Maybe my objection wasn't strong enough.

[elfs]

Do this. Go to The Library of Congress. In the search bar, type in HR 10. Scroll down to section 3032.

Read it.

Or, read this:

H.R.10

9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act (Introduced in House)

SEC. 3032. EXCEPTION TO RESTRICTION ON REMOVAL FOR TERRORISTS AND CRIMINALS.

(a) Regulations-

(1) REVISION DEADLINE- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall revise the regulations prescribed by the Secretary to implement the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York on December 10, 1984.

(2) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ALIENS- The revision--

(A) shall exclude from the protection of such regulations aliens described in section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B)) (as amended by this title), including rendering such aliens ineligible for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention; and

(B) shall ensure that the revised regulations operate so as to--

(i) allow for the reopening of determinations made under the regulations before the effective date of the revision; and

(ii) apply to acts and conditions constituting a ground for ineligibility for the protection of such regulations, as revised, regardless of when such acts or conditions occurred.

(3) BURDEN OF PROOF- The revision shall also ensure that the burden of proof is on the applicant for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.

(b) Judicial Review- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to review the regulations adopted to implement this section, and nothing in this section shall be construed as providing any court jurisdiction to consider or review claims raised under the Convention or this section, except as part of the review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252).

SEC. 3033. ADDITIONAL REMOVAL AUTHORITIES.

(a) In General- Section 241(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)--

(A) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `unless, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, removing the alien to such country would be prejudicial to the United States.'; and

(B) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:

`(C) ALTERNATIVE COUNTRIES- If the alien is not removed to a country designated in subparagraph (A) or (B), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall remove the alien to--

`(i) the country of which the alien is a citizen, subject, or national, where the alien was born, or where the alien has a residence, unless the country physically prevents the alien from entering the country upon the alien's removal there; or

`(ii) any country whose government will accept the alien into that country.'; and

(2) in paragraph (2)--

(A) by striking `Attorney General' each place such term appears and inserting `Secretary of Homeland Security';

(B) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:

`(D) ALTERNATIVE COUNTRIES- If the alien is not removed to a country designated under subparagraph (A)(i), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall remove the alien to a country of which the alien is a subject, national, or citizen, or where the alien has a residence, unless--

`(i) such country physically prevents the alien from entering the country upon the alien's removal there; or

`(ii) in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, removing the alien to the country would be prejudicial to the United States.'; and

(C) by amending subparagraph (E)(vii) to read as follows:

`(vii) Any country whose government will accept the alien into that country.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any deportation, exclusion, or removal on or after such date pursuant to any deportation, exclusion, or removal order, regardless of whether such order is administratively final before, on, or after such date.

The United States is supposed to be "The City on the Hill," a beacon unto the world. That's what the Christian Exceptionalists are supposed to believe. People like George Bush and his followers are supposed to believe that we are different, somehow, blessed, an example that others are to look up to.

But we are now seeing the other side of exceptionalism: if we have God's blessing, we can do no wrong. Everything we do is with God's blessing, after all.

There is no way that someone detained in secret and denied his full rights to defense and a confrontation with his accusers can, as specified in section (3), meet the burden of "guilty until proven innocent." There is no way that someone can defend himself if there's no judicial review, no appeal, no chance of having his voice heard.

These people are voting to authorize torture. Rumsfeld and probably Bush started out tacitly approving "optimal almost-torture" like the near-drowning in ice water that was so popular at Abu Gahraib, and now seventeen Republicans have come forth to say that the deportation of individuals arbitrarily deemed to be "terrorists" by administrative (not judicial) process to countries where they will be tortured is acceptable.

• Rep Hastert, J. Dennis [IL-14] - Sponsor, 9/24/2004
• Rep Blunt, Roy [MO-7] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Boehner, John A. [OH-8] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Cox, Christopher [CA-48] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Davis, Tom [VA-11] - 9/24/2004
• Rep DeLay, Tom [TX-22] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Nussle, Jim [IA-1] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Oxley, Michael G. [OH-4] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Pryce, Deborah [OH-15] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Thomas, William M. [CA-22] - 9/24/2004
• Rep Young, C. W. Bill [FL-10] - 9/24/2004

I don't know how to put this any clearer: Seventeen Republicans find torture morally acceptable in the prosecution of the War on Terror.

My disgust is now complete.

Comments

[sarekofvulcan.livejournal.com]

Well, I already called Inslee's office and made it clear how I felt. Thanks for the link earlier.

Ahh, excellent

[genericjoe.livejournal.com]

I'm in Ohio's 15th district.

As if I didn't have enough reasons to vote this year! Now I can give my (stupid ass) represetative a call. Saying something unprofane and chastising, as well.

Thank you:)

Re: Ahh, excellent

[elfs.livejournal.com]

She's the only woman among the group. Goddess, I could make all manner of snarky, bitchy, sexist comments.

It's way worse than that, you know.

[shunra.livejournal.com]

Anyone who supports Israel, where torture is legal and where this concept was considered by the Israeli supreme court and found to match their legal system - is supporting a system where torture is routinely used for the prosecution of the war on terror (and for other means, too, since once you start, you can't really stop).

Moreover, there are persistent rumors saying that Israeli operatives have been training US inquisitors (you know, the FBI and CIA types) in their methods, especially in methods that don't quite count as torture.

And they're doing it on our dime.

[patgund.livejournal.com]

And, of course, one of the twits is East County's own Duncan Hunter, one of the Far-Right's poster children. Gag

[omahas.livejournal.com]

What's worse is that HR 10 is the bill based on the 9/11 commission. It was sponsored by democrats trying to get, among other things, stronger civil rights. And then these jerks put this thing in there.

Elf's and my rep is Adam Smith, who I have just today emailed about this. He's a very responsive representative, but I know that he was very positive about this bill. I hope that he can get this out of there.

On the upside, there is another bill, sponsored by a gentleman named Markey (from Massachusetts, I believe) that would make illegal Extraordinary Rendition, which is what this section of the bill is trying to make legal.