Difference between revisions of "Extradition" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
(updated & fixed)
 
(20 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{Claimed}}
+
{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}{{Approved}}{{Paid}}{{Copyedited}}
 
[[Category:Politics and social sciences]]
 
[[Category:Politics and social sciences]]
 
[[Category:Law]]
 
[[Category:Law]]
 +
{{Criminal Procedure}}
 +
'''Extradition''' is the official process by which one [[nation]] or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted [[crime|criminal]]. As between nations, extradition is regulated by [[treaty|treaties]]. As between states or other political subdivisions on a domestic level, extradition is more accurately known as [[Rendition (law)|rendition]]. 
 +
{{toc}}
 +
Extradition has been controversial throughout history, as trust between different nations has not been complete. Equally, a crime in one jurisdiction may not be considered such in another. However, the basic effort on the part of the majority of countries in the world to prevent wrongdoers from fleeing the consequences of what they know to be illegal actions represents an effort to bring about a unified world society, breaking down barriers that divide us. Without accountability for wrongdoing a world of peace and harmony cannot be achieved.
  
 +
==Terminology==
 +
;Rendition
 +
:In law, rendition is a "surrender" or "handing over" of [[persons]] or [[property]], particularly from one [[jurisdiction]] to another. For criminal [[suspect]]s, 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.
 +
 +
;Rendition, extradition, and deportation
 +
:Legal scholar L. Ali Khan, a professor of law at [[Washburn University]] School of Law in Kansas, has made the following distinctions between rendition, extradition, and [[deportation]]:
 +
 +
<blockquote>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.<br/><br/>
  
 +
Rendition is not even deportation. A person may be deported under U.S. 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. U.S. agencies can abduct a person from anywhere in the world and render him to a friendly government. In December 2003, U.S. 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. ...<br/><br/>
  
 +
Defying international treaties and US laws, rendition works on the dark fringes of legality. The [UN] [[United Nations Convention on Torture|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 U.S. 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 U.S. officials to conspire to commit torture outside the United States. Under both the Convention and U.S. laws, therefore, rendition is strictly prohibited if the rendered person would be subjected to torture.<ref>[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=937130 Friendly renditions to Muslim chambers of torture]. SSRN. Retrieved December 2, 2007.</ref></blockquote>
  
−
'''Extradition''' is the official process by which one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal. As between nations, extradition is regulated by treaties. As between states or other political subdivisions on a domestic level, extradition is more accurately known as [[Rendition (law)|rendition]].
+
;Extraordinary rendition
 +
:This term is not yet defined in international law. Its use is often criticized as [[euphemism|euphemistic]]. For example, a ''[[New York Times]]'' editorial mentions the "practice known in bureaucratese by the creepy euphemism 'extraordinary rendition.'"<ref name=NyTimes050308>''[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/opinion/08tue1.html?ex=1268024400&en=692c12f59ef2b7ae&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland Torture by Proxy]''. ''New York Times'', March 8 2005. Retrieved December 2, 2007.</ref> [[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."<ref name=DerSpiegel050228> [http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,344019,00.html It's Called Torture], ''Der Spiegel'', February 28 2005. Retrieved December 2, 2007.</ref> Author [[Salman Rushdie]] wrote in 2006 that "this phrase's brutalization of meaning is an infallible signal of its intent to deceive," equating it to a form of [[newspeak]].<ref>{{cite web | title=Ugly phrase conceals an uglier truth | work=Sydney Morning Herald | url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/ugly-phrase-conceals-an-uglier-truth/2006/01/09/1136771496819.html | accessdate=2007-02-01}}</ref> 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 U.S. 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."<ref name=TheTimes051230> [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1963018,00.html Non! Enough renditions from an iPod generation with no sensitivity chip], ''The Times'', December 30 2005. Retrieved December 2, 2007.</ref>
  
−
==Extradition treaties or agreements==
+
==Extradition in International Law==
−
The consensus in [[international law]] is that a [[State]] does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, as one principle of [[sovereignty]] is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. Such absence of international obligation and desire of the right to demand such criminals of other countries has caused a web of extradition [[treaty|treaties]] or agreements to evolve; most countries in the world have signed bilateral extradition treaties with most other countries. No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the [[United States]] (US) lacks extradition treaties with over fifty nations, including the [[People's Republic of China]], [[Namibia]], [[Jamaica]], and [[North Korea]].
+
The consensus in [[international law]] is that a [[nation-state|state]] does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, as one principle of [[sovereignty]] is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. Such absence of international obligation and desire of the right to demand such criminals of other countries has caused a web of extradition [[treaty|treaties]] or agreements to evolve; most countries in the world have signed bilateral extradition treaties with most other countries. No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the [[United States]] (US) lacks extradition treaties with over 50 nations, including the [[People's Republic of China]], [[Namibia]], [[Jamaica]], and [[North Korea]].
  
−
There are two types of extradition treaties: list and dual criminality treaties. The most common and traditional is the list treaty, which contains a list of crimes for which a suspect will be extradited. Dual criminality treaties, used since the 1980s, generally allow for extradition of a criminal suspect if the punishment is more than one year imprisonment in both countries. Occasionally the amount of the time of the sentence agreed upon between the two countries is varied. Under both types of treaties, if the conduct is not a crime in either country then it will not be an extraditable offense.
+
There are two types of extradition treaties: list and dual criminality treaties. The most common and traditional is the list treaty, which contains a list of crimes for which a suspect will be extradited. Dual criminality treaties, used since the 1980s, generally allow for extradition of a criminal suspect if the punishment is more than one year imprisonment in both countries. Occasionally the amount of the time of the sentence agreed upon between the two countries is varied. Under both types of treaties, if the conduct is not a crime in either country then it will not be an extraditable offense.
  
 
Generally, an extradition treaty requires that a country seeking extradition be able to show that:
 
Generally, an extradition treaty requires that a country seeking extradition be able to show that:
Line 21: Line 36:
  
 
===Restrictions===
 
===Restrictions===
−
Most countries require themselves to deny extradition requests if, in the government's opinion, the suspect is sought for a [[political crime]]. Many countries, such as [[Mexico]], [[Canada]] and most [[Europe]]an nations, will not allow extradition if the [[death penalty]] may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not subsequently be passed or carried out. In the case of ''[[Soering v. United Kingdom]]'', the [[European Court of Human Rights]] held that it would violate Article 3 of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom in a capital case. This was due to the harsh conditions on death row and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed. Thus parties to the European Convention cannot extradite persons where they would be at significant risk of being tortured or inhumanely or degradingly treated or punished.
+
Most countries require themselves to deny extradition requests if, in the government's opinion, the suspect is sought for a [[political crime]]. Many countries, such as [[Mexico]], [[Canada]], and most [[Europe]]an nations, will not allow extradition if the [[death penalty]] may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not subsequently be passed or carried out.
  
−
These restrictions are normally clearly spelled out in the extradition treaties that a government has agreed upon. They are, however, controversial in the United States, where the death penalty is practiced in some [[U.S. states|US states]], as it is seen by many as an attempt by foreign nations to interfere with the US [[criminal justice]] system. In contrast, pressures by the US government on these countries to change their laws, or even sometimes to ignore their laws, is perceived by many in those nations as an attempt by the United States to interfere in their sovereign right to manage justice within their own borders. Famous examples include the extradition dispute with Canada on [[Charles Ng]].
+
These restrictions are normally clearly spelled out in the extradition treaties that a government has agreed upon. They are, however, controversial in the United States, where the death penalty is practiced in some U.S. states, as it is seen by many as an attempt by foreign nations to interfere with the U.S. [[criminal justice]] system. In contrast, pressures by the U.S. government on these countries to change their laws, or even sometimes to ignore their laws, is perceived by many in those nations as an attempt by the United States to interfere in their sovereign right to manage justice within their own borders. Famous examples include the extradition dispute with Canada on [[Charles Ng]]. Ng participated in the brutal murders of at least seven people in the late 80s after which he fled to Canada. The cost of extraditing Ng to the American government is estimated to have been around $6.6 million as Ng filed numerous motions to delay or hamper his extradition and subsequent trial.<ref>[http://crime.about.com/od/murder/p/ng2.htm Charles Ng] About.com Retrieved December 7, 2007.</ref>
  
−
Countries with a [[rule of law]] typically make extradition subject to review by that country's courts. These courts may impose certain restrictions on extradition, or prevent it altogether, if for instance they deem the accusations to be based on dubious evidence, or evidence obtained from [[torture]], or if they believe that the defendant will not be granted a [[fair trial]] on arrival, or will be subject to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment if extradited.
+
Countries with a [[rule of law]] typically make extradition subject to review by that country's courts. These courts may impose certain restrictions on extradition, or prevent it altogether, if for instance they deem the accusations to be based on dubious evidence, or evidence obtained from [[torture]], or if they believe that the defendant will not be granted a [[fair trial]] on arrival, or will be subject to cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment if extradited.
  
−
Some countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], [[Austria]], [[China]] and [[Japan]], have laws that forbid extraditing their respective citizens. Some others stipulate such prohibition on extradition agreements rather than their laws. Such restrictions are occasionally controversial in other countries when, for example, a French citizen commits a crime abroad and then returns to his home country, perceived as to avoid prosecution<ref>One famous example of the French custom in practice is the case of the director [[Roman Polanski]]. Polanski was convicted of [[statutory rape]] of a 13 year old in the United States in 1977 but fled to France before sentencing. From there, as a French citizen, he cannot be extradited to the United States. The French government has pointed out that Polanski could be prosecuted in France if the U.S. authorities so requested. U.S. authorities declined that possibility{{citationneeded}}.</ref>. These countries, however, make their criminal laws applicable to citizens abroad, and they try citizens suspected of crimes committed abroad under their own laws. Such suspects are typically prosecuted as if the crime had occurred within the country's borders.
+
Some countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], [[Austria]], [[China]], and [[Japan]], have laws that forbid extraditing their respective citizens. Some others stipulate such prohibition on extradition agreements rather than their laws. Such restrictions are occasionally controversial in other countries when, for example, a French citizen commits a crime abroad and then returns to his home country, perceived as to avoid prosecution. These countries, however, make their criminal laws applicable to citizens abroad, and they try citizens suspected of crimes committed abroad under their own laws. Such suspects are typically prosecuted as if the crime had occurred within the country's borders.
  
 
===Exemptions in the European Union===
 
===Exemptions in the European Union===
−
The usual extradition agreement safeguards relating to dual-criminality, the presence of ''[[prima facie]]'' evidence and the possibility of a [[fair trial]] have been waived by many European nations for a list of specified offences under the terms of the [[European Arrest Warrant]]. The warrant entered into force in eight European Union (EU) member-states on 1 January, 2004. Defenders of the warrant argue that the usual safeguards are not necessary because every EU nation is committed by treaty, and often by legal and constitutional provisions, to the right to a fair trial, and because every EU member-state is subject to the [[European Convention on Human Rights]].
+
The usual extradition agreement safeguards relating to dual-criminality, the presence of ''[[prima facie]]'' evidence and the possibility of a [[fair trial]] have been waived by many European nations for a list of specified offenses under the terms of the [[European Arrest Warrant]]. The warrant entered into force in eight European Union (EU) member-states on January 1, 2004. Defenders of the warrant argue that the usual safeguards are not necessary because every EU nation is committed by treaty, and often by legal and constitutional provisions, to the right to a fair trial, and because every EU member-state is subject to the [[European Convention on Human Rights]].
  
 
===Extradition to federations===
 
===Extradition to federations===
−
 
+
The [[federation|federal]] structure of some nations, such as the United States, can pose particular problems with respect to extraditions when the [[police power]] and the power of foreign relations are held at different levels of the federal hierarchy. Less important problems can arise due to differing qualifications for crimes. For instance, in the United States, crossing state lines is a prerequisite for certain federal crimes (otherwise crimes such as [[murder]] etc. are handled by state governments except in certain circumstances such as the killing of a federal official). This transportation clause is, understandably, absent from the laws of many countries. Extradition treaties or subsequent diplomatic correspondence often include language providing that such criteria should not be taken into account when checking if the crime is one in the country from which extradition should.
−
The [[federation|federal]] structure of some nations, such as the United States, can pose particular problems with respect to extraditions when the [[police power]] and the power of foreign relations are held at different levels of the federal hierarchy. For instance, in the United States, most criminal prosecutions occur at the state level, and most foreign relations occurs on the federal level.  In fact, under the [[United States Constitution]], foreign countries may not have official treaty relations with sub-national units such as the individual states; rather, they may have treaty relations only with the federal government.  As a result, a state that wishes to prosecute an individual located in foreign territory must direct its extradition request through the federal government, which will negotiate the extradition with the requested state.  However, due to the contraints of [[federalism]], any conditions on the extradition accepted by the federal government—such as not to impose the death penalty—are not binding on the states.  In the case of [[Soering v. The United Kingdom]], the [[European Court of Human Rights]] ruled that the [[United Kingdom]] was not permitted under its treaty obligations to extradite an individual to the United States, because the United States' federal government was constitutionally unable to offer binding assurances that the death penalty would not be sought in [[Virginia]] courts.  Ultimately, the Commonwealth of Virginia itself had to offer assurances to the federal government, which passed those assurances on to the United Kingdom, which extradited the individual to the United States.
 
−
 
 
−
Less important problems can arise due to differing qualifications for crimes. For instance, in the United States, crossing state lines is a prerequisite for certain federal crimes (otherwise crimes such as [[murder]] etc. are handled by state governments except in certain circumstances such as the killing of a federal official). This transportation clause is, understandably, absent from the laws of many countries. Extradition treaties or subsequent diplomatic correspondence often include language providing that such criteria should not be taken into account when checking if the crime is one in the country from which extradition should.
 
  
 
To clarify the above point, if a person in the United States crosses the borders of the United States to go to another country, then that person has crossed a federal border, and then federal law would apply. In addition, taking a flight in the United States subjects one to federal law, as all airports are considered subject to federal jurisdiction.
 
To clarify the above point, if a person in the United States crosses the borders of the United States to go to another country, then that person has crossed a federal border, and then federal law would apply. In addition, taking a flight in the United States subjects one to federal law, as all airports are considered subject to federal jurisdiction.
  
−
==Controversies==
 
 
===International strains===
 
===International strains===
−
The refusal for a country to extradite suspects or criminals to another may lead to international relations being strained. Often, the country to which extradition is refused will accuse the other country of refusing extradition for political reasons (regardless of whether this is justified). As an example:
+
The refusal for a country to extradite suspects or criminals to another may lead to international relations being strained. Often, the country to which extradition is refused will accuse the other country of refusing extradition for political reasons (regardless of whether this is justified).  
−
* Some US journalists and officials of the state of [[Pennsylvania]] accused [[France]] of wanting to make a point about justice in the United States and the death penalty by refusing to extradite [[Ira Einhorn]] (who was eventually extradited after 3 years of procedure).
 
−
* A widespread belief in the French public is that the [[United Kingdom]] intentionally delayed the extradition of [[Rachid Ramda]] (see [[1995 bombings in France]]) in order to buy safety from Islamic terror attacks on British soil.
 
−
 
 
−
The matters are often complex when the country from which suspects are to be extradited is a democratic country with a [[rule of law]]. Typically, in such countries, the final decision of extradition lies with the national executive ([[prime minister]], [[president]] or equivalent). However, such countries typically allow extradition defendants recourse to the law, with multiple appeals. These may significantly slow down the procedures. On the one hand, this may lead to unwarranted international difficulties, as the public, politicians and journalists from the requesting country will ask their executive to put pressure on the executive of the country from which extradition is to take place, while that executive may not in fact have the authority to deport the suspect or criminal on his own. On the other hand, certain delays, or the unwillingness of the local prosecution authorities to present a good extradition case before the court on behalf of the requesting state, may possibly result from the unwillingness of the country's executive to extradite.
 
−
 
 
−
For example, there is at present a row between the United States and the United Kingdom about the [[Extradition Act 2003]] [http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/USExtradition_210503.pdf (text here)] that dispenses with the need for a ''prima facie'' case for extradition. As of July 2006, the treaty has been ratified in the UK but not in the US, leading to a lack of reciprocity in the current extradition arrangements.
 
−
 
 
−
It is important to emphasise, however, that even had the treaty been ratified by the US, the treaty would still be one-sided, because it stipulates that extradition requests from the UK to the US must show a "reasonable case" that the suspect committed the offense, but requests from the US to the UK have no such requirement imposed on them.
 
−
 
 
−
This has come to a head over the extradition of '[[the Natwest Three]]' from the UK to the US, for their alleged role in the [[Enron]] fraud, with various British political leaders weighing in to attack the British government's handling of the issue [http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1812471,00.html].  The leader of the UK's Liberal Democrat party, Sir Menzies Campbell, has argued that the US has not ratified the treaty primarily due to the influence of what he calls the "Irish lobby" - which, he says, is opposed to the treaty because it could make it easier for Britain to have alleged IRA terrorist suspects extradited from the US.
 
  
−
The precedent of [[the Natwest Three]] may also be used to extradite/prosecute [[Philip Watts]] in connection with the [[Royal Dutch Shell]] reserves scandal. The press has carried vocal criticisms of the present extradition arrangements from the UK's business community, some of whom stated that they were avoiding doing business with or in the US, because of legal concerns such as the extradition treaty, among other concerns. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/07/06/ccnat06.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2006/07/06/ixcoms.html]
+
The matters are often complex when the country from which suspects are to be extradited is a democratic country with a [[rule of law]]. Typically, in such countries, the final decision of extradition lies with the national executive ([[prime minister]], [[president]] or equivalent). However, such countries typically allow extradition defendants recourse to the law, with multiple appeals. These may significantly slow down the procedures. On the one hand, this may lead to unwarranted international difficulties, as the public, [[politics|politicians]], and [[journalism|journalists]] from the requesting country will ask their executive to put pressure on the executive of the country from which extradition is to take place, while that executive may not in fact have the authority to deport the suspect or criminal on his own. On the other hand, certain delays, or the unwillingness of the local prosecution authorities to present a good extradition case before the court on behalf of the requesting state, may possibly result from the unwillingness of the country's executive to extradite.
  
 
===Extradition and abduction===
 
===Extradition and abduction===
−
Issues of international law relating to extradition have proven controversial in cases where a state has abducted and removed an individual from the territory of another state without previously requesting permission, or following normal extradition procedures. Such abductions are usually in violation of the domestic law of the country in which they occur, as infringements of laws forbidding [[kidnapping]]. Many also regard abduction as violation of international law &mdash; in particular of a prohibition on arbitrary detention. A small number of countries have been reported to use kidnapping to circumvent the formal extradition process.
+
Issues of international law relating to extradition have proven controversial in cases where a state has abducted and removed an individual from the territory of another state without previously requesting permission, or following normal extradition procedures. Such abductions are usually in violation of the domestic law of the country in which they occur, as infringements of laws forbidding [[kidnapping]]. Many also regard abduction as violation of international law&mdash;in particular of a prohibition on arbitrary detention. A small number of countries have been reported to use kidnapping to circumvent the formal extradition process.
  
 
Notable or controversial cases involving abduction of foreign citizens:
 
Notable or controversial cases involving abduction of foreign citizens:
Line 70: Line 71:
 
*[[Manuel Noriega]] from [[Panama]] by the [[United States]] in 1989
 
*[[Manuel Noriega]] from [[Panama]] by the [[United States]] in 1989
 
*[[Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr]] from [[Italy]] to [[Egypt]] by the [[CIA]] in 2005
 
*[[Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr]] from [[Italy]] to [[Egypt]] by the [[CIA]] in 2005
−
 
−
==='Extraordinary rendition'===
 
−
{{Main|Extraordinary rendition}}
 
−
"Extraordinary rendition" is an extra-judicial procedure and policy of the United States in which criminal suspects, generally suspected [[terrorist]]s or supporters of terrorist organisations, are sent to countries for imprisonment and [[interrogation]].  The procedure differs from extradition as the purpose of the rendition is to extract information from suspects, while extradition is used to return fugitives so that they can stand trial or fulfill their sentence.  Critics of the procedure have accused the [[CIA]] of rendering suspects to other countries in order to avoid US laws prescribing [[due process]] and prohibiting [[torture]].
 
−
 
−
==List of extradition laws by country==
 
−
*[[Extradition law in the United States|United States]]
 
−
 
−
==Rendition==
 
−
{{Unreferenced|date=February 2007}}
 
−
In [[law]], '''rendition''' is a "surrender" or "handing over" of [[person]]s or [[property]], particularly from one [[jurisdiction]] to another. For criminal [[suspect]]s, [[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.
 
−
 
−
Rendition can also mean the act of rendering, i.e. delivering, a judicial decision, or of explaining a series of events, as a defendant or witness. It can also mean the execution of a judicial order by the directed parties. But [[extraordinary rendition]] is legally distinct from both deportation and extradition. [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=937130]
 
−
== Rendition in the United States ==
 
−
 
−
=== Interstate rendition ===
 
−
Rendition between states is required by [[Article Four of the United States Constitution|Article Four, Section Two]] of the [[United States]] [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]; this section is often termed the ''rendition clause''.
 
