| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Great White North | |||
| Canadian sentenced to Syrian army service | |||
| 2004-07-27 | |||
An Ottawa man who has been detained in Syria for the last two years has been acquitted of terrorism charges but now faces 30 months of military service.
Abdullah Almalki, 34, was arrested in his native Syria in May 2002 and was later charged with being a threat to national security over his alleged al Qaeda links. The computer programmer had travelled from Ottawa to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in the early 1990s and volunteered for a charity that was under the regional direction of Ahmed Said Khadr, the Egyptian-Canadian who enrolled his sons in al Qaeda training camps. He died in Pakistan last year.
The case parallels that of Maher Arar, the Canadian detained in the U.S. and deported to Syria in 2002. A public inquiry is probing the role Canadian officials may have played in that case, and Almalki could testify if he is allowed to return to Canada. Over the weekend, a Syrian judge cleared the charges against Almalki but said he was now free to serve his compulsory military service, which he avoided until now because he had moved to Canada as a teenager.
But Almalki's family says he is in no shape to serve and wants the Canadian government to help obtain permission for him to return home. According to his brother, Youssef, during his time in jail, Almalki was hung by his hands, beaten and kept in a tiny cell. His experience has left him with post-traumatic stress disorder and an injured back, jaw, hip and feet. "He is in no shape to go to the military; it will kill him," his wife, Khuzaimah Kalifah, told The Globe and Mail via email. A Foreign Affairs spokesman in Ottawa told the newspaper the department is aware of Almalki's acquittal and is investigating. But in another report, Youssef Almalki said he was told that because his brother is a dual citizen, it is an internal Syrian matter. | |||
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #31 Beautiful place... Um, Austria that is, not communist Poland, heh. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-28 1:06:18 AM |
| #30 How true rex, :-) I lived in Austria for a year during the "escape" from communist Poland. Beautiful place. Beautiful memories. Beautiful beer :-) |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-28 1:04:25 AM |
| #29 Postscript to Rafael-hello fellow Polsky Ogorsky!Actually my pater was Austrian, my mater was Polish. But heck, what does nationality mean in that neck of the woods, where borders changed every few years whenever there was a war... |
| Posted by: rex 2004-07-28 12:53:22 AM |
| #28 Now let's kick the shit out of our idiot politicians who have put us in danger! I tried and failed, in our federal election last month. I hope you guys do better than me in November. Peace. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-28 12:48:27 AM |
| #27 Rafael - not necessary. I was never directing my criticisms at you and do not believe your response was more than raw frustration. Believe me - watching the DNC on TV gave me one mother-loving case of heartburn tonight - and it prolly colored some of my responses. I offered an olive branch (I hope you took it that way, anyway) when I said "If..." (in the other thread) you wanted it that way... I'm cool with peace, nothing else req'd, IMHO. So, if you want, we got peace. Now let's kick the shit out of our idiot politicians who have put us in danger! And try like hell to elect those who will clean up the mess! Lol! The shitheads are amongst us, and we'll all feel the effects somewhere, sometime, I'm afraid. Peace, Rafael. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-28 12:42:17 AM |
| #26 OK I'll stop and am fully prepared to apologize to you .com.... if you want. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-28 12:33:06 AM |
| #25 rex: "...when cavorting in the ME or Afghanistan...they'll use their birth country passport..." In some cases they have to use their birth country passport, by law. Foreign documents are worthless in such a case (as is the case in Poland). But then this is exactly another advantage point. Like you said, if you're a terrorist asshole, no one will do somersaults to help you out in the nether regions of this world. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-28 12:30:42 AM |
| #24 Re #23: I assume this is directed to me... Sigh. You can stop. All this fiddle-dicking around is not going to make dual citizenship appealing, lol! I think it's just a fucking stupid idea, okay? I made a good case against it in #10 and stand by it. I know you're having fun, heh, but I prefer clarity over muddle, thanks, rex! Good tries and kudos to you both, though, for your inventiveness! You'd make excellent lawyers or advertising execs, lol! P.S. Advertising pays more, but the biz is less stable / secure, heh. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-28 12:27:57 AM |
| #23 Is it okay for me to think that's just stupid as it create more silliness than it solves? Nevermind, just thinking out loud. Years ago, the advantage of dual citizenship only applied to the individual. But now in the age of Muslim extremist terrorism and PC thinking, there is a subtle advantage to Western governments to "tolerate" their naturalized citizens to hold dual citizenship. If that dual citizen national is caught doing "evil" things in his birth country, well then the Western gov't can say: "so sad, too bad, we'll try our best thru diplomatic channels to help you, don't call us, we'll call you blah, blah..."Also, dual nationals take a chance when they travel abroad. Whatever passport they use abroad...well that's the country they appeal to for help when in trouble. Obviously, bad boys are not going to use their US passport when cavorting in the ME or Afghanistan with "like minded bad boy brothers"-they'll use their birth country passport - yuck, yuck - so if they get caught in a compromising bad boy situation, then the US/ Cdn/UK gov't... whatever... are not obliged to do somersaults to help that "bad boy" if he was using his birth country's passport... It's bad for a Western country, actually, for a naturalized citizen to renounce his/her birth citizenship, because if this person turns out to be a "bad boy" the Western gov't can't deport this loser. He's a "keeper." |
| Posted by: rex 2004-07-28 12:14:10 AM |
| #22 For the record, yes I have argued in favor for it, for the reason I stated above, and because dual citizenships are so ubiquitous. .com would love the German system: accept ours, renounce theirs, no gray area. It is debatable which system is better. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-28 12:06:27 AM |
| #21 Okay. Is it okay for me to think that's just stupid as it create more silliness than it solves? Nevermind, just thinking out loud. Cool. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-27 11:57:34 PM |
| #20 HOW is it convenient? For the government: if a person has dual citizenships, there is the option to revoke and deport, should the need or desire arise. This can also be used as leverage against a known troublemaker. Why would a government purposely limit its options? Dual citizenship is a tool that can be used, if needed (sometimes for dubious purposes, but who cares?). For the person: purely economical and in some cases sentimental, so long as there is no conflict or need to decide one way or the other. If Canada ever goes to war against Poland, that will be the moment of truth for me, as I have both citizenships. Until then...smooth sailing. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-27 11:53:56 PM |
| #19 rex - This debate predates your arrival on RB - and Rafael HAS argued in favor of dual citizenship. I have the quote, if you want it, but not the link (sorry). That's why I began my post with the statement I did. Regards dual citizenship, indeed, it is tolerated if it is unavoidable. The Oath of Allegiance is taken under oath, and there is weight behind it, though not full stauatory status, as you point out. But there IS full stauatory power behind the Loss of Citizenship in the document I cited. See the subsection I pointed out and it is very clear that once accepted, no competing allegiance is allowed under law, by word or deed. Read post #10 - it makes it very simple, instead of all the gray-shade crap. Is he YOURS? Follow the law. Is he SOMEBODY ELSE'S? Follow the law. What's complicated about this? Why are you playing the gray game? |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-27 11:47:10 PM |
| #18 .com said: There is nothing, nothing whatsoever, to recommend your position. You failed to refute the logic in #10, and I understand why: because there is no superior argument in favor of dual citizenship. Neither Rafael nor I are "arguing" for dual citizenship, .com. I think you may have read something into our comments, especially into Rafael's, that was not there. Both of us are just saying a)dual citizenship is a fact of life in some Western countries including Canada and the USA and b) here are the reasons why from a citizen's point of view and c) here are the down sides of "tolerating" dual citizenship for our respective governments but d) in this particular case involving the Syrian "bad boy" national, it actually worked to the Canadian gov't's advantage. The Canadian gov't doesn't have to argue too strenuously against Syria re: doing what it wants with the Syrian national. And .com, unfortunately, re: the Pledge of Allegiance - well, it's not so powerful and binding as you may have thought it was re: immigrants quoting the words at the time they are naturalized.Some "transnationalists" [ie. the Left]don't think the oath as it stands holds any "legal" water. Therefore, some Congressman are trying to codify the Oath into Federal law as we speak: See H.R. 3191 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03191:@@@L&summ2=m& |
| Posted by: rex 2004-07-27 11:38:56 PM |
| #17 So you both failed to read #10 and refute the logic in it. How does that add weight to your opinion? You and Rex shoud BOTH re-read the post and refute it with logic. HOW is it convenient? Is it simply a cost issue? Really? Have the Govts of the US and Kanada fallen so far that the cost is more important than the Rule of Law, which is what #10 relies upon. Pfeh. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-27 11:26:54 PM |
| #16 there is no superior argument in favor of dual citizenship Again, you're philosophizing. There is one argument in favor: convenience, for the person and the government, as rex pointed out. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-27 11:18:15 PM |
| #15 Once given US citizenship it is NOT tolerated for one to declare allegiance to another country, as I said. See the section I pointed to. Plain as day in item b. Hell, they should've revoked his citizenship and sent that asshole Taliban John to Gitmo under section c, IMHO. If it could be abolished, it would simplify the hell out of things, as I said in #10. There is nothing, nothing whatsoever, to recommend your position. You failed to refute the logic in #10, and I understand why: because there is no superior argument in favor of dual citizenship. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-27 11:11:58 PM |
| #14 from the point of view of citizens who retain dual citizenship, I think its because of employment opportunities-that is if you were born in a Westernized country that "tolerates" dual citizenship, then you get naturalized coiizenship in another Western country, you can take jobs in either country with no red tape hassles. From the point of Western governments, holding dual citizenship is discouraged because of split "loyalties" thingy but OTOH, say in thise instance, Canada can more easily wash its hands of "bad news" naturalized citizens if they have dual citizenship and get caught in questionable circumstances outside Canada. To try to deport anyone these days in Canada or the USA or the UK is an expensive proposition for the gov't, what with tenacious immigration lawyers looking for a court fight, not to mention bad PR for the gov't in power vis-a-vis ethnic minority voters. Many countries do not allow dual citizenship, but Canada and the USA tolerate it. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-07-27 11:04:08 PM |
| #13 "It is generally considered that while dual nationals are in the country of which they are citizens that country has a predominant claim on their allegiance." - from the link which you provided, which sort of negates your statement: "...it does not tolerate conflicting allegiances." (The Oath may not tolerate it, but State certainly seems to) I'm not saying dual citizenship makes anything better. But if it was not true what I claimed in comment #9, you'd see your government (or mine) rounding up people with multiple citizenships in droves. But they're not doing it. Why? Because it is easier to revoke a citizenship and deport someone who has multiple citizenships. The problem you're having with this is more philosophical in nature than practical. Many people hold dual citizenships because it is conveniant, and because no one has yet been forced to choose between them (unlike Germany). And besides, it costs money to renounce a citizenship, and (once again) it is not a simple matter. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-27 10:58:07 PM |
| #12 Geez. And I thought you'd make the case FOR dual citizenship - which you have never actually done. Let's hear how it makes ANYTHING better. Go ahead. I'll take another laugher. Truth is, citizenship in some countries, such as the US, actually involves a pledge of allegiance - and that is where the rub comes in, no? Your statement: "That's why you'll never see any government contesting dual citizenship rights (besides Germany, but they're even smarter on this issue). It is an extremely convenient thing, as this case shows." is certainly bullshit. Take a look at this State Dept page regards the US position on Dual Nationality - we only accept it when it is a de facto situation. Take special note of the section: Potentially expatriating acts / Loss of citizenship. As you can see, it doesn't allow for subsequent acts of seeking citizenship elsewhere. In other words, if you have dual because of circumstances prior to becoming a US citizen, then it is tolerated. Afterwards, if you wish to remain an American, then you are bound by the Oath of Allegiance - and it does not tolerate conflicting allegiances. Regardless, tell us, Rafael The Wise, how dual citizenship makes anything better, rather than just create an idiotic atmosphere for stupid decisions and shenanigans. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-27 10:38:10 PM |
| #11 If you are granted citizenship in a country, by birth or naturalization, then you are a citizen of that country. Period. No other. Um, no. That's how you would like things to be. The reality is that there are people who hold multiple citizenships, by birh, naturalization or whatever. The country of their other citizenship matters in the case where they choose to travel to that country. They are subject to the laws of that country, regardless of any other citizenships they may hold. Furthermore, even if a person chooses to reciprocate the generosity of their new home by renouncing their old citizenship, they may still be treated like citizens if they set foot in the old country. It is not easy to renounce a citizenship! So much so, that any immigration lawyer will tell you that the only certain way of avoiding problems in your former country is to simply not go there at all, ever. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-27 9:47:52 PM |
| #10 Rafael - Sigh. There you go again... I'll repeat some of what I said the LAST time you spouted this nonsense: If you are granted citizenship in a country, by birth or naturalization, then you are a citizen of that country. Period. No other. If you choose to seek citizenship in another country, and they accept you, you become a naturalized citizen of that new country and your country of origin means nothing -- you have pledged yourself to the new country - and they have reciprocated that pledge by granting you rights - including representation and travel rights as evidenced by the passport. Nobody MADE you emigrate from your previous home - it was your choice. Choice made. Finis. Can't make such a pledge? Can't reciprocate the generosity of your new home? Then stay wherever you are. Choice made. End of story. As for booting someone OUT, the ONE PASSPORT idea makes this idiot-proof: Follow the law. If he's YOURS, and that includes naturalized citizens because they are YOURS, then you do whatever the law prescribes. If he's NOT YOURS, then you do the same thing: apply your laws as he is subject to them while in your country. If deportation is what the law prescribes, then ship his dumb ass home. It is far too easy to make the case against all of these divided loyalties and the idiotic crap that passes for diplomatic activity on the issue. You can't be a little bit pregnant - either you is - or you isn't, pardon the grammar. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-27 8:30:21 PM |
| #9 That's why you'll never see any government contesting dual citizenship rights (besides Germany, but they're even smarter on this issue). It is an extremely convenient thing, as this case shows. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-27 4:27:27 PM |
| #8 Actually, Rafael, I think in this instance, it's the uber civilized country, Canada, that is not giving any deep thought to challenging Syria's right to birthright citizenship. Perhaps, just perhaps, there are some subtle go-ahead signals emanating from the Canadian intelligence department(CSIS) and the foreign affairs department on this dual citizen loser...something to the effect of ...he's your problem, not ours; he was born in your country, not ours; finders, keepers; keep him, do what you want, don't call us, we'll call you. Syria can be "helpful" on occasion. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-07-27 4:21:47 PM |
| #7 rex: that's what happens when one doesn't renounce one's birthplace citizenship. It's not as easy as you think. Even if you do renounce it formally, some regimes might still ignore that fact. If you were born there, you're a citizen, like it or not. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-27 4:02:59 PM |
| #6 I forgot to add that it would be really funny if Syria started another war with Israel about the time this yahoo is getting ready to leave the service. Well not funny for Israel, but Pvt Abdullah would have to serve for the duration and probably at the front lines. I say this guy needs to serve in Lebenon! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-07-27 4:01:04 PM |
| #5 "He is in no shape to go to the military; it will kill him!" This story has SNL skit written all over it. I am sure Pvt Abdullah will mkae many new friends in the Army. Maybe one of the officers will 'take him' under his wing and guide him through his 'service.' Maybe he can get out of it by saying he is gay? "Ok Pvt Abdullah you say your gay" As he unzips his pants "Prove it!" |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-07-27 3:54:59 PM |
| #4 Dont worry Mrs. Almalki, the Syrian army builds men. Out of the bits left lying around. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2004-07-27 3:03:45 PM |
| #3 But in another report, Youssef Almalki said he was told that because his brother is a dual citizen, it is an internal Syrian matter. Tsk, tsk...so sad, too bad...that's what happens when one doesn't renounce one's birthplace citizenship. I love it. Serving in the Syrian military, inspite of suffering from a "stress disorder"...oh yes, I'm sure Syria will give this chap KP duty only to accomodate his "malady." Suck olives, moron. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-07-27 2:29:24 PM |
| #2 Create a mine-clearing unit called the "Blind Mice"? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-07-27 2:15:12 PM |
| #1 If we take the Syrian lead, form our AQ wannabees into an underfunded EOD unit. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-07-27 2:07:02 PM |