Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
1AC
OBSERVATION 1: INHERENCY
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION IS INCREASING: DETAINING SUSPECTS WITH OUT CHARGE
AND VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW
Jane Mayer, 2/14/2005, Outsourcing Torture, The New Yorker,
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050214fa_fact6
Rendition was originally carried out on a limited basis, but after September 11th, when President Bush declared
a global war on terrorism, the program expanded beyond recognitionbecoming, according to a former C.I.A.
official, an abomination. What began as a program aimed at a small, discrete set of suspectspeople against
whom there were outstanding foreign arrest warrantscame to include a wide and ill-defined population that
the Administration terms illegal enemy combatants. Many of them have never been publicly charged with any
crime. Scott Horton, an expert on international law who helped prepare a report on renditions issued by N.Y.U.
Law School and the New York City Bar Association, estimates that a hundred and fifty people have been
rendered since 2001. Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts and a member of the Select
Committee on Homeland Security, said that a more precise number was impossible to obtain. Ive asked
people at the C.I.A. for numbers, he said. They refuse to answer. All they will say is that theyre in
compliance with the law.Although the full scope of the extraordinary-rendition program isnt known, several
recent cases have come to light that may well violate U.S. law. In 1998, Congress passed legislation declaring
that it is the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any
person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being
subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.
The Bush Administration, however, has argued that the threat posed by stateless terrorists who draw no
distinction between military and civilian targets is so dire that it requires tough new rules of engagement. This
shift in perspective, labelled the New Paradigm in a memo written by Alberto Gonzales, then the White House
counsel, places a high premium on . . . the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and
their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians, giving less weight to the rights of
suspects. It also questions many international laws of war
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
ADVANTAGE 1: TORTURE
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION USES TORTURE AS A FORM OF INTEROGATION
Jane Mayer, 2/14/2005, Outsourcing Torture, The New Yorker,
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050214fa_fact6
Arar is suing the U.S. government for his mistreatment. They are outsourcing torture because they know its
illegal, he said. Why, if they have suspicions, dont they question people within the boundary of the law?
Rendition was originally carried out on a limited basis, but after September 11th, when President Bush declared
a global war on terrorism, the program expanded beyond recognitionbecoming, according to a former C.I.A.
official, an abomination. What began as a program aimed at a small, discrete set of suspectspeople against
whom there were outstanding foreign arrest warrantscame to include a wide and ill-defined population that
the Administration terms illegal enemy combatants. Many of them have never been publicly charged with any
crime. Scott Horton, an expert on international law who helped prepare a report on renditions issued by N.Y.U.
Law School and the New York City Bar Association, estimates that a hundred and fifty people have been
rendered since 2001. Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts and a member of the Select
Committee on Homeland Security, said that a more precise number was impossible to obtain. Ive asked
people at the C.I.A. for numbers, he said. They refuse to answer. All they will say is that theyre in
compliance with the law. Although the full scope of the extraordinary-rendition program isnt known, several
recent cases have come to light that may well violate U.S. law. In 1998, Congress passed legislation declaring
that it is the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any
person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being
subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States. The Bush
Administration, however, has argued that the threat posed by stateless terrorists who draw no distinction
between military and civilian targets is so dire that it requires tough new rules of engagement. This shift in
perspective, labelled the New Paradigm in a memo written by Alberto Gonzales, then the White House counsel,
places a high premium on . . . the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their
sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians, giving less weight to the rights of
suspects. It also questions many international laws of war. Five days after Al Qaedas attacks on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, Vice-President Dick Cheney, reflecting the new outlook, argued, on Meet the
Press, that the government needed to work through, sort of, the dark side. Cheney went on, A lot of what
needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are
available to our intelligence agencies, if were going to be successful. Thats the world these folks operate in.
And so its going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.The
extraordinary-rendition program bears little relation to the system of due process afforded suspects in crimes in
America. Terrorism suspects in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East have often been abducted by hooded
or masked American agents, then forced onto a Gulfstream V jet, like the one described by Arar. This jet, which
has been registered to a series of dummy American corporations, such as Bayard Foreign Marketing, of
Portland, Oregon, has clearance to land at U.S. military bases. Upon arriving in foreign countries, rendered
suspects often vanish. Detainees are not provided with lawyers, and many families are not informed of their
whereabouts.The most common destinations for rendered suspects are Egypt, Morocco, Syria, and Jordan, all of
which have been cited for human-rights violations by the State Department, and are known to torture suspects.
To justify sending detainees to these countries, the Administration appears to be relying on a very fine reading
of an imprecise clause in the United Nations Convention Against Torture (which the U.S. ratified in 1994),
requiring substantial grounds for believing that a detainee will be tortured abroad. Martin Lederman, a lawyer
who left the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel in 2002, after eight years, says, The Convention
only applies when you know a suspect is more likely than not to be tortured, but what if you kind of know?
Thats not enough. So there are ways to get around it.
3
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
ADVANTAGE 2: RELATIONS
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION KILLS US-ITALIAN RELATIONS
Dilanian 2005 (Ken, staff writer for the Knight Ridder, Further strain on Italys U.S. ties, Knight Ridder, July
1, http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/12031781.htm, viewed 7-13-05)
The episode threatens to blossom into a full-fledged political crisis for the Italian government, worsen U.S.Italian relations -- already frayed over the shooting death earlier this year of an Italian secret-service agent by
American soldiers in Iraq -- and unmask the identities of CIA operatives, some of whom may still be working
undercover.It's also illuminated the growing U.S. use since the Sept. 11 attacks of what the CIA calls
``extraordinary renditions,'' forcible transfers of suspects to third countries, often to nations known to practice
torture.
RENIDTION IS THE STRAW THAT BREAKS THE CAMELS BACK FOR US-ITALY RELATIONS
Newsday July 5, 2005 (New York; Marie Cocco; OPINION; Pg. A28; Flouting our Founding Fathers
ideals)
In this time of celebrating our Independence Day, the Italians are showing us up. Not with their food or fine
design, but with their insistence on keeping faith with the rule of law. The latest row between the United
States and our close ally is a furor over the CIA's apparent abduction of a Muslim cleric and alleged terror
suspect from a Milan street two years ago. The seizure of Hussan Mustafa Osama Nasr was carried out by 13
American intelligence operatives who whisked the radical off to Egypt, where he allegedly has been tortured.
Italian authorities already had the cleric under surveillance. Prosecutors say they were on the verge of
arresting Nasr and penetrating his network when he was kidnapped. An Italian judge now has issued warrants
for the arrest of the 13 abductors, though no one really believes these secret agents with fake identities will be
tracked down. A storm rises over whether any Italian officials had foreknowledge of the operation. The noise
is a diversion from the deeper scandal. The caper, known as an "extraordinary rendition," is one more example
of contempt for the law that has taken hold of our own nation since 9/11.
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
ADVANTAGE 3: LEADERSHIP
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION UNDERMINES LEADERSHIP, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Grey, 2004 (Robert J. Grey Jr., President of the American Bar Association, September 30, 2004 Interview Text,
www.house.gov/markey/Issues/ iss_human_rights_pr041005.pdf)
The American Bar Association objects strongly to the inclusion of provisions authorizing "extraordinary
rendition" in the House leadership's bill that purports to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
These provisions would permit secretly transferring terrorist suspects to foreign countries known to use torture
in interrogating prisoners. Extraordinary rendition not only violates all basic humanitarian and human rights
standards, but violates U.S. treaty obligations which make clear that the U.S. government cannot avoid its
obligations under international law by having other nations conduct unlawful interrogations in its stead. This
practice not only violates our own cherished principles as a nation but also works to undermine our moral
leadership in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Rejecting extraordinary rendition will demonstrate our respect for the rule of law and help protect American
troops who may be detained by adversaries who may be disinclined to honor international obligations in light of
the U.S. government's failure to honor its own.
10
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
worries about the threat from Pakistan, it also keeps a strong force because it feels threatened by China. And
Pakistan keeps a strong force as a deterrent against India's forces. What makes this tension truly worrisome is
the potential for nuclear weapons use in the event of a conflict. Our relations with China are crucial in reducing
tensions between these three regional powers.
11
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
12
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
PLAN
THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THROUGH THE SUPREME COURT, IN
ORDER TO DECREASE ITS AUTHORITY TO DETAIN WISTHOUT CHARGE BY RULING UPON
THE NEXT AVALIABLE TEST CASE THAT EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION SHOULD BE
BANNED ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT VIOLATES OUR TREATY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
GENEVA CONVENTION. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CLARIFY.
13
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
SOLVENCY
PLAN SOLVES LEADERSHIP AND INTERNATIONAL LAW DISENTIGRATION BY INCREASING
OUR MORAL CLOUT
Robert J. Grey Jr. Sept. 30, 2004 (Chicago, U.S. Newswire; The Americas Intelligence Wire; President of
American Bar Association)
The American Bar Association objects strongly to the inclusion of provisions authorizing "extraordinary
rendition" in the House leadership's bill that purports to implement the 9/11 Commission
recommendations. These provisions would permit secretly transferring terrorist suspects to foreign
countries known to use torture in interrogating prisoners. Extraordinary rendition not only violates all
basic humanitarian and human rights standards, but violates U.S. treaty obligations which make clear that
the U.S. government cannot avoid its obligations under international law by having other nations conduct
unlawful interrogations in its stead. This practice not only violates our own cherished principles as a
nation but also works to undermine our moral leadership in the eyes of the rest of the world. Rejecting
extraordinary rendition will demonstrate our respect for the rule of law and help protect American troops
who may be detained by adversaries who may be disinclined to honor international obligations in light of
the U.S. government's failure to honor its own.
THE SUPREME COURT WILL ULTIMATELY DECIDE THE ISSUE OF EXTRAORDINARY
RENDITION.
Danielle Knight, reporter and B.A. in International Studies/Environmental Studies from Antioch College, May
23, 2005, US News and World Report, Vol.138, Iss. 19, pg. 34
Assurances may have value, but even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has acknowledged that Washington
"can't fully control" what happens to detainees transferred abroad for interrogation. CIA Director Porter Goss
agreed, testifying earlier this year that once a terror suspect is out of American control, "there's only so much we
can do."
That may be true for some of the countries to which terrorism suspects have been rendered since 9/11, including
Uzbekistan, Syria, and Egypt. The State Department has reported patterns of torture and abuse of prisoners in
all three places. "Governments that engage in torture," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights
Watch, "always try to hide what they're doing, so their 'assurances' on torture can never be trusted."Senate
Democrats have called for a formal review of the rendition program. But Republicans on the intelligence
committee say that's unnecessary because the CIA's inspector general is investigating the matter.
With so many thorny issues, many legal experts believe the issue will wind up before the Supreme Court. "This
will be a long-term struggle," says Kim Lane Scheppele, who teaches constitutional and national security law at
the University of Pennsylvania. "And these issues will be the big issues of our time."
14
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
15
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
16
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
DEMOCRACY ADD-ON
THE USS OWN VIOLATION OF THE COURT SYSTEM UNDERMINES THE SPREAD OF
DEMOCRACY
Tim Naftali June 30, 2005 (writer for Slate; accessed at http://slate.msn.com/id/2121801/; Milan Snatch:
Extraordinary Rendition comes back to bite the Bush administration)
But after years of ineffective counterterrorism operations, the U.S. government was eager to strike back.
In 1984 and 1986, during a wave of terrorist attacks, Congress passed laws making air piracy and attacks
on Americans abroad federal crimes. Ronald Reagan added teeth to these laws by signing a secret covertaction directive in 1986 that authorized the CIA to kidnap, anywhere abroad, foreigners wanted for
terrorism. A new word entered the dictionary of U.S. foreign relations: rendition. The goal of the early
renditions was to ensure that terrorists understood that they could not escape their day in U.S. court. But
since launching its war on terror, the administration of George W. Bush has expanded the practice to
"extraordinary rendition," which includes kidnappings of foreign suspects so they can be turned over to
authoritarian allies like Egypt for interrogation sessions that likely involve torture. Last week, when 13
CIA agents were charged with kidnapping by an Italian court, it became clear that an extraordinary
rendition had taken place in a democracy in defiance of its independent judiciarya development that
undermines the U.S. crusade for democracy worldwide.
DEMOCRACY IS THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT EXTINCTION
Larry Diamond, 96, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In
the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The
flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have
made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous,
democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life
on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional
threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its
provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.
17
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
18
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
innocence. In Northern Ireland, despite government denials, rumors of a "shoot to kill" policy in the 1980s and '90s severely discredited British security forces. In 1995
the European Court of Human Rights determined that Britain had used undue force in the killing of three Provisional IRA activists in Gibraltar seven years earlier -- a
case that became a cause clbre among Republican paramilitaries and damaged Britain's reputation as a protector of human rights. The Bush administration has not
felt a comparable need to deny extrajudicial killing. An intelligence finding signed by the president in September 2001 authorized the CIA to assassinate suspected
members of al Qaeda; officials subsequently drew up a list of targeted individuals, which can be expanded, although it is unclear how this is done. Bush proudly noted
the agency's successes in his State of the Union speech in January. Like Britain, the United States is creating martyrs.Or take due process. In Northern Ireland, Britain's
detention policy backfired. In August 1971, the government arrested 342 Catholic men, and by November nearly 1,000 people had been interned. The result? Rioting
erupted across the province and energized the Republican movement, which was committed to using violence to create a united Ireland. The European Court later ruled
that indefinite detention violated the European Convention of Human Rights. The British government had to argue special circumstances to justify even the seven-day
detention power in the 1974 Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. These powers eventually became subject to parliamentary oversight.Compare this
with what has happened in the United States. On Sept. 20, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued an order authorizing him to detain
foreign citizens for an unspecified amount of time "in the event of an emergency or other extraordinary
circumstance" -- without congressional oversight. A second order on Oct. 31, 2001, empowered the INS to override an immigration judge's
order allowing an individual's release. For months the administration detained hundreds of unidentified Arab men, keeping
many in solitary confinement. In December, Ashcroft issued an order extending to the FBI and the U.S. Marshals' Service the powers of "investigating,
determining the location of, and apprehending any alien in violation of immigration law." That order went into effect on Feb. 28, 24 hours before the attorney general
lost control of the INS to the Department of Homeland Security. Within hours of the start of the war in Iraq, the FBI utilized these powers to question and detain Iraqis
in the United States.A year and a half after attacking Afghanistan, America continues to hold more than 600 men from 43 countries at Guantanamo Bay. The
administration refuses to apply the Geneva Conventions to al Qaeda suspects or prisoner-of-war status either to
them or to Taliban members. Britain's decision to intern suspected terrorists -- many of them British subjects
protected by the Geneva Conventions -- led to a revitalized terrorist campaign and international condemnation.
What will follow the Bush administration's decision to imprison citizens of countries that have specifically
rejected indefinite detention? These detentions also leave room for severe abuse. U.S. officials acknowledge
having used so-called "stress and duress" interrogation techniques in their attempts to gain information from
captives. (In 1978 the European Court of Human Rights declared Britain's use of such techniques inhuman and degrading.) Last month, a U.S. military
coroner's report stated that "blunt force trauma" contributed to the deaths of two men being interrogated in
Afghanistan late last year by the CIA. And in December, The Washington Post reported on the CIA's use of
"extraordinary rendition," the practice of turning detainees over to countries such as Morocco, Egypt and
Jordan that do not shrink from torturing suspects to gain information. Such actions alienate allied and non-allied
states at a time when America most needs international support.And what about the right to a fair trial, the right
to legal counsel and the right to face one's accusers?
19
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
20
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
TORTURE
DIPLOMATIC ASSURANCES FAIL TO HALT THE TORTURE
Human Rights Watch, Outsourcing Torture, 2004 ,
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/torture/renditions.htm
In many cases, governments, aware of the legal prohibition on sending suspects to such countries, seek written
guaranteesso-called "diplomatic assurances"from authorities in the country concerned that the suspect will
not be tortured if transferred. A growing number of cases, detailed in the reports and briefings listed on this
page, suggest that such guarantees are insufficient. There are important reasons why this is case. Security and
police authorities in countries where torture is still practiced routinely (countries to which many suspected
terrorists are sent) deny that torture occurs at all, making such assurances all but worthless. And the treatment of
such suspects is almost impossible to monitor: torture is illegal and is practiced in secret, deep within the walls
of closed detention facilities, with no opportunity for independent actors to keep an eye on how authorities are
treating detainees. Indeed, torture has resulted even when the transferring government has insisted on written
guarantees and the right to monitor suspects subsequent treatment.
YOU HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO REJECT TORTURE
Fisher 2005 (William, Global Information Network, Rights: Rendition, or Outsourcing Torture? March 14,
http://ezproxy.cl.msu.edu:2047/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=807480491&sid=11&Fmt=3&c
lientId=3552&RQT=309&VName=PQD, viewed 7-13-05)
Markey's bill would require the State Department to annually compile a list of countries believed to torture and
mistreat detainees and prohibits the United States from sending individuals to those countries. It also rejects
current State Department practice of obtaining assurances from such countries that it will not torture a particular
individual.Introducing the bill last week, Rep. Markey said, "Extraordinary rendition is wrong because it
violates international treaties that the United States has signed and ratified, including most notably Article 3 of
the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits sending a person to another state "where there are substantial
grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." Torture, Markey said, "is
morally repugnant whether we do it or whether we ask another country to do it for us. It is morally wrong
whether it captured on film or whether it goes on behind closed doors unannounced to the American people."
The bill does permit legal, treaty-based extradition, in which suspects have the right to appeal in a U.S. court to
block the proposed transfer based on the likelihood that they would be subjected to torture or other inhumane
treatment
21
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
22
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
23
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
24
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
RELATIONS LINKS
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION HAS NO BENEFIT AND WILL CRUSH FUTURE RELATIONS
WITH ITALY
The Washington Post July 3, 2005 (Sunday Final Edition; Editorial; B06; A Roman Mess)
It is not known, and may never be, what benefit to U.S. security resulted from the reported CIA seizure of a
radical Egyptian cleric on a street in Milan in 2003 and his delivery to Cairo for detention in an Egyptian
prison. But the price of the extraordinary operation is all too apparent: from the more than $100,000 some
18 operatives allegedly blew on luxury hotels to the kidnapping charges an Italian prosecutor has brought
against 13 of them, to the understandable uproar in Italy and the damage it could cause to future ItalianAmerican cooperation in the war on terrorism. Was the sudden disappearance of Hassan Mustafa Osama
Nasr and any intelligence it yielded -- allegedly under torture so severe that he lost hearing in one ear -worth it? It's hard to believe so, especially since Italian authorities are telling journalists that the Bush
administration had an workable alternative to its lawless behavior: allowing the security services of a close
NATO ally to complete their own legal operation against Mr. Nasr and his associates.
E.R. DESTROYS RELATIONS WITH NEEDED ALLIES
Charles M. Sennott July 3, 2005 (writer for the Boston Globe Staff; National/Foreign; Pg. A9; Sunday Third
Addition; Globe correspondent Sarah Liebowitz in London contributed to the report)
The international fallout from the apparent CIA abduction of an Islamic militant cleric off the streets of Milan
highlights the potential for such tactics to heighten friction between the United States and its European allies.
The issue is how to wage the fight against terrorism. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi summoned the US
ambassador, Mel Sembler, on Friday. He demanded that the United States show "full respect" for Italy's
sovereignty.
Berlusconi, a key ally of President Bush on the Iraq war despite its unpopularity in Italy
and in much of Europe, called on the United States to explain the kidnapping of the Egyptian cleric in Milan,
just one month before the United States launched its invasion of Iraq in March 2003. European intelligence
officials, Western diplomats, and specialists on terrorism say the brazen operation whether it had approval
from a level of Italian intelligence or not has focused a harsh European spotlight on a dark corner of the US
antiterrorism campaign. The CIA's increasing use of "extraordinary renditions," in which US authorities
abduct terrorism suspects and transfer them to third countries that are known to use torture, has inflamed
passions across Europe among human rights activists and the intelligence community. It has raised concern
that such tactics not only flout international law, but that they may also ultimately undercut much-needed
cooperation between the United States and its European allies.
Tom Parker, a senior official in the British
government's counter-terrorism operations in the 1990s who has subsequently worked in counterterrorism and
international law for the United Nations, said: "There is no doubt that this incident in Milan and others like it
in other cities in Europe will undercut cooperation between governments and the US."
RENDITION ANGERS ITALY AND RISKS CRUSHING RELATIONS
Voice of America 2005 (Arrest Warrants for CIA Operatives Could Strain US-Italian Relations, June 30,
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-06-30-voa40.cfm, viewed 7-13-05)
Relations between Italy and the United States are being tested after arrest warrants were issued last week for 13
CIA operatives suspected of abducting an Egyptian terror suspect. But the Washington Post newspaper is now
reporting that some Italian officials were aware of the operation. The work of Italian investigators has brought
to light extensive information about what prosecutors say was a CIA operation of "extraordinary rendition"
carried out in Milan in 2003. The man abducted was Osama Mousafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar,
an Egyptian believed to have Islamic terrorist links.
25
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
26
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
RELATIONS IMPACTS
US-ITALY RELATIONS ARE KEY TO ACCESS TO ITALIAN BASES
Alise Frye, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 9-24-2002
(http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/P.20020924.CSBA_Releases_Repo/P.20020924.CSBA_Rel
eases_Repo.htm)
Focusing on theater bases for land-based aircraft, Dr. Bowie suggests that, over the long run, the increasing
difficulties raised by political factors, base infrastructure, and emerging military threats could significantly
constrain US power-projection operations overseas.
During Operation Enduring Freedom (October to December 2001,) a lack of developed infrastructure limited
land-based fighter aircraft involvement in the fight. Air Force fighters delivered only 10 percent of the
munitions used while heavy bombers provided approximately 70 percent and carrier-based aircraft dropped the
other 20 percent.
Political access issues are also a significant problem. Although the United States has powerful tools to help gain
support, allies can withhold access or hold it hostage to influence US action, such as Italy did in 1999 during
combat against Serbia. Similar problems are currently affecting the US buildup in the Persian Gulf.
27
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
28
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
29
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
30
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
31
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
32
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
33
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
34
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
35
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
36
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
37
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
38
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
39
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
AUTHORITY T (AFF)
POWER AND AUTHORITY DISTINCTION IS MEANINGLESS
A) THE FACT THAT THE U.S. DOES RENDITION PROVES WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY IT
IS ONLY A QUESTION OF WHO RECOGNIZES THAT AUTHORITY
B) POWER AND AUTHORITY ARE EQUIVALENT
American Heritage Dictionary 2000 (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authority)
authority:
The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
40
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
41
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
42
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
43
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
44
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
45
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
46
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
TERRORISM (AFF)
EMPERICALLY, RENDITION BREEDS MORE TERRORISM
Jane Mayer, 2/14/2005, Outsourcing Torture, The New Yorker,
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050214fa_fact6
Scientific research on the efficacy of torture and rough interrogation is limited, because of the moral and legal
impediments to experimentation. Tom Parker, a former officer for M.I.5, the British intelligence agency, who
teaches at Yale, argued that, whether or not forceful interrogations yield accurate information from terrorist
suspects, a larger problem is that many detainees have nothing to tell. For many years, he said, British
authorities subjected members of the Irish Republican Army to forceful interrogations, but, in the end, the
government concluded that detainees arent valuable. A more effective strategy, Parker said, was being
creative about human intelligence gathering, such as infiltration and eavesdropping. The U.S. is doing what
the British did in the nineteen-seventies, detaining people and violating their civil liberties, he said. It did
nothing but exacerbate the situation. Most of those interned went back to terrorism. Youll end up radicalizing
the entire population.
TORTURE IN 99 PERCENT INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE VICTIMS WISH TO END THE PAIN AND
MISERY THEY ARE PUT THROUGH. PLEASE EXCUSE THE GENDER LANGUAGE.
