Secure Freedom

There is a documentary being aired on CBC in the near future, and well the promo for it has really caught my eye. Secure Freedom is a documentary of Syrian-born refugee claimant named Hassan Almrei. After 9/11 he was detained and held without charge. He is being held under an apparent security-certificate that were introduced after the cold war concerns on espionage.

When I first heard this, I thought "What the Hell?. I thought only our south of the border friends were into the detaining of individuals without laying charges, our great country is guilty of the same? Well it seems so, Almrei has been detained without charge since the fall of 2001.

They did, however, mention a couple of unfortunate strikes he had against him: one, that he had allegedly obtained refugee status and entered Canada in 1999 by using a fake passport (Almrei has since admitted the truth of this charge, arguing that it was the only way he could escape persecution in Syria); and two, that he was a good friend of a guy who was a good friend of a guy named Ibn al-Khattab, a now-deceased Chechnyan guerrilla recognized internationally as the “real deal,” a true jehadin and exactly the sort of resolute, implacable foe who represented the most lethal threat to Western security.

Is this film full of bias? I'm not sure, I have not seen it or heard much more on it other than what I am speaking of here. But, if this is the case we have up against this man and he has been imprisoned this long, our government has some serious explaining to do. There is a chance this man is a regular joe who has done nothing wrong, other than the fake passport which I think is forgivable, and has been held on espionage for almost five years.

This has to go against a few basic human rights. Even if he is guilty of something, lay a charge against the man. I am not into the whole give up every right in order for security. In five years, if you can not build a case to lay a charge against this man then set him free. I highly doubt this guy was scheduled to fly on one of the flights, or preparing to strap a bomb on to his belt. I understand having a tie with a terrorist is not a pertty credential, but it should not be a crime. I am sure Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer knew a few people who were good citizens and did nothing wrong, why can't the same be true for a known terrorist?

Do my fellow Canadians agree with these actions? Should this guy be detained? Is our government wrong for detaining this man for such a period of time without laying a charge? I disagree with this on all ends, a chage should be laid or the man should be given his walking papers.

We've had security certificates since maybe 1978, I think.

They were supposed to only be used to kick people out of the country without having to disclose issues of national security. Now we are using them to detain people indefinitely. I have no problem with the original purpose of security certificates, but I find the current usage absolutely appalling.

If we don't have enough to charge them on, then we probably shouldn't be holding him. I agree they should charge him, let him go or kick him out. They were never meant to be used in the way the government has been doing.

I seem to recall that Sardion2000 either knew someone or knew someone who knew someone that was being detained on one of these certificates. I could be wrong on that, though.

One of the more public cases is that of Mohamed Harkat, who was eventually granted bail. One of the Trudeau boys (when are they going into politics?) actually spoke for him at his trial and gave his family some of the bail money. Harkat has challenged the certificates on constitutional grounds and I think the ruling should be out within the next few months. I don't hold out a lot of hope, because they have been ruled constitutional in the past and we have constructed a new facility at Millhaven Institution specifically for the detainment of people under security certificates. It's already been dubbed as Guantanamo North by some people.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Duzey]

Originally posted by Duzey
We've had security certificates since maybe 1978, I think.

They were supposed to only be used to kick people out of the country without having to disclose issues of national security.

Now that is something I would support. Have it defined that under certain conditions, individuals can be deported without question. Detained if necessary pending charges, or let go.

Originally posted by Duzey
Now we are using them to detain people indefinitely.

I have no problem with the original purpose of security certificates, but I find the current usage absolutely appalling.

Agreed 110%

Originally posted by Duzey
I seem to recall that Sardion2000 either knew someone or knew someone who knew someone that was being detained on one of these certificates. I could be wrong on that, though.

If this is the case, I would love to hear sardion's thoughts on this one.

Originally posted by Duzey
they have been ruled constitutional in the past and we have constructed a new facility at Millhaven Institution specifically for the detainment of people under security certificates.

Well that was a sad day for our nations great history. When we can hold a man on circumstantial evidence for this length of time and not even process a charge, we can do nothing but hang our heads in shame.

Duzey are you aware of when this will be airing on CBC? Of the promo's I have saw, a date was never given with it.

It's going to be airing Sunday night (September 10). The listing said 7PM ET, but I'm not sure if they will stagger it for the provinces.

If you hadn't made this thread, I wouldn't have known it was going to be on. I haven't been watching much TV lately, but I'm going to make an exception for this show.

Thank you for the heads up on it.

This will go great with The Path to 9/11 which is airing the same evening.

We may have a conflict, I hope not though.