The Lexicogaphy of "Extraordinary Rendition"

University Degree Linguistics, Classics and related subjects

rendition, n.

/rndn/

1. The surrender of a person or possession.

2. Law. The transfer of (a person) from one to another, or an instance of this; esp. the extradition of a fugitive criminal.

COMPOUNDS

(chiefly in Law).

C1. extraordinary rendition, n.

The illegal capture and transportation of a criminal suspect (esp. a terrorist suspect) from one jurisdiction to another, or an instance of this; esp. when they are subjected to torture during interrogation. Euphem.

1983 M. C. BASSIOUNI Internat. Extradition 11 The United States increasingly resorts to extraordinary rendition devices, including abduction, thus circumventing traditional extradition processes. 2000 R. SIEVERT Cases and Materials on U.S. Law and Nat. Security 469 The court in Toscanino was setting a standard for evaluating "extraordinary rendition" (abduction) by US officials that was somewhat consistent with the worldview of… government officials in 1974. 2002 Washington Post (Electronic ed.) 26 Dec., These extraordinary renditions are done without resort to legal process and usually involve countries with security services known for using brutal means. 2008 Guardian (Electronic ed.) 6 May., The last British resident left in Guantánamo Bay is suing the UK government for refusing to produce evidence that he was a victim of extraordinary rendition and torture. 2009 Mirror (Electronic ed.) 27 Feb., John Hutton admitted British forces in Iraq gave two men to the US for "extraordinary rendition" to Afghanistan, where torture is carried out.

irregular rendition n.
1932 E. DICKINSON Encyclop. Soc. Sciences 6. 43 … irregular rendition by authorities of the state of asylum under mistake of fact was not ground for requiring the fugitive’s return [to France]. 1966 A. EVANS The Brit. Year Book of Internat. Law 40. 89 Kidnapping a fugitive from his place of asylum is the type of irregular rendition which captures headlines…

The Phrase

As seen from the first sense of ‘rendition’, the earliest meaning of the word is “The surrender of a person or possession” (first cited in 1649, according to the OED). It is this archaic sense of the word that is fossilised in this legal term, and this is also seen in the word ‘surrender’, which shares the same root as ‘render’.

However, the phrase’s cryptic meaning when ‘extraordinary’ and ‘rendition’ are put together is typical of words and phrases in the tradition of ‘doublespeak’, such as ‘friendly fire’, which appear to communicate, although do this using evasive, ambiguous language which conceals their true meanings due to the controversial nature of the concepts they denote. I have highlighted the phrase’s euphemistic usage with the label, Euphem.

Alternatively, perhaps the word ‘extraordinary’ merely denotes the illegality of the practice itself. According to former New York City police commissioner Howard Safir, extraordinary renditions were “not always legal under the law of the country in which the fugitive was residing” (www.taipeitimes.com). This would suggest that the renditions are ‘extraordinary’ in the sense that they are extra-legal extraditions.

Definition

I chose to base my layout and defining practices on those in the OED.

In accord with the OED’s historical approach to lexicography, I defined first the earliest recorded usage of ‘rendition’. Omitting the various other usages of the word, I included the legal usage as sense 2, and under this, in the ‘Compounds’ section, stated the various collocational phrases associated with this legal sense, ‘extraordinary rendition’ and ‘irregular rendition’. The phrase was also referred to as early as 1891 as ‘irregularities in rendition’ in the following context, “…irregularities in rendition cannot be set up, after the fugitive has been brought back [to the demanding state], as an answer to the charge” (Moore, 1891: 979). However, I did not record this in the entry as due to its slightly drawn-out wording, it did not fit into the ‘Compounds’ section.

In the definition of the legal sense of ‘rendition’, I put brackets around ‘(a person)’ as although the word is usually used to refer to the transfer of people, it could also be applied to property. In both the definition of ‘rendition’ and ‘extraordinary rendition’, the word ‘jurisdiction’ was used, rather than listing the various different legal authorities, as this word encompasses any legal authority and therefore, sufficiently reflects the various different territories a suspect can be transferred from and to in a rendition, for example, inter-state or inter-country.

Focusing solely on the definition of ‘extraordinary rendition’, the nouns ‘capture and transportation’ emphasise that the suspect is being kidnapped and highlights the phrase’s extra-judicial sense, which distinguishes it from a regular rendition, where prior permission is given from the jurisdiction the suspect is residing in to transfer them. This distinction is further emphasised by the adjective ‘illegal’ in the definition. I also stated with the abbreviation ‘esp.’ that although the targets of extraordinary renditions are ‘criminal suspects’, these criminals are usually ‘terrorist suspect[s]’, as is generally terrorists who hold the greatest public threat and therefore call for this drastic action.

Many legal definitions of ‘extraordinary rendition’ that I came across on the internet were ambiguous about the interrogation methods used, for example, stating that the location that suspects are transported to has ‘less strict rules governing interrogation’ (www.academiawashington.com). However, I felt that the precise aspect that makes extraordinary renditions so controversial is that suspects are usually subjected to torture, and torture was in fact used as part of the interrogation process in all the modern examples I looked at. I therefore specified in the definition that torture is usually involved, with the abbreviation, ‘esp.’ I also added the subject label, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

‘Extraordinary rendition’ can be used as both a mass noun and a count noun depending on the context it is used in. The usage of the phrase as a mass noun is seen in the 2000 citation, where it is referred to in an abstract sense. Therefore, I ensured that my definition was substitutable by the mass nouns ‘capture and transportation’, which are also used in an abstract sense, and the phrase’s usage as a mass noun is reinforced by the definite article which precedes it. ‘Extraordinary rendition’ as a count noun is demonstrated by the 2002 citation, which refers to the phrase in the plural. To show this in the definition, I added the phrase ‘or an instance of this’, where the noun ‘instance’ is an appropriately similar count noun that can replace ‘rendition’, and its usage as a count noun is reinforced by the indefinite article.

The Citations

In the first citation from 1932, and even before this, the grounds for carrying out the renditions are merely to return the fugitive back to the country or state in which the crime was committed. For example, from Moore’s (1891) suggestion that ‘…irregularities in rendition cannot be set up, after the fugitive has been brought back [to the demanding state]’, it is apparent that the phrase has not yet acquired its current, more euphemistic sense of deliberately transferring the suspect to another country or state with the intention of exposing them to an alternative and potentially less just rendition process.

Moreover, in the references to ‘irregular rendition’ and its variant phrase before 1966, the adjective, ‘irregular’ is not used to imply illegality but merely that the circumstances of the rendition being referred to are uncommon. For example, the 1932 citation suggests that due to the asylum authorities making a mistake in their treatment of the fugitive, the rendition procedures used on this fugitive were exceptional. In additional, despite the error made by the authorities, the fugitive was not returned to French custody, so no sense of explicit illegality is yet suggested. However, from 1966, ‘irregular’, and later, ‘extraordinary’, seem to be used to refer to the actual methods used in the rendition, which now include ‘Kidnapping’ (1966), ‘abduction… thus circumventing traditional extradition processes’ (1983) and ‘torture’ (2008 and 2009). The use of these extreme methods suggests that the phrase began to shift closer to its current, more sinister sense from around 1966.

In the first citation of ‘extraordinary rendition’ in 1983, the phrase appears in a slightly lengthier form, ‘extraordinary rendition devices’. Thus, it does not yet appear as an independent phrase but merely modifies the following noun, ‘devices’, which suggests that the phrase refers to the methods used in renditions. This is presumably because the writer, Bassiouni, is using this phrase potentially for the first time, and an ‘extraordinary rendition’ is a concept that is therefore widely unfamiliar, even to students and practitioners of Law. Therefore, in this instance, the word, ‘devices’ helps to clarify the meaning of the phrase. Similarly, in the 2000 citation, the phrase is glossed by the parentheses, ‘(abducting)’, which suggests that even almost two decades after the phrase’s first citation, the writer, Sievert, still feels that the phrase is widely unfamiliar, and this is reinforced by the inverted commas which surround it.

However, from the 2002 citation onwards, markers to inform readers that a new phrase is being used generally decline, and in the 2002 and 2008 citations, there are no such markers whatsoever. This suggests that this phrase began to be used more frequently from around 2002, and this coincides with the aftermath of 9/11. This indicates that the US’s fuelled ‘war on terror’ after 9/11 led to their increased usage of illegal, or ‘extraordinary renditions’. As a result, in the 2002 citation, the phrase is being used in the same context it would be today, that is, to refer to the transfer of terror suspects to countries that use specifically torture as part of the interrogation process, and this implies that 9/11 was responsible for forging the phrase’s current meaning.

The citation from 2000 was selected to reinforce that the phrase did not simply go out of use between the period between after its first citation and 2002. The phrase was still being used, however remained very much in the background, as suggested by the parentheses and inverted commas mentioned above, only to be resurrected in the wake of 9/11. The citation also suggests that the Toscanino case in 1974 was instrumental in the government ‘evaluating’ their stance on extraordinary renditions, which were previously not explicitly condemned. This accounts for why the citations before 1974 do not imply any sense of illegality but mere irregularity.

