perfidy

Know what would be funny? If, in the whole debate over whether Indian programmers are as good as American programmers, and whether Chinese steelworkers are stealing good American jobs, we ended up outsourcing our torturers!

Long-departed and much-missed Obsidian Wings coblogger Elizabeth checks back in with a notice that this may be about to happen. In the bill generated by the 9/11 Commission Report, and sponsored by Dennis Hastert is a provision that would legalize "extraordinary rendition." This is a process by which terror suspects-- suspects, not convicts (not that such would be better)-- would be eligible for extradition to nations where the laws and mores against torture are, shall we say, decidedly more sanguine.

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.”

The best known example of this is the case of Maher Arar. Arar, a Canadian citizen, was deported to Syria from JFK airport. In Syria he was beaten with electrical cables for two weeks, and then imprisoned in an underground cell for the better part of a year. Arar is probably innocent of any connection to terrorism.

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. We signed and ratified the Convention Against Torture, but we ratified it with some reservations. They might create a loophole that allows us to send a prisoner to Egypt or Syria or Jordan if we get "assurances" that they will not torture a prisoner--even if these assurances are false and we know they are false.

Here's a bit of a press release from Cong. Ed Markey's (D-MA) office, who is sponsoring a counter-bill (H.R. 1674): :

The provision Rep. Markey referred to is contained in Section 3032 and 3033 of H.R. 10, the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004," introduced by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL). 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.

Says Elizabeth, and rightly:

There is no possible way for a suspect being detained in secret to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he will be tortured if he is deported--especially when he may be deported to a country where has never been, and when the officials who want to deport him serve as judge, jury and executioner, and when there is never any judicial review. This bill will make what happened to Maher Arar perfectly legal, and guarantee that it will happen again.

I don't like to post "Go Read!" items, but this is one of those. Go read, then write your Congressman.

Alternatively, make a game of trying to convince me that this whole thing is a good idea. It won't work, but if it makes you feel good, what the heck.