Mother’s day weekend was a crappy time to try and read up on this.  I’m still wading through lots of info. 

My initial reading of the article was for evidence of whether or not arrestee’s governments were being informed of the CIA operations, if they were not themselves participating in the actual arrests.  I had said I would be quite surprised to learn that such lack of cooperation was going on and you seemed to think that the wikipedia article would provide proof to the contrary. 

Having read a bit more on the topic, it appears to me that the governments were informed, even when there is a very rare case that they deny it.  This also appears to be the opinion of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Report (or something like that). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_01_06_detention.pdf

Specifically, paragraph 66-68 and 46.  Interestingly enough, the case against foreign goverments knowing what happened seems to be made primarily on the basis of the case of an Italian guy (paragraph 68).  This, however, appears in my estimation (and arguably that of the report) to be a case of Italian authorities not communicating, as the report acknowledges in paragraph 46 that the “official” Italian government denial of knowing about CIA actions is implausible given the close ties of the governments at the time of the arrest and total lack of a sharp response afterwards.

This was the only source that I was able to read with any depth on the question of whether the arrestees countries were being informed, as was suggested earlier.  I picked it because I figured it would be less polluted by US political machinations, while at the same time being critical of the US, since they are composed primarily of unelected political appointees of a federation that has been highly critical of the US in the past.

Regarding the overall program, there were charges of torture by other countries with US complicity, which if true would be highly problematic to say the least.  The US has officially denied it and the guilt is mostly by association (where we send the prisoners), but guilt by association isn’t always to be dismissed.  In my opinion, the report seemed to make the case that such occurrences are certainly plausible, if not actual.  It certainly bears further looking into, and is a very serious charge.

Other charges the report raised, didn’t make sense to me at all.  For instance, the report questioned the legality of secret CIA detention facilities (which were often no more than a borrowed room in a foreign country).  This seems weird to me.  Are we supposed to publicize where our CIA prisons are, even if they are a borrowed room?  That seems stupid, since it would could compromise the secrecy of CIA operations, and the CIA doesn’t exactly operate like a publicly traded company complying with Sarbanes-Oxley.

Surprisingly to me, the European Council report did delve into internal US politics, noting that many people are questioning the legality of the warrantless wiretapping of international phonecalls placed on US soil, since it straddles the clearly legal and the clearly illegal territory and seems to have been used by our government.  I found that discussion too brief (and selective) to do more than suggest wrongdoing by innuendo concerning indeterminate legal issues completely outside the jurisdiction of the European Council (paragraphs 58 and 59).  Even though the report came from the C of E, it still strikes me as lacking in the professionalism one expects from an report of this type.

I hope I didn’t bore you to death with the long response.  I’m a details kind of guy and only posted the latest because you asked (yeah, we all know you should have kept your mouth shut there).  Honestly, I never know how to take requests like that.  I’ve come back in the past to engage in real dialog and come back to have someone blast me for still questioning their ideas.  Given, that you are a Compassion employee who issues what I consider to be “reputable” reports on poverty in lives of people in the third world, I think its probably a safe bet that you are in the sincere camp when you ask me to read up and get back on my take on something.  I hope I leave you with the same impression.

Anyway, if you run across any articles on this that you find especially convincing, feel free to post the links here.  I should get them via new post e-mail notification and will try to read them.

MB

Thanks for the link.  I will try to read more about it this weekend. 

MB

One source of surprising proof was offered already by Kent though…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States

Wikipedia in and of itself may not count as reputable, but within the article are footnotes to reputable sources, and quotes from those sources.

Worth a read.  Curious how reputable you, and obviously intelligent individual with more knowledge regarding the military and legalities pertaining to this whole issue, find those sources and quotes to be.  Let me know.

Before I reply, I would ask that you read the referenced article, especially as it applies to the right to a grand jury and a trial by jury for military personnel.  I think we may be disagreeing over semantics to an extent, and that would likely help clear it up.

Shaun,

I think you may have misunderstood me.  When I say I would be surprised to learn of _______, I am referring to reading about it from reputable sources, not an unsourced assertion in a blog.  As nice as you are [and as nice as I am ], I don’t consider either of us to be reputable sources about such matters on our word alone.  You could be correct, and if that is true then our government should stop the practice.  However, nothing in this thread has been offered of proof of the assertion.

MB

Beth

Surprise!

“ALL kidnapping of potential or actual criminals without notification of the seized person’s government is illegal.”

I would be surprised to learn that the US government is not informing the arrestees’ governments.  The other governments may not admit involvement in these practices for PR purposes, or may give multiple contradictory stories about the level of knowledge (e.g., the UK), but I would wager that all of the countries concerned know what is going on at the classified level.  Many governments have admitted to knowing about this and have motivation to participate (e.g., we are using extraordinary rendition to return members of Al Qaeda who are Egyptians by birth back to Egypt for questioning).

Beth/grovesfan,

You wrote, “All military members who are alleged to have committed a crime are in fact entitled and do get a trial by a jury of their peers unless THEY opt for a judgement.”

I spoke with another person today about a military member’s right to a trial by jury.  They were more familiar with the details than me (e.g., the difference in how spies and people posing as civilians contrary to the rules of engagement get treated under military law relative to uniformed military P.O.W.s).  I will stand by my assertion that what you state above is incorrect.  Also, I would recommend reading the following article on the fifth ammendment and specifically searching for Solorio, as in “Solorio v. United States”

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt5.html

The above article explains that military members do not have a right to a grand jury or trial by jury, even when the crime committed is *not* service related.  I tutor math for a JAG’s son tonight, so I will inquire further.

MB

Funny enough, I really like chick flicks.  I’m a single girl is that why?  Am I still hoping for my happily ever after?  I never compare myself to the women on screen, except our thought processes…I just like to laugh and feel good.

Beth