Talk:Extraordinary rendition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

1 2 3

Contents

[edit] Article size

See previous discussion Talk:Extraordinary rendition/Archive 3#Article size

[edit] remove word "alleged" from description of "extraordinary rendition"

See previous discussion Talk:Extraordinary rendition/Archive 3#remove word "alleged" from description of "extraordinary rendition"
A question: for an allegation to become an established fact, is it necessary to have a court establishing this truth? In other words, is historical truth assimilable to judicial truth? Aren't they two different things? Say, European reports, among others, have established the fact that some of ER victims have been tortured. Isn't that sufficient proof? You may find this totally an anachronism, but I just bring it here by chance (not for provocation): would you consider the trial of Socrates exclusively on judicial evidence? Or would you want some historians' demonstration about how it happenned? What sources would that historian use? Tazmaniacs
First was it torture or 'only' "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" and second if it was severe enough pain or suffering to be torture, did the US government know and condone it? Both of those questions can probably only be answered by a judicial review. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What's the difference between "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" and torture? The question of the US government knowing and condoning of it is very important, but also hypocrit (Luis Posada Carriles has not been extradited to Venezuela on grounds that he would be tortured there, while it is legitimate to deport to Syria, Uzbekistan or Egypt??? nice regimes, also...) I'm sad to observe that you confuse historical truth with judicial truth. So, Augusto Pinochet was not condemned. Does that means he was innocent? Tazmaniacs 23:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup template March 2007

The cleanup template was added as Revision as of 01:54, 13 March 2007 by 24.235.136.112. Any reason for not to removing it? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't see a reason to keep the template...things have progressed quite well. The only thing that's bugging me, and it's a very small thing, is that the lead section is so long before the reader comes to the TOC. Maybe a "general overview" header after the 1st paragraph to move it up a bit? If not, no problem. Akradecki 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
See WP:LEAD#Length: it is completely appropriate for a large article to have a 4 paragraph lead, which gives an overview of most of the article's important points. Tazmaniacs 14:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The lead has been modified, why not? However, I find it quite strange (I don't know who did it, but even more if it was by one who supported the introduction of "torture by proxy" in the lead) to find that this part: "According to the European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture." which gives a number (very important fact) and clearly states the relation with torture, has been downgraded to a simple footnote. I am reintroducing it in the text, as this is important, factual, and lot more NPOV than the use of the term "torture by proxy". Tazmaniacs 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, this removal of the sentence has provoked a confusion between the Council of Europe's report & the European Parliament report headed by Dick Marty. Finally, see WP:LEAD: there is no need for references in introduction, in particular when all the needed references are to be found in the head of the articles (see subsections pertaining to both reports). Furthermore, why provide a source to the January 2006 intermediary report, when notes 96, 97 and 98 pertain to the final report? Tazmaniacs 14:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On a whole, I don't think the recent adds to the lead have done any good. Because of this controversial term of "torture by proxy", we now end up with the first paragraph including Condoleeza Rice's denial of any torture acts happening (why is it in the third sentence?) Then, the second paragraph goes back to discussing ER without delving too much in this controversial subject of torture, and then it includes it again, since official reports by the UE and others sources have definitely alleged that the US knew what it was doing when sending detainees to countries such as Uzbekistan & Syria. It has lost coherence. I don't see any legitimate reason to put Rice's statement in such a prominent place (something like: "something which the US administration has denied" is more than enough). I am also 100% sure that it must be included (not at all for questions of NPOV or whatever, but for the factual information that the US has denied this - again, we should bother less with opinions and concerns us more with facts). Tazmaniacs 00:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I am therefore moving Rice's comment here, for inclusion in body of article in appropriate place. Tazmaniacs 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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.[1][2][3]

Sorry to go back to point zero, but the current lead says:

Extraordinary rendition and irregular rendition are terms used to describe the extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another, and Torture by proxy is used by some critics to describe extraordinary rendition by the United States, with regard to the alleged transfer of suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture. Critics have alleged the use of torture has occurred with the knowledge or acquiescence of the United States.