Despite the government’s apparent ‘evaluation’ of extraordinary renditions in 1974, it is ironic that after this, these renditions in fact occur more regularly. Therefore, from 2002 and beyond, I used more citations from a shorter period of time than previously to demonstrate the phrase’s increased usage. For example, the final two citations are taken from a period of only two years. This suggests that the government has reverted back to pre-1974 views, when extraordinary renditions were ‘consistent with the worldview of… government officials’. The more frequent use of these renditions from 2002 could also account for why ‘extraordinary’, which now referred to the methods rather than infrequency, as described above, gradually replaced ‘irregular’ as the most common collocative term.

Although extraordinary renditions have increased recently, it is evident from the recency of the final two citations that their practice now faces greater media and public scrutiny. The phrase’s fairly recent illegal sense is demonstrated in the 2008 citation by the Guantánamo Bay prisoner suing the government due to being a victim of such a rendition. Furthermore, the citations prior to 2008 show that the US had been the prime country involved in these illegal renditions. However, the 2008 and 2009 citations demonstrate that their controversy has now spread to the UK. These renditions’ current controversial status is summed up by the fact that whilst in the 2008 citation, the UK government attempted to conceal their involvement in extraordinary renditions, the 2009 citation exposes the corruption of the government, who finally admit to participating in them.

Conclusion

It was often difficult to find citations that encompassed both the phrase and a summary of the context that it was being used in. In the OED, citations are often no longer a sentence, so I also tried to restrict myself to this, although this would occasionally lead to omitting important contextual information. Therefore, in some of the citations, I used ellipses to omit irrelevant information and also squared brackets to summarise the context more succinctly than how it was being described in the original quotation.

Google Scholar helped me locate many early citations of the phrase, although some of these texts were unavailable to read online and could not be located elsewhere. This was the case with the 1983 citation, which featured in 's . It was crucial to acquire this text as it featured potentially the first ever citation of this phrase. I therefore managed to contact the author directly by email and he provided me with the quotation.

‘Extraordinary rendition’ has encountered much sense development, beginning its life as ‘irregularities in rendition’ and ‘irregular rendition’, where it merely implied irregularity in its practice, with none of the implications of torture that it contains today. The phrase has recently been used more frequently and even provides a title to the film, Extraordinary Rendition (2007). Since 9/11, the phrase has been subjected to pejoration and its current sinister status has surrounded the government with great controversy. Perhaps, as a result, the government will gradually cease their participation in these extraordinary renditions, and the usage of the phrase, in the near future, will begin to decline.

Bibliography

1891

Moore, J. B. A Treatise on Extradition and Interstate Rendition, vol. 2, Boston: The Boston Book Company, 1891: 979.

1932

Dickinson, E., “Extradition”, Edwin R. A. Seligman ed., Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol.6, London, Macmillan, 1932: 43.

1966

Evans, A. “Irregular Methods of Recovery of Fugitives”, H. Waldock and R. Jennings ed., The British Year Book of International Law, vol. 40, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1966: 89.

1983

Bassiouni. M. C., International Extradition. New York: Oceana, 1983: 11.

1985

“…with respect to the human rights dimensions of forcible abduction or other means or irregular rendition, Tentative Draft Number 3... states: None of the international human rights conventions to date... had expressly provided that forcible abduction or irregular extradition is a violation...”

Murphy, J., Punishing international terrorists: the legal framework for policy initiatives. Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield, 1985: 92.

1988

“The court appeared to limit the Ker-Frisbie doctrine by applying the expanded interpretation of due process protections… to cases where in personam jurisdiction is acquired by irregular rendition.”

Livingstone, N. and Terrell, A., Beyond the Iran-Contra Crisis: The Shape of U.S. Anti-terrorism Policy in the Post-Reagan Era. Kentucky, Lexington Books, 1988: 239

1993

“They have worked directly with foreign agents in apprehending fugitives… these methods have acquired many names: “irregular rendition”…”

Nadelmann, E. Cops across borders: the internationalization of U.S. criminal law enforcement. Pennsylvania, Penn State Press, 1993: 436-7.

2002

“These extraordinary renditions are done without resort to legal process and usually involve countries with security services known for using brutal means.”

Washington Post article, “U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations”, 26 December, 2002.

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

2003

“Mr Campbell has questioned the CIA practice of "extraordinary rendition," whereby suspects are sent to countries where curbs on interrogation are lax.”

BBC article, “Campbell warns against torture”, 5 December, 2003.

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

“The Washington Post reported on the CIA's use of "extraordinary rendition," the practice of turning detainees over to countries… that do not shrink from torturing suspects to gain information.”

Washington Post article, “The British Traded Rights for Security, Too”, 6 April, 2003; Page B01

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20572/donohue_wp.pdf

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

2004

“We called it extraordinary rendition because, although it was legal under US law, it was not always legal under the law of the country in which the fugitive was residing.”

Taipei Times article, “Foreign policy leads us into an odd wordscape”, 20 Jun, 2004, Page 9.

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

2005

“Andrew Tyrie, the Tory MP and chairman of the parliamentary group, said: "By apparently assisting the US in the practice of extraordinary rendition, the UK and the west are losing the moral high ground…”

Guardian article, “UK 'breaking law' over CIA secret flights”, 5 December 2005.

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

“They argued that the sole use of extraordinary rendition was to transport a suspect to a locale that was beyond the reach of the law - and so at risk of torture.”
Guardian article, ‘US defence of tactic makes no sense says legal expert”, 6 December 2005

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

“The practice of "extraordinary rendition" was today again in the spotlight with claims that the detainee who supplied the Bush administration's pre-war claims linking al-Qaida to Iraq did so in Egyptian custody.”
Guardian article, “Prewar claims 'sourced from rendition detainee'”, 9 December 2005.

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

“The foreign secretary today said there was no evidence that US "extraordinary rendition" flights had passed through the UK.”

Guardian article, “No record of rendition flights in UK, says Straw”, 12 December 2005.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/12/usa.immigrationpolicy
Accessed on 1st April 2009.

2006

“In the United States, officials dubbed the strategy “extraordinary rendition,”… whereby the U.S. government or its agents could capture a person accused of a crime and bring the person to the United States to stand trial.”

Weissbrodt, D. and Bergquist, A., “Extraordinary Rendition and the Torture Convention”, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 46, 2006: 586.

… extraordinary rendition cuts detainees off from the outside world and hence constitutes inhuman treatment, itself a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.
“Extraordinary Rendition: A Human Rights Analysis”, 2006

Harvard Human Rights Journal Online

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

“The practice of transferring a detainee from US custody to the custody of a foreign state is usually called "extraordinary rendition" in the USA”

“"Rendition" and secret detention: A global system of human rights violations”, 2006 Amnesty UK Website

http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL300032006?open&of=ENG-2AM

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

2007

“The Bush administration also engages in the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition, where people are sent to other countries to be tortured…”

Cohn, M. Cowboy Republic. Tennessee, PoliPointPress, 2007: 43.

2008

“Eichmann's abduction would now be euphemised as "extraordinary rendition".”

Guardian article, “Ordinary rendition”, 11 March 2008

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

“British soil and airspace have been used regularly by CIA planes taking suspects to face interrogation in other states - so-called "extraordinary rendition".”
Telegraph article, “The history of extraordinary rendition flights”, 26 Feb 2008.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/1579382/The-history-of-extraordinary-rendition-flights.html

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

“David Miliband has admitted two US "extraordinary rendition" flights landed on UK territory in 2002.”

BBC article, “UK apology over rendition flights”, 21 February 2008

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

"While ministers have spent years looking the other way, British territory has been used for kidnapping, 'extraordinary rendition', illegal imprisonment and possibly torture.
Guardian article, “David Miliband 'duped' over US rendition”, 1 August 2008.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/aug/01/davidmiliband.foreignpolicy

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

“The last British resident left in Guantánamo Bay is suing the UK government for refusing to produce evidence that he was a victim of extraordinary rendition and torture.”
Guardian article, “Guantánamo Briton sues UK over 'torture evidence'”, 6 May 2008.

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

2009

“MPs were given inaccurate information regarding the extraordinary rendition of terror suspects…”
Guardian article, “Hutton admits Iraq suspects were handed to US”, 27 February 2009

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

“Extraordinary rendition” involves rendering persons to non-judicial authorities outside of treaty and legal processes, a task that is usually accomplished through kidnapping and forced transfer from one country to another.”

“WAMUN 2009: Human Rights Committee”, 2009

Academia Washington Website.

http://www.academiawashington.e12.ve/portal/aw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103:human-rights-committee&catid=93:wamun&Itemid=103

Accessed on 1st April 2009.

“John Hutton admitted British forces in Iraq gave two men to the US for "extraordinary rendition" to Afghanistan, where torture is carried out.”

Mirror article, “Britain did hand over two torture flight suspects”, 27 February 2009.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/02/27/britian-did-hand-over-two-torture-flight-suspects-115875-21156127/

Accessed on 1st April 2009.