Family fallout from Security certificates

[bush_cheney2004]

....I think he has that right. It's ridiculous that he can be held this long without any evidence produced.

Shocking...isn't it? That in Canada, foreign nationals can be held without charges and "tortured" for so many years......and this goes way back to at least 1991.

The US had a working example to copy when setting up 'Gitmo!

[capricorn]

He says he'll be tortured if he goes back to Egypt.

They all say that. What better way to stir the compassion of bleeding hearts? Here's one who claimed he would be tortured if returned to Algeria. Mohamed Harkat's fear of returning to Algeria didn't stop him from making plans to travel there to marry his fiance. And this in spite that he already had a Canadian wife. Heck he was even planning to buy land in his native country.

The Federal Court released new documents yesterday suggesting that months after Algerian terror suspect Mohamed Harkat was married to a Canadian, he was making plans to return to Algeria to marry another woman.

The summaries of conversations between Harkat and his Algerian fiancée may be pertinent because they suggest he was preparing to travel to Algeria to buy a house and marry a second wife while he now argues he will be tortured if Canada deports him there.

Harkat spoke with his fiancée in Algeria, Khaira Abdel Khader, and her mother, Yamina, in May 2001, according to the summary. At the time, Harkat had been married only five months to his wife Sophie, who is one of his staunchest defenders.

"Harkat indicated that he was still waiting for a copy of his police record and once he received this, he would be able to prepare his papers to at last be able to go to Algeria and marry Khaira," the document says.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/todays...0132/story.html

What this says to me is that he initially married a Canadian to provide a cover while he was in Canada. Typical terrorist behaviour. Do everything and anything to blend into the community.

[myata]

Yes if the alternative is that the state is allowed to gather and use secret evidence.

Thanks. I understand that Jesus could feed 10,000 with one loaf, but where shall we find the resources to run another 10,000 "trials"? Annually.

We have an obligation to not suspend the hard earned civil liberties our Charter guarantees everyone within Canada's borders.

I'm not sure what you mean. The liberty to apply for a refuge and have it considered fairly is addressed by 1) immigration official reviewing security case presented against him, and 2) an independent federal judge reviewing the same. Is there a liberty for anyone to come and stay in Canada no matter what? I wasn't aware of that

What is there to interpret? Any kindergarten age kid knows the difference between right and wrong and can understand the logic of treating someone the way they'd like to be treated.

Yet life isn't always the way it's portrayed in kindergarten. A criminal can and will pretend to be a victim. A terrorist will have a cover story. Anybody giving it a second's honest thought should be able to grasp that these people come from foreign, often lawless lands, and to require our, Canadian services to present a 100% solid, bulletproof case against their "evidence" is nothing short of a lunacy. It's tantamount to saying that we should drop every concern or information, and simply believe everybody on their word. Open the doors and let everybody in. Is that what we should do (why hide behind Jesus, he isn't with us to speak for himself)?

[Argus]

He says he'll be tortured if he goes back to Egypt. He wants an opportunity to face his accusers in court, find out what the "secret" evidence is that they are using to detain him.

I think he has that right. It's ridiculous that he can be held this long without any evidence produced.

The judge thinks the evidence sufficient. And we're under no obligation under the law to let terrorist suspects know about our sources of ID. Almost everyone we try to deport claims they'll be tortured back home, but that rarely turns out to be the case.

[eyeball]

I'm not sure what you mean. The liberty to apply for a refuge and have it considered fairly is addressed by 1) immigration official reviewing security case presented against him, and 2) an independent federal judge reviewing the same. Is there a liberty for anyone to come and stay in Canada no matter what? I wasn't aware of that

No, but the state is not at liberty to use security certificates against anyone because the SC ruled against them.

Yet life isn't always the way it's portrayed in kindergarten. A criminal can and will pretend to be a victim. A terrorist will have a cover story.

A state can and will also claim victimhood and also try to concoct a cover story. In secret even.

Anybody giving it a second's honest thought should be able to grasp that these people come from foreign, often lawless lands, and to require our, Canadian services to present a 100% solid, bulletproof case against their "evidence" is nothing short of a lunacy. It's tantamount to saying that we should drop every concern or information, and simply believe everybody on their word. Open the doors and let everybody in. Is that what we should do (why hide behind Jesus, he isn't with us to speak for himself)?

