home

Canadian Authorities Investigating U.S. Officials Over Torture of Maher Arar

Today, the Supreme Court denied cert in Maher Arar's civil suit against U.S. officials for damages resulting from his seizure at JFK airport while changing planes and subsequent delivery to Syria where he was held for a year and tortured.

This afternoon, the Center for Constitutional Rights advised that following the Supreme Court's refusal, attorneys for Maher Arar disclosed for the first time that the RMCP (Royal Mounted Canadian Police) have been investigating the actions of both Syrian and U.S. officials for the past year. (Canada long ago apologized to Mr. Arar and paid him $ 9 million for having provided the U.S. with inaccurate information about him. The Obama Administration sided with the Bush Administration in Arar's lawsuit and refused to pay him anything or to conduct an investigation into the conduct of U.S. officials.) [More...]

The Supreme Court's action today refused to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was decided on the legal ground that Congress, not the courts, must authorize a remedy.

As a result, the substance of Mr. Arar’s case, first filed in January 2004, has never been heard and now never will be.

Mr. Arar said today of the Supreme Court's decision:

Mr. Arar said, “Today's decision eliminates my last bit of hope in the judicial system of the United States. When it comes to ‘national security’ matters the judicial system has willingly abandoned its sacred role of ensuring that no one is above the law. My case and other cases brought by human beings who were tortured have been thrown out by U.S. courts based on dubious government claims. Unless the American people stand up for justice they will soon see their hard-won civil liberties taken away from them as well.”

Law Prof. David Cole, who is affiliated with CCR, says:

"The courts have regrettably refused to right the egregious wrong done to Maher Arar. But the courts have never questioned that a wrong was done. They have simply said that it is up to the political branches to fashion a remedy. We are deeply disappointed that the courts have shirked their responsibility. But this decision only underscores the moral responsibility of those to whom the courts deferred – President Obama and Congress – to do the right thing and redress Arar's injuries."

Mr. Arar alleged in his civil suit that U.S. officials conspired with Syrian officials:

Mr. Arar alleges that the U.S. officials named in the suit conspired with Syrian officials to have him tortured in Syria, delivered Mr. Arar to his torturers, provided them with a dossier on him and questions to ask him, and obtained the answers tortured out of him. The legal arguments in the case revolved around whether U.S. officials can be sued for damages if that is the only remedy available to the victim, whether the officials acted “under color of foreign law” when they conspired with Syria to have Mr. Arar tortured there, and whether Mr. Arar has a right to pursue his claims under the Fifth Amendment and the Torture Victim Protection Act.

Said CCR Senior Attorney Maria LaHood, “The Supreme Court has effectively condoned torture by denying Maher’s right to seek a remedy. It is now up to President Obama and Congress to apologize to Maher for what the Bush administration did to him, to make clear that our laws prohibiting torture apply to everyone, including federal officials, and to hold those officials accountable.”

As to the news that Canada is investigating the actions of U.S. officials, CCR says:

“The U.S. should be conducting its own criminal investigation of the officials responsible for sending an innocent man to Syria for a year to be interrogated under torture, not covering for them. Again, the Canadians are doing the right thing by criminally investigating not only Syrian officials, but officials from the U.S. as well. The Obama administration should look to the Canadian example and do what's right - apologize to Maher and hold his torturers accountable.”

What should the Obama adminstration do? CCR says the Obama Administration and Congress can and must:

  • Acknowledge the wrong done to Maher Arar in a public apology;
  • Remove Maher Arar from the Watch List;
  • Appoint outside special counsel to investigate and prosecute crimes relating to Maher Arar’s rendition;
  • Remedy the harm done to Maher Arar; and
  • Ensure that the U.S. does not send anyone to torture or arbitrary detention again.

You can send a letter to Obama and Congress telling them to do right by Maher Arar here.

Our past coverage of Mr. Arar's case is assembled here.

< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | U.S. Mayors Blast AZ Immigration Law While AZ Repubs Try to Ignore Constitution >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What happened (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:25:19 AM EST
    This is my understanding. If I am wrong, please provide evidence.

