archive-ca.com » CA » L » LAWUNION.CA

Total: 158

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Dope Sheet Column – May 18, 2005 : Law Union of Ontario
    in April 2003 The three line Summary which is all we ever received concerning whatever Abu Zubaida had said about my client reads as follows A foreign agency advised the Service in March 2003 that Abu ZUBAIDA was able to identify the respondent HARKAT by his physical description and his activities including that he operated a guesthouse in Peshawar Pakistan in the mid 1990s for mujahedeen travelling to Chechnya In regard to the issue of torture of Abu Zubaida in his letter of July 23rd 2004 Mr Mathieson said as follows As you can see we are therefore relying upon information which originates with Mr ZUBAIDA However you appear to making certain assumptions in your correspondence with respect to Mr ZUBAIDA Your assumptions do not appear to be supported by reliable evidence I would not necessarily categorize a media report from the Internet or the European or North American media as constituting reliable evidence of torture On July 24th 2004 I sent an e mail to Mr Mathieson The relevant portion of the e mail was as follows I acknowledge receipt of your fax dated July 23 and the three line summary re a â œforeign agencyâ advising the Service of information obtain from Abu Zubaida Given the media coverage about the capture of Abu Zubaida I am amazed that the Service does not state they got the information from the Americans I want to see specifically what the American extracted from Abu Zubaida If you wonâ t show it to me show it to Justice Dawson I presume from the summary that Abu Zubaida did not identify Mr Harkat by name How do the Americans link whatever they extracted from Abu Zubaida to my client It appears that the information from Abu Zubaida does not place whomever he identified as having been in Afghanistan What evidence does the Service have that places my client in Afghanistan What disturbs me the most about what you sent me is that you say my â œassumptions about the torture of Abu Zubaida do not appear to be supported by reliable evidenceâ Does the Service and do you take the position that the Americans and their proxies did not and do not torture prisoners Did you read the Memo for Alberto Gonzales that I sent you I would be prepared to match Mark Hosenball for reliability on American human rights and Geneva Convention violations and intelligence information against any CSIS operative you care to put up Whether Justice Dawson will choose Hosenball over your person remains to be seen Are you prepared to go to the U S and take Commission Evidence as to whether Abu Zubaida was tortured On August 3rd 2004 I sent a letter to Mr Mathieson with a copy to the Court The portion of the letter relating to Abu Zubaida reads as follows Abu Zubaida Based on what you said in your letter of July 23rd 2004 it appears to me that it will be necessary for me to try and prove to the court that Abu Zubaida was tortured by to use your words â œa foreign agencyâ The three line summary that was issued by the court in April 2003 is to say the least extremely brief Please provide to me or to Justice Dawson the following information 1 The full and complete report received by â œa foreign agencyâ that in any way relates to my client 2 Please provide to me or to the court the physical description given of the person that your Service identifies as Harkat 3 Please advise me or the court of the exact date that Abu Zubaida specified when reference is made to the mid 1990â s You of course are aware that my client came to Canada in 1995 Please advise me or the court the manner by which the physical description given by Abu Zubaida is connected with my clientâ s name Did the Service specifically request the Americans or the Pakistanis to question Abu Zubaida about my client Did the Service provide a physical description of my client Comments relating to Abu Zubaida appeared in Chapter 6 of the 9 11 Commission Report That Chapter was sent to Mr Mathieson and the Court That Chapter makes links between Abu Zubaida and Ahmed Ressam the Millennium bomber A memorandum was prepared for an August 3rd 2004 conference call with the Court Among the issues that I said needed discussion in the conference call were the following 4 Whether the information obtained from Abu Zubaida was obtained under torture Because of the nature of these proceedings it is unlikely that counsel for Mr Harkat will be allowed to cross examine any witnesses or to learn the details of what information was provided by Abu Zubaida It is our position that the information obtained from Abu Zubaida if it actually identifies Mr Harkat should be given little or no weight if the information was obtained under torture 5 If we are going to have to litigate the circumstances in which the information was obtained from Abu Zubaida counsel will need to contact Mark Hosenball and to gather information from the Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York City The Centre has been the lead legal organization in regard to the treatment of prisoners post September 11th The Centre was involved in recent cases in the Supreme Court of the United States involving prisoners detained at Guantanamo Cuba and detained as enemy combatants in the United States On August 10th 2004 Mr Mathieson in response to the matter raised in the telephone conference said the following If the Court is of the view that your allegations with respect to the treatment of Abu Zubaida are relevant to that issue then you have the discretion to call whatever evidence you have to support your allegations In October 2004 we provided to CSIS and to the Court extracts from a Human Rights Watch Report Briefing paper entitled â œThe United Statesâ Disappeared The CIAâ s Long Term â Ghost Detaineesâ â That paper is available on the Human Rights Watch website http www hrw org As well we filed a declaration from Steven Watt who was then working for the Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York CCR The CCR has been involved at the forefront of all of the work in the United States concerning human rights abuses post September 11 including cases in the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and the treatment of enemy combatants the lawsuit on behalf of Maher Arar and lawsuits filed on behalf immigrants rounded up arbitrarily detained and mistreated by the FBI and U S Immigration and Naturalization Services post September 11th 2001 Mr Watt concluded his declaration by saying that It is clear that detainees in U S custody and control in Afghanistan Guantanamo and other undisclosed locations including Abu Zubaydah have been subject to a regime of treatment including interrogations which constitutes cruel inhuman or degrading treatment and in many instances torture In December we argued the issue of the admissibility of the evidence of Abu Zubaida For that hearing we filed with the Court all of the material noted above I also filed with the Court the transcript of the evidence from the Arar inquiry of former CSIS Director Ward Elcock Mr Elcock testified on the 21st and 22nd of June 2004 The transcript of that testimony is available on the Arar inquiry website On five occasions during the course of his cross examination by Lorne Waldman counsel for Mr Arar Mr Elcock declined or avoided answering the question as to whether Syria is a country that engages in torture At page 233 of the Transcript from June 21st 2004 a sample of Mr Elcokâ s testimony MR WALDMAN I just looked at the Website of the Department of State and you said you are familiar with that the Human Rights Reports Very quickly and cursorily I saw that Saudi Arabia Syria Jordan India Sri Lanka Tunisia Libya Pakstan Kazakhstan and Afghanistan all are countries for which the Department of State has identified they use torture in order to interrogate people Do we have information sharing agreements with any of the countries I am not asking you to specify which ones but with some of them MS McISAAC Counsel for the government of Canada Again Mr Chairman that is the question that elicits information over which the Attorney General claims national security confidentiality MR WALDMAN Do we have information sharing agreements with countries that engage in torture Can you answer that question MR ELCOCK The think the problem is that I donâ t know what countries necessarily engage in torture There are certainly allegations that certain countries do but I have no independent knowledge in most cases that any country has engaged in torture Clearly that information if we have information from reports such as Amnesty International the State Department or any information we may have independently that indicates that generally speaking or on occasion a service does use torture then that will have clear implications for the way in which we assess the information MR WALDMAN Are you telling me that if the Department of State of the United States and its Human Rights Reports says that these countries engage in torture you are still going to say â œIâ m not sure that they doâ Is that your position Is your position then that â œI am going to close my eyes to torture until I see the person putting the electric cattle prods on the individualâ Is that your position sir MR ELCOCK I didnâ t say that was my position at all I just said that MR WALDMAN You just said that I thought you just said that You said that â œI donâ t know if these countries engage in torture I read the reportsâ I asked you if you read the Department of State report and you said â œI didâ Do you believe that Syria engages in torture sir MR ELCOCK The fact of those reports is simply that they allege that Syria or other countries use torture That is not necessarily MR WALDMAN I am asking you if THE COMMISSIONER Mr Waldman do let him finish Let him finish the answer and then you can ask the next question MR WALDMAN I am just asking you â Iâ m not asking you whether THE COMMISSIONER He was MR WALDMAN I am asking you a personal question sir what your opinion is which is highly relevant As a Director of CSIS do you believe that Syria engages in torture having read the Department of State reports a simple yes or no MR ELCOCK I have seen the reports I can suspect that Syrian may engage in torture I have no confirmation of that one way or the other MR WALDMAN I am not asking a confirmation I am asking you your belief based upon the reports the Amnesty International the Special Rapporteur on Torture from the United Nations the Department of State they all say that Syria engages in torture in interrogation of people Iâ m asking you whether you believe that Syria engages in torture It is a simple yes or no question Are you going to give it to me MR ELCOCK It is not a simple yes or no question MR WALDMAN Why not Why isnâ t your belief MR ELCOCK Because all of those documents simply provide conclusions I have no knowledge as to the background of those documents the evidence that they rely on or anything else MR WALDMAN This is really MR ELCOCK So I canâ t make any conclusion on the basis of those documents except that they provide an indicator to us that some services may indeed use torture MR WALDMAN Okay This is really fascinating You just have spent the whole day telling us about how intelligence operations work You put together little pieces of a puzzle and you reach a conclusion Isnâ t that correct MR ELCOCK Yes MR WALDMAN At a certain point you form an opinion that something is happening Is that correct MR ELCOCK Thatâ s true MR WALDMAN So I am asking you a simple question You have read these documents you know how these services work you know the societies Iâ m asking you to put the pieces of the puzzle together and to give me an opinion Does Syria engage in torture yes or no Why can you do it with respect to Sunni extremists or whatever as you identify them or other people but you are not willing to do it about a foreign State from whom you receive information MR ELCOCK The reality of our investigations is MR WALDMAN Sorry I donâ t want to interrupt you MR ELCOCK We carry out investigations of individuals and or of people who may be regarded as a threat to the security of Canada At the end of the day the issue of whether or not a service indulges in torture or not is something we can investigate it is something simply on which we can collect enough information in order to be in a position to assess the quality of that service the reliability of that service whether or not they do use torture in their investigations and whether or not we should be alive to those possibilities in receiving any information from any service like that if we had a relationship with such a service MR WALDMAN But at the end of the day isnâ t it highly relevant that you form an opinion as to whether a particular service engages in torture so that you can determine the reliability of the information of that service MR ELCOCK It is not necessary that I necessarily form that opinion It may be that it will be crucial in terms of the exchange of information that those who make the decisions on a day to day basis to send information have that and that we have worked with the Department of Foreign Affairs to make sure we have a view of those issues MR WALDMAN But arenâ t you the person who is responsible for determining whether or not we get into arrangements Didnâ t you just testify earlier today that it was your responsibility to decide whether we get into arrangements and you are the one who made the ultimate decision MR ELCOCK In terms of entering into an arrangement the Minister has ultimately to consent to those arrangements and I make that recommendation to the Minister MR WALDMAN So you donâ t think it is relevant in the context of that that you form an opinion as to whether a State engages in torture when you advise the Minister MR ELCOCK That would be an issue which we would put before the Minister if there were any concerns with respect to the human rights record of a country that we were proposing to enter into a relationship with MR WALDMAN But are you telling me that when you make a recommendation to the Minister about an information sharing with letâ s say hypothetically Syria MR ELCOCK At the end of the day if I make the recommendation to the Minister I am making the recommendation to the Minister that we enter into an arrangement with a country because it is essential to protecting Canadian security that we do so MR WALDMAN But I think the Director requires you to take into account the Human Rights Record MR ELCOCK We balance a lot of things including the Human Rights Record of the country in question to the best of our ability to know something about it MR WALDMAN If you are going to balance that how can you balance that if you donâ t form an opinion about Syria or any other country whether they engage in torture I just find it rather shocking that you are going to enter into an agreement with a foreign State when you acknowledge that there is all this documentation out there that says they engage in torture and you donâ t form an opinion as to whether they engage in torture Is that your evidence today MR ELCOCK You asked me if I had an opinion about whether Syria engaged in torture I canâ t offer you that opinion But the reality is when I make a recommendation to the Minister in respect of any country then obviously we have balanced all of the concerns including the Human Rights Record of the country involved and ultimately if we recommended to the Minister we have recommended to the Minister because it is important in our view in terms of Canadaâ s security to secure that relationship in order to share information if we can with that service MR WALDMAN You are reluctant to talk about Syria because you donâ t want to acknowledge that Syria might have entered am I reading you right that you donâ t want to acknowledge that you might have made a recommendation to the Minister and found that Syria engaged in torture â â MR WALDMAN I donâ t know if I got an answer to this question To your knowledge do we have foreign agreements with countries that according to your assessments when you make the recommendation to the Minister engage in torture MR ELCOCK We may well have arrangements with countries that we suspect may engage in torture I doubt very much whether we could ever know for sure whether they engage in torture There is a difference MR WALDMAN What steps do you do to find out whether a country engages in torture or not beside reading the Department of State reports MR ELCOCK We would look at those We would look at any independent information we have received from other sources â â MR WALDMAN Would

    Original URL path: http://www.lawunion.ca/2006/03/dope-sheet-column-may-18-2005/ (2013-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Criminal : Law Union of Ontario
    the Superior Court of Justice courthouse on Thomas Street East in Napanee The Toronto based lawyer questioned the quite unusual security precautions taken by police during the hearings including asking visitors to sign a guest book and to be videotaped before entering the courtroom Many people thought they were being investigated Rosenthal contended Many planned to attend today but didn t In dismissing the complaint Fournier said security is often complex and it s not within my jurisdiction to police the police Then in what is contrary to normal practice for a defence lawyer Rosenthal argued against the Crown s motion of having a publication ban put in place during the inquiry Typically the accused in a case asks for a ban on publicity during preliminary inquiries â a move the judge is required to grant if sought by the defence Crown attorney Robert Morrison said the Brant matter was an emotional type of case and a ban must be enacted in order to protect the integrity of jury selection if the matter is to go to trial Rosenthal meanwhile said the Crown presented all sorts of inflammatory evidence during the two previous bail hearings which didn t have any bans on content To argue for a publication ban now given that is a bit odd he said In handing down his decision to enact a ban Fournier said any informationpresented during a bail review has no consequence I do have a responsibility to protect the integrity of this process Security tight as inquiry opens Mohawk activist Shawn Brant accused of mischief breaching bail Frank Armstrong Local news Tuesday August 28 2007 00 00 http www thewhig com webapp sitepages content asp contentid 671085 catname Local 20news classif A preliminary inquiry for a Mohawk activist accused of mischief and breaching his bail conditions by leading two railway blockades and disrupting traffic on Highway 401 earlier this year began yesterday Shawn Brant 43 faces nine criminal charges in relation to thedisruptions one in April in the Napanee area and three in June in the Deseronto area Mohawks and their supporters ran a 30 hour blockade on the CN Rail tracks in Napanee on April 20 to protest the operation of a gravel quarry on land subject to negotiations between the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte and the federal government They blocked the CN tracks again on June 28 and 29 as part of a national aboriginal day of action on June 29 to bring attention to problems faced in First Nations communities such as poor water quality poverty and high youth suicide rates They blocked Highway 2 near Deseronto and forced police to close off a stretch of Highway 401 Security was unusually tight at yesterday s hearing in Napanee Court Spectators and witnesses entering the court had their bags searched and about six uniformed OPP officers guarded the stairs and waiting area outside the courtroom The officers also made people turn out their pockets and swept a metal detector

    Original URL path: http://www.lawunion.ca/category/news/criminal/page/2/ (2013-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Criminal : Law Union of Ontario
    a branch known as the Requirements Analysis and Production Branch PG looked at issues pertaining to Islamic Extremism and the threat of Islamic Extremism to Canada During the course of my cross examination of PG I asked him a number of questions about whether CSIS makes any attempt to find out if information CSIS has received was obtained from torture Torture under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment as defined in the Gonzales Memorandum prepared for then Counsel to President Bush now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Each component of the definition emphasizes that torture is not the mere infliction of pain or suffering on another but it is instead a step well removed The victim must experience intense pain or suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe that death organ failure or permanent damage resulting in the loss of a significant body function will likely result This memorandum was prepared on August 1 2002 by Jay S Bybee then Assistant Attorney General now a Federal judge after the capture of a high level al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan Abu Zubaydah is one of what Humans Rights Watch calls the Ghost Detainees He is somewhere in one of the CIA black sites What follows is a portion of the cross examination of P G on the issue of evidence obtained by torture an electronic version of PGâ s evidence is available for those who want it Q Were any discussions had within CSIS in regard to that definition of torture and how the Americans might be treating their prisoners or having their proxies treat their prisoners A I have not been privy to conversations concerning that subject no Q As the Senior Analyst for CSIS would you have thought that it would be appropriate that you be included in those discussions MR MacINTOSH Objection He cannot be asked to comment on the efficacy or the policy that is adopted by the Director of CSIS or people that are his superiors whether it is appropriate or not JUSTICE LEMIEUX I am going to overrule that objection He is in crossï examination He is entitled to probe the Witness THE WITNESS I am sorry could you repeat the question BY MR COPELAND Q Probably not What I want to know is whether or not the issue of how the Americans or their proxies were treating alï Qaeda prisoners wherever they were in the world whether or not that should have been something brought to your knowledge as the Senior Analyst for CSIS in matters relating to alï Qaeda A As I have stated I am not aware of any discussions that took place within the Service in that regard and since I am not aware that there are or are not or rather were or were not discussions then I cannot see how I could actually be included in those discussions Q Let me suggest to you that CSIS does not care in the least whether or not people are tortured as long as they get the information A I believe I have already answered that I believe that not to be true Q Can you tell me what steps you took personally to ascertain whether or not information that was coming to you was obtained by torture or may have been obtained by torture A As I have stated as an analyst whether senior analyst or junior does not matter when we do our analyses and write our papers we ensure to the best of our ability and knowledge that the information has been corroborated and is in fact accurate information Q And do you check to find out whether or not it came from torture Do you make inquiries about that A Again as an analyst I seek to find out if the information is correct Q And you do not care whether or not the original source of it came from torture MR MATHIESON This question has been asked now My Lord about three or four times I think it may be crossï examination but it is time for my friend to move on JUSTICE LEMIEUX I will overrule that I am not satisfied that the Witness has answered appropriately I was going to ask him a question and may still ask him a question THE WITNESS I can state that I have never personally asked any individual whether or not specific information was obtained under torture no JUSTICE LEMIEUX May I ask a question Mr Copeland MR COPELAND Pardon JUSTICE LEMIEUX May I ask a question MR COPELAND Sure JUSTICE LEMIEUX If you did not as the Senior Analyst if you did not ask under what conditions the information which you received was obtained how can you be satisfied that the information is reliable because you yourself have said it affects the reliability If you do not even inquire and the person has been tortured then the information is unreliable how can you rely on it THE WITNESS That is a very good question My Lord The key to analysis the key to using information and judging the reliability or veracity of the information rests on corroboration If you receive the same information from a variety of sources of variant degrees and the information is consistent then as an analyst you make the judgment that that information is in fact true and therefore it can be used in your analysis BY MR COPELAND Q So let me understand this You get some information from Abu Zubaydah who may or may not have been tortured It is corroborated by somebody else whether it is corroborated by one of the other 11 detainees listed in the Human Rights Watch Ghost Detainees paper A Yes Q And you do not inquire whether or not that person has been tortured then it is corroborated A No In fact as I am

    Original URL path: http://www.lawunion.ca/category/news/criminal/page/3/ (2013-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive



  • Facta/Briefs : Law Union of Ontario
    Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar was submitted on September 10 2005 Newer Posts 1 2 Recent Posts 2013 05 14 14 May EVENT Resistance Continues to Harper s Omnibus Crime Bills May 23 6 30 8 30 2013 04 25 25 Apr Call to Action May Day March on May 1st 2013 03 03 3 Mar 2013 Law Union Conference Receives LSUC CPD Hours Accreditation 2013 02 25

    Original URL path: http://www.lawunion.ca/category/news/factabriefs/page/2/ (2013-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Immigration : Law Union of Ontario
    and they feared committing atrocities if sent there They also said they may be persecuted if returned to the United States But the board refused to consider the legality of the invasion dealing a blow to their case It s just very convenient that of all the things in the world the one thing the refugee board can t decide upon is whether the U S invaded Iraq illegally lawyer Jeffry House said outside the courtroom We re asking that this court state that we would have a right to litigate that question and provide evidence on that question If the Federal Court agrees to overturn the ruling the case will go back before the refugee tribunal If the court declines it must decide whether to let the cases proceed to the Federal Court of Appeal The soldiers who face court martial and up to five years in prison in the United States may remain in Canada while their case is under appeal Full Story Not Guilty Activists Acquitted 2006 02 21 21 Feb 2006 Categories Immigration News 12 protesters involved with the Action Committee of Non Status Algerians CASS were acquitted of mischief in relation to the occupation of

    Original URL path: http://www.lawunion.ca/category/news/immigration/page/2/ (2013-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive

  • National Security : Law Union of Ontario
    Brant couldn t be trusted to respect the courts and locked him away while legal proceedings continue The preliminary hearing is scheduled to last three days It is intended to satisfy the judge as to whether there is enough evidence for Brant to stand trial in a higher court Brant has elected to be tried by judge and jury When the preliminary hearing wraps up tomorrow afternoon Rosenthal said he will again appeal to the court to let his client out on bail Rosenthal has compared Brant to Martin Luther King A civil rights lawyer and mathematics professor at University of Toronto Rosenthal told the Whig Standard he took Brant s case because he believes in Brant s stated mission to create awareness of aboriginal poverty and oppression In my view the protest that they did was very justified in light of the horrors that have been done to them he said I hope the Canadian government starts to really rectify some of those injustices so that protests are not required in the future Several Crown witnesses presented evidence at yesterday s hearing including lead investigator OPP Det Const Doug Weiss and Sgt Kristine Rae community services co ordinator for the OPP in Eastern Ontario Managers from CN Rail also took the stand but no evidence can be published because evidence at preliminary inquiries is generally forbidden under publication bans The hearing continues today OPP commissioner Julian Fantino is expected to testify tomorrow Brant s trial date may be set this week Arar report exposes RCMP government officials complicit in torture 2006 10 18 18 Oct 2006 Categories National Security The coalition of groups with intervener status at the Arar Inquiry including the Law Union released the following statement in response to the commission s final report September 18 2006 Ottawa Justice Dennis O Connor has confirmed the worst fears of Organizations with Intervenor Status at the Arar Inquiry that Canadian officials were complicit in the torture of Maher Arar and other Canadian citizens Justice O Connor has documented in astonishing detail how the very officials tasked with protecting the rights of these Canadian citizens failed to live up to that responsibility and worse yet were directly involved in passing on questions for interrogations where torture would be used said Alex Neve Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada The report details the callous disregard for the very real likelihood that government actions would directly contribute to the torture of these Canadian citizens In particular there is chilling reference to an October 10 2002 memo in which a Foreign Affairs official warns that a decision to send a line of questioning about Abdullah Almalki to Syrian security agencies might involve torture The RCMP chose to ignore the concern and proceeded anyway The RCMP are ready to send their Syrian counterparts a request that Al Malki be asked questions osed by the RCMP questions relating to other members of his organization Both ISI andDMSCUS HOM Ambassador Pillarella have pointed out to the

    Original URL path: http://www.lawunion.ca/category/news/national-security/page/2/ (2013-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive

  • National Security : Law Union of Ontario
    information or evidence is relevant but that its disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person h the judge shall provide the permanent resident or the foreign national with a summary of the information or evidence that enables them to be reasonably informed of the circumstances giving rise to the certificate but that does not include anything that in the opinion of the judge would be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person if disclosed i the judge shall provide the permanent resident or the foreign national with an opportunity to be heard regarding their inadmissibility and j the judge may receive into evidence anything that in the opinion of the judge is appropriate even if it is inadmissible in a court of law and may base the decision on that evidence S C 2001 c 27 s 78 in force June 28 2002 SI 2002 97 80 1 The judge shall on the basis of the information and evidence available determine whether the certificate is reasonable and whether the decision on the application for protection if any is lawfully made 2 The judge shall quash a certificate if the judge is of the opinion that it is not reasonable If the judge does not quash the certificate but determines that the decision on the application for protection is not lawfully made the judge shall quash the decision and suspend the proceeding to allow the Minister to make a decision on the application for protection 3 The determination of the judge is final and may not be appealed or judicially reviewed S C 2001 c 27 s 80 in force June 28 2002 SI 2002 97 81 If a certificate is determined to be reasonable under subsection 80 1 a it is conclusive proof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmissible b it is a removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the necessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing and c the person named in it may not apply for protection under subsection 112 1 S C 2001 c 27 s 81 in force June 28 2002 SI 2002 97 82 1 The Minister and the Solicitor General of Canada may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of a permanent resident who is named in a certificate described in subsection 77 1 if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the permanent resident is a danger to national security or to the safety of any person or is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal 2 A foreign national who is named in a certificate described in subsection 77 1 shall be detained without the issue of a warrant 83 1 Not later than 48 hours after the beginning of detention of a permanent resident under section 82 a judge shall commence a review of the reasons for the continued detention Section 78 applies with respect to the review with any modifications that the circumstances require 2 The permanent resident must until a determination is made under subsection 80 1 be brought back before a judge at least once in the six month period following each preceding review and at any other times that the judge may authorize 3 A judge shall order the detention to be continued if satisfied that the permanent resident continues to be a danger to national security or to the safety of any person or is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal S C 2001 c 27 s 83 in force June 28 2002 SI 2002 97 84 1 The Minister may on application by a permanent resident or a foreign national order their release from detention to permit their departure from Canada 2 A judge may on application by a foreign national who has not been removed from Canada within 120 days after the Federal Court determines a certificate to be reasonable order the foreign national s release from detention under terms and conditions that the judge considers appropriate if satisfied that the foreign national will not be removed from Canada within a reasonable time and that the release will not pose a danger to national security or to the safety of any person S C 2001 c 27 s 84 in force June 28 2002 SI 2002 97 Loi sur l immigration et la protection des rà fugià s L C 2001 Ch 27 SS 34 77 78 80 81 82 83 84 34 1 Emportent interdiction de territoire pour raison de sà curità les faits suivants a ï Œtre l auteur d actes d espionnage ou se livrer ï la subversion contre toute institution dà mocratique au sens oï ª cette expression s entend au Canada b ï Œtre l instigateur ou l auteur d actes visant au renversement d un gouvernement par la force c se livrer au terrorisme d constituer un danger pour la sà curità du Canada e ï Œtre l auteur de tout acte de violence susceptible de mettre en danger la vie ou la sà curità d autrui au Canada f ï Œtre membre d une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu elle est a à tà ou sera l auteur d un acte visà aux alinà as a b ou c 2 Ces faits n emportent pas interdiction de territoire pour le rà sident permanent ou l à tranger qui convainc le ministre que sa prà sence au Canada ne serait nullement prà judiciable ï l intà rï Œt national 77 1 Le ministre et le solliciteur gà nà ral du Canada dà posent ï la Section de premiï re instance de la Cour fà dà rale le certificat attestant qu un rà sident permanent ou qu un à tranger est interdit de territoire pour raison de sà curità ou pour atteinte aux droits humains ou internationaux grande criminalità ou criminalità organisà e pour qu il en soit disposà au titre de l article 80 2 Il ne peut ï Œtre procà dà ï aucune instance visant le rà sident permanent ou l à tranger au titre de la prà sente loi tant qu il n a pas à tà statuà sur le certificat n est pas visà e la demande de protection prà vue au paragraphe 112 1 78 Les rï gles suivantes s appliquent ï l affaire a le juge entend l affaire b le juge est tenu de garantir la confidentialità des renseignements justifiant le certificat et des autres à là ments de preuve qui pourraient lui ï Œtre communiquà s et dont la divulgation porterait atteinte selon lui ï la sà curità nationale ou ï la sà curità d autrui c il procï de dans la mesure oï ª les circonstances et les considà rations d à quità et de justice naturelle le permettent sans formalisme et selon la procà dure expà ditive d il examine dans les sept jours suivant le dà pà t du certificat et ï huis clos les renseignements et autres à là ments de preuve e ï chaque demande d un ministre il examine en l absence du rà sident permanent ou de l à tranger et de son conseil tout ou partie des renseignements ou autres à là ments de preuve dont la divulgation porterait atteinte selon lui ï la sà curità nationale ou ï la sà curità d autrui f ces renseignements ou à là ments de preuve doivent ï Œtre remis aux ministres et ne peuvent servir de fondement ï l affaire soit si le juge dà cide qu ils ne sont pas pertinents ou l à tant devraient faire partie du rà sumà soit en cas de retrait de la demande g si le juge dà cide qu ils sont pertinents mais que leur divulgation porterait atteinte ï la sà curità nationale ou ï celle d autrui ils ne peuvent faire partie du rà sumà mais peuvent servir de fondement ï l affaire h le juge fournit au rà sident permanent ou ï l à tranger afin de lui permettre d ï Œtre suffisamment informà des circonstances ayant donnà lieu au certificat un rà sumà de la preuve ne comportant aucun à là ment dont la divulgation porterait atteinte selon lui ï la sà curità nationale ou ï la sà curità d autrui i il donne au rà sident permanent ou ï l à tranger la possibilità d ï Œtre entendu sur l interdiction de territoire le visant j il peut recevoir et admettre en preuve tout à là ment qu il estime utile mï Œme inadmissible en justice et peut fonder sa dà cision sur celui ci 80 1 Le juge dà cide du caractï re raisonnable du certificat et le cas à chà ant de la là galità de la dà cision du ministre compte tenu des renseignements et autres à là ments de preuve dont il dispose 2 Il annule le certificat dont il ne peut conclure qu il est raisonnable si l annulation ne vise que la dà cision du ministre il suspend l affaire pour permettre au ministre de statuer sur celle ci 3 La dà cision du juge est dà finitive et n est pas susceptible d appel ou de contrà le judiciaire 81 Le certificat jugà raisonnable fait foi de l interdiction de territoire et constitue une mesure de renvoi en vigueur et sans appel sans qu il soit nà cessaire de procà der au contrà le ou ï l enquï Œte la personne visà e ne peut dï s lors demander la protection au titre du paragraphe 112 1 82 1 Le ministre et le solliciteur gà nà ral du Canada peuvent lancer un mandat pour l arrestation et la mise en dà tention du rà sident permanent visà au certificat dont ils ont des motifs raisonnables de croire qu il constitue un danger pour la sà curità nationale ou la sà curità d autrui ou qu il se soustraira vraisemblablement ï la procà dure ou au renvoi 2 L à tranger nommà au certificat est mis en dà tention sans nà cessità de mandat 83 1 Dans les quarante huit heures suivant le dà but de la dà tention du rà sident permanent le juge entreprend le contrà le des motifs justifiant le maintien en dà tention l article 78 s appliquant avec les adaptations nà cessaires au contrà le 2 Tant qu il n est pas statuà sur le certificat l intà ressà comparaà t au moins une fois dans les six mois suivant chaque contrà le ou sur autorisation du juge 3 L intà ressà est maintenu en dà tention sur preuve qu il constitue toujours un danger pour la sà curità nationale ou la sà curità d autrui ou qu il se soustraira vraisemblablement ï la procà dure ou au renvoi 84 1 Le ministre peut sur demande mettre le rà sident permanent ou l à tranger en libertà s il veut quitter le Canada 2 Sur demande de l à tranger dont la mesure de renvoi n a pas à tà exà cutà e dans les cent vingt jours suivant la dà cision sur le certificat le juge peut aux conditions qu il estime indiquà es le mettre en libertà sur preuve que la mesure ne sera pas exà cutà e dans un dà lai raisonnable et que la mise en libertà ne constituera pas un danger pour la sà curità nationale ou la sà curità d autrui Dope Sheet Column May 18 2005 2006 03 21 21 Mar 2006 Categories National Security DOPE SHEET COLUMN May 18 2005 CSIS TURNING A BLIND EYE TO TORTURE In December 2002 Mohamed Harkat was arrested on a Security Certificate issued under Section 77 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Since that time Mr Harkat has been detained at the Ottawa Detention Centre Madam Justice Eleanor Dawson of the Federal Court under Section 80 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act conducted the proceedings to determine whether the certificate signed by the two Ministers was â œreasonableâ On March 22nd 2005 Justice Dawson found that the certificate was reasonable The result of that decision is that Mr Harkat is now subject to removal from Canada He remains in jail while we await the decision of the Ministerâ s Delegate on whether Mr Harkat should be returned to his home country Algeria Submissions have been made to Canada Border Services based on two reports from experts on Algeria that Mr Harkat should not be returned to Algeria because he is likely to be tortured or killed in that country In this article I do not propose to review any aspect of the case other than the issue of how CSIS deals with evidence obtained by torture In all security certificate cases after the Judge has reviewed the matter the person concerned receives a document entitled â œStatement Summarizing the Information and Evidence Pursuant to Section 78 h of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act IRPA â In Mr Harkatâ s case leaving aside the supporting documents the summary was made up of 42 paragraphs spread out over 17 pages Under a heading entitled â œHarkatâ s Links with the Bin Laden Networkâ at paragraph 39 the following appears 39 The Service believes that HARKAT has associated with Abu Zubaida one of Osama Bin Ladenâ s top lieutenants since the early 1990â s Abu Zubaida was recently captured in Pakistan and has been reported to be cooperative with the United States authorities When I took over this case from Rocco Galati and Bruce Engel in June of 2004 the first thing I did was argue two appeals that they have filed in the Federal Court of Appeal After losing those appeals I then drafted a 25 page letter to James Mathieson Counsel for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service CSIS The letter contained 231 questions and was sent pursuant to an order Justice Dawson had made on July 29th 2003 Concerning Abu Zubaida the letter contained the following In paragraph 32 reference is made to Abu Zubaida When I first read the sentence in that paragraph â œAbu Zubaida was recently captured in Pakistan and has been reported to be cooperative with the United States authoritiesâ I thought it was likely that the term â œreported to be cooperativeâ meant that Abu Zubaida was being tortured by US personal or by the persons assisting the U S government in extracting information from Mr Zubaida On June 28th 2004 the attached article appeared in the Globe and Mail That article makes reference to a memo that suggested that the White House condoned the use of torture I would point out the portion at the bottom of the second column of the article â œThe White House has since disavowed the memo which sprang specifically from an internal debate in Washington about how to extract information from Abu Zubaydah one of Osama Bin Ladenâ s top deputies after his capture in April 2002â Also attached is an article â œA Tortured Debateâ from the June 21 Newsweek magazine That article makes reference to a legal memo prompted by CIA questions about what to do with Abu Zubaydah The memo prepared by the Justice Departmentâ s Office of Legal Counsel defends most interrogation methods short of severe intentionally inflicted pain and permanent damage I also posed the following questions concerning Abu Zubaydah the American spelling of his name The Memorandum referred to in those articles is what became known as the Alberto Gonzalezâ Memorandum There will be more on that Memorandum later in this article In regard to paragraph 39 would you please provide me with details of any association between my client and Abu Zubaydah 51 Would you please advise Justice Dawson of all evidence in the possession of the Service that establishes that association 52 Please provide her with the transcripts of the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah 53 Those transcripts should allow her to ascertain if the interrogators put my clientâ s name to Abu Zubaydah or if he came up with the name Did Canadian security authorities provide my clientâ s name to the Americans before Zubaydah was interrogated 54 In paragraph 39 you indicate the Service believes there is an association between my client and Abu Zubaydah Would you please advise Justice Dawson of the training and expertise of those members of the Service who came to that conclusion 55 As with all other correspondence sent to James Mathieson the Counsel for CSIS a copy of the correspondence was sent to the Federal Court and Justice Dawson All of the correspondence became part of the Record in the case On July 16th 2004 in relation to the issue of the torture of Abu Zubaida I sent to Mr Mathieson and to the Court a copy of the document dated August 1st 2002 entitled Memorandum for Alberto R Gonzales Counsel to the President I had obtained that document from the Arar inquiry The Memorandum was written by Jay S Bybee Assistant Attorney General and runs on for a terrifying 46 pages Mr Bybee was in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U S Department of Justice The Memorandum deals with the standards of conduct under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment The complete Memorandum can be obtained from the Arar Commission Their website is http www ararcommission ca eng In the Summary portion of the Definition of Torture at page 13 the following appears Each component of the definition of torture emphasizes that torture is not the mere infliction of pain or suffering on another but is instead a step well removed The victim must experience intense pain or suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe that death organ failure or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body function will likely result The Memorandum for Alberto Gonzales was written in relation to how the Americans or their proxies should deal with Abu Zubaida New York Times Article June 27 2004 On July 23rd 2004 I received from Mr Mathieson the Summary in relation to Abu Zubaida which was issued by the Court in April 2003 The three line Summary which is all we ever received concerning whatever Abu Zubaida had said about my client reads as follows A foreign agency advised the Service in March 2003 that Abu ZUBAIDA was able to identify the respondent HARKAT by his physical description and his activities including that he operated a guesthouse in Peshawar Pakistan in the mid 1990s for mujahedeen travelling to Chechnya In regard to the issue of torture of Abu Zubaida in his letter of July 23rd 2004 Mr Mathieson said as follows As you can see we are therefore relying upon information which originates with Mr ZUBAIDA However you appear to making certain assumptions in your correspondence with respect to Mr ZUBAIDA Your assumptions do not appear to be supported by reliable evidence I would not necessarily categorize a media report from the Internet or the European or North American media as constituting reliable evidence of torture On July 24th 2004 I sent an e mail to Mr Mathieson The relevant portion of the e mail was as follows I acknowledge receipt of your fax dated July 23 and the three line summary re a â œforeign agencyâ advising the Service of information obtain from Abu Zubaida Given the media coverage about the capture of Abu Zubaida I am amazed that the Service does not state they got the information from the Americans I want to see specifically what the American extracted from Abu Zubaida If you wonâ t show it to me show it to Justice Dawson I presume from the summary that Abu Zubaida did not identify Mr Harkat by name How do the Americans link whatever they extracted from Abu Zubaida to my client It appears that the information from Abu Zubaida does not place whomever he identified as having been in Afghanistan What evidence does the Service have that places my client in Afghanistan What disturbs me the most about what you sent me is that you say my â œassumptions about the torture of Abu Zubaida do not appear to be supported by reliable evidenceâ Does the Service and do you take the position that the Americans and their proxies did not and do not torture prisoners Did you read the Memo for Alberto Gonzales that I sent you I would be prepared to match Mark Hosenball for reliability on American human rights and Geneva Convention violations and intelligence information against any CSIS operative you care to put up Whether Justice Dawson will choose Hosenball over your person remains to be seen Are you prepared to go to the U S and take Commission Evidence as to whether Abu Zubaida was tortured On August 3rd 2004 I sent a letter to Mr Mathieson with a copy to the Court The portion of the letter relating to Abu Zubaida reads as follows Abu Zubaida Based on what you said in your letter of July 23rd 2004 it appears to me that it will be necessary for me to try and prove to the court that Abu Zubaida was tortured by to use your words â œa foreign agencyâ The three line summary that was issued by the court in April 2003 is to say the least extremely brief Please provide to me or to Justice Dawson the following information 1 The full and complete report received by â œa foreign agencyâ that in any way relates to my client 2 Please provide to me or to the court the physical description given of the person that your Service identifies as Harkat 3 Please advise me or the court of the exact date that Abu Zubaida specified when reference is made to the mid 1990â s You of course are aware that my client came to Canada in 1995 Please advise me or the court the manner by which the physical description given by Abu Zubaida is connected with my clientâ s name Did the Service specifically request the Americans or the Pakistanis to question Abu Zubaida about my client Did the Service provide a physical description of my client Comments relating to Abu Zubaida appeared in Chapter 6 of the 9 11 Commission Report That Chapter was sent to Mr Mathieson and the Court That Chapter makes links between Abu Zubaida and Ahmed Ressam the Millennium bomber A memorandum was prepared for an August 3rd 2004 conference call with the Court Among the issues that I said needed discussion in the conference call were the following 4 Whether the information obtained from Abu Zubaida was obtained under torture Because of the nature of these proceedings it is unlikely that counsel for Mr Harkat will be allowed to cross examine any witnesses or to learn the details of what information was provided by Abu Zubaida It is our position that the information obtained from Abu Zubaida if it actually identifies Mr Harkat should be given little or no weight if the information was obtained under torture 5 If we are going to have to litigate the circumstances in which the information was obtained from Abu Zubaida counsel will need to contact Mark Hosenball and to gather information from the Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York City The Centre has been the lead legal organization in regard to the treatment of prisoners post September 11th The Centre was involved in recent cases in the Supreme Court of the United States involving prisoners detained at Guantanamo Cuba and detained as enemy combatants in the United States On August 10th 2004 Mr Mathieson in response to the matter raised in the telephone conference said the following If the Court is of the view that your allegations with respect to the treatment of Abu Zubaida are relevant to that issue then you have the discretion to call whatever evidence you have to support your allegations In October 2004 we provided to CSIS and to the Court extracts from a Human Rights Watch Report Briefing paper entitled â œThe United Statesâ Disappeared The CIAâ s Long Term â Ghost Detaineesâ â That paper is available on the Human Rights Watch website http www hrw org As well we filed a declaration from Steven Watt who was then working for the Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York CCR The CCR has been involved at the forefront of all of the work in the United States concerning human rights abuses post September 11 including cases in the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and the treatment of enemy combatants the lawsuit on behalf of Maher Arar and lawsuits filed on behalf immigrants rounded up arbitrarily detained and mistreated by the FBI and U S Immigration and Naturalization Services post September 11th 2001 Mr Watt concluded his declaration by saying that It is clear that detainees in U S custody and control in Afghanistan Guantanamo and other undisclosed locations including Abu Zubaydah have been subject to a regime of treatment including interrogations which constitutes cruel inhuman or degrading treatment and in many instances torture In December we argued the issue of the admissibility of the evidence of Abu Zubaida For that hearing we filed with the Court all of the material noted above I also filed with the Court the transcript of the evidence from the Arar inquiry of former CSIS Director Ward Elcock Mr Elcock testified on the 21st and 22nd of June 2004 The transcript of that testimony is available on the Arar inquiry website On five occasions during the course of his cross examination by Lorne Waldman counsel for Mr Arar Mr Elcock declined or avoided answering the question as to whether Syria is a country that engages in torture At page 233 of the Transcript from June 21st 2004 a sample of Mr Elcokâ s testimony MR WALDMAN I just looked at the Website of the Department of State and you said you are familiar with that the Human Rights Reports Very quickly and cursorily I saw that Saudi Arabia Syria Jordan India Sri Lanka Tunisia Libya Pakstan Kazakhstan and Afghanistan all are countries for which the Department of State has identified they use torture in order to interrogate people Do we have information sharing agreements with any of the countries I am not asking you to specify which ones but with some of them MS McISAAC Counsel for the government of Canada Again Mr Chairman that is the question that elicits information over which the Attorney General claims national security confidentiality MR WALDMAN Do we have information sharing agreements with countries that engage in torture Can you answer that question MR ELCOCK The think the problem is that I donâ t know what countries necessarily engage in torture There are certainly allegations that certain countries do but I have no independent knowledge in most cases that any country has engaged in torture Clearly that information if we have information from reports such as Amnesty International the State Department or any information we may have independently that indicates that generally speaking or on occasion a service does use torture then that will have clear implications for the way in which we assess the information MR WALDMAN Are you telling me that if the Department of State of the United States and its Human Rights Reports says that these countries engage in torture you are still going to say â œIâ m not sure that they doâ Is that your position Is your position then that â œI am going to close my eyes to torture until I see the person putting the electric cattle prods on the individualâ Is that your position sir MR ELCOCK I didnâ t say that was my position at all I just said that MR WALDMAN You just said that I thought you just said that You said that â œI donâ t know if these countries engage in torture I read the reportsâ I asked you if you read the Department of State report and you said â œI didâ Do you believe that Syria engages in torture sir MR ELCOCK The fact of those reports is simply that they allege that Syria or other countries use torture That is not necessarily MR WALDMAN I am asking you if THE COMMISSIONER Mr Waldman do let him finish Let him finish the answer and then you can ask the next question MR WALDMAN I am just asking you â Iâ m not asking you whether THE COMMISSIONER He was MR WALDMAN I am asking you a personal question sir what your opinion is which is highly relevant As a Director of CSIS do you believe that Syria engages in torture having read the Department of State reports a simple yes or no MR ELCOCK I have seen the reports I can suspect that Syrian may engage in torture I have no confirmation of that one way or the other MR WALDMAN I am not asking a confirmation I am asking you your belief based upon the reports the Amnesty International the Special Rapporteur on Torture from the United Nations the Department of State they all say that Syria engages in torture in interrogation of people Iâ m asking you whether you believe that Syria engages in torture It is a simple yes or no question Are you going to give it to me MR ELCOCK It is not a simple yes or no question MR WALDMAN Why not Why isnâ t your belief MR ELCOCK Because all of those documents simply provide conclusions I have no knowledge as to the background of those documents the evidence that they rely on or anything else MR WALDMAN This is really MR ELCOCK So I canâ t make any conclusion on the basis of those documents except that they provide an indicator to us that some services may indeed use torture MR WALDMAN Okay This is really fascinating You just have spent the whole day telling us about how intelligence operations work You put together little pieces of a puzzle and you reach a conclusion Isnâ t that correct MR ELCOCK Yes MR WALDMAN At a certain point you form an opinion that something is happening Is that correct MR ELCOCK Thatâ s true MR WALDMAN So I am asking you a simple question You have read these documents you know how these services work you know the societies Iâ m asking you to put the pieces of the puzzle together and to give me an opinion Does Syria engage in torture yes or no Why can you do it with respect to Sunni extremists or whatever as you identify them or other people but you are not willing to do it about a foreign State from whom you receive information MR ELCOCK The reality of our investigations is MR WALDMAN Sorry I donâ t want to interrupt you MR ELCOCK We carry out investigations of individuals and or of people who may be regarded as a threat to the security of Canada At the end of the day the issue of whether or not a service indulges in torture or not is something we can investigate it is something simply on which we can collect enough information in order to be in a position to assess the quality of that service the reliability of that service whether or not they do use torture in their investigations and whether or not we should be alive to those possibilities in receiving any information from any service like that if we had a relationship with such a service MR WALDMAN But at the end of the day isnâ t it highly relevant that you form an opinion as to whether a particular service engages in torture so that you can determine the reliability of the information of that service MR ELCOCK It is not necessary that I necessarily form that opinion It may be that it will be crucial in terms of the exchange of information that those who make the decisions on a day to day basis to send information have that and that we have worked with the Department of Foreign Affairs to make sure we have a view of those issues MR WALDMAN But arenâ t you the person who is responsible for determining whether or not we get into arrangements Didnâ t you just testify earlier today that it was your responsibility to decide whether we get into arrangements and you are the one who made the ultimate decision MR ELCOCK In terms of entering into an arrangement the Minister has ultimately to consent to those arrangements and I make that recommendation to the Minister MR WALDMAN So you donâ t think it is relevant in the context of that that you form an opinion as to whether a State engages in torture when you advise the Minister MR ELCOCK That would be an issue which we would put before the Minister if there were any concerns with respect to the human rights record of a country that we were proposing to enter into a relationship with MR WALDMAN But are you telling me that when you make a recommendation to the Minister about an information sharing with letâ s say hypothetically Syria MR ELCOCK At the end of the day if I make the recommendation to the Minister I am making the recommendation to the Minister that we enter into an arrangement with a country because it is essential to protecting Canadian security that we do so MR WALDMAN But I think the Director requires you to take into account the Human Rights Record MR ELCOCK We balance a lot of things including the Human Rights Record of the country in question to the best of our ability to know something about it MR WALDMAN If you are going to balance that how can you balance that if you donâ t form an opinion about Syria or any other country whether they engage in torture I just find it rather shocking that you are going to enter into an agreement with a foreign State when you acknowledge that there is all this documentation out there that says they engage in torture and you donâ t form an opinion as to whether they engage in torture Is that your evidence today MR ELCOCK You asked me if I had an opinion about whether Syria engaged in torture I canâ t offer you that opinion But the reality is when I make a recommendation to the Minister in respect of any country then obviously we have balanced all of the concerns including the Human Rights Record of the country involved and ultimately if we recommended to the Minister we have recommended to the Minister because it is important in our view in terms of Canadaâ s security to secure that relationship in order to share information if we can with that service MR WALDMAN You are reluctant to talk about Syria because you donâ t want to acknowledge that Syria might have entered am I reading you right that you donâ t want to acknowledge that you might have made a recommendation to the Minister and found that Syria engaged in torture â â MR WALDMAN I donâ t know if I got an answer to this question To your knowledge do we have foreign agreements with countries that according to your assessments when you make the recommendation to the Minister engage in torture MR ELCOCK We may well have arrangements with countries that we suspect may engage in torture

    Original URL path: http://www.lawunion.ca/category/news/national-security/page/3/ (2013-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Arar report exposes RCMP, government officials complicit in torture : Law Union of Ontario
    nonetheless decided to send their request Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar Analysis and Recommendations page 209 Intervenors welcome Justice O Connor s recommendation that a further process of independent and credible review into the cases of Mr Abdullah Almalki Mr Ahmad El Maati and Mr Muayyed Nureddin be instituted Analysis and Recommendations page 278 and urge the government to act on this recommendation without further delay These men have waited far too long for answers and accountability Organizations intervening at the Arar Commission are also pleased that Justice O Connor says that his Interim Report should remove any taint or suspicion that Mr Arar has committed any offence or constitutes any threat to the security of Canada Anaylsis and Recommendations page 59 Justice O Connor is also clearly of the view that Mr Arar is entitled to compensation and has encouraged the Canadian government to be flexible in how that compensation should be assessed recognizing the suffering he has been through the damage of the improper and unfair leaks his difficulty in finding employment and the impact of the inquiry itself Justice O Connor has also signaled that an apology might be appropriate Analysis and Recommendations page 362 363 The report offers a staggering catalogue of deficiencies mistakes and even deliberate wrongdoing all of which laid the ground for the severe abuses suffered by Mr Arar and the other three men named in this report said Neve Those responsible should be held accountable and the reforms recommended by Justice O Connor should be immediately implemented in order to guard against future repeats of these tragedies Justice O Connor has also recommended that Canadian agencies involved in national security investigations implement written policies prohibiting racial religious or ethnic profiling and training to sensitize those agencies to the realities

    Original URL path: http://www.lawunion.ca/2006/10/arar-report-exposes-rcmp-government-officials-complicit-in-torture/ (2013-06-03)
    Open archived version from archive