Combating Terrorism Act 2010, redux, redo

Your government announced today it needs more powers to combat terrorism.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson : "These provisions are necessary to protect our country from the threat of terrorism."
A redo of the panicky now defunct Anti-terrorism Act of 2001, the new Combating Terrorism Act includes preventive arrest and forcing people to testify at secret hearings about terrorist acts that might happen in the future, and if you don't like it you can go to jail for up to a year with a judge's option to extend.

There are more safeguards included this time round - you can have a lawyer! at any time! - which will only allow the Libs to go along with it so as not to be painted as soft on terrorism. Mark Holland, Liberal critic for Public Safety and National Security, already looking to cave.

The argument in favour of anti-terrorism legislation is that criminal law only deals with crimes already committed. What to do about people who feel that crimes perpetrated by the state against their people require a response like blowing things up?

The argument against it is ... well, let's look at how they're doing with the laws they've already got.

The federal government case against Ottawa terror suspect Mohamed Harkat appears to have suffered a significant blow Wednesday when a document was introduced in court showing that Abu Zubaydah, once considered a master terrorist and 9/11 mastermind, actually had nothing to do with the attacks.

Even more surprising, the document, which quotes U.S court filings declassified last week, shows that Zubaydah, once believed to be one of the top leaders in al-Qaeda, was not even a member of the terrorist group.

The unfortunate Abu Zubaydah got waterboarded 83 times in the US, coughed up Harkat's name, and the Canadian government obligingly held Harkat for 3 1/2 years.
A clue about the reliability of Abu Zubaydah's "testimony" might have been found in his confession to terrorist acts committed after his imprisonment, but sadly, no, it wasn't.

Abdelrazik? "Closely associated" with the same hapless Abu Zubaydah.
Result? Abdelrazik was tortured, then exiled in Sudan for six years. Still on the UN's 1267 terror list, and the Canadian government has frozen his bank account and he can't work.
Help him get off that list? Blow me, said Minister of Public Security Peter Van Loan and Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon.

Maher Arar - the first inkling for many of us that something had gone terribly wrong.
Adil Charkaoui - in custody 21 months, now free.
Hassan Almrei - in custody for 8 years, now free.
Mahmoud Jaballah - in custody for 6 years, now free.
Mohammad Mahjoub - in custody for 7 years, freed, requested return to jail in 2009 to protest bail conditions worse than jail.
Benamar Benatta - rendered to US for 5 years
Ahmad El Maati, Abdullah Almalki, Muayyed Nureddin

And then there's the ever-expanded definition of what constitutes terrorism.
According to Jason Kenney's "infandous" Mr. Velshi, George Galloway's proposed visit to Canada last year to give a speech entitled "Resisting war from Gaza to Kandahar" was sufficient for him to brand a sitting British MP on tour in the US "a terrorist supporter".

Nothing about these vile clowns inspires any confidence in their wanting to accrue more secretive powers to their already abused arsenal of abominations.
.

Score one against the "one security perimeter"

Federal court strikes down refugee agreement

"The United States is not a safe country for refugees, the Federal Court said Thursday as it ruled that Canada will no longer have the right to turn back asylum seekers at the border.
In the surprise judgment, the court found that Safe Third Country Agreement breaches the rights of asylum seekers under the United Nation Refugee Convention or the Convention Against Torture.
The three-year-old agreement denies refugees who have landed first in the U.S. the right to later seek protection in Canada, and vice versa. It has allowed Canada to automatically send refugee claimants at the border back to the United States. There, they are usually either detained or deported."

Put another way, whether or not you are considered a refugee should not be dependent upon your mode of transport.

"... The United States' policies and practices do not meet the conditions set down for authorizing Canada to enter into a STCA," Phelan wrote in his 126-page decision.
"The U.S. does not meet the Refugee Convention requirements nor the [UN] Convention Against Torture prohibition (the Maher Arar case being one example). Further, the STCA does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Charter."

Typical judges, eh? Upholding the Canadian Charter and UN conventions we are party to.

The STCA still holds till next January, by which time the Cons will have presumably launched an appeal.
So what's it gonna be based on? That the US is a democratic country? That's the Cons' rationale for allowing the US to execute Canadian prisoners.
Possibly. But I'm going with......"unelected activist judges"........because the US will feel more comfortable with that one.

Anyone with doubts at just how right the Federal Court is this time need look no further than the case of Benamar Benatta.

Six years later, and counting

Why did Canada illegally render Algerian asylum-seeker Benamar Benatta to US authorities on Sept 12, 2001, where despite being cleared of charges of terrorism, he was illegally held and tortured for another five years?

Muslim - check

Knows something about planes - check

Applied for refugee status in Canada a week before 9/11 - check

On Sept 5, 2001, Benatta, an 33 year old Algerian air force lieutenant who had been in the US as part of a US/Algerian military exchange program, entered Canada from the US on an expired visa to claim refugee status.

On Sept 11, 2001, following the WTC attack, he was interviewed in Canada by the FBI.

On Sept 12 the RCMP drove him to the US border and handed him over to US authorities.

In November 2001, the FBI cleared him of any connection to terrorism and he was charged instead with carrying expired ID papers.

Five months later he received council, learning for the first time about the WTC attacks and why he was being held. Benatta speaks only French.

In 2003, the federal US magistrate hearing his case called it "a sham perpetrated by the FBI and INS to justify his rendition from Canada", and stated their explanations "bordered on ridiculousness". The magistrate recommended his immediate release from custody.

Benatta was then held for a further three years in another US prison, shackled in a cell with "WTC" written on the door. He claims to have been tortured by prison officials and other prisoners.

In July 2006, he was returned to Canada to continue with his Canadian refugee application, which is still pending.

Benatta appears to have spent almost five years in two US prisons because Canada handed him over to US authorities for being a Muslim who knew something about planes.

In April, Stockwell Day promised to look into it.

Benatta will attend a rally being held in Toronto at noon today to demand a public review.

How's everyone doin' with that "one security perimeter" concept?

Benatta Coalition for a Public Review

h/t Mostly Water for rally details