It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Security Certificates To Be Ruled On

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   
This is long over due in my opinion. It is time for us to separate from our Southern counterpart, and stop imprisoning people without charging them. Law enforcement needs to do their job and find the "alleged" ties if they do exist.


The Supreme Court of Canada will weigh in on the balance between national security and individual rights Friday when it rules on the constitutionality of federal security certificates.

The top court will render its judgment in the cases of Algerian-born Mohamed Harkat, Moroccan-born Adil Charkaoui and Syrian native Hassan Almrei, who were held in custody for years over intelligence allegations they have ties to al-Qaeda.

The security certificates allow the federal government to hold people indefinitely and without charge if it suspects them of posing a threat to national security.

Ottawa argues the certificates are necessary to safeguard the country from the threat of violence.

www.cbc.ca...


It is absolutely embarrassing for "us" Canadians to think that we are unlawfully confining individuals who really have committed no crime. If they had of committed a crime, they would of been charged. I truly hope that the Supreme Court will be decisive on this and do away with these certificates.

There is a thread on this matter, which was specifically directed towards Syrian native Hassan Almrei, a few months ago.

Secure Freedom

Being honest, I did not know we had these "Security Certificates" in our nation. It seems after 9/11, we were quick to utilize them on what can only be deemed as racial profiling.

Here is a short video of a petition against the security certificate process.





posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
The ruling is in and the certificates have been deemed unconstitutional. It was unanimous, 9-0. The Supreme Court has given the government a year to rewrite the law to be in line with the constitution.

The difference between this ruling and the previous one that upheld the law seems to be the usage of the certificates. Historically they were only used to deport people, but now they are used to deny people the right to a fair trial, which is a violation of the Charter.

I think this was a good ruling. I expect that the best way for the government to proceed would be to have a set of defence lawyers for people that are held under the certificates with a high security clearance so that they can sit in on the closed hearings where they discuss the evidence. This would be the easiest way around the new ruling and was suggested by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

Security certificates are not going away, but hopefully the people being held under them will finally get a proper chance at a defence and trial. There is too much room for abuse under the current way of doing things.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   
While my personal views some what slight the use and requirment of security certificates I belive that no citizan of a democratic nation should be held with out just cause,denied access to legal council of the country they are being held with in or be denied basic human rights as dicated by Geneiva Convention...I think all of you can tell where my back ground comes from.

The new federal ruling on security certificates has put a huge cotton blanket on a already smoldering fire.
For the secuirty of the nation security certificates should have not been deemed unconstitutional but should have been ordered to be desigend to ensure that any person being held under that authority have access to special crown council who are cleared to leves of Top Secret or higher with in the governement. Belive me there are lawyers out there who have this clearence.
They should only be authorized by sub pannel of Crown judges who have vast background in the security high level goverenment affairs.
Moreover those Crown judges would over see a pannel of lawyers who are cleared to address such cases. These judges would report to the Minsiter of Justice and the Minsiter of National Defence.

I also belive that CSIS and the RCMP should work more closely regarding the apprehesion and confinement of individuals who are arrested under these certificates.

We should not abolish them but as a country we need to recognize we can not let our national fear over ride the basic treatment of prisoners.

That's just my two cents worth.

Arcticnull



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
The Truth North, Strong & Free... ?



Activists held rallies across the country on Saturday, calling for the release of Mohamed Harkat and four others detained under a contentious federal anti-terrorism measure.

Last February, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that security certificates, used to detain suspected terrorists and keep sensitive information from the public, violate the Charter of Rights.

The certificates allow government officials to use secret court hearings, indefinite prison terms and summary deportations when dealing with non-citizens accused of having terrorist ties.

CTV Article


If the guy, or any one else being held under a Security Certificate, is guilty of any crime, then charge him. Holding him without the right to any formal arraignment is not what this country is about. I take pride in being a Canadian citizen, as I feel that we treat our people in a manner that others envy.

This individual has been held since 2002. 2002! In over five years, we have not been able to manage to dig up some sort of evidence to implicate him in anything? While our politicians are off billing packs of gum to their charge accounts, we have human beings being detained and imprisoned, without the right to a trial.

How can this continue to exist?



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Good day,
Chissler I agree with you that any person being incrassated under a security certificate should be investigated thoroughly and if found guilty of a crime then be sentenced accordingly. I believe that this takes time. Considering that security certificates are not used lightly, unlike our neighbours to the south who chose to deport people without just cause (enter Mr. Arar), the amount of time and effort to properly investigate a person who is believed to be a threat to national security does not occur in a short time frame.
There are means that can be used legally for the investigation purposes; there are lawyers who have clearance to deal with subject matter of national security and top secret governmental affairs. These lawyers are people who have placed in their position for a reason because they have the duty to completely research the matter at hand for their charge and for the government.
I agree with you that I am proud to say that Canada does not summarily detain people or deport them without just cause. As a country we are bound by moral and ethical obligations to ensure the rights and freedoms of each citizen are maintained. These people who are held on security certificates are not sent to an arctic gulag where they are to fend for themselves while guards in heated buildings monitor them, nor are they in labour camps forced to work and starve. These people are in a facility that has heat, running water, healthy food and medical care. Those 4 things I’ve just mentioned is more than some of our own population has access to on a daily basis.
You asked how this can continue.
My answer to your question is twofold.
We must maintain the security of our country within the confines of our justice system. We must also maintain the basic human rights that every person is entitled to. While the circumstances around these individuals are unique so is the requirement to properly investigate these people completely. If they are innocent they will be released and can go about their daily lives knowing that they have a clear conscious and have been treated with human dignity. If they are found to be guilty then the correct proceedings can take place to punish them.
From my personal experiences with in the military and being overseas I know there are places where people are being held under similar circumstances in much worse conditions. That is a travesty.
While I agree with you that a majority of our politicians are charging their morning starbucks and tictacs to their exepense accounts and are completely oblivious to these unfortunate circumstances I must ask this question; are they truly in a position where they need to know? Does the Minister of the Environment need to be read in on these subjects, I don’t think so. I hope you can see my point here.
Thank you all for your time,
Arcticnull



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcticnull
While the circumstances around these individuals are unique so is the requirement to properly investigate these people completely.


But five years to investigate?

Anything short of a political assassination, or a terrorist attack on the level of 9/11, I just don't see how any investigation can go on for that long. Those that are investigating this, how do they punch out at the end of the day, knowing that there could be an innocent individual being detained, as they meagerly go about their business?

This is just beyond my level of comprehension, and so contradicting of our way of life.

I appreciate the fact that these certificates are used sparingly, but the mere fact that they exist is so deflating.

I trust our system, I believe in it. However, if in five years, we can not implicate an individual in a crime, release him. If you can not find substantial evidence in five years, I don't care if he is guilty. If in five years, nothing meaningful has been overturned, I'd rather see him go free.

The moral implications to this scenario can not be ignored. But for me, I would rather see a guilty man or woman go free, rather than an innocent man or woman imprisoned. Not everybody will feel that way, but that is my opinion on the matter.

We only have one life. The thought of someone losing their opportunity at life, over something they are not guilty of, is completely unacceptable. Should never happen.

Remember, innocent until proven guilty. All of the time. Not just some of the time.



Originally posted by Arcticnull
If they are innocent they will be released and can go about their daily lives knowing that they have a clear conscious and have been treated with human dignity.


After giving up how many years of their lives?

We can not detain an innocent man or woman for five plus years, and then send them an apologetic letter as we bid them adieu. It can not work like that. Dignity? Clear conscious?

If they are imprisoned for over five years, what kind of life do they have to live? What sort of networking are they going to have available to them after five years of being labeled a terrorist?

Whether they are eventually released or not, they will never live a normal life. Life for them as they know it, is over. And for what?

The safety of our country, our people, and our way of life is important to me.

But not at the expense of innocent lives being removed.


Originally posted by Arcticnull
Does the Minister of the Environment need to be read in on these subjects, I don’t think so. I hope you can see my point here.


Yes, I do believe they should.

When information, such as this, is not public knowledge, accountability is thrown out the window. If nobody knows what is taking place, how can we keep the individuals who are in power, accountable?

They should know, if not for anything else, for accountability.

If Bin Laden himself was captured, and after five years of investigating him, he could not be implicated in the crime, he should be released.

There can be no two ways about it.

It would appear that Western society is in the business of telling other countries how to go about their business. We remove individuals from political power, even though we are guilty of the same. We may not make use of it as often, but it's existence can not be overlooked.

Blood is blood. The amount of blood on our hands is a detail that comes second to the fact that there it exists.



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by chissler
 


It seems we have a bit of debate going on here.
I"m also not very profecient with using the quote system on the boards yet but I will try.


reply to post by chissler
 


It seems we have a bit of debate going on here.
I’m also not very proficient with using the quote system on the boards yet but I will try.




If in five years, nothing meaningful has been overturned, I'd rather see him go free.

If our government allows these people to go free after their incarceration then I believe we are putting them in grave danger. The possibility that they might associated with clandestine organizations in the past is possible, post their release those organizations would either gladly take them back into their fold to determine what sort information they have divulged and then kill that person. Would you want that on your conscience that our own government released someone, be them guilty or innocent to face an even worse fate then being clothed, fed and treated in a humanly? I don't and the political repercussions would be devastating if our government did the same thing.



If they are imprisoned for over five years, what kind of life do they have to live? What sort of networking are they going to have available to them after five years of being labelled a terrorist?


After being imprisoned for 5 years they are going to have a life, period.
Just as Mr. Arar had fought his way through the Canadian legal system so can these people and because of they are innocent their position cannot be contested nor will the Canadian public ignore the fact that there should be some form of apology. It may not be 10.5 million of them but I’m sure they would be compensated to a degree. With that compensating they will then be able to father their education, open a business, become variable members of society once again, perhaps even become the voice an faces of truth and honesty.



When information, such as this, is not public knowledge, accountability is thrown out the window. If nobody knows what is taking place, how can we keep the individuals who are in power, accountable?


To ensure the safety of these people the only areas in the government that should know exactly what is going on with people being held under security certificates is the Minister of Justice, Minister of National Defence and the legal counsel which has been assigned to these people. During an investigation like this any piece of information leaked or released about them could be a death kneel to the person or their families once released.
Information that is in regards to the legal proceedings and personal information about a person being held under a security certificate is in my opinion not in any way shape or form to be used as public knowledge. I agree that those involved require accountability for their actions and why these people are being held for so long.
Let me ask you this question. Do you need to know the names, addresses and family relationships of ever one of the soldiers who are a member of the JTF 2?
No you do not. Nor does the Canadian public because those soldiers are part of the special forces and have been a part of top secret missions and security issues. If you relapse those names then you putting the lives of those soldiers, family, children and friends in direct dangers because there are organizations who would cause harm to them.

There is no difference in releasing the information about those being held with a security certificate than those members of the JTF 2. Why? They are human beings who have a right to privacy and security for their own safety.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you all for your time,

Arcticnull



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcticnull
Would you want that on your conscience that our own government released someone, be them guilty or innocent to face an even worse fate then being clothed, fed and treated in a humanly?


So we deny them freedom based on a hypothetical scenario?

Remember, innocent until proven guilty. If we can not prove that they are guilty, we have to believe that they are innocent. Thus, no connections to any clandestine organizations. If they are guilty, and we can not prove it, then maybe we'll view it as some form of manipulated justice that someone else could hold them accountable for the behaviours that we could not.

I don't think that is correct, nor appropriate, however it does not change the fact that we can not detain someone that is not guilty of a crime.


Originally posted by Arcticnull
I don't and the political repercussions would be devastating if our government did the same thing.


I don't see how there would be any political repercussions.


Originally posted by Arcticnull
With that compensating they will then be able to father their education, open a business, become variable members of society once again, perhaps even become the voice an faces of truth and honesty.


I love that optimism, but I'm thinking it's slightly more naive than optimistic. Either way, I like it.

First off, I would be surprised if compensation would be given. To compensate would imply that a mistake was made. These security certificates also imply that they can legally detain the individual, thus even if they are innocent, no mistake was made. They were within the law to detain the individual. The individual was not detained for a crime that he did not commit.

The individual deserves compensation, but I don't think it would be rewarded.

With, or without it, I believe it is naive to think that they could quickly conform to our societal standards, or that society would accept them back with open arms. As Arar has said, if anyone "googles" their name, it doesn't paint a pretty picture. This is something that you never walk away from.


Originally posted by Arcticnull
To ensure the safety of these people the only areas in the government that should know exactly what is going on with people being held under security certificates is the Minister of Justice, Minister of National Defence and the legal counsel which has been assigned to these people.


I agree with this statement. Not everybody is on a "need to know basis", but enough people are to assure the accountability. I would hope that the individuals legal counsel would be enough to assure that.


Originally posted by Arcticnull
o you need to know the names, addresses and family relationships of ever one of the soldiers who are a member of the JTF 2?


Knowing the information of these soldiers is a completely different scenario. I don't think it applies whatsoever. Having knowledge on the legal proceedings of any individual held on a security certificate is much different than knowing where I could find the children of a soldier who may have carried out top secret orders.

I'm not looking for personal information, I just think there should be some sort of documentation where the government can not sweep these individuals under the rug, and never look back.


Originally posted by Arcticnull
There is no difference in releasing the information about those being held with a security certificate than those members of the JTF 2. Why? They are human beings who have a right to privacy and security for their own safety.


There is a difference between personal information, and steady updates on their legal proceedings. The names of the individuals could be absent. Their names are irrelevant to the process, in my opinion. However, how they are being processed is important.

Is it feasible to think that this individual could be sitting in a cell for months a at a time, with no update on his case? No information, no response, nobody to hear his cries.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Good day,

More information on this heated debate

www.ctv.ca

This debate is going to heat up



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join