Hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, Panel I - Rendition to Torture: The Case of Maher Arar
Interview
Hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, Panel I - Rendition to Torture: The Case of Maher Arar
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): Thank you.
This joint hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight tackles an issue that goes to the very heart of what sort of nation we are. Last year I tried repeatedly to get then-Attorney General Gonzales to answer questions -- to answer what I considered a simple question. "Does our government claim the legal authority to snatch someone off the street and lock them up without a trial or to turn them over -- to turn someone over to another government for the purpose of being tortured?" Despite my best efforts, I could not get the attorney general to answer this question before he left office. I would have hoped that the answer would have been obvious and straightforward. The fact that the attorney general would not answer it at all, combined with what information we now have about this administration's misconduct, is frankly terrifying.
Today we look at the administration's covert practice of rendition to torture. That's what we ought to call it -- rendition to torture, and in particular in the case of Maher Arar, an Canadian national of Syrian birth who was snatched at Kennedy Airport in New York, locked up in the Federal Detention Center in Brooklyn in my congressional district and then shipped off to Syria by our government. And in Syria, he was imprisoned for a year without charge, held for a year and subjected to torture during his imprisonment.
It turns out, according to the Canadian government, which investigated this matter and issued a thorough report, that Mr. Arar is not a terrorist, never was a terrorist, was never a threat to the United States or Canada or to anyone else. And while the Canadian government to its credit has acknowledge its role in this injustice, apologized to Mr. Arar and his family and compensated him, our government still refuses to admit that it has done anything improper. In fact, the administration hides behind a wall of state secrets to conceal the facts. Mr. Arar remains on the terrorist watch list and is not permitted to enter the United States, which is why he is testifying here today by video hook-up.
Now I heard one of the ranking minority members say that this is a regrettable mistake. I'm glad he admitted it is a mistake. Our government does not admit it was a mistake. But it is worse than a mistake because our government seems to continue to claim the authority to snatch someone off the street, hide behind the fiction of expedited removal -- this wasn't an expedited removal in this case. An expedited removal would've gotten him out of the country and sent him off to Canada. It wouldn't have been necessary because he was simply in the country to transfer from one plane to another to go to Canada. This was a kidnapping. This was a kidnapping utilizing the fact that he was here in this country or at least technically not in this country at Kennedy Airport in order to get him into custody so that he could be sent to someone who does not have our scruples and our laws about torture.
It is a testament to Mr. Arar's character and commitment that despite that despite understandable misgivings about ever returning to the United States, he nonetheless allowed -- agreed to allow us to seek permission from the administration so that he could testify here in person today. The administration refused. For that, Mr. Arar will have to testify via satellite hook-up from Canada. I cannot recall another occasion in which the Congress has had to go to such great lengths to get relevant testimony from a witness.
On behalf of my fellow citizens, I want to apologize to you, Mr. Arar, for the reprehensible conduct of our government, for kidnapping you, for turning you over to Syria -- a nation that our State Department recognizes as routinely practicing torture. I also want to apologize for the continued -- and from everything I've seen, some of which I am not at liberty to discuss -- baseless decision to maintain the fiction that you are a danger to this country. This conduct does not reflect the values of the American people. The great secrecy employed by the administration is, I believe, less an attempt to protect our security than it is an attempt to protect this administration from the consequences of its actions and from the consequences of being held accountable at law for what it has clearly done in breaking the law. There's no excuse for that.
Now we hear -- we are told that the administration, rather than let Mr. Arar go to Canada, where he would be set free because the Canadian government said they didn't have enough evidence to hold him in detention for any crime -- and maybe he would therefore pose a threat to the United States, according to the administration -- they decided to send him to Syria. But don't worry about it, they got assurances from the Syrians that he wouldn't be tortured. Assurances from a government that our government says lies all the time? Assurances from the government that our government says tortures as a matter of routine? Assurances from a government that our government says practices state terrorism? Who in the Bush administration was foolish enough to believe in those assurances?
