|
 |
December 10, 2003 THIRD PARTY TORTURE....Maher Arar, the guy that we shipped off to Syria to be tortured, tells his side of the story in the Los Angeles Times today:
I am sympathetic to the fact that we will sometimes make mistakes and arrest the wrong people. I am not sympathetic to the fact that we refuse to back up serious accusations with evidence. And I'm decidedly not sympathetic to the fact that we ship people off to brutal dictatorships to be tortured. The war on terror does not require us to behave like animals. After all, if we descend to their level, what's the point of the fight? The government owes both Arar and Canada an explanation for what happened here. Posted by Kevin Drum at December 10, 2003 12:18 PM | TrackBackComments
Personally, I think we should deport most of the high-ranking officials in the adminsitration to Syria for a year or two. Posted by: John Y. at December 10, 2003 12:28 PM | PERMALINKA well written LATimes article. Nothing really new in it -- a truncated version of the story Arar told in the counterpunch article. Probably shorter for space reason, but before the usual suspects go squawking about Almaliki, they should read the full article. http://counterpunch.org/arar11062003.html The best blog coverage of this issue has been by Manish at Damnforiegner http://www.damnforeigner.com/archives/cat_maher_arar.html Posted by: Ikram at December 10, 2003 12:28 PM | PERMALINKAs long as the "suspected terrorist's" name is similar to Maher Arar, you will never get the freedom-loving people of America to give a damn. Whisk away one blonde-haired, blue-eyed boy with a name something along the lines of Timothy Anderson and maybe a few folks might care. Posted by: chris at December 10, 2003 12:30 PM | PERMALINKWe have already sunk to their level. It's just that most of us don't know it or don't want to know it. Posted by: Terrance at December 10, 2003 12:32 PM | PERMALINK"And I'm decidedly not sympathetic to the fact that we ship people off to brutal dictatorships to be tortured." I don't think the next ones won't be able to write their story to the LA Times. If not already done, i'm afraid a few more month of terrorism in irak will be enough for the us authorities to let the new, improved, iraki forces do the job. Posted by: yabonn at December 10, 2003 12:36 PM | PERMALINKIt should be remembered that someone in Canada collabrated in all this; that copy of Arar's apartment contract didn't materialize out of thin air. Posted by: Geoduck at December 10, 2003 12:41 PM | PERMALINK"The war on terror does not require us to behave like animals. After all, if we descend to their level, what's the point of the fight?" That statement assumes that there are two opposed sides in the "war on terror." I'm less certain every day that that's actually the case. Posted by: Jimmy Hotep at December 10, 2003 12:44 PM | PERMALINK"The war on terror does not require us to behave like animals." I'm thinking about doing some extensive traveling this winter. I'd like to see as many foreign countries as possible before GW Bush + Co. make Americans unwelcome in the whole fucking world. Posted by: peter jung at December 10, 2003 12:56 PM | PERMALINKPoints in defense: It ain't been hundreds of Canadians of hundreds of anybody shipped to Syria, doesn't make it right, but there probably is a reason this guy was chosen. The guy was Syrian,dual passport I think,not a good excuse but an excuse. I really don't see a big pattern of rounding up people, in fact i see it winding down. And finally, I am so scared of what these freaks would do if we had another 9/11 in this country (or maybe what we would all do), that I will grant Ashcroft et al a little slack. I worry more about abuses in Afghanistan and Iraq, where I think it might be more directly counterproductive to our goals Posted by: bob mcmanus at December 10, 2003 12:57 PM | PERMALINKAfter all, if we descend to their level, what's the point of the fight? Kevin, I agree with you completely that we should not engage in third
party torture. What happened to Mr. Arar is a disgrace to this
country. WillieStyle--true enough. But if we descend to their level, why should the rest of the wold care? "The guy was Syrian," is not even an excuse, let alone a good one. And he was travelling under a Canadian passport (not a "dual" one, whatever that means), which as an official Canadian government document, should have been honoured. Period. End stop. I love it that we've so devalued human life that a loss of liberty now has to happen to "hundreds of people" before it's worthy of condemnation. I love it even more that government arbitrary action now apparently has to be as random as the lottery before it's seen as any kind of overreach. It's like that redneck comedian, in a way: "if 'Hey, at least they're not picking people off the street at random yet' is the best thing you can find to say about your government today, then you, too, might be a fascist..." Posted by: BruceR at December 10, 2003 01:15 PM | PERMALINK"i am the morning DJ on W-O-L-D-D-D-D" Posted by: headless harry at December 10, 2003 01:18 PM | PERMALINKYeah, “cruel and unusual punishment” and “innocent before proven guilty” is just a US rumor from a long forgot and stupid American past. What the fuck do we think we are? US citizens or something! Justice Scalia said that we’d have to give up some of our freedoms now – he’s right about saying he isn’t an orignalist on the US constitution and ALSO right about saying that that the US constitution is "dead" because certainly Scalia’s boy Bush never felt compelled to practice any of those really stupid set of “dead” values. I really don't even know why we bother with the Pledge of Allegiance, it's just a ceremony thing, especially that part about “justice for all”. We know only rich people in this country have any real shot at justice and certainly not any of those dark skinned rag headed Muslins. And he was an American anyways so FUCK did he think he get any Justice...those rag heads just need to say the F--k out this country.
Gee Kevin, that you should get the understatement of the year
award...usually when the innocent are undergo this kind of maltreatment
they get some sort of monetary award—But of course we're talking about
Justice Scalia’s form of Justice or lack there of as the case stand now.
er that should be: And he wasn't an American anyways so why the FUCK did he think he get
any Justice...those rag heads just need to stay the F--k out this
country. CNN footage: US Soldiers execute Iraqi man, cheer. http://www.informationclearinghouse.literati.org/article5365.htm young soldier describes how 'awesome' it was. I just remember other times. Internment camps, loyalty oaths, and
though I am as upset as anyone at the abuses like Guantanamo I am also
pleasantly I will stand my low opinion of this administration against anyone here, thank you very much. Posted by: bob mcmanus at December 10, 2003 01:27 PM | PERMALINKThe same thing was done before and will be done again. It's an unofficial US strategy: torture by proxy. I mention in passing that Syria is on the State Department's list of terrorist supporting nations and that US officials frequently denounced Syria for using torture on it's detainees. Posted by: novakant at December 10, 2003 01:34 PM | PERMALINKThe refoulement of Maher Ara to a country where there was a reasonable expectation that he could be tortured (based on the Department of State's Human Rights report for Syria, that was a reasonable expectation) is a violation of the Convention Against Torture. The US has ratified the CAT and the current president's father signed the enabling legislation into law. Sending Maher Arar to Syria was a crime. Posted by: Randy Paul at December 10, 2003 01:35 PM | PERMALINKIt's quote time: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin We founded a country based on ideas like that; I guess we had a good run with all that liberty stuff. Time to try something new? Thanks but I'd rather keep that old-fashioned liberty and freedom stuff. It's just the way I am. Posted by: QrazyQat at December 10, 2003 01:39 PM | PERMALINKOh, BTW, Jonah Goldberg just hates that Blackstone quote, which shows you that old Blackstone was definitely right. Posted by: QrazyQat at December 10, 2003 01:41 PM | PERMALINKSounds like the investigation into Almaliki made anyone else who crossed paths with him a suspect deserving of inhuman treatment. This reminds me of the same justifications that put thousands of persons of japanese origin into concentration camps (euphamistically, relocation centers) -- except then we did not make ourselves party to deliberate torture. Fact that US deported a Canadian citizen to Syria over objection of Canadian government shows deliberate plan to attempt to benefit from Syrian torture -- and give Canadian authorities the finger. Fact that US remains totally unapologetic about this shows that this is official US policy and will continue. Dont forget Ashcroft reserves the right to do this to US citizens if you are "an enemy combatant." We do not physically torture prisoners at Gitmo, but definitely engage in deliberate psych torture. The apologists obviously believe its ok to do this to anyone merely suspected of having crossed paths with people that they believe might be involved with terrorists. Another indication of the disfunctional reaction to 9/11 fueled by an evil Bush regime. Posted by: DMBeaster at December 10, 2003 01:42 PM | PERMALINKChretien, the RCMP and/or CSIS certainly know more about this than they're letting on. Canada obviously doesn't care about Arar because they turned him over to the US which in turn sent him off to the Syrians. The implications of this type of outsourcing of torture and
extra-territorial, extra-legal incarceration at Guantamano Bay are
enormous. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." funny thing, is it? ? ? say let 10 guilty murderers escape vs. one innocent rot in jail. from a cost-benefit analysis, locking up the 10 criminals at the "cost" of 1 innocent will prevent many more other people from becoming their victims. I lived in Japan for 8 years, and that I could walk at night from one end of Tokyo to the other with $1000 in my wallet and not be afraid was ... and eyeopener. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 02:03 PM | PERMALINKThe state, through imperial networks seems to have escaped the limitations of geography should be easy... just get our reps to pass a law guaranteeing the rights of citizenship anywhere in this universe. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 02:04 PM | PERMALINKI know you're an animal lover, Kevin, so I'm not giving you grief, but although animals may be amoral creatures, they aren't immoral. It takes a human for that. As Mark Twain said: "Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals. "Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight." Posted by: fastback at December 10, 2003 02:06 PM | PERMALINKTroy, Great. Why not volunteer to be that one innocent? Posted by: Randy Paul at December 10, 2003 02:07 PM | PERMALINKyeah, I know it's philosophically rotten, but I'm just looking at the reality of the situation. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 02:07 PM | PERMALINKOh, BTW, Jonah Goldberg just hates that Blackstone quote, which shows you that old Blackstone was definitely right. Yes, he probably prefers that one about breaking a few eggs--but I don't know why anyone takes that idiot seriously. Only at NRO.. Posted by: Ringo at December 10, 2003 02:08 PM | PERMALINKCanadians have for a long time felt that they were almost Americans, by courtesy. Being able to cross the border for vacations or a day's shopping with minimal hassle in either direction, having an extended family with members on either side of the border, watching American television, the cross-border acceptance of drivers' licences and car license plates, a thousand other little things... created the illusion in most of us that the rights afforded Americans in the US applied to us too, when we were there. Oh, not voting, of course. Not permanent residence. But rock-bottom things like civil rights, we've always imagined those would apply to us. It is, therefore, very chilling to read: I asked repeatedly for a lawyer but was told that I didn't have the right to one because I was not an American citizen.Posted by: Canadian Reader at December 10, 2003 02:19 PM | PERMALINK He wasn't "turned over" to the U.S. by Canada. He was taken by American authorities while changing planes in New York en route home. He was moved to Syria without the prior knowledge or consent of the Canadian government. The Canadian role, at this point, seems limited to sharing information about one of its citizens that the U.S. authorities had an interest in. Both Canada and Syria have said they had no reason to suspect Arar of anything, other than U.S. say-so. Posted by: BruceR at December 10, 2003 02:34 PM | PERMALINKYou bet, we're just rounding up Canadians and Arabs by the boatload. Happily sending them all off to be tortured where we can't see it. (/sarcasm) Has it occurred to y'all that there may be a reason for this one? The LA Times is a registration site so I won't be reading the article, but is there anything but Mr Arar's word that he was tortured? Posted by: Ron at December 10, 2003 02:34 PM | PERMALINKWhat does Tokyo and $1000 have to do with this? Posted by: Tim at December 10, 2003 02:36 PM | PERMALINKTroy, the conviction rates in Japan are a lot lower than the US. Your example points in the opposite direction methinks. Most Western countries put a higher emphasis on humanizing the criminal, and have lower crime rates. Perhaps a coincidence, but I doubt it. Posted by: Jason at December 10, 2003 02:37 PM | PERMALINKIs there any reason to dismiss his allegations out of hand? And how the hell did he get put on a flight to Syria when he was just making a connection in the US? ? ? Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 02:37 PM | PERMALINKTokyo and $1000 have to do with this better safe than sorry ? ? the conviction rates in Japan are a lot lower than the US what? ?? Try 99.8% in Japan. The justice system is really strange over there -- the prosecution and judges all come from the same legal college. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 02:39 PM | PERMALINKI'm just arguing the philosophy of "better 10 mass-murderers go free than locking up one innocent by mistake". This sounds like a great philosophy, but in practice might leave a lot to be desired. I am thinking of the 3-time loser who apparently killed that blonde chick up north. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 02:42 PM | PERMALINKIs there any reason to dismiss his allegations out of hand? Is there any reason to believe his allegations out of hand? Posted by: Ron at December 10, 2003 02:42 PM | PERMALINKHas it occurred to y'all that there may be a reason for this one? What does the reasoning have to do with it? The point is the normal application of law was not followed and therefore a (most likely) innocent man was stripped of his rights and tortured. If the story was "One hundred people in an apartment building in Iowa wiped out by an F-16, US says part of war on terrorism, critics say drunk pilot, US makes no other comment" would you come back with "has it ever occured to you that there was a reason for it?"? You're missing the entire point- are you really so dense? It's the same damn thing with Jose Padilla- the point isn't there might be a reason to have him locked up, the point is his rights have been completely stripped from him in direct violation of this nation's laws. We're a nation of laws, Ron -that's what makes us so special- not a nation of men where one man's personal whim can decide the fate of another. What're you, some kind of commie? Is there any reason to believe his allegations out of hand you're the one making the positive assertion he's lying. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 02:45 PM | PERMALINKUgg. I hate to say this, but the Arar story, if not explained, is
probably enough to make me vote Democrat, which I previously thought
unthinkable. The LA Times is a registration site so I won't be reading the article Use "gorevidal" as username and password. Read the article. There is a reason the US government lists Syria as a country that practices torture, you know. Posted by: Thersites at December 10, 2003 02:46 PM | PERMALINKReg, you're incredibly ignorant, but even you should know that torture is routinely practiced in Syria. Everyone in prison in Syria gets tortured. Try googling for Amnesty International's reports on Syrian prison conditions. Posted by: grytpype at December 10, 2003 02:48 PM | PERMALINKis probably enough to make me vote Democrat it's my theory that Bush & Co. are quite aware of their failings in 2001 -- and will leave no law unbent to ensure another 9/11 won't happen on their watch. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 02:48 PM | PERMALINKA disgrace. A shameful, criminal disgrace and I hope there are serious lawsuits brought against the U.S. Government. This kind of thing does not happen by accident. There were authorizations and responsible authorities. It's called a war crime. Posted by: Tim B. at December 10, 2003 02:49 PM | PERMALINKIs there any reason to believe his allegations out of hand? Well, the US government both notes that Syria routinely practices torture, and admits that they deported him to Syria. What is there to question as far as the US breaking the Convention Against Torture, which requires the US not to deport people to places where they are known to be likely to be tortured? Posted by: cmdicely at December 10, 2003 02:55 PM | PERMALINKI'm just arguing the philosophy of "better 10 mass-murderers go free than locking up one innocent by mistake". Yeah, it's totally the philosophy of 10 mass murderers... Yeah, cuz god knows if you have a justice system that's more careful and mindful of civil rights it will neccessarily have to let mass murderers go free. The saying is a metaphor... good god... it's not literal! What is being expressed is the idea that there's no way you could ever bring all criminals to justice without having a completely unfair, unjust justice system that would no doubt target innocent people. Rather, in order for the system to be just it would need to ere on the side of making sure the innocent were protected. Get it? what? ?? I think he's referring to the clearance rate of crime reports, not the conviction rates once someone is charged. Posted by: cmdicely at December 10, 2003 02:56 PM | PERMALINK"Has it occurred to y'all that there may be a reason for this one?" Has it occured to you that the Founding Fathers were totally against the idea of the government as omniscient, perfect god. They believed passionately thst while government in neccessary, government also tends toward tyranny. So they tried to limit the power of the government over people by requiring the government to prove it has a reason to detain someone. That means, Ara doesn't have to prove a damn thing; the government does. "If he's been grabbed, he must be guilty" is the most anti-American, anti-Constitutional, treasonous attitude anyone in this country can have; go back to England, you anti-patriot, Tory fuck {though considering that the Brits have gotten a clue since then, you might want to continue going east til you hit your intellectual homeland: China}. Of course a wannabe slave like yourself probably enjoys your stand with the policies George III in opposition to Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Paine, Madison, Monroe, and Franklin. You are soiling my nation; please go off yourself so that America might be a grreat country again (and it will bring relief to your family which has to live with the shame of being related to such a sorry example of humanity as yourself). Have a Nice Day :) Posted by: Phalamir at December 10, 2003 02:56 PM | PERMALINKTroy says Lemme see, Kevin D says we refuse to back up serious accusations with evidence So if the government is supposed to produce hard evidence that a crime was not committed, what would be wrong with my wanting to see some evidence that a crime was committed. For example, I'll say that the government stole my truck last night. Of course, there is no evidence to support that my truck was stolen, but I want the government to prove that they didn't do it. My 2 questions: Lemme see, Kevin D says we refuse to back up serious accusations with evidence So if the government is supposed to produce hard evidence that a crime was not committed, what would be wrong with my wanting to see some evidence that a crime was committed. For example, I'll say that the government stole my truck last night. Of course, there is no evidence to support that my truck was stolen, but I want the government to prove that they didn't do it. Lay off the free basing, man. The government sent this guy to Syria with no due process of any sort- they have not provided any evidence he's done anything wrong. That's not how it works in the USA I know and love, that's how it works in places like... Syria- and that's the fuck up. They need to produce evidence that there was a reason he was sent to Syria, not produce evidence he didn't do anything. It's INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY here in the US, Ron. How the hell could you get that flipped around? Crack is bad for you, man. Theresites I'm aware of the "do not deport to location where torture is likely" or whatever the exact wording was, but does Syria's promise that they would not torture him come into play under "likely torture"? Or is the only one telling the truth here Mr Arar? And also, forced to confess and then released? 1) Why was this guy singled out? Being essentially a Syrian defector to Canada, he can't renounce his Syrian citizenship. He's Arab and has red-flags come up in his paper trail. 2) Did anything actually happen? He says so. No real reason to doubt his story. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 03:09 PM | PERMALINKReg, you're incredibly ignorant In Reg's defense, I believe it's Ron who's being incredibly ignorant today. You owe me one, Reg. Posted by: JP at December 10, 2003 03:11 PM | PERMALINKPhalamir Mr Arar was questioned and deported. For better or for worse, non-citizens do not have the protections that citizens have. Even with that, if Mr Arar's story is true, I sympathize with his plight and I would agree that the US committed a crime. But the allegations here are that a crime has been committed by the US Government. That would make them the defendant. Now where is "innocent until proven guilty"? Posted by: Ron at December 10, 2003 03:13 PM | PERMALINKin order for the system to be just it would need to err on the side of making sure the innocent were protected That's fine in theory, but what about practice? Is it really better that 3-time loser sex-offender scum walk free just to torture and kill blonde women up north? What about her rights? Clearly "star chamber" style justice is one step from tyranny, but maybe there's a happy medium somewhere? Now where is "innocent until proven guilty"? We have evidence establishing a case. Where's yours? Troy says We're getting to my main problem right here. Is there any real reason to believe his story? (Other than it reflects badly on the Bush administration). Posted by: Ron at December 10, 2003 03:19 PM | PERMALINKVarious people in and around the administration have been floating, if not revelling, in the idea of sending suspected terrorists to eg. Egypt for intensive questioning. This is a sensitive subject. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 03:20 PM | PERMALINKTroy says Other than Mr Arar's story, what would that be? Posted by: Ron at December 10, 2003 03:21 PM | PERMALINKfrom a cost-benefit analysis, locking up the 10 criminals at the "cost" of 1 innocent will prevent many more other people from becoming their victims. Well Troy, why don't you volunteer to be the first to be locked up and tortured even though innocent. And if so locked up, I'm sure you'd forgo your right to sue for damages. Posted by: QrazyQat at December 10, 2003 03:25 PM | PERMALINKSyria being a Ba'athist dictatorship for one. here's a random web page. Feel free to find evidence that Syria is actually a Lockean paradise. Despite the existence of constitutional provisions and several Penal Code penalties for abusers, there was credible evidence that security forces continued to use torture, although to a lesser extent than in previous years. Former prisoners, detainees, and the London-based Syrian Human Rights Organization reported that torture methods included administering electrical shocks; pulling out fingernails; forcing objects into the rectum; beating, sometimes while the victim is suspended from the ceiling; hyperextending the spine; bending the detainees into the frame of a wheel and whipping exposed body parts; and using a chair that bends backwards to asphyxiate the victim or fracture the victim's spine. In 2001 AI published a report claiming that authorities at Tadmur Prison regularly tortured prisoners, or forced prisoners to torture each other. Although it occurs in prisons, torture was most likely to occur while detainees were being held at one of the many detention centers run by the various security services throughout the country, especially while the authorities were attempting to extract a confession or information. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 03:27 PM | PERMALINKRon, I have two questions for you, in all seriousness: Did you apply this same degree of skepticism to all Iraqis claiming to have been tortured by Saddam Hussein's regime? And if not, why not? Syria's government is not as brutal as Iraq's under Hussein... but it's often quite close. Because of the standard of evidence you demand in such situations, I assume you're infuriated by the Bush administration's moves to keep secret as many government documents as possible. Is my assumption correct? Posted by: Jon at December 10, 2003 03:28 PM | PERMALINKwhy don't you volunteer to be the first to be locked up non-sequitur. The question is one of policy. How many innocent victims of rampant crime vs. innocent victims of overzealous law enforcement. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 03:29 PM | PERMALINKRon, "Innocent" as in legal standing, not public opinion. If someone guns someone down in broad daylight they are not considered, legally-speaking, guilty of the crime until found as such in court. You're either not very bright or being a real weasel to split these hairs so thin... The gunner would be arguing his innocence in court, the prosecution would be arguing his guilt. Since the government holds all the cards- they ARE the justice system- it is incumbant upon them to prove what they say is true. A person is shipped off and tortured and you think he needs to prove the case?? How?? With his fucking thousands of civil servants and vast legal beaurocracy and military and robust economy? The government is not an individual with individual rights enumerated by US law. (and I'm not arguing that "better safe than sorry" is/would be an efficacious policy -- if you don't capture the right guy the real criminal is still out there. I just semi-reject the "better 10 axe murderers go free than one innocent rot in jail" philosophy. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 03:31 PM | PERMALINK"That's fine in theory, but what about practice? Is it really better that 3-time loser sex-offender scum walk free just to torture and kill blonde women up north? What about her rights? Clearly "star chamber" style justice is one step from tyranny, but maybe there's a happy medium somewhere?" I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. It sure ain't "practice", that would involve something more than bizarre absolutes and anecdotes. You've taken that quote and dissected it literally, I explain the idea behind the quote and you assign an absolute to it "3 time loser"- as if that's evidence of a justice system more concerned with protecting the innocent than finding the guilty. You're just way to scattered. Posted by: Tim at December 10, 2003 03:35 PM | PERMALINKRon, There was. He was reported as being tortured while he was still in custody (i.e. before being released and telling his story) by a Syrian human rights group. Yukoner Posted by: Yukoner at December 10, 2003 03:38 PM | PERMALINKOK, saw the 2nd post. You're deliberately talking in broad strokes. Fine. Then I would say the US system was specifically imagined to be the
sort that would protect the innocent- transparency and due process. What
we have now is secret search, seizure, and detention- with are the
complete antithesis to free democracy. IF we stopped this crap and had a
transparent system built solidly on due process AND as a result more
criminals escaped the net somehow and didn't get put away- I'd be fine
with that. That'd be the price of freedom. Ron- So do you get it yet? Or do you still think it's up to the victims of government oppression
to make their governments accountable and that governments should be
believed unless said victims can prove their case? Mr Arar was questioned and deported. For better or for worse, non-citizens do not have the protections that citizens have. Deported to SYRIA and not Canada. That's the issue. He was carrying a Canadian passport. He is a Canadian citizen. He was born in Syria, renounced his Syrian citezenship, but Syria does not let a citizen give up their citizenship, so he's stuck with it. It is a crime to deport an individual to a country where they are likely to be tortured. Can we agree that Syria is a country where he was likely to be tortured? So the proof you are looking for is whether he was actually sent to Syria? You want confirmation that it wasn't a backlot in, say, London dressed up to look like a Syrian prison? I think what you're looking for is a video tape from the torture cell showing him being tortured. But even then, how would you know that the images are really of him? Regardless, that he was tortured makes this a horrendous episode. A
crime was committed on US soil before he ever recieved his first lashes. Troy But Syria being a known user of torture is not a sufficient condition. I believe the wording of the law is that torture must be likely (or something similar). My understanding is that Syria said that they would not torture Mr Arar. Which brings me back to an old question: is Mr Arar the only one telling the truth here? Jon I don't think Mr Arar should have been deported to Syria. Even if Syria promised not to torture him, because we could never have believed that. And even if he was not tortured, because Syria was not his country of residence. I suspect that we had reason to suspect Mr Arar, but we have other answers. Better for Mr Arar and better for our collective concience. It seems likely to me that we crossed a line we should not have crossed, but I will ask that we remember why we are suspicious of terrorists and their supporters. Posted by: Ron at December 10, 2003 03:48 PM | PERMALINKClearly "star chamber" style justice is one step from tyranny, but maybe there's a happy medium somewhere? OK, yeah, sure, why not? How about: It is better that five guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"? Or maybe three guilty persons vs. two innocents? Posted by: Meteor Blades at December 10, 2003 03:48 PM | PERMALINKThat'd be the price of freedom Is it worth it? Like I said, living in Japan was an eye opener for me. Maybe it's just a cultural advantage for them, but I felt a lot freer there with so little streetcrime than I do here. A Hippocratic "first do no harm" is of course a better philosophy, and I suppose in the long run we need our systems to be run on philosophy and not desired results... I guess my rambling is basically a "how do we get there from here" attempt at argument.
Why would the government knowingly violate the law? First, it's not the government but some number of government officials. Ignorance. "NMD" (not my department). Cost/Benefit -- better safe than sorry -- clearly it's career suicide to be the one who admits a terrorist into the country. Following "the book" even if the book is unlawful. Red flags with his
apartment lease -- visiting Tunisia -- Syrian nationality -- hasta la
vista. As head of the Office of Policy Development, he oversees judicial nominations and screens proposed regulations. In his first few months in office, Dinh says he worked to position the office as the Justice Department think tank. After the September 11 attacks, though, his focus shifted squarely to combating terror: "Right after September 11, the president told Attorney General Ashcroft, 'You make sure this doesn't happen again,' and the attorney general turned to us to help." That new mission meant Dinh regularly slept in his Justice Department office during the six weeks he helped draft the USA Patriot Act. He says September 11 forced the Justice Department to change the way it does its job. And he doesn't apologize for the department's more aggressive approach. "We will do everything in our power and only that in our power to protect the security of the American people," Dinh said. That may require arresting terrorism suspects on minor crimes, just to get them off the streets, he told an American Bar Association conference in February. His message didn't prove popular with everyone in the audience, many of whom shook their heads in disagreement as Dinh spoke. http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2002/fall/classnotes_14.html
Follow up to my earlier post addressed to Ron. Here is the link on the story of Arar being tortured before he told his story. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/CBC/2003/08/06/arar030806 Yukoner Posted by: Yukoner at December 10, 2003 03:59 PM | PERMALINKHow? Ban handguns, have serious regulation for all other weapons. Focus on rehabilitation for non-violent drug related crimes. Spend about 3 times as much on public education.
Ban handguns, have serious regulation for all other weapons. I think people ought to have the opporunity to keep handguns for home defense, given proper licensing. Focus on rehabilitation for non-violent drug related crimes. I think we should abandon the war on drugs completely. Prohibition didn't work either. Spend about 3 times as much on public education. I'm not aware of jobs going unfilled due to lack of qualified applicants these days, except nursing jobs perhaps... Doesn't "Third Party Torture" mean torturing Green Party members? (Sorry) Posted by: Daryl McCullough at December 10, 2003 04:08 PM | PERMALINKRon, Thanks, but you haven't answered either of my questions. I'm genuinely curious to hear what you'll say. Also, I think it's worth mentioning that Saddam Hussein often "had
reason to suspect" the people he had dragged off to be tortured. There
was a genuine alliance between part of the Kurdish population and Iran
previous to the Iran-Iraq war, after all. The point is that it doesn't
matter: torturing people is wrong. I would guess you'd be
disgusted by someone who responded to allegations of torture by Saddam's
regime by saying, "Well, it wasn't the right thing to do... but maybe
the person tortured was guilty!" "I will ask that we remember why we are suspicious of terrorists and their supporters." Could you be more condescending? Here, I'll return the favor: I would hope that you're a bit more than suspicious of terrorists and their supporters. I'm a bit more than suspicious of Al Qaeda, for instance. Personally, I hate them. But that's just me. Meanwhile: I would ask that we not embrace the un-American
tactic of assuming that people with Ay-rabb-soundin' names ARE
terrorists. Sound fair? Troy, A big reason why Japan is so much less violent is that no one can have guns. Guns don't kill people- guns allow people to kill people.
We're slowly turning into Mexico, where the vast majority are unskilled and uneducated, and a minority wield the power and wealth. Shit like that doesn't happen in countries that invest in their populace simply for the betterment of the nation as a whole. Screwing people out of good education hurts the entire nation, nursing jobs being all full or not.
I agree with your points -- plus a more egalitarian educational system would reduce social stratification and improve integration. But wrt the guns, though. Easy access to guns do facilitate crime, but a lot of violent and property crime here is not gun related -- and I do believe people have some right to arm themselves as they see fit for self and home protection. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 04:31 PM | PERMALINKTroy- Off topic, I know, but another word about Japanese crime rates/street safety. I think your perception of Japan being safe has something to do with the fact that you look like a foreigner. Most Japanese men aren't going to want to mess with a gaijin male. Women, on the other hand...Walking the residential neighborhoods of Tokyo after dark wasn't always a safe thing to do...there are lots of pervs there. I probably had about half a dozen instances when men either tried to rip my skirt off, or pull me into the bushes as I walked home from the train station. And the trains...the kind of perverted shit that went on in those trains. Posted by: Koneko at December 10, 2003 04:58 PM | PERMALINKHow many innocent victims of rampant crime vs. innocent victims of overzealous law enforcement. How many innocent victims of torture are appropriate in your view? Posted by: QrazyQat at December 10, 2003 05:21 PM | PERMALINKand how many innocent victims of rampant crime were prevented by Mr. Arar's deportation to Syria ratehr than Canada, and his subsequent torture? Posted by: QrazyQat at December 10, 2003 05:25 PM | PERMALINKIt's a policy thing. Do we cut suspicious people slack, or do we crack down on them hard. That's a false dichotomy, but basically the philosophical point I'm arguing. The administration is clearly following the policy of "better safe than sorry". This cuts into racial profiling and other unpleasantries too. (as for koneko -- yes the Japanese police aren't taking the chikan problem seriously, being largely pervs themselves most like). Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 05:38 PM | PERMALINKThat you see no difference between "better safe than sorry" and accepting the imprisonment and torture of innocent people is a sorry thing. I hate to be one of those people who points out that there are plenty of authoritarian regimes you could live in without turning America into one, but it seems that's apropos in this case. I suppose you're at least consistent, and therefore support the imprisonment and torture of all anti-abortion protesters, as some of their fellow travelers are terrorists. And of course you'd also support the imprisonment and torture of anyone who knows or is close to people like the Texas folk who were recently busted with a sodium cyanide bomb and "at least 100 other bombs, bomb components, machine guns, 500,000 rounds of ammunition and chemical agents". And of course those like them who are in miltias, or who are part of the "I don't need to pay taxes" movement. I worry about those people, but I don't propose we destroy our liberty to find them and stop them. I also think Ben Franklin was right, and I think I deserve liberty. Posted by: QrazyQat at December 10, 2003 06:49 PM | PERMALINKDid anybody do anything for UN Human Rights Day? Posted by: Glenn at December 10, 2003 07:20 PM | PERMALINKI don't necessarily support the "better safe than sorry" policy. Just trying to state it rationally. Tramelling on other's rights is easy when it's not going to be you paying the price; being a "good german" in the face of tyranny is not a winning philosophy. Having said that; an AQ cell here in the US with a working fission device *does* scare the living crap out of me, and no, I haven't watched any "24" episodes. Posted by: Troy at December 10, 2003 07:22 PM | PERMALINK Ron writes: And also, forced to confess and then released? This is actually very easy to explain. In the article "The Syrian Bet" (New Yorker, 7/23/2003) Seymour Hersh
details how US intelligence built up a relationship with Syria after
9/11, and the Syrians provided a lot of very useful information about
al-Qaeda (you remember, the real war on terror). Rumsfeld and the rest
of the neocon politicals destroyed this relationship with their
saber-rattling threats. Now Syria is trying to get even with
embarassments like releasing Arar so he can tell his story to the
western media. As much as you'd think that would be true, Cenobite, the truth is
Arar was released apparently only because Arab League president Amr
Moussa personally intervened on behalf of the family, who called on him
to help during his Canadian trip earlier that same week. Canadian quiet
diplomacy up to that point had been completely futile, and the Americans
weren't lifting a finger to help, either. If it hadn't been for that
little bit of noblesse oblige on Mr. Moussa's part, Arar would likely
still be there. I'm back, and while this post is long, I think it catches me up. Troy @ 3:54pm But someone (during the last discussion on this) raised what I consider a very interesting question: why send him to Syria? It does not benefit the US. If someone has an idea of how the US benefitted, I would be real interested in hearing it. It cannot have been to have information tortured out of him, torture is an extrememly unreliable way to obtain information. But why would the US care if Syria benefitted? And I see that the previous paragraph also addresses cenobite and Bruce R, because my question is not so much why Syria let Arar go as why we gave him to them.
Did you apply this same degree of skepticism to all Iraqis
claiming to have been tortured by Saddam Hussein's regime? And if not,
why not? As for why I am skeptical in this case, as I have said, we have many Canadians and many Arab descendants living in and passing through the US. This is one guy. And one guy does not make a pattern. Because of the standard of evidence you demand in such situations,
I assume you're infuriated by the Bush administration's moves to keep
secret as many government documents as possible. Is my assumption
correct? And to carry on ryan b says We decided to trade some freedom for some security (Patriot Act for example). Now I think a really good argument could follow as to whether we really needed to decide that. I will argue the position that we didn't need to. Freedoms are never worth trading off, but I understand the rational behind doing it. We will make some mistakes with this new balance, we will release some people that should be held and we will hold some people that should be released. Mistakes are inherent, especially in a new system. (That does not lessen the tragedy of the mistakes) I just want everyone to remember that there is a reason why it was decided that we need to strike this new balance between freedom and security. Posted by: Ron at December 11, 2003 06:41 AM | PERMALINKThere is no trade-off between freedom (due process) and security. You are not secure if you are not free, as you are always at risk of arbitrary government action, like Padilla or (for non-citizens) Arar. The trade-off your are talking about, Ron, is increasing your security for some-one else's freedom. You may be willing to trade away the freedom of someone else to make yourself more secure (and no-less free). But don't pretend you're making a sacrifice. All you're doing is selling someone else out. There is no personal trade-off Posted by: Ikram at December 11, 2003 07:51 AM | PERMALINKIkram says I wasn't arguing that freedom should be traded for security. I said Now I think a really good argument could follow as to whether we really needed to decide that. I will argue the position that we didn't need to. Freedoms are never worth trading off... Posted by: Ron at December 11, 2003 08:16 AM | PERMALINKIkram I am an Australian. I am not religous and do not believe in religion but have a muslim name and a muslim family. I have been to Saudi Arabi and Pakistan with my family a few years ago, mainly to satisfy my mum's desire to go. I have come to feel that it is simply too dangerous for me to travel to the United States. I would be terrified that something similar to what has happened to Maher Arar happening to me. Its not that these things happen. This could easily happen in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Its the attitude of Americans to these things. There is very little outrage in the US press. Members of the American public feel unembarrassed being quoted saying that its not a big deal. US public officials are usually almost completely unrepentant about any aspect of this except for the initial mix up. I get the impression that most Americans just don't care that this happens. That is what terrifies me. Posted by: still working it out at December 12, 2003 04:15 PM | PERMALINKHi, I just wanted so say thank you guys ! I really like your site and i hope you will continue to improving it. http://arthritis-treatment.bcure.com/ Best XXX Sites - 3869 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 04:11 PM | PERMALINK1358 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 25, 2004 04:31 AM | PERMALINK5407 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 07:03 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
