home

Canada Awards $9 Million to Maher Arar

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:56:00 AM EST
Tags: Maher Arar (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

At last, a little bit of justice for Maher Arar.

The prime minister of Canada apologized Friday to Maher Arar and agreed to give $9 million in compensation to the Canadian Arab, who was spirited by U.S. agents to Syria and tortured there after being falsely named as a terrorism suspect.

Arar, 36, a former computer engineer who was detained while changing planes at a New York airport in 2002 and imprisoned in a Syrian dungeon for 10 months, said after the announcement that he "feels proud as a Canadian."

As for the U.S., they haven't even removed Arar from the watchlist yet:

Public resentment in Canada has swelled this week over U.S. officials' insistence that Arar should remain on its "watch list" of potential suspects, as well as the testy comments of U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins, who said Canada had no business questioning who was on the list.

The United States has never acknowledged it made a mistake in the Arar case, which has become one of the most public embarrassments in the U.S. practice of "extraordinary rendition" of suspects to other countries for interrogation and imprisonment.

< Has anyone been having site trouble? | Getting Up to Speed for Monday's Libby Trial >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Canada Awards $9 Million to Maher Arar | 144 comments (144 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Canada shouldn't have to pay for the torture (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by roy on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:41:05 AM EST
    Canadian police messed up in causing Arar to be suspected.  That's a serious foul-up, but the decision to send him to Syria is on American heads:

    A number of signs alerted consular officials to the possibility that the United States was considering sending Mr. Arar to Syria. ... The DFAIT officials considered these warning signs, but based on their past experience with individuals in "terrorism-related" cases and the information they had received, they did not believe that there was an imminent risk that Mr. Arar would be sent to Syria. Individuals in these types of cases had always been held for months. Moreover, the officials had never known the Americans to remove a Canadian citizen to a country other than Canada when the individual had requested to be sent to Canada and was travelling with Canadian documents, as was the case with Mr. Arar.

    I'm not sure whether to praise the Canadian government for trying to make things right for its citizen, or criticize them for making its other citizens pay for somebody else's irresponsibility.

    Roy (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:26:13 AM EST
    The US may have made the decision to send him to Syria, but the fact remains that the decision was based on other decisions.

    Canada didn't want him back and did not come to his defense. As a person with dual citizenship he was then returned to Syria.

    Canada is paying him because they are the ones who caused him to go to Syria.

    Parent

    Lies, bloody lies, and PPJ posts (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Al on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:10:56 AM EST
    You must be thinking of events in some parallel universe. Arar was detained at a stopover in JFK on his way back to Canada from Tunisia. American immigration officials accused him of being a member of Al Qaida, based on wrong information they had received from Canadian police (hence the subsequent inquiry, resignation of RCMP Commissioner, compensation package, and apology from the Prime Minister). Arar was detained on September 26, 2002. He was rendered to Syria on October 7 or 8. The Canadian government was notified on October 10. During the O'Connor inquiry, Canadian Senator Pierre de Bane' testified that before Arar disappeared and reappeared in Syria,
    a top Foreign Affairs official told him the Americans were only willing to hand over Arar under certain conditions.

    "He said the Americans said to the Canadians, 'We are ready to give you back Mr. Arar on the condition that you bring him back to Canada, you incarcerate him, you make charges against him,'" he testified.

    "And the Canadian party said, 'No, the Canadian Charter of Freedoms does not allow us to do what you're asking. We do not have proper grounds.'"

    According to Amnesty International,

    On September 26th, 2002 Mr. Arar was taken into custody by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) at Kennedy Airport on his way home to Canada after visiting his wife's family in Tunisia. He was questioned about his alleged links to al-Qa'ida for 9 hours without a lawyer and then removed to the Metropolitan Detention Centre in New York. After thirteen days he "disappeared" from U.S. custody. It was later determined that he had been deported to Syria without any hearing, and without the knowledge of the Canadian consulate, his lawyer, or his family.

    And if you think you know otherwise, you should tell Alberto Gonzales. Here he is stonewalling Senator Leahy:

    LEAHY: But why was he sent to Syria instead of Canada?

    GONZALES: Well, again, Senator, I'd be happy to answer these questions I think we can say a lot more about it, if you just simply give me some additional time.

    LEAHY: Can you tell me why (then attorney-general John Ashcroft) took steps to ensure that he wouldn't be tortured?

    Of course, he was.

    GONZALES: I believe that piece of information is public. There were steps. I think General Ashcroft confirmed this publicly, is that there were assurances sought that he would not be tortured from Syria.

    LEAHY: Attorney-General ...

    (laughter)

    ... I'm sorry. I don't mean to treat this lightly. We knew damn well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn't be tortured. He'd be held. He'd be investigated.

    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.

    The US rendered Mr. Arar to Syria without telling the Canadian government until after the fact. Canadian authorities made many mistakes throughout this whole affair, but at least in Canada there has been a thorough public inquiry resulting in a complete exoneration of Mr. Arar, compensation and apology, and firing of one top official. In the US ... maybe something will come out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

    Parent

    Al (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 11:07:29 AM EST
    Al - Alternative universe? This is your claim from TL on 9/06/06. It has a couple of rather obvious errors. I hope you have corrected your memory banks by now.

    This is completely false. Arar was detained by US authorities at the border on his way back to Montreal, and deported to Syria before the Canadian authorities were notified.

    I just noted that the US asked Canada to take him back, and Canada did nothing. Now you can argue that we said they had to arrest him, may be true, may not. Facts are they could have taken him, arrestd him and then let him go. Facts are the Canadians never tried to get him back. He never even received any help above the Consul level.

    Do you believe that if the Canadian Ambassador had picked up the phone and called our SecState and said: "Hold on. He's a Canadian citzen. Give him back." that we would not have? Or, at the least, not sent him to Syria?

    As the following quote from Wikpedia shows, Canada thought this guy was dirty.

    On September 26, 2002, Arar was returning to Montreal from a family vacation in Tunisia. During a stopover at JFK Airport he was detained by United States immigration officials. They claimed that Arar was an associate of Abdullah Almalki, a Syrian-born Ottawa man whom they suspected of having links to the al-Qaeda terror organization, and they therefore suspected Arar of being an al-Qaeda member himself. When Arar protested that he only had a casual relationship with Almalki (having once worked with Almalki's brother at an Ottawa high-tech firm), the officials produced a copy of Arar's 1997 rental lease which Almalki had co-signed. The fact that US officials had a Canadian document in their possession was later widely interpreted as evidence of the participation by Canadian authorities in Arar's detention.

    Canadian officials apparently told US officials Arar was no longer a resident of Canada. The NY Times reported, "In July 2002, the Mounted Police learned that Mr. Arar and his family were in Tunisia, and incorrectly concluded that they had left Canada permanently." [15] He was administratively removed to Syria via Italy and Jordan on October 7 or 8. The Canadian government was notified on October 10, 2002 and Arar was later discovered to be in the Far'Falastin detention center, near Damascus, Syria.

    Link

    They also thought that he had left the country. Must have seemed like good riddance to them, based on their beliefs at that time.

    Here's a pretty good rant from one of our friends from the frigid north.(Soon to be colder due to Global Warming.)

    What happened to our justice system, and proper extradition proceedings? One country's police service cannot just ask a police service in our country for a Canadian national. How could our Ministry of Foreign Affairs simply allow a Canadian citizen to be deported to a third country without extradition hearings? Who in Canada was asked and who approved the sending of Mr. Arar to Syria? Why didn't we protest when he was if we weren't asked?

    So if you want to assign blame, the Canadians screwed up. His arrest was based on their information, and he was sent to Syria based on their information.

    So, as I have commented before, the guy got shafted. By Canada. Our actions were in good faith based on Canada's info. I hope his $9M is tax free and he leaves a country that would do such to him.


    Parent

    Jim ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by syinco on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    Do you believe that if the Canadian Ambassador had picked up the phone and called our SecState and said: "Hold on. He's a Canadian citzen. Give him back." that we would not have? Or, at the least, not sent him to Syria?

    I think you're saying that Canada is to blame in part because, by not promptly attempting all available methods to achieve Arar's return, it demonstrated that it did not really want Arar returned.

    So then, isn't the U.S. similarly guilty for not properly attempting all available methods to realize Arar's return? For example, the U.S. could have continued to detain Arar pending further discussion with Canada, or apprised Canada of its true intentions as inducement to comply with U.S. demands.  Since the U.S. did not do these things, the U.S. must not have really wanted to return Arar, and should therefore be to blame.  

    Frankly, I think that logic holds about as much water as yours, so let's drop the line that Canada didn't really want Arar returned.  

    I see the significant questions regarding U.S. blame as:

    • Whether it was appropriate for the U.S. to make Arar's return contingent on demands that Canada could not readily meet.

    • Why the U.S. acted so hastily to deport/render Arar.

