34 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
he chose to be with certain low life's so whats your beef?
did we torture him nope we sent him back.
i can live with that.
or would you complain that we should have used stricter interrogation? but when we( supposedly do) people complain so its a lose /lose game.
he chose to be with certain low life's so whats your beef?
I know your more intelligent that any terrorist, but just suppose you knew one and you didn't know that he was a terrorist. I don't think they broadcast the fact that they are terorists. A Government agency is following this terrorist and see you with him. Kidnap you, ship you to Jordan then Syria, your tortured for a year and sent home.
Would you have a beef?
did we torture him
If by "we" you mean the US, (and if the story, as I posted is true) then No, You had some other country do the dirty work. Which amounts to the same thing.
and i have np with them doing it
and i beleave he new whom what was
and i have np with them doing it
I had no doubt that you would have np with them doing it, because,
THEY WERE DOING IT TO HIM
Would you have a problem if they were doing it to you?
According to the information in the links, the only association Arar had with the other person, was "this person signed a paper with a landlord about rent"
The scene is, you are with a group of people that you meet with ocassionally. All with an interest in snakes and reptiles and maybe even guns. Subjects you have expressed interest in before. This group meets a couple of times a month. CIA, FBI, MI5, CSIS Interpol and who knows who else, are following a couple of "persons of interest" that belong to this "group of people". The gov agents arrest these "persons of interest" and members of the groups they associate with. They ship you off to another county and they torture you and then sent you back home.
You return home go back to your apartment/ house and don't say a word, don't mention it to anybody, don't feel like you have been done wrong. You just go on with your life like the event didn't happen.
For some reason or other, I don't think that the subject wouldn't be brought up
he met some requirements and all we know
since were not privey to any more i have to go with that
You need to pick your associates with care. It's not exactly
a news flash that many from that part of the world are not nice people.
aha - takes some time to read it and understand it.
But you have nothing to worry about If you ask me. Don't worry be happy person!
you have nothing to worry about
He thought he had nothing to worry about either, he's not a terrorist either.
If they still believed he was a terrorist why is he free?
...you do not have SUBSTANTIAL Evidences to back up your claims, No CREDIBLE witnesses to testify on your behalf, Panel of Lawyers (experts in different cases/fields), interest groups including media to chant on your behalf ---- then it is perfectly alright to say, "Oh Sh_t!"
Not necessarily safe ...
It is neither moral nor safe to ignore moral travesties merely because you are not at risk.
In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me-and by that time no one was left to speak up.
If the report is accurate and if he has no actual connection to terrorists (and I have no first hand knowledge of that either way) then the story should frighten American and every visitor to America.
If we sink to the level of the terrorists even as a matter of self defense then we have lost any right to claim moral superiority.
Thanks Dr. Bill, well said.
This has been a major story in Canada since it occurred. Certainly the outward circumstances are true. He was pulled in New York, the US denied they had him or had anything to do with him, they did ship him to Syria, and he was eventually released. It took major pressure on the Canadian government and on the Syrian government to ultimately effect his release.
If any one incident accounts for Canada's skepticism about US actions it is this incident. The US was totally unhelpful as I understand it.
You forgot something that makes your quote...
...inapplicable. He wasn't a citizen. Your quote was about various German citizens. He was returned to his homeland. They are the ones that abused him. Don't fall into the trap of blaming the USA for what other countries do from their own nature and policies.
Do you honestly believe
that the US did not know exactly what was going to happen to him?
Why did we deny an involvment if our position is as innocent as you describe?
(NT) well why should we care?
I forgot nothing in that regard ...
One of the issues is that moral character is reflected in how we treat the most vulnerable people we contact.
In the Bible, for example, compassion toward (among others) aliens traveling in the nation was specifically mentioned.
If we treat aliens changing planes in our borders with no regard to their humanity and with no standards of decency then we have already lost the moral high ground in this conflict.
(NT) We lost the moral high ground a while back :-(
Difficult to say BUT it is interesting to note...
that his story changes with each telling.
Here is what SeeBS had -
But while Canadian diplomats were demanding answers from the U.S., it turns out that it was the Royal Canadian mounted police who had been passing U.S. intelligence the information about Arar?s alleged terrorist associations.
