Is That Legal?

Yes - nothing to see here except an explosive, if nonexistent, attack on civil liberties!!!!!! - so move along folks. The danger is all in your bigoted heads.

In related news: A Canadian senator tried to secure the release of an Arab-Canadian before the latter was sent to Syria for, umm, questioning. The senator was offered the release of the man, but only on the condition that the man would be tried in Canada and convicted. And America preaches freedom and the rule of law?

"The senator was offered the release of the man, but only on the condition that the man would be tried in Canada and convicted."

No, Mr. Weigel. That's not what the story says. Are you being deliberately obfuscatory, or do you simply have reading comprehension problems?

I did get something wrong, sorry. The senator himself wasn't party to the discussions; he was the government's envoy to get Mr. Arar released, but he got the information from the foreign affairs official who was the participant. I was listening to the story on CBC radio much of the day Wednesday, where it was the top story, but I did miss that important bit. Chalk it down to hearing comprehension; I looked up the story for this post to have a relevant link.

(Unless you're complaining about something else. This particular article refers only to "incarcerating" and "charging" him, without mention of "conviction". When I think of incarceration, I think of conviction, but considering Guantanamo, maybe conviction isn't really an element of long-term incarceration anymore. The big story from the Canadian perspective seemed to be that the government had a chance to rescue Mr. Arar from his fate and failed to take it, but from my American perspective the big deal is that my government would deign to coerce another country to lock up -- or yes, even charge -- a person without evidence. This American is off to Canada for the next ten days without Internet access; I'll be sure to keep up with the story, and to see if it's big on media outlets other than the CBC.)