|
Post by achebeautiful on Jan 19, 2007 16:30:54 GMT -5
"We believe nothing so firmly as what we least know"
~ Montaigne
First let me start by stating up front that this article makes me sick. Here we have Senator Patrick Leahy making very bold assertions about others, saying that they "knew damn well...." Patrick Leahy, who heads the Senate judiciary committee, which basically means that he can do exactly this sort of thing to others and never once have to qualify his statements. It seems to me that Mr. Leahy had better be "damn sure" he's right about the things he is saying, or else he is nothing more than a misguided fool, and worse still, a very deceptive one as well.
He is saying that Gonzalez, Chertoff, Rice, and/or others responsible for Homeland Security knew damn well this and that. Well and good for him. Now, tell me more. Tell me exactly how it is that he knows "damn well." Does he have something concrete to prove his statements true, or is George Orwell somewhere saying "I told you so." Either he has a wire tapped phone conversation, or an email, letter, video footage or something that gives us some evidence of how he knows "damn well", or this is purely what George Orwell called the "Thought Police."
And that's just it. Patrick Leahy does not have to answer anybody for anything. The media certainly is not asking any penetrating questions of him. What an opportunity to sit in front of the cameras and journalists and "blast" someone! Nothing is served, and nobody benefits from it.....but it gives the appearance of doing so, and that's all that really matters. Canadians can cheer and say that finally someone in the USA gets it and understands the severity of this terrible situation....this incredible injustice. Don't be so sure of that. There is nothing in this article that gives any indication that Patrick Leahy really cares about Canada, Arar or even this issue at all. It only broadens his already lengthy track record for being a Senator that never misses an opportunity for "grandstanding."
Look, if Patrick Leahy wants to grandstand for whatever purpose that serves him, that's up to him. More power to him. But when he does it at the expense of other people, and in the face of such an important issue, it's sickening.
Are we one step closer to the truth from this display of "blasting?" Are people seeking the truth in this matter, or are they simply satisfied with finding someone to blame so that they can bring closure to it for themselves? And here's a question that I do not hear being asked: Is Arar innocent in all of this, or perhaps is there good reason to believe that he should not be permitted into the U.S.? Canada says that he is good to go....of course, this after initially saying that he wasn't. Apparently we were wrong for believing the information we were given the first time....so I can understand the hesitation in doing so again. But of course, everyone knows this Arar very well, and he is completely innocent. That, everyone knows for certain, because no one ever thinks or asks otherwise. Gonzalez "knew damn well", just like we all "know damn well." We know that Arar is being treated unjustly by the U.S. How? We don't know that, but we know "damn well."
From the article it appears that more information will be available next week. I'm doubtful it will matter. Patrick Leahy ALREADY KNOWS! Unfortunately, I think too many others do as well. It will be interesting to see what the information tells us, and even more interesting to see how Leahy responds to it.
I hope that we are serious....very serious about the truth in this issue. I hope that if Arar is wrongly being kept out of the United States, that it comes to bear, and we make it right and make it right for the future so that others do not suffer the same. I hope that the relationship between Canada and the United States can grow from this situation, and become closer not more strained by it. There are a lot of opportunities for good here....I hope that we seize them. I hope that people truly want to get to the heart of the matter here, and not simply want to be tickled by hearing things that they want to hear, and believe things said because it's what they want to believe.
Questions in this issue deserve answers, and I believe they are forthcoming. Until then, nobody....not even you Patrick Leahy, knows a "damn thing."
A couple of years ago Vice President Dick Cheney had a name for Patrick Leahy of which I will not name here. It is the name I,too, would give the Senator from Vermont.
Leona, thank you for keeping this topic updated. We should continue to do so through the duration of this issue.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Jan 19, 2007 22:48:39 GMT -5
I had never heard of Patrick Leahy when I read the article. There's nothing really new in the article as far as a point of view. Alot of what he said was written in opinion pages in Canada. I think if he had really cared about the situation he would have said something long before now.
I feel that even though I agree with alot of what he said, he is doing this more for the negative spin it puts on the Bush Administration than out of caring for Arar and the US's relationship with Canada.
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Jan 20, 2007 9:45:00 GMT -5
Just so that you know, Leona, the Democrats won a majority in the last election (in November) and because of that Senator Patrick Leahy (a Democrat) became the head of the Senate judiciary committe. That could be the reason he is being vocal about this issue now. But even still, I have to agree with you. Every Senator gets a certain amount of time each session to address issues important to them, so you do not have to be the head of the committee to vocalize your concerns.
Also I understand very much how you agree with a lot of what he was saying. There is every reason to have great concern about this issue. To now, the U.S. has not provided any information that would lessen anyone's suspicions. Because of legal ramifications, I will give the U.S. the benefit of the doubt on this. But even that can wear thin. For the sake of good relations between Canada and the U.S., and so that people are not fearful of this sort of thing happening to them, questions have to be answered. Hopefully, they will soon.
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Jan 21, 2007 14:29:46 GMT -5
Well, guess what. I just watched the session in its entirety where Senator Patrick Leahy "blasted" Alberto Gonzales about "knowing damn well...." In the U.S. we have a tv channel called C-SPAN (which stands for Capitol- Satellite Public Affairs Network) where you can watch all of Congressional hearings and sessions in their entirety, without commercial interruption and without commentary or analysis.
All I can add to this is that from my observation of seeing it on tv, Alberto Gonzales was consistantly thorough and polite in his responses. He provided every detail possible to every question asked of him, and was very respectful not to name names (for their protection) when asked questions where he could have done so. He was grilled a number of times about other issues in which Democratic Senators wanted to know names of state Attorney Generals who resigned for reasons which Alberto Gonzales tried to protect. Some Senators dropped their names during their allotted times and revealed the reasons why they resigned, and Gonzales responded that in fairness to their families and other Attorney Generals who also resigned that he would not speak publicly to that issue.
In all, Gonzales fired these Attorney Generals for not performing in their states, but did not think it appropritae to name them or the reasons why. Some Senators wanted to make a public spectacle of it. I think Gonzales showed a lot of character to not do so.
But on the issue of Leahy, I find it interesting that during his little tirade he mentioned a few times how Gonzales made an oath to uphold the standards of this great country. He also mentioned that he, Leahy, also took that same oath. But what I find interesting in all of his little outburst is how he never mentioned that a couple of years ago Patrick Leahy resigned from the Intelligence Committee for leaking information to the press. So much for keeping his oath to "uphold the standards."
I also found it very interesting that he began by going on about his good relationship with Canada, only being an hour's drive away. But when he mentioned Maher Arar's name, he then spelled it to everyone in his words, "in case I am saying it wrong." Geez! If this is such an important issue to the guy, don't you think by now he would know how to pronounce the man's name? This issue has been in the news for quite some time now!
Now, these are just my observations, and completely open to disagreement. I just thought I'd share them with you. What say you?
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Jan 25, 2007 0:03:41 GMT -5
Wilkins slams Day for questioning U.S. on Arar Last Updated: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 | 1:20 PM ET CBC News U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins on Wednesday criticized Ottawa's efforts to have Maher Arar removed from a United States security watch list, saying the U.S. alone will decide who to let into the country.
Speaking in Edmonton after meeting with new Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, Wilkins warned Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day to back off, because a U.S. review determined Arar should remain on the watch list.
"It's a little presumptuous for him [Day] to say who the United States can and cannot allow into our country," Wilkins told reporters Wednesday.
The ambassador reiterated that the U.S. found its own reasons to keep Arar on the watch list.
Day said in a visit last week to Washington that he has seen the information and found nothing new to suggest Arar is a safety risk.
Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was seized at a New York airport in 2002 and sent to Syria, where he was tortured. A judicial inquiry into his case led by Justice Dennis O'Connor was set up after Arar returned to Canada more than a year later.
O'Connor concluded Arar had no terror links and the RCMP had given misleading information to U.S. authorities, which may have been the reason he was sent to Syria.
Parliament apologized to Arar and the government has been asking Washington to remove him from a watch list that prevents him from travelling to the U.S., despite being cleared in Canada.
However, the U.S. has refused to do so and has not explained why.
Day said Tuesday in Halifax that Canada will continue to let its position be known.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Jan 25, 2007 0:20:37 GMT -5
Canada has not given up on having Arar cleared from U.S. watch list: Day HALIFAX (CP) - Canada has not given up on persuading U.S. officials to remove Maher Arar from an American security watch list, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said Tuesday.
