I know I’m jumping the gun here a bit since we are still a couple days ahead of the Book Salon for Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side, but the book contains a really important point that I think needs to be highlighted on its own. With regard to the Bush era so called “extraordinary renditions” the claim that “Clinton did it too” is just false. Let me explain:
Renditions are not illegal. In fact they are expressly provided for in Article 4, Section 2 of the US Constitution. The form of rendition that we are most familiar with is called extradition. The American Heritage dictionary defines rendition thusly:
n.
1. The act of rendering.
2. An interpretation of a musical score or a dramatic piece.
3. A performance of a musical or dramatic work.
4. A translation, often interpretive.
5. A surrender.[Obsolete French, from Old French rendre, to give back; see render.]
Basically, rendition is the method by which a fugitive is “given back” to the jurisdiction where that fugitive will receive due process. This can apply to someone who has been charged with a crime, or someone who has been tried and convicted in absentia.
Usually, extradition is a formal legal process with the state requesting the extradition petitioning the state where the fugitive is hiding to capture and return the fugitive to face the legal process in the requesting state. Extradition can happen internationally between countries that have reciprocal extradition treaties or because the country where the fugitive is found agrees to render up the fugitive to the requesting country even in the absence of a reciprocal obligation.
The Supreme Court in Mahon v. Justice 127 U.S. 700, held that the fact that a person may have been seized illegally or by extra legal means and taken to the state where he was to face legal process did not mean that the rendition could, would or should be undone. Though the language is a bit archaic, this quote from the syllabus of the case is pretty clear:
No mode is provided by the Constitution and laws of the United States by which a person, unlawfully abducted from one state to another and held in the latter state upon process of law for an offense against the state, can be restored to the state from which he was abducted.
There is no comity between the states by which a person held upon an indictment for a criminal offense in one state can be turned over to the authorities of another state, although abducted from the latter.
It is presumably upon this tradition that the pre-Bush era international renditions took place. Jane Mayer writes
The U.S. government had carried out renditions at least since the Reagan era.
-snip-What began as a program aimed at a discrete set of suspects—people against whom there were outstanding foreign arrest warrants—came to include the wide and ill-defined population that the [Bush] administration termed “illegal enemy combatants.
-snip-Before September 11, the program was aimed at rendering criminal suspects to justice, but afterward it was used to render suspects outside the reach of the law. Instead of holding suspects accountable for previously committed crimes, it was used to gather evidence of crimes not yet committed—for which there was not sufficient evidence to prove guilt under ordinary rule of law….-snip-
Rendition thus became an enforcement mechanism for the Bush Administration’s preemptive criminal model, disrupting and punishing suspects before they were provably guilty.
[emphasis added]
Think about that. Bushco may call it “rendition” or “extraordinary rendition” but in terms of legal basis, it bears almost no relationship to the renditions of prior administrations.
In fact, what Bushco is doing has other legal definitions: Kidnapping and Torture.
There was this mob guy called “Gaspipe” Casso. He had a peripheral role in a case I worked on. In his book Gangbusters, Ernest Volkman describes how Casso would kidnap people who got behind in their payments to his loan sharking operation and torture them with an acetyline torch. The significance of this was not just the effect it had on the particular victim, it was the terror that it spread to anyone else who might think of welching on a loan or otherwise crossing him. Why do I mention this?
Redition in the Reagan/GHW Bush/Clinton eras, more or less = Dog the Bounty Hunter
Extraordinay rendition in the CheneyBush Admin, more or less = Gaspipe Casso
Basically, its just plain mob violence. Thuggish criminal behavior. Sickening.
Something else, I want us ALL—and I mean every single person reading this—including you folks in the main stream media—to make a pledge RIGHT NOW to stop calling these events renditions or extraordinary rendition and call them what they are: KIDNAPPING AND TORTURE.
Let’s not adopt the Cheney Bush terminology of obstruction, obfuscation, and coverup.
Related posts:
- Obama Administration “Disappointed” Italy Enforces Laws Against Kidnapping
- Rendition, Coffins, Torture, Guantanamo – The Too Familiar Case of Mohammed Madni
- Arar Decision Cripples Torture Rendition Suits
- Air Force Doctor Gets Medal for Serving on Rendition Torture Flights
- Bush DOJ Official Daniel Levin “Not Opposed” to Torture Investigations





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

can’t even summon any tallows humor re rendering
KIDNAPPING AND TORTURE!
