OUTSOURCING TORTURE
by JANE MAYER
The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.
Issue of 2005-02-14
Posted 2005-02-07
On January 27th, President Bush, in an interview with the Times, assured the world that “torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.” Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer who was born in Syria, was surprised to learn of Bush’s statement. Two and a half years ago, American officials, suspecting Arar of being a terrorist, apprehended him in New York and sent him back to Syria, where he endured months of brutal interrogation, including torture. When Arar described his experience in a phone interview recently, he invoked an Arabic expression. The pain was so unbearable, he said, that “you forget the milk that you have been fed from the breast of your mother.”
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.
Arar is suing the U.S. government for his mistreatment. “They are outsourcing torture because they know it’s illegal,” he said. “Why, if they have suspicions, don’t they question people within the boundary of the law?”
Rendition was originally carried out on a limited basis, but after September 11th, when President Bush declared a global war on terrorism, the program expanded beyond recognition—becoming, according to a former C.I.A. official, “an abomination.” What began as a program aimed at a small, discrete set of suspects—people against whom there were outstanding foreign arrest warrants—came to include a wide and ill-defined population that the Administration terms “illegal enemy combatants.” Many of them have never been publicly charged with any crime. Scott Horton, an expert on international law who helped prepare a report on renditions issued by N.Y.U. Law School and the New York City Bar Association, estimates that a hundred and fifty people have been rendered since 2001. Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts and a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, said that a more precise number was impossible to obtain. “I’ve asked people at the C.I.A. for numbers,” he said. “They refuse to answer. All they will say is that they’re in compliance with the law.”
Although the full scope of the extraordinary-rendition program isn’t known, several recent cases have come to light that may well violate U.S. law. In 1998, Congress passed legislation declaring that it is “the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.”
The Bush Administration, however, has argued that the threat posed by stateless terrorists who draw no distinction between military and civilian targets is so dire that it requires tough new rules of engagement. This shift in perspective, labelled the New Paradigm in a memo written by Alberto Gonzales, then the White House counsel, “places a high premium on . . . the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians,” giving less weight to the rights of suspects. It also questions many international laws of war. Five days after Al Qaeda’s attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Vice-President Dick Cheney, reflecting the new outlook, argued, on “Meet the Press,” that the government needed to “work through, sort of, the dark side.” Cheney went on, “A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we’re going to be successful. That’s the world these folks operate in. And so it’s going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.”
The extraordinary-rendition program bears little relation to the system of due process afforded suspects in crimes in America. Terrorism suspects in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East have often been abducted by hooded or masked American agents, then forced onto a Gulfstream V jet, like the one described by Arar. This jet, which has been registered to a series of dummy American corporations, such as Bayard Foreign Marketing, of Portland, Oregon, has clearance to land at U.S. military bases. Upon arriving in foreign countries, rendered suspects often vanish. Detainees are not provided with lawyers, and many families are not informed of their whereabouts.
posted on May 2, 2005 02:59:05 PM
After three years of this program, they've had only this ONE guy claim he was arrested illegally, and we haven't heard both sides of even his story yet.
Abu Graib was prisoner abuse, not torture. The perpetrators of Abu Graib belong in jail, and that's obviously in the process of happenning.
Actual torture conducted by experts in order to learn secrets? I have no problem at all with it. I think in fact that it should be much more common.
Let the flames fly now!
--------------------------------------
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum sonatur.
posted on May 2, 2005 03:14:25 PM"Actual torture conducted by experts in order to learn secrets? I have no problem at all with it. I think in fact that it should be much more common."
Are you on acid or something? What a terrible thing to say, Replay.
posted on May 2, 2005 06:15:42 PM
Oh Replay, ya drank the Kool-Ade !
First: there are MANY srories of transferring prisoners out of the U.S. which is a devious, sneaky, illegal and oh so typical bush/rove way of committing torture ...they can say that they don't condone torture on American soil....the pigs.
There are not two sides to the stories....torturing is against the law.
And:""Actual torture conducted by experts in order to learn secrets?""
NO, torture does NOT produce valuable secrets...it's been proven ....AND makes sense....wouldn't YOU say anythiong to escape horrible torture????
posted on May 2, 2005 06:38:23 PMAbu Graib was prisoner abuse, not torture.
replaymedia,
If an enemy did to you what was done to the prisoners at Abu Graib (stripping you naked, putting you in a pyramid with other naked prisoners, pouring phosphoric liquid on you, sodomizing you with chemical lights and broom sticks, beating you senseless, making you perform homosexual acts against your will, etc) I guess you would only consider yourself abused then?
What more would they have to do to you before you'd claim you were tortured by the enemy? At what point would the 'abuse' change to 'torture' for you?
Bear, the ones that were tortured were not all terrorists.
posted on May 2, 2005 06:42:18 PM
Replay and Bear - both on the Christian right and both believing torture, to get secrets, is OK. Does anyone see a pattern here with the hypocrisy thing I've been referring to in mostly everything I've ever posted?
posted on May 2, 2005 08:39:05 PM
So we torture prisoners that we take and what do they do with prisoners that they take. That's right, they just kill them by cutting off their heads and burning them.
I agree with Replay's statement; "Actual torture conducted by experts in order to learn secrets? I have no problem at all with it. I think in fact that it should be much more common." and I agree with Bear when he said "Those poor tortured terrorist souls........I feel soooooo sorry for them. NOT"
Oh by the way, I'M not a Christian.
--------------------------------------
Whoops, I think I may have contributed something to this thread, Maggie is going to be pissed at me now.
posted on May 2, 2005 11:58:14 PM
The OP is NOT about the prison torture. It's about the sleeze bag sadist republican leaders of our country shipping people, many of whom are innocent, to be tortured in other countries.
First, it's against the law (oops, sorry , I forgot that means nothing to Republicans).
Second, it presents a very two-faced appearance to the rest of the world....we invade a country to rid it of a leader who tortures people and then our government condones it. And , yes, if you pay attention and have half a brain you know that what the rest of the world thinks IS important.
We may be the strongest SINGLE power.... but we could never hold out against a combination of other countries who hate our guts.
Third, you are a sadist if you condone torture. If you approve of torture you should be treated just like Saddam Hussein because you are his twin.
Fourth, it has never produced any information of significant importance.
posted on May 3, 2005 03:04:26 AM
I agree with replay's comments.
--------
Anyone who thinks the terrorists aren't serious in their threats against our country, are themselves, not based in any land-based reality.
The President and our Congress FIRST job requirement is to keep us safe. Whatever they need to do to successfully do that job....will be FULLY supported by me and my family.
Those who continue to whine about our enemies 'rights' and how the 'world' sees our actions, don't have our countries best interest nor it's survival at heart, imo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 3, 2005 03:26:46 AM
To any leftie here -
Which US Congressperson have you heard complain about the methods our Intelligence community are using to protect this Nation from those who have promised they'll destroy us?
Names please? I'd sure like to be aware of ANY democratic leaders who think OUR intelligence community is going too far in doing exactly what is necessary/required to defend/protect our Nation.
posted on May 3, 2005 04:23:30 AM
Do the more liberal of you think that just maybe...car bombs and terrorism may be forms of torture?
It's a different world out there today. It's not a fight among gentlemen. If we can out source our customer support (GE, Insurance Co.’s and many others) to India why not out source our enemy interviewing. I don’t see the problem here.
posted on May 3, 2005 06:22:20 AM
Supporting torture is grossly offensive to decency and morality. How frightening to see such evil originating from the "religious" right.
posted on May 3, 2005 08:43:34 AM
Well, I'm not surprised the Repugs in here are sadists !
That's why I call them Repugs and neoNAZIcons.
They have no morals or ethics but quickly sink to level of the terrorists they say they despise ???!!
What bloodthirsty nincompoops .
Another thing the neocons love to ignore is the fact that this administration is doing something illegal....just a minor point to Republicans.........
[ edited by crowfarm on May 3, 2005 09:00 AM ]
Neocons define themselves as terrorsts when they express a wish to pattern their actions after those of terrorists. By retaliating with torture similar to that of Saddam, they are becoming like Saddam.
Would you support the type of torture as described in Taguba's Report to be practiced on American POW's?
posted on May 3, 2005 09:06:20 AM
I'm surprised there still are neocons posting in here when they could be down on the Arizona border with the KKK shooting illegals.
posted on May 3, 2005 08:27:04 PMI'm surprised there still are neocons posting in here when they could be down on the Arizona border with the KKK shooting illegals.
Minnesota is next, with a open season on crows.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on May 3, 2005 08:41:38 PM
I think that maybe all the crows should be beheaded and then burned. That way they wont feel as if they are being terrorised and it would be considered less cruel.
posted on May 3, 2005 11:44:27 PM
Oh dear, did I upset the wee little boys and now the death threats start
Poor little nothings, so frustrated ...so..so.. ...little.
Yup, the neanderthaal neocons answer to everything...violence....sinking to the level of the terrorists they find so awful.....and they don't even realize it.
posted on May 3, 2005 11:49:39 PM
Well, HERE'S why the repugs like torture:
Defense: England Oxygen-Deprived at Birth
Updated 11:10 PM ET May 3, 2005
By T.A. BADGER
FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) - Defense lawyers sought leniency for Pfc. Lynndie England at a hearing Tuesday to determine her punishment in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, with a psychologist testifying that the reservist was oxygen-deprived at birth, speech impaired and had trouble learning to read.
posted on May 4, 2005 04:05:07 AM
Helen, I said "interviewing" as usual your small mind saw TORTURE. I'm not surprised.
What's torture to one may not be to someone else. Consider this. You locked in a room with a radio you couldn't turn off, couldn't adjust...and the only thing on is Rush Limbaugh.
For me torture may be spending a coupe hours talking to someone with nothing to say. You for example.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
http://www.reverendcolin.com
It's amazing how interested you are in what you consider "small minds" have to say. You are obsessed with what I have to say to the point of imagining that I have replied to you on this thread. Remember placing my name on your web site along with House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi and others here as examples of major assholes? You are a crock from every perspective, Rev.
posted on May 4, 2005 06:23:10 AM
Well they gave an abortion to a 13 year old in Florida. Reasons, lived in a shelter, didn't have a job so why not give leniency to England? England has far more problems that "LG".
Well, here's where I save them:
Bear1949
posted on May 3, 2005 08:27:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm surprised there still are neocons posting in here when they could be down on the Arizona border with the KKK shooting illegals.
Minnesota is next, with a open season on crows.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
yellowstone
posted on May 3, 2005 08:41:38 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that maybe all the crows should be beheaded and then burned. That way they wont feel as if they are being terrorised and it would be considered less cruel.
