[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Maher Arar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMaher Arar was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 24, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Where is Syria?

[edit]

I just have to ask, since in the past year since I checked it, this article seems now much more obsessively focued on Arar's lawsuits against the US and Canadian involvement in his extradition. It seems like Syria has been almost forgotten in the process. They are the actual torturers, therefore the primary proponents here, yet out of hundreds of lines of text, the article currently only has one small paragraph (of seven lines) actually devoted to Syria. He was only held by the US for two weeks (compared to a year in Syria), yet that paragraph is almost as long as the Syria one. Heck, there is almost as much space just devoted to US embassy statements on the case. I suspect this is because there are mostly Americans editing the article, so the US angle is what they naturally focus on. But is that truly encyclopedic? I just feel like this article looks too much like a US/Canadian political football field. Thoughts? BuboTitan (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maher Arar did in fact also sue both Syria and Jordan. There was some text in the article concerning this but more saying, incorrectly, that he had not sued Syria. I removed that line and looking back there should be mention of this in the article somewhere. In the ["Introduction" section below] there is some of my notes concerning this point.
There is varied reasons why the focus in more on the US and Canada then Syria. You do have a good point although I would have to ask what exactly would you add about Syria? Ed M isnot edm (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bubo,
The article is "obsessively focused" that way to reflect reality.
We don't really know that Syria tortured Arar. It's reasonable to believe that they did (they are Syria, after all), but it's just as easy to believe that Arar is a liar.
I think what really bothers you is that America's critics are obsessively focused on bashing the U.S., and they don't seem to care at all about the allegations against Syria. Well, that's the way they are. I think the article reflects that. The far left edge of the so-called "human rights" movement is friendly to Iran, which is allied to Syria. In fact, George Galloway visited Syria during the time of Arar's imprisonment in order to express support for that government. You shouldn't expect them to do more than go through the motions.
Bottom line: The article doesn't cover much outrage over Syria's actions because there simply isn't much outrage over that in real life. You could find a few things, of course, but it wouldn't be with the same force.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would I add about Syria? Maybe where he lived there before moving to Canada. Maybe a little more information about the specific questions he was asked, tortures he went under, and the motives for the Syrian government to hold him, and reasons for his release. After all, this information came out in great deal in order for him to pursue his lawsuits. Does anyone doubt that if he was held and tortured by the US for an entire year, the article would have reflected that in great detail? Perhaps there should be a POV tag on this article, or perhaps his legal actions should have a page by themselves. As it is, this is really an article about Arar's legal actions with the US and Canadian governments, and not about Arar himself. BuboTitan (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about the article lacking within areas and I would use the term unbalanced instead of POV. I'm looking through the article to see my thoughts on whether or not it is unbalanced and, if so, how do I think it is unbalanced. Ed M isnot edm (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the article is unbalanced or focused on one part more than another. However what I do see is that pieces of information has been added piecemeal without review of the overall structure of the article. As a contributor to this article I've been guilty of this at times. For example the subsections "Canadian government apology and settlement" and "Aftermath" seemed to have been separated from other subsections detailing the Canadian Government response by the section "U.S. Lawsuit" which has grown, but not dominantly, over time. Also the section on the Omar Khadr interrogations should be removed from the US response and combined with the information already in the section on Mr. Arar's rendition. The section you mentioned concerning the US Ambassador to Britain has no context. Overall the section "US government response" doesn't flow well, has no structure, and could use improvements.
As I mentioned before I do see your point that the article is lacking in some areas; in particular with regards to his treatment in Syria, the response by both the Syria and Jordain governments, and Arar's recent public appearances and speaking engagements. Ed M isnot edm (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compensation

[edit]

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[reply]

How could such a large settlement be justified? I could accept that $10.5 million could be appropriate for the imprisonment and torture, but all Canada did (allegedly) was provide misleading information to the USA, which proceeded to deport him to Syria, which proceeded to torture him. So, if $10.5 million was an appropriate measure of his damages, surely the USA should be responsible for, maybe $3 million, Syria for, maybe, $6 million, and Canada for, maybe $1.5 million? Why is the Canadian taxpayer picking up the tab for the full measure of his damages? Why isn't his other country of citizenship (Syria) being held to account? I appreciate that the settlement resulted from a mediation (with a very respected mediator), but I can't help but feel that Canada's willingness to pay such a huge sum in the circumstances was politically motivated, specifically to embarrass the previous Liberal government, on whose watch everything was alleged to have happened to Arar.Bq7720 (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that this is entirely political and that's why the Canadian taxpayer needs to foot the entire bill.
The Syrians don't have to pay anything because their alleged use of torture has never been proved. They're not going to admit to it. Moreover, the end of the political spectrum that sides with Arar (after his release, anyway) has been allied to the Syrians in one way or another. There's no way they'll ever take this in that direction.
For these reasons, this article we may need to tell more about the Canadian politics.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The compensation to Arar was settled on the basis of Canada's complicity and has never been claimed to be "the entire bill." Part of the compensation is related to the libel and rumour-mongering that Arar and his family were subjected to as a result of leaks to the media that presented unfounded allegations to the public. The "end of the political spectrum that sides with Arar" is generally the side that's concerned with human rights and civil liberties; which would be entirely to contrary to the idea of being allied with Iran and Syria. Lyn (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compensation and Race

[edit]

The question we should ask ourselves should be......Would a black Middle Easterner or Black Muslim have gotten 10 million dollars? As a non black person, I really doubt it! Enjoy those tax payers dolars Mr. Arar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.29.80 (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" torture

[edit]

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

You know why - the US is still denying that Maher Arar was tortured and will continue to do so because he is suing them. Part of it is that they have changed their definition of torture to include practically only organ failure or death. Thus the horrible and damaging treatment Arar regularly received does not constitute torture in their opinion.

I am sure that I have read somewhere that Maher Arar is still feeling the physical effects of his torture (as well as the psychological effects). I am sure that these will be documented in Monia's book, though.

Removed "alleged", not warranted to say "alleged"per references

[edit]
The references and history here do not accept "alleged". It is stated as factual. Note that many torture methods do not leave physical evidence per an above comment not releated to reversal of "alleged" today. --Fremte (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the references show Canadian politicians, appointees, and bureaucrats believe he was tortured. Looking at the first few refs:
Ref#1 doesn't say he was tortured.
Ref#2 says "suing the U.S. government for shipping him off to Syria, where he was jailed and tortured for close to a year." That's part of his lawsuit's claim, and not an agreement that he was actually tortured. Later it says, "he says he was tortured".
Ref#3 is an opinion piece.
Ref#4 says he was tortured "according to Justice Dennis O'Connor's report".
Ref#22 says "accusation that the justice department sent a man from the U.S. to Syria to be interrogated and tortured."
The Toope Report says:

In finding facts concerning Mr. Arar’s experiences in Syria, I must conclude as to the credibility of his testimony, which was not taken under oath. Given the very nature of detention and interrogation, much of the detail concerning what happened to Mr. Arar in Syria cannot be verified by eyewitness observers. None of the jailers or interrogators was available for me to interview. To assess credibility, I have obviously had to judge the person sitting before me and telling me his story. (emphasis mine)

Is Dr. Toope clairvoyant? Arar can't be put under oath for C$10.5M??? That's truly, truly astonishing.
Unless you've got something solid, I'll be putting it back.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had Arar taken an oath, would you have accepted the truth of his torture? If the full weight of a public inquiry, and of humanitarian organizations, and of the extensive record of the conduct of US government, do not satisfy you, then you have invalidated your input into any such discussion. Barney Frank may have a few choice words, but I do not have the time to tackle yet another brooded article. Torture denial should be confined to a section; any sprinkling of "alleged" and "deported" et al amounts to vandalism, IMO.--P00r (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe he was probably tortured. This was during a time when Syria's government was an ally of George Galloway and the so-called "peace" movement. I'd be surprised if any government allied with such elements of the "peace" movement did not use torture. Seriously.
But that's just my personal opinion. We need to deal with facts, and the fact is that the U.S. government has not yet acknowledged that torture took place. You can say it's torture when reporting the Canadian involvement because they claim to believe him.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-worded

[edit]

I have reworded this to reflect the apparent two sides that are reflected in the present dispute. Can you live with this? --Fremte (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than nothing, although someone evidently finds fault with it already.
I'd still rather just keep it "alleged". Better still, there might be a word or phrase similar to "alleged" that would be sufficiently firm that you could live with that one.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed

[edit]

Since 23:35, 22 July 2011, the section titled "Activism for US Accountability" had included the phrase "presumed subsequent torture"! I have replaced it with "the torture verified by these organizations and the Canadian government". As I've noted in the Edit Summary, when an accused rapist (innocent or otherwise) denies rape, we do not use the phrase "presumed rape". Furthermore, to use even "alleged torture" would mean that the organizations "are directing activism efforts...for...involvement in...alleged...torture"; but, clearly, the human rights organizations do not hold the stance that his torture remains presumed or alleged.--P00r (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference. First, those other organizations have no legal standing. Not everyone believes their fundraising letters. But to be fair, I'm not sure that all of those organizations are claiming certainty about torture. They may just be protesting his deportation to Syria.
The Canadian government decided it believes Arar was tortured, which works just fine when we're talking about Canadian issues. But in this section we are talking about the U.S. government, which has not said it believes Arar was tortured. All we've really got is Arar's word. The claims of torture were not "verified" in a firm sense. So, as far as the U.S. government is concerned, it is alleged or presumed.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that a reader could interpret the current text in a way that would imply that the U.S. government claims Arar was tortured? My conclussion by reading the article summary is that it was the commission of inquiry ordered by the Canadian government who makes the claim of torture. Any specific claims about the U.S. government, be it denying or confirming, need to be sourced. If the only thing we have from a party is silence, the only reaction we can do to the article is makeing sure that there is nothing implying a standpoint by said party. This is what the current text does in my point of view. 81.231.140.240 (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence within the section "Activism for US Accountability" is stating what these organizations are demanding not what the U.S. Government has stated nor what the U.S. government believes did or did not happen. What the U.S. claims could be in another sentence; for example "The US has denied it has any knowledge of torture." Randy2063 does raise a valid point about what the US government has officially stated including the recently removed line in the intro

"Despite the Canadian court ruling, the United States government has not exonerated Arar and, on the contrary, has made public statements to state their belief that Arar is affiliated with members of organizations they describe as terrorist"

This claim was made the government lawyer during the appeals process of Arar's case (with one source being "Alleged link between Arar and al-Qaida 'shocks' U.S. court" amongst others). Although this claim was never retracted it was never made again and various other subsequent statements hint at a different belief in Arar's affiliation and "threat" for lack of a better word. So I believe too that there should be an updated section describing the current US stance on Arar.
-- Ed M isnot edm (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan

[edit]

The first mention of Maher Arar I found in Question Period was on October 21 2002 and it wasn't until Thursday, December 12, 2002 in Question Period that we learned that Maher was shipped to Jordan for 12 days before being shipped to Syria. There should be a separate section on Maher Arar's 12 days in Jordan since it destroys the official American "deportation" theory and that was were the worst of the torture took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link to Question Period Transcripts for the period in question (click on date and edit/find Alexa)

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?Key=2002&View=H&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“I think the U.S. would like to get Arar to Jordan where they can have their way with him.” Mr. Arar’s whereabouts were unknown at the time.” - Jack Hooper, October 10, 2002

[QUOTE] The newly uncensored passages also reveal the CSIS security liaison officer in Washington, in a memo to his superiors two days after Arar's deportation, "spoke of a trend they had noted lately when the CIA or FBI cannot legally hold a terrorist suspect, or wish a target questioned in a firm manner, they have them rendered to countries willing to fulfil that role." Arar, he said, was "a case in point." [/QUOTE] – Janice Tibbetts, Winnipeg Free Press [1] . 24.77.37.48 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

"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)[reply]

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 [2] 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 [3]--Lee Hunter 02:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Plenty of sources referenced on the Wikipedia article on the subject, Extraordinary rendition. -- int19h 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]

Error in Detention and deportation section

[edit]

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)[reply]

"False and misleading", etc.

[edit]

Epsoul, when making edits which significantly change the meaning of the article, like this one [4] , 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

There is enough blame to go around. The Americans threatened cross-border trade if Canada did not become tough on "terrorism." Papa Khadr was a nasty piece of work so they investigated anyone that Khadr had contact with. Almalki met Khadr and soon decided that he disliked the guy immensely and did not want anything to do with him. However, since the two had contact, Almalki because a person of interest and anyone Almalki talked to also became a person of interest - including Arar who just happened to work for the same company as Almalki's brother. Thus, the RCMP were following them around and taking notes on them to satisfy the Americans.

The RCMP later figured that Arar was not an interest to them but forgot to update his file to say that they no longer saw him as a terror threat. The Americans, using information from the RCMP database, picked up Arar, a Canadian citizen and shipped him to Jordan to be tortured before shipping him to Syria while his wife (who is not from Syria), his parents and kids were all back in Canada. The Syria thing is a loophole since Syria does not allow anyone born there to renounce their citizenship and jails people who have not served their two years military service. Any way, the RCMP did not really want Arar back because they did not want their role in his false imprisonment to be public knowledge and there are memos which say that the RCMP knew that they were going to send Arar away to be torture even when Arar was still in custody in the US. However, what happened to the whole American "innocent until proven guilty" and the right to regular access to a lawyer (not just one time before being shipped away). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RCMP apology

[edit]

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)[reply]

Misleading "US denial" section

[edit]

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)[reply]

Canada's formal protest to the USA

[edit]

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)[reply]

Use of the word deported

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You really should not use Wiki articles as a reference for other Wiki articles. The man was a citizen of Syria. He was deported to that country. Maybe it was legally wrongful, but it was deportation. Not every country deports people through a court process. I am putting the deportation language back in the article.BuboTitan 05:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

role of the USA?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

xxx

The truth is that we won't know how bad the American culpability in this is until it goes to court. Though what we know already is pretty damming. The Syrians considered Arar "more of a nuisance than anything else" and had to be talked into keeping him confined. Any way, this whole thing about citizenship is mute since Maher Arar was originally “deported” to Jordan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

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)[reply]

__________ Someone should reconsider this sentence: "The Bush administration labelled him a member of Al Qaeda and rendered him, not to Canada, his home and country of citizenship, but to Syrian intelligence authorities, known by the U.S. government to practice torture." According to the Inquiry, the RCMP labelled Arar a "suspected" member of Al Qaeda in their request for an addition to a US watch-list. {CW} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.91.17 (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my reasons for the changes made to the article version 19:40, 9 November 2007 Ed M isnot edm 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First I removed many of the internal wikipedia links as I feel they added too much chart junk to the introductory paragraph and they really don't add any significant contribution to this particular article. Does one need to view the article on JFK airport to understand the case of Maher Arar? I don't think so. If you really want to cross link to semi-relevant entries do so in the main body and not in the introductory summary.
  • Changed "on his way home to his family in Canada" to "on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis". There might be a better way to say this but he wasn't returning to his family but returning for work opportunities from Tunis where his family was vacationing. Source [5]
  • Removed "He has not filed any legal actions against Syria." He, in fact, did attempt to sue both the Syrian government and the Jordain government in Canada courts but the case was dismissed on the basis that the Canadian courts had no jurisdiction. Sources: legal documents [6], reference to lawsuits [7][8][9][10], dismissal of suit against Jordan[11], resolution of case against Syria[12][13]
  • Changed "software engineer" to "telecommunications engineer". This is how he describes himself or labels his profession. Sources [14] Now he also describes himself as "wireless technology consultant" [15]. Both of these are accurate and not contradictory. I choose "telecommunications engineer" becuase it was a more broad definition. Technically speaking Maher Arar has a "Bachelor of Engineering in Computers from McGill University and a Master’s degree in Telecommunications from the University of Quebec’s Institut national de la recherche scientifique." [16] He is also currently pursuing a PhD in "wireless engineering" [17]
  • Changed parenthesis around "born 1970 in Syria" to commas. Using parenthesis indicates that "born 1970 in Syria" is supplementary material [18] and thus could be removed without breaking down the sentence. But with the current wording you have left then "Maher Arar but living in Canada..." which is not a sentence. So as currently written these should be commas.
  • Changed "Bush Administration" to "U.S. Government". The decision to remove Maher Arar was made through a series of steps including a sign-off by Assistant Attorney General Thompson and an inter-agency consultation amongst other steps. In addition there are various legal procedures taken for which the US Congress had written. Thus this decision was broader then what one might label as the "Bush Administration". In other words, at what point does the actions of the adminstration end and it becomes the actions of the government? Using "US Government" better reflects this. Beside the label "Bush Administration" is a loaded term.
  • Removed "due to his association with Al Qaeda suspects Abdullah Almalki and Ahmad El Maati". The reason for his removal by the US Government is more complicated then this. First the fact that he was removed due to his associations with Almalki and El Maati is correctly cited by the Arar Commission but this was only a strong suspension on the account Justice O'Conner. He has stated himself he does not know the actual reasons for the U.S. governments decision as they did not participate in the Canadian Inquiry. And finally the US Government has stated it reason for Mr. Arar differently over time. Initially it was a matter of intelligence received from the Canadians. But then after the Arar Inquiry report and the public request by the Canadian government to have Mr. Arar name removed from the US No-Fly list the US government stated that there was other collaborating evidence in which is using to keep him on the No-Fly list. (It can be noted that those statements relate to no-fly lists and not decision to remove Arar to Syria). Now after the recent US Congressional hearings some members of Congress re-highlighted the fact that the Canadian government pass misleading information to the US government on Arar. So to make this introductory paragraph just that, a summary, I removed that portion which would be better suited with explanation in the main body of the article.
  • Removed "Based on erroneous information provided by the Canadian Government". See above.
  • Change parenthesis around "according to the findings of the Arar Commission" to commas. This information is not supplemntary but qualifying the words "regular tortured" and thus commas should be used.

-- end of reasons -- Ed M isnot edm 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: * Removed "due to his association with Al Qaeda suspects Abdullah Almalki and Ahmad El Maati".

There is nothing else there so put it back up! The trick is that, to be allowed to read this other information that the American government says it has on Arar, one has to promise not to reveal it's contents - which is the real "complication." Congressperson Jerrold Nadler has read the "information" the US government has on Arar and has said publicly that there is "nothing there" - [19] Some one else in Congress made a similar statement but I can't remember who. Think that Peter McKay read it and saw nothing there but not sure so someone check that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

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

revert -- see talk

[edit]

I reverted an anon IP's edit.

I agree with him or her that bias is a bad thing. But I disagree that this edit reduced it. Rather I think it introduced bias. For instance it calls Arar a "multi-millionaire". That is highly deceptive. Arar was just a computer consultant prior to his capture. He was just a middle-class guy, prior to his capture. Through no fault of his own he was captured and subjected to a devastating experience. The Canadian government eventually owned up to its share of responsibility for his capture, and acknowledged that the RCMP's handover of his dossier was an enormous mistake, and, in particular, whatever hints it might have contained that he knew a guy, who knew a guy, who knew a guy, who knew Bin Laden was a very tenuous link to terror. The Canadian government apologized to him, and they gave him a multi-million settlement.

Calling him a multi-millionaire leaves the possibility that intelligence analysts might have worried that he was able to donate a fortune to bin Laden. Deceptive.

Cheers! Geo Swan 17:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portion of censored Canadian report to be released Thursday, August 9, 2007

[edit]
They've now been released -- This should definitely go into the Canadian Involvement part of the article, with relevant quotes.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070809/arar_details_070809/20070809?hub=CTVNewsAt11 99.245.173.200 10:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship

[edit]

The second paragraph contradicts itself: it says he was not sent to his country of citizenship -- but earlier it says that he was a citizen of Syria. ThreeE 02:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of Maher Arar's citizenship is a slightly complex one. This issue arises from the fact that Syria refuses to release citizenship to anyone born in Syria. This is briefly outlined in a United States Office of Personal Management report

LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP:

VOLUNTARY: Though voluntary renunciation of Syrian citizenship is permitted by law, the Syrian Information Office stated that it is so complicated that it is best not to attempt the process. In effect, according to that Office, the process is complicated in order to discourage renunciation of Syrian citizenship. Former citizens of Syria probably maintain an unofficial dual citizenship status and would be subject to Syrian law as citizens should they return to Syria.

Exception: Persons of military service age are not permitted to renounce citizenship.

In fact, I had recently heard Maher Arar describe that even his son who was born in Canada is considered Syrian by the government of Syria. In many places Maher Arar is described as "having dual-citizenship" or being "Canadian with Syrian birth". But the fact remains that Mr. Arar chose to become a citizen of Canada in 1991; thus one could say "he was not sent to his chosen country of citizenship". —Preceding unsigned comment added by .64.222.63.209 (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, he's still a citizen of both Syria and Canada. His "chosen country of citizenship" may be true but it's irrelevant.
-- Randy2063 02:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"irrelevant" in what way? "Irrelevant" for reasons of documentation here within the wikipedia page? "Irrelevant" for reasons of what has happened has happened? Or "irrelevant" for reasons of legal matters concerning the deportation/rendering or a non U.S citizen to his/her "home nation"? It is relevant because it was a legal matter, it could happen again with a different case with similar citizenship issues, and because I thought the point of wikipedia was to best document the "facts". I would tend to think no one, including myself, has either clearly stated what his true citizenship is nor what it means in the various contexts. I will note that I saw a recent description on Congressman Edward Markey website stating his citizenship as being "a naturalized Canadian citizenship born in Syria". This description is probably closer to the "correct" legal terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.4.180 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant in a legal sense. This isn't to say we shouldn't document that he preferred to return to Canada. I was more concerned about the tone of the article assuming a certain pitch.
You're right to say that the truth about his citizenship may be more complicated. If it's wrong, it should be straightened out. (But I wouldn't trust anything Markey says.)
I take your point that it's important to understand that it could happen again. It's not the job of Wikipedia to prevent it from happening again in the future by spinning the story in Arar's favor. It would be wrong to make it seem like he's an completely innocent guy when the truth about that is also be more complicated.
-- Randy2063 22:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims, allegations, etc.

