It looks like the United States Government (USG) has a loose interpretation of the UNHCHR Convention Against Torture.

(from 'Defining torture in a new world war', analysis
By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website)

(Condoleeza Rice) said in Kiev during her visit to Europe: "As a matter of US policy, the United States obligations under the [convention] which prohibits, of course, cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment, those obligations extend to US personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the United States or outside of the United States."

This statement was designed to show that the CIA was included under the prohibition, but it leaves two problems unresolved.

The first is the definition of torture and cruel and degrading treatment. Are certain techniques excluded?

The second is whether such practices are carried out by US allies to whom Washington often hands over or "renders" prisoners in unannounced transfers. What monitoring is carried out?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4499528.stm

Paul Reynolds goes on to comment on loose definitions of what constitutes 'severe pain', but misses out a key article from the Convention Against Torture document itself:

Article 3.

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

Well, apparently the USG has been using British and European airports as a stopover for transporting (or 'rendering') terrorism suspects detained under the Patriot Act en route to East European allies for interrogation, which alledgedly has involved 'severe torture'. I've been trying to keep tabs on this story, and it's had a few key breakthroughs in The Guardian in the last couple of days:

"MPs investigate British role in torture flights" 01.02.06

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1699234,00.html

"US 'rendition' planes did use British airspace" 02.02.06

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1700092,00.html

The USG are as much in breach of the Convention Against Torture by knowingly handing their suspects over to others for torture as they would be if they tortured them within the USA themselves. It's called 'Extraordinary Rendition'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

What's worse is that the countries used as stop-overs are alledgedly in cahootz with the USG too.

EU countries 'knew about CIA torture flights'
By Geoff Meade, PA
Published: 24 January 2006

Swiss MP Dick Marty... in his " interim assessment" published today, ...declared: "It is highly unlikely that European governments, or at least their intelligence services, were unaware of the 'rendition' of more than a hundred persons affecting Europe."

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article340707.ece

So potentially you've got people being captured, not being told why they've been captured, denied access to their families, to lawyers, to any kind of support, being transported to the far corners of the world specifically for interrogation & torture, eventually confessing to crimes they may not have even comitted. Big stuff, huh? Any thoughts?