Bringing 'Em Back or Not? (I.D.'ed Cdn ISIS fighters, families, kids?)

[The Bread Guy]

... Do we want the RCMP sneaking their way into a foreign country, arresting or otherwise taking into their control a criminal, then sneaking out, and then bringing them to trial. Sounds like a good Charter problem and a potential get out of jail for the terrorists from Canada ...

... not to mention potentially more compensation for legal mishandling that goes over soooooooooo well in many circles ...

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Cloud Cover]


  Do we want the RCMP sneaking their way into a foreign country, arresting or otherwise taking into their control a criminal, then sneaking out, and then bringing them to trial.
[/quote]

CSIS kill-team would be more bang for our buck.

 

[tomahawk6]

Canada should put them on a no fly list. Does Canada allow its citizens to join terror groups ? If not use that law to hold them. Otherwise revoke their citizenship.

 

[OldSolduer]

CSIS kill-team would be more bang for our buck.

But what happened to “sunny ways”? Oh heavens

 

[George Wallace]

Canada should put them on a no fly list. Does Canada allow its citizens to join terror groups ? If not use that law to hold them. Otherwise revoke their citizenship.

We do have laws pertaining to joining terrorist organizations and leaving the country to join foreign enemies.  Unfortunately, the Government does now have the will to enforce their Laws.

 

[Haggis]

CSIS kill-team would be more bang for our buck.

I'm going out on a limb here but I don't think the Trudeau cult Liberal government would survive a scandal around government sanctioned extra-judicial killings of Canadian citizens abroad.  A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, remember?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm going out on a limb here but I don't think the Trudeau cult Liberal government would survive a scandal around government sanctioned extra-judicial killings of Canadian citizens abroad.  A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, remember?

Thats getting two birds stoned at once as far as I'm concerned  ;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

We do have laws pertaining to joining terrorist organizations and leaving the country to join foreign enemies.  Unfortunately, the Government does now have the will to enforce their Laws.

With at least a couple of exceptions  ...

 

[brihard]

We do have laws pertaining to joining terrorist organizations and leaving the country to join foreign enemies.  Unfortunately, the Government does now have the will to enforce their Laws.

Proving all of the elements of the offense to the satisfaction of the court is the challenge, not least because many of the sources of what we know aren't things that can see the light of day in court. There has been at least one prosecution that they were able to bring forward, and I'm confident that there will be more in time.

Prosecution of a terrorism offense requires consent of the attorney general, but it would be political suicide were the government of the day known to have prevented prosecution of a viable investigation. If police are able to get the evidence, and if the evidence is clean, crown will go forward with it. It's just damned hard to assemble cases that can withstand disclosure and go through the whole court process. Terrorism offences bring really specific requirements for what has to be proven in terms of intent. We've sen a number of cases where other non-terrorism criminal offences are simply a lot easier to proceed with and there would be no value added from stacking the additional, more difficult to prove charges.

Our court process emphasises due process and the rights of an accused, and that's perfectly appropriate. But it makes it damned hard to craft and then apply law to extraterritorial offences in what are often was zones, with a complex and messy mix of military and security intelligence actors in play feeding in info of varying and sometimes dubious reliability.

Bear in mind that in Canadian criminal procedure, the crown is obligated to disclose all evidence to the accused/defense, not just that which is relied upon to prosecute. Any exculpatory evidence in the possession of the crown must be handed over. Once that is combined with the accused needing only to introduce reasonable doubt to be acquitted, and it becomes understandable why so few criminal terrorism charges go to prosecution.

 

[Haggis]

Bear in mind that in Canadian criminal procedure, the crown is obligated to disclose all evidence to the accused/defense, not just that which is relied upon to prosecute. Any exculpatory evidence in the possession of the crown must be handed over.

Not to mention that some of that evidence may have been obtained using sensitive or classified methods and/or technologies which the government may not want to acknowledge.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This, from a Human Rights Watch report on conditions in holding camps in Kurdish-controlled Syria - highlights mine …

The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration for northeast Syria is holding more than 11,000 foreign women and children related to Islamic State (also known as ISIS) suspects in appalling and sometimes deadly conditions in a locked desert camp in northeast Syria, Human Rights Watch said today. At least 7,000 of the children are under 12.

During three visits to the section of al-Hol camp holding foreign women and children in June 2019, Human Rights Watch found overflowing latrines, sewage trickling into tattered tents, and residents drinking wash water from tanks containing worms. Young children with skin rashes, emaciated limbs, and swollen bellies sifted through mounds of stinking garbage under a scorching sun or lay limp on tent floors, their bodies dusted with dirt and flies. Children are dying from acute diarrhea and flu-like infections, aid groups and camp managers said.

(…)

I thought, “Now I’ll be able to practice my religion and cover my face without being harassed the way I am at home.” I heard there was bombing and stuff but I didn’t think I’d be living under it. But then I got here [to Syria] and realized how dangerous it was. My husband became disillusioned, too. A year ago, we found a smuggler to take us out. We wanted to start over. But then Kurdish [SDF] forces took us.

• “Miriam” from Canada, mother of two children born in Syria, husband in SDF-controlled prison.

(…)

 

[Remius]

I'd rather focus on getting clean water to certain communities, maybe deal with our homeless vets and make sure polar bears don't go extinct.

We have a such a long list of more important things....

 

[tomahawk6]

joining a terror group should cancel your citizenship. Ditto for any offspring. But I agree providing help for the refugee's via the UN or other groups like doctors without borders and other similar groups.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Interesting approach (sort of a "change the rules for these guys, but only for five years" model) being offered up by someone who's "... a visiting scholar at Queen’s Law. He is a retired U.S. military lawyer and Army Ranger and a former Special Assistant U.S. Attorney. His combat tours include Iraq as a combat camera operator in 2003-4 and Afghanistan as an international law adviser from 2013-4."

… Take a moment to reflect on some of the most imperative judicial guarantees that form the basis of our identity as Canadians: the right to personally confront witnesses against you, the right to inspect every shred of evidence against you, and the requirement for the Crown to prove each element of all offences to a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

With that short list of fundamental protections in mind, take another moment to reflect on why these are so essential to our concept of the rule of law. One simple word sums it up: trust. Fundamental judicial guarantees are "fundamental" because they operate as a check on the monopoly of power the sovereign exercises over we the governed.

The reason we are not able to find solutions to the problem of prosecuting returning ISIS fighters and supporters is that our starting point is "prosecution" — that is, employing the existing domestic law enforcement structure — to adjudicate alleged offences committed abroad.

(…)

Domestic judicial procedural processes are designed to protect individual freedoms from being abused at home where the government alone is permitted to use powers of force and coercion to settle disputes and maintain the peace, and this monopoly on the use of force is — by definition — not possible on the battlefield as it is at home.

An ISIS fighter, regardless of citizenship, did not have the right to examine evidence against him or her before the coalition targeted the fighter on the battlefield. We have now simply moved further along on the spectrum of conflict from active hostilities to adjudicating alleged offences against detained ISIS fighters and supporters.

On this spectrum, our government is still acting in its role as belligerent against opposing fighters that are now detained.  Why, then, are we still trying to resort to the standard domestic legal system to "prosecute" fighters that operated in a theatre where the government did not exercise a monopoly on the use of force and was not acting as a sovereign during active hostilities?

(…)

The "notwithstanding clause" of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms permits Parliament to modify judicial processes in certain circumstances for up to five years. The Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act permits Canada to "prosecute" offences against customary international law, and sources from the Nuremberg tribunals to the UN Charter to present-day UN Security Council resolutions confirm that ISIS's military campaign represented a threat to international peace and security and is therefore a violation of customary international law. We have the political will – public opinion demands the effective solutions that have proven to be so elusive ...

More @ link

 

[The Bread Guy]

Credit where it's due, a good if surprising move by the government.

Sadly the story highlights how ridiculously slow our justice system can be. Looks like it will still be a while before he's deported.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/man-who-praised-isis-on-social-media-ordered-deported-from-canada-1.4880418?fbclid=IwAR0Cx28TQLM9njcrM3c8FZJ-XmjRdWlGsBp_XWGz5FW3xzUQ75Q_6WZhOqE

The latest ...

• 2 Aug 2019: "Online ISIS supporter deemed a danger to Canada ordered released from custody"
• 4 Aug 2019:  "Federal Court halts release of alleged online ISIS supporter"

 

[The Bread Guy]

And this from an Interpol cop helping the fight against Daesh/ISIS/ISIL (via the Global Coalition Against Daesh) ...

Patrick Stevens, the Director of Interpol’s Counter Terrorism unit, said the Global Coalition is an example of best practice in sharing military intelligence. “I personally believe that the model we developed under the Global Coalition should be copied all over the world, and actually I can tell you we are trying to copy this model, and hopefully by next year we have similar operations ongoing”, he said.

The methods used during the fight against Daesh are more open and underline the importance of sharing what was formerly seen as “secret” information.

“Until recently, the military kept all military intelligence to themselves. But now, in this operation (Operation Inherent Resolve) they de-classify information – not everything of course – just what is necessary to bring awareness and alert the member countries through police channels”, said Mr Stevens.

“They give the de-classified information to a member country, and that country then gives it to Interpol. We already have more than 50,000 notices and 400,000 entities in one of our analytical databases, so we can enrich the data and we can disseminate it to other countries. And they can bring this to their own national databases or their border police.”

Terrorists who have served their time

In a wide-ranging interview with the Global Coalition’s On The Line podcast, the Interpol chief also reported that convicted terrorists – including ex-members of Daesh – are now beginning to leave prisons in European countries, having served their time. But, he warned, these ex-prisoners “may not be being followed up correctly”.

This was partly a capacity problem, Mr Stevens explained. “I’m not sure if all these people are followed up correctly – if every country has enough capacity to follow these people up and if there is an international cooperation process for the follow-up”. He urged countries to increase international cooperation, through Interpol, so the biometrics of more former prisoners can be held in databases.

This would mean, he said, that if the former prisoners travel to a different country using a false name or passport, they can be verified through the database, and the relevant country authorities would be alerted.

He stressed that this did not mean they would necessarily be arrested – because they have already done their time in prison – but it would be part of sharing good information about “who is in front of officials” – for example at border posts ...

A bit more @ link

 

[brihard]

And this from an Interpol cop helping the fight against Daesh/ISIS/ISIL (via the Global Coalition Against Daesh) ...A bit more @ link

That sounds like some real efforts are being made to improve the evidence sharing situation (as distinguished from intelligence sharing). I’ve spoken at length on this before, no need to repeat right now... I’m just glad to see the problem acknowledged, with concrete efforts to address it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

:sarcasm: Why even bother if we just let them walk across the border, move to Toronto sanctuary city, give them everything they need and let them do whatever they want. It's not like the government cares. We have no idea who we have in this country, where they are or who they are. Even our minister of insecurity, goodale, admits to it.

Besides, we may have to give them millions once we identify them. I don't think we have millions left in the bank to give them, for killing our soldiers. I think the muslim brotherhood has most of it. :dunno:
:sarcasm:

 

[The Bread Guy]

Some commentary from a former CSIS-ite ...

... Many may ask: Why is this so hard? Just lock these terrorists up and throw away the key! Except that we cannot do this. We have laws and courts and a Constitution and a Charter for a reason: We are the antithesis of what IS claimed it was. We are a democratic state where rule of law applies and people are presumed innocent unless they can be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, given the difficulty in using evidence collected half a world away in a war zone, it should be clear why we have had so few successful prosecutions to date.

I share your frustrations. While a senior strategic analyst and terrorism specialist at CSIS, I worked on such cases. Yet the Crown still has to prove its case and in some instances that may be all but impossible. We in Canada do not incarcerate those we have not found guilty.

We are then left with several options. We can leave them where they are and let the Iraqis and Syrians deal with them: after all, their crimes were committed in Iraqi or Syrian sovereign territory. We can bring them back and try to prosecute them but if we fail we may have terrorists among us who can carry out attacks here. We can put them through “deradicalization” programs although these are controversial and there is no guarantee they work. Or we can let CSIS and/or the RCMP keep tabs on them indefinitely, although this is very resource-intensive and expensive.

If it were up to me I’d choose the first option, even if I am not in favour of the death penalty that may apply. Who are we to tell a foreign state that a Canadian who commits an offence in their country cannot be held accountable there?

The bottom line is that this is a no-win problem for a Canadian government of any stripe ...

 

[brihard]

Some commentary from a former CSIS-ite ...

Yup, the government is obligated only to do certain things. They are obligated to provide consular services, but they aren’t obligated to provide legal assistance. They’re obligated to provide emergency travel documents; they aren’t obligated to get them a flight.

The government will be able to effectively forsake some of them, and that will work.

That still leaves the necessity of having a plan for those who manage to make it back. At some point the Kurds, Turks, Syrians, whomever are going to just start putting some of these assholes on planes and making them our problem. Then we’re right back at square one... “what we know” vs “what we can prove in a court of law”...