What a crock of Horse Shit

[TotallyOz]

There have been recent discussions regarding laptop seizures and searches when returning to the USA from Thailand. This is done quite often. I read the recent court report regarding a man flying to Canada from Switzerland and was detained in NYC for several days and then sent to Syria where he says he was tortured. The court ruled that he had no standing as he was NEVER officially in the USA. Thus, for those who complain that their laptops were searched and that they are law abiding citizens of the USA, can now say that this did not happen in the USA and thus no privacy issues exist. IMHO this is just a load of horse shit.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/world/am...amp;oref=slogin

 

By ALAN FEUER

Published: July 1, 2008

A federal appeals court on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Syrian-born Canadian man who had accused the United States of violating the law and his civil rights after he was detained at Kennedy Airport and sent to Syria under what he claims was an act of “extraordinary rendition.”

 

The man, Maher Arar, tried to win civil damages from United States officials in his suit, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York ruled that because he was never technically inside the United States, his claims could not be heard in the federal courts.

 

While stating that “threats to the nation’s security do not allow us to jettison principles of ‘simple justice and fair dealing,’ ” the majority opinion ruled nonetheless that Mr. Arar, who had been seized as he tried to change planes at Kennedy Airport while flying back to Canada from Switzerland, had no federal standing in his case and that the government did not violate the Torture Victim Protection Act by sending him abroad.

 

Mr. Arar, a telecommunications engineer, was detained at the airport in September 2002 when immigration officers found his name on a terrorist watch list. After being held for several days in New York, he was sent to Jordan by immigration officers and turned over to Syrian intelligence, which, he claims, tortured him.

 

In an occasionally scathing dissent, one judge, Robert D. Sack, said Mr. Arar’s suit should have been able to proceed because the argument that he was never really in the United States was “a legal fiction.”

 

“Arar was, in effect, abducted while attempting to transit at J.F.K. Airport,” Judge Sack wrote.

[Gaybutton]

On the face of it, the whole thing seems like a horrendous miscarriage of justice to me. I would like more details, though, before forming my own opinion. Two things in favor of the USA position, as I see it, are the fact that the USA officials who sent him on to Jordan had no way of knowing he would then be turned over to Syria and end up tortured, if indeed that really happened. Also, nothing in the article specifies the reasons why he was sent on to Jordan and why the Jordanian officials turned him over to Syria.

 

If he was tortured in Syria, why? What did the Syrian officials want from him? Why did they torture him? What had he done or was suspected of having done? Why did they eventually release him? How did he hire an American lawyer to represent him? Wouldn't he have had to enter the USA to do that? If yes, then why would he be detained and sent to Jordan in one instance, and then allowed to enter the USA later?

 

I'm no lawyer, but my personal logic tells me that if he was technically not on US soil, then how can it be justified that he was seized by US officials while in transit? Also, since he was held for several days, wasn't he held on US soil? Wasn't he on US soil when the actual decision was made to send him to Jordan?

 

What bothers me is not so much that a decision was made to send him back to Jordan, but the fact that the US courts ruled that they won't even hear the case.

 

Again, I'm no lawyer. If anyone reading this happens to be a lawyer, I would like to know your opinion. Do you agree with the court's ruling?

 

This whole thing is now on my "I Don't Get It" list.

[Guest]

I'm no lawyer, but my personal logic tells me that if he was technically not on US soil, then how can it be justified that he was seized by US officials while in transit? Also, since he was held for several days, wasn't he held on US soil? Wasn't he on US soil when the actual decision was made to send him to Jordan?

 

I don't get it either. He was a passenger on a plane in transit and was at JFK airport in NYC. I have been to NYC and it is on US soil. He was detained and kept in containment for a few days. For me, anything beyond a few hours and he is on American Soil even if in the immigration hall. Our agency officials held him at a detainment center. IMHO that means he was on US Soil. If not, then every time we go back into the USA we are not on US soil until after we enter past customs and we lose all rights as citizens. Oh, Wait, that is what has happened in the USA the past few years. We have lost our rights when we enter as they have the right to search our computers and cameras and phones just because we visited Thailand. To me, it is a violation of his rights and he should have been given the ability to sue.

[Gaybutton]

"I love America. I love all the rights and freedom we used to have." - George Carlin (RIP)

[Smiles]

Mr Arar, a Canadian citizen, was awarded (sometime in the last 12 months if I recall, and after a full inquiry) 10.5 million dollars by the Canadian government for his encarceration, torture, mental suffering etc etc in Syria after being handed over to them ~ in secret ~ by the US government. I believe he is currently suing the US government.

 

His story, and probably many others, is the dirty little secret (one of them anyway) left over from the paranoid and mindnumbing over-reactions brought on in the US by the 2001 WTC terrorist attacks. Probably on going.

 

After writing the above I found a very recent article (June 30) which indicates that Mr Arar's lawsuit against the US gov't has been turned down in court (with the good old When-in-Doubt "Citing national security" card given as reason): http://www.alternet.org/rights/90052/?ses=...d4a39cb6f21d3d7 As it is a case just ruled on in the last day or so there is no mention of what Mr Arar may do in the future.

 

Maher Arar's Story in Brief:

 

"Maher Arar is a 34-year-old wireless technology consultant. He was born in Syria and came to Canada with his family at the age of 17. He became a Canadian citizen in 1991. On Sept. 26, 2002, while in transit in New York’s JFK airport when returning home from a vacation, Arar was detained by US officials and interrogated about alleged links to al-Qaeda. Twelve days later, he was chained, shackled and flown to Syria, where he was held in a tiny “grave-like” cell for ten months and ten days before he was moved to a better cell in a different prison. In Syria, he was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession.

 

During his imprisonment, Arar's wife, Monia Mazigh, campaigned relentlessly on his behalf until he was returned to Canada in October 2003. On Jan. 28, 2004, under pressure from Canadian human rights organizations and a growing number of citizens, the Government of Canada announced a Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar.

 

On September 18, 2006, the Commissioner of the (Canadian) Inquiry, Justice Dennis O'Connor, cleared Arar of all terrorism allegations, stating he was "able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada." To read the Commissioner's report, including his findings on the actions of Canadian officials, please visit the Arar Commission's website or click here:" http://www.maherarar.ca/

 

Cheers ...

[fedssocr]

This thread was started with the story of his lawsuit being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

 

He was sent by the US to Jordan because the CIA intended for him to end up in Syria to be tortured on the behalf of the US gov't. Any other day of course we would be all up in arms about how the Syrians are state sponsors of terrorism. But I suppose when they are supporting the terrorism of the USA it is OK to do it. The technicality in this case I suppose is that altho he was in the airport he was always "airside" and never officially entered the country through our immigration department. I think some one made a movie about this sort of situation recently. Airports are a sort of limbo legally with respect to these sorts of issues.

 

I'm not sure why the Canadian government paid him damages rather than the criminals who run this country.

 

The USA used the be a beacon of freedom. Now we are a global disgrace.

[Bob]

The problem with newspaper articles like this (and most others) is there simply isn't enough information there to really know what happened or to truly come to a decent opinion about all of it. And that's even presuming that the author has a real clue as to what the issue is all about or was aware of the importance of particular details he may have heard but misunderstood (or, more likely, omitted from the article).

 

I would note that there is actually a legal question as to whether the person was ever in the United States (from a legal fiction point of view). There are some historical treaties and understandings involving persons in international transit. If you leave the international area at JFK, you're definitely on US soil; if you don't, you may not be in the US for some purposes.

 

 

[Gaybutton]

If you leave the international area at JFK, you're definitely on US soil; if you don't, you may not be in the US for some purposes.

 

But he did leave the international area. It wasn't voluntary, but he left. I suppose leaving in chains, by force of gunpoint, constitutes leaving the international area.

 

Again, solely on the face of the article, it makes about as much sense to me as saying something like, "The 'Flying Farang' wasn't killed because he jumped off the roof at Center Condo. He was killed because he hit the ground."

[fedssocr]

Are you sure he passed thru immigration? if he was flying in and out of the same terminal there would be no need for him to do so on his own. Typically the immigration jails are in the no man's land area. The people they lock up there have not legally entered the country. I suspect they put him in a cell at the airport immigration jail, then a few days later bundled him onto US gov't airplane to fly to Jordan. So he would not have entered the country.

[Bob]

I just read most of the Arar v United States decision and can at least tell you that your head will spin and almost burst trying to wade through all that legal jargon and analysis.

 

While I won't defend much of what the US government does, it's clear from the facts pleaded by both Arar and the government that he was detained at the request of the Canadian government. The Canadian government had given his name to the US as a member of Al Queda and asked that his name be placed on the watch list.

 

He was at JFK in the international area when he was located (going from Zurich to Canada with a stop-over at JFK). He was neither seeking nor ever granted permission to enter the US and, given that, even though he was physically taken from New York to Washington to be flown to the middle east, he was considered to be never legally in the US (not an untypical decision and that type of theory is somewhat followed by many countries). For example only, an illegal Mexican immigrant in found in the US has no right to proceed in a regular federal court as he isn't here legally and Congress has enacted statutes that gives INS exclusive authority over illegals found within the US.

 

His basic complaint is that the US violated his Fifth Amendment (due process) rights by sending him to Syria (actually, it appears he was turned over to Jordanian authorities who then shipped him to the Syrian bad guys). The basic problem with that theory is that he isn't a US citizen (the Fifth Amendment rights don't apply to non-US citizens) and he wasn't even legally in the US in any event.

Complicated set of facts and even more complicated set of legal precedent, immigration statutes, and treaties.

 

If you really want to hurt your brain, google and read the entire file (Azur v United States).

[Smiles]

" ... While I won't defend much of what the US government does, it's clear from the facts pleaded by both Arar and the government that he was detained at the request of the Canadian government. The Canadian government had given his name to the US as a member of Al Queda and asked that his name be placed on the watch list. ... "

That's correct Bob ... and that's why he was awarded the 10.5 million.

 

But in the beginning it wasn't the government (as in elected reps, ministers, or Prime Minister) who gave information to the FBI (CIA? Homeland Security?), it was our own secret service/RCMP, acting alone (at the time ... although they were sooner or later supported in the secrecy by a cabinet minister, mainly by him ignoring the evidence for a long time that "something has happened".

 

During the Canadian inquiry all this shit came out and it became obvious that arms of the Canadian government had treated one of it's own citizens very badly indeed, and very much against our own constitution. Subsequently he was awarded the money.

 

Cheers ...

 

[Gaybutton]

it became obvious that arms of the Canadian government had treated one of it's own citizens very badly indeed

 

Obviously he was treated badly, but the one question still on my mind is why? What had he done? Why was he on the shit list?

[Bob]

Obviously he was treated badly, but the one question still on my mind is why? What had he done? Why was he on the shit list?

 

There was nothing in the voluminous court papers (the US case) which gave a clue as to why the Canadians reported the guy to the US as a member of Al Queda. So, you'd have to ask the Canadians (and my guess is they had no good reason to say that as they paid a lot of money in reparations for doing so). My guess is we (the US) would automatically trust the information given by the Canadians and most likely the INS did nothing to verify or un-verify the info.

I'd also guess that the "watch list" includes hundreds of thousands of names and we probably would all be appalled at the quality (lack thereof) of the sources calling somebody a terrorist; on the other hand, I'm doubtful even the US government people have the brains, time, or money to check out all the names and, given the names given are usually of non-US citizens, probably don't care one way or the other.

I'd personally question whether all the billions spent on the inconvenience of "airline safety" and other homeland security measures have really prevented anything (of course, the neocons would say that the fact no further attacks have occurred proves it works).

 

[mahjongguy]

As an aside to this topic, it should be noted that the US no longer has any transit airports. Even prior to 9/11 there were only a handful. JFK was one of them, but other major gateways that you might expect (e.g. SFO) had never been set up for international transit.

 

This incident seems to have occurred before JFK was converted to a non-transit arrangement, but I do think it would be relevant to know whether he was detained within or without the transit area.

 

Today, for travelers who wish to transit the US, it is a serious issue. Consider the difficulty of getting from Bangkok to Puereto Vallarta with a Thai companion. It's mighty difficult to avoid routing through SFO or LAX, but your friend would need a US tourist visa just to change planes.

 

Also, I have a friend from Indonesia whose has a common Muslim name. He has a long-time US tourist visa but every time he passes through SFO on the way to his home in Vancouver he gets hassled at Immigration. Then gets his bags torn apart by Customs. Average 3 hours. So he has to schedule a later connecting flight to allow the extra time.

[Guest GaySacGuy]

Today, for travelers who wish to transit the US, it is a serious issue. Consider the difficulty of getting from Bangkok to Puereto Vallarta with a Thai companion. It's mighty difficult to avoid routing through SFO or LAX, but your friend would need a US tourist visa just to change planes.

 

I have looked into the ways that I might take my bf to Mexico for a vacation. The only way I found was Japan Airlines. You would fly from here to Japan, to Vancouver Canada (I have been unable to confirm that Vancouver has a International transit area, but have been told it does) and then to Mexico City. It is several hundred dollars more than the cheap flights you find on some websites, but it isn't too unreasonable. If there is another way without an America visa, I would like to know!!

[atri1666]

Why not fly over europe? All big airports there have transit areas and there is no need of visum

[Gaybutton]

As an aside to this topic, it should be noted that the US no longer has any transit airports.

 

I don't think that's an aside. I think it's a major issue. I didn't know that. I had no idea that a person who has no intention of entering the USA has to do so, technically, anyway just to change planes, even when the plane on which he arrived came from another country and his destination is another country. What happens if the arrival plane is also the destination plane, and there is no need to change planes?

 

Do other countries operate like this? For example, when I would come to Thailand from the USA, I clearly recall having to go through an inspection of carry-on luggage in Japan, for a second time, and having my passport checked at the departure gate. I guess essentially that's the same thing, since somebody is checking, but you don't have to clear customs or passport control.

 

Personally, I think all these rigid checks and controls have gone way over the top. When I returned to Thailand from the USA just a few months ago, they confiscated a tube of toothpaste, for crying out loud. A tube of toothpaste! What did they think I could be hiding in it, Dirty Harry's .44 magnum? They said a smaller tube would be permissible in carry-on luggage, but not the size I was carrying. I even asked if I could squeeze a little out into a small container so I could at least brush my teeth en route. Of course, the answer was no.

 

These days you are lucky if you can travel by air at all. No liquids. Take off your shoes. No, you can't have this or that in your carry-on luggage. Stand over there for a pat-down. Tell us about everything you've done and everyone you've ever met since birth. We're going to start charging for carry-on. You have a camera? A flash disk? Give it here. We're going to check it. Aha, you have a computer. We're going to check it to make sure you don't have any porn or plans for building a neutron bomb. Well, now we're going to keep your computer, but don't worry, you'll get it back a few days before it becomes totally obsolete. Hey, are those pirated DVDs you've got there? What's that, a mobile phone? Any porn on it? Is that Bin Laden's phone number on your speed dial list? Tickets are getting so expensive that you can hardly afford to travel by air anyway. Ok, you're clear. Now go on board, strap yourself into a seat that's half the size you are, get some sleep in a seat that reclines just enough so that you're not quite completely upright anyway, and enjoy a dinner consisting of the most miserable excuse for food since your gourmet dinner at Al's Greasy Spoon and Car Wash.

