02 Nov Arar “Rendition” Suit Dismissed by Second Circuit
Maher Arar, a Canadian who was detained by the U.S. and the subject of an “extraordinary rendition” to Syria, has lost his bid to maintain his lawsuit in U.S. courts. By a 7-4 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, has voted to dismiss his suit against U.S. government officials for alleged violations of his constitutional rights (opinion can be read here). The majority held that it should not create a cause of action for a violation of constitutional rights (a “Bivens” action) due to the “special factors” present in this case. Such special factors include the affect of private suits on the conduct of foreign policy and national security. Instead, the court says that such private causes of action should only be allowed if Congress does so by statute. Essentially, the full court seems to have endorsed the panel appellate opinion and district court opinion in this case on this question. And, although this is a close and agonizing case, I think this is the right call, as I explained when the panel opinion came down and a few years ago in the context of the original district court case back in 2006.
The second and third links are broken.
[…] Opinio Juris colleague Julian Ku comments on the dismissal of the Maher Arar rendition case by the Second Circuit in an en banc decision, 7–4. (Arar is […]
I read about this at Volokh.
The Arar case is revolting to me as an American. It is a national disgrace, and there needs to be some way to compensate Arar and prosecute those responsible for the incident.
If our legal system can’t manage it then it too is a disgrace. “National security and foreign policy.” Pathetic.
It doesn’t seem possible to get a stable link to the decision, because it’s some dynamic URL generated by the search results page. However, you can find it by searching for docket # 06-4216-cv here.
Here’s a stable link: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/535b460b-0d38-471d-8677-1940a30dfff6/1/doc/06-4216-cv_opn2.pdf
[…] JULIAN KU: Arar “Rendition” Suit Dismissed by Second Circuit. […]
re: byomtov, The Canadian government has given Arar about 10 million in a lawsuit settlement
Arar is an interesting individual. Leaving aside the fact of his rendition – which I don’t necessarily agree with – Arar was watched in Canada having meetings with known associates of al-Qaeda. And the FBI testified that when a detainee at Guantanamo was shown a photo of Arar, he not only said he had seen him at training camps in Afghanistan several times, but identified him by name.
Arar received $10 million from an apologetic Canadian government but Canadian investigators on the case have said they are “100% confident” he is affiliated with a terror organization.
This decision seems right as a matter of law but, as I read it, the court is leaving the door open for Arar to state a more detailed claim under the Constitution or under federal law for his treatment while being detained in the U.S. In particular, U.S. officials lied to both him and his attorney in a way that denied him effective representation during removal proceedings. The decision to remove him to Syria — a country he had not lived in for years — rather than to Canada (his country of residence and second citizenship) or Switzerland (his last stop before entering the U.S.) may have been improper and may allow him to explicitly state a claim under the law as well.
The court seems skeptical but hasn’t closed the door on this line of argument altogether.
From Ezra Levant’s blog
Maher Arar is a liar
By Ezra Levant on November 2, 2009 3:24 PM
I see that Maher Arar, the huckster who lied his way into $10.5 million of our tax dollars, has had less luck with the U.S. legal system than he had with ours. A U.S. appeals court threw out his nuisance claim against the U.S. government.
http://ezralevant.com/2009/11/maher-arar-is-a-liar.html
Response…I wonder why, if the Govt ( both Canadian and the US) knew that Arar was involved with terror groups, was he allowed to go free, and then allowed to file nuisance suits.
Julian: Are you against courts hearing this kind of case, or are you just against courts being the first mover (i.e., doing it through a Bivens action rather than through a congressionally created cause of action)? If Congress created the cause of action, would you still find the separation of powers arguments strong enough to support judicial abstention?
All terrorism ‘suspects’ should know by means of a loudly voiced public policy: If you are suspected in any way of having ties to known terrorist groups, individuals or governments, you will be locked up in Gitmo for as long as we want you to be there, no charges, no lawyers and no chance of parole.
Maybe these jihadists would find a better hobby than trying to murder, subvert or terrorize the citizens of the west.
I know it isn’t legal, but I can dream.
Rob,
Your point is not clear to me. Are you saying Canada’s action absolves the US, or the opposite?
Passing the buck to Congress with many key members at the time who were informed of the torture and condoned – what a joke by the Second Circuit! And looking for legislation on this – I can see the ads in the next campaign against any Congressperson who voted for such a law. The Second Circuit is in never never land. However, I hope there is a possibility for cert to be granted and that the Supreme Court grants cert. Then we can see what they are made of at that level. Special factors indeed – US government lawless + sending overseas = Court won’t touch it! What does a guy who gets tortured by the United States have to do to get relief from the United States? We do not prosecute and we play these kinds of separation of power games to block private actions. Rule of law? CYA for the Justice Department looks like for me.
Best,
Ben
Response…
Is your opinion that the US govt. can seize anyone,
subject them to arbitrary mistreatment and there is
no legal remedy? This seems quite contrary to the
principles of the founding fathers. I would like to understand the legal limits here…
@ byomotov,
not necessarily either point, just thought it relevant. Actually when I looked for the number the article I read said that the judge’s conclusion was that the mounties improperly sent “raw intelligence data” to the American authorities so I conclude the ruling against the Canadian government was not really made for legal reasons but because the feeling was something had to be made right.
Nick Patterson: The law is that torture is illegal, and that criminal jurisdiction to prosecute it is universal. Like Yoo, Bybee and so many others, former Asst. A/G Thompson may be well advised to cool his heels in the United States for the rest of his life. (Maybe he can go to a puppet state like Georgia or Iraq, but those tend not to be garden spots).
Response… PLR: Indeed. I’m trying to understand if supporters of the Second Circuit opinion think there are
any restraints at all on executive wrongdoing if there are
“special factors”. I am a US citizen. If the president orders me to be “rendered” and tortured do I have any redress in law? I fear that the answer is no.
PLR – please inform us regarding your special jurisdictional powers re Yoo, Bybee, et al.
Nick Patterson – please inform us regarding all the reasons the US president has to render and torture you.
MakeMineRed
<b>please inform us regarding all the reasons the US president has to render and torture you.</b>
According to this ruling, he doesn’t need any reasons. He just yells “national security,” and that settles it. Indefensible.