Another security certificate bites the dust..

While it is certainly heartening to see that the courts have ruled against the certificates in these cases, it is after a very long time. Almrei was after arrested in 2001! He was only released earlier this year under strict monitoring conditions. As with the case of Maher Arar much of the evidence seems to be circumstantial and not backed up or even verified. No one ever seems to suffer as a result of this sloppy work. The taxpayer ended up shelling out millions to Arar but probably the people held on security certificates will not be able to get any compensation. No one in the CSIS will suffer at all. If the Arar case is any precedent some of the players may be promoted!



Back to Man hounded by Ottawa loses 'terrorist' tag at last
Man hounded by Ottawa loses 'terrorist' tag at last
December 15, 2009

Michelle Shephard


"I cannot describe how happy I am," Syrian native Hassan Almrei said Dec. 14, 2009 after a judge threw out the security certificate against him.


Hassan Almrei, pegged by CSIS after 9/11 as a terror suspect linked to the "Bin Laden network," celebrated the defeat of the federal government's deportation case against him by having a drink, a non-alcoholic one, with his Toronto lawyers.

Meanwhile, his team of lawyers toasted victory with champagne: "This is a huge decision," said lead lawyer Lorne Waldman.

On Monday, more than eight years after Almrei's arrest, a Federal Court of Canada judge threw out the security certificate against him, concluding the evidence – both secret and public – against the Syrian native does not hold up to scrutiny.

In a landmark ruling, Justice Richard Mosley declared "unreasonable" the security certificate that deemed Almrei a threat to national security.

The judge's decision throws further doubt on the federal government's legal regime for trying to deport foreign nationals it deems a national security threat. Ottawa says it has undertaken a sweeping review of the mechanisms used to deal with such threats.

Earlier this fall, a different judge threw out another security certificate against Montrealer Adil Charkaoui, after the Canadian Security Intelligence Service withdrew secret evidence, fearing its disclosure would jeopardize its sources. Three other men are still fighting in court to avoid efforts to deport them.

Almrei, first arrested in October 2001 but released earlier this year under strict monitoring conditions that include an electronic tracking bracelet on his leg, said he had waited a long time for this day.

"I'm glad. I cannot describe how happy I am," he said from his lawyer's office. "At the same time, I'm sad it took me more than eight years."

Almrei, who entered Canada on a forged passport and was granted refugee status, said the "stigma" might never go away.

"It may take some time to prove one's innocence but at least now I can stand and look you in the eye and say ... you can believe Justice Mosley now. He's not my friend, or neighbour, or my lawyer – he is a judge and he decided based on evidence before him."

Mosley was a federal assistant deputy justice minister who helped draft Canada's post 9/11 anti-terror laws before being named to the bench in 2003. He ruled that while there were "reasonable grounds to believe that Hassan Almrei was a danger to the security of Canada when he was detained in 2001," he concluded "there are no longer reasonable grounds to believe that he is a security risk today."

"The court is satisfied that Almrei is not and was not a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe has engaged in terrorism," wrote Mosley.

Waldman said the controls governing Almrei's release might be formally lifted within days. There is still the possibility the federal government could seek to appeal.

The court was critical of CSIS and the federal ministers of public safety and immigration who signed a new certificate in 2008 against Almrei and four others. That followed a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada forcing Ottawa to provide more protection in cases where secret evidence is relied on.

Mosley said CSIS and the ministers "breached their duties of utmost good faith and candour to the court by not thoroughly reviewing the information in their possession, prior to the issuance of the February 2008 certificate."

"The implication of what is being said here is: what was reasonable in 2001 because we didn't know a lot, isn't reasonable in 2009," said Waldman.

The evidence against Almrei was based on informants' tips, wiretaps, and his admission of travel to places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

CSIS queried foreign agencies about Almrei, Mosley wrote, but he "was not known to be an extremist suspect by the authorities in the jurisdictions canvassed."

Ottawa's case against Almrei was based on outdated and sketchy knowledge of Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamic groups, and was loaded with information that "could only be construed as unfavourable to Almrei without any serious attempt to include information to the contrary."

"Certain of the human sources relied upon by (CSIS) are not credible," said Mosley, who gave a classified version of his ruling – with more detail – to the government.

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan said the Conservative government "inherited" the system for managing terrorist threats "from the previous Liberal government." But the Conservatives rewrote the rules after being directed to do so by the Supreme Court in 2007.

Van Loan insisted "no new security certificates have been issued by our government as long-term control instruments." One was used to deport a suspected Russian spy who did not challenge it.

Still, Van Loan acknowledged the review is necessary. "An increasingly complex legal environment, and the significant costs associated with outstanding certificates, are factors in the current review we are undertaking of this system."

A spokeswoman said CSIS had nothing to add to Van Loan's comments.

Amnesty on Security Certificates

This is an analysis by Amnesty International of the Harper Security Certificate Legislation detailing what would be the necessary changes to make them consistent with the protection of human rights.

News Release


25 October 2007

Proposed Security Certificate Legislation Fails to Address Human Rights Shortcomings


Amnesty International Canada
Public Statement
October 25, 2007

In its February 23, 2007 Charkaoui, Almrei, and Harkat judgment, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Canadian immigration security certificate system for failing to meet the standards of fundamental justice under the Canadian Charter of Rights. The Court found that the secretive process, which denies full access to evidence for individuals who are subject to the certificates and their lawyers, did not adequately ensure individuals an opportunity to effectively know and meet the case against them. Amnesty International and many other concerned organizations had been raising that very concern with the government for several years and welcomed the Court’s decision.

The Court gave the government one year to come up with a new system that would meet the requirements of the Charter. Eight months later, and without any prior public consultation, the government has released its response to the Court’s ruling. Unfortunately Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate), falls dismally short of what would be required to meet minimal international and constitutional fair trial guarantees.

Amnesty International is deeply disappointed that the government has imported the United Kingdom’s Special Advocate model in responding to the Supreme Court’s concerns. Under the proposed new system, Special Advocates would be appointed to look out for the interests of individuals who are the subject of security certificate proceedings. However, once a Special Advocate is given access to the evidence in government files he or she would be barred, absent court approval, from further communication with the individual whose interests they are expected to represent. When the Special Advocate’s ability to communicate with the person named in the certificate is seriously restricted in this way, the Special Advocate is severely constrained in his or her ability to respond in any meaningful way to the government’s secret evidence. As long as that is the case, the process remains fundamentally flawed. These restrictions and other limitations fall short of fair trial guarantees.

This shortcoming in the UK system has been roundly condemned by a number of Special Advocates themselves, as well as by a UK parliamentary committee. The system has been described as providing a veneer of legality to what remains a deeply unfair process. Amnesty International has repeatedly called for the UK process to be reformed. While the Supreme Court of Canada did point to the UK system as an improvement over the existing Canadian system, it also acknowledged that there were many criticisms of the UK approach.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day has argued that the discretionary power of the presiding judge to authorize communication between the Special Advocate and the person named in the certificate will allow them to maintain substantial contact. That assurance, however, runs counter to the government’s consistent insistence that secrecy necessitates excluding the individual concerned from the process. Furthermore, UK experience points to such communication being authorized only rarely.

The legislation also fails to remedy other longstanding shortcomings in Canada’s approach to dealing with immigration cases that involve security concerns. For instance, provisions in Canadian law allowing individuals who are alleged to be security threats to be deported to countries where they face a serious risk of being tortured remain unchanged. Deporting anyone to a situation of likely torture clearly contravenes Canada’s international human rights obligations. UN level expert human rights bodies have repeatedly called on Canada to amend these provisions.

With this Bill the government had an opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to putting respect for international human rights at the heart of Canada’s counter-terrorism and security laws. Instead, the government has chosen to again sacrifice human rights in the name of security, a flawed approach that results only in injustice and insecurity.

Amnesty International has developed a set of human rights of principles which should guide the process of reforming the immigration security system. Amnesty International will press the government to bring Bill C-3 into line with these international legal requirements.

Human Rights Principles to Guide Immigration Security Certificate Reform

1. No complicity in torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
In no circumstances should any procedure lead to the removal or transfer of an individual from Canada to a country where there is a serious risk he or she would be tortured or subjected to other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

2. No impunity
In no circumstances should any procedure lead to the removal or transfer of an individual from Canada for whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that he or she may have committed crimes under international law, if he or she would consequently escape facing justice for those crimes.

3. Criminal proceedings in Canada when removal or transfer not possible
In cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed crimes under international law and it is not possible to remove or transfer him or her for any of the reasons outlined in Principles (1) and (2), they should be charged and brought to trial in Canada in proceedings which comply with international human rights law and standards for fair trial.


4. No disguised extradition
Immigration removals should not be disguised extraditions. This is an important measure to ensure that individuals are not returned to jurisdictions that do not respect fair trial rights and other human rights obligations. In no circumstances should immigration removal procedures be used to expedite removal of persons sought by foreign authorities for alleged crimes. Extradition and mutual legal assistance laws, with appropriate human rights safeguards including protection from refoulement, are the appropriate means of addressing these requests.

5. Equal fairness
Immigration-based security procedures should provide the same rigorous standards of procedural fairness and due process as is offered under Canadian criminal law and must be consistent with internationally-recognized fair trial standards.

6. Full answer and defence
The right to full answer and defence must be scrupulously protected in any immigration-based security procedures. In extremely limited circumstances, national security, public safety or the safety concerns of a particular person or persons may justify information being withheld from the individual who is the subject of the proceedings. In these circumstances, states must find some other effective means of ensuring that secrecy does not undermine the right to full answer and defence.

7. Injury to international relations is no excuse
Any restrictions on disclosure of evidence must conform to the limited exceptions that are permissible under international human rights law. In particular, in no circumstances should evidence or information be withheld from the individual who is the subject of the proceedings for the sole reason that to disclose it would be injurious to international relations.

8. Detention is a last resort
In immigration-based security procedures detention must be the last resort. Detention is justified only where the application of other less intrusive measures have been fully considered and rejected by the state. Where affected persons have been detained, that detention must be subject to fair, prompt and regular review by an independent and impartial court. Immigration detention should not be prolonged and can never be indefinite.

9. Immigration detention is not criminal detention
As a general principle, immigration detainees should not be held with criminal detainees. In all instances their detention conditions should reflect that they have not been criminally charged or convicted.

Special Advocates and Bill C-3

This is from cforcese blog. This is a well-argued critique of the changes to security certificates in Bill C23 including an op-ed piece written with Lorne Waldman in the National Post.

October 25, 2007
Special Advocates and Bill C-3
The Tory government tabled a bill on Monday, October 22 proposing amendments to Canada's immigration "security certificates" (Bill C-3). On top of making other minor adjustments (reflecting changes in practice undertaken anyway in the wake of court rulings), the new bill's core purpose is to create a system of "special advocates" to be deployed in in camera, ex parte portions of the hearings to represent the interest of the affected person. Unfortunately, the government effort seems to draw more inspiration from the UK experience than from Canada's own Security Intelligence Review Committee model. It fails to preclude a repeat of the problems experiences in the UK (leaving avoidance of such problems to the discretion of the judge on a case by case basis). Lorne Waldman and I have questioned the wisdom of this model in a op-ed published on October 25 in the National Post, and reproduced below. Other problems space and complexity prevented being discussed in that piece also exist with the bill.

First, the information disclosure regime in the immigration law will continue to be different from the information disclosure regime under the Canada Evidence Act: in the latter, the court is to balance the national security interest against the fair trial interest. In the immigration law, there is no such statutorily-mandated balancing. (And, incidentally, the bill doesn't create a special advocate system for Canada Evidence Act s.38 proceedings. At least one Federal Court judge has concluded that these persons are constitutionally obligatory in such proceedings).

Second, it would also have been helpful to underscore the inadmissibility of evidence where reasonable grounds exist to believe it was produced via torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading (CID) treatment. The bill does specify that unreliable evidence is excluded, but that reference does not go far enough. Torture evidence is already precluded by s.269.1 of the Criminal Code. CID treatment evidence might also usefully be statutorily proscribed, along with rules on who bears the onus of proof in establishing the conditions in which such evidence was produced. (There have been Federal Court decisions on the latter issue, in relation to torture, but a statutory rules seems sensible).

Third, immigration detentions (of a potentially indefinite length) and removals (to persecution and possibly torture, if the security threat is deemed significant enough) will continue to be done on government suspicions rather than any standard of proof otherwise recongized in the legal system. We acknowledge the need to protect national security. We also appreciate, however, that government suspicions are sometimes -- perhaps often -- misplaced. That is one of the lessons of the Maher Arar inquiry. Unquestionably, if Maher Arar had been a non-citizen, and thus subject to an immigration security certificate, he would have been detained and removed to Syria, without any outing of the deficiencies of the government position.

To this point should be added another observation, anticipating an objection raised in our op-ed: The best special advocate in the world would not have stood in the way of this certainty -- it took a full airing and probing of the information in the government's position. That included access to information the government would rather not have shared. In bill C-3, a special advocate will be hard pressed to persuade a judge to see information the government has chosen not to submit to a judge already. He or she will be reduced to arguing that he or she suspects that there might be further relevant material, but not having access to it, will have difficulty making this case. Notably, the Federal Court has, in the past, fixated on the fact that security certificates are administrative and not criminal proceedings, and have tailored its position on disclosure accordingly. I fear that these judges will rely on this (unpersuasive) distinction in responding to such requests. (Keep in mind that the outcome of security certificate processes may be more serious that anything the criminal code could impose -- indefinite detention without charge and removal to torture). The better model, as we suggest, is that of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, with its full access to security service files. Ironically, if C-3 goes through unamended, special advocates may find it useful to bring collateral challenges in an effort to probe more deeply security service files, by tabling complaints in front of SIRC and calling on that body to conduct proxy investigations. It would be nice if a more elegant system was developed from the very beginning.

For more information on the UK experience and SIRC, see our August 2007 report.

Our op-ed follows (albeit with the dramatic headline selected by the editors):

Canada doesn't need a Star Chamber

Craig Forcese And Lorne Waldman

National Post

Published: Thursday, October 25, 2007

On Monday, the federal government tabled its amendments to Canada's national security immigration law. There were two options in drafting this bill: Ottawa could have learned from the experience of other countries -- most notably the United Kingdom -- and created a system that avoided problems in those jurisdictions. Or it could table a minimalist proposal that risks repeating those problems here in Canada. The government chose option two.

In response to the Supreme Court's Charkaoui decision in February -- the court held that the manner in which secret evidence was used to detain and deport non-nationals using security certificates was unconstitutional -- the new legislation Ottawa proposes will layer special advocates onto a slightly modified security certificate process. These special advocates will be security-cleared lawyers representing the interests of parties excluded from national security-related hearings where the government presents information deemed secret.

The United Kingdom has employed a system of special advocates for almost a decade, one that has been controversial. Until recently, the U.K.'s special advocates lacked a support office creating anything approximating equality of arms between government and special advocate. Other problems persist. Most notably, U.K. special advocates may not continue to communicate (in any meaningful sense) with the affected person they serve after the advocate has reviewed the secret information. Further, special advocates have reported difficulties in obtaining full disclosure of all relevant (and sometimes exculpatory) information the security services have on this person. In July 2007, the U.K. Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights issued a strongly worded report describing the U.K. special advocate system as "'Kafkaesque' or like the Star Chamber."

Canada's government is proposing legislation that seems bound to create similar problems here. First, the bill specifically authorizes the special advocate to review secret information provided by the government to the judge in the security certificate process. However, it includes no express procedures for the special advocate to reach beyond this information and seek and obtain government records not already disclosed to the court (other than to ask simply the judge to oblige this disclosure).

Second, while the bill does not close the door on continued contact between the special advocate and the interested party subject to the security certificate, nor does it affirmatively guard this right. Instead, this is a matter left to the discretion of the judge.

Third, the bill is silent of the question of resourcing, failing to create a well-equipped special advocate office able to offer the sort of support now (belatedly) enjoyed by U.K. special advocates.

There are better systems, including ones developed in Canada. One such system is the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) model, employed successfully in Canada for over 20 years. The SIRC model remedies, at least in part, many of the obvious deficiencies in the UK special advocate system that we seemed destined to repeat. It provides for:

Full Access to Information: Under SIRC procedures, SIRC counsel has access to the entire file in the possession of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). As a result, concerns that the security services might either intentionally or inadvertently fail to disclose relevant (and indeed exculpatory) information to counsel are alleviated.

Continued Contact with Affected Person: In addition, under the SIRC model, SIRC counsel can meet with the affected person even after SIRC counsel has reviewed the secret information. Although counsel must take great care not to reveal secret information, experience over many years at SIRC has established that it is possible to have such meetings without risk of inadvertent disclosure.

Canada's minimalist approach is unnecessary. It has proposed a system that could fall far short of the SIRC model, one that will be employed in security certificate cases where the consequences to interested persons (imposed on the basis of suspicions) may include removal to persecution or prolonged detention without trial. It had an alternative. It could simply have grafted the immigration special advocate function onto the existing SIRC system. Indeed, this is, in essence, the approach that existed for permanent residents prior to 2002.

Given SIRC's successful track record, it is very unlikely that a special advocate model less thorough than the SIRC model will survive constitutional scrutiny. The Charkaoui case turned on the court's conclusion that the government had better options in the design of its security certificate system. That conclusion is not fully reflected in the bill presented by the government on Monday. Parliament should now move promptly to add additional precision and detail to the government's sparse effort.

- Craig Forcese teaches national security law at the University of Ottawa. Lorne Waldman is an immigration lawyer in Toronto. They are co-authors of an August, 2007, study on special advocates.

Ottawa to reinstate security certificates

This is from the National Post.The Liberals will support the legislation so it will pass. THe NDP will vote against it. The bill seems to use UK legislation as a model. There have been problems with the legislation there. Some special advocates have resigned. Since the war on terror rights have taken a terrible beating. Investigations such as the Arar inquiry show the absolutely ludicrous standards that exist with respect to information that is used to make judgments about suspects. Yet ordinarily no one would be able to question such faulty intelligence at all because it would all be secret for reasons of national security. No one is ever held accountable for providing faulty info or judgments or sharing it with other intelligence agencies. Even at that the Arar inquiry was light years more open and helpful in understanding what happens than the Iacobucci inquiry will ever be.


The
Ottawa reinstates controversial security certificates
Richard Foot , CanWest News Service, with files from Norma Greenaway
Published: Monday, October 22, 2007
OTTAWA -- Eight months after the Supreme Court declared one of Canada's main anti-terrorism laws unconstitutional, the Conservative government has reintroduced the provisions with changes it says would protect the rights of the accused.

Legislation unveiled Monday would preserve the controversial security certificate regime, but create room for "special advocates" -- lawyers, acting on behalf of the accused, with access to the secret information the government uses to detain and deport suspects.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day hailed security certificates as "an important tool to protect Canadians from terrorist threats," but acknowledged that "the process should protect rights and freedoms in Canada."


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font:****Liberal justice critic Ujjal Dosanjh said his party would support the legislation, Bill C-3, in Parliament, thereby avoiding another challenge to the minority government and risking a federal election.

Mr. Dosanjh also said the Liberals would approach the government's planned reintroduction of preventive arrests and investigative hearings, two other anti-terrorism measures that his party rejected earlier this year, "with no preconceived notions or bias." The government's failed attempt to extend the measures for three years divided the Liberals last winter and sparked weeks of angry debate in the Commons.

Preventive arrest allows an arrest without warrant and three days of detention in a terrorism case. Investigative hearings allow judges to compel individuals to testify in terrorism investigations. The two provisions expired under a sunset clause in March, and the three opposition parties defeated the government's bid to extend them. Critics said the move hobbled RCMP plans for investigative hearings related to the Air India disaster.

Government House leader Peter Van Loan said on Sunday that the government would reintroduce the two measures through the Senate, even though most legislation starts in the Commons. On Monday, officials declined to explain the unusual tactic or to say when it might happen. Earlier this year, a special Senate committee chaired by Liberal Senator David Smith recommended the measures be extended for three years, just as Liberal leader Stéphane Dion was ordering his Commons caucus to vote them down on civil liberties grounds.

Mr. Smith said yesterday the committee was comfortable with the measures, as long as other amendments are made to the anti-terrorism law, including removal of "political, religious or ideological motives" from the definition of a terrorist crime. "The Muslim community, in particular, just felt that that promoted racial profiling," he said, "and our view is: If it's terrorist in nature, who gives a hoot what the reason is? If we're talking terrorism, the motive is irrelevant."

He said senators would likely deal with the terrorist measures as a package that includes the security certificate bill. "We'll deal with it with an open mind," he said.

For now, the government is moving ahead with changes to the security certificates regime. This refers to an extraordinary legal measure in the federal immigration system that allows the government to arrest, imprison and deport foreign nationals or permanent residents who are suspected of links to organized crime, or who may pose a security risk to Canada.

Introduced in the Immigration Act in 1988, the provision was strengthened after the 9/11 attacks to give authorities a fast and efficient way to remove terrorist suspects from Canada, without having to lay charges in the criminal justice system.

It was challenged in the Supreme Court last year by three Muslim men who were accused of terrorist links and awaited deportation. In a unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, the court said the certificates violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in two ways.

However the court also acknowledged the necessity of such measures, noting that "one of the most fundamental responsibilities of a government is to ensure the security of its citizens."

The court suspended its ruling for a year, specifically telling Parliament to fix the law and bring it in line with the Charter before February, 2008.

Bill C-3, as tabled yesterday, would give foreign nationals the same 48-hour detention limit as permanent residents, before a closed-door judicial review kicks in. More important, the legislation would create the position of "special advocates," who would be appointed from a pre-approved list of security-cleared lawyers. These special advocates would have access to the government's evidence, but would not be allowed to disclose it to the accused. Special advocates would also be able to argue before federal judges that certain evidence should not be kept secret, and they could cross-examine government witnesses.

NDP justice critic Joe Comartin said his party would not support the bill. "Right now it does not appear to meet the basic requirements we would want," he said. "I think they're simply responding with the absolute least amount that they feel they can get away with to fulfill the Supreme Court of Canada decision."

Mohamed Mahjoub home after nearly 7 years in jail

There is something wrong with a justice system that keeps someone in jail for seven years without charge--independently of the Supreme Court decision. Even though he is at least back with his family his privacy is constantly invaded and he has no opportunity to clear himself. One thing that the war on terror has done is to destroy basic freedoms that were before taken as given in our justice system.

Held nearly 7 years, freed after security certificates struck down

Apr 14, 2007 02:30 AM
Theresa Boyle Staff Reporter

Toronto terrorism suspect Mohamed Mahjoub has been reunited with his family after spending almost seven years in jail without charges.

"He is elated to be home with his family for the first time in nearly seven years," his lawyer, John Norris, said yesterday.

He returned to his home in the city's west end on Thursday night under tight conditions after being released from the immigration detention centre near Kingston known as "Guantanamo North."

Mahjoub, 46, is an Egyptian who worked for Osama bin Laden's agricultural company in Sudan in the 1990s.

He was arrested in Toronto in June 2000 and accused of being a member of the Vanguard of Conquest, a wing of an Egyptian Islamic group. He denies any link to Al Qaeda.

He has been incarcerated under a national security certificate, a provision of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that allowed the government to present secret information to a Federal Court judge. That information could not be viewed or challenged by the accused or his lawyers.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in February that the security certificate was unconstitutional.

It has taken until now for the Canada Border Services Agency to implement Mahjoub's bail conditions.

"Right now he's under very strict house arrest," Norris said, explaining the conditions.

Mahjoub cannot have guests in his home unless they have been pre-approved by the Canadian Border Services Agency.

He currently cannot leave his home without prior approval from CBSA, but that condition is expected to soon be relaxed so he can venture out for such errands as taking his young children to school.

Mahjoub cannot be alone at home, must maintain regular contact with CBSA officials, let them into his home whenever they wish, allow his mail and phone calls to be intercepted, and wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.

Despite the restrictions, Mahjoub is thrilled to once again be living with his wife and two sons, Norris said.

"The family was put in an almost impossible situation where they would agree to anything to get him home. They've had to give up almost every aspect of privacy in their lives," he said.

"Our hope is that as he makes the transition back into the community we'll be able to go back to the court and ask that the terms gradually be relaxed, but that will be a long-term project," the lawyer added.

Norris said Mahjoub will have to get reacquainted with his sons, aged 9 and 7.

"He's just been this absent, distant figure for most of their lives," he said.

"(The youngest) was a babe in arms when Mahjoub went in. It's just unbelievable," he said.

Mahjoub's release coincided with the announcement of bail terms for Mahmoud Jaballah, another terrorism suspect from Egypt held in Kingston without charge.

Federal Court Justice Carolyn Layden-Stevenson released the terms on Thursday. They are similar to those faced by Mahjoub.

"We have the order and we're hoping that CBSA will be making arrangements for his release any time now," Norris said.

Jaballah has been detained for more than five years. He has been accused of being involved with the Egyptian Al Jihad, led by Ayman Al Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's reputed second-in-command whose whereabouts are unknown.

He is also allegedly linked to Canadians with suspected terrorism ties.

Like Mahjoub, he has denied any connection to terrorism.

Arar still to be on US no fly list. Canadian security certificates unconstitutional

Friday, February 23, 2007
US still to keep Arar on no-fly list: Canadian Security Certifcates Unconstitutional

Of course the US has never apologised for misleading Canadian officals, indeed lying to them, or for sending him to Syria instead of Canada. It is great that the Supreme Court has found security certificates unconstitutional but probably the Conservatives will find some way of amending the legislation to make it legal and the status quo can remain for a year.

'We agree to disagree' with U.S. on Arar: MacKay
Last Updated: Friday, February 23, 2007 | 5:44 PM ET
CBC News
Canada and the United States "agree to disagree" on the status of Maher Arar, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said Friday alongside his U.S. counterpart, Condoleezza Rice.

MacKay, Rice and Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa spoke at a press conference in Ottawa following a day of high-level talks on a range of issues, including trade, security and flu pandemic response plans.

"We agree to disagree at times," MacKay said. "It's clear Canada and the United States hold a different position on this issue."

MacKay went on to praise the "tremendous unprecedented co-operation" between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico in areas of security.

Rice reiterated previous comments on the Arar affair, saying the United States respects Canada's decision on Arar, but makes its own security decisions based on "our own information."

Arar still on U.S. 'no-fly' list
Arar, a Canadian citizen who was born in Syria, was detained in 2002 by U.S. authorities who suspected him of terrorist links and deported him to his homeland, where he was jailed and tortured. Arar's name was later cleared by a Canadian judicial inquiry, which blamed his deportation in part on the RCMP.



Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized to Arar in January and offered him a $10.5-million compensation package for his ordeal.

The U.S. State Department has said it would keep Arar on its security watch list, even though Ottawa has been pushing for his name to be removed.

In January, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said he saw the U.S. information during a visit to Washington and found nothing new to suggest Arar is a safety risk.
MacKay's comments came on the same day as the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the security certificate system used by the federal government to detain and deport foreign-born terrorist suspects.

The court found that the system, described by the government as a key tool for safeguarding national security, violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

MacKay noted the decision allowed the government a year to examine the decision and re-write the law.

Canadian security certificates and sending off to torture

This is an update of an earlier story. The security certificates are not new and I gather are not even part of the special terrorist provisions passed after 9/11. As the article points out they have been around since 1978. They seem to be an earlier abomination. The fact they are not applied to citizens doesn't change the fact. As the article also points out Canada can claim no high ground concerning sending someone off to be tortured. It is almost certain that at least one of these defendants would be tortued in Egypt if not killed.

Canadian security
Security certificates and secret evidence
Last Updated February 20, 2007
CBC News
Mahmoud Jaballah says he's no terrorist and he's never been charged with any crime in Canada. But since 2001, Jaballah has been in a Canadian jail because the government of Egypt says he's part of a terrorist organization called al-Jihad. The Canadian government believes that and says he's not a legitimate refugee, so it's trying to deport him back to Egypt, where Jaballah says he will be tortured and killed.

Jaballah is one of five terrorism suspects that have been in this situation. All have been held without charge in Canada on secret evidence they're not allowed to see.

Security certificates
Citizenship and Immigration Canada can remove a person considered to be a security threat by issuing a Security Certificate signed by the solicitor general and the minister of citizenship and immigration, and endorsed by a judge of the Federal Court.

When a security certificate is issued:


All other immigration proceedings are suspended until the Federal Court makes a final decision about the certificate.
Foreign nationals who are the subject of a Security Certificate are automatically detained. Permanent residents may be detained on a case-by-case basis.

If the Federal Court decides that the certificate is unreasonable, it is quashed. If the court decides that it is reasonable, the certificate becomes an order for removal of the person. The court's decision can't be appealed.

Since 1978, security certificates have been issued 28 times. The latest use was in November 2006 in the arrest of an alleged spy in Montreal.

Their friends call them "The Secret Trial Five." Two have been released on bail — under strict conditions — but three remain in custody. And three of the five have taken their case to the Supreme Court of Canada. The court began hearing arguments in the case in June 2006.

The Secret Trial Five are fighting deportation to Morocco, Algeria, Syria and Egypt, where Jaballah says he was tortured before.

"They make me naked and they put me in the chair and they tie the chair and try to put electric shock on my private parts and sometimes he put me like this and hit my feet," he says.

Jaballah says it happened in Cairo at a prison for religious militants where torture is routine according to ex-prisoners and human rights groups.

Whether democracies should look the other way is not an academic question, not when the United States seems to have ignored the Geneva Conventions in the abuse of prisoners at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad and at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Officially, Canada condemns such practices. And, in the case of Maher Arar, it is holding an inquiry. Arar says he was tortured after being shipped off to Syria by the U.S. But what if it's Canada that does the shipping?

Barbara Jackman is a lawyer for three of the so-called Secret Trial Five.

"The convention against torture makes it an absolute prohibition. There is no justification ever for returning someone to torture," she says.

Jackman says Canada signed that convention but is now contradicting it. "Canada's position is that if the person is a security risk, that's enough justification to send them back to torture. That seems to be what Canada's saying in these cases."

What is so baffling about the situation of these men is that the government keeps trying to do to them exactly what it says it would never do. The official line is that if someone can show they face a real risk of torture if deported, then Canada would not deport them. In fact, though, even after the government's lawyers have conceded in court that the risk is real, they still keep trying to deport them.

And it's not like we're even arguing over whether they will be tortured. They accept, the government accepts, that they will be tortured. And yet they've decided to deport them to torture," Jackman says.

On Dec. 10, 2004, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that security certificates used to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely for months without charge are constitutional.

A three-judge panel made the decision at an appeal hearing by Adil Charkaoui, 31, a Moroccan-born man accused of being an al-Qaeda operative. The decision upheld a December 2003 ruling by the separate Federal Court that said sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act fell in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"The appellant has been unable to demonstrate that the procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of the security certificate issued against him ... do not meet the requirements of the charter," the appeal court wrote in the 89-page ruling.

The court ruled that non-citizens and permanent residents can be subjected to a different standard of legal treatment than citizens.

The judges also upheld the use of secret evidence, and said that authorities have an obligation to suppress evidence if its release might harm national security.

Charkaoui challenged the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, which agreed in August 2005 to hear the case.

In June 2006, lawyers for Charkaoui and two other detainees argued before the Supreme Court that locking people up without charge violates Canadian and international law. Lawyers for the federal government said the security certificates are needed for national security.

The court is expected to release its decision on Feb. 23, 2007.