During the 2001 war in Afghanistan hundreds of people associated with the Taliban or al Qaeda were arrested by United States forces and transported to the Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The legal status and treatment of these detainees has been an ongoing problem over the last five years. The majority have been given no recourse to justice and allegations of inhuman treatment and torture have been frequent. The first issue raised by the incarceration of these people is whether any of them may be entitled to Prisoner of War status. The evidence shows that, in general, the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters were not lawful combatants, and hence they are not entitled to Prisoner of War status. While the rights of Prisoners of War are well documented and generally uncontested, the rights of people not entitled to Prisoner of War status are not so easily definable. Despite classification as unlawful or unprivileged combatants, the detainees are not in legal limbo - they are still entitled to the benefit of certain fundamental human rights. There are applicable protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol I, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The main rights upheld by these documents are the right to liberty and freedom from arbitrary detention; the right to a fair trial; and the right to life. Furthermore, there is a requirement of humane treatment and an absolute prohibition on torture. Reports from international humanitarian watchdogs such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch suggest that the United States Government is not upholding the rights held by the detainees. It is essential that the United States Government recognises the fundamental rights owed to the detainees and ensures that they receive the requisite treatment and access to justice.

Thesis (M.S.)--School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, 2008. / "June 2008." Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 85-91). Also available via the Internet.

1 Abstract Extraordinary Renditions and Human Rights Ing. Petr Švepeš The topic of this thesis is Extraordinary Rendition as the phenomenon of contemporary counter- terrorism strategies and its critical reflection in light of International Human Rights Law. Extraordinary Rendition represents a controversial method of obtaining intelligence information about terrorist activities carried out worldwide by the CIA. This method is based on the identification of terrorist suspects who might know valuable intelligence, followed by their tracing and subsequent kidnapping with direct assistance or connivance of the state in whose territory that person is located. Kidnapped persons are secretly transported by private jets via the "global spider's web" to a selected country which practices advanced interrogation techniques using various methods of torture. In this country the persons are incommunicado imprisoned and interrogated by local authorities. Extracted intelligence information is then passed on to the CIA and the suspects in this country are either criminally charged and indicted, further imprisoned without formal charges or simply "disappear." The main objective of this thesis is to present a detailed human rights analysis of Extraordinary Rendition and to identify potential violations of binding norms of...

It has been two decades since the terrorist attacks on September 11. These events were the starting shot for the US war on terrorism, which has resulted in extreme challenges for human rights treaties. Several people have fallen victim to the US protection measures, which have included a detention and interrogation program and extraordinary renditions. The US protection measures have resulted in military invasions, kidnappings, detentions, and acts of torture. Even though black sites are no longer secret, has nobody ever been held responsible for these crimes. The question of who should be held responsible for the systematic violations of the United States is therefore necessary to discuss as this is a problem that characterizes the international legal system still today. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the US legal argument for justifying enhanced interrogation techniques and extraordinary renditions is consistent with the human rights treaties. The study examines the extent to which the US exercises jurisdiction over people who are subject to extraordinary renditions. Furthermore, it is also important to investigate if extraordinary renditions conflict with two treaties that have been approved in the United States and consequently the legitimacy of the arguments will be tested against CAT and ICCPR. The problem has been analysed in the light of jurisdiction. The interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction in general international law and human rights treaties constitutes an essential issue regarding states’ responsibilities to uphold and respect the human rights within the research area and research questions. The study focuses primarily on the question of when a state has obligations under human right treaties outside of its own territory. The issue of jurisdiction has been discussed primarily in international courts since Bankovic. The investigation shows that people that have been subject to extraordinary renditions as well as the detention and interrogation program fall under US jurisdiction. According to case law, the study establishes that the United States exercises effective control over the people in the event of extraordinary renditions. Moreover, the study claims that state responsibility can be attributed to the US for having failed in its obligations to respect and protect human rights in the war on terrorism.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States has transferred close to a hundred individuals suspected of terrorism to foreign jurisdictions through a process known as extraordinary rendition. This is an infamous program that allows for the transfer of individuals to a foreign jurisdiction for interrogation, detention, or trial. While the use of extraordinary rendition attracts widespread controversy regarding its use and legality, it remains a vital tool for combating international terrorism. Evidence in this thesis lends support to extraordinary rendition program, but recognizes that while the program strengthens the country’s ability to gather vital intelligence to combat terrorism, there are methods to improve the program. The extraordinary rendition program requires an assessment of the totality of circumstances before a extraordinary rendition is permitted; reliance on diplomatic assurances from countries that hold a good human rights record; and subsequent monitoring of individuals rendered to foreign states to ensure that transfers comply with U.S. and international law. Evidence suggests that extraordinary rendition aids in the ability to gather sensitive intelligence and serves as a gathering tool used by American presidents to preserve freedom and peace; however, in the eyes of critics, this program represents a perversely autonomous and un-American legal maneuver that avoids due process. This thesis seeks to discuss common misconceptions associated with the extraordinary rendition program and identify the major points of controversy. The first part explores the history of the extraordinary rendition program and provides an understanding of its roots and procedures. The second part, discusses the executive branch’s attempts to conduct extraordinary renditions morally and responsibly, and examines the legal oversight and accountability gaps surrounding the program. Part three identifies the line of authority empowering the President to conduct extraordinary renditions. It also outlines the struggle of the legislative, judicial and executive branches to strengthen the extraordinary rendition program’s compliance with the rule of law by increasing oversight and accountability. Finally, Part four discusses the future of the extraordinary rendition program. The discussion presents possible solutions to correct oversight and accountability problems and suggests a multi-faceted approach that raises the bar for extraordinary renditions, thereby closing the oversight and accountability gaps.