I’m sure Bricker that you have a better grasp on this than I, so a question for you.
If Canadian citizen Arar was in the United States and the Syrians claimed that he had committed a crime in Syria, would it be legal for the US to extradite him directly to Syria or would the Syrians have to ask Canada for extradition to Syria upon his return to Canada? My hunch is that the US has no authority to do anything with him unless charged with a crime in the US, so deportation to Syria is illegal.
I liked this quote from the article:
I wonder if this will make Canadians less eager to transfer suspects over to the US.
Ditto.
Is Arar even being paid any restitution for this? If I was him I’d be suing. Sue the prez, sue homeland security, sue the agents personal responsible. Sue em to the gutter where those inhuman bastards belong.
They’ve actually helped me to keep my head above water these past few years. While I certainly don’t get the benefit that others with more income do, I have definitely benefitted from them, although I do believe it’s time to bring them back up.
For all the talk about “BushBots”, your opinions are remarkably in step with the lefty blogs (which I read fairly often, much to your surprise I’m sure). It must be a coincidence that you guys so ably ape the party line on virtually everything. More on that is forthcoming below.
That disclaimer generally stems from the fact that anybody who has an opinion not in lockstep with the Democrats on this board is labeled a “Bush apologist”. Having been a victim of that myself on numerous occasions I often feel the need to qualify my opinions, particularly when they happen to be in agreement with something that Bush may be advocating.
You don’t have to be on someone’s dick to agree with them on occasion. I have agreed with Bush in the past on things and I surely will in the future. Nonetheless, I voted against him in 2004 and my conversion (as it were) is well-documented on these boards. But somehow I regularly get pegged as a Bush supporter. One thing does not necessarily lead to another, as you quite capably demonstrated with your rebuttal above.
So, again, it’s on you to demonstrate that John Mace is a Bush supporter. I anxiously await the oodles of cites that are undoubtedly forthcoming.
As for the OP (hey, I’m here, I may as well weigh in on it), as a member of the military there is the potential that I may be captured and tortured the next time I go over there, and having had a relatively mild taste of torture in SERE School I want no part of it. I view torture with distaste, mainly because we are what we are because of our ideals, and as trite as it sounds the terrorists will win if we cast those ideals away in the pursuit of whatever white elephant damn fool crusade we have embarked on. By condoning torture we become what we despise.
Of course the guy was a terrorist. We tortured him, didn’t we?
The inquiry found that it was true. From Justice O’Connor’s Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar:
I’m not following you. According to wikipedia:
He was detained in NY-- does it matter if it was at the airport or some other place? I’ll admit that I used the term “due process” very losely, and perhaps it is not technically correct. But if the guy was a Canadian citizen detained in the US, how could we legally send him to Syria?
BTW, Bricker, I didn’t mean to imply that he was arrested without due process, but that he was denied due process after he was arrested. I’m sure whoever arressted him thought they were acting on good information. It’s what happened afterwards that is disturbing. It doesn’t appear that the guy was given any kind of hearing that could be called “due process” before he was sent to Syria. If I’m not using that term correctly, then maybe you can help me out-- something seems to be missing betweeen the time the guy was detained and the time he was sent to Syria-- or any other country besides where he was citizen or where he came from on his way to the US. It’s my understanding that it is routine for a country to send someone back to where they came from if they enter the country without proper documentation.
If Canadian citizen Arar was in the United States and the Syrians claimed that he had committed a crime in Syria, AND if we have an extradition treaty with Syria, AND if the process outlined in that treaty are followed, we may legally send him directly to Syria.
However, a sine qua non of extradition treaties is an extradition hearing, where the target of the extradition request has a right to oppose extradition. So I strongly doubt that this loophole would apply.
Tends to open your mind a little more, huh?
Return with Honor
Does the Candadian government have any decision making role in the process? That is, may we extradite him against an explicit request form the Canadian gov’t not to do so?
The big question remaining is why? Whoever did this ghastly thing must have some explicable motive. Was he a “high value detainee”? Whatever gave anyone the idea that this man was some sort of threat? And what gives with Syria, whom we appear eager to bash and berate at any opportunity? If, as it seems, we regard Syria as more enemy than friend, why would we send anyone there in hopes of obtaining useful intel?
Proving it to whom, pray tell?
The man was detained while changing planes by a governement administration known to actively seek legal permission to engage in torture, and which has not adequatley shown that they did not authorize known acts of torture commited on foreign soil to prisoners in their custody.
Then, contrary to what his government unerstood would be his disposition, which was that he would be refused entry to the US for purposes of changing planes, and returned to Switzerland, whence his US-bound flight originated, was instead sent in a somewhat roundabout way to a country around the world for human rights abuses, to which there is considerable evidence and opinion that this very administration has used to torture detainees in the past…
He is kept for many months, not allowed to speak freely during consular visits, particularly regarding his condition and treatment, and is described by at least one consular observer as much thinner and paler in captivity than in photos of him on vacation just prior to his detainment.
Aftrer his release, the man repeatedly tells very consistent stories that he was kept in a tiny cell with no sunlight or toilet, but that his jailors moved him to a place with better conditions consistent with a timeline wherein the Canadian consulate demanded it.
There are only two sets of people who would have a hard time believing his story outright:
a) Bush apologists
b) You, apparently
A detailed description of the distinction would be most welcome.
A question for you to consider, Dave. If Doper A is in complete and unwavering lockstep with the the lefty blogs, on what issues can you demonstrate that said Doper would be wrong? Similarly, if Doper B is in the same lockstep with, oh, say Freeper or Little Green Turdballs, what would be his approximate ratio of utter crap to good sense?
See what I’m getting at here?
Are you being intentionally thick? You even quoted John’s statement that he believes the guy was tortured.
The subject of proof is relevant if the guy were to try (for example) to seek damages for his treatment, or to pin criminal charges on this slippery administration.
Considering the sad state of US/Syrian relations, we have quite a bit of cooperation with them in the WoT. Wasn’t it just last week that they thwarted an attack on the US embassy in Damascus? And this guy is Syrian by birth, so if we were going to send him somewhere other than Canada or Tunisia (where he was coming from), Syria would probably be the logical place. Logical, of course, assuming you wanted to rough someone up somewhere outside the US. Maybe he still has family there and the authorities could give him an update on their health. Perhaps they could even make some predictions about his family’s health in the future…
From a legal/diplomatic POV, have you ‘entered’ Country B if you’re only on an airport stopover on a flight between Country A and Country C, and have not attempted to pass through (or somehow bypass) Customs?
I’ve been in Heathrow four times, but I’ve yet to have my passport stamped there, since I was only there on a stopover between the US and Germany on each occasion. Did I enter the U.K., by the standards of international law?
Might simply be the accomodation possible with having shared enemies. Syria leans toward the Shia (as evidenced by thier support of Hezzbollah). AlQ springs from Wahabbist sources, and that brand of Sunni is virulently anti-Shia. Might be all of it in a nutshell.
Right, but the problem arises in your step #2.
In other words, the US has the right to refuse entry to anyone, even a valid visa holder, for any reason, with no hearing or other process. Immigration officials can simply decide they don’t like the cut of your jib, and send you away.
What they CANNOT do is pick a random country and force you to go there. They can force you to return to your own country, yes.
We’re not disagreeing here, I think.