Canada must share intelligence with unpalatable regimes: Justice official

I assume Sims may have regimes such as Syria in mind but the United States would qualify as well. The US has shown itself to be a prime candidate for rogue nation par excellence. It in effect simply grabs innocent people and ships them off to be interrogated in countries such as Syria, Egypt or Morroco. This is apparently its commitment to the democratic values that Sims speaks off. Apparently for Sims it is quite OK for this sort of thing to happen to protect the lives of others. The means justifies the end I suppose. People such as Sims in effect are defending our own system of rendition lite. This is from CP.

Canada must share intelligence with 'unpalatable regimes': Justice official
13 hours ago
OTTAWA — Canada's deputy attorney general says the demands of national security mean Ottawa can't be "shutting our doors to regimes we don't like."
John Sims' comments come in the wake of an inquiry that concluded federal officials were partly to blame for the torture of three Arab-Canadians jailed in Syria and Egypt as part of international terrorism probes.
Former Supreme Court judge Frank Iacobucci found Canadian officials indirectly contributed to the brutalization of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin by sharing unsubstantiated and sometimes inflammatory information with foreign intelligence and police agencies.
None of the three men, all of whom deny involvement in terrorism, has ever been charged.
Sims, the top Justice Department bureaucrat, told a gathering of intelligence officials and academics Friday that security agencies need to take stock.
"I think people will read and think carefully about the latest report, and see if there are things that we need to do to avoid the kinds of problems and deficiencies that are being described."
But Sims said the intelligence taps cannot be turned off in a world in which counter-terrorism has come to the fore.
"The need to exchange information with unpalatable regimes is a significant and troubling aspect of the new reality. Threats to the security of Canada often originate in, or have significant connections with, countries where the commitment to democratic values and the rule of law is tenuous, or has never really existed in the first place."
He said this is not really new, noting the United Nations was established to enable communication between countries who sometimes disagree.
"In the context of information sharing we must be vigilant, however, to be sure that we do not become implicated in human rights abuses abroad. At the same time, shutting our doors to regimes we don't like is not an option."
He suggested that walling off Canada from such countries might save some Canadians from harm, but it might also make many other Canadians vulnerable to terrorism.
"So there are no easy answers, are there?"
Amnesty International Canada wrote Prime Minister Stephen Harper this week demanding immediate action on Iacobucci's "strong and important" report.
Amnesty says Canada must apologize to the three men and ensure they receive appropriate compensation.
The human rights group also wants "disciplinary, criminal or other action" to hold Canadian individuals accountable, and calls on Ottawa to lodge official diplomatic protests with the Syrian and Egyptian governments regarding the human rights abuses.
CSIS, the RCMP and Foreign Affairs have all refused to comment on Iacobucci's specific findings, saying they are studying the report.
Sims said Canada's anti-terrorism legislation is working well, noting the first two prosecutions under the law were successful, including this week's conviction of Ottawa software developer Momin Khawaja for assisting a group of British extremists.
Khawaja was arrested more than four years ago, and associates in London were convicted on terror charges much sooner.
Sims acknowledged Khawaja's case took too long to wend its way through the courts.
"It's not desirable, certainly," he said.
"As Canadians we can't help but ask ourselves, why is it slower here? Is there anything we can do about it?"
"Four years, five years, that's a very long time."