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.
If you wonder, "gee, why is that?", the answer is 9/11.
The administration has apparently sent someone to Syria, and Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen, was evidently grabbed in Macedonia and interrogated in Afghanistan in a manner that sure sounds like torture. In light of this and other revelations, the criticism that the administration has "defined down" torture looks pretty persuasive. It's probably a good bet that Congress or the next administration will reform the program, or abolish it outright.
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.
This article starring:
Fawaz Younis
Humberto Alvarez Machain
Khaled el-Masri
Maher Arar
Mir Aimal Kansi
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/21/2007 06:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We must do whatever it takes to vacuam up the spawn of this satanic cult leader.
#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.
#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 ||
10/21/2007 14:05 Comments ||
Top||
#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.
#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.
#1
Excellent! Glad to see someone finally made the connection.
Then today, I read Jonah Goldbergs essay on the issue. He brought it all back, as fresh as the day I put the final period to my conclusions:
In death-penalty cases, reasonable doubt goes to the accused because unless were certain, we must not risk an innocents life. This logic goes out the window when it comes to abortion, unless you are 100-percent sure that babies only become human beings after the umbilical cord is cut. I dont see how you can be that sure, which is why Im pro-life - not because Im certain, but because Im not. [emphasis mine - D ]
#2
RE: The siege of Vienna in 1683
I strumbled onto this blog a few weeks ago and love it. I also began to think what a GREAT movie that would make. That is if there is a modern market about a "Christian Coalition" stopping the violent expansion of Islam.
CNN manages to outrage us again. Remember the fear and anxiety that gripped the Capital region? Remember the dead innocents murdered by these two? It was jihad, it became clear at the trials that it was all about jihad. Now see what CNN has done.
I remember it well. And I note that the MSM has done its best to bury this anniversary. And then they give us this load of crapulence. Guaranteed if this had been the lone angry white man we were deluded into looking for, this story would be 24/7.
By the tenth anniversary they'll be a coupla angry white males, maybe from Alabama, like they were supposed to be in the first place.
Media Bias: Why would two Muslim men travel 3,000 miles to kill random people in the nation's capital a year after 9/11? CNN investigated and found Islamic terror had nothing to do with it.
In its special marking the fifth anniversary of the sniper attacks, the network downplays the religious angle to the story in a reprise of its original shameless coverage. When news of the snipers' identity first broke, CNN anchors were so determined to avoid making the obvious connection to radical Islam that they called the lead sniper, a Muslim convert, by his old name. Police were looking for John Allen Muhammad, but CNN insisted on referring to him as John Allen Williams.
Jailhouse sketches, including this one containing references to 'jihad,' 'holy war' and 'infidels' were entered into evidence in the 2003 trial of convicted D.C. sniper Lee Boyd Malvo. His attorneys said they were evidence of indoctrination by Malvo's accomplice, John Allen Muhammad. But the only drawing shown in a new one-hour special on CNN shows Malvo shedding tears.
Now the network has completely scrubbed Islam from the picture, offering child abuse (boo-hoo) and spousal revenge as alternative motives for the snipers' bloody rampage.
Nowhere in its one-hour special promoted as "The Minds of the D.C. Snipers" is Islamist brainwashing even hinted as a motivating factor behind their serial assassinations. Yet the evidence is overwhelming that they were on a jihad.
In their own words, Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo traveled across the country to terrorize Washingtonians on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
To be absolutely fair, the DC killings started in the first week of October. JAM and Lee Malvo did kill a few people along the way from the West Coast to Washington, so maybe there was a 9/11 connection, but I'm not entirely sold on that as a motivation.
first by picking off random people and then by blowing up school buses using plastic explosives loaded with ball bearings. Their plan was to ramp up their shootings to 25 a day before moving on to explosives, killing scores of children. Thankfully, they were caught before they could put phase two into effect.
Muhammad and Malvo, now in prison in Virginia, still managed to kill 10 and wound three including an elementary school kid shot in the back while paralyzing the nation's capital for three full weeks. The jailhouse drawings of the younger sniper, Malvo, tell it all:
One sketch of Osama bin Laden exalts him as a "Servant of Allah."
A self-portrait of him and Muhammad is captioned: "We will kill them all. Jihad . . . Allah Akbar!"
A sketch of the burning Twin Towers has as its caption: "America did this. You were warned."
A poem scribbled alongside an American flag and star of David drawn in cross hairs reads: "Our minarets are our bayonets, Our mosques are our baracks, Our believers are our soldiers."
The Quran (Surah 2:190) is quoted as follows: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you and slay them wherever ye catch them." Also: "Islam the only true guidance."
The White House is drawn in cross hairs, surrounded by missiles, with the warning: "Sep. 11 we will ensure will look like a picnic to you," and "you will bleed to death little by little."
Another warning reads: "Islam. We will Resist. We will conquer. We will win."
CNN maintains that Malvo, an alleged victim of negligent parents, now has remorse for his victims even though he wrote in one notebook: "They all died and they all deserved it. We will not stop. This war will not end until you are all destroyed utterly."
CNN also omitted the fact that while Muhammad and Malvo were in county jail awaiting trial, their lawyers insisted they be fed Islamic "halal" meals, such as veggie burgers, instead of ham sandwiches. They also got copies of the Quran.
According to Knight Ridder and others reporting at the time, the director of a shelter where the two men stayed for a spell in Washington state tipped off the FBI that Muhammad "might be a terrorist." That incident mysteriously disappeared from an interview that CNN host Soledad O'Brien conducted with the same source for the special.
The revisionism and sanitization of Islam continued with O'Brien's interview with Muhammad's ex-wife, who insisted that jihad and hatred of America had nothing to do with her husband's cold-blooded killings. Her head covered with a hijab, Mildred Muhammad claimed that she and she alone was the target of his attacks, and that the dozen-plus victims were an attempt to cover up the real target. CNN bought her story, even packaging it as an exclusive.
But a simple check of local news stories at the time would have revealed that neighbors reported seeing Muhammad visit with his former wife and children at their Maryland town house before and during the shootings. One neighbor said he even jogged with him. Police even staked out her house in the hope he would visit again.
By leaving out all these facts never even mentioning that the subjects of its investigation had converted to Islam CNN committed professional malpractice. Its "special investigation" is nothing more than a politically correct whitewashing of the truth aimed at pleasing Muslim groups like CAIR, which has argued that "there is no indication that this case is related to Islam or Muslims."
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/21/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I wonder if new journalists take courses in the "whitewash"?
#2
No surprises here. Typical fare for Turner's Communist News Network, only to be surpassed by the printed word found in the daily issue of the Atlanta Constipation. Sad to say, but President Robert Mugabe would feel right at home.
#3
In 1998 I had the signal misfortune to work with an Afghani rectal cavity of stupendous proportions. Only later did I find out that he had the privilege to have been back East during the sniper atrocity.
He had gone there to meet his family and the parents of his arranged bride from the homeland. The group was so large that no regular vehicle could acommodate all of them. What was the solution? What was the only vehicle that could convey this massive entourage?
Wait for it!!!
A WHITE VAN!
A white van driven by a young Arabic-looking male and filled chock-full with non-English speaking Muslim occupants. This Islamic turd got pulled over and had his clock cleaned every 25 yards to and from the airport. Every single cop on patrol in the Baltimore/D.C. area had an APB for a white van and damned if a one of them was going to let a matching vehicle elude their notice. It took hours for this sack of shit and his clan to drive from the airport back to their hotel.
It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
As to Malvo and Muhammad, why those two shitheads weren't shanked within hoursminutes seconds of their incarceration is well beyond me. Any sanitizing of these scumbags is a betrayal of the American people. This was flat-out jihad and saying or pretending otherwise is nothing but treason.
Najam Sethi's E d i t o r i a l
Benazir Bhuttos second homecoming in 2007 is significantly different from her first in 1986. Twenty one years ago, she was a defiant, anti-establishment heroine who radiated revolt and resistance. Today she is a tired and tainted politician seeking rapprochement with the establishment. The crowds who surged to welcome her then were spontaneous, hopeful and idealistic. Those of today have been whipped up by savvy party loyalists. Then she came to topple an entrenched and ruthless military dictator. Today she has pledged to prop up a wannabe democrat. Given the popular urge for democracy, those were revolutionary times for politics. But given the extremist backlash, this could be a counter-revolutionary turning point for Pakistan. Hence the paradox: there was no threat to her life then whereas she is a prime target today. Equally significantly, if she was young and foolish for taking on the establishment and being chucked out of office twice at that time, is she wise and worldly now, will she succeed in capturing power for the third time and leading Pakistan to a moderate and democratic future?
Whatever the moralistic brigade may say, Ms Bhuttos sense of real-politik is sound. There is a serious crack in the establishment and she means to get a toehold. Drumming up a massive welcome by the flock is good politics. Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry showed how the media could be manipulated to transform thousands of black coats into hundreds of thousands of people for effect, just as the Aziz brothers conjured up the resistance of hundreds of extremists to signify the opposition of millions to the states attack on the Lal Masjid terrorists. Equally, Nawaz Sharifs inability to generate surging crowds when he tried to return to Pakistan last month hurt his cause and contributed to his recent oblivion in the media. Therefore the demonstration effect of Ms Bhuttos tumultuous welcome is likely to lead to a surge in her ratings and make her a major player in the general elections. By that yardstick alone, she has scored high on the comeback-trail.
Some people say that the PMLQ is not about to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of being sidelined in the affections of General Pervez Musharraf or the public. So the Sindh and Punjab Chief Ministers should be expected to muddy the waters. But there is another side to this obstacle which makes it a win-win situation for Ms Bhutto. Repression will only make her seem more heroic. It will rub off the pro-establishment label and make the media more sympathetic to her. Much the same goodwill will accrue to her if she is physically attacked by religious extremists and acquires the halo of a living martyr.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court could disown the NRO, thereby reinforcing the public sentiment against her alleged corruption. But in the current charged environment this too could be transformed into an opportunity to flog her innocence. With the government committed to withdrawing the charges, Ms Bhutto could welcome the axing of the Ordinance in deference to her respect for the Supreme Court and self-righteously claim that she is prepared to face the charges and seek acquittal. With the administration looking the other way and the prosecution pussyfooting in court, can you imagine the PPP mobs outside any court that tries to haul her up for a trial? In the event, every court hearing would become another public show of strength by Ms Bhutto and her supporters, a continuous media-trial in her favour. At this rate, Ms Bhutto would soon be tipped to win the general elections and, if necessary, to sweep out the wannabe-democrat general-president along the way as well.
But these are not the only reasons why President Musharraf and the ruling party didnt want her to return to Pakistan in the first place and why the establishment may still lean on her to return to Dubai as soon as possible. Their fear is that the SC may soon hold the government in contempt for packing off Nawaz Sharif to Jeddah while the Saudi Arabian government insists that if Ms Bhutto has been allowed to play the field then so should Mr Sharif. In the event, Mr Sharif would announce his return, his supporters would try to outdo Ms Bhuttos welcome and the game would slip out of General Musharrafs hands. Repression would make Mr Sharif look heroic; acquiescence would lead to a stampede from the ruling party into the ranks of the PMLN and denude it of its electoral prospects.
Of course, the curtain could come down on Ms Bhutto, Mr Sharif and the Supreme Court if General Musharraf were compelled to wrap up this noisy transition to democracy. Originally, it was thought that this option might be exercised if the SC refused to enable General Musharraf to become President Musharraf. But the more credible threat to General Musharraf now stems from the rising prospects of both Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif in the forthcoming elections. The only way General Musharraf can manage the situation is by keeping Mr Sharif out and the SC at bay. But that, as things stand right now, seems like a tall order. The thunderous arrival of Ms Bhutto on the scene has set the stage for more convulsions in Pakistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/21/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If you have the stomach for it, go to the bbc news site and read the "have your say" letters on Bhutto.
#2
MMA support - and that party is now crippled - has never been more than a paltry 10%, and is negligible in Sindh and the Punjab. A Musharaf-Bhutto unity government, especially if they looked the other way should the MQM once again start slaughtering Jamaat-i-Islami jihadis, can easily crush the jihadis.
When will a Western leader admit that the Pashtos and Waziris have untold billions in drug money? They no longer have to rely on financing from black sheep in the House of Saud.
Republicans do NOT want to go into a federal election with Democrats flashing photos of huge, brand new heroin factories operating with impunity in "occupied" Afghanistan. GOP members should want their leaders to eradicated Helmand County opium with Napalm. The Taliban won't be crushed until Central Asia is made into a Condi-Free-Zone.
#7
The 53-year-old said hed be happy to one day live in a properly independent Palestinian state, but not one that looks anything like the corruption-racked and violence-prone areas that are split between the warring Hamas and Fatah factions.
Too bad Mr. Gheit doesn't seem to understand that any Palestinian state will always be "corruption-racked and violence-prone".
#1
I don't see the issue other than people accepting the kidnapping of the language and the corruption of what 'liberal' circa mid 20th Century meant. For today's self labeled 'liberal' it is and will always be about POWER. It has nothing to do with principle. That's why terms 'shame' and 'hypocrisy' are alien to them. Can't apply if you have no principles beyond power.
#2
The POWER the liberal seeks is through Socialism. That is the foundation of their culture. Therefore, the Democratic Party can be renamed, the Socialist Party of America. The hiding behind children this week in the attempt to impose Socialist Health Care on the vast majority of America, shows they will use decadent methods. Why should morals get in the way of ABSOLUTE POWER? Therefore, all is fair in war against the present, system. Members of the Democratic Socialist Party of America in the name of multi-CULTURALISM are wanton in their own rights, homosexuality, illegal immigrant champions, anti-values Hollywood.
As the Dutch in the Netherlands are now going, along with the rest of Europe, God turns his back on such peoples, and allows them to slide into Socialism, a weakened class of people, ready for submission to the Lions of Islam. They have then realized that faced with life or death, POWER is not as important to them as they then put their lives ahead of all things and at all costs. Allowing themselves and even openly assisting the Islamite to carry a once great nation into the dark ages prodded along the way by terror when deemed necessary by Islam.
#6
The left are like old-style Tory imperialists, who believe rights are all very well for western Europe but not for Johnny Foreigner, and that the liberation of women is essentially for white-skinned women, not brown-skinned women, Cohen says.
A case in point is the treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somalia-born author of Infidel, who has received an astounding lack of support from liberals and the left. An article in Newsweek described her as a bomb-thrower, when it is Hirsi Ali who faces death threats from real bomb-throwers merely for speaking her mind and has had to rush back to the Netherlands because its government will no longer pay for her bodyguards while she is abroad.
KAPOWIE!
There are still those who champion liberty, but they no longer identify themselves as "liberals".
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
