In the news.....

[lea]

[COLOR=darkblue]On the news, I saw a report about a canadian guy of Syrian background who was accused of being a terrorist. He was arrested by the US without any proof, and was deported to Syria, for "interrogation".

When he finally came back to Canada, to his wife and kids (who haven't heard from him when he was suddenly arrested, and after a long period of time were notified that he was in government costody) he told everyone about how he was tortured while in Syria.

Do you believe the US sent him to Syria, knowing information would be gotten by "extreme measures"?

Do you believe the guy was even tortured?

Do you think the government would do anything as unethical as what he is claiming?

Or do you think you shouldn't believe stories like this on T.V?[/COLOR]

[Drix D'Zanth]

Firstly, I don't belive this is possible. If the citizen were US, he has legal right to due process. From what you indicate though, he was "canadian". The united states can't "deport" any foreigners to another country but their home. He'd go straight to canada under those circumstances.

Have a link to the site?

[lea]

[COLOR=blue]Here is the site...

[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/21/48hours/main594974.shtml[/url]

>_< I am not sure of how to make it a link using VB code, so just copy and paste. [/COLOR]

[Transtic Nerve]

Doesn't surpise me... and if you don't believe it, well.. open your eyes....

The US can take anyone into their custody without due process under the Patriot act. Anyone they feel could be or is a threat they can take without questioning, without a lawyer, without anything. It happened to this guy apparently, and I'm sure it's happened to others.

[Guest lavalamp]

It's terrible.

It really makes you question the rights you have, and obviously, the rights you don't. People are too quick to assume that governments, and the U.S. government in particular are law-abiding and righteous. What could be more distant from the truth.

The U.S. and any country will lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc. if the results of doing so are in their favor. Your rights are nothing more than a piece of paper to the people on top when it really comes down to making choices, be they good or bad. That's life.

It isn't fair.

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]Doesn't surpise me... and if you don't believe it, well.. open your eyes....

The US can take anyone into their custody without due process under the Patriot act. Anyone they feel could be or is a threat they can take without questioning, without a lawyer, without anything. It happened to this guy apparently, and I'm sure it's happened to others. [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1][color=#3366CC] was wondering what the Patriot act was since i read the transcript from the State of the Union, it read like Bush was asking Congress to keep the act, as if they wanted to throw it out.

It doesn't surprise me though, all those supposed terrorists out in Guantanamo Bay still haven't been given due legal process, and there are similar incidents happening in Australia too, where the Tampa asylum seekers have been kept on an island called Nauru without due legal process, something that was promised to them should they agree to go to Nauru.

The war on Terror stinks of human rights abuses. It's not to say i oppose a war on terror, I'm just saying it could have been handled a lot better, how about giving these supposed terrorist the same rights we do? Innocent until proven guilty? What ever happened to that? [/size][/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

A few things I've intepreted from the newspaper article:

-They "didn't know where he was" yet Canadian officials visited him on six seperate occasions

-"But while Canadian diplomats were demanding answers from the U.S., it turns out that it was the Royal Canadian mounted police who had been passing U.S. intelligence the information about Arar?s alleged terrorist associations. "

-However, U.S. government officials we spoke to say they told Canadian intelligence that they were sending Arar to Syria ? and the Canadians signed off on the decision.

-"The facts underlying Arar?s case?[are]classified and cannot be released publicly.?

-But intelligence sources tell 60 Minutes II that since 9/11, the U.S. has quietly transported hundreds of terror suspects captured in different parts of the world to Middle Eastern countries for tough interrogations.

Okay. We've got a guy who was supposedly reported by Canadian Royal guard and Canadian Intelligence that he SHOULD be deported. A guy that, may or may not be a terrorist. We also know that it was classified intelligence exchanged between the two gov'ts and the legitimization of this act can really never be guessed.

I cannot tell you how I feel about this man. If he WAS a terrorist, then I can see why he should be deported if canadian officials were reporting his alleged Al Queda contacts. Canada is the PERFECT border for any terrorist to cross. I don't care to sound cliche, but how do we know he was't coming here for malignant reasons? Obviosly it must have been a good reason, considering both Canadians and Laura Thompson signed his deportation.

Lastly, I get this air of bias from 60 minutes. Their "intelligence" reports that this happened hundreds of times? I doubt that, considering you go to the highest levels of the Justice Department just to "ok" it. This guy received public recognition from his wife's protests and his speaking afterwords. I cannot honestly say I can endorse or oppose what the US did, because I don't have the facts.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shinji [/i]
[B][size=1][color=#3366CC]
It doesn't surprise me though, all those supposed terrorists out in Guantanamo Bay still haven't been given due legal process, and there are similar incidents happening in Australia too, where the Tampa asylum seekers have been kept on an island called Nauru without due legal process, something that was promised to them should they agree to go to Nauru.

[/size][/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]First of all, you cannot compare Guantanamo Bay with the situation on Nauru.

Secondly, you're sitting there saying that illegal immigrants should be "choosing" where they are located [i]while[/i] their claims are being assessed. I think most people would object to that. Nauru is being used as a processing point for illegal immigrants -- those who have their applications approved are obviously allowed into Australia. And those whose applications are denied are deported to their point of origin.

While I do feel that the processing system for illegal immigration in Australia takes for too long in some cases, I do also think it's important to maintain a sense of perspective here. These people being sent to Nauru is no different to them being kept at Christmas Island. And I would actually point out that their conditions at Nauru are probably a lot better than they'd be at Woomera or one of the other detention centers.

So, again, let's try to keep a sense of perspective here.

In regard to the actual story posted...like Drix, I find it hard to form a conclusion. There are too many unknowns to jump to an immediate answer, although I am certain that [i]most[/i] people will nevertheless form a conclusion that falls on one side or the other, regardless of the facts.[/color]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i]
[B]-But intelligence sources tell 60 Minutes II that since 9/11, the U.S. has quietly transported hundreds of terror suspects captured in different parts of the world to Middle Eastern countries for tough interrogations.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=INDIGO]Just to extrapolate a bit on your point...

I would at least agree that 60 minutes is attempting to hint at a conspiracy that doesn?t really exist by stating this fact. The US probably has captured hundreds of terrorists around the world and deported them to different countries. However, if a US or Interpol intelligence agency captures a suspected terrorist in France that is a citizen of Lybia, shouldn?t we be shipping them to Lybia for detainment and interrogation? I don?t understand why that practice would be considered the least bit inappropriate. I am sure if a United State?s citizen was caught in Germany and was suspected to be a terrorist, the US would expect Germany to ship them back here for interrogation. [/color]

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]

Secondly, you're sitting there saying that illegal immigrants should be "choosing" where they are located [i]while[/i] their claims are being assessed. I think most people would object to that. Nauru is being used as a processing point for illegal immigrants -- those who have their applications approved are obviously allowed into Australia. And those whose applications are denied are deported to their point of origin.
[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1][color=#3366CC]

I didn't know that Nauru was a processing point for the Immigrants, I felt, that like Guantanamo, the Asylum seekers were being simply held there, at least that's what the Press article hinted at. I didn't meant hey should choose where they're held.

There is still something wrong when the US can invade (whoops! perhaps it's better said, "go into") another country and steal people away when they're suspected of terrorism. Where does the US get it's right to do this? I'm not Anit - American by any turn of the book, but I remain skeptical of the Patriot act. I mean, shouldn't this course of action be left up to the Canadians in this example? He is their citizen after all.

I can see how easy it is to come to some sort of conclusion that falls on one side, regardless of the facts. For this one, I think I'll remain neutral until I learn more.

[/size][/color]