    • Most obviously, why the U.S. continues to accept and act on superficial assurances from countries about torture that the U.S. must know to be false.


    Parent
    Another PPJ post (none / 0) (#33)
    by Al on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 02:18:55 PM EST
    I just noted that the US asked Canada to take him back, and Canada did nothing. Now you can argue that we said they had to arrest him, may be true, may not.

    I'll take the word of a Canadian senator over yours any day,  Jim.
    Facts are they could have taken him, arrestd him and then let him go.

    On what grounds? They didn't have anything to charge him with. Go back and read Senator De Bane's words about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Just because the Bush dictatorship doesn't care about the Bill of Rights doesn't mean nobody else does.
    Do you believe that if the Canadian Ambassador had picked up the phone and called our SecState and said: "Hold on. He's a Canadian citzen. Give him back."

    Oh, yeah, because the US government would take a Canadian request really seriously. Look, they sent him to Syria without even telling the Canadian government that they had done so.

    Undeniably the RCMP should not have given the US mistaken information about Arar. Although Canadian officials may not have realized this at the time, it meant that the US would set its illegal rendition machinery into action, with disastrous results for the victim. It's a sad fact that the US simply cannot be trusted to respect the most basic rights of anyone.


    Parent

    Al (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:55:25 PM EST
    All they had to do was agree to take him back and then cut him loose.

    They didn't because they thought him guilty and didn't want to have to deal with it.

    Parent

    Your repeating this nonsense (none / 0) (#62)
    by Al on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:28:03 AM EST
    doesn't make it any more credible.

    Can't you read? What part of "Canada didn't have anything to charge him with" don't you understand? How can you possibly argue that Canada somehow had the moral obligation of arresting him unlawfully and then letting him go? What planet do you live on?

    And how do you go from "Canada didn't have anything to charge him with" to "They thought he was guilty"? Guilty of what? The man isn't guilty of anything, as has been amply proved by a public inquiry led by a judge, and admitted by the very people who were smearing him before, including the RCMP Chief Commissioner and the bloody Prime Minister!

    If the US authorities believed he was guilty of a crime, why didn't they charge him? Why did they send him to Syria?

    Here's a question for you: What did the US government expect to achieve by sending Arar to Syria?

    Parent

    Al (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 08:20:03 AM EST
    What part of they could have demanded we give him up to them don't you understand?

    If they had, at the least, he would have been held and not sent to Syria.

    BTW - They recommended a lawyer for his deportation hearing. What part about deportation hearings happening to people who may be deported don't you undersytand.

    They didn't because they didn't want anything to do with him.

    Why don't you read the reports out of Canada, what they did and what they thought. That's why they told the US he was a terrorist and why the US picked him up.

    BTW - Why don't you quit proclaiming his innocence to me? I don't claim he was guilty.

    Do you understand the difference between the messenger and the message?

    Parent

    Pure, unadulterated, horsesh*t (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by roy on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    Did you even read the report I linked to?

    Parent
    roy (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:03:59 PM EST
    You are approaching the ability of Edge.

    Excuses aside, this is a very simple story.
    It was the Canadians who decided he was a terrorist.
    It was the Canadians who told us he was a terrorist.
    When we tried to give him back they didn't want him:

    The NY Times reported, "In July 2002, the Mounted Police learned that Mr. Arar and his family were in Tunisia, and incorrectly concluded that they had left Canada permanently." [15]

    It may also be true that:
    "He said the Americans said to the Canadians, 'We are ready to give you back Mr. Arar on the condition that you bring him back to Canada, you incarcerate him, you make charges against him,'" he testified.
    "And the Canadian party said, 'No, the Canadian Charter of Freedoms does not allow us to do what you're asking. We do not have proper grounds.'"

    Question: Why didn't the Canadian finish his comment with:  Now. If you want to hold and charge him with a crime, that is your right. But if you do not we demand that you turn him over to us immediately.
    Because they thought he was a terrorist and didn't want him.
    Canadian officials have said Mr. Arar was deported without benefit of a lawyer. The lawyer chosen by Mr. Arar on the advice of Canadian consular representatives didn't show up for the dual Syrian-Canadian citizen's immigration hearing Oct. 7 in New York, an official said last week."

    Link.

    One more time. Does anyone here actually think we would have held him if the Canadian Ambassador had called our SecState and demanded that we charge him or return him?

    They were hoping that he would just go away. Well, success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get.

    Parent

    Your data don't support your conclusions (none / 0) (#28)
    by roy on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:43:01 PM EST
    It was the Canadians who decided he was a terrorist.  It was the Canadians who told us he was a terrorist.

    I'm not disputing those statements.

    When we tried to give him back they didn't want him.

    That's what I call horsesh*t.  I don't call it that because it's wrong, or even because it's wrong again, but because it's been so thoroughly, frequently, and visibly debunked that I have to conclude you're arguing in back faith.  If that's what you call "approaching the ability of Edge", I don't take it as a criticism.

    You say that because Canada "incorrectly concluded that they [the Arars] had left Canada permanently", that means Canada didn't wan't them back.  Those are two different things.  One does not follow from the other.

    And your conclusion is rendered moot in the report you haven't read; Canadian police told America that Canada could not refuse to accept Arar.  So not only is your claim that Canada didn't want him unsupported, it's irrelevant.

    Why didn't the Canadian finish his comment with:  ... we demand that you turn him over to us immediately.

    You say that Canada should have asked for Arar's return in stronger terms, which I'll grant would have been helpful, but you don't have any data about what the typical, ordinary, reasonable process is in these situations.

    And your judgment is directly contradicted by that report you haven't read; Canada was following the usual procedure to protect its citizen.  America sent him to Syria in an unprecedented rush.  So not only is your claim that it's Canada's responsibility unsupported, it's false.

    Even the article you're quoting from contradicts you:

    Evidence presented to the commission, said Paul J. J. Cavalluzzo, its lead counsel, showed that the F.B.I. continued to keep its Canadian counterparts in the dark even while an American jet was carrying Mr. Arar to Jordan. The panel found that American officials "believed -- quite correctly -- that, if informed, the Canadians would have serious concerns about the plan to remove Mr. Arar to Syria."

    American officials have not discussed the case publicly. But in an interview last year, a former official said on condition of anonymity that the decision to send Mr. Arar to Syria had been based chiefly on the desire to get more information about him and the threat he might pose.

    Everything I've read, including your sources, supports the conclusions the Canada acted reasonably with regard to the deportation given the information they had, America consciously kept Canada ill-informed, and America acted on its own wishes rather Canada's.

    Your claim that it's Canada's fault because they didn't stop us reminds me of a traffic accident in which I got rear ended.  The other driver thought it was my fault because, if only I had run that yellow light, she wouldn't have hit me.

    Parent

    Clarification (none / 0) (#29)
    by roy on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:49:49 PM EST
    "And your judgment is directly contradicted by that report you haven't read; Canada was following the usual procedure to protect its citizen."

    The "judgment" refers to the judgment that because Canada didn't immediately demand Arar's return, it's Canada's fault that Arar was sent to Syria.

    Also, screw the dictionary, from now on there's an E after the G in judgement.

    Parent

    roy (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:51:14 AM EST
    America consciously kept Canada ill-informed, and America acted on its own wishes rather Canada's.

    Got proof??

    Parent

    You are full of sh*t as usual (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:34:12 AM EST


    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 12:23:46 PM EST
    Your ability to use personal attacks and nothing else is well known. But I encourage you to keep on reminding the world of your inadequacy.

    Parent
    Jim (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 12:35:43 PM EST
    You are so far in denial that my inadequacy to pull you out of it is boundless.

    Parent
    Stop me if you've heard this one before (none / 0) (#5)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:50:15 AM EST
    the fact remains that the decision was based on other decisions.

    Isn't this the same line of "decidering" that gave us defeat in Iraq? At any given point, we're in too deep, too late to turn back, nowhere to dig but down, etc., etc.? It's funny how reality never seems to enter into the calculus these days.

    Parent

    Re; Canada Should Not Pay (none / 0) (#115)
    by canuck eh on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:17:24 PM EST
    As a Canadian, I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Our police services screwed up- they supplied inaccurate information to the US government which led to one of our CITIZENS being tortured in a dungeon for 10 months. He deserved the apology and the payout. While I hate to see my tax dollars paid out in such a way I am ashamed of the treatment this man received at the hands of our government and feel that they need to be held accountable.

    This DOES NOT in any way exonerate the US of wrongdoing- the idea that your government would refuse to return one of our citizens to our country because we would not agree to indefinitely incarcerate them without trial or charge is disgusting- it makes me physically ill.

    That feeling is exacerbated by the fact that your government refuses to acknowledge that any errors were made and also refused to be involved in the inquiry where it was found BEYOND ALL DOUBT that Mr. Arar was completely innocent.

    As for Mr. Wilkins, he should be recalled immediately. His language is not that of diplomacy and the lack of respect he has shown us as a people and as a sovereign state is unacceptable.


    Parent

    Arar timeline (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:55:11 AM EST
    Canada did not refuse to take Arar. Canada could not refuse to take Arar. Arar is a Canadian Citizen. What they could, and did, refuse is being dictated to by the US. Canada refused to buckle to US pressure that Arar be incarcerated and charged by Canada if the US returned him to Canada. The US was attempting to dicate to Canada terms of Canada dealing with one of it's own citizens. Canada, in diplomatic language, basically told the US where to shove their demands. The US then 'renditioned' Arar to Syria. Maher Arar: Timeline (CBC):
    On a stopover in New York as he was returning to Canada from a vacation in Tunisia in September 2002, U.S. officials detained Arar, claiming he has links to al-Qaeda, and deported him to Syria, even though he was carrying a Canadian passport. When Arar returned to Canada more than a year later, he said he had been tortured during his incarceration and accused American officials of sending him to Syria knowing that they practise torture.

    June 1, 2005: Senator Pierre De Bané testifies that U.S. officials offered to return Arar to Canada on condition that he be incarcerated and charged. When Canada refused, the U.S. deported Arar to Syria.

    Nov. 5, 2003: Prime Minister Jean Chretien tells the House of Commons that the U.S. government's deportation of a Canadian to Syria was "unacceptable," but he is adamant that he will not allow an independent inquiry into the case of Arar. He says his government has asked U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell for an explanation and that the government also wants to find out whether Canadian intelligence officials played a role in the deportation of Arar.

    Oct. 10, 2002: Canadian officials are informed Arar has been deported.

    Oct. 7 or 8, 2002: U.S. officials deport Arar to Syria.

    Sept. 26, 2002: Arar is detained by U.S. Immigration and Naturalization officials at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport while returning alone to Montreal from a family vacation in Tunisia. A citizen of both Canada and Syria, he is carrying a Canadian passport. American officials allege Arar has links to al-Qaeda and detain and question him.
    absofrigginlutely (none / 0) (#10)
    by roy on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    Everything I've read indicates that Canada made a reasonable effort to protect Arar, but America made it so that reasonable efforts wouldn't be adequate and bounced him to Syria in a hurry.

    Parent
    roy (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:20:11 PM EST
    Reasonable? Huh?

    Why didn't they just demand he be given up? I mean you must know that if Canada had pushed, we'd have given him up.

    Roy, look. My point wasn't and isn't that I am pleased with what the US did. I just think all the US bashing without looking at the total picture is just that, US bashing.

    And outside of making people who enjoy US bashing happy, does nothing.

    If they thought he was a terrorist he should have been held in US custody.

    Of course then he would have been let out on bail, and based on what was known them, a terrorist would have been let loose.

    That was kind of a no no position a year after 9/11, eh??

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#59)
    by roy on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 09:27:50 PM EST
    Why didn't they just demand he be given up?

    Because there was no indication from the US that the US would jump the gun and necessitate urgent action from Canada?

    Because Canada and the US have a good working relationship, and one shouldn't have to railroad the other?

    Because the US has a reputation for respecting human rights, so a demand shouldn't have been necessary?

    I just think all the US bashing without looking at the total picture is just that, US bashing.

    I suspect you think that calling a pretty well-reasoned and well-researched condemnation of US action "US bashing" will distract from the weakness of your arguments.  That's OK, sometimes it works.

    And I noticed that you responded to my overly smarmy post, rather than the one I dumped all my logic into.  That sometimes works too.

    And outside of making people who enjoy US bashing happy, does nothing.

    Pointing out mistakes is a key step in fixing mistakes.  That's why it's worth doing.

    Parent

    Cooperation? (none / 0) (#12)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 11:53:07 AM EST
    Edger,
    When of the things I note about the timeline is that the US government did not inform the Canadian government until 2 or 3 days after they deported him to Syria.

    By the way, without knowing that you had already liked to the timeline I did so as well in a separate post.

    Parent

    John (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 12:14:29 PM EST
    I wasn't clear on whether you were asking  "when", or noting that you saw it in the timeline. But here it is, anyway:
    Oct. 10, 2002:  Canadian officials are informed Arar has been deported.

    Oct. 7 or 8, 2002: U.S. officials deport Arar to Syria.



    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:12:36 PM EST
    That the US wanted him charged and locked up is not in dispute.

    The reason they wanted that was that Canada had said he had terrorism ties. There is no dispute about that. You write:

    What they could, and did, refuse is being dictated to by the US. Canada refused to buckle to US pressure

    And let the US deport a Canadian citizen to Syria?
    Why didn't they demand his release to the Canadian authorities? My experience with Canadians is that they aren't wussies and if they really wanted him back they would have said so in very simple and impossible to misunderstand words.

    They didn't. Sometimes what is not said is very important. Logic 101.

    Parent

    Ahem. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by syinco on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:19:06 PM EST
    Why didn't they demand his release to the Canadian authorities? ...
    Sometimes what is not said is very important. Logic 101.

    And why did the U.S. remain silent about its intent to send Arar to Syria if Canada didn't promptly accept him?

    Parent

    Blame Canada (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 02:05:22 PM EST
    Yes, it's Canada's fault that the US purposely didn't inform that they kidnapped a Canadian citizen and sent him to a syrian hellhole where they knew he would be tortured.

    Even then, the US did nothing to rectify their mistake and it was up to Canada to advocate for their citizen for a year before he was returned.

    So of course it's Canada's fault that the US kidnapped their citizen. Sheesh, the lengths some people will go to to defend torture and kidnapping.

    Parent

    Sailor - Kidnapping (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 03:55:40 PM EST
    Uh, he was arrested based on information provided by Canada.

    His presence and location was known by Canada.

    He hired an attorney for his deportation hearing as recommended by the Canadian Consul.

    He was offerred to be given to Canada if Canada would do certain things, or he would be deported to Syria. Canada refused to do what was requested, but did not demand his release.

    Kidnapping? Buy yourself a dictionary.

    Parent

    kidnapping (none / 0) (#42)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 04:48:25 PM EST
    An arrest is when you put someone in jail, charge them with  crime and hold a trial.

    yanking a foreign citizen out of an airport and secretly flying him to a 3rd country that is known to torure  is kidnapping, torture and a crime against US and international law.

    Defend the actions all you want, the fight is with people like you, not innocent Canadians. You are exactly like the people you rail against, you materilly support and advocate killing and torturing innocent people to make others kneel to your beliefs. That is terrorism, you, by definition, are a terrorist.

    Parent

    sailor (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:19:31 AM EST
    Why do you keep on making claims that are so easily refuted.

    He was given an immigration hearing. He failed it. Canada didn't want him. They had told us he was a terrorist. We deported him to the country he was a citizen of.

    duhhhhhhhh

    Parent

    Please clarify (none / 0) (#63)
    by Al on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:35:15 AM EST
    He hired an attorney for his deportation hearing

    What deportation hearing?

    Parent
    Al - What hearing? The one held on 10/7 (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:24:31 AM EST

    I have linked this about 4 times. Maybe at some point you will catch on. Or perhaps I should say imigration hearing that could (and did) result in him being deported. That's what imigration hears do, you know.

    "Canadian officials have said Mr. Arar was deported without benefit of a lawyer. The lawyer chosen by Mr. Arar on the advice of Canadian consular representatives didn't show up for the dual Syrian-Canadian citizen's immigration hearing Oct. 7 in New York, an official said last week."


    Parent
    synico (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 03:58:45 PM EST
    Show me where they didn't know.

    Remember, he hired an attorney based on a recommendation from the Canadian Consul.

    Besides. Why did they wait? Why didn't they demand he be released right then.

    Because they didn't want him. They thought he was a terrorist. That's the 800 pound gorilla in this story.


    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#39)
    by syinco on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 04:25:05 PM EST
    Show me where they didn't know.

    See Roy's first post.  

    Yes, it seems that some were aware that it was possible that the U.S. could send Arar to Syria, but I am not aware of any indication that they knew or believed that the U.S. intended to do so imminently.  

    You're the one making fantastic rationalizations here - show me where the U.S. made it's intent clear, or explain why you think they didn't.

    Whether or not Canadian officials were hesitant to accept Arar in the face of contingent U.S. demands upon Canada does not absolve the U.S. of blame for acting with unnecessary haste, misleading Canadian officials, or showing a lack of a concern for Mr. Arar's human rights by deporting him to Syria.

    Parent

    syinco (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:47:52 PM EST
    Explain to me how you know they did not know.

    And note that they told Arar to get a lawyer for his deportation hearing.

    And explain to me why, if they considered him innocent they didn't demand his immediate release.

    Again. You can kid your friends and I can kid mine.

    But Canada was very happy to have us keep and remove  a problem they didn't want to deal with.

    BTW - The assertions of these facts does not mean that I think he was treated fairly, as I have commented several times in the past.

    Parent

    To what end, Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by syinco on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 07:48:27 PM EST
    You and I both know that I can't prove definitively here that someone did not know something.  I've already given you one reference that states
    they did not believe that there was an imminent risk that Mr. Arar would be sent to Syria.
    which clearly suggests that they did not think the U.S. was about to deport Arar to Syria.  

    That's more than you've given me in response to my request.  Which sounds like familiar behavior.    

    I'm also not insisting that the Canadian government believed him innocent at the time.  For all I know, Canada may have been happy to not immediately take Arar back, preferring to wait.

    But all of that is beside the point, which is to address your mind-boggling assertion that the U.S. has absolutely no culpability here.

    Again:  Whether or not Canadian officials were hesitant to accept Arar in the face of contingent U.S. demands upon Canada does not absolve the U.S. of blame for acting with unnecessary haste, misleading Canadian officials, or showing a lack of a concern for Mr. Arar's human rights by deporting him to Syria.

    And your "BTW" is duly noted; I am glad to see you emphasize that.

    Parent

    Beside the fact (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:14:37 PM EST
    that now Arar has $9mil to keep ppj's sheets damp, etc.

    Parent
    Here's his golden chance to "serve" (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:34:17 PM EST
    Maybe if he volunteers to go to Syria and submit to the treatment Arar was blessed with after "American officials allege[d] Arar has links to al-Qaeda and detain and question[ed] him" he can convince the Bush Administration to cough for nine mil too, since in his view they are much fairer and more honest than the Canadian Government?

    Parent
    syinco (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:56:38 AM EST
    "Canadian officials have said Mr. Arar was deported without benefit of a lawyer. The lawyer chosen by
    Mr. Arar on the advice of Canadian consular representatives
    didn't show up for the dual Syrian-Canadian citizen's immigration hearing Oct. 7 in New York, an official said last week."

    Link

    You don't give deportation hearings to people you won't deport if they fail the hearing. Are you telling me that the Canadian consul didn't understand that? Excuse the giggle.

    Note who gave Arar advice.


    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#92)
    by syinco on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:35:25 AM EST
    You're failing to address the obvious.  I don't think your stupid, so I can only conclude that you are attempting to mislead by that omission.

    Yes, Canada had clear indications that the U.S. was going through motions to deport Arar - but not that deportation would be imminent and not that it would be to Syria.  

    All of which remains irrelevant to whether or not the U.S. has some degree of responsibility in this matter!!!  Which I think you've begun to concede elsewhere, so maybe we can let this lie.

    Parent

    Once again ppj ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:44:17 AM EST
    ... demonstrates his complete inability to do anything but cherry pick minor facts that contradict the truth

    "Canadian officials have said Mr. Arar was deported without benefit of a lawyer. That part is true, as the investigation showed.

    The lawyer chosen by Mr. Arar on the advice of Canadian consular representatives didn't show up for the dual Syrian-Canadian citizen's immigration hearing Oct. 7 in New York, an official said last week."that part is a lie, sa the investigation showed. The US whisked him out of the country before notice was given.

    "Normally, a U.S. immigration court would deport a foreign citizen back to his last point of departure -- in this case Zurich That part is true, the US violated thri own lawa, international laws and had a 3rd country torture him after kidnapping him. He did not get a deportattion hearing.

    When new facts come forward continuning to knoiwingly use old disproved ones is just another form of dishonesty constantly displayed by ppj.

    people who endorse kidnapping and torture are no better than people who kidnap and torture. IOW, they are the enemy.

    Parent

    Sailor - Why don't you (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 04:48:47 PM EST
    provide links and quotes sailor??

    That would be meaningful. Instead all you do is make claims and insults.

    Until you do, please quarrel with Talk Left who is the source of my quotes, and I have linked to.

    Parent

    Canada (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:58:43 AM EST
    should send George Bush an invoice for $9 Million. Bush could then tap each of his supporters for a buck, if he has that many left.

    Can The Bush Administration Admit It Was Wrong? (none / 0) (#11)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 11:42:53 AM EST
    Here ia timeline of the Maher Arar case.

    Please note that as recently as ten days ago (January 18) Canadian Public Safety Minister Day met with US Homeland Secretary Chertoff "to review the Arar file. Despite new information in the file, Day says there is still nothing there to justify keeping Arar on the U.S. watch list."

    Having looked at the facts in this case, I must agree with Canadian Prime Minister Harper that "as near as I can see, we simply have a U.S. government that won't admit it's wrong."

    This is a dangerous trait for any government but especially for one that has pushed to expand its powers like the Bush adminstration.  

    Real ' Merican men are never wrong. (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 11:53:49 AM EST


    GEORGE BUSH IS NEVER WRONG (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    He may decide to make some decisions that are based on someone else's decisions that were bad, and they may then turn out to be bad. But that's not because he was wrong. It was someone else that made the bad decisions that he based the decision on.

    And furthermore, if you put the blame on George Bush for the bad decisions you are emboldening our enemy terrorists. How many times does PPJ need to explain this to you??

    Never Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    Isn't it amazing Ernesto how someone who is never right is also never wrong?

    Parent
    If you wanna blame someone.. (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 12:20:29 PM EST
    blame the C.I.A; blame the U.N; blame the radical Left; blame Bill Clinton; blame Canada. The deciderer consults Poles and then does what he wants.

    Dont matter anyway.. (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 12:37:57 PM EST
    he's a Mooslim aint he? Everybody knows inside every Mooslim is a terrist. Aint that right Jim?

    Jondee (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    Your attempt to write southern is pretty funny, Jondee. I guess you are trying to be insulting. Wrong. I just look at the many things you have written and shake my head.

    But one more time...

    All Moslems are not terrorists.
    But the current crop of terrorists that have attacked us and declared they will dominate the world are......Moslems!!!!

    I know the above is too complicated for you. Get someone to explain it.

    Parent

    uhh, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 02:13:38 PM EST
    actually it's the christians who publicly announce they want to take over the world, and the christians who want to flatten iraq, and the christians who are calling for more war crimes to be committed in the ME.

    If you have nukes and an army you don't get called a terrorist, even tho these 'christians' fit the definition:

    The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 03:49:54 PM EST
    Perhaps you forget this rather revealing interviuew by then CNN's Peter Arnett and IBL himself. Note the underlined sentence.

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    Link

    So buy your prayer rugs or fight. A simple choice.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#40)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 04:33:55 PM EST
    This thread is about the torture and kidnapping of a Canadian citizen. Please try to stay on topic.

    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 04:41:25 PM EST
    No. This post is about Arar winning his case and being awarded $9M.

    Nothing about kidnapping.

    Terrorism only because he was believed to be a terrorist.

    Nothing about christians who you think are terrorists, and nothing about christians who want to take over the world.

    Please learning the meaning of words.

    Parent

    One more time...? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:22:30 PM EST
    I know the above is too complicated for you. Get someone to explain it.

    Nice, except you usually follow a comment like this a few sentences later with a complaint about someone insulting you.

    But the current crop of terrorists that have attacked us and declared they will dominate the world are......Moslems!!!!

    Oh, the irony.

    You've never backed up this claim with any quote from a terrorist. The best you could do is to come up with an OBL quote that says no such thing. On the other hand, you have Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter et al as well as the entire PNAC playbook making a case for dominating the world in the name of Christianity and capitalism. The neocon world vision that you support so strongly from your easy chair is exactly the terrorism you accuse the "Moslems" of, writ large.

    Parent

    Funny, I thought the shaking was involuntary. (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:23:55 PM EST
    kinda like when your number came up during 'Nam.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 04:00:45 PM EST
    You'll have to ask someone who wasn't already in.

    Like Bill Clinton.

    Parent

    when all esle fails...BLAME THE CLENIS (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:03:05 PM EST
    Clinton? Old News. What about the CURRENT President and Vice President? How could you ignore both of those guys' draft dodging? How??

    Oh, that's right, IOKIYAR.

    Parent

    Ernesto (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:11:20 PM EST
    Gee ernie, I got all confused. I thought because Clinton wouldn't even serve in the reserve that he was a draft dodger.

    Reality and all that stuff.

    Parent

    "Gee ernie, I got all confused." (none / 0) (#52)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:18:39 PM EST
    Yes, that is why we try to repeat things over and over so even an Alzheimer's riddled brain can understand it.

    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:22:07 PM EST
    Gosh sailor, you are just so clever.

    If we could all be as rich and famous as you...

    Parent

    rich and famous (none / 0) (#57)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:52:22 PM EST
    You'd be surprised jim.

    Parent
    Clinton wouldn't even serve? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 09:01:09 PM EST
    Eight years as CinC. Without being defeated. Even had the cojones serve publicly. And never refused to talk about what capacity he served in...

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:58:24 AM EST
    I give you the Strawman of the Century Award.

    Would be funny if not so sad.

    Parent

    Nice Dodge (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 09:55:32 PM EST
    But seriously PPJ...doesn't it bother you that Dick Cheney and George Bush both ran as fast as they could away from combat during Vietnam? Even a little bit?

    Parent
    Ernesto (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:07:09 AM EST
    As to Cheney.. See Clinton, see many others. If I went around holding grudges over that I'd have a full time job.

    As to Bush...

    He joined TANG at a time when many NG units were going to Vietnam.

    He trained and flew a modern military jet.

    There were some minor aerodynamic problems with the F-102. For example, at certain power settings and angles of attack - like, say, take-off -- the jet compressor would stall and the aircraft would roll inverted. ..The F-102's accident rate was ....: 13.69 per 100,000 hours. ...875 F-102A interceptors were built; 259 - almost 30% - were lost to accidents or enemy action while serving in Vietnam.

    Go to this link and look at the cockpit picture. Think you could handle that?


    Parent

    Avoid the draft (none / 0) (#26)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:36:16 PM EST
    Join the Navy!

    Che (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 04:01:43 PM EST
    Yes, many did. All those Swift Boat folks...for example.

    Parent
    Swift Boat? They were all cowards! (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:09:57 PM EST
    Errr...well all the Democrat ones running against bona fide war heroes like Dick Cheney and George Bush, anyway.

    And remember, anyone that questions the magnitude of the war hero status of Bush and Cheney are emboldening the terrarists!

    Parent

    Ernesto (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:12:59 PM EST
    Can you get your story straight? You said that they were all liars, except for John Kerry...

    Parent
    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#53)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:19:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Pretzel Logic (none / 0) (#27)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:37:04 PM EST


    Senator Leahy Discusses Arar with A.G. Gonzales (none / 0) (#60)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 09:29:39 PM EST
    Here is a youtube link to Senator Leahy taking Atty General Gonzales to the woodshed over the treatment of Maher Arar (found on PoliticsTV.com - discussion begins about 1:32).

    Watch Atty General Gonzales squirm under the questioning of Senator Leahy and tell me that it doesn't make any difference whether the Democrats or Republicans control Congress.  

    Atty General Gonzalez, Senator Leahy has given you a week to explain why Arar was tortured.  The clock is ticking.

    Great link, John. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:50:46 AM EST


    Parent
    The Miami Herald... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 09:51:16 AM EST
    ...in a op piece Friday 26 Jan 07 says it best:
    The best thing to do when you make a mistake is to admit the error, apologize for the harm it caused, make amends if possible -- and then move on. Somebody should explain this to Bush administration officials who are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge error or responsibility for the wrongful detention and subsequent torture of Canadian citizen Maher Arar.

    Mr. Arar is the Syrian-born Canadian who was detained by U.S. authorities as a terrorism suspect in 2002 when he was changing planes in New York after a vacation in Tunisia. He was deported to Syria without a hearing or judicial review. There, he was imprisoned for a year in a tiny cell and routinely tortured.
    ...
    Despite the findings, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff say that Mr. Arar's name will remain on the terrorism watch list. Why? Messrs. Chertoff and Gonzales claim to have secret information to justify his inclusion on the list. This is profoundly disturbing -- not to mention unconscionable, morally repugnant, legally suspect and just plain wrong.



    Parent
    Edger wrong (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:22:29 AM EST
    Huh? You quote:

    He was deported to Syria without a hearing or judicial review.

    No.

    Canadian officials have said Mr. Arar was deported without benefit of a lawyer. The lawyer chosen by Mr. Arar on the advice of Canadian consular representatives didn't show up for the dual Syrian-Canadian citizen's immigration hearing Oct. 7 in New York, an official said last week."
    Link

    So he had a hearing. As you know, why the Canadians didn't show a little more interest in him is simple. They thought he was a terrorist and wanted the US to get rid of their problem.

    You quote:

    There, he was imprisoned for a year in a tiny cell and routinely tortured.
    ...

    No. He has claimed to have been tortured. Was he?
    Well, given that he skipped out of Syria without doing his mandatory military service, they may have. Or they may have just for practice.

    But all we have is his claims.

    You really should pay attention and not present links that have easily demonstratable factual errors.

    Parent

    repeating a lie (none / 0) (#108)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:44:29 PM EST
    is still just a lie.

    Parent
    Sorry to say I told you so (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:32:55 AM EST
    But it should be clear after this thread, if it was not before. PPJ is not worth engaging. He refuses absolutely to have an honest or sensical discussions. And he does it on purpose. Not because he is incapable or does not understand fact or logic.

    On purpose.

    Edger (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:36:32 AM EST
    You call people liars and then won't apologize.

    Worthy of debate?

    Heck Edger, you don't debate, you just spew nonnsese with no proof and get angry when shown to be wrong.

    Parent

    Why can't all oif the following be true? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:10:18 AM EST
    1. Canada wronged Arar?

    2. The United States wrongerd Arar?

    3. Canads paying arar does not absolve the United States?

    4. The wronging of Arar by any parties does not mean there are no terrorists who seek to damage or destroy the United States?

    5. Many of those terrorists are Muslims?

    6. The religion of those particular terrorists is not irrelevant and is a motivating factor?

    7. That the existence of Muslim terrorists motivated by their religion does not justify mistreatment of Mulsims in general?

    8. We should fight terrorists who seek to damage or destroy the United States, but we should do so in a manner that does not harm those that are not terrorists?

    9. Our current policies are a "failure" because they both are not the "best" policies for fighting the Muslim terrorists who do exist and do seek to damage or destroy the United States motivated in large part by their religion and they also harm too many people who should not be harmed?


    Because they're not (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    RE: # 1 - Canada wronged Arar?

    Canada did not wrong Arar. Some Canadian Intelligence people were probably accessories to what was done to Arar by US officials. They are not Canada. It appears that Canada did everything it could as a country to right the wrong. The US Government has refused to, and continues to refuse to, take responsibility for wronging Arar.

    Nov. 5, 2003: Prime Minister Jean Chretien tells the House of Commons that the U.S. government's deportation of a Canadian to Syria was "unacceptable," ... his government has asked U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell for an explanation and that the government also wants to find out whether Canadian intelligence officials played a role in the deportation of Arar.

    2 through 9 are "stating the obvious".


    Parent

    amazing (none / 0) (#72)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:37:51 AM EST

      You post a link with repeated references to judicial findings by a Canadian court and admissions by Canadian officials of "wrongs" by persons ACTING AS AGENTS OF CANADA.

      Certainly, even you can grasp the concept that nations can can act only through their agents and are responsible for the acts of their agents.

      The "Canadian intelligence people" are just as much "Canada" as are the officials of the United States government "America."

      I've long since become accustomed to your complete inability to grasp the simplest things and because of that i felt it necessary to include 2-9 despitre tyheir being "obvious." Being obvious has never prevented you and others here from failing to understand before, and I had no reason to suspect this would be any different.

    Parent

    What an ego. (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:52:13 AM EST
    Thanks teach. You have just earned the Pomposity award of the year. Since we are all so dumb, spare us your verbiage and just send TL your comments by email. Or is she too dumb too?

    Parent
    Maybe we should cut decon some slack. ;-) (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:57:09 AM EST
    It's not all his fault. I set him up. Gave him enough rope to hang himself. And he did.

    Parent
    the sad thing is... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:00:42 AM EST
      I actually think you believe that.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:03:34 AM EST
    I take it back. Squeaky's right.

    Parent
    Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:44:51 AM EST
    Okay I'll play,

    1.    Canada wronged Arar? Agree.

    2.    The US wronged Arar. With 20-20 hindsight, agreed.

    3.    Canada paying Arar does bot absolve US? - Neither. The US was acting in good faith and owes him nothing. Remember. Deporting suspected terrorist is legal. We went the extra mile and tried to give him to Canada and gave him a deportation hearing.

    4.    The wronging of Arar by any parties does not mean there are no terrorists who seek to damage or destroy the United States?  - Agree.

    5.    Many of those terrorists are Muslims? -  Agree - 99.9% of these terrorist are Moslems.

    6.    The religion of those particular terrorists is not irrelevant and is a motivating factor?   - Agree. It is the radical members of Islam that is the problem.

    7.    That the existence of Muslim terrorists motivated by their religion does not justify mistreatment of Mulsims in general?  -  Agree. But the actions of the few have damaged the reputations of the many. The many should start solving that problem and not depend on organizations such as CAIR to speak for them.

    8.    We should fight terrorists who seek to damage or destroy the United States, but we should do so in a manner that does not harm those that are not terrorists? - Sadly that is not possible.

    9.    Our current policies are a "failure" because they both are not the "best" policies for fighting the Muslim terrorists who do exist and do seek to damage or destroy the United States motivated in large part by their religion and they also harm too many people who should not be harmed? - None of the above. If you wait for Best, you will never get Good.

    Parent

    "good faith" (none / 0) (#81)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:59:07 AM EST
      is not enough. MANY wrongs are committed without "bad faith" and the responsible party is still liable for damages.

      If I, without any malicious intent or even without reckless disreagard for your rights, deprived you of your freedom without just cause  would you simply say "you  just made a mistake so i deserve nothing as compensation?"

     

    Parent

    Deconstructionist. (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:42:38 AM EST
    Depends on the circumstance.

    I think the evidence shows that Canada said he was.
    Based on that and at that time the actions were reasonable.

    Pre 9/11, the answer would be no. Not reasonable.

    Today he would just be sent back. In fact, if we found his name on a list, the whole aircraft would not be allowed to land.

    Parent

    huh? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:11:58 PM EST
      I MIGHT be persuaded that brief detention and expedited investigation would have been reasonable based on what we know abut how the whole thing started.

      That's NOT what happened. He was detained without due process and forced to submit to being handed over to Syria and then mistreated. If we can learn of a mistake  AFTER we delivered him to a State we are not shy about identifying as a rogue state when it serves our purpose, we certainly do not have proper procedures in place. Even if you accept the stratagem of proxy torture (I don't) wouldn't you agree that we have no grounds for using it on this guy?

      Canada is at least willing to admit it screwed up and make amends even though it is the least culpable here.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#87)
    by syinco on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:17:28 AM EST
    1. Why you feel it necessary to caveat U.S. responsibility that way is beyond me.  But I'll let that lie.

    2. I agree with Decon.  And as to going the extra mile - I'd say we went the extra millimeter, at best.

    3. I technically agree with you.  Practically speaking, it is not possible.  What we should do is act in a manner that aims to minimize harm to those that are not terrorists.  This case is a sad example of failing to do so.

    4. I think Decon's standard is too high, or maybe I'm just being too picky on his words.  Not achieving "best" is not "failure" in my book.  But we should be striving for "best".  Part of that is reflecting on mistakes, which requires admitting those mistakes.


    Parent
    good points (none / 0) (#90)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:26:40 AM EST
      Obviously, I dash these tbings off quickly and along with too many typos, I am sometimes a little imprecise. I did not mean to suggest that "perfection or nothing"  should be the standard.

      However, I think that even by a pragmatic "best feasible" standard our policies are very deficientin terms of  wrongly targeting people for sanctions who did not deserve them (sometimes with obvious religious prejudice in the picture) and in terms of imposing sanctions on those who may deserve some sanction that are beyond what I find morally acceptable and also, in my opinion, counter=productive in terms of the larger picture.

    Parent

    Decon and synico (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:51:23 AM EST
    I make the 20-20 note because I think we should be profiling and I think that we should understand that we weren't profiling in this case.

    Remember we gave him an immigration hearing and the lawyer or the Canadian officals didn't show up. If anyone had any doubt, at that time, that clinched the deal.

    I think we are trying. In some cases too hard. Like it or not the terrorists we speak of are Moslems. I desperately hope that the "moderate" Moslems will start to step forward. Letting CAIR have the main say is very counterproductive

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#104)
    by syinco on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:18:41 PM EST
    I think we are trying. In some cases too hard.

    And this case helps get to the heart of the question, to the heart of our overall disagreement - where to draw the line between concern for safety and rights of individuals (whether innocent, accused, or guilty) and concern for national security.  It seems that you and Abu Gonzo will fall on the side of national security every time -  without regard for whether the national security interest is negligible or the individual impact devastating.  This is where you and I differ.  I ask that the two be weighed, and weighed by credible agents.

    I maintain that we could have better served both interests by:

    • Not deporting people to countries where they are likely to be tortured.
    • Not acting with undue haste.
    • Being forthright with Canada about our intentions with respect to their citizen.

    And that is not a hindsight perspective.

    Parent
    Rhetorical question (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    Why ist it "20-20 hindsight" for Canada?

    Jondee (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:45:47 AM EST
    It is, but they are the ones who named him a terrorist.

    Our 20-20 hindsight is that we acted on their information and they were wrong. So, with 20-20 hindsight we shouldn't have picked him.

    Parent

    "The actions of the few" (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    including the few war mongering ignoramouses, who, in the past at this site, on numerous occasions made no clear distinction between peaceful, intelligent Muslims and violent militants and cultists. Yes, it's always the actions of the few.

    Americans cant be terrorists (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:04:43 AM EST
    ..ever. That'd be like calling a white man lazy, eh Jim?

    jondee (none / 0) (#86)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:08:52 AM EST
      unlike edger, squeaky, AW etc., you make good points from time to time but then you don't simply rest on that and without prompting make a stupid, thoughtless, offensive post like the one above. jimaka gives you plenty of fair targets at which to aim, but you discredit yourself by shooting below the belt for no good reason.

       

    Parent

    Jondee (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:52:52 AM EST
    Why is everything seen through the lens of racism with you? Do you realize that you can become what you hate?

    Parent
    Al (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:33:00 AM EST
    He was on a watchlist. He was picked up.

    In the view of the US he had committed no crime in the US, YET.

    So he couldn't be arrested. So we told the Canadians to take him...prosecute him. They said no.

    So we had a hearing, determined that he was Syrian and sent him back to the other country he had citizenship in.

    BTW - If you are on that list, you won't be let in the US today.

    You know what makes me angry? People like you who didn't even know where he was picked up yet are an expert. Not. You just want to complain about the US. Great display of BDS.

    Why the determination to evade accountability? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:40:11 AM EST
    Because as usual for the right, reality is too unbearable. The blame has to be shifted.

    What really happened to Arar:

    Torture by proxy
    How immigration threw a traveler to the wolves
    SF Chronicle, January 4, 2004

    On Sept. 26, 2002, U.S. immigration officials seized a Syrian-born Canadian at Kennedy International Airport, because his name had come up on an international watch list for possible terrorists. What happened next is chilling.

    Maher Arar was about to change planes on his way home to Canada after visiting his wife's family in Tunisia when he was pulled aside for questioning. He was not a terrorist. He had no terrorist connections, but his name was on the list, so he was detained for questioning. Not ordinary, polite questioning, but abusive, insulting, degrading questioning by the immigration service, the FBI and the New York City Police Department.

    He asked for a lawyer and was told he could not have one. He asked to call his family, but phone calls were not permitted. Instead, he was clapped into shackles and, for several days, made to "disappear." His family was frantic.

    Finally, he was allowed to make a call. His government expected that Arar's right of safe passage under its passport would be respected. But it wasn't. Arar denied any connection to terrorists. He was not accused of any crimes, but U.S. agents wanted him questioned further by someone whose methods might be more persuasive than theirs.

    So, they put Arar on a private plane and flew him to Washington, D.C. There, a new team, presumably from the CIA, took over and delivered him, by way of Jordan, to Syrian interrogators. This covert operation was legal, our Justice Department later claimed, because Arar is also a citizen of Syria by birth. The fact that he was a Canadian traveling on a Canadian passport, with a wife, two children and job in Canada, and had not lived in Syria for 16 years, was ignored. The Justice Department wanted him to be questioned by Syrian military intelligence, whose interrogation methods our government has repeatedly condemned.
    ...
    This secret program for torturing suspects has been authorized, if that is the right word for it, by a secret presidential finding. Where the president gets the authority to have anyone tortured has never been explained.

    It is time someone asked. What our government did to Maher Arar is worse than anything the British did to our Colonial forefathers. It was worse than anything J. Edgar Hoover did to alleged Communists, civil rights workers and anti-war activists during his long program of dirty tricks.



    Edger (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:59:09 AM EST
    Not the most inaccurate and biased but of journalism I have ever seen, but certainly in the top 10.

    The article leaves out his immigration hearing on 10/7 and the fact that he hired a lawyer based on advice from the Canadian counsel.

    It also ignores the conversation between our government and the Canadians.

    Parent

    Really Decon (none / 0) (#101)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:59:17 AM EST
    I dont care whether you consider that stupid and offensive, and you might understand the underlying point a little more clearly if you had read some of the peepsters ad nauseum post about "Muslims" (without qualification) before being called on it so many times he was finally forced to drop the "who me?" act and start grudgingly qualifying the heavy handed propaganda.

    Btw, You make good points from time to time too.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:09:35 PM EST
    Nice personal attack with no proof offerred.

    Nothing new.

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#105)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:19:38 PM EST
    I have not seen jimaka unqualifiedly condemn all or most Muslims. If he has I would condemn that even more harshly than I condemn your stupid and offensive post.

      I will say, that despite the fact I disagree with him more than just about anyone else here on a broad array of topics, of the thinngs I have read he is the target of far more invective and juvenile insults  than I see him throwing, and, I think it is beyond dispute he is frequently "rebutted" by posts that completely mischaracterize what he actually said. If he has brought that on himself by prior displays, it is more understandable but it is still lousy rebuttal.

    Parent

    unqualified (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:32:05 PM EST
    Posted by JimakaPPJ   
    February 11, 2006 09:16 PM   

    et al - To keep my reputation up, I offer you, Muslim Opinion Be Damned



    Parent
    That means nothing... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:38:51 PM EST
     out of context.

    Did he say:

     "Muslim opinion be damned because they are all sub-human beasts"

    or

    "Muslim opinion be damned because U.S. foreign policy cannot be controlled by fear of offending the muslim world where doing so places american lives in peril."

    or

    did he say something in between?

    Parent

    read the thread (none / 0) (#109)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:44:48 PM EST
    and read between the lines

    Parent
    ppj didn't say it (none / 0) (#110)
    by Peaches on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:45:44 PM EST
    He was linking to an op-ed piece with the title "Muslim Opinion Be Damned."

    Parent
    You know better (none / 0) (#111)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:50:42 PM EST
    He says with inference and innuendo

    Parent
    For context (none / 0) (#112)
    by Peaches on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:57:13 PM EST
    I think it should have been noted, because it was not clear from the quote you gave.

    I have been offended by some of the general statements ppj has made about Muslims and Muslim culture. For example, I think he is ignorant for proclaiming that the majority of moderate muslims are responsible for the actions of the fanatical few and they all should suffer injustices accordingly. I consider this opinion to be racist all by itself. Your quote was a poor example. Go through the archives and find a statement from ppj that reflects the above opinion, and I think it will clearly demonstrate ppj's ignorance and racist attitude towards Muslims. Perhaps, he will even comment affirming my paraphrasing of his opinion above.

    Parent

    not clear from the quote you gave (none / 0) (#113)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:59:30 PM EST
    Excuse. I gave a link to his comment, in the thread he made the comment in.

    Parent
    I perused that thread... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:17:16 PM EST
     ... and would have to say you could not have picked a worst example.

      That's unless you were trying to illustrate MY points about jimaka being the target more than he is source of name-calling and that you and certain others (whether intentionally or through inability to read and understand) often mischaracterize what he has said and then attack your own mischaracterization rather than what he actually said.

      As I said, the truly sad thing is that you seem to believe you actually make a good showing in such threads. Either you lack shame or you lack any sense of awareness of your deficiencies.

    Parent

    RE: could not have picked a worst example (none / 0) (#116)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:27:01 PM EST
    Then look through the archives of his comments yourself, if you are interested. I doubt you will though. I really don't think you are interested though in anything other than avoidance. And your opinion of me is simple projection, as well as deflection. I am not here to make or be concerned with making a 'good showing' to you.

    Parent
    Peaches (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 02:39:07 PM EST
    Hope you guys don't mind the subject joining in..

    I think he is ignorant for proclaiming that the majority of moderate muslims are responsible for the actions of the fanatical few and they all should suffer injustices accordingly.

    I haven't said that. I have said that the moderate moslems must step up to the plate and dispute and condem the actions of the radicals.

    Why? Because they are the ones that can stop the recruitment of the young by the radical Imams. They are the ones who will be listened to, not a Baptist minister.

    BTW - It is Moslem faith (religion) not race.
    So perhaps you can tell us how anyone be "racist" about a religion?

    Now you might say that some are prejudiced against Moslems.

    I have also not made the argument that they should suffer injustices equally. I do believe that racial profiling should be used in commercial air travel based on the problems Moslems as a group have brought to air travel. If you have a problem with that, sorry. But white grandmothers in wheel chairs haven't caused us any harm. When they do I'll insist that all of them get a second look.

    Now, if you go into a war zone realistic rules of engagements should be used. Unfortunately these rules will mean that some innocent Moslems will be killed. That is the way of war, and has always been so, and has nothing to do with Moslems as a group.

    Peaches' feelings in this is effected by his comment that he would stop war by not engaging in it. That is, some of his opinions will be painted by that belief.

    BTW - I think you are ignorant about several things, but I have tried to use words like, inaccurate, wrong opinion, etc. Since you spent a great deal of time lecturing the other day I am curious as to why you don't "walk the walk."

    Parent

    Case in Point (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    I haven't said that. I have said that the moderate moslems must step up to the plate and dispute and condem the actions of the radicals.

    And we have responded with links ad nauseum that the moderate moslem community has repeatedly disputed and comdemned the actions of radicals.

    Never sinks in because in ppj's mind all moslems want to make him bow to the will of allah. That's why we call them bedwetters.

    Parent

    Squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:08:53 PM EST
    Show me link to where an acknowledge leader of the Moderate Moslem has condemned the acts of the radical.

    BTW - CAIR is not moderate.

    Parent

    No Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:13:51 PM EST
    Search the TL archives or see if you can figure out how to use google. I am not your waterboy, boy.

    Parent
    ignorant (none / 0) (#124)
    by Peaches on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:01:05 PM EST
    I have explained my use of this term before. I don't mean it in an insulting way, as I am often ignorant of many issues. I have no problem with being called ignorant and consider the term descriptive and non-offensive along with terms such as inaccurate.

    I appreciate your comment, jim, and your pointing out my inaccuracies (ignorance) in my putting words in your mouth. We are all guilty sometimes of reading sentences of others as saying something different.

    I also realized as soon as I used the term racist, that you would point out to me the literal meaning of the term, as you have done before and I ask you once again to forgive me of my ignorant use of the term. I did mean prejudice or bigotry and not racist.

    Now, in regards to,

    I do believe that racial profiling should be used in commercial air travel based on the problems Moslems as a group have brought to air travel. If you have a problem with that, sorry. But white grandmothers in wheel chairs haven't caused us any harm. When they do I'll insist that all of them get a second look.

    I understand (though disagre with) your willingness to accept this racial profiling as a necessity. And, I think, it is obvious that even if racial profiling is not a matter of policy, human nature will automatically use some type of sterotypical profiling when trying to assess the prospects of harm or danger. When approaching young males of African American descent while walking alone along a city sidewalk, my alertness to danger will be heightened to a much greater degree than if I was approaching two grandmothers in a wheelchairs. This still doesn't excuse the fact that our prison populations are over represented by black males in comparison with the general population. In other words, there should be policies and institutions in place that correct for and try to alleviate the consequences of institutional prejudice in our society of which racial profiling plays a prominant role.

    I think what I find disconcerting in your statement is not so much your justification of racial profiling, but rather your willingness to make it a matter of policy. Perhaps, racism or bigotry is too strong a word.

    Parent

    Peaches - Re ignorant and other tales (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:07:07 PM EST
    As Brother Dave Gardner, that well known Southern teller of tales once noted in regards to Lincoln's comment that the lord must have loved the common man, (because) he made so many of them...

    "If you think that was a good comment... Just call somebody common and see how quick they punch you in the nose..."

    Profiling is often attacked on the basis that it is racism, and the example of the young black males has been whipped out also. Profiling per se is done daily by everyone, and is not racist, but merely applying  value judgements to certain situations.

    My comments re profiling and airlines are just value judgements based on the actions of young moslems in hijacking airlines and in attempts to blow up airliners as well as success in blowing up airliners.

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:28:12 PM EST
    Well, let's break it down...

    The title to the post was "Anti-Muslim Cartoon Ourage."

    Subject outrage, you may remember, caused riots around the world... here is my comment.

    Squeaky - You seem to think that you are table captain. Trust me. You're not. BTW - You seem to be hung up on bed wetting and other loss of control..

    You had written:

    you would probably wet your self if you saw one up close. Scary huh, bet you are a bedwetter.

    I then wrote:

     

    Why the personal attacks? Is this why?

       
    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    I then wrote:

    et al - Here is a very nice column pointing out some rather nasty issues that have just floated up. i.e. Why has the raical Moslem clerics decided to attack on this issue? Because they think they can win. And the moderates think so too. That's why they have stayed on the sidelines. Link

    The link no longer works. But, what did I say?

    The Moslem clerecs who had attacked had done so because they thought they could win.

    The moderate Moslems also think the attacking clerecs can win and have stayed on the sidelines.

    I have made this point before. If the moderates believe that the west can't win, or won't stay the course they will not support us. That's just plain common sense from a group of people who saw us run out of Lebanon, Somalia and Vietnam.

    And the current Demos and Leftists have proven them right, again.

    BTW - You and edger seem to have a fixation on bedwetting. Are you sure you're not in middle school?

    As Peaches noted, I linked to "Moslem Opinion Be Damned." As usual, you failed to understand the difference between the messenger and the message, although I did find some things I agreed with.

    So-called Muslim opinion is not the unanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend. It is the irrational and unjust opinion of the world's worst Muslims: Islamists and their legions of "moderate" supporters and sympathizers.

    If you read the article, the quotation marks around "moderates" is to signify that they are not.

    So there you go, proven wrong again.

    Have a nice day and I'm still waiting for you to apologize for callin me a liar.

    Parent

    you're a piece of work (none / 0) (#117)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:34:06 PM EST
      You made a pretty harsh accusation about jimaka and when challenged all you can say is go look it up in the archives? Gee, that accusation of my projecting and deflecting carries a lot of weight coming from you.

      Are you a joke? If you are trying to pose as the most puerile and worhtless type of commentator found in the internet, you are a masterpiece. Otherwise, uh, not so good.

     

    made a pretty harsh accusation? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:58:15 PM EST
    What I did was point you to something that is not only my observation from dealing with Jim for long before your time here, but common knowledge of other commenters here as well, and noted by them in this thread. If you wish to characterize that as simply " go look it up in the archives" then you are in denial as well. I am also not here to do your homework for you.

    Parent
    well you know... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 02:06:05 PM EST
      ...I've never been much impressed with what passes for "common knowledge" around here. As that "common knowledge" is wrong with alarming regularity on subjects great and small, it takes a little bit more than "other people here agree with me" to carry much weight.

       I don't agree with jimaka-- in this thread and in many others--- but I can argue with him and, in my mind at least, defeat him without putting words in his mouth or using  distorted embellishmeents  of what he says to basically make the argument--"you're an evil person so I don't have to refute your points because you are an evil person and therefore what you say is always wrong."

    You'll get there (none / 0) (#120)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 02:18:13 PM EST
    After you've refuted the same things over and over and over ad nauseum from him for months on end and watched him ignore the refutations and flatly deny facts you present to him and deflect away from topics and move goal posts and make blanket condemnations of peoples and races without ever doing it explicitly but with insinuation and innuendo, you'll start to read between the lines of his posts.

    Parent
    Another thread (none / 0) (#125)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:13:00 PM EST
    Keith Ellison Reacts to Virgil Goode's Muslim Comments

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:35:45 PM EST
     Why don't you put the information in? Here's what I said, and I have no problem with it. And yes. When Ellison backs completely away from CAIR and stops meeting with them, I'll change my opiniom.

    Flip (1.00 / 2) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 07:32:55 PM EST
    If the Congressman from MN would renounce CAIR he would certainly have my attention.

    As it is I see him as the flip side of Goode.

    [ Reply to This ]

        As I'm sure you'll get some attention when (none / 0) (#9)
        by Edger on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 07:41:14 PM EST
        you renounce the KKK.

        [ Parent | Reply to This | 1 2 3 4 5 ]

            Next (none / 0) (#13)
            by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 09:03:54 PM EST
            Glad to.

            Your turn.

            Renounce the ACLU?



    Parent
    Well, you see Jim (none / 0) (#134)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:15:00 PM EST
    I posted a link to the whole thread, rather just cherry picking what you think are the least illuminating parts of it, so that others could make up their own minds.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 12:45:54 AM EST
    Well, why didn't you post a link and some examples?

    Too lazy or just trying to claim something that isn't there?

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#122)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 02:43:36 PM EST
      I guess I lack your  certain sensititivities which allow you to know people not only don't mean what they actually say, but that what they do really mean  just coincidentally plays right into your prejudices and justifies the  insult you  want to make.

      I have to say that would be a really cool sensitivity to have because it justifies pretty much anything you want to do. I'm jealous.

    Well, if you want to interpret it that way (none / 0) (#126)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:15:57 PM EST
    there is little I can say, other than: Do you learn from experience? I do. So do most people. Post-judice, not pre-judice, IOW.

    Parent
    Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:43:22 PM EST
    Would you agree with me that this sensitivity was pretty well spread around Germany in the 20's, 30's and 40's??

    (I know, I know. Godwins Law, etc..)

    Parent

    now (none / 0) (#132)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:48:15 PM EST
    play nice. Calling him a fascist is no better than him calling you one.

    Parent
    Deconstrctionist (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 12:48:37 AM EST
    True. But pay backs are always nasty.


    Parent
    DA (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 06:43:42 AM EST
    Good morning Dark Avenger. Just get in? What are you up to this fine morning?

    What do you think about the $9M, or did you just decide to weigh in on the dark side??

    Parent

    Well, since (none / 0) (#128)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:33:06 PM EST
    I continue wasting my time trying to talk sense to people like you and squeaky and the gang, it is debtable how much I learn from experience.

    Obviously (none / 0) (#131)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:43:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Anybody remember (none / 0) (#133)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:51:40 PM EST
    A guy named Maher Arar who was 'renditioned' (fancy word for the kidnapping of a citizen of an ally) to a third country from which Abu Gonzales sought 'assurances' from torturers that he would not be tortured?

    "A guy about whom The United States has never acknowledged it made a mistake in the ... case, which has become one of the most public embarrassments in the U.S. practice of "extraordinary rendition" of suspects to other countries for interrogation and imprisonment."

    The topic of the thread, IOW.

    The Matter At Hand (none / 0) (#135)
    by canuck eh on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:47:00 PM EST
    Thanks Edger,

    Let us not forget the topic- innocent computer engineer tortured for 10 months in a Syrian prison.

    I admire Mr. Arar for the way that he has dealt with the entire ordeal, after all he's been through, he still claims that he is a proud Canadian.

    I am proud of my government for having the sheer guts to look into their own conduct and admit that they were wrong. I wish the US would do the same.

    Re: I wish the US would do the same (none / 0) (#136)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 05:09:52 PM EST
    Me too. I wish other governments and people generally would as well, not only but mainly in relation to the fear and insecurity driven entire war on terror bullsh*t and its dehumanization of people being foisted on the world, and the mindset (or lack of one) behind it...

    Parent
    US Taxpayers BEWARE! (none / 0) (#145)
    by Maritimer on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 05:47:28 AM EST
    It burns my ass that we paid this bastard 11.5 million dollars.  He's not CANADIAN!  I don't care if he's got a Canadian passport. Just because he immigrated here from Syria a couple of years ago .. so what!  He said he was beaten on the palms of his hands during the first 2 weeks in Syria.....real torture eh!

    I wan't to personally thank the United States for sending this Syrian suspect back to Syria and not Canada. Thanks for doing us the favor.
    Well we got him back now and Canadian taxpayers payed him 10.5 million + 1 million in legal fees!

    US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT STATEMENT:
    "The facts underlying Arar's case...[are]classified and cannot be released publicly."
    "We have information indicating that Mr. Arar is a member of al Qaeda and, therefore, remains a threat to U.S. national security."

    Arar got himself deported by lying to the US. This is part his official statement:

    "They (US immigration) asked me about Abdullah Almalki (terrorist) , and I told them I worked with his brother at high-tech firms in Ottawa, and that the Almalki family had come from Syria about the same time as mine. I told them I did not know Abdullah well, but had seen him a few times and I described the times I could remember.
    I told them I had a casual relationship with him.

    They were so rude with me, yelling at me that I had a selective memory. Then they pulled out a copy of my rental lease from 1997. I could not believe they had this.

    I was completely shocked. They pointed out that Abdullah had signed the lease as a witness. I had completely forgotten that he had signed it for me"

    Now he is suing the US government. I guess he wants the equivalent 100.5 million US for his "torture"

    I wonder if the US taxpayers will give him his money?

    If it has not happened to YOU (none / 0) (#146)
    by STOP on Sun May 27, 2007 at 09:00:01 AM EST
    I have read through some of the comment's on here, and I understand all to clearly what this man went through.

    There is a pattern of thought that bleeds out to several area's of Justice in Canada, and it starts with the Canadian Police force's that are in place; both FEDERAL and PROVINCIAL.

    This is one comment I would like to quote-

    Canadian police messed up in causing Arar to be suspected.  That's a serious foul-up

    That statement is the truth, it started with one person, or more who decided to "PASS JUDGMENT" without knowing all of the facts, or viewing all of the facts that were right before their eyes. Both on paper, and regarding Mr. Arar's character.

    All CHOSE to turn a blind eye regarding the gravity of the situation never thinking of it because it was "NOT HAPPENING TO THEM, or NOT DIRECTLY EFFECTING THEM".

    COMPLACENCY is Common place within the Justice departments in Canada. I know because I live in Canada and I have lived through a similar type of false "PERSECUTION", as have many others. This has not been brought to the attention of the public because the systems that are in place are designed to "COVER UP" screw-ups, they are even willing to let people DIE, rather than owning up to an ERROR, in order to correct a situation.

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    Any Canadian who has the ability to understand JUSTICE and who does not stand up and hold the justice department's accountable should be PROSECUTED. Not enough dismissals occurred in this case. Just think we still have other's in the Federal, and Provincial department's in Canada who have some how managed to escape ACCOUNTABILITY.

    No one is asking the question,

    How do we obtain proper justice enforcement in Canada for all Canadians?

    Signed,

    B. (A woman) From the Prairies of Canada

    Canada Awards $9 Million to Maher Arar | 144 comments (144 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment