Good
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/01/charges-filed-case-rendition-torture-maher-arar/
QuoteCanada Charges Syrian Officer with Torture in Rendition Case — Despite U.S.
SilenceMurtaza Hussain
Sep. 2 2015, 7:58 a.m
Canada has charged a Syrian intelligence officer with torturing Maher Arar, the Canadian whose 2002 rendition to Syria by U.S. authorities became a cause célèbre.
The criminal charge against Col. George Salloum is reportedly the first of its kind in Canada and marks a formal acknowledgment that Arar was tortured after the U.S. handed him over on suspicion of terrorist links. An earlier official Canadian inquiry declared Arar innocent of any such links.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who brought the charge against Salloum, are calling for him to be extradited to Canada. Salloum allegedly oversaw Arar's torture in Syria's notorious Sednaya prison.
Arar's wife, Monia Mazigh, who has acted as the family's public representative, praised the move in an interview, calling the charges "a big step in the right direction... We need to see more accountability happening in Canada, in the U.S., in Jordan and in Syria. The ones who tortured and the ones who helped these horrible acts to happen should face justice."
"My husband and my family suffered tremendously all these years," she added. "Extraordinary rendition is a horrible tool that has been used by the U.S. government in an attempt to make torture legal and acceptable."
On September 26, 2002, as Arar prepared to board a connecting flight at New York's John F. Kennedy airport, on his way home to Montreal from a family vacation in Tunisia, Arar was detained by U.S. authorities and taken in for questioning. Arar would be held for almost two weeks in the U.S. without charge before being flown to Jordan and handed over to authorities there. He was then turned over to Syria.
Arar was later revealed to have been falsely branded as an Al Qaeda member. His ordeal became perhaps the best-known example of "extraordinary rendition," a shadowy U.S. program in which suspected terrorists are extradited from one foreign country to another in order to be interrogated and prosecuted. In recognition of Arar's suffering, the Canadian government in 2007 apologized and gave him a $10 million settlement.
The U.S. government has refused to take any similar measures, and Canadian authorities today left unaddressed the role that top U.S. officials are believed to have played in orchestrating Arar's rendition. In 2004, lawyers for the Center for Constitutional Rights brought a lawsuit against Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, and other high-ranking officials for conspiring to send Arar to Syria to be tortured. Ashcroft was accused of being "responsible for making the decision to remove Mr. Arar to Jordan and Syria," and Mueller was accused of having "removed Mr. Arar to Syria"; each was sued in both their official and individual capacities. The case was dismissed in 2006, and again in 2008, after the government invoked the state secrets privilege to claim potential adverse implications to national security if details of Arar's rendition and torture were to be revealed. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled against hearing his appeal, and his case has languished ever since.
Jamil Dakwar of the ACLU says that more needs to be done to address the role of U.S. government officials in Arar's torture. "As part of the process of providing Mr. Arar his right to truth, the U.S. government should, as a matter of obligation, open an investigation into the responsibility of U.S. officials in his mistreatment," Dakwar said. "This episode has never been credibly or independently investigated in the United States. If there is evidence of lawbreaking, including complicity in torture, the individuals responsible need to be held criminally responsible, and there needs to be an apology and reparations provided to the victim."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2015, 08:32:42 PM
Good
I don't see anything that suggests Canada should have jurisdiction in this matter.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2015, 08:36:07 PM
I don't see anything that suggests Canada should have jurisdiction in this matter.
If I follow the logic correctly, traditional jurisprudence in the international zone of airports (where the rendition presumably happened) or in the air falls to the citizen's home jurisdiction, not the hosting country. Since the chain of events including his torture was initiated in the international zone, Canada gets jurisdiction over the incident unless the US, Jordan, or Syria can come up with a compelling reason otherwise. That's if I follow this correctly (lawtalkers?).
No, the jurisdictional question is very simple. Under Canadian law it is illegal to torture a Canadian whether or not the act occurs on foreign soil. The tricky part is getting Syria to agree to extradite if he is in Syria or finding him if he has fled. This is perhaps more important as a symbolic gesture.
Another great moment bequeathed to us by the George W Bush administration.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2015, 09:07:29 PM
No, the jurisdictional question is very simple. Under Canadian law it is illegal to torture a Canadian whether or not the act occurs on foreign soil. The tricky part is getting Syria to agree to extradite if he is in Syria or finding him if he has fled. This is perhaps more important as a symbolic gesture.
Ah, I was wondering if that was the case. Not even like there's much of a Syrian government to lean on to extradite the colonel at the moment, anyway.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2015, 09:07:29 PM
No, the jurisdictional question is very simple. Under Canadian law it is illegal to torture a Canadian whether or not the act occurs on foreign soil. The tricky part is getting Syria to agree to extradite if he is in Syria or finding him if he has fled. This is perhaps more important as a symbolic gesture.
And under Syrian law there would almost certainly be no case for extradition.
People who travel to other countries are putting themselves in the protection of those countries' legal systems.
I do find it interesting they're going after the Syrian agent who interrogated/tortured the man and not the American agents who kidnapped him.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2015, 09:16:34 PM
I do find it interesting they're going after the Syrian agent who interrogated/tortured the man and not the American agents who kidnapped him.
They might as well go after Dubya if they are going to do that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2015, 09:16:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2015, 09:07:29 PM
No, the jurisdictional question is very simple. Under Canadian law it is illegal to torture a Canadian whether or not the act occurs on foreign soil. The tricky part is getting Syria to agree to extradite if he is in Syria or finding him if he has fled. This is perhaps more important as a symbolic gesture.
And under Syrian law there would almost certainly be no case for extradition.
People who travel to other countries are putting themselves in the protection of those countries' legal systems.
I do find it interesting they're going after the Syrian agent who interrogated/tortured the man and not the American agents who kidnapped him.
First, whether or not the Syrians agree to extradite is a separate question from whether a Canadian court would have jurisdiction. For example if he was arrested in Canada a Canadian court would certainly take jurisdiction.
Second the US government and others were sued. Canada settled and apologized. The US invoked a kind of sovereign immunity/ state secrets argument and were successful in the US courts with that .
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2015, 09:16:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2015, 09:07:29 PM
No, the jurisdictional question is very simple. Under Canadian law it is illegal to torture a Canadian whether or not the act occurs on foreign soil. The tricky part is getting Syria to agree to extradite if he is in Syria or finding him if he has fled. This is perhaps more important as a symbolic gesture.
And under Syrian law there would almost certainly be no case for extradition.
People who travel to other countries are putting themselves in the protection of those countries' legal systems.
I do find it interesting they're going after the Syrian agent who interrogated/tortured the man and not the American agents who kidnapped him.
I think countries that do not claim jurisdiction for crimes committed against their own citizens overseas (which I infer from your posts include the US) are quite rare. Most countries claim jurisdiction in such cases but apply it in a subsidiary manner - i.e. only if the country where the crime was actually committed does not prosecute.
A more interesting question is whether there are instances of such jurisdiction being claimed where the act itself was not a crime in the country where it was committed - I'd imagine it is unusual (although not entirely inconceivable for some serious crimes which may not be crimes in the country where they are committed - such as rape committed under certain conditions). But this question does not apply here, as torture is illegal under international conventions so it would have been illegal in Syria as well.
For the same reason I believe Canada is more reluctant to prosecute US officials, as the deportation to Syria would probably have been legal under US law, so Canada would actually have to prove these officials being accessory to torture which would be much harder.
OK, OK, Canada has "jurisdiction" because their law says they do, fine. (And the US probably does the same thing.) But it's a law dictating what foreign citizens can do in their own country. I highly doubt Canada would extradite if the situation was reversed.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2015, 03:53:23 AM
OK, OK, Canada has "jurisdiction" because their law says they do, fine. (And the US probably does the same thing.) But it's a law dictating what foreign citizens can do in their own country. I highly doubt Canada would extradite if the situation was reversed.
