Legal obligations and consequences to Iacobucci

[msdogfood]

This is more a legal than political question however it has everything to do with the Prime Minister's Office and the Conservative Party of Canada.

This is a multi-point question so please bear with me. The issue of the questions deals with Afghan detainee operations. The government recently retained the services of former Supreme Court Justice Iacobucci to review the classified documents associated with the file. Here are my questions.

Point 1: Mr. Iacobucci is no longer a sitting judge so I am assuming there is no guarantee the government will give him the complete set of classified documents as he will no longer have an active security clearance. Am I correct with that assumption?

Point 2: Assume they gave him all of the documents and he begins reviewing them. If there is clear evidence of complicity in torture or direct knowledge of torture or the participation in torture, is Iacobucci required to also report it to The Hague breaching attorney client privilege?

Point 3: Because Iacobucci is no longer a member of one of the executive bodies of the country such as Parliament or the Supreme Court, hasn't the government unintentionally created a perfect prosecution witness against the government of Canada if Canada is ever charged with committing a war crime? We are a signator to the International Criminal Court.

Point 4: Even if it doesn't get to the level of a war crime, some of the information will come out - probably enough for civil litigation. The former justice will be one of the key witnesses so hasn't he tied himself up by being required to go to civil litigation cases for the next 10 years depending on the information that comes out.

Point 5: If most of the scenarios come true, Iacobucci as a former judge would want this to come out. As a form of self defense he would have to make public what he found. If information is found but not reported to the proper parties, Iacobucci would be found guilty in participating in a conspiracy to cover up a war crime if it ever gets to The Hague.

In the end, isn't it more dangerous to the government of Canada hiring a lawyer such as Iacobucci given all of the obligations as an attorney and possibly the obligations under international law in reporting what is found.

Thanks

Edited March 21, 2010 by msdogfood

[nicky10013]

Iacobucci

[msdogfood]

Iacobucci

ok thanks!.

[nicky10013]

ok thanks!.

No problem. When I first read articles about him I looked at his name in a puzzled manner. I then heard it on tv and said..."oh.."

[msdogfood]

No problem. When I first read articles about him I looked at his name in a puzzled manner. I then heard it on tv and said..."oh.."

I will fix his name later

I dont have the time now

what do all if you think of my point of view of legal preacher do i have a point???.

thanks!

Edited March 19, 2010 by msdogfood

[msdogfood]

The name has been fixed except for the title which cannot be edited. Does anyone want to take a crack at answering this

multi-faceted question or is it too unfocused and nobody can understand it.

Hoping to see your input.

Thanks

[capricorn]

This is more a legal than political question however it has everything to do with the Prime Minister's Office and the Conservative Party of Canada.

This is a multi-point question so please bear with me. The issue of the questions deals with Afghan detainee operations. The government recently retained the services of former Supreme Court Justice Iacobucci to review the classified documents associated with the file. Here are my questions.

Point 1: Mr. Iacobucci is no longer a sitting judge so I am assuming there is no guarantee the government will give him the complete set of classified documents as he will no longer have an active security clearance. Am I correct with that assumption?

Point 2: Assume they gave him all of the documents and he begins reviewing them. If there is clear evidence of complicity in torture or direct knowledge of torture or the participation in torture, is Iacobucci required to also report it to The Hague breaching attorney client privilege?

Point 3: Because Iacobucci is no longer a member of one of the executive bodies of the country such as Parliament or the Supreme Court, hasn't the government unintentionally created a perfect prosecution witness against the government of Canada if Canada is ever charged with committing a war crime? We are a signator to the International Criminal Court.

Point 4: Even if it doesn't get to the level of a war crime, some of the information will come out - probably enough for civil litigation. The former justice will be one of the key witnesses so hasn't he tied himself up by being required to go to civil litigation cases for the next 10 years depending on the information that comes out.

