Maher Arar Case Study

Maher Arar
ماهر عرار
Born1970 (age 47–48)
Syria
ResidenceCanada
CitizenshipCanadian, Syrian
OccupationTelecommunications engineer
Known forExtraordinary rendition
Spouse(s)Monia Mazigh
Awards

Time MagazineCanadian Newsmaker of the Year, 2004. Council of Canadians Human Rights Award, 2005. Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award, 2006. Nation Builder, Globe and Mail, 2006. British Columbia Civil Liberties Association Reg Robson Award, 2007. Honorary Doctorate of Letters, Nipissing University, 2007.

Time 100, 2007.

Maher Arar (Arabic: ماهر عرار‎) (born 1970) is a telecommunications engineer with dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship who has resided in Canada since 1987. Arar's story is frequently referred to as "extraordinary rendition" but the US government insisted it was a case of deportation.[7]

Arar was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis.[6] He was held without charges in solitary confinement in the United States for nearly two weeks, questioned, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer.[6] The US government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda and deported him, not to Canada, his current home and the passport on which he was travelling, but to Syria.[8] He was detained in Syria for almost a year, during which time he was tortured, according to the findings of a commission of inquiry ordered by the Canadian government, until his release to Canada. The Syrian government later stated that Arar was "completely innocent."[9][10] A Canadian commission publicly cleared Arar of any links to terrorism, and the government of Canada later settled out of court with Arar. He received C$10.5 million and Prime Minister Stephen Harper formally apologized to Arar for Canada's role in his "terrible ordeal."[11][12]

Arar, represented by lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York, Arar v. Ashcroft, seeking compensatory damages and a declaration that the actions of the US government were illegal and violated his constitutional, civil, and international human rights. After the lawsuit was dismissed by the Federal District Court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal on November 2, 2009. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the case on June 14, 2010.

Early life[edit]

Maher Arar was born in Syria in 1970 and moved to Canada with his parents at the age of 17 in 1987 to avoid mandatory military service. In 1991, Arar became a Canadian citizen.[13]

Arar earned a bachelor's degree in computer engineering from McGill University and a master's degree in telecommunications from the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique (a branch of the Université du Québec) in Montreal. While studying at McGill University, Arar met Monia Mazigh. Arar and Mazigh married in 1994. Mazigh holds a PhD in finance from McGill University. They have two children: Barâa and Houd.[14]

In December 1997, Arar moved with his family to Ottawa from Montreal and listed Abdullah Almalki as his "emergency contact" with his landlord.[15] In 1999, he moved again to Boston to work for MathWorks, a job that required a considerable amount of travel within the United States.[16] In 2001, Arar returned to Ottawa to start his own consulting company, Simcomms Inc. At the time of his rendition, Arar was employed in Ottawa as a telecommunications engineer.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Project A-O Canada and connection with Arar's rendition[edit]

On September 22, 2001, Jack Hooper, the director general of the Toronto region of Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), chaired a meeting of members of CSIS, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Ontario Provincial Police, Toronto Police Service, and Peel Regional Police. On September 24, 2001, the RCMP's "O" Division in Toronto created a joint force investigative team called Project O Canada to handle national security investigations. The Toronto team included RCMP investigators and members of the Ontario, Peel, and Toronto police forces.

On October 2001, Inspector Garry Clement, officer of the RCMP "A" Division in Ottawa, told RCMP Inspector Michel Cabana that Toronto's Project O Canada needed a team in Ottawa to help with its investigations of an Ottawa man named Abdullah Almalki. In response, Project A-O Canada was created. Garry Clement told Michel Cabana that the team would be working closely with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Later on, the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar revealed that there were no clear directions to RCMP officers regarding how to share information with the FBI and the CIA. Richard Proulx, a RCMP officer and then assistant RCMP commissioner, was the official singled out in the report for failing to provide these clear directions.[17]

The A-O Canada team included investigators and members from: the RCMP commercial crimes unit, "A" Divisions IPOC unit; the RCMP National Security Investigations Branch (NSIS), CSIS, the Ottawa Police, Gatineau Police, Hull Police and Ontario Provincial Police; the Sûreté du Québec; the Canada Border Services Agency; and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, and the support of lawyers from the Canadian Justice Department.

After he had moved back to Ottawa, Arar had a meeting with Abdullah Almalki on October 12, 2001. Almalki, an Ottawa engineer, was also born in Syria and had moved to Canada in the same year as Arar. They met at the Mango Café, a popular shawarma restaurant in a strip mall and talked about doctors and bought a print cartridge together.[18]

At the time their movements were under close scrutiny by teams of Project A-O Canada.[18] Before Project A-O Canada was created, CSIS had been monitoring Almalki at least since 1998 with respect to his relationship with Ahmed Khadr, an Egyptian-born Canadian and alleged senior associate of Osama bin Laden. CSIS was also concerned with Almalki's electronic components export business that he operated with his wife. Almalki, however, was purely a person of interest and was not, in fact, the target of the investigation. Nonetheless, Almalki's meeting with Arar appears to have prompted a wider investigation, with Arar also becoming a "person of interest."[18]

While testifying at the Guantanamo military commission for alleged child soldier Omar Khadr, FBI agent Robert Fuller testified that Khadr had identified Maher Arar as among the al-Qaeda militants he met while in Afghanistan. On October 7, 2002, Fuller went to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and showed Canadian teenager Omar Khadr a black-and-white photograph of Arar obtained from the FBI office in Massachusetts, and demanded to know if he recognised him. Khadr initially stated that he did not recognise Arar. Upon cross-examination, Fuller clarified his testimony saying that at first Khadr could not identify Arar. Then after giving him a couple minutes Khadr "stated he felt he had seen" Maher Arar[19] at a Kabul safehouse run by Abu Musab al-Suri or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The validity of Omar Khadr's possible sighting has been seriously questioned due to the time frame of the alleged sighting which was sometime during September or October 2001. Arar was known to be in North America during this time frame and under surveillance by the RCMP.[20] Khadr's lawyer told Canadian media that Khadr, claiming to be under torture at Bagram Theater Internment Facility, simply told his captors whatever he thought they wanted to hear. Lawyers and advocates familiar with the case immediately dismissed the allegations.[21][22][23][24][25][26]

The information gathered from the United States' interrogation of Omar Khadr conflicts with the information gathered previously from the RCMP. Michael Edelson stated in public testimony given during the Arar Inquiry that RCMP officials from Project AO Canada had shown pictures of Arar to Khadr in either July or August 2002 and that Khadr denied ever seeing Maher Arar.[27]

Within an affidavit, Khadr stated he was visited by three individuals claiming to be Canadians at Guantanamo Bay in March 2003. During their three-day visit, he was shown "approximately 20 pictures of various people" and asked about several people "such as my father and Arar." At which time he told them "what [he] knew."[28]

Arar's rendition[edit]

See also: Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar

On September 26, 2002, during a stopover in New York City en route from a family vacation in Tunisia to Montreal, Arar was detained by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The INS was acting upon information supplied by the RCMP.[29] When it became clear he was going to be deported, Arar requested he be deported to Canada; though he had not visited Syria since his move to Canada, he retained Syrian citizenship as Syria does not permit the renunciation of citizenship. Canadian (initially) and United States officials have labelled his transfer to Syria as a deportation, but critics have called the removal an example of rendition for torture by proxy, as the Syrian government is infamous for its torture of detainees. Despite the recent public rhetoric, at the time of Arar's deportation, Syria was working closely with the United States government in their "War on Terror." In November 2003, Cofer Black, then counterterrorism coordinator at the US State Department and former director of counterterrorism at the CIA, was quoted as saying "The Syrian government has provided some very useful assistance on al Qaeda in the past."[30] In September 2002, the George W. Bush administration opposed the enactment of the "Syria Accountability Act" citing effectiveness of current sanctions and the ongoing diplomacy in the region. In addition, the administration noted the cooperation and support by Syria in fighting al-Qaida as a reason for its opposition to the "Syria Accountability Act."[31]

US interrogation[edit]

US officials repeatedly questioned Arar about his connection to certain members of al-Qaeda. His interrogators also claimed that Arar was an associate of Abdullah Almalki, the Syrian-born Ottawa man whom they suspected of having links to al-Qaeda, and they therefore suspected Arar of being an al-Qaeda member himself. When Arar protested that he only had a casual relationship with Almalki, having once worked with Almalki's brother at an Ottawa high-tech firm, the officials produced a copy of Arar's 1997 rental lease which Almalki had co-signed. The fact that US officials had a Canadian document in their possession was later widely interpreted as evidence of the participation by Canadian authorities in Arar's detention. It was later found that Almalki's signature was not on the lease agreement, he was listed by Arar as emergency contact.[32]

Arar's requests for a lawyer were dismissed on the basis that he was not a US citizen, therefore he did not have the right to receive counsel. Despite his denials, he remained in US custody for two weeks and eventually was put on a small jet which first landed in Washington, D.C. and then in Amman, Jordan.

Arar's imprisonment in Syria[edit]

Once in Amman, Arar claims he was blindfolded, shackled and put in a van. "They made me bend my head down in the back seat," Arar recalled. "Then these men started beating me. Every time I tried to talk, they beat me."

Arar was transferred to a prison, where he claims he was beaten for several hours and forced to falsely confess that he had attended an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. "I was willing to do anything to stop the torture," he says.

Arar described his cell as a three-foot by six-foot "grave" with no light and plenty of rats. During the more than 10 months he was imprisoned and held in solitary confinement, he was beaten regularly with shredded cables.[33] Through the walls of his cell, Arar could hear the screams of other prisoners who were also being tortured. The Syrian government shared the results of its investigation with the United States.[9] Arar believes that his torturers were given a dossier of specific questions by United States interrogators, noting that he was asked identical questions both in the United States and in Syria.[34]

While he was imprisoned, Arar's wife Monia Mazigh conducted an active campaign in Canada to secure his release. Upon his release in October 2003, Syria announced they could find no terrorist links.[35] Syrian official Imad Moustapha stated that "We tried to find anything. We couldn’t." Syrian authorities also denied that they tortured Arar.[citation needed]

Arar's return to Canada[edit]

Arar was released on October 5, 2003, 374 days after his removal to Syria. He returned to Canada, reuniting with his wife and children. The couple moved to Kamloops, in British Columbia, where his wife Monia accepted a job as professor at Thompson Rivers University.[36] The couple later moved back to Ottawa. Back in Canada, Arar claimed that he had been tortured in Syria and sought to clear his name, embarking on legal challenges both in Canada and in the United States as well as a public education campaign. Arar received a PhD in electrical engineering from the University of Ottawa in 2010.[37]

Canadian government response[edit]

The rendition of Maher Arar has received much attention and scrutiny in Canada, both in the media and in the government.

Initial media controversy[edit]

...whereas the Globe story described Maher as a "respected Canadian engineer" and focused on [Monia]'s efforts to find her missing husband, the National Post took a different angle: Its headline described Maher as a suspected terrorist.
— Kerry Pither[38]

Arar's case reached new heights of controversy after reporter Juliet O'Neill wrote an article in the Ottawa Citizen on November 8, 2003, containing information leaked to her from an unknown security source, possibly within the RCMP. The secret documents provided by her source suggested Arar was a trained member of an al-Qaeda terrorist cell. The RCMP later raided O'Neill's house pursuant to a sealed search warrants it had obtained to investigate the leak.[39]

In November 2004, Ontario Superior Court Judge Lynn Ratushny ruled that the sealing of the search warrants was unacceptable, although Justice of the Peace Richard Sculthorpe had given approval after the RCMP invoked the Security of Information Act. Justice Ratushny stated that the sealing of the search violated guarantees of a free press, freedom of expression and the public's right to an open court system. She ordered that a redacted copy be released to the public.[40] All materials that were seized were subsequently ordered returned to O'Neill after Ontario Superior Court Judge Ratushny struck down Section 4 of the Security of Information Act,[41] ruling that it was "unconstitutionally vague" and broad[42] and an infringement of freedom of expression. In May 2008, the RCMP closed the investigation, labeled Operation Soya, without concluding who leaked the false information.[43]

Garvie Report[edit]

On September 25, 2004, the results of an internal RCMP investigation by RCMP Chief Superintendent Brian Garvie were published. Though the version released to the public was censored, the Garvie Report documented several instances of impropriety by the RCMP in the Arar case. Among its revelations were that the RCMP was responsible for giving American authorities sensitive information on Arar with no attached provisos about how this information might be used. Also, Richard Roy, the RCMP liaison officer with the Department of Foreign Affairs, may have known of the plan of removing Arar to Syria but did not contact his supervisors. Additionally, Deputy RCMP Commissioner Garry Loeppky lobbied hard, in the spring of 2003, to convince his government (then led by Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien) not to claim in a letter to Syria, that it "had no evidence Arar was involved in any terrorist activities" because Arar "remained a person of great interest."

In response to the Garvie Report, Arar said that the report was "just the starting point to find out the truth about what happened to me" and that it "exposes the fact that the government was misleading the public when they said Canada had nothing to do with sending me to Syria."

Canadian Commission of Inquiry[edit]

On February 5, 2004, the Canadian government established the "Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar" to investigate and report on the actions of Canadian officials. The United States refused to participate in the inquiry and, until January 2007, refused to share its own evidence with Canadian officials.

On June 14, 2005, Franco Pillarella, Canadian ambassador to Syria at the time of Arar's removal, said that at the time he had no reason to believe Arar had been badly treated, and in general had no reason to conclusively believe that Syria engaged in routine torture. These statements prompted widespread incredulity in the Canadian media, and a former Canadian UN ambassador responded to Pillarella asserting that Syria's human rights abuses were well known and well documented by many sources.

On September 14, 2005, the O'Connor commission concluded public hearings after testimony from 85 witnesses. Maher Arar did not testify before the commission.[10] The US ambassador at the time of the incident, Paul Cellucci, refused to testify.

On October 27, 2005, Professor Stephen Toope, a fact-finder appointed by the Arar inquiry released a report saying that he believed Arar was tortured in Syria. He said that Arar had recovered well physically but was still suffering from psychological problems caused by his mistreatment, as well as anxiety caused by the Commission of Inquiry process itself.[44]

On September 18, 2006, the Canadian Commission of Inquiry, led by Dennis O'Connor, Associate Chief Justice of Ontario, issued its report. The final report exonerates Arar and categorically states that there is no evidence linking Arar to terrorist activity, stating "there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada." The Commission also found no evidence that Canadian officials acquiesced in the US decision to detain and remove Arar to Syria, but that it is very likely that the US relied on inaccurate and unfair information about Arar that was provided by Canadian officials. The report also confirms that he was tortured while in Syria. O'Connor cleared Arar of terrorism allegations, and found the actions of Canadian officials likely led to his being deported by US authorities to Syria.[44][45][46]

On August 9, 2007, an addendum to the final report containing previously undisclosed portions was released. The final report was released with certain portions blacked out for reasons of national security by the Canadian government. Under the rules for the inquiry, the decision to release the remaining portions of the final report were to be decided within the Canadian courts. In July 2007, the Federal Court ruled that portions of the previously removed text could be released.[47]

Canadian government apology and settlement[edit]

On January 26, 2007, after months of negotiations between the Canadian government and Arar's Canadian legal counsel, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology to Arar on behalf of the Canadian government, apologizing "for any role Canadian officials may have played in what happened to Mr. Arar, Monia Mazigh and their family in 2002 and 2003"[48] and announced that Arar would receive C$10.5 million settlement for his ordeal and an additional one million for legal costs.[12]

RCMP apology[edit]

On September 28, 2006, RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli issued an apology to Arar and his family during the House of Commons committee on public safety and national security:

Mr. Arar, I wish to take this opportunity to express publicly to you and to your wife and to your children how truly sorry I am for whatever part the actions of the RCMP may have contributed to the terrible injustices that you experienced and the pain that you and your family endured.[49]

Arar thanked Commissioner Zaccardelli for his apology but lamented the lack of concrete disciplinary action against those individuals whose actions led to his detention and subsequent torture.[50] Zaccardelli later resigned as RCMP commissioner because of this case.

Aftermath[edit]

In Canada, Arar's ordeal has raised numerous questions that have yet to be answered. Canadian authorities have been unable to discover who leaked sensitive government documents to O'Neill. Those who were involved in the case in the RCMP have not been reprimanded by the government for their mistakes. In fact, several have received promotions.[51]

As of December 2006, the only person held accountable in Canada has been RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli, who resigned over contradictions in his testimony to the House of Commons Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The contradictions were with respect to what he knew at the time and what he told government ministers.[52]

Several Conservative party members, including Canadian Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, apparently assumed Arar's guilt, labeling him a terrorist.[53][54] Other commentators have suggested that the settlement reached by the Harper government was designed to embarrass the Liberals, on whose watch the events took place.[citation needed]

Some commentators, including prominent human rights lawyer Faisal Kutty argued that:

Arar settlement in Canada does not close the book. It only opens a new chapter of a book that is about more than Maher Arar — it is about the erosion of civil and human rights in Canada as a result of the "War on Terror." The Arar saga brought into focus the unintended victims of draconian laws and policies hastily enacted post 9/11 in Canada and south of the border. It also shed light on the potential of religious and racial profiling inherent in such laws and practices. We can only hope that Arar's second wish which was to "make sure this does not happen to any other Canadian citizens in the future," will also come true. For this to happen, however, more people must realize that due process and fundamental rights must be respected at all times and more so during times of real or perceived crisis when society has a tendency to overreact.[6]

Arar's attempts for legal redress[edit]

Maher Arar on return to Canada brought lawsuits against Syria, Canada, the United States and Jordan.

Syria and Jordan lawsuits[edit]

Arar attempted to sue both the Syrian government and the Jordanian government in Canadian courts but both cases were dismissed on the basis that the Canadian courts had no jurisdiction.[55][56][57]

United States lawsuit[edit]

See also: Arar v. Ashcroft

In January 2004, Arar announced that he would be suing then-Attorney General of the United StatesJohn Ashcroft over his treatment.[58]

The Center for Constitutional Rights brought the suit Arar v. Ashcroft against former Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI DirectorRobert Mueller, and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, as well as numerous US immigration officials. It charges the defendants violated Arar's constitutional right to due process; his right to choose a country of removal other than one in which he would be tortured, as guaranteed under the Torture Victims Protection Act; and his rights under international law.

The suit charges that Arar's Fifth Amendmentdue process rights were violated when he was confined without access to an attorney or the court system, both domestically before being rendered, and while detained by the Syrian government, whose actions were complicit with the US. Additionally, the Attorney General and INS officials who carried out his deportation also likely violated his right to due process by recklessly subjecting him to torture at the hands of a foreign government that they had every reason to believe would carry out abusive interrogation.

Further, Arar filed a claim under the Torture Victims Protection Act, adopted by the United States Congress in 1992, which allows a victim of torture by an individual of a foreign government to bring suit against that actor in a US court. Arar's claim under the act against Ashcroft and the INS directors is based upon their complicity in bringing about the torture he suffered. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In the case, Arar is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and a declaration that the actions of the US government were illegal and violated his constitutional, civil, and international human rights.

A year after the case was filed, the US government invoked the rarely used "State Secrets Privilege" in a motion to dismiss the suit. The government claimed that to go forward in an open court would jeopardize the United States' intelligence, foreign policy, and national security interests. Specifically, the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege asserted that disclosure of "the basis for the rejection of plaintiff’s designation of Canada as the country to which plaintiff wished to be removed," "the basis for the decision to exclude plaintiff from this country," and "the considerations involved in the decision to remove him to Syria" would damage national security interests.[59]

On February 16, 2006, Brooklyn District Court Judge David Trager dismissed Arar's lawsuit against members of the George W. Bush administration,[60] basing his decision on national security grounds.

Center for Constitutional Rights attorneys appealed the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which subsequently upheld the dismissal.[61]

On August 13, 2008, reports appeared in the press that the US Court of Appeals Second Circuit had agreed to rehear the case, en banc.[62] On December 9, 2008, oral arguments were heard by the entire twelve member appeals court.[63] In a 7-4 decision dated November 2, 2009, the 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals upheld the ruling by the district court. In dismissing Arar's claim, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote "Our ruling does not preclude judicial review and oversight in this context. But if a civil remedy in damages is to be created for harms suffered in the context of extraordinary rendition, it must be created by Congress, which alone has the institutional competence to set parameters, delineate safe harbors, and specify relief. If Congress chooses to legislate on this subject, then judicial review of such legislation would be available."[64] Following the court's decision Arar made the following statement,

After seven years of pain and hard struggle it was my hope that the court system would listen to my plea and act as an independent body from the executive branch. Unfortunately, this recent decision and decisions taken on other similar cases, prove that the court system in the United States has become more or less a tool that the executive branch can easily manipulate through unfounded allegations and fear mongering. If anything, this decision is a loss to all Americans and to the rule of law.[65]

The Center for Constitutional Rights, who represents Maher Arar, petitioned the US Supreme Court on February 1, 2010 to hear the Arar case.[66]

The US Supreme Court declined to hear Arar's case.[67]

US government response[edit]

Throughout the Bush administration's term, it continued to maintain that Arar's rendition to Syria was legal and well within its rights.[68] The government has not publicly acknowledged that Arar was tortured in Syria.

Former US Attorney General Gonzales's response to the Arar inquiry[edit]

On September 19, 2006, then-US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales denied any wrongdoing on the part of the US in Arar's rendition to Syria.[69] During a press conference Gonzales said:[70]

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.

On September 20, 2006, Charles Miller, a Department of Justice spokesman, said Gonzales had merely been trying to clarify that deportations were no longer the responsibility of the Department of Justice, but were now the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security.[71]

Watchlist issue[edit]

Despite the inquiry's exoneration of Arar, the United States has also refused to remove Arar from its watchlist. Stockwell Day was invited to look at the evidence in the United States' possession in January 2007. In his opinion, the administration is unjustified in continuing to bar Arar from entering the United States. Reportedly, the United States continues to refuse to remove Arar from the watchlist because of "his personal associations and travel history."[72]

Following Day's efforts to remove Arar from the watchlist, US Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins chided Canada for questioning whom the United States can and cannot allow into their country.[73] Notwithstanding, Prime MinisterStephen Harper has vowed to continue to press the United States on this matter. On January 26, 2007, Harper rebuked Wilkins with respect to the Canadian government's efforts to remove him from the US watch list, stating, "Canada has every right to go to bat for one of its citizens when the government believes a Canadian is being unfairly treated."[74]

On October 20, 2007, The Globe and Mail reported that it had seen classified American documents revealing evidence on which the United States acted: "Maher Arar's denials that he ever went to Afghanistan are contradicted by a man convicted of immigration fraud and a self-confessed mujahedeen instructor who says he spotted him there in the early 1990s...."[75] The newspaper stated that the informant, Mohamed Kamal Elzahabi, also faced charges of lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and that "his credibility is very much at issue." It added that, even crediting his description of his acquaintance with Arar, "the encounter appears to have been, at most, fleeting."[75]

US Congressional hearings and testimony[edit]

Meanwhile, in the United States, Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has threatened to hold extensive hearings into Arar's case. Leahy has lambasted the US's removal of Arar to Syria as absurd and outrageous, noting that instead of sending Arar a "couple of hundred miles to Canada and turned over to the Canadian authorities ... he was sent thousands of miles away to Syria." Senator Leahy spoke at length on the matter, calling the case "a black mark" on the United States: "We knew damn well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn't be tortured. He'd be held. He'd be investigated. We also knew damn well, if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured. And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured."[76]

Former Attorney GeneralAlberto Gonzales noted that the United States had assurances from Syria that Arar would not be tortured. This was dismissed by Leahy, remarking that the United States got "assurances from a country that we also say, now, we can't talk to them because we can't take their word for anything?" The senator was alluding to the Bush administration's policy of refraining from talking to Iran and Syria. Syria is on the US State Department's list of states that sponsor terrorism.

On October 18, 2007, Arar spoke via video-link before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, and the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at a hearing that is examining his case and the practice of rendition. In his statement to the committee, he detailed his experiences and expressed his hope that his case will not be repeated. "I now understand how fragile our human rights and freedoms are, and how easily they can be taken from us by the very same governments and institutions that have sworn to protect us. I also know that the only way I will ever be able to move on in my life and have a future is if I can find out why this happened to me, and help prevent it from happening to others."[77]

Members of Congress took the opportunity to personally apologize to Arar. Bill Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, commented on the United States government’s inaction, saying, "Let me personally give you what our government has not: an apology." "Let me apologize to you and the Canadian people," he continued, "for our government's role in a mistake."[78]Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, agreed that lawmakers "should be ashamed" of the case, but defended the practice of rendition, claiming that it has "protected the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of American lives."[78] Michigan Democrat John Conyers took the opportunity to challenge rendition, and stated that his "intention" is "for high level administration officials responsible for the Arar decision to come before these panels and tell the American people the truth about what happened." "This government is sending people to other countries to be tortured," Conyers said.[79]

On October 24, 2007, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, while testifying in Washington before the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee, admitted that the US communication with the Canadian government was not handled properly. "We have told the Canadian government we do not think this was handled particularly well in terms of our own relationship and we will try to do better in the future," Rice said while testifying before the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee.[80][81]

On June 5, 2008, a joint hearing entitled "U.S. Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Report OIG-08-18: The Removal of a Canadian Citizen to Syria" was held by the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties and the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight. In his opening remarks DHS Inspector General Skinner noted that his office had reopened their investigation into the Arar case based upon "recently received additional classified information that could be germane to [their] findings"[82]video. A redacted copy of the Department of Homeland Security report was released.[83] A redacted addendum to the initial DHS OIG report was released in March 2010. The follow-up report focused on whether the State Department was involved in the discussions concerning the removal of Maher Arar to Syria. Although no follow-up recommendations were made the follow-up report showed that only a brief courtesy call was made by the Deputy Attorney General to the Deputy Secretary of State with no discussion on assurances that Arar would not be tortured. Also interviewed was the former legal advisor to the Department of State who "told [DHS OIG] that normally his office would have been involved in a similar removal matter. However, he reaffirmed that he was unaware of DOS involvement in Mr. Arar's removal." Further explaining previous reports stating that Arar's removal to Canada would be prejudicial to the United States, the removal decision was made on the "belief that Mr. Arar was a dangerous person and the porous nature of the Canadian/US border will allow Mr. Arar easy access to the United States."[84]

On June 10, 2008, a hearing about diplomatic assurances was held by the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight.[85]video In his opening statement Representative Bill Delahunt cited the case of Maher Arar and the ambiguousness of assurance received from Syria. It appears that when Arar was removed, the State Department was not consulted when assurances that Arar would not be tortured were obtained. The sole witness was John B. Bellinger III, the legal advisor of the US State Department (previously White House Senior Associate Counsel to the President and Legal Adviser to the National Security Council). Bellinger has previously spoken on the Arar case.

In a letter dated June 10, 2008, US Representatives John Conyers, Jr., Jerrold Nadler, and Bill Delahunt requested of the Attorney General the appointment of a "special counsel to investigate and prosecute any violation of federal criminal laws related to the removal of Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, to Syria."[86] Responding in a letter to Representatives Conyers, Nadler, and Delahunt, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that he does not believes it warrants a special prosecutor at this time. During the House Committee on the Judiciary oversight hearing Representative Delahunt questioned the Attorney General about his letter and the issue of assurances. When questioned the Attorney General stated that a classified briefing on the assurances from Syria was offered to Representatives Conyers, Nadler, and Delahunt. Representative Delahunt choose not to attend giving the reason of his concern for inadvertently disclosing classified information in public setting. In addition, the Attorney General stated that "sending [Mr. Arar] to Canada could have posed a danger to [the United States]" and sending "him to Syria was safer given those assurances."[87]

Dispute over Canadian involvement in his rendition[edit]

After Arar's release, the controversy continued over his treatment by the US and over the role that Canadian police and government officials may have played in his removal and interrogation. The United States claimed that the RCMP had provided them with a list of suspicious persons that included Arar.[88] It was also discovered that Canadian consular officials knew that Arar was in custody in the United States but did not believe that he would be removed. The Canadian government maintains that the decision to remove Arar to Syria was made by American officials alone.

Canadian officials apparently told US officials Arar was no longer a resident of Canada. The New York Times reported, "In July 2002, the Mounted Police learned that Mr. Arar and his family were in Tunisia, and incorrectly concluded that they had left Canada permanently."[89]

At a summit meeting in Monterrey, Mexico, on January 13, 2004, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and US President George W. Bush reached an agreement, sometimes referred to as the Monterrey Accord, which obliged the United States to notify Canada before deporting a Canadian citizen to a third country. However, according to a news story in the Toronto Globe and Mail, Stephen Yale-Loehr, lawyer and adjunct professor of immigration and asylum law at Cornell University told the Arar inquiry "the Canada-U.S. agreement struck... to prevent a recurrence of the Arar affair is ineffective and legally unenforceable."[90]

In 2007, as part of the investigation into government foreknowledge, it was revealed that CSIS chief Jack Hooper had sent a memo on October 10, 2002 that included the reference "I think the United States would like to get Arar to Jordan where they can have their way with him," which was the first conclusive evidence that CSIS, and not just the RCMP, knew that a Canadian was going to be tortured at the request of the United States.[91] A year later, Hooper contacted the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to tell them that it was not in Canada's interests to demand that the United States return Maher Arar.[92]

In September 2008, former RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli, now with Interpol, said that the White House "threw away the rule book" after 9/11 and that the RCMP was led to believe that Arar would be sent back to Canada from New York.[2] Zaccardelli told the CBC that US authorities said that they didn't have enough evidence to lay charges against Arar and wanted to know whether Arar would be arrested if he returned to Canada. "The discussion was: 'If we let him go and he comes to Canada, can you arrest him or detain him?' And we keep reaffirming, 'No we can't'," Zaccardelli said.

The RCMP set up surveillance team to watch Arar upon his return: "We are waiting in Montreal for the plane to arrive with Mr. Arar getting off the plane. The plane arrives. Mr. Arar never got off." Zaccardelli said.[93]

Canada's formal protest to the US government[edit]

During a telephone conversation on October 6, 2006, Harper notified President Bush that Canada intended to lodge a formal protest over US treatment of Arar. The notification was later followed by a letter of protest sent from Canadian Minister of Foreign AffairsPeter MacKay to US Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice.[94] Harper told reporters that Canada wants "the United States government [to] come clean with its version of events, to acknowledge ... the deficiencies and inappropriate conduct that occurred in this case, particularly vis-à-vis its relationship with the Canadian government." In particular, Canada wants United States' assurances, said Harper, that "these kinds of incidents will not be repeated in the future."[95]

US embassy statements[edit]

Robert H. Tuttle, the US ambassador to Britain told the BBC on December 22, 2005:

I don't think there is any evidence that there have been any renditions carried out in the country of Syria. There is no evidence of that. And I think we have to take what the secretary Condoleezza Rice says at face value. It is something very important, it is done very carefully and she has said we do not authorise, condone torture in any way, shape or form.

This statement was amended the very next day by a US embassy spokeswoman who stated that the embassy

recognised that there had been a media report of a rendition to Syria but reiterated that the United States is not in a position to comment on specific allegations of intelligence activities that appear in the press.[96]

[edit]

Little has been said publicly about Maher Arar by President Obama's administration. In an interview with Neil Macdonald of CBC, US Homeland Security SecretaryJanet Napolitano stated that it is the opinion of those who have reviewed Arar's case that "his status should not now be changed." When questioned about the validity of Canada's findings in all matters relating to Arar, Secretary Napolitano clarified saying "his status at least for admission to the United States purposes should not be changed."[97] The Obama administration recently modified the government's standard for using the state secrets claim. It is unknown how the changes will affect Arar's case against the United States in which the government lawyers had invoked the state secrets privilege. The new standard took effect on October 1, 2009.[98]

Awards and accolades[edit]

Time magazine chose Arar as Canadian Newsmaker of the Year for 2004. On October 18, 2006, Arar and the Center for Constitutional Rights were honoured with the Institute for Policy StudiesLetelier-MoffittHuman Rights Award, in recognition of the struggle to clear his name and draw attention to American abuses of human rights in dealing with terrorist suspects.[99] Arar, along with Sergeant Patrick Tower, was chosen a co-Nation Builder by The Globe and Mail for 2006.[100] In April 2007, Time magazine named Arar to the TIME 100, its annual listing of 100 influential people in the world.[101] Arar's entry, at No. 58 in the Heroes & Pioneers category, was written by US SenatorPatrick Leahy and says his case "stands as a sad example of how we have been too willing to sacrifice our core principles to overarching government power in the name of security, when doing so only undermines the principles we stand for and makes us less safe." The US would not allow him entry to attend Time's recognition event.[102]

In 2011, Arar endorsed the Canadian ship to Gaza,[103] part of the Freedom Flotilla II[104] which aims to end the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip.

In print[edit]

The case of Maher Arar has been referenced in several books. Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States, discusses Arar sympathetically in his bestselling 2005 book Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (ISBN 978-0-7432-8501-8). Amy Goodman, host of the radio program Democracy Now!, and her brother David Goodman wrote about Arar in their 2006 book, Static (ISBN 978-1-4013-0914-5). Dark Days: The Story of Four Canadians Tortured in the Name of Fighting Terror, by Kerry Pither (ISBN 978-0-670-06853-1), discusses the investigations of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati, Muayyed Nureddin, and Maher Arar by Canadian Security forces, and includes a foreword by Maher Arar. Pither lays out how similar the ordeals of each four men are, all imprisoned by Syria, tortured and questioned, and released without charge. The Arar case was also discussed in Jane Mayer's The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals (ISBN 978-0-385-52639-5 in hardcover, ISBN 978-1-921372-50-6 in softcover).

Hope & Despair. My Struggle to Free My Husband, Maher Arar (ISBN 978-0-7710-5758-8), published November 4, 2008, tells of Monia Mazigh's struggle to free her husband Maher Arar.

In fiction[edit]

The movie Rendition is loosely based on Arar. The British film Extraordinary Rendition directed by Jim Threapleton was also inspired by Maher Arar. In addition, Arar consulted with the Omar Berdouni who played Zaafir, the main character, who was abducted by a case of CIA extraordinary rendition.[105]

PRISM magazine[edit]

In January 2010 Maher Arar began publishing the online magazine PRISM. PRISM is focused on "in-depth coverage and analysis of national security related issues."[106] Listed as a contributor is Gar Pardy, former head of the Canadian Consular Services who testified at the Arar Inquiry.

Arar announced the magazine's closure on January 8, 2013.[107]

Activism for US accountability[edit]

Several human rights organizations are directing activism efforts demanding US accountability for its involvement in Arar’s rendition and presumed subsequent torture. Amnesty International USA is leading the "I Apologize" campaign. The campaign is aimed at an official US public apology to Arar, compensation for "all economically assessable damage caused by the U.S.’s detention and transfer of [Arar] to face torture in Syria," and "full accountability for the many human rights violations committed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in the name of countering terrorism."[108][109] The campaign includes an online petition directed at President Obama and members of the US Congress,[108] paper airplane petitions that will be delivered to President Obama in 2012,[110] and public events to increase awareness of the case and to collect petition signatures.[111][112] In July 2011, Human Rights Watch released a report highlighting violations of US and international law committed by Bush administration officials in their counterterrorism efforts, including the rendition of Arar.[113] The report recommends the initiation of a criminal investigation into the US government’s detention practices and interrogation methods since September 11, 2001 and the fulfillment of the US obligation under the Convention against Torture to ensure that victims of torture obtain redress.[114] Other organizations that have supported US accountability for Arar’s case include the Campaign for Liberty,[115] the Center for Constitutional Rights,[116]September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, the Alliance for Justice, Appeal for Justice, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the Center for Justice and Accountability, the Center for Victims of Torture, Human Rights Advocates, the International Justice Network, amongst others.[117]

Ten years after 9/11 reflections[edit]

As the ten-year anniversary of September 11, 2001 approached, several reflections have talked about the case of Maher Arar. In a Globe and Mail interview, Sonia Verma asked former Office of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge about the relationship between the US Government and Muslims living in America with reference to Maher Arar.

Sonia Verma: What about the relationship between the American government and American Muslims? Of course you’re aware of Maher Arar, who said he was tortured in Syria after being deported there by American authorities.

Tom Ridge

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen and father of two, was travelling home to Canada after visiting his wife’s family in Tunisia in 2002. While changing planes at New York City’s JFK airport, he was detained and held for 12 days by US authorities. He was then transferred secretly, via Jordan, to Syria, where he was held in degrading and inhumane conditions, interrogated, and tortured for a year.

Mr. Arar’s wife, Monia Mazigh, contacted Amnesty International Canada’s Secretary General Alex Neve when he was detained in New York. When Amnesty International learned that Mr. Arar had been deported to Syria, we issued the first of a series of Urgent Actions on the case raising concerns about Mr. Arar’s disappearance. We continued to issue Urgent Actions and urge Canadian authorities to intervene with Syrian and US officials over the course of the following year.

Mr. Arar was released without charge and allowed to return home to Canada on 5 October 2003.  Following his return, Amnesty International joined Mr. Arar and Ms. Mazigh, along with other organizations, in launching a national campaign for a Public Inquiry into the role Canadian officials played in Mr. Arar’s mistreatment. We also called on the US Attorney General to conduct a full investigation into Mr. Arar’s case.

On 5 February 2004, the Canadian government established the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar (Arar Inquiry). The government appointed Justice Dennis O’Connor as Commissioner for the Inquiry. Commissioner O’Connor was mandated to investigate and report into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Mr. Arar’s rendition to and torture in Syria. He was also tasked with making recommendations concerning a new review and oversight mechanism for Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in relation to their national security activities.

On 22 January 2004, Mr. Arar also filed a federal lawsuit in the United States challenging the actions of American authorities in his detention in New York for two weeks and rendition to torture in Syria. At first instance, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Mr. Arar’s case, finding that “national security” and “foreign policy” considerations prevented the court from holding US officials liable. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision, and Mr. Arar appealed to the US Supreme Court.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S INTERVENTIONS

Amnesty international was granted intervener status at Arar Inquiry. We also intervened as amicus curiae before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Arar Inquiry

Amnesty International intervened at several stages of the Arar Inquiry, including providing submissions on standards to be applied in determining disclosure of information over which the government claims national security confidentiality; on the factual investigation into Mr. Arar’s mistreatment and any involvement of Canadian authorities in that mistreatment; and on policy recommendations to improve review and oversight of Canada’s national security agencies.

Throughout the Arar Inquiry, Amnesty International stressed that Commissioner O’Connor should assess the evidence and formulate recommendations in a manner that firmly recognizes that Canada’s counter-terrorism laws, policies, and practices must be wholly consistent with international human rights standards. In a changing international security paradigm since the devastating attacks of September 2011, Mr. Arar’s case dramatically illustrated that there is a very real and very heavy potential human cost when governments disregard international human rights protections and the rule of law in the interests of security and the fight against terrorism.

Amnesty International urged the Commission to investigate Mr. Arar’s case with a view to establishing truth, justice, and accountability for his mistreatment. This included a detailed investigation into Canada’s intelligence-sharing, consular, and diplomatic practices to determine whether Canadian officials had any responsibility for having caused or contributed to Mr. Arar’s torture, arbitrary arrest, and detention without trial or charge. We argued that claims of national security confidentiality should only be allowed to the extent they are consistent with international human rights standards and the maximum amount of information possible should be disclosed to the public. Information should not be withheld in order to protect another government from embarrassment, inconvenience, or criticism. We advised the Commission to recommend that those responsible for Mr. Arar’s mistreatment be held accountable through relevant disciplinary, criminal, and civil procedures. 

Given that Mr. Arar was never charged with any crimes, we urged the Commission to call on the government of Canada to issue a public statement indicating that there was no evidence linking Mr. Arar to any offences. We stressed that the government of Canada publicly acknowledge responsibility, apologize, and award appropriate compensation to Mr. Arar and his family. We also urged the Commissioner to investigate or call another appropriate inquiry into the the similar and related cases of Messrs. Muayyed Nureddin, Ahmad Abou El-Maati, and Abdullah Almalki.

Amnesty International also made policy recommendations for a review and oversight mechanism for RCMP national security activities; incorporating human rights standards and protocols into the activities of Canada’s national security agencies; developing strategies for more effective governmental interventions when Canadians are detained abroad; and further reforms in Canadian law. We stressed the vital importance that Commissioner O’Connor remind the Canadian government of its binding obligations to prohibit torture. Our recommendations included:

  • The new national security review and oversight body should be comprehensive of all Canadian agencies undertaking national security activities;
  • The review body must be independent from government and be composed of a diverse group of experts. It should have the power to independently launch reviews upon receipt of individual complaints and have unhindered access to information that may be classified, and the ability to make recommendations. The review body’s decisions should be made public, and it should engage in public education to build awareness and develop trust among Canadians in national security agencies;
  • The Canadian government should develop and integrate Human Rights Protocols in all information-sharing agreements and arrangements with foreign governments;
  • Canada should amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence for Canadian officials to undertake actions that would likely expose someone to a risk of torture in Canada or abroad. The Criminal Code and Canada Evidence Act should be amended to prohibit the use of information derived from torture;
  • Canada should provide further and enhanced training to diplomatic staff and consular officials on human rights standards and how to respond when Canadians are detained and under a serious risk of torture abroad. In all cases of detained Canadians, consular officials should regularly press for private visits and for detainees to be afforded their full range of rights, including medical care and legal counsel. Concerns about torture and mistreatment should be immediately raised with detaining authorities;
  • Canadian citizens tortured abroad should receive immediate and urgent expert medical and psychological treatment upon release;
  • Canada should amend the State Immunity Act to allow civil suits against foreign governments for compensation in situations of torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; and
  • Canada should ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture.

Arar v. Ashcroft (US Supreme Court)

Amnesty International was granted joint amicus curiae status with a number of other Canadian and International Human Rights Organizations and Scholars in Mr. Arar’s case before the US Supreme Court. In our joint submissions, we argued that international law requires all states to provide the victims of torture with an effective remedy. This includes the right of anyone who claims to have been a victim to have meaningful access to a procedure that is capable of repairing the effects of the violation, and the right actually to receive such reparation if the violation is established. Where several states are responsible for violations of an individual’s human rights, each has an obligation to provide an effective remedy in relation to its own responsibility.

While Canada ordered a Commission of Inquiry, apologized, and compensated Mr. Arar, the United States declined to cooperate or participate in the Arar Inquiry and has not provided Mr. Arar with any remedy in relation to its own responsibility for the violation of his human rights. In May 2010, the government of the United States, rather than settling the case, intervened arguing that the executive branch of the government should not be held accountable by the judiciary. The amici curiae – including Amnesty International – argued that the Supreme Court should overturn the lower courts’ judgments dismissing Mr. Arar’s claim, as a failure to do so would effectively deprive persons in Mr. Arar’s situation of their right to access a procedure capable of providing an effective remedy. This would be inconsistent with the international legal obligations of the United States.

STATUS OF THE CASE

ARAR INQUIRY

Commissioner O’Connor released his report of the Arar Inquiry on 18 September 2006. The report found that Canadian officials contributed to Mr. Arar’s rendition to and torture in Syria in a number of way. The RCMP provided American authorities with information portraying Mr. Arar unfairly as an Islamic Extremist despite having no basis to describe him that way. It was very likely that these communications led to the US decision to detain Mr. Arar and rendition him to Syria. Once in Syria, Commissioner O’Connor found that Canadian authorities received information from and shared intelligence about Mr. Arar with Syrian authorities despite the fact the information was likely derived from torture. Following Mr. Arar’s return to Canada, Commissioner O’Connor also found that “Canadian officials leaked confidential and sometimes inaccurate information about the case to the media for the purpose of damaging Mr. Arar’s reputation or protecting their self-interests or government interests.”

In light of his findings, Commissioner O’Connor made 23 recommendations to improve the RCMP’s national security activities and the information-sharing practices of other agencies; interactions with countries with questionable human rights records; and interventions on behalf of Canadians detained abroad. With respect to Mr. Arar, Commissioner O’Connor recommended that Canada should formally object to the United States’ and Syria’s mistreatment of Mr. Arar, and assess Mr. Arar’s claim for compensation in light of the report.

On 12 December 2006, Commissioner O’Connor released a second report outlining his recommendations for a new review and oversight mechanism for RCMP national security activities. In this report, Commissioner O’Connor concluded that existing accountability mechanisms for RCMP national security activities were inadequate. He recommended that a new review body be established that has enhanced power to investigate and report on complaints, including by having the authority to conduct self-initiated review, and the ability to subpoena documents and compel testimony from any government or private sector person or entity. Justice O’Connor recommended that there be a single review body for all activities of the RCMP, not just its national security activities. He also stressed that the national security activities of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Transport Canada, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, and Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada also be subjected to integrated, independent review. Commissioner O’Connor also recommended that the government appoint an independent person to review whether the government has implemented his recommendations and how the proposed review structure is functioning.

On 26 January 2007, Prime Minister Harper issued a public formal apology on behalf of the Canadian government. Mr. Arar received 11.5 million dollars in compensation for the direct and indirect role Canadian officials played in his rendition to and torture in Syria.

ARAR V. ASHCROFT (US SUPREME COURT)

The US Supreme Court denied Mr. Arar’s petition. It did not provide reasons for dismissing the case. In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Mr. Arar stated: “Today’s decision eliminates my last bit of hope in the judicial system of the United States. When it comes to ‘national security’ matters the judicial system has willingly abandoned its sacred role of ensuring that no one is above the law. My case and other cases brought by human beings who were tortured have been thrown out by U.S. courts based on dubious government claims. Unless the American people stand up for justice they will soon see their hard-won civil liberties taken away from them as well.”

UPDATE

On 25 November 2008, Amnesty International wrote to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to take up as an urgent priority the Arar and Iacobucci Inquiry reports (click here for more information about Amnesty International’s work in the Iacobucci Inquiry). We stressed the need to review Canada’s progress in implementing the Arar Inquiry recommendations and make appropriate changes to Canada’s foreign policy agenda to take a more assertive stand against torture.

On 10 February 2010, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, concerned about the “serious deficiencies uncovered by [the Arar and Iacobucci Inquiries] and the risks of not addressing them by fully implementing all the resulting recommendations”, decided to review the government’s progress in responding to the two Inquiry reports. Amnesty International provided oral submissions to the Committee during its review, stressing the need for improved oversight and review of national security activities, implementing the findings of the two Inquiry reports, and ensuring accountability for the human rights violations that occurred, including providing redress to the men affected.

In its report, the Committee urged the government to immediately implement the recommendations of the Arar Inquiry report; to immediately issue regular public reports on the progress made in implementing the findings and recommendations of the two Inquiry reports; provide an official apology and compensation to Messrs. Almalki, Elmaati, and Nureddin; issue a clear ministerial directive against torture and the use of information obtained from torture; and to introduce a mechanism for review and oversight of the actions of national security agencies. Amnesty International sent a letter to Minister of Public Safety Peter Van Loan urging him to comply with the Committee’s recommendations.

Over a decade has passed since Commissioner O’Connor released his reports, and the government of Canada has yet to fully implement his recommendations. Instead, in 2014, the government of Canada passed Bill C-51, a drastic overhaul to Canada’s national security legislation which increased the powers of Canada’s national security agencies without any human rights safeguards or increase in review or oversight of these agencies’ activities. To learn more about C-51 and Amnesty International’s work in opposition to it, click here. This disregard of the lessons of Canada’s past and the important findings and recommendations of the Arar Inquiry were highlighted at the Arar +10 conference co-hosted by Amnesy International on 29 October 2014. You can read the conference report here.

In April 2015, former CIA officer John Kiriakou revealed in an interview that American officials knew that Mr. Arar was innocent yet detained him anyway. Amnesty International continues to advocate for Mr. Arar to receive an apology and effective remedies for the contributions of American, Jordanian, and Syrian authorities to his mistreatment.

On 1 September 2015, the RCMP laid criminal charges against Colonel George Salloum, a Syrian military intelligence officer who stands accused of carrying out and overseeing the torture of Mr. Arar while he was imprisoned in Syria. This is the first time that charges have been laid in Canada for torture that occurred outside the country. The RCMP does not know where George Salloum is, or whether he is still alive. However, through Interpol and other police channels, efforts will be made to find him so that he can be extradited to stand trial in Canada. This offers justice to Mr. Arar and his family, and sends a strong message from Canada to torturers in other countries that what happens in torture chambers there may end up before the courts here.

LEGAL RESOURCES

ARAR INQUIRY

A Human Rights Approach to National Security Confidentiality: Submission to the Arar Inquiry made Pursuant to Section 27 of the Draft Rules of Procedure and Practice (28 May 2004)

Securing a Commitment to Human Rights In Canada’s Security Laws and Practices: Opening Submissions of Amnesty International Canada (14 June 2004)

Joint Submission for May 3, 2005 hearing on process and procedure

Alex Neve’s oral submissions to the Arar Inquiry on 3 May 2005

Effective Oversight: Protecting Human Rights in the Context of Canadian National Security Investigations: Submissions to the Policy Phase of the Arar Inquiry (6 June 2005)

Restoring his Rights, Addressing the Wrongs: Amnesty International’s Closing Submissions to the Arar Inquiry (10 September 2005)

Amnesty International’s Reply Submissions to the Arar Inquiry (2 November 2005)

Letter to Commissioner O’Connor regarding delays in the release of the Commission report (28 February 2006)

Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar: Analysis and Recommendations (18 September  2006)

Amnesty International letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper following the release of the Arar Inquiry report (19 September 2006)

A New Review Mechanism for the RCMP’s National Security Activities (Arar Commission Policy Report, 12 December 2006)

Intervener letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper on the one year anniversary of the first Arar Inquiry Report (18 September 2007)

Intervener letter to Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Stockwell Day on the one year anniversary of the Arar Inquiry Policy Report (12 December 2007)

ARAR V. ASHCROFT (US SUPREME COURT)

Second Circuit Court of Appeal

Declaration of Maria Lahood in Support of Appellant Maher Arar’s Motion for Judicial Notice (12 December 2006)

Amici Curiae brief of US and Canadian Scholars Advocating Reversal in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant (20 December 2006)

Brief for the REDRESS Trust as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Plaintiff-Appellant Urging Reversal (28 October 2008)

Judgment of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (2 November 2009)

US Supreme Court

For a detailed timeline and documentation of Mr. Arar’s case in the United States, see the Center for Constitutional Rights’ webpage on the case.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari (1 February 2010)

Appendix to Petition for Writ of Certiorari (1 February 2010)

Brief of Amici Curiae Canadian and International Human Rights Organizations and Scholars in Support of the Issuance of a Writ of Certiorari (5 March 2010)

Brief for the REDRESS trust as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner

Letter from Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon confirming that Mr. Arar’s civil suit in the United States would not risk harming diplomatic relations between Canada and the United States (15 April 2010)

Brief of Respondents Thompson, Mueller, Ziglar, Blackman, and McElroy in Opposition (May 2010)

Brief for John D. Ashcroft, Former Attorney General, and the Official Capacity Defendants in Opposition (May 2010)

Reply Brief for Petitioner (24 May 2010)

Letter from the Center for Constitutional Rights to the US Supreme Court requesting permission to lodge non-record material with the Court – Minister Cannon’s letter from 15 April 2010 (24 May 2010)

US Supreme Court order dismissing Mr. Arar’s case (14 June 2010)

UPDATE

Amnesty International’s Letter to Members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and Members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (25 November 2008)

Alex Neve’s speaking notes for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (24 March 2009)

Review of the Findings and Recommendations Arising From the Iacobucci and O’Connor Inquiries (June 2009)

Amnesty International’s letter to Minister of Public Safety Peter Van Loan (23 June 2009)

Amnesty International’s letter to Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews (31 October 2011)

MEDIA

“Canada: BCCLA Joint Open Letter on an integrated national security accountability framework” (10 March 2016)

“Canada: National Security and Human Rights Report Released” (29 October 2015)

Charges in Arar case a historic step toward ending torture, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/charges-in-arar-case-a-historic-step-toward-ending-torture/article26181455/

“Breakthrough for justice in Maher Arar case: RCMP takes historic step in prevention of torture” (1 September 2015)

“Maher Arar on RCMP laying charges on the man responsible for his torture” (1 September 2015)

“Maher Arar: A timeline of Amnesty International’s campaigning” (2 September 2015)

“Next Steps on Bill C-51: Will the government listen to Canadians’ concerns?” (31 March 2015)

“National Security Reform: Time to embrace human rights” (10 March 2015)

“Insecurity and Human Rights: Canada’s proposed national security laws fall short of international human rights requirements” (9 March 2015)

“Time to Close Canada’s Worrying, Growing National Security Review and Oversight Gap” (23 February 2015)

“Security reform should protect our freedom” (3 November 2014)

“Misguided security laws take a human toll” (28 October 2014)

“USA: Apologize to torture survivor Maher Arar” (8 November 2012)

“Canada Must Move Immediately to Implement UN Committee against Torture Recommendations” (5 June 2012)

“Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word” (22 May 2012)

“60,000 People Demand Apology to Torture Victim Maher Arar from President Obama” (21 May 2012)

“Canada must do more to stop torture” (17 May 2012)

“Canada must withdraw Ministerial Direction on information sharing with foreign entities tainted by torture” (6 March 2012)

“Maher Arar, Bradley Manning and the Sad State of the U.S. Justice System” (2 July 2011)

“Tweet @BarackObama and@StateDept Demanding Apology for Torture” (27 June 2011)

“The Dirty Secret About ‘Clean’ Torture” (14 June 2011)

“Stand Up For Torture Victim Maher Arar” (1 June 2011)

“Canada must put increased pressure on Syria on human rights” (20 May 2011)

“U.S. sends man to Syria to be tortured” (17 May 2011)

“USA: Amnesty International ‘Deeply Disappointed’ by Supreme Court’s Decision to Reject Arar Appeal” (14 June 2010)

One thought on “Maher Arar Case Study

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *