For those who have an interest in targeting, neutralizing, detaining, and adjudicating terrorists amidst the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), few tools are more poorly understood than the acquisition and subsequent movement of the alleged terrorists. Rendition is that process by which the body of an individual is taken from State A to State B. It may occur in either a “regular” or an “irregular” form. Regular rendition occurs when the individual is moved pursuant to the express terms and procedures of a given extradition treaty. Irregular rendition, on the other hand, is principally comprised of the rare instances in which an individual is moved in lieu of, outside of, or in spite of an extradition treaty. These irregular forms of rendition can generally be classified into four categories: (a) Luring/Trickery, (b) Deportation as de facto Extradition, (c) Forcible Abductions for Prosecution, and (d) 3rd Party Interrogative Renditions. Although many of the irregular rendition models have strong similarities in law, each has its own unique twists. The following thesis aims to draw further upon the legal authorities relative to two of these irregular rendition models and provide a legal and political framework for their use within the analytical context of the GWOT. Comprised of two distinct monographs, this thesis project first addresses state-sponsored forcible abductions as they are utilized within the criminal field for prosecution and then moves to review their use within the intelligence arena for the purposes of interrogation. Where extraterritorial forcible abductions have been lawfully used by members of the law enforcement community since the late nineteenth century, the shift in paradigm toward their use for interrogations carried out by a third party under the Clinton Administration is more questionable both politically and jurisprudentially
