Talk:Extraordinary rendition/Archive 1

message: Looking at this article and the "rendition" article, I think the distinction is quite unclear. Is there a distinction at all? If so, it should be highlighted better, and if not then the two articles should be merged.
:The distinction is this: the Rendition article is NPOV and concerns only the practice of removing someone from a country for whatever purposes.  Extraordinary Rendition is nowhere close to NPOV and concerns the practice of removing someone for the purpose of torture.  They ought to remain separate for the near future. —thames 13:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a note, in November 2005 I rewrote the rendition article to more clearly reflect its neutral usage. --Dhartung | Talk 10:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to "Rendition" article? 

message: Inserted FAIR comment. Had been removed on dubious ground. No reason to keep it out.--Nomen Nescio 06:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FAIR

message: Issues of bias aside, there is at least one instance of plagiarism that needs to be corrected.  The paragraph that starts: "Members of the Rendition Group follow a simple but standard procedure" is lifted verbatim from the December 4, 2005 Washington Post article "Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake" By Dana Priest.  This paragraph seems important, but needs to be rewritten or identified as a quote, and qualified with the original source of the information, which appears from the article to be an anonymous CIA agent interviewed by the post.
::At the end of the paragraph you will find the reference. --Nomen Nescio 18:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: Torture by proxy links here but I get the sense that extraordinary rendition is not considered always equivalent to torture by proxy as it does not always have to involve torture. If this is indeed the case then I think a separate article should be created on toture by proxy rather then simply redirecting here. Otherwise, if we are going to consider the terms equivalent then the term torture by proxy should be mentioned in the intro. --Cab88 19:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe "torture by proxy" was part of the article opening at one point. --Lee Hunter 19:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Extraordinary Rendition has to involve toture. The practice is sending people to countries where people are knowingly going to be totured.  So it is toture by proxy. Black Sites(unless toture is proven) are as of now just international rendition.  Falphin 03:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Torture by proxy

message: I have problems with this sentence:
:In a number of cases, suspects to whom the procedure is believed to have been applied later appeared to be innocent.
Are not all "suspects" innocent until proved guilty in a court of law? How many of the "suspects" have been found guilty of a crime in a court of law? I think it needs substancial rewording or it should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically you are correct, but the Bush administration clearly, by its actions, uses the adagium: "guilty until proven innocent." Hence, the extrajudicial kidnap of enemy combatants who are then refused due legal process on account of their guilt.--Nomen Nescio 23:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: appeared to be innocent

message: No disrespect to anyone in the US or even my own compatriots who lost loved ones in 9/11. But really how significant is such an event when we look at worldwide suffering and tragedy. Ok that clear, what has details of process got to do with positioning the practice. The relevent issue remains one of its illigality.
:While it is clear the US administration is overreacting, it is also worrying that US and international law no longer appear important.--Nomen Nescio 01:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Overreacting??? Please. It was the first attack on U.S. soil since 1993 and the only major one since Pearl Harbor(which sent us into WWII). While England, France, Germany, Spain have suffered numorous deaths over their long respective history, and Asia, and Africa has millions dying each year of hunger and AIds, the U.S. is new to this. That's why we reacted so harshly. The majority of americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan and a smaller majority in the War on Iraq. It is probably though annon the U.S. response here. Falphin 17:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance of 9/11?

message: I do not want to edit the article. But I do think one of You should incorpoarate these news into this article. It seems to be the biggest news regarding renditions yet:
US embassy close to admitting Syria rendition flight
:I'm not sure if the ambassador's gaffe is very significant. It seems more like a minor footnote to the Maher Arar story. --Lee Hunter 22:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  US ambassy admits to syrian rendition? 

message: Re Nescio's comment: please don't revert without explanation (that's policy AFAIK). And what's wrong with my description? "Illegal shuttling of rightless prisoners throughout the world" might describe the situation more exactly, so I don't see why "Extraordinary rendition" should not be described as a euphemism. In fact, "extraordinary rendition" could serve as a classical example of politically motivated euphemistic language. Kosebamse 08:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Euphemism suggests something grave. It clearly is not a NPOV description. There is no need to use the word since it holds no additional information. I understand your feelings towards "Extraordinary rendition," but Wikipedia is not about sharing emotions, or expressing opinions.--Nomen Nescio 09:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Still, it is up to the reader to decide whether or not this part of the war on terrorism should be supported. Or even if the concept is nothing more than a euphemism. We, as editors, should refrain from steering that view, and I think a factual description, without the implicit opinion, would suffice.--Nomen Nescio 14:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This looks better, neutral introduction followed by observation regarding euphemism. Still, it is not a factual description but an implicit comment. Let's leave it as it is, maybe other editors have a view on this.--Nomen Nescio 13:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euphemism 

