Canadian ISIS Sympathizer killed by police

[Argus]

My position is the law......you suggested the various Canadian security agencies should have been "watching Driver", but for such agencies to "watch" Driver they require a warrant, but to obtain a warrant, they need evidence that Driver was a "threat"..........ergo, your position is devoid of reality in a modern Western democracy (minus perhaps Israel).

Police don't need PROOF that this individual is planning something violent. They only need to establish that he is a threat to do so given his expressed beliefs. And that would not have been difficult. Further, if they had tried and been denied that would have come out for they could have used it to show cause why they need better laws.

Under the warrant provision, a judge may issue a warrant if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to justify the belief that the requested measures are required to enable CSIS “to reduce a threat to the security of Canada,” and are “reasonabl[e] and proportiona[te].”[7] - See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/bill-c-51-legal-primer#sthash.rxwvU9Jq.dpuf

Edited August 14, 2016 by Argus

[?Impact]

They only need to establish that he is a threat to do so given his expressed beliefs.

To be clear, he would need to make an actual threat. Subtle distinction, but important.

[Argus]

To be clear, he would need to make an actual threat. Subtle distinction, but important.

No, he wouldn't. Read my edited post. Under C51 CSIS can get warrants if they believe they are necessary to reduce a suspected threat to the security of Canada. By their very nature, people who support ISIS are a threat to Canada.

[Derek 2.0]

Police don't need PROOF that this individual is planning something violent. They only need to establish that he is a threat to do so given his expressed beliefs. And that would not have been difficult. Further, if they had tried and been denied that would have come out for they could have used it to show cause why they need better laws.

If its not difficult, by all means, explain what Driver was doing in the public sphere, prior to making his video, that would "establish" him as a threat, that would allow Canadian security agencies to obtain a warrant to "watch him" as you've suggested.......if you are aware of something, something missed by Canadian authorities, I would love to see it and would support your inane suggestion that Canadian authorities had nearly shit the bed on this file......

Absent such "establishment" of a "threat" your views and opinions are divorced from the actual real world.

[Argus]

If its not difficult, by all means, explain what Driver was doing in the public sphere, prior to making his video, that would "establish" him as a threat,

He had expressed his support for ISIS, which was apparently enough to get the courts to grant a peace bond with a lot of conditions on it. Under C51 it should have been fairly easy to get a warrant to monitor his internet use.

[Derek 2.0]

When it comes to terrorism, by the time it looks like you have enough grounds for a warrant, that probably means it's time to kick that door down right this second.

As was essentially done in this case.......from my understanding, the FBI contacted the RCMP at ~8:30am EST the day of the take down, by ~11:00am EST they had established who he was, and within minutes they had unmarked cars watching his resident.......followed by the ERT that was present to "take him down" when he left in the taxi around ~4:00-4:30pm EST.

[Derek 2.0]

He had expressed his support for ISIS, which was apparently enough to get the courts to grant a peace bond with a lot of conditions on it. Under C51 it should have been fairly easy to get a warrant to monitor his internet use.

No, the majority of the conditions of the Terror Peace Bond were overturned......a demonstration that the Crown and security agencies didn't have information to "further watch him"........C-51 was used in this case (the Peace Bond) and was muted last year during his trail, resulting in a piece of paper that told Driver "not to do terrorist stuff"........

[Argus]

No, the majority of the conditions of the Terror Peace Bond were overturned......a demonstration that the Crown and security agencies didn't have information to "further watch him"........C-51 was used in this case (the Peace Bond) and was muted last year during his trail, resulting in a piece of paper that told Driver "not to do terrorist stuff"........

CSIS could have gotten a warrant based on C-51 to intercept his communications. And if not, then the law should be changed so that people who are clearly a threat to Canada can be more easily monitored.

[?Impact]

Read my edited post. Under C51

You are correct that C51 has a lot of unconstitutional stuff in it.

[Derek 2.0]

CSIS could have gotten a warrant based on C-51 to intercept his communications. And if not, then the law should be changed so that people who are clearly a threat to Canada can be more easily monitored.

Ahh no, they couldn't........as already established, the Crown didn't have enough information to convict him last year, and the conditions of the Peace Bond were later over turned......a demonstration that there was very little admissible evidence to "watch him", hence, CSIS couldn't have "gotten a warrant".........

And you've yet to demonstrate, absent hindsight, how Driver was a "threat"..............

[cybercoma]

No, he wouldn't. Read my edited post. Under C51 CSIS can get warrants if they believe they are necessary to reduce a suspected threat to the security of Canada. By their very nature, people who support ISIS are a threat to Canada.

You added the word suspected in this post but it's not in your pasted legislation.

[Derek 2.0]

You added the word suspected in this post but it's not in your pasted legislation.

And that is where his point falls apart.........absent Driver conducting anything "threatening", prior to the video release, Canadian authorities would have no reason to even seek a warrant to "watch him"...........as was said to Argus, the authorities either had zero indication that Driver posed a threat or any evidence they did have would have been inadmissible in court.........either way, any such indication of Driver being a threat in the days/weeks/months prior to his video release would have resulted in police action far earlier then when he caught a taxi to go blow people up on their way home from work.

What is clear is that Argus has a poor understanding of how the law works, the actual powers security agencies have and the "Clear and Present danger" that "lone wolf" terrorists present to Western Society..........even in a demented World in which the Canadian authorities become a modern day Stasi there is very little an organ of the State can do to a person willing to work alone, with the aim of taking the lives of other people, well intending to take their own life.....

Edited August 14, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Argus]

And that is where his point falls apart.........absent Driver conducting anything "threatening", prior to the video release, Canadian authorities would

I'm not sure what planet you've been living on, but on this one, anyone who pledges allegiance to ISIS is a threat. Period.

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure what planet you've been living on, but on this one, anyone who pledges allegiance to ISIS is a threat. Period.

So is anyone who joins a biker gang or belongs to identified racist associations. Rightwing 'lone wolves' kill more than radical Islamists. Yet, here you are with all your usual bluster about how we should sell off our rights to be protected against Islamists. I highly doubt you, of all people, would want to promote a legal system where you get locked up for being an avowed rightwinger who's frustrated with the government and our society. Until there is an actual threat, rather than a perceived threat, there is nothing the government can do and for good reason. Otherwise, they could lock up anyone for whatever reasons they could drum up. You're literally asking to scrap parts of the charter of rights that allow free association. You're also asking for thoughtcrime to be a thing. Until someone makes an actual threat or begins planning for an actual attack, they're allowed to think and associate without whoever the hell they want. That's why the RCMP doesn't just lock up every Hell's Angel they come across. That's why they don't just get a warrant to round up everyone associated with Stormfront. And that's why you're not locked up as a rightwinger who's dissatisfied with our government and society.

[Big Guy]

.... And that's why you're not locked up as a rightwinger who's dissatisfied with our government and society.

To lock somebody up they have to know who they are. That is why it is far safer to spread fear and hate on anonymous boards than under your own name.

[Guest]

I am not afraid, nor do I hate. Do you think I just don't spend enough time on here?

[?Impact]

I'm not sure what planet you've been living on, but on this one, anyone who pledges allegiance to ISIS is a threat. Period.

I think the question is not after the video he posted where he pledged allegiance to ISIS and made threats, but what about prior?

[dialamah]

I am not afraid, nor do I hate. Do you think I just don't spend enough time on here?

It seems there's a difference in brain function between people who are afraid and those who are not. You could spend 24 hours a day here, and still not be afraid if you have the 'liberal' brain (not in the political sense), and be very afraid even if you spent less than an hour a week here if you had the 'conservative' (not in the political sense) brain. I've no doubt these two types of people provided a balance between exploration and growth and safety and caution throughout history, but now it just seems too many conservative types are willing to impose their 'caution' on everyone else. Thus ISIS and similar, and growing right-wing Christianity in the States (and probably Canada too, but I don't see as much media on that).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/new-studies-show-liberals-and-conservatives-have-different-brain-structures

[Guest]

It seems there's a difference in brain function between people who are afraid and those who are not. You could spend 24 hours a day here, and still not be afraid if you have the 'liberal' brain (not in the political sense), and be very afraid even if you spent less than an hour a week here if you had the 'conservative' (not in the political sense) brain. I've no doubt these two types of people provided a balance between exploration and growth and safety and caution throughout history, but now it just seems too many conservative types are willing to impose their 'caution' on everyone else. Thus ISIS and similar, and growing right-wing Christianity in the States (and probably Canada too, but I don't see as much media on that).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/new-studies-show-liberals-and-conservatives-have-different-brain-structures

Does caution imply afraid? I put my seat belt on.

[dialamah]

Does caution imply afraid? I put my seat belt on.

Caution is probably not a strong enough term; afraid is closer, but I was attempting to avoid offending the more conservative among us. Did you read the links? It's pretty interesting information. I daresay there are many among us (perhaps most?) who are more middle-of-the-way between being overly fearful and overly courageous, but at least these studies help me to understand why something like refugees in Canada appears to cause some people to practically crap their drawers, while others see it as an opportunity to help the less fortunate in the world.

[Argus]

I think the question is not after the video he posted where he pledged allegiance to ISIS and made threats, but what about prior?

I think if the police consider you a radical extremist and you're expressing your support for murder and terrorism and you're posting stuff that makes your father want to throw up you ought to be monitored.

Driver caught CSIS's attention in October 2014 when he was tweeting support for the militant group ISIS under the alias Harun Abdurahman.

His father was contacted by the intelligence agency and was told his son was considered a "radical extremist." Agents pulled out a file three centimetres thick, documenting Harun's social media activities

"Some things made me want to throw up," the father said. "People beheaded — he's commenting on them like it's some big joke, and he's applauding their actions. There was a picture of Christian kids being assassinated, and he said they deserved it."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/aaron-driver-troubled-childhood-isis-supporter-1.3716222

[Argus]

Caution is probably not a strong enough term; afraid is closer, but I was attempting to avoid offending the more conservative among us.

The world is full of threats. Life is full of threats. The proper response is to go on living, but take precautions based on how likely the threat is and how easy the precautions are to take.

It's foolish not to take elementary precautions against serious threats, even if they're unlikely, but foolish to change everything you do based on an unlikely threat. Do I think there's going to be a crisis some day where the city's water supply is corrupted and food becomes scarce? No. I consider that highly unlikely. Still, it's a pretty easy precaution to have some jugs of water and emergency food in the basement so I do. Why not?

Monitoring extremist radicals who have expressed approval for violent terrorism seems to me to also be a fairly elementary and easy to take precaution.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Argus

[Guest]

Caution is probably not a strong enough term; afraid is closer, but I was attempting to avoid offending the more conservative among us. Did you read the links? It's pretty interesting information. I daresay there are many among us (perhaps most?) who are more middle-of-the-way between being overly fearful and overly courageous, but at least these studies help me to understand why something like refugees in Canada appears to cause some people to practically crap their drawers, while others see it as an opportunity to help the less fortunate in the world.

There seems to be a definite fear of conservatives on here. I wouldn't know. I'm not a conservative, except when I vote. I didn't read the links. I see refugees as individuals. Some are bad, some are good. I would have no problem pointing out the bad. Generally I don't point out good unless it is exceptional.

Either way, I'm not overly afraid of anyone one here.

[dialamah]

There seems to be a definite fear of conservatives on here.

Moronic comment. I was hoping for better from you, but as you haven't read the links and have apparently decided not to continue a reasoned conversation, I'll also withdraw.

.

[Guest]

Caution is probably not a strong enough term; afraid is closer, but I was attempting to avoid offending the more conservative among us.

Moronic comment. I was hoping for better from you, but as you haven't read the links and have apparently decided not to continue a reasoned conversation, I'll also withdraw.

.

I just figured one moronic comment deserved another.