Extraordinary Rendition

[Jedburgh]

UK Parliament Security and Intelligence Committee, 28 Jun 07: Rendition

....What the rendition programme has shown is that in what it refers to as “the war on terror” the U.S. will take whatever action it deems necessary, within U.S. law, to protect its national security from those it considers to pose a serious threat. Although the U.S. may take note of UK protests and concerns, this does not appear materially to affect its strategy on rendition.

It is to the credit of our Agencies that they have now managed to adapt their procedures to work round these problems and maintain the exchange of intelligence that is so critical to UK security.

The Committee notes that the UK Agencies now have a policy in place to minimise the risk of their actions inadvertently leading to renditions, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (CIDT). Where it is known that the consequences of dealing with a foreign liaison service will include torture or CIDT, the operation will not be authorised.....

[Dominique R. Poirier]

I post this comment just in order to express a personal opinion since it is interesting to know, I believe, the personal point of view of readers entertaining some familiarity with the realm of intelligence and its corollary activities and practices.

What is commonly known as “extraordinary rendition” never chocked me since I believe that this kind of operation is unlikely to take place coincidentally or be mistakenly ordered. If someone takes part in terrorist activities leading inescapably to violence against civilians and other innocents, then he must be prepared for the unpleasant and the unexpected.

I equally believe that most people are not that sincerely choked with it; unless they indulge a bit too much in self-delusion in their eagerness to be politically correct. For, as of 1999 it was estimated that about 6,000 innocent persons were annually abducted in the world; mostly by armed factions expressing political or religious claims. But, who cares that much about those numerous innocents?

Actually, what truly disturbs people is when it turn out that the United States is involved in similar practices in the frame of its counterterrorism activities. And, in that case, the culpability and mischiefs of those who are thus abducted (I don’t bother to call a spade a spade) are of secondary importance, when not just simply ignored.

Subsequently, I cannot but express mere contempt toward those who feel concerned for someone’s rights only when the "victim" happens to be a terrorist abducted by the United States for interrogation purpose.
As long as those same conveniently indignant folks will fail to take notice of the 6.000 innocent annually abducted—bar the blond pretty little girls, of course—all they can do in pointing their accusing finger to the United States is to cover themselves with ridicule and discredit.

I make profit of this comment to say that the only one thing that surprised me about extraordinary renditions was to read on the media, not longtime ago, that at least two suspects thus abducted would have been interrogated in a secret U.S. facility located… in Syria (?)

[Jedburgh]

26 Jul 07 testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations regarding Extraordinary Rendition, Extraterritorial Detention, And Treatment Of Detainees: Restoring Our Moral Credibility And Strengthening Our Diplomatic Standing

Tom Malinowski, HRW

How this country treats its enemies ought to be what distinguishes it from its enemies. The story of how it has actually done so in the last few years is not one of which we can be proud. But the full story has not yet been written. And when historians tell it many years from now, a more hopeful narrative may emerge. It will, I hope, go like this. That America was hit hard on September 11th, 2001. It tried to react in ways that were honorable and smart, but also made some terrible mistakes out of fear. But in a relatively short period of time, its democratic institutions corrected those mistakes, just as they were designed to do. That is a story of which, on balance, I would be proud.

MG (Ret) Paul Eaton, Former CG Office of Security Transition

...The legal discussion where some would deliver different treatment because of technical POW status is simply not warranted.

For our Soldiers to hear their Vice President say on radio that a “dunk in the water” is a “no brainer” if it can save lives, is a threat to the good order and discipline of our Armed Forces. Water boarding is not safeguarding a prisoner, regardless of the conditions of their capture. To hear our CIA describe water boarding as a “professional interrogation technique” is at once appalling and confusing to our men and women under arms.

The good order and discipline of our Armed Forces begins with our Commander in Chief and must weave through the entire rank structure. The President must set the tone for our youngest Private Soldier and the administration’s policies today do not set the right tone. This is not a natural event – our men and women arrive in the Armed Forces with a strong Judeo-Christian ethic to do the right thing. And we pride ourselves in returning a good man or woman back to civilian life a better person than they were before putting on the American uniform....

Philip Zelikow, Professor of History, University of Virginia

Today I want to focus more directly on some of the policy ideas under consideration by the committee, especially concerning renditions and make four basic points:

1. Renditions are an indispensable instrument of policy in order to protect the United States.

2. Concerns about renditions have less to do with the practice itself, than with arguments about how the captives may be treated at their point of arrival. If that is the concern, then confront it directly and substantively.

3. The practice of renditions has already changed from what it was in 2002 and 2003. It is continuing to evolve, along with many other facets of American policy. So be careful not to overreact now to the way you think people may have overreacted then.

4. The particular proposed remedy of banning participation in renditions except if approved by a FISA court could create lasting risks that outweigh the original concern....

Daniel Byman, Director, Center for Peace and Security Studies, Georgetown University

...Renditions are a vital counterterrorism tool—so vital, that they must be used sparingly so they can remain an effective part of the U.S. counterterrorism arsenal. Renditions are troubling because they can exact a high human and diplomatic price, but dangerous terrorists would go free if the program were abandoned. Unfortunately, this flawed instrument is often the only one available. Rather then stop renditions altogether, policymakers should increase the program’s transparency, strengthen oversight efforts, and embed within the process procedures that ensure more accord with the rule of law.

The renditions program is under attack today, in part due to legitimate faults of the program and in part because of preventable misunderstandings....