Harper government to give more powers to CSIS spy agency

The Canadian Conservative government of Stephen Harper has announced that it will increase the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service(CSIS) the main spy agency in Canada.

The Minister of Public Safety Stephen Blaney said the legislation would give the CSIS more power to investigate terrorist threats outside Canada — and also to protect the identity of informants working for CSIS. Blaney referred to the advance of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq as showing the need to increase the powers of CSIS:"The events in recent months in Iraq and Syria have shown us that we cannot become complacent in the face of terrorism. Now more than ever, a motivated individual or a group of extremists with access to technology can do significant harm to Canada from thousands of miles away." Blaney claimed that the new legislation will allow CSIS to track and investigate potential terrorists when they travel outside Canada which could ultimately lead to prosecution.
Blaney claims that the government as of early 2014 the government knew of 130 individuals with connections to Canada who were suspected of engaging in terrorist activities. Eighty of these suspects had already returned to Canada and were being investigated. The legislation would allow CSIS to work more closely with the Five Eyes spy group that includes Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. The legislation would allow CSIS to obtain information from the other four "eyes" on Canadians suspected of fighting with terrorist groups abroad. In turn CSIS could provide other members with information on their citizens in Canada.
The FIve Eyes(FVEY) is described by whistleblower and former US National Security Agency contractor as a "supra-national intelligence organisation that does not answer to the laws of its own countries." : Documents leaked by Snowden in 2013 revealed that the FVEY have been intentionally spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each other in order to circumvent restrictive domestic regulations on spying. The new Canadian legislation will make legal what CSIS had been doing all along even though it was against the law. CSIS has been subject to a number of criticisms. The Maher Arar report criticised CSIS for not sufficiently subjecting material obtained through torture to critical analysis. A CSIS mole infiltrated a Canadian white supremacist movement from 1988 to 1994 the Heritage Front. Not only was the mole, Grant Bristow, one of the founders of the group, but he ensured that CSIS funds came to the group.
The new CSIS headquarters in Ottawa will be the most expensive government building ever built in Canada. As an October 2013 CBC article noted: While the Harper government is preaching government austerity, it is spending almost $1.2 billion on a new Ottawa headquarters for a little-known military spy agency. The expenditure shows the priority that the government gives to its spy agency.
Two lawyers with a great deal of experience defending clients involving security told the CBC that the blanket protection given to protect sources might cause court proceedings to be unfair to those accused. Lawyer Norm Boxal, who represents an Algerian refugee in a security case, said: "These types of privileges can have far-reaching effects, and can close off information in cases where it would be important to have.There is no problem to have a secret source — that can be done all the time, and within the existing law. The problem is when you have secret information and you choose to act on it, and that's the difference. If they want to use the secret information to enforce things — [for] deportation, or in criminal trials — they should have to produce the source." Paul Copeland, a Toronto lawyer agreed that giving class privilege to intelligence informants would be "highly dangerous" and claimed that the only way to test evidence was to be able to cross-examine on it.
 Steve Hewitt, a senior lecturer in Canadian and American Studies at the University of Birmingham notes that in passing this legislation Canada is following the UK model rather than that of the US where informants are often brought into court in terrorism cases and subject to rigorous cross-examination. He notes that some informants act out of self-interest and for money. Failing to provide a fair trial for suspected terrorists is not likely to hurt the Harper government politically. The appended video shows the type of overseer Stephen Harper appointed for the CSIS.

Ex-CSIS chief rejects new anti-terror powers

The Tories are bound and determined to throw tid bits to their right wing base and show that they are tough on terror. You would think it would be embarrassing to ask for powers that a former intelligence chief says are not necessary. But being necessary and being politically advantageous are not the same. Harper is depending upon the fear developed by the war on terror to help moves such as this boost his political fortunes. The opposition should call him out on this one and perhaps he will change his mind. This is from the montrealgazette.

Ex-CSIS chief rejects new anti-terror powers

Tories try to revive 'preventative arrest'

BY IAN MACLEOD, CANWEST NEWS SERVICEAPRIL 26, 2010


Two contentious anti-terrorism powers the government intends to revive are unnecessary, potentially dangerous and cross the line between state security and individual rights, Canada's former spymaster says.

"We should think very carefully before we take that step," Reid Morden said of the government's proposed Combating Terrorism Act, unveiled Friday by federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.

Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service have "perfectly sufficient powers to do their jobs," said the former director of CSIS. "If they're properly resourced ... they don't need more powers."

The bill would re-introduce two lapsed laws to the Criminal Code giving police extraordinary powers to apprehend imminent terrorist threats.

"Preventive arrest" would allow individuals to be arrested without warrants in the belief that the arrest will disrupt terrorist activity and prevent a looming attack. Those arrested need not have committed any crime and can be detained for up to 72 hours. A judge can also impose conditions on their release and violators can spend up to a year in jail.

The other exceptional power, investigative judicial hearings, would allow police and prosecutors to bring a person before a court and compel them to disclose information related to possible terrorism. Self-incriminating evidence they might give cannot directly be used against them in any subsequent legal action. Judges also could order the hearings be held in secret.

The powers were originally introduced by Jean Chrétien's Liberals in November, 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Criticism from civil libertarians and others forced the government to water down the provisions with a five-year sunset clause.

But when the Harper government proposed a three-year extension in February 2007, the Commons was engulfed in days of bitter debate, with MPs finally voting 159 to 124 against the resolution.

The Justice Department said the proposed legislation would add "safeguards" to those in the original legislation to protect individuals snared by the laws. No specifics were given.

That neither power was used in their first five years is proof, the government has argued, that the measures were not abused.

Morden takes a different perspective. "I honestly don't see that we have either suffered, or that (police) would have been able to do anything more if they'd actually had these powers."

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

High Level Pakistan US meetings in Washington

No doubt plans will be worked out as to how Pakistan is to continue with its fight against Islamic militants. No doubt none of the Pakistani officials will say boo about drones at these meetings although they may make a few little bleats when they return home. This is from the news. (pakistan)

High-level Pak-US dialogue begins on 18th



Thursday, March 11, 2010
WASHINGTON: The US capital, always a hub of political activity, is set to witness intense rounds of high-stake dialogue between Pakistani and US officials which will commence with the arrival of Pakistan navy chief, Admiral Noman Bashir on March 17.

Amiral Noman Bashir will begin top-level negotiations with the US officials in the Pentagon on March 18. Only days after the arrival of Admiral Bashir, chief of army staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is reaching Washington to hold very important dialogue with the US officials on the issue of regional security. Gen Kayani is expected to meet, among others, the US national security advisor Gen James Jones, secretary defence Robert gates, secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Admiral Mullen and ambassador Holbrooke. ISI chief Gen Shuja Pasha is also expected to join Gen Kayani in the dialogue with the top US officials.

In the last week of March foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi will be in Washington with a high-level delegation to lead Pak-US strategic dialogue. The US side is expected to be led by secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Then, in the second week of April, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani will arrive here to attend the Nuclear Security Summit, which is being hosted by US President Obama. Forty-three (43) heads of state or governments are expected to attend the summit. Prime Minister Gilani is due to arrive here on April 11. Besides attending the summit he is expected to meet President Obama. Top Pakistani and US officials are also working to arrange a meeting between the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Gilani though it is not confirmed yet whether such meeting will take place.

A US official said on condition of anonymity: “I hope it takes place in a good atmosphere because we are really working hard not only to get it done but also to make it meaningful.” Some officials also indicated that the prime minister might go to New York for a day as well.

Welcome to the Blame Game

Of course the ex-Mountie doesn't seem to blame the RCMP at all. CSIS does seem to have been very negligent in the case but then the seeming lack of co-operation and communication between CSIS and the RCMP was no doubt the fault of both parties. The two seem to act as if they were rival gangs fighting over their turf rather than agencies that were united in fighting terrorism. Taking the old security service away from the RCMP in the light of their ridiculous and bizarre dirty tricks and coverups seems like a reasonable move rather than trying to reform the service! It was later response that gave some aspects back to the RCMP that is questionable.

Politicians, CSIS criticized by ex-Mountie at Air India inquiry
Last Updated: Monday, June 18, 2007 | 10:43 PM ET
The Canadian Press
The 1985 Air India bombing represented an intelligence failure of massive proportions and could have been averted by better investigative work, says the man who was second-in-command at the time for the RCMP.

Henry Jensen, the former deputy commissioner of operations for the Mounties, shouldered little of the blame Monday at an ongoing public inquiry that is studying the bombing that killed 329 people on a flight from Canada to India.

Instead, he pointed the finger at politicians who he said "gutted" the national police force by taking away its security service. He also blamed the new civilian spy agency CSIS that took over the job just a year before the tragedy on June 23, 1985.

"I've always carried the view that this is the biggest and most disastrous civil intelligence failure that Canada has faced," Jensen told the Ottawa-based inquiry headed by former Supreme Court justice John Major.

"I firmly believe that. I, for one, feel that somehow, somewhere, there were some dots that could have been linked and should have been linked. And had that been done, then who knows, it might have been prevented."

As he did in a previous appearance at the inquiry last spring, Jensen took issue with the decision by the Liberal government of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau to abolish the old RCMP security service and replace it with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.


The move was sparked by an earlier royal commission that found the Mounties had committed arson, theft and a variety of other illegal acts in the name of fighting Quebec separatism.

Jensen, who is now chairman of the Ottawa Police Services Board, said the reform left an "enormous gap" in the RCMP's ability to detect terrorist plots and head them off before they could come to fruition.

He said he wouldn't have objected to hiving off some intelligence functions to a separate agency — such as background checks on civil servants and counter-espionage operations — but he insisted anything related to terrorism was a criminal matter that the RCMP should have handled.

"I think that was a gross error on the part of government to make that change," he said.

Turf battles between RCMP, CSIS
Critics have long blamed turf battles between the RCMP and CSIS for the failure to head off the bombing, and for hampering the criminal investigation that followed the attack.

Documents tabled at the inquiry show the infighting reached to the very top of both organizations, with Ted Finn, then director of CSIS, complaining to Robert Simmonds, then commissioner of the RCMP, that the Mounties were trying to undercut the civilian spy agency and set up a parallel intelligence branch to replace the old security service they had lost.

Flight 182 stopped in Montreal after leaving Toronto, en route to London's Heathrow Airport and then India.

The explosives — allegedly planted by Sikh extremists in luggage that was loaded in Vancouver — exploded off the west coast of Ireland and killed everyone on board, mostly Canadians. A bomb also killed two baggage handlers at a Tokyo airport.

The inquiry, which started in 2006, was called because the Air India investigation and prosecution was the costliest and one of the longest in Canadian history — yet led to no murder convictions.

Investigators believe extremists who wanted India to create an independent Sikh homeland carried out the bombings.

Only one person was ever convicted in the plot. Inderjit Singh Reyat pleaded guilty to manslaughter in 2003 and received a five-year sentence.

The suspected ringleader, Talwinder Singh Parmar, died in India in 1992 and the RCMP's two main surviving suspects were both acquitted in March 2005, after a 19-month trial.

Scepticism about the War on Terror

There are not too many articles as incisive as this in pointing out the problems associated with the war on terror. The author might have pointed out that the original invsion of Afghanistan was in the opinion of many legal experts illegal and a violation of the UN charter. Of course after the fact the UN sanctioned ISAF but so it sanctioned the Iraq war. The tie-in with the natural gas pipeline is rarely made nowadays. The former ambassador to Afghanistan and now of Iraq was a consultant for UNOCAL. SOme sources also link Karzai with UNOCAL thoug UNOCAL denies it.


April 13, 2007

War on Terror looks like a fraud
By JOHN GLEESON

Contrary to the "patriots" who try to use the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan to stifle debate on Canada's involvement in the War on Terror, I would say that as new evidence presents itself, we would indeed be cowards to ignore it simply because we've lost troops in the field and are therefore blindly committed to the mission.

And new evidence is piling up around us, arguably strong enough to declare the whole War on Terror an undeniable fraud.

Virtually ignored by mainstream media, the Americans showed their hand this year with the new Iraqi oil law, now making its way through Iraq's parliament.

The law -- which tens of thousands of Iraqis marched peacefully against on Monday when they called for the immediate expulsion of U.S. forces -- would transfer control of one of the largest oil reserves on the planet from Baghdad to Big Oil, delivering "the prize" at last that Vice-President Dick Cheney famously talked about in 1999 when he was CEO of Halliburton.

"The key point of the law," wrote Mother Jones' Washington correspondent James Ridgeway on March 1, "is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy 'Federal Oil and Gas Council' boasting 'a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq.' That is, nothing less than predominantly U.S. Big Oil executives.

"The law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements, which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically U.S.) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit."

While the U.S. argues that the oil deal will give Iraqis their shot at "freedom and stability," the International Committee of the Red Cross reported this week that millions of Iraqis are in a "disastrous" situation that continues to deteriorate, with "mothers appealing for someone to pick up the bodies littering the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them on their way to school."

Four years after the invasion, it's becoming pretty clear that Iraq has been "pacified" solely for the purpose of economic aggression. Humanitarian considerations are moot. The awful plight of Iraq's one million Christians, who have no place in the new Iraq, underscores this ugly truth.

Afghanistan, meanwhile, has given the U.S. a strategic military beachhead in Central Asia (which "American primacy" advocates called for in the '90s) and it was quietly reported in November that plans are being accelerated for a $3.3-billion natural gas pipeline "to help Afghanistan become an energy bridge in the region."

With many Americans (including academics and former top U.S. government officials) now questioning even the physical facts of 9/11 and seriously disputing the "militant Islam" spin, with the media more brain-dead than it's been in our lifetimes, now is not the time for jingoism and blind faith in the likes of Cheney, George W. Bush and Robert Gates.

Our young men are worth more than that -- aren't they, Mr. Harper?

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.

Thomas Walkom: On Benamar Benatta

I am happy that someone is still keeping this case alive. Benatta received shabby treatment from Canada and even worse from the US. At least he is back in Canada. I have heard of no action in the US to investigate his treatment. All the flutter of activity by Sen. Leahy and Specter about Arar seems to have died down now as well. Gonzales remains on the hotseat only because of his firings of attorneys.

Somebody should probe this man's case


Asks for asylum in Canada, sent to U.S., jailed for years

Apr 07, 2007 04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom

First, there was the Maher Arar case. A judge who looked into it concluded that the RCMP played a key role in the U.S. decision to send the Canadian computer engineer to Syria for torture.

Then, came the cases of three other Muslim Canadians who say that they too were tortured in Syria with the help of Canadian security services. The claims of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin are being investigated by retired Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci.

Now, another allegation involving Canada's role in so-called extraordinary renditions has surfaced. This time, it is Canada that is said to have done the rendering. Refugee claimant Benamar Benatta – an Algerian air force officer who says he deserted while on assignment in the United States in order to flee his homeland's decade-long dirty war, and who later sought asylum in Canada – swears in an affidavit filed with the Iacobucci inquiry that on Sept. 12, 2001, Canadian officials transported him across the border against his will and without a legal deportation order.

There are some things about this affair that we know from official U.S. and Canadian records. We know that Benatta, who had arrived in Fort Erie on Sept. 5 and requested political asylum, was in detention awaiting a scheduled immigration review. We also know that the review never happened. Instead, on the day after 9/11, Canadian officials drove him across the border and handed him over to U.S. authorities. They, in turn, transferred him to a jail in Brooklyn, one later criticized by the U.S. justice department for its abuse of Muslim prisoners.

By November, FBI interrogators concluded Benatta was unconnected to terrorism. Still, he remained in jail in Brooklyn for another five months. He says guards would amuse themselves by slamming his head against the wall.

In April 2002, he was charged with minor immigration offences and brought before a judge. The case went on for a year and a half. In the end, federal judge Kenneth Schroeder accused the U.S. government of engaging in "sham" and "subterfuge." He concluded that Benatta had been detained under "extremely harsh conditions" and denied counsel. And he recommended that all charges be dropped. Eventually, reluctantly, the U.S. government agreed.

Even then, Benatta was kept in jail for another 2 1/2 years. In the U.S., his case became a minor cause célèbre, an example of post 9/11 excess. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights weighed in with a 2004 report on Benatta that accused Washington of flouting its international obligations.

Last July, he was brought – in irons – to the border and released back into Canada to pursue his asylum request. He is no longer in jail.

During all of this, no one said much about Canada's role. In his judgment, Schroeder noted only that "as a result of the horrific events of Sept. 11, 2001, the Canadian authorities alerted United States authorities of defendant's presence and profile ... and returned him to the United States."

Indeed, there seems to be a curious lack of official documentation. We know he entered Canada in 2001 using – as do many refugee claimants – false papers. We know that by that point he had been living illegally in the U.S. for four months. We know, from transcripts of his first appearance before an immigration adjudicator on Sept. 12, that he was being held in detention until his identity could be authenticated and that a review of his case was scheduled for the following week. We also know that his English was not very good but that he declined the offer of an interpreter.

A Canadian government memo filed with the Iacobucci inquiry says that Benatta voluntarily agreed to return to the U.S. But it also notes that Ottawa can find no paper work to support that claim.

In short, we do not know the circumstances of his removal from Canada. Clearly, someone in Canada contacted the Americans to say the Algerian was in custody. Did the U.S. then ask for him back? Did Canada volunteer him? That Benatta would agree to leave Canada in the midst of making a refugee claim and with a hearing scheduled seems implausible. Yet, if he did not agree, who authorized his removal? If this was vigilante deportation, has it become a common practice?

Iacobucci won't investigate Benatta's case. He said this week his mandate is limited. Fine. But someone should. Regardless of the merits of Benatta's refugee claim, the manner in which it and he were treated is manifestly disturbing.

Iacobucci Inquiry

It seems that most if not all of this inquiry will be in private. Even the lawyers for the three Canadians imprisoned may not see that much of the evidence since they may not get clearance. This is an internal investigation but if nothing is public it will appear as the whitewash it might very well be. Even in the Arar case everyting possible was censored even when O'Connor saw no need for it.

Lawyer demands Iacobucci inquiry be open to public

Andrew Mayeda
CanWest News Service


Saturday, February 17, 2007


OTTAWA -- The seal is barely off the Iacobucci inquiry, but the debate has already begun on how much of the judicial sequel to the Maher Arar inquiry should be made public.

The federal government announced in December that former Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci would lead an inquiry into the cases of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou El Maati and Muayyed Nurredin. Like Maher Arar, the three men allege they were imprisoned and tortured in Middle East prisons.

On Friday, the inquiry announced key legal and administrative staff who will assist with the review.

But in a sign of possible friction to come, Paul Copeland, a lawyer for Almalki, is already calling for the inquiry to be heard in public.

"My very strong preference would be one, that it be in public. Two, if it's not in public, that I be security cleared and can be in there," Copeland said.

"I'm not all that trustful of some of the government officials and some of their willingness to be forthright about what they did. There's a lots of people, I think, who may have things to hide, like Foreign Affairs, the Department of Justice, CSIS and the RCMP."

The inquiry was announced on the same day that Justice Dennis O'Connor tabled his second report into the Arar affair.

Much of the evidence in the Arar inquiry, which took nearly three years and about $16 million to complete, was heard in public.

The Iacobucci probe, however, is considered an "internal" inquiry. Under the terms of reference, Iacobucci has been directed to take "all steps necessary to ensure that the inquiry is conducted in private."

However, he is authorized to conduct parts of the inquiry in public "if he is satisfied that it is essential to ensure the effective conduct of the inquiry."

In calling an internal inquiry, the government cited a comment by O'Connor that there are more "appropriate" ways than a full-blown public inquiry to investigate national-security cases. The Arar inquiry was marked by delays and disputes over the disclosure of national-security evidence.

But skeptics fear the government may rush through a lightweight version of the Arar inquiry to avoid the same level of public scrutiny.

John Laskin, named on Friday as the inquiry's lead counsel, said Iacobucci will eventually decide how much of the inquiry will be public.

"The terms of reference basically say, "Do this in private unless there's a very, very compelling reason for having parts of it in public.' It'll be up to (Iacobucci) to decide if that kind of reasoning exists," said Laskin.

Another issue could be the timeline. The inquiry is under a tight deadline to report its findings to the government by Jan. 31, 2008.

Some experts have questioned whether that is enough time to sift through thousands of sensitive national-security files.

"We're acutely aware of the deadline and we are proceeding as expeditiously as we can," said Laskin.

The inquiry will begin accepting applications near the end of next month from groups, such as civil-liberties organizations, wishing to participate. It will then hear arguments on how the inquiry should proceed.

Almalki and El Maati were suspects in the same RCMP investigation that identified Arar as a "person of interest." Neither Almalki or El Maati have been charged. Nurredin was also questioned by Canadian security officials but hasn't been charged. All three were detained in Syria around the same time as Arar. El Maati was also imprisoned in Egypt. A fact finder who verified Arar's claims of torture also found the three men had been tortured.

The inquiry will investigate what role Canadian officials may have had in the detention of the three men.

© CanWest News Service 2007