Wilkins slams Day for questioning U.S. on Arar
U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins on Wednesday criticized Ottawa's efforts to have Maher Arar removed from a United States security watch list, saying the U.S. alone will decide who to let into the country.Speaking in Edmonton after meeting with new Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, Wilkins warned Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day to back off, because a U.S. review determined Arar should remain on the watch list.
Yeah, Stock. What's the matter with you? Government officials have no business standing up on behalf of citizens who have already paid for crimes they didn't commit and who have been cleared of any suspicion of wrongdoing by a public inquiry. Don't you know 9/11 changed everything?
I must have missed the part where Day actually threatened some kind of retaliation if the Bush administration didn't bend to his will.
Look, the American position is easy to explain. If they relent and take Arar off their watch list it's as good as an admission that there was no good reason for him to be on it in the first place. The fact that we now know about the RCMP's mistakes doesn't let the Americans off the hook because they've always claimed to have their own reasons for targetting Arar and because they still have to explain sending him to Syria to have the crap beaten out of him rather than sending him back to Canada. And since I'm not sure Arar has exhausted all the possibilities in his attempts to sue the American government, any move to acknowledge Arar's innocence on their part could cause them legal problems.
But Wilkins just made a mistake. One thing the Conservatives do have going for them is the perception that they have a better relationship with our neighbour and trading partner than the Liberals ever did. For Wilkins to pop off in public and act like he's been studying at the Paul Cellucci School of Diplomacy threatens that. Any public behaviour on his part that looks remotely like bullying a Canadian government that's trying to at least appear as though it's defending one of its citizens is likely to make a lot of Canadians wonder if they shouldn't vote for the other guys the next time they have the chance. If the American government is going to get all belligerent in our faces, we may as well assume that as the default position and not be concerned about so-called anti-Americanism on the part of our politicians. Wilkins should have played the issue down or ignored it completely.
But then the Bush administration hasn't been noted for appointing people with the ability to think very far ahead.
What about Canadian flights that have to go through US airspace to get to their destination? Oh, like any flight to Toronto?
The US want us to follow US no-fly lists when we overfly US territory. It's amazing how much they can tell US what to do, and when we try to comply (with some minor changes, such as letting the guy who's not a terrorist board a Canadian domestic flight) they basically tell us to smeg off.
On the bright side: Does that mean we can stop complying with the US no-fly list for Canadian flights?
That was quite the public dressing down the US Ambassador gave our Minister of Foreign Affairs!
If the "New" Government of Canada had any guts, there would be a response. While the expulsion of Amb. Wilkins may not be warranted, there is a simple way to achieve the same result: no calls to be taken from or returned to the Embassy of the USA by anyone working in the federal government. Wilkins could enjoy Ottawa's weather and hospitality until his inevitable recall in a month or two.
Of course we won't do anything, which we do so well in hard-nosed dealings with our nearest neighbours and dearest friends in the Bush Administration.
Whoa, look at the dividends from the Cons' closer relationship with the US! Nothing is too small a bone for them not to bother to throw people they know will suck up no matter how they're treated.
Why buy someone who's giving themselves away for free?
To give stock the benefit of the doubt .....
I have only met SD once, in Alberta, but when the NDP was the "official" opposition there (they have always been the oppositon - the Liberals certainly never have opposed much), the NDP members I knew said that he was very bright and very sharp with a vicious tongue when he chose to use it.
I wonder if 'ol Stock did not exercize some of his verbal skills on Mr. Wilkins that left the good Bush appointee smarting.
Yes pogge you are spot on when you say: "If they relent and take Arar off their watch list it's as good as an admission that there was no good reason for him to be on it in the first place."
I was thinking last night as I switched between The State of the Union Address and the much more interesing reruns of CSI - that if Bush (and now by extention, Wilkins) had only said: "LOOK - we fuck up! We have no business in Iraq and all my domestic programs are designed just to pretend I am doing something for Americans to get rid of some heat."
His approval ratings would skyrocket. Everyone understands a mistake ..... and everyone understands a bit of a coverup disguised as tenacity. The Democrats would be indignant - but they were indignant anyway.
It is just not in Bush and apparently not in Wilkins either.
Keep in mind that if the US were to remove Arar from the watch list, then they empower his lawsuit against the US. I suspect this is legal coyness.
Either the US is not sharing security data with us, or is fabricating "evidence" to help defeat Arar's lawsuit. Both reasons need very strong action from our government.
In an earlier media report, Day was quoted as saying he's seen the file and there was nothing in it that changed his mind about Arar's innocence.
Innocent until tortured in Syria is the new US motto?
Maybe Peter McKay could ask his girlfriend over at the U.S. State Dept. if she can pull a few strings and get Wilkins replaced?
It all makes perfect sense. When a government asks another government to stop treating one of it's citizens poorly, that is meddling and they should stay out of the other country's business.
But when an ambassador tells the government of the country he is ambassador to that they should 'back off' that is all well and good. OK then.
As Saskboy says (at 10:56), the U.S. government is in the wrong here, either way.
You know, I never thought I'd say this, but I have new respect for Stockwell Day...
Check the skies for flying pigs.
Sure enough:
Now the opposition can pound the government unless the government continues to push. So either the opposition looks good or our shiny new relationship looks more like the old, strained one. Wilkins should have kept his mouth shut.
The Star has a couple of relevant editorials up today. Thomas Walkom's somewhat sarcastic Just when can we trust U.S.? and Joey Slinger's more satirical 24 reasons to get a passport.
I guess Day won't be getting the "Employee of the Month" award this month, from Wilkins.
What about Canadian flights that have to go through US airspace to get to their destination?
I believe Arar's out of luck.
Does that mean we can stop complying with the US no-fly list for Canadian flights?
I'm not sure if we've entirely stopped using the American list in favour of a home-grown one or not. Anybody?
I believe our list is still under destruction.
Anybody who thinks that the Yanks would do anything that Canada asks if it's not to thier advantage is delusional.(just look at NAFTA.)
Even the R.C.M.P. commisionair who lied at the first hearings, then later had to admit that he tried to cover up thier actions wasn't charged with lying. All that happened to him was to be let go with a nice fat pension(what a joke!)He should be lible and have to pay the $10 million to Arar.