We have to decide whether the Bush administration is cynical and lying to us and to itself that they believe those assurances, which I believe to be the case, or was foolish in believing assurances from a government that it says cannot be believed. I look forward -- so the question really is, "Is the administration a fool or knave here?" I think the evidence is a knave and a continuing knave. I look forward to Mr. Arar's testimony and to the testimony of our expert witnesses. It is about time we expose this conduct to the light of day. This nation deserves to have its government act in a manner that is consistent with our laws and our values, and it is not enough to say that this is a mistake and that we apologize -- not as long as the policy underlying it continues so we continue to claim the right to snatch people off the street and kidnap them and send them to another government where we know they will be tortured. I hope one day to be able to apologize to Mr. Arar in person on American soil.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. NADLER: I thank the gentleman. Before I start, on behalf of our colleague, Mr. Watt from North Carolina who had to leave, I'd like to submit this statement for the record.
REP. DELAHUNT: (Off mike.)
REP. NADLER: I thank you. And let me also say before beginning my questioning of Mr. Arar, that I have to disagree with the -- my distinguished friend from California. This is not simply a case of a mistake in sending Mr. Arar to Syria, or in getting the wrong person -- it certainly was that; nor is it simply a mistake of refusing to acknowledge error after the fact -- although it is certainly that too. The mistake here is cutting Constitutional and legal corners; doing things that are prohibited by our laws; denying due process; winking at torture; hiding evidence and mistakes behind a wall of state secrets, against the -- so as to prevent a proper enquiry, such as occurred in Canada.
The administration, by sending Mr. Arar to Syria, was outsourcing torture. They wanted him tortured, quite obviously. And maybe they got the wrong guy, but even if they had the right guy, we shouldn't be engaging in torture. We shouldn't be winking at torture. We knew perfectly well that any assurances from the Syrian government that they did not, that they would not engage in torture were worthless. Our government has said so many times. And you don't have to take my word for it, look at the State Department reports annually.
So I think the mistake here was disobeying our obligations under the Convention Against Torture; disobeying our obligations under the law to provide some due process -- under a dozen different laws; winking at torture; and now, after the fact, refusing to admit error and getting away with it by hiding behind the shield of state secrets and denying the right of the courts to do a proper inquiry.
So this is far more than just an error, making a mistake. It's a fundamental denial of due process. It's a fundamental subversion of our laws and our protections and our liberties. And this is a perfect example of what happens when you subvert our constitutional protections.
Now, Mr. Arar, let me ask you preliminary question. Were you ever at an al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan or Afghanistan?
MR. ARAR: No.
REP. NADLER: Were you ever in Afghanistan or Pakistan?
MR. ARAR: No.
REP. NADLER: Given those facts, if the United States government believes that you were, can you think of any reason why they might think so?
MR. ARAR: Why they would think that I had been to Afghanistan?
REP. NADLER: Yes, or that you had been in a training camp?
MR. ARAR: The only -- frankly I don't remember being asked in the United States about that. The only time that this came up was in Syria, and I forced the confession of Syria under torture.
REP. NADLER: Ah, so if the American government believes that you were in an al Qaeda camp in Syria -- I mean in Afghanistan or Pakistan, it might be -- in the absence of any other knowledge it would be because such a false admission was tortured out of you in Syria?
MR. ARAR: Yes.
REP. NADLER: Thank you.
Now you were detained at a facility in my district. For that and for everything else I again apologize. Now what reasons were given for denying you access to a phone call for five days or access to an attorney?
MR. ARAR: No reason whatsoever. All I know is, I kept asking for a phone call and access to a lawyer. I was always denied. And frankly even the brief two minutes call I had with my mother-in-law, I had -- every time they served me a meal, I had to go and bug them and say, I want to make a phone call. And until they granted me that brief phone call.
REP. NADLER: And so you were never given a reason for being denied access to a lawyer and to a phone call?
MR. ARAR: No.
REP. NADLER: And how would you characterize your treatment at the hands of U.S. agents before you were turned over to Syria?
MR. ARAR: Can you repeat the question for me?
REP. NADLER: How would you characterize your treatment at the hands of U.S. agents while you were in U.S. custody?
MR. ARAR: Well, first of all it was quite shocking for me not to have allowed -- have allowed me access to a lawyer, or even a basic phone call to let me family know where I was. I was disappeared for a complete week. My mom did not know where I was. My wife did not know where I was; whether I was alive or dead. And that alone was shocking to me, just a simple phone call to tell them about what was going on.
They didn't allow me proper access to a lawyer, even when they sent me to NBC they kept me in a maximum security prison, section of that detention center, where I was confined to a solitary confinement, for almost over a week, they didn't allow me access to the recreation, other than the fact that I was not given -- (inaudible) -- space or even basic things. They didn't even allow me to have a pen. I was every time I was transported by that prison they used to videotape me. Whenever I objected about my religious beliefs, they would not really care.
