Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:53:18.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Case study III: extraordinary rendition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2015

Helen Duffy
Helen Duffy
Affiliation:
Universiteit Leiden
Get access

Summary

We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will … That’s the world these folks operate in, and so it’s going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective … It is a mean, nasty, dangerous dirty business out there, and we have to operate in that arena. I’m convinced we can do it; we can do it successfully. But we need to make certain that we have not tied the hands, if you will, of our intelligence communities in terms of accomplishing their mission.

(US Vice-President Dick Cheney, September 16, 2001)

Introduction

Immediately following the 11 September 2001 attacks, the US government decided that a key component of its ‘war on terror’ would include covert international CIA action targeting ‘high-value targets’ for lethal use of force or detention for intelligence-gathering purposes. On September 17, 2001, President Bush signed a classified Presidential Memorandum of Notice granting the CIA authority to detain terrorist suspects and to set up secret detention facilities (sometimes known as ‘black sites’) outside the US where it could subject ‘high-value detainees’ (HVDs) to ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’. The result was an innovative, systematic and complex programme of ‘extraordinary rendition’, operated by the CIA, designed and authorised at the highest levels of the Bush Administration, and made possible by a global network of cooperation and support.

‘Extraordinary rendition’ involved the state-sponsored abduction from one country, with or without the cooperation of the government of that country, and the extra-judicial transfer to another country for detention and abusive interrogation outside the normal legal system. Several characteristics of the ERP make it worthy of special consideration as a case study. First, extraordinary rendition may represent the nadir of the descent into international illegality of the ‘war on terror’. It not only involved serious criminality, but a scheme specifically designed and meticulously carried out to nullify the effect of the law – removing entirely its protection, avoiding oversight and leaving no trace, and permitting no prospect for accountability. It was shaped around a policy of systematic torture, a violation of the most firmly enshrined prohibitions in international law. The ERP embodied and epitomised the dehumanisation of individuals and their reduction to objects of ‘intelligence’ value, pursuant to the all-consuming end of intelligence-gathering.

Type
Chapter
Information
The ‘War on Terror' and the Framework of International Law , pp. 778 - 845
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

‘The CIA’s Secret Detention Program’, Human Rights First, May 1, 2008, available at:
Babar Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom, Appl. Nos. 24027/07, 11949/08 and 36742/08, ECtHR, 6 July 2012 at para. 113)
‘USA Below the Radar: Secret Flights to Torture and “Disappearance”’, Amnesty International, 4 April 2006, available at: ; ‘The Road to Abu Ghraib’, Human Rights Watch, June 2004, available at:
Priest, D. and Gellman, B., ‘US Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations’, The Washington Post, December 26, 2002, available at: .Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, M., ‘Rendered Meaningless: Extraordinary Rendition and the Rule of Law’, 75 (2007) George Washington Law Review1333, 1336Google Scholar
Sadat, L. N., ‘Ghost Prisoners and Black Sites: Extraordinary Rendition Under International Law’, 309 (2006) Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law320Google Scholar
Sadat, L. N., ‘Extraordinary Rendition, Torture, and Other Nightmares from the War on Terror’, 75 (2007) George Washington Law Review1211–15Google Scholar
Omar, Abu abduction, in Messineo, F., ‘“Extraordinary Renditions” and State Obligations to Criminalize and Prosecute Torture in the Light of the Abu Omar Case in Italy’, 7 (2009) Journal of International Criminal Justice1023Google Scholar
Soufan, A., The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al Qaeda (New York, 2011)Google Scholar
Amnesty International et al. v. CIA et al., Case 1:07-cv-05435-LAP, Southern District of New York (August 9, 2007), at 114–16
Helgerson, John, ‘Ex-CIA Inspector General on Interrogation Report, “The Agency Went over Bounds and Outside the Rules”’, Spiegel Online, 31 August 2009, available at Google Scholar
Leopold, J. and Kaye, J., ‘Wolfowitz Directive Gave Legal Cover to Detainee Experimentation Program’, Truthout, October 14, 2010, available at Google Scholar
Leopold, J., ‘Torture Diaries, Drawings and the Special Prosecutor’, Truthout, March 29, 2010, available at Google Scholar
Cheney, D., In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir (New York, 2012), 2nd edn, pp. 357–8Google Scholar
Davis, M. D., ‘Consign Bush’s “Torture Memos” to History’, LA Times, July 30, 2012, available at: Google Scholar
Leopold, J., ‘Zubaydah’s Torture, Detention Subject of Senate Inquiry’, Truthout, April 17, 2010, available at Google Scholar
Eban, K., ‘The War on Terror, Rorschach and Awe’, Vanity Fair, July 17, 2007, available at: Google Scholar
Priest, D., ‘CIA Puts Harsh Tactics on Hold’, The Washington Post, June 27, 2004, available at: Google Scholar
Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 614 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), available at:
Dorn, Marilyn A. ¶ XX, Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Defense, Case 1:04-cv-4151 (AKH) (SDNY 12 May 2003), available at
Priest, D., ‘CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons’, The Washington Post, November 2, 2005, available at: Google Scholar
Shane, S. et al., ‘CIA Expanding Terror Battle Under Guise of Charter Flights’, The New York Times, May 31, 2005, available at: Google Scholar
Bollyn, C., ‘“Ghost Planes” Make Suspects Disappear, Pentagon has New Secret Weapon in “War on Terror”’, American Free Press, January 14, 2004, available at: Google Scholar
Abu Zubaydah v. Poland, Appl. No. 7511/13, ECtHR, both judgments 24 July 2014
(R.) (Binyam Mohamed) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 4) [2009] EWHC 152 (Admin.), available at:
Johnston, D., ‘US Says Rendition to Continue, but With More Oversight’, The New York Times, August 24, 2009Google Scholar
McCoy, A., ‘Impunity at Home, Rendition Abroad’, Huffington Post, August 14, 2012Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, M. and Fisher, A., ‘Tortured Logic: Renditions to Justice, Extraordinary Rendition, and Human Rights Law’, 6 (2006) The Long Term View4, 52–71, available at Google Scholar
Shane, S., ‘Inside the Interrogation of a 9/11 Mastermind’, The New York Times, June 22, 2008Google Scholar
Mayer, J., The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals (New York, 2008), p. 156Google Scholar
Benen, S., ‘Another Al Qaeda Number 3’, Guest Posting, The Washington Monthly, January 31, 2008Google Scholar
Husayn v. Gates (DDC October 27 2009) (No. 08–1360) and
Husayn v. Gates, Case 1:08-cv-1360, Factual Return for Abu Zubaydah (ISN 10016), July 29, 2009, pp. 1–2
Re: Guantánamo Bay Detainee Litigation, Case 1:08-cv-01360, Amended Protective Order (January 9, 2009)
Arar v. Ashcroft, 532 F.3d 157 (2nd Cir. 2008) at, paras. 162–163
El Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, [GC], Appl. No. 39630/09, 13 December 2012
Arar v. Ashcroft, Complaint 60 18 CA 04-cv-249-DGT-VVP (EDNY 2004)
Al-Bihani v. Obama (Al-Bihani II ), 590 F.3d 866, 872–3 (DC Cir. 2010)
Hamlily v. Obama, 616 F.Supp. 2d 63 (DDC 2009)
Goodman, R., ‘The Detention of Civilians in Armed Conflict’, 103 (2009) American Journal of International Law48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammed al-Asad v. Djibouti, filed before the ACHPR, where the author is one of the legal team before the Commission. Mr Asad is a Yemeni national who alleges he was detained in Djibouti in December 2003 and January 2004
Mohammed Al-Asad v. Djibouti, decision 841 of the ACHPR, Comm. 383/10, June 2014
Pejic, J., ‘Procedural Principles and Safeguards for Internment/Administrative Detention in Armed Conflict and Other Situations of Violence’, 87 (858) (2005) International Review of the Red Cross375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. L., ‘Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, Re: The Permissibility of Relocating Certain “Protected Persons” from Occupied Iraq’, The Washington Post, March 19, 2004, available at: Google Scholar
Pejic, J., ‘Conflict Classification and the Law Applicable to Detention and the Use of Force’, ICRC, in Wilmshurst, E. (ed.), International Law and the Classification of Conflicts (Oxford, 2012), p 18Google Scholar
Mettraux, G., The Law of Command Responsibility (Oxford 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States, Appl. No. 52207/99, ECtHR, 2 December 2001
Al-Skeini and Others v. The United Kingdom, Appl. No. 55721/07, ECtHR, 7 July 2011
Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom, Appl. No. 61498/08, ECtHR, 2 March 2010 on transfer
Sergio Euben Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 52/179, HRC, views of 29 July 1981, UN Doc. CCPR/C/13/D52/1979 at para. 2.2
Öcalan v. Turkey (Merits), Appl. No. 46221/99, ECtHR, 12 March 2003
Illich Sanchez Ramirez v. France (Dec.), Appl. No. 28789/95, ECommHR, 24 June 1996
Freda v. Italy, Appl. No. 8916/80, Admissibility Decision, ECommHR, 7 October 1980
Osman v. United Kingdom, Appl. No. 23452/94, 29 EHRR 245 (1998) at para. 116
Z and Ors v. United Kingdom, Appl. No. 29392/95, 34 EHRR 3 (2002) at para. 73
Velásquez Rodriques v. Honduras (Merits), IACtHR, 29 July 1988, Series C, No. 4 at paras. 172–175
Kiliç v. Turkey, Appl. No. 22492/93 (ECtHR, 28 March 2000)
Isayeva and Others v. Russia, Appl. Nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, 24 February 2005 at paras 208–213
Menesheva v. Russia, Appl. No. 59261/00, ECtHR, 9 March 2006 at para. 64
Cyprus v. Turkey (Merits), Appl. No. 25781/94, Grand Chamber, 10 May 2001 at para. 147
Kurt v. Turkey (Merits), Appl. No. 15/1997/799/1002, ECtHR, 25 May 1998 at para. 124
Abu Zubaydah v. Poland, 2014
El Masri v. Macedonia, 2012
Ibragimov and Others v. Russia, Appl. No. 34561/03, ECtHR, 29 May 2008 at para. 114
Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden, HRC Comm. No. 1416/2005, UN Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005 (2006), 10 November 2006
Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and the Russian Federation, Appl. No. 48787/99, ECtHR, 8 July 2004 at para. 318
Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, Appl. No. 36378/02, ECtHR, 12 April 2005 at para. 335
Chahal v. The United Kingdom, Appl. No. 70/1995/576/662, ECtHR, 15 November 1996 at para. 79
Saadi v. Italy, Appl. No. 37201/06, ECtHR, 28 February 2008 at para. 127
Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], Appl. No. 22978/05, ECtHR, 1 June 2010 at para. 107
Akkoç v. Turkey, Appl. Nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, ECtHR, 10 October 2010, at para. 115)
El-Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, [GC], Appl. No. 39630/09, at 13 December 2012 at paras. 202–203
Yussef El-Megreisi v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, HRC Comm. No. 440/1990, UN Doc. CCPR/C/50/D/440/1990, 23 March 1994, available at: at para. 5.4
Sabbeh & Others v. Egypt, ACHPR February 2012
Quinteros v. Uruguay, HRC Comm. No. 107/1981, 15 October 1982 at para. 14
Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], Appl. Nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, ECtHR, 18 September 2009 at paras. 200–202
Tanis and Others v. Turkey, Appl. No. 65899/01, ECtHR, 2 August 2005, at para. 219
Avdo and Esma Palić v. Republika Srpska, Decision on Admissibility and Merits, Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case No. CH/99/3196 December 2000, at paras. 79–80
Bazorkina v. Russia, Appl. No. 69481/01, ECtHR, 27 July 2006
María del Carmen Almeida de Quinteros et al. v. Uruguay, HRC Comm. No. 107/1981, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 (1990) at 138 at para. 14
El-Megreisi v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, HRC Comm. No. 440/1990, UN Doc. CCPR/C/50/D/440/1990, 21 March 1994 at paras. 2.1–2.5
Mojica v. Dominican Republic, HRC Comm. No. 449/1991, UN Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/449/1991, 10 August 1994, at para. 5.7
Othman (Abu Qatada) v. UK, Appl. No. 8139/09, ECtHR, 9 May 2012
Agiza v. Sweden, Comm. No. 233/2003, UN Doc CAT/C/34/D/233/2003 (2005)
Samuel, K. and White, N. (eds.), Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practice (Oxford, 2012), p. 579
Baysakov and Others v. Ukraine, Appl. No. 54131/08, ECtHR. 18 February 2010
Aemei v. Switzerland, Comm. No. 34/1995, CAT, 29 May 1997 at para. 9.8
MBB v. Sweden, Comm. No. 104/1998, CAT, 5 May 1999 at para. 6.4
Arana v. France, Comm. No. 63/1997, CAT, 2 June 2000 at para. 11.5
Othman (Abu Qatada) v. UK, Appl. No. 8139/09 Final Judgment, ECtHR, 17 January 2012
Re, Guantánamo Bay Detainee Litigation Case No. 1:05-cv-01220 (DDC 2007) at para. 6
Jabari v. Turkey, Appl. No. 40035/98, ECtHR, 11 July 2000 at para. 40
E and Others v. UK, Appl. No. 33218/96, ECtHR, 26 November 2002 at para. 110
Keenan v. UK, Appl. No. 27229/95, 33 EHRR 91, 3 April 2001, at para
Kaya v. Turkey, Appl. No. 22535/93, ECtHR, 28 March 2000
Aksoy v. Turkey, Appl. No. 21987/93, 23 EHRR 533 (1996) (torture)
Orhan v. Turkey, Appl. No. 25656/94, ECtHR, 18 June 2002 (disappearance)
Mentes v. Turkey, Appl. No. 23186/94, ECtHR 18 November 1997 (destruction of homes)
Gomes-Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, IACtHR Series C, No. 219, 24 November 2010
Bati and Others v. Turkey, Appl. Nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, ECtHR, 3 September 2004
Hugh Jordan v. The United Kingdom, Appl. No. 24746/94, ECtHR 4 May 2001
Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, Appl. Nos. 57947/00, 57948/00, 57949/00, 41 EHRR 39 (2005) at paras. 209–213
Barrios Altos (Chumbipuma Agurre et al. v. Peru) (Judgment) IACtHR, Series C, No. 7 14 May 2001
Guariglia, F., ‘Los límites de la impunidad: la sentencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en el caso Barrios Altos’, in Nueva Doctrina Penal, 2001/A (Buenos Aires, 2001) at 209–30Google Scholar
Assanidze v. Georgia, Appl. No. 71503/01, 39 EHRR 653 (2004)
Akaban, P., ‘Justice in the Hague, Peace in the Former Yugoslavia? A Commentary on the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal’, 20 (1998) Human Rights Quarterly737Google Scholar
Pinochet case, 1998 All ER 97 (Pinochet 3) concerned torture specifically
Shane, S., ‘No Charges Filed on Harsh Tactics Used by the CIA’, The New York Times, August 30, 2012, available at: Google Scholar
Habib, M. and Collingwood, J., My Story: The Tale of a Terrorist Who Wasn’t (Brunswick, Victoria, 2009)Google Scholar
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 26 Febuary 2007, Judgment, ICJ Rep. 2007 at para. 420
Fulton, S, ‘Cooperating with the Enemy of Mankind: Can States Simply Turn a Blind Eye to Torture?’, 16 (5)(2012) International Journal of Human Rights, at 773–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prosecutor v. Kunarać, Novać and Vucović, Cases IT-96–23 and IT-96–23/1-A, ICTY, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 22 February 2002 at para. 58
ICTY cases: Prosecutor v. Kordić, Mario Čerkez (Appeal Judgment), Case No. IT-95–14/2-A, 17 December 2004 at para. 93
Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić (Appeal Judgment), Case No. IT-95–14-A, 29 July 2004 at para. 102
Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac et al. (Appeal Judgment), Case No. IT-96–23 and IT-96–23/1-A-12 June 2002 at para. 85
Ojdanic, Dragoljub’s Motion Challenging Jurisdiction – Joint Criminal Enterprise, para. 18, 21 May 2003
Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and the Russian Federation, Appl. No. 48787/99, ECtHR, 8 July 2004
Ivantoc v. Moldova and the Russian Federation, Appl. No. 23687/05, ECtHR 15 November 2011
Catan & Others v. Moldova and Russian, Appl. Nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECtHR, 19 October 2012
Irujo, J. M., ‘La CIA vuela bajo, muy bajo’, El País, 10 October 2010, available at: Google Scholar
‘Portugal: Evidence of Illegal CIA Rendition Flights Surfacing’, Statewatch, October 2006
Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, 2008 SCC 28, Supreme Court of Canada, 23 May 2008
R. (B Mohamed) v. Foreign Secretary [2008] EWHC 2048 (Admin.), 21 August 2008
Duffy, H., ‘Human Rights Litigation and the “War on Terror’”, 90 (2008) International Review of the Red Cross871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, S., ‘CIA Exhales: 99 Out of 101 Torture Cases Dropped’, WIRED, June 30, 2011, available at: Google Scholar
Rodriguez, J., Hard Measures (New York, 2012)Google Scholar
Taylor, P., ‘“Vomiting and Screaming” in Destroyed Waterboarding Tapes’, Interview with Rodriguez, Jose, BBC Newsnight, 9 May 2012, available at: Google Scholar
Pierce, C., ‘Waterboards, Drones, and the Drones Who Love Them’, Esquire Politics Blog, April 30, 2012, available at: Google Scholar
Cobain, I., Cruel Britannia: A Secret History of Torture (London, 2012)Google Scholar
Hooper, J., ‘Italian Court Finds CIA Agents Guilty of Kidnapping Terrorism Suspect’, Guardian, 4 November 2009, available at: Google Scholar
Donadio, R., ‘Italian Court Upends Trial Involving CIA Links’, The New York Times, March 11, 2009, available at: Google Scholar
‘Italy Prevents Trial of Intelligence Agents over Abu Omar Rendition’, Amnesty International, 16 December 2010, available at:
Arar v. Ashcroft, 532 F.3d 157 (2nd Cir. 2008) at paras. 162–163
Shawl, J., ‘US Rejects Germany Bid for Extradition of CIA Agents in el-Masri Rendition’, JURIST, September 22, 2007, available at: Google Scholar
‘Cables Show Germany Caved to Pressure from Washington’, Der Spiegel, 12 September 2010, available at:
‘Supreme Court: UK Unlawful Rendition May have been War Crime’, REPRIEVE, October 31, 2012, available at:
El-Masri v. Tenet, 437 F.Supp. 2d 530, 532–4 (ED Va. 2006)
Arar v. Ashcroft, 532 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2008) at paras. 162–163
Rasul v. Myers, 512 F.3d 644, 660 (DC Cir. 2008)
(Rasul I), vacated Rasul v. Myers 129 S. Ct. 763 (2008)
aff’d Rasul v. Myers 563 F.3d 527 (DC Cir. 2009)
Boumediene and Others v. Bosnia, Appl. Nos. 38703/06, 40123/06, 43301/06, 43302/06, 2131/07 and 214/07, ECtHR, 18 November 2008
‘Al-Nashiri v. Poland’; Abu Zubaydah v. Poland, ECtHR, 24 July 2014
Nasr and Ghali v. Italy, Appl. No. 44883/09, ECtHR, 22 November 2011
Carabulea v. Romania, Appl. No. 45661/99, ECtHR, 13 July 2010
Saadi v. Italy, App no 37201/06 ECtHR 28 February 2008
Astamirova v. Russia, Appl. No. 27256/03, ECtHR, 26 February 2009 at paras. 70–81
‘Tortured Justice: Using Coerced Evidence to Prosecute Terrorist Suspects’, Human Rights First, 10 March 2008
‘Britain and European Governments Helped US Commit “Countless” Crimes Colluding with Torture’, Telegraph, 1 September 2011
Staberock, G., ‘Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism’, in de Frías, A. Salinas, Samuel, K. and White, N. (eds.), Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practice (Oxford, 2012)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×