bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2008 Report Posted June 7, 2008 O man. Get a life. So much for "ignored". I'm still feeling the love. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Leafless Posted June 8, 2008 Author Report Posted June 8, 2008 The Canadian government does not do torture, that's why he was not sent back here He was sent back to Syria because he was a Syrian citizen by BIRTH, holding dual citizenship with the other country being Canada. If in fact Arar held single Canadian citizenship, that is where he would have been deported to. And the old question remains, if in fact Syria was such a dangerous place why would Arar remain a citizen of Syria, and why would he not denounce his Syrian citizenship? And why would Syria torture one of its own citizens? Obviously Arar invented his own conflict of interest and contributed to his own problems. Quote
Remiel Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 Probably because Syria does not recognize the ability of its citizens to renounce their citizenship. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 Probably because Syria does not recognize the ability of its citizens to renounce their citizenship. It is possible to renounce Syrian citizenship, but it is a difficult process to complete. Hell, it's not even easy to renounce Canadian citizenship: http://www.cic.gc.ca/ENGLISH/information/a...ns/renounce.asp Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 Since the case has been reopened, time will tell whether or not U.S. laws were violated when Arar was deported back to Syria. Inspector General Richard L. Skinner, who spoke at a congressional hearing in Washington, said new evidence had emerged that U.S. officials may have broken laws related to torture in the case of Maher Arar. Congressional members called Thursday for a special prosecutor to lead the investigation so criminal charges could be filed. "Senior American officials ought to go to jail for this," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on constitution, civil rights and civil liberties, who has access to the classified version of a redacted inspector's general report on the government's actions. "There was a deliberate plot to abuse the procedures so they could railroad Arar to Syria, where they knew he would be tortured." link Quote
CANADIEN Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 US and Canadian lawmakers who have seen classified US information on Maher Arar have said that there was nothing incriminating in there. Even after an internal US government inquiry has stated that it did nothing wrong when sending Arar to Syria, the Inspector-General of the Department of Homeland Security states that new evidence raise the possibility laws were broken. And Arar was shipped to Syria, a country well known for its use of torture, with a list of questions the US Government wanted him to answer... Quote
JB Globe Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 They had too....Canada screwed up! What I meant was that every political party acknowledges that Arar was tortured. A large majority of Canadians acknowledge this, and so does our judicial system. And in the other corner we have . . . You. Works for me....lies seem to be quite popular on all sides. That's cute, but I look at things on a case-by-case basis. And in terms of the Arar case, there was enough factual evidence to convince all major political parties, the Canadian public, and the judiciary - that's a one-two-three punch - your whining about it being "all lies" just doesn't stack up, sorry. The conditions for prison life in Syria may not meet your standards. It's not about my standards, it's about international law, and under international law, Arar was tortured. End of story. Is it a pre-requisite that neo-cons posses a complete inability to admit mistakes and learn from them? Is your ego that fragile that you can't admit that you were wrong about doubting Arar's story? How do you expect to grow as a human being if you can't recognize a mistake? How do you expect to not make the same mistake again if you don't learn from it? We're all wrong sometimes, get over yourself already. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 (edited) It's not about my standards, it's about international law, and under international law, Arar was tortured. End of story. Somebody was tortured...but it wasn't Arar...it was Canadian taxpayers! Is it a pre-requisite that neo-cons posses a complete inability to admit mistakes and learn from them? Is your ego that fragile that you can't admit that you were wrong about doubting Arar's story? How do you expect to grow as a human being if you can't recognize a mistake? How do you expect to not make the same mistake again if you don't learn from it? I don't think you get it....the legal deportation of Arar to his nation of birth was not a mistake. It was purposeful and by design. What makes Arar so special compared to the thousands who are deported each year? Answer: he sued and won because the RCMP dicked up. Please spare me from all that other "neo-con" prattle. Your own nation has detained and "tortured" individuals via Security Certificates for many years. We're all wrong sometimes, get over yourself already. Are you afraid of being "wrong"? Sometimes the grown-ups realize it is easier to get forgiveness than permission. Edited June 8, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 (edited) I don't think you get it....the legal deportation of Arar to his nation of birth was not a mistake. It was purposeful and by design. What makes Arar so special compared to the thousands who are deported each year? Answer: he sued and won because the RCMP dicked up. Of course it was "purposeful and by design," but that doesn't mean it was legal. Obviously people in power in our own country think it may have been the wrong thing to do, ie: illegal, or the case wouldn't have been re-opened. The RCMP may not have been the only ones to have "dicked up." Edited June 8, 2008 by American Woman Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 Of course it was "purposeful and by design," but that doesn't mean it was legal. Obviously people in power in our own country think it may have been the wrong thing to do, ie: illegal, or the case wouldn't have been re-opened. The RCMP may not have been the only ones to have "dicked up." Fine...I'm willing to wait for that determination, if only to satisfy the navel gazers and guilt ridden who can't sleep nights (I sleep very well thank you very much). Canada specializes in this forgiveness and mourning phase, even while it continues to be complicit in such things. If America is shameless, Canada is extraordinarily shameful. Almost seven years after 9/11, we have plenty of time for lawsuits and lottery prizes. But in 2002, the US would have deported the frickin' Pope if it wanted to, and you know it. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 Fine...I'm willing to wait for that determination, if only to satisfy the navel gazers and guilt ridden who can't sleep nights (I sleep very well thank you very much). Sorry, but I couldn't care less how you sleep and the fact that you have to make projections about how others feel/sleep says more about you than you realize. Canada specializes in this forgiveness and mourning phase, even while it continues to be complicit in such things. If America is shameless, Canada is extraordinarily shameful. Why must you constantly be comparing us to Canada? Is that the only way you can feel good about our actions? Canada, to its credit, has already admitted its wrong-doing in this case. The U.S. is now going to see if we acted wrongly, which is the right thing to do. Almost seven years after 9/11, we have plenty of time for lawsuits and lottery prizes. But in 2002, the US would have deported the frickin' Pope if it wanted to, and you know it. I think the U.S. would have, and did, do a lot of things that "it wanted to" in 2002. That doesn't make it right/legal, and that's what's at issue here. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 (edited) Sorry, but I couldn't care less how you sleep and the fact that you have to make projections about how others feel/sleep says more about you than you realize. Gosh...I sure hope so....that's why I do it. Y'know...the Ugly American schtick. Why must you constantly be comparing us to Canada? Is that the only way you can feel good about our actions? Canada, to its credit, has already admitted its wrong-doing in this case. The U.S. is now going to see if we acted wrongly, which is the right thing to do. To its credit? You must be joking.....stop confusing right and wrong with legal and illegal. Did anybody in the RCMP get convicted of a crime in this matter? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....LOL! Comparisons to Canada are appropriate on a ...ummm...CANADIAN forum. Were this a Syrian forum, I would probably not make comparisons to Canada....get it? I think the U.S. would have, and did, do a lot of things that "it wanted to" in 2002. That doesn't make it right/legal, and that's what's at issue here. No it's not...see above. The US did/does a lot of things...way prior to 2002...and even after. One of the fascinating aspects of this woeful tale is how Canada reconciles what happened here with American policies in general. In the end, I suspect it is just more of the slight-of-hand that is Canadian public posturing vs. hidden actions, with much apologizing after the fact. The Americans...not so much. Edited June 8, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
CANADIEN Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 Sorry, but I couldn't care less how you sleep and the fact that you have to make projections about how others feel/sleep says more about you than you realize.Why must you constantly be comparing us to Canada? Is that the only way you can feel good about our actions? Canada, to its credit, has already admitted its wrong-doing in this case. The U.S. is now going to see if we acted wrongly, which is the right thing to do. I think the U.S. would have, and did, do a lot of things that "it wanted to" in 2002. That doesn't make it right/legal, and that's what's at issue here. This issue goes beyond legal and illegal, and it is a matter of rights or wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that the US government wanted Arar to be tortured by the Syrian authorities, the same way Canadian security agencies relied on "confessions" made by Arar under torture. In both cases, we are dealing with a actions that are morally wrong. Quote
g_bambino Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 This issue goes beyond legal and illegal, and it is a matter of rights or wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that the US government wanted Arar to be tortured by the Syrian authorities, the same way Canadian security agencies relied on "confessions" made by Arar under torture. In both cases, we are dealing with a actions that are morally wrong. How do you prove that something is "morally wrong"? Morals are a subjective thing. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 (edited) This issue goes beyond legal and illegal, and it is a matter of rights or wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that the US government wanted Arar to be tortured by the Syrian authorities, the same way Canadian security agencies relied on "confessions" made by Arar under torture. In both cases, we are dealing with a actions that are morally wrong. Unfortunately it doesn't go beyond legal and illegal as far as compensation or 'punishment' goes because "morally wrong" doesn't hold up in court. So unless the U.S. did something illegal, nothing will come of its actions-- and that's true of life. People are doing things to others that are deemed morally wrong all the time, but it's not actionable; it's not something they can be compensated for in court. An apology is the best one can hope for when there hasn't been anything done that's illegal, and several people in the U.S. government have already apologized to Arar. Edited June 8, 2008 by American Woman Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 Unfortunately it doesn't go beyond legal and illegal as far as compensation or 'punishment' goes because "morally wrong" doesn't hold up in court. So unless the U.S. did something illegal, nothing will come of its actions-- and that's true of life.... That's the spirit...high five! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted June 8, 2008 Report Posted June 8, 2008 That's the spirit...high five! No, it's not "the spirit," it's reality. It's the law. Quote
