You may be in error when you define
rendition as "transfer of individuals by extra-judicial process (kidnapping) to the USA to answer criminal charges" and
extraordinary rendition as 'taking them to a country where these rules … of due process, which of course excludes torture, … do not apply.
As I understand it, 'rendition' can be perfectly lawful. It is "the return of a fugative from one state to the state where the fugative is accused or convicted of a crime"(Black's Law Dictionary) or "sending terrorist subjects to other countries to be interrogated" (audio clip
here, near start).
Note that nothing says it need be unlawful (Israel, I believe, obtained by rendition its jurisdiction over Adolf Eichman), though of course
can occur improperly. It can involve any countries (not necessarily to the US), and can be for
questioning, i.e., interrogation. Less clearly, an 'extraordinary rendition' a transport in violation of applicable rules – regardless of whether the destination is civilized or is one given to torture.
The audio clip is interesting at the 3:00-4:00 area. It refers to "the lawful practice of renditions". The newsman
claims that the ACLU claims rendition are illegal, but in fact, the ACLU quote says only that many current renditions are not meeting the legal requirements.
