thomas.loc.gov does not approve of that style of deep linking.

Fixed, I think.

Section 3032 of HR10 seems to say that aliens who meet the following criteria shall be excluded "from the protection of [regulations to implement the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment]".

• "ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of an individual because of the individual's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opnion"
  
• "having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the community of the United States"
  
• "committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States"
  
• "is a danger to the security of the United States"
  

That's a disturbingly broad group of people to whom the regulations which implement the treaty simply aren't going to apply.

It also directs, even more disturbingly, that

The revision [of the regulations] 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.

Eg, the person who is about to be deported has to prove that he will be tortured. That seems backwards: if we know that country [n] generally tortures people, shouldn't the burden of proof be on the government? Unless, of course, "everybody knows that Myanmar tortures people" meets the burden of proof, which it probably won't. (I can imagine the court case: yes, we know that the last 1000 people we deported to country [z] have been tortured, but that doesn't prove that you will be. Next!")

Section 3033 of HR10 appears to be more benign: it changes the rules so that the Director of Homeland Security may, at his discretion, decline to send an alien back to the country from which he entered the country or the country of which he is a citizen or resident, and instead send the alien to any country which will take him.

I wouldn't mind the "any country which will take him" rule if it were required that we try the country of citizenship and/or the country of entry first; but there is no such requirement, if this measure passes.

Section 3033 is only benign in the absence of Section 3032. In the presence of Section 3032, it’s a license to send innocent Canadians to Syria.

Even in the absence of 3032, it's one of those things which seems benign without actually being so. ["See, we won't send you to a place that will torture you, but we will send you to the Belgian Congo, which has no effective government, no economy, no infrastructure, and no easy way out. Have fun."]

Damn straight. We need to keep high-paying torturer jobs here in the US, where they belong!

> Any minute now I expect them to rise and walk.

Dude, that *would* be pretty rad, though.

Yeah, Nick, I’m worried about a “torture gap.”

Ben, you’re in the D.C. area — keep an eye on the graveyards and monuments for us.

Zombie Party at Arlington Cemetery!

Here you go.

Before mentioning the Republican leadership I think one must first wonder why Markey can't get the 5% from his own party.

Come on, Scott. You can do better.

1. “[S]truggling to get five percent of the House to cosponsor this bill” does indict the Democrats as well as the Republicans, and I did say it “before mentioning the Republican leadership.”
2. I am thoroughly pissed off at Nancy Pelosi, Pete Stark, Tom Lantos, et al., and I’ve been encouraging everyone I know who lives in their districts to get on their cases.
3. Why in hell should this be a partisan issue?
4. While I can think of all kinds of half-assed technical back-room political reasons to fail to support Markey’s bill, I can’t think of one justification to support sections 3032 and 3033 of H.R. 10. I find your implication — that the Democrats’ failure to back Markey should somehow excuse Hastert et al. — to be absolutely fucking outrageous.

Dave - I can at least see what 3033 is attempting to achieve, although I think it's overreaching and busted. *Half* of 3032 I understand the point to - the part which shifts the burden of proof - while the other half is just obscene.

As for the torture gap: you guys did catch Kerry's reference to outsourcing the job of catching OBL in the debate last night, right?