Jump to content

Talk:Extraordinary rendition/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Cleanup template March 2007

The cleanup template was added as Revision as of 01:54, 13 March 2007 by 24.235.136.112. Any reason for not to removing it? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't see a reason to keep the template...things have progressed quite well. The only thing that's bugging me, and it's a very small thing, is that the lead section is so long before the reader comes to the TOC. Maybe a "general overview" header after the 1st paragraph to move it up a bit? If not, no problem. Akradecki 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
See WP:LEAD#Length: it is completely appropriate for a large article to have a 4 paragraph lead, which gives an overview of most of the article's important points. Tazmaniacs 14:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PACE / Council of Europe

According to Philip's remark, I've changed the reference for Council of Europe to the appropriate one. What is strange is that a Google search gave me first this result with the same, wrong, header of the PACE calls for oversight... This points out again that link rot is not an excuse to remove sources, since they still have existed although the Internet has changed. Else only what the Internet says today is real. Tazmaniacs 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that their site is pretty much messed up, as when you click on "Franco Frantini" or "Dick Marty" or "More..." you end up with Belarus. Tazmaniacs 01:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Treaty obligations

Who's treaty obligations does this section refer to? There next to no citations from legal experts stating which if any of these treaty obligations affect extraordinary rendition let alone if they should affect extraordinary rendition by the United States. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source for the 1984 Convention against Torture. [1] This is by; Chandra Lekha Sriram, Chair of Human Rights at the University of East London School of Law (UK) currently visiting at the University of Maryland School of Law. Read it and see what you think. Hypnosadist 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (not signed by the US) qualifies forced disappearance as a crime against humanity (it's in the article). You are probably missing the point that kidnapping someone in the street and detaining him against any judicial oversight qualifies as forced disappearance (yes, exactly like what happened during Pinochet's rule, and elsewhere), when not speaking Newspeak. The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (not signed by the US) explicitly condemns such disappearance, whatever the emergency invoked (recently signed by various states, it is not a surprise that Washington has refused to sign it in these allegedly "troubled times"). The only, actual, international treaty which the US has signed and ratified and which it violates is the UNCAT (United Nation Convention Against Torture), article 3 (something which, by the way, you can read in the lead, since the EU parliamentary report has underlined that - I think they have some "experts" who work for them). Tazmaniacs 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This lawyer seems to know a lot about the possibilities given by security services:

"European countries, like the US, face a real dilemma: release terror suspects to comply with laws concerning reasonable detention and risk releasing someone who is a real danger to their countries, or continue detention in violation of international standards."

Really? So, today, with all this anti-terrorist legislation, one is not able to legally arrest a terrorist? Such a "dilemma" indeed... Why not just burn all of Montesquieu and all of the books written by the tradition of liberalism and goes on to the 21st century, where laws prevent society from defending itself against its "enemies"? Tazmaniacs 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

From most of the the answers given here, I don't think I have explained myself very well. Yes I can read the original of the treaties. Any fool can do that, but what is missing in this section is an expert analysis of what those treaty obligations mean for extraordinary rendition and specifically extraordinary rendition by the USA. The source that Hypnosadist gave (Chandra Lekha Sriram Exporting Torture: US Rendition and European Outrage) would be a good start because without this type of expert analysis the inclusion of this section is probably outside the scope of this encyclopaedia: see WP:OR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources --Philip Baird Shearer 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, excuse my sourness sometimes get a bit carried away :) Maybe you're looking for this kind of things: Torture by proxy: international law applicable to ER by Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (December 2005, [2]); Joint Committee On Human Rights Thirtieth Report; Ibid, 23rd report, etc.? I'll highlight this definition of ER:

"Extraordinary Rendition: this is a term which has been coined to describe state

kidnapping of individuals and their transportation by state officials from one state to another for uncertain or publicly unknown purposes. This practice has been the subject of much concern by the European Parliament as it has been practiced by the USA with the complicity of various EU Member States, candidate states, states in the Western Balkans and Afghanistan. In light of the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 [ of UNCAT, ndlr] , any

policy intended to promote human rights in JHA and AFSJ must address this issue (The Policy of the EU in the Field of Border Control and the Fight against Organised Crime: How does it impact on the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms in third countries? (Sub-Committee Human Rights, EU)

You'll surely find others. Basically, the most important strictly judicial, international law, instruments, which may cause a problem for the US is, again, article 3 of the UNCAT which the US have signed. Experts say that (for once that "experts" do not say against common sense stuff!). Actually, as the US administration tentatives show, they will need experts to precisely claim that article 3 of the UNCAT does not apply in these circumnstances. One must indeed be an expert in arguing in legal matters to go against the evidence (not "my" evidence, but the evidence underlined by the EU, etc.) All others international conventions (on forced disappearance, etc.) have not been signed by the US, much less ratified, so they are not bound by it. This, IMO, does not mean that one should abstain from citing these international law instruments & conventions, as they make the ethical stakes of ER clear (without engaging in POV debates by the intermediary of low-level editorials from all political perspectives). What I'm saying, in other words, is in no way different from the use of human rights: the fact that they "don't exist", that is, that they are a judicial fiction with no positive reality (apart, precisely, of these international law instruments, and Human Rights Declarations, sometimes included in state Constitutions), does not make them useless. They provide a moral background and criteria for a certain amount of things. Tazmaniacs 15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we could discuss on this definition of ER and of its inclusion in the lead. Tazmaniacs 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind what is included in the section, just that the section and all that is in it needs to be attributed to expert sources which tie the treaties into ER and specifically US ER.

For example although UNCAT Art.3 is mentioned, UNCAT Art.16 has not and that is at least as important as UNCAT Art.3. Basically UNCAT Art.16 does not allow "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" at home, but UNCAT Art.3 only bans the renditioning to another state that might torture them, it does not forbid the renditioning to a state that carries out "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". It is known from the ECHR Ireland UK judgement back in the 1970s that the "five techniques" are "inhuman or degrading treatment" but they are not torture. So if the US renders a person to a state which uses such interrogation methods, something they can not do at home because they would be breaking UNCAT Art.16 the the US is not in breach of their treaty obligations. Now any analysis worth the paper it is written on should point this out, because it explains why the US bothers to use rendition.

As for the other treaties and the ICC if the US has not ratified them then they are not relevent to the United States obligations under international law. I think that this section needs a re-write with cited expert opinions on the issue --Philip Baird Shearer 20:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

International treaties not signed by the US (such as ICC, new Convention on forced disappearances, etc.) are relevant because they are used by human rights NGOs & opponents of ER to underpin how & why ER is immoral. Same goes for human rights in general: it is not because human rights are not respected that they are irrelevant. Tazmaniacs 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is true, why is the section not titled something like "Moral imperatives" instead of "Treaty obligations"? Treaty obligations implies treaty obligations not moral arguments. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

ok. i think you are right. edit the page from "treaty oblications" to "internetional law" so we can talk treaty signed and not signet by US, and clearly state: "beside recognized international law US never signed this and that traty, making extraordinary renditions, from its point of view, a violation of human rights, but not a crime against humanity" it can work for me. is there any agenda going on? Teardrop.z 01:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See what I wrote in the section #Lead: (21:21, 1 April 2007) "Even if a state has ratified the Rome Statute for it to apply to 'forced disappearances' they would have to be committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, to qualify as a crime against humanity. To date the number of US ER cases would not come anywhere near enough to qualify as a crime against humanity, even if the US was a signatory to the Rome Statute...."

As I said before I think the section needs a re-write based on "in a report by this NGO smith said... because of XYZ the US has violated the human rights of Mr. ABC" because it is complicated and controversial. All the paragraphs should have citations as without this the section contains original research. If a paragraph in this section contains OR then it should be deleted. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the size of this discussion about torture treaties which have no bearing on the topic and are rightly covered in the Wiki article for TORTURE. The very first discussion section here is on how ridiculously large this article has gotten. Can we not join those two dots already ?

Extraordinary renditions break no torture treaties. Torture does. Countries that torture do. Here you have the equivalent of devoting half of an article about the US Air Force to discussion about War Crimes, just because it is the air force is the vehicle used for the bombing of civilians. Is that also the proper place for extensive references to War Crimes treaties or is this article bloated (it is truly awful to read) with far too much information which belongs elsewhere ?

There is currently a category for renditions with 2 whole articles in it. Get rid of that or make use of it. Because there is far too much War-on-terror, CIA-program and US-specific info in this general article for what "rendition" refers to. Attriti0n 13:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are coming late to this conversation. So please see these differences to the section under discussion.
Extrodinary rendition is a specific form of rendition. No reason why there should not be two articles. Althought I would agree with you that this article is too large.
Are you sure that "Extraordinary renditions break no torture treaties" What about UNCAT Article 3.1?
--Philip Baird Shearer 13:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
What about article 3.1? Wouldn't that be the last example you would cite? It is a law which is broken when the offender agrees they have broken it. I hope you haven't dedicated all this time to something that pointless. After all, it would appear to have been drafted to ensure nobody ever needed to hear about it ever again. Attriti0n 11:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That is not quite the way it works. See the Supremacy Clause in the United States constitution. (Article 3, section 6 paragraph 2 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." It is possible for a US administration to take one legal opinion only to find that it is overturned in court as has happened a number of times over Unlawful combatants. Like all governments of civilized countries the American Government takes its treaty obligations very seriously, hence the reluctance by US Governments to ratify treaties which would clash with the US constitutional rights. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The following authorative examination - TORTURE BY PROXY: INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW APPLICABLE TO “EXTRAORDINARY RENDITIONS” ([3] explores the legal position under US domestic law, UNCAT, the ICCPR, the Geneva Conventions III and IV, and the Refugee Convention. It also explores questions of individual liability under US domestic law, and in relation to the International Law of state responsibility. Diranh 05 May 2007 20:37 GMT+1

It is an interesting paper but it wears its POV on its sleeve: "For the purpose of this Report, Extraordinary Rendition is the transfer of an individual, with the involvement of the United States or its agents, to a foreign state in circumstances that make it more likely than not that the individual will be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment."(page 13) I've only skimmed the document but I could not find a reference that the US administation is in breach of UNCAT if the refouler is "only" likely to suffer "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" when transfered (something that article 16 of UNCAT forbids the US to do at home).

I think that much of this document is very speculative for example statments like this "Thus, in the Extraordinary Rendition context, the United States would be in breach of the Geneva Conventions if it fails to investigate and prosecute ... the unlawful transfer of civilian detainees to third states where those detainees will be subject to torture." (page 105) the paper is only presenting one side/part of an argument. It depends if the civilian is a protected person under CGIV. To be covered by GCIV the US has to be in in a state of aremd conflict with the government of that country, because the civilian citzens of any non belligerent county with diplomatic representation in the USA (all most all countries) are not covered by this treaty (see the Torture article, section Geneva Convention IV exemptions) ... --Philip Baird Shearer 22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"I think that much of this document is very speculative" I think you misunderstand the nature of this document Philip, its a legal Opinion not a statment of fact and is worded as such.
"only presenting one side/part of an argument" nope its presenting what the New York Bar Assoc think is the national and international legal issues and statutes concerning ER. As such is very notable and interesting and the section your looking for is V.a starting on page 35 of the PDF. This i can see ending up being a core document for this article, thanks for posting this Diranh. Hypnosadist 08:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Philip Baird Shearer said "It is known from the ECHR Ireland UK judgement back in the 1970s that the "five techniques" are "inhuman or degrading treatment" but they are not torture."

This is of course correct. However that decision on these pts must now be read in the light of Selmouni v France [1999] ECHR 66 where at para. 101 the Court explained:

"having regard to the fact that the Convention is a “living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions” ... the Court considers that certain acts which were classified in the past as “inhuman and degrading treatment” as opposed to “torture” could be classified differently in future. It takes the view that the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies." diran 15:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Derry's airport 'first to ban CIA flights'

This story [4] in the Belfast Telegraph is about an AI inspired ban on rendition flights through this publicly owned airport. From the article;

The human rights organisation is confident airport owner Derry City Council will introduce a landmark ban within weeks that will put pressure on other airports to follow suit. "I think we can say with as much confidence as we can garner that this will be a first for Europe", said Patrick Corrigan, Amnesty spokesman. "We are not aware of any other local authority or any other airport in Europe which has a specific anti-rendition policy." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Interesting. We might want to wait, though, for implementation of this new policy. Something the article doesn't "lose time on." I wonder how this goes. "CIA illegal flights forbidden here?" Is that an implicit recognition that airports have granted official authorization to CIA black flights? That not only did they know they were CIA planes, but that they officially knew that they carried out disappeared people? Tazmaniacs 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Legality

The section "Debate over legality, utility" takes a US-centric view in only considering the legality in the US.

This section also should mention the legal position in the countries where the acts take place, and what laws are being broken there. There are references to kidnapping investigations in other parts of the article, the legal position of the persons doing the "rendition" needs to be explained, and the likelihood of them being caught and prosecuted.

If a government deliberately does illegal acts in a foreign country, is this an act of war? TiffaF 08:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Background

Following the intro and "Background" sections, there is the Usage By Clinton Administration section where there are several mentions of the fact that CIA usage of renditions started with Islamic militants being sent to Egypt. This is described as being to Egypt's benefit as [i] they had "problems" with Islamic militants and [ii] this allowed Egypt to interrogate them. This section also includes quotes from Clarke and Scheuer about the origins and reasons behind this program.

Somehow nowhere in these 3 sections is it mentioned that this program originated for the purpose of sending these people back to countries where they had committed crimes and where there were existing charges against them, rather than transferring them to the US where no charges existed and even up until 2005, where laws were insufficient to charge them with anything. No mention whatsoever for the genesis of this program.

Both Clarke and Scheuer have commented on this as the driving reason this system was employed in print and in TV documentaries, yet here they are quoted on the background of this program with nothing more than anecdotes which offer practically nothing in terms of context in these background sections.

The Egyptians weren't just looking for random people to interrogate because they like to. These were people who's roots were in assassinations and terrorist attacks in Egypt. They were wanted for these crimes. Here the article suggests this was just some kind of happy coincidence that the US wanted people interrogated and Egypt liked doing that as a hobby because of "problems" they had with Islamic militants.

Is this really as informative as this article could be ? It would appear that an aspect of this program, which could reasonably be suggested as the reason for its entire existance and providing significant context is entirely absent. Attriti0n 12:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a utility question. I don't know whether this is the proper forum for it, or even if it can be addressed in a Wikipedia entry. If Rendition is for interrogation purposes, why send prisoners to another country? In other words, if they are intel assets, why would we hand them over and trust the information that comes back to us? Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia obviously all have their own agendas. This has always bothered me about the practice and its utility.Njsamizdat (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

critisism

there should be a stand alone, point by point critisism section!!!--Greg.loutsenko 10:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Use of extraordinary rendition outside the United States

In response to a question above, there are plenty of other examples of state-sponsored overseas kidnapping of people so they can be brought to that state for criminal charges to be pressed; e.g. the so-called "East Berlin incident" of 1967, in which South Korea kidnapped a number of their own citizens from West Germany (the most famous being Isang Yun) and brought them back to Seoul to face fabricated espionage charges. [5] Though the term "Extraordinary rendition" does not seem to have come into popular currency until more recently. cab 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The "rendition" part means literally means turning people over to another state's custody. But in practice, we're including all CIA black site activity here ('cause people are calling it rendition). So, had El-Masri, arrested by the Macedonians and rendered dto the CIA been kidnapped by the CIA instead, there would have been no rendition involved. I think your examples are in the latter category. But there's plenty more from the past, especially in examples like Operation Condor. Given what people mean when they use the term ER, though, it's probably best to just write a "historical precursors" sections with links to these things.
Incidentally, I think it's fair to acknowledge two different things are being described here: rendering suspects from "non-torturing countries" to "countries where people get tortured" (however useless those terms are, that is what "torture by proxy" means), and rendering people into a torture program run by a country that likes to think of itself in the first category ("CIA secret detention program").--Carwil 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Depending on the definition of extraordinary rendition, the most famous extraordinary rendition of the last 50 years could possibly be the abducton of Adolf Eichmann --Philip Baird Shearer 09:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, depending on the definition. But no one means that when they say "extraordinary rendition". Nor, incidentally do they mean, the capture of Manuel Noriega by the U.S. In all theses cases, no one is being "rendered" from one state to another. For consistency's sake, we should probably excise CIA capture to CIA detention stories to CIA secret detention program or somewhere similar. And as suggested above, add historical precursors (but keep it to ideas discussed as precursors by RS outside).--Carwil 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? Because Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney American Law Division Renditions: Constraints Imposed by Laws on Torture (April 5, 2006) writes "Sometimes renditions occur with the formal consent of the State where the fugitive is located; other times, they do not." (CRS-3) the footnote (6) to that sentence, goes into some detail that such a rendition without the consent of the State where the fugitive is located may be illegal under international law, but it does imply that such a kidnaping is an illegal rendition. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Scott Horton

The bit in the background section seems to be missing information, as the sentence about Horton makes no sense. 62.25.109.195 13:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was not complete and even if edited to make a complete sentence would only serve to act as a reference to the claim made in the sentence immediately preceding it. Perhaps this information should exist in the form of a footnote.

CIA jails in Europe confermed

This news story from the BBC [6] has the latest on Dick Marty's investigation. Hypnosadist 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Abu Omar trial starts[7]. Hypnosadist 21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not confirmed, they are merely reported by a news agency. Confirmation would be by a government official, not the BBC. XINOPH | TALK 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Usage by Bush Administration

This sentence makes no sense: Following mounting scrutiny in Europe, including investigations held by Swiss senator Dick Marty who released a public report in June 2006, the US Senate was about, in December 2005, to approve a measure that would include amendments requiring the director of national intelligence to provide regular, detailed updates about secret detention facilities maintained by the United States overseas, and to account for the treatment and condition of each prisoner. So after an event which occurred in 2006, something was happening in 2005, and it being 2007, we still don't know what the outcome of that vote was? This should be re-worded, deleted, or updated to make some degree of sense. XINOPH | TALK 19:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dick Marty's investigation did not "occured in 2006", its final report was publicized in June 2006, but parts of it were known before. Tazmaniacs 11:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the future

In the lead:

The trial of the 26 Americans and nine Italians has been scheduled to begin in June 2007.

By my calendar we have passed June 2007 so what happened? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6732897.stm - it has actually started. --99.240.210.190 01:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC) There is now a wait until a determination is made regarding the possibility that the making-public of the original investigation breaks state secret laws --99.240.210.190 01:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article is far from neutral. From assuming that it's outside legal bounds (hardly proven) to the apparent pile-on against the States indicates major problems. -Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 13:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the individuals rendered never face legal charges this procedure is an extrajudicial procedure -- by definition. Geo Swan 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not noticed any "pile-on against the States". If you are refering to the fact that the article criticizes the program (and refers to sources) please feel free to add reliable sources which would help fix the lack of neutrality you mention.--Ernstk 01:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
WCC any Specific suggestions on how to make this article more NPOV? (Hypnosadist) 12:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Without active discussion of how the article could be improved, the tag should be removed. Tags are not a substitute for fixing the article. Nareek (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have kind of explained my case. I'm not sure what else to say at this point since people apparently aren't seeing it the same way. -Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me that you've made your case. Absent specific complaints of POV, I don't see the need to tag this article. Perhaps you can identify specific POV statements in the article? In the meantime, I intend to be bold in removing the tag for now. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm very confused, WCC. We have principals involved (Gore; Scheuer, to begin with) admitting its illegality. And "extrajudicial" kind of speaks for itself (I know it's not the same as illegal, but kidnapping is illegal). Otherwise, yes it's long, but aside from suggesting some pro-ER/pro-US government notable additions, what is the need for a POV tag?--Carwil (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"but kidnapping is illegal" not according to the US law if it is from abroad and in furtherance of the US law (see the article in the next section). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"kidnapping is illegal" yes kidnapping someone in italy may not be illegal in america, but it is in italy. (Hypnosadist) 23:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick search reveals only one use of "illegal" by the main narrative voice: "Muhammad Bashmila, a former illegally arrested prisoner." All others are cited and attributed opinions, most with apparent WP:RS standing.--Carwil (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sunday Times