For instance during the six-hour interview that -- where I asked for my lawyers to be present, I asked them to be allowed to go back to my cell for my prayer, and they didn't allow me to do that.
So it's still actually shocking to me that -- how come they have treated like this.
REP. NADLER: I see. My time is about to expire, so I just have one question for you. One more question, and one question for Mr. Roach. When you expressed fear about being sent to Syria, and you expressed -- you told them that if you were sent to Syria you expected to be tortured, what was the response to your statement that you thought you'd be tortured in Syria? And what if anything were you told about our obligation under the convention against torture?
MR. ARAR: I objected, I told them about my fears of being tortured both during the six-hour interview on a Sunday and when they took from NBC and arrest me at the station. You know the first interview they did not really seem to care. In fact I remember vividly at the end when it became very clear that's what -- that's what the direction they were going, I told them -- I told them what are you going to tell me kids when they grow up, the error they tried to send me to Syria? Do you think my kids will love the United States like I do now? In fact I told them I appealed to President Bush, I appealed to the American people. They did not seem to care.
When they run me to the station, the final decision that they were going to send me to Syria, I told them, and I cried, and I said, how can you do that? You know I'm going to be tortured there. I told you this many times. And she read me -- the person who was there read me parts of that decision where she basically said that the INS is not the office that -- that deals with the torture convention.
Basically for me what that really meant is, we really don't care. We're sending you to Syria for that specific purpose.
REP. NADLER: Thank you.
Mr. Roach, I have one question if I may. You -- you were intimately involved in the Canadian commission's need to balance search for the facts in Mr. Arar's case and the need to protect sensitive national security information at the same time.
Now in cases brought here against U.S. officials, the same concerns have been raised, in this case, in the discussion we're having in Congress now about immunizing telecommunications companies from perhaps having disobeyed our laws with respect to wiretapping previously. And we're told that, well, we -- we can't -- we have to immunize them because to defend them would really -- might reveal state secrets and so forth, the same concerns have been raised.
Is there anything you have learned that might provide some insights as we also work to achieving a balance between respect and protection of individual rights and legitimate national security as to how to do this?
MR. ROACH: I think it's very important to be precise about the reasons for protecting secrets, because there are some very good reasons, ongoing investigations, vulnerable sources who if their identity were revealed could be killed or tortured themselves.
But I really think we have to move away from the broad generality of national security, because one of the things that Justice O'Connor found in the Supreme Court is that there is a temptation for government to claim state secrets to protect themselves from embarrassment.
And as you can see from a three volume report, that the government even agrees, and then there was litigation over the remaining part. But even during contemporary national security investigation, much can be made public without revealing some legitimate core of state secrets that have to be kept.
REP. NADLER: Well, let me ask you one further thing. In this case we are told by our government that Mr. Arar is a dangerous terrorist. I don't know if they actually said it in so many words, but they said he can't be admitted to this country, which is another way of saying he's a dangerous terrorist. Presumably the government has some evidence or reason to believe that which they will not reveal to us except under secret conditions, certainly will not reveal to the public, and came into court and said you can't try the case because it will reveal sensitive state secrets.
Given what you know about the case, can you imagine that there's anything that might be relevant here that couldn't be revealed safely -- that could not be revealed safely?
MR. ROACH: Well, I mean it's difficult to answer that question. That's the dilemma of secret information that you're put into an impossible position. What I can say though is that there was nothing -- Justice O'Connor fond there was nothing in Canadian possession that indicated any links. And so if -- if -- I would hope that if there was a smoking gun in the United States it would be shared with the Canadian government. But there was no finding of that.
But I think it really does underline the incredible Catch-22 position that people are put in when they -- when the government says, we have information that incriminates you but nobody can see it because it is secret.
REP. NADLER: Thank you very much. I yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. NADLER: Thank you.
I just want to say that, especially in view of Mr. Roach's answer a moment ago and what you have just said, I was privy -- I saw all the classified information yesterday. And I'm not at liberty to reveal all the classified information, but I am at liberty to say that I fully concur with Justice O'Connor, with Senator Leahy, with Senator Specter, in saying that there is nothing there. There is nothing there that justifies the campaign of vilification against your name, sir, or that justifies, in my mind, denying you entry to this country or characterizing you as a terrorist in any way.
REP. FRANKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. NADLER: Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source