Ledeen, 2004 (Michael Ledeen, a National Review Online contributing editor, is most recently the author of
The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen is a Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American
Enterprise Institute, Misunderstanding the war on terror May 22, 2004
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/4531)
First, the matter of the "abuses" of the prisoners. Maybe the temperature of the rhetoric has cooled enough for
us to address the most important aspect of the debacle: Torture and abuse are not only wrong and disgusting.
They are stupid and counterproductive. A person under torture will provide whatever statements he believes
will end the pain. Therefore, the "information" he provides is fundamentally unreliable. He is not responding to
questions; 99 percent of the time, he's just trying to figure out what he has to say in order to end his suffering.
All those who approved these methods should be fired, above all because they are incompetent to collect
intelligence.
47
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
48
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
49
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
TORTURE HURTS THE IMAGE OF THE UNITED STATES, HINDERING THE US ABILITY TO
FIGHT THE WAR ON TERROR.
Schell, 2005 (Jonathan Schell is the Harold Willens Peace Fellow at the Nation Institute What is Wrong with
Torture, January 20, 2005, http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0120-25.htm)
The senators' language regarding torture reflected, with exceptions, the horror of the matter as dimly as their
flowery praise of one another. None, it is true, went as far as to suggest that restrictions on the abuse of
prisoners were "unilateral disarmament," as a recent Wall Street Journal editorial did. Most of the senatorial
defenders of Gonzales's record concentrated on denying his responsibility for one or another of the damning
memos. More striking were the arguments against torture by those skeptical of the nomination. Two dominated.
One was that torture hurts the image of the United States in the world. In the words of Senator Lindsey Graham,
"I can tell you that it is a club that our enemies use, and we need to take that club out of their hand." Or in the
words of Senator Herb Kohl, "winning the hearts and minds of the Arab world is vital to our success in the war
on terror," and "Photographs that have come out of Abu Ghraib have undoubtedly hurt those efforts." The
second argument was that enemy forces would torture U.S. forces in retaliation. In Biden's words, "This is
about the safety and security of American forces." Even Gonzales, who declined at every opportunity to
repudiate the policies that had led to the torture, was ready to agree that Abu Ghraib had harmed the image of
the United States.
UNDER THE IMMENSE AMOUNTS OF PAIN AND STRESS, TOTURED VICTIMS WILL SAY
ANYTHING IN ORDER TO STOP IT. IN ORDER TO PRESERVE HUMAN DIGNITY, WE MUST
FULLY REJECT TORTURE.
Human Rights Watch, 2004 ( The Legal Prohibition Against Torture, June 1, 2004,
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/TortureQandA.htm)
President Bush has said that the war on terrorism is about values; he has pledged that as it fights, the
United States will always stand for "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." Standing for
human dignity means rejecting torture and other forms of ill treatment.
Rejecting torture does not mean forgoing effective interrogations of terrorist suspects. Patient, skillful,
professional interrogations obtain critical information without relying on cruelty or inhuman or
degrading treatment. Indeed, most seasoned interrogators recognize that torture is not only immoral
and illegal, but ineffective and unnecessary as well. Given that people being tortured will say anything
to stop the pain, the information yielded from torture is often false or of dubious reliability.
