Careful What Country You're Born In

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Jaffe, wanted for "questionable real-estate deals" in Florida, was arrested by US bounty-hunters while he was jogging in Toronto. Bundled onto a flight to a Miami jail, not even taken home to get a change of clothes.

All because FL was too-much-in-a-hurry to file formal extradition request with ON.

bounty hunters have no affiliation to the US Govt, they are private citizens looking to make a living by collecting bounties on bail jumpers. So obviously Mr Jaffe must have jumped bail for their to be a bounty on him.

as for the original topic, yeah, kind of funny that Syria would help us in this regard. do you really think they would keep something like this a secret from the muslim world as they try to defeat us? i think this casts doubt on the whole story. and it does state that he had his case against the US Govt dismissed by a federal judge in new york. i know i know, that federal judge is on the bush payroll, right? there are 2 sides to every story. sounds like mr arar had his due process.

It was dismissed because the "evidence" would breach "National Security" not because it was unfounded.

From this article:

Arar filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court, but the case was dismissed by a judge citing "national security" issues.

When some of the first Guantanamo detainees were released, after the authorities decided they were not involved in terrorist activities - there was talk of a law suit, which I believe was dismissed for much the same reasons.

Essentially it suggests that there is no such thing as wrongful arrest, and that anyone arrested (for whatever reason) automatically becomes an "accomplice". If this happened in any 'non-war' situation it would be outrageous. As it is, it seems civilians have no right of appeal when they are suspected of links to extremist groups, and have no means of extricating themselves from that position, when the basis of suspicion is apparently arbitrary and undefined - and the decision to arrest made by someone who doesn't speak the native language (outside of phrase cards) and is under a massive amount of pressure.

I'm reading Count of Monte Cristo at the moment - and there are some interesting parallels. Firstly the protagonist is unjustly arrested on the basis of someone's say-so and imprisoned for 14 years without trial. As we know how the story turns out - I wonder why it is people have no regard for people wrongfully imprisoned and the effect it has on them. Edmond Dantes escapes and plots revenge on the men who betrayed him. Here "Innocent" civilians might well be being incarcerated with hardcore fanatics and "becoming" sympathetic to them on the basis of their shared incarceration.

Edited September 20, 2006 by erekose

[noemij 0]

It's called "torture by proxy". You want to get around laws in your own country that prohibit such behaviour - so you send them to other countries where they have fewer legal protections and even fewer scruples. There they are tortured while you have deniability. This is also the murky arena of CIA affiliated "private contractors".

Well if Bush has his way we won't have to resort to "torture by proxy"....we'll be the ones doing it...

[Marc and Olga 0]

It's called "torture by proxy". You want to get around laws in your own country that prohibit such behaviour - so you send them to other countries where they have fewer legal protections and even fewer scruples. There they are tortured while you have deniability. This is also the murky arena of CIA affiliated "private contractors".

Well if Bush has his way we won't have to resort to "torture by proxy"....we'll be the ones doing it...

Well, yes, we have been having that discussion with certain members of VJ.

The part they don't seem to understand is the people that would be doing the torture (or sending the people to be toture) tend to ignore the facts (or make up their own facts). The precident now seems to be if you are tortured by mistake, too bad, it's for "national security".

While that may be all fine and dandy to those of us "immune" to the 'profilers' selecting the people to be tortured. Suppose a "suspected terrorist" talks to you in the street, say asking for directions...then YOU (formerly immune) are NOW either a terrorist yourself or a terrorist sympathizer and next thing you know, you are imprisoned and tortured! Gosh what heck that would be, knowing you supported this treatment and then to become subject to it! Furthermore, knowing you will have NO recourse in the name of "national security" *looks at the few supporters of torture*.

One of you may be wishing you never left the land down under!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Jaffe, wanted for "questionable real-estate deals" in Florida, was arrested by US bounty-hunters while he was jogging in Toronto. Bundled onto a flight to a Miami jail, not even taken home to get a change of clothes.

All because FL was too-much-in-a-hurry to file formal extradition request with ON.

bounty hunters have no affiliation to the US Govt, they are private citizens looking to make a living by collecting bounties on bail jumpers. So obviously Mr Jaffe must have jumped bail for their to be a bounty on him.

as for the original topic, yeah, kind of funny that Syria would help us in this regard. do you really think they would keep something like this a secret from the muslim world as they try to defeat us? i think this casts doubt on the whole story. and it does state that he had his case against the US Govt dismissed by a federal judge in new york. i know i know, that federal judge is on the bush payroll, right? there are 2 sides to every story. sounds like mr arar had his due process.

It was dismissed because the "evidence" would breach "National Security" not because it was unfounded.

From this article:

Arar filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court, but the case was dismissed by a judge citing "national security" issues.

When some of the first Guantanamo detainees were released, after the authorities decided they were not involved in terrorist activities - there was talk of a law suit, which I believe was dismissed for much the same reasons.

Essentially it suggests that there is no such thing as wrongful arrest, and that anyone arrested (for whatever reason) automatically becomes an "accomplice". If this happened in any 'non-war' situation it would be outrageous. As it is, it seems civilians have no right of appeal when they are suspected of links to extremist groups, and have no means of extricating themselves from that position, when the basis of suspicion is apparently arbitrary and undefined - and the decision to arrest made by someone who doesn't speak the native language (outside of phrase cards) and is under a massive amount of pressure.

I'm reading Count of Monte Cristo at the moment - and there are some interesting parallels. Firstly the protagonist is unjustly arrested on the basis of someone's say-so and imprisoned for 14 years without trial. As we know how the story turns out - I wonder why it is people have no regard for people wrongfully imprisoned and the effect it has on them. Edmond Dantes escapes and plots revenge on the men who betrayed him. Here "Innocent" civilians might well be being incarcerated with hardcore fanatics and "becoming" sympathetic to them on the basis of their shared incarceration.

It's called "torture by proxy". You want to get around laws in your own country that prohibit such behaviour - so you send them to other countries where they have fewer legal protections and even fewer scruples. There they are tortured while you have deniability. This is also the murky arena of CIA affiliated "private contractors".

Well if Bush has his way we won't have to resort to "torture by proxy"....we'll be the ones doing it...

Well, yes, we have been having that discussion with certain members of VJ.

The part they don't seem to understand is the people that would be doing the torture (or sending the people to be toture) tend to ignore the facts (or make up their own facts). The precident now seems to be if you are tortured by mistake, too bad, it's for "national security".

While that may be all fine and dandy to those of us "immune" to the 'profilers' selecting the people to be tortured. Suppose a "suspected terrorist" talks to you in the street, say asking for directions...then YOU (formerly immune) are NOW either a terrorist yourself or a terrorist sympathizer and next thing you know, you are imprisoned and tortured! Gosh what heck that would be, knowing you supported this treatment and then to become subject to it! Furthermore, knowing you will have NO recourse in the name of "national security" *looks at the few supporters of torture*.

One of you may be wishing you never left the land down under!

Who have curiously become silent over this...hmmmmm

[Kathryn41 3,205]

[

Also, is it not up to the individual to inform the US DHS of being a Canadian? If DHS sees the other passport and decides to give consular access on that basis, unfortunately Canada doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to protesting it.

Mr. Arar was travelling on his Canadian passport and repeatedly requested/demanded that he be allowed to speak with Canadian representatives in the Embassy/Consulates in the US and was denied. The reason US knew he was born in Syria was becaues it was on the list of information and misinformation shared with US security by the RCMP without first checking for its validity - which is one of the reasons they are being royally criticized in the Commission's report. US authorities were well-aware that he was a Canadian and chose not to tell Canadian authorities because they knew Canada would demand his return to Canada - and they didn't want to do that. They only bothered to acknowledge the Canadian demands for information AFTER they had shipped him off to Syria.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Kathryn41