This is an interesting take on the submission of the DOJ at the Iacobucci Inquiry recently. It is from the Lawyer's Weekly. There have been several critical articles on the submission but this is the first I noticed that makes the point that it would justify contracting out of torture. Perhaps Alberto Gonzales has been acting as a legal advisor to the DOJ on this matter!
COMMENTARY: Justice department justifies contracting out of torture
By Reem BahdiFebruary 01 2008
Muayyed Nurredin, Abdullah Almalki and Ahmad El Maati are all Canadian citizens. However, they have been constructed as non-citizens who have effectively been told that they should not expect the full benefit or protection of Canada’s prohibition on torture. Their constructed non-citizen status was recently highlighted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) before the Iacobucci Inquiry.
Appointed to chair an “Internal Inquiry,” retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci has been tasked with determining whether Canadian officials caused – directly or indirectly – the overseas detention and torture of Almalki, El Maati and Nureddin. Pursuant to its mandate as interpreted by Justice Iacobucci, the inquiry has been conducted largely in secret.
However, in a rare public appearance before the commission, DOJ argued that even if Ottawa did share information with torturing states and thus helped facilitate the men’s arrest and detention abroad, this would not put Canada in breach of its obligations under the International Convention Against Torture (CAT). The CAT, according to the DOJ, simply requires Canadian officials to prevent torture on its own soil, but creates no obligation for Canadian officials vis-à-vis events that take place in foreign countries.
The DOJ’s submissions were not focused on whether Canada has a responsibility to the three Canadian citizens in relation to Syria’s conduct. Rather, the issue being addressed is whether international law sets any standards for the conduct of Canadian officials in the circumstances. The DOJ essentially argued that Canadian officials operate in a state of lawlessness.
Interestingly, borders do not always frustrate protection from torture in Canadian law. If the Syrian officials who actually inflicted the torture on these Canadian men found themselves in Canada, they could be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. And, if Almalki, El Maati and Nurredin were non-citizens at risk of being deported to torture, Canadian law would provide them some measure of protection as well. But the border has different significance for Almalki, El Maati and Nurredin, according to the DOJ. They appear to have no legal protection — even if they are Canadian citizens and even if the focus is on made-in-Canada decisions rendered by Canadian officials.
At least this is how the DOJ has interpreted Canada’s obligations under the CAT.
Sadly, the DOJ’s logic can be harnessed to justify the contracting out of torture, and undermines the very purpose of the CAT, which aims to prohibit torture in all its forms. The DOJ offered both the inquiry and the Canadian public an overly formalistic and ultimately unpersuasive reading of Canada’s legal obligations. The CAT does indicate that states are responsible for implementing its provisions within their territory. The territorial reference is meant to underline that states must clearly prevent torture committed on their soil, but it does not stipulate that responsibility for torture categorically ends at one’s border. In other words, nothing in the CAT relieves Canadian government officials from responsibility should they facilitate torture on foreign soil.
The CAT stresses that torture cannot be committed by anyone, under any circumstances, for any reason whatsoever. And, like all human rights treaties, this treaty must be interpreted in light of a fundamental international legal principle: states must take positive and effective measures to ensure the human rights of those living within their territories. When states are tempted to finesse their obligations, they should consider a statement by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture:
“I remind governments around the world that they are not only obliged to refrain at all times from using torture — they also have a duty not to transfer persons in their custody to countries where they are at risk of being tortured; a duty to refrain from encouraging torture anywhere in any way; and a duty to actively prevent torture, inter alia by bringing torturers to justice.”
Curiously, Canada’s stance before international bodies differs from DOJ’s position before the Iacobucci Inquiry. In their report to the U.N.’s Committee Against Torture, Canadian officials accepted, at least implicitly, that the CAT prohibits contributing to torture either directly or indirectly. Noting the Arar Inquiry, Canadian representatives told members of the U.N. committee that “Canada takes allegations of torture seriously, especially where it is alleged that Canadian officials may have been implicated, however indirectly, in incidents of torture.”
Canada’s legal obligations are clear. For greater emphasis and to help reaffirm the futility and immorality of torture, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association has proposed anti-torture legislation to codify Canada’s obligations under domestic and international law (for further information, see http://www.bccla.org/antiterrorissue/torturenutshell.htm).
Everyone – citizen and non-citizen alike – should be secure in the knowledge that Canadian officials will not participate directly or indirectly in torture.
Professor Reem Bahdi teaches Access to Justice and Torts at the Faculty of Law at the University of Windsor. She is a board member of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.
Showing posts with label Justice Department. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice Department. Show all posts
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Friday, April 20, 2007
Secrecy may threaten the Iacobucci Inquiry
I am sure that the three participants who were jailed would not object to evidence being brought forward that they were terrorists. This is precisely what is needed to clear their names after all! The federal position is typical. It is designed to structure the hearing so that the least wrongdoing can be made public. The only choice for the three to clear their names is through lawsuits that are very expensive and also probably unwinnable because the evidence will be classified. There was very little coverage of the hearing last Tuesday. The website contains a separate submission of the Feds responding to some of the points made in other submissions. I am not sure if others are allowed to do the same. The Fed submission is the only one of that kind so far.
Feds' secrecy could undermine torture inquiry: lawyers
By JIM BROWN
Ahmad El Maati, and Muayyed Nureddin (left to right) chat during a break at Justice Frank Iacobucci's public inquiry. (CP PHOTO/Tom Hanson)
OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government is facing accusations that an obsession with secrecy is undermining public confidence in an inquiry into the arrest and torture abroad of three Canadians accused of terrorist ties.
Former Supreme Court judge Frank Iacobucci has been appointed to examine the cases of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin. The three deny any terrorist activity and blame faulty intelligence from the RCMP and CSIS for their mistreatment in Syria and Egypt.
But government lawyer Michael Peirce argued at a hearing Tuesday that nearly all future proceedings should be held behind closed doors - not just to protect national security but also to speed up the investigation.
"This is an internal inquiry," said Peirce, contending that the terms of reference drawn up for Iacobucci by the Conservative government allow for public hearings only in "limited and exceptional circumstances."
He noted that a similar inquiry into the Maher Arar affair bogged down in argument over how much of the evidence should be public and dragged on for over two years. Repeating that experience would be in nobody's interest, said Peirce.
He went on to argue that:
-Public hearings should be limited to opening and closing statements, procedural questions and motions, and a handful of other matters.
-There's no need for the three men, or their lawyers, to be present when the bulk of the testimony is heard in secret.
-The inquiry shouldn't become a fishing expedition to uncover evidence for use in separate civil suits for damages the three have launched against Ottawa.
Jasminka Kalajdzic, one of the lawyers for Almalki, retorted that if Iacobucci accepts the federal view, his work will be reduced to the status of an "internal audit" that will have trouble uncovering the truth.
"The government's vision for this inquiry is an impoverished one," she said. "Their vision is that it is not about accountability, it is not about inspiring public confidence."
The three men want as much of the inquiry as possible to be held in public. To the extent that closed-door hearings are necessary, they want their lawyers to be security-cleared and allowed to attend to protect their interests.
Barbara Jackman, who represents El Maati and Nureddin, contended the federal ground rules would rob her clients of any chance for meaningful participation in the work of the inquiry.
If that happens, she hinted, they could decide to pull out rather than lend their support to a flawed investigation.
"We want to co-operate, we want to make this process work," said Jackman. "But if it is such a secret hearing . . . then we will have to consider our options."
Paul Copeland, a member of Almalki's legal team, told reporters later that it's premature to speculate on what his client would do if Iacobucci adopts the federal view and opts for mainly secret hearings.
But he added pointedly: "I don't see what participation there is for us in the inquiry if it's all done in private . . . It strikes me as a very meaningless process."
Copeland theorized that the federal position could reflect a fear that, if the inquiry finds fault with the RCMP, CSIS or other federal agencies, it could bolster the civil damage claims of the three men.
He noted, for example, that Maher Arar, who was cleared of suspicion by an earlier inquiry headed by Justice Dennis O'Connor, has since won a $10-million settlement from Ottawa.
"Clearly the government is concerned that they might be held liable for Canadian complicity in the torture of Mr. Almalki," said Copeland.
