Arar interlude

Pretending I'm a reporter again was too fun, so I did one more Google News search. There's an article about Jean Chretien in the National Review that mentions the Arar case. I was interested in what a right wing magazine's take on it would be, wondering if they'd give a plausible defense of the administration from someone more willing than I am to give them the benefit of the doubt. Instead we get this:

The reaction of the Liberal party to Akkal's arrest echoed the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen arrested by U.S. authorities in September 2002 and deported to Syria due to his alleged ties to al Qaeda. The Canadian government expressed outrage that the U.S. would actually deport a suspected terrorist from American soil without first consulting his home country.

This is actively misleading. There is no mention of the fact that Arar was changing plans at JFK airport. This was his only time in the U.S.--unless you count the prison where he was held. And before you clear passport control/immigration at an international airport, you are legally not inside the United States; you are in a "port of entry." Otherwise the Fourteenth Amendment & parts of the Bill of Rights would apply whether you were a citizen or not--so it would have been clearly illegal to deny him access to an attorney, for one thing. (That might be illegal anyway, but I've got to look it up; the expedited removal procedure is complicated.) Arar was never on U.S. soil.

They were even more miffed that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who continue to solider on in the fight against terrorism in the face of zero governmental support, may have provided information that assisted in Arar's arrest. Not surprisingly, Arar, who has since been released from Syrian custody and returned to Canada, became a cause celebre amongst Liberal-party officials while imprisoned. Jean Chretien even wrote a letter to Arar's wife vowing to "press the Syrian government for his release and return to Canada as soon as possible," adding, "We will not relent." Paul Martin, for his part, has called Arar's deportation by the U.S. "simply unacceptable" and declared that "the Canadian passport will be respected" by the U.S. as it pursues suspected terrorists.

Hmm. What's missing from this?
1. There is zero mention, zero, of Arar's allegations of torture. They are not refuted in any way, they are simply ignored.
2. The author completely brushes by the key question--deportation, fine, but why deportation to Syria and not Canada or Zurich (where his previous plane connection was)?
3. The whole thing--even the successful attempt to get Arar released from his hole in the ground in Syria--is treated as yet another example of fuzzy-headed Euro/Canadian liberals' naivete. Yes, there those hopeless appeasers go again, getting all "miffed" (yes, miffed) about the possibility that their closest ally condoned the torture of one of their citizens.

I am underwhelmed. Not so surprised, but underwhelmed.

Comments

[toby]

seems to me that the article was an attack on chretien first and foremost. It appears that Erick Stakelbeck thinks Canada's questioning of the Isreali and US policing techniques applied to suspected terrorists who are also Canadian citizens are suspect at best.

the fact that Arar was tortured doesnt help his arguement. and pointing out that Akkal is an admitted member of Hamas who received weapons only furthers Stakelbeck's main point - the Canadians havent a clue what they are doing and thank god Chretien is gone so now maybe the US can bully Canada into doing what Bush wants.

[toby]

didnt mean to post this as I get your point on all the interesting details simply skipped over in order to compose that article. I was just trying to avoid the work calling my name.

[Stu]

Just want to echo the thanks in the comments to an earlier Arar post - good work, the arrest and deportation were shameful, and shouldn't be swept under the rug.

A note about Chretien's departure - Paul Martin, while more conservative, and possibly more liked by the whitehouse crew, has a dilemna. It's necessary to improve relations with America, but he also needs to get elected. IMO, most Canadians feel angry/resentful about Bush and co., and were glad that Chretien was standing up to them. If Martin starts acting like a toadie, he's going to get a rough ride at the polls.

I imagine that there are a few other democracies where the wrath of the electorate about insults delivered by Bush is fueling public posturing by their leaders.