torture is wrong

There is a new report just out from The Human Rights Institute of Columbia Law School called  Promises to Keep: Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture in US Terrorism Transfers

From the summary of the report:

“This report surveys the law and practice of assurances in US and, comparatively, in Canada and Europe.  It is the culmination of a long-term engagement by the Columbia’s Human Rights Clinic and its faculty to research and support advocacy on diplomatic assurances. That process has involved advocacy with Swedish NGOs, support for research by Human Rights Watch, FOIA requests with the ACLU and collaborative efforts with UN mechanisms. 

Over the past decade, human rights groups, in particular, have produced impressive documentation. But no single source presents the evolving evidence and jurisprudence of diplomatic assurances. This report seeks to fill that gap. We do not take a position on whether assurances can work. Rather, we seek to identify elements that are necessary in order to make assurances plausible. We focus on what is known about preventing torture and how that can be incorporated into the process.” 

US Resistance to Disclosure and the Prospect for Reform

The Obama administration initially signaled an interest in reforming its transfer and assurances practices. An interagency task force established in January 2009 recommended better monitoring and State Department involvement in evaluating assurances in all cases. But the government has not announced any steps to implement its recommendations. As this report went to print the Offices of Inspector General of the State Department, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense were in the process of reviewing assurances practice. The government has sought to avoid any external constraints over how and whether to use assurances. It has provided next to no information about its minimum standards and protocols for negotiating assurances, monitoring returned individuals and responding to allegations of abuse. It has refused to acknowledge past breaches of assurances or provide redress to victims. In litigation, it has argued that disclosure would jeopardize US foreign policy interests and the government’s ability to negotiate assurances in future cases.”