Hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, Panel I - Rendition to Torture: The Case of Maher Arar

Statement

Hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, Panel I - Rendition to Torture: The Case of Maher Arar

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. JOHN CONYERS (D-MI): Thank you very much, Chairman Delahunt.

What a privilege this is to have two subcommittees working on a subject as important as this. And what a unique collection of members from both committees that are here: the chairman; the distinguished ranking member from California, Dana Rohrabacher; Mr. Trent Franks of Arizona; Constitution Committee Chair Jerry Nadler of New York; Mel Watt from North Carolina, also on Judiciary Committee; and the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Jeff Flake. I know that this is going to be quite meaningful. And I'm also pleased to join in in welcoming Professor David Cole, a Judiciary regular, and I'm glad that he's here as well.

To the ranking member, I was preparing some comments of praise when he began his statement, because it's pleasing for me to find ourselves -- Mr. Rohrabacher -- on the same page. But as your comments went on, I decided in the interest of honesty, that I wouldn't offer any congratulations at this point. But I do hold out a hand of cooperation to work with you and see just how far both of these committees are willing to move in this regard.

I'd like, Mr. Chairman, to put into the record by unanimous consent The New Yorker article dated February 14, 2005, "Outsourcing Torture."

REP. DELAHUNT: Without objection.

REP. CONYERS: Today we consider extraordinary rendition. And for years, the administration has repeatedly denied that it engages in this practice. And when it has been asked about these cases, it has acknowledged that it has transferred individuals to foreign states, but argues that such transfers comply with U.S. legal obligations, because they obtain assurances from receiving countries that individuals will not be tortured. Nevertheless, a multitude of cases have been made clear that despite this stated policy, this government is sending people to other countries to be tortured. And there are a number in addition to the witness that is here today.

Now, extraordinary rendition presents some critical problems. First, it violates the international law prohibiting torture: the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Degrading Treatment or Punishment -- a treaty ratified by our country in 1994 -- explicitly prohibits the transfer of persons to countries where there's a substantial likelihood that they will be tortured. Notwithstanding the fact that the United States is required by law to abide by this convention, pursuant to an implementing statute entitled 22 U.S. Code Section 2242, the administration apparently takes the position that it does not apply extraterritorially as a matter of law.

Other statutes also seek to prohibit the practice of torture and implicate certain actions by this administration. These laws include the Federal Torture Statute, 18 USC Section 2340; the Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 USC Section 1350. And it seems to me that as a nation we must not evade these important legal prohibitions by rendering suspects to countries for torture. I'm reminded of Philippe Sands' -- a very interesting international lawyer -- treatise on lawless -- "The Lawless World", I believe is the title, that tries to encourage this country and others to do more about working in concert nationally and internationally.

Now, the administration's assertion that it's received diplomatic assurances from countries that are not engaging in torture is not only unreliable, but it's insufficient. In fact, these assurances typically are obtained from countries, in fact, where there seems to be a strong likelihood of torture. And consistent with the general practice of this administration, there's no public information regarding the manner in which it obtains these assurances.

And finally, the practice of extraordinary rendition severely undermines our nation's longstanding reputation as a standard bearer for protecting human rights. And unless and until the United States respects completely laws prohibiting torture, it cannot -- in my judgment -- expect other nations to respect those laws as they apply them, I worry, to Americans abroad. The administration's actions accordingly, therefore, place our own citizens in jeopardy.

So as a nation we're appalled at what happened to our witness. Nevertheless, unlike Canada, which issued an apology and damages to Mr. Arar, we assert that he may not even seek redress in our courts. It is claiming that the state secrets privilege outweighs his violated human rights. So I'm hoping that these two committees will help us reclaim our international reputation for basic human rights or risk squandering the constitutional values upon which the nation was founded.

And I thank the chairman for his indulgence.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source