I'm not denying the quagmire you describe exists, its the result of living in a fearful world full of terrorized people living in lawless states. The last thing we should be doing is becoming one ourselves don't you think? Are you suggesting Jesus would throw in the towel too?

[myata]

No, but the state is not at liberty to use security certificates against anyone because the SC ruled against them.

Let's clarify that the court did not proclaim the practice of detaining threatening non-nationals unconstitutional, only the current procedure of it in the law. And gave the state time to adjust the law.

A state can and will also claim victimhood and also try to concoct a cover story. In secret even.

And that is why the citizens of this country enjoy protections against such practices. These people aren't citizens, they asked for a right to stay and were denied on security grounds. They aren't being detained arbitrarily because they can be free any moment by leaving this country and trying their luck somewhere else. What you seem to be assuming is that everybody in this wide world has a presumption of right to stay in Canada, and you forgot to explain where does that assumption come from. If you believe that we have an obligation to accept anybody who claims a refuge for any reason, just state it clearly without allusions to hearbreaking cases or Jesus himself. And it would also help if you could at least outline some practical ways in which it could work.

I'm not denying the quagmire you describe exists, its the result of living in a fearful world full of terrorized people living in lawless states. The last thing we should be doing is becoming one ourselves don't you think?

By opening our boarders far and wide to anybody who'd care to drop by? By letting terrorized people practice and resort to ways they were used to in their lawless lands? Can I propose that before making such drastic changes we try it somewhere on a smaller scale, e.g. in somebody's private home. After all, we aren't exactly problem free even here, in this blessed land.

Are you suggesting Jesus would throw in the towel too?

I prefer to speak for myself. I am for a solution that would give genuine claimants a fair and realistic chance to settle, while keeping the unwanted folks away.

[August1991]

I'm not denying the quagmire you describe exists, its the result of living in a fearful world full of terrorized people living in lawless states. The last thing we should be doing is becoming one ourselves don't you think? Are you suggesting Jesus would throw in the towel too?

Huh?

eyeball, there are some 6 billion people in the world. Canada cannot possibly accept all of them as immigrants. We must refuse people. Is that humane?

In this case, we have done the humane if arbitrary thing. We allow the guy to stay in Canada (under house arrest) rather than deport him back to his country of origin.

Everyday around the world, people are refused visas to travel to Canada or they are refused permission to board a flight to Canada. Is that fair? It seems to me that this guy is getting better than what these many others got.

[eyeball]

Let's clarify that the court did not proclaim the practice of detaining threatening non-nationals unconstitutional, only the current procedure of it in the law. And gave the state time to adjust the law.

Get on with it then.

And that is why the citizens of this country enjoy protections against such practices. These people aren't citizens, they asked for a right to stay and were denied on security grounds. They aren't being detained arbitrarily because they can be free any moment by leaving this country and trying their luck somewhere else. What you seem to be assuming is that everybody in this wide world has a presumption of right to stay in Canada, and you forgot to explain where does that assumption come from.

The only assumption I'm making is that every human is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The practice of using secret evidence is the very hall mark of the lawless states you're so concerned about, I fail to see how becoming one ourselves helps anyone, least of all us. So far the courts, thankfully, agree. I think the only practical way for Canada to make itself safe is to practice what it preaches. In this case what we preach is that upholding the law and due process and that respecting every human being's right to the presumption of innocence is paramount. Look at what happens to a country when it doesn't; (This hard-hitting expose examines both the controversial excesses of the war on terror and the home-front struggle to circumvent legal obstacles to its prosecution.

Amazon)

If you believe that we have an obligation to accept anybody who claims a refuge for any reason, just state it clearly without allusions to hearbreaking cases or Jesus himself. And it would also help if you could at least outline some practical ways in which it could work.

I don't believe we have an obligation to accept just anybody but our main obligation we should be concerned with is the one I just pointed out.

By opening our boarders far and wide to anybody who'd care to drop by? By letting terrorized people practice and resort to ways they were used to in their lawless lands? Can I propose that before making such drastic changes we try it somewhere on a smaller scale, e.g. in somebody's private home. After all, we aren't exactly problem free even here, in this blessed land.

