I just finished listening to part of this conference. Almalki hardly needs a laywer, he seemed to be the most articulate of anyone at the conference. He claims his cognitive powers have been diminished by torture. It wasn't evident at the conference!
It seems that the report is more positive for the civil cases of the three than I had thought. Iacobucci clearly notes that some of the labelling of the three as terrorists and as associated with Al Qaeda was mistaken or not well established.
The lawyers stressed the fact that the inquiry had established that the three had been tortured- although this had been established earlier in the Arar inquiry. They also noted that Canadian officials had indirectly caused their incarceration and resulting torture.
However, Iacobucci claims that officials were just doing their job as they saw it. So there is nothing malicious about labelling someone a terrorist without good evidence or sending questions to jailors who torture and asking for answers. Maybe it is not malicious but it should be grounds for dismissal. It shows gross incompetence or else being part of a bigger plan which cannot be revealed because it would jeapordize national security through poisoning our relationships with the intelligence agencies of other countries. Note that in the US Arar is still on record as being a member of Al Qaeda, that is why he was deported to Syria to be interrogated and tortured. In my opinion all three cases investigated were examples of adventitious rendition. The three were in Syria and the Canadian authorities took the occasion to give information to Syrian authorities that resulted in their arrests and interrogation. Of course the Iacobucci inquiry failed to reach that conclusion.