Can someone gives one example of another state than the US using ER? What's the deal with "irregular rendition"? All of this to include "torture by proxy"... while deleting at the same time the factual sentence: the UE report denounces violation of article 3 of UN Convention against torture... Tazmaniacs 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the term or the practice? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue on that one. I only find it unnecessary to put Rice's denial in the third sentence of the article. On pretexts of NPOV, it only places her statement in an authoritative place, as if it carried more weight than all the others sources (Amnesty International reports, European Union investigations, not to say courtsuits carried on, etc.) together. But well, it is funny actually to have such an article which brings all the necessary evidence beginning by such a refutation. I would think a serious article would include this public statement in a relevant section about US justification and public speeches about it, but well, we can also have some fun from time to time! Tazmaniacs 14:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
i agree completely. [and beeing neutral doesn't mean eating whatever is thrown to us]. It's political debate material... and it is actually against what most credited sources state and common sense. the TbP presece become secondary when it is not even clear that these suspected people are "arrested" outside US sovregnity; or that they are taken to countries known internationally not to be very respectfull of civil rights. that the procedure is not just extrajudicial, becuase there is not even an administrative authority responding on that, it is just praxis. Teardrop.z 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to review your reading of the introduction. There are currently three sentences in the first paragraph (thanks to your (Tazmaniacs) recent edits) two broadly against the United states policy and one for. The remaining three paragraphs are all critical of the US administration's policy. So I do not think that it gives a non neutral point of view to include a sentence early on in the introduction stating the United States administration's position that they do not render people to states which torture people. If that sentence is removed then the tone of the introduction is only critical of the US and not a balanced POV --Philip Baird Shearer 17:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the current lead including the DR Rice quote, but should we not say who the "critics" are? Well at least some of them. Hypnosadist 22:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
NPOV also includes WP:UNDUE. Along with Akradecki (excuse for spelling) & others, we had agree that torture was a controversial topic best developed in the article. As Teardrop has recently pointed out, the first problem is not even if the US are torturing, or not, or if they do "torture by proxy," or not. This might be your moral concern, but your consciousness is not Wikipedia's matters. The judicial & political concerns lifted by ER (to go fast, sorry) is that they are, as Hypnosadist clearly said with his usual straight-forward speech :), is that they are kidnapping. In other words, forced disappearances. This is illegal. Even if the guy is a murderer, an assassin, a terrorist, or the Devil in person. Now, one can change the laws; one can argue, by jurisprudence, on the interpretation of laws; one can, most importantly, simply disobey the law. But the main problem of ER, for European states at any cases (who are important enough to carry some weight, although very relative), or, at least, for European judges, is that a foreign power is kidnapping citizens on its own territory. Erase "torture by proxy", the problem of ER remains. This article thus should be concerned first with that, and then point out torture. And Condoleeza Rice statement is there to make us laugh, all right, that must be British humor :) ! Tazmaniacs 23:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PACE / Council of Europe

According to Philip's remark, I've changed the reference for Council of Europe to the appropriate one. What is strange is that a Google search gave me first this result with the same, wrong, header of the PACE calls for oversight... This points out again that link rot is not an excuse to remove sources, since they still have existed although the Internet has changed. Else only what the Internet says today is real. Tazmaniacs 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that their site is pretty much messed up, as when you click on "Franco Frantini" or "Dick Marty" or "More..." you end up with Belarus. Tazmaniacs 01:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty obligations

Who's treaty obligations does this section refer to? There next to no citations from legal experts stating which if any of these treaty obligations affect extraordinary rendition let alone if they should affect extraordinary rendition by the United States. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source for the 1984 Convention against Torture. [1] This is by; Chandra Lekha Sriram, Chair of Human Rights at the University of East London School of Law (UK) currently visiting at the University of Maryland School of Law. Read it and see what you think. Hypnosadist 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (not signed by the US) qualifies forced disappearance as a crime against humanity (it's in the article). You are probably missing the point that kidnapping someone in the street and detaining him against any judicial oversight qualifies as forced disappearance (yes, exactly like what happened during Pinochet's rule, and elsewhere), when not speaking Newspeak. The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (not signed by the US) explicitly condemns such disappearance, whatever the emergency invoked (recently signed by various states, it is not a surprise that Washington has refused to sign it in these allegedly "troubled times"). The only, actual, international treaty which the US has signed and ratified and which it violates is the UNCAT (United Nation Convention Against Torture), article 3 (something which, by the way, you can read in the lead, since the EU parliamentary report has underlined that - I think they have some "experts" who work for them). Tazmaniacs 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This lawyer seems to know a lot about the possibilities given by security services:

"European countries, like the US, face a real dilemma: release terror suspects to comply with laws concerning reasonable detention and risk releasing someone who is a real danger to their countries, or continue detention in violation of international standards."