No, I'd rather propose that we close our borders to any allies that have gone rogue and send a clear and powerful message to people who might see Canada as being a target of terrorism, that we're not the problem. I agree we're far from being problem free in Canada and I'm more afraid of our government trying out its security certificates on its own citizens.

I prefer to speak for myself. I am for a solution that would give genuine claimants a fair and realistic chance to settle, while keeping the unwanted folks away.

Me too, but given the incredible complexity of the problem we're faced with I suggest the simple question, what would Jesus do, could be an effective way of making it simpler to understand.

[eyeball]

Huh?

eyeball, there are some 6 billion people in the world. Canada cannot possibly accept all of them as immigrants. We must refuse people. Is that humane?

In this case, we have done the humane if arbitrary thing. We allow the guy to stay in Canada (under house arrest) rather than deport him back to his country of origin.

Everyday around the world, people are refused visas to travel to Canada or they are refused permission to board a flight to Canada. Is that fair? It seems to me that this guy is getting better than what these many others got.

Yeah well, its one little finger in a big huge dam. We'd be better off if the world and the place these people come from was a better place for them to stay in. I suggest many want to leave due to the incessant interference they suffer at the hands of the super-rogues and the regimes they support. The more humane thing to do would be take a stand against them. The world needs more of Canada as the saying goes.

Edited March 24, 2009 by eyeball

[August1991]

I suggest many want to leave due to the incessant interference they suffer at the hands of the super-rogues and the regimes they support. The more humane thing to do would be take a stand against them.

Uh, is that an indirect criticsm of the "fascist" US of A?

The world needs more of Canada as the saying goes.

You mean the Canada that fought (using physical force) in WWII against fascists?

----

I don't want to hijack this thread so let me just say that no one is held against their will in Canada under a security certificate. (B_C's comparison to Guantanamo above is wrong since the detainees there are not free to leave.)

Mohammad Mahjoub is free to leave Canada any time he wants. Rather than deport him, we give him the chance to stay in Canada - but in custody. If he chooses house arrest in Canada rather than return to Egypt, is that Canada's fault? Frankly, I think that is more than fair. It is certainly humane if arbitrary.

As to the secrecy surrounding "Security Certificates", since when should the decision to allow a foreigner into Canada meet the same conditions as a criminal trial of a Canadian citizen?

[myata]

The only assumption I'm making is that every human is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

And that's the source of your confusion. They aren't presumed guilty, only not wanted, here. And they aren't being punished, only advised to move on. There's no case for any trials. A stranger shows up on your doorstep, and you don't like the look of them. Do you have an obligation to open the door anyways?

[eyeball]

Uh, is that an indirect criticsm of the "fascist" US of A?

No, its a direct criticism of any country that acts that way.

You mean the Canada that fought (using physical force) in WWII against fascists?

I mean a Canada that persuades with a moral and economic force in the 21st century. Our physical fighting force should be reserved for actual attacks on our own borders.

I don't want to hijack this thread so let me just say that no one is held against their will in Canada under a security certificate. (B_C's comparison to Guantanamo above is wrong since the detainees there are not free to leave.)

Mohammad Mahjoub is free to leave Canada any time he wants. Rather than deport him, we give him the chance to stay in Canada - but in custody. If he chooses house arrest in Canada rather than return to Egypt, is that Canada's fault? Frankly, I think that is more than fair. It is certainly humane if arbitrary.

Frankly, I'm ashamed. 9 years of being held without a trial or disclosure of 'evidence' is cruel and inhumane and its so far beyond arbitrary that its illegal.

As to the secrecy surrounding "Security Certificates", since when should the decision to allow a foreigner into Canada meet the same conditions as a criminal trial of a Canadian citizen?

Ever since Canada signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[myata]

No, I think even that (Declaration) does not require of a state to accept just about anybody as its resident. And that's the only (non existent in the first place) "right", "libertry", etc that's at stake here. These folks can be free in a flash - just as long as, physically, they aren't in Canada.

Of course I may be wrong, and then you certainly wouldn't mind pointing out my mistake.

[eyeball]

And that's the source of your confusion. They aren't presumed guilty, only not wanted, here. And they aren't being punished, only advised to move on. There's no case for any trials. A stranger shows up on your doorstep, and you don't like the look of them. Do you have an obligation to open the door anyways?

No, but we're not talking about strangers or old wars or other imaginary threats we're talking about human beings with kids who have the same universal rights to due legal process as you and me and our kids.

You've decided to accept the state's illegal evidence and I haven't is all, I don't trust the state as far as I can spit. At this point Mohammed Mahjoub and his family should be granted immigrant status as compensation for the suffering our government has inflicted on them. I definitely want more people like him in Canada. We need people who have been maltreated by the state's apparatus to remind us that its always there waiting to be used as abitrarily against anyone it feels like.

[eyeball]

No, I think even that (Declaration) does not require of a state to accept just about anybody as its resident. And that's the only (non existent in the first place) "right", "libertry", etc that's at stake here. These folks can be free in a flash - just as long as, physically, they aren't in Canada.

Of course I may be wrong, and then you certainly wouldn't mind pointing out my mistake.

They want to stay though. They entered as refugees and as far as I'm concerned anyone who comes to this part of the world has as much right to stay as any of my or your ancestors did.

[myata]

Correct.

Their "want" becomes their "right" which is the same as our obligation to roll out a welcome carpet.

Sure, they have the right to come, as our ancestors, etc. But do we also have the right to not let them in though? Do you have the right to not let in anybody who shows up on your doorstep?

[madmax]

This is a policy supported by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in order to combat terrorism.

Edited March 25, 2009 by madmax

[myata]

Nice quote! I'm surprised it's not being brought up and discussed more widely (by who though? the PM appears to be no less likely to "traffic in evil").

No I don't subscribe to "dealing in evil". In my view, there's still a couple of miles distance between active trafficking in wars, in terms described by our now recanted would be PM, and the policy of exposing the other cheek to be slapped on by just about anybody who'd feel like it. That territory, where I believe we should stay as a self respecting and peaceful nation, is to help others only when asked, and with non violent means, never make war on other's lands, but to hold our own if we must.

[eyeball]

Correct.

Their "want" becomes their "right" which is the same as our obligation to roll out a welcome carpet.

Well, its actually just an obligation to let them try. You're sounding more like some hyperbolic fundamentalist who characterizes single sex marriage as a personal attack against them.

Sure, they have the right to come, as our ancestors, etc. But do we also have the right to not let them in though?

Well sure but the government has to prove why we shouldn't. To do that they need to present evidence...are you beginning to see where your confusion stems from yet?

Do you have the right to not let in anybody who shows up on your doorstep?

I sure I hope I still do.

[myata]

Well, its actually just an obligation to let them try. You're sounding more like some hyperbolic fundamentalist who characterizes single sex marriage as a personal attack against them.

Let who try? Anybody? Let Bin Laden try? Hitler? (if he was alive)?

Why this, then? Where's the logic:

I sure I hope I still do.

Or, if you meant giving them fair consideration, it was tried. At least twice. By reviewing their application and by federal judge confirming the security case. How many more times / ways should we still try? Should we do it for anybody, or only those cases that happened to come to the attention of the media? Should other applicants wait in line, patiently, while we're being tied up trying, or we'll just open our bottomless purse and get everybody in the country busy processing and rerevewing immigration cases from anybody who'd like to try?

[eyeball]

Let who try? Anybody? Let Bin Laden try? Hitler? (if he was alive)?

You're being hyperbolic again, get a grip.

Why this, then? Where's the logic:

The state is using illegal security certificates, what's to stop them from kicking my door down illegally, you? I doubt it.

Or, if you meant giving them fair consideration, it was tried. At least twice. By reviewing their application and by federal judge confirming the security case. How many more times / ways should we still try?

As many ways as they are to take I suppose, as long as they're legal. The federal judge's confirmation was nullified by a bunch of other judges that the security certificates he confirmed are illegal.

Should we do it for anybody, or only those cases that happened to come to the attention of the media?

Everybody, notwithstanding Hitler of course, he's dead.

Should other applicants wait in line, patiently, while we're being tied up trying,

I suppose, but we're not being tied up, we're tieing ourselves up, do you see the difference?

or we'll just open our bottomless purse and get everybody in the country busy processing and rerevewing immigration cases from anybody who'd like to try?

Like I said, get a grip.

Edited March 25, 2009 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't want to hijack this thread so let me just say that no one is held against their will in Canada under a security certificate. (B_C's comparison to Guantanamo above is wrong since the detainees there are not free to leave.)

Not exactly...the legal detention is real and equivalent to 'Gitmo, if only for the pace of legal process:

In the case of refugees and refugee applicants, the named person is automatically detained, without the opportunity to apply for release on bail until 120 days after the certificate is upheld by a Federal Court judge. In the case of Permanent Residents, where the government has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual named in the certificate is a danger to national security, to the safety of any person or is unlikely to participate in any court proceedings, the individual can be detained, with the opportunity to apply for release on bail every six months from the beginning of their detention.[9]

An individual may be held for several years, without any criminal charges being laid, before the review is completed.

In practice, the fact that there is often a risk of torture on the one hand, and a limited legal opportunity to challenge detention, on the other, has meant that named individuals are neither released from prison nor deported after the certificate is upheld.

Amnesty International wrote of several security certificate detainees on 2 February 2007, “Their detention has truly become tantamount to being indefinite as they have limited choices: either remain detained while continuing to pursue legal challenges to the unjust procedure that governs their cases, or agree to be returned to countries where Amnesty International believes they face a serious risk of torture.”

Mohammad Mahjoub is free to leave Canada any time he wants. Rather than deport him, we give him the chance to stay in Canada - but in custody. If he chooses house arrest in Canada rather than return to Egypt, is that Canada's fault? Frankly, I think that is more than fair. It is certainly humane if arbitrary.

But his circumstance cannot be uniformly applied for all previous detainees.

As to the secrecy surrounding "Security Certificates", since when should the decision to allow a foreigner into Canada meet the same conditions as a criminal trial of a Canadian citizen?

Ever since the high and mighty questioned such practices by other nations.

[guyser]

..equivalent to 'Gitmo, if only for the pace of legal process:

..or lack thereof.

[August1991]

They want to stay though. They entered as refugees and as far as I'm concerned anyone who comes to this part of the world has as much right to stay as any of my or your ancestors did.

All 6 billion of them?

Ever since Canada signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Eyeball, that's insane. Canadian taxpayers do not have the means to offer justice to everyon in the world.

We must pick and choose. Live with it.

In the case of refugees and refugee applicants, the named person is automatically detained, without the opportunity to apply for release on bail until 120 days after the certificate is upheld by a Federal Court judge. In the case of Permanent Residents, where the government has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual named in the certificate is a danger to national security, to the safety of any person or is unlikely to participate in any court proceedings, the individual can be detained, with the opportunity to apply for release on bail every six months from the beginning of their detention.[9]

...without release into Canadian society.

When a foreigner is "held" under a Security Certificate, they are prevented from entering Canadian society - as are many thousands every day who are refused a visa to enter Canada or are prevented to board a plane. All these people are free to continue their lives, as are those foreigners under a Security Certificate.\

Mahjoub, for example, is a free man. He can leave Canada any time he wants and return to Egypt. Instead, he chose a prison in Canada (at taxpayer expense) and now house-arrest (at taxpayer expense) rather than life as an Egyptian citizen in Egypt. (There are about 70 million Egyptians. Guess what will happen in the future.)

====

Gitmo is different. There are about 200 men whom the US (and other western countries) want to confine. These men do not have the choice to go "home" or go to any other country. They are detainees or POWs. No civilized country wants to let them free.

[bush_cheney2004]

....When a foreigner is "held" under a Security Certificate, they are prevented from entering Canadian society - as are many thousands every day who are refused a visa to enter Canada or are prevented to board a plane. All these people are free to continue their lives, as are those foreigners under a Security Certificate.\

Not true....as in the case of Adil Charkaoui..who was not "free" to continue his life.

Charkaoui was arrested under a security certificate in May 2003, which was co-signed by Solicitor General Wayne Easter, and Immigration Minister Denis Coderre.[4] He was detained without charge or trial in Rivière des prairies Detention Centre. He was released from prison on $50,000 bail on 18 February 2005. His bail conditions include a curfew, electronic monitoring, designated chaperones for leaving his home, restriction to the island of Montreal, 24-hour police access to his home without warrant, and a prohibition on access to the internet, on the use of cell phones and on the use of any telephone except the one in his home.