By Cliff Montgomery – Mar. 21st, 2009
An eye-opening Congressional Research Service report issued on January 21st, 2009, the day afterPresident Obama took office, discussed the explosive subject of rendition–which the study calls “the transferof aliens to countries where they would be tortured.”
The Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 147, clearly defines a war crime as any “torture or inhuman treatment[of a real or presumed enemy during a time of war], including…unlawful deportation or transfer.”
The Bush Administration often employed rendition to get rid of those aliens it considered a “security threat.”On many occasions, this decision apparently was made without trial–and on at least one proven occasion, itwas employed on an innocent man.
Below we offer quotes from the study:
“The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment orPunishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdictionsand to criminalize all acts of torture.”
“CAT defines torture as ‘any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionallyinflicted on a person…by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or otherperson acting in an official capacity. This definition does not include ‘pain or suffering arising only from, inherentin or incidental to lawful sanctions.’ “
“The Convention allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted.
“Additionally, CAT Article 3 requires that no state party expel, return, or extradite a person to another countrywhere there are substantial grounds to believe he would be subjected to torture. CAT Article 3 does notexpressly prohibit persons from being removed to countries where they would face cruel, inhuman, ordegrading treatment not rising to the level of torture.
“The United States ratified CAT subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, includingthat the Convention was not self-executing, and therefore required domestic implementing legislation to takeeffect.
“In accordance with CAT Article 3, the United States enacted statutes and regulations to prohibit the transferof aliens to countries where they would be tortured, including the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Actof 1998, chapter 113C of the United States Criminal Code, and certain regulations implemented and enforcedby the Department of land Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department ofState. […]
“[Thus] under U.S. law, the removal or extradition of all aliens from the United States must be consistent withU.S. obligations under CAT.”
“CAT obligations also have implications for the practice of ‘extraordinary renditions,’ by which the U.S.purportedly has transferred aliens suspected of terrorist activity to countries that possibly employ torture as ameans of interrogation.”
“Controversy over how CAT applies in [‘extraordinary renditions’]…is illustrated by the case of Maher Arar.
“In September 2002, U.S. authorities arrested Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, at John F. KennedyAirport in New York while he was waiting for a connecting flight to Canada. According to news reports, U.S.officials allege that Arar was on a terrorist watch list after ‘multiple international intelligence agencies’ linkedhim to terrorist groups, though Arar has denied any knowing connection to terrorism.
“Though the particulars remain unclear, Arar alleges that he was detained for several days of interrogation inthe United States and [that U.S. government officials asked if he might]…voluntarily agree to be transferred toSyria. Arar claims he refused to approve such [a] transfer, but was nevertheless transferred to Jordan and thento Syria, where he was reportedly imprisoned for ten months.
“At the time of Arar’s transfer, Syria was listed by the State Department as a regular practitioner of torture.Syria is not a party to CAT. Upon release and his subsequent return to Canada, Arar claims that he wastortured by Syrian officials in an effort to compel him to confess to terroristactivities.
“Canada subsequently ordered a public inquiry as to what role, if any, Canada played in Arar’s transfer to Syria,and Arar filed civil suit in a U.S. federal court against various current and former U.S. officials for their role in histransfer and alleged subsequent torture.”
“On February 16, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Arar’s civil caseon a number of grounds, including that certain claims raised against U.S. officials implicated national securityand foreign policy considerations, and the propriety of those considerations was most appropriately reserved toCongress and the Executive Branch.
“The district court’s dismissal was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuiton June 30, 2008. A rehearing en banc (in full court) was granted on August 12, 2008, but a ruling has yet tobe issued.
“[Regardless,] the final report of the commission established by the Canadian government to investigateCanada’s role in Arar’s transfer was released in September 2006. It concluded that Arar had not been asecurity threat to Canada, but Canadian officials provided U.S. authorities with inaccurate informationregarding Arar that may have led to his transfer.”
