Extraordinary Rendition
The Council of Europe commssioned an investigation into this American polocy and practice. The Swiss author's report was published this week, 72 pages and lots of 'gems' within - notably it was a NATO endorsed policy.
http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDoc..._NoEmbargo.pdf
A report undoubtedly not appreciated by the Polish and Rumanian governments, as they each hosted detention facilities.
davidbfpo
4. The rendition, abduction and detention of terrorist suspects have always taken place outside the territory of the United States, where such actions would no doubt have been ruled unlawful and unconstitutional. Obviously, these actions are also unacceptable under the laws of European countries, who nonetheless tolerated them or colluded actively in carrying them out. This export of illegal activities overseas is all the more shocking in that it shows fundamental contempt for the countries on whose territories it was decided to commit the relevant acts. The fact that the measures only apply to non-American citizens is just as disturbing: it reflects a kind of “legal apartheid” and an exaggerated sense of superiority. Once again, the blame does not lie solely with the Americans but also, above all, with European political leaders who have knowingly acquiesced in this state of affairs.
Lets say I agree with the above statement. Would I be incorrect in assuming that the author is taking a slap at European bureaucrats? In essence, anyone with a need to know, would be violating some sort of OPSEC to argue against anything sensitive within this study. Describing, "a kind of 'legal apartheid'" would be just an opinion and an oxymoron that cannot exist. It is either legal or illegal. If it is "a kind of legal...", than it must be legal. And what exactly is an, "exaggerated sense of superiority" since the author added that statement to the oxymoron? To view the statement realistically as truth would actually be erroneously describing insecurity of one's authority, which would be nearly impossible for multiple free allied nations to get off the ground. Just how many people suffering from insecurity of authority does it take to successfully fulfill the author's accusations? For those of us without a need to know this study would be a nicely wrapped package for us to agree or disagree with the nature of the study. Nothing more and nothing less. The study is a locution producing an incongruous effect on those of us that may disagree with it and a warm fuzzy feeling for those of us that do agree with it. Which part of the previous sentence sounds more logical with less nonsense?
Last edited by Culpeper; 06-10-2007 at 04:41 AM.
"But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
"Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"
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.....
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 (?)
Last edited by Dominique R. Poirier; 07-25-2007 at 08:33 PM.
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
MG (Ret) Paul Eaton, Former CG Office of Security TransitionHow 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.
Philip Zelikow, Professor of History, University of Virginia...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....
Daniel Byman, Director, Center for Peace and Security Studies, Georgetown UniversityToday 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....
...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....
EU inquiry into CIA prisons to be reopened
In 2006, Italian MP Claudio Fava wrote a report stating that 11 European Countries actively or passively cooperated with the CIA to transport terror suspects and house them in secret prisons. The report was approved by the European Parliament in early 2007.
Now, Fava is re-opening the inquiry based on new evidence (a copy of an official approval to land a CIA plane on a military base in Ukraine and approval to locate a prison in Ukraine).
Ukraine is denying this is true. Here's the link:
http://fe10.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/nm/..._prisons_eu_dc
CIA is an intelligence agency. It shouldn't do everything the Military doesn't want to do. The CIA are not interrogators. One would hope they would have learned this from Vietnam. It seems the CIA forgot the the Green Beret Murder incident. Bad intelligence caused the assassination of the wrong guy and created a political crisis in both the US and South Vietnam. Nicholas Profitt actually wrote a subtle and compelling novel about this, The Embassy House
Moreover, the type of "interrogation" that goes on in extraordinary rendition, at the black sites and at gitmo produces as much faulty intelligence as real intelligence, to say nothing of the damage it does in terms of image. With policies like this, the US is going to loose the war on terror in spite of itself.
That said, I hope EU pressure can help stop these terribly destructive, counter-productive policies.
If the CIA are not interrogators, then who in our government is, that has a charter authorizing operations outside the United States?Originally Posted by relative autonomy
The Defense Intelligence Agency? Maybe even the State Department? Really, i don't think is something US, as a liberal republic, should be doing. I understand the arguments for aggressive interrogation, torture, and extraordinary redefinition but ultimately think they corrupt the intelligence process more than add to it, to say nothing of what they do for the image or moral standing. Maybe it is an essential function but I just think the negatives out weigh the positives. Most importantly, I don't think American service people, whether they are intelligence professionals, military officers, or enlisted men, should be put in a position where, it can be argued, they are violating the US constitution and committing war crimes. Frankly, lynndie england was fallboy and its disgraceful. Check out The Torture Papers; the documents are all there. you can see a lot of it google books.
I agree with Dr. Zelikow's second point that jedburgh posted. The real issue at hand in extraordinary renditions is how the detainees are handled. If the people weren't being tortured and abused extraordinary rendition would be not be an issue that the EU would act on like it is. Its going to be interesting how this EU investigation pans out and, much further down the road, how contemporary debates on torture are going to be cast by historians.
Back to the CIA, hasn't it been a victim of serious mission creep? As far as i understand (and please let me know if i am wrong), the CIA Charter defines the CIA as an mere independent analytical Agency. The Truman Administration, through NSC decisions, quickly gave it an operational capacity, expanding on some vague clause like "undertake such other functions related to national security." I think the CIA ended up picking up everything the military or state department couldn't or wouldn't do. I just think interrogations is a perfect of example of the CIA getting involved in stuff it shouldn't and, on a practical level, is diluting the quality of intelligence sources and overall analysis that follows.
Oh Grasshopper (he intones in his best David Carradine voice), there is much for you still to learn.
I recommend that you do a little reading about what is encompassed by the intelligence discipline. It is not simply analysis. It includes planning, collection, processing, analysis and dissemination. It takes many forms or -Ints. Interrogation is a technique that is germane to just one part of the whole discipline--the Human Intelligence (or HUMINT) sub-discipline.
Well, Estonian Journalists claim..
Estonia's press last year reported seeing CIA prison C-21s in Pärnu, Estonia with final destinations to Poland and Romania. Never mind the fact that Pärnu's Soviet-era runway would destroy a C21's landing gear on both takeoff and landing, and the purported 'food' rushed to the airport for the C21 crew and 'passengers' would have certainly killed all aboard, there's also a very obvious absence of JP-4
BTW, just how much is the 'very handsome reviewer's fee' and do I have to split it with SteveHe does afterall have a grill larger than my livingroom
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks