Republicans Seeking to Outsource Torture

[Guest guest]

A

Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:51

Republicans Seeking to Outsource Torture

 

 

The 9/11 Commission called upon the U.S. to " offer an example of

moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely,

abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our

neighbors. " The Republican congressional response: propose a law that

would allow the U.S. to send prisoners to other nations for torture.

 

Obsidian Wings explains:

The Republican leadership of Congress is attempting to legalize

extraordinary rendition. " Extraordinary rendition " is the euphemism we

use for sending terrorism suspects to countries that practice torture

for interrogation. As one intelligence official described it in the

Washington Post, " We don't kick the sh*t out of them. We send them to

other countries so they can kick the sh*t out of them. " ... As it

stands now, " extraordinary rendition " is a clear violation of

international law--specifically, the U.N. Convention Against Torture

and Other Cruel, Degrading and Inhuman Treatment. U.S. law is less clear.

 

Obsidian Wings quotes some comments from a press release from Edward

Markey, a Massachusetts Congressman who is seeking to outlaw

extraordinary rendition:

The provision would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to

issue new regulations to exclude from the protection of the U.N.

Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment, any suspected terrorist - thereby

allowing them to be deported or transferred to a country that may

engage in torture. The provision would put the burden of proof on the

person being deported or rendered to establish " by clear and

convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured, " would bar the

courts from having jurisdiction to review the Secretary's regulations,

and would free the Secretary to deport or remove terrorist suspects to

any country in the world at will - even countries other than the

person's home country or the country in which they were born. The

provision would also apply retroactively.

 

I'm a little confused about expecting prisoners to present " clear and

convincing evidence " that they will be tortured when they are being

held incommunicado, not being permitted access to counsel, about to be

shipped to a country they know nothing about (and may not even know

what country they are going to), and no judicial review is permitted

of their case. Was that provision inserted as a joke?

 

So far as I know this has not been reported in the media and I don't

know if it will. I think it requires an extraordinary level of moral

bankruptcy to push for a law that would not only authorize, but would

in fact require the create of rules that would send prisoners to

foreign countries for torture — and to exclude the courts from having

the authority to review such actions. Instead of learning the correct

lessons of Abu Ghraib, some Republicans have learned that torture

should be outsourced rather than done in-house. I wonder how many of

the same Republicans will continue to assert that Saddam Hussein

needed to be taken out of power in part because of how many people he

had tortured?