Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Legal Battle Continues for Ex-Detainee

(Inter Press Service) 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...

Print Friendly

(Inter Press Service)

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 U.S. 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, and Tom Ridge, then secretary of the Department of Homeland Security—accused of violating federal law and Arar’s civil rights.

In the original decision, the three-judge panel agreed with a lower court decision, ruling, two to one, 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 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.

Once rare, the use of the "state secrets privilege" has grown exponentially during the administration of George W. Bush. The privilege has kept many cases from ever coming before any court. Administration critics say it is an essential part of a curtain of secrecy the Bush administration has built, often for nothing more than avoiding political embarrassment.

David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an internationally recognized authority on constitutional law, told the Inter Press Service, "The administration has argued that the president has unilateral executive power in the ‘war on terror’ to violate even criminal laws, and when it has been challenged on that assertion, it has argued that the courts can’t even rule on that assertion of power because the alleged criminal violation is a ‘state secret.’"

There are currently efforts in Congress to enact legislation to limit the government’s use of the state secrets privilege. The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a bill that would require the government to produce the evidence it says is protected for review by a federal judge in a classified setting. But the bill lacks bipartisan support in the committee—only one Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, voted to move it to the Senate floor. That makes the future of the measure unclear.

Specter is a sponsor of the bill—the State Secrets Protection Act—along with Democratic senators Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. They said the objective of the proposed legislation is to "provide a systematic approach to the privilege and thereby bring stability, predictability, and clarity to this area of the law and restore the public trust in government and the courts."

A new Judiciary Committee report on use of the state secrets privilege includes dissenting views from several Republican members of the committee, who argue that the existing arrangements already strike the "right balance between openness, justice, and national security."

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the Bush administration on issues surrounding its detention policies. In 2004, in a case involving a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely at Guantanamo as an "illegal enemy combatant," the Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.

In the same year, the court ruled that the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) held at Guantanamo Bay were rightfully imprisoned.

Two years later, the court that held that the military commission set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lacked "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." That decision led to Congress’s passage of the Military Commissions Act.

The challenge to that act was brought by Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s driver, who recently became the first detainee in seven years to face any kind of trial at Guantanamo. A Pentagon-appointed jury found him not guilty of the most serious charge brought against him—conspiracy to kill U.S. citizens—and convicted him of providing material supporting for terrorism. He could be a free man before the end of the year.

Hamdan is expected to appeal his sentence—and the constitutionality of the military commissions act—to the U.S. civilian courts.

William Fisher writes for the Inter Press Service.


William Fisher, "Legal Battle Continues for Ex-Detainee " Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4945.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

John Hannah, Dick Cheney’s national security adviser, is now a leading advocate for regime change in both Iran and Syria based at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Dennis Ross, a U.S. diplomat who served in the Obama administration, is a fellow at the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Sheldon Adelson is a wealthy casino magnate known for his large, influential political contributions, his efforts to impact U.S. foreign policy discourse particularly among Republicans, and his ownership and ideological direction of media outlets.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.

Print Friendly

President Trump and his advisers ought to ask themselves whether it is in the U.S. interest to run the risk of Iranian withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic, running that risk looks dumb.