Though it attracted little notice around the blogosphere (for reasons that completely escape me), something really stunning happened this past week: the Canadian government finally released confidential files that showed just how badly they'd screwed up in helping to send an innocent man to Syria, where he alleged he was beaten into signing a false confession about his connections to Al Qaeda. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whom the left occasionally dismisses as Canada's Bush lackey, had made a public apology back in January, along with the offer of monetary restitution.

Why is this so stunning? Because they didn't have to do it: the files on Maher Arar were completely confidential, and no one would have known the truth if the government didn't come out and admit it themselves. By contrast, the United States side of the Arar rendition* is still confidential, and the government refuses to cooperate, predictably, on the grounds that it will compromise national security.

* Gonzales still refuses to call it a rendition, but a "deportation ". You read that correctly: the United States "deported" a Canadian citizen... to Syria.

Details from the released report (pdf!) are damning:

In a report to his superiors dated October 11, 2002, the CSIS security liaison officer (SLO) in Washington spoke of a trend they had noted lately that when the CIA or FBI cannot legally hold a terrorist subject, or wish a target questioned in a firm manner, they have them rendered to countries willing to fulfill that role. He said Mr. Arar was a case in point.

On October 10, 2002, Mr. Hooper [assistant director, CSIS] stated in a memorandum: “I think the U.S. would like to get Arar to Jordan where they can have their way with him."

(p. 245)

Here's where it gets even more interesting:

This is definitely Canada's screw-up, not the U.S.'s. U.S. agents were operating on misinformation provided by their Canadian sources.

Despite that, it's still somehow within the interests of American security not to participate in this investigation, even though the American government alleges that 1. it was a routine deportation, 2. they knew nothing about the possibility of torture (in Syria?!), and 3. they have nothing to feel guilty about in this story. But the documents are going to stay confidential anyway. Because proof of utter innocence, apparently, might harm our national security.

You see why the left has long since lost any faith in the good intentions of this administration? What reasons could they possibly have for not releasing documents pertaining to another country's screw-up that led to their citizen being tortured in Syria? The odds are good that our own participation will show that we either 1. are actively participating in renditioning, which we still fervently deny, and/or 2. know that Syria engages in torture, which would make deportation to Syria a crime under our own law.

This is especially striking now that the Canadian side has been released to the public.

Here's my challenge: give me a single reason to think that the administration is on solid ground here. Explain to me any scenario under which they'd be justified in withholding this information.

In the meantime, I don't think it's hyperbole to say that Canada is showing us what a responsible government looks like: you don't slap "executive privilege" or "state secrets" on anything that makes you look bad, especially when it has a direct impact on the lives of the people affected.

(Huge hat-tip here: dailykos user Mentarch wrote this excellent and richly-sourced timeline of the Arar story. I know not everyone here is a fan of the Great Orange Satan, but I'd encourage you to read it anyway. The details of the story are pretty sordid.)