Talk:Maher Arar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Syria Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Compensation 2 "Alleged" torture 3 NPOV 4 Error in Detention and deportation section 5 "False and misleading", etc. 6 RCMP apology 7 Misleading "US denial" section 8 Canada's formal protest to the USA 9 Use of the word deported 10 role of the USA? 11 Introduction 12 Image

[edit] Compensation

The Prime Minister of Canada just conducted a press release regarding the Arar case (12:30 p.m. on the 26th of January, 2007). He officially apologized on behalf of the Canadian federal government. He also is awarding him $12.5 million ($10.5 million for him and $2 million for his legal fees) for his damages. 205.194.74.10 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Jsers

[edit] "Alleged" torture

The Arar Commission having now officially accepted Arar's claims of torture as fact, they are considered a res judicata and need not be referred to as allegations.

• We should include the evidence of the claim -- even if it is only this commission's finding.

• • There were never any wounds or scarring of any kind to back up Arar's claims.

Why has the "regularly" tortured now been changed to "allegedly" tortured, a year after this discussion? Is it just going to go back on forth on this one every few days? Unless you have a source more reliable than the Arar Commission showing that Arar was àlledgely tortued, it should revert back to "regularly". 17 March 2007

[edit] NPOV

"is believed to be part of the unofficial US policy of extraordinary rendition whereby terrorism suspects are sent to countries where torture is practised." This is pretty biased. Unless you can find some evidence to support it, I'm deleting it along with all of the other racial profiling stuff. If you don't have a link to any of these, its inaccurate. Epsoul 05:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Maher Arar's case has been consistently linked to the policy of extraordinary rendition both in the media and in the commission of enquiry. See, for example, this page from the Arar Commission site [1] where one of the submissions is Rendition, Extraordinary Rendition and the U.S. Law Governing Mr. Arar’s Removal to Syria by Stephen Yale-Loehr, Adjunct Professor, Cornell University , Faculty of Law and U.S. Immigration Law expert and Julia Hall, Counsel and Researcher, Human Rights Watch. Or do a search for Arar and extraordinary rendition on Google [2]--Lee Hunter 02:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There may be highly educated people supporting this claim, but until there is solid evidence supporting it, it shouldn't be in the article. You could create a section on theories behind the deportation though I believe.

Epsoul 05:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that anything in the article is "theoretical". He was one of hundreds of people snatched off the street and flown to Syria and Egypt on CIA-chartered planes for the complete torture adventure package holiday. The only people still pretending that it wasn't torture-by-proxy are the US officials responsible for the practise. However I do agree with you that highly educated people support this claim. Anyone who has examined this story closely could not possibly come to any other conclusion--Lee Hunter 13:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this, you show me a link that has solid proof that the U.S. intentionally sent him to Syria so he would be tortured and then I'll agree with you. I don't care about speculation. Arar was the victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and its as simple as that.

Epsoul 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of sources referenced on the Wikipedia article on the subject, Extraordinary rendition. -- int19h 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that really doesn't provide any solid evidence that he was tortured...according to the "Torture" section, it says that there was a "likelyhood" that he had been tortured. When a visit was arranged, there were no physical sides of torture on him. JIMO, that report seemed fairly biased from what I had read of it.

Epsoul 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As I think I mentioned in a prehistoric post, the matter of Arar's torture is a res judicata in Canada following the Toope Report. Moreover, the pages on Syria in the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, to cite only one of numerous sources, have detailed year after year Syria's use of torture, epecially to extract confessions, so there can be very little doubt that whoever signed off on Arar's deportation knew precisely what they were sending him to. --Rrburke 01:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

From the report by Dennis O'Connor, Associate Chief Justice of Ontario: "First, it was clear, or should have been clear, to everyone that Mr. Arar’s human rights had been and likely continued to be seriously abused. Syria’s reputation for mistreating prisoners was well known and the likelihood of Mr. Arar receiving a fair trial in Syria was remote. By this time, it was also clear that the U.S. authorities had relied on information from Canada in removing Mr. Arar to Syria using their questionable practice of extraordinary rendition." and "Another example relevant to the Inquiry relates to the American practice of rendition. The evidence shows that members of the RCMP were unaware of this practice of sending individuals to other countries for interrogation and possible torture." --Lee Hunter 16:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is no solid evidence that the U.S. practices extraordinary rendition, it is simply a theory...

