defend this

SphinxnihpS

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
8,368
25
91
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/14/arar/index.html

The U.S. wins the right to abduct innocent people with impunity

BY GLENN GREENWALD

The Supreme Court today denied a petition of review from Maher Arar, the Canadian and Syrian citizen who was abducted by the U.S. Government at a stopover at JFK Airport when returning to Canada in 2002, held incommunicado for two weeks, and then rendered to Syria, where he spent the next 10 months being tortured, even though -- as everyone acknowledges -- he was guilty of absolutely nothing. Arar sued the U.S. Government for what was done to him, and last November, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of his lawsuit on the ground that courts have no right to interfere in these decisions of the Executive Branch. That was the decision which the U.S. Supreme Court let stand today, ending Arar's attempt to be compensated for what was done to him.

I've written in detail several times about Arar's case, including in November when the appellate court upheld dismissal of his lawsuit; see here for how extreme his treatment has been at the hands of the U.S. Government, which was most responsible for his harrowing nightmare and then spent years fighting to deny him any remedy for what was done. I won't reiterate those points here, as everything I have to say about the Supreme Court's actions today was said in that November post (read the last part of that post, where I excerpted the court's description of what was done to Arar). But I do want to highlight one aspect of this episode:

Just compare how the American and Canadian Governments responded to what everyone agrees was this horrific injustice. The Canadians, who cooperated with the U.S. in Arar's abduction, conducted a sweeping investigation of what happened, and then publicly "issued a scathing report that faulted Canada and the United States for his deportation four years ago to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured," and made clear he had done absolutely nothing wrong. Then, Canada's Prime Minister personally and publicly apologized to Arar, and announced that Canada would compensate him with a payment of $ 8.5 million.

By stark contrast, the U.S. Government, which played a far more active role in his abduction and rendition to Syria, has never apologized to Arar (though individual members of Congress have). It has never clearly acknowledged wrongdoing (the only time it even hinted at this was when Condoleezza Rice called U.S. conduct in this case "imperfect" -- you think? -- and generously added: "We do not think this case was handled as it should have been"). In fact, it continuously did the opposite of providing accountability: in response to Arar's efforts to seek damages from the U.S. Government, the U.S. raised -- under two successive administrations -- a slew of technical arguments to persuade American courts not to hear his case at all, including the argument that what was done to Arar involved "state secrets" that prevented a judicial adjudication of his claims. The U.S. even continued to ban Arar from entering the U.S. long after it was acknowledged that he had done nothing wrong, thus preventing him for years from appearing before Congress or in the U.S. to talk about what was done to him. Indeed, after the Bush administration spent years arguing that courts were barred from hearing Arar's case on the ground of "state secrets," the Obama administration embraced those same arguments and then urged the Supreme Court not to hear his appeal.

As the Center for Constitutional Rights pointed out today:

The Obama administration could have settled the case, recognizing the wrongs done to Mr. Arar as Canada has done. . . . Yet the Obama administration chose to come to the defense of Bush administration officials, arguing that even if they conspired to send Maher Arar to torture, they should not be held accountable by the judiciary.

So congratulations to the U.S. for winning the right to wrongfully abduct people and send them to their torture with total impunity. What a ringing statement about our country's willingness to right the wrongs it commits and to provide access to our courts to those whose lives we devastate with our behavior. Andrew Sullivan today referred to "the cult of the inerrant leader": the inability and refusal of our political class to acknowledge wrongdoing, apologize for it, and be held accountable. The Maher Arar case is a pathological illustration of that syndrome.
 

Murloc

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2008
5,382
65
91
I don't think it's that rare. This one got in the news.
If you abduct people ignoring their constitutional rights in secret operations, it will happen soon or later that you get the wrong guy.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Well, there is no defending the entire event. The man was greatly wronged, and not compensated, and that's the end of the story.

However, two minor, and I do mean minor, mitigating factors: 1.) This is what terrorist attacks cause. Paranoia, erosion of civil liberties, and accidents happen. Terrorism's greatest casualty is freedom, because the onset of greater security necessarily infringes upon it. There are bound to be those who suffer for this, and Mr. Arar was one of the unfortunate subjects. 2.) Whatever the US did to him, they didn't torture him. Syria did. The lion's share of his harm was inflicted by Syria. Now did the US know he would be tortured? I don't know.
 

SphinxnihpS

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
8,368
25
91
Well, there is no defending the entire event. The man was greatly wronged, and not compensated, and that's the end of the story.

However, two minor, and I do mean minor, mitigating factors: 1.) This is what terrorist attacks cause. Paranoia, erosion of civil liberties, and accidents happen. Terrorism's greatest casualty is freedom, because the onset of greater security necessarily infringes upon it. There are bound to be those who suffer for this, and Mr. Arar was one of the unfortunate subjects. 2.) Whatever the US did to him, they didn't torture him. Syria did. The lion's share of his harm was inflicted by Syria. Now did the US know he would be tortured? I don't know.

One could easily argue that both the terrorists and the government got what they wanted with 9/11 then.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
I'm actually pro-torture when it is determined by professionals involved with the specific case it is needed, however...

...this man being denied his day in court as a Canadian citizen is just wrong, and goes against everything our country stands for. Make the court a secret court, closed off from public purvue. Make all involved sign an acknowledgement that if they divulge any information deemed classified, whether intentionally or unintentionally, they will be subject to imprisonment.

But denying him, or anyone else in the same situation, that's just totally F'd up.

Chuck

EDIT: Changed US to Canadian...but I don't feel it matters.
 
Last edited:

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
One could easily argue that both the terrorists and the government got what they wanted with 9/11 then.

Maybe, but I'd fault the terrorists more, because they came along and gave the government an excuse. The government was at least on some sort of leash before then.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Defend it? Hardly. There's a reason I've said Glenn Greenwald is the best internet commentator IMO.

But I will say, there's something to be said for the president who supports these bad policies having a party that will be against him more and pressure him the other direction, as with Democrats and Obama, rather than a party that supports and cheers the wrongs, as with most - not all, there were some exceptions, but not many - with Republicans and Bush/Cheney, who criticize Obama for this only because it's criticizing Obama for anything, and they'd cheer it if it were a Republican.

Why does Obama do this? I'm guessing it's some combination of the political calculation of the threat any terrorist act poses for his re-election (even without any, he's still vulnerable as the 'weak' president who 'pals around with terrorists'), and keeping the peace from any rebellion in the military/intelligence community.

Which is terrible, if accurate. We need a JFK who will stand up to the military and intelligence community he supposedly runs when needed, not a compromiser.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Or maybe Craig, Obama has info that only a select few has that makes him do something the opposite you want.

Still though, if we F up like that, we should apologize publically and then give the person their day in a - secure - court.

Chuck
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Which is terrible, if accurate. We need a JFK who will stand up to the military and intelligence community he supposedly runs when needed, not a compromiser.

Agreed.

Obama made big promises before getting into office but then allows himself to be convinced into giving up those promises by the snakes deep inside the government.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Maybe, but I'd fault the terrorists more, because they came along and gave the government an excuse. The government was at least on some sort of leash before then.

You really don't understand history, how government works.

Let me give you an example.

WWI had the Germans sink the Lusitania - an act that was part of the move to war.

But the British goverment did something later that I'm bringing this up for. A British man had some phony 'medallions' made that looked like Germany made them, sarcastically, for people he knew expressing his outrage for the sinking. The government got ahold of them, and had many more made and knowingly spread the false story they were real, and a story that German children had a celebration on the anniversary of the sinking, to stir the public's hate of Germany.

For that matter, the real location of the Lusitania, and the fact it had munitions on board as the Germans had alleged, were hidden by the government, to increase outrage.

There are always things to be found with 'the other side' that can by hyped - sometimes more real than others.

The terrorists might do wrongs, but the blame doesn't entirely lie with them when the government uses them to hype them and influence opinions.

Remember the first gulf war when it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait - but when the public didn't back war, President Bush's former chief of staff, now at a US PR firm, led a propaganda campaign, paid for by the Kuwaiti government, with the US media widely covering the lies of a woman who was unknown to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, with stories of Iraqi troops taking babies out of incubators? Saddam didn't do that.

You are too much an apologist for authority here, who sometimes manipulate opinion.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Defend that??????????? Its impossible to defend that.

But who are the rascals here, namely the SCOTUS judges who voted for it.

And if we can put our attorney generals in jail when they violate the law, why not SCOTUS judges?

But fortunately those same SCOTUS judges made prosecuting them politically easy and legal. Simply kidnap them, send them to Canada, where they can be prosecuted for being an accessory to the crime of kidnapping under Canadian law. . Of course once SCOTUS votes to reverse the precedent they set, it will no longer legal to kidnap them and send them to be sent to the country in question.

But for now, SCOTUS made in legal, and now its applies to SCOTUS also.

Or alternately Canada is free to seek their extradition to Canada to face the criminal charges.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Or maybe Craig, Obama has info that only a select few has that makes him do something the opposite you want.

Still though, if we F up like that, we should apologize publically and then give the person their day in a - secure - court.

Chuck

Yes, I know the old "the president knows things we don't" speculation to defend against any attacks for his policies.

But having looked into a lot of them, I don't think it's the case in 1 in 100 examples.

Actually presidents tend to find ways to use the information they have that we don't, if it helps their case.

It's almost always the other direction - the buildup to the Iraq war was a great example.

Remember the '16 words' in Bush's state of the union, that Ambassador Wilson exposed as being a very misleading inflation of nothing and the admiistration had to apologize for.

Remember the administration's playing on the public's trust - 'We know where the WMD are to the north, south east and west of Baghdad' - when they knew no such thing.

Remember the administration's implying all that 'secret info', when most of it was based on an alcoholic exile, 'curveball', the US had never met, in German custody where lying abut WMD would increase his chances for the asylum he wanted, when only 1 in 25 exiles were getting it?

In this case, what plausible 'info' the government has but we don't is there? No, this is pretty clearly a case of authoritarianism IMO.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Conservative dominated USSC is morally bankrupt. Going to have to keep electing Democrat presidents, hoping for some vacancies.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
The Supreme Court today denied a petition of review from Maher Arar, the Canadian and Syrian citizen who was abducted by the U.S. Government at a stopover at JFK Airport when returning to Canada in 2002

The Obama administration could have settled the case, recognizing the wrongs done to Mr. Arar as Canada has done. . . . Yet the Obama administration chose to come to the defense of Bush administration officials

TAOBT - Yet Another Obama Bashing Thread

:cool: That means he's doing a heck of a job :thumbsup:
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
My point Craig is that Obama prior to his election was firmly on the side of the left wing, and they were jizzing all over themselves with glee on all the 'wrongs' that would be 'righted', how 'Bush&Co' were 'going to get theirs', etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. There are Macro's on this very forum who have apperantly such damning evidence, a jury of 10 years olds would convict on the Slam Dunk evidence. Upon getting into the presidency, all of a sudden he changed.

So why did he change?

Was it because he's just on a total power trip? Unlikely. He needs to get re-elected, and his base, along with some Undecideds, are what got him elected. Which means he's not going to piss off his base and risk losing re-election.....unless....

...just maybe he knows sh1t Glen Greenwald - who has the responsibliity to write opinion columns and nothing more - and others, none of whom have the responsiblity he has to protect the US, doesn't know which is making him change from being on the side he was pre-presidency to now.

It can't be that though right? Has to be something else?

Chuck
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
A totally indefensible position by the US. Great to see Obama come in and really bring change to the process. Oh... wait. More of the same.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Conservative dominated USSC is morally bankrupt. Going to have to keep electing Democrat presidents, hoping for some vacancies.

HAhaha, fucking Rich. You think it's just Conservatives that are morally bankrupt? How about the liberals that think it's ok to "spread the wealth"? Or force Americans to have Health Insurance. Don't spout morality and use a political terms because people that are political can not be moral as they have other motives dictating their actions.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
My point Craig is that Obama prior to his election was firmly on the side of the left wing, and they were jizzing all over themselves with glee on all the 'wrongs' that would be 'righted', how 'Bush&Co' were 'going to get theirs', etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. There are Macro's on this very forum who have apperantly such damning evidence, a jury of 10 years olds would convict on the Slam Dunk evidence. Upon getting into the presidency, all of a sudden he changed.

So why did he change?

Was it because he's just on a total power trip? Unlikely. He needs to get re-elected, and his base, along with some Undecideds, are what got him elected. Which means he's not going to piss off his base and risk losing re-election.....unless....

...just maybe he knows sh1t Glen Greenwald - who has the responsibliity to write opinion columns and nothing more - and others, none of whom have the responsiblity he has to protect the US, doesn't know which is making him change from being on the side he was pre-presidency to now.

It can't be that though right? Has to be something else?

Chuck

No it doesn't make much sense that it's 'that', except to people who are a bit ignorant and paranoid, and to whom there's little doubt the 'secret info' is the answer.

If it was 'that', Obama would likely be explaining and defending his policy choices, at least in general terms. He's not. He doesn't talk about these issues, just does them.

An explanation that's more reasonable - and here I am saying something worse for Obama than you are - is what I said.

He knows he has 'his base' - for the most part - and that his vulnerability comes from moderates being won over by attacks from the right.

Consider all the liberal legislation Nixon approved of - and it worked, he won re-election with then the largest margin in history.

Between the politics and the benefits of giving the military and intelligence communities what they want, there's plenty of substance.

Just ask Carter how fun it is to be president against a non-supportive military. I've heard from one insider there's 'a lot of that story how the military undermind him that isn't known'.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Conservative dominated USSC is morally bankrupt. Going to have to keep electing Democrat presidents, hoping for some vacancies.
You do realize that it was a Democrat POTUS who just begged SCOTUS not to hear the case, right? :D

Hope and Change. If you give the people too much change, you won't be able to sell them on hope any more. Best to keep them hoping.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
HAhaha, fucking Rich.

No, he's correct.

You think it's just Conservatives that are morally bankrupt?

First, they're not really 'conservatives', they're right-wing; second, many 'conservatives' are deluded, not understanding the real right-wing agenda (protect the rich/powerful).

For the most part, yes, the right wing is almost entirely the morally bankrupt political segment, however little the miguided minions are fooled otherwise.

The liberal bad morality is pretty much bread crumbs, rare exceptions, bad apples.

How about the liberals that think it's ok to "spread the wealth"?

Yes, apart from the emotional, knee jerk, irrational react with rage blind response by the right, what does that phrase actually mean?

Simply that there are limits to the concentration of wealth that's good for society, that there's a point past which you allow the wealth of the nation to be owned by fewer and fewer people, with the rest poorer and poorer compared to them, through policies on taxation and other economic areas, that's bad for the country's people and even the economy. That we don't need to emulate South American nations where '14 families' might own 98% of the land while people starve.

But you aren't rational. You see what wasn't said - the government coming into every white American's home and taking their silverware to hand out to Africans.

Or force Americans to have Health Insurance.

As I recall, that was more a right-wing policy suggestion that Obama co-opted and the Republican only then, partly, denounced simplyfor opposing him.

That aside, the bottom line is that it's not a bad thing for every American to have health insurance - remember, progressives want single-payer, not mandatory private purchase.

Don't spout morality and use a political terms because people that are political can not be moral as they have other motives dictating their actions.

That's idiotic. Of course people can pursue what's moral through politics. That's like saying 'money can't be used for morals', no matter if it's given to the poor or disease cure.

Political efforts can be morally motvated, or greed motivated, or for that matter idiocy motivated as with some ideologues.