No Comment — June 16, 2010, 11:44 am

The Justice Department and the Torture of Maher Arar

Yesterday the Supreme Court declined to review the Maher Arar case, leaving in place a reprehensible Second Circuit decision that proclaims the immunity of American government officials even in the face of meticulously documented charges that they consciously took steps resulting in the torture of an innocent human being. Congratulations are in order to the Obama Justice Department—it seems on the verge of establishing the legal proposition that officers of the American executive are free to torture and commit other heinous crimes with complete impunity.

The nation’s greatest attorney general, Robert Jackson, reminded the world in 1946 that “legal responsibility cannot be the least where power is the greatest.” He insisted that no doctrine of state immunity could be invoked by individual government actors to shield them from the consequences of committing certain serious crimes, including torture. In 1946, the Justice Department fully backed him up. That was in an era when the Justice Department counseled the president about his obligations to act consistently with his international treaty commitments. Today, notwithstanding President Obama’s assurances in Oslo, we see only evidence that the Justice Department holds those international commitments, specifically those under the Convention Against Torture, in contempt. That convention requires unequivocally that access be afforded torture victims to seek redress for damages. It also requires, again unequivocally, that a criminal investigation be undertaken into how Maher Arar came to be sent to Syria with a set of questions to be put to him by his torturers.

There are powerful reasons to inspect the conduct of the Justice Department in this case. In his brief to the High Court, acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued (PDF) that allowing the suit to go forward might disclose embarrassing diplomatic dealings. This specious stock argument only serves to highlight a particular sense of vulnerability at the pinnacle of the Bush Justice Department. Indeed, Katyal as much as acknowledged this when he argued that the litigation, if it were to advance, would bring into question “the motives and sincerity of the United States officials who concluded that petitioner could be removed to Syria.” That’s absolutely correct. An immigration hearing officer reviewed the evidence and concluded that Maher Arar would more likely than not be tortured if he were sent to Syria, and that he should therefore not be sent to Syria. This decision was overturned following the intervention of two young political appointees in the office of the Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General himself, Larry D. Thompson, resigned almost immediately after the incident, creating a clear impression that he was disturbed by what had transpired. There is also strong evidence to suggest that the entire process was being monitored and advised by senior figures with the National Security Council—inside the White House.

When an internal investigation was undertaken into these matters by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general, senior Justice Department officials turned cartwheels to block the investigation, refusing even to disclose the identity of the political personnel who were involved in the matter, and later insisting on the redaction of almost the totality of the inspector general’s report. As I noted in my own testimony about the matter before the House Judiciary Committee, this obstruction appears to have been driven by two considerations. First, it is now clear that Justice Department lawyers made false or at least extremely misleading and incomplete statements to the federal courts addressing Maher Arar’s claims, in an ultimately successful effort to bat them down. Second, the decisions taken in the office of the deputy attorney general involve all the prima facie elements of a violation of section 2340A, the Anti-Torture Statute, and were therefore liable to be investigated and prosecuted as felonies. (It’s noteworthy that both of the DHS inspectors general involved in preparing the Maher Arar report agreed openly during the hearing with my conclusion that the evidence at hand crossed the threshold to justify a criminal investigation, and agreed that the locus of the misconduct most likely was at the top of the Justice Department.)

Hence, there is every reason to “question the motives and sincerity” of the senior Justice Department officials involved—because they may well have been engaged in criminal conduct and because they used their authority to thwart the criminal investigation that was essential to resolving the matter. But Katyal’s statement discloses another unseemly aspect of the case: rather than appear in court as an advocate of the law and the values it embraces, the Justice Department appeared as criminal defense counsel on behalf of its own officials. This attitude of unaccountability is the essential continuity between the Obama and Bush Justice Departments. It needs to be recognized for what it is: an elevation of the perks and privileges of government power above the fundamental doctrine of accountability for the exercise of such power.

Throughout this litigation, the Justice Department has attempted to hide behind Canada, insinuating that the case, if allowed to proceed, would embarrass an important ally. But our neighbor to the north offers an instructive example of how a democratic state, conscious of its duties and obligations, deals with embarrassing allegations of torture. Canada has made full disclosure of its missteps, publishing a white paper as thick as two Manhattan telephone directories, issuing a full apology to Maher Arar, and making a payment of roughly $10 million to him in compensation for the damages suffered. Most significantly, even as the Obama Administration was attempting to close the door on the matter, Canadian law-enforcement authorities announced the opening of a criminal probe designed to identify and prosecute the government actors responsible for Arar’s rendition to torture.

The Arar case is thus far from over. Arar is still waiting for an apology from the United States, and he still has his right to compensation. The Obama Administration owes both Arar and the American public a full accounting of what transpired in this case, and it owes Arar a considerable sum of money. The unnamed Justice Department political cowboys who sent Arar to be tortured in Syria need to spend some time in the spotlight, and they need to atone for their misconduct in the way the law demands. This end is called justice, and it’s what the Department of Justice has been working feverishly to subvert.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2017

Destroyer of Worlds

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Crossing Guards

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“I am Here Only for Working”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dear Rose

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Year of The Frog

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dead Ball Situation

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Destroyer of Worlds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February 1947, Harper’s Magazine published Henry L. Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” As secretary of war, Stimson had served as the chief military adviser to President Truman, and recommended the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The terms of his unrepentant apologia, an excerpt of which appears on page 35, are now familiar to us: the risk of a dud made a demonstration too risky; the human cost of a land invasion would be too high; nothing short of the bomb’s awesome lethality would compel Japan to surrender. The bomb was the only option. Seventy years later, we find his reasoning unconvincing. Entirely aside from the destruction of the blasts themselves, the decision thrust the world irrevocably into a high-stakes arms race — in which, as Stimson took care to warn, the technology would proliferate, evolve, and quite possibly lead to the end of modern civilization. The first half of that forecast has long since come to pass, and the second feels as plausible as ever. Increasingly, the atmosphere seems to reflect the anxious days of the Cold War, albeit with more juvenile insults and more colorful threats. Terms once consigned to the history books — “madman theory,” “brinkmanship” — have returned to the news cycle with frightening regularity. In the pages that follow, seven writers and experts survey the current nuclear landscape. Our hope is to call attention to the bomb’s ever-present menace and point our way toward a world in which it finally ceases to exist.

Illustration by Darrel Rees. Source photographs: Kim Jong-un © ITAR-TASS Photo Agency/Alamy Stock Photo; Donald Trump © Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom
Article
Crossing Guards·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Ambassador Bridge arcs over the Detroit River, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, the southernmost city in Canada. Driving in from the Canadian side, where I grew up, is like viewing a panorama of the Motor City’s rise and fall, visible on either side of the bridge’s turquoise steel stanchions. On the right are the tubular glass towers of the Renaissance Center, headquarters of General Motors, and Michigan Central Station, the rail terminal that closed in 1988. On the left is a rusted industrial corridor — fuel tanks, docks, abandoned warehouses. I have taken this route all my life, but one morning this spring, I crossed for the first time in a truck.

Illustration by Richard Mia
Article
“I am Here Only for Working”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

But the exercise of labor is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life. . . . He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.

— Karl Marx

Photograph from the United Arab Emirates by the author. This page: Ruwais Mall
Article
The Year of The Frog·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To look at him, Sweet Macho was a beautiful horse, lean and strong with muscles that twitched beneath his shining black coat. A former racehorse, he carried himself with ceremony, prancing the field behind our house as though it were the winner’s circle. When he approached us that day at the edge of the yard, his eyes shone with what might’ve looked like intelligence but was actually a form of insanity. Not that there was any telling our mother’s boyfriend this — he fancied himself a cowboy.

“Horse 1,” by Nine Francois. Courtesy the artist and AgavePrint, Austin, Texas
Article
Dead Ball Situation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

What We Think About When We Think About Soccer, by Simon Critchley. Penguin Books. 224 pages. $20.

Begin, as Wallace Stevens didn’t quite say, with the idea of it. I so like the idea of Simon Critchley, whose books offer philosophical takes on a variety of subjects: Stevens, David Bowie, suicide, humor, and now football — or soccer, as the US edition has it. (As a matter of principle I shall refer to this sport throughout as football.) “All of us are mysteriously affected by our names,” decides one of Milan Kundera’s characters in Immortality, and I like Critchley because his name would seem to have put him at a vocational disadvantage compared with Martin Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, or even, in the Anglophone world, A. J. Ayer or Richard Rorty. (How different philosophy might look today if someone called Nobby Stiles had been appointed as the Wykeham Professor of Logic.)

Tostão, No. 9, and Pelé, No. 10, celebrate Carlos Alberto’s final goal for Brazil in the World Cup final against Italy on June 21, 1970, Mexico City © Heidtmann/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Chances that an American pediatrician has treated a child for a gunshot wound in the last year:

1 in 6

Researchers found that young teens who witness gun violence are more than twice as likely to commit a violent crime themselves.

Brailsford’s lawyer said Shaver was “not a bad person” but that “his actions” had gotten him killed, referring in part to the defendant’s claim that a hand movement of Shaver’s while he was on his knees made it appear as if he might have been reaching for a weapon in the waistband of his basketball shorts, which at that point had fallen down.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today