>>Meanwhile (as you noted), you've got scumbag nations like the govt of Iran ready to stone a woman to death for adultery (even though she might not have done it....and certainly shouldn't be a crime anyway!)
>>
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/05/iran.stoning/index.html?hpt=C1
>
>
>What was this guy crime ?
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maher-arar/the-supreme-court-can-ign_b_628358.html

You have hit on the primary weakness in our judicial system. Everyone can petition the courts all the way up to the supreme court after every conviction at a lower level. However, the Supreme has the authority to decide which cases it will hear....

That has always been a complaint of mine and I find it amazing that it hasn't been changed yet. I guess it is probably that not enough folks are petitioning the Supreme court to hear their case and getting denied for anything to change...

However, it is important to note that the Supreme has the option to state its reasons when it refuses to hear a case and the gentleman did not provide a link or the information provided for their refusal. In this case, the Supreme gave no reason, just refused. It is a travesty.

Also, he received 9.8 million from Canada for the abuse but that is not reason why it should not be heard by the Supreme court here.

I find it very very disturbing that our government had a hand not only in the first travesty, but also the final one:

n Canada, the government conducted an investigation and found that Mr. Arar had been tortured because of its false information. The commissioner of the police resigned. Canada cleared Mr. Arar of all terror connections, formally apologized and paid him nearly $9.8 million. Mr. Arar had hoped to get a similar apology and damages from the United States government but was rebuffed by the court system.

Amazingly, Mr. Obama’s acting solicitor general, Neal Katyal, urged the Supreme Court not to take the case, arguing in part that the court should not investigate the communications between the United States and other countries because it might damage diplomatic relations and affect national security. It might even raise questions, Mr. Katyal wrote, about “the motives and sincerity of the United States officials who concluded that petitioner could be removed to Syria.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maher-arar/the-supreme-court-can-ign_b_628358.html