What Do Iran, Belgium, and Thailand Have in Common? Complicity in CIA Torture

The Open Society Justice Initiative has released a report on the CIA’s extraordinary rendition and secret detention programs. The report lists 54 countries that participated in the operations. Involvement included helping capture suspected terrorists, hosting CIA prisons, actually “interrogating” suspects themselves, and allowing flights used for extraordinary rendition to pass through their airspace.

At the beginning of his first term President Obama signed an executive order that some thought put an end to the American use of torture. However, as the press release from the Open Society Justice Initiative Points out, this is not the case:

The Obama administration has not definitively repudiated extraordinary rendition. In 2009, President Obama issued an executive order disavowing torture and closing secret CIA detention sites, but the order was reportedly crafted to allow short-term, transitory detention prior to transferring detainees to countries for interrogation or trial. Current policies and practices with respect to extraordinary rendition remain secret.

Some of the countries listed by the report such as Iran, Zimbabwe, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are known for their own human rights abuses and helped “interrogate”, detain, or transfer suspects directly or indirectly to the CIA. Others on the list such as Denmark, Iceland, Portugal, and Ireland were complicit in allowing subjects of extraordinary rendition to pass through their air space.

John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director nominee, will be taking questions from Senators during his confirmation hearings on Thursday. Brennan has already refused to review or discuss a report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. Brennan did promise Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) that he would review the report before his hearing. Unfortunately, whether he answers questions on the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program or not will have little impact on his chance of being confirmed as the next director of the CIA.

Read the list of countries implicated in the Open Society Justice Initiative report below the jump.

1. Afghanistan

2. Albania

3. Algeria

4. Australia

5. Austria

6. Azerbaijan

7. Belgium

8. Bosnia-Heregovina

9. Canada

10. Croatia

11. Cyprus

12. Czech Republic

13. Denmark

14. Djibouti

15. Egypt

16. Ethiopia

17. Finland

18. Republic of the Gambia

19. Georgia

20. Germany

21. Greece

22. Hong Kong

23. Iceland

24. Indonesia

25. Iran

26. Ireland

27. Italy

28. Jordan

29. Kenya

30. Libya

31. Lithuania

32. Macedonia

33. Malawi

34. Malaysia

35. Mauritania

36. Morocco

37. Pakistan

38. Poland

39. Portugal

40. Romania

41. Saudi Arabia

42. Somalia

43. South Africa

44. Spain

45. Sri Lanka

46. Sweden

47. Syria

48. Thailand

49. Turkey

50. United Arab Emirates

51. United Kingdom

52. Uzbekistan

53. Yemen

54. Zimbabwe

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Belgium? There's really no place for language like that.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    Aside from Serious Screenplays, of course.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Fat, bloody Belgian bastards!"

  • Raven Nation||

    Genuine question: I assume there is some way that - at the time - countries would know flights crossing their airspace were carrying renditioned (?) captives?

    Also: Iran??!!!

  • XTSee||

    Denmark, Iceland, Portugal, and Ireland were complicit in allowing subjects of extraordinary rendition to pass through their air space

    They don't own the air. Open borders!

  • BlueBook||

    Yeah, the airspace deal is confusing. I somehow doubt the CIA has all their planes clearly identified with big bold letters.

  • Timon 19||

    I'm pretty sure the CIA doesn't operate low-observable C-130s. Especially since there's no such thing.

  • BlueBook||

    Nah, I was thinking of a civilian front company like Air America.

  • T||

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. I'm guessing we ask for overflight permission, and the host country asks if we're going to be bombing or carrying NBC munitions or anything they consider egregious. We say no, they say okay. I don't see the CIA specifically telling them "We're renditioning terrorists to a black site so we can wire electrodes to their genitals. Mind if we pass though?"

    I can't get too mad about overflight permission because that assumes more knowledge on the part of the host country than I think they have.

  • XTSee||

    Ignorance is no excuse. If governments are not omnipotent, what good are they? This kind of thing would never happen in Anarchopia.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Feeney, I hope you're not suggesting that Obama's executive order was some kind smokescreen for continuing the very policy he was prohibiting. When has President Obama ever lied about his agenda or actions?

  • BlueBook||

    Does this mean that Al Quaeda will now have to declare jihad on Iran for supporting the CIA?

  • DJF||

    Al-Qaeda is Sunni, they already hate the Shiite Iran.

  • XTSee||

    I took a shiite in Belgium once.

  • BlueBook||

    Or Al Qaeda, depending on whether your preferred word game tile set appends the U to the Q.

  • Drake||

    A few more stories like this and I might start to think Obama is a bit of a hypocrite.

  • pmains||

    OT: Paul clarifies his "live by the sword, die by the sword" comment.

    As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend’s violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP

    In other words, it wasn't Kyle that was living by the sword. It was the country that has been at war for the last decade+.

  • XTSee||

    Ultimately, it's George W. Obama's sword that figuratively decapitated Kyle.

  • ||

    So Ron clarified his statement, explained in such a way that a few people here immediately saw it as. Any chance Welch or any of the other Ron Paul haters will now clarify their own statements?

  • XTSee||

    No. Because snark in the defense of hate is no vice.

  • John||

    A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies.

    That is even dumber than the original tweet. A policy of non violence will keep nuts from committing random killings. That is the same idiotic logic that says if we just get rid of video games and the "culture of violence" there won't be any other Newtowns.

    No Ron, some people just suck and don't really care how peaceful you are. In fact, many of them consider that a weakness. And moreover, Christ never said nonviolence would cause you to get ahead in this world, only the next.

    Lastly, I love how the resident atheists forgive Paul for throwing around Jesus' name like he is Ray Lewis but anyone else mentions religion and they are immediately part of the FUNDIE threat.

    Screw Paul is a fucking kook.

  • RyanXXX||

    Why do you have such a hardon for this Kyle guy?

  • John||

    Why do you think I do. He was the unfortunate victim of a murder. And it generally offends my sensibility when kooks like Paul claim murder victims got what was coming to them.

    Just because I don't know the guy and are not affected by the murder doesn't mean I can't think much less of Paul for his idiotic statements about said murder.

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...some people just suck and don't really care how peaceful you are.

    This is true, but it doesn't mean that blowback doesn't exist. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    Lastly, I love how the resident atheists forgive Paul for throwing around Jesus' name like he is Ray Lewis but anyone else mentions religion and they are immediately part of the FUNDIE threat.

    No, you are confusing most of the atheists here with Shrike. And the main reason why atheists here would favor Ron Paul vs. other religious politicians is that Ron Paul's religion is private; he does not mix religion with politics. Compare and contrast with politicians who use religion as an excuse to demand bans on porn / video games / drugs / alcohol / movies / etc.

  • Calidissident||

    We get it John. Someone said a "bad thing" about someone who wore a uniform, and that makes him a worse person than the people who send men and women in uniform to needlessly die in unnecessary wars.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences.

    Like a soldier getting killed at a gun range because someone wanted his truck? That's a hell of a stretch and would likely be regarded here as political-speak gobbledygook if spoken by anyone but Paul.

  • pmains||

    Nonsense. Any sane person would have seen that killing somebody and taking his truck is an unworkable plan. The guy was mentally ill and, yes, his mental illness would seem to be related to trauma experienced during his service.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Not sure if serious.

    You do know that Kyle had previously killed two guys -- who were never in the military -- who tried to carjack him, right?

    Carjackings, by non-ex-soldiers, happen all the time. Are you arguing that carjackers are, as a matter of law, insane because it is an unworkable plan?

  • John||

    The guy had previously killed two people? I hadn't heard that. He is not some PTSD victim. He is just a nut.

  • pmains||

    Why is Kyle a nut for defending himself from carjackers?

  • RyanXXX||


  • pmains||

    Oh, knock it off. The guy was nuts and killed Kyle because he was nuts. This really isn't in dispute.

    Read the NY Times article.

    Shortly before his arrest, Mr. Routh told his sister and brother-in-law that he had killed the two men and "traded his soul for a new truck," according to an arrest affidavit.

    Now, does that seem like a normal carjacking to you? Isn't, oh, I don't know, a modicum of anonymity part of a successful carjacking? Routh's mother knew Kyle was coming over, so there's no question who the suspect would be when police did 15 minutes of investigation. He told his sister and brother-in-law that he had a "new truck." How far down the road did he expect to get?

    And, oh yeah, the guy had a history of mental illness which makes my theory of, "he was nuts," a lot more tenable than your bullshit, "he was just a carjacker" theory.

