Extraordinary Rendition

“Extraordinary rendition” is widely used to describe the kidnapping (Foley, 2008) and transfer of suspects by the United States to foreign countries (Ralph, 2009) and secret prisons and secret prisons in order to carry out “coercive interrogation” (Foley, 2008) making it very likely that the individual will be subject to torture and other forms of inhuman, degrading treatment. However, the practice of extraordinary rendition is not only concerned with coercive interrogation, but also the ideology of the countries involved.

In short, illiberal countries might involve methods of coercive interrogation that liberal countries might not be ready to apply. Extraordinary rendition is normally used on suspected terrorists and has gained more media coverage and attracted a lot of attention since the September 11 attacks when intensified transfer of suspects of terrorism to foreign countries, especially the Guantanamo Bay (Ralph, 2007). The practice of extraordinary rendition dates back to President Ronald Reagan’s Ralphective of 1986 allowing for abduction of suspects of terrorism to be prosecuted in the United States.

In this case, the suspects were captured by the CIA and taken to the US to face trial. These renditions infringed not only upon the sovereignty of the territory of the country the suspect was seized, but also on the suspect, who, during the whole process of abduction and transfer, was not under any legally bound system. The , too, did not allow for the of the suspects’ illegal abduction subject to be discussed in court. The prisoners are mostly taken to countries which have bad human-rights abuse records.

They are held indefinitely, without right to legal counsel, being charged, without the right to communicate with family members (Landriscina, 2009). Special Administrative Measures, SAMs Special Administrative Measures, SAMs, are annually-renewably security directives, which are given by the Attorney General after establishing that there is substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm in allowing a prisoner to communicate and have contact with other persons especially in the outside of prison (Roth, 2009).

The SAMs were published in 2001. The Attorney General may direct the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to impose SAMs on a certain inmate after establishing reasonable grounds for imposing them in order to prevent the inmate from disclosing classified information. The procedures can be applied after a US intelligence agency head provides written certification. These measures may include housing the particular inmate in special units, putting restrictions on certain privileges like visits, correspondence, media interviews, and telephone use.

The period of time an inmate may remain under SAMs depends on the time period designated by the Director, going up to one year, although the Director is also allowed, by the law, to extend the SAMs for additional 1-year periods, as long the Director receives written certifications from an intelligence agency head that there is danger of disclosure of classified information by the inmate, and therefore threatening national security (BOP, 2007).

Special Administrative Measures on correspondence were stiffened in 2006 after it was revealed that three among the 1993 bombers of the World Trade Center at the ADX, who were not subjected to such security measures, had sent many letters to terrorist networks overseas, including the ones linked to the bombing of the Madrid train. The letters exhorted jihad and praised Osama bin Laden as a hero and found their way into Arabic newspapers and used in the recruitment of new members (Justice, 2006).

The privileges of Miranda Miranda pertains to a situation where an individual is held in police custody and is being interrogated, and the questions could lead to incriminating responses and it is not always that the individual must be formally charged or arrested, for the Miranda privileges to apply. Miranda dates back to 1966, when the Supreme Court, in Miranda v.

Arizona, held out the right to remain silent during pre-trial custodial interrogations holding that the suspects must be apprised of their right to remain silent by the police, before being subjected to questioning, and that in case they gave up this right, any statements the suspects make may be used against them in a court of law. Another privilege of Miranda is the right to ask to consult a lawyer before a suspect can agree to be questioned, a right in the Fifth Amendment to consult an attorney before they submit to questioning (Reocities, 2010).

For a criminal defendant, the privileges include the right to refuse testifying at trial. In this case, the defendant may give testimony at a preliminary hearing on the evidence’s admissibility without taking away their right to refuse testifying at trial, because any incriminating statement the defendant may make in the preliminary hearing is inadmissible at trial and therefore the prosecutor may avoid commenting on them. Also, these privileges are not conceded by laws requiring that persons surrender identification to law enforcers.

An individual suspected of committing a crime may be compelled to give testimony before a legislative body, grand jury or administrative board. In such a case, the suspect has to be available to answer questions, but the person may also claim a right to refuse to testify against him or herself in any legal proceedings that may be used against him or her, as provided by the Fifth Amendment which states gives immunity against testifying against oneself (Legal Dictionary. (2010).

The essential facts of U. S. v. Wade Following a bank robbery and conspiracy indictment, Wade was lined up together with others, and was directed to act in the same way the alleged robber had acted, even repeating the words the alleged robber spoke during the time of the robbery. Some bank employees identified him as the robber. This was used against him at the trial, during cross-examination. The accused defended himself by arguing the way the lineup was conducted violated his rights guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment, which shielded him against incriminating himself, and also accorded him the right to counsel.

On these grounds, he filed for acquittal or for striking out of the identifications. However, he was denied the motions by the court and was convicted. At the Court of Appeals the ruling was reversed. The Court held that although the accused was not deprived of his Fifth Amendment rights, the fact that he was lined up without the first being given the right to counsel deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and required that the respondent be granted a fresh trial with those in-court identifications excluded (Justia, 1967).

The Court of Appeals held that during the lineup identification process, there were no Fifth Amendment violations, since the accused was not compelled to give evidence, which could be used against him and which the Fifth Amendment prohibits. Also, there was no use of moral or physical compulsion, and the presentation of the accused body as part of evidence-gathering lineup, did not amount to a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Also, Wade was denied the right to counsel prior to the lineup. The Court held that by a defendant being required to stand alone his case can be deemed to be fore-doomed.

In his case, the absence of counsel is a crucial issue as the lineup involved eyewitness identification, which has well-known vagaries, with numerous cases of mistaken identity. The Court ruled that the identification process could have been flawed and therefore it cannot be used against Wade, as it is difficult to establish whether the identifiers could have been able to identify him if the lineup process had not been carried out (Justia, 1967). References Bureau of Prisons. (2007).

Miranda Versus the State of Arizona: Rules and Regulations Federal Register. 72/ 64. Fahim, K. (2009). Restrictive Terms of Prisoner’s Confinement Add Fuel to Debate. Retrieved 8 Jul. 2010 from <http://www. nytimes. com/2009/02/05/nyregion/05hashmi. html? _r=1> Foley, B. J. (2008). The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. The Northwestern University, School of Law. Justia. (1967). United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967). The U. S. Supreme Court. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals, For the Fifth Circuit. Retrieved 8 Jul. 2010 from <http://supreme. justia. com/us/388/218/case.

html>Justice. (2006). The Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Monitoring of Mail for High-Risk Inmates. Evaluation and Inspections Report I-2006-009. Office of the Inspector General. Retrieved 8 Jul. 2010 from <http://www. justice. gov/oig/reports/BOP/e0609/back. htm> Landriscina, E. (2009). The Legal Obligation to Prosecute: ‘Rendition to Torture’. The American University Washington College of Law. Ralph, J. (2009). Abstract: Extraordinary rendition and the retreat of International Society since 9/11. The Department of International Studies.

Roth, K. (2009). Obama’s Prisoners Dilemma: A Blueprint for Dismantling Guantanamo. Retrieved 8 Jul. 2010 from <http://www. hrw. org/en/news/2009/03/13/obamas-prisoners- dilemma> Legal Dictionary. (2010). Privilege against Self-Incrimination: Criminal Defendant Privilege. Retrieved 8 Jul. 2010 from <http://legal-ictionary. thefreedictionary. com/ Privilege+against+Self- Incrimination> Reocities. (2010). Miranda Versus the State of Arizona. Retrieved 8 Jul. 2010 from <http://reocities. com/TimesSquare/1848/miranda. html>