Thanks for this, lhp.
has jane mayer said her previous reporting on this is not true?
On Noooooo! I saw the polls!!!!!!! Obama’s gonna looooooooose!!!!!!!!
good post LHP. Not enough being said about this stuff. It’s become ho-hum.
Kidnapping.. it’s not just during the time of reading of My Pet Goat anymore.
Great Post, LHP. And the kicker is this is all being done under the name of the U.S.A. This is absolutely contrary to American values.
jane mayer’s previous reporting:
if mayer is repudiating this, that is a very big deal.
does my pet goat curry favor?
I don’t know if this was confirmed in the last thread—I just got here—but Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones has died.
Really Really Sad.
Yes, especially with Rice.
Update in newsbox says it may not be true, Rev Deb. nevertheless, it sounds serious.
Or, does My Pet Goat favor curry?
it’s been confirmed. always sad.
(if memory serves me, she was a really vociferous pro-Hillary bulldog back in the ugly primary days.)
when bush reads “you may not torture” he re-interperates that to say
“you may torture”, see, it’s almost the same and surely removing one word in the sentence cannot possibly mean much legally, therefore it is fine to torture
there you have it
yes, she was. She was also a loud voice on the floor of the House against the war and contesting the election IIRC.
It is the “Healthy Forest” and the “Clear Sky’s” and “Compassionate Conservative” name it one thing while it means something really nasty….
It goes right along with ALL those warm and fuzzy commercials on TeeVee… Company XYZ is the bestest and warmest and superists company in the whole wide world while we have dancing cartoon elephants and Oh so pretty graphics….. where are those barf bags that I take home from the airlines just for this purprose…
Lou Dobbs reported with great glee that McSame has overtaken Obama in the polls. It was at this point I switched over to Tweetie. Not much better, but at least there is no palpable hate for Obama.
it’s a tragedy and a terrible loss, for her family and for all of US
seems to me the goat is the sign of the devil, it also seems to me quite aprapo this president was reading that book while we were under attack, while he knew we were under attack
hmmm
I don’t think Mayer is repudiating her words. I think it is specifying that those folks “rendered” under the Clinton admin were in fact already convicted as terrorists, although in absentia sometimes.
As compared to the BushCo version where the Arab version of Joe Schmuck gets “ratted out” by a neighbor for a bounty with no legal process whatsoever.
A minor point maybe but it is a significant difference between the two admins.
Comment at 18 was reply to Beerfart Liberal at 4. Sorry.
has anyone here read the book? does mayer really repudiate her previous reporting? just want a confirmation before i celebrate.
Just got back from three weeks in the UK. I spent quite a bit of time with various family members over there and this whole topic was discussed in much detail(liberally lubricated with various alcoholic comestibles). Their take:
“The UK does it, too.” They were also completely convinced that a)The government was not only ‘outsourcing their torture’ and had been doing so for quite some time, but b)Now was DIY as well; some expressed the opinion that they were sure that it was being performed on UK soil, though perhaps not on the largest island itself. They also agreed that they feel that with the cameras and other intrusive performances there in the name of ’security’ that none of this was making them any safer(as a matter of fact, they said that they felt this sort of stuff was actually making the situation much worse in the Muslim communities in the UK – making it far easier for extremists to recruit inside the UK) and that they felt that their service members in Afghanistan and Iraq are in much greater danger.
convicted where? did they have a defense lawyer? or was this a kangaroo court?
and after conviction were any of them tortured? that is what mayer previously reported.
if mayer isn’t repudiating here previous reporting. then i don’t think we can say that clinton didn’t do it.
Hey Toby, glad you’re back.
I don’t know what court convicted them. I was just reading the words in the excerpt you posted of her earlier writing on the subject:
Which I read to mean that there was some basis of internationally recognized legality behind the actions taken, no matter how flimsy it might be in what used to be our legal system. The point I’m making (and I believe is LHP’s as well) is that prior to Bush, there was at least a fig leaf of coverage that was recognized internationally as a legal operation and activity, not what BushCo has implemented with no trial and immediate incarceration and torture.
As I say, it may be a minor point to you, but the previous operations seem to have been accorded legal respect around the world even if it is an action that we may not have liked. As LHP used the analogy, “Dog the Bounty Hunter” actions instead of “Gaspipe, the Mafia’s Torturer.”
Glad to be back; the lack of access was driving me absolutely crazy.
mayer’s reporting doesn’t say anything about the process being “accorded legal respect around the world”
and there is no such thing as a legal fig leaf for torture – not when bush does it, and not if clinton did it. that is what i’m trying to clarify. if there was no torture during the clinton administration, even in the absence of a decent legal process that would still be a big deal. doesn’t make it ok, but i’d really like it if there wasn’t any torture used and that’s just not what mayer’s previous reporting says.
LHP, tis a mighty fine post and you are spot on!
Fookin’ kidnapping and torture!
Words matter. Choose them well or suffer the consequences.
it’s an addiction, i know. *g*
welcome home.
And again, it may be a minor point but whatever torture done in other countries to these previously convicted terrorists (again, that appears to be what Mayer was saying, quoting “Scheuer” whomever that is – presumably a CIA person) was theoretically done without the approval of the US. I’m sure it was a wink wink nod nod deal. But there does appear, from Mayer’s own words, to have been a legal process behind things.
I’m sure she will be willing to clarify for you during the upcoming Book Salon.
No toobz in the UK?
look, if you think what mayer has previously reported should not be called kidnapping and torture – then we are just not going to agree.
my question is to lhp – is lhp saying that mayer has repudiated her previous reporting because that’s what lhp’s post seems to imply – but does not state outright.
A la punaise’s “tallows humor” about rendering the law like animal fat, organic butchering and abattoirs like the Chicago stock yards circa 1900 both lead to the same end for the hog, but the process is as different as the edibility of the end product.
CheneyBush prosper by rendering legal classifications and nuances obsolete, thereby obscuring how many legal and ethical lines they cross — and hope to redefine by doing so. Just as in a broader sense, they strain to tear down FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society, as well as make their improvement or expansion impossible. The same with Cheney’s decades-long attempts to outsource essential Pentagon and now intelligence activities.
They are waging a war on American government and, indirectly, the expectations of America’s middle class as much as they are against their figurative boogey man, be he dressed in the Halloween costume of the very real al-Qaeda, or Iranian or Russian government leader. (But never, it seems, dressed as a homegrown white extremist or terrorist of Cuban extraction.)
Politely pointing this out won’t help Obama very much and I’m not sure he’s even doing that. He has to make clear his positive message, not just reject the shadow of CheneyBush. He needs to do it louder and more aggressively in order to win. Nor does he “win” without electing more and better Democrats.
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
Article 3
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.
The US is a signatory to this. Therefore under Article VI of the Constitution it is the Supreme Law of the Land.
So when do the impeachment hearings begin?
Thank you, lhp. Here’s one reason I think this is not a minor point in its significance:
There are those that think a significant reason for the Congressional Dems lassitude in actually enforcing accountability, say by impeaching somebody who insists on violating the Geneva conventions, is that Clinton is also liable to the same charges. Maybe some in DC are even trying to bruit this about to cover their butts.
But, and keeping in mind that IANAL, this never seemed to me a reasonable argument because I did not think from the totality of what I’d read, including Jane Mayer’s articles, that he clearly bore the same degree of liability that Bush does, by far. This seemed to me one time where analysis clearly beats synthesis, if you will.
The “protecting Clinton” rationale for failing to take actions that are under the Constitution and enjoined by one’s oath of office would obviously be insufficient for other reasons, even specious, but if it also is not even clearly valid, then it is doubly important to get it out there that, like, we know better.
It may have been “kidnapping and torture” but it was done under legal authority. When a bounty hunter goes into another state or country and grabs someone who is on the run, that would probably be technically considered kidnapping (in fact, I believe Dog Chapman was in fact charged with kidnapping in Mexico for bringing the Revlon heir back to stand trial in the US).
But again, it appears any of these actions taken under the Clinton admin were of individuals who had already been tried and convicted. It may not have had the niceties of a US court but it seems, from that snippet of Mayer’s earlier reporting that you posted, that it was legally done.
Again, a court had been involved. This is not snatching someone off the street at the behest of a neighbor who received a bounty, flown to Guantanamo, tortured for years without any judicial proceedings whatsoever.
I see the Clinton actions, for want of a better analogy, as Ira Einhorn as an example. He was in court, jumped bail while awaiting trial in the murder of his girlfriend and was convicted in absentia. He was eventually captured in France and returned to the US, after Pennsylvania agreed to take the death penalty off the table and re-try him. The way I’m reading Mayer’s reporting and LHP’s post, the persons “rendered” during the Clinton admin were also convicted in absentia by the courts, usually in Egypt. Were these folks tortured upon return? Quite possibly. Was Ira Einhorn tortured upon his return to the US? I’m sure he would claim so. Do two wrongs make a right? No. But again, it seems that the actions done during the Clinton years had at least SOME level of legality behind them, no matter how much we might have abhorred that “legality” and the subsequent fig leaf.
Well BOHICA, ‘impeachment’ would require that the nominal ‘opposition’ par-tay agree with your assessment: They do not.
Or it would require men and women of conscience in the par-tay in power: There are none.
And, should Obama prevail then bygones, apparently, will be left with the sleeping dogs.
If Mc$ame wins, then what we’ve seen so far is merely prelude.
All in all, a most disgusting situation, bound to define this nation, henceforth and, probably, forevermore.
;~(
BTW, I would also like to see an answer to selise’s question @ 34.
The answer matters …
New Pro-Obama book coming out soon …
Digg It :
http://digg.com/2008_us_electi…..lsea_Green
Pre-order at Amazon at Reduced Price …
would you be defending this if it was bush who had been doing it?
i’m willing to hold clinton accountable to the same standard i hold bush. are you?
I apologise in advance for the off-topic post.
An Open Letter to Barack Obama.
I support your candidacy.
I have sent you money.
I have been a lifelong Democrat.
I belonged to a union for 31 years.
I believe the Clintons will sell out to anyone to get/stay elected.
I am more than 20 years your senior.
I believe I know more about working Americans than you do.
Your actions and non-actions in your campaign make me feel more certain of that feeling each day.
You are going to lose the 2008 presidential election.
You have taken a week’s vacation while your opponent was calling you a traitor to your face. While hardly campaigning, your opponent was presented nightly on the Republican favoring Main Stream Media as The Happy Warrior, tirelessly campaigning, while Barack NEEDED a Week Breather from all this hard work of non-campaigning campaigning. It matters not if it was a WORKING vacation. If this election is SO important to you and America’s future, how could you associate with the concept of being on vacation ?
(I suppose I should be thankful you didn’t go wind-surfing and talk to reporters from 30 yards off-shore.)
You said from your vacation you will not allow your opponent to question your patriotism.
And then your opponent says he’s NOT questioning your patriotism, and again questions your patriotism. Barack, YOU are being ZOOMED by an old, rich white guy.
You seem to confuse saying you will not allow something as being the same thing as actually not allowing it. They are not. What it IS saying is, “Please don’t call me names.Please.”
You say you want to change the tone of American politics.
If you truly feel that, and you truly know American politics, (which I believe you don’t) then you would be the first Democrat in a long time to be defending themselves, and counter-attacking against your opponent, and calling out the Republican favoring Main Stream Media for their complicity in allowing your opponent’s lies to propagate and propagate, and while leaving your populist positions and factual rebuttals on the cutting room floor.
Somehow, you have determined that the Republican verbal and emotional abuse, election fraud, and dirty tricks gainst Democrats since 1980, abetted the meager Democratic defense of its candidates, is somehow also greatly the fault of the Democrats. And YOU, being not of the common sort, want to RISE above all that, and teach Democrats and Republicans “How to Just Get Along”.
What arrogance. What intellectual elitism.
Jesus Christ was a peace-maker. He was nailed to the cross.
But that won’t happen to Barack, will it? You can deliver the Democratic lambs to the Republican wolves and teach the wolves to be nice. Sure you can.
Barack, you may be of this world, but you are not of the American Zeitgeist.
