RSS FeedCSIS tapped phone despite order
Can you blame people if their response to this kind of news is cynicism?
CSIS tapped phone despite order
Agents violated solicitor-client privilege, recorded 171 calls involving accused terroristBy Andrew Duffy, The Ottawa Citizen
November 16, 2010Federal security agents recorded 171 phone calls between suspected terrorist Mahmoud Jaballah and his lawyers after they agreed to halt the practice in December 2008.
That revelation is contained in a recent order issued by Federal Court Judge Kevin Aalto, who condemns the repeated breaches of solicitor-client privilege.
“Solicitor-client privilege is virtually sacrosanct in the Canadian judicial system,” Aalto said in ordering two federal agencies to turn over a raft of documents to Jaballah’s defence team.
I’m also concerned about how this implicates the federal lawyers who had access to this privileged information. What role might the Law Society have in rectifying this abuse of power?
Talk Local on Project Samosa
Talk Local on Rogers TV with Sonia Chin discussed Project Samosa, the terrorism arrests this past summer. The guest is Ibrahim Hindy, a Toronto resident and local leader, who shares the impact of the arrests on him and his fellow Canadians.
He claims that 74% of those arrested on terrorism in Canada have the charges dropped, and wonders whether this approach to anti-terrorism properly reflects our Charter values.
Rocking the Boat: A Brief History of Anti-Migrant Hysteria in Canada
They’re at it again.
In November, 76 Tamil refugees escaped Sri Lanka on a rusty freighter. They arrived in Victoria, where they were met by RCMP and Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) officials, who promptly jailed them for three months on allegations of terrorism. It would be fully half a year before the CBSA would admit that it had never had any evidence.
By then, however, it was too late: anti-Tamil and anti-refugee hysteria had spread like wildfire. Now, mere weeks after that most tepid of mea culpas from the CBSA, the hysteria greeting the Tamil MV Sun Sea passengers is worse. As with the Ocean Lady, these migrants will be detained in Maple Ridge jails before their refugee claims are considered. The Conservatives have begun to create new rules to treat refugees who arrive by boat differently from others. Meanwhile, Paul Fromm, the infamous neo-Nazi, has been receiving uncritical coverage in mainstream media with his demands that the migrants be sent back.
As the paranoia grows ever more heightened, it becomes increasingly important that we resist it. The universal rights of safety and mobility must be upheld, not only for the Sun Sea migrants, but for all people fleeing violence.
April 28: Sanctions-busting Telethon for Abousfian Abdelrazik
The following message is from the email listserve of the People’s Commission Network, to which you can subscribe by sending an email to PeoplesCommissionNews-Subscribe@lists.riseup.net.
——–
Sanctions-busting Telethon
Wednesday, April 28th, 2010
From anywhere, between 7pm and 9pm EDT:
Call toll free 1 877 737 4070
Tune in to live-broadcast on Rabble TVIn Montreal:
Free dinner from 6pm; Telethon begins at 7pm
Georges Vanier Cultural Centre, 2450 Workman St. (metro Lionel Groulx)
Wheelchair accessible. Free childcare on site.
ALSO, tune in to Amandla on CKUT 90.3 FM for live reports.
Project Fly Home is organizing the first ever “Sanctions-busting Telethon” on April 28th to call people to donate to Abousfian Abdelrazik in open defiance of the United Nations 1267 regime, challenging the fear, racism and isolation it creates and feeds on. The evening will include a free spaghetti dinner and a host of poets, musicians, performers, and speakers.
A Trial to End all Terrorism
I recently presented this paper, A Trial to End All Terrorism: How the United States Could Have Won the War on Terrorism Before it Even Began, with the Trial of Only One Man at the 3rd Annual Law Student Conference held at Windsor Law.
Not All Muslims are Terrorists, But All Terrorists are Not Muslim Either
It’s a common refrain in the media, that the threat of terrorism comes from Islamic extremism.
Not true, according to a new study revealed by researchers at Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans, which suggests that only 6% of terrorist attacks on the U.S. are from Muslims.
CNN describes the inclusion criteria used for the study:
To be included on the list, an offender had to have been wanted, arrested, convicted or killed in connection with terrorism-related activities since 9/11 — and have lived in the United States, regardless of immigration status, for more than a year prior to arrest.
The study also notes that strong partnerships and support of Muslim institutions are necessary to prevent the radicalization of Muslims. To date, we’ve often have initiatives that accomplish the opposite. Muslim terrorists also had very little to do with Islam,
This research confirmed what has been observed in other studies of Muslim terrorists: most of those who engage in religiously inspired terrorism have little formal training in Islam and, in fact, are poorly educated about Islam. Muslim- Americans with a strong, traditional religious training are far less likely to radicalize than those whose knowledge of Islam is incomplete.
The implications of the findings also suggest there is disproportionate attention by the media and security officials on threats that are comparatively negligible, which may actually accentuate this specific risk over time.
Placed in context with data over the past 30 years, we get a very different picture (graph sent to us by a reader):
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database
Ottawa abandons case against Charkaoui
Divisive terror law losing traction
Can we trust secret evidence, often borrowed from foreign countries, to throw people out of Canada?
Colin Freeze explains the security certificates:
… federal ministers sign off on a certificate after viewing secret CSIS information, which allows officials to immediately jail, and eventually deport, a non-citizen.
The “intelligence” used to do this is disclosed to judges but never fully revealed to the accused, drawn as it usually is from secret agents and wiretaps, sometimes placed within Canada but also frequently “loaned” from foreign governments on condition that the provenance be kept secret.
These Are Also My Country of a Kazakhstan
I agree with Simon Chester, Borat was a “silly film.” The real country of Kazakhstan is making headlines, and few people online are laughing.
The parliament in that country has approved a new law that would allow criminal prosecution for blogs, chat rooms and social networking sites. Foreign sites considered unsuitable can also be blocked.
The government defends the recent move, saying it is intended for child pornography and extremist literature. But critics cay that it can also be used to censor content on elections, strikes, demonstrations, and inter-ethnic strife.
The popular blog site, LiveJournal.com, is already inaccessible to people in the country. In 2007, a pro-opposition blogger was given an extended sentence for insulting the president. Concerns of rendition to other states for the purposes of torture have also been raised.
Harout Semerdjian of UCLA accuses the country of a history of unlawful arrests of journalists and arson against Ak Zhaiyk, one of the largest independant publications in the country.
However, Kazakhstan is not part of the Axis, and will probably use these “untraditional methods” to oppress political groups in the name of fighting terrorism, so we probably won’t get as much coverage as recent political strife in Iran. Unfortunately this situation is hardly limited to these two countries, but the instances we do hear about are selective based on unrelated political tensions.
The main human rights watchdog in Europe, The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), has also offered up their criticism. Perhaps slightly ironically, Kazakhstan is expected to assume the chair of this same organization in the next six months.
Fraud and Fearmongering in the “War on Terror”
Prof. Michael Keefer, Professor of English at the University of Guelph, has a new article on the Toronto 18, where he says,
The theatrical arrests of 18 (mostly young) Muslims in Toronto in the Summer of 2006 reinforced media-driven paranoia that homegrown terrorists were everywhere. The unraveling of the case two years later exposes to view yet again the sinister and disgraceful behavior of Canada’s security intelligence apparatus, which has formed a habit of confecting false accusations of terrorism against Canadian citizens. ‘The threat to Canadian society is not a bunch of Muslim boys playing paintball, it’s an ideologically driven government willing to curtail our civil liberties.’
He provides strong criticisms towards the media for their coverage of the case.
Now Even Shoplifters are Terrorists
Being a terrorist is en vogue these days. And even if it isn’t, seems like you might have a hard time escaping the label.
Minister MacKay claimed pirates off the coast of East Africa were “financial terrorists,” apparently a new brand or flavour of the terrorist trend.
Even the National Post, usually a publication known more for perpetuating terrorist myths than clarifying them, was quick to criticize this move in an editorial,
Oh boy. Since Sept. 11, 2001, we have watched ruefully for the inevitable debasement of the verbal coin of “terror” and “terrorism”; and here we have what seems like a lamentably clear example. Mr. MacKay has something of a point, insofar as acts of piracy are now generally classed with terrorism under Canadian law and UN conventions.
But the term “terrorism” exists precisely to distinguish ordinary thefts and kidnappings, with ordinary motives, from ones intended to undermine the international order and the legitimacy of states. It functions as a license for governments to transcend the ordinary limits and procedures of law, where to observe them would mean surrender to the political program of a minority.
That’s actually the problem with the current law. Applying the terrorist label does not give governments a license to trample rights and transcend “ordinary limits,” although it seems that a recent decision might indicate that’s exactly what’s happening.
The first member of Canada’s only major alleged terrorist plot, the Toronto 18, was sentenced this week. But it appears as if he was guilty without any knowledge of anything remotely related to terrorism. The broad and vague language of the current terrorism provisions means he could be convicted for any form of material support – including shoplifting.
Thomas Walkon of the Toronto Star explains,
By any reasonable definition of the term, this young man is not a terrorist. He did not plot to blow up buildings or behead politicians. Nor, according to evidence at his trial, did he know of any such alleged plots… He did shoplift from Canadian Tire gear that the judge determined was intended, if not necessarily used, for the ill-fated camping trips…
So why was this juvenile, whose only overtly criminal behaviour consisted of shoplifting, convicted of terrorism?
The answer lies in the wording of anti-terror legislation, rushed through Parliament after 9/11.
Under these anti-terror provisions of the Criminal Code, a person need not know anything about a specific terrorist plot – or even if a such a plot is being planned – to be guilty of terrorism.
But he is guilty if he knowingly does something – even indirectly – that is intended to further the objects of a group that, in the most general sense, has terrorist intentions.
Such as shoplifting camping gear.
Indeed, a suspect can be found guilty of terrorism even if this shoplifted camping gear is never used.
This position is an embarrassment to the Canadian legal system. The hallmark of criminal law in the common law system is a mental element and an act element. Someone who commits a crime without intending to do the act cannot normally be convicted (with some exceptions).
Doing an act that is never intended for a terrorist act, then being punished for it when it is retroactively labeled as material support to a terrorism conspiracy, is a miscarriage of justice.
Justice Sproat who ruled in this case had no choice but to convict the young man in this case given the wording of the statute. The full blame of this rests on Canadian Parliament, who overreacted with xenophobia when passing this law in that it was worded so broadly that it could be abused in this manner.
Perhaps more specifically blame can be leveled at the Justice Minister at the time, Irwin Cotler, who was charged with reviewing Bill C-36 and ensuring an adequate balance was struck between civil liberties and national security concerns.
Prof. Don Stuart of the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University warned the Special Senate Committee on Bill C-36 at that time,
I see in this bill a wider pattern of quick-fix law and order legislation. This is the kind of legislation of which Canada should not be proud and should not accept…
When I look at this bill, it is something that Canada did not need. We had ample law… Those of us who have been thinking about criminal law teaching and principles for years would see absolutely no reason to create new crimes to deal with terrorism and the types of police powers and CSIS powers that have been created here. They are quite extraordinary. I do not think we need them at all. We have plenty of laws to deal with this situation…
Despite recent government amendments, I see that they do not yet meet the high standard of justification needed to support massive dragnet powers of this sort. Basic principles of a criminal justice system that deserves the name require a meaningful proof before you send someone to jail of a meaningful act and what we call fault. Also, we need to have people fairly labelled and punishment must be proportionate. Notwithstanding the amendments the government has approved – the tinkering around with the definitions – in my view, the definitions are still far too wide. I include in that a consideration of the listing section.
In my view, the devil of this bill is in the detail. I do not think there are too many people in this country who have read every provision of this bill… It is far too complicated. To suggest that we actually know or Parliament knew what they were voting on when they passed it seems to be a stretch.
