# The Merged Maher Arar Thread



## K. Ash (23 Apr 2004)

That's the amount Maher Arar is suing the Canadian government for. He says hes doing this because the Canadian government breached his charter of rights. 

   web page 

All this just after his wife won the Ottawa NDP nomination.

 - Maher Arar and his family are suing the Canadian government for $400-million, according to the National Post. 


The suit claims authorities breached Arar's charter rights and were guilty of racism when they pursued an investigation into his alleged extremist links in 2002. 


The court filing contains several allegations, including negligence, negligent investigation, defamation, false imprisonment, assault and abuse of public office. 

Other parties named in the suit include CSIS, the RCMP and Foreign Affairs department officials in Syria and in New York. 

The family says the authorities employed illegal and unconstitutional means to conduct a biased investigation on the basis of unreliable information. 

A Syrian-born Canadian citizen, Arar is seeking $50 million in damages and $20 million in punitive damages, as well as unspecified special damages, interest and costs, the newspaper reported. Eleven family members including his wife, Monia Mazigh, are seeking $30 million each in damages. 

Mazigh is running in the next federal election for the New Democrats in the riding of Ottawa South. 


U.S. authorities in New York arrested Arar, 34, in September 2002 while he was returning home from a trip to Tunisia. He was deported to Syria, where he says he was tortured. 
He has denied being a terrorist and he has not been charged with any crime. After being released, he returned to Canada and, together with his wife, successfully campaigned for an inquiry. 

An official inquiry beginning in June will examine Arar's claims that he was deported from the United States to Syria with the collusion of Canada's security services. 

He has already filed a lawsuit against top U.S. officials, saying they knew he was facing torture in Syria.


----------



## Slim (23 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by absent_element:
> [qb] That‘s the amount Maher Arar is suing the Canadian government for. He says hes doing this because the Canadian government breached his charter of rights.
> 
> web page
> ...


The Governmentis going to have a shitstorm on their hands if that doesn‘t get chucked out of court.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Apr 2004)

Guess where this money will go...? Just a question, Where do these people[alledged terrorists] get the flippin money to seemingly be flying everywhere and I‘ve been working straight since I was 16 and the only way I could afford to fly anywhere was if I flapped my arms? Sometimes the finance thing just does‘nt seem to add up for certain people,  Hmmmmm....


----------



## K. Ash (23 Apr 2004)

Its a helluva lot of money....appearently his wife is asking for 30 mil. besides the $400.

Come election time if she runs and doesn‘t get elected she‘l be wondering why. And probably go and blame all the people who voted as being racist.


----------



## xFusilier (23 Apr 2004)

What the entire Anzar family is asking for is $400 million.  70 mil from Anzar and than 30 for each of the family members.  Not that they‘ll ever get it because of the limits of Canadian Tort law.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Apr 2004)

Of course. Dont get what you want? Your a racist!
Proud tobe a citizen, wanna help out the country when its in debt? Take it to court for a cool 400 mil.

Reminds me of that moron chick from the apprentice. 
She said racist comments!  
‘Oh no she didnt, we dont have anything on tape‘
Well then your a racist too!

Too bad being stupid wasn‘t a crime.


----------



## K. Ash (23 Apr 2004)

"Too bad being stupid wasn‘t a crime."

Only if...


You watch the apprentice??


----------



## mbhabfan (20 Dec 2004)

Watching this guy on a news conference right now on cbc and it makes me sick.  I wonder what the actual cost of this public inquiry will reach.  I am thinking it is huge.  All for something the Americans did.  For one thing I feel CSIS should handover any information they have on anybody when the FBI or CIA want it and vice versa.  Secondly I don't feel that they should just have to release that same information to the general public.  I am sick of hearing about this poor bas...  in the news, don't know what happened to him over there but also don't feel the Canadian government or my tax dollars should be held accountable in any way.  Could someone share a vantage point on why any tax money should be wasted in this way???


----------



## Infanteer (20 Dec 2004)

If the Government pays out 400 million to him, then we are a legitimate facilitator of terrorist activities and America will have every good reason to launch a Tomahawk strike into Ottawa....


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Dec 2004)

Lets rub the crystal ball a little here. 
I'll tee off:

1. A statement of defence will be filed, the government will bring a motion to have the suit dismissed as frivolous and vexatious. 
2. The government will lose the motion, and be forced to pay his lawyers for bringing the motion. 
3. Arar will then apply for legal aid to obtain government funding to sue the government. He will be denied.
4. Arar will appeal the legal aid decision, and win. The government will be forced to pay his lawyers for the motion.
5. Arars legal aid funded lawyers will continue to bring motions, the government will lose most, and be forced to pay legal costs on top of legal aid.
6. Settlement negotiations will begin. The matter will settle without going to court. The government will be forced to admit racism, publicly apologize on behalf of all Canadians to Arar and all those who have been so grievously wronged and mentally anguished by what happened. Arars lawyers will script everything, and the government will pay the costs.
7. The publicly announced portion of the damage settlement will be about $4 million shared amongst all claimants. The actual amount will be about $10 million.
8. The lawyers will earn about $15-20 million.   
9. While this is ongoing, other lawsuits will spring up as the flood gates open and new forms of high return litigation arise. Bay Street will get involved, and begin financing said lawsuits with venture capital,* in return for a share of the take. [ROI] 

In 2 years time, Amnesty International will request the Canadian branch to get into plaintiff's litigation to fund more the search for more hidden government racism agenda's, and to start new actions aagainstindividuals personally. 
In 5 years, Alex Neve will retire and "go con$ultant."      
In 10 years time, there won't be any money left to fight TWAT.
In 20 years time, Arar's story will be immortalized ala Louis Riel: our children will be taught how maliciously maligned he was, and that he and his ilk are actually hero's. 
In 30 years time, children's and grandchildren's lawsuits for inadequate compensation will begin again.

Anyway, that's just my take on it. Have a nice day.   


* Tax deductible, of course, since this is really a gold mining enterprise, is it not? [the whole truth of the matter principle is of no relevance, since this is a human rights and Charter law suit].


----------



## squealiox (7 Feb 2005)

a few simple, undeniable facts: 

-- maher arar is a canadian citizen
-- he was kidnapped and tortured by a foreign power, with the cooperation of an agency of OUR GOVERNMENT (CSIS)
-- he was finally released without charge or further punishment (which they would not have done if they really still thought he was a terrorist)

and some of you are surprised he wants to sue the govt? what would you suggest he does -- thank the govt for the wonderful holiday in syria? i don't know about you guys, but i'd rather live in a country where you can sue the govt than in one where the govt can throw you in a dugeon without a fair trial.


----------



## dutchie (7 Feb 2005)

If the guy is innocent, and I don't mean 'not guilty' I mean truly innocent, then I feel really bad for him. But if the guy is a shitrat, like I suspect he is, they should send him back to Syria and tell the Syrians he said bad things about them... let 'em cook there for a while.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

$400 million....what a joke. He's lucky they took him back. Isn't it just too perfect his accomplice, er, I mean wife is running for the NDP?

What a country!


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2005)

_â ?a few simple, undeniable facts: 

-- maher arar is a canadian citizen
-- he was kidnapped and tortured by a foreign power, with the cooperation of an agency of OUR GOVERNMENT (CSIS)
-- he was finally released without charge or further punishment (which they would not have done if they really still thought he was a terrorist)â ?_

-- maher arar is a canadian citizen â â€œ agreed;

-- he was kidnapped and tortured by a foreign ... are you sure?   He was detained in the United States and then deported; there is some dispute â â€œ in US courts, now? â â€œ re: whether or not US law was properly applied.   He says he was tortured, Syria says otherwise.   There are courts and inquiries which are trying to sort fact from fiction, I didn't realize they had finished their work and appraised you, alone, of their findings;

-- he was finally released without charge or further punishment (which they would not have done if they really still thought he was a terrorist)â ? â â€œ really? Are you sure?   Maybe Syria just wanted to stir the pot a bit, embarrass the US, maybe ... maybe the intelligence service*s* â â€œ Canadian and others â â€œ have other fish to fry and are using Arrar as a stalking horse ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2005)

squealiox said:
			
		

> ... i don't know about you guys, but i'd rather live in a country where you can sue the govt than in one where the govt can throw you in a dugeon without a fair trial.



Agreed!


----------



## JasonH (7 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If the Government pays out 400 million to him, then we are a legitimate facilitator of terrorist activities and America will have every good reason to launch a Tomahawk strike into Ottawa....



Can we anyways?!?!!


----------



## squealiox (8 Feb 2005)

> ... are you sure?   He was detained in the United States and then deported; there is some dispute â â€œ in US courts, now? â â€œ re: whether or not US law was properly applied.   He says he was tortured, Syria says otherwise.   There are courts and inquiries which are trying to sort fact from fiction, I didn't realize they had finished their work and appraised you, alone, of their findings;


ROJ,
no us govt official has denied he was intentionally deported to syria, despite being on his way to canada. nor has there been any denial of media reports that us officials (albeit unnamed) had the full cooperation of canadian authorities. as for whether he was tortured, i would take anything the baathist syrian authorities say on the subject with a massive grain of salt, to say the least.



as Caesar said, 





> Where there's smoke, there's fire.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2005)

squealiox said:
			
		

> ... i would take anything the baathist syrian authorities say on the subject with a massive grain of salt, to say the least.



Fair enough and I agree ... I apply precisely the same _taste test_ to Maher Arar.   What little evidence we have been allowed to see (at e.g. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/   ) indicates, thus far, only lots of suspicions ... maybe all coincidences but, as you point out: *where there's smoke, there's fire*


----------



## winchable (8 Feb 2005)

Before we have him hanging swinging from the stocks as I've noticed the term innocent until proven guilty, doesn't seem to apply to him, wonder of wonders.

Reading over what we do have it just looks like one massive cockup after another and this guy reallllly got screwed.

Cat Steven's had ties to terrorist groups too, fortunately for him he only had the British citizenship....oh and he's cat stevens.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Feb 2005)

squealiox said:
			
		

> no us govt official has denied he was intentionally deported to syria, despite being on his way to canada. nor has there been any denial of media reports that us officials (albeit unnamed) had the full cooperation of canadian authorities. as for whether he was tortured, i would take anything the baathist syrian authorities say on the subject with a massive grain of salt, to say the least.



I don't recall the RCMP or CSIS making any statements to the fact he wasn't a terrorist or is not linked to terrorism.


----------



## Agamemnon (8 Feb 2005)

He won't win.

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


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Feb 2005)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> 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 (9 Feb 2005)

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 (9 Feb 2005)

> 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 (9 Feb 2005)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> 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 (9 Feb 2005)

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> 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 (9 Feb 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> 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 (9 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> 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 (9 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> 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 (9 Feb 2005)

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


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Feb 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> 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. 



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> 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 â€œ 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 (9 Feb 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> 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 (9 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> 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 (10 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 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. 



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Feb 2005)

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 (6 Dec 2006)

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 (6 Dec 2006)

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 (6 Dec 2006)

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 (6 Dec 2006)

schart28 said:
			
		

> Here are some potential candidates:
> 
> Beverley Busson, who has been in charge of RCMP operations in B.C. since 2001.
> 
> ...



CBC is calling all three Zaccardelli's clones


----------



## schart28 (6 Dec 2006)

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



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> CBC is calling all three Zaccardelli's clones


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Dec 2006)

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.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2006)

Fantino?


----------



## Blindspot (7 Dec 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Fantino?



Fantino was just made head of the OPP.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2006)

Out of the running then. Too bad.


----------



## Yrys (7 Dec 2006)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061207/national/arar_day

Day refuses to answer committee questions on Zaccardelli departure


----------



## Chubbard (7 Dec 2006)

how exactly would one get a commissioner from outside the RCMP? ignoring the extreme difficulty this poor individual will have trying to win the loyalty of the force, there arent any police cheifs in Canada with expereince in forces that large except the division commanders in the RCMP. Its not like you can take the head of a 1000 member department like vancouver and make him comissioner, so youd have to look at toronto, OPP, QPP or RNC. Considering three of these fill roles the RCMP does in other provinces, wouldnt taking on their cheif just have the same issues as brining on a division commander? even more issues if you count how the RCMP probably wont be too receptive to an outisder as comsissioner.


----------



## FastEddy (8 Dec 2006)

Chubbard said:
			
		

> how exactly would one get a commissioner from outside the RCMP? ignoring the extreme difficulty this poor individual will have trying to win the loyalty of the force, there arent any police cheifs in Canada with expereince in forces that large except the division commanders in the RCMP. Its not like you can take the head of a 1000 member department like vancouver and make him comissioner, so youd have to look at toronto, OPP, QPP or RNC. Considering three of these fill roles the RCMP does in other provinces, wouldnt taking on their cheif just have the same issues as brining on a division commander? even more issues if you count how the RCMP probably wont be too receptive to an outisder as comsissioner.




 1 +

Just what we need, a Civie in Charge.

I guess that they would agree, its okay and the same, if your Kid needed Brain Surgery, lets get a CPA to do it, after all he is Highly Educated etc etc.

We see how well it works for the Military, How many Ministers of Defense have been Vets or Served.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (8 Dec 2006)

I fell bad for the guy. He did great things in his time as an RCMP officer. I wish him the best in the rest of things down the way.


----------



## schart28 (8 Dec 2006)

The resignation of the RCMP commissioner alone won't ensure accountability on matters of national security, Maher Arar said Friday

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/08/arar-rcmp.html?ref=rss


----------



## Bobbyoreo (8 Dec 2006)

This man is just out seeking money now..nothing more.


----------



## GAP (8 Dec 2006)

He got his pound of flesh....now let it die, correct the faults internally, but at this point he should be out of loop entirely.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (8 Dec 2006)

That's what I think too. It'll take Years to get the trust back for alot of people. Plus I really think the US should stand up and say hey..we did our part too...as we are the ones that sent him to Syria


----------



## 3rd Horseman (8 Dec 2006)

The RCMP Commissioner did the honourable thing. He did nothing wrong but it would appear that someone did and he is protecting them and falling on his sword, that is a fine example of leadership. I trust the RCMP will do all the needed fixes to ensure this does not happen again.

 I feel bad for Arar but next time we have a terrorist attack in North America he should not: sell his house, move to Tunisia and refuse to talk with the Police when he is departing the country. I guess you get in peoples naughty book when you do that. I would suspect that it would be a different situation had he spoke to the police when asked. But then, I'm only guessing, does not make what happened to him right just preventable at the first instance.


----------



## spqr (8 Dec 2006)

The guy didn't do anything.  He was sent away from his familiy and tortured.  I would be pissed as well.  I would have been a hell of a lot more pissed than I have ever seen him represent himself.

Suspicious activity should initiate an investigation not close one.


----------



## spud (8 Dec 2006)

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> This man is just out seeking money now..nothing more.



And people here wouldn't do the same thing? Gimme a break.


----------



## schart28 (8 Dec 2006)

I'd do the same and probably more....



			
				spud said:
			
		

> And people here wouldn't do the same thing? Gimme a break.


----------



## armyvern (8 Dec 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> But then, I'm only guessing, does not make what happened to him right just preventable at the first instance.


It was up to him to prevent this? No. Not in democratic Canada. 

If verifiable evidence of wrong-doing actually existed, that's worth questioning/investigating him over....it does not justify deportation and torture. And had an investigation confirmed wrong-doing, they would have charged him....not lied about him.

This was in no way his problem, or justifiable as "preventable by him."


----------



## xmarcx (8 Dec 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I feel bad for Arar but next time we have a terrorist attack in North America he should not: sell his house, move to Tunisia and refuse to talk with the Police when he is departing the country. I guess you get in peoples naughty book when you do that. I would suspect that it would be a different situation had he spoke to the police when asked.



Except, he didn't own a house to sell, he only went to Tunisia for a family vacation and was asked to return early by his company for a consulting (CSIS didn't bother to ask his boss). He also did not refuse to talk to police. He was suspicious of the nature of the interview they wanted so he contacted a lawyer, who agreed to the interview under conditions designed to protect Mr. Arar. The RCMP decided it wasn't worth the trouble and did not proceed. The only mistake Mr. Arar made was the accident of being friends with Abdullah Almalki, a suspected Al-Qaeda member. He was seen eating with Almalki at a restaurant, and when they left it was raining. The surveillance operator got excited and wrote that they were walking in the rain to talk in secret so their conversation couldn't be picked up. From that point on things just spiraled downhill. There's not a damn thing Arar could have done to prevent it.


----------



## spud (8 Dec 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> He got his pound of flesh....now let it die, correct the faults internally, but at this point he should be out of loop entirely.



How an RCMP commissioner resigning is "his" pound of flesh I'll never know. That would only be about an ounce to me. 

The dude was detained and tortured on false evidence provided by our government and then hung out to dry. 

The RCMP has apologized. Parliament has apologized. He's asking for 39 million apologies, preferably by cheque. I Don't blame him a bit.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (8 Dec 2006)

It was Arars conduct that placed him on the watch list no matter how innocent it was. It was his refusal to talk with the RCMP that placed a red flag beside his watch list name. My suggestion was that it is plausible that at the first instance his cooperation could have avoided this entire mess. Notwithstanding that once he did not cooperate that many issues and instances presented themselves where it could have been prevented by many operators throughout the chain of command and events. We must not loose sight of the fact that he was let out of the country by the RCMP when he refused to cooperate(thats the democratic part). It was the US that detained him once he returned not us. It was the US that sent him to Syria not us. No doubt some skulduggery was about when he was sent and the RCMP probably could have prevented it once that instance had occurred.

On the money issue he does deserve some compensation no doubt about that.

edit Typo


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Dec 2006)

Has anyone proved he was tortured??..........or do we just take his word and pay?

I'm afraid the young man put himself in a wrong place/wrong time situation with his mouth/attitude and found out that sometimes the Piper deals from a 'funny' deck.


----------



## spud (8 Dec 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Has anyone proved he was tortured??..........or do we just take his word and pay?
> 
> I'm afraid the young man put himself in a wrong place/wrong time situation with his mouth/attitude and found out that sometimes the Piper deals from a 'funny' deck.



How the RCMP falsifying info = wrong place/wrong time is odd to me. 

If mouth and attitude leads to being jailed, I'm afraid there are lots who post here who would find themselves @$$ up/face down in a jail cell somewhere. 

potato


----------



## armyvern (8 Dec 2006)

3rd,
You so eloquently write out the story as it occured...
you so conveniently forget THE major issue at hand (I'll insert it for you):


			
				3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> It was the US that detained him once he returned not us. *The RCMP, having nothing to charge this individual with based on his previous un-cooperative conduct; therefore provided the US authorities with falsified information and 'facts', indicating to the US to that he was involved with terrorism.* It was *then that *the US that sent him to Syria not us.





> No doubt some skulduggery was about when he was sent and the RCMP probably could have prevented it once that instance had occurred.


Some skulduggery? RCMP probably could have prevented it? They caused it!! By their skullduggery!! They've admitted it; their head has know fallen on his sword because of it. 

Now let's have the investigation and the coorperation by the RCMP to get to the bottom of it and find out who was directly responsible for it.  At least they won't be deported, to possible torture, if they don't cooperate.


----------



## schart28 (8 Dec 2006)

Even if this is investigated. Never will there be charges brought against the individuals. Never in the history of the RCMP High Officials did anyone get charged for illegal activities comminted. Example. In the 1970's the RCMP burnt barns and committed other illegal activities in order to destabilize the PQ and no one got anything for that.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Dec 2006)

schart28 said:
			
		

> Example. In the 1970's the RCMP burnt barns and committed other illegal activities in order to destabilize the PQ and no one got anything for that.



Sources?


----------



## armyvern (8 Dec 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Has anyone proved he was tortured??..........or do we just take his word and pay?
> 
> I'm afraid the young man put himself in a wrong place/wrong time situation with his mouth/attitude and found out that sometimes the Piper deals from a 'funny' deck.



Bruce, whether or not he was actually tortured really has no bearing on whether or not we should pay. He _was_ wrongfully detained and deported (by the US) based on willfully _false_ information provided by the RCMP. They've already admitted their direct role in that. Whether or not he was tortured once he was deported does not excuse or validate the RCMPs wrong-doing in this incident.


----------



## Gramps (8 Dec 2006)

spud said:
			
		

> How an RCMP commissioner resigning is "his" pound of flesh I'll never know. That would only be about an ounce to me.
> 
> The dude was detained and tortured on false evidence provided by our government and then hung out to dry.
> 
> The RCMP has apologized. Parliament has apologized. He's asking for 39 million apologies, preferably by cheque. I Don't blame him a bit.



Absolutely, and he deserves every cent of it. Some have asked for proof of his torture yet our government does not question his claims of torture anymore and have accepted it as fact. 

Edit for clarity.


----------



## schart28 (8 Dec 2006)

It was actually talked about today "Le Grand Journal with Normand Lester, TQS. The documentary Ive seen concerning the October Crises in 1970, talked about it. Norman Lester, Michel Chartrand, Gerald Larose has numerously talked about that.




			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Sources?


----------



## spud (8 Dec 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Sources?





> The origins of the CSIS Act may be found in the 1981 report of the Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the "McDonald Commission"). That Commission had been created in 1977 as a result of the revelation of a series of apparently illegal acts and practices carried out by the Security Service of the RCMP.





> The 1970 October Crisis stunned the government, which found itself with inadequate information as to the nature and scope of Quebec separatism. The government requested the RCMP to undertake a "proactive" strategy in this area - to try and get advance information as to the intentions and activities of nationalist organizations and, if possible, to prevent or "counter" disruptive acts. This the Security Service proceeded to do. It embarked on an extensive campaign of intelligence-gathering, infiltration, harassment and disruption directed at virtually all stripes of nationalist sentiment in Quebec. In many circumstances, the Service committed clearly illegal acts. Three of the most spectacular examples were: the burning down of a barn to prevent a meeting of militant nationalists and American radicals; a break-in at the offices of a Montreal left-wing news agency, followed by the theft and destruction of some of their files; and a break-in and theft of the membership lists of the Parti Québécois. Operations such as these had not, the McDonald Commission found, been ordered by the government. They were generated from within the Service in response to government directions to find out more about separatism. Quite aside from being illegal, these operations showed a lack of discrimination between true threats and legitimate dissent. None had any major effect on the organizations targeted, and none brought in intelligence of much importance.



http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/8427-e.htm#B.%20Abuses


----------



## schart28 (9 Dec 2006)

thanks SPUD.. I was searching the net for more concrete info. Its a well known fact.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Dec 2006)

Thank you spud.  

schart28, please note the following excerpt from the Conduct Guidelines:



			
				Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> Please qualify unconfirmed information posted here.



Providing concrete references ensures that those with no point of reference to the discussion are kept on track.


----------



## spud (9 Dec 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Thank you spud.
> 
> schart28, please note the following excerpt from the Conduct Guidelines:
> 
> Providing concrete references ensures that those with no point of reference to the discussion are kept on track.



You are most welcome!


----------



## schart28 (9 Dec 2006)

Terribly sorry for this.. it was unintentional.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Thank you spud.
> 
> schart28, please note the following excerpt from the Conduct Guidelines:
> 
> Providing concrete references ensures that those with no point of reference to the discussion are kept on track.


----------



## Yrys (9 Dec 2006)

schart28 said:
			
		

> Its a well known fact.



Yes, it's a well known fact that some illegal activities were carry out by police at the time
to curb the separatist movement... My father was followed (wasn't even an activist),
the mother of somebody I known was tapped and arrested (was a believer in independence),
BUT well knows facts doesn't make proofs...

After all, for some people, Elvis Presley and Marylin Monroe alive, Walt Disney in a freezer,
 the conspiracy to kill Lady Diana because she was pregnant are ALSO well knows facts...


----------



## schart28 (9 Dec 2006)

A fact is something that is the case. It is the state of affairs reported by a true statement.
In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a theory, which is a explanation of or interpretation of facts.

Ref: Wikipedia


----------



## FredDaHead (9 Dec 2006)

schart28 said:
			
		

> A fact is something that is the case. It is the state of affairs reported by a true statement.
> In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a theory, which is a explanation of or interpretation of facts.
> 
> Ref: Wikipedia



Does anyone else see the irony here? Anybody?


----------



## Blackhorse7 (9 Dec 2006)

Well... lot of armchair detectives in here....

Mistakes were made, atonement has also been made.  

MOVE ON.

And just as a side salad to that, don't see fit to comment on the in's and out's of complex investigations until you have done one.  I'm _IN_ the RCMP, and I'm not making comments like that.  My suggestion is unless you are Mr. Arar posting under an alias, or you are Mr. Zaccardelli doing the same, shut up.  It's not you that got deported and possibly tortured, and it's not you that just made history having to leave the top spot in the RCMP the way you did.

Mistakes are made in _every_ job, in _every_ walk of life.  Some are just more public than others.


----------



## spud (9 Dec 2006)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> Well... lot of armchair detectives in here....
> 
> Mistakes were made, atonement has also been made.
> 
> ...



Why are people not within their right to question, speculate or comment however they wish? 

potato


----------



## schart28 (9 Dec 2006)

No need to have done an investigation before, to comment on one. I'll refrain from commenting on your other comments, you may get too offended.



			
				Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> Well... lot of armchair detectives in here....
> 
> Mistakes were made, atonement has also been made.
> 
> ...


----------



## noneck (9 Dec 2006)

schart28

*Never in the history of the RCMP did anyone get charged for illegal activities comminted. *.

I don't know what you mean about this, I have read about several people in the Force who have been charged criminally! Our Professional Standards investigations are a matter of public record when criminal charges are laid.

This topic should be locked, all I hear is a lot of people talking out of their as%^s, basing what they know about the issue on some severely slighted media reporting.

Noneck


----------



## schart28 (9 Dec 2006)

As per Le Grand Journal with Normand Lester, TQS. My mistake, I ve edited my initial comment and meant RCMP High Official. This is my last post on this subject.



			
				noneck said:
			
		

> schart28
> 
> *Never in the history of the RCMP did anyone get charged for illegal activities comminted. *.
> 
> ...


----------



## spud (9 Dec 2006)

schart28 said:
			
		

> As per Le Grand Journal with Normand Lester, TQS. My mistake, I ve edited my initial comment and meant RCMP High Officials.
> 
> I certainly agree with you, the topic should be locked and this is my last post on this subject.



Why should it be locked?


----------



## riggermade (9 Dec 2006)

I'm sure the 37 million of taxpayer dollars that he is affter will make Arar feel better


----------



## Blackhorse7 (9 Dec 2006)

schart28 said:
			
		

> No need to have done an investigation before, to comment on one. I'll refrain from commenting on your other comments, you may get too offended.



That's quite the statement.  How can you articulate a constructive comment about something unless you have some background in it or some base of knowledge?!?  That's like criticizing a fireman for not putting out a fire quick enough.  Or a paramedic for not doing enough to save a life.  If you haven't done it before, then I suggest you keep your comments to yourself.  And your minimizing things somewhat here.  I said a COMPLEX investigation.  The Arar matter is not quite the same as investigating a shoplifter.  Read the first line of my initial post.

Mistakes were made, atonement has also been made.

How much apology and humility is enough?  There has only been ONE other Commissioner of the RCMP to have ever resigned in the Force's history, and that was to protest government inaction during a crisis.  Mr. Zaccardelli is going to be forever remembered as the Commissioner who left the RCMP under a black cloud of controversy.  Or conversely, he can be remembered as the Commissioner who did the right thing and sacrificed himself to atone for the mistakes made under his command.


----------



## spud (9 Dec 2006)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> How much apology and humility is enough?  There has only been ONE other Commissioner of the RCMP to have ever resigned in the Force's history, and that was to protest government inaction during a crisis.  Mr. Zaccardelli is going to be forever remembered as the Commissioner who left the RCMP under a black cloud of controversy.  Or conversely, he can be remembered as the Commissioner who did the right thing and sacrificed himself to atone for the mistakes made under his command.



Just because he apologized and quit everyone should drop it? While you seem more concerned with the legacy of Mr. Zaccardelli and his $1100 riding boots, Canadians are looking for accountability. 

When an ordinary person appears in court and says they're "correcting earlier mistaken testimony", that's double speak for "I lied before". Unless you're the Commissioner of the RCMP.  :

Funny, we used to listen to Paul Harvey on the radio with "the rest of the story". Before he is absolved for being "so honorable" in the eyes of Canadians, they want to hear "the rest of the story".


----------



## Blackhorse7 (9 Dec 2006)

You seem to have me confused with someone else.  I'm no fan of Mr. Zaccardelli, I'm simply saying that there is a lot of uninformed opinion being casually thrown about in here which is quite frankly, insulting.  And comments like this,

"When an ordinary person appears in court and says they're "correcting earlier mistaken testimony", that's double speak for "I lied before". Unless you're the Commissioner of the RCMP.   :"

certainly don't help sway my opinion about uninformed opinion.  And your reference to accountability certainly comes out of left field... *THE MAN QUIT!  HE LEFT THE FORCE!!*  How much more accountability do you want?  There has already been an inquiry, they have already made a report.  You think throwing money at Mr. Arar fixes things?  You don't think there will be a massive undertaking to make sure mistakes like this won't happen again?  That there _already is_ a huge review being conducted as we type?

And I'll point out again, as someone else did earlier, this is not just an RCMP problem.  The government was involved, the US government (who are the ones who deported Mr. Arar), and several other agencies were all involved.  Where's the finger pointing at them?  Why isn't anyone ranting about accountability in those offices?  

So that being said, you tell me Spud.  When DO we drop this?  When DO we move on with our lives?


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (9 Dec 2006)

It takes alot of courage for a man in the commissioners position to step down, i give the man alot of credit, he took one for the team, unlike officers in a higher chain of command in Winnipegs police service and the whole James Driskell fiasco :


----------



## spud (9 Dec 2006)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> *THE MAN QUIT!  HE LEFT THE FORCE!!*  How much more accountability do you want?  There has already been an inquiry, they have already made a report.  You think throwing money at Mr. Arar fixes things?  You don't think there will be a massive undertaking to make sure mistakes like this won't happen again?  That there _already is_ a huge review being conducted as we type?



That he left the force is accountability to some; CYA to others, as he would have been canned anyway. As for the inquiry that happened, he has testified once; now the man just came back and said he was "correcting mistaken testimony". Is that incompetence or good 'ol lying? Any other mistakes out there we should know about? I guess after the *huge* review we will find out...hopefully. 



> So that being said, you tell me Spud.  When DO we drop this?  When DO we move on with our lives?



I can move on, I'm neither shocked nor surprised that this happened. But this is bigger then Arar, this has shaken the confidence of parliament and the taxpayers in the RCMP. I guess they'll move on when they are satisfied they have the answers to their questions. 

To expect people to move on simply because he "fell on his sword" or "took one for the team" is simplistic and naive. That answer might wash for a hockey coach, but  
people expect a lot more from the Commissioner of our national law enforcement agency.


----------



## Yrys (9 Dec 2006)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> How much more accountability do you want?



What about for starter to tell which of his 2 contradictory statements is right ?
Or what he knows of what happen, why did it happen, etc ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2006)

spud said:
			
		

> I can move on, I'm neither shocked nor surprised that this happened. But this is bigger then Arar, this has shaken the confidence of parliament and the taxpayers in the RCMP. I guess they'll move on when they are satisfied they have the answers to their questions.




My confidence in the Queen's Cowboys has not been shaken, nor diminished. 

"Moving now, out!"


----------



## GO!!! (9 Dec 2006)

I'd prefer to see questions about Mr. Arar answered before we crucify the commish.

What was the nature of his relationship with Mr. Amalki?

Is there any quantifiable evidence that he was tortured?

What was the US evidence against him?

Considering that he is a dual Syrian/Canadian citizen, what was his objection to being returned to the nation of his birth? He retains their passport for a reason - right?

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I see a person who devoted his whole life to Canadian policing resigning over the_ possible _ unfair treatment of a "citizen" of extremely dubious loyalties and even shadier acquaintances.


----------



## xmarcx (9 Dec 2006)

Most of these questions are answered in the inquiry report. 



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> What was the nature of his relationship with Mr. Amalki?


He was an acquaintance of Mr. Amalki and met him through his religious community. He was new to Ottawa, needed a cosigner for his lease, and Mr. Amalki agreed. It seems to have been taken for granted that this implied some deeper, suspicious connection.



> Is there any quantifiable evidence that he was tortured?


Technically no. Canadian officials did visit him in prison, but did not suspect any specific abuse. However, despite being fluent in English, prison guards were present during all visits and forced him to speak in Arabic, and they translated it to the officials to make sure whatever they were told was sanitized. Personally, I've met a number of people who were tortured in various places around the world, and I've met Mr. Arar, and I believe it. Hard to explain, but he's got a thousand yard stare now that speaks volumes about whatever happened to him while he was in Syria. 



> What was the US evidence against him?


This is why the RCMP has been singled out as the primary organization responsible for what happened. When CSIS provided their information, there were a number of caveats explaining that all suspicious links were merely possibilities, and that nothing had been proven. When it was provided by the RCMP to the US, those caveats were not included, and the information basically stated that he was confirmed Al-Qaeda. 



> Considering that he is a dual Syrian/Canadian citizen, what was his objection to being returned to the nation of his birth? He retains their passport for a reason - right?


His family left when he was 17 and before he had served his mandatory military service. Neither of those make Syrians popular in the eyes of their government. Syria also had a lot to gain at the time by playing along with American foreign policy, when a superpower is desperate to find terrorists, and you've been linked to a lot of terrorism, it's only rational to play as much ball as you can until things calm down. Mr. Arar claims while being tortured he was asked for information related to Al-Qaeda, which likely would have been  handed over to the Americans if he had any.



> Maybe I'm too cynical, but I see a person who devoted his whole life to Canadian policing resigning over the_ possible _ unfair treatment of a "citizen" of extremely dubious loyalties and even shadier acquaintances.



The government launched an inquiry. The inquiry cleared Mr. Arar of all suspicion, and clearly revealed a variety of mistakes, exaggerations, overstatements, and outright lies that when combined with several errors by government & law enforcement officials cost Mr. Arar two years of his life, and perhaps a lifetime of suspicion and disadvantage for him and his entire family. 

I don't think Zaccardelli's resignation was necessary or productive, but he seems to have done it selflessly to save face for an organization he dedicated his life to. That is a shame. But to continue to cast aspirations regarding Mr. Arar when in the eyes of our government and our laws, he is a completely innocent man is at best ignorant and at worst reeks of racism. The good guys do make mistakes sometimes, and those mistakes have to be accepted if anything is going to be learned from all the pain and suffering and trouble that they have cost so many people.


----------



## GO!!! (9 Dec 2006)

xmarcx said:
			
		

> Most of these questions are answered in the inquiry report.
> He was an acquaintance of Mr. Amalki and met him through his religious community. He was new to Ottawa, needed a cosigner for his lease, and Mr. Amalki agreed. It seems to have been taken for granted that this implied some deeper, suspicious connection.


BS.

How many people just go and co-sign loans for others who they just met - with no strings attached? Amalki has suspected terrorist ties, and is apparently a kind hearted philanthropist when not plotting the overthrow of the Christian west. Sound fishy?



> Technically no. Canadian officials did visit him in prison, but did not suspect any specific abuse. However, despite being fluent in English, prison guards were present during all visits and forced him to speak in Arabic, and they translated it to the officials to make sure whatever they were told was sanitized. Personally, I've met a number of people who were tortured in various places around the world, and I've met Mr. Arar, and I believe it. Hard to explain, but he's got a thousand yard stare now that speaks volumes about whatever happened to him while he was in Syria.


So the answer is no, verified by Canadian officials. 

I could simulate a pretty decent thousand yard stare if I was really looking at a cool 39 million at some point in the future.



> This is why the RCMP has been singled out as the primary organization responsible for what happened. When CSIS provided their information, there were a number of caveats explaining that all suspicious links were merely possibilities, and that nothing had been proven. When it was provided by the RCMP to the US, those caveats were not included, and the information basically stated that he was confirmed Al-Qaeda.


A grievous procedural error no doubt, if the allegations were proven to be false. To turn this around, the RCMP/CSIS have been unable to prove that Arar *is* a terrorist - but he has'nt provided much evidence that he is not. If this was subject to a "reverse onus" he would still be in jail.



> His family left when he was 17 and before he had served his mandatory military service. Neither of those make Syrians popular in the eyes of their government. Syria also had a lot to gain at the time by playing along with American foreign policy, when a superpower is desperate to find terrorists, and you've been linked to a lot of terrorism, it's only rational to play as much ball as you can until things calm down. Mr. Arar claims while being tortured he was asked for information related to Al-Qaeda, which likely would have been  handed over to the Americans if he had any.


So Arar shirked his obligation as a Syrian citizen, and they punished him for it - my heart bleeds. Everything else in this paragraph is  unproveable speculation.



> The government launched an inquiry. The inquiry cleared Mr. Arar of all suspicion, and clearly revealed a variety of mistakes, exaggerations, overstatements, and outright lies that when combined with several errors by government & law enforcement officials cost Mr. Arar two years of his life, and perhaps a lifetime of suspicion and disadvantage for him and his entire family.


....all of which could have been avoided if he had clarified a few questions when he began behaving erratically before leaving the country after a series of meetins with other suspected terrorists. 

I noticed that you conveniently neglected to answer my last question - why did Arar maintain his Syrian citizenship if he believed that he could be persecuted upon his return there? Had he been the Canadian he claims to be, he never would have been deported from the US, as his citizenship would have been here.

No, I see the Arar case as an example of a migrant who thought he could use our liberal system against us, believing that he was immune from investigation or prosecution by the requirement for a large burden of evidence against him. He lost, and was sent home, unfortunately though, the procedures were incorrect. 

In the future, we should have mechanisms in place for the deportation of dual citizens suspected of terrorism back to their nations of origin - that would be an excellent legacy for him.


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (9 Dec 2006)

Alot of good points GO. alot of good points, it really makes you think doesn't it? I think all this guy wants is his 15 minutes of fame and his money he could care less about anything else, who REALLY knows if he was tortured, has it ever been proven?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Dec 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> In the future, we should have mechanisms in place for the deportation of dual citizens suspected of terrorism back to their nations of origin - that would be an excellent legacy for him.



As in "Oh no, I've getting Arar'ed". :crybaby:


Totally agree with GO!!, I think the Intel people's hands are tied as to what REALLY can become public.
Syria, along with thier very good friends, knew exactly what they were doing by letting him come back.........money can't buy this kind of propaganda.


----------



## xmarcx (9 Dec 2006)

> How many people just go and co-sign loans for others who they just met - with no strings attached? Amalki has suspected terrorist ties, and is apparently a kind hearted philanthropist when not plotting the overthrow of the Christian west. Sound fishy?



It wasn't a loan, it was a lease. And you're thinking of what it would be like if you or I went to rent a house. In the intelligence world they call that mirror-imaging, making sense of things from our perspective without considering the perspective and context of your subject. If I need a co-signer or a reference for an apartment, I'll ask a parent or friend, because I've lived in Canada my whole life. In those terms, sure, he might have picked his best buddy from Terrorism 1000 at Jihad-U to be his cosigner. In reality, as an immigrant, he was stuck. He was new to the city, couldn't get an apartment without a cosigner, and someone at a mosque probably said, that guy is trustworthy. If the choice is between not having a roof for your wife and kids, and taking a chance with a stranger, he obviously took a chance. It was a bad call but doesn't prove anything about him except that he was stuck.



> I could simulate a pretty decent thousand yard stare if I was really looking at a cool 39 million at some point in the future.
> A grievous procedural error no doubt, if the allegations were proven to be false. To turn this around, the RCMP/CSIS have been unable to prove that Arar *is* a terrorist - but he has'nt provided much evidence that he is not. If this was subject to a "reverse onus" he would still be in jail.



Now that is ridiculous. The law in Canada says INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. No one, at all, ever, in our society has to prove they AREN'T a criminal. There are half a dozen people in the country who have been sitting in jail for years on secret Security Certificates because CSIS/RCMP has evidence on them. If they had any evidence on Mr. Arar, he'd be sitting there with him. They never had anything more than basic speculation, otherwise they would have picked him up in Canada. The allegations HAVE been proven to be false by Justice O'Connor, who is definitely the SME on the issue. If you know something he doesn't, and have some evidence that CSIS never did, you are in the wrong line of work. 



> ....all of which could have been avoided if he had clarified a few questions when he began behaving erratically before leaving the country after a series of meetins with other suspected terrorists.


The RCMP asked for an interview to ask him questions. Mr. Arar, coming from a country where the police aren't the good guys, got a lawyer. The lawyer asked for some conditions to protect his client, the RCMP decided it wasn't worth it and chose not to schedule the interview. 



> I noticed that you conveniently neglected to answer my last question - why did Arar maintain his Syrian citizenship if he believed that he could be persecuted upon his return there? Had he been the Canadian he claims to be, he never would have been deported from the US, as his citizenship would have been here.


You're right, I have no idea about that. But he was living and working in Canada, and was seized by the US returning to Canada because his bosses need him for a consulting job. It's worth noting that this is the first time the US has performed an extraordinary rendition of a Canadian citizen, there was no precedent for this and if the Canadian government had evidence he was a terrorist, he should have been sent back to answer for it in a court of law.



> No, I see the Arar case as an example of a migrant who thought he could use our liberal system against us, believing that he was immune from investigation or prosecution by the requirement for a large burden of evidence against him. He lost, and was sent home, unfortunately though, the procedures were incorrect.



A migrant? He moved here as a teenager. He went to school here, he got married here, he had two Canadian citizen children here, he paid taxes here, and he contributed to the Canadian economy. How did he abuse our system? Someone screwed up and told the United States that he was an Al Qaeda terrorist and they ruined his life for it. He was willing to talk to police but wanted a lawyer, a right of any Canadian, because in the wake of 9/11 he was worried about his rights. The police decided not to bother, not him.  

CSIS and the RCMP have procedures and means to arrest people even with the vaguest of evidence if they feel the individual is a threat to national security, and they have taken that option before and after Mr. Arar was deported. If they had something on him, if he was even remotely suspicious, they would have taken it. Just because he knew suspicious people doesn't mean a damn thing. Two guys I went to highschool with got busted for child porn, and a guy I went to elementry school with even killed a guy. Should I be going to jail for my association with these dangerous criminals? Clearly not, and no one is asking me to prove I'm not a paedophilic murderer. Why is it different when your name is Arabic instead of Irish?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Dec 2006)

_Quotes,
In reality, as an immigrant, he was stuck. 

A migrant? He moved here as a teenager. He went to school here, he got married here, he had two Canadian citizen children here, he paid taxes here, _ 

Holy WTF, Batman.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Dec 2006)

...and to prove how stupid your argument is on being locked up on "the vaguest of evidence", there was a funeral yesterday for a full-patch Hells Angel.......nobody got arrested for suspicion of dealing drugs though.


----------



## xmarcx (9 Dec 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> _Quotes,
> In reality, as an immigrant, he was stuck.
> 
> A migrant? He moved here as a teenager. He went to school here, he got married here, he had two Canadian citizen children here, he paid taxes here, _
> ...



Immigrant and migrant are two different things. I assumed it was a meaningful and intentional distinction. He wasn't just movin' on through Canada, he chose to make it his home and join our society.

As to the Hell's Angels thing, that has nothing to do with it. Do some research on Security Certificates. They can arrest and hold people without charges on secret evidence that doesn't even need to be revealed to the suspect. If Arar was guilty of something, CSIS & the RCMP would have taken it to a judge, in secret, and got a certificate issed, and arrested him. They didn't.

You can dogpile me all you want, but what I'm saying is all backed up by the O'Connor report and accepted by the government and the relevant insitutions. You're arguing that a man is likely a terrorist when it has been proven in an open and legal inquiry that there is absolutely no evidence he is, and what evidence was claimed was false.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Dec 2006)

Warren Commission


----------



## xmarcx (9 Dec 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Warren Commission



Oh, yes, there have been poorly run government inquiries in the past, but that doesn't mean that your gut feeling is right. You're saying that Justice O'Connor is wrong, his inquiry is wrong, CSIS is wrong, the RCMP is wrong, Parliament is wrong, even Zaccardelli is wrong, because they've all accepted this and apolgized for what happened. 

I guess I'm going to owe you guys every single beer left in the country after Arar launches his long-planned devestating terrorist attack.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Dec 2006)

SmartAssIrishMan said:
			
		

> I think all this guy wants is his 15 minutes of fame and his money he could care less about anything else, who REALLY knows if he was tortured, has it ever been proven?



OK, now I'm getting confused, if this is all about Arar looking for his 'Warholian 15', they why exactly did the Commissioner feel compelled to resign?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Dec 2006)

Arar Seeks Source of Media Leaks
    
OTTAWA (CP) - Maher Arar is calling on the government to launch an independent investigation into leaks to the media that falsely linked him to terrorist activities. 

Arar says he's been permanently affected by the stigma attached to the allegations and he says the resignation of RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli, effective next Thursday, does not adequately address the issue of accountability. 
"The public deserves to have the full truth," Arar said in a national teleconference from his new home in Kamloops, B.C. "Accountability is about more than one person, or one agency, or one government department." 

Arar was deported by U.S. authorities to his native Syria in 2002, where he was tortured into false confessions of terrorist links before he was released and returned to his adopted country of Canada. 
A federal inquiry into the affair pointed to RCMP evidence falsely linking Arar to al-Qaida as likely playing a role in the U.S. decision to deport him. 
Arar pointed out that the commissioner, Justice Dennis O'Connor, concluded in his final report that federal officials intentionally smeared his reputation and tried to "protect their own" by intentionally leaking false information to the media.  
  
"These leaks had a devastating effect on my psychological, mental and financial well-being. We still do not know who these officials are and I am afraid that they will destroy other people's lives unless they are caught and held accountable." 
Arar's lawyer, Julian Falconer, says the damage has filtered through the entire Arar family - Arar himself cannot travel to 70 countries, a brother has lost his trucking business, and his parents have "aged horribly" over the course of the four-year ordeal. 

Falconer says it's "absolutely essential" that parties responsible for the fiasco are identified and held accountable for what he described as the "carnage" and "devastation" they made of Arar's life. 
The two said government agencies such as the RCMP "cannot be left to investigate themselves." 
"There must be an independent and impartial investigation into those leaks . . . to restore public confidence in the institutions that are supposed to protect them," Arar said. 

"I cannot have confidence in these institutions until I know that what happened to me will never happen to anyone else."


----------



## riggermade (9 Dec 2006)

Is there any quantifiable evidence that he was tortured?

I always thought he looked pretty fit for a guy claiming torture and as I said earlier 37 million of our tax payer dollars is going to make him feel better HOW?

He spouts off about justice but he wants all that money


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Dec 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Arar's lawyer, Julian Falconer, says the damage has filtered through the entire Arar family - Arar himself cannot travel to 70 countries, a brother has lost his trucking business, and his parents have "aged horribly" over the course of the four-year ordeal.
> 
> Falconer says it's "absolutely essential" that parties responsible for the fiasco are identified and held accountable for what he described as the "carnage" and "devastation" they made of Arar's life.
> The two said government agencies such as the RCMP "cannot be left to investigate themselves."
> ...




Ahh yes.. Msr. Juilan Falconer. Seems he moved on from representing scum of the earth drug dealers.  What I can't figure is why Arar has hooked up with this numpty. Clearly, an antagonistic move on his part. It would be nice if someone represented the taxpayer's interests here and moved to restrain the government from paying legal fees to this deviant windbag Falconer. 

Perhaps its time to have a little sneak peak look into the books of Mr. Falconer's trust accounts and see whose funds he is hiding holding.


----------



## GO!!! (10 Dec 2006)

xmarcx said:
			
		

> It wasn't a loan, it was a lease. And you're thinking of what it would be like if you or I went to rent a house. In the intelligence world they call that mirror-imaging, making sense of things from our perspective without considering the perspective and context of your subject. If I need a co-signer or a reference for an apartment, I'll ask a parent or friend, because I've lived in Canada my whole life. In those terms, sure, he might have picked his best buddy from Terrorism 1000 at Jihad-U to be his cosigner. In reality, as an immigrant, he was stuck. He was new to the city, couldn't get an apartment without a cosigner, and someone at a mosque probably said, that guy is trustworthy. If the choice is between not having a roof for your wife and kids, and taking a chance with a stranger, he obviously took a chance. It was a bad call but doesn't prove anything about him except that he was stuck.


When did he go from Canadian citizen who grew up here to hapless immigrant who made connections with the wrong people? How was he unable to establish himself financially from the age of 17 to 37? Are you telling me a civil engineer is unable to establish a credit rating without outside help?



> Now that is ridiculous. The law in Canada says INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. No one, at all, ever, in our society has to prove they AREN'T a criminal. There are half a dozen people in the country who have been sitting in jail for years on secret Security Certificates because CSIS/RCMP has evidence on them. If they had any evidence on Mr. Arar, he'd be sitting there with him. They never had anything more than basic speculation, otherwise they would have picked him up in Canada. The allegations HAVE been proven to be false by Justice O'Connor, who is definitely the SME on the issue. If you know something he doesn't, and have some evidence that CSIS never did, you are in the wrong line of work.


Dangerous offenders are now subject to the "reverse onus" system in which they must prove that they are not dangerous, and they are detained until they can do so - just for an exercise in theory, apply it to the Arar case. He can't prove that he is not a terrorist.



> The RCMP asked for an interview to ask him questions. Mr. Arar, coming from a country where the police aren't the good guys, got a lawyer. The lawyer asked for some conditions to protect his client, the RCMP decided it wasn't worth it and chose not to schedule the interview.


Once again, is he a born and raised Canadian citizen, as you claim? Or is he a fearful immigrant, scared of every uniform in every country? You can't have it both ways - which is he?



> You're right, I have no idea about that. But he was living and working in Canada, and was seized by the US returning to Canada because his bosses need him for a consulting job. It's worth noting that this is the first time the US has performed an extraordinary rendition of a Canadian citizen, there was no precedent for this and if the Canadian government had evidence he was a terrorist,


There was no precedent for 9/11 either - but it happened. 



> he should have been sent back to answer for it in a court of law.



He was sent back - to the country of his birth, in which he retained his citizenship, of his own free will, for two decades.



> A migrant? He moved here as a teenager. He went to school here, he got married here, he had two Canadian citizen children here, he paid taxes here, and he contributed to the Canadian economy.


....and yet he was unable to establish enough credit to lease an apartment or sufficient cash reserves, even whilst working as an engineer?



> He was willing to talk to police but wanted a lawyer, a right of any Canadian, because in the wake of 9/11 he was worried about his rights. The police decided not to bother, not him.


I've been detained and questioned before - and promptly released - because I was telling the truth. I did'nt feel the need for a lawyer because I had truthful explanations for everything I did. What did he have to hide?  



> CSIS and the RCMP have procedures and means to arrest people even with the vaguest of evidence if they feel the individual is a threat to national security, and they have taken that option before and after Mr. Arar was deported. If they had something on him, if he was even remotely suspicious, they would have taken it. Just because he knew suspicious people doesn't mean a damn thing.


Since you love playing the race card, lets flip that one around a bit. 

Let's say GO!!!, a white, anglo male, working as an engineer in Canada for two decades, after emigrating from Ireland, has an associate who is a full patch member of the Hell's Angels. He (for some reason) is unable to secure a lease, and his biker friend helps him out. A month later, his biker friend organises the bombing of a police station, and GO!!!, simultaneously and at the same time, sells his house and prepares to move his family to the Grand Cayman islands - on vacation (even though he can't afford a house). When questioned by the authorities, GO!!! immediately lawyers up and leaves the country. At this point, a third party sends him back to Ireland, on the basis of the suspicion the Canadian authorities have. GO!!! claims he is tortured there, and demands compensation from the Canadian government to the tune of hundreds of times his annual wages. Rubes take his claims at face value with no substantiation and a self flagellating Canadian press sides with GO!!!. 

Sounds pretty ridiculous when stated in the WASP context - how could a reasonable person believe it?



> Two guys I went to highschool with got busted for child porn, and a guy I went to elementry school with even killed a guy. Should I be going to jail for my association with these dangerous criminals? Clearly not, and no one is asking me to prove I'm not a paedophilic murderer. Why is it different when your name is Arabic instead of Irish?


Because we are not fighting the war on terror in Belfast (anymore), and Irishmen did not murder thousands of civilians in New York, London, Madrid, Bali, Baghdad and Kandahar.


----------



## xmarcx (10 Dec 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> When did he go from Canadian citizen who grew up here to hapless immigrant who made connections with the wrong people? How was he unable to establish himself financially from the age of 17 to 37? Are you telling me a civil engineer is unable to establish a credit rating without outside help?


I obviously haven't seen his lease, or know why it called for a cosigner, but your argument doesn't say anything either. If he had a great credit rating or money, and knew Almalki was a fellow terrorist, why the heck would he unnecessarily add his name to his lease? Is it some big Al-Qaeda in joke? It doesn't make any sense. 



> Dangerous offenders are now subject to the "reverse onus" system in which they must prove that they are not dangerous, and they are detained until they can do so - just for an exercise in theory, apply it to the Arar case. He can't prove that he is not a terrorist.


Dangerous offenders have already been convicted of a crime, Arar never was. Of course he can't prove he isn't a terrorist. I can't prove I'm not a terrorist. You can't prove you aren't a terrorist - in fact, you might be the best one yet, killing your less important fellow terrorists to win the trust and respect of the infidels. I think we can at least agree that we'd prefer to live in a society that followed the innocent until proven guilty, burden of proof rests with the accuser rule, rather than a constant witch hunt.



> Once again, is he a born and raised Canadian citizen, as you claim? Or is he a fearful immigrant, scared of every uniform in every country? You can't have it both ways - which is he?


There are a lot of Canadians who are at least anxious of people in uniforms. He came here at 17, which is getting pretty old to move fro m one civilization to another. He was obviously making a life here but there's a huge culture gap that is hard to adjust to and he seems to have mostly stuck to his fellow Muslims in social situations. Either way, it indicates a nervous disposition as much as it does any kind of guilt. 



> There was no precedent for 9/11 either - but it happened.
> He was sent back - to the country of his birth, in which he retained his citizenship, of his own free will, for two decades.
> ....and yet he was unable to establish enough credit to lease an apartment or sufficient cash reserves, even whilst working as an engineer?


He became a Canadian citizen in 1991. That means he's afforded all the rights of the Constitution and Charter. If the government has some dirt on him, they are obligated to deal with it in a legal manner, they can't just turf him abroad to his country of second citizenship. 

ALSO

It's not fair to say he happily held onto his Syrian citizenship, as Syria makes it very difficult to actually renounce it. 

Quote from a US government report available at http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/IS-01.pdf

_Though voluntary renunciation of Syrian citizenship is permitted by law, the Syrian Information Office stated that it is so complicated that it is best not to attempt the process. In effect, according to that Office, the process is complicated in order to discourage renunciation of Syrian citizenship. Former citizens of Syria probably maintain an unofficial dual citizenship status and would be subject to Syrian law as citizens should they return to Syria._



> I've been detained and questioned before - and promptly released - because I was telling the truth. I did'nt feel the need for a lawyer because I had truthful explanations for everything I did. What did he have to hide?


He's probably going to kick himself over this for the rest of his life, sure. But there was obviously a Muslim-terrorist hunt on at the time, race card or not, it's not like everyone was equally considered a target right after 9/11. Having a lawyer is a right, requesting one being present at an interview should not automatically label him as a terrorist. I've also been detained, and if its something easy to disprove like, no, I did not break into that family's house and rob them at gunpoint, since, I'm a two feet taller than the man they saw and covered in tattoos, I wouldn't ask for a lawyer (and didn't). If someone wanted to start asking me about all my friends, I'd be freaked out enough to demand one.





> Let's say GO!!!, a white, anglo male, working as an engineer in Canada for two decades, after emigrating from Ireland, has an associate who is a full patch member of the Hell's Angels. He (for some reason) is unable to secure a lease, and his biker friend helps him out. A month later, his biker friend organises the bombing of a police station, and GO!!!, simultaneously and at the same time, sells his house and prepares to move his family to the Grand Cayman islands - on vacation (even though he can't afford a house). When questioned by the authorities, GO!!! immediately lawyers up and leaves the country. At this point, a third party sends him back to Ireland, on the basis of the suspicion the Canadian authorities have. GO!!! claims he is tortured there, and demands compensation from the Canadian government to the tune of hundreds of times his annual wages. Rubes take his claims at face value with no substantiation and a self flagellating Canadian press sides with GO!!!.



It still doesn't work. In fact your story actually reflects a lot of the assumptions that were made about Arar, instead of sending somebody out to double check. They happened to stumble across Almalki's name on his lease and decided he must be in cahoots. Then when he let the lease on his townhouse expire, and went to stay with family in Tunisia (for free!) as he had done many times before, they put into the report that he had sold his house, a house he never owned. That's a lot different then giving up a lease, maybe he wanted to move to a bigger place when he got back, it was a convenient way to do it without renting an empty house. He also left some time after the RCMP declined to interview him, it was not right after as was apparently indicated in files on him. Then the RCMP passed on information to a third party which specifically said he was a terrorist, not that they had some blanks to fill in, or were suspicious. If they had wanted to investigate, they could have just waited for him to fly from New York to Ottawa and arrested him then. It makes no sense why they passed it on to the Americans, especially in the form they did.

As an added bonus, it actually turns out Almalki was innocent too, he also went to jail in Syria, won a bunch of money from the Syrian government, and is now living back in Canada free as a bird, and CSIS and the RCMP don't seem to have a problem with him anymore.

And I just want to add, I don't think he deserves that much money. I don't know what a fair amount is but that strikes me as a lot.
I think at the very least he deserved the apologies he received, and now deserves that his name be cleared. The inquiry should have done that.

CSIS knows the importance of gaining the trust of diaspora communities to break terrorist plots domestically. They are also quite proud of their continuing efforts to reach out to and develop positive relationships with these groups. It seems that such help was critical in breaking the Toronto terrorist plot early this year. They especially need the help of Muslim-Canadians, and aren't doing the cause any favors by accidentally deporting their friends. If we want them to feel confident enough and proud enough of their Canadian citizenships to step up and help defend the country, we have to prove that if we do make mistakes we're at least willing to make them right. Branding every suspect a terrorist for the rest of their lives is not a positive step. 

CSIS participated in the Inquiry, they say Arar is clean. That should be good enough for every Canadian to accept. 
The money is for the politicians to figure out, his innocence is confirmed.



_Edited to reflect my inaccurate claim that Almalki won a settlement form Syria...what was I thinking..._


----------



## rmacqueen (10 Dec 2006)

There is also the extraordinary lengths the RCMP went to in an attempt to cover this up.  If Arar was guilty, why did the RCMP feel the need to cover it up and then start a smear campaign in the press?  This sort of behaviour on the part of the RCMP is exactly why intelligence and counter-terrorism was taken away from them in the 80's and why CSIS and JTF2 were formed.  CSIS was created to deal with counter-terrorism and to also have civilian oversight, unlike the RCMP.  The reason was because of the abuses of the RCMP during the 60's and 70's.  Unfortunately, in the panic following 9/11, the Liberal government went against the findings of the McDonald commission and gave these powers back to the RCMP and now we are seeing the result.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Dec 2006)

Quote from xarcx,

As an added bonus, it actually turns out Almalki was innocent too, he also went to jail in Syria, won a bunch of money from the Syrian government, and is now living back in Canada free as a bird, and CSIS and the RCMP don't seem to have a problem with him anymore.


 :rofl: :rofl: oh please, make it stop, I'm peeing myself, :rofl: :rofl:

Yup, the Syrian govt. is so benevolent............


----------



## Magravan (10 Dec 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from xarcx,
> 
> As an added bonus, it actually turns out Almalki was innocent too, he also went to jail in Syria, won a bunch of money from the Syrian government, and is now living back in Canada free as a bird, and CSIS and the RCMP don't seem to have a problem with him anymore.
> 
> ...



The word that you should have used your 'glow' effect on was _won_. It wasn't gifted to him out of the kindness of their hearts.

*Deleted the parts referencing the wrong guy.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Dec 2006)

He's not talking about Arar there.....


----------



## GO!!! (10 Dec 2006)

xmarx,

Still too many holes in this one for me.

I don't know too many dumb engineers, and most of what Arar did was just plain dumb, and extremely suspicious in the post 9/11 context.

You sell him alternately as a hapless immigrant who happened to associate with the wrong people, and a contributing, professional, Canadian citizen with nothing to hide.

His business partnerships with terror suspects are glossed over, as is his de facto refusal to speak with the police and flight from our country.

So a federal inquiry cleared him of wrongdoing - so what? Our esteemed government has made mistakes before, I doubt this will be the last, and I highly doubt that this is the last we have heard of Mr. Arar, I'd love to know which "friends" he helps if he gets his 39 million, especially given his sound judgement of character in the past.


----------



## GAP (10 Dec 2006)

Was there not a lower volume criticism of Chretien regarding the elder Kadar when he was held in Afghanistan. I remember the hue and cry about Canada not supporting one of its' citizens that was being wrongly detained, yada, yada....

The O'Connor enquiry did not answer very much. We already knew that was no proof positive that Arar was a terrorist, but there was none that he did not have links/friends in the organizations. We are all focusing on "poor Arar", but something still does not ring true.


----------



## xmarcx (10 Dec 2006)

GO!!!,

I have enough faith in CSIS, the security intelligence agency responsible for discovering domestic terrorists, that if Arar really was a threat to our security that he'd be in a Canadian jail right now. They're good at their jobs, at least I hope. It will be interesting to see what he does with the money, but I'd be shocked if FINTRAC didn't watch where every single penny of it went. 

At this point we'd obviously be going in circles so I suggest we respectfully disagree.

Bruce,

You finally got me! I have way too much paper on my desk and got my similar sounding news confused in references. The money part was bunk, though he was freeed by the Syrian Supreme Court...obviously....a legal insituiton that...ah.....exists. Point to you! 

Mag,

Thanks for having my back, even though I led you straight onto a landmine. I'll try not to do that in CAP


----------



## Magravan (10 Dec 2006)

This just confirms that I should lead


----------



## TCBF (10 Dec 2006)

This just confirms my citizenship theory - you are a Canadian UNTIL you travel to your nation of original or dual citizenship, after that, THEY can feed you, and you fall under their laws/administration.


----------



## Yrys (11 Dec 2006)

http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/regional/modele.asp?page=/regions/ottawa/2006/12/11/004-grc-oconnor-arar.shtml

lundi 11 décembre

Stocwell Day said today that he will make public the name of the RCMP polices
that give the false informations.

(french article, didn't find one in english)


----------



## schart28 (12 Dec 2006)

CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/12/oconnor-report.html

The second part of Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Maher Arar affair recommends creating an independent agency to review the national security activities of the RCMP.

"The case for giving an independent review body the mandate to conduct self-initiated reviews of the RCMP's national security activities is now overwhelming," O'Connor said in a statement Tuesday.

In the report, O'Connor makes 13 recommendations with respect to the review of the RCMP's national security activities, as well as five other federal departments and agencies involved in national security.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (13 Dec 2006)

"This man is just out seeking money now..nothing more.


And people here wouldn't do the same thing? Gimme a break. "

Sorry Spud...Im not one of them.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Dec 2006)

xmarcx said:
			
		

> I have enough faith in CSIS, the security intelligence agency responsible for discovering domestic terrorists, that if Arar really was a threat to our security that he'd be in a Canadian jail right now. They're good at their jobs, at least I hope. It will be interesting to see what he does with the money, but I'd be shocked if FINTRAC didn't watch where every single penny of it went.


Prepare to be shocked...

First, there is a significant gap between CSIS's ability to discover domestic terrorism, and the ability to arrest and try said terrorist suspect. Canadian's rights & freedoms have always been a contentious topic, particularly in the context of CSIS and domestic surveillance - - (CSIS having been formed largely because of abuses by the RCMP Security Service, but that's a different history lecture).
This gap has widened considerably in the past year because of legislative challenges to the Anti-Terrorism Act (Bill C-36/2001). As but one example, see the 2006 Khawaja case.

FINTRAC
Now, FINTRAC has never had the authority to say "FINTRAC, old trout, lets have a look see what this guy's doing with his money." There has to be a legally-accepted cue to open a file. Even the case example on FINTRAC's website notes that, "In this case, a foreign financial intelligence unit detected suspected money laundering activity linked to an import/export business and advised FINTRAC." They had to have a reliable cue before they could go after that organization.

Now that Arar is being nominated for saint-hood, and in light of recent rulings against the security services use of Bill C-36, no one is likely to be even rumoured to have a file on him. Otherwise, there'd be an outrageous cry, from the usual fellow travellers, of Canada being a police state oppressing its minorities.

He's pretty much free to spend his lottery winnings as he sees fit - - he'd have to be video-taped, sitting in his lawnchair at a terrorist attack, with a script in hand, before anyone's likely to risk political fallout from touching him.


----------



## Yrys (15 Dec 2006)

Temporary replacement found for RCMP chief

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/15/zaccardelli-lastday.html



> The RCMP has named a temporary replacement for its embattled chief.
> 
> Beverley Busson will take over for Giuliano Zaccardelli on an interim basis.



Arar still on U.S. watch list: U.S. ambassador

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2006/12/15/arar-watchlist.html


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (16 Dec 2006)

BLackhorse7 is stationed in BC, i wonder what his thoughts are on the new interm commisioner. seeing she is commander of BC district???


----------



## noneck (16 Dec 2006)

I am posted out here in the LMD as well. With D/Comm Busson at the reigns we are being led from the front! She has current operational leadership experience having commanded 1/3 of the operational members of the RCMP for the last 5 years. She is also is fully versed in the anomaly that is the LMD for the RCMP, being that it is the only area of Canada that the Force does big city policing. In the past we have had the folks in Ottawa expecting that E Division run places like Surrey and Richmond like Bugtussle Saskatchewan. I hope that Bev is made substantive, if that is the case then we will definitely see some positive changes  to the way we are led and managed. 

Noneck
_The opinions expressed above are merely those of Noneck and are not to be quoted or disseminated without the permission of the writer._


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (17 Dec 2006)

Thanks for that noneck, for those of us not in the RCMP it is nice to get an informed opinion on the situation. Cheers!!


----------



## Blackhorse7 (17 Dec 2006)

NONECK!!!  How dare you say that the LMD is the only big town Policing there is!!  Are you casting shame on my fair city?   

I posted this in a previous thread discussing the new temporary Commish.  She is a class act.  I have yet to hear anyone say a bad word about Mrs. BUSSON, and she ran E Div (arguably one of the hardest Divisions to manage) quite well.  Her role is temporary now, but I would not be upset to see her stay in the role.

And back on topic, I think you will see Mrs. BUSSON adopt or at least start to implement many of the recommendations of the Arar report in short order.


----------



## GAP (22 Jan 2007)

Maher Arar to stay on U.S. no-fly list: letter
Updated Mon. Jan. 22 2007 5:07 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

The United States will keep Canadian Maher Arar on its security watch list.

Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have written a letter to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.

The letter says the two have reviewed the U.S. government's secret file on Arar. They think he should still be on the list.

The two said their decision is based on information obtained by U.S. authorities, independent of anything supplied by Canada.

"We want to ensure that this U.S.-derived information has been shared with Canada, and that both countries have an understanding of the facts.  To this end, we welcome an opportunity to participate in a confidential meeting with appropriate Canadian officials at their earliest convenience," the letter said.

Day had raised the Arar issue during a visit to Washington last week. Day's position is that Canadian officials see no reason why Arar shouldn't be able to visit the United States.

Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was detained in New York while returning from a holiday in Tunisia. U.S. officials sent him to Syria, where he spent 10 months in prison.

His Syrian jailers tortured him into making a false confession about terrorism links.
More on link


----------



## observor 69 (22 Jan 2007)

This part revived my hope in Americans:

The attorney-general also said the U.S. government had received assurances that Arar would not be tortured.

"We knew damn well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn't be tortured," Leahy said loudly. "We also knew damn well, if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured. And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured."

This man tells it like it is:  http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200701/011807.html


----------



## gillbates (22 Jan 2007)

I know this is a bit O.T. but...

If the Syrians are suspected of supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, and sending jihadis to Iraq, why do the Americans send their prisoners there for interrogation? Doesn't seem to make much sense.


----------



## observor 69 (22 Jan 2007)

gillbates said:
			
		

> I know this is a bit O.T. but...
> 
> If the Syrians are suspected of supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, and sending jihadis to Iraq, why do the Americans send their prisoners there for interrogation? Doesn't seem to make much sense.



ABC NEWS
Jan. 21, 2007 — A roundup of the late-night comics.

Late Show

David Letterman: Bush admitted to making mistakes in Iraq and he says that he has learned from these mistakes and will do better in Iran.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (23 Jan 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> This part revived my hope in Americans:
> The attorney-general also said the U.S. government had received assurances that Arar would not be tortured.
> "We knew damn well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn't be tortured," Leahy said loudly. "We also knew damn well, if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured. And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured."
> This man tells it like it is:  http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200701/011807.html



Baden Guy,
  I dont accept the rant from this left wing political opportunist who choose a public moment to open his yap and disrespect the Attorney General. There is more to the story then is in the public domain and as the AG said he would brief the loud mouth later on in the week. I will be surprised if we hear from him again after he sees inside the file.

  Arar was not on holiday he was returning to Canada to collect his family and leave the country and his citizenship behind for ever. What you read in the papers is only the half truth to make him look like a victim.


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2007)

3rd
If my memory serves me right, Arar was in Tunesia on vacation... with family.
He left said family behind, at the beach, while he headed home for work.
(the family was not in Canada, the CRMP paid a nocturnal visit and nobody was home!)

His flight was Zurich to JFK to Montreal & he got hauled out for questioning - and got sent to Syria for his trouble.

Even if he was returning to collect his family & leave the country.... So what does that have with the price of tea in China?


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2007)

The only other point I would make would be that, if the US had real tangible evidence to support the acts they carried out, they would have had it published on CNN a long time ago.  They don't want to show they were wrong (again) and open themselves up to more ridicule and potential legal pursuits - which Arar is trying to launch.

Oh yeah - 3rd.... If Arar was planning to leave the country with his family - what are they still doing in Canada as we speak?  I would have thought they would have had plenty of good reasons to flee Canada for some other Democracy somewhere or other if that had been his intention.

But that is just my opinion.


----------



## observor 69 (23 Jan 2007)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Baden Guy,
> I dont accept the rant from this left wing political opportunist who choose a public moment to open his yap and disrespect the Attorney General. There is more to the story then is in the public domain and as the AG said he would brief the loud mouth later on in the week. I will be surprised if we hear from him again after he sees inside the file.
> 
> Arar was not on holiday he was returning to Canada to collect his family and leave the country and his citizenship behind for ever. What you read in the papers is only the half truth to make him look like a victim.




And you know this how?  References?
Judge O'Connor's report doesn't mention any of your latter comments. http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/26.htm#

Senator Leahy is no shrinking violet so I will be watching with interest how this comes out.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Jan 2007)

: here we go again.......


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> : here we go again.......


didn't know we had gone anywhere.  3rd made some statements that are not supported and he's been called on it.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> didn't know we had gone anywhere.  3rd made some statements that are not supported and he's been called on it.



Thats what i meant Geo.......Its not unusual in his case


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2007)

Ah

"I see!" said the blind man to the deaf mute :


----------



## 3rd Horseman (23 Jan 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> And you know this how?  References?
> Judge O'Connor's report doesn't mention any of your latter comments. http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/26.htm#
> Senator Leahy is no shrinking violet so I will be watching with interest how this comes out.



  Baden Guy,

  Your right Leahy is no shrinking violet but he is a political opportunist. We shall see by Leahys future rhetoric or silence as the the veracity of my statement.

  How do I know....very well placed source. Reference, I have none. I would suspect the classified info the US is willing to brief the Cdns on contains this info and very much more. Had Arar been given the chance to collect his family and depart, once back in the Middle east the result would have been different for us as a nation but the same for him and probably much worse. He from my perspective is not so innocent. (Special note, I dont condone his torture)


----------



## aesop081 (23 Jan 2007)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> How do I know....very well placed source. Reference, I have none.



....and that ladies and gents is your typical 3rd Horsman answer to being called out.  Guess maybe Arar was on his way to do some deep-battle ops too........


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2007)

Hmmm.... 3rd

I wonder if Maher's wife ofered coffee & cookies to the nice RCMP constables who tossed his place - so the RCMP could provide the FBI with "evidence" about contracts and leases he and his brother had signed.

The US homeland security and the FBI all leak like a sieve.  If the US really had something on Arar, do you really think :
1) he would have been allowed to return to Canada? 
2) Homeland security would continue to keep it a secret when their competence & credibility is sooo much in question?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (23 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... 3rd
> 
> I wonder if Maher's wife ofered coffee & cookies to the nice RCMP constables who tossed his place - so the RCMP could provide the FBI with "evidence" about contracts and leases he and his brother had signed. Do you mean the house he sold on his way out of the country? Cookies I hope so. ;D
> 
> ...


 Well cant argue with that it does not change my view.

My info is not a leak its from a very high placed source. It is what it is. If I spent all my time discussing things from open source or news media or CFAOs the conversations and discussions here would be very dull.


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2007)

As you have said

It is what it is!.. And that's all she wrote

Chimo!


----------



## 3rd Horseman (23 Jan 2007)

AKE that.

  I am sure this will come out in the near future and when it does I will reveal the source. If I am wrong I will return to this thread and eat all kinds of humble pie and crow. An offer I would find distastefull but appropriate.

3rd


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Jan 2007)

3rd Horseman, 

The portion of the *CONDUCT GUIDELINES* related to posting of information (specifically that portion below) is not limited to DND-specific/sensitive information.


You will not post *sensitive* or *non-public information*.

You have been verbally warned in the past; you now are on Recorded Warning IAW the Army.ca *Warning System*.

The Army.ca Staff


----------



## kincanucks (23 Jan 2007)

_Maher Arar to stay on U.S. no-fly list_

 :nana:


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Jan 2007)

All kidding and joking aside, I wonder *why* the US keeps him on the no-flly list.  Given that the US is a massive bureaucracy, the chance for personalities to influence the decision without bereaucratic influence to keep it on the straight and narrow boggle the mind.  I mean, it makes perfect sense to blame Bush for everything,  : , but I don't smell a conspiracy here.  Just curious is all.


----------



## GAP (24 Jan 2007)

I seriously think that the US just does not want to back down. It would send the message that they can be wrong and there's no way in hell they want anybody, especially Canada, telling them what to do. Besides, what are we going to do?


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Jan 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> I seriously think that the US just does not want to back down. It would send the message that they can be wrong and there's no way in hell they want anybody, especially Canada, telling them what to do. Besides, what are we going to do?


My point is this: those "in the know" if you will, probably have little influence to say that personality will influence decisions such as this.  With all the red tape, and with all the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system, I would find ego as a basis for such a decision to be problematic, is all.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jan 2007)

Does 3rd Horseman know we're not talking about Leahy form the 'Trailer Park Boys'? Just wondering, cause that seems to be the level of his discourse.


----------



## manhole (24 Jan 2007)

I am wondering WHY he would ever want to go to the US.   What difference is it if he is on their no-fly list?   If I went through what he went through, I'd be darned if I would ever want to go back to the US.   Just my 2 cents worth........


----------



## FredDaHead (24 Jan 2007)

fiddlehead said:
			
		

> I am wondering WHY he would ever want to go to the US.   What difference is it if he is on their no-fly list?   If I went through what he went through, I'd be darned if I would ever want to go back to the US.   Just my 2 cents worth........



What, if you had allegedly been deported to a Middle East country where you had been alledgedly tortured (which there is absolutely no proof of) for being suspected of being a terrorist and acting very suspiciously?

Of course, if you really were a terrorist, you'd want to avoid going back to the US so they can't arrest you again and make you confess...


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2007)

fiddlehead said:
			
		

> I am wondering WHY he would ever want to go to the US.   What difference is it if he is on their no-fly list?   If I went through what he went through, I'd be darned if I would ever want to go back to the US.   Just my 2 cents worth........



Apparently for the same reason he was arrested in the first place......He was flying on the cheapest Airline Ticket he could find and it had US Connections.  

If you wanted to fly from Toronto to Australia, you would have a US Connection in LA and Honolulu.  That would mean that if you were on the NO FLY List in the US, you would be arrested, or refused the connecting and any other flight.


----------



## geo (24 Jan 2007)

Then there is also the issue of riding in a plane that is not destined for the US and for some unknown reason, mechanical or otherwise, the plane lands in the US.  Guess what happens, regardless of where your intended destination was, you are hauled off th plane and detained for however long the US wants to detain you.  Remember, Cdn airlines must make available all passenger data of flights that even come near the US


----------



## observor 69 (24 Jan 2007)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> What, if you had allegedly been deported to a Middle East country where you had been alledgedly tortured (which there is absolutely no proof of) for being suspected of being a terrorist and acting very suspiciously?
> 
> Of course, if you really were a terrorist, you'd want to avoid going back to the US so they can't arrest you again and make you confess...




"allegedly been deported to a Middle East country where you had been alledgedly tortured (which there is absolutely no proof of) "

 Did you even take a glance at the O'Connor Report ?  Please spare me!


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jan 2007)

Perhaps 3rd Horseman is using the same faint hopes as John Ibbitson in today’s (24 Jan 07) _Globe and Mail_ in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070124.wxibbitson24/BNStory/National/home


> Democrats see shades of McCarthyism in Arar case
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> ...



First, this is undeniably true: _*"We knew damn well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn't be tortured … We also knew damn well, if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured."*_  It speaks volumes about the impact fear has had on the world’s most liberal society – liberal being used in its correct sense, not as the terminally lazy and stupid would have it as a synonym for left wing.

Second, neither I nor 3rd Horseman nor Sen. Leahy, nor unnamed Canadian officials, nor even omnipotent journalists have any idea what information the Americans have – they may tell some people some of the truth some of the time but our American friends are not fools – not most of them anyway – and only fools release ALL counter-intelligence information, to anyone, even to politicians with lawfully mandated _oversight_ functions.  The ‘facts’ provided about Mr. Arar have been declared, in the tradition of Scottish law, as *not proven*, even as not provable.  That does not mean they were without foundation, it just means that the evidence provided to a distinguished Canadian jurist was insufficient to prove anything so he, quite rightly, said ‘Not guilty’ of the _allegations_.  That’s not quite the same as _innocent,_ but it is good enough for Mr. Arar in Canada but not for Mr. Arar in the USA.

Third, it is the legitimate duty of a government, any government, to press the case for its citizens when there is reason to believe that they have been unjustly treated in a foreign country.  Mr. Justice O’Connor’s finding impose that burden on the Government of Canada.  I think the exchange of notes means that Canada has met its minimum burden towards Mr. Arar.

Finally, Sen. Leahy’s interest is in weakening the Republican Party in advance of the 2008 elections.  He is using Mr. Arar.  Given what I’ve read about Sen. Leahy I’m sure his outrage is real enough but the interests he is serving are 100% American. 



Edit: hyperlink to _Globe and Mail_ source added


----------



## observor 69 (24 Jan 2007)

+1 Edward


----------



## cplcaldwell (24 Jan 2007)

Yup. Edward Campbell quotes John Ibbitson; I'm pretty good with that...

What _I_ would note is the reference to the verdict _not proven_. This is of course an interesting artifact of Scottish law that, AFAIK, does not exist in Canadian or American law. It's sort of by 'default' that 'not proven' goes not 'not guilty' in this instance. 

Mr Justice O'Conner, after all, has a framework he must work in and it is Canadian law not Scottish law: however useful it might have been to have been able to, however illuminating the reference is.

Perhaps _we should_ adopt 'not proven' in some instances. But hey, I'm out of my lane there .. so ...

_I think _ it's quite clear that the Americans have more on this than they will share. 'We' all know secrets, at many levels, exist at a 'need to know' level, and that 'we' keep secrets that 'we' share with only a few countries, or some not at all. It's just the way it is.

_I am not sure_ that this excuses the Americans on the way Mr Arar was handled. _I am pretty sure _ it means no one, except perhaps Mr Gonzales, Sen Leahy (et al, in camera) and few spooks will actually ever know the whole truth.

Sad times we live in, but times to remain ever so squeaky clean, nevertheless.


----------



## observor 69 (24 Jan 2007)

So I am right in hearing the thread say that I can accuse anyone of anything and they have the onus to prove their innocence.

Guilty till proven innocent.


----------



## geo (24 Jan 2007)

Well....
In Canada, he's inocent

in the US, where it is their playing field, they say he isn't.
They say they are justified in their stand by documents that we are not privy to.

So long as we play in their field.... guess we have to play house rules - whatever that means.


----------



## GAP (24 Jan 2007)

It's their country. They can let anyone they want in, and conversely stop whomever they want from coming in. It sucks to be Arar, but that's all this is.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jan 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> It's their country. They can let anyone they want in, and conversely stop whomever they want from coming in. It sucks to be Arar, but that's all this is.



+1. Their country, their rules. None of our business. There's lot's of Canadians, and other nationalities, that for one reason or another, are not allowed entry into the US. 

He's not special.


----------



## Rodders (27 Jan 2007)

I would have to agree that the reason the US will not remove Arar from the no-fly list is because they(the US) made an error but are unwilling to admit it.

In response to querys by the Canadian government, US ambassador to Canada David Wilkins was quoted as saying "It's a little presumptuous for him (Day) to say who the United States can and cannot allow into our country," 

He's right! Even if the US is probably wrong in it's logic as to why they won't allow Arar into the country, they do have the right to allow or disallow anyone they wish from entering their country. It's not a store, or a place of business. It's a country!

Ironically though, it does remind me of when Trudeau passed away, and Fidel Castro was to attend the funeral. The Bush administration put up bluster that Canada should not allow him to enter our country.

I wonder if they(the US) acknowledge that we have the same rights as a nation that they so steadfastly(and rightly) claim for themselves?


----------



## Trinity (27 Jan 2007)

Stands to reason


Arar is currently suing the US government right now....

That alone is grounds to not let him in (IMO)

Why would you let someone in your country if he's already
alleging claims and trying to sue you?

Would you let someone into your house if they were suing you?  I doubt it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jan 2007)

*Prime Minister releases letter of apology to Maher Arar and his family and announces completion of mediation process*
News release, Prime Minister of Canada, 26 Jan 07
Article Link

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today released the letter of apology he has sent to Maher Arar and his family for any role Canadian officials may have played in what happened to Mr. Arar, Monia Mazigh and their family in 2002 and 2003.

“Although the events leading up to this terrible ordeal happened under the previous government, our Government will do everything in its power to ensure that the issues raised by Commissioner O’Connor are addressed,” said the Prime Minister.  “I sincerely hope that these actions will help Mr. Arar and his family begin a new and hopeful chapter in their lives.”

Canada’s New Government has accepted all 23 recommendations made in Commissioner O’Connor’s first report, and has already begun acting upon them.  The Government has sent letters to both the Syrian and the U.S. governments formally objecting to the treatment of Mr. Arar.  Ministers Day and MacKay have also expressed Canada’s concerns on this important issue to their American counterparts.  Finally, Canada has removed Mr. Arar from Canadian lookout lists, and requested that the United States amend its own records accordingly.

The Prime Minister also announced that Canada’s New Government has successfully completed the mediation process with Mr. Arar, fulfilling another one of Commissioner O’Connor’s recommendations.  This settlement, mutually agreed upon by all parties, ensures that Mr. Arar and his family will obtain fair compensation, in the amount of $10.5 million, plus legal costs, for the ordeal they have suffered. 

The text of the Prime Minister’s letter to Maher Arar is attached.

* * * *

Dear Mr. Arar:

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish to apologize to you, Monia Mazigh and your family for any role Canadian officials may have played in the terrible ordeal that all of you experienced in 2002 and 2003. 

Although these events occurred under the last government, please rest assured that this government will do everything in its power to ensure that the issues raised by Commissioner O’Connor are addressed. 

I trust that, having arrived at a negotiated settlement, we have ensured that fair compensation will be paid to you and your family. I sincerely hope that these words and actions will assist you and your family in your efforts to begin a new and hopeful chapter in your lives.

Yours sincerely,


----------



## geo (27 Jan 2007)

Hmmm.... here we go again
While parties come and parties go.... Mr Harper represents THE canadian government and to the public he is the Prime Minister

Although these events occurred under the last government, once again, it's always an issue of "those dastardly liberals"
We all remember Mrs Ambrose (with the nice hair)

It doesn't matter a whit if it was the Conservatives or the Liberals.
This should not be a "photo op" for the Conservatives to get points.


----------



## GAP (27 Jan 2007)

One of the most interesting parts of the commentary last night, was that the Democrats are holding hearings into the rendition issues. Guess who cannot fly to the hearings to testify.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... here we go again
> While parties come and parties go.... Mr Harper represents THE canadian government and to the public he is the Prime Minister.
> 
> Although these events occurred under the last government, once again, it's always an issue of "those dastardly liberals"
> ...



Here, here!


----------



## 2 Cdo (27 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... here we go again
> While parties come and parties go.... Mr Harper represents THE canadian government and to the public he is the Prime Minister
> 
> Although these events occurred under the last government, once again, it's always an issue of "those dastardly liberals"
> ...



Sorry Geo, but I have to disagree with you. It should be not only mentioned but mentioned loudly that this incident happened on the Liberals watch. The Canadian public should be reminded of every single f*ck up the Liberal party committed in their near 13 year reign.

As far as Arar goes, no way no how does he deserve 12 million Canadian dollars. Why doesn't he try to get "compensation" from those who "actually" tortured him? Maybe he doesn't because, just maybe no torture actually occured. ??? Just a little food for thought.


----------



## observor 69 (27 Jan 2007)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Sorry Geo, but I have to disagree with you. It should be not only mentioned but mentioned loudly that this incident happened on the Liberals watch. The Canadian public should be reminded of every single **** up the Liberal party committed in their near 13 year reign.



Riiiight, so the CPC will be implementing the recommendations of the O'Connor Report to fix all those Liberal  **** ups? 

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=e41280c9-18ea-49d9-b9dc-34ddf2a35bbd


----------



## Rodders (27 Jan 2007)

Fair enough. I agree that the people should be aware of a governments errors or possible ineptitude.

Do you agree that this is true regardless of the political stripe of that government? if(and when) the Conservatives are shown to have blundered or otherwise made bad decisions, will you be as ardent in those facts being put to the Canadian public? That's not an attack, but a genuine question.

On what basis do you offer the assertion that he was NOT tortured? Because someone is Muslim, or just because the US says so, doesn't always mean he or she is in fact a terrorist, or a liar.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2007)

Rodders said:
			
		

> On what basis do you offer the assertion that he was NOT tortured? Because someone is Muslim, or just because the US says so, doesn't always mean he or she is in fact a terrorist, or a liar.



I think that this is taken for granted, as NO physical evidence was provided to prove that he was.  No photos of injuries.  No medical examination or documentation.  Nothing.  Just verbal statements from him and the others who were also claiming having been tortured.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jan 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think that this is taken for granted, as NO physical evidence was provided to prove that he was.  No photos of injuries.  No medical examination or documentation.  Nothing.  Just verbal statements from him and the others who were also claiming having been tortured.



It appears that Justice O'Connor, in his recommendations, found that quite enough - from the Analysis and Recommendations of the O'Connor Report....



> While in Syria, Mr. Arar was interrogated, tortured and held in degrading and inhumane conditions.





> Mr. Arar arrived in Syria on October 9, 2002 and was held incommunicado until October 22, 2002. In the intervening period, he was interrogated and tortured.





> The actions of the (Syrian Military Intelligence) with respect to Mr. Arar were entirely consistent with Syria’s widespread reputation for abusing prisoners being held in connection with terrorism-related investigations.





> Léo Martel, the Canadian consul in Damascus, visited Mr. Arar the next day in an office at the Palestine Branch. He did not observe any physical signs of torture on Mr. Arar and indicated in his report of the meeting that Mr. Arar had appeared healthy, but added, “of course, it is difficult to assess.”





> During the August 14 visit, Mr. Arar also said that he had not been beaten, tortured or paralyzed. Mr. Martel was understandably sceptical of this last comment, yet his report made no reference to his scepticism.





> After Mr. Arar’s return, some officials in the Canadian government did not believe Mr. Arar’s
> public statements that he had been beaten or tortured. As it turns out, their conclusions were wrong. Mr. Arar had indeed been beaten and physically tortured during the first two weeks of his imprisonment in Syria.



_- edited to fix formatting - _


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 Jan 2007)

I'm still wondering why we're giving this man 12 million dollars and his lawyers 2 million? 
That's going to buy a lot of therapy...is that why he's getting money? 
I just don't get why we have to throw money at people who've been wronged. Arar himself says it's not going to buy his life back. It's the same in the Residential School case....the lawyer who got that case settled says that the money will be squandered and not used for therapy.
In my opinion there is a growth industry out there in victimhood and it's proving very lucrative for some folks and a lot of lawyers! :


----------



## GAP (27 Jan 2007)

In the Arar case....it ends it...period...full stop...he is now a non-issue that can't be used against the government.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jan 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> In the Arar case....it ends it...period...full stop...he is now a non-issue that can't be used against the government.



On!


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 Jan 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> In the Arar case....it ends it...period...full stop...he is now a non-issue that can't be used against the government.



That's a lot of money to make an issue go away.
Where do we all sign up?


----------



## GAP (27 Jan 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> That's a lot of money to make an issue go away.
> Where do we all sign up?


Well you need a beard, accent, bit of a travel history, whiny routine, then we fly to someplace that goes over the US. Then we tell them, nope....don't know him....
Then we ship you away for a year or so, but don't get lost!! or you don't pass GO 
Then you have to have someone feel sorry for your sorry A**!! 
Then we have a former judge (once we make it understand that he's not sentencing you to jail time) say, he's OK by me.

get all that done, and you're in......now off you go, get busy!!  ;D


----------



## riggermade (27 Jan 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think that this is taken for granted, as NO physical evidence was provided to prove that he was.  No photos of injuries.  No medical examination or documentation.  Nothing.  Just verbal statements from him and the others who were also claiming having been tortured.



I always thought he looked pretty fit for a guy who claims he was tortured


Edited by Vern to fix the quote.


----------



## observor 69 (27 Jan 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Well you need a beard, accent, bit of a travel history, whiny routine, then we fly to someplace that goes over the US. Then we tell them, nope....don't know him....
> Then we ship you away for a year or so, but don't get lost!! or you don't pass GO
> Then you have to have someone feel sorry for your sorry A**!!
> Then we have a former judge (once we make it understand that he's not sentencing you to jail time) say, he's OK by me.
> ...



So easy, you should give it a try.  
Hope you don't mind the rubber hose beatings, the feeling that there is absolutely no hope of anyone getting you out and an Embassy staff member in Damascus who is absolutely clueless and uncaring. Hey it's only for a year!
And don't forget those brave Americans defending the US who shipped your a** of to Syria!

What's a former judge, is that like a former Colonel?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jan 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> And don't forget those brave Americans defending the US who shipped your a** of to Syria!



You have very little time to explain what you meant here...................


----------



## observor 69 (27 Jan 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You have very little time to explain what you meant here...................



Extraordinary rendition is an American extra-judicial procedure which involves the sending of untried criminal suspects, suspected terrorists or alleged supporters of groups which the US Government considers to be terrorist organizations, to countries other than the United States for imprisonment and interrogation.[2] Critics have accused the CIA of rendering suspects to other countries in order to avoid US laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture, even though many of those countries have, like the US, signed or ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Critics have called this practice "torture by proxy"[3] or "torture flights".[4]

Reportedly, in a number of cases (such as Khalid el-Masri) the practice of "extraordinary rendition" has been applied to innocent civilians, and the CIA has reportedly launched an investigation into such cases (which it refers to as "erroneous rendition"). In el-Masri's case, he may have been mistaken for another man with a similar name, Khalid al-Masri. The introduction of the term "erroneous rendition" should not be interpreted to mean that extraordinary rendition of any intended subject is legal.

Although rendition is not new, the current US policy of "extraordinary rendition" appears to be different in nature, and its usage as a tool in the US-led "war on terror" to apprehend suspected terrorists, but not place them before a court of law, is new.[5]

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

Unfortunately for Arar he feel victim to this practise. The O'Connor report  details this. 

This reference, page two, notes US agents were responsible for the rendition of Arar:

http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/ReleaseFinal_Sept18.pdf


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jan 2007)

OK......My apologies.

I was reading the "brave Americans" as an insult to their troops. Hence the heat.....


----------



## observor 69 (27 Jan 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> OK......My apologies.
> 
> I was reading the "brave Americans" as an insult to their troops. Hence the heat.....



Bruce I watch the PBS news each evening. At the end of the program they present the name, rank and photo of the most recent US causalties in Iraq and Afghanistan as they are released by the Pentagon. 
 I have watched this list as it has gone over 3000. You will not read any words from me denigrating the sacrifice of these fine people. 

Senator Webb had a moving reply to the State of the Union Address this week. I quoted it here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/56419.0.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jan 2007)

So they gave him 10.5 Mil, for being held and supposedly tortured. To bad our government didn't give the same consideration to our own Hong Kong vets. Who we KNEW were held, who we KNEW were tortured and who we know were legislated, by Canada, against suing for pain, suffering, and all the rest. We can do it for Arar, but not for our own valiant soldiers : He can stay on the no fly list for all I care. We've just given him enough money that he can afford to fly around the US if he wants to go somewhere.


----------



## Rodders (27 Jan 2007)

For those of you who draw comparisons between Arar and Canadian soldiers held prisoner and tortured after being captured in Hong Kong, or whom otherwise find cause to criticise him(Arar), do you give any creedence to the possibility that he may in fact have been innocent?

I'm not privy to any more information than most of you, and probably no less than most of you. For the overwhelming majority of us, are sources on this are at very best secondary. As such, we are required to speculate a great deal.

I'm certainly not a fan of the Bush administration, but I wouldn't consider myself "anti-American". What I find disheartening though is how many people here are tripping over themselves to point a finger of blame at Arar(even though he may in fact be innocent) but repulse at the mere suggestion that the US may very well have acted in an unacceptable fashion.

It is possible to criticise something the US does without necessarily being "anti-American".


----------



## riggermade (27 Jan 2007)

I think the problem most people have with this settlement is that there never has been absolute proof he was tortured and I said before, for someone claiming to be tortured for a year he looked in pretty good condition to me
As for the Americans it is their right to restrict movement in there country... right or wrong we will not be changing their decision any time soon


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Jan 2007)

Now we want proof he was tortured?  Most methods don't leave physical scars, but rather psychological ones.  I am still of the non-conspiracy theory that the US may indeed have something on him (something unproven, hence the lack of calling for his extradiction or stuff like that), maybe some whispers, that may very well be false.  I highly doubt that the US is too worried about "losing face" on this guy, since it's pretty low on the radar screen (I know, mixing of metaphors, but it was intentional), so, he's been paid off, now let's let this whole thing fade away...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jan 2007)

Rodders said:
			
		

> For those of you who draw comparisons between Arar and Canadian soldiers held prisoner and tortured after being captured in Hong Kong, or whom otherwise find cause to criticise him(Arar), do you give any creedence to the possibility that he may in fact have been innocent?



I'm not saying one way or another if he was or wasn't. What I'm saying is our Hong Kong vets were also denied due process and their basic rights as Canadian citizens were grossly violated, yet they got nothing. They were also innocent.

Before you start shooting off your gob, you better read, and understand, what's been written.


----------



## Rodders (28 Jan 2007)

Okay, to avoid essentially being told to shut up again, I wish to clarify my position.

I don't know if Arar was tortured, nor did I say that he was. I don't think anyone here knows for certain whether he was or wasn't. However, let's proceed on the assumption that he was. Does he deserve $10 million? I don't know. Should it be $1 million or a hundred million? Ten million may seem high, but if his assertions are correct, does he not warrant some sort of compensation? If not, it sure makes it easy for a government to do whatever it wants, knowing there can be no real accountability.

We compensate those who have been wrongfully imprisoned. Do those of you who oppose Arar being compensated also disapprove of this practice? If he was in fact innocent, than it is a fair analogy. He did suffer as a result of the actions/inactions of our(and his) government.

If we accept as some here believe that he wasn't tortured, it is nevertheless undeniable that he was sent to an unfriendly nation, and held by that country's security/intelligence forces. How many of us would like to spend some time with that department of the Syrian government? He, a Canadian citizen, was sent to a country against his will by a third country, who has yet to provide solid evidence to support their actions. Furthermore, the Canadian government(or at least it's security services) were involved. Is a simple sorry all that is warranted? 

As I said in an earlier post, the US has every right to deny whomever it wishes from entering it's country. I don't have a big problem with that. But the fact that they have a right to do so does not mean that their assertions and charges are correct or accurate. They have the right as a nation to do this, but that doesn't diminish the position taken by Mr Arar.

Recceguy is quite correct when he talks about the sad and unacceptable way Canadian soldiers held in Hong Kong were treated. I am not, nor did I dispute that. But does this mean that no one should ever receive compensation for such treatment since the government made the wrong decision in the past? if it was wrong then, it's wrong now.

I think that as a society, we in the West are becoming far too accepting of actions taken in the name of "national security". Of course national security is important, and in the past few years, it has become more prevalent. This is because of new threats, and also because we in North America really knew nothing about such threats prior to current events. Ever wonder why there's no rubbish bins in the London Underground? It's because they've been exposed to this sort of threat for a much longer time than we have. I'm not suggesting that the threat isn't real. Of course it is. But that threat does not justify any and all actions taken by a government. If it does, than we have seen the end of free societies, and al-Qaeda might as well do a victory dance.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jan 2007)

Thanks for finally understanding and acknowledging what I said. I said 'supposedly' as I don't think there's been enough physical proof to back the claim, I didn't say it didn't happen. I also never said he wasn't entitled. I have my own opininion on that, but it would only serve to inflame the rhetoric.

In the end, if he recieved that kind of compensation, so should those Vets.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Jan 2007)

I've been watching this thread spiral, figuring it's best to stay out. Common sense still urges that course of action.... _~sigh~_ 

While avoiding the arguments about perception, establishment of guilt, how Hong Kong vets were treated....or even bringing up whose world-view was less correct - Hegel or Kant....the compensation is WRONG.  Why?  Because it establishes a ludicrous precedent.

Arar was detained by the US, on information they have stated was _independent of anything provided by Canadian security_. The US then shipped him off to Syria. Arar's primary complaint must be against the Syria and/or the US. 

As a Canadian, he also has legitimate belief that the Canadian government (be it Liberal or Conservative at the time) would go to bat for him. He was visited by consular staff while in Damascus, the government has sent letters to both the Syrian and the U.S. governments formally objecting to Arar's treatment, and it has removed Arar from Canadian watch lists. The government, at that point, has done all that was required in this case. It further provided a formal apology; since Canada neither detained Arar nor shipped him to Syria, I believe this was not required - - a letter of sympathy perhaps, but not apology.

But paying him $10.5 million (plus supposedly 7-figure legal fees) sets a precedent for awarding someone for the actions of a non-Canadian third party. As a taxpayer, I have great heartache with the amount; as a pragmatic realist though, what _should_ the Canadian government have done? 
- Invade the US, then Syria? Obviously not. 
- Send "sharply-worded diplomatic notes"? Well, that's what diplomacy _is_; let other nations know the views of our nation. 
- Pay an outrageous amount of money for the acts of someone else? Again, obviously not.


----------



## bilton090 (28 Jan 2007)

Something smell's bad about Arar !, All the cops in two countries made a mistake, I don't think so !. What about him being seen having
lunch with a known terrist ?. I don't think he's on the up & up, but the U.S can stop people from flying in THERE country ! we should have 
more of that here. But some people whouldn't like that. 
                     
                              P.S - Spell Check not working 
       He had the 15 min's of fame


----------



## 2 Cdo (28 Jan 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Riiiight, so the CPC will be implementing the recommendations of the O'Connor Report to fix all those Liberal  **** ups?



Sorry for the delay in replying but it seems to me with the "retirement" of the head of the RCMP and other high level RCMP officials that, at the very least, a house cleaning seems to be in order. Let's watch and shoot whether or not any other reccommendations are put in place.



> Something smell's bad about Arar !,



Pretty much what I said a couple of pages ago. Something extremely fishy about his whole story. I worry about where this ten million dollars may just end up and with what groups!


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2007)

Yes.  We will have to wait and see.  After his acceptance of the Government's apology and his thanks to Canadians and Canada, we will all have to wait and see how sincere he was.  Will he successfully fight the American measures taken against him in the US Courts?  Will he remain in Canada or will he move on to another land?  I would highly doubt that he would return to Syria, if he was really tortured by them; but if he does, it would be a very good indication that he probably was not......or that he is a very stupid man.


----------



## GAP (28 Jan 2007)

EDITORIAL TheStar.com - opinion 
Arar's corrosive effect
January 26, 2007 
Article Link

Should Prime Minister Stephen Harper be concerned that Maher Arar continues to be denied entry to the United States? Yes. Absolutely.

At the same time, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins' suggestion this week that Ottawa mind its own business is nothing more than bluster designed to change an unpleasant subject.

To recap: The Americans arrested Arar in New York in 2002 as a terror suspect, shipped him off to Syria where he was tortured and continue to treat him with suspicion.

Meanwhile, Justice Dennis O'Connor conducted an exhaustive inquiry that cleared Arar of any ties to terrorism. And Public Security Minister Stockwell Day, who has seen U.S. information on Arar, continues to insist "Arar is not a threat." 

That leaves the Americans looking as if they are vindictively targeting an innocent who is suing them for redress. That offends natural justice.

It so offends U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat and a voice for civil rights, that he has demanded an explanation from U.S. Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, who has promised to brief Leahy on the case. 

While no one disputes that the U.S. has the right to bar any Canadian it likes, as Wilkins so helpfully pointed out, it does not follow that Ottawa should go mute and butt out.

Not when the Americans are pressing us to share information on Canadian travellers with them.

The Arar case is corrosive to bilateral relations because it typifies Washington's high-handed approach to border security, terror watch lists and "no-fly" lists.

The Americans seem to be saying they will ban whomever they like and they won't give reasons, and that they will deport people to be tortured if that's what they feel like doing. Simultaneously, they seem to be saying Canada must share every bit of information it has about anyone who proposes to cross the border.

Well, Canada doesn't have to hand over our information if the U.S. doesn't take our concerns seriously.

That is why Harper should tell U.S. President George Bush that this lopsided take on North American security does not work for us. 
More on link


----------



## Journeyman (28 Jan 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> EDITORIAL TheStar.com - opinion
> *While no one disputes that the U.S. has the right to bar any Canadian it likes*, as Wilkins so helpfully pointed out, *it does not follow that Ottawa should go mute and butt out*.


Yes, anonymous _Toronto Star_ propaganda opinion writer, it follows _exactly_. If the tables were turned, you'd likely be amongst the first to deny your faulty logic to bellow "hey, this is Canada; the US should butt out of our policy!"

For the government to continue to protest, when it has apparently (and expensively) come to terms with Arar, looks merely like petulant whining. Perhaps the government has chosen to leave that load station to _Star_ editorial writers.  :


----------



## armyvern (5 Sep 2008)

Sorry to necropost, but figured this was worthy of note. 

_Reproduced under the Fairdealings Provisions of the Copyright Act ..._

RCMP closes probe into Arar leak without laying charges



> The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> Thursday, September 04, 2008
> 
> ...



I wonder if Mr. Arar will be satisfied with this latest "closure"; somehow me thinks not. Quite sure he'll have a statement to make tomorrow.


----------



## McG (19 Jan 2009)

> Khadr ID'd Arar as visitor to al Qaeda training camps
> Updated Mon. Jan. 19 2009 7:51 PM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090119/Omar_Khadr_090119/20090119?hub=TopStories


----------



## old medic (19 Jan 2009)

Here is the CP story:

Khadr ID'd Arar as visitor to al-Qaida safehouses: FBI agent
By Colin Perkel, THE CANADIAN PRESS
19th January 2009


> GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — A teenaged Omar Khadr identified Canadian Maher Arar, who was tortured in Syria after he was sent there by American authorities, as someone he had seen at al-Qaida safehouses and training camps in Afghanistan, an FBI special agent testified Monday.
> 
> Khadr made the identification from photographs the agent, Robert Fuller, showed him during interrogations several months after the Toronto-born Khadr was captured following a firefight in Afghanistan in July 2002.
> 
> ...


----------



## geo (20 Jan 2009)

Ummm..... at this stage in the game..... SO WHAT ?

Omar Khadr is the one on trial.
The Gov't of Canada has investigated, found that they had erred in their handling of the Arar case & paid a bundle for it.

Also, even if Maher Arar was the godfather of Omar Khadr (which he ISN'T) what the H does that have to do with it.

The US has chosen to put Omar Khadr on trial for the murder of a Medic - during a battle - in a combat zone, in the middle of Afghanistan.  Unless the US prosecutors are prepared to say that Mr Arar pulled the pin, handed the grenade to Mr Khadr and told him to throw the grenade at the Medic - what does this have to do with anything ?


----------



## Garett (20 Jan 2009)

I think its pretty interesting that in 2002 he picked him out of a photo lineup and knew his name. Just as I thought before, it sounds like Arar did an excellent job of employing the trg he received in that trg camp once he was caught. 

I'm in Obama's corner, I hope he does well and turns things around on the economic and security fronts but I don't have that warm and fuzzy feeling. I bet he sees the world differently after all the top secret briefings he has received leading up to his inauguration. I don't see the prison in GITMO closing tomorrow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm..... at this stage in the game..... SO WHAT ?
> 
> Omar Khadr is the one on trial.
> The Gov't of Canada has investigated, found that they had erred in their handling of the Arar case & paid a bundle for it.
> ...




The "so what" is the Mr. Justice O'Connor never heard any evidence from US sources.

According to the _Globe and Mail_:



> Mr. Arar first addressed the Afghanistan question at a Canadian news conference a month after he was released from a year's detention in a Syrian prison. “I have never been to Afghanistan,” he said at the time. “I have never been anywhere near Afghanistan.”
> 
> However, within a week, Canadian officials – who were never identified – leaked the confession Mr. Arar gave under torture in Syria, which suggested he attended a training camp for several months in 1993. At that time, Mr. Khadr would have been six or seven years old.
> 
> ...



Justice O'Connor was very narrow in his findings - as he had to be based upon his interpretation of his mandate.

It is very difficult to decide what value ought to be placed on anything Khadr said about pretty much anything and anybody. It may true, or mistaken identity or an attempt at disinformation. I doubt we'll ever know - but I also doubt we'll ever know all of Maher Arar's _story_ either.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jan 2009)

Any way you cut it someone's full of BS.  And as Arrar's inquest is completed it's a closec subject.  Khadar's lawyer is just doing his job and muddying the waters.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jan 2009)

So Khadr's own sworn affidavit has Arar at AQ safehouses and training camps, where they both met..........but



> Khadr's Pentagon-appointed lawyer, Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, said that his client, like Arar, has been wrongly accused of terrorist activities.



Guess they were both delivering shawarma take out for the local Tabule Restaurant :


----------



## geo (20 Jan 2009)

Justice O'Connor has published his findings & the Canadian government have come to an agreement with Mr Arar, that facet of the docket really doesn't apply anymore - does it ?

I don't have the foggiest idea of the means that were used to interrogate & debrief Omar Khadr... If they were coerced, then anything and everything that is currently documented in the prosecution's file is suspect.  There are enough instances of police investigators asking the same question over & over again, using all sorts of means - going on until they got the answer they were looking for.  There are more than enough convicted criminals being releaased / pardoned for wrongful convictions.

At present Maher Arar is living in beautiful BC and the upcoming trial is about Omar Khadr and only Omar Khadr.  Throwing Maher Arar's name into the soup at this time really doesn't matter anymore... Unless the US is planning to demand the extradition of Maher Arar in order to try him for some sort of offence (after releasing him).

IMHO I believe that the Arar name has been brought up once again because Mr Arar is still trying to get his name off the Terrorist watch list.


----------



## PanaEng (22 Jan 2009)

It seems like the actual statement from Khadr was that his picture seemed familiar. That's it.
Also, during the time that he allegedly would have seen Arar, Arar was under surveillance, was employed in Ottawa and did not leave the country.  Additionally, Khadr would have been something like 7 yrs old. Pretty thin evidence.
However, he might have seen a picture of Arar.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## McG (30 Jan 2009)

> Maher Arar 'shocked' name came up at Gitmo hearing
> Updated Thu. Jan. 29 2009 11:10 PM ET
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090129/arar_shocked_090129/20090129?hub=Canada


----------



## geo (22 Feb 2009)

While Mr Arar was nabbed in the US and shipped to Syria, based on Cdn provided information, these three fine fellows travelled thru Syria on their own ticket.  What the Syrian Gov't does with their citzens & former citzens who travel thru their sovereign territory should NOT be a concern of the Cdn government.

You should be sorry for having decided to travel back to Syria... which is what got you into trouble in the 1st place.

IMHO


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2010)

There are still a lot of conflicting opinions about Maher Arar and his _odyssey_ but, no matter what one’s point of view may be, he has endured a lot and, now, he has succeeded mightily. Ottawa U may not be MIT or Cal Tech but it is a very respectable university and a PhD in Electrical Engineering is an indication of brains, ability and hard work. This article is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

 http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/That+Arar+from/3116547/story.html


			
				14pt said:
			
		

> That's Dr. Arar from the U of O
> *Former torture victim receives PhD*
> 
> BY SNEH DUGGAL, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN
> ...




Well done, Dr. Arar.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jun 2010)

That's good for him.  And I'm certain he has no student loan debts, what with you, me, my neighbours, your neighbours, etc, being oh-so Canadian and paying him oodles of cash.....


(I'm bitter about the payment to him, but I do congratulate him for completing his PhD.  That is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than I have done, or probably will ever do)


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jun 2010)

In other news....


> Today, following the announcement by the U.S. Supreme Court that it had refused to hear the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) case on behalf of Canadian citizen and rendition victim Maher Arar against U.S. officials for their role in sending him to Syria to be tortured and detained for a year, Mr. Arar made a startling announcement. According to Mr. Arar and his attorneys, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has been conducting a criminal investigation into U.S. as well as Syrian officials for their role in his rendition to torture.
> 
> To their knowledge, this is the first time the existence of the RCMP’s criminal investigation of U.S officials has been made public. Mr. Arar has met with the RCMP in conjunction with the investigation.
> 
> Said CCR Senior Attorney Maria LaHood, “.... the Canadians are doing the right thing by criminally investigating not only Syrian officials, but officials from the U.S. as well. The Obama administration should look to the Canadian example and do what's right - apologize to Maher and hold his torturers accountable.” ....



More on link.


----------



## GAP (14 Jun 2010)

Credibility is really being stretched here....if Arar makes enough noise and light, where there is doubt of his guilt, does that mean the next time around the officials won't look so close/not react? 

Vindictiveness aside, there seems to be an agenda here....


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jul 2010)

Let's not loose too much of that $10 million we hope to gain; get rid of the high priced lawyers:


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

*
Khadr fires American lawyers
*
07/07/2010 6:41:59 PM
CBC News 


LINK 

*Omar Khadr has fired his American lawyers less than a week before his military commission pre-trial hearings are slated to resume in Guantanamo Bay, one of his attorneys said Wednesday.*

Khadr, via a motion terminating his U.S. counsel and filed by his lawyers with the commission, said that he would either represent himself or boycott his trial.

"We have worked our hearts out on the case and were just eagerly looking forward to what we had planned to do," one of the lawyers, Barry Coburn, told The Canadian Press.

"We're just kind of consumed with grief at the notion that we won't be able to do that."

Coburn, who said he was "totally devastated" by Khadr's decision, refused to say what may have motivated his Canadian client, citing solicitor-client privilege.

However, speaking from Baltimore after a flight from Guantanamo Bay, Coburn said he hoped Khadr would relent.

"As of right now, there is no indication of that."

Army Col. Patrick Parrish, the military judge presiding over Khadr's case, will have to rule on the motion axing the lawyers after a hearing on Monday.

The Toronto-born Khadr, 23, is accused of five charges, the most serious of them being the murder of an American special forces soldier.

Prosecutors allege Khadr threw a hand grenade that killed Sgt. Chris Speer in Afghanistan in July 2002 when he was 15 years old. He faces a maximum life sentence on conviction.

His trial is slated to start in August. It was not immediately clear what impact the firing of the lawyers would have on the timing.

Khadr is also represented in the United States by Kobie Flowers and Pentagon-appointed lawyer Jon Jackson.

Flowers refused comment, citing his "ongoing duty of loyalty" to his client.

However, one of Khadr's Canadian lawyers, Nate Whitling, said from Edmonton that Khadr had "simply lost hope" in any prospect of a fair trial in Guantanamo.

"He sees little point in participating in a prosecution which appears will be conducted on the basis of statements extracted from him while he was being threatened, abused and tortured," Whitling said.

Pre-trial hearings were to resume next week, after a recess to allow the prosecution to conduct its own assessment of Khadr's mental state.

His lawyers have previously pressed to have self-incriminating statements and other evidence thrown out on the basis it was obtained through torture after the badly wounded Khadr was captured.

Khadr was taken to Guantanamo Bay in October 2002 and is the lone Westerner and youngest inmate at the U.S. prison.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In other news....
> 
> 
> > Today, following the announcement by the U.S. Supreme Court that it had refused to hear the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) case on behalf of Canadian citizen and rendition victim Maher Arar against U.S. officials for their role in sending him to Syria to be tortured and detained for a year, Mr. Arar made a startling announcement. According to Mr. Arar and his attorneys, *the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has been conducting a criminal investigation into U.S. as well as Syrian officials for their role in his rendition to torture* ....


Bumped with the latest ....


> The RCMP is laying a torture charge against a former Syrian military intelligence officer for alleged involvement in the brutal treatment of Ottawa telecommunications engineer Maher Arar.
> 
> An RCMP document filed in court Tuesday charges Col. George Salloum with torture under the Criminal Code.
> 
> ...


More from Amnesty International here, and the CCC section on torture here.


----------



## Teager (1 Sep 2015)

> A federal commission of inquiry led by Justice Dennis O’Connor concluded that faulty information the RCMP passed to the United States very likely led to Arar's year-long ordeal.



So this would never have happened if the RCMP didn't have faulty info?


----------

