Extraordinary Rendition

[Ken White]

the second paragraph of your post from the other thread because it seems to summarize the lengthy comment above:

2. I do understand that each of the legal protections I mentioned (lawyers, no secret evidence) have inherent "dangers" that could result in a terrorist getting away or otherwise thwarting our efforts. However, I think its worth the small risk to achieve a radical reduction in the collateral damage we inflict on innocents. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree.

...Do you think we really wont hurt that many innocent people?

We'll hurt some to one degree or another but there won't be many -- I do not subscribe to the "Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent incarcerated" mantra. Our systems basically work, they, like ANY human system will err on occasion. I cheerfully accept a 90+% solution. Please note that I emphasized the word ANY human human system -- that includes one that would cater to your very sensible and perfecly acceptable desires. I guess I'm just a little more suspicious and accepting of human foibles...

...I've yet to hear a supporter of harsh interrogation seriously address the concept of innocence (almost always they restrict their arguments to cases where guilt is assumed and give only token admissions that "of course I dont want to hurt innocent people, but lets assume the guy is guilty for now...").

Prepare to hear -- er, read -- it. Hang around the wrong place at the wrong time, run around with the wrong people, give the appearance of hostile intent and all the innocence in the world will not save you. Don't know about you but my folks told me that and more along the same line many years ago -- they were right. Thus, my answer is that sometimes bad things happen to good people; tough munchies. Fortunately, it doesn't happen often. I'm cool with that, both ways.

...My opinion is also based on assumptions though (one of which is that all large organizations and beauracracies screw up...a lot) and they may be wrong.

I'm sure your assumption is totally correct; there will be occasional screwups. always have been.

I can accept that and am willing to do so. I still accept harsh interrogations and accept the fact that the occasional innocent will lose some sleep or be grossly uncomfortable for a while. I do not agree with torture as defined in the USC.

However, I think Jedburgh put this on the wrong thread -- I'm not a believer in
extraordinary rendition, I pretty much agree with Van, above, on that. I can accept it simply because we've been doing it more or less since WW II and Clinton effectively codified it but I think it's dumb, the payoff isn't worth the cost IMO.

[Granite_State]

Just found this as a link at the top of the page while checking my Gmail account, thought it was worth adding here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.
....
Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.

[davidbfpo]

Yes, that legal precedent helps secure public support for the Anglo-American relationship. Let alone an amazing extradition agreement between the UK and USA, which is much criticised here, primarily as introduced post-9/11 and yet to be used for such a case. Ever more extra-ordinary when one recalls the US reluctance, nay refusal to extradite to the UK persons suspected to be involved in terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Such legal arrogance now is amazing and only helps our common enemy.

davidbfpo

[marct]

We've had similar problems in Canada, but the "implementation" was usually outsourced. As you say David, it really does only help our common enemy if, for no other reason (and there are other reasons) in that it makes a mockery of "Rule of Law".

[davidbfpo]

A UN report on this practice appeared recently, an advance copy can be found, but is rather large and so this is a link to the UN press release: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...terrorism&Cr1=

Rendition may have appeared in other threads, this was one just located.

[davidbfpo]

An ex-diplomatic cover CIA interpreter interviewed about the Milan rendition, via SWJ Blog:http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/e...thers-1.232616

It starts with:

A former CIA officer has broken the U.S. silence around the 2003 abduction of a radical Islamist cleric in Italy, charging that the agency inflated the threat the preacher posed and that the United States then allowed Italy to prosecute her and other Americans to shield President George W. Bush and other U.S. officials from responsibility for approving the operation.

[davidbfpo]

The Milan incident, a CIA kidnapping has slowly moved through the Portuguese courts and now:

A former undercover CIA officer is to be extradited to Italy following her conviction over the 2003 extraordinary rendition of a terror suspect to Egypt. Sabrina De Sousa, a dual US and Portuguese citizen, was arrested in Portugal last October and has since lost three appeals against being handed over to Italian authorities. Her extradition is scheduled for 4 May.

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...mar-kidnapping


Incidentally Sabrina De Sousa is the person cited as being interviewed in the previous post.