NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you not familiar with the Maher Arar (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/) case, the short of it is that Canadian law enforcement shared faulty intelligence with US law enforcement, which resulted in Arar being detained when he was in the US, and deported to Syria (despite being a Canadian citizen) where he was subsequently tortured. Later it came out that he was never any threat.

He has been publicly vindicated through an inquiry here, but the US still has him on a terror watch list, and is refusing (http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=4a373fda-7640-4350-bd37-cc95b2f42655&k=60272) to take him off. It's causing some political friction.

But essentially it boils down to this...do you think the US, or any country, should have to have a proven, valid reason to deny entry? Or should it continue to be arbitrary?

Gah, it's like no one has the energy to fight lately...

I know, I can't even summon up a wise-ass remark. Sorry, Neesika.

Yeah, even the ass-spanking thread died, despite our valiant efforts. It's like we're all taking a break from raging at one another. Where's Jesussaves when you need him?

Gah, it's like no one has the energy to fight lately...

Its a Thursday is why.

I think a more important thing here is sending a guy to be tortured in Syria randomly (though I suppose the only real difference is the race of the guy who’s ass raping you with the chair leg)

Yeah, even the ass-spanking thread died, despite our valiant efforts. It's like we're all taking a break from raging at one another. Where's Jesussaves when you need him?

Really. I'd be happy to revive the spanking thread, though I have to admit that I'm a little trepidacious about revealing such details in front of this crowd. Then again, the things I've heard here ... :p

Gah, it's like no one has the energy to fight lately...

I know, I can't even summon up a wise-ass remark. Sorry, Neesika.

I think a more important thing here is sending a guy to be tortured in Syria randomly (though I suppose the only real difference is the race of the guy who’s ass raping you with the chair leg)

It's a huge issue, and lawsuits aplenty are ongoing on Arar's behalf. Heads here have rolled, but I've yet to hear an apology from the US...and to add insult to injury, they continue to label him a threat to national security.

It's a huge issue, and lawsuits aplenty are ongoing on Arar's behalf. Heads here have rolled, but I've yet to hear an apology from the US...and to add insult to injury, they continue to label him a threat to national security.

Hey, US citizens can't get an apology from Bush, now you want he should apologize to Canada? Where you been, Neesika?

SNIP

America has a policy to not negotiate with terrorists or apologise or to follow international standards

Hey, US citizens can't get an apology from Bush, now you want he should apologize to Canada? Where you been, Neesika?

Good point.

Technically, it is your country, you can deny entry to whoever you want.

good luck with that :p

Technically, it is your country, you can deny entry to whoever you want. But since a country like America has things like "rights" then there should be some kind of proof before you won't let someone enter. The fact that the US has zero proof that Arar is any kind of threat and in fact know that they were mistaken, the man should not be denied anything. Then again you know that the government is in full CYA mode and admitting they messed up would make them look incompetant, weak, you know, stupid. Hardly something that can be allowed when you are trying to convince the American people that you can do no wrong and that your arrogance will protect them from the dangerous Islamofascists.

So a dangerous person Arar remains. Someone to be feared. To remind us all that there are threats out there. They may be manufactured by our own government but hey... you don't have to know that.

Yes they should be able to - but if people start complaining, they ought to start listening.

The entire affair has me rather annoyed. The US needs to start treating Canada with a little more respect. We've lost face because the US decided it'd be alright to send a Canadian citizen to Syria to get tortured day after day. Then we've got your crackpot ambassador, David Wilkins (a very Conservative person, the wrong man for an ambassadorship to a place like Canada <being Bush's friend doesn't qualify you>) telling us we're out of line by suggesting that the US remove Arar from the watch list.

Hehe... Not surprised at the lack of apologies. Not when the President has described leadership as Never admit that you are or were wrong. Not a direct quote, but he aparently has said something to that effect :)

No, not a proven reason, but a valid reason. Demnading absolute proof is asking too much.

If there is a serious suspicion that a person will commit hostile acts if he's allowed into the country, the government should be free to deny him entry. National security and all that jazz. However, it should not be arbitrary, there should be some kind of system to make sure the suspicions are valid, strong enough, based on credible evidence etc.

You know, some kind of... what's it called... something old-fashioned... um... Checks and balances? Oversight? Accountability?

:eek:

*dialing phone* Hello, Homeland Security? Yes, I'd like to report treasonous activity. Yes, I can get two witnesses ...

Hehe... Not surprised at the lack of apologies. Not when the President has described leadership as Never admit that you are or were wrong. Not a direct quote, but he aparently has said something to that effect :)

But essentially it boils down to this...do you think the US, or any country, should have to have a proven, valid reason to deny entry? Or should it continue to be arbitrary?
No, not a proven reason, but a valid reason. Demnading absolute proof is asking too much.

If there is a serious suspicion that a person will commit hostile acts if he's allowed into the country, the government should be free to deny him entry. National security and all that jazz. However, it should not be arbitrary, there should be some kind of system to make sure the suspicions are valid, strong enough, based on credible evidence etc.

You know, some kind of... what's it called... something old-fashioned... um... Checks and balances? Oversight? Accountability?

Hehe... Not surprised at the lack of apologies. Not when the President has described leadership as Never admit that you are or were wrong. Not a direct quote, but he aparently has said something to that effect :)

No, not a proven reason, but a valid reason. Demnading absolute proof is asking too much.

If there is a serious suspicion that a person will commit hostile acts if he's allowed into the country, the government should be free to deny him entry. National security and all that jazz. However, it should not be arbitrary, there should be some kind of system to make sure the suspicions are valid, strong enough, based on credible evidence etc.

I don't have any problem with this but in this case there certainly isn't anything near a valid reason. It is simply the government refusing to admit it was mistaken. And it is cases like this that would make me suspicious in the future when the government claims that it really does have a "valid" reason to keep someone out of the country.

You know, some kind of... what's it called... something old-fashioned... um... Checks and balances? Oversight? Accountability?

You are funny. *cough* *wheeze* Oversight... *laughs* *draws big breath* Accountability... *laughs* *takes many shallow breaths* *keeps laughing*

:D

I don't have any problem with this but in this case there certainly isn't anything near a valid reason. It is simply the government refusing to admit it was mistaken. And it is cases like this that would make me suspicious in the future when the government claims that it really does have a "valid" reason to keep someone out of the country.
Indeed, I agree. With all of it :)


You are funny. *cough* *wheeze* Oversight... *laughs* *draws big breath* Accountability... *laughs* *takes many shallow breaths* *keeps laughing*

:D
;)

I'm taking my act to Vegas! :D

Indeed, I agree. With all of it :)

Depressing when you think about it. How hard is it to admit that you screwed up this one time and simply be straight out with it? Much better then to try to hide it and have the truth come out anyway. Undermines trust in your abilities to handle a crisis when you do this and that the government is more interested in its image then in trying to actually protect you. Distressing. :(

;)

I'm taking my act to Vegas! :D

I will have to take a roadtrip and catch more of your act. :)

There's never going to be an apology from the United States, at least not while Il Douche the Decider is in office.

Don't get me wrong here...this whole mess was in huge part the fault of Canada. In the wake of 911, our Anti-Terrorism Act was rammed through Parliament with unprecedented haste, consider the sweeping changes it made to our Criminal Code, and various other statutory provisions. The delineation between CSIS, our intelligence-gathering agency, and the RCMP, our enforcement agency was blurred. A new operation unit was created within the RCMP to gather evidence and act to prevent terrorism. They neither had the training nor the expertise for this. They shared faulty information, in a manner inconsistent with how such intelligence is supposed to be shared, and they tried to cover it up when things went terribly wrong. Not only that, but the Canadian government CONTINUES to leak innuendo, despite the inquiry, that Arar 'must have done something wrong' to merit such attention. Canada deliberately did not demand his release from Syria, and only because of the pressure Arar has managed to bring to bear is there ANY further look into this at all.

Positives coming out of this is that the Anti-Terrorism Act is being challenged under the Charter, and Canada is being scrutinised internationally for basically allowing its citizens to be exported for torture. It has also brought to light the fact that ARAR IS NOT THE ONLY ONE.

So to demand an apology from the US with such dirty hands is a bit much, I can see that. Both governments have much to answer for...but the continuing victimisation of Arar and his family is really disgusting, and it would be a small thing to take him off the terror watch list.

The only thing the US should apologize for is deporting him to the wrong country. Arar should have been deported to Canada.

As for entry - as far as I'm concerned, the US has the absolute right to deny entry to any non-citizen for any reason whatsoever. Entry to the US is not a right for anyone except US citizens. Nor do I feel they are obliged to give any reason for refusal, and neither do I consider that there should be any right of appeal (though a method by which to request a review of status should probably exist, if for no other reason than that bureaucracies do make mistakes).

For those of you not familiar with the Maher Arar (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/) case, the short of it is that Canadian law enforcement shared faulty intelligence with US law enforcement, which resulted in Arar being detained when he was in the US, and deported to Syria (despite being a Canadian citizen) where he was subsequently tortured. Later it came out that he was never any threat.

He has been publicly vindicated through an inquiry here, but the US still has him on a terror watch list, and is refusing (http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=4a373fda-7640-4350-bd37-cc95b2f42655&k=60272) to take him off. It's causing some political friction.

But essentially it boils down to this...do you think the US, or any country, should have to have a proven, valid reason to deny entry? Or should it continue to be arbitrary?

Well, keeping him on this "terror watch list" makes sense in a sort of twisted way. Sending a random guy off to be tortured might piss him off and he might be more likely to become a "terrorist" after the experience.

The only thing the US should apologize for is deporting him to the wrong country. Arar should have been deported to Canada. The US deported a Canadian citizen to a country where the known investigative technique is torture. That alone raises serious issues, that perhaps may pale in comparison to other similar issues the US is facing. But just 'deporting him to the wrong country' is not the end of the line in respect to what the US should be apologising for.

As for entry - as far as I'm concerned, the US has the absolute right to deny entry to any non-citizen for any reason whatsoever. Entry to the US is not a right for anyone except US citizens. Nor do I feel they are obliged to give any reason for refusal, and neither do I consider that there should be any right of appeal (though a method by which to request a review of status should probably exist, if for no other reason than that bureaucracies do make mistakes).

So what, exactly, is the purpose of this power? If indeed it is to promote safety, then keeping him on the list does nothing to further that. If the point is a bit of border penis waving, consider us waved at. Now, you say, 'no appeal' and then in the same breath mention a request for review. Are these not in fact the same things? Or are you advocating a purely informal method of revisiting the issue?

So what, exactly, is the purpose of this power? If indeed it is to promote safety, then keeping him on the list does nothing to further that. If the point is a bit of border penis waving, consider us waved at. Now, you say, 'no appeal' and then in the same breath mention a request for review. Are these not in fact the same things? Or are you advocating a purely informal method of revisiting the issue?

The purpose of this power is to keep out anyone the US wants kept out. No more, no less. And it is a power every country in the world has, not just the US

An appeal usually denotes a case being sent to an independent body, such as a judge or ombudsman. A review on the other hand would be the same organization taking a second look at the evidence, to determine if the situation had either changed, or had been misconsidered in the first place. A review is generally cheaper and much quicker than an appeal.

The only thing the US should apologize for is deporting him to the wrong country. Arar should have been deported to Canada.

As for entry - as far as I'm concerned, the US has the absolute right to deny entry to any non-citizen for any reason whatsoever. Entry to the US is not a right for anyone except US citizens. Nor do I feel they are obliged to give any reason for refusal, and neither do I consider that there should be any right of appeal (though a method by which to request a review of status should probably exist, if for no other reason than that bureaucracies do make mistakes).


Arar was not attempting to enter the USA at the time. He was arrested by the INS (they're in charge of securing US borders now?) because of alleged links to Al-Qaeda.

So, while the US border people can deny anyone they want to the USA for any reason they want. They were fully in their right to deny him entrance to the USA.

Unilaterally deciding to incarcerate and then deport people without trial to another country, that is not the country of the person's residence, is a bit much.

The USA should apologise for kidnapping him. The officials involved should also be tried for criminal proceedings. Kidnapping is still a federal offense in the USA, right?

Apparently not when it is done against non-citizens by the government.

The purpose of this power is to keep out anyone the US wants kept out. No more, no less. And it is a power every country in the world has, not just the US

An appeal usually denotes a case being sent to an independent body, such as a judge or ombudsman. A review on the other hand would be the same organization taking a second look at the evidence, to determine if the situation had either changed, or had been misconsidered in the first place. A review is generally cheaper and much quicker than an appeal.

So you advocate a lack of checks and balances, in order to exercise a general power to limit access based on nothing more onerous than 'want'.

Do you take this position only in regards to people who are not US citizens? How about permanent residents of the US? Do you believe that US citizens themselves should be kept out if it is so desired?

Really. I'd be happy to revive the spanking thread, though I have to admit that I'm a little trepidacious about revealing such details in front of this crowd. Then again, the things I've heard here ... :p

oh come now, with half the crap I've admitted to on these forums, YOU are worried?

The purpose of this power is to keep out anyone the US wants kept out. No more, no less. And it is a power every country in the world has, not just the US

An appeal usually denotes a case being sent to an independent body, such as a judge or ombudsman. A review on the other hand would be the same organization taking a second look at the evidence, to determine if the situation had either changed, or had been misconsidered in the first place. A review is generally cheaper and much quicker than an appeal.

Perhaps the INS has a different mandate than whatever agency is responsible for US border security?

But essentially it boils down to this...do you think the US, or any country, should have to have a proven, valid reason to deny entry? Or should it continue to be arbitrary?

It should be arbitrary.

If you don't want someone to come into your house, do you feel that you must justify your decision to anyone?

So you advocate a lack of checks and balances, in order to exercise a general power to limit access based on nothing more onerous than 'want'.

I can live with that. Entry, to any country, is a privilege unless you are a citizen.


Do you take this position only in regards to people who are not US citizens? How about permanent residents of the US? Do you believe that US citizens themselves should be kept out if it is so desired?

Please read my first post. I made it quite clear that this applied only to non-citizens. US citizens, alone, have a right to enter or leave the coutry as they desire (provided they can legally enter the country they are going to, of course). As for permanent residents, they've already been allowed into the country, and therefore already have an entry visa.

I'm not quite certain what you're getting at. That organization would generally be the Customs Service.

Well, the Customs Service had nothing to do with Maher Arar. Perhaps the CS has the right to refuse entry, but the INS has the right to incarcerate and deport him without a trial, as they did.

What I am getting at is that the US does not need to apologise to Arar for denying him entrance to the US, or even deporting him, if he had ever entered the country.

It was the being arrested and sent off to torture that merits the apology.

The Customs Service and their powers have nothing to do with it, in my mind.

I can live with that. Entry, to any country, is a privilege unless you are a citizen. That's a debate for another thread, but I strongly disagree.


Please read my first post. I made it quite clear that this applied only to non-citizens. US citizens, alone, have a right to enter or leave the coutry as they desire (provided they can legally enter the country they are going to, of course). As for permanent residents, they've already been allowed into the country, and therefore already have an entry visa.
Ah yes. Visas ensure that the people entering your country are safe. Oh. Wait. Didn't something happen to disprove that?

Perhaps the INS has a different mandate than whatever agency is responsible for US border security?

I'm not quite certain what you're getting at. That organization would generally be the Customs Service.

That's a debate for another thread, but I strongly disagree.

That's cool. It would be very boring if everyone agreed with me all the time. :)


Ah yes. Visas ensure that the people entering your country are safe. Oh. Wait. Didn't something happen to disprove that?

They're still the only practical way of controlling the influx and outflux of non-nationals across borders. We just need to do our best to ensure they're only issued to people we like.

Which is one of the major reasons why I don't like appeals processes for entry. If INS denies a person because they suspect, but can't prove, that he's connected to someone unpleasent, that should be enough - but might well NOT be enough for some "impartial" judge.

Which is one of the major reasons why I don't like appeals processes for entry. If INS denies a person because they suspect, but can't prove, that he's connected to someone unpleasent, that should be enough - but might well NOT be enough for some "impartial" judge.

Minor point of clarification. The INS doesn't exist anymore.

GofG etc...I have the weirdest sense of deja vu here, and I don't know why...

According to my Jolt Clock, you will post the above in about 4 minutes...

Ah, now I get you.

To me, the US had every right to deport him, as you said. But they had an obligation, while he was in their care, to deport him to his HOME country and ensure his safety. That is where they failed, and that is what merits the apology.

You don't think the arbitrary and indefinite detention also merits something of an apology?

2 minutes from now...

Which is one of the major reasons why I don't like appeals processes for entry. If INS denies a person because they suspect, but can't prove, that he's connected to someone unpleasent, that should be enough - but might well NOT be enough for some "impartial" judge.

Alright, well let's look at that. What is it about someone making a judgment call based on a total lack of proof, something that you feel is necessary to protect? Why, in your mind, are suspicions not only ENOUGH, but something that should not be appealed? Are you then simply dismissing the unfettered possibility of decisions based on bigotry, or are you outright supporting that as a valid risk?

What has replaced it?

Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS). Prior to March 2003 the INS was under the department of justice. As of March 1st, 2003 the INS was turned into the BCIS and placed under the department of homeland security.

The INS as an agency no longer exists.

GofG etc...I have the weirdest sense of deja vu here, and I don't know why...

Well, the Customs Service had nothing to do with Maher Arar. Perhaps the CS has the right to refuse entry, but the INS has the right to incarcerate and deport him without a trial, as they did.

What I am getting at is that the US does not need to apologise to Arar for denying him entrance to the US, or even deporting him, if he had ever entered the country.

It was the being arrested and sent off to torture that merits the apology.

The Customs Service and their powers have nothing to do with it, in my mind.

Ah, now I get you.

To me, the US had every right to deport him, as you said. But they had an obligation, while he was in their care, to deport him to his HOME country and ensure his safety. That is where they failed, and that is what merits the apology.

Minor point of clarification. The INS doesn't exist anymore.

What has replaced it?

Alright, well let's look at that. What is it about someone making a judgment call based on a total lack of proof, something that you feel is necessary to protect? Why, in your mind, are suspicions not only ENOUGH, but something that should not be appealed? Are you then simply dismissing the unfettered possibility of decisions based on bigotry, or are you outright supporting that as a valid risk?

I'm considering it an acceptable risk (and note that I do support there being a process of review - and that most times, reviews of cases in a bureaucracy are not done by the same officer as did the initial assessment).

As for suspicions being enough - yes, I accept that. This situation is the mirror image of the one that happens in the courts every day. There, the situation is that better a hundred criminals go free than one innocent man be jailed. Here, it is better that one hundred innocent men not be allowed in than one dangerous man be permitted.

I'm considering it an acceptable risk (and note that I do support there being a process of review - and that most times, reviews of cases in a bureaucracy are not done by the same officer as did the initial assessment). So you support a self-governing body, given wide discretionary powers with no requirment to introduce facts, that may or may not reverse a decision based on more lack of facts? So, essentially you favour gut instinct over any exercise of reason?

As for suspicions being enough - yes, I accept that. This situation is the mirror image of the one that happens in the courts every day. There, the situation is that better a hundred criminals go free than one innocent man be jailed. Here, it is better that one hundred innocent men not be allowed in than one dangerous man be permitted.Sorry? In the courts, the standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. So if by mirror image you actually mean the total and complete opposite, then you have a point, though I fail to see how that bolsters your argument in any way. There is never a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that someone will be 'safe' to enter your country.

Ah, now I get you.

To me, the US had every right to deport him, as you said. But they had an obligation, while he was in their care, to deport him to his HOME country and ensure his safety. That is where they failed, and that is what merits the apology.

Regardless of the "who enters" issue, he deserves not only an apology, but also a few million dollars on damages, and to see whoever did this pay.

So you support a self-governing body, given wide discretionary powers with no requirment to introduce facts, that may or may not reverse a decision based on more lack of facts? So, essentially you favour gut instinct over any exercise of reason?

Why are you assuming the INS (or whatever it's called now) wouldn't be using primarily as many facts as were available to it? I simply don't see why we should institute an expensive, time-consuming appeals process that might well compromise our security.


Sorry? In the courts, the standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. So if by mirror image you actually mean the total and complete opposite, then you have a point, though I fail to see how that bolsters your argument in any way.

I think you're deliberately misreading my post. The basis of criminal law is that unless the person is shown betond a reasonable doubt to be guilty, he is innocent. But for allowing people into our country, we should be looking at the opposite - unless someone is clearly desirable, we should turn them away. Refusal of entry is not harmful, after all.

Why are you assuming the INS (or whatever it's called now) wouldn't be using primarily as many facts as were available to it? I simply don't see why we should institute an expensive, time-consuming appeals process that might well compromise our security.



I think you're deliberately misreading my post. The basis of criminal law is that unless the person is shown betond a reasonable doubt to be guilty, he is innocent. But for allowing people into our country, we should be looking at the opposite - unless someone is clearly desirable, we should turn them away. Refusal of entry is not harmful, after all.

I think however, at bare minimum, we must recognize some human element. What you've advocated would gut asylum law as we know it.

Why are you assuming the INS (or whatever it's called now) wouldn't be using primarily as many facts as were available to it? I simply don't see why we should institute an expensive, time-consuming appeals process that might well compromise our security. Why are you assuming they would be, if you insist that this should not be a requirement?



I think you're deliberately misreading my post. The basis of criminal law is that unless the person is shown betond a reasonable doubt to be guilty, he is innocent. But for allowing people into our country, we should be looking at the opposite - unless someone is clearly desirable, we should turn them away. Refusal of entry is not harmful, after all.

It absolutely is harmful. It is harmful when you need to attend a conference in the US, and are prevented from making it because you are suddenly on a list of suspected terrorists. It is harmful when your colleagues learn of this, and it is even more harmful when your possible future business associates find out. It is harmful if you happen to have family you'd like to visit in the US, and are prevented from doing so...and the option for them to visit you is non-existent due to financial restraints. It is harmful when being on a US watch-list gets communicated (as it does) to domestic authorities, and you become a target of surveillance. It is damaging personally and professionally, when the reason is an unfounded suspicion that is given the weight of law.

I think however, at bare minimum, we must recognize some human element. What you've advocated would gut asylum law as we know it.

Now, there you have a point. But then, our current system places asylum seekers in a separate category, doesn't it? I see no reason for that not to continue.

Why are you assuming they would be, if you insist that this should not be a requirement?


I didn't say it wasn't a requirement. I said the organisation responsible should have discretion to refuse, and that they should not be forced to have someone else second-guess everything they do.


It absolutely is harmful. It is harmful when you need to attend a conference in the US, and are prevented from making it because you are suddenly on a list of suspected terrorists. It is harmful when your colleagues learn of this, and it is even more harmful when your possible future business associates find out. It is harmful if you happen to have family you'd like to visit in the US, and are prevented from doing so...and the option for them to visit you is non-existent due to financial restraints. It is harmful when being on a US watch-list gets communicated (as it does) to domestic authorities, and you become a target of surveillance. It is damaging personally and professionally, when the reason is an unfounded suspicion that is given the weight of law.

And I also said nothing about watchlists or lists of suspected terrorists. IN FACT, it was in part to PREVENT such suspicions that I feel that the INS should not disclose it's reasons for refusal. ALL I am speaking of is access to entry into the US. Yes, I can see it being annoying to not be able to attend a conference. Yes, I can see it being emotionally painful to be unable to see family, and I find it unfortunate. But that is not a good enough reason for open slather across our borders.

For those of you not familiar with the Maher Arar (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/) case, the short of it is that Canadian law enforcement shared faulty intelligence with US law enforcement, which resulted in Arar being detained when he was in the US, and deported to Syria (despite being a Canadian citizen) where he was subsequently tortured. Later it came out that he was never any threat.

He has been publicly vindicated through an inquiry here, but the US still has him on a terror watch list, and is refusing (http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=4a373fda-7640-4350-bd37-cc95b2f42655&k=60272) to take him off. It's causing some political friction.

But essentially it boils down to this...do you think the US, or any country, should have to have a proven, valid reason to deny entry? Or should it continue to be arbitrary?
We don't know they wre wrong. Canada admitted it had no reason to think he was a threat, but the US might have different information.

We don't know they wre wrong. Canada admitted it had no reason to think he was a threat, but the US might have different information.

Bullshit. The information they US had was entirely Canadian-created. The information sharing goes both ways...though things are back to that information being funneled through CSIS rather than the Mounties...and the inquiry revealed that there was NOTHING linking him in any way to terror, period. Not from Canadian sources, not from US sources.

Oh, and I just wanted to thank Dododecapod for being a good sport by the way.

...and the inquiry revealed that there was NOTHING linking him in any way to terror, period. Not from Canadian sources, not from US sources.

His name and skin color.

Some breaking news (http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-26T141723Z_01_N26428392_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-ARAR-COL.XML):

"OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada will formally apologize on Friday to software engineer Maher Arar, who was deported to Syria by U.S. agents after Canadian police mistakenly labeled him an Islamic extremist, and offer him C$10 million ($8.5 million) compensation, according to media reports.

Arar, who says he was repeatedly tortured during the year he spent in Damascus jails, had initially sued Ottawa for C$400 million, a figure he later cut to C$37 million. CBC Television said the settlement would be for C$10 million, while CTV said Ottawa would also pay Arar's C$2 million legal bills."

$12 million in compensation and a formal apology. I never thought it would happen. And as much as some of you may hate lawyers...those $2 million in legal fees were mostly fronted by firms specialising in civil liberties. It would have been unlikely in the extreme that he'd have been able to pursue this as far as it has gone otherwise. The fact that it WAS pursued can perhaps shed light on the minimum of three other men that have suffered the same fate.

Some breaking news (http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-26T141723Z_01_N26428392_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-ARAR-COL.XML):

"OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada will formally apologize on Friday to software engineer Maher Arar, who was deported to Syria by U.S. agents after Canadian police mistakenly labeled him an Islamic extremist, and offer him C$10 million ($8.5 million) compensation, according to media reports.

Arar, who says he was repeatedly tortured during the year he spent in Damascus jails, had initially sued Ottawa for C$400 million, a figure he later cut to C$37 million. CBC Television said the settlement would be for C$10 million, while CTV said Ottawa would also pay Arar's C$2 million legal bills."

$12 million in compensation and a formal apology. I never thought it would happen. And as much as some of you may hate lawyers...those $2 million in legal fees were mostly fronted by firms specialising in civil liberties. It would have been unlikely in the extreme that he'd have been able to pursue this as far as it has gone otherwise. The fact that it WAS pursued can perhaps shed light on the minimum of three other men that have suffered the same fate.

I think we can all count this as good news.

the issue of the USA not taking off the terror watch list is ca$h related...if they were to take off the list they would be admitting they were wrong and financially responsible for damages to Arar and possibly his family as well...Arar's brother is also on the list and has been ruined financially because his transport firm can no longer cross the border into the US...

plus if they compensate Arar they could also be open to litigation from innocent Guantanmo Bay detainees...

the issue of the USA not taking off the terror watch list is ca$h related...if they were to take off the list they would be admitting they were wrong and financially responsible for damages to Arar and possibly his family as well...Arar's brother is also on the list and has been ruined financially because his transport firm can no longer cross the border into the US...

plus if they compensate Arar they could also be open to litigation from innocent Guantanmo Bay detainees...


This makes a lot of sense. I am inclined to believe this. The US government also is currently detaining people who made it to the US to claim refugee status, but have been rejected, yet the countries of origin will not accept them back. They may be trying to avoid paying these people too.

Sucks when Canda fucks up, huh? But isn't it just neat that the blame can be shifted to the US? :rolleyes:

Sucks when Canda fucks up, huh? But isn't it just neat that the blame can be shifted to the US? :rolleyes:

Since the U.S. screwed up as well by acting on the faulty intelligence and refuses to admit its mistake, I don't see how anyone can argue that we aren't as at fault as Canada is. Refusing to take Arar off the terror watch list is pure CYA. Or perhaps it is just arrogance? Can't have big bad America admit it was wrong, right?

Since the U.S. screwed up as well by acting on the faulty intelligence and refuses to admit its mistake, I don't see how anyone can argue that we aren't as at fault as Canada is. Refusing to take Arar off the terror watch list is pure CYA. Or perhaps it is just arrogance? Can't have big bad America admit it was wrong, right?

Just like we can't have silly Canada be wrong either, right? Must be the evil US. :rolleyes:

Just like we can't have silly Canada be wrong either, right? Must be the evil US. :rolleyes:

I don't recall Canada having our wonderful reputation of covering up the truth and not admitting their mistakes. We have this one case as an example and it seems they are admitting their error and compensating Arar. I wonder what the odds are of the US admitting anything in this case?

I don't recall Canada having our wonderful reputation of covering up the truth and not admitting their mistakes. We have this one case as an example and it seems they are admitting their error and compensating Arar. I wonder what the odds are of the US admitting anything in this case?

How very convenient for Canada that they can shift the blame for results of their faulty intel to the US, eh?

How very convenient for Canada that they can shift the blame for results of their faulty intel to the US, eh?

If you had read the linked articles, you would have been aware that Canada has admitted to making a mistake, Canadian government officials have resigned, and the mistakes are being reviewed to minimise the chances of such a thing happening again in Canada, or due to Canadain intelligence.

No one is trying to blame the US for faulty intel.

We are wondering why the US government will not admit to error when it kidnapped this Canadian citizen and sent him to be tortured.

If you can not contribute anything meaningful to the debate, at least try not to spread misinformation.

How very convenient for Canada that they can shift the blame for results of their faulty intel to the US, eh?

If someone is given faulty information you don't just shrug and say "Its not OUR fault! We were given bad intel!" We have no responsibility at all? One would think that the US could admit that it was given faulty intelligence and repair the damage done to Arar and his family. But no. Even though the US knows it is mistaken it won't back down on its claim that Arar is a suspected terrorist. Even though they know it is bullshit. It doesn't matter if Canada screwed up with giving the US bad info, the US still has the responsibility to clear Arars name and admit the error. Our arrogance will not allow us to admit this mistake.

Our arrogance will not allow us to admit this mistake.


"Our arrogance"? Please don't include me in your self-flagellation.

Just like we can't have silly Canada be wrong either, right? Must be the evil US. :rolleyes:

duh...Canada has admitted it's error, the US should have the maturity to do so as well...

I'm both embarrassed and pissed at the incompetence of our intelligence agencies fucking up a man's life because he had lunch with someone suspicious...this was like back in the McCarthy era when lives could be ruined by innuendo...

I am quite proud of our system that exonerated Arar and compensated him for the miscarriage of justice and denial of human rights...the man in charge lost his job and more may follow which would be deserved for their incompetence...the US isn't responsible for the faulty intelligence that's all Canada's responsibility and Canada has accepted that...the US is responsible for denying his human rights when they detained him and then knowingly sent a Canadian citizen to a country who they knew would torture him...for that they owe the man a public apology, financial compensation and the dismissal of the man who authorized his being sent to Syria...

"Our arrogance"? Please don't include me in your self-flagellation.

My "our" is meant to be our government. Unfortunately Bush represents the United States so if he is arrogant then you can say America is arrogant as well so that is why I used the collective "we" of America but I understand the confusion.

I don't like saying all Americans are like Bush because I know we are not. For me I would have admitted our error long ago instead of continuing the charade that Arar is dangerous. I notice you don't want to give America any blame for this mistake but if we won't take Arar of the terror watch list then we become guilty by still allowing this faulty intel to affect our decisions.

For those of you not familiar with the Maher Arar (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/) case, the short of it is that Canadian law enforcement shared faulty intelligence with US law enforcement, which resulted in Arar being detained when he was in the US, and deported to Syria (despite being a Canadian citizen) where he was subsequently tortured. Later it came out that he was never any threat.

He has been publicly vindicated through an inquiry here, but the US still has him on a terror watch list, and is refusing (http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=4a373fda-7640-4350-bd37-cc95b2f42655&k=60272) to take him off. It's causing some political friction.

But essentially it boils down to this...do you think the US, or any country, should have to have a proven, valid reason to deny entry? Or should it continue to be arbitrary?

Frankly I thought the comments from the American ambassador, Wilkins, the other day smelled fairly fishy - kinda like the Bush admin decided to throw Stevie Harper a bone to make him look "tough on the U.S." in front of his Canadian electorate, particularly knowing there'll be abother election this year in Canada - a campaign Harper is already marshalling his Tory forces to win. Both Stevie and Mr. Bush's handlers know it's important for a strong Canadian PM to be seen to thumb their nose at Republican Presidents.

I'm not buying their routine - I ain't that gullible.

My question is: Did they send Mr. Maher Arar the bill for the plane ticket?

Sucks when Canda fucks up, huh? But isn't it just neat that the blame can be shifted to the US? :rolleyes:

You're (as usual) missing the point entirely. There has been an exhaustive inquiry, heads have rolled, Constitutional challenges brought, and now a $12 million dollar compensation package and a formal apology. Canada fucked up big time, and will continue (rightly) to pay for this serious breach of human rights. The US, however, is unrepentant in terms of its involvement.

Sucks when you can't sidestep the issue by pretending this is about a grudge, 'eh?

Edit: and for once, do a little work, and actually use the supplied links. If you want to claim you did, then explain how you can claim in any sense that the Canadian government has blamed the US for this and taken no personal responsibility.

Frankly I thought the comments from the American ambassador, Wilkins, the other day smelled fairly fishy - kinda like the Bush admin decided to throw Stevie Harper a bone to make him look "tough on the U.S." in front of his Canadian electorate, particularly knowing there'll be abother election this year in Canada - a campaign Harper is already marshalling his Tory forces to win. Both Stevie and Mr. Bush's handlers know it's important for a strong Canadian PM to be seen to thumb their nose at Republican Presidents.

I'm not buying their routine - I ain't that gullible.

I agree completely by the way. Harper has been viewed as soft towards the US, especially after the softwood lumber capitulation. As usual, I think you've seen to the heart of this issue.

You're (as usual) missing the point entirely. There has been an exhaustive inquiry, heads have rolled, Constitutional challenges brought, and now a $12 million dollar compensation package and a formal apology. Canada fucked up big time, and will continue (rightly) to pay for this serious breach of human rights. The US, however, is unrepentant in terms of its involvement.

Sucks when you can't sidestep the issue by pretending this is about a grudge, 'eh?

Edit: and for once, do a little work, and actually use the supplied links. If you want to claim you did, then explain how you can claim in any sense that the Canadian government has blamed the US for this and taken no personal responsibility.

Good rebuttals, but lost on a hardcore Bushevik like Cluichstan.

Good rebuttals, but lost on a hardcore Bushevik like Cluichstan.

Perhaps, but I'd like to see him do more than interject uninformed one-liners. I'm fairly certain he is in fact capable of more. See, he'd have a good point were it not for the rebuttals, so perhaps now he'll take an interest in the subject matter and TRY AGAIN.

Bullshit. The information they US had was entirely Canadian-created.
And you know this how?
The information sharing goes both ways.
And you trust the US to tell us everything?
the inquiry revealed that there was NOTHING linking him in any way to terror, period. Not from Canadian sources, not from US sources.
And the inquiry had full access to US intelligence files?

I don't think any of these things are true, which means we can't draw definitive conclusions about what the US does and doesn't know (or thinks it knows).

It's certainly possible that they're only doing this to avoid liability, but we don't know that.

And you know this how?

And you trust the US to tell us everything? In this case, yes. If for no other reason than good neighbours should share information about a potential terrorist threat. That is of course what is at the foundation of our system of intellience sharing. If the US has information about Arar that indicates he could actually be a threat to either the US or Canada, they are being irresponsible in not sharing that.

What we do know:
The US did not put Arar on a watchlist until Canadian authorities first gave the faulty intel.

Absolutely no US information about Arar was communicated to Canadian authorities, indicating a lack of such evidence, not simply a reluctance to share, based on the relationship already developed between our intelligence services.

And you know this how?

And you trust the US to tell us everything?

And the inquiry had full access to US intelligence files?

I don't think any of these things are true, which means we can't draw definitive conclusions about what the US does and doesn't know (or thinks it knows).

It's certainly possible that they're only doing this to avoid liability, but we don't know that.

If the USA had any evidience whatsoever that he was a threat, then Arar would still be lingering in a Syrian cell, or Camp X-Ray, or some unnamed camp somewhere.

If the USA had any evidience whatsoever that he was a threat, then Arar would still be lingering in a Syrian cell, or Camp X-Ray, or some unnamed camp somewhere.

Also an excellent (if sad) point.

If the USA had any evidience whatsoever that he was a threat, then Arar would still be lingering in a Syrian cell, or Camp X-Ray, or some unnamed camp somewhere.
If he enters the US again, that's exactly what will happen.

If he enters the US again, that's exactly what will happen.

Which would amount to complete asshattery. Fucking dullards.

If he enters the US again, that's exactly what will happen.

Ah...land of the free-unless-we-have-the-least-unfounded-suspicion-about-you-dirty-Muslims.

Name checkin' for CanuckHeaven.

For those of you not familiar with the Maher Arar (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/) case, the short of it is that Canadian law enforcement shared faulty intelligence with US law enforcement, which resulted in Arar being detained when he was in the US, and deported to Syria (despite being a Canadian citizen) where he was subsequently tortured. Later it came out that he was never any threat.

He has been publicly vindicated through an inquiry here, but the US still has him on a terror watch list, and is refusing (http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=4a373fda-7640-4350-bd37-cc95b2f42655&k=60272) to take him off. It's causing some political friction.

But essentially it boils down to this...do you think the US, or any country, should have to have a proven, valid reason to deny entry? Or should it continue to be arbitrary?

Well, if it happened to me, I might just BECOME a threat! :p

"Our arrogance"? Please don't include me in your self-flagellation.

No. In this case, I would say it is your arrogance. If acting on wrong information, I shot you in the head, can I say "well, not my fault" and walk away without punishment?

Answer your question carefully. I might have a loaded gun.

If he enters the US again, that's exactly what will happen.

I'd have to ask on what basis? Being on the program of their frequent torturer miles?

If the USA had any evidience whatsoever that he was a threat, then Arar would still be lingering in a Syrian cell, or Camp X-Ray, or some unnamed camp somewhere.

Of course they don't have any evidence but it doesn't really seem to help Arar's case all that much. Though I wonder if the US finally admitted its error if he would want to come back. His treatment thus far would indicate that he isn't exactly thought much of. Wouldn't be surprised if America was written off by him from previous actions. Hard not to feel any ill will toward us given what happened to the man.