Supreme Court: Torture victim cannot sue the US government

[Kuya]

This case had been developing for years now, but it seems that the Supreme Court recently made the decision to refuse to hear Maher Arar's case against the US government because apparently if it went to court the US government alleges it would reveal state's secrets. Arar was detained on September 2002 after returning from Tunisia in New York where he was headed back to Canada, he is a Canadian and Syrian citizen. He was apparently held for two weeks without being allowed to contact anyone and was then sent to Syria where he was tortured. He received an apology from the Canadian government and compensation, but the US government has refused to officially apologize to Arar and compensate him for the torture he was put through. He was apparently accused of having connections to Al Qaida but was found to be innocent, and while in custody in Syria, his torturers were trying to get him to admit to being in Afghanistan.

Quotes:

Quote from the case in the Supreme Court:

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday denied certiorari [order list, PDF] in Arar v. Ashcroft [docket; cert. petition, PDF], a case concerning the US government's extraordinary rendition [JURIST news archive] policy. Canadian citizen Maher Arar [advocacy website; JURIST news archive] asked the court in February to overturn a lower court ruling [JURIST report] that he cannot sue the US government for damages based on his detention in the US and his detention, interrogation and torture in Syria after he was mistakenly identified as a terrorist. Arar was attempting to challenge the government's extraordinary rendition policy under the Torture Victim Protection Act and the Fifth Amendment [texts] of the US Constitution. The court declined to hear Arar's appeal without comment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sat on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] when the case was decided en banc, took no part in the decision. Lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights [advocacy website] who represented Arar expressed disappointment [press release] with the court's decision.

Arar on Democracy now:

AMY GOODMAN: And tell us what happened to you—tell us what happened to you in Syria.

MAHER ARAR: Well, of course, they dumped me in Jordan, a country I have no connection to whatsoever. And it’s a known fact now that the Jordanians are cooperating fully with the war on terror. And hours later, they handed me over to the Syrians. And the interrogations started that same day. There was no physical violence the same day—threats and all kinds of verbal threats with electricity and the chair. They call it the German chair. But the beating started the following day, where they started beating me, with no advance warning whatsoever, with a cable, electrical cable. And the most intense beating was on the third day, where for some strange reason they wanted me to say that I’ve been to Afghanistan. At the end of the day, I lost all my strength, and I told them what they wanted to hear. So the beating did not stop, but it became much, much less intense. But I can tell in the eyes of the investigators, the Syrian investigators—I don’t even know if I can call them that; they’re torturers—that they were looking for something, that they wanted to please the Americans. But I can tell you, after two weeks of torture and harsh interrogation and humiliation, I can tell in their eyes that there was nothing there for them.

AMY GOODMAN: Maria LaHood, you’re Maher Arar’s attorney. Tell us what the Supreme Court said.

MARIA LAHOOD: Well, unfortunately, the Supreme Court didn’t say anything. It just completely rejected Maher’s petition for them to hear the dismissal of his case. So, all Maher is asking is—you know, he brought a complaint, the lower courts have rejected that without even letting it go any farther, and we have asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. And they just denied the petition.

AMY GOODMAN: But they’re saying it should be done legislatively?

MARIA LAHOOD: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which is now the decision that stands, said basically that, you know, it interpreted the statute that allows damages for conspiracy to torture with a foreign country—it interpreted that to not apply in this case. So it says Congress needs to fix that. It also refused to imply a remedy for a constitutional violation here. Maher was sent to torture in Syria and also was prevented from going to court to stop it, which Congress specifically legislated people have a right to do. And it basically said that because of reasons of national security, there is no remedy here. So, that’s something that Congress needs to fix.

Links:

The Supreme court case

Arar on Democracy now

Canadian apology and compensation

Description of what was done to Arar in Syria

Treatment under US officials

Another source on this news

The Obama administration is still continuing the Bush policy of rendition and denial of habeas corpus.

[Alleya]

If he's so innocent why would they detain him? I call bullshit. Terrorist filth should be sent back to iraqistan.

[Olo401]

Which justice was in charge of reviewing the writ of certoriari?

[Elvis]

It's not torture cuz we were trying to get precious delicious info.

[Elvis]

Our family's security, our nation > some disgruntled terrorist interviewed by some nobody Leftist.

[Kuya]

Which justice was in charge of reviewing the writ of certoriari?

I don't know. I didn't see it on the links i used.

[jmc]

Wait, maybe i'm not fully reading this right.

The united states, labeled him as a terrorist........... Syrians tortured him so he would admit he is a terrorist.

He wants to sue the united states for torturing him?

Again, I might have missed something...... or read it wrong....... but doesn't make sense to me.

[Kuya]

The united states, labeled him as a terrorist........... Syrians tortured him so he would admit he is a terrorist.

Torture is good for coerced confesions which you can then use later to justify the initial detention and then subsequent torture.

He wants to sue the united states for torturing him?

Wants to sue the US government for their involvement in his torture, yes.

[Senji]

Wait, maybe i'm not fully reading this right.

The united states, labeled him as a terrorist........... Syrians tortured him so he would admit he is a terrorist.

He wants to sue the united states for torturing him?

Again, I might have missed something...... or read it wrong....... but doesn't make sense to me.

When you dont get your way, you sue anyone with money.

[Kuya]

When you dont get your way, you sue anyone with money.

The way you put it, it makes it sound like a victim of torture is some greedy and bratty child looking for handouts.

[LinktheDeme]

The way you put it, it makes it sound like a victim of torture is some greedy and bratty child looking for handouts.

no one actually reads the threads, they only see 10 lines look at what everyone else says and bandwagon

with that said don't give the greedy bratty child a handout ;o

[Jaybar]

Looks like he is suing because of wrongful accusation and not giving him a trial? Seems media was just twisting the words to say he was suing because he was tortured (which is obviously a part of the reason).

that he cannot sue the US government for damages based on his detention in the US and his detention, interrogation and torture in Syria

Shit it was even bolded in the OP...

[Kuya]

I would think that being tortured is enough to morally justify someone suing the people involved. His detention/rendition without trial and a lawyer notwithstanding (did i use that phrase right?)

[Egon]

Supreme Court has the right to refuse any case. Go hate America else where.

[Khamsin]

I was expecting it to be because of that "suspected terrorists have no rights" thing, including the right to sue.

Though, come to think of it, I didn't realize that innocent canadians or syrians had the right to sue in another country, either.

Not to say that what happened wasn't wrong, he was innocent. But as far as legal avenues go, he's not even from this country. It'd seem more of a nation vs nation political deal for the embassies to work out.

If a US citizen had their hand cut off by a middle eastern government, would they file a lawsuit in that country or cry to the US embassy?

[Demosthenes11]

litigation is not the avenue that is going to make the US stop torture or even be remorseful about it.

[Kuya]

It depends on the laws in a given country. If a country has the legal avenues for foreigners to see a governmen for redress, then that's that. If a country doesn't have that sort of legal system set up, then other governments would probably preassure the offending party to compensate the victims. You would expect a constitutional democracy to allow victims outside of the country to receive compensation, but you would obviously not expect this from a dictatorship.

litigation is not the avenue that is going to make the US stop torture or even be remorseful about it.

That's a different matter. Aside from stoping the US from sending people to their torturers, there is the question of wherther this man deserves compensation from the US government for its involvement in his torture. You're mixing two related but separate issues. Apparently though, he's being denied for different reasons that are not whether he deserves compensation. It seems the government is relying on the state's secrets argument.

[Correction]

If he's so innocent why would they detain him? I call bullshit. Terrorist filth should be sent back to iraqistan.

I guess this is people subconsciously missing Leif.

[*Shinzon*]

The justices aren't stupid. If they could deal with it without jeopardizing national secrets they'd probably hear his case there is already precedent for the US courts to deal with law suits by non-citizens concerning human/civil rights violations.

[Kuya]

I wonder if there is anyone who still trusts the government when it says it needs to keep national security secrets... secret. I'm sure we can safely assume that it's genuine information that could keep the US from danger that they're trying to hide and not information that could incriminate the government in something illegal or inmoral.

Anyway, did the Supreme Court see these alleged state secrets that need protecting? Also, we are all aware that there are mechanisms for exactly this situation where alleged state secrets are involved, right? What usually happens is that a judge is sent to a private room to see what alleged secrets can't be revealed and after revewing said evidence, the judge can decide if the argument is justified or the case can continue with just the judge witnessing the evidence that is too dangerous to be seen in public.

edit: i'm not aware what the precedents are, would you mind mentioning and linking them to me, shinzon?