In “Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan,” plaintiffs Ahmed Agiz, Abou Elkassim Britel, Binyam Mohamed, Bisher al-Rawi and Ahmad Bashmilah alleged that the CIA operates an “extraordinary rendition” program to apprehend foreign nationals suspected of terrorist activities, and transfer them to secret foreign states where they would be subjected to interrogation techniques prohibited by federal (U.S.) and international law.
The concept of extraordinary rendition is not new, but it has only recently made its way into the public consciousness. The United States has used rendition since at least the 1980s, with President Reagan giving the go-ahead on the Bond-like codename of Operation Goldenrod. According to Tim Naftali of Slate, this was the first instance of extraordinary rendition, and it was a joint FBI-CIA operation to apprehend Fawaz Yunis, who was wanted for the hijacking of a Jordanian airliner. Good to see that there was, once upon a time, inter-agency playfulness. Yunis was coaxed into getting into a boat and then steered out into international waters where he was arrested.
Naftali states in the very same article that in 1986, Reagan signed a “secret covert-directive” that allowed CIA agents to kidnap terrorist suspects anywhere in the world. This directive gave the Agency the official power to carry out renditions. As with the Yunis case, the goal of early renditions was to ensure that terrorist suspects would appear in court on terrorism charges. Quite obviously, things have changed since those early days.
According to the 9th Circuit Court’s opinion, “relying on documents in the public domain, plaintiffs, all foreign nationals, claim they were each processed through the extraordinary rendition program…” It would be helpful at this point to take a look at the individual claims of the plaintiffs if we are to get a better idea of what actually happens in a rendition. And, indeed, American citizens should acquaint themselves with the methods of intelligence gathering used in our interminable War on Terror.
Agiza claimed he was captured by Swedish officials, flown to Egypt, transferred to American authority and detained in a squalid cell, where he was “severely beaten” and shocked in the “ear lobes, nipples and genitals.” Agiza claimed “[v]irtually every aspect of [his] rendition, including his torture in Egypt, has been publicly acknowledged by the Swedish government.”
Britel, a 40 year old Morocccan-Italian, was arrested in Pakistan on immigration charges. After spending a few months in a cell, he was transferred to American custody and dressed in a diaper (great idea for psychological warfare), blindfolded and flown to Morocco. Once in Morocco, he was handed over to Moroccan officials at the Temara prison, “where he was beaten, deprived of sleep and food and threatened with sexual torture, including sodomy with a bottle and castration.” Britel was eventually released but then re-detained and, according to the court’s summary, forced into signing a false confession and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Mohamed, a 26-year-old Ethiopian and legal resident of the United Kingdom, was also arrested and detained in Pakistan on immigration charges. His rendition mirrors Britel’s, but his stay with Moroccan security agents was not as peaceful. He was beaten, cut all over his body—including his penis—and had his bones broken by the agents, amongst other things.
After 18 months, Mohamed claims he was transferred to a base in Afghanistan and further tortured by the CIA inside a permanently dark room, where he was “subjected to loud noise, such as the recorded screams of women and children, 24 hours a day.” Eventually, Mohamed was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, where he stayed for five years.
Bisher al-Rawi was detained in Gambia while on “legitimate business,” then flown to Afghanistan, where his experiences were similar to Mohamed’s. Then he was transferred to Bagram Air Force base, “where he was “subjected to humiliation, degradation, and physical and psychological torture by U.S. officials,” including “being beaten, deprived of sleep and threatened with death.” He, too, was then transferred to Guantanamo Bay and was eventually released, returning then to the UK.
Bashmilah, a Yemeni citizen, claims he was detained by Jordanian authorities and physically and psychologically tortured. He was then flown to Afghanistan and subjected to similar sonic abuse for 24 hours a day, in addition to enduring torture by way of manipulated light. (This calls to mind the reportage of Jon Ronson, who wrote in his spectacular book “The Men Who Stare at Goats,” that psych ops personnel in Iraq had subjected detainees to the “Barney” theme song, as well as Metallica, on a loop.) According to Bashmilah, he was then transferred to a CIA base and subjected to further sound and light noise, then sent to Yemen were he was convicted “of a trivial crime, sentenced to time served abroad and released.”
The five plaintiffs claimed in court that:
“Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a U.S. corporation, provided flight planning and logistical support services to the aircraft and crew on all of the flights transporting each of the five plaintiffs among the various locations where they were detained and allegedly subjected to torture.”
As such, the plaintiffs believed that Jeppesen should be held responsible for services that allowed their respective renditions to be carried out. It was alleged that Jeppeson was an “active participant,” and that they “conspired with U.S. agents,” aided and abetted the agents, and that Jeppeson ‘demonstrated reckless disregard as to whether Plaintiffs would be subjected to forced disappearance through its participation in the extraordinary rendition program.”
Yesterday, however, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the case. The court acknowledged in their decision the “States Secret Doctrine,” which allows courts to entirely dismiss a case on the grounds of national security. The court cited the “Totten” decision as precedent for such dismissals, but relied more heavily on “United States v. Reynolds” (the “Reynolds” privilege) in its own decision on the “Mohamed” case.
The court was sharply divided on the matter with a 6-5 ruling, which means that at least some of the judges thought Jeppeson should be held responsible, while the majority—who apparently did not reach their decision “lightly”—thought the matter of national security outweighed the alleged human rights abuses.
The lawyer who represented the plaintiffs believes the decision has, in effect, closed the legal avenues available to torture victims.
What do you think of the Court’s decision?