  • John||

    So he was nuts. Therefore, the murder had nothing to do with the war. So Paul's connecting it to the war is complete horseshit.

  • RyanXXX||

    Except the source of his "nuttery" was PTSD. What do you think is the source of most veteran's PTSD?

    You can keep playing stupid here, but Paul is right (aside from the religious angle). Kyle's death was an unintended consequence of our endless warmaking

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    My theory isn't "he was just a carjacker."

    My theory is that trying to tie Routh's behavior to PTSD and then try to tie that PTSD to Kyle such that Kyle lived and died by the sword is just a bullshit, disingenuous way for Paul to get in a dig at a war he didn't support.

    If Routh had been the one to die, the live/die by the sword would still be a shitty thing for Paul to say, but at least it might have some modicum of coherence. Kyle was murdered, and to try to pin that shit on "[u]nconstitutional and unnecessary wars" -- because, you know, no one from constitutional and necessary wars ever got PTSD -- is just asinine and indefensible.

  • pmains||

    Paul isn't saying that Kyle lived and died by the sword. He is saying that United States has been too quick to go to war. Wars by their nature have a high human cost. If we only fought necessary and Constitutional wars, we would fight fewer of them and there would be a lower human cost.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Paul isn't saying that Kyle lived and died by the sword.
    Chris Kyle’s death seems to confirm that “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.”

    I get the 140 character limit, but your interpretation means that Paul has retired the trophy, against some formidable competition, for poorly-timed and -worded tweets. Hell, your last sentence is orders of magnitude better to make that point, yet he didn't say anything like that.

  • R C Dean||

    I like Ron Paul, but he stepped on his dick here, and the "apology" doesn't help. IMO.

    You don't hang your "this war was bad" schtick on the murder of a veteran, especially with "live by the sword". Using that phrase doesn't point to the war generally being bad, it points to that veteran getting what was coming to him.

    Sometimes, you just need to man up and give a real apology, not a smarmy attempt to rewrite history. If he'd said "That came out all wrong. I'm really sorry, I should have never tried to turn his death into a commentary on the war itself. My apologies to everyone", I'd let him off the hook.

    But no, we get the usual weaseling "dog returning to his vomit" routine that politicians just can't help but do.

    And, I repeat, I like Ron Paul. Just not today.

  • John||

    He meant every work he wrote and thought Kyle got what was coming to him. But there is no reasoning with Paul supporters. He is the first politician who ever let libertarians so much as cop a feel. And they will love him always for it. The fact that he gave them a case of the clap he had caught from Rothbard will never matter.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    He should reveal the ghost writer of his Twitter feed.

    Lew maybe? ;)

  • John||

    It was clearly Rockwell. Donderoo told me so.

  • BakedPenguin||

    James Powell.

    I'd never heard of him.

  • RyanXXX||

    Jesus Christ . "Got what was coming to him"?? You're deranged if you think that's what Paul meant.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Serious question: What did he mean, in your opinion?

  • RyanXXX||

    What he said in explanation. That Kyle's death was a consequence of the wars. Which may or may not be true, but it isn't malicious.

    I believe this because it A) fits in with Paul's former stances on veterans B) fits his preference for not making issues personal, and focusing on institutions

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    That Kyle's death was a consequence of the wars. Which may or may not be true, but it isn't malicious.

    As far as I can tell, "Kyle's death was a consequence of the wars." is 43 characters, which is well within the limit for Twitter. It is shorter, clearer, and much less controversial than what he actually sent. Too bad he didn't just tweet something like that instead of what he did.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Fair enough.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    He, apparently, meant that we should fight fewer wars. Why he didn't just say that, I can't fathom.

  • John||

    But remember, torture under the Bush administration was a fierce moral imperative. I love it Obama is doing this. It just shows his supporters to be the brain dead fakes they always were.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    While I was in the Land of Smiles, being a airplane spotter geek, I took advantage of visiting Udon Thani a few times to spot at the air force part of the airport. All I'll say is that I saw some weird shit flying in, and some weird vehicles near the VOA relay station.

  • RyanXXX||

    The Iran - Al Qaeda enmity is a topic I wish was explored more. But it contradicts the "Iran is the source of all evil" mantra, so the media ignores it.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.