DOCSLIB.ORG

Extraordinary Rendition and U.S. Counterterrorism Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Extraordinary Rendition and U.S. Counterterrorism Policy Journal of Strategic Security Volume 4 Number 3 Volume 4, No. 3: Fall 2011 Article 3 Extraordinary Rendition and U.S. Counterterrorism Policy Mark J. Murray The George Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the Portfolio and Security Analysis Commons pp. 15-28 Recommended Citation Murray, Mark J.. "Extraordinary Rendition and U.S. Counterterrorism Policy." Journal of Strategic Security 4, no. 3 (2011) : 15-28. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.4.3.2 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol4/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Strategic Security by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Extraordinary Rendition and U.S. Counterterrorism Policy Abstract This article examines the United States Government policy of extraordinary rendition as a response to terrorism. The paper provides a working definition of the term, outlines why it has become controversial, and uses case studies to examine success and failures of extraordinary rendition in practice. The paper concludes with lessons learned—more specifically, policy amendments—that are necessary to keep extraordinary rendition as a viable tool for the Obama Administration and mitigate political fallout against the United States from both its allies and enemies. This paper argues that extraordinary rendition provides flexibility to policymakers to detain terrorists in cases where an attack may be forthcoming and when other approved legal processes are slow to react. Therefore, instead of ending extraordinary renditions altogether, the United States should reevaluate how it implements the policy on a tactical, operational, and strategic level and amend it based on the recommendations put forward in this article. This article is available in Journal of Strategic Security: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol4/iss3/ 3 Murray: Extraordinary Rendition and U.S. Counterterrorism Policy Journal of Strategic Security Volume 4 Issue 3 2011, pp. 15-28 DOI: 10.5038/1944-0472.4.3.2 Extraordinary Rendition and U.S. Counterterrorism Policy Mark J. Murray1 [email protected] Abstract This article examines the United States Government policy of extraordi- nary rendition as a response to terrorism. The paper provides a working definition of the term, outlines why it has become controversial, and uses case studies to examine success and failures of extraordinary rendition in practice. The paper concludes with lessons learned—more specifically, policy amendments—that are necessary to keep extraordinary rendition as a viable tool for the Obama Administration and mitigate political fall- out against the United States from both its allies and enemies. This paper argues that extraordinary rendition provides flexibility to policymakers to detain terrorists in cases where an attack may be forthcoming and when other approved legal processes are slow to react. Therefore, instead of ending extraordinary renditions altogether, the United States should reevaluate how it implements the policy on a tactical, operational, and strategic level and amend it based on the recommendations put forward in this article. Introduction Few policies of the Bush Administration's Global War on Terror have inspired more rebuke by U.S. allies and been seized upon by U.S. adver- saries more than that of extraordinary rendition. Simple in its basic con- cept, yet bungled in execution, the U.S. Government has used extraordinary rendition with zeal since September 11, 2001 (9/11). The primary intent of extraordinary rendition is to remove terrorists from the streets and inhibit their ability to plan and execute terrorist operations. Journal of Strategic Security (c) 2011 ISSN: 1944-0464 eISSN: 1944-0472 15 Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011 Journal of Strategic Security, Vol. 4, No. 3 Journal of Strategic Security Proponents of the policy argue that it effectively removes terrorists from the streets and makes America and the world safer. Detractors often retort by saying the policy completely undermines greater U.S. foreign policy goals, is not in the spirit of U.S. and international law, and is linked directly with the torture of detainees. A full accounting of the policy's effects has yet to be undertaken—or pro- vided—by the United States Government, but lessons can be learned from its use over the past decade. It is imperative to learn these lessons now because the U.S. will continue to be judged and closely scrutinized on how it implements controversial counterterrorism policies in the future. How- ever, U.S. officials should be careful not to dismiss the policy out of hand because unpredictable failures do not conclusively undermine its overall efficacy. With several adjustments to current policy, extraordinary rendi- tion can continue to be a useful tool in the fight against terrorism. The purpose of this paper is to define the controversy surrounding extraordi- nary rendition policy, use several case studies to assess its overall efficacy as a counterterrorism tool for the United States Government, and put for- ward several recommendations to strengthen the policy for use in the future. Extraordinary Rendition: A Working Definition Rendition is defined simply as any time a fugitive is surrendered by one country and given to another.2 It should not to be confused with extradition, which is a subset of rendition characterized by a legal process and considered to be the official vehicle to transfer suspects in custody between foreign governments.3 Extraordinary rendition, or irregular rendition, is a policy where individuals known to be members or affiliates of terrorist organizations are seized and covertly transferred to a third- country detention facility for debriefing.4 The process is extrajudicial, done in secret, and typically not carried out exclusively by U.S. personnel.5 Targeted individuals are often seized by local authorities in a particular country at the behest of—or based on the intelligence from—personnel from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion (FBI) or the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). The suspects are then transported using U.S. assets to one of many destinations, including Egypt, Syria, Romania, Jordan, Poland, or Afghanistan. Some individuals are destined for known prisons operated by host governments, but others are held in "black sites" which are operated by the U.S. Government in foreign territories.6 The primary intent of extraordinary rendition is to 16 https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol4/iss3/3 DOI: <p>http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.4.3.2</p> Murray: Extraordinary Rendition and U.S. Counterterrorism Policy Extraordinary Rendition and U.S. Counterterrorism Policy pull terrorists off the streets. In this way it differs from simple covert ren- dition because the individuals are usually not destined for a courtroom of any kind, but rather they are to be detained and interrogated indefinitely, often without official charges filed against them.7 What Makes It So Extraordinary? Extraordinary rendition is not extraordinary because it is a new or novel concept. It is extraordinary because, as a counterterrorism tool, it circum- vents official legal structures and processes to detain known or suspected terrorists. The extraordinary rendition program in its current incarnation began in 1995 during the Clinton Administration and was designed by CIA officials heading the Usama bin Ladin Issue Station (originally code- named Alec Station).8 Its primary goals were to take individuals off the streets that were known to be planning or have planned terrorist opera- tions and to seize evidence in their possession at the time of capture.9 At this time, Presidential approval was required for an extraordinary ren- dition to occur; and, according to officials involved, interrogation of ren- dered individuals by U.S. Government personnel was not part of the program.10 Also, captives were only to be transferred to countries where they were wanted for a criminal offense. After 9/11, the policy was amended by lifting the above restrictions and allowed for a U.S. role dur- ing interrogations.11 Both the Clinton and George W. Bush Administra- tions sought assurances that foreign governments would not torture detained individuals, but the veracity of these claims, and the expectation that host governments would actually comply, is questionable.12 Over time, the program shifted from using an interagency approach to a largely CIA-managed program based on a classified Presidential Directive issued by President Bush.13 What Has Made It Controversial? In theory, extraordinary rendition is not overly controversial, but U.S. management and execution of the policy has created strong opposition from human rights groups. For example, Ramzi Yousef was a target of U.S. rendition who was openly tried and convicted in a U.S. court of law for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Yousef's rendition and conviction faced little opposition because the moral imperative of a free society to protect its people from terrorism is widely accepted. Extraordinary renditions—where individuals simply disappear on "ghost planes," are never charged with crimes, and are detained indefinitely—are what troubles most observers.14 17 Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011 Journal of Strategic Security, Vol. 4, No. 3 Journal of Strategic Security During the early years of the program, very few people even knew extraor- dinary renditions were taking place. As of 1998, thirteen suspected inter- national terrorists had been detained and delivered to the United States to stand trial.15 However, the program was expanded significantly after 9/11 because the political landscape had changed and the Bush administration was obliged to take increasingly aggressive actions to combat terrorism.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case 2:15-Cv-00286-JLQ Document 182-5 Filed 05/22/17
    Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 182-5 Filed 05/22/17 Exhibit E Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 182-5 Filed 05/22/17 1 2 3 4 Interrogating the Enemy 5 6 7 The Story of the CIA's Interrogation of Top al-Qa'ida Terrorists 8 9 10 (Working Title) 11 By James E. Mitchell, Ph.D., 12 Architect of the CIA Interrogation Program 13 14 With Bill Harlow 15 1 MJ00022577 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 182-5 Filed 05/22/17 1 long time ago not to be offended by this sort of posturing. It frequently went away when 2 you got on the ground and started working. 3 4 The operational psychologist told me that our task on the way over was to rough out a 5 design for the cell where Zubaydah was to be held. We were told that, because of his 6 importance as a potential source of intelligence and the severity of his injury, the cell 7 needed to be lighted 24 hours a day. Closed circuit TV cameras were also required. We 8 wanted Zubaydah focused on the interrogators and for the cell to not be a source of dis- 9 tracting stimulation, so we recommended they paint it white. Speakers were needed so 10 music could be played, mostly as sound masking for security reasons because the 11 guards were located just outside the door, but also, if ordered, as an irritant to wear on 12 him if he chose not to cooperate.
    [Show full text]
  • To the Honorable Members of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States
    TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES ______________________________________________________________ PETITION ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF KHALED EL-MASRI BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WITH A REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND HEARING ON THE MERITS By the undersigned, appearing as counsel for petitioner under the provisions of Article 23 of the Commission’s Regulations __________________________ Steven Macpherson Watt Jamil Dakwar Jennifer Turner Melissa Goodman Ben Wizner Human Rights & ٭ National Security Programs American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY, 10004 Ph: (212) 519-7870 ,Counsel gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Kristen Bailey, LL.M. student ٭ New York University Law School, in compiling this petition. Submitted: April 9, 2008 INTRODUCTION This petition is brought against the United States of America for violating the rights of Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen and victim of the U.S. “extraordinary rendition” program. In December 2003, while on vacation in Macedonia, Mr. El-Masri was apprehended and detained by agents of the Macedonian intelligence services. While in their custody, Mr. El-Masri was harshly interrogated. His repeated requests to meet with a lawyer, family members, and a consular representative were denied. After twenty-three days of such treatment, Mr. El-Masri was handed over to the exclusive “authority and control” of agents of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. These agents beat, stripped, and drugged Mr. El-Masri before loading him onto a plane and flying him to a secret CIA- run prison in Afghanistan. There, Mr. El-Masri was detained incommunicado for more than four months.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Renewal of Control Orders Legislation 2010
    House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights Counter–Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Sixteenth Report): Annual Renewal of Control Orders Legislation 2010 Ninth Report of Session 2009–10 Report, together with formal minutes, and oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 23 February 2010 Ordered by The House of Lords to be printed 23 February 2010 HL Paper 64 HC 395 Published on Friday 26 February 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Joint Committee on Human Rights The Joint Committee on Human Rights is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); proposals for remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 73 (Lords)/151 (Commons) (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)). The Joint Committee has a maximum of six Members appointed by each House, of whom the quorum for any formal proceedings is three from each House. Current membership HOUSE OF LORDS HOUSE OF COMMONS Lord Bowness Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) (Chairman) Lord Dubs Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Baroness Falkner of Margravine Abingdon) Lord Morris of Handsworth OJ Ms Fiona MacTaggart (Labour, Slough) The Earl of Onslow Mr Virendra Sharma MP (Labour, Ealing, Southall) Baroness Prashar Mr Richard Shepherd MP (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills) Mr Edward Timpson MP (Conservative, Crewe & Nantwich) Powers The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, to meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved), to adjourn from place to place, to appoint specialist advisers, and to make Reports to both Houses.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Terrorist Organizations
    Order Code RL32223 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Foreign Terrorist Organizations February 6, 2004 Audrey Kurth Cronin Specialist in Terrorism Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Huda Aden, Adam Frost, and Benjamin Jones Research Associates Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Foreign Terrorist Organizations Summary This report analyzes the status of many of the major foreign terrorist organizations that are a threat to the United States, placing special emphasis on issues of potential concern to Congress. The terrorist organizations included are those designated and listed by the Secretary of State as “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” (For analysis of the operation and effectiveness of this list overall, see also The ‘FTO List’ and Congress: Sanctioning Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, CRS Report RL32120.) The designated terrorist groups described in this report are: Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade Armed Islamic Group (GIA) ‘Asbat al-Ansar Aum Supreme Truth (Aum) Aum Shinrikyo, Aleph Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) Communist Party of Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA) Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG) HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) Hizballah (Party of God) Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) Jemaah Islamiya (JI) Al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad) Kahane Chai (Kach) Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK, KADEK) Lashkar-e-Tayyiba
    [Show full text]
  • The Cambridge Handbook of Immunities and International Law Edited by Tom Ruys , Nicolas Angelet , Luca Ferro Frontmatter More Information I
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-41788-4 — The Cambridge Handbook of Immunities and International Law Edited by Tom Ruys , Nicolas Angelet , Luca Ferro Frontmatter More Information i The Cambridge Handbook of Immunities and International Law Few topics of international law speak to the imagination as much as international immunities. Questions pertaining to immunity from jurisdiction or execution under international law surface on a frequent basis before national courts, including at the highest levels of the judicial branch and before international courts or tribunals. Nevertheless, international immunity law is and remains a challenging i eld for practitioners and scholars alike. Challenges stem in part from the uncertainty pertaining to the customary content of some immunity regimes said to be in a ‘state of l ux’, the divergent – and at times directly conl icting – approaches to immunity in different national and international jurisdictions, or the increasing intolerance towards impunity that has accompanied the advance of international criminal law and human rights law. Composed of 34 expertly written contributions, the present volume uniquely provides a comprehensive tour d’horizon of international immunity law, traversing a wealth of national and international practice. tom ruys is a professor of international law at Ghent University where he heads the Ghent Rolin- Jaequemyns International Law Institute. He holds a doctoral degree from the University of Leuven and is a member of the Brussels Bar. Tom is co- editor- in- chief of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law and the Military Law and Law of War Review . He has been awarded the Francis Lieber Prize (2015 article prize and 2011 book prize) as well as the Francis Deák Prize (2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict, Security and the Reshaping of Society: the Civilization of War Dal Lago, Alessandro (Ed.); Palidda, Salvatore (Ed.)
    www.ssoar.info Conflict, security and the reshaping of society: the civilization of war Dal Lago, Alessandro (Ed.); Palidda, Salvatore (Ed.) Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Sammelwerk / collection Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: OAPEN (Open Access Publishing in European Networks) Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Dal Lago, A., & Palidda, S. (Eds.). (2010). Conflict, security and the reshaping of society: the civilization of war (Routledge Studies in Liberty and Security). London: Taylor & Francis. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168- ssoar-273834 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-NC-ND Lizenz This document is made available under a CC BY-NC-ND Licence (Namensnennung-Nicht-kommerziell-Keine Bearbeitung) zur (Attribution-Non Comercial-NoDerivatives). For more Information Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.de Conflict, Security and the Reshaping of Society This book is an examination of the effect of contemporary wars (such as the ‘War on Terror’) on civil life at a global level. Contemporary literature on war is mainly devoted to recent changes in the theory and practice of warfare, particularly those in which terrorists or insurgents are involved (for example, the ‘revolution in military affairs’, ‘small wars’, and so on). On the other hand, today’s research on security is focused, among other themes, on the effects of the war on terrorism, and on civil liberties and social control. This volume connects these two fields of research, showing how ‘war’ and ‘security’ tend to exchange targets and forms of action as well as personnel (for instance, the spreading use of private contractors in wars and of military experts in the ‘struggle for security’) in modern society.
    [Show full text]
  • True and False Confessions: the Efficacy of Torture and Brutal
    Chapter 7 True and False Confessions The Efficacy of Torture and Brutal Interrogations Central to the debate on the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques is the question of whether those techniques are effective in gaining intelligence. If the techniques are the only way to get actionable intelligence that prevents terrorist attacks, their use presents a moral dilemma for some. On the other hand, if brutality does not produce useful intelligence — that is, it is not better at getting information than other methods — the debate is moot. This chapter focuses on the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation technique program. There are far fewer people who defend brutal interrogations by the military. Most of the military’s mistreatment of captives was not authorized in detail at high levels, and some was entirely unauthorized. Many military captives were either foot soldiers or were entirely innocent, and had no valuable intelligence to reveal. Many of the perpetrators of abuse in the military were young interrogators with limited training and experience, or were not interrogators at all. The officials who authorized the CIA’s interrogation program have consistently maintained that it produced useful intelligence, led to the capture of terrorist suspects, disrupted terrorist attacks, and saved American lives. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a 2009 speech, stated that the enhanced interrogation of captives “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.” President George W. Bush similarly stated in his memoirs that “[t]he CIA interrogation program saved lives,” and “helped break up plots to attack military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.” John Brennan, President Obama’s recent nominee for CIA director, said, of the CIA’s program in a televised interview in 2007, “[t]here [has] been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Extraordinary Rendition« Flights, Torture and Accountability – a European Approach Edited By: European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights E.V
    WITH A PREFACE BY MANFRED NOWAK (UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON TORTURE) 1 SECOND EDITION 2 3 CIA- »EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION« FLIGHTS, TORTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY – A EUROPEAN APPROACH EDITED BY: EUROPEAN CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS E.V. (ECCHR) SECOND EDITION 4 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 09 PREFACE by Manfred Nowak, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture © by European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights e.V. (ECCHR) 13 JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN EUROPE – DISCUSSING Second Edition, Originally published in March 2008 STRATEGIES by Wolfgang Kaleck, ECCHR This booklet is available through the ECCHR at a service charge of 6 EUR + shipping. Please contact [email protected] for more information. 27 THE U.S. PROGRAM OF EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AND SECRET DETENTION: PAST AND FUTURE Printed in Germany, January 2009 by Margaret Satterthwaite, New York University All rights reserved. 59 PENDING INVESTIGATION AND COURT CASES ISBN 978-3-00-026794-9 by Denise Bentele, Kamil Majchrzak and Georgios Sotiriadis, ECCHR European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) I. The Freedom of Information Cases (USA/Europe) Greifswalder Strasse 4, D-10405 Berlin 59 FOIA Cases in the U.S. Phone: + 49 - (0) 30 - 40 04 85 90 / 40 04 85 91 62 Freedom of Information Cases in Eastern Europe Fax: + 49 - (0) 30 - 40 04 85 92 Mail: [email protected], Web: www.ECCHR.eu II. The Criminal Cases Council: Michael Ratner, Lotte Leicht, Christian Bommarius, Dieter Hummel 68 The Case of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed Al Zery (Sweden) Secretary General: Wolfgang
    [Show full text]
  • Extraordinary Rendition: a One-Way Ticket to the U.S
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 41 Issue 1 Fall 1991 Article 9 1991 Extraordinary Rendition: A One-Way Ticket to the U.S.... Or Is It? Jacqueline A. Weisman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Jacqueline A. Weisman, Extraordinary Rendition: A One-Way Ticket to the U.S.... Or Is It?, 41 Cath. U. L. Rev. 149 (1992). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol41/iss1/9 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION: A ONE-WAY TICKET TO THE U.S.... OR IS IT? A treaty is an agreement or contract between two or more sovereigns or nations,1 signed and ratified by the states' lawmaking authorities.2 In the United States, the President has the power "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."3 The United States Constitution declares that a treaty is the law of the land,4 and a treaty is regarded by the courts as equivalent to a statute. 5 If a treaty and a statute are inconsistent, the last in time will pre- vail.6 Treaties are also a source of international law and bind the signatory parties to carry out their obligations.7 Extradition is a formal process through which a person is surrendered by one state to another by virtue of a treaty.' The person surrendered is usually a fugitive from justice wanted for prosecution or sentencing in the requesting country for a crime committed there.
    [Show full text]
  • The Abu Omar Case in Italy: 'Extraordinary Renditions'
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Kent Academic Repository The Abu Omar Case in Italy: ‘Extraordinary Renditions’ and State Obligations to Criminalize and Prosecute Torture under the UN Torture Convention Francesco Messineo * [This is the pre-print version of a paper accepted for publication in the Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 7 (2009). Published by Oxford University Press.] 1. Introduction On 12 February 2003, at around 12.30 p.m., Mr Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr (Abu Omar) was walking from his house in Milan to the local Mosque. He was stopped by a plain-clothes carabiniere (Italian military police officer) who asked for his documents. While he was searching for his refugee passport, 1 he was immobilised and put into a white van by more plain-clothes officers, at least some of whom were US agents. He was brought to a US airbase in Aviano in North-East Italy and from there, flown via the US airbase in Ramstein (Germany) to Egypt. He was held for approximately seven months at the Egyptian military intelligence headquarters in Cairo, and later transferred to Torah prison. 2 His whereabouts were unknown for a long time, and he was allegedly repeatedly tortured. 3 He was released in April 2004, re-arrested in May 2004 and eventually subjected to a form of house arrest in Alexandria in February 2007. 4 In June 2007, a criminal trial started in Milan against US and Italian agents accused of having been involved in Abu * Dott. giur. (Catania), LL.M. (Cantab); PhD candidate, University of Cambridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Egypt's Complicity in Torture and Extraordinary Renditions Nirmala Pillay* 1. Introduction Robert Baer, a Cia Agent, Exempl
    CHAPTER TWELVE Egypt’s COMPLICITY IN TORTURE AND EXTRAORDINARY RENDITIONS Nirmala Pillay* 1. Introduction Robert Baer, a CIA agent, exemplified the importance of the Mubarak gov- ernment for US intelligence when he observed that “If you want serious interrogation you send a prisoner to Jordan, if you want them to be tor- tured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear . never to see them again . you send them to Egypt.”1 Hosni Mubarak enjoyed close ties with Western countries enabling the US, Canada, Britain, and Sweden to deport terrorist suspects to a regime that specialised in inter- rogation methods prohibited by international law. This chapter examines the implications of the fall of the Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak for the prohibition against torture, a jus cogens norm of international law. Torture theorist Darius Rejali argued in a major study, published in 1997, that torture was never really eliminated from democratic countries, so a change of regime in Egypt in favour of a demo- cratic form of governance is no guarantee that torture, an entrenched part of the Egyptian security regime, will necessarily abate. Rejali’s thesis is probed in the light of the revelations of extraordinary renditions of terror- ist suspects to Egypt and the implications of the Egyptian revolution for US and Egyptian collaboration in the “war on terror.” Extraordinary rendition is the practice of transferring terrorist sus- pects, “with the involvement of the US or its agents, to a foreign State in circumstances that make it more likely than not that the individual will be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.”2 This * School of Law, Liverpool John Moores University, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Extraordinary Rendition in U.S. Counterterrorism Policy: the Impact on Transatlantic Relations
    EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION IN U.S. COUNTERTERRORISM POLICY: THE IMPACT ON TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION APRIL 17, 2007 Serial No. 110–28 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 34–712PDF WASHINGTON : 2007 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS TOM LANTOS, California, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa ELTON GALLEGLY, California DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD SHERMAN, California DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ROBERT WEXLER, Florida EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RON PAUL, Texas DIANE E. WATSON, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ADAM SMITH, Washington JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California JOE WILSON, South Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas RUBE´ N HINOJOSA, Texas J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon CONNIE MACK, Florida BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska LINDA T.
    [Show full text]