Talk:Extraordinary rendition/Archive 3

message: Does the person who placed this tag (or anyone else for that matter) have any actual specific bits they want to change as i feel this tag has to go if no arguements are put forward to support it.Hypnosadist 11:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Npov tag

message: This passage reads in part, "Agiza was charged with being an Islamic militant."  I doubt you'll find the charge of "Being an Islamic militant" in the criminal law of any country, so the question remains: what, precisely, was he charged and convicted of?  --Rrburke 02:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[Extraordinary_rendition#Examples_2|Example]] of Ahmed Agiza

message: The second item listed under "examples" in the "1990s" section is not properly sourced- the source link, 17, leads back to what seems to be the New yorker magazine main page. Considering the inflammatory nature of this section, especially the Al Gore quote, I think it needs to be removed until it is properly sourced. --Duckflesh 06:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Gore quote, 1990s examples

message: This sentence makes no sense:  This number of a hundred persons does not overlap, but adds itself to the U.S. detained 100 ghost detainees.[5]  I'd fix it but I don't know what it's trying to tell me.
Sugarbat 05:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Several edits for clarity needed; also some proofing for punctuation 

message: Grey's book seems to have two different titles: "the true story" (US?) and "the inside story" (UK?). Are the two versions different or is it just a subtitle difference? See Chalmers Johnson's review in the London review of Book (also provides very interesting information about plane spotting): http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n03/john04_.html -- Typewritten 16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grey's Ghost Plane's subtitle 

message: Putting this here for now- it's mostly about torture, not so much about ex.rend, isn't it? Kaisershatner 19:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Extraordinary renditions have a clear link to torture. Should be included. Please discuss before removal of text on controversial articles. Thanks. Tazmaniacs 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reposted into article.  My apologies. Kaisershatner 20:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Torture section

message: Although the section on pre-11 S extraordinary rendition is certainly interesting, I wholly disagree with putting references to it in the intro, and it should be stated clearly that the concept & word of "ER" was created post-11 S. That Wikipedians find realities that correspond to this concept before the juridical and mediatic concept of it existed, very well, but it is OR to conflate it, without any distance, with ER. The questionable passage in the intro is the following one:
The first well-known rendition case involved the Achille Lauro hijackers in 1985: while in international air space they were forced by United States Navy fighter planes to land at a European NATO base, in an attempt to place them within judicial reach of United States Government representatives for transport to and trial in the United States.  The practice later expanded to include the deportation or expulsion into United States custody of persons in foreign countries deemed to be enemy aliens or terrorists. The CIA was granted permission to use rendition in a presidential directive signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995.Presidential directive PDD 39, 1995. The practice has grown sharply since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and now includes a form where suspects are taken into US custody but delivered to a third-party state, often without ever being on American soil. Because such cases do not involve the rendering country's judiciary, they have been termed extraordinary rendition.  Tazmaniacs 19:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved the AL passage into background.  The concept of ER comes from the legal area of rendition.  And it's a terrorist case.  Both of these make it relevant to the idea of ER.  However, I agree that it doesn't need to be in the intro; I didn't realize that the AL thing didn't qualify as ER.  I do think the history of its inception under Clinton and then usage after 11S as you put it are relevant details for the intro. 20:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ER before the letter: Original research? 

message: Please be careful with massive changes, in particular with the introduction (diff). I wholly disagree with some of these changes, for example 
*changing: "Extraordinary rendition is a United States extra-judicial procedure which involves the sending of untried criminal suspects," to "In the United States, extraordinary rendition is an extra-judicial procedure in which individual suspected terrorists or criminals are transferred to countries", for the simple reason that ER don't happen only in the US, but all over the world.
:"in the United States" is meant to refer to the fact that it is an American innovation or process, not the geography of where it occurs. 
*mentioning in intro passage on Achille Lauro (see above Talk subsection). You are conflating "rendition case" with "extraordinary rendition" and this article is on ER. In fact, you have removed the legitimate passage stating that "Although rendition is not new, the current US policy of "extraordinary rendition" appears to be different in nature, and its usage as a tool in the US-led "war on terror" to apprehend suspected terrorists, but not place them before a court of law, is new [ref: Raymond Bonner: The CIA's Secret Torture. The New York Review Of Books, January 11, 2007 ] 
:The introduction should provide context for this subject.  ER was not invented out of thin air, and  appears to be derived from the idea of "rendition," and has precedent to some degree in the WOT due to the Achille Lauro events.  The next sentence (the one you say I deleted but that is in the middle of the introduction) provides context, that there is a difference between ER and previous types of "rendition."
*On the other hand, I don't see nothing to disagree with the section which someone thought you deleted but that in fact you placed in the intro (except maybe getting the intro too long, but giving the figures is a good thing).
*The section titled "Controversy on torture" should be kept.
:As noted below, I will put it back, but I still think it is tangential.  Of course, I could be wrong, I often am. Kaisershatner 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of those paras are still there.  20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted, I have not removed sourced text (other than the torture section, to Talk). Kaisershatner 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: You might want to read again Wikipedia:Editing policy#Major changes: "But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change." Tazmaniacs 19:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if my changes are too fast.  I will try to be more sensitive.  However, I haven't deleted any of the things you mention.  I will reinstate the torture section if that is a major problem. Kaisershatner 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two passages you note are both in the first section; references 13 and 6 I believe. Kaisershatner 19:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. Thanks for pointing it out! Well, then I don't see any major objections, just maybe this question about reformulation concerning "in the US" or "US extra-judicial procedure". I don't see any objection either to divide between "Clinton admin" and "Bush admin", as I said I think it's important to talk about pre-11 S procedures, but on the other hand, I don't think you should include that passage on the intro, as ER is a term related with the Bush administration, for the better or the worse (depends on your POV). Cheers, we can get a bit sensitive on such issues, I happen to be in front of my screen... Over all, it seems to be good work. Tazmaniacs 20:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes, in particular intro 

message: I disagree with how the first paragraph is formulated. Here it is:
In the United States, extraordinary rendition is an extra-judicial procedure in which individual suspected terrorists or criminals are transferred to countries other than the United States for imprisonment and interrogation; suspects may be apprehended but are generally not placed before a court of law.[2] Since the 1980s, the United States has increasingly turned to rendition as a judicial and extra-judicial method for dealing with foreign defendants. Although rendition for legal reasons (commonly known as extradition) is not a new concept, there are differences in the current nature and usage of US rendition policy as a tool in the US-led "war on terror."[3].
The US administration may argue that ER is a form of extradition. It is not. It is very different. The point is not only that one is juridical and the other extra-juridical — although that alone makes it very different. Extradition, which for some reasons has been called "legal rendition", which is kind of a pleonasm, is simply when a state A requests that another state B to hands over to him someone, X, who is wanted, for any sorts of juridical reasons by state A (crimes committed on state A territory, or against citizens of state A, etc.) Example: Maurice Papon fled to Switzerland during his trial, France handed out an extradition request to Switzerland, Swiss police arrested Papon in Switzerland, and handed him over to France. There, he went to prison. Now, ER is another thing. Not only that it operates beyond international law, and secretly, but the final aim is not to judge or imprison a condemned suspect, it is to have him interrogated by another country C, and then either kept and detained by this other country C (so country A doesn't need to take care of logistics of detention), or devolved again to country A after being interrogation. If you see my distinction, one has got the aim of interrogation, the other of judgement and imprisonment. One is part of the judicial & penitentiary system, the other is part of intelligence agencies' work, who are looking for information and claim that, for this, they need to operate out of judicial oversight. All in all, the two concepts should be contrasted rather than conflated (in particular by the strange use of the pleonasm "legal rendition") and I don't even see, in the first place, why we're talking about "legal rendition" in this article. ER is totally distinct from extraditions, they don't pass by the same bodies (executive/judicial, etc.), they don't have the same aims, etc. Tazmaniacs 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beside a lack of source, I really don't understand what Achille Lauro is doing here. What's the relationship? The entry only speak about a diplomatic incident between Italy & the US, because they were flown to the US base in Sicily. But why is it rendition? or ER? or extradition? Isn't is simply... capture of hijackers terrorists? To "render" someone, whether by the legal ordinary way of extradition, or by the extra-judicial way of ER, you of course first need to capture the person. So, the hijackers were captured on the (Egyptian?) ship, then flown to the US base in Sicily on an Egyptian commercial airline, then handed-out to Italy. Where did extradition, or "rendering" happen? Tazmaniacs 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: extradition, that is ordinary rendition, exists since quite a long time, much more than the 1980s and the Achille Lauro... Tazmaniacs 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ??? What does this mean: "Based in the legal concept of legal rendition, which itself has been used by the United States increasingly since the 1980s as a judicial and extra-judicial method for dealing with foreign defendants" ??? Beside a mistake of doubling "legal concept" of "legal rendition" (I assume you meant "legal concept of rendition"), how can a "legal concept" be used for "extra-judicial" purposes? Again, "legal rendition" is called extradition, ASFAIK. Tazmaniacs 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I may need your help here.  I was trying to accommodate your point that ER is not the same thing as Rendition.  Maybe it would work better as, "Although rendition has been used increasingly by the US since the 1980s...Extraordinary Rendition differs in that it entirely avoids using the legal systems of the participating countries and is therefore a wholly extrajudicial process."  Do I understand you correctly? Kaisershatner 20:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I fear we're misunderstanding ourself. I don't understand why you say "although rendition has been used increasingly by the US since the 1980s..." Please do not send me to the rendition (law) article, I don't understand a word of the point it's trying to make, and it lacks sources. Do you agree with me in that (legal) rendition is the same as extradition? If you do, then why do you insist in making it start in the 1980s? Extraditions are a very common process which have been used for a long time. For example, see the extradition of Michael Townley by Chile to the US after the assassination of former Chilean minister Orlando Letelier in Washington DC in 1969. If (legal) rendition is distinct from extradition, in what sense? A proposal: why don't we make a subsection on this talk page dedicated to a draft for the intro? Tazmaniacs 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extradition and ER: first paragraph of intro 

message: Maybe a sub with the details of each erroneous rendition case?  This article has a lot to deal with in general with the history, legal issues, torture, international political implications.  I'm not minimizing the terrible nature of these apparent mistakes, but maybe two paras about them in general with a list of names, and the rest into a subarticle?  The ER article as a whole is rather large. Kaisershatner 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, again, sorry to disappoint you, but I don't agree. It is a very bad habit on Wikipedia to want to distinguish "theory" from "practice", as if that would be possible. How can one understand what ER are if they don't see specific cases? I am a very pragmatic-type of person: I believe only in facts, and theoretical musings only interest me insofar as they translate themselves in fact (which they almost always do:). You could create an article about "erroneous rendition", but what would you put in it? Apart of a problem in Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, as "erroneous rendition" tend to accredit the thesis that they are "normal extraordinary rendition" (which, you will agree with me, poses sort of a logical problem). If by "erroneous rendition" you mean "innocent" people who were subject to ER, well you would only be left with the few specific cases, in particular the German citizen, Khalid Masri I believe he's called. But this article is not about "theory" of ER, it is about the procedures of ER which have been implemented by the US, in particular by the CIA, in cooperation with other European intelligence agencies (something which should be pointed out, but let's solve things one by one). The problem is not about whether the subjects of ER were "innocents" or "guilty", but the fact that this procedure is illegal by international law standards. This may, or not, be justified because of the threat of Islamic terrorism. But that's not the problem; the problem is, if you let me put a quick definition here, which we could discuss the formulation together (I have no pretention in finding a consensual decision in two seconds): "ER is an extra-judicial procedure used by the US, and in particular by the CIA, to transfer to third-party countries persons detained in the frame of the "War on Terror" declared by the Bush administration since the 11-S attacks. The aim is to have third-party countries, mainly, but not only, in the Middle East, detain and interrogate these detainees, which are kept outside of national or international juridiction, thus qualifying as ghost detainees. They may, or not, be devolved to the US after interrogation. Critics point out that a number of the subjects of such ER have testified being tortured in those later countries, and interrogated by various intelligence agents, including some of their own countries (here I'm already going too far for consensus, but it is a fairly known fact). To the contrary, supporters claim that extraordinary measures are need to confront the threat of Islamic terrorism." You see, I don't refer anywhere in this quick attempt to define ER to "(legal) rendition" because extradition and ER simply have nothing to do in common. Again, putting it in constitutional terms, ER is done by executive bodies, while extradition is done by judicial bodies (to put it quickly, but precisely). What's your thought?Tazmaniacs 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could create a subarticle with the list of ALL cases of ER, and another for the EU's reaction to this whole thing which is starting to pick up pace. A subarticle for so called erroneous rendition would be very POV as it implys that all the others a correctly held. Hypnosadist 02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Taz, right now my thoughts are "wow, it's going to take me another hour just to parse through your thoughts."  I will have to take this up tomorrow at the earliest.  At least this time I asked before unilaterally moving everything around. ;0 Kaisershatner 03:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, got through it.  I like your version, I would adjust the wording here and there but fundamentally I think it is good and based on what I have learned it seems to represent an accurate view of ER.  Regarding "rendition," "extradition," and the Achille Lauro, I still think that stuff should be in the first section after the intro as background, even if it is to make a distinction rather than a comparison between ER and the preceding techniques used by the US against terrorists or international suspects.  Kaisershatner 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taz, I too like your suggested text, but you might want to (I hate this phrase) "dumb it down" a little bit. It reads like legalese, and a lay reader doing research (ie, a high school or early college kid) isn't going to find that useful. Sad but true. I think we need to say everything you said, but just in a bit more layman's terms. Hope that doesn't offend! Akradecki 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subarticle

message: All right, since you guys have given me a go-ahead, for which I thank you, before immediately editing, I prefered to take some time to submit to you a draft of a complete introduction, which gives, according to me, all the basic and most important factual information, as well as an understanding of the political issues at stake, in particular concerning international relations (without engaging in moral or ideological debate, which I believe is best left to a section concerned with "Commentaries", this in accordance with the classic tradition of US journalism.) Let me know what you think about it, and again, I thank you and am pleased to work, for once, on a controversial entry without engaging in tiring debates which leads nowhere... I hope this is consensual enough for everyone, and really think it is worthwhile to take some time to agree on an introduction, as this can enable us, if we've agreed to it, to keep the introduction stable over time and discuss, in the future, any substantive change to it. Finally, I've tried to take into account Akradecki's totally reasonable comment, although my notion of what a high school student easily understand is not necessarily correct :). Over all, as always, the problem is to balance clarity with precise and legitimate explanation, and respect the rule to simplify the most without engaging in simplification of the reality. I hope this achieves the aim; if it doesn't, we just need to see which part may pose a problem for the lay-man who hasn't followed the subject so much, and explain it better. Cheers to you guys! Tazmaniacs 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I agree with your corrections, except the part which omits the "Bush administration". Not because of POV, but because clearly almost every one correctly links this to the Bush administration, and I think we need to make differences between various governments (eitherwise, you quickly go into the pseudo-rhetorics of claiming that "Bush administration" = "US state" = "US people" which is the pseudo-equation on which anti-Americanism is based on.) I will accept your leaving out the last paragraph about the Imam Rapito, although I sincerely think it is one of the most important part concerning this program, since it is, as the press all over the world has reported, the first trial concerning ER. IMO, the reader shouldn't have to read 80 lines before learning the existence of this trial (which might never take place, but that's another story). However, if you insist, and others support you, on nixing it in the intro, I will go with general consensus. Tazmaniacs 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Akradecki 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only (incredibly minor) change I might suggest is switching "until now" in the Imam Rapito paragraph to "thus far".  "Until now" seems to suggest that extradition warrants, as of now, have, in fact, been issued by the Italian government.  As far as I am aware, this is not the case.  Ford MF 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tazmaniacs both the "Bush administration" needs to be added but not for his reasons and the Imam Rapito paragraph must stay. Hypnosadist 19:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, shall we agree in including the "Bush version" and the "Imam Rapito" affair because of its importance concerning both ER program, its qualification as a "perfect example of ER" by Dick Marty, which provides some basic of a real ER operation without having to cite many names of other people? Beside, it shows that this affair does not concerns only the US, but also European states, which is an information which the not well-informed reader will surely overlook? Maybe KS will want to modify some formulation of it? Tazmaniacs 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see the merits of specifically associating ER with the Bush Administration.  If we are adding a third paragraph I would argue for the "critics and supporters" para we have omitted above.  Regarding Imam Rapito, I think as written it is the argument from authority.  The POV of "Dick Marty," should not be highlighted in the para or intro, IMO.  If you/we want to include mention of the incident as an especially notable or typical example of ER, then that may be ok, but I would change the paragraph substantially, maybe something more like,An example of ER and its political and legal repercussions is the "Imam Rapito affair," in which Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka Abu Omar), a member of the violent organization al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, considered a terrorist group by the United States, European Union, and Egyptian government, was kidnapped in a joint CIA-SISMI operation in Milan on February 17, 2003, before being transferred to the Aviano Air Base and finally rendered to Egypt; he claims he was tortured both on the Aviano Base and in Egypt.  The investigating Italian Justice has sent extradition requests for 26 US citizens who have been indicted, including 25 CIA agents, to the Italian Ministry of Justice.  The chief of the SISMI, General Nicolò Pollari, as well as his second Marco Mancini, have been forced to resign and were subsequently indicted in the end of 2006 by the Italian justice.".  I have also added some context about this Abu Omar person and his affiliations.  Kaisershatner 14:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hyponsadist, thanks for your reply.  I would refer you to WP:AGF, and possibly WP:NPA.  I'm doing my best to improve the article.  If you have better sourcing, I'm sure we would all welcome it.  I will do what I can to substantiate the claim, as it is I pasted it from the WP article- shame on me for using WP as my source, I guess.  "Joint CIA-SISMI" - if that is inaccurate, it is based on my misunderstanding of the facts.  Was this guy held at an Italian prison by the CIA acting alone?  I'm just asking.  And why is the US POV of the abduction met with your skepticism, but the victim/target's assertions are accepted without question?  Is it my POV or yours?  Kaisershatner 19:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See also, from the Rapito affair article:"On 5 July 2006 two high-ranking Italian intelligence officers were arrested by Italian police for their alleged complicity in Abu Omar's kidnapping. These included Marco Mancini, number 2 of SISMI, Italy's military intelligence agency, and Gustavo Pignero, the agency's chief for the northern region of Italy. Italian wiretaps caught Mancini admitting that he had lied about his involvement in the abduction case.[15] These arrests signaled the first official admission that Italian intelligence agents were involved in the abduction. Additionally, the former head of SISMI's Milan office, Col. Stefano D'Ambrosio, claims that he was removed from his position by his superiors because of his objections to the abduction plot; he was later replaced by Mancini.[15]  Thus, public prosecutors Armando Spataro and Pomarici have described the abduction as "a concerted CIA-SISMI operation" organized by "Italian and American agents" with the aim of the "capture" and "secret transfer" of the imam to Egypt[16]"  thanks, Kaisershatner 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypnosadist, I strongly urge you to moderate your language. Kaiser, I propose, for now (we can still edit anyway and continue the discussion here) to include the draft as we have agreed, that is, if I'm not confused, including the "Bush administration", and provisionally excluding the Imam Rapito affair so we can take some more time to work it out. Concerning this last affair, I will first point out, having read the Italian press about it, that yes, it was a concerted SISMI-CIA operation, and yes, SISMI agents did participate in the abduction, as did one junior Carabinieri officer (who appears, ASFAIK, to have been manipulated in thinking that he was doing some kind of test, which, if he succeeded, would allow him to become a member of the SISMI - lots of Italians seem to have a fascination for secret services - which, funnily enough - a bit of humor won't kill us here!, the Italian press refers to as ... 007 !). I will look it up, but I think Abu Omar's membership to the Jammaa al-Islamiya is subject to caution, although we could certainly added that he was suspected of it. It is, however, much least subject to caution that he was a radical Islamist (which is not necessarily a synonym of "terrorist" - and I'm not saying that trying to defend fundamentalists for which I feel no sympathy at all). I will, right now, edit the paragraphs we've agreed on, just reverse me if anything poses problem, all right? Tazmaniacs 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have included the second version, changing alleged membership to al-Gam'a al-Islamiyya (unsure; the Egyptian court judged his detention "unfounded" and he was not indicted either in Italy), to radical Islamist cleric. Tazmaniacs 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft of introduction 

