that it doesn't matter that the largest newspapers in the United States and the world along with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and many other media outlets have all reported on this subject? You're saying that if Fox News hasn't covered it it doesn't exist? Is that really what you're saying? --Lee Hunter 15:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Falphin, you should read the lengthy "New Yorker" article cited in the External links. The US's rendition program has also been reported in the NY Times, Wash. Post, and other MSM. -- Viajero | Talk 17:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My response to both of you. First I said, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox have not reported. They are the only three, and all three of them went nuts over Gitmo, Abu Grahib etc, I watch CNN and Fox and have not seen anything about it. Secondly don't put Amnesty International and Human Rights together, you didn't prove that both stated the 100 figure, only Amnesty which is extremely biased. I never said it didn't happen I just don't agree with the numbers, too much speculation. Finally, I read all the articles, in fact the Washington Post never actually states that it happens, infact if you read it it includes counter arguements not much of a source. NY, is highly liberal by U.S. standards and was one of the first to jump on the flusing the Quaran down the toilet. That does not mean it is not a worhty source, just that it needs support like any other newspaper does. Falphin 22:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

From The New Yorker article:

Scott Horton, an expert on international law who helped prepare a report on renditions issued by N.Y.U. Law School and the New York City Bar Association, estimates that a hundred and fifty people have been rendered since 2001.

-- Viajero | Talk 09:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

From the CIA manual of 1983.

"Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, fabricated to avoid additional punishment. This results in a time-consuming delay while an investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite, the subject can pull himself together and may even use the time to devise a more complex confession that takes still longer to disprove."[1]

I'm not sure what the point is . Also, I am having dificulty finding 150 figure, however I found a 100 or so figure in another interview of Jane Mayer. I'm still not sure how that changes anything. For an NPOV to be in the article you need sources of both sides. You can state some believe the number to be over 100, but unless you have a non-liberal source stating the number its a POV push. Not all articles are so demanding but this is highly controversial, and therefore deserves more attention to the differing perspectives. Falphin 23:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That whole liberal/conservative source thing is part of the bizaare US political dynamic which is not really of any interest to WP editors outside of the US. It's not like the New York Times and the many other papers who covered this story spun it out of thin air. They interview real people, experts in their field, who are quoted by name. They looked at the court cases. They looked at the flight records of CIA front air charter companies. Its basic journalism. As far as "the other side" goes ... what other side? As far as I have seen it's only you who are disputing this figure. The sole evidence that you offer is that you personally did not happen to see anything on Fox News so therefore it doesn't exist. Please cite some independent source that names a different figure. Otherwise there is really nothing to discuss. --Lee Hunter 01:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Journalism? They estimated it they don't have facts, they just made a guess,wikipedia has the facts, that 10-12 have claimed to have been taken against there will that is the facts not speculation. As far as the U.S. spin, you haven't presented facts. Thats the problems, there hasn't been a result of investigation or anything. Just a liberal reporter(Jane Mayers) and liberal Newspapers. I'm not objeccting against them, but neither offer any credible proof. Finally, what numbers am I supposed to present besides the 7 presented in the wikipedia article now. No one is reporting on the case, the only newstory making semi-notable attention is the arrest of supposed CIA agents by an Italian judge. Finally, stop quoting me as stating only FOX News that is misreprestentation of my arguements. I stated that I have not seen in on CNN or FOX and to my knowledge it has not been on MSNBC. There is no side as I can see presenting extraordinary rendition as something of common place. Falphin 01:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This would be a pretty small encyclopedia if we only included information carried on US cable news networks. --Lee Hunter 01:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Falphin, Wikipedia is not a chat forum; your opinion of The New Yorker and The New York Times is irrelevant. If you can find a reputable source which disputes the findings of the report on rendition by the N.Y.U. Law School and the New York City Bar Association that was cited by Jane Mayer, then that is another matter. -- Viajero | Talk 14:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

No insults please. I'm am not giving out my opinion of the sources, but that you need more than just, some people claiming that they believe there could be more than 100. They don't have facts in the article supporting it other than a few opinions. I'm not doubting that cases exist but that unless an investigation of extraordinary rendition takes place and turns up 100 cases or if a public official admitts to its common occurence than it is very difficult to place a number on the figures. After thinking about it I do remmeber an interview with Jane Mayers on MSNBC. Which gives it slightly more crediblity, the only issue left is whether or not you can provide facts to support that kind of claim. Otherwise I believe common sense dictates the outcome of our discussion in that it would suggest that some people believe that over 100 cases have taken place and base their evidence on Jane Mayers research into the subject and the MSNBC media report.[2] All I want is facts that prove your beliefs on the subject. Falphin 20:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The journal article discusses within a historical context the limits that the Executive branch of the United States of America is currently and actively exceeding judicial precedence.

The Law: "Extraordinary Rendition" and Presidential Fiat William G Weaver, Robert M Pallitto. Presidential Studies Quarterly. Washington: Mar 2006.Vol.36, Iss. 1; pg. 102, 15 pgs Subjects: Presidents, Presidency, Prisoner transfers, Jurisdiction, Political power, Foreign policy, Foreign residents People: Bush, George W Author(s): William G Weaver, Robert M Pallitto Document types: Feature Document features: References, Tables Publication title: Presidential Studies Quarterly. Washington: Mar 2006. Vol. 36, Iss. 1; pg. 102, 15 pgs Source type: Periodical ProQuest document ID: 996136101 Text Word Count 7651 Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=996136101&sid=1&Fmt=4&clientId=3470&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Abstract (Document Summary) The administration of George W. Bush engages in the use of "extraordinary rendition," the kidnapping of foreign citizens and the delivery of those citizens to third-party jurisdictions. In at least one such rendition, a foreign national was kidnapped from U.S. soil and delivered to a foreign jurisdiction where he was tortured. These renditions are accomplished outside of treaties and courts and are solely the result of presidential fiat. The claims to executive power to undertake these actions are of recent origin, and the great balance of U.S. history and law weighs against these claims. The actions of the Bush administration have been aided by judicial deference, a deference that challenges historical assumptions and law concerning executive power. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Full Text (7651 words) Copyright Center for the Study of the Presidency Mar 2006[Headnote] The administration of George W. Bush engages in the use of "extraordinary rendition," the kidnapping of foreign citizens and the delivery of those citizens to third-party jurisdictions. In at least one such rendition, a foreign national was kidnapped from U.S. soil and delivered to a foreign jurisdiction where he was tortured. These renditions are accomplished outside of treaties and courts and are solely the result of presidential fiat. The claims to executive power to undertake these actions are of recent origin, and the great balance of U.S. history and law weighs against these claims. The actions of the Bush administration have been aided by judicial deference, a deference that challenges historical assumptions and law concerning executive power.

Renditions, the surrendering of persons to foreign jurisdictions, are commonplace in modern international affairs. When these transfers are made in accordance with treaty, and, if necessary, enabling statutes, and through a stipulated procedure, they are "ordinary" renditions. But in the last decade, the United States has pursued a policy of rendering people to nonjudicial authorities outside of treaty and legal processes, actions usually accomplished through kidnapping and forcible removal from an asylum country to the receiving jurisdiction. These transfers have become known as "extraordinary renditions," but they are certainly not renditions in the traditional sense. For one thing, the term "rendition" is a legal term of art, connoting conformance with an established line of legal precedent, authorization under treaty and enabling statutes, and accepted practice in international law. On the other hand, extraordinary rendition is not a legal term of art and is an act accomplished specifically and purposefully outside of legal venues. It is usually undertaken precisely because of a belief that legal processes will not yield the desired transfer to the receiving jurisdiction or will be too slow in coming to that result, or to effect the transfer of persons to nonjudicial authorities for interrogation or torture.

The use of the term rendition to describe these activities falsely clothes them with reference to a legal and processual history, implying that somehow they are actions recognized in, and sanctioned by, law. But the U.S. Supreme Court has never taken up the question of forcible removal of persons to foreign jurisdictions outside of treaty and on presidential authority alone. Neither has Congress ever authorized such activity. Here we are not interested in giving a wholly legal analysis of extraordinary renditions, for two recent publications have thoroughly and ably canvassed this issue (Committee on International Human Rights 2004; Garcia 2005). Rather, we investigate the historical development of presidential claims to power in this area, how those claims have been treated by the courts, and how that history informs present practices of the Bush administration.

Although renditions were contemplated from the beginnings of the republic, presidents have historically made no claim to authority to render persons outside of treaty processes. As recently as 1979, the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice opined that the Shah of Iran could not be extradited to his home country, because "the President cannot order any person extradited unless a treaty or statute authorizes him to do so" (Hammond 1979). Nevertheless, the administration of George W. Bush has, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, pursued extraordinary rendition as a policy tool to combat terrorism (Committee 2004; Mayer 2005). Bush administration acts include not only the forcible removal of persons from foreign countries, but the kidnapping of persons from U.S. soil and surrender to foreign jurisdictions to be tortured (Mayer 2005). In the case of Mäher Ärar, a Canadian citizen changing planes in New York City while returning from vacation, the United States seized Mr. Arar and flew him in a government jet to Jordan, where he was then delivered to Syria for torture (Arar v. Asbcroft 2004).1 These acts are certainly extraordinary, both in terms of law and rendition history, and are part of what some see as an assault on the separation of powers by the Bush administration (Fisher 2005).

It is instructive to understand the historical backdrop behind these actions and how we managed to get to the point where President Bush may successfully, so far, claim plenary power to commit otherwise illegal acts in the alleged protection of U.S. national security. Extraordinary renditions present troubling issues that challenge our understandings of presidential authority, and implicate at least a serious discontinuity between presidential behavior and our accepted principles of law and fairness.

The Early Republic

At the founding of the United States, the understanding was that the president had no authority to render a person to a foreign jurisdiction without acting pursuant to a treaty and, if a non-self-executing treaty, without the authority of enabling legislation. In answering a request from the French minister to the United States for the rendition of certain people making war against France, Thomas Jefferson, then secretary of state, wrote, "The laws of this country take no notice of crimes committed out of their jurisdiction. The most atrocious offender, coming within their pale, is received by them as an innocent man, and they have authorized no one to seize or deliver him" (Jefferson 1793). He then noted, "When [renditions were discussed] we could agree to go no further than . . . mutually to deliver up 'captains, officers, mariners, sailors, and all other persons being part of the crews of vessels,'" and "[u]nless . . . the persons before named be part of the crew of some vessel of the French nation, no person in this country is authorized to deliver them up; but, on the contrary, they are under the protection of the laws" (ibid.). This view was confirmed by an opinion of U.S. Attorney General Charles Lee in a matter concerning a Spanish subject making haven in the United States against criminal charges in Spanish Florida. There, General Lee found that the "United States are in duty bound to comply [with the request}; yet, having omitted to make a law directing the mode of proceeding, I know not how ... a delivery of such offender could be effected. . . . This defect appears to me to require a particular law" (Lee 1797, 69-70).

And Roger Taney, also in the capacity of U.S. attorney general, found in 1833 that there was no presidential authority, absent a treaty, to render two men accused of piracy by Portugal. In that case, Taney wrote, "It is not in the power of the President to send them to any other tribunal, domestic or foreign. . . . There is no law of Congress which authorizes the President to deliver up [the prisoners,] and we have no treaty stipulations with Portugal for the delivery of offenders. In such a state of things, it has always been held that the President possesses no authority to deliver up the offender" (Taney 1833, 559).

Finally, in this line of attorney general opinions, in 1841, in a message to secretary of State Daniel Webster, Attorney General Hugh Legare, characterizing the case of Holmes v, Jennison and the studied practice of his predecessors, wrote, "According to the practice of the executive department, as appears from the official correspondence both of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. clay, your predecessors in office, the President is not considered as authorized, in the absence of any express provision by treaty, to order the delivering up of fugitives from justice" (Legare 184l, 661).

In Holmes v, Jennison (1840), Holmes, the asylee, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of error to determine whether a governor of a state may constitutionally seize a person and render that person to a foreign country (39 U.S. 540). Counsel for Holmes felt comfortable in stating that "no President of the United States, no Governor of Canada, and lastly, no King of England, has ventured to act in a case of this kind, except by legislative authority, or by treaty, which is tantamount to a law" (ibid., 560). While the matter concerning presidential authority was not an issue to be decided in Jennison, what comment there is supports the conclusion stated by Holmes's counsel. In particular, Chief Justice Taney found that "the treaty-making power must have authority to decide how far the right of a foreign nation . . . will be recognised and enforced, when it demands the surrender of any one charged with offences against it" (ibid., 569). Therefore, without a treaty in force, the president is without power to sua sponte surrender fugitives or others to foreign powers.

Justice Smith Thompson spelled this out mjennison by noting the "record shows that [rendition} power or authority has been expressly disclaimed by the President" (ibid., 582). The "express" disavowal referred to came in 1825 when a request from the acting governor of Canada met with the response from Secretary of State John Quincy Adams that "I am instructed by the President to express his regret to your Excellency, that the request. . . cannot be complied with under any authority now vested in the executive government of the United States" (ibid., 582-83). The stated basis for this want of authority was that the "stipulation between [the United States] and the British government, for the mutual delivery over of fugitives from justice, being no longer in force, and the renewal of it by treaty, being at this time a subject of negotiation between the two governments" (ibid., 583).

Even when acting pursuant to treaty, the president was called to task. In the unpopular and contentious rendition of accused murderer and mutineer Jonathan Robbins to the West Indies for trial and possible execution under British court martial, the public roundly condemned President John Adams for making the return in the absence of enabling legislation and under circumstances where the United States had concurrent jurisdiction to try Robbins (Wedgwood 1990). Adams suffered vituperative and emotional attacks, even though Article 27 of the Jay Treaty required the signatories to "deliver up to justice all persons, who, being charged with murder or forgery, committed within the jurisdiction of either, shall seek an asylum within any of the countries of the other." So the understanding that the president was without power to send asylum residents to foreign jurisdictions in the absence of treaty and statute seemed well settled in law prior to the Civil War.

Nevertheless, this clear history is either ignored or misunderstood by some federal courts. For example, in Eain v. Wilkes, a 1981 case out of the Seventh Circuit, the court found that, "Prior to the enactment of the original version of [the extradition statute], the Executive exercised complete control over extradition without reference to the courts. . . . Thus, from 1794 to 1842 the Executive had unfettered discretion in this area" (641 F.2d 504, 513, Note 13). In support of this misconception the court cites an 1843 attorney general opinion, but that opinion makes clear that the rendition in question was made pursuant to treaty and a statutorily authorized legal process requiring a showing of evidence sufficient to sustain the charge against the asylee if the case were to be tried in the United States. Attorney General John Nelson noted in his opinion that "the case, then, is, within the treaty, sustained by the evidence prescribed by it, acted on by a magistrate having authority to entertain it, upon complaint duly and regularly made; the proceedings, with the judgment of the magistrate, have been certified to the executive authority, and the surrender of the fugitive authoritatively demanded" (Nelson 1843, 208). This particular case was made difficult not by the law, but by the fact that the asylee was a woman, who was sought for the murder of her husband in Scotland. It is certainly an inapposite opinion for the Seventh Circuit panel to rely upon, for the rigor in following treaty, statute, and legal decorum is marked in this case.

The Arguelles Affair

The first major break with the doctrine described above came during the Civil War, with a politically and emotionally charged case that vexed President Abraham Lincoln. Like the case of Arar, this action involved the seizure of a foreign citizen in New York City during a time of war and performed only on naked presidential authority.

In 1863, José Augustin Arguelles, a Spanish subject, and the lieutenant governor of Colon, Cuba, intercepted a ship transporting slaves from Africa in violation of Spanish law (J.E.B. 1864). Arguelles claimed a large reward for the interception and then conspired with others to have 141 of the slaves declared dead of smallpox and then sold to plantation owners. He then fled to New York City where he purchased a Spanishlanguage newspaper. Spain wanted Arguelles back for prosecution, and because of a curious flounce of Spanish law his presence was necessary to secure the release of the Africans he had sold into slavery (Russell 1863; Dulce 1864).

The United States at the time had no treaty concerning extradition with Spain, but President Lincoln nevertheless ordered Arguelles's seizure and return to Cuba. This caused cascades of both criticism and praise, with the Copperheads, or Peace Democrats, complaining that here was finally dispositive evidence of the tyranny of Lincoln and the abolitionists and moderates praising Lincoln's wise use of executive discretion. M. Du Pays, in the Liberator, exclaimed dramatically, "Liberty offers no complaint of this Violation of the right of asylum.' She cries-'If there is no law for this process, then make one; meanwhile, serve me!'" (Du Pays 1864). And an article in the normally moderate New York Times exhorted, "Hurl him [Arguelles] over the Tarpeian rock" (J.F.B. 1864).

On the other side, General John Fremont, pursuing nomination for the presidency, proclaimed, "To-day we have in the country the abuses of military dictation without its unity of action and vigor of execution; an Administration marked at home by disregard of Constitutional rights, by its violation of personal liberty . . . and, as a crowning shame, by its abandonment of the right of asylum dear to all free nations abroad" (Fremont 1864). The language of indignation crested even higher, with exclamations that "the Sultan of Turkey never exercised a more absolute despotism" (Harper's Weekly 1864) and "Napoleon committed no greater offence against national law when he sent the kidnapped Deputies to Cayenne" (Phillips 1864). The eruption over the incident threatened the Republican party and forced the U.S. Senate to put off an investigation in order to save Lincoln and the party from embarrassment (ibid.).

Lincoln's action took the law by surprise and exposed a decided lack of judicial opportunity or willingness to interfere with the executive fiat of the matter. But secretary of State William H. Seward succumbed to congressional pressure to release correspondence concerning the rendition and to issue a legal defense of the president's actions. Seward's defense of Lincoln was long-winded but weak, for there was not much for him to rely upon. He invoked the law of nations as justification for the rendition, but gave little attention to why the president should be seen under the Constitution as possessing sole power to meet such international obligations (Seward 1864).

Seward also relied heavily upon Holmes v. Jennison, incorrectly characterizing it on all fours with the Arguelles case and claiming thatjennison "was decided [by the Vermont Supreme Court] in favor of the executive authority, that authority having been exercised by the governor of Vermont for the extradition of a Canadian murderer, before the treaty with Great Britain of 1842, and without any legislation of the State on the subject" (ibid., 41-42, emphasis in original). Seward conveniently neglected to note that after the appeal mjennison to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on a writ of error for lack of jurisdiction, the Vermont Supreme Court took the case up again. Although the U.S. Supreme Court had found it had no jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Judiciary Act to decide the case, a clear majority of the Court believed that the Vermont governor had no power to render Holmes to the British. On rehearing, the Vermont court held in Ex parte Holmes (1840) that "a different case is now presented," and that "on an examination of the case, as decided by the supreme court of the United States ... if the return had been as it now is, a majority ofthat court would have decided that Holmes was entitled to his discharge, and that the opinion of a majority of the supreme court of the United States was also adverse to the exercise of the power in question" (12 Vt. 631). The court ordered Holmes discharged.

In a rather uncomfortable argumentative turn, considering the nature of Arguelles's crimes in Cuba, Seward pointed to cases where escaped slaves from foreign countries were returned at executive discretion. In discussing the return of a slave who had stowed away aboard a U.S. ship to his Danish owners, Seward noted, "The point once conceded that Denmark alone has the right to pronounce upon the condition of this man, that she has pronounced him a slave, and the property of a Danish subject, I see no difference between the President's authority to restore a ship or any other property belonging to a subject of a foreign power, which has been improperly taken from his possession" (Seward 1864, 51). From this observation, Seward improbably claimed that "{t}he extradition of criminals, under the law of nations and the Constitution of the United States, 'is precisely and unequivocally the same' as that of the surrender of prizes, has never been refuted, and is believed to be impregnable" (ibid., 50). Other than Seward's assertion, there seems to be no serious legal analysis finding that persons and property are to be governed by the same standard of return or rendition, except in the unholy cases where a person is legally held to be property.

An element of drama and contretemps between federal and state authorities entered the Arguelles matter when New York indicted for kidnapping the U.S. marshal and four deputies who seized Arguelles. "Elegant" Oakey, A. Oakey Hall, who would eventually become mayor of New York City as part of the "Boss" Tweed ring, instigated the indictment, and the United States moved to have the case removed to federal court under a wartime statute enlarging presidential powers (New York Times 1864). Section 4 of the pertinent statute, which is clearly at odds with any notion of state sovereignty, read that "any order of the President, or under his authority, made at any time during the existence of the present rebellion, shall be a defence in all courts to any action or prosecution, civil or criminal" (Act Relating to Habeas Corpus 1863, 756). As part of a two-judge panel rendering an opinion against the government's motion to remove the case, the recorder of New York City observed, "[T]he strange picture [is] presented of a United States Judge administering the penal laws of the State of New York, and the President of the United States extending a pardon to one convicted of a crime against the laws of that State, which had been committed by his own order" (New York Times 1864). The recorder went on to caustically comment that "such a result would seem to be more appropriate to an act entitled, 'An Act to Prevent the Punishment of Any Man Who Shall Commit a Crime by Order of the President of the United States'" (ibid.). Although the indictment against the marshal and deputies quietly lapsed without prosecution, the calamity over the rendition of Arguelles clearly put presidents on notice that unilateral action outside of treaty and statute in rendering fugitives could involve substantial political and legal risk. There the matter stood until relatively recently, with no president claiming the unilateral power to extradite foreign citizens on U.S. soil in the absence of authorizing treaties or statutes.

The Twentieth Century

The Arguelles case is clearly an anomaly and not representative of an expansion of presidential power, for if it were it would have been used readily in the years and decades after the Civil War or in other periods of declared war by the United States. But the case stands alone for over 125 years, with Henry Wade Rogers, later to become a judge on the second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, noting twenty years after Arguelles's rendition, "The action of the Executive in the case referred to is now generally regarded as having been an enormous usurpation of power" (Rogers 1884).

With advances in technology and personal mobility, new questions concerning extradition began to surface. While apparently there was no legal distinction explored during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries between cases involving extradition from U.S. soil and the capture and rendition of people in foreign venues by agents of the United States, there is no evidence that these cases would be treated differently. It was certainly reasonable under the law of the time to assume that no matter where or how the United States was seized of a foreign national, it could only extradite or render that person in conformance with treaty and statute. But a line of cases under the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine began to develop, which clouded the issue of the requirement of conformance to treaty in extradition and rendition matters (Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 [1952]; Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 [1886J). In these cases, it was generally held that the kidnap and presentation of criminal defendants in U.S. courts did not require the dismissal of prosecution for violation of due process rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Frisbie, "The power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court's jurisdiction by reason of a 'forcible abduction'" (342 U.S. 519, 522). This doctrine followed an ancient common law practice of judges in not inquiring as to how criminal defendants made their way to the courts, though the basis of this practice is often put into question by commentators and judges.2 Taking the doctrine as claimed by its adherents, it does little to provide a legal ground for extraordinary renditions. Even after the establishment of the doctrine, beginning with Ker v. Illinois in 1886, the U.S. Supreme Court still adhered to the pre-Arguelles principle that extradition out of U.S. custody was to be performed only under treaty and statute. In a unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes found in Valentine v. United States (1936) that "[t]he power to provide for extradition ... is not confided to the Executive in the absence of treaty or legislative provision" (299 U.S. 5, 8). In Valentine, two U.S. citizens were accused of crimes in France and were arrested awaiting extradition by U.S. authorities. The crimes allegedly committed were extraditable offenses under a bilateral treaty between the United States and France, but the arrestees filed a habeas corpus action "upon the ground that because the treaty excepted citizens of the United States, the President had no constitutional authority to surrender the respondents to the French Republic" (ibid., 6).

The Supreme Court was emphatic in its view that the president had no independent authority to render U.S. citizens without express authorization under treaty or statute. The Court made no indication that non-U.S. citizens not subject to extradition by treaty would be accorded any less protection and indeed stated, "It necessarily follows that as the legal authority does not exist save as it is given by act of Congress or by the terms of a treaty, it is not enough that statute or treaty does not deny the power to surrender. It must be found that statute or treaty confers the power" (ibid., 9). And, it is manifest that the act "does not attempt to confer power upon the Executive to surrender any person, much less a citizen of the United States, to a foreign government where an extradition treaty or convention does not provide for such surrender" (ibid., 10).

It is true that in the Ker-Frisbie line of cases the U.S. Supreme Court has found that seizure of a foreign national in his or her home country, in the absence of treaty provisions, and delivery of that person to U.S. courts is normally not a violation of the seized person's rights to due process or an implied violation of treaties (United States v. Alvarez Machain, 504 U.S. 655 [1992]). But the facts in the Ker-Frisbie line of cases are substantially different from the circumstances surrounding extraordinary renditions.

First, in all of the cases in the Ker-Frisbie line, the criminal defendants were rendered to U.S. courts. These cases "rest on the sound basis that due process of law is satisfied when one present in court is convicted of crime after having been fairly apprized of the charges against him and after a fair trial in accordance with constitutional procedural safeguards" (Frisbie v. Collins 1952, 522). In recent examples of extraordinary rendition, the seized persons were often not rendered to justice, to courts, and even when that is the case, the justice systems into which the persons are delivered often have questionable records of safeguarding rights of the accused (Committee 2004, 8-13).

Second, in many cases of extraordinary rendition, it appears that the seized persons are expressly delivered to foreign jurisdictions to circumvent the very constitutional rights that underlie the justification for the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine. In other words, they are rendered in a manner to specifically deprive them of due process and civil liberties protections.

Third, in all of the cases in this line, the seized parties were under formal accusation of criminal activity. In most recent extraordinary rendition cases, the seized persons often have not been charged with any criminal act in any jurisdiction.

As stated above, as recently as 1979, the executive branch adhered to the historical doctrine of abnegating presidential authority to extradite or render persons in the absence of treaty and statutory provisions. But beginning in the late 1980s, at first guarded and strongly vetted, kidnappings and "renditions to justice" were carried out with increasing frequency (Committee 2004, 15-17). Eventually, the practice of foreign seizure and rendition of suspected terrorists in the absence of treaty or statute became institutionalized in the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in conjunction with the Central Intelligence Agency. These actions were no longer "renditions to justice" (transfers into the hands of foreign judicial systems), but transfers of people to foreign powers for torture or warehousing. These institutionalized procedures, means and methods of transport, lines of authority, and U.S. networking with intelligence agencies of various countries sprang open after September 11, 2001, to lead to the present aggressive tactics of extraordinary rendition.

Extraordinary Rendition and Secrecy

The war on terror conducted by the George W. Bush administration relies on extraordinary rendition as a technique for obtaining information from persons thought to be terror suspects. Even though the administration has not admitted the existence of an extraordinary rendition program, representatives speaking for the administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney and secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, have provided oblique justifications for the practice. Cheney has said that when dealing with terrorists, "We're operating through sort of, you know, a dark side" (Mayer 2005). John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general under John Ashcroft, has spoken more openly and directly about the benefits, and even the necessity, of utilizing extrajudicial channels to interrogation that the process provides. Yoo and others at the Department of Justice advised that the president may unilaterally suspend operation of the Geneva Conventions (Bybee 2002, 13, 24), may violate customary international law without a presumption of such action's unconstitutionality (ibid., 32-35), and that Congress may not "tie the President's hands in regard to torture as an interrogation technique . . . [t]hey can't prevent the President from ordering torture" (Mayer 2005).

In her article, Jane Mayer cites numerous cases of extraordinary rendition involving multiple nations, and she relies on various U.S. and international sources. For example, Bosnian national Had) Boudella was allegedly rendered from Bosnia to the United States (Guantánamo Bay); Talaat Fouad Qassem was allegedly seized in Croatia and sent to Egypt; Shawki Salama Attiya was allegedly seized in Albania and sent to Egypt; and Maher Arar (a Canadian national) was allegedly seized in the United States and sent to Syria. All of these cases involve allegations of torture.

But unlike the Arguelles affair, which was carried out in the open with vigorous debate from all sides, the modern practice of extraordinary rendition is shielded by secrecy. The current practice of extraordinary rendition depends on secrecy in two important ways. Most obviously, the practice violates a number of legal prohibitions on torture and the facilitation of torture. The Human Rights Project of New York University Law School, together with the New York City Bar Association, thoroughly investigated and analyzed the legal status of extraordinary rendition and issued an excellent report detailing that analysis. The report, entitled "Torture by Proxy," found that the Geneva Convention (GC), the Convention against Torture (CAT), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Immigration Act all prohibit "the practice of transferring an individual, with the involvement of the United States and its agents, to a foreign state in circumstances that make it more likely than not that the individual will be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" (Committee 2004, 13).3 The nexus with secrecy here is, simply put, that these legal prohibitions pose a problem for the open use of extraordinary rendition. To admit use of the practice risks exposure to negative public opinion (at the very least) and possibly to legal sanctions as well. Thus, some level of official denial is necessary to avoid such problems.4

Additionally, the actual process of extraordinary rendition depends on secrecy at both ends of a given operation. Subjects are seized extra)udicially, in what amounts to kidnapping in many of the cases: in the case of Maher Arar, he was taken from a U.S. airport, forced into an unmarked car, and placed on a secret flight to Syria (Arar v. Ashcroft 2004, 2). Other cases involved seizing individuals outside the United States, without permission of the asylum state, and sending them on to a third country. These seizure operations must be conducted in secret as they do not rely on (and actually avoid) use of state force by the nation where they occur. The torture facilities where rendition subjects wind up must also operate in secret in order to preserve their operation and desired effect. In addition to fear of public/legal opposition, then, the very purpose of extraordinary rendition missions is a reason for covering the process with a protective cloak of secrecy.

We have argued elsewhere that the George W. Bush administration relies on institutionalized secrecy to an unprecedented extent (Weaver and Pallitto 2005). secrecy-related practices employed by this administration, including new and vastly strengthened antiterror laws, the state secrets doctrine, intelligence surveillance, and increased classification authority, are changing the presidency: it is becoming less accountable to the other branches, less susceptible to public criticism, and more threatening to individual rights.5 By operating in secret and without oversight, extraordinary rendition compounds this change. In the remaining space, we will look at the sources of legal/political authority on which the administration draws to carry out its extraordinary rendition program, that is, the explicit and implicit justifications that interpose a barrier to further questioning or investigation of extraordinary rendition.

Enlarge 200% 

Enlarge 400%

TABLE 1 Varieties of Rendition

First, however, it is necessary to clarify the varieties of rendition that the executive branch of the U.S. government can be involved in. A subject can be rendered from the United States, from her country of citizenship, or from a foreign country (other than the United States or her country of citizenship). And the subject can be rendered to the United States, to her country of citizenship, or to a foreign country. These combinations generate nine outcomes, represented in Table 1 above. Two of them can be discounted for our purposes. Rendition within the United States (box 1) is not truly rendition, and the laws of the United States alone apply. Likewise, rendition within the subject's home country (box 8) is not rendition, as only the laws of that nation apply. Thus, we are left with seven relevant potential outcomes. Each of them has actually occurred: Maher Arar, for example, was rendered from the United States to a foreign country.

Extraordinary rendition cases fall into one of the preceding categories. Those involving the United States as place of origin or destination (boxes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7) could arguably be covered by treaty. The others (boxes 5, 6, 8, and 9) constitute U.S. involvement in the affairs of a sovereign nation (e.g., Canada in the Arar case) and therefore cannot look to treaty law for support. We must repeat, at this point, the key distinction between rendition and extraordinary rendition: the former contemplates a subject delivered to the custody of the judicial system, while the latter scenario does not involve the judicial system. The rendition of a citizen to her home country from the United States so that the citizen can stand trial in her country might be governed by treaty. If so, the terms of the treaty would provide legal authority for the United States to effect rendition. But could treaty authority ever legalize the rendition of a citizen to her home country where she would remain outside of the judicial process?

It is here that the antitorture laws apply: the United States is legally barred, as noted above, from delivering an individual to a nation where she is likely to face torture. Thus, if the United States were to enter into a treaty providing for rendition with a country known to practice torture, then individual cases might arise where rendition (though authorized by the treaty) would violate other treaties or U.S. laws. The "Torture by Proxy" report cited above anticipates in its analysis an executive branch claim that, despite congressional action in the area of antitorture laws, the president retains emergency powers to act. The landmark case of Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer governs questions of emergency presidential powers, and as the report's authors point out, Youngstown establishes categories for presidential emergency action. When Congress has legislated in the area where the president wishes to act contrary to congressional policy, his power is at its "lowest ebb," according to the Supreme Court in Youngstown. Such is the case with rendition: the report cites several instances of clear congressional action with regard to prevention of torture. Thus, it is difficult to argue that the president retains emergency powers that justify extraordinary rendition, for such an argument flies in the face of the Supreme Court's clear statement about the ebb of executive power in response to clear legislative action.

However, it is problematic to rely on Supreme Court precedent alone to analyze the legality of presidential action, because precedent can be changed. Recent cases arising in the context of the war on terror give reason to pause, because they suggest in various ways that the Supreme Court and lower federal courts may, in fact, be entertaining more expansive conceptions of executive power than those previously accepted by the courts. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2005) require discussion: Hamdi because of the Supreme Court's gesturing toward greater implied executive powers, and Hamdan because of the DC Circuit's refusal to allow the petitioner to assert his rights under the Geneva Convention. The Hamdan ruling certainly gives the government a basis for arguing that human rights provisions in treaties do not create a right of action in individual petitioners and that therefore violation of those provisions entails no legal consequences.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld is often described as a rebuke to the Bush administration, and there is certainly language in Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion suggesting limits to the president's emergency powers (as well as a role for the Court in marking out those limits). The Court cautioned that the "state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens" (542 U.S. 507, 592). Further, the opinion drew on earlier jurisprudence to reject "a heavily circumscribed role for the courts" in cases involving civil liberties during wartime (ibid., 603). Moreover, the portion of the holding setting out due process requirements for "enemy combatant" cases does indeed establish a limit on what the president can do with such cases. However, the Court's interpretation of the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) to justify wide-ranging emergency action should give us pause, for while the Court stopped short of addressing the scope and nature of Article 2 emergency powers, they certainly showed a disinclination to look closely at the nexus between congressional authorization and presidential warmaking actions. Thus, the AUMF serves to authorize and justify things that go far beyond its terms.

The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in July of 2005. Two aspects of the Hamdan ruling have important implications for the future of extraordinary rendition. First, the court ruled that Hamdan could not assert rights under the Geneva Convention because the convention is not self-enforcing. Rather, it is an agreement between contracting parties (nations) who alone can seek remedies for its breach. As the Court put it, "This country has traditionally negotiated treaties with the understanding that they do not create judicially enforceable individual rights" (415 F.3d 33, 38). Thus, the executive branch is responsible for deciding whether and how to apply treaty provisions, but no one may complain to a court about what they decide. second, the court ruled that the president, qua negotiator of a treaty, would be given almost complete deference in the interpretation of that treaty. The court ruled that "[t]o the extent there is ambiguity about the meaning of [Geneva Convention} Common Article 3 as applied to Al Qaeda and its members, the President's reasonable view of the provision must therefore prevail" (ibid., 42). The ruling obviously lends support to the practice of extraordinary rendition: it eliminates treaty-based arguments against the practice, and vests in the president the authority to interpret his actions as consistent with treaty obligations. Courts, then, will have limited ability to constrain (or even review) presidential actions in the rendition context because it is governed to a significant extent by treaty provisions.

With the exception of the Immigration Act, all of the prohibitions on facilitating torture listed above are potentially implicated by the DC Circuit's ruling on the legal status of human rights treaty provisions. Alongside the Geneva Convention, the CAT, the Refugee Convention (RC), and the ICCPR could all fail as sources of human rights protections, because all of them are treaty-based human rights protections and therefore do not create private rights of action. The FARRA, in turn, was passed by Congress to implement the CAT, but under Hamdan it, too, could fail if confronted with the president's contrary interpretation of the CAT treaty itself, for FARRA's purpose was to implement a presidentially negotiated treaty.

Congress has adopted treaty language related to human rights in other statutes as well. The Immigration Act and its various revisions constitute a more freestanding statutory scheme. However, the Patriot Act and the broadened use of the Material Witness Statute (8 U.S.C. § 3144) have changed the immigration laws in numerous ways (e.g., by empowering the attorney general to carry out what amounts to indefinite detention of aliens) that weaken its guarantees of humane treatment (Pallitto, forthcoming). In short, then, all of the legal prohibitions against torture and the facilitation of torture could be removed by the ruling in Hamdan. It remains to be seen whether the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court will allow this process to reach such a juncture.

Conclusion

President George W. Bush is expanding executive power beyond traditional limits, and is aided in his efforts by a judiciary squeamish at the prospect of enforcing law to the detriment of the executive branch. If treaties and statutes no longer constrain the exercise of presidential power to kidnap and send people to foreign jurisdictions for torture, and if treaties prohibiting torture and maltreatment may not be invoked by victims against the executive branch, then the president has taken a step into a land of unaccountable action. If the president decides when a treaty applies to executive action, then there is nothing to keep him or her from sweeping aside the provisions of any agreement that runs afoul of presidential policy desires. After the Arguelles affair the presidency was sufficiently chastened not to repeat the act for 125 years, but in the present circumstances, where secrecy and judicial timidity control, there is little to prevent a president's thoughts from becoming deeds.

[Footnote] 1. Eventually, contrary to what the United States claimed, the Syrians determined that Arar had no connection to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. 2. The doctrine was first explained in substance in Ex parte Scott, 9 B. & C. 446, 109 E.R. 106 (1829), but has origins well before this case. 3. The GC, RC, CAT (implemented by 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340 and 2340A), and ICCPR are all treaties to which the United States is a signatory. The FARRA and the Immigration and Nationality Act are laws enacted by the U.S. Congress. All of them explicitly prohibit both the practice of torture and the practice of transferring individuals to countries where they are likely to face torture. 4. In addition to simply denying that an extraordinary rendition occurred, the executive may cite two distinctions which make a given case different from the extradition-to-torture scenario: reliance on a foreign court decision (in the Attiya case, there was a conviction in absentia) or claim of ignorance (they did not know what would happen to the subject upon arrival in the foreign country). Of course, this second justification is belied by the fact that extraordinary rendition actually is a weapon in the war on terror that depends on the use of vigorous interrogation. If such tactics were not needed, there would be no reason to send subjects overseas. 5. In the Arar litigation, the government has already relied on the state secrets doctrine to prevent disclosure of information about the incident.

[Reference] References Act Relating to Habeas Corpus, and Regulating Judicial Proceedings in Certain Cases. 1863. 12 Stat. 755. Arar v. Ashcroft. 2004. Complaint and demand for jury trial. Retrieved September 26, 2005, from http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/docs/ArarComplaint.pdf. Bybee, Jay S. 2002. Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to the president and William J. Haynes II, general counsel of the Department of Defense, January 22. Committee on International Human Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. 2004. Torture by proxy: International and domestic law applicable to "extraordinary renditions." New York: Association of the Bar of the City of New York and Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, New York University School of Law. Dulce, Domingo. 1864. Letter of May 19, 1864, by Captain General of Cuba, Domingo Dulce. Reprinted in New York Times, June 9. Du Pays, M. 1864. Liberator 34(24), June 10. Fisher, Louis. 2005. Amicus curiae in support of petitioner, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (in DC Circuit and petition for writ of certiorari). Fremont, John. 1864. Fremont's position. Liberator 34(27), July 1. Garcia, Michael John. 2005. Renditions: Constraints imposed by laws on torture. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Report RL32890. Hammond, Larry A. 1979. The president's authority to force the Shah to return to Iran. Office of Legal Counsel, 4A: 149, November 23. Harper's Weekly. 1864. A bad means to a good end, June 18. Jefferson, Thomas. 1793. Mr. Jefferson, secretary of state, to Mr. Genet, minister plenipotentiary of France; Philadelphia, September 12, in France and Great Britain: Message from the president of the United States. U.S. Serial Set Index, American State Papers 1, Foreign Relations No. 65: 177. J.F.B. 1864. The extradition of Arguelles. New York Times, July 14. Lee, Charles. 1797. Territorial rights-Florida. Opinions of the Attorney General 1: 68-70, January 26. Legare, Hugh S. 1841. Obligation to surrender fugitives from justice. Opinions of the Attorney General 3: 661, October 11. Mayer, Jane. 2005. Annals of justice: Outsourcing torture. New Yorker, February 14. Retrieved November 27, 2005, from http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050214fa_fact6. Nelson, John. 1843. Extradition under treaty of Washington. 4: 201-14, August 7. New York Times. 1864. Law reports: The Arguelles case, July 7. Pallitto, Robert. Forthcoming. Creating a shadow president: The attorney general, executive power, and the new anti-terror laws. Journal of Law and Border Studies. Phillips, Wendell. 1864. The presidential election: The speech of Wendell Phillips. Liberator 34(44), October 28. Rogers, Henry Wade. 1884. Harboring conspiracy. North American Review 138(385): 521-34. Russell, William H. 1863. Communication from Mr. Russell, United States consul at Trinidad de Cuba, to Mr. F. W. Seward. 38th Cong., 1st sess., Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 56, July 25. Seward, William H. 1864. Seward, Washington, June 24 in Message of the President of the United States. 38th Cong., 2d sess., House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 1, Part IV. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1865. Taney, Roger B. 1833. Extradition. Opinions of the Attorney General 2: 559, April 16. Weaver, William G., and Robert M. Pallitto. 2005. State secrets and executive power. Political Science Quarterly 120: 85-112. Wedgwood, Ruth. 1990. The revolutionary martyrdom of Jonathan Robbins. Yale Law Journal 100: 229-368.

[Author Affiliation] WILLIAM G. WEAVER University of Texas at El Paso ROBERT M. PALLITTO University of Texas at El Paso

[Author Affiliation] William G. Weaver is associate professor and director of academic programs in the Institute for Policy and Economic Development at the University of Texas at El Paso. Robert M, Pallitto is assistant professor of political science at the University of Texas at El Paso.

Washington Post

Falphin seems to feel the need for reverting my view of the Washington Post article. The Post makes several statements: 1 there are undisclosed facilities around the world being used by the CIA, 2 these facilities are used in a way that might be in violation of US law or local law, 3 these statements (1 and 2) are based upon information by officials, 4 officials requested to keep the exact location secret.

Since their story clearly implies the US government and/or CIA are engaged in illegal activities, not disclosing information which would result in ultimately addressing these violations is in essence helping these alleged criminals to escape justice. Why this can't be concluded in the article escapes me. Therefore it would have to be included. I will not start an edit war, so let's debate the subject in stead of reverting my comment on dubious grounds.--Nomen Nescio 19:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• The issue is the POV not the information. For examle Extroadinary Rendition is fine under U.S. through a presidential directive which Bill Clinton iniated.(sadly) 2. That does not mean the Washington Post supports the administration. Read my comments again. 3. It is not our job to have the article reflect popular opinion but to reflect facts. Falphin 19:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This puzzles me. Is there not a treaty signed by the US against torture? Does this treaty not explicitly prohibit 1 the use of torture, 2 extradiction to countries using torture? Would extraordinary rendition as here discussed not by definition be in violation of this treaty, regardles of what any president says? More to the point, does a US president have the authority to ignore international obligations, such as human rights, prohibition of torture, et cetera? Here the legal considerations regarding that are discussed. To this day scholars are not convinced this is possible. Which would explain the Bush administration's obsession with the International Criminal Court.

It is but by U.S. law but executive orders and presidential directives override treaties, laws. I believe that they can be overturned later on by court but that has to be done specifically to them. A good example is the Executive Order 9066. Its a way of sidestepping the Legislative and Judicial branch. Really, it allows the President unlimited power(minus impeachment) but obviously it would be very difficult to use it to gain dictarol control or something to it. So, no it is not against U.S. law even though it appears to contradict it. Keep in mind this was Bill Clinton's policy, Bush has just expanded it. Falphin 00:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ, and at these pages you can see why : [3][4][5][6] If you are right it would mean that any government leader, just by declaring a new local law, can circumvent international law, making i.e. "war crimes" no longer illegal. I am no legal expert but this sounds not plausible because, should that be possible international law would no longer exist. Or, in other words, why is SH arrested? I would imagine under Iraqi law he did not commit any crime. Furthermore, why did Gonzales point to a little known law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act for refuting the Geneva Convention? By declaring Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protection it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act." he wrote.[7][8]--Nomen Nescio 01:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thats right. How do you think the Japanese internment happened. The most common view of the Bush administration is that they are not violating the Geneva conventions and they also use the arguement that it is not applicable for terrorists sine they are not soldiers.

The point being made by the Post is that people are involved in acts that are at this moment in violation of US and international law, i.e. Human rights, United Nations Convention Against Torture, Third Geneva Convention, Fourth Geneva Convention. Reason for transferring them to places outside the US and keeping them out of sight. (This in itself is an admission by US officials they themselves think they are involved in serious offences) Once again I state that the Post is protecting these alleged criminals by not revealing the details. How this is POV, or even popular opinion, I don't understand. Furthermore, this comment is based upon another article which is referenced at the end of that statement.--Nomen Nescio 00:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, we don't know why the post refuses to release the details. That can be mentioned in the article. What can't be is saying that the Post is supporting Bush's decisions since thats just speculation and a POV. While the Post may be honoring the President's wish to keep in secret there are obvious reasons, such as national secruity for this. Take the story about the U.S. soldiers flushing the Quaran down the toilet. There was great reprecussion because. Also, the Post isn't the only nation to withold the locations. Falphin 00:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You must admit that by concealing information of possible crimes you are guilty of obstruction. Obstruction in this case, would mean the Post supports the US administration, since it keeps them from the arms of the law. The reasons behind the Post's decision are not relevant. One might have good reason for killing another person, but it still is prohibited. Besides, National Security seems to be a rather convenient argument when faced with, what could amount to war crimes. On top of that I can't see how disclosing the location where US officials are torturing suspects is endangering the US. As to the response of the world to abuse by the US, this is a strange argument. The US should not have done this. So disclosing it is not the problem, but the initial violation of international law is!.--Nomen Nescio 01:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hold on... First its not guilty of obstruction until a court orders them to give up the information. Secondly why would they publish a story that will negatively effect the administration if they are supporting them. Clear and simple, they aren't they are an independent newspaper not a propaganda machine. Thirdly there are no clear defined war crimes for terrorists sadly. So actually as of now the U.S. gov cannot be tried under their slippery arguments. Also, the U.S. has admitted to the existence but not that torture exists. We really don't know anything about the camps so its best to stick to facts otherwise we’re speculating. Finally what international law are you speaking of. Have you read the Geneva conventions? I have and like I said under U.S. arguments it does not qualify sadly. And the U.S. cannot be tried by the Hague court you know. Falphin 00:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

1 If a murderer hides at your place and you do not call the police, what is that?[9]

Sorry, i don't understand what your point is? Politics and Society are much more complicated if your trying to over generalize the situation.

This would be called obstruction of justice. Meant as metaphor for the Post not revealing the locations.--Nomen Nescio 03:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

But thats not the same situation. Let me give you an example from Law and Order SVU(my wife watches it). There was a situtation where a homosexual man murdered men that had a deadly strand of the HIV virus.(The strand killed his brother in 6 months). The arguement used in court was that he was saving lives by stopping a mass murder. However, he was found guilty. I believe your arguement is the same as the above.

2 The Post did not write anything negative about the Bush administration. The practice of rendition is well documented. Heck, this article is proof of that. A new revelation would be where these people are taken or who they are. That is not presented for some reason. Let's leave it at that since this clearly is about semantics.

The practice of rendidtion lacks solid evidence. However, I agree it is taking place and it is appalling. But with serious media investigation it won't happen. The fact that WAshington Post actually wrote an article is astounding because there is very little coverage in the U.S. until recently. In fact most Americans are not aware of the practice.

It shows that US citizens are, for whatever reason, not aware of what is happening. Apparently they are not interested, or the media are incompetent.--Nomen Nescio 03:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That still doesn't change that there is a lack of evidence. The flushing of the Quaran is a great example. Investigation often over turns assumptions. I don't believe in this case it will but with so little hard proof it is difficult.

Although you are correct in stating there is no solid evidence, there is an abundance of "circumstantial evidence." The refusal to explicitly deny the existance of ER seem odd to me. --Nomen Nescio 02:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

3 As to war crimes, these are well defined, please look here, and here. Whether US officials are guilty of war crimes that is the question. Granted, it is highly unlikely that even if any US soldier is committing these crimes they will ever be prosecuted. But it is worth noting that several memos have been written [10] that explicitly address the War Crimes Act[11] and thereby acknowledge U.S. officials are involved in acts that could be seen to be war crimes.[12][13][14][15] It is difficult to understand why anyone would want to look at legal loopholes regarding war crimes. Unless ........[16]

War crimes are well defined but that doesn't mean the United States fits under it. Which defintion does the U.S. fit. If you mean the Geneva conventions which the U.S. can be tried under no. In fact(don't have time to look up the case) but hte U.S. has the rights according to our courts to use generic labels which avoid them. Secondly, we don't know whats going on with the rendition. The claims are still just claims. We unfortunately have to wait until someone in Congress pressures the government enough to release the info and allow a formal investigaiton.(The victims motives can be easily called into question)

Please look at the references. War crimes are well defined and all that has to be done is look if the actions taken by US officials or the US administration fit that definition. Furthermore, I used the US War crimes act, which by definition applies to any US citizen. As to rendition, if you look at the Convention against torture you will find that it is illegal to send people to countries where it is likely they will be tortured. This is documented, and although one might debate if the US has tortured, this part of rendition is enough to violate international law. It has been established many have died under circumstances suggesting torture, and many former detainees have testified they have been tortured. How much more evidence does one need to make a legal case? Pictures? We have them, but the Bush administration refuses to release them in violation of a recent court order.--Nomen Nescio 03:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry my respnoses aren't well resourced, everything is from my personal debate experience. I don't have much time right now. But from my understanding is that the U.S. claims that those techiniques qualify as "Persuasion" not "toture" and that those held in detention don't fit in any of the Geneva defintions. Essentially they created there own label which was upheld by congress allowing for indefinite detention.

You miss the point. One cannot suddenly change the rules. By redefining the Geneva Convention the US does exactly that. Although the Bush administration states it can redefine international law, the rest of the world disagrees. Think of me standing in front of a judge and claiming I should be released since my interpretation of the law is correct and he is wrong. Or to put it more clearly, everybody is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts! --Nomen Nescio 02:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

4 That some are tortured has already been established. The US calls it "incidents" as you might remember.[17][18] Many suggest official policy inspired by Cheney, but that has not been proven. However, there are reasons to believe the practice of torture is accepted by high level officials. Or else, why is it so important to redefine "torture," to write the aforementioned memos, or to veto the McCain proposition which would explicitly prohibit torture? If nobody is involved in torturing, than there can be no problem with banning it.[19]

What is toture thats the problem. The vics claims can easily be called into question as I mentioned above the only thing known about what the U.S. is doing is what they have admitted. Such as temperature control, dogs, physical pushing,etc. But the United States denies that that is toture. I don't really understand it. (Just on Fox recently)

Article 1: ‘For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.’ Taken from Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I would imagine this is more than sufficient to show that the interrogation methods used violate this treaty.[20] Contrary to popular believe, the Bush administration is bound by this treaty and cannot redefine "torture." As to casual claims, that is true. But by the same token any party guilty of torture has motives for denying it. Nevertheless, some soldiers have been convicted which in my mind would mean the US government at least accepts that "rogue elements" are engaged in the abuse of prisoners.--Nomen Nescio 03:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I"m sorry if I"m not clear bu tthey claim that there techniques don't qualify under those definitons. For example, temperature control. Does it really cause "severe" physical pain? They also use the argument that some fredoms have to be suspended in a time of war(common arguement in U.S. history) which also carries over to this. I'm not saying there arguements are good, but the U.S. gov's view should be taken into account.

It is a fact some 100+ prisoners have died. Of these, some had evidence of bodily harm. In other words, evidence exists of prisoners having died as result of torture. So, that some of them are tortured is a fact. I do agree this does not prove government policy. Furthermore, I find it difficult to understand why the US administration refuses an independent investigation into these allegations. Most recently, UN investigators were denied free access to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay! Why?--Nomen Nescio 02:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

5 As you say under U.S. arguments it does not qualify, meaning the Bush administration claims it is not bound by the Geneva convention.[21] You must know that merely stating something does not make it true. Many think the US cannot refute international law.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]

The U.S. is bound by the Geneva convention but there is nothing in the Conventions describing treatment of the prisoners we have. Why, because of the defintion we use. I'll provide, sources I just don't have any freed up time right now.

You are wrong, the Geneva Convention is very explicit: Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.[30][31] You must agree there is doubt as to the exact status of these prisoners. The convention clearly demands that their exact status must be determined, and untill that time the Geneva convention for POW applies! The Bush administration denies it but please tell me, what does the text mean in your opinion?--Nomen Nescio 03:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait a seocond. The U.S. claims there status is clear and that they don't fit under the defintion.

Please, the US has the right to its opinion, but nobody else agrees with that view. What part of Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal, do you not understand?--Nomen Nescio 02:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Nescio beat me to it. Here is a link to the wikisource version of Article 5 of the third Geneva Convention.
• Now the Bush administration asserted they didn't have to hold those competent tribunals. But the US government has a three branch government. In this particular case elements of the Bush administration policy on detainees and the Geneva Convention have been over-ruled. In particular, the judicial branch ruled that if the military didn't convene those competent tribunals, the civil judicial authorities would have jurisdiction. The executive branch fought convening even semi-open tribunals kicking and screaming. In the end they had to give in. They convened the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

That is true , but they did not overrule the label used by the government on prisoners. My understanding that was unfortuantely upheld.

• The tribunals were deeply inadequate. You will see that for yourself if you try reading about them, or reading about them. Read about Murat Kurnaz, an obviously innocent man, who continues to be incarcerated on tissue thin evidence. Take a look at Moazzam Begg's CSRT. The President of his Tribunal told him that making a decision as to whether he was a legitimate POW was not in her mandate. Yet that is exactly what the Geneva Convention says a "competent tribunal" is supposed to do. Begg was not the only detainee who was told this. Although the Bush administration represented themselves as (finally!) complying with the Geneva Convention, if you looked closely they clearly weren't, and had no intention of doing so.
• Since the United States still hasn't fulfilled its obligations, under the Geneva Conventions, to convene "competent tribunals" to determine whether the detainees were or weren't entitled to the protections of POW status, then they were obliged to continue to treat them as if they were POW. "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
• This really couldn't be clearer. -- 04:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually it could, I think your missing the point of my arguements. While I'm 90% Extroadinary Rendidtion is taking place, there is reason to doubt. And all the while we need to include the U.S. gov's viewpoint.

The US government cannot invent new definitions. That is my point. If rendition takes places it violates international law. No ifs and buts about it. Please read the convention on torture!--Nomen Nescio 02:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

6 As to the International Criminal Court, what would happen if one of the countries where these facilities are located were to ask for these CIA officials to be tried? Why is the US engaged in blackmailing other countries to not sent US officials to the Hague? Surely, this must mean the Bush administration is not convinced they are safe from proscecution. [32][33][34] --Nomen Nescio 16:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. never signed for the convention. I actually agree we should not join the Hague until we gain a good world reputation which is going to require us to give up our hyperpower status. See, if the world feels like it(some are already pushing for the U.S. to be tried by the Hague but can't pass it casue we haven't signed on before the rendition stuff) our president could be taken into custody. Its a matter of sovernity and politics doesn't really have anything to do with fear. Falphin 01:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It sounds you acknowledge, that had the US signed the ICC, Bush might stand trial for war crimes. Aside from accepting the ICC, this means you agree with the perception the US administration is violating intenational law. As to the possibility of a trial. If crimes are committed in a country that has signed, the suspect can be tried by the Hague. So, this explains why Bush is blackmailing these countries not to. Although the US is no party to the ICC, any country that is can ask the Hague to intervene.[35][36][37][38]

Bush would be tried for a combination of the controversial plans he's conducted , war crimes would be more of an excuse. Bush isn't really blackmailing them infact the U.S. gov is in good relations with multiple European countries. Its usually the protesters trying to get Bush tried. ANd of course if he was the U.S. military would intervene and we would be in World War III. Keep in mind while world opinion of the U.S. is decreasing this has been a trend since the Vietnam War.

Should it turn out that the Bush administration lied about prewar intelligence, the invasion of Iraq would constitute a war crime. Should it be proven people were tortured as result of, or even lack of administration policy, that would constitute a war crime. Should it turn out civilians were not sufficiently protected (Falluja?), this would constitute a war crime. I can go on but let's leave it at that. As to the blackmailing. How do you call it when the Bush administration tells countries their financial aid will stop if they don't sign a treaty preventing extradiction to the Hague? Of course, the mere fact that the US would invade Holland, should anybody stand trial for war crimes, says it all. If the law can't be bend, (redefining torture!) the US will use its military to keep suspects from the law. The opinion the world has is a direct result of the Bush administration unilaterally refuting international law (Geneva), officially adopting torture as possible technique, increasing evidence they misrepresented the facts pertaining to Iraq, rewriting scientific reports not consistent with their (religious) ideology, et cetera. --Nomen Nescio 02:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, have you read the references I supplied? They explain in detail my point of view.--Nomen Nescio 03:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• I am thankful for you providing the sources. I had previously read the majority of them however and many other web sites and articles on ER. One note I forgot to mention about the Geneva Convetion is II. "In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them." The U.S. gov does not consider this a war of parties but somethins more similar to war on drugs. There has been no formal declaration fo war by an Muslim government so ineffect the U.S. gov is right that the Geneva Convetions don't or at least are difficult to apply. I'm sorry I don't have more time to look up sources for my information. I'll also see if my son has any good neg evidence on ER right now. We seem to have gotten off topic from our discussion on the Post. I wouldn't contest a sentence like "Because of the action taken by teh Post some have accused them of obstruction of justice." or something like that. Falphin 02:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You are right. I got carried away, sorry for that. Anyway, a civilized exchange of information never hurt anybody, so thank you for that.

Regarding the U.S. gov is right that the Geneva Convetions don't or at least are difficult to apply,would you agree that aside from the Bush administration nobody shares this view? (Look at the UN, Amnesty international, Human Rights Watch, International Red Cross, et cetera) Does this not by definition mean there is doubt as to how to interpret the Geneva Convention? Under such circumstances I again refer to Article 5 of the third Geneva Convention I mentioned earlier.

As to you suggestion, sounds good to me, so I'll insert it.--Nomen Nescio 02:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Had not seen your response, finally added my answers.--Nomen Nescio 02:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed the "western" bit because it is not clear which, if any, countries assist rendition - me

Actually, the New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer has reported that there has been over 300 rendition flights documented by flight logs, and because of the fact that this is a secret practice, the exact number can't be known. It is, in fact, a very routine practice. mccluret 14:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

FAIR

Inserted FAIR comment. Had been removed on dubious ground. No reason to keep it out.--Nomen Nescio 06:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

ER and black site

I think this article is confusing the two at various points. I didn't occur to me at first but the Eastern European prisons are under U.S. custody so there is no rendition. This is made more clear on the Black Site article. A basic explanation is that the United States takes detainees to Cuba, Poland, Romania etc in United States prisons where toture is unlikely toture is taking place at least based upon current information. ER is when we send prisoners to Jordanian prisons, Syrian prisons etc and then have the Syrians interrerogate them under CIA watch. I don't have a problem with WP being mentioned but I believe the difference should be shown. Sorry it is a bit of a nick pick Falphin 23:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Although that sounds reasonable, oddly enough the Bush administration itself claims such locations to be outside the US. It is THE argument used to keep prisoners beyond the law, i.e. Guantanamo Bay. --Nomen Nescio 04:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It is beyond U.S. law but still in U.S. custody. There is also clear difference in the purpose of the Eastern European prisons/Gitmo and the Syrian/Uzbek/Egyptian etc prisons. The first is to have U.S. interrogaters intimidate and get answers from the terroits in a place unkown to the prisoners(doesn't apply to Gitmo) while the other is to use countryman or a near thing so that language isn't an issue and perhaps to use a bit hard questioning and perhaps even toture. There is still a difference although very slim. I just meant I thought it should be clarified what ER is generally associated with and what Black Sites.(Didn't see it explained in the article) As I said before this is only a nitpick and really isn't that important. Falphin 00:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a stupid question, but how can you have custody over someone outside of your jurisdiction? No US official has any legal position outside the US. For anybody in let's say Egypt, this must be under Egyptian supervision. This prisoner is subject to Egyptian law. In the case of an embassy US law applies since the embassy constitutes US soil. I don't understand how custody can be possible if neither US, local or even international law applies. Or in other words, a NYPD police officer has no legal rights in LA. There he is just a civilian, unless there is some agreement with the LAPD. It would be stranger still if this NYPD officer were to write me a speeding ticket in London.--Nomen Nescio 15:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You ask, "how can you have custody over someone outside of your jurisdiction?" Let me offer two alternative answers.

1. Simple, your custody is illegal. Every so often some US bounty hunter comes up here to Canada, and grabs some guy who violated his bail and fled to Canada. Highly illegal. What they did was kidnapping, under Canadian law. And they are routinely carrying weapons that were not registered in Canada.
2. Did you hear President, Bush a month or so ago, when he talked about torture. He is not a good speaker. He has some kind of dsylexia. That is why he gives associates nicknames, even though it antagonizes them. That is how he antagonized Cindy Sheehan. But, because he is the President, he gets cut enormous slack, and listeners try to interpolate what he actually meant. Go back and read a transcript of what he said about torture. The interpretation of his comment, "everything we do is legal", meant that US officials don't torture is just one interpretation. Another interpretation is that he is echoing the distasteful torture memos drafted by Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo, who said (paraphrasing from memory): when it comes to National Security everything the US President orders is legal, no matter what laws it violates. -- Geo Swan 16:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

He is still good enough speaker to win to elections. I believe that he won partly because Americans saw him as an honest person, and someone upfront. Also, someone standing up to the United Nations. I don't think it is a secret fact that probably at least half if not 2/3 of Americans are seriously questioning the UN right now. Clearness in speaking is not necesarily the best. The Geneva conventions are up for debate and I don't trust them to cover what is going on now, but a specific international law should be passed to protect such people. Of course if the U.S. doesn't sign we're back to square one. Falphin 02:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite simple the foreign governments grant them the right unlike the Canada scenario to the secret jails. So the CIA is in charge of the prisons. But the real dirty work is in ER cases when people are sent to Syria, Egypt etc to get intelligence there the CIA keeps a wandering I mean watchful eye if you know what I mean. They sort of turn the other way when prisoners are boiled alive and such. One more note is that prisoners in Egypt are always under CIA supervision. Its considered more intimidating and effective to have interrogators of one's own nationality than to have an America. Falphin 02:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This means US officials are not autonomous. They are subject to local law, not US law. Therefore to send people to these places is to send them to another legal system. This is called rendition. Furthermore, the mere fact that US law does not apply is exactly why people are send there. Under US law the more "flexible" interrogation would be prohibited, so this is what we call a legal loophole. However, that legal status is not relevant. Under the UN Convention Against Torture it is not only prohibited to torture, it cearly prohibits sending people to countries where torture can be expected, or even not intervening in torture is a violation of this treaty. Since the US has signed this treaty, it is impossible to engage in these acts without violating international law.[39][40] --Nomen Nescio 02:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

They are in control of the situation however. CIA agents have admitted to that. One even said he did it with his "eyes open" . yes they are in control but they are not doing toture. What rights do these detainees have is the difficulty the UN's definition remains foar from clear. And why does the legal status matter, or if it is against international law. That had nothing to do with my response. Falphin 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In control is not the same as saying it is legal. Although you repeat the Bush administration's claim there is not torture you might want to consider this: 1 Why can't these suspects be held inside the US or on US territory? 2 Why does the world think differently? Please look at Red Cross, Human Rughts Watch, Amnesty International, numerous reports in the media, et cetera. 3 The rights of these prisoners are very clear to those familiar with international law. Do read Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. Still all this does not contradict that US officials are either bound by US or International law. What you are suggesting is that there is, and should be, a legal limbo. That I object to. These prisoners are protected by international law, to say otherwise is not only incorrect, but constitutes a war crime.

"In Control is not the same as saying it is legal"-Huh? once again I was talking about the legality of it in my original post you responded to . You can't charge the CIA for toture because they aren't toturing. You can however charge them for some other crime if a speicfic law was created. International Law in this sense doesn't have much weight on the CIA because the CIA is not really controlled by the President. I've read Article 5 probably 30 times by now(no exaggeration). I believe a specific law related to Rendition should be passsed because complaining that the U.S. is violating international law is never going to change the practice. The U.S. is the only superpower in the world, so who is really going to stand up without being crushed? Falphin 03:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You say, "doesn't apply to Gitmo". One technique it is claimed was used against Guantanamo detainees was to warn them that if they didn't cooperate with their Guantanamo interrogators they would be sent home or to some torture state, where harsher methods lay in store for them. Then, after all kinds of dire warnings about how much tougher the interrogators in that other nation would be, the interrogators would say goodbye, we give up on you, we are shipping you off to see if the Egyptian/Uzbeks can get anything out of you. They cuff the guy, put blacked-out googles on them, and ear-muffs on them. (They always do this when transporting detainees.) And then pack him on board a jet. But they don't fly him off. The plane merely circles Guantanamo in wide wide loops for ten hours or so. When they land they provide auditory clues that he is in Uzbekistan, or whereever. And finally take off the googles and earmuffs, in another interrogation chamber made to look like it is an Uzbek chamber. They have brought in real Uzbeks to do the interrogation, or someone who can fool the detainee into thinking he is an Uzbek. -- Geo Swan 16:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, to your first point that is just persuasive spekaing has nothing to do with it. I think you misunderstand my point that Gitmo is entirely seperate from secret prisons(minus one supposed of f area one, but whether that is really secret is up to debate). Gitmo is well known and has been checked by several international obervors. It is has shown to not be the friendliest of places but is definetly not a gulag. Falphin 02:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect, Guantanamo Bay has not been checked by international observors since an independent investigation has been denied by the US administration. As UN ivestigators demanded unlimited access to prisoners the US refused it. Only the Red Cross has visited, but they never disclose details of their findings. Therefore, your other assertion that it is not a Gulag is unsubstantiated and it clearly contradicts numerous reports by former detainees, lawyers, et cetera. --Nomen Nescio 02:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hardly, do you know what a gulag is? Don't you think the Red Cross would of published something if something did turn up? Granted we don't allow all people to have free access but the government has a right to do so. We need the info for terrorism. Besides, what evidence is there for being a gulag. Very little, the people at Gitmo are fed properly, have books to read and other forms of enjoyment. The former detainees reports I have seen and remian unimpressed unlike ER. And the lawyers I'm guessing you're refering to are the defendents. Keep in mind other lawyers are of other opinion. It is hardly a concentration camp, but a detention camp. And there is no slavery unlike in Soviet Camps. Falphin 00:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As you well know, the Red Cross never, and I stress never, divulges details. Even abuse of prisoners will not be mentioned. Their argument is that by doing so they are granted access which probably would be denied should they report any abuse. In this way they at least get to visit and help prisoners.[41][42] So, their not telling in no way proves there is no abuse.

Should you find yourself capable of looking at news media that are not sponsored by the Bush administration (FOX!) you will hear many accounts by former prisoners, lawyers, journalists, human rights organisations, et cetera. To ignore the numerous reports of prisoner abuse,[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][[54]] the details of which clearly violate the UN definition of torture, is ridiculous and shows that facts are not what you are interested in. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.[55][56]

After reading the links I provided you can hardly deny prisoner abuse exists, nor that what has been reported is violating the International Convention against Torture. If not, let me know and you can have some more articles on the subject.--Nomen Nescio 09:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I can. There is a difference in the world between pain(loud noise) and real pain(slashing, whipping etc.) If persuasive interrogations were not allowed the police would never find out information. I noticed your sources included Human Rights Watch and Amnesty. WHile I respect HRW I can't say the same for Amnesty. Amnesty often puts it's focus to strongly on the United States(suggesting an agenda) but not nearly enough on the more signficant problems. And even if there is toture that does not =gulag. I the first interesting. As it says he had difficutly breathing due to stress, but interrogations are generally stressful and he was taking a polygraph test.If his confession was a lie I think that the polygraph would of shown that. It should be mentioned that Polygraphs can not be used in court, and the evidence presented isn't going to hold anyway. But that was not torure. As someone that judges Policy Debate I am very familiar with the subject matter. I am grateful for the links but have seen them ore similar ones. I would like more information on this particular one however. [57] It would be helpful to know what Rumsfeld signed and what tatics were permitted. I would like to know the events leading up to the dressing in women's underwear to determine if it was abuse. (The dogs are a common fear tatic which does not equate to toture). I'll get to your other post later. Falphin 23:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You clearly did not read the references or else you would have noticed they mention prisoners being killed. Although I appreciate that interrogating could be stressfull I still think that dying is not supposed to be part of it. You might want to read all of my references, before responding.[58][59]

• May I have supporting evidence from a site not known as the New Yorker? Thanks. Falphin 21:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So, among all the links I supplied before, you trust none? In other words you deny prisoners have died? You clearly refuse to accept these many reports (I suspect you never will, regardless of how much evidence there is), so please tell me what newspaper or human rights organisation do you trust? --Nomen Nescio 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't deny it, I just would like a major news agency report on it. There is a site supporting every conspiracy theory out there, and Jane Myers is known as a strongly against US policy.(She is also known as very liberal). I like backup evidence for such weighty claims but I have yet to find one. If it does exist then I will gladly agree. I am just against the practice of ER as you are, but I would like more information on what is happening, instead of accepting every report as truth. International law isn't going to change this presidency and neither is us debating about this. I'm not sure exactly what it will take. Which is why I support passing a restrictive U.S. law on rendition. Even if it is vetoed at least Americans will understand the practice better. Falphin 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You agree torture is happening but ...? I don't understand your point. You are aware that so many reputable organisations report on this it would be folly to ignore it. Furthermore, you might want to explain which organisation or media can be trusted.--Nomen Nescio 11:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not denying they are being killed because I have no opinion either way, I would like to see a reputable news source report on this. Surely it is more damaging and sell worthy than flushing the Quaran down a toiler. Yes? Falphin 01:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, whether you like a source is not relevant. There are more than enough different sources to make their claims plausible. If I am not mistaken this is called "circumstantial evidence."

• You just stated that Fox News was Bush backed station.(Which there evidence for it is just a conservative station like CNN is a liberal one). And it does make a difference if the source is reliable. Falphin 21:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I fail to see the relevance. As I said, there are so many reports by so many different people (newspapers, lawyers, human rights agencies) that it boggles the mind you insist it is a mere fantasy.--Nomen Nescio 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I fail to see your point. I don't deny toture is happening in those places, and for some reason you conclude that I do. I'm just not sure if Washington can rightly weasel its way around the UN definiton of toture.

Of course you did not look at the UN definition of torture: severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person. Those examples we know of are in violation of this article. Please remember the Bush administration erroniously states they can redefine torture. The US is still bound by the Convention against torture, which Rice now admits, and these "enhanced techniques" violate that. You can't disagree with that. As you well know waterboarding is not allowed under that treaty. As to the dogs, why did the Bush administration stop the use of that? Once again read the UN definition of torture.

• For the last time I did. I stated there was a difference between severe toture and tough interrogation. The U.S. never claimed to mly knowledge to redefine toture. Falphin 21:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The cases that have been reported clearly violate the Convention against torture. What part of any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person do you not understand! Or do you insist "waterboarding" is not torture?
  • The US most certainly redefined torture contrary to UN definition! Please read this: [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]
  • Describing acceptable thechniques: [69][70][71][72][73] --Nomen Nescio 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Now their are some articles I haven't read yet. I will get to them in due time. One basic thing I should mention is that the U.S. is more easily tried under U.S. law because the U.S. made an exception saying that our officials must first follow the U.S. consitution and then the the 1994 toture law second. Falphin 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Incorrect. The US war cimes act applies to US citizens. Besides the Convention against torture applies to all countries that have signed. The US signed therefore the US and its citizens are bound by it.--Nomen Nescio 11:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)z
        • Yes of course, but they still follow U.S. law first that law was sort of an appeasment law. Anyway, no one could be tried because of a loss of information on the war on terror, unless of course ER was banned. I have no problem with rendidtion as long as toture does not place, in other words I'm opposed to ER. I'm sorry, I've been busy and have not been able to get to those links above, but I will. Falphin 01:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

But your earlier point was that since prisoners are in US custody there can be no rendition. Since they are supposed to be outside US jurisdiction it makes it rendition. They are send to a location which is supposed to be beyond US courts. Besides, why would the US be doing that? Are US investigators less capable than i.e. those in Egypt? One has to conclude the key difference is the interrogation technique -torture- which by placing suspects outside US law could be used. --Nomen Nescio 10:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Huh. ER is sending detainees to countries under their juristiction but Under CIA Control. Their is evidence that those countries don't even want the detainees. Now I have stated before that I gave a 90% chance that they were being totured. But your point is contradictory. First you occuse(in the links) that Gitmo is a place of toture but that is under Complete U.S. juristiction from a treaty with Cuba. Cubans can not try Americans there. There are no CUban interrogators. So your point is nulled as far as I can see. But what you missed is that it is docuemeted(and common sense) that you are more likely to respond to someone of your own nationality than of a foreign.Falphin 21:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Taking prisoners to another jurisdiction is exactly what rendition is. So, you only support my assertion. Whether or not these countries agree is not relevant. They are still transfered to them. As you know the Bush administration claimed Gitmo was outside of US jurisdiction.[74] Only after a US court intervened they were forced to accept it is within US jurisdiction and subject to US law. But the Bush administration still refuses these prisoners due legal process.[75][76][77][78][79] The nationallity of the interrogators is irrelevant. If they are US officials then they are violating US and international law, and if they are non-US than still the US officials are violating US and international law.[80] This is more than adequately explained by me and in the links I supplied earlier. --Nomen Nescio 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Uh, I never denied your assertion to my knowledge that it happens. Its what kind. In my view Guantanamo is under its own catergory of rendtion, Black Sites in another and then from Black Sites prisoners are sent to the most questionable form, ER. But ER is not Guantamo or Black sites. Falphin 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Rendition either does or does not happen.--Nomen Nescio 11:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Uh, yeah rendition happens but there are more than one kind of rendition. There is inter-state rendition, ER, International Rendidtion, and Guatanamo. They are all unique in various ways. Falphin 01:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, many sources have been provided, but I suspect they still will not convince you. Why? Only you can tell.--Nomen Nescio 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• You're trying to convince me that it is against International. Right? I only think the toture laws are specfic enough to try borderline cases which is why I want a more indepth U.S. law to be passed to try CiA officials. The CIA can avoid international law in many ways, but can't avoid U.S. law. Falphin 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• And if you mean Guantanmo then I am not convinced because it is a unique case. The prisoners are fed 3 times a day, are allowed to have some privelages such as reading. I don't see the point of toturing. I don't believe toture at Abu Grahib is also present there because of the quick government action against those involved. In 10 years we will all understand this better than we do know and it may turn out we totured but then what is the point of ER. Why not just render? Falphin 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Of course, the CIA can be tried under international law. The problem is the US won't disclose their identity. But as you must know, at this moment a CIA operative is sought in connection to the abduction of a terror suspect in Italy. Contrary to your claim every US citizen, even CIA, is liable under international law. If not this would mean the CIA can openly murder, rape, engage in genocide but still be beyond the law. Which you know SH did. He did not break Iraqi law. Nevertheless he is sitting in a court room. Why?
    • I have had two critical' points on international law. 1. U.S. has stated essentially it will ignore it unless it agrees with U.S. law. 2. International law could be clearer. Which is why I want a U.S. specifically bannning ER. If that takes place, then it is a whole lot easier to charge them. As to the ITalian case, that is because thy caught him. By SH, I'm guesing you mean President Hussein. He was caught by the U.S. and given to Iraqi authorities, which has little relevance to ER if any. The CIA cannot rape, because that is clearly against U.S. law. Falphin 01:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Guantanamo Bay by court order is part of the US. The Black sites, if outside the US, would make US officials liable under local law, or even international law. It only means these locations are outside the US. Yet legally, US officials still are bound by international law. So, I fail to see what the difference is between the sites.
    • The purpose and what takes place. I have yet to be confident that abuse is present at the main Guatanamo BAy prison, and since the Black Sites are newer prisoners havn't given similar toture reports to those of the ER countries(Syria, Morroco, Uzbekistan, etc). There have been some granted but I haven't see enough to determine what the purpose of those sites are other than making them "ghost prisoners".
  • As to torture, you clearly feel the need to ignore numerous dead people, numerous reports. Of course, you are free to believe what you want. But to ignore a mountain of evidence is something else.--Nomen Nescio 11:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ignore???? I just don't take everyone's word for it. I want reputable and multiple sources which I have yet to see. that's all. Falphin 01:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Of course, ABC News, American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, BBC, CNN, FindLaw Legal News, Global Policy Forum, Humanitarian Lawyers Association, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, International Committee of the Red Cross, Le Monde Diplomatique, Liberty, Los Angeles Times, Médecins Sans Frontières, Newsweek, Online Journal, Physicians for Human Rights, Der Spiegel, Stern, The Age, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, HREA - The Global Human Rights Education Network, The Guardian, The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Times, The Washington Post, U.S. Army report on Iraqi prisoner abuse are absolutely not reputable, let alone multiple sources. What was I thinking? --Nomen Nescio 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about ER in general, I was speaking the deaths of the alleged terrorists. I have repeatedly stated, that ER takes place and is wrong. I've just suggested that the government has found a legal loophole to conduct such actions. Which is why I want a U.S. law to ban ER, similar to the law that banned the Presidential Directive that allowed the Japanese Internment.(the last and only Presidential directive to be overruled). I imagine it will pass(just for the simple thing fact that the Patriot Act is being stalled in the Senate) and then the president will veto it, which will be followed by a public uproar maybe even getting the 2/3's majority. The only sites that I suggest are not reputable is the New Yorker(which isn't unless supported, look at Jane Myer's past articles) and perhaps Amnesty. that's all. I don't understand what you are arguing with me about and how it affects the article. I'm not suggesting any changes to the article. Falphin 17:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Several points are addressed by these references: 1 Rendition exists, which you acknowledge, and contrary to the position of the Bush administration it is already illegal under international and US law: see kidnap, right to due legal process, convention against torture, et cetera. 2 Torture exists, which you deny on the grounds of lack of multiple and reputable sources. Second you suggest torture can be redefined by the Bush administration, once again that is incorrect, see convention against torture. 3 As result of abuse prisoners have died, which you deny on the grounds of lack of multiple and reputable sources.

The sources were meant to illustrate that all of these allegations were reported by numerous and reputable news media and human rights organisations. Therefore, it is strange to state that point 2 and 3 are not supported by reputable sources.--Nomen Nescio 15:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Once again, I don't deny toture, jsut the possibility in the main detention center in Gitmo, and possibly in the Eastern European prisons because there are not foreign interrogations there. I object to the priosners having died, because the only source I saw was the New Yorker which is not reputable. If you have posted others, my apologees. Falphin 20:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding those prisoners that haven't died[81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90]:

• Bagram torture and prisoner abuse - Dilawar - Habibullah[91][92][93][94][95]
• Manadel al-Jamadi[96][97][98][99][100][101]
• Sadoon Hatab[102][103][104][105]
• Abed Hamed Mowhoush[106][107][108]
• Karim ‘Abd al-Jalil

Yet again a myriad of unreputable sources. Please stop this ludicrous denial of what clearly has been established as fact! You may have noticed that none of these prisoners that haven't died, and are alive today, haven't died in Guantanamo. --Nomen Nescio 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Prove It, This is Subjective Impacting Credibility

1. The credibility of this web site is questionable. It has the elements of non-United States counter intelligence where it does take someone in the "know" it identify any aircraft flown by the C.I.A. (Central Intelligence Agency). Also, how does the person know they are exclusively C.I.A. and not chartered by someone on vacation? I have U.S. military service and have seen all types of aircraft, and no one can tell who they are just by looking at them, so there needs to be some other information present. This looks like a smear job without enough credible information. The liberal left looking to embarrass President George W. Bush have been attempting to smear him on prisoner of war camps since the year 2002, so this is not a new claim, and it is a claim that is doubtful due to the number of years of accusations and little evidence beyond there is a war in the Middle East.

2. The media is everywhere and the United States allows the media everywhere, but credibility is the only reason anyone in the media gets respected. This is an issue that is highly subjective, from a highly biased point of view, and needs more information to be credible.

3. One issue with International Law is when it is enforced. It is often enforced against nations that lose favor with the powers that exist when they have inadequate national defenses. It is a power play, and International Law having force over sovereign nations is questionable where the conduct of war is obvious and the Al-Quada has obvious intentions to form an empire from Indonesia to Spain with violent intentions. Islam explodes in public, shown by history and time, and the United States is tracking all of the violent elements of Islam down as soon as possible, since they truly involved the Western World in their affairs instead of building their local empires and baronies.

I'm not sure exactly what you're problem is. Extraordinary rendition, and the torture of people who have been processed in the system, has been exhaustively documented by journalists, government enquiries (Canada) and human rights groups around the world. The ownership of aircraft can be traced through registration papers and by standard journalism techniques. Please read the links at the bottom of the article if you need more information. --Lee Hunter 19:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

However, when linking to these 'sources' at the bottom of the article (the AI, HRW, and WP investigations) the cited investigations merely track the travel of privately registered aircraft. While the destinations and ownership of the planes do seem dubious, no objective evidence of what is transported (and where) is provided by any of the investigations. Blindfolded detainees can identify neither the exact location of their departure nor transfer nor arrival nor detention, much less the planes on which they are transported. Until these investigators can produce objective evidence of the contents of the suspect flights, records detailing the detentions, etc. we must base this entire discussion on the uncorroboratted statements of (potentially politically motivated) possible-former detainees (as pertaining to the only illegal allegations - torture) andd flight records. This is hardly the basis for a conclusive reportage on this issue. Cbghio 21:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)chris

I'm not sure what point no 3, is about, other than an expression of a non neutral POV. Item 2, correctly points to the media, who along with other NGO's unearth the story and detailed records of thousands of flights have now lead to an EU wide enquiry, along with many of the EU governments launching their own enquiries, as if governments or officials have been found to be assisting such kidnappings (Rendition is a US expression, whereas kidnap is the internationally recognised legal expression), will be guilty of aiding and abeting kidnap and if also found to be the case, torture also. There are several cases going to courts in several EU countries alone. In Italy, 12 CIA officers are being tried for kidnap, albeit by proxy, as the officials concerned wont attend court. In Germany there is currently a freed detainee who is taking the USA to court there for his abduction and later torture and return to Guantanamo. The Individual concerned is now free without charge, having been in prison for 4 years and having aledgidly been tortured during his captivity.

Rich

Plagiarism

Issues of bias aside, there is at least one instance of plagiarism that needs to be corrected. The paragraph that starts: "Members of the Rendition Group follow a simple but standard procedure" is lifted verbatim from the December 4, 2005 Washington Post article "Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake" By Dana Priest. This paragraph seems important, but needs to be rewritten or identified as a quote, and qualified with the original source of the information, which appears from the article to be an anonymous CIA agent interviewed by the post.

At the end of the paragraph you will find the reference. --Nomen Nescio 18:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Torture by proxy

Torture by proxy links here but I get the sense that extraordinary rendition is not considered always equivalent to torture by proxy as it does not always have to involve torture. If this is indeed the case then I think a separate article should be created on toture by proxy rather then simply redirecting here. Otherwise, if we are going to consider the terms equivalent then the term torture by proxy should be mentioned in the intro. --Cab88 19:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe "torture by proxy" was part of the article opening at one point. --Lee Hunter 19:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Extraordinary Rendition has to involve toture. The practice is sending people to countries where people are knowingly going to be totured. So it is toture by proxy. Black Sites(unless toture is proven) are as of now just international rendition. Falphin 03:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"He wasn't tortured but he was beaten and kept in solitary confinement."

He wasn't tortured but he was beaten. Well, if beating isn't torture, what is? I am going to delete the "He wasn't tortured" bit, since arguments about what is or isn't torture aren't relevant to a description of how he is alleged to have been treated.. --MollyKissKiss 10:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree.--Nomen Nescio 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually: the UNCAT (according to the language on its face and the Wikipedia article on UNCAT) defines torture as "severe pain or suffering". Therefore, there must be levels of pain and/or suffering that are not severe, and therefore not torture. The Wikipedia article on UNCAT refers to such treatment (which falls short of torture) as "cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment." Under this definition, a light beating and solitary confinement may not qualify as torture. In order to maintain a NPOV, it is important the precision is used in defining torture (it has a specific legal meaning). It does not suffice to say, "if beating isn't torture, what is?" Beating, if severe, may be torture. However beating does not necessarily mean torture. [on a side note]: the Geneva convention (3rd) prevents the cruel, degrading, and inhumane treatment of legal enemy combatants (members of a national army, with identifiable uniforms, who carry their arms openly, and follow the traditional laws of war). It is arguable which (if any) of the terrorist detainees qualigy from protection from cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment that does not rise the the severity of torture ("severe pain and suffering"). 128.239.220.38 21:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Chris

I question how beating does not qualify as either torture or degradation. I, for example, am highly susceptible to pain; what might not qualify as a "severe" beating to someone who boxes regularly might well qualify in my case. Since there's no way to measure the pysical sensations another experiences, the only way to ensure one does not torture someone is not to beat them.

Since the detainees have not been shown to be combatants of any sort (except in the sense that the Bush Administration has declared them to be so; hardly an objective ruling), they are protected as either civilians or soldiers until shown to be otherwise.

Septegram 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

appeared to be innocent

I have problems with this sentence:

In a number of cases, suspects to whom the procedure is believed to have been applied later appeared to be innocent.

Are not all "suspects" innocent until proved guilty in a court of law? How many of the "suspects" have been found guilty of a crime in a court of law? I think it needs substancial rewording or it should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically you are correct, but the Bush administration clearly, by its actions, uses the adagium: "guilty until proven innocent." Hence, the extrajudicial kidnap of enemy combatants who are then refused due legal process on account of their guilt.--Nomen Nescio 23:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Significance of 9/11?

No disrespect to anyone in the US or even my own compatriots who lost loved ones in 9/11. But really how significant is such an event when we look at worldwide suffering and tragedy. Ok that clear, what has details of process got to do with positioning the practice. The relevent issue remains one of its illigality.

While it is clear the US administration is overreacting, it is also worrying that US and international law no longer appear important.--Nomen Nescio 01:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Overreacting??? Please. It was the first attack on U.S. soil since 1993 and the only major one since Pearl Harbor(which sent us into WWII). While England, France, Germany, Spain have suffered numorous deaths over their long respective history, and Asia, and Africa has millions dying each year of hunger and AIds, the U.S. is new to this. That's why we reacted so harshly. The majority of americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan and a smaller majority in the War on Iraq. It is probably though annon the U.S. response here. Falphin 17:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

True, it was horrendous and new to the US. But you also mention that to the rest of the world terrorism was already known for a very long time. The mere fact that it was relatively new to the US does not warrant spying on US citizens, deny suspects the right to challenge their detention, kidnap non-US citizens, rewriting definition of torture, torture by proxy, deny the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners, plant stories written by U.S. troops in Iraqi newspapers, et cetera. This surely can be called overreacting.--Nomen Nescio 15:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• There is a difference between the U.S. and the bush administration who has taken advantage of the situation. I also disagree with you last one on U.S. stories in Iraqi newspapers, because many good things are happeneing, and it is only right that they be published and the U.S. is paying the newspapers for the spot therby helping that sector of the economy Falphin 20:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • You are correct, I should have mentioned the Bush administration. As to the manipulation of the news, I understand you would not mind if the Russians were to dictate what US newspapers should write?--Nomen Nescio 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Kindly move this discussion elsewhere- This isn't really contributing to the article- Interesting as it is, don't get me wrong. Angrynight 17:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

US ambassy admits to syrian rendition?

I do not want to edit the article. But I do think one of You should incorpoarate these news into this article. It seems to be the biggest news regarding renditions yet: US embassy close to admitting Syria rendition flight

I'm not sure if the ambassador's gaffe is very significant. It seems more like a minor footnote to the Maher Arar story. --Lee Hunter 22:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Euphemism

Re Nescio's comment: please don't revert without explanation (that's policy AFAIK). And what's wrong with my description? "Illegal shuttling of rightless prisoners throughout the world" might describe the situation more exactly, so I don't see why "Extraordinary rendition" should not be described as a euphemism. In fact, "extraordinary rendition" could serve as a classical example of politically motivated euphemistic language. Kosebamse 08:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Euphemism suggests something grave. It clearly is not a NPOV description. There is no need to use the word since it holds no additional information. I understand your feelings towards "Extraordinary rendition," but Wikipedia is not about sharing emotions, or expressing opinions.--Nomen Nescio 09:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very well aware of that (and should be, having been one of the main contributors to WP:WIN for quite a while), and I am not trying to share my emotions here. Something grave? Yes indeed, "extraordinary rendition" is a grave example of euphemistic language, as it is used by U.S. officials in an attempt to make a grave violation of human rights look like an everyday bureaucratic act. "Euphemism" is IMO a factual und accurate description here and that's why I used it. Kosebamse 13:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Still, it is up to the reader to decide whether or not this part of the war on terrorism should be supported. Or even if the concept is nothing more than a euphemism. We, as editors, should refrain from steering that view, and I think a factual description, without the implicit opinion, would suffice.--Nomen Nescio 14:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can't agree that it is a plain factual description then we'll have to NPOV it: find a more reputable source than me who calls that practice euphemistic and then quote that. Kosebamse 07:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph about the terminology involved here; would be grateful if somebody with a knowledge of international law could expand it. Thanks. Kosebamse 08:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This looks better, neutral introduction followed by observation regarding euphemism. Still, it is not a factual description but an implicit comment. Let's leave it as it is, maybe other editors have a view on this.--Nomen Nescio 13:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the view that it is an implicit comment. It is the essence of NPOV to present views as views not facts, with proper attribution of course, hence, this is the perhaps the best that we can achieve in the spirit of NPOV. Opposing views are of course welcome (although I doubt that many people outside the US government will be willing to defend that piece of language). Kosebamse 14:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised there's any discussion about whether labeling Extraordinary rendition as a euphemism is POV or NPOV. A person who had never heard the term "extraordinary rendition" would not know what it meant even if they looked "extraordinary" and "rendition" up in the dictionary (unless perhaps if it were an up-to-date online one). "Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho is an extraordinary rendition of the novel" would make literal sense. It is a less direct expression than "transporting suspects abroad to be interrogated in ways generally not permissible otherwise" (or however else it might be directly described), and as such is a prime example of a euphemism (like collateral damage, friendly fire, etc.). It's hard to see how even people in favor of ER could deny that the term is a euphemism. There might be more of a case for labelling it doublespeak being NPOV but frankly that describes it well too. Schizombie 23:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Insufficient sources

I am rendering an opinion on Wikipedia for the first time, so I apologize if I offend any sensibilities, it is merely due to my naivete. Here is my opinion on this page. Most other wiki articles are well organized with specific paragraphs related to definable topics. The section on "post 9/11" scrolls down for multiple, multiple rambling paragraphs. Further, the bulk of the topic has no coherent flow, introduction, or conclusion. Also, for an encyclopedia, the section on "examples" contains well too many, the author should instead reference websites where information can be gathered. Thinking of it like this, I believe the whole article should be trimmed to essential facts and established information, beyond just opinions.

Also, for such a well documented "fact" how come the links page has so few knowledgeable links. For example, Guantanamo Bay Cuba has a number of well documented sources, and fairly clearly shows waht the base is for. In my opinion, the extreme number of citations actually obscures the fact the "extraordinary rendition" has only a small number of sources. michael, user:24.55.42.125, contrib

You are wrong. Not only are there numerous sources, among them you will find many reputable newspapers and international organisations. I fail to see how that is insufficient sourcing, and why you think they are not "knowledgeable." Please read them before continuing this red herring.--Nomen Nescio 02:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Appeared to be innocent?

This sentence is a problem "In a number of cases, suspects to whom the procedure is believed to have been applied later appeared to be innocent." First of all, since this is an extra-judicial process they are all innocent (i.e. innocent until proven guilty) and secondly "later appeared to be innocent" makes it sound like they were a bit guilty-looking earlier and now they look as if they might be innocent. There's an important point buried here (that at least some of the rendered persons have done nothing to warrant their mistreatment) but its a tricky thing to phrase. --Lee Hunter 12:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The comment is noted, yet how does one stress that the Bush administration, although stating over and over again these were the worse of the worse people, had to release prisoners because they have nothing to do with terrorism? P.S. It is evident the current administration thinks that one is guilty untill proven innocent.--Nomen Nescio 17:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Name

Why the term "extraordinary rendition"? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Rendition is the normal legal process of sending someone from one jurisdiction to another. I suppose the "extraordinary" indicates that they are bypassing the court system. A polite way of saying "kidnapping". --Lee Hunter 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Pretty much explained above. Rendition is a legal process while ER is not. ER exploits loopholes in U.S. law, to allow the capture without notice(supported by the Clinton PD), and sending them to native or familiar countries to use techniques not legal in the United States. It's basically a media/CIA term(well,at least I think it was used by ex-CIa officials). Falphin 01:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Terminology, again

JohnC, I don't understand your comment that "This explanation is not entirely correct, since the purpose of rendition is not to allow foreign governments to interrogate individuals, but to allow American agencies to interrogate individuals outside the jurisdiction of American courts." Do you disagree with the phrase "hand over"? Furthermore, there is AFAIK some uncertainty whether the victims of extraordinary rendition are being interrogated by US intelligence agents or by nationals of the destination countries. Coiuld you clarify your comment some further? Thanks. Kosebamse 07:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Long-standing"?

The article says:

Rendition is an extension of a long-standing policy of confining political prisoners to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba,

I've heard of certain prisoners being kept at Guantanamo by since 2001. To be a "long-standing policy", obviously it would have to be far, far older than that. Is it? If so, is there an account of that practice on Wikipedia? Or if not on Wikipedia, where? Michael Hardy 19:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

the wikipedia article on rendition and deportation both reference a continuous policy of deporting (or rendering) illegal aliens, enemy combatants, terrorist suspects (who are either illegal or enemy combatants) since at least 1995 during the administration of Bill Clinton. This policy has reportedly been continued. Cbghio 21:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Chris Ghio

McCain Amendment

There needs to be a section on the page that talks about the failure of the McCain amendment to stop rendition. The fact is, the McCain amnedment has specific provisions put into place that allows rendition to continue. Basically, the CIA agents have exploited the concept of physical control. As you probably know, the agents themselves do not do the torturing; the 3rd party country tortures the suspect. Even if the CIA agents are in the same room, the practice is still legal, as the agents cannot be held accountable for the torture conducted. I am going to add this... mccluret 14:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Although one might suggest rendering is legal as long as US officials do not engage in the actual torture this is incorrect. UNCAT clearly states that rendering itself when the possibility of torture is present is also prohibited, and there exists no reason for allowing torture or torture by proxy. See articlew 2 of the original text of the convention against torture itself. Nomen Nescio 17:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The UNCAT prevents rendition by the USA (and other member countries) to countries when the USA has "substantial grounds for believing that [s]he" would be subjected to torture. This langauge does not indicate that the USA is prevented from rendering detainees when there is a mere 'possibility' of torture (as indicated above by our collegue Nomen Nescio). Under Nomen Nescio's reading of Article 2 of UNCAT, no member state could render a detainee to any other country without maintaining constant supervision over the detainee to gaurantee that torture was not possible. After all, torture has been alleged or documented in nearly every state that has ratified UNCAT (albeit very isolated incidence - hardly systematic, and nearly always by non-governmental entities) including France (see NYT 3/5/06 "Torture and Death of Jew Deepens Fear in Europe" - non-governmental), Switzerland (see Amnesty International 1998 Report on Switzerland - governmental/police), Germany (see World Socialist Web Site 12/13/04 "The Daschner Case and the Re-hab of Torture in Germany - governmental/police), etc. Many of the countries the USA has allegedly rendered detainees to have ratified UNCAT. For purposes of this discussion (though I have above shown why even in these countries torture is a 'possibility') let's assume that UNCAT ratifiers are trustworthy in terms of rendition. If you view the Wikipedia article on UNCAT very few countries have failed to ratify UNCAT. In fact, everyone's favorite whipping boy (Egypt) has ratified the agreement - even Afghanistan has ratified UNCAT. Therefore, when the USA renders detainees to Eastern Europe (if they do) they have no "substantial grounds" to believe that the detainee will be tortured. In fact, they have an explicit promise that those Eastern European countries will not torture the detainee. Furthermore, it is USA policy to require all non-UNCAT states (to which it may/may not extradite/deport/render detainees) to give explicit guarantees that torture will not be used. When there is an explicit guarantee (via UNCAT or otherwise) that the member state will not use torture, the USA has no "substantial grounds" for believing that torture will be used. In fact it has an explicit promise that torture WILL NOT BE USED. Therefore the USA has not violated UNCAT when it renders/deports, etc. a detainee to an UNCAT ratifier or unless it fails to obtain a guarantee. 128.239.220.38 03:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Chris

• Incorrect, no rendering applies to the country that is rendering and not to where the victim is going! Therefore it does not matter where these people go, the US violates UNCAT. As to the guarantees, nobody can check it and the mere fact it is needed proves it violates UNCAT. But I do concede "possible" was incorrect on my part. Nomen Nescio 09:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem w/ your analysis is that when the USA 'renders' to countries (like Egypt) which have ratified the UNCAT - the USA has an explicit guarantee that Egypt will not torture any detainees. My point being - in cases such as this (when the USA renders detainees to countries in Eastern Europe [all UNCAT signatories], Jordan [UNCAT signatory], Egypt [UNCAT signatory, and even Syria [also, UNCAT signatory], et al) the USA has "substantial grounds" to believe that TORTURE WILL NOT BE USED. Isolated incidence of torture do not constitute "substantial grounds" to believe that torture will be used on rendered detainees. See my above example of isolated incidence of torture being used in Western Europe (even though the USA routinely deports/renders detainees to Western Europe). The proper analysis is: when the USA renders detainees to non-UNCAT signatories, then and only then would the USA have "substantial grounds" to believe that torture may be used (unless it obtains an explict guarantee that torture will not be used). If we don't trust UNCAT signatories to not use torture, and choose to disregard explicit guarantees from other (non-UNCAT signatories) nations that they won't use torture - the entire basis for international law (mutual trust) is undermined. 128.239.220.38 00:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Chris

This logic is flawed on several points. First you assert that a signature suffices to trust a country. Please explain why the US is harrassing Iran which has signed the nonproliferation treaty. If we should trust treaties on torture, we should trust treaties on nuclear weapons. Second, to suggest Syria can be trusted not to torture is of course not compatible with what human rights organisations observe. You are well aware that many "democracies" taht have signed UNCAT are well known for there abuse of human rights. To state that we should ignore all those reports simply because of a signature sounds naive at best. Nomen Nescio 14:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let's try to seperate our issues here. But since Nomen Nescio digresses; the US (along with Europe, China, and Russia) pressure on Iran stems from multiple government intelligence reports that confirm the IAEA's conclusion that Iran's present actions in the nuclear science realm far exceed those consistent w/ a peaceful (energy only) nuclear policy. The US and the other major powers are not 'harrassing' Iran, they are merely seeking to hold Iran to its international obligations (i.e., the nuclear non-proliferation agreement). By using loaded terms such as 'harrassing', Nomen Nescio reveals that he has a political agenda. While treaties are generally trusted (the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and UNCAT), compliance must be verified. The 'evidence' you cite from human rights groups (pertaining to the alleged rendering and torture of terrorist detainees) comes from biased sources - alleged terrorists, enemies of the Syrian (or Egyptian, Jordaian, etc.) regimes which have much to gain by alleging torture, and human rights activists who are hardly objective third parties. Until the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (equivilant to the IAEA - but in the area of human rights) or its special rapporteur on torture has determined that the governments that have signed the UNCAT cannot be trusted, the US does, in fact, have "substantial grounds" to believe that torture will not be used. Based on the evidence you present, torture is a mere 'possibility' (which is not the standard used in the UNCAT for determining when detainees cannot be rendered), as it is in virtually all countries which have signed the UNCAT (even the US, Britain, France, Germany, etc. - look at the bulk of complaints lodged in the UNHCHR = against Western European nations). Until the objective agencies of the USA and other major Western governments or the UNHCHR have documented the idicia (which represent "substantial grounds") of torture, it remains perfectly legal for any UNCAT signatory to render a detainee to another UNCAT signatory. Unless/until an UNCAT signatory is found in violation of the document it signed, Nomen Nescio's argument that the US rendition of detainees to Syria, Egypt, Eastern Europe, etc. violates UNCAT has no basis in international law. Just as the IAEA is the definative body in assessing a nation's compliance w/ international nuclear treaty obligations (therefore the USA is not harrassing Iran, b/c the IAEA has noted noncompliance), the UNHCHR is the definative body vis-a-vis human rights (not AI or HRW, etc.). As a matter of law, the US has 'substantial grounds' to believe torture will be used by an UNCAT signatory only when the UNHCHR has noted noncompliance w/ UNCAT (based on the trust signatories grant each other - trust but verify). I suggest Nomen throughly review the meaning of the words "susbtantial grounds" used in the UNCAT - in international law, words have specific meanings. To disregard a signatory to a treaty (and therefore distrust a partner in the document) the charges must rise beyond allegations ("substantial grounds"). "Substantial grounds" are established after AI and other human rights organizations report allegations to the UNHCHR (and its special rapporteur) and the UNHCHR verifies these claims (often they find the claims baseless). B/c no member of the UNCAT has been (to my knowledge) charged by the UNHCHR w/ violation, it is 'harrassment' to indicate that Syria or other nations have violated the UNCAT - tanamount to alleging Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program w/o a finding by the IAEA. The difference b/w the two examples: the IAEA has found that Iran's current program is inconsistent w/ the non-proliferation agreemnet; the UNHCHR has not found a UNCAT member (where detainees have been allegedly rendered by the US) in violation of UNCAT!!!

1. To state Iran is violating NPT is rhetoric by the Bush administration. The IAEA has not shown/seen any evidence of Iran working on a nuclear bomb. But let's leave it at that. This is not the place.
2. As to rendition, to claim that these countries have not been identified as abusing human rights is interesting.

The governments from which such assurances have been sought include some of the most abusive in the world—Syria, Egypt and Uzbekistan.[109] [110][111][112]

As said above: 1) the IAEA has found that uses of nuclear material in Iran "raise grave concerns" that the Iranian nuclear program may violate NPT (see DG's statement on Iran 4/6/06 -IAEA website) - this is IAEA language, not Bush rhetoric. 2) The US does not need assurances from Egypt, Syria, or Uzbekistan because all three have signed and ratified UNCAT (see UNCAT section on UNHCHR's webstite). Until the UNHCHR has made findings that substantiate the Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch allegations (which are the cites you give above), these countries remain UNCAT signatories in good standing and not in breach. Therefore any rendition to those countries would not violate the US's obligations under the UNCAT... Please read UNCAT, who signed it, and the UNHCHR's website before responding with more allegations from Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch. Neither is an objective third party - they deal in propaganda.

references

I just added a reference to the new Amnesty International report linked on the front page but unsourced here. The footnote format is really confusing. How about switching to the new system where the footnote info is in-line with the article? Btw, the press release for the AI report is here: [113]. Maybe someone can add it. Phr 09:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Colaborative effort – Style

First of all, I think that this article is a pretty good example of what Wikipedia is capable of – lots of voices, each with their own POV, getting together to produce an article that is pretty close to being NPOV. (Let's face it – it's hard to be NPOV on torture. My concern about it is pragmatic and addressed in the article – most people being tortured are eventually going to "give up" not necessarily the facts for which they are presumably being tortured, but whatever it is that they think that their captors want to hear, not necessarily the same thing, and potentially a pretty horrific basis upon which to make tactical decisions.) Here's my question, insignificant though it may be. Even though this is a long article, and a many-faceted one with many contriubtors, it would be best served by having a stylistic consistency throughout. While this is not possible throughout an international effort like Wikipedia, and this is an article of international import, could we have an agreement for US vs. European date style, etc., within the article? Also, what is the consensus about Wikifying dates, years, etc.? At present it seems to be fairly random; I've always felt that once at the first reference is sufficient, but know that I am hardly the be-all-and-end-all. I know, though, that Wikifying months, (i.e. December), is pretty useless, espeically when it appears to be done aribitraily and randomly. This isn't meant to be ntipicking, but based on my belief that Wikipedia can be and is, at its best, a world-class reference work. Rlquall 12:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty international found proof.

Acoording to the dutch news television. At 4 april 2006 Amnesty international told they have more proof of this. Some people who where captured and moved secretly to different locations. Had been interviewed by Amnesty, some intresting information was told. The moved people describes diferences in daylight changes aftes flight. It was on televesion conluded that this happen when you change longitude (up / or down the axis of the earth. Guatanomobay to (up) polen, or down to irak where they had been released.

Intresting also they told they noticed summertime change. In some european countries they change their clock a hour ahead in the summer.

/\/\/\ Why would they notice changes in daylight from moving longitude. My guess is that their watches will be removed so they will only notice the length of the day rather than when it starts/finishes. I think they are more likely to notice a change in latitude as Cuba has a short twilight period whereas Eastern Europe has a much longer one.

Anon user 21:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would they notice changes in daylight from moving longitude? If in the middle of summer in the northern hemisphere you were at the north pole you would have 24 hours of daylight, have a trip on a plane to the south pole that same day and you would have 24 hours of night. Obviously if you don't go so far it's not so easy to spot, but if you change by enough you will notice it. - Sfnhltb 22:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I think that was the wrong way around :P, I see what you mean the first poster confused me by saying longitude and then up/down... -- Sfnhltb 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Proof?" Subjection is not proof. Proof requires some sort of veribility. What AI has presented is a press release, nothing even coming close to proof.... This isn't evidence, this is more guesswork. Kyaa the Catlord 06:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify... The position of AI and other human rights organizations is to report allegations of torture to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (specifically the special rapporteur on torture). Only when the UNHCHR verifies these allegations does "proof" of torture exist. Once the UNHCHR substantiates an allegation of torture, that country (if an UNCAT signatory) is in violation of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). [Let's consider an analogous example: The US government may allege (via oral evidence - similar to that citied by AI above) that France is in violation of its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Until the International Atomic Energy Agency verifies the US allegations, they remain just that: allegations.] In the international system, allegations do not amount to proof until the responsible agency has documented and verified the allegations - in this case the UNHCHR.

References

This article would benefit from using the cite.php extension for referencing. This way, there won't be "broken" reference links like have appeared in this article. You can find instructions on how to use it in Wikipedia:References. --Michiel Sikma 06:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, but this still needs cleanup vis-à-vis use of things like {{cite web}}. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

OP ED articles are not sources

Many of the "sources" for this article are poor. OP/ED and "analysis" articles are not sources, and while newspapers are better, they are not primary sources. Let me let that soak for a bit, before I go in and mark up this article. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge wikipedia policy does not prohibit such sources if they are identified as such.

• Feel free to read about Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.
• And see Neutral point of view: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Nomen Nescio 14:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to create a case in wikipedia, for the widespread existance of this activity, and take conjecture as fact violates both priciples of wiki-fairness and NPoV. If they are allegations then they should be clear that they are. THe sources are very poor, and this is bascialy what I like to call "zerging" sources. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To call the several victims that testified, and the numerous human rights organisations merely conjecture is of course odd to say the least. Beyond that, feel free to change any assertion of fact when it should be called opinion. Nomen Nescio 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

HCA

What is HCA? Ben 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets get this article out of dispute

OK, I understand this article covers a contentious subject. But, if we tag an article with an "NPOV" violation tag, the person who places it should make a good faith effort to assist in redacting the components felt to violate this policy, or, at least list the specific components that need fixing. If I'm reading the Talk right, this article has been marked with the violation tag since July of 2005 (please correct me if I'm wrong). Articles shouldn't be tagged non-NPOV forever. So, I'd like to initiate substantive discussion of how we can fix this article (if it needs fixing), only mark individual sections that need work as non-NPOV, or remove the tag entirely.

Hey, if the Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Terrorism articles can be NPOV, surely this one can. :) --NightMonkey 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks, whoever did the good work. :) --NightMonkey 09:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Eichman

He does not belong in the see also. He may have been kidnapped, but contrary to victims of extraordinary rendition he did have his day in court. The principal problem with ER is that nobody has been and will be tried, the procedure is meant to keep these abductions from scrutiny by a judge. Nomen Nescio 13:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Examples section broken.

The first bullet item in 'Examples' reads like a quotation - but there are no quotation marks and nobody is credited with saying it - hence it reads like Wikipedia is saying that - which is clearly untrue! Needs fixing. SteveBaker 18:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

UNCAT and its construction

I think it is important to note that extraordinary rendition is governed by the UN Convention Against Torture. The construction (legal definition of the document) of the UNCAT as it applies to the United States governs the substantive portion of this Wikipedia entry, which is (to narrow it down): does extraordinary rendition (by the US) violate international law (the UNCAT)??? This question is not easy to answer (mostly b/c the US Supreme Court has not yet given meaning to the language of the UNCAT). However, much light can be shed on the discussion by looking at the UNCAT as adopted and ratified by the USA. The US has ratified the UNCAT, with one restriction. That restriction is that the Convention does not require or authorize legislation (policies) that are in conflict w/ the US Constitution as interpreted by the US. This rather confusing language is a standard 'boilerplate' clause the US inserts to virtually all international treaties it ratifies to ensure that the US Constitution's meaning (as interpreted by the only brach of US government with that power - the US Supreme Court) is not altered by its treaty obligations to other nations. The effect of this clause is to limit the UNCAT (as ratified by the US) to the US Supreme Court's interpretation of it. Because the UNCAT cannot conflict w/ the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court (which determines what the constitution means) has effective control over the construction of the UNCAT. Therefore, it is up to the US Supreme Court, not Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch or even the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (or its special rapporteur for torture) to decide what the UNCAT means, how it applies to the US, and if extraordinary rendition to third countries violates the treaty. 128.239.220.38 21:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Chris

• Interestingly enough folowing their obligation after signing to UNCAT the US adopted the War Crimes Act of 1996. It incorporated the Geneva Conventions into US law. Should a judge rule that UNCAT is unconstitutional, he ipso facto declares the US war crimes act (although a US law) unconstitutional. Nomen Nescio 02:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

point being???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.220.38 (talk • contribs)

• Evidently, this international treaty is binding to the US and its citizens, contrary to what has been asserted.! So, UNCAT is part of US law and therefore is binding. Nomen Nescio 03:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, however the construction of the treaty (as per the reserved way it was ratified by the US) is up to the US Supreme Court alone. Until the SCOTUS interprets the law it has no substantial meaning and 'violations' claimed by AI and other groups are pure conjecture. In the USA all laws (including treaty obligations) are subject to JUDICIAL REVIEW by the SCOTUS to determine their scope.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.220.38 (talk • contribs)

True, however only as a matter of US domestic law. As a matter of international law the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction, and any US citizens who violate the UNCAT's actual meaning (as opposed to any restricted meaning the SCOTUS may interpret it to mean) could find themselves before the International Criminal Court if they ever go to an ICC-signatory country (which is most countries in the world) - despite the fact that Bush de-signed the ICC treaty, any person located within the territory of an ICC signatory state can be brought before it. Cynical 12:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

definition of torture

We need to define torture. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch's definition of torture may vary considerably from the definition of torture used in the governing international convention (the United Nations Convention Against Torture - UNCAT). UNCAT defines torture as "severe pain and suffering". Therefore lesser degrees of pain and suffering are not considered torture under the UNCAT definition. This includes cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. We must read the law dispassionately and not inject our views. 128.239.220.38 03:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Chris

New Development

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

Someone ought to add this in, no? Edit: Beat to the punch.Comrade438

Can we counter it with this [114] showing there has been alot of circumstantial evidence. Nomen Nescio 03:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's dated 13th April, 2006 so it's hard to say. I’d be surprised if Gijs de Vries wasn’t aware of Amnesty International’s claims given it’s been close to three weeks now. I’m pondering how the article ought to reflect it. Obviously, Gijs de Vries’ remarks are a good point to include. Regardless, in the interest of fairness I believe it’d be wise to mention the lingering questions along with this new bit of information. Comrade438

The problem with the truthout page that so much of this article builds is that it does not stand up to scrutiny against WP:RS It has an agenda and does not attempt to argue from a NPOV. This article needs to be rebalanced. Too much of it is based off posts from unreliable, agenda-pushing websites. Kyaa the Catlord 13:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you misrepresent policy. After reading the following nobody can object merely on the basis of perceived POV:

• • • Reliable sources: Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party.
    • Partisan websites: Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source.
    • Beware false authority: Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions.
    • It suports mentioning proponents and opponents of impeachment, WP:NPOV: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
    • Feel free to read about Controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.
    • Neutral language: When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited.
    • Policy suggest adding other views, not deleting that which you find POV, NPOV tutorial: An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.

Second, if the honourable editor had looked at the page it would have been evident it is a repost from Reuters out of the New York Times. Nomen Nescio 14:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoah, assume some bloody good faith, Nescio. You forgot to include the important bit after Stormfront.org, these can only be used as sources when writing about THEM, not about the issues they push. Truthout is arguably extremist, undeniably holds strong political views and should be used with caution. As should Human Rights Watch. As should Amnesty International. These sources seek to make political change and should be used very sparingly and not as a primary source. The article is NOT about Truthout, so a lot of what you posted does not make sense. Then in the end, you imply that I was deleting things from the article. I'd like to see your evidence of such, since I did no such thing and am offended that you suggest that I would do such a thing. Thank you for the lesson, Professor. Kyaa the Catlord 14:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio has a track record of advancing suspect arguments to justify using non-reliable sources in violation of WP:RS. See Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Merecat 19:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting observation from an editor that opposes "left-wing" sources, but vehemently promotes the use of "right-wing" material. Furthermore, he either has not read the policy he cites, or does not comprehend what however, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it and political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source mean. Beyond that, it is not prohibited to stop commenting on all my posts (part of your vendetta against my person?). Nomen Nescio 13:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You always forget to add although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Truthout... hold widely acknowledged extremist views. Kyaa the Catlord 13:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I know certain people consider Human Rights and Civil Rights organisations by definition extreme, but this assertion surely is too preposterous to warrant adhering to this talking point. Nomen Nescio 14:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Did I say "all human rights" or all "civil rights" groups are extremist? No. I stated that these activist, obviously biased groups are. Kyaa the Catlord 14:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to offend you, so please accept my apology. However, to imply that Human Rights organisations are not to be trusted seems like a wild suggestion. Nevertheless, the article still is not by Truthout but the NYT, which is what I thought you missed. Nomen Nescio 14:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Truthout is linking only to their perspective. They have no need to present facts as NPOV since their goal is to further their political objectives. Nor apparently, do they update their links once they've posted them. (Not a big problem that, I found the article elsewhere.) Kyaa the Catlord 15:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge no assumption of being unreliable has been put forward regarding this site:

"European lawmakers said Wednesday they had discovered a "widespread regular practice" of human rights violations by the CIA in Europe."[115]

Nomen Nescio 18:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WOW - the above quote is a total misrepresentation of the article on Yahoo that it links to. The article is titled " EU Official Denies Knowledge of CIA Jails" and goes on to detail: "no proof of CIA prisons or flights" and "showed a pattern of ALLEGED hidden operations"... Basically the article determines that after an EU committee investigated 1,000 flights in Europe NO EVIDENCE OF TORTURE OR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY HAS BEEN FOUND. I find it a gross misrepresentation to claim that this articel proves " 'a widespread regular practice' of human rights violations by the CIA" I am accordingly editing out any reference to it...

Agreed. I'm not certain how Nescio can reasonably attempt to back up his statement there based on the full text of that news article. Kyaa the Catlord 09:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cited source #46

This leads to nowhere. Does anyone know where to find the article supposedly containing the material cited under this reference? If not, this "example" must be removed. Kyaa the Catlord 14:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1. 47 does not contain the information that is revealed in the article it links to. Again, this must be removed unless it can be replaced. Kyaa the Catlord 14:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Recently they have been redone. I think all the statements are covered by the references but that they have become mixed up. Somebody needs to look at them and correct possible mislocations. So, if there are any volunteers. Nomen Nescio 15:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... trouble with the fancy links system eh? Merecat 05:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Can the editor that placed the tag alleging bias, point out what sentence exactly is POV? Simply tagging without explaining what needs to be done is useless. Nomen Nescio 12:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've pointed out that the sourcing for this page is shoddy at best. Examples is used repeatedly, without noting that the suppositions noted below that heading are allegations, not fact. It states repeatedly that "details" were given, when no hard evidence has been presented, merely circumstantial testimony from interested parties. Many of the sources are from websites that do not even attempt to hide that they are pushing a POV... This whole article. I pointed out about the cited sources a week ago, but no effort was made to correct the linking at all. Adherence to NPOV is a requirement, not simply a suggestion. Kyaa the Catlord 12:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

obviously, if the links are that important to you, feel free to check and relocate them yourself. That people are kidnapped is based on testimony and flightrecords. Admittedly, no judge has ruled on it (and never will because even if true, no court will ever indict the US administration) but to call it POV is saying that a rape victim is voicing POV by accusing her attacker. Nomen Nescio 12:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Your lack of concern over the verifiability of this article is... disturbing. I placed the check template because I'm uncertain how to proceed. This article, as it stands, nearly requires a complete rewrite due to its linking being all over the place. I placed the check template rather than doing something more drastic, like calling for its deletion. I feel this could be a worthwhile article, but it has problems. Rather than attacking my decision to call for it being checked, you could take that time to consider my reasoning. Kyaa the Catlord 12:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange you feel attacked when I merely wanted to understand what you think is POV. As to verifiability, that is why the sources are used. Please show what statement you ythink needs a reference by placing the cite tag there. If however you think the sources are unreliable, again I would ask, and this is a request and not an attack, to explain which sources you think should not be trustred and why. Nomen Nescio 12:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I support Kyaa on this one.Merecat 00:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Please show what statement you think needs a reference by placing the cite tag there." Nomen Nescio 14:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The point of a POV check template is too be used when an editor is unsure how to proceed but suspects bias. Personally, I don't see the template as being very useful because how to you make an article neutral if nothing is being contested? Falphin 21:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Several specific allegations of bias are alleged: - repeated references to Dick Marty's 1/06 call for an EU investigation into

 his allegations of torture and E.R. as objective PROOF that E.R. exists
 - an EU investigation made findings as to these allegations on 4/21/06: 
   they discovered that Dick Marty's allegations HAD NO BASIS IN FACT. See[116]
 - the continued reliance without disclaimer to these disproven allegations
   is specious and indicative of POV

- the citation of (as objective sources) articles from Amnesty International,

 Human Rights Watch, and other ideologically biased sources 

- The heavy reliance upon the above questionable sources to form the basis

 of the article's substantive allegations of US/CIA wrongdoing  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.220.38 (talk • contribs) 

Proposed cleanup

Here's a proposal. It's just that, a proposal, but I think it would get us off to a start. Please, don't edit it inline, if you have an alternate proposal either list your proposed changes or write up your own proposal. That way, this remains readable. Thanks.

High level goals

• Remove all "It was also said", "Critics have accused", "argument [...] made by defenders", etc. Essentially remove all weasel words and replace with statements that are not only cited through links and refs, but actually explain who makes the claims inline.
• Re-organize the text into a single article that reads like a typical Wikipedia article according to the Wikipedia style guidelines.
• Prevent "but we say", "but they say", "so then we say back" sorts of sections. Replace with well worded descriptions of the groups involved and their specific assertions. Avoid inline debate where possible.

Outline

Intro

A short paragraph explaining the origin and meaning of the term and a very short overview of the timeline (one or two sentences). Citations: one or two on the definition, no "exposés".

History

The history of extraordinary rendition from the start.

1990s

The Clintion rendition policies and directives. Merge "examples" into inline prose or move to examples section later to reduce front-loading of (I'm sorry to say this given the nature of the incidents) trivial information. Discuss sources more.

9/11

Again, remove "Critics argue, however" sorts of statements. Focus on timeline, publications that broke stories, etc. Just the history. Go from 9/11 up to the invasion of Afghanistan. Reduce footnotes to just the most relevant. Again, move examples to examples section or merge inline.

Afghanistan

Events that occured or publications that impacted the public knowledge between the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq.

Iraq

Events and publications that follow the invasion of Iraq.

Reporting

A focus on the reporting. More detail on those publications that have brought information to light and the organizations (e.g. AI) which have brought information forward.

Treaty obligations

This section is quite good as it stands, IMHO.

US politics

Information where the process stands today in the U.S. What laws are in effect, what is the current executive stance.

Other countries

Make the text a bit tighter and re-write a bit so that it flows as a coherent thought. Make sure all footnotes are on-topic for what they are footnoting. Otherwise good.

Examples

Move all examples that are not merged into inline history to here.

See also

Merge some of these links into the body where possible.

References and notes

Some of these should be external links, not inline references. Move as needed.

External links

Could use some weeding. Redundancy is bad, as it slows research.

Comments

Please, let me know what you think. If there's substantial support, I'll see what I can do. If there isn't ... well, I'm not going to ram it down anyone's throat. -Harmil 21:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Major Problems with this article

Due to recent revelations from EU officials, I propose (and will conduct) an edit of this article to reflect these circumstances:

"Investigations into reports that US agents shipped prisoners through European airports to secret detention centers have produced no evidence of illegal CIA activities, the European Union's antiterrorism coordinator said yesterday"See [117]

The lead EU investigator was asked by an EU committee:

"We've heard all kinds of allegations, impressions; we've heard also refutations. It's up to your committee to weigh if they are true."See [118]

Gijs de Vries replied unequivocally

"There has not been, to my knowledge, evidence that these illegal renditions have taken place."See [119]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.220.38 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 5 May 2006

Adding such quotes would be reasonable, but altering existing information in preference for these new comments would seem to be a tad revisionist, no? -Harmil 14:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that that information was already added, though perhaps it could be expanded. [120] -Harmil 14:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the Information memorandum II on the alleged secret detentions in Council of Europe state, rapported by Swiss Senator Dick Marty, January 22 2006. Please also see Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, for which Italy has asked the US to extradite 22 CIA agents. If this is not illegal, than what is? Tazmaniacs 18:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to Tazmaniacs reply: yes but the more recent article I cite, Dick Marty's allegations (mentioned in the article you cite) are proven to have NO BASIS IN FACT...

• Actually little was proven except that they were unable to prove renditions took place in Europe. But take Craig Murray a former UK ambassador who has repeatedly stated that renditions took place in Uzbekistan. He was however unaware of any Europeans being sent there. Either way ER is taking place, its just a matter of the extent. Falphin 00:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me source that Marty's report had "no basis in fact". He had access to satellite photos and confidential information, you know? Tazmaniacs 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

new publication by the Council of Europe

The document by Dick Marty for the Council of Europe referred to above, was superseded today by the second memorandum, published today on the Council of Europe's web-site. I have added a link to the document on the page and here [121]. as a document it is worth reading because:

1 it is the product of a democratically elected international organisation with some authority, rather than the media

2 It's primary role is in identifying European involvement in this criminal activity.

3 it is scrupulous in identifying its sources and limitations.

The document clearly presents evidence that has been gathered from the whole of the EU, together with all the reported instances of ER and the responses of all the governments involved. It is a balanced document. and as an overview of this subject would make a good basis for the structure of this page.

I understand that the content of this subject is contentious both politically and for citizens of the USA patriotically. However we should remember that the term exists and so needs wikifying - if it is disputed that the subject exists, that dispute should be represented on the page - also it is good to bear in mind that this is not just an American issue, it is causing extreme political embarrassment throughout the EU where the subject is widely covered by the media on a daily basis. I get the impression that in the US the subject is (understandably) less prominent. In many ways simple denial by US citizens can be seen as unpatriotic, in the words of Judge Sandra Day O’Connor in the case of José Padilla, judgement of the United States Supreme Court, 28 June 2004, "at stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. (…) For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolised by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny".

