The Case of Maher Arar (One)

I've been reading the Report of the Canadian Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, written by Justice Dennis O'Connor, the Associate Chief Justice of Ontario. As I've mentioned before, the Report and lots of supporting documentation are available at the Commission's website.

There's so much in this Report that is of interest that it's hard to know where to begin. So let me start with this: How does a person become a terror suspect?

One of the ways in which a person can show up on the U.S. national security radar and come to the attention of national security authorities as a potential Evildoer is through tips and information provided by the agencies and officials of foreign governments. Of course, foreign governments aren't the only source of information for U.S. authorities -- other sources include direct tips from informants, information gleaned from the interrogation of captured terror suspects, surveillance, etc. But information sharing with foreign governments plays a major role.

Now consider the case of Maher Arar. From the Report:

Towards the end of October 2001, Canada Customs placed border lookouts for Mr. Arar and his wife [...]. [There were "reasonable grounds" for the lookout itself, but] the lookout for Mr. Arar was designated a "terrorism" lookout. According to a Canada Customs bulletin, that designation is used when someone issuspected of being a member, associate or sympathizer of a known terrorist organization. Mr. Arar did not meet these criteria. He was not suspected ofbeing a member of a terrorist organization and should not have been labelled in this fashion in the lookout. To do so was unfair to Mr. Arar, who was merely a person of interest. It is essential that precise and accurate language be used when describing an individual's role in a terrorism-related investigation, particularly in these times of heightened concerned about public safety and national security. Labels have a way of sticking to individuals, reputations are easily damaged and when labels are inaccurate, serious unfairness to individuals can result. (Report, p.19) (Emphasis mine)

Welcome to the computer system as a guy with a "terrorism lookout," Mr. Arar. Enjoy your flight! The Report goes on:

Project A-O Canada [a Canadian anti-terrorism task force] supplied the American agencies with a good deal of inaccurate information about Mr. Arar, some of which was inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial to him. [...] [I]n its request for U.S. border lookouts, Project A-O Canada described Mr. Arar and his wife as Islamic extremists suspected of being linked to the al-Qaeda movement. Everyone who testified accepts that this description was wrong and should not have been given to the Americans. There was no basis for such an assertion. The request was sent to U.S. Customs in late October 2001, but it was also given directly to the American agencies five months later, in April 2002. The potential consequences of labelling someone an Islamic extremist in post- 9/11 America are enornous. (Report, p.27) (emphasis mine)

So, now you have a guy with a "terrorist lookout" message flashing on every computer screen in U.S. law enforcement, and a bunch of U.S. agencies have been notified that he's an Islamic extremist with ties to al Qaeda. Except it's all bullshit.

With this in mind, consider President Bush's statement yesterday about the necessity of his CIA torture program:

I had a single test for the pending legislation, and that's this: Would the CIA operators tell me whether they could go forward with the program, that is a program to question detainees to be able to get information to protect the American people. I'm pleased to say that this agreement preserves the most single - most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks, and that is the CIA program to question the world's most dangerous terrorists and to get their secrets.

The single most potent tool he has to protect the American people is his program to torture "the world's most dangerous terrorists and get their secrets." And how does he know they're terrorists again?

More tomorow.

A Reminder: This Election Really Matters

While the conduct of Dem leaders in the Geneva Conventions debacle has been pathetic, it would be a huge mistake to pretend that this election doesn't matter, that Dems are just as bad as Republicans, or that things are so screwed up that nothing matters anymore.

For starters: Republicans want to stay in Iraq, bomb Iran, suppress the basic oversight function required to be served by Congress in the American system of government, transform America into a police state (and yes, it could get much, much worse than it is now), cement America's post-9/11 adversarial relationship to most of the world, weaken the UN, dismantle social security, further stack the federal judiciary (not just the Supreme Court) with lunatics, further erode the separation of Church and State, amend the Constitution to entrench discrimination against homosexual Americans and roll back already insufficient environmental protections just as it becomes clear that the global warming crisis is far more severe than most of us had realized. It's so painful to watch Dem leaders blow it precisely because the stakes are so high.

In 2000, lots of people supported Nader on the theory that there was no meaningful difference between Gore and Bush. That's looking like a pretty dumb call right now, isn't it? Wouldn't punishing the Dems for their incompetence by staying home on election day be even dumber, now that everybody has the benefit of hindsight?

UPDATE: Edited to change "function ... played" to "function ... served".

Torture Debacle Post Mortem

The Democratic leadership blew this one in a huge way. Hiding under the bed on this was just unbelievably stupid and reinforced the worst stereotypes of Dems as weak and standing for nothing.

What hurts the most is not that we lost the Geneva Conventions battle, it's that we lost it because our leaders froze up and wet themselves, even though we wanted them to fight and would have supported them to the hilt if they had.

I don't think there's anything more to say by way of a post mortem.

Looking forward, it's hugely important that Democrats win back the House, at a minimum. Even when the leadership gets rolled in the most embarassing way, rank and file Democrats need to stay motivated to win this thing. There are massive differences between Democrats and Republicans. For starters, Republicans want to stay in Iraq, bomb Iran and transform America into a police state.

Arar Commission Website

Here is a link to the official site of the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, where you can download the Report and other materials.

The Case of Maher Arar

More on the Maher Arar case soon, but for now:

1) Take a minute to read Arar's first-hand account of his ordeal here. He made this statement in November of 2003. Welcome to the reality of the War on Terra.

2) As you read about this story in US papers and follow the US TV coverage, consider checking out the coverage in the Canadian media as well. The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star will have tons of coverage of this. Also, the CBC has a helpful background page on the Arar case. It'll be interesting to see whether and to what extent the US coverage hits different notes than the Canadian coverage.

3) The Canadian commission of inquiry into the case of Maher Arar illustrates the type of conventional scrutiny of government that is literally impossible to carry out in the United States right now. In this respect, our political system no longer functions in a manner befitting a free, open and democratic society. How many Maher Arars are there out there? What is the government up to? Exceptional journalists like Dana Priest at the WaPo have shed some light on this shadowy world, but for the most part, we're in the dark.

I shudder to think of the stuff that's going to come out when Democrats regain control of the House and start investigating the conduct of the Bush Administration. Eventually, as control of the government passes out of Republican hands and as information trickles out from the shadowy network of torture shops the Bush team has set up, we're going to come face to face with the reality of what they've been doing. My sense is it's going to be very, very ugly.

If Not Now, When?

I wrote this post as part of a discussion/debate I was having in the comments section of Matthew Yglesias’s blog . I was responding to another commenter’s argument that I was wrong to suggest that Democratic leaders were making a huge mistake by sitting on the sidelines while Republicans fight out the Geneva Conventions issue among themselves. The other commenter’s view was, to paraphrase, that you have to pick your battles, that the Geneva Conventions issue is for Democrats what the minimum wage or Social Security issues are for the GOP (namely, bad issue terrain), and that it doesn't make sense to get involved when the Republicans are busy committing fratricide anyway. (I think that sums up the argument pretty fairly, but I’ll be glad to revise the description, or quote from the text of the other commenter’s argument, if that conveys the thrust of the argument more fairly– I’m pretty new to this and don’t yet have a handle on the etiquette of quoting other peoples’ comments from other peoples' blogs). Anyway, with that background in mind, here is what I wrote:


It is true that “indiscriminate fighting” is not a good strategy. But the fighting in this case would hardly be indiscriminate! To be clear, the issue at hand is national security and the conduct of the War on Terra, which (like it or not) ranks as one of most important issues to American voters in this election, along with Iraq. This issue has occupied the front page of every major newspaper for the past week, and will likely do so for at least another week. The Sunday shows last weekend were completely dominated by this issue. I’m betting they will next week, too.

If we can change the subject to Iraq, great. I would prefer to fight on that ground, because it is more favorable to us. But wishing does not make things so: if we can’t change the subject to Iraq, then we need to fight on this issue. It isn’t going away.

It’s wrong to think that the national security issue is to the Democrats what the minimum wage or Social Security issues are to the GOP. The apt analogy is to the issue of the economy in 1992 – I’m sure the Republicans wished it wasn’t a key issue in that election, but it was. And there’s another important difference: whereas the Republican positions on the minimum wage (hold it down) and Social Security (gut it) are deeply unpopular, the Democratic position on national security (we refuse to give up the bedrock American values of freedom and fairness) is far more popular than the fear-and-torture snake-oil the Republicans are selling. Just look at the latest Pew polling data cited by Glenn Greenwald last Friday. Americans flatly reject the idea that we need to transform ourselves into a police state in order to win the War on Terra. Democrats are on the right side of this issue.

So national security is a central issue in this election, and it’s an issue on which more people agree with our position than with theirs going into the argument. Given this, why not fight? The argument is that the Republicans are fighting among themselves, and since this is all to our benefit, why get our hands dirty?

Two reasons. First, it isn’t at all clear that Democrats benefit when our leaders sit on the sidelines while so-called independent Republicans make a show of standing up to Bush. Sure, Bush’s disapproval numbers may go up as a result, but what about the endangered Republicans who associate themselves with McCain and his effort to rein in Bush? My sense is that they are effectively inoculating themselves against the otherwise extremely effective charge of being “Rubber Stamp Republicans”.

