Guilty even when proven innocent!

Posted: December 12, 2008 in Arab, Canada, Civil Rights, Middle East, News & Views, Politics, Religion, U.S., War crimes, White House, World News

You’d think we live in Nazi Germany… but this is happening right here (USA), where the claim is that Justice is afforded to all… err.. U.S. Citizens only.. but even that is sometimes limited to some!

Compare that to:

Rule of Law:

Universal Principles of the Rule of Law

The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law;
The laws are clear, publicized, stable and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property;
The process by which the laws are enacted, administered and enforced is accessible, fair and efficient;
The laws are upheld, and access to justice is provided, by competent, independent, and ethical law enforcement officials, attorneys or representatives, and judges who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

IS THERE ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR?


Maher ArarWith the Bush Administration coming to a close, the unanswered question in the war on terror is whether top government officials are responsible for approving or condoning policies that singled out Arab and Muslims in America and abroad for detention, interrogation, and torture.

Since 9/11, victims of the war on terror’s policies have been denied justice due to legal barriers and guilt by association. More than 700 Muslim or Arab men were held in federal custody following the terrorist attacks, and although none were charged with terrorism many were found guilty of immigration offenses.

Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian software engineer, was picked up in September 2002 while in transit at JFK Airport on his way home to Canada from a family trip to Tunisia. He was arrested when his name matched an Al-Qaeda suspect list and was confined for nearly two weeks and given only minimal access to a lawyer and his family. Arar was later deported to Syria in an act of extraordinary rendition by the U.S.

Arar was held in captivity for ten months in Syria, during which he was interrogated and tortured. Upon his release, Arar was never charged with any crime by Canada or the United States. A Canadian commission ultimately found no evidence indicating that Arar had committed any offense or posed a threat to the country, and that it was likely that U.S. detention and rendition of Arar was based on inaccurate information provided by Canadian officials. The Canadian government has since apologized to Arar and awarded him $10 million in compensation, in addition to legal fees.

The U.S. government, however, refuses to clear Arar’s name and has kept his name on a watch list. He has since launched a case, Arar v. Ashcroft, against the United States seeking compensatory damages and claiming that U.S. government violated his constitutional and international human rights, as well as the right to choose a country of removal as guaranteed by the Torture Victims Protection Act. The U.S. government, however, is fighting to keep Arar’s case from being heard.

The latest challenge to the constitutionality of American efforts to deter and detain terrorists in its war on terror is Ashcroft v. Iqbal. This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both sides about whether or not former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller III, among others, should be subject to law suits filed by Arab Muslims who were imprisoned in the U.S. post-9/11 and who say they were targeted for such treatment because of their religion and ethnicity.

Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani television cable installer, was arrested in New York weeks after September 11, 2001 and held in solitary confinement by U.S. authorities for a year. In his case, Iqbal argues that during his detention he was subject to body cavity searches and that his Qur’an was confiscated by prison authorities. Though he was never charged with terrorism offenses, Iqbal was deported to Pakistan after being convicted of document fraud.

Iqbal claims that Ashcroft and Mueller created policies that singled him out as a “high interest” suspect based only on his nationality and religion. A government attorney, however, argued that top government officials carry immunity while carrying out their responsibilities, and that their actions were a “perfectly lawful law enforcement response to the 9/11 attacks.” If Ashcroft and Mueller are dismissed from the suit, Iqbal could proceed with his claims against lower-level officials — prison guards, FBI agents, and the prison warden — also named in the suit.

Such cases of harsh interrogation techniques and indefinite detention are among many within the Muslim and Arab communities domestically and abroad. The policies which allowed for Muslim and Arab men to be held in detention until they were somehow cleared contradicts the fundamental American principle of due process. In the spirit of looking forward, the incoming administration must reassess the harsh policies enacted after 9/11 which allowed for indefinite detention based on factors such as ethnicity and country of origin.

Source: MPAC

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Malik says:

    Fear of muslims after 9/11 is turning our good old USA into a Devil that Iran always suspected it was. Soon, everyone will be saying “Death to America”.

  2. […] bookmarks tagged innocent Guilty even when proven innocent! « Attending the… saved by 1 others     omayinoblivion bookmarked on 12/14/08 | […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s