The Shotgun Blog
« I Sure Do Miss The Hanging Chads | Main | What Benedict's speech was really about »
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
I have my own Maher Arar question
I was somewhat surprised to see the report this morning that a Canadian inquiry found the RCMP had given shoddy information on Maher Arar. I was less surprised by the utter hypocrisy of the Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, who seemed to forget who was running the country during the Arar fiasco (Canadian Press).
That said, there is still at least one very large question O'Connor et al have not answered, for the simple reason that it is one those of us south of the 49th must address.
When we had Arar in custody, with the information (whatever its value) given to us by the Mounties, we could have sent to him to Guantanamo Bay, a slew of other military bases, or some holding facilities run by intelligence agencies in Europe.
So, who was the genius who decided a terrorist suspect should be handed over to one of the leading sponsors of Middle Eastern terrorism?
Posted by D.J. McGuire on September 19, 2006 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834e7f0cb69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I have my own Maher Arar question:
Comments
It was the Amrican agencies ...probably the FBI who not having anything usefull to go on erred on the side of caution and shipped his ass over there.
The Gitmo facility did not exist until AFTER the invasion of Afghanistan.
In any case the correct hing to do would have been to send him back to Canada for processing......
Posted by: OMMAG | 2006-09-19 9:34:45 PM
I have always had MY own question.
Arar was supposedly suspected by the RCMP and the US Feds of terrorist connections. Syria is a terror sponsor - certainly no friend of the USA and the West. So why would the Syrians torture someone who is thought to be their ally in terror against the West?
This whole Arar thing just doesn't add up.
Posted by: JR | 2006-09-20 12:45:24 AM
I've thought about this a fair bit too. The thing that catches my eye is that the Americans nabbed him, and then got info on him from us. So why did the Yankees find him of interest? And why did the Syrians find him of interest? And what did he do to piss off Syria?
I hate to break it to Jack Layton and his gang of Arar-defenders, by Syria may be a desolate third world dictatorship, but its not Cuba or North Korea or Red China: they treat you like shit in prison, but you actually have to DO something to wind up in there. Just having GW Bush say "put him in jail" doesn't seem like the kind of thing the Syrians would really be too excited about.
My old theory, which has to be dusted off again, is that Arar's wife (who has a Ph.D in Finance) was helping the electrical engineering whiz finance terrorist operations, the Yankees caught wind of it, and wanted to see what we had on him. We had a bunch of clumsy intel, but that was enough to justify hauling him to Syria knowing that whatever scam he was pulling off offended the Syrian authorities in some way (skimming off their government, or who knows). So naturally the RCMP had to admit they had nothing on him. Arar knows the Yankees don't want to publicize the details of his actions to bar copycats, so he can be a big fat annoyance to them with no chance of Ashcroft giving up the game just to nab this guy.
I agree wholeheartedly with you JR, something here just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If Arar's so innocent, why doesn't he just tell us what he was accused of. And why his "aquaintance" ended up in Syrian prison as well would be a nice afterthought.
Posted by: Feynman and Coulter's Love Child | 2006-09-20 3:01:21 AM
I do not accept the premise that the RCMP provided "shoddy" information on Arar. They would have provided the best available, and subjected to due diligence. The "Arar" Case was
created in the Ottawa and Toronto Media. My opinion was and is that Arar and his wife were part of an modest Canadian based operation funneling money to organizations throughout the
Middle East and Pakistan engaged in a form of Muslim led hostile activity against the Western
Alliance. Arar should be dealt with in a Canadian Court of Ordinary Criminal Juridiction
and charged under appropriate Canadian Legislation. Whoever sent him to Syria I wager was not a member of the RCMP, but a flunky in Cotler's Justice Department which gave Canada Same Sex Marriage. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-09-20 5:53:19 AM
The Arar "clearance" by Justice O'Connor continues to be a big cause celeb for Layton and crew to carp on about. The Liberals can have little to criticize, it's their baby and Cotler would do well to clam up on the subject and let this Government get on with fixing yet another of his Party's SNAFU's.
Thankfully we have a PM who will not make any snap decisions or take any wrong actions for political expediency so rife in the previous government.
Harper will do it right and he has nothing to apologize for. The "sorry's will have to come from the Liberal ranks.
Arar may be cleared but a lot of unanswered questions remain. Only a stupid fool would go to bat for something so murky.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-09-20 6:40:20 AM
What was CSIS's role in this?
