Outsourcing Torure

Article 3

1. No State Party shall 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. - CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE

"Extaordinary rendition"...a polite euphemism for transporting detainees to third party nations which, by the way, are neither signatory nor parties to any treaty prohibiting torture. A favorite destination is Syria. The act of transporting persons to such nations for the purpose of torture is a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture. Now, I'm sure some sick bastard will say that the US is under no obligation to adhere to the provision of the Convention, and this is true since the US is only signatory to the Convention and has not, much to our shame, ratified the it. While not legally bound to honor the provisions of the Convention, as signatory to it, the US is MORALLY obligated to honor its provisions. You know...The moral issue was a big one for the Republicans in 2004. But hey, they were more concerned with keeping same-gender couples from getting married than from preventing some rag-head from being tortured. We gotta keep our priorities straight...Right?

Under the "Foreign Affairs Reform and Resturucturing Act of 1998", however, This activity is a violation of US law. Yet we now have as the Attorney General of the United States a man who worked to justify such activities, and as President we have a man who has sanctions these activities. These activities demand the appointment of a special prosecutor and, if sufficient grounds are found, the trial and impeachment of all who aided and abetted this violation of US law, international treaties and human decency.

For further information on this issue, I am providing the following links:

http://www.aclu.org/ImmigrantsRights/ImmigrantsRights.cfm?ID=16165&c=95

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/050214fa_fact6 (the same link as in the header if it shouldn't work)

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32276.pdf

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Surprise...!

America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government. I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline. I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely, or not at all. - George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 02/02/05 (emphasis mine)

Looks like sound fiscal policy to me. And I'm certain that that will surprise many of you to see me agreeing with Dubbyuh. And I would agree with him if he actually meant it, but he doesn't.

On Monday, the failure of Dubbyuh's pet project, the national missile defense system, was reported(1.)...again. At $85 million a pop, that adds up rather quickly. This Reagan-era weapons program does squat all to protect our borders from a pocket nuke in a shipping container, it has been plagued by technical problems and has, thus far, proven anything but successful. The program is not getting results, by any definition. By the standards Dubbyuh laid out in the SOTUS, funding for this program should be eliminated.

Already facing budget cuts(2.) because of the reliability issues, there are other forces at work to cut funding to the program. First and foremost of these is the "war on terror". After 9/11, the focus was shifted from a conventional military threat to the unconventional threat posed by international terrorism. Despite the $10 billion already poured down this particular rat-hole, there remains "no demonstrated capability" to even get off the ground, much less knock down an incoming missile. But that simply doesn't appear to enter into the calculus. How many humvees would that $10 billion have armored? How many flak-jackets would it have provided?

Thus far, however, funding is only being cut for the program, when, according to the criteria laid out in the SOTUS, it should be cancelled. But this apparent contradiction should come as no surprise to anyone. Dubbyuh has a long and checkered history of saying one thing and doing another.

Citations:

(1.) The San Francisco Chronicle, pg A3, 02/15/2005. Also, here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/15/MNGISBB1R01.DTL&type=printable

(2.) Business Week Online, 02/04/05