skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: aclu ccr geithner/al-aulaqi obama

> Refine results with advanced case search

27 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 4 of 6   next > last >>

Ameziane: Djamel Ameziane v. United States

Report No. 17/12 (Admissibility), 20 Mar 2012, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, United States

Djamel Ameziane is an Algerian national who has been detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) since 2002. On 6 August 2008, a petition was launched to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on behalf of Djamel Ameziane alleging that Ameziane, while in US custody, has been subjected to torture, cruel and degrading treatment and if he would be transferred back to Algeria, he would be at risk of serious harm. On 20 August 2008, the IACHR issued an Urgent Precautionary Measure, requesting the US to take all measures necessary to ensure that Ameziane would not be subjected to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The IACHR examined the admissibility, and on 20 March 2012, it concluded that the petition filed on behalf of Ameziane is admissible. The Commission established that it had personal and temporal jurisdiction. With respect to territorial jurisdiction, it found that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man allowed for an extraterritorial scope where the person concerned was subject to the control of State party to the Declaration despite the fact that the person was physically present on the territory of a different State. The Commission found no other procedural obstacles that would prevent it from proceeding to the merits phase of the case, and therefore, found the case to be admissible.


Belbacha v. Bush et al.: Ahmed Belbacha and Salah Belbacha v. George W. Bush et al.

,


Bin Laden et al.: United States of America v Usama Bin Laden et al.

Indictment, 4 Nov 1998, United States District Court, S.D. New York, United States

The 1998 United States Embassy bombings were a series of attacks that occurred on 7 August 1998, in which hundreds of people were killed in simultaneous truck bomb explosions at the embassies of the United States in the East African cities of Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. The date of the bombings marked the eighth anniversary of the arrival of American forces in Saudi Arabia.

Members of the al-Qaeda (terrorist group) were charged for planning and committing the bombing of the Embassies of the US in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Usama bin Laden is the head of Al-Qaeda and as such was amongst the people charged. The charges included also conspiracy to murder of US nationals anywhere in the world, US military personnel in Somalia and the Saudi Arabia Peninsula, US nationals serving in the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the concealment of any such plans of Al-Qaeda. 


Arar v. Ashcroft: Maher Arar v. John Ashcroft et al.

Appeal from a Judgment of the United States District Court, 2 Nov 2009, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States

In one of the first suits filed before the US courts challenging the US practice of 'extraordinary rendition', Syrian-born Canadian national Maher Arar lodged a complaint in January 2004 arguing that his civil rights had been violated. In 2002, Arar was detained by immigration officials at a New York airport while travelling home to Canada from Tunisia. Following a period of solitary confinement, Arar was deported to Syria where he was allegedly tortured before making false admissions of terrorist activity.

On 16 February 2006, the US District Court dismissed Arar’s claims, finding that national security and foreign policy considerations prevented the Court from holding US officials liable, even if the ‘extraordinary rendition’ violated international treaty obligations or customary law. 

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. It held that adjudicating Arar’s claims would interfere with national security and foreign policy. In his partial dissent, Judge Sack found that this provides federal officials with licence to “violate constitutional rights with virtual impunity”. The Court of Appeals also found that as a foreign national, Arar had no constitutional due process rights.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, this time sitting en banc (before all judges of the court), dismissed Arar’s claims for damages on the grounds that it rests upon the Congress to decide on whether such a civil remedy can be made possible and it is not the duty of the judges to decide on whether compensation could be sought.


Arar v. Ashcroft: Maher Arar v. John Ashcroft et al.

Memorandum and Order, 16 Feb 2006, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, United States

In one of the first suits filed before the US courts challenging the US practice of 'extraordinary rendition', Syrian-born Canadian national Maher Arar lodged a complaint in January 2004 arguing that his civil rights had been violated. In 2002, Arar was detained by immigration officials at a New York airport while travelling home to Canada from Tunisia. Following a period of solitary confinement, Arar was deported to Syria where he was allegedly tortured before making false admissions of terrorist activity.

On 16 February 2006, the US District Court dismissed Arar’s claims, finding that national security and foreign policy considerations prevented the Court from holding US officials liable, even if the ‘extraordinary rendition’ violated international treaty obligations or customary law.


<< first < prev   page 4 of 6   next > last >>