CNN may have a story on a lawsuit brought against the US by a victim of extraordinary rendition, also called rendition-to-torture. Ths is from a press release by World Organization for Human Rights USA:

CNN's Paula Zahn Now is working on a story about our group's challenge to the rendition to torure policy based on the case of Ahmed Abu Ali, a 23-year old U.S. citizen arrested and detained for interrogation in Saudi Arabia. The story is likely to air tonight [MONDAY] at 8:00 pm or later this week. Mr. Abu Ali's parents claim that their son has been detained at the request of the U.S. government in order to obtain information on alleged terrorist activities. The World Organization for Human Rights USA is litigating the case in federal court in the first direct legal challenge to the policy of "rendition to torture," also called extraordinary rendition, that is, having foreign governments detain those the U.S. suspects of having terrorist ties for purposes of interrogation sometimes using techniques not permitted in this country.

Nice looking ride:

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=52370

"...an idea that had actually been developed by the Green movement: it was called the 'precautionary principle'. Back in the 1980s, thinkers within the ecology movement believed the world was being threatened by global warming, but at the time there was little scientific evidence to prove this. So they put forward the radical idea that governments had a higher duty: they couldn�t wait for the evidence, because by then it would be too late; they had to act imaginatively, on intuition, in order to save the world from a looming catastrophe."

"In essence, the precautionary principle says that not having the evidence that something might be a problem is not a reason for not taking action as if it were a problem. That's a very famous triple-negative phrase that effectively says that action without evidence is justified. It requires imagining what the worst might be and applying that imagination upon the worst evidence that currently exists."

"And it was this principle that now began to shape government policy in the war on terror. In both America and Britain, individuals were detained in high-security prisons, not for any crimes they had committed, but because the politicians believed or imagined that they might commit an atrocity in the future, even though there was no evidence they intended to do this. The American attorney general explained this shift to what he called the 'paradigm of prevention'."

"ASHCROFT : We had to make a shift in the way we thought about things, so being reactive, waiting for a crime to be committed, or waiting for there to be evidence of the commission of a crime didn't seem to us to be an appropriate way to protect the American people."

"Under the preventive paradigm, instead of holding people accountable for what you can prove that they have done in the past, you lock them up based on what you think or speculate they might do in the future. And how can a person who's locked up based on what you think they might do in the future disprove your speculation? It's impossible, and so what ends up happening is the government short-circuits all the processes that are designed to distinguish the innocent from the guilty because they simply don't fit this mode of locking people up for what they might do in the future."

"The supporters of the precautionary principle argue that this loss of rights is the price that society has to pay when faced by the unique and terrifying threat of the Al Qaeda network. But, as this series has shown, the idea of a hidden, organised web of terror is largely a fantasy, and by embracing the precautionary principle, the politicians have become trapped in a vicious circle: they imagine the worst about an organisation that doesn't even exist. But no one questions this because the very basis of the precautionary principle is to imagine the worst without supporting evidence, and, instead, those with the darkest imaginations become the most influential."

And the irony of bashing other countries on their human rights records or describing some countries as an 'axis of evil' then using those countries to set up internment camps that circumvent international law or to torture people is lost on no-one.

Gotta love those 'moral values'.

Good one, Mr. Clemons. Richard Clarke argued as much recently here at Princeton University (we covered it on our blog- see the link). Clarke explained that he titled his book "Against ALL Enemies" (my emphasis) because he wanted to remind us of the words of the oath that members of the armed services and prospective citizens take in America: they swear to "preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic" (again, my emphasis). Those who actively subvert our system of due process and legal procedure, enshrined in the Constiution, do an unforgivable disservice to this country. It's our responsibility as informed and educated American citizens to defend our principles against ALL enemies- even if those enemies pretend to be America's defenders.

Don't look now but policies like the kidnap torture described above are why millions of Americans voted for Bush. They don't care if he plays nice. America wants JR Ewing dishing out Texas hard ball to any suitable group of foreigners (pick one). Jet setters like Steve who actually visit the rest of the world sometimes forget that less than 20% of Americans have passports. The number of people who have never left their home state or the island of Manhattan is mind boggling. We have a provincial leader with a provincial policy for a provincial people.

I don't have this exactly right, but I'm sure someone correct it.

First they came for the communist, it was not me and I said nothing.

Then they came for the homosexual, it was not me and I said nothing.

Then they came for the Jew, it was not me and I said nothing.

Then they came for me and I could say nothing.

I remember when I was a child watching a film with my father on Nazi atrocities, at some point men were forced to run up to a pit to be shot. I remember telling my father, as only a child could, that I would never allow myself to go out without a fight. With tears welling my father turned and said "that's right, but you need to start fighting before some God @#&% nazi drives you off to a pit".

We as individuals need to continue to speak out against crimes being committed in our name. Using the White Rose as an guide we can undermine our media's willful ignorence of our wrong doings.

It is patriotic to speak against tyranny in all it's forms.

Asheesh - That's right, I took that oath and I sure as heck remember the "and domestic" bit.

Steve, Superb post. You make the excellent point that especially in times of stress and crisis, America needs to demonstrate that its commitment to its founding ideals was not 'casual.' You put this brilliantly -- and you use language that Red state Americans could find inspiring. These are people who actually do believe in a certain brand of values through thick and thin -- and you show a way to keep America American with blue and red knowing the importance of this. We really need you constructing the language that undermines those who would otherwise aspire to be tyrants. Thanks, thanks, thanks, d.

Steve, it strikes me that your argument is convincing to a lot of the readers of your blog. Team America is not convinced. How do you make a complex argument about torture to a nation stuck on "Fuck Yeah!" We watch the movie and laugh as the Eiffel Tower and Arche de Triomphe are destroyed by mad puppets. Many Americans would accept that as collateral damage. Many Americans accept torture of foreigners if they think it protects them. How do you convince these Americans that such policies do not make them safer?

I agree with bakho. The majority of American would agree with this action because they believe these actions make us safer. Besides it doesn't effect them. It effects those other guys, the bad guys. What I don't understand is these same Americans have to be aware of Bush's immigration policies: giving temp work visas to illegals currently in the US, and giving them driver licenses etc. The 19 highjackers had 63 drivers licenses all obtained legally.

So while the Administraion say they are taking actions to make us safer I don't believe it.

Bush likes to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds.

I'm more afraid of Republicans than I am of terrorists.

You (Steve) write that, "We don't need to abandon our laws and commitment to liberty to win this war," although, as has already been stated in one form or another, many Americans do not recognize what we are moving towards as the ultimate sacrifice of our "traditional American values." They see most every action taken as a necessity or something that could not be avoided. In a worst-case scenario, they will label it as an 'accident.' The enemy that we face is not only terrorism, but this ultimate sacrifice that 59 million or more people do not recognize. It's a dangerous thing to be doing, playing around with the values of one of the world's most powerful and influential nations. And that is exactly what the current Administration is doing, whether they can see it or not. I'm not so sure at this point.

-- interesting posts all. thanks. to Charles J and Bakho, I think you make a good point that I'm empathetic with. As I said, I got some sort of thrill at seeing Nicholas Cage save Shirley MacLaine through such extreme action. Bakho, I can tell you have seen "Team America." Wild, isn't it? Particularly, the puppet sex.

I think that there are probably time when 'ends justify the means' measures are probably appropriate -- like when a nuclear warhead has been smuggled into the country, etc. The question is balance -- but the scale of extraordinary rendition seems so large to me that we are making a grand scheme of it. My hope, I guess, is that conservatives realize that such power in the hands of government nearly always gets abused and produces constraints on our own lives at some point if we don't hold these impulses in check. Conservatives tend not to trust big government -- even big government pointed at bad guys; ultimately, they don't trust government. Also, I think that the mistakes the U.S. government has made in some of its prosecutorial attempts combined with the mess in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo make us look more fallible.

I don't want to overstate this because I think that you are both probably correct on this -- but some will see this the way I have proposed....I think.

More later -- Steve

The link in the article didn't work for me. I think this is the correct one: http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/11/29/terror_suspects_torture_claims_have_mass_link/

This issue is a huge stain on the current administration. I don't know if a sizable number of Americans actually approves of torture. I'd like to think that in the past election many just weren't aware how much the Bush administration has done to dirty our political and moral values.

You say that, "I don't know if a sizable number of Americans actually approves of torture," which is a taking the situation in a slightly naive, out-of-context manner. Of course no Americans really approve of torture (with the possible exception of those with severe psychological issues), but the question is whether or not they will tolerate torture in order to preserve their own well-being. Which, apparently, most of them will.

Stiggy -- Thanks for the better link. I changed the one I had in the post. Best, Steve Clemons

This post reminds of last night's 60 Minutes episode about the two soldiers at Guantanamo who were accused of spying for the terrorists. The grand alarmist accusations that flew at the start of each investigation evaporated. Each soldier plead guilty to petty charges, and even these charges involved rules (like photographing one's base, or saving physical copies of one's orders) that have been broken innumerable times by other soldiers past and present. The difference is that these two soldiers happen to be Muslims, so suspicions fly.

You might argue that the system worked and that these guys were proven innocent of the gravest charges. Still, if this is an example of the quality of the work that Military Intelligence does, then we're in deep shit. These two soldiers had the benefit of the military justice system and were not simply at the mercy of Military Intelligence. That's not true of those subjected to extraordinary rendition, though they may be just as innocent as these soldiers. Were these soldiers subjected to torture, and had they confessed to being spies as a result of that torture, would that make it true? And would their confessions be useful in terms of intelligence? And what criteria is being used to level charges of this nature in the first place?

Sidenote: Charles J, the temporary worker visas and the driver's licenses for legal and illegal aliens are separate issues. Regarding the latter, it's a practical step to extend drivers licenses since it insures, as much as driving tests can, that these folks can drive a car safely. It's a safety issue. Even better, these people go on record w/ each state, though I'm not sure whether or not information can legally be used for law enforcement purposes. (I won't comment on the worker visa thing except to say that it seems like a thinly-veiled ploy to help corporations cut production costs.)

For those who asked,

White Rose was a German orgamization who attempted to undermine the nazi war machine at the height of it's power. It's weapon of choice was the truth, printed in pamphlet form. After being tortured, most of it's members were hung at the conclusion of perfunctory trials in the "People's Court". Yes...American TV stole the name from the nazis.

Suprisingly, with bombs reigning down on them and unlike us, the dispicable nazi's put on public trials of the White Rose members. Apparently, they didn't know what they were doing was wrong and made no attempt to hide it from the public, which made those involved amoral. The United States apparently does know right from wrong, which is why we try to hide it, which makes us morally superior, if immoral.

Steve, Bush has evaded negative repercussions for every misdeed, misjudgement or crime ever committed in his life. He has opted the U.S. out of the World Court and numerous treaties. He has put nearly every NGO working on our behalf beyond the reach or any judicial, criminal or prosecutorial entity. Your statement: "At this point, if I were working in the White House, I would be worried about war crimes liabilities as well." I doubt very seriously if Bush or any of his henchmen are in any danger whatsoever of being ever charged with war crimes. If they are charged they'll never stand trial, except possibly in abstentia, and certainly never, ever suffer punishment. They have not deluded themselves they are beyond the reach of justice. They ARE beyond the reach of justice. Doubters need only look to Abu Ghraib.

Yet many people do not realize the dangers in the fact that our country's leaders are beyond the reach of justice. They see only in black and white - we are right, anyone who disagrees is wrong.

Steve, I suspect that there is much, much more out there that we don't know about it that confirms your worst fears. I do know red state friends who are put off by the ever increasing powers of the federal government -- something they dont abide by. good job, tc

I'm not sure about looking for reality in movies; Team America, etc. I have enough real reality to deal with.

Most Bush supporters won't be concerned about the torture because it's not as if we are talking about "real" people anyway. I make assumptions about what many Bush supporters thinK but I do make these assumptions about how they see the world; and this is how I believe they see it:

These guys being flown out for torture aren't real people anyway; they are terrorist. And it's that simple. America is a civilized country and we don't torture people. But we are dealing with mindless fanitical savages so it's just different.

I believe this is how they see it.

Jon: My gut check doesn't see the immigration issue separate from this topic. Bush supporters claim the ONE THING Bush has got absolutely right is what they call his steadfast defense of America. I make a connection. 19 guys with 63 driver licenses! I assume these guys had pretty crappy IDs (expired Visa's, student ID's & things like that) I know a man coming off a suspended license for DUI, he's getting his life back in order and trying to play by the rules and he's catching hell trying to get his license so he can get around and get a job. Those guys had 63. That's 3 each.

Anyway, I understand the safety issue but how does a Bush supporter accept the need for torture and accept Bush's version of immigration "reform?" and claim BOTH protect the United States? Unless they are simply those who support whatever Bush does (and I think there are many who are like that)

I seem to recall that when Bush took office, there was some executive order that prohibited racial profiling of Arabs at airports.
Does anyone have the dope on this?
It seems ironic to me that the Bush administration has gone to such extraordinary and unnecessary lengths when before 9/11, they eschewed the ordinary measures which might have protected us.

The reason some people are willing to accept these measures is that they believe Bush is keeping them safe. I don't share that belief, and I certainly don't believe that extraordinary rendition is adding anything to my security.
Short of another devastating attack on this country, I don't know what can change people's minds. It's a very tricky situation, since these kinds of measures can create terrorists out of ordinary people, if reports about the former Guantanamo detainees are to be believed. This gives an ex post facto justification of extreme measures which is very hard to argue against, rhetorically----much as we have found in Iraq.

I fear that with all the Likudniks in the White House, this administration understands quite well that a little bit of terror is a good thing, politically---and sometimes a lot is ok too.
I don't see an easy answer to this conundrum, but surely most Americans would be disgusted to learn the details of some of these case---for God's sake, Maher Arar is a Canadian citizen, and was just in New York on a stopover!

Many Americans have no more intellectual approach to foreign policy than the Redskin Fan with face paint, no shirt and a beer belly in 20 degree weather bellowing at the defense to slaughter the Dallas quarterback. But don't underestimate the fan. He can probably engage in a coherent discussion about the "4-3 defense" and "Cover 2".

Bush and his team on the warpath fighting the terrorist is supported in the same bellicose tone used for the Redskin defense. Within the "War on Terrror" Frame, torture of terrorists or suspected terrorists will have the support of Americans. But Bush only offers war sloganeering, never a detailed discussion of the threats and how to counter them. It is time for the media to give the "fans" a clue about the "game plan". The public needs to understand that it is not a "war" and our military is not the "solution".

How can the Bush "War on Terror" be reframed so that torture of foreigners is widely viewed as counterproductive? This is a very big challenge for the media that is up against the bully pulpit of President Bush. It will not be easy and will require considerable time and effort. The "War on Terror" construct needs to be attacked and torn down because it gets in the way of framing the terrorist problem in a way that makes sense and makes it impossible to talk about torture in a way that makes sense.

Just saying that torture is a bad idea in general and BTW it doesn't work against terrorists won't fly. The public needs to be reeducated about who the terrorists are, how they operate and what activities are most likely to be effective in stopping them. In this context, one can discuss the disadvantages of torturing innocent foreigners as compared to ending international money laundering.

BTW- Team America works on a lot of levels. It is hilarious parody. But on another level, it is not parody at all. It mirrors the feelings of many Americans.
Yes, the puppet sex was hilarious and about as bad as the formula sex in most pornos. It was great parody.

"How can the Bush "War on Terror" be reframed so that torture of foreigners is widely viewed as counterproductive?"

I think it would be better to call it the "war on terrorists". Using the blanket word "terror" invokes an image of a large shapeless force which could be anywhere and everywhere. Changing that to "terrorists" brings it down to individual humans... bad people with bad intentions.

It's like during the cold war, where the idea of communism was far more powerful and evocative than any individual communist could have ever hoped to be. The red threat was greater than any single Russian leader or citizen.

Bringing it down to the level of individuals would more properly frame the issue as being one of a relatively small group of bad people trying to inflict harm on others through means despised by civil societies.

Also, by bringing it down to individuals, you make it seem more reasonable to pursue a "justice" solution (law enforcement, whether domestic or foreign) rather than a military one.

Americans may condone torture of military targets (because the enormity of the term "terror" makes them feel that any action, no matter how awful, is valid in fighting such an enormous threat), but I believe they would have a harder time condoning the torture of defendants and witnesses.

Along your line of thought Jon, I think it would help if Americans understood torture victims only tell their captors what they want to hear. So torture only really works as a confirmation of information that can be independantly verified through means that are not pliant to disinformation. And that describes a very small subset of facts for a given situation.

In short torture works if you already know the facts and you just want to sate your sadistical nature.

"to defend the constitution against all enemies foriegn and domestic"

The press “discovers” the practice of “rendition”.

One is forever amazed at the naivete and provincialism of American journalists and their readers. The “rendition” of dangerous people picked up in the course of overseas clandestine operations is a decades-old practice.

It is not without some legal logic. Consider the following hypothetical example:

Ahmed X, a member of the Abu Nidal terrorist organization (AN0) is picked up by Agency case officers in a town in the Philippines. He has incriminating materials in his flat that suggest linkages to the planning of terrorist activities in Southeast Asia. Ahmed X is not an American, he is not located in the U.S. and he has not broken U.S. law. We could hand him over to the Philippine authorities. If we do, his organization will use bribery to spring him within a week. Or we could take advantage of the fact that Ahmed X entered the Philippines on a Jordanian passport. So we can put him on the Gulfstream and send him off to Jordan. In Jordan Ahmed X's associates cannot bribe the security services to spring him. In Jordan the state has an interest in a citizen who is linked to the ANO. In Jordan the security services can fit the information they get from Ahmed X into a wider framework. And finally, the Jordanians will share some or all of the fruits of their interrogation of Ahmed X with us.

Generally people like Ahmed X are “rendered” to the place they came from. It would be unusual to send an Afghan to Egypt or a Libyan to Jordan. Sometimes the picture is made a bit cloudy by the fact that the individual in question is carrying stolen or forged passports. This may result in (say) a Yemeni being rendered to Egypt because he is carrying an Egyptian passport.

Where the United States has a legal case against the terrorist, the same Gulfstream flies him to the United States for interrogation and prosecution. For example, the chap who murdered two CIA employees in Virginia, Mir Aimal Kasi, fled to Balochistan. Case officers from the Directorate of Operations captured him. The white Gulfstream took him from Pakistan to the US where he was tried in a proper and public manner in an American court. He was sentenced to death and executed at the Greensville Correctional Center in Virginia.

The system is not a warm and fuzzy one, but the problem of terrorism is also not a warm and fuzzy one.
JohnStuart

John Stuart -- I was speaking with Josh Marshall last night who was also fairly well informed about this practice and noted it was nothing so new. I think that what catches some people off guard is that there seem to be a rather large number of such procedures, such as rendition of a prisoner to some other locale, of which the public has little or no knowledge. The public is unaware of many things -- but even somewhat informed people find much of this new and surprising. Coupled with the efforts by the administration to further expand official secrecy and to not hold itself accountable to such things as the Geneva Convention (about which you have written about and commented on more eloquently and persuasively than anyone I know), this practice looks like further scheming. I look forward to discussing this with you further in person.

By the way, get to the Al Qaeda 2.0 conference as early as possible -- and I'll save you a chair. I hear that we have a more than capacity crowd...

Steve Clemons

JS -

Seems to me there was a Canadian citizen rendered to an ME country on suspicion of terrorist links, a rendition that calls you scenario into question. Admittedly, it could be an outlier. A concern I have is that, like the two soldiers profiled in the 60 Minutes case, the evidence upon which the decision to render is made is fairly flimsy to begin with and crumbles under scrutiny. I suppose some would call this unavoidable collateral damage, but let's at least recognize that it's occurring.

Up next: domestic torture.

Only then, they'll call it "waterboarding" again. And they will have all these success stories about the positive results of torture in their defense, with the bonus of applying less severe stress. (It would be great for them if one of the current victims had lost an eye or a testicle. Blame the foreign government, stretch the limits at home even further.)

Why else would the U.S. government keep doing this? It is essentially a two year old story - I think I read about it in Salon - that just keeps growing. Eventually it will cross a disgust threshold (way, way beyond mine) and blow up in their faces.

Jon,
You are thinking of the Maher Arar case. I'm sure you can find lots with a google search. He had lived in Canada for over 15 years when he was stopped in the US and sent to Syria. After being tortured for several months, he was released on the determination that he was not a terrorist.

bakho said: "Just saying that torture is a bad idea in general and BTW it doesn't work against terrorists won't fly. The public needs to be reeducated about who the terrorists are, how they operate and what activities are most likely to be effective in stopping them. In this context, one can discuss the disadvantages of torturing innocent foreigners as compared to ending international money laundering."

Isn't this what the x-cia man is saying? Michael Scheurer. He's saying this country can't beat the terrorist until we understand what makes them do what they do. In any war we have to know the enemy what drives them and in this war we don't. All we know is that they are evil, sadistic, etc. Killing innocent civilians might not be the American definition of war but it certainly is their or so it seems.

I think Scheuer is onto something. I haven't read his book but the US doesn't know these people we are fighting. we don't know what makes them tick and until we get inside their heads how can be defeat them?

I don't know what you think of him as a reliable source - he comes across to me as a bit of a loudmouth rentaquote, but on the other hand I can't say for certain he's ever lied about anything - but ex CIA honcho Bob Baer has a lot to say about extraordinary rendition. Britain's New Statesman magazine did a very in-depth expose of the whole thing a year or so ago, and Baer was quoted at length (perhaps excessively so). One interesting thing about that piece was that it showed the UK certainly aren't averse to a bit of rendition, despite our statutes about extradition. SAS officers have participated in a number of kidnappings leading to renditions, apparently, as well as providing logistical support.

I'm a little late on this, but there is something about this article that bothers me:

``Yet, "extraordinary rendition," one of the earliest tools employed in the war against terror, has outraged human rights activists and former CIA agents, who say it violates the international convention on torture and amounts to "outsourcing" torture.''

Why does the Globe author have to put the facts in somebody's mouth before they can state them? This practice is plainly contrary to the Convention on the Prevention of Torture, and they could have just said that themselves. Furthermore the said convention is part of the law of the U.S. as it is a ratified treaty and ratified treaties are the ``highest law'' of the land as per Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

``International law? I'd better call my lawyer'': so said George W. as a jest on some occasion when reminded that something that Washington did that may have violated international law. In this case---and probably that one too---the international law in question is part of U.S. law, and the stupid shithead appears not to realize that he is violating his oath of office to ``faithfully execute the laws of the United States''.

If reporters, such as those for the Boston Globe, could bring themselves to state plainly that the U.S. has made the commitment by ratifying the treaty (be it the U.N. charter, the convention on the prevention of torture, or whatever) and to state plainly that the responsible parties---in this case the C.I.A.---are breaking U.S. law, there might be some chance of stopping this sort of thing. So long as the press goes on with this weasel-worded ``he says/she says'' crap, the public will go on thinking that it's all ``just a matter of opinion''.