Good work, Plunk.

I’m still trying to see how Michelle is complicit in this case.

Perhaps, like the gov’t, she’s guilty by conjecture and supposition too.

Look, I don’t doubt the gov’t does bad things. Maybe even something exactly like this.

Or even this very thing.

But believing it doesn’t make it so. There’s already enough made up negative propaganda going around that adding more is not helpful.

Malkin is the one who would favor somethine very much like this, IMO.

“No US government officials were interviewed”

This is because US government officials refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

Yes, the more standard way of explaining this is that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence...in this case of wrong doing.

This is because US government officials refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

"Why did he keep citizenship in a country that tortures"

It was not a choice. He was born there. Syria does not allow anyone born there to renounce their citizenship.

I'm still trying to see how Michelle is complicit in this case.

Perhaps, like the gov't, she's guilty by conjecture and supposition too.

Look, I don't doubt the gov't does bad things. Maybe even something exactly like this.

Or even this very thing.

But believing it doesn't make it so. There's already enough made up negative propaganda going around that adding more is not helpful.

At least not to the side I hope prevails.

There's just an awful lot of accusing and "wrongly tolds" going on with little evidence.

Lunacy

I am curious why the report is dated October 2005 and just now being discussed? Perhaps the current discussion of the treatment of detainees?

Or maybe it was the news article about the Judge's findings dated yesterday?

Do you honestly believe we asked Syria to torture this man?

Yes, I'm inclined to believe him.

You make such a claim in a post above. Again I ask for at least a rational argument to back it if not evidence.

Well, hasn't the President already admitted we had secret CIA prisons? Not exactly the best evidence there is, but I'm willing to believe that some in our government use rather unsavory tactics to extract information.

I appreciate the link to Katherine's post. It was not helpful. It did, however, contain a link to the Arer report itself, which I read.

No US government officials were interviewed, no direct evidence was presented other than testimony of those claiming Syrian torture, most of the evidence of torture is circumstantial (Syria tortures therefore anyone held by Syria can be assumed to have been tortured), the report itself does not affix blame but limits it's scope to an opinion if Arer was tortured and what effects it has had upon him.

There is no evidence linking any of this to the United States. None. There is no evidence of malice by US officials. None. There is no evidence of illegal acts by the US. None.

Why are we reading so much into this report other than to put down the present administration? I submit that many are doing just that, using this as political weapon only.

I am curious why the report is dated October 2005 and just now being discussed? Perhaps the current discussion of the treatment of detainees?

Do you honestly believe we asked Syria to torture this man? You make such a claim in a post above. Again I ask for at least a rational argument to back it if not evidence. All this speculation and accusation is without merit.

Anderson mentioned that he requested not to be deported to Syrian (I would like a link to verify that),

That, I can do:

“The American authorities who handled Mr. Arar’s case treated Mr. Arar in a most regrettable fashion,” Justice O’Connor wrote in a three-volume report, not all of which was made public. “They removed him to Syria against his wishes and in the face of his statements that he would be tortured if sent there. Moreover, they dealt with Canadian officials involved with Mr. Arar’s case in a less than forthcoming manner.”

Actually, A Most Regrettable Fashion would be a good title for a book about the Arar rendition.

However, to address Steven Plunk:

1.) Syria is not our enemy, and has in fact been an ally in the War on Terror. They are one of many countries suspected of being used by the CIA to interrogate enemy combatants.

2.) Arar was travelling as a Canadian citizen (see passport blurb above). Anderson mentioned that he requested not to be deported to Syrian (I would like a link to verify that), and Canada never refused to allow him reentry. All of which should have made the decision to deport him to Canada very plain.

I don't think you get a choice.

Once a syrian , always a syrian seems to be the syrian law.

Oh, I'm sure that was *real* hard. We asked nicely.

What facts back up the statement that we expected and/or arranged his torture in Syria? What facts support the claim of American malice?

Steven, I wish I had time to educate you on the facts of the case, but alas. You can inspect Katherine's posts at ObWi and learn all about it.

I fail to see how we talked our enemy Syria into torturing one of it's citizens. Since when did they become our ally? If he anti-American wouldn't they welcome him and then let him go to Canada?

He was held based upon evidence (later proven wrong) presented to us by Canada. So the logic many put forth here is that we cannot arrest suspects of criminal activity for questioning? All people arrested and later found not guilty are entitled to compensation? I believe we held him for two weeks then deported him.

Since he was both a citizen of Canada and Syria where should we have sent him when Canada refused him? I believe we do have legal authority to deport non-citizens, do we not?

What facts back up the statement that we expected and/or arranged his torture in Syria? What facts support the claim of American malice?

The simple fact is we are not responsible for the horror of what this man claims to have gone through. Syria is responsible for it, not us, not Canada.

If I were him I would certainly not claim Syrian as my citizenship anymore.

Because he asked not to be sent to Syria; because we had no authority to send him there; and because it was a *crime* to send him there in the expectation that he would be tortured.

Of course, it's not all the U.S.'s fault--"Canadian incompetence and American malice" combined, as I called it at my humble blog.