New Details Emerge: Ottawa Refused to Imprison Arar

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 ?

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

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.

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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)

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 ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

.
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 ---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

But no , he was sent off to Syria to see if torture would yield any information

---

A country where he had dual citizenship to.

Quote:

---

And everyone knows that torture is such a reliable way to gain accurate information ~;)

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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/...3-06fcd904d374

And then this article provides more insight to how the Canadian Government set the conditions for this to happen.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---