Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Question: Are the US Bill of Rights guarantees for Citizens Only? Due process, etc.
Toronto Star
Aug. 10, 2005. 06:11 AM
‘We believe this is all about what can and cannot be done to a human being. Was someone deprived of their liberty and due process? In this case, that clearly happened.’ Barbara Olshansky, lawyer for Maher Arar, above
Arar drags Bush's policies into court
Historic case challenges practice of rendition
Lawyers won't concede Canadian tortured in Syria
TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU,
Toronto Star
NEW YORK—Canadian Maher Arar made history in a Brooklyn courtroom yesterday when his lawyers forced the Bush administration to defend its treatment of him when he was detained in the United States, then whisked off to face torture in Syria.
Lawyers for the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights became the first to challenge Washington's policy of "extraordinary rendition" in a court of law.
Rendition, a practice used with some frequency by U.S. President George W. Bush in his war on terror, is the name attached to a policy by which terrorist suspects are sent to other countries for interrogation, and often face torture.
Rendition was on trial in U.S. district court during three hours of oral arguments in the case known as Arar vs. Ashcroft.
Fourteen government lawyers flocked to the court to defend former attorney-general John Ashcroft, former homeland security chief Tom Ridge, FBI Director Robert Mueller and other high-ranking officials being challenged by Arar, an Ottawa computer consultant.
Arar's lawyers say yesterday's hearing — and a potential future trial — are a test of the extraordinary powers Bush has assumed since the terrorist attack on the U.S. in 2001.
"This is all about an executive branch of the U.S. government which does not believe its actions are limited by the constitution," said Barbara Olshansky, one of Arar's lawyers.
"We believe this is all about what can and cannot be done to a human being. Was someone deprived of their liberty and due process? In this case, that clearly happened."
Arar was on his way home to Canada in September 2002, when U.S. authorities detained him at New York's JFK airport, holding him without access to a lawyer and ultimately sending him to Syria, his country of birth, where he says he was imprisoned for more than a year and tortured.
Arar, who is barred from entering the U.S., monitored the proceedings from Ottawa by phone.
He said he heard some positive signs. "At least an American judge is hearing my case. That is a win," he said in an interview.
"I just hope he looks at all aspects of my case and doesn't treat it like a deportation, as the government tried to portray it."
He is seeking a declaration from a U.S. court that Washington's decision to send him to Syria, a country cited by the U.S. State Department as a state abuser of human rights, violated his rights.
Arar said ultimately he wants the U.S. government to explain publicly why he was sent to Syria instead of being allowed to return to Canada.
"I want the American people to be aware of what is being done under this banner of the war on terror," he said. "If that happens, then maybe some American people will look back and say this court exercise was worth it."
He is also seeking a monetary settlement from the Bush administration, Olshansky said, but more importantly, Arar wants a U.S. court to declare that what was done to him was wrong and "will never happen again."
`We believe this is all about what can and cannot be done to a human being. Was someone deprived of their liberty and due process? In this case, that clearly happened.'
Barbara Olshansky,
lawyer for Maher Arar, above
Although Arar's story is not unique, it has become the symbol of a rendition policy that the Bush administration has used to rid itself of suspected terrorists, sending them to countries that can use the type of "coercive interrogation" not allowed in the United States.
Lawyers for Ashcroft and the U.S. Justice Department defended their actions when faced with what they called "a member of Al Qaeda at its shore."
Government lawyers never once conceded yesterday that Arar had been tortured or that the United States had been complicit in his treatment, but they argued they should not have to tell the court why they thought Arar was a member of the terrorist network, because to do so would be to divulge state secrets.
"It is absolutely clear the U.S. does not participate in or condone torture and that it is, in fact, unlawful," said Mary Mason, a justice department lawyer.
Mason, in essence, also argued that a person gives up his or her rights when they are deemed inadmissible to this country.
But David Cole, acting for Arar, said the U.S. administration cannot claim it is immune from any redress in this case because someone else did the torture.
He reminded the court of a published comment from an unnamed administration official. "We don't kick the (expletive) out of them," he quoted the official as saying, "we send them somewhere else where they kick the (expletive) out of them."
Added Cole: "This is not a constitutional theory."
Judge David Trager had asked for oral arguments from both sides on seven questions he wanted answered before he determines whether the case will proceed. If it does, Arar's side will request a jury trial so Americans can hear how the government treats innocent people, Olshansky said.
Mason told the court Arar was given ample opportunity to fight his deportation order and was given "remarkable freedom ... given the clear and unequivocal evidence that he was a member of Al Qaeda."
She argued, in fact, Arar had more due process available to him than a U.S. citizen would have. Cole belittled that idea.
No citizen of the U.S., he said, would be picked up at the airport, detained in a cell with no bed for five days, denied food and water, given a steady diet of lies, then have his lawyer lied to, and finally be presented with an order removing him from the country — after he had been placed on a plane to Jordan.
Cole also reminded the court that no one — not Syrian investigators, the Canadian government or the Bush administration — had ever proved Arar was a member of Al Qaeda.
"How can he appeal his removal order when he is locked up in a grave-like cell (in Syria)?" Cole asked.
Mason also said it is not unusual to have aliens removed to Syria. She said 198 aliens have been sent to Syria in the past five years, 46 of them during the same year Arar was sent back to his country of birth.
Trager regularly interrupted lawyers for both sides with pointed questions, but gave no hints which way he was leaning.
However, he quickly dismissed arguments from counsel for Mueller, former acting deputy attorney general Larry Thompson and J. Scott Blackman, the former regional director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who all said their clients had nothing to do with sending Arar to Syria.
Trager clearly had little time for that argument, pointing out that Blackman signed the deportation order.
Toronto Star
Aug. 10, 2005. 06:11 AM
‘We believe this is all about what can and cannot be done to a human being. Was someone deprived of their liberty and due process? In this case, that clearly happened.’ Barbara Olshansky, lawyer for Maher Arar, above
Arar drags Bush's policies into court
Historic case challenges practice of rendition
Lawyers won't concede Canadian tortured in Syria
TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU,
Toronto Star
NEW YORK—Canadian Maher Arar made history in a Brooklyn courtroom yesterday when his lawyers forced the Bush administration to defend its treatment of him when he was detained in the United States, then whisked off to face torture in Syria.
Lawyers for the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights became the first to challenge Washington's policy of "extraordinary rendition" in a court of law.
Rendition, a practice used with some frequency by U.S. President George W. Bush in his war on terror, is the name attached to a policy by which terrorist suspects are sent to other countries for interrogation, and often face torture.
Rendition was on trial in U.S. district court during three hours of oral arguments in the case known as Arar vs. Ashcroft.
Fourteen government lawyers flocked to the court to defend former attorney-general John Ashcroft, former homeland security chief Tom Ridge, FBI Director Robert Mueller and other high-ranking officials being challenged by Arar, an Ottawa computer consultant.
Arar's lawyers say yesterday's hearing — and a potential future trial — are a test of the extraordinary powers Bush has assumed since the terrorist attack on the U.S. in 2001.
"This is all about an executive branch of the U.S. government which does not believe its actions are limited by the constitution," said Barbara Olshansky, one of Arar's lawyers.
"We believe this is all about what can and cannot be done to a human being. Was someone deprived of their liberty and due process? In this case, that clearly happened."
Arar was on his way home to Canada in September 2002, when U.S. authorities detained him at New York's JFK airport, holding him without access to a lawyer and ultimately sending him to Syria, his country of birth, where he says he was imprisoned for more than a year and tortured.
Arar, who is barred from entering the U.S., monitored the proceedings from Ottawa by phone.
He said he heard some positive signs. "At least an American judge is hearing my case. That is a win," he said in an interview.
"I just hope he looks at all aspects of my case and doesn't treat it like a deportation, as the government tried to portray it."
He is seeking a declaration from a U.S. court that Washington's decision to send him to Syria, a country cited by the U.S. State Department as a state abuser of human rights, violated his rights.
Arar said ultimately he wants the U.S. government to explain publicly why he was sent to Syria instead of being allowed to return to Canada.
"I want the American people to be aware of what is being done under this banner of the war on terror," he said. "If that happens, then maybe some American people will look back and say this court exercise was worth it."
He is also seeking a monetary settlement from the Bush administration, Olshansky said, but more importantly, Arar wants a U.S. court to declare that what was done to him was wrong and "will never happen again."
`We believe this is all about what can and cannot be done to a human being. Was someone deprived of their liberty and due process? In this case, that clearly happened.'
Barbara Olshansky,
lawyer for Maher Arar, above
Although Arar's story is not unique, it has become the symbol of a rendition policy that the Bush administration has used to rid itself of suspected terrorists, sending them to countries that can use the type of "coercive interrogation" not allowed in the United States.
Lawyers for Ashcroft and the U.S. Justice Department defended their actions when faced with what they called "a member of Al Qaeda at its shore."
Government lawyers never once conceded yesterday that Arar had been tortured or that the United States had been complicit in his treatment, but they argued they should not have to tell the court why they thought Arar was a member of the terrorist network, because to do so would be to divulge state secrets.
"It is absolutely clear the U.S. does not participate in or condone torture and that it is, in fact, unlawful," said Mary Mason, a justice department lawyer.
Mason, in essence, also argued that a person gives up his or her rights when they are deemed inadmissible to this country.
But David Cole, acting for Arar, said the U.S. administration cannot claim it is immune from any redress in this case because someone else did the torture.
He reminded the court of a published comment from an unnamed administration official. "We don't kick the (expletive) out of them," he quoted the official as saying, "we send them somewhere else where they kick the (expletive) out of them."
Added Cole: "This is not a constitutional theory."
Judge David Trager had asked for oral arguments from both sides on seven questions he wanted answered before he determines whether the case will proceed. If it does, Arar's side will request a jury trial so Americans can hear how the government treats innocent people, Olshansky said.
Mason told the court Arar was given ample opportunity to fight his deportation order and was given "remarkable freedom ... given the clear and unequivocal evidence that he was a member of Al Qaeda."
She argued, in fact, Arar had more due process available to him than a U.S. citizen would have. Cole belittled that idea.
No citizen of the U.S., he said, would be picked up at the airport, detained in a cell with no bed for five days, denied food and water, given a steady diet of lies, then have his lawyer lied to, and finally be presented with an order removing him from the country — after he had been placed on a plane to Jordan.
Cole also reminded the court that no one — not Syrian investigators, the Canadian government or the Bush administration — had ever proved Arar was a member of Al Qaeda.
"How can he appeal his removal order when he is locked up in a grave-like cell (in Syria)?" Cole asked.
Mason also said it is not unusual to have aliens removed to Syria. She said 198 aliens have been sent to Syria in the past five years, 46 of them during the same year Arar was sent back to his country of birth.
Trager regularly interrupted lawyers for both sides with pointed questions, but gave no hints which way he was leaning.
However, he quickly dismissed arguments from counsel for Mueller, former acting deputy attorney general Larry Thompson and J. Scott Blackman, the former regional director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who all said their clients had nothing to do with sending Arar to Syria.
Trager clearly had little time for that argument, pointing out that Blackman signed the deportation order.
