Jump to content

Talk:Extraordinary rendition/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Restore Extraordinary rendition page

Why US specific?

I was just trying to add the following information to this article:

During a House of Commons debate on 7 July 2009, MP David Davis accused the UK government of outsourcing torture, by allowing Rangzieb Ahmed to leave the country (even though they had evidence against him upon which he was later convicted for terrorism) to Pakistan, where it is said the Inter-Services Intelligence was given the go ahead by the British intelligence agencies to torture Ahmed. Davis further accused the government of trying to gag Ahmed, stopping him coming forward with his accusations, after he had been imprisoned back in the UK. He said, there was "an alleged request to drop his allegations of torture: if he did that, they could get his sentence cut and possibly give him some money. If this request to drop the torture case is true, it is frankly monstrous. It would at the very least be a criminal misuse of the powers and funds under the Government's Contest strategy, and at worst a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090707/debtext/90707-0020.htm

when I realised that this seems to be a US-specific article. Why? It is quite clear that many other nations are, at the very least, accused of being involved. Why does Extraordinary rendition redirect here? If people thought only the US is involved, then the article should've been called just that, without the "by the United States" appended.

Anyway, it is quite clear we need somewhere to put non-US specific information. Just rename Extraordinary rendition? Or Extraordinary rendition in the War on Terror? Is there any other UK-specific article about the policies of the UK government during the WoT, analogous to this one? 86.138.17.191 (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. The article should never have been moved from Extraordinary Rendition, except perhaps to Torture by proxy. Note that both links are redirects to this article. The move was done by someone unclear on how redirects work, who promised work that was never done, and in fact could not be done easily due to the redirect, seconded by someone unclear on what extraordinary rendition is.
From Archive 4:
Please excuse my boldness in making your notice a sub-heading of the Restore heading, but it seemed to fit, and this way you retain your heading, while I don't have to quote you so near to your statement on the page, nor need I take a chance that your statement might be archived, and thus lose context.
I have restored your text to the article pending a discussion of making this article "-by the United States" a redirect (for now) of "Extraordinary rendition". I also recommend a content split to "Torture by proxy" which is badly needed because the definitions are so critically distinct. Extraordinary rendition is kidnapping with legal justifications attached, does not imply torture, and has been carried out by the US since the 80s, by Israel when it rounded up Nazis, and probably others. I don't like it, but it is quite separate from the activities of the various organizations under the direction of the Bush administration; torture by proxy makes extraordinary rendition seem desirable by comparison, and had never been done before (there may be qualifications, but I don't know any). Anarchangel (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the USA the only nation to practice "extraordinary rendition"? Maybe. I don't know.
Is the USA the only nation to give this specific name to the this practice? Is the USA the only nation to explicitly acknowledge the extrajudicial transfer of captives to third countries that have no legitimate claim of jurisdiction? I don't know.
Personally, I strongly suspect however that the USA is the only country to (1) publicly acknowledge this practice; (2) call it "extraordinary rendition".
I think the article should have the shorter name. I don't see it as a problem if all the instances described here turn out to be incidents that involve the extrajucial transfer of captives in US custody.
What would we do if an authoritative verifiable WP:RS said something like: "The UK's extrajudicial transfer of Joe Blow, while not called 'extrajudicial rendition' was in all other ways just like the USA's use of 'extraordinary rendition'."
Would our readers be served by then creating a stub article "extraordinary rendition by the United Kingdom"? I don't think so.
Would a quote similar to the one I suggested above authorize us to write about that theoretical UK transfer as if it were unambiguously an "extraordinary rendition". I don't think so. Not unless UK officials chose to use the term. But I think it might be best if there were a limited number of similar instances acknowledged by other governments if this article included a section entitled something like: "other nations extrajudicial transfers".
Look at the article on grand jury. No one has suggested moving it to "grand juries in the United States". The disambiguation is not necessary because it is the nation that uses this procedure.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I can think of at least 2 examples of ER by Israel: Eichmann & Vanunu. Peter jackson (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, the extradition of Milosevic to the Hague may well have been illegal, which I think would bring it under the definition here. Peter jackson (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Falcon9x5's revert

9x5, the edit summary of your revert appears to contend that much of what is being described in the article is not established fact. Is that your position? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I haven't read the full article, but if it is well sourced, then I imagine a lot of it is established fact. However I felt your edits were pov-pushing edits, removal of the word "alleged" (in effect changing "alleged torture" to "certain torture") and the change of the word "may" to "often" when discussing the escalation of interrogation torture is a subjective view, and unless you can prove that something like 60-70% (that's my - subjective - view of "often") of interrogations escalate, then it should remain as is. I'd also appreciate if you didn't address me personally on article talk pages before I'm involved. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read the full article, then. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Extralegal" v. "Illegal"

I've noticed that through much of the article and talk page, these terms are being used as if they're interchangeable. Something is "illegal" under a particular legal regime if it violates the law of that regime. Something is "extralegal" if it is not regulated by that regime. Aside from the fact that the two are being mixed up, the main problem here is that people are neglecting to consider the regime that they're referring to. Ex. If eating ice cream is illegal in country A, but legal in country B, it's safe to say that the act of eating ice cream in country A is illegal. However, it would be incorrect to say "eating ice cream is illegal" without adding the "in country A" portion. I've fixed those instances of this mistake that seem most obvious. Leuchars (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

1: "destinations such as Poland or Romania where suspects could face torture".

I initially removed this reference as I thought it was inaccurate (in that the alleged secret camps in those countries were merely staging posts from where detainees were transferred onwards to countries, often in the Middle East, where they were tortured). After looking at it again, I found this report which documents that the Council of Europe inquiry concluded detainees were subject to torture within Europe. However I'm still not sure that Poland & Romania need to be highlighted in this way - the wording suggests that torture is routine in these countries, and that suspects were sent there to be tortured by the Polish and Romanian authorities. Neither is true.

