The 10 million dollar mistake?

Mr.Canada · January 20, 2009

There are holes in both stories. I think what Molly is saying, or at least what I believe is that when there is reasonable doubt, we need to find definitive proof or at least raise less doubt, while still respecting a person basic human rights. Not only the right to a fair trial, but the right not to be beaten into submission.
A torture chamber does not make a good wittness.

He was beaten into submission in a torture chamber? His Human rights trampled? Really?

Can you please provide some proof of these happenings please.

Molly · January 20, 2009

I'm not saying whether there are or are not holes in the Arar story. I haven't mentioned it. (But... I'm an equal opportunity skeptic.)

Progressive Tory · January 20, 2009

He was beaten into submission in a torture chamber? His Human rights trampled? Really?
Can you please provide some proof of these happenings please.

"They told me I had no right to a lawyer, because I was not an American citizen.... This interrogation continued until midnight. I was very, very worried, and asked for a lawyer again and again. They just ignored me. Then they put me in chains, on my wrists and ankles... They asked me to sign a form. They would not let me read it, but I just signed it...' http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/arar_statement.html

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/10/1...e_continues.php

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

bytown · January 20, 2009

In my previous thread, about Mr. Big, we know all about scripted confessions, that don't always match the crime scenes or physical evidence.
It is in everyone's best interest to ensure that trials leave little margin for error. Only confessions obtained through normal interrogation practices can be deemed credible. I can identify a lot of people in photographs, doesn't mean I ever met them.

here are the facts as we know them. khadr was captured by US troops on july 27th, 2002 and incarcerated at bagram airforce base (afghanistan) for 3 months. on sept 26th, arar was detained in new york city and subsequently deported to syria. around the 7th of october khadr was interrogated by the FBI's robert fuller where khadr identified arar by name from a photograph. now unless khadr had access to printed media while incarcerated, how was he able to identify arar by name unless he knew him?

85RZ500 · January 20, 2009

PT, your links are similar to those that dispute his story, who do we believe?

Maybe his only failure was his outright stupidy to cross the pond so soon after 9/11.

Even for a person like him to do it today, they better have their house in order and absolutely no historic black marks against them.

Ah WTH, I'm a Canadian, "my" country will bail me out.

jdobbin · January 20, 2009

That's a good question Dobbin and I don't have an easy answer. I just know that it's generally not a good idea to let Person A pay for Person B's meal with Person C's credit card. For one, it's an open invitation for people to find themselves in the position of Person C.

Until there is a good answer, I believe the state has to compensate.

For example, if someone is sentenced for murder and evidence later comes forth that they are innocent, the state has to be held accountable. If you believe otherwise, perhaps murder should be a civil offence. That way, individuals could seek justice against individuals. However, you still have the issue of a third party deciding things. Are you that much of a libertarian that you want all government or third party judiciary removed from your life? Do you want the police removed from your life? They are a third party, aren't they? Why should you have to pay for security that you were willing to pay for yourself? Why do you have to seek justice outside of your own means? Why can't you personally go after people you think have done you wrong? If you are truly ultra libertarian, you should be able to act as your own judge, jury and executioner.

You can be an island unto yourself.

August1991 · January 20, 2009

CBS was reporting like 4 days ago he is going to close it in his first week. I agree a week is not soon enough but it does seem pretty soon.

The LA Times is reporting something similar, until you look at the fine print:

Within days of taking office, Obama will order the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a transition aide said. About 250 inmates remain at Guantanamo. The Obama administration plans to assess each one to determine where the prisoners should be sent. The review could take months, so the prison won't be closed right away, the aide said.

IOW, it's business as usual and the reason is that Obama faces the same problem as Bush did and the solutions will be roughly the same.

Until there is a good answer, I believe the state has to compensate.
For example, if someone is sentenced for murder and evidence later comes forth that they are innocent, the state has to be held accountable.

But who is the "State" in this case?

When we give people the authority of the State, then these people should assume at least some of the burden of its responsibilities. It is too easy for a civil servant to cause grievous harm (financial or otherwise) to Canadians and then simply walk away from the mess.

punked · January 20, 2009

And the plot thickens.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/20/khadr-hearing.html

apparently the FBI agent who said Arar was identified immediately was mistaken. It goes on to say that he "might" have seen Arar not did, and that when he did Arar was known to be in the US. Thank you Right wing of Canada for trying to nail this man up again maybe he can win another 10 million from us.

The interrogation did happen when he was 15 still just a kid.

Molly · January 20, 2009

Like I said, not one word from there is credible. Too many people are wa-ay too vested in trying to get everyone to swallow almost anything that will make them look a little less awful.

punked · January 20, 2009

The Plot thickens some more.

His chief interrogator was later court marshaled for Killing a man during an interrogation. A documentary was done about this called Taxi to the darkside here is the preview.

This is who you guys keep defending and telling there was no evidence of torture?

jdobbin · January 20, 2009

But who is the "State" in this case?

The state is us. We elect representatives. If the representatives do something wrong themselves, they can be criminally liable. If they do something using state authority, it is all of us who are responsible.

When we give people the authority of the State, then these people should assume at least some of the burden of its responsibilities. It is too easy for a civil servant to cause grievous harm (financial or otherwise) to Canadians and then simply walk away from the mess.

I think any civil servant who does something for criminal gain should be fired and expected to pay back. If it is incompetence, they should be fired but we generally don't go after them for money just as most corporations don't go after people.

CANADIEN · January 20, 2009

He isn't 15, he's a adult now. Nice try. The government was under tremendous pressure from the media and the left to award Arar funds. So it's sort of funny to watch them squirm now. I don't understand why this is so hard to believe that Arar isn't an angel.

Omar Khadr was 15 when he was being interrogated in Afghanistan, in 2002, and allegedly claimed to have seen Maher Arar. That claim was made when he was 15, and that's what is relevant when debating what level of credibility such a statement has, not how old he is now.

So we have a 15 year old, submitted to harsh methods of interrogation, possibly even some level of torture. Most teenagers and most adults under those conditions will admit to almost anything. For this reason, most legitimate courts will not admit testimonies obtained under coercion. I don't understand this is so hard to grasp.

As for Maher Arar. A public inquiry concluded there was no credible evidence he was a terrorist. Public Security Minister Stockwell Day said he didn't see any credible evidence in the file compiled by the U.S. authorities on Arar. No credible evidence. I don't understand why it so hard to admit.

Edited January 20, 2009 by CANADIEN

CANADIEN · January 20, 2009

Back on topic. I've never believed Arar's story. Back then there were rumblings about his terrorists ties and his desertion from his countrys military.

Rumblings that didn't amount to any credible evidence of wrongdoings.

And the stupidity of someone with his name/looks/background going back across the pond just after 9/11 is monumental.

Well said. What was he thinking, believeing that having crossed the US border dozens of times on business without a problem. being a Canadian citizen, and above all having done nothing wrong would protect him.

He shouldn't have been paid for it.
I'd have bought him lunch in a very public place and told him to smarten up.

Of course, he was falsely accused on the basis of poor intelligence work, shipped to a foreign country, tortured, abandoned by the government of his country, then smeared after he freed, so HE needs to smarten up. I wonder if you'd say the same if his name was Smith.

Edited January 20, 2009 by CANADIEN

M.Dancer · January 20, 2009

Omar Khadr was 15 when he was being interrogated in Afghanistan, in 2002, and allegedly claimed to have seen Maher Arar. That claim was made when he was 15, and that's what is relevant when debating what level of credibility such a statement has, not how old he is now.
So we have a 15 year old, submitted to harsh methods of interrogation, possibly even some level of torture. Most teenagers and most adults under those conditions will admit to almost anything. For this reason, most legitimate courts will not admit testimonies obtained under coercion. I don't understand this is so hard to grasp.

As for Maher Arar. A public inquiry concluded there was no credible evidence he was a terrorist. Public Security Minister Stockwell said he didn't see any credible evidence in the file compiled by the U.S. authorities on Arar. No credible evidence. I don't understand why it so hard to admit.

As I understand it (and may be wrong) he wasn't prompted ie: here's Arar did you see him in Afhganistan.....as I understand it he was shown a whack of photos and picked arar's photo and gave arar's name.

If this is the case, whether they allowed Khader to sleep wit his teddy bear or not or whether they raised their voices to his tender ears...., Arar should be revisited and his travels scrutinized.

CANADIEN · January 20, 2009

delete

Edited January 20, 2009 by CANADIEN

punked · January 20, 2009

As I understand it (and may be wrong) he wasn't prompted ie: here's Arar did you see him in Afhganistan.....as I understand it he was shown a whack of photos and picked arar's photo and gave arar's name.
If this is the case, whether they allowed Khader to sleep wit his teddy bear or not or whether they raised their voices to his tender ears...., Arar should be revisited and his travels scrutinized.

As you understand you are trusting the word of the guy who later killed an innocent man he was interrogating and you want to take his word for it.

M.Dancer · January 20, 2009

As you understand you are trusting the word of the guy who later killed an innocent man he was interrogating and you want to take his word for it.

Which one? Khadr or the interrogator? Either or....job accidents have little bearing whether either are telling the truth.

CANADIEN · January 20, 2009

Mr.? This guy lobbed a grenade at a medic and killed him. He was fighting our allies and should treated accordingly.
His family has confirmed ties with the terrorists and he was there, fully involved in their activities.

Interogation takes many forms, there are fully grown men who would wet themselves if detained and questioned as a suspect. Are they being tortured?

The U.S. can do what they want with him , I join the masses in not wanting him back in our country.

Yhe issue is not whether Omar Khadr is a terrorist. It is whether or not information coerced out of him is credible.

IInformation coerced out of anybody is not credible.

punked · January 20, 2009

Which one? Khadr or the interrogator? Either or....job accidents have little bearing whether either are telling the truth.

The Chief interrogator went on to kill a Taxi driver while interrogating. An innocent Taxi driver and was court marshaled. The information was also needed so the US could arrest Arar in the next day and the kid told him he saw Arar in Afghanistan when it is known he was in the US. Look it is all in the CBC article from the front page of the cbc today.

Mr.Canada · January 20, 2009

Yhe issue is not whether Omar Khadr is a terrorist. It is whether or not information coerced out of him is credible.
IInformation coerced out of anybody is not credible.

Being shown some photos with no names attached to them and asked if he knows any of them is hardly coerced. He was merely asked.

CANADIEN · January 20, 2009

There is no evidence that he was coerced yesterday, when he was not 15, to point out Arar from black and white photos.

Of course, they is no evidence that indicates he was coerced into accusing Maher arar yesterday. The testimony submitted yesterday to the Court in Guantanamo is that he odentified Arar 7 YEARS AGO. Edited January 21, 2009 by CANADIEN

CANADIEN · January 21, 2009

http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/arti...333&start=3
Arar's whole case revolved over his claims that his false confessions were the result of torture. So, to believe he was tortured meant he never traveled to terrorist camps?

No. I rely on the fact that a public commission of inquiry and a Minister, a Conservative one no less, could not find any credible evidence that he was a terrorist.

The next thing we'll hear from terrorist apologists is that Khadr was tortured into falsely identifying Arar from photographs.

Of course, anyone who considers Maher Arar not to be a terrorist has to be a terrorist apologist. What a load of cr*p.

Omar Khadr was submitted to could be described at a minimum as coercive forms of interrogation. People in that situation are likely to say anything that think their interrogators want to hear. Any "evidence" based on that type of confession is not worth the paper it is written on without at least some corroboration. In this case, there is none.

CANADIEN · January 21, 2009

As I understand it (and may be wrong) he wasn't prompted ie: here's Arar did you see him in Afhganistan.....as I understand it he was shown a whack of photos and picked arar's photo and gave arar's name.
If this is the case, whether they allowed Khader to sleep wit his teddy bear or not or whether they raised their voices to his tender ears...., Arar should be revisited and his travels scrutinized.

Now the story is "we sgowed him photos, and he said "his name is Maher Arar", and I saw him twice in Afghanistan, in September and October 2001".

Convenient story, except that it appears that he did not immediately identify Arar. Especially interesting is the fact that Arar was, at that time, under surveillance by the RCMP in CANADA. While I believe the handling of the whole thing by the RCMP was abysmal, I have a hard time believing that they would not have noticed Arar travelling out of the country. Or, if they did, that both the O'Connor Commission and Stockwell Day didn't catch that one in all the documentation they saw.

CANADIEN · January 21, 2009

Which one? Khadr or the interrogator? Either or....job accidents have little bearing whether either are telling the truth.

I don't call killing a man during an interrogation an accident.

Edited January 21, 2009 by CANADIEN

jdobbin · January 21, 2009

Being shown some photos with no names attached to them and asked if he knows any of them is hardly coerced. He was merely asked.

The problem is that the ID was not as clear as was made out by prosecution.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/574190

Omar Khadr could not have seen Maher Arar at terrorist safe houses in Afghanistan because the Ottawa engineer was in Canada during the time Khadr told an FBI agent that he saw him.
FBI Special Agent Robert Fuller testified for a second day today at Khadr’s pre-trial hearing and said that Khadr placed Arar in Afghanistan during September or October 2001.

The admission followed testimony a day earlier that linked Arar and Khadr, stunning the military courtroom here and drawing scorn in Canada.

So is the FBI saying the government of Canada is wrong when it says Arar was in Canada at the time?