US will not participate in Arar inquiry. ⇒
21 September 2004, late at night
I saw Paul Martin shrug his shoulders and say 'meh' on Global. Well more or less.
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
Check out this timeline at the CBC on Maher Arar if you don’t know who he is.
by ramanan on September 21 2004, 11:45 pm #
Why should the US participate in the inquiry? I think they would argue that, though Arar has dual citizenship, as far as they are concerned, they deported a Syrian citizen to Syria. (Though he seems to have been travelling on a Canadian passport, does that actually matter? I don’t know the legal answer to that.) Their involvement in the affair could clear up the involvement of others, but I don’t see how they are obligated to participate.
by Robert on September 22 2004, 1:32 am #
I don’t think they are obligated to do anything, but it strikes me as something they should feel some sort of moral obligation to do. We’re supposed to be on friendly terms with the country. They deported one of our citizens to a country where I am sure they were well aware he would be tortured, rather then sending him back to Canada.
The US isn’t up in arms now that he is walking around in Canada a free man, so it is quite doubtful they still feel he is some sort of national security threat. So something like “sorry, we shouldn’t deport people to Syria, we won’t do it next time” would have been nice.
Furthermore, what would they expect to happen sending him to Syria—part of the Axis of Evil no less? What could they have hoped to accomplish? If they felt he was some sort of criminal, why wouldn’t they detain him in the US, or Canada, where they would have easier access to him. This whole thing seems like thorough stupidity on the part of the US, and it will likely never be explained.
At the very least Cretien would have gone on air and said something like “The US is run by assholes”, and then retracted the statement the next day with some half-assed apology.
by ramanan on September 22 2004, 1:55 am #
Yes, they deported one of our citizens to Syria, but that man is as much a citizen of Syria as he is a Canadian. Canadian citizenship doesn’t necessarily trump the citizenship of another citizenship simply because you and I are Canadians. We may have an interest in how our citizens are treated abroad, but just as someone with dual citizenship is subject to both their countries laws (including military service, something which recently came up in another case), they can also be deported to either of the countries of their citizenship. So it’s a bit misleading to say, “The Americans deported a Canadian to Syria.”
As far as the issue of torture goes, Canada has a policy of not deporting people to countries where they may face persecution or torture. I don’t know if the same holds true of the US. If it doesn’t, I don’t see how they can be held to our standard and I assume the Americans aren’t up in arms about Arar walking around in Canada because they don’t govern Canada.
But if the US felt he were some sort of criminal, why wouldn’t they detain him? I don’t know. Perhaps they don’t know either. But deporting someone considered a security threat doesn’t seem to be a stupid decision. It’s probably a policy common to many, if not nearly all, countries’ immigration laws. Sure, people may be detained before being deported, but they all end up on a plane leaving the country eventually.
Last, I think it’s too easy to call policies we don’t agree with “stupid” or the people who implement them “assholes.” Any criticism that reduces itself to that doesn’t really do itself credit. Insulting people generally doesn’t produce good will or change.
by Robert on September 22 2004, 2:18 am #
I can understand deportation, but to Syria? I think not calling that a stupid decision on the part of the US is just being polite. But this is the internet, so I don’t know if we really need all the formalities. If the US was aware that he would be tortured, which it seems they were, then the action is morally reprehensible. As such, someone should call them assholes.
I agree with most everything you have said nevertheless. I understand that his being a dual citizen complicates the matter. But exercising the slightest common sense would have resulted in a much different outcome. I think.
by ramanan on September 22 2004, 2:58 am #
Immigration officials and common sense? Are you kidding me?!
They are paid to not think rationally. 99% of the time it works out for the better.
by Sunny on September 22 2004, 10:24 pm #
Renouncing Syrian citizenship is supposedly one of the most complex and near-impossible things one can do. Also, according to a quick and dirty Google search, the US government doesn’t recognize dual citizenships, meaning that someone in Arar’s position should not be considered Syrian to US immigration officials if they are traveling under a Canadian passport.
That said, the American officials had a few choices that were far less odious than sending Arar to be tortured in Syria:
1. If he was properly placed on the potential security threat list, he should have been detained and interrogated by Homeland Security.
2. If he wasn’t, but for whatever reason was still a persona non grata, he should have been deported to either the country his flight into the US originated from (Tunisia) or the country under whose passport he was traveling (Canada).
by Dave on September 23 2004, 6:50 pm #