Leafless Posted January 23, 2007 Report Posted January 23, 2007 "Wilkins defended a U.S. decision not to participate in the Arar inquiry, saying it was chiefly about Canadian officials and the actions they took." http://www.thestar.com/article/162824 ----------------------------------------------------------- What country in the world 'outside of Canada' would publicly cripple its national security system for a single 'wayward Arab' and open the floodgates for others? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 23, 2007 Report Posted January 23, 2007 What country in the world 'outside of Canada' would publicly cripple its national security system for a single 'wayward Arab' and open the floodgates for others? Indeed, and although Mr. Arar is free to pursue litigation with Canada, Syria, Jordan, and USA, he does not have a right to American air space. The US banned John Lennon for just smoking dope. I suspect that guilt over the RCMP fiasco which led to the special rendition is influencing judgement on both sides of the border (e.g. US Senator Leahy). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Figleaf Posted January 23, 2007 Report Posted January 23, 2007 The US banned John Lennon for just smoking dope. Whereas they've banned Arar to cover their asses. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 23, 2007 Report Posted January 23, 2007 Whereas they've banned Arar to cover their asses. Whereas Canada cleared Arar to cover their guilt. There is no self-guilt like dripping Canadian self-guilt. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Figleaf Posted January 23, 2007 Report Posted January 23, 2007 Whereas they've banned Arar to cover their asses. Whereas Canada cleared Arar to cover their guilt. What guilt would there be for our government, if he wasn't innocent in the first place? Quote
Topaz Posted January 23, 2007 Report Posted January 23, 2007 The US is saying they stand by their decision by the info from Canada. Well, we now know that Canadian government didn't have any info to hold Arar to make him a terrrorist so in my view, this is to stop any lawsuit from going forward! IF, they do have something serious against Arar, then its in Canada's interest to be told what it is, to protect Canadians. Quote
Wilber Posted January 23, 2007 Report Posted January 23, 2007 The US is saying they stand by their decision by the info from Canada. Well, we now know that Canadian government didn't have any info to hold Arar to make him a terrrorist so in my view, this is to stop any lawsuit from going forward! IF, they do have something serious against Arar, then its in Canada's interest to be told what it is, to protect Canadians. Makes sense to me. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Leafless Posted January 23, 2007 Author Report Posted January 23, 2007 The US is saying they stand by their decision by the info from Canada. Well, we now know that Canadian government didn't have any info to hold Arar to make him a terrrorist so in my view, this is to stop any lawsuit from going forward! IF, they do have something serious against Arar, then its in Canada's interest to be told what it is, to protect Canadians. In a court of law, Arar's story is so full of holes it would make the titanic LOOK GOOD. Why should the U.S. allow a wayward Arab and his gang of welfare lawyers to possibly damage the security of the U.S. and dominate its national security with political scenario's that are not in U.S. interest? 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.