If you actually look at the way these new offences have been defined, they do not achieve what they say they will. The Justice Minister stands up and says, “We have a narrow offence about knowingly participating in a terrorist group,” but when you look at the bill, the word “knowingly” is nonexistent.
[emphasis added]
Prof. Stuart elaborated further on the failings of the new Bill in a seminal paper,
The Anti-terrorism Bill (Bill C-36): An Unnecessary Law and Order Quick Fix that Permanently Stains the Canadian Criminal Justice System.
Even more to blame is a law enforcement establishment that cast a net so wide that even those peripherally involved with an alleged terrorist act can be held complicit, even if they knew nothing about it.
When Canadians re-gain their sensibility and re-examine the fairness and justice of these provisions, and the potential for abuse, it should be the first thing re-visited by Parliament.
Omar Khadr’s Guanatanamo Trial Suspended!
It’s over!
For now, anyway.
Staying true to his promise, Barack Obama has made it one of his first official acts as President to request a suspension of the military tribunal process in Guantanamo.
Omar Khadr is the first beneficiary of the directive. His “trial” was suspended this morning.
The suspension will last for 120 days so that the government can explore alternatives.
The legal maneuver appears designed to provide the Obama administration time to refashion the prosecution system and potentially treat detainees as criminal defendants in federal court or have them face war-crimes charges in military courts-martial. It is also possible that the administration could re-form and relocate the military commissions before resuming trials.
…
President Obama has acknowledged in recent interviews that shutting the facility is likely to be prolonged and complex. And the administration now faces a number of potentially daunting challenges to following through on the president’s campaign promise. Obama is expected to sign an executive order soon that will lay out in detail his plan to empty the facility.
(source: Washington Post)
The military tribunal process has been roundly criticized by human rights groups, lawyers and lay people alike as a violation of the rule of law.
In his inaugural address, Obama spoke these inspiring words, which I leave you with:
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort – even greater cooperation and understanding between nations.
Obama: End of Guantanamo and Good News for Omar Khadr
I have previously expressed my shame at the Canadian Government’s failure to follow the example of every other Western nation in demanding the repatriation of our citizen at Guantanamo Bay.
The advocacy in favour of Omar Khadr’s return to Canada has come from many circles. The calls have come from Sen. Romeo Dallaire, UNICEF, Amnesty International, and the Canadian Bar Association, among many others. Most consider Khadr to be a child soldier, and consider his detention and the military tribunal process to be a violation of the rule of law.
This choir of voices has finally reached a crescendo. I have good news to report.
President-elect Barack Obama has signalled his intention to close Guantanamo Bay forever – and he intends to do it soon.
In an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” Obama said:
I don’t want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution.”
Reuters is reporting that Obama intends to close the prison perhaps within his first week after taking office:
“There is going to be an executive order on closing down Guantanamo,” the adviser told Reuters, adding the move would probably be made during Obama’s first several days in office.
What this means for Omar Khadr remains unclear. It will no doubt take time before the prison can be closed and its inmates transferred to face trial elsewhere. Most likely, this will mean an end to the military tribunals, which were denounced by the U.S. Supreme Court, in favour of domestic trials in U.S. Federal Court.
Stephen Harper, meanwhile, remains staunchly committed to leaving Khadr to be dealt with by the Americans, whether or not their process violates the rule of law. This is in spite of serious concerns raised by his own government lawyers. Harper is unsure of whether Obama’s announcement will substantively affect Khadr, but he remains defferential:
“The promise that president-elect Obama made was that he would close down the facilities at Guantanamo. That’s primarily, as I understand it, because of the objection to the fact that many of the people at that facility aren’t charged with anything,” he told reporters in Vancouver.
“I don’t think you can necessarily leap to the conclusion that it will affect people who have in fact been charged, and who are facing a legal process.”
One thing is clear: Omar Khadr’s languishing in that deplorable offshore prison will soon be at an end.
