Mahjoub Hearing – Thursday, January 20, 2011

Hi all:

Three friends (including myself) of Mohamed Mahjoub attended for the Thursday afternoon portion of the 2 ½ day testimony of Dr. Fawaz A. Gerges, Professor of Middle Eastern Politics and International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is an expert on Middle Eastern affairs and is often called as a commentator on CNN Europe.

The part we heard was the 2 ½ hour cross-examination regarding Mr. Gerges’ testimony of the previous day (Wednesday). I don’t know what was in his testimony except for what we heard during the cross-examination by the Ministers’ Counsel, Ms. Rhonda Marquis. The subject had to do with the history during the 80’s and 90’s of the operations of the political organizations, Egyptian Islamist Jihad (EIJ), Al Jihad, Vanguards of Conquest (VOC), Al Qaeda and perhaps other groups, including leaders or characters (spelling may not be accurate) such as Al Zawaheri, Al Geza, Sheik Rahman, Osama bin Laden – in places like Egypt, the Sudan, Bosnia, Pakistan and Afghanistan – and the evolution and changes in these organizations as they experienced opposition and conflict. Some of this history was covered by Dr. Wesley Wark during his testimony in late November, 2010 – with reference to events leading up to the bombings of the two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998. We also heard some graphic descriptions of suicide bombings and often failed assassination attempts.

However what we primarily heard during the afternoon was a debate between a lawyer attempting to use a black and white approach and an academic who tried his best to argue that there were nuances in the stories he told in his books and articles that were referred to. Over and over Professor Gerges lectured the Ministers’ lawyer on her tactic of quoting summaries of more detailed situations from his books to get him to admit to something that he refused to do because it would not be the truth. Ultimately, near the end of the afternoon, he became so frustrated with the lawyer’s method of questioning that he accused her of committing the academic crime of ‘attempting to distort the facts for her purposes.’ The question I assume being argued, is whether there is any evidence at all that Mr. Mahjoub had any connection to these organizations and events. We cannot know as long as much of the evidence, if it exists at all is still kept secret on the grounds of national security. Mr. Mahjoub has denied all along that he had any connection to these individuals and groups and there is no publicly known evidence to support any connections.

Several books were referred to during the aftenoon – The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright; The Far Enemy, by Fawaz Gerges; America and Political Islam, by Fawaz Gerges.

The cross-examination was to continue on Friday morning, but just before adjournment near 4:30 pm, requests for easement of two conditions related to Mr. Mahjoub’s daily restrictions were brought up and Judge Blanchard ruled on one of these negatively and would rule on the other on Friday morning. We cannot forget that Mr. Mahjoub is living under severe daily restrictions that interfere with his ability to live a normal life that the rest of us take for granted.

Please note that there is no court schedule so far for next week – the week of January 24 to 28. I will announce any resumption of hearings in this blog.

Next Mahjoub Hearings – Monday, January 17 to Friday January 21, 2011

This information comes from Mohamed regarding the coming week. On Monday, January 17, at 9:30 am at Federal Court in Toronto, a Mr. Bush, from Canadian Border Services Agency, will be the witness, and his testimony is expected to extend into Tuesday.

From Wednesday to Friday (January 19-21), the scheduled witness is Dr. Fawaz A. Gerges, Professor of Middle Eastern Politics and International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is an expert on Middle Eastern affairs and is often called as a commentator on CNN Europe and possibly BBC. He is a very good speaker. I mentioned his name in earlier blogs with respect to him being scheduled for this week.

So, if you can spare an hour or two, please attend at 180 Queen St., W. (near the Osgoode subway station on the University line), 6^th floor, Room D, beginning at 9:30 am.

Mahjoub Hearing – Monday, January 10, 2011

Hi all:

Five of us attended the first of the ‘Reasonableness of the Security Certificate’ hearings of the New Year for Mohamed Mahjoub this afternoon at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W. These hearings take up where they left off prior to the Christmas Recess.

The hearing commenced just after 1 pm and ended at 4:45 pm. The business of the afternoon was to hear witness Mr. Paul Vrbanac, Director General of CSIS Toronto Region as he was first of all examined by one of the Ministers’ Counsel and then cross-examined by Yavar Hameed, Public Counsel. Most of today’s testimony had to do with the ‘Abuse of Process’ Motion that has been brought by Public Counsel because of the earlier admission that CSIS and possibly CBSA have ‘intercepted’ and recorded telephone conversations between Mr. Mahjoub and his lawyers, a violation of ‘solicitor-client’ privilege.

The first event was an expression of dismay to Judge Blanchard by Public Counsel regarding some documents that had not been disclosed to them in time for today’s hearing and Judge Blanchard disgreeing with Public counsel about the matter. Then about one hour, fifteen minutes was taken up by Ministers’ Counsel establishing what CSIS does when it encounters a suspect that they think might be a threat to Canada. I believe they were referring to the CSIS Policy documents from 1997 to 2010 that Public Counsel had asked for previously. Mr. Vrbanac referred to different levels of perceived threat and the particular actions taken – from interviews of a suspect, known as a ‘target’, to secret surveillance including phone and other message interceptions at the higher levels of perceived threat. He used the term ‘strictly necessary’ to say that they don’t violate privacy rights of any individual unless they think the information gleaned is relevant to a threat. All such interceptions of information must be granted by a Federal court issuing a warrant for the surveillance action. He seemed to say that CSIS was bound by checks and balances to not violate anyone’s privacy rights.

Mr. Hameed then spent two hours cross-examining Mr. Vrbanac, trying to find out if CSIS had made policy changes over the years and referring to something in 1994 – which brought about a series of objections from Ministers’ Counsel that were upheld by Judge Blanchard. The questions were very detailed and the witness did not know a lot of answers about the evolution of the Policy documents. Questions were asked about policies governing the recording and translating of solicitor-client conversations and at what point does CSIS personnel not keep records of such conversations. It seems from Mr. Vrbanac’s testimony that even in the case of solicitor-client conversations, if there is a perceived threat, that takes priority. The question is – who perceives the threat and what are the criteria for a threat. At one point Mr. Vrbanac was asked by Mr. Hameed, ‘are there cases where solicitor-client privilege does not apply’? and the response was – ‘it is up to the Federal Court and the Regional Director General (of CSIS)’. Also ‘the (perception) of the threshold of threat is up to the Regional Director and a case by case analysis’.

There were other questions about who is resposible to destroy records? - technical staff; are there any failures to destroy records? - yes; has the witness seen evidence on Mr. Mahjoub? – no. ‘Who determines legal threat thresholds, translator or Regional Director? (I’m not sure of the answer). ‘Report summaries are put into target database, not the original recording of intercepts. ‘Are translation summaries retained while originals destroyed?’ Witness didn’t know.

This represents only some of the questions asked regarding what happens to secret intercepts of conversations and many of the witness answers were that he didn’t know.

Adjournment was at 4:45 pm. The hearing with the same witness will commence at 9:30 pm on Tuesday, January 11.

A second witness will be heard in the afternoon – Haney El Fouli, Mohamed’s adult step-son. We’re not sure about his testimony but it may include his observations about mail and phone interceptions at his home while Mr. Mahjoub lived with him and the rest of the family from 2007 to 2009. I think this will be interesting.

Please do come for an hour or two to Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W. (Osgoode Station) , 6^th floor, Room D.

If anyone attending can supply a report of tomorrow’s hearing please forward it to me.

Murray

Next Mahjoub Hearing – Monday, January 10, 2011, and endorse 'Statement Against Security Certificates'

Happy New Year everyone.

The ‘Reasonableness of the Security Certificate’ Hearings for Mohamed Mahjoub will resume (after the holiday break) on Monday, January 10, 2011, 1:00 pm, at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W. (near Osgoode station), 6^th floor, room D.

I hope that some of you who live in the Toronto area will be able to attend some of the hearings, if only for an hour or so.

For everyone on this list, I have copied the email from ‘People’s Commission’ that requests that we all ‘endorse’ the ‘Statement Against Security Certificates’ by going to the url just below and then filling in the required material near the bottom of the web page there. I’m sure some of you already have endorsed the statement as I have. Murray

People's Commission [commissionpopulaire@gmail.com]

Please immediately endorse this statement by going to www.harkatstatement.com. Please also circulate this request to your networks and ask your organizations to endorse it as well.

A strong show of public opposition to the security certificate is crucial at this time.

Statement Against Security Certificates

We, the undersigned, have grave concerns regarding the continued use of sections 9, 76-87 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which allow for the imprisonment in Canada of refugees and permanent residents under the authority of a “Security Certificate”.

The new version of this measure - which included only cosmetic changes in the form of a very limited appeal provision and of the introduction of "special advocates", whose ability to act on behalf of the detained is extremely limited - still maintains a veil of secrecy over any information that may be used against the detained.

Therefore, we are concerned that those detained under security certificates are:

• Imprisoned indefinitely on secret evidence, though no charges have been laid against them;
• Tried in unfair judicial proceedings where information is not disclosed to the detainee or their lawyer;
• Denied the full right to appeal when the certificate is upheld in a process that uses the lowest standard of proof of any court in Canada;
• Under threat of deportation even when they face unfair imprisonment, torture or death.

We believe that the existing Security Certificate process is undemocratic; violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and violates fundamental human rights, to which the government of Canada has committed itself through the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Convention on Torture.

Accordingly, we demand that the Security Certificate process be abolished.

For those currently detained under security certificates, we demand:

• That their certificates be removed, and, if any case against them actually exists, that they be allowed to defend themselves in open, fair and independent trials with full disclosure of the case against them.
• That they not be deported.

More information: www.justiceforharkat.com