message: I am rendering an opinion on Wikipedia for the first time, so I apologize if I offend any sensibilities, it is merely due to my naivete. Here is my opinion on this page. Most other wiki articles are well organized with specific paragraphs related to definable topics. The section on "post 9/11" scrolls down for multiple, multiple rambling paragraphs. Further, the bulk of the topic has no coherent flow, introduction, or conclusion. Also, for an encyclopedia, the section on "examples" contains well too many, the author should instead reference websites where information can be gathered. Thinking of it like this, I believe the whole article should be trimmed to essential facts and established information, beyond just opinions.
Also, for such a well documented "fact" how come the links page has so few knowledgeable links. For example,  Guantanamo Bay Cuba has a number of well documented sources, and fairly clearly shows waht the base is for. In my opinion, the extreme number of citations actually obscures the fact the "extraordinary rendition" has only a small number of sources. michael, user:24.55.42.125, contrib
:You are wrong. Not only are there numerous sources, among them you will find many reputable newspapers and international organisations. I fail to see how that is insufficient sourcing, and why you think they are not "knowledgeable." Please read them before continuing this red herring.--Nomen Nescio 02:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Insufficient sources

message: This sentence is a problem "In a number of cases, suspects to whom the procedure is believed to have been applied later appeared to be innocent." First of all, since this is an extra-judicial process they are all innocent (i.e. innocent until proven guilty) and secondly "later appeared to be innocent" makes it sound like they were a bit guilty-looking earlier and now they look as if they might be innocent. There's an important point buried here (that at least some of the rendered persons have done nothing to warrant their mistreatment) but its a tricky thing to phrase. --Lee Hunter 12:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment is noted, yet how does one stress that the Bush administration, although stating over and over again these were the worse of the worse people, had to release prisoners because they have nothing to do with terrorism? P.S. It is evident the current administration thinks that one is guilty untill proven innocent.--Nomen Nescio 17:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Appeared to be innocent?

message: Why the term "extraordinary rendition"? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rendition is the normal legal process of sending someone from one jurisdiction to another. I suppose the "extraordinary" indicates that they are bypassing the court system. A polite way of saying "kidnapping".  --Lee Hunter 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: JohnC, I don't understand your comment that "This explanation is not entirely correct, since the purpose of rendition is not to allow foreign governments to interrogate individuals, but to allow American agencies to interrogate individuals outside the jurisdiction of American courts." Do you disagree with the phrase "hand over"? Furthermore, there is AFAIK some uncertainty whether the victims of extraordinary rendition are being interrogated by US intelligence agents or by nationals of the destination countries. Coiuld you clarify your comment some further? Thanks. Kosebamse 07:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology, again 

message: The article says:
::Rendition is an extension of a long-standing policy of confining political prisoners to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba,
I've heard of certain prisoners being kept at Guantanamo by since 2001.  To be a "long-standing policy", obviously it would have to be far, far older than that.  Is it?  If so, is there an account of that practice on Wikipedia?  Or if not on Wikipedia, where?  Michael Hardy 19:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Long-standing"?

message: I just added a reference to the new Amnesty International report linked on the front page but unsourced here.  The footnote format is really confusing.  How about switching to the new system where the footnote info is in-line with the article?    Btw, the press release for the AI report is here: .  Maybe someone can add it.  Phr 09:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: First of all, I think that this article is a pretty good example of what Wikipedia is capable of – lots of voices, each with their own POV, getting together to produce an article that is pretty close to being NPOV.  (Let's face it – it's hard to be NPOV on torture.  My concern about it is pragmatic and addressed in the article – most people being tortured are eventually going to "give up" not necessarily the facts for which they are presumably being tortured, but whatever it is that they think that their captors want to hear, not necessarily the same thing, and potentially a pretty horrific basis upon which to make tactical decisions.)
Here's my question, insignificant though it may be.  Even though this is a long article, and a many-faceted one with many contriubtors, it would be best served by having a stylistic consistency throughout.  While this is not possible throughout an international effort like Wikipedia, and this is an article of international import, could we have an agreement for US vs. European date style, etc., within the article?  Also, what is the consensus about Wikifying dates, years, etc.?  At present it seems to be fairly random; I've always felt that once at the first reference is sufficient, but know that I am hardly the be-all-and-end-all.  I know, though, that Wikifying months, (i.e. December), is pretty useless, espeically when it appears to be done aribitraily and randomly.  This isn't meant to be ntipicking, but based on my belief that Wikipedia can be and is, at its best, a world-class reference work.  Rlquall 12:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colaborative effort &ndash; Style 