 

What fun.

[Guest fountainhall]

As an aside to this topic, it should be noted that the US no longer has any transit airports. Even prior to 9/11 there were only a handful.

 

I found this out the hard way a few years ago. I was flying from Tokyo to Vancouver on a round the world ticket. That meant either taking Cathay Pacific, backtracking and transiting in Hong Kong, or American to Dallas, transiting and backtracking from there. Both trips add 10 hours to the total travel time! Stupidly I chose American without realising this meant having to enter the US in Dallas - all those huge Immigration queues - and exit again to make the connection. Neither American nor my travel agent had warned me of this. Thankfully my passport allowed this, or I'd have had a nasty shock on checking in at Narita.

 

I have been unable to confirm that Vancouver has a International transit area, but have been told it does

 

Best to check this. My only experience was a Hong Kong/JFK flight last November with a short same-plane stop in Vancouver. Only passengers with automatic entry to Canada or Candian transit visas were permitted on the flight. Then on arrival in Vancouver, we had to get off the plane, were ushered into a locked gate area and unable to get out into the actual airport! It was a dismal experience.

 

Is that Bin Laden's phone number on your speed dial list?

 

I doubt if that would worry them as much as your potentially lethal tube of toothpaste! That said, years ago I was once stopped and my bags searched on entry into the UK. When asked why they were sampling my toothpaste (yuk!), I was told - confidentially, of course! - that I had a lot of Thailand stamps in my pasport and they had to check for drugs!!

 

Do other countries operate like this?

 

Not to my knowledge. Mind you, the US is a law unto itself and its whole airport infrastructure system sucks!

[Guest fountainhall]

Any porn on it?

 

Just as an aside (really!) - but with a couple of serious points at the end.

 

In New York 3 years ago, I had a few hours to kill before a flight to LAX. So I popped down to the Village and bought 4 Asian DVDs. Back at the hotel, since my suitcase was locked, without thinking I popped them into my carry-on trolley bag. At JFK the flight was delayed by around 4 hours. Eventually proceeding through the security check, I was singled out for special screening, with the result that the overlarge lady who went through everything in my bag found the DVDs. Each was examined closely and then placed face up on a table along with other items in the bag for all the world to see. After a very long and embarrassing 5 minutes, I was told to pack up and proceed to the gate.

 

Finally on board, I heard my name called. I summoned the flight attendant who asked me to take my luggage and proceed to the front of the plane. Naively I thought I was in for an upgrade. Not at all. There at the entrance were 2 of the airline's cops. Would I please accompany them off the plane with my luggage, I was asked. Back in the gate area, they explained there had been a complaint about my luggage and I would need to have it rechecked. Clearly embarrassed, they apologised profusely but said it was an FAA matter. So we waited . . and waited . . all the time the plane standing by to take off on its very delayed departure.

 

Finally, this same grossly overweight security lady came waddling towards us. She pointed to my trolley bag which I duly opened. She then took out the DVDs. "It's them" she said. The 2 airline cops exploded. "Do you mean to say you have held up this flight just because of a few personal items? This is ridiculous. Go back to your station and do your job properly!".

 

Whereupon they helped me repack my bag, heaped further apologies and asked for my full name and address "so the head of the airline could apologise personally to me." More concerned about getting to LAX in time for what would now be a very late dinner, I said enough time had been wasted and I'd rather just get back on to the plane so it could depart. With further apologies, I sped down the air bridge and back to my seat. Once there, the chief flight attendant offered yet more apologies and offered me a bottle of champagne "compliments of the airline" - although no upgrade alas!

 

The whole episode eventually seemed more of a joke than an embarrassment. But with all the talk on other threads on this board about porn being confiscated at airports etc., I wonder why my DVDs were not? And why was the airline so profuse in its apologies? Could it be that once in the USA, regular porn (as opposed to child porn) is a personal matter? And as such, putting me through that ordeal was an infringement of some personal rights under the US constitution?