[edit]

As has been reiterated on this talk page many times before, the fact of Arar's torture is a res judicata in Canada, and beyond dispute. Given this, words like "alleged" and "claims" give a misleading impression about the degree of proof for the statements in question.

If you want to still say Arar was "allegedly" tortured, you'd have to stick "alleged" into every article on every criminal who ever pleaded innocent. --Saforrest 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What people in Canada wish to believe about their favorite anti-American celebrity is one thing. It's quite another when these beliefs become accusations against U.S. policy.
I do agree that the qualifiers shouldn't get out of hand, but the reader shouldn't be lulled into believing everything has been settled simply because a bunch of Canadian politicians say so.
I see that you also disappeared the dual-citizenship issue without comment. If you have some info on that then please let us know. Or should we just imply that Syria was picked at random?
-- Randy2063 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, it wasn't a bunch of Canadian politicians, it was a federal commission with a judge. They assert (in a legal sense) that Arar is innocent and no one else is actively asserting he is guilty.
Your rhetoric forcing this into some pro-/anti-American dichotomy is not especially helpful. We can say (with NPOV) that Arar was tortured; I think you'll agree this in itself is not anti-American, as Condoleeza Rice and many other American officials have acknowledged that Syria practises torture.
Further, I'm not advocating that we baldly assert that this was an example of extraordinary rendition on the part of the U.S.: unless we have a lot more information about the process leading to Arar's deportation, this cannot be conclusively proven or disproven. Like any other claim it should be sourced and attributed, and people who deny the claim should be noted.
BTW, I "disappeared" the dual-citizen issue because I reverted the edit for the reason I stated; clearly this needs to be mentioned, the question is how. There are also various technical points about this, particularly the fact that Syrian citizenship cannot be renounced, but I think we would agree the article lead is not the place to look into that. The article at least mentions he was born in Syria, so the mention of Syria is not entirely out of the blue. --Saforrest 05:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A commission or not, they're still political appointees to a show trial. I don't mean to denigrate the authority that they do have, but I'm not about to give Canadian politicians any less skepticism that I'd give to American ones.
You might be misplacing my POV instincts. There's a part of me that also wishes to highlight the routine use of torture in places like Syria, but I must admit that this is ideological. What you may not have considered is that Syria is on pretty good terms with the radical left, of which I include the organizers of most of the big so-called "peace" demonstrations. In fact, George Galloway has made several trips to Syria, some (IIRC) during Arar's captivity. I, personally, would very much love to assert that every person who rallied for these causes is at least indirectly responsible for whatever torment Arar had to endure -- not to mention the unending horrors of those Syrians still imprisoned today without the occasional visits by Canadian officials.
But that would be POV. As I understand it, Arar says his hands were battered, although I don't know if that was ever said under oath. The only scars anyone has testified to were psychological.
Beyond that, Condoleezza Rice also said that assurances were given that this wouldn't happen to those we sent there. The critics may say it happens anyway, with a wink and a nod, but there's only so much we can allow for back-alley conventional wisdom.
The issue of citizenship shouldn't be taken lightly. We may think less of Syria (and we should), but they did have some standing here. There are Americans who've tried to give up their citizenship (for tax reasons) only to be denied by the U.S. government. It's a serious issue. But here the question is really about whether the U.S. government had a legal right (moral or not) to recognize the status of his dual citizenship. As I understand it, they did, and it shouldn't be buried.
-- Randy2063 17:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have left this for a while. As for the factuality of the torture, are you content with the statement that he was tortured, or are you wanting something less strong?
I agree the dual-citizenship deserves mention in the lead; the exact situation of Arar's condition can be explained later on. Does describing Arar as "a Syrian-Canadian" introduce and make his dual citizenship sufficiently clear, in your view? --Saforrest 00:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, the dual-citizenship matter is fine as it is now.
I'm not sure what to think about the factuality of the torture. I'd believe he was badly mistreated whether he was held in Syria or Europe. I could believe he was outright tortured, too. But I'm quite certain he'd claim to have been tortured regardless of whether he was or wasn't.
Most of the GTMO detainees claim to have been tortured. The Islamists being detained in Canada make the same claim. It's almost universal. Arar just has 10.5 million more reasons to say it.
-- Randy2063 00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: I've read that the Arar Commission asserted the factuality of his torture without following the Istanbul Protocol. I'll dig up more on that when I have more time.
-- Randy2063 00:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the report by Stephen Toope, the fact finder assigned by the Arar Commission to investigate Mr. Arar's claim of torture. The basis for defining toture as used in the report is the "United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984" 64.223.34.151 14:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's only for the definition of torture. The Istanbul Protocol is to gauge veracity, and it wasn't used. We really only have Arar's word that what he says is what actually happened to him.
Arar wasn't even under oath. Not even for C$10.5M. But as stunning as that sounds, he wasn't under oath when he "testified" to Congress recently either, and the American politicians ate it up, too.
-- Randy2063 15:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you questioning the integrity of the Toope report and/or the credentials of Mr. Stephen Toope? Do you have any basis for this? 64.223.18.14 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I don't know Stephen Toope well enough to even think about questioning his integrity, and I can imagine several reasons why he may choose not to follow the Istanbul Protocol. None of those reasons speak well of Arar and his supporters, however, and that is where I'd prefer to remain focused.
I don't think "psychic" is listed among Dr. Toope's credentials.
-- Randy2063 19:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see there are two underpinning and factual ways of stating the issue of torture in this case. First Mr. Arar claims to have been tortured. Second the Arar Commission via the Toope Report has "conclud[ed] that Mr. Maher Arar was subjected to torture in Syria."[20] In other words "The Arar Commission has found Mr. Arar's claim of torture to be true" [my words]. From these two statements a discussion (i.e. paragraph in this entry) could expound on this, giving a more in-depth summary of the supporting/contradicting facts to this claim. Now I thought there had been a paragraph entitled something like "Claim of torture".
As for the opening paragraph, I would revert the opening sentence back to "... who was deported to Syria and claims to have been tortured, ...". Then within that opening paragraph I would put in a statement about the Commissions finding regarding his claim of torture. Rereading the current version I see that this is there although I would have written it differently. Finally as I've mentioned above I would add a paragraph discussing the issue of claim of torture. 64.222.34.99 20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd thought I would clarify this some.
When I say "The Arar Commission has found Mr. Arar's claim of torture to be true" I am saying more so "in the eyes of the Arar Commission they find his claim to be true". This does not mean everyone agrees with their findings and conclusion but as an authoritative source they have made this claim.
In addition I would hold there are four authoritative sources concerning the facts into Mr. Arar claim of torture; Mr. Arar, himself, the Syrian government, the United States government, and the Canadian government. There is no dispute that Mr. Arar claims he was tortured as he has stated numerous times in the public record. Syria has spoken very little is any specific about or naming Mr. Arar so I would put any reference to mention of his case again in a "Claim of Torture" section. The United States government has spoken numerous times about Mr. Arar but concerning his claim of torture less so. The little amount of discussion on his treatment has focused on Syria's human rights record in general or stating that Mr Arar has made a claim of torture. So again the US comments on the matter I would put in the section "Claims of Torture".
As for the Canadian government due to its public inquiry, its public statement on the matter of Arar claim, and the Toope report I would add its conclusions on the torture claim to the introductory paragraph. Now others might disagree but due to the volume of information and the fact that the Arar Commission plays a central role in the Arar case (and thus it being in the summary of this article already) editorial it should be noted in the summary. 64.223.39.215 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of this, but I think these determinations could go into a separate paragraph. I'm not firm on any of that.
I don't see how you could say the U.S. government made any claims on Arar being tortured. Politicians have, but they haven't really spoken for the government in any official sense.
-- Randy2063 23:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I intended to say, if I did not make it clear, was that the US Government has spoken on Mr. Arar's "claim of" torture and has not spoken on the actual "act of" torture. In other words they have spoken almost exclusively about what Mr. Arar has said and not about any specific actions taken by the Syrian Government. And I am using US Government here in broads terms to including any government official from US State Dept. Press Briefings to Senators and Congressman to various other officials. Yes, within this broad group of individuals and/or organizations you have a range of talk on the subject but again it has mostly focus on what Mr. Arar has said. 64.222.32.119 19:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point but I don't know what the Bush administration can say about Arar's supposed torture if Syria hasn't admitted to it and Arar can't be trusted. (I recognize that some might think he can be trusted, but that doesn't matter in this context if the Bush administration doesn't share that opinion.)
More interesting, perhaps, is the Congress, part of which is wanting desperately to appease Syria's ally, Iran. In a way, it's awfully funny that Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, and other so-called "peace" advocates in Congress didn't make any kind of a stand in the matter of torture when they visited Syria to chat with Assad.
-- Randy2063 21:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it alright if I move this discussion back to right (like an old typewritter)?
can or would say. I am assuming there would be very little talk on this matter either way. Although there is some published information about the US-Syrian dialog at the point of Mr. Arar's release ([21] from the European Investigation into C.I.A rendition flights into European countries)
It is always troubling when Congressman and Congresswoman tend to not ask the tough questions when visiting foreign nations. I don't know how much of this is lack of personal conviction, playing politics or trying to keep in line with some national foreign policy. I would like to know what if in any was discussed about Syrian's human rights record at that aforementioned visits and the Congressional visits made shortly after 9-11 [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. 64.222.45.91 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think almost all of it is politics. That goes for those who stood up on their high horse to pretend to defend Arar as well as those who've claimed to stand for tough security.
Some of your links didn't work when I tried them. Although it doesn't say much that we didn't already know, that Damascus Embassy document you first linked is well worth reading. On the one hand, the header implies this was intended from the beginning to assist in dealing with the Canadian government. On the other hand, it was a tad bit reassuring that they brought up the arrest of Ibrahim Hamidi (no wiki article on him, btw, but AFAIK, he's back to reporting). I think it also speaks volumes that a discussion about human rights in Syria is classified information. But in a way, that's kind of a good sign.
And yes, you can reset the margins whenever you like.
-- Randy2063 21:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy2063 could you explain what exactly your problem is with Maher Arar? LamontCranston 7:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of the article, I think it should attempt to explain the facts about his deportation, and all the claims made about and against him, as well as the various parties involved.
As a matter of what I think of Maher Arar, I think what we have here is the opposite of railroading. He's been awarded millions, officially declared "innocent", and accorded status as a victim of torture, all without ever having had to sign a depostion. I find that last part staggering. Regardless of his true guilt or innocence, I can't think of anything like that ever having happened.
Meanwhile, if you read the reports, he supposedly heard screams of other victims of torture in that prison. It's as though no one cares about them at all.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

I've asked for a second opinion on this GA nomination. Personally, I think the article should be passed, but this is my first GA review, so I'm reluctant to make any decisions.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Explanation:

This article is well written, is most verifiable, very comprehensive. However, there are problems (mostly with the lead). The lead is quite shaky. It repetitive (esp. about torture). The lead says "alleged" but does not say who is making the allegations. I propose that instead of the current lead:

Maher Arar (born 1970 in Syria), is a Canadian software engineer who was deported to Syria and tortured, in an alleged example of the United States policy of rendition.

we should have something like this:

Maher Arar (born 1970 in Syria), is a software engineer and Canadian citizen living in Montreal(?). He gained media attention after he was deported to Syria and tortured. His case is cited as an example of the United States policy of rendition.

Such neutralization should be done to the entire lead. Other than the lead, the entire article seems to comply with NPOV. Writing a more neutral lead will also make this article more stable.

Other than that there is some content that is unsourced. Though this content is not contentious, and probably not original research, nevertheless it should be sourced. Finally, images of Maher Arar do exist, and they need to be found. Hope this helps. Feel free to respond back on my talk.Bless sins 20:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not neutral. He's a dual citizen. The Arar Commission report even calls him one. You can elaborate elsewhere if you like, but you can't dress him up like that if you're also going to tag him as a victim of U.S. policy. It's blatantly POV.
It's also POV to flatly say it's cited as an example of rendition. I agree that references to "torture" and "rendition" belong in the header, but there need to be some qualifications.
-- Randy2063 04:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I would not call this article stable at this time.
-- Randy2063 04:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Then we can refer to him as "Syrian-Canadian". Also, if we attribute the claims of "rendition" then I don't see where the POV is. However, if there exists a real dispute, then I don't want to get into the middle of it. I believe this article is relatively stable, and will become stable once the lead is fixed. Also, I've asked for a second opinion from a more experienced GA reviewer, and hopefully we'll someone will respond.Bless sins 06:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dual-citizenship point is discussed in the section above this one. I was waiting for a response and, given that this is a weekend, it could be a few days. I have more edits in my notes that aren't ready yet anyway. This is also why I didn't want to say it's stable.
That said, I'm probably not the best judge on what's considered stable.
-- Randy2063 13:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a lot of "citation needed tags" as well as quite a few footontes not being in correct form.... They should be fixed before this passes. Happyme22 05:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I have left "OR" as questionable. This citation needed content could be accurate, nor not - difficult to tell unless the sources are provided.Bless sins 05:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion from User:Canadian Paul

[edit]

I have not fully read the article in detail, but I think that there are some considerations that are fairly obvious and too concerning to allow this article to be pass. The early sections have far too few citations and the citation needed tags are problematic and unsuitable for a GA pass, a concern made only more important given the fact that this is a biography of a living person. In addition, it fails several important MoS considerations such as WP:LEAD, a trivia section (or "Miscellenous facts" – there shouldn't be one and everything in that section should be either incorporated into the body of the article or removed) and there are far too many one-two sentence paragraphs. It is my opinion that this should be failed for these reasons, among others, although final decision rests in the hands of the initial reviewer. Cheers, CP 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point I'm going to contact the original nominator. I will ask him/her if he/she can address these concerns. If not, I'll fail this. If yes, I'll give the user some time.Bless sins (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed

[edit]

There is no definitive consensus that this article is a good one. I requested the nominator to address concerns, but that didn't happen. I hope that this article is improved an re-nominated.Bless sins (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is marher arar an example of extraordinary rendition?

