Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Rendition - gross misuse of power

Oct.16, 2007

Rendition - gross misuse of power

By PV Vivekanand

THE CASE OF Khaled El Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, is a blaring example of how US agencies misuse their "authority" to kidnap and detain anyone suspected of having endangered American lives and use "secrecy laws" to pre-empt any legal proceedings against them.
Masri, a used-car salesman, was detained by Macedonian security agents while he was on vacation in Macedonia and then handed over
to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which in turn put him in a diaper, a belt with chains to his wrists and ankles, earmuffs, eye pads, a blindfold, and a hood. He was drugged and placed inside a plane, his legs and arms spread-eagled and secured to the floor and whisked off — "rendered" in US intelligence parlance — to a "black site" in Afghanistan, where was detained in secret, interrogated and tortured for five months.
Then the CIA realised that it had the wrong man. They had mistaken Khaled El Masri for Khalid Al Masri, a suspected member of the alleged Al Qaeda cell that carried out of the Sept.11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington. Someone, somewhere in a position of authority had simply refused to entertain the possibility of mistaken identity for five months during which the German citizen endured torture and agony.
The agency opted to fly the detainee to Albania and dump him in an isolated spot there. He was never charged with a crime.
Masri found his way back home from Albania and then launched a lawsuit against the CIA citing unlawful arrest, kidnap and detention. Masri, who is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), sought an apology and monetary compensation the CIA.
The case named former CIA director George Tenet and other CIA officials. Also named were four US-based aviation corporations with violations of US and universal human rights laws by allowing their aircraft to be used to fly detainees under the CIA's policy of "extraordinary rendition."
However, a US Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the government's argument that state secrets might be jeopardised if the case were allowed to move forward and rejected the case. Masri took the issue to the US Supreme Court but was against rebuffed. The Supreme Court simply declined to overrule the lower court.
Another case of the US policy known as "extraordinary rendition" that was highlighted in the media is that of Maher Arar.
Arar , a Candian citizen of Arab origin, was detained by US officials at New York's JFK airport as he landed there from Switzerland in September 2002. He was interrogated, denied access to a lawyer or family (this privilege is offered only to US nationals), accused of terrorist links, and sent by special plane to Syria. (Arar says he was the only passenger in the luxury aircraft, but he was shackled).
He says he was tortured and humiliated while in Syrian detention before being released nearly one year later, with the Syrian authorities saying they found no links between him and terrorism.
After his release, Arar, like Masri, file a case against the US government. Again, the US government cited national security and the case was dismissed.
Arar is now is working with the Center for Constitutional Rights to appeal against the dismissal. (A detailed list of cases are available on www.wikipedia.org).
International human rights organisations have found that the US government stands in blatant violation of human rights and international conventions because of its policy of "extraordinary rendition," secret detention, and torture.
No one has any clear idea about how many persons were subjected the illegal practice of being illegally detained and secretly flown to third countries to be subjeced to human rights abuses including torture.
The operations are conducted in utmost secrecy and when they do come out as in the cases of Masri and Arar, the US government cites secrecy laws and national secuity and gets away with it.
The lesson to be learnt: The US administraton could violate any law without question and then prevent legal action by declaring that any disclosure of any fact in a court of law would violate the country's "secrecy laws" and thus jeopardise national security.
Indeed, in principle, every government needs the privilege of state secrets and special authority to cite national security to hold back sensitive details that could be used against the country. However, it is a different issue when it comes to citing secrecy laws to defend the government itself against charges of violating human rights.
As experts familar with the Masri and Arar cases have noted, there is no justifiable and legitimate room for the Bush administration to cite secrecy laws to defend its illegal action of kidnapping and torturing someone. The victims have the right to have their cases heard and the US government being asked to explain its position and reasons without being given the benefit of abusing the legitimacy of secrecy laws and interests of national security.