We must do whatever it takes to vacuam up the spawn of this satanic cult leader.
| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Five Myths About Rendition (not the movie) | |
| 2007-10-21 | |
| By Daniel Benjamin With hearings in Congress, legal cases bouncing up to the Supreme Court and complaints from Canada and our European allies, the issue of rendition is everywhere. There's even a new, eponymously titled movie in a theater near you, starring Reese Witherspoon as a bereft wife whose innocent husband gets kidnapped and Meryl Streep as the frosty CIA chief who ordered the snatch. Like most covert actions and much of the war on al-Qaeda, the practice is shrouded in mystery -- and, increasingly, the suspicion that it's synonymous with torture and lawlessness. In fact, the term "rendition" in the counterterrorism context means nothing more than moving someone from one country to another, outside the formal process of extradition. For the CIA, rendition has become a key tool for getting terrorists from places where they're causing trouble to places where they can't. The problem is where these people are taken and what happens to them when they get there. As a former director for counterterrorism policy on the National Security Council staff, I've been involved with the issue of rendition for nearly a decade -- and some of the myths surrounding it need to be cleared up. 1. Rendition is something the Bush administration cooked up. Nope. George W. Bush was still struggling to coax oil out of the ground when the United States "rendered to justice" its first suspect from abroad. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan authorized an operation that lured Lebanese hijacker Fawaz Younis to a boat off the coast of Cyprus, where FBI agents arrested him. (Younis had participated in the 1985 hijacking of a Jordanian plane and was implicated in the hijacking of TWA Flight 847, which left a U.S. Navy diver dead.) President George H.W. Bush approved the kidnapping in 1990 of Mexican physician Humberto Alvarez Machain, who was believed to be involved in the torture and killing of a Drug Enforcement Administration official. Nothing says that renditions can involve only suspected terrorists; Israel's abduction of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Argentina in 1960 could be called a rendition, though the term was not yet in use. Beginning in 1995, the Clinton administration turned up the speed with a full-fledged program to use rendition to disrupt terrorist plotting abroad. According to former director of central intelligence George J. Tenet, about 70 renditions were carried out before Sept. 11, 2001, most of them during the Clinton years. 2. People who are "rendered" inevitably end up in a foreign slammer -- or worse. Actually, that's not a foregone conclusion. Alvarez was brought to the United States. So was Mir Aimal Kansi, who killed two CIA employees in their cars outside the agency's Langley headquarters in 1993, and Ramzi Yousef, the architect of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Both were apprehended in Pakistan, whose leaders decided that the nation would rather not have those two -- folk heroes to some -- sitting in jail, awaiting extradition. Pakistan's leaders feared that cooperating with the United States would be dangerously unpopular, so they wanted the suspects out of the country quickly. For many pro-U.S. Muslim leaders, that concern has only deepened as anti-Americanism has soared. By my count, most renditions since 1995 have involved moving individuals from one foreign country to another -- not grabbing someone in Washington and carting them off to North Africa, as happens to Witherspoon's onscreen husband. Such operations typically occur in secret because, again, Muslim leaders (especially in the Arab world) want to shield their cooperation with Washington from their anti-American publics. The CIA has acted as a go-between, arranging the transfers and providing transportation. Usually those being rendered are not brought to the United States because, while the U.S. government may have an abundance of intelligence showing their malfeasance, it doesn't have enough courtroom evidence. There's a big difference between the two. One other safeguard: During the Clinton years, the United States required the country that received a rendered person to have some kind of legal process against the suspect -- an arrest warrant or indictment, for example. It's not clear whether that is still the case. Perhaps Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general nominee, can check. 3. Step one of a rendition involves kidnapping the suspect. The individual may feel as though he's being kidnapped, but that's not usually what's going on. Most of the time, the person is detained by the authorities of the country he is in. They will then hand him off to the CIA, which will fly him to his destination. In rare cases when the country of residence is a hostile one, an "extraordinary rendition" can be carried out: a covert effort to abduct the suspect and spirit him out of the country. The CIA put considerable time into efforts to capture Osama bin Laden this way from Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in the late 1990s. Had it worked, it would have been an extraordinary rendition -- and Americans would have cheered. 4. Rendition is just a euphemism for outsourcing torture. Well, not historically. The guidelines for Clinton-era renditions required that subjects could be sent only to countries where they were not likely to be tortured -- countries that gave assurances to that effect and whose compliance was monitored by the State Department and the intelligence community. It's impossible to be certain that those standards were upheld every time, but serious efforts were made to see that they were. At a minimum, countries with indisputably lousy human rights records (say, Syria) were off-limits. Another key difference: Renditions before Bush were carried out to disrupt terrorist activity, not to gather intelligence or to interrogate individuals. Now, though, the Bush team seems to have dramatically eroded such safeguards.
5. Pretty much anyone -- including U.S. citizens and green card holders -- can be rendered these days. Not so, although the movie "Rendition" -- in which Witherspoon's Egyptian-born husband gets the black-hood treatment and is yanked from a U.S. airport and taken to a North African chamber of horrors -- is bound to spread this myth. A "U.S. person" (citizen or legal resident) has constitutional protections against being removed from the country through rendition, and there have been no incidents to suggest the contrary. In fairness, though, the ghastly case of Maher Arar -- a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who convincingly says he was detained at New York's JFK Airport, handed off to Syria and tortured -- is way too close for comfort. | |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #5 Re the Arar case, according to Debbie Schlussel, US intelligence relied on false information given by Canadian authorities. The deceit was admitted and the Canadian government paid $10 million tax free compensation to Arar. While the film, "Rendition," creates a scenario where the arrested Arab had no real connections to terrorists, it is a fact that an Arar cousin had such connections. The Canadians falsified data of said connection, imposing huge costs on American taxpayers. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-10-21 16:19 |
| #4 We must do whatever it takes to vacuam up the spawn of this satanic cult leader. We'll have to do waht it took to wipe out the last one with a moustache like that. But not enough others have recognized it yet. Be patient and pass it on. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-10-21 14:15 |
| #3 The only people who have NEVER been held accountable are the Syrians, i.e. Arar's fellow countrymen who actually did the deed. Yup. One tactical decision in the WoT made by the Bush administration that was a substantial mistake was to work with the Syrians in renditions. Dumb, dumb, the problems far outweighed the benefits. The Syrians can't be trusted, they have a different agenda, and frankly,they're our enemies. I don't have a problem with renditions, but Mr. Benjamin makes some valid points. We have to be careful who we work with, how we do it, and most importantly, what happens to the mooks we grab. If we aren't going to try them in an American court then they have to end up at Ice Station Zebra til they're old and gray. At least. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-10-21 14:05 |
| #2 In fairness, though, the ghastly case of Maher Arar -- a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who convincingly says he was detained at New York's JFK Airport, handed off to Syria and tortured -- is way too close for comfort. In fairness, Syrian-born "Canadian" Maher Arar will never have to work again a day in his life, spends his time giving Gorian lectures as a hobby and undermines the will of civilization to defend itself from his barbarian relatives. Various agencies of the American and Canadian governments have been blamed - and in some cases assumed liability for - the torture Arar allegedly suffered. The only people who have NEVER been held accountable are the Syrians, i.e. Arar's fellow countrymen who actually did the deed. He should have been shot as a traitor. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-10-21 09:19 |
| #1 We must do whatever it takes to vacuam up the spawn of this satanic cult leader. |
| Posted by: Galactic Coordinator Shins1195 2007-10-21 07:35 |