![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/natio
A few choice bits: Mason [lawyer for the U.S government] said the U.S. government is interpreting its powers in such a way that passengers never intending to enter the U.S. connecting to international flights at U.S. airports must prove they are no threat and could be allowed to enter the country.
If passengers are deemed to be inadmissible, they have no constitutional rights even if later taken to an American prison. Mason told Judge David Trager that's because they are deemed to be still outside the U.S., from a legal point of view.
So even if you're not intending to enter the country, and they decide you can't enter the country, they can still detain you in the country.
Mason said the interpretation means travelers can be detained without charge, denied the right to consult a lawyer, and even refused necessities such as food and sleep
At most, Mason told the judge, a foreign passenger detained while traveling through a U.S. airport might have a limited right to protection from "gross physical abuse."
But in a motion filed this week, the U.S. Justice Department argues that even if torture does occur, U.S. officials can't be sued under the Torture Victims Protection Act because it only applies to foreign individuals committing or allowing torture.
However, department spokeswoman Cynthia Magnuson issued this short statement: "The United States does not practise torture, export torture or condone torture." Baloney for your sandwich anyone?
