Arar documents confirm role of CIA, FBI

[bk59]

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.

Without knowing the source of that bit of information I can't really say whether that is an accurate statement about what happened or not. Even if it is accurate, it does not justify sending someone to be tortured. It does not excuse the RCMP from responsibility for giving false information to US authorities. If the inquiry can find no links between Arar and terrorists then the RCMP could have done the same. Despite any inaccurate responses. At the end of the day we do not imprison people who look guilty. Only those we can prove are guilty. And we do not torture anyone (directly or through proxy) for any reason.

[bk59]

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

Is there something specific in the Act that you think goes against the principles like those of due process and innocent until proven guilty? I ask because your question is kind of general.

As far as I know security certificates are a process by which someone in Canada who is not a citizen can be detained while proceedings are carried out to determine if they are a threat to national security. There was a recent Supreme Court case that some of the provisions dealing with security certificates were unconstitutional, namely the fact that when a judge looked at the evidence against the accused there was no independent advocate for the accused (the judge would have to fill that role). If nothing else, that shows that Canada's system works to ensure fairness even when a law may not be fair.

I'm not sure if that is the sort of thing you were asking about. Perhaps you could point out something specific if that is not what you were asking.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure if that is the sort of thing you were asking about. Perhaps you could point out something specific if that is not what you were asking.

The "adjustments" mandated by the SCC are very recent (Feb 2007)....Security Certificates have been around for a long time, preceeding the USA's PATRIOT ACT by about 10 years. Canadian detainees didn't even have the nice weather of 'Gitmo.

The families of the detainees have campaigned against the security certificate, arguing that they violate civil liberties and due process by allowing individuals to be detained indefinitely, without charges being laid, on the basis of secret evidence. Alexandre Trudeau, son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau has been vocal in his criticisms of the certificates and has appeared in court to testify in favour of Almrei's release offering to act as a surety on his behalf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_certificate#Criticisms

[bk59]

The "adjustments" mandated by the SCC are very recent (Feb 2007)....Security Certificates have been around for a long time, preceeding the USA's PATRIOT ACT by about 10 years. Canadian detainees didn't even have the nice weather of 'Gitmo.

The families of the detainees have campaigned against the security certificate, arguing that they violate civil liberties and due process by allowing individuals to be detained indefinitely, without charges being laid, on the basis of secret evidence. Alexandre Trudeau, son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau has been vocal in his criticisms of the certificates and has appeared in court to testify in favour of Almrei's release offering to act as a surety on his behalf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_certificate#Criticisms

I'm not sure you really want to compare the Canadian security certificates with Guantanamo detainee camps. First, there are clearly some problems with the security certificates. Such as long wait times for the hearings to complete. But this is different than saying that people will be "held indefinitely." From that same wiki it is clear that these are people who are held while hearings are going on. (See the "Detention" section: "An individual may be held for several years, without any criminal charges being laid, before a hearing is complete, and can be deported without any criminal charge or conviction.")

More importantly in the Act itself it is clear that detainees must be brought before a judge every six months to ensure that there are reasonable grounds for continuing the detention. See section 83.

As for the secret evidence criticism, this I think has been dealt with in the latest SCC case. In the past a judge had to evaluate the evidence. (So at least someone was reviewing it to make sure it was reasonable.) It is likely that in the future special defense lawyers, that are cleared to review sensitive evidence, will advocate for the detainees.

Finally, while Guantanamo probably does have nice weather, it apparently comes with the risk of torture. See here. Originally detainees were not even provided the protections of the Geneva Conventions, although the US Supreme Court put an end to that. These are detainees that are not even scheduled for a trial. That leads to indefinite incarceration. The Canadian version puts the detainees in front of a federal judge within 48 hours and provides for six month reviews. I see a huge difference between these two approaches.

I am not a huge fan of security certificates, but at the end of the day there are some cases where evidence cannot be released because of national security concerns and something must be done. These certificates allow the government to deal with non-Canadians living in Canada who, on reasonable evidence, pose a threat. They are afforded due process in the form of an immediate and ongoing review by the justice system. If at the end of the process the certificate is deemed reasonable then the person is removed from Canada. The Guantanamo approach involves people captured outside of the US, possibly held without ever having their case heard before a judge (or military tribunal - although I think this has been stopped by US courts as well now). Allegations of torture and the fact that the US government tried to argue that the Geneva Conventions do not apply should underscore the difference between the two approaches.

[old_bold&cold]

I do not see that any arguement from a Canadian will ever be accepted by the supporters of the Bush administration. But fortunately that is an ever decreasing number of people. The USA "Patriot Act" it very onerous towards the detainees and it was never very well thought out. It is obviously something that was created because Bush allowed fear to be used as a tool to get the authority to do things that in hindsight were never really near the importance that his administrtion said it was.

For the Sept 11 attack, I whole heartedly agree that the Taliban in Afghanistan needed to be removed from power and giving the Afghan people a chance to build and form a new government, elected by the people. That war and Canada's support in it, I have no problem with. The causes and effects were directly known and it still is a just reason for doing what we are doing there. But now that things are turning slowly the training of the Afghan should be a top priority, with a purpose of the troops being able to be withdrawn in the fore seeable future.

The fact that there have not been any more attacks against the USA public within the USA itself, says that there really was a lot more hype to getting this Patriot Act past then actual facts. TV shows like 24 are on everyday showing the USA being attacked each and every day. Hell they have even had nuclear explosions, and the like. There is no basis for any of this in real fact, but once again I say it is what the Bush administration wants to see as it is the only way to get the people to be afraid enough to pass things like the "Patriot Act". When cooler heads prevail, it will be seen that all this whole time, was based on lies and half truths. History will not be kind to this time and its events.

The great powers that the act gives the government, would never be done without great fear of the people of the USA, and Canada. Even Bush when it is shown that he was 100% wrong in things, he will not say he was or ever apologise for anything. The courts have told him many times now that even with the Patriot Act, his administration has stepped beyond that. The very fact that gitmo is still where it is is just anpther act of half witted bullying. The agreed lease on the land of this base are long past, and Cuba has not agreed to renew them. Therefore they are once again in a foreign land by use of force. Not by agreement. Its seems that USA is the worst house guest of them all. They just do not know when to leave. But that is a topic for another thread I guess.

We can debate back and forth the different uses of the Patriot Act and Canada's Security certificates for months on end. The difference is Canada has made very little use of its certificates and rightfully so, where the USA has made so much use of the Patriot Act, that it now feels it needs to go even beyond that and use rendition as a new tool, even though it is illegal not only by USA law by any laws of the rest of the world as well. The death toll of the World Trade Center has now been eclipsed by the death tolls of the Iraq war in USA lives, and 100 and even perhaps 1000 to 1 in the lives of Iraqi and others. One act that took 3 hours to play out on 9/11, has now turned into 4 years of out and out war in foreign lands at costs in lives and money millions of times more then the initial act. Does any thinking person have any evidence to support this as being right or even a smart thing to do?

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure you really want to compare the Canadian security certificates with Guantanamo detainee camps. First, there are clearly some problems with the security certificates. Such as long wait times for the hearings to complete. But this is different than saying that people will be "held indefinitely."

Any such comparisons are irrelevent to the basic contention that Canada had such measures in place long before the American PATRIOT Act. Uniformly condemned by the UN for human rights violations (same as 'Gitmo), Canada decided it could detain people with secret evidence. The six month review stipulation is procedural at best, with detainees being held for years.

Fast forward to the Arar case, and we find that Canada's RCMP sold him down the river and he was deported to his native Syria through Jordan. This is exactly what happens to Security Certificate detainees after they are released from their Canadian "gulag". It would even apear that the threat of torture delays repatriation and extends detainments to "protect human rights", which is ironically comical to say the least.

[bush_cheney2004]

The great powers that the act gives the government, would never be done without great fear of the people of the USA, and Canada. Even Bush when it is shown that he was 100% wrong in things, he will not say he was or ever apologise for anything. The courts have told him many times now that even with the Patriot Act, his administration has stepped beyond that. The very fact that gitmo is still where it is is just anpther act of half witted bullying. The agreed lease on the land of this base are long past, and Cuba has not agreed to renew them. Therefore they are once again in a foreign land by use of force. Not by agreement. Its seems that USA is the worst house guest of them all. They just do not know when to leave. But that is a topic for another thread I guess.

That's right....another thread...because the "lease" for 'Gitmo goes back a long ways and can only be ended if both parties agree. It is not forced occupation of foreign land.

Canadians have no say in the PATRIOT Act, same as Americans have no say in Security Certificates. But Americans do have a say when security risks are presented at airports in the way of Mr. Arar. He does not have a right to US airspace. Ban him for life just to make that sovereign point.

[noahbody]

Without knowing the source of that bit of information I can't really say whether that is an accurate statement about what happened or not. Even if it is accurate, it does not justify sending someone to be tortured. It does not excuse the RCMP from responsibility for giving false information to US authorities. If the inquiry can find no links between Arar and terrorists then the RCMP could have done the same. Despite any inaccurate responses. At the end of the day we do not imprison people who look guilty. Only those we can prove are guilty. And we do not torture anyone (directly or through proxy) for any reason.

Source is Arar's own web site, maherarar.ca. To correct myself he admitted to meeting him a few times, not once. Saying we don't imprison people who look guilty is naive. From site:

He is questioned in particular about Abdullah Almalki. Arar tells them that he only knows him very casually, but that he worked with his brother Nazih at two high tech firms in Ottawa and Hull. He tells them that the Almalki family came from Syria about the same time as his, so the families know of each other. Arar does not know why they are questioning him so much about Abdullah. He tells them he has seen Abdullah a few times and he describes, in detail, the times he can remember. Arar is shocked when they show him the rental lease he signed when he moved to Ottawa in 1997. It was witnessed by Abdullah Almalki. Arar remembers this and explains he had asked Nazih to sign it, but that Nazih was busy and sent his brother instead.

[bk59]

Any such comparisons are irrelevent to the basic contention that Canada had such measures in place long before the American PATRIOT Act. Uniformly condemned by the UN for human rights violations (same as 'Gitmo), Canada decided it could detain people with secret evidence. The six month review stipulation is procedural at best, with detainees being held for years.

Fast forward to the Arar case, and we find that Canada's RCMP sold him down the river and he was deported to his native Syria through Jordan. This is exactly what happens to Security Certificate detainees after they are released from their Canadian "gulag". It would even apear that the threat of torture delays repatriation and extends detainments to "protect human rights", which is ironically comical to say the least.

I never made any statement as to whether security certificates existed before the Patriot Act. Mostly because that is irrelevant. Security certificates are much different than the detentions that happen at Guantanamo. You say the reviews are procedural at best - but that is the exact point. Due process is all about procedure. Giving people a chance to have their case reviewed by the justice system. Which is what happens with security certificates. The human rights violations that Guantanamo is accused of include torture, detaining people indefinitely, and detaining people without any hearings at all. Call Canadian prisons gulags all you want, but at least the approach taken here is a balance between national security and individual rights.

As for the Arar case, yes the RCMP gave false information and Arar paid the price. But that is why my original point was that this should not be defended (as some people here like to do). Rather than treat people like Arar we should be sticking to the principles of due process, etc. instead of hoping someone will send a person somewhere they can be questioned with torture.

[bk59]

Source is Arar's own web site, maherarar.ca. To correct myself he admitted to meeting him a few times, not once. Saying we don't imprison people who look guilty is naive. From site:

Allow me to rephrase. Mistakes will happen, and so yes, sometimes we will imprison people who look guilty instead of those who are proven guilty. But I think my point still stands. We should only imprison those we can prove are guilty. Nothing about that quoted statement would indicate Arar is a terrorist. So he didn't know or remember who witnessed his lease. What does that prove? Does that prove he is a terrorist? Not at all. How is that statement so damning? Making a mistake about who witnessed your lease does not mean you should be questioned by torture. Certainly the fact that he did not know warranted further investigation. But as the inquiry has shown, a further investigation revealed that Arar had no links to terrorists. So rather than blame the victim as some people on here like to do, maybe we should concentrate on finding out where the real problems were and then making sure mistakes like this do not happen again. Which is what the inquiry was all about.

[JB Globe]

Does anyone here think that a person's ethnic and religious background influences their opinion on whether it was right or wrong to deport Maher Arar?

While most Canadians regardless of background supported Arar for a long time, he has had his opponents as well.

I myself, don't believe it's a coincidence that all of his detractors tend to be white, and either Christian or Athiest.

In all cases of racial profiling, or where ethnicity/religion plays a factor in how the justice system is administered to an individual, it's always those people who will never be affected by this factor who are the biggest supporters of the policy.

In short - do you think that the fact that some supporters of the actions against Maher Arar here would change their tune if they knew there was a chance they could be shipped to another country and tortured? Are they only supporting the actions taken against him because they know it will never happen to them?

I for one, think so.

[marcinmoka]

I myself, don't believe it's a coincidence that all of his detractors tend to be white, and either Christian or Athiest.

You mean such as the majority of the nation. Ergo, the same makeup of those who support M. Arrar.

In all cases of racial profiling, or where ethnicity/religion plays a factor in how the justice system is administered to an individual, it's always those people who will never be affected by this factor who are the biggest supporters of the policy.

Nice try, but seriously, stop playing the race card. It is weak. Very, very weak. While I am sure this sounds brilliant on the campus rally pulpit, have you ever sat down and thought of the logistics of such an operation. There are over half a million Muslims in Canada, and a few thousand people in the agencies devoted to our security. Furthermore, these agencies are also concerned with many, many other issues, from immigration, economic theft, criminal activity, hostile nations, etc. They have tons of other worries and matters to be concerned about.

Considering this is a nation of immigration, focusing alone on trivial matters like "race" or "religion" would require such vast resources and would counter productive. Do I know what methods they use to research? Nope, but rest assured, in such an old and secretive profession, it must surely amount to something more than "His name sounds Russian" or "He looks Arab".

In all honesty, the biggest shame here is the mediatization of this issue, and our collective need for what I call "scapegoat-ism". They made a mistake, we chastise them, but when they do their job correctly, we ignore them.

Edited August 14, 2007 by marcinmoka

[bush_cheney2004]

I never made any statement as to whether security certificates existed before the Patriot Act. Mostly because that is irrelevant. Security certificates are much different than the detentions that happen at Guantanamo. You say the reviews are procedural at best - but that is the exact point. Due process is all about procedure. Giving people a chance to have their case reviewed by the justice system. Which is what happens with security certificates. The human rights violations that Guantanamo is accused of include torture, detaining people indefinitely, and detaining people without any hearings at all. Call Canadian prisons gulags all you want, but at least the approach taken here is a balance between national security and individual rights.

I am sure that the procedural hearings give great comfort to those who remained imprisoned for years based on "secret" evidence. But I guess I have my answer to how PATRIOT Act detractors reconcile "security certificates"....they don't. More on Guantanamo North:

http://briarpatchmagazine.com/news/?p=45

The "approach taken" also seems to draw disdain from the UN human rights crowd and Amnesty International. Seems that "BushCo" learned some things from Canada.

http://www.adilinfo.org/appuis/amnestyletter.htm

Edited August 15, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[bk59]

I am sure that the procedural hearings give great comfort to those who remained imprisoned for years based on "secret" evidence. But I guess I have my answer to how PATRIOT Act detractors reconcile "security certificates"....they don't. More on Guantanamo North:

http://briarpatchmagazine.com/news/?p=45

The "approach taken" also seems to draw disdain from the UN human rights crowd and Amnesty International. Seems that "BushCo" learned some things from Canada.

http://www.adilinfo.org/appuis/amnestyletter.htm

I suppose if you want to ignore what I have said about the differences between security certificates and Guantanamo then that would count as not reconciling anything.

Do the hearings give comfort to those under investigation? Probably not. But then again a person on trial for murder probably does not get a lot of comfort from that procedure either and so, by the logic implied in your post, a murder trial must not fall under the principle of "due process."

I find it interesting that in the link you have given there are claims that detainees are not given proper heating in their cells, that they have no access to religious materials and that meals are not provided "in a timely fashion." And yet... when the people mentioned in that link brought their case to the Supreme Court none of that was brought up. You would think that those facts would be something worth bringing to the court when claiming that this treatment is cruel and unusual.

What did "BushCo" learn from Canada? It looks like they learned how to identify the safeguards that they wanted to avoid in Guantanamo. That the best way to indefinitely detain people is to not give them any access to the justice system at all. And this of course makes it easier to question those people with torture. Trying to deny detainees Geneva Convention protection does not hurt either. How do you reconcile that with your claims about Guantanamo North?

The fact is the security certificate procedure is being fixed as we type. But I'm curious... you seem to be quite against secret evidence. (This is not a bad stance to take.) But you also seem to be against any procedure that is less than full disclosure. So how would you go about dealing with someone who, on the evidence, is involved in terrorism when disclosing that evidence to the person or their lawyer could endanger not only a current investigation, but also the life or lives of investigators or sources within a terrorist network? A balance must be struck. And so far the Canadian approach hasn't been the worst one out there. And even the Canadian approach is undergoing changes to ensure that it is more fair. I am not saying this approach is (or will be) perfect. But don't kid yourself... Guantanamo is not based on anything Canada has done in the past - it goes quite beyond what has happened and is happening here.

[bush_cheney2004]

The fact is the security certificate procedure is being fixed as we type. But I'm curious... you seem to be quite against secret evidence. (This is not a bad stance to take.) But you also seem to be against any procedure that is less than full disclosure. So how would you go about dealing with someone who, on the evidence, is involved in terrorism when disclosing that evidence to the person or their lawyer could endanger not only a current investigation, but also the life or lives of investigators or sources within a terrorist network? A balance must be struck. And so far the Canadian approach hasn't been the worst one out there. And even the Canadian approach is undergoing changes to ensure that it is more fair. I am not saying this approach is (or will be) perfect. But don't kid yourself... Guantanamo is not based on anything Canada has done in the past - it goes quite beyond what has happened and is happening here.

Sorry, but I didn't write those pieces....obviously Canada's security certificates and deportations to potential torture have caught the attention of the UN, Amnesty International, and, belatedly, the SCC. The Americans also have judicial oversight and sunset clauses in legislation...big deal. I just wanted to point out longstanding procedures in Canada that others claim could lead to the very circumstances that Arar experienced by design, even without an incompetent RCMP.

As to what to do about accused perps without divulging sources and methods, I am not convinced that indictments, trials, and sentences are of any real value except for getting credible intel in exchange for a plea bargain. "Justice" would be the least of my concerns. The government can always decline to prosecute, deport foreign nationals to country of origin (I don't really care about the overhyped threat of "torture"), and monitor citizens with probable cause to do so.

[old_bold&cold]

I may be wrong but I have googled several times for the number of people Canada had used security certificates on and I can only seem to find five in total and of those 3 have been released under strict provisions. Most are fighting deportation to the countries of their birth, and Canada is finding it hard to find any country willing to take them. While the numbers were surprisingly low to me, I still have to point out that the courts that these man were reviewed by every 6 month of their incarceration have seen fit to release these man on strict monitoring. That some how just does not even come close to what is happening at Guatonamo, by USA.

Our courts rules that the cerificates were not legal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is exactly as it should be. It shows that our justice system while being slow, it does eventually gets the job done. So the arguements about comparing the two, are some what misleading, as it has already been thru the courts here, and the certificate, can not do what many thought they could before. The courts have caught the errors, and now detention under those certificates, can not be unending reason to hold these people, and we do not detain incustody, for never ending amounts of time. It is the deportation that is giving Canada a problem, as we will not be like the USA and just send them to places where torture and even death would be expected. So right there is one of the biggest differences between the USA and Canada. The USA will with out even a moments forethought sent people to places where they are tortured or even killed. In fact they openly admit to doing just that. And people wonder why Americans are seen as hateful war mongerers. While myself and most Canadians know it is not all Americans that are this way, we have definitely been shown that for a small time and due to the fact, that a president used fear as a tool, to get his agenda done. It is not without seeing now that the vast majority of the American voters, have now realised that Bush has duped the people of the USA, and he has never had their best interests first and foremost. GW Bush will go down in history as the worst excuse for a president, and hopefully the first expresident to be arrested for crimes against humanity, if things seem to go the way there are now. He may have got his wish and had Saddam executed, but it would also go a long way in righting the wrongs done by Bush to see him executed just like Saddam.

[bush_cheney2004]

... While myself and most Canadians know it is not all Americans that are this way, we have definitely been shown that for a small time and due to the fact, that a president used fear as a tool, to get his agenda done. It is not without seeing now that the vast majority of the American voters, have now realised that Bush has duped the people of the USA, and he has never had their best interests first and foremost. GW Bush will go down in history as the worst excuse for a president, and hopefully the first expresident to be arrested for crimes against humanity, if things seem to go the way there are now. He may have got his wish and had Saddam executed, but it would also go a long way in righting the wrongs done by Bush to see him executed just like Saddam.

Yea..sure...that will happen as soon as former PM Chretien is executed for crimes against peace and murdering civilians during NATO's Allied Force (Kosovo). Ditto Clinton, Chirac, Schroeder, and Blair. Dream on....with your selective judgement.

As far as the security certificates go, why should they get any better treatment than what Mr. Arar received at the hands of the RCMP? Canada hosed up....so Canada can pay up. If Arar shows up in my town, deport him again!

[old_bold&cold]

Yea..sure...that will happen as soon as former PM Chretien is executed for crimes against peace and murdering civilians during NATO's Allied Force (Kosovo). Ditto Clinton, Chirac, Schroeder, and Blair. Dream on....with your selective judgement.

As far as the security certificates go, why should they get any better treatment than what Mr. Arar received at the hands of the RCMP? Canada hosed up....so Canada can pay up. If Arar shows up in my town, deport him again!

The Canadians in Kosovo did nothing other then peace keeping, but you can look at it any way you like. Bush has openly misused his administration to perorm illegal acts, not to mention a war that is also totally illegal and without any just reason other then misinformation pushed by Bush himself. Therefore he has murdered directly and indirectly 100,000 Iraqi people. Had countless others tortured and did so in the name of USA supremacy. He deserves to die in the hangmans noose just like Saddam. There were many others sentenced to death at Nuremburg after WWII, for much lesser things.

I do not think Arar will ever show up in your town or any other in the USA, because there are peope like you who do not even give a dam that he is innocent and has been proven so by any and every way possible, to you he will always be guilty because he showed the world just what assholes some Americans can be. I also would like Tony Blair to have to stand trial for the errors and things that he did, in the name of security. But Bair never was not as forceful in pushing things the way Bush has been. Believe me if I had my way Bush would not even be allowed here in Canada next week, as I do not see any good making trade deals with such a dishonourable man as he is, as being the right thing to do. But as with all in my country of Canada, I can only use my vote to make the changes that I feel need to be done. Just as was done when Bush was voted in the second time, not the first time where lies and corruption were what won the day, not democracy. It is funny though that now Bush has 70% of the people wishing he was not in office. Its a good thing he can never again take that office. Lets hope next time the people of America have wisened up, and choose someone who is honourable instead of dispicable.

[JB Globe]

Nice try, but seriously, stop playing the race card.

Let me be more clear:

I'm talking specifically about people in the public who support racial profiling and other violations of basic human rights when it comes to national security, people who argue that what happen to Arar wasn't wrong or unjust or illegal - it was necessary.

What I'm asking is - why are the people who take this approach to cases of torture always happen to be white and/or Atheist or Christian?

Are we seeing the same thing we see with police racially profiling black folks? Where the biggest supporters of that policy are white as well?

In short - are many of the supporters (not government officials, but ordinary citizens) of these policies doing so mainly because they know it will NEVER HAPPEN TO THEM?

Can any of these people HONESTLY say that they could experience what Arar and others experienced and still come out at the end of it and say they support such policies?

[Leafless]

Can any of these people HONESTLY say that they could experience what Arar and others experienced and still come out at the end of it and say they support such policies?

Countries need policies to safe guard their citizens and national interest.

Facts are individuals, epecially those who hold dual citizenship and in a time of terrorism, and partaking in international travel and under investigation could be considered a menace to the country and deportion should not have come as a surprise to Arar who dared to travel when he knew he was a terrorist suspect.

But what exactly was Arar found innocent of, as this inquiry was not a criminal trial

A criminal trial is what this man should have faced.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Canadians in Kosovo did nothing other then peace keeping, but you can look at it any way you like. Bush has openly misused his administration to perorm illegal acts, not to mention a war that is also totally illegal and without any just reason other then misinformation pushed by Bush himself. Therefore he has murdered directly and indirectly 100,000 Iraqi people. Had countless others tortured and did so in the name of USA supremacy. He deserves to die in the hangmans noose just like Saddam. There were many others sentenced to death at Nuremburg after WWII, for much lesser things.

Excellent...you have demonstrated the ability to be very inconsistent when it comes to Canadians raining death from the sky in an "illegal" war. That's OK, I get a lot of that "peacekeeping" stchtick on these kind of forums. Nobody is going to be arrested and executed anyway...even Milosevic cheated the fools crying for "justice".

As for Arar, I hope he remains on the "do not fly" list for life. Canadian guilt pangs do not translate to America.

Mr. Arar could buy his own used Gulfstream jet and fly around US airspace if he wishes.

[JB Globe]

Countries need policies to safe guard their citizens and national interest.

Facts are individuals, epecially those who hold dual citizenship and in a time of terrorism, and partaking in international travel and under investigation could be considered a menace to the country and deportion should not have come as a surprise to Arar who dared to travel when he knew he was a terrorist suspect.

You dodged the question: Would you support the type of policies that lead to Maher Arar being tortured while innocent if it meant that YOU or someone you love had a chance of being put in his situation. Would you or would you not support this policy if you were tortured?

Also - why do you think the most hardcore supporters of racial profiling or similar policies are always people who are the LEAST affected by it?

I think you need to back up your statement that Arar "knew he was a terrorist suspect" when he traveled on vacation to Tunisia in 2002 - there is no mention of that in any of the timelines I'm aware of, including this one from CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/index.html

A criminal trial is what this man should have faced.

A criminal trial was never brought against him because the RCMP & CSIS admitted later that there was not enough evidence to warrant a trial. In fact, they dropped him as a "person of interest" altogether - meaning he wasn't even worth monitoring. The inquiry found that Arar posed absolutely no security threat, and had no actual connections to any sort of terrorist network.

It's unbelievable that after a inquiry by a top judge, and the support of Arar's case by both Liberal and Conservative governments, after admissions that he's not a threat by CSIS and the RCMP there are still people that insist he's a threat.

What is it that you know that CSIS doesn't know? And where did you get this information from?

[guyser]

You dodged the question: Would you support the type of policies that lead to Maher Arar being tortured while innocent if it meant that YOU or someone you love had a chance of being put in his situation. Would you or would you not support this policy if you were tortured?

A criminal trial was never brought against him because the RCMP & CSIS admitted later that there was not enough evidence to warrant a trial. In fact, they dropped him as a "person of interest" altogether - meaning he wasn't even worth monitoring. The inquiry found that Arar posed absolutely no security threat, and had no actual connections to any sort of terrorist network.

It's unbelievable that after a inquiry by a top judge, and the support of Arar's case by both Liberal and Conservative governments, after admissions that he's not a threat by CSIS and the RCMP there are still people that insist he's a threat.

What is it that you know that CSIS doesn't know? And where did you get this information from?

Geez, dont you know that facts have no bearing on this discussion? They are just jealous it wasnt them collecting the $10M

Edited August 16, 2007 by guyser

[Leafless]

You dodged the question: Would you support the type of policies that lead to Maher Arar being tortured while innocent if it meant that YOU or someone you love had a chance of being put in his situation.

Certainly I support these kinds of policies but what lead to Mr. Arar being tortured was simply because he was a Syrian, a citizen of Syria as well as of Canada.

The U.S. had evidence of their own on Mr. Arar and this is probably the main factor that led to his deportation.

Would you or would you not support this policy if you were tortured?

First of all I would not have been tortured, nor any of my family would have been tortured, nor anyone I know would NOT have been tortured, since we are all posess ONLY a single Canadian citizenship.

The only place any of us would have been deported is back to Canada.

Also - why do you think the most hardcore supporters of racial profiling or similar policies are always people who are the LEAST affected by it?

The war on terror is a weird war.

It is a poor man's war targetting countries of the world with the U.S. a special target.

Knowing this, it is beyond all logic as to why you would question, preliminary interrogation by a country trying its hardest to defend itself from from the effects of killer terrorist mostly or all from Islamic countries with Arab characteristics.

You call this racial profiling, under the conditions this war presents itself. LOL, all the way to the bathroom.

I think you need to back up your statement that Arar "knew he was a terrorist suspect".

Maybe not 'officially' but obviously he must have been aware of at least a few tell tale signs that he: "At the time their movements were under close scrutiny by at least three police surveillance teams."

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

A criminal trial was never brought against him because the RCMP & CSIS admitted later that there was not enough evidence to warrant a trial. In fact, they dropped him as a "person of interest" altogether - meaning he wasn't even worth monitoring. The inquiry found that Arar posed absolutely no security threat, and had no actual connections to any sort of terrorist network.

You don't know that for certain as a criminal trial could uncover plenty that the inquiry did not have the power to investigate.

Also there is U.S. evidence that to this day we don't know what it is.

One sure way to find what this evidence is to coach Mr. Arar to enter the U.S. where he would be quickly apprehended again and brought to trial.

It's unbelievable that after a inquiry by a top judge, and the support of Arar's case by both Liberal and Conservative governments, after admissions that he's not a threat by CSIS and the RCMP there are still people that insist he's a threat.

How do you know that when you don't know what the U.S. evidence is and what kind of kind of impact that would have in prompting further investigation in areas not covered by the inquiry here in Canada?

Here are a few other links for your reading pleasure:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002388.php

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...k=55410&p=1

Edited August 16, 2007 by Leafless

[bk59]

Maybe not 'officially' but obviously he must have been aware of at least a few tell tale signs that he: "At the time their movements were under close scrutiny by at least three police surveillance teams."

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

Not to be too picky here, but I think the whole point of police surveillance is that the person being watched has no clue that they are being followed. Surveillance would be pretty pointless if the suspects knew about it.

You don't know that for certain as a criminal trial could uncover plenty that the inquiry did not have the power to investigate.

Also there is U.S. evidence that to this day we don't know what it is.

One sure way to find what this evidence is to coach Mr. Arar to enter the U.S. where he would be quickly apprehended again and brought to trial.

How do you know that when you don't know what the U.S. evidence is and what kind of kind of impact that would have in prompting further investigation in areas not covered by the inquiry here in Canada?

Here are a few other links for your reading pleasure:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002388.php

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...k=55410&p=1

Do you not know how criminal investigations and trials work? You think a criminal trial would "uncover plenty that the inquiry did not have the power to investigate?" A criminal trial does not uncover anything. A trial simply means that you take the evidence that was found during the investigation and present it to a judge and jury. Arar was never tried because there was no evidence that would lead to criminal charges. The inquiry's purpose was partially to see if Arar had links to terrorism and it found none. Had someone tried to bring this to trial they would have been thrown out of the courtroom due to lack of evidence. A trial does not discover anything.

As for the US evidence, it seems clear that each time they present it to Canadian officials it is found insufficient. The US can keep Arar on their watch list if they really want to, but if that evidence really was worthwhile then I think the Canadian government would be doing something about it.