    He was placed on the terrorist list by Canadian authorities. He was arrested/picked up while changing planes at JFK.

    He was questioned by the US and offered to Canadian authorities. They declined to accept him back in the country.

    He was given an immigration type hearing in which no one from the Canadian consulate or embassy showed up.

    Since he had dual citizenship, Canadian and Syrian, he was deported to Syria.

    He has claimed torture by the Syrians. I have no idea as to the truth of this. Canada has paid him money because they were the ones who wrongly, they now acknowledge, put him on the list.

    Given the relationship between Syria and the US I have a great deal of difficulty believing there was the cooperation he claims between the two countries.

    well jim, (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:53:22 AM EST
    Given the relationship between Syria and the US I have a great deal of difficulty believing there was the cooperation he claims between the two countries.

    that's why we have trials, to determine the facts and administer justice.

    what you (or i) believe or don't is irrelevant, it's only the facts that count.

    Parent

    I did not have time yesterday to respond to (none / 0) (#11)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 09:21:45 AM EST
    your comments, but your interpretation of the events is so flawed that it deserves rebuttal.

    First, see Glenn Greenwald here, for the document that outlines the sequence of events:

    The Canadian company Arar worked for called him back from Tunisia; he left there on 9/25/02, via Switzerland and NY.

    When he arrived at JFK in NY on 9/26, he was detained for 8 hours for questioning and transported to another site.

    On 9/27, he was questioned for 5 hours by the FBI.  He repeatedly asked to make a phone call or see a lawyer, and was denied both.  He's taken off to a holding cell and receives food for the first time since he landed at JFK.  Later, he is given the opportunity to voluntarily return to Syria, but he refuses because he fears being tortured.  He requests that he be returned to Canada or Switzerland.  INS tells him the US has a "special interest" in him, asks him to sign a form, but doesn't allow him to see the contents of the form.  He is transferred to the MDC in Brooklyn.  Requests for phone call or lawyer are refused the first three days he is there.

    On 10/1, the INS initiates removal proceedings on the basis of the (erroneous) belief that he is a member of al-Qaeda.  Arar finally gets to make a phone call.  He calls his mother-in-law, who contacts the Canadian Office of Consular Affairs.  Canadian Consulate had not been informed of the detention by US officials.

    On 10/3, someone from the Canadian Consulate visits Arar, and assures him that removal to Syria is not an option.

    On 10/4, Arar designates Canada as the country to which he wishes to be removed.

    On 10/5, he has his one and only meeting with counsel.

    On 10/6, he is taken in chains and shackles to be interrogated by 7 INS officials for 6 hours, regarding his reasons for not wanting to be removed to Syria.  Arar's counsel was not provided notice of the interrogation, and he alleges that US officials led him to believe that his attorney chose not to attend the interrogation.  Arar is informed that INS is discussing his case with Washington.  They ask him to sign what looks like a transcript and he refuses.

    On 10/7, Arar's attorney gets two phone calls: (1) telling counsel that Arar was taken for processing to INS facility in Manhattan and (2) that he would eventually be placed in detention in NJ, and counsel can call the next morning to find out his exact whereabouts.  Arar alleges he never left the MDC facility in Brooklyn.  The regional INS director determines that Arar is "clearly and unequivocally" a member of al-Qaeda and inadmissible to the US on the grounds that he is a danger to US security.

    On 10/8, Arar learns that the regional INS director has ordered him removed to Syria.  Arar pleads for reconsideration, to no avail.  He is then taken to an airfield and flown to Jordan.  The Jordanian authorities then hand Arar over to the Syrians.  The Canadian government is not informed of Arar's removal, and his counsel still thinks he has been transferred to Manhattan, and could be in the NJ facility.  Arar alleges that the Syrians refused to accept him directly from the US, which is why the interim transfer was to the Jordanians.

    The Final Notice of Inadmissibility ordered Arar removed without any further inquiry before an immigration judge.

