Talk:Extraordinary rendition/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archives

1 2

Npov tag

Does the person who placed this tag (or anyone else for that matter) have any actual specific bits they want to change as i feel this tag has to go if no arguements are put forward to support it.Hypnosadist 11:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Removed this tag as no comments made to support it.Hypnosadist 16:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Example of Ahmed Agiza

This passage reads in part, "Agiza was charged with being an Islamic militant." I doubt you'll find the charge of "Being an Islamic militant" in the criminal law of any country, so the question remains: what, precisely, was he charged and convicted of? --Rrburke 02:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

From agiza own page it says "and in April 2004 Ahmed was sentenced 25 years in prison after being found guilty of having connections with the organizations Islamic Jihad and Al-Qaeda." Hope that helps, maybe needs adding to the article to make it more clear.Hypnosadist 16:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore quote, 1990s examples

The second item listed under "examples" in the "1990s" section is not properly sourced- the source link, 17, leads back to what seems to be the New yorker magazine main page. Considering the inflammatory nature of this section, especially the Al Gore quote, I think it needs to be removed until it is properly sourced. --Duckflesh 06:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Either I misread things initially, or someone has changed the source. --Duckflesh 07:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Several edits for clarity needed; also some proofing for punctuation

This sentence makes no sense: This number of a hundred persons does not overlap, but adds itself to the U.S. detained 100 ghost detainees.[5] I'd fix it but I don't know what it's trying to tell me.

Sugarbat 05:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's saying that they are two seperate groups of 100 people - the recorded ghost detainees are not the same people as the people recorded as being kidnapped by the CIA on European territory. It took me a while to puzzle it out, though, and I'm still not certain that that's actually what it is meant to say.--Kelmendi 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Grey's Ghost Plane's subtitle

Grey's book seems to have two different titles: "the true story" (US?) and "the inside story" (UK?). Are the two versions different or is it just a subtitle difference? See Chalmers Johnson's review in the London review of Book (also provides very interesting information about plane spotting): http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n03/john04_.html -- Typewritten 16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved Complaint on POV

Rather sad to see a serious topic hijacked by thinly-disguised opinion. A good treatment of this subject could have included a discussion of why Amnesty International and other sources quoted within this article have become controversial. Until all the facts are laid out, including a discussion of why there are agendas involved and to whom they belong, a good chunk of this article would be better off appearing in the opinion pages of a newspaper, not in an encyclopaedia. This is exactly the sort of writing that could reduce Wikipedia's credibility, a shame considering the high caliber of much Wikipedia's entries. I would concur that a POV check is definitely needed.

JB

JetsGO

Added this detail on JetsGO callsign- wasnt all that sure where to add it so move it around if its in the wrong place. 82.16.126.139 17:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Most interesting. Not least the part concerning the disregard for the embargo against Rwanda... Tazmaniacs

Redundant?

KaiserShatner removed the following text:

Some defenders of the practice argue that culturally-informed and native-language 
interrogations are more successful in gaining information from suspects <ref>
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18709-2005Mar8.html 'Rendition' Realities] by 
David Ignatius Washington Post, March 9, 2005; Page A21</ref>. Nevertheless, there 
have been many reports of the use of torture by these governments on suspects rendered to 
them.

as "redundant." I question whether that's the case, and would like some discussion on the subject.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See below- it wasn't removed. Kaisershatner 20:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see adding back part of the paragraph you're quoting, from the beginning through the ref, but the last sentence is unreferenced and thus can be seen as POV. If you're going to accuse these governments of torture, you best have some strong, credible citations to back it up. Akradecki 17:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. My personal inclination would be to add back the whole thing and put a {{fact}} tag on it, but I'd be comfortable leaving it out entirely, too. Anyone else? KaiserShatner? (love your handle, BTW)
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

When i go to the link it says the article is not there so until that can be found then none of it should be in. Some people use inline references so that last part may be in the article as well. Hypnosadist 18:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Link works fine for me.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if the link didn't work, it should only be removed and the reference maintained, since the fact that there is an Internet problem doesn't take out the other fact that the Washington Post has published such an article; and off-line ressources are totally acceptable per WP:RS. Concerning the question about a "fact" tag about Syria & other such countries torturing prisoners, well, if you want to put one, fine, but one only needs to google "torture" and "Syria" or "Egypt" to find hundreds of reliable references, including tons of Amnesty International and HRW reports, backing-up these claims. The "fact" tag would rather be necessary for someone claiming that such regimes did not torture... Tazmaniacs 19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

NB that I actually moved that reference into the INTRO; the "redundant" was probably a deletion of the seventh mention of the same erroneous rendition cases. Sorry, I was moving fast. The citation in question was NOT removed. It is ref 11 in the introduction. Kaisershatner 20:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with moving fast, Kaisershatner. You appeared out of nowhere, editing like a fiend, and I got concerned as some of the edits looked questionable. I think it was just that I was having trouble keeping up, but your edits look good so I'm going to stop worrying about it. Thanks for your hard work.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Link worked fine for me too: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18709-2005Mar8.html -- Typewritten 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pre 2001 renditions

From this Washington Post article [1]

"But CIA officials have testified in Congress about engaging in about 70 renditions before 2001. Security analysts said the number has increased substantially since then, as the U.S. government has become more aggressive in its global hunt for people considered a threat to national security."

This number is not in this article, should it be and does anyone know when this said to Congress.Hypnosadist 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The number is in the article. It's in the tenth paragraph.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

KaiserShatner Deletion

KaiserShatner replaced this text

In a lengthy investigative report published by The New Yorker in February 2005, 
journalist Jane Mayer cited Scott Horton, an expert on international law who helped 
prepare a report on renditions issued by  N.Y.U. Law School and  
the New York City Bar Association, as 
estimating that 150 people have been rendered since 2001.

with a {{fact}} tag. It seems to me that the removed text gave an adequate citation. KaiserShatner, I'm not trying to get in your face, but are you sure you're not moving a little precipitously?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me check! It was not my intention to delete that- I thought I had just moved the reference. Kaisershatner 19:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The text you are referring to- I moved it into the introduction. It's your mistake. Kaisershatner 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I apologize for missing that.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Torture section

Putting this here for now- it's mostly about torture, not so much about ex.rend, isn't it? Kaisershatner 19:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Proponents of extraordinary rendition, and the similarly controversial concept of unlawful combatant, argue that torturing terror suspects, however distasteful, is necessary to help prevent further terrorist attacks, which may only be a matter of hours or days away. Critics argue, however, that such practices are unethical, unconstitutional, and defy the Geneva Conventions. Even within the US government, opinions are divided; the State Department opposes ignoring the Geneva Conventions, and has warned the Bush administration that not only could US soldiers be denied protection of the conventions but that President Bush and other members of the administration could also be prosecuted for war crimes. ^{[citation needed]}

Aside from ethical issues, pragmatic reservations have also arisen about the practice. For one, it appears that while torturing a suspect frequently results in a confession, the confessions tend to be useless; many suspects will say nearly anything to end their suffering. Some investigators argue that better results are achieved by treating suspects with respect, allowing them due process, and arranging plea bargains with defense lawyers.

Disagree. Extraordinary renditions have a clear link to torture. Should be included. Please discuss before removal of text on controversial articles. Thanks. Tazmaniacs 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reposted into article. My apologies. Kaisershatner 20:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ER before the letter: Original research?

Although the section on pre-11 S extraordinary rendition is certainly interesting, I wholly disagree with putting references to it in the intro, and it should be stated clearly that the concept & word of "ER" was created post-11 S. That Wikipedians find realities that correspond to this concept before the juridical and mediatic concept of it existed, very well, but it is OR to conflate it, without any distance, with ER. The questionable passage in the intro is the following one:

The first well-known rendition case involved the Achille Lauro hijackers in 1985: while in international air space they were forced by United States Navy fighter planes to land at a European NATO base, in an attempt to place them within judicial reach of United States Government representatives for transport to and trial in the United States. The practice later expanded to include the deportation or expulsion into United States custody of persons in foreign countries deemed to be enemy aliens or terrorists. The CIA was granted permission to use rendition in a presidential directive signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995.^[1] The practice has grown sharply since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and now includes a form where suspects are taken into US custody but delivered to a third-party state, often without ever being on American soil. Because such cases do not involve the rendering country's judiciary, they have been termed extraordinary rendition.^{[citation needed]}

Tazmaniacs 19:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved the AL passage into background. The concept of ER comes from the legal area of rendition. And it's a terrorist case. Both of these make it relevant to the idea of ER. However, I agree that it doesn't need to be in the intro; I didn't realize that the AL thing didn't qualify as ER. I do think the history of its inception under Clinton and then usage after 11S as you put it are relevant details for the intro. 20:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Kaisershatner 20:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes, in particular intro

Please be careful with massive changes, in particular with the introduction (diff). I wholly disagree with some of these changes, for example

changing: "Extraordinary rendition is a United States extra-judicial procedure which involves the sending of untried criminal suspects," to "In the United States, extraordinary rendition is an extra-judicial procedure in which individual suspected terrorists or criminals are transferred to countries", for the simple reason that ER don't happen only in the US, but all over the world.

"in the United States" is meant to refer to the fact that it is an American innovation or process, not the geography of where it occurs.

mentioning in intro passage on Achille Lauro (see above Talk subsection). You are conflating "rendition case" with "extraordinary rendition" and this article is on ER. In fact, you have removed the legitimate passage stating that "Although rendition is not new, the current US policy of "extraordinary rendition" appears to be different in nature, and its usage as a tool in the US-led "war on terror" to apprehend suspected terrorists, but not place them before a court of law, is new [ref: Raymond Bonner: The CIA's Secret Torture. The New York Review Of Books, January 11, 2007 ]

The introduction should provide context for this subject. ER was not invented out of thin air, and appears to be derived from the idea of "rendition," and has precedent to some degree in the WOT due to the Achille Lauro events. The next sentence (the one you say I deleted but that is in the middle of the introduction) provides context, that there is a difference between ER and previous types of "rendition."

On the other hand, I don't see nothing to disagree with the section which someone thought you deleted but that in fact you placed in the intro (except maybe getting the intro too long, but giving the figures is a good thing).
The section titled "Controversy on torture" should be kept.

As noted below, I will put it back, but I still think it is tangential. Of course, I could be wrong, I often am. Kaisershatner 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

why remove the title of subsection "Examples"? And where did the following passage go?

* "'Snatches', or more properly 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government ... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'" [REF: Richard Clarke, Enemies pp. 143-144 ]

Where did the passage quoting Michael Scheur go?:

Michael Scheuer said, "In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally—including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea. "What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian," Scheuer said. "It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated." Technically, U.S. law requires the CIA to seek "assurances" from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was "not sure" if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed." [REF "Outsourcing Torture: The secret history of America's 'extraordinary rendition' program",Jane Mayer in The New Yorker, February 14, 2005 ]

Both of those paras are still there. 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think changes to the introduction and removal of sourced text should be discussed first? The introduction can be improved, but it might be a good idea to submit a draft of it on this talk page first. Thanks Tazmaniacs 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted, I have not removed sourced text (other than the torture section, to Talk). Kaisershatner 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: You might want to read again Wikipedia:Editing policy#Major changes: "But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change." Tazmaniacs 19:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my changes are too fast. I will try to be more sensitive. However, I haven't deleted any of the things you mention. I will reinstate the torture section if that is a major problem. Kaisershatner 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The two passages you note are both in the first section; references 13 and 6 I believe. Kaisershatner 19:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for pointing it out! Well, then I don't see any major objections, just maybe this question about reformulation concerning "in the US" or "US extra-judicial procedure". I don't see any objection either to divide between "Clinton admin" and "Bush admin", as I said I think it's important to talk about pre-11 S procedures, but on the other hand, I don't think you should include that passage on the intro, as ER is a term related with the Bush administration, for the better or the worse (depends on your POV). Cheers, we can get a bit sensitive on such issues, I happen to be in front of my screen... Over all, it seems to be good work. Tazmaniacs 20:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Extradition and ER: first paragraph of intro

I disagree with how the first paragraph is formulated. Here it is:

In the United States, extraordinary rendition is an extra-judicial procedure in which individual suspected terrorists or criminals are transferred to countries other than the United States for imprisonment and interrogation; suspects may be apprehended but are generally not placed before a court of law.[2] Since the 1980s, the United States has increasingly turned to rendition as a judicial and extra-judicial method for dealing with foreign defendants. Although rendition for legal reasons (commonly known as extradition) is not a new concept, there are differences in the current nature and usage of US rendition policy as a tool in the US-led "war on terror."[3]

.

The US administration may argue that ER is a form of extradition. It is not. It is very different. The point is not only that one is juridical and the other extra-juridical — although that alone makes it very different. Extradition, which for some reasons has been called "legal rendition", which is kind of a pleonasm, is simply when a state A requests that another state B to hands over to him someone, X, who is wanted, for any sorts of juridical reasons by state A (crimes committed on state A territory, or against citizens of state A, etc.) Example: Maurice Papon fled to Switzerland during his trial, France handed out an extradition request to Switzerland, Swiss police arrested Papon in Switzerland, and handed him over to France. There, he went to prison. Now, ER is another thing. Not only that it operates beyond international law, and secretly, but the final aim is not to judge or imprison a condemned suspect, it is to have him interrogated by another country C, and then either kept and detained by this other country C (so country A doesn't need to take care of logistics of detention), or devolved again to country A after being interrogation. If you see my distinction, one has got the aim of interrogation, the other of judgement and imprisonment. One is part of the judicial & penitentiary system, the other is part of intelligence agencies' work, who are looking for information and claim that, for this, they need to operate out of judicial oversight. All in all, the two concepts should be contrasted rather than conflated (in particular by the strange use of the pleonasm "legal rendition") and I don't even see, in the first place, why we're talking about "legal rendition" in this article. ER is totally distinct from extraditions, they don't pass by the same bodies (executive/judicial, etc.), they don't have the same aims, etc. Tazmaniacs 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Beside a lack of source, I really don't understand what Achille Lauro is doing here. What's the relationship? The entry only speak about a diplomatic incident between Italy & the US, because they were flown to the US base in Sicily. But why is it rendition? or ER? or extradition? Isn't is simply... capture of hijackers terrorists? To "render" someone, whether by the legal ordinary way of extradition, or by the extra-judicial way of ER, you of course first need to capture the person. So, the hijackers were captured on the (Egyptian?) ship, then flown to the US base in Sicily on an Egyptian commercial airline, then handed-out to Italy. Where did extradition, or "rendering" happen? Tazmaniacs 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: extradition, that is ordinary rendition, exists since quite a long time, much more than the 1980s and the Achille Lauro... Tazmaniacs 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

??? What does this mean: "Based in the legal concept of legal rendition, which itself has been used by the United States increasingly since the 1980s as a judicial and extra-judicial method for dealing with foreign defendants" ??? Beside a mistake of doubling "legal concept" of "legal rendition" (I assume you meant "legal concept of rendition"), how can a "legal concept" be used for "extra-judicial" purposes? Again, "legal rendition" is called extradition, ASFAIK. Tazmaniacs 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I may need your help here. I was trying to accommodate your point that ER is not the same thing as Rendition. Maybe it would work better as, "Although rendition has been used increasingly by the US since the 1980s...Extraordinary Rendition differs in that it entirely avoids using the legal systems of the participating countries and is therefore a wholly extrajudicial process." Do I understand you correctly? Kaisershatner 20:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I fear we're misunderstanding ourself. I don't understand why you say "although rendition has been used increasingly by the US since the 1980s..." Please do not send me to the rendition (law) article, I don't understand a word of the point it's trying to make, and it lacks sources. Do you agree with me in that (legal) rendition is the same as extradition? If you do, then why do you insist in making it start in the 1980s? Extraditions are a very common process which have been used for a long time. For example, see the extradition of Michael Townley by Chile to the US after the assassination of former Chilean minister Orlando Letelier in Washington DC in 1969. If (legal) rendition is distinct from extradition, in what sense? A proposal: why don't we make a subsection on this talk page dedicated to a draft for the intro? Tazmaniacs 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Subarticle

Maybe a sub with the details of each erroneous rendition case? This article has a lot to deal with in general with the history, legal issues, torture, international political implications. I'm not minimizing the terrible nature of these apparent mistakes, but maybe two paras about them in general with a list of names, and the rest into a subarticle? The ER article as a whole is rather large. Kaisershatner 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, again, sorry to disappoint you, but I don't agree. It is a very bad habit on Wikipedia to want to distinguish "theory" from "practice", as if that would be possible. How can one understand what ER are if they don't see specific cases? I am a very pragmatic-type of person: I believe only in facts, and theoretical musings only interest me insofar as they translate themselves in fact (which they almost always do:). You could create an article about "erroneous rendition", but what would you put in it? Apart of a problem in Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, as "erroneous rendition" tend to accredit the thesis that they are "normal extraordinary rendition" (which, you will agree with me, poses sort of a logical problem). If by "erroneous rendition" you mean "innocent" people who were subject to ER, well you would only be left with the few specific cases, in particular the German citizen, Khalid Masri I believe he's called. But this article is not about "theory" of ER, it is about the procedures of ER which have been implemented by the US, in particular by the CIA, in cooperation with other European intelligence agencies (something which should be pointed out, but let's solve things one by one). The problem is not about whether the subjects of ER were "innocents" or "guilty", but the fact that this procedure is illegal by international law standards. This may, or not, be justified because of the threat of Islamic terrorism. But that's not the problem; the problem is, if you let me put a quick definition here, which we could discuss the formulation together (I have no pretention in finding a consensual decision in two seconds): "ER is an extra-judicial procedure used by the US, and in particular by the CIA, to transfer to third-party countries persons detained in the frame of the "War on Terror" declared by the Bush administration since the 11-S attacks. The aim is to have third-party countries, mainly, but not only, in the Middle East, detain and interrogate these detainees, which are kept outside of national or international juridiction, thus qualifying as ghost detainees. They may, or not, be devolved to the US after interrogation. Critics point out that a number of the subjects of such ER have testified being tortured in those later countries, and interrogated by various intelligence agents, including some of their own countries (here I'm already going too far for consensus, but it is a fairly known fact). To the contrary, supporters claim that extraordinary measures are need to confront the threat of Islamic terrorism." You see, I don't refer anywhere in this quick attempt to define ER to "(legal) rendition" because extradition and ER simply have nothing to do in common. Again, putting it in constitutional terms, ER is done by executive bodies, while extradition is done by judicial bodies (to put it quickly, but precisely). What's your thought?Tazmaniacs 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We could create a subarticle with the list of ALL cases of ER, and another for the EU's reaction to this whole thing which is starting to pick up pace. A subarticle for so called erroneous rendition would be very POV as it implys that all the others a correctly held. Hypnosadist 02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Taz, right now my thoughts are "wow, it's going to take me another hour just to parse through your thoughts." I will have to take this up tomorrow at the earliest. At least this time I asked before unilaterally moving everything around. ;0 Kaisershatner 03:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, got through it. I like your version, I would adjust the wording here and there but fundamentally I think it is good and based on what I have learned it seems to represent an accurate view of ER. Regarding "rendition," "extradition," and the Achille Lauro, I still think that stuff should be in the first section after the intro as background, even if it is to make a distinction rather than a comparison between ER and the preceding techniques used by the US against terrorists or international suspects. Kaisershatner 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Taz, I too like your suggested text, but you might want to (I hate this phrase) "dumb it down" a little bit. It reads like legalese, and a lay reader doing research (ie, a high school or early college kid) isn't going to find that useful. Sad but true. I think we need to say everything you said, but just in a bit more layman's terms. Hope that doesn't offend! Akradecki 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Draft of introduction

All right, since you guys have given me a go-ahead, for which I thank you, before immediately editing, I prefered to take some time to submit to you a draft of a complete introduction, which gives, according to me, all the basic and most important factual information, as well as an understanding of the political issues at stake, in particular concerning international relations (without engaging in moral or ideological debate, which I believe is best left to a section concerned with "Commentaries", this in accordance with the classic tradition of US journalism.) Let me know what you think about it, and again, I thank you and am pleased to work, for once, on a controversial entry without engaging in tiring debates which leads nowhere... I hope this is consensual enough for everyone, and really think it is worthwhile to take some time to agree on an introduction, as this can enable us, if we've agreed to it, to keep the introduction stable over time and discuss, in the future, any substantive change to it. Finally, I've tried to take into account Akradecki's totally reasonable comment, although my notion of what a high school student easily understand is not necessarily correct :). Over all, as always, the problem is to balance clarity with precise and legitimate explanation, and respect the rule to simplify the most without engaging in simplification of the reality. I hope this achieves the aim; if it doesn't, we just need to see which part may pose a problem for the lay-man who hasn't followed the subject so much, and explain it better. Cheers to you guys! Tazmaniacs 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Extraordinary rendition (ER) is a term used to describe an extra-judicial procedure conducted by the United States government, and in particular by the CIA, to transfer to third-party states persons detained in the frame of the "War on Terror" declared by the Bush administration since the September 11, 2001 attacks. The aim is to have other countries, mainly, but not only, in the Middle East, detain and interrogate these detainees, outside of national or international juridiction. Since these detainees, which are considered by the CIA to have some intelligence value (i.e. of possessing information either concerning terrorist organizations or knowing facts about past or planned operations by such groups), are arrested and kept outside of any judicial oversight, often without ever being on US territory, they qualify as "ghost detainees". They may, or not, be devolved to the United States government after interrogation.

According to a June 2006 report from the Council of Europe, directed by Swiss senator Dick Marty, and titled "Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states," about a hundred persons had been kidnapped by the CIA on European territory and subsequently rendered to other countries, often after having transited through "black sites" (i.e. secret detention centers used by the CIA). In an investigative report published by The New Yorker in February 2005, journalist Jane Mayer cited Scott Horton, an expert on international law ~~who helped prepare a report on extraordinary renditions issued by N.Y.U. Law School and the New York City Bar Association~~, as estimating that 150 people have been rendered since 2001.[6] Although Egypt allegedly has been the most common destination, individuals have been rendered to other countries, such as Jordan, Syria, Morocco, and Uzbekistan.[7]

The US program of extraordinary rendition has lifted a serie of moral, judicial and international issues, prompting official investigations in the European Union (EU) concerning citizens of member states or foreigners illegally abducted on European territory by the CIA and the use of "black sites," as well as the transit of CIA flights on European territory during the execution of the various extraordinary rendition cases. According to the European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Adopted by a vast majority of the EU Parliament, the report concluded that many member states tolerated illegal actions of the CIA including secret flights over their territory. Furthermore, it denounced the lack of cooperation with the EU investigation on the extraordinary rendition program from several European governments and intelligence agencies.

According to Swiss senator Dick Marty, the Imam Rapito affair is a "perfect example of extraordinary rendition" [44], which is also the first case to be investigated by judges and for which CIA agents have been indicted, including Jeffrey W. Castelli, responsible for the CIA in Italy until 2003. Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka Abu Omar), as he is known, was kidnapped by the CIA in Milan on February 17, 2003, before being transferred to the Aviano Air Base and finally rendered to Egypt. He claims having been tortured both on the Aviano Base and in Egypt. Italian public prosecutors Armando Spataro and Pomarici have described the abduction as "a conjoint CIA-SISMI [Italian military intelligence agency] operation" organized by "Italian and American agents" with the aim of the "capture" and "secret transfer" of the imam to Egypt [ref: Paolo Biondani and Guido Olimpio. 11 July 2006 Corriere della Sera, "Un centro segreto Cia-Sismi" available here (in Italian) ]. The Italian justice has sent to the Italian Ministry of Justice extradition requests for the 26 US citizens indicted, including 25 CIA agents, but the latter has refused ~~until now~~ thus far to transmit the requests to the US government. On the other hand, the chief of the SISMI, General Nicolò Pollari, as well as his second Marco Mancini, have been forced to resign and were subsequently indicted in the end of 2006 by the Italian justice."

I did not include the following passage, mainly because I think that we should stick to facts in the introduction, and not to commentaries, and also because if it was to be included, it would need rewriting, as the reference to the UN Conventions against torture could as well, and with more rationale, be used in exactly the same way (that is, recalling article 3 which is quoted in the article and which state that "1. 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. 2. 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.". Since countries like Egypt, Syria or Ouzbekistan have very dubious human rights records, which are regularly condemned by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and even official US reports, it is clearly rhetorics and bad argumentation to recall that they are signatory of the treaty, as if that garanteed any real, practical protection from the possibility of being tortured. Finally, the "cultural relativism" argument is, I think, very weak. Finally, I left out the part on "innocent", because ghost detainees are not necessarily "accused" of anything: they simply are considered by the CIA to have intelligence value, but "knowing something" is not, in itself, a crime :

Critics of the US extraordinary rendition program - some of whom dub the procedure "torture by proxy" [8][9]- have accused the CIA of rendering suspects to other countries in order to avoid US laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture, even though many of those countries have, like the US, signed or ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Critics have also called this practice "torture flights".[10] Defenders of the practice argue that culturally-informed and native-language interrogations are more successful in gaining information from suspects [11].

In a number of cases, suspects to whom the procedure is believed to have been applied later appeared to be innocent.[12] In the cases of Khalid El-Masri and Maher Arar the practice of extraordinary rendition appears to have been applied to innocent civilians, and the CIA has reportedly launched an investigation into such cases (which it refers to as "erroneous rendition").

Tazmaniacs 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

KS draft

Taz, I would cut the last paragraph entirely- the one case should be in the body of the article IMO and the intro is getting long. I made some wording changes:

"Extraordinary rendition (ER) ~~is a term used to~~ describe an extra-judicial procedure conducted by the United States government, and in particular by the Central Intelligence Agency, to transfer to third-party states persons who are considered by the CIA to have some intelligence value (i.e. of possessing information either concerning terrorist organizations or knowing facts about past or planned operations by such groups) in the frame of the "War on Terror" since the September 11, 2001 attacks. ~~declared by the Bush administration~~ The aim is to have other countries, mainly, but not only, in the Middle East, detain and interrogate these detainees, outside of national or international juridiction. These unregistered "ghost detainees" may, or not, be devolved to the United States government after interrogation.
According to a June 2006 report from the Council of Europe, directed by Swiss senator Dick Marty, and titled "Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states," about a hundred persons had been kidnapped by the CIA on European territory and subsequently rendered to other countries, often after having transited through "black sites" (i.e. secret detention centers used by the CIA). In an investigative report published by The New Yorker in February 2005, journalist Jane Mayer cited Scott Horton, an expert on international law ~~who helped prepare a report on extraordinary renditions issued by N.Y.U. Law School and the New York City Bar Association,~~ as estimating that 150 people have been rendered since 2001.[6] Although Egypt allegedly has been the most common destination, individuals have been rendered to other countries, such as Jordan, Syria, Morocco, and Uzbekistan.[7]

The US program of extraordinary rendition has raised moral, judicial, and international issues, prompting official investigations in the European Union (EU) concerning citizens of member states or foreigners illegally abducted on European territory, the use of "black sites," and the transit of CIA flights on European territory during the execution of the various extraordinary rendition cases. Defenders of the practice argue that culturally-informed and native-language interrogations are more successful in gaining information from suspects [11]. According to the European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The report adopted by a vast majority of the EU Parliament concluded that many member states tolerated illegal actions of the CIA including secret flights over their territory. Furthermore, it denounced the lack of cooperation with the EU investigation on the extraordinary rendition program from several European governments and intelligence agencies.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaisershatner (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

All right, I agree with your corrections, except the part which omits the "Bush administration". Not because of POV, but because clearly almost every one correctly links this to the Bush administration, and I think we need to make differences between various governments (eitherwise, you quickly go into the pseudo-rhetorics of claiming that "Bush administration" = "US state" = "US people" which is the pseudo-equation on which anti-Americanism is based on.) I will accept your leaving out the last paragraph about the Imam Rapito, although I sincerely think it is one of the most important part concerning this program, since it is, as the press all over the world has reported, the first trial concerning ER. IMO, the reader shouldn't have to read 80 lines before learning the existence of this trial (which might never take place, but that's another story). However, if you insist, and others support you, on nixing it in the intro, I will go with general consensus. Tazmaniacs 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Akradecki 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The only (incredibly minor) change I might suggest is switching "until now" in the Imam Rapito paragraph to "thus far". "Until now" seems to suggest that extradition warrants, as of now, have, in fact, been issued by the Italian government. As far as I am aware, this is not the case. Ford MF 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tazmaniacs both the "Bush administration" needs to be added but not for his reasons and the Imam Rapito paragraph must stay. Hypnosadist 19:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, shall we agree in including the "Bush version" and the "Imam Rapito" affair because of its importance concerning both ER program, its qualification as a "perfect example of ER" by Dick Marty, which provides some basic of a real ER operation without having to cite many names of other people? Beside, it shows that this affair does not concerns only the US, but also European states, which is an information which the not well-informed reader will surely overlook? Maybe KS will want to modify some formulation of it? Tazmaniacs 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see the merits of specifically associating ER with the Bush Administration. If we are adding a third paragraph I would argue for the "critics and supporters" para we have omitted above. Regarding Imam Rapito, I think as written it is the argument from authority. The POV of "Dick Marty," should not be highlighted in the para or intro, IMO. If you/we want to include mention of the incident as an especially notable or typical example of ER, then that may be ok, but I would change the paragraph substantially, maybe something more like,

An example of ER and its political and legal repercussions is the "Imam Rapito affair," in which Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka Abu Omar), a member of the violent organization al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, considered a terrorist group by the United States, European Union, and Egyptian government, was kidnapped in a joint CIA-SISMI operation in Milan on February 17, 2003, before being transferred to the Aviano Air Base and finally rendered to Egypt; he claims he was tortured both on the Aviano Base and in Egypt. The investigating Italian Justice has sent extradition requests for 26 US citizens who have been indicted, including 25 CIA agents, to the Italian Ministry of Justice. The chief of the SISMI, General Nicolò Pollari, as well as his second Marco Mancini, have been forced to resign and were subsequently indicted in the end of 2006 by the Italian justice."

. I have also added some context about this Abu Omar person and his affiliations. Kaisershatner 14:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

KS your version is run through with inaccuracys and POV. The first line starts of with america's justification of the unlawful kidnapping and tortue of a european citizen because of the unsourced(on WP) claim that hes a member of [al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya]], and that he still is. And "joint CIA-SISMI" is totally inaccurate, the sismi officials are on trial for knowing about this before hand and not stopping it not for partisipating in the kidnap. And of course it fails to mention the 4 years of torture (having his cock beaten with sticks mostly according to him) he had to go through. Hypnosadist 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hyponsadist, thanks for your reply. I would refer you to WP:AGF, and possibly WP:NPA. I'm doing my best to improve the article. If you have better sourcing, I'm sure we would all welcome it. I will do what I can to substantiate the claim, as it is I pasted it from the WP article- shame on me for using WP as my source, I guess. "Joint CIA-SISMI" - if that is inaccurate, it is based on my misunderstanding of the facts. Was this guy held at an Italian prison by the CIA acting alone? I'm just asking. And why is the US POV of the abduction met with your skepticism, but the victim/target's assertions are accepted without question? Is it my POV or yours? Kaisershatner 19:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

See also, from the Rapito affair article:"On 5 July 2006 two high-ranking Italian intelligence officers were arrested by Italian police for their alleged complicity in Abu Omar's kidnapping. These included Marco Mancini, number 2 of SISMI, Italy's military intelligence agency, and Gustavo Pignero, the agency's chief for the northern region of Italy. Italian wiretaps caught Mancini admitting that he had lied about his involvement in the abduction case.[15] These arrests signaled the first official admission that Italian intelligence agents were involved in the abduction. Additionally, the former head of SISMI's Milan office, Col. Stefano D'Ambrosio, claims that he was removed from his position by his superiors because of his objections to the abduction plot; he was later replaced by Mancini.[15] Thus, public prosecutors Armando Spataro and Pomarici have described the abduction as "a concerted CIA-SISMI operation" organized by "Italian and American agents" with the aim of the "capture" and "secret transfer" of the imam to Egypt[16]" thanks, Kaisershatner 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, I strongly urge you to moderate your language. Kaiser, I propose, for now (we can still edit anyway and continue the discussion here) to include the draft as we have agreed, that is, if I'm not confused, including the "Bush administration", and provisionally excluding the Imam Rapito affair so we can take some more time to work it out. Concerning this last affair, I will first point out, having read the Italian press about it, that yes, it was a concerted SISMI-CIA operation, and yes, SISMI agents did participate in the abduction, as did one junior Carabinieri officer (who appears, ASFAIK, to have been manipulated in thinking that he was doing some kind of test, which, if he succeeded, would allow him to become a member of the SISMI - lots of Italians seem to have a fascination for secret services - which, funnily enough - a bit of humor won't kill us here!, the Italian press refers to as ... 007 !). I will look it up, but I think Abu Omar's membership to the Jammaa al-Islamiya is subject to caution, although we could certainly added that he was suspected of it. It is, however, much least subject to caution that he was a radical Islamist (which is not necessarily a synonym of "terrorist" - and I'm not saying that trying to defend fundamentalists for which I feel no sympathy at all). I will, right now, edit the paragraphs we've agreed on, just reverse me if anything poses problem, all right? Tazmaniacs 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Draft of "rendition" section

I insert here the text which I've put under invisible text following the recent change to the intro we've seemed to agreed upon, including the visible text concerning rendition (law) (which, despite the "law" parenthesis, is not really "legal"; I've discussed the subject with Dhartung over there, and I think we've finally beginning to see in what such rendition is different both from ER and extradition. To put it quickly, "rendition" is the capture of a suspect (most often) by intelligence agents of country A in a country B (or in international territory) with the aim of bringing him back to country A for judgement. Before the Achille Lauro case, which operated in some kind of judicial vacuum, Adolf Eichmann (illegal) capture in Jerusalem and (legitime) judgment in Israel is one of the most famous cases.

[REf: Lila Rajiva: The CIA's Rendition Flights to Secret Prisons. CounterPunch, 5 December 2005 ; this was supposed to back up a claim that doesn't need to be backed up that way; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style, introductions don't need sources at every sentence, despite offensive behaviours from some users)]
While legal rendition has been used by the United States increasingly since the 1980s as a method for dealing with foreign defendants, extraordinary rendition is a wholly extra-legal process that differs in its nature and usage as a tool in the US-led "war on terror." [REF: Raymond Bonner: The CIA's Secret Torture. The New York Review Of Books, January 11, 2007 ] Because the modern methods of rendition include a form where suspects are taken into US custody but delivered to a third-party state, often without ever being on American soil, and without involving the rendering country's judiciary, they have been termed extraordinary rendition. The Central Intelligence Agency was granted permission to use rendition in a presidential directive signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995 [REF: Presidential directive PDD 39, 1995.]and the practice has grown sharply since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
[... Scott Horton, an expert on international law who helped prepare a report on renditions issued by N.Y.U. Law School and the New York City Bar Association... ]
Critics - some of whom dub the procedure "torture by proxy" [REF: Google Books search |][REF: Christopher H. Pyle: Torture by proxy - How immigration threw a traveler to the wolves. San Francisco Chronicle, January 4, 2004 ] - have accused the CIA of rendering suspects to other countries in order to avoid US laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture, even though many of those countries have, like the US, signed or ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Critics have also called this practice "torture flights". [REF: "Torture flights: what No 10 knew and tried to cover up". Retrieved 2006-01-23. ] Defenders of the practice argue that culturally-informed and native-language interrogations are more successful in gaining information from suspects [REF: 'Rendition' Realities by David Ignatius Washington Post, March 9, 2005; Page A21 ]
In a number of cases, suspects to whom the procedure is believed to have been applied later appeared to be innocent.[REF: Outsourcing Torture: The Secret History of America's "Extraordinary Rendition" 17 February 2005 ] In the cases of Khalid El-Masri and Maher Arar the practice of extraordinary rendition appears to have been applied to innocent civilians, and the CIA has reportedly launched an investigation into such cases (which it refers to as "erroneous rendition").
The first well-known rendition case involved the Achille Lauro hijackers in 1985: while in international air space they were forced by United States Navy fighter planes to land at at the Naval Air Station Sigonella, an Italian military base in Sicily used by NATO, in an attempt to place them within judicial reach of United States Government representatives for transport to and trial in the United States. The practice later expanded to include the deportation or expulsion into United States custody of persons in foreign countries deemed to be enemy aliens or terrorists.^{[citation needed]}

The procedure was developed by Central Intelligence Agency officials ^{[citation needed]} in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda. At the time, the agency was reluctant to grant suspected terrorists due process under American law, as the attendant disclosures of government information under the rules of disclosure could potentially jeopardize its intelligence sources and methods.

Imam Rapito draft

Here are the two different versions about the Imam Rapito. I really think we ought to include it to the intro because it is, on one hand, a specific case which has been qualified by Swiss senator Dick Marty, who, not withstanding his personal opinions, was commandited by the Council of Europe to make the report (his POV is thus backed up by a number of European states), as a "perfect example"; the second, more important reason, is that it is the subject of investigations and that a trial has been decided for July, which is no small things. I will propose a bit later an intermediate version between these two drafts (Tazmaniacs 20:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)).

Version A:

According to Swiss senator Dick Marty, the Imam Rapito affair is a "perfect example of extraordinary rendition" [44], which is also the first case to be investigated by judges and for which CIA agents have been indicted, including Jeffrey W. Castelli, responsible for the CIA in Italy until 2003. Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka Abu Omar), as he is known, was kidnapped by the CIA in Milan on February 17, 2003, before being transferred to the Aviano Air Base and finally rendered to Egypt. He claims having been tortured both on the Aviano Base and in Egypt. Italian public prosecutors Armando Spataro and Pomarici have described the abduction as "a conjoint CIA-SISMI [Italian military intelligence agency] operation" organized by "Italian and American agents" with the aim of the "capture" and "secret transfer" of the imam to Egypt [ref: Paolo Biondani and Guido Olimpio. 11 July 2006 Corriere della Sera, "Un centro segreto Cia-Sismi" available here (in Italian) ]. The Italian justice has sent to the Italian Ministry of Justice extradition requests for the 26 US citizens indicted, including 25 CIA agents, but the latter has refused ~~until now~~ thus far to transmit the requests to the US government. On the other hand, the chief of the SISMI, General Nicolò Pollari, as well as his second Marco Mancini, have been forced to resign and were subsequently indicted in the end of 2006 by the Italian justice."

Version B:

An example of ER and its political and legal repercussions is the "Imam Rapito affair," in which Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka Abu Omar), a member of the violent organization al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, considered a terrorist group by the United States, European Union, and Egyptian government, was kidnapped in a joint CIA-SISMI operation in Milan on February 17, 2003, before being transferred to the Aviano Air Base and finally rendered to Egypt; he claims he was tortured both on the Aviano Base and in Egypt. The investigating Italian Justice has sent extradition requests for 26 US citizens who have been indicted, including 25 CIA agents, to the Italian Ministry of Justice. The chief of the SISMI, General Nicolò Pollari, as well as his second Marco Mancini, have been forced to resign and were subsequently indicted in the end of 2006 by the Italian justice."

I have included the second version, changing alleged membership to al-Gam'a al-Islamiyya (unsure; the Egyptian court judged his detention "unfounded" and he was not indicted either in Italy), to radical Islamist cleric. Tazmaniacs 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

torture by proxy

torture by proxy is a redirect to this page and the term is also used by critics of the process. Just including the US administration's term for this process is a none neutral point of view. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it a term widely used? The reference listed only mentions the term in the title of the article. The article reads like a dramatic editorial rather than an appropriate primary source, and it does not discuss the term or use it any further. Since this is an inflammatory term, and there is little evidence that it is wide-spread, it hardly qualifies as encyclopedic. I've reverted as POV. Akradecki 14:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a POV and it balances the POV of the US Government that is what NPOV means! Please do a Google search on the term you will find that it is more widely used than you seem to give it credit for: "about 26,800 English pages for "Torture by Proxy" -wikipedia. " --Philip Baird Shearer 23:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Doing a google search on UK sites returns " 12,100 English pages for "Torture by Proxy" -wikipedia site:uk", Of those on the first page are article by The Guardian, The Times and the BBC. One of those articles by the BBC by Gordon Corera Does UK turn a blind eye to torture? (5 April, 2005) writes "the parliamentary foreign affairs committee has called for straight answers from the government over any British role in the highly controversial US "extraordinary rendition" policy. ... One member of the committee described the policy as "effectively torture by proxy"." I think that is more than enought to show that the phrase "torture by proxy" is a fully WP:ATT --Philip Baird Shearer 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Extraordinary rendition is essentially a legal term. The phrase you quote, "effectively torture by proxy", is a description of the legal term. What's more, in the lead paragraph of the article you refer to, it says, "some of which are known to use torture." Not all. So how can ER be "torture by proxy" if the terrorist suspect is taken to a country that doesn't practice torture? I would be happy with a paragraph in the article that discusses the use of the term, and quotes the MP's quote from the article. But, to use it as a blanket synonym in the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article is not appropriate.

Also, NPOV doesn't mean that. It means that Wikipedia articles report without injecting editors' biases. The U.S. Gov't isn't editing WP, so you can't refer to their POV. This is an encyclopedia, not a political forum where bias (on either side) is put forward to counter someone else's bias. We are here to report the facts that are reported by others. Thus, it is, as I said before, entirely appropriate to document in a paragraph that some politicians and journalists are using the term "torture by proxy", but it is not appropriate for WP to use it as a synonym. Hope that makes sense. Akradecki 01:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV as the first sentence describes what I am arguing "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by an attributable source." Do you deny that the Guardian, the Times and the BBC are attributable sources? Why do you place the American government POV so far over that of members of the British Parliament, that their name for the process should not be mentioned in the first paragraph.

Given that there is a redirect from the page name "torture by proxy", do you think that page should be a separate article from this one? If not then why should the name not be mentioned in the first sentence? Would you present the same argument over the American War of Independence article? --Philip Baird Shearer 07:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Some observations

Extraordfinary rendition is not a legal term.[2] Please provide the legal source (i.e. international law) justifying sending detainees to other countries not to be tried and instaed to be tortured. It does not exist.
Torture by proxy is commonly used to describe what most feel ER stands for.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

Inlight of this it is difficult to understand why "torture by proxy" cannot be used.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that work Nescio, it certainly proves that a notable pov exists that regard this as "Torture by proxy" and ER as the Euphemism to sugar the bitter pill. Hypnosadist 12:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there already is a section on torture, why not expand it and detail the torture by proxy allegations, since you have so many citations you can use? Akradecki 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki's proposal is sensefull. Engaging in a edit-war because you want to include "tortury by proxy" in the first sentence of the article, when you could improve the actual "torture" section using these sources is not the best way to improve the article. Tazmaniacs

I've reverted again. As I've said before, the opening paragraph is the result of draft proposals, detailed discussion and consensus building. You are welcome to propose a change, but do it here, on the talk page first. Post your proposed draft here, then open it for discussion. When text is the result of such a process, it is bad form to just change it without first discussing it, especially after you've already been briefed on this. Akradecki 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Akradecki. We took the pain to arrive in a consensus, there is no use in inserting polemical terms which add nothing to the article concerning information. We would like to see energies dedicated to include "torture by proxy" in the intro better used to finding new sources concerning ER. Amnesty International and Statewatch are good place to start. Tazmaniacs

The term is well sourced. It was included in the article for many months in the introduction. It balances the US administrations POV and is used in attributable sources which include reports of members of the British Parliament using it. There is no reason not to include it in the introduction particularly as page with that name (quite rightly) redirect to this page. Further the term is already included in the Craig Murray 2003 revelations section. You will have to come up with a better argument that "bad form to just change it without first discussing it" as the WP:NPOV policy page indicates that this is the correct thing to do. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, You have asked "How is it a term widely used?" That has been shown to you in this talk section. You have not answered the question put to you should torture by proxy be a separate page or should it redirect here? You stated that "Extraordinary rendition is essentially a legal term" that has been show to be false. Whether the article is expanded to include more mentions of "torture by proxy" within the body of the article is not IMHO pertinent to the issue of including the phrase in the introduction. There is no need to put a proposal to chanbe the introcudciton on this page, because the addition is one phrase. You can not block development of the page when it goes against Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy. We can take it to an RFC if you like but I don't see any point in doing that for such a minor alteration. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed that question, and it is a good one. If it is as widely used as you say, I think it might indeed deserve its own article. ER is the movement of individuals from location to location. Torture by proxy is what happens after they get there. Though this seems related, they are two unique problems for the world community, and would probably be best addressed in there own articles, wherein each could focus more effectively on the specific problem its addressing.

Feel free to take it to RFC. There's ample precedent for the practice of discuss first, edit second as I'm pushing you to do, especially when the existing text has been arrived at through the talk page/draft process. I believe Wikipedia guidelines would bear me out. The fact that you are refusing to follow this accepted practice frankly concerns me. Akradecki 05:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there is consensus torture by proxy is inappropriate could you point out where that consensus can be found? Second, do you or do you not agree torture by proxy is a term widely used? If not, how do you explain the article I provided? If so, do you agree that sending people to a country to be tortured is torture by proxy, and what actually is done to them by that country is known as torture? Hence ER is torture by proxy since the US in effect has delegated the torture part to another country, i.e. that is what proxy stands for (see Munchausen by proxy). Last, why do you insist torture by proxy cannot be used when a mountain of sources (I did provide a few of them above) is available for that term?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki you say "Extraordinary rendition is essentially a legal term" but its not, the legal term for ER is kidnapping. Perhaps you would like that insted of torture by proxy as "ER is the movement of individuals from location to location.". Hypnosadist 08:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki your revert warring lost good edits of mine, would you care to fix that! Hypnosadist 08:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "The Khaled Masri case" and "The Abu Omar case" sections

There is way, way too much info here in these two sections considering it just duplicates their own lengthy articles. The "examples and specific cases" section is sufficient I think to cover this (and even that I think could use some streamlining in the cases where the subjects already have their own articles). I'd like to remove these two extreme examples of wiki-duplication, as the article is already tacking towards the unwieldy. But because it's a bit of a major change, I wanted to see what do people thought. Well? Ford MF 20:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARY. The text can certainly be condensed in a few, quick sentences. Removing it all together might be interpreted as an attempt of content forking. The Abu Omar case in particular can be treated in one sentence as it is already treated in the introduction. A minimal amount of duplicate information is inevitable, as each article is supposed to be autonomous (that is, that it should be understood without having to click on any link - I can't remember where that wiki policy was :) ). Tazmaniacs

I don't think you quite understand what content forking is, as the article as it stands is exactly that, i.e. "unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject". I'm talking about unforking the article, as I'm fine with a few very short sentences, as in the first citation of El Masri:

In 2003, Khalid El-Masri, a Kuwait-born citizen with German nationality, was detained by Macedonian agents in Republic of Macedonia, then turned over to the CIA (See The Khaled Masri case)

But then it gets a second, much longer citation in the article:

The Khaled Masri case
Main article: Khalid El-Masri
In 2003, Khalid El-Masri, a Kuwait-born citizen with German nationality, was detained by Macedonian agents in Republic of Macedonia. While allegedly on vacation in Macedonia, local police, apparently acting on a tip, took him off a bus, held him for three weeks, then took him to the Skopje airport where he was turned over to the CIA.
El-Masri says he was injected with drugs, and after his flight, he woke up in an American-run prison in Afghanistan containing prisoners from Pakistan, Tanzania, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. El-Masri said that he was held five months and interrogated by Americans through an interpreter. He declared thet he had been beaten and kept in solitary confinement. Participating in some of these interrogation sessions was an officer of the German foreign intelligence service (Bundesnachrichtendienst or BND) using the pseudonym "Sam", who has reportedly been identified by al-Masri as Gerhard Lehmann. Lehmann served on the UN Mehlis commission into the Rafik Hariri assassination before he was withdrawn in early February 2006, possibly to prevent the repercussions of his identification.[61]
Then, after his five months of questioning, he was simply released. "They told me that they had confused names and that they had cleared it up, but I can't imagine that," El-Masri told ABC News. "You can clear up switching names in a few minutes." Khalid el-Masri had allegedly been confused with Khalid al-Masri, wanted for contacts with the Hamburg Cell involved in the September 2001 attacks.
Khalid el-Masri was then flown out of Afghanistan and dumped on a road in Albania, from where he made his way back home in Germany. Using a method called isotope analysis, scientists at the Bavarian archive for geology in Munich subsequently analyzed several strands of his hair and verified his story. During a visit to Washington, German Interior Minister Otto Schily was told that American agents admitted to kidnapping El-Masri, and indicated that the matter had somehow got out of hand. Masri was held for five months largely because the head of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center's al Qaeda unit "believed he was someone else," one former CIA official said. "She didn't really know. She just had a hunch."[7]
Khalid el-Masri's case has been given as an example of so-called "erroneous renditions," meaning extraordinary renditions of completely innocent people. Although the "confusion" was admitted to Germany's then-Interior Minister Otto Schily, the CIA tried to keep the specifics of Masri's case from becoming public.[62] The German government was requested by the CIA not to disclose what it had been told (even if el-Masri went public), on fears that this might expose the covert extraordinary rendition program, and thereby open up legal challenges. Some CIA officials have argued that Guantanamo Bay has become, as one former senior official put it, "a dumping ground" for CIA mistakes.
A German prosecutor works to verify or debunk Masri's claims of kidnapping and torture, yet that part of the German government which was informed has remained silent on the subject. Masri's attorneys have filed a lawsuit in U.S. courts. On January 31, 2007, Munich Prosecutor Christian Schmidt-Sommerfeld said he had issued 13 arrest warrants connected with rendition of Khalid El-Masri from Macedonia.[63]

Which is way, way too detailed for the purposes of this article here. If people want all this they can read the el-Masri article. Same thing goes for Abu Omar. The first section on individual cases is I believe sufficient. Ford MF 05:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And btw I admire your desire to be thorough, but I think the massive recycling of other articles within this article does it more harm than good. Articles, ideally, should be concise and pithy. There's nothing wrong with summaries, but this article's clutter needs to be reduced somewhat. Ford MF 05:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the possibility to reduce the text, but over-privileging simplicification and short text leads to vague, ideological statements and endless edit warrings. Your example (Khaled Masri) tries to point out that there is redundance in the article. To the contrary, a short sentence leads to the "see also Masri case," where the latter is detailed. This is inevitable, due to the great number of ER and the few number of documented cases (for obvious reasons). We can't claim only four cases have happened; but we should document the ones we know well. I don't think we have too much of them. However, I do agree with you in that we could reduce the size of the specific Masri case - a resume which doesn't lose important info but reduces number of words would be great! All in all, giving the facts, with precision, takes more time, but at least they remain facts. Description of a few specific cases are a thousand times more worthfull that "X or Y said that ER are good/bad" , a trap in which we all too often fall, both on Wikipedia and in real life. Let's concentrate on precise descriptions. This said, I completely supports attempts to gain words and reduce "noise": we're not here to read literature, but to obtain, quickly and clearly, what currently goes on. Regards, Tazmaniacs 03:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't overlook that the disposition of the articles, with sub-sections concerning this limited number of documented cases (here at least) allows the reader to jump them if in a hurry. Tazmaniacs 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote for the inclusion of Torture by proxy in the lead

Should the phrase "Torture by Proxy" be in the lead?

Support use in intro

Support Hypnosadist 08:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC), this is clearly a notable POV and should be included along with the USA's view that this kidnapping of foreign nationals is a form of rendition.

Support Teardrop.z 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC) I think it should be in the lead by "some refers to it as". it should be clear that the practice is of "rendition", which legitimacy is discussed, that is moving a person, while the "torture by proxy" address to its purpose, accurate or not.

Support Clearly the term is used in numerous newsreports. Even the UN discusses it. Difficult to object to a generally accepted synonym for ER, that is outside the Bush adninistration and its followers.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Geo Swan 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC) I see arguments here, by apologists for the policy, that extraordinary rendition is a legal term, while "torture by proxy" is merely a POV description by critics. Wait a second! On what basis can extraordinary rendition" be described as "legal"? I'll expand on this point below. Second, the Wikipedia may have a lot of American contributors, but we are supposed to try to counter systematic bias that arises from the wikipedia's contributors not being composed of a typical cross-section of the World's population. Sometimes I think WP:NOT needs to be amended to clearly spell out that the wikipedia is not an American hagiography. I'll expand on this point below too.

Oppose use in intro

Oppose Akradecki 13:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC), it should be either its own carefully researched and documented article, or an expanded Torture section. Because the transport of persons may or may not result in torture, to call all ER TbP is misleading. Akradecki 13:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki ER is also a misleading term when what is happening is as i said above, kidnapping. ER is the US Gov POV term for that crime. Hypnosadist 14:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose POV laden wording should be minimized. Kyaa the Catlord 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose "torture by proxy" is a very subjective and POV laden term. I have no problem with including extensive referencing that ER is referred to as "torture by proxy" or considered torture by proxy by its critics, as those things are objectively true. It may or may not be true that ER objectively is "torture by proxy," and labeling it as such without qualifiers would not be neutral.Kaisershatner 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Kaisershatner 14:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We can use it with qualifiers such as "the critics of the program" as well as saying that ER is the US gov's name for this act. Hypnosadist 14:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A subsection on the usage of the "term" would be informative. Kyaa the Catlord 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. "Torture by proxy" is inherently POV. It almost certainly belongs in the article, just not in the lead. Ford MF 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 08:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Akradecki you may think it misleading but there are a lot of attributable sources which use the term as a simile for Extraordinary Rendition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4414491.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1540743,00.html
http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=166231874&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/10/trade_in_tortur.html

And that is just a few attributable sources from the first page of a google search "about 12,400 English pages for "Torture by Proxy" site:uk." A Google book search returns 611 books which use the term Torture by Proxy. Of course it is a Pont of View. But so is the usage of the term "Extraordinary Rendition". Putting both terms close together in the article is a WP:NPOV. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone consider "ER is the US Government term for a procedure in which...etc etc. It is described as torture by proxy by its critics, who allege etc etc. That would still basically be in the lede, right? And it would point out that each term is used by one POV. Kaisershatner 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would go with that as it represents my understanding of NPOV policy. Hypnosadist 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, but I've got a couple of questions. First, is ER actual a USGvt-used term (do we have a ref?). And, if you do use TbP in the lead, I strongly agree with Kyaa the Catlord above that it needs to be expanded upon in a section later. Since you have all these refs, that would be the place to discuss the term, who uses it, why, and include the refs. Akradecki 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide a source, outside of the US administration, adopting that term previous to 9/11 feel free.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The argument that "extraordinary rendition" is a legal term

On March 9 2007 Akradecki wrote: "I disagree. Extraordinary rendition is essentially a legal term. The phrase you quote, 'effectively torture by proxy', is a description of the legal term."

As the article points out, Al Gore pointed out when Richard Clarke, Clinton, and others, first discussed extraordinary rendition: "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

Even if, for the sake of argument, a "Presidential Directive" makes this procedure legal, in the USA, it is not US law that applies. It is the law of the country where the capture takes place that determine whether the capture is legal, without regard to how many US Presidential Directives authorize the capture.

The American "snatch teams" that perform the extraordinary renditions sometimes have the clandestine cooperation of intelligence or law-enforcement personnel in the host countries. Back before I discovered the wikipedia I tried to have reasonable discussions about this issue in the blogosphere. I had slashdot correspondents who claimed that the ability of the snatch teams to recruit rogue elements among the officials in the host country to collaborate with them made the process legal. That is nonsense, of course.

So, let's abandon the argument that "extraordinary rendition" deserves pride of place in the intro because it is the officiial, "legal" term for the procedure.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Does NPOV require us to adopt the mealy-mouthed terms of spin-doctors?

There are certain, non-negotiable wikipedia policies, particularly, WP:NPOV, and corollary policies that tell us to avoid inflammatory language.

However, we should not agree to let ourselves be duped into adopting the terms chosen by spin doctors. Here is a thought experiment. Suppose industrial scale slavery was still legal, and was openly practiced in some developed nations. Just as the Tobacco industry hires the smartest, lawyers, public relations specialists, and spin docutors, so would that legal human bondage industry. They would hire guys as smart as Karl Rove. And those spin doctors would dream up phrases to refer to the industry, and its practice, that would put the best spin on it. I bet they would refer to slaves with terms like "the receipients of guaranteed life-time job security".

They would loudly denounce people who didn't use their preferred mealy-mouthed terms. They would accuse them of using inflammatory language. They would hire shills to invade the wikipedia, and slap {{NPOV}} tags to all the articles that didn't use their preferred terms.

If we were writing for the wikipedia in a world where industrial scale slavery was legal, and widely practiced, I am afraid NPOV would prevent us from taking a stand on the morality, or justice, of human bondage. But that wouldn't confine us to the language of the spin doctors. I'd like to think that even if, like the ante-bellum American South, or ancient Rome, slavery was a popular institution, the wikipedia would rise to the challenge of not letting a pro-slavery bias creep in.

And, similarly, I hope that the wikipedia can rise to the challenge of writing about "extraordinary rendition", using truly neutral language, even though Americans form a disproportionate number of the wikipedia's contributors.

So, is "extraordinary rendition" really a neutral term? Or is it a mealy-mouthed phrase, chosen to give the surface appearance of legitimacy and normalcy to an extraordinary, illegal act?

If it is not a truly neutral term, why shouldn't this phrase always be used, in the wikipedia, in a manner that makes clear it is the phrase of just one side in a partisan controversy — not a term that is widely regarded as legitimate and commonplace.

Let's agree to put the "extraordinary" back into extraordinary rendition.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Another wikipedian who opposes allowing "torture by proxy" to be in the article lead justified their opposition by calling "torture by proxy" "inherently POV" — but they didn't offer any justification for calling the term "inherently POV". If I had my way "inherently POV" would be listed on WP:WTA — at least when "inherently POV" is not backed up by a reasoned argument.

How is TbP any more POV than "extraordinary rendition"? A term that can be argued was chosen to give a patina of normalcy and respectability to what would otherwise be recognized as plain ordinary kidnapping?

Why shouldn't those who think "extraordinary rendition" is a neutral term offer an explanation to the rest of us why we should agree it is a neutral term? -- Geo Swan 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd vote attempt at finding the general harmonious direction that people want to take this contentious issue, based on proposals brought up in the 1st vote

Ok, based on some good comments, I propose this for the lead text (a proposed later paragraph that details the allegations will be forthcoming, unless someone writes one first):

“

"Extraordinary Rendition is the United States government term for an extra-judicial procedure conducted by them, and in particular by the CIA, to transfer to third-party states persons detained in the frame of the "War on Terror" declared by the Bush administration since the September 11, 2001 attacks. The aim is to have other countries, mainly, but not only, in the Middle East, detain and interrogate these detainees, outside of national or international jurisdiction. Since these detainees, which are considered by the CIA to have some intelligence value (i.e. of possessing information either concerning terrorist organizations or knowing facts about past or planned operations by such groups), are arrested and kept outside of any judicial oversight, often without ever being on US territory, they qualify as "ghost detainees". They may, or not, be devolved to the United States government after interrogation. It is described as torture by proxy by its critics, who allege that such movement of detainees often results in torture which would be illegal if they were held in a facility subject to U.S. legal oversight.

”

Please indicate your support/opposition:

Support proposed text
- Support Akradecki 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Ford MF 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Kyaa the Catlord 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose proposed text

Please see WP:Consensus voting on this is not the way to build a consensus. I have nothing against a survey to help clarify the position, but to try to build this article through a series of votes is not a valid method.

