US Court protects the use of torture

[ShaunN]

Dear Friends,

Here is a link to a Glenn Greenwald blog post about the case of Maher Arar. Arar is a Canadian citizen of Syrian background who was detained in New York several years ago, then shipped to Syria where he was tortured and abused for 10 months. He was completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever, but was accused of membership in Al Qaeda. Arar was eventually the focus of a public inquiry here in Canada. He was awarded $10 million (Cdn) and given a full apology by the government for its involvement in his situation.

He had been trying to sue the US government but, yesterday, his case was dismissed. The court's logic, essentially, was that the US government needs the latitude to torture people if it sees fit. So, the US judicial system has, basically, given its blessing to torture.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2009/11/03/arar

[Grazzt]

Not surprising. The American government have done nothing but acted like pricks in this case from the get-go. At least the Canadian government has owned up to its role and payed out damages.

[Hybrid2]

Not surprising. The American government have done nothing but acted like pricks in this case from the get-go. At least the Canadian government has owned up to its role and payed out damages.

He actualy got money,apologys and was let in the country,by the Canadian governement?:eek:

How many years ago was that?

Now it take tons of petitions and manifestations,even after the Supreme court tell it to let them come back into the country.

[PatrickG]

Okay... Here's my crackpot rant.

If our ideals are not worth compromising our security then the blood of every patriot who died was spilled in vain. They compromised their personal security for their ideals.

You may say, "But they're soldiers. They made that choice. You can't compromise the safety and security of civilians, even as a very remote possibility, for ideals."

And to that I say, BULL SHIT. That is what America is about. The revolutionary militia that secured our independence from England did EXACTLY that.

If you disagree with liberty over security, then you owe Queen Elizabeth an apology and 230 years of back taxes.

[Adam C]

You may say, "But they're soldiers. They made that choice. You can't compromise the safety and security of civilians, even as a very remote possibility, for ideals."

Which is funny, because torture under the Bush administration has been all about compromising the basic principles on which the United States was founded based on remote possibilities. Though Maher Arar's case it was doing all that while compromising the safety of a civilian at the same time.

[Lester C.]

One of the few things I hate about the Obama Administration is that he will release info about how bad George Bush administration was on civil rights then continue an abbreviated version of the same policy he just made public. Well at least he's being transparent about it and not lying when asked. That's still a step up. And yes I know the judical branch has nothing to do with the Executive branch but that's where my thoughts went to when reading this thread.

[Michael P]

The case can be appealed, so let's hope that (a) the Supreme Court takes it, and (b) that they have the sense to reverse the ruling.

[dupont2005]

Okay... Here's my crackpot rant.

If our ideals are not worth compromising our security then the blood of every patriot who died was spilled in vain. They compromised their personal security for their ideals.

You may say, "But they're soldiers. They made that choice. You can't compromise the safety and security of civilians, even as a very remote possibility, for ideals."

And to that I say, BULL SHIT. That is what America is about. The revolutionary militia that secured our independence from England did EXACTLY that.

If you disagree with liberty over security, then you owe Queen Elizabeth an apology and 230 years of back taxes.
what the hell are you talking about?

[PatrickG]

what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about how abductions, torture and interrogations like these were implemented as policy and defended by the court in this case based on insane "Jack Bauer-in-an-episode-of-24" scenarios where a compromise becomes acceptable and deemed necessary for the greater good.

What I'm saying is, the end being pursued is not only NOT the greater good but that another 9-11 would be preferable to the methods we've used to prevent another 9-11.

[Venom Melendez]

At least the canadian goverment compensated him. That must have been hell.

[Charles RB]

The Obama administration is being very disappointing with this type of thing.

[MartinRedmond]

Omar Kahdr has been in jail without a trial for over 8 years. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[PatrickG]

Omar Kahdr has been in jail without a trial for over 8 years. It's absolutely ridiculous.

What we need is western countries like Canada to not only stop following our lead on stuff like this but to start lobbying for the U.S. to face international sanctions and be labeled as a terrorist state if we insist on fighting terrorism with terrorism.