Just to be clear, Ms. Swords, the convention on torture says that if you have “substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”, you're not allowed to transfer. It goes on to say that in making that decision you “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”.
We know that since 2005 there have been a significant number of reports, including from the Secretary General of the United Nations, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, and the State Department report--which is in there as a general review of the human rights situation in Afghanistan--showing that there were actually very widespread concerns about a pattern of abuse and beatings, a pattern of what is legally defined as torture.
I'm not trying to put anybody on the spot and I'm certainly not trying to assign blame. What I'm trying to get at is the two principles you've established: first, recognizing the sovereignty of Afghanistan; and second, recognizing our international obligations. Would it be fair to say those principles come into conflict if in fact it is the case that there is substantial evidence of massive abuse of human rights in Afghanistan prisons?