−
 
−
Each state has a presumptive duty to render suspects on the request of another state, as under the [[full faith and credit]] clause. The [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] has established certain exceptions; a state may allow its own legal proceedings against a suspect to take precedence, for example. It was established in Kentucky v. Dennison that interstate rendition and extradition were not a federal writ; that is, a state could not petition the federal courts to have another state honor its request for rendition, if the state receiving the request chose not to do so. In rare cases, usually involving the death penalty, states have refused or delayed rendition. In 1987, this was overturned by [[Puerto Rico v. Branstad]] <ref> U.S. Supreme Court [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=483&invol=219 Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987)]</ref>, so a federal interest in resolving interstate rendition disputes was established. Nevertheless, the right of refusal of rendition was not overturned.
 
−
 
−
Extradition is commonly requested by state [[attorney general|attorneys general]] for [[fugitive]]s for whom a [[arrest warrant|warrant]] has been issued.
 
−
 
−
[[Bounty hunter]]s and [[bail bond|bondsmen]] once had limited authority to capture fugitives, even outside the state where they were wanted by the courts. When they deliver such a person, this is considered rendition, as it did not involve the intervention of the justice system in the state of capture. Under more recent law, bounty hunters are not legally permitted to act outside of the state where the offense took place, but cases of rendition still take place due to the financial interest the bondsmen have in returning a fugitive and recovering the bail. Formally, such fugitive cases should be turned over to the state for execution under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (1936) and the Uniform Extradition and Rendition Act (1980), if the fugitive's location is known, or the [[United States Marshals Service]], when it is not.
 
−
 
−
Rendition was infamously used to recapture [[fugitive slave]]s, who under the Constitution and various federal laws had virtually no human rights. As the movement for [[abolition]] grew, Northern states increasingly refused to comply or cooperate with rendition of escaped slaves, leading to the [[Fugitive Slave Law of 1850]]. This non-cooperation was behind the longstanding principle of refusal, only reverted in the 1987 decision.
 
−
 
−
=== International rendition ===
 
−
Since the 1980s, the United States has increasingly turned to rendition as a judicial and extra-judicial method for dealing with foreign [[defendant]]s. The first well-known case involved the [[Achille Lauro]] hijackers {{Fact|date=February 2007}} <!-- what is the relationship with extradition or ER —>, who were in an airplane over international waters that was forced down by [[United States Navy]] fighter planes in an attempt to turn them over to [[United States Government]] representatives for transport to and trial in the United States. Later, the practice expanded to include the [[deportation]] and [[expulsion]] of persons deemed [[enemy alien]]s or [[terrorism|terrorists]] from countries into United States custody.
 
−
 
−
The CIA was granted permission to use rendition in a [[presidential directive]] that dates to the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, although very few uses were documented during that time. The practice has grown sharply since the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|9/11]] terrorist attacks, and now includes a form where suspects are taken into US custody but delivered to a third-party state, often without ever being on American soil. Because such cases do not involve the rendering country's judiciary, they have been termed '''[[extraordinary rendition]]'''.
 
−
 
−
[[Human rights]] groups charge that extraordinary rendition is a violation of Article 3<ref>UNCAT Article 3 "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."</ref> of the [[United Nations Convention Against Torture]] (UNCAT), because suspects are taken to countries where torture during interrogation remains common, thus circumventing the protections the captives would enjoy in the United States or other nations who abide by the terms of UNCAT.  Its legality remains highly controversial, as the United States outlaws the use of torture, and the [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]] guarantees [[due process]]. Rendered suspects are denied due process because they are arrested without charges and deprived of legal [[counsel]].
 
−
 
−
The controversy surrounding American extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists is demonstrated by the case of [[Maher Arar]], a [[Canada|Canadian]] [[Muslim]] who in 2002 was taken into custody and deported to [[Syria]], a nation where torture remains legal.  On the way, Arar's plane made a 37-minute stopover in [[Rome]], [[Italy]].  This stopover has caused a government crisis in Italy, because the plane's landing on Italian soil implies that Italy is complicit with the American policy of extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects.  This crisis culminated in the resignation of Italian [[Prime Minister]] [[Romano Prodi]] on February 21, 2007.  Arar's case has also caused several other European nations to reevaluate their position regarding American [[anti-terrorism]] policies.<ref>Saunders, Doug.  ''[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070224.wararus0224/BNStory/International/ A world of Maher Arars]'', [[The Globe and Mail]] 21 February 2007.  .</ref>
 
−
 
−
 
−
==Extraordinary rendition==
 
−
[[Image:ExtRenditionMap.gif|thumb|400px|right|
 
−
<table width=100%><tr><td valign=top>
 
−
{{legend|#3333FF|Extraordinary renditions allegedly have been carried out from these countries}}
 
−
{{legend|#9999FF|Detainees have allegedly been transported through these countries}}
 
−
{{legend|#FF0000|Detainees have allegedly arrived in these countries}}
 
−
{{legend|#000000|The U.S. and  suspected [[CIA]] "[[black site]]s"}}
 
−
''Sources:'' Amnesty International<ref name=AmnestyInternational060101> [http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engpol300032006 "Rendition" and secret detention: A global system of human rights violations], ''[[Amnesty International]]'', 1 January 2006</ref>, [[Human Rights Watch]], [[Black sites]] article on Wikipedia</tr></td></table>]]
 
−
'''Extraordinary rendition''' and '''irregular rendition''' are terms used to describe the extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another. The [[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.<ref name=JC-2>Michael John Garcia, Legislative Attorney American Law Division. [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32890.pdf Renditions: Constraints Imposed by Laws on Torture] April 5, 2006 p.2 link from the United States [http://www.counterterrorismtraining.gov/leg/index.html Counter-Terrorism Training and Resources for Law Enforcement web site]</ref><ref>Gordon Corera ''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4414491.stm Does UK turn a blind eye to torture?]'', [[BBC]] 5 April, 2005 "One member of the [parliamentary foreign affairs] committee described the policy as 'effectively torture by proxy'".</ref><ref>James Naughtie's [http://london.usembassy.gov/forpo916.html Interview of Secretary Rice With British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw] on [[BBC]] [[BBC Radio 4|Radio 4's]] [[Today Programme]] 1 April 2006 on the website of the United States Embassy in London</ref>
 
−
 
−
==Background==
 
−
<!-- This is actually the reverse of rendition! it does not involve handing out an individual to another state, whether legally, via extradition, or outside of judicial oversight, as in the case of extraordinary rendition, but the reverse: arresting an individual outside of one's territory and trying to get him to his territory. A precedent might be Adolf Eichmann, kidnapped in Buenos Aires in 1960 to be judged in Jerusalem, isn't it? —>
 
−
<!--<ref>Lila Rajiva: ''[http://www.CounterPunch.org/rajiva12052005.html The CIA's Rendition Flights to Secret Prisons]''. [[CounterPunch (newsletter)|''CounterPunch'']], 5 December 2005</ref> —>
 
−
 
−
While [[Rendition (law)|legal rendition]] has been used by the United States increasingly since the 1980s as a method for dealing with foreign [[defendant]]s, extraordinary rendition is a wholly extra-legal process that differs in its nature and usage as a tool in the US-led "[[war on terror]]."<ref>Raymond Bonner: ''[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19777 The CIA's Secret Torture]''. [[The New York Review Of Books]], January 11, 2007</ref>  Because the modern methods of rendition include a form where suspects are taken into US custody but delivered to a third-party state, often without ever being on American soil, and without involving the rendering country's judiciary, they have been termed extraordinary rendition.  The [[Central Intelligence Agency]] was granted permission to use rendition in a [[presidential directive]] signed by President [[Bill Clinton]] in 1995,<ref>[[Presidential directive]] [http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm PDD 39], 1995.</ref> and the practice has grown sharply since the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|9/11]] terrorist attacks.
 
−
 
−
Critics &mdash; some of whom dub the procedure "[[torture]] by [[proxy]]"<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?q=%22torture+by+proxy%22+%22extraordinary+rendition%22&btnG=Search+Books Google Books search]</ref><ref>Christopher H. Pyle: ''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MET1.DTL Torture by proxy - How immigration threw a traveler to the wolves]''. [[San Francisco Chronicle]], January 4, 2004</ref> &mdash; have accused the [[CIA]] of [[rendition (law)|rendering]] suspects to other countries in order to avoid US laws prescribing [[due process]] and prohibiting torture, even though many of those countries have, like the US, signed or ratified the [[United Nations Convention Against Torture]]. Critics have also called this practice "torture flights".<ref>{{cite web | title= Torture flights: what No 10 knew and tried to cover up | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1689853,00.html| accessdate=2006-01-23 }}</ref>  Defenders of the practice argue that culturally-informed and native-language interrogations are more successful in gaining information from suspects.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18709-2005Mar8.html 'Rendition' Realities] by David Ignatius [[Washington Post]], March 9, 2005; Page A21</ref> CIA desk officer Michael Scheuer, who co-authored the rendition policy and served on the CIA's Bin Laden tracking desk until 2004, has told the press that torture was used both before and after 9/11: “I have no doubt about it.”<ref name=Mackay>Neil Mackay, "[http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/10/two_experts_on_1.htmlTwo experts on extraordinary rendition: one invented it, the other has seen its full horrors]," Sunday Herald, October 18, 2005 (link is to text of article on Craig Murray's website).</ref>
 
−
 
−
In a number of cases, suspects to whom the procedure is believed to have been applied later appeared to be innocent.<ref>[http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/17/1530242 Outsourcing Torture: The Secret History of America's "Extraordinary Rendition"]  17 February 2005</ref>  In the cases of [[Khalid El-Masri]] and [[Maher Arar]] the practice of extraordinary rendition appears to have been applied to innocent civilians, and the [[CIA]] has reportedly launched an investigation into such cases (which it refers to as "[[Extraordinary rendition#"Erroneous rendition"|erroneous rendition]]").
 
−
 
−
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.
 
−
===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]] <ref> [http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html Fact sheet: Extraordinary rendition], [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU), URL accessed on March 29, 2007 {{en icon}} </ref>.
 
−
 
−
According to Clinton Administration official [[Richard Clarke]], <blockquote>"'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. [[Bill Clinton|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.'"<ref>Richard Clarke, [[#References|Enemies]] pp. 143-144</ref></blockquote>
 
−
 
−
In a ''[[The New Yorker|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."<ref name="mayer" />
 
−
 
−
Thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a [[presidential directive]] ([http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm PDD 39]), the CIA instead elected to send suspects to [[Egypt]], where they were turned over to the Egyptian [[mukhabarat]].
 
−
 
−
===Usage by the Bush Administration===
 
−
Since the start of the "[[War on Terror]]" declared by the [[George W. Bush administration|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 [[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.<ref name="mayer">Mayer, Jane. ''[[The New Yorker]]'', February 14, 2005. {{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6|title="Outsourcing Torture: The secret history of America's 'extraordinary rendition' program."|accessdate=2007-02-20}}</ref><ref>According to former CIA case officer [[Bob Baer]], "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to [[Syria]]. If you want someone to [[Forced disappearance|disappear]] &mdash; never to see them again - you send them to Egypt." [http://www.CounterPunch.org/rajiva12052005.html The CIA's Rendition Flights to Secret Prisons: The Torture-Go-Round] By Lila Rajiva in [[CounterPunch (newsletter)|''CounterPunch'']], 5 December 2005</ref>
 
−
 
−
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 &ndash; referred to in classified documents as "[[black sites]]," which at various times have been operated in eight countries, including several in [[Eastern Europe]].<ref name=WaPo051204> {{cite news | author=Dana Priest | title=Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301476.html | accessdate=2005-12-18 | publisher=[[Washington Post]] | date=December 4 2005 }} </ref><ref name=Guardian051205a> {{cite news | title=Guardian Unlimited: Special reports: CIA's secret jails open up new transatlantic rift | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1657839,00.html | accessdate=2005-12-18|publisher=[[The Guardian]]|date=December 5 2005 }} </ref>
 
−
 
−
Following mounting scrutiny in Europe, including investigations held by Swiss senator [[Dick Marty]] who released a public report in June 2006, the [[United States Senate|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.<ref name=NyTimes051215> {{cite web | title=Senate Is Set to Require White House to Account for Secret Prisons | url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1071FFA34550C768DDDAB0994DD404482|mirror=http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121505J.shtml|date=December 15 2005 | accessdate=2005-12-18 }} </ref>
 
−
 
−
==Reported methodology==
 
−
Media reports describe suspects as being arrested, blindfolded, shackled, and sedated, or otherwise [[Kidnapping|kidnapped]], and transported by private jet or other means to the destination country.<ref>Stephen Grey and Ian Cobain ''[http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1540752,00.html Suspect's tale of travel and torture]'' [[The Guardian]] 2 August 2005. "He says he was flown on what he believes was a US aircraft to Morocco, while shackled, blindfolded and wearing earphones"</ref> The reports also say that the rendering countries have provided interrogators with lists of questions.
 
−
 
−
===Airline flights===
 
−
 
−
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 plane]]s and [[MC-130P Combat Shadows]]. A ''[[The Sunday Times (UK)|Sunday Times]]'' analysis of flight plans and radio logs has placed these aircraft at locations including [[Tuzla Air Base|Tuzla in Bosnia]], [[Priština]] in Kosovo, and [[Aviano Air Base]] in Northern Italy, as well as [[Ramstein Base|Ramstein]], headquarters for 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 Armed Forces|Bosnian military]] (at the time member of the [[Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina]]) and destined to [[Rwanda]]. The latter country was currently subject 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, it left Priština 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 civilian VIPs and senior military officers. But SPAR 92 has been identified as the aircraft that was used to transport [[Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr|Hassan Nasr]] (aka Abu Omar), the cleric kidnapped in Italy in 2003 and for which CIA agents have been indicted in Italy ([[Extraordinary rendition#The Abu Omar case|''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.<ref>''[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article732439.ece US military planes criss-cross Europe using bogus call sign]'' February 17 2007, ''The Sunday Times''.</ref>
 
−
 
−
=== Boeing Jeppessen International Trip Planning ===
 
−
On October 23, 2006, the ''New Yorker'' claimed that [[Jeppesen]], 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. It certainly pays well." The article went on to suggest that this may make Jeppesen a potential defendant in a law suit by [[Khaled El-Masri]].<ref>Mayer, Jane. [http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/061030ta_talk_mayer The C.I.A.'s Travel Agent]. The New Yorker. 2006-10-23.</ref>  In fact, Jeppesen was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on May 30, 2007, on behalf of several other individuals who were allegedly subject to extraordinary rendition.
 
−
 
−
==="Black sites"===
 
−
In 2005, the ''[[Washington Post]]'' and [[Human Rights Watch]] (HRW) published revelations concerning CIA flights and "[[black site]]s," covert prisons that are operated by the CIA and whose 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 (''[[Extraordinary rendition#The European Parliament's February 14, 2007 report|See below]]''). Such detention centers violate the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] (ECHR) and the [[United Nations Convention Against Torture|UN Convention Against Torture]], treaties that all EU member states are bound to follow.<ref> {{cite news | title=Europeans Probe Secret CIA Flights | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602198.html | accessdate=2005-12-18 | publisher=The Washington Post }} </ref><ref> {{cite news | title=Europe : EU to look into 'secret US jails' | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4403166.stm | accessdate=2005-12-18 | publisher=BBC }} </ref><ref> {{cite news | title=U.S. Faces Scrutiny Over Secret Prisons | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110300422.html | accessdate=2005-12-18 | publisher=The Washington Post }} </ref>
 
−
 
−
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.<ref name=AbcNews051205> {{cite news | title=EXCLUSIVE: Sources Tell ABC News Top Al Qaeda Figures Held in Secret CIA Prisons | url=http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1375123 | accessdate=2005-12-18|publisher=ABC News|date=December 5 2005 }}</ref>
 
−
==== Extraordinary renditions and black sites in Europe ====
 
−
 
−
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 &ndash; thus qualifying as [[ghost detainee]]s &ndash; 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"<ref name=Bbc060124> {{cite news | title=Europe 'knew about' CIA flights|publisher=[[BBC]]|date=January 24 2006 | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4641810.stm | access-date=2006-09-07 }}</ref>
 
−
 
−
In addition to their own investigation the European countries will formally request an answer from the [[George W. Bush administration|Bush administration]] on the matter.<ref> {{cite news | title=World : Europe: EU to query US 'secret prisons' | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4461470.stm | accessdate=2005-12-18 | publisher=BBC }} </ref><ref> {{cite news | title=Europe in Uproar Over CIA Operations - Los Angeles Times | url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-flights26nov26,0,1837707.story?coll=la-home-headlines | accessdate=2005-12-18 | publisher=Los Angeles Times }} </ref><ref>  {{cite news | title=CIA Flights in Europe: The Hunt for Hercules N8183J - Spiegel Online - url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,387185,00.html|accessdate=2005-12-18|publisher=[[Der Spiegel]] }} </ref> ([[Extraordinary rendition#The European investigation and its June 2006 report|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."<ref name=Guardian051205b>  {{cite news | title=Special Reports: UK 'breaking law' over CIA secret flights | url=http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1657737,00.html | accessdate=2005-12-18 | publisher=The Guardian | date=December 5 2005 }} </ref><ref name=DemocracyNow051205>{{cite web | title=Democracy Now! British Tory MP Blasts Extraordinary Rendition, Says Britain Broke International Law and "Complicit in Torture" if Flights Passed Through UK | url=http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/05/1455243 | accessdate=2005-12-18|date=December 5 2005|publisher=[[Democracy Now]] }}</ref>
 
−
 
−
==== Criticisms of the Washington Post's decision to withhold locations of the black sites ====
 
−
A comment by  FAIR<ref> {{cite web | title=Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting | url=http://www.fair.org/ | accessdate=2005-12-18 }} </ref> 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 &mdash; it's the whole point of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|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."<ref> {{cite web | title=The Consequences of Covering Up | url=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2715 | accessdate=2005-12-18 }} </ref>
 
−
 
−
==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 [[Foreign Affairs Committee|Select Committee on Foreign Affairs]] in their first report published on 15 February 2006, points out that although both the UK and the U.S. have ratified UNCAT, the UK ratified it without reservations, while the US ratified CAT with a reservation 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 [[Extraordinary rendition#Treaty obligations|Treaty obligations]], below). Having made this point the report goes on to say in paragraph 44 that:<ref name=HCSCFA-1>[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmfaff/574/57406.htm#a7 Extraordinary or irregular rendition]</ref>
 
−
{{quotation|The US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice has denied the use of torture, in response to a letter written by [[Foreign Secretary]] [[Jack Straw (politician)|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]].<ref name=DerSpiegel051208> {{cite news | title=Opinion: Condi's Trail of Lies - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News | url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,389224,00.html | accessdate=2005-12-18 | publisher=[[Der Spiegel]] | date=December 8 2005 }}</ref><ref name=Times051205> {{cite news | title='Renditions save lives': Condoleezza Rice's full statement | url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1905274,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=World | accessdate=2005-12-18 | publisher=[[The Times]] | date=December 5 2005 }}</ref><ref name=Times051206a> {{cite news | title=Keep quiet about secret flights to secret jails, Rice tells Europe | url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1905660,00.html | accessdate=2005-12-18|publisher=The Times|date=December 6 2006 }}</ref>
 
−
 
−
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.<ref name=NewStandard>  [http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=2712 CIA Self-investigation Only Known Renditions Inquiry], ''[[The NewStandard]]'', December 28 2005</ref>
 
−
A story published in [[The NewStandard]] in December 2005 notes:
 
−
{{quotation|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.<ref name=ApNews> [http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051227/D8EOR6AO5.html CIA Probes Renditions of Terror Suspects], ''[[Associated Press]]'', December 27 2005</ref>}}
 
−
 
−
===Torture===
 
−
 
−
Some proponents of extraordinary rendition, and the similarly controversial concept of [[unlawful combatant]], agree with [[Alan Dershowitz#Dershowitz's 2002 article "Want to Torture? Get a Warrant"|Alan Dershowitz]] that torturing terror suspects, however distasteful, is necessary to help prevent further terrorist attacks, which may only be [[Ticking time bomb scenario|a matter of hours or days away]]. <ref name="yab">[http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/yasmin_alibhai_brown/article222735.ece Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: People matter more than holy books] Editorial and Opinion (Page 31) in [[The Independent]] Monday 23 May 2005. Includes commentary on how some Americans have changed their attitudes to torture.</ref><!-- can any case be provided where torture by ER, often carried out weeks or months after the capture, concern this? —> Critics argue, however, that such practices are unethical, unconstitutional, and defy the [[Geneva Conventions]].
 
−
 
−
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 bargain]]s with defense lawyers.
 
