Should read:
There is no evidence that the US required the sharing of any information by the Syrian government before he was turned over.
Also, the US government claims that it specifically requested and was given assurance that Arar would not be mistreated.
Which is a bit like giving Hezbollah first-strike capability and then being surprised when you can’t find Haifa on a map of Israel anymore.
Yes, I recognize that according to Syrian law, once a citizen, always a citizen.
And if Angola passed a law that said members of this message board were citizens of Angola, then any of us could be deported to Angola.
Besides, doesn’t forcibly repatriating someone to a country where they are highly likely to face torture (indeed, doing so in a manner that guarantees such torture) violate U.S. law?
I’m content to let the courts decide, after a thorough investigation.
Can you link to a specific post?
Well, Arar claims Syrian officials asked him the same questions U.S. officials had, which is strongly suggestive of cooperation and coordination between the two governments.
So? What’s stopping them from doing so anyway? It could be a perfectly legal decision reached in Angola, written in their books with the same reverence and formality as any of their laws. Your recognition or nonrecognition would be of no relevance.
Well, Arar has Canadian citizenship and was on his way back to Canada and I’m sure he was quite surprised by the turn of events. How confident are you that your doubts will protect you, the next time you travel abroad?
If there aren’t, I’m looking forward to seeing this being the first, as it will (hopefully) curtail blatant attempts at Constitutional end-runs that involve sending someone off U.S. soil to be tortured by U.S. proxies. Besides, I don’t need a precedent.
Was Arar denied due process? Arguably so.
Was Arar denied counsel? Arguably so.
Was Arar subjected to cruel or unusual punishment? Undoubtedly so.
Is the gathering of evidence through torture unconstitutional? Undoubtedly so.
It’s conceivable to me that one or more members of the U.S. Supreme Court might disagree (I’d be surprised if Scalia didn’t). I look forward to reading their decision, should this case get that far.
Exactly. They’re a known human rights violator, while friendly safe Canada was just a few hours North. Why did the U.S., choosing between two nations to which Arar could be deported, go with the one that was further away?
I’m happy with a full investigation to confirm or deny the existence of such evidence, and I won’t even request that any U.S. official be beaten with cables. As for them not taking any steps to get Arar back, why should they? If he disappears into the limbo of an indefinite detainment in a Syrian prison, then as far as the U.S. is concerned - problem solved.
My references are vague because the Amendments are vague. Does being sent to a Syrian prison seem like “due process” to you? Does being denied a lawyer, while still in U.S. custody, sound like “Assistance of Counsel”? Does being sent somewhere to get beaten with cables strike you as “cruel and unusual”? I’d hazard a guess that there’s enough here to warrant an investigation. I can imagine that some U.S. Federal court may ultimately decide that no violation took place. I sincerely hope in any event my own government will continue to register its displeasure at the mistreatment of my fellow citizen.
Then I guess you have to choose between your govenment being criminal or being stupid.
Highly doubtful. See below.
There is an exception for national security.
Here is what the courts have found so far:
There was a lot back and forth, but the point is that “cruel and unusual punishment” is a legal term of art that only applies to post-conviction treatment. The Court has specifically refused to extend the protection to pre-conviction treatment.
See: Ingraham v. Wright
Or the US told Syria why Arar was being deported, and Syria decided to investigate.
Jus soli is one oldest legal traditions in the world. If Angola wants make up some crazy law that is fine. But I doubt any country will recognize that designation; however, if am arrested in Spain, and Spain recognizes the Angola law, I will be Angolan under Spanish law.
I do not know what specific laws determine the nationality of a person under US law. But other than US citizenship, I do know that it is not a matter of constitutional law. If you think the US’s recognition of Arar jus soli Syrian citizenship violated US law, can you please cite the specific law?
Precedent is specifically against your cruel and unusual claim and right of counsel claim. I see no due process violation either. Also, Arar’s case was dismissed. (Arar is appealing.)
What is the argument? Be specific.
Why would he get counsel? This is a civil matter.
Definitely not. There was no conviction. That clause has never been applied except for post-conviction treatment.
What evidence was gathered?
