Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

More Arar

Here's some general information relating to the Arar case, including a timeline and a discussion of one of the relevant limits on the use of torture. The last two links suggest that it was the Canadians who fingered Arar to the US authorities, although whether they did so a routine matter or in the hopes that the US would do Canada's dirty work is not addressed. The Canadians do say that they never expected Arar to be sent to Syria, and didn't get advance warning of the transfer, although if that was the point of the exercise why would they?

  • Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) Arar timeline
  • Wikipedia Entry
  • Lawyers Committee Urges Investigation Into US Actions in Syrian Torture Case (Nov. 7, 2003), which says,

    Article 3 of the Convention on Torture, to which the United States is a party, states:

    No State Party shall expel, return ('refouler') or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture…. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

    U.S. treaty obligations and policy have been implemented through regulations issued by the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department, that codify the United States' commitment not to send individuals to another country where they are likely to be tortured. Among other protections, these binding regulations require that individuals facing deportation or extradition be given an opportunity to be heard on the likelihood of torture in the country to which they are facing return. The Arar case suggests that either those procedures are not being followed, or that they are inadequate.

  • Ottawa asks U.S. for explanation of Arar case, but turns down public inquiry (Nov. 5, 2003)
  • Joseph Reagle, You Might Know a Terrorist, and Pay For It
  • Amnesty Canada
  • Canada supplied information used against Arar, says solicitor general (Nov. 19, 2003)

One should not be especially hopeful about the domestic Canadian inquiries unless Parliament or the Prime Minister set up a special independent panel, as the track record of police self-investigation in Canada isn't great. The standard police complaints body lacks the authority to get information from the security services, much less any means by which it can even send queries to the US side.

Posted in Civil Liberties | Comments Off on More Arar

Guardian: Richard Perle Admits Iraq Invasion Was Illegal Under International Law

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.”

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq – also the British government's publicly stated view – or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that “international law … would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone”, and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been “no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein”…

This 'the ends justified the means' argument is internally consistent, but it's weird in the extreme to have all the former critics of humanitarian intervention reborn as bleeding hearts. Or would be if we believed they meant a word of the humanitarian stuff (postwar planning? us?)….

Posted in Law: International Law | Comments Off on Guardian: Richard Perle Admits Iraq Invasion Was Illegal Under International Law

Maher Arar Affair: What is the Pluperfect of ‘Cynic’?

The Maher Arar case is very disturbing, although the callous cynicism of Team Bush that it appears to reveal can hardly be a surprise at this point.

The key allegations are:

  • Arar, a dual Syrian-Canadian national, was transiting through a US airport on his way to Canada when he was stopped by US officials who believed him to be a terrorist, or in cahoots with terrorists.
  • The US government held him virtually incommunicado for days. Then it let him meet the Canadian consul — once. And a lawyer — once, for thirty minutes.
  • At some point before or after those meetings, one or more hearings relating to where Arar would be sent were held without giving Arar or his lawyer notice or an opportunity to be heard.
  • Acting AG Larry Thompson sent Arar to Syria, over his expressed desire to be sent to Canada, in circumstances where Thompson knew or should have known that Arar would be tortured.
  • And Arar was tortured by Syrian intelligence for more than ten months.

In short, the claim is that the US arranged for Arar to be tortured via an extraordinary rendition. Presumably because the Ba'athist Syrian intelligence has been very cooperative in the war on (religious) terror.

But you see, that claim is really very unfair. The US didn't arrange for the Syrians to torture anyone. No, no, a thousand times no. In fact, the US got the Syrians to promise that they wouldn't torture Arar. And the Justice Department not only believed those assurances then, they believe them today! The Syrians would never torture a suspected al Queda member when they had promised us they wouldn't. Or, at least, it was certainly reasonable of the good, honest, acting Attorney General to rely on the Syrians' assurances, for we well know that they are a nation firmly committed to the Rule of Law.

Continue reading

Posted in Civil Liberties | 1 Comment

Domain Names and the FTAA: A Bad Mix

[HTMLized version of document presented to today's conference on Negotiating Intellectual Property Provisions in Free Trade Agreements]

FTAA

Intellectual Property Rights Chapter, Part II, Section 1
Article 13 — Domain names on the Internet

[13.1. Each Party shall participate in the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to promote appropriate country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) administration and delegation practices and appropriate contractual relationships for the administration of the ccTLDs in the Hemisphere. Each Party shall have its domestic Network Information Centers (NICs) participate in the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) to address the problem of cyber-piracy of trademarks.]

[13.1. Each Party shall make efforts, to the extent possible, to promote an adequate administration of domain names.]

Summary

The first paragraph is highly objectionable. The second is acceptable, although it is vague.

Nations should not be required to impose the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) by law on their citizens because:

  • Governments should not be subordinate to the decisions of a private corporation, ICANN;
  • Nor should the legal rights of citizens be decided by a private corporation;
  • The UDRP is subject to change, and governments should remain free to opt-out if its provisions become unacceptable;
  • As it stands, the UDRP fails to guarantee basic due process to consumers;
  • Serious questions have been raised about the even-handedness of some of the arbitration service providers who supply the arbitrators for the UDRP.
  • Continue reading

    Posted in Law: Trademark Law | 2 Comments

    How School Vouchers (Don’t) Work In Florida

    As Congressional Republicans plan to violate Washington DC's home rule, and force a school voucher system on the city, I think it's useful to review how vouchers are working here in Florida.

    I'll support almost anything reasonably calculated to improve the access of poor people — and rich people too! — to quality schooling for kids. Abstractly, vouchers look like they might do that, subject to a small host of caveats about the effect on kids with serious problems who might end up being treated like the 'lemons' of a primarily for-profit system, or dumped into the vestigial remains of an underfunded public system.

    Given the Florida experience, however, one has to ask whether vouchers in practice are in fact reasonably calculated to be helpful on balance. As usual, the Florida Blog is on top of this one, with links to:

    Talk about waste, fraud and abuse! Not to mention special interest lobbying, hogs at the trough, and every other cliche too.

    Posted in Florida | Comments Off on How School Vouchers (Don’t) Work In Florida

    Compare and Contrast

    In one corner, William Safire, being tactical. In the other corner Joshua Marshall being reasonable. (And, in the background, the Defence Dept. disowning the report Safire is relying on.) You gotta wonder about prundits when they rely on stuff that's already been disowned and refuted. Or just turn to your Daily Howler for a very jaundiced view of the pundit class.

    Continue reading

    Posted in Readings | Comments Off on Compare and Contrast