"They told him yes, he could invent a story"

by Katherine

Von notes below that Syrian intelligence forces beat Maher Arar into falsely confessing that he had received terrorist training in Afghanistan. It's actually worse than that. Arar wasn't just tortured into a false confession in a Syrian prison. He also seems to have been sent to be tortured in Palestine Branch partly because of false confessions that two other Canadian citizens made under torture in the same prison.

Their names are Ahmad Abou El-Maati and Abdullah Almalki. Unlike Arar, they both traveled to Syria voluntarily. El-Maati flew to Damascus for an arranged marriage in November 2001. Almalki went there to visit relatives in May 2002. Both were arrested by Syrian intelligence forces when they arrived at the Damascus airport, and taken to a prison called the Palestine Branch. Both have since been released, returned to Canada, and given detailed chronologies of their experiences in Syria to their lawyers. (Here is a PDF of El-Maati's chronology; here is a PDF of Almalki's).

As some of you know, I wrote my law school thesis on the Arar case. I am pasting a few of the most relevant excerpts below. For the sake of convenience, I am omitting my footnotes. The three major sources for this part were El-Maati's chronology, Almalki's chronology, and Arar's November 4, 2003 statement to the media.

El-Maati's first interrogation:

During his first interrogation session, when the Syrian intelligence officers found El-Maati's initial answers to their questions unsatisfactory, they threatened to imprison and rape his wife. El-Maati said he had told the truth and that he 'could not invent a story.' But, according to El-Maati,

[T]hey told him yes, he could invent a story.

They told him to strip naked except for his shorts and made him lie down, and hancuffed his hands behind his back to his legs. He was still blindfoled. They poured ice water all over him and brought in thick electrical cables and started beating him with them on his feet, legs, knees and back. They would occasionally stop and take him back to his cell. This continued for two days.

Ahmad broke down and agreed to say what they wanted him to say.

He was asked about Syrians he knew in Canada, including Abdullah Almalki and Maher Arar. He explained that he had met Arar only once, a brief meeting in a Montreal garage where El-Maati worked in 1998, and that he knew Almalki but not well. El-Maati's interrogators wanted him to say that he had been both Arar and Almalki in Afghanistan. Although El-Maati had only seen Almalki in Afghanistan, and had not spoken to him there, "In the end Ahmad said what he thought they wanted him to--that he had seen them both in Afghanistan." He falsely confessed to a plot with his brother to blow up Canada's Parliament in Ottawa. However, when his interrogators asked him to write down this confession, "he did not want to falsely implicate himself and his brother in writing" and wrote down a different, truthful account.

That night, when his interrogators discovered the discrepancy, three or four of them came to his cell and "dragged him..., kicking and beating him, back to the interrogation room. They handcuffed him, and started burning his shins with cigarettes...." The Syrian officials wanted El-Maati to write out a confession "in front of them, but he was having trouble thinking and was moving too slowly," which led to further abuse. El-Maati said that if they wrote out their version of events he would sign it. The guards took his suggestion. El-Maati was not allowed to read the document that he thumbprinted and signed.

Almalki's first interrogation session was, if anything, more brutal:

...Almalki was driven from the airport to the Palestine Branch, where the interrogations began almost immediately. One of the first questions he asked was whether he knew Ahmad El-Maati. When Almalki said he did not, his interrogator slapped him, and the violence quickly escalated. Almalki was ordered to lie face down on the flor with his hands behind his back and legs in the air. He was beaten with electrical cables on the soles of his feet for an extended period. Interrogators later told him that the session had lasted for seven hours and his feet had been lashed over 1000 times.

The first time Arar came up was on June 12, 2002 the 40th day of Almalki's imprisonment. Almalki's interrogators did not torture him during that session, and they asked him about 20 Canadians, not only Arar.

According to Almalki's chronology, he was tortured very, very severely for several days beginning on July 18 (see pages 20-22 of the PDF above for the details), and made a series of false confessions. On July 18, he falsely stated that he had received terrorist training in Afghanistan from an "Abou Ahmad" (I think this may be El-Maati). He was asked for other names, but "was not in any mental or physical shape to make anything up." When he was given a few hours of rest that night, he came up with a list of names to give to his interrogators.  The next day, though, he was treated even worse. Almalki collapsed repeatedly, and cannot remember the details of that session.

On September 26, 2002, Arar was detained while changing planes at JFK. Soon after, he became the focus of Almalki's interrogation sessions in Syria:

According to Almalki's chronology, on September 30, 2002,

Abdullah was taken from his cell to an interrogation room where [high ranking Palestine Branch intelligence officer George] Saloum and about five other interrogators were waiting to question him about Arar....They asked Abdullah to write in detail everything he knew about Maher, and then sent him back to his cell, warning that he better not have lied.

On October 1, 2002, Almalki "was called up again twice to be asked about Arar." On October 3,

Saloum questioned Abdullah again about Arar, and then asked an interrogator to question him and write down what he said. After he read the report, he asked if Arar had been in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Abdullah said no, not to his knowledge. Saloum instructed the interrogator to send the report before noon to headquarters, so they could it somewhere.

Saloum started threatening Abdullah, accusing him of lying. He said that if he was not from al-Qaeda, then he should tell him that someone else, like his brother is. Abdullah said again that he did not know anyone in al-Qaeda.

Saloum told him that Arar would be there soon, and that if he found out he had lied to him, he would put him in a barrel of excrement, reduce the food and drink he is allowed, and then put him in the chair until he was paralyzed. Abdullah said he had told him everything he knew and that if he wanted something else, he should give him a blank paper to sign and fill it himself. Saloum instructed the interrogator to torture him until he need to be hospitalized.[N.B.: Almalki's chronology does not describe this threat being carried out, and doesn't say whether he actually signed a blank piece of paper.]....

Abdullah was questioned again about Arar on October 7. 

If Almalki is telling the truth, the U.S. must have been exchanging information with Syrian intelligence during this time. The sudden focus on Arar four days after his detention cannot be a coincidence, and Saloum explicitly tells Almalki that Arar "will be there soon."

Almalki's account is consistent with other reports of the U.S. and Syria sharing intelligence on prisoners being interrogated at the Palestine Branch:

Syrian diplomat Imad Moustapha told 60 Minutes II that Syria had shared its reports about Arar with American intelligence, and that, "We always share information with anybody alleged to be in close contact with al-Qaeda with the United States." The New York Times reported on November 15, 2004, that "American officals who spoke on condition of anonymity...say [Arar] confessed under torture in Syria that he had gone to Afghanistan for terrorist training, named his instructors and gave other intimate details." In another known case of rendition to Syria, U.S. officials told Time Magazine that American agents in Damascus were submitting written questions for Syrian interrogators to ask al-Qaeda suspect Muhammad Haydar Zammar, and receiving reports of the interrogation sessions. Time reported in July 2002 that "State Department officials like the arrangement because it insulates the U.S. government from any torture the Syrians may be applying to Zammar." Zammar, like Arar, Almalki, and El-Maati, was held in an underground, tomb-like cell in the Palestine Branch.

According to the Arar Commission's recent report (specifically, pp. 157-160 of this PDF), the U.S. faxed Canadian authorities a series of questions about Arar on October 3, 2002. The Canadian police replied on October 4 that "a link analysis has yet to be completed on ARAR and while he has had contact with many individuals of interest to this project we are unable to indicate links to al-Qaida."

Despite this,the decision deporting Arar to Syria states that "Arar is a member of the designated foreign terrorist organization know as al-Qaeda." The only unclassified evidence that the INS gave for this finding were that Arar had admitted to associating with Abdullah Almalki and his brother Nazih Almalki; and that Arar had admitted to knowing Ahmad El-Maati.

There was also a Classified Addendum to the INS decision. According to the Arar Commission Report (p. 205 of the PDF I linked to above), "The Commission does not have a copy of the Classified Addendum, and none of the Canadian officials who testified at the Inquiry have seen it." The U.S. government invoked "states secrets privilege" to prevent this same classified addendum from being disclosed in Arar v. Ashcroft, arguing that it "contains numerous references to intelligence sources and methods" and "information that may have been received from foreign governments pursuant to an understanding of confidentiality."

Obviously, I have no way of knowing for sure what the Classified Addendum says--it's classified. I very strongly suspect, though, that it contains reports of El-Maati's and Almalki's interrogations in Syria.

***

Torture is bad enough. Detention without a hearing, without a chance to see the evidence against you, without a real opportunity to prove your innocence, is bad enough. When you combine the two, though, you get something exponentially worse: Blind alleys. Shattered lives. Allies betrayed. Enemies' worst lies about you proved true. A policy that is as stupid as it is immoral.

(edited for typos and formatting)

Comments

[Katherine]

are the italics better or worse to read than nested blockquotes would be?

[CharleyCarp]

It seems so piddling to say such a thing, in the company of such a thing, but blockquotes.

[liberal japonicus]

I think it is pretty readable. Katherine, I'm curious what you think about O'Connor's finding that he doesn't think the Canadians had any idea what was happening? Is it plausible or should we think that, like Italy in the CIA Nasr kidnapping, there were Canadians in on it?

[DaveC]

I'll really get people mad at me, but here goes:

What was with Khadr?

Mr. Almalki was a central suspect. His activities of the past decade understandably appeared suspicious. He had worked in Afghanistan, which was now al-Qaeda's home base. He was acquainted with Omar Said Khadr, now established as a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle. He sold communications equipment to Pakistan, some of which apparently had found its way into the hands of the Taliban. He had a friend, Mr. El-Maati, who was closely related to a wanted al-Qaeda terrorist. He travelled extensively.

Did Arar have contacts with Al Qaeda?

One U.S. official said yesterday that when apprehended at the airport, Arar had the names of "a large number of known al Qaeda operatives, affiliates or associates" in his wallet or pockets.

What about these various allegations here?

[spartikus]

DaveC, your citations are ancient. Arar has been completely exonerated.

[Katherine]

LJ, I think it is plausible. On the other hand I think Canada may have been sharing info. with Syria. They really should do a report on Almalki, El-Maati, and Nurredin (who I've never really discussed because he was detained after Arar).

DaveC, I don't really know much about Almalki's connections with Al Qaeda or extremists, if any, beyond the fact that he has been released and not charged. You might refer to his chronology; I believe he acknowledged working for the same charity as one of the Khadrs years ago. I don't remember the details. I can't keep the Khadrs straight.

Arguing about Arar's guilt will, as you say, just make me very angry. I would trust O'Connor's 1000 page report over anonymous quotes from U.S. officials in a single source.

[spartikus]

I would trust O'Connor's 1000 page report over anonymous quotes from U.S. officials in a single source.

And an anonymous quote from 2003, at that.

The full Arar Report, if your interested DaveC, here.

[liberal japonicus]

DaveC,
You did read the first article you gave us, not just scan for names? It's about Abdullah Almalki. The points about Khadr stand to contradict the accusation of Almalki, not reinforce it.

You do realize that the US official only states that in 2003 and, because his/her name is not given, is supplying this information on background. Why should we believe it? If it was information that was trueand had a bearing on the case, why is it not mentioned in the O'Connor report? (the section it should appear in is at page 149 in Vol 1)

The last link has the writer arguing that Arar deserves every dollar he can get out of the government. That presumes that the tribunal was correct, and that the points raised are not consequential.

[hilzoy]

Words fail. Again.

[Anarch]

Great. I was buzzed and happy. If I actually read this, I'd be depressed. Thanks a lot, Katherine.

[On the plus side, I have yet another thing to bring to my Senators' attention when I call.]

[Katherine]

Not that I would really know, but Arar himself seems to be doing a lot better these days. (That article was published before the report.)

[Jesurgislac]

DaveC, did you actually read Katherine's article before responding to it? Or did you just not want to let go of your ridiculous notion that torturing people makes them give up "useful information"?

[Monte Davis]

Time to read Darkness at Noon again.

[otherpaul]

I just listened to a CBC interview about the US Gov't's involvement in the Arar case. In the interview, James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation denied that there's any reason to believe that the US has tortured anyone or sent anyone to another country to be tortured.

The other person being interviewed (didn't catch his name but he's a NY lawyer) asked why it was, then, that the US Gov't is seeking broader powers to ... well, torture.

Carafano had a tantrum, yelling at the lawyer and then hanging up in the middle of the interview. The whole thing was incredible. The interview should be available on-line at http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/ in the next day or two.

[matttbastard]

Katherine: Yes, better, but still dealing with repercussions from his ordeal - and not just emotional:

Even en route to see the report that he hopes will clear his name, Maher Arar can’t escape the lens of the security spyglass.

It’s Saturday morning and Arar, baldly accused four years ago of terrorist ties, is anxiously waiting at the Kamloops, B.C., airport while a check-in clerk carefully screens him.

“I don’t know why I have to go through this all the time,” Arar says as the Air Canada staffer scrutinizes his ticket and driver’s licence, then makes a phone call.

The official eventually tells Arar he isn’t sure what caused the almost 15-minute delay.

“They wanted a security check,” the clerk explains. “We get them quite often. You’re not being singled out.”

But Arar is skeptical. Already uneasy, the experience makes him more fearful.

“I don’t know how to describe this feeling,” he says, motioning to his chest. “It’s here inside.”

[...]

The delay in Kamloops clearly spooks Arar. He wonders if he is still on a security watchlist.

“And if I am on a list, what kind of list? And who put me on this list, and why?”

Arar is especially unnerved because the last time he flew, from Ottawa to Edmonton he experienced the same sort of delay. And he spent the trip in the last row of the plane beside someone he strongly suspects was an undercover air marshal.

Arar’s inquiries to Air Canada didn’t answer his questions about that flight.

An airline spokesman was unavailable Sunday to discuss the Kamloops incident. It is known, however, that Air Canada checks passenger names against a U.S. security list, even on flights within Canada.

Marlys Edwardh, one of Arar’s lawyers, called the additional scrutiny of her client inexcusable, saying he should receive the same treatment as other Canadians. “I think it is ridiculous."

[Katherine]

The NY Times is getting warmer...

[KCinDC]

A better link to today's New York Times story, thanks to the link generator.

[Mohammed]

What of the prisoners that do deserve to be there?

[Jesurgislac]

Mohammed: What of the prisoners that do deserve to be there?

No one deserves to be held without a hearing and without a chance to see the evidence against them.

No one deserves to be tortured.

In law, the US is not permitted to send any prisoners to Syria - not even prisoners who have been convicted of a crime in an American court - because the US is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, and Syria is known to use torture on prisoners.

The answer to your question is mu: there are no such people in the world, no matter what they have done, therefore your question is unanswerable.

[trilobite]

More to the point, his question is pointless. We can't know which people may deserve to be held in Gitmo, a Syrian interrogation cell, or any similar hellhole, until after they are given a fair trial. We're not going to get a fair trial if we contaminate the results with confessions induced by torture.

I disagree, FWIW, that "no one deserves to be tortured." If we believe that bad deeds deserve bad treatment, then I have no trouble concluding that some deeds must be bad enough to deserve torture. Lex talionis ("eye for eye, hand for hand, foot for foot") suggests Bush deserves to be tortured, for example. But so what? "Treat every may according to his desert, and none shall 'scape whipping." I don't want to torture people because a) it does absolutely no good, b) it harms the souls of the torturers, including those who passively acquiesce in it, c) it breeds bad and sloppy habits, d) it produces lousy intelligence, e) it makes us hated and despised by good people whose help we need, and f) we are certain to torture some people who don't deserve it -- ESPECIALLY IF WE DON'T GIVE THEM A FAIR TRIAL FIRST!!!

[gwangung]

What of the prisoners that do deserve to be there?

This sort of response puts the cart before the horse, neh?

[Jesurgislac]

trilobite: More to the point, his question is pointless.

That's what mu means... ;-)

I disagree, FWIW, that "no one deserves to be tortured." If we believe that bad deeds deserve bad treatment, then I have no trouble concluding that some deeds must be bad enough to deserve torture.

I do. Once permit torture or capital punishment in a judicial system, and you skew the system. Prisoner A deserves to be tortured because he raped and murdered 11 little children because he was caught. Does Prisoner B deserve to be tortured because he raped and murdered only 2 little children before he was caught? Does Prisoner C deserve to be tortured because he murdered 5 children but did not rape them? Does Prisoner D deserve to be tortured because he raped 11 children but did not murder them? Does Prisoner E deserve to be tortured because she kidnapped 11 children and sold them - one to A, one to D, and the other 9 to adoptive parents who didn't know (they claimed) the children were stolen? Does Prisoner F deserve to be tortured because she acted as a lure for Prisoner C to get children? Does Prisoner G deserve to be tortured because Prisoner D worked for him for 40 years and G deflected the complaints of many worried parents? At what point do you draw the dividing line "What this person did was bad enough that we can now torture them!" Let's not. Permitting torture into the system at all is wrong. Tempting though it is to imagine Bush under torture, no, he doesn't deserve it - not least because (in his mind) it would turn him from hero to martyr.

This aside from your other point, which of course I completely agree with: we cannot torture people in any case, no matter how bad they are, because we cannot do that to the people who would be required to commit torture.