Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Athens · Sep 19, 2005, 02:58 AM

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

Simple responce, for every Canadian they send some place else we should take a American and drop them off in the heart of Iraq all alone to fend for themselves. Yes thats a great solution to this pathetic BS Washington is pulling.

Railroader · Sep 19, 2005, 03:44 AM

Did you read the whole article?

He had dual citizenship. He should have been happy to go to one of his home countries.

Athens · Sep 19, 2005, 04:17 AM

Yes he had dual citizenship, his Canadian citizenship means he has Canadian rights, he should have been sent back to Canada, simple as that.

Railroader · Sep 19, 2005, 04:19 AM

If he is in the US illegally, then the US can determine which country (that he is a citizen of) to send him to. Don't like it? Too bad, you're a Canadian and can not do a damned thing about it.

Athens · Sep 19, 2005, 04:23 AM

he was not in the US illegally, second we have treaties with the US. He should have been sent back here. But yup Canada should send Yanks to Iraq when ever you piss us off, after all isnt Iraq the 51st State?

Railroader · Sep 19, 2005, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

he was not in the US illegally, second we have treaties with the US. He should have been sent back here. But yup Canada should send Yanks to Iraq when ever you piss us off, after all isnt Iraq the 51st State?

Ummm.. yes he was. Don't you read the article you posted?

Arar, a Canadian citizen of Syrian birth, was arrested in New York in September 2002, accused by U.S. authorities of having ties to al-Qaida and deported to Syria.

We also have treaties with Syria. What's your point?

Athens · Sep 19, 2005, 04:35 AM

perhaps you should read it again, it didn't say he was in the US illegally. He entered the US legally. Go read...

Railroader · Sep 19, 2005, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

perhaps you should read it again, it didn't say he was in the US illegally. He entered the US legally. Go read...

And then he committed a crime and was in the US illegally. He's lucky he wasn't simply convicted of his crime and put in a US jail. He's lucky to have his freedom.

Athens · Sep 19, 2005, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

And then he committed a crime and was in the US illegally. He's lucky he wasn't simply convicted of his crime and put in a US jail. He's lucky to have his freedom.

and what ****ing crime did he commit

Railroader · Sep 19, 2005, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

and what ****ing crime did he commit

Are you saying he was arrested for no reason? If that were true, then that is a more worrisome action than anything else you are accusing the US of.

I think your knowledge of this situation is too limited for you to be making any judgements. Do a little more research.

Athens · Sep 19, 2005, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Are you saying he was arrested for no reason? If that were true, then that is a more worrisome action than anything else you are accusing the US of.

I think your knowledge of this situation is too limited for you to be making any judgements. Do a little more research.

He was arrested because he was Muslim, last I checked that wasent a crime

SimeyTheLimey · Sep 19, 2005, 06:06 AM

As a matter of international law, the US did nothing wrong. Being a citizen of a country, any country, doesn't make you immune to the criminal law of a country you choose to visit. It also doesn't make you immune to the extradition power of that country. The only way you can avoid that power is to not leave your home nation. This dual Syrian/Canadian citizen had that choice. He could have stayed in Canada, in which case Canada would have had unfettered power over him, or he could have stayed in Syria, in which case Syria would have had unfettered power over him. But no third country is required to regard a dual citizen with Canadian and Syrian citizenship as more Canadian than Syrian, or more Syrian than Canadian. A dual citizen has no special status. He belongs to either of his countries of citizenship equally. He was as much Syrian as he was Canadian, and the Canadian government has no authority to deny Syria one of its citizens.

However, even if he were a Canadian citizen and not the citizen of any other country, that still would not give Canada a veto over the extradition of one of its citizens accused of a crime to a third country where he is wanted. Ordinary citizens arrested in countries have the right to contact with their consulates, and their consulates must be notified when they are arrested (under an international convention). Their consulates may also choose to argue in their behalf. But their home countries do not have the right to prevent a foreign country from exercising its jurisdiction over a foreigner found in its territory (absent a specific treaty to the contrary, such as the NATO status of forces treaties that apply to NATO servicemembers -- no such treaty applies here).

If the situation here were reversed, Canada would have had exactly the same rights as the US did. If the Canadian government arrests a US citizen, who isn't a diplomat or covered by any other immunity, the US government has no right to take him from Canadian custody. Canadian laws would apply to that citizen. Canada could then choose to extradite him to any third country where he is wanted. The US government would have no legal grounds to complain. And indeed, if it did complain, you would all be saying that the US was throwing its weight around and misusing it's power to place Americans above the law. Strange how others can't see the same issue when the shoe is on the other foot.

And note, whether he actually ends up being convicted of any crime is irrelevant to this analysis. All of the above applies equally to those accused of a crime as it does to those convicted. Countries are not required (and generally would never insist upon) a full trial before extraditing a person. Again, that applies as much to Canada as the US. The rules are the same for everyone.

Railroader · Sep 19, 2005, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

He was arrested because he was Muslim, last I checked that wasent a crime

Can you prove that's why he was arrested? Seems like you are making things up now to fit your agenda. Not wise.

Railroader · Sep 19, 2005, 06:59 AM

Did a little more research. You should be pissed at your own government if anyone.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tory/National/

The facts that Canadian officials wanted information Mr. Arar had given Syrian military intelligence interrogators during his captivity and that they, in turn, provided the Syrians with information to help the interrogators, highlight the federal government's complicity, the lawyers said.

Canadians helped his "torturers". How nice of Canada.

olePigeon · Sep 19, 2005, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by Athens

He was arrested because he was Muslim, last I checked that wasent a crime

Dude, being a French-Canadian Muslim carries the death penalty in America.

Railroader · Sep 20, 2005, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Dude, being a French-Canadian Muslim carries the death penalty in America.

But he was Canadian-Syrian. So he lived.

idjeff · Sep 20, 2005, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

As a matter of international law, the US did nothing wrong. Being a citizen of a country, any country, doesn't make you immune to the criminal law of a country you choose to visit. It also doesn't make you immune to the extradition power of that country. The only way you can avoid that power is to not leave your home nation. This dual Syrian/Canadian citizen had that choice. He could have stayed in Canada, in which case Canada would have had unfettered power over him, or he could have stayed in Syria, in which case Syria would have had unfettered power over him. But no third country is required to regard a dual citizen with Canadian and Syrian citizenship as more Canadian than Syrian, or more Syrian than Canadian. A dual citizen has no special status. He belongs to either of his countries of citizenship equally. He was as much Syrian as he was Canadian, and the Canadian government has no authority to deny Syria one of its citizens.

However, even if he were a Canadian citizen and not the citizen of any other country, that still would not give Canada a veto over the extradition of one of its citizens accused of a crime to a third country where he is wanted. Ordinary citizens arrested in countries have the right to contact with their consulates, and their consulates must be notified when they are arrested (under an international convention). Their consulates may also choose to argue in their behalf. But their home countries do not have the right to prevent a foreign country from exercising its jurisdiction over a foreigner found in its territory (absent a specific treaty to the contrary, such as the NATO status of forces treaties that apply to NATO servicemembers -- no such treaty applies here).

If the situation here were reversed, Canada would have had exactly the same rights as the US did. If the Canadian government arrests a US citizen, who isn't a diplomat or covered by any other immunity, the US government has no right to take him from Canadian custody. Canadian laws would apply to that citizen. Canada could then choose to extradite him to any third country where he is wanted. The US government would have no legal grounds to complain. And indeed, if it did complain, you would all be saying that the US was throwing its weight around and misusing it's power to place Americans above the law. Strange how others can't see the same issue when the shoe is on the other foot.

And note, whether he actually ends up being convicted of any crime is irrelevant to this analysis. All of the above applies equally to those accused of a crime as it does to those convicted. Countries are not required (and generally would never insist upon) a full trial before extraditing a person. Again, that applies as much to Canada as the US. The rules are the same for everyone.

I love "legaleze"

Athens · Sep 21, 2005, 10:41 AM

Mr. Arar was stopped by immigration officers at John F. Kennedy
International Airport in September 2002 as he attempted to change
planes on his way home to Canada from Tunisia.

3. An intelligence official is quoted in a November 5
Washington Post story as saying, ``The Justice Department did
not have enough evidence to detain him when he landed in the
United States.'' ``Deported Terror Suspect Details Torture in
Syria,'' Washington Post, November 5, 2003. It has also been
reported that U.S. officials were in contact with Canadian
authorities regarding this case. Given that Mr. Arar, a
Canadian citizen, resides in Canada and was traveling home to
Canada when he was detained at the airport, why did the
officials choose not to turn Arar over to Canadian
authorities?

8. Under U.S. law, non-citizens who express concerns about
torture if removed are entitled to an evaluation of their
claim before being removed. Under the specific regulations
that were likely applied to Mr. Arar's removal, there is an
explicit prohibition against returning someone to a country
where there are substantial grounds for believing he would be
subject to torture. What process was used, if any, to
evaluate the likelihood that Mr. Arar would be subjected to
torture before removing him to Syria?

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s021004.html

ThinkInsane · Sep 21, 2005, 11:09 AM

If Americans are arrested in Canada, and have dual Iraqi citizenship, then by all means, send them to Iraq. Otherwise, you are being kind of ridiculous in your assertion, don't you agree?