I think that the article by David Leppard with the headline US says it has right to kidnap British citizens published on December 2, 2007 in the Sunday Times, may help to bridge the gulf in understanding between those who see rendition over international frontiers as legal and those who do not. If the two sides understand each other it may be possible to write a more balanced article without the need for NPOV templates. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

World policy council

Opening up disussion as to why user Swatjester removed the paragraph by the World Policy Policy because it was determined this was an "inappropriate source."--Ccson (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's simple. Alpha Phi Alpha is a college fraternity. It is not a political thinktank, nor is it an academic institution. It is not fact checked, nor peer reviewed, nor has any scientific or political credibility. In short, it's a completely unreliable source, no more so than if my college fraternity decided to condemn rendition. It violates WP:RS and violates WP:NPOV's undue weight requirement. It does not improve the article, it only detracts from the article's credibility ("Oh look, wikipedia is citing college frats on extraordinary rendition"). ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

not so simple and you don't know that its fact are not checked. Can your provide proof of your allegations such as "It is not a political thinktank. It is not fact checked, nor peer reviewed, nor has any scientific or political credibility?" What is a fact is wikipedia verifiblity policy only requires that the citd info is verifiable, not that it's true, but again why would a national group with distingshed members publish info that could easily be refuted.

Here is the groups statement on its mission

The mission of The Alpha Phi Alpha World Policy Council is to address issues of concern to our brotherhood, our communities, our nation, and the world. The Council has been charged with applying sustained and profound intellectual energy to understanding and alternative means of bringing about the resolution of problems at the community, national and international levels; expanding fraternal and public knowledge of such problems; and engaging public discussion about them. The Council, in fulfilling its mission, is non-partisan, gives consideration to domestic and international issues, seeks the counsel of experts in relevant fields, provides perspectives on specific problems and, where practicable, recommends possible solutions which may impact favorably African Americans, the community, the nation, and the world.

The WPC was founded as based at Howard University (an academic instituion), however it is funded by Alpha Phi Alpha. The nine men who sit on the board of directors and produce the white papers also serve on various other boards for foundations, colleges and universities, and fortune 500 companies for their unique opinion. A copy of the position papers are disseminated to the White House, congresss, policymakers and others whose input shape the future.

The complete list of current members is provided in the cited reference but here are a few:

This article verifies the credibility of the WPC and indicates the World Policy council received global headlines in its position on Politics in Nigeria.Global indicates International and Headlines would indicate being cited for their view on the issue.

Organizing a world policy council, the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity suddenly made global headlines when the group asked Nigeria to release political prisoners. The council, headed by Ambassador Horace G. Dawson Jr., wants Nigeria, Africa's largest and richest nation, to become a force for good on the continent

The WPC is not "simply" a political think tank because it also focuses on social issues such the AIDS crisis, global warming, the Millennium Challenge Account, Hurricane Katrina, and political issues such as extraordinary rendition , Nigerian Politics, and the Middle East conflict.

Did you know that Alpha Phi Alpha created and heads the foundation to raise funds and construct the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial on the National Mall, a college fraternity as you say. Would you say that they shouldn't be consulted or a valid source to be cited on how to lobby congress to authorize a bill to build a memorial, receive authorization from congress to raise $100 million dollars to construct a memorial in washinton d.c. because ("Oh look, wikipedia is citing college frats on building a $100 million memorial on the national mall no less?) I guess you can start the AFD for the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial since it really about the efforts of a college fraternity. In totality, its a national fraternity with national programs and well respected and cited.--Ccson (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bono is a famous person too. Does it matter whether he believes that the US commits ER? No it doesn't, because he is not a reliable source on the topic. Neither is Alpha Phi Alpha. I know what APhiA is, and what they do, quite well thank you, and your strawmen about their other successes are irrelevant to the point that they are NOT a foreign policy body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the persons were famous and in fact I don't anyone is famous. I said they are distinguished and respected in their fields and competent to address societal, political and economic issues. Plus, we're not disucssing the opinion of one singular individual, but a collective group. If Bono funded a group of respected persons, no one can say that since its the brainchild of Bono, we don't think they are a valid source because the funder is a famous rock star. It's based at Howard and its chairman Horace Dawson is the Director the Ralph J. Bunche International Affairs Center and Patricia Harris Affairs Program At Howard–there are those who respect his opinion.

Again, can you provide your references regarding the WPC non association with an academic instiution, the facts are not checked, no peer review etc, or this your POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccson (talk • contribs) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Common sense tells me that, as well as a google search of alpha phi alpha. Also the fact that I live about 3 blocks from Howard and I know that AphiA is not a foreign policy body. The burden is on YOU, not me, to prove the reliability of your dubious source. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a consensus from other editors that the WPC is a reliable source, so please stop reverting.--Ccson (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice try. You don't have anything close to resembling a consensus there. You have 3 other editors than yourself there. One of them, me, it is not a reliable source. One of them says it's not a reliable source outside WPC and APA articles, which this is not one of them. The third says the same as the previous guy, but adds that it may be an undue weight violation. In fact, none of them support you. I'm removing it again. You do NOT have consensus to continue adding this in. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. The editors agree that it's a reliable source for citing the opinion of council within wikipedia. That's what a white paper is, an opinion. The second editor doesn't say undue weight is present, but makes a generic statement that even thought the source is reliable, undue weight should be reviewed on all sources. Your opinion based on the fact that you live 3 blocks from Howard University is not relevant because it is considered original research. A fouth editor has posted and say he agrees with the other two that the WPC is a reliable source. It's not relevant who founded or funds a group, it's the content, character and reputation of the members, which are simply nine. The fraternity chapters have no input in the process as they receive the white papers at the same time as the President of the United States, policymakers and the media.--Ccson (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You still aren't understanding. Just because it is a reliable source for what the WPC says, does not make what the WPC says notable or relevant. I can reliably source that I live in Washington D.C., but it does not mean that this fact is appropriate for inclusion on the Washington, D.C. article. See Kendrick's explanation below. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's his opinion and brought up only 2 days ago. Your issue was the wpc was not a reliable source because it from a fraternity, not because of SOAP. You're forum searching and latching on to any idea that promotes your cause of removing the citation from the article. Now you've abandonned reliable source and latched on to Notable or Relevant, again, words that other editors only have suggested be considered. Kendrick suggested a Third Opinion which has been requested. Until then, we should be in step 3 of BRD which means the citation for the wpc should be in the article. It's possible other editors may say yes/no to citation, but you're not giving the process a time to work or following suggested guidelines.--Ccson (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Stop throwing around BRD: it's neither a guideline nor a policy. Once again, you've shown that you have no clue as to how process works, and you're willing to blatantly misrepresent it in order to push your unreliable, non notable, undue weight source through. It's not going to happen.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is WP:SOAP. What is needed is a third party WP:RS which shows that this group's opinion is WP:Notable to the topic at hand. In my opinion, as a group of people whose ancestors (cultural or actual) were victims of a rather similar policy (i.e. the Atlantic slave trade) I see a relevancy and I would hope such a source could be found. But otherwise, Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for just any organization's opinions on any topic. -- Kendrick7talk 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion: There seems to be quite a number of issues here. First, Ccson, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; your userpage indicates that you are a member of the fraternity in question so you should be aware of Wikipedia's guideline for this type of situation. That said, Ccson is correct that the WPC's whitepaper is a reliable source for the paragraph in dispute.

However, I see no reason to believe that including the WPC's opinion on the subject is not giving it undue weight. I've searched for mention of the WPC in news articles related to any sort of global policy issue, and the only thing that comes up is one thing from 1998; not a very good record if their opinion should be considered relevant to policy issues in general. The membership of the board, things the group has done, and such are irrelevant to whether the opinion of the council is relevant enough to mention (see honor by association).

The basic question here is "Why should a generic reader care what some fraternity's political-action group says about extraordinary rendition by the United States?". If you can come up with a good answer to that question, the paragraph should be kept. Otherwise, it should be removed. Anomie⚔ 00:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The WPC is not a political action group. it's a nonpartisan think tank which researchs social and political issues, such as global warming, AIDS, and yes some issues which seem political or have been politicized. I am a member of APA and Swatjester is a member of another rival fraternity which would pose a conflict of interest for him. Any reason I would give would up to interpretation however; consider that any of these men could cite their opinion personally and it would be notable since many google searches or library resources could be found. charles rangel is often on CNN for his political opinion, Senator Brooke a former Attorney General cetainly would have his opinion received by some. The fact that the opinions are proferred via council non relevant to me. thanks for opinion.--Ccson (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
EXCUSE ME???? Rival fraternity? I'm an inactive disaffiliated brother of Tau Epsilon Phi, which is a historically Jewish fraternity. Alpha Phi Alpha is a historically black fraternity. There is no rivalry, nor conflict of interest. I'm not even an active member, nor have I been for over 5 years. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked also for secondary sources tying this together and drew a blank (although I didn't delve into JSTOR). At best, a see also for World Policy Council might be OK here, with note of their opinion on their own page. Does that seem like a reasonable compromise? -- Kendrick7talk 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree to this solution in the interim until other editors have been given an opportunity to respond to the RFC. I still believe it should be included, however; thanks for your pragmatic and NPOV during the discussion.--Ccson (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

remove word "alleged" from description of "extraordinary rendition"

See previous discussion Talk:Extraordinary rendition/Archive 3#remove word "alleged" from description of "extraordinary rendition"
A question: for an allegation to become an established fact, is it necessary to have a court establishing this truth? In other words, is historical truth assimilable to judicial truth? Aren't they two different things? Say, European reports, among others, have established the fact that some of ER victims have been tortured. Isn't that sufficient proof? You may find this totally an anachronism, but I just bring it here by chance (not for provocation): would you consider the trial of Socrates exclusively on judicial evidence? Or would you want some historians' demonstration about how it happenned? What sources would that historian use? Tazmaniacs
First was it torture or 'only' "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" and second if it was severe enough pain or suffering to be torture, did the US government know and condone it? Both of those questions can probably only be answered by a judicial review. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What's the difference between "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" and torture? The question of the US government knowing and condoning of it is very important, but also hypocrit (Luis Posada Carriles has not been extradited to Venezuela on grounds that he would be tortured there, while it is legitimate to deport to Syria, Uzbekistan or Egypt??? nice regimes, also...) I'm sad to observe that you confuse historical truth with judicial truth. So, Augusto Pinochet was not condemned. Does that means he was innocent? Tazmaniacs 23:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


I removed the word alleged, but it had been put back with the statement (to paraphrase) "the government denies it". I understand (from the discussions here) that the US house of representatives is not ordinarily the "government", however, they acknowledge its existance. Does a thing have to be acknowledged by the person doing it for it not to be alleged? I note that in [8], Dana Rohrabacher said he would fight any efforts by Democrats to end the practice - therefore there exists a practice.

I also note that the discussion in the archive seems to suggest that "alleged" is used because illegal activity is involved. However, the US government would, in fact, argue that the "transfer of suspected terrorists" to other countries is not necesserily illegal. Also, as opposed to the actual transfer of people, the question of legality is one that probably has to be tested in a court of law (it is a question of law, not fact)

Lastly, the statment above by Tazmaniacs may support the application to a qualifier of "alleged" to the term "cruel", etc. Not to the "rendition" itself.

For these reasons I suggest that the word alleged be removed from the opening paragraph. --99.240.210.190 15:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The phrase is "with regard to the alleged transfer of suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture", because the US administration deny that the transfer suspected terrorists to counties that torture. To date no one has proven that to be a lie as "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" is not torture . --Philip Baird Shearer 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case, should the word "alleged" not be moved as such: "with regard to the transfer of suspected terrorists to countries alleged to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture". The current version means that the transfer is "alleged". --99.240.210.190 17:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it depends if the administration acknowledges that it renders people to those countries that others allege use torture. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that most of the information in this wiki shows that the US government is aware that rendition occurs, but, as Rice herself stated, "where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured". Therefore, the transfer occurs, but the US insists that people will not get tortured. I again note that people within the house of representative recently acknowledged it (at least the removal of persons) occurs. Is the proposed change acceptable? --99.240.210.190 23:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You are using government in the American way, not just for the executive as is used in the UK. We are not talking about government acknowledgment, we are talking about executive acknowledgment. Has the executive acknowledged that any renditions have taken place to "countries known to employ... torture"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I would dispute that something remains "alleged" only until it is acknowledged by the executive. Where did this criterion come from? Who siad that is what "we" are talking about? Secondly, your question has already been addressed above. The transfers are not disputed. If anything, the US disputes that there is torture going on after the transfer. So it is the transfer of people to countries alleged to employ torture (I'm paraphrasing). That is why I proposed the 2nd version - please read it carefuly. The "alleged" would modify the "potentinal of the countries to torture". I refer you again to Rice's comment "seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured" and the the fragment below. --99.240.210.190 16:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It remains alleged until the party admits to it, or it is found to be so by a recognised commission of enquiry or a court of law. We means us wikipedians that of course includes you. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry - that position is baseless. Most facts on wikipedia have never been recognised by a commission, enquiry, nor a court of law. For example, historical events or persons have never been tried before a court of law, nor have the courts necessarily admitted to any actions (not everybody has a diary). Facts, in life, are not equatable to something like "having been found guilty in a court of law". As regards the "party" admitting to it, you seem to only accept an admittance from the executive admin. But, why stop with the executive administration? Why not claim that it must be the CIA (or FBI), or that it must be those actual people who actually did the kidnapping. From where does this requirement flow? On a perponderance of evidence, such renditons have occured. Once again, I refer you to, inter alia, the discussion with Merkel and Rice below. Can you please address why this does not satisfy the statement that the US did, indeed, perform such renditions to countries which are alleged to use torture? --99.240.210.190 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Discussion of the Al-Masri matter on December 6, 2005 (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/57672.htm)

Q: Are you in a position to say that that practice has never been used against a German national and will never be used against a German national?

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Actually, the two parts of your question seem to be mutually exclusive and I've very relieved and pleased that I'm able to say that we actually talked about that one particular case and that the American Government, the American Administration, has admitted that this man had been erroneously taken and that as such the American Administration is not denying that it has taken place.

I am also very pleased to note that the American Secretary of State has said that such a mistake, if it occurred, has to be rectified. And as for the rest of its activities, the American Government has made it very clear that they act on the basis of American laws and American international commitments.

As for the rest, we have not talked about any other cases.

SECRETARY RICE: And we act within our obligations internationally, within our own U.S. laws, and that is what I have reiterated to the Chancellor.

Unless I missed something (in which case please put it in bold) the quote does not say that the US administration admits rendering a person to a country that uses torture. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Will you accept it as an admission that persons have been rendered to countries which allegedly use torture?--99.240.210.190 23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless I missed something (in which case please put it in bold) the quote does not say that the US administration admits rendering a person to a country that uses torture. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you purposefully misinterpreting what I wrote? I may have to drop the "good faith" presumption. I will leave the discussion at this point for other wikipedians to read. Perhaps they may weigh in on one side or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.201.153 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The lead has been modified, why not? However, I find it quite strange (I don't know who did it, but even more if it was by one who supported the introduction of "torture by proxy" in the lead) to find that this part: "According to the European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture." which gives a number (very important fact) and clearly states the relation with torture, has been downgraded to a simple footnote. I am reintroducing it in the text, as this is important, factual, and lot more NPOV than the use of the term "torture by proxy". Tazmaniacs 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, this removal of the sentence has provoked a confusion between the Council of Europe's report & the European Parliament report headed by Dick Marty. Finally, see WP:LEAD: there is no need for references in introduction, in particular when all the needed references are to be found in the head of the articles (see subsections pertaining to both reports). Furthermore, why provide a source to the January 2006 intermediary report, when notes 96, 97 and 98 pertain to the final report? Tazmaniacs 14:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On a whole, I don't think the recent adds to the lead have done any good. Because of this controversial term of "torture by proxy", we now end up with the first paragraph including Condoleeza Rice's denial of any torture acts happening (why is it in the third sentence?) Then, the second paragraph goes back to discussing ER without delving too much in this controversial subject of torture, and then it includes it again, since official reports by the UE and others sources have definitely alleged that the US knew what it was doing when sending detainees to countries such as Uzbekistan & Syria. It has lost coherence. I don't see any legitimate reason to put Rice's statement in such a prominent place (something like: "something which the US administration has denied" is more than enough). I am also 100% sure that it must be included (not at all for questions of NPOV or whatever, but for the factual information that the US has denied this - again, we should bother less with opinions and concerns us more with facts). Tazmaniacs 00:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I am therefore moving Rice's comment here, for inclusion in body of article in appropriate place. Tazmaniacs 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated in an April 2006 radio interview that the United States does not transfer people to places where they know they will be tortured.[1][2][3]

Sorry to go back to point zero, but the current lead says:

Extraordinary rendition and irregular rendition are terms used to describe the extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another, and Torture by proxy is used by some critics to describe extraordinary rendition by the United States, with regard to the alleged transfer of suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture. Critics have alleged the use of torture has occurred with the knowledge or acquiescence of the United States.

Can someone gives one example of another state than the US using ER? What's the deal with "irregular rendition"? All of this to include "torture by proxy"... while deleting at the same time the factual sentence: the UE report denounces violation of article 3 of UN Convention against torture... Tazmaniacs 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the term or the practice? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue on that one. I only find it unnecessary to put Rice's denial in the third sentence of the article. On pretexts of NPOV, it only places her statement in an authoritative place, as if it carried more weight than all the others sources (Amnesty International reports, European Union investigations, not to say courtsuits carried on, etc.) together. But well, it is funny actually to have such an article which brings all the necessary evidence beginning by such a refutation. I would think a serious article would include this public statement in a relevant section about US justification and public speeches about it, but well, we can also have some fun from time to time! Tazmaniacs 14:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
i agree completely. [and beeing neutral doesn't mean eating whatever is thrown to us]. It's political debate material... and it is actually against what most credited sources state and common sense. the TbP presece become secondary when it is not even clear that these suspected people are "arrested" outside US sovregnity; or that they are taken to countries known internationally not to be very respectfull of civil rights. that the procedure is not just extrajudicial, becuase there is not even an administrative authority responding on that, it is just praxis. Teardrop.z 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to review your reading of the introduction. There are currently three sentences in the first paragraph (thanks to your (Tazmaniacs) recent edits) two broadly against the United states policy and one for. The remaining three paragraphs are all critical of the US administration's policy. So I do not think that it gives a non neutral point of view to include a sentence early on in the introduction stating the United States administration's position that they do not render people to states which torture people. If that sentence is removed then the tone of the introduction is only critical of the US and not a balanced POV --Philip Baird Shearer 17:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the current lead including the DR Rice quote, but should we not say who the "critics" are? Well at least some of them. Hypnosadist 22:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
NPOV also includes WP:UNDUE. Along with Akradecki (excuse for spelling) & others, we had agree that torture was a controversial topic best developed in the article. As Teardrop has recently pointed out, the first problem is not even if the US are torturing, or not, or if they do "torture by proxy," or not. This might be your moral concern, but your consciousness is not Wikipedia's matters. The judicial & political concerns lifted by ER (to go fast, sorry) is that they are, as Hypnosadist clearly said with his usual straight-forward speech :), is that they are kidnapping. In other words, forced disappearances. This is illegal. Even if the guy is a murderer, an assassin, a terrorist, or the Devil in person. Now, one can change the laws; one can argue, by jurisprudence, on the interpretation of laws; one can, most importantly, simply disobey the law. But the main problem of ER, for European states at any cases (who are important enough to carry some weight, although very relative), or, at least, for European judges, is that a foreign power is kidnapping citizens on its own territory. Erase "torture by proxy", the problem of ER remains. This article thus should be concerned first with that, and then point out torture. And Condoleeza Rice statement is there to make us laugh, all right, that must be British humor :) ! Tazmaniacs 23:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Which treaty directly binds the US's use of the ER programme in regards to "forced disappearances"? It can not be the ICC because the US is not a party to the Rome Statute --Philip Baird Shearer 18:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if a state has ratified the Rome Statute for it to apply to "forced disappearances" they would have to be committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, to qualify as a crime against humanity. To date the number of US ER cases would not come anywhere near enough to qualify as a crime against humanity, even if the US was a signatory to the Rome Statute. The US may have committed various breaches of foreign municipal law or even its own municipal law, but that is a long way from breaking its international treaty obligations, and this article has not yet cited a case under US municipal law which makes members of the administration guilty of a criminal offence. So alledged kidnapping offences are to date just that. In the future if any of the European municipal court cases find the members of the United states government guilty of a criminal offence under their jurisdiction then it would certainly be useful to include in the lead section that mentions that under Italian/(or whatever) Mr zyz a member of the CIA/(or whatever) was found guilty of kidnap in relation to the U.S. abduction and rendition of Mr xyx. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting whether or not the Rice comment is NPOV or not, I find it poor style to place such a specific reference to a quote in the first paragraph.--99.240.210.190 00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the lead. I am not sure why this edit was made Revision as of 07:17, 20 June 2007 by user:Prester John because a brief look at the given sources would have shown that it is not OR and a quick Google returns "about 13,000 English pages for "torture by proxy" -wikipedia" --Philip Baird Shearer 10:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Globalize tag

Why do I get the feeling some editors are just looking to tag this article with something so to try to discredit it? Eh, never mind... that's not assuming good faith, and not a good way to go on this. If editors are earnestly concerned that this doesn't represent a worldwide view, perhaps we should move this article to Extraordinary rendition by the United States, and work on a more generic article for extraordinary rendition as a whole. Thoughts? -- JeffBillman (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if we should redirect extraordinary rendition to rendition. Rendition is a normal, rather uncontroversial legal practice which occurs in a variety of scenarios... including the mere act of placing a recently convicted criminal in the custody of the prison system. Plus, the article at rendition presently is a disambiguation page, covering such unrelated topics as music and a manufacturer of computer chips. It's bad practice to redirect an article to a disambiguation page. -- JeffBillman (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It might seem as if editors were looking to discredit if all edits were perfromed by a single editor, however; the info is being provided by editors who have no knowledge each other. Plus, this article as well as other articles is open for editors from around the world who can provide the research done by their country, and so can you.--Ccson (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, Ccson... and I apologize. I spoke out of frustration, having just removed the POV tag that had been placed on the article for no good reason (and which had remained on the article entirely too long). In that moment of frustration, I felt as though editors were trying to put some kind of black mark on the article. I shouldn't have felt that way, though. -- JeffBillman (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The only other country that i know has done Extraordinary renditions is Isreal and its capturing nazi war criminals. (Hypnosadist) 12:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
South Africa, and Zimbabwe regularly did it back in the rhodesian civil war days. Several middle eastern states have done it, though not directly but through state-sponsored actors, which is sometimes misconstrued as terrorism. The soviet union did it regularly during the cold war.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
OK lets find some sources and put together a Extraordinary rendition article. (Hypnosadist) 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I've asked if anyones got info on the Coldwar and Soviet Union wikiprojects. (Hypnosadist) 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Something to think about carefully is just how much ER is a type of action, and how much it is a politically specific euphemism for a range of actions. Clearly the US has an ER program, but once we wade into analogous acts by other parties, we may start to create a new category not widely acknowledged to exist (and potentially start with WP:OR to boot). It might be better to acknowledge "disappearance", judicial kidnapping, and Operation Condor as historical antecedents to ER, rather than defining them as members of a category. Let's not allow the globalize tag to generate things that aren't there.--Carwil (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source:WPC

Is the opinion of the World Policy Council a reliable source to cite within the wikipedia article as non-state actor?