message: Taz, I would cut the last paragraph entirely- the one case should be in the body of the article IMO and the intro is getting long.  I made some wording changes:
"Extraordinary rendition (ER) is a term used to describe an extra-judicial procedure conducted by the United States government, and in particular by the Central Intelligence Agency, to transfer to third-party states persons who are considered by the CIA to have some intelligence value (i.e. of possessing information either concerning terrorist organizations or knowing facts about past or planned operations by such groups) in the frame of the "War on Terror" since the September 11, 2001 attacks.  declared by the Bush administration  The aim is to have other countries, mainly, but not only, in the Middle East, detain and interrogate these detainees, outside of national or international juridiction. These unregistered "ghost detainees" may, or not, be devolved to the United States government after interrogation.
According to a June 2006 report from the Council of Europe, directed by Swiss senator Dick Marty, and titled "Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states," about a hundred persons had been kidnapped by the CIA on European territory and subsequently rendered to other countries, often after having transited through "black sites" (i.e. secret detention centers used by the CIA). In an investigative report published by The New Yorker in February 2005, journalist Jane Mayer cited Scott Horton, an expert on international law who helped prepare a report on extraordinary renditions issued by N.Y.U. Law School and the New York City Bar Association, as estimating that 150 people have been rendered since 2001.[6] Although Egypt allegedly has been the most common destination, individuals have been rendered to other countries, such as Jordan, Syria, Morocco, and Uzbekistan.[7] 
The US program of extraordinary rendition has raised moral, judicial, and international issues, prompting official investigations in the European Union (EU) concerning citizens of member states or foreigners illegally abducted on European territory, the use of "black sites," and the transit of CIA flights on European territory during the execution of the various extraordinary rendition cases. Defenders of the practice argue that culturally-informed and native-language interrogations are more successful in gaining information from suspects [11].  According to the European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The report adopted by a vast majority of the EU Parliament concluded that many member states tolerated illegal actions of the CIA including secret flights over their territory. Furthermore, it denounced the lack of cooperation with the EU investigation on the extraordinary rendition program from several European governments and intelligence agencies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaisershatner (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I agree with your corrections, except the part which omits the "Bush administration". Not because of POV, but because clearly almost every one correctly links this to the Bush administration, and I think we need to make differences between various governments (eitherwise, you quickly go into the pseudo-rhetorics of claiming that "Bush administration" = "US state" = "US people" which is the pseudo-equation on which anti-Americanism is based on.) I will accept your leaving out the last paragraph about the Imam Rapito, although I sincerely think it is one of the most important part concerning this program, since it is, as the press all over the world has reported, the first trial concerning ER. IMO, the reader shouldn't have to read 80 lines before learning the existence of this trial (which might never take place, but that's another story). However, if you insist, and others support you, on nixing it in the intro, I will go with general consensus. Tazmaniacs 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Akradecki 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only (incredibly minor) change I might suggest is switching "until now" in the Imam Rapito paragraph to "thus far".  "Until now" seems to suggest that extradition warrants, as of now, have, in fact, been issued by the Italian government.  As far as I am aware, this is not the case.  Ford MF 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tazmaniacs both the "Bush administration" needs to be added but not for his reasons and the Imam Rapito paragraph must stay. Hypnosadist 19:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, shall we agree in including the "Bush version" and the "Imam Rapito" affair because of its importance concerning both ER program, its qualification as a "perfect example of ER" by Dick Marty, which provides some basic of a real ER operation without having to cite many names of other people? Beside, it shows that this affair does not concerns only the US, but also European states, which is an information which the not well-informed reader will surely overlook? Maybe KS will want to modify some formulation of it? Tazmaniacs 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see the merits of specifically associating ER with the Bush Administration.  