UN reports chastizes Canada for not acting on rendition of three Muslim Canadians

A recent report by the UN Committee Against Torture takes the Canadian government to task for what they call not taking seriously their complicity in renditions of Canadian citizens to countries such as Syria and Egypt.

Strictly speaking the only case that was actually a rendition was of Maher Arar. They did take that seriously. The rendition was not by Canada but the U.S. Maher was arrested when he is was in the U.S. simply transferring planes on a trip back to Canada. The U.S. authorities declared that Arar was an Al Qaeda operative and shipped him back to Syria where he was interrogated and tortured. The Maher Inquiry was extensive and found that Arar had no terrorist connections. The Canadian government negotiated a settlement with Arar for about ten million dollars in compensation. The U.S. refused to cooperate with the Arar inquiry and the U.S. still has Arar on a no fly list and presumably considers him an Al Qaeda operative.

The Canadian government wanted to make sure nothing more than a tongue lashing would come from the Iacobucci Inquiry that was very narrowly focused. The Inquiry was almost all done behind closed doors with not even lawyers for the three men who had been jailed in Syria and Egypt being allowed in to sessions where intelligence officers were questioned. Some groups withdrew from participation in disgust.

The three Canadian Muslims were not directly rendered. I call it rendering light or opportunistic rendering. Intelligence operatives waited until the men involved visited Syria for different reasons and then had them arrested so they could be interrogated on matters of terrorism. None of the three have had any compensation as yet. In neither inquiry was there ever any punishment of officials for wrongdoing. Of course the U.S. which was involved in direct rendition has never punished anyone. In fact Obama has not even abolished rendition.

The report also urged the government to repatriate Omar Khadr held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo from the age of 16. He signed a plea deal in which he plead guilty to charges that was supposed to see him transferred to Canada but the Canadian government has never followed through. For more see this article.

Harper chastises Liberals and defends US rendition in effect

This is from Hansard Nov. 2002. Note that Harper shows no concern for the rendition of Arar, no doubt because he is a suspected terrorist. He defends the US decision since Arar is a Syrian citizen. He complains in effect that the Liberals are soft on terrorism and should not have granted Arar citizenship. Of course the Liberals in turn defend the RCMP who were feeding the US and Canadian officials false information that was subesequently also leaked to Canadian news media. This link comes from this site.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *

[English]

Terrorism

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government's right hand does not know what its left hand is doing when it comes to national security.

The foreign affairs minister said for two months that the United States had offered no justification or information for the deportation of Maher Arar. Yet we now know that the RCMP knew of Arar's activities. They questioned him nearly a year ago and they were notified weeks ago by the FBI of its information.

My question is, when did the minister know of the RCMP's holding of information on this matter?

(1415)


Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we would not in any circumstances of course disclose information of that sort, whether we had it or not, with respect to a particular individual.

Of course we raised issues regarding the consular rights of the individual involved, but in no circumstances would we confirm or make any comment on any information that we might have about an individual--


The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he said he did not know. It would be nice if there were somebody here to actually answer a question on this.

While the minister participated in high level consultations to defend a suspected terrorist, it apparently took a trip by the U.S. Secretary of State for the minister to admit what he really knew.

Officials now acknowledge that they have had evidence on Arar's activities for weeks. Why did it take a newspaper article to correct the record? Why did the minister and the government not reveal these facts to the House before today?


Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is working with United States authorities on this issue to clarify the matter. We do not comment publicly on these matters related to international security.


Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will ask that minister. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was asked in the House of Commons about this file. He acted as if he knew absolutely nothing and said he was going to consult the United States because he had no justification or information.

The minister's department has an agency under him, the RCMP, which had that information. When was that information passed on to the Minister of Foreign Affairs?


Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is confusing the issue of a citizen's consular rights, that is, rights to consular support in any circumstance, and the issue of whether or not there was substantive information that concerned this particular individual in the possession of U.S. authorities.

In the former, of course we will intervene in order to ensure that consular rights are respected. In the latter, we will not be prepared to comment.


Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is time the Liberals told the truth: that their system of screening and security checks is pathetic. Arar was given dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship by the government. It did not pick up on his terrorist links and the U.S. had to clue it in.

How is it that the U.S. could uncover this man's background so quickly when the government's screening system failed to find his al-Qaeda links?


Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill that Mohammed Atta, the conspirator behind the September 11 destruction of the World Trade Center, received his visa from U.S. authorities six months after September 11.


Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government needs to take responsibility for what it is doing to protect Canadian security. The fact is that these Liberals were asleep at the switch.

Arar was not properly checked. Instead, the government ran around chastising the U.S. for sending Arar back to Syria, where he is also a citizen.

Why is it that the Liberal security system is so weak here that they overlook vital information that the U.S. picked up on a routine check?


Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if hon. members on the opposite side would listen, I want to make it very clear that we are on top of our game in terms of international security. The RCMP and CSIS are very much on top of their game in ensuring that we are protecting Canadian citizens against terrorism.

Maher Arar asked to consider book or movie deals.

It is understandable that Arar should want to try and work out family difficulties. Apparently since returning he still suffers from his experiences and has some trouble relating even to his family. His wife was among those who were instrumental in gaining his release from prison in Syria. Arar is certainly right about journalists. They should not be bound to secrecy when sources lie to them and damage the reputation of innocent people as happened in his case.

Maher Arar wants a break before considering a book or movie deal Canadian Press
Published: Saturday, February 17, 2007 Article tools

* * * * VANCOUVER (CP) - A book or movie about Maher Arar's 10-month ordeal in a Damascus prison could be in the works one day, but first the 36-year-old wants to take some time away from the spotlight.

The Syrian-born Canadian spoke to a crowd of 400 students at the University of British Columbia Friday.

"Contrary to what many believe, I value my privacy and haven't had time to sit down and think (about a movie or book deal)," he said. "If it happens it won't be soon. I just want a break."

In the hour-long lecture, Arar told the story of his detainment to a Syrian prison in 2002, where he was tortured and forced to live in a tiny, dark cell. The Canadian government eventually intervened and he was released 10 months later.

Arar credited Canadian support and the media for getting a public inquiry into his ordeal.

However, he said some journalists reported false and misleading information through leaked sources, which didn't help his case.

"It's time for journalists in Canada to look at the protocol they use with confidential sources," he said.

Last month, Arar received a $10.5 million-dollar compensation package from the government along with an apology.

Michael Byers, a professor at UBC, organized the lecture. In his introduction, he said Arar would use some of the compensation towards human rights in Canada.

Arar did not confirm this during his talk.

Kendyl Salcito, a journalism student, said she attended because she's interested in the international aspect of it.

"Everyone's interviewed Arar already but he's still talking and I'd like to support that," she said.

Natalie Dick said hearing Arar speak, she couldn't help but think that he was in his position for a reason - to make a difference.

"He wouldn't be where he was now if that didn't happen," she said. "He wouldn't be talking to students, he wouldn't be so active. It's not a good thing but it almost is."

© The Canadian Press 2007

US opinion piece on Arar case etc.

This is from the Huffington Post. Zaccardelli didn't strictly resign because of the results of the inquiry but as a result of his contradictory (perjured!) testimony before committees. Some of the comments on this article at the site are wild.

U.S. Handling of Arar Case Shows How far We've Fallen (14 comments )

Late last month Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology "on behalf of the government of Canada" to one of its citizens, Maher Arar, and his family. Moreover, the Canadian government agreed to pay Arar more than $10 million to settle his case.

On September 26, 2002, U.S. authorities detained Arar, the Syria-born Canadian citizen, during a stopover in New York en route from Tunisia to Canada.

He was subsequently sent to Syria for torture under the controversial American practice of "extraordinary rendition." After a year of torture and pressure by the Canadian government, Arar was released and returned to Canada.

According to the official inquiry conducted by the Canadian government, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service agents acted on false and misleading information supplied by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The inquiry findings led to the prime minister's formal apology to Arar on behalf of the Canadian government and the $10 million settlement. In addition, RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli resigned as a result of the Arar controversy.

Meanwhile, Arar still appears on the U.S. watch list -- American authorities are refusing Canada's request to purge his name. His inclusion on U.S. lists effectively excludes Arar from at least one-third of the world's nations, according to his attorneys.

The Arar case has all the familiarity of the administration's misguided "if you knew what we knew" play book that has effectively led us into the current quagmire. More concerning, the Arar case is reflective of what we have become.

The U.S. government's unwillingness to remove Arar's name, let alone apologize, demonstrates how far astray we have become from our own democratic sensibilities. As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy noted that instead of sending Arar a "couple of hundred miles to Canada and (have him) turned over to the Canadian authorities ... he was sent thousands of miles away to Syria."

The absurdity is mind-boggling, with each passing day we come closer to an Orwellian nightmare.

Just this week, representatives from 57 countries signed a treaty that prohibits governments from holding people in secret detention. Regretfully, but not surprising given the current climate, the United States was not among the countries that endorsed the treaty, suggesting that the text did not meet U.S. expectations.

When one begins to connect the dots, linking Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons, the selective application of habeas corpus, the Arar case, along with our unwillingness to sign a treaty that prohibits secret detention, it becomes quite clear that rather than a few bad apples or isolated incidents, the aforementioned reveal a systematic approach in the use of torture while ignoring the rule of law.

Where is the outrage? Such malfeasance should create the unlikely coalition of liberals, conservatives, Greens, libertarians, fundamentalists and atheists taking to the streets in mass protest.

We become further entrenched in the abyss because what is now required goes against one of America's less flattering values.

Historically, official apologies from the government have been rare. I recall when President Clinton went to Africa. He came as close to an official apology for the atrocities of slavery as anyone. The next day Republicans took to the floor outraged.

If there cannot be an official apology for the institution of slavery, which almost divided the nation over 200 years ago, it seems rather hopeless that we could show humility for infractions no more than four years removed.

The gravity of mistakes made in the invasion and occupation of Iraq make the need for contrition essential. Not only does Arar deserve an apology -- and to have his name removed from the U.S. watch list -- but this government must humble itself before the world community. The seldom-used art of apology could be a crucial first step in paving the way for whatever bad choice in Iraq we ultimately settle on.

Since it appears unlikely that such impulses are part of the DNA of the present administration, I suggest the myriad candidates running for president in 2008 put together a contrition speech in case he or she wins. It might come in handy.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail him at byron
@byronspeaks.com or leave a message at (510) 208-6417.

Send to a friendPost a CommentPrint PostRead all posts by Byron Williams