THANK YOU DAVID COLE, THANK YOU MICHAEL RATNER, AND ALL THE OTHER ADVOCATES INVOLVED THROUGH THE YEARS WHO TRIED THEIR BEST BRING JUSTICE FOR ARAR. WE LOST BUT FIGHT ON.
Case citation officially is Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559 (2d Cir. 2009) (en banc). I think a lot of these en banc Court of Appeals oral arguments are just as difficult as a Supreme Court case when dealing with a matter where stare decisis isn't a major component. I understand a Bivens Claim is a big deal and that Courts of Appeal and SCOTUS do NOT want to expand it but still, 12 Judges that are not used to convening en banc or worse in some Circuits like the 6th Circuit where they do all 17 Judges can get pretty messy. No disrespect to Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs as I know the 2nd Circuit does not do en banc very often but you can tell he had trouble sort of keeping the Judges from stepping on each other whereas if you watch a SCOTUS hearing with Chief Justice Roberts, if one Justice interrupts another, the Chief Justice will speak up and say something like "Justice Alito" if say Justice Alito and a Justice junior to Justice Alito interrupted. I notice this with Justice Sotomayor a lot! I don't think she does it with disrespect, she just tends to really want to establish some basics before veering off into other areas and her experience as a District Judge helps the Court.
So good numbers of reputed Honorable Judges of Second Circuit Court of Appeals here Arar v. Ashcroft Oral Arguments - U.S. Court of Appeals were asking David Cole so many questions and instantly interrogating him often overlapping on one Judge to another instate of giving David Cole to finish his statements with even one Honorable Judge simply. I am rather amazed with the patience of David Cole here,indeed!
+Michael Brown Jonathan Cohn is a real beast of an advocate as well. Inspiring advocacy from both. I can't even imagine how much work was done to prepare for these arguments.
+Michael Brown I agree but the problem with Cohn's argument is that it over relies upon national security when it begs the question of it, that is, before the legality of the government's officials actions are examined, the shield of national security is coming up without any basis of explanation meaning he is assuming that there is national security before there is any evidence of it. This is the inherent problem with the invocation of national security is that it acts as a stop from examining the actions of government officials even when history has shown that it has been overused and used to cover up illegal actions and to avoid any legal scrutiny and also he overlooks that the argument is circular that is because the actions are secret a court cannot examine it because it is secret. This is an inherently flawed argument that allows for abuse of authority, corruption, violations of human and constitutional rights, and the kinds of behavior encouraged in Watergate.
+HisMajesty984 I definitely agree. However, I was only commenting on the quality of the presentation of arguments by both sides. I absolutely believe that the government's position was wrong in this case.
If this is how appellate Case proceeds then., Judges need a reformation On procedural hearing , Let the council answer to A quenstion he was asked , instead ,they keep questioning simultaneously Multiple ques. , let the council answer first then should have asked next,. Now i am scared to appear for appellate advocacy🙄
There are no damages without torture? Kidnapping, false imprisonment and handing a Canadian over to Syria are NOT DAMAGES? These people are insane sophists.
The guy wasn’t in the US. When you travel internationally, you don’t leave the boarding area until you have arrived at your destination. The guy on the freedom bridge isn’t walking to Mexico, he is entering the US. If one winds up in a US airport, but has an arrest warrant in the US, arrested. By claiming that the US has no obligation to not send people to a country that they are not a citizen of, but they will also be tortured there, then you or I can be arrested, sent off to whatever country, tortured, and there is qualified immunity? C’mon. I thought judges were supposed to be smart.
@@dennishickey7194 I’d have to say that I don’t understand your point. I’m not criticizing your comment, but I don’t understand why someone’s values would play a factor in whether a citizen of a sovereign nation, not this nation, can be kidnapped. I can’t imagine traveling from one place to another, and during a layover, I am seized, not afforded any due process, and shipped off to wherever. Moreover, when the United States is the kidnapper. When you haven’t cleared customs, you are basically nowhere. Yes, you can commit crimes and be prosecuted, but when there is no crime, they just want me to provide information, what is that?
There's an odd optical effect in the filming here. Eg at 1:28:31, the judge looks big and imposing compared to the lawyer, perhaps they're roughly the same size in-camera, despite the fact the judge is considerably further away. I wonder if this is done intentionally by the camera operator?
It is embarrassing and lacking in character that some of these judges are unable to follow what our preschoolers are already learning, which is to let other people finish speaking. It's clear from the start that many of the judges are against this lawsuit. Really, impartiality is something else. These judges don't even shy away from interrupting their fellow judges all the time. It is noticeable that all of these judges are very friendly and reserved when it was the turn of the lawyer for the state. Apart from that, the attorney for the state was partly extremely unfriendly, partly even insulting, to some judges.
A justice does not pass judgment on a person, they judge the arguments made in favor of, or in opposition to, the people; based on the most logically persuasive argument. Nothing is set in stone, with the exception of the infringement of our natural right to self preservation. Everything else can be reimagined, rewritten, and ratified to replace once assumed a right.
Rights are only "undeniable" in court if they are backed by law. Perhaps you meant "interest" -- which is different, of course. Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom. (Fed. R. Crim. P. 53)
Americans should be proud they have such an open legal system. For al it's flaws it's still much much better than the Dutch system where we do not even have the right to a jury trial and judges are appointed. I was born in the wrong country. Remind me to tell my father off about that ;)
Federal Judges are all appointed here as well. Nominated by the President subject to confirmation by the US Senate by a majority vote. THey have life tenure and constitutionally their salary cannot be reduced during "good behavior and service". This may sound unaccountable but this is so that they may rule freely against the people that put them in their position and you will see District Judges, Circuit Judges and Justices of the Supreme Court rule against the people that put them there. They are not political and give up a lot of freedoms such as engaging in politics openly, practicing law privately, or side jobs with the exception of teaching part time with a maximum of around $20,000 a year extra.
He should of stayed in Canada and never set foot in USA that simple you mess the bull u get the horns he knew there was chance that can happen to him he gambled. He lost
It is clear that the Lawyer does not have a clue.What a shame,that is why so many people lose their case.Judge are so acurate that he is not able to state a sound case.
THANK YOU DAVID COLE, THANK YOU MICHAEL RATNER, AND ALL THE OTHER ADVOCATES INVOLVED THROUGH THE YEARS WHO TRIED THEIR BEST BRING JUSTICE FOR ARAR. WE LOST BUT FIGHT ON.
Case citation officially is Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559 (2d Cir. 2009) (en banc). I think a lot of these en banc Court of Appeals oral arguments are just as difficult as a Supreme Court case when dealing with a matter where stare decisis isn't a major component. I understand a Bivens Claim is a big deal and that Courts of Appeal and SCOTUS do NOT want to expand it but still, 12 Judges that are not used to convening en banc or worse in some Circuits like the 6th Circuit where they do all 17 Judges can get pretty messy.
No disrespect to Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs as I know the 2nd Circuit does not do en banc very often but you can tell he had trouble sort of keeping the Judges from stepping on each other whereas if you watch a SCOTUS hearing with Chief Justice Roberts, if one Justice interrupts another, the Chief Justice will speak up and say something like "Justice Alito" if say Justice Alito and a Justice junior to Justice Alito interrupted. I notice this with Justice Sotomayor a lot! I don't think she does it with disrespect, she just tends to really want to establish some basics before veering off into other areas and her experience as a District Judge helps the Court.
Why are there no cameras in the normal federal courtrooms? The public has an undeniable right to review actions of the Courts.
This is wonderful! Thank You!
So good numbers of reputed Honorable Judges of Second Circuit Court of Appeals here Arar v. Ashcroft Oral Arguments - U.S. Court of Appeals were asking David Cole so many questions and instantly interrogating him often overlapping on one Judge to another instate of giving David Cole to finish his statements with even one Honorable Judge simply.
I am rather amazed with the patience of David Cole here,indeed!
Justice Sotomayor!
David Cole did an amazing job under heavy fire.
+Michael Brown Jonathan Cohn is a real beast of an advocate as well. Inspiring advocacy from both. I can't even imagine how much work was done to prepare for these arguments.
+Michael Brown I agree but the problem with Cohn's argument is that it over relies upon national security when it begs the question of it, that is, before the legality of the government's officials actions are examined, the shield of national security is coming up without any basis of explanation meaning he is assuming that there is national security before there is any evidence of it. This is the inherent problem with the invocation of national security is that it acts as a stop from examining the actions of government officials even when history has shown that it has been overused and used to cover up illegal actions and to avoid any legal scrutiny and also he overlooks that the argument is circular that is because the actions are secret a court cannot examine it because it is secret. This is an inherently flawed argument that allows for abuse of authority, corruption, violations of human and constitutional rights, and the kinds of behavior encouraged in Watergate.
+HisMajesty984 I definitely agree. However, I was only commenting on the quality of the presentation of arguments by both sides. I absolutely believe that the government's position was wrong in this case.
@@HisMajesty984 fax
If this is how appellate Case proceeds then., Judges need a reformation On procedural hearing , Let the council answer to A quenstion he was asked , instead ,they keep questioning simultaneously Multiple ques. , let the council answer first then should have asked next,. Now i am scared to appear for appellate advocacy🙄
There are no damages without torture? Kidnapping, false imprisonment and handing a Canadian over to Syria are NOT DAMAGES? These people are insane sophists.
I cant believe USA did this to a Canadian citizen. WTF? This is horrible... 2021 and USA is keep lowering the bar ....
The guy wasn’t in the US. When you travel internationally, you don’t leave the boarding area until you have arrived at your destination. The guy on the freedom bridge isn’t walking to Mexico, he is entering the US. If one winds up in a US airport, but has an arrest warrant in the US, arrested. By claiming that the US has no obligation to not send people to a country that they are not a citizen of, but they will also be tortured there, then you or I can be arrested, sent off to whatever country, tortured, and there is qualified immunity? C’mon. I thought judges were supposed to be smart.
They can't even be said to be American other than by accident of birth. They certainly don't share our values.
@@dennishickey7194 I’d have to say that I don’t understand your point. I’m not criticizing your comment, but I don’t understand why someone’s values would play a factor in whether a citizen of a sovereign nation, not this nation, can be kidnapped. I can’t imagine traveling from one place to another, and during a layover, I am seized, not afforded any due process, and shipped off to wherever. Moreover, when the United States is the kidnapper. When you haven’t cleared customs, you are basically nowhere. Yes, you can commit crimes and be prosecuted, but when there is no crime, they just want me to provide information, what is that?
There's an odd optical effect in the filming here. Eg at 1:28:31, the judge looks big and imposing compared to the lawyer, perhaps they're roughly the same size in-camera, despite the fact the judge is considerably further away. I wonder if this is done intentionally by the camera operator?
Great video to educate everyone
Great argument to educate everyone thanks
The plaintiff was given 5 days at the time, with this type of urgency, I wish he informed his laser, the outcome may have been very different..
It is embarrassing and lacking in character that some of these judges are unable to follow what our preschoolers are already learning, which is to let other people finish speaking. It's clear from the start that many of the judges are against this lawsuit. Really, impartiality is something else. These judges don't even shy away from interrupting their fellow judges all the time. It is noticeable that all of these judges are very friendly and reserved when it was the turn of the lawyer for the state. Apart from that, the attorney for the state was partly extremely unfriendly, partly even insulting, to some judges.
A justice does not pass judgment on a person, they judge the arguments made in favor of, or in opposition to, the people; based on the most logically persuasive argument.
Nothing is set in stone, with the exception of the infringement of our natural right to self preservation. Everything else can be reimagined, rewritten, and ratified to replace once assumed a right.
*_MDC is to be closed this year. Good riddance_*
Rights are only "undeniable" in court if they are backed by law. Perhaps you meant "interest" -- which is different, of course.
Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.
(Fed. R. Crim. P. 53)
Brandon Greenberg
Some people should just not date.
Americans should be proud they have such an open legal system. For al it's flaws it's still much much better than the Dutch system where we do not even have the right to a jury trial and judges are appointed.
I was born in the wrong country. Remind me to tell my father off about that ;)
Federal Judges are all appointed here as well. Nominated by the President subject to confirmation by the US Senate by a majority vote. THey have life tenure and constitutionally their salary cannot be reduced during "good behavior and service". This may sound unaccountable but this is so that they may rule freely against the people that put them in their position and you will see District Judges, Circuit Judges and Justices of the Supreme Court rule against the people that put them there. They are not political and give up a lot of freedoms such as engaging in politics openly, practicing law privately, or side jobs with the exception of teaching part time with a maximum of around $20,000 a year extra.
Lots of hypothetical and what if's...
(Pg.311=322) this what they fighting for.
Ask your federal election comelec commission in foreign .
This decision was a load of BS
He should of stayed in Canada and never set foot in USA that simple you mess the bull u get the horns he knew there was chance that can happen to him he gambled. He lost
Chelcie Gwartney
Why does Sotomayor get to not show up for her job?
Stop being a cynic Kris Sergentakis and making judgments without any evidence.
😅😅😅🇺🇸❤️🙏
It is clear that the Lawyer does not have a clue.What a shame,that is why so many people lose their case.Judge are so acurate that he is not able to state a sound case.
Way to be specific. Really helpful.