Case Casts Shadow On Canadian Intelligence, US

So why is Canada NOT seeking to extradite from the US the people responsible for kidnapping Arar? Why is it that don't hear howls of anger in main stream politics and main stream media calling for the arrests of the people who were accomplices in the crime - which include members of the disgraceful and corrupt RCMP?

Why is it that Canada will ship people off to the USA for victimless drug "crimes" on demand, but won't do anything about real serious crimes against unwilling victims?

Is Canada a country that respects human rights and justice, or is it just another bannana republic?

"Come mister tally man, tally me Bananna . . ."

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

I had watched the testimony of the RCMP officer that gave the information to the US Officials.

He said that Maher Arar was being watched because he had done business with someone that was under surveillance for terrorism activity.

The American Officials asked if they deported him back to Canada if the RCMP would arrest him and imprison him. They said no due to that fact he had broken no laws in Canada.

The Americans pulled him from the plane due to his name coming up on their list of names. Since he was being detained Maher Arar missed his connection so was then in violation of US immigrations laws, thus the charges being filed against him in the USA. He is not an American citizen so was not entitled to any protection under US Law.

Seems to me as the old US catch 22?


---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

Just like ol Uncle Satan to stack the deck, isn't it?

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Rearguard,

There are serious problems within the institution of the RCMP but to make such a blanket statement is both unfair and and reveals a high level of prejudice. Much of the problem comes from years of underfunding, the politicization of the top brass, and the use of "scapegoating" down the line to protect the top brass and politicians.

The big question is why was the RCMP mandated to do intelligence work when the intelligence function had been taken away from the RCMP and lodged with CSIS? This blurring of responsibilities between those trained to do intelligence work in CSIS and those trained in domestic investigations creates a major problem. You can have someone who spent most of their service doing highway patrol suddenly dealing with a sensitive political file. Whoever made the decision to have the RCMP doing this kind of work and the decision to share databases with the US had to be at the political level or at least at the "political" level of the RCMP.

In a government where there was accountability the commissioner, the political arm of the RCMP since it was placed under cabinet rather than Parliament, would have resigned or been removed. Then someone from outside the Ottawa circle could have been appointed commissioner to lead the review of the entire issue.

This case proves that the Conservative Government is as unwilling as the Liberals to make the bureaucratic elite, which make up part of their advisory team, accountable. That means that "scapegoating" will likely continue and morale in the force continue to decline.

Many in the media believe that the RCMP helped get the Conservatives elected because of the Income Trust issue. I don't tend to believe that was intentional because the officer who informed the NDP of the investigation was probably merely following standard procedure. However, if special orders came from above it would be another matter.

In some countries they have special divisions dedicated to and trained for dealing with politically sensitive files but the RCMP does not appear to have the resources to have one. Maybe that is what is required.

>>why was the RCMP mandated to do intelligence work when the intelligence function had been taken away from the RCMP and lodged with CSIS?<<

The intelligence function was done by RCMP prior to CSIS. Most members of CSIS are those RCMP that ran the intelligence function prior to CSIS. They still do a lot of the leg work for CSIS.

The amassing thing about all this is the closeness between the US Intelligent services and Canada Intelligent services. It is almost as if they take their orders from and are directed by the US Government.

I would think this would put their loyalties into question? The USA maybe an ally but they are still a foreign Country and a foreign Government with no vested interest in Canada or loyalty to Canada.


---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

My question is what the hell do we need "intellegence" agencies for? Think about it. The ONLY reason I can come up with is that they can be used by such countries that DO need such spies. If Canada is following international laws, not creating wars, and doing business fairly around the globe we do not need a friggin spy agency. As soon as a country requires spies that in my mind is a clear admission that they are doing illegal activity around the globe.

So, either the government has to admit they are involved in criminal activity or they could just disband CSIS and the RCMP should be keeping criminals out of our governments and out of our country when they cross our borders. If Canadian businesses want to act criminally in other countries they are on their own dollar and can hire their own security guards. That way they can go back to being called the MAFIA rather than looking legalized and being called CSIS.

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

There are still serious questions about what responsibilities belong to which body. Were there orders to give full access to Canadian databases to the US? This calls into question the entire practice of information sharing. In any investigation there is a great deal of information that comes into the view of the investigating officers that is eventually proven to be false. This is why investigations take so long.

There were two problems here: one was the sharing of information that later was proven to be false and the other was a failure to use the necessary caveats on the shared information that the information could be inaccurate. Would the inclusion of the caveats have changed the actions of the US officials? Probably not. If that was the case than it was the sharing of unverified information that was the real problem.

It seems to me that it was the policy of sharing that kind of information which was the problem. It is the government that makes policy.

Police forces around the world share information all the time. However, we are in a era in which human rights and justice have been replaced by severe forms of repression and injustice in the name of security. I wonder whether those who gave the information to the Americans were naive enough to have expected the US to follow the rule of law when they told the US that there was no evidence to charge Arar with any crime?