Talk:Extraordinary rendition

From Citizendium
Revision as of 20:43, 19 February 2009 by imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (International, not USA context)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A process in which a Requesting State may gain custody of a person held by another state, without going through a formal judicial process of international extradition, but not necessarily secretly or with no administrative hearing [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Law and Politics [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  Politicomilitary doctrine
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Assuming similar governmental structures

The following text: which the captive has an opportunity to challenge, in the justice system. Extradition requests can be turned down, by the judicial branch, even if the executive branch is in favor appears to assume that in all nations, they have judicial branches which can overrule the executive. This is true in some countries, but not all. The text needs to be changed to be less sweeping and Western-centric. J. Noel Chiappa 11:22, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

Various edits

I have begun making changes that differentiate the general international definition of the concept, versus the existing article, which was totally focused on the United States and, it seems, criticism of the George W. Bush Administration. It is quite appropriate to have an article on the questions of legal interpretation by that Administration, but please be specific to it; do not use a general article to address only the United States.

As I have time, I will add appropriate international information. In addition, I have created preliminary articles on the general process of international extradition, and intrastate extradition (U.S.).

There is no particular benefit to putting multiple citations, one after the other, to make the same point. To the extent that the citations do deal with different points, try to have at least one sentence that closely relates to the citation.

Further, when dealing with legal proceedings, it is highly desirable to have a citation to the actual court documents, not just opinion about them. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

From my reading, the use of extraordinary rendition got its official start during Bill Clinton's administration. The article should state this, and offer what is known about his administration's use of the technique. I should have made sure it mentioned Clinton's role. I don't know how I left that out.
Regarding "international definition of the concept" -- isn't the USA the only country in the world to use a technique by this name? Have other countries secretly traded captives? Probably. Howard, are you aware of any other country that has any official recognition of the secret extrajudicial trade in captives, under the name "extraordinary rendition" or any other name? If the USA is the only country that has any official recognition of this technique, or similar techniques, then, forgive me, I don't understand how noting that the article is focused on the USA is a valid criticism. George Swan 01:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


New material added to this article includes the passage: "...although the process may or may not involve a hearing in the country involved."

Isn't the whole point of extraordinary rendition to avoid any hearings? Every specific instance I have read about has involved circumventing judicial oversight.

  • Bisher al Rawi and Jamil El Banna were apprehended with the assistance of local officials. But those local officials were not acting in an official capacity. Al Rawi and El Banna were not taken to a Gambian jail after their apprehension. No Gambian justice official laid charges against them. They were taken to a safe house, with Gambians hired to guard them, but where they were interrogated by Americans.
  • The Imam, covertly apprehended in Italy, and whisked to Egypt, had no hearing. Some commentators have asserted that the operation was a totally covert operation, with no US involvement. Other commentators have asserted that there must have been some (covert) Italian involvement, given the size of the US team (almost thirty), and their sloppy tradecraft (some of the team stayed in luxury hotels, using credit cards in their own name, and using their own cell phones). Regardless of whether or not there was covert local involvement, the Imam had no opportunity for a local hearing.
  • Similarly, the two Arabs whisked from Sweden were apprehended, and whisked away, without an opportunity for a hearing. They too were apprehended with the covert assistance of Swedish officials. My impression is that the incident was extremely embarrassing to the Swedish government. Sixty minutes did a segment on this instance. Swedish security officials said they found the US snatch team's treatment of the two men shocking. Other Swedish officials claimed that they only agreed because they had been massively oversold on the evidence justifying the snatch.

Further, I am concerned that the current version of the article implies that the USA is the final destination of extraordinary renditions, when it hasn't been a terminal or interim destination of most instances. The only rendition I am aware of that had the USA as an endpoint was Maher Arar's. And in his case the USA was not the final destination, but the origin. George Swan 00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

First, let's establish that the term existed before the George W. Bush Administration, but it gained much more publicity. Further, it isn't all about the USA. Please do not define more general concepts in regard to what you have read about the USA alone. What about Israel v. Eichmann?
Some extraordinary renditions avoid all hearings, but the usual legal definition is that it means avoiding judicial hearings. If, for example, a citizen of South Frammistam is detained by the immigration service of West Warlock, while he is in transit through West Warlock, and North Blippiland requests custody of the Frammistani, if Warlock law does not require judicial review of such a nonresident, turning him over would be extraordinary rendition — but it could have immigration hearings.
There are blurry areas of law when it comes to matters that variously fall under:
  • hos humanis generis, a status most often associated with pirates and slavers, who are considered to have put themselves beyond national status. In the case of piracy, this generally traces to the Treaty of Paris of 1846, which primarily ended the Crimean War but also had an annex barring privateering.
  • universal jurisdiction, as ordered by the International Criminal Court; the classic example being the arrest, in the UK, of Pinochet on a Spanish warrant for crimes committed in Chile. See also Forti v. Suarez Mason.
Precisely what international law guarantees all individuals the right to a local hearing? Howard C. Berkowitz 01:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)