SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Jen Nessel, 212.614.6449, jnessel@ccr-ny.org
David Lerner, Riptide Communications, 212.260.5000
Today, a federal Court of Appeals dismissed Canadian citizen
Maher Arar's case against U.S. officials for their role in sending him to
Syria to be tortured and interrogated for a year. Arar is represented by the
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). The court concluded that Arar's
case raised too many sensitive foreign policy and secrecy issues to permit
relief. It leaves the federal officials involved free of any legal
accountability for what they did.
Maher
Arar
is not available to comment in person, but is issuing the following statement:
"After seven years of pain and hard struggle it was my hope that the
court system would listen to my plea and act as an independent body from the
executive branch. Unfortunately, this recent decision and decisions taken on
other similar cases, prove that the court system in the United States has
become more or less a tool that the executive branch can easily
manipulate through unfounded allegations and fear mongering. If anything, this
decision is a loss to all Americans and to the rule of law."
Said Georgetown law professor and CCR cooperating
attorney David Cole, who argued the case, "This
decision says that U.S. officials can intentionally send a man to be tortured
abroad, bar him from any access to the courts while doing so, and then avoid
any legal accountability thereafter. It effectively places executive officials
above the law, even when accused of a conscious conspiracy to torture. If the
rule of law means anything, it must mean that courts can hear the claim of an
innocent man subjected to torture that violates our most basic constitutional
commitments."
CCR Senior Staff Attorney
Maria LaHood said, "With this decision, we have lost much more than
Maher Arar's case against torture - we have lost the rule of law,
the moral high ground, our independent judiciary, and our commitment to the
Constitution of the United States."
The
case was re-heard before twelve Second Circuit judges after a rare decision in
August 2008 to rehear the case sua sponte, that is, of their own accord
before Arar had even sought rehearing.
Mr. Arar, a Syrian-born
Canadian citizen, was detained at JFK Airport in September 2002 while
changing planes on his way home to Canada. The Bush administration labeled him
a member of Al Qaeda and sent him not to Canada, his home and country of
citizenship, but against his will to Syrian intelligence authorities renowned
for torture. He was tortured, interrogated and detained in a tiny underground
cell for nearly a year before the Syrian government released him, stating they
had found no connection to any criminal or terrorist organization or activity.
In January 2004, just three months after he returned home to
Canada from his ordeal, CCR filed a suit on Mr. Arar's behalf against
John Ashcroft and other U.S. officials, the first to challenge the
government's policy of "extraordinary rendition," also known
as "outsourcing torture."
The Canadian government, after an exhaustive public inquiry,
found that Mr. Arar had no connection to terrorism and, in January 2007,
apologized to Mr. Arar for Canada's role in his rendition and awarded him
a multi-million-dollar settlement. The contrast between the two
governments' responses to their mistakes could not be more stark, say Mr.
Arar's attorneys. Both the Executive and Judicial branches of the United
States government have barred inquiry and refused to hold anyone accountable
for ruining the life of an innocent man.
Two Congressional hearings in
October 2007 dealt with his case. On October 18, 2007 Mr. Arar testified via
video at a House Joint Committee Hearing
convened to discuss his rendition by the U.S. to Syria for interrogation under
torture. During that hearing - the first time Mr. Arar
testified before any U.S. governmental body - individual members of
Congress publicly apologized to him, though the government still has not issued
a formal apology. The next week, on October 24,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted during a House Foreign
Affairs Committee Hearing that the U.S. government mishandled his case.
In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Guido Calabresi wrote,
"I believe that when the history of this distinguished court is written,
today's majority decision will be viewed with dismay."
Joshua Sohn of DLA Piper US LLP, Katherine Gallagher of CCR, and Jules
Lobel, professor at University of Pittsburgh Law School and CCR cooperating
attorney, are co-counsel in Mr. Arar's case.
The Center for Constitutional
Rights represents other victims of the Bush administration's programs,
from Iraqis tortured and abused at Abu Ghraib prison to Muslim and Arab men
rounded up and abused in immigration sweeps in the U.S. in the aftermath of
9/11, to Guantanamo detainees in the recent Supreme Court case.
For more on Mr. Arar's case, including a timeline,
court papers and other documents, go to https://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/arar-v.-ashcroft.
Additional information may be found by entering the search term
"Arar" at the Center for Constitutional Rights website, www.ccrjustice.org.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464The president drew criticism for rejecting the candidate put up by the left-of-center coalition that won the most seats in parliamentary elections.
French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday named the right-wing politician Michel Barnier as prime minister, prompting outrage from a coalition of left-of-center parties that won the most seats in recent parliamentary elections and argued that the premier should be chosen from its ranks.
The decision marks the end of an unprecedented period in which France hasn't had an active government following the final round of parliamentary elections on July 7 and the previous prime minister's resignation on July 16.
The election ended with the Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP), the left coalition, winning a plurality of seats at 32.6%, Macron's own Ensemble coalition of centrist neoliberals winning 27.9%, and the far-right Rassemblement National (RN) winning 24.6%. NFP and Ensemble coordinated their efforts in the final round, forming a "republican front" to block the RN—a successful effort that drew praise from left and centrist figures across the world.
Barnier's center-right party, Les Républicains (LR), once a powerful force in France, gained only 8.3% of the seats, yet emerged victorious in the prime ministerial sweepstakes following Macron's negotiations with RN leader Marine Le Pen, who's thought to have agreed to Barnier's appointment. Without RN's support, Barnier could be ousted by a no-confidence vote in parliament.
In late August, Macron rejected the NFP's proposed prime minister, Lucie Castets, a little-known civil servant and economist whose nomination was itself a compromise reached by the parties within the NFP, which include the center-left Parti Socialiste (PS), the left-wing La France Insoumise (LFI), and Les Écologistes, a green party.
Les Écologistes on Thursday condemned Macron's choice, saying he was "obsessed with the preservation of his neoliberal record" and he'd aligned with the far-right.
"By appointing Mr. Barnier, who did not call for a republican blockade and whose positions on immigration resonate with those of the RN, to [Hôtel Matignon, the prime minister's residence], Emmanuel Macron is turning his back on the millions of citizens who have created a historic republican blockade in France," the party said in a statement.
🔴⚡ Un accord a été trouvé entre le président de la République, LR et le RN sur la nomination de @MichelBarnier | Il ne manquait plus que l'accord de Marine Le Pen, le RN confirme ne pas censurer un gouvernement #Barnier. pic.twitter.com/rKlaeE1n1n
— Nouveau Front Populaire 🟢🔴🟡🟣🔴 (ex NUPES News) (@NupesNews) September 5, 2024
Normally, the French president names a prime minister within days of an election for the National Assembly, as the directly-elected house of Parliament is called. However, with no party gaining a majority, and Macron opposed to the NFP—the coalition had run on a platform of rolling back his anti-worker agenda—the negotiations dragged on, especially once the president announced an interlude for the Olympics.
In the French system, the president chooses the prime minister, who has power over governmental ministries, but a majority of the National Assembly must approve of the choice or the deputies, as members of parliament are known, can issue a vote of no confidence. Not since the Fifth Republic formed with constitutional reform in 1958 has the country gone so long without a prime minister.
Barnier, 73, was first elected to the National Assembly in 1978 and worked his way up, serving various key ministerial posts in the 1990s and 2000s under center-right Presidents Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy. From 2016 until 2021, he served as the European Union's chief Brexit negotiator.
Barnier was generally regarded as a centrist conservative but moved to the right in 2021, speaking harshly about immigration as he prepared a 2022 presidential run. The effort failed: He didn't receive his party's nomination.
Le Pen emerged in recent days as the "kingmaker" in the prime minister negotiations, according toLe Monde. With the backing of Ensemble and the RN, Barnier will be able to hold on to the job, as together the two blocs have more than 50% of the seats in the National Assembly.
Le Pen indicated at least a modicum of support for Barnier on Thursday, saying that he is "someone who is respectful of the different political forces and capable of addressing the RN."
Castets, on the other hand, said she was "very worried" about Barnier's appointment and called him "reactionary."
"Michel Barnier is the continuation of Macron's policy, or even worse," Castets toldMediapart.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, standard-bearer of the French left and leader of the LFI, the NFP party holding the most seats, also decried the choice, pointing out that Barnier's party did poorly in the election and hadn't been part of the republican front. He said the "election has been stolen."
Mélenchon has led an effort to impeach Macron for his refusal to name an NFP prime minister but experts say it has little chance of succeeding. Mélenchon's allies are holding a rally on Saturday to call for the ouster of both Macron and Barnier.
Fabien Roussel, the leader of a Communist party that's a smaller member of the NFP, called Macron's move "a middle finger to the French who aspire to change," roughly translated, in a social media post.
The PS, which includes such figures as former President François Hollande and Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, hasn't joined the impeachment call but was critical of Macron's process. Olivier Faure, the party's leader, called it an affront to democracy.
"Democratic denial at its peak: a Prime Minister from the party that came in 4th place and who did not even participate in the republican front," Faure said. "We're entering a crisis of regime."
The transfer of power to Barnier was set for 6 pm local time at Hôtel Matignon on Thursday.
"You're on your own. You ain't getting shit from us. Call grandma," one Democratic congressman translated.
In his latest comments on parenthood and young families, Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance on Wednesday weighed in on how to best help parents who struggle to pay for childcare—but instead of offering a policy solution, the U.S. senator from Ohio punted the obligation to grandparents and other extended family members across the country.
At an event hosted by right-wing activist Charlie Kirk of Turning Point Action in Mesa, Arizona, Vance replied to a question about lowering childcare costs by saying he wants to "make it easier for families to choose whatever model they want."
But Vance appeared to base his answer on the assumption that what families want—and what they haven't already considered on their own—is childcare help from their family members.
"One of the ways that you might be able to relieve a little bit of pressure on people who are paying so much for daycare is make it so that—maybe, like, grandma or grandpa wants to help out a little bit more, or maybe there's an aunt or uncle who wants to help out a little more," said Vance. "If that happens, you relieve some of the pressure on all the resources that we're spending at daycare."
In other words, said U.S. Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.): "You're on your own. You ain't getting shit from us. Call grandma."
The comments came weeks after a 2020 podcast interview with Vance resurfaced, in which he agreed that "the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female" is to take care of grandchildren.
Vance didn't address what steps might be taken to allow more grandparents to provide childcare for their families—or how the idea might conflict with other Republican policy proposals, such as raising the retirement age or cutting Social Security benefits.
"Maybe Grandma and Grandma still work," said author Jacie Floyd on the social media platform X. "Maybe Grandma and Grandpa have health issues. Maybe Grandma and Grandpa live 1,000 miles away. Maybe Grandma and Grandpa don't want to. The [Republican Party] shouldn’t be planning Grandma and Grandpa's retirement for them."
A Pew Research poll found last year that 19% of Americans aged 65 or older were still working, almost a twofold increase over the late 1980s, and other surveys have shown that nearly 43% of people between 55 and 64 don't have retirement savings accounts—likely making them unable to spend much time providing childcare for working families.
According to Illumine, an app used by parents and childcare providers, a 2022 survey found that 72% of U.S. parents were paying at least 10% of their income on childcare, and 51% were paying more than 20%. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services defines "affordable" care as costing no more than 7% of a household's income.
At the event in Mesa, enlisting the help of grandparents wasn't Vance's only proposal for the vast majority of parents who are spending too much for daycare. He also suggested lowering the hiring standards for childcare workers, ostensibly enabling providers to pay them less and charge families less for their early childhood services.
"We've got a lot of people who love kids, who would love to take care of kids, but they can't, either because they don't have access to the education they need," said Vance, "or maybe more importantly, because the state government says you need to have some ridiculous certification that has nothing to do with taking care of kids. So, empower people to get the skills they need, don't force every early childcare specialist to go and get a six-year college degree where they've got a whole lot of debt and Americans are much poorer because they're paying out the wazoo for daycare."
