Islamic Terrorism in the West ( Mega thread)

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a report suggesting that the Security Certificates, which are one of the primary tools available for restricting dangerous people, may be on the way out:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/are-security-certificates-obsolete/article1300775/

Are security certificates obsolete?
Frowned upon by the courts, never taken out the drawer these days by crown attorneys, special tool appears headed for obscurity

Colin Freeze

Friday, Sep. 25, 2009

Civil-liberties victories in the courts for people jailed under Ottawa's controversial security-certificate legislation have eroded the federal government's ability to jail and deport foreigners deemed dangerous.

The flip side of the victories for defendants in the security-certificate cases, officials suggest, is that the government is left with fewer and fewer options to remove legitimately dangerous foreigners once they set foot inside Canada's borders.

No new security-certificate cases have been launched in three years.

Thursday, Adil Charkaoui left court a free man for the first time in six years after a judge lifted the last of his bail conditions. Ottawa branded Mr. Charkaoui a terrorism suspect in 2003, the last federal attempt to bring a “security-certificate” case against an individual suspected of links to al-Qaeda.

A couple of years ago, a vexed Canadian spy official neatly framed security officials' frustration in an internal e-mail: What if Osama bin Laden himself materialized in Canada, sitting astride a camel and toting an AK-47?

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service executive told his colleagues that only one policy response from Ottawa could be guaranteed: No one would dare sign another “security certificate.”

The quip amounted to an elegy for an extraordinary power that's grown so cumbersome to use it verges on obsolete – even if it was designed as an expedient way to deport foreigners on the grounds of “reasonable suspicion” that they were national security threats without having to reveal why.

The tool has existed since the Cold War, a time when foreigners in Canada didn't have anywhere near as many rights as citizens. Intelligence officials could bring secret dossiers to politicians that laid out why individuals had to be ousted for the greater good.

All that was needed to make it so were the signatures of a couple of cabinet ministers.

“I certainly signed a couple when I was minister,” said Ron Atkey, who handled immigration in the 1979 Joe Clark Progressive Conservative government.

Ottawa was far less “gun-shy” about cases then, he said. “They were all in camera . And the public didn't really have a right to know,” Mr. Atkey said. “You did it with great fear and trepidation,” he added, “but you did it.”

During the 1980s, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enshrined, and higher courts ruled in favour of ever greater transparency and legal protections. Foreigners were invested with increasing rights.

“We never used it,” Reid Morden, a CSIS director in the late 1980s, said in reference to his time at the security agency. He said he saw security certificates as cumbersome and bad fit for the Cold-War espionage threat that was paramount at the time.

But he didn't mind having the “blunt instrument” handy. “It's always good to have it in the arsenal,” Mr. Morden said. “In the suite of powers, I think it's a useful tool.”

As the al-Qaeda threat mounted in the 1990s, security certificates returned to vogue. Even if the secret deportation dossiers grew a lot thicker, and the court battles that resulted became more public and protracted.

The essential unease among cabinet ministers with approving banishment remained.

Wayne Easter, a Liberal MP who served as solicitor-general from 2002 to 2003, recalls that he once spent three hours poring over a binder of Top Secret information before deciding to approve a certificate.

While he said he wouldn't reverse any past decisions, Mr. Easter said he'd like to see a system that better weighs security against civil liberties. “There needs to be better balance,” he said.

Ottawa is struggling to find one. The outcome of the Charkaoui case is seen as a watershed.

“Our objective is to ensure Canadians are safe from terrorist threats,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan said in a statement circulated by his office. “We are examining the impact of the decision on that objective.”

The Charter has expanded the protection from the actions of the crown/government that every person in Canada enjoys. As a classical liberal I applaud everything that protects individuals from collectives. But not every individual, regardless of status. I disagree that e.g. illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay here and appeal, endlessly and I disagree that non-citizens should enjoy full civil rights.

I believe that bad intent, breaking the law, etc deprives one of the full protection afforded by the Charter; I also believe that full protection ought to be one of the benefits of full Canadian citizenship. Lawfully landed immigrants and visitors ought to have access to some, even most of the Charter’s protections, illegal immigrants and improperly documented visitors (e.g. refugee applicants) out to have only their fundamental human rights protected.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Three down! according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/another-suspect-in-so-called-toronto-18-pleads-guilty/article1304156/

Another suspect in so-called ‘Toronto 18' pleads guilty
Turn of events marks third such plea in recent weeks ahead of this winter's highly anticipated trial

COLIN FREEZE

BRAMPTON, ONT.
Monday, Sep. 28, 2009

Another suspect in the so-called ‘Toronto 18' conspiracy has pleaded guilty in a scheme to blow up government targets in downtown Toronto.

It is the third such plea in recent weeks ahead of this winter's much anticipated trial, as lawyers seek to sort out the main accused from the peripheral players.

Saad Gaya, a 21-year old, admitted Monday that he was part of an al-Qaeda-inspired plot to build fertilizer-based truck bombs and explode them in downtown Toronto.

Specifically, Mr. Gaya pleaded guilty to being part of a conspiracy to be part of a terrorist offence. He was arrested unloading boxes marked “ammonium nitrate” from the back of a truck in June 2006, as hundreds of police swept across the Toronto area to round up a group of young extremists.

The shipment of three tonnes of fertilizer three years ago was actually an RCMP sting operation, led by one of two police agents who infiltrated the group. (A distinct agent had infiltrated a makeshift training camp months prior to the bomb-conspiracy sting.) A year and a half ago, Mr. Gaya emerged as a cause celebre around the time of one of his bail hearings. He was portrayed at sympathetic rallies, on activist Web sites and in the some press coverage as a Muslim youth who had been arrested on trumped up charges.

But on Monday Mr. Gaya admitted his role was analogous to that of his friend and co-accused Saad Khalid, who was arrested at the same warehouse and caught unloading the same bags of fertilizer from the back of a truck.

Mr. Khalid was sentenced to 14 years earlier this month after pleading guilty to his role in the scheme. However, for a variety of factors inherent to Canada's correctional system, it's anticipated he'll spend only two to three more years in jail.

In pleading out last month, Mr. Khalid said he was a bomb-plot helper, not a mastermind, and that he wasn't privy to specific details of the scheme – including the locations of the alleged targets, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service offices in downtown Toronto, the nearby Toronto Stock Exchange and an unspecified Canadian Forces base along Highway 401.

Mr. Khalid did, however, say he wanted to blow up targets in downtown Toronto, describing himself as a misguided Muslim who wanted to force Canadian Forces soldiers from the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan.

In pleading out today, Mr. Gaya may be seeking a similar sentence to Mr. Khalid, who has already completed most of his jail time.

Mr. Gaya wore a dark suit, beard and glasses as he pleaded guilty in a soft-spoken voice. The gallery was packed with his family, who had championed his innocence for years, but who had nothing to say after the hearing.

Outside court, Mr. Gaya's lawyer, Paul Slansky said his client will likely get less than 14 years given he was arguably less culpable than his friend, Mr. Khalid.

“To some extent, he was duped,” said Mr. Slansky, explaining Mr. Gaya was not privy to the mechanics of the bomb plot. He added his client “asked for assurances there would not be harm to people” from ringleaders.

Other potential mitigating factors, the lawyer said, include that Mr. Gaya expressed remorse to police in a lengthy videotaped interview after he was caught.

Mr. Slansky also pointed out his client “served over three years in custody and one of them was in isolation” – factors which should eat up most of his penitentiary term.

Sentencing arguments are scheduled for late December with a verdict on January 6.

At the front end of a sentence, Canadian courts generally credit prisoners two-for-one for the time they spent in pretrial custody.

Toward the end of a sentence, the federal correctional system obliges that nearly all prisoners be released at two thirds of their sentence.

All things told, Canada's correctional laws mean that many, if not most, of the remaining accused in the Toronto 18 conspiracy have already done most of their time should they be found guilty.

A flurry of defence bids to get the conspiracy charges tossed on technical grounds have failed. But the three-and-a-half years spent in arguments delayed bringing matters to trial, meaning that most accused will see a sizable reduction in their penitentiary terms, if convicted.

The pretrial custody credits mean that most of the accused will be understood to have served at least the equivalent of seven year sentence by the time matters come to trial this winter.

Only a handful of accused – particularly those accused of being the bombing masterminds – face life imprisonment. The rest face lesser charges, along the lines of participating in a terrorist scheme or being part of a terrorist group.

Seven accused in the Toronto 18 conspiracy had their charges stayed or were released on peace bonds. A youth peripheral to the scheme was found guilty and sentenced to time served last year.

A suspect who smuggled a handgun across the Canada-U.S. border for the group, Ali Dirie, is to be sentenced on Friday. He was already jailed when the core conspiracies were hatched.

With Mr. Gaya, Mr. Khalid, and Mr. Dirie having pleaded guilty in recent weeks, only seven adult accused are headed to trial at this point. More pleas are possible.

A publication ban prohibits identifying the co-accused.

Jury selection is anticipated to start in December.

At the time of the arrests there were suggestions that this was just a bunch of kids with a childish, fantasy scheme. The evidence emerging suggests this was a real threat. That being the case we can, must assume that there are more out there – more Canadian Muslims plotting against their country and plotting to kill their fellow citizens at the behest of foreign “powers.”

 

[George Wallace]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act.


Another 'Toronto 18' member pleads guilty

LINK
28/09/2009 6:34:46 PM

ctvtoronto.ca
A third member of the terror cell known as the Toronto 18 has pleaded guilty in a plot to hit Canadian targets.


Saad Gaya appeared in a Brampton, Ont. courtroom Monday where he admitted to intending to cause an explosion on behalf of a terrorist organization.

Gaya, 21, was one of 18 people arrested in the summer of 2006 and charged in plot to attack several national targets, including Parliament and RCMP headquarters. The 2006 roundup, known as Project Osage, included the seizure of apparent bomb-making materials.

Outside the courts, Gaya's lawyer Paul Slansky said his client pleaded guilty because it was the right thing to do.

But Slansky added Gaya truly believed there was no plan to hurt anyone and had been "duped" by other members in the group. "Certain people had certain plans that were not communicated to Mr. Gaya and Mr. Gaya will be taking the position that he did not know their plans, he said. "He in fact had asked for assurances that there would not be harm to people."

The Crown and defence filed an agreed statement of fact as an exhibit. It will be read into the court record during Gaya's sentencing hearing. Arguments will take place from Dec. 21 to 23. The actual sentence will be announced on Jan. 6.

Gaya has been in custody pending trial since his arrest on June 2, 2006.

Last week, another member of the Toronto 18, 26-year-old Ali Dirie, pleaded guilty to similar charges and was sentenced to a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Dirie admitted to procuring weapons, arranging false travel documents and trying to recruit extremists for a domestic terrorist.

Earlier this month, Saad Khalid, 23, was given a 14-year sentence after he pleaded guilty for his role in the plot.

So far, only one accused in the Toronto 18 terror case has gone to trial. That case resulted in a conviction.

Last September, Nishanthan Yogakrishnan, 21, was found guilty of participating in, and contributing to, a terrorist group.

Although he was 17 years old at the time of the crimes and was tried as a youth, Yogakrishnan received an adult sentence of 2 ½ years. He was released in May after being credited for time served before trail.

Seven others accused members of the Toronto 18, including the alleged ringleaders, remain in custody and are awaiting trial.

Seven of the 18 men and youths arrested have since had their charges dropped or stayed.

With a report from CTV Toronto's Austin Delaney and files from The Canadian Press

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is more on the problems confronting our national security team:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/five-terror-suspects-60-million/article1307821/

Five terror suspects: $60-million
Ottawa's controversial security-certificate program to rid Canada of alleged spies came with a multimillion-dollar price tag

Colin Freeze

Thursday, Oct. 01, 2009

Ottawa has spent $60-million over the past two years in its failed attempts to deport a handful of immigrants accused of having ties with al-Qaeda, The Globe and Mail has learned.

According to sources, the money has been used to fund legal cases involving five men detained under security certificates – a long-standing program that Ottawa has used in the hopes of ridding the country of suspected terrorists.

Security-certificate cases have become paralyzed in the courts and polarizing for the public, and are on the verge of becoming obsolete. On Wednesday, a Federal Court judge formally quashed the case against Adil Charkaoui, the Montreal-based Moroccan being detained on a security certificate, after lawyers representing the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said the spy agency could not abide court-ordered disclosures of its secrets. Mr. Charkaoui is contemplating a multimillion-dollar lawsuit for the six years he spent under a federal detention and surveillance regime.

While public discussion of security certificates has long centred on legal principles, budgetary officials are now conducting a review to determine whether taxpayers are getting value for the money spent on litigation.

“The Treasury Board Secretariat has required that a comprehensive evaluation be conducted for the Security Certificate Initiative in 2009-2010, in its second year of funding,” reads a Justice Canada letter soliciting feedback from legal insiders this past summer. “The evaluation will focus on assessing the continued relevance and performance of the Security Certificate Initiative which includes the Special Advocates Program.”

The multimillion-dollar legal bill is being spent on both prosecution and defence, and it is not uncommon for as many as six lawyers on each side to square off in security-certificate cases.

It's these costs that are being put under a microscope as part of Ottawa's continuing “strategic reviews,” which are examining a host of federal programs. The Treasury Board is trying to assess the security-certificate program through “interviews, surveys and a review of documents and performance data.”

While the Justice Canada letters circulated to insiders don't affix a price to the program, some who were contacted by the Treasury Board say they were told it was pegged at $60-million over two years.

Value for money becomes a question given how ineffective security certificates have become. The federal government's legal battle to deport Egyptian Mahmoud Jaballah, is a decade old, having been launched in 1999. Cases against three other al-Qaeda suspects are also continuing, and unlikely to result in deportation because doing so would send them to homelands where they would probably be tortured.

However, proponents say the security-certificate process would be a bargain at any price, given how the tool was painstakingly created to balance civil liberties with national-security imperatives. Anil Kapoor, part of the “special advocate” class of lawyers recently created to fight these cases, said “the public does win. If any security-certificate procedure prevents one terrorist attack or ensures the release of an innocent person, it will be well worth the price.”

While the government did contact Mr. Kapoor for his views, he did not disclose the amount of tax dollars that have been spent.

When the Supreme Court found the security-certificate process was tilted in favour of the state – given how Crown lawyers could advance their arguments in secret, judge-only hearings – Parliament's fix was the creation of the special advocates to go to bat for the detainees in the secret hearings. This has added to the program's bottom line.

The special advocates don't charge the government exorbitantly – $275 an hour, which is more expensive than Legal Aid, but less than what many could charge in other cases. However, all the special advocates had to be screened for Top Secret clearance, and they often travel to fight their cases.

Similarly, the Justice Department has had to adjust, by redoubling its prosecutorial efforts. Justice is also compensating federal agencies – CSIS, the RCMP, and Immigration Canada – who are using more money and more personnel in these cases.

This is another “front” in the war against security. The first front was opened by activists like Alexandre (Sacha) Trudeau who championed the case of Hassan Almrei. Their implicit assumption was that the bumbling, jack-booted, American influenced security services had to be wrong and any ethnic had to be all right.

Rarely do we hear anyone in the national commentariat suggest that the Islamists and jihadists might be trying to infiltrate Canada in order to mount attacks against our country and our people.

I do not know if Almrei and Charkaoui and all the others are guilty or innocent; like 99.99% of Canadians I have no idea about the evidence the government might have; I cannot judge the level of threat. But neither can Sacha Trudeau or any of the journalists. Even the judges cannot “judge” because the issues they are currently, deciding are not about security; they are about the applicability of Canadian law to people in Canada. The fact is that every single person “in Canada” – with one foot on the tarmac – is fully protected by all the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think that principle, which is now enshrined in out law and, indeed, is a Constitutional principle, is wrong and I think it must be changed. Changing it is much, much easier said than done.

The “change” I want is to a layered approach:

• Canadian citizens, in Canada, must, always have complete access to all the protections provided in the Charter;

• Canadian citizens outside Canada can access most provisions of the Charter but it cannot be used to shield them from the full force of the laws in the places in which they reside or where they are visitors: if a Canadian is arrested for trafficking drugs in Singapore (where the punishment might involve capital punishment) that person cannot expect Canada to ride to the rescue, waving a copy of our Charter;

• Landed immigrants, in Canada, are entitled to many (even most) protections afforded by the Charter but they can be, should be deported whenever they are convicted of a crime (most crimes? just some crimes?);

• Legal visitors to Canada, including those “admitted to Canada” and awaiting an upgrade in their status to e.g. landed immigrant have fewer protections. They may, for example, be deported on some (national security related) suspicions; and, finally

• Those who are either illegals or those who have yet to clear immigration have NO protection at all, not even when they blurt out a refugee claim.

This is something akin to what Australia has now. We are not likely to get there. It would involve invoking the “notwithstanding” clause, probably over and over again, in the face of a veritable firestorm of outrage and protest – including some real Molotov cocktails tossed at government buildings – and a barrage of legal and political challenges. It is not clear to me that any living politician has the wherewithal to even try it here in Canada. That being the case, our defences are weak; we are vulnerable.

 

[George Wallace]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act.


'Toronto 18' terrorist member handed 2 more years



LINK

03/10/2009 12:26:56 PM

CTV.ca News Staff
A Toronto-area man who plotted to bomb RCMP headquarters and Parliament will have to serve another two years in jail, a court ruled Friday.


Ali Dirie, a member of the so-called Toronto 18 terror group, was handed the equivalent of a seven-year sentence for his part in the 2006 plot.

But because the 26-year-old has already served time behind bars, he will only serve another two years before being released.

"His moral culpability is high," said Ontario Superior Court Justice Bruce Durno in handing down the sentence.

Durno noted that because Dirie worked with the group over a relatively lengthy period, "his degree of responsibility is also high because of the duration of his involvement."

During sentencing arguments, lawyers argued over the fact that Dirie had served time in isolation before his trial.

But the judge rejected an appeal to give Dirie three to one pre-trial credit for time he served in isolation. The judge said that Dirie was placed in solitary confinement because of his own actions while in custody.

"It was his own misconduct that contributed in part to his placement in segregation," said the judge, who noted that Dirie was also "an unlikely candidate for parole."

Dirie, the fourth member of the group to be convicted, pleaded guilty to charges that he helped the group get guns and travel documents.

His defence lawyer said his client was very sorry about the offence, adding that much of his motivation stemmed from anger over Canada's involvement in Afghanistan.

But now, Dirie knows that violence isn't the answer.

"He realized that the means didn't advance his belief but in fact, if anything, retarded it," Nuttall said outside court.

"He profoundly regrets the means."

 

[George Wallace]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act.


Quebec man guilty in Austrian-German bomb plot

LINK


01/10/2009 12:51:13 PM

CBC News
A Quebec man has been found guilty of being involved in an international terror plot threatening European countries involved in military operations in Afghanistan.


Saïd Namouh was convicted on four terrorism-related charges, including conspiracy to detonate an explosive device, participating in a terrorist act, facilitating such an act and committing extortion for a terrorist group.

After the verdict was rendered, Namouh's attorney René Duval said he did his best for his client, but isn't sure he will appeal.

Quebec Court Judge Claude Leblond "is a very good jurist, so when you read his decision, there's nothing at first sight would stand up as an egregious error," Duval told reporters at the Montreal courthouse.

Namouh, 36, was accused of participating in a plot to force the Austrian and German governments to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan.

During his three-week trial, the court was told Namouh was an active member of the Global Islamic Media Front, considered to be a media tool of al-Qaeda and involved in jihad recruitment.

Crown prosecutor Dominique Dudemaine presented evidence that Namouh posted terrorist propaganda on the internet, on behalf of the front.

Dudemaine argued that Namouh spent hours creating and distributing propaganda videos, including images of the deaths of Western soldiers and suicide bombings.

Cybercrime investigators extracted videos, including how-to guides for detonating suicide bombs and encrypting emails, from his computer. They also found thousands of pages of transcripts of Namouh's posts suggesting he was very active in chat rooms, message boards and jihad forums.

Namouh was also accused of publishing a video of BBC journalist Alan Johnston, who was kidnapped in Gaza in 2007 by the Army of Islam, a Global Islamic Media Front affiliate.

Leblond said Namouh also prepared ransom demands on behalf of the Army of Islam.

The judge reminded the court that the Islamic front is a terrorist organization in the eyes of the Canadian law.

There is no evidence Namouh was planning an attack on Canadian soil.

Namouh, a Moroccan immigrant and permanent resident in Canada, was arrested in September 2007 in Maskinongé, Que., in 2007, following a lengthy investigation by RCMP and Austrian authorities. He is married to a Quebec woman and has lived in the province since 2003.

Namouh faces life in prison. He is scheduled to return to court in November.

With files from The Canadian Press

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is an example of why our courts of law are the wrong place to manage security threats:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/first-member-of-khadr-clan-testifies-today/article1311844/

First member of Khadr clan testifies today
The U.S. is seeking to extradite Canadian citizen Abdullah Khadr on a warrant alleging he sold arms to al-Qaeda while living in Pakistan

Colin Freeze

Monday, Oct. 05, 2009

A member of Canada's infamous Khadr clan will take the witness stand in Toronto today as his extradition hearing begins and in doing so, he will become the first member of the so-called al-Qaeda Family to testify in his own defence.

When Abdullah Khadr, 28, tells his story, the Canadian counterterrorism agents in the Ontario Superior Court will be reminded of a simple maxim: It's not the information you get, it's how you get it.

The Canadian citizen, whom the U.S. is seeking to extradite on a warrant alleging he sold arms to al-Qaeda while living in Pakistan, was held in a secret safe house in Pakistan and endured multiple interrogations at the hands of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and its allies, including CSIS and the RCMP.

His defence contends that any statements made during and since these interrogations by Mr. Khadr are tainted because he claims he was tortured by the Pakistanis and threatened by the Americans.

Ultimately, the judge will decide how to square Mr. Khadr's alleged admissions with such legal principles as the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, in determining whether any of his statements ought to count at all.

The Khadrs, a family of Canadian-citizen siblings that includes Omar Khadr who is being held in Guantanamo Bay, were raised in Afghanistan by a fanatical Egyptian-Canadian father. Now, nearly 15 years after this man - known simply as "the Canadian" to his al-Qaeda cohorts - beat suspicions he was linked to a deadly bombing in Pakistan, it's his son Abdullah Khadr who stands accused of selling to al-Qaeda figures in Afghanistan $20,000 worth of certain bomb chemicals as well as projectiles for Kalashnikov assault rifles and mortars that he had allegedly acquired in Pakistan.

Acknowledged friends of Osama bin Laden, the Khadrs fled Afghanistan for Pakistan after the 2001 U.S. invasion, though family members were soon picked up on both sides of the border. Two years after the exodus of the "Arab Afghans," the fugitive Abdullah Khadr was arrested in Pakistan - but only after, court records show, the U.S. government paid a $500,000 bounty to the Islamabad military dictatorship that existed at the time.

Top-ranking al-Qaeda members are worth millions, but Mr. Khadr was regarded as a catch in his own right. He was sent to a secret intelligence safe house, run by the host agency, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, and agents from the CIA, FBI, CSIS and the RCMP came calling.

The core allegations were amassed after a series of lawyer-less interviews in a legal limbo. When federal agents asked Mr. Khadr if he was part of al-Qaeda, he replied, "No, I only buy and sell weapons for al-Qaeda," according to a court-filed transcript.

He is even said to have explained how his father sent him to a terrorist training-camp at age 14, and that he "knows everyone" in the al-Qaeda hierarchy.

Mr. Khadr returned to Canada following the year he spent in the ISI safe house. ("I was never in al-Qaeda" he said in an interview at the time.)

Yet just a couple of weeks after he came back, Mounties he had gotten to know and trust arranged to meet him at a McDonald's in Scarborough.

At that meeting, the RCMP arrested him on a U.S. warrant. That was in 2005, and Mr. Khadr has been held in a Toronto jail ever since.

The Mounties will tell their side of the story during the extradition hearings too, including how they travelled to Pakistan to conduct interviews, but never laid charges under Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act. Part of the issue might have been that Mr. Khadr arrived at the RCMP interviews with an opaque hood over his head, according to court documents, and that the Pakistani ISI told the RCMP no lawyers would be allowed.

It's also anticipated that agents of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will testify at the hearings, but hooded themselves, in a sense. This rare bit of testimony from CSIS will take place from behind screens, to shield the agents' identities. (In a pre-arrest interview Mr. Khadr said he knew them only as Mike and Bob.)

The CIA, often an unseen hand behind interrogations of Canadian al-Qaeda suspects detained abroad, is expected once again to be a no-show.

*****

Family tree
Key members of the Khadr family include:

AHMED SAID KHADR (Father):

Born in Egypt, the engineer became a Canadian citizen in the 1970s. He went to Afghanistan in the 1980s to take part in resistance to the Soviet occupation. During the 1990s, he moved his Canadian-born children there and he was briefly held on suspicion of a bombing in Pakistan. Close to Osama bin Laden, Mr. Khadr was heralded as a "martyr" by al-Qaeda figures after he was killed in a battle with the Pakistan army in 2003.

ABDULLAH KHADR (Eldest son):

Abdullah Khadr leaves his Toronto attorney's office with his mother Maha El Samnah(left) after speaking with the media on Thursday December 8th, 2005.
[size=8pt]The Globe and Mail

Abdullah was put into a training camp at age 14, and he was allegedly directed by his father to get guns and missiles to Arab fighters in Logar, Afghanistan, in 2003. Arrested the following year in Pakistan on a $500,000 (U.S.) bounty, he was held in a secret safe house for a year, where Canadian and U.S. agents grilled him. He goes on trial in Toronto today on a U.S. bid to extradite him as an al-Qaeda gunrunner.

ABDURAHMAN KHADR (Son):

This self-described "black sheep of an al-Qaeda family" became a CIA mole after his 2001 capture. The U.S. agency installed him, he says, in Afghan prisons, at Guantanamo Bay and in Bosnia to get a handle on what Islamist militants were thinking and doing. He has lived freely in Toronto for years.

OMAR KHADR (Son):

After an al-Qaeda insurgent in Afghanistan pleaded with Ahmed Said Khadr for a translator, the then-teenager was sent to the front lines. Captured in 2002 at the age of 15, following a deadly battle, he was charged with murder in the killing of a U.S. soldier after allegedly launching a grenade. The Stephen Harper government is ignoring judicial orders to lobby for the repatriation of the Canadian citizen, now held for years in Guantanamo Bay.

Compiled by Colin Freeze

The judge will, I hope ignore what Khadr said and what he may have been planning to do – none of that matters. The judge must defend Mr. Khadr against the massive, invasive powers of the state. The state must always be judged to be a threat to individual liberty and liberty ought to trump security. Law courts, not armies, are the primary defenders of  liberty. Soldiers, the second line of defence, ought to be proponents of the rights of the accused, even when those rights allow an obviously guilty person to walk free, because defending Canada, which involves defending liberty, is why we you are here and over there. What is Canada, after all, if it is not a place where liberty thrives?

I expect the judge to administer yet another blast to the Government of Canada’s loyal and hard working servants – the people who are doing their level best to get and keep suspected enemies off out streets and are foiling many and varied nefarious plots.

So, why come to a court of law, at all? Because there is no useful alternative, right now.

The big job was accomplished: whatever Khadr planned to do – and I, for one, am certain that he was up to no good because I trust our security services to get most things right most of the time – he was stopped. CSIS and/or the RCMP did their duty. There needs to be a legal way, which our civil and criminal law will not and, arguably, should not provide, to monitor him and prevent him from doing anything else wrong.

Sending our security and intelligence services into our law courts is not accomplishing the aim.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a suggestion re: how to protect our security without stretching our legal principles too far:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/how-to-design-a-better-anti-terrorism-tool/article1310404/

How to design a better anti-terrorism tool
With the security certificate system defunct, we need to focus more on our criminal law system

Craig Forcese

Monday, Oct. 05, 2009

The security certificate system as a tool of anti-terrorism is dead. Last week, the government abandoned its case against Adil Charkaoui, supposedly as a lesser evil to disclosing information it says would jeopardize national security.

Four other cases continue, and the government could “win” a few in the short-term. But even if the government demonstrates a reasonable basis for its allegations, the saga will continue – security certificates are supposed to be about deportation. And that prospect seems vanishingly remote because of the risk that the four remaining individuals will be tortured if deported. All of this means the government will inevitably need a “Plan B” for the future.

So what now? Faced with similar dilemmas in designing law as a tool of anti-terrorism, other states have done two things of note. First, they have used the criminal law with greater vigour than Canada. Second, some have tinkered with conventional legal standards to authorize constraints on liberty outside of criminal prosecutions.

Back to basics: criminal law

The first strategy is, relatively speaking, uncontroversial. There are, of course, difficult challenges. The question of national security confidentiality is ripe in criminal cases, as much as it has been in Canada's security certificate cases.

In a criminal matter, where national security confidentiality and a fair trial cannot be reconciled, the government may be forced to elect for disclosure over security, or see its case fail. But this is a difficult balance best established in a criminal trial, rather than in a security certificate system that cannot accomplish its stated goals of removal from Canada anyway.

It is notable that Canada's criminal law reaches far enough now in penalizing terrorism-related activity. New offences pepper the statute books since their post-9/11 reorganization. They could capture much – if not all – of the actions apparently at issue in the security certificate cases, although they could not apply to the actual individuals in question because their alleged conduct predates the new crimes.

Focusing on criminal law would also prompt a necessary cast change. Canada's security intelligence service – CSIS – has been involved in security certificates for a long time. It has, however, little experience with a process in which the accused person actively contests government claims, aided by highly experienced “special advocates.” The experience has clearly pained CSIS, and the agency's reputation has been deeply tarnished by its failures to apprise judges of weaknesses in its cases.

CSIS has likely learned a lot and with procedural rules now more clearly established, one would expect an improved performance in the future. But why convert CSIS into an agency that does courtroom evidence well? Such a conversion risks detracting from the different role CSIS is supposed to serve – providing intelligence to guide actions by government. For all its own troubles, the RCMP is a police force that lives daily with courts. Shifting the focus of anti-terrorism efforts to criminal law would give investigative primacy to the RCMP, and place CSIS in a supporting role. That is how it should be when an accused person's liberty is at stake.

Special detention regimes

In designing a Plan B, the government might be tempted to emulate Britain and Australia. There, so-called “control orders” and prolonged detention without charge allow governments to react quickly on information insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction.

Certainly, the government may need to act pre-emptively, in an effort to disrupt nascent terrorist threats. It is indisputable, however, that the terrorism crimes in Canada's post-9/11 statute book allow much more pre-emptive action than was the case beforehand. One crosses the line of a criminal offence very early in the preparation of an actual act of terrorist violence. The so-called “Toronto 18” cases are partial evidence of that fact.

Moreover, Parliament will eventually re-enact the expired “preventive detention” provisions of the anti-terrorism criminal law, allowing short-term detention prior to the imposition of so-called “peace bonds.” While it has its own shortcomings, this system is to be preferred over its British and Australian counterparts. Not least, Canadian proceedings would be in presumptively open courts, not closed-door hearings.

There is no doubt that the liberty of more people could be more readily limited if Canada followed Britain. But it is difficult to argue that the absence of a British-style system in Canada truly puts public safety in peril. There is also the small matter that a free society cannot eliminate all risks and still be free. The architects of Plan B must be governed by this truth. It is time to give the criminal law a fair shake.

Craig Forcese teaches national security law at the University of Ottawa's law school.

I do not agree with  Prof. Forcese but my grounds for disagreeing are weak. I do prefer with Australian/British model – even though it lets security trump liberty – which puts me at odds with my own values. That being admitted, maybe Forcese’s Plan B is a better way.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is an example of why our courts of law are the wrong place to manage security threats:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/first-member-of-khadr-clan-testifies-today/article1311844/

The judge will, I hope ignore what Khadr said and what he may have been planning to do – none of that matters. The judge must defend Mr. Khadr against the massive, invasive powers of the state. The state must always be judged to be a threat to individual liberty and liberty ought to trump security. Law courts, not armies, are the primary defenders of  liberty. Soldiers, the second line of defence, ought to be proponents of the rights of the accused, even when those rights allow an obviously guilty person to walk free, because defending Canada, which involves defending liberty, is why we you are here and over there. What is Canada, after all, if it is not a place where liberty thrives?

I expect the judge to administer yet another blast to the Government of Canada’s loyal and hard working servants – the people who are doing their level best to get and keep suspected enemies off out streets and are foiling many and varied nefarious plots.

So, why come to a court of law, at all? Because there is no useful alternative, right now.

The big job was accomplished: whatever Khadr planned to do – and I, for one, am certain that he was up to no good because I trust our security services to get most things right most of the time – he was stopped. CSIS and/or the RCMP did their duty. There needs to be a legal way, which our civil and criminal law will not and, arguably, should not provide, to monitor him and prevent him from doing anything else wrong.

Sending our security and intelligence services into our law courts is not accomplishing the aim.

It seems to me that there is room to go backwards here, again.

In the 18th century, when private citizens operated as armed agents of their governments under letters of marque it was possible for that citizen, when captured to offer his "parole", his word, that he wouldn't continue his activiities if he was released.  This presupposed a man of honour.

Having said that, it is the closest that I can think  of that would apply to the Al Qaeda pre-Congress of Vienna mindset.

The procedure could only be that an individual captured on a battlefield under arms would first of all be given the assumption of innocence, in so far as he would be assumed to be a soldier until proven otherwise.  As a soldier he would be granted the privileges of the captured soldier - which is to say indefinite detention for the duration of hostilities.  UNLESS - he was prepared to offer his parole in which case he would be assumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be a man of his word.

Then if he were picked up again on the battlefield, demonstrably having broken his word then he could be charged and treated as a common criminal.

This allows our enemies two kicks... the first one on us.

But it conforms to the maxim: Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There is some good news on the counter-terrorism front according to this report, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/spy-services-granted-new-power/article1313804/

Spy services granted new power
Federal Court decision paves way for the international surveillance of Canadian citizens suspected of terrorism links

Colin Freeze

Toronto
Tuesday, Oct. 06, 2009 01:27PM EDT

Canada's spy services have a new power: the ability to listen in on “homegrown” Canadian suspects travelling abroad to terrorism hot-spots such as Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In a Federal Court decision released today, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley decided the court can sign off on domestic warrants that allow for the international surveillance of Canadian citizens suspected of links to terrorism.

These warrants would be used for intelligence gathering, not necessarily for criminal prosecutions in open court.

The application came as Canadian spies sought “urgent” permission in January to follow two unidentified Canadians, presumably terrorism suspects, travelling to an unidentified country from Canada. These travels “pertained to threat activities which, it was believed, the two individuals would engage in while travelling outside of Canada,” reads today's ruling.

“Individuals who pose a threat to the security of Canada may move easily and rapidly from one country to another and maintain lines of communication with others of like mind,” Judge Mosley said. “Information which may be crucial to prevent or disrupt the threats may be unavailable to the security agencies of this country if they lack the means to follow those lines of communication.”

Federal spy masters had been seeking the authority for years, amid complaints that Canada's Cold War-era laws failed to address the threat of alleged Canadian terrorists who travel outside the country.

The specific problem? The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the country's “human intelligence” spies, can get wiretaps only for use in Canada if a judge signs off on a warrant. The Communications Security Establishment, the country's secretive “signals intelligence” agency, has the technological ability to listen to anyone it wants, anywhere in the world, but it is legally banned from spying within Canada or on Canadian citizens, wherever they may be.

It was illegal for Canada's spies to listen in on Canadian terrorism suspects the moment they left the country. This left intelligence officials complaining their investigations could suddenly go dark.

In the past, bureaucrats and judges had difficulty with the CSIS argument that it should be allowed to deputize the international powers of the CSE to advance domestic investigations. Judges maintained they enforced Canadian laws and had no power to sign off on arguably illegal or “extra legal” spying in other countries.

Judge Mosley has authored a compromise: He and his colleagues will sign off on such warrants provided the “international” spying actually takes place within Canada.

This essentially means the CSE can listen in on international conversations involving Canadian suspects via satellite signals and data lines that can be intercepted from Canada. From there, powerful algorithms and search engines can seek to isolate the “Canadian” conversations.

"It recognizes that security threats are global and highly mobile. CSIS can now use this tool to defend Canada's security," said Manon Berube, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

"In our view this decision recognizes that security threats move easily from one country to another and that countering those threats required a new approach."

Two things are striking about Judge Mosley’s 41-page ruling.

One is the absolute haste with which spies felt compelled to act. They had been snooping on their targets for two months when the two Canadians boarded an outbound plane for parts unknown.

“Given the urgency of the situation laid before me … I determined it would be inappropriate to delay the issuance of the warrant,” Judge Mosley wrote. The ruling does not make clear what, if anything, happened to the suspects after they went overseas nine months ago.

It’s not clear whether the suspects ever returned to Canada. If CSIS feels strongly enough about a terrorism case, the spy agency can hand over files to police in hopes that they can put together a criminal case, but there have been no significant terrorism arrests in Canada the intervening period.

The second striking aspect to the ruling is that it blacks out any allusions to the CSE’s spy craft, even though the basic principals under which electronic eavesdropping agencies intercept phone calls, e-mails, and internet chats are well known, at least in general. This is surprising, given Judge Mosley has ordered disclosures of arguable state secrets in past rulings. It’s matter of common practise to sanitize any information that would tend to identify suspects who haven’t been arrested.

A number of recent Canadian prosecutions have brought the issue of homegrown terrorism to the fore, but this may be the tip of the iceberg.

There are growing concerns that young Canadian extremists are flocking to global hot spots. For example, the U.S. Congress has heard recent testimony that Canadians are among the Westerners flocking to an Islamist insurgency movement in Somalia known as “the Shabab.” A few years ago a young Canadian university student was arrested in Afghanistan and accused of helping insurgents there.

There were also unconfirmed reports from Pakistan's tribal areas that Canadian citizens were among the militants killed in a U.S drone strike.

If I understand this ruling then it is, indeed, a big step forwards and it is long overdue.

There should be, in my view no need to ever bring this sort of information into open court: spies and terrorists ought not to be arrested, charged and tried in our courts unless they are of the “homegrown” variety, and perhaps not even then; there needs to be a better way. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Canadian judges are being appropriately cautious according to this news story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/judge-says-no-to-terror-suspects-bid-for-cellphone-access/article1315331/

Judge says no to terror suspect's bid for cellphone access
A federal judge has denied a request from terror suspect Mohamed Harkat to further loosen his bail conditions - with one exception

Ottawa
The Canadian Press

Wednesday, Oct. 07, 2009

A federal judge has denied a request from terror suspect Mohamed Harkat to further loosen his bail conditions – with one exception.

Mr. Harkat will be allowed to travel outside the national capital region to places in Ontario and Quebec if details can be worked out with federal officials.

In a ruling released today, Justice Simon Noel said it was too early to consider Mr. Harkat's other demands, given that the substance of his case has yet to be heard.

Among other things, Mr. Harkat requested removal of the electronic monitoring bracelet on his ankle, permission to have a cell phone and more freedom to use a computer.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service alleges Mr. Harkat is involved with the al-Qaeda terror network – a claim he denies.

Last month the court did ease bail conditions considerably, meaning no more surveillance cameras in Mr. Harkat's Ottawa home, no need to approve visitors and no further interception of mail and phone calls.

The government has been trying to deport the Algerian-born Mr. Harkat using a national security certificate, a rarely employed immigration tool, since his December 2002 arrest.

He and four other men face removal from Canada under certificates. All are fighting to remain in the country.

This is modestly good news.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a report that one of the potentially key witnesses is playing fast and loose skirthing the edge of law and duty in an effort to get “evidence” (or just rumour) in front of the MPCC:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/diplomat-bucks-ottawa-by-sending-evidence-to-detainee-probe/article1315612/

Diplomat bucks Ottawa by sending evidence to detainee probe
Military watchdog adjourns hearing into treatment of Afghan detainees after government lawyers question scope of investigation

Steven Chase

Ottawa

Wednesday, Oct. 07, 2009

A Canadian diplomat yesterday resisted federal government attempts to stop him from testifying before an inquiry into Canada's Afghan detainee controversy, filing evidence with the probe to prove he's got vital information to impart.

But in an unusual move, Richard Colvin shipped his affidavit to the Military Police Complaints Commission probe in a sealed envelope – a statement that will remain unread by inquiry officials until government censors vet it.

Mr. Colvin, who was previously posted in Afghanistan for Ottawa, sent his statement to the inquiry under virtual lock and key in order to guard against the risk of being jailed for violating national secrets.

The dramatic presentation of evidence came the same day that more legal jousting erupted between the Harper government and the commission, another bout of wrangling that could end up further delaying long-postponed hearings.

The military police watchdog has been trying to probe whether Canadian soldiers were complicit in handing over Afghan prisoners to that country's intelligence service – because they knew, or should have known, detainees were likely to be tortured in Afghanistan's notorious jails.

But government lawyers have repeatedly sought to delay and thwart public hearings.

Yesterday commission chair Peter Tinsley announced the tribunal will appeal a September federal court ruling that severely restricted the scope of the Afghan inquiry. It was a judgment that agreed with Ottawa's arguments that the watchdog had originally overstepped its boundaries.

Responding to Mr. Tinsley, Justice Department lawyers argued a motion calling for a suspension of the hearings until courts settle the question of the scope of the inquiry.

Alain Prefontaine, the lead government lawyer, said such an adjournment could mean a two-month delay in hearings.

And if that happens, it would mean the public portion of the inquiry would not resume before Mr. Tinsley, a Liberal appointee, reaches the end of his single term as commission chair on Dec. 11. The Harper government has refused Mr. Tinsley's request for reappointment, with Defence Minister Peter MacKay advising him in a letter “to start your career planning as soon as possible.”

Mr. Tinsley yesterday adjourned hearings and said he would rule next week on whether they would continue during an appeal.

Paul Champ, a lawyer for the human-rights groups that triggered the inquiry, said he's worried the Harper government is trying to run out the clock until Mr. Tinsley leaves, after which time they'd “appoint somebody who's friendly” and would “shut it down.”

Mr. MacKay, however, said the Tories have no intention of interfering with the inquiry.

Mr. Colvin, who now works at Canada's embassy in Washington, has been subpoenaed to testify.

He was the political director of an Afghanistan provincial reconstruction team until 2007.

Mr. Colvin's lawyer has argued the diplomat has personal knowledge of what military police knew about the risks of torture.

But federal lawyers have used the anti-terrorism law to bully Mr. Colvin, citing concerns about national security, his lawyer alleged in a letter to Ottawa this week. The law carries penalties of jail time for disclosing national secrets.

That's why Mr. Colvin sent the sealed affidavit to the watchdog, in order that he avoid legal jeopardy even while trying to prove his testimony would be worthwhile. It gives the commission a copy of it while government lawyers not affiliated with the inquiry vet it.

Of course, I do not know what Mr. Colvin knows or what he thinks he knows or what he heard from local Afghans. If he knows something – first hand knowledge – then the commission should, probably, hear about it. If someone told him something then it is, I believe it is just hearsay and, consequently, valueless and would serve only to muddy the waters.

 

[GAP]

Toronto 18 ring leader pleads guilty
Posted: October 08, 2009, 12:27 PM by Ron Nurwisah
Article Link

The alleged ring leader of the Toronto 18 terror cell has entered a guilty plea in court on Thursday.

Zakaria Amara, 23, was the alleged mastermind of the plot to explode truck bombs at prominent locations around Toronto and Ottawa. He is expected to receive life in prison.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/10/08/toronto-18-ring-leader-pleads-guilty.aspx#ixzz0TMal3SKf
More on link

 

[Edward Campbell]

More on the same: According to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC News web site, a fourth member of the Toronto 18, this one a so called ringleader, has admitted his guilt:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/10/08/toronto-18-plot-guilty-plea.html

[siuze=14pt] Alleged Toronto 18 ringleader pleads guilty[/size]
Thursday, October 8, 2009

CBC News

Zakaria Amara pleaded guilty Thursday to charges related to the alleged Toronto 18 plot to set off three fertilizer bombs, two in Toronto and one at an unnamed Ontario military base.

Amara, 24, has been alleged to be one of the ringleaders in the plot to recruit and train extremists to carry out the attacks, which never transpired. He is the fourth adult to admit guilt in the affair.

In a Brampton, Ont., courtroom, Amara pleaded guilty to two counts: knowingly participating in a terrorist group and intending to cause an explosion for the benefit of a terrorist group.

Justice Bruce Durno entered convictions against Amara on those counts before proceeding to sentencing. An agreed statement of facts is being read into the court record.

In all, 17 men and youths were arrested in the Toronto area in June 2006 and detained following an investigation by CSIS. An 18th person was arrested in August 2006.

The suspects faced charges including participating in a terrorist group, receiving training from a terrorist group, providing training and intending to cause an explosion that could cause serious bodily harm or death.

The offences allegedly took place between March and June 2006 in Mississauga and a rural township near Orillia, Ont.

The Crown alleges that the group's potential targets were the CN Tower, the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Toronto CSIS office.

Seven of the 18 people arrested have since had their charges dropped or stayed. Another six are in custody awaiting trial.

Four down!

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is some more bad news:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/judge-denies-csis-bid-to-revisit-secrecy-issues/article1324270/

Judge denies CSIS bid to revisit secrecy issues
Decision should bring to a close the security-certificate case of Adil Charkaoui, once accused by spy agency of ties to al-Qaeda

LES PERREAUX AND COLIN FREEZE

Thursday, Oct. 15, 2009

The Federal Court has dealt the government another setback in its attempts to deport alleged terrorists, ruling that key questions about what Canada's spy service must reveal in court do not deserve another look.

So-called security-certificate cases have become a high-stakes battleground over how Canada is to balance individual rights with the country's need to protect itself against terrorism. Federal lawyers last month chose to walk away from a key case - that of Adil Charkaoui, a Moroccan living in Montreal - rather than divulge information that they said could compromise national security.

Federal Court Judge Danièle Tremblay-Lamer yesterday rejected complaints that she was demanding too much transparency from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, a clandestine agency launched 25 years ago, and now complaining it is fighting a losing battle to protect state secrets.

"It's understandable a disagreement on evidence would create ... the belief the court put individual rights ahead of the demands of national security," Judge Tremblay-Lamer wrote in her 68-page ruling, "but that belief is unfounded."

Federal officials rely on CSIS information to initiate security-certificate cases, which amount to expedited bids to jail foreigners as high-level threats and then deport them. Yesterday's ruling should be the last word on the long-running Charkaoui affair.

Judge Tremblay-Lamer rejected a Crown request for a higher court to revisit some of the secrecy issues raised by the case. This disappointed CSIS officials, who hoped to get some legal clarity that would guide future cases.

"It is unfortunate that, given the unique nature of this decision and the implications for national security, the judge did not agree that the case presented aspects that warranted an appeal," said Manon Bérubé, a spokeswoman for the spy service.

During six years of litigation, Mr. Charkaoui won several bids to force CSIS to reveal information used to brand him a threat. Now the spy service is struggling to launch future cases. No new security certificates have been issued for years, and Mr. Charkaoui is free of the threat of jail, surveillance or eventual deportation.

The Charkaoui case was one of five active security-certificate cases that became bogged down in procedure and multimillion-dollar litigation. The remaining cases are at least seven years old.

Throughout them all, a predictable pattern has emerged: As defence lawyers press for ever greater disclosure, CSIS refuses to reveal information touching on its spy craft. And judges - regardless of what they think of state secrecy or the strength of each case - will not allow Islamist extremists to be sent back to homelands where they might be tortured.

Implicit in all of this is the question of whether Canada's spies belong in open court at all. Increasingly, CSIS operatives - who don't work to the same legal standards as police - complain of being sucked into court against their will. And it's not only security-certificate cases that are problematic.

Currently CSIS officials are testifying in the pretrial phases of criminal cases, often appearing as uncomfortable witnesses as defence lawyers test their investigative rigour. Within days, two CSIS agents will be called to testify - anonymously, and from behind screens - about their dealings overseas in the Abdullah Khadr extradition matter.

Federal officials had hoped to salvage a moral victory from the Charkaoui case by asking Judge Tremblay-Lamer to kick up some key questions to the higher courts. But Judge Tremblay-Lamer ruled the request amounted to an end run around her orders to disclose more CSIS information to Mr. Charkaoui.

The judge recalled how she asked the government to contact foreign intelligence agencies to ask their permission to disclose evidence lent to CSIS. On this point, security officials changed their minds "from one week to the next" on the damage that such a request could to do to national security, she said. "It's relevant to recall to what point the notion of national security is a matter of perspective," Judge Tremblay-Lamer ruled. "There can exist grey zones where disagreement is possible."

Mr. Charkaoui, now 36, had been branded by government officials as a top-tier al-Qaeda threat to Canada.

His lawyer is planning a lawsuit and related actions. "If they didn't want to divulge their evidence, they shouldn't have pursued the security certificate," said Johanne Doyon.

She said the CSIS national security claims were "nothing but a smokescreen."

I understand CSIS’s very legitimate desire for ”some legal clarity that would guide future cases,” but, as Perreaux and Freeze say in the story, ”implicit in all of this is the question of whether Canada's spies belong in open court at all.”

My answer is that they should not. We need a new, better way to deal with national security cases – those involving legal and illegal residents and Canadian citizens alike.

Parliament owes the people of Canada its most urgent attention on this matter. But the media has made this issue so politically dangerous that most parliamentarians, led by our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and his colleague the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Michael Igantieff, are too frightened to address it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is Christie Blatchford’s take on the issue:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/theres-no-one-who-could-argue-the-current-system-is-working-as-it-should/article1324208/

There's no one who could argue the current system is working as it should

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD

Thursday, Oct. 15, 2009

When I told a colleague yesterday I'd spent the day at the extradition hearing for Abdullah Khadr, she asked, "anything interesting happen?"

"I haven't a clue," I replied.

Such as A) the specific nature of court proceedings against various members of the notorious first family of Canadian terrorism, and B) the general nature of Canadian court proceedings in terrorism-related matters that much of the evidence is kept from Canadians, and what is left to decipher is often indecipherable.

Consider that yesterday before Ontario Superior Court judge Christopher Speyer, for instance, the witness in the stand was frequently directed to something called "the Private Reasons of Justice Mosley" (this would be Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley, who made an order in the case allowing some previously secret information to be publicly disclosed), various bits of which are still redacted (this means censored), none of which is in the public domain.

Also consider that today's witness will be a CSIS agent, who will testify from behind a screen in order that his ability to continue working in the field is not compromised.

I have two things to say about that.

The first is that not too long ago, I had occasion to speak to a group of CSIS agents (the contents of my speech and the assembled group must remain ears-only of course, and I frankly fear I may have breached the Official Secrets Act by disclosing this little) and suffice it to say that for someone who went hoping to see someone remotely like the actor Daniel Craig (the new James Bond: the new and comely James Bond), preferably in the blue trunks he wore in Casino Royale, it was a crushing disappointment. You could meet some of the CSIS agents I saw that night a thousand times and not remember their faces the next second, so relentlessly ordinary-and-suburban-looking a group are they.

The second thing is, that if witnesses are called from the federal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, or DFAIT as the branch is always called - as could happen, since some of their folks were involved when Abdullah was being held in Pakistan before coming back to Canada - I suggested they be allowed to testify from behind lace hankies or parasols, so as to reflect their greater delicacy and less tolerance for the bad behaviour that CSIS and RCMP types allegedly tolerate more easily.

If this makes no sense, perfect. That is just how the courts like it. We're all too stupid to understand anyway.

After court, I ran a couple of searches for previous court decisions, using the Khadr v. Canada search term.

In Federal Court, my query returned 42 results, 13 of them direct decisions in cases involving various Khadrs.

Two involve Abdullah, who is now 28 and facing extradition by the United States on charges he was an arms supplier to al-Qaeda, including allegedly hydrogen peroxide used in the making of land mines which he told authorities would be used against U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan (and thus against Canadians).

One case involves his brother Abdurahman, who isn't charged with anything and has never been deemed a threat, but who three years ago was fighting his refusal of a Canadian passport, which had been denied him on the grounds of national security because of his acknowledged al-Qaeda family. He ended up being allowed to reapply.

The other 10 cases involved their brother Omar, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay and is alleged to have thrown a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan in 2002.

A similar search of Supreme Court of Canada decisions, using the same term, returned 33 results.

The point is that the prosecution/representation of the various Khadrs has been a real growth industry in this country, and to little discernible result in that Omar is still in Cuba and Abdullah is still here in Canada and the female Khadrs who show up in court, some of them as veiled and covered as the process itself, still read ostentatiously from the Koran, clicking their tongues as they go.

I should add that Dennis Edney, the most affable Scot who has been the family's most steadfast lawyer over all these years, has done a huge chunk of work for free, or as the bar calls it, pro bono. Mr. Edney blushed in embarrassment when I asked him about this yesterday, clearly uncomfortable. But he admitted he's probably spent $100,000 of his own money representing the family, even as he demurred, with a grin, "there's no Scottish word for pro bono."

His burr, incidentally, means that though he was reading into the record, as questions, some of Judge Mosley's Private Reasons yesterday, thus theoretically bringing some of it into the public domain, it was still tricky to decipher.

At the end of the day, I don't think there's anyone who could argue that the current system is working very well - certainly not for Canadians, who seem never to get an answer to the only question that ever matters in these cases, that is, is X a terrorist or not?

The two Khadrs, for instance, have spent between them more than a decade in jails in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Cuba and Canada but never once faced a proper trial, held in the open. They are alleged to have committed heinous acts; they claim to be the victims of heinous torture that their lawyers say renders any alleged confessions fruit of the poisoned tree and thus unreliable. Where does the truth lie between those extremes and will we ever know, or will we just keep them in jail as long as we can and then pay out millions in damages when they're released, as if we are sorry?

Blatchford is right: Canadians, all Canadians – even those accused of some security offences, are ill served by the existing “system.”

The first duty of the sovereign, in other words of all of us, is to defend the realm against “all enemies, foreign and domestic,” as our American friends love to say.

We have “domestic enemies.” “We” have had them so long as there has been a “we.” It is the duty of the national government to:

• Protect us from those enemies; but

• To protect “our” fundamental civil rights at the same time.

It’s a hideously complex task but there is no excuse for not getting the job done. The people who have the duty to “do the job” are members of parliament, especially those who are members of the government and, amongst those, the members of the cabinet led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

 

[leroi]

Maybe now that these cases are being successfully prosecuted more details will emerge about the plot. Some good videos of the "take down" and the terrorist "trigger test" and about five other videos are contained in this Globe and Mail article of October 20, 2009 authored by Colin Freeze. The videos can be located by scrolling to bottom of article.

Videos Give Public Glimpse of Homegrown Terror Plot

LINK

These dramatic videos, released Tuesday by the Ontario Superior court, tell the tale of an al-Qaeda inspired cell of “homegrown” Canadian terrorists.

In June, 2006, a group of young extremists plotted to detonate deadly fertilizer-based truck bombs in downtown Toronto and at a Canadian Forces base. Scores of people, perhaps hundreds, could have been killed by the blast. The aim was to terrorize the populace, and pressure politicians to pull soldiers from the continuing NATO mission in Afghanistan.

Many of the preparations were caught on tape, either in recordings the suspects made, or via devices covertly installed by authorities. Police infiltrated the group and, after months of surveillance, rounded up suspects on June 2, 2006, the day a “sting” shipment of ammonium-nitrate fertilizer was shipped to the group's key players.

The footage reveals the plans of Zakaria Amara and, to a lesser extent, his co-conspirators Saad Khalid and Saad Gaya. This group of young men from Mississauga, Ont., recently admitted their guilt in open court. The common plea? They conspired to cause massive explosions in downtown Toronto.

The videos were played as evidence during court proceedings, but were only made available following a Globe and Mail application for public release of the footage.

A half dozen suspects remain before the courts, but only one of them is implicated in the bomb plot. The rest face lesser terrorism charges. It is anticipated their trial will begin in January. None of the videos posted here identify any of the remaining accused, whose identities are shielded by court-ordered publication bans.

Here reproduced in accordance with the Fair Dealing provision (29) of the Copyright Act.​

 

[MARS]

New CSIS director criticizes Canadian opinion leaders, shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

------------------------------------
Canada oblivious to terror danger: CSIS boss

New director takes aim at critics in first public speech

By Ian MacLeod, The Ottawa CitizenOctober 30, 2009 6:36 AM

OTTAWA — Despite a history of domestic terrorism, from Air India to the Toronto 18, Canada has a “serious blind spot” acknowledging that violent extremism imperils our national security, says the new head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

In his first public speech since becoming Canada’s spy master this summer, Richard B. Fadden wasted no time Thursday railing against those he believes ignore, minimize and even applaud terrorism and the people caught up in it, while portraying government efforts to combat extremism as assaults on liberty.

“Almost any attempt to fight terrorism by the government is portrayed as an overreaction or an assault on liberty. It is a peculiar position, given that terrorism is the ultimate attack on liberties,” Fadden told an Ottawa conference of about 300 security and intelligence specialists.

In advocating for a more mature, nuanced debate on national security, Fadden directed his harshest comments at news media, a “loose partnership of single-issue NGOs, advocacy journalists and lawyers,” and Canadians who naively believe, “our charm and the Maple Leaf on our backpacks are all that we need to protect us.

“Why … are those accused of terrorist offences often portrayed in media as quasi-folk heroes, despite the harsh statements of numerous judges? Why are they always photographed with their children, given tender-hearted profiles, and more or less taken at their word when they accuse CSIS or other government agencies of abusing them?

“I … am not arguing that those accused of offences should be portrayed as guilty,” Fadden added. “In fact, a more balanced presentation is what I am hoping for.”

Instead, he said, accused terrorists are routinely portrayed as too unsophisticated, ill-prepared or youthful to actually commit such heinous acts. That theme, “permeates a fair amount of the coverage of those charged in the Toronto plot.

“I seriously doubt, however, whether editors would allow this kind of reasoning to be used in news coverage of those accused of murder or robbery.”

.....more at the link

 

[mariomike]

"Man who made hoax terror calls gets 12 months: "TORONTO — A Mississauga, Ont., man who pleaded guilty to making hoax terrorist calls has been sentenced to 12 months in jail.":
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091126/hoax_calls_091126/20091126/?hub=TorontoNewHome

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, illustrates why we need a thorough overhaul of our entire immigration and refuges systems, beginning with the fact that the two totally unrelated, on to the other:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/court-strikes-down-security-certificate-against-almrei/article1399619/

Court strikes down security certificate against Almrei
Syrian-born man was arrested eight years ago on terror suspicions; Ottawa had been trying to deport him on seldom-used provision of immigration law

Ottawa — The Canadian Press
Monday, Dec. 14, 2009

A federal judge has struck down a national security certificate against a Syrian-born man arrested eight years ago on terror suspicions.
The ruling today by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley effectively frees Hassan Almrei.

The government had been trying to deport Mr. Almrei on a security certificate – a seldom-used provision of the immigration law for removing suspected terrorists and spies.

Mr. Almrei's lawyer, Lorne Waldman, said from Toronto his client was “very excited” over the ruling. Mr. Waldman had not yet read the full decision, and said he and Mr. Almrei would comment later.

The government argued the Syrian native's travel, activities and involvement in a false-document ring were consistent with supporters of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.

The ruling says there were reasonable grounds to believe Mr. Almrei was a security danger when detained in October 2001, but there are no longer reasonable grounds to believe that today.

It also says federal cabinet ministers breached their duties of “good faith and candour” to the court by not thoroughly reviewing the information on file prior to re-issuing the certificate against Mr. Almrei in February of last year.

The case is another in a series of blows to the security certificate law. The federal government has launched a sweeping review after acknowledging the system needs fixing.

The review could scrap or revamp the law used to arrest and deport non-Canadians considered a threat to national security.

Certificates have existed for three decades, and more than two dozen have been issued since 1991, when they became part of federal immigration law.

But recent cases have slowed to a crawl – or collapsed altogether – amid legal challenges and upbraidings from judges over miscues by Canada's spy agency.

The government has initiated just six certificate cases – four terror suspects, a hatemonger and an alleged Russian spy – since the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Among critics, the deportation tool has come to symbolize the worst excesses of the fight against Islamic extremism.

Opponents say the process is fundamentally unfair because detainees are not given full details of the allegations against them.

A case involving Montrealer Adil Charkaoui, a native of Morocco, fell apart recently when the government withdrew supporting evidence, saying its disclosure would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Mr. Charkaoui, a French teacher and father of three, wants compensation for his six-year ordeal.

Four active cases range from seven to 10 years old, illustrating the legal limbo that certificates can create for detainees.

Mahmoud Jaballah and Mohamed Zeki Mahjoub, both Egyptian, were arrested in 1999 and 2000 respectively, while Mr. Almrei was detained one month after Sept. 11, 2001, and Mohamed Harkat of Algeria seven years ago this month.

All four men were granted release from prison under strict conditions that have controlled virtually their every move while the cases play out in the Federal Court of Canada.

I have no problem with the judge’s decision, as I understand it; he is interpreting the law, as written, in the light of the Charter, etc. The problem is with the laws and regulations that aid criminals and terrorists rather than protecting Canada from them.

We must begin by using the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to do away with e.g. Singh v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) that, effectively, granted Charter protection to every single individual who manages, by hook or by crook, to get one foot on Canadian territory. The decision is pernicious and must be overturned or nothing else can be done.

Then, Charter rights and protections must be earned by newcomers on a graduated basis: legal resident, landed immigrant and, finally, citizen.

As a corollary, persons who enter Canada improperly or illegally must be granted only the most fundamental human rights but those must not include protection from immediate deportation to the last (safe) place in which they were. (There are some obvious case where exceptions will be made.) But, that is, essentially, a refugee problem. People who arrive here illegally, intending to either find refuge or, most often, stay and settle (in other words: immigrate) apply as refugees. We must not allow it. There is a precise definition of refugee as “a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country” and as a person who is fleeing war or violence. We, as human beings and as amongst the most fortunate people in the world have a human duty to help these people but that duty does not extend to making them into immigrants. Real refuges do not want to immigrate; real refugees want to go home, as soon as it is safe to do so. We can help, mostly, in two ways:

1. By providing safe, humane ‘refuges’ near the refugees’ homes; and

2. By helping to sort out the situation that created the refugees in the first place – that may involve the use of armed force.

Obviously, sometimes, neither of those courses will work and resettling refugees in Canada, as immigrants, will be the only solution but it should be the exception, not the rule.