Probably not. Maher Arar is a dual Canadian/Syrian citizen who was arrested at an American airport on his way to Canada in 2002, under suspicion of being an al-Qaeda member. After a brief detention he was deported to Syria, where he claims he was severely tortured and interrogated for a year, on behalf of the United States. He raised a fuss in Canada when he returned last November - you can read his own account of what happened - and the Canadians have launched an inquiry into their own role in the case.

Sad story, strong accusations. Few or no warblogs ever wrote about it.

Yeah, I know, the blogosphere is huge. But I checked in November, and I've checked now - almost every mention of Arar's accusation that I can find is in that section of the blogosphere which is inclined to be critical towards Bush and his foreign policy, and almost none in that section which is inclined to support him. Not even to discredit Arar's story.

Why is that? The one explanation we can dismiss at once is that the accusations are so obviously nonsensical that they're not even worth our attention. There's nothing a blogger loves more than to chew on obvious nonsense. There's even an opportunity to mock Canadians here.

Inconvenience is surely a factor. The accusation reflects badly on American methods in the war on terror: Suspects being deliberately sent abroad to be interrogated with cruder methods than are available back home. Torture by proxy. Very inconvenient, even hypocritical in the case of Syria, and anyone who's favorable to Bush will naturally hope that this story is untrue. But that can't be the whole of it - an inconvenient but unquestionably true story would still force attention on itself. Abu Ghraib did, (but might not, had there been no images.)

The problem with this story is the uncertainty. Some parts of it are clearly true - Arar was arrested in the US, he was deported to Syria and imprisoned, and now he's back. He claims he was tortured, which is plausible. But there's no hard proof that the US deliberately sent Maher Arar to Syria to be interrogated. That lack of proof warrants skepticism. But when you hear something you're not fully convinced by, there are two forms of skepticism to choose from: One is to keep quiet about what you've heard, until there's enough evidence to convince you that it's true. The other is to repeat it with a disclaimer, to say "I don't know if this is true but I suppose it should be considered". Can any of us deny that we prefer to keep quiet about what we hope is false, and repeat with a question mark what we hope is true?

The lack of hard proof makes the decision arbitrary, one of preference, and that appears to be what has happened here. No agenda, just the combined inclinations towards extra skepticism of claims we don't like. The result: Ignorance and lack of debate of a potentially important issue - the use of barbaric governments to do our dirty work in the war on terror.

And that is important. Most of us will agree, I hope, that it is wrong to treat people this way - or that, if it is right to use physical torture on suspected terrorists, it should be done honestly and openly. No sending people off in the dark, no deniable covert transfers to third world torture chambers. Honestly, or not at all. And preferably not at all.

So, is it true? Have the Americans and the Canadians used Syria to interrogate al-Qaeda suspects on their behalf, knowing that they would be tortured? I don't know, but there's certainly enough here to raise a flag, to consider it, and discuss. The most thorough and scrupulous coverage of the Arar case has been made by Katherine R. at the Obsidian Wings blog. Go read it, as well as Arar's original account, then answer three questions: Could this be true? If true, is it right? If it's not right, what consequences should that have for the use of the "trust me, I know what I'm doing" principle in the war on terror?

Or just tear it all apart, warblog style, if you think that is appropriate. (When I mentioned this case in a previous post, one reader responded that Arar's story is far too detailed to be true. That's worth considering too.) But don't ignore it.

To Syria? I may believe the torture story if he was sent to Egypt or to Saudi. But to send him to be interrogated by the Syrians, was the same as to send him to be interrogated by Saddam before the invasion. Syria and Iran grow terrorists, anti-American, death-to-Americans terrorists,if such terrorists were sent there, they would be treated as celebrities. Why would they help the US interrogate terrorist suspects? If they did interrogate them, how much of what they told the US could be believed? Was the CIA really that stupid?

I agree, that is odd. But why then was he sent there at all? Clearly they arrested him for his suspected al-Qaeda connections. So naturally they interrogate him for a few weeks, then .. ship him to off Syria. Why do that at all? If they intended to _release_ him, a suspected al-Qaeda member, why is sending him to Syria a good idea? I see no other rational explanation here than that they expected him to be detained and interrogated in Syria.

And if you read some of the stories at the Obsidian Wings link, you'll see that Arar wasn't the only Canadian in this case who was interrogated in Syria. (He was, however, the only one who didn't go there voluntarily.) Doesn't seem at all unlikely that there was at least a channel for exchange of information here. Further cooperation would then be just an extra step.

I suspect that Mr. Arar may have been part of an exchange of some sort. The U.S. doesn't like Syria any more that we like Iran, and wouldn't simply send someone back there if they were of interest to us.

As noted, Mr. Arar seems physically fine after his ordeal. I assume that anyone actually tortured by the Syrians would be dead or end up looking like some of the Iraqis that were tortured under Saddam. It seems unlikely that the Syrians would casually release someone who claimed to have been tortured, who wasn't an operative of some sort.

After returning from Syria with his "torture" story, he may have simply taken up his(spy?)post in Canada again.

The spin is that the U.S. gets blamed somehow for the ,ah, torture that supposedly took place in Syria. I seriously doubt that the U.S. would contract out anything of the sort - especially to a loathed enemy rogue state. The U.S. doesn't have to (there are many places far more secure than Syria) and I assume has more sophisticated methods of obtaining info. The way the story has been spun also entices "investigations" that would be more likely to compromise American operatives and deflect attention away from Syria. Very clever.

The last thing the U.S. would want would be for an enemy state, or even nationals from a nominally friendly state to extract info from a person of interest - that doesn't even make sense. That compromises the intelligence. Watch your spin, and assumptions. The one thing I notice here is the immediate belief that the U.S. would contract out to Syria (I don't think so - in fact that is ludicris), or that the CIA is stupid. The U.S. doesn't trust anyone, including the Israelis and the British.

What I think happened.

They detained this guy, eventually realized he wasn't much of a threat but didn't want to send him directly to Canada given the possibility of his raising an immediate and loud stink.

By that time they just wanted to get rid of him and keep him from Canada as long as possible. They didn't really much care what happened to him in Jordan or eventually Syria except that he would no longer be their responsibility and he if he ever got out, the time frame would make the story less newsworthy.

Sylvia: Ok, so what you're saying is that Arar is a Syrian spy, who was picked up in the US, exchanged with Syria for something valuable, then sent back with a mission to cause bad PR for the US?

1) Why was he arrested? Aren't there smarter ways to deal with a spy?
2) Why was he arrested by the Americans? Wouldn't this be a Canadian matter?
3) If Arar was important enough to be arrested, what would the Syrians have offered in return for him?
4) Why did his family petition for his release from Syria? Didn't they know he was okay? Or was this part of the plan?
5) Why do this at all? Why go to all this trouble just to cause an embarassment for the US?

Are you saying, btw, that you do not believe the US contracts out any interrogations to any outside countries?

Oh, and one more question for ivy: You say you'd believe this if it was Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Would you also support it?

Michael: But what about his treatment in the US was it that was so unusual or scandalous that they wouldn't want him to tell the Canadian media?

Thanks for this. I agree that bloggers, who as a species make decisions fast and subjectively, in compensation need to spend a fair amount of attention on questioning their own perception biases.

"But what about his treatment in the US was it that was so unusual or scandalous that they wouldn't want him to tell the Canadian media?"

Beats me. But you and some others appear to want to assign rational motives as much as possible. No matter how you look at it, some parts of the story don't make that much sense, so I'm assuming irrationality enters into it somewhere. It seems a little like irrational bureaucracy-think.

They do seem to have violated a few US laws. It's not clear if he was given timely access to Canadian authorities and was lied to about his lawyer. And I'm pretty sure that Canada has been upset at the bullying of in-transit moslem Canadian citizens by US immigration, maybe they didn't want another case.

All good points. A keen observation by the way Bjørn when you say "Can any of us deny that we prefer to keep quiet about what we hope is false, and repeat with a question mark what we hope is true?" This is one of those points that makes you realize that skepticism is always healthy... and it should be heaped around ones personal scrutiny of the world around us very "liberally".... as it were. It should take a while to have a "trusted" source... and when one does, it should be because of empirical experience in knowing that said source embraces truth and accuracy as very high ideals indeed. When one trusts a source or sources merely because they have demonstrated a "way of seeing things"... that one is comfortable in the moment with, it invites automotons into the grip of ideologues. This is all too common now... mainly because ideologues have raised their art to a high science in the last century.

In any case... I'm still going to take option number one on this one, and reserve any opinion until much more is available to scrutiny. This whole story is like Chalabi's at the moment. There seems to be so many conflicting interests and real-world inconsistencies that it is impossible to clear up the muddy waters.

I would however comment to Sylvia and Ivy regarding how stupid the CIA can be... that this seems almost like an invitation to ask... "I dunno... how stupid can they be... is it an infinitely high number?" Its not like things have not occurred within that insitution recently, particularly when it has involved links with the State Department, that downright boggle the mind. And on that note, it might not have been stupid, but still have occurred... for reasons that are not obvious and even of more concern then mere stupidity. Or maybe it was a "good" plan (from their point of reference, which may not be comforting) that ran into the syndrome of being too clever by half. (which I guess would ultimately make it back to stupid... but I hope I've made some point.)

I think that the fact that the US has err ... "outsourced" ... ummm... "interrogations", is not really too difficult to accept. One hopes it has not, and that any real evidence (which is generally pretty sketchy as far as I've seen) really is just fluff to cast a bad light on the whole endeavor. But I tend to think it probably has been done... though I think it is very "deep" operations involving very "special" people. None of this excuses the moral approbrium of seeking to use the means that we claim to stand against. But its foolish not to get at least a little Clausewitzian (can I use him as an adjective) and accept that bad things will happen, even in the name of freedom... in War. That's why you want to win them as quickly as possible, especially when you are faced with a ruthless enemy... lest you begin to catch the nihilistic disease that NOONE... when exposed to unspeakable experiences... is immune to.

Kevin

PS I'm obliged to add though... he really doesn't seem to much worse for wear though does he... I'm still reserving opinion though. That was just a little slip.

In the american government it's almost impossible to fire
someone for malicious acts or stupidity. One bad apple can
pretty effectively nullify the efforts of a great many other
people. And if you look close this seems to be the standard
plot line in all the agencies. Vast sums of money are routinely
thrown away in efforts that are discarded or sabotaged by another
part of the same agency.

For the wrong personality government service must be very
attractive, such a person can get enormous and arbitrary
power over others in some limited domain while at the same
time being practically unaccountable.

I don't think this description applies to the majority of
the people working for the government, but then one bad
in 50 is probably enough to nullify the positive efforts of
the other 49.

Anyway this story, because it makes so little sense, sounds
to me like a capracious action originating from such an
individual. Because we are probably talking one specific
individual's actions, the possible motives are legion.

Mark: What one person would have the power to 1) have Arar arrested, 2) deport him to Syria, and 3) arrange for his handover to the Syrians in the way Arar describes?

But yeah, individual government employees can do a lot of harm. Which is why cases like this are important, and why I'm becoming more and more skeptical to "trust me, I know what I'm doing" as a motto for the war on terror. I've been very vague on this the last couple of years, because I couldn't decide where to draw the line, and because so many accusations against the US were bogus. But cases like this makes it all come in focus.

I think that the U.S. is capable of doing a lot of things. If, say, the Turks picked someone up who was of interest I'm sure deals could be made. (After the Turks were finished with him, I'm sure). But look at this from another perspective. I'm going to substitute Russian for Syrian and Soviet Union for Syria.

A Russian born man carrying Canadian papers is detained by the U.S. at an American airport. For undisclosed reasons he is quickly released and flies to the Soviet Union. He remains there for some time. Then, he leaves the Soviet Union and flies back to Canada. Once in Canada, he claims the he was interrogated by the KGB, at the request of the CIA.

You'd need a tinfoil hat to believe that one.

This is one way of detecting spin. Most refusniks had pretty straight forward stories. So did the guy who was picked up in Seattle(?) a while back because of misidentifed fingerprints in the Madrid bombing. I hardly think that anyone suspected of Al Qaeda involvement would be sent to Syria. And the Syrians wouldn't torture someone that the Americans suspected of being a terrorist. (That might be like finding a new friend). That's like the U.S. sending a guy suspected of espionage back to the Soviet Union. For no reason.

As for "gov'mint" bungles, they are many and varied. But no more so, and probably at lot less that most other governments. The French thought the U.S. was bluffing on Iraq.(Apparently they didn't notice all those carriers and a huge troop buildup). Bin Ladin thought the U.S. would surrender to him or something. That's pretty bad. The difference is that we are more likely to hear about or discover bungles, or question policy. Many news sources are poorly informed and/or have an agenda. Middle East reportage is a classic, so much of the basic info must be taken with a large helping of salt.

As for WMD, tantalizing clues have been found. Cyanide salts, a sarin filled missile that looks to have come off an assembly line. "Pesticide" canisters at Iraqi bases. The basic intel may very well have been correct. Bio/chem weapons are small and easily transported and hidden, which is one of the things that makes them so horrible.

Methinks Mr. Arar's story should be well salted.

"A Russian born man carrying Canadian papers is detained by the U.S. at an American airport."

'Canadian papers'??? Has anyone suggested that Mr. Arar is not a Canadian citizen?

"For undisclosed reasons he is quickly released and flies to the Soviet Union."

I think 'is flown to Finland, from where he is delivered to Soviet authorities' would a better analogy. Again, no one seems to dispute that Mr. Arar was flown against his will to Jordan. I don't think anyone denies that he was transferred from Jordan to Syria, but I may be wrong.

What I fail to understand boils down to the question that either he was a suspect or not.
If yes, charge and detain him, if not, then allow him to proceed home (to Canada). After all, he was at a US airport in transit and not as a final destination. Escort him to the plane maybe to make sure he gets on.
It doesn't make any sense for the government to send either a non-suspect or a suspect to Jordan against their will.

If his story is true, then, yes, I find it disturbing. (Particularly because it seems less like an intentional plan to interrogate a real suspect than just casual abuse.) But my reaction to other people's outrage is tempered by this:

Syria was recently a member of the UN Commission on Human Rights, including in 2002, when the US was excluded from membership. Syria was recently the head of the UN Security Council.

And now Syria is suddenly beyond the pale? When have these people ever shown an ounce of interest in Syrian human rights violations when it wasn't politically expedient for them?

jsinger: "And now Syria is suddenly beyond the pale? When have these people ever shown an ounce of interest in Syrian human rights violations when it wasn't politically expedient for them?"

Who are "these people"? Me? I've always thought that was hypocritical. The Canadians? Why should that matter to Arar? So why does this temper your outrage?

Bjørn,

You quoted jsinger "When have these people ever shown an ounce of interest in Syrian human rights violations when it wasn't politically expedient for them?"

Yup, this is the disheartening consequence of the general public discourse being defined by polarisation. People that otherwise are not inclined to use non-sequiturs or sweeping generalizations, begin to use terms like "these people" without even qualifiers. The issues themselves begin to be reduced to a state where an events only relevance is in its propaganda value for one "side"... forgetting almost completely the declared values of the "banner/standard", which this or that side is ostensibly standing beneath.

I want to note again, that it would be foolishness to think that bad things do not happen... even from the side of the strife that clearly is in the cause of unambiguously good things ultimately resulting. In this case this is especially easy to discern based on the alternatives... as long as one is willing to actually look at what is in plain sight. But what defines us all is fallible humanity, and in the name of those good things it is absolutely imperative that we maintain the understanding that anything having to do with human beings can become corrupt. Having said that... I'm not even remotely convinced that this story... even if true(though with the condition that for example that this is neither widesread or encouraged)... implies that something has gone horribly wrong at the heart of the War.

It is in my opinion, more an example of how right Yeats was... as the good poets often are at revealing our own nature. To wit: "The center cannot hold."

Actually... its worth reading the whole thing. ("The Second Coming" by Yeats I mean.)

Cheers,

Kevin

What is undeniable is that US authorities picked up Arar, could not pin anything on him, and then denied him his right to return home to Canada. It seems quite obvious who was in the wrong.

Therefore it is clear who bears responsiblity for whatever happened to Arar in Syria. Whether he was tortured or not one can choose to be skeptical but he was incarcerated. Whatever happened in Syria to Arar is additional to the original indignity perpetrated in the US and likeliest was aided by Canadian officials.

Consider these certainties Mr. Staerk and then put yourself in the shoes of Arar and think about how you would feel; especially, if some blogger was unable to connect obvious dots.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/719