kEiThZ
Superstar
That's the normal 'dist' (distribution) list for all intelligence messages and reports. There's nothing nefarious about it. It's just the normal procedure of sharing any analysis or any information with other government departments.
|
|
|
New day, new political scandal
- Thread starter jade_lee
- Start date
That's the normal 'dist' (distribution) list for all intelligence messages and reports. There's nothing nefarious about it. It's just the normal procedure of sharing any analysis or any information with other government departments.
jade_lee
Active Member
Paul Koring
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail, Tuesday, Jun. 23, 2009 04:12AM EDT
Abousfian Abdelrazik, the Canadian the government was told to bring home after years of forced exile, is a senior al-Qaeda operative personally acquainted with Osama bin Laden and a key member of a Montreal terrorist cell, the United Nations Security Council blacklist committee alleged Monday.
In an unsourced “narrative” posted Monday on the UN Security Council terrorist blacklist website, it was asserted that Mr. Abdelrazik trained at al-Qaeda's Khalden camp in Afghanistan and twice attempted – but failed – to join Muslims fighting Russians in Chechnya in the 1990s.
“Mr. Abdelrazik denies and has denied these allegations,” said Yavar Hameed, his lawyer. “This smacks of a new McCarthyism of guilt by association and demanding an individual prove his innocence,” Mr. Hameed added, pointing to the labelling of Mr. Abdelrazik as a close associate of Abu Zubaydah, the imprisoned al-Qaeda leader who fingered many after being waterboarded more than 80 times by U.S. agents. “That information is the fruit of torture,” Mr. Hameed said.
The UN notice contains little new information. It mostly echoes U.S. allegations levelled against Mr. Abdelrazik for years and first officially published in 2006 when the Bush administration added him to the UN Security Council's 1267 terrorist blacklist. Mr. Abdelrazik is the only living Canadian on the list, which has hundreds of names, some of them known to be dead.
Mr. Abdelrazik, 47, has vigorously denied any association with al-Qaeda, and has repeatedly repudiated terrorism. He has admitted knowing some alleged Islamic extremists in Montreal, including Ahmed Ressam, the so-called Millennium bomber. Mr. Ressam was arrested in December, 1999, at the U.S. border in a rental car laden with explosives headed for Los Angeles where he planned to bomb the international airport.
Mr. Abdelrazik testified for the prosecution at Mr. Ressam's trial.
The UN notice was published only days after the Harper government said it would comply with a federal court order requiring it to fly Mr. Abdelrazik home. He is expected to be reunited with his children and family in Montreal in the next 10 days.
The UN claims – with few dates or specifics – that Mr. Abdelrazik recruited for al-Qaeda, played some sort of a role in a Montreal al-Qaeda cell, told at least one person he was acquainted with Osama bin Laden and travelled to Afghanistan along with other alleged Islamist extremists. No evidence or independent review is required to “name” someone to the 1267 terrorist blacklist, which has been condemned by European jurists and many rights groups.
Federal Court Judge Russel Zinn, who determined the government had violated Mr. Abdelrazik's constitutional right as a citizen to return to Canada, called the 1267 process “like Kafka,” noting that it was impossible for those blacklisted to challenge the allegations “when you have no idea why you're on the list in the first place, other than that you're an associate of al-Qaeda, whatever that means.”
Although both CSIS and the RCMP have formally and in writing confirmed that they have no criminal investigation open against Mr. Abdelrazik and no reason to support his continued UN listing as an al-Qaeda operative, the government continued to refuse him a passport, or even a one-way travel document, so he could return to his family in Montreal after six years of imprisonment and forced exile in Sudan, until ordered to do so by Judge Zinn.
Mr. Abdelrazik remains caught in the bizarre situation of being cleared by CSIS and the RCMP, yet labelled a terrorist and al-Qaeda operative by the UN Security Council.
Monday, as Justice department lawyers were proposing flights, routings and an diplomatic escort – all ordered by Judge Zinn – the UN posted its update in an unusual fashion.
Previous narratives have been posted in bunches after all 15 members of the Security Council approved them. By Monday's solo posting of the accusations against Mr. Abdelrazik was unprecedented, and Mr. Hameed suggested it reflected political interference.
“It's highly irregular and I don't believe it is coincidental that the UN posted this one on the eve of Mr. Abdelrazik's return,” he said. “It smacks of smear by association; if there was anything criminal or substantive in terms of terrorist activity then I think our security services or those of the United States would have launched a prosecution.”
Secret documents released in error by the Canadian government reveal the George W. Bush administration wanted Canadian security agents to feed evidence so Mr. Abdelrazik could be indicted in the United States.
As early as 2004, Washington security agencies asked Ottawa to try and keep Mr. Abdelrazik from returning to Canada, a request CSIS and the RCMP apparently kept from ministers.
By the end of 2007, after more than four years of imprisonment and forced exile in Khartoum, where he was interrogated by CSIS, the Canadian government finally agreed to seek his delisting from the UN blacklist.
“The RCMP conducted a review of its files and was unable to locate any current and substantive information that indicates Mr. Abdelrazik is involved in criminal activity,” its counterterrorism branch confirmed on Nov. 15, 2007.
CSIS “has no current substantial information regarding Mr. Abdelrazik,” said Canada's spy agency, which has subsequently denied allegations contained in secret and heavily redacted documents that assert CSIS arranged for Mr. Abdelrazik's imprisonment in Sudan when he went to visit his ailing mother in 2003.
“The evidence before the court establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that the recommendation for the detention of Mr. Abdelrazik by Sudan came either directly or indirectly from CSIS,” Judge Zinn ruled. “I find, on the balance of probabilities, on the record before the court, that CSIS was complicit in the initial detention of Mr. Abdelrazik by the Sudanese.”
Is this Canada's first "extraordinary rendition" identified? Are we no better than our American cousins when it comes to abuse against Canadians? The truth trickles out very slowly indeed.
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail, Tuesday, Jun. 23, 2009 04:12AM EDT
Abousfian Abdelrazik, the Canadian the government was told to bring home after years of forced exile, is a senior al-Qaeda operative personally acquainted with Osama bin Laden and a key member of a Montreal terrorist cell, the United Nations Security Council blacklist committee alleged Monday.
In an unsourced “narrative” posted Monday on the UN Security Council terrorist blacklist website, it was asserted that Mr. Abdelrazik trained at al-Qaeda's Khalden camp in Afghanistan and twice attempted – but failed – to join Muslims fighting Russians in Chechnya in the 1990s.
“Mr. Abdelrazik denies and has denied these allegations,” said Yavar Hameed, his lawyer. “This smacks of a new McCarthyism of guilt by association and demanding an individual prove his innocence,” Mr. Hameed added, pointing to the labelling of Mr. Abdelrazik as a close associate of Abu Zubaydah, the imprisoned al-Qaeda leader who fingered many after being waterboarded more than 80 times by U.S. agents. “That information is the fruit of torture,” Mr. Hameed said.
The UN notice contains little new information. It mostly echoes U.S. allegations levelled against Mr. Abdelrazik for years and first officially published in 2006 when the Bush administration added him to the UN Security Council's 1267 terrorist blacklist. Mr. Abdelrazik is the only living Canadian on the list, which has hundreds of names, some of them known to be dead.
Mr. Abdelrazik, 47, has vigorously denied any association with al-Qaeda, and has repeatedly repudiated terrorism. He has admitted knowing some alleged Islamic extremists in Montreal, including Ahmed Ressam, the so-called Millennium bomber. Mr. Ressam was arrested in December, 1999, at the U.S. border in a rental car laden with explosives headed for Los Angeles where he planned to bomb the international airport.
Mr. Abdelrazik testified for the prosecution at Mr. Ressam's trial.
The UN notice was published only days after the Harper government said it would comply with a federal court order requiring it to fly Mr. Abdelrazik home. He is expected to be reunited with his children and family in Montreal in the next 10 days.
The UN claims – with few dates or specifics – that Mr. Abdelrazik recruited for al-Qaeda, played some sort of a role in a Montreal al-Qaeda cell, told at least one person he was acquainted with Osama bin Laden and travelled to Afghanistan along with other alleged Islamist extremists. No evidence or independent review is required to “name” someone to the 1267 terrorist blacklist, which has been condemned by European jurists and many rights groups.
Federal Court Judge Russel Zinn, who determined the government had violated Mr. Abdelrazik's constitutional right as a citizen to return to Canada, called the 1267 process “like Kafka,” noting that it was impossible for those blacklisted to challenge the allegations “when you have no idea why you're on the list in the first place, other than that you're an associate of al-Qaeda, whatever that means.”
Although both CSIS and the RCMP have formally and in writing confirmed that they have no criminal investigation open against Mr. Abdelrazik and no reason to support his continued UN listing as an al-Qaeda operative, the government continued to refuse him a passport, or even a one-way travel document, so he could return to his family in Montreal after six years of imprisonment and forced exile in Sudan, until ordered to do so by Judge Zinn.
