Now under UN scrutiny: US interrogation tactics

The first involved direct military action - disrupting the operations of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda associates by forcing them to flee and live as fugitives. The second prong - the use of aggressive interrogation tactics - has been more controversial.

The 1987 Convention Against Torture establishes fundamental principles of human rights that signatory nations agree to uphold. Each of the 140 signatory nations must appear before the Committee Against Torture to report steps they are taking to ensure compliance with the treaty.

The US delegation's appearance is part of that routine process, but because of the ongoing war on terror and the continuing controversy about treatment of terror suspects, the US appearance before the committee is anything but routine.

Much of the debate revolves around conflicting and murky definitions of torture and abuse.

The US ratified the convention in 1994, but only after noting several exceptions to its terms.

The UN treaty bars not just torture, but also "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." In agreeing to sign the treaty, the US said it would enforce its obligations only so far as it bars treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

This limitation was made by American lawmakers concerned that the term "degrading" in the UN convention was not narrowly defined and might subject the US to allegations of treaty violations based on subjective determinations by UN officials rather than established legal standards in the US.

Following the 9/11 attacks, that US limitation took on an added dimension. Lawyers in the Bush administration said linkage to US constitutional protections meant that America's treaty obligations applied only in those jurisdictions where the US Constitution applied. In effect, it gave a green light for the use of harsh interrogation tactics overseas beyond the reach of the US Constitution.

It was this geographical limitation on American compliance with the Convention Against Torture that prompted Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona to draft an amendment to a bill last year stating that no one in US custody, "regardless of nationality or physical location," shall be subject to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

Congress approved the amendment, and President Bush signed it into law. But the president also reserved the right to bypass the provision should he deem it necessary as commander in chief to protect the US from terrorism.

The committee is expected to focus on this issue among others Monday.

"For me, this is kind of the main show," says Elisa Massimino of New York-based Human Rights First. "We would look for [the Bush administration] to use this as an opportunity to embrace the McCain law."

Others say the White House is correct to preserve as much flexibility as possible in the war on terror.

"There is some uncertainty about the meaning of 'degrading' conduct," says Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. "And when you are engaging in real-time battlefield interrogations abroad, it is sensible not to subject that sort of interrogation to a judicial standard as to whether it is degrading or not."

"That is the heart of what the dispute is all about," Mr. Gaziano says.

• Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.

Page: 1 | 2