Peirce aid the government doesn't contest the fact that Almalki, El Maati and Nureddin suffered "mistreatment" at the hands of their interrogators in Syria and Egypt. He refused, however, to concede that their treatment met the legal definition of torture.
He also challenged the belief - voiced repeatedly by the three men - that the inquiry can serve as a vehicle for clearing their names.
If that were the case, said Peirce, it would open the door for the government to counter their arguments by presenting evidence aimed at proving they were indeed terrorists.
Iacobucci reserved judgment, promising to rule "as soon as possible" on where he intends to draw the line between public and private hearings.
The three cases bear striking similarities to that of Arar, the Ottawa telecommunications expert who was arrested by U.S. authorities in 2002, deported to Syria and tortured into false confessions of ties to al-Qaida.
El Maati, a Toronto truck driver, was arrested in Syria on a visit in 2001, then transferred to Egypt in early 2002 for further interrogation.
Almalki, an Ottawa electronics engineer, was detained in Syria in 2002 and held for 22 months, while Nureddin, a Toronto geologist, was held for 34 days in Syria in late 2001 and early 2003.
Feds' secrecy could undermine torture inquiry: lawyers
By JIM BROWN
Ahmad El Maati, and Muayyed Nureddin (left to right) chat during a break at Justice Frank Iacobucci's public inquiry. (CP PHOTO/Tom Hanson)
OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government is facing accusations that an obsession with secrecy is undermining public confidence in an inquiry into the arrest and torture abroad of three Canadians accused of terrorist ties.
Former Supreme Court judge Frank Iacobucci has been appointed to examine the cases of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin. The three deny any terrorist activity and blame faulty intelligence from the RCMP and CSIS for their mistreatment in Syria and Egypt.
But government lawyer Michael Peirce argued at a hearing Tuesday that nearly all future proceedings should be held behind closed doors - not just to protect national security but also to speed up the investigation.
"This is an internal inquiry," said Peirce, contending that the terms of reference drawn up for Iacobucci by the Conservative government allow for public hearings only in "limited and exceptional circumstances."
He noted that a similar inquiry into the Maher Arar affair bogged down in argument over how much of the evidence should be public and dragged on for over two years. Repeating that experience would be in nobody's interest, said Peirce.
He went on to argue that:
-Public hearings should be limited to opening and closing statements, procedural questions and motions, and a handful of other matters.
-There's no need for the three men, or their lawyers, to be present when the bulk of the testimony is heard in secret.
-The inquiry shouldn't become a fishing expedition to uncover evidence for use in separate civil suits for damages the three have launched against Ottawa.
Jasminka Kalajdzic, one of the lawyers for Almalki, retorted that if Iacobucci accepts the federal view, his work will be reduced to the status of an "internal audit" that will have trouble uncovering the truth.
"The government's vision for this inquiry is an impoverished one," she said. "Their vision is that it is not about accountability, it is not about inspiring public confidence."
The three men want as much of the inquiry as possible to be held in public. To the extent that closed-door hearings are necessary, they want their lawyers to be security-cleared and allowed to attend to protect their interests.
Barbara Jackman, who represents El Maati and Nureddin, contended the federal ground rules would rob her clients of any chance for meaningful participation in the work of the inquiry.
If that happens, she hinted, they could decide to pull out rather than lend their support to a flawed investigation.
"We want to co-operate, we want to make this process work," said Jackman. "But if it is such a secret hearing . . . then we will have to consider our options."
Paul Copeland, a member of Almalki's legal team, told reporters later that it's premature to speculate on what his client would do if Iacobucci adopts the federal view and opts for mainly secret hearings.
But he added pointedly: "I don't see what participation there is for us in the inquiry if it's all done in private . . . It strikes me as a very meaningless process."
Copeland theorized that the federal position could reflect a fear that, if the inquiry finds fault with the RCMP, CSIS or other federal agencies, it could bolster the civil damage claims of the three men.
He noted, for example, that Maher Arar, who was cleared of suspicion by an earlier inquiry headed by Justice Dennis O'Connor, has since won a $10-million settlement from Ottawa.
"Clearly the government is concerned that they might be held liable for Canadian complicity in the torture of Mr. Almalki," said Copeland.
Peirce aid the government doesn't contest the fact that Almalki, El Maati and Nureddin suffered "mistreatment" at the hands of their interrogators in Syria and Egypt. He refused, however, to concede that their treatment met the legal definition of torture.
He also challenged the belief - voiced repeatedly by the three men - that the inquiry can serve as a vehicle for clearing their names.
If that were the case, said Peirce, it would open the door for the government to counter their arguments by presenting evidence aimed at proving they were indeed terrorists.
Iacobucci reserved judgment, promising to rule "as soon as possible" on where he intends to draw the line between public and private hearings.
The three cases bear striking similarities to that of Arar, the Ottawa telecommunications expert who was arrested by U.S. authorities in 2002, deported to Syria and tortured into false confessions of ties to al-Qaida.
El Maati, a Toronto truck driver, was arrested in Syria on a visit in 2001, then transferred to Egypt in early 2002 for further interrogation.
Almalki, an Ottawa electronics engineer, was detained in Syria in 2002 and held for 22 months, while Nureddin, a Toronto geologist, was held for 34 days in Syria in late 2001 and early 2003.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Don't wash your dirty linen in public. Whitewash it in private!
If the Justice Dept. gets its way the whole inquiry will lose any credibility and may find itself going ahead without the participation of the very three persons the inquiry was called for in the first place. Somehow if it turned out to be in the interests of the three men and might even provide ammunition for a lawsuit that would somehow defeat the purpose of the inquiry. Apparently the inquiry is not to have anything to do with clearing their names or even finding out whether they were wrongly accused of being terrorists. The inquiry is not even supposed to determine if they were tortured.
JUDICIAL INQUIRY
Men allegedly tortured reject secret proceedings
ALEX DOBROTA
OTTAWA -- Three Canadian men who claim they were tortured as terror suspects in the Middle East could pull out of an inquiry into their ordeal if the Department of Justice succeeds in keeping proceedings secret, their lawyers said yesterday.
"If they are not permitted participation, an option available to them is they can just go home and carry on by themselves," Barbara Jackman, the lawyer for Torontonians Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin, told reporters.
Ms. Jackman presented a similar argument yesterday to retired Supreme Court judge Frank Iacobucci, who chairs the federal judicial inquiry.
Ms. Jackman's clients, together with Abdullah Almalki, an Ottawa businessman, have alleged in separate civil lawsuits that Canadian officials shared intelligence with Syrian and Egyptian authorities, which led to their detention and torture.
The Conservative government called an "internal inquiry" into the matter last December, and the men agreed to halt their lawsuits pending the findings of the inquiry.
At issue now is whether the proceedings should unfold behind closed doors, which would exclude even the complainants and their lawyers from accessing evidence brought forward by the government.
Under the scenario proposed by the Department of Justice, the three men and their lawyers would only make written submissions to the inquiry, without attending hearings.
That would undermine public confidence in the inquiry, the lawyers for the three men said. "It's going to whitewash the government," Ms. Jackman said.
A lawyer for the Department of Justice yesterday argued that the proceedings should be kept secret to prevent the men from using the findings to claim compensatory payments.
"They undoubtedly have other interests beyond the terms of reference [of the inquiry], including significant civil litigation claims that may be pursued," Michael Peirce said. "The internal inquiry should not become a proxy for these other interests."
All three men say they suffered a brutal fate similar to that of Maher Arar, an Ottawa computer engineer who was arrested in the United States and sent to Syria to be tortured as a terror suspect after the RCMP shared erroneous information with U.S. authorities.
Mr. Arar received $10-million from the federal government in a settlement to his lawsuit.
Mr. Almalki is claiming $15-million in damages. He also wants his name cleared of any past terror suspicions, as do the two other men.
"We could pursue those interests much better in that [civil] process than what we're going to get here," said Jasminka Kalajdzic, one of Mr. Almalki's lawyers.
Print E-mail Share License Letter to The Editor
JUDICIAL INQUIRY
Men allegedly tortured reject secret proceedings
ALEX DOBROTA
OTTAWA -- Three Canadian men who claim they were tortured as terror suspects in the Middle East could pull out of an inquiry into their ordeal if the Department of Justice succeeds in keeping proceedings secret, their lawyers said yesterday.
"If they are not permitted participation, an option available to them is they can just go home and carry on by themselves," Barbara Jackman, the lawyer for Torontonians Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin, told reporters.
Ms. Jackman presented a similar argument yesterday to retired Supreme Court judge Frank Iacobucci, who chairs the federal judicial inquiry.
Ms. Jackman's clients, together with Abdullah Almalki, an Ottawa businessman, have alleged in separate civil lawsuits that Canadian officials shared intelligence with Syrian and Egyptian authorities, which led to their detention and torture.
The Conservative government called an "internal inquiry" into the matter last December, and the men agreed to halt their lawsuits pending the findings of the inquiry.
At issue now is whether the proceedings should unfold behind closed doors, which would exclude even the complainants and their lawyers from accessing evidence brought forward by the government.
Under the scenario proposed by the Department of Justice, the three men and their lawyers would only make written submissions to the inquiry, without attending hearings.
That would undermine public confidence in the inquiry, the lawyers for the three men said. "It's going to whitewash the government," Ms. Jackman said.
A lawyer for the Department of Justice yesterday argued that the proceedings should be kept secret to prevent the men from using the findings to claim compensatory payments.
"They undoubtedly have other interests beyond the terms of reference [of the inquiry], including significant civil litigation claims that may be pursued," Michael Peirce said. "The internal inquiry should not become a proxy for these other interests."
All three men say they suffered a brutal fate similar to that of Maher Arar, an Ottawa computer engineer who was arrested in the United States and sent to Syria to be tortured as a terror suspect after the RCMP shared erroneous information with U.S. authorities.
Mr. Arar received $10-million from the federal government in a settlement to his lawsuit.
Mr. Almalki is claiming $15-million in damages. He also wants his name cleared of any past terror suspicions, as do the two other men.
"We could pursue those interests much better in that [civil] process than what we're going to get here," said Jasminka Kalajdzic, one of Mr. Almalki's lawyers.
Print E-mail Share License Letter to The Editor
An Internal Inquiry may not be better than no inquiry at all.
Feds want mostly secret inquiry into alleged detention, torture
Andrew Duffy
CanWest News Service
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Surgical and discrete. What is surgical supposed to mean? I am sure they will not cut out any diseased tissue in the intelligence bodies. Discrete? Don't reveal to anyone who exactly might have done the wrongs if any are found?
If the Department of Justice has its way it is useless for the three lawyers for the persons for whom the inquiry was called to even attend, as Al Malki's lawyer pointed out. They might just as well go ahead and sue even though lawsuits will likely be fruitless since they will involved matters of national security.
OTTAWA - The federal government wants the inquiry into the overseas detention and alleged torture of three Arab-Canadian men to be held largely in secret - without the public or lawyers for the men in the hearing room.
Michael Peirce, lead counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, told commissioner Frank Iacobucci Tuesday that the inquiry process needs to be both "surgical" and "discrete" in keeping within its terms of reference.
What's more, he said, the inquiry does not need to determine whether the three men were, in fact, tortured.
The government concedes the men were imprisoned and mistreated overseas, which is enough to assess the actions of Canadian officials involved in the cases, Peirce argued.
"This inquiry is different in important ways from the Arar inquiry: The terms of reference here are narrower and more specific," he told Iacobucci.
"This should not be a process that takes 2 1/2 years to complete. That is in no one's interest."
Iacobucci, a retired Supreme Court justice, has been appointed by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day to conduct an internal inquiry into actions of Canadian officials, which may have led to the detention and mistreatment of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou El-Maati and Muayyed Nureddin.
The three men allege that, like former Ottawa engineer Maher Arar, they were interrogated and tortured in Syria based on information that could only have come from Canada.
El-Maati also alleges that he was tortured in Egypt after being transferred there from Syria.
Iacobucci on Tuesday sought opinions as to how he should conduct an "internal inquiry" that nonetheless inspires public confidence.
Peirce argued that only government lawyers should be present for most of the inquiry, since it is only government officials whose actions are at issue.
The lawyer for Ottawa engineer Abdullah Almalki, however, said such an inquiry would offer a "meaningless process."
"It means this is the last time we would make submissions," Paul Copeland told reporters. "I don't see what participation there is for us in the inquiry if it is all done in private," said Paul Copeland.
Outside the hearing room, Almalki said he wants to know why he and the other men were imprisoned, questioned and tortured based on faulty Canadian intelligence.
"We have the right to know," he said. "Why would the government be pushing, and really pushing hard, to keep everything in secret? What do they want to hide?"
Lawyers representing the three men called for a process similar to the one used by the Arar inquiry, with in-camera sessions reserved for legitimate national security issues.
Ottawa Citizen
Andrew Duffy
CanWest News Service
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Surgical and discrete. What is surgical supposed to mean? I am sure they will not cut out any diseased tissue in the intelligence bodies. Discrete? Don't reveal to anyone who exactly might have done the wrongs if any are found?
If the Department of Justice has its way it is useless for the three lawyers for the persons for whom the inquiry was called to even attend, as Al Malki's lawyer pointed out. They might just as well go ahead and sue even though lawsuits will likely be fruitless since they will involved matters of national security.
OTTAWA - The federal government wants the inquiry into the overseas detention and alleged torture of three Arab-Canadian men to be held largely in secret - without the public or lawyers for the men in the hearing room.
Michael Peirce, lead counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, told commissioner Frank Iacobucci Tuesday that the inquiry process needs to be both "surgical" and "discrete" in keeping within its terms of reference.
What's more, he said, the inquiry does not need to determine whether the three men were, in fact, tortured.
The government concedes the men were imprisoned and mistreated overseas, which is enough to assess the actions of Canadian officials involved in the cases, Peirce argued.
"This inquiry is different in important ways from the Arar inquiry: The terms of reference here are narrower and more specific," he told Iacobucci.
"This should not be a process that takes 2 1/2 years to complete. That is in no one's interest."
Iacobucci, a retired Supreme Court justice, has been appointed by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day to conduct an internal inquiry into actions of Canadian officials, which may have led to the detention and mistreatment of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou El-Maati and Muayyed Nureddin.
The three men allege that, like former Ottawa engineer Maher Arar, they were interrogated and tortured in Syria based on information that could only have come from Canada.
El-Maati also alleges that he was tortured in Egypt after being transferred there from Syria.
Iacobucci on Tuesday sought opinions as to how he should conduct an "internal inquiry" that nonetheless inspires public confidence.
Peirce argued that only government lawyers should be present for most of the inquiry, since it is only government officials whose actions are at issue.
The lawyer for Ottawa engineer Abdullah Almalki, however, said such an inquiry would offer a "meaningless process."
"It means this is the last time we would make submissions," Paul Copeland told reporters. "I don't see what participation there is for us in the inquiry if it is all done in private," said Paul Copeland.
Outside the hearing room, Almalki said he wants to know why he and the other men were imprisoned, questioned and tortured based on faulty Canadian intelligence.
"We have the right to know," he said. "Why would the government be pushing, and really pushing hard, to keep everything in secret? What do they want to hide?"
Lawyers representing the three men called for a process similar to the one used by the Arar inquiry, with in-camera sessions reserved for legitimate national security issues.
Ottawa Citizen
Monday, April 16, 2007
The Canadian Injustice Department position on Iacobucci's mandate
So how do the three clear their names by another inquiry? By suing the government? The unaccountability can go on forever. There has been no accountability at all by anyone as a result of the Arar affair. O'Connor is still trying to get portions of his report released. People involved have been promoted in some cases. Zacardelli is out only because of his own foolishness in testimony not because of what was done to Arar. Only recommendations will come out of this report and the whole issue will be forgotten. Many lawyers will be richer. The three suspects will remain with suspicions hanging over their heads and probably investigators carrying on as before.
Inquiry can't clear names of three jailed in Mideast, Ottawa advises Iacobucci
JEFF SALLOT
OTTAWA -- The Justice Department says the inquiry into three Canadian men who were imprisoned and allegedly tortured in the Middle East as terrorist suspects at the same time as Maher Arar will be unable to clear their names.
The inquiry's terms of reference "do not provide a vehicle by which these individuals can properly seek to clear their names," the department said in documents released yesterday.
But neither can the inquiry "condemn these individuals" in its final report, the department said.
