USA also a Party to the Convention against Torture

[emcguffie]

The Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1984
Signed by the US on April 18, 1988
Ratified by the US on Oct. 21, 1994

Entered into force on June 26, 1987.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal poltiical instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior office or a public authority may not be invoked as a justificatin of torture.

Article 3

1. No state Party shall expel, return (refouler) or extradiate a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of bein subjected to tortuore.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where kapplicabhle, the existence in the STate concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

This is the only reservation I found for the US:

United States of America

"The United States declares, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. It is the understanding of the United States that, pursuant to the above-mentioned article, such communications shall be accepted and processed only if they come from a State Party which has made a similar declaration."

There is also this:

11. On 3 June 1994, the Secretary-General received a communication from the Government of the United States of America requesting, in compliance with a condition set forth by the Senate of the United States of America, in giving advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention, and in contemplation of the deposit of an instrument of ratification of the Convention by the Government of the United States of America, that a notification should be made to all present and prospective ratifying Parties to the Convention to the effect that:

"... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."

[SlipperySlope]

1. Not torture

You are right - that convention does prohibit torture.

But the justice department has redefined what we are doing as "not torture", so - don't you see - the convention doesn't really apply.

If we *were* torturing, by golly, that would be wrong. But we aren't, so don't worry about it.

"Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

There you have it; as long as the pain stays just below that level, it isn't torture.

[emcguffie]

3. That's true, but I meant the rendition business.

It is absolutely prohibited as well by this convention, not just the Geneva Conventions.

[Benhurst]

2. As if treaties mean anything to BushAmerica. The Evil Empire

obeys only its own directive. Sad, but true.

[emcguffie]

4. I've been wondering why no one has mentioned it.

It is so patently illegal -- rendition as well as torture -- that it astonishes me that no one talks about the CAT.

I haven't looked to see if any governments have complained to the Committee on Torture. That's where it would be brought up, I think. (Or is it Commission? Gee, I forget...)