Talk:Extraordinary rendition/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Important to note "entry countries"

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)

Map

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

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)

Carefull, this is not true in Canada. The Government of Canada has Crown copyright (and perhaps other rights) in its works. --69.196.178.254 (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Secret Prisons

"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)

Absolutely they are linked to allegations of extraordinary rendition, whether there is torture or not. And in any event as noted above, the fact that Rice has denied that torture took place in them does not mean that it did not. Stop trying to pick apart this well sourced article on the basis of your increasingly flimsy logic. --Nickhh (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is not about secret prisons. It is about extraordinary rendition. If extraordinary rendition involves secret prisons, fine, then these are relevant. If there are 10,000 secret black prison ships sailing the seas, and these are not linked to extraordinary rendition, why would we discuss these?

Secret prisons would violate EU policy, and are properly an EU concern. This would be the case even if no extraordinary rendition were involved. Secret prisons are likely legal in many EU nations domestic law. The EU is very concerned about getting all members to comply with EU policies and not their domestic law.

If reliable sources claim "absolutely they are linked to allegations of extraordinary rendition", fine, then these claims are then relevant to our topic. If not, they are not. Raggz (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How many times have you been shown this source, which talks about prisoners being transported to different locations using the ships and specifically uses the word rendition? Which is also cited in the article (assuming you haven't removed it). Not to mention the numerous sources discussing the rendition of detainees to secret US-run prisons, based in Europe (see also reply below). You keep raising totally random non-points, repeatedly. --Nickhh (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• The United States is operating "floating prisons" to house those arrested in its war on terror, according to human rights lawyers, who claim there has been an attempt to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees. Why is this relevant to our topic? Does it allege an "extralegal" transfer? Prisoners captured during a war need to be held in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Did this text allege that they were not? Why is it illegal to hold a prisoner on a ship?

• Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained. Why is this relevant to our topic? Does it allege an "extralegal" transfer? Prisoners captured during a war need to be held in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Did this text allege that they were not?

• Information about the operation of prison ships has emerged through a number of sources, including statements from the US military, the Council of Europe and related parliamentary bodies, and the testimonies of prisoners. Why is this relevant to our topic? Does it allege an "extralegal" transfer? Prisoners captured during a war need to be held in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Did this text allege that they were not?

• The analysis, due to be published this year by the human rights organisation Reprieve, also claims there have been more than 200 new cases of rendition since 2006, when President George Bush declared that the practice had stopped. This is relevant to our topic, feel free to cite it.

• It is the use of ships to detain prisoners, however, that is raising fresh concern and demands for inquiries in Britain and the US. Why is this relevant to our topic? Does it allege an "extralegal" transfer? Prisoners captured during a war need to be held in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Did this text allege that they were not? Do the GCs ban transport by ship? What?

• According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as "floating prisons" since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed. Why is this relevant to our topic? Does it allege an "extralegal" transfer? Prisoners captured during a war need to be held in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Did this text allege that they were not?

• Ships that are understood to have held prisoners include the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu. A further 15 ships are suspected of having operated around the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which has been used as a military base by the UK and the Americans. Reprieve will raise particular concerns over the activities of the USS Ashland and the time it spent off Somalia in early 2007 conducting maritime security operations in an effort to capture al-Qaida terrorists. Why is this relevant to our topic? Does it allege an "extralegal" transfer? Prisoners captured during a war need to be held in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Did this text allege that they were not?

• At this time many people were abducted by Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian forces in a systematic operation involving regular interrogations by individuals believed to be members of the FBI and CIA. Ultimately more than 100 individuals were "disappeared" to prisons in locations including Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Guantánamo Bay. Reprieve believes prisoners may have also been held for interrogation on the USS Ashland and other ships in the Gulf of Aden during this time. Let's say that this is true. Where do the Geneva Conventions require that they be held? Why is this relevant to our topic? Does it allege an "extralegal" transfer? Prisoners captured during a war need to be held in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Did this text allege that they were not?

• The Reprieve study includes the account of a prisoner released from Guantánamo Bay, who described a fellow inmate's story of detention on an amphibious assault ship. "One of my fellow prisoners in Guantánamo was at sea on an American ship with about 50 others before coming to Guantánamo ... he was in the cage next to me. He told me that there were about 50 other people on the ship. They were all closed off in the bottom of the ship. The prisoner commented to me that it was like something you see on TV. The people held on the ship were beaten even more severely than in Guantánamo." Why is this relevant to our topic? Does it allege an "extralegal" transfer? Prisoners captured during a war need to be held in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. It is alleged that he was abused, a war crime, but extraordinary rendition is not alleged.

• Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve's legal director, said: "They choose ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers. We will eventually reunite these ghost prisoners with their legal rights. "By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them." Again, off topic.

• Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, called for the US and UK governments to come clean over the holding of detainees. Is there any doubt that prisoners are being held? There is a war going on and prisoners get taken every day. Is our article about the US holding prisoners?

• "Little by little, the truth is coming out on extraordinary rendition. The rest will come, in time. Better for governments to be candid now, rather than later. Greater transparency will provide increased confidence that President Bush's departure from justice and the rule of law in the aftermath of September 11 is being reversed, and can help to win back the confidence of moderate Muslim communities, whose support is crucial in tackling dangerous extremism." Relevant text, free feel to use it.

• The Liberal Democrat's foreign affairs spokesman, Edward Davey, said: "If the Bush administration is using British territories to aid and abet illegal state abduction, it would amount to a huge breach of trust with the British government. Ministers must make absolutely clear that they would not support such illegal activity, either directly or indirectly." Why is this relevant to our topic?

• A US navy spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, told the Guardian: "There are no detention facilities on US navy ships." However, he added that it was a matter of public record that some individuals had been put on ships "for a few days" during what he called the initial days of detention. He declined to comment on reports that US naval vessels stationed in or near Diego Garcia had been used as "prison ships". Irrelevant text, because it does not involve extralegal transfers.

• The Foreign Office referred to David Miliband's statement last February admitting to MPs that, despite previous assurances to the contrary, US rendition flights had twice landed on Diego Garcia. He said he had asked his officials to compile a list of all flights on which rendition had been alleged. Fine, use this if you wish.

• CIA "black sites" are also believed to have operated in Thailand, Afghanistan, Poland and Romania. Irrelevant text, because it does not involve extralegal transfers.

• In addition, numerous prisoners have been "extraordinarily rendered" to US allies and are alleged to have been tortured in secret prisons in countries such as Syria, Jordan, Morocco and Egypt. Irrelevant text, because it does not involve extralegal transfers.

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)

The entire article violates NPOV

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)

Examples please. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire article violates OR

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

The entire article violates wp:syn, read this policy and please comment. Raggz (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Examples please. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WP Policy

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)

I did not say secret prisons are "always" part of extraordinary rendition. I have explained my points over and over, and for the record they are not "my" points, they are what reliable sources, cited properly in this article, are saying. Why should I - or anyone else - have to explain the blindingly obvious to you 1000s of times or else be accused of not engaging or be told they cannot correct your mistakes? For the last time - the US has been accused of transporting detainees without legal process (hence "extraordinary rendition") to US-run camps in Eastern European countries, and also to prisons elsewhere. Therefore these camps are relevant to this article. --Nickhh (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh and the fact that you believe something may "violate WP policy" does not mean that it does, and that you have the right to then plough on with your strange edits and random deletions regardless of consensus. You still would have to justify why they are supposedly in breach of any policy. Has anyone agreed with you yet about anything, on any of the pages you've edited in the last few days? --Nickhh (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Read some WP policy, there are many of them. Wp:consensus and wp:or would be a great place to begin. Then quote to me where I have violated the consensus or the OR policy? That will put a stop to my edits that allegedly require consensus but do not have it. I am following these and also other policies, they integrate into each other. Please read wp:bold.

Example: We have claims by a member of the European Parliment as a reliable source but our article says that his opinion represents the majority, and our source makes it clear that it does not. This makes that section OR, because the claim is unsupported. Deletion or editing is then required and wp:consensus is inapplicable to OR. Instead of deleting, I tried to fix it. You don't agree with my edit, as is your right. This part of our debate is then a content issue, and so requires consensus. I cannot now revert my text to fix the error, so instead I need to just delete the seriously innacurate and unsupported text. If you were to revert without editing it to comply with policy, you would then be violating policy. As the edit tag said, feel free to revert that material when it is properly sourced and does not violate wp:or.

You have reverted text that you admit is not properly sourced and did not correct this before reverting. Doing this violates wp:or in my opinion. Please explain why you believe otherwise?

You said "For the last time - the US has been accused of transporting detainees without legal process (hence "extraordinary rendition") to US-run camps in Eastern European countries, and also to prisons elsewhere. Therefore these camps are relevant to this article." Great, we have consensus that (1)prisons within this context are of course relevant and (2) a reliable source linking them for such a use is necessary? Example: A thousand black prison ships operated by the CIA would be irrelevant unless linked by a reliable source to our topic? Raggz (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

fact tags

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)

Council of Europe Report

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)

I disagree. This report does not find that the US has violated any international law, anywhere. For it to be ER, it needs to be illegal, or at least "extrajudicial". Can we reach consensus on this important point? I've read this and the related report, and while serious reservations are expressed about possible US violations of international law are expressed, it does not make a finding that such occured. Please cite the text that says otherwise?

What the report focuses upon is European law and policy in regard to international law. Prisons within Poland and Romania may have violated European law and policy that interpret international law. Where does this report say otherwise?

The ECHR makes findings that may disagree with the US Supreme Court on the interpretation of international treaties. The UNSC settles such conflicts. The ECHR findings do not bind the US, onlt those by the UNSC. The European Parliment is properly assessing European Union law and policy which do not apply to the US. Because European Union law and policy does not apply to the US, violations of European Union law and policy do not create an extrajudicial process in regard to the US. It might for Romania or Poland, but these are not our topic. Poland is responsible to the EU for EU compliance and the US is not in charge of Poland or Polish compliance with EU treaties. Such is only the business of Poland and the EU. Why are EU disputes even in this article?Raggz (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Maher Arar case is a government finding and has standing as a legal finding (in my opinion). This case in my opinion is the only claim that reaches beyond a mere allegation for ER. Raggz (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you going on about "EU disputes"? Why are you inventing legal theories about the UNSC having the authority to settle disputes between the ECHR and the US Supreme Court? Have you read the link you were kindly provided with? The second records the text adopted by the European Parliament after reviewing the evidence put before it (is this close enough to a "legal finding" in your expert opinion?) Here's an extract -

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)

"On the illegal seizures, removals, arrests, abductions, extraordinary renditions and secret detentions carried out by the CIA, other US agencies or services or other third-country security services

One man's opinion that we have improperly called that of the European Parliment. Raggz (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

7. Is concerned that, according to the information which has already emerged in the Member States, the Council of Europe and the work of the temporary committee, serious and inadmissible violations of fundamental human rights have, since 11 September 2001 and as part of the essential action to combat terrorism, taken place on several occasions, in particular with reference to the ECHR, the United Nations Convention against Torture, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

Yes, we agree that the EU "is concerned". It says that and we can use that. Raggz (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

8. Is led to believe on the basis of evidence presented to the temporary committee that, in some cases, the CIA or other US services have been directly responsible for the illegal seizure, removal, abduction and detention of terrorist suspects on the territory of Member States, accession and candidate countries and for the extraordinary rendition of, amongst others, European nationals or residents; recalls that these actions do not correspond to known international law concepts and are contrary to the fundamental principles of human rights law;

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)

9. Regrets that the agreements of understanding between the USA and European countries have not been made available to the temporary committee;

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)

10. Condemns the practice of extraordinary renditions, which is aimed at ensuring that suspects are not brought before a court but are transferred to third countries to be interrogated, where they could be tortured, and detained in facilities controlled by the USA or local authorities; considers unacceptable the practices of certain governments consisting in limiting their responsibilities by asking for diplomatic assurances from countries in respect of which there is strong reason to believe they practice torture, which view was also expressed in the conclusions of Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on torture; considers, moreover, that the extraordinary rendition of persons to places where torture is endemic is a violation of the principle of 'non-refoulement', as laid down in Article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture;

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)

Raggz one point you seem to be missing is that wikipedia is a worldwide scope encyclopedia, part of NPOV is that we cover the EU as much as the US, as much as China and Russia. So thats why we are "going on about "EU disputes"?". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We do not have one giant WP article that covers everything in the world. We have smaller atricles that each cover a narrow topic. Our topic is: Extraordinary rendition by the United States. We could have a section titled Extraordinary rendition by the European Union, (or I may start that article). Your claims would make only sense our article was: Extraordinary rendition. Why not use the EU rendition stuff there? Raggz (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Extraordinary rendition by the United States that happened over EU/CoE airspace and in a few countries. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"One man's opinion that we have improperly called that of the European Parliment" Are you talking about Dick Marty? He was the Swiss politician that the CoE (not the EU) empowered to look into this. He did and his findings are quite clear as is the evidence presented to make up this case. This included secret sources of information such as Swiss military intelligence intercepts of US military communications and informants inside the US and CoE governments who were supplying infomation to the human rights organisations. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dick Marty is a reliable source. When we cite the majority of members of the Council of Europe but our cite is from Dick Marty AND his memo says that he issued it because the EU would not, we have an OR problem. If we cite Dick Marty as Dick Mart (and not the EU) we have no problem. Raggz (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The CoE accepted his report and published it under their name and so taking ownership of it, so it is relivent and right to say this is the CoE's report on ER not just Dick Marty. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The other link i posted was a text passed by one of the largest democratic bodies on the planet called "European Parliament resolution on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners, adopted midway through the work of the Temporary Committee (2006/2027(INI))". More than notable and verifable enough for us. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I read it before. I didn't see any finding of fact that the US has ever engaged in ER. Did I miss that? It expresses serious concerns, and lists the reasons for having these, and calls for internal EU reforms. What did I miss? Raggz (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

19. Condemns the abduction by the CIA of the German national, Khaled el Masri, who was held in Afghanistan from January to May 2004 and subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment; notes further the suspicion – not yet allayed – that Khaled el Masri was illegally held before that date, from 31 December 2003 to 23 January 2004, in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and that he was transported from there to Afghanistan on 23-24 January 2004; considers the measures that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia claims to have taken to investigate the matter to be inadequate; ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be ER, was he captured in battle in Afghanistan? I will read that.

From the Dick Marty report;

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)

OR and SYN

Where is the OR and SYNTH here? It's all very specific, and all of it furthermore has been extensively reported on and analysed by secondary media sources, as cited in the article. --Nickhh (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I very much disagree. Our article is the poster child for wp:syn policy violation. We disagree on this, will any amount of further debate possibly convince you of this? Raggz (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Show me the OR and SYNTH. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough

[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)

National investigations

France

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)

Kosovo

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.

• Allegation: A prison has been built inside Camp Bondsteel that looks like Guantanamo. Is this relevant that KFOR has a prison? Where should prisoners be put, in tents? 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

• Allegation: The prison had prisoners. Does he allege ER or even mistreatment? Raggz (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"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.

• So they changed how the prison looked, or closed it? Why do we care? Raggz (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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?

• Note that they do not allege anything? If they answered any of these questions THEN this might be relevant? Raggz (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

• This might be relevant because they allege that detentions were "not the result of judicial procedure". Are prisoners captured in war ever captured as "the result of judicial procedure"? No one can offer a single example of an army serving a judicial warrant to arrest a soldier on the other side under the law of war. If we say that enemy prisoners at Camp Bondsteel cannot be captured in battle, are we saying to just shoot them when they surrender? When an enemy soldier surrenders in battle, must a judge be present? Must documents be prepared at that point? Raggz (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

• Here is confirmation that none of this relates to our topic, which is not the UN, but is the United States.