Really? So, today, with all this anti-terrorist legislation, one is not able to legally arrest a terrorist? Such a "dilemma" indeed... Why not just burn all of Montesquieu and all of the books written by the tradition of liberalism and goes on to the 21st century, where laws prevent society from defending itself against its "enemies"? Tazmaniacs 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

From most of the the answers given here, I don't think I have explained myself very well. Yes I can read the original of the treaties. Any fool can do that, but what is missing in this section is an expert analysis of what those treaty obligations mean for extraordinary rendition and specifically extraordinary rendition by the USA. The source that Hypnosadist gave (Chandra Lekha Sriram Exporting Torture: US Rendition and European Outrage) would be a good start because without this type of expert analysis the inclusion of this section is probably outside the scope of this encyclopaedia: see WP:OR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources --Philip Baird Shearer 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, excuse my sourness sometimes get a bit carried away :) Maybe you're looking for this kind of things: Torture by proxy: international law applicable to ER by Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (December 2005, [2]); Joint Committee On Human Rights Thirtieth Report; Ibid, 23rd report, etc.? I'll highlight this definition of ER:

"Extraordinary Rendition: this is a term which has been coined to describe state kidnapping of individuals and their transportation by state officials from one state to another for uncertain or publicly unknown purposes. This practice has been the subject of much concern by the European Parliament as it has been practiced by the USA with the complicity of various EU Member States, candidate states, states in the Western Balkans and Afghanistan. In light of the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 [ of UNCAT, ndlr] , any policy intended to promote human rights in JHA and AFSJ must address this issue (The Policy of the EU in the Field of Border Control and the Fight against Organised Crime: How does it impact on the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms in third countries? (Sub-Committee Human Rights, EU)

You'll surely find others. Basically, the most important strictly judicial, international law, instruments, which may cause a problem for the US is, again, article 3 of the UNCAT which the US have signed. Experts say that (for once that "experts" do not say against common sense stuff!). Actually, as the US administration tentatives show, they will need experts to precisely claim that article 3 of the UNCAT does not apply in these circumnstances. One must indeed be an expert in arguing in legal matters to go against the evidence (not "my" evidence, but the evidence underlined by the EU, etc.) All others international conventions (on forced disappearance, etc.) have not been signed by the US, much less ratified, so they are not bound by it. This, IMO, does not mean that one should abstain from citing these international law instruments & conventions, as they make the ethical stakes of ER clear (without engaging in POV debates by the intermediary of low-level editorials from all political perspectives). What I'm saying, in other words, is in no way different from the use of human rights: the fact that they "don't exist", that is, that they are a judicial fiction with no positive reality (apart, precisely, of these international law instruments, and Human Rights Declarations, sometimes included in state Constitutions), does not make them useless. They provide a moral background and criteria for a certain amount of things. Tazmaniacs 15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we could discuss on this definition of ER and of its inclusion in the lead. Tazmaniacs 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind what is included in the section, just that the section and all that is in it needs to be attributed to expert sources which tie the treaties into ER and specifically US ER.

For example although UNCAT Art.3 is mentioned, UNCAT Art.16 has not and that is at least as important as UNCAT Art.3. Basically UNCAT Art.16 does not allow "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" at home, but UNCAT Art.3 only bans the renditioning to another state that might torture them, it does not forbid the renditioning to a state that carries out "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". It is known from the ECHR Ireland UK judgement back in the 1970s that the "five techniques" are "inhuman or degrading treatment" but they are not torture. So if the US renders a person to a state which uses such interrogation methods, something they can not do at home because they would be breaking UNCAT Art.16 the the US is not in breach of their treaty obligations. Now any analysis worth the paper it is written on should point this out, because it explains why the US bothers to use rendition.

As for the other treaties and the ICC if the US has not ratified them then they are not relevent to the United States obligations under international law. I think that this section needs a re-write with cited expert opinions on the issue --Philip Baird Shearer 20:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derry's airport 'first to ban CIA flights'

This story [3] in the Belfast Telegraph is about an AI inspired ban on rendition flights through this publicly owned airport. From the article;

The human rights organisation is confident airport owner Derry City Council will introduce a landmark ban within weeks that will put pressure on other airports to follow suit. "I think we can say with as much confidence as we can garner that this will be a first for Europe", said Patrick Corrigan, Amnesty spokesman. "We are not aware of any other local authority or any other airport in Europe which has a specific anti-rendition policy." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Interesting. We might want to wait, though, for implementation of this new policy. Something the article doesn't "lose time on." I wonder how this goes. "CIA illegal flights forbidden here?" Is that an implicit recognition that airports have granted official authorization to CIA black flights? That not only did they know they were CIA planes, but that they officially knew that they carried out disappeared people? Tazmaniacs 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/x/t/Talk%7EExtraordinary_rendition_8bca.html"