2. US ships in see also section.

These should definitely go back in, per this. In fact this info should probably be added to their Wiki pages as well. --Nickhh (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider what our topic is, extraordinary rendition. For it to be extraordinary rendition, the US needs to have a reasonable basis to believe that extradition will result in torture. Many of our citations suggest that if the US extradites to EU members, that these people will be tortured within the EU. Most do not. The allegation of torture within the EU is not enough to be extraordinary rendition, it also needs to be reliably sourced that the US had a reasonable expectation that the extradition would result in torture. You are well-read Nickhh, and you didn't know that the extraordinary rendition allegations were for EU-based secret prisons and torture. Do you consider the alleged torture and secret prisons within the EU to be too insignificant for inclusion? If Poland and Romania are (or recently were) torturing people, why not advise the Reader? Raggz (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly the point, as I've already pointed out. Romania and Poland were not (allegedly) torturing people. The US is accused of torturing people in camps it maintained in those countries. --Nickhh (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is this not of interest to the Reader? Raggz (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It may well be, that's why it's discussed in the article. Whether the lead should be written so as to suggest that detainees were being sent to Poland and Romania to be tortured by the Polish & Romanian authorities is another matter. --Nickhh (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
As you know, it would be illegal for any American to torture anyone, anywhere in the world. It has happened, and they have then been sent to prison when discovered. The whole point behind extraordinary rendition is to get the Romanians or the Poles to do what would be illegal if done by an American. The US could just torture people in Kentucky, why go to Poland? If it is really alleged that the EU members are not torturing extradited prisoners, then by definition it is not extraordinary rendition, now is it? If we accept your claim we need to delete most of the EU stuff, because the EU members are not involved. Is that what you want? Raggz (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm really sorry but your points are illogical speculation and assertion at best, and nonsensical at worst. It is clearly not possible to discuss this with you rationally and I am not going to try. --Nickhh (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you were to define what "points" are illogical or speculative?
  • Our article is about "extraordinary rendition". Reliable sources assert that such means (1) that a nation extradited someone (2) with the reasonable expectation that they would be tortured.
  • Your claim (as I understand it) is that the CIA did not really extradite anyone to either Poland or Romania, but that they were held in secret facilities that the governments were unaware of. If your claim is true - then there was no extradition at all, was there? Then all of tyhe material should get moved to the torture article.
Which parts are you unable to follow, if any? It is a bit complex. Do I understand your claim? Raggz (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It's actually pretty simple, you're just making it complex by spectacularly failing to understand anything. For example you keep going on about "extradition", which is pretty much the direct opposite of "extraordinary rendition". Anyway, the wider allegations, which are pretty well attested, are (very broadly) that the US/CIA transported people it deemed terror suspects across Europe - either to CIA-run camps in Eastern Europe where they were subject to "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture to most people, even if not to the current US administration) by US personnel, and/or out of Europe altogether to countries such as Egypt and Syria where they were tortured by the local authorities. EU bodies conducted investigations into the practice, and into the extent to which individual European governments were involved in the process either by facilitating airflights etc or by hosting camps. The conclusion was that several European governments were unofficially complicit in the practice at some level, or at the least turned a blind eye to what was going on. This is what the record says, and hence this is what the article should say. Any suggestion that Romanians were torturing prisoners sent to them in good faith by the US, that something is definitively not torture simply because a US administration official says it isn't, or that torture can't have taken place unless someone has been convicted of it in a US court are the products of your imagination, not things that will be found in reliable sources. That really is it. --Nickhh (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendition by definition involves extradition to another nation. I would appreciate your preferred definition.

  • The US has of course transported terror suspects to many places in many ways. This is legal and proper, agreed? Holding them on ships is not a problem, flying them to new prisons is not either.
  • If any American has ever transported anyone anywhere expecting them to be tortured has violated US and international law, do we agree? We both condem such a practice if it has occurred, correct?
  • What we have in our article is nothing but allegations, correct? If there was actual proof (as there was at Abu Ghirab) those responsible would be indicted, correct? It makes no sense that if there was any proof that no one brings it to court?
  • If there is any proof, we should put this into the Lead (and make sure that a prosecutor gets it as well).

This is an article entirely based upon allegations. The allegations may be true or they may not be true. If there really is a "US Program" to violate US and international law, we should name it. If there may be none, we should not say that there is. If Europeans are really torturing people, we should say that to. Do we have solid evidence for either that has not been submitted to the courts and found insufficient?Raggz (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OR?

"A June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated 100 people had been kidnapped by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on EU territory and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centers ("black sites") used by the CIA in cooperation with other governments." The text above is original research and requires a reliable source to remain. The wiki link to the article is also unsourced and does not support these claims. Please support these claims. Raggz (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead only needs to summarise info in the main body of the article, it doesn't need its own cites generally. More detail on the Council of Europe investigation, together with sources, is found further down. Please read it all, check the sources given and make appropriate changes if they are necessary. --Nickhh (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Nickhh. Raggz (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

US ships

This article does not seem to discuss extraordinary rendition? Where is that part, did I miss it? I only read that (1) prisoners were held in US custody and (2) that it was alleged that they were abused.Raggz (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Which part of the headline "US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships" didn't you understand? And which part of this sentence in the article passed you by? "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" --Nickhh (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
How does this article pertain to our article? I see no linkage whatever. What nation were they extradited to to be tortured after being on these ships? Does the article mention extraordinary rendition? Please clarify? Raggz (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I give up --Nickhh (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You only gave up on discussing the issue, but not on editing in your pov without a reliable source that ties your material to our topic.
"The United States has also been accused of operating "floating prisons" to house and transport 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.[1]
It is legal and proper for the United States to take prisoners and hold them in prisons during any war. Do we agree on this? There is no law precluding putting prisoners onto ships, do we agree? If any of the above were either illegal or "extrajudicial" any US court would order it stopped, if evidence were presented. Does the source cited claim extrajudicial transfers? If not, the text is clearly OR. Do we agree on this? Wikipedia is not the forum to try this case, do we agree? Without any reliable source that suggests extrajudicial transfer to other nations custody, the wp:or policy applies. This means that the wp:consensus does not apply, and the text needs to go. Please stop reverting material that was deleted for policy violation reasons. If you don't believe that policy was violated, then discuss this on Talk. Raggz (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and the US program

"The US program prompted several official European Union investigations." I am unaware of any US "program". We have seriously violated NPOV by stating that the US has a program that involves torture and extraordinary rendition, unless we have an authoratative source for this. Do we have such a source? My edit was reverted, so I await discussion about the NPOV policy on this question. Raggz (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the article and read the sources cited in it. Properly. This may take you quite a while, as there is a mass of evidence from media reports, official investigations etc. Just because Condi Rice and other US officials have said "we don't do this", relying on word-twisting about what does or doesn't constitute torture and what is or isn't illegal, doesn't negate all that well-sourced evidence. Constantly inserting the words "allegedly" or "supposedly" at every possible point is using weasel words to push your own POV. --Nickhh (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You are correct about my pov, I am unconvinced. The evidence within the article is unconvincing. All of this evidence has been taken to court repeatedly and been found insufficient. If you really have real evidence, I really encourage you to get it to some of the people who keep losing in court for lack of it.
I'm willing to change my mind, all you need is evidence in the form of reliable sources. What you have to this point are allegations by reliable sources. A great source would be a conviction. Why are there none?
I am not pushing my pov. I'm helping bring a jumble of supported and unsupported allegations (many unrelated to this topic) into an article that meets wiki standards. Without help from your pov, this will not succeed. I hope you stay and help with the work. Raggz (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with needing "help from my POV". All this page should do is neutrally document the reliable sources that have found evidence of the rendition of detainees without legal process, sometimes to places where they might face torture. This will include reported details about prison ships transporting detainees, CIA overflights in Europe, CIA camps in Eastern Europe and the dispatch of suspects by the US authorities to prisons in the Middle East. It doesn't matter what you, I or anyone else believes or wants to believe. And you are simply making things up here, eg that "all of this evidence has been taken to court repeatedly and been found insufficient". What on earth are you talking about? And in any event your personal interpretation that it requires a criminal conviction before anything can be written up in wikipedia is barmy. --Nickhh (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand what WP is. wp:not[2] It is not a forum to try legal cases. The problem with our article is that it was a prosecutors statement of circumstantial evidence from only one side. This violates wp:npov. It was written from only one pov and without balance. Why does it ignore all of the cases brought into courts where the evidence was listed and found insufficient? Court findings are not allegations, but are findings of fact. Why do we ignore these? Doing this brought the entire article out of NPOV compliance.
WP permits allegations to be discussed, as allegations. We don't comply with this at all.
The transport and holding of people captured during this war does not make them relevant to this article. We are writing about ER. Reliable sources that reference prisoner transport or prisons are irrelevant, unless they also suggest an extrajudicial transfer. Raggz (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand very well what WP is about and am not using it as a forum to try legal cases. The sources cited in the article, from the media reports in US & UK media to EU inquiries all state pretty plainly that the US was/is involved in the rendition of alleged terror suspects. They use that specific word, frequently. The article states that the accusations are being made in the media, and by European investigators. It also records US government denials of any illegality (although not denial of the actual practice, since as far as I am aware it has not denied it). This is a non-debate. If everyone followed your obsession with only verifying things via court verdicts, this encyclopedia would be empty. --Nickhh (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes with very few suicide bombers, as we do not try dead people. (Hypnosadist) 00:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
How much proof is required? Admissions by former officials, memos stating in effect that torture isn't torture if it's given a different name, current investigations, comments from high up in the Obama administration that criminal investigations are under way. Is that not enough? If more proof is needed before facts can be accepted as facts we would have to start questioning our entire knowledge of history, including the Holocaust....JohnC (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Page 4. A 16. "On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, I submitted a request to the Bureau for a debate under urgent procedure on the allegations of secret detention in Council of Europe member states at the January 2006 part-session of the Assembly. I was informed that, as the deadline for States' replies under the procedure set in motion under Article 52 ECHR was not until 21 February, the Assembly Bureau had decided, at its meeting on 9 January 2006, to suggest holding a current affairs debate, ie a debate without a report, which nevertheless leaves me free to submit this information memorandum to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights."

Our text: A large majority of the European Union Parliament endorsed the report's conclusion that many member states tolerated illegal actions of the CIA and criticized several European governments and intelligence agencies for their unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation. The citation that supports our claims does not support this text, nor does it represent a large majority of the European Union Parliament. Raggz (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The current text does appear to possibly conflate the separate reports, and needs to be amended (by someone who understands the point). Your version was just garbled and even worse, and was your own interpretation of some quite technical language. --Nickhh (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to revert it when you have improved it. Raggz (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

World map - graphic

Our map is inaccurate, according to our article and the European Parliment, the EU should be in red. We could:

  • delete this inaccurate map
  • change our article to match our map

I support just deleting the map. Is there any disagreement? Raggz (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. Don't just post something like this on a talk page and then delete well-cited material two minutes later as if you somehow have consensus. The map is sourced to Amnesty, a reliable source for this point, and demonsrates the reach of the (alleged) programme. What qualifications do you have to say it is "inaccurate"? An odd attitude coming from someone who constantly shouts "OR" at others. And no, the whole EU should not be in red. --Nickhh (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as you may recall, I take wp:bold seriouslly.
Our article says that members of the European Parliment have secret prisons and are complicit in torture. The map denies the article. We are editors Nickhh, we get to make judgements, not every reliable source need be in the article. So: do you prefer that we bring our text into compliance with our map - or do we toss this map? Do you want to edit the map? I'm open to ideas. Raggz (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There are black points in Poland and Romania showing where the alleged prison camps are, as well as light blue shading on individual European countries such as the UK which allegedly assisted with overflights. This is consistent with the article. --Nickhh (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This map is not consistent with the article, or the reliable sources cited. The European Parliment alleges at least ten EU nations. There are not ten spots. If this were about ten US states, would we put spots on the US map or color the entire US? The map is still contradicted by our text and our sources. Do we alter the map, or the text and sources? This is a content issue and is subject to wp:consensus. As an editor, are you in favor of having our graphics conflict with our article's text? If not, what do you suggest? Raggz (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Did. You. Read. The. Bit. Where. I. Mentioned. The. Countries. Shaded. In. Blue. There. Are. About. Ten. Of. Them. --Nickhh (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Amnesty International apparently withdrew our graphic, leaving it without a reliable source. Will you please confirm this to your satisfaction. Britain should be RED, as Diego Garcia is claimed as a detention site. The entire EU should be red, with black dots. Raggz (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A more serious error with the map is that "Tashkent" is in "Uzbekistan" and not in the country marked which is "Turkmenistan". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.49.197 (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary Rendition (film)

The film has what relevance to our article? It is fiction, and says this at the beginning - no relationship to any events ... I suggest dropping it. Raggz (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WTF? It's there to help people find that page, if that's what they were looking for when they typed in "Extraordinary Rendition". You'll find these at the top of 100s of WP pages --Nickhh (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ELPOINTS states Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. This has not been done here. The section contains dozens of links, some opinion blogs about the general subject and dozens of news articles about specific cases of ER. None of that should be in the external links section. If they can be used to support statements in the article, they should be inline references, visible in the references section.

Hypothetical examples of what should be there:

  • If the CIA had a website or page listing all ERs in which they were involved
  • If a notable news organization had a page with links to all of their articles concerning ER
  • If a NGO such as hrw.org had a page devoted to the concept of ER

Most Wikipedia pages do not have an external links section, and this is the first I have seen which breaks them down by year. Thundermaker (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"euphemism" in lede

The word euphemism in the lede is editorializing, and violates NPOV. If there is a newspaper or book that calls extraordinary rendition a euphemism, then cite it in the body of the article.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 21:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to follow your exact advice, and almost inserted a long list after running "extraordinary rendition" euphemism" through Google scholar. But then I found these references:
  • A Dictionary of Law by Elizabeth A. Martin, Jonathan Law
  • Encyclopedia of the American Presidency by Michael A. Genovese: Encyclopedia of the American Presidency (at p. 424) notes that while rendition is a quasi-legal term, extraordinary rendition "has no clear basis in international law, but is the term used to describe the kidnapping of a suspect who is then transported to another location for interrogation and sometimes torture. Extraordinary rendition is thus is thus a euphemism for what by its true description is a crime under international law." Which raises the competing POV concern with the term itself: that it misleads the reader as to the legality of the subject.
  • Invitation to Critical Thinking by Joel Rudinow, Vincent E. Barry: literally uses "extraordinary rendition" as a textbook example of what a euphemism is.
  • Beyond grammar: language, power, and the classroom by Mary R. Harmon, Marilyn J. Wilson: ditto.
This set of references explicitly excludes people making a critique of US foreign policy, or focusing on the human rights implication of the program (there are dozens of such sources using the term "euphemism"). If calling anything a euphemism is NPOV, this is one example. So too, by the way, are comfort woman and ethnic cleansing. If we're really touchy about this (and I think I would need to see a RS saying it's not a euphemism to justify this), then say it is a euphemism, and footnote it with the sources listed above.--Carwil (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Fine references, all, and congratulations for some diligent research. Certainly the cites belong in the body of the text to decorate a sentence saying "Extraordinary rendition has been described as a euphemism . . . " But in the lede, which is short simple introduction to the subject, "Extraordinary rendition describes abduction . . . etc." is much stronger. One might also say, for instance, "the phrase extraordinary rendition is bureaucratic jargon." Equally true, and doubtless somebody footnotable has said so, but thumbing one's nose at the title of the article however well deserved, doesn't belong in the lede. It belongs down in the substance of the article. My internet connection is right now misbehaving which prevents me from looking up on Wikipedia "Final solution to the Jewish question," possibly the most famous euphemism outside of George Orwell's fiction. But my guess is both that phrase and "enhanced interrogation," another candidate for the same rogues' gallery, use the word euphemism in the body of the article, not in the lede. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I've made my argument, and will wait for a third opinion. However, I want to provide the background information that the Dictionary of Law uses euphemism as its second word "A euphemism..." to define extraordinary rendition. Encyclopedia of the American Presidency first mentions the term "extraordinary rendition" in the third paragraph of its entry after two paragraphs of introduction on the war on terrorism. "Euphemism" appears in the fifth sentence, the third in a paragraph devoted to explaining that ER's nonlegitimacy in law.--Carwil (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
While you wait, you might like to add Extraordinary Rendition to the list of examples of common euphamisms on the Euphamism page, including your sources with page numbers in a footnote. As to this page, you offer ample secondary source support for calling it a euphamism--I differ only about where. Not in the lede, is my only point. A question of style, not substance. And again, my compliments on your diligence .ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 19:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The word "euphemism" is absolutely necessary to make sense out of this piece of jargon, and yes I think it should be in the lead. Rendition literally means giving, in the context of prisoners it means transfer, and there is no reason a sane person would think it also included abduction (much better word here than apprehension, thanks EB!). Thundermaker (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Swedes stopped flights