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.

• KFOR is a UN force and is not subject to US or EU law (by the UN Charter). Prisoners taken by the UN are not the subject of this article. We should put this into the UN article?

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.

• "The transparency of U.S. activities vis-ý-vis its allies" is an irrelevant topic.

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.

• "Secret prisons run by the CIA, and the apparent scale of the transfers by special planes of prisoners suspected of links to al-Qaeda" are not our topics. Both are presumably totally legal. We need an ER link. There is one weak one, but because this article is about KFOR and not the US none of it is a reliable source about ER and the US. Raggz (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

Portugal

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.

• note that this article is only about legal renditions, and does not mention ER? For this reason it is irrelevant, as is the text it supports. Raggz (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

• Suspicious flights? This is not our topic. Is this about our topic? We are focused upon ER, and need a link to ER, which is not alleged here.

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.

UK ER

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".

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)

No sorry not OR or SYNTH, the BBC [1] says "Acpo's findings emerged hours after the Council of Europe had also said there was evidence to prove the CIA had run secret jails in Europe." it has just been reworded to avoid a copy right violation.^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there likely are secret jails within the EU. All of them are permitted by treaty, or they could not be there. Are secret legal jails a subject for our article? Raggz (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yemen

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)

What is the source that was with the above info on Yeman. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall. The point is that this source does not allege ER. The source is not challenged.

If they are Yemeni and are transferred to Yemen, what is wrong with this? Raggz (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

legal CIA flights

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.

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)

From the CoE text above [2] heres what the RS says;

13. Is deeply concerned that all the work of the temporary committee so far seems to indicate that European airspace and airports have been used by CIA front-companies in order to bypass the legal obligations for state aircraft as set out in the Chicago Convention, thus enabling persons suspected of terrorism to be transferred illegally to the custody of the CIA or the US military or to other countries (including Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Afghanistan) which frequently use torture during interrogations, as is recognised by the US government itself(12)

These CIA flights were illegal because they pretended to be Civilian aircraft using Civilian airports. By using these airports the CIA caused the various countries to violate their obligations to the ECHR etc. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If the government of that country states this, fine. If someone who knows all of the secret treaties and the sofa states this, fine. If the host country permits the CIA to pretend to be civilian aircraft using Civilian airports, as is commonly permitted, why should we write of this in this article? The EU report is by my reading mostly about what to do about changing the rules (SOFAs). It does not accuse the US, but says that EU rules are way too lax, but there is material quite relevant to ER as well. Do you realize that the EU does not have access to the SOFAs signed by members and that it wants access?

If CIA aircraft were proven to be doing all of this improperly or illegally, we should include it in another article unless it was about ER. Raggz (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Raggz but i'm going to have to Fisk you.

"If the host country permits the CIA to pretend to be civilian aircraft using Civilian airports, as is commonly permitted, why should we write of this in this article?" Only if EVERY country in the flight path has agreed, and have you any sources for these rendition planes being given permission as None of the governments told Dick Marty about them.

"why should we write of this in this article?" Even if the european states had given permission THEY would still be in violation of the ECHR for their part in the Extraordinary rendition by the United States. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"The EU report is by my reading mostly about what to do about changing the rules (SOFAs)." It has nothing to do with SOFAs as no SOFA can violate the ECHR. The CoE report is complaining that some countries are deliberately turning a blind eye to violations of the ECHR and every one else is not doing their job of enforcement of the ECHR. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"It does not accuse the US" Yes it does, lots of times. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"but says that EU rules are way too lax" No just not enforced properly. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Do you realize that the EU does not have access to the SOFAs signed by members and that it wants access?" I'd like a source for that, please also read the articles on EU and Council of Europe. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry Raggz but i'm going to have to Fisk you. ... Only if EVERY country in the flight path has agreed, and have you any sources for these rendition planes being given permission as None of the governments told Dick Marty about them. ... Even if the european states had given permission THEY would still be in violation of the ECHR for their part in the Extraordinary rendition by the United States. (Hypnosadist) 18:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC) The Fisk was cool. Is our article about CIA flights? Neither I nor Dick Marty's opinions matter much. What matters is what the court said when this case of a law being violated was decided. So, what did the courts say? I agree, put the ECHR ruling in. Raggz (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Is our article about CIA flights?" Those that are used for ER. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Neither I nor Dick Marty's opinions matter much." Half right. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"So, what did the courts say?" Not much as america won't send the suspects to Italy or germany, for this to go to court. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The CoE report is complaining that some countries are deliberately turning a blind eye to violations of the ECHR and every one else is not doing their job of enforcement of the ECHR. (Hypnosadist) 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Exactly correct (except that it says possible violations). So why is this relevant to our article? My take? This is a battle between the EU and its members. Does the CoE make this decision, or does the ECHR, and irrelevant to our topic. Raggz (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"irrelevant to our topic." No this is what the countries in europe have to do because of Extraordinary rendition by the United States.^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"These CIA flights were illegal because they pretended to be Civilian aircraft using Civilian airports. By using these airports the CIA caused the various countries to violate their obligations to the ECHR etc." (Hypnosadist) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Fine, but allegations are irrelevant unless the party alleging a violation knows the SOFAs. We can cite the ECHR's finding on this, but the opinions of the uninformed, do we care? Raggz (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Fine, but allegations are irrelevant unless the party alleging a violation knows the SOFAs" Not true but anyway Shannon airport was used and Ireland has no SOFA. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:46, 14 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)

World Policy Council of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity report

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.

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)

Definition and scope

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)

And for the sake of clarity, the point is that the rendition becomes "extraordinary" when it is done without any legal process, that is for example without any extradition hearing as would be normal when most suspects or prisoners are transferred between countries or to other national jurisdictions. If editors here or the US authorities wish to claim that it is not illegal for the CIA and others to secretly transport terror suspects wherever they choose to, without following any formal legal procedure, fine, that's an opinion (even if one that does not seem to be shared by most significant sources) - but that's a slightly different point anyway, and does not mean that the renditions are not "extraordinary" or "irregular" as the term is used in reliable sources. --Nickhh (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We generally agree on almost everything above Nickhh. If there is an extralegal transfer, that is clearly ER. If it is simply a prisoner movement, it is not. You raise another important point, what people believe. That will be a challenge that needs to be addressed. Perhaps not tonight. I suggest we sort our own thoughts here first?

What is legal depends upon the SOFA agreements (in part) for official US government missions. Spain for example, does not require that any passenger check into the EU unless staying more than 24 hours. Japan set 1 hour. Passengers staying these times or shorter can leave the airport as long as they are back in that time. (Don't worry, I never worked for an intelligence agency, no longer work for the government, but I have done official travel where no one in the EU asked for my passport because I was passing through and I arrived on a US government aircraft.)

If an aircraft was being used for torture, many international laws then come into play, and I say that any torture flight is illegal. SOFAs would not make a torture flight legal, but do make rendition legal. There are practical reasons that CIA aircraft do not have CIA marked on them, and why they never tell air traffic control who they are. If the CIA prison in Paris had a sign saying US CIA Prison Facility on it, what would happen? Prisoner transfers need to be secret. There is a war going on. Secrecy does not imply torture. It is normal. Secret aircraft movements are normal, that is why the SOFAs exist, to regulate these.

There are the laws of war which often do not involve judges or trials for prisoners. These never excuse torture, but do permit secrecy that no EU or US judge could order. Are the laws of war "extrajudicial"? I do not know. Is the Geneva Convention extrajudicial? Mostly the laws of wars are about following the GCs. The Geneva Conventions for example forbids trials for POWs, unless they are accused of a crime. Being a POW is not a crime. (There is a section requiring trials if you look, but this section is for those accused of a crime). This will be our challenge - are the GCs extrajudicial? If US war prisoners get treated as are required by the GCs, does EU law apply? I don't know and I doubt that anyone does. Everyone in the EU has a right to trial, so does this EU law invalidate the GC protection against trials just for being a combatant (by a hostile power) that POWs now have? Does EU law strip prisoners of their GC rights? Remember the EU is bound by the GCs.

Now I have explained my understanding of the applicable law, trust that I am not asserting that it is entirely correct. This is my best understanding, nothing more authoratative. I'm doing this so that you understand how I view this issue. I favor focusing upon abuses of the GCs like torture and recognizing that the laws of war and Geneva Conventions apply. Presently a lot of what we consider "extrajudicial" may (or may not) actually comply with the GCs. Summarized, what is and what is not "extrajudicial" is complicated, which makes this article more of a challenge. Raggz (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A general response - I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be by dragging in talk of SOFA and the Geneva Conventions, for three reasons -

1) It's not clear that they are the relevant or main legal background here, particularly SOFA

2) Whether they are or not, neither you nor I have the expertise to debate these points on our own thinking anyway, nor should we, since as usual we would need to refer to reliable sources.

3) You're still focusing on whether extraordinary rendition is legal or not, or would be found to be legal were it to be adjudicated by some court. This isn't the issue - the point is that it involves the transfer or handing over of terror suspects to another country or authority, without any form of legal process or hearing. When this happens, in the context of the "war on terror", reliable sources describe the practice as "extraordinary rendition". Most of them as it happens also aver or assume that the practice is illegal. But that's kind of irrelevant to the initial definition of the term, as is the fact that you, or the CIA or Condi Rice might reject that analysis.

The overall point is that it is not up to you to simply exclude cases of the practice from the article simply on the basis that you or the CIA have asserted that what happened was not illegal. That assumption is both seriously debatable and ultimately irrelevant. --Nickhh (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"If it is simply a prisoner movement, it is not." To move someone is a form of rendition, especially when different facilities have different levels of legality/secrecy and are in different countries. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"What is legal depends upon the SOFA agreements (in part) for official US government missions" In the EU the ECHR is the most important law and no other law can break it, full stop. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"but I have done official travel where no one in the EU asked for my passport because I was passing through and I arrived on a US government aircraft." Yes but that was when we in europe thought you knew right from wrong, thats exactly like the CoE report complained about. We believed you when your government when it said you would abide by our Laws in our countries, when infact we should have been searching EVERY US Gov plane and every charter plane in case there was an arab with a hood on, seditive shoved in his ass and a daiper on. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Prisoner transfers need to be secret." Not from the ICRC, that is the first violation of the GC's. But your government claims these men arn't POWs so are not protected under the GC's or the much vaunted US Constitution. One thing is true though, while in the bounds of any of the 27 EU members states the ECHR protected them. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Is the Geneva Convention extrajudicial?" No because they are administered by the Military Justice system of the country that is administering the GC's. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"If US war prisoners get treated as are required by the GCs, does EU law apply?" If they are in the bounds of the EU then the ECHR and other EU law would apply. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Does EU law strip prisoners of their GC rights?" No. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Remember the EU is bound by the GCs." No because the EU is not a nation state, but all 27 members are signitories, so they do apply to all 27. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"You're still focusing on whether extraordinary rendition is legal or not, or would be found to be legal were it to be adjudicated by some court. This isn't the issue - the point is that it involves the transfer or handing over of terror suspects to another country or authority, without any form of legal process or hearing." If the Geneva Conventions are complied with, what other legal process should apply to avoid ER? The Geneva Conventions are the law everywhere in Europe and the world in regard to ER. If the Geneva Conventions are followed (which means no torture), I don't see how normal prisoner transfer can be ER, normal prisoner transfer during war that complies with the GCs is simple and legal rendition. What legal process remains to transfer a prisoner to another country if the GCs are met?

Let us make this simple. None of us know the law. May we have consensus that the rulings of the US judiciary and the ECHR are the key definitions and fact findings? We cite the ECHR on ER? Raggz (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"The overall point is that it is not up to you to simply exclude cases of the practice from the article simply on the basis that you or the CIA have asserted that what happened was not illegal. That assumption is both seriously debatable and ultimately irrelevant." True. You are correct. What I have said is that rendition is different than extraordinary rendition. We should not debate what is legal or not. We should list the convictions or factual findings for ER, such as the the Canadian Governments finding on ER, the European Parliment, UNSC findings and the like as facts, with their reliable sources. When ER is alleged, we need say it is alleged. When it is not even alleged, we should skip that material. Take Kosovo, we cover the UN military prison there for no reason other than it is a military prison. It isn't even about rendition, much less ER. Raggz (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"If US war prisoners get treated as are required by the GCs, does EU law apply?" If they are in the bounds of the EU then the ECHR and other EU law would apply. (Hypnosadist) 02:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Exactly correct. The Geneva Conventions apply, as do many other laws within Europe. The ECHR rulings are most relevant. Has the ECHR invalidated any part of the Geneva Conventions? Has it ever ruled on ER? If so, these are very important facts that we are missing. I have absolutely no problem with listing the actual facts about ER, this is my primary objective. Raggz (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Exactly correct" I know whats your point? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"If it is simply a prisoner movement, it is not." To move someone is a form of rendition, especially when different facilities have different levels of legality/secrecy and are in different countries. (Hypnosadist) 01:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Agreed, we have consensus. Such is normal, but ER is not and is illegal. Raggz (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"but ER is not and is illegal." Can i quote you on that? Given that you agree ER is illegal by its very nature of being outside the LAW, why is being kidnaped in the middle of Milan and flown to Eygpt to be tortured not ER? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Is the Geneva Convention extrajudicial?" No because they are administered by the Military Justice system of the country that is administering the GC's. (Hypnosadist) 02:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC) The Geneva Conventions require this. The GCs are written to protect enemy combatants (the phrase is directly from the GCs) from being put on trial by the nation that captures them UNLESS they commit a crime. They are guaranteed no trials (unless they commit a crime). This is a protection that Europe fully recognizes. Raggz (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"The GCs are written to protect enemy combatants" Wrong they are written to protect everyone, thier side, your side and civilians. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Prisoner transfers need to be secret." Not from the ICRC, that is the first violation of the GC's. But your government claims these men arn't POWs so are not protected under the GC's or the much vaunted US Constitution. One thing is true though, while in the bounds of any of the 27 EU members states the ECHR protected them. (Hypnosadist) 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC) What my government claims is only slightly relevant. What you claim above is largely inaccurate. What is the ICRC? While I will respond, a bit, none of these arguments relate to IR. The Geneva Conventions are both US and international law. The US Courts recognize these and the relevant human rights treaties as US law. The US courts have BOTH ruled for and against claims brought by detainees

"What is the ICRC?" You claim to know about the GCs and you don't know about the ICRC, i'd suggest typing it into the search box and pressing go. Then you will know why i won't be giving more than short replies anymore to save my time. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The ECHR does protect them when in Europe, just as the US Supreme Court protects them in the US. What does the ECHR say? The ECHR knows that the laws of war and the GCs apply, as well as the SOFAs. Torture by any American is illegal anywhere in the world by US law. ER is illegal anywhere in the world, by US law. If someone has the proof, they should give it to those who keep making your claims in court and losing for lack of evidence. A lack of evidence does not mean that no violations have occured, but it does mean that there are no reliable sources that say that it has occured (save the Canadian report.) The ECHR ruled the five techniques to not be torture, read Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978), the ECHR ruled that beating the crap out of suspected terrorists is not torture, nor are the five techniques so effectively used by Europeans when Europeans were being attacked. (This said, may we get back to our topic).

"read Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978), the ECHR ruled that beating the crap out of suspected terrorists is not torture" On appeal yes, it was decided these techniques where only CID treatment not torture. So it was still illegal to do this to the prisoners in fact Anywhere in europe to Anybody. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What is a POW? (oversimplified). A POW represents a government that has signed the GCs. An enemy cobantant is defined by the GCs as some representing a government (or insurgency) that has not signed the GCs. Afghanistan is a signatory, but the Taliban renounced these, acting as the government. This means if you are fighting for the Taliban you cannot be a POW. You still have protections, but the lower tier, those reserved for enemy combatants. For example: POWs are guaranteed mail, enemy combatants are not. Raggz (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"A POW represents a government that has signed the GCs." WRONG it is anyone held until otherwise decided by a competent tribunal. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"An enemy combatant is defined by the GCs as some representing a government (or insurgency) that has not signed the GCs." WRONG your getting confused with an unlawful combatant. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"You still have protections," Yes like the protection from being tortured. This was proved durring Nazi war crimes trials. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:12, 13 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)

June 27, 2006 Council of Europe resolution

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:

• The dismantling by the US of its system of secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers.
• A review of bilateral agreements between Council of Europe member states and the US, particularly on the status of US forces stationed in Europe and on the use of military and other instrastructures, to ensure they conform to international human rights norms.
• Official apologies and compensation for victims of illegal detentions against whom no formal accusations, nor any court proceedings, have ever been brought
• An international initiative, expressly involving the United States, to develop a common, truly global strategy to address the terrorist threat which conforms to democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

There may well have been technical issues with the link provided (it didn't seem to lead to the full text, only to the "headline" when I tried it just now), but this material was clearly not invented. It was not that hard to find a fuller version which confirms the information here - if you were really concerned, you could simply have noted the problem and asked someone else to clear it up. Deletion was not the appropriate action. There are also perfectly good, cited sources for pretty much all of the other material you have deleted from this article. Those sources both confirm the content of all that material, and its relevance to this topic. You also persist in suggesting that Dick Marty was just some bloke sending off memos on his personal initiative, rather than the lead investigator of an official organisation issuing a formal report (this point was explained to you a while ago somewhere up in the morass of talk page rubbish above). Other editors have tried, in good faith and in some detail, to engage with you on the talk page, yet you persist in deleting whole tranches of material without any consensus and on the most flimsy of pretexts. You have in the past resorted to claiming that you do not need consensus, because you are merely enforcing WP policies. Well this may be news to you, but you are not the sole arbiter and judge of what those policies mean and how they relate to content here. Your edits can increasingly be seen as little more than vandalism, and I have reverted them. If you persist in this behaviour I will take the issue to WP:ANI, or to whatever is the most appropriate forum. --Nickhh (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just popping in as an uninvolved admin. I have no preference on the content of this article, but I did look into the charge of vandalism. However, I'm not seeing any vandalism here. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. If there's a disagreement over content, I recommend trying one of the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If there's an issue with an editor who is making changes in violation of talkpage consensus, please supply a diff of the consensus and of the violating edits, and I'll take a look. Thanks, --Elonka 03:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. The issues are not content issues, if they were, I would not make changes without consensus per wp:consensus. What we have (detailed above) are policy disputes. As an editor I'm required to address violations of wp:or, wp:syn, and wp:npov, and others. We have discussed what I consider policy violations without agreement.

For example: Our article talks about the European Parliment making claims when the cited source is not from the European Parliment, but is from a member. The committee of this body decided not to issue the claimed report or make the allegations that our article says that the European Parliment made. One member issued a memo: Our article pretends that this member represented the entire European Parliment. It is not a good thing for our article to misrepresent the facts within our citations, and this violates policy. As an editor I have deleted these misrepresentations again. Does wp:consensus mean that I cannot delete clear wp:or policy violations?

Tendentious editing is what we have here. We have editors with strong povs editing this article to conform to their world view. This is of course common is article like this, but what makes this tendentious editing is that these two editors ignore WP policy, revert claims where the supporting cite clearly does not support the reverted claim, and refuse to offer any reliable source beore reverting OR. These editors know that they are reverting OR, (Nickhh admitted to this), and they refuse (or cannot) to just get a supporting reliable source. Raggz (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

That is not policy. Wikipedia originally depended on primary sources, and while we've moved away from that (because of the OR and UNDUE problems), there is no such issue in this case. There'd only be a problem if the transcript of the proceedings were being edited into the article (for obvious reason). The report has been produced by clerks trusted by the meeting to produce a document that can be used in just the fashion we're using it. The report is a fact-checked and reliable secondary source. PR^talk 11:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - Raggz you are simply misunderstanding WP policy again. WP:PRIMARY merely says "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". Regardless of whether we treat this published record as a primary or secondary source (and actually I would tend towards it being a primary source myself, similar to a court judgement - perhaps this point could be checked), the section in question did not interpret the source material in any way, it merely briefly noted what it said, which is fine. Even if you want to demand that we go to a media or academic source as well, to be 110% sure we are OK, please ask for this, there are plenty around (many of them probably cited elsewhere in the article). Again, do not simply delete a whole section of the page because of what you alone believe to be a policy issue.

I repeat Raggz that you do not have the right to unilaterally delete large chunks of sourced material without consensus, simply because you claim it to be in violation of some policy or other. You alone do not determine these things, any more than I alone would be entitled to. And frequently it's worse than that - you are flat-out, undeniably wrong a lot of the time. For example it is you who are misreading sources if you are going to continue claiming that Dick Marty was some kind of lone campaigner, and if this deletion is anything to go by (please read the cited source, para 5, where it specifically mentions, er, "extraordinary rendition" and the role sites in Romania are alleged to have played in the programme). There are many other examples where you delete citing "OR violation" as if it were some sort of trump card, when in fact there is no such violation and the WP text is in fact specifically and accurately sourced and cited. I'm sorry but the only "tendentious" and "pov" editing is coming from your end. On top of that you simply do not appear to have the slightest clue what you are talking about most of the time. --Nickhh (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, in my experience, most content disputes involve versions of the article that one editor or another believe to follow the content policies better than another version. That's normal. You still have to follow WP:CONSENSUS and other normal dispute resolution methods. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

May we quote what Dick Marty writes and incorrectly say that it is the opinion of the Council of Europe? Is this a content issue - or an OR issue? Raggz (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz you are just simply totally wrong on a fairly simple issue of fact here, please give it up. Dick Marty was the lead investigator on an official report by the Council of Europe, his report was issued. You are simply ignoring the chronology and the clear record here, wilfully or through ignorance or even through a deliberate attempt to annoy people, I can no longer be sure. See this on your talk page. --Nickhh (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dick Marty said: "Even if proof, in the classical meaning of the term, is not as yet available, a number of coherent and converging elements indicate that such secret detention centres did indeed exist in Europe." May we agree that while personally convinced of secret prisons, that Dick Marty concluded (as above) that there was no proof of them discovered? Why has this not been added already? Do you object to a bit of NPOV balance?

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)

Changed Flatly deney to questioned which is more NPOV. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "apprehension" in the initial definition may be misleading. Arrest is not correct either, as that suggests legal authority. Frankly, "kidnapping" is the only suitable word, since ultimately that is what "extraordinary rendition" means.JohnC (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly violates NPOV

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)

Like many political pages on Wikipedia, this page is basically a vehicle to bash the US. It violates numerous sections of WP:NPOV kevinp2 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain in detail what is was in the introduction that you removed that you think violates NPOV. --PBS (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The practice of extraordinary rendition is a political subject and the lede presents it from the critics' POV. This is in keeping with the tone of the rest of the article. The entire article seems intended to advance and proselytize the opinion that the practice is evil, amounts to torture and indicts the United States. None of these opinions are universally shared.

I am not a fan of the practice of extraordinary rendition but I will call out US-bashing when I see it. I am not going to change the lede again because I am not a fan of edit warring. kevinp2 (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at the table of contents and some of the contents themselves is sufficient to realize that this page has degenerated into a partisan research project. kevinp2 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There had been some changes to the wording since earlier this month. I have reverted to the earlier wording. Have a look and see what you think. --PBS (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The wording is certainly an improvement, but a small one. The entire structure of the article is set up to indict the US. This NPOV tone permeates the entire article. kevinp2 (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

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

I've been following this issue, and I have not seen any sign that the Reagan administration had a formal extraordinary rendition policy. Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Third Party

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

Comcast IP user, you may be unaware of suspects sent to third countries to undergo brutal interrogation. I assure you if you look a bit harder, you will find a flood of reports. Geo Swan (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Coverage of specific instances of extraordinary rendition goes back to at least 2005

Coverage of specific instances of extraordinary rendition goes back to at least 2005 Geo Swan (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Charlie Gibson (2005-12-05). "As seen on ABC News with Charlie Gibson". ABC News. Retrieved 2009-06-19.

individual	held in	since 2005
Abu Zubaydah	Thailand, Poland	A "high-value detainee" transferred from CIA custody to military custory in Guantanamo on September 6, 2006
Ibn Al-Shaykh al-Libi	Poland, Pakistan/Afghanistan	Confessions wrung from Al-Libi were used to justify the bogus Bush administration claims in late 2002 that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, and that Saddam still had an arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Al-Libi disappeared after it became painfully clear those confessions wrung from Al-Libi through extreme methods were extremely unreliable. Al-Libi was reported to have committed suicide in a Libyan prison in May 2009 -- two weeks after human rights workers were finally able to find him. Al-Libi was secretly transferred to Libya in 2006 -- in violation of the proscription of transferring individuals to known torture states. Commentators now challenge whether Al-Libi and Abu Zubaydah were ever members of Al Qaeda. There is evidence to back up Abu Zubadah's 2007 testimony at his CSR Tribunal that he and Al-Libi were employed by a rival jihadist group -- one not dedicated to attacking the USA.
Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi	Poland	Transferred from CIA custody to Miliary custody in Guantanamo in the summer of 2004.
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri	Poland	A "high-value detainee" transferred from CIA custody to military custory in Guantanamo on September 6, 2006
Ramzi Binalshibh	Poland	A "high-value detainee" transferred from CIA custody to military custory in Guantanamo on September 6, 2006
Mohammed Omar Abdel-Rahman	Poland	Son of the "blind sheik" Revealed the location of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Current location unknown
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed	Poland	A "high-value detainee" transferred from CIA custody to military custory in Guantanamo on September 6, 2006
Waleed Mohammed bin Attash	Poland	A "high-value detainee" transferred from CIA custody to military custory in Guantanamo on September 6, 2006
Hambali	?	A "high-value detainee" transferred from CIA custody to military custory in Guantanamo on September 6, 2006
Hassan Ghul	Poland	Current location unknown
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani	Poland	A "high-value detainee" transferred from CIA custody to military custory in Guantanamo on September 6, 2006