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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I'm not quite sure how to edit the article (specifically the second paragraph) to include neutral language that highlights the fact that the country to which the transport takes place is not necessarily the country where torture is alleged to have occurred, and that such an "after step" would not need to be with the consent or knowledge of the transporter, so that they could, in theory, truthfully and legally claim that they do not transfer people to places where they know they will be tortured. I'm sure you get the suggested idea here, if not read the article.
How can this be written without the somewhat thinly veiled suggestion that our favorite Mexican dish is lying to us? The diagram gives an impression to that effect, but I can't see anything in the article proper.
This is an interesting plausible deniability concept. I think the name "Sergeant Schultz" applies well. Wernhervonbraun ( talk) 15:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Should it really be referencing another Wikipedia article? That seems suspect. Let's reference the original sources, please, not Wikipedia itself. XINOPH | TALK 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
confirmation by government is unnecessary in order for confirmation to exist. confirmation by government is official confirmation, civilian organisation can release confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.235.85 ( talk) 21:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Maher Arar is a joint Syrian-Canadian citizen born in Syria. On September 26, 2002, while passing through John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, Mr. Arar was arrested and subsequently detained by American officials for 12 days. He was then removed against his will to Syria, the country of his birth, where he was imprisoned for nearly a year. While in Syria, Mr. Arar was interrogated, tortured and held in degrading and inhumane conditions. He returned to Canada after his release on October 5, 2003. Not surprisingly, the effects of this ordeal on Mr. Arar have been devastating and he and his family continue to suffer to this day. Mr. Arar has never been charged with any offence in Canada, the United States or Syria.
Reading the citation, I was struck by how well the Canadian Government summarized this case. Most of what I propose to use (above) is taken directly from it. As a government report, it is public domain. Raggz ( talk) 02:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
"While Rice has denied that the CIA used torture, she refused to address the allegations of covert prisons that have caused consternation across Europe and not least in Romania.[69][70][71]"
Are secret prisons part of the topic of this article if not linked to allegations of extraordinary rendition? If there are secret prisons but there is no torture, what is the link? Raggz ( talk) 02:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
What do the Geneva Conventions require in regard to prisons? During WWII were German prisoners transferred to other allied prisons? Two million were held, all without trials. This is important because we do not have a section on what "extralegal" means. What does it mean? If this was legal rendition then, would it be so today?
Example: The US and Poland are free to negotiate on prisoner transfers as long as they comply with applicable law. The EU has it's own set of laws inapplicable to the US, but to Poland. Most of our EU material is not about the US doing anything extralegal, but about conflict between EU policies and Polish law. What is legal for the US might violate EU policy. This has nothing directly to do with the US, or our topic and belongs in the EU or Poland article if the US has not violated any law. If there has been a violation of law, what court found this? Raggz ( talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
When extraordinary rendition is alleged, but not proven, NPOV requires that we presume that it could simply be legal rendition. NPOV does not preclude mentioning allegations if we want to, but as an encyclopedia we are not equipped to be a court of law, to offer evidence, build cases, or hear cases, or offer verdicts. We report such verdicts.
Read the article, it is merely a list of allegations with no findings of fact (except for one by the Canadian Government). Read the article, it denies NPOV by reading like a prosecutor's list of circumstantial evidence. Where is there a strong statement in the Lead that nothing has been proven, ever? Raggz ( talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is really an essay on why the US is guilty of crimes, and allegation that no court has ever supported in any of the many cases brought. This lack of perspective violates wp:or. We could just request that the article be deleted - or we could bring it into compliance. Raggz ( talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The entire article violates wp:syn, read this policy and please comment. Raggz ( talk) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Nickhh says "Undo series of unilateral edits by editor with no understanding of the issues. I am talked out on this, you have no consensus or rationale for your deletions of material".
Please understand that where I believe that the article violates WP policy, wp:consensus is irrelevant. I can wait a bit for you to think all of this through, but eventually I need to revert your reverts because the text violates WP policy. This is why it was deleted. You need to engage on the Talk page if you want to revert my edits. If you are really "talked out", you need to stop editing the article until you can engage.
For example: You insist that secret prisons are always part of extraordinary rendition and I claim that they may - or may not be relevant. You are not engaging on this question, not explaining, but are demanding and even insulting. Why not just explain your thoughts? Raggz ( talk) 09:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not revert fact tags, instead, please add a supporting reference so that it then complies with wp:or.
The AP story quotes Tom Malinowski, Washington office director of Human Rights Watch who said... Since the link was broken, I edited the brackets off. Someone reverted this minor edit, why? Raggz ( talk) 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The best source on linking these prisons to ER is this http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2006/20060606_Ejdoc162006PartII-FINAL.pdf and http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2006-0316+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN which is the Council of Europe report. There are others but this is the primary source for the aligations against America and those European nations that aided in the violation of various laws. (Hypnosadist) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
We have a lot of material about a dispute between the European Parliment and its members. How is this relevant? Our article is not about the EU and its extraordinary rendition practices.
Correction: The EU is not a UN member and so its laws are not subject to the UNSC. The US Supreme Court speaks for the US, and the UNSC could in theory review its decisions by the UN Charter signed by the US. The ECHR or ECJ speaks for EU members. Any treaty dispute (including intr-EU treaties) may be brought by a member to the UNSC and the UNSC determination is binding upon all members (UN Charter, Art. 38?) Any UN treaty disputes (by the UN Charter) may be brought to the UNSC for binding resolution by any member. The UNSC normally delegates this authority to a panel (like the ICJ) and the UNSC must approve their decision (if appealed). Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
One man's opinion that we have improperly called that of the European Parliment. Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we agree that the EU "is concerned". It says that and we can use that. Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that one member of the European Parlimant "is led to believe" all of that. Do you call this a finding of fact? The finding of fact by the European Parliment actually was to not issue any report whatever. This member disagreed and issued his own memo. Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Euro-squabbling. Treaties between EU members are not US business. If Poland wants to give the EU these, or wants to withold them, why does our article care? Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The US also "condemns the practice of extraordinary renditions". They would be illegal and apparently do not occur. If there were proof, why did the many legal actions fail for lack of evidence? If we on Wiki have the missing evidence I suggest giving it to those who need it, it would be a primary source and be ineligible for inclusion here until offered to the court. Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It says: "could be tortured". Well, yes, anyone anywhere could be tortured. Is our article about anyone anywhere could be tortured. Sorry, I think that we need to focus upon our topic. Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
93. A summary of the unprecedented suffering endured by Mr El-Masri reads as follows:
94. [A]ccording to the statement of facts presented to the US District Court91, Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, travelled by bus from his home near Neu Ulm, Germany, to Skopje, Macedonia, in the final days of 2003. After passing through several international border crossings without incident, Mr El-Masri was detained at the Serbian-Macedonian border because of alleged irregularities with his passport. He was interrogated by Macedonian border officials, then transported to a hotel in Skopje. Subsequent to his release in May, 2004, Mr El-Masri was able to identify the hotel from website photographs as the Skopski Merak, and to identify photos of the room where he was held and of a waiter who served him food. Over the course of three weeks, Mr El-Masri was repeatedly interrogated about alleged contacts with Islamic extremists, and was denied any contact with the German Embassy, an attorney, or his family. He was told that if he confessed to Al- Qaeda membership, he would be returned to Germany. On the thirteenth day of confinement, Mr El- Masri commenced a hunger strike, which continued until his departure from Macedonia. After 23 days of detention, Mr El-Masri was videotaped, blindfolded, and transported by vehicle to an airport.
95. There, he was beaten, stripped naked, and thrown to the ground. A hard object was forced into his anus. When his blindfold was removed, he saw seven or eight men, dressed in black and hooded. He was placed in a diaper and sweatsuit, blindfolded, shackled, and hurried to a plane, where he was chained spreadeagled to the floor. He was injected with drugs and flown to Baghdad, then on to Kabul, Afghanistan, an itinerary that is confirmed by public flight records. At some point prior to his departure, an exit stamp was placed in his passport, confirming that he left Macedonia on January 23, 2004. (Hypnosadist) 12:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
[Raggz,] I have tried to disengage from this endless and fruitless talk page debate, but partly out of my own frustration and partly out of a genuine desire to get through to you I have persevered and come back again and again to answer each point you have raised (whether it's the repetition of an already-answered one, or some new tangent you've run off on). This is really it though - it is utterly farcical and borderline trolling to drag people into these constant debates which you initiate with random questions, comments and edits. You consistently misread and misinterpret sources and Wikipedia policies, contradict yourself, make surreal assertions about legal and political issues about which you appear to know nothing, and dump your pov-driven original research into articles. All the while accusing other editors of not engaging with you (quite the opposite is true of course), of not understanding WP policy and of engaging in original research simply because you don't agree with them. In all the time you've been editing here (and despite several breaks) you continue in the same manner on every page you turn up on.
I am not going to discuss anything else with you on this page. Do not take this as tacit consensus that the arguments you've made above (and will no doubt continue to make here) hold any water. In fact assume that I would probably rebut every single point you have made on the talk page, with specific arguments and examples, if I had the time. Also do not take this to mean that you have the right to continue to muck about with the main content. Where this will leave the article, who knows. Hopefully other editors may take on some of the challenge. -- Nickhh ( talk) 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
France: The French attorney general of Bobigny opened up an instruction in order "to verify the presence in Le Bourget Airport, on 2005-07-20, of the plane numbered N50BH." This instruction was opened following a complaint deposed in December 2005 by the Ligue des droits de l'homme (LDH) NGO ("Human Rights League") and the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) NGO on charges of "arbitrary detention", "crime of torture" and "non-respect of the rights of war prisoners". It has as objective to determine if the plane was used to transport CIA prisoners to Guantanamo Bay detainment camp and if the French authorities had knowledge of this stop. However, the lawyer defending the LDH declared that he was surprised that the instruction was only opened on 2006-01-20, and that no verifications had been done before. On 2005-12-02, conservative newspaper Le Figaro had revealed the existence of two CIA planes that had landed in France, suspected of transporting CIA prisoners. But the instruction concerned only N50BH, which was a Gulfstream III, which would have landed at Le Bourget on 2005-07-20, coming from Oslo, Norway. The other suspected aircraft would have landed in Brest on 2002-03-31. It is investigated by the Canadian authorities, as it would have been flying from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada, via Keflavík in Iceland before going to Turkey.[87]
Why do we want this section? We could just say there were allegations that extraordinary rendition flights passed through France. These were investigated and there was no finding that any ER had ever ocurred.
None of the "evidence" above implies anything about ER. The CIA may legally transport as many prisoners through France as it wants to. It may legally hold 100,000 prisoners within France, if France permits this. Please read wp:syn and wp:npov. Where is the balance? In the end, what does the Reader learn? Raggz ( talk) 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is one of our irrelevant cites that we have used to write an essay about why the US is guilty of ER in Kosovo by the method of OR/SYN. Note that it alleges nothing, read the bottom line.
As the number of questions asked across Europe grows on the existence of a chain of secret prisons run by the CIA, the E.U. Commissioner for Human Rights, Alvaro Gil Robles, has described for the first time what he saw in September 2002, at a site that until now had not been mentioned in the controversy of extrajudicial detentions and the war on al-Qaeda: The U.S. military base at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. Within this imposing base, which is home to 6,000 U.S. Army troops and spread out across 300 hectares near Ferizaj, south of Pristina, the "capital" of the U.N.-administered province of Kosovo, Gil Robles saw a replica of Guantanamo. A prison has been built inside Camp Bondsteel. Run by the U.S. Army, it is the principal detention center for KFOR, the multinational NATO force deployed in Kosovo since June 1999.
From a tower, I saw a place which looked like a replica of Guantanamo, but on a smaller scale, Robles tells Le Monde. Small rudimentary wooden shelters were surrounded by a tall barbed wire fence. I saw between fifteen and twenty prisoners inside huts, dressed in orange jumpsuits like those used at Guantanamo. The prisoners I saw were not shackled. Most of them were sitting down, some isolated from the others. Some prisoners had beards. Others read the Koran. There were walkways around the cells for the guards. A female U.S. soldier who worked at the prison explained to me that she had just been transferred there from Guantanamo, Robles continued. He also met with a representative of the U.S. Department of Justice.
"Shocked" by what he saw at Camp Bondsteel, Robles requested the day after his 2002 visit that detention operations end and that the buildings resembling Guantanamo be dismantled. He says he received assurances that this would be done the following year.
However a number of questions remain unanswered. Was the prison at Camp Bondsteel used by the CIA to "rotate" prisoners amongst Afghanistan, the Middle East, Europe and Guantanamo? Have there been or are there now places of secret detention? Under whose jurisdiction does a KFOR prison inside Camp Bondsteel fall?
In 2002 at Camp Bondsteel and Guantanamo, prisoners had no access to legal counsel. Their incarceration was not the result of judicial procedure and their place of origin was not always clear. The legal limbo of Kosovo has contributed to the situation. The province is under U.N. administration pending a definitive determination, but the multinational force is NATO and has significant prerogatives. Camp Bondsteel is a zone of "non-law." As it was being built in 1999, the camp was described as the largest U.S. base since the Vietnam War.
Among the detainees seen by Robles, four men were North African while others appeared to be Kosovars or Serbs. According to the official version, the four men were arrested by KFOR along the Macedonian border and were detained for compelling "security" reasons. But on paper the reason for detention was strange: "Resolution 1244," in reference to the U.N. Security Council resolution covering Kosovo and the powers of KFOR.
The 'Largest U.S. Military Base Since the Vietnam War,' Camp Bondsteel. Robles requested permission to visit the prison inside Camp Bondsteel after KFOR carried out a number of extrajudicial arrests in Kosovo. He was escorted to the base by the KFOR commander at the time, French General Marcel Valentin, who was visibly upset by the fate of the prisoners.
The use of a base linked to a NATO operation under the aegis of the U.N. in the "war on terror" raises the question of the transparency of U.S. activities vis-ý-vis its allies.
These facts go back three years. The fact that Robles has waited until now to talk about this raises questions. The report that he published following his trip barely mentioned Camp Bondsteel. The priority at the time was to facilitate the admission of Serbia-Montenegro to the Council of Europe, which was accomplished in 2003. The reason he recalls the episode now, says Robles, is his growing suspicion concerning the existence of secret prisons run by the CIA, and the apparent scale of the transfers by special planes of prisoners suspected of links to al-Qaeda.
I cannot prove the link between [the transfers] and Camp Bondsteel, because I don't possess concrete evidence, says Robles. But I believe that we must demand an explanation of the activities inside that base in Kosovo as well as other suspicious sites in Europe.
The Portuguese general prosecutor Cândida Almeida, head of the Central Investigation and Penal Action Department (DCIAP), announced on 5 February 2006 that investigating magistrates would investigate the stopovers made in Portugal by CIA flights suspected of involvement in renditions.
The investigation, which envisages the possibility of bringing criminal charges against people whose identity is not yet known, will focus on the issue of "torture or inhuman and cruel treatment" against detainees suspected of international terrorist offences, and was instigated by allegations of "illegal activities and serious human rights violations" made by MEP Ana Gomes to the attorney general, Pinto Monteiro, on 26 January 2007. Gomes was very active in the TDIP commission, and repeatedly complained about the failure by Portuguese authorities (from both the current and past government) to provide information concerning suspicious flights, leading to furious exchanges of accusations with the foreign minister, her socialist party colleague Luís Amado.
Journalist Rui Costa Pinto was also heard by the DCIAP, as a result of a report that she wrote concerning CIA flights on the island of Terceira in the Azores, where Lajes airbase is found, whose publication was not authorised by her magazine, "Visão". Gomes expressed her satisfaction for the opening of the investigation, but noted that she had always claimed that a parliamentary inquiry would also be necessary.''
This is just more OR/SYN and requires deletion.
After claims by Liberty that British airports had been used by the CIA for extraordinary rendition flights, the Association of Chief Police Officers launched an investigation in November, 2005. The report was published in June, 2007 and found no evidence to support the claim. This was on the same day the Council of Europe released its report with evidence that the UK had colluded in extraordinary rendition, thus directly contradicting ACP's findings. Liberty has challenged the findings and has stated that its original claims were based on "credible evidence". [1]
Here is the classic wp:or and wp:syn violation. If you don't know what a SYN error is, here is the best example on WP (Gone) Raggz ( talk) 03:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This report documents the cases of three Yemeni nationals who had "disappeared" in 2003 and who had been kept in isolation in a series of secret detention centres apparently run by US agents. In May 2005 they were flown to Yemen and transferred to Yemeni custody where they continue to be held without charge or trial. Amnesty International is calling for the release of the three men immediately from detention, or to promptly charge them with a recognizable criminal offence and bring them to trial.
This report is about what happened to Yemeni nationals from the Yemeni government. The article is not about Yemen. If the government of Yemen did invite the CIA in, would that be ER? No, it would not be. May we focus upon our topic. This is a tiny part of the larger OR/SYN violations. Raggz ( talk) 04:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
To read our article, one might imagine that it was illegal for CIA planes to transit Europe, or to fly anywhere in the world. Can we reach consensus that CIA flight activities are irrelevant to this article unless there is a reliable source that links a flight to ER?
The following was just deleted as OR/SYN: The Berliner Zeitung reported the following day there was documentation of 85 takeoffs and landings by planes with a "high probability" of being operated by the CIA, at Ramstein, the Rhein-Main Air Base and others. The newspaper cited experts and "plane-spotters" who observed the planes as responsible for the tally. [2]
If the allegation were true, how would this be relevant to our article? If they all held terrorism suspects (and we had a reliable source for this - which we do not), how would this be relevant? Is it illegal for the CIA to transport terrorism suspects? No, as long as the US complies with the SOFA, the US need not tell anyone in the EU anything. Is our article about the transport of terrorism suspects? No, our topic is ER, may we stick with it? Raggz ( talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Any sources that these CIA flights were legal? (Hypnosadist) 00:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC) No. There are no reliable sources that these flights were legal or illegal. There is a source that these flights might have been illegal. We can say this if we wish, but if we do not offer NPOV balance when we say it, the text requires deletion. When you revert it, it is your responsibility to ensure that you have done your best for a NPOV. 04:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Raggz ( talk)
The World Policy Council, part of the of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity and headed by Ambassador Horace Dawson and Senator Edward Brooke, criticized the Bush Administration in the area of civil and human rights for its policy on extraordinary rendition. The Council concluded in its report that extraordinary rendition
1) not only frustrates legitimate efforts to prosecute terrorists, but it makes a mockery of the high sounding principles that we hear invoked constantly.
2) robs us of the moral high ground and our justification for leadership in the world.
3) lowers us to the level of all those rogue and evil regimes that we have fought against in the past and against which we claim we are now struggling. [3]
I expect to delete the above as irrelevant. Who stands with the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity as being an important opinion? As for policy, where is the NPOV balance in this section? Raggz ( talk) 03:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The intro sets out pretty clearly what is usually meant by Extraordinary Rendition - broadly, that it means the transfer of detainees without legal process, in particular to places where they could face torture or harsh treatment. This is the definition used in the cited (US) source. "Rendition" per se simply mean a "delivery" or "handing over" - ie it covers, in this context, a wider category including transfers following a legal extradition hearing as well as those following illegal kidnapping etc etc. It is the lack of any hearing or process prior to the transfer which makes the rendition "extraordinary". There are many reported instances of detainees being captured and then secretly, and without any hearing, handed over to the local authorities in countries such as Jordan and Syria, sometimes after having first been held in US-run camps overseas, including sites in some countries in Europe. The US does not deny that it engages in this practice - what it does appear to deny is a) that it is illegal; and b) that it leads to suspects being tortured (on this point the defence seems to be that when in US custody, the often harsh techniques used do not amount to torture; and when delivered to other countries' prisons, that the US has agreements that the individuals will not face torture. We will all have our own opinions about the value of each of these defences of course, but that's kind of off-topic for the article itself)
Accordingly this article needs to cover any reported, alleged or proven instance of the above as raised in reliable sources. It should also cover of course any denials or rebuttals. So individuals who were kidnapped or arrested in one country by US agents or proxies and then flown to another; CIA flights, possibly carrying such detainees, which were taking place across Europe; prisoners being transported to different destinations in ships; allegations of torture in the places to which individuals have been taken etc - these are all relevant to the issue at hand. WP needs to cover what reliable sources report, not draw our own judgements or conclusions about what is illegal. -- Nickhh ( talk) 09:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Torture is illegal. No one may be tortured. There are many laws, and they all agree on this. Raggz ( talk) 11:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The text below was deleted because it has no reliable source. The Lead requires editing to remove this same unsupported material. If there is a reliable source, feel free to revert with this. Raggz ( talk) 11:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) calls for EU regulations governing foreign intelligence services operating in Europe, and demands “human rights clauses” in military base agreements with the USA.
In a resolution and recommendation approved by a large majority, the Assembly also called for:
Primary Sources are subject to the WP policy for primary sources. In regard to the Council of Europe memo, it is ineligible to serve as a reliable source for your claims because it is a primary source. Please find a secondary source that supports these claims, and stop reverting these until you do. Read the WP policy, my take is that you don't get to summarize the memo, you get to quote a reliable source who has summarized this memo. Please use secondary sources, many of the wp:syn errors rely upon the use of primary sources to do this. As a new editor, I did exactly what I suggest is being done here, and I presume that you are also unaware of your errors. Please review these policies and discuss them here before reverting OR/SYN errors. Raggz ( talk) 04:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Several months before the publication of the Council of Europe report directed by Dick Marty, Gijs de Vries, the EU's antiterrorism coordinator, asserted in April 2006 that no evidence existed that extraordinary rendition had been taking place in Europe. It was also said that the European Union's probe, and a similar one by the continent's leading human rights group had not found any human rights violations nor other crimes that could be proven to the satisfaction of the courts.[81] This denial from a member of the executive power of the EU institutions has been flatly denied by the European Parliament report, which was accepted by a vast majority of the Parliament in February 2007 (See below:The European Parliament's February 14, 2007 report).
This appears to be examples of wp:syn and wp:npov policy violations. This is because it appears to be attempting to argue with "had not found any human rights violations nor other crimes that could be proven to the satisfaction of the courts". Did the European Parliment really "flatly deny" anything? I cannot find this, would someone please offer this specific text? It is a SYN violation to use a reliable source to argue with the preceeding text if the cite itself did not make this point. A SYN violation by definition uses a reliable source to violate policy, this is what wp:syn is about.
NPOV: Here is an example of adding a bit of text to provide NPOV cover, but use of OR/SYN to negate it. By negating this text by misrepresenting the report, NPOV is denied. Raggz ( talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read all of the above discussion, but it seems pretty clear to me that this article flagrantly violates NPOV from the start. The first few sentences involve (1) glossing "extrajudicial" as "illegal", which is incorrect, (2) equating ER and kidnapping, which is pure rhetoric, (3) accuse the US of operating "an extensive rendition program" without providing a source immediately for this claim. With respect to (3), it should definitely be clarified whether this is just a legal rendition program or an extraordinary rendition program, but--more importantly--it shouldn't be in the opening paragraph. The primary purpose of the article must be to define ER, not immediately to launch into accusations. This article needs serious attention from non-partisan editors. 145.116.8.66 ( talk) 05:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a contradiction between this statement "Both the Reagan and Clinton cases involved apprehending known terrorists abroad, by covert means if necessary. Neither involved handing over detainees to foreign countries" and this statement "thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a presidential directive (PDD 39), the CIA instead elected to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian Mukhabarat." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.21.57 ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 2009 January 23
The claim Modern methods of rendition include a form where suspects are taken into US custody but delivered to a third-party state, is deceiving and inaccurate. Rendition occurs when there is a transfer of custody back to the suspects home state. Such as an Egyptian national taken into U.S. custody being transferred back to Egyptian Custody. I am unaware of any program of sending suspects to random third party states specifically to be tortured, as the article implies. I would like to see citations if that is being alleged, specific to actual U.S. policy, more than maybe a few anecdotal examples of cases of mistaken identiy, negligence, etc. Otherwise, it should be stated clearly that the process is sending nationals back to their home states or we risk sending a extremely false impression to Wikipedia readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.212.94 ( talk • contribs) 07:31, 2009 February 23
Coverage of specific instances of extraordinary rendition goes back to at least 2005 Geo Swan ( talk) 23:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
individual | held in | since 2005 |
---|---|---|
Abu Zubaydah | Thailand, Poland |
|
Ibn Al-Shaykh al-Libi | Poland, Pakistan/ Afghanistan |
|
Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi | Poland |
|
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri | Poland |
|
Ramzi Binalshibh | Poland |
|
Mohammed Omar Abdel-Rahman | Poland |
|
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed | Poland |
|
Waleed Mohammed bin Attash | Poland |
|
Hambali | ? |
|
Hassan Ghul | Poland |
|
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani | Poland |
|
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I'm not quite sure how to edit the article (specifically the second paragraph) to include neutral language that highlights the fact that the country to which the transport takes place is not necessarily the country where torture is alleged to have occurred, and that such an "after step" would not need to be with the consent or knowledge of the transporter, so that they could, in theory, truthfully and legally claim that they do not transfer people to places where they know they will be tortured. I'm sure you get the suggested idea here, if not read the article.
How can this be written without the somewhat thinly veiled suggestion that our favorite Mexican dish is lying to us? The diagram gives an impression to that effect, but I can't see anything in the article proper.
This is an interesting plausible deniability concept. I think the name "Sergeant Schultz" applies well. Wernhervonbraun ( talk) 15:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Should it really be referencing another Wikipedia article? That seems suspect. Let's reference the original sources, please, not Wikipedia itself. XINOPH | TALK 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
confirmation by government is unnecessary in order for confirmation to exist. confirmation by government is official confirmation, civilian organisation can release confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.235.85 ( talk) 21:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Maher Arar is a joint Syrian-Canadian citizen born in Syria. On September 26, 2002, while passing through John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, Mr. Arar was arrested and subsequently detained by American officials for 12 days. He was then removed against his will to Syria, the country of his birth, where he was imprisoned for nearly a year. While in Syria, Mr. Arar was interrogated, tortured and held in degrading and inhumane conditions. He returned to Canada after his release on October 5, 2003. Not surprisingly, the effects of this ordeal on Mr. Arar have been devastating and he and his family continue to suffer to this day. Mr. Arar has never been charged with any offence in Canada, the United States or Syria.
Reading the citation, I was struck by how well the Canadian Government summarized this case. Most of what I propose to use (above) is taken directly from it. As a government report, it is public domain. Raggz ( talk) 02:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
"While Rice has denied that the CIA used torture, she refused to address the allegations of covert prisons that have caused consternation across Europe and not least in Romania.[69][70][71]"
Are secret prisons part of the topic of this article if not linked to allegations of extraordinary rendition? If there are secret prisons but there is no torture, what is the link? Raggz ( talk) 02:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
What do the Geneva Conventions require in regard to prisons? During WWII were German prisoners transferred to other allied prisons? Two million were held, all without trials. This is important because we do not have a section on what "extralegal" means. What does it mean? If this was legal rendition then, would it be so today?
Example: The US and Poland are free to negotiate on prisoner transfers as long as they comply with applicable law. The EU has it's own set of laws inapplicable to the US, but to Poland. Most of our EU material is not about the US doing anything extralegal, but about conflict between EU policies and Polish law. What is legal for the US might violate EU policy. This has nothing directly to do with the US, or our topic and belongs in the EU or Poland article if the US has not violated any law. If there has been a violation of law, what court found this? Raggz ( talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
When extraordinary rendition is alleged, but not proven, NPOV requires that we presume that it could simply be legal rendition. NPOV does not preclude mentioning allegations if we want to, but as an encyclopedia we are not equipped to be a court of law, to offer evidence, build cases, or hear cases, or offer verdicts. We report such verdicts.
Read the article, it is merely a list of allegations with no findings of fact (except for one by the Canadian Government). Read the article, it denies NPOV by reading like a prosecutor's list of circumstantial evidence. Where is there a strong statement in the Lead that nothing has been proven, ever? Raggz ( talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is really an essay on why the US is guilty of crimes, and allegation that no court has ever supported in any of the many cases brought. This lack of perspective violates wp:or. We could just request that the article be deleted - or we could bring it into compliance. Raggz ( talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The entire article violates wp:syn, read this policy and please comment. Raggz ( talk) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Nickhh says "Undo series of unilateral edits by editor with no understanding of the issues. I am talked out on this, you have no consensus or rationale for your deletions of material".
Please understand that where I believe that the article violates WP policy, wp:consensus is irrelevant. I can wait a bit for you to think all of this through, but eventually I need to revert your reverts because the text violates WP policy. This is why it was deleted. You need to engage on the Talk page if you want to revert my edits. If you are really "talked out", you need to stop editing the article until you can engage.
For example: You insist that secret prisons are always part of extraordinary rendition and I claim that they may - or may not be relevant. You are not engaging on this question, not explaining, but are demanding and even insulting. Why not just explain your thoughts? Raggz ( talk) 09:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not revert fact tags, instead, please add a supporting reference so that it then complies with wp:or.
The AP story quotes Tom Malinowski, Washington office director of Human Rights Watch who said... Since the link was broken, I edited the brackets off. Someone reverted this minor edit, why? Raggz ( talk) 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The best source on linking these prisons to ER is this http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2006/20060606_Ejdoc162006PartII-FINAL.pdf and http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2006-0316+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN which is the Council of Europe report. There are others but this is the primary source for the aligations against America and those European nations that aided in the violation of various laws. (Hypnosadist) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
We have a lot of material about a dispute between the European Parliment and its members. How is this relevant? Our article is not about the EU and its extraordinary rendition practices.
Correction: The EU is not a UN member and so its laws are not subject to the UNSC. The US Supreme Court speaks for the US, and the UNSC could in theory review its decisions by the UN Charter signed by the US. The ECHR or ECJ speaks for EU members. Any treaty dispute (including intr-EU treaties) may be brought by a member to the UNSC and the UNSC determination is binding upon all members (UN Charter, Art. 38?) Any UN treaty disputes (by the UN Charter) may be brought to the UNSC for binding resolution by any member. The UNSC normally delegates this authority to a panel (like the ICJ) and the UNSC must approve their decision (if appealed). Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
One man's opinion that we have improperly called that of the European Parliment. Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we agree that the EU "is concerned". It says that and we can use that. Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that one member of the European Parlimant "is led to believe" all of that. Do you call this a finding of fact? The finding of fact by the European Parliment actually was to not issue any report whatever. This member disagreed and issued his own memo. Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Euro-squabbling. Treaties between EU members are not US business. If Poland wants to give the EU these, or wants to withold them, why does our article care? Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The US also "condemns the practice of extraordinary renditions". They would be illegal and apparently do not occur. If there were proof, why did the many legal actions fail for lack of evidence? If we on Wiki have the missing evidence I suggest giving it to those who need it, it would be a primary source and be ineligible for inclusion here until offered to the court. Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It says: "could be tortured". Well, yes, anyone anywhere could be tortured. Is our article about anyone anywhere could be tortured. Sorry, I think that we need to focus upon our topic. Raggz ( talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
93. A summary of the unprecedented suffering endured by Mr El-Masri reads as follows:
94. [A]ccording to the statement of facts presented to the US District Court91, Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, travelled by bus from his home near Neu Ulm, Germany, to Skopje, Macedonia, in the final days of 2003. After passing through several international border crossings without incident, Mr El-Masri was detained at the Serbian-Macedonian border because of alleged irregularities with his passport. He was interrogated by Macedonian border officials, then transported to a hotel in Skopje. Subsequent to his release in May, 2004, Mr El-Masri was able to identify the hotel from website photographs as the Skopski Merak, and to identify photos of the room where he was held and of a waiter who served him food. Over the course of three weeks, Mr El-Masri was repeatedly interrogated about alleged contacts with Islamic extremists, and was denied any contact with the German Embassy, an attorney, or his family. He was told that if he confessed to Al- Qaeda membership, he would be returned to Germany. On the thirteenth day of confinement, Mr El- Masri commenced a hunger strike, which continued until his departure from Macedonia. After 23 days of detention, Mr El-Masri was videotaped, blindfolded, and transported by vehicle to an airport.
