Erstwhile (and deeply missed) blogger Katherine has returned to Obsidian Wings with a very important post. Under cover of the “9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004”, House Republicans are attempting to pass a law which would legalize “extraordinary rendition” — the practice of deporting foriegn-born suspects to a country which practices torture, in order to get information our government feels it cannot extract legally. From a press release sent to Katherine by the staff of Rep. Edward Markey (a Massachusets democrat who has sought to ban such 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. This provision was not part of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, and the Commission actually 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.”
It’s difficult for me to express what a terrible, immoral piece of legislation this is. This is a shameful and cowardly attempt to sneak language legalizing the outsourcing of torture into a bill claiming to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Katherine urges bloggers to link to this post, and US readers to contact their representatives and object to this harmful measure (Markey is sponsoring an amendment to remove this provision). If the blogosphere really has any ability to break stories, we should be spending our firepower here. I’m willing to bet this law won’t get passed if it is publicized before passage, but it might get through in some hasty, last-minute bill passing if it is overlooked. Don’t let it happen.
What a great issue for the debates.
An administration that condones tortures is an administration that creates Abu Graib’s.
Kerry can and should get some good lines based on this.
Why should we outsource this, anyway? After forty-some years, we ought to be the experts, and it shouldn’t be that expensive.
Is this administration so hellbent on privatization that our government experts would yield such an advantage?
Or is it the point that we’re just as evil as anyone else?
I’d have to see the full bill to know what, exactly, the changes are from our current obligations under the convention against torture, but even right now one must show “clear and convincing evidence” that one will be tortured if removed to one’s home country, and the burden of proof is on the one claiming the relief under CAT. It’s a very hard standard to meet, and CAT withholding of removal is rarely granted. It looks like some of the other changes are pretty bad here, but I’m reasonably sure the standard of proof and the burden of proof are not changing from what they’ve been for some time. I’d rather see different, easier to meet standards myself, but then, this is as much a part of our generally quite bad treatment of foreigners in the US anyway.
Matt —
See the comments on Katherine’s post, where Katherine adds:It’s worse than I thought. Terrorism suspects seem to be excluded from the deportation provisions of the Convention Against Torture entirely, even if they could do the impossible and prove by clear and convincing evidence that they would face torture.Everyone else who is challenging their deportation (the legal term is “removal”) to a country where they’re in danger of torture under the Convention Against Torture must prove that by “clear and convincing evidence.”
So what you say is correct, unless you are a “terrorism suspect” (definition not immediately clear to me), in which case the bill says forget the CAT…
Thanks, Alex. You’re right, that’s even worse. CAT provides pretty minimal protection, and it’s pretty clear we’ve been violating it left and right for the last few years, but at least it was something. Please do send messages to your member of congress.
Still, it’s probably, I am pretty sure, not as bad as what Saddam did to his people.
Always look on the bright side.
Oh abb1, I’m disappointed…it sounds like you haven’t come across the discreditations of Halabja and the ‘mass graves’, eg http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2434 or http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=52600
Saddam appears, by CIA evidence, to have been no worse than your average LatAm dictator…but is it really ‘looking on the bright side’ to set the bar that low?
but is it really ‘looking on the bright side’ to set the bar that low?
That’s exactly what it is. And here’s another good one.
And if we don’t compare favorably enough with Saddam, there are always the Nazis to measure up against.
Ok, I will contact Martin Frost, tho I have few worries about how he will vote. I also have few illusions about my potential congressman, Pete Sessions, and any effect a letter would have on him.
I abandoned Obsidian Wings at the time of Abu Gharaib, I guess because my heart was too small to give the Republicans there a pass on it. I know we are supposed to say they can pull the lever marked ‘R’ and not be responsible for consequences and events determined by that action. And we are supposed to put that aside after hours. But I can’t, just can’t.
There has to be social consequences for electing and supporting monsters. Reagan didn’t torture people, nor did the people who voted for Reagan. Yet torture happened in Central America that was nobody’s fault. And here we are again.
Katherine is a far far better person than I, yet I think spreads her compassion too widely. I disapprove of the company she keeps, and sincerely believe that anyone congratulating Moe Lane on his upcoming nuptials is enabling torture.
Thanks for linking.
“but even right now one must show “clear and convincing evidence” that one will be tortured if removed to one’s home country, and the burden of proof is on the one claiming the relief under CAT.”
I thought the current standard was “more likely than not”, which courts interpreted as a preponderance of the evidence—50%+1 likelihood of torture.
“Clear and convincing evidence” is a higher bar. Courts won’t put in in terms, but it’s more like 70-80.
My immigration law class was a year ago and I could be mistaken. I will look it up and correct if I am wrong.
Shorter version:When do the grown-up Republicans take back their Party? When the grown-up Democrats give them a need to do so.
It looks like my memory of what current law says was correct. Here’s an excerpt from a recent 9th Circuit case on the Convention Against Torture, Melencio Legui Lim v. INS:
“An alien is not entitled to mandatory withholding of deportation under [*938] § 243(h) of the Act unless there is a “clear probability” - i.e., unless “it is more likely than not” - that he will be subject to persecution. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424, 430, 81 L. Ed. 2d 321, 104 S. Ct. 2489 (1984); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)(1). This standard is less generous than asylum’s “well-founded fear” standard. See Vilorio-Lopez v. INS, 852 F.2d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 1988). We hold that, although Lim is eligible for asylum, that eligibility does not force the Attorney General to grant withholding of deportation. Because mitigating factors cited by the BIA provide substantial support for its conclusion that Lim’s risk of persecution is something less than fifty percent, the Attorney General’s discretion is not confined.”
I hate to be so pessimistic, but the language in either bill will not change much. The practice of extradition (to a UN-acceptable country) and rendition (from there to a country that practices torture, say Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and our wonderful ally Turkey) has been in place for some time and even if stepped up in recent years, is a practice that will continue even if specifically outlawed here.
Note also that the language in HR10 is also present in immigration legislation.
“Anyone who votes for people capable of supporting these policies has blood on their hands. Not to mention what they are doing to the image of the US as the ‘City on the Hill’, the beacon to mankind. Once we descend into the torture pit, we’re just arguing about circles in Hell.”
Torture is a Partisan Issue…Kleiman
Do we have any reason to believe the second Bush administration will be more observant than the first? Some could blame this on the White House, and simply ask Republicans not to vote for Bush….but this is a Congressional Act, sponsored by the leadership and we have a right to presume this reflects the views of their consituency. Unless very loudly informed otherwise.
“anyone congratulating Moe Lane on his upcoming nuptials is enabling torture.”
By stating this you proved your previous sentence, “Katherine is a far far better person than I.”
Moe Lane is a decent human being who has made it clear that he doesn’t approve of torture, and to suggest that normal courtesy towards him is “enabling torture” shows that you’ve let partisan passions eclipse basic human decency.
This may be hard to believe, but a person can have different political views without being responsible for all the evil in the world.
“you’ve let partisan passions eclipse basic human decency.”
I do not think so. As I said, I hung at ObsWi for a year, and had many disagreements on a broad range of issues. And yes Moe is a good person, kind to me, as most people are decent people most of the time. But when Moe says, I believe sincerely, that Abu Ghairab and rendition and other human rights issues are terrible, but that he is voting for Bushco anyway, it becomes a compartmentalization I am no longer able to manage.
There are people who shun me for my radical pro-choice views. I do not consider my position a moral judgement, but a radical political action. A sacrifice, it is much more comfortable to compartmentalize. Ah well, I expect few to agree or approve of me, but I can only ask you read carefully the recent posts here on CT, and ask if changing the leadership of the Republican Party is the solution.
Henry said I “tilt at windmills”. I liked it. Deluded and impractical. But old and tired of outrage with its repetitive source.
Maybe Katherine’s comity will be more successful than my weak attempt at shaming. The recent record is not good, that bill is beyond belief. I wish her luck.
Bob, I’ve been lurking here and at ObWi for quite a while, so I know you’re generally a decent person, and incidentally we agree on most political issues, including the importance of removing the Republicans from power for issues like this.
But do you think that it would be reasonable for someone to say that you no longer deserve basic courtesy because some of Kerry’s proposed policies will undoubtedly cause ill effects to some people?
Neither political party is perfect—many people see unforgivable things in the platforms of both parties—and reasonable people can come to different conclusions about which issues are most important to them without bearing full moral responsibility for every aspect of every policy of the party they support. Otherwise none of us could vote for either party with a clear conscience.
“some of Kerry’s proposed policies will undoubtedly “
Check out the sponsorship of the bill.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review