[ad_1]
US Federal District Court Judge Talwani ignored Senator Roger Wicker’s statement regarding Michael Taylor’s services in enabling the escape of the fugitive former Renault-Nissan boss Carlos Ghosn and the services if any of Taylor’s son Peter.
The judge dismissed as well, it would appear, an opinion column by Wicker and former and current Tennessee senators Lamar Alexander and Marsha Blackburn on behalf of Ghosn’s fellow, imprisoned executive Greg Kelly.
Americans should feel assured that the judge would probably include forcing bamboo slivers under fingernails as “severe†physical or mental pain and suffering.
TBD. But in making her ruling she didn’t dispute that “prison conditions in Japan may be deplorable†or that “criminal procedures may not satisfy American notions of due process.â€
What a crock.
Anyway, the Taylors have one more Hail Mary. They’ve filed an appeal, but could be on a plane to Japan in seven days, so I’m told.
Court’s ruling:
Having addressed the questions of jurisdiction and scope of review, the court finally turns to the merits of the Taylors’ claims, and reviews (1) whether the Secretary considered the Taylors’ claim and determined that it is not “more likely than not†that they will face torture if extradited to Japan, and, if so, (2) whether the Taylors have demonstrated that no reasonable factfinder could find other than that they are more likely to face torture than not.
The State Department’s regulations implementing the United States’ obligations under the Convention Against Torture state that:
In order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from:
(i) The intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(ii) The administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(iii) The threat of imminent death; or
(iv) The threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. 22 C.F.R. § 95.1(b)(2).
The regulations go on to explain that “[n]oncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does not per se constitute torture†and that “[t]orture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.†22 C.F.R. §§ 95.1(b)(3), (b)(7).
In accordance with the Convention Against Torture and the procedures set forth in State Department regulations, the Deputy Secretary determined that the surrender of the Taylors for extradition was not more likely than not to result in their being tortured in Japan. Declaration of Deputy Secretary.
The burden therefore shifts to the Taylors to demonstrate that no reasonable factfinder could have made this determination.
The Taylors have submitted multiple exhibits purporting to demonstrate that they are “more likely than not†to be tortured if extradited to Japan. Many of these exhibits are news articles and reports discussing the Japanese criminal justice system’s use of prolonged pretrial confinement and interrogation to coerce confession. See, e.g., AP News Article [#59-8]; BBC News Article [#59-9]; Reuters Article [#59-15].
There are also accounts claiming that Japanese prisons often place detainees in small cells, fail to provide adequate heating, dim the lights but never fully turn them off, and lack Western-style bedding. See Reuters Article [#59-15]; Gohsn Declaration [#61-2]; McIntyre Declaration [#61-3].
But although the prison conditions in Japan may be deplorable and although the criminal procedures that the Taylors may be subjected to may not satisfy American notions of due process, those allegations do not constitute the “severe physical or mental pain or suffering†contemplated by the enacting regulations.
The Taylors have not claimed that they are more likely than not to suffer “severe physical pain and suffering,†to be subjected to “procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality,†or to be threatened with death. See 22 C.F.R. § 95.1(b)(2).
They have therefore failed to establish that no reasonable factfinder could find anything other than that they are more likely than not to be subjected to torture in Japan. This ends the court’s inquiry.
IV . Conclusion
Accordingly, the Taylors’ Second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED, and the Emergency Stay is lifted.
IT IS SO ORDERED. January 28, 2021
Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Roger Schreffler is a veteran correspondent for Ward’s Automotive and a former president of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan.
[ad_2]
Source link
