|
Post by ocelot on Dec 8, 2006 10:22:51 GMT -5
Canadian turned back by Americans wants answers, compensation
OTTAWA (CP) - An Ottawa man who was turned back by American authorities when he tried to make a business trip to Chicago in October is asking the federal government to help him win an explanation and compensation from the United States.
Ali SeifAnNasr, a Canadian of Arab background, says he was stopped at Chicago's O'Hare airport en route to a training session with a U.S. company that hired him as a business analyst.
He says he was declared inadmissible to the United States, but was not told why.
He was questioned, detained overnight and then put on a plane back to Ottawa the next morning.
He wants a chance to clear his name and get compensation for the loss of his consulting work.
Paul Dewar, an Ottawa-area New Democrat MP, has taken up his cause and is urging the federal government to help.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Dec 8, 2006 10:36:15 GMT -5
I have heard this story way too many times. Canadians with Arab background being turned away from entering the US. I've heard this story at least 5 times. This is wrong. What would Americans feel if Canada started to stop African-Americans from entering Canada because they could be involved in gangs?
I hope that Ali SeifAnNasr gets compensation and answers. People do not deserve to have their freedom lessed because of religion, or race.
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Dec 8, 2006 17:59:59 GMT -5
I have a few questions regarding this report, which seems to give very little information for the reader to decide for themselves what conclusions to draw from it. Question #1:The report says that this man was questioned. Okay, what questions was he asked? What were his answers? Were the questions that he was asked any different in nature from the questioning that others who are questioned get? Do only Arab Canadians get stopped and questioned? Furthermore, why was he questioned? He is claiming that he was questioned because of his Arab background. Does his claiming so make it true, or could there be more to the story that we as of yet are not being told? Question #2:The report says that he was detained overnight and then put on a plane back to Ottawa the next morning. What were the American Authorities reasons for detaining this man? The report nowhere gives their response to this story. Is it possible that the American Authorities had very good reason to detain this man and turn him back, or is that totally out of the possibilty of questioning? Are Arab Canadians the only people who get detained trying to get into the United States? Are there ever any Catholic Canadians, or Protestant Canadians, or black Canadians who get detained as well, or is it specifically just Arab Canadians? Detentions happen when crossing borders all over the world, and many times it is nothing more than a technicality or some information that is not valid or proper. Is it possible that this could be such a case? Question #3:This man says that he was declared inadmissable but was not told why. Does that make it so, or could he be not telling us everything? Leona, possibly you could answer these questions for me, along with a few that I have for your observations. Question #4:You are saying that you have heard this story way too many times....at least five such times. In your declaring that this is wrong, are you comparing the Arab Canadian detainees with all the other detainees that happen on both sides of the border? Exactly what is the percentage of Arab Canadian detentions to those of other people that causes you to say "this is wrong"? Question #5:Leona, are we to assume then that if a black American gets questioned and detained at the border it is solely because Canada doesn't want to risk the possibility that he may be involved in a gang? Or is it possible that the reason that a black American trying to cross the border may be denied for any number of legitimate reasons? Leona, you say that you "hope that Ali SeifAnNasr gets compensation and answers." Well, I hope that he gets answers, and if it is found in the end that he was wronged, I hope that he gets just compensation as well. You also say that "People do not deserve to have their freedom lessed because of religion, or race." On this I agree with you totally. But people do not deserve to get a free pass either simply due to their religion or race. And authority, whether American or Canadian, does not automatically deserve to be judged as wrong before the facts are made known. Great topic! I hope you can answer some of these for me!
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Dec 9, 2006 0:48:59 GMT -5
Question #1:
Arabs aren't the only ones that are questioned but Arabs are much more likely to be questioned because of their race. I don't have any stats but Arabs have been known to be questioned ay a higher rate than other races. I don't know the answers to your other questions. If I did I would be saying more about it.
Question #2:
The American Authorities have not given any response to why they detained him. They refused to tell him (according to him). There are others that get detained but it's not respected businessmen of those other ethnicities (at least I haven't heard of any).
Question #3:
He could not be telling the whole story, that is highly possible. The problem is that the US authorities have been so secretive about things like these and they very rarely give any answers.
Question #4:
The thing that I'm saying is wrong is the people who get detained and turned back without being given any legitimate reason why they are detained. I have no problem with people being detained and turned back if they have committed crimes or have been involved in situations (like riots and non-peaceful protests) that could cause problems in the country they are going to. The problem that is that the US Authorites have been detaining Arabs without any solid justification. (I will post any article on this)
Question #5:
Any person could be detained for any amount of reasons, but the reasons are usually legitimate (involved in violence, gangs, charged with a crime, etc.). There have been very few (if any)complaints about detaining people because of race, or religion.
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Dec 9, 2006 0:51:08 GMT -5
Scores of Muslim Men Jailed Without Charge Justice Department Misused Material Witness Law in Counterterrorism Efforts(New York, June 27, 2005)—Operating behind a wall of secrecy, the U.S. Department of Justice thrust scores of Muslim men living in the United States into a Kafkaesque world of indefinite detention without charge and baseless accusations of terrorist links, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union said in a report released today. Haste, incompetence and prejudice played a role in these detentions. Muslim men were arrested for little more than attending the same mosque as a September 11 hijacker or owning a box-cutter. Anjana Malhotra, the report’s author and Aryeh Neier fellow at Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union Following the September 11 attacks, the Justice Department held the 70 men—all but one Muslim—under a narrow federal law that permits the arrest and brief detention of “material witnesses” who have important information about a crime, if they might otherwise flee to avoid testifying before a grand jury or in court. Although federal officials suspected the men of involvement in terrorism, they held them as material witnesses, not criminal suspects. Almost half of the witnesses were never brought before a grand jury or court to testify. The U.S. government has apologized to 13 for wrongfully detaining them. Only a handful were ever charged with crimes related to terrorism. “These men were victims of a Justice Department that was willing to do an end run around the law,” said Jamie Fellner, director of Human Rights Watch’s U.S. Program. “Criminal suspects are treated better than these material witnesses were.” The 101-page report, “Witness to Abuse: Human Rights Abuses under the Material Witness Law since September 11,” documents how the Justice Department denied the witnesses fundamental due process safeguards. Many were not informed of the reason for their arrest, allowed immediate access to a lawyer, nor permitted to see the evidence used against them. The Justice Department evaded fundamental protections for the suspects and the legal requirements for arrested witnesses. Their court proceedings were conducted behind closed doors, and all the court documents were sealed. “Haste, incompetence and prejudice played a role in these detentions,” said Anjana Malhotra, the report’s author and Aryeh Neier fellow at Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union. “Muslim men were arrested for little more than attending the same mosque as a September 11 hijacker or owning a box-cutter.” The Justice Department has refused to reveal how many material witnesses it has detained in connection with its counterterrorism investigations and has largely ignored repeated Congressional inquiries. After a year of extensive research, Human Rights Watch and the ACLU have confirmed 70 such material witnesses. Sixty-four were of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent; 17 were U.S. citizens, and all but one was Muslim. The report details how the Justice Department relied on false, flimsy or irrelevant evidence to secure arrest warrants for the men and to persuade courts that they were flight risks who had to be incarcerated. Almost all the men, in fact, had cooperated with federal authorities before their arrest. Many proved to have no information relevant to a criminal proceeding. “On the domestic front, the Justice Department’s unlawful use of the material witness statute is perhaps the most extreme but least well-known of the government’s post-September 11 abuses,” said Lee Gelernt, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The material witness abuses are a prime example of what happens when there is no public scrutiny of the government’s actions.” Witnesses were typically arrested at gunpoint, held around the clock in solitary confinement, and subjected to the harsh and degrading high-security conditions usually reserved for prisoners accused or convicted of the most dangerous crimes. Corrections staff verbally harassed the detainees and, in some cases, physically abused them. The report found that one-third of the 70 confirmed material witnesses were incarcerated for at least two months. Some were imprisoned for more than six months, and one actually spent more than a year behind bars. According to the report, the Justice Department apparently used the material witness statute to buy time to conduct fishing expeditions for evidence to justify arrests on criminal or immigration charges. When there was no such evidence, the Justice Department simply held the men under the material witness law until it concluded that it had no further use for them or until a judge finally ordered their release. The report also documents the long-term effects of the Justice Department’s material witness policy on witnesses and their families. While recovering from the trauma of being jailed in harsh conditions, witnesses often continued to live under a specter of suspicion. They faced lingering questions in the community about their ties to terrorism, even in cases when the government apologized. Many lost businesses and job opportunities, and some had to move to new communities to restart their lives. Testimony from Material Witnesses and Attorneys: “They treated us like professional terrorists. They put us in cars and had big guns—as if they were going to shoot people, as if we were Osama bin Laden. They didn’t let us speak, they didn’t let us ask why we were in detention. I never knew for how long we would stay in jail. It felt like we would stay forever … I didn’t even know why I was in jail.” —Tarek Omar, an Egyptian national arrested as a material witness in October 2001 with seven friends and relatives who had immigrated together from Egypt. The eight men later received an apology from the FBI for wrongful arrest. “Five to six cars surrounded my car. The agents pulled out shotguns and told me to get out of the car or they will shoot me. They told me they were about to shoot me. … I asked what’s going on? I’ve been so helpful. But three guys told me to put my hands on the car, they patted me down and shackled me. I asked what am I arrested for? Am I charged with something? … I got no answer. They shoved me against the car and handcuffed me. … They didn’t tell me why I was arrested—they said they’d explain in the main office. They didn’t read me Miranda rights. … I got in the car. They were so disrespectful and so rude. They told me to ‘shut the fuck up.’” —Mohdar Abdullah, a Yemeni national arrested as a material witness on September 21, 2001 in San Diego, California. “It’s hard to argue about a national security argument. Anytime I ask[ed] what the basis was it would be a canned national security argument. I would ask: ‘What’s the justification?’ The government responds: ‘National security.’ I would say, ‘What does that mean?’ The government would say: ‘I can’t tell you.’” —Susan Otto, an attorney who represented material witness Mujahid Menepta in Oklahoma. “I was transferred … to solitary confinement in the Special Housing Unit, or the ‘ninth floor hole.’ The room was maybe six-by-five feet. I was in a small cell for twenty-four hours a day with the lights on. Guards came every ten to fifteen minutes and banged on the door. They look through the hole and stare and looked at me. For two months, I left the cell only for interrogations. Later I was allowed outside after two months but they would leave me out in the freezing cold. I didn’t sleep for one or two months. The guards would bang on the door all night. They would say, ‘This is the guy—the Taliban guy,’ or call me ‘Khan Taliban.’ The guards said so many bad things. They told me: ‘You won’t ever see your family. You’re going to die here. Do you smell the WTC [World Trade Center] smoke? You’re gone. How would you like to die? With the electric chair?’ ... [Whenever I was taken out of my cell] they would twist my hands. My feet were shackled and guards would step on chains. I got a deep cut on my feet. I was stripped too many times to remember and hit on the back. I would be pushed against the wall. Whenever they took me to the FBI, guards would twist my hands and fingers and tell me to ‘Just shut up.’” —Ayub Ali Khan, an Indian national arrested as a material witness on September 12, 2001 in San Antonio, Texas and held in the Special Housing Unit at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York “They were threatening me with capital charges. … They believed it was me. They pretty much told us, ‘We have enough to indict you but not enough to prosecute.’” —Brandon Mayfield, a U.S. citizen arrested in May 2004 as a material witness after federal officials believed they matched his fingerprint to one found near the site of the March 2004 bombing in Madrid. He later received an apology from the Justice Department for a wrongful arrest. “ fter we were released we were in hell, you tell yourself, okay, well they released us so everyone should understand we are innocent, but that was not the case. Because I mean there are some people who support you and stuff like this but everyone is curious: did you snitch on somebody else, or did you make a deal with the government, or why were you released, or did you really do something or not. … It’s just like all this doubt in people’s mind. … At the time we lost about 30 to 40 percent of our business and then it kept getting worse and worse. And even when we got the apology and the newspaper wrote about it we thought we were going to be slammed because it’s an apology on the first page of the newspaper. And [business] is slow. But people remember we were caught and this kind of thing and [business got even] slower. Then the Evansville Courier made a poll on the internet where they asked people did [they] talk enough about the apology enough in the newspaper to give these people their dignity back. It was so funny to get the response because most of the response from people was, yes, they had enough, okay, they are innocent, [but] let’s go back to our life, if they don’t like it let’s tell them to go back to their home, we are trying to make the country safer.” —Tarek Albasti, an Egyptian national arrested as a material witness in October 2001 as one of the “Evansville Eight” to whom the federal government ultimately apologized for the wrongful arrests.
hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/27/usdom11213.htm
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Dec 9, 2006 10:37:24 GMT -5
I have a lot to respond to all of this, so I will do so by seperating each comment by post.
First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to make it known to our newest members Rachlle and Joanna that often times we engage in discussions such as this one where we do not always agree. Shavon is the creator of this forum, and she makes only one rule, and that is that we be friendly toward one another. Since the beginning we have always obeyed that one rule.
I think it is very important that we feel comfortable expressing our thoughts and views about topics that we would like to share. The ability to share our ideas is something that we should be able to do without fear of being put down for it.
Leona and I have been around at this forum since its beginning, and we have often disagreed about many subjects throughout. I cannot speak for her, but I myself value and respect her as a person immensely! I know her to be a very bright young woman with a good heart and a passion and concern for the wellbeing of others.
I say all of this because I want Rachelle and Joanna to know that they are more than welcome to share any topic that is important to them, including joining us in this one! If you care about it, bring it up. We'll chime in with our thoughts, but be assured that whether we agree or not with your views, we will always respect you as a person.
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Dec 9, 2006 10:55:59 GMT -5
In response to Leona, thank you for your comments. I admit that it would be impossible for you to answer all of my questions. The facts are simply not out about much of this story, and it would be difficult to find out just how many people are detained and then seperate those numbers by race and religion.
I will say this about your concern. Here in the United States of America, our Founding Fathers designed this nation with the idea that it is healthy to be suspect of our government. So, while I am questioning you on many things regarding this story, I do agree that you are right to question its validity.
But I encourage you to take it one step further. While holding reservations about the integrity of the US government, don't be so overly quick to take up sides with the "alleged" victim in this story. There is a lot to learn about who this person really is, and we have no idea as of this point. To say that he is a business man is not enough in this age of terrorism. Terrorists do not look like terrorists. They look like ordinary people. In Iraq, they may look like (and be) a mother holding her young child. Here, they may look like a business man boarding a flight.
It's okay to also be just as skeptical of the media in all of this. Too often they come into a story with an agenda of their own, and it winds up distorting the report badly.
And again it is just as okay to question organizations such as The American Civil Liberties Union. They too often have a political agenda that steers their call to action.
I compliment you Leona on your being way too smart and caring to just accept this story and not be enraged about it. Something is drastically wrong, and I hope that we find out what it is. But I also encourage you to seek the truth in all of this by being just as skeptical of all sides until the real truth finally surfaces.
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Dec 9, 2006 11:14:50 GMT -5
The only other thing I want to say about all of this for now is that there may be many valid reasons for the US Authorities to keep a "wall of silence" about matters such as this.
One may be that that it is simply not true at all! Maybe the Authorities have detained these people with very good reason, after lengthy intelligence gathering found them to be engaged in some kind of plot to terrorize. Then again, maybe not.
Two, given the media world we live in today, any comment made would be heard the world over. And given the bias that exists in the media today, maybe it is better to say nothing at all than to reveal information that only be distorted and twisted into spin.
Another reason may be that under the law they may be prohibited from commenting at all.
Yet another reason may be, and I admit this is a stretch here, to actually protect the reputation of the person involved. For instance, let's just say that the person in this story is a true businessman on a business trip. But let's also say that he is having an affair with a woman in Chicago and is meeting her there while on his trip. Let's also say that the woman he is meeting and having an affair with, unknown to him, is linked to a terrorist organization. Perhaps he is being questioned about his meeting with this woman for reasons he doesn't even know about yet! Now, that is a definate stretch of the imagination, and I am certainly not basing my argument on a bunch of "what ifs" here. But maybe there is much more to the story than we know about here, and that is all I am saying.
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Dec 9, 2006 14:45:27 GMT -5
I found this article today and am curious about how it might add to this discussion:
"Canadians Could Be Sacrificing Their Privacy When They Travel"
By Hannah Zitner
VANCOUVER, B.C. (CP) - A former associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union says Canadians should not trust the U.S. government to keep their personal information private.
"I'm here to urge Canadian government officials and the Canadian people to take it with a grain of salt any assurance that the United States government has given you that your data will be protected and that laws are going to be followed," Barry Steinhardt said Friday.
He and members of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and the London School of Economics met to discuss a national identification system that would keep Canadians safe without invading their privacy.
Many airports have tightened their security measures after 9-11. As of Jan. 23, 2006, it will be mandatory for Canadians to use a passport to travel by air across the Canada-U.S. border.
"This particular project brings together academics, government, industry and civil society representatives to understand the plan for and implications of new border contols and new standards for identity documents," said organizer Micheal Vonn from the B.C. association.
The group, which has members from Canada, the U.S. and the United Kingdom, is looking at issues surrounding terrorism, illegal immigration, travel security, identity concerns and privacy.
The U.S. government says it has been using an Automated Targeting System to assess the degree of risk travellers may pose.
The system goes through the records of American and foreign citizens crossing international borders.
"Certainly Canadians have had a lot to be concerned about in terms of being excluded from travel to the United States based on bad information, based on inaccurate information," Steinhardt said.
Andrew Clement, director of the collaborative graduate program at the University of Toronto, points to the example of Maher Arar as a worse case scenario of misused information.
In 2002, Arar was detained in New York by U.S. officials who claimed he had links to al-Qaeda. He was then deported to Syria where he was jailed and tortured.
Clement also explained that there is no system in place to track how many people are wrongly detained at airports, but anecdotally the numbers are higher than might be expected.
Gus Hosein from the London School of Economics said there are lots of reasons to establish a national identity policy.
"There are all these seemingly obvious drivers towards an identity policy such as identity theft, international obligations of transborder passports, U.S. obligations at the border," Hosein said.
"And there's not enough actual debate and thinking going on in these policy shifts."
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Dec 10, 2006 0:32:08 GMT -5
That article comes as no surprise to me. I don't trust the US Government to have accurate information (they have sent a Canadian to Syria where he was tortured based on bad information), I suspect this was probably the case in Ali SeifAnNasr's detainment. Who knows I might get detained because a person I was seen talking to at a bus stop is suspected of terrorism, or someone I once when to church with became a terrorist so everyone that had contact with is now prevented from coming into the US. Frankly, I have no interest in having a couple days I have off being questioned because of their bad information and that's a risk you take when you travel into the US. In truth, this is going to discourage people from coming to the US.
"Clement also explained that there is no system in place to track how many people are wrongly detained at airports, but anecdotally the numbers are higher than might be expected. "
Until the US Government is publicly accountable to the flaws of their border security system they use, it's going to discourage travel. I don't trust them to be protect my rights to privacy and they don't seem accountable. As a child I lived near the US border and we would have day trips to Detroit (the zoo) and to see other attractions or visit people that we knew for a day, even if I still lived there I would do those things. I'd find things to do in Canada.
I want to say that I have nothing againsts the American public, I just feel that the US Government hasn't shown that it will be accountable for these "small" things.
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Dec 10, 2006 11:28:23 GMT -5
Where is this inaccurate and bad information coming from? And what to make of this statement...." "I'm here to urge Canadian government officials and the Canadian people to take it with a grain of salt any assurance that the United States government has given you that your data will be protected and that laws are going to be followed," Barry Steinhardt said Friday." ".....that your data will be protected and that laws are going to be followed" ? What does that mean, and is it true? Is the US Government guilty here of inaccurate information, or are they simply forsaking information to do what they want for whatever prejudicial reasons? There is a huge difference, and it matters greatly. If the problem is inaccurate information, then something drastically has to be done to fix the problem so that people are not wrongly detained or sent back for wrong reasons. But if the US Government is willfully not following their laws, then we have crimes being committed against people and justice needs to be served! Both situations bring much concern to me. Something needs to be done to resolve this issue. It's my opinion here, but Canadians probably already have a strong opinion about the United States with or without this story, and they either love the US or are sour towards us. All something like a story such as this does is confirm for those who are sour towards the US to believe that they have concrete reasons for their feelings. Of course there will be some who change their opinion, especially those directly effected by it, but I'm confidant that people will continue to stream into and out of the country. I too learned of the story of the person who was sent to Syria and then tortured. What a terrible story! I wonder if there is as much outrage over the fact that Syria tortured him? It will be very interesting to find out if in fact Ali SeifAnNasr's detainment was due to this same faulty information. If you would, please keep us posted on what happens in this story. Very interesting! Oh, and in no way do I take personally your comments or interpret them as being against the American public. Nor do I believe these matters to be "small" things, but rather great concerns. Something wrong needs to be made right here!
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Dec 12, 2006 18:27:15 GMT -5
"Canada Needs Better Oversight Of Federal Police: Inquiry Report"
OTTAWA (AFP) - Canada needs better oversight of its anti-terror force to avoid the errors that led to the wrongful detention and torture of a Canadian man in Syria in 2002, an official report said.
"The existing accountability and review mechanism for the Royal Canadian National Police's national security activities are not adequate," said Justice Dennis O'Connor, as the second part of an official inquiry into a botched terrorism case was released.
"In the post-911 world, the RCMP had to assume an increased role in Canada's national security activities," he told reporters.
But its mistakes since in the case of Maher Arar, who was wrongly labeled a terror suspect by the RCMP, show a watchdog with subpoena powers is needed to safeguard the civil rights of Canadians without compromising the secrecy of terrorism investigations, he said.
"The case for giving an independent review body the mandate to conduct self-initiated reviews of the RCMP's national security activities is now overwhelming," he said.
His conclusions were outlined in the second part of an inquiry into the botched terrorism case that gripped the nation and led to the resignation last week of Canada's top cop, RCMP Commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli.
The first report, released in mid-September, blasted the RCMP for providing faulty intelligence to US authorities that likely led to Arar's detention and deportation to Syria.
The 36-year-old software engineer was stopped in New York, on his way to Canada from a trip to Tunisia in September 2002, and was deported to Syria where he was jailed and tortured for more than a year.
"We are committed to taking the actions needed to prevent similar events ever from happening again," said Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.
He also announced a probe into allegations that three other Canadians were wrongly detained and tortured in Syria and Egypt.
"We believe that this new inquiry is the most effective way of reviewing the cases of these three individuals," he said.
Ahmad El Maati, Abdullah Almalki and Muayyed Nureddin, born in Kuwait, Syria and Iraq, respectively, and suspected of Al-Qaeda links were arrested by Syrian Military Intelligence during trips abroad from 2001 to 2004.
Each claimed upon return to Canada that he had been tortured by the Syrians or Egyptians and that Canadian security officials were complicit, having allegedly supplied Syria with intelligence and questions to pose the detainees.
"The Canadian government degraded and dehumanized me," Almalki told reporters in October.
Amnesty International Canada joined a local civil liberties association and others backing their request, saying an independent review was "vital" to clear their names and restore confidence in Canada's security agencies.
El Maati, who holds dual Canadian-Egyptian citizenship, said he was on his way to celebrate his wedding in Syria when he was stopped at the Damascus airport in November 2001.
He said he was interrogated about information that could only have originated from Canada. In January 2002, he was transferred to Egyptian custody.
Nureddin said he was going to visit family in northern Iraq when he was stopped at the Iraqi-Syrian border in December 2003.
Almalki was detained in Damascus while en route to visit family in Syria in May 2002. He claimed he was forced to sign a false confession that he planned to bomb the Canadian parliament.
All three men were released without charges between January and March 2004.
Stockwell Day said former Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci would lead the second inquiry.
He may hold public hearings, summon witnesses and gather evidence to determine if "any mistreatment of these three individuals in Syria or Egypt resulted from the inappropriate actions of any Canadian officials."
Specifically, he will examine whether Canadian officials shared intelligence with these countries or whether Canadian consular officials failed them.
Iacobucci is expected to report his findings by January 31, 2008.
O'Connor, meanwhile, called for greater scrutiny of Canada's citizenship and immigration department, foreign affairs department, Transport Canada, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre (FINTRAC) and Canada Border Services Agency.
The RCMP watchdog should also be linked to other review bodies that oversee these government departments, as well as the Canada Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Communications Security Establishment, he said.
"Federal Government Orders Inquiry Into Canadians Jailed In Syria"
OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government is launching a public inquiry into the cases of three men who suffered a fate similar to Maher Arar.
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced Tuesday that former Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci will at the cases of Abdullah Almalki, Muayyed Nureddin and Ahmad El Maati. All three were imprisoned in Syria on suspicion of links to terrorists. El Maati was also jailed in Egypt.
Day made the announcement in response to the release of a second report by Justice Dennis O'Connor into the Arar affair.
Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was deported to Syria during a stopover in the U.S. and tortured into false confessions of links to al-Qaida.
In his first report on Arar, O'Connor said the cases of Almalki, Nureddin and El Maati raised "troubling questions" about the role of Canadian officials.
Day said Iacobucci will be asked to determine whether "the detention of these three individuals to Syria or Egypt resulted from actions of Canadian officials, particularly in relation to the sharing of information with foreign countries."
"The commissioner will be asked to determine whether those actions or the actions of Canadian consular officials were deficient in these cases. And third, he will be asked to determine whether any mistreatment of these three individuals in Syria or Egypt resulted from the inappropriate actions of any Canadian officials."
Iacobucci is to file his report by Jan. 31, 2008.
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Dec 12, 2006 18:50:27 GMT -5
Arar Inquiry Urges Expanded Powers For RCMP Watchdog By Jim Bronskill
OTTAWA (CP) - The final report on the Maher Arar affair calls for an overhaul of the RCMP watchdog, giving it new powers to keep an eye on the Mounties' intelligence activities.
Justice Dennis O'Connor also recommends stricter review of five other agencies involved in national security. He suggests the moves could prevent the sort of miscues that marked the Arar case. "Proper review can help ensure that the agency being reviewed respects its mandate and uses efficient, effective and fair procedures," O'Connor says in the report, released Tuesday.
The proposed new agency, building upon the existing Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, would have stronger powers and review all of the Mounties' activities, including those related to national security.
O'Connor suggests the revamped watchdog be named the Independent Complaints and National Security Review Agency for the RCMP, or ICRA.
He says increased scrutiny need not hamper or restrain state security activities.
"It is my hope that the recommendations proposed in this report, if implemented, will make the RCMP better and increase public confidence in the force." O'Connor also recommends:
-The ICRA review the national security activities of the Canada Border Services Agency.
-The Security Intelligence Review Committee, the current watchdog over spy agency CSIS, be given additional authority to monitor the security activities of Citizenship and Immigration, Transport Canada, Foreign Affairs, and Fintrac, the national anti-money laundering body.
-Changes to the law to allow national security watchdogs to exchange information and conduct joint investigations.
-Creation of a co-ordinating committee that includes various security watchdog chairs to ensure smooth handling of complaints and probes.
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said he was generally pleased with the recommendations, but did not immediately commit to implementing them.
"There is some good guidance there," he told a news conference.
Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was detained in New York in September 2002 and deported soon after by U.S. authorities - winding up in a Damascus prison cell. Under torture, he gave false confessions to Syrian military intelligence officers about involvement with al-Qaida.
In his first report, issued in September, O'Connor concluded that faulty information the RCMP passed to the United States very likely led to the Ottawa engineer's year-long nightmare.
O'Connor also concluded in September that the cases of three other Canadians who were imprisoned in Syria - Ottawa electronics exporter Abdullah Almalki, Toronto truck driver Ahmad El Maati and Toronto-area geologist Muayyed Nureddin - raised troubling questions about the role of Canadian officials.
Day announced Tuesday that former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci will lead a full public inquiry into their cases, with a report due by Jan. 31, 2008.
O'Connor said ICRA should have extensive investigative powers, including the ability to subpoena documents and compel testimony.
It would both look into complaints and initiate its own reviews with respect to the RCMP's national security activities, monitoring compliance with law, policies, ministerial directives and international obligations.
Arar, 36, welcomed the recommendations.
"There is no doubt that these recommended oversight bodies are necessary to protect our rights," he said, adding that he hopes the recommendations will be implemented as soon as possible.
"Had there been proper oversight and efficient oversight of these various departments and agencies, I might not have had to struggle so long and so hard for answers. Some of what happened to me might even have been prevented." In a statement, the RCMP said any new review mechanism for its national security activities must be comprehensive enough to ensure public confidence is maintained without compromising the police force's ability to do its job.
"Effective and appropriate review is essential for the RCMP and the public," said Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell of RCMP National Security Investigations.
"It reassures all of us that the RCMP is holding true to its values by respecting the rights and freedoms Canadians enjoy.
"At the same time, we would want to ensure that the RCMP is still able to fulfil its mandate." The NDP also welcomed O'Connor's report, but said it doesn't go far enough.
MP Joe Comartin said there needs to be a parliamentary oversight committee in addition to beefing up review mechanisms.
"If you combine the review process, enhanced as is recommended, and an oversight committee, it seems to me we end up with the best of both worlds," Comartin said.
He said other jurisdictions - notably the U.S. and Britain - have both review and oversight mechanisms in place.
Day indicated the government also wants a new parliamentary committee to oversee federal intelligence agencies.
The overall result could be several new or enhanced watchdog structures.
Shirley Heafey, the now-retired head of the existing RCMP complaints commission, lamented that her office lacked the necessary powers and tools to probe the RCMP's national security activities. Heafey's successor, Paul Kennedy, has echoed her call for more authority to monitor RCMP intelligence investigations.
The Arar affair has already shaken up the Canadian security community. The resignation of RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli, announced last week, takes effect Thursday.
Arar recently said accountability for the wrongs he suffered "goes far beyond the resignation of one person." He has noted that agencies other than the RCMP played a part in his case, saying it underscored the need for an overarching watchdog that can monitor the broader intelligence network.
The former Liberal government announced in December 2003 that it would set up an independent review mechanism to monitor the RCMP's intelligence branches. The move came amid growing reservations about the behind-the-scenes role the Mounties play in the fight against terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by achebeautiful on Dec 12, 2006 18:52:40 GMT -5
Hmmm....the three articles above posted are giving me much more insight into this subject. What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by ocelot on Dec 14, 2006 19:25:09 GMT -5
The RCMP has made some terrible mistakes and the Liberal government did not do enough to mend those mistakes. The current government is committed to changing the way things go. The RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) have in the past not been held accountable for their actions and that is wrong, but likewise before someone takes action on information they receive from another source they need to investigate that info and that source. There are too many faulty sources out there right now. For me, you cannot send someone to Syria (who is known for torture methods in their questioning) for any reasons unless they are a sole-Syrian citizen. If you suspect them of terrorist connections, keep questioning them in countries that you are 100% sure won't use torture or if they are tortured you are mostly to blame.
I feel that the RCMP and Canadian government are totally at fault for the wrong information being given but the States are at fault for Arar's torture. I try to research information in order to figure out if that info is biased, true, or false and so should governments and intelligence forces before that take actions like they have been doing.
Under the Liberal government there were way too many scandals and mistakes by the high ranking people. There was very little accountability for actions and often the public was not well-informed. I'm glad that the current government is not only taking steps to make sure those things don't happen again but also taking the right approach to do it.
|
|