Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Indefinite Jailing of 6 in Canada Tests Legal System
washingtonpost.com ^ | Sunday, December 19, 2004 | Doug Struck

Posted on 12/19/2004 6:02:03 AM PST by crushelits


Mona el-Fouli is seeking the release of
 her husband, who has been jailed in
Toronto without being charged.

TORONTO -- For a long time, Mona el-Fouli lied to her young children. Their father was working, she told them at first. He was on a trip, she said later. But when she took her boys, 5 and 7, to see their father behind a glass partition, they knew he was in jail.

"Please mom, can I break this glass and go inside to play with my dad?" pleaded the 7-year-old, she recounted.
For 4 1/2 years, el-Fouli's husband, Mohammed Zeki Mahjoub, has been imprisoned in Toronto without being charged, without facing trial, and without being fully told what evidence is being used to keep him there. The government has said he is a potential terrorist. His wife and defenders say the authorities should prove it or let him go.

Mahjoub is one of six men being held in Canada as security risks on secret evidence. In a country that boasts of its tolerance and respect for legal rights, the jailings present an awkward dilemma for judges, lawmakers and some members of the public.

"This process causes suffering for families . . . and includes serious infringements of basic rights," Meili Faille, a member of Parliament from Quebec, said this month in a speech before lawmakers attacking the government's use of "security certificates" to hold the men.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: canada; indefinite; jailing; legal; six; system; tests
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

1 posted on 12/19/2004 6:02:03 AM PST by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: crushelits

Canadians are 'subjects' and therefore have only the 'rights' the government finds it convenient to let them have. Until they get that straightened out, the rest is just details.


2 posted on 12/19/2004 6:14:56 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

"without being charged, without facing trial, and without being fully told what evidence is being used to keep him"


do we expect any more from a socialist country?


3 posted on 12/19/2004 6:15:51 AM PST by socialismisinsidious ("A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

(cont)

On Dec. 10, a federal appeals court in Ottawa ruled the procedure constitutional. To allow the men to be released would be "an abandonment by the community as a whole of its right to survival in the name of blind absolutism of individual rights," the court concluded.

In Britain, the highest court of appeal ruled Thursday that a similar law there, under which 11 security suspects have been imprisoned indefinitely after secret hearings, violated European human rights laws.

The ruling, a blow to the measures adopted in Britain after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is likely to strengthen opposition to security incarcerations in Canada, a member of the British Commonwealth.
http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2004/12/19/news/nation/sunnat07.txt


4 posted on 12/19/2004 6:18:06 AM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious
It's like Mexico.

Napoleonic laws.

In Mexico you have to prove your innocence. The government does not have to prove your guilt. Nice, French legacy isn't it?

5 posted on 12/19/2004 6:19:56 AM PST by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious

It reminds me of what the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said in response to his invoking the Emergency Powers Act to combat a wave of separatist terrorism in Quebec in the late 60s - "just watch me!" And at the time the Government Of Canada took severe measures to deal with a wave of kidnappings and anarchy in the Province. There's nothing wrong with holding dangerous suspects indefinitely. If the information against them comes from confidential informants or intelligence sources, you can't risk compromising them and you can't risk endangering national security either. If terrorism weren't a threat to free societies, extraordinary measures to counter it would be totally unnecessary.


6 posted on 12/19/2004 6:22:32 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Grut
"Canadians are 'subjects' and therefore have only the 'rights' the government finds it convenient to let them have. Until they get that straightened out, the rest is just details"

That sir, is a brilliant point. It sums up perfectly what it means to be an American and why we are fighting the forces of darkness.

7 posted on 12/19/2004 6:30:03 AM PST by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
If terrorism weren't a threat to free societies, extraordinary measures to counter it would be totally unnecessary.

But the presence of 'extraordinary measures' says nothing about the presence of terrorism; 'terrorism' may just be an excuse to lock people up whom the government, for whatever reason, finds inconvenient.

8 posted on 12/19/2004 6:31:50 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
""This process causes suffering for families . . . and includes serious infringements of basic rights,"

What "Process" is she referring to - Maybe she means the process of crashing jets into buildings and killing thousands?

9 posted on 12/19/2004 6:32:00 AM PST by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Hold them but charge them, set a trial date and disclose evidence.
I would contend that a government that can pull citizens off the street and "hold them indefinitely" without due process is as dangerous as any terrorists I do not want any government to have that kind of power, even in the name of "safety".
10 posted on 12/19/2004 6:33:38 AM PST by socialismisinsidious ("A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Grut
Canadians are 'subjects' and therefore have only the 'rights' the government finds it convenient to let them have. Until they get that straightened out, the rest is just details.

Where's Rumpole to defend the Magna Carta, when you need him?

11 posted on 12/19/2004 6:33:38 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS", Fake But Accurate, Experts Say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Grut
Canadians are 'subjects' and therefore have only the 'rights' the government finds it convenient to let them have. Until they get that straightened out, the rest is just details.

That may be true, but do you want the Canadians to turn these guys loose, if they're the real deal?

Do you want the RCMP to divulge confidential sources and blow undercover people, just to satisfy the defense table, if these guys are the real thing?

12 posted on 12/19/2004 6:38:49 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
Jeez,

It looks like MoveOn.Org just shifted to this website.

Look, these clowns would probably be sent home on the next plane, if they requested it. When you become an immigrant, you don't go traveling around the world training at terrorist camps. I'm glad Canada has them locked up. I plan to go there next week, and it's a safer place today.
13 posted on 12/19/2004 6:39:03 AM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

"Mohammed Zeki Mahjoub"

Well, this thread could have gone either way.


14 posted on 12/19/2004 6:39:44 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

Her husband alive. It may be small comfort she can't see him but there are families of terrorist victims who will never see their loved ones again. Some balance is called for when looking into a sob story like this one.


15 posted on 12/19/2004 6:42:01 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
...do you want the Canadians to turn these guys loose, if they're the real deal?

Sure, why not? Put 'em on a plane to New York, drop a dime to the FBI, and we'll send them on to our new Iraqi allies for some discreet (ahem) "interrogation".

Calling Drew Michaels! Calling Drew Michaels? Hotmail Tech Support on Line 1!

(that's a private lil inside joke, don't worry about it, lol)
16 posted on 12/19/2004 6:43:55 AM PST by Mad Mammoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68
[You, quoting dhonline.com story]
On Dec. 10, a federal appeals court in Ottawa ruled the procedure constitutional. To allow the men to be released would be "an abandonment by the community as a whole of its right to survival in the name of blind absolutism of individual rights," the court concluded.

A way has to be found of safeguarding civil liberties without betraying undercover government assets to the defense team or advertising them to the general public.

Fortunately, there is a way out. The jury, whether grand or petit, is The People empaneled, who have both a liberty interest in the proceedings of the Government and its treatment of the arrestees, and a security interest in the public peace.

The jurors also have a dispositive say in the outcome of the proceedings: they can guarantee the arrestees' liberty by no-billing them (grand jury) or returning a verdict (petit jury), which latter can be "guilty", "not guilty", or "innocent", which last would completely and for all time exonerate the defendants of any suspicion, even if a grand jury had returned an indictment on the representations of the Government.

17 posted on 12/19/2004 6:51:37 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Amen. Even Canadian Lefties get it. A Constitution is not a "suicide pact." Such common-sense reasoning contrasts sharply with the American Left's knee jerk denunciation of even minimal safeguards against a future terrorist attack on our shores.


18 posted on 12/19/2004 6:55:21 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

It looks like the FreePers are back, yeah!!


19 posted on 12/19/2004 7:04:44 AM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BobL; goldstategop
oh come on.

you really think that it is a good idea for the govt. to be able to pull people off the street without charging them, to hold them indefinitely without due process? jeez. feel safer-- until big brother taps you on the shoulder.
20 posted on 12/19/2004 7:13:49 AM PST by socialismisinsidious ("A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson