home

U.S. Claims Maher Arar Lawsuit Jeopardizes National Security

Democracy Now reports:

The Toronto Star is reporting the U.S. government is attempting to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Canadian citizen Maher Arar, claiming the litigation would jeopardize national security. Two years ago the Syrian-born software engineer was detained by US official while on a stopover in New York. He was then jailed and secretly deported to Syria. He was held for almost a year in an underground cell not much larger than a grave where he was reportedly tortured. Time Magazine in Canada recently named him the country's newswmaker of the year.

Now the U.S. government is attempting to have a lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights dismissed. Invoking the rarely used "state secrets privilege" the Justice Department claims that any release of information on Arar could jeopardize "intelligence, foreign policy and national security interests of the United States." Arar's attorney Maria LaHood said "They're asking the court to sanction their cover-up basically."

More details are available at the Globe and Mail. [link fixed]

< Join Us and Help Fight the New York Death Penalty | Supreme Court Sends 400 Cases Back for Resentencing >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: U.S. Claims Maher Arar Lawsuit Jeopardizes Nat (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 08:48:44 AM EST
    Hey, look over there, gays are trying to get married!

    Aaah! Gays! Get me my pitchfork, martha!

    You could not keep an honest discussion about a man who was tortured could you, you silly, ignorant,Republican ass. And I guess US and European gays are not trying to get married either?

    Is there an Amendment 10.5 that I'm unaware of? One that says that national security or a compelling government interest overrides anything in the prceding 10?

    Did I miss something? Is Mr. Arar gay?

    Re: U.S. Claims Maher Arar Lawsuit Jeopardizes Nat (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mike on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    I think they were trying to make a point that it seems every time a topic like this comes up, a news scandal starts on something completely ridiculous to move the media's attention away from it. A good example is the frenzy regarding the Dean/bloggers story to allow the WMD hunt failure story to fall out of the spotlight. Here, we've got "Hey this guy was tortured and now can't sue because the government wants to cover it up" "cover it up? Hey, look over there, gays are gettin hitched!"

    Thanks Mike. Missed that one. Maybe 'cause I am finding less and less to joke about as more and more peoples lives are being destroyed in my name - other countries are completely folding re: protection of their citizenry, and it just goes on and on and on.

    DavidD - You might check out some of Lincoln's activities during the Civil War if you are really interested in history. et al - This would be an intersting court case. The last I remember, Maher had co-signed a lease with/for someone who had problems, and then went on vacation outside Canada. He was picked up by the US while changing planes in the US. It then gets stranger. The RMCP wouldn't take him, leaving him to the US who returned him to Syria, seeing that he was Syrian and Canada wouldn't take him, although I beleive he had a valid work permit, etc. Questions abound. What is the status of his original problem re the lease? Why wouldn't Canada take him back? Did we, or did we not, do the proper thing when Canada wouldn't take him? How did he get out of Syria? Sounds like this guy may have been a victim, and yet I'll give the government some credence for their claim. It would make fascinating listening.

    Sounds like this guy may have been a victim, and yet I'll give the government some credence for their claim
    You should start every comment like this Jim. In fact, why don't you change your nom de plume from PPJ to the above?? And yes, I'm taking your comment out of context. And yes, I read the rest of your posting. What will it take for you to see that the emperor has no clothes?? And still you oooh and aaah. The one favor I ask of you is PLEASE be on this blog in early 2008. To quote my 5-year-old...pleasepleasepleaseplease!

    mfox - I invite you to see some of my earlier comments on this subject. There have been at last three earlier posts. BTW - Did you read my detailed and cordial response to your inaccurate and vulgar rant? Or is common civility and the ability to keep up with a stream of comments too much to expect from you? As for '08, given the present condition of the Democratic party, firmly in control of the radical left, we can expect another Repub win. Question. Why doesn't the Left focus on fixing some of the social problems instead of acting as if the world will end if they don't get their way. Repeat after me. To govern you must first be elected.

    Re: U.S. Claims Maher Arar Lawsuit Jeopardizes Nat (none / 0) (#11)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    As for '08, given the present condition of the Democratic party, firmly in control of the radical left, we can expect another Repub win.
    Absolutely friggin clueless. The radicals were no where near Kerry. He ran as Bush lite. What was radical about the issues Kerry ran on

    SD - To use one of the Left's favorite words.... you miss the nuance. Kerry moved sharply to the Left to beat Dean. He then tried to move back, but couldn't get there because he was having to say and do things to keep the radicals on board. "Global test," Wrong war, wrong place,..." etc. He allowed Michael Moore to have an honored seat at the convention, next to ex-President Carter. That was as stupid as it comes. Moore has sky high negatives. He called some vulgar jokes by Whoopi Goldbery "american values" even though Hollywood in general has sky high negatives. What he ran on was an implied position that if elected he would get us out of Iraq to suit the Left. The middle saw that and rejected it. Contrast that to Clinton who went to the center, and stayed there. I can't remember her name, but there was a black female who made some outlandish remarks... Do you remember how quickly Clinton came out and disavowed her? Now there is a politician's politician.

    Re: U.S. Claims Maher Arar Lawsuit Jeopardizes Nat (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 05:14:22 PM EST
    PPJ - You of course didn't answer the question. Radicalism isn't nuance. I will pose the question yet again What was radical about the issues Kerry ran on

    Re: U.S. Claims Maher Arar Lawsuit Jeopardizes Nat (none / 0) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 05:22:17 PM EST
    Kerry moved sharply to the Left to beat Dean. Prove that in the context that youaccuse him of pandering to the radicals. He then tried to move back, but couldn't get there because he was having to say and do things to keep the radicals on board. "Global test," Wrong war, wrong place,..." etc. The global test issue was not radical although the right tried to make it so by its usual campaign of misinformation. It was the wrong war and wrong place that is only a radical concept to neocons not to dems. He allowed Michael Moore to have an honored seat at the convention, next to ex-President Carter. That was as stupid as it comes. Moore has sky high negatives. He called some vulgar jokes by Whoopi Goldbery "american values" even though Hollywood in general has sky high negative trival crap, we could go into the GOP convention and the speech by Zell Millar What he ran on was an implied position that if elected he would get us out of Iraq to suit the Left. This is patently false. As someone who opposes this war strongly it was clear to me and anybody who listened to him that he wasn't listening. There was practically no difference between them wrt plans for Iraq. The middle saw that and rejected Wrong people rejected Bush lite. The war was the most important issue out there and he was no different than Bush

    Re: U.S. Claims Maher Arar Lawsuit Jeopardizes Nat (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 05:54:35 PM EST
    PPJ - Show me one legitimate history of radical politics in the U.S - not put out by the Scaife Foundation - that would include John Kerry as a "radical leftist". Youre a cold-war dinosaur spreading talk-radio level b.s as history.

    SD - Gesh. You are obtuse. He ran on an implicit understanding with the radical left that he would cut and run in Iraq. The middle of the road voters clearly saw that and went for Bush. jondee - See the above comments to SD. SD - BTW - Miller is not thoroughly disliked by millions. And that "trival crap" that you dismiss probably cost Kerry a couple of points. Do yourself a favor this summer. Hop in your car and drive south and west and just listen and watch. Maybe that will educate you to what is going on outside of your little corner of the world. Or keep on denying and keep on losing.

    Re: U.S. Claims Maher Arar Lawsuit Jeopardizes Nat (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:34:17 PM EST
    Implicit understanding means simply you can't back up what you said. Gee what the hell else is new. And you have no proof the trival crap cost him a couple of points. Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. So once again you can't back up what you claimes. we're all shocked!! Shocked I tell you

    SD - Okay, he lost the election because the US middle couldn't stand his accent, his atttitude, his wife and his dog. Those "global test," "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," "american valuies," "spent Chrustmas in Cambodia," gaffes didn't mean a thing. There now. Feel better? ;-)

    Re: U.S. Claims Maher Arar Lawsuit Jeopardizes Nat (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 02:47:01 AM EST
    Your original premise was the radical left, ya got nothing yet again

    Re: U.S. Claims Maher Arar Lawsuit Jeopardizes Nat (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 02:50:15 PM EST
    PPJ - Own up - anyone who was vehemently against the Vietnam war is a radical-leftist to you. And spare us the"social liberal" ie: be as gay as you like,just vote republican jive. Before WWII the only way you could be a "radical leftist" was if you were a socialist,anarchist,or communist- now,according to you,Ann,and Fox its anyone who questions the machinations of the M.I.C that Eisenhauer warned us about.