USA v. Roy M. Belfast, Jr. - Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit

world,” see CAT, pmbl. -- is quintessentially international in scope. Second, and
relatedly, the international focus of the statute is “self-evident”: Congress’s
concern was not to prevent official torture within the borders of the United States,
but in nations where the rule of law has broken down and the ruling government
has become the enemy, rather than the protector, of its citizens. Finally, limiting
the prohibitions of the Torture Act to conduct occurring in the United States would
dramatically, if not entirely, reduce their efficacy.
In short, all of Emmanuel’s substantive convictions under the Torture Act
are fully consonant with the United States Constitution.
IV.
Emmanuel also argues that by criminalizing conspiracy to commit torture,
the Torture Act exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority, because conspiracy,
Emmanuel says, is recognized in neither the CAT nor international law. We
remain unpersuaded.
Article 4(1) of the CAT explicitly requires that “[e]ach State Party . . .
ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under its criminal law,” and it provides
that “[t]he same shall apply . . . to an act by any person which constitutes
complicity or participation in torture.” CAT, art. 4(1) (emphasis added). In other
words, the CAT specifically instructs its signatories to criminalize not only the act
46