However, U.S. government officials we spoke to say they told Canadian intelligence that they were sending Arar to Syria ? and the Canadians signed off on the decision.
The first responsibility is to security of the nation. Let us all stop to remember all the recriminations AFTER 9/11 when it was discovered that at varous times some of the personnel involved had been in custody and simply released.
Remember too that several of the same personnel had entered the US through Canada and that Canadian officials agreed to the deportation to his native Syria.
Some of the 'inconsistencies' may still be accurate ...
It's a bit confusing reading through some of the various stories, especially given the fact that some of the reports may be imprecise in their language.
However, it is quite possible that Canadian diplomats were demanding explanations from the US even though US personnel had obtained the OK from Canadian intelligence personnel.
My impression is that (at least in our country) the diplomats and the spooks are not always reliable, accurate and timely in their communications with each other.
For me the bottom line ...
... would be that the US officials were under the impression that they had the sanction of the Canadian government to deport him to Syria. Also, the US sought assurances that he would be treated humanely -- something we might expect to be honored given the fact that this would be a "known" prisoner that could be (and was) kept tabs on by the Canadian Consulate.
He should be going after the Syrian government's treatment of him, not the US, which deported him as is our right with the apparent sanction of the country in which he was a citizen (Canada).
"bottom line" should be
that the US (for whatever reason) should have either:
A: arrested him and kept him in the US
B: kept him in the airport lockup 'til there was a flight BACK to where he came from
or C: kept him in the lockup and put him on the FIRST flight to canada with a warning "DON'T EVER SHOW YOUR FACE IN THE USA AGAIN!"
the USs' role in this was, to say the least, "the villain"....
jonah don't think i like the way the canadians acted either...jones
I agree in part ...
... but it seems there is more to this story we may never even know. Perhaps the Canadians didn't give the US sufficient assurances that they would keep him in custody until the situation was straightened out? By his own admission his family in Syria had some questionable ties, and although not exactly our "friend", given the US's terror policy, Syria had reason to abide by assurances given to the US, and the US had reason to believe they would abide by them.
Something very fishy here ...
Lets say Arar was stopped at JFK and the American authorities believed he knew a terrorist, they contact Canada.
They ask what do you want us to do? ( I can't really believe the US would do this, but for the sake of discussion, I'll say the US asks Canada for direction)
Keep him. (which I think should have happened if US really thought he was a terrorist)
send him to Canada ( which would amount to him being free, as he was already investigated by RCMP)
send him to Syria ( this is the most logical place for the US to send him, He was wanted because he didn't serve his time in the Syrian military, and the US is looking to have an ally in Syria and the fight against terrorism.)
that they had the sanction of the Canadian government to deport him to Syria.
Why would Canada agree to send him to Syria, Jordan or any other country. Why not just say don't send him anywhere but Canada?
Then Canada has to go through the process of getting him back, So, why all the running around?
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.
The U.S. says Arar knew a man in Ottawa whom they suspect of having links to the al-Qaeda terror organization.
But the director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada says the RCMP questioned Arar about the relationship months ago. Riad Saloojee says the police were apparently satisfied with his answers. Saloojee has called on Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham to ensure Arar's safety.
Possibly various layers, here
People in some layers may not know whats going on in the others.
So, they sent him back home.
Why then does he blame the US for what his own people did to him? Does he have a suit going against Syria too? Jordan? He wants to be here because he fears being there, because he fears being treated worse among his own, but it's the USA that he's railing against and suing. Something doesn't add up here.
...if, in your clear conscience you are not guilty of what was heavily alledged and have gone through a hellah emotional and physical nightmare, then hire the best known Press Consultant ---> then all interested groups will follow suit.
A one sided story.
If he's innocent of contributing to terrorism then it's a terrible thing that's happened to him. Unfortunate.
If he's been a contributor of money and comfort to such groups, then it's a light sentence he endured with all things considered in the light of 9/11.
pretty pissed off! but..........
i would also be asking "WHERE THE HECK WAS MY LAWYER ALL THIS TIME??"
He was asking to see his lawyer many times. The people detaining him wouldn't let him see the lawyer, If the lawyer even knew what or when anything was going on.
The government has not denied that "enemy combatants" have next to no rights, so denying a lawyer would not be a stretch.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)