View Full Version : New Details Emerge: Ottawa Refused to Imprison Arar
Hurin_Rules
06-02-2005, 16:08
New details are emerging in the Arar case. For those of you who don't know, Arar had dual Canadian and Syrian citizenship when he was detained at a US airport. He was then sent back, against his will, to Syria, where he was jailed and tortured. Since then, one of the main questions regarding the case has been, who ordered him deported to Syria and why. Now it seems we are starting to understand these:
Ottawa refused US appeal to jail Arar
Ottawa — U.S. security officials offered to send Maher Arar back to Canada in October of 2002 -- before he was deported to Syria -- in exchange for a promise that he be jailed in this country, a public inquiry heard yesterday.
Liberal Senator Pierre De Bané, who was prime minister Jean Chrétien's special envoy to Syria on the Arar case, said he learned of the offer in a foreign affairs briefing in early July, 2003.
"The Americans told the Canadian security services, we're prepared to give you back Mr. Arar, on condition you engage yourselves to arrest him and put him in prison and press charges," Mr. De Bané said.
Canadian authorities rejected the idea, he said.
"The Canadians said to the Americans, we have a Charter of Rights . . . we don't have cause to arrest and press charges and put him in jail," he said.
Mr. Arar, a 34-year-old computer engineer, was deported to Syria in October of 2002 and imprisoned for about a year. He was tortured during his time in detention.
His case has become an international cause célèbre, as Canada has drawn criticism for its handling of the case and the U.S. has come under fire for its practice of deporting suspected terrorists to countries known to practice torture. Mr. De Bané said he was briefed on the matter by former senior consular official Gar Pardy, who was the Department of Foreign Affairs' point man on the Arar file during his incarceration.
The briefing was to help him prepare for a trip to Syria that month, where he presented president Bashar Assad with a letter from Mr. Chrétien asking for Mr. Arar's return.
Mr. De Bané repeated several times yesterday that Mr. Pardy told him of the U.S. offer, saying it struck him powerfully at the time.
Mr. Pardy recently testified before the inquiry for three full days, during which no hint of the U.S. offer emerged.
Barbara McIsaac, a lawyer for the federal government's legal team at the inquiry, called Mr. De Bané's version of events into question, saying he may have "misremembered" the briefing he was given by Mr. Pardy.
"I want you to remember that he is reconstructing a conversation that took place quite some time ago," she told reporters later.
Mr. Pardy is expected to return to provide further testimony today.
An internal RCMP inquiry into the Arar affair has previously determined that the RCMP shared information about Mr. Arar with the FBI during the nearly two weeks that he was detained in New York in early October of 2002.
The Garvie Report also found that U.S. officials had asked the Mounties whether they had grounds to charge Mr. Arar.
Mr. Arar's legal team has long suspected that he was then sent to Syria because the Mounties could not promise to jail him in Canada. But no hint of this had emerged before in either public testimony at the inquiry or in the document record.
Lorne Waldman, Mr. Arar's lawyer, said Mr. De Bané's testimony revealed for the first time that the Mounties were aware of both the threat that Mr. Arar might be deported to Syria, and of the U.S. insistence that he could not be returned to Canada unless he were imprisoned here.
"We've never had evidence before that Canadian officials knew he couldn't be deported to Canada because he couldn't be arrested [here]," Mr. Waldman said.
A six-page foreign affairs briefing note prepared for Mr. De Bané before his mission to Damascus in 2003 is entirely blacked out in government-redacted documents made public by the inquiry.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050602.wxarar02/BNStory/National/
PanzerJaeger
06-02-2005, 16:35
He was then sent back, against his will, to Syria, where he was jailed and tortured.
Theres absolutely no proof I have read that he was tortured besides his own allegations.
This only goes further to show that America wasnt interested in torturing him, just keeping him from carrying out any terrorist activities. Unless of course you buy into the lurid rumors of torture surrounding the Mounties.. ~;)
We should have agreed, taken him back, and then told the American authorities to shove it up their ***. We will do with our citizens as we see fit. Like, for instance, apply due process and give the person the right to a fair trial, not just lock him up because the FBI says so.
(Please note I said American authorities, not American people.)
Goofball
06-02-2005, 17:34
Theres absolutely no proof I have read that he was tortured besides his own allegations.
This only goes further to show that America wasnt interested in torturing him, just keeping him from carrying out any terrorist activities. Unless of course you buy into the lurid rumors of torture surrounding the Mounties.. ~;)
Putting aside the torture allegations for a minute Panzer, the real issue for me is here:
"The Americans told the Canadian security services, we're prepared to give you back Mr. Arar, on condition you engage yourselves to arrest him and put him in prison and press charges," Mr. De Bané said.
That is simply unacceptable. Holding a Canadian citizen hostage in order to extort concessions from us that would violate our justice system? Can you imagine what your government's response would be if we did the same to you? Good God... Right wing Senators would be calling for a declaration of war...