No

  1. No it is not. While the WPC may be a reliable source for the opinions of the WPC, it is not a reliable source on the topic of extraordinary rendition. The WPC is not a notable source on the topic of extraordinary rendition either. Furthermore since nearly ALL of the article is critical, including the WPC would violate NPOV as undue weight. We already have plenty of notable, clearly reliable source, and we don't need another one. For the record, the WPC is based from a college fraternity, and is nowhere an expert on extraordinary rendition. A google search for "World Policy Council" "extraordinary rendition" comes up with 13 different hits, most of which are the cached version of this article, several mirrors of it, and a myspace blog. It completely fails any notability or reliability tests out there. There are plenty of other, non-fringe sources that we are already using; we don't need another one to pile on the criticism and thus violate NPOV. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    sounds like you have a POV (which you do since you're the editor that's part of the dispute and you're trying to bias other editors here) and are even against the non-fringe articles that criticize this type of kidnapping.--Ccson (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    Of course I have a POV. Everyone has a POV. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    See POV--Ccson (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    Seen it, thanks. NPOV only applies to the article itself, not to the editor making the article. Every person in the world has a point of view. Neutrality only comes in as far as the article is concerned. I'm being neutral. You're the one giving undue weight to a non neutral point of view. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. No, the World Policy Council is not a notable human-rights organization, at least at the present.Ngchen (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      Thanks for your input, here's some info on the groups history on civil and human rights. I have provide links to "reliable" an "notable" references and I encourage you and other editors to read the sources for verifiabilty and for a complete understanding of the groups, history, purpose and accomplishments.
    1. The United States House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 384, approved [422-0], which recognized and honored Alpha Phi Alpha as the first intercollegiate Greek-letter fraternity established for African Americans, its accomplishments and its historic milestone.[9] [10]
      Irrelevant, this is not an article about african americans. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      2. <li.>The Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy has said "Alpha Phi Alpha...developed citizenship schools in the urban South and with its slogan "A Voteless People is a Hopeless People" registered hundreds of blacks during the 1930s, decades before the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) launched their citizenship schools in the 1960s." [11]
      Irrelevant, this is not an article about african americans. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      <li.>For more than a century Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. has continued to supply voice and vision to the struggle of African Americans and people of color around the world. The Fraternity has long stood at the forefront of the African-American community's fight for civil rights, through Alpha men such as W.E.B. DuBois, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Martin Luther King Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Paul Robeson, Andrew Young, William Gray, and Cornel West. The history of these men is the history of America, and their place in the vanguard of the Civil Rights struggle is unparalleled.[12] (Cornel West is WPC member)
      Irrelevant, this is not an article about african americans. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)e
      <li.>General President and WPC member, Henry Ponder, once said "We would like the public to perceive Alpha Phi Alpha as a group of college-trained, professional men who are very much concerned and sensitive to the needs of humankind; We will go to great lengths to lend our voices, our time, our expertise and our money to solve the problems that humankind must solve as we move into the 21st century.[13]
      Irrelevant, this is not an article about Henry Ponder. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      <li.>For more information, visit www.apa1906.net or Alpha Phi Alpha.--Ccson (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      Irrelevant, this is not an article about Alpha Phi Alpha. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    Ccson, I don't know how to make it any clearer. This is not an article about Alpha Phi Alpha.. Let me say it again for emphasis. THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT ALPHA PHI ALPHA. This article is about extraordinary rendition in the united states. It's overwhelmingly clear that the WPC is not in any way a group that is relevant to the discussion on ER. They are simply another small time advocacy group, not even tangentially related, who happen to publish something on the topic, which is outside their area of expertise. Google corroborates this: there is EXTREMELY little content on the WPC as related to extraordinary rendition: less than a five hits that are not mirrors of Wikipedia. That makes the inclusion of this information violate undue weight policy, it violates WP:SOAP (aka: WP:NOT a soapbox) and your repeated pushing of the information given your relation to Alpha Phi Alpha may indeed be a conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not operate on the standard that if you keep pushing and pushing you'll finally get something through. That's not how it works here.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a wiki and within articles and this RFC, we're looking for the opinion of other editors. You are not the final arbiter and even if your POV prevails, it will be beause the wiki community has said so. While this article is not about Alpha Phi Alpha, the editor's objection was that APA was not a notable human rights group as indicated by the United States Congress. I provided the text to show it has been involved in human and civil rights for almost a century. I want to hear from other neutral editors, I know what you think, let me say it another way, I know your opinion although it has altered from "not reliable", "undue weight", "soap" and "notability", I get it; you don't want APA included by any means necessary. Please don't respond, talk about extarordinary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccson (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. I think I'm going to have to vote a weak no on this, although to be precise my objection is not that the WPC fails as a reliable source, it's that it fails as a notable source. To illustrate by example, what is reported in The Lantern may well be reliable, but may not be particularly noteworthy when speaking of issues and events outside the Ohio State University campus. That said, though, perhaps this could be reworded as the opinion of Charles Rangel and other WPC notables whose opinion would be noteworthy... if, indeed, that is their opinion. -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    this sounds like a good comprise. This link [14] which refers tthe WPC's stance on Nigerian politics says "The Council, as head by Ambassador Horace Dawson" may be the magazine way to give notability to the council and its decision to include it in the magazine. I"ll try this. thanks.--Ccson (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    That's not what he said. You just reverted it to basically the way it was. You haven't addressed the problem that they're still not a notable source on this subject. No amount of rewording can change that until the substantive facts of who the WPC are and what they do changes. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, stating that someone leads the WPC is not the same as citing what that someone actually said. I really don't see a way that the WPC can be named in the article itself. At best-- and let me be clear, this is a BEST case scenario-- the WPC could be cited for a quote from some other notable; for example, IF the WPC quoted Rangel or someone of that stature, then the quote and subsequent citation might be used as the opinion of Rangel, et al... NOT the opinion of the WPC. That's my intent here. -- JeffBillman (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused now, you're suggesting Rangel to make a statement he agrees with the report that he helped research, craft, and attach his name and reputation. The white paper is the combined opinion of all members, including Rangel–that's the point of a think tank. A reasonable person would assume that barring Rangel or any other member making a statement that contradicts the officail report, that this member agrees with what was published. Sorry if I misunderstood your intentions, I thought it was a suggestion and I was going with the manner in which a national editor did when citing the opinion of the WPC. Jet named Horace Dawson and not Rangel, and I thought that would be good enough for wikipedia.--Ccson (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me try to elucidate, then, using the same example I used before. Let's say that there is a subject on which James Thurber's opinion would be notable. Let us further say that the source of this opinion comes from something Thurber wrote while a student journalist at Ohio State. Would it be proper to label this opinion as Thurber's own, or that of the student newspaper for which he wrote? Analogously, the World Policy Council can be used as a source (i.e. a link to the Alpha Phi Alpha website could substantiate a quote), but to state a claim as the opinion of the World Policy Council itself is improper, as it fails notability. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes

  1. The WPC is a distinguished body with a distinguished board including an ambassador and three congressmen. They have published a detailed position paper on the topic. I believe it should be included. Wikipedia frequently uses sources from think-tanks even when they have a known political leaning, because WP:NPOV requires that all points of view be included. That they have not published on the subject before is a poor reason to squelch the findings of this clearly prestigious group. By the way, using Google to judge an organization's reputation is absurd. MilesAgain (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, it's not. The complete and utter lack of Ghits, indicates that it has zero reputation and notability. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    The white paper which disucsses Extraordinary rendition was issued in conjunction with the Alpha Phi Alpha's centennial and was sent to members of Congress, so they [congress] were in receipt of the report when the 109th Congress unanimously (422-0) passed a Concurrent Resolution honoring the centennial of Alpha Phi Alpha and states in part:
    Whereas alumni from Alpha Phi Alpha include many noteworthy leaders in the areas of government, business, entertainment, science, and higher education; (this is the makeup of the WPC) Whereas the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity continues to enrich the lives of its members who, in turn, carry out in their communities a commitment to service and the uplifting of humanity (certification for its involvement in human rights)[15]--Ccson (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Which does not assert it's importance at all regarding ER. Point? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yes. The WPC's Board of Directors includes senators, ambassadors, congressmen, presidents of colleges and foundations, and journalists. The Google query example used above is flawed, if "rendition" used instead of "extraordinary rendition" you'll get by order of magnitude more results. --Hisio (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    Fails to address the point: a) this article is about Extraordinary rendition, not ordinary rendition. b) the WPC's is not an expert in, nor qualified to discuss the topic of ER. The fact that their board of directors contains A FEW (and emphasis on few) notable figures, that does not make them in anyway an acceptable source for this specific topic. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Michael John Garcia, Legislative Attorney American Law Division. Renditions: Constraints Imposed by Laws on Torture April 5, 2006 p.2 link from the United States Counter-Terrorism Training and Resources for Law Enforcement web site
  2. ^ Gordon Corera Does UK turn a blind eye to torture?, BBC 5 April, 2005 "One member of the [parliamentary foreign affairs] committee described the policy as 'effectively torture by proxy'".
  3. ^ James Naughtie's Interview of Secretary Rice With British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw] on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme 1 April 2006 on the website of the United States Embassy in London
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Extraordinary_rendition/Archive_4&oldid=633481509"