Leahy: DHS and DoJ Are Stonewalling Arar Investigators

Via the Canadian Press:

WASHINGTON (CP) - U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy says U.S. investigators are getting stonewalled in internal reviews of the case of Canadian engineer Maher Arar.

In letters to the independent investigative arms of the Homeland Security and Justice departments, Leahy says he wants to know the status of any probes.

And he notes that a former Homeland official reported delays and obstruction in July 2004 in obtaining documents and interviewing officials about Arar.

Leahy, chair of the Senate judiciary committee and ranking Republican Arlen Specter also want the U.S. Government Accountability Office to conduct an inquiry into whether people like Arar can effectively challenge their presence on terrorist watch lists.

Leahy and Specter have been briefed by Justice officials on Arar this month but have complained they still have a lot more questions.

And who can forget Leahy's smackdown of Gonzales in January?



When Leahy was given that briefing in early February some commenters here and elsewhere thought Leahy had somehow caved to the Justice Department and falsely concluded that Leahy might have been convinced that Gonzales et al had some incriminating evidence about Mr Arar - assertions they were unable to prove, of course.

As I said in a previous post, this is far from being over. Meanwhile, our Conservative government has pulled back from applying pressure on the US government with MacKay simply agreeing to disagree with his US counterparts (ie. Condi) about the fact that Mr Arar is still on the US no-fly list. Mr Arar deserves much more than that from the Canadian government. If it wasn't for Leahy, joined by Republican senator Specter, this case would simply disappear into the ether.

Related: Leahy/Specter press release

Dirty, Ugly, Nasty Politics

By the time election 2006 came around, the Canadian public was absolutely fed up with the lack of proper decorum in the house of commons. The Conservative government promised change:

Bringing Accountability Back to Government

No aspect of responsible government is more fundamental than having the trust of citizens. Canadians' faith in the institutions and practices of government has been eroded. This new government trusts in the Canadian people, and its goal is that Canadians will once again trust in their government. It is time for accountability.

Hollow words.

Just this past week, the prime minister had no qualms about trying to smear a Liberal MP, a Conservative MP was railing in public about "extremist" elements in the Liberal party, and the public safety minister was caught using his taxpayer-funded website to state that the Liberals are "soft on terrorism".

Where's the "accountability" for that behaviour?

All of these incidents surround the current debate about anti-terrorism measures as they relate to the Air India bombing inquiry and the two provisions of Canada's anti-terrorism law that are set to expire soon. What better way for this tory government to try to score points than by using a page from the Republicans' playbook which dictates the use of emotional fearmongering and shady tactics to bludgeon opponents and the public into submission? This tory government has learned that lesson well. The only problem they have is that they're in a minority government situation which, thankfully, does not give them the power they need to set their agenda in stone.

The more they fight back with these dirty tactics, however, the more ammo the opposition parties have to use against them and that will all come out during the next election. You don't need to be a political junkie in this country to know that the tories have been acting like pompous thugs and all Canadians should be demanding better behaviour since this government has refused to honour its promise to bring decorum back to our national political scene.

This is just dirty, ugly, nasty politics at its worst. We deserve better than that. They need to be held accountable.

Related: The vote on the Anti-terrorist Act is due to happen at approximately 5:45 pm ET. You can catch it live on CPAC. The Globe and Mail has more.
 

Public Safety Website: Opposition Parties "soft on terrorism"

An interesting question came up during question period on Monday asking why the government's Public Safety website is being used for Tory propaganda against the opposition parties.

Here's the page in question:

OTTAWA, February 23, 2007— Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day, issued the following statement on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision regarding the constitutionality of the security certificate process as set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

“We have just received the Supreme Court’s decision. We are reviewing it carefully.

The Government intends to respond in a timely and decisive fashion to address the Court’s decision. The Court has given the Government one year to address the concerns it has raised with respect to the process for hearing confidential information. In the interim, the security certificate process remains in place.

The security certificate process has been in place since 1978 to protect Canadians against threats to their safety and security.

At a time when the Opposition Parties are being soft on security and soft on terrorism, Canada’s New Government remains unwavering in its determination to safeguard national security and is committed to working with all its partners to protect the safety and security of Canadians.”

Harper responded by basically saying they'd change the website but...blah blah blah...terrorism...security...blah blah blah...

Stockwell Day said the news release contained a "direct quote" that he made. No big deal then, right? Wrong. It's his department's site owned by all Canadians and he's responsible for what it contains.
 

Security Certificates Struck Down by Supreme Court

This decision is certainly long overdue. The supreme court has unanimously ruled that security certificates are unconstitutional because suspects and their lawyers were unable to access classified information used against them that would force their deportation. The court also said that indefinite detention violates charter rights and has called for parliament to rewrite the rules, suspending the judgment for one year in which to do so.

You can read the supreme court's decision here and a fact sheet about security certificates can be found here.

The Liberals and Bloc Québécois said they would wait to see what the government introduces, but in theory support a new security certificate system. However, the NDP says it believes the court didn’t go far enough, and that people suspected of terrorist ties should be charged under criminal law, not detained without charge under immigration law.
link

I agree with the NDP's position on this one. If there is evidence to support detaining suspects, that ought to be enough to charge them criminally. It doesn't make sense to deport someone simply based on suspicions of their possible involvement in criminal activities.

Amnesty International supports the court's decision and highlights this:

The decision affirms that counter terrorism measures can never be used to undermine human rights. The court made clear that the security certificate process and detention regime are unacceptably flawed and thus violate the Charter of Rights, violations that cannot in any way be excused or justified. In the words of Chief Justice McLachlin, “security concerns cannot be used to excuse procedures that do not conform to fundamental justice”.

The court acknowledged the serious impact of ongoing detention without charge, and its potential to result in cruel and unusual treatment. “[I]ndefinite detention in circumstances where the detainee has no hope of release or recourse to a legal process to procure his or her release may cause psychological stress and therefore constitute cruel and unusual treatment.”

Exactly.

Update: There are criticisms of the court's decision by those who oppose security certificates ie. the refusal of a right to appeal, the deportation of detainees to countries that use torture, the issue of discrimination (racial profiling) and the use of "reasonableness" as a standard of the burden of proof required for issuing a security certificate. There is also opposition to the court deciding to give the government one year to address this issue citing the "draconian" conditions set for those who are not only detained, but have been released under house arrest.

Those concerns were raised during a press conference today by a member of Coalition for Justice for Adil Charkaoui. Mr Charkaoui also spoke and praised the decision against "Guantanamo North". He said he fears that the Conservative government will not respect this decision because they don't support the independence of the judiciary. Warren Allmand of the "International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group expressed the same concerns and referred to the "hateful" notwithstanding clause which could be used by the government to override the charter although he could not see that happening with a minority government situation.

It's as simple as this, as Mr Charkaoui said when responding to questions at the press conference: "If you have anything against me, charge me."

More as it comes in...

Update: Canadian Cynic has a roundup of (predictable) right-wing reactions to this news.