Leave the legal insights to others before you embarrass yourself. (Here as a lawyer I'll translate it for you so you understand the legal reasoning)

The law must accord the Executive substantial authority to apprehend and detain those who pose a real danger to our security.

[snip] (but when the Executive catches, detains, renditions, and causes someone to be tortured, in violation of law, who did not in fact pose any danger, the law is not obligated to provide them a remedy . . . because we being the designated Constitutional interpreters of what the "law is" are moral cowards and he was just an unfortunate alien who got caught in our little bureaucratic mix-up, kinda accidentally on purpose as a matter of policy)

Whether or not the present litigation is motivated by considerations of geopolitics rather than personal harm, we think that as a general matter the danger of foreign citizens’ using the courts in situations such as this to obstruct the foreign policy of our government . . .

[snip] (which is to obstruct the policy to violate domestic and international human rights law with impunity)

Absent clear congressional authorization, the judicial review of extraordinary rendition would offend the separation of powers and inhibit this country’s foreign policy.

[snip] (our foreign policy of violating domestic and international human rights law with impunity, and we being the big moral cowards we are will just dump it in Congresses' lap, knowing they'll do absolutely nothing to subject themselves to legal jeopardy, and just go home and play golf with the Mrs., because me and my friends in Congress and those who appointed us to our lifetime positions in the Executive branch are real Americans and exceptional human beings who would never be subjected to this little torture mix-up--unlike Mr. Arar who doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things)

Even the probing of these matters entails the risk that other countries will become less willing to cooperate with the United States in sharing intelligence resources to counter terrorism.

[snip] (and then they'd be forced to go through the silly and time consuming Kabuki dance of having the other nation blame us for being unwilling to share our super secret loss of life preventing intelligence with them)

Allegations of conspiracy among government agencies that must often work in secret inevitably implicate a lot of classified material that cannot be introduced into the public record. Allowing Arar’s claims to proceed would very likely mean that some documents or information sought by Arar would be redacted, reviewed in camera, and otherwise concealed from the public.

Concealment does not bespeak wrongdoing: in such matters, it is just as important to conceal what has not been done. Nevertheless, these measures would excite suspicion and speculation as to the true nature and depth of the supposed conspiracy, and as to the scope and depth of judicial oversight.

[snip](but public exposure might prove the true nature and depth of the conspiracy, and we can't have that, so we'll make a circular argument based on a false premise)

An investigation into the existence and content of such assurances [by Syrians that Arar wouldn't be tortured] would potentially embarrass our government through inadvertent or deliberate disclosure of information harmful to our own and other states.

[snip] (like that a whole bunch of people from various nations were complicit in a conspiracy to commit wanton human rights violations which would not just be embarrassing but highly illegal and subject them to legal jeopardy at the Hague which would interfere with everybody's rounds of golf)

“vulnerable to ‘graymail,’ i.e., individual lawsuits brought to induce the [government] to settle a case (or prevent its filing) out of fear that any effort to litigate the action would reveal classified information that may undermine ongoing covert operations,” . . . and the person with the incentive to disclose (the defendant, who cannot waive, but will be liable for any damages assessed). In a rendition case, the Bivens plaintiff could in effect pressure the individual defendants until the government cries uncle. Thus any Bivens action involving extraordinary rendition would inevitably suck the government into the case to protect its considerable interests, and--if disclosure is ordered--to appeal, or to suffer the disclosure, or to pay.

[snip](and we can't have the guy who followed orders squealing to save his own ass and forcing the government to be legally or financially accountable for its "policy" of purposeful domestic and international human rights violations, because again that cuts into everybody's rounds of golf and potential profits on the post-office lecture/book circuit because noone likes paying to read or hear what a war criminal has to say.)

See when you get really good with legal BS you can convincingly justify literally anything, make it sound really important and serious and then get back to playing golf with your buddies who matter.

I know I can be a supreme Dick sometimes. I'm really a very easygoing genial guy in person. If we were to have discussion in person on the things we disagree about it would be nothing like here. And that I'm unwilling or incapable of relicating that civility sometimes saddens me.

But it's this sort of injustice that really gets me running in the red. These are real human beings. Innocent of no crime. Not that that would justify torturing anyone.

How can people not understand the degradation, humiliation, crime against humanity, and unforgiveable sin it is to throw someone in a cage, and let animals urinate on them, and beat them repeatedly with a capable . . . all so some people can sleep a little better at night.

I can't for the life of me comprehend those kind of people. That some of them may be my neighbors. Possibly friends. Like I said I'm incredibly saddened and dejected and heartsick that this is what we are. This isn't the country I was raised to respect. Right now it doesn't deserve it. I wish it did.