Thoughts on the Rendition Case Described in the New York Times

Today’s New York Times contains an article on another in the growing list of CIA rendition cases. Laid Saidi, an Algerian who worked for an Islamic charity in Tanzania, was picked up by US agents in May 2003. Saidi was held in Afghanistan for sixteen months after which he was unceremoniously released, never having been given any explanation for what was happening to him, much less charged with any terrorism related activity. The Times plays up the negative angle of the story beginning with the headline, “Algerian Tells of Dark Term in U.S. Hands.” The article is also prominently featured on the front page above the fold of the print edition and at the top of the newspaper’s website. Nothing in the article is particularly new or shocking to merit such a placement. That the US holds terrorists suspects in foreign countries has been extensively reported already.

In spite of the overplay by the Times, Saidi’s story does raise some interesting issues on what constitutes reasonable actions by the US government in fighting terror. Because Saidi wasn’t extensively or severely tortured, his experience approaches the liminal case of what is acceptable government action and serves as an interesting starting point for further discussion.

A few thoughts. First, picking up this type of person seems reasonable. The US government needs to take proactive actions to prevent future terrorist acts. He worked for a suspect organization, he had a fake passport and he was recorded talking about buying airplanes (although this last fact turned out to be incorrect, a point I will get to below). To me this seems like enough evidence to pick up and hold a suspect.

From there the US government’s actions become more questionable. The biggest problems are the secrecy of the government and the length of Saidi’s detention. There are real security reasons for not divulging that an individual has been picked up, primarily that it would alert those connected to him. Ongoing investigations may require that a suspect not be charged for an extended period. However, over time, this rational becomes less justifiable. After a month or two, the suspect’s fellow terrorists (if he is a terrorist) are going to figure out what happened. If they are even minimally sophisticated, they will have already covered their tracks. Being generous, to hold a suspect without charging him for more than, say, six months is unjustifiable. In addition, the US government needs to own up to the holding of these suspects instead of passing the off the agency to other countries. Even if it happens in another country and foreign agents do the hands-on activities, the US is clearly responsible. If the holding of the prisoner is legal, morally justifiable, and necessary the US should fully describe its actions and rational, after a reasonable period of secrecy.

As for the conditions in which suspects are held, from the article it doesn’t seem that Saidi was subjected to any extreme forms of torture. He was certainly made uncomfortable but the worst that was done to him was being chained in a standing position for three days. This pushes the limits of what I would accept and would label torture (crosses the line in fact but I think it is debatable) but in general the tactics used seem reasonable. That’s good. Nonetheless, the US needs to put in some type of oversight, with an administrative review on who is being held and what is happening to them. A suspect held in these conditions could easily be tortured or killed without any government acknowledgement. Without oversight torture will occur, and has in other cases. The need for security and security would prevent the creation of an oversight panel, which has limited powers to monitor and document the treatment of suspects. Such a panel would go a long way to putting these activities back under the rule of law.

One interesting piece of information in the story is the seeming incompetence of the US interpreters. Saidi seems to have been held at least partly because the translators misunderstood the word he was saying in a recorded phone conversation, using a term for tires that the CIA thought meant planes. While it doesn’t speak well of the CIA’s capabilities (if they make this type of mistake they could just as easily miss key information) mistakes will happen. Where the problem lies is that the situation should have been straightened out much more quickly and with a greater level of transparency. This goes back to the issues of review and accountability. After the fact the US could explain the situation without risking its security. It would only suffer from embarrassment, which is an important step in preventing future mistakes and improving security operations.

In short, the US government needs to take strong actions to prevent future acts of terrorism but it also needs to act with in a legitimate legal framework: that would seem to be a reasonable compromise that everyone could agree on. Would that it were so.