Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Will Bush Officials Invoke State Secrets Privilege to Block Court Review of Arar Case?

By Willam Fisher, IPS News. Posted August 18, 2008.


Among the defendants in the lawsuit by extraordinary rendition Maher Arar are John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, and Robert Mueller.
Advertisement

NEW YORK, Aug 18 (IPS) -- After suffering a series of stinging defeats of its detention policies in four years of Supreme Court decisions, the George W. Bush administration may be in for yet more bad news.

In what legal scholars describe as a highly unusual move, a federal appeals court in New York last week decided to rehear a case it had decided in June, when a three-judge panel dismissed a lawsuit filed by the man who has arguably become the poster child for the Bush administration's rendition program.

Bringing the suit is Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who was detained incommunicado for two weeks at Kennedy Airport in 2002, flown by U.S. authorities to Jordan and then to Syria, where he was held for 10 months and said he was tortured.

The decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan is unusual because the full circuit assembles for a case only once or twice a year and because Arar's attorneys never asked for a full hearing.

In Canada, a high-level commission concluded that the Canadian police and intelligence officials had erroneously linked Arar to al Qaeda. The commission found that the Canadians had provided U.S. officials with misinformation. The commission also concluded that Canadian officials had been behind a campaign to discredit Arar after he was released from Syria and arrived in Canada in October 2003.

The Canadian government issued a formal apology to Arar last year and paid him $9.75 million. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last year that the matter had not been "handled as it should have been". In June, the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general said at a Congressional hearing that the Justice Department's ethics office was reviewing the decision to send Arar to Syria.

The rehearing will take place in December, this time before all 13 appeals judges.

The defendants include John Ashcroft, who was attorney general when Arar was stopped at Kennedy airport, and other Bush administration officials at the time -- among them Robert S. Mueller III, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Tom Ridge, then Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security -- of violating federal law and his civil rights.

In the original decision, the three-judge panel agreed with a lower court decision, ruling 2 to 1 that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear Arar's complaint. The reason, they said, was that technically, Arar was never in the United States.

But one of the three judges dissented, describing as "a legal fiction" the idea that Arar was not in this country when he was apprehended at Kennedy.

That judge, Robert D. Sack, a Clinton appointee, said that Arar's case should continue because Arar "was, in effect, abducted while attempting to transit at J.F.K. Airport".

Legal experts believe the rehearing resulted from a request by one of the Appeals Court judges, though it is not known whether it was Judge Sack. The request was granted by a majority of the appeals judges.

However, a full U.S. appeals court hearing is far from a certainty. Even if Arar is able to establish that he has standing to bring his suit, the chances are the government will invoke its "state secrets privilege,” claiming that disclosure of the details of Arar's case in open court would compromise U.S. national security.

So rare is a judge's dismissal of a government "state secrets" motion that, when it happens, it becomes front-page news. That's what happened when a federal judge in Chicago recently disagreed with the government's use of the privilege in a case involving the Department of Homeland Security's terrorist watch list. The plaintiff, a local businessman, sued to discover whether his name was on the list. The government called that a "state secret", but the judge disagreed. The government is appealing the decision.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: torture, bush administration, guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, syria, john ashcroft, maher arar, state secrets privilege, jfk airport, tom ridge, robert mueller, robert d. sack

William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia for the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
From Canada without affection
Posted by: Kuressaare on Aug 20, 2008 3:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Canada there are many conventions whereby the national press is partipant to a movement to wrap guilty prosecuting officials in soft beaver fur, make it muskox knit blankets as more like it. Officials even to the top of the RCMP are known to have condemned and kept imprisoned anyone "handy" when they "must just get their man." Some of the most famous of the now released and proven innocent victims of this sick system are now household names. We wonder why the "commanders" or whoever they are so badly need those convictions on their records. So much for us and leaving us ashamed and furious about Mr. Arar. WE learned only much much later how hard the press worked to keep secret the Canadian feeding of this pablum to Americans. Of course if backfired on the Canadians at fault, but it seems never to have occurred to the U.S. persons who took this perverse game of Afghan polo (you know the one where they use the severed head or even body of the lamb in place of anything sissy like a ball) from Kennedy airport what also would happen later to them. The press told us later, and like the time our press corps had to witness L.B. Johnson pick up by the lapels Leser B. Pearson, P.M. of Canada, and shake him like a sack of potatoes. The press all agreed they could not let a word out, or the country (man by man or woman by woman) would go into war footing, this country, Canada. That doesn't ever occur to Americans, like invading the Arctic Archipelago under the ice cap with a nuclear sub (1969 or 1970, or just last year, take your pick). When that happened, when the U.S. bombed our men on the ground in Afghanistan (four killed, about 13 injured, I think), when part of the story about Maher Arar began to be known, just what would anyone in any civilised country think we thought? We know now that of the opinion seekers the Canadians learned the country as a whole was so angry, it's no surprise that that border is nearly closed. Oh, what a screw up: you enraged the only good "friend " you had, and you aren't likely this side of armageddon to get us back, hope you feel Poland and Italy can give you the kind of support you want. Maybe you think they like you too. Well, with nuclear subs, and nuclear sub Bangor, Washington base just miles south of Vancouver; the missile silos I think four to six miles below the border on the Prairies; refusal to admit what happened to the Armenians from 1915 to 1922,-- if only they had been another persecuted nationality. Well, there was Franz Werfel's "Musa Dagh": one of Armenia's first stamps since new independence says "Thank You" to him. But you manage to guillotine each and every edition of the book or various movies, don't you? Hey, let's all have a love in, you do the inviting and we'll keep tabs long distance on who shows up. And no, the invitation, it's one way, you are not invited to my house, and you'd be surprised what rights we have here in putting off unwanted visitors, short of maiming and murder, but, accidents do happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: From Canada without affection Posted by: beautifulady2003
sounds intriguing
Posted by: whealeydj on Aug 21, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but may depend on outcome of election. If Obama wins, will Republican leaning judges want to take away unitary executive power since the new President will be a Democrat and might target radical evangelicals and Catholics who are "Right to Life" which includes a terrorist fringe who have bombed and shot up clinics? if McCain wins, will the judges see the handwriting on wall and bow to wishes of executive?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sounds intriguing Posted by: beautifulady2003