The Second Circuit Discovers that It Has Ovaries!

Sua sponte and en banc:

In Extremely Rare Occurence Court Moves to Rehear Case of Canadian Rendition Victim Maher Arar | Center for Constitutional Rights: August 14, 2008, New York – The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an extremely rare order that the case of Canadian rendition victim Maher Arar would be heard en banc by all of the active judges on the Second Circuit on December 9, 2008. For the court to issue the order sua sponte, that is, of its own accord without either party submitting papers requesting a rehearing, is even more rare.

“We are very encouraged,” said CCR attorney Maria LaHood. “For the court to take such extraordinary action on its own indicates the importance the judges place on the case and means that Maher may finally see justice in this country.  As the dissenting judge noted, the majority’s opinion gave federal officials the license to ‘violate constitutional rights with virtual impunity.’  Now the court has the opportunity to uphold the law and hold accountable the U.S. officials who sent Maher to be tortured.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) case seeks to hold accountable the high level administration officials responsible for sending Maher Arar to be tortured and interrogated in Syria for a year – a practice known as an extraordinary rendition.  Based on faulty information, Mr. Arar was detained as he was changing planes at JFK airport on his way home to Canada from a family vacation. A Canadian citizen, he pled with officials not to send him to Syria, the country of his birth, because he would be tortured there.

After nearly two weeks in New York, with access to counsel and the court obstructed, he was flown to Jordan on a chartered jet in the middle of the night and taken by land to Syria. Mr. Arar was tortured, interrogated and kept in a 3x6x7-foot underground cell for a year until the Syrian government, finding no connections to terrorism, released him home to Canada.

CCR originally filed the case in the Eastern District of New York in January 2004; the first ruling, in  February 2006, dismissed the case on the grounds that allowing it to proceed would harm national security and foreign relations. CCR appealed the decision, arguing before a three-judge panel in November 2007, but the Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision in June 2008 along similar lines...

Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach Richard Cheney. Do it now.

Comments

[Roger Bigod]

Perhaps the Ninth Circuit could sua sponte inquire into the accountability of state officials in employing a war criminal at a well-known law (or what's left of the law) school. Such a proceeding might be considered somewhat "activist", but no more so than the Supreme Court's appointing a President.

[Had Enough]

"... the first ruling, in February 2006, dismissed the case on the grounds that allowing it to proceed would harm national security and foreign relations."

We've had an overdose of this kind of thinking.

Fiat justitia, ruat coelum.

[anne]

The gender reference does not impress me in the least, rather the reverse.

[Chris]

"the first ruling, in February 2006, dismissed the case on the grounds that allowing it to proceed would harm national security and foreign relations... the Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision in June 2008 along similar lines"

I'm surprised that the Bush-Cheney Administration can argue that it would harm national security to publicize the fact that the Administration has innocent people held indefinitely (and sent overseas to be tortured), when they (1) brag about doing such things, (2) condemn Democrats for failing to let them do such things, and (3) insist that people admire them for their dedication to American ideals, such as honor, respect for the rule of law, and... BLUCK. I just threw up in my mouth while trying to finish typing that thought.

[More Than Enough]

Exposing corruption and criminal activity would harm corruption and criminal activity.