    Now, how did Arar first come to the attention of the Canadian authorities?

    The commission found that Mr. Arar first came to police attention on Oct. 12, 2001, when he met with Abdullah Almalki, a man already under surveillance by a newly established Mounted Police intelligence unit known as Project A-O Canada. Mr. Arar has said in interviews that the meeting at Mango's Cafe in Ottawa, and a subsequent 20-minute conversation outside the restaurant, was mostly about finding inexpensive ink jet printer cartridges.

    The meeting set off a chain of actions by the police. Investigators obtained a copy of Mr. Arar's rental lease. After finding Mr. Almalki listed as an emergency contact, they stepped up their investigation of Mr. Arar. At the end of that month, the police asked customs officials to include Mr. Arar and his wife on a ''terrorist lookout'' list, which would subject them to more intensive question when re-entering Canada.

    However, the commission found that the designation should have only been applied to people who are members or associates of terrorist networks. Neither the police nor customs had any such evidence of that concerning Mr. Arar or his wife, an economist.

    From there, the Mounted Police asked that the couple be included in a database that alerts United States border officers to suspect individuals. The police described Mr. Arar and his wife as, the report said, ''Islamic extremists suspected of being linked to the al Qaeda movement.''

    The commission said that all who testified before it accepted that the description was false.

    According to the inquiry's finding, the Mounted Police gave the F.B.I. and other American authorities material from Project A-O Canada, which included suggestions that Mr. Arar had visited Washington around Sept. 11 and had refused to cooperate with the Canadian police. The handover of the data violated the force's own guidelines, but was justified on the basis that such rules no longer applied after 2001.

    In July 2002, the Mounted Police learned that Mr. Arar and his family were in Tunisia, and incorrectly concluded that they had left Canada permanently.

    On Sept. 26, 2002, the F.B.I. called Project A-O and told the Canadian police that Mr. Arar was scheduled to arrive in about one hour from Zurich. The F.B.I. also said it planned to question Mr. Arar and then send him back to Switzerland. Responding to a fax from the F.B.I., the Mounted Police provided the American investigators with a list of questions for Mr. Arar. Like the other information, it included many false claims about Mr. Arar, the commission found.

    The Canadian police ''had no idea of what would eventually transpire,'' the commission said. ''It did not occur to them that the American authorities were contemplating sending Mr. Arar to Syria.''

    While the F.B.I. and the Mounted Police kept up their communications about Mr. Arar, Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs was not told about his detention for almost three days. Its officials, acting on calls from worried relatives, had been trying to find him. Similarly, American officials denied Mr. Arar's requests to speak with the Canadian Consulate in New York, a violation of international agreements.

    Evidence presented to the commission, said Paul J. J. Cavalluzzo, its lead counsel, showed that the F.B.I. continued to keep its Canadian counterparts in the dark even while an American jet was carrying Mr. Arar to Jordan. The panel found that American officials ''believed -- quite correctly -- that, if informed, the Canadians would have serious concerns about the plan to remove Mr. Arar to Syria.''

    Link

    I can think of no credible reason why the US government has not apologized to Mr. Arar, nor do I have a credible explanation why the Obama administration has fought Mr. Arar's appeals.

    Our government is, apparently, not accountable to anyone, for anything, no matter how glaring and egregious its actions, and is now solidifying the position that redress via the judicial system is simply not an option.


    Parent

    Thanks for the response. (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 02:16:15 PM EST
    Some thoughts.

    First, we know from your link, and other sources that the US  was told by Canada that Arar:

    "From there, the Mounted Police asked that the couple be included in a database that alerts United States border officers to suspect individuals. The police described Mr. Arar and his wife as, the report said, ''Islamic extremists suspected of being linked to the al Qaeda movement.''

    So the US reacted:

    On Sept. 26, 2002, the F.B.I. called Project A-O and told the Canadian police that Mr. Arar was scheduled to arrive in about one hour from Zurich. The F.B.I. also said it planned to question Mr. Arar and then send him back to Switzerland. Responding to a fax from the F.B.I., the Mounted Police provided the American investigators with a list of questions for Mr. Arar. Like the other information, it included many false claims about Mr. Arar, the commission found.

    Now, we have a dispute about whether or not Arar was "offered" to be sent to Canada. But there is no dispute among the Canadians that they were told that he would be sent back to Switzerland. Yet they took no action, claiming:

    The Canadian police ''had no idea of what would eventually transpire,'' the commission said. ''It did not occur to them that the American authorities were contemplating sending Mr. Arar to Syria.''

    Now let's consider that. They were told he would not be allowed in the US but they did not protest. That demonstrates a decided lack of interest.

    Evidence presented to the commission, said Paul J. J. Cavalluzzo, its lead counsel, showed that the F.B.I. continued to keep its Canadian counterparts in the dark even while an American jet was carrying Mr. Arar to Jordan. The panel found that American officials ''believed -- quite correctly -- that, if informed, the Canadians would have serious concerns about the plan to remove Mr. Arar to Syria.''

    I have to wonder what this evidence was and why it wasn't brought forward. In the news article it is, at best, a claim.

    And the distinct smell of a CYA is there.

    The Commission also found no evidence that Canadian officials acquiesced in the U.S. decision to detain and remove Mr. Arar to Syria, but that it is very likely that the U.S. relied on inaccurate and unfair information about Mr. Arar that was provided by Canadian officials.

    Link

    Then we have this:

    "Canadian officials have said Mr. Arar was deported without benefit of a lawyer. The lawyer chosen by Mr. Arar on the advice of Canadian consular representatives didn't show up for the dual Syrian-Canadian citizen's immigration hearing Oct. 7 in New York, an official said last week."

    This shows that Canada "knew" that he was being deported and exhibited almost zero interest.

    "Normally, a U.S. immigration court would deport a foreign citizen back to his last point of departure -- in this case Zurich -- but Mr. Arar was ordered sent to Syria. Mr. Arar's supporters in Canada have said he could face severe punishment in Syria because he avoided compulsory military service before leaving the country for Canada as a teenager."

    TalkLeft 10 22 02

    So I continue to believe that RMCP did not want Arar back and either said so directly or dithered and did not try and stop the stated intentions of the US. The US was solving one of their problems.

    As to the other, I cannot reconcile why we would send a person we think is a terrorist to a country that we know that supports terrorism in various forms for "questioning." Doesn't pass my "reasonable" filter. Any information we received would be useless.

    I think it was a tragic mistake by Canadian officials. Our actions were reasonable and proper based on what we knew at that time.


    Parent

    Believe what you want. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 03:37:23 PM EST
    Whether this was a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, or the US relying on the information that suited their purposes, there simply was not enough time, enough due diligence, enough due process in the scant two weeks between Arar's arrival in NY and his transfer to Syria for anyone to have been fully satisfied that this man belonged in the hands of a government whom no one believed was not going to torture him.

    If the US had the case they said they did, there was no reason for them to deliberately mislead and withhold information from Arar's attorney or the Canadian government.  

    None.

    Parent

    What you believe are some claims (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 06:42:38 PM EST
    made by his attorney and some artful dodging by the RMCP regarding what they didn't do, which is inform their government what the US planned to do.

    Sounds to me like INS decided that this guy wasn't going to tell them anything, and based on the information they had from Canada, decided to send him to his place of Citizenship, Syria.

    We will just have to disagree at this point. But who knows. Maybe someone will release some new information at some point.

    Parent

    Canada did not refuse Arar (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ed M on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 07:16:29 AM EST
    This is my understanding. If I am wrong, please provide evidence. ... He was questioned by the US and offered to Canadian authorities. They declined to accept him back in the country.

