Extraordinary rendition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extraordinary rendition and irregular rendition are terms used to describe the extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another, and Torture by proxy is used by some critics to describe extraordinary rendition by the United States, with regard to the alleged transfer of suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture. Critics have alleged the use of torture has occurred with the knowledge or acquiescence of the United States. However United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated in an April 2006 radio interview that the United States does not transfer people to places where they know they will be tortured.^[2][3][4]

Since the start of the "War on Terror" declared by the Bush administration after the September 11, 2001 attacks, critics, (such as Scott Horton, an expert on international law and anti-war advocate), accuse the United States government, in particular the the CIA, of rendering hundreds of people suspected by the United States government of being terrorists – or of aiding and abetting terrorist organizations – to third-party states such as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Morocco, and Uzbekistan. Such "ghost detainees" are kept outside of judicial oversight, often without ever entering US territory, and may or may not ultimately be devolved to the custody of the United States.^[5][6]

The US program has raised a series of moral, judicial, and political issues, prompting several official European Union investigations. A June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated one hundred persons had been kidnapped by the CIA on EU territory and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centers ("black sites") used by the CIA in cooperation with other governments. According to the European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. A large majority of the European Union Parliament endorsed the report's conclusion that many member states tolerated illegal actions of the CIA and criticized several European governments and intelligence agencies for their unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation. ^[7]

One notable example is the "Imam Rapito affair" in Italy, in which Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka Abu Omar), a radical Islamist cleric, was kidnapped in a joint CIA-SISMI operation in Milan on February 17, 2003, was transferred to the Aviano Air Base, and was rendered to Egypt, where he was held until February 11, 2007, when an Egyptian court ruled his imprisonment was "unfounded."^[8] He claims he was tortured both on the Aviano Base and in Egypt. Italian prosecutors investigating the kidnapping, and have indicted 26 US citizens including the head of CIA in Italy Jeffrey W. Castelli and 24 other CIA agents. They have also sent extradition requests to the Italian Ministry of Justice, which has not delivered it to American authorities. SISMI chief General Nicolò Pollari and second-in-command Marco Mancini have been forced to resign, and were also indicted. The trial of the 26 Americans and 9 Italians has been scheduled to begin in June 2007.

Contents 1 Background 2 Usage by the Clinton Administration 3 Usage by the Bush Administration 4 Reported methodology 4.1 Airline flights 4.2 Boeing Jeppessen International Trip Planning 4.3 "Black sites" 5 Debate over legality, utility 5.1 Torture 6 Investigations 6.1 Craig Murray 2003 revelations 6.2 Public revelations concerning the extraordinary renditions 6.3 Extraordinary renditions and black sites in Europe 6.4 Criticisms of the Washington Post's decision to withhold locations of the black sites 6.5 UN report by Manfred Nowak 7 "Erroneous rendition" 8 Examples and specific cases 8.1 The Khaled Masri case 8.2 The Abu Omar case 8.3 The Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmad case 8.4 The Muhammad Bashmila case 9 Investigations in Europe 9.1 Shannon Airport, Ireland 9.2 July 2005 opening of investigations in France concerning CIA flights 9.3 November 2005 opening of investigations in Spain concerning CIA flights 9.4 Germany 9.5 Kosovo 9.6 The Council of Europe investigation and its June 2006 report 9.7 June 27, 2006 Council of Europe resolution 9.8 2007 Investigations in Portugal concerning CIA flights 9.9 The European Parliament's February 14, 2007 report 10 Treaty obligations of the United States 11 Others reports 12 Bibliography 13 See also 14 Notes 15 External links 15.1 2006 15.2 2005 15.3 2004 15.4 2003 15.5 2002 15.6 2001 16 Terminology

[edit] Background

The first well-known rendition case involved the Achille Lauro hijackers in 1985: while in international air space they were forced by United States Navy fighter planes to land at the Naval Air Station Sigonella, an Italian military base in Sicily used by NATO, in an attempt to place them within judicial reach of United States Government representatives for transport to and trial in the United States. The practice later expanded to include the deportation or expulsion into United States custody of persons in foreign countries deemed to be enemy aliens or terrorists.^{[citation needed]}

The procedure was developed by Central Intelligence Agency officials^{[citation needed]} in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda. At the time, the agency was reluctant to grant suspected terrorists due process under American law, as the attendant disclosures of government information under the rules of disclosure could potentially jeopardize its intelligence sources and methods.

[edit] Usage by the Clinton Administration

The procedure was developed by Central Intelligence Agency officials in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda ^[9]. At the time, the agency was reluctant to grant suspected terrorists due process under American law, as the attendant disclosures of government information under the rules of disclosure could potentially jeopardize its intelligence sources and methods.^{[citation needed]}

According to Clinton Administration official Richard Clarke,

"'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government...The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"^[10]

In a New Yorker magazine interview with CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, an author of the rendition program under the Clinton Administration, writer Jane Mayer noted, "In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally—including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea. "What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian," Scheuer said. "It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated." Technically, U.S. law requires the CIA to seek "assurances" from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was "not sure" if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed."^[5]

Thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a presidential directive (PDD 39), the CIA instead elected to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian mukhabarat. This arrangement suited the Egyptians, who were trying to crack down on domestic Islamic extremists, and a number of the senior members of Al Qaeda were Egyptian.^{[citation needed]} The arrangement also suited the US by enabling the interrogation of suspects without the intercession of the domestic legal process, using Egyptian methods.^{[citation needed]}

The first known individual to be subjected to rendition under this order was Talaat Fouad Qassem, one of Egypt's most wanted terrorists, who was arrested with the help of US intelligence by Croatian police in Zagreb in September 1995.^{[citation needed]} He was interrogated by US agents on a ship in the Adriatic Sea and was then sent back to Egypt. He disappeared while in custody, and is suspected by human rights activists of having been executed without a trial.^{[citation needed]}

In the summer of 1998, a similar operation was mounted in Tirana, Albania. Wiretaps showed that five Egyptians had been in contact with Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy.^{[citation needed]} During the course of several months, Shawki Salama Attiya and four militants were captured by Albanian security forces collaborating with US agents. The men were flown to Cairo for interrogation. Attiya later alleged that he had electric shocks applied to his genitals, was hung from his limbs, and was kept in a cell with dirty water up to his knees.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Usage by the Bush Administration

Initially, the procedure was applied primarily to individuals for whom there were outstanding arrest warrants. After the 9/11 attacks the program appears to have been expanded and some believe it now encompasses individuals for whom there are but vague suspicions. The Justice Department and the Defense Department also do renditions.^{[citation needed]}

According to a December 4, 2005 article in the Washington Post by Dana Priest, "Members of the Rendition Group follow a simple but standard procedure: Dressed head to toe in black, including masks, they blindfold and cut the clothes off their new captives, then administer an enema and sleeping drugs. They outfit detainees in a diaper and jumpsuit for what can be a day-long trip. Their destinations: either a detention facility operated by cooperative countries in the Middle East and Central Asia, including Afghanistan, or one of the CIA's own covert prisons – referred to in classified documents as "black sites," which at various times have been operated in eight countries, including several in Eastern Europe.^[11][12]

Following mounting scrutiny in Europe, including investigations held by Swiss senator Dick Marty who released a public report in June 2006, the US Senate was about, in December 2005, to approve a measure that would include amendments requiring the director of national intelligence to provide regular, detailed updates about secret detention facilities maintained by the United States overseas, and to account for the treatment and condition of each prisoner.^[13]

Critics charge that the program has "spun out of control", and has been used against large numbers of individuals.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Reported methodology

Media reports describe suspects as being arrested, blindfolded, shackled, and sedated, or otherwise kidnapped, and transported by private jet or other means to the destination country.^[14] The reports also say that the rendering countries have provided interrogators with lists of questions.

[edit] Airline flights

Further information: Rendition aircraft

In February 2007 it was reported that the JGO (Juliet Golf Oscar) former call sign assigned to defunct airline Jetsgo was allegedly used for planes going in and out of the Balkans, including Learjet 35 executive jets, C-130 transport planes and MC-130P Combat Shadows. A Sunday Times analysis of flight plans and radio logs has placed these aircraft at locations including Tuzla in Bosnia, Pristina in Kosovo, and Aviano Air Base in Northern Italy, as well as Ramstein, headquarters fo the US Air Forces in Europe (USAFE). On December 11, 2004, USAFE in Ramstein filed a flight plan for a Learjet 35 to fly from Tuzla to Aviano. USAFE changed its registration in flight, while keeping its humanitarian, diplomatic and governmental status. While on ground at Tuzla in Bosnia, an Ilyushin 76 left Tuzla 55 minutes before, with 45 tons of surplus weapons and ammunitions which were sold off by the Bosnian military (at the time member of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) and destined to Rwanda. The latter country was subjected to a UN embargo on arms-trade. An Amnesty International report quoted by the British newspapers suggested that "US security authorities were engaged in a covert operation to ferry arms to Rwanda in the face of political opposition from the European Union".

Another strange convergence of flights happened in February 2004, according to The Sunday Times. An MC-130P Combat Shadow using the call sign JGO 50 took off from Aviano to an unknown destination on February 24. Two days later, he left Pristina for Tuzla. A short time after, a Gulfstream 5 executive jet (call sign JGO 47) flew from Tuzla to Aviano. The next day, a Learjet 35 left Aviano for an unknown destination, using call sign SPAR 92.

SPAR is short for Special Air Resources, a US military aircraft service that transport civilians VIP and senior military officers. But SPAR 92 has been identified as the aircraft which was used to transport Hassan Nasr (aka Abu Omar), the cleric kidnapped in Italy in 2003 and for which CIA agents have been indicted in Italy (See below).

The US military denied the reports and stated that aircraft using the call sign were involved in a programme called "Joint Guard Operations" for the NATO-European peacekeeping mission in the Balkans (which established the SFOR). However, "Joint Guard" ended in 1998. Inquiries also show that none of the US aircraft deployed in it match ones using the JGO call-sign.^[15]

[edit] Boeing Jeppessen International Trip Planning

On October 23, 2006, the New Yorker claimed that Jeppesen International Trip Planning, a subsidiary of Boeing, handled the logistical planning for the CIA's extraordinary rendition flights. The allegation is based on information from an ex-employee who quoted Bob Overby, managing director of the company as saying "We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights—you know, the torture flights. Let’s face it, some of these flights end up that way." The article went on to suggest that this may make Jeppesen a potential defendant in a law suit by Khaled El-Masri.^[16]

[edit] "Black sites"

In 2005, the Washington Post and Human Rights Watch (HRW) published revelations concerning CIA flights and "black sites," covert prisons that are operated by the CIA and which existence is denied by the US government. The European Parliament published a report in February 2007 concerning the use of such secret detention centers and extraordinary rendition (See below). Such detention centers violate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the UN Convention Against Torture, treaties that all EU member states are bound to follow.^[17][18][19]

According to ABC News two such facilities, in countries mentioned by Human Rights Watch, have been closed following the recent publicity. CIA officers say the captives were relocated to the North African desert. All but one of these 11 high-value al Qaeda prisoners were subjected to the harshest interrogation techniques in the CIA's secret arsenal, the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized for use by about 14 CIA officers.^[20]

[edit] Debate over legality, utility

Evidence obtained illegally or under duress is inadmissible in US courts, and hampers court cases against suspected terrorists in the US. The trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person to be indicted in the US in connection with the 9/11 attacks, was in part complicated by Moussaoui's requests for access to confidential documents and his assertion of a right to call al-Qaida members held in captivity in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base as witnesses, a demand rejected by government attorneys on the grounds that it would compromise confidential sources.

The House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in their first report published on 15 February 2006, points out that althought both the UK and the U.S. have ratified UNCAT, the UK ratified it without resevations, but the US ratified CAT with a reservations that specifies the meaning of "mental pain or suffering" in more detail than Article 1 CAT, and that under U.S. legislation, the term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" is interpreted according to the U.S. Constitution, (see Treaty obligations, below). Having made this point the report goes on to say in paragraph 44 that:^[21]

The US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice has denied the use of torture, in response to a letter written by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on behalf of the United Kingdom as Presidency of the European Union. On 5 December 2005 she said: Rendition is a vital tool in combating trans-national terrorism. Its use is not unique to the United States, or to the current administration…[However] the United States does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances.

• The United States has respected—and will continue to respect—the sovereignty of other countries.
• The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation under torture.
• The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured.
• The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred people will not be tortured.

While Rice has denied that the CIA used torture, she refused to address the allegations of covert prisons that have caused consternation across Europe and not least in Romania.^[22][23][24]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Physicians Committee for Human Rights and Veterans for America have sought access to presidential directives expressly authorizing extraordinary rendition.^[25] A story published in The NewStandard in December 2005 notes:

To date, there have been no Congressional or other governmental inquiries into the CIA's use of extraordinary renditions, despite repeated calls for such investigations.^[26]

[edit] Torture

Further information: Torture and Ethical arguments regarding torture

Some proponents of extraordinary rendition, and the similarly controversial concept of unlawful combatant, agree with Alan Dershowitz that torturing terror suspects, however distasteful, is necessary to help prevent further terrorist attacks, which may only be a matter of hours or days away. ^[27] Critics argue, however, that such practices are unethical, unconstitutional, and defy the Geneva Conventions. Even within the US government, opinions are divided; the State Department opposes ignoring the Geneva Conventions, and has warned the Bush administration that not only could US soldiers be denied protection of the conventions but that President Bush and other members of the administration could also be prosecuted for war crimes.^{[citation needed]}

Aside from ethical issues, pragmatic reservations have also arisen about the practice. For one, it appears that while torturing a suspect frequently results in a confession, the confessions tend to be useless; many suspects will say nearly anything to end their suffering. Some investigators argue that better results are achieved by treating suspects with respect, allowing them due process, and arranging plea bargains with defense lawyers.

[edit] Investigations

[edit] Craig Murray 2003 revelations

In 2003, the United Kingdom's Ambassador for Uzbekistan, Craig Murray made accusations that information was being extracted under extreme torture from dissidents in that country, and that the information was subsequently being used by the UK and other western, democratic countries which disapproved of torture.^[28] In March 2003 he was informed in the London offices of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) by Sir Michael Wood, chief Legal Adviser, that it was not illegal under the UN Convention Against Torture for the UK to obtain or to use intelligence gained under torture, provided the British government itself did not use torture or request that a named individual be tortured.

The unanimous Law Lords judgment on December 8, 2005 confirmed this position. They ruled that, under English law tradition, "torture and its fruits" could not be used in court.^[29] But the information thus obtained could be used by the British police and security services as "it would be ludicrous for them to disregard information about a ticking bomb if it had been procured by torture."^[30] The Law Lords thus dismissed concerns about the validity of information obtained under torture, which have been expressed by various security agents and human rights activists.

Murray's accusations did not lead to any investigation by his employer, the FCO, and he resigned after disciplinary action was taken against him in 2004. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself is being investigated by the National Audit Office because of accusations that it has victimized, bullied and intimidated its own staff.^[31]

Murray later stated that he felt that he had unwittingly stumbled upon what has been called "torture by proxy".^[32] He thought that Western countries moved people to regimes and nations where it was known that information would be extracted by torture, and made available to them.

Murray states that he was aware from August 2002 "that the CIA were bringing in detainees to Tashkent from Bagram airport Afghanistan, who were handed over to the Uzbek security services (SNB). I presumed at the time that these were all Uzbek nationals – that may have been a false presumption. I knew that the CIA were obtaining intelligence from their subsequent interrogation by the SNB." He goes on to say that he did not know at the time that any non-Uzbek nationals were flown to Uzbekistan and although he has studied the reports by several journalists and finds their reports credible he is not a firsthand authority on this issue.^[33]

[edit] Public revelations concerning the extraordinary renditions

Furthermore, Amnesty International mentions Muhammad al-Assad, Salah Nasser Salim ‘Ali and Muhammad Faraj Ahmed Bashmilah. The three, all nationals of Yemen, had "disappeared" in 2003, and had been kept in complete isolation – even from each other – in a series of secret detention centres apparently run by US agents.^[34]

Based upon statements by current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents, the Washington Post reported that captives might be subject to techniques of interrogation illegal in the United States.^[35] Since it might violate US law these suspects are flown to facilities around the world. Eight countries have been implicated, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba.

The CIA and the White House strongly resist any in-depth investigation into the details of rendition, refusing to release information on the subjects detained and the facilities used throughout the world.^[36] Critics think this procedure might be kept from scrutiny as it could result in legal challenges to the U.S. government, inside the U.S. as well as in those countries used for detention.^[37][38] (For a more detailed discussion on these possible violations of U.S. and international law please see below and unlawful combatant.)

[edit] Extraordinary renditions and black sites in Europe

Further information: Black sites

In January 2005, Swiss senator Dick Marty, representative at the Council of Europe in charge of the European investigations, concluded that a hundred persons had been kidnapped by the CIA in Europe - thus qualifying as ghost detainees - and then rendered to a country where they may be tortured. Dick Marty qualified the sequestration of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka "Abu Omar") in Milan in February 2003 as a "perfect example of extraordinary rendition"^[39]

In addition to their own investigation the European countries will formally request an answer from the Bush administration on the matter.^[40][41][42] (See below: The European investigation and its June 2006 report)

The Guardian reported on December 5, 2005, that the British government is "guilty of breaking international law if it knowingly allowed secret CIA "rendition" flights of terror suspects to land at UK airports, according to a report by American legal scholars."^[43][44]

[edit] Criticisms of the Washington Post's decision to withhold locations of the black sites

A comment by FAIR^[45] on the Washington Post's decision, to withhold the locations of these secret prisons, was that since the revelations "could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad," the Post did its part to minimize these risks. Yet, according to FAIR, "the possibility that illegal, unpopular government actions might be disrupted is not a consequence to be feared, however — it's the whole point of the U.S. First Amendment. Furthermore, by not disclosing these locations it would make it impossible to have them closed and thereby the Post is enabling the rendition, secret detention, and torture of prisoners at these locations to continue. Another consequence might be that U.S. soldiers and civilians are put at risk."^[46]

[edit] UN report by Manfred Nowak

Manfred Nowak, a special reporter on torture, has catalogued in a 15-page U.N. report presented to the 191-member General Assembly that the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Sweden and Kyrgyzstan are violating international human rights conventions by deporting terrorist suspects to countries such as Egypt, Syria, Algeria and Uzbekistan, where they may have been tortured.^[47]

"The United States is holding at least 26 persons as “ghost detainees” at undisclosed locations outside of the United States," Human Rights Watch said on December 1, 2005, as it released a list naming some of the detainees. The detainees are being held indefinitely and incommunicado, without legal rights or access to counsel.^[48][49]

[edit] "Erroneous rendition"

An article published in the December 5, 2005, Washington Post reported that the CIA's Inspector General was investigating what it calls erroneous renditions.^[50] The term appears to refer to cases in which innocent people were subjected to extraordinary rendition.

Khalid El-Masri is the most well-known person who is believed to have been subjected to the process of "extraordinary rendition," as a result of mistaken identity (see Extraordinary rendition#The Khalid El-Masri case). Laid Saidi, an Algerian detained and tortured along with El-Masri, was apparently apprehended because of a taped telephone conversation in which the word tirat, meaning "tires" in Arabic, was mistaken for the word tairat, meaning "airplanes."^[51]

The Post's anonymous sources say that the Inspector General is looking into a number of similar cases — possibly as many as thirty innocent men who were captured and transported through what has been called "erroneous renditions."

A December 27, 2005 story quotes anonymous CIA insiders claiming there have been 10 or fewer of such erroneous renditions.^[26] It names the CIA's inspector general, John Helgerson, as the official responsible for the inquiry.

The AP story quotes Tom Malinowski, Washington office director of Human Rights Watch who said:

"I am glad the CIA is investigating the cases that they are aware of, but by definition you are not going to be aware of all such cases, when you have a process designed to avoid judicial safeguards."^[26]

[edit] Examples and specific cases

This is a non-exhaustive list of some known examples of extraordinary rendition.

• A Pakistani newspaper reported that in the early hours of October 23, 2001 a Yemeni citizen, Jamil Qasim Saeed Mohammed, a 27-year-old microbiology student at Karachi University, was spirited aboard a private plane at Karachi's airport by Pakistani security officers.^[52]

• In October 2001, Mamdouh Habib, who lives in Australia and has both Australian and Egyptian nationality (having been born in Egypt), was detained in Pakistan, where he was interrogated for three weeks, and then flown to Egypt in a private plane. From Egypt, he was later flown to a US airbase in Afghanistan. He told the BBC that he did not know who had held him, but had seen Americans, Australians, Pakistanis, and Egyptians among his captors. He also said that he had been beaten, given electric schock, deprived of sleep, blindfolded for eight months and brainwashed^[53] After signing confessions of involvement with al-Qaeda, which he has now retracted, Mr Habib was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. He was released without charge in January 2005.^[54] Former Pakistani Interior Minister Makhdoom Syed Faisal Sawleh Hayat told in an interview by the Australian current affairs programme Dateline that Mr Habib was linked with the "terrorist element" operating at that time. But he contradicted him a few minutes after, in the same interview, saying that Mamdouh Habib had been assumed guilty just because he was in the restricted province of Baluchistan without proper visa documents.^[55]

• In 2002, captured Al Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was rendered to Egypt where he was allegedly tortured. The information he provided to his interrogators formed a fundamental part of the Bush administration case for attacking Iraq, alleging links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Al-Libi later recanted his story and it is generally believed that his stories of contact between the Saddam Hussein regime and Al-Qaeda were fabricated to please his interrogators.^[56]

• Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden, were arrested by Swedish police in December 2001. They were taken to an airport and put on an executive jet with American registration N379P with a crew of masked men. Within hours, they were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured. A Swedish diplomat visited them several weeks later. Agiza was charged with being an Islamic militant and he was sentenced to 25 years. Al-Zery wasn't charged, and after two years in jail he was sent to his village in Egypt.

• In March 2002, Abou Elkassim Britel, an Italian citizen with Moroccan origins, was arrested in Pakistan and subsequently interrogated by Pakistani and US officials. He was then rendered to Moroccan authorities, detained and torture in a secret detention center in Temara. He was finally released without any charges brought against him, before being rearrested in May 2003 at the border crossing of the Spanish enclave of Melilla in North Africa. He is currently imprisoned in Äin Bourja prison in Casablanca after having been sentenced to nine years in January 2004 for membership of a subversive organisation and for activities including the holding unauthorised meetings. This in spite of conclusions in September 2006 by Italian Justice, after a five years investigation, that there was "an absolute lack of grounds of evidence of charge which may be used in trial" and that the suspicion motivating the inquiries had proved unfounded. Nonetheless, allegations in the Italian press and the judicial proceedings that were underway in Italy influenced court proceedings against Britel in Morocco that led to him being sentenced. MPs from Italy and from the European Parliament are set to ask the Moroccan Royal Cabinet to grant a pardon to the Italian citizen^[57] According to the European Parliament Temporary Committee on the Alleged Use of European Countries by the CIA for the Transport and the Illegal Detention of Prisoners headed by rapporteur Giovanni Claudio Fava, documents demonstrated that "the Italian judicial authorities and the Italian Ministry for Home Affairs (the latter, acting on behalf of the Direzione Centrale della Polizia di Prevenzione cited in connection with the investigation by the Divisione Investigazioni Generali ed Operazioni Speciali) cooperated constantly with foreign secret services and were well aware of all Britel's movements and whatever unlawful treatments he received, from the time of his initial arrest in Pakistan."^[58]

• In February 2003, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka "Abu Omar") was kidnapped by the CIA in Milan (Italy), and deported to Egypt. His case has been qualified by Swiss senator Dick Marty to be a "perfect example of extraordinary rendition".^[39] Italian justice has since issued arrest warrants against CIA agents (See The Abu Omar Case). Photos of defendants in the Abu Omar case recently have surfaced on the Web.^[59]

• In 2003, Khalid El-Masri, a Kuwait-born citizen with German nationality, was detained by Macedonian agents in Republic of Macedonia, then turned over to the CIA (See The Khaled Masri case)

• In 2003, an Algerian named Laid Saidi was abducted in Tanzania and taken to Afghanistan, where he was imprisoned and tortured along with Khalid El-Masri.^[51] His detention appears to have arisen through a mistranslation of a telephone conversation, in which U.S. officials believed he was speaking about airplanes (tairat in Arabic) when he had in fact been speaking about tires (tirat in Arabic).

• Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, 34 in 2005, was detained at Kennedy International Airport on 26 September 2002, by US Immigration and Naturalization Service officials. He was heading home to Canada after a family holiday in Tunisia. After almost two weeks, enduring hours of interrogation chained, he was sent, shackled and bound, in a private jet to Jordan and then Syria, instead of being extradited to Canada. There, he was interrogated and tortured by Syrian intelligence. Maher Arar was eventually released a year later. He told the BBC that he was repeatedly tortured during 10 months' detention in Syria - often whipped on the palms of his hands with metal cables. Syrian intelligence officers forced him to sign a confession linking him to Al Qaeda. He was finally released following intervention by the Canadian government. The Canadian government lodged an official complaint with the US government protesting Arar's deportation. On September 18, 2006, a Canadian public enquiry presented its findings entirely clearing Arar of any terrorist activities.^[60] In 2004 Arar filed a lawsuit in a federal court in New York against senior U.S. officials, on charges that whomever sent him to Syria knew he would be tortured by intelligence agents.^[53] US Attorney General John Ashcroft, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI Director Robert Mueller are all named in the lawsuit.^[61]

• Binyam Mohammed, an Ethiopian student who lived in London, was apprehended in Pakistan in April 2002. He allegedly spent three years in "black sites," including in Morocco and Afghanistan. He was supposed to be part of a plot involving José Padilla. The Observer reported: He went to Pakistan in June 2001 because, he says, he had a drug problem and wanted to kick the habit. He was arrested on 10 April at the airport on his way back to England because of an alleged passport irregularity. Initially interrogated by Pakistani and British officials, he told Stafford Smith: 'The British checked out my story and said they knew I was a nobody. They said they would tell the Americans. He was deprived of sleep by having heavy rock music played loudly throughout the day and night.^[62][53]

• In late 2001 Saddiq Ahmad Turkistani was freed by US forces from a Taliban prison in Kandahar, Afghanistan. At a news conference he told reporters and U.S. officials he had been wrongly imprisoned for allegedly plotting to kill Osama bin Laden. He was then taken to a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, where he was stripped, bound and thrown behind bars. According to U.S. lawyers who represent him, in January 2002 he was sent to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Nearly four years later, Turkistani remains there, despite being cleared for release early 2005 after a government review concluded he is "no longer an enemy combatant." It is unclear exactly when that determination was made, but Justice Department lawyers gave notice of it in an October 11 court filing.^[63] According to a June 26, 2006 press release from the Saudi Arabian embassy,^[64] Turkistani was released from Guantanamo to Saudi custody

• On 5 April 2006, Amnesty International released details of the United States' system of extraordinary rendition, stating that three Yemeni citizens were held somewhere in Eastern Europe.^[65]

[edit] The Khaled Masri case

Main article: Khalid El-Masri

In 2003, Khalid El-Masri, a Kuwait-born citizen with German nationality, was detained by Macedonian agents in Republic of Macedonia. While allegedly on vacation in Macedonia, local police, apparently acting on a tip, took him off a bus, held him for three weeks, then took him to the Skopje airport where he was turned over to the CIA.

El-Masri says he was injected with drugs, and after his flight, he woke up in an American-run prison in Afghanistan containing prisoners from Pakistan, Tanzania, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. El-Masri said that he was held five months and interrogated by Americans through an interpreter. He declared thet he had been beaten and kept in solitary confinement. Participating in some of these interrogation sessions was an officer of the German foreign intelligence service (Bundesnachrichtendienst or BND) using the pseudonym "Sam", who has reportedly been identified by al-Masri as Gerhard Lehmann. Lehmann served on the UN Mehlis commission into the Rafik Hariri assassination before he was withdrawn in early February 2006, possibly to prevent the repercussions of his identification.^[66]

Then, after his five months of questioning, he was simply released. "They told me that they had confused names and that they had cleared it up, but I can't imagine that," El-Masri told ABC News. "You can clear up switching names in a few minutes." Khalid el-Masri had allegedly been confused with Khalid al-Masri, wanted for contacts with the Hamburg Cell involved in the September 2001 attacks.

Khalid el-Masri was then flown out of Afghanistan and dumped on a road in Albania, from where he made his way back home in Germany. Using a method called isotope analysis, scientists at the Bavarian archive for geology in Munich subsequently analyzed several strands of his hair and verified his story. During a visit to Washington, German Interior Minister Otto Schily was told that American agents admitted to kidnapping El-Masri, and indicated that the matter had somehow got out of hand. Masri was held for five months largely because the head of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center's al Qaeda unit "believed he was someone else," one former CIA official said. "She didn't really know. She just had a hunch."^[11]

Khalid el-Masri's case has been given as an example of so-called "erroneous renditions," meaning extraordinary renditions of completely innocent people. Although the "confusion" was admitted to Germany's then-Interior Minister Otto Schily, the CIA tried to keep the specifics of Masri's case from becoming public.^[67] The German government was requested by the CIA not to disclose what it had been told (even if el-Masri went public), on fears that this might expose the covert extraordinary rendition program, and thereby open up legal challenges. Some CIA officials have argued that Guantanamo Bay has become, as one former senior official put it, "a dumping ground" for CIA mistakes.

A German prosecutor works to verify or debunk Masri's claims of kidnapping and torture, yet that part of the German government which was informed has remained silent on the subject. Masri's attorneys have filed a lawsuit in U.S. courts. On January 31, 2007, Munich Prosecutor Christian Schmidt-Sommerfeld said he had issued 13 arrest warrants connected with rendition of Khalid El-Masri from Macedonia.^[68]

[edit] The Abu Omar case

Main article: The Imam Rapito affair

On 17 February 2003, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka "Abu Omar") was kidnapped by the CIA in Milan (Italy), and deported to Egypt. His case has been qualified by Swiss senator Dick Marty to be a "perfect example of extraordinary rendition".^[39] In June 2005, Italian judge Guido Salvini issued a warrant for the arrest of 13 persons said to be agents or operatives of the CIA. In December 2005, an Italian court issued an European arrest warrant against 22 CIA agents suspected of this kidnapping (including Robert Seldon Lady, Eliana Castaldo, Lt. Col. Joseph L. Romano, III, etc.^[69]). The CIA hasn't commented on the case, while Berlusconi's government has denied any knowledge of a kidnapping plot.^[70] Just after the 2006 Italian general elections, Roberto Castelli (Lega Nord), outgoing Justice Minister, declared to Italian prosecutors that he had not passed the extradition request to the US.

Furthermore, Marco Mancini, the SISMI director of anti-terrorism and counterespionage, and Gustavo Pignero, the department's director in 2003, have been arrested, on charges of complicity in a kidnapping with the aggravating circumstances of abuse of power. There are now 26 EU arrest warrants for U.S. citizens in connection to this event.^[71] A judge also issued arrest warrants for four Americans, three CIA agents and an Air Force officer who commanded the security forces at Aviano Air Base at the time of the abduction.^[72]

On February 17, 2003 CIA agents allegedly kidnapped Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, as he walked to his mosque in Milan for noon prayers. Omar was flown to Egypt for interrogation in the frame of the US extraordinary rendition program. His family and friends claim that he has been tortured. At the time of his disappearance, Italian police were investigating allegations that Nasr had tried to recruit jihadists. Prosecutor Guido Salvini said the abduction was illegal because it violated Italian sovereignty and that it disrupted an ongoing police investigation.

On December 6, 2005, the Washington Post reported Italian court documents showed the CIA tried to mislead Italian anti-terrorism police who were looking for the cleric. Robert Seldon Lady, the CIA's substation chief in Milan, has been implicated in the abduction. In a written opinion upholding the arrest warrant, judge Enrico Manzi wrote that the evidence taken from Lady's home "removes any doubt about his participation in the preparatory phase of the abduction."^[73][74] Robert S. Lady however, alleged that the evidence has been gathered illegally, and has denied involvement in the abduction.^[73] Photos of Robert (Bob) Lady and other defendants recently have surfaced on the Web.^[75]

On February 12, 2007 Mr Nasr's lawyer said he had been released and was back with his family.^[76]

[edit] The Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmad case

A story in the Los Angeles Times on December 8, 2005, seems to corroborate the claims of "torture by proxy." It mentions the attorneys for Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmad, a detainee held by the Pentagon at Guantanamo Bay, filed a petition to prevent his being transferred to foreign countries. According to the petition's description of a redacted classified Defense Department memo from March 17, 2004, its contents say "officials suggested sending Ahmad to an unspecified foreign country that employed torture in order to increase chances of extracting information from him."

Mr Falkoff, representing Ahmad, continued: "There is only one meaning that can be gleaned from this short passage," the petition says. "The government believes that Mr. Ahmad has information that it wants but that it cannot extract without torturing him." The petition goes on to say that because torture is not allowed at Guantanamo, "the recommendation is that Mr. Ahmad should be sent to another country where he can be interrogated under torture."^[77] In a report, regarding the allegations of CIA flights, on December 13, 2005, by the rapporteur and Chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Swiss councillor Dick Marty, it was concluded: "The elements we have gathered so far tend to reinforce the credibility of the allegations concerning the transport and temporary detention of detainees - outside all judicial procedure - in European countries."^[78][79] In a press conference in January 2006, he stated "he was personally convinced the US had undertaken illegal activities in Europe in transporting and detaining prisoners."^[80]

[edit] The Muhammad Bashmila case

Muhammad Bashmila, a former illegally arrested prisoner, now free in Yemen, gave an interview to the BBC Newsnight programme, where he spoke of being transferred from Afghanistan to a detention center where it was cold, where the food appeared European and where evening prayers were held at the late hour of 2045. Somewhere in Eastern Europe is suspected.^[81]

