Human rights fact-finding and the CIA’s rendition, detention and interrogation programme: A response to Cordell

Abstract

In her article, ‘Measuring extraordinary rendition and international cooperation’, Rebecca Cordell seeks to subject the Rendition Flights Database to a model-based, statistical analysis. She argues that her analysis suggests that more countries were involved in the CIA’s rendition programme than our work has previously established, and that many more flights in the database are likely to be connected to rendition operations than we have identified. While we would not dispute the likelihood that both of these statements are correct, and we have always presented our findings with an acknowledgement that they provide a necessarily limited account of the rendition, detention and interrogation (RDI) programme, we suggest that Cordell’s work should be approached with some caution. This is so for two reasons. First, her findings – although derived through a different mode of analysis from our own – do not appear to move beyond those we have already published. Second, because Cordell has not triangulated her analysis with either data relating to transfers of specific prisoners, or with evidence relating to which countries hosted prisons for the CIA and the operational dates for these prisons, we question her claim that the flights she has identified from the Database are ‘likely rendition flights’. We aim to demonstrate the importance of having a clear understanding of the limitations of big data when researching violations of human rights, especially where such data is related to covert operations. We also seek to show why the Renditions Flights Database only has merit when it is triangulated with a wide range of supplementary sources, including first-hand accounts by prisoners themselves, declassified documents from the US Government, and the findings of parliamentary, journalist and legal investigations. It is this process of triangulation which gives the flight data meaning and which makes it of value for establishing the facts of human rights abuses.

Measuring extraordinary rendition and international cooperation: A response to Blakeley and Raphael

“…Blakeley and Raphael (2018) argue that Cordell’s (2017) findings “although derived through a different mode of analysis from our own – do not appear to move beyond those we have already published” (Blakeley and Raphael, 2018: 169). For example, they presume “that the 307 [new likely rendition flights] are within our group of approximately 500 known or suspicious flights” (Blakeley and Raphael, 2018: 172). This assumption is not correct, and this can be demonstrated empirically.…”

“…However, Figure 1 shows that there are some key differences. Importantly, none of the flights identified by the model are tagged by Blakeley and Raphael (2013b) as “Not suspicious” or “Logistics/interrogators” which are two concerns that Blakeley and Raphael (2018) express in their response. These descriptive statistics show how Cordell (2017) moves beyond the results that Blakeley and Raphael (2013b) have already published.…”

“…Blakeley and Raphael (2018) also argue that: “Cordell claims that only 54 countries have been identified as playing this role. This is incorrect: we have identified 65 countries involved in known rendition operations, and an additional 17 countries involved in circuits we have tagged as suspicious (see below).…”

“…Indeed, of Cordell’s 15 ‘previously unidentified countries’, 5 (Japan, Malta, Norway, Seychelles and Tunisia) are already known to have been involved in specific rendition operations, where we have identified the prisoners rendered on board. (Blakeley and Raphael, 2018: 172)” However, the 54 known cases that I refer to are those countries included in the Open Society Foundations (2013) “Globalizing torture: CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition” report (see Cordell, 2017: 180). 3 This report is the most “comprehensive catalog” of detainee transfers and foreign government participation in RDI practices (Open Society Foundations, 2013: 6).…”

“…In response, Blakeley and Raphael (2018) claim that these results “do not appear to move those we have already published” (Blakeley and Raphael, 2018: 169). They also argue that statistical modeling can be problematic in the context of researching violations of human rights “especially where such data is related to covert operations” (Blakeley and Raphael, 2018: 169) and is unaccompanied by “a wide range of additional evidence” (Blakeley and Raphael, 2018: 177). As a result, they “question [Cordell’s (2017)] claim that the flights she has identified from the Database are ‘likely rendition flights’” (Blakeley and Raphael, 2018: 169).…”