Talk:Maher Arar

Where is Syria?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Compensation

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

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)

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)

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)

"Alleged" torture

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

• We should include the evidence of the claim -- even if it is only this commission's finding.
  • There were never any wounds or scarring of any kind to back up Arar's claims.

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Re-worded

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)

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)

Presumed

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)

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)

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)

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)

Omar Khadr testimony

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removal of Omar Khadr reference in article introduction

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)

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)

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)

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)