See this, from part of the wikileaks cables. SmartSE (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting article--but not quite sure what to make of this. It may well be factual, but the N-number listed for the aircraft is wrong. According to the US FAA website that number (N379P ) was only used for a small Cessna from 1994 to 1995, and then again for a different small single-engine Piper from 2008 onward. The Swedish journalist might have got it wrong, the person recording the number in 2001 might have erred, or the CIA might have painted on a bogus number or even deleted the number from FAA records after the fact to cover its tracks. Given this minor factual lacuna, one would want another source confirming the larger point that the Swedish government banned rendition flights. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 16:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Having had a chance to look it up I find several other articles on this subject, so I have added an entry for Sweden. Thanks for pointing it out. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

Pedigree of ER's Dating Back to the 80s

What is the pedigree of the allegation that the United States has "used rendition since the 80s"? As of this writing (31 January 2011) a request for citation has been made and I hereby second the motion. What I could find was a paragraph in Jane Mayer's The Dark Side on page 122 as follows:

As far back as the 80s, when [Douglas Feith] had been a midlevel Reagan Administration official, Feith had argued that terrorists did not deserve to be protected by the Geneva Conventions. The issue had first arisen in regard to the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

I found this quote by going to her index and looking under Reagan, treatment of terrorists under. If that's all she had to say on the subject, I'd say the lead is pretty cold. But. The meme has taken off, so it makes sense for someone to follow it on a separate page in WP. I created one. Hopefully someone out there will know enough to know where to start. I don't.

Kiosacoup (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Length

The article is getting too long. I propose cutting out the specific case instances, and giving each their own article. That material largely duplicates what is in the discussion of various nations' responses to rendition, and the international and diplomatic repercussions fit best here.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

One thing that will help is moving the See Also, which currently is a list of articles about rendition (and all one-sided criticism at that) to a new Webpage called List of Articles on Extraordinary Rendition. I will do that later if there is not objection. I'll leave a note on the talk page of the main contributer to that survey of articles. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 13:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I've also moved extraneous matter to other articles. The material on admissiblity of evidence obtained under torture properly belongs in the Torture article and not here, so I moved it there. This article properly focuses only on rendition, and the national and international investigations of it.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 13:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
For the record, it is never appropriate on Wikipedia to spin off external links to a standalone article that serves as just a list of links; Wikipedia is not a directory or a search engine or a media indexing service. You're correct that most such links weren't adding anything relevant or useful to this article — if they were being cited as actual references, that would be one thing, but it's inappropriate to just pile them up as a list of uncontextualized links — but the correct solution is to just remove them, not to give them their own separate article. Bearcat (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Bearcat, and agreed. I'll ask an Admin to delete the standalone article. Outright deleting was my first choice but out of deference to whoever compiled all those articles--a lot of data-- I felt temporarily preserving them was prudent.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 13:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been alleged, it is alleged, alleged events? Weasel wording

it has been alleged that AUTHORITATIVE INSTITUTIONS IN DEMOCRATICALLY TRANSPARENT, WESTERN WORLD COUNTRIES have INDISPUTABLY RECOGNIZED THE EXISTENCE AND ILLEGALITY of this practice.

"It has been alleged" repeated over and over at the beginning of the article without adding explicitly "BY AUTHORITATIVE INSTITUTIONS IN DEMOCRATICALLY TRANSPARENT, FIRST WORLD, RULE OF LAW BASED, (some with NATO MEMBERSHIP), WESTERN WORLD COUNTRIES" is shameless weasel wording aimed to tame down and minimize what is in reality a grave and shameful matter of fact, admitted with botherdom by the US administration itself ("it is true but we did it for a good cause blah blah", you've surely the source about Rice, which suggests admission, unrepentance and resolve to go on doing it as if it is cool and right).


So, suggestion is: change it adding the alleging parties are highly authoritative in the Western World (and that they squeezed out a COndoleeza Rice admission too), so that mr John Smith who reads just the first 3 lines doens't think this is Islamist propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.26.76 (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The word "alleged" is used when discussing a matter which should be decided by a court but hasn't. It seems appropriate here, although the statements could be made stronger by specifying who is doing the alleging.
BTW, the Rice interview link is dead, removed from the .gov website. Thundermaker (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There has been a conviction in a court of law, in Italy, regarding the CIA's rendition of Abu Omar. Is this disputed? Is the report by the Council of Europe disputed, or for that matter, is the report by the Canadian Commission of Inquiry in relation to the rendition of Maher Arar in dispute? We have, on one side, the findings of an Italian court, the Council of Europe, the government of Canada and substantial investigative journalism, and on the other, a categorical denial by the US Secretary of State. I think most will agree the question of the existence of CIA extraordinary rendition is settled, and can be stated in an encyclopaedic manner. We should therefore remove all instances of the word "alleged" from the introduction to the article. Any objections? -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that Darthsidious55 made their sole edit here at Wikipedia to restore several instances of the word "allegedly" to the lede of this article. As discussed above, the fact of CIA-run rendition and torture is so well documented, that use of the word "allegedly" is dishonest. The Apollo 11 article doesn't state that the US "allegedly" landed two men on the moon, and this article shouldn't use weasel words either. We are all aware that this is a politically sensitive issue, that torture is illegal and that the US government officially denies its use. We also have numerous news reports and several official inquiries into the CIA rendition program, which are well cited in this article, which prove the existence of that program, and conclude that rendered prisoners did, in fact, undergo torture. If anyone has any credible source that disputes this, i.e. something other than a blanket denial by an involved government, then we can discuss restoring the word "alleged" to the lede. After all, the US government doesn't have veto power over the facts, and we shouldn't grant them veto power over which facts Wikipedia includes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Convoluted Article?

