The Merged Maher Arar Thread

[Ex-Dragoon]

He won't win.

The goverment will pull a lost law on him...saying thanks to this law we can....

Do you know this with a certaainity or just speculating?

 

[Agamemnon]

I am almost certain.

I will go ask some of my proffesors this afternoon and get their opinion.


But if you think about it....our goverment is so proud of the 8 billion dollar surplus i dont think they plan on burning any of it.Its ridiculous...400 million??

In the USA the legal system evolved soo fast that 9-10 figured lawsuits are common.

In canada it's not so..i may be wrong but at beat he might get half a million.

 

[Agamemnon]

In canada it's not so..i may be wrong but at beat he might get half a million.

i wanted to say :In canada it's not so..i may be wrong but at best he might get half a million.

 

[Edward Campbell]

i wanted to say :In canada it's not so..i may be wrong but at best he might get half a million.

It seems to me that Arar has to first, convince judges (maybe juries, too) in both Canada and the USA that he is a victim of acts which merit either or both of compensatory and punitive damages.   The other side - mistakes may have been made but Arar shares responsibility, or Arar is, indeed, a terrorist or, at least an accomplice dupe or stooge and is, therefore, the author of whatever misfortunes may have come his way - will be argued, by government lawyers, in front of the same judges and juries, if it comes to that.   The strength of our adversarial system of justice is that both pro and con are argued and then jurors decide the truth.   To the best of my knowledge the truth has yet to be decided ... debated, asserted, avowed, declared, etc: yes; decided: no.

If I understand what I read:

"¢ The case(s) in US courts have yet to be accepted - the government is still arguing that Arar's complaints should be dismissed without a hearing; and

"¢ The case in Canada may only ever come to court (a court which can levy fines, etc) if Mr. Justice O'Connor finds for Arar/against the government.

I do not dispute that this whole thing may have been a comedy of errors as security agencies tripped over one another in a post 9/11 panic.   I am equally prepared to believe, therefore, that Arar is an innocent victim of government bungling, or worse ... on the other hand, I have no real problem with the proposition that Arar was (still is) a terrorist or stooge or whatever and should be locked up for a good long time and that the government should sue his wife into the poor house to recover the costs of his PR circus.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I do not dispute that this whole thing may have been a comedy of errors as security agencies tripped over one another in a post 9/11 panic.  

Terrorist or not, I'm sure you would agree there's not a whole lot of comedy with this one. Either way, I would say it's more a tragedy of errors on the basis that if he's tied to TWAT, then it's tragic he enjoys the rights afforded by our system of laws, which the enemy rejects. If he's a victim, the system failed him and all of us.
My biggest problem with what is going on in the case of Arar is way defence lawyers have taken over the security of our country by proxy - they have put the fear of false imprisonment and malicious proescution foremost in the minds of those who run the intelligence and counter intelligence business for our country. Inferentially, this limits the ability to do their job.  The lawyers are achieving a substantial part of what the enemy could never realistically hope to do. That is tragic.

 

[Glorified Ape]

My biggest problem with what is going on in the case of Arar is way defence lawyers have taken over the security of our country by proxy - they have put the fear of false imprisonment and malicious proescution foremost in the minds of those who run the intelligence and counter intelligence business for our country.

Good - foremost in their minds is where I want it. I'd rather not see our citizens deported by foreign governments with our assistance because they can't be called to task on it. Someone in the government acted maliciously - to ensure others don't get such ambitions it's necessary to tear the place apart until we find out what was done and by whom, at which point the severest punishment possible should be meted out against whichever cowboy deskjockey decided to get creative.

