These things don’t happen by accident.

Related: Will Richard Fadden be McChrystaled?

While the States deals with its case of loose lips sinking General McChrystal, are we watching a similar self-capsizing occur up here? CSIS director Richard Fadden is today backing-off statements he made in two interviews with the CBC, broadcast earlier this week. Fadden said that CSIS suspects some municipal officials in BC, as well as cabinet ministers “in at least two provinces,” are under the influence of “foreign countries.” He later told Peter Mansbridge that the agency was discussing the situation with “the centre” — meaning the Prime Minister’s Office.

The PMO responded that it had no idea what he was talking about, and now Fadden has issued a statement saying that, actually, he hadn’t discussed the matter with “the centre” after all. Oh.

First of all, it’s necessary to remark on how deliciously Pearson-era Fadden is, with his G-Man style glasses and meticulously circumspect phrasings. Asked whether China might be one of the culprits, he replied by noting that media reports suggesting China was engaged in economic espionage in Canada were not “entirely incorrect.” In other words, Yes. Really, he could be Alec Guinness playing George Smiley.

But apparently he’s not been circumspect enough. BC preem Gordon Campbell has given him one day to explain himself; the timing is embarrassing to the Feds as Chinese President Hu arrives in Canada for the G20 summit; and the Post’s John Ivison has already suggested on CBC’s “Power and Politics” that Fadden may be fired.

It would be too bad, though, if that happened. The CBC’s interviews with Fadden were truly remarkable, and his candour, however circumlocutory, serves democracy. Already theories have emerged as to what his real agenda might be — a University of Toronto professor suggests, unconvincingly, it’s just an attempt to divert attention from the security budget for the G8 and G20, while The Georgia Straight thinks maybe he’s trying to distract us from the 25th anniversary of the Air India bombing. But if Canada wants to avoid the sort of seeping distrust of government that besets the States, Fadden’s availability will be a lot more effective than the PMO’s increasing hermeticism. Perhaps he’s enjoying his role as spymaster a little too much. Better that, though, than scurrying back into the dark, and treating the Canadian people as among the security risks of whom he must be wary.

Fadden interview 1 (with Brian Stewart)
Fadden interview 2 (with Peter Mansbridge)

On Friday Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced the government was appointing Frank Iacobucci, a former Supreme Court judge with no legal hold over them, to determine what documents pertaining to the Afghan detainee issue could be released without compromising national security, national defence, and/or international relations. The scope and terms of Iacobucci’s appointment are not known and he will report directly to Nicholson.

A number of bloggers have already weighed in on Iacobucci’s suitability to the task. Steve at Far and Wide in particular points to Iacobucci having already previously agreed to omit information — at the Minister’s request — from the public version of his October 2008 inquiry into the illegal renditioning of three Canadian citizens, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad el-Maati, and Muayyed Nurredin to Syria and Egypt where they were tortured before being deemed innocent.

In light of Prof. Amir Attaran’s explosive allegations on CBC that Afghan detainees were handed over to Afghan authorities with the precise purpose of having them tortured, and Sunday’s news that CSIS was involved in the interrogation of Afghan detainees, it’s worth looking at what was omitted from Iacobucci’s 2008 report.

What was included in the initial report was bad enough:

In September 2001, the RCMP described Mr. El Maati to Syria and Egypt as an Al Qaeda associate and an “imminent threat to public security.”

CSIS decribed him as “involved in the Islamic Extremist movement” and “an associate of an Osama Bin Laden.”

They then shared his travel plans with the CIA, who passed them on.

Mr. El Maati was detained in Syria for two months and Egypt for two years, where he was tortured with electric shock to his hands, back, and genitals, and sleep deprivation while being subjected to excruciatingly painful stress torture for days on end.

In 2003, CSIS sent Egypt a “statement of concern” about Mr. El Maati should he be released from custody.

Iacobucci said he could not stress sufficiently that these three must “be presumed innocent of any wrongdoing.”

The omitted part that Steve alludes to was released just two weeks ago as a supplement:

In June 2002, CSIS agents advised Egyptian authorities that El Maati was involved in a plan “to commit a terrorist act in Canada.” They did not say, and maintain they could not have known, that this “confession” was derived from his torture in Syria.

In December 2002, CSIS went to Egypt with a list of questions “to which it wished to obtain answers.”

While we the public were prevented from seeing this latest information till two weeks ago, Justice Iacobucci knew it all along and sought to have it made public. And yet in his summation to his 2008 report he still concluded:

“The inquiry did find that the three men were tortured in foreign prisons and that the mistreatment may have ‘resulted indirectly from several actions of Canadian officials.’

but that:

“I found no evidence that any of these of these officials were seeking to do anything other than carry out conscientiously the duties and responsibilities of the institutions of which they were part.”

And that, as I said at the time, is the most damning part of all.

I offer this blogpost just to run to ground the discussion on Iacobuccu’s suitability as a beard for the Cons. In truth, I’m with Pogge and Eugene Forsey here — Nicholson can talk to anyone he likes — it doesn’t matter. Parliament has demanded the documents. The Cons are currently in contempt of Parliament. Ultimately they must be forced to give the documents up. It’s the law here.

Big hullaballoo following CSIS lawyer Geoffrey O’Brian’s testimony before the public safety committee, in which he said that Canadian intelligence agencies would make use of information obtained by torture from foreign agencies in the “one-in-a-million” eventuality that “lives were at stake.” In fact, said O’Brian, who has been with CSIS since its inception in 1984, “we would be bound to do so.”

Under further questioning from aghast committee members, he admitted that agencies often “have no idea under what conditions info received from foreign agencies is obtained” and “just because a country has a questionable or even abysmal human rights record does not mean info received from them is necessarily extracted by torture.”

That would be the old don’t-ask-don’t-tell-Syria defence. CSIS Director Jim Judd used it back in November 2006 to defend using Syrian intel on Maher Arar. So are we still trading info with Syria and Egypt? Yes we are, but now “with caveats.”

The committee members pressed on: “What Canadians want to hear is that we do not condone the use of information derived from torture.”

O’Brian: “I would love to give you a simple answer. The simple answer is that we will never use info from torture. I cannot say that because recipients of info do not know how that info was obtained. I can say we do not knowingly” — and he stressed this again — “knowingly use info extracted by torture.”

Huge stink in the Star, G&M;, and CBC.

On Thursday, CSIS Director Jim Judd and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan appeared before the public safety committee. Judd:

“I think it’s unfortunate that Mr. O’Brian may have been confused in his testimony. He will be clarifying that via a letter to this committee. I know of no instance where such information has been made use of by our service.”

and

“He [O'Brian] ventured into the hypothetical. In the past we used information obtained by torture. Such information is not to be relied upon. We’ve changed our policies. Our policy now is under no circumstances do we condone the use of torture for any reason.”

He went on to explain that the intelligence agencies are directed in this by the federal government.

Okay, that seems pretty straightforward, right?

Next up — Minister Van Loan, from whence intelligence agencies are directed, responding to MP Mourani (italics mine):

“We do not condone the use of torture in intelligence gathering and our clear directive to our law enforcement agencies and intelligence services is that they are not to condone the use of torture, practice torture, or knowingly use any information obtained by torture.”

Uh-oh. There’s that “knowingly” again.

And here’s the relevant quote from O’Brian’s “clarification” letter (again, italics mine):

“I wish to clarify for the committee that CSIS certainly does not condone torture and that it is the policy of CSIS to not knowingly rely upon information that may have been obtained through torture.”

So we’re pretty well back to O’Brian’s previous “knowingly”, aren’t we? Namely, that because we can claim to have no clue how the info we get is obtained, we’re free to go ahead and use it.

O’Brian caught shit for losing control of the spin for a moment, and that’s all that happened here.

I’d also like to point out that the RCMP got a completely free ride in the media coverage.

In his opening statement to the committee on Tuesday, RCMP spokesman Gilles Michaud rejected the use of information obtained by torture as unreliable, but explained in regards to the RCMP’s use of intelligence obtained from foreign agencies:

“I want to be clear here — there is no absolute ban on the use of any information by the RCMP.”

Uh-huh.

“The similarities with Mr. Arar’s case are compelling. In both instances, a Canadian citizen is fingered by CSIS as a terrorist suspect. In both cases, no charges are laid in Canada. In both, the person is arrested and imprisoned abroad. In both, Canadian officials say there is little that they can do because the person is in the country of their other citizenship.”

The above is from The Globe and Mail’s front page story in April about Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Canadian-Sudanese imprisoned and allegedly tortured in Sudan for two years at Canada’s request. Frequently visited by CSIS officials, he was eventually cleared by Sudan of all allegations that he was a terrorist or a member of al-Qaeda and released. Sudan offered to fly him home to Montreal but Canada obstructed the deal.

Since then he has been “sheltering” and living on handouts at the Canadian embassy in Khartoum, except for that five months when he was reincarcerated after threatening to make his case to Prime Minister Martin on the PM’s visit to Sudan. Canada has refused to renew his passport or to transport him back to Canada on any of the subsequent government flights between Canada and Sudan.

The G&M; returned to Abdelrazik’s plight recently (italics mine):

“In a telephone interview Monday, Mr. Abdelrazik said he told a Canadian diplomat he was being repeatedly beaten by Sudanese interrogators in 2004 or 2005. ‘He didn’t care,’ Mr. Abdelrazik said.

Mr. Abdelrazik, who was to submit a sworn affidavit about his torture in Sudan to Federal Court in Ottawa Monday, confirmed all of the details in the draft document, including that he was interrogated by CSIS agents while in a Sudanese jail. However, the document remained unsigned because Canadian diplomats refused to deliver the faxed draft to Mr. Abdelrazik to sign.”

What?!

“Canadian government documents, which came to light in April, revealed he had been imprisoned in Sudan ‘at our request,’ meaning at the request of Canadian agents. In its response, delivered Monday, the Justice Department opted not to dispute the assertion that Mr. Abdelrazik had been imprisoned at Canada’s request, in effect conceding the fact before the court.

“The documents presented in court, coupled with Mr. Abdelrazik’s accounts of torture, suggest Canada secretly arranged for Sudan to arrest and imprison him, then sent Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents to interrogate him in a Sudanese prison while diplomats knew that he was being tortured but ignored that fact.

“Canadian diplomats in Khartoum refused Monday, for the second day in a row, to permit Mr. Abdelrazik to sign the affidavit; his signature would have made it a sworn affidavit.

“‘The matter is under litigation and we cannot comment,’ said Anne Howland, spokeswoman for current Foreign Minister David Emerson. Other senior officials said the file is actually being handled in the Prime Minister’s Office.”

I’ll just fucking bet it is. To read the anguished but impotent and self-serving hand-wringing by Foreign Affairs officials, go here:

“‘I wish I had a magic wand and make this case go away . . . I find it unethical to hold him like this in limbo with no future, no hope and all because . . . Obviously I cannot address the issue of the no-fly list . . .

“Mr. Abdelrazik ‘has reached the end of his rope, he has no money, no future, very little freedom and no hope. Should this case break wide open in the media, we may have a lot to explaining to do.’”

Well, it’s broken open now, so deal. Just send a fucking plane already.

If you can do it for Brenda Martin, you can do it for Abousfian Abdelrazik.

**

Bloggers, readers, start your engines.

Write a letter, make a call, send a fax to:

David Emerson, Foreign Affairs
Telephone: (613) 943-0267 or Fax: (613) 943-0219
e-mail: Emerson.D@parl.gc.ca
2148 Kingsway, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5N 2T5
B.C. phones: (604) 775-6263 or Fax: (604) 775-6284

Stephen Harper:
e-mail : pm@pm.gc.ca or Fax: 613-941-6900

h/t to Roger in Comments at the Beav for the reminder to post this access info.

Bees, honey, vinegar, no crayon — you know the drill.

Remember this? Sure you do.

It was back in June 2006, coincidentally two weeks before the vote on whether or not to let the Canadian Anti-Terror Act expire, that the RCMP sold a load of fertilizer to two CSIS moles embedded in a Muslim outdoor club, had it delivered to a warehouse rented by the RCMP a block from the RCMP Regional HQ, and the Toronto 18 were born!

The outdoor camp had been under fruitless investigation by the RCMP for the three years previous, but following the RCMP to CSIS fertilizer sale, it metamorphosed into a jihadi terrorist training camp whose members were going to storm Parliament, although they weren’t sure where that was exactly, and cut off the head of Prime Minister Martin, having apparently failed to register that there had been a change in government.

Oh and they were also going to blow up the CBC, the CBC breathlessly reported.

On Friday the taped testimony of one of the 18 from the day after the big bust was played in court. Reported The Star:

“‘Basically we were just chilling, reading the Qu’ran,’ the teenager recalled of the activities at the 12-day camp that took place in December 2005 near the town of Washago, Ont. ‘Some guys are lazy, y’know, they’re gaining weight. For two weeks we just kind of worked out.’

“The workouts, he said, included playing around in the snow, chopping down trees, playing with paintball guns, and jogging. He also admitted to shooting a gun, which he said was primarily handled by someone whom the officer reveals to be an informant.”

Which prompted The Star to ask: “So was it simply a fat camp?”

Clearly the kid was not exactly an Al Qaeda insider and was released. No matter — the Toronto 18, now the Toronto 11, saved the anti-terror act, albeit with restrictions placed on it by the Libs, Bloc, and NDP.

But now those restrictions might be coming off, says Thomas Walkom:

“Last year, Stéphane Dion’s Liberals enthusiastically helped to kill two controversial elements of Canada’s 2001 anti-terror laws. Now they are quietly allowing them to be brought back. One, dealing with preventive detention, would allow police to arrest without charge and judges to penalize without trial, people who the authorities fear might commit future terrorist offences. The second would let judges compel testimony at so-called investigative hearings from those the authorities think might know something about terrorism. The Harper government has passed in the Senate and introduced into the Commons a new bill to reimplement slightly amended versions of both measures. Now, the Liberals say they will support them. In fact, the Liberals now use the same arguments once employed against them.

“‘We recognize that this is necessary,’ public safety critic Ujjal Dosanjh said.”

Let’s have that again: “. . . Would allow police to arrest without charge and judges to penalize without trial people who the authorities fear might commit future terrorist offences.”

Say, didn’t we used to have something called habeas corpus back in the good old pre-fertilizer days?

Seems that load of RCMP fertilizer has turned out to be pretty dangerous after all.