skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 217020 Find in a Library
Title: Ghost Prisoners and Black Sites: Extraordinary Rendition Under International Law
Journal: Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law  Volume:37  Issue:2 & 3  Dated:2006  Pages:309-342
Author(s): Leila Nadya Sadat
Date Published: 2006
Page Count: 34
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article examines the United States practice of extraordinary rendition during its war on terrorism.
Abstract: The main argument is that the U.S. practice of extraordinary rendition in its war on terrorism is not permissible under existing international law. Extraordinary rendition is the process of transferring detainees abroad for detention and interrogation either from the U.S. or on behalf of the U.S. While the numbers of detained individuals who have been extradited during the war on terrorism remains relatively low, the covert nature of the transfers and the allegations of prisoner abuse raise questions about the legality of the U.S. rendition program. The consequences of the illicit rendition program are explored, which include prisoner abuse and the erosion of U.S. standing in the international community. The U.S. is encouraged to pursue its enemies without sacrificing its principles and ideals. While some human rights scholars have argued that extraordinary measures may be necessary to win the war on terrorism, the author argues that the U.S. policy of covert rendition has hurt the ability of the U.S. to gain allies for its war on terrorism. The author analyzes the March 2004 “torture memoranda” drafted by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which argues that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention permits the deportation and transfer of both aliens and Iraqis out of the occupied zone. The memoranda, it is argued, has little to no acceptance in international law and practice. Indeed, the author contends that the U.S. rendition plan is reminiscent of Nazi operations that occurred during World War II. While the U.S. has a duty to protect its citizens from terrorism, reinterpreting international human rights laws will not further its goal in this respect. Moreover, it is an ineffective strategy because it overwhelmingly targets Muslims and Arabs at a time when relations with the Muslim world are at an all-time low. Footnotes
Main Term(s): International extradition; Policy analysis
Index Term(s): Counter-terrorism tactics; Human rights; International extradition; International law; Terrorist detention
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.