−
 
−
==Investigations==
 
−
=== Investigations by multi-nation groups ===
 
−
====The Council of Europe investigation and its two reports ====
 
−
[[Image:Comint-switzerland.jpg|right|150px|thumb|Report regarding the Egyptian fax intercepted on 10 November 2005 by the Swiss [[Onyx (interception system)|Onyx interception system]], as published in the Swiss press]]
 
−
 
−
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.<ref>{{cite news |first=Paul |last=Ames |title=EU May Suspend Nations With Secret Prisons |date=November 28, 2005 |publisher=[[ABC News]] |url=http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1352347}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Marty"> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_01_06_detention.pdf Information memorandum II on the alleged secret detentions in Council of Europe state, rapported by Dick Marty, January 22 2006]</ref>
 
−
 
−
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."<ref> June 2006 Council of Europe report available here: [http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?Link=/CommitteeDocs/2006/20060606_Ejdoc162006PartII-FINAL.htm HTML] and [http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2006/20060606_Ejdoc162006PartII-FINAL.pdf PDF] formats. </ref>
 
−
 
−
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.<ref name=BostonGlobe060421> [http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/04/21/eu_official_no_evidence_of_illegal_cia_action/ EU official: No evidence of illegal CIA action: Antiterror chief advises committee], ''[[Boston Globe]]'', April 21, 2006</ref> 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 (''[[Extraordinary renditions#The European Parliament's February 14, 2007 report|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:
 
−
<blockquote> ''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]].''<ref name="Different">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5055872.stm Rendition and the rights of the individual], [[BBC News]], June 7, 2006 </ref></blockquote>
 
−
 
−
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 (''[[Extraordinary renditions#The European Parliament's February 14, 2007 report|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.<ref name="Different"/> Marty's report stated that:
 
−
 
−
<blockquote> ''"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."''<ref name="Different"/></blockquote>
 
−
 
−
The second report was released on [[8 june]] 2007 and can be found here [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/marty_08_06_07.pdf].
 
−
 
−
====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.<ref name=CouncilOfEurope060627> [http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/APNewsLetter/NLView.asp?NLID=126 PACE calls for oversight of foreign intelligence agencies operating in Europe], [[PACE]] News, URL accessed on March 29, 2007 </ref>
 
−
 
−
====The European Parliament's February 14, 2007 report====
 
−
The [[European Parliament]]'s report, adopted by a large majority (382 [[MEP]]s 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]].<ref name="Bbc070214"> {{cite news | title=EU endorses damning report on CIA | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6360817.stm | accessdate=2007-02-14 | publisher=[[BBC]] | date=February 14 2007 }}</ref> The report...
 
−
 
−
{{quotation|''Denounces'' the lack of co-operation of many member states and of the [[Council of the European Union]] with the investigation;<br/>
 
−
''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;<br/>
 
−
''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;<br/>
 
−
''Considers'' that all European countries should initiate independent investigations into all stopovers by civilian aircraft [hired by] the CIA;<br/>
 
−
''Urges'' that a ban or system of inspections be introduced for all CIA-operated aircraft known to have been involved in extraordinary rendition.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6361829.stm EU rendition report: Key excerpts], on the BBC News website</ref>}}
 
−
 
−
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 &mdash; which was said to suggest a pattern of operations, and flight configurations were highly suspicious.<ref name=NyTimes060427> [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/world/europe/27cia.html?ex=1303790400&en=f28193a7c7a919c0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss European Inquiry Says C.I.A. Flew 1,000 Flights in Secret], ''[[New York Times]]'', April 27 2006</ref>
 
−
 
−
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."
 
−
 
−
==== 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 [[United Nations General Assembly|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.<ref name=www.ipsnews.net.946>
 
−
{{cite web | title=RIGHTS: U.N. Blasts Practice of Outsourcing Torture (See above) | url=http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30949 | accessdate=2005-12-18 }}</ref>
 
−
 
−
"The [[United States]] is holding at least 26 persons as “[[ghost detainee]]s” 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.<ref name=hrw.org.951> {{cite web | title=List of “Ghost Prisoners” Possibly in CIA Custody | url=http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/30/usdom12109.htm | accessdate=2005-12-18 }}</ref><ref name=www.hrw.org.952> {{cite web | title=   
 
−
U.S. Holding at Least Twenty-Six “Ghost Detainees” | url=http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/30/usdom12113.htm | accessdate=2005-12-18 }}</ref>
 
−
 
−
===Investigations by national governments===
 
−
====France====
 
−
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, France|Brest]] on March 31, 2002. It is investigated by the [[Canada|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]].<ref> {{fr}}{{cite news | title=La France enquête sur les avions de la CIA | publisher=Le Figaro |date=February 2 2006 | url=http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/20060302.FIG000000200_la_france_enquete_sur_les_avions_de_la_cia.html}} </ref>
 
−
 
−
====Spain====
 
−
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]].<ref>{{cite news | title=''El Gobierno canario pide explicaciones sobre vuelos de la CIA en Tenerife'' |date= 16 November 2005 | publisher=El Pais |url=http://www.elpais.es/articulo/elpepinac/20051116elpepinac_3/Tes/Canarias%20pide%20explicaciones%20sobre%20las%20escalas%20de%20vuelos%20de%20la%20CIA%20en%20Tenerife}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title=''La Fiscalía de Canarias investigará las escalas de vuelos de la CIA en Tenerife y Gran Canaria'' |date=18 November 2005 | publisher=El Mundo | url=http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2005/11/18/espana/1132315880.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title=''Un supuesto avión de la CIA aterriza en la base portuguesa de Azores'' |date=28 November 2005 | publisher=Canarias 7 | url=http://www.canarias7.es/articulo.cfm?Id=14607&dia=29/11/05}}</ref>
 
−
 
−
==== 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 Air Base|Ramstein]], the [[Rhein-Main Air Base]] and others. The newspaper cited experts and "plane-spotters" who observed the planes as responsible for the tally.<ref name=refbot.947> {{cite web | title=CIA Uses German Bases to Transport Terrorists, Paper Says: Europe: Deutsche Welle: 25.11.2005 | url=http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1792376,00.html | accessdate=2005-12-18 }}</ref>
 
−
 
−
==== 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.<ref name=www.watchingamerica.com.948> {{cite web | title=Watching America | url=http://www.watchingamerica.com/lemonde000065.shtml | accessdate=2005-12-18 }}</ref><ref name=www.lemonde.fr.949> {{cite web | title=Une "prison secrète" américaine a existé dans un camp de l'OTAN au Kosovo | url=http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-714198,0.html | accessdate=2005-12-18 }}</ref>
 
−
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.<ref name=www.forbes.com.950> {{cite news | title=US ran Guantanamo-style prison in Kosovo - Council of Europe envoy - Forbes.com | url=http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/11/25/afx2354167.html | accessdate=2005-12-18 | publisher=Forbes }}</ref>
 
−
 
−
====Portugal====
 
−
 
−
Portugal opened up an investigation concerning CIA flights in February 2007, on the basics of declarations by [[Socialist Party (Portugal)|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.<ref name="StateFeb07"> "Portugal: Renditions: Judicial investigation into CIA flights begins," [[Statewatch]] News Online, February 5-6, 2007 ([http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/feb/03cia-portugal.htm available here]) {{en icon}} </ref>
 
−
 
−
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.<ref>[http://www.europapress.es/noticia.aspx?cod=20070205202548&ch=69 Portugal/CIA.- La Fiscalía General abre una investigación sobre los supuestos vuelos ilegales de la CIA en Portugal], ''[[Europa Press]]'', February 5, 2007 {{es icon}} </ref> 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 [[Socialist Party (Portugal)|same party]]. Ana Gomes declared herself satisfied with the opening of the investigations, but underlined that she had always claimed that a parliamentary inquiry would be necessary.<ref name="StateFeb07"/>
 
−
 
−
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]].<ref name="StateFeb07">.
 
−
 
−
Approximatively 150 CIA flights which have flown through Portugal have been identified.<ref> Details about CIA flights requested to Portuguese government by MEP [[Ana Gomes]]. See "Portugal: Evidence of illegal CIA rendition flights surfacing," [[Statewatch]], October 2006 [http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/oct/04portugal-cia-gomes.htm available here (including documents)] {{en icon}} </ref>
 
−
 
−
==== United Kingdom ====
 
−
After claims by [[Liberty (pressure group)|Liberty]] that [[United Kingdom|British]] airports had been used by the [[CIA]] for extraordinary rendition flights, the [[Association of Chief Police Officers]] lauched an investigation in November, 2005. The report was published in June, 2007 and found no evidence to support the claim. Liberty has challenged the findings and has stated that it's original claims were based on "credible evidence".<ref name="BBC News 9 June"> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6736227.stm Police reject UK rendition claims], [[BBC News]], June 9, 2007</ref>
 
−
 
−
===investigations by non-state actors===
 
−
====The World Policy Council ====
 
−
The World Policy Council (WPC), a [[think tank]] of the [[Alpha  Phi Alpha|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".<ref name=wpc> {{cite web | title=The Centenary Report Of The Alpha Phi Alpha World Policy Council | url=http://www.alphaphialpha.net/forms/pdf/WPC06-WEB.pdf |year=2006 |month=July |format=PDF |pages=pp. 19-26 | accessdate=2007-03-07 }}</ref>
 
−
 
−
==== 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.<ref name=Times041114>
 
−
{{cite news | url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1357726,00.html | title=US ‘torture flights’ stopped at Shannon | date=November 14 2004 | access-date=2005-09-08 | publisher=[[The Times]] }} </ref><ref name=TheVillage051125> {{cite news | url=http://www.villagemagazine.ie/article.asp?sid=1&sud=41&aid=787 | title=Investigations into CIA 'torture flights'|date=November 25 2005|publisher=[[The Village]] | access-date=2006-09-07 }} </ref>
 
−
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 been censured by the European Parliament for its role in facilitating extraordinary rendition and taking insufficient or no measures to uphold its obligations under the UN CAT.<ref name="Irish Times">[http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2007/0124/1169426831962.html EU to censure Ahern over rendition role] [[The Irish Times]], January 24, 2007</ref>
 
−
 
−
The situation is complicated at Shannon Airport because, (along with [[Dublin Airport]], the only other airport in Europe to have such a facility),<ref>[http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0367/D.0367.198606060003.html preclearance arrangement]</ref> passengers flying to the USA are [[United States border preclearance#Europe (Ireland)|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"<ref>[http://www.shannonairport.com/facilities/usdeptofhomelandsecurity.html Shannon Airport - US Department of Homeland Security]</ref>
 
−
 
−
====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.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/23/nenv23.xml&s The envoy silenced after telling undiplomatic truths], [[The Daily Telegraph]] 23 October 2004</ref> 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 [[House of Lords Judicial Committee|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.<ref>[http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1662107,00.html Torture evidence inadmissible in UK courts, Lords rules] by Staff and agencies in [[The Guardian]] December 8, 2005</ref> 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."<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4510866.stm Torture ruling's international impact] by Jon Silverman [[BBC]] 8 December 2005</ref> 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 (United Kingdom)|National Audit Office]] because of accusations that it has victimized, bullied and intimidated its own staff.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1533100,00.html "Foreign Office faces probe into 'manipulation'"] by Robert Winnett, ''[[The Sunday Times (UK)|The Sunday Times]]''  20 March 2005</ref>
 
−
 
−
Murray later stated that he felt that he had unwittingly stumbled upon what has been called "torture by proxy".<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?050214on_onlineonly01 Q & A: Torture by Proxy] Jane Mayer answers question asked by Amy Davidson [[The New Yorker]] on 14 February 2005</ref> 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 Air Base|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.<ref>[http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/07/extraordinary_r_1.html EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION] On [http://www.craigmurray.co.uk  Craig Murray website] dated July 11,2005</ref>
 
−
 
−
=== 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 run apparently by US agents.<ref>  {{cite web|title=United States of America / Yemen: Secret Detention in CIA "Black Sites"|publisher=[[Amnesty International]] | url=http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511772005?open&of=ENG-USA | accessdate=2005-12-18 }} </ref>
 
−
 
−
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.<ref> {{cite news | title=CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html | accessdate=2005-12-18 | publisher=The Washington Post }} </ref> 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.<ref> {{cite web | title=Mike Whitney: the United States of Torture | publisher=[[Counter Punch]] | url=http://www.CounterPunch.org/whitney11052005.html | accessdate=2005-12-18 }} </ref> 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.<ref> {{cite news | title=CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons (See above) | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html | accessdate=2005-12-18 | publisher=The Washington Post }} </ref><ref> {{cite web | title=t r u t h o u t - Bob Herbert: Secrets and Shame|url=http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110305B.shtml|accessdate=2005-12-18 }} </ref> (For a more detailed discussion on these possible violations of U.S. and international law please see [[Extraordinary rendition#Treaty obligations|below]] and [[unlawful combatant#United States|unlawful combatant]].)
 
−
 
−
=="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'''.<ref name=WaPo051205> [[Dana Priest]], [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301476_pf.html Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake: German Citizen Released After Months in 'Rendition'], ''Washington Post'', December 4, 2005</ref>
 
−
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 apprehended apparently because of a taped telephone conversation in which the word ''tirat'', meaning "tires" in Arabic, was mistaken for the word ''tairat'', meaning "airplanes."<ref name=NyTimes060707>
 
−
[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/world/africa/07algeria.html?ei=5090&en=17b76be0aba70618&ex=1309924800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all Algerian Tells of Dark Odyssey in U.S. Hands], ''[[New York Times]]'', July 7 2006 - [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0707-03.htm - mirror]</ref>
 
−
 
−
The Post's anonymous sources say that the [[Inspector General]] is looking into a number of similar cases &mdash; 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.<ref name=ApNews> [http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051227/D8EOR6AO5.html CIA Probes Renditions of Terror Suspects], ''[[Associated Press]]'', December 27 2005</ref>
 
−
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."<ref name="ApNews"/>''
 
−
 
−
==Examples and specific cases ==
 
−
=== The Khaled Masri case ===
 
−
 
−
In 2003, [[Khalid El-Masri]], a [[Kuwait]]-born citizen with [[Germany|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 that 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 report|Mehlis commission]] into the [[Rafik Hariri]] assassination before he was withdrawn in early February 2006, possibly to prevent the repercussions of his identification.<ref> [http://www.jungewelt.de/2006/02-23/012.php "Vertuschung mit System"], ''[[Junge Welt]]'', February 23, 2006 {{de icon}} </ref>
 
−
 
−
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 [[American Broadcasting Company|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."<ref name=WaPo051204/>
 
−
 
−
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.<ref name=DerSpiegel051205> {{cite news | title=The CIA in Europe: Berlin's Silence for Washington - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News | url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,388652,00.html | accessdate=2005-12-18|publisher=[[Der Spiegel]]|date=December 5 2005 }}</ref> 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 detainment camp|Guantanamo Bay]] has become, as one former senior official put it, "a dumping ground" for CIA mistakes.
 
−
 
−
A German prosecutor is working 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.<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6316369.stm Germany issues CIA arrest orders], [[BBC]], January 31, 2007 </ref>
 
−
 
−
=== The Abu Omar case ===
 
−
 
−
 
−
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".<ref name=Bbc060124/> 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.<ref>http://www.statewatch.org/cia/documents/milan-tribunal-19-us-citizens-sought.pdf</ref>). The CIA hasn't commented on the case, while [[Silvio Berlusconi|Berlusconi]]'s government has denied any knowledge of a kidnapping plot.<ref name=Bbc051223> {{cite news | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4555660.stm | title=EU-wide warrant over 'CIA kidnap' | publisher=[[BBC]]|acces-date=2006-09-07|date=December 23 2005 }}</ref> Just after the [[Italian general election, 2006|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.<ref>bbc.co.uk: ''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5149464.stm Italians held over 'CIA kidnap']'', last retrieved on 2007-01-27</ref> A judge also issued arrest warrants for four Americans, three CIA agents and an [[United States Air Force|Air Force]] officer who commanded the [[Air Force Security Forces|security forces]] at [[Aviano Air Base]] at the time of the abduction.<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0705-06.htm  Italian Spies Arrested, Americans Sought for Kidnap], July 5, 2006 [[REUTERS]] cable mirrored by ''[[Commondreams]]''</ref>
 
−
 
−
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."<ref name=NyTimes051209> {{cite news | url=http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121005C.shtml | title=Former CIA Agent to Fight Italian Warrant | date=December 9 2005 | publisher=[[New York Times]] mirrored by [[Truthout]] | access-date=2006-09-07 }} </ref><ref name=WaPo051206> {{cite news | title=CIA Ruse Is Said to Have Damaged Probe in Milan: Italy Allegedly Misled on Cleric's Abduction | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/04/AR2005120400885.html | accessdate=2005-12-18|publisher=Washington Post|date=December 6 2005 }}</ref> Robert S. Lady however, alleged that the evidence has been gathered illegally, and has denied involvement in the abduction.<ref name=NyTimes051209>
 
−
{{cite web | title=Former CIA Agent to Fight Italian Warrant | url=http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121005C.shtml | accessdate=2005-12-18 | date=December 9 2005 | publisher=[[New York Times]] mirrored by [[Truthout]] }}</ref> Photos of Robert (Bob) Lady and other defendants recently have surfaced on the Web.<ref>Renditioner photos. [http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/30/18385947.php "Wanted Poster for CIA's Robert Lady in Imam Rapito"].  ''Indymedia'', March 30, 2007.</ref>
 
−
 
−
On February 12 2007 Mr Nasr's lawyer said he had been released and was back with his family.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6352717.stm BBC story on Nasr]</ref>
 
−
 
−
=== 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."<ref name=LaTimes051208> {{cite web | title=Pentagon Memo on Torture-Motivated Transfer | publishers=[[Los Angeles Times]] mirrored by [[Truthout]] | url=http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120805J.shtml|accessdate=2005-12-18|date=December 8 2006 }} </ref>
 
−
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."<ref name=Bbc051213> {{cite news | title=CIA abduction claims 'credible' | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4524864.stm | accessdate=2005-12-18 | publisher=[[BBC]] | date=December 13 2005 }}</ref><ref name=AssociatePress051213> {{cite web | title=Swiss Government Cites Evidence of Secret CIA Prisons, Transfers | url=http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121305K.shtml | accessdate=2005-12-18|publisher=[[Associated Press]] mirrored by [[Truthout]]|date=December 13 2005 }}</ref>
 
−
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."''<ref name=Bbc060114> {{cite news | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4611518.stm | title=Europe 'complicit over CIA jails' | publisher=[[BBC]] | date=January 14 2006 | accessdate=2006-09-07 }}</ref>
 
−
 
−
=== 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.<ref name="Different">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5055872.stm Rendition and the rights of the individual], [[BBC News]], June 7, 2006 </ref>
 
−
 
−
 
−
''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.<ref name=Washpost041227>{{cite news | title=Jet Is an Open Secret in Terror War| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27826-2004Dec26?language=printer| accessdate=2007-02-12|publisher=[[The Washington Post]] |date=December 27 2004 }}</ref>
 
−
 
−
* 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<ref name="Talesoftorture"> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4502986.stm Renditions:tales of torture], ''[[BBC News]]'', December 7, 2005 </ref> 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.<ref name=Bbc051207> {{cite news | title='Tortured' Australian speaks out | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4505886.stm | accessdate=2005-12-18|publisher=[[BBC]]|date=December 7 2005 }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Habib"> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4214747.stm Profile: Mamdouh Habib], ''BBC News'', December 7, 2005 </ref>
 
−
 
−
* 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.<ref name=Guardian051209> {{cite news | title=Prewar claims 'sourced from rendition detainee' | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1663743,00.html | accessdate=2005-12-18|publisher=[[The Guardian]]|date=December 9 2005 }}</ref>
 
−
 
−
* '''[[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 [[Rendition aircraft|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<ref> [[Statewatch]], "[http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/jan/10britel.htm Renditions: Italian and European MPs set to request pardon for Abou Elkassim Britel]," January 2007 {{en icon}} </ref> 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."<ref name="EP"> [[European Parliament]], "Temporary Committee on the Alleged Use of European Countries by the CIA for the Transport and the Illegal Detention of Prisoners," Rapporteur Giovanni Claudio Fava, DT/65174EN.doc 7 February 2007, made accessible by [[Statewatch]] [http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/feb/ep-rendition-and-detention-wd-no-9.pdf here], URL accessed on 18 February 2007 {{en icon}} </ref>
 
−
 
−
* 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.<ref name=NyTimes060707> {{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/world/africa/07algeria.html?ei=5090&en=17b76be0aba70618&ex=1309924800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all | title=Algerian Tells of Dark Odyssey in U.S. Hands] | publisher=[[New York Times]] | date=July 7 2006 | mirror=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0707-03.htm | access-date=2006-09-07 }}</ref>  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.<ref>http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/AR_English.pdf</ref> 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.<ref name="Talesoftorture">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4502986.stm Renditions: Tales of Torture], ''[[BBC News]]'', December 7, 2005</ref> [[US Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]], [[DHS|Homeland Security]] Secretary [[Tom Ridge]] and [[FBI Director]] [[Robert Mueller]] are all named in the lawsuit.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3421743.stm Canadian sues US over deportation], ''[[BBC News]]'', 23 January 2004</ref>
 
−
 
−
* '''[[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 (alleged terrorist)|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.<ref name=Guardian051211> {{cite news | title=MI6 and CIA 'sent student to Morocco to be tortured' | url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C6903%2C1664612%2C00.html | accessdate=2005-12-18|publisher=[[The Guardian]]|date=December 11 2005 }}</ref><ref name="Talesoftorture"/>
 
−
 
−
*In late 2001 '''[[Siddeq Ahmad Siddeq Nour Turkistani|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.<ref name=WaPo051215> {{cite web | title=t r u t h o u t - Detainee Cleared for Release Is in Limbo at Guantanamo|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402125.html|date=December 15 2005 | mirror=http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121505M.shtml | accessdate=2005-12-18 }}</ref> According to a June 26, 2006 press release from the Saudi Arabian embassy,<ref>http://www.saudiembassy.net/2006News/News/TerDetail.asp?cIndex=6331</ref> 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 [[Yemen]]i citizens''' were held somewhere in [[Eastern Europe]].<ref name=web.amnesty.org.april_2006> {{cite web | title=Below the radar: Secret flights to torture and ‘disappearance’ | url=http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR510512006 | accessdate=2006-04-05}}</ref>
 
−
 
−
==Treaty obligations of the United States==
 
−
The [[United Nations Convention Against Torture]] (UNCAT) Article 3 states:
 
−
{{quotation|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.
 
−
<br/>
 
−
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.<ref>United States Senate, [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ntquery/z?trtys:100TD00020: Resolution ratifying Treaty Number 100-20]. </ref>
 
−
 
−
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 alleged 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.<ref>William Fisher, [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0520-01.htm US Groups Hail Censure of Washington's "Terror War], [[Inter Press Service]] on May 20, 2006</ref><ref>[http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/AdvanceVersions/CAT.C.USA.CO.2.pdf PDF file of report]</ref>
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
==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.
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
==External links==
 
−
===2007===
 
−
*[http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/kidnapped+to+order/552067 A Dispatches report on Extraordinary Rendition], broadcast on ''[[Channel 4]]'', June 11 2007
 
−
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/6681983.stm A BBC "This World" investigation into Extraordinary Rendition], ''[[BBC Television]]'', broadcast on BBC 2, May 24 2007
 
−
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulch6mf6FBw Youtube video of protest at Aero Contractors, March 18, 2007]
 
−
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6359875.stm EU to vote on CIA flights report], BBC News, February 14 2007
 
−
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/rendition/ CIA Rendition Flights], ''[[The Guardian]]'', ongoing coverage
 
−
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/currentawareness/rendition.php Rendition: legal news and resources], [[JURIST]]
 
−
*[http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Secret_Prisons_Timeline Secret Prisons Timeline]
 
−
*[http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0210-11.htm Britain accused over CIA's secret torture flights], by Stephen Grey and Andrew Buncombe, [http://www.independent.co.uk/ The Independent & The Independent on Sunday], 10 February 2005 ([http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article10365.ece original])
 
−
* Richard Clarke, ''Against all Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror'', Free Press, 2004, ISBN 0-7432-6024-4
 
−
*[http://www.spectre.net.au Rendition Not a New tactic. 1987 - 89]
 
−
*[http://www.untitledtheater.com/havel/essays-multimedia/letter-to-bush.html An Open Letter to George Bush] partly on this issue
 
−
*[http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/disappearance-convention.htm International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance]
 
−
*[http://www.counter-terrorism-law.org/ counter-terrorism-law.org]
 
−
* [http://www.channel4.com/more4/news/news-opinion-feature.jsp?id=558 A film report for More4 News on allegations that Pakistan's security forces has secretly detained hundreds of people over the war on terror]
 
−
* [http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1938582.htm Four Corners (Australian ABC TV) - ''Torture'']
 
−
* [http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1945119.htm Four Corners (Australian ABC TV - ''Ghost Prisoners'']
 
−
* [http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D08EF321-84C2-4C46-86C2-BA0E869FC579.htm "Extraordinary Antics" Aljazeera English]
 
−
 
−
===2006===
 
−
*[http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-renditions-eng Stop Rendition and Secret Detention!], [[Amnesty International]]
 
−
*[http://moonbatmedia.com/cia_torture_250606/ Protest at US Embassy, London, against CIA 'torture flights'], [[Liberty]], 25 June
 
−
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/03/rendered-meaningless-rule-of-law-in-us.php "Rendered Meaningless: The Rule of Law in the US 'War on Terror'"], ''[[JURIST]]'', March 27
 
−
*[http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article346382.ece "Torture flights landed in UK, admit air controllers"] by Marie Woolf, ''[[The Independent]]'', 19 February
 
−
*[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1596225&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 "House Committee Squashes Torture Queries"], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 8
 
−
*[http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060218/NEWS/602180327/-1/NEWS A Torturing Topic] Pocono Record, February 18, 2006, discussing lecture by Matthew McNabb
 
−
*[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/24/world/main1232202.shtml "Report: U.S. 'Outsourced' Torture"], ''[[Associated Press]]'', January 24
 
−
*[http://www.newstatesman.com/200601230005 "Rendition: the cover-up"], ''[[New Statesman]]'', January 23
 
−
*[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/01/09/1136771496819.html "Ugly phrase conceals an uglier truth"], Salman Rushdie, ''[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]'', January 10
 
−
* Maher Arar:[http://www.counterpunch.org/arar10272006.html The Horrors of Extraordinary Rendition: A Personal Account], [[CounterPunch]], 27/29 October
 
−
 
−
===2005===
 
−
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/12/exporting-torture-us-rendition-and.php  Exporting Torture: US Rendition and European Outrage], [[JURIST]], December 13, 2005
 
−
*[http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/K/kidnap_torture_american_style/index.html Documentary about 'extraordinary renditions'], Dispatches: The Real War on Terror - Kidnap and torture, American style. Aired on Channel 4 (UK), November 23, 2005
 
−
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1642741,00.html Spanish police expose more CIA links to secret flights of detainees], ''[[The Guardian]]'', November 15, 2005
 
−
*[http://www.sundayherald.com/52324 Torture flights: our role in US brutality shames Britain] ''[[Sunday Herald]]'', October 16, 2005
 
−
*[http://www.sundayherald.com/52303 Torture Flights: The Inside Story] Neil Mackay, ''[[Sunday Herald]]'', October 16, 2005
 
−
*[http://www.sundayherald.com/52461 Police to probe US ‘torture flights’ landing in Scotland], Neil Mackay, ''[[Sunday Herald]]'', October 23, 2005
 
−
*[http://chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/display.php3?article_id=115926 Europeans eye CIA secret jails claim—WHAT THE MEDIA WON'T TELL] Clayton Hallmark, ''[[Chiapas IMC]]'', November 5, 2005
 
−
*[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/09/24/navy_secretly_contracted_jets_used_by_cia/ Navy Secretly Contracted Jets Used by CIA], ''[[The Boston Globe]]'', September 24, 2005
 
−
*[http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=24136 Rendition Cindy Sheehan? CIA Fugitive From Italy Justice Is Located]
 
−
*[[Benyam Mohammed]], ''[[The Guardian]]'', August 2, 2005, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1540552,00.html 'One of them made cuts in my penis. I was in agony']
 
−
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001605_pf.html New Swedish Documents Illuminate CIA Action: Probe Finds 'Rendition' Of Terror Suspects Illegal], ''[[Washington Post]]'', May 21, 2005
 
−
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1542390,00.html "Flight to torture: where abuse is contracted out"] by Tim Reid, ''[[The Times]]'', 26 March 2005
 
−
*[http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0320-04.htm Jet's Travels Cloaked in Mystery] John Crewdson and Tom Hundley (Knight-Ridder), ''[[Common Dreams]]'', March 20, 2005
 
−
*[http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0311-32.htm "Torture by Proxy"], Editorial ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', 11 March, 2005
 
−
*[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/03/08/2003245336 "CIA given free hand for `rendition,' says official"], ''[[Taipei Times]]'', Source: NY Times news service and AFP, Washington, 8 March 2005
 
−
*[http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/topstories_story_065094819.html "CIA Flying Suspects To Torture?"], ''[[CBS News]]'', March 6, 2005
 
−
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/opinion/28herbert.html?th "It's Called Torture"], Op-Ed by  Bob Herbert, ''[[New York Times]]'', February 28, 2005 [http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=2005022809372038&mode=print0 (alternative site)]
 
−
*[http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=92772 "Hair used to verify Afghan abduction claim"], ''Paktribune.com'', February 4, 2005
 
−
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1390257,00.html "They beat me from all sides"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', January 14, 2005
 
−
 
−
===2004===
 
−
*[http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/11/30/markey_pledges_battle_on_rendition_practice_requests_details_on_local_firms_role/ "Markey pledges battle on rendition practice"], ''[[Boston Globe]]'', November 30, 2004
 
−
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57363-2004Oct23.html "Memo Lets CIA Take Detainees Out of Iraq"], ''[[Washington Post]]'', October 24
 
−
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11976-2004Jul24.html "A Secret Deportation Of Terror Suspects"], ''[[Washington Post]]'', July 25
 
−
*Stephen Grey, 2004, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4688_133/ai_n6159185 "America's Gulag"], ''[[New Statesman]]'', May 17
 
−
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15981-2004May10.html "Secret World of U.S. Interrogation"], ''[[Washington Post]]'', May 11
 
−
 
−
===2003===
 
−
*[http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/05/Worldandnation/Deported_to_Syria_by_.shtml "Deported to Syria by U.S., Canadian tells tale of torture"], ''[[Associated Press]]'', November 5
 
−
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A522-2003Nov4?language=printer "Deported Terror Suspect Details Torture in Syria"], ''[[Washington Post]]'', November 5
 
−
*[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/030602/2terror.htm "Playing Offense: The inside story of how U.S. terrorist hunters are going after al Qaeda"], [[US News & World Report]], June 2
 
−
*[http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/liberties/2003/0309questioning.htm "Questioning Terror Suspects in a Dark and Surreal World"], ''[[New York Times]]'', March 9
 
−
 
−
===2002===
 
−
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37943-2002Dec25&notFound=true "U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations"], ''[[Washington Post]]'', December 26
 
−
*[http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/03.25C.Secret.Transfer.htm "U.S. Behind Secret Transfer of Terror Suspects"], ''[[Washington Post]]'', March 11
 
−
 
−
===2001===
 
−
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62725-2001Dec18 "Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks"], ''[[Washington Post]]'', December 19
 
−
 
−
==Terminology==
 
−
;[[Rendition (law)|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 [[euphemism|euphemistic]]. For example, a ''[[New York Times]]'' editorial mentions the "practice known in bureaucratese by the creepy euphemism 'extraordinary rendition.'"<ref name=NyTimes050308>''[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/opinion/08tue1.html?ex=1268024400&en=692c12f59ef2b7ae&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland Torture by Proxy]''.  ''New York Times'', March 8 2005 - [http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=20050308083217882 - mirror]</ref>  [[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."<ref name=DerSpiegel050228> [http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,344019,00.html It's Called Torture], ''[[Der Spiegel]], February 28 2005</ref>  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]].<ref>{{cite web | title=Ugly phrase conceals an uglier truth | work=Sydney Morning Herald | url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/ugly-phrase-conceals-an-uglier-truth/2006/01/09/1136771496819.html | accessdate=2007-02-01}}</ref> 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."<ref name=TheTimes051230> [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1963018,00.html Non! Enough renditions from an iPod generation with no sensitivity chip], ''The Times'', December 30 2005</ref>
 
−
 
−
;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:
 
−
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
: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.<p>
 
−
 
−
: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 [...]<p>
 
−
 
−
:Defying international treaties and US laws, rendition works on the dark fringes of legality. The [UN] [[United Nations Convention on Torture|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.<ref>[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=937130 Friendly renditions to Muslim chambers of torture]</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
  
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
 
<references />
 
<references />
−
 
−
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
−
 
+
*Grey, Stephen. ''Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program''.  New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2006. ISBN 0312360231
 +
*Pyle, Christopher. ''Extradition Politics & Human Rights''. Temple University Press, 2001. ISBN 978-1566398237
 +
*Thompson, A. C., and Trevor Paglen. ''Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights''. Hoboken, NJ: Melville House, 2006. ISBN 1933633093
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
−
*[http://www.internationalextradition.com/practice-areas.htm ''McNabb Associates, P.C.'' International Extradition Database]
+
All links retrieved March 23, 2024.
−
*[http://www.uncjin.org/Laws/extradit/extindx.htm UN list of extradition information by country (1996)]
 
−
*[http://travel.state.gov/family/abduction/resources/resources_552.html US State Department - Using the Criminal Justice System]
 
−
*[http://www.internationalextraditionblog.com The ''McNabb Associates'' International Extradition Blog]
 
  
−
* [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1570.html Rendition of Anthony Burns] - notorious [[fugitive slave law]] incident
+
* [http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm#9-15.600 Alternatives to extradition] – definition of rendition and extraordinary rendition used by the United States Department of Justice
−
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art4frag11_user.html Legal history of interstate rendition]
 
−
* [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6 Outsourcing Torture], from ''[[The New Yorker]]'', February 7, 2005
 
−
* [http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2466.htm 2000 State Department list of renditions and extraditions] - through 2000
 
−
* [http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm#9-15.600 Alternatives to extradition] - definition of rendition and extraordinary rendition used by the [[United States Department of Justice]]
 
 
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=937130 Friendly Renditions to Islamic Countries]
 
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=937130 Friendly Renditions to Islamic Countries]
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
  
 
{{Credits|Extradition|104506060|Rendition_(law)|122513181|Extraordinary_rendition|141259582|}}
 
{{Credits|Extradition|104506060|Rendition_(law)|122513181|Extraordinary_rendition|141259582|}}

Latest revision as of 23:59, 24 March 2024

Scale of justice.svg
Criminal procedure
Criminal investigation
Arrest  · Warrant
Criminal prosecution
Bail
Evidence (law)  · Extradition
Grand jury  · Habeas corpus
Indictment  · Plea bargain
Statute of limitations
Trial
Double jeopardy  · Jury
Rights of the accused
Self-incrimination
Sentence (law)
Post-sentencing
Pardon
Parole
Probation

Extradition is the official process by which one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal. As between nations, extradition is regulated by treaties. As between states or other political subdivisions on a domestic level, extradition is more accurately known as rendition.

Extradition has been controversial throughout history, as trust between different nations has not been complete. Equally, a crime in one jurisdiction may not be considered such in another. However, the basic effort on the part of the majority of countries in the world to prevent wrongdoers from fleeing the consequences of what they know to be illegal actions represents an effort to bring about a unified world society, breaking down barriers that divide us. Without accountability for wrongdoing a world of peace and harmony cannot be achieved.

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.
Rendition, extradition, and deportation
Legal scholar L. Ali Khan, a professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Kansas, has made 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 U.S. 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. U.S. agencies can abduct a person from anywhere in the world and render him to a friendly government. In December 2003, U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. officials to conspire to commit torture outside the United States. Under both the Convention and U.S. laws, therefore, rendition is strictly prohibited if the rendered person would be subjected to torture.[1]

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.'"[2] 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."[3] Author Salman Rushdie wrote in 2006 that "this phrase's brutalization of meaning is an infallible signal of its intent to deceive," equating it to a form of newspeak.[4] 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 U.S. 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."[5]

Extradition in International Law

The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. Such absence of international obligation and desire of the right to demand such criminals of other countries has caused a web of extradition treaties or agreements to evolve; most countries in the world have signed bilateral extradition treaties with most other countries. No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the United States (US) lacks extradition treaties with over 50 nations, including the People's Republic of China, Namibia, Jamaica, and North Korea.

There are two types of extradition treaties: list and dual criminality treaties. The most common and traditional is the list treaty, which contains a list of crimes for which a suspect will be extradited. Dual criminality treaties, used since the 1980s, generally allow for extradition of a criminal suspect if the punishment is more than one year imprisonment in both countries. Occasionally the amount of the time of the sentence agreed upon between the two countries is varied. Under both types of treaties, if the conduct is not a crime in either country then it will not be an extraditable offense.

Generally, an extradition treaty requires that a country seeking extradition be able to show that:

  • The relevant crime is sufficiently serious.
  • There exists a prima facie case against the individual sought.
  • The event in question qualifies as a crime in both countries.
  • The extradited person can reasonably expect a fair trial in the recipient country.
  • The likely penalty will be proportionate to the crime.

Restrictions

Most countries require themselves to deny extradition requests if, in the government's opinion, the suspect is sought for a political crime. Many countries, such as Mexico, Canada, and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not subsequently be passed or carried out.

These restrictions are normally clearly spelled out in the extradition treaties that a government has agreed upon. They are, however, controversial in the United States, where the death penalty is practiced in some U.S. states, as it is seen by many as an attempt by foreign nations to interfere with the U.S. criminal justice system. In contrast, pressures by the U.S. government on these countries to change their laws, or even sometimes to ignore their laws, is perceived by many in those nations as an attempt by the United States to interfere in their sovereign right to manage justice within their own borders. Famous examples include the extradition dispute with Canada on Charles Ng. Ng participated in the brutal murders of at least seven people in the late 80s after which he fled to Canada. The cost of extraditing Ng to the American government is estimated to have been around $6.6 million as Ng filed numerous motions to delay or hamper his extradition and subsequent trial.[6]

Countries with a rule of law typically make extradition subject to review by that country's courts. These courts may impose certain restrictions on extradition, or prevent it altogether, if for instance they deem the accusations to be based on dubious evidence, or evidence obtained from torture, or if they believe that the defendant will not be granted a fair trial on arrival, or will be subject to cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment if extradited.

Some countries, such as France, Germany, Austria, China, and Japan, have laws that forbid extraditing their respective citizens. Some others stipulate such prohibition on extradition agreements rather than their laws. Such restrictions are occasionally controversial in other countries when, for example, a French citizen commits a crime abroad and then returns to his home country, perceived as to avoid prosecution. These countries, however, make their criminal laws applicable to citizens abroad, and they try citizens suspected of crimes committed abroad under their own laws. Such suspects are typically prosecuted as if the crime had occurred within the country's borders.

Exemptions in the European Union

The usual extradition agreement safeguards relating to dual-criminality, the presence of prima facie evidence and the possibility of a fair trial have been waived by many European nations for a list of specified offenses under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant. The warrant entered into force in eight European Union (EU) member-states on January 1, 2004. Defenders of the warrant argue that the usual safeguards are not necessary because every EU nation is committed by treaty, and often by legal and constitutional provisions, to the right to a fair trial, and because every EU member-state is subject to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Extradition to federations

The federal structure of some nations, such as the United States, can pose particular problems with respect to extraditions when the police power and the power of foreign relations are held at different levels of the federal hierarchy. Less important problems can arise due to differing qualifications for crimes. For instance, in the United States, crossing state lines is a prerequisite for certain federal crimes (otherwise crimes such as murder etc. are handled by state governments except in certain circumstances such as the killing of a federal official). This transportation clause is, understandably, absent from the laws of many countries. Extradition treaties or subsequent diplomatic correspondence often include language providing that such criteria should not be taken into account when checking if the crime is one in the country from which extradition should.

To clarify the above point, if a person in the United States crosses the borders of the United States to go to another country, then that person has crossed a federal border, and then federal law would apply. In addition, taking a flight in the United States subjects one to federal law, as all airports are considered subject to federal jurisdiction.

International strains

The refusal for a country to extradite suspects or criminals to another may lead to international relations being strained. Often, the country to which extradition is refused will accuse the other country of refusing extradition for political reasons (regardless of whether this is justified).

The matters are often complex when the country from which suspects are to be extradited is a democratic country with a rule of law. Typically, in such countries, the final decision of extradition lies with the national executive (prime minister, president or equivalent). However, such countries typically allow extradition defendants recourse to the law, with multiple appeals. These may significantly slow down the procedures. On the one hand, this may lead to unwarranted international difficulties, as the public, politicians, and journalists from the requesting country will ask their executive to put pressure on the executive of the country from which extradition is to take place, while that executive may not in fact have the authority to deport the suspect or criminal on his own. On the other hand, certain delays, or the unwillingness of the local prosecution authorities to present a good extradition case before the court on behalf of the requesting state, may possibly result from the unwillingness of the country's executive to extradite.

Extradition and abduction

Issues of international law relating to extradition have proven controversial in cases where a state has abducted and removed an individual from the territory of another state without previously requesting permission, or following normal extradition procedures. Such abductions are usually in violation of the domestic law of the country in which they occur, as infringements of laws forbidding kidnapping. Many also regard abduction as violation of international law—in particular of a prohibition on arbitrary detention. A small number of countries have been reported to use kidnapping to circumvent the formal extradition process.

Notable or controversial cases involving abduction of foreign citizens:

Notes

  1. ↑ Friendly renditions to Muslim chambers of torture. SSRN. Retrieved December 2, 2007.
  2. ↑ Torture by Proxy. New York Times, March 8 2005. Retrieved December 2, 2007.
  3. ↑ It's Called Torture, Der Spiegel, February 28 2005. Retrieved December 2, 2007.
  4. ↑ Ugly phrase conceals an uglier truth. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
  5. ↑ Non! Enough renditions from an iPod generation with no sensitivity chip, The Times, December 30 2005. Retrieved December 2, 2007.
  6. ↑ Charles Ng About.com Retrieved December 7, 2007.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Grey, Stephen. Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2006. ISBN 0312360231
  • Pyle, Christopher. Extradition Politics & Human Rights. Temple University Press, 2001. ISBN 978-1566398237
  • Thompson, A. C., and Trevor Paglen. Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights. Hoboken, NJ: Melville House, 2006. ISBN 1933633093

External links

All links retrieved March 23, 2024.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Extradition&oldid=1139627

Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Copyright Logo
Powered by MediaWiki