Yes, under the Liberals the RCMP was politicized to the point of becoming the Liberal Party's private Gestapo, but the Arar case is a security intelligence issue. Wasn't CSIS created to separate the security intelligence portfolio from the policing assignment of the RCMP?
Did the followed recommendations of the MacDonald Commission fail to keep this sort of thing from happening?
http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/DefaultSite/Archive/index_e.aspx?articleid=874
In the 1920s, The RCMP assumed the duties of national counter-intelligence which continued for decades. However, by the late 1960s, it was discovered the force had engaged in crimes in the course of their intelligence duties such as burning a barn and stealing documents from the seperatist Parti Québécois among other abuses. This led to a royal commission called the Royal Commission of Inquiry Into Certain Activities of The RCMP[?], better known as the Macdonald Commission, named after the participating judge David Macdonald. The commission recommended that the force's intelligences duties be removed in favour of the creation of a separate intelligence agency which was named The Canadian Security Intelligence Service[?] (CSIS).
from:
http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/ro/Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-20 7:19:08 AM
Speller is right. CSIS has never been able to equal the abilities of the RCMP in a security and protection role, because of it's political mandate which was and remains to be a patronage broker for the backrooms of the Federal Liberal Party. As I remember, one of the young Quebec lawyers who worked in the Royal Commission was
the Right Honorable Brian Mulroney QC. I remember him as a very smart lawyer in those days
and highly thought of by the Quebec Bar Association. The MLM however if they have an semblence of honest reporting should focus on the
career of Justice O'Connor QC. Guess who appointed him? - Macleod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-09-20 7:58:03 AM
So the courts exonerated Arar. Big deal. Knowing their record these days, who does it not?
Sadly to say that present rulings from the courts
do not give us much confidence or cause to celebrate about.
Posted by: Frico | 2006-09-20 8:56:53 AM
Folks it's just another Liberal Scandal and we are all going to pay. When the Hell are the people of Canada going to wake up?
The compensation to Arar should come right out of the Liberal coffers and the RCMP should be investigated from top down. This is a disgrace to the Force and the man at the top, a Liberal appointee as well, should have the decency to take responsibility and resign. Otherwise they should stick to their Musical Ride and get out of the Police business, they're just a pretty picture in Red Serge, a symbol of bygone days.
They're out of their league on intelligence matters and that's proven here.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-09-20 9:02:40 AM
I would love to see a good debate about citizenship come out of this case, unfortunately I haven't seen much of one brewing. Arar unfortunately was sent to a country where he is a full citizen and while Syria recognizes dual citizenship it does so with the legal exception that a Syrian citizen with dual citizenship is considered a Syrian first - this limits the ability of outside governments from assisting dual nationals.
This whole situation could have been avoided if Canada only allowed exclusive Canadian citizenship - no more dual/multiple citizenships. This is the only way that Canada will be able to fully protect those who hold citizenship. Alternatively, for the individual, if they want Canada to be fully responsible for them when abroad, renouncing other citizenships is only logical.
Unfortunately, as with Syrian citizenship, this may not always be an easy solution. However I think it is the only solution which will allow Canada to protect her nationals in the way everyone seems to expect her to.
Posted by: Denis | 2006-09-20 9:39:52 AM
Denis, unless Canada has some kind of important trade relationship with a country, that country can do anything they want to a member of 'Club Canada' without ANY repercussions.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-20 9:51:13 AM
Denis,
Although hind sight is rediculous, looking at the matter, without any information, and a straight analysis, is better than going on the gossip.
Whether right or wrong, Arar ended up in America. And, America really did not want to detain him all that bad, and he was not an American citizen.
So, they sent him back to one of the nations, of which Arar is a full citizen. For reasons they know about, but we do not, they sent him to Syria.
One would think that naturally, a nation would not do to others the horrors that they have been known to do to those who are not citizens. So, perhaps it was assummed that he was better off in Syria? Maybe there simply was no assumption, and it was like the flipping of a coin? Or, since he had come from over seas, to Canada, and then to the States, perhaps it was as silly as a perception that he was more from Syria than he was from Canada? Who really knows what was going on in the post 9.11 shell shocked America?
Yet, once he arrived in Syria, it was known that he was a Canadian citizen, and that he had been in custody in the US. Since Arar says he had no connection to the terrorists who are backed by Syria and Iran, who did he have to vouch for him? Apparently no one. Therefore, as far as the psychotic paranoid delusions of the terrorists and their supporters are concerned, without anyone to vouch for him, they may have concluded that he was a plant of some kind, there to represent the west, in some underground type manner.
So, what did he know? They used the ways that they feel are legitimate, torture, in Syria, to get out of him knowledge that they thought and must have believed that he possessed. Thes ways are not the ways of Canada, and indeed, Canada never made or permitted the Syrians to torture Arar.
Fact is, had he actually been a terrorist, nothing would have happenned to him in Syria?
And, given the nature of the times, and the delusions that the terrorists have of Americans, and others in the west, perhaps Arar was a symbol of the apostate? Whether or not this is true, is besides the point, as I am not interested in whether it is true or not. No one has the right to define for him a matter that he would not apply to himself, on religous terms, in a free nation. The question of his spirituality, or none, has nothing to do with it, from a Canadian perspective. But, just because this is true from a Canadian perspective, does not mean it is true from a Syrian perspective. Or for that matter, they who work and apply methodologies in areas of security, in Syria, where torture is a recognized practice, with paid practitioners.
Those who have a knowledge of the framework that the terrorists use, in islamofacism, know that the terrorist forces have declared war on all the infidels and apostates. Since apostates and infidels are all considered beneath being human, this gives them license to do whatever they want, or fear, with the apostate or infidel. Therefore, like Iran killed Kazimi, (through dispicable act of torture), merely torturing Arar, perhaps seemed to them to be, rather nice. In other words, they might consider it generous that a person who is not considered to be one of the "true believers" to be permitted to live, and only tortured?
Was this way of viewing the world, by Syrians, generally known at the time that Arar was sent to the US, and subsequently deported and handed over to Syrians? I really don't believe that as a general rule, the average police officer, even in CSIS, or even in the US, even in federal positions, really had knowledge on the severity of the treatment that was handed down against those deemed enemies, or suspect enemies of the state, in places such as Syria. Or, for that matter, considered to be there for suspect reasons.
And, if we think we are ever going to get the truth out of them, then we might as well wait for an eternity, as they do not feel it is within our rights, (as infidels and apostates, even though they have no right to define us as that, as this is not what we would define of ourselves), to know what it is they were actually thinking at the time. Truth is, there acts of irrationality only mean sense in their own minds, and look stupid, when the light is shone on them, and their actions and thoughts properly examined.
In relation to Mr Arar, I do hope he manages to get this behind him, and move on with his life.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-09-20 11:19:21 AM
All the plausible 'possibilities', 'maybe's', etc along with Arar's 'claim' that he was tortured and Syria's denial of it still add up to one big fat question mark. The only sure thing is that, whatever the truth of the matter, Arar will come out of it with money in the bank.
If Arar is an innocent victim then what happened is regrettable, but this was shortly after 9/11 and maybe people goofed (and maybe not). Whatever, Arar has had his 15 minutes (hours) of fame, he seems fit, and he'll get money. My heart doesn't really bleed for him.
Posted by: JR | 2006-09-20 12:06:30 PM
My main point regarding dual citizenship, as it applies this particular case, is that the US authorities would not have had the option of deporting Arar to Syria if he no longer held citizenship there. The Canadian government can not force other governments to send dual nationals back to Canada, they are at the mercy of the decision made by those sovereign nations.
As to why the US decided to send him to Syria, my guess would be that it makes more sense to send a suspected terrorist oversees where it would be much more difficult for him to re-enter the US.
Posted by: Denis | 2006-09-20 12:26:35 PM
I think you made a VERY good point about not allowing dual citizenship to Canadians!
I am disgusted by a recent news report this morning that the so called Canadians we yoinked out of Lebanan to MILLOINS OF TAX DOLLARS IN COSTS!!!
most of them have chosen to go back to Lebanon because that is where they are living permanently!
WHAT IS THIS other than a blatant waste of Canadian tax dollars and a vivid look at how other nationalities put on our citizenship like a glove, and continue to act on their first commitment to their country of origin.
We pay for them to conduct terrorism or passively allow it.
We are on the hook to remove them.
And in this case, if Maher had become a FULL canadian, he would have gone back to us.
GOOD POINT Denis!
Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-09-20 1:07:59 PM
CFF:
The reports say 7,000 of the 15,000 evacuated citizens of convenience (OK, that's my term) have returned to Lebanon.
By my math, that's slightly less than a majority.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-09-20 1:14:40 PM
Thanks, Canadian freedoms fan. I believe exclusive citizenship benefits both the individual and the state.
Posted by: Denis | 2006-09-20 1:27:24 PM
ah you may be right there SYF, my mistake.
You made a great point Denis, it sidesteps the whole issue of paying tax dollars to assist those "canadians" whose heart is elsewhere.
Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-09-20 2:42:19 PM
Lady,
It was Arar free choice to keep his Syrian citizenship. And he knew that the Syrian brutal regime uses torture against its own citizens on the regular basis. Why should anyone in Canada apologize for the brutality of the Syrian regime and for Arar evident loyalty to this regime? Because loyalty to the country is a part of being a citizen. You don't expect someone Canadian/Swedish to be tortured in Sweden, do you? So some RCMP professionals made honest mistake in judgement and Americans decided to send a Syrian citizen to Syria. That's all. Professionals make mistake and innocent people can get hurt. This is one political show orchestrated by NDP and those who want to hurt ability of RCMP to combat the Muslim terror HERE IN CANADA.
Posted by: Sceptical Observer | 2006-09-20 3:33:06 PM
Not sure about whether it was his choice to be a dual. Syria and other countries may "own" their citizens even after they leave to the West.
It happened in Russia and China. Ex nationals didn't keep their citizenship in their country of origin by choice, and in the case of China, they are still at risk if they got sent back there or visited.
I think a distinction might be drawn between those who CHOOSE duality, and those whose duality is forced on them.
The answer might be to ask ALL new canadians to relinquish their previous citizenship and EXTINGUISH the claims their previous country holds onto them.
In that situation we could really tell the loyal new Canadian regardless of colour or ethnic background.
I don't give a rats hiney whether a new Canadian is brown, pink or purple as long as they are ready willing and able to assimilate into our society, values and culture.
I'm willing to forgive lapses in judgement, as long as the person shows the desire and ability to change to our culture and values (debatable as those are).
Renouncing all other citizenship would go a LONG way in my eyes.
So WHY CAN'T WE EXTINGUISH ALL DUAL CITIZENSHIPS? If people want to remain a Sikh from India, then let them, but not if they plan to become a new Canadian.
Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-09-20 4:14:22 PM
It's sickening to hear the Liberals and NDPees ranting on about the Arar affair and how the Conservative government should apologize immediately for the whole sorry affair. The Liberals were in power, it happened under their watch, they are free to apologize en masse or individually.
As long as people choose to remain dual citizens, their country of origin being first on the label, perhaps we should not have to take full responsibility for their safety around the world.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-09-20 5:28:50 PM
CFF,
I am not certain it is within the interests of this country, to restrict what other countries people want to be citizens of. Certainly, there are some good points, but many people who are retired, would be denied their pensions from other countries, if they were forced to choose. And for many, that means choosing whether or not they are to spend the remainder of their lives with their family.
And still, there are some attractive advantages to having more than one citizenship, although this appears to decline dramatically for those who have the other citizenship in nations that tend to use torture. The solution is not to force people to give up their citizenship, but to publisize what types of difficulties they could get into, if they are acussed of being a terrorists or a terrorist supporter.
The individual, rather than the state, is therefore made aware that they are responsible for their own lives when they choose to keep the other citizenship. They can, like any Canadian ca, give up their citizenship, at anytime.
Perhaps it could be pointed out, that the fact that Syria uses torture is not exaclty secret. And, this should be told to any person, who is a citizen in Cnada, who keeps a citizenship in a nation that does torture and does not recognize other citizenship. It may be in their own personal interest, to get rid of that citizenship. Another nation that uses torture on its citizens, and does that to the point of death, is Iran.
Sort of like, buyer beware, but rather citizenship beware!
As for the individuals who are ex-pats, who are sympathizers with terrorists, it would be in our interest as a nation, to ask whether they continue to support the policies of Canada, such as the declaration of terrorist groups as terrorists. If they disagree with our policies, then there is an arguement that they should be stripped of their citizenship, as keeping it could pose a danger to our society.
Sort of like, clearing out the garbage, so to speak!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-09-21 1:25:25 PM
I agree with Denis' analysis about why Arar went to Syria while in US detention.
The US has a right to BOOT OUT ANY NON-CITIZEN for ANY REASON. They are constrained as to where they send them.
He was Syrian...tough tomatoes Maher! The US made the right call.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-21 7:56:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.