The second, and more important, reason for Democrats to join this battle, aggressively and unabashedly, is that shrinking from confrontation with a White House run amok, failing to say out loud what we truly and genuinely believe in our hearts, on the most important questions of the day to boot, reinforces the worst stereotypes about Democrats as weak and calculating.

If not this, then what? If not now, when?

October Surprise?

I was just reading a great post by Glenn Greenwald on his blog Unclaimed Territory. I left a comment, which I might as well post here:

Going to Glenn's first point, about the Pew poll showing that people aren't buying the Bush "we need to transform ourselves into a police state" line -- my bet is Karl Rove is seeing the same polling data, and he's not at all unhappy with where the debate is right now.

The political choice for the GOP going into the mid-term election is: 1) get creamed on Iraq, or 2) make lots of noise on Terra, torture and wiretaps for 3 weeks or so, during which they let endangered Republicans "courageously" oppose Bush. Here's how they hope the movie ends: Endangered and purple-state Republicans team up with Saint John McCain to stand up to the WH, the WH pushes back for a bit, then McCain (and Shays and Chafee and Arlen Specter etc etc) "force" the WH to accept a "compromise" that the MSM (quoting from the WH press release) declares is a victory for *both* civil liberties and the War on Terra at the same time. Breaking chutzpah records, the GOP's brave protectors of the Geneva Conventions accuse Dems of being too weak to stand up to Bush, let alone take on the Evildoers. Iraq? Never heard of it.

If that isn't working by October 7 and it looks like they're really going to lose the House? The only October surprise will be if they *aren't* bombing Iran at that point.

McCain Presidential Campaign Watch

Here's the lede of an article on the Financial Times online edition titled "McCain stands his ground on CIA jails":

John McCain, the Republican frontrunner for the 2008 presidential election, has dramatically raised the stakes in a fight with the White House over interrogation techniques permitted for use at secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons by saying he is unwilling to back down on the issue even if it ruins his chance of becoming president. (Emphasis added)

Wow, what a maverick! This guy's a man of principle! He doesn't care about politics, just doing the right thing! He's willing to take a stand against the leadership of his own party, including the Commander-in-Chief, even if doing so destroys his shot at the presidency! What an amazing coincidence!!

What an amazing coincidence that McCain is taking this Fearless Straight Talking Stand in circumstances where... this just happens to be the politically expedient bumper sticker for him to slap on the Straight Talk Express right now, preferably right on top of that "I Heart Bob Jones" bumper sticker he started sporting in May. Here's my take on how Mr. Straight Talk -- and Republicans in close Congressional races -- are going to play this:

1) McCain takes a Bold Stand against Administration over-reaching;

2) The press types up all kinds of Maverick Straight Talk Express Saint McCain stories;

3) Republicans in tough races where Bush is unpopular associate themselves with McCain's concerns about America's reputation in the world;

4) The White House announces they're grateful to Saint McCain for his help on the Geneva Conventions file, they're going to change the proposal a bit;

5) Saint McCain signs off on the New and Improved Proposal, it's a Victory for the Troops and America's Moral Authority in the World! (Will the New and Improved Proposal be any better? Doesn't matter. You think the journalists who type up the campaign press releases actually read documents?)

6) See? The way to change course and to safeguard again the Cheney Administration's excesses... is to support independent-minded Republicans like John McCain! Those guys can be trusted to Protect America and Stand Up to Bush and to deliver (wait for it) CHANGE!

7) New GOP spin & talking points: Where was Nancy Pelosi when Saint McCain and other Strong-but-Moderate Republican Reformers like Linc Chafee and Chris Shays were fighting to protect the American Way of Life and America's prestige in the world by making sure we adhere to the Geneva Conventions? In San Francisco running a workshop for NAMBLA members on how to apply for government grants to recruit children into alternative lifestyles? Weren't all of the protagonists in the torture debate Republicans? If you want oversight of the Cheney Administration, how about people like John McCain? If you're a Terra Voter who's concerned that Bush has gone a bit too far, just look at how willing he was to work with McCain and to consider his criticism!

Is Karl Rove upset that McCain is sucking up all the oxygen that would otherwise be available to Democrats? I can't see why he would be. His main concern is to keep the House and the Senate. My bet is that he's hoping the Democrats decide to sit this one out on the theory that you never get involved when your enemy is self-destructing.

Democrats need to be in the fight, not on the sidelines. And they need to remember that McCain is not their friend. He's not going to carry their water. He's not trying to tank the GOP. He's positioning himself as an Agent for Change for his race in 2008 -- which is the only way he's going to have a shot post-Dubya. Right now, a lot of Republicans are looking for a way to cast themselves as agents for change -- or at least as not in lockstep with Bush -- and McCain is giving them coattails to ride. Is providing those coattails going to destroy McCain's shot at the Presidency? I can't see it.