U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

Leahy Bill Bans Outsourcing Torture To Other Countries

…Legislation Directs State Department
To Compile List Of Countries That Engage In Torture

[WASHINGTON (Thursday, March 17) – Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a bill Thursday that would address the outsourcing of torture (or “extraordinary rendition”) problem in a straightforward way by prohibiting the transfer of individuals in United States custody or control to countries known to engage in torture.  The bill also would require the State Department to annually produce a list of countries where torture is known to occur.  Leahy, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has long been a leader on human rights issues.  Leahy also is the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, which handles the Senate’s work in producing the State Department’s annual budget.   Also earlier this week, the House passed an Appropriations amendment sponsored by Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) that would halt the use of funds for outsourcing torture.  Leahy’s statement on the introduction of his bill is below.]

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy
On The Convention Against Torture Implementation Act
March 17, 2005

Mr. LEAHY.  Mr. President, our Nation has a proud history as the leading advocate of human rights around the world.  Throughout this history, we have committed ourselves to numerous international human rights treaties, including the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.  The bill that I introduce today will reaffirm our obligations under this Convention and reassure the world that we are a nation committed to the rule of law.  I want to thank my cosponsors, Senators Durbin, Kennedy, and Dodd, for working with me on this legislation, and for their leadership on these issues.

It has been nearly a year since the first horrific images from Abu Ghraib prison appeared in the media, shocking the world and shattering the image of the United States.  As the Administration circled the wagons and claimed the abuses were committed by a “few bad apples,” new details about the widespread abuse of detainees continued to emerge.  I have spoken many times about the need for a comprehensive, independent investigation into the abuse of detainees.  I have no doubt that such an investigation would be painful, but it also a necessary step to moving forward.

Prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel is deeply troubling, but it is only one aspect of a broader and serious problem.  While we must ensure that prisoners are treated humanely by our own personnel, we must also prohibit the use of so-called “extraordinary renditions” to send people to other countries where they will be subject to torture.  Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture states that “no State Party shall expel, return 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 bill I introduce today, the “Convention Against Torture Implementation Act,” will ensure that we honor this commitment.

We have addressed this issue before.  Congress implemented Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, but this Administration has exploited loopholes in that law to transfer detainees to countries where they are subjected to torture.  Attorney General Gonzales recently said that U.S. policy is not to send detainees “to countries where we believe or we know that they’re going to be tortured,” but he acknowledged that we “can’t fully control” what other nations do, and added that he does not know whether countries have always complied with their promises.  In fact, they have not.

My proposed legislation does not broaden the obligations that we agreed to by ratifying the Convention Against Torture; it simply closes the loopholes in the 1998 law and ensures that we honor our commitment not to outsource torture to other countries. 

The case of Maher Arar provides a chilling example of extraordinary rendition, and illustrates why this bill is necessary.  Mr. Arar, a Canadian and Syrian citizen, was stopped by immigration officers at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 as he attempted to change planes on his way home to Canada from Tunisia.  He claims that he was interrogated by an FBI agent and a New York City police officer, and that he was denied access to a lawyer.  He further claims that he repeatedly told U.S. officials that he feared he would be tortured if deported to Syria.  After being detained for nearly two weeks in a federal detention center in New York, Mr. Arar was transferred by U.S. authorities to Syria and held at the Bush Administration’s request.  Mr. Arar claims that he was physically tortured during the first two weeks of his detention in Syria, and that he was subjected to severe psychological abuse over the following 10 months, including being held in a grave-like cell and being forced to undergo interrogation while hearing the screams of other prisoners. 

According to Administration officials, the CIA received diplomatic assurances from Syria that it would not torture Mr. Arar.  But those assurances amounted to little more than a wink and a nod.  Unnamed intelligence officials were later quoted in the press, saying that Arar confessed under torture in Syria that he had gone to Afghanistan for terrorist training.  Syria has a well-documented history of state-sponsored torture.  In fact, President Bush stated on November 7, 2003, that Syria has left “a legacy of torture, oppression, misery, and ruin” to its people. 

Rather than rely on assurances that a country will not torture an individual, we must make our own unbiased determination.  We already have the necessary information to do so.  Each year, as required by law, the State Department publishes country reports on human rights practices.  The most recent report on Syria states that its torture methods include “administering electrical shocks; pulling out fingernails; forcing objects into the rectum; beating, sometimes while the victim was suspended from the ceiling; hyperextending the spine; bending the detainees into the frame of a wheel and whipping exposed body parts; and using a backward-bending chair to asphyxiate the victim or fracture the victim’s spine.” 

Some will argue that the post-9/11 world is different; that we must use any and all means available to extract information from suspected terrorists.  Their argument might be more credible if every person who turned up on a terrorist watch list were, in fact, a terrorist.  I cannot say whether Mr. Arar had ties to terrorist groups or not, but we do know that he was never charged with a crime.  After enduring months of torture at the hands of the Syrians, he was released and sent back to Canada.   

Nor was Mr. Arar’s experience an isolated incident.  A recent article in The New Yorker titled “Outsourcing Torture” provides disturbing details about how the Administration embraced the use of rendition after the 9/11 attacks.  Several press reports detail the CIA’s use of its own Gulfstream V and Boeing 737 jets to secretly transfer detainees to countries around the world, where it is likely that they will be tortured.

The Convention Against Torture Implementation Act addresses the extraordinary rendition problem in a straightforward manner.  It requires the State Department to produce annually a list of countries where torture is known to occur.  The list would be based on information contained in the State Department’s country reports on human rights practices.  The bill prohibits the transfer of individuals to any country on this list or to any other country if there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be tortured.  It also provides reasonable exceptions to this prohibition to allow for legal extraditions and removals.

Most importantly, the bill closes the diplomatic assurances loophole.  We would no longer accept assurances from governments that we know engage in torture.  Our past reliance on diplomatic assurances is blatantly hypocritical.  How can our State Department denounce countries for engaging in torture while the CIA secretly transfers detainees to the very same countries for interrogation?  The President says he does not condone torture, but transferring detainees to other countries where they will be tortured does not absolve our government of responsibility.  By outsourcing torture to these countries, we diminish our own values as a nation and lose our credibility as an advocate of human rights around the world.

Last June, in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib scandal, the President was asked if he had authorized abusive interrogation techniques.  He replied, “The authorization I issued was that anything we did would conform to U.S. law and would be consistent with international treaty obligations.”  The legislation I introduce today will help us fulfill the President’s promise. 

The Senate gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention Against Torture more than a decade ago.  It is time to honor our commitment and show the world that we will hold ourselves to the same standards that we demand of others.