The hard-line advocates of the Bush administration’s often extreme (and unlawful) approaches to terrorism should read the findings of the Canadian Arar Commission, which examined the conditions under which Maher Arar was sent by the U.S. government, on the basis of misinformation provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to Syria, where he was imprisoned and — the evidence is very strong — terribly tortured. There are reasons for the presumption of innocence. It turns out that sometimes people are innocent.
For what reason would a terror harboring and terror sponsoring state, such as Syria, torture an alleged terrorists to the US?
If anything, I would think that the Syrian government would give Mr. Arar a medal for his alleged activities.
I am certainly against torture, but I am not so certain that Mr. Arar was tortured. Why would any rogue state, such as Syria, hand over a live torture victim that could embarrass their nation and bring world condemnation by bringing to light the torture he suffered?
The Syrian government may be bold and corrupt, but I don’t think they are stupid enough to have its torture activities publicly announced to the world by a live torture victim.
The Syrian government is quite opposed to Islamists *in Syria*. Consider what the father of the current president did in the town of Hama. Syria is a secular state that suppresses Islamists quite effectively, when it’s not supporting them in Lebanon and Iraq. Mr. Arar is from Syria and if accused of being an Islamist, would attract the special attention of the intelligence “services” there.
Not only is Tom’s point valid, but in addition, Syria likes to try and minimize Washington’s displeasure with its rogue state-type activities as much as possible, and so looks for ways to throw the US a bone when it can. Cooperating on intelligence is one of those bones, and when the US turned over a “terror suspect” to them, their eyes must have bugged out. I’m sure they saw it as a way to score much-needed brownie points with the Bush administration.
As for why they’d release him, the Syrians do release people – it’s not as if Arar is the first to ever make it out.
It’s possible Maher Arar, as a political prisoner and terror suspect, wasn’t tortured in Syria, but it’s about as likely as dancing through the raindrops in a thunderstorm and coming out bone-dry. Possible, but extraordinarily unlikely.
Anonymous: what are Arar’s “alleged activities?” The Canadian report points out there were no allegations of wrongdoing on Arar’s part. The RCMP placed him on a “suspicious” list because he apparently knew another man who was also not alleged to have done anything wrong but also was on a “suspicious” list. The U.S. govt sent him to Syria because they had no evidence of any wrongdoing, but decided on the basis of the RCMP report he was “suspicious.” He was not an alleged terrorist.
And your argument Arar must not have been tortured because Syria released him and they wouldn’t release someone they’d tortured is bizarre. They released him because the Canadian gov’t kept after them to do so. Had they killed him, it would have been much worse for the Syrian gov’t.
Why would Syria torture someone “suspected” of being linked to someone “suspected” of being linked to Al Qaeda? That’s easy — Al Qaeda’s fundamentalism and Syria’s Baathist socialism are fundamentally incompatible.
Speaking of suspicious — your argument sounds suspiciously like Syrian govt disinformation.
This case is highly embarrassing to both the U.S. and Canada. What this case shows is that intelligence or law enforcement agencies can think someone is a terrorist only to find that even by the limited standards of justice that prevail in a country like Syria the accused is innocent.
Adam,
Do you think that the world would allow the US to get away with the bone? I think not. Humanitarian groups and anti-American governments will gladly keep actions such as Mr. Arar’s alleged torture as breaking news. Remember Git-mo and Adi Grab. These has been a thorn in the side of US credibility.
Tom,
As well, the Syrians do not have problems with terrorist or Islamists. They are allowing them to use their border as a sanctuary, a staging and a infiltration point for insurgents fighting in Iraq. If the Syrians suspected Mr. Arar as an Islamists, wouldn’t it have been easy for them to handcuff him to the steering wheel of a car, strapped with explosives, then blow up US troops in Iraq, and have Mr. Arar to become a martyr.
Charles,
All terrorists are not linked to Al Qaeda. The Soviets and Chinese were socialists, however, they practiced, funded, equipped, and supported terrorism. North Korea is socialist. Most rogue African nations call themselves socialist. What makes socialist Syria any different than these.
Mark,
I am curious in why that not one journalist, human rights activist, or diplomat inquired to get the Syria’s’s side of the story. I really like to know why would they torture an innocent man.
I find the report unreliable and suggest coming to no conclusion based on its questionable and incomplete methodology. But the moral questions remain.
Let’s deal with this as a hypothetical as distasteful as this may be with such matters. What moral responsibility do we have for the actions of others? Are we obligated to protect people from the actions of other governments? Are we obligated to give asylum?
I agree that we know the nature of the Syrian regime (just as we knew the nature of Saddam’s regime) but does knowledge of character suffice or must we know that acts are planned with certainty? Should we assume these regimes will act in character and respond accordingly or should we wait until they act in each specific case?
Since he is a citizen of Syria (page 27) our government is not obligated to shield him from Syria. It has no jurisdiction on matters within Syria and cannot legally keep him in detention within our own borders indefinitely. Should we necessarily deport him to another country where he may or may not have citizenship? Since deportation is not punishment according to law, (i.e. our depravation of property, person, or comfort) should we take responsibility for other jurisdictions?
I asked the above question because I don’t know the answers in a general sense. But it’s a problem we’ll have to face going forward. What general approach should we take given the covert nature of the threat we face, the nation’s lack of tolerance for government failures to stop all covert attacks, and the need to maintain proper legal procedures?
Free Altell Ringtones
In her youth, to pay an honest mind, quite intimate, they bestride the world on fire.
Free Ringtones For Cingular Phones
They took an hour of investigation on this secret relationship, etc.