RSS FeedNot 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, 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.
Seven Years of Imprisonment and Zero Charges Later, Canada Frees Syrian Terror Suspect
Syrian terror suspect Hassan Almrei was released Friday by Canadian authorities after spending seven years in custody without being formally charged.
Justice Richard Mosley of federal court said in a written statement that the continued detention of Almrei, accused of being a threat to national security, can no longer be justified. “It is difficult to find any cases in the common-law world where a person detained on security grounds has been held for so long,” Mosley J. said.
Almrei was arrested in October 2001 for being connected to an individual suspected by U.S. officials of being linked to the September 11 attacks. That individual was never convicted of terrorism but was convicted of an immigration violation and deported to Syria.
According to the Associated Press,
Almrei was the last remaining terror suspect being held under Canada’s national security certificate law, which allows the government to detain and deport immigrants without charges if they are deemed a threat to national security. The law was enacted shortly after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.
Almrei’s counsel argued that indefinite detention without charge or trial amounted to cruelty.
The judge said that Almrei should be released but closely monitored by authorities until it can be determined whether the security certificate is reasonable and whether he can be deported to Syria or another country.
Follow-up: Reply Letter from Foreign Affairs Minister regarding Omar Khadr
On July 15, I posted a letter that I had written to Prime Minister Stephen Harper regarding Omar Khadr’s continued detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The letter was signed by myself and 10 other law students.
On September 16, 2008, I received a reply letter from the Prime Minister’s Office indicating that the letter would be passed along to the Minister of Foreign Affairs who would “certainly be interested in [our] views” regarding Omar Khadr.
I looked upon that letter as a Prime Ministerial brush off. I thought it would be the end of the matter.
To the government’s credit, I today received a follow-up letter from The Honorable David Emerson, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The entire text of the letter is reproduced below:
September 24, 2008.
Dear Mr. Gridin and Co-signatories:
The office of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, has forwarded to me on September 16, 2008, a copy of your letter (Folder: 664583) concerning the case of Mr. Omar Khadr, Canadian citizen detained at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
I understand your concerns and I can assure you that the Government of Canada has an interest in Mr. Khadr’s case and in his treatment. Canadian observers have been present at his hearings before the Military Commission in Guantanamo Bay and the Court of Military Commission Review in Washington D.C. Furthermore, officials of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada have carried out several visits with Mr. Khadr and will continue to do so. The visits allow access to Mr. Khadr to assess his welfare and treatment, and to obtain information about his mental and physical condition.
Although Mr. Khadr is no longer a juvenile, he was 15 years old when he was alleged to have committed crimes in Afhanistan. Canada has sought to ensure that the treatment of Mr. Khadr is consistent with internationally recognized norms and standards for the treatment of juvenile offenders, and that his age at the time the alleged events occurred is considered in all parts of the process. Canada has also consistently sought to ensure that Mr. Khadr receives the benefits of due process, including access to Canadian counsel of his choice. The Canadian government has received unequivocal assurances from U.S. authorities that Mr. Khadr will not be subject to the death penalty, and indeed the charges against him were referred to the Military Commission on a non-capital basis.
In keeping with Canada’s long-standing policy, the Canadian government strongly believes that the fight against terrorism must be carried out in compliance with international law, including established standards of human rights and due process.
With respect to Mr. Khard’s repatriation to Canada, it is premature to discuss this issue since his case is still before the courts.
Thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns.
Sincerely,
[sgd]
The Honourable David L. Emerson, P.C., M.P.
While I do appreciate the reply from Mr. Emerson, I do not accept that the government is doing enough.
Omar Khadr has been in detention for 6 years. The “several visits” during this period to check up on his well being are virtually meaningless. He has been the victim of serious psychological and possibly physical abuse at the hands of his captors.
The extreme isolation of growing up inside a military prison is unimaginable. Omar Khadr’s development from a child to an adult has been stifled, and at this point, it is unlikely that he will ever be a normal, adjusted individual.
The assurances of due process are also hollow. Omar Khadr is being tried by a kangaroo court, in proceedings that have been the subject of problems and numerous complaints. Most recently, a military prosecutor at the Guantanamo Bay tribunals resigned over “ethical qualms.”
Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld quit, allegedly after the government withheld exculpatory evidence from the defence.
The U.S. government denies this allegation. But internal documents obtained by the Associated Press indicate that Col Vandeveld declared to the tribunal that that “potentially exculpatory evidence has not been provided.”
He is the fourth prosecutor to quit.
In the Khadr case specifically, there have been claims that the government “manufactured evidence” against the accused.
The culture of secrecy and political implications of this case are reasons why ultimately, the military tribunal is not the appropriate forum to hear Omar Khadr’s case. Mr. Khadr needs to be repatriated to Canada immediately to face trial at home. This should be a trial subject to Canadian legal protocols and consistent with the values that we hold dear, including those enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Law students across the country are organizing to put further pressure on the government on this issue. Stay tuned for more.
Fear of Global Warming Provides “Lawful Excuse”
Six Greenpeace activists were cleared of charges today for intentionally damaging a coal plant in the U.K.
The Independent reports,
The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.
Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a “lawful excuse” to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of “lawful excuse” under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.
Greenpeace UK states,
During the trial, the world’s leading climate scientist came to court and challenged the government’s plans for new coal, calling for Gordon Brown to announce a moratorium on all new coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and storage. Cameron’s environmental policy adviser said there was “a staggering mismatch between what we’ve heard from government and what we’ve seen from government in terms of policy”. An expert on climate change impacts in the UK said some of the property in immediate need of protection from sea level rises included parts of Kent (Kingsnorth being “extremely vulnerable”) and that “it behoves us to act with urgency”. And an Inuit leader told of his first hand experiences of the impacts of climate change.
After hearing all of the evidence, the jurors (representatives of ordinary British people) supported the right to take direct action to protect the climate from the burning of coal.
Implications for “eco-terrorists” in the U.K. and abroad, who still constitute the largest global terrorist threat, could be significant.
Biggest Terrorists are Still the Elves
The FBI reported earlier this year that while America and the world were diverted by other political issues, eco-terrorism continues to be the biggest domestic threat.
Bron Taylor, a professor of religion and nature at the University of Florida describes the Earth Liberation Front (ELF or Elves), who are considered the largest of these groups,
Generally speaking, the Earth Liberation folks are motivated by a deep kind of affective connection to nature that many of them would characterize as spiritual or religious. They believe that the human species is perpetrating a war on nature and that those who are connected to nature and belong to it have a right to defend themselves.
Their success is attributed to their large and diversely spread membership, but their exact numbers or full capabilities continue to be unknown
Bob Holland, a retired arson investigator said,
Every time a fire breaks out and somebody takes a spray ocan and writes ‘ELF’ or ‘ALF’ on there, then everybody gets all excited that ‘Oh this movement has started back up. The movement never really left.
However, fighting environmentalists at home is not nearly as an attractive political agenda in Canada or the U.S.
And there are little oil revenues to be obtained from it either.
Recent Syncrude Case
On July 24, 2008, protesters entered a Syncrude mine in Alberta and put up signs.
Syncrude issued a lawsuit on Aug. 15, 2008 for $120,000 and an injunction to keep Greenpeace members off its property. No property damage or disruption of operations were alleged.
Prof. Moin Yahya of the University of Alberta Faculty of Law said in the Calgary Herald,
It’s a strategic lawsuit.
This is very common in the United States where you have all the anti-abortion protesters who stand outside clinics saying ’save lives.’ They’ve been sued in the past under a similar type (of suit).
Telling the protesters to stop coming on the property is even more powerful than seeking money.
If the court grants the injunction and the group defies it, they’re no longer at war with Syncrude — now they’re at war with the judge and in contempt of court.
Omar Khadr: A Hero of Canadian Values?
by Hicham Safieddine and Diana Younes
Development of violence among the colonized people will be proportionate to the violence exercised by the threatened colonial regime
Frantz Fannon
A lot of ink has and is being spilled on upholding the legal rights of Omar Khadr in the face of the American extra-legal war on terror. Khadr has to come home to save and serve our Canadian values the argument goes. In essence, this discourse seems to be not about Omar Khadr, but about Canadian values.
It is the country’s conscience that is hurting, not the body of the accused. It is the Canadian government’s authority and international reputation that is being violated, not the humanity of the accused.
It is our sensibilities for due process and fair trial that are under attack, not the sanity and dignity of the accused. For supporters and opponents alike, bringing Khadr back or keeping him at Guantanamo is about one thing: saving our values, not his life.
We talk about what these values are, but we leave out the values of those we constantly claim to empathize with, values ascribed today to the realm of radical or imagined politics but that are in fact enshrined in international law[1], which we uphold in the highest regard: the right of all peoples to fight for self-determination against colonial domination and alien occupation and to carve out their own path to economic, social and cultural development; the moral duty of all nations to eradicate the evil of colonization and alien subjugation.
If we really support those universal values, then we need to possess the moral courage to accept the cost in practical terms- a cost that Canada was more than willing to pay when its own or its allies’ rights were threatened.
A right to self defense means in practical terms a right to carry arms and a right to counter violence with violence. For the same violence inflicted by occupying powers (invited by colonially-instituted puppet regimes or not) will be claimed by the occupied. From the legitimacy of the law of war that endows people to put trust in their armed forces and the necessity at times of armed conflicts, Canadians should understand if not accept the violence inflicted against their or their allied troops at war. Canadian troops do what they are told, we are constantly reminded. “Enemy” troops are no different.
Omar Khadr, 15 years old or 45, was doing what he was told and possibly what he believed to be defending an occupied land. And yet, he is denied Prisoner of War status, something even Nazi foot soldiers were not. He is charged with murder; a crime constantly committed by American and Canadian troops in Afghanistan[2]. Under The Hague Regulations and Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts,
Khadr is entitled to POW status for a reason, he is classified as a soldier or belligerent. But we do not want to think of Khadr as a soldier (let alone a child), and all the universal values attached to that label regardless of the side one is fighting against. The same way we would rather stick to a debate about some values and not others, and ultimately in isolation of the person in question or his alleged actions.
This is how drastic the debate has shifted in Canada away from what this war is all about and into the abstract sanitized space of moral values and legal rights. And that should not come as a surprise; given that the debate is not about Khadr, but rather about our ….values.
[1] United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 1514 adopted in 1960, which all countries are obliged to respect.
[2] Human Rights estimates dozens of children killed by ISAF since the invasion of Afghanistan.
Is this Person a Terrorist?
See what The Stormy Days of March thinks.
Podcast Feeds
Awards
Partners
- Advertise Here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Whiners - The Elusive Fish Creative Services
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- no win no fee solicitors
- Compensation Claims
- personal injury lawyer toronto
- no win no fee
- Pardons Canada Accident Claim Medical Negligence Whiplash Claim
- No win No fee Claims
- Venue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
