# Is there any justification for "extraordinary rendition"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2005, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270 "2005-03-19T04:36:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/1 "2005-03-19T04:36:11Z")
In an interview with the New York _Times_ in January, President Bush insisted, “[T]orture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.” (From _The New Yorker,_ 2/14/05: "Outsourcing Torture: The Secret History of America’s “Extraordinary Rendition Program” – [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa\_fact6.)](http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6.)) Yet it appears the U.S. government has been doing just that ever since it started seriously hunting for Islamic terrorists in the mid-90s. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary\_rendition:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition:) > [@](#): > > Extraordinary rendition is a secret procedure used by the United States government whereby foreign suspects are sent to another country for interrogation. As described in various reports in the media, individuals to whom it is applied are arrested, blindfolded, shackled, and sedated, and transported by private jet or other means to the destination. The US agency involved may provide the relevant foreign intelligence service with a list of questions it wants answered. It is acknowledged and even expected that these suspects may be tortured despite official assurances to the contrary. Although Egypt has been the most common destination, suspected terrorists have been renditioned to other countries, such as Jordan and Syria. > > The procedure was developed by Central Intelligence Agency officials in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particuarly Al Queda. At the time, the Agency was reluctant to grant suspected terrorist due process under American law, as it could potentially jeopardize its intelligence sources and methods. The solution the agency came up with, with the approval of Clinton adminstration, was to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian mukhabarat, which has a reputation for brutality. This arrangement appealled to the Egyptians, as they had been trying to crack down on Islamic extremists in that country and a number of the senior members of Al Queda were Egyptian. It was convenient for the US because torture is banned under both US and international law. > > The first individual to be subjected to rendition was Talaat Fouad Qassem, one of Egypt’s most wanted terrorists, who was arrested with the help of US intelligence by Croatian police in Zagreb in September 1995. He was interrogated by US agents on a ship in the Adriatic sea and was then sent back to Egypt. He disappeared while in custody, and is suspected by human rights activists of having been executed without a trial. And all that was **before** 9/11/01. The practice appears to have become much more widely used since then. (I.e., there have been more reported cases – that’s all we the people can know for sure, because the whole thing is so damned secretive.) Originally a CIA tactic, it is now used by the Justice Department and the Defense Department. What justification can there be for this? Legally or ethically? Even if you argue that it’s worth inflicting torture on a terrorist to extract information that may save innocent lives – what good is such intelligence? Consider the story of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian engineer (from the _New Yorker_ article linked above): > [@](#): > > Arar, a thirty-four-year-old graduate of McGill University whose family emigrated to Canada when he was a teen-ager, was arrested on September 26, 2002, at John F. Kennedy Airport. He was changing planes; he had been on vacation with his family in Tunisia, and was returning to Canada. Arar was detained because his name had been placed on the United States Watch List of terrorist suspects. He was held for the next thirteen days, as American officials questioned him about possible links to another suspected terrorist. Arar said that he barely knew the suspect, although he had worked with the man’s brother. Arar, who was not formally charged, was placed in handcuffs and leg irons by plainclothes officials and transferred to an executive jet. The plane flew to Washington, continued to Portland, Maine, stopped in Rome, Italy, then landed in Amman, Jordan. > > During the flight, Arar said, he heard the pilots and crew identify themselves in radio communications as members of “the Special Removal Unit.” The Americans, he learned, planned to take him next to Syria. Having been told by his parents about the barbaric practices of the police in Syria, Arar begged crew members not to send him there, arguing that he would surely be tortured. His captors did not respond to his request; instead, they invited him to watch a spy thriller that was aired on board. > > Ten hours after landing in Jordan, Arar said, he was driven to Syria, where interrogators, after a day of threats, “just began beating on me.” They whipped his hands repeatedly with two-inch-thick electrical cables, and kept him in a windowless underground cell that he likened to a grave. “Not even animals could withstand it,” he said. **Although he initially tried to assert his innocence, he eventually confessed to anything his tormentors wanted him to say. “You just give up,” he said. “You become like an animal.”** > > A year later, in October, 2003, Arar was released without charges, after the Canadian government took up his cause. Imad Moustapha, the Syrian Ambassador in Washington, announced that his country had found no links between Arar and terrorism. Arar, it turned out, had been sent to Syria on orders from the U.S. government, under a secretive program known as “extraordinary rendition.” This program had been devised as a means of extraditing terrorism suspects from one foreign state to another for interrogation and prosecution. Critics contend that the unstated purpose of such renditions is to subject the suspects to aggressive methods of persuasion that are illegal in America—including torture. A subject under torture will say **anything** he thinks his interrogators want to hear. That doesn’t mean it’s true – only that the subject believes it will satisfy the torturers enough that they’ll stop hurting him. So what’s the point? Furthermore, it seems to me that this practice – farming out our dirty work to governments with fewer scruples againg torture – makes the U.S. undeniably complicit, eroding both our perceived moral legitimacy, and that of the international standards embodied in the Geneva Conventions. If we go down that road, aren’t we increasing the risk that Americans will be tortured if they’re taken prisoner in war, or if they fall into the hands of the authorities of countries with which we’re on bad terms? ---
