Panel 2: How Are Laws Applied and Detention Practices Reformed?Litigation: Taking Cases and Those Responsible to Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
thank you and good morning. i’d like to sPeak about the right to a remedy and access to Justice in u.s. courts for victims of the “extraordinary rendition” program, which, as I will explain, is in effect a program established by the Bush administration to facilitate forced disappearances and torture and to attempt to evade accountability for these egregious human rights abuses. There is no dispute now, that the U.S. is the home of the “extraordinary rendition” program. This is supported by credible testimony from victims of the program, widespread media reporting – we’ve even got books on the evolution and operation of the program. There have been criminal investigations outside the United States into the operations of the CIA in European nations. And there have been public inquiries in Europe and Canada into the operation of the program. And, most importantly, there has been official acknowledgement by former President Bush and more recently President Obama of the existence of the detention and interrogation program run by the United States. Yet today, despite these admissions and investigations, there has been no criminal investigation conducted in the United States into the program’s operation or those persons responsible. Nor to date has there been any form of effective Congressional oversight of the program and those persons involved. In the absence of such criminal investigation and prosecution or effective Congressional oversight, U.S. advocates, including the ACLU, concerned about the program’s operation, seeking to bring it to an end, and to secure accountability of those involved (including redress for many known victims of the program) have resorted to civil suits in U.S. courts. From this litigation, it has become apparent, that although on paper, legal mechanisms exist in the U.S. legal system to achieve accountability, advocates in practice have encountered significant obstacles in bringing these lawsuits. Today, I want to address in detail one of those impediments; the so-called “state secrets privilege” and touch briefly upon another of those obstacles; claims to governmental immunity. So, just to make sure that we’re all on the same page, what exactly is the “extraordinary rendition” program? Based upon the accounts of those that have come out the other end of the program, there are four common elements to “extraordinary rendition.” First, you have the apprehension of a person – a foreign national – suspected of involvement in terrorist-related activities, outside the United States. The apprehension is usually carried out by the CIA; the government agency that has taken the Panel 2: How Are Laws Applied and Detention Practices Reformed?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.020 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".