The U.S. wins the right to abduct innocent people with impunity

I am not even remotely surprised at this decision. No surprise at all.

This is the real america.

 

Empire

 

This happened in 2002 . .. Exactly how is this on Obama?

Rocket River

 

If the process isn't ended, he bears responsibility for it continuing.

 

CHANGE - You Can Believe In !!!

 

How so if it is already in the hands of the Supreme Court?

 

Because its still an executive decision. The Supreme Court merely reviews the constitutionality of such an order. That's about it.

 

It'd be better if Congress made torture legal.

Then everyone would realize what bed they're sleeping in.

 

No one in the US cares because he's not a US citizen.

Not saying right or wrong, that's just how it is.

 

The Admin. could choose not to defend it and / or change the policy with an executive order.

 

I read up on it. If all the facts are as described by him, the guy had to go through a terrible ordeal for no reason. Hard to understand why there should be no compensation.

 

maybe the current admin was waiting for the SC to make a decision first, the current admin should now change/release a new exec order

 

Even if Obama ended the practice today that doesn't have any bearing on the Supreme Court decision. Obama can't give the guy back his time nor can he tell the Supreme Court to rule one way or the other.

He can and should end the practice but that still doesn't affect this case.

As for choosing not the defend it, I'm not sure what wider consequences that might have.

 

That is a good point. I suspect that the Obama Admin. would like to know that they have that power even if they don't use it.

I'm still not a fan of the policy and don't agree with the ruling.

 

Did anyone think, in this day and age, that the government (ANY government) doesn't have the right to detain someone? Abduct is a strong word, I would say, but semantics, I guess. Nice jab at Obama, ridiculous. And here we thought everything was Tracy McGrady's fault.

Seriously though, abduct innocent people? I'm sure they didn't do it just to be cruel, and I'm guessing they weren't sure he was innocent when they did it. I'm guessing there was a reason. Perhaps it was the wrong reason, and perhaps they were wrong, but the implication is that they nabbed some guy randomly and slid a hood over his head and put him in a white van or something, knowing all the while beyond a doubt that he had done nothing wrong, and that they were going to send him to be tortured. Of course I would not think that is the case.

The court wasn't ruling on whether the result was right in this case, they were ruling that they have no say in decisions of this nature by the executive branch. That's it. They weren't saying "Yeah, he got what he deserved" or anything like that. I have to assume that the Supreme Court knows what they are talking about better than we do whether they have authority to jack with executive branch mojo.

It's a travesty, to be sure, and I can't say I understand why he was "rendered to Syria"... aside from his being a Syrian citizen (as well as Canadian), so perhaps someone with more details could shed light on that.

The article is awfully opinionated, and the author is obviously emotional about it as he blames, and generalizes, and points fingers. Does this make him wrong? No, but it's far from "sticking to the facts." The title alone is full of implication, and if you skim through it, you might think the US tortured the guy.

Canada apologized and payed the guy $8.5 million. The US did neither, save for some congressman. That sucks. That's the story here. What's done is done, but you can't say that they aren't able to detain people of interest in these days and times, and again without knowing the details of his return to Syria, it's hard to comment on how "wrong" that was.

He's upset that he hasn't gotten an apology and money from the US for what happened to him, but again, they did not torture him. Perhaps they were wrong to send him back to Syria, but there are no details or protocol in the article to argue that, that I see.

Obama could right a wrong here, and apologize to the guy, or even give him (more) money, but every time he does something like that, the Tea Bag Frenzy begins about Obamapologies etc ensue... I can see why apologizing for something that happened under Bush wouldn't be priority number one in this climate and with all that is going on.

 

The headline obscures what actually happened. Basically the SCt denied the petion to hear the appeal of a decision saying that such litigants could not bring a civil suit against the executive branch under (i presume) sovereign immunity doctrine. I can see the argument for giving this guy a settlement and waiving sovereign immunity, but I'm not sure what that would mean for other civil damages suits based on detention/rendition.

 

OH I'm sure it was T-Mac's fault in some way.

I'm sure there were all sorts of reason dissapear the guy which is what they did, thankfully they remembered to reappear him, but that goes against the principle of due process and habeus corpus and the program this guy was taken under, extraordinary rendition, was clearly meant to sidestep those principles.

What you are basically saying is "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide." That obviously this guy had a reason to be under suspicion other wise they wouldn't have hauled him off to Syria in the first place. The implication though of this ruling though is that the government can haul someone off without having to explain their reasoning. I'm not an anti-government radical but that is placing a lot more trust in the government than I am comfortable with.

From what I have seen of the ruling it does appear to be a seperation of powers ruling but I don't agree with that as it is essentially reinforcing the idea of that the Executive Branch is unaccountable. While the courts do differ to the Executive in regard to the national security that doesn't mean there is no check in regard to Executive power. While I respect that the Justices have way way more knowledge than I do I think this ruling ignores the Bill of Rights in favor of seperation of powers which shouldn't be the case.

I agree there is a big political risk in regard to Obama apologizing or the government paying him compensation. I doubt that will happen but this is a case where I wish the Admin. would stand on principle.