Dems taking on RenditionFollow

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/18/arar-us.html

F'ucking nails!

Back story on Arar case

I fail to see the problem here.

'cuz it's ok to send man to certain death, well torture and possible death?

YeaaHAA! GIT 'ER DONE! Suck it libs! AmIright?!

Except that Arar, as far as I can tell, wasn't wanted for specific crimes in Syria, much less did Syria have a request made to extradite Arar should we catch him. If fact, we don't even have an extradition treaty with Syria so why the hell were we sending him there except to have him tortured without due process or proven guilt?

If we simply wanted to expel Arar from the country, the obvious and legal solution would have been to expel him to Canada since that was his country of origin, per his passport.

As far as your death penalty comparison, there's a host of nations who won't extradite to the US if the defendant would face capital punishment.

Edited, Jan 18th 2007 11:17pm by Jophiel

I agree. The logic seems faulty. If a person was arrested in say Florida for Public Urination and it was found he was wanted in NY for Murder, the logic in the article seems to state he should not be extradited to NY because the punishment for public urination would then be life in prison or even the death penalty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

your missing the point.

he wasnt wanted in Syeria for anything. he wasnt wanted in Canada either.

the only people who had any interest in him was us. WE could have held him here as an enemy combatant, however, if he was held in this country, he not only couldnt be tortured, he couldnt even be questioned without legal representation.

he was turned over to Syerian authorities to be "questioned" for US. they had no interest in him themselves.

in the end, he was detained illegaly in the U.S., flown to a third world country to be "questioned" for US, because we couldnt legally do it in this country, tortured for a few years.......

.......then let go because it was determined he wasnt a threat.

all of this done without a single scrap of conclusive evidence to link him as a threat to this country......just a suspicion.

we sent him to a place where we could do what couldnt legally be done in this country. and the reason it can not be legally done in this country is because we have laws to protect the innocent from an overzelous government.

innocent. that is what the final outcome was.

what we did was immoral. unethical. and out right illegal.

but the whitehouse lawered it up so it was legal by getting some official in Syeria to put on paper they would not torture people we send to them.

plausible deniability. the legacy of this addministraition.

someone SHOULD be held accountable for this. but no one will. welcome to the "moral" majority.

The problem is that you and yours would extend this courtesy to anyone and everyone while me and mine think its kind of silly to put the lives of millions of Americans at risk just because some silly liberals think that we should extend rights and freedoms to people suspected of committing, or conspiring to commit, acts of terrorism against our great country. Fortunately, regardless of what happens in congress, we are still going to be relatively safe for another 23 months.

Your response is immaterial.

Perhaps a touch, though I have no problem with the idea of torture period, especially in cases of suspected involvement with terrorism. If they happen to be innocent, pay them a couple of bucks. Vigilance is paramount.

Jack Bauer would torture him better than Syrians.

Who apparently were peace loving, seeing as how we haven't actually found Arar to be involved in anything.

Thanks for proving my point though

In other news the Dems are also charging the oil companies 15 billion in permit fee's that Georgey and his cronies were gonna "just let them slide on".

Go Dems!


Furthermore Taj from Van Wilder turned out to be a terrorist. I saw it on TV. I mean with Arar they had a 50/50 chance amirite?




Edited, Jan 19th 2007 4:13pm by Shogen

As a general rule of thumb:

If you can't spell, can't use punctuations, have nothing interesting to say, and have no idea what you're talking about, then we don't want hear your inane rambling.

Just sayin'

I'm so glad you believe the framers of the Constitution were silly liberals.

He's right, why did they get rid of a perfectly good muzzie that way? FUcking goverment waste.