message: Acoording to the dutch news television.
At 4 april 2006 Amnesty international told they have more proof of this.
Some people who where captured and moved secretly to different locations.
Had been interviewed by Amnesty, some intresting information was told.
The moved people describes diferences in daylight changes aftes flight.
It was on televesion conluded that this happen when you change longitude (up / or down the axis of the earth. Guatanomobay to (up) polen, or down to irak where they had been released.
Intresting also they told they noticed summertime change.
In some european countries they change their clock a hour ahead in the summer.
/\/\/\
Why would they notice changes in daylight from moving longitude.  My guess is that their watches will be removed so they will only notice the length of the day rather than when it starts/finishes.  I think they are more likely to notice a change in latitude as Cuba has a short twilight period whereas Eastern Europe has a much longer one.
Anon user 21:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I think that was the wrong way around :P, I see what you mean the first poster confused me by saying longitude and then up/down... -- Sfnhltb 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Proof?" Subjection is not proof. Proof requires some sort of veribility. What AI has presented is a press release, nothing even coming close to proof.... This isn't evidence, this is more guesswork. Kyaa the Catlord 06:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amnesty international found proof. 

message: This article would benefit from using the cite.php extension for referencing. This way, there won't be "broken" reference links like have appeared in this article. You can find instructions on how to use it in Wikipedia:References. --Michiel Sikma 06:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but this still needs cleanup vis-à-vis use of things like . —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Many of the "sources" for this article are poor. OP/ED and "analysis" articles are not sources, and while newspapers are better, they are not primary sources. Let me let that soak for a bit, before I go in and mark up this article. Dominick (TALK) 12:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To call the several victims that testified, and the numerous human rights organisations merely conjecture is of course odd to say the least. Beyond that, feel free to change any assertion of fact when it should be called opinion. Nomen Nescio 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OP ED articles are not sources 

message: What is HCA? Ben 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HCA 

message: OK, I understand this article covers a contentious subject. But, if we tag an article with an "NPOV" violation tag, the person who places it should make a good faith effort to assist in redacting the components felt to violate this policy, or, at least list the specific components that need fixing. If I'm reading the Talk right, this article has been marked with the violation tag since July of 2005 (please correct me if I'm wrong). Articles shouldn't be tagged non-NPOV forever. So, I'd like to initiate substantive discussion of how we can fix this article (if it needs fixing), only mark individual sections that need work as non-NPOV, or remove the tag entirely.
Hey, if the Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Terrorism articles can be NPOV, surely this one can. :) --NightMonkey 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thanks, whoever did the good work. :) --NightMonkey 09:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets get this article out of dispute 

message: He does not belong in the see also. He may have been kidnapped, but contrary to victims of extraordinary rendition he did have his day in court. The principal problem with ER is that nobody has been and will be tried, the procedure is meant to keep these abductions from scrutiny by a judge. Nomen Nescio 13:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eichman

message: The first bullet item in 'Examples' reads like a quotation - but there are no quotation marks and nobody is credited with saying it - hence it reads like Wikipedia is saying that - which is clearly untrue!  Needs fixing. SteveBaker 18:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples section broken. 

message: I think it is important to note that extraordinary rendition is governed by the UN Convention Against Torture. The construction (legal definition of the document) of the UNCAT as it applies to the United States governs the substantive portion of this Wikipedia entry, which is (to narrow it down): does extraordinary rendition (by the US) violate international law (the UNCAT)??? This question is not easy to answer (mostly b/c the US Supreme Court has not yet given meaning to the language of the UNCAT). However, much light can be shed on the discussion by looking at the UNCAT as adopted and ratified by the USA. The US has ratified the UNCAT, with one restriction. That restriction is that the Convention does not require or authorize legislation (policies) that are in conflict w/ the US Constitution as interpreted by the US. This rather confusing language is a standard 'boilerplate' clause the US inserts to virtually all international treaties it ratifies to ensure that the US Constitution's meaning (as interpreted by the only brach of US government with that power - the US Supreme Court) is not altered by its treaty obligations to other nations. The effect of this clause is to limit the UNCAT (as ratified by the US) to the US Supreme Court's interpretation of it. Because the UNCAT cannot conflict w/ the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court (which determines what the constitution means) has effective control over the construction of the UNCAT. Therefore, it is up to the US Supreme Court, not Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch or even the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (or its special rapporteur for torture) to decide what the UNCAT means, how it applies to the US, and if extraordinary rendition to third countries violates the treaty. 128.239.220.38 21:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNCAT and its construction 

message: We need to define torture. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch's definition of torture may vary considerably from the definition of torture used in the governing international convention (the United Nations Convention Against Torture - UNCAT). UNCAT defines torture as "severe pain and suffering". Therefore lesser degrees of pain and suffering are not considered torture under the UNCAT definition. This includes cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. We must read the law dispassionately and not inject our views. 128.239.220.38 03:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition of torture 

message: This leads to nowhere. Does anyone know where to find the article supposedly containing the material cited under this reference? If not, this "example" must be removed. Kyaa the Catlord 14:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... trouble with the fancy links system eh? Merecat 05:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cited source #46

message: Can the editor that placed the tag alleging bias, point out what sentence exactly is POV? Simply tagging without explaining what needs to be done is useless. Nomen Nescio 12:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: obviously, if the links are that important to you, feel free to check and relocate them yourself. That people are kidnapped is based on testimony and flightrecords. Admittedly, no judge has ruled on it (and never will because even if true, no court will ever indict the US administration) but to call it POV is saying that a rape victim is voicing POV by accusing her attacker. Nomen Nescio 12:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your lack of concern over the verifiability of this article is... disturbing. I placed the check template because I'm uncertain how to proceed. This article, as it stands, nearly requires a complete rewrite due to its linking being all over the place. I placed the check template rather than doing something more drastic, like calling for its deletion. I feel this could be a worthwhile article, but it has problems. Rather than attacking my decision to call for it being checked, you could take that time to consider my reasoning. Kyaa the Catlord 12:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I support Kyaa on this one.Merecat 00:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Please show what statement you think needs a reference by placing the cite tag there." Nomen Nescio 14:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Here's a proposal. It's just that, a proposal, but I think it would get us off to a start. Please, don't edit it inline, if you have an alternate proposal either list your proposed changes or write up your own proposal. That way, this remains readable. Thanks.
===High level goals===
*Remove all "It was also said", "Critics have accused", "argument [...] made by defenders", etc. Essentially remove all weasel words and replace with statements that are not only cited through links and refs, but actually explain who makes the claims inline.
*Re-organize the text into a single article that reads like a typical Wikipedia article according to the Wikipedia style guidelines.
*Prevent "but we say", "but they say", "so then we say back" sorts of sections. Replace with well worded descriptions of the groups involved and their specific assertions. Avoid inline debate where possible.
===Outline===
;Intro :A short paragraph explaining the origin and meaning of the term and a very short overview of the timeline (one or two sentences). Citations: one or two on the definition, no "exposés".
;History :The history of extraordinary rendition from the start.
:;1990s :The Clintion rendition policies and directives. Merge "examples" into inline prose or move to examples section later to reduce front-loading of (I'm sorry to say this given the nature of the incidents) trivial information. Discuss sources more.
:;9/11 :Again, remove "Critics argue, however" sorts of statements. Focus on timeline, publications that broke stories, etc. Just the history. Go from 9/11 up to the invasion of Afghanistan. Reduce footnotes to just the most relevant. Again, move examples to examples section or merge inline.
:;Afghanistan :Events that occured or publications that impacted the public knowledge between the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq.
:;Iraq :Events and publications that follow the invasion of Iraq.
;Reporting :A focus on the reporting. More detail on those publications that have brought information to light and the organizations (e.g. AI) which have brought information forward.
;Treaty obligations :This section is quite good as it stands, IMHO.
;US politics :Information where the process stands today in the U.S. What laws are in effect, what is the current executive stance.
;Other countries :Make the text a bit tighter and re-write a bit so that it flows as a coherent thought. Make sure all footnotes are on-topic for what they are footnoting. Otherwise good.
;Examples :Move all examples that are not merged into inline history to here.
;See also :Merge some of these links into the body where possible.
;References and notes :Some of these should be external links, not inline references. Move as needed.
;External links :Could use some weeding. Redundancy is bad, as it slows research.
===Comments===
Please, let me know what you think. If there's substantial support, I'll see what I can do. If there isn't ... well, I'm not going to ram it down anyone's throat. -Harmil 21:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed cleanup 

message: Please, let me know what you think. If there's substantial support, I'll see what I can do. If there isn't ... well, I'm not going to ram it down anyone's throat. -Harmil 21:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Due to recent revelations from EU officials, I propose (and will conduct) an edit of this article to reflect these circumstances: 
"Investigations into reports that US agents shipped prisoners through European airports to secret detention centers have produced no evidence of illegal CIA activities, the European Union's antiterrorism coordinator said yesterday"See 
The lead EU investigator was asked by an EU committee:
"We've heard all kinds of allegations, impressions; we've heard also refutations. It's up to your committee to weigh if they are true."See 
Gijs de Vries replied unequivocally
"There has not been, to my knowledge, evidence that these illegal renditions have taken place."See 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.220.38 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 5 May 2006
:Adding such quotes would be reasonable, but altering existing information in preference for these new comments would seem to be a tad revisionist, no? -Harmil 14:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, keep in mind that that information was already added, though perhaps it could be expanded.  -Harmil 14:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to the Information memorandum II on the alleged secret detentions in Council of Europe state, rapported by Swiss Senator Dick Marty, January 22 2006. Please also see Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, for which Italy has asked the US to extradite 22 CIA agents. If this is not illegal, than what is? Tazmaniacs 18:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you give me source that Marty's report had "no basis in fact". He had access to satellite photos and confidential information, you know? Tazmaniacs 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Problems with this article 

message: See discussion here. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This report contains lots of interesting new evidence, heres the link http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2006/20060606_Ejdoc162006PartII-FINAL.pdf
it strengthens the alligations made against the specific countries involved and points out which countries did what according the council of europe report. I'm reading it now i'll post more in a bit.Hypnosadist 12:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry to duplicate Hypnosadist - we must have both been writing our entries at the same time DavidP
No problem david,
From the conclusion
284. It must be emphasised that this report is indeed addressed to the Council of Europe Member states. The United States, an observer state of our Organisation, actually created this reprehensible network, which we criticise in light of the values shared on both sides of the Atlantic. But we also believe to have established that it is only through the intentional or grossly negligent collusion of the European partners that this “web” was able to spread also over Europe.
285. The impression which some Governments tried to create at the beginning of this debate – that Europe was a victim of secret CIA plots – does not seem to correspond to reality. It is now clear – although we are still far from having established the whole truth - that authorities in several European countries actively participated with the CIA in these unlawful activities. Other countries ignored them knowingly, or did not want to know.
Lots more good stuff in the report for the articals on each individual extraordinary rendition extant in europe. Lets talk about which quotes and references need changeing due to this 2nd draft report.Hypnosadist 14:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7th june council of europe report

message: Dick marty is a member of Swiss Council of States. David your edit was incomplete as dick marty is refered to as senitor several more times in the artical, once in the intro as such. I'm going to change all refs i find to councillor but could someone who knows how link the first use of councillor in the intro to point to Swiss Council of States so that we can uber accurate. This is a common error in the Press and it would be great to be more accurate than BBC.Hypnosadist 15:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dick Marty is a councillor not a senitor

message: Why is there an abuse template on this page? Typos 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the abuse template is here as gitmo is viewed by most of the world as an abusive detention centre.Hypnosadist 09:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You will hear no quibble from me. Gitmo and the black sites are abusive. However, extraordinary rendition is only tangentially related to abuse. (That is, its primary purpose is to imprison and interrogate suspected terrorists; the abuse is not an end in intself.) If we had a template related specifically to human rights abuses, it would fit in the article, but this template is too broad. Typos 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse Template 

message: Extraordinary rendition is clearly part of the war on terror, in fact that is the justification of ER. I'm going to put this back in, if ER needs adding to the template then it should be done. Lets discuss this here as to why it should not be on this page.Hypnosadist 12:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War on terror template

message: Researching this story to put into this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5149464.stm  .Hypnosadist 08:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrests in Italy

message: I find the wording of this bit of the intro "Reportedly, in a number of cases (such as Khalid el-Masri) the practice of "extraordinary rendition" has been applied to innocent civilians," very POV. Has ANYONE been the subject of ER and sucessfully prosecuted in a court? If not then everyone who has been ER'd are innocent civilians.Hypnosadist 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph should include the term "torture by proxy" (as it did earlier in the year) because it is in common usage for "extraordinary rendition". A Google search returns about 23,600 English pages for "Torture by Proxy" and the footnotes to the article have a number of prominent new media using the expression. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV intro

message: This page discusses El-Masri's case as an (alleged) example of "extraordinary rendition".  But El-Masri was reportedly sent to the salt pit, which was reportedly a place run by the CIA.  My understanding is that "extraordinary rendition" (or "erroneous rendition") is a term used to describe transfers of people from US custody into the custody of other governments for imprisonment and/or interrogation by the other government.  This does not sound like what happened here.  It seems that he was reportedly captured by US forces in Macedonia, transported by US forces to Afghanistan, held by US forces in Afghanistan, and then dumped off by US forces in Albania.  Since all of that involved US custody, how is that rendition?  Can rendition be just moving someone around under your own control, or does it need to involve handing them over into someone else's control? —Wookipedian 03:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are cases like [[Khalid el-Masri]]'s properly referred to as ER?