Diplomacy for Torture

Photo by Geo 8

I think you've got to give this controversy to the Bush administration. After all, Maher Arar is an innocent man who we had kidnapped and shipped off to be tortured -- I'd put him on the terrorism watch list, too, as this is clearly a guy with some legitimate beef.

The specifics of the Arar case aside, the perplexing irony here is that the Bush administration's partner in torture in this case was none other than the nation of Syria. Yes, that Syria, the country too dastardly for us to conduct diplomatic talks with regarding the future of Iraq. The country whose government we keep issuing vague verbal threats to overthrow. One of the key dominoes on the board of the neocons' crazy game. I think it requires a genuinely sick group of individuals to have such a strong and robust opposition to attempts at diplomacy and international cooperation, especially with "bad" regimes, that can nonetheless be overcoming not in the interests of avoiding war but solely and exclusively for the cause of promoting the torture of innocent people.

UPDATE: See MJ Rosenberg for another side of the ened for engagement with Syria.

Comments

The irony (and tragedy) of the neocons' antipathy toward Syria is that Syria has been so incredibly enthusiastic about helping us in the fight against Al-Qaeda ever since 9/11.

Our Syria policy over the past 5 years is the best piece of evidence that for this White House, Israeli national security trumps American national security.

Posted by Petey | January 23, 2007 7:29 AM

It's obviously good that this kind of hypocrisy gets mentioned as much as possible.

But by we all know the neocons' argument: that the arbitrary use of power is "evidence of their commitment to the 'War.'" That is, their willingness to subvert basic American prinicples demonstrates their passion to defend those same principles. It's bulls**t, of course, but I suspect that anyone still buying it at this point is beyond convincing.

Posted by James Gary | January 23, 2007 8:17 AM

One of my favorite, as in least favorite, rhetorical tricks of the administration is to ask, when opposing withdrawl from iraq: "what kind of message would it send to moderate Muslims?"--or alternatively--"our friends in the region? (As if we had any.) Well, what kind of message does it send to outsource torture to the very regimes that oppress "our friends"?

Extraordinary rendition should get more attention, given that it's probably the stupidest and worst thing the administration does, although I believe the policy started under a previous administration. Clinton's?

Posted by david mizner | January 23, 2007 8:34 AM

I note, for the record, that the number of MY posts with pictures seems to be rising.

Posted by otto | January 23, 2007 8:50 AM

Endearing as those Matt Yglesias typos are, up to a point, I sometimes can't figure out what in the heck you're talking about: "See MJ Rosenberg for another side of the ened for engagement with Syria." Da wha?

Posted by DrBB | January 23, 2007 9:48 AM

Switzerland is now confirming the Ha'aretz story insofar as it concerns them.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | January 23, 2007 9:51 AM

the perplexing irony here is that the Bush administration's partner in torture in this case was none other than the nation of Syria.

Zzzzz. The evidence that we had anything to do with Arar's torture in Syria is... nil. But who needs evidence when you're part of the Reality-Based Community(TM)?

Posted by Al | January 23, 2007 10:03 AM

"But who needs evidence when you're part of the Reality-Based Community(TM)?"

Fergawdsakes. Use the proper trademark symbol. It's the Reality-Based Community™. Otherwise, you'll find yourself at the receiving end of a whopping lawsuit.

Posted by Petey | January 23, 2007 10:10 AM

Your HTML skilz are clearly superior to mine.

Posted by Al | January 23, 2007 10:15 AM

"Your HTML skilz are clearly superior to mine."

No HTML required. It's Option-2 on a Mac™. Your PC experience may vary.

Posted by Petey | January 23, 2007 10:22 AM

and the evidence that Al is a blatant liar and also a pretty simple-minded one at that has just reached the 100% mark

Posted by novakant | January 23, 2007 10:47 AM

The evidence that we had anything to do with Arar's torture in Syria is... nil.

Al -- read the official O'Connor report. Start with pages 139 to 207 -- it should take you less than an hour. You should also check out the volume one of the background report (the factual material)

If you don't have an hour to educate yourself on the torture of Maher Arrar, perhaps you could keep your uninformed opionions private.

Posted by Ikram | January 23, 2007 10:50 AM

Come on Ikram, Al doesn't care about that shit. When all attempts at distraction fail, Al falls back on the tried-and-true method of straight-up lies.

Posted by JP | January 23, 2007 10:51 AM

Shorter Al.
"Blame Canada"

Posted by matt | January 23, 2007 10:56 AM

"although I believe the policy started under a previous administration. Clinton's?"

Well, like with a lot of things, Clinton's isolated instance of wrongdoing has become this adminstration's routine. Another example, perhaps: Clinton had Monica, while GWB has the entire press corps . . .

Posted by rea | January 23, 2007 11:06 AM

With Clinton, "extraordinary rendition" meant grabbing people from other countries and bringing them to the US for trial. Under Bush, it means grabbing people from other countries and sending them to other countries for torture.

Posted by ajay | January 23, 2007 11:29 AM

The Maher Arar story just goes to show that the administration DID learn something from Iraq. Having turned Iraq from an enemy of Al Queda to a chaotic haven for them, it may have dawned on them that they may have had a similar effect on an innocent man by kidnapping and torturing him.

Posted by gregpstone | January 23, 2007 12:11 PM

Ikram - I've read the report. Nowhere in the report does it say the US was a "partner in torture" with Syria. In fact, it says that the relevant US official certified that Syria would NOT in fact torture Mr. Arar (presumably based on Syria's assurances).

Sometimes Syria lies. That doesn't make the US its "partner" in anything.

Posted by Al | January 23, 2007 12:22 PM

There's shedloads of behind the scenes cooperation between Syrian and American intelligence. Talk of invasion is just noise to keep the red meat right wing happy.

Posted by turkey turkey turkey | January 23, 2007 1:32 PM

it says that the relevant US official certified that Syria would NOT in fact torture Mr. Arar

Yes, who could have possibly conceived that Syria would torture a prisoner despite public assurances? Obviously, the U.S. is completely blameless!

Posted by Scott Lemieux | January 23, 2007 3:21 PM

The kid is still on this "watch list" that your government maintains. Personally, I do not think it would be a bad idea to avoid going into the USA anyhow at the present time. But the publication of the list and him being on it, though he has been cleared of all claims of impure thought...it is pretty insulting. You might almost think that the US government is determined to make an example of someone, anyone will do. So if they can't find a guilty someone, they will make life miserable for some innocent someones. That should fix these no accounts who dare to challenge the US of A, right? Sort of sounds like the same kind of bellicose thinking you would get from a bully, and maybe is why your "security" types shipped him off to Syria. And you must be pretty close to Syria despite all the talk about how they are a terrorist state. I mean your bullies must have been confident they knew excactly what would be done, and they could reel him back in if they wanted. There is enough appearance of lies, treachery, and general swinish conduct in that story that somebody ought to be hanging their head. That somebody is not this kid.

Posted by garhane | January 23, 2007 6:06 PM

So let me get Al's story straight. Arar was a dual Syrian-Canadian citizen, with a job and family in Canada, seized in New York while changing flights. Canada had said they would take the guy back, and wanted to interview him. Syria had no outstanding warrants or claims on the guy. The U.S. nevertheless chose to send the guy back to Syria, over his and his lawyer's objections, and without informing the Canadian government that he was even in custody, as per its consular obligations.

Why exactly would the U.S. take this step, if it did not feel that Syria's treatment of Arar would be more in line with American interests than his treatment by the Canadian authorities would be?

If one concedes, as I think one must, that this step was taken under the assumption that, at the least, Syrian custody would be harsher and more enduring than Canadian custody would be, then any reassurances of non-torture cannot be taken as given in good faith.

Posted by BruceR | January 23, 2007 6:08 PM

Canada had said they would take the guy back, and wanted to interview him.

But Canada wasn't going to hold him or keep tabs on him or anything.

Syria had no outstanding warrants or claims on the guy. The U.S. nevertheless chose to send the guy back to Syria, over his and his lawyer's objections

Syria likely told us they'd keep better tabs on the guy than did Canada.

If a person is on our terrorist watch list, I'd want him in a country that promised to keep tabs on him too.

Posted by Al | January 23, 2007 8:09 PM

Yes, who could have possibly conceived that Syria would torture a prisoner despite public assurances?

As I said, Syria lied to us. How that makes his torture OUR fault is beyond me. Usually the blame goes to the liar, not to the person lied to.

Posted by Al | January 23, 2007 8:12 PM

I know this is a waste of time, but still...

Al, if "keeping tabs on him" means continuing the ongoing surveillance, that was guaranteed if he'd been returned to Canada. Shipping him to Syria only makes sense if one felt either a coerced interrogation was needed, or he needed to be "taken out" of the picture for some other reason, such as disrupting an attack. Regardless of the fact the fellow is now generally conceded to have been innocent, there was no evidence at the time of any imminent plot requiring thwarting. At the time the guy was at most a "person of interest" to other investigations.

In any case, the U.S. government has produced nothing in the way of correspondence from Syria indicating that they had agreed to a non-torture policy or were even aware of the request, so there's absolutely no evidence to support the claim that these assurances were sought in advance, or that this (and the current retaining of his name on a no-fly list) is not now largely part of an ongoing U.S. government attempt to avoid damages in any civil litigation that U.S. courts might conceivably allow. (All attempts to pursue damages so far have been thwarted by your government arguing that a court case would damage national security interests. Great catch, that Catch-22.)

Posted by BruceR | January 23, 2007 8:59 PM

"ened for engagement"

Matt - try spell-check

Posted by k | January 23, 2007 10:15 PM

Syria lied to us!

Your Honor, I hired the Boston Strangler to wash these children's necks! How was I to know!

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 23, 2007 10:54 PM