Day, in Halifax to make a few funding announcements, said the Canadian government will continue to press its case despite assertions from two senior U.S. officials that Arar will remain on the list.
In a letter released Monday, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said a secret U.S. file on Arar shows the decision is "appropriate."
Day said Canadian officials looked at the U.S. information and found nothing new to suggest Arar was a safety risk.
"We're aware that the United States has other information . . . It simply does not alter our opinion that Mr. Arar is not a threat, nor is his family," Day said.
"We are continuing to let our position be known on that."
Arar, a Canadian engineer, was detained in New York by U.S. authorities in 2002 and sent to Syria, where he was imprisoned for more than a year and tortured.
A Canadian inquiry exonerated Arar last fall and concluded RCMP gave U.S. authorities misleading information before Arar was deported on suspicion he had terrorist links.
Arar has launched a lawsuit against U.S. officials.
Day also noted that when Gonzales appeared last week before the U.S. judiciary committee he committed to providing more information to the public about the Arar case.
"I understand he's made certain commitments to that committee and we'll see what he follows through with," Day said.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Jan 27, 2007 8:52:20 GMT -5
Harper's apology 'means the world': Arar Last Updated: Friday, January 26, 2007 | 5:21 PM ET CBC News Maher Arar said his innocence has been confirmed by the formal apology Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued to him on Friday.
"This means the world to me," Arar said during a one-hour press conference in Ottawa on Friday afternoon.
Earlier Friday, Harper apologized and offered a $10.5 million compensation package to Arar and his family, along with money for legal fees, for the "terrible ordeal" they suffered after Arar spent nearly a year in a Syrian jail.
"On behalf of the government of Canada, I wish to apologize to you…and your family for any role Canadian officials may have played in the terrible ordeal that all of you experienced in 2002 and 2003," Harper said.
"I sincerely hope that these words and actions will assist you and your family in your efforts to begin a new and hopeful chapter in your lives," he said.
Arar said the apology and package will allow him to finally put his difficulties aside.
"The struggle to clear my name has been long and hard," he said, with his lawyers at his side. "I feel now I can put more time into being a good father [to my children], and to being a good husband and to rebuilding my life."
He said he is thankful for the Canadians who supported him and helped him get home.
He said he's also grateful to the previous federal Liberal government, which called an inquiry into his case, and the current Conservative government, which is implementing the recommendations of the inquiry.
Arar said he would like to use the compensation money to contribute to Canadian society, although he hasn't worked out specific plans yet. He wants to help ensure that others do not end up in the same situation that he did.
"This struggle has taught me how important it is to stand up for human rights," he said. "I feel proud as a Canadian and I feel proud of what we've been able to achieve."
Still, Arar said his life has not gone back to normal. He's still on a security watch list in the United States and he's afraid to travel anywhere outside of Canada.
He also said he is stigmatized as a terrorist, and he can't shake that label. He often Googles his own name and sees it tied with the words "suspected terrorist."
"There's no amount of money that would compensate me on what my family and I have gone through," Arar said. "I wish there was a way I could buy my life back."
Harper, who made the announcement in the foyer of the House of Commons in Ottawa, said the settlement negotiated with Arar includes $10.5 million for pain and suffering, along with an estimated $1 million in legal fees.
Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, had been seeking $37 million in compensation and an official government apology.
Initially, Arar had wanted to sue the government for $400 million but later lowered the amount. Harper said the $10.5 million is roughly what Arar would have received through a lawsuit.
Harper also said that Canada has sent letters to the U.S. and Syrian governments to object to Arar's treatment.
"We cannot go back and fix the injustice that occurred to Mr. Arar. However, we can make changes to lessen the likelihood that something like this will ever happen again," he said.
Arar now lives in Kamloops, B.C., but was in Ottawa on Friday to hear the government's announcement.
In 2002, the engineer was living in Ottawa and returning from a vacation when he was arrested during a stopover at New York's JFK Airport. U.S. authorities deported him to Syria, where he was tortured.
Inquiry found Arar had no terrorist links
Ottawa set up a judicial inquiry into the case, led by Justice Dennis O'Connor, after Arar returned to Canada more than a year later.
O'Connor released his report in September 2006, concluding that Arar had no links to terrorist organizations or militants.
He also concluded the RCMP had provided misleading information to the U.S. authorities, which may have been the reason he was sent to Syria.
The government intends to implement the report's recommendations to ensure such an incident does not happen again, Harper said.
Earlier this week, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins criticized Ottawa's efforts to have Arar removed from a U.S. security watch list, saying Washington alone will decide who to let into the country.
The prime minister said the government will continue to press the U.S. to remove Arar from the watch list.
"We believe the evidence is clear that Mr. Arar has been treated unjustly," Harper said.
Late Friday, Stockwell Day, Canada's public safety minister, said he will continue to discuss the watch list with American officials.
"The issue won't be closed," he told CBC News. "This conversation will come up again."
He said the American government has a sovereign right to put Arar on a watch list, but that doesn't mean the Canadian government won't go to bat for him.
The NDP said Friday's apology and settlement was overdue, saying Arar's wife Monia Mazigh should receive credit for pushing the government to acknowledge its role.
"From the beginning, New Democrats, along with countless Canadians from every corner of this country, stood side by side with Ms. Mazigh in her battle to bring her husband home to justice and to his family," said New Democrat MP Alexa McDonough.
A U.S. politician, meanwhile, said Friday after the apology was issued to Arar that it is time for the U.S. to look at its role in the Arar affair.
Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat who represents Vermont, said the U.S. government could have treated Arar differently than it did.
"The question remains why, even if there were reasons to consider him suspicious, the U.S. government shipped him to Syria where he was tortured, instead of to Canada for investigation or prosecution."
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Jan 27, 2007 8:56:49 GMT -5
U.S. refuses to take Arar off watch list Last Updated: Friday, January 26, 2007 | 10:00 PM ET CBC News The United States has not lifted its restrictions on Maher Arar, even though the Canadian government apologized to him on Friday and offered him a $10.5 million compensation package.
'We remain convinced that Mr. Arar's presence on the watch list is appropriate.' -U.S. State DepartmentArar, a Canadian citizen who was born in Syria, was detained in 2002 by U.S. authorities who suspected him of terrorist links and deported him to his homeland, where he was jailed and tortured. Arar's name was later cleared by a Canadian judicial inquiry, which blamed his deportation in part on the RCMP.
The U.S. State Department said Friday it would keep Arar on its security watch list, even though Ottawa has been pushing for his name to be removed.
"We remain convinced that Mr. Arar's presence on the watch list is appropriate," the department said in a statement. "Ultimately, the United States will decide for itself who is or isn't on the watch list."
The U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, said the United States would not change its mind.
"This is a situation where our two countries will continue to disagree," Wilkins said in a written statement.
Harper issues strong rebuke
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as he formally apologized to Arar and his family on Friday and offered the compensation, also issued his strongest rebuke yet to Wilkins. The ambassador told Ottawa earlier in the week to back off from its demands that Arar be taken off the list.
'Canada has every right to go to bat for one of its citizens when the government believes a Canadian is being unfairly treated.' -Prime Minister Stephen Harper"
Canada has every right to go to bat for one of its citizens when the government believes a Canadian is being unfairly treated," Harper said.
In December, Wilkins revealed that Arar had never been removed from the watch list, which restricts him from travelling to the United States.
The Canadian judicial inquiry released a report in September 2006 concluding U.S. authorities may have detained Arar at a New York airport and deported him in part because the RCMP had given misleading information to American authorities that wrongly alleged Arar may be linked to terrorists. The inquiry also concluded there was no evidence to support such claims.
Arar's contacts, travel history said to be issues On Friday, a State Department official told the Canadian Press that Arar remains on the U.S. watch list because of his personal associations and travel history.
The official did not want to be identified by name.
The official stressed that while Arar's associations and travel history do not warrant his presence on a Canadian security list, they do qualify him for the U.S. list.
Public Security Minister Stockwell Day said Friday that the government will continue to work to remove Arar from the American list.
"The issue won't be closed," Day told CBC News. "This conversation will come up again."
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Jan 27, 2007 11:28:52 GMT -5
Okay, so Senator Patrick Leahy "knows damn well" the intentions of the U.S. Homeland Security on this issue, but isn't even sure that he is pronouncing Maher Arar's name right. And Canada's Public Security Minister Stockwell Day "is aware that the United Sates has other information" but still wants to tell them how to conduct their business. Interesting.
I have no problem with Stockwell Day going to bat for one of their own. He is right to continue to pursue the interests of his country and his people. But he should be careful to not step over the line into the area where he is criticizing things he may not know enough about.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Mar 31, 2007 22:45:50 GMT -5
US Sent Guantanamo Detainees Home to Torture in Russia
New Report Shows Why ‘Diplomatic Assurances’ Don’t Work
(New York, March 29, 2007) – Former Guantanamo detainees who were sent home to Russia in 2004 experienced torture and other abuse despite Moscow’s pledge to the US government that they would be treated humanely, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today.
Governments with records of torture don’t suddenly change their behavior because the US government claims to have extracted some kind of assurance from them
The Russian prisoners’ experience illustrates why the United States should stop relying on “diplomatic assurances” of fair treatment to justify sending prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to countries where they are at risk of torture. The seven Russians were all detained soon after the US invasion of Afghanistan and eventually spent about two years in Guantanamo. Although they complained of mistreatment by the Americans, all of the detainees repeatedly asked authorities at Guantanamo not to be returned to Russia because they expected to be treated worse there. And indeed, three of them experienced serious torture and ill-treatment after being arrested in Russia. Two of them were convicted at unfair trials, and all of them have been harassed and hounded by Russian law enforcement. The 43-page report, “The ‘Stamp of Guantanamo:’ The Story of Seven Men Betrayed by Russia’s Diplomatic Assurances to the United States,” reconstructs the experiences of the detainees after being returned to Russia in March 2004, based on interviews with three of the detainees, their family members, lawyers, and others. Access to the ex-detainees is limited because three of them are in prison and the rest have either managed to leave the country or are in hiding. “The Russian experience shows why ‘diplomatic assurances’ simply don’t work,” said Carroll Bogert, associate director of Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “Governments with records of torture don’t suddenly change their behavior because the US government claims to have extracted some kind of assurance from them.” The Convention against Torture stipulates that no person may be sent back to a country where he is at real risk of torture and allows no exceptions on national security or other grounds. The United States is a party to the convention and is therefore violating international law in transferring prisoners to countries where they may face torture. A US government statement to Human Rights Watch made it clear that Washington was aware of the threat of torture in Russia. Many countries are attempting to deport or extradite terrorism suspects with “diplomatic assurances,” including the United Kingdom, Canada, Austria, Netherlands, and Switzerland. Human Rights Watch urged the US government to establish screening procedures so that a person being transferred from Guantanamo Bay has an effective opportunity to challenge his transfer before an impartial body. Such procedures should also allow a detainee to challenge the reliability of any diplomatic assurances the US government may have secured. The US government has cleared some 80 detainees for release or transfer from Guantanamo, but continues to hold them in detention nevertheless. Human Rights Watch urged that any procedure to evaluate detainees’ fear of torture need not impede the pace of returns, or the ultimate goal of shuttering the Guantanamo detention facilities entirely. The US government says that Russian authorities promised to prosecute the detainees on terrorism charges and to treat them humanely. They did neither. After three months in Russian custody, during which they were not abused, all seven ex-detainees were released and attempted to resume normal lives in Russia, which proved impossible. Rasul Kudaev, a resident of Kabardino-Balkaria in southern Russia, was detained after an armed uprising in the provincial capital in October 2005. According to photographs, medical records, court documents, and the testimony of lawyers and family members, Kudaev was repeatedly beaten in custody in an effort to compel him to confess to involvement in the uprising. He has still not been prosecuted for his alleged role in the uprising, but remains in custody nearly a year and a half later. Ravil Gumarov and Timur Ishmuratov, both residents of the Russian republic of Tatarstan, were detained in April 2005 in connection with an explosion on a local gas pipeline in which no one was killed or injured. They were beaten in custody until they confessed; Gumarov was deprived of sleep for approximately one week and shackled to a small cage with his hands over his head, among other abuses. Gumarov and Ishmuratov recanted their confessions at trial and were acquitted by the jury in September 2005. However, local prosecutors got the verdict “annulled” and won a conviction in May 2006. “What happened to the former detainees is pretty standard for a lot of suspects in police custody in Russia,” said Bogert. “But that’s just the point. The US government knew that these men would likely be tortured, and sent them back to Russia anyway.” Two of the detainees told Human Rights Watch that US interrogators at Guantanamo had threatened to send them back to Russia if they did not divulge information about their alleged terrorist activities. The detainees and their families described frequent harassment by Russian police and security services, particularly the Federal Security Service, the successor to the KGB, and the Organized Crime Department of the Ministry of the Interior. “I was told many times [by Russian authorities] that after my time in Guantanamo, it wasn’t necessary to prove I was a terrorist,” former detainee Airat Vakhitov told Human Rights Watch. “That any one of us could be thrown in jail because we were terrorists.”
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Apr 1, 2007 3:20:20 GMT -5
Actually, The article posted by Leona comes with this disclaimer:
"Source: Human Rights Watch Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone."
I, too, would not want to be responsible for this very poorly written, uninformative article. There are a lot of unanswered questions in the piece that would leave only those who want to believe its credibility to not question it.
For instance, if the article was written by Human Rights Watch, why are they not coming out against Russia for not only torturing its people here, but also for giving them so-called "unfair trials"? Do they only care about human rights when the US is to blame? Are they not outraged by Russia's torture of these people simply because Russia is known to do it?
Why exactly and when exactly were these people tortured in Russia....and for what reason? Did it happen upon being returned by the US? Did it happen because they were detained by the US? Or could it be that they were guilty of crimes they committed in Russia? Could it be that they were afraid to return there because they had committed crimes that would be dealt with upon being sent back? Information that I am reading (and I do not know whether they are credible or not so I won't post them just yet) tells me that these people are not at all innocent, and had every reason to fear being returned to Russia, where they knew that their actions would be dealt with.
Actually, read the article closely and you notice:
The US government says that Russian authorities promised to prosecute the detainees on terrorism charges and to treat them humanely. They did neither. After three months in Russian custody, during which they were not abused, all seven ex-detainees were released and attempted to resume normal lives in Russia, which proved impossible.
Rasul Kudaev, a resident of Kabardino-Balkaria in southern Russia, was detained after an armed uprising in the provincial capital in October 2005.
He was detained AFTER being released for his part in an armed uprising in October 2005! It doesn't sound to me like this man's torture by his own country had anything at all to do with the United States.
This really gets me:
The US government has cleared some 80 detainees for release or transfer from Guantanamo, but continues to hold them in detention nevertheless. Human Rights Watch urged that any procedure to evaluate detainees’ fear of torture need not impede the pace of returns, or the ultimate goal of shuttering the Guantanamo detention facilities entirely.
Okay, so where exactly do they want us to return these people then? What a rediculous thing to say that they want detainees released, but just not to the countries where they are from.
Articles such as this that criticise the United States without subtantial information and evidence to support it are shallow and weak. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who simply want it to be true, and therefore believe it.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Apr 1, 2007 21:21:38 GMT -5
If you follow this link you will find many articles on torture in Russia, including a 43 page report on the 7 men that the US sent back to Russia even though they did not want to go back because they knew that they would be tortured. Link: www.hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=russiaHuman rights watch has many articles on human rights abuses, and reports that on torture investigations. ______________________________ I don't think the author was excusing Russia as much as saying that the US shouldn't send prisoners to countries in which torture is used even if they have assurances that this won't happen. I agree that this is a very poorly written article, it doesn't say very clearly what it is trying to get across and is a bit mixed up. I think the author wants the US to give the detainees a fair trail and figure out from there where they should go. The problem is so many of the detainees (with the way things are going now) may be there the rest of their lives without a trial. Their choice is to stay there (in a situation where they might be being mistreated) or be returned to their own country where they're 99.9% sure they will be tortured.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Apr 1, 2007 21:44:34 GMT -5
I just finished reading the report ( www.hrw.org/reports/2007/russia0307/5.htm#_Toc162429428 ) and realised how terribly that article was written. I encourage you to read it because Russia did torture these men just not right away but after they made up new crimes that these men were supposed to have committed (but didn't do).
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Apr 2, 2007 16:45:53 GMT -5
Leona, you and I will just have to disagree on this issue. You are much more willing than I am to read a report by Human Rights Watch or The United Nations and believe their findings. Much of that report was nothing more than the seven men's versions of what happened. That does not make it true. It also does not make these men innocent. It could be true, and they could be innocent. But really, it is only their side of the story.
The report needs to do a much better job of explaining why these men were detained. Also, they need to be more clear about the facts. Was there in fact an uprising or not? Was one of the men who was tortured actually involved or not? Or is he just saying that it was all made up?
I'm not going to defend Russia in any way because I think they are a pathetic government. But I still want to base my opinions soley on the facts. I need a lot more of them for me to formulate any kind of opinion at all. Otherwise, if you are going to say that:
" Russia did torture these men just not right away but after they made up new crimes that these men were supposed to have committed (but didn't do)"
I can just as easily say that:
"Russia never tortured these men at all."
Although I believe that the article was poorly written in not giving us much in the way of facts, I do believe it was very well written in getting its point across. The aim of the author was not at all to condemn the torture of these men by calling the world to the attention of what Russia had done to them, but rather to skirt around the issue and blame the United States for it. For that, he definately accomplished his goal.
I have to agree with Canada with regard to the international detainee policy set forth by the Human Rights Watch. Canada's Supreme Court has agreed to Human Rights Watch's international policy, with the exception that in certain cases Canada would have to put its own security first; meaning that to send detainees back to their countries at the risk of torture may outweigh any obligation to the international policy. Canada has been roundly criticised for this.....but I agree wholeheartedly with Canada here.
The United Nations and Human Rights Watch too often try to dictate their foreign policy onto other countries, and for that reason I think they are completely wrong. The United States, The United Kingdon and Canada can come under all the criticism they do, but they still have the right to determine their own foreign affairs. I do not believe that any of these three nations purposely try to violate human rights to anyone.
I believe that the UN and Human Rights Watch are political bodies, and for that reason I am very leery of what they publish.
When I have good reason to believe that Human Rights Watch truly cares about human rights around the world, then I will truly care about what they have to say about it.
Blaming the United States for what Russia did does not go over very well with me. It's like blaming a business for homelessness because they fire a person who never makes another attempt to find work and winds up on the street.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Oct 18, 2007 20:57:56 GMT -5
U.S. legislators apologize to Maher Arar Last Updated: Thursday, October 18, 2007 | 9:54 PM ET CBC News Maher Arar received a public apology from U.S. lawmakers on Thursday for being detained by the U.S. and deported to Syria, where he was tortured and interrogated on false terrorism allegations.
The apologies came during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing convened to discuss his deportation.
"Let me personally give you what our government has not: an apology," Democrat Bill Delahunt said as he opened the hearing.
"Let me apologize to you and the Canadian people for our government's role in a mistake."
Republican Dana Rohrabacher also apologized, but said he would fight any efforts by Democrats to end the practice of so-called extraordinary rendition, whereby people suspected of terrorism are grabbed by government agents and taken to another country where local authorities may torture them.
"Yes, we should be ashamed" of what happened in the case, Rohrabacher said.
"That is no excuse to end a program which has protected the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of American lives."
Democrat Jerrold Nadler, who apologized to Arar, described his ordeal as "a kidnapping."
He also said that he saw all of the classified information on the case on Wednesday, and that while he couldn't talk specifics, he said "there is nothing there."
"I am not at liberty to reveal all the classified information, but I am at liberty to say … there is nothing there that justifies the campaign of vilification against your name … or justifies denying you entry into this country or characterizing you as a terrorist in any way."
Arar testified via video-link at the hearing since he is barred from entering the U.S., even though a Canadian public inquiry has cleared him of any connection with terrorism.
He thanked legislators for their apology before launching into the now familiar but still harrowing description of his ordeal.
He described the tiny, unlit "grave-like" cell where he was kept away from his family for nearly a year, and the physical and mental torture he suffered.
"I feel it is my obligation and moral duty as a human being to help prevent what happened to me from happening to other people," his statement read.
It was Arar's first appearance before a government body in the U.S.
Arar, a Canadian citizen who was born in Syria, was stopped at a New York airport on his way home from a vacation in September 2002.
U.S. officials accused him of links to al-Qaeda and deported him to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured for months.
Judge Dennis O'Connor, who led the public inquiry into the Arar case, said that misleading information provided by the RCMP "very likely" paved the way for U.S. officials to send Arar to Syria.
In January, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology to Arar while announcing he will receive $12.5 million in compensation.
The package includes $10.5 million for pain and suffering and another $2 million for Arar's legal fees.
|
|