I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion from this article that no condemnation is evolving upon Syria. The thugs in Syria are partners in crime with the American and Jordanian agents who turned Maher Arar over to them. Personally I think that the Syrians responsible for from Arar's detention and torture should be sentenced to an equal amount of time in the cell that he was held in. The same punishement should be handed out to W, his henchmen, and everyone who supports this kind of inhuman treatment.

Should Syria be charged under the Geneva Convention? I'll do your homework for you. The Bushivicks sent Maher Arar to Syria because he was a native born Syrian and supposedly wanted for a crime committed there while a citizen. He was wanted in Syria because he failed to perform his military services as required by law (he was in Candada meeting the requirements for Canadian citizenship). So Syria was obstensively dealing with an internal crime even though he was sent there because the CIA believed he might be a terrorist. Sure, its a shame, but the Bush Government will back them up on it. What else are they going to do? They have to have some justification for sending a Canadian National there in the first place.

Of course we all know that he was deported to Syria instead of to Candada because Syria is a toruture friendly regime. It really doesn't make sense to deport him to a country other than the one of his current citizenship. The U.S. was the country that arrested him, and is responsible for sending him somewhere where they knew he would be tortured. Canada was a heck of a lot closer to New York than Jordan but they chose to send him across and ocean to where civilized law doesn't apply.

Keith - you actually said one thing right, in amongst your various knee-jerk anti-President-Bush-isms: "civilized law doesn't apply" pretty much describes our opponents! But your conclusion that we did this deliberately is so far-fetched as to be laughable.

It can hardly be considered laughable. Everyone, including you Gayle, know that there was no good reason to send him to Syria EXCEPT to work around U.S and Canadian law. This from the New York Times article:

"A former U.S. official said on condition of anonymity that the decision to send Mr. Arar to Syria had been based chiefly on the desire to get more information about him and the threat he might pose to the U.S. The official said that Syria was chosen because Canada did not intend to hold him if he was returned there."

We aren't laughing because the people in charge are pure evil, and those who support and apologize for them are just as bad.

Why hasn't anything happened to the Canadian intelligence agents who framed him, and why the fuck did they do such a thing? Was it intentional?

I think sending someone to Syria as a terrorist amounts to some moral complicity to the resulting torture, knowing what we know about Syria.

I would think logic would tell us that if he was a terrorist and sent to Syria, then he would be given an award and a position in their military.

Why don't you go tell your little joke to the man actually was sent there, eh?

Paul, the point of the article was that this man was NOT a terrorist.

Therefore, he would not be given an award and promotion, but be tortured for loving freedom.

Keith, I'm curious, do you seriously think that the practice of passing off suspects to be tortured by other regimes started with the Bush administration? It's been a long-standing practice, for good or for ill, as has the false-flag practice where they trick the suspect into thinking they've passed him off and he talks.

Aaron, you seem to ignore that Syria tortured him because he was sent back as an accused terrorist, making your joke about terrorists getting rewards sickening. upon their return to Syria grotesque.

BLAME CANADA!