Epsoul 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose if you discount the testimony of countless victims of rendition, eyewitnesses, US government officials, human rights groups, journalists, diplomats, lawyers, judges, police etc etc etc. along with the corroborating flight records of planes chartered by the CIA then there is no "solid evidence". What would constitute "solid evidence" for you?--Lee Hunter 12:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also restored the phrasing which describes extraordinary rendition and the torture of Arar as established fact. The Canadian government has just spent millions of dollars in an exhaustive and wide-ranging enquiry into this case. There really is no justification for implying doubt. --Lee Hunter 13:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe anyone could seriously deny that the U.S. practises extraordinary rendition; look at Extraordinary_rendition#Examples_2 if nothing else. However, we don't even need indisputable proof to mention it in the article; it's enough that it be generally accepted as true by a significant group, and sourced. --Saforrest 15:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag that RBPierce recently re-inserted, because that user seems to have ignored this discussion of the issues and contributed no new justification for the change. Jmacaulay 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the "extraordinary rendition" POV stance is that a) Arar is a Syrian citizen; and b) host countries can choose to deport citizens to whatever country of citizenship they want; c) the fact that what happened has been called "extraordinary rendition" extensively in the media does not make it so; and d) in spite of what I'm going to say next, there isn't really a stable definition for the term. I tend to think "extraordinary rendition" refers to the practice of taking someone in a third-party country where the rendering agency has no real jurisdiction and shuttling them off to another third-party country for highly questionable purposes. Example: the CIA snatches a Saudi citizen in Macedonia and sends him to Afghanistan for interrogation. If the INS captures a non-US citizen within the United States and decides to deport them to one of their countries of dual citizenship, the practice is wholly legal -- in spite of the fact that it may offend Canadian sensibilities. The use of the term is not NPOV, and its inclusion does nothing to enhance comprehension of the issue. Indeed, while the references to the commission report are accurate (the term "extraordinary rendition" appears in the report) it is never defined anywhere in the document.

"host countries can choose to deport citizens to whatever country of citizenship they want"

• Actually, as I understand it, that's wrong. Someone with a background in international law can perhaps settle this, but it's my understanding that dual nationals facing removal have a right to elect from which country they wish to claim consular protection and which country they wish to be removed to. I don't know whether this is a provision of the VCCR or another agreement of more limited scope, but at any rate, Arar himself asserts that on October 3 or 4 he was presented with a document asking him to choose which country he wished to be removed to. He chose Canada.

• As for the events being characterized as a rendition solely by the media, Sen. Leahy in his letter of September 22, 2006 to AG Gonzales refers to Arar's removal as a "rendition", and contests Gonzales' refusal to characterize Arar's removal as such.

• Regarding the supposed lack of a clear definition of "rendition," evidently both Leahy and Gonzales share a common understanding of what the term signifies: both use it. Gonzales simply denies that the term is applicable to the Arar case. Nor is Gonzales' denial complete: later in the statement Leahy quotes, Gonzales appear to concede the possibility the that Arar's removal may have been a rendition ("even if it was a rendition"). So whatever it is they're both referring to, that's also what's being referred to in this article. I don't see any problem with point out the Administration's disputing the applicability of the term, but excluding the word from the article altogether is an error and fails to situate the episode in its broader context. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

1) The VCCR does not seem to cover deportation, though at present that matter is irrelevant given that no mention of deportation procedures is mentioned in the article. 2) Leahy has a reason to characterize Arar's removal as an extraordinary rendition (though he only refers to it as a "rendition" in the document, it shold be said) much as Gonzales has a reason to characterize it as something else. I don't place full faith and credit in those sources because of the respective partisan positions of both authors, and because of the relationship between the event and current politics. 3) Evidently Leahy and Gonzales do not agree on what the definition of a rendition is as that very definition (as applied practically) is the substance of the dispute between them. 4) The statement "even if it was" indicates nothing by way of concession -- it is a familiar rhetorical device ("even if it was x, which it was not, so-and-so would still be wrong"). 5) Even the section on Arar's (deportation/rendering/whatever) calls it an "administrative removal" without reference to the term "extraordinary rendition." I find this odd in light of your objections. Anyways, the re-worded section is better, as it indicates that there is some controversy over how Arar was removed and how that removal should be characterized. I still find the wording slanted towards a specific conclusion, but it is an improvement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.56.90.241 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Error in Detention and deportation section

This section states that "Arar was held without access to consular services, without legal representation and without being allowed to contact his family." In fact, according to Arar's own website, he was permitted to call his mother-in-law on Oct. 2, was visited by a lawyer, Amal Oummih, on Oct. 5, and by Canadian consul Maureen Girvan on Oct. 4. I will rewrite this section when I have a moment; if anyone wants to do it in the meantime, please feel free. --Rrburke 22:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "False and misleading", etc.

Epsoul, when making edits which significantly change the meaning of the article, like this one [3] , which changes the article to suggest the RCMP information was not false and misleading and that the certainty of Arar's torture is not established, please do not mark the edit as "minor".

I have reverted this edit, because the O'Connor report, an official report from the Canadian federal government, clearly states that Arar was tortured and that the RCMP information was false and misleading. --Saforrest 15:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it was false and misleading... but it was the US authorities that jumped... The problem with RCMP was the afterwards covering up by slandering the man after he had been cleared. Chivista 15:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, what? So it would have been okay that the RCMP handed over "false and misleading" information to the U.S., if only the U.S. hadn't "jumped" and deported him to Syria? The Mounties told the U.S. outright falsehoods (that he had been in Washington on September 11, that he had "suddenly decamped" to Tunisia to avoid arrest, etc.) without which he might not have been deported. Their fault begins long before his return from Syria. --Saforrest 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If RCMP had known that US would be so trigger happy, they may have been more careful in the first place. Chivista 16:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's sort of the point. They didn't know what the US would do with this information. So they shouldn't have provided it in the carte blanche manner they did. Obviously they cannot be expected to have known everything, but if they had doubts (and they should have, seeing as the information was false) they should have expressed these in the data they sent to the US. I'm not arguing the RCMP directly conspired to send Arar to Syria, but to say they're blameworthy only after Arar's return is incomprehensible.

Also, this is getting away from discussions about the article, so we ought to move this to talk pages if you want to continue. --Saforrest 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RCMP apology

I don't have time to edit, but this BBC story covers Giulano Zaccardelli (RCMP Commissioner)'s public apology. Loganberry (Talk) 02:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading "US denial" section

The BBC article covered in that "US denial" section basically says that a lone embassador vigorously denied the allegations, only to be corrected by a US embassy spokesperson the very next day. Rl 08:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Fixed. Rl 06:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada's formal protest to the USA

I rewrote this section for accuracy: format diplomatic protests are not made when leaders call each other. During the phone call Harper notified Bush of Canada's intention to lodge a formal protest. The protest took the form of a Letter of Protest sent to Condoleezza Rice by Peter MacKay.

Additionally, Harper did not say he told Bush "Canada wants assurances that U.S. officials will deal honestly with their Canadian counterparts and incidents like the deportation of Canadian Maher Arar to Syria will not happen again." He told reporters that this is what Canada wants. Precisely what he said to Bush is not reported, as it's not customary to release such details. --Rrburke 17:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word deported

During this case, there was much use of the word "deported". This was and is incorrect. Most countries claim the right to expel foreigners. This is not what happened here. Arar was forcibly taken to a country that was known not to be his current country of residence, and that was known to practice torture by the very country which forced him there. --Macchendra 21:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the definition of the word deported: "To expel from a country."

It is not controversial that this is not what happened to Maher Arar. Furthermore, deportation is not a controversial act, but what happened here clearly is. --Macchendra 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the deportation article in WP, the word covers a broad range of government actions including what was done to Arar. I don't understand why you believe that deportation cannot be controversial. Any government action can be controversial if enough people disagree with it. --Lee Hunter 02:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lee Hunter is correct: Arar was deported. In fact, Arar is clearly an example of extraordinary rendition:

'Extraordinary rendition' Main article: Extraordinary rendition "Extraordinary rendition" is an extra-judicial procedure and policy of the United States in which criminal suspects, generally suspected terrorists or supporters of terrorist organisations, are sent to countries for imprisonment and interrogation. The procedure differs from extradition as the purpose of the rendition is to extract information from suspects, while extradition is used to return fugitives so that they can stand trial or fulfill their sentence. Critics of the procedure have accused the CIA of rendering suspects to other countries in order to avoid US laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture.

Note how the action consists of 'sending' ("criminal suspects . . . are sent to countries for imprisonment and interrogation") a person to another country; Arar was not wanted in Syria, he was sent to Syria by the US into the Syrian intelligence authorities where he was clearly interrogated (to put it mildly). Extraordinary rendition is technically a form of deportation. Ben 03:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

US and Canadian officials claim he was deported, but the Wiki article on deportation says that deportation involves a court or a "senior Minister". There's no record of a court trial for Ara, nor that a senior DHs official authorized his removal. So I've reworked the article to term this as Administrative Removal which I think you'll find is close and neutral description of what occured. Mre5765 05:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] role of the USA?

In this recent edit a wikipedia contributor removed a reference to the USA's role, with the edit summary:

"(removed "as a result of actions by the United States" from lead. It's only one part of the story and distorts what happened.)"

I don't see how this "distorts what happened", and I don't think the passage should be excised. I'd like the wikipedia contributor to explain their reasoning more fully.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That was me. I removed it because it is only one part of the story. It creates the impression that it was only the actions of the US whereas there was also a big part played by the RCMP. The following sentences in the paragraph explain what happened. By adding that bit to the first sentence, we get "more information" but we lose the context of the role played by the Canadian police. --Lee Hunter 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with your reasoning, Lee. But, as it still stands, I feel that that the first sentence is still quite misleading.

Maher Arar (Arabic: ماهر عرار‎; born 1970 in Syria) is a Canadian software engineer who was falsely accused of being an Al-Qaeda operative and was subsequently tortured in Syria.

It doesn't mention who "falsely accused" Arar, where he was when the accusation was made and leveled against him, how he got to Syria and the reason he was there. It merely states that he was accused and then tortured in Syria, but apparently that isn't very representative of his story. A better sentence should, if possible, incorporate the fact that he was seized by the United States on a stop-over to Canada and then deported by the United States to Syria despite holding a legitimate Canadian passport. The fact that he was tortured should come after that. The introduction should also mention the questions this case has raised concerning oversight and the role of US and Canadian agencies in this process.Ben 03:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

It is great job accounting for individual cases of the extraordinary rendition program. Be sure, however, to make a very short intro (currently, it is an article by itself) which manages, in a very few sentences, to give a quick overview of the cases and of the most important points of the article. Many, including me when I'm tired or low on time, never get past through the intro, and such a big intro can discourage the eventual reader. Cheers! Tazmaniacs

I was thinking much the same thing. The article, in general, is grossly unfinished and inadequate. Hence, a substantial part, if not the majority of all significant information, is located in the lead and it definitely needs to be redistributed or shortened. The difficulty is that this episode involving Arar is a significant case with a huge amount of information and implications. I'll see what I can do over the next week. I especially regret how we have yet to get a photo of Arar on this page or how it portrays Arar as coming back to Canada as though nothing happened in Canada. The role of his wife, the political process and news coverage must be included. Ben 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

This article could use a picture of Maher Arar. NorthernThunder 05:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)