Of Interest to Some MOJ-Readers ...

"Ghost Prisoners and Black Sites: Extraordinary Rendition Under
International Law"
      Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 2006

      BY:  LEILA N. SADAT
              Washington University School of Law

Document:  Available from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection:
http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=886377

Paper ID:  Washington U. School of Law Working Paper No. 06-02-01

Contact:  LEILA N. SADAT
   Email:  Mailto:[email protected]
  Postal:  Washington University School of Law
           Campus Box 1120
           St. Louis, MO 63130  UNITED STATES
   Phone:  314-935-6411
     Fax:  314-935-5356

ABSTRACT:
This Essay examines the contentions of U.S. government lawyers
that the U.S. should abandon the provisions of the Geneva
Conventions in favor of a de novo legal regime that would govern
the capture, detention, treatment and trial of enemy prisoners
taken in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), whether captured in
the U.S. or abroad. In particular, it examines the question of
extraordinary rendition - transferring detainees abroad for
detention and interrogation either from the United States, on
behalf of the United States, or from occupied Iraq. Although the
numbers of prisoners rendered abroad has been relatively few,
the covert nature of the operations, and the allegations of
prisoner mistreatment raise very troubling questions about the
wisdom and the legality of the U.S. rendition program. It
concludes that extraordinary rendition is not permissible under
existing, applicable and well-established norms of international
law. Additionally, because renditions are carried out in secret,
employ extralegal means, and often result in prisoner abuse,
including cruel treatment, torture, and sometimes death - they
appear to be emblematic of the larger human rights concerns that
trouble many of the detention and interrogation practices
employed by the U.S. government since September 11, 2001. Of
particular concern is that rather than explicitly amending the
law or articulating clear, narrowly tailored justifications for
derogating from the law, derogations that would presumably be
temporary and specific, such as the derogations permitted under
international human rights treaties, government officials have
sought to redefine legal norms in an exceptional burst of
�executive activism� in ways that are neither particularly
plausible or persuasive. This use of legal subterfuge is deeply
troubling in and of itself, as well as in regards to it
potentially harmful consequences. Finally, the Essay questions
the efficacy, as well as the wisdom, of these extralegal
policies.