Rendition vs. Rendition or Adjectives Matter

On New Year’s Day, Craig Whitlock reported in the Washington Post an August 2012 arrest by local authorities of three Somali men transiting Djibouti in August who were then interrogated by FBI agents and transferred to U.S. custody to face charges in the United States in Article III courts.  After this depiction, Whitlock concludes that “the Obama administration has embraced rendition,” declaring that they have “tak[en] on renewed significance because the administration and Congress have not reached agreement on a consistent legal pathway for apprehending terrorism suspects overseas and bringing them to justice.” He clearly links the Obama administration’s practice to the Bush administration practice, impliedly asking us to see this as yet another example of Obama carrying on his predecessor’s counterterrorism tactics (and getting away with it without criticism):

The men are the latest example of how the Obama administration has embraced rendition — the practice of holding and interrogating terrorism suspects in other countries without due process — despite widespread condemnation of the tactic in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.  (emphasis mine).

 But the practice Whitlock describes through the August 2012 vignette is not the practice as he defines it in the emphasized quotation above.  Whitlock describes the arrest of suspects, their transfer apparently without extradition or other judicial process to the United States, and their subsequent indictment and trial. The Bush-era practice—the one subject to “widespread condemnation . . . in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks”—involved detaining individuals in one country, transporting them to a third country, and then torturing them. These individuals were not indicted, they were not provided attorneys, in fact there was little expectation that these individuals would be heard from again. Examples of the Bush-era practice include the abduction of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr in Milan in 2003 and his subsequent transfer to Egypt to be tortured—26 Americans have been convicted by an Italian court in absentia forthis incident—and the 2003 mistaken arrest of Khalid el-Masri by Macedonian police, his transfer to U.S. authorities, and his being held or tortured in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2004, after the U.S. realized that el-Masri was mistakenly detained, he was flown to Albania and deposited on the side of a road at night.

If these practices—the ongoing Obama administration practice described by Whitlock and the Bush-era practice—sound substantially different to you, that is because they are. The Obama administration is engaged in a practice Whitlock correctly identifies as rendition. The Bush-era practice Whitlock invites us to remember is known as extraordinary rendition. The adjective matters a great deal.

Rendition is a practice greatly predates September 11, 2001—see, for example, this 1934 BU law review article on the practice. It is also exactly as Whitlock describes it: “The return of a fugitive from one state to the state where the fugitive is accused or convicted of a crime.” 8 ed. Black’s Law Dictionary. Rendition allows states to avoid the normal legal procedure of extradition when there are barriers to extradition like the absence of an extradition treaty, or the absence of a similar crime in each jurisdiction, or when extradition might be unfeasible for political reasons. Rendition is certainly not the normal mode of business between states, and it may circumvent due process rights the accused is entitled to, but it is not uncommon and its purpose is to expose the rendered individual to judicial process: either trial or the execution of a sentence for conviction.

What makes extraordinary rendition extraordinary is that its purpose is not to bring the target before a court for trial or to otherwise subject the target to judicial process. No, the point of extraordinary rendition is to avoid judicial process altogether—to cause an individual to disappear, be held incommunicado, and extract intelligence not evidence from that individual. What made the practice so heinous in the Bush administration is not merely its lack of transparency or accountability but rather that its opacity facilitated torture.

So, yes, the Obama administration is using ordinary rendition. Is this shocking? No. Is it in anyway similar to the abduction, black sites, and torture used in the Bush administration? No. Adjectives matter.

Trolling CNN Continued

Via The Dish

Jokes aside, congratulations to Anderson Cooper for coming around to the notion that the ambiguity of his sexuality was doing more harm than good. Ones sexual orientation shouldn't matter--it shouldn't be an issue--but so long as it is, this Editor hopes prominent gay men and women will continue to serve as role models.

Trolling CNN

I mean, why not?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

In Defense of Dina

Glenn Greenwald of Salon launched an attack on Dina Temple-Raston of NPR yesterday, beginning:

It is well worth listening to this 4-minute NPR story from this morning (embedded below) on the grave and growing menace of “state-sponsored Terrorism” from Iran. NPR national security reporter Dina Temple-Raston does what she (and NPR reporters generally) typically do: Gathers a couple of current and former government officials (with an agreeable establishment think-tank expert thrown in the mix), uncritically airs what they say, and then repeats it herself. This is what establishment-serving journalists in Washington mean when they boast that they, but not their critics, engage in so-called “real reporting”; it means: calling up Serious People in Washington and uncritically repeating what they say (see here and here for the episode when Temple-Raston voiced that basic claim to me, as she boasted of special knowledge she possessed about Anwar Awlaki’s guilt obtained when unnamed government officials whispered assertions to her in private which she then uncritically repeated: That’s real reporting).

That's as far as I got. Why? Well, I was distracted by his venomous description of the job done by Temple-Raston and NPR. I share Greenwald's suspicion of reliance on unnamed government sources and leaks. Those leaks are often self-serving and, in the context of national security, can be particularly vexing. Witness the government's leaks regarding Anwar al-Aulaqi's addition to targeted killing lists and then its claim, when sued by al-Aulaqi's father to enjoy his killing, that to reveal the existence (or not) of the targeted killing list(s) and to reveal al-Aulaqi's presence (or not) on it would reveal a state secret, thus requiring the suit's dismissal. 

Yet, sometimes the leaks and unnamed government sources are providing journalists and their readers with good, useful information. It is with this sentiment in mind that I watch one of the videos Greenwald links to--a previous exchange with Temple-Raston--in an attempt to denigrate her reporting. Begin listening at 53:00:

Notice this exchange. Dina Temple-Raston is attempting to very politiely correct the record based not on what she's heard but what she's actually seen: Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalib's statement to the government after being taken into custody. Greenwald cannot be bothered to be civil to Temple-Raston let alone process what she's saying. The fact that her source is the government--regardless of whether she's witnessed something bearing out the source's statement--is fatal for Greenwald. There is no way Temple-Raston's objection that al-Aulaqi is actually an operational, and not merely inspirational leader, of AQAP is correct, according to Greenwald.


Fair enough. This exchange occurred in November 2010 and there was little reason for Greenwald to be swayed. Indeed, the government had just had al-Aulaqi's father's suit dismissed on questions of justiciability, hinting that, even if those weren't there, the state secrets doctrine would have applied despite the government's earlier self-serving leak. At the time, when I was grappling with this case myself, I was similarly skeptical and only just coming around to the notion that al-Aulaqi was, in fact, operational and not merely inspirational.


But Greenwald is linking to this exchange today, 18 months later, to demonstrate that Temple-Raston's reporting is erroneous. What's the difference between November 2010 and March 2012, well, Abdumutallib has been charged, tried (plead out, actually), and sentenced. And, in the sentencing memorandum (see pages 12-14), we read, based on Abdumutallib's sworn statement:

Once in Yemen, defendant visited mosques and asked people he met if they knew how he could meet Awlaki.  Eventually, defendant made contact with an individual who in turn made Awlaki aware of defendant’s desire to meet him.  Defendant provided this individual with the number for his Yemeni cellular telephone.   Thereafter, defendant received a text message from Awlaki telling defendant to call him, which defendant did.  During their brief telephone conversation, it was agreed that defendant would send Awlaki a written message explaining why he wanted to become involved in jihad.  Defendant took several days to write his message to Awlaki, telling him of his desire to become involved in jihad, and seeking Awlaki’s guidance.  After receiving defendant’s message, Awlaki sent defendant a response, telling him that Awlaki would find a way for defendant to become involved in jihad.
Thereafter, defendant was picked up and driven through the Yemeni desert.  He eventually arrived at Awlaki’s house, and stayed there for three days.  During that time, defendant met with Awlaki and the two men discussed martyrdom and jihad.  Awlaki told defendant that jihad requires patience but comes with many rewards.  Defendant understood that Awlaki used these discussions to evaluate defendant’s commitment to and suitability for jihad. Throughout, defendant expressed his willingness to become involved in any mission chosen for him, including martyrdom - and by the end of his stay, Awlaki had accepted defendant for a martyrdom mission.
Defendant left Awlaki’s house, and was taken to another house, where he met AQAP bombmaker Ibrahim Al Asiri.  Defendant and Al Asiri discussed defendant’s desire to commit an act of jihad.  Thereafter, Al Asiri discussed a plan for a martyrdom mission with Awlaki, who gave it final approval, and instructed Defendant Abdulmutallab on it.  For the following two weeks, defendant trained in an AQAP camp, and received instruction in weapons and indoctrination in jihad.  During his time in the training camp, defendant met many individuals, including Samir Khan.
Ibrahim Al Asiri constructed a bomb for defendant’s suicide mission and personally delivered it to Defendant Abdulmutallab.  This was the bomb that defendant carried in his underwear on December 25, 2009.  Al Asiri trained defendant in the use of the bomb, including by having defendant practice the manner in which the bomb would be detonated; that is, by pushing the plunger of a syringe, causing two chemicals to mix, and initiating a fire (which would then detonate the explosive). Awlaki told defendant that he would create a martyrdom video that would be used after the defendant’s attack.  Awlaki arranged for a professional film crew to film the video.  Awlaki assisted defendant in writing his martyrdom statement, and it was filmed over a period of two to three days.  The full video was approximately five minutes in length.
Although Awlaki gave defendant operational flexibility, Awlaki instructed defendant that the only requirements were that the attack be on a U.S. airliner, and that the attack take place over U.S. soil.  Beyond that, Awlaki gave defendant discretion to choose the flight and date.  Awlaki instructed defendant not to fly directly from Yemen to Europe, as that could attract suspicion.  As a result, defendant took a circuitous route, traveling from Yemen to Ethiopia to Ghana to Nigeria to Amsterdam to Detroit.  Prior to defendant’s departure from Yemen, Awlaki’s last instructions to him were to wait until the airplane was over the United States and then to take the plane down.

The sentencing memorandum, relying on Abdulmuttalib's sworn statement, bears out al-Aulaqi's operational role within AQAP. Moreover, the court's statement implicitly verifies Temple-Raston's comments to Greenwald in November 2010. It would appear that Temple-Raston had in fact seen something Greenwald had not. Despite his skepticism at the time, deserved or not, Temple-Raston was right and Greenwald was wrong. And that completely undermines Greenwald's sarcastic introduction. In fact, Temple-Raston wasn't uncritically relying on the assurances of an officer of the U.S. government. Instead, as she tried to explain in November 2010, she had seen the evidence for herself--a self-authenticating sworn statement from the perpetrator of an attempted terrorist attack.

None of this is to suggest that we, the public, should adopt a Polyannaish approach to journalists who rely on unnamed government sources. No, Judy Miller--along with many like her who came before--destroyed any suggestion that that might be okay. But neither is it reasonable to dismiss out of hand any journalist who does have access to government source--and not just sources, but sources willing to provide evidence to buttress their statements, as was the case here. Nor is it reasonable to launch into yet another attack on the same journalist and cite for support an exchange in which you were demonstrably wrong without making any reference to the fact that you were indeed wrong. Wrongly citing a case in that manner would get you in trouble before the bench, Counselor.

Fox News Makes You Dumber

Really, though.

Fact Check: Nancy Youssef

What’s with Nancy Youssef’s overly pessimisticreport about the Libyan intervention on NPR’s On Point today? During her appearance, wherein she was nominally supposed to update listeners on the status of the Libyan intervention 100 days on:

Youssef: The rebels are trying to hold on to the ground they’ve gained. Interestingly they have less ground than they did a hundred days ago . . . .

Gjelten: The rebels have less ground, they’re actually losing ground? I thought the rebels have been making a little bit of progrees.

Youssef: They have. But if you look at how much land they hand—especially in the east—from, compared to where they were when this began. Remember, they had all the way to Bin Jawad when this began and now they’re not able to take Brega which is about a 100 kilometers east of Bin Jawad . . . .

After challenging her once, Gjelten allows this assertion to go. But Ms. Youssef is flatly mistaken. The Libyan rebels had pushed to Bin Jawad on March 6, 2011—some two weeks before the Libyan intervention began. The rebels were quickly pushed out of Bin Jawad and by March 7, Qaddafi’s forces had reestablished control over Bin Jawad. At that point, Qaddafi’s counteroffensive against the rebels was in full swing and, between then and March 19, 2011, his forces moved east all the way to Benghazi, where Qaddafi’stanks were stopped in their tracks by NATO airstrikes. Subsequent NATO air support for the rebels have allowed Libya’s rebels to push Qaddafi’s forces back to Brega and fight Qaddafi to a stalemate in the east while—as Youssef admits—gaining ground in the west. Notably, rebels did advance all the way back toBin Jawad on March 27—some 8 days after the intervention began—but were pushed back to Brega.

Despite Ms. Youssef’s flawed report, it is clear, as this blog has repeatedly noted, that the Libyan rebels are making slow and steady progress to liberate their country.

Horse Racing without Horses or Riders

Apparently tired of the slow start to the 2012 Republican nomination battle, the Washington Post has determined to inject some excitement by, well, inventing it: "Who can win the 2012 GOP nomination?"

WikiLeaks Strikes Again

Hope everyone enjoyed Thanksgiving, ate plenty, slept in, and didn't have their grundle grabbed by TSA. It's back to reality and reality comes, in part, in the form of another WikiLeaks disclosure of classified U.S. documents. The New York Times summarizes some of the juicier tidbits, and attempts to put the documents in context.

I'm not sure what to feel about this disclosure and others WikiLeaks has been a part of. It seems dangerous to me to just release all these documents. I'm confident it's illegal for an employee of the U.S. government to share this documents. I'm confused as to what WikiLeaks hopes to accomplish. Is the release of information the objective? Is it striving for a more open-source society and does the release of these documents help to achieve that goal? I think more transparency is better, but I hesitate to embrace the release because I'm not convinced WikiLeaks fully considers what disclosure of people's names in these documents could mean for them or their families.

After some thinking out loud, let's clarify a couple things:

1) While some of the drama described is juicy, the cables don't really reveal anything we didn't already know. It was largely the same with the previous releases. We get more detail and we get names, but the narrative isn't markedly different.

2) This and the prior releases are not similar to and should not be compared to the release of The Pentagon Papers. Disregard what you hear from Daniel Ellsberg. I think he's bought in to his own mystique too much. Mr. Ellsberg did a public service by leaking a study of U.S. involvement in Vietnam over the course of several decades. It was a document vetted and edited to provide a full picture and not simply bits of chatter with people's names in it.

Again, I still don't know what to make of WikiLeaks and its disclosure of confidential U.S. documents, but I think it's clear the disclosure is not an act of heroism.

NPR = Nazis?

According to Roger Ailes, the news chief for Fox News that little math equation is accurate. He since apologized for using the word "Nazi" (and can I just say it seems like everybody virulent conservatives don't like are Nazis these days. Also, while "socialist" was in the full title of the Nazi party, they were in fact facists, but I digress)

Matthew Steinglass takes a moment to reflect on the absurdity of Ailes quote. And it is absurd, not only in citing Nazis, but in grammar.

My beef is this taken as word supposition that NPR is some virulent leftist broadcast station schilling liberal propaganda on the government dime. Come'on man. Really? Does NPR lean left? Oh maybe, but when I listen to NPR it seems to lean intelligent and reasoned rather then a specific direction. Maybe what makes Ailes and other conservatives so angry is that NPR fact-checks the often groundless statements pundits and politicians make.

As to whether or not NPR should receive any federal dollars, I'm ambivalent. Ambivalence is of course the death knell of a blog such as this one, but I've been listening to the dulcet tones of Michele Norris' voice for the last couple hours and everything seems alright.