Well, again, most countries do not extradite their own citizens. But if the guy was travelling abroad he could be arrested based on an international arrest warrant.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2015, 03:53:23 AM
OK, OK, Canada has "jurisdiction" because their law says they do, fine. (And the US probably does the same thing.) But it's a law dictating what foreign citizens can do in their own country. I highly doubt Canada would extradite if the situation was reversed.
Wrong again. Torture is illegal under Canadian law. As Marti pointed out that is the threshold question when a country decides to extradite - ie is the act illegal in the extraditing country.
Marti was also correct about why no US actors will be charged - what they did was legal under US law at the time and so the US would not extradite.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 03, 2015, 07:54:54 AM
Wrong again. Torture is illegal under Canadian law.
A Canadian government agent, acting in official capacity on Canadian soil, gets charged with torture by some third world kangaroo court and you just obligingly send him on? Right...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2015, 09:45:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 03, 2015, 07:54:54 AM
Wrong again. Torture is illegal under Canadian law.
A Canadian government agent, acting in official capacity on Canadian soil, gets charged with torture by some third world kangaroo court and you just obligingly send him on? Right...
If there is an extradition tready with this country, the case will be heard in a tribunal, if the agent opposes its extradition, the foreign government will present its arguments, then the judge will rule on the merit.
It happenned with Vito Rizzuto, head of Montreal's sicilian mafia, for a murder committed in New York. Other mafiosi fought against their extradition toward Italy too.
So it's not just "we hand him over", there's a due process for this.
If there's no extradition treaty, then I don't know how it works.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2015, 09:45:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 03, 2015, 07:54:54 AM
Wrong again. Torture is illegal under Canadian law.
A Canadian government agent, acting in official capacity on Canadian soil, gets charged with torture by some third world kangaroo court and you just obligingly send him on? Right...
You may have trouble understanding the Rule of Law but it is not so foreign a concept in most places - forgive the pun.
Sending mobsters and sending Canadian government agents isn't the same ballpark. You would be all over the state sovereignty yada yada stuff that's keeping the American offenders out of Canadian courts in this case.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2015, 10:05:57 AM
Sending mobsters and sending Canadian government agents isn't the same ballpark. You would be all over the state sovereignty yada yada stuff that's keeping the American offenders out of Canadian courts in this case.
You missed the part about Canada already paying damages to this man and apologizing. If a Canadian official broke a law that person would also have been charged. Also your hypothetical is deeply flawed. Extradition is normally used when the country of residence will not prosecute. If a Canadian official engaged in torture that person would be prosecuted in Canada. If for some reason there was no prosecution in Canada for such a heinous act then certainly there would be considerable political pressure to allow extradition.
You may be forgetting, Canada doesn't engage in torture...
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 03, 2015, 10:12:49 AM
If a Canadian official engaged in torture that person would be prosecuted in Canada.
Or investigated and cleared. In Canada.
Point is, while courts and governments are quick to claim jurisdiction for all manner of crimes, they're also pretty zealous to keep jurisdiction away from other courts when their citizens are involved.
Let's leave aside Canada for a moment. Maybe they're as big a pushover as you say(though I doubt it). Rape is illegal in France, yet they won't extradite or prosecute Polanski. There were several prosecutions started of Bush admin officials by various European courts that we basically laughed off. Russia sheltering Snowden when he had nothing to do with them before, etc.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2015, 10:29:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 03, 2015, 10:12:49 AM
If a Canadian official engaged in torture that person would be prosecuted in Canada.
Or investigated and cleared. In Canada.
Point is, while courts and governments are quick to claim jurisdiction for all manner of crimes, they're also pretty zealous to keep jurisdiction away from other courts when their citizens are involved.
Let's leave aside Canada for a moment. Maybe they're as big a pushover as you say(though I doubt it). Rape is illegal in France, yet they won't extradite or prosecute Polanski. There were several prosecutions started of Bush admin officials by various European courts that we basically laughed off. Russia sheltering Snowden when he had nothing to do with them before, etc.
Again you miss the point. Torture is illegal in Canada. You suppose a fantasy hypothetical where it is legal or someone in a hypothetical Presidential advisory group of a hypothetical US administration dreams up an excuse for justifying torture. :P
If Canada is a pushover for not condoning torture then I would rather live in this country then that hypothetical US one.
Regarding the other cases you need to look at the other parts of the test of extradition. As an example, lots of countries, including Canada, do routinely refuse to extradite to the US because in many cases your criminal laws are not consistent with ours. Canada generally requires special guarantees that the person will not be subject to the death penalty for example.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 03, 2015, 10:12:49 AM
You may be forgetting, Canada doesn't engage in torture...
How can you say that with the likes of Bieber, Céline Dion, and Bryan Adams filling the airwaves without restraint or warning?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 03, 2015, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 03, 2015, 10:12:49 AM
You may be forgetting, Canada doesn't engage in torture...
How can you say that with the likes of Bieber, Céline Dion, and Bryan Adams filling the airwaves without restraint or warning?
Nickelback!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 03, 2015, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 03, 2015, 10:12:49 AM
You may be forgetting, Canada doesn't engage in torture...
How can you say that with the likes of Bieber, Céline Dion, and Bryan Adams filling the airwaves without restraint or warning?
What the hell did Bryan Adams do to deserve getting lumped in there with Bieber and Dion?
BB: outed.
BTW is article is incorrect to the extent it suggests the US cases failed because of invocation of state secrets or sovereign immunity. The appeals court found that there was no case pled under the torture statute. It did not decide either way whether there was a 5th amendment violation because in the absence of specific Congressional authorization of money damages in the rendition context, it wasn't going to extend the judicially created authorization for damages to such cases. 7-4 decision. Only applies within the territorial limits of NY, Vermont, Connecticut.
Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2015, 02:29:34 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 03, 2015, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 03, 2015, 10:12:49 AM
You may be forgetting, Canada doesn't engage in torture...
How can you say that with the likes of Bieber, Céline Dion, and Bryan Adams filling the airwaves without restraint or warning?
What the hell did Bryan Adams do to deserve getting lumped in there with Bieber and Dion?
Dion isn't nearly as annoying as Bieber. And she has one good song, at least. Adams too, one or 2 good songs. Minsky is just showing his anti-canadianism. APparently, it's Harper's fault if foreigners hate us now :(
:P
Adams has several good songs, and one great song(Summer of '69).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 05, 2015, 04:27:05 PM
Adams has several good songs, and one great song(Summer of '69).
Summer of 69, Evertyhing I do, There Will Never be Another tonight.
Celine Dion's My Heart Will go On is great, but I can't find any other good song from her.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2015, 10:29:36 AM
Rape is illegal in France, yet they won't extradite or prosecute Polanski.
Are you criticizing the US officials that requested he be extradited? 'Cause that seems to be what you are doing in the Canadian case.
Does Ryan Adams still go nuts when hecklers ask him to play Summer of '69?
Quote from: grumbler on September 07, 2015, 12:29:57 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2015, 10:29:36 AM
Rape is illegal in France, yet they won't extradite or prosecute Polanski.
Are you criticizing the US officials that requested he be extradited? 'Cause that seems to be what you are doing in the Canadian case.
No. I would be criticizing them if they wanted him to be extradited for raping an American in France.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 07, 2015, 01:12:49 PM
No. I would be criticizing them if they wanted him to be extradited for raping an American in France.
Ah. So your problem isn't extradition, but jurisdiction. Do you think it is okay for the members of ISIS to torture and kill American citizens, because that is legal in the Caliphate? If not, who has jurisdiction to punish that crime?
Do you think nations have jurisdiction to apprehend and punish pirates outside their own territorial waters?
Quote from: grumbler on September 07, 2015, 01:58:04 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 07, 2015, 01:12:49 PM
No. I would be criticizing them if they wanted him to be extradited for raping an American in France.
Ah. So your problem isn't extradition, but jurisdiction. Do you think it is okay for the members of ISIS to torture and kill American citizens, because that is legal in the Caliphate? If not, who has jurisdiction to punish that crime?
For starters, the states where ISIS is operating have jurisdiction. Also, those actions probably fall into some sort of crime against humanity that can be prosecuted internationally. But above all, the US is in some sort of quasi state of war with ISIS, bombing them, training and equipping their enemies, and sending drone strikes against them. You bring up a stupid analogy because if we identify the ISIS people torturing and killing americans we aren't going to attempt to extradite them, we are going to send a missile through their window one night.
QuoteDo you think nations have jurisdiction to apprehend and punish pirates outside their own territorial waters?
There are centuries of treaties and other international developments specifically for piracy. It really makes for a poor comparative.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 07, 2015, 02:13:30 PM
For starters, the states where ISIS is operating have jurisdiction.
And that state is the caliphate.
QuoteAlso, those actions probably fall into some sort of crime against humanity that can be prosecuted internationally.
Probably not, since it is my hypothetical.
QuoteBut above all, the US is in some sort of quasi state of war with ISIS, bombing them, training and equipping their enemies, and sending drone strikes against them. You bring up a stupid analogy because if we identify the ISIS people torturing and killing americans we aren't going to attempt to extradite them, we are going to send a missile through their window one night.
I am not sure what a "quazi state of war is, legally, but it isn't war, so your analogy is stupid. The US doesn't just get to kill anyone they want in the Caliphate; it may take necessary military actions to secure a military objective, but it can't just murder someone on the suspicion that they murdered some American. Even if they did, that would be asserting some jurisdiction over the crime in question, which was my point.
QuoteQuoteDo you think nations have jurisdiction to apprehend and punish pirates outside their own territorial waters?
There are centuries of treaties and other international developments specifically for piracy. It really makes for a poor comparative.
So, are you saying that you DO think nations have jurisdiction to apprehend and punish pirates outside their own territorial waters, or that they don't? Weasel-wording to avoid answering a yes or no question is just weaseling.
Newsflash captain grumbles: the caliphate is not a recognized state, and is not going to be in the foreseeable future. If you want to develop a hypothetical where it is, you should make that clear, so it can be ignored along with Tim's alt history maps.
Quote from: grumbler on September 07, 2015, 05:11:10 PM
Probably not, since it is my hypothetical.
What hypothetical? Torturing and killing Americans? From what I've heard, that's actually happened, so it's not exactly a hypothetical.
AR, you have proposed a theory that the only country that has jurisdiction over an act is the country where the act occurs. Grumbler was proposing a hypothetical to test your assertion. Before you get too wound up you should know that the proposition that the territory where the act takes place has exclusive jurisdiction has not been the law since at least the 19th century.
Grumbler's second hypothetical was provided to give you a hint as to where you were going wrong since much of this law was initially developed by Admiralty courts in response to piracy interfering with international trade. As you might imagine British courts had little trouble taking jurisdiction over cases of piracy of British ships in non British territories.
In the commercial sphere you should look, as an example, at the willingness of courts in Texas to try civil cases that have no connection with that State.
Then come back and tell us about your theory about exclusive jurisdiction.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2015, 09:57:52 PM
AR, you have proposed a theory that the only country that has jurisdiction over an act is the country where the act occurs. Grumbler was proposing a hypothetical to test your assertion. Before you get too wound up you should know that the proposition that the territory where the act takes place has exclusive jurisdiction has not been the law since at least the 19th century.
Grumbler's second hypothetical was provided to give you a hint as to where you were going wrong since much of this law was initially developed by Admiralty courts in response to piracy interfering with international trade. As you might imagine British courts had little trouble taking jurisdiction over cases of piracy of British ships in non British territories.
In the commercial sphere you should look, as an example, at the willingness of courts in Texas to try civil cases that have no connection with that State.
Then come back and tell us about your theory about exclusive jurisdiction.
I haven't asserted anything. Peter Wiggin expressed a point of view, and grumbler jumped on him with a bunch of extraneous stuff as grumbler so often does. I was just backing up Peter Wiggin from what I think borders on bullying behavior by grumbler.
I'm well aware of how the law works--I spent years auditing with a major focus on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance. I don't think that means Peter Wiggin is wrong to have the point of view he does.
Peter Wiggins should know better than to go head to head with grumbler. It's like watching a mouse toy with a panther.
I liked you better when you were serving nachos out of a hat.
I have to pay moderate lip service to grumbler to keep my grumbler point.
Also, the nachos out of a hat thing sounds vaguely familiar - context?
Quote from: alfred russel on September 07, 2015, 10:10:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2015, 09:57:52 PM
AR, you have proposed a theory that the only country that has jurisdiction over an act is the country where the act occurs. Grumbler was proposing a hypothetical to test your assertion. Before you get too wound up you should know that the proposition that the territory where the act takes place has exclusive jurisdiction has not been the law since at least the 19th century.
Grumbler's second hypothetical was provided to give you a hint as to where you were going wrong since much of this law was initially developed by Admiralty courts in response to piracy interfering with international trade. As you might imagine British courts had little trouble taking jurisdiction over cases of piracy of British ships in non British territories.
In the commercial sphere you should look, as an example, at the willingness of courts in Texas to try civil cases that have no connection with that State.
Then come back and tell us about your theory about exclusive jurisdiction.
I haven't asserted anything. Peter Wiggin expressed a point of view, and grumbler jumped on him with a bunch of extraneous stuff as grumbler so often does. I was just backing up Peter Wiggin from what I think borders on bullying behavior by grumbler.
I'm well aware of how the law works--I spent years auditing with a major focus on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance. I don't think that means Peter Wiggin is wrong to have the point of view he does.
If you understand the applicable law I am confused as to why you are defending a position that you ought to know is incorrect. Especially since Wiggin himself conceded the jurisdictional point when it was explained to him upthread.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2015, 10:52:23 PM
Wiggin himself conceded the jurisdictional point when it was explained to him upthread.
He did?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2015, 10:52:23 PM
If you understand the applicable law I am confused as to why you are defending a position that you ought to know is incorrect. Especially since Wiggin himself conceded the jurisdictional point when it was explained to him upthread.
First, I wasn't defending a position--as I stated upthread, I thought grumbler was dogpiling and intentionally or otherwise missing the core point of what PW was trying to say.
Second, I see three currents of arguments from Peter: a) what the law is, which as you say was conceded upthread, and is thus no longer relevant, b) what the law should be, and c) how political considerations impact the application in high profile international cases.
B & C don't necessarily hinge on what the law is.
Hard to drop a thread when people keep mentioning your name. :sleep:
I have a philosophical problem with these kind of jurisdictional claims meant to catch people who slip through the cracks. It stems from the same principles as the restriction on double jeopardy. The more people with the discretion to prosecute a particular crime, the greater the chance one of them decides to do so, even if their case is weak. In the extreme case, someone thought to be involved with a mass terror bombing might be investigated by prosecutors in 20 or 30 different countries.
Obviously, piracy and guerrilla groups and states in anarchy constitute special cases. But that's not (quite) the case here. AFAIK, Canada recognizes Assad's government, which still has operating courts.
Quote from: dps on September 07, 2015, 11:14:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2015, 10:52:23 PM
Wiggin himself conceded the jurisdictional point when it was explained to him upthread.
He did?
Yep. He then went on to argue whether or not Canada would extradite if another country had jurisdiction over an act in Canada committed by a Canadian national in similar circumstances.