You just missed or did not appreciate a fairly funny little quick joke that did make a point.
It made me laugh ElvisL1ves and I understood your point.
Jim
Then you shouldn’t be posting those things here.
:rolleyes:
Did I mess up your pageantry with facts? I’m sorry, next time ill ignore it.
TWEEEEEET!
Gentle posters, don’t let this get so personal that you hijack this thread and crash into a mud wallow.
Stick to the discussion.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
NO HE DOESN’T
Does the anti-torture law prohibit the transfer of people to foreign countries that practice torture? It sounds like it just prohibits the torture of people by US officials. If so it makes no sense even of logical grounds to oppose this amendment. If you want to put the ‘fear of the unknown’ into people just threaten to transfer them to Egypt, you don’t need US officials to torture them. I don’t know if that is actively prohibited by this amendment.
The transfer of inmates to countries that will torture is a violation of the UN convention against torture, which the US has signed and ratified but isn’t really paying attention to.
The anti-torture law does not address rendition. But other laws do. Extraordinary rendition is allowed provided “sufficiently reliable” diplomatic assurances are given by the state on the receiving end that they will not torture the detainee.
In practice, it’s just a wink and a nod for the other guys to do our dirty work. Do you really think the Bush administration finds dimpolmatic assurances from, say, Syria to be reliable?