It seems like alot of people here have this "I don't care if he IS innocent, he's still a terrorist" ridiculous attitude towards the man. There's no evidence that he's a terrorist, hence in the eyes of the law he's not a terrorist. Therefore, an innocent Canadian citizen was arrested by US authorities on his way home (to Canada), detained, and with the assistance of the RCMP and whoever else, was deported to a third country. This is abuse and it's quite clear. The case against the Canadian government is a helluva lot stronger than any case they had against Arar, so why the hell are people still trying to find some way to write this guy off as a terrorist, stooge, or whatever other thinly veiled terms for "guilty" they can come up with? If I didn't know better, I'd think his origins had something to do with it 'cause it sure as hell can't be his conduct - that's clean.

That being said, 400 million is ridiculous and I don't there's a hope in hell of getting that much. In the US, maybe, but from what I've gleaned from a law school buddy, Canadian courts aren't in the habit of awarding damages that large.

 

[Cloud Cover]

There's no evidence that he's a terrorist, hence in the eyes of the law he's not a terrorist. Therefore, an innocent Canadian citizen was arrested by US authorities on his way home (to Canada), detained, and with the assistance of the RCMP and whoever else, was deported to a third country.

You [nor I] have any idea what the evidence is, because the bulk of it is not in the public domain, and probably never will be. It follows the rest of your post is not worthy of further comment at this point. 

If I didn't know better, I'd think his origins had something to do with it 'cause it sure as hell can't be his conduct - that's clean.

Again, you are talking through your hat, and if you continue to baselessly brand people as racist, you do so at risk to your own credibility. 

 

[dutchie]

Someone in the government acted maliciously...
There's no evidence that he's a terrorist, hence in the eyes of the law he's not a terrorist.....
This is abuse and it's quite clear.....
The case against the Canadian government is a helluva lot stronger than any case they had against Arar....

How do you know the Government official acted maliciously? Were you there? Are you privy to documents that the rest of us aren't? Due to National Security, none of us know the answer, and if we did, we couldn't comment on it.
Abuse? again, pls provide evidence - as far as we know, this guy was deported to Syria by the US. That we KNOW. Probably, the decision to deport was partly based on info from some Canadian agency (CSIS or the RCMP). What that info was, who knows. Could be legit, could not be.
Case against the Cdn Gov is strong? Based on what? Some guy that was deported BY ANOTHER COUNTRY to another country for terrorist links? And you believe this guy? No, we can't assume the guy is guilty of terrorism or terrorist links, but certainly his credibility should be called into question.

Odd that you would defend a guy that is accused of harbouring ideology that is a threat to our national security, yet you have taken an oath to defend that same nation against just this kind of threat.

 

[Agamemnon]

He's is right...if the Canadian goverment did anything its because there was alot  against him.

 

[Glorified Ape]

You [nor I] have any idea what the evidence is, because the bulk of it is not in the public domain, and probably never will be. It follows the rest of your post is not worthy of further comment at this point.  

If I didn't know better, I'd think his origins had something to do with it 'cause it sure as hell can't be his conduct - that's clean.

Again, you are talking through your hat, and if you continue to baselessly brand people as racist, you do so at risk to your own credibility.  

Unless he's convicted in a court of law, he's innocent. Speculating about evidence that may or may not exist is moot - unless the evidence is presented and he's convicted on it, he's innocent. That's it, that's all. The government hasn't even pursued a criminal case against him and we're going to cast shades of guilt on the man from evidence, the quality and existence of which isn't even known?  

I didn't brand anyone as racist - I specifically said "If I didn't know better". I give the benefit of the doubt where doubt exists. As it stands, people's unwarranted hostility and suspicion against Arar, assuming they're reasonable people, can't be based upon evidence since there is none. Nor can it be based upon his conduct - it's clean. Given the lack of evidence and questionable/immoral conduct, one's left with very few possible motivations for the aforementioned hostility and suspicion.

How do you know the Government official acted maliciously? Were you there? Are you privy to documents that the rest of us aren't? Due to National Security, none of us know the answer, and if we did, we couldn't comment on it.

The RCMP, according to the documents, fed inaccurate information to Solicitor General Wayne Easter and mislead his office by saying Arar had fled Canada, and refused an RCMP interview.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/26/arar_documents041126.html

Abuse? again, pls provide evidence - as far as we know, this guy was deported to Syria by the US. That we KNOW. Probably, the decision to deport was partly based on info from some Canadian agency (CSIS or the RCMP).

A report released at the inquiry confirms the RCMP were in contact with U.S. authorities from Arar's arrest in New York to his deportation to Syria. The RCMP says none of the communications were improper or inaccurate, but some may not have been authorized. Arar's lawyer says the documents show there were multiple exchanges between Canadian and U.S. authorities. RCMP deputy commissioner Garry Loeppky testifies that some of the information the RCMP passed to the U.S. came from another unnamed agency in Canada.

However, U.S. government officials we spoke to say they told Canadian intelligence that they were sending Arar to Syria â “ and the Canadians signed off on the decision.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/21/60II/main594974.shtml

I think having your government's officials sign off on your deportation by another country for no legitimate reason qualifies as abuse.

certainly his credibility should be called into question.

Why? Do we have cause to call his credibility into question? The man is a citizen in good standing - he owns his own business, pays his taxes, has a family, and has never, as far as we know, been arrested or otherwise had problems with the law, prior to this fiasco. What makes his credibility questionable?

Odd that you would defend a guy that is accused of harbouring ideology that is a threat to our national security, yet you have taken an oath to defend that same nation against just this kind of threat.

He hasn't been accused of anything, to my knowledge. I haven't read anywhere that he's a militant, anti-Western Islamic fundamentalist - where did you read it? Or by "national-security-threatening-ideology" did you mean Islam? Even if he had been accused, he's innocent until proven guilty. Odd that you would condemn a man without a trial, evidence, or even an accusation. I don't view "national security" as an excuse or carte blanche to do whatever the government feels they'd like to do - that's what the Charter is supposed to be for and if history's shown us anything, it's that blind obedience to the mantra of "national security" has ruined and ended more lives unnecessarily than one can count.  

 

[Infanteer]

You [nor I] have any idea what the evidence is, because the bulk of it is not in the public domain, and probably never will be. It follows the rest of your post is not worthy of further comment at this point.

Mr Ape, you've had a lawyer tell you you're talking through your hat with regards to your statements on evidence and due process.  You're definitely not convincing anyone here that you are listening to what people have to say by continuing to rant and yell after you've been told otherwise.

 

[dutchie]

I think having your government's officials sign off on your deportation by another country for no legitimate reason qualifies as abuse.

Why? Do we have cause to call his credibility into question?...has never.....been arrested or otherwise had problems with the law, prior to this fiasco. What makes his credibility questionable?

Deportations for reasons of national security are by their very nature very secretive and tough to adjudicate for the average Joe. The fact is, he was deported by the US Gov for possible/suspected ties to terrorism. Like it or not, the US doesn't have to establish 'guilt beyond a reasonable doubt' or even 'probable cause'. He isn't a citizen of the US, so he has virtually no rights there. Further, if one of our allies asks for info on one of our citizens they suspect of terrorism/links, we have the authority to provide certain factual info to certain agencies. We do not have to substantiate the US's grounds for their suspicion. You can call that abuse if you like, I disagree. Write your MP.

No brushes with the law? So you get one free-bee then? "Oh, yeah, I know you have some info that says I'm a shitrat, and maybe even a terrorist....but it's my first time, so let me go, ok?"

What makes his credibility questionable is that the US Gov deported him based on info from either the RCMP, CSIS, or both. Those agencies are staffed by persons of the highest quality of character, and whose experice in the matter of investigative techniques, deception, criminal activity, and terrorism are well beyond your and my level of experience or expertice. In short, who are you to say they had it wrong? Are you suggesting that you know more about the criminal activity of this guy than they? Give me a break.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Mr Ape, you've had a lawyer tell you you're talking through your hat with regards to your statements on evidence and due process.  You're definitely not convincing anyone here that you are listening to what people have to say by continuing to rant and yell after you've been told otherwise.

