At last, an inquiry (Arar #21)

(21st in a series. In case you don't like scrolling up from the bottom of the page, here are links to the previous posts in chronological order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.)

As Paul noted in the comments to my last post, Canada has announced a public inquiry into the Arar case.

It will not surprise anyone that I think this is an important, and long overdue, step. I can only hope that:
1) the truth, or at least more of it, comes out, and
2) this leads to more examination of this case in the United States.

Unfortunately, I don't think #2 is likely. From the AP story above:

O'Connor will not be able to force U.S. authorities to participate in the inquiry. A public investigation into how intelligence on both sides of the border tracks suspected terrorists is not expected to be welcomed by Washington.

.

Someone asked State Department spokesman Richard Boucher about this at a press briefing today:

QUESTION: Today, the Canadian Government announced it will conduct an inquiry into the deportation of Mr. Arar, who was the Syrian-Canadian who was deported to Syria by U.S. authorities and was tortured there. To which extent is the U.S. going to cooperate with that investigation?

And also, do you think that the U.S. Government is willing to acknowledge it made a mistake in deporting Mr. Arar at this point?

MR. BOUCHER: The United States, I think, has made clear that we acted responsibly in the matter. The President has also made clear, when he met with Prime Minister Martin, that this would be a matter where we would cooperate and consult closely on in the future with the Canadian Government.

I think we have also made clear that we will cooperate and work with the Canadian Government if there are inquiries or other things that they want to address to us.

So we saw the announcement on the Canadian side. I don't think there's really anything new to say from our side.

Comments

[Mark S.]

Five minutes' search on state.gov shows one taken question and a two-minute dialogue with Canadian reporters on 7 November 2003 in which essentially the spokesman says I don't know what the heck happened there, don't ask me.

Perhaps when Amb. Boucher says "we've talked about this so many times," he means with his staff, over drinks at the Watergate or something.

[Katherine]

Yeah, I found almost no transcripts.

[Robert McClelland]

The inquiry was called in order to deflect all the criticism aimed at the Liberals. Now Paul Martin won't have to face any tough questions on this until after the election.

[Stu]

Maybe. But at least we may find out what role the Security Service/RCMP had in this, if any. Maybe.