Jettisoning the rule of law. “Extraordinary rendition” violates U.S. law and international treaties to which the U.S. is a party, including the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention Against Torture, article 3 states: “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. 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.”
More reasons to abandon this practice. In addition to these violations under the rule of law, “extraordinary rendition” undermines the moral integrity of the United States and places U.S. military personnel and civilians abroad in grave danger of the same kind of treatment. Although apologists for the practice argue that receiving intelligence information and disrupting terrorist planning is necessary for national security, most experts agree that torture produces little if any useful intelligence information. In addition, information gleaned through illegal imprisonment and torture is inadmissible in subsequent criminal prosecution for terrorism-related charges, making prosecution of those suspects who actually would commit terrorist acts difficult or impossible.
Federal legislation outlawing this practice. On 2/17/05, Rep. Ed Markey (MA - 7th Dist.) introduced H.R. 952, the “Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act.” This bill provides for:
- • Annual reporting by the Secretary of State to Congress listing countries where there are substantial grounds to believe that torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is commonly used during detention or interrogation;
• Implementation of agency regulations, required by the statute to be ordered and enforced by the heads of all intelligence agencies, prohibiting the transfer of individuals to countries on the list provided by the Secretary of State, except under lawful extradition procedures;
• In immigration removal proceedings, establishment of standards by which a country on the State Department list must assure U.S. officials that it will not torture or engage in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment before individuals may be deported to that country.
Documented cases of extraordinary rendition by U.S. personnel. Then-CIA Director George Tenet testified to the 9/11 Commission in October 2002 that over 70 people had been subjected to renditions prior to Sept. 11, 2001. Recent estimates, published in The New York Times, estimated that number may have doubled since Sept. 11, 2001, under the “extraordinary rendition” procedure. Human rights advocacy groups have documented cases, including that of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen detained at JFK airport while in transit to Canada, and taken to Jordan and later Syria, where he was tortured and held in a dark, 3-x-6-foot cell for nearly a year. He was released after it was decided that he was not a terrorist threat. In another example, an Australian citizen, Mamdouh Habib, was transferred from Pakistan to Egypt, where he was tortured, and then transported to Afghanistan and later to the Guantanamo Bay facility prior to his eventual release to Australia months later. Yet another was German citizen Khaled el-Masri, kidnapped while on vacation in Macedonia and tortured in Afghanistan prior to his release on a deserted roadside outside Macedonia five months later.
For further information about the “Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act” and other torture-related articles, see the FCNL web site..