The article discusses the importance of using foreign sources in the constitutional interpretation of counter-terrorism initiatives. By reviewing the Arar case, the author underlines the value of Canadian jurisprudence to evaluating extraordinary rendition. The similarities between the Arar and El Masri cases underscore the weakness of the current standard adopted by American judiciary in evaluating extraordinary rendition. The article further draws on the Israeli experience in dealing with torture. American jurisprudence will be greatly improved if it directly discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli debate in its own constitutional interpretation. In totality, American jurisprudence has an incredible untapped resource in the experiences of other countries on addressing problems that Americans would likely see as unique.
© 2017 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston