National Security vs Justice

War on Terror

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Maher Arar’s claim to have his day in Federal Court against the United States Government. Citing issues of National Security, and of some other legal gobbledygook, they rejected his lawsuit, by a 2 to 1 margin.  Now keep in mind, that this is a man who was seized, held valid citizenship in Canada, that was deported in secret to Syria, where he was tortured.

But the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, affirming a lower court decision, ruled two to one Monday that Arar’s claims that it was a violation of due process to send him to Syria could not be heard in federal court.

“Arar has not adequately established federal subject matter jurisdiction over his request for a judgment declaring that defendants acted illegally by removing him to Syria so that Syrian authorities could interrogate him under torture,” Reuters reported the ruling as saying.

The court concluded that adjudicating the claims would interfere with sensitive matters of foreign policy and national security. It also said that Arar, as a foreigner who had not been formally admitted to the U.S., had no constitutional due process rights. (source - CBC News)

It is unbelievable at how much National Security is more important than the very principles of what founded the United States. Makes you start to wonder about the stories too, like the Boston Tea Party or the claim by Adams to give him LIberty or Death. I mean the entire American Revolution is based on unfair taxation, representation, from England. It is based, according to American History, that the colonies revolted due to the high handed actions of the British Crown. Things like adding tax to tea, or in insisting that local citizens house British Troops.

Yet somehow, it is okay for them, 200 odd years later, to seize a foreign national in an airport, hold him in jail, try him as being a terrorist, then by judicial order, deport him not to his country or origin, but to the country where he was born. So just what did those colonists really revolt against? Was it the taxes, the heavy hand of a foreign government, or was it perhaps something else?

The actions of the United States Government these days, makes you wonder about those so called guiding principles that were the founding blocks of the United States. You know, the Bill of Rights, and that other little paper, called the US Constitution. Like to begin with, how can the Court claim that Arar isn’t entitled to protection under those documents, but that the Government can hide behind them? How can they claim he has ‘No Standing‘ because he wasn’t formally allowed into the country?

I mean that part is true, he was ‘In Transit’ which makes you wonder. What country then does hold jurisdiction over someone in transit? If not the United States, or the country that you are waiting in, then who? Plus if you aren’t in control, then how can you legally seize anyone in transit? How can you take them away, and then charge them under your laws, if they aren’t able to secure proper council?

If the Government can do what it wishes, at will, without having to be accountable before a Court, how can that Government even think of claiming to be Democratic? How can it claim that its fight against anyone, Insurgent or Terrorist, is legitimate if it won’t follow its own rules of law, for anyone in their jurisdiction?  That isn’t Democracy in my mind, but sheer DICTATORSHIP.

And yet this is the Government that Stephen Harper says we need to have good relations with, to be friendly with. It was part of his election campaign, to bring about friendlier relations with the United States. I don’t know, with friends like that, who needs enemies?

What the United States has done in the matter of Arar, is no different than what the Nazi’s did in the early 1930’s. Is that what the United States wishes to be noted as, in history? As just one more blight in the era of mankind?

Ian @ July 1, 2008