Should Harper apologise to Arar?

[betsy]

This was the topic on CPac. I just want to know what you think about it.

[Figleaf]

[q

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[sharkman]

No, Arar's own country should apologize to him.

[killjoy]

Apologizing for a Liberal mistake is nothing more than a 'strategy'.

But I feel it’s owed to him.

.

[g_bambino]

This was the topic on CPac. I just want to know what you think about it.

Part of our parliamentary tradition derived from the UK is that, because "the Government" (the parliament and ministry) is not a continuous institution, no one is bound by its predecessor. Thus, neither Harper, nor the ministry that he heads, is responsible for the actions of Chretien or Martin. He should not apologize, and, on Arar's part, it either shows a desire to grand-stand, or a serious misunderstanding of the nature of our government, for him to expect an apology from the current prime minister.

[betsy]

The Liberal Party, as a body, should apologise to Arar.

Harper, as our PM, should also apologise for the injustice Arar had suffered....as an acknowledgement of that injustice. But that apology need not come right away, right now, unlike some critics are demanding. Stockwell Day had said something about having to review the legalities and liabilities.

[watching&waiting]

I can see Harpers point about there still being a civil action on going and an apology may have some bad affects to that, but in the cold light of the day, it really has been shown that the RCMP really did the wrong thing and it costs Arar his freedom for one year and was tortured for that as well. I think Canada should also be seeking an apology from Syria, for their part in this and also from the Americans, who broke international law and probably thier own laws in doing what they did.

Even though everyone has said they will accept all recommendations of the O'Connor report, it still remains to be seen if any of the people involved here in Canada will be punished. The RCMP will Never regain the respect of the people, without there being some kind of action against those who were involved with this affair.

Arar will have his apology probably before the end of the civil suit, but only because events will make it so that to deny the apology would compound the act itself.

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[sharkman]

This was the topic on CPac. I just want to know what you think about it.

Part of our parliamentary tradition derived from the UK is that, because "the Government" (the parliament and ministry) is not a continuous institution, no one is bound by its predecessor. Thus, neither Harper, nor the ministry that he heads, is responsible for the actions of Chretien or Martin. He should not apologize, and, on Arar's part, it either shows a desire to grand-stand, or a serious misunderstanding of the nature of our government, for him to expect an apology from the current prime minister.

Further to that comment, in the sense that there is a continuous state of Canada, it is technically the Governor-General who can be called upon to make apologies on its behalf which are beyond the responsibility of the government-of-the-day.

The Liberal Party, as a body, should apologise to Arar.

What on Earth would prompt that?

He shouldn't receive any apologies as long as he's suing for hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Borg]

This was the topic on CPac. I just want to know what you think about it.

No

Borg

[Argus]

This was the topic on CPac. I just want to know what you think about it.

The House has already apologised to him, as has the Commisioner. What does he want, an apology from every living Canadian?

[rover1]

Well, betsy just asked the question, not Arar. Nothing wrong with asking a question, is there?

[geoffrey]

This was the topic on CPac. I just want to know what you think about it.

No. Was Harper in power at the time, what the hell did he have to do with it? Nothing, no apology.

Personally, if you go into a hornets nest, stir it up a little... you should expect to get stung. Arar isn't a little untarnished angel in all of this... and I don't believe his torture claims are much past a money grab.

Like I said, all the consular officals and the red cross that visisted him found no evidence of torture, and Arar didn't mention anything after. Pfftt. Cash grab. Getting smacked around and sleep deprived isn't torture. If anything, he should be suing Syria. Canada didn't torture him.

He did sign a confession that he was al-Qaeda, of course Syria is going to deal with that.

Please people, the guy acted like an idiot, was friends with al-Qaeda members, and knowing this he entered the US as a Syrian/Canadian. Could you be asking for more trouble?

[killjoy]

He should get an apology because it's the right thing to do. What is this country coming to that we need a better reason than that?

This man had no links to terrorism. He committed no crime. No reason for suspicion. It was all a bad mistake and an intel screw up. Our government couldn't hand him over to the States fast enough.

He was a Canadian, no different than "Joe". He was you or me or the guy next to you. Still we blame him, probably for little more reason than being brown.

.

[killjoy]

Please people, the guy acted like an idiot, was friends with al-Qaeda members, and knowing this he entered the US as a Syrian/Canadian. Could you be asking for more trouble?

Are you sure you're not mixing him up with the Khadrs?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001068.php

There's little doubt in my mind he was tortured in Syria. They do a little of that before even deciding whether or not to torture you.

.

[geoffrey]

Please people, the guy acted like an idiot, was friends with al-Qaeda members, and knowing this he entered the US as a Syrian/Canadian. Could you be asking for more trouble?

Are you sure you're not mixing him up with the Khadrs?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001068.php

There's little doubt in my mind he was tortured in Syria. They do a little of that before even deciding whether or not to torture you.

.

No, the Khadr's should be in prision, Arar was wrongfully suspected, it happens.

[killjoy]

Are you sure you're not mixing him up with the Khadrs?

No

Fair enough.

Arar was wrongfully suspected, it happens.

Certainly, it does happen all the time, but this is the first time someone was sent to a Syrian jail for being wrongfully suspected.

I ask you: As a Canadian citizen, if suspected of terrorism would you expect a trip to Syrian jail with no means or opportunity to have your case heard in Canada?

IMO, it was shameful.

.

[Figleaf]

?

