U.s. Ambassador Wont Answer Questions

SirRiff · October 11, 2003

Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada says he will not appear before a parliamentary committee to answer questions about Maher Arar.
The U.S. claimed he was linked with al-Qaeda, but Syria said it could not confirm those allegations. The House of Commons foreign affairs committee wants to ask Cellucci why the U.S. arrested and deported Arar. It also wants to know why, when asked about the Arar case last April, Cellucci said Canadians who wanted to know why the U.S. deported Arar to Syria, should ask the RCMP.

this is just fantastic, our 'closest ally' wont even tell us why Syria cant even find dirt on this guy.

pathetic. this is just common decency betwen 'allies in the way on terror'.

SirRiff

KrustyKidd · October 11, 2003

What did the RCMP say?

FastNed · October 11, 2003

Do you understand the meaning of "Diplomatic Immunity"?

You do not 'request' a diplomat to appear before a Congressional/Parliamentiary Committee, it is a breach of Diplomatic Protocol. It is also a nasty political move designed to embarrass the Ambassador and thru him, America.

There is always a 'tit for tat' in these diplomatic tiffs - what are these Parliamentarians attempting to do? Double unemployment in Windsor?

KrustyKidd · October 11, 2003

I read this again Riff. "Our closest ally" is how you put it. However, we are far from being their closest ally. I can think of at least three other countries that are closer to them these days than us. He (Celluchi) is in no way responsible to respond to anything from any Canadian should he chose not to. Picture it as putting the US ambassador to Brazil on the block in San Paulo. He'd laugh.

SirRiff · October 11, 2003

You do not 'request' a diplomat to appear before a Congressional/Parliamentiary Committee, it is a breach of Diplomatic Protocol. It is also a nasty political move designed to embarrass the Ambassador and thru him, America.

no no no!

he was invited, not demaned to appear. it was up to him obviously. it would be a courtesy from one nation to another to do it as a show of how good allies we are.

BUT, considering post 9/11, the normal "protocal" has changed. the US deported one of our citizens on little if any proof. even syria is baffled by the so called 'evidence'. they deported him to syria even though he has hasnt lived there in 15 years, adn they didnt even notify the canadian gov.

the only civil thing would be for the US ambas to politely explain the actions of teh US, that is the entire reason for his job. otherwise, this insulting action will only cause Canada again to reexamine how much we can trust the US to act in a civil manner towards us. and considering the need to cooperate on things like border security, and afganistan, its in nobodies interest to have relations further weaken. its insulting that the ambassador couldnt just show up and say somthing to explain or defend US actions. screw protocol. if you want to talk about protocal, i would say invading iraq pretty broke the mold on that one.

I read this again Riff. "Our closest ally" is how you put it. However, we are far from being their closest ally.

well KK, thats true, but as i said before, talking about border security, sharing threat information, and so forth in this so called WAR ON TERROR, they are forced to work with us if they want to remain hyper-prepared as they do.

its insulting for our so called ally not even to present an ambas to explain thier unfounded actions in deporting one of our citizens. we have soliders fighting in afganistan in the so callled war on terror. harassing Canadian citizens isnt acceptable.

SirRiff