Canadian Report Accuses U.S. of Kidnapping and Torturing Innocent Man

[JamesDillon]

A government commission on Monday exonerated a Canadian computer engineer of any ties to terrorism and issued a scathing report that faulted Canada and the United States for his deportation four years ago to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured.

The report on the engineer, Maher Arar, said American officials had apparently acted on inaccurate information from Canadian investigators and then misled Canadian authorities before flying Mr. Arar in an American government plane to Jordan and then transporting him to Syria...

While the F.B.I. and the R.C.M.P. kept up their communications about Mr. Arar, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs was not told about his detention for almost three days. Its officials, acting on calls from worried relatives, had been attempting to locate him. Similarly, American officials denied Mr. Arar’s repeated requests to speak with the Canadian Consulate in New York, a violation of international agreements.

Mr. Arar arrived in Syria on Oct. 9, 2002, and was imprisoned there until Oct. 5, 2003. It took Canadian officials, however, until Oct. 21 to locate him in Syria. The commission concludes that Syrian officials at first denied Mr. Arar’s whereabouts to hide the fact that he was being tortured. Among other things, it concludes that he was beaten with a shredded electrical cable about two feet long until he was disoriented.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/americas/19canada.html?hp&ex=1158638400&en=5a5807626a7ef39e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Bush apologists... GO!

[Pardalis]

Sorry for this stupid question, but since the US and Syria aren't the best of friends, even more so in the war on terror, why would the US send a suspected terrorist to Syria to be interrogated?

It doesn't make sense to me. :confused:

[marksman]

I'm no Bush apologist, but America and Canada deports people all the time back to their home nations, where they may end up being brutalized and tortured.

Did America and Canada know ahead of time that Jordan was going to deport Mr. Arar to Syria? Did they also know that Syria would torture Mr. Arar when he got there?

The article appears to be blaming Canada and America for torture conducted by Syria. The authorities may have been wrong to deport him, but I'm not sure how they can be held responsible for his subsequent torture unless they had awareness that would be the result of his deportation.

[Mephisto]

Bush apologists... GO!

Read Condi's lips . . . WE DO NOT TORTURE! ;)

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/americas/19canada.html?hp&ex=1158638400&en=5a5807626a7ef39e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Bush apologists... GO!
Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs was not told about his detention for almost three days
So, the RCMP cuts the Foreign Ministry out of the pattern, and it is all and only GW Bush's fault. Sounds to me like a considerable number of agencies were involved in a screw up here.

DR

[daredelvis]

Did America and Canada know ahead of time that Jordan was going to deport Mr. Arar to Syria? Did they also know that Syria would torture Mr. Arar when he got there?

Yes.

Daredelvis

[JamesDillon]

I'm no Bush apologist, but America and Canada deports people all the time back to their home nations, where they may end up being brutalized and tortured.
Are you suggesting that this was a routine deportation? That's clearly not the case. Mr. Arar, a legal resident of Canada, was kidnapped at JFK airport (in the United States) and flown in a government plane to Syria, all on suspicion of his connection to terrorism:
The Syrian-born Mr. Arar was seized on Sept. 26, 2002, after he landed at Kennedy Airport in New York on his way home from a holiday in Tunisia. On Oct. 8, he was flown to Jordan in an American government plane and taken overland to Syria, where he says he was held for 10 months in a tiny cell and beaten repeatedly with a metal cable. He was freed in October 2003, after Syrian officials concluded that he had no connection to terrorism and returned him to Canada.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/americas/19canada.html?hp&ex=1158724800&en=19cef65f49917a76&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Is it generally the policy of the United States to unilaterally "deport" Canadian residents?

The article appears to be blaming Canada and America for torture conducted by Syria. The authorities may have been wrong to deport him, but I'm not sure how they can be held responsible for his subsequent torture unless they had awareness that would be the result of his deportation.
Once again, it is a gross mischaracterization to suggest that this was simply a "deportation," particularly given the fact that no deportation proceedings were brought and Mr. Arar was granted no due process protections; he was simply abducted from the airport and shuttled away to a country not governed by anti-torture treaties in order to be interrogated as to his connection to terrorism. Given the history of allegations that the United States has sent suspects to various nations precisely for the purpose of applying interrogation methods prohibited under U.S. law, I hardly think it's entitled to the benefit of the doubt here.

[Pardalis]

But why Syria? Isn't that the last place you'd want to send a suspected terrorist?

[HarryKeogh]

Bush apologists... GO!

Surely if he wasn't guilty of terrorism he was guilty of something else. Now stop hating America, call your mother and bake an apple pie.

[Grammatron]

Are you suggesting that this was a routine deportation? That's clearly not the case. Mr. Arar, a legal resident of Canada, was kidnapped at JFK airport (in the United States) and flown in a government plane to Syria, all on suspicion of his connection to terrorism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/americas/19canada.html?hp&ex=1158724800&en=19cef65f49917a76&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Is it generally the policy of the United States to unilaterally "deport" Canadian residents?


Once again, it is a gross mischaracterization to suggest that this was simply a "deportation," particularly given the fact that no deportation proceedings were brought and Mr. Arar was granted no due process protections; he was simply abducted from the airport and shuttled away to a country not governed by anti-torture treaties in order to be interrogated as to his connection to terrorism. Given the history of allegations that the United States has sent suspects to various nations precisely for the purpose of applying interrogation methods prohibited under U.S. law, I hardly think it's entitled to the benefit of the doubt here.

It's amazing how you do not read an article that you link yourself.

[marksman]

Are you suggesting that this was a routine deportation?
Absolutely not. I have no knowledge of anybody ever having been deported from the US to Syria on any grounds. That's why this whole thing is so weird.

I did not intend to imply a value judgment in the word "deportation". I only meant to describe what happened ot him. When one is in a country and that country sends you to another country, that is a "deportation". I didn't mean to imply it was routine and I apologize for any unintended emotive baggage associated with that word.

he was simply abducted from the airport and shuttled away to a country not governed by anti-torture treaties in order to be interrogated as to his connection to terrorism. Given the history of allegations that the United States has sent suspects to various nations precisely for the purpose of applying interrogation methods prohibited under U.S. law, I hardly think it's entitled to the benefit of the doubt here.
I completely understand that we send suspects to Egypt and Saudi Arabia where torture is routine. I've just never heard of the US sending a suspect to Syria to be tortured as the US has very poor relations with Syria. Thus, my confusion as to whether the US knew he would be tortured once he arrived there.

Nothing in the article makes sense with what I know of America's relationship with Syria and I am just trying to understand it, not cast aspersions on the abductee.

[JamesDillon]

It's amazing how you do not read an article that you link yourself.

Given that I've quoted extensively from the article, do you have anything more specific than a vague aspersion to cast?

[Fitter]

Arar holds dual Canadian /Syrian citizenship and was traveling on a Canadian passport. One wonders why he wasn't deported to Canada, other than the fact that that is where he was heading.

[CFLarsen]

Sorry for this stupid question, but since the US and Syria aren't the best of friends, even more so in the war on terror, why would the US send a suspected terrorist to Syria to be interrogated?

It doesn't make sense to me. :confused:

To get him out of reach of US jurisdiction, of course.

Think "secret prisons".

[Darth Rotor]

Nothing in the article makes sense with what I know of America's relationship with Syria and I am just trying to understand it, not cast aspersions on the abductee.
US Syrian relations weren't too terribly bad after 9-11, though not great. What got US Syrian relations into the crapper, which is after this incident apparently took place, was the 2003 Iraq War's beginning, and the rhetoric shortly thereafter about Syria "being next." The accusations in re the 2005 death of Mr Hariri in Lebanon had to ice that diplomatic crapcake rather nicely.

I don't blame Mr Assad for being pissed off, be he heel or hero.

DR

[marksman]

Having read Dillon's NYT article, it appears that this is what happened.

The Royal Mounted Canadian Police determined, falsely, that Mr. Arar, A Syrian national and Canadian resident, was a dangerous member of Al Qaeda. They also told the FBI -- again falsely -- that Arar was no longer a resident of Canada and has moved to Tunisia.

The FBI learned from the RMCP that Arar would be passing through American territory via JFK International airport. Acting on the false information provided by the RCMP, they grabbed him and sent him, apparently to Syria, to be tortured on suspicion of terrorist activities. This is an established American policy called "rendition." When Syria concluded that he was not involved they returned him to Canada.

The FBI would not tell RCMP about the proposed rendition because Canada understandably opposes the practice. However, Canada had already told the US that Arar was no longer a Canadian resident. As far as the US was concerned, he was a Syrian national. In my opinion, RMPC had to know what America would do with the info provided since the practice of rendition is fairly well known. Moreover, the RCMP violated its own protocols when it gave the FBI the false information it had on him. I find it difficult to believe the RCMP didn't know the score. The US not telling the RCMP was to give them plausible deniability.

Had the Canadians not told the Americans that Arar was no longer a Canadian resident, in my opinion, he would not have been subject ot rendition. The US only uses rendition to send people back to their home conuntries to be tortured. (That doesn't make it okay, mind you.)

The problems are two-fold.
First, the RCMP was astoundingly incompetent in targeting Arar, telling the US that Arar was not a resident of Canada, and in informing the FBI of his travel plans knowing he would be subject to rendition.

Second, the entire US program of rendition, in which foreign nationals are returned (deported, if you will) to their home countries, where torture is common, is distasteful, to say the least.

Arar's case against the US was dismissed. But I think his case against the RCMP is very strong. This report, pointing the finger at the US, and essentially absolving the RCMP on the wholly unbelievable assertion that they had no idea what would happen to Arar when they told the FBI that 1) he was a Syrian terrorist who visited Washington DC on September 11, and 2) he was no longer a Canadian resident, makes the report seem like a whitewash.

The American policy of rendition is certainly worthy of criticism and is akin to the American Cold War policy of supporting Latin American and African strongmen. But let's not allow our condemnation of rendition to ignore what the hypocrisy and incompetency of the RCMP, who "officially" denounce rendition, but clearly have no qualms setting up Canadian residents to be subject to it.

[marksman]

US Syrian relations were too terribly bad after 9-11, though not great. What got US Syrian relations into the crapper, which is after this incident apparently took place, was the 2003 Iraq War's beginning, and the rhetoric shortly thereafter about Syria "being next." The accusations in re the 2005 death of Mr Hariri in Lebanon had to ice that diplomatic crapcake rather nicely.

I don't blame Mr Assad for being pissed off, be he heel or hero.

DR
Arar arrived in Syria on October 8, 2002, a month after Bush announced to the UN that America would act unilaterally against Iraq and only weeks before Congress authorized war. US-Syrian relations had dissolved entirely by this point.

[JamesDillon]

The American policy of rendition is certainly worthy of criticism and is akin to the American Cold War policy of supporting Latin American and African strongmen. But let's not allow our condemnation of rendition to ignore what the hypocrisy and incompetency of the RCMP, who "officially" denounce rendition, but clearly have no qualms setting up Canadian residents to be subject to it.

True. I didn't mean to suggest innocence on the part of the RCMP or the Canadian government in general; however, whatever Canadian screw-ups were involved, this incident was caused by the United States's routine policy of circumventing the rule of law, as well as common decency, where terrorism suspects (I use the term lightly) are concerned. Canada's hands may not be entirely clean in this matter, but it is the United States's policy of disregarding basic human rights that directly gave rise to this incident.

[Pardalis]

To get him out of reach of US jurisdiction, of course.

Think "secret prisons".

Yes, I know about all that. And I don't doubt M. Arar's story.

I just don't understand why the US would send someone they feel is a potential threat to a country like Syria.

[Grammatron]

True. I didn't mean to suggest innocence on the part of the RCMP or the Canadian government in general; however, whatever Canadian screw-ups were involved, this incident was caused by the United States's routine policy of circumventing the rule of law, as well as common decency, where terrorism suspects (I use the term lightly) are concerned. Canada's hands may not be entirely clean in this matter, but it is the United States's policy of disregarding basic human rights that directly gave rise to this incident.

Canada set this guy up as a terrorist and a big threat to US. The described him as "Islamic extremists suspected of being linked to the al Qaeda movement" and that he "...had visited Washington around Sept. 11 and had refused to cooperate with the Canadian police." Yes, the US might have gone overboard when they flew this guy to Jordan, but I lay the blame on Canada for this.

Also, I, like others, still do not understand how Syria fits in here.

[FreeChile]

Also, I, like others, still do not understand how Syria fits in here.
Here's a clue.

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/docs/Arar_State_Secrets_Memo_of_Law.pdf

Syria is one of the foreign intelligence services used by the United States for its renditions. As reported by intelligence experts, the Syrian government "maintains a secret but growing intelligence relationship with the CIA," and, according to the former director of counterterrorism at the CIA, has "provided some very useful assistance on Al-Qaeda in the past." At the same time, the United States reports annually that Syrian intelligence forces routinely use torture in interrogations.

[JamesDillon]

Canada set this guy up as a terrorist and a big threat to US. The described him as "Islamic extremists suspected of being linked to the al Qaeda movement" and that he "...had visited Washington around Sept. 11 and had refused to cooperate with the Canadian police." Yes, the US might have gone overboard when they flew this guy to Jordan, but I lay the blame on Canada for this.

At least back in those innocent days of 2002, if no longer, Canada was justified in assuming that assisting the United States in its struggle against terrorism or islamo-fascism or violent extremism or whatever it was called that week would not result in a man's being forcibly abducted from an airport, flown halfway around the world, and beaten with a wire until he lost consciousness. There were some things back then that civilized nations just didn't do, or at least hadn't fully admitted to doing, so Canada could hardly have foreseen what would happen to the poor man. Even if it was negligent in identifying Mr. Arar as a possible terrorist threat, the Canadian government bears no responsibility for his illegal abduction and torture.

[FreeChile]

Arar arrived in Syria on October 8, 2002, a month after Bush announced to the UN that America would act unilaterally against Iraq and only weeks before Congress authorized war. US-Syrian relations had dissolved entirely by this point.
Not quite. The invasion of Iraq may have begun the erosion.

Remember U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 and how the US has been condemning Syria and Iran and Hezbollah, and how Syria eventually removed its troops from Lebanon in shame? I bet you that resolution was one of the mistakes mentioned by the President of Syria below. So Arar just happens to fall in that crack of participation. There is also the issue of the Golan Heights, but it is tangential to that.

U.S. EXCLUSIVE: Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad on U.S. Foreign Policy, the Resistance in Iraq, Syrian-Lebanese Relations and More
July 18, 2006
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/18/1442253

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Actually, we started cooperating with the United States -- we took the initiative to cooperate with the United States intelligence after 11th of September. And we succeeded in preventing more than seven plots made by al-Qaeda against the United States. The cooperation stopped last March 2005, because of mistakes were made by the United States, first; second, because of their political position or stand against Syria.

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Technical mistakes that led to losing many opportunities to go forward in fighting terrorism in the region.

REESE ERLICH: That was also around the time in which the U.S. was pressuring Lebanon to demand the return of Syrian troops and the charges about Hariri, and so on and so forth. So, did that, in general, sour the political atmosphere?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Definitely, definitely.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1559
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/498/92/PDF/N0449892.pdf?OpenElement

[marksman]

Ineresting. Thanks for the info everyone. That's good to know!

[marksman]

At least back in those innocent days of 2002, if no longer, Canada was justified in assuming that assisting the United States in its struggle against terrorism or islamo-fascism or violent extremism or whatever it was called that week would not result in a man's being forcibly abducted from an airport, flown halfway around the world, and beaten with a wire until he lost consciousness.
No, they weren't. According to this article (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6), America's rendition program had been active and known since 1998, well before 9/11, and begun in response to the first WTC bombing.

And it was known because terrorists had been claiming this to be American policy shortly after it was implemented. The idea that Canada was unaware of the American policy of rendition is naive, at best. As far as I can tell, the RCMP not only knew about it; they were counting on it.

[JamesDillon]

No, they weren't. According to this article (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6), America's rendition program had been active and known since 1998, well before 9/11, and begun in response to the first WTC bombing.

And it was known because terrorists had been claiming this to be American policy shortly after it was implemented. The idea that Canada was unaware of the American policy of rendition is naive, at best. As far as I can tell, the RCMP not only knew about it; they were counting on it.

Could you provide a quote for this? I'm sure you're right, but the article is quite long and I'm having some difficulty locating the part where it says that the Canadian government was aware of the rendition program as of 1998. I did find this part interesting, though:
Rendition was originally carried out on a limited basis, but after September 11th, when President Bush declared a global war on terrorism, the program expanded beyond recognition—becoming, according to a former C.I.A. official, “an abomination.” What began as a program aimed at a small, discrete set of suspects—people against whom there were outstanding foreign arrest warrants—came to include a wide and ill-defined population that the Administration terms “illegal enemy combatants.” Many of them have never been publicly charged with any crime. Scott Horton, an expert on international law who helped prepare a report on renditions issued by N.Y.U. Law School and the New York City Bar Association, estimates that a hundred and fifty people have been rendered since 2001. Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts and a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, said that a more precise number was impossible to obtain.

In any case, even if the Canadian government was aware of the U.S. policy of rendition, the ultimate responsibility for that program rests with the U.S., not Canada.

