I find it amazing that these tapes were erased. The explanation hardly makes sense since surviving notes show that they did have significant information on them. It is incompetence and negligence such as this and the resultant lame excuses that inevitably gives rise to conspiracy theories. I am inclined to think that it really is possible that CSIS is sometimes incredibly negligent and that they lie every time they find it convenient to avoid difficulties. The Arar affair also shows how incredibly insensitive they are and how they jump to conclusions based upon the flimsiest evidence. What is most unfortunate is that the Canadian public by and large is indifferent to wrongdoing and violation of citizen rights by the CSIS (and RCMP at times)
CSIS wiretap erasures to be scrutinized at Air India inquiry
RCMP expected to testify about tapes' value as inquiry resumes
Last Updated: Sunday, September 16, 2007 | 11:39 PM ET
CBC News
The Canadian security agency's erasure of wiretap recordings of the prime suspect in the 1985 Air India bombing will be scrutinized as the inquiry resumes in Ottawa on Monday.
The probe, reconvening after a summer break, will now turn its attention to the investigation that took place after the bomb destroyed Air India Flight 182 near Ireland as it was en route from Canada to India. The blast killed 329 people, including 280 Canadians.
The inquiry, which began in June 2006, has already heard about what intelligence officials may have known about a conspiracy to bomb an Air India flight.
Now, amongst other things, the inquiry will look at a question that has long been central for the families of the Air India victims: Why did the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency (CSIS) bug the telephone of the main suspect and then erase the tapes?
Deepak Khandelwal, whose two sisters died in the bombing, put it this way in September 2006: "How could anyone think that it was right to erase the tapes, regardless of protocol, unless they were trying to hide something?"
That suspicion still lingers, despite years of denials from CSIS.
CSIS tapes covered months before bombing
The tale of the tapes began in the suburban home of a self-styled Sikh holy man named Talwinder Singh Parmar, who had once lived in a house on Howard Street in Burnaby, B.C.
Talwinder Singh Parmar, founder of the Babbar Khalsa, as portrayed on a Vaisakhi parade float in Surrey, B.C., on April 7, 2007.
(CBC)
The house changed hands long ago, but back in 1985, CSIS described Parmar as a leader of a terrorist organization: the Babbar Khalsa, which was trying to get an independent Sikh state in northern India.
Parmar was wanted for murder in India. He preached death to Hindus and authorities soon came to believe he was the mastermind behind the Air India bomb, which was allegedly planted in baggage that was loaded in Vancouver and then transferred to Flight 182, which departed from Toronto.
The Indian police killed Parmar in 1992 — an event that the inquiry will also examine soon. First, though, John Major, the commission chair, wants to know what happened to those tapes of Parmar chatting to his contacts around the world, on his phone at Howard Street.
The tapes rolled on those calls for three months before the Air India bombing on June 22, 1985 — and, as soon as the explosion occurred, CSIS agents knew Parmar was the prime suspect.
By then, they had hundreds of wiretap recordings. Even so, the tapes were quickly erased.
Standard procedure to erase tapes, CSIS says
CSIS has always said that there was nothing of value on the Parmar tapes and that erasing them was routine procedure. At the Air India trial in 2003, defence lawyers forced the government to concede that it was a case of "unacceptable negligence."
Even so, former CSIS director Reid Morden told the CBC at the time that "there was a policy in place that said, if these don't have intelligence value, then, at a certain point in time — very short span of time — out they go because, otherwise, they represent prying into the affairs of private Canadian citizens."
The problem, from the RCMP's perspective, was that there was, indeed, valuable evidence on those tapes — and the translator's notes survived to prove it. Two RCMP officers are expected to testify about the tapes on Monday.
A second problem was that there was, indeed, a policy in place at CSIS that governed tapes — but it said they had to be kept, not erased, if they contained any sign of "subversive activity."
Tapes could have brought 'successful prosecution,' RCMP says
And a 1996 memo by the head of the RCMP's Air India task force, Insp. Gary Bass (now the force's deputy commissioner) said this: "There is a strong likelihood that, had CSIS retained the tapes … a successful prosecution of at least some of the principals … could have been undertaken."
The inquiry was called because the investigation into the bombing was the most costly in Canadian history yet no one was ever convicted of murder in the case.
The RCMP's key surviving suspects were acquitted in 2005, and Parmar was killed in 1992.
The only person to be convicted was bomb-maker Inderjit Singh Reyat, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in 2003 and received a five-year sentence.
Another connected bombing killed two luggage handlers at Tokyo's Narita airport.
Showing posts with label Air India inquiry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Air India inquiry. Show all posts
Monday, September 17, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
Sikh probe took wrong turn!
Other witnesses flatly contradict Kozbey's testimony that there were no warnings there would be a bombing of a plane. On the contrary there were specific warnings that not just a plane but an Air India plane would be bombed! The incompetence of CSIS agents is never but never punished and no one is ever held accountable for errors it seems. If the Arar experience is any precedent delinquent agents in CSIS and the RCMP are given promotions and I doubt that Zaccardelli lost any pension because of his resignation under a cloud. Who knows maybe he got a golden handshake.
It should be noted too that CSIS destroyed lots of material they had gathered on Parmar, evidence that could have been used in the earlier investigation or no doubt in court.
Sikh probe took wrong turn after Duncan blast: former CSIS agent
Last Updated: Thursday, May 24, 2007 | 2:55 PM ET
CBC News
The investigation into Sikh extremists could have taken a "completely different turn" if CSIS agents had believed a 1985 blast in Duncan, B.C., involved explosives and not guns, a former CSIS agent told the Air India inquiry on Thursday.
Ray Kobzey, formerly with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, testifies Thursday at the Air India Inquiry in Ottawa.
(Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)
Raymond Kobzey said he likely would have focused further on suspected Air India mastermind Talwinder Singh Parmar if he had known there was a possibility he tested an explosive device in the woods outside Duncan on June 4, 1985.
"Reflecting on this 21 years later, we would have treated the loud noise differently," Kobzey testified at the inquiry into the downing of Air India Flight 182.
Following the disaster, Kobzey said CSIS immediately notified RCMP that there could be a connection with the Duncan blast site. The RCMP sent an explosives sniffing dog to the site on June 28, where evidence of explosives was found.
Continue Article
"The significance of the Duncan blast came home to me at that moment," he said.
The flight exploded off the coast of Ireland on June 23, 1985, killing all 329 people on board. It had stopped in Montreal after leaving Toronto, headed for London's Heathrow Airport and then India. The explosives — allegedly planted by Sikh extremists — were loaded in Vancouver.
A second bomb, also loaded in Vancouver, killed two luggage handlers at Tokyo's Narita airport shortly before the Air India plane went down.
Searched for shells, casings
On the day of the Duncan incident, Inderjit Singh Reyat — the only person convicted in the bombing — took Parmar to the woods on Vancouver Island and demonstrated his ability to detonate an explosive.
CSIS agents, who had been trailing Parmar since early June because of his activism in the Sikh extremist community, followed the two men into the woods, but couldn't get close enough to see what caused the loud bang. The agents involved — Larry Lowe and Lynn Macadams — said they were greatly startled by the loud blast.
Lowe testified during Reyat's 1990 trial that he believed the loud bang was caused by a rifle and that he had searched the area for shells and shell casings.
"He's familiar with weapons. He thought it was a weapon," said Kobzey. "They did a cursory search for evidence … for shells, not thinking of explosive devices."
Kobzey, who gained explosives experience while serving with the U.S. marines in Vietnam before joining CSIS, left for a two-week sailing vacation four days later, on June 8. He said that likely wouldn't have happened if the possibility of an explosion had been raised.
"Things would have taken a completely different turn. I wouldn't have gone sailing, for one thing" he said.
'Tunnel vision'
Kobzey said he wasn't involved in the decision to end physical surveillance of Parmar on June 17, because he was on vacation. He said he later learned it was because the physical surveillance units were needed for another case.
"There had been little activity on the part of Parmar … and they felt they had to shift coverage to another target," said Kobzey. "There were far too many demands on far too many resources."
In those days, CSIS gave priority to Cold War targets such as suspected Soviet spies, he said.
Kobzey, whose lengthy testimony was methodical and self-assured, became briefly defensive when asked by the lawyer for the victims' families, Jacques Shore, why the agents didn't consider the possibility of explosives or why the Duncan site wasn't further investigated.
"You can sit here and say it should have been checked out. There were other operational priorities," he said.
Kobzey said at the time of the Duncan incident, CSIS was focused on a possible assassination attempt on Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who was due to visit the United States in June 1985. Gandhi took power after his mother, Indira, was shot and killed by two of her bodyguards in October 1984.
"We were facing a threat to Rajiv Gandhi similar to what happened to his mother, Indira. We were focused on that happening," he said. "There were no hints a plane was going to be bombed."
"Perhaps it was a case of tunnel vision," he said.
It should be noted too that CSIS destroyed lots of material they had gathered on Parmar, evidence that could have been used in the earlier investigation or no doubt in court.
Sikh probe took wrong turn after Duncan blast: former CSIS agent
Last Updated: Thursday, May 24, 2007 | 2:55 PM ET
CBC News
The investigation into Sikh extremists could have taken a "completely different turn" if CSIS agents had believed a 1985 blast in Duncan, B.C., involved explosives and not guns, a former CSIS agent told the Air India inquiry on Thursday.
Ray Kobzey, formerly with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, testifies Thursday at the Air India Inquiry in Ottawa.
(Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)
Raymond Kobzey said he likely would have focused further on suspected Air India mastermind Talwinder Singh Parmar if he had known there was a possibility he tested an explosive device in the woods outside Duncan on June 4, 1985.
"Reflecting on this 21 years later, we would have treated the loud noise differently," Kobzey testified at the inquiry into the downing of Air India Flight 182.
Following the disaster, Kobzey said CSIS immediately notified RCMP that there could be a connection with the Duncan blast site. The RCMP sent an explosives sniffing dog to the site on June 28, where evidence of explosives was found.
Continue Article
"The significance of the Duncan blast came home to me at that moment," he said.
The flight exploded off the coast of Ireland on June 23, 1985, killing all 329 people on board. It had stopped in Montreal after leaving Toronto, headed for London's Heathrow Airport and then India. The explosives — allegedly planted by Sikh extremists — were loaded in Vancouver.
A second bomb, also loaded in Vancouver, killed two luggage handlers at Tokyo's Narita airport shortly before the Air India plane went down.
Searched for shells, casings
On the day of the Duncan incident, Inderjit Singh Reyat — the only person convicted in the bombing — took Parmar to the woods on Vancouver Island and demonstrated his ability to detonate an explosive.
CSIS agents, who had been trailing Parmar since early June because of his activism in the Sikh extremist community, followed the two men into the woods, but couldn't get close enough to see what caused the loud bang. The agents involved — Larry Lowe and Lynn Macadams — said they were greatly startled by the loud blast.
Lowe testified during Reyat's 1990 trial that he believed the loud bang was caused by a rifle and that he had searched the area for shells and shell casings.
"He's familiar with weapons. He thought it was a weapon," said Kobzey. "They did a cursory search for evidence … for shells, not thinking of explosive devices."
Kobzey, who gained explosives experience while serving with the U.S. marines in Vietnam before joining CSIS, left for a two-week sailing vacation four days later, on June 8. He said that likely wouldn't have happened if the possibility of an explosion had been raised.
"Things would have taken a completely different turn. I wouldn't have gone sailing, for one thing" he said.
'Tunnel vision'
Kobzey said he wasn't involved in the decision to end physical surveillance of Parmar on June 17, because he was on vacation. He said he later learned it was because the physical surveillance units were needed for another case.
"There had been little activity on the part of Parmar … and they felt they had to shift coverage to another target," said Kobzey. "There were far too many demands on far too many resources."
In those days, CSIS gave priority to Cold War targets such as suspected Soviet spies, he said.
Kobzey, whose lengthy testimony was methodical and self-assured, became briefly defensive when asked by the lawyer for the victims' families, Jacques Shore, why the agents didn't consider the possibility of explosives or why the Duncan site wasn't further investigated.
"You can sit here and say it should have been checked out. There were other operational priorities," he said.
Kobzey said at the time of the Duncan incident, CSIS was focused on a possible assassination attempt on Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who was due to visit the United States in June 1985. Gandhi took power after his mother, Indira, was shot and killed by two of her bodyguards in October 1984.
"We were facing a threat to Rajiv Gandhi similar to what happened to his mother, Indira. We were focused on that happening," he said. "There were no hints a plane was going to be bombed."
"Perhaps it was a case of tunnel vision," he said.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Why Bartleman waited to tesity.
Bartleman chose not to ruffle any feathers! Not surprising the victim's families are upset.
Bartleman had reasons for waiting 22 years to share Air India evidence
Last Updated: Friday, May 4, 2007 | 5:29 PM ET
CBC News
James Bartleman says he waited 22 years to go public with a stunning piece of evidence about the Air India bombing because he had already given the information to the RCMP and was certain the force was handling it appropriately.
Ontario Lt.-Gov. James Bartleman speaks to reporters Friday in Toronto about his Air India inquiry testimony.Ontario Lt.-Gov. James Bartleman speaks to reporters Friday in Toronto about his Air India inquiry testimony.
(Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Bartleman, the former head of intelligence for Foreign Affairs, met with reporters Friday in Toronto to explain why he waited until this week to reveal he had received information about a specific threat to Air India days before Flight 182 blew up in 1985.
He unexpectedly testified about the information at the Air India inquiry on Thursday.
"I am aware of the strong public interest on why I did not speak out for so many years," Bartleman, who is now Ontario's lieutenant-governor, told reporters Friday at Queen's Park.
"I want to reiterate in front of you my reasons for not doing so."
He said he acted "immediately" when he received the highly classified document in the days before the bombing.
Continue Article
It said an Air India flight would be targeted on the weekend that Flight 182 blew up over the west coast of Ireland. All 329 people on board were killed.
A separate luggage bomb destined for a second Air India flight killed two Japanese baggage handlers at Tokyo's Narita airport.
Bartleman says he acted 'within five minutes'
"Within five minutes of seeing that document, I was showing it, by hand, to a senior RCMP officer in a position to take action," said Bartleman, who cannot recall who the officer was.
During his testimony Thursday, Bartleman said the RCMP officer brushed him off and told him the force knew about the information.
Bartleman on Friday stressed that he had no doubt the RCMP would handle the information appropriately.
As the lengthy Air India criminal investigations were carried out over the next two decades, Bartleman said he never thought it appropriate to speak out about the information he had.
"I had nothing further to add to the RCMP," he said. "They had the information. I had confirmed it with them before the tragic event."
He also noted he was no longer overseeing intelligence and security for the government, and was out of the country for almost 13 years, working as a diplomat.
Bartleman felt compelled to speak at inquiry
He said he only felt compelled to step forward in 2005, when former Ontario premier Bob Rae led a federal review that concluded there should be an inquiry to probe the investigation into the Air India bombing. The inquiry began in June 2006.
"I then came forward," Bartleman said. "Since I was director general of intelligence and security at the time of the terrible events, I believed I could be of assistance to the inquiry.
"I thought it was my civic duty to tell the commission what I knew, whatever the consequences."
Bartleman did not answer reporters' questions after he gave his statement on Friday at Queen's Park, saying he couldn't because the inquiry is continuing and he didn't want to compromise it.
He referred questions to his lawyer.
Families not surprised by Bartleman's testimony
Prior to Bartleman's press conference, a spokesman for the families of Air India victims said he hopes Bartleman's testimony at the inquiry will encourage more people to come forward with information.
Hari Venkatacharya said revelations Thursday at the Air India inquiry caused feelings of shock, anger and outrage among victims' families, but not surprise.Hari Venkatacharya said revelations Thursday at the Air India inquiry caused feelings of shock, anger and outrage among victims' families, but not surprise.
(CBC)
Hari Venkatacharya said he received a flurry of phone calls and e-mails Thursday after Bartleman testified.
"It was a bombshell. An absolute bombshell," said Venkatacharya, whose wife lost her first husband and two children in the 1985 disaster.
Venkatacharya said Bartleman's revelations caused feelings of shock, anger and outrage, but not surprise.
"We've always felt there have been people with information out there who have not come forward," he said.
"We're hoping that because of the courage of Bartleman coming forward, even though it's delayed, that others will come forward now to say 'Let's put this on the record.'"
The inquiry, headed by retired Supreme Court justice John Major, resumed Friday with a focus on leads, tips and warnings that surfaced before the disaster.
The suspected mastermind of the plot, Talwinder Singh Parmar, was arrested in November 1985, but was freed because there wasn't enough evidence to hold him. He died seven years later in India in what officials said was a police shootout.
Bombmaker Inderjit Singh Reyat was sent to prison in 2003 for manslaughter.
Two other men, Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, were acquitted of all charges in 2005 after the costliest investigation and prosecution in Canadian history.
Bartleman had reasons for waiting 22 years to share Air India evidence
Last Updated: Friday, May 4, 2007 | 5:29 PM ET
CBC News
James Bartleman says he waited 22 years to go public with a stunning piece of evidence about the Air India bombing because he had already given the information to the RCMP and was certain the force was handling it appropriately.
Ontario Lt.-Gov. James Bartleman speaks to reporters Friday in Toronto about his Air India inquiry testimony.Ontario Lt.-Gov. James Bartleman speaks to reporters Friday in Toronto about his Air India inquiry testimony.
(Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Bartleman, the former head of intelligence for Foreign Affairs, met with reporters Friday in Toronto to explain why he waited until this week to reveal he had received information about a specific threat to Air India days before Flight 182 blew up in 1985.
He unexpectedly testified about the information at the Air India inquiry on Thursday.
"I am aware of the strong public interest on why I did not speak out for so many years," Bartleman, who is now Ontario's lieutenant-governor, told reporters Friday at Queen's Park.
"I want to reiterate in front of you my reasons for not doing so."
He said he acted "immediately" when he received the highly classified document in the days before the bombing.
Continue Article
It said an Air India flight would be targeted on the weekend that Flight 182 blew up over the west coast of Ireland. All 329 people on board were killed.
A separate luggage bomb destined for a second Air India flight killed two Japanese baggage handlers at Tokyo's Narita airport.
Bartleman says he acted 'within five minutes'
"Within five minutes of seeing that document, I was showing it, by hand, to a senior RCMP officer in a position to take action," said Bartleman, who cannot recall who the officer was.
During his testimony Thursday, Bartleman said the RCMP officer brushed him off and told him the force knew about the information.
Bartleman on Friday stressed that he had no doubt the RCMP would handle the information appropriately.
As the lengthy Air India criminal investigations were carried out over the next two decades, Bartleman said he never thought it appropriate to speak out about the information he had.
"I had nothing further to add to the RCMP," he said. "They had the information. I had confirmed it with them before the tragic event."
He also noted he was no longer overseeing intelligence and security for the government, and was out of the country for almost 13 years, working as a diplomat.
Bartleman felt compelled to speak at inquiry
He said he only felt compelled to step forward in 2005, when former Ontario premier Bob Rae led a federal review that concluded there should be an inquiry to probe the investigation into the Air India bombing. The inquiry began in June 2006.
"I then came forward," Bartleman said. "Since I was director general of intelligence and security at the time of the terrible events, I believed I could be of assistance to the inquiry.
"I thought it was my civic duty to tell the commission what I knew, whatever the consequences."
Bartleman did not answer reporters' questions after he gave his statement on Friday at Queen's Park, saying he couldn't because the inquiry is continuing and he didn't want to compromise it.
He referred questions to his lawyer.
Families not surprised by Bartleman's testimony
Prior to Bartleman's press conference, a spokesman for the families of Air India victims said he hopes Bartleman's testimony at the inquiry will encourage more people to come forward with information.
Hari Venkatacharya said revelations Thursday at the Air India inquiry caused feelings of shock, anger and outrage among victims' families, but not surprise.Hari Venkatacharya said revelations Thursday at the Air India inquiry caused feelings of shock, anger and outrage among victims' families, but not surprise.
(CBC)
Hari Venkatacharya said he received a flurry of phone calls and e-mails Thursday after Bartleman testified.
"It was a bombshell. An absolute bombshell," said Venkatacharya, whose wife lost her first husband and two children in the 1985 disaster.
Venkatacharya said Bartleman's revelations caused feelings of shock, anger and outrage, but not surprise.
"We've always felt there have been people with information out there who have not come forward," he said.
"We're hoping that because of the courage of Bartleman coming forward, even though it's delayed, that others will come forward now to say 'Let's put this on the record.'"
The inquiry, headed by retired Supreme Court justice John Major, resumed Friday with a focus on leads, tips and warnings that surfaced before the disaster.
The suspected mastermind of the plot, Talwinder Singh Parmar, was arrested in November 1985, but was freed because there wasn't enough evidence to hold him. He died seven years later in India in what officials said was a police shootout.
Bombmaker Inderjit Singh Reyat was sent to prison in 2003 for manslaughter.
Two other men, Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, were acquitted of all charges in 2005 after the costliest investigation and prosecution in Canadian history.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Present Ontario Lt.-Gov warned RCMP of impending attack on Air India
It is crystal clear that the RCMP lied when it said all along that it had no specific evidence of an impending attack on Air India. It had lots of specific evidence but apparently did not act upon it. I can imagine that families of the victims will be fit to be tied. As usual no one in the RCMP will be held accountable just as was the case with their misdeeds in the Arar case and no doubt the same thing will happen after the Iacobucci inquiry. The latter inquiry seems to be carrying on in secret without any news of what is going on.
I warned RCMP days before Air India disaster: Bartleman
Last Updated: Thursday, May 3, 2007 | 8:16 PM ET
CBC News
Ontario Lt.-Gov. James Bartleman says he was scolded by an RCMP officer several days before the Air India disaster when he showed him a document suggesting a flight would be targeted on the weekend of the attack.
Ontario Lt.-Gov. James Bartleman, at the Air India inquiry Thursday, was in charge of the intelligence analysis and security branch of the Department of External Affairs when Air India Flight 182 blew up in 1985.
(Canadian Press) Bartleman was in charge of the intelligence analysis and security branch of the Department of External Affairs when the plane blew up on June 23, 1985, killing all 329 people on board.
In testimony Thursday at the inquiry into the bombing in Ottawa, Bartleman said he found the document in his daily package of intelligence briefings in the week of June 18.
"I saw in there a document that indicated Air India was being targeted that weekend — specifically the weekend of the 22-23," said Bartleman.
"It was raw, unevaluated information. There had been so many alarms raised over the previous year about potential attacks … that I suppose it would be possible for someone to say this is just another one of these cry wolf events."
Bartleman said he personally delivered the document to a committee meeting on Sikh extremism that was going on at the same time.
'Hissed at'
When he showed the document to the senior RCMP officer at the meeting, Bartleman said he was "startled" by the reaction he got.
"He flushed and told me that of course he'd seen it, and that he didn't need me to tell him how to do his job," he said.
"That confirmed that he had seen it and that the RCMP would take that into consideration and do what was necessary. The next thing … in my memory is the downing of the aircraft."
When asked why he recalled that incident so clearly, Bartleman said he had never been "hissed at" in such a way during his career and that it made a "searing impression."
"I know what I saw and I know what happened," Bartleman said.
Bartleman said he didn't reveal the information until the inquiry was established because he assumed the matter was investigated during one of the internal reviews by the RCMP.
Family lawyer finds testimony 'astounding'
Jacques Shore, one of the lawyers for the families of the Air India victims, called the testimony "astounding." He congratulated Bartleman on his decision to go public, even if it was belated.
"I think the lieutenant-governor being here today demonstrated his courage," Shore said. "(He) recognized there was something that was left undone, in his mind, and that this was a part of the story that needed to be told."
Also testifying Thursday was former CSIS officer Lynn Jarrett, who tracked two men who would later be implicated in the attack — Talwinder Singh Parmar and Inderjit Singh Reyat.
Three weeks before the Air India bombing, she and another CSIS officer followed two men into the woods on Vancouver Island and heard a loud noise.
"There was an extremely loud bang," Jarrett testified. The officers thought it might be the men undergoing firearm training.
After the Air India bombing, the officers returned to the woods and found evidence that the noise had actually been an explosives test.
Parmar, the suspected mastermind of the Air India bombing, was arrested in November 1985 on weapons, explosives and conspiracy charges, but the charges were dropped for lack of evidence. He died in India in 1992 in what officials said was a shootout with police.
Reyat, a bomb maker, was imprisoned for manslaughter in a 2003 plea bargain.
I warned RCMP days before Air India disaster: Bartleman
Last Updated: Thursday, May 3, 2007 | 8:16 PM ET
CBC News
Ontario Lt.-Gov. James Bartleman says he was scolded by an RCMP officer several days before the Air India disaster when he showed him a document suggesting a flight would be targeted on the weekend of the attack.
Ontario Lt.-Gov. James Bartleman, at the Air India inquiry Thursday, was in charge of the intelligence analysis and security branch of the Department of External Affairs when Air India Flight 182 blew up in 1985.
(Canadian Press) Bartleman was in charge of the intelligence analysis and security branch of the Department of External Affairs when the plane blew up on June 23, 1985, killing all 329 people on board.
In testimony Thursday at the inquiry into the bombing in Ottawa, Bartleman said he found the document in his daily package of intelligence briefings in the week of June 18.
"I saw in there a document that indicated Air India was being targeted that weekend — specifically the weekend of the 22-23," said Bartleman.
"It was raw, unevaluated information. There had been so many alarms raised over the previous year about potential attacks … that I suppose it would be possible for someone to say this is just another one of these cry wolf events."
Bartleman said he personally delivered the document to a committee meeting on Sikh extremism that was going on at the same time.
'Hissed at'
When he showed the document to the senior RCMP officer at the meeting, Bartleman said he was "startled" by the reaction he got.
"He flushed and told me that of course he'd seen it, and that he didn't need me to tell him how to do his job," he said.
"That confirmed that he had seen it and that the RCMP would take that into consideration and do what was necessary. The next thing … in my memory is the downing of the aircraft."
When asked why he recalled that incident so clearly, Bartleman said he had never been "hissed at" in such a way during his career and that it made a "searing impression."
"I know what I saw and I know what happened," Bartleman said.
Bartleman said he didn't reveal the information until the inquiry was established because he assumed the matter was investigated during one of the internal reviews by the RCMP.
Family lawyer finds testimony 'astounding'
Jacques Shore, one of the lawyers for the families of the Air India victims, called the testimony "astounding." He congratulated Bartleman on his decision to go public, even if it was belated.
"I think the lieutenant-governor being here today demonstrated his courage," Shore said. "(He) recognized there was something that was left undone, in his mind, and that this was a part of the story that needed to be told."
Also testifying Thursday was former CSIS officer Lynn Jarrett, who tracked two men who would later be implicated in the attack — Talwinder Singh Parmar and Inderjit Singh Reyat.
Three weeks before the Air India bombing, she and another CSIS officer followed two men into the woods on Vancouver Island and heard a loud noise.
"There was an extremely loud bang," Jarrett testified. The officers thought it might be the men undergoing firearm training.
After the Air India bombing, the officers returned to the woods and found evidence that the noise had actually been an explosives test.
Parmar, the suspected mastermind of the Air India bombing, was arrested in November 1985 on weapons, explosives and conspiracy charges, but the charges were dropped for lack of evidence. He died in India in 1992 in what officials said was a shootout with police.
Reyat, a bomb maker, was imprisoned for manslaughter in a 2003 plea bargain.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Air India warned RCMP about bomb plot
It seems that Canadian intelligence agencies either jump to ridiculous conclusions on the basis of guilt by association or simply ignore specific evidence as in the Air India Case. The performance of intelligence agencies in this case is shocking as is evident by Major's reaction to some of the testimony.
Air India warned Mounties about bomb plot
Kim Bolan
CanWest News Service
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
OTTAWA — Air India warned the RCMP 20 days before the June 23, 1985 terrorist bombing of Flight 182 that Sikh extremists planned to target the airline with suitcase bombs or suicide squads.
Shocking telexes and letters about the threats from 22 years ago were revealed for the first time Tuesday at the judicial inquiry looking into the bombing and subsequent investigation.
“Assessment of threat received from intelligence agencies reveal the likelihood of sabotage attempts being undertaken by Sikh extremists by placing time-delay devices in the aircraft or registered baggage,” an Air India telex says. “It is also learnt that Sikh extremists are planning to set up suicide squads who may attempt to blow up an aircraft by smuggling in of explosives in the registered or (carry on) baggage or any other means.”
After receiving the telex, the RCMP asked the Canadian Security Intelligence Service for a new threat assessment on the airline, but neglected to hand over the critical information provided by Air India.
CSIS then issued an assessment claiming there was no specific threat against Air India.
Inquiry lawyer Anil Kapoor said the only explanation he has received about the lack of communication between agencies is “oversight.”
However, retired Justice John Major said it is tough to accept that something so critical would be overlooked.
“Oversight is not filling your dog’s dish with water,” Major said. “It is just surprising that that would be the explanation — oversight — for something as dire as that.”
The Air India telex called for “meticulous implementation of counter-sabotage measures for flights at all airports.”
“Basic responsibility for counter-sabotage measures is that of airlines.”
Air India hired Burns Security at Toronto’s Pearson Airport for greater vigilance in response to the warnings.
However, the RCMP officer in charge of airport security said in a June 5 telex to his bosses: “I do not feel there is a need for extra security by this force.”
The inquiry, which resumed Monday after several months, has heard dramatic examples of warnings to police that preceded the Air India blast that killed 329 people, and a second bombing the same day at Tokyo’s Narita Airport that killed two baggage handlers.
Victims’ families have repeatedly asked why more was not done to stop violent British Columbia-based Sikh separatists who were plotting revenge against the Indian government for its 1984 attack on the Golden Temple.
Earlier Tuesday, retired Vancouver police officer Don McLean testified he was told on June 12, 1985 by a good source that an associate of bombing mastermind Talwinder Singh Parmar bragged that something big was going to happen within two weeks.
McLean said he was investigating a threat against moderate Vancouver businessman Sarbjit Singh Khurana when Khurana was approached by Sikh militants for a meeting about the threat.
Manmohan Singh, then the high-profile spokesman of the International Sikh Youth Federation, asked Khurana for a meeting to pressure him to withdraw his complaint to police. McLean arranged for the June 12 event to be surreptitiously recorded, although parts of the tape were inaudible upon review.
At the meeting, Singh chastised others present for not doing more for the separatist cause, Khurana told police.
“No consuls have been killed. No ambassadors have been killed. What are you doing? Nothing,” Singh allegedly said.
Parmar associate Pushpinder Singh responded: “You will see. Something will be done within two weeks!!”
McLean said he took the information very seriously, passed it on to CSIS and the RCMP, but thought it was referring to a possible plot to target the Indian consul-general’s office or West Vancouver home.
He said he realized the reference was likely about the bombing when he heard of the terrorist attack on the morning of June 23.
“Once I knew about the explosion — that’s the thought that I had — that’s what (the reference) meant,” McLean said.
McLean admitted he might have gotten Khurana to ask specific details in the meeting if the constable had been aware that two criminal informants had told Vancouver police months earlier about a plot by Parmar associates to bomb Air India.
“We would have gotten (Khurana) more directly involved,” said McLean, who was seconded to the RCMP after the bombing to work on the case.
Intelligence that McLean got from community sources was contained throughout confidential documents released for the first time at the inquiry Tuesday.
One such telex says that another participant in the Khurana meeting, Harjit Singh Atwal, later “bragged that he knew about the crash.”
“In fact, he knew that it was about to be blown up,” the document said. “Atwal continues to state that (name blacked out) and other moderates are on the new hit list.”
Vancouver Sun
Air India warned Mounties about bomb plot
Kim Bolan
CanWest News Service
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
OTTAWA — Air India warned the RCMP 20 days before the June 23, 1985 terrorist bombing of Flight 182 that Sikh extremists planned to target the airline with suitcase bombs or suicide squads.
Shocking telexes and letters about the threats from 22 years ago were revealed for the first time Tuesday at the judicial inquiry looking into the bombing and subsequent investigation.
“Assessment of threat received from intelligence agencies reveal the likelihood of sabotage attempts being undertaken by Sikh extremists by placing time-delay devices in the aircraft or registered baggage,” an Air India telex says. “It is also learnt that Sikh extremists are planning to set up suicide squads who may attempt to blow up an aircraft by smuggling in of explosives in the registered or (carry on) baggage or any other means.”
After receiving the telex, the RCMP asked the Canadian Security Intelligence Service for a new threat assessment on the airline, but neglected to hand over the critical information provided by Air India.
CSIS then issued an assessment claiming there was no specific threat against Air India.
Inquiry lawyer Anil Kapoor said the only explanation he has received about the lack of communication between agencies is “oversight.”
However, retired Justice John Major said it is tough to accept that something so critical would be overlooked.
“Oversight is not filling your dog’s dish with water,” Major said. “It is just surprising that that would be the explanation — oversight — for something as dire as that.”
The Air India telex called for “meticulous implementation of counter-sabotage measures for flights at all airports.”
“Basic responsibility for counter-sabotage measures is that of airlines.”
Air India hired Burns Security at Toronto’s Pearson Airport for greater vigilance in response to the warnings.
However, the RCMP officer in charge of airport security said in a June 5 telex to his bosses: “I do not feel there is a need for extra security by this force.”
The inquiry, which resumed Monday after several months, has heard dramatic examples of warnings to police that preceded the Air India blast that killed 329 people, and a second bombing the same day at Tokyo’s Narita Airport that killed two baggage handlers.
Victims’ families have repeatedly asked why more was not done to stop violent British Columbia-based Sikh separatists who were plotting revenge against the Indian government for its 1984 attack on the Golden Temple.
Earlier Tuesday, retired Vancouver police officer Don McLean testified he was told on June 12, 1985 by a good source that an associate of bombing mastermind Talwinder Singh Parmar bragged that something big was going to happen within two weeks.
McLean said he was investigating a threat against moderate Vancouver businessman Sarbjit Singh Khurana when Khurana was approached by Sikh militants for a meeting about the threat.
Manmohan Singh, then the high-profile spokesman of the International Sikh Youth Federation, asked Khurana for a meeting to pressure him to withdraw his complaint to police. McLean arranged for the June 12 event to be surreptitiously recorded, although parts of the tape were inaudible upon review.
At the meeting, Singh chastised others present for not doing more for the separatist cause, Khurana told police.
“No consuls have been killed. No ambassadors have been killed. What are you doing? Nothing,” Singh allegedly said.
Parmar associate Pushpinder Singh responded: “You will see. Something will be done within two weeks!!”
McLean said he took the information very seriously, passed it on to CSIS and the RCMP, but thought it was referring to a possible plot to target the Indian consul-general’s office or West Vancouver home.
He said he realized the reference was likely about the bombing when he heard of the terrorist attack on the morning of June 23.
“Once I knew about the explosion — that’s the thought that I had — that’s what (the reference) meant,” McLean said.
McLean admitted he might have gotten Khurana to ask specific details in the meeting if the constable had been aware that two criminal informants had told Vancouver police months earlier about a plot by Parmar associates to bomb Air India.
“We would have gotten (Khurana) more directly involved,” said McLean, who was seconded to the RCMP after the bombing to work on the case.
Intelligence that McLean got from community sources was contained throughout confidential documents released for the first time at the inquiry Tuesday.
One such telex says that another participant in the Khurana meeting, Harjit Singh Atwal, later “bragged that he knew about the crash.”
“In fact, he knew that it was about to be blown up,” the document said. “Atwal continues to state that (name blacked out) and other moderates are on the new hit list.”
Vancouver Sun
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
In the name of security: Air India, Arar inquiries
You can bet that this same struggle to reveal information will be even worse in the Iacobucci inquiry since the subjects are still being investigated apparently.
From the Toronto StarIs it security – or convenience?
Government agencies' claims don't sound sincere
Feb 20, 2007 04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom
We have heard this story before. A public inquiry into a matter of national importance is called. The government vows its fullest co-operation. And then, claiming the requirements of national security, that same government tries to withhold from the public any piece of information that might embarrass it, its officials or its security agencies.
Justice John Major's Air India inquiry is the latest victim of this classic Ottawa two-step. After announcing the inquiry with much fanfare last year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is now shackling it with so many claims of so-called national security confidentiality that it may collapse.
Major has threatened to shut his inquiry down in two weeks unless the government relents and allows him to make public literally thousands of censored documents related to the 1985 terror bombings that killed 331 people.
Let's be clear about this. The former Supreme Court judge is not insisting that the RCMP and Canadian Security Intelligence Service reveal all of their dark secrets publicly. He is happy to keep real state secrets secret.
But after perusing these documents in private, he's simply pointing out that most of the things the government wants to keep out of the public eye don't need that kind of protection.
At another point in history, Canada's government might have been accorded the benefit of the doubt on this. Nations do have security needs. Sometimes security agencies have a better sense of these needs than judges.
But the Air India probe follows in the footsteps of another public inquiry that involved national security. And Justice Dennis O'Connor's investigation into the case of Maher Arar – the Canadian who was arrested in New York and deported to Syria to be tortured – demonstrates chapter and verse the bogus nature of so many of Ottawa's national security claims.
Like the Air India inquiry, the Arar investigation featured a government determined to keep as much out of the public record as possible.
In 2004, when O'Connor attempted to release a sanitized summary of the evidence he had heard in private, the government insisted on censoring entire sections.
In one particularly bizarre instance, it blacked out portions of a newspaper article that O'Connor had cited.
For Arar's lawyers – and for the commission itself – the public hearings were like pulling teeth. Memos with entire paragraphs blacked out would be submitted into evidence so that lawyers could bargain, word by word, over what exactly could be allowed into the public domain.
Usually, after these battles, it turned out that the contested bits didn't involve national security at all. The aim of the censorship, rather, seemed more malevolent.
In one memo, for instance, Canada's consul in Damascus quoted Arar as saying that his Syrian jailers were treating him well. But the next sentence, blacked out by Ottawa, quoted the consul as saying that all of Arar's statements during that interview were dictated by Syrian guards.
The uncensored second sentence came to light only by accident after Arar's lawyers obtained the entire memo through a freedom-of-information request.
Another memo, in which a Canadian official reported that Arar told him he was tortured, was also kept out of the public domain until late in the hearings. The reasons the government gave for its censorship that time were "privacy concerns."
Two of the most damning bits of evidence – that the RCMP had told the Americans (without evidence) that Arar and his wife were Islamic extremists, and that Mounties had provided questions to Syrian military intelligence officers torturing another Canadian jailed in Damascus – were made public only at the inquiry's very end, thereby forestalling any cross-examination.
In the Air India case, the government would have us believe that utmost secrecy is needed to protect Canada from villainy. To reveal more, government lawyers say, would be to provide a roadmap to terrorists.
Given that the Air India bombings were part of a Sikh terror campaign that no longer exists, this explanation is hard to take seriously. Given also that the attacks succeeded, a fulsome investigation of what Canadian security agencies did and did not do 22 years ago should not provide a roadmap for anybody. Let us hope that CSIS and the RCMP are doing things differently today.
But a full, public investigation does have the capacity to embarrass. The 2005 trial of two Air India suspects (both of whom were acquitted) raised numerous questions about the lead-up to the bombings: Did CSIS have a mole among the terrorists? Why did the spy agency famously erase all of its surveillance tapes of the alleged plotters rather than hand them over to the Mounties to help in any criminal prosecution? Other than (to use trial judge Ian Josephson's words) "unacceptable negligence" on the part of CSIS, what else was going on?
It was supposed to be Major's job to determine this, in as public a manner as possible. The government and its security agencies are, in their usual manner, doing their utmost to make sure this doesn't happen.
From the Toronto StarIs it security – or convenience?
Government agencies' claims don't sound sincere
Feb 20, 2007 04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom
We have heard this story before. A public inquiry into a matter of national importance is called. The government vows its fullest co-operation. And then, claiming the requirements of national security, that same government tries to withhold from the public any piece of information that might embarrass it, its officials or its security agencies.
Justice John Major's Air India inquiry is the latest victim of this classic Ottawa two-step. After announcing the inquiry with much fanfare last year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is now shackling it with so many claims of so-called national security confidentiality that it may collapse.
Major has threatened to shut his inquiry down in two weeks unless the government relents and allows him to make public literally thousands of censored documents related to the 1985 terror bombings that killed 331 people.
Let's be clear about this. The former Supreme Court judge is not insisting that the RCMP and Canadian Security Intelligence Service reveal all of their dark secrets publicly. He is happy to keep real state secrets secret.
But after perusing these documents in private, he's simply pointing out that most of the things the government wants to keep out of the public eye don't need that kind of protection.
At another point in history, Canada's government might have been accorded the benefit of the doubt on this. Nations do have security needs. Sometimes security agencies have a better sense of these needs than judges.
But the Air India probe follows in the footsteps of another public inquiry that involved national security. And Justice Dennis O'Connor's investigation into the case of Maher Arar – the Canadian who was arrested in New York and deported to Syria to be tortured – demonstrates chapter and verse the bogus nature of so many of Ottawa's national security claims.
Like the Air India inquiry, the Arar investigation featured a government determined to keep as much out of the public record as possible.
In 2004, when O'Connor attempted to release a sanitized summary of the evidence he had heard in private, the government insisted on censoring entire sections.
In one particularly bizarre instance, it blacked out portions of a newspaper article that O'Connor had cited.
For Arar's lawyers – and for the commission itself – the public hearings were like pulling teeth. Memos with entire paragraphs blacked out would be submitted into evidence so that lawyers could bargain, word by word, over what exactly could be allowed into the public domain.
Usually, after these battles, it turned out that the contested bits didn't involve national security at all. The aim of the censorship, rather, seemed more malevolent.
In one memo, for instance, Canada's consul in Damascus quoted Arar as saying that his Syrian jailers were treating him well. But the next sentence, blacked out by Ottawa, quoted the consul as saying that all of Arar's statements during that interview were dictated by Syrian guards.
The uncensored second sentence came to light only by accident after Arar's lawyers obtained the entire memo through a freedom-of-information request.
Another memo, in which a Canadian official reported that Arar told him he was tortured, was also kept out of the public domain until late in the hearings. The reasons the government gave for its censorship that time were "privacy concerns."
Two of the most damning bits of evidence – that the RCMP had told the Americans (without evidence) that Arar and his wife were Islamic extremists, and that Mounties had provided questions to Syrian military intelligence officers torturing another Canadian jailed in Damascus – were made public only at the inquiry's very end, thereby forestalling any cross-examination.
In the Air India case, the government would have us believe that utmost secrecy is needed to protect Canada from villainy. To reveal more, government lawyers say, would be to provide a roadmap to terrorists.
Given that the Air India bombings were part of a Sikh terror campaign that no longer exists, this explanation is hard to take seriously. Given also that the attacks succeeded, a fulsome investigation of what Canadian security agencies did and did not do 22 years ago should not provide a roadmap for anybody. Let us hope that CSIS and the RCMP are doing things differently today.
But a full, public investigation does have the capacity to embarrass. The 2005 trial of two Air India suspects (both of whom were acquitted) raised numerous questions about the lead-up to the bombings: Did CSIS have a mole among the terrorists? Why did the spy agency famously erase all of its surveillance tapes of the alleged plotters rather than hand them over to the Mounties to help in any criminal prosecution? Other than (to use trial judge Ian Josephson's words) "unacceptable negligence" on the part of CSIS, what else was going on?
It was supposed to be Major's job to determine this, in as public a manner as possible. The government and its security agencies are, in their usual manner, doing their utmost to make sure this doesn't happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)