Rendition: Reject the Abuses, Retain the Tactic

Washington Post / The Brookings Institute ^ | 4/17/05 | Daniel Byman

[Valin]

Perhaps the most misunderstood U.S. counterterrorism tool is the "rendition": the transfer of suspected terrorists from one country to another without formal legal proceedings. Human rights activists and international law experts have blasted the tactic as illegal and accused the U.S. government of "outsourcing torture" by shipping some suspects to countries that brutally interrogate prisoners. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert even declared that renditions stand "side by side with contract killings." Not surprisingly, calls to end or curtail the practice are growing.

There is no question that renditions are a flawed instrument, especially when used recklessly and without exploring other options first. But it is a mistake to focus on the tool without understanding the problem it is used to solve: What does the U.S. government do when it has the opportunity to detain, question and gain information from a suspected terrorist who isn't an American citizen, but does not have enough evidence to bring charges against the suspect in a U.S. court?

In one sense, renditions are a perfect metaphor for the dilemmas posed by the war against terrorism. For years, a debate has raged in policy circles about whether we are conducting a war or pursuing a crime. The Bush administration is now doing both, employing intelligence and law enforcement agencies. But each operates under entirely different rules, creating a sort of gray area between national security and the legal system. Intelligence officials might believe they have enough credible evidence to detain someone and possibly disrupt a terrorist plot in progress. Prosecutors might look at that same evidence and say it's not enough to go to trial.

[yoe]

(looks pretty good from here)