The article appears to use the concepts of rendition (kidnapping) and torture (uh...torture) as if they're necessarily symbiotic. Since they're mutually exclusive events, the article should focus on the act of rendition, and minimize the speculation of what happened after the rendition. It would probably make the article a more manageable size. The more political agendas are allowed to creep into Wikipedia, the less useful it becomes. --Jazzcat23 (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As the sources in the article demonstrate, rendition and torture are not unrelated events. It appears that rendition is used primarily as a vehicle for employing torture, as it allows individuals to be transported to countries where torture is known to happen, and which then share the intelligence they obtain with the US. That this has happened on a wide scale is well-documented in the article. Taking torture out of the article would itself be a political move, as its only purpose would be to remove important facets of extraordinary rendition from the article which are unpleasant for the US government. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rendition under Obama administration

I have added a citation needed template to the claim "However [Obama's] executive order did not end the practice of rendition." My reasons are as follows:

The claim is that the EO has not as of yet ended the practice of rendition. This is unsupported by the cited source, which is, in fact the language of the EO itself. The EO itself is named "Ending the practice of unlawful interogations" and was published in january 2009, and is then trivially not concerned with evaluating whether the United States still practices rendition in 2011. It is, however, establishing a policy of ending "unlawful interogations". To say anything of whether it did or didnt end unlawful interogations we would need other sourcing, as well.

I'd like to do a rewrite of this section, to clearly separate the issues of rendition, interogation, Obama admins policy and the actual track record... Does the community agree?

RandySpears (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: I found [1], where Politifact takes a look on Obama admin performance wrt rendition, extraordinary rendition and torture, from september 2010. I'd like to quote this section verbatim:
The administration has announced new procedural safeguards concerning individuals who are sent to foreign countries. President Obama also promised to shut down the CIA-run "black sites," and there seems to be anecdotal evidence that extreme renditions are not happening, at least not as much as they did during the Bush administration. Still, human rights groups say that these safeguards are inadequate and that the DOJ Task Force recommendations still allow the U.S. to send individuals to foreign countries.
And expicitly attribute it to Politifact. Maybe also quote the statements the statements of Ben Wizner and Maria LaHood, for some further context.
Suggestions?
RandySpears (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I went ahead and made the changes. Please give feedback, if you have any.
Another thing, this:
On November 2, 2009 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that victims of extraordinary rendition cannot sue Washington for torture suffered overseas, because Congress has not authorized such lawsuits, in ruling on Canadian citizen Maher Arar’s case.[150]
does not belong in the section titled "Obama Executive Order opposes rendition torture and establishes Special Task Force". It concerns the judiciary and not the executive branch.
Perhaps we should have a section dedicated to court cases concerning rendition?
RandySpears (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The executive order specifically does not end extraordinary rendition. It instead promises that there will be more monitoring to ensure that detainees are not tortured. What makes extraordinary rendition "extraordinary," however, is that it is done outside (i.e. against) the law. It's victims are not detained as a result of a legal process, but rather kidnapped against the laws of the country in which they reside. This practice is not ended by the executive order. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Extraordinary rendition. Favonian (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendition by the United States → Extraordinary rendition – See Talk page discussion; the article covers extraordinary rendition in general (US, UK, and others). Rostz (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As some who made the point that it was highly unlikely that the U.S. is the only nation to have done extraordinary rendition on the talk page of the article, I wish to state here that I VERY STRONGLY SUPPORT this move. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Legality

The central issue with the practise euphemistically called extraordinary rendition, is that it is illegal. Under international and domestic law. So why refer to an ancient Athenian LAW? That comparison is false! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph:

"A law existed in ancient Athens giving relations of an Athenian who had been murdered in a foreign state which had refused punishment or extradition of the murderer, the right to seize the foreigner and bring him before the Athenian courts.[3] Accordingly the principle of international abduction of murderers as a last resort, in the absence of other remedies, has ancient precedents."

This argument would be valid if "Extraordinary rendition" involved the practice of seizing people in Foreign lands to bring them to face justice in US courts ("seize the foreigner and bring him before the Athenian courts", as the paragraph mention) but that is not what extraordinary rendition is all about. It is about seizing an individual in a foreign land and bringing him to a third land, not for justice, but for torture and illegal detention outside of justice. So this example is really irrelevant.Hudicourt (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! References to Athenian law, especially if not directly relevant, and particularly in an article that is overly lengthy already, was a good move! --FeralOink (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality?

