« Ordinary rendition | Main | Mayoral choices »

March 11, 2008


Conor Foley

Hmm, but Norman reads your articles more charitably than he reads mine (and he also seems to have glossed over part of your argument).

You do not actually say that you envisage rendition 'as a preliminary to due process' in fact you implicitly dismiss this 'judicial approach' because 'the evidence against a terrorist suspect might be circumstantial or partial. It might not be of a type admissible in court.' You at least distance yourself from Nick Cohen's apologia for torture - but the denial of constitutional rights in Gitmo is still an outrage.

Rendition has taken place for a number of reasons - including 'in-depth interrogation' - which meets the internationally accepted definition of torture. People have also subsequently been held in 'legal black holes' and denied due process. I would actually be interested to know if anyone who has been subject to this practice has actually been put on trial?

Why should European countries which respect the rule of law allow their own legal systems be compromised by colluding in this practice?

Stephen Pollard

"But don't worry he'll have plenty of company with nick cohen and his charming wife mel phillips, con coughlin, david aaranovitch to name just a few"

Why have I been left out? Did I upset him?


I can't help thinking that you have missed the main point of Norman's objection. Rendition is in the news now because of it's misuse and the evidence that it has led to torture. At this juncture, defending an idealised version of it with a couple of dated examples leaves you open to the accusation that you are attempting to take the heat of the American administration when right thinking people, on this issue at least, think the heat should be on them.


Little do Nick and Melanie realise Oliver Kamm does not exist. Fooled again by the international neocon-Zionist Bilderberg conspiracy, is there no end to their evil cunning ?


"When the terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal was brought to justice by France, the European Court of Human Rights specifically rejected the defence claim that his rendition from Sudan was illegal"

Do you mean this ruling:


Or another one?

Oliver Kamm

Another one. This is a separate case, in which Carlos's complaint concerned his being held in solitary confinement. The case I'm referring to is Illich Sanchez Ramirez v France, Application No. 28780/95, Commission Decision of 24 June 1996. (I ought to have said European Commission, and not Court, but the point stands regardless. Till 1998, when the Commission was abolished, individual plaintiffs did not have direct access to the Court. They would apply indirectly, through the Commission, as "Carlos" unsuccessfully did in this case.)


"But that surely supports my argument: the proper objection is to abuses of rendition, and the role of European governments is to anticipate and prevent them."

This is still an imaginary scenario given the secrecy and incompetent record keeping that surrounds the current actual practice of rendition rather than an idealised conception of it.


The Redress Trust, in their written evidence to the joint parliamentary committee on human rights commented on Condoleezza Rice's "over-simplification" of the 28780/95 decision. Her assertion appears to be the same as yours here.

[...]Commission stating that "in so far as the application concerns the circumstances in which the applicant was allegedly deprived of his liberty in the Sudan, it is outwith the jurisdiction of the Commission, ratione personae, since the European Convention on Human Rights does not bind that State, and would, therefore, have to be rejected as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention."


See footnote 437.

The comments to this entry are closed.