Arar to get $10000000.00?

[slowpoke]

the real question in my mind, is that there has been no impact on those who knowingly leaked fale information. where is the responsibility?

Those downstream from the RCMP commissioner who resigned are probably looking for new careers as well. I can see how the gov't would want to avoid holding a Gomery type of inquiry into all those juicy details because they would embarrass Canada. But you can bet that those who passed false information to the Americans will have been taken to task over it.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Just curious ... without the US to defend his approach in WWII, where would Churchill have been vis-a-vis Hitler?

Even with the US coming in to save him (props to Canada, Australia, and everyone else, but the US put up, in sheer size, more than the rest of us put together) there is simply no argument to the fact that Churchill left England a shadow of the Empire it was when he arrived (size, wealth, military power, global influence).

If you go back to WWI (where he had considerable, but not total influence on things), not just WWII, the Churchill record is even more embarrassing in terms of what he did to destroy Britian's once considerable colonial might.

History counts winners and losers very easily - where were you when you started, and where were things when you left? Churchill played the game in a way that saw his society lose 90% of the power it had by the time he arrived.

By comparison, the US played the game in a way that saw them win large for the next 50 years.

You might want to think about that when you venerate Churchill. Or when people trace back the change in US power under Bush Jr.

This is nonsense.

Great Britain's fortune took a turn for the better after Chamberlain's resignation in 1940.

 

[LancsLad]

To be clear, in Lancslad's murky mind, Mr. Arar is not a Canadian because he is not of European descent. (see his post on British citizenship) If you read over his posts in this thread, you will see he is constantly referring to "we" and "they". So the settlement is putting "them" (non whites) ahead of "us" (whites, and preferably British). He is a terribly insecure fellow who lives in a constant state of hate and fear. A sad case, really.

I do feel sorry for me, please send money to ease my pain.

 

[LancsLad]

Just curious ... without the US to defend his approach in WWII, where would Churchill have been vis-a-vis Hitler?

Even with the US coming in to save him (props to Canada, Australia, and everyone else, but the US put up, in sheer size, more than the rest of us put together) there is simply no argument to the fact that Churchill left England a shadow of the Empire it was when he arrived (size, wealth, military power, global influence).

If you go back to WWI (where he had considerable, but not total influence on things), not just WWII, the Churchill record is even more embarrassing in terms of what he did to destroy Britian's once considerable colonial might.

History counts winners and losers very easily - where were you when you started, and where were things when you left? Churchill played the game in a way that saw his society lose 90% of the power it had by the time he arrived.

By comparison, the US played the game in a way that saw them win large for the next 50 years.

You might want to think about that when you venerate Churchill. Or when people trace back the change in US power under Bush Jr.

We were bled dry by the costs of the war for over two years before the Yanks got involved. Spare me your tripe. Unlike france that reneged on its war debt we paid in full to the Americans for all the "old" ships etc they sold us early in the war.

Of course the Yanks emerged the strongest out of WW2. It was the only major participant ( although for just a short time) that did hot have wholesale sections of their country and economy destroyed during the war but also a significant portion of that generations young men were ost as well.
They didn't call it total war in Europe because it made a nice sound bite.

 

[scouser1]

To be clear, in Lancslad's murky mind, Mr. Arar is not a Canadian because he is not of European descent. (see his post on British citizenship) If you read over his posts in this thread, you will see he is constantly referring to "we" and "they". So the settlement is putting "them" (non whites) ahead of "us" (whites, and preferably British). He is a terribly insecure fellow who lives in a constant state of hate and fear. A sad case, really.

exactly refer to a previous post where he refered to myself as one who lived amongst us but is not really one of us, because of my views being different than his.

 

[Quest4Less]

The burden of proof should have been left on our government to prove Arar's guilt in the first place.

Yes that is of course true, but that is not the question I want answered.

Yes he was deported under false info - and the Liberals did nothing about it.

Yes the RCMP appears to have tried to cover up things.

Yes he should be entitled to some comp just for those things alone.

but....

Is there any PROOF that he was tortured?

Again let me state that I am not saying one way or the other - I'm just looking for proof.....

 

[JoyfulC]

As an American citizen, I'd like to know why the US isn't allowing Arar redress in the US. It's just plain un-American.

It makes no sense to me. They claim they had info that made him think he might be a terrorist -- and so they what? Detained him in the US until it could be confirmed? Shipped him off to Gitmo?

Nope.

They sent him to Syria.

A country which is known to sponsor terrorism and where he would surely be tortured.

Um.... how exactly does this make sense?????

I thought the US was supposed to be shunning all those old alliances of old with brutal dictators and enemies of democracy.

So why in god's name would the US ship a known former Syrian revolutionary back to Syria to be tortured for preferring democracy??? It makes zero sense.

There's something just plain wrong with the current administration in the US. Are we watching the crumbling of an empire? Are we watching the point where corruption supercedes a basically well-intentioned (if not entirely effective) government?

I don't believe that any amount of money can make up for what Arar suffered -- and yeah, I do believe he was tortured. The US has been shown to be guilty of shipping people off to countries where they could/would be tortured over the past five years -- why would this situation be different? And the US has partnered with regimes that have no respect for democracy or human rights -- again, why should this be different? Finally, the US has demostrated a lack of respect for the democratic process around the world, when it doesn't result to its preference -- and so why wouldn't they jump into bed with a partner like Syria to do a dirty deed?

Arar had Canadian citizenship -- he should have been deported here first and foremost -- but the US chose to send him to Syria instead. Why? Maybe because Canada refused to do their bidding. Or maybe for the same reason that the US is backing those who will ultimately prove to be as bad or worse than Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- because the whole democracy and freedom thing is just rhetoric to them. They don't care about it. They just want to get the results they want, regardless of who gets run over, tortured, murdered, sent home an amputee in the process.

Honestly, I'm ashamed to be an American under this administration. There are serious problems in the US, and I just hope they can be fixed before the whole country goes down.

..c..

 

[rama putri]

Not likely, just us Cdn chumps paying as usual.

Agreed.

 

[LancsLad]

exactly refer to a previous post where he refered to myself as one who lived amongst us but is not really one of us, because of my views being different than his.

Now you're getting it.

 

[LancsLad]

Sounds like you were led by a man who understood when to attack, and when to pretend not to be interested while building up for later ... my sarcasm fully intended.

One of the biggest fans of your old Empire, historian Niall Ferguson, has a book out asking why Britain got involved in World War ONE (not two), which was the first piece of the destruction of Britain that Churchill and people like him endorsed.

But back to World War One ... were the "allies" Britain backed (at huge cost to itself) worth the cost? Was an imperial (i.e. non-Nazi) Germany so bad? Was a Serbian terrorist worth defending from the Hapsburgs?

As far as my tripe ... grow up. I've listened to conservatives lob bombs all day on people who are different from them, but go whining to Mommy like little diaper-fillers when the competence of their heroes and icons are questioned with nothing other than cold hard reason.

You act as if it was inevitable that your Empire was squandered. I show you that it was only inevitable under the leadership of your hero, and people like him, who were simply better suited to running a little island than a world-spanning giant.

You clearly don't like Winston. You get to voice that opinion because of people like him.

We don't go running to Mommy like your cute little story implies. A real Conservative would cut you down where you stood and carry on with his day.

 

[red]

Yes that is of course true, but that is not the question I want answered.

Yes he was deported under false info - and the Liberals did nothing about it.

Yes the RCMP appears to have tried to cover up things.

Yes he should be entitled to some comp just for those things alone.

but....

Is there any PROOF that he was tortured?

Again let me state that I am not saying one way or the other - I'm just looking for proof.....

please read the fact finding report from the arar commission

http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/ToopeReport_final.pdf