    This is incorrect.  The United States asked Canada whether or not Canada would detain Mr. Arar if he was sent on to Canada.  The Canadians replied that if there was no evidence to detain him they could not hold him.  In other words he was allowed into Canada but the Canadians would not arrest him.  From the Arar Inquiry final report

    During this conversation, the FBI official said that the Americans feared they did not have sufficient information to support charges against Mr. Arar, and they would therefore be looking into deporting him. He informed Corporal Flewelling that Mr. Arar was a dual citizen and had asked to be deported to Canada. He also said that Washington wanted to know about the RCMP's interest in Mr. Arar (i.e., was the RCMP able to charge him) and if it could refuse him entry into Canada. Corporal Flewelling told the FBI official that if an individual 168 FACTUAL BACKGROUND: VOLUME I has Canadian citizenship, and there is not enough evidence to support charges in the United States, let alone Canada, it is likely that the person could not be refused entry into the country.

    This quote is part of a larger section entitled "Detention in the United States" [Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar - Factual Background - Vol I, Addendum] which covers the Canadian actions during the time Mr. Arar was detain in the US.

    Parent

    this could get...........interesting. (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 11:10:57 PM EST
    what happens if the canadian authorities, after investigating, determine sufficiant probable cause for issuing arrest warrants, for US public officials, and request that US authorities  detain and extradite them to canada, for trial?

    one country's politics is another's criminal acts.

    I guess the question I would have for (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:00:10 AM EST
    the Obama administration is, why?  Why hasn't it righted what is clearly a wrong?  Is this all about protecting the Bush administration from its actions?

    The sad thing is that, taken in isolation, it makes no sense at all; taken as a whole that includes all the other things the Obama administration is doing and has done on this front, and the way it has consistently defended the Bush administration's actions and policies, it makes perfect sense.

    I think we, as a nation, and the democracy, are the worse for it, but apparently the overriding factor is one of power - power that no one who could do something to check it, or who has the responsibility to do so, has shown any particular interest in.

    The bar was lowered (none / 0) (#4)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:18:13 AM EST
    I'm not surprised that this administration continues to defend the Bush policies. Once civil liberties have been surrendered, they're very difficult to restore. (Particularly with the Supreme Court we are living with).

    Sad but true, I expect future administrations to continue and expand their reach. Under the guise of "National Security" the power grab is unlimited.

    reply to mmc and cp (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:31:01 PM EST
    Before we have a trial we might try and determine what crime is thought to have been committed by something called a GRAND JURY.

    It looks to me like his rights were protected.

    The US tried to give him to Canada, who did not want him because he was on their terrorist list.

    He was given a hearing and then deported to Syria, which was the other country he is a citizen.

    What was the US supposed to do? Release him into the general population in the US?

    Remember. He was on Canada's list. Talk to them, not us.

    But if you have some proof, let's see it.

    Accountability (none / 0) (#7)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:08:40 PM EST
    If our government is so confident that they did nothing wrong, why are they afraid to open it to investigation?

    Washington continues to stone wall or bury any attempt at accountability on so many fronts. It leads me to believe that the truth is probably far worse than what we've been allowed to hear.

    jimakaPPJ: You reference that we are a nation of laws quite often in your posts. Don't you feel that our own govvernment should be held to the same standards?


    Investigation by who? And why? (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:49:10 PM EST
    These are "claims."

    The facts speak for themselves.

    If you can show otherwise please do so. If you cannot then all you have is a belief.

    Tell me. What crime do you believe the US did?

    Parent

    Who needs a warrant? (none / 0) (#9)
    by mcl on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 04:56:10 AM EST
    Canada can invite the drunk-driving C student and his torturer sidekick Cheney to one of their big universities to receive honorary doctorates for their magnificent public service. Once the pair arrive at the university, hoods get dropped over their heads and they're flown off to undisclosed locations in a third world country for "enhanced interrogation" until they confess to murder in the first degree, kidnapping, conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, assault, depraved indifference, and grievous bodily harm with special circumstances (torture).

    After all, as law professor Jonathan Turley pointed in this article, laws don't matter any more in America, so what's the difference?

    comment in response deleted (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 08:57:08 AM EST
    watch the insults, please. A comment by Jim was just deleted.

    Parent