95. There, he was beaten, stripped naked, and thrown to the ground. A hard object was forced into his anus. When his blindfold was removed, he saw seven or eight men, dressed in black and hooded. He was placed in a diaper and sweatsuit, blindfolded, shackled, and hurried to a plane, where he was chained spreadeagled to the floor. He was injected with drugs and flown to Baghdad, then on to Kabul, Afghanistan, an itinerary that is confirmed by public flight records. At some point prior to his departure, an exit stamp was placed in his passport, confirming that he left Macedonia on January 23, 2004. (Hypnosadist) 12:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
[Raggz,] I have tried to disengage from this endless and fruitless talk page debate, but partly out of my own frustration and partly out of a genuine desire to get through to you I have persevered and come back again and again to answer each point you have raised (whether it's the repetition of an already-answered one, or some new tangent you've run off on). This is really it though - it is utterly farcical and borderline trolling to drag people into these constant debates which you initiate with random questions, comments and edits. You consistently misread and misinterpret sources and Wikipedia policies, contradict yourself, make surreal assertions about legal and political issues about which you appear to know nothing, and dump your pov-driven original research into articles. All the while accusing other editors of not engaging with you (quite the opposite is true of course), of not understanding WP policy and of engaging in original research simply because you don't agree with them. In all the time you've been editing here (and despite several breaks) you continue in the same manner on every page you turn up on.
I am not going to discuss anything else with you on this page. Do not take this as tacit consensus that the arguments you've made above (and will no doubt continue to make here) hold any water. In fact assume that I would probably rebut every single point you have made on the talk page, with specific arguments and examples, if I had the time. Also do not take this to mean that you have the right to continue to muck about with the main content. Where this will leave the article, who knows. Hopefully other editors may take on some of the challenge. -- Nickhh ( talk) 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
France: The French attorney general of Bobigny opened up an instruction in order "to verify the presence in Le Bourget Airport, on 2005-07-20, of the plane numbered N50BH." This instruction was opened following a complaint deposed in December 2005 by the Ligue des droits de l'homme (LDH) NGO ("Human Rights League") and the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) NGO on charges of "arbitrary detention", "crime of torture" and "non-respect of the rights of war prisoners". It has as objective to determine if the plane was used to transport CIA prisoners to Guantanamo Bay detainment camp and if the French authorities had knowledge of this stop. However, the lawyer defending the LDH declared that he was surprised that the instruction was only opened on 2006-01-20, and that no verifications had been done before. On 2005-12-02, conservative newspaper Le Figaro had revealed the existence of two CIA planes that had landed in France, suspected of transporting CIA prisoners. But the instruction concerned only N50BH, which was a Gulfstream III, which would have landed at Le Bourget on 2005-07-20, coming from Oslo, Norway. The other suspected aircraft would have landed in Brest on 2002-03-31. It is investigated by the Canadian authorities, as it would have been flying from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada, via Keflavík in Iceland before going to Turkey.[87]
Why do we want this section? We could just say there were allegations that extraordinary rendition flights passed through France. These were investigated and there was no finding that any ER had ever ocurred.
None of the "evidence" above implies anything about ER. The CIA may legally transport as many prisoners through France as it wants to. It may legally hold 100,000 prisoners within France, if France permits this. Please read wp:syn and wp:npov. Where is the balance? In the end, what does the Reader learn? Raggz ( talk) 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is one of our irrelevant cites that we have used to write an essay about why the US is guilty of ER in Kosovo by the method of OR/SYN. Note that it alleges nothing, read the bottom line.
As the number of questions asked across Europe grows on the existence of a chain of secret prisons run by the CIA, the E.U. Commissioner for Human Rights, Alvaro Gil Robles, has described for the first time what he saw in September 2002, at a site that until now had not been mentioned in the controversy of extrajudicial detentions and the war on al-Qaeda: The U.S. military base at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. Within this imposing base, which is home to 6,000 U.S. Army troops and spread out across 300 hectares near Ferizaj, south of Pristina, the "capital" of the U.N.-administered province of Kosovo, Gil Robles saw a replica of Guantanamo. A prison has been built inside Camp Bondsteel. Run by the U.S. Army, it is the principal detention center for KFOR, the multinational NATO force deployed in Kosovo since June 1999.
From a tower, I saw a place which looked like a replica of Guantanamo, but on a smaller scale, Robles tells Le Monde. Small rudimentary wooden shelters were surrounded by a tall barbed wire fence. I saw between fifteen and twenty prisoners inside huts, dressed in orange jumpsuits like those used at Guantanamo. The prisoners I saw were not shackled. Most of them were sitting down, some isolated from the others. Some prisoners had beards. Others read the Koran. There were walkways around the cells for the guards. A female U.S. soldier who worked at the prison explained to me that she had just been transferred there from Guantanamo, Robles continued. He also met with a representative of the U.S. Department of Justice.
"Shocked" by what he saw at Camp Bondsteel, Robles requested the day after his 2002 visit that detention operations end and that the buildings resembling Guantanamo be dismantled. He says he received assurances that this would be done the following year.
However a number of questions remain unanswered. Was the prison at Camp Bondsteel used by the CIA to "rotate" prisoners amongst Afghanistan, the Middle East, Europe and Guantanamo? Have there been or are there now places of secret detention? Under whose jurisdiction does a KFOR prison inside Camp Bondsteel fall?
In 2002 at Camp Bondsteel and Guantanamo, prisoners had no access to legal counsel. Their incarceration was not the result of judicial procedure and their place of origin was not always clear. The legal limbo of Kosovo has contributed to the situation. The province is under U.N. administration pending a definitive determination, but the multinational force is NATO and has significant prerogatives. Camp Bondsteel is a zone of "non-law." As it was being built in 1999, the camp was described as the largest U.S. base since the Vietnam War.
Among the detainees seen by Robles, four men were North African while others appeared to be Kosovars or Serbs. According to the official version, the four men were arrested by KFOR along the Macedonian border and were detained for compelling "security" reasons. But on paper the reason for detention was strange: "Resolution 1244," in reference to the U.N. Security Council resolution covering Kosovo and the powers of KFOR.
The 'Largest U.S. Military Base Since the Vietnam War,' Camp Bondsteel. Robles requested permission to visit the prison inside Camp Bondsteel after KFOR carried out a number of extrajudicial arrests in Kosovo. He was escorted to the base by the KFOR commander at the time, French General Marcel Valentin, who was visibly upset by the fate of the prisoners.
The use of a base linked to a NATO operation under the aegis of the U.N. in the "war on terror" raises the question of the transparency of U.S. activities vis-ý-vis its allies.
These facts go back three years. The fact that Robles has waited until now to talk about this raises questions. The report that he published following his trip barely mentioned Camp Bondsteel. The priority at the time was to facilitate the admission of Serbia-Montenegro to the Council of Europe, which was accomplished in 2003. The reason he recalls the episode now, says Robles, is his growing suspicion concerning the existence of secret prisons run by the CIA, and the apparent scale of the transfers by special planes of prisoners suspected of links to al-Qaeda.
I cannot prove the link between [the transfers] and Camp Bondsteel, because I don't possess concrete evidence, says Robles. But I believe that we must demand an explanation of the activities inside that base in Kosovo as well as other suspicious sites in Europe.
The Portuguese general prosecutor Cândida Almeida, head of the Central Investigation and Penal Action Department (DCIAP), announced on 5 February 2006 that investigating magistrates would investigate the stopovers made in Portugal by CIA flights suspected of involvement in renditions.
The investigation, which envisages the possibility of bringing criminal charges against people whose identity is not yet known, will focus on the issue of "torture or inhuman and cruel treatment" against detainees suspected of international terrorist offences, and was instigated by allegations of "illegal activities and serious human rights violations" made by MEP Ana Gomes to the attorney general, Pinto Monteiro, on 26 January 2007. Gomes was very active in the TDIP commission, and repeatedly complained about the failure by Portuguese authorities (from both the current and past government) to provide information concerning suspicious flights, leading to furious exchanges of accusations with the foreign minister, her socialist party colleague Luís Amado.
Journalist Rui Costa Pinto was also heard by the DCIAP, as a result of a report that she wrote concerning CIA flights on the island of Terceira in the Azores, where Lajes airbase is found, whose publication was not authorised by her magazine, "Visão". Gomes expressed her satisfaction for the opening of the investigation, but noted that she had always claimed that a parliamentary inquiry would also be necessary.''
This is just more OR/SYN and requires deletion.
After claims by Liberty that British airports had been used by the CIA for extraordinary rendition flights, the Association of Chief Police Officers launched an investigation in November, 2005. The report was published in June, 2007 and found no evidence to support the claim. This was on the same day the Council of Europe released its report with evidence that the UK had colluded in extraordinary rendition, thus directly contradicting ACP's findings. Liberty has challenged the findings and has stated that its original claims were based on "credible evidence". [1]
Here is the classic wp:or and wp:syn violation. If you don't know what a SYN error is, here is the best example on WP (Gone) Raggz ( talk) 03:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This report documents the cases of three Yemeni nationals who had "disappeared" in 2003 and who had been kept in isolation in a series of secret detention centres apparently run by US agents. In May 2005 they were flown to Yemen and transferred to Yemeni custody where they continue to be held without charge or trial. Amnesty International is calling for the release of the three men immediately from detention, or to promptly charge them with a recognizable criminal offence and bring them to trial.
This report is about what happened to Yemeni nationals from the Yemeni government. The article is not about Yemen. If the government of Yemen did invite the CIA in, would that be ER? No, it would not be. May we focus upon our topic. This is a tiny part of the larger OR/SYN violations. Raggz ( talk) 04:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
To read our article, one might imagine that it was illegal for CIA planes to transit Europe, or to fly anywhere in the world. Can we reach consensus that CIA flight activities are irrelevant to this article unless there is a reliable source that links a flight to ER?
The following was just deleted as OR/SYN: The Berliner Zeitung reported the following day there was documentation of 85 takeoffs and landings by planes with a "high probability" of being operated by the CIA, at Ramstein, the Rhein-Main Air Base and others. The newspaper cited experts and "plane-spotters" who observed the planes as responsible for the tally. [2]
If the allegation were true, how would this be relevant to our article? If they all held terrorism suspects (and we had a reliable source for this - which we do not), how would this be relevant? Is it illegal for the CIA to transport terrorism suspects? No, as long as the US complies with the SOFA, the US need not tell anyone in the EU anything. Is our article about the transport of terrorism suspects? No, our topic is ER, may we stick with it? Raggz ( talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Any sources that these CIA flights were legal? (Hypnosadist) 00:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC) No. There are no reliable sources that these flights were legal or illegal. There is a source that these flights might have been illegal. We can say this if we wish, but if we do not offer NPOV balance when we say it, the text requires deletion. When you revert it, it is your responsibility to ensure that you have done your best for a NPOV. 04:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Raggz ( talk)
The World Policy Council, part of the of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity and headed by Ambassador Horace Dawson and Senator Edward Brooke, criticized the Bush Administration in the area of civil and human rights for its policy on extraordinary rendition. The Council concluded in its report that extraordinary rendition
1) not only frustrates legitimate efforts to prosecute terrorists, but it makes a mockery of the high sounding principles that we hear invoked constantly.
2) robs us of the moral high ground and our justification for leadership in the world.
3) lowers us to the level of all those rogue and evil regimes that we have fought against in the past and against which we claim we are now struggling. [3]
I expect to delete the above as irrelevant. Who stands with the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity as being an important opinion? As for policy, where is the NPOV balance in this section? Raggz ( talk) 03:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The intro sets out pretty clearly what is usually meant by Extraordinary Rendition - broadly, that it means the transfer of detainees without legal process, in particular to places where they could face torture or harsh treatment. This is the definition used in the cited (US) source. "Rendition" per se simply mean a "delivery" or "handing over" - ie it covers, in this context, a wider category including transfers following a legal extradition hearing as well as those following illegal kidnapping etc etc. It is the lack of any hearing or process prior to the transfer which makes the rendition "extraordinary". There are many reported instances of detainees being captured and then secretly, and without any hearing, handed over to the local authorities in countries such as Jordan and Syria, sometimes after having first been held in US-run camps overseas, including sites in some countries in Europe. The US does not deny that it engages in this practice - what it does appear to deny is a) that it is illegal; and b) that it leads to suspects being tortured (on this point the defence seems to be that when in US custody, the often harsh techniques used do not amount to torture; and when delivered to other countries' prisons, that the US has agreements that the individuals will not face torture. We will all have our own opinions about the value of each of these defences of course, but that's kind of off-topic for the article itself)
Accordingly this article needs to cover any reported, alleged or proven instance of the above as raised in reliable sources. It should also cover of course any denials or rebuttals. So individuals who were kidnapped or arrested in one country by US agents or proxies and then flown to another; CIA flights, possibly carrying such detainees, which were taking place across Europe; prisoners being transported to different destinations in ships; allegations of torture in the places to which individuals have been taken etc - these are all relevant to the issue at hand. WP needs to cover what reliable sources report, not draw our own judgements or conclusions about what is illegal. -- Nickhh ( talk) 09:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Torture is illegal. No one may be tortured. There are many laws, and they all agree on this. Raggz ( talk) 11:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The text below was deleted because it has no reliable source. The Lead requires editing to remove this same unsupported material. If there is a reliable source, feel free to revert with this. Raggz ( talk) 11:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) calls for EU regulations governing foreign intelligence services operating in Europe, and demands “human rights clauses” in military base agreements with the USA.
In a resolution and recommendation approved by a large majority, the Assembly also called for:
Primary Sources are subject to the WP policy for primary sources. In regard to the Council of Europe memo, it is ineligible to serve as a reliable source for your claims because it is a primary source. Please find a secondary source that supports these claims, and stop reverting these until you do. Read the WP policy, my take is that you don't get to summarize the memo, you get to quote a reliable source who has summarized this memo. Please use secondary sources, many of the wp:syn errors rely upon the use of primary sources to do this. As a new editor, I did exactly what I suggest is being done here, and I presume that you are also unaware of your errors. Please review these policies and discuss them here before reverting OR/SYN errors. Raggz ( talk) 04:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Several months before the publication of the Council of Europe report directed by Dick Marty, Gijs de Vries, the EU's antiterrorism coordinator, asserted in April 2006 that no evidence existed that extraordinary rendition had been taking place in Europe. It was also said that the European Union's probe, and a similar one by the continent's leading human rights group had not found any human rights violations nor other crimes that could be proven to the satisfaction of the courts.[81] This denial from a member of the executive power of the EU institutions has been flatly denied by the European Parliament report, which was accepted by a vast majority of the Parliament in February 2007 (See below:The European Parliament's February 14, 2007 report).
This appears to be examples of wp:syn and wp:npov policy violations. This is because it appears to be attempting to argue with "had not found any human rights violations nor other crimes that could be proven to the satisfaction of the courts". Did the European Parliment really "flatly deny" anything? I cannot find this, would someone please offer this specific text? It is a SYN violation to use a reliable source to argue with the preceeding text if the cite itself did not make this point. A SYN violation by definition uses a reliable source to violate policy, this is what wp:syn is about.
NPOV: Here is an example of adding a bit of text to provide NPOV cover, but use of OR/SYN to negate it. By negating this text by misrepresenting the report, NPOV is denied. Raggz ( talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read all of the above discussion, but it seems pretty clear to me that this article flagrantly violates NPOV from the start. The first few sentences involve (1) glossing "extrajudicial" as "illegal", which is incorrect, (2) equating ER and kidnapping, which is pure rhetoric, (3) accuse the US of operating "an extensive rendition program" without providing a source immediately for this claim. With respect to (3), it should definitely be clarified whether this is just a legal rendition program or an extraordinary rendition program, but--more importantly--it shouldn't be in the opening paragraph. The primary purpose of the article must be to define ER, not immediately to launch into accusations. This article needs serious attention from non-partisan editors. 145.116.8.66 ( talk) 05:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a contradiction between this statement "Both the Reagan and Clinton cases involved apprehending known terrorists abroad, by covert means if necessary. Neither involved handing over detainees to foreign countries" and this statement "thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a presidential directive (PDD 39), the CIA instead elected to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian Mukhabarat." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.21.57 ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 2009 January 23
The claim Modern methods of rendition include a form where suspects are taken into US custody but delivered to a third-party state, is deceiving and inaccurate. Rendition occurs when there is a transfer of custody back to the suspects home state. Such as an Egyptian national taken into U.S. custody being transferred back to Egyptian Custody. I am unaware of any program of sending suspects to random third party states specifically to be tortured, as the article implies. I would like to see citations if that is being alleged, specific to actual U.S. policy, more than maybe a few anecdotal examples of cases of mistaken identiy, negligence, etc. Otherwise, it should be stated clearly that the process is sending nationals back to their home states or we risk sending a extremely false impression to Wikipedia readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.212.94 ( talk • contribs) 07:31, 2009 February 23
Coverage of specific instances of extraordinary rendition goes back to at least 2005 Geo Swan ( talk) 23:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
individual | held in | since 2005 |
---|---|---|
Abu Zubaydah | Thailand, Poland |
|
Ibn Al-Shaykh al-Libi | Poland, Pakistan/ Afghanistan |
|
Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi | Poland |
|
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri | Poland |
|
Ramzi Binalshibh | Poland |
|
Mohammed Omar Abdel-Rahman | Poland |
|
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed | Poland |
|
Waleed Mohammed bin Attash | Poland |
|
Hambali | ? |
|
Hassan Ghul | Poland |
|
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani | Poland |
|
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)