Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnski (talk | contribs) at 07:18, 28 December 2005 (CIA watchdog looks into ‘erroneous renditions’). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I do not believe that the following statement ought to be included as such in the article:

Almost all of those handled by the CIA in this manner have been of the Moslem religion.

As it stands, that sentence is unprovable, NPOV, and misleading. There are no publicly known facts as to exactly whom is being shuttled around in the rendition aircraft from country to country, or how many have been sent in this manner. While we can safely assume that the vast majority, if not all, the people subjected to this practice are Muslim, due to the U.S. "War on Terror", we can't make such a categorical statement. The sentence is also misleading and NPOV because it implies that the CIA has some sort of vendetta to wage against Muslim people, simply because they are Muslim. That is an NPOV assertion and misleading as to the CIA's intent. Since the "War on Terror" is ostensibly being fought against "Islamic fundamentalists", clearly the subjects of rendition for the past three years will largely have been Muslim--however, not by virtue of being Muslim, but by virtue of being "fanatics", "extremists", "terrorists", or what-have-you. Saying that they are all Muslim, without that context, is therefore misleading.

I am not trying to water-down the page. I wrote the article after reading the Washington Post piece on the gulfstream rendition plane. I *do* however want to keep the article informative, NPOV, and reliably sourced. I will continue to insist that sentences like the above be removed unless cited by a reputable source. —thames 16:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not one for quibbling about facts. Why don't you prove that the majority of them are NOT Muslim?

I think the page will sit on its own merits for the time being, since that sentence, which causes you such angst, is probably a statement of (virtue) fact that is in the public perception anyway.

I am an American. I don't know where you are from. But the nature of our republic is such that all citizens are responsible for the activity of their government. That means that I, in some infinitesimal way, have a hand in the extraordinary rendition of people who are not charged with a crime, have no access to a judge or counsel, and are TORTURED based on ALLEGED crimes. So don't sit there and play nice with this sort of stuff. It is ugly, horrible, and no one should allow any of those horrors to go unnoticed.

I am committed to getting the truth uncovered. I work mainly in Wiktionary, but there is a lot of crossover as you know. Thanks for the tip about (not) using bolds on subsequent uses of the title word in the article. That's the way it is done in the Wiktionary --HiFlyer 18:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, usually the person making an assertion ought to provide a citation or reference to back-up their assertion. I could very well say that Javier Solana is an alien disguised as a human, and then tell you to prove he is NOT an alien. But that would be a little bit silly. I think we both agree that it could be assumed that a majority of the people are Muslim, because of the inherent focus of the U.S. "War on Terror", but neither you nor I have any way of backing up that assertion. Them likely being Muslim does not in any way make their torture more or less abhorrent--if they were Buddhists it would still be just as bad. The way the sentence above is phrased, and the lack of context, misleads the reader, as I've explained above.

On another note, you keep using the word alleged, which really isn't the right word in this context. Alleged crimes inplies that they are being brought through the legal system, which obviously they are not. They are being handled extrajudicially by the CIA, an organization not strictly bound by normal law, nor an organization concerned with prosecuting criminals. The CIA assessed data & tips & intelligence and makes a judgement call, and then does what it thinks it has to do to neutralize a "threat" to the U.S. So, rendition doesn't involve people accused of a crime, or alleged to have done something criminal. It involves people judged to be a threat.

Finally, you said "I am committed to getting the truth uncovered", and I support you. However, Misplaced Pages is not an encyclopedia of truth, it's (hopefully) an encyclopedia of fact. While it is probably true that most people subject to rendition have been Muslim, it's not a fact that can be verified or cited or referenced by either you or me. So it probably should be left out until some crucial CIA document gets leaked to a major newspaper. Until then, all the best, thames 18:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thames, if you are aware of the clandestine fleet US security officials have been using, then why aren't you aware of the destinations those planes fly to? Where are they flying? Moslem nations. So, why are you asking for proof that the subjects of the rendering are largely moslems? -- Geo Swan 01:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Rendition has been going on for years and years. The Clinton administration was the first to tacitly acknowledge its existence—before 9/11 and the War on Terror, etc. Were all the people rendered before that time also principally Moslems? Can you say that they are all Moslems? And if they are extremists, are the terrorists who justify their acts in the name of Islam realy Moslems? Can you say that more people have been rendered post-9/11 than all the people rendered under various administration before 9/11? No, you cannot. Misplaced Pages stick to facts, not inferences or speculation. —thames 01:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

All publicized cases as of now are Muslims, so I do believe it is reasonable to assert that most of the cases are Moslems, and otherwise there is no "purpose" in rendering them there unless you believe the U.S. believes that much in toture. Now, there are likely non-moslems now as well but I believe we can all agree the majority of the cases are Post-911 and that most of them are related to Al-Qaida or similar groups. One last thing, hasn't rendiditon gone on before Clinton as in B.C.'s? Falphin 02:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to infer that rendition is primarily done to Moslems, simply because in the last two years the only cases to leak have been people who claim to be Moslem. If the reader wants to infer that, fine. Misplaced Pages needs to stick to verifiable facts--this is wikipedia official policy.—thames 14:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Right, I completely agree that wikipedia should stick to facts but the only cases so far reported are Muslims.(if they really are indeed true, the stories have yet to be verified) However, it is a fact that the cases all have been sent to Islamic countries on U.S. gov planes. Falphin 22:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a 'fact', we don't normally mention someone's religion unless it has some specific relevance to the article. --Lee Hunter 00:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

And to you the same, Thames. I think we can agree to disagree slightly on this one --HiFlyer 19:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

Shouldn't this article be merged with extraordinary rendition? I don't see that the two articles cover different topics. --Lee Hunter 12:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep them separate at this point. The rendition article discusses the practice of rendition (simply moving someone covertly out of one country into another). Extraordinary rendition talks about the practice when used specifically for torture. Besides, that article is a giant POV mess right now, and a merge wouldn't help at least until the editing calms down. —thames 17:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Could you help us over there? Cyferx 00:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to, but I don't have the time to enter the fray of a POV/NPOV edit war. I'm really just treading water as far as wikipedia editing is concerned, until I can get my "real life" priorities in order. —thames 20:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

They are different subjects. The biggest problem is that Rendidtion should be bigger than extraordinary rendidtion and so making extraordinary rendition a section underneath the article would make it like 6 times the rendition article.. Rendition is the deporting of captured people, and Extraordinary involves the abuse of the captured prisoners. Falphin 00:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this article before, and it's very wrong. Rendition is a broader term that is close to a synonym for extradition. See . --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It has a root in common with "surrender" -- if that helps. --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

From a legal dictionary: ren·di·tion (ren-`di-shən) n.1. The act or result of rendering (the Court's rendition of judgment) 2. Extradition of a fugitive who has fled to another state Dhartung is quite right, this article should be merged with extraordinary rendition. --Lee Hunter 12:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe Dhartung was saying that the articles should be merged. I believe he's saying that this article should be rewritten. —thames 01:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

Given my previous concerns over the factual accuracy of the article, I have researched and written a brand new article that covers rendition as a) a legal term; b) a constitutional interstate practice; and c) a precursor to extraordinary rendition. I believe this is a suitable framework for the article, although I still see a few rough edges. It was especially important to me that it be understood that rendition by and of itself is not an objectionable term or practice, and it is important to me now not to be understood as a defender of extraordinary rendition. I did this because they are two different terms, and they suffered as encyclopedia articles by being virtually indistinguishable.

I have made no effort yet to merge the information in this article into the extraordinary rendition article. The old text is at Rendition/Temp. I would like to bring this information over there and make the necessary context and disambiguation edits in that article, but not at this moment. Please have a look at what I've done here, though, and feel free to improve, with the caveat that again the objectionable practices are covered chiefly in the main article. I would like to see both articles become much more useful by being clear and unambiguous. --Dhartung | Talk 03:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

A huge improvement, sorely needed. --Lee Hunter 17:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Wik is very slow on computers I use, so it was quite irritating that when I finally got to 'view these 5 deleted edits,' all I could see was a statement that the contents were only viewable by administrators and a false statemetn that the reasons for deletions were given.

Re: Merge.

At one point this article contained specific information on the US rendition project? Why have these reference been removed. Specifically, all mention of the aircraft hired by the US government for use in the project are now gone. It is clear that these aircraft were used to transport persons of interest for interrogation authorized by the US Rendition project, not the “Extraordinary rendition” project. Moreover, the mention of the aircraft on the extraordinary rendition page seems to lead the reader to believe that the project involved torture. There are no facts to support the use of the aircraft for torture. Maybe these articles should be merged.

CIA watchdog looks into ‘erroneous renditions’

See: