Mahjoub Hearing report, Thursday, July 14/'11 - Ex-CSIS chief feared ‘alienating’ allies on security-certificate cases

Hi all:

I have been away from court for three weeks - busy with family trips etc., but here is a link to Colin Freeze's article in the Globe and Mail regarding Wednesday's (July 13) high level witness, former CSIS head Jim Judd. Colin said that the hearing with Mr. Judd as witness was continuing today (Thursday). Maybe there is a Toronto Star report too but I haven't located it.

Not having been at the hearing I cannot comment on Colin's report but it does have something to say about Canada's intelligence sharing deals with shady countries who torture. I think holding a man incommunicado on no charges for eleven years is also torture.

Have a look at the comments - many are quite critical of Canada and CSIS. I wrote one too - see if you can figure out which one.

Murray

http://tinyurl.com/6fmj6zj (You may need to copy this link into your browser)

Mahjoub Hearing, Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Hello:

Mary Foster wrote on Monday June 20: ‘was anyone able to go today? how did it go? Very important witnesses from CSIS and CBSA will be on the stand to testify about their complicity in re-isssuing a security certificate that is mostly (entirely?) based on information derived from torture.’

I was unable to go Monday and don’t know if anyone else went, but I did attend today - Tuesday for a few hours. Mary is correct. There are some supposedly high ranking witnesses being heard this week and next week. Yesterday – Monday, the witness was the present Director of CSIS, Richard Fadden. All that I heard about him was that he was ‘all over the place’ perhaps meaning evasive, but I wasn’t there to hear him. If any of you were, I would appreciate a brief report.

I actually attended two court hearings today; the first was at Old City Hall Court for the sentencing hearing of Jaggi Singh of Montreal who was charged with encouraging people to take down the fence at last June’s G20 event. The judge read his various options and mentioned about 200 or so letters that people had written to the court in support of Jaggi. The courtroom was packed. The crown was asking for a six month sentence, but perhaps due to public interest, Jaggi was placed on probation for one year with conditions, but was given ‘time served’ and no further jail time. His supporters were very pleased and Jaggi spoke at an impromptu press conference outside the court house. He spoke not only about himself but about the rights of communities to decide what their streets will be like – not governments and not the courts.

This kind of interest may be a lesson to those of us trying to support Mr. Mahjoub.

At about 11:30 am I walked over to Federal Court and stayed until 3 pm (with a one hour lunch break). One other supporter came for about ¾ hour. I saw and heard Public Counsel Paul Slansky cross-examine Mr. Flanagan, a retired manager for CSIS. The questioning had to do with an agreement in 2006 between CSIS and CBSA to have a CSIS Collector Agent (CA), I think, work in what was referred to as a ‘bubble’ because this agent had the task of intercepting (listening in) phone messages of Mr. Mahjoub and Mr. Jaballah, both of Toronto. These messages were supposed to be copied to a CD and passed on to CBSA. The problem that is being probed by the cross-examination is – what did they do with calls that were between Mr. Mahjoub and his lawyers. A CSIS agent in a previous hearing admitted that CSIS did indeed record solicitor-client conversations. Public Counsel asked questions of witness Mr. Flanagan who was apparently responsible for CSIS policy in this matter. However Mr. Flanagan was not very cooperative, launching into long vague, contradictory answers that finally caused Mr. Slansky to lose his patience and ask the witness to just answer the questions with a short answer or a yes or no. At least a couple of questions were objected to on the basis of answers being ‘secret evidence’ and therefore of national security importance. One of these questions simply asked for a point of policy that should be public. At one point Public Counsel pointed out to the witness that he had contradicted an earlier answer and asked for and had the court reporter read back the previous question and answer which was indeed a contradiction. Some of the vagueness was the witness’s inability to say conclusively if the CA was indeed operating in a bubble (strictly as an agent for CBSA and not for CSIS). One word that the witness decided had more than one meaning was ‘relevancy’. Relevancy at first was supposed to mean – any intercepts that would indicate a threat to Canadian security – these would have to be reported to CSIS. However, the witness then added the meaning – ‘intelligence value’, meaning that an intercept, even one between a client and his lawyer – would have relevancy if it had intelligence value. At the point just before Judge Blanchard called the lunch break, the witness was so confused that he said he could no longer answer Public Counsel’s questions. The hearing did of course continue in the afternoon.

What I think is being revealed by the very strong probing of Mr. Slansky is that CSIS policies on intercepting solicitor-client conversations are and have been woefully wanting. We are hoping that the judge sees this as well.

I will be away for most of the next three weeks – accompanying my brother to a family wedding in B.C. and then some other responsibilities and family events. Mr. Mahjoub thought these hearings will end by mid-July.

Court will go on tomorrow – Wednesday, June 22, 9:30 am but not Thursday or Friday so if anyone can attend tomorrow – Wednesday that would be good.

For the week of June 27, hearings are scheduled for Monday June 27 through Thursday June 30, with hearings beginning at 9:30 am.

Please attend even if for a short time. It looks so much better if interest is shown – as it was in the Jaggi Singh case.

Hearings are at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W., 6^th floor, near Osgoode station on the University line.

Mahjoub Hearing Schedule – Week of June 20, 2011

The Mahjoub court schedule for next week is Monday June 20, Tuesday June 21, Wednesday June 22, all at 9:30 am at Federal Court at 180 Queen St. W., near the Osgoode station on University line. Various witnesses from CBSA and CSIS are scheduled to testify about how the security certificates got signed.

Please attend if you have some time.

Murray

Mahjoub Hearing, Thursday, June 9, 2011

I arrived at court at about 11:30 am. Having tried to go to the Hassan Diab bail hearing nearby at Osgoode Hall, but they apparently began at 10 am and were finished by 10:30 am. I haven’t heard how it went.

A bit of update from last week: I missed Tuesday through Friday last week while in Ottawa. A Mr. Bush from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) was the main witness along with Mr. Vrbanic, Manager of CSIS Toronto office. Public Counsel Paul Slansky carried the case last week and today and has been probing matters related to Solicitor-Client wiretap interceptions and circumstances surrounding the signing of Security Certificates by CIC Minister Diane Finley and former Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day which have had questions raised by recent disclosures as I mentioned in the May 30 report.

I was the only supporter there today. P.C. Paul Slansky was finishing up his examination of witness Mr. Vrbanic, Manager of the CSIS Toronto office. Paul asked probing questions about whether CSIS had policies around Solicitor-Client phone conversation interceptions and exactly what constituted this type of interception – for instance did they listen to husband-wife conversations and were any of these messages being relayed by Mr. Mahjoub’s wife to M.; or would language interpretation by stepson Haney be included? Mr. Vrbanic replied that family members did sign consent forms. Ministers Counsel Mr. Tyndale objected to several of these questions as being too hypothetical.

P.C. moved on to questions about the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Security Certificate around the dates Feb 21-22 (perhaps 2008 at the end of the deadline when new Security Certificate legislation had to be brought in). P.C. asked the witness whether he had anything to do with the signing of the certificates. Mr. Vrbanic said he didn’t. P.C. also asked about the ‘time gap’ between the expiry of the old certificate legislation and the signing of the new ones – for the four remaining detainees (Mr. Vrbanic admitted that there was fear that the four detainees might bring a motion to be released since there was no valid certificate to hold them) and whether this time gap was the inspiration for the signing in haste (Mr. Day signed his copy in Vancouver) perhaps without due consideration being given to evidence. P.C. also raised the issue of Mr. Mahjoub being a ‘convention refugee’ when he came to Canada and part of his testimony to the Refugee Review board was a fear of torture by Egyptian authorities. P.C. asked if this testimony was taken into account by the government. He went on to point out that Mr. Mahjoub was sentenced in absentia in Egypt in 1999 to ‘x’ years in prison. P.C. asked if the fact that Egypt routinely uses torture was taken into consideration regarding information used to create the security certificate. Judge Blanchard and Mr. Tyndale pointed out that matters of torture were covered a year ago during the ‘Torture Motion’ hearings, but P.C. replied that there is relevance to torture information if the Security Certificate signing is at least partly based on testimony obtained by torture. For example, did CSIS advise the Ministers about testimony obtained by torture? P. C. pointed out that Amnesty International has said that the evidence used in Egypt against Mr. Mahjoub was obtained by torture. P.C. said he would leave details about this matter to later witnesses who should have more intimate information regarding the basis for the signing of the Security Certificates. After lunch break, M.C. had no questions for the witness and the witness was excused.

Scheduling was then done for next week’s hearings. Some upcoming scheduled witnesses are fairly high level bureacrats or retired bureaucrats who had some connection to the Security Certificates, Mr. Flanagan, Elizabeth Snow and later Ms. Johnston, Mr. Judd, former head of CSIS, Mr. Foley and present head of CSIS Mr. Fadden. An interesting exchange was about Mr. Foley who is in China. Mr. Tyndale said he may have to be flown here at the expense of Mr. Mahjoub – meaning Legal Aid! Judge Blanchard said that teleconferencing is quite feasible but was discouraged by Mr. Tyndale because of the extreme time difference.

The hearings resume Monday, June 13 at 9:30 am and continue on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday (not Thursday).