[marksman]

The article doesn't mention Canada, but it does mention public statements of terrorists that cite the rendition program in 1998. I don't think it unreasonable to think the Canaian government can read a newspaper.

Yes, the ultimate responsibility for the "program" lies with America. But the ultmate repsonsibility for Arar should be shared between the Americans who committed rendition and the RCMP who, in my opinion, clearly manipulated the Americans in order to utilize their rendition program without sullying their hands directly.

[marksman]

From the article:

"In 1995, Scheuer said, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally—including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea."

"On August 5, 1998, an Arab-language newspaper in London published a letter from the International Islamic Front for Jihad, in which it threatened retaliation against the U.S. for the Albanian operation [invoving rendition]"

Here (http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/03.25C.Secret.Transfer.htm) is a copy a Washington Post article from March 2002, months before Arar's rendition. It details the CIA's use of renditio on suspected terror suspects.

Either Canada knew of the policy or Canada has the stupidest law enforcement officials on the planet. I don't think Canadian law enforcement is stupid. Ergo, I think they knew about the rendition program and thus they knew exactly what would happen to Arar when they told the FBI that Arar was not a Canadian resident and that he was a suspected member of Al Qaeda.

[FreeChile]

Don't quote me on this one. But I got the impression that Canada may have also tried to keep in touch with the case in Syria. One of the sources presented here implies that. It looks like they were also interested in getting a confesion from Arar. Granted, they may have been doing it to avoid imbarassment. Somewhere here I read something about them even visiting Syria. I'm not sure about that though and don't have time to dig it up right now.

In addition to that, the judge in the case seems to think the whole thing is a part of a systematic problem as he is urging the investigation into the cases of other Canadians found in similar predicament as Arar. The court papers mention two or three others.

[Pardalis]

In any case, even if the Canadian government was aware of the U.S. policy of rendition, the ultimate responsibility for that program rests with the U.S., not Canada.

The RCMP gave the faulty intelligence to the US. Are you a Canadian apologist?

ETA: everyone should take responsibility in this mess.

[Darth Rotor]

Arar arrived in Syria on October 8, 2002, a month after Bush announced to the UN that America would act unilaterally against Iraq and only weeks before Congress authorized war. US-Syrian relations had dissolved entirely by this point.
What? In Oct 2002, there was still an option that didn't include war. I suspect Syrian-US relations were on the decline, particularly due to the "state sponsored terror" bit where Syria was clearly culpable (locally) but I didn't get the sense that they touched bottom until the spring of 2003 on that score, shortly before the invasion.

DR

[Pardalis]

BTW, what are the United Nations doing to stop the use of torture in Syria?

[marksman]

What?

Darth, I already stated (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1936836&postcount=24) that I accept the evidence that Syrian relations had not deteriorated as much by the time Arar arrived in Syria as I thought they did. No need to keep hammering a point I conceded.

[JamesDillon]

The RCMP gave the faulty intelligence to the US. Are you a Canadian apologist?

ETA: everyone should take responsibility in this mess.

I'm not denying that, but Canada was still, at most, an aider and abetter to the United States's violations of law and decency. It's fine to point that out, but I object to efforts to shift the attention away from the U.S.'s policy of kidnapping and torture on the ground that Canada's hands are also dirty. So they are. But the U.S. is still the primary actor here.

[marksman]

BTW, what are the United Nations doing to stop the use of torture in Syria?

Well, from the UN's website for the Council on Human Rights, it appears...

In August 2002, they listened patiently as Syria (http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/FE00C6E5F092C500C1256C090056EF67?opendocument) raised questions of whether people were being racially discriminated against in the Israeli occupied Golan Heights. In April 2004, this led to an official condemnation (http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/400428B523407689C1256E770057784B?opendocument) of Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. Thsi is similar to a similar condemnation (http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/86DB9FBA8DDE391BC1256A330026176F?opendocument) in 2001.

In July 2005, the COmmittee considered (http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/8D82F4FB538425C4C1257043002B5587?opendocument) issues of Syrian human rights, and although it acknowledged allegations of torture and abuse, it did not make any conclusions, although it promised a future report that has never been issued.

Here (http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpPages)/CBD301FF98AF69B980256EE700376D86?OpenDocument&expand=10.1&count=10000&unid=CBD301FF98AF69B980256EE700376D86&year=2006#1.10.1) is a list of press releases by the Committee on Torture. Nothing has ever been issued with respect to Syria.

I note that Syria did not ratify the Convention (http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/9.htm#reservations) Against torture until 2004, 20 years after it was initially promulgated.

[marksman]

I have no idea what it matters to be a "primary actor" or "aider and abettor" in this context. The RCMP wanted Arar tortured because due to their own incompetence they erroneously thought him to be a terrorist. They couldn't do it themselves, so they gave the US false information knowing that this would cause America to hand him over to the Syrians who would torture Arar.

If anybody is the "primary actor", it's Syria who, you know, did the actual torturing.

America's hands are dirty because they turned him over to Syria.
Canada's hands are dirty because they manipulated intelligence to get America to hand him over to Syria.

I'm not sure what metric one uses to determine whose hands have more blood.

[Pardalis]

Aren't the primary actors here the terrorists themselves?

If there hadn't been an attack on 9/11, M. Arar would have been left alone.

[RyanRoberts]

The Syrian establishment are not natural allies of sunni terror groups like Al Q and the Muslim brotherhood. The Syrian leadership and officer core are primarily Alawites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawi), a heretical Shia sect to most muslims.

Assads father brutally put down a muslim brotherhood backed insurrection in 1982, 10's of thousands were killed. Syria asked for the cooperation of western governments in tracking down the MB members who fled the country after the massacre.

The Syrian regime was therefore quite enthusiastic about torturing terrorists linked to the MB.

[Tailgater]

I'm not denying that, but Canada was still, at most, an aider and abetter to the United States's violations of law and decency. It's fine to point that out, but I object to efforts to shift the attention away from the U.S.'s policy of kidnapping and torture on the ground that Canada's hands are also dirty. So they are. But the U.S. is still the primary actor here.

Just a question. If you are in charge of the FBI and you recieve info from Canada that someone is a terrorist, what do you do? Canada will not take him and denies he is still a citizen. You cannot imprison him (unless you want to fill up gitmo more and be accused of kidnapping people). So he is a suspected terrorist and the only country he can be sent to is his natural born country. The only other option is to let him loose in the US, which you suspect will result in US citizens being killed (if that happens, your ass is done for). And you know no matter what you do, people on internet forums will start posts about it blaming Bush first, so you might want to pick the option that will get the least heat in the public eye.

[marksman]

According to the article, the US had the option of returning him to Switzerland, which is where he was arriving from.

[Deus Ex Machina]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/americas/19canada.html?hp&ex=1158638400&en=5a5807626a7ef39e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Bush apologists... GO!

Hang on. The RCMP labels the man internally as a possible terror suspect. It concludes that he has left Canada permanently and the RCMP tells the FBI about him.

That's what is in the article is it not?

So the US has someone who has been reported by the RCMP as an AL Qaeda sympathiser, no longer living in Canada who is at JFK after flying in from Tunisia.

If the US is going to deport him where does it deport him to? Back to Algeria?

It i not that I do not fully agree that My Arar has been evilly served. What I am trying to understand is why you think Bush apologists need to be active on this thread? It wasn't the US who IDed him as a potential terror suspect - it was the RCMP. From reading the article it seems that the RCMP went out of its way to give as much credence to that argument as possible even to the extent of adding in gratuitous and fals information.

So why are Canadians now complaining because the US believed them? Why on earth are you posting about "Bush Apologists"? Seems to me that you need to line up some good Canadian Liberals and chastise them about the disgusting state of their country and its intelligence services.

[Pardalis]

IMHO, I think the Canadian intelligence was adamant in finding terrorists because it had been shown greatly incompetent in tracking them down in the past. That led to this huge mistake.

[JamesDillon]

Hang on. The RCMP labels the man internally as a possible terror suspect. It concludes that he has left Canada permanently and the RCMP tells the FBI about him.

That's what is in the article is it not?

So the US has someone who has been reported by the RCMP as an AL Qaeda sympathiser, no longer living in Canada who is at JFK after flying in from Tunisia.

If the US is going to deport him where does it deport him to? Back to Algeria?

It i not that I do not fully agree that My Arar has been evilly served. What I am trying to understand is why you think Bush apologists need to be active on this thread? It wasn't the US who IDed him as a potential terror suspect - it was the RCMP. From reading the article it seems that the RCMP went out of its way to give as much credence to that argument as possible even to the extent of adding in gratuitous and fals information.

