People who know me, who've read about my stances on fighting Islamic fascism, and fighting to defend liberty may not be aware of my position on the Canadian Government's use of security certificates: I am positively a naysayer.
Brought in by the Liberal Party as part of the anti-terrorism legislation passed after the September 11th attacks, these certificates are issued by the Solicitor General of Canada, and have the effect of detaining indefinitely, foreign nationals living in Canada, without charge.
The justification for the use of this system is sound in and of itself; detain foreign nationals, for whom our intelligence agencies have reason to believe represent a threat to national security.
The real effect of the security certificates however, is to lower the burden on law enforcement, remove the principle of habeas corpus from the process, and detain the individuals for as long is necessary to collect evidence to prosecute the case.
Certainly the use of security certificates is restricted to non-citizens, and some would say that the presence of non-citizens in Canada is a matter of privilege (agreed), and therefore due process does not apply (no-agree).
Today, the government has finally released the basis for the use of security certificates against five foreign nationals.
In the case of four of the detained, it would seem that the suspicion of conspiracy is tied with real criminal action. But in the case of the fifth man, now free on house arrest, Mohamed Harkat, the entire basis for his detention was entirely hinged on hearsay. His name was allegedly mentioned by Ahmed Ressam, in interrogations with US authorities. And I say allegedly, because even CSIS acknowledges they have no recorded proof that Ahmed Ressam ever uttered his name.
As much as what CSIS tells me about Harkat makes me suspicious of his motives, one must sit back and be reasonable and ask one self if: maybe-some-guy-said-to-some-US-guy-that-some-terrorist-guy-said-something is justification for indefinite detention?
Could it be justification for deportation? Almost definitely. In fact, I would argue, that it would have been far more appropriate for Canadian authorities to revoke his status in Canada on the grounds of "national security concerns" and deport him.
I know even this won't satisfy the bleeding hearts out there who don't even believe terrorism really exists (it's a Machevallian CIA plot, you know), but it's more than appropriate to apply high security standards to immigration process.
I must admit though: I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that CSIS is a complete incompetent organization.
If I were working Harkat's case at CSIS, with reason to believe he was part of a sleeper cell, I'd setup a tight surveillance network around Harkat to collect real evidence of his involvement with a terrorist organization, especially to help track down other members of the network.
I just don't see what having him detained on the hearsay of some other captured terrorist, for whom we have little to no reason to believe, is a productive approach to combatting terrorism.
The free speech movement in this country has recently been galvanized by the encroachments on our liberty by Human Rights Commissions. We must also remember that legal due process is an important part of our liberty. It is another safeguard against fascist tendencies of ideologues.
If we believe in our system, our democracy, then surely we don't throw it away in the name of public safety, because I contend that the threat of tyranny is far more ominous to me than any terrorist organization.
Oddly interesting that, to my knowlwedge, no one ever thought to launch a HRC complaint on behalf of Harkat. That would make a great headline: "When Tyrannys collide". Kidding aside I doubt that CSIS has either the manpower or budget to conduct operations as you suggest. Deportation was the best course.
*sigh*. I was interested in this latest manifestation of Mike Brock's narcissistic personality disorder, but I see it's just going to attract the same old tedious obsessive compulsives.
This is the first time I've read your blog. I think that you would find much in common with Radley Balko (theagitator.com).
I'll look in often. Good luck.
chsw
Mike
I don't know if you have read the actual indictment. It can be found here:
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/Harkat.pdf
I did a quick read of the paper and my initial impressions are that what sunk Harakat is not the alleged remark by Ressam but the fact that he lied/contradicted himself so many times. Also, they’re a bunch of connections with people that just a little too suspicious. If I get a chance (and the time!) hopefully I can do a little bit more of an in-depth analysis.
Ciao for now.
in pharmacies canadian
wedding bands men's
news yahoo
news yahoo