Torture Victim Had No Terror Link, Canada Told U.S
The case of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen who the US government sent to Syria to be tortured, has taken on an even stranger twist this morning with the news that the Canadians had told the FBI that they had been unable to link him to any terrorist group.
At this point it appears that both the Canadians and the Americans agreed that they did not have sufficient evidence to hold Mr Arar on any terrorism related charges. Canada at this point agreed that, if released, they would keep Mr Arar under surveillance.An Oct. 4 fax to the F.B.I. from Canadian counter terrorism officials said that they “had yet to complete either a detailed investigation of Mr. Arar or a link analysis on him,” and that “while he has had contact with many individuals of interest to this project we are unable to indicate links to Al Qaeda.”
The next day, on Saturday, Oct. 5, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police official spoke by phone with an unidentified F.B.I. official. “During this conversation, the FBI official said that the Americans feared they did not have sufficient information to support charges against Mr. Arar,” the report says.
However, quite shockingly, it now appears that the very fact that they did not have evidence to charge him was what prompted to US Authorities to transfer Mr Arar to Syria where they surely realised he would be tortured.
Indeed, they did this without ever notifying the Canadians about their actions towards a Canadian citizen.
Mr Arar was then sent to Syria where he was kept for ten months in a cell slightly larger than coffin, and regularly beaten with a heavy metal bar.Despite the uncertain report from Canada on Mr. Arar and terrorism, on Oct. 7, an Immigration and Naturalization Service official ruled that evidence “clearly and unequivocally reflects that Mr. Arar is a member of a foreign terrorist organization, to wit, Al Qaeda.” At 4 a.m. the next day, Mr. Arar was bundled aboard a Gulfstream jet that flew him to Jordan, from which he was driven to a prison in neighboring Syria.
Paul J. J. Cavalluzzo, lead counsel to the Arar Commission, said he found the American actions inconsistent. “On Saturday,” Mr. Cavalluzzo said, “you have the F.B.I. saying, ‘We don’t have enough to charge him.’ On Monday, he’s a member of Al Qaeda. Well, if he’s a member of Al Qaeda, in your country he can be charged.”
Astonishingly, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, Tasia Scolinos, said that the United States government “removed Mr. Arar in full compliance with the law and all applicable international treaties and conventions.” She further claimed that the US government “sought assurances with respect to Mr. Arar’s treatment” in Syria.
What assurances? And, given the fact that Mr Arar was beaten, does this not highlight the ineffectiveness of such assurances? Indeed, wasn't he sent to Syria because they are known to torture?
The Canadian judge who led the inquiry, Dennis R. O’Connor, urged a formal protest over the American conduct. Peter MacKay, the Canadian foreign affairs minister, said Thursday it was too early to decide on a protest but added that there was an “urgent need” for talks on the issues raised by the case.If one of your citizens being deported, without your knowledge, to a foreign prison where they are kept in a cell slightly larger than a coffin for ten months and regularly beaten isn't enough to prompt Mr MacKay to issue a protest, then I am left wondering what would be required to make the Canadians protest?
And the Bush administration's claims that the men it is currently holding in Guantanamo Bay are "terrorists" is fundamentally undermined when one witnesses the arbitrary way membership of al Qaeda was claimed for Mr Arar despite the fact that the Canadians had specifically said they had no proof of any linkage between the suspect and any terrorist group.
How can we have any faith in their judgement when miscarriages of justice on this scale have occurred? Indeed, how can we have any faith in their judgement when so many of those held in Guantanamo, including a 79 year old man, have subsequently been released without charge or apology?
Can Congress seriously propose allowing Bush's amendment's to American law when this administration have been shown to have arrested and held so many innocent people for so many years only to be forced to eventually let them go?
Rumsfeld told us at the time of their arrests that these men were, "the worst of the worst". Never have those words seemed more hollow than they do now. And never has the world's faith in America's judgement been so low.
Is this really the time to give Bush unprecedented power and place his judgement beyond the reach of the law? There is no time when this would be appropriate, but I would argue that now is the least appropriate time of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment