- Calendar
- Map
- Site Feedback
- IDEA Sites
- Languages
- Projects
- Digital Freedoms
- 2012 Presidential Debates Guide
- Asia Youth Forum
- Big Apple Cogers
- Debate@Europe
- Debate Changing Europe
- Debate in the Neighborhood
- Debating and Producing Media
- Debating the Future of Youth in Africa and Europe
- Dialogue without borders
- Digital Debating Blog
- Free Speech Debate
- Global Youth Forum
- Global Debate and Public Policy Challenge
- International Public Policy Forum
- Online Mentoring
- The Freedom Series
- Youth and Sports Mega-Events
This house believes the practice of extraordinary rendition a useful and necessary policy in the fight against terrorism.
This house believes the practice of extraordinary rendition a useful and necessary policy in the fight against terrorism.
“Extraordinary rendition” is the transfer of an individual, without the benefit of a legal proceeding in which the individual can challenge the transfer, to a country where he or she is at risk of torture.[1] This makes it different from other rendition-methods, like extradition, which is treaty-based, or deportation, which is based on the expelling country’s domestic judicial processes. Other terms used for “extraordinary rendition” are “rendition” (the way Amnesty International refers to it), or “irregular rendition”.
Although rendition began in the 1990s under Bill Clinton the word usually crops up in connection to the September 11 attacks and the U.S. Government’s “war on terrorism”. The persons who are “rendered” might be captured outside the U.S.A (by the C.I.A. or any other body, e.g. in Afghanistan) and then, without legal process, transferred to America. They also might be captured on foreign soil and then transferred to any other country by the U.S.A. It is the latter case which has attracted the most criticism: according to the critics, the U.S. uses this specific form of extraordinary rendition to torture suspects of terrorism, without having to do the torturing themselves. Proponents of the procedure, including the US Government, argue in contrast that they have no knowledge of torture occurring in the states where suspects are sent, and that even if they are, the resultant information justifies the methods used to extract them.
[1] Satterthwaite, M. L. (2007, August) Rendered meaningless: Extraordinary Rendition and the Rule of Law. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from the George Washington Law Review: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=945711
Read more
| Points For | Points Against |
|---|---|
| States can only trust the ‘diplomatic assurance’ they receive that torture won’t be used | Extraordinary rendition is simply torture by proxy, and therefore illegal. |
| States have the right to use extraordinary rendition in order to saves the lives of its citizens | Rendered victims have no recourse to appeal, and therefore the process is grossly unfair |
| Extraordinary rendition is acceptable provided torture is not solicited | Extradition offers a fairer, more transparent means of transferring suspected terrorists. |
| Extraordinary rendition is necessary in contemporary warfare as a solution to the legal ambiguity of enemy combatants |
Remember to choose a winning argument!
States can only trust the ‘diplomatic assurance’ they receive that torture won’t be used
Point
States cannot expect to be held responsible for the actions of their fellow states where suspects are rendered to. The C.I.A. has a policy in practice where it obtains “diplomatic assurance” that torture will not be used. Under customary international law, the U.S.A. is obliged to act “in good faith”. So, when America is given diplomatic assurance by another government, it would be a diplomatic blunder and ill-advised not to trust that guarantee. Also, imagine the consequence if it were one day proved that the C.I.A. rendered a person, knowing they would be tortured: not only would the persons involved lose their jobs, but also the reputation of the C.I.A. would be severely damaged. That’s why the C.I.A. has an incentive to make sure that these assurances are believable and do their due diligence. If thereafter torture occurs, the state responsible for rendering the suspect is understandably innocent of any blame.
Improve thisCounterpoint
States must do more than simply garner ‘diplomatic assurance’, a promise that is not worth the paper is written on. How, for example, does the U.S. Government know the difference between the “harsh interrogation methods” and “torture” of the state accepting the suspect, and on what grounds does it base its belief that it is “more likely than not” that torture won’t take place? The work of the C.I.A., by its nature, is secretive. So, even if the C.I.A. does research and obtains agreements, the general public can never check whether these agreements hold any water. Since the C.I.A. is being held responsible to fight terrorism, they might even have an incentive to bend the rules a bit – as long as they can later show results to the public.
Improve thisStates have the right to use extraordinary rendition in order to saves the lives of its citizens
Point
Extraordinary renditions save lives. It is used to bring people who are known or believed to be terrorists, to justice. These suspects are often stateless or hide in places where ordinary processes of law do not work – extraordinary rendition is then the only possible way of tracking them down, getting the necessary information from them, and bringing them to justice. They carry information which could save thousands of lives – the U.S.A. would be foolish not to try and get that out of them. An example of this is Ramzi Youssef, who masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and plotted to blow up airlines over the Pacific Ocean. After a rendition to the U.S.A., he was convicted and now serves a life-sentence.[1] Without rendition, who knows how many people he would have killed or how long he would have escaped the justice that he deserved.
[1] Spillius, Alex, “Barack Obama to allow anti-terror rendition to continue”, The Telegraph, 1 February 2009, Retrieved August 1 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html
Improve this
Counterpoint
Extraordinary rendition harms civilians more than it protects them. For every example of an “effective” rendition, one has to ask: is it worth it? Because for every terrorist successfully caught and convicted after rendition, there may be many more mistakes. On top of that consider the loss of reputation that the practice of extraordinary rendition has caused the U.S.A. to suffer amongst its chief allies. In 2007 the E.U. adopted a report condemning this particular U.S. policy, and this was followed by a massive public outcry.[1] Such American tactics simply play into the hands of terrorists who seek to stir hatred against America and divide it from its allies. And finally: does the pretext of a terrorist threat really justify taking away a person’s basic human right to due process? Especially as many experts believe that torture is an ineffective method of acquiring reliable intelligence in any case.
[1] European Parliament. (2007, January 30). Report on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2007-0020+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
Improve this
Extraordinary rendition is acceptable provided torture is not solicited
Point
Certain states have made reservations to the general treaties which permit rendition under specific circumstances. For example, when ratifying the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in 1994, the U.S.A. made the reservation that it can render persons to countries when they believe that it is more likely than not that a person won’t be tortured – so, under the U.S. interpretation of CAT, the U.S.A. can render persons to countries that practice torture, as long as the U.S.A has reason to believe that it will not torture in this specific case.[1] This is a reasonable, and legal, means to circumvent the convention.
[1] Human Rights Library, “U.S. reservations, declarations, and understandings, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Cong. Rec. S17486-01 (daily ed., Oct. 27, 1990).” University of Minnesota, retrieved September 1 2011: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/usdocs/tortres.html
Improve this
Counterpoint
Extraordinary rendition is never acceptable. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 state that ‘individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or to that of any other country, are prohibited, regardless of their motive’.[1] There is no room in international humanitarian law, which covers armed conflict, for the forced transfer of protected persons. Furthermore, whilst the US relies on the deniability of its rendition program, the fact that the most common destinations include Egypt, Syria and Jordan ensures that such claims can be dismissed as mere obfuscation.[2]
[1] International Committee of the Red Cross. (1949). Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva: ICRC.
[2] Mayer, J. (2005, February 13). Outsourcing Torture. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6
Improve this
Extraordinary rendition is necessary in contemporary warfare as a solution to the legal ambiguity of enemy combatants
Point
Extraordinary rendition permits the transferring of suspected enemy combatants from one place to another without the bureaucratic and legal difficulties of establishing their legal position. Contemporary warfare, most notably suspected terrorists in the war on terror, are not covered by the dictates of international humanitarian law, requiring extraordinary rendition to move the suspects from battlefields to places of interrogation and then back to their countries of residence. As Condoleezza Rice argued “In some situations a terrorist suspect can be extradited according to traditional judicial procedures. But there have long been many other cases where, for some reason, the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extradition is not a good option.”[1] Without extraordinary rendition, the process or extradition would take much longer and suspects’ cases would remain tied up in military tribunals or civilian courts for indefinite amounts of time, sometimes rendition is the only practical option.
[1] Rice, C. (2005, December 5). Full Text: Rice defends US policy. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4500630.stm
Improve this
Counterpoint
The legal ambiguity of enemy combatants is a problem, but it is not one solved by the circumvention of international law. States must either grant current Geneva Convention dictates to enemy combatants, and disregard the awkward fit, or advocate for the evolution of international law to ensure combatants are granted their requisite rights. The circumvention enshrined in the practise of extraordinary rendition serves merely to convey that ignoring international law is acceptable, inadvertently justifying the illegal actions of enemy combatants who also flagrantly violate Geneva Convention protocols. To provide such a propaganda tool for enemy combatants is most certainly not necessary in contemporary warfare; it will only strengthen its barbarity and the ignorance of restraints built up to limit warfare.
Improve thisExtraordinary rendition is simply torture by proxy, and therefore illegal.
Point
The U.S. Government uses “extraordinary rendition” as “torture by proxy”. They deliver suspects of terrorism to countries which are known to practice torture, and expect certain results from those countries, in the form of information extracted. They are thereby violating the UN Convention against Torture (CAT), which forbids countries to render persons to states which practice torture, and also U.S. domestic law, which also prohibits this.[1] Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 prohibit both the torture and inhumane treatment of POWs and the ‘unlawful transfer of civilians to states where they may be subject to Geneva Convention violations’.[2] Note that torture need not be solicited, but the mere prospect of torture is enough to confer responsibility on the transferring party if it eventuates.
[1] Garcia, M. J. (2009, September 8). Renditions: Constraints Imposed by Laws on Torture. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Congressional Research Service: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32890.pdf, p.6
[2] All Party Parliamentary on Extraordinary Rendition. (2005). Torture by Proxy: International Law applicable to 'Extraordinary Renditions'. New York.
Improve this
Counterpoint
Extraordinary rendition is not torture by proxy and is never undertaken with torture as the goal. The U.S. Government does not render persons to countries with the purpose of having them tortured, as reaffirmed by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2005.[1] The U.S. Government may render suspects of terrorism for “harsh interrogation”, but harsh interrogation is legal both under CAT and domestic law, which determines torture as “inducing severe pain”.[2] In any case, the main reasons for rendering a terrorist suspect to another country for questioning have more to do with that state’s role in the investigation than with particular interrogation techniques practiced there. The destination state may be better placed to interrogate the suspect in his own language, and may have detailed background information to inform the questioning process that the USA lacks. The suspect may also be accused of plotting atrocities in the state to which he has been rendered by the USA, so they have a legitimate interest in interrogating him first.
[1] Rice, C. (2005, December 5). Full Text: Rice defends US policy. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4500630.stm
[2] United Nations. (1984, December 10). Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from United Nations: http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-9.htm
Improve this
Rendered victims have no recourse to appeal, and therefore the process is grossly unfair
Point
Combatants taken captive and extraordinary rendered are not able to question or appeal their renditions. What if the state concerned makes mistakes? Because the victims are held in detention without recourse to any kind of judge, they have no possible way of getting out. Even worse, when someone might be released out of this type of detention, the victim has no way of seeking redress since the operation was covert. An example of this is the case of Khalid El-Masri, a German of Lebanese descent, who suddenly disappeared in 2003. After he resurfaced in Albania in 2004, he claimed he was “kidnapped” by the C.I.A. and tortured under the policy of “extraordinary rendition”, until the C.I.A. realized their mistake and released him, without excuse, and without any compensation of any kind.[1] Since there is no official record, his attempts to make a case against the C.I.A. has failed. Worse still, a U.S.-judge dismissed his case, under the argument that pursuing the case would be a severe threat to national security.[2]
[1] Priest, D. (2005, December 4). Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR200512...
[2] Markon, J. (2006, May 19). Lawsuit against CIA is dismissed. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR200605...
Improve this
Counterpoint
Rendered victims, if wrongly transferred, will eventually receive redress for the wrongs committed. For example, to ensure that the C.I.A. does not make any mistakes, it has started researching so-called “erroneous renditions”.[1] In the case of Khalid El-Masri, the C.I.A. has never admitted kidnapping him. The C.I.A. does suspect, and is trying to catch a German-based terrorist with the name Khalid Al-Masri, and it might be possible that this person is using the similarity in names to create a backlash against the C.I.A. Regardless of the merits of this particular case, it is clearly in the interests of America’s enemies to blacken its name and undermine its security forces through accusations of torture. So murky and unsubstantiated stories about rendition should not be believed uncritically.
[1] Priest, D. (2005, December 4). Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301476.html
Improve this
Extradition offers a fairer, more transparent means of transferring suspected terrorists.
Point
The people targeted by extraordinary rendition are citizens, not combatants, and more importantly, human beings. If there is a reasonable suspicion of terrorism against these people, states should follow the normal route of asking the country where the suspect is living for to extradite him. The suspect can then be tried in a normal criminal court, where the public eye will ensure his or her right to due process. But more importantly, even if you view this person as a “combatant”, then still he or she has the fundamental human right to due process. The West and its allies should not itself violate the fundamental democratic rights it proclaims to defend in this war against terror.
Improve thisCounterpoint
Nothing is fairer in the war on terror than ensuring that those who are suspected of participating in terrorist activities are brought to justice, whichever way possible. Those targeted for extraordinary renditions should be considered “unlawful combatants” in the war against terror. This term is important, because it identifies the terrorists as combatants in that war. The people targeted for extraordinary rendition are “unlawful combatants” since their aim is to kill and terrorize civilians, not soldiers.[1] Under international law, that is a war crime, requiring very severe measures on the side of the law. Moreover, since the West is at war with terrorism, it has the obligation to protect its citizens first – and the obligation to dirty its hands in the process. Mistakes will be made, we can be sure of that. But in a time of war, the West cannot afford to risk the lives of its own citizens.
[1] Detter, I. (2007, August). The Law of War and Illegal Combatants. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from George Washington Law Review: http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/humanrights/HUMR5503/h09/undervisningsmateriale/ingrid_detter.pdf
Improve this
Bibliography
All Party Parliamentary on Extraordinary Rendition. (2005). Torture by Proxy: International Law applicable to 'Extraordinary Renditions'. New York.
Detter, I. (2007, August). The Law of War and Illegal Combatants. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from George Washington Law Review: http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/humanrights/HUMR5503/h09/undervisningsmateriale/ingrid_detter.pdf
European Parliament. (2007, January 30). Report on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2007-0020+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
Garcia, M. J. (2009, September 8). Renditions: Constraints Imposed by Laws on Torture. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Congressional Research Service: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32890.pdf
International Committee of the Red Cross. (1949). Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva: ICRC.
Kroeger, A. (2007, February 14). EU to vote on CIA flights report. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6359875.stm
Markon, J. (2006, May 19). Lawsuit against CIA is dismissed. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051802107.html
Mayer, J. (2005, February 13). Outsourcing Torture. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6
Priest, D. (2005, December 4). Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301476.html
Rice, C. (2005, December 5). Full Text: Rice defends US policy. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4500630.stm
Satterthwaite, M. L. (2007, August) Rendered meaningless: Extraordinary Rendition and the Rule of Law. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from the George Washington Law Review: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=945711
Spillius, Alex, “Barack Obama to allow anti-terror rendition to continue”, The Telegraph, 1 February 2009, Retrieved August 1 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html
United Nations. (1984, December 10). Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from United Nations: http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-9.htm
Human Rights Library, “U.S. reservations, declarations, and understandings, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Cong. Rec. S17486-01 (daily ed., Oct. 27, 1990).” University of Minnesota, retrieved September 1 2011: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/usdocs/tortres.html
Further Reading
Slate: Rendition at Risk
Geneva Convention IV: Relative to Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
Amnesty International Report: European Complicity in Rendition and Secret Detention
Curate this debate
If you are an academic or highly knowledgeable about a particular debate could you give an hour or two a month to curate a debate?
Be a debatabase editor
Idebate needs editors from around the world to check, moderate and create content for debatabase and the site more generally. Editors are vital in making the site run smoothly and ensuring that debates are as informative as possible.