If we are adding a third paragraph I would argue for the "critics and supporters" para we have omitted above.  Regarding Imam Rapito, I think as written it is the argument from authority.  The POV of "Dick Marty," should not be highlighted in the para or intro, IMO.  If you/we want to include mention of the incident as an especially notable or typical example of ER, then that may be ok, but I would change the paragraph substantially, maybe something more like,An example of ER and its political and legal repercussions is the "Imam Rapito affair," in which Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka Abu Omar), a member of the violent organization al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, considered a terrorist group by the United States, European Union, and Egyptian government, was kidnapped in a joint CIA-SISMI operation in Milan on February 17, 2003, before being transferred to the Aviano Air Base and finally rendered to Egypt; he claims he was tortured both on the Aviano Base and in Egypt.  The investigating Italian Justice has sent extradition requests for 26 US citizens who have been indicted, including 25 CIA agents, to the Italian Ministry of Justice.  The chief of the SISMI, General Nicolò Pollari, as well as his second Marco Mancini, have been forced to resign and were subsequently indicted in the end of 2006 by the Italian justice.".  I have also added some context about this Abu Omar person and his affiliations.  Kaisershatner 14:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hyponsadist, thanks for your reply.  I would refer you to WP:AGF, and possibly WP:NPA.  I'm doing my best to improve the article.  If you have better sourcing, I'm sure we would all welcome it.  I will do what I can to substantiate the claim, as it is I pasted it from the WP article- shame on me for using WP as my source, I guess.  "Joint CIA-SISMI" - if that is inaccurate, it is based on my misunderstanding of the facts.  Was this guy held at an Italian prison by the CIA acting alone?  I'm just asking.  And why is the US POV of the abduction met with your skepticism, but the victim/target's assertions are accepted without question?  Is it my POV or yours?  Kaisershatner 19:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See also, from the Rapito affair article:"On 5 July 2006 two high-ranking Italian intelligence officers were arrested by Italian police for their alleged complicity in Abu Omar's kidnapping. These included Marco Mancini, number 2 of SISMI, Italy's military intelligence agency, and Gustavo Pignero, the agency's chief for the northern region of Italy. Italian wiretaps caught Mancini admitting that he had lied about his involvement in the abduction case.[15] These arrests signaled the first official admission that Italian intelligence agents were involved in the abduction. Additionally, the former head of SISMI's Milan office, Col. Stefano D'Ambrosio, claims that he was removed from his position by his superiors because of his objections to the abduction plot; he was later replaced by Mancini.[15]  Thus, public prosecutors Armando Spataro and Pomarici have described the abduction as "a concerted CIA-SISMI operation" organized by "Italian and American agents" with the aim of the "capture" and "secret transfer" of the imam to Egypt[16]"  thanks, Kaisershatner 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypnosadist, I strongly urge you to moderate your language. Kaiser, I propose, for now (we can still edit anyway and continue the discussion here) to include the draft as we have agreed, that is, if I'm not confused, including the "Bush administration", and provisionally excluding the Imam Rapito affair so we can take some more time to work it out. Concerning this last affair, I will first point out, having read the Italian press about it, that yes, it was a concerted SISMI-CIA operation, and yes, SISMI agents did participate in the abduction, as did one junior Carabinieri officer (who appears, ASFAIK, to have been manipulated in thinking that he was doing some kind of test, which, if he succeeded, would allow him to become a member of the SISMI - lots of Italians seem to have a fascination for secret services - which, funnily enough - a bit of humor won't kill us here!, the Italian press refers to as ... 007 !). I will look it up, but I think Abu Omar's membership to the Jammaa al-Islamiya is subject to caution, although we could certainly added that he was suspected of it. It is, however, much least subject to caution that he was a radical Islamist (which is not necessarily a synonym of "terrorist" - and I'm not saying that trying to defend fundamentalists for which I feel no sympathy at all). I will, right now, edit the paragraphs we've agreed on, just reverse me if anything poses problem, all right? Tazmaniacs 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have included the second version, changing alleged membership to al-Gam'a al-Islamiyya (unsure; the Egyptian court judged his detention "unfounded" and he was not indicted either in Italy), to radical Islamist cleric. Tazmaniacs 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: KS draft

message: Here are the two different versions about the Imam Rapito. I really think we ought to include it to the intro because it is, on one hand, a specific case which has been qualified by Swiss senator Dick Marty, who, not withstanding his personal opinions, was commandited by the Council of Europe to make the report (his POV is thus backed up by a number of European states), as a "perfect example"; the second, more important reason, is that it is the subject of investigations and that a trial has been decided for July, which is no small things. I will propose a bit later an intermediate version between these two drafts (Tazmaniacs 20:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have included the second version, changing alleged membership to al-Gam'a al-Islamiyya (unsure; the Egyptian court judged his detention "unfounded" and he was not indicted either in Italy), to radical Islamist cleric. Tazmaniacs 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imam Rapito draft 

message: On March 9 2007 Akradecki wrote: "I disagree. Extraordinary rendition is essentially a legal term. The phrase you quote, 'effectively torture by proxy', is a description of the legal term."
As the article points out, Al Gore pointed out when Richard Clarke, Clinton, and others, first discussed extraordinary rendition: "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."
Even if, for the sake of argument, a "Presidential Directive" makes this procedure legal, in the USA, it is not US law that applies.  It is the law of the country where the capture takes place that determine whether the capture is legal, without regard to how many US Presidential Directives authorize the capture.  
The American "snatch teams" that perform the extraordinary renditions sometimes have the clandestine cooperation of intelligence or law-enforcement personnel in the host countries.  Back before I discovered the wikipedia I tried to have reasonable discussions about this issue in the blogosphere.  I had slashdot correspondents who claimed that the ability of the snatch teams to recruit rogue elements among the officials in the host country to collaborate with them made the process legal.  That is nonsense, of course.
So, let's abandon the argument that "extraordinary rendition" deserves pride of place in the intro because it is the officiial, "legal" term for the procedure.  
Cheers!  --  Geo Swan 19:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The argument that "extraordinary rendition" is a legal term

message: Here's what we have, with some proposed edits:
One notable example is the An example of extraordinary rendition and its political and legal repercussions is the "Imam Rapito affair" in Italy, in which Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka Abu Omar), a radical Islamist cleric, was kidnapped in a joint CIA-SISMI operation in Milan on February 17, 2003, before being transferred to the Aviano Air Base, and finally rendered to Egypt, where he was held until February 11, 2007, when an Egyptian court ruled his imprisonment was "unfounded."[7]. He claims he was tortured both on the Aviano Base and in Egypt. Abu Omar was not released again until February 11, 2007, at which time an Egyptian court ruled that his imprisonment was "unfounded."[7].Italian Investigating Prosecutors have indicted 26 US citizens including including head of CIA in Italy Jeffrey W. Castelli and 24 other CIA agents, and sent extradition requests to the Italian Ministry of Justice; for 26 US citizens who have been indicted, including head of CIA in Italy Jeffrey W. Castelli and 24 other CIA agents, to the ministry of Justice, but it have never decided to which it has not delivered pass them to American [a]uthorities. The chief of the SISMI chief General Nicolò Pollari, as well as his and second-in-command Marco Mancini have been forced to resign and were also indicted subsequently indicted in the end of 2006. The trial of the 26 Americans and 9 Italians has been scheduled to begin in June 2007.
My only other suggestion for this part right now is: is there an public/declassified example of ER/TPB that isn't a negative one, to give balance?  It's fine to give a notable example of what may be a botched or particularly egregious example of this practice, but is there one we know about where a very bad person gave up vital information or something like that?  I'm just asking.  Kaisershatner 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead, final paragraph

message: Could we not have an edit war please? For years TbP was in the intro, as was the use of the fully written words instead of ER. Could we leave that as it is untill there is a consensus regarding theat intro? TIA.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 02:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: There is ample evidence in the mainstream media to prove that the practice (albeit dormant) of extraordinary rendition (or whatever you want to call it) by the U.S. is real and not "alleged" as the article here suggests.  For example, in today's AP article entitled: "Rockefeller: Should CIA prisons stay?" Katherine Schrader writes: "President Bush said he emptied the CIA's secret prisons in September and sent its last 14 high-value detainees to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."  I suggest that the word "alleged" be removed from the description of extraordinary rendition. Ikleinbart 18:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not just the transfer that is alleged but "transfer of suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture", As far a I know these are to date these are allegations not as yet proved facts. But I am open to your attributable proof that they are more than assertions (the current sources on the paragraph do not include an attributable proof). --Philip Baird Shearer 19:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Philip. "Alleged" is used in context when there may have been illegal or possibly illegal activity, but when that activity has not been fully proven. Journalistically, it is the proper word to use (ref, Associated Press Stylebook). Obviously, the CIA flights are not discussed and confirmed by government officials, and jounalists are not invited along to observe. A court of law has not convicted any government official of wrongdoing, at least not yet. Sorry, reporting, even in mainstream media, does not "prove" the existence of a practice, unless the reporting journalists are given first-hand access. Without direct proof of a practice, allege is the correct phraseology. Akradecki 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove word "alleged" from description of "extraordinary rendition"