Arar documents confirm role of CIA, FBI

Leafless · August 10, 2007

A secret portion of the Maher Arar report that was finally uncensored Thursday morning confirmed that the CIA and the FBI were the American law enforcement agencies that handled his deportation to Syria and that they likely sent him there so that he could be questioned in a "firm manner."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...87a&k=97840

I believe the CIA and the FBI acted responsibly in a case that affects national security.

How far do individual rights go in protecting a person who has already been reasonably investigated?

We all know what it cost for Arar's inquiry and Arar's settlement, 25.5 million dollars and we still, I believe, have not heard full U.S. evidence against M. Arar.

Terrorism is not pretty and in a democratic free country to convict a terrorist suspect could very time consuming and very costly with undesirable results and doing very little or actually accelerate terrorist activity, depending on circumstances, relating to national security.

I commend the U.S. with their Patriot Act and even Guantanamo Bay Detention Center while Canada chooses to pander to would be terrorist under a Charter that IMV should be overridden when a individual is suspect with criminal intentions in the way of terrorism.

PRESIDENT George W Bush says shutting down the US "war on terror" prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is not an easy task, but US officials are working to make it happen.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22221938-1702,00.html

August1991 · August 10, 2007

We all know what it cost for Arar's inquiry and Arar's settlement, 25.5 million dollars and we still, I believe, have not heard full U.S. evidence against M. Arar.

Does that include the $10 million settlement paid to Arar?

There have been several wrongful incarcerations that have come to light recently in Canada - notably Steven Truscott - and none have included such a settlement despite the wrongfuly convicted losing, in effect, most of their life.

Many innocent Canadians of Japanese or German origin suffered arguably more during WWII than Arar suffered.

The harm of a wrongful detention must be weighed against the harm of letting a terrorist go free.

guyser · August 10, 2007

Looks like the Gov got off easy paying only $10M. Smart on them to settle before all the facts came out.

maldon_road · August 10, 2007

Looks like the Gov got off easy paying only $10M. Smart on them to settle before all the facts came out.

The Government of course knew the facts but nobody else did. Nice bargaining position to be in. :rolleyes:

old_bold&cold · August 11, 2007

This just shows us that yes the CSIS and the RCMP are quite inept in what there do and are nothing more then yes men, to the wishes of the USA. I am no fan of the RCMP and I do not consider them any more efficient then any local police. They do not deserve to be considered anything more then capable of dealling with domestic crime at best. CSIS on the other hand is pathetic when it comes to knowing and being able to do anything. They keep records on all Canadian citizens and for those who are wondering, you should make an application to see the file they will have on you. Do not be surprised that they will have much of it wrong. Errors do not stop them from keeping a file on you.

As for what was done to Arar and his settlement are only the tip of the iceberg. There are so many errors in things these gooks have gathered, that you may well be thought to be a disident and malcontent, simply for asking and questioning your own file. I can see these agencies as being not worth the money we spend on them, and I am sure that any work done outside Canada, will be equally as wrong as the work they do here.

It should now be painfully aware to any Canadian, that once you leave Canada on holidays, that you are on your own, and our government will not do anything to help you, and that especially goes for the USA. People only now are seeing that Mexico, hates and targets Canadians for violent crime, and it was TV shows that had to find that out from the criminals in Mexico, because our so called agencies were again too incompetent to figure that out. Canada needs to flex its own muscles in these things and start making it clear that the status quo, is not good enough, and when these things happen we need to start sending strong messages to the offending countries. Take the USA for example. They refuse to do anything about Arar and they have blocked all attempts for him to take the USA to court. The also need to reimburse our government for the costs. So eithere raise the price of crude to the USA by $2.00 a barrel for a year, or until they see the error of their ways. But it seems that Canadians are to gutless to do such things.

bush_cheney2004 · August 11, 2007

Canada needs to flex its own muscles in these things and start making it clear that the status quo, is not good enough, and when these things happen we need to start sending strong messages to the offending countries. Take the USA for example. They refuse to do anything about Arar and they have blocked all attempts for him to take the USA to court. The also need to reimburse our government for the costs. So eithere raise the price of crude to the USA by $2.00 a barrel for a year, or until they see the error of their ways. But it seems that Canadians are to gutless to do such things.

Canada can't raise the price of crude to the USA...the price is set by world markets and commodity futures. The USA legally deported Arar to Jordan....next time he'll book a direct flight instead of a layover in New York, eh? Why should the USA reimburse Canada for an RCMP screw-up? Under the same circumstances, deport him again.

Seems that Mr. Arar also skipped out on military service in native Syria!

old_bold&cold · August 11, 2007

You are quite wrong that Canada can not raise the price of crude to the USA, because the world price is set for it in the countries where it is produced. If Canada raised the price the USA would have little choice but to buy from us as the costs to bring it from elsewhere would be even more. The very fact that they would have to find very large supplies in other places would mean the USA would probably have to import from the middle east, and we all know just how well received they would be there. That is why I say we can do this. Maybe then the USA will start to look at Canada with more respect after that.

guyser · August 11, 2007

You are quite wrong that Canada can not raise the price of crude to the USA, because the world price is set for it in the countries where it is produced. If Canada raised the price the USA would have little choice but to buy from us as the costs to bring it from elsewhere would be even more. The very fact that they would have to find very large supplies in other places would mean the USA would probably have to import from the middle east, and we all know just how well received they would be there. That is why I say we can do this. Maybe then the USA will start to look at Canada with more respect after that.

Umm no.

For many reasons too.

bush_cheney2004 · August 11, 2007

You are quite wrong that Canada can not raise the price of crude to the USA, because the world price is set for it in the countries where it is produced. If Canada raised the price the USA would have little choice but to buy from us as the costs to bring it from elsewhere would be even more. The very fact that they would have to find very large supplies in other places would mean the USA would probably have to import from the middle east, and we all know just how well received they would be there. That is why I say we can do this. Maybe then the USA will start to look at Canada with more respect after that.

Ummm...OK...please begin teaching the USA this $2.00 / barrel lesson at once. Even if it were possible (it isn't), the USA could give Canada a lesson in how that oil extraction infrastructure was paid for to begin with. Never piss into the wind.

old_bold&cold · August 11, 2007

First off I did say it would take some guts. I can see that many will not have such things. I believe Canada will have to show the USA exactly where we stand and that we are not always going to be their patsy, in things they do. Yes Canada settled with Arar, but the USA is 100% guilty of doing the actions. and no, what they did is not legal even in the USA. That is why they made it so Arar could not proceed with his case there. Even the US courts would have found any of the many acts of rendition to be not only illegal, but totally against the very idea of justice.

Since the USA has a very dishonorable president who is nothing more then a war monger, that does not mean all the people of the USA support him. If you look lately he is not supported by even 30 % of the people. But that is the man who is in charge, and yes it will take countries like Canada to take a stand to make sure he is held in check. The USA could not ever take Canada by force, even though we have not the army or the will to stop an attack. But we do have Russia who would come here faster then anyone to stop such an attack. Also many other NATO countries who also would.So no, the USA is totally toothless with that arguement.

If Canada wanted to make a special surcharge on the price of oil for the USA only, it can do so and there is nothing the USA can do about that, other then find another supplier. Good luck with that as most oil exporting countries, could not come close to suppling the USA it needs, and many wouldn't do so even if they could. The USA is hated by most of the world's people. Just travel around and see how shop keepers shaft the USA tourist for everything, and will lower the price if they find you are Canadian. That I have seen personally travelling thru Europe, and these were countries that the USA thinks they are liked in. The very fact that Bush is president makes many hate the USA even more, and it will take a long time after Bush is gone before the USA, can change the minds of those people.

I feel that once Bush is out and he travels outside the USA, he should be arrested and put on trial for crimes against humanity. It would not be difficult to show he was guilty of them, and he should be punished just the same as those who were found guilty in the trials at Nuremburg after the WWII. But I have gone far off course. If you have not guess it yet, I am not a fan oof Bush and the whole administration he has in place.

But to get to adding a sucharge to the price Canada would charge the USA for oil, it only takes some guts to do this and it would be lifted once Canada has been paid back all the money that the USA over that last few decades has forced Canada into accepting, when we all know the USA was wrong in the first place. As I said the USA would never ever consider taking by force anything of Canada, as the rest of the world would decimate them for any attempt. Canada can do this without being a super power, because we are probably one of the more fair trading nations in the world. We are liked by much of the world.

I give praise to Harper for his plans for the North, and he is dead on when he says that Canada just has to show its use of the North, to prove its right to the lands. You will notice that much of what Russia did in its claim only strengthened Canada claim, and we will see exactly what Norway is up to shortly. The USA has tried for years to say they have claims because of the waters off north eastern Alaska, to a huge area of oil reserves. But Canada has proven that wrong and it will be a case for the international courts, which everyone expects would go in Canada's favour. That is why I think harper is on the right track with northern development. He also is now seeing that Canada is going to have to mark its line in the snow and go against the USA, and any others that will try to impinge on our lands and resources. The USA is a house of cards that the present leader has allowed to be built. Where China could cripple the economy of the USA simply by divesting the US dollars it has in reserve, let alone many other countries that have vast US dollar reserves. The USA can not support itself on its own resources and materials, and must rely on many nations trading to get what the people of the USA want. It is not just oil and gas, but many other raw materials as well. The Steel mill of the USA rely on the ore from Canada to be able to make the products it does. There are many other things. Should the USA push too far, where trading was put in jeaprody, it would be their economy that would suffer greatly, and not that of the rest of the world. Canada is starting to see that, and with the right leaders it will be able to force the issues to be fair, or switch its trade to the rest of the world. It is not that we will have trouble finding customers for any of our products.

So yes I am biased towards hating Bush and his administration, but I do not vote in USA elections, so I can not throw them out of office. But I am patient and I also can see the day when the elephant in the room will soon be easy to control, because the USA has not been self sufficient in anuything for many decades now. That history will tell you is something that bhappens right before great empires fall.

bush_cheney2004 · August 11, 2007

So yes I am biased towards hating Bush and his administration, but I do not vote in USA elections, so I can not throw them out of office. But I am patient and I also can see the day when the elephant in the room will soon be easy to control, because the USA has not been self sufficient in anuything for many decades now. That history will tell you is something that bhappens right before great empires fall.

Wow...that's quite a rant. Devoid of reality, but you get credit for a very good effort. Canada does not and will not ever control the market, spot market, or futures market price for oil. Did you know that Canada actually imports oil and distillates from the USA for the east? There are many things that Canada is also not "self-suficient" in, starting with human blood and plasma products (see blood supply fiasco in Canada) which comes from the USA.

About 85% of Canadian exports go to the USA, including oil, hydro, lumber, and automotive products. If you can find another market, and also figure out how to industrialize on your own loonie without American and other foreign investment, go fot it.

In the mean time, talk is cheap. And there isn't going to be any "brave" ($2.00 ??????) oil surcharge backed up by Russians skiing over the North Pole. ($2.00 wouldn't mean squat anyway...think BIG! )

BTW...you are living in a "fallen empire"...God Save the Queen.

Edited August 11, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

Leafless · August 11, 2007

Does that include the $10 million settlement paid to Arar?

That includes the $10.5 million dollar settlement paid to Arar, according to the article.

There have been several wrongful incarcerations that have come to light recently in Canada - notably Steven Truscott - and none have included such a settlement despite the wrongfuly convicted losing, in effect, most of their life.

That is what makes this case all the more bizarre, as Arar was never convicted of anything in the way of terrorism here in Canada and profits tremendously from actions of another country. Arar was under investigation as a terrorist suspect by CIA and FBI and Arar's lawyers managed to place blame on an incompetent RCMP to clear Arar of any charges. Many aspects of Arars investigation remains unknown to the public to this day.

How a civilian investigation managed to probe into the inner workings of Canada's national security, especially during a period of active ongoing world terrorism is not understood by this poster and shows how weak national security is in this country.

Many innocent Canadians of Japanese or German origin suffered arguably more during WWII than Arar suffered.

Very true.

The harm of a wrongful detention must be weighed against the harm of letting a terrorist go free.

Much less being paid $10.5 million for the honour.

Leafless · August 11, 2007

BTW...you are living in a "fallen empire"...God Save the Queen.

You are so right, as there isn't much left of our Tory British roots, thanks to the Americanization and Liberalization of Canada with all the socialist bells and whistles, including mass foreign immigration.

Bwa-a-a-a-a-a, seems God Save Canada is the only option we have left.

Edited August 11, 2007 by Leafless

bush_cheney2004 · August 11, 2007

You are so right, as there isn't much left of our Tory British roots, thanks to the Americanization and Liberalization of Canada with all the socialist bells and whistles, including mass foreign immigration.
Bwa-a-a-a-a-a, seems God Save Canada is the only option we have left.

I reprise this fact often when faced with bleatings about America about to fall. If it is so bad, how do the nations of the Commonwealth cope with the loss of invincible Brittannia?

Is life equally miserable in Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or Japan and their "empires" lost?

Leafless · August 11, 2007

Is life equally miserable in Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or Japan and their "empires" lost?

There is no escaping the evils of globalization and mass ethnic immigration which of course in the U.S., is illegal immigration of the Mexican variety.

old_bold&cold · August 11, 2007

Just to reply about the fact that Canada does import oil for the eastern most parts of Canada. This is true because the pipeline for western oil stops in Ontario. It is easier or at least was easier way back to import oil then extend the pipline. That is now changing, and yes it is only in the planning stages but in the near future Canada will not need to import any oil. We sell more oil then we import, so that does show self efficiency.

I did get off track in my rant, and must say that I apologise for getting off topic. But the gist of it still applies. Canada also must import foods from foreign sources especially in the off seasons, but we have little problems finding sources for that. I do see the day when Canada will be taking China to task on the safety of the produces imported from there, but that will be quite some time.

Back to Arar. It seems to me a shame that even though the USA Justice system is aware of the illegal rendition practices, but are not following thru with any action against them. This makes many in the USA think then that these renditions are legal, when they are a crime in fact. That is why I feel so strongly about making the USA have to pay the costs for the things they were the actual perpetraders of. Yes Canada's part in this has cost the people millions and several people have lost their jobs over this. The Commissioner of the RCMP was one and rightfully so. There should be many more, but we are atleast starting things in the right direction. There still are many areas that were blacked out and the judges were very leary of the reason of national security, and as we have seen by this first batch, it was to cover up those who were negligent more then security issues. More will come in time and it would be nice to see the people of the uSA demand to see the true reasons for all the things it has been doing even though it is illegal. That would be a good day and I would like to see it happen. After all, is not the government supposed to be responsible to the people?

There are several more cases where the USA have used these same tactics and sent people to lands where they know they will be tortured. I only hope that when it all comes out again in the news, that it will start to be taken seriously by the USA. I think for the most part the people of the USA are thinking more along my lines of thought, as it can be seen by how very small the percentage of support for Bush has been for quite some time now.

bush_cheney2004 · August 12, 2007

There are several more cases where the USA have used these same tactics and sent people to lands where they know they will be tortured. I only hope that when it all comes out again in the news, that it will start to be taken seriously by the USA. I think for the most part the people of the USA are thinking more along my lines of thought, as it can be seen by how very small the percentage of support for Bush has been for quite some time now.

Canada imports about 1,000,000 bpd....that will not change soon. The US produces far more oil and refined distillates than Canada.

Arar was legally deported to Jordan and the nation of his birth just like thousands of other poor bastards, only in his case, Canada helped to seal the deal. If Canada's guilt pangs can be satisfied with $10 million, that's Canada's business. If Arar wants a single dime from Uncle Sam, he can sue in federal court, if and when he ever gets back in the States. He has no right to travel in or over a foreign country just because he got hosed by the RCMP.

Is rendition illegal? Could be, but we're still doing it just like prior US administrations. President Bush did not invent rendition.

Arar was born in Syria and skipped out on compulsory military service. What did he expect...a welcome home party?

Edited August 12, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

old_bold&cold · August 12, 2007

Canada is the second largest oil exporting nation in the world. The only reason the USA produces more oil distillates is because Canada sells them crude oil. We could just as easily sell only refined products and that would make Canada, much richer for the efforts.

Arar was not deported to Jordan legally as his passport on which he travelled was Canadian, and he was and still is a Canadian. The USA choose not to honour that pastport and send him to Jordan. It was wrong and it has been shown that Canada never told the USA, that we would not accept him back. That is why it was so illegal not only by USA law but by international law. Which also is why I have said that once Bush is out of office and sets foot out of the USA, he should be arrested for Crimes Against Humanity, as he deserves to pay for this as well as the illegal war in Iraq and he should just like Saddam pay with his life. But again I digress. Just as Saddam was guilty of torturing many people, so is Bush and all his administration. So because the people of the USA will not use their justice system to punish these people, then it will be left up to the world courts to do so. The texas midgit had better get use to staying in the USA.

GostHacked · August 12, 2007

Is rendition illegal? Could be, but we're still doing it just like prior US administrations. President Bush did not invent rendition.
Arar was born in Syria and skipped out on compulsory military service. What did he expect...a welcome home party?

Bush Cheyney.... if he HAD been in the Syrian Military, you would also use that against him.

Leafless · August 12, 2007

We could just as easily sell only refined products and that would make Canada, much richer for the efforts.

Can you prove what you are saying as being viable at the present time?

The heavy crude oil or crude bitumen extracted from these deposits is a viscous, solid or semisolid form of oil that does not easily flow at normal ambient temperatures and pressures, making it difficult and expensive to process into gasoline, diesel fuel, and other products. Despite the difficulty and cost, oil sands are now being mined on a vast scale to extract the oil, which is then converted into synthetic oil by oil upgraders, or refined directly into petroleum products by specialized refineries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands

bush_cheney2004 · August 12, 2007

Canada is the second largest oil exporting nation in the world. The only reason the USA produces more oil distillates is because Canada sells them crude oil. We could just as easily sell only refined products and that would make Canada, much richer for the efforts.

Canada's oil industry would not exist in its present form without American and other foreign investment. When the Canadian government got involved, they hosed it up completely. American capital and Alberta are a marriage in oil heaven. Canada is not the second largest oil exporting nation...it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. Canada also lacks the refining capacity to process all crude production.

Maybe you are playing with words for "geographic size" and oil exporting, because Canada sure as hell is not #2 for crude oil exports for 2006:

1. Saudi Arabia

2. Russia

3. Norway

4. Iran

5. UAE

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.htm

President Bush did not torture Arar...the Syrians did (if it ever happened). You have no say in what happens with the Americans and their rendition processes. Canada was detaining and deporting foreign nationals long before President Bush was ever elected with the now infamous "Security Certficates".

old_bold&cold · August 13, 2007

See this link for the latest known oil reserves http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/w...ntries-map.html

Also look at the statistics Canada on the amount of refined oil verses crude oil that Canada exports. You will see we sell very little refined fuels to the USA. We mostly export crude. The Tar Sands extracts, are semi refined so they can be pipelined but very little is refined to end products at that point. The previous stats that had Russia were for natural gas, and that is only because europe needs most of what Russia can give. Russia as you can see by the known oil reserves is not even close to Canada.

I will try to see if I can get the whole paper on Canada's oil exports and agreements, and post it. It makes for some very upsetting reading and you will see that Canada has for a very long time given way too much in the trading of our natural resources. I said it before and I will repeat it again. We need someone who will finally stand up to the USA and make sure we get fair and equal treatment. Now would be a good time where it seems that Canada's economy is going to out shine the USA's in growth. Not that I will be happy about it but the inside word of the banking community is that by nov- dec of this year our dollar will be on par, and if things keep going as they have been we may even see the Lonnie once again be higher then the US greenback. I just hope we can wather that and keep growing, but the time for taking stands on these issues would be better now then there ever have been in the past.

Edited August 13, 2007 by old_bold&cold

bk59 · August 13, 2007

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...87a&k=97840
I believe the CIA and the FBI acted responsibly in a case that affects national security.

How far do individual rights go in protecting a person who has already been reasonably investigated?

We all know what it cost for Arar's inquiry and Arar's settlement, 25.5 million dollars and we still, I believe, have not heard full U.S. evidence against M. Arar.

Terrorism is not pretty and in a democratic free country to convict a terrorist suspect could very time consuming and very costly with undesirable results and doing very little or actually accelerate terrorist activity, depending on circumstances, relating to national security.

I commend the U.S. with their Patriot Act and even Guantanamo Bay Detention Center while Canada chooses to pander to would be terrorist under a Charter that IMV should be overridden when a individual is suspect with criminal intentions in the way of terrorism.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22221938-1702,00.html

So deporting someone with the intention that they be questioned through torture is now acting responsibly? Maybe we should be protecting our way of life by sticking to our principles rather than compromising what we believe to be right under the guise of national security. Canada and the US are democracies where people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (to use the US phrasing). This means that when someone is suspected of committing a crime we do not torture them. This includes sending them to someone else to do the torture for us.

And you really think Arar had been "reasonably investigated?" The RCMP provided false information to the US authorities by a unit that was described as inexperienced. I'm not sure that counts as a reasonable investigation. Especially given that he has been cleared of all terrorist links. Mistakes will always happen, but that is even more reason to ensure that we do not take drastic action. How far do individual rights go? How about to the point where we don't abuse people because we think they might have something to do with a crime?

The bottom line is that Canada is not pandering to terrorists. Canadians, for the most part, believe that people are entitled to fair trials, that people are innocent until proven guilty. And these beliefs existed long before the Charter was introduced. By continuing to provide these safeguards for everyone we show the terrorists that we will not jeopardize our free and democratic society just because they have made threats against us. Once we start giving up rights and freedoms (as was done in the Patriot Act in the US) then we are doing more to destroy our free and democratic society than the terrorists ever could.

noahbody · August 13, 2007

And you really think Arar had been "reasonably investigated?" The RCMP provided false information to the US authorities by a unit that was described as inexperienced. I'm not sure that counts as a reasonable investigation. Especially given that he has been cleared of all terrorist links.

In my opinion, the most damning false information in the whole fiasco was given by Arar himself. During interrogation, he was asked if he knew a known terrorist, a brother of a co-worker. Arar replied he only met him once while at the co-worker's house. Apparently, he had forgotten the time the terrorist had signed his rental lease. If he'd given an accurate response, he wouldn't have made himself look guilty.

bush_cheney2004 · August 14, 2007

The bottom line is that Canada is not pandering to terrorists. Canadians, for the most part, believe that people are entitled to fair trials, that people are innocent until proven guilty. And these beliefs existed long before the Charter was introduced. By continuing to provide these safeguards for everyone we show the terrorists that we will not jeopardize our free and democratic society just because they have made threats against us. Once we start giving up rights and freedoms (as was done in the Patriot Act in the US) then we are doing more to destroy our free and democratic society than the terrorists ever could.

How do you reconcile this position with Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Security Certificates, which existed long before the American PATRIOT Act?