Maher Arar, the Canadian wrongly sent by the US to Syria to be tortured, was honored with an international human rights award for his work in trying to eradicate torture in the world. But he remains on the no-fly list and can’t travel to Washington to receive the award in person.
So the US takes some bad info from the RCMP, whisks an innocent man off to Syria for hellish torture, and then not only won’t apologize to the poor man, he isn’t allowed to fly in the US and is on the border watch list. Is there no beginning to the competence in Gonzalez’ Justice Department? Unbelievable.
Yeah, because a few mistakes in the war on terror equals decades of apartheid. :rolleyes:
Don’t get me wrong, I disagree with many of the tactics in the war on terror, but you can’t be seriously suggesting the violation of a few peoples’ civil rights is equal to apartheid.
I don’t think these civil rights violations are on a par with apartheid but I do see a need for some sort of commission that can hear complaints such as these and do something about it. I can’t believe that Gonzalez could be so unfeeling that he keeps Arar on the no fly list after his illegal rendition. If anything he owes Arar a nice settlement.
Some things can be pursued that way but there are things like being on the no-fly list and the border watch list where there is no procedure to address grievances.
Oh, I thought you meant the torture stuff. But the fact is, the US gov’t can deny entry to any foreign national for any reason at all. No? It might not be good poilcy, but there is nothing illegal about it.
I guess that leads to the question should the government be able to take arbitrary actions against anybody, alien or citizen, with no recourse available? My answer is no.
I doubt it’s arbitrary – I’m sure the government has its reasons. However, I fail to see what the fuss is about keeping a foreigner out of the country. The government does that all the time. One of its basic duties is to only allow certain people in the U.S. It “arbitrarily” keeps out thousands of Mexicans who want to come here and work, for instance.
Certainly. And in order to not appear to be exercising that policy arbitrarily and capriciously, it would seem to be a good general practice to make it possible to find out what the reason is.
Can we agree that it is in the country’s best interest that our government find a way to avoid being seen as arbitrary and capricious in the application of its policies? Generally speaking?
And while it may not be illegal, it’s definitely Pittable, simply as an example of an unjust outcome that adds insult to injury. And not even acknowledging a request to correct an administrative error that resulted in/from a cock-up of this magnitude*, well that’s the kind of thing that makes people embarrassed to have Alberto Gonzales heading our Justice Department.
*If that happened, that is. Cites that show the Justice Department to have acknowledged the request will be welcomed.
This is insane! More and more, everytime the government makes an arbitrary decision, with no appeal, and no recourse, people shrug and say thats ok. Or even, shut up, the government has the right to do what it wants arbitrarily with no ability for people to challenge it. This is not what our government should be like. For petes sake, anyone should be able to challenge the government and get a hearing, not be brushed away, especially when they have been extensivley wronged by the government.
Every time? No. Most of the time? No. In some instances? Yes.
Do you think everyone in the world has a right to enter this country? Do you think you have a right to enter any country in the world? I don’t know of any country that has that policy.
But there are darn few (I hope) that had previously been illegally sent to Syria for extensive torturing. I think the problem with government is that it feels free to do this sort of thing without reason, without shame, and without recourse.
Notice I didn’t say he had the right to enter the country, though I think he should be allowed. But I think he should have the right to challenge his denial. I think that we should allow that for everyone.
And for someone we had fucking tortured!, then I think that fucking appeal shouldn’t be “lost” by the the beurocratic process. In fact, I think that fucking bush should fly goddamn air force one to canada, pick him up, and let him use bush as an ottoman on the way to DC.
Attempting to draw an equivalence between employment-motivated illegal immigration (typically attempted by people without passports from their own country; let alone a record of having applied for a visa), and a cross-border visit for a specific length of time and for a specific purpose, on a valid passport, with a visa applied for, strikes me as a bit disingenuous. Doesn’t it strike you that way?
Well, the fact that he’s on the no-fly list doesn’t preclude him from entering the country, btw. As a Canadian, he could drive here pretty easily, although it might be a burden if he has to drive to the east coast. If he gets his day in court over the torture issue, I’m sure the gov’t will be forced to let him in to testify.
I certainly agree that US citizens should be able to challenge being on the no-fly list, but I assume that we can. Am I wrong about that?
As far as I know, there is no way to challenge the no-fly list. Ted Kennedy got on it becuase his name was used as an alias, and he had to throw an unholy shit-fit to get of it, and he has been in Washington for a very long time. Those of us with no connections are fucked.
I was under the impression that if you were on the no-fly list you were on the no-entry in to the US list. But I can’t find anything to back that up, so he probably could drive. But I bet he would get arrested by some dumb fuck.
And this bullshit about non-citizens having jack shit recourse when our government fucks with their lives needs to end. There needs to be recourse for all people when another government fucks their lives up. But that obviously is a very long way away. I still think that it is the height of insanity for us to treat non-citizens as if they have no rights, like that of habeus corpus, etc. Especially since it seems to be getting easier to be considered a non-citizen.