|
 |
November 19, 2003 TORTURE....Body and Soul has a good post about the case of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen we shipped off to be tortured in Syria because we suspected him of being an al-Qaeda sympathizer. This kind of behavior is revolting. John Ashcroft needs to keep in mind that we can win the war on terrorism without losing our souls in the process. Posted by Kevin Drum at November 19, 2003 10:17 PM | TrackBackComments
Yes I heard about this case. Where are the limits between suspicious terrorists and racial segregration? John Ashcroft needs to bear in mind that a Democrat may soon aquire all this newfound power, the reason why the AG usally doesnt try the power grabs this one has. Or does he allready know something the rest of us don't? Posted by: SnarkyShark at November 19, 2003 10:25 PM | PERMALINKWe outsource our torture to Syria, and sell them the instruments of torture too. How nice of us to make the Syrians' job so easy. And money says that if G.W. is re-elected, he'll make a case for war against Syria, and among his list of reasons will be, "the Syrian government is a brutal regime that tortures people." Posted by: Michael at November 19, 2003 10:43 PM | PERMALINKGeorge W. Bush has simply been too cheap to fight the war on terror the right way. We haven't spent the money to secure our ports, we haven't spent the money to actually rebuild Afghanistan, we haven't been willing to help the Palestinians build actual lives, we haven't been willing to actually try to curtail the money flowing from the Saudis to terrorists, we haven't been willing to compromise enough to get the rest of the world to stay on board with the war on Al Qaeda. The ONLY reason that there hasn't been a terror attack in the U.S. since 9/11 is John Ashcroft. Ashcroft is smart enough to know that Bush refused to do things the right way, so he simply only has one other option to protect American lives; shred the constitution. Round up immigrants spy on and interview Muslims at random, hold people without trial, and all the rest. John Ashcroft is not in a position to win the war on terror without shredding the constitution. The Bush Administration has put tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and helping out Israel and the Saudis ahead of those priorities. The only way that the Administration has left Ashcroft to do his job is to shred the constitution. Does that make it right? Of course not. But, no matter how bad Ashcroft may be (covering up the goddess of justice, yeesh), I still cannot pin the destruction of the constitution on him. I still put it on the man/overlord at the top. Ashcroft may be bad, but the real problem is the man at the top. Posted by: Balta at November 19, 2003 10:52 PM | PERMALINKAshcroft, as a soulless ideologue, cannot be expected to count the loss of our collective souls as a significant cost in his drive to an American theocracy. Posted by: JHD at November 19, 2003 11:13 PM | PERMALINKApart from the legal issues pertaining to how this man was
(mis)treated, isn't the sending of a suspected Al Qaeda to Ba'athist
Syria at least a tacit admission that Syria is opposed to Bin Laden and
his group? And wouldn't the fact that the Syrians tortured the man
constitute proof of sorts that indeed they consider Al Qaeda to be an
outlaw organization and enemy of Syria? At the same time we are
supposed to believe that the Ba'athists in Iraq, as opposed to their
Syrian counterparts, were somehow more favorably disposed toward, if not
demonstrably supportive of, Al Qaeda. No question, Justice bollixed this one. What a strange decision. Posted by: Bird Dog at November 19, 2003 11:57 PM | PERMALINKBrad DeLong, channeling Chung the Unavoidable (?), is also good. I'm uneasy with the idea of evil, but this strikes me as abominable schrecklichkeit. It sucks. Posted by: bad Jim at November 19, 2003 11:58 PM | PERMALINKJohn Ashcroft needs to keep in mind that we can win the war on terrorism without losing our souls in the process. Ah, but Ashcroft has not a soul. Posted by: Spade at November 20, 2003 12:31 AM | PERMALINKMaher Arar was sent to Syria to be tortured on the same principle as Moazzam Begg, Feroz Abbasi, Rhuhel Ahmed, Asif Iqbal, Shafiq Rasul, Richard Belmar, Tarek Dergoul, Martin Mubanga, Jamal Udeen, Bisher al-Rawi, and Jamil al-Banna were sent to Cuba for indefinite imprisonment and what Amnesty International defines as "torture lite". That is, they are all citizens of allied countries: the US could not prove they were guilty of anything: therefore send them somewhere out of the reach of the law of their own country and torture them until they confess to something. Anything to justify it. Maher Arar was lucky not to end up in Guantanamo Bay. It could have happened. It may yet. (It may already have happened: it's not like the State Department publishes regular updates on its illegal prisoners.) And this unlawful practice is defended by wingnuts on the basis that
it is sufficient to accuse someone of terrorism to presume they are
guilty. Let's not forget that the Canadian government is implicated in this incident as well. Posted by: charles at November 20, 2003 01:16 AM | PERMALINKOrcinus, on a particularly tacky Barbie doll: "My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I
think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local
fascism." You know what really scares me about this? While his case is horrible, how many times has this happened to people that were not well educated, with a good job make decent money, who could speak good english, who had good ties to a very supporting family structure back home? There are people out there who are in prisons being torutured overseas, who are quite possibly innocent, who have been given no due process, and who have been put in that situation, directly, but the United States of America. And they aren't lucky enough to have their story told, and to have their release secured. We used to constantly complain to the USSR for treating people this way. Simply from a probability standpoint, it seems likely that if I have read about this once, it has happened to others. Really sad what our country has become. When are we going to take it back? When are we going to send someone to jail for pissing on our Constitution like this? Posted by: Timothy Klein at November 20, 2003 02:24 AM | PERMALINKWhere are the conservative trolls when these questions are asked? Where are the conservative trolls when these questions are asked? Hiding. >John Ashcroft needs to keep in mind that we can win the war on terrorism without losing our souls in the process.
Once you accept a circa-1600 God Almighty everything changes. This gives you an all-powerful, all-omniscent being in direct control of everything that happens. So, assuming you pray and anoint yourself and dedicate yourself to this Being, you can do no wrong. So yeah, says Mr. Ashcroft to himself, maybe Mr. Arar wasn't connected with terrorism at all. But why would God, who I faithfully serve, then allow me to cause him such pain? Ah, well "God works in mysterious ways." So there must have been some reason for Mr. Arar's travails, maybe he was a thief or liked to look at steel boobs, but in any case even though I, John Ashcroft, am a sinner, God would not have let me do wrong to an innocent man without penalty. Therefore I sleep well tonight. This extends nicely to war- collateral damage victims are In God's Hands, quite possibly in Paradise. So what's the big deal? Nice philosphy if you can get yourself to believe it, huh? PS: Note that I understand that this is far from how people like Alan Brill or the Pope think. Posted by: doesn't matter at November 20, 2003 05:16 AM | PERMALINKAccording to this morning's Washington Post, we handed him over to the Syrians because they said they cross their hearts weren't going to torture him. Since Bush is currently trying to shut Syria out of a proposed trading bloc on the grounds that they're an evil country that harbors terrorists, and John Bolton had to be restrained by the CIA from practically declaring war on them in front of a congressional committee, I'm not sure why we thought that was good enough. Even if they felt they had reason (and they acknowledge that they've done this a lot since 9/11) I'm not sure how we justified taking a foreign national without showing probably cause and deporting him off the continent without allowing him to contact his embassy. Posted by: julia at November 20, 2003 05:17 AM | PERMALINKIt's easy to forget Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, who is being held in jail in the U.S. in soitude, uncharged, and without any contact with the outside world. He has been locked up for nearly 600 days now and not a word about him or any reason to believe he will ever be released. If this can happen to him, it can happen to you. The constitution seems to be a dead-letter. Posted by: Karlsfini at November 20, 2003 06:02 AM | PERMALINKWell, at least one Democrat has kept such an odious option on standby: "Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committees, has suggested that he would consider turning over Mr. Mohammed to countries without restrictions against torture. “I wouldn’t rule it out,” Rockefeller told CNN. “I wouldn’t take anything off the table where he is concerned, because this is the man who has killed hundreds and hundreds of Americans over the last 10 years.” " http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2003/0424duress.htm Sometimes torture advocacy can be bipartisan. Ugh. Posted by: David at November 20, 2003 06:08 AM | PERMALINKMost people who complain of Ashcroft's disdain for democracy and the rule of law don't know the half of it. Ascroft literally sees democracy as an affront to the will of God. A Google search will find a letter he wrote to a pastor a few years back saying that democracy is a denial of God's kingdom. Posted by: Matthew Saroff at November 20, 2003 06:37 AM | PERMALINKIt's not entirely clear that the Canadian government didn't know what was going on with Arar. Arar says that he had an opportunity to talk to a Canadian consular official when he was detained in NYC, before being deported to Syria (via Jordan, where he was also tortured by employees of the good King Abdallah). The US press is doing an excellent job of ferreting out this story, despite the dfact that Arar is not an American. The Canadian press is sitting on its hands, wailing and gnashing its teeth. Posted by: Ikram at November 20, 2003 06:47 AM | PERMALINKYeah, on the topic of Ashcroft being "forced" by the Bush administration to shred the consititution in order to defend the US from terrorist attack, I think it's important to remember that we are in fact talking about a pro-segregation Christian fundamentalist zealot. This is a guy who had himself annointed with cooking oil upon taking office. I don't think Bush had to twist his arm too hard to get him to start rounding up the heretics. By the way, here's another interesting article on the Arar debacle from the Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1069283411628 Ashcroft insists that he broke no U.S. laws. Arar's lawyer says that's "a bald-faced lie." Posted by: Phil at November 20, 2003 06:47 AM | PERMALINKBad Jim, you use the word "troll" a lot. I don't think it means what
the liberal wingnuts on this board think it does. (Roughly, to "troll"
seems to be "to disagree with Kevin" on the comment pages here). J Mann, it's clear that the person ultimately responsible for this crime was Ashcroft himself - he's in charge of the Justice department. It seems likely that the only way of getting rid of Ashcroft will be to get rid of George W. Bush. So, planning to vote Democrat next time? Please J Mann, point away. I have a feeling your definition of "similar stuff" will be rather broad. Posted by: Hoyt Pollard at November 20, 2003 07:08 AM | PERMALINKactually there would have been a point -- during the pointlessness of the Starr investigation, I told all my friends exactly what I didn't like about Clinton's policies, including some of the sleazier civil right threats (hey, who remember the Clipper chip? good times..). he had opposition on the left, too, you know. the right, however, wasted its considerable money and influence attacking the man's libido instead of his policies. criminy, save me. now someone else is in office. if you have a soul, and you nevertheless support W.'s policies (I presume it's even possible), now is the time to say "I may support the president on balance but [...] is odious no matter who does it." bully for you for taking that tack. shame on you for bringing up Clinton as a distraction, though. it's not like each of the last several presidents, including Jimmy "Human Rights" Carter, doesn't have similar stains on his record. and for those honest, frothing ideologues out there, just admit you like reading about people different than you being tortured. Jersurgislac and J Mann -- Arar *is* back in Canada, not in Syria or Guantanamo, and is raising a big stink there -- both to publicize his story and to clear himself from accusations or implications of being a terrorist. That's why his story has resurfaced in the past few weeks. He's probably pretty safe where he is for a while, but his story is important precisely *because* he is free and able to talk about it, unlike Padilla or the Guantanamo inmates... Posted by: Alex R at November 20, 2003 07:09 AM | PERMALINKArar is back in Canada now. As others have pointed out, the Canadian government has some serious questions to answer about this case too (this is one of those times when I should point out that I'm Canadian). However, this is not the first time this has happened...there is also the case of Berna Cruz, who was deported when making a stop-over in Chicago because the official thought that her last name looked funky for someone from India. In her case, she was not allowed to contact Canadian officials and her passport was shredded. Fortunately there were no serious consequences for her. Posted by: Kevin Brennan at November 20, 2003 07:15 AM | PERMALINK"Where are the conservative trolls when these questions are asked?" Well, given the extremism of the posters here, I guess a moderate Bush supporter like me qualifies as a "conservative troll" here. So, to answer the question, Kevin has it all wrong AGAIN. There is absolutely NO evidence that he was sent to Syria "to be tortured". He was sent to Syria. He was (or, more precisely, he alleges he was, since we have no evidence other than his say so and the left-wing's sincere hopes) tortured. But there is ZIPPO about the motivation on sending him to Syria. He is a citizen of Canada, but he is a citizen of Syria ALSO. So sending him to Canada aas opposed to Syria is 6-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other. Unless we should not be sending ANYONE to Syria, or we had prior knowledge that he would be tortured, I'll defer to the authorities on where the proper place to send people is. More importantly, it is clear that this is more of a large-scale campaign of demonization of conservatives. They say things like "pro-segregation" and "zealot" and "Ashcroft's soul was annointed by lard". And of course we have Howard Dean's "Ashcroft is not a patriot." Where's the wailing and moaning about questioning patriotism? Oh, right, it's OK to demonize conservatives. It's only the pure-hearted liberals who are allowed to be upset when someone questions their patriotism. The hatred harbored by you left-wingers runs deep and strong. Posted by: Al at November 20, 2003 07:19 AM | PERMALINKI dunno Al, Arar says he asked to be deported to Canada and told the Immigration people in the US he would certainly be tortured if sent to Syria. True we do only have his account, but if he's lying I'm sure the Canadian gov't would be happy to conduct an inquiry which they're not. Posted by: Dubyamds at November 20, 2003 07:40 AM | PERMALINKIn answer to "Al", you are *supposed* to be deported to the country of your *citizenship*. Or can you provide a valid legal reason for deporting a Canadian to a third party nation? This was the latest in the Globe and Mail: http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031119.uxarar19/BNStory/Front/ Posted by: 2shoes at November 20, 2003 07:58 AM | PERMALINKShorter Al: I don't care if this guy got tortured, what is really important is to stop attacking Ashcroft! Posted by: Rob at November 20, 2003 08:01 AM | PERMALINKHe was (or, more precisely, he alleges he was, since we have no evidence other than his say so and the left-wing's sincere hopes) tortured. I feel fairly confident, Al, that the left wing does not, in fact, "sincerely hope" that Arar was tortured. And if that kind of attitude is representative of "moderate Bush supporters", then God help us all. Posted by: Anarch at November 20, 2003 08:03 AM | PERMALINKUnless we should not be sending ANYONE to Syria, or we had prior knowledge that he would be tortured, I'll defer to the authorities on where the proper place to send people is. Mmmm... So, Al, you're now a Syria supporter? Syria is now a valued
US ally, in right-wing eyes? You would be happy to be sent there
yourself by Canadian authorities for questioning? Since we had the choice of sending Mr Arar to Canada or Syria, why would we have chosen to send an al Queda sympathizer to Canada? Because of the massive border security? And why would we suspect that Syria would torture him? Does Syria torture all of their citizens returning from overseas? Do they just torture al Quada members? Or do they torture people that the US doesn't like? Do we even know that he was tortured? It seems to me that if Canada gives us the name of a person they suspect has terrorist ties, and we catch him in the US carrying names of al Queda members, then he is very likely a problem to the US. Or is infiltration by terrorists not a problem? Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 08:13 AM | PERMALINKUnless we should not be sending ANYONE to Syria, or we had prior knowledge that he would be tortured, I'll defer to the authorities on where the proper place to send people is. I have no problem with believing "we should not be sending anyone to Syria", at least not involuntarily. Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 08:13 AM | PERMALINKHe had dual Syrian/Canadian citizenship, according to the Wash Post. Also according to that story, he had a long list in his wallet of known Al Qaida operatives, affiliates and supporters. That doesn't make him guilty of anything - I suppose if we were playing by the rules, we'd have just let him in the country and waited until he committed a crime before we paid him any attention. That is what is being argued here, right? Re: Marrar and the Gitmo detainees, what exactly should we do with such folks? Specifics please - a curse at Ashcroft doesn't answer the question of what to do. Innocent until proven guilty is a pretty hard thing to live by when there are folks wandering around with plans to kill tens of thousands, or millions if they can just get the right technology to do it with. With many of the folks in Gitmo, customary international law allows folks found wandering on battlefields, in civilian clothes, yet carrying weapons and fighting against a legitimate military force during a declared war, to be tried by court martial as spies or saboteurs, and executed. It's not what human rights groups like, but it has been accepted practice for a long time to do so. Suggestions for this situation? Perhaps disarm them, and send them home, and hope that these men sworn to Allah to kill us all, don't scare up another rifle and come back to try and kill our troops the next day? I'm sure posters here have some good, specific policy alternatives for dealing with this problem. I just haven't heard them yet. Posted by: Al Maviva at November 20, 2003 08:19 AM | PERMALINKSince we had the choice of sending Mr Arar to Canada or Syria, why would we have chosen to send an al Queda sympathizer to Canada? Well, because only one of those two countries is, according to our government, a terrorist sponsoring state at a time when our government claims to be at war with "terrorism" generally, not al-Qaeda alone, and, on the other hand, only one is a long time ally, and member of NATO, and actually militarily participating with the US in the "War on Terror", and particularly against al-Qaeda, with actual military force. So, if he was an al-Qaeda terrorist, it'd make more sense to give him over to a nation that was fighting on our side in the war against al-Qaeda. And if he wasn't a terrorist, it makes more sense to give a citizen of a US ally and close friend to that country than a torture-using, terrorist sponsoring state with a "justice" system that is interested only in maintaining state power and has no interest in the truth, that is neither a US ally nor a close friend. Either way, Canada makes more sense. Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 08:20 AM | PERMALINKThere is absolutely NO evidence that he was sent to Syria "to be tortured"...But there is ZIPPO about the motivation on sending him to Syria...The hatred harbored by you left-wingers runs deep and strong. The gullibility harbored by right-wingers runs deep and strong. Posted by: chris at November 20, 2003 08:22 AM | PERMALINKSince we had the choice of sending Mr Arar to Canada or Syria, why would we have chosen to send an al Queda sympathizer to Canada? Because of the massive border security? Do we actually know that Maher Arar is an Al-Quaeda sympathizer? No, we don't. Why should the Justice Department have sent Maher Arar to Canada? Because it was illegal to deport him to Syria. And why would we suspect that Syria would torture him? Does Syria torture all of their citizens returning from overseas? Do they just torture al Quada members? Or do they torture people that the US doesn't like? Syria has frequent and recent human rights reports outstanding for torturing political prisoners. Maher Arar wasn't just "a citizen returning from overseas" - he was being handed over to the Syrian authorities by the DoJ as an alleged terrorist. We can certainly assume that just as the Ba'athists in Iraq didn't like Al-Qaeda, neither do the Ba'athists in Syria - and you can bet on it that the DoJ know this. For the DoJ to claim that they had no idea that Syria tortures political prisoners is just unbelieveable. Do we even know that he was tortured? Is the DoJ actually denying it? It seems to me that if Canada gives us the name of a person they suspect has terrorist ties, and we catch him in the US carrying names of al Queda members, then he is very likely a problem to the US. From reports, it appears that any member of the Bush clan has more provable terrorist ties than Maher Arar. Does this mean that if Neil Bush visits Canada, the Canadian authorities should deport him to Syria? Or is infiltration by terrorists not a problem? Thanks for proving my point, Ron. To rightwingnuts such as yourself, being arrested equates to guilt. Posted by: Jesurgislac at November 20, 2003 08:22 AM | PERMALINKSuggestions for this situation? Fair trials under regularly constituted military courts under the UCMJ, as permitted by international law and US domestic law, for those for whom there is evidence of violations of the laws of war warranting charges. Detention consistent with the Geneva Conventions as Prisoners of War for those combatants for whom there is no such evidence, with eventual repatriation. Repatriation immediately of non-combatants for whom there is no evidence of violations of the laws of war warranting charges. Some sort of competent tribunal to decide between the latter two cases where there is room for doubt. Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 08:23 AM | PERMALINKJesurgislac and cmdicely: rarely do you get two such excellent responses right in a row. Thank you. Posted by: chris at November 20, 2003 08:32 AM | PERMALINK"In answer to "Al", you are *supposed* to be deported to the country of your *citizenship*." Yes. Which is EXACTLY what the US did, since Arar is holds dual citizenship... Canada and Syria. I also like the response that he REQUESTED to be sent to Canada. Do
countries usually honor requests about where to deport people? I dunno.
But if we do, I request to be deported to Fiji. By the way, Ashcroft's attention is not really on terrorism; he's using the PATRIOT Act to continue the persecution of the Drug War, his real obsession. Posted by: Yahmdallah at November 20, 2003 08:39 AM | PERMALINKI, too, request that Al be deported to Fiji. Yes. Which is EXACTLY what the US did, since Arar is holds dual citizenship... Canada and Syria. IIRC, he holds "dual" citizenship only to the extent that Syria refuses to recognize his renunciation of Syrian citizenship when he became a Canadian (unless I'm confusing it with a different case). Anyway, I still contend that Canada makes more sense than Syria if he was an al-Qaeda terrorist than Syria, and more sense if he wasn't, and is more likely to punish an alleged terrorist if guilty and less likely to punish an alleged terrorist if innocent than Syria, so requesting Canada makes sense if he was innocent, and deporting him to Canada makes sense in either case.
Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 08:43 AM | PERMALINK One poster mentioned the guy had a list of al Q folks with him. They have computers on Fiji, Brendan. It wouldn't keep me from posting. :-) Posted by: Al at November 20, 2003 08:44 AM | PERMALINKcmdicely and jesurgislac We don't know why Canada declared him a potential threat. But deport him to Canada? The Canada that refused to support the War on Terror? The Canada that was harboring a person that they suspected of being a terrorist? The Canada that is now mad at us for treating a terrorist like a terrorist? The Canada that we have very little border control with? Be realistic guys. We might as well give him a green card as send him to Canada. I feel the rush of angry Canadians to their keyboards all the way from here in NYC... Posted by: Al at November 20, 2003 08:56 AM | PERMALINKWe don't know that it was known that Syria would torture him. We do know that the US government knew about, and loudly trumpeted (including W. himself) Syria's routine use of torture. We do know that they claim Syria promised to make an exception in his case. Of course, why this administration trusts the word of terrorist sponsoring states that routinely use torture is a question I think is worth asking. Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 09:05 AM | PERMALINKThe Canada that refused to support the War on Terror? Which Canada is that? Certainly not the one that borders the US to
the north and was militarily involved in the war against terror in
Afghanistan. But deport him to Canada? The Canada that refused to support the War on Terror? War on Iraq is not War on Terror. (At least not until the U.S. invaded and made Iraq a terrorist stomping ground.) We don't know what else the US knew about this guy. If the US had any more damning information, you better believe they'd be out front about it in order to squash the bad publicity. Hell, the Administration just makes shit up when they want to smear someone...why wouldn't they supply information that was actually true if they had it? We don't know that it was known that Syria would torture him. I guess if you believe Iraq had WMD, that the Niger story was true,
that al-Queda was in cahoots with Iraq and that Hussein had something to
do with 9/11, then you can probably say in all sincerity that it wasn't
known that Syria would torture him. (pssst...wanna buy the Brooklyn
Bridge?...) IMO some commenters in this thread will have more information to
ground their arguments about this case in if they read Jeanne d'Arc's
links. Al, If the situation were reversed, and Canada deported an American citizen to some third country without allowing said citizen to contact American authorities, EVEN IF that person was not tortured, would you think it didn't matter? Would you say that Canada was right to do so? Somehow I suspect not. As for Canada refusing to support the War on Terror, clearly you are referring to the war against Iraq. They are, at best, tangentially connected even if you believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Posted by: Kevin Brennan at November 20, 2003 09:15 AM | PERMALINKArticle 3 of the Convention Against Torture: Article 3 1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Bush's father signed the CAT, the Senate ratified it and the enabling
legislation has been signed into law. It sounds to my layman's ear that
whoever sent Maher Arar to Syria committed a crime. Randy Paul: God is infallible. Bush/Ashcroft et al were annointed by God. Ergo, no crime could have been committed. Besides, he was only a Muslim, right? Aren't they all terrorists (except the bin laden relatives that Bush let fly out of the US unmolested after 9/11? Oh....maybe he was deporting them! Now I get it!) Posted by: chris at November 20, 2003 09:24 AM | PERMALINK"The Canada that is now mad at us for treating a terrorist like a terrorist?" Of course, saying this amounts to saying that it is appropriate to torture terrorists. I don't care if he's Osama in disguise--it's wrong to torture people. "The Canada that refused to support the War on Terror?" Tell that to the families of the Canadians who died in Afghanistan--and don't forget to gloat over the fact that most of them died as a result of a "friendly fire" incident involving US planes. You righties can't seem to grasp the difference between the War on Terror (which practically the whole world supports) and the War on Iraq. Posted by: rea at November 20, 2003 09:25 AM | PERMALINKAl and others: This man was not deported. He was on a transitting flight (that landed in the US on the way to Canada). Explain to me now why we "deported" him to Syria. Posted by: cafl at November 20, 2003 09:28 AM | PERMALINKComments like Ron's But deport him to Canada? The Canada that refused to support the War on Terror? and the attitude they represent are a perfect explanation for the troubles the US has had in garnering needed support for its war in Iraq. What so much of the world hears is, "If you don't unquestionably and loudly support every single thing about every single position the US takes in the world you are against us and for terrorism." Bah. Yukoner Posted by: Yukoner at November 20, 2003 09:32 AM | PERMALINKa) Perhaps Canada's reluctance to get involved in the fake war on terror stems, at least in part, from the fact that when they sent troops to help us in the real war on terror, we killed them. That never goes over well. b) Matthew Saroff: I am unable to reproduce your results on Google. I'd really appreciate it if you could supply a little more info there. JH Posted by: Jimmy Hotep at November 20, 2003 09:32 AM | PERMALINKKevin Brennan, I would have no problem if Canada deported a person who held dual US-Syria citizenship to Syria instead of the US, UNLESS they knew that the person would be tortured in Syria. Randy Paul, are you saying that we should never deport ANYONE to Syria? Or is there anything in particular about the Arar case that would make him especially likely to be tortured? (Also, BTW, I like Canada, and think it HAS supported us in the WOT. In other words, it's not France.) Posted by: Al at November 20, 2003 09:33 AM | PERMALINK
Ooops. That should read were flying from, say, India to The Netherlands. Posted by: JimP at November 20, 2003 09:36 AM | PERMALINKRon And we know that Arar was an al Qaeda sympathizer.....how, exactly?? *And why would we suspect that Syria would torture him?* *Do we even know he was tortured?* Randy Paul, are you saying that we should never deport ANYONE to Syria? Given the routine use of torture on prisoners in that country, yes, I would agree that the US should never -- under the terms of the Convention against Torture and domestic US law -- never deport anyone to Syria unless it is particularly unlikely that they will be arrested as a result of that deportation. Not only that they "should never" do so, but that to do so is, in fact, illegal. Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 09:44 AM | PERMALINKSo what would you call it if you were flying to The Netherlands, your plane stopped in Frankfurt, and the German authorities sent you to the US? If it isn't deportation, what term more correctly applies? Kidnapping? Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 09:45 AM | PERMALINKI feel the rush of angry Canadians to their keyboards all the way from here in NYC... After Sept 11th, I, yes a Canadian, felt a unity of spirit and purpose with America, much like many the world over felt. I donated money to victims funds, and I supported sending our soldiers to Afghanistan. I will never feel that way again, and it is a direct result of encountering attitudes and positions of a significant minority of Americans such as yourself who seem joyous in trampling concepts such as the rule of law. I have many American friends. If the catastrophic occurs I will not hesitate to reach out to them, but as individuals. Posted by: 2shoes at November 20, 2003 09:48 AM | PERMALINKRon's comments are the reason the US sometimes has a hard time finding allies. There are hundreds of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, and they are there because Al-Qaeda attacked NYC and DC. But apparently, unless you support the US lockstep on every issue, you are not an ally. Fuck you, Ron. As others have mentioned, Syria does not permit Syrian citizenship to be renounced. But the US clearly saw Arrar as a Canadian first. They allowed a Canadian consular official to see him in NYC, but did not allow Syrian diplomats to talk to him. Why then deport him to Syria? But I don't think this should be a blame-the-US fest because there is plenty of blame that could stick to the Canadian government here. It may have aided the US in facilitating the torture of a Canadian citizen. Over at headheeb.blogmosis.com, Jonathan Edelstein had a post a few months ago on the US practice of subcontracting torture to allied tyrannies. I beleive it has been a bipartisan affair. Posted by: Ikram at November 20, 2003 09:51 AM | PERMALINKThere are lots of things that are going crazy in the US. One thing
you never heard since about foreign prisonners who are on deathrow: the
american authorities never read their rights in most cases. Foreign
prisonners have the right to call their consulate, but most of the time
it is completely forgotten. Article VI This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. " Posted by: Frenchy at November 20, 2003 10:06 AM | PERMALINKThe "list of addresses" allegation was made just this last week by a single anonymous U.S. official. It is vehemently denied by Arar. The last anonymous official's claim in this case was that Arar had visited Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. This was proven to be impossible. I suspect this is much the same. Posted by: BruceR at November 20, 2003 10:07 AM | PERMALINKThanks for the info, Bruce. It's quite ashame that John Ashcroft isn't perfect. Or that the government isn't perfect. I wish we could hold every one accountable to the level of perfection for everything. If the 'facts' are reliable, it truly sucks for this guy what happened. It's horrible. But, lets also have a realistic perspective of the war that we are fighting. Posted by: Odysseus at November 20, 2003 10:18 AM | PERMALINKFor "y", read "a". Just to be clear, the man was travelling from Tunisia to Canada, changing planes in New York, under a Canadian passport. It would have made more sense to send him back to Tunisia than to Syria, if traditional border-check practices were being observed. And technically, he wasn't even sent to Syria, he was sent to Jordan, which then shipped him to Syria after roughing him up some. The Canadian government is perfectly capable of holding terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial, too. It is currently holding at least five. Given that the suspicion in Arar's case seems to have been that he was plotting an Al Qaeda attack in Canada, he could easily have been held here along with those others, if security was the only concern. No, the only logical explanation is they wanted to get information from him, through threat of torture, which would have been impossible in Canadian custody. Too bad the guy was innocent and so had none to give. Posted by: BruceR at November 20, 2003 10:20 AM | PERMALINKIf this guy is so dangerous, what is he doing walking (more accurately, limping) around Ottawa a free man? Posted by: Hoyt Pollard at November 20, 2003 10:21 AM | PERMALINKAl Maviva: Also according to that story, he had a long list in his wallet of known Al Qaida operatives, affiliates and supporters. er, no... to elaborate on BruceR's point, an anonymous U.S. Official told WaPo that when apprehended at the airport, Arar had the names of "a large number of known al Qaeda operatives, affiliates or associates" in his wallet or pockets. note that we don't know whether the official contacted WaPo or vice versa. this could be gospel truth (though it doesn't affect the legality of the deportation). the source could have been a DoJ liaison to INS, who was present in the room when Arar first emptied his pockets at the airport, and with personal knowledge of the names of proven Al Qaeda operatives and supporters. unfortunately, the source could also have been the Associate Deputy Vice Under-Peon In Charge Of WaPo Leaks at the WH communications office, who was told by someone else in WHCO that Arar's address book contained a number of names which were also on the same watch list Arar was on. since the mere fact of being a friend of Arar's would almost certainly be enough to get you onto such a list if you weren't on it already that's not very meaningful... me personally, I don't doubt for a moment that Arar must be an AQ sympathizer - just look at the Toronto Asteroid interview in which he praises Afghan resistance to the Soviet occupation. I'd stay and chat, but chris and I are having a lot of trouble getting rid of that bridge. are you sure you're not interested? Posted by: radish at November 20, 2003 10:22 AM | PERMALINKIf the 'facts' are reliable, it truly sucks for this guy what happened. It's horrible. But, lets also have a realistic perspective of the war that we are fighting. Unless its a war with Canada, I don't see what the war has to do with it; other than the fact that handing people over to terrorist sponsoring states seems counterproductive to a war against terrorism. Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 10:31 AM | PERMALINKYou folks accept without question the word of Mr Arar (identified as a potential terrorist by Canada and caught carrying a list of al Queda members) but reject without question the word of the US Government. If the US Government "alleges" that Mr Arar is a terrorist, let's try thinking in terms that Mr Arar was "alleged" to have been tortured in Syria. And I'm aware of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan and the tragedy of the friendly fire incident. I also know that Canada has made some efforts against terrorists. But what about this? Have al-Qaeda cells operated in Canada? Have other terrorist groups besides al-Qaeda been active in Canada? I understand that Canada's responsibility is to Canada, and that their response to terrorism is whatever they want to do. But I also recognize that the the US's responsibility is to the US, and our response to terrorism is what we deem appropriate. Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 10:36 AM | PERMALINKIf -- if -- this guy was innocent, then what happened to him is a shame. We need to look into the process the Justice Department used to deport him. If there are not adequate safeguards in place at the DOJ, we need to implement more safeguards. If a DOJ official made a bad call, that person should be punished. I am very troubled by the fact that we are letting the Syrians do our dirty work. If we are going to torture someone, I would rather have us do it ourselves. We have to be careful not to make a habit of this, obviously. I strongly suspect that that the Justice Department had a good reason for deporting this guy, however. The charge that they "round up anyone who looks Arab and ship him off to Syira," is ludicrous. It wouldn't surprise me if this guy was doing something highly suspicious. He may have been innocent after all, but he probably looked guilty. I'm certainly not ready to call for anyone's resignation. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 20, 2003 10:37 AM | PERMALINKYou folks accept without question the word of Mr Arar (identified as a potential terrorist by Canada and caught carrying a list of al Queda members) but reject without question the word of the US Government. I guess you've never heard of "due process". And no, after the lies of the last year, I no longer accept the word of the U.S. Govt. Nice, eh? Posted by: 2shoes at November 20, 2003 10:43 AM | PERMALINKBruce: The men being indefinitely detained in Canada (Almrei, etc) are not Canadian citizens. I don't think there are any Canadians being treated that way, and I am not sure that it is possible to hold Canadian citizens indefinitely. But I could be wrong, as Parliament has granted the government a whole bunch of new security powers since 2001. The US could simply have detained Arar the way they have (presamably) detained Jabarah, the St.Catherines Ontario man convinced to submit himself to US authorities by CSIS. I don't see why they didn't take this option instead of deporting him to Syria. Though I suppose grabbing Canadians in transit at airports and shipping them to Gitmo would have cause and immediate international incident. Deportation to Syria allowed the whole fuss to be delayed a year. Posted by: Ikram at November 20, 2003 10:43 AM | PERMALINKYou folks accept without question the word of Mr Arar (identified as a potential terrorist by Canada and caught carrying a list of al Queda members) but reject without question the word of the US Government. Um, no. If I accept the word of the US government on the facts of the deportation and Syrian general practice, and ignore every conflicting claim made by Arar, this still appears to be a violation of the Convention Against Torture and US domestic law, perpetrated by officials of the US government. The only contention of the government's I reject out of hand is that the promise of a state that routinely engages in torture that it won't torture a particular guy if he's handed over to them is credible. But maybe, I dunno, some people believe that serial torturing terrorist sponsors deserve blind trust. Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 10:48 AM | PERMALINKIf the US Government "alleges" that Mr Arar is a terrorist, let's try thinking in terms that Mr Arar was "alleged" to have been tortured in Syria. Whether or not he was actually tortured is tangential to both the legality and the morality of the decision to deport him; the mere fact that Syria routinely uses torture, and that there was no strong, credible reason to suspect they would not against Arar, is enough on those counts. Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 10:51 AM | PERMALINKVery good cmdicely, we're getting somewhere. You are willing to ignore conflicting claims by Mr Arar. This means that you are willing to doubt that he was tortured. This, coupled with the Syrian promise to not torture him means that there is far from a clear violation of US law. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 10:55 AM | PERMALINKWhy is his innocence an issue anymore? He was detained and (possibly) tortured for 10 months. Now he's giving interviews to Canadian television. It sounds to me like "the powers that be" weren't able to prove their case. How many Maher Arar's are still rotting away in Guantanamo Bay? Posted by: Hoyt Pollard at November 20, 2003 10:59 AM | PERMALINKVery good cmdicely, we're getting somewhere. You are willing to ignore conflicting claims by Mr Arar. This means that you are willing to doubt that he was tortured. This, coupled with the Syrian promise to not torture him means that there is far from a clear violation of US law. I maintain it has a strong appearance of a violation. I would say that the Syrian promise, on its own, has no credibility whatsoever, and that the State department's own conclusions about Syrian torture practices are, on their own, substantial grounds for believing anyone turned over to Syrian custody is in danger of being subjected to torture. There would have to be some special exception that would make this case different to overcome that, I would think, and a mere promise by Syria would not be enough. Some time of arrangement for monitoring, for instance, might be. It also appears to be a bad idea, IMO, independently whether or not it was a violation of the Convention Against Torture and the US law implementing the same. Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 11:21 AM | PERMALINKHow many Maher Arar's are still rotting away in Guantanamo Bay? Hoyt, that is a good question, but what solution do you propose? Should we just let them all go? Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 20, 2003 11:25 AM | PERMALINKWell, now we know where the right-wing trolls were... off together
somewhere in cyberspace convincing themselves that when the DoJ commits
an outrageous crime, the victim of their criminal act must have deserved it. cmdicely, I didn't claim it was smart to turn him over. I stated mistakes are made. It is a war. More mistakes will be made. Are you trying to say that the war on terrorism isn't taking place in many countries across the world? Are you saying that you know Canada doesn't have citizens that might be invovled in terrorist activity? Posted by: Odysseus at November 20, 2003 11:28 AM | PERMALINKNo. We should charge them with a crime. If we have no evidence of a crime, we should release them. That's how it works. Posted by: Hoyt Pollard at November 20, 2003 11:29 AM | PERMALINKHoyt, that is a good question, but what solution do you propose? Well, I'm not Hoyt, but how about, oh, something like this: Fair trials under regularly constituted military courts under the UCMJ, as permitted by international law and US domestic law, for those for whom there is evidence of violations of the laws of war warranting charges. Detention consistent with the Geneva Conventions as Prisoners of War for those combatants for whom there is no such evidence, with eventual repatriation. Repatriation immediately of non-combatants for whom there is no evidence of violations of the laws of war warranting charges. Some sort of competent tribunal to decide between the latter two cases where there is room for doubt. How about if those of you who keep whining "what do you suggest we do" actually respond when someone actually, you know, makes a concrete suggestion of what we ought to do? Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 11:30 AM | PERMALINKDarn it. Put the tags in the wrong place. Should be clear what part is the suggestion repeated from upthrad, and what part is the added comment, yes? Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 11:31 AM | PERMALINKTo clarify a few things that have come up here, he was deporterd not refused entry, which is when you are sent back to the country you flew in from. When you are removed, deported, you are sent to your current country of residence if you hold mulitple passports. It is odd that he was sent to Syria rather than his current country of residence and indicates that there was a motive for doing this. Posted by: qwerty at November 20, 2003 11:35 AM | PERMALINKcmdicely says I think we have reached the point where we are close enough that we don't need to keep arguing. There is no doubt in my mind that the US Govt is crowding the line as to what is legal. However, given the circumstances I don't think they can be faulted for that. If you are willing to allow that this action was "questionable" and not a clear and wholesale violation, I am happy. It also appears to be a bad idea, IMO, independently whether or not it was a violation of the Convention Against Torture and the US law implementing the same. I will respectfully disagree. I allow that your position has merit, but given the condition of the US/Canadian border and the Canadian Govt taking pretty much a "don't stir the pot" position against terrorists I do not agree that returning a potential terrorist to Canada is in the best interests of the US. (And once again I will point out the Canadians should take whatever course they feel is best for Canada.) Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 11:37 AM | PERMALINK"After Sept 11th, I, yes a Canadian, felt a unity of spirit and purpose with America, much like many the world over felt. ... I will never feel that way again..." Bringing the definition of "fair weather friend" to a whole new level. With "friends" like you, who needs enemies? Luckily, most Canadians actually like Americans. Posted by: Al at November 20, 2003 11:39 AM | PERMALINKJesurgislac says Come on now, nobody said he was guilty. He was not tried, convicted,
and sentenced to prison. He was questioned and then sent to a country
where he had citizenship. I think we have reached the point where we are close enough that we don't need to keep arguing. The only thing that stops me from saying it is a clear violation is the technical possibility that their is additional information that has not been revealed. Assuming the government has stated the truth about the facts, and assuming there is no exculpatory information they have ommitted, it is a clear and grave violation. It's possible, though unlikely, IMO, that there was an arrangement made that provide additional certainty against torture in this particular case and that information about it has been withheld. I will respectfully disagree. I allow that your position has merit, but given the condition of the US/Canadian border and the Canadian Govt taking pretty much a "don't stir the pot" position against terrorists I do not agree that returning a potential terrorist to Canada is in the best interests of the US. Everyone is a potential terrorist. If there is substantial evidence, the US has its own laws which can be used to prosecute terrorists. Sending him to a state sponsor of terrorism is bad whether or not returning him to Canada is good. Whether he is innocent or guilty of involvement with terrorism. Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 11:42 AM | PERMALINKCome on now, nobody said he was guilty. He was not tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison. He was questioned and then sent to a country where he had citizenship. I think its very odd -- and a position the US does not take with
respect to immigrants to the US -- to describe a country to which a
person has renounced their citizenship and gained another countries
citizenship as one to which they have citizenship, merely because the
former country of citizenship declines to recognize the renunciation. "convincing themselves that when the DoJ commits an outrageous crime, the victim of their criminal act must have deserved it." I hate it when that happens. Like when all those leftwingers out there say that when the US was attacked on 9/11, it must have deserved it for its support of Israel or its imperialism or whatever. Or when those Brits in Turkey were attacked today, they must have deserved it due to British support for the US. Oh. Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot? Posted by: Al at November 20, 2003 11:46 AM | PERMALINK"When you are removed, deported, you are sent to your current country of residence if you hold mulitple passports." Again, the evidence for this is? Posted by: Al at November 20, 2003 11:48 AM | PERMALINK"Or when those Brits in Turkey were attacked today, they must have deserved it due to British support for the US." Al, piss off. Nobody has ever said anything close to this. Posted by: Hoyt Pollard at November 20, 2003 11:50 AM | PERMALINKHere we go again with Gitmo. Jesurgislac has pointed out some folks who were picked up a detained in Gitmo, and I agree that there appear to be some people that need to have a hearing to determine their status. But the people in Gitmo are largely unlawful combatants, not prisoners of war. link The criteria [for prisoner of war status] are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." Al Qaeda does not satisfy these conditions. Perhaps Osama bin Laden could be considered "a person responsible for his subordinates," although the cell structure of al Qaeda belies the notion of a chain of command. But in any event, al Qaeda members openly flout the remaining three conditions. There be a link to the Geneva Convention on that page. Like when all those leftwingers out there say that when the US was attacked on 9/11, it must have deserved it for its support of Israel or its imperialism or whatever. I don't remember any substantial number of "left-wingers" doing that. Certainly no more than the right-wingers blaming it on America for failing to be loyal to their brand of Christianity, on one hand, and less than those right-wingers or for allowing Bill Clinton to be President for 8 years, ont he other hand. Or when those Brits in Turkey were attacked today, they must have deserved it due to British support for the US. I haven't heard anyone say the Brits deserved it because of their support for the US. I have heard people say that it was motivated by British support for the US. Maybe you are incapable of distinguishing between describing someone's motivation for an act, and claiming that that motivation actually justifies the act. Or maybe you are just incredibly dishonest and trying to set-up a false comparison as a smokescreen. Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 11:52 AM | PERMALINKcmdicely says As I said, I have no doubt that the US is pushing the limit. And please remember that citizenship is determined by countries, not by individuals. Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 11:54 AM | PERMALINKThe link you have is not entirely correct, as the link to the Geneva Convention shows. The criteria [for prisoner of war status] are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." No, those are the criteria under Article 4 Section A(2) for "members of other militias or other volunteer corps". There is also Section A(1): "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces." Since the Taliban and al-Qaeda were the targets of the war, adn thus parties to the conflict, they arguably fit in this category, which does not have the additional qualifiers in Section A(2). OTOH, there can be some debate on the issue of whether they are forces of a Party, capitalized, if the Taliban isn't the legitimate successor to the Afghanistani government that joined the Geneva Conventions. OTOH, if not, then its possible that at least the Taliban forces are covered by Section A(3): "Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power." which again lacks the additional restrictions noted in Section A(2). Its also possible that a number of the combatants captured without distinctive emblems are covered under Section A(6): "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." There are other categories (under Section A(4) and A(5), but they are less likely to apply).
cmdicely- Trials, whether before a civilian court or a military tribunal, probably aren't an option because we don't have enough evidence to convict many of these people. While I am sure that there is evidence against all of them -- we didn't just arrest Muslims at random, no matter what certain leftist lunatics say -- there isn't enough evidence to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The question now becomes, what do we do? If we let them go, they can (a) attack us, and/or (b) make contact with Al Quaeda and provide them with intelligence about the captives in Guantanamo, our interrogation and intellgience gathering techniques, etc. The potential tragedy here is that some of the prisoners -- undoubtedly a very small percentage, but maybe there are a few -- may be (a) innocent, or (b) are people who simply dabbled in extremism -- i.e. someone who went to jihad camp in Afghanistan five years ago but since then has lost his zeal and decided to concentrate on building a successful business, continuing his education, etc. This danger may not have come to pass. Maybe everyone in Guantanamo is guilty. But we can't guarantee it. The question now becomes, do we let everyone go, knowing that this will result in (a) murderous terrorists being set free, and (b) damage to our intelligence gathering, all to ensure that a few innocents are also set free? The terrible conclusion that I am forced to draw is no. We can't let them go. It's just too dangerous. They'll get out eventually, but it will most likely be several years from now. I am, of course, aware that what I am proposing is arguably unconstituional, certainly violates several international agreements, and may be inconsistent with our democratic values. But I don't see any alternative. There is no way that I am prepared to turn 1,500 dangerous terrorists loose. There is no way. They're going to have to rot. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 20, 2003 12:06 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely Article IV of the Geneva Convention states that members of
irregular militias like al Qaeda qualify for prisoner-of-war status if
their military organization satisfies four criteria. The next part was quoted in my previous. Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 12:08 PM | PERMALINKBTW cmdicely, if you haven't read the whole link, it may be worth the effort. He also talks about the questionable aspects of the imprisonment. Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 12:10 PM | PERMALINKRon claimed: There is no doubt in my mind that the US Govt is crowding the line as to what is legal. However, given the circumstances I don't think they can be faulted for that. No, Ron: the US Government committed an outrageous crime. They turned a Canadian citizen over to the power of a police state which is known to torture prisoners. This is illegal. It's also outrageous. My question is: why aren't you outraged? Come on now, nobody said he was guilty. He was not tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison. He was questioned and then sent to a country where he had citizenship. He was illegally and involuntarily sent as a political prisoner to a country whose citizenship he had renounced and which is known to torture political prisoners. The illegal part was sending him to Syria. The involuntarily part was that he said himself (and the DoJ doesn't deny this) that he asked to be sent to Canada. He's a Canadian citizen, Ron: which part of this don't you understand? If you believe he's an innocent man, how on earth can you not be outraged that the DoJ treated an innocent man like this? Joe Schmoe, Hoyt, that is a good question, but what solution do you propose? Should we just let them all go? that was my question - how many Maher Arars are still rotting away in Guantanamo Bay - and the answer is simple, Joe, and it's one that everyone but the rightwingnuts have been pressing for since nearly 2 years now - due process. Each prisoner in Guantanamo Bay is entitled to a tribunal, to decide whether or not they're prisoners of war. If PoWs, they get the full rights of PoWs. If criminals, they get a trial. If neither - such as those who were arrested in the Gambia and Pakistan - they should be released with an apology. Simple, Joe. Why aren't you outraged that your government, that you support, is committing these monstrous crimes? Al: Like when all those leftwingers out there say that when the US was attacked on 9/11, it must have deserved it for its support of Israel or its imperialism or whatever Cite me a leftwinger - anywhere - who said that. The only examples I can think of who said that the US deserved what it got on 9/11 were Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson - are you so far rightwing that you call them "leftwingers"? Ron, finally: But the people in Gitmo are largely unlawful combatants, not prisoners of war.
All of the people in Guantanamo Bay are required by the Geneva
Convention to get a tribunal to determine their status. That's what
Section 5 of the Convention says - and that's the section the US have been in breach of since January 2002. "(The US Gov't.) turned a Canadian citizen over to the power of a police state which is known to torture prisoners." To put it another way, the USG turned Mr. Arar over to Syria solely because it is known to torture prisoners. Posted by: Hoyt Pollard at November 20, 2003 12:17 PM | PERMALINKArticle IV of the Geneva Convention states that members of irregular militias like al Qaeda qualify for prisoner-of-war status if their military organization satisfies four criteria. Its arguably true that al-Qaeda is an Article 4 Section A(2) "other
militia"; OTOH, the determination that a particular prisoner without
uniform is a member of al-Qaeda, rather than a member of a
Taliban-associated militia which might be an Article 4 Section A(1)
group, or a member of a spontaneous resistance to invasion not yet
organized into a regular unit -- an Article 4 Section A(6) group -- is
less clear, and one of the reasons that a tribunal is supposed to
determine status. jesurgislac says No, Ron: the US Government committed an outrageous crime. It's also outrageous. My question is: why aren't you outraged? The involuntarily part was that he said himself (and the DoJ
doesn't deny this) that he asked to be sent to Canada. He's a Canadian
citizen,.. If you believe he's an innocent man, how on earth can you not be outraged that the DoJ treated an innocent man like this? And Jesurgislac, finally, they are not prisoners of war and Section 5 does not apply. Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINKThis discussion is simply amazing. You guys are trying to determine how best to classify Al Quaeda members under the terms of some meaningless treaty! Are they 4(A)(6) resistance fighters, or 4(A)(2) militia members? Who the hell cares? We are talking about 1,500 dangerous killers here! Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 20, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINKJugursliac - I'm still planning to hold my nose and vote for Bush,
but it's one more thing for your side. (I'd probably vote for Clinton
if I could, but that's because he was pro-free-trade.) *It wouldn't surprise me if this guy was doing something highly suspicious. He may have been innocent after all, but he probably looked guilty.* He probably looked guilty??!!! He probably *looked* guilty??!!!
WTF?!!! That's how far we've gone??!! ''He probably looks guilty, let's
ship him off to Syria and see if they can torture some information off
of him". Jesus!! Who the hell cares? About the rule of law? Quite a lot of people. Not many in the administration, apparently, but still quite a few. Posted by: Thersites at November 20, 2003 12:33 PM | PERMALINKWhat, exactly, will the tribunals find? If Syria says he's Syrian, he's Syrian Cool. If Syria says you're Syrian, I guess you are too. 1-2-3...we're all Syrians! Syria wins! Canada fingered him as a possible threat With emphasis on "possible". Posted by: 2shoes at November 20, 2003 12:38 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely says I'm taking the lawyers word for it right now. I understand that the Supreme Court is going to take a look at them. And after being made aware of some "anomalies" by Jesurgislac the other day, I am happy to see their status evaluated. Joe Schmoe says That's true Joe, but we handle dangerous killers all the time without violating the rules. If they are unlawful combatants, we can hold them there until hell freezes over for all I care. If they should be given another status, that should be done and our handling of them should reflect their appropriate status. Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 12:38 PM | PERMALINKRichard, you know full well that our imperialist government is simply arresting people of the Muslim faith at random. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 20, 2003 12:44 PM | PERMALINKJoe, you say that as if it's a bad thing. Ron, one of your ilk parked a Ryder truck in Oklahoma City, is that sufficient reason to send you to Cuba? Posted by: Lori Thantos at November 20, 2003 12:49 PM | PERMALINKand Ron, We have Syria's claim that they would not torture....(breaks into manic, hysterical laughter)....No sh*t, we had Saddam's claim that he didn't have WMD....I don't recall you jumping to his defence then? As for Syria's use of torture, read my first post....the US State Department *itself!* slams Syria for 'routine use of torture' of prisoners. Second, if you'll read the WaPo articles from when the story broke, you'll find out that such deportations, known as 'renditions' are expressly done for the purpose of eliciting information in ways that cannot be carried out on US soil, i.e. letting Syria do their dirty work for them. So don't gimme that 'we don't know if he was tortured' defense; why else wasn't he deported to his country of RESIDENCE? Posted by: neutral001 at November 20, 2003 12:52 PM | PERMALINKKevin Brennan, I would have no problem if Canada deported a person who held dual US-Syria citizenship to Syria instead of the US, UNLESS they knew that the person would be tortured in Syria. Dammit, Al, read up on this damn case before you continue posting! His family fled Syria for political reasons. His brother, if I remember correctly, was a member of a group that was critical of the Syrian gov't. He told the Americans this. It was plain as the day is long that he would be tortured, even if he was not a suspected terrorist. Also, his dual citizenship was a fluke -- his family left Syria for political reasons. He could never go back to Syria with the current gov't in place. And the Americans asked him where he wanted to be deported, Syria or Canada, he did not request. Educate yourself, or stop posting in ignorance. Posted by: Timothy Klein at November 20, 2003 12:57 PM | PERMALINKJoe wrote: "You guys are trying to determine how best to classify Al Quaeda members under the terms of some meaningless treaty!" Joe, what's really amazing is your cavalier attitude toward the rule of law and to treaties signed by the United States. Are you really claiming that the United States should not be bound by its own Constitution? Its own laws? That it should not be bound by international treaties it signed in good faith? Moreover, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether any of the detainees are, in fact, members of al Qaida, much less that they are "dangerous killers." "Who the hell cares?" You should, Joe, if you're a good and true American. "....his ilk have flown planes into our buildings." Oh come Ron, man, whaddya mean by ilk? Canadian -Syrian citizens? People of Middle Eastern descent? That's exactly what I am saying, Paul. What's more -- and this one will really get you -- I am a lawyer. Imagine yourself as Attorney General of the United Staets. Someone places an order in front of you authorizing the immedaite release of 1,500 dangerous killers. Do you sign it? Perhaps my work influences my perspective somewhat. You know those TV crime dramas? The ones in which some serial killer, a guy with three headless corpses in his basement, is set free becuase of some legal technicality? They're fiction. This would never happen in real life. Never. No judge in America, be she a bleeding heart liberal from Berkeley, California, or a hang-'em-high conservative from Crawford, Texas, would ever let a serial killer out. It's really easy to wax eloquent about the Geneva convention, the rule of law, and inalienable rights when you are not a participant in the process. Try putting on a judical robe sometime. Your perspective will chage. A lot. When you are the one who is responsible for the safety of your fellow citizens, you won't come to these decisions so easily. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 20, 2003 01:09 PM | PERMALINKMostly because his ilk have flown planes into our buildings. Good God. You are using racism to justify Mahar Arar's deportation and torture? Racism means you don't have to be outraged? Ron, forget it. You are beneath contempt. neutral001 says you'll find out that such deportations, known as 'renditions' are
expressly done for the purpose of eliciting information in ways that
cannot be carried out on US soil, i.e. letting Syria do their dirty work
for them why else wasn't he deported to his country of RESIDENCE? Joe, I apologize ladies and gentlemen. I was not aware that "ilk" was now a racist term. Please allow me to withdraw the word and substitute "fellow terrorists". And I apologize in advance if "terrorist" or "ladies and gentlemen" is now considered racist. Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 01:20 PM | PERMALINKImagine yourself as Attorney General of the United Staets. Someone places an order in front of you authorizing the immedaite release of 1,500 dangerous killers. Do you sign it?
Or people that it is suspected might be dangerous killers, but for which there is not even enough evidence to bind them over for criminal trial, much less secure a conviction? Because, see, as Attorney-General of the United States, I have no power under law to detain people as "dangerous killers" in the latter case, and would be legally compelled to release them. And I'd have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, rather than becoming an enemy of the Constitution. Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 01:26 PM | PERMALINKNo judge in America, be she a bleeding heart liberal from Berkeley, California, or a hang-'em-high conservative from Crawford, Texas, would ever let a serial killer out. So, you are saying that no matter what happened, no matter what the law was, no matter what the jury found, no matter how little evidence there was, no judge would ever allow the release of someone who was accused of being a serial killer? Or WTF do you mean? Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 01:28 PM | PERMALINKWe have Syria's claim that they would not torture, and no hard evidence that they did. Are you saying that the State Department findings on Syria's routine use of torture are not based on evidence? Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 01:29 PM | PERMALINKMy Clinton comment was mostly the story that the Clinton admin didn't take Bin Laden because we wanted Sudan to turn him over to Saudi Arabia, where he would have been killed without US judicial process. Maybe it's an urban legend, though - I don't know. Sounds like an urban legend. The version I've seen, citing actual Clinton admin officials, is that we didn't take bin Laden because the disreputable Sudanese businessman claiming that there was an offer (and now working for Fox News) didn't check out when they tried to verify with the Sudanese government that they actually were making an offer. Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 01:32 PM | PERMALINKRon: Mostly because his ilk have flown planes into our buildings. The trouble to me, Ron, is not that you are being racist. The trouble is that you seem to be assuming that this man is certainly, 100% a terrorist. None of his 'ilk' have yet flown a plane into a building. This man is a succesful professional, married, living in a Western country, who fled Syria for political reasons when he was young. He has been a Canadian citizen for 15 years or something like that. None of the 9/11 folks had anything like this profile. Unless you are painting with so broad a brush that anyone born in the Middle East is now a 9/11-sympathising-hijacker. In which case, you would be acting racistly. But you aren't saying that, right? Posted by: Timothy Klein at November 20, 2003 01:32 PM | PERMALINK... who fled Syria for political reasons Everyone says that. I used to represent asylum seekers. Bring deportation or exclusion proceedings against someoen, and they'll cry persecution. Having personally dealt with thousands of immigrants from repressive regimes, I can tell you that probably only 1% of them are genuine political refugees. 100% of them say that they will be persecuted/imprisoned/killed if they are deported back to their home, but they are almost inevitably lying. It is easy to spot the genuine asylum seekers. They stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. One time I reprepsented a woman who had actually been in Tienamen Square. Another client of ours had been a general in the prewar the Lebanese army. A member of the Israeli Kinesset vouched for him. The rest of our clients were persecuted Chinese "Christians" who didn't know who Jesus Christ was, or "IRA members" whose history of political activism in their native land consisted largely of listening to Sinead O'Connor CD's. Most people come to the US for economic reasons. That's a good enough reason for me -- I wouldn't want to raise my kids in Fujian, China, or rural Mexico -- but let's not kid ourselves that their stories of a fear of persecution are true. This guy may, in fact, have been innocent, but you can't just take his story at face value. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 20, 2003 01:45 PM | PERMALINKI apologize ladies and gentlemen. I was not aware that "ilk" was now a racist term. Please allow me to withdraw the word and substitute "fellow terrorists". Ron, you have no proof at all that Maher Arar is a terrorist. None. Posted by: Jesurgislac at November 20, 2003 01:45 PM | PERMALINKJoe Schmoe If they are actually POWs, they need to be released at the end of hostilities, if they are not POWs or unlawful combatants they need to be tried or deported. Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 01:48 PM | PERMALINKTimothy Klein and Jesurislac But, the Canadians gave us his name as a potential and he was caught with a list of names of al Queda members. I think it more likely than not that we don't want him in the United States. I know that I don't carry a list of al Queda members around with me. This man is a succesful professional, married, living in a Western country, who fled Syria... Are you 100% sure this guy is pure as the driven snow? Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 01:54 PM | PERMALINKShoulda thought more before posting that last. We are not wholesale rounding up anybody with a Middle Eastern background. Do you think it is possible that there was a reason in this case? Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 01:56 PM | PERMALINKOne more time: If the US hands over a suspected Al Qaeda operative to Syria, isn't it a tacit admission that Syria is also opposed to Al Qaeda? Or did the US hand the man over expected the Syrians to coddle him? Does it make any sense for the US to hand terrorists over to country it refers to as a terrorist state? Posted by: Robuzo at November 20, 2003 01:57 PM | PERMALINKThis guy may, in fact, have been innocent, but you can't just take his story at face value. Bull, Joe Schmoe, just bull. 'Innocent until proven guilty' isn't just an American legal idea, it is a standard we should live up to as people, too. There are at least two things here that are completely undeniable: he was a successful profesional, making a contribution to the Canadian society; and on what appears to be a random business trip stop-over in the US, ended up in Syria for more than a year. It is almost certain he was in prison, regardless of whether or not he was tortured. We have absolutely NO tangible justification offered by our gov't as to why this happened. They have certainly not presented any convincing evidence that the man deserved to be shipped overseas, and lose his job. Our place is not to try and defend the gov't here. Even if the guy was OBL's right hand man, the gov't is in the wrong. It is now time for the US gov't to either present its reasons (read evidence) for doing this, or pay the price for breaking the law. It is that simple. It is totally irrelavent if this man is innocent or guilty. The gov't simply can not be allowed to pull this kind of nonsense. This is America. If we sit here and argue about whether Arar deserved this, then it is American in name only, as the place that Jefferson et. al founded is dead. Posted by: Timothy Klein at November 20, 2003 01:59 PM | PERMALINKThe trouble is, Ron, that the statement "Maher Arar is a terrorist sympathizer" is not falsifiable. You can't everr prove the negative. Go on... how would he establish he's not a terrorist? Assuming for the moment he's innocent, what could he possibly do that would satisfy you of that? Every accusation that has made its way into the public perview so far has been conclusively disproved; this "list of phone numbers" is just the latest. But, even after that gets disproved, as it almost certainly will, too, anyone can, if they choose, still maintain that the FBI or whomever must still have some evidence that they haven't released yet. This is, of course, what trials are for. PS: I find it amusing that anyone who's had any experience with government bureaucracy whatsoever can still believe it so unlikely that someone in this case made a mistake, and in so doing ruined a man's life. Good lord, that's practically all bureaucracies are good for. Posted by: BruceR at November 20, 2003 02:03 PM | PERMALINKRobuzo I don't have any solution, but I certainly admire the question. Ron: Yes, I do think it is possible that there is a reason he was arrested. However, that reason has not been presented to any convincing level. Thus the US gov't effectively meted out a fairly severe punishment (even if you want to assume his claims of torture are false), without any due process. That is not acceptable -- even for foreign nationals. As far as the terrosist supporter possibility, you seemed to be talking about actual plane-hijackers. While he may fit a profile for a supporter, he does not fit the profile for an actual terrrorist. But the fact is that he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. PS -> Both side of this story should be presented. The claim has been made that Arar had a list of AQ operatives in his pocket. Arar mentions no such thing. His claim is that he knew one man, somewhat tangentially, whose brother has suspected ties to AQ. Posted by: Timothy Klein at November 20, 2003 02:07 PM | PERMALINKBruceR says He's not a citizen of the US, if he is decided to be undesirable he can be deported. He wasn't here illegally, but we were tipped as to his potential. I'm not sure what all recourse he may have had. And we seem to have (at least) pushed the law pretty hard in sending him to Syria, but under the circumstances I do not have a problem with that. If we were rounding up everyone of Middle Eastern descent and finding ways to deport them, I would be concerned. But we're not. Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 02:13 PM | PERMALINKRon: Damn, that is scary Ron. You do realize there is the possibility that he is innocent, as well as the possibility of guilt, right? And it is also possible that he was actually tortured (I'm sure a brief physical exam after he returned could answer that question conclusivly, wonder if one is on the 'net). You seem to be saying that it is no big deal the the US gov't ruined a man's life on a 'hunch' that he might be a terrorist. That is scary. Very scary. If rational people are supporting that kind of action on the part of the US gov't, than I am really starting to wonder if it isn't time to move, before it gets really bad here. Posted by: Timothy Klein at November 20, 2003 02:19 PM | PERMALINKTimothy Klein says I'm not as positive that he deserves the benefit of the doubt. The Canadian report, even if the "list" turns out to be a lie. And I don't think we are in a position yet to be taking chances. Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 02:21 PM | PERMALINKYes, I do think it is possible that there is a reason he was arrested. Ahh, now this is where we appear to have a fundamental disagreement. I trust our government. I assume that he was arrested for a good reason. If each of us could see the government's evidence, my guess is that we, too, would not feel at all comfortable letting this guy go. Your desire to hear the government's reasons is understandable and laudable. We are all responsible for our goverment, and we need to keep tabs on it to ensure that our civil liberties aren't eroded. But in this case, the evidence is probably classified. The government simply can't tell the whole world what it knows. What if the evidence consists of information from an informant who is still undercover? It all comes down to a question of trust. Of course, trust has its limits. But we are fighting a war on terrroism here, and we have to cut the government some slack. If used-car dealers from New York City suddenly started appearing at Guantanamo, and the government refused to reveal why they were being held there, I would demand that an end be put to the practice. But we're talking about terrorists here, not used-car dealers. And before you raise the slippery slope argument, I simply don't think that one exists here. I have no doubt that one day, some frustrated/overly ambitious/stupid prosecutor will try to invoke the Patriot Act's antiterrrosim provisions against a garden-variety domestic criminal. But I know that the courts will put a stop to that in ten seconds flat. It really is possible to draw a distinction between a Muslim fundamentalist and an ordinary, law-abiding citizen. "First they came for Omar Abdul Rakhman, and then they came for the tax evaders," just isn't true in this case. The Patriot Act has a few problems, and I am somewhat doubtful that it is really that helpful in combatting terrorism. But does it, and the detention of people at Guantanamo, mean that we are one step away from a facist police state? Absolutely not. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 20, 2003 02:23 PM | PERMALINK"Innocent until proven guilty" refers to a criminal case. It does NOT refer to deportation of individuals who have no legal right to be here in the first place and who may be terrorists. We have every right to remove aliens from our country without being required to "prove" their connection to terrorism. Posted by: Al at November 20, 2003 02:24 PM | PERMALINKRon, You state repeatedly that the US can't take chances post-9/11. Fine. Given that he was flying from Tunisia to Canada, what would be wrong with sitting him down somewhere where you can keep an eye on him until the time comes for him to get on that plane back to Canada? Why is the U.S. government deporting people who are making stopovers in transit to destinations outside the United States? Posted by: Kevin Brennan at November 20, 2003 02:26 PM | PERMALINKJesurgislac: No, Ron: the US Government committed an outrageous crime. They turned a Canadian citizen over to the power of a police state which is known to torture prisoners. This is illegal. It's also outrageous. My question is: why aren't you outraged? I dunno. Probably the same reasons I don't hear you crying over the forced repatriation of Cubans, or the forced repatriation of North Korean refugees into the North Korean gulag. And as for the "no evidence" thing - assuming the truth of the source quoted in this morning's WashPo, I suppose that the long list of Al Qaida operatives and affiliates in his wallet was just co-inky-dink? That's evidence, even if it doesn't rise to the level of proof. Fact is, if you don't have immigration status, you can be turned away, removed, repatriated, or otherwise flung out of United States territory on the flimsiest of pretexts. And to my mind, carrying the Al Qaida phone book for the Greater Toronto Area in your pocket, while it isn't bedrock proof of AQ involvment, is at least evidence that would support adverse action. Yeah, it's crappy that we sent him to Syria. But if the alternative was playing badminton with the RCMP, using Marrar as a shuttlecock, there weren't other alternatives. Sure, we could look for a third country willing to take him... like I said, your neighborhood is looking better by the day. That's okay though. When they make me attorney genrill, I know how I'm going to solve this problem - I'm going to release the Gitmo 500 (gotta have a catchy name if it's gonna be a cause celebre) in your neighborhood. You're so convinced of their innocence, you can live with 'em. Posted by: Al Maviva at November 20, 2003 02:31 PM | PERMALINKTimothy Klein I think that we are going to need to strike a balance. On one hand we need to establish and maintain some security, on the other hand we need to maintain our freedoms and rule of law. We will not be perfect at that balance. This may represent a case where we erred too far from freedom and rule of law, and that would be bad. But remember the reasons we now have to try and strike that balance. Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 02:34 PM | PERMALINK"Why is the U.S. government deporting people who are making stopovers in transit to destinations outside the United States?" Because they are in the United States. Duh. Posted by: Al at November 20, 2003 02:34 PM | PERMALINKThe stuff I'm reading here is beyond caricature. Let me see if I've gotten this straight. On the off chance that someone might possibly be sympathetic to terrorists, this guy gets sent, not to Canada, his country of residence (and citizenship), not back to his point of origin, but to Lebanon and then on to Syria. Where, he says, he was tortured for a year. And this is OK because we can't take chances. "After Sept 11th, I, yes a Canadian, felt a unity of spirit and purpose with America, much like many the world over felt. ... I will never feel that way again..." Bringing the definition of "fair weather friend" to a whole new level. With "friends" like you, who needs enemies? With definitions like yours, you will never recognize the friends you do have. Seriously -- a "fair weather friend" is someone who deserts a friend who runs into hard times. Unless you are asserting that the "hard times" the US is going through is an episode of total insanity that makes you kick all your friends in the shins because we won't join you in a rash, poorly thought out bank robbery, I fail to see the relevance here. You're a big guy in town, and there are no cops who dare to arrest you, but the Iraq heist was still a really, really bad idea. If you are pleading insanity, well... okay, Canadians will likely forgive you eventually. It's still hard to blame your friends if they back off well out of kicking range and try to talk you down. They're also likely to be somewhat cautious about getting close for a while, even after you start acting normal again. Posted by: Canadian Reader at November 20, 2003 02:37 PM | PERMALINKAl, go read my post again, you missed the gist of it. I was talking about 'principle' not law. And I would question greatly the assertion that foreign nationals have no legal rights in our country. Ron and Joe: If we deported Arar to Canada, in accordance with our own laws, I would agree with you. If we think he is a terrorist, just make him go home. But we didn't. We deported him to Syria. Huge distinction. As far as his innocence or guilt, chew on this: he has not been charged with any crime: not in the US, not in Canada, and not in Syria. Yet he spent 10 months in a Syrian jail, and lost his job. If we trust the government to do this, without even making a charge (or pressing for one on the part of Canada or Syria), than we have lost something very important. You do not treat people like criminals (indeed, punish them as criminals) without making a charge, and then convicting them. It is as simple as the Constitution of the United States. Posted by: Timothy Klein at November 20, 2003 02:38 PM | PERMALINKKevin Brennan says You have place your finger on my major objection to this thing. I can only hope that what the Canadians had on him justified this. Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 02:38 PM | PERMALINKRon- It's the part of this story that just doesn't add up. I have read in various places that Syria after 9/11 provided the US with a great deal of useful intelligence vis-a-vis Al Qaeda, and that the government of Syria was therefored dismayed at the bellicose talk coming out of Washington (for example, Bolton's comments) suggesting an invasion of Syria once the Iraq situation was wrapped up. It strikes me as another example of this administration not having internal accord when it comes to foreign policy; perhaps another case of the neocons clashing with the realists, from the DOJ this time instead of State. I don't think it was necessary or legal to send Arar to Syria, but at the same time it may be necessary to cooperate with unpalatable regimes, such as Syria and Uzbekistan, in defeating Wahabbist terrorists. Syria, under the leadership of the younger Assad, could turn out to be easier eventually to bring into the fold of respectable nations than, say, Iran, provided the West uses finesse instead of outright bullying. The British certainly seem to think so. Posted by: Robuzo at November 20, 2003 02:38 PM | PERMALINKAre you 100% sure this guy is pure as the driven snow? Are you saying people should be arrested, jailed, and tortured for a year on suspicion? Posted by: Jesurgislac at November 20, 2003 02:40 PM | PERMALINKRon: That's good, I was starting to get worried there. :-) We will not be perfect at that balance. This may represent a case where we erred too far from freedom and rule of law, and that would be bad. But remember the reasons we now have to try and strike that balance. I very much understand what you are saying here. I don't want any more Americans killed by terrorists. But this kind of action by our gov't must be challenged, and punished if indeed it turns out to have been wrong, or it will get worse. Posted by: Timothy Klein at November 20, 2003 02:41 PM | PERMALINKYou have place your finger on my major objection to this thing. I can only hope that what the Canadians had on him justified this. Given that he is now back in Canada, and no one in Canada or in the
US appears to be interested in charging him with any crime whatsoever, I
don't see what you're basing your hopes on, Ron. Care to share? Robuzo ...The stuff I'm reading here is beyond caricature. Let me see if I've gotten this straight. On the off chance that someone might possibly be sympathetic to terrorists, this guy gets sent... I am just guessing here, but this is what I suspect the evidence against people currently incarcerated in Guantanmo Bay looks like. One group of people is clearly guilty. They are young Saudis and Yemenis who were captured in Afghanistan, AK-47 in hand, screaming "death to infidels!" and shooting at our soldiers. Others were captued right here in the US with plans for bombs and a diagram of, say, a nuclear power plant. But other people aren't obviously guilty. To give a hypothetical example, let's suppose that prsioner X. is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. He attended a small mosque in San Diego, CA, or Jersey City, NJ, known for its radical fundamentalism. He faithfully attended guest sermons given by radical Saudi clerics. The themes included "the moral impartive to destroy Israel," and "jihad is the duty of every muslim living in America." Several of the 9/11 hijackers have been seen at these mosques. When asked about his own views, X responds that "Islam is a religion of peace. I am not a terrorist." He contribtued money to several radical "charaties" which are actually Al Quaeda fronts. X explains that he himself contributed money out of concern for Palestinian children. In early 2001, he was seen meeting with wealthy a Saudi businessman who has known ties to Al Quaeda. When interrogated about the meeting, he claims that the two discussed "music." In late 1999, X took a trip to Pakistan's Northwest Frontier, even though his own family is from Egypt and he has no friends or relatives from this remote region in Pakistan. X claims to have spent three months in the area on as a a "tourist," even though there is nothing to see besides hardscrabble mountains. Our intelligence agencies have captured several people who attended Al Quaeda training camps by first travelling from Pakistan's Northwest Frontier. When captured and sent to Guanatanmo, X. was interviewed by two interrigators. He responded to the question "what is your name," by spitting in the interrigator's face. Guards have noted that X frequently gives encouragement to other prisioners in his cell block, shouting things like "don't give in to the infidels," and "you will be rewarded in heaven, brothers!" There clearly is not enough evidence to convict X of any crime. Do we let him go? Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 20, 2003 02:52 PM | PERMALINKTimothy Klein says You have my complete agreement. The only thing is, I'm going to let the left pound the govt about this. Because your heart will be in it much more than mine will be. Jesurgislac says The other thing I don't understand is that, despite common perceptions, it is doubtful that the Syrian interrogation "techniques" are better at extracting useful information than those that are at the disposal of the Americans or presumably the Canadians. Physical torture is fine for extracting a confession for political purposes when it doesn't matter if the confession is true, but psychological techniques, while grueling, work much better than sadistic beatings when it comes to obtaining reliable information from an uncooperative suspect. It is possible to get almost any suspect to say just about anything, even without physical torture, but that really isn't the point, is it? So it strikes me as odd that the US officials would think the Syrians better at getting info about Al Q from this guy. One possibility is that the Syrians asked for him and the US agreed in the spirit of cooperation, but this brings me back to my original question: Why is the US cooperating with a "terrorist state"? Posted by: Robuzo at November 20, 2003 02:59 PM | PERMALINKJoe wrote: "That's exactly what I am saying, Paul. What's more -- and this one will really get you -- I am a lawyer." Joe, it "gets me" not at all, since I already knew everything I need
to know about you. For the sake of peace in Kevin's comment sections,
I'll refrain from telling you precisely what I think of you. The Canadians don't "have anything" on Arar: they've admitted as much. He was apparently named as a collaborator by another Syrian-Canadian in Syrian custody, presumably under torture, a fellow named Almalki, who was arrested in the Middle East. One suspects the guy would have told them anything. You or I probably would have. Seymour Hersh has referred to this in the New Yorker as the US and Syria collaborating to bust an Al Qaeda plot to attack the U.S. embassy in Ottawa (where Arar and Almalki lived). As far as anyone knows, there's no independent evidence against Arar, except his acquaintance with (and apparent fingering by) Almalki. The "list of names," if it's anything at all, is probably an address book with Almalki's name in it. Almalki in turn was probably identified by a Egyptian Canadian named Abou-Elmaati, currently being held without trial in Egypt (and also picked up after Sept. 11 in the Middle East), and who is himself the guy for whom there may be real independent evidence of terrorism or at least terrorist sympathies (his brother is on the FBI watch list). So here you have it: terrorist's brother gets picked up in Egypt, under torture gives the name of an associate in Ottawa. Said associate is then picked up by the Syrians and to prevent pain, rattles off some names, including at least one innocent guy he knows (Arar). Maybe he even figured Arar was so obviously a regular Canadian joe that it would be a risk-free betrayal. (Imagine what he thought when Arar showed up in the same prison.) US and Canadian security then sees one of those names changing planes in New York (Arar), and sends him to Syria to name more names. Was there ever really a plot to attack the embassy? Who knows, now? Since all the evidence appears to have been torture-induced, it's all useless criminally anyway. Which is, of course, why sending Arar home would have probably meant releasing him (Ikram's right, and I was wrong earlier; Canadian law only allows the indefinite detention without charge of non-citizens.) I just wish the Americans had notified the Canadian government, or Arar's family, of what they were doing. The guy disappeared, after having been taken into U.S. custody, for weeks before he managed to get word out from Syria. He's damned lucky he wasn't shot on arrival in Damascus. PS: The Syrians have confirmed they have no evidence at all against Arar, and were holding him only as a favour to the United States. Not Canada. Posted by: BruceR at November 20, 2003 03:08 PM | PERMALINK"With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter's definition of the situation, into performing harsh acts. …A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority. For services to a harsh authority, above and beyond the call of duty,
I present Joe Schmoe, Ron, and Al(-Fubar), with the Milgram Award. Robuzo So it strikes me as odd that the US officials would think the Syrians better at getting info about Al Q from this guy. One possibility is that the Syrians asked for him and the US agreed in the spirit of cooperation, but this brings me back to my original question: Why is the US cooperating with a "terrorist state"? Others were captued right here in the US with plans for bombs and a diagram of, say, a nuclear power plant. That's not correct. Nobody in Gitmo was seized in the U.S. Everybody held in Gitmo was seized outside the United States. Padilla and Yaser Al Hamdi are the two U.S. citizens or people "with immigration status" to be in the U.S. in custody; Padilla was seized in Chicago when he stepped off the plane and is being held incommunicado in a Navy brig; and Hamdi was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan; his citizenship was not known until some time later, when his father stated Hamdi was born in the United States, but taken out of the country as an infant. As for the nuclear power plant information, I presume you are referring to the 23 Pakistani Sunni moslems captured by the RCMP in Canada, who were studying up to pose as Shiite refugees, who were also found to be in flight school, conducting reconaissance of nuke plants, and so forth. Those folks were being held by Canadian authorities, last time I checked. Posted by: Al Maviva at November 20, 2003 03:24 PM | PERMALINKThere clearly is not enough evidence to convict X of any crime. Actually, from that description alone, it looks like you've got a pretty open and shut case under 18 USC 111 (Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees of the United States). Posted by: cmdicely at November 20, 2003 03:28 PM | PERMALINKRobuzo If what BruceR says is correct The Syrians have confirmed they have no evidence at all against Arar, and were holding him only as a favour to the United States. then we be barking up the wrong tree. That would mean that the Syrians wanted to be nice to us. But if they wanted to be nice to us, I bet we could have come up with a lot better things than holding one guy that nobody seems to want for 10 months. See what happens when you ask why :-) Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 03:29 PM | PERMALINKAs an extra-special holiday bonus for everyone, I will be leaving town for a week and nobody here will have to throw any invectives at me. Y'all don't get lonely without me, now :-) Posted by: Ron at November 20, 2003 03:31 PM | PERMALINKReading the comments by Joe Schmoe and Ron make me think again about a book written by an American ex-pat living in Canada in the 1970s. It's call "Deference to Authority." His thesis was that Canadians instinctively defer to authority (especially government authority) while Americans instinctively question that authority. It may have been true in the 70s (and I'm sure most Americans still believe that they are the proud heirs of the revolution, questioning and standing up to authority and preserving their freedoms) but I really saw at least half of the equation unravel in the 80s. The War on Drugs whipped up hystseria and polls showed that the majority of Americans were willing to give up some of their civil rights (allow random stops and searchs by police IIRC) to combat the society-destroying evil of (some) drugs. Now it appears that many Americans "trust" their government (that is are willing to defer to it unquestioningly) and allow their rights to be weakened because of the new war. Maybe the thesis of "Deference to Authority" was a crock all along. Yukoner Posted by: Yukoner at November 20, 2003 03:33 PM | PERMALINKThing is, Joe, what if there is a man in Guantanamo who meets your description down to the meeting with the Saudi businessman, but not the rest of it. No trip to Pakistan, just a couple of trips to Egypt to visit family, and, hmm, let's say a lot of business trips to Tunisia where he is a partner in an import/export business. And even let's suppose he was angry about being arrested and did spit at the interrogators. Do you have the right to keep such a man locked up? If you say yes, you are advocating indefinite detainment for a) religious and b) political beliefs, and for having had one conversation with someone who has "ties" with members of al Qaeda. (In passing: through how many removes does the taint of guilt by association transfer? Is Queen Elizabeth a terrorist now, because she has entertained George W. Bush, a man who has been openly supportive of actual relatives of Osama bin Laden?) If you say yes, our hypothetical man should be detained... as I
suppose you will, because you are, after all, Joe Schmoe... then I mourn
for the USA I once knew, the one where its citizens firmly believed in
the principles of freedom of speech and religion and association. I was a
good friend of that country. I admired it. Though it did not
always live up to its expressed ideals, I thought it mostly set a pretty
good example for the rest of the world. "Are you saying people should be arrested, jailed, and tortured for a year on suspicion?" If that's your beef, you should take it up with Syria, not with the Bush Administration. After all, the Bush Administration did NOT arrest him, jail him, or torture him. To boil it down to essentials, the Bush Administration sent a person who was accused by another country of having ties to al Qaeda and who was in this country, with no right to be here, to one of the two countries of which he was a citizen. Although that country has a history of torture, the Bush Administration did not have any foreknowledge that this particular person would be tortured. I fail to see the big deal. Posted by: Al at November 20, 2003 03:37 PM | PERMALINKCanadian Reader, to me a "fair weather friend" is one that sympathizes with you for being attacked until you actually do something to protect yourself... Posted by: Al at November 20, 2003 03:39 PM | PERMALINKIf that's your beef, you should take it up with Syria, not with the Bush Administration. After all, the Bush Administration did NOT arrest him, jail him, or torture him. Oh no. They just sent him to their most favored ally in the "war on terror" - Syria: knowing that there he would be arrested, jailed, and tortured. To boil it down to essentials, the Bush Administration sent a person who was accused by another country of having ties to al Qaeda and who was in this country, with no right to be here, to one of the two countries of which he was a citizen. Although that country has a history of torture, the Bush Administration did not have any foreknowledge that this particular person would be tortured. I fail to see the big deal. To boil it down to essentials, the US arrested a Canadian citizen who was, perfectly legally, transitting through an American airport from one country to another. This Canadian citizen had committed no crime in the US nor in Canada. He had fled Syria and renounced his citizenship there, and if returned, would inevitably be arrested, imprisoned, and tortured. In full awareness of this, the US chose to send him there, which was illegal. Your defense that he was still a citizen of Syria is based on the assumption that the US should honor Syria's refusal to permit Arar to change citizenship. So: it's a big deal because the Department of Justice committed a crime: because a Canadian citizen was, as a direct result of the DoJ's crime, arrested, imprisoned, and tortured: and because the only defense you can make is that Syria's claims deserve to be honored above Canada's. It's amazing that you've managed to argue yourself into believing that the US should be loyal and supportive of Syria. Posted by: Jesurgislac at November 20, 2003 03:48 PM | PERMALINKI think the questioning of authority reached entirely unreasonable levels in the 60's and 70's. It's no longer healthy revolutionary skepticism; it's been transformed by the Baby Boomers into a tired, cynical, near-pathological distrust. As for me, I tend to think that the people in the Bush Administration are doing their best to protect us from terrorism, and are not using the whole thing to grab power and turn the US into a facist state. While I recogize the principle that power corrupts, I just don't see much danger of a "slippery slope" in this case. You really can tell who the Islamic fundamentalists are; it's not as if "terrorists" as the term is commonly understood today is some ill-defined classification which can be fairly said to apply to almost anyone, including the political opponents of those in power. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 20, 2003 03:50 PM | PERMALINKCanadian Reader, to me a "fair weather friend" is one that sympathizes with you for being attacked until you actually do something to protect yourself... I guess you didn't read the part about "supporting Canadian participation in Afghanistan". Or maybe you did. Misrepresentation and obfuscation is another sad tactic I've encountered over and over again this year. Posted by: 2shoes at November 20, 2003 03:56 PM | PERMALINKWhile I recogize the principle that power corrupts, I just don't see much danger of a "slippery slope" in this case. You really can tell who the Islamic fundamentalists are; Then why, do you suppose, did the US arrest and send to imprisonment and torture Maher Arar, who was not an Islamic fundamentalist? Add to the fact, Joe, that there are many Islamic fundamentalists in the country - and in the world - who are not guilty of any crime.
It isn't a crime to be an Islamic fundamentalist: it's a crime to be a
terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was not an Islamic fundamentalist: he was a
Gulf War I veteran. Does this mean, as Ron says, we should pro-actively
arrest all his "ilk" - all the white male Gulf War veterans - and send
them to Syria to be tortured before they blow up any more buildings? Canadian Reader- In that case, I might well say that he should be released. I VERY MUCH DOUBT that the evidence against people in Guantanamo is that flimsy. Maybe there are a few people like that incarcerated there (but even they may still be guilty -- a lack of evidence does not equate to innocence), but I doubt it. There are several Muslim familes in my neighborhood. The women wear head scarves and one even wears a burqua (though I think she's a bit crazy). The guys are heavily involved in the Muslim community and attend their local mosque reglulary. Some are from Iran (terrroist state, member of Axis of Evil), others from Egypt (state from which many fundamentalist terrorsits, including Muhammed Atta, are from), and have travelled there in the past year. One of my neighbors is always going on about the decadence of Western society and the cutthroat nature of capitalism. Heck, one of my clients is the person you describe -- he's from Iran, and is in the import-export business. Actually, he's in the jewlery trade. As you may know, the jewlery trade is a major component of the hallal banking system, which has been used by Al Quaeda for years. I used to date a very devout Muslim woman whose father is a nulcear engineer; he works in the control room of a nuclear power plant in Illinois. None of these people have been taken away in the dark of night and thrown into a cell in Camp X-Ray. None has ever been questioned by any authorities. They don't even get the full search at the airport. They don't feel any anxiety about living in the "police state" that is the USA. Also, people in the Justice Department aren't stupid. I have dealt with them for years. They don't just go around detaining people for no reason. And they are certainly not racists who jail anyone who is a Muslim just becuase he's a Muslim. There is always -- always -- evidence. There may be a few innocent people trapped in Guantanamo, or being held incommunicado in the US. But i doubt this happens very often. I have faith in our government. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 20, 2003 04:02 PM | PERMALINKJesurgislac-- Timothy McVeigh was not an Islamic fundamentalist: he was a Gulf War I veteran. Does this mean, as Ron says, we should pro-actively arrest all his "ilk" - all the white male Gulf War veterans - and send them to Syria to be tortured before they blow up any more buildings? Call me when this happens, Jesurgislac. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 20, 2003 04:04 PM | PERMALINK"No right to be here??" He was changing planes!! Oh, never mind. WRT the Canadians and the nuclear plant, the truth is 23 Pakistani immigrants accused of possessing fraudulent student visas were arrested in Canada in August. One of them was enrolled in a flight school near a nuclear plant. There is no evidence that the guy ever flew near or took any interest in it. All 23 have since been deported or released. Posted by: BruceR at November 20, 2003 04:04 PM | PERMALINKTo boil it down to essentials, the Bush Administration sent a person who was accused by another country of having ties to al Qaeda and who was in this country, with no right to be here, to one of the two countries of which he was a citizen. ...despite knowing that that country routinely tortures prisoners, and that he would be likely to be jailed by that country regardless of the terrorism accusations, since he left for political reasons and its one of those countries where dissent is one of the best ways to get arrested and tortures, and despite the knowledge that deporting people to countries where they are substantially likely to be in danger of being tortured is, well, a crime. But maybe having senior law enforcement officials ignore the law
isn't something that concerns you. But for those of us who believe in
the Constitution and the idea of limited government, it matters. "Do we let him go?" Yes, Joe, we do. We cannot do otherwise and remain ourselves. Fiat Justicia ruat coelum. Posted by: rea at November 20, 2003 04:12 PM | PERMALINKIn the end, the real issue with Arar isn't citizenship or immigration. It's that, as far as it's possible to determine, all the evidence against him was being named by a torture candidate in a Syrian hellhole. If that is the burden of proof, then we all are vulnerable. Not to deportation to Syria, perhaps, but if a scream to avoid the executioner's electrodes is enough to put you on a secret loss, subject to loss of security clearance, restriction of travel, etcl, then we're all in this together. Hypothetical: you turned down a person of Middle Eastern descent for a job a decade ago, for whatever reason. Or maybe you stole his girlfriend. Said person ends up in a Damascus jail, and accuses you of plotting with him to blow up an embassy. That (at least in early 2002) seems to have been enough to put you under the suspicion of the state, if Arar is anything more than a bizarre anomaly. Real world case now. I have a friend who came from Pakistan to Canada when she was 13. She has kids now and is as devoted and loyal a Canadian as you'll ever meet. Given what happened to Arar, what possible reassurance could anyone offer her that would induce her to travel outside the country now (it's true, most Canadian international flights go through the U.S.)? To believe "it couldn't happen to me" seems, in her case, to be nothing but overoptimistic exceptionalism. So she, and thousands of innocents like her, are apparently barred from international travel indefinitely now, because American and Canadian authorities feel uncorroborated torture testimony in another country's jail is somehow worth something. Posted by: BruceR at November 20, 2003 04:15 PM | PERMALINKhave a friend who came from Pakistan to Canada when she was 13. She has kids now and is as devoted and loyal a Canadian as you'll ever meet. Given what happened to Arar, what possible reassurance could anyone offer her that would induce her to travel outside the country now (it's true, most Canadian international flights go through the U.S.)? To believe "it couldn't happen to me" seems, in her case, to be nothing but overoptimistic exceptionalism. Hogwash. I guarantee that nothing will happen to her. I guarantee it. I have taken several flights with Muslims since 9/11, and none of them were ever met by jackbooted thugs at the gate. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 20, 2003 04:28 PM | PERMALINKCall me when this happens, Jesurgislac. Ron's arguing that it should, Joe. Posted by: Jesurgislac at November 20, 2003 04:32 PM | PERMALINKHogwash. I guarantee that nothing will happen to her. I guarantee it. I have taken several flights with Muslims since 9/11, and none of them were ever met by jackbooted thugs at the gate. So you think "It hasn't happened where I could see it" is sufficient proof that you will guarantee it never happens? We know from what's happened to Arar, and from what's happened to Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil al-Banna, that decent law-abiding Muslims can indeed be arrested and imprisoned for the crime of flying while Muslim. By your logic, I can guarantee the WTC never suffered terrorist attack. I can guarantee it absolutely, Joe, because I never saw it happen. Sure, I heard reports, and I saw film, but hey, if I take your attitude and disbelieve everything that I didn't see with my own eyes, it never happened. Posted by: Jesurgislac at November 20, 2003 04:38 PM | PERMALINKArar wasn't met by thugs, either, Joe. He was just quietly ushered away in the terminal on a simple stopover and no one heard from him again until he resurfaced in chains in Damascus. If you were born in a Muslim country, and had young kids waiting for you at home in Canada, would you risk travel, seeing what happened to him? Come on: you know you wouldn't. For Canadian Muslims, the war on terrorism isn't just a nuisance delay at airports; it's an effective prohibitive ban on all kinds of travel and activity. No one wants to risk being the next to disappear. Posted by: BruceR at November 20, 2003 04:42 PM | PERMALINKRon, Joe, Al... your positions on all this are very fascinating, but they imply a deep ignorance not only of the theory and history of jurisprudence, but more tragically of both deductive and inductive logic. since you're all essentially taking the position that both opaque and selective enforcement are jurisprudentially permissible, let me just remind you, in all seriousness, that you may not be able to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming the President of these United States. I wonder who she might appoint as AG? have a nice day. Posted by: radish at November 20, 2003 04:56 PM | PERMALINKAl Maviva asked: I dunno. Probably the same reasons I don't hear you crying over the forced repatriation of Cubans, or the forced repatriation of North Korean refugees into the North Korean gulag. Oh, I hadn't realized you're not American, Al. That would explain why you're not outraged about what the DoJ is doing. BruceR-- Well, plenty of Muslims are willing to "risk it" -- the international
terminals at LAX and JFK are filled with them -- so yes, I probably
would "risk it" too. Maybe I just place too much naive faith in my
oppressors. More And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law! Roper So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! More Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Have an nice trip. Posted by: julia at November 20, 2003 05:55 PM | PERMALINKDo I really need to point out Ben Franklin's words of wisdom for cases like this? Posted by: PaulB at November 20, 2003 06:09 PM | PERMALINKY'know, the more time I spend reading blog comments, the more I fall in love with Julia. Succint and to the point as ever lady! Posted by: seanoshaughnessy at November 20, 2003 06:52 PM | PERMALINKSo, Joe, what you're getting at is that the government should be able to ignore the Constitution if it has a good reason, in the Guantanamo case, with no independent review of its actions. Frankly, I'm quite convinced that you're not a lawyer in any field remotely related to this. Marbury v. Madison, anybody? Since when was that thrown out the window? Just letting the government do whatever it wants without even bothering to have any checks or balances is stupid. My suggestion is that if you want the law changed to keep you from ever being hurt, move to some country more to your liking. Just a suggestion in that regard, but Syria is pretty good at locking up terrorist suspects before they do anything. Posted by: psetzer at November 20, 2003 07:21 PM | PERMALINKJesurgislac, I'm actually an attorney, an American, and I have a background in civil rights, civil liberties and criminal practice. I occasionally do some human rights / humanitarian related work - helping refugees from Africa seek asylum, the legal end of humanitarian relief work, and so forth. My experience may be utterly unique, but I've found that carefully parsing people's statemetns to try and create half truths, paranoid distrust of all government representations, and partisan-fueled vitriol don't do my clients any good. Instead, I assume the basic decency of the government folks I deal with. I've found my clients generally do pretty well. Ironically enough, it pays to investigate exactly what the law actually says and allows, before you assume some government action is illegal, and start getting pissy about it. Removing foreigners to Syria, when they are only in the U.S. to switch flights, is questionable public policy. Illegal? Probably not, if AAG Larry Thompson's account of the Syrian Consul's statements are true. And yeah, I'd be fine with the state of the law and policy right now
if Hillary! herself was AG. I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep over it.
But what do I know? Al Mavivia: Alan Dershowitz, another lawyer you might have heard of, disagrees with you. He is of the opinion that international treaty was certainly broken, and that American law was probably broken. Another group, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights also thinks that the law was broken, and give some specifics.
Don't forget that the deportation is not the only problem -- he was denied all right to counsel. I don't know if it is illegal, but it was 5 days or, maybe it was even longer, before he was allowed any contact with his wife. Regarding the torture stuff: Syria is known to torture people, at least the current administration has told us that, as well as independent human rights groups. Also, the first reports that Arar was tortured did not come from his mouth, but instead from the Syria Human Rights Group, while he was still in captivity. Arar fled Syria to avoid compulsory military service, and he had brothers who have been arrested their for association with a group called the Muslim Brotherhood. That is according to him. Given that Syria is a country known to torture, and if the information is true about why he left, then it was not OK for the US to send him there under any circumstances. Posted by: Timothy Klein at November 20, 2003 08:32 PM | PERMALINKOops, wrong linke for the Lawyers Committe for Human Rights Link (bad spelling, too). Here it is. Posted by: Timothy Klein at November 20, 2003 08:38 PM | PERMALINKRon and the wingnuts he represents are in a quandry. Either John Ashcroft or George W Bush are lying: Bush, in a November 5 speech, says that Syria sponsors state torture (see for yourself in this newsclip: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/20/arar_ashcroft031120 ). This is the position of the State Department. Ashcroft says Syria promised not to torture Arar. As for proof of torture, you have Syria's well documented history. In addition, the Canadian Foreign Affairs minister says that Arar has provided a compelling account of being tortured. More importantly, if the point was not to torture Arar, then why would the US return him to Syria? In essence, the only sensible reason to send Arar to Syria is to subcontract his torture. Why would the US turn around and seek assurances he would not be tortured. If the purpose was simply to deport him out of the US, and not to torture him, then the only logical step is to put him on a plane back to Canada. As for whether he is a terrorist - don't you think after 10 months of imprisonment and torture the Syrians would have extracted sufficient proof of terrorist involvement? And if they had, then they certainly would not have then returned him to Canada. Posted by: Brian McAllister at November 20, 2003 10:56 PM | PERMALINKAl Maviva claimed, improbably: Jesurgislac, I'm actually an attorney, an American, and I have a background in civil rights*, civil liberties** and criminal practice***. I asked: Why aren't you outraged that the government of the US has committed a monstrous crime (sending Arar to Syria illegally to be imprisoned and tortured). You answered Probably the same reasons I don't hear you crying over the forced repatriation of Cubans, or the forced repatriation of North Korean refugees into the North Korean gulag. Now, the only reason I can think of why you would imagine I would not be outraged at these crimes is because I am not a Cuban nor am I a North Korean. It follows, therefore, that you were arguing that since you are not American, you don't need to be outraged at what the US government does. The rest of your claim is fairly ludicruous too. *civil rights? You've made it damned clear you don't believe in civil rights? Ron, *And apparently he didn't. What other substantial evidence do you have? Past history? Do I get to use past history as absolute defense in my arguments? You might try for something that has to do with this case.* What I'm saying here, Ronnie-boy, which would be apparent if you had quoted my whole argument, is that you seem to believe Syria's claim of no torture, but did you jump to Saddam's defence when he claimed he had no WMD? Or do you only believe when it's convenient? *So, you're thinking what? Syria tortured him and sent the information to us? I don't think Syria likes us enough to turn anything over.* Oh no? *Syria has also reportedly shared some intelligence with the United States about Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network* *Syria has in recent weeks stopped supplying Washington with valuable
intelligence, which in the past was helping the United States in
fighting Al Qaeda and terrorism in Iraq* *Syrian authorities have cooperated fully in investigating al-Qa’ida
and its associates. Syria’s foreign ministry moved to
investigate all Syrian banks, which are state-run, for the existence of
any bank accounts belonging to persons and organizations which
Washington believes maintain links with al-Qa’ida. INTELLIGENCE-SHARING
is the MAIN PART of Syria’s COOPERATION with Washington. Senior
officials of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have reportedly
held secret discussions with their Syrian counterparts. Among other
things, the discussions are believed to have focused on Ma’mun
Darkazali, a fugitive Syrian businessman who is believed to have served
as a key financial conduit between the al-Qa’ida Hamburg cell and the
network’s leadership. Information on Islamic activists suspected of
being associated with al-Qa’ida, passed by Syria on to the CIA, is
believed to have helped security agencies in Europe and the US identify,
and sometimes arrest, many such suspects.* *why else wasn't he deported to his country of RESIDENCE? Uuuh, you saying Canada can't detain suspected terrorists? At the
last (public) count, they'd detained at least five. Or you're saying
Canada doesn't detain them *illegally*? Thank God for that! And you're
saying you didn't want him walking back across the border....well, he's
free now, what's to stop him doing that? So what was gained for US
security in the year long detention? People, let's take a step back from this war on terrorism hysteria.
Let's take a history lesson, shall we? Anybody remember Joe McCarthy?
Same atmosphere...due process thrown out of the window, mere suspicion
enough justification....anybody remember? And what was the threat? We
were about to be overrun by the Reds....a legit threat, in the light of
then events, but one hyped way out of proportion. Many good decent men
were ruined, simply by being accused of being a Commie *sympathizer*
(sound familiar?) Joe Schmoe -- You say there is no dagner to non-Americans travelling thru the US. Can you provuide a eprsonal guarantee. I f I travel thru the US, and some Syrain under torture has given my name, will I be deported. Where will I be sent (I also have two citizenships, unwillingly)? I don't think it is open season on all Muslims in the US. But I do not think the government is willing to extend any procedural protections to non-citizen Muslims (including Canadians such as myself). I avoid travelling to the US as much as is reasonably possible. You say my fears are hogwash -- but you cannot say they are groundless. Unless a contrite Ashcroft admits he made a mistake, I can't see why the case of Maherr Arar won't be repeated. Posted by: Ikram Saeed at November 21, 2003 10:07 AM | PERMALINKIkram, I think you've chosen the best course. I say to you, Ron, Joe, Al, if American citizen's rights were being so ignored, would you dismiss it with the same insouciance? They are, and they are. Google on Jose Padilla sometime. The above posts seem to follow the same thread - that we must apply an American standard to the world, even upon foriegn nationals in their own countries. Strange, isn't it? The leftists want to have Syria adopt the US constitution, but rail against the rightwingers when they saddle-up to "americanize" part of the middle east. Free speech, plurality of religion - what cultural imperialism! But best of all is the thought that innocent until proven guilty (!) is implicated in sending someone back to a country of origin. I wonder how many posters have actually sat through a INS asylum hearing? Sadly, for someone to claim rought treatment upon arriving back in the old country - this is the equivalent of having a criminal defendant implore - "but I didn't do it, honest!" This may be true, but for those "cogs" in the system this is what they all say. P.S. Before you cite Dershowitz (sp?), did anyone read the op-ed piece he wrote advocating a procedure for judges to issue "torture" warrants? see also http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/ Posted by: Californio at November 21, 2003 10:36 AM | PERMALINKThe above posts seem to follow the same thread - that we must apply an American standard to the world, even upon foriegn nationals in their own countries. Having just read the whole thread, I don't recall having seen any Americans talking about applying a (uniquely) American standard to foreign nationals in their own countries. [There were a few Canadians talking about Canadian standards, which are similar, but that's not quite the same thing.] It's entirely possible I might have missed such a remark, though; would you mind specifying to which commenters (and comments) you are referring? Posted by: Anarch at November 21, 2003 12:24 PM | PERMALINKAnarch, this is Californio. Do not expect coherence. Do not expect
Californio to read previous posts. It won't happen. Just file him/her/it
with Carol in California, and ignore. It is dangerous to confuse children with angels. Posted by: Henderson John at January 20, 2004 05:22 PM | PERMALINKWe are never truly sure of our beliefs. Posted by: La Battaglia Juliana at March 17, 2004 04:25 PM | PERMALINKThe fear of death is the beginning of slavery. Posted by: MarlinCuriel Stephanie HaberHirsch at May 2, 2004 11:12 AM | PERMALINKI believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time. Don't worry that other people don't know you; worry that you don't know other people. What's on your mind, if you will allow the overstatement? Posted by: Maroney Terry at June 30, 2004 05:42 AM | PERMALINKBLACK TEEN SEEKER MOVIES BORDERBANGERS EVER FUCK A BLACK COCK FUCKHERTHROAT I GO BOTH WAYS MILF SEEKER SEX PRANKS PARK RANGER SPLATS VIDEOS Posted by: ashton moore at June 30, 2004 08:03 PM | PERMALINKSWING FOR DOLLARS TRANNYSURPRISE WET CREAM PIES MOVIES first lesbian kiss ass then mouth border bangers hardcore porn cumfiesta exploited moms Posted by: mr skin at June 30, 2004 08:05 PM | PERMALINK3928 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 08:53 PM | PERMALINK1673 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - 810 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 01:18 PM | PERMALINK4198 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 10:15 PM | PERMALINK2388 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 14, 2004 01:22 AM | PERMALINK7314 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 06:37 PM | PERMALINK6413 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: play blackjack at August 16, 2004 09:45 PM | PERMALINKExcellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz http://www.888-online-poker.biz
http://www.888-online-gambling.biz http://www.888-on-net.biz 3375 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 1267 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 10:27 PM | PERMALINK4585 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 3538 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 07:47 AM | PERMALINK1836 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 10:14 PM | PERMALINK7782 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: online texas hold em at August 26, 2004 03:18 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
