Appeals Court Rules in Maher Arar Case: Innocent Victims of Extraordinary Rendition Cannot Sue in US

[CHIMO]

On Monday, a federal court of appeals dismissed Canadian citizen Maher Arar’s case against US officials for their role in sending him to Syria to be tortured. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that victims of extraordinary rendition cannot sue Washington for torture suffered overseas, because Congress has not authorized such lawsuits. In 2002, Syrian-born Maher Arar was held in New York on his way back to Canada from a family vacation in Tunisia. A subsequent Canadian public inquiry has shown Arar was held on erroneous advice from Canadian officials who accused him of ties to Islamic militants. US authorities then flew Arar to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured for a year. Canadian authorities exonerated Arar in 2007, apologized for their role in his torture, and awarded him a multi-million-dollar settlement.

MARIA LAHOOD: Absolutely, and even that if they intend them to be tortured. And it doesn’t have to be a foreign citizen. This decision is broad enough to affect any of us. Basically, if the federal government decides to do something that it purports to be in our national security to do, they could torture any of us, they could kill any of us, and there would be no relief in the federal courts.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/3/appeals_court_rules_in_maher_arar
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2009/nov/video/dnB20091103a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=00:14:56

Don't know how one can make any comment on this!

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Horrifying!

(and already in another thread somewhere)

[wtbymark]

2. a glimpse of totalitarianism in a fascist state...yay.....

everything's hunky-dory, look over there....

[happyslug]

3. The actual opinion

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/bea42ed4-7ed0-434c-8912-4bf89a815e0b/1/doc/06-4216-cv_opn2.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/bea42ed4-7ed0-434c-8912-4bf89a815e0b/1/hilite/

[happyslug]

4. Our new Supreme Court Justice, Sotomayor, participated in this case, but NOT the Decision.

Thus we do NOT know if she would have voted with the Majority or the dissent. The Majority concentrated on the fact that CONGRESS has NOT EXPRESSLY passed any law that permits a person like the Plaintiff to sue the Federal Government or one of its agents. The Majority ruled that the Act against Torture is aimed at FOREIGNERS who do torture and later come under US jurisdiction NOT any FEDERAL official who arranged for someone to be removed to be Tortured. The Majority relies on dicta in Bivens v. Six 8 Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
See: http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/388/case.html To say that since the Supreme Court used language that indicated Bivens was an extraordinary situation, the court should be reluctant to extend Bivens to a case like this one. The dissent clearly says this is a Bivens type case and should be reinstated.