More on rendition

I direct you to a sober and characteristically thoughtful critique of my position on rendition from Norman Geras. Norman argues:

"Oliver makes it clear that he is not defending the use of rendition for purposes of torture; that he envisages it as a preliminary to due process indeed. What he is defending, in other words, is a 'cleaned-up' version of the institutional practice that - there is evidence for concluding - has actually been countenanced by the Bush administration. But this is not a purely philosophical discussion; the weight of political emphasis is very important. If the real practice of extraordinary rendition has been to accommodate or encourage the use of torture, that emphasis ought to be on condemning what's wrong with it, rather than on defending it in a purified version."

I agree with Norman that this is not a purely philosophical debate, and so I'll respond with a practical example. When the terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal was brought to justice by France, the European Commission of Human Rights specifically rejected the defence claim that his rendition from Sudan was illegal. Norman might counter that French justice is a case apart from states where human rights violations and even torture occur. 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.

Norman is a political philosopher of weight and erudition. So it's fortunate for me that my critics also include numerous contributors to the discussion threads at "Comment is Free". Here's one:

"I have just finished reading your article in the paper edition of the Guardian. Kamm, after reading the garbage, I am filled with hate and despise towards you. You are despicable. You are simply detestable. Your articles are deplorable. Your articles are garbage and rubbish, always..... You have a twisted mind which needs to be examined.

"But for your information, CIA was behind 911. That was such a complex operation to be planned from a cave in remote area of Afghanistan!! There are a lot more evidence of the former than the latter! I am beginning to believe OBL is a fictitious character created by the likes of you to carry out their War of Aggression against nations."

And another:

"Kamm will be charged with war crimes because his articles have encouraged the act of aggression against a sovereign nation, the ultimate war crime. 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 that will be sharing a rather large cell."

Nick and Melanie, eh? I had no idea.

In my view, the most powerful argument against renditions is that, because they require a lower standard of evidence than a criminal court, then abuses - against the guilty, never mind the innocent - are much more likely to occur. The human costs as well as the diplomatic opprobrium that a policy of rendition risks are high. Given the importance and moral gravity of that objection, it is extraordinary - and not in my view a good thing - that we militants in the war on terror instead get quite so many 9/11 truth campaigners, Media Lens supporters and others of a Gallowayesque persuasion to contend with, at least so far as my normal debating forums are concerned.

UPDATE: I've made a correction to this post. Originally I said that "the European Court of Human Rights specifically rejected the defence claim that his rendition from Sudan was illegal". For Court, read Commission. (Till 1998, individual plaintiffs did not have direct access to Court, but applied indirectly through the Commission.) This doesn't affect my point about Carlos's rendition. The Commission ruled that there was no violation of the European Convention of Human Rights in the rendition, and rejected Carlos's application.

Comments

[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?

[Howard]

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.

[None]

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 ?

[PJD]

"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:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/Jan/ChamberjudgmentRamirezSanchezvFrance.htm

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.)

[dirigible]

"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.

[PJD]

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."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/185/185we30.htm

See footnote 437.