Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 3 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   


By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   No comments
Become a Fan
  (11 fans)
A few months ago - particularly after The Washington Post broke the story of secret U.S. "black sites" in Eastern Europe - it would have been difficult to pick up a newspaper or watch television without hearing the words "extreme rendition".

Then, almost as suddenly as the issue appeared, it vanished. The world's press stopped focusing on the U.S. practice of sending detainees to countries where they would likely be tortured or abused.

Last week, the rendition issue was back, but not in a way likely to please its opponents.

Rendition returned when a U.S. federal court dismissed a lawsuit against the Bush administration brought by Ottawa engineer Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who was detained by U.S. authorities as a suspected terrorist during a stopover in New York as he returned from a vacation in September 2002. He was held virtually incommunicado by U.S. officials, and then sent to Syria, where he said he was tortured and held in a tiny cell he likened to a "grave" for nearly a year. He was never charged before Syria returned him to Canada.

Brooklyn District Court Judge David Trager cited the need for national security and secrecy in making his decision, but also raised the possibility of Canadian complicity in the decision to send Arar to Syria.

As in other recent cases, the U.S. government asserted the "state secrets" privilege, arguing the lawsuit must be dismissed because allowing it to proceed would necessarily involve the disclosure of sensitive information that would threaten national security or diplomatic relations if made public.

"The need for much secrecy can hardly be doubted," Trager wrote in an 88-page judgment. "One need not have much imagination to contemplate the negative effect on our relations with Canada if discovery were to proceed in this case and were it to turn out that certain high Canadian officials had, despite public denials, acquiesced in Arar's removal to Syria."

Canadian officials have always denied complicity in the decision to send Arar to Syria after he was held in U.S. custody for 13 days, but Arar said Justice Dennis O'Connor, who is examining the role Canadian officials played in the affair, should make special note of the judge's comments.

Arar also vowed he would never give up his quest to reverse the "evil'' done against him. "If the courts will not stop this evil act, who is going to stop this administration? Where do we go? The United Nations? We me and others who have been subjected to this are normal citizens who have done no wrong."

He said, "They have destroyed my life. They have destroyed other lives. But the court system does not listen to us. The court system is what distinguishes the West from the Third World. When a court will not act because of 'national security,' there is no longer any difference between the West and the Third World." His lawyers said they would continue the fight.

In Canada, Justice O'Connor is expected to issue an interim report next month.

The Arar suit was the first court test of the Bush administration policy of "extraordinary rendition," a practice often referred to as the outsourcing of torture.

Critics of the practice said the U.S. court's decision gives Washington a green light to continue its practice of sending terrorist suspects to third countries where they could be tortured.

Arar's is just one of a number of well-documented cases in which suspects have been shipped to third countries with dubious human rights records where interrogation methods outlawed in the U.S. can be used.

In his decision, Judge Trager acknowledged Arar's fears of torture in Syria were real and cited the U.S. State Department's own report on human rights abuses there.

But he said such decisions were beyond the realm of his court. "A judge who declares on his or her own ... authority that the policy of extraordinary rendition is under all circumstances unconstitutional must acknowledge that such a ruling can have the most serious of consequences to our foreign relations or national security or both," he wrote.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

WILLIAM FISHER Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and elsewhere for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration and now (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)


Liberties Lost Since 9/11

The Silence of the Sheep


Law Professors Outraged by Senate Vote on Indefinite Detention

Feel Safer Now?

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend