The Reason That The Papers Hire Journalists ...
...is because they stink as lawyers. And the New York Times makes no exception in today's editorial.
The administration's tendency to dodge accountability for lawless actions by resorting to secrecy and claims of national security is on sharp display in the case of a Syrian-born Canadian, Maher Arar, who spent months under torture because of United States action. A federal trial judge in Brooklyn has refused to stand up to the executive branch, in a decision that is both chilling and ripe for prompt overturning.
Mr. Arar, a 35-year-old software engineer whose case has been detailed in a pair of columns by Bob Herbert, was detained at Kennedy Airport in 2002 while on his way home from a family vacation. He was held in solitary confinement in a Brooklyn detention center and interrogated without proper access to legal counsel. Finally, he was shipped off to a Syrian prison. There, he was held for 10 months in an underground rat-infested dungeon and brutally tortured because officials suspected that he was a member of Al Qaeda. All this was part of a morally and legally unsupportable United States practice known as "extraordinary rendition," in which the federal government outsources interrogations to regimes known to use torture and lacking fundamental human rights protections.
The key to this case, and one I am sorry to see the New York Times overlook, is that Mr. Arar is not a US citizen. He has no legal rights to protect him. And for them to bring up rendition flights is foolish; President Clinton also ran rendition flights, and those went completely unchallenged by press or courts.
The maltreatment of Mr. Arar would be reprehensible — and illegal under the United States Constitution and applicable treaties — even had the suspicions of terrorist involvement proven true. But no link to any terrorist organization or activity emerged, which is why the Syrians eventually released him. Mr. Arar then sued for damages.
Just a moment here. Is the New York times actually arguing on behalf of our enemy. Read the italicized, bolded statement above. This is reprehensible as far as I am concerned by a press outlet in the United States while the nation is at war. Who out there believes that if such an attempt was made during World War II that there would not have been outrage from the public? Arguing on behalf of the enemy is a clear sign that that person or group is not to be trusted. Of course, the press has not been trusted except by sheeple for quite some time. This really is no surprise, but it is blatant enough for people to see; see, that is, that a media outlet seems to be voicing support of legal protections for the enemy. Yes, Mr. Arar was found not to have any connections to al Qaeda. However, he is still not an American citizen, therefore having no rights, and should not have the right to sue this nation. It was a mistake. We are sorry, but in this day and age--where our enemy likes to blend in with the populace until they strike--I can understand why we moved the way we did.
The judge in the case, David Trager of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, did not dispute that United States officials had reason to know that Mr. Arar faced a likelihood of torture in Syria. But he took the rare step of blocking the lawsuit entirely, saying that the use of torture in rendition cases is a foreign policy question not appropriate for court review, and that going forward would mean disclosing state secrets.
It is hard to see why resolving Mr. Arar's case would necessitate the revelation of privileged material. Moreover, as the Supreme Court made clear in a pair of 2004 decisions rebuking the government for its policies of holding foreign terrorism suspects in an indefinite legal limbo in Guantánamo and elsewhere, even during the war on terror, the government's actions are subject to court review and must adhere to the rule of law.
This is the paragraph in which the times shoots itself in the foot. First off, the two decisions in 2004 (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rasul v. Bush) were indeed in reference to detainees ... at Gitmo. That means those people were caught on the field of battle. The Supreme Court ruled incorrectly on both, in my opinion. However, my opinion does not matter. What the court said does. In Hamdi, as Hamdi was a US citizen, he was entitled to his legal protections under the Constitution. In Rasul, the court ruled that the detainees in Guantanamo Bay had access to the US legal system, and were guaranteed certain leghal protections. Rasul was the grossly inept decision that Mr. Arar's argument is based on. However, Rasul, like Hamdi, had been caught on the field of battle. Not in uniform, not recognized by a commander or a foreign power, he had no protections as a POW. Deemed an illegal combatant--a definition upheld by the Supreme Court in Hamdi; the court did not argue that he had to be held as anything other than an illegal combatant.
With the Bush administration claiming imperial powers to detain, spy on and even torture people, and the Republican Congress stuck largely in enabling mode, the role of judges in checking executive branch excesses becomes all the more crucial. If the courts collapse when confronted with spurious government claims about the needs of national security, so will basic American liberties.
And you just knew they were going to throw the spying charge in. To this day, we still have no solid proof that "torture" is going on abroad. That is not naivete; that is fact. We have only the detainees' word that they have been tortured. As we all know, according to the al Qaeda handbook that detainees are to cry "torture" when they are released. Mr. Arar has done just that. Now, whether that is because he actually was connected to al Qaeda, and it was missed during his interrogation, or that he simply is looking for attention over this will have to be determined by the courts. Furthermore, it will have to be dealt with by the Supreme Court, under Article III provisions ("to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party"). As for his claim he was tortured, let me just say that through tortured logic, I am taking it with a grain of salt; I honestly do not believe him.
As for the implication that the president and the administration are using "imperial powers," the Times has no clue as to what it is talking about. The detainment of combatants has been upheld by the courts as legal. (Yes, they must have some legal protections, which I disagree with entirely, but they still may be detained; an effort to curb their reentry onto the battlefield.) The "spying" is not that in any sense of the NSA intercept program as it is not targeting US citizens. It is targeting international communication, either originating here in the US or abroad, to keep an eye on our enemy. Many of these intercepts directly target foreign nationals here in the United States, which, like Mr. Arar, have no rights as they are not citizens subject to the Constitutional protections that we possess.
In addition, the United States does not engage in torture, nor do we endorse it's use. We have laws on the books against it. We do not do it. However, media outlets like the Times and the Washington Post seem to think that the interrogation we run in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere is "torture." There is no torture involved. I suppose that the Times would prefer we serve these people tea and crumpets, and speak politely and civiliy to these people; they might believe that will loosen some lips. Unfortunately, they do not comprehend the religious zealotry utilized by these people, nor do they understand the harsh conditions these people live under, as it is. Being nice is not going to obtain us the information we need from these people. Getting one's hands dirty, and even getting a tad bit surly, can garner more information for us.
What is pure torture, for citizens, is having to endure the utter stupidity of the Times editorial staff. As is common in the past, and has been pointed out on several occasions by blo9ggers far better than myself, is that the times has no concept of jurisprudence whatsoever. The editorial board should be banned from discussing such things unless they have a lawyer look over it to correct the mistakes stated.
Of course with such editorial control over them on such subjects, the Times would not have an editorial to print. The lawyer would laugh himself/herself silly at the ignorance of the staff.
Bunny ;)
...is because they stink as lawyers. And the New York Times makes no exception in today's editorial.
The administration's tendency to dodge accountability for lawless actions by resorting to secrecy and claims of national security is on sharp display in the case of a Syrian-born Canadian, Maher Arar, who spent months under torture because of United States action. A federal trial judge in Brooklyn has refused to stand up to the executive branch, in a decision that is both chilling and ripe for prompt overturning.
Mr. Arar, a 35-year-old software engineer whose case has been detailed in a pair of columns by Bob Herbert, was detained at Kennedy Airport in 2002 while on his way home from a family vacation. He was held in solitary confinement in a Brooklyn detention center and interrogated without proper access to legal counsel. Finally, he was shipped off to a Syrian prison. There, he was held for 10 months in an underground rat-infested dungeon and brutally tortured because officials suspected that he was a member of Al Qaeda. All this was part of a morally and legally unsupportable United States practice known as "extraordinary rendition," in which the federal government outsources interrogations to regimes known to use torture and lacking fundamental human rights protections.
The key to this case, and one I am sorry to see the New York Times overlook, is that Mr. Arar is not a US citizen. He has no legal rights to protect him. And for them to bring up rendition flights is foolish; President Clinton also ran rendition flights, and those went completely unchallenged by press or courts.
The maltreatment of Mr. Arar would be reprehensible — and illegal under the United States Constitution and applicable treaties — even had the suspicions of terrorist involvement proven true. But no link to any terrorist organization or activity emerged, which is why the Syrians eventually released him. Mr. Arar then sued for damages.
Just a moment here. Is the New York times actually arguing on behalf of our enemy. Read the italicized, bolded statement above. This is reprehensible as far as I am concerned by a press outlet in the United States while the nation is at war. Who out there believes that if such an attempt was made during World War II that there would not have been outrage from the public? Arguing on behalf of the enemy is a clear sign that that person or group is not to be trusted. Of course, the press has not been trusted except by sheeple for quite some time. This really is no surprise, but it is blatant enough for people to see; see, that is, that a media outlet seems to be voicing support of legal protections for the enemy. Yes, Mr. Arar was found not to have any connections to al Qaeda. However, he is still not an American citizen, therefore having no rights, and should not have the right to sue this nation. It was a mistake. We are sorry, but in this day and age--where our enemy likes to blend in with the populace until they strike--I can understand why we moved the way we did.
The judge in the case, David Trager of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, did not dispute that United States officials had reason to know that Mr. Arar faced a likelihood of torture in Syria. But he took the rare step of blocking the lawsuit entirely, saying that the use of torture in rendition cases is a foreign policy question not appropriate for court review, and that going forward would mean disclosing state secrets.
It is hard to see why resolving Mr. Arar's case would necessitate the revelation of privileged material. Moreover, as the Supreme Court made clear in a pair of 2004 decisions rebuking the government for its policies of holding foreign terrorism suspects in an indefinite legal limbo in Guantánamo and elsewhere, even during the war on terror, the government's actions are subject to court review and must adhere to the rule of law.
This is the paragraph in which the times shoots itself in the foot. First off, the two decisions in 2004 (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rasul v. Bush) were indeed in reference to detainees ... at Gitmo. That means those people were caught on the field of battle. The Supreme Court ruled incorrectly on both, in my opinion. However, my opinion does not matter. What the court said does. In Hamdi, as Hamdi was a US citizen, he was entitled to his legal protections under the Constitution. In Rasul, the court ruled that the detainees in Guantanamo Bay had access to the US legal system, and were guaranteed certain leghal protections. Rasul was the grossly inept decision that Mr. Arar's argument is based on. However, Rasul, like Hamdi, had been caught on the field of battle. Not in uniform, not recognized by a commander or a foreign power, he had no protections as a POW. Deemed an illegal combatant--a definition upheld by the Supreme Court in Hamdi; the court did not argue that he had to be held as anything other than an illegal combatant.
With the Bush administration claiming imperial powers to detain, spy on and even torture people, and the Republican Congress stuck largely in enabling mode, the role of judges in checking executive branch excesses becomes all the more crucial. If the courts collapse when confronted with spurious government claims about the needs of national security, so will basic American liberties.
And you just knew they were going to throw the spying charge in. To this day, we still have no solid proof that "torture" is going on abroad. That is not naivete; that is fact. We have only the detainees' word that they have been tortured. As we all know, according to the al Qaeda handbook that detainees are to cry "torture" when they are released. Mr. Arar has done just that. Now, whether that is because he actually was connected to al Qaeda, and it was missed during his interrogation, or that he simply is looking for attention over this will have to be determined by the courts. Furthermore, it will have to be dealt with by the Supreme Court, under Article III provisions ("to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party"). As for his claim he was tortured, let me just say that through tortured logic, I am taking it with a grain of salt; I honestly do not believe him.
As for the implication that the president and the administration are using "imperial powers," the Times has no clue as to what it is talking about. The detainment of combatants has been upheld by the courts as legal. (Yes, they must have some legal protections, which I disagree with entirely, but they still may be detained; an effort to curb their reentry onto the battlefield.) The "spying" is not that in any sense of the NSA intercept program as it is not targeting US citizens. It is targeting international communication, either originating here in the US or abroad, to keep an eye on our enemy. Many of these intercepts directly target foreign nationals here in the United States, which, like Mr. Arar, have no rights as they are not citizens subject to the Constitutional protections that we possess.
In addition, the United States does not engage in torture, nor do we endorse it's use. We have laws on the books against it. We do not do it. However, media outlets like the Times and the Washington Post seem to think that the interrogation we run in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere is "torture." There is no torture involved. I suppose that the Times would prefer we serve these people tea and crumpets, and speak politely and civiliy to these people; they might believe that will loosen some lips. Unfortunately, they do not comprehend the religious zealotry utilized by these people, nor do they understand the harsh conditions these people live under, as it is. Being nice is not going to obtain us the information we need from these people. Getting one's hands dirty, and even getting a tad bit surly, can garner more information for us.
What is pure torture, for citizens, is having to endure the utter stupidity of the Times editorial staff. As is common in the past, and has been pointed out on several occasions by blo9ggers far better than myself, is that the times has no concept of jurisprudence whatsoever. The editorial board should be banned from discussing such things unless they have a lawyer look over it to correct the mistakes stated.
Of course with such editorial control over them on such subjects, the Times would not have an editorial to print. The lawyer would laugh himself/herself silly at the ignorance of the staff.
Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home