Government drops legal action in Arar matter

[struggle4progress]

Jim Bronskill
Canadian Press
April 1, 2005

OTTAWA - The spat between the federal government and the Maher Arar inquiry was defused - at least temporarily - Friday when the government dropped legal action to try to keep a summary of secret evidence under wraps.

In turn, the inquiry has agreed not to release the summary, for now.

But the issue appears bound to return later this year, perhaps in the form of a legal showdown over release of the commission's final report.

At issue was a heavily blacked-out summary of closed-door testimony about the actions of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the Arar affair. <snip>

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=3d516b45-48aa-4755-82a1-daf383d4dcec


Inquiry agrees to hold back secret testimony in Arar case

OTTAWA - <snip> When it was released last year, a significant part of the 12-page summary had been blacked out. <snip>

The inquiry commissioner, Justice Denis O'Connor, wants the complete text released, and according to the inquiry's lead counsel, Paul Cavalluzzo, that will eventually happen. <snip>

The Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar was established last February by the federal government to determine the role Canadian agencies, including CSIS, the RCMP and Foreign Affairs, may have played in the case.

In September 2002, Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was returning to Canada from a vacation in Tunisia when he was detained in New York. U.S. officials claimed he had links to al-Qaeda, and deported him to Syria, even though he was carrying a Canadian passport. <snip>

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/01/arar-inquiry050401.html


Commission Is Pleased That Government Withdraws Arar Court Application

OTTAWA, April 1 /CNW Telbec/ - The Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar is pleased to announce that the Federal Government has agreed to withdraw its application in the Federal Court of Canada in which it challenged the disclosure of a summary of a portion of the evidence heard in camera. The Commission has agreed that it will not seek to disclose the information in that summary at the present time.

In agreeing to settle the current litigation, the Commission maintains
its position that the information in the summary that was subject to the litigation should eventually be disclosed to the public. The Commission emphasizes that it will be seeking to disclose that information at a time when it will not interfere with the progress of the Inquiry.

"Rather than bringing to Court a series of disputes one after the other", explained Lead Counsel Paul Cavalluzzo, "an exercise that could delay the substantive work of the Commission significantly, we consider that the public interest will be best served by proceeding with the hearings on evidence as expeditiously as possible and to litigate issues of national security confidentiality (NSC) in one or perhaps two applications in the future."

The Commission is concerned that the process for addressing the
government's NSC claims has become enormously complicated and time-consuming and can become very expensive. The Commission is further concerned that given the prospect of repeated litigation with the government, the current process could seriously impair the manner in which the Commissioner is able to carry out his mandate. <snip>

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2005/01/c1243.html

[Spazito]

1. This is good, imo, PROVIDING the information is made public

after the work of the commission is done and is a key part of the commission report. I would not be surprised if the government tries again to cover up the information and have it removed from the report before it's publication. If they do, I hope Canadians will make it VERY clear to the government that the information MUST be made public.

[Kagemusha]

2. Having the commission give a judgment is better than nothing too

I mean, at least THEY are seeing it...

[Spazito]

3. I agree, to a point, but having only the commission see it

and not the public would defeat the purpose of the Public Commission, that of one set up to ensure the public is provided with the facts of this case including the actions of the government and it's agencies.

I remember when the Liberal government, under Chretien, set up the Somalia Commission to investigate the facts surrounding the torture and murder of a Somali boy at the hands of Canadian soldiers. Half way through the work of the Commission, the government shut it down just as the Commission was getting to the heart of the responsibility of those higher up. I fear the same will happen here if Canadians are not vigilant.

I voted for the Chretien government and would do so again so this is not sour grapes but a grim reality of what has happened in the past.

[ConcernedCanuk]

4. Justice Denis O'Connor did a good job in the Walkerton Inquiry

.
.
.

I watched a LOT of the (televised)proceedings, some of which were at our Town Hall in North Bay when I lived there; and read tons of the Transcripts

I'm comfortable with the delay in revealing the total text

O'Connor wouldn't let the released version misrepresent the findings IMO

I watched him for DAYS literally - he has my trust.

[Spazito]

5. Excellent point, I had not connected the name until

your post. He did, indeed, do an excellent job on the Walkerton Inquiry. With him in the lead role, I have greater hope we WILL get the truth about the role the Canadian agencies played in this.

I appreciate you pointing this out!!

[applegrove]

6. Good. It is not up to our guys to do all the explaining. They were

helping out a friend in need (USA). They did. If there is a problem then it is with the legislation. Our guys kept us out of the War in Iraq. They should not have to hide. If better laws need to be implements..to protect our guys from the games neocons play.. then we need to know that.

This is how democracy works. Plus our people should not have to protect the government from law-suits. That is not their job. They just catch the bad guys.

Arar was a mistake - I truly believe. He would be as silent as a lamb if he was American except he lives in Canada. So he has room to navigate. And he and his wife have worked tirelessly 'within the system' to make their case. Nothing wrong with that.

Just so long as our guys are not hung out to dry.

[Spazito]

7. Who are 'our guys'?

If 'our guys' refers to CSIS then I would strongly disagree. They don't have the right to hide behind 'national security' if what they did was wrong and violated the rights of a citizen of Canada.

If 'our guys' means we shouldn't carry the water for the US agencies responsible for this egregious crime perpetrated against Arar then I agree.

[applegrove]

8. I mean that someone our guys got messed up by their guys and I

for one would like it to stop and a little bit of breathing space to exist between our guys and their guys.

[Spazito]

9. It might be just me but I honestly dont' understand who

the 'our guys' or 'their guys' refers to. If you could offer a bit more clarification to this, it would be much appreciated by this gal.

[applegrove]

10. I am Canadian! Sorry. Does that make it clear. We didn't have that

much warning we were dealing with a bunch of liars in the USA. Personally, I would hate to see anyone..CSIS.. Canadian politician pay for this because I doubt very much they knew anything about the torture or the plans to torture. I mean who could have known that. We cannot very well slam the USA for doing something like the patriot act when even Trudeau did the same thing (with War Measuures Act). Massive crackdowns when there is huge terrorism do work. Just too bad the USA is led by a bunch of soulless freaks who think torture is good.

[Spazito]

11. Ahhh, okay, I understand more where you are coming from but

have to vociferously disagree with accepting what the US did and equating it with the War Measures Act. We did not 'outsource' torture on any of the FLQ, in fact we did not torture at all or condone it in ANY way nor did we kidnap a foreign citizen, send them to a third country which we knew would torture them to gain who knows what. To accept the illegitimate meme that the possibility of terrorism allows for the suspension of any citizen's constitutional right is wrong, very wrong.

[applegrove]

12. Oh agree not to send anyone outside the country for torture. If the

US used no torture and had no Guantanamo Bay then I would be okay with sending a suspect abroad in a desperate round up the days after an attack like 9/11. I doubt our "guys" had any idea torture was on the agenda. I don't think PNAC had written a paper on torture.

As to suspension of constitutional rights.. that is what the War Measures Act did. It suspended the rights of people to see lawyers for weeks and days. I don't think many of us were happy with at the time.. nobody ever is under marshal law... that but it certainly stopped the terrorism in Canada cold.. and I don't think anyone else died. So looking back on it people are more okay with the War Measures Act.

I do not think the Americans will be so lucky... torture and a war to cover up your past policy in the Middle East and myth building.. that leaves a bad taste because your government is not trying to protect you or help you..they are lying for their own self interest. Very hurtful to be using/exploiting your people while they are traumatized. I wonder how many lives Bush's selfish, selfish policies and policy implementation will destroy. They could have made the case for war in Iraq on human rights.. but no, they had to set precedent and so they lied. Very damaging to people.

Seems like the whole defense thing will become one organ despite what we Canadians want. Looks like police & soldiers and all will be merged into one system. Air defense is already. And policing is probably matched up pretty tight. Just more corporate hegemony.

I don't know what that means for the next Arar. Perhaps with the end of the Patriot Act then torture will go away too. Perhaps US authorities will think twice about torturing foreign nationals. They already had to give back many British detainees.

Hard to let the shit hit the fan on this when Americans are so busy being frightened here, and frightened there.