http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

Canada has apologized to Arar for allowing the US to "render" a man to Syria, in order to torture him- that is the facts of the case. Canada has given him 9million dollars, an amount they calculated based on what he would probably win in a civil trial.

The US, however, in our great "free" nation, has not apologized, NOT taken him off the watch list, and not changed our behavior.

The attorney general responded that the U.S. government had received assurances that Arar would not be tortured.

"We knew damn well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn't be tortured," Leahy says loudly. "We also knew damn well, if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured. And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured."

Dec. 21, 2006
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice promises U.S. security officials will review Arar's case. In a joint news conference with Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, Rice says she has told the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security to review the matter.

Dec. 20, 2006
A U.S. security official bluntly states that the U.S. will keep its own counsel on how to handle the Arar case.

"With respect to some issues, we're going to have to respectfully but firmly go our own way and the Arar matter, at least for now, is one of those," Paul Rosenzweig, acting assistant secretary for international affairs for the Department of Homeland Security, tells reporters in Washington.

"As for the sharing of information with the Canadian government, while I do recognize that in an idealized world, we would share every bit of intelligence information with all of our partners. In the real world, that is an idealization that isn't achievable."

In response, Harper tells Sun Media that "as near as I can see, we simply have a U.S. government that won't admit it's wrong."



1) Is this a war crime, or a crime against humanity?

2) Does this refute all ideals that we supposedly hold dear as the US as "good guys"?

3) Should the GW regime be tried for crimes against this innocent man?

4) Do you believe the US condones torture in light of this story?

Oh for Pete's Sake read something about this case. If you want to be hate the US over this you'd better get very cozy about hating the Candians too. Without a doubt the RMCP is at least as complicit and that's being charitible.

From Arar's site:

The Arar Commission released its official report on Maher Arar's case on September 18, 2006. Commissioner Dennis O'Connor cleared Maher of all terrorism allegations, and found that the actions of Canadian officials very likely lead to his ordeal.

Hell, even Arar is ***past tense of urinate in the vulgar*** at Canada.

that is my point- the RCMP had the decency to resign- GW does not. Gonzolez does not. We condone torture- Canada does not.

CR you're like Superman. You're able to make amazing leaps in a single bound. How you got there is mysterious.

OK. Let's break this down.

RCMP puts Arar on a list.
The US gets a hold of Arar.
Ships him to Syria.
The Candians realize they've made a huge mistake.
The Syrians ship him back to Canada.
RCMP apologizes.
The US does not.

Now please explain how this means the RCMP doesn't condone torture and the US does.

Re-read Leahy's comment. Big duh. WE shipped him off to be tortured- Canada did not. Very important piece of the puzzle here. Very, very big. So big, that the fact that Canada screwed the pooch, and admitted it, but is embarrased that they allowed the US to get thier hands on him- why? Because we condone torture- at least, this administration does, and Canada will make heads roll, we do not.

1) Canada did not kidnap anyone- the US did
2) Canada did not perform a "extrodinary rendition"- the US did.

However- the RCMP and Canadians, by proxy through thier PM, even went so far as to apologize and make restitution for thier, more minor part in this- the US did not.

Where is the so called conservative trait of "accepting responsibility"- sure, maybe Canada gave us bad info- but does that absolve us of guilt when we torture the dude?

The better point would be not to torture folks, you know, so we don't accidently torture innocent human beings?

I am curious as well as to the currency we used to persuade Syria to do the torturing for us? I mean, aren't they on our "axis of evil" list? Kinda wierd don't ya think- Syria, accuse them of all kinds of things- but use them to do our torturing for us?

I don't hate the US- I hate this administration, and what it has done to the US, and how it has dragged us down, and made us monsters.

But CR, how did the US come to believe this Arar was a bad guy? How?

Where was Mr. Arar born? Where?

Look, I am not in any way saying this was a good bust, because I don't know and I am not ready to make gigantic leaps into insanity. What I am saying is this: The RCMP gave the US the intel. The RCMP should apologize. Perhaps the US will too. The US has not to this point and I agree with you it should. I just can't leap across sanity with you.

Okay- here is a leap of logic for you then- you think this is the first and only time they have done this?

Notice how I am staying away from attacking you personally, despite the several attacks against me?

The huge problem I have is this- we torture poeple, or rather, do it (somewhat) by proxy. America should not be torturing poeple, by proxy or otherwise. That being said- I have no doubt that we have an American rep when we do it- I can't imagine an interogation going on without a "secret agent" from some agency or another sitting by and getting the intel? I mean, even if you were 100% behind this policy, and running the "rendition" program- wouldn't you have your rep there to make sure the Syrians don't withhold some important info?

So what is so great of the "leap" you are talking here?

I have a problem with torture- not bad intel on a "suspect". Cops make mistakes- that is human- it is inhuman to act on mistakes in an inhuman way.

Had they shipped him back to Canada, or, better yet, made him wade through our legal system- there would be no torture- and most likely, this would be nothing more than another innocent citizen caught up in the GW dragnet- but instead, we are torturing poeple without any kind of due process even - so that bad info can be found out and the person let go-

the reason this happened AT ALL was because of the US policy of torturing SUSPECTS- note, not guys we have rock solid proof is a terrorist- but a mere suspect, no judge, no jury, nothing but some bad info and some overzealous cops.

That is what this country was built to stand AGAINST- rounding up and torturing innocent human beings was something our founding fathers wrote great volumes and documents to protect against- a goverment gone wild.

So, just because someone was born in Syria, highly educated, and had an islamic sounding name, we torture him?

It is the torture that is the real crime here- not the false arrest, if the basic ideals of our country had not been used as toilet paper, this would never have been more than a person complaining about being falsely arrested- bad enough, but at least, darn it, not torture!

I didn't attack you. I mostly agree with you. It the crazy leaps of logic you employ that worry me.

Now then...

What's the proof he was tortured? Is it that you assume that the Syrians have a penchant for torture that they are willing to do for us despite the fact they we'll probably be bombing them next?

Now before you say Arar said he was tortured you recall that Tawana Brawley and Crystal Gail Mangum said they were raped.

Um- how about valid enough that very powerful poeple, the cheif of the RCMP lost thier jobs? Isn't that kind of a logical leap of your own to assume this DIDN'T happen?

Ya, I don't think the head of the RCMP would be resigning if there wasn't some serious torture happening.

Ya- Syria doing our dirty work is kinda wierd- but then again, they were with us in Gulf 1, if you recall. That is another reason I think the idea of WMD being smuggled to Syria- now THAT is a leap of logic

But- as of this time NO ONE in power is denying that Arar WAS NOT tortured- unlike the Tawana Bradley case (this is the main reason Al Sharpton has no credibility for me- more than anything else- he hurt his own cause by backing that fraudulent claim) but in this case- no one is denying he was tortured, and a thorough investigation concluded he had indeed been tortured- of course, unless they tortured him to make him say that ...

You're handily winning my argument for me. I wouldn't even bother to post except I suspect you don't get it yet.

OF COURSE the head of the RMCP resigned. IT'S HIS FAULT ANY OF THIS HAPPENED.

Yes, and it is good and proper that he did- however- he didn't believe the guy would be tortured- that was all the US doing.

And if you think you are "winning" your argument- well, I think I should be throwing some pity your way- 'cause it ain't about canada my man- it is about how US acted upon Canada's info.

So you are okay if the US tortures poeple? That is the crux of the issue, and why the guy had to resign- a bad bust- as you pointed out- usually results in, at worst- a lawsuit against the city or state or whatever- however, you take a guy out and torture him, well, whole different ball of wax- you see, then, you are dealing with kidnap and torture- not a "bad bust" anymore. Let's say you are an undercover officer, working in the field. You get some info, and you, as an officer, are quite credible- so, instead of merely arresting the guy- the guys (not the undercover officer) kidnap him and torture him. Okay- maybe the guy with the info resigns because he gave bad info- but the guys doing the kidnapping and torturing? Well you see, they should go to jail for a long, long time

the issue is NOT about bad info- it is about using bad info as a cover to torture someone.

I notice you haven't made any more noises about IF he was tortured- why, do you still believe he wasn't?

Maybe you think it is cute or fun to banter around in a debate, and sidestep the real issue- but the bottom line is- the US performed a hienous crime- NOT Canada, outside of, at the worst contributing to a "false arrest"- which is not exactly torture.

Once again-

1) Canada kidnapped no one
2) Canada didn't perform "extrodinary rendition"

IT is the GW regime that condones torturing others, and participates in it- NOT Canada

or is that too much of a leap for ya?

Do I think he was tortured? Yup*. Am I against rendition? Not entirely. Do I think that Canada has really screwed up and is as guilty as anyone here? Oh yeah.

