Canada ping!
Please FReepmail me to get on or off this ping list.
Posted on 06/14/2006 3:07:06 AM PDT by Clive
OTTAWA - In one of their first and most significant encounters with anti-terrorism laws, several Supreme Court of Canada judges appeared reluctant yesterday to put the rights of people accused of having al-Qaeda ties ahead of national security concerns.
The judges peppered lawyers for three non-Canadians with questions as they challenged a federal law that allows the government to detain them indefinitely, without charges, while a judge decides whether there is a strong enough case to deport them, possibly to face torture.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin summed up concerns when she questioned what Canada should do with the "hard cases" -- people who may threaten public safety but cannot be evicted because of torture concerns.
"What does the world do with somebody who is truly dangerous wherever they go?" she asked.
"Is freedom really an option? Are not the only options permanent detention in a country like Canada or sending them back to a country that may be worse?"
Three Muslim men are challenging a section of Canadian immigration law that allows the government to issue "security certificates" to detain non-Canadians. The certificates are issued on the approval of two federal ministers, based on secret information from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
The litigants are: Adil Charkaoui, a landed immigrant from Morocco who is alleged to be an al-Qaeda agent and who was arrested in May, 2003, and released on bail, with strict conditions, almost two years later; Mohamed Harkat, an Algerian-born gas station attendant from Ottawa who was jailed in December, 2002, as an alleged al-Qaeda suspect without any charges being laid against him; and Hassan Almrei, a Syrian-born refugee and accused al-Qaeda associate who has been detained since October, 2001, mainly in solitary confinement.
The trio is also challenging the federal power to exclude them from closed-door hearings so they are never fully apprised of the case against them and, therefore, cannot mount a defence.
Mr. Charkaoui, 32, sat in the front row of the packed spectator benches clutching a global positioning system (GPS) he must carry so authorities can track him.
A judge gave the Montreal father special permission last week to leave the city to attend the Supreme Court hearing.
"We are here after three years of struggle because we want justice," he told a crush of reporters in the Supreme Court foyer. "I am asking them to give me the opportunity to be heard by a court in a fair trial without secret evidence, with a right of appeal, without secret meetings between the judge and the prosecutors. I am asking for the same rights as any human being in this country."
He was flanked by supporters both inside and outside the courthouse. The two other litigants did not attend the hearing because they remain in detention at a special facility near Kingston, Ont., which critics have dubbed Guantanamo North. Harkat is expected to be released this week, on strict conditions, after a judge ruled he has been detained too long.
The three men had 10 national groups arguing on their side, one of the heaviest dockets of intervenors the court has permitted in years.
On the front lawn of the Supreme Court, about a dozen protesters set up camp around a banner that read: "Stop secret trials in Canada."
Justice Rosalie Abella described the tough case before the judges as "a struggle for solutions."
Several judges appeared receptive to suggestions that Canada could adopt a system that exists in the United Kingdom, where independent, security-cleared lawyers are appointed as "special advocates" to attend secret hearings and challenge government lawyers.
"What we need is sufficient protection to meet the principles of fundamental justice," said Lorne Waldman, lawyer for the Canadian Bar Association.
Under the current process, the judge is under "undue influence" by being constantly reminded that national security is tantamount, argued Mr. Charkaoui's lawyer, Johanne Doyon.
Justice Louis LeBel pointed out that defence lawyers are presented summaries of the evidence against terror suspects.
But Ms. Doyon countered that the "summaries are too much of a summary. They are a general outline and they don't communicate enough information to the defence."
There was also a suggestion that the men could be criminally charged and then subjected to a public trial rather than spending years in legal limbo.
Lawyer Barbara Jackman, representing Mr. Almrei, said the detainees are enduring cruel and unusual punishment because they are left to languish in a facility that is not officially part of the Canadian justice system and therefore does not have programs and services in place, such as education and counselling.
"What it leaves them with is complete hopelessness," she said. She said her client, Mr. Almrei, has said: "I feel like I'm dead."
The hearing continues today, when the federal government presents its case.
-
L
"Under the current process, the judge is under 'undue influence' by being constantly reminded that national security is tantamount, argued Mr. Charkaoui's lawyer, Johanne Doyon."
ROFLMAO! As usual, we'll have to make sure Canada doesn't actually end up going to war any time soon. It might unduly influence their judges. And God forbid we have Canada's judges unduly influenced.
There's a real problem here.
On one hand, there is no possible reason to let proven threats loose into society.
On the other hand, a Constitution is inviolable.
Rock, meet hard place.
Yes, I know right now we can hold terrorists indefinitely, without typical rights, but that is not a sustainable practice. Yes, it works now, because Bush is a fundamentally good person, but what happens when a scumbag like Clinton gets into office and the Patriot Act is still in full force, wide open for abuse?
This is a fundamental conflict that needs to be resolved now, before we are faced with the inevitable result of allowing conflicts of this magnitude to go unaddressed.
If Canada finds a workable solution, I'm happy to listen to it, because sooner or later, we here in America are either going to resolve the same issues, or else it's going to slap us right in the face.
The Canadians are finding out that finding a good answerto the question of what to do with potential killers isnt so easy.