Americans are not in your classroom. You will not teach Americans how to Just Get Along. Americans will shun you. If you cannot defend yourself, HOW IN THE UNIVERSE can you protect an entire nation.
Barack, you can be polite, or you can be American president. But you will NOT be both.
So if you are uncomfortable in the school yard filled with bullies that is American presidential politics, go to the teachers lounge, and let Hillary run. For as much as Hillary will sell out working-class Americans as her husband did, she will still be better for the entire planet and its citizens, than would a failed, humiliated, unstable, hot-headed warrior getting control of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
You have now maneuvered yourself into a difficult, difficult elevation, IF you do start counter-attacking as the undecided voters sub-consciously demand that you do, you will be seen as being directed from outward forces, as kind of an Obama Reed in the wind. And you will be attacked by the Republican lusting Main Stream Media as being just like being every other politician, Barack the Phony. But this is the gauntlet you must run, if you TRULY desire to be our leader.
I hope you are tough enough to be president
But you brought this conundrum about yourself. Now let’s see how you presidentiate yourself out of your Holier-Than-Thou Presidential Candidate Tower. After all is said and done, America IS the Warrior Nation of the last and current century.
Come join us in the electoral mud, where the eventual winner must slog through.
I don’t believe Hillary made you a better candidate. I believe she made you a better turtle.
For a light weight program like Late Night With David Letterman that was one hell of a fine interview.
Sorry about the length and hate to be nitpicky … but
LHP said:
Here’s what it says
Aren’t they talking about persons within the US? How can the US constitution apply to other countries?
From selise’s link @ 8
IANAL and I don’t know what law they’re talking about (like I said, not a lawyer) but I do know about a little about PDD-39 which says:
Just asking, what law is he talking about?
And, the next paragraph
That would be where kidnapping comes in doesn’t it?
Is NSD-77 their alleged veil of legality?
From Ghost Plane by Stephen Grey
Actually though that would be illegal – right? – when reading BOHICA’s post @ 36
Which is probably why NSD-77 is still classified — because they know it’s illegal. Google Syria and torture; and Egypt and torture; and Croatia and torture; and whatever other countries we’ve sent suspects to
I’m still murky on how this program is legal for anyone … unless they’re brought back to the US to stand trial in US courts
thank you john.
Oh, when I say this
That’s about what Scheuer said @ selise’s link
PS Thanks selise
L8r
Seconding selise, John.
Thank you very much.
Again: LHP, the answers to these questions matter, and hopefully you might have the answers or know someone who should? Thanks, LHP, in advance and in general for being a primary source of enlightenment for those many of us who are not lawyers.
EPU’d
There is also the fact that in the Clinton administration it was not policy driven actions that these issues occurred. Not so under the present administration which has made such issues a mandated government policy. IANAL but this has a major bearing in the matter and should not be overlooked.
LHP:
On the issue of language, a book was published which I find immensely illuminating, even more so as it isn’t written in american, the native user of the mother tongue helps keep much of the baggage of assumptions of meaning to a minimum. That book is:
UNSPEAK(TM) by Steven Poole ISBN 0-316-73100-5
Quote from inside front cover flap.
I have commented before about the book, apparently just to listen to the keyboard rattle.
additional:
The one was an ad hoc decision which was approved and carried out, The other is an intentional directive to carry out a previously decided policy.
Then too, facts do matter. It is one fact as to how extradition is carried out internally between states, IIRC the request for rendering from one state to another involves the approval of the executive of the rendering state to legitimize the rendition to the requesting state.
It is completely different externally, where the request is of differing sovereign jurisdictions that may be governed by existing treaty or not, also the vagaries of diplomatic relations may intrude into the facts of the case. It appears clear that the Clinton renditions were done under the color of law. Not so the wBush renditions without the wholesale reversal of traditional use.
It should be born in mind the differences between Moral; Ethical and Legal. Conflating any of the concepts is as dangerous as ignorance of the concepts. When words no longer carry their original meanings, it is tantamount to ignorance. Please for the sake of communications, be ultra careful in the use of words, it is the only real bridge between us.
If Obama wins, impeachment hearings begin January 22, 2009 courtesy of the Republican Party & their allies/partners, the Blue Dog dems.