I do not like this latest proposal because it move the "torture by proxy" down to an afterthought in the introduction, I think it needs equal billing with Extraordinary Rendition to balance the none neutral points of view inherent in both statements. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with philip "I think it(TbP) needs equal billing with Extraordinary Rendition". Hypnosadist 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a vote, but an easy way to survey support or opposition. It's no different that "keep" and "delete" messages at AfD. It's quite frustrating to have someone say that this isn't the way to build consensus, but then not propose a better alternative. If you have one, speak up. Remember, consensus had already be reached, although it was in a direction you disagreed with. Yes, I know consensus can change, which is why I proposed the text. It's a compromise, keeping mention of TbP in the lead para. Akradecki 20:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is not a vote then why does the section have the title "2nd vote, based on proposals brought up in the 1st vote"? As for a suggestion of how to proceed please read Wikipedia:Consensus. As you will read in Wikipedia:Consensus WP, AfD and RFA are considered to be exceptions. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Because a)that word had already been used, and I can't think of a better word. Akradecki 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I used vote first but i understood that people on wikipedia would know its not binding just indicative. I also added a form used by Jimbo that adds the Voting is Evil vote.Hypnosadist 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How's the header now? Akradecki 20:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks. Hypnosadist 20:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We also just edit conflicted. You told me to read WP:Consensus. I would suggest you do the same, paying particular attention to the flow chart. When I first reverted you, you should not have kept adding the material back in. You should have respected the existing consensus and brought a proposal to the talk page. As an admin, I would have expected you to carefully and diligently respect this guideline, not repeatedly flaunt it by re-adding material that's been removed by consensus. Yes, consensus can change, but as the guideline says, no one editor can declare that. If you think it's changed, bring it up here and discuss it. Don't keep adding material back in, because that's blantant disregard for this guideline. you have yet make a formal proposal. At least I've proposed compromise text. You may disagree with it, but it seems that others are agreeing. Remember, "consensus" isn't unanimity, and you might actually have to either compromise or settle for something less than your way. Akradecki 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason why voting is not liked in Wikipedia decision making processes is because it tends to polorise opinions and tends to work against compromise.

Akradecki you have not yet addressed my concern over the bolt on appearance of your inclusion of torture by proxy. Perhaps what I mean is clear if I take your text and do this:

Torture by Proxy is a term for an extra-judicial procedure conducted by the United States government, and in ... It is described as Extraordinary Rendition by its proponents, who allege that such movement of detainees often results in the extraction of valuable information which would be difficult to obtain if the persons were held in a facility subject to U.S. legal oversight.

Does that seem to you an equally balanced POV to the one you have suggested? Personally I do, but I do not think that either version is a neutral point of view. We need to come up with a form of words where the two phrases can be interchanged without making a noticeable difference to the balance of the paragraph. Which is why I think that "Extraordinary rendition and torture by proxy are a terms used to describe an extra-judicial procedure conducted ... " is a better construction than the one you are proposing. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have addressed your concern (but you haven't addressed mine), and explained why, and I'll do it again. The terms simply don't mean the same thing. ER refers to the movement of detainees. TbP refers to what happens to some of them after they get there. For instance, is every detainee tortured after a movement? If not, he was subject to ER but not to TbP, so in this hypothetical case, they are not the same thing. Unless you have verifiable refs that say that all detainees are tortured, then they simply are not the same thing. What is actually the issue here, in my mind, is that you want to use Wikipedia to create the impression that they are synonymous, and thereby you are imposing your particular POV that they are, and introducing a factual inaccuracy. I don't really care where in the paragraph it appears, what I was after is the part about "some critics allege that...." In other words, ER always happens, TbP sometimes happens. Having said that, it strikes me that you have been completely unbending in your insistence on having this your way and no other way, and that you haven't addressed even one of my concerns. Please, then, demonstrate good faith yourself (like you called on me to do), and address this issue, as well as address the issue of why you deliberately have chosen to ignore the procedures in WP:Consensus. Akradecki 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I like that, PBS. "ER and TPB are terms..." Very good.Kaisershatner 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"ER refers to the movement of detainees. TbP refers to what happens to some of them after they get there." ER is sending people to other countries. TbP stands for having a third party torture for you (i.e. the US), what happens to detainees when in another country is not TbP. The country itself engages in torture and the country sending people there to be tortured simply delegates that torture. The latter is meant with TbP!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki you and I do not have to make the decision on if the linkage is correct, just that it is being made in attributable sources eg:

The committee expressed frustration at the lack of clarity from the government about any possible involvement in a process in which the US covertly, and without any legal process, seizes terrorist suspects and flies them for interrogation to third countries - some of which are known to use torture. One member of the committee described the policy as "effectively torture by proxy".[18]

--Philip Baird Shearer 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

But you miss the point: is the linkage always being made? That's when you make it equivalent. If it isn't then note that, as another editor suggested and I incorporated in the draft text. Even in the quote you use, that's one MP, not the reading of the whole committee. You are introducing unsupportable factual errors into the encyclopedia unless you make it clear that this is a term that some people apply to ER, not a universal equivalent. Akradecki 00:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i'd like to propose this new edition. i'll try to write it as complete as i can and at the best of my neutrality:

“

Extraordinary Rendition is an extra-judicial procedure that the government of the United States of America conducts by way of its intelligence agencies, in the frame of the "War on Terror" declared by Bush administration since September 11, 2001. This practice makes it possible to neutralize suspected persons without exposing intelligence information in a public trial. The practice is performed taking, by force, the targeted person to countries with less strict or almost no civil rights guaranty, mainly, but not only, in the Middle East. These countries keep and interrogate the suspects as detainees, outside of both U.S. national and international law. Because of the abuses and torture which some of these countries inflict on the detainees during interrogation, and which U.S. administration is supposed to be aware, if not encourage, Extraordinary Rendition as also been referred to as Torture by Proxy.

”

could you like it? could be worked to get a general consensus? Teardrop.z 01:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC) it took 3 edit to have this, please consider it;)

I've made some grammar tweaks to it (and a few more are probably necessary) but overall I can live with this. What I like about it is the flow, it starts with ER and then explains why TbP is used as an alternate term in a way that someone not familiar with the subject is actually educated. Thanks for your efforts! Akradecki 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is getting better but its still in the form; ER, excuse for ER1(9/11), excuse for ER2(protecting intelligence sources) and finally what is TbP. Also "performed taking, by force" needs to include that this is not from US teritory and hence in violation of the laws of the country the victim is taken from. Hypnosadist 12:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki if some people use TBP then it must follow that only some people use ER. Just to make it claer to you in a Google search in the UK "about 12,300 English pages for "torture by proxy" site:uk" and "about 37,900 English pages for "extraordinary rendition" site:uk" That is about 1/3, so we are not talking about one MP. There are two policy documents which apply here WP:NPOV and WP:ATT, both phrases are used and both can be attributed to reliable sources. The problem with the latest form of wording is that it still does not present the information from a NPOV. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A search this morning with Google returns one or two points that might be pertanant to this debate:

"Extraordinary rendition" site:whitehouse.gov - did not match any documents. So it does not seem to be a term widly used but the US administration and by the way Commonwealth English use of the word government means executive branch of the state.
about 415 English pages for "extraordinary rendition" site:gov and with only 415 usages it is not exactly widly used by other branches of the US government either.
"extraordinary rendition" site:gov -site:house.gov strips out the house of representatives which makes up the majority of the gov URLs. In what is left there are two conflicting meanings of "extraordinary rendition":
- http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm#9-15.610 Due to the sensitivity of abducting defendants from a foreign country, prosecutors may not take steps to secure custody over persons outside the United States (by government agents or the use of private persons, like bounty hunters or private investigators) by means of Alvarez-Machain type renditions without advance approval by the Department of Justice.
- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.952: Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act (Introduced in House)
- http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/Abstract.aspx?id=238643 Abstract of a paper in the NCJRS Library collection "Extraordinary rendition is the process of transferring detainees abroad for detention and interrogation either from the U.S. or on behalf of the U.S. While the numbers of detained individuals who have been extradited during the war on terrorism remains relatively low, the covert nature of the transfers and the allegations of prisoner abuse raise questions about the legality of the U.S. rendition program."
- http://www.counterterrorismtraining.gov/leg/index.html Far less often, these transfers are handled through extraordinary rendition or irregular rendition. This report discusses relevant international and domestic law that restricts the transfer of persons to foreign countries where they may face torture, as well as legislative proposals to limit these transfers.
- http://london.usembassy.gov/forpo916.html SECRETARY RICE: Well, we've expressed the sovereignty of Great Britain or any other country. But let me make one point about renditions. Rendition is a practice that has gone on well before September 11th. And the United States does not transfer people to places where we know they will be tortured. In fact, when we think there might even be a possibility of such, we do seek assurances.

One could write a lead paragraph based on the summary in the www.counterterrorismtraining.gov paper as a source: "extraordinary rendition" or "irregular rendition" have often been used to refer to the extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another. "Torture by Proxy" is used by some critics to describe the extraordinary rendition by the United States, with regard to the alleged transfer of suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture, purportedly with the knowledge or acquiescence of the United States.(sources: paper, BBC report) While in London On <DATE> Secretary Rice stated that the United States does not transfer people to places where we know they will be tortured.(source: usembassy) --Philip Baird Shearer 11:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Philip, nice work. I could definitely live with that reading. Thanks. With all the refs, how about a draft of a paragraph specifically on TbP for later in the article? Akradecki 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok! i'm not a native english speaker, so my text really need grammar check! i get all your points but can't understand a thing. "torture by proxy" is a not NPOV. yea! is ER NPOV? no! we are not supporting the Torture by Proxy POV. we are reporting it. the firsts sentence should answer, imho, these questions: what ER is? how is it performed? for what purpose? why there is so much people criticyze on it? we cannot hash the TbP controversy to be NPOV. this would make us hardly POVing for ER definition by administration. It is the TbP a relevant controversy? i think it is, and should be adressed as soon as possible. proper explaination must follow in the later §s fort space reasons and readability. Teardrop.z 13:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Teardrop.z the point that seems to be emerging and I think was the source of misunderstanding between myself and Akradecki is that there are two distinct usages of the term "extraordinary rendition". The first is that of rendering a person from one state to another without using formal judicial processes -- like an extradition request in front of a court of law; or bureaucratic processes as laid down by an act of parliament -- like a deportation which follows all the steps prescribed by law (the first sentence I wrote in the suggested intro paragraph above). But there is a more widespread usage of the term which specifically is a synonym for the process allegedly used by the U.S. Government also known as "Torture by proxy" (the second sentence I wrote). This second meaning is not only widely used by critics outside the US establishment, but also by critics within the establishment (for example Google returns about "185 English pages from site:house.gov for "extraordinary rendition""). The point is that while the first meaning is correct, when the term "extraordinary rendition" has been used without qualification in a general publication over the last five years or so it would usually be referring to the specific alleged process which is also called "torture by proxy" not its more specific legal meaning.

BTW just as a passing comment on Condoleezza Rice's address at the U.S. Embassy in London. Since Mandy Rice-Davies made her famous quip no British politician would dare formulate an answer that way and expect to be believed. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sources at all to back-up your claim that there are two different senses of ER? The term "torture by proxy" is simply a term used to criticize ER, which itself can be considered, as does Hypnosadist and Amnesty International, as an euphemism for forced disappearance. Tazmaniacs

You know, Philip, the bulk of the first of the two paragraphs you just wrote above could actually be synthesized slightly and added to the article, as it really is a good explanation of the usage of the terms, and for a reader not that familiar with the whole subject, it would go a long way to make it more understandable. Akradecki 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone objects here in the next 24 hours, with slight modifications to the text, I'll place in as the first paragraph leaving the bulk of what is currently the first paragraph as the second paragraph. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Article size

I'd also like to restate my concerns about the size and readability of this article in its current state. It's nearly 110kb now, which is ridiculous, and I think it's safe to say it's quickly becoming unreadable to anyone who isn't one of the eight or so people here spending all their time on the additions and revisions. Please review Wikipedia:Article size for some cohesive guidelines on what kind of length would be ideal for an article like this. I know no one likes it when portions of text they wrote gets cut, but the article is in serious need of editing. Some ideas:

1) The lead is way, way too long. It should end after "They may, or not, be devolved to the United States government after interrogation." Of the remainder, the wheat should be merged into the article, the chaff should be deleted. Leads are supposed to give a quick explanation at a glance.

2) The "examples" section is out of control. Examples that have their own articles should receive a sentence or two tops, not the 4-5 whole paragraphs they're receiving now. Maybe not even that. Possibly a list of "see also" wiki links. This is an article about the CONCEPT, not specific instances. That's why we have other articles.

3) Furthermore, maybe some of the other examples that DON'T have articles should be spun off into their own articles?

4) Most of the "investigations" stuff is fluff. Virtually all of it boils down to "this guy/country/organization has expressed unease with the policy" and "this guy/country/organization has expressed unease..." &c. &c., rinse and repeat. Is there not a way to make this more concise?

5) The "External Links" ought to be removed. They're mostly just newspaper articles. If there's something there cited in the article, it should be made into a footnote. If not, it's just taking up way too much space.

Thoughts? Ford MF 18:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs some serious trimming and adherence to summary style. Kyaa the Catlord 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And junk the war on terrorism template as it is very verbose. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts? Well, I've said it before, split the thing. ER is the movement of detainees. TbP is what happens to some of them when they get there. Seems each of these two perspectives is a natural basis for a split. Akradecki 20:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't completely agree. i think it is ESSENTIAL to keep the article readable but don't think this is archived by trimming. readability is archived working on the text coherence. more information is not more confusion. if the information is deeply based on good source the more information the more is the understanding and the readability. it would be easy to get it by trimming bad text but that wouldn't add any value to the page. what is really needed is taking the page § by § and writing it again at the most high standards. Teardrop.z 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Apart of necessary trimming and cleaning-up external links, I completely disagree with Ford's claims.

1)The lead is not too long (by the way, I don't understand all the fuss about "torture by proxy," and feels its rather a minor point concerning the article).

2 and 3) This article is about the "concept"? We're not talking philosophy here, but international politics. This so-called "concept" has got a very real reality: hence the exposure of cases. It is nonsense trying to "define" ER without taking into account real cases. In philosophical terms, it is pure spiritualism and metaphysical discussion about the sex of angels, if we do not take into account reality.

4)The "investigation" is not "fluff": it concerns very real, official reports, as well as investigations carried out mostly in the European Union. They inform on the consequences of ER carried out on European Union soil. An American might think European business are irrelevant, but Wikipedia is not restricted to discussion of internal US policies - especially when those affect the whole world.

5) You can't just remove the External Links section because you don't like it. You may certainly clean-it up and choose the best articles, that is, trimming it. Tazmaniacs 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi FordMF here are my thoughts on yours.

1)The intro is not too long but is at the max length for an article (and given the size of the article that is appropriate).

2)If this was a concept then there would be no notability grounds to have an article on this subject, this is about the practice of ER.

3)Some info could trimmed but not much from the list of victims of ER. It also needs moving up the article as this is about the people affected. 4 people mentioned in that section do not have their own article so some space could be saved by creating those and moving info across.

4)Not fluff at all but some are more important than others, the most important are; UN report by Manfred Nowak, The Council of Europe investigation et al, The European Parliament's February 14 2007 report and finally the individual national and NGO investigations in roughly that order due to the notabilty of groups involved. There may be a good case for an article about all the investigations but i don't want the criticism to just be brushed of onto sub-pages.

5)I do think a few links could be removed from the 2005 and 2006 sections but i think any cut from the article should be temporally added to this talk page to minimise the chance of revert wars. Hypnosadist 12:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Working on the Lead section

The length of the lead isn't exactly the problem, it probably isn't way out of proportion given the article length, but IMO it has lots of repetitive language and focuses too closely on the details rather than the overview of the subject. To this point I have made edits mostly for language cleanup, but I would also like to change this paragraph in a more extensive way- I thought I would ask here at Talk first just to avoid any POV problems:

The US program ~~of extraordinary rendition has lifted~~ has raised ~~a series of~~ moral, judicial, and international issues, prompting official EU investigations ~~in the European Union (EU)~~ concerning ~~citizens of member states or foreigners illegally abducted~~ abductions on European territory and ~~by the CIA and the use of "black sites," as well as the~~ the transit of CIA flights through on European territory.^[2] ~~during the execution of the various extraordinary rendition cases. a~~ A vast majority of the EU Parliament endorsed the report's conclusion ~~concluded~~ that many member states tolerated illegal actions of the CIA ~~including secret flights over their territory. Furthermore the report denounced the lack of cooperation with the EU investigation on the extraordinary rendition program~~ and criticized an unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation from several European governments and intelligence agencies.

^ Presidential directive PDD 39, 1995.
^ According to the European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Kaisershatner 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your changes seems to be for the best, but I would retain "illegal abductions" as I think that their legal status should be underlined (although you may argue that, by definition, a forced disappearance is illegal). I would also retain the "including secret flights over their territory" as the report explicitly underlined this. Tazmaniacs

Lead, final paragraph

Here's what we have, with some proposed edits:

One notable example is the ~~An example of extraordinary rendition and its political and legal repercussions is the~~ "Imam Rapito affair" in Italy, in which Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka Abu Omar), a radical Islamist cleric, was kidnapped in a joint CIA-SISMI operation in Milan on February 17, 2003, ~~before being~~ transferred to the Aviano Air Base, and ~~finally~~ rendered to Egypt, where he was held until February 11, 2007, when an Egyptian court ruled his imprisonment was "unfounded."[7]. He claims he was tortured both on the Aviano Base and in Egypt. ~~Abu Omar was not released again until February 11, 2007, at which time an Egyptian court ruled that his imprisonment was "unfounded."[7].~~Italian Investigating Prosecutors have indicted 26 US citizens including including head of CIA in Italy Jeffrey W. Castelli and 24 other CIA agents, and sent extradition requests to the Italian Ministry of Justice; ~~for 26 US citizens who have been indicted, including head of CIA in Italy Jeffrey W. Castelli and 24 other CIA agents, to the ministry of Justice, but it have never decided to~~ which it has not delivered ~~pass them~~ to American [a]uthorities. ~~The chief of the~~ SISMI chief General Nicolò Pollari, ~~as well as his~~ and second-in-command Marco Mancini have been forced to resign and were also indicted ~~subsequently indicted in the end of 2006.~~ The trial of the 26 Americans and 9 Italians has been scheduled to begin in June 2007.

My only other suggestion for this part right now is: is there an public/declassified example of ER/TPB that isn't a negative one, to give balance? It's fine to give a notable example of what may be a botched or particularly egregious example of this practice, but is there one we know about where a very bad person gave up vital information or something like that? I'm just asking. Kaisershatner 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Could we not have an edit war please? For years TbP was in the intro, as was the use of the fully written words instead of ER. Could we leave that as it is untill there is a consensus regarding theat intro? TIA.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 02:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, seems FF had a page from march 20th in cache. Maybe I spoke too soon. Sorry.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

remove word "alleged" from description of "extraordinary rendition"

There is ample evidence in the mainstream media to prove that the practice (albeit dormant) of extraordinary rendition (or whatever you want to call it) by the U.S. is real and not "alleged" as the article here suggests. For example, in today's AP article entitled: "Rockefeller: Should CIA prisons stay?" Katherine Schrader writes: "President Bush said he emptied the CIA's secret prisons in September and sent its last 14 high-value detainees to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." I suggest that the word "alleged" be removed from the description of extraordinary rendition. Ikleinbart 18:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not just the transfer that is alleged but "transfer of suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture", As far a I know these are to date these are allegations not as yet proved facts. But I am open to your attributable proof that they are more than assertions (the current sources on the paragraph do not include an attributable proof). --Philip Baird Shearer 19:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Philip. "Alleged" is used in context when there may have been illegal or possibly illegal activity, but when that activity has not been fully proven. Journalistically, it is the proper word to use (ref, Associated Press Stylebook). Obviously, the CIA flights are not discussed and confirmed by government officials, and jounalists are not invited along to observe. A court of law has not convicted any government official of wrongdoing, at least not yet. Sorry, reporting, even in mainstream media, does not "prove" the existence of a practice, unless the reporting journalists are given first-hand access. Without direct proof of a practice, allege is the correct phraseology. Akradecki 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

[1] Presidential directive PDD 39, 1995.

[2] According to the European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

[1]

[2]