[edit]

To Canadians, Maher Arar is the most well-known example. Germans know about Khaled al-Masri and in Italy, it's Osama Mustfafa Hasan, also known as Abu Omar, who gets the headlines. What all three have in common, aside from being Muslims, is extraordinary rendition. Each has been taken forcibly to another country, allegedly by U.S. intelligence, to be interrogated or tortured about allegations of involvement in international terrorism. Arar and al-Masri have been released and declared innocent. Abu Omar remains in prison in his native Egypt.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/renditions.html

Previously blacked-out portions of the Maher Arar report state that Canadian security officials believed the United States might send the Syrian-born Canadian to a foreign country to be questioned under torture.

"I think the U.S. would like to get Arar to Jordan where they can have their way with him," a Canadian Security Intelligence Service officer based in Washington wrote in a report dated Oct. 10, 2002, according to documents released Thursday.

The note was written days after the United States deported Arar, who was returning to Canada from a vacation in 2002 when he was detained during a flight stopover in New York, wrongly accused of links with al-Qaeda and sent to Syria, where he was jailed for months and tortured.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/08/09/arar-report.html

It is well known that Arar was a) taken into US custody, b) flown to Jordan, and (c) then sent to Syria to (i) impose illegal measures on Arar such as torture, (ii) to obtain a confession and other information US and Canadian authorities thought relevant. This objective cannot be questioned on the evidence.

Arar was travelling on a Canadian passport and had expressly asked US authorities to be allowed to proceed or to be returned to Canada. Canada had expressly asked the US to return Arar to Canada for their own investigations and Arar was merely hours away from Canadian authorities.

Arar was not wanted in Canada, the United States or in Syria for any crimes and his "rendition" was not requested by Syria at any time. There was also no evidence, at least none that is reliable (let alone admissible in a court of law) that Arar had committed a crime.

The US was aware that Canada had no evidence no charge Arar with a crime. The US did not have sufficient evidence to convict Arar of a crime. The US has long been aware that Syria and its courts do not have an independent judiciary, that it is willing to convict its own citizens on scant evidence and that its authorities torture. The notion that the "rendition" to Syria was legal because Arar was also a Syrian citizen is preposterous and is merely a pretense. Syria does not recognize the disavowal of Syrian citizenship, let alone dual citizenship.

The question of why Syria and not Canada is easily answered, no? Ben (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, No he was not the victim of Extrodinary Rendition, just normal Rendition. The Extrordinary part of ER is the Kidnapping of people from non-US soil by US government forces. As Arar travelled to US soil willingly as part of his flight that placed him legally under thier legal due process. (Hypnosadist) 07:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk pages are not for idle discussion of a subject, but rather for collaboration on improvement of the article. Downinca, it's well settled that it was not ER. This is not the place to push your conspiracy theories. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the talk page is for discussing the article. I do not agree that "it's well settled that [this case] was not ER." I suggest that the article should include something along these lines: "Arar's case has been cited by some as an example of extraordinary rendition. [31]" The citation is to a New York Times editorial from last month that says, "Mr. Arar was a victim of extraordinary rendition, America’s notorious program of outsourcing interrogations to governments known to use torture." If the point is in dispute, then our article shouldn't flatly assert that this was extraordinary rendition, but we should report that viewpoint without adopting it. (I'm not sure about its even being in real dispute. I haven't previously heard the argument that ER means only a kidnapping from non-U.S. soil, but I haven't focused on the point.) JamesMLane t c 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JamesMLane's comment above. Apparently many users are concerned with the definition of ER and whether it applies to Maher Arar. (Notably Wikipedia's article on the subject of extraordinary rendition refers to Maher Arar as an example of the practice and discusses how the term has been interpreted and applied]. Regardless, the sentence that has been at issue in this article is whether it is alleged that Maher Arar is an example of extraordinary rendition: "Maher Arar (born 1970) is a Syrian living in Canada with dual Canadian-Syrian citizenship and a telecommunications engineer who was deported to Syria and tortured, in an alleged example of the United States policy of rendition." Both articles that I pointed to refer explicitly to it as a case of extraordinary rendition. The allegation is clearly that this is a case of extraordinary rendition. As it stands now, that sentence is factually erroneous. Ben (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the informed consensus is that his rendition was not an "extraordinary rendition" I agree the article should address whether it was or was not an extraordinary rendition. I thought I was reasonably well-informed about the issues around GWOT captives. But that the informed consensus that his rendition was not an extraordinary rendition is news to me.
OK. I just re-read the rendition (law) article. I thought that "rendition" was basically a synonym for extradition. But that article says extradition is merely the most common form of rendition. I don't see an explanation in the article about what the less common form of rendition is -- unless it means extraordinary rendition.
My understanding was that "extraordinary rendition" could just as clearly have been called "extrajudicial extradition". The way I understand it Maher Arar's original apprehension by INS agents has nothing to do with whether his transfer was or was not extrajudicial rendition. My understanding is that his transfer was an extraordinary rendition, or an extrajudicial extradition, because it was performed outside the rule of law.
US law authorized INS agents to apprehend him. US law would have authorized deporting him -- back to Switzerland, because his trip from Tunis to Ottawa required changing planes in Zurich, and then New York, so he had flown in from Switzerland. My understanding of this term is that it doesn't necessarily mean an individual was kidnapped in a third country -- it merely means that a change in custody occurred that was not authorized by law. Apprehension by the INS was authorized by law. Deportation to Switzerland would have been authorized by law. Transfer to Jordanian custody was not authorized by law.
FWIW, let me add, that I understand that extrajudicial is not the same as illegal. Geo Swan (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem i see here is that ER is not clearly defined legally, in the media or at extraordinary rendition. Arar was subject to a legal process called Rendition in his movement from USA to Syria. The confusion comes from the fact that he is a victim of Torture by Proxy (which is mentioned at the ER page), ie he was sent to syria so he could be tortured and the US Gov could say WE don't torture. The final point is that the media does refer to the Arar case as part of the phenominom of ER. (Hypnosadist) 03:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This from the EU Parliment sub-commity on Human rights "Extraordinary Rendition: this is a term which has been coined to describe state kidnapping of individuals and their transportation by state officials from one state to another for uncertain or publicly unknown purposes." Thats what i understand Extraordinary Rendition to be. The Policy of the EU in the Field of Border Control and the Fight against Organised Crime: How does it impact on the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms in third countries? (Hypnosadist) 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alleged changed to apparent

[edit]

I have changed this per above.

  • alleged = declared but not proved (WordNet dictionary)
  • apparent = appearing as such but not necessarily so (WordNet)

It is quite obvious that this is more than alleged but less than accepted everywhere. I think this is about as close to reality as possible. Fremte (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking the holocaust rather than the horrendous treatment of Maher Arar, changing "alleged" to (the even worse) "apparent" would not wash. "He said, She said" is not much better, but may be an easier way around the problem. "Apparent" sounds too much like a mirage.

Any way, as far as torture goes, I think it is the word "torture" that these torture-deniers are hung up on moreso than which of these "interrogation techniques" were and were not used on Arar. Maybe it is best to use both terms in the intro and let the details speak for themselves and the reader decide whether these "techniques" constitute torture or not. If the torture deniers won't accept that, they won't accept anything short of the article openly stating that Arar is making this all up and was just pulling a Dar Heatherington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality banner?

[edit]

Who put up the "neutrality is disputed" banner? Please add your discussion so we can either repair the article. Thanks! Fremte (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay no-one has justified the banner, so I will remove it. 71.17.132.157 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US/Syrian Cooperation

[edit]

I see no need for any theory as to why the United States sent Maher Arar to Syria. No one disputes the fact that the US did in fact send him to Syria. As for the issue of US/Syrian cooperation with the War on Terror there is a well documented history of cooperation. The following references are just a sampling of such documentation [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. In addition here is a video of the Syrian Ambassador to the US talking about its assistance in fighting terror [1]. And then there was a recent article by Jeff Stein, CQ National Security Advisor, concerning the backchannel communication between the US and Syria "Syria’s Backchannel to Washington Survives the Pelosi Firestorm" By Jeff Stein, April 6, 2007. Again there is a well documented cooperation between the two nations despites several strong political differences.

The wording of this sentence seems to imply that this a conspiracy theory. A better wording might be "The United States government has not given a satisfactory explanation as to why Maher Arar was sent to Syria and not Canada" although I don't think this captures your added statement very well either. Bq7722 can you elaborate a little more on what you are trying to convey? Ed M isnot edm (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project/ter/ter032305_syria.rm], Imad Moustapha, Syrian Ambassador to the U.S., talking at CCAS, Georgetown University start at 1:06:45 Question on US Syria working relationship

Rice's Testimony Oct 24, 2007

[edit]

I have changed the wording describing Secretary Rice's testimony in an effort to clarify her intended meaning. The previous wording suggests that the Secretary Rice was saying that the deportation of Maher Arar was not handled properly ("...admitted for the first time that the 2002 deportation of Arar to a Syrian jail was not handled properly, but she did not offer an apology."). I would argue that in fact what she was said and implied was that the communication between the US and Canadian governments was not handle properly not the handling of Arar's deportation. One can review the video of the exchange between Represenative Delahunt and Secretary Rice here. In addition one can read from the hearing transcript (pgs 30-33), see the State Department response to Rep. Delahunt question about assurances (ibid. pg 32) or view the full hearing video.Ed M isnot edm (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book Listings and Summaries

[edit]

There appears to be a growing number of books which refer to the Arar case that for reference purposes should be listed in this article. I also find it helpful to summarize what each book has to say about the Arar case providing context. But the amount of pertinent content ranges from a mere passing reference to the primary focus of the entire work. As such due to the increasing number of books I felt some need merely to be listed and some listed and summarized. The guidelines I was going to use for which books to be summarized and listed were these

  • Is the Arar case a primary or signifigant focus of the book? Example: Monia Mazigh forthcoming book.
  • Does the author have some authority, expertise or prominence? Example: Former President Carter who only brief mentions Arar as an example of "extraordinary rendition".

Otherwise if the book just simply references the Arar case in passing it should only be listed. Also it was my prefernece to link listed books to the publishers page for that book. I am not sure of wikipedia's guidelines on this so this might change. Feel free to adopt this guideline or not for listing and/or summarizing books under this article.Ed M isnot edm (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "rendition"

[edit]

Related to the use "deport" is the article's use of the word "rendition" in the heading of the section that talks about his being transported out of the US (where the word deport is used to describe this act). "Rendition", when used with the meaning implied by this article is doublespeak and should not appear in this article; except in reference to this term as a euphamism for illegal acts by a government.

Rather than simply edit the heading myself and begin an edit-war, I'm opening this discussion here to attempt to gain concensus on a more accurate word for use in the heading.

Christopher Rath (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Christopher, for this helpful gesture. Hopefully we will be able to reach some sort of "concensus", as you say.

P.S. wait, a "concensus" is where they count up how many people live in a country and then afterwards try to make all of them agree on one single point of view, right? (I guess that's what you mean? Just checking.) Mardiste (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a good idea to pause before changing headings. Headings are sometimes linked by other articles.
In your reference to doublespeak, I think you're confusing it with the term "extraordinary rendition". There's nothing illegal or improper about rendition. It's unpopular with the crowd that claims the U.S. outsourced torture to Syria but there's not much we can do about that.
You're right that the word "deportation" is more neutral, and it's probably what actually happened, but I don't think it'll win a poll here.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that "rendition" has an accepted legal definition, but that definition includes the concept that the transportation of the individual was through proper legal processes (what I would call due process); which was not the case with Mr. Arar---according to the Arar Commission's report. Christopher Rath (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, his stay at the airport didn't mean that he was residing or staying in the U.S. in a legal sense. I'm reminded of Mehran Karimi Nasseri except that they had no place to send him.
The commission report says Arar was specifically denied permission to enter. Since he hasn't entered the country, his rendition or deportation wouldn't have required the same type of hearing as if he were in the country. (In that sense, perhaps "deportation" isn't the right word at all.) I just skimmed that section of the report, and don't see that it says he would have been due a hearing.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khadr testimony

[edit]

The Globe and Mail Web site is reporting that "a teenaged Omar Khadr identified Canadian Maher Arar, who was tortured in Syria after he was sent there by American authorities, as someone he had seen at al-Qaida safe houses and training camps in Afghanistan, an FBI special agent testified Monday.... Mr. Khadr made the identification from photographs the agent, Robert Fuller, showed him during interrogations several months after the Toronto-born Mr. Khadr was captured following a firefight in Afghanistan in July 2002." --99.240.224.103 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Person under torture tells torturers what they want to hear, film at 11. Canadian media have done a pretty good job of pointing out how worthless this "evidence" is. <eleland/talkedits> 07:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's clear that Arar is innocent and never had anything to do with terrorism. That obviously goes without saying. The only question this brings up is why the CIA would go to such expense (and we're talking an enormous amount of time and effort and resources here, I mean, we're literally talking millions of dollars here) to torture Omar Khadr (who is also innocent) to such a degree that he would agree to swear (falsely) that he recognized Arar as a person he had met at terrorist safe houses in Afghanistan. Why on earth would the CIA want Khadr to say that? Arar was just an innocent software designer from Canada. What were they attempting to do? I honestly don't understand their motivation here. It just doesn't seem to make any sense. Mardiste (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I accept the premises of your question, and I don't see what it has to do with improving the article anyway. <eleland/talkedits> 06:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Eleland. The question of why the CIA and FBI would torture Omar Khadr (in clear violation of the United States Constitution and the Geneva Convention) in order to elicit a false accusation from a Guantanamo Bay prisoner to the effect that a Canadian software designer might in any way be involved in Al Qaida is absolutely irrelevant to a Wikipedia article on the subject of Maher Arar.