What happened to neutrality? This article make legal judgements (are you a lawyer?) and expresses strong political opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.59.91 (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Everything in the article should be cited to a reliable source. Opinions should be stated as opinions and should be balanced when possible. When a judge makes a ruling, that is a fact. There do seem to be more opposition opinions in the article than Bush-administration opinions. Is that simply because they didn't talk about it? If they released any of Alberto Gonzales' memos on this subject, we could include some material. Thundermaker (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The article is already well-sourced. It has over 150 references - most of them to reputable newspapers like the NY Times, the Guardian, the LA Times and the Washington Post, to websites of well-respected groups like the ACLU, and to governmental inquiries and judicial rulings from the EU, Canada and Italy. If you see weakly-supported or sourced material, feel free to add citations or to note those passages here. As for the lack of opposing opinions, that probably has to do with the unwillingness of the United States to acknowledge or elaborate on its covert operations abroad, especially since many of the actions discussed in this article took place in allied nations, in contravention of those nations' laws. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Well sourced has nothing to do with neutrality. There are no opinions allowed, period! Unfortunately this rule has all but been thrown out the window in the last few years. There is a place for this type of information, even in Wikipedia, but it certainly isn't here. And, Thucydides411 as for your feeble attempt to form a rationale for this behavior, you instead use more opinions, guesses, and inappropriate statements? --75.17.203.245 (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
My reply doesn't contain opinions, guesses or inappropriate statements, as far as I am aware. Which statements in the article should be labeled as opinions? That the CIA has conducted extraordinary renditions to countries known to practice torture is not a mere opinion by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a well documented fact. The article takes a neutral approach - it states the facts which journalists, courts and governmental commissions have established, and it also states Condoleeza Rice's blanket denial. What more are you asking for? Be specific. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course "the United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured." depends on the legal nit-picking of what one defines as torture. For example are five techniques torture or "just" inhuman and degrading treatment? Presumably Condoleeza Rice is one of those who was advised by the best and most expensive lawyers that the techniques are not torture.-- PBS (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be a dangerous precedent for Wikipedia to begin taking government statements at face value. Condoleeza Rice was most certainly advised by some of the best and most expensive lawyers that money can buy. Their job was to give the Bush Administration legal cover for its actions, not to give an impartial opinion. John Yoo advised that "Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." This wasn't his honest opinion - he was just writing what the Administration hired him to write. Any government which undertakes criminal activity can find people willing to lend their credibility to its efforts. However, beating a suspect with shredded wires, punching them when they refuse to talk, holding them in solitary confinement for months, binding them in painful positions for days on end, etc., are understood by pretty much everyone to be torture. Those are just a few of the forms of torture found to have been used on rendered prisoners. The United States is known to have rendered prisoners to Syria, Egypt and Libya, all of which practice or practiced torture at the time.
Again, if there is a factual dispute over something in the article, it should be mentioned. Just because you dislike what the Washington Post, Italian courts, and Canadian and EU inquiries have found regarding extraordinary rendition and torture, doesn't mean that the article is biased. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional Sources

Here's a great new source from the Anchorage Daily News on the Osama Mustapha Hassan Nasr rendition from Milan, Italy. 

  http://www.adn.com/2013/07/27/2994124/us-allowed-italian-kidnap-prosecution.html

Jsheehy (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Extraordinary rendition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Extraordinary rendition. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Extraordinary rendition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Extraordinary rendition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate reference to Homeric poems

I removed the following sentence from the introduction: "Abduction has also been a recognized casus belli (justification for war) in the Western tradition since Helen of Troy, over 3000 years ago."

This information is not relevant to the international politics/law background discussed in the introduction. The abduction of Helen of Troy is literary fiction and cannot be used to support the statement that abductions are recognised as a casus belli. Such a claim would need to refer to some historically verified event.130.102.82.181 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Extraordinary rendition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Extraordinary rendition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Extraordinary rendition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sami al-Saadi

There has been much reporting of the case of Sami al-Saadi (sometimes referred to in press reports as Sami Saadi), eg:

--Mais oui! (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added a Guardian reference for the 2011 Libyan incident. Not sure what to do about the existing Democracy Now citation, which failed verification. And maybe the cites given above should also be included. Is this event the only example of UK-initiated rendition? If not, perhaps some additional material could be added in the lead section, which is very US-oriented. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

China also do this frequently

Gui Minhai Causeway Bay Books disappearances imlibra925 (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No, see Forced disappearance. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not see your argument here, Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) . Do you think that it does not happen or do you think it does and advise to add it to Forced disappearance instead?

For the time being, I have added 

Other countries abducting : China and Saudi Arabia

with some refs as a stub here. Zezen (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zezen: It doesn't make sense to call it extraordinary rendition. Most of them disappeared in China (Hong Kong is in China), and there is no evidence that any other government is involved. That means it's either forced disappearance or abduction, not extraordinary rendition. Prinsgezinde (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I get your point now, Prinsgezinde, thank you. What do you think of my newest additions to this article, where I mention other similar cases where China or SA was acting outside of their borders? See the reffed articles for more details. Zezen (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zezen: Thing is, by definition renditions include the transfer of someone to a country with less rigorous laws than one's own to circumvent legal problems with interrogation, detention and torture. If you abduct a person and bring them to your own country, that's not circumventing your own laws. Clearly you're either ignoring your own laws or not violating them in the first place. China and SA, for example, simply do it in their own country without the need for rendition. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the United States the only country to have done this?

Is the United States the only country to have practiced extraordinary rendition? If not, this article should be renamed so and just called "extraordinary rendition". In fact, even if they were the only country to do this, I wonder whether a briefer title might make this more comprehensive. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I support this suggestion/proposal strongly. [[User:BWP123
And, to answer your question, no, the U.S. is by no means the only country to have practiced it. Many countries have practiced it in various ways on their own (not just the U.K.), and dozens were part of the program initiated by the U.S. BWP1234 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "by the United States" should be removed from the title, as this article is about the concept as a whole and includes extraordinary rendition performed by the UK. -Mabeenot (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree as well, and have requested the move below. Rostz (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: your opinions will need to be restated below as comments in the "Requested move" section. Rostz (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

When that this page has been moved back it is on my watch list. Mabeenot when did the UK use exrajudicial rendition? -- PBS (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As there has been no answer to my question here is an article that implies that it is not and has not been British Government policy to use extraordinary rendition (Rethink 'war on terror' strategy, says former MI6 head: Former head of the Secret Intelligence Service tells Guardian Unlimited that CIA rendition flights and Guantánamo Bay would be illegal under British law). So I am removing the UK from the lead as no evidence is given in the article that it is British policy to use extraordinary rendition. -- PBS (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Although this is an old thread, I am posting here, there are several instances in the article in which it is stated that the UK actively practised rendition (ie illegal kidnapping and removal to another country), none of the sources used seem to back this up. They do back up the accusation that MI6 passed on questions to renditioned captives, also there are credible accusations of the UK failing to protect Libyans and Saudis whom they knew would be tortured if deported. These are proofs of complicity perhaps, certainly a failure to distance themselves from rendition and other dubious practises. However it is simply factually incorrect (and probably Synth) to turn complicity into active practise. Pincrete (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC) … … ps I 'fixed' one reference in the text but added tags to others pending a response here. The UK's highest court has ruled that Brit Intell has sometimes been complicit in the torture of prisoners by questioning or supplying questions to those prisoners. I know of no source that says the UK has ever renditioned anyone.Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The archived discussion below this one indicates "extraordinary rendition by the United States" was merged here. Part of the problem was torture by proxy redirected to rendition: a mistake. They are not the same thing. Thus: the Daily Mail said U.K. colluded in torture-by-proxy in Libya, but (so far) there is no evidence the UK participated in renditions to Libya. The US in contrast has renditioned for torture by proxy, and also renditioned without torture. As to whether other countries have done it, the Soviet Union was notorious for abducting their own citizens when they fell under suspicion; Israel too tricked and abduced Israeili nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu after he revelaed Israel's secret nuclear facilities. Otherwise I am unaware of any abductions by one country of citizens of another during peacetime, except maybe North Korea abducting Japanese women a long time ago. I moved the UK sentence over to a newly created Torture by proxy page, and got rid of the redirect. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 17:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Ditto Adolf Eichmann? … … I trust you know that the Daily Mail is not noted for in depth analysis, (though it's prudent enough to stay on the right side of libel laws). Amusingly, some people's reasons for the merger below included 'the UK also does it', which to the best of my knowledge is not true. Pincrete (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Upon reflection, I wonder whether the new page is a good idea, firstly is there ever going to be enough material to justify it as a distinct subject? Secondly, much torture by proxy is perpetrated via rendition (accusations of UK using deportation laws being the exception). Although I don't have sources to hand, there has been in the past quite a bit in UK news about UK colluding with rendition (if only by turning a blind eye to flights through UK whose purpose they knew).Pincrete (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
On the enough material front--all too much. Basically Wikipedia asks: "is it notable?"--meaning are there newspaper articles, books n' stuff? The answer is, yes. Details like what CIA agents knew of/condoned until they got permission to start their own torture program (like the CIA agent watching Morrocan torturers slice a man's penis with a razor.) When I get around to it I'll start fleshing out (pardon that) the stub.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 20:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
If you have the stomach for it, good luck. This is perhaps one of those subjects that are topical for a while, then go 'off the radar'. Completely unconnected with article, but I think UK learned in N. Ireland that 'by-passing' normal rules was in the end counter-productive.Pincrete (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the above that this topic seems to haven fallen from the public eye, but I still think that the presentation in the intro, and to a lesser extent the article title, don't accurately describe its contents. This article is almost exclusively about US (and collaborators, especially UK) programs of extraordinary rendition, starting in the 1980s but primarily about the post-2001 CIA program. The article intro says "Recent renditions have been carried out (for example) by the United States government," as if this article covers a general tactic used by a variety of states, and the US is one example of a country that has recently used it. My sense is that the term "extraordinary rendition" refers almost exclusively the to US legal framework under which the US program was claimed to be legal, and by extension to actions of other nations that worked with the US post-9/11 (again, especially UK). This impression is confirmed by the fact that this entire article is about actions of the US and collaborators in the last few decades, aside from a stub section with a few links to, not content about, things that may or may not be extraordinary extradition by other nations. I think this could be remedied satisfactorily by changing the intro to say as much, e.g. "The term extraordinary rendition usually refers to state-sponsored abductions... ... ...especially those carried out by the US and allies on persons allegedly involved with terrorism" or something similar. If not so categorical, at least there should be a nod to the fact that the article concerns itself principally with that case, and that for reasons of either fact/history/terminology, extraordinary rendition refers principally to the US case. Krb19 (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius:

Poderias continuar a traduzir? Att 2804:14C:5BB3:8BED:7D42:B280:2BA6:35EA (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the Evo Morales incident an example of extraordinary rendition?

I just find it rather interesting that this incident has been added as an example of extraorrdinary rendition one day after the flight 4978. After reading the wikipedia page about the Evo Moralles incident, it seems to me that the plane wasn't force to land in Austria, but did so due to the lack of fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

This edit aroused my suspicions since the Russian government's stance on the Ryanair incident is that it already happened with Evo Moralles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair_Flight_4978#Reactions. I just wonder if the person who edited the wiki page is just repeating Russia's talking points. Stoyfan (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think either the Evo Morales incident or Ryanair Flight 4978 fit the definition of Extraordinary rendition given in the lede as "transfer of a person from one country to another" does not apply in either case. Both cases are of people who brought themselves into a country's airspace (thus jurisdiction), so being asked/made to land does not transfer them to another country. I think both should be deleted as examples. (NB Chicago Convention Article 1 says "Every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over airspace above its territory", so the rights and wrongs of asking a plane in a country's airspace to land are rather more complex than the media seems to be conveying.) Rwendland (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
You definitely have a point. The Evo Moralles incident and Ryanair Flight 4978 should probably be removed as examples of extraordinary rendition.Stoyfan (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships
  2. ^ Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1]
  3. ^ Lord Russel of Liverpool, The French Corsairs (London: Robert Hale 2001)at p. 12 (discussing the ancient Athenian law allowing private acts of reprisal as a precursor for the development in 17th Century France of official commissions for privateering vessels called Letters of Marque and Reprisal)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Extraordinary_rendition/Archive_6&oldid=1153086098"