[edit] Investigations in Europe

[edit] Shannon Airport, Ireland

The government of the Republic of Ireland has come under internal and external pressure to inspect airplanes at Shannon Airport to investigate whether or not they contain extraordinary rendition captives.^[82][83] Police at Shannon have said that they have received political instruction not to approach, search or otherwise interfere with US aircraft suspected of being involved in extraordinary rendition flights. Ireland has recently been shamed by the EU Parliament for its role in facilitating extraordinary rendition and taking insufficient or no measures to uphold its obligations under the UN CAT.^{[citation needed]}

The situation is complicated at Shannon Airport because, (along with Dublin Airport, the only other airport in Europe to have such a facility),^[84] passangers flying to the USA are cleared for immigration to the USA by U.S. Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection before bording the flights and are kept in a "sterile gate lounge"^[85]

[edit] July 2005 opening of investigations in France concerning CIA flights

The French attorney general of Bobigny opened up an instruction in order "to verify the presence in Le Bourget Airport, on July 20, 2005, of the plane numbered N50BH." This instruction was opened following a complaint deposed in December 2005 by the Ligue des droits de l'homme (LDH) NGO ("Human Rights League") and the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) NGO on charges of "arbitrary detention", "crime of torture" and "non-respect of the rights of war prisoners". It has as objective to determine if the plane was used to transport CIA prisoners to Guantanamo Bay detainment camp and if the French authorities had knowledge of this stop. However, the lawyer defending the LDH declared that he was surprised that the instruction was only opened on January 20, 2006, and that no verifications had been done before. On December 2, 2005, conservative newspaper Le Figaro had revealed the existence of two CIA planes that had landed in France, suspected of transporting CIA prisoners. But the instruction concerned only N50BH, which was a Gulfstream III, which would have landed at Le Bourget on July 20, 2005, coming from Oslo, Norway. The other suspected aircraft would have landed in Brest on March 31, 2002. It is investigated by the Canadian authorities, as it would have been flying from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada, via Keflavík in Iceland before going to Turkey.^[86]

[edit] November 2005 opening of investigations in Spain concerning CIA flights

In November 2005, Spanish newspaper El Pais reported that CIA planes had landed in the Canary Islands and in Palma de Mallorca. An attorney opened up an investigation concerning these landings which, according to Madrid, were made without official knowledge, thus being a breach of national sovereignty.^[87][88][89]

[edit] Germany

Business daily Handelsblatt reported November 24, 2005, that the CIA still uses an American military base in Germany to transport terrorism suspects without informing the German government. The Berliner Zeitung reported the following day there was documentation of 85 takeoffs and landings by planes with a "high probability" of being operated by the CIA, at Ramstein, the Rhein-Main Air Base and others. The newspaper cited experts and "plane-spotters" who observed the planes as responsible for the tally.^[90]

[edit] Kosovo

In 2002, the Council of Europe's Human rights commissioner Alvaro Gil-Robles witnessed 'a smaller version of Guantanamo', he told France's Le Monde newspaper.^[91][92] Gil-Robles told the daily he had inspected the centre, located within the US military's Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, in 2002, to investigate reports of extrajudicial arrests by NATO-led peacekeepers.^[93]

[edit] The Council of Europe investigation and its June 2006 report

On November 25, 2005, the lead investigator for the Council of Europe, Swiss lawmaker Dick Marty announced that he had obtained latitude and longitude coordinates for suspected black sites, and he was planning to use satellite imagery over the last several years as part of his investigation. On November 28, 2005, EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini asserted that any EU country which had operated a secret prison would have its voting rights suspended.^[94] In a preliminary report, Dick Marty declared that it was "highly unlikely that European governments, or at least their intelligence services, were unaware" of the CIA kidnapping of a "hundred" persons on European territory and their subsequent rendition to countries where they may be tortured.^[95]

The report from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe directed by Dick Marty, and given public on June 7, 2006, was titled: "Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states."^[96]

Following the publication of this report, the Council of Europe published its draft Recommendation and Resolution document which found grounds for concern with the conduct of both the US and member states of the EU and expresses concern for the disregard of international law and the Geneva Convention. Following a 23 point resolution the document makes 5 recommendations.

• 1 refers to its Resolution on alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states.
• 2 recalling its previous recommendation on the legality of the detention of persons by the United States in Guantanamo Bay
• 3 urges the Committee of Ministers to draft a recommendation to Council of Europe member States containing:

common measures to guarantee more effectively the human rights of persons suspected of terrorist offences who are captured from, detained in or transported through Council of Europe member States; and a set of minimum requirements for "human rights protection clauses", for inclusion in bilateral and multilateral agreements with third parties, especially those concerning the use of military installations on the territory of Council of Europe member States.

• 4 urgently requests that: 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. Also, 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.
• 5 recommends improving the Council of Europe’s ability to react rapidly and effectively to allegations of systematic human rights abuse involving several member States.

Several months before the publication of the Council of Europe report directed by Dick Marty, Gijs de Vries, the EU's antiterrorism coordinator, asserted in April 2006 that no evidence existed that extraordinary rendition had been taking place in Europe. It was also said that the European Union's probe, and a similar one by the continent's leading human rights group had not found any human rights violations nor other crimes that could be proven to the satisfaction of the courts.^[97] This denial from a member of the executive power of the EU institutions has been flatly denied by the European Parliament report, which was accepted by a vast majority of the Parliament in February 2007 (See below:The European Parliament's February 14, 2007 report).

On the other hand, Dick Marty explained the difference of approach concerning terrorism between the EU and the US as following:

While the states of the Old World have dealt with these threats primarily by means of existing institutions and legal systems, the United States appears to have made a fundamentally different choice: considering that neither conventional judicial instruments nor those established under the framework of the laws of war could effectively counter the new forms of international terrorism, it decided to develop new legal concepts. This legal approach is utterly alien to the European tradition and sensibility, and is clearly contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.^[81]

However, despite Marty's claims, the European Parliament investigations uncovered cooperation between European secret services and governments and the extraordinary renditions programs, making such a clear-cut distinction over-simplistic (see below). Dick Marty himself has not accepted such a dualistic approach, as he showed that for the British government also, the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism was alleged to be so grave that the balance of liberties had to be reconsidered.^[81] Marty's report stated that:

"The compilation of so-called "black lists" of individuals and companies suspected of maintaining connections with organisations considered terrorist and the application of the associated sanctions clearly breach every principle of the fundamental right to a fair trial: no specific charges, no right to be heard, no right of appeal, no established procedure for removing one's name from the list."^[81]

[edit] June 27, 2006 Council of Europe resolution

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) calls for EU regulations governing foreign intelligence services operating in Europe, and demands “human rights clauses” in military base agreements with the USA.

In a resolution and recommendation approved by a large majority, the Assembly also called for:

• The dismantling by the US of its system of secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers.
• A review of bilateral agreements between Council of Europe member states and the US, particularly on the status of US forces stationed in Europe and on the use of military and other instrastructures, to ensure they conform to international human rights norms.
• Official apologies and compensation for victims of illegal detentions against whom no formal accusations, nor any court proceedings, have ever been brought
• An international initiative, expressly involving the United States, to develop a common, truly global strategy to address the terrorist threat which conforms to democracy, human rights and the rule of law.^[98]

[edit] 2007 Investigations in Portugal concerning CIA flights

Portugal opened up an investigation concerning CIA flights in February 2007, on the basics of declarations by Socialist MEP Ana Gomes and by Rui Costa Pinto, journalist of Visão review. The Portuguese general prosecutor, Cândida Almeida, head of the Central Investigation and Penal Action Department (DCIAP), announced the opening of investigations on February 5, 2007. They will be centered on the issue of "torture or inhuman and cruel treatment," and instigated by illegationsn of "illegal activities and serious human rights violations" made by MEP Ana Gomes to the attorney general, Pinto Monteiro, on January 26, 2007.^[99]

One of the most critic voice against the scarce collaboration provided by the Portuguese government to the European Parliament Commission which investigated CIA flights, Ana Gomes declared that, although she had no doubt that permission of these illegal flights were frequent during Durão Barroso (2002-2004) and Santana Lopes (2004-2005)' governments, "during the [Socialist] government of José Sócrates [2005-], 24 flights which passed through Portuguese territory" are registered.^[100] Active in the TDIP commission, Ana Gomes complained about the Portuguese state's reluctance to provide information, leading her to tensions with the Foreign minister, Luís Amado, member of the same party. Ana Gomes declared herself satisfied with the opening of the investigations, but underlined that she had alwa&ys claimed that a parliamentary inquiry would be necessary.^[99]

On the other hand, journalist Rui Costa Pinto was heard by the DCIAP, as he had written an article, refused by Visão, about flights passing by Lajes Field, a Portuguese airbase used by the US airforces, in the Azores.^[99]

[edit] The European Parliament's February 14, 2007 report

The European Parliament's report, adopted by a large majority (382 MEPs voting in favour, 256 against and 74 abstaining) passed on February 14, 2007 concludes that many European countries tolerated illegal actions of the CIA including secret flights over their territories. The countries named were: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.^[101] The report...

Denounces the lack of co-operation of many member states and of the Council of the European Union with the investigation;
Regrets that European countries have been relinquishing control over their airspace and airports by turning a blind eye or admitting flights operated by the CIA which, on some occasions, were being used for illegal transportation of detainees;
Calls for the closure of [the US military detention mission in] Guantanamo and for European countries immediately to seek the return of their citizens and residents who are being held illegally by the US authorities;
Considers that all European countries should initiate independent investigations into all stopovers by civilian aircraft [hired by] the CIA;
Urges that a ban or system of inspections be introduced for all CIA-operated aircraft known to have been involved in extraordinary rendition.^[102]

In April 2006, MEP in charge of the investigations had already expressed concerns that the CIA had conducted more than 1,000 secret flights over European territory since 2001, some to transfer terror suspects. Agents' names repeatedly came up in the investigation — which was said to suggest a pattern of operations, and flight configurations were highly suspicious.^[103]

The report criticized a number of European countries (including Austria, Italy, Poland, Portugal and the UK) for their "unwillingness to co-operate" and the action of secret services for lack of cooperation with the Parliaments' investigators and acceptance of the illegal abductions. The European Parliament voted in favour of a resolution condemning member states which accepted or ignored the practice. According to the report, the CIA had operated 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture. The Parliament also called for the creation of an independent investigation commission and the closure of the Guantanamo camp. According to Italian Socialist Giovanni Fava, who drafted the document, there was a "strong possibility" that the intelligence obtained under the illegal extraordinary rendition program had been passed on to EU governments who were aware of how it was obtained. The report also uncovered the use of secret detention facilities used in Europe, including Romania and Poland. The report defines extraordinary renditions as instances where "an individual suspected of involvement in terrorism is illegally abducted, arrested and/or transferred into the custody of US officials and/or transported to another country for interrogation which, in the majority of cases involves incommunicado detention and torture".

[edit] Treaty obligations of the United States

The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) Article 3 states:

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Any state that is a signatory of the UNCAT and passes an individual to another state "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture" would be in breach of their treaty obligations, which most Western governments would be reluctant to do.

The United States Senate, however, ratified the treaty with certain reservations, declarations, and understandings, which may alter the nature of their treaty obligation with regard to UNCAT Article 3. Congressional Record S17486-01 II.3 reads "the United States understands the phrase, 'where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,' as used in Article 3 of the Convention, to mean 'if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.'" This "understanding" with regard to U.S. ratification perhaps increases the difficulty of proving a treaty violation.^[104]

On May 19, 2006, the United Nations Committee Against Torture (the U.N. body that monitors compliance with the United Nations Convention Against Torture), recommended that the United States cease holding detainees in alledged secret detention facilities, and to publicly condem any such policy. It also recommended that the United States stop the practice of rendering prisoners to countries where they are likely to be tortured. The decision was made in Geneva following two days of hearings at which a 26-member U.S. delegation defended the practices.^[105][106]

[edit] Others reports

The World Policy Council (WPC), a think tank of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, released The Centenary Report of the Alpha Phi Alpha World Policy Council in 2006 in connection with its centennial. The topic "Extraordinary Rendtion": Justice Denied, was one of five issues addressed by the council.

The WPC condemned the practice of taking terrorist suspects to countries known for their practices of inhumane treatment and torture as a means of avoiding such detention in the United States, but at the same time encouraging it abroad. The report criticizes the Bush Administration for its use of this practice as one of its many assaults on civil and human rights in the name of "the war on terror".^[107]

[edit] Bibliography

• Grey, Stephen (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York, New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-36023-1.
• Thompson, A. C., and Trevor Paglen (2006). Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights. Hoboken, New Jersey: Melville House. ISBN 1-933633-09-3.

[edit] See also

• Aero Contractors - one of several companies that are reported to provide air transport in extraordinary rendition cases.
• Alliance Base and CTIC (Counter-terrorism Information Centers, joint intelligence operations)
• Black site
• Central Intelligence Agency
• Command responsibility
• Criticisms of the War on Terrorism
• Enemy combatant or Unlawful combatant
• Erroneous rendition
• Extrajudicial punishment
• Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
• Forced disappearance
• Ghost detainee
• Jeppesen - a Boeing subsidiary that is reported to provide navigation and logistical support.
• Luis Posada Carriles, an anti-Castrist Cuban wanted by Venezuela for the 1976 bombing of Cubana Flight 455, which the US has refused to extradite in 2006 to Venezuela, on claims that he was not sufficiently enough protected from risks of torture in this last state.
• Rendition aircraft
• Rendition (2007 film, US) - an upcoming movie directed by Gavin Hood, starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Reese Witherspoon and Meryl Streep
• Rendition (2007 film, UK) - an upcoming movie directed by James Threapleton, starring Omar Berdouni and Andy Serkis
• USS Bataan
• USS Peleliu
• Unitary Executive
• War on terror

[edit] Notes

[edit] External links

• EU to vote on CIA flights report, BBC News, February 14, 2007
• CIA Rendition Flights, The Guardian, ongoing coverage
• Rendition: legal news and resources, JURIST
• Secret Prisons Timeline
• Britain accused over CIA's secret torture flights, by Stephen Grey and Andrew Buncombe, The Independent & The Independent on Sunday, 10 February 2005 (original)
• Richard Clarke, Against all Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, Free Press, 2004, ISBN 0-7432-6024-4
• Rendition Not a New tactic. 1987 - 89
• An Open Letter to George Bush partly on this issue
• International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
• counter-terrorism-law.org
• A film report for More4 News on allegations that Pakistan's security forces has secretly detained hundreds of people over the war on terror

[edit] 2006

• Stop Rendition and Secret Detention!, Amnesty International
• Protest at US Embassy, London, against CIA 'torture flights', Liberty, 25 June
• "Rendered Meaningless: The Rule of Law in the US 'War on Terror'", JURIST, March 27
• "Torture flights landed in UK, admit air controllers" by Marie Woolf, The Independent, 19 February
• "House Committee Squashes Torture Queries", Associated Press, February 8
• A Torturing Topic Pocono Record, February 18, 2006, discussing lecture by Matthew McNabb
• "Report: U.S. 'Outsourced' Torture", Associated Press, January 24
• "Rendition: the cover-up", New Statesman, January 23
• "Ugly phrase conceals an uglier truth", Salman Rushdie, The Sydney Morning Herald, January 10
• Maher Arar:The Horrors of Extraordinary Rendition: A Personal Account, CounterPunch, 27/29 October

[edit] 2005

• Exporting Torture: US Rendition and European Outrage, JURIST, December 13, 2005
• Documentary about 'extraordinary renditions', Dispatches: The Real War on Terror - Kidnap and torture, American style. Aired on Channel 4 (UK), November 23, 2005
• Spanish police expose more CIA links to secret flights of detainees, The Guardian, November 15, 2005
• Torture flights: our role in US brutality shames Britain Sunday Herald, October 16, 2005
• Torture Flights: The Inside Story Neil Mackay, Sunday Herald, October 16, 2005
• Police to probe US ‘torture flights’ landing in Scotland, Neil Mackay, Sunday Herald, October 23, 2005
• Europeans eye CIA secret jails claim--WHAT THE MEDIA WON'T TELL Clayton Hallmark, Chiapas IMC, November 5, 2005
• Navy Secretly Contracted Jets Used by CIA, The Boston Globe, September 24, 2005
• Rendition Cindy Sheehan? CIA Fugitive From Italy Justice Is Located
• Benyam Mohammed, The Guardian, August 2, 2005, 'One of them made cuts in my penis. I was in agony'
• New Swedish Documents Illuminate CIA Action: Probe Finds 'Rendition' Of Terror Suspects Illegal, Washington Post, May 21, 2005
• "Flight to torture: where abuse is contracted out" by Tim Reid, The Times, 26 March 2005
• Jet's Travels Cloaked in Mystery John Crewdson and Tom Hundley (Knight-Ridder), Common Dreams, March 20, 2005
• "Torture by Proxy", Editorial Los Angeles Times, 11 March 2005
• "CIA given free hand for `rendition,' says official", Taipei Times, Source: NY Times news service and AFP, Washington, 8 March 2005
• "CIA Flying Suspects To Torture?", CBS News, March 6, 2005
• "It's Called Torture", Op-Ed by Bob Herbert, New York Times, February 28, 2005 (alternative site)
• "Hair used to verify Afghan abduction claim", Paktribune.com, February 4, 2005
• "They beat me from all sides", The Guardian, January 14, 2005

[edit] 2004

• "Markey pledges battle on rendition practice", Boston Globe, November 30, 2004
• "Memo Lets CIA Take Detainees Out of Iraq", Washington Post, October 24
• "A Secret Deportation Of Terror Suspects", Washington Post, July 25
• Stephen Grey, 2004, "America's Gulag", New Statesman, May 17
• "Secret World of U.S. Interrogation", Washington Post, May 11

[edit] 2003

• "Deported to Syria by U.S., Canadian tells tale of torture", Associated Press, November 5
• "Deported Terror Suspect Details Torture in Syria", Washington Post, November 5
• "Playing Offense: The inside story of how U.S. terrorist hunters are going after al Qaeda", US News & World Report, June 2
• "Questioning Terror Suspects in a Dark and Surreal World", New York Times, March 9

[edit] 2002

• "U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations", Washington Post, December 26
• "U.S. Behind Secret Transfer of Terror Suspects", Washington Post, March 11

[edit] 2001

• "Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks", Washington Post, December 19

[edit] Terminology

Rendition

In law, rendition is a "surrender" or "handing over" of persons or property, particularly from one jurisdiction to another. For criminal suspects, extradition is the most common type of rendition. Rendition can also be seen as the act of handing over, after the request for extradition has taken place.

Extraordinary rendition

This term is not yet defined in international law. Its use is often criticized as euphemistic. For example, a New York Times editorial mentions the "practice known in bureaucratese by the creepy euphemism 'extraordinary rendition.'"^[108] Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote: "an American policy that is known as extraordinary rendition. That's a euphemism. What it means is that the United States seizes individuals, presumably terror suspects, and sends them off without even a nod in the direction of due process to countries known to practice torture."^[109] Author Salman Rushdie wrote in 2006 that "this phrase's brutalisation of meaning is an infallible signal of its intent to deceive," equating it to a form of newspeak.^[110] Gerard Baker of The Times commented that this "must rank as euphemism of the year. [In] 2005 it became notorious as the term used by the US to describe what it does when it hands over terrorist suspects and other enemies to third countries that are rather less scrupulous about human rights than we are."^[111]

Rendition, extradition, and deportation

Legal scholar L. Ali Khan, a professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Kansas, makes the following distinctions between rendition, extradition, and deportation:

Extradition is an open procedure under which a fugitive is lawfully sent to a requesting state where he has committed a serious crime. Rendition is a covert operation under which even an innocent person may be forcibly transferred to a state where he has committed no crime. It is like a bully dispatching a helpless prey to another bully in another town.

Rendition is not even deportation. A person may be deported under US immigration laws for a variety of reasons including charges of terrorism. Deportation however implies that the person is in the United States. Rendition is not territorial. US agencies can abduct a person from anywhere in the world and render him to a friendly government. In December 2003, US agents pulled Khaled El-Masri from a bus on the Serbia-Republic of Macedonia border and flew him to Afghanistan where he was drugged and tortured [...]

Defying international treaties and US laws, rendition works on the dark fringes of legality. The [UN] Torture Convention specifies that no signatory state shall expel, return, or extradite a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Convention is so strict in its prohibition of torture that it allows no exceptions under which any such transfer may be justified. Additionally, it is a crime under US laws to commit torture outside the United States. If the victim dies of torture, the crime is punishable with death. It is also a crime for US officials to conspire to commit torture outside the United States. Under both the Convention and US laws, therefore, rendition is strictly prohibited if the rendered person would be subjected to torture.^[112]