There are no "premises" here that anyone is asking you to "accept". I'm simply posing a completely reasonable question. Mardiste (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our own personal speculations of what the answer to that question might be are irrelevant, yes, and all questions have premises, and stop trolling. <eleland/talkedits> 04:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again, Eleland. I am asking a perfectly reasonable and (considering the circumstances since the recent Omar Khadr revelations) pretty damn compelling question, with no preconceived assumptions or premises whatsoever. If the most intelligent response to that question that you can possibly formulate is that I am an internet "troll", then I guess I'll have to give you a pass on that and leave it at that. (I am logged in as a Wikipedia member with my personal information and identity absolutely open to the public. I will e-mail you or anyone else my full name, address, home phone number, and e-mail address at a second's notice if you like.) Your name-calling, by the way, is every bit as objective and classy as your contributions to this page. Props, man. On top of the standard outrage, the accusations were a really nice touch. Mardiste (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is fabulous. I just got called a "troll" by someone who believes that a "special relationship" between Israel and something called "the Anglosphere" is "in operation" on Wikipedia. Mardiste (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Khadr testimony

[edit]

Canadian newspapers reported today that Maher Arar is "shocked" and "depressed" to learn that Guantanamo Bay prisoner and son of Osama Bin Laden's chief financier Omar Khadr has stated under oath that he has seen Mr. Arar in Al-Qaeda safe houses in Afghanistan. Mardiste (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "chief financier" loaned $300 to his son-in-law who may have used it to purchase a truck which was later given to a colleague of a man who later became Osama bin Laden's 2IC? $300? To a multi-millionaire construction magnate? "Chief financier"? Let's be realistic and not inject POV labels into an article that isn't even about the Khadr family. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, "Sherurcig Speaker for the Dead" (best Wikipedia username EVER, by the way). If you're arguing that the extent of the connection between the Khadr family and Osama bin Laden is in fact a one-time indirect third-person car loan of $300, then there are at least two parties who have made multiple public statements that fundamentally contradict the factuality of your position. The first is the Khadr family. The second is Osama bin Laden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardiste (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think that Maha and Zaynab Khadr would approve of your representation of their husband and father Ahmed Khadr. That story paints him and everyone he was ever associated with as the sneakiest, most dishonest cowards imaginable. Seriously, what kind of person perpetuates such gratuitous (and so easily disproven) stories like that? Listen, I'm a Jew, and although I strongly disagree with his political views, I do recognise that Ahmed Khadr was a brave, courageous, decent man who lived and died for his principles. That's a lot more than I can say for the people defiling his memory with the third-person $300 car loan story. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Mardiste (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were Monia Mazigh, I would be suing the Khadr family into the ground right about now. Why isn't she? Mardiste (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only bright point in this entire story is that Guantanamo Bay will soon be closed and (in all likelihood) Omar Khadr will soon be back with his family in Toronto. The best thing that will come out of this is that Omar will finally be able to speak freely to the press, confirming that he has indeed never laid eyes on Maher Arar in his entire life and that US authorities were willing to breach the US Constitution and multiple statutes under the Geneva Convention by torturing him into saying that he saw an innocent Syrian-born Canadian immigrant with no relationship to Al Qaeda whatsoever in an Al Qaeda training camp.

(I know, it doesn't make sense to me either.) Mardiste (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this Wikipedia article currently stands, the author is claiming that Omar Khadr stated that "he felt" [quotation marks NOT mine] that he saw Maher Arar in Afghanistan sometime during September or October 2001. If this is actually a "quotation" (which I am herewith disputing in THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS) wouldn't Omar Khadr have said "I felt" instead of "he felt"?? I mean seriously, he was talking about himself, right? Why would he use the third person pronoun "he" when referring to himself? It seems kind of unusual, doesn't it? I would like to request that the author explain his use of quotation marks and give us a link to the source where he's getting these alleged quotations. Aren't most people who falsify quotations on Wikipedia at least intelligent enough to change the personal pronoun BEFORE they post it and THEN claim that someone else said it? Seriously. Mardiste (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put this in the simplest possible terms for the person who wrote this section of the article on Maher Arar: If you change the quotation to "I felt", I will withdraw (and apologise for) my implication that the quotation was unbelievably and mind-bogglingly stupid. However, I firmly stand by my statement that that "quotation" was false, inaccurate, intentionally misleading, and completely made up. Mardiste (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mardiste, reviewing the change log I see I wrote that poorly structured sentence. I can only assume I meant to say "... he stated he 'felt' ..." instead of "... he stated 'he felt' ...". I apologize for placing the quotation mark in the wrong place. I've corrected that sentence. I also added a reference for that quote in the previous sentence. Ed M isnot edm (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Omar Khadr reference in article introduction

[edit]

First my apologies, I actually removed this unintentionally for a previous edit of the introductory paragraph. But I did intend to remove eventually. The reason being is that this information is already discussed in sections 1.2 and 4.7 and this information does not rise to the level of importance for the introductory and summary paragraph. Ed M isnot edm (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mardiste, again my apologies. I see I unintentionally undid a few other edits. Apparently wikipedia does not have a three way edit functionality. Concerning your change within the sentence "He is famous for the outcry in the Canadian media regarding his deportation to Syria." (italics indicating Mardiste modification) although most news concerning Mr. Arar has been Canadian I will revert that sentence as previously written.

As for the paragraph about US current statement of Mr. Arar affiliations I believe you are correct that the latest US government statements say he "is" still affiliated and not "has been"; thus I will correct my unintended three way diff. But I believe those statement, made in court in the Arar case against the US government, state al-Qaeda and not some generic " terrorist organisation deemed illegal in both Canada and the United States". If you have more detail and source listing such organizations I will leave that part as it was. Ed M isnot edm (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know (precisely and word for word) what Mr. Arar has claimed in his case. If I didn't, I obviously wouldn't be qualified to contribute to this page. What I'm asking you now (having already asked you privately and without having received any answer as of yet) is the following:

On what grounds are you removing my Wikipedia edits, "Ed M isnot edm"? Please clarify immediately or reverse your edits. Thanks Mardiste (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I was unclear in my explanations above in this section and in the "Edit Summary" of the changes. Let me restate my reasons.
* The outcry of Mr. Arar's deportation is not limited to only within the Canadian media but also in US media, among various segments of the US, Canadian, and world population, various religious groups, human rights groups, security circles, etc. Thus I found your wording too limiting and reverted to the previous wording.
* There is, to the best of my knowledge, no dispute that Mr. Arar was held in solitary confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center. Thus one can not say it is alleged unless there is any source which states the contrary.
* The United States government has on numerous occasions and very publicly stated that they believe Mr. Arar is a member or affliated with al-Qaeda. Thus one would not say the US Government is allegedly suspecting, they are suspecting him.
* The final change as I mention above was initially a partial revert and I will say relooking at this now is still not fully correct. I agreed with your change saying that the current US Government stance concerning Mr. Arar's current affiliation status with al-Qaeda is "is affiliated" and not "was affiliated". I was basing my agreement to your text upon the statement made by Dennis Barghaan, layer for John Ashcroft, at the three panel court of appeals hearing where to the surprise into many in attendence that Mr. Arar's “unequivocal membership of al-Qaida.”. But looking at various US governmental sources that are some which say "was [affiliated]" and some which say "is [affiliated]". So to make this correct ("is" or "was") one would need to survey the wide range of response from US Government source and the state one of those. What I took issue with your change was that unspecific or generic label of "a terrorist organisation deemed illegal in both Canada and the United States." In the vast majority of the sources I have not seen this terminology used but speficially stating al-Qaeda. Yes, al-Qaeda is a "terrorist organisation deemed illegal in both Canada and the United States" but again no where is your exact wording used; it has been label what it is "al-Qaeda". Thus I reverted it back to what is was. What I should have done was update the article to specific say "al-Qaeda" instead of what is was ("affiliated with members of terrorist organizations").
Again I am sorry for my unintended three way merge but have corrected that which I accidentally and unintentionally reverted and did not wish to do so. If I need to further explain anything please make note here. Thank you. Ed M isnot edm (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Maher Arar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Maher Arar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Maher Arar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maher Arar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=failed}

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maher Arar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Maher Arar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maher Arar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Maher Arar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Maher Arar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maher_Arar&oldid=1256871598"