Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Renditions Redux

David Rivkin and Lee Casey, Justice Department officials in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, penned an op-ed in the Washington Post (“Europe’s Runaway Prosecutions,” February 28, 2007) in which they urged Congress to enact legislation making “it a crime to initiate or maintain a prosecution against American officials if the proceeding itself otherwise violates accepted international legal norms” such as “where there is a clear case of immunity.”

The apparent catalyst for their op-ed is a rash of indictments from European courts and prosecutors and official investigations begun by European governments in February. In particular, the Europeans are looking into post-9/11 CIA renditions – defined as kidnapping in one country an individual” known” to be or suspected to have connections to terrorism and transporting him to a third country where the victim is subjected to torture by that third country’s security services.

Italian courts are proceeding with a trial in absentia of 26 CIA agents. They stand accused, along with 5 members of the Italian secret service, who will be in court, of kidnapping – the op-ed writers use the more neutral “apprehend” to characterize what took place on a Milan, Italy street February 17, 2003 – and transporting to Cairo the Egyptian cleric and terror “suspect” Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr. Nasr, who had sought asylum in Italy, claims in an eleven-page letter that he was tortured repeatedly by Egyptian security personnel.

Further north, at the beginning of February, German prosecutors issued warrants for 13 CIA agents suspected of engineering the “extraordinary rendition” of Khaled al-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese heritage, who was “disappeared” at the Serbian-Macedonian border and flown to a CIA prison in Afghanistan. Like Nasr, al-Masri alleges he was tortured after being turned over to Lebanese security personnel.

Also in February, Switzerland’s government (the Federal Council) gave a green light to Swiss courts to begin criminal prosecution of anyone involved in transporting Nasr through Swiss air space. (Allegedly, the CIA flew Nasr from Aviano Airbase in Italy to Ramstein Airbase in Germany and thence to Egypt.) Simultaneously, the European Parliament approved the findings of an investigation into the complicity of European nations in the rendition program in violation of EU policy – citing Britain, Germany, and Italy in particular but also noting that others knew of but ignored CIA flights carrying drugged “rendees” through their national airspace.

Rivkin and Casey do not object to extraordinary rendition which they characterize almost benignly: “a long-standing [“time honored”] and legal [at least in customary law] practice that generally involves the cooperation [connivance or conspiracy] of two or more governments in the capture and transportation of a criminal suspect outside of normal extradition proceedings” [alternate terms mine].

Note in their definition the absence of the terms “terror,” “terrorism,” or “terrorist” – what George Bush’s “war” is all about – and the use of the judicial referents “criminal” and “extradition,” terms that are understood by non-lawyers even without recourse to Black’s Law Dictionary.

Herein is either a major oversight by the writers or chutzpah of the highest order. They appropriated a definition of rendition intended to apply to serious breaches of national and international criminal law by individuals who have fled national law enforcement or are beyond INTERPOL’s reach in locales whose rulers refuse to enforce international standards or extradition agreements. They then leap from the court system to the anti-terror war system in what seems to be an attempt to justify all instances of rendition of accused “terrorists” to “cooperating” intelligence and security services, even those know to have little if any regard for human rights. Interestingly, as if they felt a high-profile “success” had to be trotted out as Exhibit A, the op-ed authors cite the use of rendition in finally bringing to justice the international terrorist “Carlos the Jackal” who was seized in Sudan after a “political” agreement and with Sudanese foreknowledge – and taken to France for trial – in 1994.

(I was not surprised that no mention was made of the effort by Spanish magistrates to bring Augusto Pinochet of Chile before the bar of Spanish justice. All the conditions of “rendition” – a person traveling to or living in a foreign land indicted for alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity in a second foreign country who is then detained by order of officials – except the one that makes all the difference, the secret violation of civil liberties, are on exhibit in that case.)

Rivkin and Casey see in these European actions a pattern [conspiracy?] intended to intimidate and dissuade U.S. authorities and field operatives from using extraordinary rendition against those the U.S. suspects or “knows” to be associated with terror. They propose legislation that would give U.S. prosecutors the power to indict foreign judges or magistrates who investigate and try CIA and other U.S. operatives who, echoing Nuremberg, are only doing what is necessary to ensure U.S. national security and, by extension, the security of an unappreciative Europe. They ascribe the Europeans’ stance to their typical anti-war sentiment and opposition to any secret CIA activity in Europe that might even remotely become a “shoot-out” with lethal consequences for abductors, intended abductees, and innocent bystanders.

In effect, the op-ed writers seem to be advising the U.S. to carve out another unilateral “preventive” posture – as with the International Criminal Court – by instigating reciprocal indictments of “a few overreaching foreign officials,” even when it is clear that an injustice was done by the original CIA rendition. But in pursuing this course, the writers fail to acknowledge, as President Bush did in his most recent press conference, that neither supreme leaders nor presidents know everything that goes on in their governments – and thus cannot be held accountable for what might go wrong in any single rendition. (Demonstrating knowledge of and approval by a supreme leader of a pending rendition is one of the “immunities” the writers suggest negates culpability of field operators.)

In the end, the writers recommend that in Europe “extraordinary rendition can probably be abandoned without severely undercutting the war effort.” Why? To avoid continuing (or increasing) the already hard feelings on both sides of the Atlantic.
Nothing about justice.

Nothing about civil rights.

Nothing about respect for human dignity.

And what of Nasr and al-Masri?

Earlier this month, after four years, an Egyptian State Security Court ordered Nasr’s unconditional release. The Egyptian court said that his original detention was unfounded.

Four months after he was abducted, al-Masri was abruptly flown to Albania and set free – with no more than a cursory explanation that his detention was a case of “mistaken identity.”

1 Comments:

Blogger chris rushlau said...

Hello, I've been to law school and your indignation about renditions was nice to hear. Lawyers tend to think shame is the result of not being zealous enough.
I'm piggy-backing on here my response to your Defense Monitor essay just published by CDI. My direct response was rejected by the CDI electronic postmaster.
Herewith (and I titled it "pretty damn good job")
My idea of a soldier, as opposed to a rambo-legend-in-his-own-mind, is that he is a citizen-soldier. I was out at Coronado with my Guard unit cooking in the SEAL's dining facility (well, they share it) and this SF team came through the line, so I asked one of them how many of his mates joined up to "de oppresso liber" and how many to blow stuff up, and he said, "About half of them." Your study of the world's wars reflects great credit upon the Constitution of the United States.
Now, my remarks. First, reading it reminds you of how little you know about foreign policy, how readily you armchair-quarterback stuff you don't understand. I thought I'd learned my lesson being a Peace Corps (as they called me) in Kenya and Guarding in Iraq in 2004, but it's tempting, no, I succumbed to the temptation, to tell a Lebanese he has to stand up to Israel if he wants stability in his country. Who am I to tell him anything?
Secondly, it seems the answer to that is to start with where you have influence, or where you have knowledge, which will be the same place. So the right object of study for us is US military affairs as they affect the world, and that was the tone of your closing paragraph.
Thirdly, a study consists of a thesis and a plan of study: a flashlight and a dark place to point it at. When I first dipped into your essay I came across two references to the Israel-Hezbullah war's death toll of civilians that both gave the impression that both host nations, as it were, had suffered equally, while you must know, since you know exactly how many civilians died, that ninety five percent of them were in Lebanon.
Fourthly, I suppose it is the second law of warfare (security=open eyes being the first) that you attack where you have a local advantage. I was just reading about General Marshall agreeing to Jim Crow segregation in the Army in WWII because he said he couldn't accomplish in his Army what the whole country couldn't accomplish. So you can't stand up there at CDI/what's-it-called and say that a Jewish but liberal state is an oxymoron and every contradiction is an offense against nature: like running a diesel generator on gasoline. Could you? But you could say, when someone talks about the US security guarantee of Israel, two things at least. One is that discrimination never makes the neighbors happy and if the neighbors don't feel safe, you won't feel safe, and you all have to do a moral inventory and see who's offending whom objectively speaking: who's being pushy. The other is that people have the right to security but racial discrimination does not have the right to security. Nor does religious discrimination. Your remark at the end of the essay could have been a little more exact: the world sees us as the guarantor of a racially/religiously-discriminatory regime that all of our freedom seems incapable of hearing talked about. My one little practical example: Iran is unique in one noncontroversial way, possibly with Pakistan and Sudan: their regimes are more or less home-grown, not installed directly nor descended from installations of the UK or US. Hamas, too. I suspect the world also knows this. So the world sees the US fighting for freedom by smashing freedom. We're not the enemy to them as much as we're just crazy in their eyes: a public menace.
I came across what was described as an Arab proverb thirty years ago, which I've since learned could coexist with the Islamic ban on alcohol (I read a book about the Abbassid dynasty and they had court poets singing the praises of wine not to mention felonious actions). The proverb is, "if everyone tells you you're drunk, lie down."
I think your paper about said that, but we could stand to have it said a little more clearly. Seymour Hersh is talking about these lieutenant colonels in Iraq talking about the critical next six months, possibly a collapse when we're just starting to make gains, and it, this minute, reminds me of a letter that T.E. Lawrence published in the London Times in about 1922, which some kind soul had left by the sign-in desk at one of the internet centers on FOB Marez in Mosul. The letter said, in pertinent point, that three British colonels were running Iraq. Lawrence didn't think they were doing anything but making a huge mess out of it. All due respect to Col. McMaster, but in the Frontline report featuring him in Tal Afar, he kept calling it "Tell Afar" when you could hear the Iraqis in the backgroud calling it "Tell Offer", which is how the local people say it. For that matter, almost all the US people in Mosul called it "Mazool" while the Iraqis and even BBC called it "Mow-sle". One Kurd working for us called it "Mazool" and I asked him why: he said, "That's what you guys call it," with a big smile.
It's time to lie down.
Chris


Christopher C. Rushlau
P.O. Box 15368
Portland ME 04112-5368
207/773-8342

5:32 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home