Rendition Case Dismissed

[Rose Siding]

Judge dismisses Canadian deportation suit

NEW YORK -- A federal judge has tossed out a civil rights lawsuit filed by a Syrian-born Canadian man who claimed U.S. counterterrorism officials deported him so he could be tortured in Syria.

Maher Arar had sued the officials in 2004 in what was believed to be the first case challenging extraordinary rendition - the policy of transferring foreign terror suspects to third countries without court approval.
...
Citing "the national security and foreign policy considerations at stake," the judge said Arar had no grounds in a U.S. court to claim his constitutional right to due process was violated.
...
Attorneys for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the lawsuit on Arar's behalf, said the ruling set a disturbing precedent.

"To allow the Bush administration to evade accountability and continue to hide behind a smoke screen of 'national security' is to do grave and irreparable damage to the Constitution and the guarantee of human rights that people in this country could once be proud of," attorney Maria LaHood said.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Extraordinary_Rendition.html

[Boo Boo]

1. This is downright bizarre. It's clear that U.S. law was violated.

National security "concerns" do not justify arresting a Canadian man for no valid reason and delivering him to a 3rd country to be tortured (what other reason would they have for sending him to Syria?). This decision sure as hell does set a disturbing precedent. The government can violate the law with impunity by simply claiming "national security concerns" whether or not those concerns were even legitimate.

The real problem here is that this guy even had to sue the government. Clearly, as the Senate rubber stamped the nomination of Gonzales in spite of it being transparently obvious that he would not uphold U.S. law with regards to the torture act, the law is in fact worthless.