Extraordinary Rendition by the US - Research Paper Example

Extraordinary Rendition by the U.S Introduction The Central Intelligence Agency together with the U.S. government launched an intelligence-gathering program that involved the transfer of foreign national terror suspects to detention and interrogation outside the sovereign territory of the United States. The application of federal and international legal safeguard are not applied. This is according to the CIA’s view. The use of extraordinary rendition increased in Sept. 11, 2001 when the CIA launched the program to handle terrorist suspects (“Extraordinary Rendition, Extraterritorial Detention and Treatment of Detainees” Web). This was after a terrorist attack in the country during the reign of President Bill Clinton. The CIA agency went to the height of detaining and interrogating foreign suspects without bringing them to the United States or charging them with any crimes they committed (“Extraordinary Rendition, Extraterritorial Detention and Treatment of Detainees” Web). The solution was to move a suspect to another country which sometimes meant the detention of the suspect to the CIA’s secret prisons in places such as Romania or Thailand. From there, CIA would interrogate him or her. The suspect will either be detained or interrogated by the U.S (Katja 34-8). personnel at the detention facilities outside the sovereign territory of the country or, on the other hand, dispensed over to the custody of foreign agents who will then interrogate him or her. The foreign suspects are subjected to torture and brutal interrogation methods that are illegal under international or federal law, applied so as obtain information from the suspects. The use of extraordinary rendition has proved success in the fight against terrorism. Arrest and detention of terror suspects have helped the Government to dig into the roots of the terrorists’ plans and strategies from the terrorist suspect put under interrogation (Murray 9-11). However, administration officials, in collaboration with the Department of Justice legal memoranda criticized this act. A forum was held in 1992 that was ratified by the U.S (The United Nations Convention against Torture and other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) (Murray 20). The congress made it clear that, it is the policy of the U.S not to:  “expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United State” (Costanzo, Mark and Ellen 180). Pros and cons of extraordinary rendition There has been a record of successful extraordinary renditions mostly detected after the 2011 terror attack. Notorious suspects such as Khalid Shaikh Muhammad (KSM), Abu Zubaydah, Wallis Bin Attash, Ibn Shaikh al-Libi and Encep Nuraman were detained and focused as part of the U.S program (Murray 16). Successful extraordinary renditions may yield treasured intelligence that boosts the ability of the Government of the United States to understand the leadership of terrorists and channel of their networks. This will help the Government to derail future plans after thorough briefing of the suspects that will help eradicate terrorism. For instance the detainment of Khalid Shaikh Muhammad the mastermind to the 9/11 attack in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2002 prevented several terror attacks that would have taken place (Murray 20). Extraordinary rendition of Khalid made the U.S. yield intelligence in regards to the structure and future plans of the Al-Qaeda (AQ) terror group. Due to the ranks he was given, his knowledge of the AQ network, the details of the past operations made the U.S government understand the AQ and the ongoing plans of other terrorism efforts. Another suspect, Abu Zubaydah a native of both Saudi Arabia and Palestine, was arrested in Faisalabad, Pakistan on March 28, 2002 (Murray 20). He was the operational planner responsible for aiding the movement of important Islamic ideologues who facilitated training and missions around the globe. His arrest and detention was a big threat to the to the AQ’s operations. His rendition was significant to the Government for it provided noteworthy intelligence linked to the structure and leadership of AQ (Murray 23-5). Though extraordinary rendition has proved success in its operations, there has been botched extraordinary renditions though the mistakes are few. This failures outdo the successes of renditions and have a significant effect on how the policy is viewed by people who criticizes the act (Downing Web). Some organizations, due to this fact have seized on this unsuccessful slipups. They have condemned the act of extraordinary rendition because the failures degrades the general United States’ argument that, as a nation, it is ethically superior to the terrorist it fights. The failures expose greatly the weakness the Government post over execution such as, public relations difficulties, poor tradecrafts and the challenges to identify actual terrorists. In addition, the failures have not only strained but also jeopardized the United States’ relations with other allies in the fight against terrorism. One of the most public relations failure of extraordinary rendition was the capture and detention of Khaled al Masri, a German citizen born in Lebanon. He was captured while retreating in Macedonia in 2003 (Murray 22). His detention made critics to rally for anti-rendition and failure of the United States Government to contradict his public statements. His story triggered attention from the press and the German Government. He is, according to some critics, one of the so called “erroneous renditions” where the U.S intelligence community mistook identity and picked the wrong person based on poor intelligence. On the issue of shoddy tradecrafts, the act of detaining a person and upon realizing he is a wrong suspect, the counterpart uses false information to cub investigation. A suspect by the name Abu Omar was detained in Milan, Italy in 2003 and rendered in Cairo, Egypt through U.S airbases (Murray 22). He was granted a refugee status after being thought that on his return to Egypt, he would be mistreated based on his historical background of being a fundamental, outspoken religious cleric. It was evident that the U.S. operatives exposed an obvious truth that: they did not cover their tracks and didn’t use false names which made it easier for the Italian magistrates to identify the personnel captured on cameras. The magistrates’ evidences discovered that the U.S counterparts paid journalists to distribute misleading information. In order to cater for the botched extraordinary renditions the following recommendations should be taken into consideration for proper fight against terrorism: Refine tactical and operational tradecrafts When the U.S. officials were executing extraordinary renditions they sometimes failed to cover their tracks and left out lots of evidence. Some of their operations were amateur and not to the standards normally ascribed by the U.S operators. Due to the rise of political risks of exposed or failed rendition, the United States should strictly assign its proven operators and seasoned veterans to conduct extraordinary renditions (Murray 23). Also, it must review its operational and tactical procedures to establish a clear and best practices to be used for future extraordinary renditions and organize the results of the operations in a doctrine. Ensure the approval of all extraordinary renditions targets by the president It is important for the intelligence community after using credible sources and methods to develop a list of vetted targets for rendition, to allow the president to approve or deny specific cases. This will prevent potential erroneous renditions and combat mission creep and allow the president in collaboration with his stuff, to follow up on any intelligence used to perform the mission and verify it using all source intelligence and a proper lawful review process. Closely monitor the detainees posted to another country to avoid torture Torture is the main subject in the application of extraordinary rendition. The detainees are subjected to enormous punishment in order to give information on a particular terrorism plan or a past attack. For this reason, the U.S. Government should carefully chose where to render its suspects and therefore should favor countries that have a well-built permissible gear that might be able to convict a detainee. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) should be allowed to verify the condition of a detainee, hence reducing the fears posted by opponents who argue that the U.S. knowingly removes torture as a violation of international laws (Murray 20). It is estimated that 30-50 detainees from countries such as Algeria, Tunisia, China and Libya have expressed fears of torture by the federal governments of the respective countries when they return back home (Downing Web). For this reason the United States should therefore, set up a fair process before a federal court where detainees are provided with an advance notice and an opportunity to contest any transfer that is planned. In addition, the United States Government should deport all detainees who are not scheduled or trial and for this reason can safely be returned home. Discontinue the use of United States operated “Black Sites” The original intention of extraordinary rendition program was to subject captives to face legal proceedings in the third-party country, but not to detain the individuals in the U.S. run facilities. For this reason the Government should stand still the current and future use of “black sites.” Alternatively, the United States should deliver the captives in the country upon which they can face legal prosecution (Katja Web). This policy will actually protect the U.S. political leadership from going down, safeguard its resources and nevertheless, help the United States to regain its domestic and international moral and legal footing. Provide legal protection for detainees when appropriate When matters of national security arises, the Government restricts certain legal rights in in order to fight modern terrorism. However the United States Government should at list limit the restrictions in whichever way possible and defend the rights of the accused depending on the intelligence and circumstances involved (Deeks 20). It has been observed that much of terrorist attacks can be won using traditional lawful procedures that can be used to convict the criminals ( Murray 25) . This will allow and give an opportunity for a detainee to view certain evidence that is being held against them. Conclusion It has been observed that there are advantages and disadvantages that are associated with extraordinary rendition policy. The current policy provide the necessary outline which is legally and diplomatically from the United States perspective, and logistical way for pulling terrorists from the streets. This method is extremely valuable for it is a counterterrorism tool, where it digs down the roots of terrorist networks. However, this method of abducting terrorism can be vulnerable if overused for instance cases of mistaken identity which indeed challenges the basic United States values. Furthermore, botched policy implementation can greatly lead to crises of public relations and strained alliances which is evidenced by the Abu Omar and al Masri cases. However, the United States counter terrorism officials should not dismiss extraordinary rendition policy because it greatly cubs terrorism and the information that is extracted from the terrorists is used to identify and learn strategic ways to protect the country from terrorist attacks. Works Cited “Extraordinary Rendition, Extraterritorial Detention and Treatment of Detainees”. Restoring Our Moral Credibility and Strengthening Our Diplomatic Standing : Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, First Session, July 26, 2007. Washington: U.S. G.P.O, 2008. Print. Costanzo, Mark A, and Ellen Gerrity. "The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate." Social Issues and Policy Review. 3.1 (2009): 179-210. Print. Deeks, Ashley S. Avoiding Transfers to Torture. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2008. Internet resource. Del, Rosso J. Talking About Torture: How Political Discourse Shapes the Debate. , 2015. Print. Downing, John. "Media Representations of Terrorism." (2014). Print. Katja, Samuel L. H. Counter-terrorism and International Law. Farnham [u.a.: Ashgate, 2012. Print. Murray, Mark. "Extraordinary Rendition and U.s. Counterterrorism Policy." Journal of Strategic Security. 4.3 (2011): 15-28. Print. Read More