Point 5: If most of the scenarios come true, Iacobucci as a former judge would want this to come out. As a form of self defense he would have to make public what he found. If information is found but not reported to the proper parties, Iacobucci would be found guilty in participating in a conspiracy to cover up a war crime if it ever gets to The Hague.

In the end, isn't it more dangerous to the government of Canada hiring a lawyer such as Iacobucci given all of the obligations as an attorney and possibly the obligations under international law in reporting what is found.

Thanks

That's a lot of territory to cover msdogfood. Perhaps that's why you're not getting too many takers. I'll give it a shot.

On point one, if Iacobucci's security clearance has expired, it's a simple matter for the government to reinstate it. This is often done in the case of public servants.

In response to the rest, it's easiest first to look at the main thrust of his mandate.

On the weekend, the government released Iacobucci's terms of reference, which included which making recommendations as to what information, if disclosed, would compromise national security; deciding whether disclosing information for the purpose of public interest outweighs the purpose of non-disclosure, and whether any information is subject to solicitor-client privilege.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/15/detainee-documents.html

The government added he will report his findings to the House.

I can't see Iacobucci feeling compelled to communicate with the International Criminal Court, regardless of his findings. As I understand, the ICC reviews cases only where they have received a formal complaint that a war crime has been committed. It is inconceivable to me that this would even enter his mind. He will be looking at this matter strictly as an internal question. Of course, if another individual or group wants to lodge a complaint at the ICC as a result of Iacobucci's findings, that's another issue altogether. If it did come to that point and the ICC accepted a complaint against members of the government and convened a trial, I'm not sure whether he could be called as a witness or would have immunity from having to testify.

Similarly, on the prospect of civil litigation cases, he may have immunity from such proceedings. I'll defer to anyone who has legal training to shed light on this.

On point 5, his findings will be reported to the House. In effect, that makes it public because we'll have access to his report. In essence, he is not covering up anything. Therefore, he could not be found guilty on any point at home or internationally.

My two cents.

[Keepitsimple]

The tone of the entire Afghan "debate" is disgusting. Our justice system is predicated on an accused being innocent until proven guilty. That's why media always use the term "alledged". The arguments put forward by the opposition and carried in Mouthpieces like the Star are that our Military - and by extension, our government are complicit in torture - we know the proof is there and they are hiding it. No "aledged" about it - they are guilty...period. As much as we would like Afghans to magically turn themselves into a Human Rights Nirvana, it won't happen overnight. We are helping them build their democratic institutions from the ground up....and that includes prisons. Any idiot knows that througthout Afghanistan, Afghan jailers often treat their own prisoners in ways that we would deem inappropriate. That's not the issue. The issue is whether our detainees have been tortured and if we knew that was the case, did we try to do something about it. Since the Liberals first developed a detainee transfer protocol, that protocol has been steadily upgraded to protect our Afghan detainees from abuse at the hands of Afghan jailers. We have heard that Kandahar prison (where our detainees are housed) is in fact, the best run of all Afghan prisons and has the lowest probability of abuse. The only real evidence of abuse was that of an Afghan detainee being beaten with shoes by his Afghan jailers....and when our Canadian Military saw this - or heard of it - they took him back into custody until the situation was resolved. Yet apparently our Military and Government are guilty - we just need to see the proof that Harper is hiding. Presumably, some order from Peter MacKay to our military, telling them to turn a blind eye to any allegations of abuse is just waiting to be found. Do you really think such an order exists - and do you think our Military would follow such an order? Do you really think there'll be memos of tortured Afghans where we did nothing or our military were told to do nothing? Do you think Rick Hillier would have stood for that. More and more Canadians are understanding that this is sheer political opportunism - and it's disgusting.

[nicky10013]

The tone of the entire Afghan "debate" is disgusting. Our justice system is predicated on an accused being innocent until proven guilty. That's why media always use the term "alledged". The arguments put forward by the opposition and carried in Mouthpieces like the Star are that our Military - and by extension, our government are complicit in torture - we know the proof is there and they are hiding it. No "aledged" about it - they are guilty...period. As much as we would like Afghans to magically turn themselves into a Human Rights Nirvana, it won't happen overnight. We are helping them build their democratic institutions from the ground up....and that includes prisons. Any idiot knows that througthout Afghanistan, Afghan jailers often treat their own prisoners in ways that we would deem inappropriate. That's not the issue. The issue is whether our detainees have been tortured and if we knew that was the case, did we try to do something about it. Since the Liberals first developed a detainee transfer protocol, that protocol has been steadily upgraded to protect our Afghan detainees from abuse at the hands of Afghan jailers. We have heard that Kandahar prison (where our detainees are housed) is in fact, the best run of all Afghan prisons and has the lowest probability of abuse. The only real evidence of abuse was that of an Afghan detainee being beaten with shoes by his Afghan jailers....and when our Canadian Military saw this - or heard of it - they took him back into custody until the situation was resolved. Yet apparently our Military and Government are guilty - we just need to see the proof that Harper is hiding. Presumably, some order from Peter MacKay to our military, telling them to turn a blind eye to any allegations of abuse is just waiting to be found. Do you really think such an order exists - and do you think our Military would follow such an order? Do you really think there'll be memos of tortured Afghans where we did nothing or our military were told to do nothing? Do you think Rick Hillier would have stood for that. More and more Canadians are understanding that this is sheer political opportunism - and it's disgusting.

If there's nothing to hide then by extension there should be no reason to censor the documents that parliament asked for. You can throw "alleged" around all you want, however, that doesn't change anything. This isn't at all like a court case. In a court case you'd never have the lawyer for the defendant with all the evidence refusing to even enter it into court if it EXONERATES the witness. That and keeping evidence from either the defence or the prosecution is actually illegal. Furthermore, when everyone who would know if torture is being used is saying that it has been except for the two organizations (the government and the military) that actually have something to lose in all of this, yet are hiding documents from parliament, it also says a lot. So please, take your indignation some place else.

Edited March 19, 2010 by nicky10013

[capricorn]

If there's nothing to hide then by extension there should be no reason to censor the documents that parliament asked for.

We don't know what the redacted parts of the documents contain and guessing gets us nowhere. Hopefully, Iacobucci will take the guessing out of it. It seems to me most Canadians have tuned out of this and moved on. I mean, Ignatieff seems quite happy with Iacobucci's assignment. The proof is that he was not in Ottawa this week leading the charge on this file. He was away on a listening tour. Does he have his priorities right or is this a mixed message from the Liberals?

This isn't at all like a court case. In a court case you'd never have the lawyer for the defendant with all the evidence refusing to even enter it into court if it EXONERATES the witness. That and keeping evidence from either the defence or the prosecution is actually illegal.

You're right this is not a court case.

Furthermore, when everyone who would know if torture is being used is saying that it has been except for the two organizations (the government and the military) that actually have something to lose in all of this, yet are hiding documents from parliament, it also says a lot.

Yeah, everyone wants to get their two cents in. It sells papers and keeps pundits and partisans busy on the internet and salivating with new and rehashed claims of conspiracies.

So please, take your indignation some place else.

Why should I be subjected only to your indignation? I happen to like hearing the indignation of other posters especially when it's indignation at your indignation.

[ToadBrother]

In the end, isn't it more dangerous to the government of Canada hiring a lawyer such as Iacobucci given all of the obligations as an attorney and possibly the obligations under international law in reporting what is found.

Thanks

Whether dangerous or not is irrelevant. He has no standing here. Parliament has an absolute right to demand anything it wants from the Governemnt.

[Mr.Canada]

Uggh...so many wall of text crits. Please break up your posts into paragraphs to make it easier for us to read.

[Muddy]

I think the government is wrong to even entertain having a judge go over legalitys of what our soldiers do. If Canadain soldiers are torturing prisoners we might have some questions to be answered . But know one is saying they are. The question seems to be ,are Canadians handing over prisoners to the Afgans to be tortured or worse are they letting them go so they can have another go at killing Canadian soldiers. We are not invaders of this country. How the Afgans run their prisons are really none of our business. Our job as soldiers in a war is to kill or capture the bad guys and try our best in our spare time to help with some infrastructure..

[ToadBrother]

I think the government is wrong to even entertain having a judge go over legalitys of what our soldiers do. If Canadain soldiers are torturing prisoners we might have some questions to be answered . But know one is saying they are. The question seems to be ,are Canadians handing over prisoners to the Afgans to be tortured or worse are they letting them go so they can have another go at killing Canadian soldiers. We are not invaders of this country. How the Afgans run their prisons are really none of our business. Our job as soldiers in a war is to kill or capture the bad guys and try our best in our spare time to help with some infrastructure..

To me it's irrelevant. I think it's a wild goose chase, a fishing expedition in the hopes of embarrassing the government.

But still, the fundamental point is that either Parliament still maintains its age-old authority over Government or it does not.

[msdogfood]

I think the government is wrong to even entertain having a judge go over legalitys of what our soldiers do. If Canadain soldiers are torturing prisoners we might have some questions to be answered . But know one is saying they are. The question seems to be ,are Canadians handing over prisoners to the Afgans to be tortured or worse are they letting them go so they can have another go at killing Canadian soldiers. We are not invaders of this country. How the Afgans run their prisons are really none of our business. Our job as soldiers in a war is to kill or capture the bad guys and try our best in our spare time to help with some infrastructure..

well we did sine the Janeva confetone so that is the legalitys!

[Mr.Canada]

well we did sine the Janeva confetone so that is the legalitys!

Might want to try having enough respect for the former Mr. Justice to spell his name correctly. I am sure he's accomplished more in his life then you ever will. Misspelling his name purposely shows a lack of respect and maturity. This isn't Rabble.

[msdogfood]

Might want to try having enough respect for the former Mr. Justice to spell his name correctly. I am sure he's accomplished more in his life then you ever will. Misspelling his name purposely shows a lack of respect and maturity. This isn't Rabble.

I did in the post but i can not fix it in the thread subject line moderator's are the only ones who can do that!

Thank you.

[Mr.Canada]

I did in the post but i can not fix it in the thread subject line moderator's are the only ones who can do that!

Thank you.

Yes, you can edit the name in the title as well. Your Welcome.

[msdogfood]

Yes, you can edit the name in the title as well. Your Welcome.

ok how do i do that than??

[msdogfood]

ok i got it i think??

Thank- you!.

[Topaz]

There's talk about setting up a security-cleared Parliamentary panel to review the detainess documents, are you for it? I think its a good idea because it takes from all parties. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100321/national/detainee_secrets

[msdogfood]

There's talk about setting up a security-cleared Parliamentary panel to review the detainess documents, are you for it? I think its a good idea because it takes from all parties. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100321/national/detainee_secrets

yes i am

what i find very interesting/ disturbing is that Parliamentary panels have never bean security-cleared i had always assumed they wore so they could do their work like a Federal judge or the supreme court is!.. but i guess not.

not good!!

Edited March 21, 2010 by msdogfood

[msdogfood]

so who do you think will be going down for all of this??

[groupeii]

It appears a problematic appointment to forstall parliamentary inquiry - where the military has not classified the documents - where people of the given security clearance ought to be granted need to know status.

The issue is that Iacobucci is a conservative and thus cannot present his position unbiased, thus he should not be in that position, and whomever appointed him also grossly improperly exercised their duties. - or is he liberal but appointed to his senior position by Conservatives in a way that perhaps the PM really isn't non partisan.. or perhaps a liberal supreme court justice is conservative enough for a conservative PM to determine what information ought to be made public. Of course he as a lawyer would be violating his oath as a member of the bar to put the administration of justice into disrepute - and therefor it is highly problematic to allow a lawyer to censor documents on national security grounds when the administration of justice is concerned. It is a conflict of interest. Why are the courts concerned with national security? Doesn't CSIS and CSIR and the integrated national security unit deal with national security? Yet another "kangaroo court" created by the Tories to remove public insight into operations of a government that obviously must be breaking a whole bunch of laws "for national security" on unconstitutional grounds. Why cover it up and hide it, if it is legal?

The contempt of parliament is highly unfortunate. Especially if this pertains to governmental process, as I cannot see why acknowledging torture practices would be a national security threat. It at worst would just cause public disgust and disrepute in the government and their agents - as ought to be, as torture is a war crime, and Canada should not support a government that commits war crimes in a war that doesn't pose a direct threat to Canada and a war that the majority of the public doesn't support participation in. A government that violates its own laws is not a good government, it is a corrupt government.

It is highly unfortunate if our legislators don't have security clearance or need to know status, and are instead left in the dark to perform their duties in the Interest of Canadians. When they have that opportunity to represent democracy in an ever shrinking expanse of Canadian Parliamentary Operations.

If our legislators are untrusted and left in the dark, how is a government of legislators any different but to be ignorant and in that case how is that responsible government. The government fails. An irresponsible government does not have the sanction of right to rule, it is an absence of the grounds for which rule of law under responsible government are founded on.

Shall the government fall due to its inability to support the constitution or uphold the laws of Canada.

Edited March 23, 2010 by groupeii

[msdogfood]

It appears a problematic appointment to forstall parliamentary inquiry - where the military has not classified the documents - where people of the given security clearance ought to be granted need to know status.

The issue is that Iacobucci is a conservative and thus cannot present his position unbiased, thus he should not be in that position, and whomever appointed him also grossly improperly exercised their duties. - or is he liberal but appointed to his senior position by Conservatives in a way that perhaps the PM really isn't non partisan.. or perhaps a liberal supreme court justice is conservative enough for a conservative PM to determine what information ought to be made public. Of course he as a lawyer would be violating his oath as a member of the bar to put the administration of justice into disrepute - and therefor it is highly problematic to allow a lawyer to censor documents on national security grounds when the administration of justice is concerned. It is a conflict of interest. Why are the courts concerned with national security? Doesn't CSIS and CSIR and the integrated national security unit deal with national security? Yet another "kangaroo court" created by the Tories to remove public insight into operations of a government that obviously must be breaking a whole bunch of laws "for national security" on unconstitutional grounds. Why cover it up and hide it, if it is legal?

The contempt of parliament is highly unfortunate. Especially if this pertains to governmental process, as I cannot see why acknowledging torture practices would be a national security threat. It at worst would just cause public disgust and disrepute in the government and their agents - as ought to be, as torture is a war crime, and Canada should not support a government that commits war crimes in a war that doesn't pose a direct threat to Canada and a war that the majority of the public doesn't support participation in. A government that violates its own laws is not a good government, it is a corrupt government.

It is highly unfortunate if our legislators don't have security clearance or need to know status, and are instead left in the dark to perform their duties in the Interest of Canadians. When they have that opportunity to represent democracy in an ever shrinking expanse of Canadian Parliamentary Operations.

If our legislators are untrusted and left in the dark, how is a government of legislators any different but to be ignorant and in that case how is that responsible government. The government fails. An irresponsible government does not have the sanction of right to rule, it is an absence of the grounds for which rule of law under responsible government are founded on.

Shall the government fall due to its inability to support the constitution or uphold the laws of Canada.

i agree with you mostly as you point out he has the obligation to be unbiased and he has his oath also the bar will destroy him

The PMO is not a fan because he won a court battle with the PMO forcing it to disclose information about CSIS contributing to the Hersh integration of canadians by Syrian intelligence he did that as head of a public inquiry looking to the many cases of misconduct by foreign affairs & CSIS which he is still investigating by the way!

so i was suprid that the PMO heard that same guy because although he may be conservative look at what he forced the PMO to do already

so thay rally do not like the guy!!!

Edited March 24, 2010 by msdogfood