Mr. Abdelrazik remains caught in the bizarre situation of being cleared by CSIS and the RCMP, yet labelled a terrorist and al-Qaeda operative by the UN Security Council.
Monday, as Justice department lawyers were proposing flights, routings and an diplomatic escort – all ordered by Judge Zinn – the UN posted its update in an unusual fashion.
Previous narratives have been posted in bunches after all 15 members of the Security Council approved them. By Monday's solo posting of the accusations against Mr. Abdelrazik was unprecedented, and Mr. Hameed suggested it reflected political interference.
“It's highly irregular and I don't believe it is coincidental that the UN posted this one on the eve of Mr. Abdelrazik's return,” he said. “It smacks of smear by association; if there was anything criminal or substantive in terms of terrorist activity then I think our security services or those of the United States would have launched a prosecution.”
Secret documents released in error by the Canadian government reveal the George W. Bush administration wanted Canadian security agents to feed evidence so Mr. Abdelrazik could be indicted in the United States.
As early as 2004, Washington security agencies asked Ottawa to try and keep Mr. Abdelrazik from returning to Canada, a request CSIS and the RCMP apparently kept from ministers.
By the end of 2007, after more than four years of imprisonment and forced exile in Khartoum, where he was interrogated by CSIS, the Canadian government finally agreed to seek his delisting from the UN blacklist.
“The RCMP conducted a review of its files and was unable to locate any current and substantive information that indicates Mr. Abdelrazik is involved in criminal activity,” its counterterrorism branch confirmed on Nov. 15, 2007.
CSIS “has no current substantial information regarding Mr. Abdelrazik,” said Canada's spy agency, which has subsequently denied allegations contained in secret and heavily redacted documents that assert CSIS arranged for Mr. Abdelrazik's imprisonment in Sudan when he went to visit his ailing mother in 2003.
“The evidence before the court establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that the recommendation for the detention of Mr. Abdelrazik by Sudan came either directly or indirectly from CSIS,” Judge Zinn ruled. “I find, on the balance of probabilities, on the record before the court, that CSIS was complicit in the initial detention of Mr. Abdelrazik by the Sudanese.”
Is this Canada's first "extraordinary rendition" identified? Are we no better than our American cousins when it comes to abuse against Canadians? The truth trickles out very slowly indeed.
Last edited:
jade_lee
Active Member
Now our government is appealing the Khadr case trying to block the kid coming home to Canada, the government lawyers are presenting very bizarre arguments. I hope they not only fail but are ridiculed for their anti citizen rights agenda that is so backwards and so extreme. These idiots need to be replaced and fast.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I wonder how they'll bring him home if no airline is willing to fly him. I wonder if the judge can order the government to evacuate (charter flight) him from Sudan.
afransen
Senior Member
^They can charge him for it. They can just take it out of the millions he'll be suing them for.
jade_lee
Active Member
We have to start holding those responsible for such blunders responsible and not the tax payer.
I hope this guy arrives home safe.
I hope this guy arrives home safe.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Stifling debate in Ottawa
Toronto Star Editorial
Jul 07, 2009 04:30 AM
In opposition, the federal Conservatives used to fret about the "democratic deficit" in Ottawa. "A new Conservative government will be committed to significant democratic reform of our parliamentary and electoral institutions," vowed their 2006 election platform.
Little did we know that by "reform" the Conservatives meant stifling any debate on initiatives that run counter to their views or interests.
Thus, we have witnessed a series of anti-democratic manoeuvres by the Conservatives, such as: an effort to steer all committee investigations into the ditch (lest they embarrass the government); a declaration that all votes on government bills would be considered confidence votes (the direct opposite of what they said they would do); and an attempt to cancel public financing of political parties (which would have hurt the opposition much more than themselves).
Now, thanks to The Canadian Press, we learn that the Conservatives are attempting to silence debate on private members' bills emanating from the Senate by bending the parliamentary rules. Here's how:
A private member's bill from the Senate must have an MP as a sponsor in order to be considered in the House of Commons. But there is no requirement that the senator has to approve of the sponsor. Taking advantage of this loophole, Conservative MPs are stepping forward to sponsor Senate bills even when they don't agree with them. Then the Conservative sponsors see to it that these bills never come forward for debate in the Commons.
Some 28 private members' bills from the Senate have been targeted in this way. They include bills to impose spending limits on pre-election advertising by the parties, require the government to promote and protect aboriginal languages, and loosen up restrictions on the delivery of generic drugs to Africa to fight AIDS.
With their oh-so-clever tactics, the Conservatives have now ensured these bills will not even be debated, let alone approved.
That the Conservatives feel they must stoop to such tactics says much about their bunker mentality in Ottawa today.
Toronto Star Editorial
Jul 07, 2009 04:30 AM
In opposition, the federal Conservatives used to fret about the "democratic deficit" in Ottawa. "A new Conservative government will be committed to significant democratic reform of our parliamentary and electoral institutions," vowed their 2006 election platform.
Little did we know that by "reform" the Conservatives meant stifling any debate on initiatives that run counter to their views or interests.
Thus, we have witnessed a series of anti-democratic manoeuvres by the Conservatives, such as: an effort to steer all committee investigations into the ditch (lest they embarrass the government); a declaration that all votes on government bills would be considered confidence votes (the direct opposite of what they said they would do); and an attempt to cancel public financing of political parties (which would have hurt the opposition much more than themselves).
Now, thanks to The Canadian Press, we learn that the Conservatives are attempting to silence debate on private members' bills emanating from the Senate by bending the parliamentary rules. Here's how:
A private member's bill from the Senate must have an MP as a sponsor in order to be considered in the House of Commons. But there is no requirement that the senator has to approve of the sponsor. Taking advantage of this loophole, Conservative MPs are stepping forward to sponsor Senate bills even when they don't agree with them. Then the Conservative sponsors see to it that these bills never come forward for debate in the Commons.
Some 28 private members' bills from the Senate have been targeted in this way. They include bills to impose spending limits on pre-election advertising by the parties, require the government to promote and protect aboriginal languages, and loosen up restrictions on the delivery of generic drugs to Africa to fight AIDS.
With their oh-so-clever tactics, the Conservatives have now ensured these bills will not even be debated, let alone approved.
That the Conservatives feel they must stoop to such tactics says much about their bunker mentality in Ottawa today.
afransen
Senior Member
It really is beyond me how any informed citizen can vote for these people.
afransen
Senior Member
Further on the 'scandal' front, Secretary of State for Tourism, Diane Ablonczy was punished for allocating $400k to Toronto Pride from the $100 million 'Marquee Events Fund'. This is because the event is not 'wholesome' and as one lobbyist put it "anti-family".
nfitz
Superstar
Wow ... what horrible people these Tories are.
kEiThZ
Superstar
When it comes to Parliamentary behaviour, this is an inherited trend unfortunately.....and I really don't think it'll change when the Liberals get back into power.
As much as any party likes to talk about democracy, the reality is that it is the PMO's vice grip on MPs that ensures they stay in power. Paul Martin let that discipline slip from the Chretien era and it cost him power. All that's happened of late has probably only reinforced the lesson for the Conservatives that it's better to have one voice than a whole chorus leading the show (can you imagine what would happen to their poll numbers if the social Conservatives were even given a few minutes of camera time?). I don't expect the Liberals to be any different (maybe if they get a majority and feel more secure...) in a minority situation. Unfortunately, the swings in the polls on every sound bite pretty much destines all political parties to act like this when they feel threatened.
As much as any party likes to talk about democracy, the reality is that it is the PMO's vice grip on MPs that ensures they stay in power. Paul Martin let that discipline slip from the Chretien era and it cost him power. All that's happened of late has probably only reinforced the lesson for the Conservatives that it's better to have one voice than a whole chorus leading the show (can you imagine what would happen to their poll numbers if the social Conservatives were even given a few minutes of camera time?). I don't expect the Liberals to be any different (maybe if they get a majority and feel more secure...) in a minority situation. Unfortunately, the swings in the polls on every sound bite pretty much destines all political parties to act like this when they feel threatened.
kEiThZ
Superstar
One thing I don't understand is why Liberal MPs aren't sponsoring these bills if they are so concerned about these issues? Why are they coming from Senators and why aren't they getting picked up by Liberal MPs?
afransen
Senior Member
MPs have to wait their turn for PMBs. Good question though; maybe the sponsoring of bills is first-come-first-served.
kEiThZ
Superstar
The article only says they must have a sponsor. Presumably, if the bill was important to a member, it would be a joint effort between a MP and a Senator. I am guessing that the ones that nobody cares about end up in a stack waiting for a sponsor which gives the Conservatives their opportunity. If it is first-come-first-served, then why aren't the Liberals rushing to be first in line? Is there a lack of alarm clocks in the Liberal caucus?
afransen
Senior Member
I think this tactic was unexpected. The CPC is fully staffed with former university politics douches who are experts in procedural shenanigans. I'm looking at you Pierre Pollievre.