DavidP

Merge

See discussion here. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

7th june council of europe report

This report contains lots of interesting new evidence, heres the link http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2006/20060606_Ejdoc162006PartII-FINAL.pdf it strengthens the alligations made against the specific countries involved and points out which countries did what according the council of europe report. I'm reading it now i'll post more in a bit.Hypnosadist 12:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable Quotes that might be of use

1.8. Is there any evidence?

21. It is paradoxical to expect bodies without any real investigatory powers – the Council of Europe and the European Parliament – to adduce evidence in the legal sense. Indeed, these European bodies have been prompted to undertake such investigations owing to a lack of willingness and commitment on the part of national institutions that could, and should, have completely clarified these allegations which from the outset did not appear to be totally unfounded.

22. There is no formal evidence at this stage of the existence of secret CIA detention centres in Poland, Romania or other Council of Europe member states, even though serious indications continue to exist and grow stronger. Nevertheless, it is clear that an unspecified number of persons, deemed to be members or accomplices of terrorist movements, were arbitrarily and unlawfully arrested and/or detained and transported under the supervision of services acting in the name, or on behalf, of the American authorities. These incidents took place in airports and in European airspace, and were made possible either by seriously negligent monitoring or by the more or less active participation of one or more government departments of Council of Europe member states.

23. In the light of the silence and obvious reluctance on the part of the bodies that could have provided the necessary information, it is legitimate to assume that there are more such cases than can be proven at present. In effect, the facts as would appear to be established today – and as will be illustrated throughout the report – as well as the total absence of serious inquiries by the national authorities concerned, implies, in my view, the reversal of the burden of proof: in such a situation it is incumbent on the Polish and Romanian authorities to conduct an independent and in-depth inquiry and to make public not only its results but also the method and the different stages of the enquiry17. Even if proof, in the classical meaning of the term, is not as yet available, a number of coherent and converging elements indicate that such secret detention centres did indeed exist in Europe. Such an affirmation does not pretend to be a judgment of a criminal court, necessitating “proof beyond reasonable doubt” in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the term; it rather reflects a conviction based on a careful balance of probabilities, as well as logical deductions from clearly established facts. The intention is not to determine that the authorities of these countries are “guilty” for having tolerated secret detention sites, but rather to hold them "responsible" for failing to comply with the positive obligation to investigate serious allegations.

Concerning the flights themselves

42. First it illustrates the flights of both civilian and military aircraft, operated by the United States, which appear to be connected to secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers also involving Council of Europe member states. This inquiry is based on seven separate sets of data from Eurocontrol36, combined with specific information from about twenty national aviation authorities in response to my requests. In this way, we have obtained a hitherto unique database37.

43. Second, it distinguishes four categories of aircraft landing points, which indicate the different degrees of collusion on the part of the countries concerned. These landing points have been placed into their respective categories as follows on the basis of the preponderance of evidence gathered38:

Category A: "Stopover points" (points at which aircraft land to refuel, mostly on the way home) Prestwick,Shannon,Roma Ciampino,Athens,Santa Maria (Azores),Bangor,Prague

Category B: "Staging points" (points from which operations are often launched - planes and crews prepare there, or meet in clusters) Washington,Frankfurt,Adana-Incirlik (Turkey),Ramstein,Larnaca,Palma de Mallorca,Baku (Azerbaijan)

Category C: "One-off pick-up points" (points from which, according to our research, one detainee or one group of detainees was picked up for rendition or unlawful transfer, but not as part of a systematic occurrence) Stockholm-Bromma,Banjul,Skopje,Aviano,Tuzla

Category D: "Detainee transfer / Drop-off points" (places visited often, where flights tend to stop for just short periods, mostly far off the obvious route – either their location is close to a site of a known detention facility or a prima facie case can be made to indicate a detention facility in their vicinity) Cairo,Amman,Islamabad,Rabat,Kabul,Guantanamo Bay,Timisoara / Bucharest (Romania),Tashkent,Algiers,Baghdad,Szymany (Poland)

thats it so far.Hypnosadist 13:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry to duplicate Hypnosadist - we must have both been writing our entries at the same time DavidP

No problem david,

From the conclusion

284. It must be emphasised that this report is indeed addressed to the Council of Europe Member states. The United States, an observer state of our Organisation, actually created this reprehensible network, which we criticise in light of the values shared on both sides of the Atlantic. But we also believe to have established that it is only through the intentional or grossly negligent collusion of the European partners that this “web” was able to spread also over Europe.

285. The impression which some Governments tried to create at the beginning of this debate – that Europe was a victim of secret CIA plots – does not seem to correspond to reality. It is now clear – although we are still far from having established the whole truth - that authorities in several European countries actively participated with the CIA in these unlawful activities. Other countries ignored them knowingly, or did not want to know.

Lots more good stuff in the report for the articals on each individual extraordinary rendition extant in europe. Lets talk about which quotes and references need changeing due to this 2nd draft report.Hypnosadist 14:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dick Marty is a councillor not a senitor

Dick marty is a member of Swiss Council of States. David your edit was incomplete as dick marty is refered to as senitor several more times in the artical, once in the intro as such. I'm going to change all refs i find to councillor but could someone who knows how link the first use of councillor in the intro to point to Swiss Council of States so that we can uber accurate. This is a common error in the Press and it would be great to be more accurate than BBC.Hypnosadist 15:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

yes its true that Dick Marty is a councillor and he is Swiss. But he is a councillor of the Council of Europe, not of any swiss state or cantons that I can discover - the term that you have used could mistakenly give the impression that he is a member of the swiss government. this may not be the case. DavidP

He's both as it turns out see Dick Marty. Hypnosadist 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Council of Europe also publishes resolution today

As well as the 2nd memorandum from Cllr Marty the Council of Europe today 7/06/06 published its Draft recomendations and resolutions in consideration of the Marty memoranda.

a selected extract follows - I have simply left out the preambles.

---

draft Recommendation and Resolution Provisional version 7 June 2006

resolution A

4. The United States of America finds that neither the classic instruments of criminal law and procedure, nor the framework of the laws of war (including respect for the Geneva Conventions) has been apt to address the terrorist threat. As a result it has introduced new legal concepts, such as "enemy combatant" and "rendition", which were previously unheard of in international law and stand contrary to the basic legal principles that prevail on our continent.

5. Thus, across the world, the United States has progressively woven a clandestine "spider’s web" of disappearances, secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers, often encompassing countries notorious for their use of torture. Hundreds of persons have become entrapped in this web, in some cases merely suspected of sympathising with a presumed terrorist organisation.

8. The Assembly condemns the systematic exclusion of all forms of judicial protection and regrets that, by depriving hundreds of suspects of their basic rights, including the right to a fair trial, the United States has done a disservice to the cause of justice and has tarnished its own hard-won reputation as a beacon of the defence of civil liberties and human rights.

9. Some Council of Europe member States have knowingly colluded with the United States to carry out these unlawful operations; some others have tolerated them or simply turned a blind eye. They have also gone to great lengths to ensure that such operations remain secret and protected from effective national or international scrutiny.

10. This collusion with the United States of America by some Council of Europe member States has taken several different forms. Having carried out legal and factual analysis on a range of cases of alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers, the Assembly has identified instances in which Council of Europe member States have acted in one or several of the following ways, wilfully or at least recklessly in violation of their international human rights obligations:

11. Attempts to expose the true nature and extent of these unlawful operations have invariably faced obstruction or dismissal, from the United States and its European partners alike. The authorities of most Council of Europe member States have denied their participation, in many cases without actually having carried out any inquiries or serious investigations.

18. The Assembly calls upon the member States of the Council of Europe to:

18.1. undertake a critical review of the legal framework that regulates the intelligence services, with the dual objective of enhancing their efficiency and strengthening accountability mechanisms against abuse; clear regulations must also govern co-operation with foreign services and the activities of foreign services on national territory;

18.2. ensure that the laws governing state secrecy protect persons who disclose illegal activities of state organs (so-called "whistle-blowers") from disciplinary or criminal sanctions;

18.3. undertake a review of bilateral agreements signed between Council of Europe member States and the United States, particularly those on the status of US forces stationed in Europe and on the use of military and other infrastructures, to ensure that these agreements conform fully to applicable international human rights norms; and

18.4. urge the United States to dismantle its system of secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers and to co-operate more closely with the Council of Europe in establishing common means of overcoming the threat of terrorism in line with international human rights standards and respect for the rule of law.

19. The Assembly also calls on the United States of America, which is an Observer State to the Council of Europe and Europe’s long-standing ally in resisting tyranny and defending human rights and the rule of law, to:

19.1. send a strong message to the world by demonstrating that terrorism can be vanquished by lawful means, thereby proving the superiority of the democratic model founded on respect of human dignity;

19.2. co-operate more closely in identifying and employing the most effective means with which to prevent and suppress the terrorist threat in conformity with international human rights norms and the rule of law;

19.3. align its definitions of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with the definition used by the UN Committee Against Torture;

19.4. prohibit the transfer of persons suspected of involvement in terrorism to countries that practise torture and that fail to guarantee the right to a fair trial;

19.5. issue official apologies and award compensation to the victims of illegal detentions against whom no formal accusations, nor any court proceedings, have ever been brought; and

19.6. refrain from prosecuting any officials, former officials or journalists who, by providing testimony or other information, have helped to bring to light the system of unlawful detentions and mistreatment.

recommendation

4. The Assembly urgently requests that:

4.1. an initiative be launched on an international level, expressly involving the United States, an Observer to the Council of Europe, to develop a common, truly global strategy to address the terrorist threat. The strategy should conform in all its elements with the fundamental principles of our common heritage in terms of democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law.

4.2. a proposal be considered, in instances where States are unable or unwilling to prosecute persons accused of terrorist acts, to bring these persons within the jurisdiction of an international court that is competent to try them. One possibility worth considering would be to vest such a competence in the International Criminal Court, whilst renewing invitations to join the Court to the United States and other countries that have not yet done so.

---

the entire doc can be got here [122] DavidP

Abuse Template

Why is there an abuse template on this page? Typos 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the abuse template is here as gitmo is viewed by most of the world as an abusive detention centre.Hypnosadist 09:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You will hear no quibble from me. Gitmo and the black sites are abusive. However, extraordinary rendition is only tangentially related to abuse. (That is, its primary purpose is to imprison and interrogate suspected terrorists; the abuse is not an end in intself.) If we had a template related specifically to human rights abuses, it would fit in the article, but this template is too broad. Typos 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

War on terror template

Extraordinary rendition is clearly part of the war on terror, in fact that is the justification of ER. I'm going to put this back in, if ER needs adding to the template then it should be done. Lets discuss this here as to why it should not be on this page.Hypnosadist 12:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Arrests in Italy

Researching this story to put into this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5149464.stm .Hypnosadist 08:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC) More articles from different papers;

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/06/wspies06.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/06/ixnews.html
2. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/07/05/italy.spy/
3. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-imam6jul06,0,134839.story?coll=la-home-headlines
4. http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1162845.ece .Hypnosadist 08:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I placed the NPOV tag and I will illucidate further shortly as to why.--Tomtom9041 18:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• I tried to clean up the poor English and grammar. All sources cited are generally viewed by those in the United States as left wing and or liberal organizations. To wit the NY Times, Washington Post, London's Guardian and consider them to be unreliable sources due to their consistent anti-government and anti_american bias, and that they have had been proven to have editors who have made up stories. Tha AP and CNN are also lumped into this category. As the only sources in this article are left wing media sources this article is biased. This is all based on conjecture and reads like an OpEd.--Tomtom9041 19:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well find the sources you like, if right wing media refuse to cover this story it does not mean this does not happen. PS Would the BBC be acceptable or is that biased left wing media? Hypnosadist 19:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that Tomtom9041 may not actually be an authority on the general views of those in the United States or on what is properly considered as anti-government or anti-American (although whether he is or not is probably not really the fundamental issue). I further suggest that he make his criticisms of the article more specific and find reputable sources to cite in support of the changes he would like to see made to the article. At the moment his remarks seem like just an ad hominem attack as an attempt to refute the article by generally smearing its sources without offering any substantial alternative. —Wookipedian 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tomtom9041, I question your assertion that the NYTimes and Washington Post are "generally viewed by those in the United States as left wing and or liberal organizations." Compared to what, Fox News? And by whom? Can you document your assertion about the "general" view of "those in the United States?" The Post is probably somewhat left of center, although I can't say for sure because I seldom have an opportunity to read it, but the NYTimes? That you then extend your opprobrium to the AP and CNN leads me to wonder what you would consider a reliable source of news.

Tomtom9041, I invite you to make this page more NPOV if you have equally-reliable and respected sources that counter the assertions in this piece. After all, we're all looking for NPOV, right?

Septegram 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said Hypnosadist, Wookiepedian and Septegram.

Let me add a reminder that while spelling or grammar errors are of course a problem, they are not a justification for adding an {npov} tag.

I didn't get the impression from Tomtom9041's remarks that he added the {NPOV} tag because of grammatical/spelling errors. In fact, I thank him for clearing up such errors; I always find them jarring.

Septegram 17:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you see a pattern of spelling or grammar errors in an article that you don't have time to address there are separate tags for that, that tell other wikipedians you see a problem, but not one that shows an ideological bias.

IMO, anyone who adds an NPOV tag to an article better be prepared to quote specific passages that express an ideological bias. They should be prepared to offer civil, specific explanations as to why those passages express a bias. If a wikipedian isn't prepared to make that effort then I don't think they should apply the {npov} tag. I don't think the nominator should wait until called on to offer a passage they believe expresses an ideological bias. I believe they should offer at least one specific passage they believe shows a bias, and their civil explanation, to the article's talk page when they add the tag.

I'd like to call on Tomtom to quote at least one specific passage you believe you can defend describing as expressing an ideological bias. Tomtom, please offer a civil, specific explanation as to why you describe that passage as biased.

How can we take Tomtom's concern seriously, and work to address their concerns -- if they aren't specific as to what they are? How could we ever know we had addressed his or her concerns if they don't tell us what they are?

Tomtom may not be aware that the phenomenon that describing a correspondent as a "liberal" is an insult, and that their reasoning is untrustworthy is a largely American phenomenon. I call on them to please remember that the wikipedia is an international effort, and find better arguments for why sources be regarded as unreliable other than that they are "liberal".

I suggest we agree on a time limit. If Tomtom, or some other wikipedian, fails to quote specific passages they regard as biased, with civil explanations thereof, we feel free to remove the tag.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 16:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Geo Swan.

One point: I'd go so far as to say that the term "liberal" as an insult and an implication of unreliability is not just specific to the U.S.A., but to a relatively small group within this country. I will refrain, in the interests of civility, from expressing my opinion of that group.

Septegram 17:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

POV intro

I find the wording of this bit of the intro "Reportedly, in a number of cases (such as Khalid el-Masri) the practice of "extraordinary rendition" has been applied to innocent civilians," very POV. Has ANYONE been the subject of ER and sucessfully prosecuted in a court? If not then everyone who has been ER'd are innocent civilians.Hypnosadist 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph should include the term "torture by proxy" (as it did earlier in the year) because it is in common usage for "extraordinary rendition". A Google search returns about 23,600 English pages for "Torture by Proxy" and the footnotes to the article have a number of prominent new media using the expression. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Are cases like Khalid el-Masri's properly referred to as ER?

This page discusses El-Masri's case as an (alleged) example of "extraordinary rendition". But El-Masri was reportedly sent to the salt pit, which was reportedly a place run by the CIA. My understanding is that "extraordinary rendition" (or "erroneous rendition") is a term used to describe transfers of people from US custody into the custody of other governments for imprisonment and/or interrogation by the other government. This does not sound like what happened here. It seems that he was reportedly captured by US forces in Macedonia, transported by US forces to Afghanistan, held by US forces in Afghanistan, and then dumped off by US forces in Albania. Since all of that involved US custody, how is that rendition? Can rendition be just moving someone around under your own control, or does it need to involve handing them over into someone else's control? —Wookipedian 03:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Embarrassment

I'm astounded that an unsupported political diatribe like this is allowed to exist in Wikipedia. It denegrates Wikipedia as a whole. Amnesty International is a well known unreliable sourse that just makes up lies and gets caught at it.

Amnesty "makes up lies," or simply makes mistakes? If you have documentation for Amnesty making up lies and getting caught at it, you may want to add that information to the article on Amnesty International.

Septegram 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article should be removed, or at least edited for NPOV. Simicich 22:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This story is an amalgamation of a very wide range of independent sources (more than 100 external articles are cited). If there's a specific point which you believe should be edited for NPOV, please say what it is. Just because it is embarrassing to the United States, doesn't mean that it isn't true. --Lee Hunter 23:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Its certainly not balanced and has strayed from being an encyclopedic article about the practice of extraordinary rendition into a factsheet on the perceived practice of ER by the US. It really needs to lose its US-centricism. Kyaa the Catlord 08:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, Kyaa. I'm not qualified to discuss the subject of extraordinary rendition as practiced by other countries, but if you have sources for this please Be Bold and charge ahead.

Septegram 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is fine. Saying it is unsupported with this many references is ridiculous and it obviously doesn't meet the criteria for deletion either. If there are problems with specific references, they should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. It may be US-centric, but that just means that more material should be added for other countries. As the article is rather big already, maybe it would benefit from splitting it into multiple parts, with the US-specific stuff in its own article? BTW, please sign your comments with ~~~~ to keep the talk pages readable. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 19:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Who didn't sign a comment? I interjected in the middle of Simicich's original post--perhaps that made it unclear who had written the first part? If so, I apologize.

Septegram 19:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

PDD 39

This article links to Presidential Directive 39, which based on context, I assumed would show how Clinton approved of the CIA sending suspects to Egypt. I combed over PDD 39, and found nothing in it to suggest that this was so. --arthur