Iacobucci says he won't open up torture probe-yet.

Finally there is a fig leaf in sight! A public hearing next month but that will not touch upon any evidence or material from the interrogations that have been going on in secret. Nevertheless the questions are interesting and could generate lively public sessions. However, they will do nothing but nothing to help out Al Malki, El-Maati or Nureddin to clear their names or have any access to the information gathered by Iacobucci. The national security blanket is necessary to make Canadians feel warm and safe and forget that their brave operatives are often incompetent and violate individual rights. At the same time the blanket protects those operatives from their violations and incompetence. Going to court is not likely to work in most cases because the security blanket will protect evidence relative to proving innocence or guilt.
The headline is a bit misleading. It is not primarily a torture probe at all. Freeze isn't right about Iacobucci not holding any open hearings so far. There were open hearings that dealt with process issues during the spring. You would think that the Globe could afford reporters that get the facts straight.

Iacobucci says he won't open up torture probe — yet
COLIN FREEZE

Globe and Mail Update

November 6, 2007 at 2:06 PM EST

Mr. Justice Frank Iacobucci says he won't open up his highly secretive inquiry into alleged Canadian complicity in Syrian torture, at least not just yet — but give him more time, because he's working on it.

“I am of the view that it is unnecessary to grant or to deny the application at this time,” Judge Iacobucci writes in a decision released Tuesday morning, responding to pleas for greater transparency. He also says that the original Jan. 31 deadline for his report is “not practical” and that he will be seeking an extension.

The Conservative government hired Judge Iacobucci last December to build on the work of the earlier Maher Arar Commission. That report found that the Arar affair was not a one-off — a chain of Canadian Arabs who had been under investigation on suspicion of links to al-Qaeda were brutally interrogated overseas after international travels.

The current inquiry could have a lasting impact on how Canada receives, assesses and disseminates intelligence in terrorism investigations. But the judge is finding that probing the murky world of information exchanges from 2001 to 2004, is no easy task. Pointing out that terrorism investigations are matters of life and death, he signals that he plans to proceed cautiously.


For reasons of national-security confidentiality, his commission — explicitly geared toward being an “internal” exercise as opposed to the earlier “public” inquiry — hasn't held any open hearings so far.

But it was announced that a public hearing is now scheduled for next month, to explore broad questions such as:

• When should Canada alert foreign countries about the travel plans of individuals suspected of being possible terrorist threats?

• If such suspects are detained abroad, should Canadian agencies send questions overseas, or possibly attend interrogation sessions?

• How do diplomats lobby for the rights of detained Canadians, while also receiving and disseminating intelligence arising from interrogations?

Such questions are hypothetical for the purposes of the Dec. 19-20 hearings in Ottawa, although they are clearly grounded in real-world events.

One of the individuals whose case Judge Iacobucci is probing is that of Ahmad Abou Elmaati — a Kuwati-born Toronto truck driver who says he spent years serving as a non-combatant with Afghan militias in the 1990s, before falling under intense scrutiny in Canada.

The earlier commission of inquiry has established the truck driver's November, 2001, arrest in a Damascus airport led to interrogation sessions where he was forced to admit to an alleged terrorist bomb plot in Canada. Mr. Elmaati was let go after two years in custody. His statements, while now regarded with a great deal of skepticism, appear to have a great effect on other cases at the time.

One such case was that of Abdullah Almalki, who worked for a Muslim charity in Afghanistan before starting a business exporting two-way radios to Pakistan. He was also under intense scrutiny before flying into Syria in April 2002.

He has described getting severe lashings and beatings during Syrian interrogations. And the earlier commission has established that the Mounties faxed lists of questions to Syrian military intelligence. “Depending on his [Mr. Almalki's] willingness to answer truthfully and depending on the answers he provides you, a second series of questions has been prepared for him,” the fax said.

Judge Iacobucci doesn't take the allegations of torture as a given. He has hired University of British Columbia law professor Peter Burns to interview Mr. Elmaati, Mr. Almalki, and a third former Syrian detainee, Muyyed Nurreddin. “These interviews will be conducted in a way that is sensitive to the interests of the Individuals and, as they have requested, will be conducted in private,” Judge Iacobucci rules.

The same individuals, who also have launched lawsuits against the government, have been demanding highly detailed information from the government. In submissions supported by civil-liberties and Arab/Muslim groups, they have asked for the names of involved Canadian officials, public production of relevant documents, and public testimony from officials they feel are most culpable in the overseas detentions.

Lawyers for the Attorney-General arguing against all of this, claiming the applicants are confounding the terms of reference of Judge Iacobucci's “internal inquiry,” stating that it is was never intended to be a public exercise geared toward exoneration.

In the ruling Tuesday, Judge Iacobucci points out he has read 35,000 documents and interviewed 39 witnesses from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP, and Foreign Affairs, but he still has much more work to do.

He says he will be seeking more input from all parties, and hopes to open matters up as time goes on. But he also points out national-security investigations remain matters of life and death.

“The security of the country depends very much on the agencies whose role it is to protect the Canadian public against threats to national security,” the ruling says. “Human life is often at risk when individuals serve our country's security and intelligence efforts, and any breach of confidentiality could have serious consequences which must be avoided.”