What evidence? I've conceded that none of us knows the evidence - whiskey is correct. That's actually the entirety of my point - without evidence, innocence must be assumed. I didn't intend to rant, just offer my opinion on the subject. My apologies if it came off as a rant.

Deportations for reasons of national security are by their very nature very secretive and tough to adjudicate for the average Joe. The fact is, he was deported by the US Gov for possible/suspected ties to terrorism. Like it or not, the US doesn't have to establish 'guilt beyond a reasonable doubt' or even 'probable cause'. He isn't a citizen of the US, so he has virtually no rights there. Further, if one of our allies asks for info on one of our citizens they suspect of terrorism/links, we have the authority to provide certain factual info to certain agencies. We do not have to substantiate the US's grounds for their suspicion. You can call that abuse if you like, I disagree. Write your MP.

No brushes with the law? So you get one free-bee then? "Oh, yeah, I know you have some info that says I'm a shitrat, and maybe even a terrorist....but it's my first time, so let me go, ok?"

What makes his credibility questionable is that the US Gov deported him based on info from either the RCMP, CSIS, or both. Those agencies are staffed by persons of the highest quality of character, and whose experice in the matter of investigative techniques, deception, criminal activity, and terrorism are well beyond your and my level of experience or expertice. In short, who are you to say they had it wrong? Are you suggesting that you know more about the criminal activity of this guy than they? Give me a break.

Well, my feeling is that if no one's provided any evidence, for whatever reason, innocence must be assumed. If the evidence can't be presented publicly, they can hold a closed trial, which they haven't - suggesting that whatever evidence the government has is either questionable or scarce. Drawing inferences of guilt simply from the involvement of intelligence services doesn't seem reasonable - remember all the paranoid investigations and "files" accrued during the McCarthy hearings in the '50's and during the civil rights movement/hippie days of the '60's?

 

[Wizard of OZ]

You have to realize we pass most of our opinion on what the press tells us.  we are lucky in Canada that we have a half decent press that is not as biast as the one to our neighbour to the south.  I still feel this lawsuit is frivolous.  Even if information was provided to the Syrian government.  Canada did not perform those actions to which he places his suit on.  His suit should be against the Syrian government but you no what they would say.  Go F&*( yourself. So he finds a nice society that will listen to his bitches and sues this government saying we did not protect him.

I find a great deal of similarity between this and the Khadr situation.

 

[spud]

RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli has submitted his resignation a day after admitting he gave conflicting testimony on the Maher Arar affair to a Commons committee, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday. 

His resignation came after Harper expressed "concern" over Zaccardelli's testimony and pledged a full investigation into the apparent flip-flop.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/06/zaccardelli.html

potato

 

[cplcaldwell]

An honourable man, with a long and illustrious career, caught in a tough spot, did the honourable thing.

Now that's out of the way one would hope the 'system' gets down to the tough work of finding a replacement, figgering out what went wrong and fixing it.

 

[schart28]

Here are some potential candidates:

Beverley Busson, who has been in charge of RCMP operations in B.C. since 2001.

Timothy Killam, a former undercover operator who is now in charge of the RCMP's criminal intelligence directorate.

Pierre-Yves Bourduas, who is proficient in French and English, and is responsible for operations in Central Canada and abroad.

 

[GAP]

Here are some potential candidates:

Beverley Busson, who has been in charge of RCMP operations in B.C. since 2001.

Timothy Killam, a former undercover operator who is now in charge of the RCMP's criminal intelligence directorate.

Pierre-Yves Bourduas, who is proficient in French and English, and is responsible for operations in Central Canada and abroad.

CBC is calling all three Zaccardelli's clones

 

[schart28]

True.. I guess the suggestion of going outside the RCMP maybe good.

CBC is calling all three Zaccardelli's clones

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My understanding that the guy was very anti-civiy firearm, so I am not sad he is gone, however he and most of the top brass are Liberal created/cultured creatures from what I see.