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[geoffrey]

Arar was wrongfully suspected, it happens.

Certainly, it does happen all the time, but this is the first time someone was sent to a Syrian jail for being wrongfully suspected.

I ask you: As a Canadian citizen, if suspected of terrorism would you expect a trip to Syrian jail with no means or opportunity to have your case heard in Canada?

IMO, it was shameful.

.

I wouldn't first associate with al-Qaeda suspects... his associate is actually friends with the Khadr's according for my brief research. Second, I'd renounce a Syrian citizenship before travelling to the US after associating with such people in a time of the most hightened terrorist awareness.

There is definitely some 'contributory negligence' in this case.

[killjoy]

I wouldn't first associate with al-Qaeda suspects... his associate is actually friends with the Khadr's according for my brief research. Second, I'd renounce a Syrian citizenship before travelling to the US after associating with such people in a time of the most hightened terrorist awareness.

There is definitely some 'contributory negligence' in this case.

This all may or may not factor. I understand your point but I think you miss mine. The bottom line is a person is suspected of terrorism. Do we deal with those suspicions here, with our laws, or do we start simply shipping off anyone suspected of a crime to some nasty country we spend our time chastising over human rights?

What he did or didn't do is quite irrelevant to me. He was a suspect and nothing more. What we do about it is a high priority to me.

.

[geoffrey]

This all may or may not factor. I understand your point but I think you miss mine. The bottom line is a person is suspected of terrorism. Do we deal with those suspicions here, with our laws, or do we start simply shipping off anyone suspected of a crime to some nasty country we spend our time chastising over human rights?

What he did or didn't do is quite irrelevant to me. He was a suspect and nothing more. What we do about it is a high priority to me.

.

Absolutely, keeping them here where we can extract valuable information seems more productive to me.

[bk59]

Part of our parliamentary tradition derived from the UK is that, because "the Government" (the parliament and ministry) is not a continuous institution, no one is bound by its predecessor. Thus, neither Harper, nor the ministry that he heads, is responsible for the actions of Chretien or Martin. He should not apologize, and, on Arar's part, it either shows a desire to grand-stand, or a serious misunderstanding of the nature of our government, for him to expect an apology from the current prime minister.

I think the tradition you are thinking of is Parliamentary sovereignty which says that a particular session of Parliament is not bound by any prior acts (i.e. it can change or repeal any laws that it wants). That isn't the same as saying that "the government" is not continuous. Ministries continue on, no matter who is in charge.

Because of this, my opinion is that if someone in the government screwed up, then Arar should get an apology from the PM. It does not matter who the PM is now, or who the PM was at the time. Just look at the Chinese Head Tax issue. Harper apologized for that, but no one in their right mind is going to say that Harper had anything to do with the tax.

[bk59]

Certainly, it does happen all the time, but this is the first time someone was sent to a Syrian jail for being wrongfully suspected.

I ask you: As a Canadian citizen, if suspected of terrorism would you expect a trip to Syrian jail with no means or opportunity to have your case heard in Canada?

IMO, it was shameful.

I wouldn't first associate with al-Qaeda suspects... his associate is actually friends with the Khadr's according for my brief research. Second, I'd renounce a Syrian citizenship before travelling to the US after associating with such people in a time of the most hightened terrorist awareness.

There is definitely some 'contributory negligence' in this case.

That is hardly 'contributory negligence'. So now Canada should start deporting or charging people because they have a certain citizenship? Or because they have an associate who is friends with someone else who has a terrorist link? That's a bit tenuous. If there is not enough evidence to lay charges here, or anywhere else, then a Canadian citizen shouldn't have to go through all of that. No one is perfect, including Arar. After all, there were legitimate reasons to identify him as a "person of interest". But to blame the victim, when it has been shown that he should never have been sent to Syria, is just as shameful as the fact that he was sent to Syria.

[betsy]

This was the topic on CPac. I just want to know what you think about it.

No. Was Harper in power at the time, what the hell did he have to do with it? Nothing, no apology.

Personally, if you go into a hornets nest, stir it up a little... you should expect to get stung. Arar isn't a little untarnished angel in all of this... and I don't believe his torture claims are much past a money grab.

Like I said, all the consular officals and the red cross that visisted him found no evidence of torture, and Arar didn't mention anything after. Pfftt. Cash grab. Getting smacked around and sleep deprived isn't torture. If anything, he should be suing Syria. Canada didn't torture him.

He did sign a confession that he was al-Qaeda, of course Syria is going to deal with that.

Please people, the guy acted like an idiot, was friends with al-Qaeda members, and knowing this he entered the US as a Syrian/Canadian. Could you be asking for more trouble?

I have to admit that I know so little about what had happened. I did not follow the news.

The little I know had been derived from the media only after the report came out and RCMP guy was on the hot seat apologising.

[geoffrey]

That is hardly 'contributory negligence'. So now Canada should start deporting or charging people because they have a certain citizenship? Or because they have an associate who is friends with someone else who has a terrorist link? That's a bit tenuous. If there is not enough evidence to lay charges here, or anywhere else, then a Canadian citizen shouldn't have to go through all of that. No one is perfect, including Arar. After all, there were legitimate reasons to identify him as a "person of interest". But to blame the victim, when it has been shown that he should never have been sent to Syria, is just as shameful as the fact that he was sent to Syria.

Simple solution, don't be friends with terrorist associates. End of story. You won't be deported.