Bacchus Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Maher Arar please before flaming me for an anti-american, take some time to ponder this: I was watching the news today and came across this one (i'm looking for the english version but so far i've been unssucessful. I'll post the link as soon as i find one): This isn't the verbatim, just my translation... US gov basically told Can gov that it was expectating full disclosure of all canadian citizens files as canada effort in the war on terror. but: USA won't disclose what it does or how it interprets the data.USA won't be held responsible for actions or file on canadian citizens following a "guilty" or "suspicious" verdict.USA won't share informations with Canada on any intel on or about canadian citizen.USA won't give out any explanations for its actions agaisnt canadian citiens. Basically, a canadian under suspicion will be treated by the USA justice but without any "american" rights. a canadian citizen won't be protected in any way by the american cons!@#$%^&*ution or bill of right (or else) and won't benefit from any help from his own country because USA won't cooperate with Canada courts of law. I'm not sure how to react to this... I understand why extraordinary measures are taken to protect citizen from unwanted harm but this is well...can't find words. I post Arar case because the news was a result of Arar trying to understand why he was deported to Syria (where he was held captive and tortured by his own account) and not to Canada. It seems that USA had a policies about Canada which Canada wasn't aware of.
Guest Recombo Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 We will probably never know. The US doesn't disclose these things when it feels it is of high sensitivity. Not much anyone will be able to do. He was deported by the US, but obviously Syria has cooperated by taking their own action against this individual. Syria is not a strong ally of the US (as strong as say Italy or the Brits) but their compliance indicates to us that there was something substantial to rectify. Remember, he was deported to Syria. The US didn't imprison him, torture him, or kill him. They left him to be dealt with by the Syrians. THE SYRIANS. The US trusted another government in full to deal with the individual as they felt necessary. They didn't put sanctions on Syria, or threaten to bomb them if they didn't do something. There was mutual agreement by Syria, Canada, and the US about this person.
MonteZuma Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 He was taken to Syria to be interrogated using methods that are illegal in the US (ie torture). There was no mutual agreement with Canada. The process is called "rendering". The people that authorise this activity should be punished for crimes against humanity.
Bacchus Posted September 22, 2004 Author Report Posted September 22, 2004 anyhow, it seems that I (as an exemple) could be deemed "suspicious" or "terroristic" because of my political ideas. I could be investigated, thrown in jail, questionned, deported to Syria, tortured and sent back to Canada without having any rights, no protection, no counseling. In other words, USA just cast a shadow over my free will and freedom of speech...i "feel" like i have no rights in USA and it's supposed to be my allies and i'm a lawful canadian citizen. Am i making any sense now? It's just really distressful (spl) to understand that my fate might depend on an american custom agent's interpretation of my "personal files"... I talked about it with a lot of people tonite (i'm a bartender irl) and we were all quite err...mindful/anxious about it. none of us will travel to the USA any time soon. That's sad.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 Heh, whats sad bacchus is your paranoia.. I doubt the US will be sending you to syria for torture anytime soon. If you don't have any ties to terrorists you wouldn't have anything to worry about.
Vile Requiem Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 Just don't get caught up in the #1 fascist talking point: "If you aren't , then why are you worried?" It's a loss of rights no matter how you look at it, paticularly when said country is "leader of the free world".
Bacchus Posted September 22, 2004 Author Report Posted September 22, 2004 Heh, whats sad bacchus is your paranoia Look, I know I won't be arrested...it was an exemple. Do you have something relevant to say or do you just get your kick by being an -*BAD WORD*-? Have a nice day. Just like Vile said. I felt it like a loss of right and a clear exemple of non-cooperation between USA and Canada which resulted in my private life being at risk. USA asked for canadians data and an eye on every citizens personal file but those citizens can't benefits from their civil rights to refuse, neither can they ask the USA to disclose their analysis of their personal file. I do agree that cooperation is in order but this isn't quite cooperating.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 It's a loss of rights no matter how you look at it, paticularly when said country is "leader of the free world".Correct, it is a loss of rights, but the US as a nation has the right to protect itself. Sorry if you feel your rights are being violated, we're having to put up with it here in the US too. I'd rather have a bunch of drunk canadians upset about the US spying on them than an islamic fundamentalist crossing into the US from canada with the intent of terrorism. Look, I know I won't be arrested...it was an exemple. Do you have something relevant to say or do you just get your kick by being an -*BAD WORD*-? Have a nice day. Terribly sorry you feel this way, and I appologize for saying you're overly paranoid. Let me ask, what measures has the canadian government taken to ensure its safety from terrorism, and vicariously the protection of its close ally to the south?
MonteZuma Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 The US does not have the right to send people to third countries to be tortured.
white_0men Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 The US does not have the right to send people to third countries to be tortured.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think that needed to be repeated.
MonteZuma Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 Let me ask, what measures has the canadian government taken to ensure its safety from terrorism, and vicariously the protection of its close ally to the south?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>At the time of the 9/11 attacks, Canada accepted any and all international flights bound for the US, despite US fears that some might be carrying terrorists. Vicarious enough for you? Canada also made a sizable contribution to the International Security !@#$%^&*istance Force in Afghanistan. Just because a government refuses to offer direct military !@#$%^&*istance in Iraq doesn't mean that they aren't helping protect the US against terrorism. The sooner the US realises this the better off we'll be.
MasterDrake Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 wake up call Canada is helping they have provided some of thier military in Iraq. Oye -*BAD WORD*- people!
Dr.Worthless Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 Let me ask, what measures has the canadian government taken to ensure its safety from terrorism, and vicariously the protection of its close ally to the south? I knew the question would come off condesending, but it really was an honest question. What about ongoing security, I was aware they contributed to the forces in Afghanistan.
MonteZuma Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 What would you like them to do? Single-handedly invade Iran? Send all of their muslims to Syria for 'questioning'? I'd throw the question back to you and ask what you think they *should* be doing?
Dr.Worthless Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 What would you like them to do? Single-handedly invade Iran? Send all of their muslims to Syria for 'questioning'? I'd throw the question back to you and ask what you think they *should* be doing? First off, dont be an -*BAD WORD*-. Secondly, I believe reasonable effort would be to tighten down immigrant laws, increase border security, basically more measure to decrease the chances of a terrorist gaining access to Canada and getting into the US from their borders. Since you can't answer the question, I can only assume the answer would be "canada is doing nothing". Which honestly is what I expected, It wouldn't suprise me if the more liberal half of Canada wouldn't mind see'ing America going away all together.
MonteZuma Posted September 24, 2004 Report Posted September 24, 2004 First off, dont be an -*BAD WORD*-. Secondly, I believe reasonable effort would be to tighten down immigrant laws, increase border security, basically more measure to decrease the chances of a terrorist gaining access to Canada and getting into the US from their borders. Since you can't answer the question, I can only assume the answer would be "canada is doing nothing". Which honestly is what I expected, It wouldn't suprise me if the more liberal half of Canada wouldn't mind see'ing America going away all together.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>What is wrong with Canada's immigration laws and border security?
»Ducky Posted September 24, 2004 Report Posted September 24, 2004 What is wrong with Canada's immigration laws and border security?People are in this little rut where it's believed that everything needs changed and beefed up so they can feel safe.---> US Airlines <---At one point in time, I enjoyed flying. No longer though. Not out of fear, but from annoyance.I am more likely to be run over by a drunk driver than to be on an airplane being hijacked by a terrorist. This is a risk I take, but the US found it necessary to use billions and revamp the system.Waste of money.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 24, 2004 Report Posted September 24, 2004 What is wrong with Canada's immigration laws and border security? Friends of mine that live in Canada say that their immigration laws are fairly linient. They also say that the border crossing from Canada to the US is like traveling through fort gates. Another friend of mine living in Michigan says its nothing to go into canada, but a pain in the -*BAD WORD*- to get back through to america. I have no personal experience with this, can only go by second hand information from people I trust and have met personally, folks that are my friends.
A Soldier Posted September 24, 2004 Report Posted September 24, 2004 Another friend of mine living in Michigan says its nothing to go into canada, but a pain in the -*BAD WORD*- to get back through to america. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>But then, out of curiosity, is that not what you want?
MonteZuma Posted September 24, 2004 Report Posted September 24, 2004 Indeed Ducky. Many of the actions taken by governments in the name of national security and border protection around the world have cost billions and generated heat, but not much substance.
Aileron Posted September 24, 2004 Report Posted September 24, 2004 The problem here is simple: there is no section on terrorists in the Geneva conventions. What needs to be done is that the international community needs to get together and decide how to appropriately deal with them. In my opinion, terrorists should be treated in a similar way to spies. Execution should be permitted, as well as a limited amount of "roughing up". The reason for the latter is important, terrorists hold a large amount of information that could be used to save the lives of innocents. There is normally a mutuallity in pow relationships. Both sides takes prisoners, and returns them after the war. The problem here is that terrorists don't take prisoners and keep the alive, but find barbaric means of execution. They are also more like spies than soldiers. They wear civilian clothes and try to byp!@#$%^&* enemy military rather than fight them. What also needs to be done then is for there to be a clear definition of the term terrorist laid out. Maybe the US should have consulted Canada a little more, but with the spin Bacchus puts on everything, I have no idea what the real story is. I definitely don't pity this guy - terrorists are s-*BAD WORD*- and deserve to be treated as such. He could be innocent, but the evidence proving his guilt is no doubt classified. In my opinion, the CIA is a bunch of idiots, and they are causing almost all the problems. I mean seriously, why do we trust a civilian agency with such military matters?
MonteZuma Posted September 24, 2004 Report Posted September 24, 2004 If he was guilty he wouldn't have been returned to Canada. Roughing up people to extract information is a violation of human rights - no matter whether we are dealing with suspected spies or terrorists or soldiers. This dude should have been dealt with by the US legal system. This wasn't a Syrian matter. It wasn't even a military matter.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 24, 2004 Report Posted September 24, 2004 Roughing up people to extract information is a violation of human rights - no matter whether we are dealing with suspected spies or terrorists or soldiers.It really is a catch 22 though, how else would you go about getting needed information? Not that I condone that, its horrid, but if you were faced with the dilema "Get info out of this dude that could potentially save 1000's, how do i do it.." What would you do? Its a tough question. Another friend of mine living in Michigan says its nothing to go into canada, but a pain in the -*BAD WORD*- to get back through to america. But then, out of curiosity, is that not what you want? The point trying to be made here is perhaps Canada could beef up its border security.
Guest Recombo Posted September 24, 2004 Report Posted September 24, 2004 Oddly, the Canadians question US decisions to oust suspected terrorists yet sadly, they have never felt the cold wind of terrorism in their country. Does it take a terrorist to dive bomb a bloated 747 into Montreal or Calgary before you understand?
Recommended Posts