U.S. Court of Appeals Denies Relief to Torture Victim

 

By Stephen Kopko   

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

NEW YORK, United States – The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on Monday that a Canadian man cannot sue former United States government officials for civil damages. Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer, claimed that he was held in the United States by law enforcement and then transported to Syria where he was tortured.

In 2002, Arar was apprehended at JFK Airport by law enforcement. U.S. and Canadian officials suspected Arar had links to Al Qaeda. He was held in New York for thirteen days and then transported to Syria. Arar was imprisoned in Syria for one year and claimed he was tortured. He was released in 2003 and returned to Canada. The Canadian government later acknowledged they provided the U.S. with faulty information about Arar’s links to terrorism. The government also compensated Arar with ten million dollars.

The U.S. used the practice of extraordinary rendition to detain and then to transport Arar to Syria. Extraordinary rendition is the government policy of transporting suspects of terrorism to other countries for detention and interrogation. The suspects are not charged with a crime or provided with a legal hearing. The policy has been used by U.S. intelligence agencies since the mid-1990s. It was employed by the Bush Administration after the September 11, 2001 attacks as a tool to fight the war on terror.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that questions regarding extraordinary rendition and the remedies that stem from its usage are legislative questions. It also said the separation of powers would be violated if the Court found an appropriate remedy where one did not exist. Further, the Court stated that if it was to ask questions regarding extraordinary rendition, U.S. foreign relations would be compromised and other countries would be less willing to exchange or cooperate in interrogating terrorists.

In his dissent, Judge Barrington Parker countered the majority’s separation of powers argument, writing that the judiciary has the power to hear the case and issue a remedy because of the system of checks and balances. Judge Guido Calabresi wrote that the majority’s opinion was in “utter subservience to the executive branch.”

For more information, please see:

MSNBC – Appeals Court: Detained Canadian Cannot Sue the U.S. – 2 November 2009

New York Times – Federal Appeals Court Rejects Rendition Suit by Maher Arar – 2 November 2009

USA Today – Court: Victims of ‘Extraordinary Rendition’ Can’t Sue U.S. Unless Congress Approves – 2 November 2009

Author: Impunity Watch Archive