CIA Black Sites and Rendition—EU Complicity

The EU has been investigating allegations that its member nations hosted secret CIA-run “Black Sites” and allowed covert CIA extraordinary rendition flights to use their airspace or airfields. Swiss Senator Dick Marty, who is leading a Council of Europe investigation, has announced that 14 European nations “colluded with U.S. intelligence in a ‘spider’s web’ of secret flights and detention centers that violated international human rights law.”^[1] These nations—Britain, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Bosnia, Macedonia, Turkey, Spain, Cyprus, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Romania and Poland—he said, “aided the movement of 17 detainees” who claimed to have been abducted by U.S. agents, and secreted across the globe; some went to Guantanamo Bay, and others went to “alleged secret facilities in countries including Poland, Romania, Egypt and Jordan.”^[2]

Senator Marty “provided no direct evidence but charged that most European governments ‘did not seem particularly eager to establish’ the facts.”^[3] He relied mostly on flight logs provided by Eurocontrol, witness statements, and judicial and parliamentary inquiries in various countries.^[4]

The 67-page Council of Europe Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights report begins with the question of whether human rights are “little more than a fair-weather option?”^[5] He attempts to answer this question by looking at what the United States did after September 11, acknowledging that that day “undoubtedly marked the beginning of an important new chapter in the terrible, never-ending history of terrorism.”^[6] Claiming that the countries of the “Old World” dealt with terrorism primarily “by means of existing institutions and legal systems,”—which may be something of an overstatement, considering Britain and the Netherlands have drastically changed legal protections in response to terrorism—Mr. Marty states that the US “appears to have made a fundamentally different choice: considering that neither conventional judicial instruments nor those established under the framework of the laws of war could effectively counter the new forms of international terrorism, it decided to develop new legal concepts. The latter are based primarily on the Military Order on the Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War against Terrorism signed by President Bush on 13 November 2001.”^[7]

The detention of individuals under this plan, often outside the territorial limits of the US, is “altogether contrary to the principles enshrined in all the international legal instruments dealing with respect for fundamental rights, including the domestic law of the United States (which explains the existence of such detention centres outside the country).”^[8] Sen. Marty calls this approach “utterly alien,” and calls it “clearly contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cicero’s old adage, inter arma silent leges, appears to have left its mark even on international bodies supposed to ensure the rule of law and the fair administration of justice. It is frankly alarming to see the UN Security Council sacrificing essential principles pertaining to fundamental rights in the name of the fight against terrorism. The compilation of so-called “black lists” of individuals and companies suspected of maintaining connections with organisations considered terrorist and the application of the associated sanctions clearly breach every principle of the fundamental right to a fair trial: no specific charges, no right to be heard, no right of appeal, no established procedure for removing one’s name from the list.”^[9]

Mr. Marty also points out that he is not an investigator, but rather a rapporteur; he has no subpoena power, so his work consists primarily of interviews and analysis.^[10] He also goes through great lengths to point out that his criticisms are not “anti-American”; such criticisms are frequently made when criticisms are voiced, but they are “downright ridiculous and wholly inaccurate.”^[11] His criticisms, like many who criticize the Bush Administration’s policies, “reflect a concern that a country which unquestionably serves as an example to the rest of the world is committing what we consider to be mistakes that not only violate fundamental principles, but also constitute a counterproductive anti-terrorism strategy.”^[12]

The report identifies four different categories of aircraft landing points “which indicate the different degrees of collusion on the part of the countries concerned.”^[13] For example, Category A is “Stopover Points,” which means that the plane landed there to refuel. These cities include Athens and Prague. Category B is for “Staging Points,” which means the operation was launched from that point. These sites include Frankfurt, Washington, and Ramstein. Category C is for “One-Off Pick-Up Points,” which means that one detainee or one group of detainees were picked up for rendition or unlawful transfer, but not as part of a systematic occurrence. This includes Stockholm-Bromma, Aviano, and Skopje. Finally, Category D is for “Detainee Transfer / Drop-Off Points,” which means that these countries were visited often, but their locations are far off from obvious routes, indicating that detention facilities are in those areas. This category includes Cairo, Amman, Islamabad, Kabul, Guantanamo Bay, and Baghdad.^[14]

Romania, Poland, and the US have all rejected the report, with Polish Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz dismissing it as “libel.”^[15]

---

[1] Jan Sliva, Probe of CIA Prisons Implicates EU Nations, AP (via Yahoo!), Jun. 7, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Dick Marty, Alleged Secret Detentions and Unlawful Inter-State Transfers Involving Council of Europe Member States 3, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Jun. 7, 2006.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 6.
[11] Id. at 7.
[12] Id.
[13] Id. at 13.
[14] Id.
[15] Secret CIA Jail Claims Rejected, BBC News, Jun. 7, 2006.