The euphoria coming out of the recent Liberal convention would have been more understandable if the delegates had just selected Bono to be our next prime minister.

The Irish rock star’s speech to the convention was riveting &#0151 focused, passionate, powerful. Paul Martin’s, on the other hand, was vague and full of empty clichés, from “destiny is ours to hold” to “this country belongs to us and we belong to it.” (The Liberals may be right about that, but must they boast about it on national television?)

Empty clichés were on hold last week, however, when Martin came out with a refreshingly feisty defence of Canadian sovereignty, describing as “simply unacceptable” Washington’s decision to detain Canadian citizen Maher Arar as he passed through a U.S. airport and then to send him to Syria, where he said he was tortured.

Raising the subject unprompted at a news conference, Martin even suggested that Canada would only co-operate with U.S. anti-terrorism efforts — something dear to the Bush administration’s heart — if Canadian rights were guaranteed. “… There is going to have to be an understanding that in fact the Canadian passport will be respected and that fundamental rights will be respected.”

This is reassuring to those anxious to know whether Canadians are still to be governed by the rule of law in the post-9/11 world. It appears to represent a shift for Martin, who only a week earlier deferred to Washington on the Arar case, saying meekly, “I certainly can understand the Americans’ position.”

Martin’s approach also seems to have shifted since his speech to the Liberal convention, when he emphasized that Canadians had to “come to grips” with the fact that the U.S. was the world’s lone superpower. Why would he urge us to come to grips with all that power, if not to suggest some sort of crumpling in the face of it?

But now Martin seems to want to reposition himself on the crucial issue of relations with Washington, perhaps because his handlers have concluded Canadians want to see more backbone. In fact, Martin’s wide popularity could be eroded if his emphasis on improving the cool U.S.-Canada relations of the past few years starts to remind Canadians of the deferential days of Brian Mulroney, who came to power promising to improve the cool U.S.-Canada relations of the Trudeau years.

Martin may be worried he’s already wandered too far down this path. Having agreed pre-emptively to sign Canada up for George W. Bush’s missile defence system, Martin now appears keen to draw the line at allowing the U.S. to ship Canadians off for torture abroad.

One hopes that Martin will stick with this new course, but he may have left himself some wiggle room.

How, exactly, does he plan to ensure that there won’t be more cases like Arar’s and a few other horrifying ones that have grabbed public attention?

Norman Spector, former chief of staff to Mulroney, recently argued that the way to prevent such violations in the future is for Canada to convince the Americans they can “trust us as their ally in the war on terrorism.”

But winning American trust on this front would likely involve following them down a road of lawlessness that includes Guantanamo Bay and the policy of shipping detainees to countries like Syria to torture information out of them.

In an effort to please Washington, Canada has already compromised civil liberties enough by passing a needlessly broad anti-terrorism bill, which is still a pale version of the sweeping and intrusive U.S.A. Patriot Act.

Spector insists that in beefing up our fight against terrorism we’ll protect ourselves from Arar’s fate by getting “out of Americans’ bad books.”

But being spared from torture shouldn’t be a perk the Americans reward us with when we behave as they want. It’s a right we’re not willing to compromise.

But will Martin stand tough on this? He’s capable of being tough and steadfast when he wants to be. We saw that side of him when he slashed away ruthlessly at the nation’s social spending, vowing resolutely to meet his deficit targets “come hell or high water!”

But, back then, he was only standing up to welfare mothers, unemployed workers, downsized government employees — not someone whose immense power we all have to come to grips with.

If only Martin would apply that toughness to defending Canadian rights, if only he’d insist “the Canadian passport will be respected and that fundamental rights will be respected — come hell or high water!”

My fear is that we could end up instead with: “Come hell or high water — I certainly can understand the Americans’ position!”

Linda McQuaig

Journalist and best-selling author Linda McQuaig has developed a reputation for challenging the establishment. As a reporter for The Globe and Mail, she won a National Newspaper Award in 1989...