nightflier
11-03-2009, 10:43 AM
Today Canadian citizen Maher Arar's case was dismissed:
A federal court of appeals has ruled against allowing a Syrian-born Canadian to sue US authorities over his mistaken arrest for alleged terrorism links. In 2002, Maher Arar was seized by US officials at Kennedy Airport in New York and rendered to Syria, where he was tortured, interrogated and detained in a tiny underground cell for nearly a year. In a 7-to-4 ruling, the court said that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would “offend the separation of powers and inhibit (US) foreign policy.” (Democracy Now: Arar (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/3/appeals_court_rules_in_maher_arar))
I was listening in on a conversation some co-workers were having in the lunch room this morning and someone brought up this judgment that had just been handed down. I didn't say much, but one thing that was said really caught my attention:
"If these are indeed highly sensitive state secrets that need to be protected, then why are we allowing Syrians to torture our most valuable prisoners?"
Wow, that's profound. Last I checked, Syria was still part of the "Axis of Evil," and state-sponsors of terrorism, right? Yet, we're sending people there for "enhanced interrogation" techniques. Do we really want Syrians to hear what these guys have to say?
This hits at the core of the debate on torture, because it questions the validity of the "state secrets" defense. So either there is no valid "state secrets" defense, or we're in cahoots with the worst of the worst.
A federal court of appeals has ruled against allowing a Syrian-born Canadian to sue US authorities over his mistaken arrest for alleged terrorism links. In 2002, Maher Arar was seized by US officials at Kennedy Airport in New York and rendered to Syria, where he was tortured, interrogated and detained in a tiny underground cell for nearly a year. In a 7-to-4 ruling, the court said that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would “offend the separation of powers and inhibit (US) foreign policy.” (Democracy Now: Arar (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/3/appeals_court_rules_in_maher_arar))
I was listening in on a conversation some co-workers were having in the lunch room this morning and someone brought up this judgment that had just been handed down. I didn't say much, but one thing that was said really caught my attention:
"If these are indeed highly sensitive state secrets that need to be protected, then why are we allowing Syrians to torture our most valuable prisoners?"
Wow, that's profound. Last I checked, Syria was still part of the "Axis of Evil," and state-sponsors of terrorism, right? Yet, we're sending people there for "enhanced interrogation" techniques. Do we really want Syrians to hear what these guys have to say?
This hits at the core of the debate on torture, because it questions the validity of the "state secrets" defense. So either there is no valid "state secrets" defense, or we're in cahoots with the worst of the worst.