State Secrets: Lemme speak on this...

[nightflier]

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)

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.

[nightflier]

So this is less interesting than the "Obama chia pet" thread?

[Feanor]

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)

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.

Of course, the Arar case is a classic instance of "rendition" -- that is, sending a person from a U.S. (and also in this case, Canadian), juristiction where retention without charges and extreme methods (torture) are not allowed, to one where they are tolerated.

As for Syria, well, terrorist sponsor or not, it is a "secular" Muslim state where Sharia interpretations are not the sum of the law, and where extremists like Al-Qaeda aren't welcome.

Of course this was exactly the state of affairs of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Osama bin Laden is on record as saying that the likes of Saddam or Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, are even more worthy of hatred than western nations and their leaders.

[nightflier]

Well lets' bring this back around to today. We're fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan (At least I think that's the current programme), but weren't they vehemently opposed to Al Qaeda? Interestingly, we're now patching things up with the Shias in Iran (maybe) and they are certainly no friends of the Taliban. And the Iranians are on good terms with Syria.

Still, I'm not at all crazy about our state secrets being shared with the Syrian secret police. Of course, I'm also not comfortable with how these secrets are "extracted" either, not just because I consider it absolutely odious, but also because there is considerable evidence that this is how terrorists are created - by our deplorable policies of rendition, sanctioned torture, and lack of judicial oversight.

In a purely Orwellian frame-work, one could say that we have an interest in creating more terrorists to justify our policies. Moreover, perhaps the only state secret is that we actually do these horrible things.

By the way, I just picked up Murder in Samarkand. If anyone is interested in one hell of a page-turner, that sure is it. 'Makes Syriana seem like a pleasant vacation story. Apparently, the current administration in Washington is a-ok with the actions of the thought police in Uzbekistan.