If they havent killed yet are they guilty? Will they kill if given the opportunity? Yes they will, but becasue they havent yet what to do with them. An asylum for the insane would be a good answer.Because in reality that is what we are dealing with : religious insanity.
So the obvious solution is to send them home.
But our humanity will not allow us to send them to a place where it is probable that they will be tortured.
Other nations, including nations that scream the loudest aginst the immigration policies of Canada and the US, hold refugees in detention camps. International practice allows for refugee camps.
***But our humanity will not allow us to send them to a place where it is probable that they will be tortured. **
You have these people who are working for Al Quaeda and you send them home. What makes you think thy will be tortured? More likely thy will be welcomed with open arms.
Canada ping!
Please FReepmail me to get on or off this ping list.
"He was flanked by supporters both inside and outside the courthouse."
Tap their phones, listen to and read all of their communications. Follow them and anyone they communicate with.
..."that is what we are dealing with : religious insanity"
Fundamentally, you are speaking of the source of evil. By your statement, evil is within religion. By extention then, Lenin wasn't guilty of evil acts because evil was not within him but within the worldview system of socialism and 'socialism' made him do it.
This is like saying that evil dwells within guns or within cultural institutions such the patriarchal family. And all of this says that mankind lacks free will.
Evil dwells within the hearts of each and every person. And each and every person has the ability to discern between right and wrong and to choose which one he will act upon.
Most likely, the same thing that happened in the '90's -- nothing. Muslim terrorists will have a multi-culturally-sensitive free ride, complete with all kinds of federally-funded community outreach programs (Karen Huges, ICNA) and cushy Federal appointments (Alamoudi) until they actually do some major damage (the first WTC bombing), which, of course, will be handled as a law enforcement issue.
This is a fundamental conflict that needs to be resolved now, before we are faced with the inevitable result of allowing conflicts of this magnitude to go unaddressed.
In our suicidally PC society, what are the alternatives? They can't be deported due to fear of "torture" in their home countries, and in places like Canada, the bar for political asylum is set barely above ground level. Al-Arian is slated to be deported, but there is considerable doubt that the Feds will be able to do so. It took years to deport his brother-in-law, who was finally surreptitiously dumped somewhere in the ME shortly after 9/11.Taking these would-be jihadists and hate mongers to court is useless unless a crime can be proved, and the lengthy three-ring legal circus, fawned over by the media, is incredibly expensive: e.g. Moussaoui.
If we release them, we tie up resources in tracking them, and take a great risk of losing sight of them.
We are hoisted by the petard of our own political correctness, and until we have the fortitude to declare Islam a violent political ideology, rather than a religion, this problem will fester, and our defenses will continue to weaken as more and more of them are allowed to infiltrate our society, openly propagate their murderous ideology, and destroy our defenses.
Man. Thats weird.
I was saying Islam is an insane religion, all that crap you added is just gobbledygook.
Too much education is a dangerous thing. I am a simple man. Al I am saying is that Islam teaches insanity .Period.
Execute the bustard.
It is the primary duty of government to protect its citizens, a fact that the Government of Canada has forgotten in its historical, ivory tower, liberal- socialist, Utopian meanderings.
"'What does the world do with somebody truly dangerous?'"
Gives him a book deal and a CNN show.
Socialism is a religion by any consistent standard (certainly if Islam is considered a religion, socialism must also be one). It has its belief system (Man is God), holy texts (The Gospel of Marx and the Gospel of Mao, among others), fanatic believers worldwide, sacraments (abortion), and plenty of worship rituals.
I see Clinton using provisions in the Pariot Act to wiretap, harrass, and imprison the likes of Linda Tripp, Gennifer Flowers, and Monica Lewinsky. But not Vince Foster.
I think that the provisions of the Patriot Act, one by one, will eventually be subjected to Supreme Court or lesser court rulings and be folded into the body of common law, at which point Constitutional issues disappear. In some, perhaps many cases, we will have to fine tune the provisions to reconcile them with Constitutional mandate. Right now we don't have this.
What we have now is a body of law which forms, for lack of a better description, a sort of alternate reality, partially or completely outside the purview of Constitutional protection, and conflicts of this type are ripe for abuse when someone like Clinton comes along.
Finding a middle ground probably won't happen in one swoop, but instead a long series of smaller solutions applied where necessary, as necessary. One alternative that can't be ruled out, a liberal administration which writes the entire Patriot Act out of existence without regard for national security issues. Not an ideal solution either.
The Patriot Act achieved its short term purpose, now it is time to make sure it aligns with Constitutional protection, because if we don't, the alternatives are uniformly negative.
With regards to sgtbono, my response was directed to what
seemed to me his 'blanket statement' about religion. This position is the one being bandied about by the "followers" of the religion with which you have responded to me about. In fact, Sam Harris (disciple of the religion of naturalism/socialism) has gone so far as to suggest that it's time to consider putting to death believers of "fanatical" faiths because their 'fanaticism' poses extreme danger to the peace and stability of the world. He has lumped Orthodox Judaism and Christianity in with Islam. See hs book: The End of Faith. This is why I responded to bono as I did.
With regards to socialism/communism, I see it as the Bible of the Anti-Genesis. Evil does not dwell within it, but evil on a scale never before seen or experienced in this world has resulted from it through the hands of its believers. It is more like a conduit, imo.
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.