Forums | MacLife

There's 11 judges sitting on one case ?

radarman wrote:

In this case, the judges were correct. Arar did not have standing to sue the US, as he is not a citizen. I believe only citizens are allowed to petition to sue the government.

That's not what the ruling states, is it?

And I've never heard before that "only citizens" can sue the government.

Also, in case anyone was wondering, it's not like he didn't make out like a bandit over this. The Canadian government gave him $10m for his trouble. He should take his winnings, and retire to a tropical island where he can spend the rest of his life on a beach drinking tasty beverages out of coconut shells.

That's completely irrelevant the the situation.

I read (most of) the ruling, and it pretty much sounds like the court is saying no, he does not having standing to sue. They later point out that Congress can amend the law to give him standing to sue.

I will add, the court specifically said that he couldn't sue the US for what happened in Syria. He's SOL on that one, since the US wasn't the responsible part during his incarceration there. He only has standing to sue over the time he was detained in the US - which amounts to 12 days.

Since he apparently wasn't tortured in New York by Federal officials, there isn't a case there either. The court does allow him to re-plead, but unless he has something to add, he's pretty much SOL on this issue as well.

So my point stands. He should take his $10m, retire, and forget the whole mess.

Last edited by radarman (2009-11-03 11:10 am)

Argh. Reading this stuff is tedious.

I finally got to the part where the Government states that national security could be compromised. In all, though; I still find myself agreeing with the court.

Arar is not a US citizen, he is, though dual-citizenship, a Syrian and Canadian citizen. Canada tipped of the US about Arar, if mistakenly, setting about the events in question. The US questioned him for a comparatively brief time, and returned him to one of the countries he claims citizenship in - namely, Syria.

Thus, he has every right to sue Syria over the matter.

As for the national security issue, the fact is; there are sensitive topics that could undermine US interests if they were revealed. Given that Arar is not a US citizen, it seems perfectly reasonable to prefer US security interests over the civil rights interests of a non-citizen.

These renditions were an awful black mark on our nation, and we should demand Congress eliminate them, but at this point; the damage is done. There is no on-going damage, as there might be with Gitmo detainees. Arar is already free of custody. I fail to see why his case should be elevated above legitimate national security issues at this point.

"[P]roviding a damages remedy against senior officials who implement an extraordinary rendition policy would enmesh the courts ineluctably in an assessment of the validity of the rationale of that policy and its implementation in this particular case, matters that directly affect significant diplomatic and national security concerns."

No wonder conservatards support torture.  The average level of literacy in the South is not nearly high enough to parse through that sentence.  Makes it much easier to turn to Hannity for answers.

Last edited by Daniel (2009-11-03 7:10 pm)

Well, AFAIK, the USPS probably has insurance for its vehicles. They should cover the damages. If they in turn want to sue the driver or the gubment, that's their call. But that's why most places require drivers to have insurance.

The only reason to sue the government would be if their insurance was inadequate to cover the damages. You can totally sue the government, many people do.

With the issue at hand, I'm more concerned that this is going on in the first place. Even if someone isn't a US citizen, they are a human being. The courts are constrained by what the law says. When they make a controversial ruling, it's usually a signal that the legislative branch needs to fix the law(s) in question. The fact that the government would even be accused of torturing someone is cause for concern.

Last edited by robco (2009-11-03 9:27 pm)

radarman wrote:

The US questioned him for a comparatively brief time, and returned him to one of the countries he claims citizenship in - namely, Syria.

In other words, the US sent him to a country that would torture him for them even though they had to fly him halfway around the world instead of handing him over to a country that isn't stuck in the dark ages.  It's like handing over a naked 5 year old to someone you know is an unrepentant pedophile.