Vance didn't elaborate on the "ridiculous certification" that childcare workers should be able to forgo. Requirements for employees in the industry vary from state to state and can include training in CPR and first aid, food handling, and recognizing and reporting child abuse and neglect. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a high school diploma or equivalent is the typical educational requirement for entry-level childcare workers, and the median pay in the industry was just $30,370 per year or $14.60 per hour as of 2023.
"Vance basically spends two minutes saying, 'SUCK IT UP, POORS!" saidUSA Today columnist Rex Huppke. "Daycare costs too much cause you demand 'qualified' providers who aren't 'total randos' with 'no childcare experience.'"
The reality on the ground in states like Michigan shows a very different picture than Vance's suggestion that childcare centers are paying workers too much to make their services affordable for families.
With 85% of childcare funding coming from the federal government instead of the state in Michigan, Kimberly Esper of Little Hawks Childcare and Learning Center toldMid-Michigan Now on Wednesday that many centers struggle to pay staff fairly while keeping their daycare services running.
"It's a balance that I think every childcare center is struggling with right now," said Esper.
Last month, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, unveiled an economic agenda including an expanded child tax credit. Vance has expressed support for such a policy, but missed a vote on a related bill earlier this year, prompting Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to denounce him as a "phony."
Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), who introduced the Child Care for Every Community Act, contrasted Vance's proposals on Wednesday with those of the Democrats.
Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) added that "families deserve leaders who understand the importance of making childcare more accessible and affordable."
"We urge everyone to join this effort in their own communities," said the Maine Coalition for Palestine. "Our tax money should not be spent killing women and children in Palestine."
Lawmakers in Portland, Maine voted unanimously on Wednesday to divest public funds from "all entities complicit" in Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip, making the city the first on the U.S. East Coast to take such a step.
Sponsored by the Maine Coalition for Palestine and the Maine chapter of Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP), the newly approved resolution contains a "divestment list" of more than 85 companies, from U.S.-based Chevron, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing to Israel-based Elbit Systems. The list also includes public entities such as Israel Bonds and state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries.
"The city of Portland recognizes the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and seeks to avoid economically supporting this crisis through the city's financial investments," the resolution states. "The city council urges that the city manager divest the city of Portland from all entities complicit in the current and ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and occupation of Palestine, including, without limitation, all entities on the divestment list when it is feasible and carries no financial penalty to the city."
Additionally, the resolution "urges the city manager to not make any future directly held general fund investment in any entities complicit in the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and occupation of Palestine."
The Maine Coalition for Palestine said Wednesday's vote makes Portland the fourth U.S. city to adopt an Israel divestment resolution. Two California cities—Hayward and Richmond—and Hamtramck, Michigan passed similar divestment resolutions earlier this year.
"Just as the people of the world spoke to end South African apartheid with economic pressure, we must do the same for Israeli apartheid and genocide."
In a statement, the Maine coalition called out the state's congressional delegation and the Biden administration for supporting Israel's destruction of Gaza, whose population is facing mass starvation and disease—including the reemergence of polio.
"Generations of families are being decimated by U.S. bombs supplied to Israel," the coalition said. "Maine Senators [Susan] Collins and [Angus] King, and Representative [Jared] Golden, accept significant campaign contributions from the Israel lobby, and they have refused to listen to their constituents' demands."
"Americans overwhelmingly want a cease-fire and an arms embargo," the group continued. "Divestment sends a clear message that current U.S. policy towards Palestinians is morally unacceptable and does not serve the interests of our country. We urge everyone to join this effort in their own communities. Our tax money should not be spent killing women and children in Palestine."
Sarah Snyder, a spokesperson for the Maine chapter of JVP, said that "as Jews in Portland, we have immense gratitude for the Portland City Council's resolution to divest municipal funds from the Israeli government and corporations complicit in the ongoing genocide of Palestinians."
"We are outraged and grief-stricken by the continued atrocities perpetrated by Israel," Snyder added, "and fully support our city heeding the call to divest. Just as the people of the world spoke to end South African apartheid with economic pressure, we must do the same for Israeli apartheid and genocide."