Arar - Deportation, not Rendition
I didn’t understand the Arar case when it was reported yesterday. Why would we “render” him to Syria, one of our main antagonists in the Mideast? As I understand it, our rendition program sends terrorist suspects to other countries for *cough cough* their humane interrogation procedures when our equally humane interrogation procedures aren’t adequate. Not debating here the wisdom or legality of rendition, the point is that we only “render” terror suspects to friendly governments.
AG Gonzalez offers the obvious answer: Arar was deported, not “rendered.” He showed up (erroneously) on a terrorist watch list and we deported him. Arar might still have a legitimate beef with Canada for incorrectly tagging him as a terrorist suspect, but (if AG Gonzales is telling the truth here) then his case has nothing to do with rendition, nor U.S. interrogation techniques.
Gonzales defends Arar deportation after Canadian inquiry report
Well, we were not responsible for his removal to Syria, I’m not aware that he was tortured, and I haven’t read the Commission report. Mr. Arar was deported under our immigration laws. He was initially detained because his name appeared on terrorist lists, and he was deported according to our laws.
Some people have characterized his removal as a rendition. That is not what happened here. It was a deportation. And even if it were a rendition, we understand as a government what our obligations are with respect to anyone who is rendered by this government to another country, and that is that we seek to satisfy ourselves that they will not be tortured. And we do that in every case. And if in fact he had been rendered to Syria, we would have sought those same kind of assurances, as we do in every case.
Clenched fist salute: JunkYardBlog
U.S. Puppet - Syria?
Unclue Jimbo’s Constitution
The Bloodhound On the Trail Of the Nazis