Cross-posted at The Next Agenda
A Canadian Commission on the extraordinary rendition case of Maher Arar has recommended that the RCMP withold information from countries with “questionable human rights records” — with, appears to me, to be a direct slap across the face with regards to current American foreign policy. Specifically, if one reads the recommendations, this is a stinging rebuke of America’s involvement in torture. What’s more, this aspect of it doesn’t seem to be being played in either the Canadian or American media (NOTE: There WAS an interesting editorial in the NY Times today briefly (but directly) discussing the scolding nature of this report — see update below!
I’ve cut out snippets of the report below…
————————–
Arar and his daughter
For those of you not familiar with the Arar case, it is one of horrific proportions. Arar was detained by American authorities in New York when he was about to transfer to a flight headed for his hometown of Montreal (after a vacation in Tunisia). Maher Arar — a Canadian for many years, since he left Syria at the age of 17 — was, without warning, sent to Syria by the U.S. and tortured for more than a year. He falsely confessed to being an Al Qaeda member after he buckled under the brutality he endured for those many months. His case was thrown out of U.S. courts due to “technical reasons” and this most recent Canadian report completely exonerates him from any involvement from what he was accused of doing. The RCMP was found to have given false information to U.S. authorities with regards to his possible involvement with Al Qaeda.
———————–
From the recently released “Commision of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar” under the heading:
IV.
INVESTIGATIVE INTERACTION WITH COUNTRIES
WITH QUESTIONABLE HUMAN RIGHTS RECORDS (p.344 — Recommendation 14)
The RCMP and CSIS should review their policies governing the circumstances in which they supply information to foreign governments with questionable human rights records. Information should never be provided to a foreign country where there is a credible risk that it will cause or contribute to the use of torture. Policies should include specific directions aimed at eliminating any possible Canadian complicity in torture, avoiding the risk of other human rights abuses and ensuring accountability.
The recommendation goes on to say that there are only rare instances when security information should be released to countries like the United States:
The current RCMP policy is inadequate. A policy entitled “Enquiries from Foreign Governments that Violate Human Rights”63 appears to set out two bases for determining when information may be shared. It provides that the RCMP will not become involved or appear to become involved in any activity that might be considered a violation of the rights of an individual unless there is a need to comply with one of five specified international conventions that Canada has signed in relation to various forms of terrorism. In addition, the policy states:
The disclosure of information to an agency of a foreign government that does not share Canada’s respect for democratic or human rights may be considered if it:
- is justified because of Canadian security or law-enforcement interests,
- can be controlled by specific terms and conditions, and
- does not have a negative human rights connotation.64
As a Canadian, I was heartened to hear this as well:
The need to investigate terrorism and the need to comply with international conventions relating to terrorism do not in themselves justify the violation of
human rights.The international conventions cited in the RCMP policy, which I note has only a partial, out-of-date listing of conventions Canada has signed, do not authorize departures from human rights standards protected under various other international instruments Canada has agreed to abide by, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment (Convention against Torture).
Finally, under Article 3, paragraph (1), no state party shall send a person to a country where there are “substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” Clearly, the prohibition against torture in the Convention against Torture is absolute. Canada should not inflict torture, nor should it be complicit in the infliction of torture by others.
Here’s some “pre-emptive” caution against the U.S.:
Whenever there is a reasonable basis for
questioning a country’s human rights record, officers should err on the side of ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATONS 346
caution. According to Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Convention against Torture, relevant considerations for determining whether there are grounds for believing
in a danger of torture include the existence of a “pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.”67 Reliable public reports of patterns of human rights violations in a country must be considered when assessing whether there is or was a credible risk of torture. Canadian officials should not wait for “verification” or unequivocal evidence of torture in a specific case before arriving
at a conclusion of a likelihood of torture.
This report could be mistaken for making recommendations against a 3rd world banana republic. I had to rub my eyes twice to realize that what this section of the report is actually referring to The United States of America — a friend and ally to Canada.
Furthermore, it should be noted by Americans that this report, if taken seriously, may effectively create a “fire-wall” between the Canadian / American exchange of information on terrorism. So, because the American officials decided to act on their own — without regard to international law — IT MAY HAVE MADE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SIGNIFICANTLY LESS SAFE.
UPDATE: I just read a NY Times editorial that refers, briefly, to the scolding nature of this Canadian Commission report:
The report said Mr. Arar never had any connection to terrorism. But the United States stonewalled Canada’s investigation, which concluded that the Americans misled Canada about their plans for Mr. Arar. Sending him to Syria, where he would certainly be tortured, was not just immoral and un-American, it was a violation of international law.
———————-
LINKS:
Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar – Website
The Commission Report (in PDF)
My Previous Diary (Feb. 21) When the Arar Case was Thrown Out of the U.S. Courts
