Comments on: Outsourcing Torture redux

By: yami

yami — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:25:13 +0000

Ted, I grabbed a couple sentences for my letter to the editor – much appreciated, and I hope you don’t mind the tinge of astroturf. In addition to writing our Reps, we should all be screaming from the hilltops.

By: Charles Dodgson

Charles Dodgson — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:01:17 +0000

FWIW, it’s a bit more common to refer to proposed legislation by bill number. Markey’s bill is H.R. 4674; the text of the bill, and relevant press releases, are also available on Markey’s official web site (still in PDF, unfortunately), here.

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:07:07 +0000

Fafblog was already on this:

To pass the bill in this form would be inconceivable - for how can any red-blooded pro-torture Congressman justify outsourcing our nation's torture work when American torturers are losing their jobs every day?

By: karol

karol — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:55:25 +0000

Thank you for posting a copy of your email, but I’m afraid my rep won’t get it. He has been making some grunting noises recently related to ‘unnecessary outsourcing of jobs to feeriners’ so this is the angle that I’m trying in my email. “I insist you stop the proposed outsourcing of work that Americans are perfectly capable of performing.”

By: Idiot/Savant

Idiot/Savant — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:39:42 +0000

The US has a reservation to that article interpreting “substantial grounds” as “more likely than not”, but even so its difficult to see how its compatible. I’d have thought that Article 15 (which bans the use of any statement extracted by torture from use in any proceedings) would make the whole idea worthless anyway. Except that the US isn’t interested in prosecuting terrorists…

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:09:57 +0000

There is no way this law is compatible with the Covention, which explicitly says a) “No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture” and b) “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. ” Now of course, there’s only really Congress and the American people to enforce US compliance, but still, if this law goes ahead then the US will prima facie be in breach of the Convention.

By: Alex R

Alex R — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:07:20 +0000

Ted—Your letter is good, but in once sense it could be stronger: the “clear and convincing evidence” condition is for anybody to avoid deportation—if you “engage in terrorist activity”, any regulations against deportation are explicitly waived—even if you will definitely be tortured. Aside: the definition of engaging in terrorist activity is quite broad—look, for example in USC 8 sec 1182, (a)(3)(B)(iv)—and includes such things like raising money for organizations that you know (or should have known) are terrorist organizations. Call it the “Cat Stevens” definition—arguably acceptable as a justification for preventing entry, but here used to allow torture…