The Bush administration is supporting a provision in the House leadership’s intelligence reform bill that would allow U.S. authorities to deport certain foreigners to countries where they are likely to be tortured or abused, an action prohibited by the international laws against torture the United States signed 20 years ago. The provision, part of the massive bill introduced Friday by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), would apply to non-U.S. citizens who are suspected of having links to terrorist organizations but have not been tried on or convicted of any charges. Democrats tried to strike the provision in a daylong House Judiciary Committee meeting, but it survived on a party-line vote.
The provision, human rights advocates said, contradicts pledges President Bush made after the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal erupted this spring that the United States would stand behind the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Hastert spokesman John Feehery said the Justice Department “really wants and supports” the provision.
Kudos to the Washington Post for picking up on this. If this is defensible, I’d really like to hear a defense. Until then, I’m going to contact my Representative again.
I just emailed my Congressman, and got an interesting automated web response (I used the Write your Rep link that Ted kindly provided.) The response states that my Representative cannot directly respond to my email because of security concerns, but hopes that the situation will corrected soon. Does anybody have any information about this?
A question for the legal experts - since this provision is violating the conventions against torture, does it mean that once it’s approved, US citizens and military abroad are no longer protected by those conventions themselves?
ie. my layman understanding was that if a country that signed up to those conventions betrays them, then other countries are no longer under an obligation to consider them applicable to the violating country. Does it work like that or is it fuzzier? Would the US get to pay lip-service to the conventions once more even if approves this law?
It would be disgusting and shameful to deport someone with a wink and a nod to a country that practices torture, to outsource our torturing.
But suppose we have Pakistani militant who we want to deport because he’s a visa violator and suspected (but not provable) terrorist. Suppose Pakistan practices torture. What are we supposed to do with him? This is an honest question. If there’s an option which involves not
A) illegally detaining him indefinately in the US
B) not allowing him the freedom to cause problems in the US
C) not deporting him to Pakistan
what is that option? Deport him to his preferred choice, say, Sudan, where he can hook up with a terrorist network again? I really don’t understand how these things work, honestly.
Dubious:
“I really don’t understand how these things work, honestly.”
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggghhht.
But what if Lex Luthor had secreted a kryptonium-encased neutronium bomb somewhere in Metropolis and we knew that he did it? If that thing went off millions could die and what’s worse it could kill Superman and without the Man of Steel the noble cause of Truth, Justice, and the Washington Consensus would be set back decades.
You can already deport people to their country of origin if they are proven visa violators. The question is whether we can do what they already did to Maher Arar, deporting a Canadian citizen to Syria on the basis of extremel dubious testimony.
We shouldn’t be deporting anyone to third countries under any circumstances, and certainly not when they are countries that practice torture, and certainly not when we are doing this on mere ‘suspicion’. I suspect half the commentators on this board of having sympathy for extremist movements of one kind or other, but I shouldn’t be able to have them deported to Syria on that basis.
dubious - I don’t know the details of how that has been normally enforced in the US, but the conventions against torture are more than 50 years old. It’s not like they’re something new that no one knows how to apply. I don’t see how a conscious decision to violate them could ever be justified by positing cases where they would supposedly be insufficient or unsuitable.
You either ban torture and agree not to let people be tortured if you can prevent it, or you don’t. Simple as that.
I found an interesting quote on findlaw:
In a May 14, 1997 Memorandum to Regional and District Counsels and All Headquarters Attorneys, titled Compliance with Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, the INS Office of General Counsel indicates that the U.S. “has agreed not to ‘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.’” The Memorandum further indicates that while “there is no statutory provision to implement Article 3, …. [n]evertheless, as a provision in a treaty to which the United States is a party, Article 3 is United States law, equal in force to a federal statute.” As a result, “INS has a legal duty to ensure compliance with Article 3 in the cases of aliens it may remove from the United States.” (page 2)
“A question for the legal experts - since this provision is violating the conventions against torture, does it mean that once it’s approved, US citizens and military abroad are no longer protected by those conventions themselves?”
I don’t think so. I think the protection against torture is universal, and does not depend on being a citizen of a country that has ratified the treaty.
Agree with the condemnations all around, but I wonder what the purpose of such a bill is: even in the off case (the Canadian Arar) where it might be handy, is the US really concerned about prosecution under international law? Is the bill then just symbolic posturing, part of (but worse, substantively) the usual election-year outbidding bluster?
Can’t “ThoseWithPower” already do whatever it is they deem necessary (or entertaining)?
Or is there a fear that codifying what is already, objectively, practiced will lead to increased use of the, um, extra-judicial procedures?
And isn’t “rendering” something you do to sausage?
is the US really concerned about prosecution under international law?
As the convention has been enacted into federal law (and it is precisely this enactment which the first of these provisions attempts to alter), the US government could presumably be sued by any surviving victims, with all the expense and bad publicity that would ensue. So yes, I think it is a real issue. As quoted above, “the Justice Department “really wants and supports” the provision.”
Whoah there… let’s not get carried away. Hold the skepticism and innuendo slinging, please.
In the case specified (deporting a Canadian citizen to Syria) that seems a pretty disgusting tactic.
I’m not arguing that this bill is sane or justified, but rather that there’s a scenario that seems legally difficult, and I don’t know how that situation is currently handled, or how it should be handled.
I don’t think the case I outlined is so terribly unlikely as to expose it to the barry-freed style of mockery.
Many countries that suspected terrorists come from are oppressive — indeed, by most accounts, that’s a major source of their extremism. Many citizens of those countries could reasonably request asylum, given their governments’ human rights records.
As I understand it, most suspected terrorists have been charged with visa violations and deported, since there was not sufficient evidence to convict them of anything.
Given a lack of evidence to charge them with a crime, and given that we don’t want to deport them to their country of origin for fear of their being tortured, what is to be done?
Is there any option which isn’t illegal or extra-judicial detention, and yet which decreases the odds that they will be able to rejoin a terrorist network?
Surveillance? Intelligence gathering?
Do you realise what you’re asking? “Isn’t there anything we can do about people we don’t have enough evidence to convict of anything and can’t deport to countries where they’d be tortured?” What sort of screwed up mind asks such questions? Oh, wait. John Ashcroft’s.
Look. We have this exact situation in the UK, where we’re not allowed to deport people if they might be tortured or executed. But we’re also not allowed to use wiretap or other intercept intelligence in court. So the government has abrogated from article 5 (I think) of the Human Rights Act (due process/fair trial) and is holding about a dozen asylum seekers indefinitely. Our own mini-Gitmo. The government insists that if these people want, they can go back to their country of origin. Which is kind of odd, if you think about it. If these guys are so dangerous, you don’t want them running around in Syria, or Yemen, or Pakistan or wherever. But never mind. Now I might have a tiny bit of sympathy for the government’s point of view if instead of riding roughshod over the constitution by denying people the right to trial, they had, you know, made any attempt to change the law to allow wiretap evidence. I’d have even more sympathy if the government had provided any evidence whatsoever that these people were terrorists. After all, since they can’t be tried, producing the evidence wouldn’t prejudice any trial.
“Given a lack of evidence to charge them with a crime, and given that we don’t want to deport them to their country of origin for fear of their being tortured, what is to be done?”
Come on dubious, how can you genuinely ask a question like that?
In a normal well-functioning legal system, when you don’t have enough evidence againt someone you either gather evidence of the crimes you suspect them of, and prosecute them, or you don’t and release them. Oh of course that doesn’t cover the current non-normal situation of “suspects” being held indefinitely with no charges, but that is already a violation of international conventions. Making it easier to deport people to countries where they may be tortured, however, is another step in the violation direction. You’re making it sound as if it could be devised to manage a genuine problem that has never arisen before, sorry, no, the conventions against torture apply to all cases and all kinds of people. I would imagine the actual steps to take when you are complying with the Conventions, and can’t deport someone to country A because country A is known to practice torture, depend from case to case (deport to a third country, release, grant asylum - depending on whether it’s just a suspect or someone who already committed actual crimes or an asylum seeker) but please, let’s not pretend the proponents of this provision are genuinely scratching their heads trying to solve some unprecedented legal puzzle, ok?
katherine - I thought the convention only applied to country that ratified it. My question is about the technical, legal implications of continuing to violate conventions you’ve ratified. I mean, how far can a country continue to violate something it’s signed up to, and still maintain it’s a signatory to that because it’s convenient when it comes to protecting its own citizens? Politically it’s complete hypocrisy, I’m just wondering about the legal implications of it.
“katherine - I thought the convention only applied to country that ratified it. My question is about the technical, legal implications of continuing to violate conventions you’ve ratified. I mean, how far can a country continue to violate something it’s signed up to, and still maintain it’s a signatory to that because it’s convenient when it comes to protecting its own citizens? Politically it’s complete hypocrisy, I’m just wondering about the legal implications of it.”
I think you’re right that we’ll basically have withdrawn from the treaty.
Since the treaty categorically forbids torture of ANYONE, other countries are still obligated not to torture U.S. citizens.
luci phyrr wondered what the purpose of such a bill is: even in the off case (the Canadian Arar) where it might be handy, is the US really concerned about prosecution under international law? Is the bill then just symbolic posturing, part of (but worse, substantively) the usual election-year outbidding bluster?
Can’t ThoseWithPower already do whatever it is they deem necessary…?
The purpose of the torture legalization provision, along with dozens of other repressive and antilabor sections, is to turn the bill that’s supposed to carry out the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission into a ‘poison pill’ for Democrats. The
commissioners themselves have spoken out against the House version of the bill, whose vicious extra provisions violate the spirit and the substance of many of the recommended reforms.
But the House leadership is counting on the unwillingness of many Dems to “vote against the Sept. 11 reforms”. And the congressional D’s are getting no cover from their national candidates, who won’t raise the torture issue because, as Jim Henley said [it] risks sounding “not tough,” and they would rather clip the wires to their own nipples than do that.
The forced removal of caps isn’t an endearing affectation.
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