Should the U.S. government apologize to Maher Arar?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 2 2006, 06:51 AM) [snapback]326813[/snapback]</div>

What an odd question.

Let's take a vote. Who thinks that what I said needs more clarification:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 3 2006, 08:08 AM) [snapback]327294[/snapback]</div>

Well, I think its odd because it is presented in such a way as to seem to accuse me of something:

"Do you think it is bad policy because it would be better to torture innocent people in the US than send them to Syria? At least it would create some badly needed jobs here."

I get the sense that it's not a question geared toward learning about my views, but of pigeon-holing me into some preconceived notion you have about conservatives. Your implication is that I, being a conservative, would be more interested in job creation than human rights, and that I would advocate torture of innocent people. Kind of like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?"

So I'll answer the question you should have asked, without the loaded language:

Q. "Why do you think rendition is bad policy?"

Which I answered, I think, just a few posts back, on the same page, with this language:

A. "Rotten intelligence is a certainty, which is why I would much rather see detention in Gitmo, sans torture, than rendition for any of these guys. Even though we get assurances from all the countries that torture that they will NOT torture the people we render to them, we know that they do. This case is an example of that, if Mr. Arar's story is correct, and certainly a travesty if he's innocent."

So, I'm not sure why the question had to be asked in the first place. Other than to make a point of your own, rather than to find out what my views were.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 4 2006, 07:21 AM) [snapback]327792[/snapback]</div>

Again, I'm not sure what you are getting at, as I thought my statement was clear. Here's my statement again:

"Rotten intelligence is a certainty, which is why I would much rather see detention in Gitmo, sans torture, than rendition for any of these guys."

The phrase "sans torture" means "without torture." There is nothing in there, or that I have said, that should lead you to put words in my mouth that I would advocate torture for someone like Mr. Arar.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 9 2006, 08:52 AM) [snapback]330043[/snapback]</div>

How can it be? It is what I would prefer to see ... it has nothing to do with what is happening now, or has happened in the past. I did not say we don't torture people, and I didn't say we do torture people. Is it inconceivable that my statement could mean exactly what the words say? Or do you think America is so evil that it cannot possibly detain someone without torturing them?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 9 2006, 08:52 AM) [snapback]330043[/snapback]</div>

First, Canada has no moral authority to ask the US for an apology. It was on their faulty intelligence that he was detained, and his deportation was because they refused to take him from us. In retrospect, we did err in returning him to a place where they tortured him (even after they promised not to). We should have detained him until the issue was cleared up. Or publically embarrassed the incompetent Canadian authorities that identified him as a person with ties to terrorists.

Mr. Arar, however, does have the right to ask for an apology as part of a settlement; he is the aggrieved party. Canada is the "co-offender" in this case. They should accept responsibility and stop trying to deflect the blame.

I asked the question, but did not get an answer. In Canada, can a citizen sue the government? I suspect not, since the government is "considering" a compensation package. Governments that don't allow their citizens to sue them can toss apologies around all over the place because talk is cheap. They can issue their apology, and the person is still financially devastated. Knowing about the limits for things like pain and suffering in Canada, Mr. Arar will be lucky to get back wages from their legal system.

If Mr. Arar is seeking redress from the US, he will have to add "apology" to the other things he wants awarded if he is successful. Or, he can enter into a settlement prior to a lawsuit with any number of conditions, one of which could be an apology. Because we don't limit justice (i.e., "awards") in our civil cases, Mr. Arar is better off negotiating with the US for the terms he wants.

In a civil case of this kind, both sides have the opportunity to ask more questions and enter more things into evidence than would be allowed in a criminal trial. Any defendant is a fool who issues a blanket apology when all the facts are not in evidence and a case is certain to be filed. The most the defendant, the US, will say is that they "regret" the incident. Apologizing is an admission of guilt, and we simply don't know if the US is guilty of negligence or not.

The trial could easily find that Mr. Arar is, indeed, tied to terrorists by a preponderance of the evidence, which is the weaker standard found in civil trials. If Mr. Arar is truly innocent, and not just "not guilty", then he should be encouraged to file suit against the US and start the negotiations.

As all indications are that he is innocent, then by waiting through the negotiations, Mr. Arar could at least get some financial compensation in the millions, as well as his apology.

But until its proven the US did something wrong, or a settlement is reached, Mr. Arar will have to accept our "regrets".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 10 2006, 11:35 AM) [snapback]330748[/snapback]</div>

How does an apology to Mr. Arar do that? How does it change anything? How does it encourage our government to change a single policy? Other than the "sacrificial" resignation of one Canadian official, who's agency identified Mr. Arar incorrectly, what has changed in Canada?

Oh, they might give him more than the apology; I understand they may give him a few thousand dollars too. I wonder if he thinks the words and the money make up for what happened to him.

We have a tendency today to put great faith in symbolic gestures, such as the public mourning we engage in for school shooting victims we never personally knew, and things like public apologies (President Clinton's "apology" to "Africa" for slavery comes to mind). But in the end, they are simply empty words, and do nothing.

A 500 million dollar award to Mr. Arar will get someone's attention. If he is successful in his suit, then that is probably just a bit better than Secretary Rice saying "We apologize".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 15 2006, 03:09 PM) [snapback]255861[/snapback]</div>

I suspect that, if these were a group of black college students accused of raping a white woman, the results might have been a little different.


Regarding an apology: Actions do speak louder than words.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 12 2006, 01:34 PM) [snapback]331927[/snapback]</div>

I would agree with that, in principle. But the devil is in the details.

I'm assuming you want full, public hearings, with a jury of their peers, for anyone we want to deport? I'm assuming we can incarcerate them prior to the hearings, which, with the backlog, would be in about 10 years. Not sure that's justice.

Here's a thought, we can send them home. Oh, what if their country won't take them? Canada's been known to do that. You say we can't incarcerate them, and we can't deport them to the land of their birth if they are a citizen of another country. Got any spare bedrooms?