home

Lawyers: CIA Renditions are on Shaky Legal Ground

Condi Rice is the new Emporer with no clothes, trying to sell Europe a bill of goods, pretending the CIA's secret prisons and renditions are legally legitimate and factually justified. Her first big test comes Tuesday in Germany. Human rights lawyers spoke up today, exposing the falsity of her claims.

Human rights lawyers said some of the cases which have come to light amounted to "disappearing people," a practice recognized as illegal for decades since its widespread use by Latin American governments in the 1970s. "If we're actually taking people, abducting them and then placing them in incommunicado detention, which appears to be the case, we would be actually guilty then of a disappearance under international law, in addition to a rendition," said Meg Satterthwaite of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University School of Law.

She pointed to Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which outlaws arbitrary arrest or detention and says an arrested person has the right to be told why he or she is being held and brought before a judge.

Gabor Rona, international legal director of advocacy group Human Rights First, said: "If people are simply being spirited off the streets ... and secretly being transferred into detention from one state to another, and have no opportunity to contest the legality of that in a court, then that is very obviously in violation of international law and most domestic law regimes."

Here are some of the cases the human rights lawyers point out:

In one case at the center of controversy in Europe, a German man says he was seized in Macedonia at the end of 2003 and flown by U.S. agents to Afghanistan, where he was interrogated for five months before the CIA realized it had the wrong man. [el Masri, TalkLeft background here and here.]

In another, Italian and German prosecutors are investigating the abduction of a radical cleric in Milan and his alleged transfer by CIA agents to Egypt, where he later said he was tortured.[Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, known as Abu Omar, TalkLeft background here.]

As Ms. Sattherwaite says:

"It's kind of absurd to say that we don't know that they're at a risk of torture, or that we believe that X or Y government would not torture this individual, when we know through our own State Department reports that myriad people have been tortured in the same facilities, same locations."

How does Condi Rice (or Stephen Hadley) justify what happened to Benyam Mohammed, who was flown by Ghost Air from Pakistan to Morocco? Excerpts from his diary:

They cut off my clothes with some kind of doctor's scalpel. I was naked. I tried to put on a brave face. But maybe I was going to be raped. Maybe they'd electrocute me. Maybe castrate me.

They took the scalpel to my right chest. It was only a small cut. Maybe an inch. At first I just screamed ... I was just shocked, I wasn't expecting ... Then they cut my left chest. This time I didn't want to scream because I knew it was coming.

One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction. I was in agony. They must have done this 20 to 30 times, in maybe two hours. There was blood all over. "I told you I was going to teach you who's the man," [one] eventually said.

They cut all over my private parts. One of them said it would be better just to cut it off, as I would only breed terrorists. I asked for a doctor.

Afterwards, they gave him an Alka-Seltzer for the pain.

According to Human Rights Watch, the U.S. is holding 26 detainees in foreign prisons, incommunicado, without legal rights or access to counsel. Here is a list of some of them.

The New York Times has more on Condi's version.

< Just Say No to "Your Papers, Please" | New and Improved 2005 Weblog Awards >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Lawyers: CIA Renditions are on Shaky Legal Gro (none / 0) (#1)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    The name of that terrorist is Condoleezza Rice and not "Condi Rice".

    Re: Lawyers: CIA Renditions are on Shaky Legal Gro (none / 0) (#2)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    The WSWS writes:
    There is little wonder that Europe’s governments want to formally distance themselves from their US ally, and at the same time fear the possibility of the US exposing their own complicity. Public anger over renditions is growing. ... Most worrying of all, Britain’s all-party parliamentary group set up to investigate the renditions scandal has commissioned a report from the Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University’s School of Law. The report finds that the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair would be guilty of breaking international law if it allowed CIA rendition planes to land at British airports. The report concludes: “A state which aids or assists another state in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for doing so... Accomplice liability has been recognised in international criminal law since at least the Nuremberg trials.”
    Rice defends illegal “renditions,” threatens to reveal European collaboration in US crimes By Chris Marsden, 6 December 2005

    AKA Imelda.

    Re: Lawyers: CIA Renditions are on Shaky Legal Gro (none / 0) (#4)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    Could Rice be arrested while she's in Germany? Please?

    It has reached the point where one can evnvison GW in front of an international criminal court on trial for crimes against humanity. The arrogance of this administration in thinking the rules don't apply to them will severly hurt this country in the future. What happens in 20, 30, or 50 years when, due to some unforseen geo-political event, we find our next generation in the hands of those who disagree with us. Certainly we have firmly set the precendt that the rule of law means nothing. This administration's short sighted behavior will only sow hatred and harm towards future generations of Americans. The concept of the rule of law, treaties, and repspect for differing cultures are lost on our simpleton, imperialistic leaders. What comes around goes around. B

    Re: Lawyers: CIA Renditions are on Shaky Legal Gro (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    This administration's short sighted behavior will only sow hatred and harm towards future generations of Americans. B, they not only don't care that this will happen, and is happening. For them it is not short sighted behavior at all. It is long term planning. It is exactly what they want to happen. It is what they planned to happen. And, it is what they are actively, every day, working to make happen.

    Strange that the human rights community maintained radio silence about this stuff during the Clinton administration, and only started noticing that they disliked it when a Republican got elected. Almost as if it's politically motivated or something.

    Re: Lawyers: CIA Renditions are on Shaky Legal Gro (none / 0) (#8)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    JamesRobertson We were ignored, unheard, belittled, but we were decidedly NOT silent. Just ask the poor folks at Benning.

    Re: Lawyers: CIA Renditions are on Shaky Legal Gro (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    you know there desperate when they pull out the 'but clinton did it' meme.

    Re: Lawyers: CIA Renditions are on Shaky Legal Gro (none / 0) (#10)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    Oh heck, Sailor, we joined the ongoing yell fest just after NIXON resigned. This country has done some not nice things for longtime.

    I felt pretty sure that Condi Rice was lying in remarks on 5 Dec. Nice to have it confirmed. And what is amazing is that some people will still defend these immoral and illegal actions. Moral relativism at its worst.

    Her excuse for all this is what we have come to expect, this procedure "saved lives, including European lives", blah blah blah. I am quite certain that the Generals who controlled Argentina in that country's dark period of brutal dictatorship were convinced that they were dissapearing people for the good of the country as a whole. I hope the Europeans will be blunt and rude. I am afraid the new German Chancellor is being much too polite about their citizen who was dissapeared.

    Thanks for the links edger. B

    No Rice cannot be arrested. She has diplomatic immunity and the Germans, unlike the Americans, tend to respect international law.

    Re: Lawyers: CIA Renditions are on Shaky Legal Gro (none / 0) (#15)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    Ba'al:
    I am quite certain that the Generals who controlled Argentina in that country's dark period of brutal dictatorship were convinced that they were dissapearing people for the good of the country as a whole.
    Yes, I was born in Argentina, and was living there at the time. The mindset of the generals is hard to understand, but they seemed to think they were on a mission. They kept repeating that Argentina was "western and Christian". Recently released documents reveal that Henry Kissinger was particularly supportive of the "junta", and Pinochet as well (who also happens to be Maggie Thatcher's hero). The US unfortunately has a long record of actively supporting the scum of the Earth as long as it was strategically convenient. Of course, Americans are by and large unaware of this. But it has to be said: Americans do elect the governments that do these things.

    Re: Lawyers: CIA Renditions are on Shaky Legal Gro (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    Al – The Left has a long history of criticizing the US for using various dictators in so-called “geopolitics.” The most memorable was our use of the Soviets, followed by the Shah of Iran, Saddam and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The use of the Soviets saved us tens of thousands of lives, the Shah denied the Soviets a warm water port, thus slowing their naval ability, the Taliban bled the Soviets and Saddam fought Iran, preventing them from seizing control of the ME. In almost every case, the good was followed by bad. However, if you were in WWII in Europe and didn’t have to invade Berlin I would think you would argue it was worth it. But here we have a situation in which we have removed a terrible killer and absolute dictator and are trying to establish a democracy. Now one would think that if the Left wasn’t filled with hypocrites that they would be supporting this action against Saddam. That they do not speaks volumes.

    Re: Lawyers: CIA Renditions are on Shaky Legal Gro (none / 0) (#17)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    I think PPJ is actually Rummy.

    Jim, Are you serious? Do you know what hypocrisy means? This is exaclty the problem with this administration . . . hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy to say we believe in international law and will prosecute someone for violating it, and then go out and ignore international law by kidnapping citizens of other coutries. Hypocrisy is saying we removed Sadam because he is in your words a "terrible killer and absolute dictator" while Kim Jong, the leaders in the Sudan, and the king of Saudia Arbia remain in power. It's hyprocrisy to say we believe in democracy and freedom while providing financial support to brutal dictators through out history. B

    Re: Lawyers: CIA Renditions are on Shaky Legal Gro (none / 0) (#19)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    Jim, it's not the "Left" who thinks--no, knows-- that this garbage about "removing a terrible killer and absolute dictator and trying to establish a democracy" is nothing but pathetically obvious self-serving rubbish. Where the hell were you when the Argentine generals were having people--and I'm talking about thousands of people--dragged from their homes in the middle of the night and taken to secret prison camps, including most famously a Navy School, to receive electric shocks with cattle prods to their genitals (men and women), finally to be injected with drugs and put aboard planes that would fly over the River Plate and be thrown, mostly unconscious but sometimes not, into the river below? And are you aware that this information comes from the very people who flew the planes? Where were you when Henry Kissinger was telling these bastards that they needed to move quickly while Congress was in recess, lest Congress vote sanctions against them? Where were you when my people were being tortured, shot in the back of the head, tossed in a car into a ditch and burned? And you have the gall to talk to me about "geopolitics"? And how you have "removed a terrible killer and absolute dictator and are trying to establish a democracy"? You wouldn't know a democracy if it hit you in the face. Keep your sanctimonious babbling to yourself, and don't you dare use the word "democracy" in a sentence again, because this is one of many words you are not worthy of using. My people know what democracy is. They have fought very, very hard for it, they have made unspeakable sacrifices for it, without help from anyone at all, and least of all from the succession of lying psychopathic swine that the United States have presented over the years to the astonishment of the civilized world as their "government".

    Re: Lawyers: CIA Renditions are on Shaky Legal Gro (none / 0) (#20)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    Al, Jim is certifiably hypocritical. He condones the use of torture (he never says anything we do is torture, proving he knows nothing about the cultural mindset of the islamic male, they would rather die than be forced to commit sodomy), while in the same breath of air condemns the same type of torture from others.