1115.org

The official definition of extraordinary rendition seems to be that it is an operation in which we ship off a terrorist suspect – or any other suspected combatant in TWAT – to a friendly country on the assurance that said person will not be subjected to torture.

I didn’t make any of that up. For example, here’s the Columbia Journalism Review to define the term:

…”what the CIA daintily calls extraordinary rendition. The term … refers to the policy by which the United States renders unto certain friendly countries (friendly, that is, to the practice of torture) suspected terrorists who would otherwise be protected by the laws of more civilized societies…

Leaving the snarky editorial comments aside, it’s all about shipping suspected terrorists to friendly countries. And now here’s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with her rightly famous certification that the Columbia Journalism Review’s snarkiness is totally unwarranted:

Rice also asserted that the United States does not transport terrorism suspects “for the purpose of interrogation using torture” and “will not transport anyone to a country when we believe he will be tortured.” She added that “where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.”

“The United States government does not authorize or condone torture of detainees,” she said.

That brings us to the curious case of Maher Arar (I almost digressed there to say “Funny how she doesn’t say ‘The United States government does not practice torture of detainees’”, but I stopped myself just in time):

Arar, an Ottawa engineer and Canadian citizen, was detained by U.S. authorities in September 2002 during a stopover in New York on a flight from Tunisia to Canada. Suspecting him of terrorism ties, he was sent to Syria under a policy called “extraordinary rendition.”

Not even Tony Snow would go so far as to call Syria a friendly country, I don’t think. So that straightaway shoots down the “friendly country” part of the definition. Which leaves us with “on the assurance that said person will not be subjected to torture”. And, as you might suspect at this point, that’s what we’ll now proceed to shoot down.

Amnesty International describes what (allegedly) happened to Arar thereafter:

In September 2002 while returning from holiday in Tunisia with his wife and two small children, Maher Arar was detained while in transit in New York’s JFK Airport. He was then chained, shackled and deported in a private plane via Jordan to a Syrian prison where he was physically and mentally tortured. After more than a year in Syria, he was eventually released without charge.

A detailed timeline of Arar’s adventures can be found on the CBC website. I’m going to use just one sentence to move the narrative forward:

When Arar returned to Canada more than a year later, he said he had been tortured during his incarceration and accused American officials of sending him to Syria knowing that they practice torture.

Pretty straight-forward so far. We rendered him unto Syria. He claims they tortured him. He claims we know they practice torture. He implies we sent him there knowing he was likely to be tortured. In short, he calls Condoleezza Rice a bald-faced liar. (Just to make the timeline perfectly clear, Arar was rendered in September 2002. Rice made her never-if-they-will-be-tortured declaration in December 2005.)

I thought I would just assume that nobody (not even Condi) will try to argue that we didn’t believe back in September 2002 that Syria practices torture. But I may as well go ahead and dot my i’s and cross my t’s. In May 2002 (well before Arar’s rendition) we officially certified Syria to be a ranking member of The Axis of Evil. It would be really straining credulity to assert that we believe such a country scrupulously draws the line at torture and refrains from it.

If Condi wants to claim that we sought and received assurances from Syria that Arar would not be tortured, let her go right ahead and make that claim. Until she does, it is reasonable to assume that we sought no such assurance from a country we have not even been on speaking terms with for the longest time.

So it looks very much like Arar’s allegations (we shipped him off to Syria knowing full well he was likely to be tortured there) are more believable than our tepid official blanket denials.

Perhaps someone in Congress at some point will choose to ask Condi some uncomfortably direct questions about Arar. But Arar wisely wasn’t going to hold his breath waiting for that to happen. He filed a lawsuit in the U.S. And lo and behold, his lawsuit was promptly dismissed by Judge David Trager:

A U.S. federal judge dismisses Maher Arar’s lawsuit against American officials. Judge David Trager says he can’t interfere in a case involving crucial national security issues. “The need for much secrecy can hardly be doubted,” he writes.

It figures that for every Anna Diggs Taylor, there would be a David Trager. Let me go ahead and commit contempt of court by declaring that I don’t think brown-nosing covers it. I think what’s brown is probably his tongue (all the better to lick you with, grandma).

Yes, the need for much secrecy can hardly be doubted. When you engage in extraordinary rendition, and ship off someone to a country where even Condoleezza Rice cannot claim we could not have expected torture, and when it turns out the guy was innocent, all you want to do is quickly go “Oops!” and move on to the next extraordinary rendition (or other human rights abuse). You want to minimize the embarrassment at all costs. You want to make sure those who would hold you accountable have as little as possible to go on. The need for secrecy can hardly be doubted.