CANADIEN Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 (edited) Unfortunately it doesn't go beyond legal and illegal as far as compensation or 'punishment' goes because "morally wrong" doesn't hold up in court. So unless the U.S. did something illegal, nothing will come of its actions-- and that's true of life. People are doing things to others that are deemed morally wrong all the time, but it's not actionable; it's not something they can be compensated for in court. An apology is the best one can hope for when there hasn't been anything done that's illegal, and several people in the U.S. government have already apologized to Arar. The Bush administration has not apologized to Maher Arar. They had not acknowledged he was submitted to rendition, and have not acknowledge that they practice rendition, and that is morally wrong. The actions of the Bush administration, and its refusal to admit its wrongdoings, stand as proof of its moral failure. Edited June 9, 2008 by CANADIEN Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 The Bush administration has not apologized to Maher Arar. They had not acknowledged he was submitted to rendition, and have not acknowledge that they practice rendition, and that is morally wrong. The actions of the Bush administration, and its refusal to admit its wrongdoings, stand as proof of its moral failure. Nonsense.....the practice of rendition and "extraordinary" rendition date back to at least 1995 and a presidential directive from President Clinton authorizing the prodecure for the CIA. Maher Arar's lesser INS deportation case was neither unique or remarkable, and when the US House issued an apology, it also expressed the desire to continue the practice for the so called War on Terror. The Bush Administration (or any American administration) will never meet your moral standards, and it is not required to. Morality begins at home. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 The Bush administration has not apologized to Maher Arar. They had not acknowledged he was submitted to rendition, and have not acknowledge that they practice rendition, and that is morally wrong. The actions of the Bush administration, and its refusal to admit its wrongdoings, stand as proof of its moral failure. The Bush administration doesn't think it did anything wrong, so of course it's not going to apologize. As for it being proof of the Bush administration's moral failure, I don't think there's a leader/administration out there, in any country, that hasn't ever done anything that's 'morally wrong.' Do you believe there is? Quote
Leafless Posted June 9, 2008 Author Report Posted June 9, 2008 As for it being proof of the Bush administration's moral failure, I don't think there's a leader/administration out there, in any country, that hasn't ever done anything that's 'morally wrong.' Do you believe there is? PET, might come to mind to certain unenlightened individuals. Quote
CANADIEN Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 The Bush administration doesn't think it did anything wrong, so of course it's not going to apologize. As for it being proof of the Bush administration's moral failure, I don't think there's a leader/administration out there, in any country, that hasn't ever done anything that's 'morally wrong.' Do you believe there is? Don't worry, I do not believe any person on this planet is pure and without sin. But from an illegal war to turture to attacks on individual freedoms, the Bush administration ranks quite a few notches below what one would expect from a US government. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Don't worry, I do not believe any person on this planet is pure and without sin. But from an illegal war to turture to attacks on individual freedoms, the Bush administration ranks quite a few notches below what one would expect from a US government. I'm in total agreement with you. Quote
JB Globe Posted June 13, 2008 Report Posted June 13, 2008 How do you prove that something is "morally wrong"? Morals are a subjective thing. What he should have said is it's illegal under international law. And international law is the legal representation of a set of morals that the international community has agreed upon. ie - Genocide is wrong . . . Torture is wrong / Genocide is illegal . . . Torture is illegal Quote
JB Globe Posted June 13, 2008 Report Posted June 13, 2008 Somebody was tortured...but it wasn't Arar...it was Canadian taxpayers! Again, how cute - but the fact of the matter it's your personal opinion that Arar wasn't tortured isn't backed up by any factual information versus the findings of the Canadian judiciary, Parliament, and security agencies that say he was. These findings are supported by the Canadian public & all Canadian political parties. If I was ever proven this dead wrong on something, I'd probably save face and just be quiet. I don't think you get it....the legal deportation of Arar to his nation of birth was not a mistake. Of course I know it was on purpose. That doesn't make it right. Please spare me from all that other "neo-con" prattle. Your own nation has detained and "tortured" individuals via Security Certificates for many years. Are we talking about security certificates? No. Than why are you bringing it up other than to distract from the issue at hand? Next time a security certificate post pops up, I'll be there criticizing that process as well, otherwise let's stick to Arar, shall we? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.