Inquiry chairman Frank Iacobucci, a retired Supreme Court of Canada judge, will conduct procedural hearings on Tuesday. He has asked lawyers for the Justice Department, the three men and human-rights groups that have been granted intervenor status for their views about how he is to interpret his mandate from the Conservative government.
If he accepts the Justice Department's interpretation, it could mean clouds of suspicion may linger over the heads of Abdullah Almalki, an Ottawa businessman, and Torontonians Ahmad El Maati, a truck driver, and Muayyed Nureddin, a geologist.
At an earlier inquiry into the Arar case, RCMP witnesses described Mr. Almalki and Mr. El Maati as major targets of ongoing terrorist investigations.
The Arar commission last year cleared the Canadian computer engineer of any suspicion of terrorist activity and said he had been the subject of a smear campaign by people in government. The Arar commission also said it is very likely that incorrect intelligence reports passed by the RCMP to U.S. authorities led to his deportation from New York to Syria, where he was tortured.
Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor of Ontario, the chairman of the Arar commission, also recommended a further probe into the cases of the other three men.
The three have said they want a public inquiry to clear their names as well.
But the Justice Department documents stress that the Iacobucci investigation is strictly an internal inquiry to determine if Canadian officials were complicit in the arrests, detention and mistreatment of the men in Syria and Egypt. Most hearings will be in secret.
"This internal inquiry is an investigative and inquisitorial proceeding, not a judicial or adversarial one," the department said. "There is no right or wrong answer and no individual's specific interests are to be served."
Meanwhile, Canadian Arab and civil-liberties groups have jointly filed a chronology of known events that they say raises serious questions about Canadian complicity in the ordeals of the three men.
When he was investigating the Arar case, Judge O'Connor was prevented by his restrictive terms of reference from delving into the conduct of Mounties, officers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and diplomats in the three other cases. The government claimed national security trumped the public interest in the disclosure of much of this information.
Inquiry can't clear names of three jailed in Mideast, Ottawa advises Iacobucci
JEFF SALLOT
OTTAWA -- The Justice Department says the inquiry into three Canadian men who were imprisoned and allegedly tortured in the Middle East as terrorist suspects at the same time as Maher Arar will be unable to clear their names.
The inquiry's terms of reference "do not provide a vehicle by which these individuals can properly seek to clear their names," the department said in documents released yesterday.
But neither can the inquiry "condemn these individuals" in its final report, the department said.
Inquiry chairman Frank Iacobucci, a retired Supreme Court of Canada judge, will conduct procedural hearings on Tuesday. He has asked lawyers for the Justice Department, the three men and human-rights groups that have been granted intervenor status for their views about how he is to interpret his mandate from the Conservative government.
If he accepts the Justice Department's interpretation, it could mean clouds of suspicion may linger over the heads of Abdullah Almalki, an Ottawa businessman, and Torontonians Ahmad El Maati, a truck driver, and Muayyed Nureddin, a geologist.
At an earlier inquiry into the Arar case, RCMP witnesses described Mr. Almalki and Mr. El Maati as major targets of ongoing terrorist investigations.
The Arar commission last year cleared the Canadian computer engineer of any suspicion of terrorist activity and said he had been the subject of a smear campaign by people in government. The Arar commission also said it is very likely that incorrect intelligence reports passed by the RCMP to U.S. authorities led to his deportation from New York to Syria, where he was tortured.
Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor of Ontario, the chairman of the Arar commission, also recommended a further probe into the cases of the other three men.
The three have said they want a public inquiry to clear their names as well.
But the Justice Department documents stress that the Iacobucci investigation is strictly an internal inquiry to determine if Canadian officials were complicit in the arrests, detention and mistreatment of the men in Syria and Egypt. Most hearings will be in secret.
"This internal inquiry is an investigative and inquisitorial proceeding, not a judicial or adversarial one," the department said. "There is no right or wrong answer and no individual's specific interests are to be served."
Meanwhile, Canadian Arab and civil-liberties groups have jointly filed a chronology of known events that they say raises serious questions about Canadian complicity in the ordeals of the three men.
When he was investigating the Arar case, Judge O'Connor was prevented by his restrictive terms of reference from delving into the conduct of Mounties, officers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and diplomats in the three other cases. The government claimed national security trumped the public interest in the disclosure of much of this information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)