Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:37 PM
Jefferson23 (20,304 posts)
The importance of European court's ruling against extraordinary rendition
It's the first time a court has expressly found that the CIA's extraordinary programme constituted torture.
07 Jan 2013 07:22
** Jonathan Hafetz is Associate Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law and the author, most recently, of Habeas Corpus after 9/11: Confronting America's New Global Detention System.
In a recent judgment, the Grand Chamber of the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) concluded that German citizen Khaled el-Masri had been subjected to torture, unlawful detention and other abuses in connection with the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" programme.
The case, El-Masri v The Former Yugolsav Republic of Macedonia, not only represents an important judicial critique of the CIA programme, which led to the enforced disappearance of numerous individuals after 9/11, but also underscores the failure of US courts to provide a remedy for the same human rights violations.
The basic facts of el-Masri's case have previously been described in accounts of the extraordinary rendition programme, including the 2006 Council of Europe report (compiled by Swiss Senator Dick Marty). In brief, el-Masri was seized while travelling by bus across the Serbian-Macedonian border based on suspicion of terrorism.
Macedonian officials took el-Masri to a hotel in Skopje, where they subjected him to abuse - including holding a gun to his head - during three weeks of incommunicado interrogation. El-Masri was then handed over to a CIA rendition team, who stripped, beat and sodomised him with a suppository before flying him - hooded and shackled - to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan known as the Salt Pit.
in full: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/20131595119662381.html
2 replies, 672 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
The importance of European court's ruling against extraordinary rendition (Original post)
Response to Jefferson23 (Original post)
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:59 PM
xocet (1,900 posts)
1. President Obama....
With all due respect, it is time to replace Attn. Gen. Holder and get on with the prosecution of Bush et al. for torture et cetera.
If war crimes were committed (and the Bush Administration does not seem shy in admitting to that fact), is it also a war crime to shield the war criminals?
If shielding war criminals is a crime, will you and your administration be liable to future prosecution for shielding Bush et al?