mailing list archives
more on CIA /renditions - EU member formally admits to it
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 07:18:49 -0400
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ethan Ackerman <eackerma () u washington edu>
Date: April 22, 2006 2:08:46 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: L Victor Marks <victor () victormarks com>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on CIA /renditions - EU member formally admits
Greetings Dave, (as always - for editing/posting if you see fit)
Victor Marks' email brought up interesting news about the European
Parliament investigation into US/EU 'rendition' cooperation,
especially in light of some of the other rather explosive testimony &
findings heard last week. It turns out that at least one EU member
state has FORMALLY (though not yet publicly) admitted to illegally
turning suspects over to the CIA for rendition. The Council of
Europe's rendition investigation, one of two currently running in
parallel, has formally determined renditions did occur.
The Council of Europe's Secretary General Terry Davis' statement
Tuesday perhaps says it best: " I am now in position to say that we no
longer need to speak about 'alleged' cases of rendition. ... we have
received official acknowledgment..." from at least one member country.
or (the major German paper) Deutsche Welle
Mr Marks' email discusses the parallel European Parliment (EP)
investigation - the one more covered in the US media. The ongoing EP
committee holding hearings on EU cooperation with CIA rendition
flights has heard a LOT of testimony. On Thursday they heard from,
among others, Gijs de Vries, the EC anti-terrorism coordinator. It
should be noted that Mr. de Vries' position is 'non-operational,' - he
does not interact with the secret services of individual states. A
good US analogy would be a politically-appointed head of an advisory
His carefully worded testimony has been almost the only testimony to
dispute US-EU cooperation in such a program. Specifically, he
testified "It [cooperation] does not appear to be proven beyond
reasonable doubt." This carefully chose wording refers to proof of a
level high enough to win a criminal conviction. News articles
covering his testimony are pointing out his unwillingness to deny
cooperation, and his insisting instead that it 'can't be proven' to a
standard sufficient for criminal conviction.
The testimony preceding Mr. deVries may be much more enlightening.
Ex-UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray testified that western
secret services, including the US, UK and Germany, were using
intelligence obtained under torture from renditioned detainees in
Uzbekistan. Mr. Murray testified he had reviewed the classified and
official US and UK policy papers deciding that, while the US and UK
would not torture, intelligence gathered by 3rd party torturers,
including Uzbekistan, would be used. "I say this with great pain but
with absolute certainty," the ex-ambassador stated.
Excellent summary and links at the (excellent for legal news) UPitt.
Law news website JURIST:
for more MSM coverage (here and in the EU):
Meanwhile, it turns out the UK government has also admitted _in
writing_ to cooperating with US seizures and renditions, though not
necessarily in the EU. The UK did an about face, admitted to passing
false info to the US that led to a CIA seizure and rendition of 2 UK
nationals in Gambia. It turns out that the UK now wants them back -
one was apparently a MI5 informer.
I wholly agree with Mr. Marks on the last (and possibly most
important) point: Final EU Parliament findings will (hopefully) be
released in June.
On 4/22/06, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: L Victor Marks <victor () victormarks com>
Date: April 21, 2006 10:19:24 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] CIA fires leaker; shades of confidentiality/privacy
The EU has found no evidence of illegal CIA action.
Secret renditions? None found. Violations of human rights? None
found. Final findings will be released in June.
So, if the final findings confirm what the EU antiterrorism
coordinator has said publicly, what we have is a leaker who leaked a
falsehood that caused embarrassment, made a serious allegation, and
wasn't even factual.
I imagine if I embarrassed my employer with a false accusation that I
too would be fired. But state and federal employees get a different
standard, whistleblower protection. From what little I know of
whistleblower protection, I understand that the whistleblower has to
report the alleged illegal act to the proper authority, not the press.
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
- more on CIA /renditions - EU member formally admits to it David Farber (Apr 23)