So why are Canadians now complaining because the US believed them? Why on earth are you posting about "Bush Apologists"? Seems to me that you need to line up some good Canadian Liberals and chastise them about the disgusting state of their country and its intelligence services.

As I've already said several times here, my purpose is not to defend the Canadians, who were clearly negligent in their handling of this case and bear some of the responsibility for the outcome. However, if the United States had abided by the law and had abided by the basic principles of due process of law, this matter could have been resolved without any two-foot lengths of wire being involved. It is not, I hope, the usual practice of the United States to abduct a foreign citizen from a United States airport to be "deported" in a government plane back to his country of origin. My problem here is with the practice of extraordinary rendition in general, not merely with the fact that an innocent man was caught up in it in this particular case.

[marksman]

As I've already said several times here, my purpose is not to defend the Canadians, who were clearly negligent in their handling of this case and bear some of the responsibility for the outcome.

I think the facts of the case indicate more than "negligence." The RCMP deliberately misled the US as to the residency of Arar with knowledge that this would lead to his rendition and torture. That's not negligence. That's a deliberate act that was compounded by their negligent identification of Arar as a terror suspect.

Which is not to exonertae America and Syria, whose acts were equally deliberate.

However, if the United States had abided by the law and had abided by the basic principles of due process of law, this matter could have been resolved without any two-foot lengths of wire being involved. It is not, I hope, the usual practice of the United States to abduct a foreign citizen from a United States airport to be "deported" in a government plane back to his country of origin.
It is not. If the RCMP had not lied to the US and told them Arar was not a Canadian resident, the US would not have sent him to Syria. If your complaint is that Arar was not returned to Canada, the blame lies with Canada. Thanks to Canadian deception, America thought they were returning him to his only remaining country of origin -- Syria. Which doesn't make it right as America knew Syria would torture him and should have either returned him to Switzerland to let the Swiss figure out what to do with him, or detained him themselves as a suspect. But the fault for Arar's improper transfer lies with Canada.

My problem here is with the practice of extraordinary rendition in general, not merely with the fact that an innocent man was caught up in it in this particular case.
Then you should have said so. As far as I can tell, nobody has been defending rendition in this thread.

[FreeChile]

MAHER ARAR vs. JOHN ASHCROFT
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/docs/Arar_Order_21606.pdf#search=%22Brooklyn%20District %20Court%20Judge%20David%20Trager%20ruling%20on%20 Arar%22

[FreeChile]

IMHO, I think the Canadian intelligence was adamant in finding terrorists because it had been shown greatly incompetent in tracking them down in the past. That led to this huge mistake.
I hope you also find it problematic that the simple mention of Al-Qaeda or terrorism on some database in connection with someone, could lead to that mistake. It seems that Al-Qaeda continues to control the culture of the US and many other places. So much so, that government officials seem so sh1tl3ssly scared as to send someone to a place where they would be tortured. I can imagine someone in Washington saying, "what Al-Qaeda! Fu**k! Send him to Syria!" And of course, INS officials quickly complied. But that's just me imagining it.

For God's sakes, the guys children are on the dam database.

[Dorian Gray]

Just a question. If you are in charge of the FBI and you recieve info from Canada that someone is a terrorist, what do you do? Canada will not take him and denies he is still a citizen. You cannot imprison him (unless you want to fill up gitmo more and be accused of kidnapping people). So he is a suspected terrorist and the only country he can be sent to is his natural born country. The only other option is to let him loose in the US, which you suspect will result in US citizens being killed (if that happens, your ass is done for). And you know no matter what you do, people on internet forums will start posts about it blaming Bush first, so you might want to pick the option that will get the least heat in the public eye.

Just a question: If you are in charge of the FBI, and you receive info from Canada that someone is a terrorist, don't you possess some of the most intensive and exhaustive intelligence sources on the planet and thus the capability to check it out for yourself? Also, aren't you wary of repeating the same mistakes the CIA made just a few years ago?

[Dorian Gray]

Another question: Does it seem SNAFU-tastic that we ship prisoners to Syria to be tortured while at the same time claiming we don't torture anyone AND condemning Syria for giving aid to the terrorists they are torturing for us?

[FreeChile]

Hang on. The RCMP labels the man internally as a possible terror suspect. It concludes that he has left Canada permanently and the RCMP tells the FBI about him.

That's what is in the article is it not?
No. There is much more in the article, either implied or explicit. Whether it is factual or not remains to be discovered.

Arar was tortured and denied his rights as a result of the actions of the various American officials involved.

They dealt with Canadian officials involved with Mr. Arar’s case in a less than forthcoming manner.
They removed him to Syria against his wishes and in the face of his statements that he would be tortured if sent there.
They also did not allow Arar to speak to counsel and the Canadian Consulate.
They did not communicate their intent to send Arar to Syria with Canadian authorities.
and the report concludes by saying that

American officials have not discussed the case publicly. But in an interview last year, a former official said on condition of anonymity that the decision to send Mr. Arar to Syria had been based chiefly on the desire to get more information about him and the threat he might pose. The official said Canada did not intend to hold him if he returned home.

[FreeChile]

Another question: Does it seem SNAFU-tastic that we ship prisoners to Syria to be tortured while at the same time claiming we don't torture anyone AND condemning Syria for giving aid to the terrorists they are torturing for us?
The US probably no longer ships detainees to Syria. US-Syrian relationships have been eroding gradually. I say "probably" because you never know what the intelligence services are doing secretly. The part about the Syrians aiding Hezbollah, that is just part of the erosion. The US was probably just sending Al-Qaeda to Syria and not the ones that the Syrians support. For example, the US would never send a Hezbollah knowing that Syria would probably treat them royally there and not interrogate them the way the US would like. The Syrians don't seem to like Al-Qaeda too much.

[FreeChile]

Just a question: If you are in charge of the FBI, and you receive info from Canada that someone is a terrorist, don't you possess some of the most intensive and exhaustive intelligence sources on the planet and thus the capability to check it out for yourself? Also, aren't you wary of repeating the same mistakes the CIA made just a few years ago?
What mistakes are you referring to?

The source alone does not make the intelligence. It's like the Arar case. He was a source which they treated in fear and through fear. So the intelligence potential was corrupted majorly. Maybe he would've been an asset, had they treated him differently. It takes an element of fear not to question your source. Why couldn't the INS or FBI question the veracity of the Canadian reports on the database? Why couldn't they communicate candidly with the Canadian intelligence services about this case? What was Washington's involvement in the case?

[FreeChile]

Department Takes it back

My next question is, was it a deportation or a rendition? If it was a deportation, why then were the US and the Canadians interested in Arar and a confession after the deportation?

Also, how could Gonzales not know that Arar was tortured? Isn't he aware of the rendition and deportation cases being litigated? There was a whole case in Brooklyn, New York that testifies to the fact. It was so easy for me to see the transcript and the ruling. Even the federal government was involved in that case, the Attorney General, John David Ashcroft. Where is Gonzales' head? Up his a55? This case was clearly related to renditions, which Gonzo has obviously defended.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/21/1538230

Alberto Gonzales Forced to Retract Comments On Maher Arar

In an update to a story we've been following closely, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been forced to back away from comments he made about U.S. involvement in the case of Maher Arar. Arar is the Canadian citizen who the U.S. abducted and sent to a Syrian prison where he was tortured. On Monday the Canadian government exonerated Arar and criticized the U.S. role. At a news conference the next day Gonzales said "We were not responsible for his removal to Syria. I'm not aware that he was tortured.'' On Wednesday, a Justice Department spokesperson said Gonzales had misspoken. The spokesperson said the attorney general forgot that at the time of Arar's deportation, such matters were still handled by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which was part of the Department of Justice.

Here's what Gonzo said yesterday.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_0609191.html

Transcript of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales
and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras
at Press Conference Announcing Identity Theft Task Force Interim Recommendations
Washington, D.C.
September 19, 2006

...

QUESTION: Canada, as you know, released a long-awaited report yesterday on the treatment of Maher Arar. Since the Department was the agency that allowed his removal to Syria in which he was then tortured, doesn't the Department owe him an apology?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we were not responsible for his removal to Syria, I'm not aware that he was tortured, and I haven't read the Commission report. Mr. Arar was deported under our immigration laws. He was initially detained because his name appeared on terrorist lists, and he was deported according to our laws.

Some people have characterized his removal as a rendition. That is not what happened here. It was a deportation. And even if it were a rendition, we understand as a government what our obligations are with respect to anyone who is rendered by this government to another country, and that is that we seek to satisfy ourselves that they will not be tortured. And we do that in every case. And if in fact he had been rendered to Syria, we would have sought those same kind of assurances, as we do in every case.

QUESTION: From the report, he had no connections with any terrorist groups, and he has sought an apology from the U.S. government.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Again, I haven't read the report.