Extraordinary Rendition in the War against Terrorism

The United States has launched an inevitable fight against terrorism in the wake of the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001 The result of exploiting the emergency purposes in connection with the global war on terrorism has been abuses of civil liberties on a scale unprecedented. The war on terrorism has somehow blurred the legal definition of torture in international law. The United States, as a party to the UN Convention against Torture, enacted several statutes to give effect to its obligation under the Convention subject to its various reservations, understandings and declarations. The definition of torture by the U.S government arguably reduces ambiguity, but at the same time may create additional space for possible coercive practices by limiting the applicability of international law. The term rendition, in general sense, is used as a substitute for an extradition treaty. However the adjective 'extra' changes the meaning of 'ordinary rendition' fundamentally. Extraordinary rendition employs the use of force, rather than legal process, to take suspected terrorists from one country to another for purposes of detention and interrogation. Since 9/11, officials in the Bush Administration defended the need to detain and interrogate suspected terrorists outside the country. In that sense, extraordinary rendition has parallels to putting detainees in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay. In short, rendition operates within the rule of law, and extraordinary rendition falls outside the legal frame. The United States’ attempt to justify its practice of extraordinary rendition runs counter to the spirit of the Convention against Torture that the loopholes exploited by the United States should be authoritatively rejected.