最新ニュース | フォーラム | イギリスのニュース | 米国のニュース | 全体的なニュース | 政治ニュース | Sci技術のニュース | 戦争及びテロリズムのニュース | スポーツのニュース | マルチメディア | ホームページを置きなさい

新しい! RINFの本屋 | RINF DVDの店

翻訳しなさい:

水曜日、2009年2月11日

あなた自身の現実を作成しなさいか。 潜在意識の秘密は露出した 決して再度にあってはいけない! 知るために仮定されない何を

Marjorie Cohn著、 Jurist?

彼が米国ことをによって2002年にモロッコそしてアフガニスタンへの発送の後で無理に曲られたことを存在binyam Mohamedの英本国のエチオピアの存在はは、言った。 政府。 MohamedはGuantに移ったか。2004年にnamoおよび彼に対するすべてのテロリズム充満は去年退去した。 Mohamedは人が訴訟手続なしで誘拐され、延滞および質問のための外国に移る無理に曲られた異常な演出の犠牲者、頻繁にだった。

Mohamedおよび4人の他の原告はボイング補助されたJeppesen Dataplan、Inc.を訴えている。 飛行のそれらが無理に曲られた他の国および秘密CIAのキャンプへのそれら。 Mohamedか。sの場合はイギリスのあった証拠の解放を妨げるために政府の圧力の、2つのイギリスの正義ブッシュ政権を訴えたか。苦悶の主張に関連したか。 Mohamedの。

裁判所文書から編集された２５ラインは細部をいかにについてのMohamed含んでいたか。sのgenitalsは他の苦悶方法極端と同様、メスによってそうスライスされwaterboardingか。非常に遠い羽毛はそれらが事項のリストである、か。 イギリスに従って役人は電信(イギリス)によって引用した。

原告か。 不平は引用し言うようにJeppesenの前の従業員を、か。私達は異常な演出飛行すべてをするか。 、苦悶飛行。知っているか。 年長の会社の役人はまた無理に曲られる国に外見上会社によって運ばれた人々を是認した。

Obamaか。sの司法省は第9米国の三人の判事のパネルの前に現われた。 Jeppesenの訴訟の月曜日巡回控訴院。 しかしブッシュ年の暗い方針の突然の中断を作るかわりに、Obamaの管理は同じを要求したか。州秘密か。 ブッシュが苦悶および違法監視の彼の方針に照会を妨げるのが常であったこと特権を与えなさい。 州秘密を異常な演出プログラムがあること要求することは媒体で広く文書化されたあるので陰険である。

か。これは苦悶および演出の非難で機能する新しい管理のための機会だったが代りにコースをとどまることを選んだか。 ACLUを言ったか。sベンWiznerの5人のための相談。

If the judges accept Obama’s state secrets claim, these men will be denied their day in court and precluded from any recovery for the damages they suffered as a result of extraordinary rendition.

Two and a half weeks before Obama?s representative appeared in the Jeppesen case, the new President had signed Executive Order 13491. It established a special task force ?to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control.?

This order prohibits extraordinary rendition. It also ensures humane treatment of persons in U.S. custody or control. But it doesn?t specifically guarantee that prisoners the United States renders to other countries will be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that doesn?t amount to torture. It does, however, aim to ensure that our government?s practices of transferring people to other countries complies with U.S. laws and policies, including our obligations under international law.

One of those laws is the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights (ICCPR), a treaty the United States ratified in 1992. Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits the States Parties from subjecting persons ?to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.? The Human Rights Committee, which is the body that monitors the ICCPR, has interpreted that prohibition to forbid States Parties from exposing ?individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement.?

Order 13491 also mandates, ?The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.? The order does not define ?expeditiously? and the definitional section of the order says that the terms ?detention facilities? and ?detention facility? ?do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.? Once again, ?short term? and ?transitory? are not defined.

In his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Eric Holder categorically stated that the United States should not turn over an individual to a country where we have reason to believe he will be tortured. Leon Panetta, nominee for CIA director, went further and interpreted Order 13491 as forbidding ?that kind of extraordinary rendition, where we send someone for the purposes of torture or for actions by another country that violate our human values.?

But alarmingly, Panetta appeared to champion the same standard used by the Bush administration, which reportedly engaged in extraordinary rendition 100 to 150 times as of March 2005. After September 11, 2001, President Bush issued a classified directive that expanded the CIA?s authority to render terrorist suspects to other States. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the CIA and the State Department received assurances that prisoners will be treated humanely. ?I will seek the same kinds of assurances that they will not be treated inhumanely,? Panetta told the senators.

Gonzales had admitted, however, ?We can?t fully control what that country might do. We obviously expect a country to whom we have rendered a detainee to comply with their representations to us . . . If you?re asking me, ?Does a country always comply?? I don?t have an answer to that.?

The answer is no. Binyam Mohamed?s case is apparently the tip of the iceberg. Maher Arar, a Canadian born in Syria, was apprehended by U.S. authorities in New York on September 26, 2002, and transported to Syria, where he was brutally tortured for months. Arar used an Arabic expression to describe the pain he experienced: ?you forget the milk that you have been fed from the breast of your mother.? The Canadian government later exonerated Arar of any terrorist ties. Thirteen CIA operatives were arrested in Italy for kidnapping an Egyptian, Abu Omar, in Milan and transporting him to Cairo where he was tortured.

Panetta made clear that the CIA will continue to engage in rendition to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects and transfer them to other countries. ?If we capture a high-value prisoner,? he said, ?I believe we have the right to hold that individual temporarily to be able to debrief that individual and make sure that individual is properly incarcerated.? No clarification of how long is ?temporarily? or what ?debrief? would mean.

When Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) asked about the Clinton administration?s use of the CIA to transfer prisoners to countries where they were later executed, Panetta replied, ?I think that is an appropriate use of rendition.? Jane Mayer, columnist for the New Yorker, has documented numerous instances of extraordinary rendition during the Clinton administration, including cases in which suspects were executed in the country to which the United States had rendered them. Once when Richard Clarke, President Clinton?s chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council, ?proposed a snatch,? Vice-President Al Gore said, ?That?s a no-brainer. Of course it?s a violation of international law, that?s why it?s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.?

There is a slippery slope between ordinary rendition and extraordinary rendition. ?Rendition has to end,? Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! ?Rendition is a violation of sovereignty. It?s a kidnapping. It?s force and violence.? Ratner queried whether Cuba could enter the United States and take Luis Posada, the man responsible for blowing up a commercial Cuban airline in 1976 and killing 73 people. Or whether the United States could go down to Cuba and kidnap Assata Shakur, who escaped a murder charge in New Jersey.

Moreover, ?renditions for the most part weren?t very productive,? a former CIA official told the Los Angeles Times. After a prisoner was turned over to authorities in Egypt, Jordan or another country, the CIA had very little influence over how prisoners were treated and whether they were ultimately released.

The U.S. government should disclose the identities, fate, and current whereabouts of all persons detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody by the CIA since 2001. Those who ordered renditions should be prosecuted. And the special task force should recommend, and Obama should agree to, an end to all renditions.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law. Her new book, Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent (with Kathleen Gilberd), will be published in April 2009. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.

Have Your Say: A Call to End All Renditions
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report here.

RSS TrackBack URL

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Related News

• Worker says Boeing knew about CIA renditions
• Boeing offshoot helped CIA Tortue Flights
• Information on use of Shannon ‘rendition’ sought
• VIDEO: Ben Griffin Speaks Before Being Gagged
• Meet the New Criminals: Obama Keeps Rendition

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 at 8:17 pm and is filed under Political News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Loading ...

ADVERTISEMENTS

SITE MAPS

7/7 Activism News Afghanistan Alternative-Energy Art Barack Obama BBC Big-Brother Bilderberg Biometrics Bush CCTV Censorship CIA Climate-Change Cover-Up Cults Culture Database-State David-Hicks David-Ray-Griffin Debt Democrats Demos Drugs Education Entertainment Environmental News EU False-Flag FBI Fraud Free-Speech Freemasons G8 Global-News Global-News Globalization Guantanamo Health-News History ID-Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel John McCain Law Marches Media News MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music NASA Neocons New World Order NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police-State Political News Propaganda Reviews RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Science & Technology News Secrecy Security Slavery Space Sports Spy Spying Stephen-Lendman Technology Terrorism Tony-Blair Torture TV UK-News UN USA- USA-News Video Voting war War & Terrorism News Warfare Web Development News White-House Wolfowitz World_News Yahoo
2003 - 2005 Archives | 2005 - 2007 Archives | 2007 - 2008 Archives | Current Archives | Past Version