**Author:** ![NillyWilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3da27b/32.png) [@NillyWilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NillyWilly)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/2 "2005-03-19T14:02:46Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary\_rendition:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition:) For the record: I’m against torture and against the US aggression against Iraq. That said, I don’t think you can use the Wikipedia as an authoritative source. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/3 "2005-03-19T14:14:07Z")
> [@NillyWilly](#): > > For the record: I’m against torture and against the US aggression against Iraq. > > That said, I don’t think you can use the Wikipedia as an authoritative source. Why not? They cite their sources and provide links. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/4 "2005-03-19T15:11:04Z")
Since it’s not even considered an effective way to get info, I can see no justification for it, even when not considering any ethical arguments. What’s the point of it? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/5 "2005-03-19T16:41:09Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Since it’s not even considered an effective way to get info, I can see no justification for it, even when not considering any ethical arguments. What’s the point of it? In this GQ thread – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=298205](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=298205) – we discussed the question, “Is the Wikipedia trustworthy?” And the consensus is that it is, for the most part, despite the “open-content” format. I also like it for brevity, comprehensiveness, and currency of information. (E.g., the article on King Sihanouk of Cambodia was updated to reflect his abdication the same day he abdicated.) But I made sure to base the OP on more than one source. Unless you don’t consider _The New Yorker_ reliable either – and I hope you know their reputation for intensive fact-checking. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/6 "2005-03-19T16:51:48Z")
If you want more sources, here’s a recent article from _The Washington Post,_ 3/17/05, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42072-2005Mar16?language=printer](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42072-2005Mar16?language=printer). And a commentary on same from _Washington Monthly_ – [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005\_03/005868.php](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005868.php). ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/7 "2005-03-19T16:57:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In this GQ thread – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=298205](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=298205) – we discussed the question, “Is the Wikipedia trustworthy?” And the consensus is that it is, for the most part, despite the “open-content” format. Actually, the general consensus in that thread is that Wikipedia isn’t trustworthy. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/8 "2005-03-19T16:58:54Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Since it’s not even considered an effective way to get info, I can see no justification for it, even when not considering any ethical arguments. What’s the point of it? Things are not “considered” anything in and of themselves. I consider wikipedia very effective, including ethical arguments. I have not noted anything in Wikipedia that was poorly written or inaccurate except during the election. In fact, it’s a microcosmic example of what human knowledge IS, a repository of information that is contributed, edited, and discussed by humans. If you have a problem with wikipedia, you may as well have a problem with all artifacts of knowledge. You can not level a complaint against wikipedia that is not relevent to any kind of printed matter. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/9 "2005-03-19T17:33:47Z")
In any case, I think I’ve provided enough non-Wikipedia sources that we can focus discussion on the actual issue: Should our government be turning suspected “terrorists” (such as Maher Arar) over to foreign governments which almost certainly will torture them? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/10 "2005-03-19T20:11:20Z")
Heh. **BrainGlutton** , **cricetus** , I wasn’t talking about Wikipedia, I was talking about _ **torture** _! I meant that since torture isn’t considered an effective way to get info from suspects, then regardless of any ethical concerns, there’s no point in using it. I have no problem with Wikipedia, FWIW! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/11 "2005-03-19T23:20:35Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Heh. **BrainGlutton** , **cricetus** , I wasn’t talking about Wikipedia, I was talking about _ **torture** _! > > I meant that since torture isn’t considered an effective way to get info from suspects, then regardless of any ethical concerns, there’s no point in using it. > > I have no problem with Wikipedia, FWIW! 😉 :o Oh, yeah . . . I should have spotted that, since you included the word “ethical” in your post. ---
**Author:** ![EsotericEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e274bd/32.png) [@EsotericEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EsotericEnigma)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/12 "2005-03-20T19:36:55Z")
Are there any reliable sources that make the opposite point about torture? That it _can_ lead to accurate information? BrainGlutton’s point about a person being willing to say anything, true or not while under torture is valid, for sure. But it seems to be valid only if the torture victim actually has nothing worthwhile to say. But what if the torture victim DOES have information that nobody can extract from them using normal interrogation? Can a person really hold information under torture indefinitely? I doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/13 "2005-03-20T20:04:07Z")
> [@EsotericEnigma](#): > > Are there any reliable sources that make the opposite point about torture? That it _can_ lead to accurate information? > > BrainGlutton’s point about a person being willing to say anything, true or not while under torture is valid, for sure. But it seems to be valid only if the torture victim actually has nothing worthwhile to say. But what if the torture victim DOES have information that nobody can extract from them using normal interrogation? Can a person really hold information under torture indefinitely? I doubt it. IIRC, I read that in Iraq, the terrorists have told their members that all they expect their members to do is hold out for 24 hours after capture under torture. In that time, they will have changed all their passwords, safe drops, etc., that they used before, so any info the terrorist spills will be useless. There’s a general recognition that you can break almost anyone via torture, but that it takes time in the case of committed folks (like terrorists, as a general rule). So, yes it works, but no, it’s not often useful. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/14 "2005-03-20T22:29:46Z")
> [@EsotericEnigma](#): > > Are there any reliable sources that make the opposite point about torture? That it _can_ lead to accurate information? Given the stigma around ‘aggressive interrogation’, it’s not like we are likely to ever hear of its successes. It’s not like Gen. Abizaid will get up in front of the press conference and say, ‘The intelligence regarding the IED factory we raided the other day was gained via the belly-punch’. But common sense tells us that different people will react differently to different stimuli. Sure, some people are steely-hearted rapscallions, and will resist even The Naked Pyramid, but by the same token, they are probably some wussies that spill their guts at the first sign of anything unsavory happening. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/15 "2005-03-20T22:41:20Z")
> [@EsotericEnigma](#): > > Are there any reliable sources that make the opposite point about torture? That it _can_ lead to accurate information? Well, I don’t think even BG’s sources are saying “torture will never, ever work.” Just that on balance it’s not the most reliable method. Of course there are other considerations too; timeliness being the obvious one. If you need an answer immediately, torture might be the best chance you have. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2005, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/16 "2005-03-20T23:00:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Should our government be turning suspected “terrorists” (such as Maher Arar) over to foreign governments which almost certainly will torture them? If the U.S. decides that it is against torture, then it is hypocritical to outsource the torturing to other countries. (“Well, I don’t rape and kill women, I just give them to Joe, and he rapes and kills them”) Now, of course, the U.S. could decide that it is not against torture, in which case doing it themselves or outsourcing to other countries is irrelevant. Personally, I don’t think arguments against torture should be based on whether torture is effective or not (because if a new torture technique is proven effective, then the whole argument against torture goes away). Also, I don’t think arguments in favor of allowing torture should be based on whether torture is effective or not. As an extreme example, if it were proven that, in dealing with enemy countries, it is effective to kidnap thousands of their newborns and torture them on live TV, would that be something you would condone, or something you would like your country to do? So, effectiveness alone is not what determines whether we should allow torture or not. I think that the debate should be, even if torture is effective, do you want your country to be a country that tortures people? Besides the general ethical principles, there is also the practical issue that one day you could accidentally be arrested as a suspected “bad guy” and get tortured. ---
**Author:** ![EsotericEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e274bd/32.png) [@EsotericEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EsotericEnigma)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/17 "2005-03-21T01:46:51Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > If the U.S. decides that it is against torture, then it is hypocritical to outsource the torturing to other countries. (“Well, I don’t rape and kill women, I just give them to Joe, and he rapes and kills them”) > > Now, of course, the U.S. could decide that it is not against torture, in which case doing it themselves or outsourcing to other countries is irrelevant. > > Personally, I don’t think arguments against torture should be based on whether torture is effective or not (because if a new torture technique is proven effective, then the whole argument against torture goes away). > > Also, I don’t think arguments in favor of allowing torture should be based on whether torture is effective or not. As an extreme example, if it were proven that, in dealing with enemy countries, it is effective to kidnap thousands of their newborns and torture them on live TV, would that be something you would condone, or something you would like your country to do? So, effectiveness alone is not what determines whether we should allow torture or not. > > I think that the debate should be, even if torture is effective, do you want your country to be a country that tortures people? Besides the general ethical principles, there is also the practical issue that one day you could accidentally be arrested as a suspected “bad guy” and get tortured. I agree. Torture shouldn’t be debated based on the accuracy of information received through it, but on the ethics of it. The first thought that jumps into my head is “what exactly IS torture?” There’s got to be a line somewhere between interrogation and torture. Simple pain isn’t where that line is defined, since there are many ways other than physical pain to torture someone. Imprisonment can be argued to be a type of torture, based on the psychological effects it has on the one imprisoned. How far should law enforcement and the military be allowed to go? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/18 "2005-03-21T02:01:50Z")
If it’s agreed that info received via torture isn’t accurate, then there’s no _need_ to debate the ethics of it, since then there’s no reason to use it. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/19 "2005-03-21T03:09:10Z")
I read an article by a columnist recently (and who the columnist was, I can’t remember) who argued for the rendition for reasons other than torture. Whoever it was made the point that, torture aside, the interrigations can be more effecitve when they’re done by police of the suspect’s nationality, in the suspect’s home nation. The police there know the language and culture better, so they can phrase questions so that they’re more effective, and know what the right questions are for them to ask. They can bring in the suspect’s family and have the families ask the suspect to cooperate, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-justification-for-extraordinary-rendition/295270/20 "2005-03-21T03:46:14Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > They can bring in the suspect’s family and have the families ask the suspect to cooperate, and so on. :dubious: That raises an even more disturbing image than anything mentioned in the OP. “You haff relatifs in Chermany, no?”