That is simply unacceptable. Holding a Canadian citizen hostage in order to extort concessions from us that would violate our justice system? Can you imagine what your government's response would be if we did the same to you? Good God... Right wing Senators would be calling for a declaration of war...
And why didnt the Canadian Government simply take him, put him under house arrest, and investigate the Canadian Governments concerns that started the whole process anyway? The were numerous ways for the Canadian Government to handle this particlur case. Especially given that the Canadian Government already had the individual under investigation or suspension.
An internal RCMP inquiry into the Arar affair has previously determined that the RCMP shared information about Mr. Arar with the FBI during the nearly two weeks that he was detained in New York in early October of 2002.
Now why the United States Government might be guilty of something - the Canadian Government is even more guilty of not taking responsiblity or having accountablity of its actions when dealing with their own citizens.
Look at your own Government closely Goofball before just pointing the finger at the United States.
Note: Beriut has expressed exactly what the Canadian Government should of done. However it seems that the Canadian Government also wanted to have this person investigated for his alleged actions but were unwilling to do so themselve.
Note: Beriut has expressed exactly what the Canadian Government should of done. However it seems that the Canadian Government also wanted to have this person investigated for his alleged actions but were unwilling to do so themselve.
The Canadian government is very much at fault here. To think that we let another country deport one of our citizens to a thrid country to be tortured is insane. To think our goverment was complicit in the decision to do so... This would be an act of treason by the state against a citizen (as opposed to the usual treason with is the citizen against the state). I would look for nothing less than the overthow of the government and serious prison time for those involved.
Hurin_Rules
06-02-2005, 19:04
And why didnt the Canadian Government simply take him, put him under house arrest, and investigate the Canadian Governments concerns that started the whole process anyway? The were numerous ways for the Canadian Government to handle this particlur case. Especially given that the Canadian Government already had the individual under investigation or suspension.
The Canadian government couldn't simply 'take him' because he was already in US custody at that point. Moreover, you can't be put under house arrest in this country unless you have been found guilty of committing a crime. Finally, for the government to committ to imprisoning him and then not to do so would be to break the agreement with the USA and thus risk harming relations (and cooperation in apprehending real terrorists) between the two nations.
Goofball
06-02-2005, 19:08
Look at your own Government closely Goofball before just pointing the finger at the United States.
Make no mistake about it Red, I am very pissed at my government about the way they handled this situation, and I make no excuses for them.
But the fact remains that the U.S. was asking that Canada violate its own laws by imprisoning a person without just cause in order to secure the return of one of our citizens. Sorry, but we don't play the Gitmo game here.
Note: Beriut has expressed exactly what the Canadian Government should of done.
I disagree. It's a situation similar to the one between Australia and Indonesia right now. There are those who say that if Australia is successful in their petition to allow their citizen to serve her jail time in Australia, that they should just release her as soon as she gets home. You can only get away with that once.
If Canada had taken the action that Beirut suggested, we would never have had a leg to stand on when demanding similar control of our citizens in the future as far as the U.S. was concerned.
If Canada had taken the action that Beirut suggested, we would never have had a leg to stand on when demanding similar control of our citizens in the future as far as the U.S. was concerned.
You've got a point. But it would have set a precedent that the US can't tell us what to do all the time. That in itself has some merit. I don't think the us is ready just yet to deny us access to our citizens in perpetuity because we "screwed them" on this one case.
What are they going to do? Hold every Canadian forever, rip up all our treaties and watch $350,000,000,000 worth of annual trade get messed up because they've got a bug up their behind about anyone with an Arab name?
Make no mistake about it Red, I am very pissed at my government about the way they handled this situation, and I make no excuses for them.
But the fact remains that the U.S. was asking that Canada violate its own laws by imprisoning a person without just cause in order to secure the return of one of our citizens. Sorry, but we don't play the Gitmo game here.
However your country will allow the United States to do so and provided the information to the United States that your government wanted investigated. Yep a little wink-wink, we can not take him back because of the conditions imposed by the United States Government for his deportation. Where were the lawyers for the Canadian Government when your citizen needed them to have him returned to Canada - I will guess that they were drinking a nice beverage with their United States counterpart - while they allowed a citizen of your nation to be deported back to the nation in which he had citizenship in. Yep the Canadian Governmnet is hypocrtitical on this
Edit: and sure you play the Gitmo game in Canada - just look what your government did in this case.
I disagree. It's a situation similar to the one between Australia and Indonesia right now. There are those who say that if Australia is successful in their petition to allow their citizen to serve her jail time in Australia, that they should just release her as soon as she gets home. You can only get away with that once.
And the Canadian Government owes it to its citizens to negotate for the return of thier citizens regardless of the crime being charged. Canada could of had investigated this individual already - they should of cleared him, or accepted him back into their custody. And worked the diplomacy with the United States as needed. Face it - your country played a wink-wink game at this person's expense. Most likely it had nothing to do with your government violating any of its laws - and more likely because they did not care for him as a citizen and took the easy way out by allowing the United States to deport him to Syria verus doing the right thing.
If Canada had taken the action that Beirut suggested, we would never have had a leg to stand on when demanding similar control of our citizens in the future as far as the U.S. was concerned.
And by not doing something - your government has shown exactly where a citizen of your nation stands when he is arrested in a foreign land - and your government is asked to take control of him, keep him in custody, investigate him and charge and provide him a trail to convict or release him.
Yep once again try deflecting the wrong of your Government by blaming the United States for the failure of your nation's government in taking care of its own citizens.
You've got a point. But it would have set a precedent that the US can't tell us what to do all the time. That in itself has some merit. I don't think the us is ready just yet to deny us access to our citizens in perpetuity because we "screwed them" on this one case.
What are they going to do? Hold every Canadian forever, rip up all our treaties and watch $350,000,000,000 worth of annual trade get messed up because they've got a bug up their behind about anyone with an Arab name?
exactly right Beruit the instance would of done nothing to damage the relationship between the United States and Canada.
And the Canadian Government could of easily stated that after careful and complete investigation that they could find nothing to charge him with.
exactly right Beruit the instance would of done nothing to damage the relationship between the United States and Canada.
And the Canadian Government could of easily stated that after careful and complete investigation that they could find nothing to charge him with.
Damn straight! Someone in our government needs a serious whoopin' for this. Like I said, this is tantamount to an act of treason by the state against a citizen. Heads should roll!
Goofball
06-02-2005, 20:44
However your country will allow the United States to do so and provided the information to the United States that your government wanted investigated. Yep a little wink-wink, we can not take him back because of the conditions imposed by the United States Government for his deportation. Where were the lawyers for the Canadian Government when your citizen needed them to have him returned to Canada - I will guess that they were drinking a nice beverage with their United States counterpart - while they allowed a citizen of your nation to be deported back to the nation in which he had citizenship in. Yep the Canadian Governmnet is hypocrtitical on this
Edit: and sure you play the Gitmo game in Canada - just look what your government did in this case.
Not quite right. When overzealous members of our security forces take part in dubious "wink-wink" skullduggery that cause people to be imprisoned/detained unjustly, the Canadian government commissions an inquiry to find out who was responsible and punish them.
On the other hand, when the U.S. security forces want to imprison people unjustly, you simply have your Attorney General write a lengthy opinion as to how it is actually legal as long as you do it on a pisspot island away from the continental U.S. and carry on.
That's the difference.
Not quite right. When overzealous members of our security forces take part in dubious "wink-wink" skullduggery that cause people to be imprisoned/detained unjustly, the Canadian government commissions an inquiry to find out who was responsible and punish them.
The proof is in the pudding so to speak. It seems that at least one overzealous member of your country's government has allowed a citizen of your country to be deported - instead of doing something about it. Nor does it seem from what I read that anything is being done about it - but then its a low level news item now - and there is a possiblity that the United States news media has decided not to cover the story.
On the other hand, when the U.S. security forces want to imprison people unjustly, you simply have your Attorney General write a lengthy opinion as to how it is actually legal as long as you do it on a pisspot island away from the continental U.S. and carry on.
That's the difference.
Actually the letter was written about individuals who are not recongized combatants and not inhabitants of the area in question. Care to guess what punishment the Hague Convention of 1907 has to say about these types of individuals. Being imprisoned on an Island - well is a better fate then what that convention states - and that my Canadian friend is considered the document on the Rules of War.
And your government (just to drive the point home some more) allowed one of its citizens to be deported to the second country in which the individual had a dual citizenship to, verus attempting to have him returned to his new home.
Yep - the Canadian Government has failed miserablily in protecting its own citizens.
Tribesman
06-02-2005, 21:07
Actually the letter was written about individuals who are not recongized combatants and not inhabitants of the area in question.
Yes , but many individuals outside of that definition have been sent there .
Goofball
06-02-2005, 21:16
And your government (just to drive the point home some more) allowed one of its citizens to be deported to the second country in which the individual had a dual citizenship to, verus attempting to have him returned to his new home.
That's priceless. Your government has one of our citizens in custody and refuses to return him unless we violate the law, and you blame us for not helping him. Nice. What did you want us to do, invade?
Yep - the Canadian Government has failed miserablily in protecting its own citizens.
Yep - the U.S. government has succeeded once again in bullying another nation and persecuting an individual because they happen to have brown skin and pray to Allah.
Steppe Merc
06-02-2005, 21:53
I'm with Beruit... the Canadians should have taken him, then told the American government to go screw themselves.
That's priceless. Your government has one of our citizens in custody and refuses to return him unless we violate the law, and you blame us for not helping him. Nice. What did you want us to do, invade?
Whats wrong Goofball like to dish out criticism about other nations but don't want it pointed back at Canada. Canada had the option to take back the individual. Canada refused to take back the individual because of some diplomatic condition that the United States asked of them. Instead of negoating with the United States to accept a condition that was within the desires and wishes of Canada - your government elected not to take him. Given that the individual was of Syrian citizen the United States was within its rights to deport the individual back to a country in which he is a citizen of. Face it Goofball your government made a mistake. If your going to criticize the United States for its policies - at least have the gumption to understand that in this case your government is more at fault - because its simple - the individual is a citizen of Canada also.
Yep - the U.S. government has succeeded once again in bullying another nation and persecuting an individual because they happen to have brown skin and pray to Allah.
An individual who your nation decided needed to be investigated and turned over the information to the United States. So make sure you criticize your own government for what you just accused the United States of, to do otherwise is nothing other then being a hypocrit.
Actually the letter was written about individuals who are not recongized combatants and not inhabitants of the area in question.
Yes , but many individuals outside of that definition have been sent there .
one would be too many - however this thread is about Canada refusing to take one of its citizens back, one that they knew would be deported to his other country of citizenship, and in fact even turned over the information that got the individual seized in American Terrority. The United States was following its policy of deporting individuals back to their country of orgin - since Canada refused to accept him back - well he had to go to the other nation on his passport. (now if you want to talk about the area where the United States acted incorrectly - putting him on a private plane and flying him non-stop to Syria is a valid point, but the discussion is not about that now is it? )
Beriut is absolutely correct - the Canadian government failed to protect one of its citizens and do the right thing by that individual. The actions that the United States were going to take was know by the Canadian government officials - and they decided to turn a blind eye and allow it to happen - when they could of prevented it. To blame the United States in this case is simply misplaced - unless the individual is willing to place equal or even greater blame on the government of Canada for allowing this to happen to one of their citizens when they were given the opporunity to stop it.
Tribesman
06-02-2005, 23:45
putting him on a private plane and flying him non-stop to Syria is a valid point, but the discussion is not about that now is it?
No , I am a little off topic , but you must agree that those "private" planes have been very very busy.
More onto topic . If this were to happen today , where would he be deported to , since Syria withdrew from its quiet agreement of support for the US war on terror last week . If Canada and Syria refused to take him then where would he end up ? Cuba , Diego Garcia , Afghanistan , Uzbeckistan , Pakistan ? Or would he have been held on the continental US even though there was not enough evidence to secure a conviction ?
Nasty business this extraordinary rendition isn't it . Very questionable legally (not to mention morally) .
Goofball
06-03-2005, 00:54
Whats wrong Goofball like to dish out criticism about other nations but don't want it pointed back at Canada.
I don't know where you got that idea. I already said I was disgusted with the actions of my government in this case.
Canada had the option to take back the individual. Canada refused to take back the individual because of some diplomatic condition that the United States asked of them.
An "option" that necessitates us violating our own laws to placate the U.S. administration's paranoia and racism is not really an option.
Face it Goofball your government made a mistake.
Believe me, I know my government "makes mistakes" (to put it mildly) on a daily basis. However, in this case, where they were not really given an acceptable choice by your government. Any choice they made would have been wrong.
Yep - the U.S. government has succeeded once again in bullying another nation and persecuting an individual because they happen to have brown skin and pray to Allah.An individual who your nation decided needed to be investigated and turned over the information to the United States. So make sure you criticize your own government for what you just accused the United States of, to do otherwise is nothing other then being a hypocrit.
Easy with the name calling Red. Play the ball, not the man.
At any rate, turning over the info appears to have been more the action of some overzealous idiot in CSIS or the RCMP, both of which have had less than stirling reputations of late when it comes to investigative prowess or discretion.
Hopefully this inquiry will find out exactly who did what and some people will get fired or go to jail.
however this thread is about Canada refusing to take one of its citizens back
From your perspective, perhaps. From my perspective it is about yet another example of the U.S. government violating the rights of individuals and bullying sovereign nations simply because the U.S. happens to be a superpower and can do whatever the hell it wants.
putting him on a private plane and flying him non-stop to Syria is a valid point, but the discussion is not about that now is it?
No , I am a little off topic , but you must agree that those "private" planes have been very very busy.
More onto topic . If this were to happen today , where would he be deported to , since Syria withdrew from its quiet agreement of support for the US war on terror last week . If Canada and Syria refused to take him then where would he end up ? Cuba , Diego Garcia , Afghanistan , Uzbeckistan , Pakistan ? Or would he have been held on the continental US even though there was not enough evidence to secure a conviction ?
Nasty business this extraordinary rendition isn't it . Very questionable legally (not to mention morally) .
That is a dilimna that faces many nations everyday with the capture of illegal immigrants into different nations. If Canada and Syria had both refused to take the individual in question - then the United States would have had no choice but to detain him until such a time that one of his parent companies choice to take him - or that the United States decides to grant him a visa or citizen.
In history there has been several instances of this occuring - the Vietnam Boat people ended up in a camp in Arkansas until their status was determined, then the Cuban Refugees also remained in a camp until their status was determined.
I don't know where you got that idea. I already said I was disgusted with the actions of my government in this case. From the admendment blaming of the United States for deporting a Syrian native back to his home country.
An "option" that necessitates us violating our own laws to placate the U.S. administration's paranoia and racism is not really an option.
Now that is funny.
Believe me, I know my government "makes mistakes" (to put it mildly) on a daily basis. However, in this case, where they were not really given an acceptable choice by your government. Any choice they made would have been wrong.
Then your government should of erred to the benefit of its citizen - in this your nation is more wrong toward this individual then the United States.
Easy with the name calling Red. Play the ball, not the man.
Playing the ball - not the man - the arguement is hypocritical. Blaming the United States for a failure of your nation to protect its own citizens.
At any rate, turning over the info appears to have been more the action of some overzealous idiot in CSIS or the RCMP, both of which have had less than stirling reputations of late when it comes to investigative prowess or discretion.
The point being that your government turned over the information knowning what the United States policy was and is - then when they had an opporunity protect their own citizen they turned their back - and its the fault of the United States - no Goofball it is the fault of your own government.
Hopefully this inquiry will find out exactly who did what and some people will get fired or go to jail.
Better yet send them on a vacation to Syria in the same commendations as this individual.
From your perspective, perhaps. From my perspective it is about yet another example of the U.S. government violating the rights of individuals and bullying sovereign nations simply because the U.S. happens to be a superpower and can do whatever the hell it wants.
No bullying at all - Canada decided not to comply with what the United States asked - and its citizen paid the price of your government's failure to act on his behalf.
Hurin_Rules
06-03-2005, 01:34
No bullying at all - Canada decided not to comply with what the United States asked - and its citizen paid the price of your government's failure to act on his behalf.
When did the USA gain the right to tell Canada what to do with a Canadian citizen?
More onto topic . If this were to happen today , where would he be deported to , since Syria withdrew from its quiet agreement of support for the US war on terror last week . If Canada and Syria refused to take him then where would he end up ? Cuba , Diego Garcia , Afghanistan , Uzbeckistan , Pakistan ? Or would he have been held on the continental US even though there was not enough evidence to secure a conviction ?
Nasty business this extraordinary rendition isn't it . Very questionable legally (not to mention morally) .
Hmm, I wasn't aware that Syria was ever onboard with the US war effort.
From my perspective it is about yet another example of the U.S. government violating the rights of individuals and bullying sovereign nations simply because the U.S. happens to be a superpower and can do whatever the hell it wants. Ok, so the Canadian government informs the US that a person travelling in their country is likely a terrorist and supplies info in support of that. The US government detains him and offers to return him to Canada to be prosecuted. Canada refuses to take custody of him, so he is sent to the other country where he holds citizenship because they are happy to take custody of him. This is an example of the US bullying how?
How do you deport someone to his home country when it's authorities won't take custody of him? Just drop him off at the border and make him promise to be good and not come back? I think it's clear that the Canadian government also thought he was a threat and did not want him back either- they were the reason the the US gov was suspicious of him in the first place.
The Black Ship
06-03-2005, 02:35
He's not simply a Canadian citizen...who's to say Syria had less sovereignty in this case?
Given a choice of sending this individual to a country that would allow him to remain a potential threat to the US, or sending him to one that would look upon the individual's potential for harm with a less dispassionate gaze...it seems an easy choice for US law enforcement. It is telling to me that given the almost palpable beligerence between Syria and the US that the US would choose Syria over Canada.
LittleGrizzly
06-03-2005, 02:45
If Canada just didn't want him in thier country then the fault is all thiers, if they only refused to have him back because they would have to arrest him and they didn't have the grounds to do so then the fault is americas, though partially canada's as they could have done beirut's suggestion, not to diplomatically sound though..
The US was wrong for pressuring Canada to toe the paranoid US line using a person as a hostage to get what they wanted, and Canada was wrong for not protecting its citizens.
Both were wrong because both knew if he went to Syria, he was going to be at the vey least mistreated, at worst, tortured.
I blame the US for acting like a-holes but I place more blame on Canada for not protecting it's own.
Well call it 60/40. Canada getting 60% of the blame. If Canada has even one single raison d'etre, it's to protect Canadians. We failed. And we should be ashamed. What is also shameful is that we didn't have to protect him from the likes of Iran or North Korea, but from the US. It's ridiculous.
Well, I think 60/40 would be a bit kind to Canada since it was their own fault to begin with that the US became suspicious of the guy. They basically finger him, then when the US detains him the US asks Canada to take custody of him and they refuse. ~:confused:
I really don't see where the US went wrong in this. They had someone entering their country who they believed to be a threat- they were under no obligation to keep him around.
When did the USA gain the right to tell Canada what to do with a Canadian citizen?
Try reading it again Hurin - where did I say the United States had the right to tell Canada what to do with a Canadian Citizen?
The individual was detained in the United States which is our right, at the request of Canada based upon information that Canada provided.
The individual was deported - thru negotation with Canada first - which Canada refused to comply with a request that the United States made nor does it seem that Canada even attempt to convince the United States to release its citizen.
Tribesman
06-03-2005, 07:50
Hmm, I wasn't aware that Syria was ever onboard with the US war effort.
Xiahou , Syria was a vital ally in the war on terror supplying much information to the US and being part of the "American Gulag" system ~;) . Despite the contrary public rhetoric from the administration , it came to an end recently due to border violations and stray munitions killing Syrian citizens in their homes while the US launched its crack down in Western Iraq . Personally I was surprised it lasted past the arguements over Lebanon .
That is a dilimna that faces many nations everyday with the capture of illegal immigrants into different nations. If Canada and Syria had both refused to take the individual in question - then the United States would have had no choice but to detain him until such a time that one of his parent companies choice to take him - or that the United States decides to grant him a visa or citizen.
Was he an Illegal immigrant ? What are the visa requirements for travel between the US and Canada by citizens of those nations ?
bmolsson
06-03-2005, 08:11
I think this is a clear case. If the most power full nation of the world tells any other nation to imprison one of it's citizens, you just have to do it. That is the McDonalds diplomacy the world needs to get in to a better shape..........
Note: Sarcams
Hurin_Rules
06-03-2005, 15:49
A few more points to note:
Arar was not travelling to the USA; he simply had a connecting flight there as he was returning to Canada from holiday in Tunisia.
No one with knowledge of the case seriously doubts he was tortured. Within a month of his detention, the head of consulate affairs in Ottawa, Gar Pardy, was convinced from investigating the matter that he was being tortured. The Syrian ambassador spoke with Arar soon after his detention began , and was told that Arar was psychologically destroyed already, was kept in a 3 foot by 6 foot cell in which he slept on the ground. These were just the details that emerged from today's testimony-- there are many more.
Hmm, I wasn't aware that Syria was ever onboard with the US war effort.
Xiahou , Syria was a vital ally in the war on terror supplying much information to the US and being part of the "American Gulag" system ~;) . Despite the contrary public rhetoric from the administration , it came to an end recently due to border violations and stray munitions killing Syrian citizens in their homes while the US launched its crack down in Western Iraq . Personally I was surprised it lasted past the arguements over Lebanon .
That is a dilimna that faces many nations everyday with the capture of illegal immigrants into different nations. If Canada and Syria had both refused to take the individual in question - then the United States would have had no choice but to detain him until such a time that one of his parent companies choice to take him - or that the United States decides to grant him a visa or citizen.
Was he an Illegal immigrant ? What are the visa requirements for travel between the US and Canada by citizens of those nations ?
[/quote]
You asked the question as it relates to everyday business - However in his case he was on the Terrorist Watch list because of the actions of Canada, ie Canada provided the information that placed him in the situation. Once he arrived within United States Borders he fell under the conditions of the United States.
And no a visa is not required for trips between the two nations - only work permits if the individual is going to work in the United States.
A few more points to note:
Arar was not travelling to the USA; he simply had a connecting flight there as he was returning to Canada from holiday in Tunisia.
As pointed out above - the Canadian government provided the information that placed him on the watch list - and then refuses to take their citizen under custody when he was stopped in the United States while Traveling.
Tribesman
06-03-2005, 20:52
However in his case he was on the Terrorist Watch list
Then why mention illegal immigrants or the granting of citizenship or visas ?
Canada did not have evidence to detain and charge him , America did not have evidence to detain or charge him , he does not fall into the rather questionable category of a non national caught on the field of battle , so Gitmo is out of the question . He was not wanted for any crime in Syria , so what possible justification can there be for sending him into detention in Syria ?
All three governments are seriously at fault here .
Not to mention the State Dept. annual country report which is highly critical of the Syrian justice/legal system and the systematic use of torture there , how can you send someone to a prison system that you condemn without sufficient evidence that the person is in fact a criminal ?
However in his case he was on the Terrorist Watch list
Then why mention illegal immigrants or the granting of citizenship or visas ?
Way indeed - because it shows that the United States has a legal and historical presdence in deporting individuals back to their country or orgin.
The Terrorist watch list - just adds another aspect to the already established presdence.
Canada did not have evidence to detain and charge him , America did not have evidence to detain or charge him , he does not fall into the rather questionable category of a non national caught on the field of battle , so Gitmo is out of the question . He was not wanted for any crime in Syria , so what possible justification can there be for sending him into detention in Syria ?
Canada once again provided the information concerning the individual - they also from what I have read encouraged the United States to place this individual on the Terrorist Watch List. When he was held in the United States - Canada was given the option to take control of their citizen - Canada refused to - so the individual was sent to the next country which was on his Passport as him being a citizen of.
All three governments are seriously at fault here .
Not to mention the State Dept. annual country report which is highly critical of the Syrian justice/legal system and the systematic use of torture there , how can you send someone to a prison system that you condemn without sufficient evidence that the person is in fact a criminal ?
Yep - you are correct all three nations are at serious fault in this - but to blame one over the others is not acceptable to me either. All are at fault. Canada for providing the information and then refusing to accept its citizen back under its control, the United States for not fully investigating someone that was on the Terrorist Watch list before attempting to deport him back to his country of orgin, and Syria for doing the nasty deed of torture.
The fault lies equally on all three - if anyone has a lion share of the blame its Syria for doing the torture.
Tribesman
06-04-2005, 02:09
because it shows that the United States has a legal and historical presdence in deporting individuals back to their country or orgin.
But that precedence has no relevance in this case .
There were no Visa or immigration violations and no criminal charges . The watch list covers refusal of entry , but cannot cover asking another country to detain them unless there are charges pending , for there to be charges pending there has to be sufficient evidence , there was not sufficient evidence .
Canada was given the option to take control of their citizen
Yes , on the condition that they detained him , Canada had no grounds to detain him so there was no way they could legally comply with that request .
Canada was given the option to take control of their citizen
Yes , on the condition that they detained him , Canada had no grounds to detain him so there was no way they could legally comply with that request .You really believe that? Canada clearly didn't want him back- now the cover of 'we couldn't charge him with anything' is being used to try and deflect blame. Honestly, had they wanted to "protect" their citizen they could've said we'll take custody of him it's that simple.
More likely, Canada didn't want him in the country, but legally could do nothing about it- so when he goes abroad they tell the US he's a terrorist so they can pick him up when he passes thru. Then, when offerred deportation just refuse. Because of his dual citizenship, the guy they don't want is sent to Syria and out of their hands- problem solved.
Tribesman
06-04-2005, 02:32
but legally could do nothing about it-
So they let another country which doesn't seem to mind about legality do the business for them .
I think thats covered by myAll three governments are seriously at fault here . statement .
but legally could do nothing about it-
So they let another country which doesn't seem to mind about legality do the business for them .
I think thats covered by myAll three governments are seriously at fault here . statement .
I assume you mean the US here. The US, to the best of my knowledge, did nothing illegal. A foreigner has no right to be in the United States. If the government thinks he's a threat, they have every legal right to deport him to one of his countries of citizenship- we had this 'legality' discussion already when the originally story broke.
Was the US complicit in Canada's little game here? Sure, its quite possible. But, deporting a foreign national isn't illegal.
because it shows that the United States has a legal and historical presdence in deporting individuals back to their country or orgin.
But that precedence has no relevance in this case .
There were no Visa or immigration violations and no criminal charges . The watch list covers refusal of entry , but cannot cover asking another country to detain them unless there are charges pending , for there to be charges pending there has to be sufficient evidence , there was not sufficient evidence .
Well that is your opinion - Mine is slightly different.
Canada was given the option to take control of their citizen
Yes , on the condition that they detained him , Canada had no grounds to detain him so there was no way they could legally comply with that request .
Once again the Canadian government provided the information to have the individual detained, and then when the action that the Canadian Government wanted to happen - happened, they washed their hands of it by saying they had no legal grounds to comply with the request. This is somewhat close to screaming fire in a crowded building and then refusing to accept responsiblity for your action.
Great system Canada just discovered - and it seems some would like to buy into that system.(in a sarcistic voice)
Tribesman
06-04-2005, 10:04
A foreigner has no right to be in the United States.
A foriegner has every right to be in the United States , as long as their travel or entry papers are in order and they have not violated the laws of that country or their conditions of entry . Since no papers were needed they cannot have been out of order . Since no charges were filed he cannot have violated any laws .
If this individual was such a threat then why wasn't he detained in Canada by the US when he tried to leave the country to go to N. Africa ? As America now has jurisdiction over points of entry within Canada under the post 9/11 deal between the two countries .
Surely if the person is a suspected terrorist they would want to stop him from travelling to a country where he might meet other suspected terrorists .
Unless of course they wanted to let him go there so they could see who he went to visit , if he was under surveilance while he was on his holiday then surely they would have evidence that he was plotting with other terrorists . But no they have none .
If they thought he was travelling to bring back information to other terrorist within N America then surely they would have followed him home and saw who he went to meet and identified his "associates" that way .
But no , he was sent off to Syria to see if torture would yield any information .
And everyone knows that torture is such a reliable way to gain accurate information ~;)
A foreigner has no right to be in the United States.
A foriegner has every right to be in the United States , as long as their travel or entry papers are in order and they have not violated the laws of that country or their conditions of entry . Since no papers were needed they cannot have been out of order . Since no charges were filed he cannot have violated any laws .
Confusing rights with privledges I think. However once again you seem to be leaving one bit of information out - he was placed on the Terrorist Watch list by the information provided to the United States by the Canadian Government.
If this individual was such a threat then why wasn't he detained in Canada by the US when he tried to leave the country to go to N. Africa ?
Exactly right - why did the Canadian Government provide the information to the United States about this individual being a possible terrorist - if they were unwilling to investigate this individual themselves. Once again the finger is pointed at the Canadian Government for not taking care of its own citizens.
As America now has jurisdiction over points of entry within Canada under the post 9/11 deal between the two countries .
Nope - the United States has jurisdiction of all ports of entry for the United States - remember this individual was detained in the United States not Canada.
Surely if the person is a suspected terrorist they would want to stop him from travelling to a country where he might meet other suspected terrorists.
Yep the failure is again on the Canadian Government
.
Unless of course they wanted to let him go there so they could see who he went to visit , if he was under surveilance while he was on his holiday then surely they would have evidence that he was plotting with other terrorists . But no they have none .
Again the responsiblity of the Canadian Government since they provided the intelligence to place this individual on the Terrorist watch list. If the Canadian government was unwilling to investigate its own citizens ---
If they thought he was travelling to bring back information to other terrorist within N America then surely they would have followed him home and saw who he went to meet and identified his "associates" that way .
This would fall under the responsiblity of both Canada and the United States. Remember back to the initial offer by the United States to Canada. It seem Canada while wanting the individual investigated refused to do the investigation.
But no , he was sent off to Syria to see if torture would yield any information A country where he had dual citizenship to.
And everyone knows that torture is such a reliable way to gain accurate information ~;)
Tribesman
06-04-2005, 17:54
Nope - the United States has jurisdiction of all ports of entry for the United States - remember this individual was detained in the United States not Canada.
What happened to the deal they reached , putting US officials at Canadian Ports and Airports then ?
Nope - the United States has jurisdiction of all ports of entry for the United States - remember this individual was detained in the United States not Canada.
What happened to the deal they reached , putting US officials at Canadian Ports and Airports then ?
Do you mean this deal -
Other border crossings (airports, seaports)
The U.S. maintains immigration offices, called "pre-clearance facilities," in Canadian airports with international air service to the United States (Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and beginning in 2006, Halifax). This expedites travel by allowing flights originating in Canada to land at a U.S. airport without being processed as an international arrival. Similar arrangements exist at major Canadian seaports which handle sealed direct import shipments into the United States. Canada also maintains equivalent personnel at selected U.S. airports and seaports.
Several ocean-based ferry services operate between the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to the state of Maine, as well as between the province of British Columbia and the state of Washington. There are also several ferry services in the Great Lakes operating between the province of Ontario and the states of Michigan, New York, and Ohio.
http://www.kamero.net/articles/International_Boundary
Edit: I believe this is the official agreed upon arrangement between the United States and Canada.
http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/18128.htm
But like I stated already - the individual was detained in the United States. Did an immigration official allow him on the plane in Canada knowning that he was on the Terrorist Watch list. Maybe - but like with Cat Stevens - sometimes it not checked until the plane is already in the air. That equates to slopply security in my opinion.
And the deal is not jurisdiction as you stated but something else - a pre-clearing so that the individual does not have to go thru customs again in the United States.
And look more problems for the Canadian Government in this matter.
OTTAWA (CP) - Former foreign affairs minister Bill Graham is defending the actions of Canada's ambassador to Syria during the Maher Arar affair.
Ambassador Franco Pillarella has come under fire at a public inquiry for wearing two hats. While supposedly working to free Arar from jail and return him to Canada, he was also asking the Syrians for any evidence they had about possible terrorist activity.
Marlys Edwardh, Arar's lawyer, suggests that put the ambassador in a conflict of interest.
Graham admits there's a fine line in an ambassador's duties but says Pillarella never crossed it and was simply gathering all the information he could in an effort to help Arar.
Arar was accused of having terrorist links by both the U.S. and Syria, but he denies any such ties and says the Syrians tortured him into false confessions.
http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=ada493b2-8b48-4f2f-9cd3-06fcd904d374
And then this article provides more insight to how the Canadian Government set the conditions for this to happen.
Whatever the outcome, Arar has forced Canada to rethink how it balances human rights and security concerns. His struggle has revealed troubling details about how Canada’s police and intelligence agencies share information with foreign governments. And his case is a disturbing reminder of America’s outsize role in the world, particularly since 9/11, and has prompted fresh debate on the harsh powers of Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act. Before Arar’s situation surfaced, Canadians largely felt that security excesses were a “distant, complicated” problem, says Alex Neve, head of Amnesty International Canada. “It wasn’t until Maher came home that Canadians realized that this is also about us.”
http://www.timecanada.com/CNOY/story.adp?year=2004
Edit: Same link but futher down in the article.
One case involves Toronto resident Ahmad Abou El-Maati, who says he plans to file a lawsuit against Ottawa for reasons that, for the moment, he won’t disclose. Like Arar, El-Maati was of interest to Canadian security agents, ended up in a Damascus prison and believes that Canadian officials cooperated with Syria in his ordeal.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.