RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3383Goal: $5000

Extrajudicial punishment

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Arbitrary detention)
Jump to: navigation, search
It's a
Crime
James Dawson - Flickr - Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums.jpg
Articles on illegal behaviour

Extrajudicial punishment consists of various actions to imprison, relocate, harm, torture, or kill someone outside of the legal system, without legal process, and without supervision from a court and its systems of recourse. In short: It's when someone breaks the law to take away someone else's rights.

Detention[edit]

Arbitrary detentions consist of the arrest and detainment of persons without judicial recourse. Political opponents are frequently the targets of these extralegal processes in authoritarian states, although "democratic" Western states are increasingly willing and able to detain alleged terrorists without charges. Arbitrary detentions are in violation of Articles 1,3,7,9,10, and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[1] and also frequently ignore the assumed right of habeus corpus.

Where there is no independent judiciary, arbitrary detentions are simple and common. Without a standard of evidence to be met or an independent body to determine whether such a standard has been met, the police power to detain is supreme. While arrests may be carried out by a normal police force, paramilitaries are widely used to detain political enemies.

The presence of supreme laws and an independent judiciary does not confer complete immunity from arbitrary detainment. Standard practice, even in some places where the legal system is not subservient to police power, is to pass statutes granting police powers to detain without charge or judicial review. Modern anti-terrorism laws frequently contain provisions to legalize temporary detention without charges, while the United States government uses a lack of extraterritoriality, and comparatively lax laws in other countries, such as Syria, and, in particular, military installations, such as Guantanamo Bay,[2] to imprison, indefinitely and without charge, anyone declared an "unlawful enemy combatant," a phrase coined to avoid granting POW status and rights to detainees.[3] The phrase has since been retired and replaced with "unprivileged enemy belligerents".[4]

Prison arrangements vary extensively between countries. Where a significant number of long-term detainees exist, governments may build special systems of prisons like the Soviet gulags and Nazi concentration/labor camps; both of these systems involved forced labor. China has prominently placed a number of political dissidents under house arrest in recent years.[5] Facilities may or may not be secret. America currently operates a sizable prison camp at the Guantanamo Bay naval base. In addition, the CIA either operates or until recently operated a system of secret prisons for prisoners considered too valuable to place in the relative spotlight of Guantanamo.[5][6]

Rendition[edit]

Countries cooperating in extraordinary rendition: Black - the United States and CIA-run "black sites"; dark blue — points of origin for ER journeys; light blue — transit routes; red — destinations.

Extraordinary rendition is a euphemism for "moving people to where it's easier to hurt them without legal repercussions".

Extraordinary rendition is usually used to describe the secret and illegal movement of terrorism suspects for "enhanced interrogation" (sadly, a euphemism for torture) from the United States (where we pretend to have things called civil rights) to countries where such practices are legal. Although the actual rendition was mostly carried out by the CIA, it depended on the cooperation, and silence, of several other countries. It was "abolished" by Barack Obama. Extraordinary rendition is distinguished from ordinary rendition plain old "rendition" in that the latter simply involves the CIA or another covert agency snatching a suspect from a foreign country, either entirely without that country's permission or with only unofficial permission and in violation of the country's actual laws. This form of rendition does not necessarily result in torture, but doesn't rule it out either.[7]

According to current estimates, over 3,000 terror suspects were abducted around the world and transferred to camps since Bush's declaration of "War on Terror" in 2001.

While President Obama has drastically limited the practice to be all but eliminated, he still retains the "legal" right to use extraordinary rendition under specific and particular circumstances. According to an inquiry into United States CIA billing practices for 2010,[notes 1] it appears Obama has used rendition in 2 cases since he took office.[8]

Fourteen European countries were found to have cooperated in extraordinary rendition, according to a report of the European Parliament. They were: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.[9][10]

Execution[edit]

Extrajudicial execution is a euphemism for murder.

More specifically, extrajudicial execution is when the state kills someone without proper due process. This can either be by the direct agents of the state (such as the military or police), or indirectly by private citizens whom the state elects not to punish for its actions. (This presupposes that the private citizen does not have an affirmative defense that would hold up in the state's courts of law, such as self-defense.)[notes 2]

Extrajudicial executions are almost universally considered a human rights violation. However, many states continue the practice, either in secret or else justifying it as necessary. The most common justification is that the state is in a state of emergency, and that the killings are necessary because the judiciary is weak, slow, or corrupt. These excuses are disregarded by human rights organizations in almost all cases.

Extrajudicial executions are most often practiced in countries where the leaders of the state have authoritarian leanings, but the state is not strong enough for the use of formal methods. It also happens when the judiciary so opposes the would-be authoritarians that they will not allow the kinds of executions those in charge want.

Or, in places like the Philippines, it happens when a populist leader convinces the public that dispensing with constitutional niceties is the most expedient way to bring about law and order. In that situation, President Rodrigo Duterte responded to criticism by saying that Germany killed many Jews and the U.S. killed many Native Americans;[11] a textbook Tu quoque fallacy.

On the other hand, "extrajudicial executions" are also common in states where the centralized power is very weak. The closer a state is to ochlocracy, the greater the chances of extrajudicial executions.[notes 3]

Most of the time, the term is used in reference to killings in Latin America, such as the campaign of killings in Chile in the 1970s and 1980s under Augusto Pinochet, or in the failed states of the world. It is often forgotten that one of the longest running campaigns of "extrajudicial executions" was that of lynching in the United States. For half a century, it was commonplace in much of the country for mobs of whites to hang African Americans for merely breaching the social etiquette of the times. Afterwards, none of the participants would be punished in any way (see KKK). Sometimes the participants included local government officials, including law enforcement.

Lynch mobs[edit]

A lynch mob is a group of people intent on an extrajudicial execution, though they might settle for some enhanced interrogation. Their victim is a specific individual, but the mob may direct their collective rage at persons who resemble their intended victim.

Historically, a lynch mob is any mob of people whipped up to kill someone, usually by hanging. While groups punishing individuals without legal proceedings was a common feature of early law enforcement (as the court system either didn't exist at all yet or was exclusively reserved for the wealthy), the term lynching goes back to the 1780s American Lynch Law, referring to a punishment without trial, and is inextricably associated with racially motivated violence. In the Southern United States, from the Reconstruction era until the 1960s, it was a common occurrence for groups of whites to catch black men who were accused of some offense, including rape or other sexual misconduct, and lynch them. While the public perception at the time was that these lynchings were mostly of rapists: a 1919 study of 2,500 Southern lynchings found that only one-sixth of victims had been accused of rape or sexual misconduct.[12] Rarely were these accusations ever fairly adjudicated.

Recently found and restored photographs have documented the often festive air of these lynchings, where whole communities would get together and have picnics in the shadow of a dead black man.[13] Overlapping that phenomenon is the use of mob violence to repress organized labor in the South and the American West.[14] One of the first major civil rights fights of the 20th century was the fight to make lynching a federal crime, over objections from Southern Democrats (this is when the Democrats were the bad guys) that it was necessary to maintain public order. In the period from 1882 to 1968, some 200 bills were introduced in Congress attempting to outlaw lynching, all of which were rejected. This struggle led to the emergence of the NAACP as a major civil rights organization. Lynchings were primarily directed at black men in the South, but other ethnic groups were also targeted, and in other parts of the U.S.[15]

In modern usage, the term "lynch mob" is often used as pejorative description of a group that gets angry at an individual, with the implication that the individual is being subjected to unfair persecution. This usage can be controversial, since it is often said to mask the true horror of the literal and historical lynch mob. The single most controversial usage of this was probably Clarence Thomas saying that he was being subjected to a "high-tech lynching."[16]

Those thinking about taking part in lynch mobs should first ask themselves if they may be guilty of groupthink.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. The investigation was done in 2011 and published by the Washington Post
  2. For example, if I kill you because you hold political belief X, and the government arrests me and tries me, it is not an extrajudicial execution. However, if I kill you because you hold political belief X, and the government ignores it or gives me an "unrelated" reward, it is an extrajudicial execution. Of course, either way, if you kill me instead because I'm attempting to kill you, it is not an extrajudicial execution regardless.
  3. Good examples of this are present-day Iraq and Somalia.

References[edit]