I'll remind you for all your posturing Mr. Arar is very much alive and 11.5 Million Canadian Dollars richer - you'll note his head is still attached to his neck. I'll further remind you that while this is a travesty of justice that the US did not randomly grab Mr. Arar off a plane. Finally had Mr. Arar been what the RCMP told the US he was I'd have absolutely NO issue with his rendition. None. Not so much as a pang.

*On torture. I'm old school fingernails ripped out, knife trick, pictures of the family doctored, actually getting electrocuted torture. Being yelled at, hearing screams, knocked around, listening to the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, shaken... these strike me as coercion, not torture. I strongly believe the word torture has lost any real meaning in these discussions. This is not anything to do with you CR this is a general rant.

More than a year ago I started this thread about the rendition of terrorist suspects. Arrars case was the prime example to start of the debate. I am glad you bring it back to our attention.

The story in 2005:



1) Is this a war crime, or a crime against humanity?
In my opinion it is a crime against humanity within the context of this so-called and self-proclaimed War on Terror.

2) Does this refute all ideals that we supposedly hold dear as the US as "good guys"?
No, but it does show that U.S. is ready to sacrifices some ethical and moral values they claim to uphold.

3) Should the GW regime be tried for crimes against this innocent man?
I would support such actions, but then again it seems highly unrealistic that something like this will ever happen.

4) Do you believe the US condones torture in light of this story?
Yes. The U.S. administration lead by Bush and Cheney do not hesitate to condone torture. This was obvious a year ago, and it is still obvious today.



I was wondering about that too a year ago CR, unfortunately nobody wanted to respond to this back then:
link


I was wondering BA. If an American civilian was treated they way Arrar was (not by the U.S., but lets say a European country or maybe Canada, Russia or China) would you still uphold your opinion about torture or would you change them?

I'm glad you asked. I think that the US is dealing with humans who do much worse that torture. I don't have many recollections of the US or their proxies beheading anyone on film nor dragging their buring bodies through the streets. Ahh but you wisely loaded the question. Of course there are several hisorical instances of US people being tortured by the (then) USSR and China. I'll remind you that Canada sent both Rush and Triumph to the US airwaves and I found that pseudo metal to be quiet torturous.

So of say, China detained an American in a small room made threatening sounds, hit him, and made him listen to Rush live I would be filled to the brim with bileous rage. However, compared to our current enemy I'd have to be quite happy that his head was still attached.

I don't think the US "condones" torture, but it's pretty obvious the current administration is willing to push the envelope in this area. If in fact what happened was that he is innocent and was tortured there needs to be some accountability all along the chain.

Not referring to this specific case I also believe that people seem to jump the gun on screaming crimes against humanity or bloody torture. When emotions are running high and people are dying everyday a few punches, kicks, and some waterboarding is in order. That's not to say that I believe they should be put through alot of pain and torture over time which will most likely just get them to lie, but some physical influence instead of just trying to "talk tough" to them I have no problem with.

Well heck...now that you put it that way, I can see your point. He's still got his head and a wallet full of money, so that makes it all better. As my signature states, I think 911 made some people insane and this is a perfect example. Some have become so afraid, that they'll accept anything along as it sounds like it will make us safer.

Personally, I don't get too wrapped up in this. I'll wait until President Hillary starts doing the same things the Bush administration does/allows in the name of the GWOT and watch people like BaphometsAdvocate's head asplode when they cry foul. That's where I will <insert your favorite PG-13 rated term here> myself laughing so hard at how absurd and hypocritical these people are. The current so called "conservatives" are part of the problem - not part of the solution. Indifference to this tragedy is evidence of that.

Somewhat unfair to pull that since it's clearly an answer to CRs assertment but OK maybe you missed the point. Arar's ordeal is being dealt with no one is ignoring him and no one is saying "tough nuggies". How well do you supposed he'd have fared if he were with Daniel Pearl's captors in regards to being tortured etc?

I've stated my position clearly through out this thread and while there'll be no President Hillary my head will remain intact when the next (likely Democratic) President does something similar. You need me to be a Republican but I'm a pure-on opprotunist - I vote whoever is closest to what ever I am thinking at the moment. Mostly it's been Libertarian ... I've only voted for first or second placed in a Presidential Election once and that was in 2004. I won that time but I didn't feel particularly victorious.

What happened is that DR very clearly called you on your sidestepping of the issue. And I would have called you on that the same as DR.

BTW- I vote pretty much libertarian all the time, since I am active in the party here and all, and even go so far as to give them some of my hard earned money.

How many times does one claim "oh, it was bad info" every time we screw up?

The US tortured someone- because of bad info

The US engaged in a war with no end, no way to win short of genocide, and no good way out - all because of "bad intel"

At what point does the US take responsibility for acting on "bad info, bad intel"?

It is all seriously unethical and immoral to keep blaming our bad ACTIONS on bad information.

So let me be clear- you don't think he was tortured-

or if you do- it is okay what we did because Canada gave us some bad info?

or, you are okay with the US torturing folks in general?

To be clear- Canada didn't do anything but give bad info- all the bad stuff that happened afterward we did ourselves!

Leahy said it better than I could:

The attorney general responded that the U.S. government had received assurances that Arar would not be tortured.

"We knew damn well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn't be tortured," Leahy says loudly. "We also knew damn well, if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured. And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured."

Who tortured someone?

I have made myself very clear. You'll need to read my posts and use the words on the page not the words you think you're reading

Mr. Arar does not agree with you. At all.

Syria tortured him- acting in proxy for the US goverment.

Do you disagree with Mr Leahy's statement then?

No, you have answered nothing.

You kinda side stepped it by saying " Am I against rendition? Not entirely. Do I think that Canada has really screwed up and is as guilty as anyone here? "

How about some specifics? You don't think US officials should have any culpability other than "I am sorry" for the official's acts?

Or are you okay with rendition?

Would you please just read the words on the damned page? I mean you go to the trouble of quoting me then ignore the quote.

Specifics in to regards to what? What Arar thinks? What the US Gov't thinks? I freaking posted that.

What precisely are you asking me? Leahy's statement is great - IT WASN'T THE US's IDEA TO SEND ARAR TO SYRIA IT WAS CANADA'S AND ARAR AGREES.

And if I'm Sorry is good enough for the RCMP why wouldn't it be good enough for the US Gov't if they ever issue a apology?

no, you have been far less than clear-

you don't feel that the US is all that culpable? I mean, does Canada do renditions- or does the US?

An apology is enough? I don't think so. The folks that participate in , and have made the policy of "extrodinary rendition" should be spending long, long time dating the guy with the most cigarettes.

Kinda squirmy are ya? LOL- I mean-

you didn't answer one direct question- not one.

Couple of things I am wondering here...

Being the mean cold hearted conservative that I am.. what the hell good is an apology anyway?

How come I don't see anyone blaming SYRIA for the torturing???

If you're talking about the 4 loaded "When did you stop hitting your wife" questions; why bother? I man just because you don't know a blessed thing about the case you based your thread on doesn't mean I have to answer questions that have no bearing on the topic. You might as well ask who I think will win the Superbowl.

Let me see if I can clear things up for you since you're adverse to reading your own thread:

Canada is at least as culpable as the US in this case.
Arar believes Canada is to blame for him going to Syria WHERE HE WAS BORN and not back to Canada.
The US Goverment is also culpable for this case and should have apologized a long time ago.
I am on the fence about renditions. Had Mr Arar been who the Candian Gov't said he was, rendition isn't enough. However, as a member of the human race I am not very comfortable with the idea of having proxies do the things I'm not comfortable with. I am not comfortable with torture. Real torture.
I think ithe word torture has been diluted to take on a meaning so that yelling at a person is considered torture. I disagree.
I think if you get man dead to rights and know he's who you say he is and he's not talking and there are lives on the line well... Well then I have new feelings about rendition and torture and whatever it takes to get him talking.

This case isn't really about torture. Even by Arar's own account he at worst was smacked around. This case is about bad intel and the US Government not accepting the fact that they screwed up and went hook like and sinker for what they were told.

I believe either you or I are missing were this is going CR. Canada knew he was to be exported to Syria (his home country) but sent him to the US first to be interrogated, after we interrogated him he was sent to Syria. So basically the US was just a middle man in the case to get what info we could instead of Canada sending him straight to Syria. He was to be exported to Syria regardless of the US unless the decision was made to keep him here which apparently they didn't find that reason so he was sent to Syria. Hell if the US thought he was that much of a threat there's alot of places we have more control of to send him than Syria. We have multiple secret prisons that who knows what goes on there.

Which begs the question- why are we sending folks there to be tortured- when we know they are the <ahem> "axis of evil"- why won't we negotiate with them about Iraq- but use them to torture? I mean- um, duh? Shouldn't there be an investigation, special prosecutor and all that- to figure WHY this admin is "dealing with the devil" in this case? Why we are using someone KNOWN to have massive human rights violation and all that to do our dirty work? Doesn't this kind of smack of collusion with the enemy and whatnot?

Your right BA- so, to be fair, let's send Bush and Cheney to Syria for the same treatment, just a little harsh right? And see if THEY still consider it "torture"





But that is not what happened at all- the US had "possesion" of Arar from the time he hit New York. Hence this little nugget:


Canada issues travel advisory to all Canadians born in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan or Syria to reconsider entering the United States. It follows a U.S. decision to photograph and fingerprint people born in those countries who enter the U.S.

Oh, and of course this:
Arar tells of his year spent in a Syrian jail and says he was mentally and physically tortured and forced to confess that he spent time in Afghanistan.

I will take this for what it means- TORTURE- not "rough treatment"- dude- this is a SYRIAN JAIL- WAY beyond the pale- try, oh, medivel dungeon for a comparison perhaps?

Also this:

A heavily censored portion of a classified report from the Security Intelligence Review Committee is released. The report says the Canadian Security Intelligence Service wasn't aware the U.S. planned to arrest and deport Maher Arar to Syria.



However- this bit leads me a bit more to the BA side- that Canada was more culpable than just turning him over:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/04/21/arar050421.html

The public inquiry releases 2,300 pages of documents, government e-mail and hand-written notes. Arar's supporters say the documents show some Canadian officials actively encouraged his interrogation. "Canadian officials were extremely eager to obtain the fruits of the torture that was inflicted on Mr. Arar," said his lawyer, Lorne Waldman.


Overall, I am highly impressed with Canadian morality and ethics as a society vs our own. What a sad commentary on the US!

Here we have an inquiry THAT ACTUALLY SEEKS THE TRUTH- folks resign, apologies are made, and reperatiobns paid- wow, how is that for a country of bleeding heart liberals - they have shown more morality in one instance than we have in the last 60 years.

Why can't Americans do the same to our regime? Why not investigate "extrodinary renditions" and throw those folks out of office or in jail that have participated in it

America has LOTS AND LOTS to hide- obviously- they are hiding everything they can about it.

Ahhh here it is. The nuggget this thread has been waiting for.

You don't care about Arar. Rendition. Torture. Heck, you don't even care about reading the sources you cite fully. The entire premise of this thread, from the outset has been about America. Now, before you go quoting me in the "Waahh People Say I Hate America" thread:

You have huge problems with your country. That's cool, because you happen to live in a country that lets you do that. I think you already know what really happened in this case and I think it worries you because America isn't going to be the Big Bad you need it to be.

Should the US apologize? I want to use a legal term here... what is it? Oh I know - DUH! (Well it should be a legal term.)

Here's an excercise for you CR:

See if there are any other countries out there that are morally pure like you thought Canada was last week.

Cruisingram's declaration that Noam Chomsky was the "greatest genius in American history" has already established the fact that he has "major problems" with his country.

But he's further north than nearly all Canadian citizens and I doubt he has much real interaction with them. In fact, where I live is closer to Canada (if you count the people) than he is. And most people I've met think that the ideas the Chomsky advocates are silly and/or dumb. Cold has a way of changing people though. It slows the synapses in the brain. It can dull the senses.

So, if Canada is so great, perhaps it would be wise for "cruisingram" to emigrate to that southern nation. The warmth (relatively speaking) might do some good. Or, he may wake up and find that it's not what he thought it was.

1) Is this a war crime, or a crime against humanity?

If one accepts the Bush administration’s definition of the unlawful invasion of a sovereign nation as being a “war”, then yes, the treatment of Mr. Arar is a war crime. It violates the so-called laws of war, in which mistreatment (note that they don’t specify torture) of prisoners constitutes a war crime. A crime against humanity is generally defined as a persecution of an entire group of people, and probably doesn’t apply. Personally, I believe this is worse than both; abducting a man, sending him to a country where he can be tortured, and worse yet, refusing this man’s country’s government the opportunity to inquire as to what the ** the US was doing with him. At least Canada had the decency to investigate, and admit their error.

2) Does this refute all ideals that we supposedly hold dear as the US as "good guys"?

Yup.

3) Should the GW regime be tried for crimes against this innocent man?

Yes, I believe the US is more culpable than Canada. The US is responsible for sending him to a country where he could be tortured with impunity, and as such, the US should accept that responsibility and its consequences.

4) Do you believe the US condones torture in light of this story?

Yup. That’s been proven time and time again in the last few years.


From CR’s source:


To me, that’s a lot more serious than “being yelled at and smacked around”.

But Arar, himself, doesn't say that.


Again, because reading upthread seems to be a bad thing.

I think Arar was tortured. I have never suggested he wasn't.

Senator Leahy hits the nail on the head when he said this:

Something that gets lost in all the blame throwing is the victim himself. Here is a man who lived a law-abiding life by all accounts, was going about his business and suddenly finds himself in a chamber of horrors beyond his worst nightmares. He lost his career, his peace of mind, his family agonized for months as to his fate, his reputation has been destroyed, and for what? Two governments’ fear-mongering inefficiency and knee-jerk reactions. At least one of those governments had the grace to admit their error, and attempt to right a grievous wrong. It makes me sad that I live in the country who would rather stubbornly refuse to admit any fault than do the right thing.

I’m sure he has suffered and will suffer effects from this experience the rest of his life. I can’t imagine the bitterness he must feel. “I wish I could buy my life back” was Mr. Arar’s response to the settlement. His face tells the story of what he went through.

The country in which I was born and raised did not snatch innocent people and send them to third world countries to be tortured. My country believed in “innocent until proven guilty”.

But DaffyGrl it seems like it was CANADA that directed Arar to Syria NOT the US. So while Sen Leahy makes a great sound bite he's woefully ignorant of who did what. Yes, the US physically sent Arar to Jordan then Syria but it wasn't some random event. The US didn't just grab the first guy from Canada who looked Arabic and ship him off to Syria WHERE ARAR WAS BORN. This is why I suggested to CR that he needed to do some more research on the topic before the quick condemnation of the US. You wanna talk "gray area" this whole case is a gray area!

I mean please read his own site:

http://www.maherarar.ca/

I see nothing on Maher Arar’s site (thanks for the link, btw) that states that Canada “directed him to Syria”. I have read a considerable amount about his case, both now, and in 2003, and nothing has exonerated the US’ habit of “extreme renditions”. Unless you can point out where on Arar’s site it states that Canada directed the US to send Arar to Syria, I stand by my statements (and even if Canada did do this, since when does the US take orders from its northern neighbor?). Where he was born is irrelevant. Arar has been a Canadian citizen since he was 17. Is a person somehow less of a citizen because they happened to have been born in a different country?

What seems to be the case is that Arar once was viewed as a possible terrorist or at least a possible affiliate of a terrorist cell. He was questioned by the RCMP but no further steps were taken and the case was dropped. link Somehow his name was still on the U.S. terroristlist. When he reached JFK airport U.S. Immigration and Naturalization officials grabbed him based on the fact he was still (falsely) considered a threath. He was detained for almost 2 weeks before he got deported to Syria for further interogation. Canadian officials were informed of this three days after the rendition. Almost immediately they started a year long campagn to get Arrar out of Syria. In the meantime Canada issues travel advisory to all Canadians born in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan or Syria to reconsider entering the United States.
The case gets complicated when it becomes known that the RCMP had cooperated with the U.S. and that the Canadian secret service officials were "extremely eager to obtain the fruits of the torture that was inflicted on Mr. Arar". As far as I can tell the Canadian goverment did not know about this and thats why this case has caused so much understandable anger and outrage in Canada.

I fully understand what Cruisingram was trying to say when he wrote:



The fact that the Canadian government has apologized to Arar, is trying to get to the bottom of this case and will take further steps to make sure something like this will never happen again is admirable and an honest approach. The way the U.S. is handling this affair is in stark contrast with the Canadian approach.

link

What I find unbelievable, truly unbelievable about the U.S. stance in this case is the fact that although it has been estalished that Arar has no ties whatsoever with Al Qaida or other terrorist groups, he is still on the U.S. watch list! In theory, what happened to him before (detainment, rendition, torture) could very possibly happen again if he dares to visit the U.S.!

OK I could be wrong here but isn't it standard operating procedure to send anyone to there home country that is perceived as a viable threat if they are not a US citizen?

Without seeing the actual evidence I can't make any type of conclusion but sending him to Syria doesn't seem odd to me seeing as to how we always deport people to their home country in these types of situations.

I don’t think its that simple though. Deportation back to Syria would be simply that, deportation for torture alone is another issue, regardless if an enemy or not. I mean look at the criteria, a simple slip an a persons life destroyed and of course a human being tortured, if anything the outrage should have been over the complete injustice this entire fiasco represents.

Plus he turned out not to be an enemy and from the looks of it should not have been deported anyways. BTW, what country should he have been deported back to?

About the U.S making an apology, why would that occur? I mean its not that bad to be tortured and have your life ruined is it. I am sure if you offered people sums of money you could probably get a line going to be tortured in Syria. That is of course all lies and I would think if the U.S had involvement with what happened to this person that would at least have the grace to type of say a letter of all things and stamp someone’s signature on it, though the political ramifications of admittance of this mistake might be used by enemies of America to stop a operation of secret police and torture facilities lumped up with of course the nifty need to expand power over the constitution but not the constitution itself in order to do such.

You get the label of enemy of the state by means that cant be held to law or even defined in which point your life and liberty end and you end up in the hands of secretive people that don’t have to answer to law or any kind really with no ability to have anything lawful save you or end the process. Of course whom this can happen to has no lawful description either or any lawful criteria or anything lawful about it overall in which to gauge it or even understand such. This operation of course is probably supported by high end technology, who knows what in the matter of personal and of course a large warchest, but none of which can be judged by anyone save maybe some politicians. That scares me as much as the terrorists do.

there's more but I have to go I will either post it or you can look UPTHREAD to see where I already posted it.

Yes, the "actions" being the Canadians putting him on a list of suspected terrorists in the first place, NOT authorizing his being sent to Syria. The Canadian government admitted its culpability in the whole chain of events, but nowhere does it say that Canada authorized his rendition to Syria.

Oh, just FYI, I have read the whole thread, and not just "upthread" - I read it from the beginning. Funny, I don't see any sources posted by you other than Maher Arar's site (and I thanked you for directing me to it).

The statements of the Canadian government need to be read in context. As Renger notes, Canada didn't know he'd been sent to Syria until 3 days after his abduction.

From the Commissioner's Report (with sources!)

There we go, there's the logical leap I was looking for.

When I first read about the case I thought the same thing, that the US sent him to Syria to be tortured. Your demonizing the players and only humanizing the victim.

Ok follow me here for a minute. Take a step back and pretend im an investigator.

Arar is detained at JFK because of being on a watch list.
Arar is interrogated by my team, we find Arar to be a credible threat through our interrogation and our own sources.
Standard Operation Procedure calls that we should deport Arar to his home country and hand him over to the authorities there.
Years later Canada claims the intel they recieved was bad and was able to get Arar back to Canada.


Now rather the home country was Syria or Japan is of no consequence, I was simply following the SOP. He was deported to his home country and handed over to the authorities. Now Canada thinks they screwed up but I still have my evidence.

So until you can prove to me otherwise this is the story im getting so far. Otherwise all I hear is the same repetitive phrases about the human incarnated Satan named Bush.

How do you prove which is his "home" country? The man is a Canadian citizen! His home address is in CANADA. His family is in CANADA. Logic would say they would deport him to...CANADA!

I apologize for the lact of links. I will amend that immediately. I thought they were there. I realize now I cannot put the proper links in the older posts.



Also from Wiki:

The nice thing about Wiki is that there are about 30 links under the story so you can do your own digging


You might also find these men's stories rather interesting: Here and here

Please note the US had NOTHING to do with these gentlemen.

It appears they tried but Canada refused to incarcerate him, given that the best intel we had pointed that he was a threat instead of basically releasing him they deported him to his country of birth. Interestingly enough Canada seems to have quiet a few Canadians being held in Syria...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/torture-claims.html



Given these cases may seem on the thread of the words of the detained through there captors, but when you include Arar's case who we know the intel originated in Canada it gives a bit more credibility to the captors words.

There seems to be alot of circumstantial evidence.

If it is true that Canada refused to incarcerate him, that would lead us to a simple conclusion. Canada already investigated his alleged ties to Al Qaida or any other terrorist group and concluded that these allegations were ungrounded. What is remarkable is that the approach of the U.S. secret service and the nature of its watchlist. It seems that you can be put on the list based on vague and false speculations and when you are on it you are already guilty and can become a victim of illegal detainment, rendition and even torture. The fact that Arar is still on this list eventhough it has been officially established that he is innocent and in no way affiliated with any terrorist organisation shows how corrupt and unjustified this watchlist has become. It is this unreliable watchlist, based primarily on unproven suspicions, that caused this whole affair.

Canada has established him to be innocent, the US has not.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/01/...y.ap/index.html



I wait with baited breath for the outrage against Canada using Syria as a proxy for torture.

I implore you to exhale! If you do not you'll certainly die waiting for outrage against anyone but the US.

Yes this is of course one of the most remarkable aspects of this whole case. The Canadian government and the judge who looked into his case have officially and publicly stated that Arar has nothing to do with international terrorism whatsoever. The U.S. government still upholds their ideas he is still a terrorist or affiliated with a terrorist organisation. Why does the U.S. secret service still uphold these believes, on what grounds do they base their conclusions? How accurate are their findings? We do not know! We don't know anything about these watchlists! We don't what the exact criteria are for putting certain people / names on this list. We don't know who is on this list or how long this list is. We do know this:
link

.... and this is exactly what happened to mister Arar. Somehow or for some obscure reason he was still on this list in 2002 and he is still on this list while a public hearing ruled out any ties between him and terrorist organisations. The response the U.S. law enforcement gave when they were questioned about this is so very vague that it is almost impossible to give it any credibility. In the light of the whole affair one should have expected that the U.S. would at least try to provide some solid argument or facts to support their decision. Instead they comfortably hide behind the facade of "secrecy".

Perhaps there is some truth in the Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper after all:
link

And BTW:

You do not have to wait any longer. My outrage is not only directed against U.S. policy also against the Canadian Secret service and RCMP. Just like the Canadian people are outraged about this whole affair. But lets not forget one thing: the policy of extraordinary rendition is a U.S. policy. It has been created and enforced by U.S. officials. Canada or any other country in the world did not invent it. Although despicable, what the Canadian secret service did was play only along with their U.S. counterparts.

if we were only dealing with Mr Arar I would agree but it seems that the RCMP had several men under surveillance and many of these people ended up in Syria. Mr Arar was the only one who ended up there with US interaction. It is clear that Canada told Syria that these men were terrorists and that they wanted the "fruits" of any interrogation Syria performed. We must not pretend Canada simply made an error putting these men on a list.

Further the US was willing to return Arar to Canada if they would try and incarcerate him - when they did not comply the US sent him to Jordan as initially the Syrians would not have him. Mr Arar was born in Syria and Canada didn't want him. The intel the US had from the RCMP made it appear that Mr Arar was a terrorist and Cananda wouldn't take him back after they suggested we hold him.

Without hindsight - what would you suggest the US have done with Mr Arar?

You are of course absolutely right that the Canadian secret service (CSIS) is not without guilt in this matter. As a matter of fact the CSIS played a big part in the rendition of Arar and the captivity of Muayyed Nureddin, Abdullah Almalki and Ahmad El Maati in Syria. It shows clearly that the U.S. is not the only country that is willing to cross legal, moral and ethical lines in their fight against international terrorism.



I would have suggested to keep him in U.S. custody. The fact that Canada was not convinced of his guilt and therefor was unwilling to persecuted him, should have been an indication that maybe U.S. intelligence also made a mistake. I would suggest a normal public trial (upholding the "innocent untill proven guilty" doctrine) in which the defendant and the U.S. intelligence agency could both make their case and support it with facts. In case it turned out Arar was innocent the U.S. reputation would not suffer as much as it does now. They could simply say well we had our suspicions and we felt he could pose a threat, but obviously we made a mistake. If these steps had been taken Arar would not be traumatized by the whole event and the U.S. would not have to face accusations of outsourcing torture on innocent people. If the U.S. had chosen this course of action they would have shown the rest of the world that they will uphold the moral, ethical and legal standards that they cherish so much.

I want to agree fully with you.

I think there may have been some willful ignorance or a rush to action that prompted the deportation/rendition of Mr Arar.

The US was refused from Canada. The US did not tell Canada that they had shipped Mr Arar off until 3 days after they shipped them.

However!

At any point during those two weeks that Mr Arar was in US custody the Canadians could have said HEY! He's not a bad guy. It seems though, the Canadians only ascertained this after months of interrogation/coercion/torture at the hands of the Syrians - who they are clearly at ease using for such service.

All of this is precisely what I have said since the first of this thread. If you want to be outraged at the US over Mr Arar you'd better be more than willing to be outraged at the Canadians in regards to this case as well.


I believe I will need to be very verbose on threads going forward (and remember to properly link citations.)