• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Canadian Police Errors Led to Man's Torture, Inquiry Finds (1 Viewer)

Can signatories make thier own interrpretation of the Geneva Conventions?

  • Affirmative - Yes - here's why

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    8

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian police wrongly identified an Ottawa software engineer as an Islamic extremist, prompting U.S. agents to deport him to Syria, where he was tortured, an official inquiry concluded on Monday.Maher Arar, who holds Canadian and Syrian nationality, was arrested in New York in September 2002 and accused of being an al-Qaeda member. In fact, said the judge who led the probe, all the signs point to the fact Arar was innocent. - Source
Another violation of the GC's by the Bush administration. This is precisely why there are laws against such acts Mr. Bush. Perhaps you read through the GC with respect to transfer of prisoners?
And Canada? Have some ****en balls, you want to torture, get some damn balls and do your own dirty work.
 
jfuh said:
Another violation of the GC's by the Bush administration. This is precisely why there are laws against such acts Mr. Bush. Perhaps you read through the GC with respect to transfer of prisoners?
And Canada? Have some ****en balls, you want to torture, get some damn balls and do your own dirty work.

Please oh please, jfuh, show me how exactly "the Bush Administration" violated the Geneva Convention here.

I eagerly await your explanation.
 
RightatNYU said:
Please oh please, jfuh, show me how exactly "the Bush Administration" violated the Geneva Convention here.

I eagerly await your explanation.


Whether it violates the Geneva Convetion or not, do you support this kind of action?

This is why the "if you have nothing to hide" mantra is BS. This is what fear and insufficient accountability gets you. I particularly like how both the U.S. and Syrian governments refused to cooperate. They know they did something wrong. They don't want to admit it.
 
Whether it violates the Geneva Convetion or not, do you support this kind of action?

This is why the "if you have nothing to hide" mantra is BS. This is what fear and insufficient accountability gets you. I particularly like how both the U.S. and Syrian governments refused to cooperate. They know they did something wrong. They don't want to admit it.

That has nothing to do with the thread. A terrorist is not covered under the GC. And how is it our fault and not the canadians? Seems someone just has the usual axe to grind about the president, so he opts to place blame for evereything on this doorstep. A mistake was made. Unfoutunately humans make them occasionally.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
That has nothing to do with the thread. A terrorist is not covered under the GC. And how is it our fault and not the canadians? Seems someone just has the usual axe to grind about the president, so he opts to place blame for evereything on this doorstep. A mistake was made. Unfoutunately humans make them occasionally.

Canada must have handed him over to us because it says that US agents deported him. Although I can't read the entire article because I'm not subscribed to the NY Times.

God damn you, NY Times!! I have a beef with them...
 
mixedmedia said:
Canada must have handed him over to us because it says that US agents deported him. Although I can't read the entire article because I'm not subscribed to the NY Times.

God damn you, NY Times!! I have a beef with them...

Here is a better link. It is a PDF of the Arar Report itself. An innocent man was accused by Canada of being a terrorist. Based on the Canadian information, given to the US while he was being detained in the United States, he was spirited off to Syria, where he was tortured for 10 months.

No lawyer, no trial, no visits by family, no habeus corpus, no nothing. What happened to him was a monsterous act by monsterous people.
 
Last edited:
Oh well, it was just one man who happened to be Muslim--what's the beef? :smile:

To make us Safer: 1. No more immigration for anyone regardless of race and religion until War on Terror is won. 2. No more visitors, tourists or students regardless of money loss from this--we all must sacrifice, so please cancel your cable and ISP and send it to soldiers and not use it for your frivolous selfish self. 3. American Muslims must live just like the WW2 internment camps until the war is done---they have a chance to leave the internment camp on two reasons: serve with the US or leave the US.
4. And no more Media stories like this. Amen.
 
Navy Seal Patriot said:
Oh well, it was just one man who happened to be Muslim--what's the beef? :smile:

To make us Safer: 1. No more immigration for anyone regardless of race and religion until War on Terror is won. 2. No more visitors, tourists or students regardless of money loss from this--we all must sacrifice, so please cancel your cable and ISP and send it to soldiers and not use it for your frivolous selfish self. 3. American Muslims must live just like the WW2 internment camps until the war is done---they have a chance to leave the internment camp on two reasons: serve with the US or leave the US.
4. And no more Media stories like this. Amen.

At the moment, our government is working hard on number 4, and for the most part, the mediawhores are complying.
 
danarhea said:
Here is a better link. It is a PDF of the Arar Report itself. An innocent man was accused by Canada of being a terrorist. Based on the Canadian information, given to the US while he was being detained in the United States, he was spirited off to Syria, where he was tortured for 10 months.

No lawyer, no trial, no visits by family, no habeus corpus, no nothing. What happened to him was a monsterous act by monsterous people.

Well, after reading the report, Canada obviously has a lot of 'splaining to do on this one. Although, I am also dismayed to see that we knowingly sent this man on to a certain fate without any formal conclusions being drawn for or against him.

It is also quite alarming to see in this report that there are three other similar cases regarding the deportation of Muslim men pending in Canada.

All in all it speaks volumes about the necessity for sound jurisprudence in these cases.

Thanks for the link, dan.
 
danarhea said:
Here is a better link. It is a PDF of the Arar Report itself. An innocent man was accused by Canada of being a terrorist. Based on the Canadian information, given to the US while he was being detained in the United States, he was spirited off to Syria, where he was tortured for 10 months.

No lawyer, no trial, no visits by family, no habeus corpus, no nothing. What happened to him was a monsterous act by monsterous people.


Exactly! Does anyone here really believe that accusations, even if by a government, are reason enough for punishment. You may choose to call this "intelligence gathering", but it was punishment for this person. Punishment for something that apparently was not done.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214424,00.html
 
Navy Seal Patriot said:
Oh well, it was just one man who happened to be Muslim--what's the beef? :smile:

Whats the beef? Do you realize exactly what it is that you just said?

Do you believe in due process? Habeus Corpus? Freedom of Religion? How about being free from unjust imprisonment?

Navy Seal Patriot said:
To make us Safer: 1. No more immigration for anyone regardless of race and religion until War on Terror is won.

The war on terror cannot be won because it is not a war, wars end.

Navy Seal Patriot said:
2. No more visitors, tourists or students regardless of money loss from this--we all must sacrifice, so please cancel your cable and ISP and send it to soldiers and not use it for your frivolous selfish self.

You presume to tell Americans what sacrifices they must make for a bullshit war?

Navy Seal Patriot said:
3. American Muslims must live just like the WW2 internment camps until the war is done---they have a chance to leave the internment camp on two reasons: serve with the US or leave the US.

I am ashamed to call you my countryman.

Navy Seal Patriot said:
4. And no more Media stories like this. Amen.

And for taking that position against the freedom of the press, you should be ashamed to call yourself a patriot.
 
Lachean said:
Whats the beef? Do you realize exactly what it is that you just said?



The war on terror cannot be won because it is not a war, wars end.



You presume to tell Americans what sacrifices they must make for a bullshit war?



I am ashamed to call you my countryman.



And for taking that position against the freedom of the press, you should be ashamed to call yourself a patriot.


You couldn't tell he was being sarcastic. All you need to do is read one of his post to figure out he's wayyyy to liberal to actually be serious. :rofl
 
Lachean said:
Whats the beef? Do you realize exactly what it is that you just said?

Do you believe in due process? Habeus Corpus? Freedom of Religion? How about being free from unjust imprisonment?



The war on terror cannot be won because it is not a war, wars end.



You presume to tell Americans what sacrifices they must make for a bullshit war?



I am ashamed to call you my countryman.



And for taking that position against the freedom of the press, you should be ashamed to call yourself a patriot.

Whoa!!!! Ease up on the Navy Seal. He was being sarcastic.
 
RightatNYU said:
Please oh please, jfuh, show me how exactly "the Bush Administration" violated the Geneva Convention here.

I eagerly await your explanation.
It's a violation of the GC to deport someone to a country where there is reasonable belief that the person will be tortured.
 
mixedmedia said:
Canada must have handed him over to us because it says that US agents deported him. Although I can't read the entire article because I'm not subscribed to the NY Times.

God damn you, NY Times!! I have a beef with them...

I think that NYT's online registration is free.
 
Maybe I missed it, but what was the extent of this mans torture?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I think that NYT's online registration is free.

Yes, I was registered for a long time, but quite a while ago they made the op-ed pages unavailable unless you were a subscriber. I was a devoted follower of Tom Friedman's columns. But I notice that the op-ed page has been opened up again. Very good news! I don't have to curse their name any longer. His columns are the only thing I read there though. Wouldn't wanna be influenced by all that left-wing media brainwashing, now would I? :lol:
 
RightatNYU said:
Please oh please, jfuh, show me how exactly "the Bush Administration" violated the Geneva Convention here.

I eagerly await your explanation.
Familiarize yourself with the conduct and requirement for transport of prisoners. In particular with that part of humane treatment and that they will not be transported where it is known they will be treated inhumanely? Would you like a citation? You know like oh, I don't know Chapter VIII article 46?
It's interesting how you've not voted in this thread.
 
Last edited:
mixedmedia said:
Yes, I was registered for a long time, but quite a while ago they made the op-ed pages unavailable unless you were a subscriber. I was a devoted follower of Tom Friedman's columns. But I notice that the op-ed page has been opened up again. Very good news! I don't have to curse their name any longer. His columns are the only thing I read there though. Wouldn't wanna be influenced by all that left-wing media brainwashing, now would I? :lol:
:mad: Yeah that too I have beef with, don't like how they changed that around like that.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
That has nothing to do with the thread. A terrorist is not covered under the GC. And how is it our fault and not the canadians? Seems someone just has the usual axe to grind about the president, so he opts to place blame for evereything on this doorstep. A mistake was made. Unfoutunately humans make them occasionally.
Did you bother to read my opening premise and that last line I directed at Canada?
A terrorist is covered under the GC - as has been ruled by the Supreme court Hamadan vs US government.
 
jfuh said:
Did you bother to read my opening premise and that last line I directed at Canada?
A terrorist is covered under the GC - as has been ruled by the Supreme court Hamadan vs US government.

Only by Article 3 which says that if we are to try them that the trial must be done in a regularly constituted court which means that the President has to get legislation passed by congress to allow for the military tribunals this does not say that they have to be given trials only that if they are to be tried it has to be done in a regularly constituted court.

Furthemore; the SCOTUS decision was just flat out wrong IE artilce 3 only pertains to "conflicts not of an international character," ie Civil Wars.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Only by Article 3 which says that if we are to try them that the trial must be done in a regularly constituted court which means that the President has to get legislation passed by congress to allow for the military tribunals this does not say that they have to be given trials only that if they are to be tried it has to be done in a regularly constituted court.

Furthemore; the SCOTUS decision was just flat out wrong IE artilce 3 only pertains to "conflicts not of an international character," ie Civil Wars.
Yes yes yes tot, wrong according to you, we all know your bias and apologetic take on things. It's interesting though that you have neither voted in this poll.
 
Quote(And how is it our fault and not the canadians?)

This man was arrested in New YORK.
New York is in the USA therefore it IS the USA that is part way responsible.

The US Authorities then transferred this man to Jordan (Mid East), who upomn his arrival drove him to Syria (Mid East).

He was kept in Syria for 10 months until his release, during his time in Syria he claims he was tortured.

The above are the facts as reported by several News Organizations.

My first question, is really quite simple to answer:
Why after having been arrested in New York was he transferred to Jordan(Mid East) and then consequently and possibly with US acquiescence onward to Syria (Mid East)?

One presumes that for the the saying "My Enemies Enemy is MY friend" to be true, then conversely "My enemies friend MUST be MY enemy".

Syria is linked to Iran with a defence pact that assures Syrian involvement should Iran be attacked and the same with Iran should Syria be attacked.

The only nation both these countries are concerned about being attacked by, is the USA.

Second question, if the above is true. then what ties does US have with Syrian intelligence?

Attorney General Gonzales says US would never send anyone overseas to be tortured.

Third question, Why was this man sent overseas UNLESS it was to be tortured?

Fourth question, since when does US send Prisoners overseas?
 
Navy Seal Patriot said:
Oh well, it was just one man who happened to be Muslim--what's the beef? :smile:

To make us Safer: 1. No more immigration for anyone regardless of race and religion until War on Terror is won. 2. No more visitors, tourists or students regardless of money loss from this--we all must sacrifice, so please cancel your cable and ISP and send it to soldiers and not use it for your frivolous selfish self. 3. American Muslims must live just like the WW2 internment camps until the war is done---they have a chance to leave the internment camp on two reasons: serve with the US or leave the US.
4. And no more Media stories like this. Amen.

Truth, justice, and the American way. Amen.
 
Binary_Digit said:
It's a violation of the GC to deport someone to a country where there is reasonable belief that the person will be tortured.

Who defines a reasonable belief?

PSA: The process known as "extraordinary rendition" originated under President Clinton.

The procedure was developed by Central Intelligence Agency officials in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda. At the time, the agency was reluctant to grant suspected terrorists due process under American law, as it could potentially jeopardize its intelligence sources and methods. The solution the agency came up with, with the approval of the Clinton administration and a presidential directive (PDD 39), was to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian mukhabarat, which has a reputation for brutality. This arrangement suited the Egyptians, as they had been trying to crack down on Islamic extremists in that country and a number of the senior members of Al Qaeda were Egyptian. The arrangement suited the US because torture is banned under both US and international law.

The argument for rendition made by defenders of the practice is that culturally-informed and native-language interrogations are more successful in gaining information from suspects. For instance, interrogators of one terrorist suspect prayed to Mecca five times per day in the presence of the suspect until he became willing to talk.

So I guess I'm just confused as to why this instance in particular is being so hyped up as "lawbreaking by the Bush Administration."

1) Canada tells the US that an individual is confirmed as a terrorist.
2) The US, acting on Canada's claims, follows the procedures set in place under President Clinton.
3) Turns out the guy is not a terrorist.
4) Guy sues Canada.

The only reason this has gotten any press is because the person who it happened to turned out to be innocent. If he were a terrorist, no newspaper would care. So whose fault is it that the innocent person was labeled a terrorist?

*Note: I'm not saying that I think the process of extraordinary rendition is necessarily the best procedure. I'm just pointing out the fact that it has yet to be declared illegal, and has been occurring for 11 years without much uproar.*
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom