Innocent Maher Arar is still on the US Terror Watchlist
November 3rd, 2009 § Leave a Comment
Even though a Canadian commission has cleared Maher Arar's name and admitted wrongdoing in the handling of his case, the US will keep his and his family's name on its notorious Terror Watchlist. Photo Credit: REUTERS/Chris Wattie
Syrian born Canadian citizen Maher Arar was flying through New York in 2002 on his way home to Canada after a family vacation when he was stopped by U.S. immigration. The US authorities had been misinformed by erring Canadian authorities that Arar was a terror suspect. After prolonged periods of interrogation, a brief meeting with a lawyer and denying the accusations that were made against him, Arar was deported to Syria where he was repeatedly tortured and held in a “grave” of solitary confinement for more than 10 months. Prior to his deportation Arar had stated that he feared being tortured in Syria. In response Arar claims that US officials showed him a document explaining that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (which was part of the United States Department of Justice but ceased to exist as of 2003) “was not the body that deals with Geneva Convention regarding torture.” His pleas and statements were ignored. Arar was released and returned back to Canada after almost one year in a Syrian prison. It later became evident that the Canadian authorities had “mistaken” Arar for someone else and a Canadian Commission publicly cleared Arar of any links to terrorism and offered him a $10 million settlement.
Despite Canada’s admission of wrongdoing and news of the settlement (granted in light of the overwhelming evidence that Arar could have used against the Canadian government had the case gone to court), the US government refused to clear Arar’s name and maintains both him and his family on its notorious Terror Watch List which now includes 400,000 names. In response U.S. lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) pursued a legal case (Arar v. Ashcroft) on Arar’s behalf, alleging that the actions of the U.S. government were illegal and violated his constitutional, civil, and international human rights.
On November 2, 2009 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals en banc affirmed the district court’s decision dismissing the case. The lawsuit essentially argued that Arar was a victim of “extraordinary rendition,” or the illegal transfer of suspects to foreign countries where it is believed that they will be subjected to “harsh interrogations” or torture. The lawsuit was brought against the former Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and then Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, as well as numerous U.S. immigration officials. Several human rights and civil liberties advocacy organizations allege that thousands of people have been subjected to US instigated extraordinary rendition since 2001. Bush administration officials have admitted to subjecting suspects to rendition, but denied the accusations of tortures. In 2005 former US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was quote saying:
The United States does not transport, and has not transported detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture.
Rice’s statements were made even in light of Arar’s case. Two years later she admitted during a House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing that the U.S. government mishandled his case. President Barack Obama had pledged to end the use of extraordinary rendition during his presidency campaign and issued an Executive Order to oppose rendition torture in January 2009. Nevertheless, Colin Freeze of The Globe and Mail makes an interesting point when he argues that US judges
…are proving highly deferential to presidential authority and state-secret privileges. The suit launched by Mr. Arar was seen by civil libertarians as one of the best hopes of reining in future renditions. (The Obama Administration is poised to continue the practice.)
David Cole, the Georgetown University Law Center professor who argued Mr. Arar’s appeal in cooperation with the Center for Constitutional Rights stated yesterday that the decision
…says that U.S. officials can intentionally send a man to be tortured abroad, bar him from any access to the courts while doing so, and then avoid any legal accountability thereafter. It effectively places executive officials above the law, even when accused of a conscious conspiracy to torture. If the rule of law means anything, it must mean that courts can hear the claim of an innocent man subjected to torture that violates our most basic constitutional commitments.
No decision has been reached yet on whether Arar’s US lawyers will initiate a Supreme Court appeal.