50
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
NARRATIVES
THE STORY OF ARAR
Mayer, Jane Outsourcing Torture The Secret History of Americas Extraordinary Rendition Program. The
New Yorker, Feb 8 2005
Arar, a thirty-four-year-old graduate of McGill University whose family emigrated to Canada when he was a teen-ager, was
arrested on September 26, 2002, at John F. Kennedy Airport. He was changing planes; he had been on vacation with his family in
Tunisia, and was returning to Canada. Arar was detained because his name had been placed on the United States Watch List of terrorist
suspects. He was held for the next thirteen days, as American officials questioned him about possible links to
another suspected terrorist. Arar said that he barely knew the suspect, although he had worked with the mans brother. Arar, who was
not formally charged, was placed in handcuffs and leg irons by plainclothes officials and transferred to an
executive jet. The plane flew to Washington, continued to Portland, Maine, stopped in Rome, Italy, then landed in Amman, Jordan. During the
flight, Arar said, he heard the pilots and crew identify themselves in radio communications as members of the Special Removal Unit. The
Americans, he learned, planned to take him next to Syria. Having been told by his parents about the barbaric practices of the
police in Syria, Arar begged crew members not to send him there, arguing that he would surely be tortured. His
captors did not respond to his request; instead, they invited him to watch a spy thriller that was aired on
board.Ten hours after landing in Jordan, Arar said, he was driven to Syria, where interrogators, after a day of
threats, just began beating on me. They whipped his hands repeatedly with two-inch-thick electrical cables,
and kept him in a windowless underground cell that he likened to a grave. Not even animals could withstand
it, he said. Although he initially tried to assert his innocence, he eventually confessed to anything his
tormentors wanted him to say. You just give up, he said. You become like an animal. A year later, in
October, 2003, Arar was released without charges, after the Canadian government took up his cause. Imad
Moustapha, the Syrian Ambassador in Washington, announced that his country had found no links between Arar and terrorism. Arar, it turned out,
had been sent to Syria on orders from the U.S. government, under a secretive program known as extraordinary
rendition. This program had been devised as a means of extraditing terrorism suspects from one foreign state to
another for interrogation and prosecution. Critics contend that the unstated purpose of such renditions is to
subject the suspects to aggressive methods of persuasion that are illegal in Americaincluding torture. Arar is
suing the U.S. government for his mistreatment. They are outsourcing torture because they know its illegal,
he said. Why, if they have suspicions, dont they question people within the boundary of the law?
51
SDI 2005
BGS Lab
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AFF
three weeks, in part at a facility in Islamabad, where he said he was brutalized. Some of his interrogators, he
claimed, spoke English with American accents. (Having lived in Australia for years, Habib is comfortable in English.) He was
then placed in the custody of Americans, two of whom wore black short-sleeved shirts and had distinctive tattoos: one depicted an
American flag attached to a flagpole shaped like a finger, the other a large cross. The Americans took him to an airfield, cut his clothes off with
scissors, dressed him in a jumpsuit, covered his eyes with opaque goggles, and placed him aboard a private plane. He was flown to Egypt.
According to Margulies, Habib was held and interrogated for six months. Never, to my knowledge, did he make an appearance in
any court, Margulies told me. Margulies was also unaware of any evidence suggesting that the U.S. sought a promise from Egypt that Habib would
not be tortured. For his part, Habib claimed to have been subjected to horrific conditions. He said that he was beaten frequently with
blunt instruments, including an object that he likened to an electric cattle prod. And he was told that if he
didnt confess to belonging to Al Qaeda he would be anally raped by specially trained dogs. (Hossam el-Hamalawy
said that Egyptian security forces train German shepherds for police work, and that other prisoners have also been threatened with rape by trained
dogs, although he knows of no one who has been assaulted in this way.) Habib said that he was shackled and forced to stand in
three torture chambers: one room was filled with water up to his chin, requiring him to stand on tiptoe for hours;
another chamber, filled with water up to his knees, had a ceiling so low that he was forced into a prolonged,
painful stoop; in the third, he stood in water up to his ankles, and within sight of an electric switch and a
generator, which his jailers said would be used to electrocute him if he didnt confess. Habibs lawyer said that he
submitted to his interrogators demands and made multiple confessions, all of them false. (Egyptian authorities have
described such allegations of torture as mythology.) After his imprisonment in Egypt, Habib said that he was returned to U.S. custody
and was flown to Bagram Air Force Base, in Afghanistan, and then on to Guantnamo Bay, where he was detained until last month. On
January 11th, a few days after the Washington Post published an article on Habibs case, the Pentagon, offering virtually no explanation, agreed to
release him into the custody of the Australian government. Habib was released because he was hopelessly embarrassing, Eric Freedman, a
professor at Hofstra Law School, who has been involved in the detainees legal defense, says. Its a large crack in the wall in a house of cards that is
midway through tumbling down. In a prepared statement, a Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant Commander Flex Plexico, said there was no
evidence that Habib was tortured or abused while he was in U.S. custody. He also said that Habib had received Al Qaeda training, which
included instruction in making false abuse allegations. Habibs claims, he suggested, fit the standard operating procedure.
52