I do not know. You do not know. It looks bad, and it looks the US sent him to worst place possible where he would be investigated the hardest. But to show an actual violation of the law you need more than suspicion. You need evidence. Where is your evidence? And even you have the evidence, what specific violation of the Constitution (as opposed to statutory law) would have been committed?
So now you no longer claim the US wanted him back?
Was specific violation of due process are you contending?
You get assistance of counsel in criminal cases. Arar was not accused of a crime. Deportation is civil matter. There is no constitutional right to counsel for a deportation.
The Cruel and Unusual Clause only applies post-conviction.
It is not a violation of the Constitution to be stupid, and violations of the Constitution are not crimes.
Not directly on subject, my curiosity bone is aching.
Why Syria? If Arar was sent to Syria on the presumption that Syria would use more sincere methods of interview, why would it be reasonable to expect that Syria would share that information with us? Wasn’t that long ago we were rattling our sabers in their face and suggesting that maybe Saddam was hiding his pink unicorns of death there.
A public hostility that masks a covert cooperation between the US and Syria? Hard to believe, too clever by half, and whatever for?
And why would the US assume that harsh methods would even be applied in the first place? Don’t we actively assume that Syria is the bestest buddies with AlQ? That would be like catching a Communist spy and rendering him to Bulgaria for interrogation.
Anyway, so unless we could expect some cooperation from the (presumably) hostile regime of Syria, how could they have expected to benefit?
Not a big deal, I guess, nor remotely on thread, but anomalies bug me. If anybody can clarify, I’d appreciate it…
If the intention was simply to be rid of him, he could have been returned to Canada.
Foolish Minnesotan! The intention was to be as cruel as they could get away with.
Enlighten yourself by reading this thread: The McClatchy Report: What Is To Be Done?
Abuse was was the norm, regardless of guilt, innocence, or the phase of the moon.
Arar was Syrian. It was Syria or Canada.
I do not know why he was sent to Syria. But even if Syria did not share what they found out, they were not likely to treat an al Qaeda operative nicely. If he had been al Qaeda member, the Syrian government probably would have killed him even if they did not share the information.
There was no AQI. This was all pre-invasion. The Baath Party was unlikely to look kindly on a member of al Qaeda.
Once again, we find out that the behavior of the Bush admin is unconstitutional & illegal. But of course, “High Crimes & Misdemeanors” has nothing to do with breaking the law if the Speaker of the House decides she really doesn’t want to be President.
OK if I hijack this thread to cuss out Pelosi?
You mean, Syria and AlQ were enemies? Did anyone tell the President?
Still, doesn’t make sense except for Squink’s remark upstream, that they simply intended to commit malice beyond even the flexible standards of the US. Which means that obtaining intelligence had nothing to do with it.
So, above and beyond the poor sod’s innocence, we sent him to Syria out of simple malice, even if he had some actionable intelligence, we would rather subject him to suffering at the hands of Syria than to try alternative means of gaining that intelligence. If we kept him here, he might just tell us something. Small chance, maybe, but better than if he were dead.
They were about as friendly as Iraq and al-Qaeda.
We might not have been able to hold him here. And despite what is implied, there is very little information that the average al-Qaeda member can give us that will be useful.
If you want my best guess at what happened. There was a suspicion that Arar was a member of al-Qaeda, but there was not any real evidence. The decision was made to send him to Syria because Syria would be is a better position than Canada to determine his status. Canada would have had to let him go because there was no real evidence, but this would not be a problem in Syria, and Syria would use torture to determine his status.
But the problem is there is no evidence to support this view or the view that they just wanted Arar tortured for the fun of it.
And it’s an exception without limit, apparantly, with all the potentials for abuses and gross miscarriages of justice that entails.
It’s not inconceivable the Court will revisit the issue, in light of this age of Gitmo where suspects are held for years without access to counsel or formal charges. It is extremely convenient for the Executive to maintain such legal limbos.
Yes… “investigate”. With cable-whippings.
Then you acknowledge the possibility that Spain could deport you to Angola. What remedy would you seek in such circumstances?
Under the circumstances described above, you’re outside the protection of U.S. law.
Well, there’s the Torture Victims Protection Act of 1992, signed into law by Congress, and the International Convention against Torture, to which the U.S. is a signatory.
Well, let’s see what the Second Circuit Court has to say. Trager suggested Arar could go after individual officials. I hope the Second Circuit will hear the case and the Center for Constitutional Rights will pursue it.
Delivery into a prison system without charge.
Do “civil matters” involve detention and deportation?
And perhaps that will change in light of the convenience of legal limbos in which what is effectively a life sentence can be imposed without the need for trial or conviction.
Even the Syrians admitted there was none, after a year of torture and imprisonment. In fact, even if evidence had been found, there’s no indication the U.S. cared because the various detainees in their custody or in the custody of friendly governments have not been given trials, or at least no such case comes to mind. The Arar case happens to be a particular embarrassment to the U.S. because he happened to be Canadian, and because Canadians get offended and vocal at this sort of thing, and Arar wasn’t trying to get into the U.S. at all, but merely through it on his way home.
Can we please drop the “investigated” euphemism for what happened to Arar in Syrian custody? He was tortured.
Arar v. Ashcroft claims a fifth-amendment due-process violation. Trager disagrees, but his is not the last word on the subject.
I don’t remember ever claiming the U.S. wanted him back. I’m sure they would have been happy with him gone forever. The potential for abuse that I’ve attempted to point out is that if the U.S. did want a suspect back for trial, they have the means (and by your argument, the legal right) to take a suspect to another country, have him tortured at length by the locals, and then return him to the U.S. Of course, the way things are going, the trials would be more trouble than they’re worth. Better to simply have the suspect vanish indefinitely, be it to Syria or Guantanamo.
Involuntary removal to another country to face torture in the process of “investigation” seems substantive enough to me.
He wasn’t given the standard deportation hearing, either. Just vanished in the night, without notice to the Canadian Consulate. Amnesty International claims this violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, by the way.
Then I guess claiming a Due Process violation will have to do, until the current administration’s use of legal limbos is finally recognized as de facto punishment.
Fact is, I don’t have to search high and low for nitpicky excuses to call the actions of the U.S. government’s treatment of a fellow Canadian into question. Under any standard, was what happened to Arar just? And if there’s no precedent specifically saying what happened to him is illegal, wouldn’t a case this egregious be the opportunity to establish said precedent? Canada has quite a large population of naturalized citizens, who immigrated here for a better life. If Arar v. Ashcroft fades without repercussion, isn’t that an invitation for rampant abuses in the name of national security?
I’m sorry that you live in so much fear that this matter, by comparison, is of such trivial importance to you.
Except they aren’t. All Syria could do was torture Arar. Canada could (and did) investigate Arar’s associates and habits to determine if there was any reason to believe an Al-Qaida connection.
My best guess at what happened, if I was going to be as generous as possible, is that the typical American official is genuinely scared of being the guy who let the next Sept. 11 happen. It’s far easier and safer to detain and hassle and even willingly let be tortured anyone who looks even trivially suspicious and later claim “I was just doing my job”, despite the obvious futility and resultant harm.
The problem of your position is that what happened to Arar is not illegal under current law despite from claims that what happened vaguely violated the Constution. You even admit that the Supreme Court will have to re-interpret the law to get the results you want on some issues, but this is not going to happen on the constitutional issues because they are not even close cases. There may have been violations of statutory law, but we need more evidence.
I have no fear in this matter. I would support new laws being passed that protect someone in Arar’s position. But that does not mean the Constitution protects Arar from what from what happened, or that there is enough evidence to conclude that the statutory law was violated.
Well, and the Torture Victims Protection Act of 1992, signed into law by Congress, and the International Convention against Torture, to which the U.S. is a signatory.
Well, so you say. Let’s see if the Second Circuit will let the case proceed.
Okay, let’s see if the Second Circuit will let the case proceed.
There is a national security exception to the TVP and CAT is not self-executing.
Okay, and what national security interest was served in sending Arar to Syria? Or can national security justify anything at any time?