The Philosophical Riddle of the Maher Arar Case

[marmar]

from HuffPost:




Byron Williams
The Philosophical Riddle of the Maher Arar Case
Posted November 18, 2007 | 05:12 PM (EST)



The philosophical riddle, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" raises vital questions about observation, knowledge, and reality. What is the difference between what something is, and what it is perceived to be?

To this end, can one be a member of al-Qaeda, and by extension a terrorist, if it is said enough times even when there is no evidence to support either claim? The reality portion of this question is what Maher Arar is currently facing in federal court; the philosophical part is what haunts the nation.

In 2002, U.S. authorities detained Arar, the Syria-born Canadian citizen, during a stopover in New York en route from Tunisia to Canada. He was subsequently sent to Syria for torture under the controversial American practice of "extraordinary rendition." After nearly a year of torture and pressure by the Canadian government, Arar was released and returned to Canada.

According to the official inquiry conducted by the Canadian government, US Immigration and Naturalization Service agents acted on false and misleading information supplied by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The inquiry findings led to the prime minister's formal apology to Arar on behalf of the Canadian government and the $10 million settlement.

But remarkably, after Canada's massive inquiry, 1,100-page report, official apology to Arar, and compensation for their mistakes, Arar remains barred from entering the United States until 2012.

Arar brought a case against the US government claiming wrongful detention and torture. A lower court dismissed the case because it involved issues of national security and foreign policy. The case is now before the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

This week, Dennis Barghaan, the attorney representing former Attorney General, John Ashcroft, brazenly alleged in court that Mr. Arar has "unequivocal membership in al-Qaeda." Ironically, this is the same language used five year ago by US authorities when Arar was arrested and sent to the Middle East for interrogation and torture.

Even Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, concedes mistakes were made in the initial handling of the Arar case. The evidence that the US government botched this matter is overwhelming, yet somehow it is preferable to label Arar a member of al-Qaeda who warranted torture than to admit culpability in a gross miscarriage of justice.

If Arar were an American would there be more outrage? I doubt it.

In September, US District Court Judge Ann Aiken struck down two provisions of the USA Patriot Act, ruling they are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without showing probable cause.

Judge Aiken's ruling resulted from a lawsuit filed by Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield, who was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid, Spain, train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004. A fingerprint discovered on the case carrying detonating devices was erroneously linked to Mayfield.

The so-called war on terror, though effective campaign slogan, is blinding us to our own democratic ideals and values. The rationale for such malfeasance is to keep the country safe. In reality, it serves only to keep the nation languishing in fear. I suspect there is little outrage because the majority naively believes they are somehow immune. But that misses the point.
If we were a country that did not condone torture, there would be no need to send Arar to Syria to be tortured for 10 months. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/the-philosophical-riddle-_b_73184.html