Torture, Rendition and International Law

[fishman3811]

By JOANNE MARINER

In September 2001, five days after the terrorist attacks that shocked the nation, Vice-President Dick Cheney announced on "Meet the Press" that the US government would need to start working "the dark side."

"We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world," he explained. "A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful. That's the world these folks operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective."

In the months and years that followed, the public got occasional glimpses of Cheney's shadowy, no-holds-barred world. Even though, as Cheney promised, that world was shrouded in secrecy, journalists and human rights activists sometimes managed to see into it.

Maher Arar, a Canadian-Syrian telecommunications engineer, gave the public a detailed picture of that world in November 2003, when he told the story of his rendition to torture. Arar was detained at JFK Airport in September 2002, and then sent by the United States to Syria, via Jordan. He was held there in a dark, coffin-like cell, and brought out to be beaten with electrical cables.

"The cable is a black electrical cable, about two inches thick," Arar explained in a narrative of his experiences. "They hit me with it everywhere on my body."

Convention Against Torture

More stories like Arar's have since emerged. We now know that the CIA rendered people to several countries that practice torture as a matter of routineâ??countries that include Egypt, Jordan, Libya and Syria.

These renditions are and were illegal under international law. In particular, they violate U.S. obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a treaty the United States ratified in 1994.

According to the Convention against Torture, torture is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession," when it is "inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." States violate the Convention against Torture not only by directly inflicting torture, but also, under article 3, when they "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."

Rendition to torture is thus a clear violation of the prohibition against torture. Indeed, in a 2006 report, the UN Committee against Torture, the international expert body responsible for monitoring state compliance with the Convention against Torture, condemned U.S. use of the practice. It specifically found that the U.S. government's "rendition of suspects, without any judicial procedure, to States where they face a real risk of torture" violated the treaty.

The committee called upon the United States to "cease the rendition of suspects, in particular by its intelligence agencies, to States where they face a real risk of torture."

Diplomatic Assurances

U.S. officials have tried to justify the CIA rendition practices by arguing that, where necessary, the CIA obtains assurances from the receiving country that detainees will not be tortured. Yet Human Rights Watch and other groups have shown, as an empirical matter, that such assurances are unreliable and do not provide effective protection against torture.

In a number of documented cases, people who have been returned to their home countries on the basis of such assurances have faced torture and other abuses.

One such case involves two suspects, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, who were rendered by the United States to Egypt in December 2001. In a ruling on the case, the Committee against Torture rejected the claim that diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian government were sufficient to protect against torture. As the Committee emphasized, the "procurement of diplomatic assurances, which, moreover, provided no mechanism for their enforcement, did not suffice to protect against this manifest risk."

Apology and Redress

International human rights law recognizes that victims of rights violations should be granted effective remedies, and the Convention against Torture specifically provides that torture victims have a right of access to the courts in order to obtain fair and adequate compensation.

To date, however, the US courts have proven hostile to victims of rendition, dismissing a lawsuit brought by a group of rendition victims that included Ahmed Agiza, as well as an earlier suit brought by Maher Arar. While the Canadian government acknowledged wrongdoing and compensated Arar for his suffering, the U.S. government did neither.

In choosing the dark side over compliance with the law, this administration has been unapologetic.

Joanne Mariner is a human rights lawyer.

fishman3811 Reviewed by fishman3811 on 05-08-2008. Torture, Rendition and International Law By JOANNE MARINER In September 2001, five days after the terrorist attacks that shocked the nation, Vice-President Dick Cheney announced on "Meet the Press" that the US government would need to start working "the dark side." "We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world," he explained. "A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to Rating: 5

[fishman3811]

Mahar Arar was awarded millions of canadian dollars for his treatment and was found not guilty of having any terrorist connections at all.

[texas grass]

only thing i can say is when we first introduced the geneva convintion it was so when we went to "WAR" our soldiers wouldnt get torture. now since we torture other people with our military and cia, they have justification to torture our citizens and military because we do it to them

so no we shouldnt torture so people dont do it back to us

[Psycho4Bud]

only thing i can say is when we first introduced the geneva convintion it was so when we went to "WAR" our soldiers wouldnt get torture. now since we torture other people with our military and cia, they have justification to torture our citizens and military because we do it to them

so no we shouldnt torture so people dont do it back to us

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Korea, Vietnam, radical Islamists taking hostages and beheading them.....seems the only ones that should follow or be scrutinized by the rules of the Geneva Convention is the west.

When all countries actually hold to these rules then fine.

Have a good one!:s4:

[epxroot]

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Korea, Vietnam, radical Islamists taking hostages and beheading them.....seems the only ones that should follow or be scrutinized by the rules of the Geneva Convention is the west.

When all countries actually hold to these rules then fine.

Have a good one!:s4:

Ha you just can't round up regular citizens and torture them. You need to be able to distinguish the difference between them. Most people think that if an enemy is tortured that he/she will eventually crack. But, what if that so called enemy is telling the truth? Then he will say whatever the interrogator wants to hear. Or are we just doing it because they do it to us?

[Psycho4Bud]

I'm not saying torture everyone we detain. BUT if there is a high level person that we know has information then fine. Or in the way they put across the question in the debates: If you knew there was somebody that had information in regards to a imminent terrorist threat against the U.S. should we use torture to get information that could save thousands of lives?:twocents:

Really torture is a dead issue anyways, all the current candidates have stated that they will do away with it. Ironically though, the only one I really believe on that is McCain due to his past experiences. The others can talk the talk but have never had to walk the walk.

Have a good one!:s4:

[epxroot]

I'm not saying torture everyone we detain. BUT if there is a high level person that we know has information then fine. Or in the way they put across the question in the debates: If you knew there was somebody that had information in regards to a imminent terrorist threat against the U.S. should we use torture to get information that could save thousands of lives?:twocents:

Once again friend something we can agree on! My problem is that our intelligence agencies have already proven they can't get reliable information, or they are getting reliable information but those are disregarded. You and I don't know the truth, and we put a lot of trust into these people who make these decisions for us. Right now I don't have that kind of trust.

Really torture is a dead issue anyways, all the current candidates have stated that they will do away with it. Ironically though, the only one I really believe on that is McCain due to his past experiences. The others can talk the talk but have never had to walk the walk.

Have a good one!:s4:

And yet another. Even though McCain winning the Presidential Nomination scares me. I think he speaks more honestly than the other two, but his honesty scares me.

[Psycho4Bud]

My problem is that our intelligence agencies have already proven they can't get reliable information, or they are getting reliable information but those are disregarded. You and I don't know the truth, and we put a lot of trust into these people who make these decisions for us. Right now I don't have that kind of trust.

I can understand completely. As far as I'm concerned ALL politicians have sold their soles to the devil and we'd better never forget it. Based on that, I tend to lean towards the devil that's looking over back than those across the seas.

I think he speaks more honestly than the other two, but his honesty scares me.

What scares me is fancy speaches that hint towards agression with a nuclear country (Pakistan) or Darfur. Likewise with the other, Clinton, I don't believe a word she says.

Although I don't agree with McCain on ALOT of issues he seems the most "honest" to me at this time. I'd rather know what's in store than have a HUGE suprise.

Have a good one!:s4: