I am not arguing that is right. I am saying that it does not violate the Constitution or the law. Unconstitutional does not mean morally objectionable.
Both options are legal.
I am not a citizen of Syria. Amar was. There is no dispute on this point.
Again, I am not addressing whether it right or wrong.
So in other words your troll ass would find no fault in being beaten daily. Gotcha.
Btw “high crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever the fuck Congress defines it to mean.
A state actor sent a guy, with no trial, to be tortured. This doesn’t fall under cruel or unusual punishment to you? That was nto a deportation. a deportation would have sent him to Canada. He had a lawful Canadian passport, and lawful Canadian citizenship.
sure troll sure
Why would anyone but an inhuman cunt stain pick Syria? Hell Canada is closer. It’s cheaper to deport him to Canada. He was heading there anyway. The choice was clearly meant as punishment.
You’re just the biggest joke ever. Go suck chaney’s dick asswipe.
Against his will, and he was also a Canadian citizen. If a country decides you’re a citizen there’s no way to not be. You can stay out of their jurisdiction so you’re effectively out of their control, unless a presidential piece of human excrement sends you there, but you’re a citizen.
In short he was Canadian with another country claiming against his will.
No, you’re just rationalizing torture.
Do you a problem reading? I did not say I would not have a problem with it. But if is was legal then it would be legal by definition. Thankfully it is not legal to kidnap me and have me beaten. For Amar, it sucks that this deportation was legal.
And Congress has not made this determination toward anything done by Bush.
By deportation you mean Constitutional rights violations I’m sure.
Which is a travesty.
Did he have a legal right to a trial? Please cite the specific law.
No, that only applies to post-conviction treatment. We just had a tread on this.
He was also a lawful citizen of Syria. There is no dispute on this.
Nothing of substance to address here―just name-calling.
He is a Syria citizen. He was born is Syria which is the most basic way a person becomes a citizen of a country. It called jus soli citizenship. Syria did not just decide he was a citizen. He was a citizen.
No, I am just not addressing the moral issues.
Please specifically address how the Constitution was violated by what happened to Arar. Nothing vague―let’s see some specifics.
All Amar’s = Arar
Btw Canadian citizens like him have access to the US without a visa for a limited time, surely his airport layover wasn’t measured in months. Why would a lawful Canadian be deported?
Well a lawful Canadian, with lawful access to the US, was sent to Syria to be tortured.
Amendment 4, and Amendment 8
Because he was suspected of being a member of al Qaeda who was entering the US to commit acts of terrorism.
Also, the Canadian government was under the mistaken impression Arar had permanently left Canada. So it does make some sense that the when the US was informed that he has permanently left Canada that they would not send him back there.
That is extremely vague. And I already addressed that there is no conceivable way the 8th Amendment was violated because the cruel and unusual punishment clause only applies to post-conviction treatment. You are also wrong about the 4th amendment. If it is seriously your contention that the 4th Amendment was violated, can you give some specifics?
I think you are under the mistaken impression that just because you think an act is morally wrong or even if something is considered outrageously morally wrong by nearly everyone that that act is unconstitional or otherwise illegal.
No, and thank goodness we have so many hard-headed and realistic people who keep us from dreaming. So very many.
from your own link
Why would they do that unless they wanted to send him to Syria for cruel and unusual punishment? Btw your own cite shows his international rights were violated.
Once again, cruel and unusual punishment has a very specific meaning, it only applies post-conviction. What happened to Arar cannot be cruel and unusual punishment.
It only shows that the agreement may have been violated. Is this agreement self-executing? Does it confer individual rights?
You tell me. He was personally denied access to speak to the Canadian Consulate, and this was a violation of international agreement.
If it isn’t a right what is it?
Really, you either believe in human rights, or you don’t. If you do, you believe that everyone…every single navel-bearing one of us…has those rights, whether or not you fear or despise them. They got 'em. And any government that denies those rights to any person, citizen or no, is not legitimate.
Truth, justice, and the American way. A radical idea then, and still is.
Look at Medellin v. Texas and Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon and Breard v.Greene, then address my questions.
Do you want a vague concept like human rights to have the force of law? Who decides what is meant by human rights? What percentage of governments throughout history were/are legitimate by your human rights standard? Can you list (being specific) what is covered by human rights? Where do these rights come from? Do they exist independently of human understanding or are they a creation of humans?
Are you saying that you don’t have a problem with the administration using its discretion to act in ways that are “morally wrong” or “outrageously morally wrong” so long as they don’t violate the Constitution or run afoul of a statute (you apparently don’t have any problem with treaty violations, even though treaties have substantially the same legal standing as statutes)?
We got this Constitution thing we can sort of use. Far from perfect, but one helluva first draft.