I Pit the Bush Administration for Torturing Innocent People

Are you sure? It seems to me that you do need to go through customs when changing planes in the US between two other countries. I mean, that’s when they picked him up in the first place. So did Berna Cruz when flying from India to Canada via Chicago, and that’s how she got in trouble too.

Or is there a technical meaning of “inspected and admitted by an immigration officer” that is more specific than just “going through customs”? (This is entirely possible.)

I’d have to check; I’ve never changed planes in the U.S. coming in from aa foreign country, and the logistics have changed quite a lot over the past 5 years. I can’t remember when the Transit Without Visa program was abolished.

I’m out of town right now and on someone else’s computer; I’ll check more when I get home.

Of course, none of the logistical issues negate the fact that Mr. Arar was entitled to a credible fear interview before being sent anywhere at all, and if he expressed fear of removal to Syria, he was entitled to a hearing before a judge, with appeals rights, etc.

Three years ago, at the very least. I was flying to Madrid in 2003 and the plane made a stop in San Juan, PR, we had to clear inmigration, including being photographed and fingerprinted. What used to be a 30 mins. stopover turned into a two-hours affair. Everybody I know started avoiding Iberia like the plague because of this. They have now changed the route so they come here first and then to PR, in which is essentially going forward and then backwards.

Ive been reading about this case today. Canada phrases it that the US was less than truthful in the taking of Arar. That is polite for we lied.

August 7, 2003, apparently. So, after Arar’s arrival in the U.S. (And as a Canadian citizen, he would have been visa-exempt in any case, though that wouldn’t have exempted him from the other entry requirements, such as having to satisfy INS that he wasn’t a terrorist.)

Not to diverge or digress, but this raises other questions.

We are told a lot about how the CIA needs some extra manuevering room when it comes to “aggressive interrogation”, but we are assured that such genteel savagery will be confined to “high value detainees” in order to obtain urgently needed intelligence. I feel like we are invited to see this like a TV drama, the LED on the time bomb is digiting relentlessly towards zero, the terrorist can give us the codes so we have no choice but to get mid-evil on his ass.

Clearly, they are offering the best possible case. Not brutality as a standard procedure, but something that needs to be available in urgent situations.

So where does this fellow fall in terms of “value”? We are given to understand that the most he was even falsely accused of was having “connections” to AlQ. Not that he was in some sort of command position, or a crucial component in an imminent attack. Merely that he was “connected”, hence, suspicious. Not someone we can think of as a “high value” target.

And yet this fellow is offered up to rendition. So it would appear that the level of value which neccesitates torture is rather low. It appears more like a practice to gain intelligence of dubious value, if any, trolling and dredging for scraps.

If this incident is any indication, they seem inclined to practice this sort of brutality on the most common and mundane of detainees, the term “high value” is pixie dust blown into our eyes.