On Tuesday on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan will hear the case involving Maher Arar. If this case is allowed to proceed, ias many of us hope it will be, it will present some very clear and important challenges to the Obama administration.
Arar was the Syrian-born Canadian who had no ties to terrorism who became—-as the New York Times decribes it in this morning’s editorial— a victim of the Bush team’s lawless policy of “extraordinary rendition” — the outsourcing of interrogations to foreign governments known to torture prisoners
Mr. Arar’s ordeal began in 2002, when he was seized by federal agents as he tried to change planes on his way home to Canada from a family vacation. After being held incommunicado in solitary confinement and subjected to harsh interrogation without proper access to a lawyer, he was “rendered” to Syria, where he was tortured. He was locked up for almost a year in a dank underground cell the size of a grave before he was finally let go.
The Canadian government later declared that it had provided erroneous information about Mr. Arar to American authorities. It apologized to him in 2007 and agreed to pay him $10 million. Last June, the Homeland Security Department’s inspector general, Richard Skinner, and its former inspector general, Clark Ervin, said at a Congressional hearing that officials may have violated federal criminal laws in sending Mr. Arar to Syria, knowing he was likely to be tortured.
Yet that same month, a three-judge federal appeals panel dismissed Mr. Arar’s civil rights lawsuit on flimsy national security grounds and, absurdly, his failure to seek court review of his rendition within the time period specified in immigration law. In essence, the 2-to-1 ruling rewarded the administration’s egregiously bad behavior in denying Mr. Arar’s initial requests to see a lawyer, and then lying to his attorney about his whereabouts, which obstructed his access to the courts.
The Arar case is a particularly dark stain on America’s record. If the court decides to allow the case to move forward, the Obama administration will have to decide, at the New York Times burea whether to defend the indefensible when the case comes to trial. That will provide an interesting test of the new Justice Department’s commitment to due process.
“a victim of the Bush team’s lawless policy”
Celeste, can you use some reasonable reports other than those of The NY Times, which always comes across as left-wing BDS and sounds like shrieking of somewhat questionable information?
– – –
Is it “lawless” if upheld by the court?
“three-judge federal appeals panel dismissed Mr. Arar’s civil rights lawsuit on flimsy national security grounds”
Perhaps these judges just aren’t as smart about the law as is a NY Times reporter. Just what was questionable that the reporter found and what are his qualifications for reaching such a conclusion?
– – –
BTW, you don’t have a working link to the article, but I’m not going to waste my time finding it.
– – –
I feel for the guy, but I think there is more to the story, and one might conclude that Canada “confessed” to be wrong only in the name of bowing to left-wing political pressure and political correctness, which would be just like those socialist pansies. To be sure, we need a lot better and more objective reporting than that of The NYT.
From the left comes concern that “torturers” shouldn’t serve Obama and that they are supported by the intelligence community.
The CIA and its reporter friends: Anatomy of a backlash (Selections)