There is no hearing tomorrow – Friday, June 10.

Please come next week to Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W., 6^th floor, near Osgoode Station on University line.

Mahjoub Hearings - Week of June 6, 2011

Hi all:

I just returned home from Ottawa, Sunday evening and spoke to Mohammed on the phone at which time he informed me that the Federal Court hearings do not resume until Thursday, June 9 at 9:30 am (no hearings Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday), so I hope this reaches supporters in time for their week’s plans. Sorry I do not have anything to report about the week since Monday but may have some information later in the week since I will be with Mohammed tomorrow – Monday.

On Thursday June 9^th please come to Federal Court, 180 Queen St. West, 6^th floor, 9:30 am, near Osgoode station on the University subway line.

Mahjoub Hearing – Monday, May 30, 2011

Hi all:

Court resumed today at 9:30 am. There were three observers for part of the morning; I stayed all day until court adjourned about 4:30 pm. The purpose of today’s hearing was to review thirty witness (or witness category) suggestions brought forward by public Counsel Yavar Hameed with the help of Joanne Doyon (I may not have the spelling correct). These witnesses, if approved by the court would be asked to testify regarding the topics of alleged ‘violations of solicitor-client privilege’ by CSIS/CBSA listening to phone conversations, ‘abuse of process’ and failure by various government officials and elected Ministers to do their ‘due diligence’. Public Counsel has called for these witnesses to be heard due to information revealed in the latest disclosures (I don’t know the extent of them). Some potential witnesses are CSIS/CBSA employees who have been heard before plus some new ones. Others are high level actors such as present and former Ministers of CIC and Public Safety such as Stockwell Day and Diane Finley as well as the present director of CSIS, Mr. McFadden and a former director, Jim Judd and high ranking bureaucrats in these ministries plus some RCMP members.

The pattern of response by Ministers’ Counsel Mr. Tyndale carried on through the day. He criticized the need for these witnesses, accusing P.C. of describing in their documents, the same terminology for each, which he called ‘boilerplate’. He also accused P.C. of engaging in a ‘fishing expedition’, of calling witnesses without stating what evidence was being looked for. Judge Blanchard also frequently asked P.C. exactly what evidence they were looking for. He also challenged M.C. for saying that information in an email was not relevant to P.C.’s case. M.C. pointed out that some of the high level witnesses would not likely attend if called, one reason, for a present minister, is parliamentary privilege while other high placed individuals would ‘not have time to attend’. M.C. accused P.C. of using a strategy of trying to make life so difficult for high level witnesses that the government would just give up on this case.

Perhaps the most interesting exchanges took place over what appears to have been revealed in the disclosures – that Ministers signed security certificates based on their seeing briefing notes shortly before they signed, while boxes of evidence delivered to them, that would have required their much longer attention, apparently were not looked at. Judge Blanchard kept challenging P.C. as to whether they were questioning the due diligence of government people at the highest level, which is not what the ‘reasonableness hearings’ are supposed to be about. He reminded P.C. that the hearing which will resume shortly is supposed to be about the reasonableness of the security certificate after it is signed – not about how it got signed, but it seems like P.C. wants to raise the first question as well as the latter. It remains to be seen whether Judge Blanchard will allow this.

The next hearing will resume on Wednesday, June 1 at 9:30 am at the same location – 180 Queen St. W., 6^th floor (near Osgoode station on the University line)

The hearings will go on through Friday, June 4 and recommence on Monday, June 6.

Judge Blanchard indicated a rough schedule – begin at 9:30 am, lunch break about 12:30 pm and a morning and an afternoon break with court adjourning by 4:30 pm each day.

Please attend, even for an hour or two if you are able.

I will be away in Ottawa all the rest of this week so there will be no further reports from me until next week.

Call for court solidarity: Mohammad Mahjoub SECURITY CERTIFICATE STRUGGLE NOT OVER!

Monday, May 30th at 9:30am

Federal Court of Canada

180 Queen St. West, 6th floor, Toronto

(near Osgoode Station on University subway line)

Please come to court to show support and solidarity with Mohammad Mahjoub,

detained without charge or trial in Canada, under threat of deportation to

more torture, for almost ELEVEN YEARS!

-> Recent update on Mahjoub, in his own voice:

www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/50193

Over the past almost ELEVEN years, Mohammad Mahjoub and his family have had

their lives virtually controlled by the arbitrary security certificate

process. This has included years of solitary confinement and the most

intrusive forms of surveillance and control, on the basis of secret evidence

and vague allegations. All under threat of deportation to further torture.

Security certificates - which are based on profiling - stand as a symbol of

racist border policies. Under the new conservative majority, a strong public

outcry will be necessary to bring justice in these cases.

These eleven years have included endless, frustrating court hearings. The

least we can do to support Mr. Mahjoub in his struggle for justice and

freedom is accompany him in those hearings: please set aside an hour or two

to be with him in court.

This hearing will continue important arguments relating to CSIS conduct in

these cases, including what information it fed the Ministers who are

responsible for these cases and on what basis.

Hearings in the past month have been dealing with another aspect of CSIS

conduct. CSIS and its government partners were found to have ILLEGALLY

breached solicitor-client privilege in Mahjoub's and other security

certificate cases. Despite a court order demanding that they cease breaking

the law in this way, CSIS continued to listen in to conversations between

Mr. Mahjoub and his legal counsel.

PLEASE NOTE: Court hearings are unfortunately subject to change without

advance notice. If we hear in advance, we'll try to get the word out!

Judge Blanchard has released his judgement on the 'Detention Review' of Mr. Mahjoub but that decision is being reviewed by the Ministers so there is no change to M.'s life yet. The 'D. R.' could result in some easing of visiting restrictions on visitors to M. and more free time for M. but not much else.

The topic for May 30 would be exchanges between the two sets of lawyers regarding which witnesses would be called for upcoming 'Reasonableness of the Security Certificate' hearings in June.

“Secret Trials - Who are we protecting? What are we afraid of?”

Script for a Tableau (playlet) - performed by five people plus narrator at Toronto Good Friday Stations of the Cross for Social Justice - before an audience of 300 people. (Some photos posted on Murray Lumley's Facebook page)

Narrator:

You are attending a court scene where a detainee – in Orange Jumpsuit - an Arab refugee or immigrant, who might be from Egypt, Algeria or Syria and is a resident of Canada, has been arrested by Canadian Security and Intelligence Services or CSIS and is being held under the supervision of Canadian Border Services Agency or CBSA. He is not charged with any crime, but is held on the possiblity that he might be a danger to Canadian national security – meaning he is believed to be a terrorist or have had terrorist connections in the country he came from or has visited - until such time as he can be deported back to where he came from. There have been five such Detainees, since the mid-nineties, all Muslim men.

Because he is charged with no crime in Canada by which he could be legally incarcerated, he is being held using an Immigration instrument called a Security Certificate. CSIS has presented its case in a brief document to the government of Canada, and two Ministers – the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety have signed the Security Certificate, which allows CBSA to keep the Detainee in secure custody until such time as he can be deported. The allegations that CSIS has against the Detainee are of a lower quality than would stand up in a normal court of law – meaning testimony of a secret witness or informer, hearsay, news articles and circumstancial evidence - for example the detainee was found to possess a map of Ottawa with some buildings or routes marked. This evidence is kept secret on the basis of National Security and only certain official people are allowed to see it - as you will see in our brief scene.

In the early 2000’s the Detainee and the others were kept in a Provincial jail – Metro West here in Toronto, which is designed for inmates convicted of crimes committed in Ontario and on sentences of two years less a day. Since the Detainees had committed no crime they could not be mixed with the prison population and were therefore kept in Solitary Confinement, often in cells that were cold and for which the jailers would do nothing to correct. This and other indignities caused the detainees to go on several hunger strikes which forced the courts at the instigation of the lawyers appointed to represent the Detainees, to order better conditions. Eventually the Canadian government built a $multi-million ‘Kingston Immigration Holding Centre’ – KIHC - located as a separate entity with its own guards at Millhaven Correctional Institution at Bath, Ontario.

The Detainees who have moved back and forth from complete incarceration to house arrest, where all of them are now, have never been deported because Canada has signed onto an international agreement to not send an immigrant or refugee back to their home country if there is a reaonable possibility that they will be tortured or killed. Federal Court Judges have upheld this decision and so the Detainees have been kept in either complete custody or house arrest with severely restrictive conditions on movement and communication with others. Court hearings seem unending. Under Canadian Immigration law the Detainees have the right to at least two kinds of hearings – 1. Reasonableness of the Security Certificate Hearings one of which is presently in its third year and 2. Detention Review every six months – which means that some of the strict conditions on travel and communication can be lifted if the Detainee has been of good, reliable behaviour. 3. Other kinds of hearings such as one where CSIS has been accused and admitted to listening in on Lawyer-Client telephone conversations.

In 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Security Certificate legislation at the same time as one of the Detainees from Montreal had his Security Certificate quashed and became a free man. The Court gave the government one year to rewrite the legislation to make it more fair. The legislation of 2008 is almost the same but with the addition of the appointment of ‘special advocate lawyers’ who are allowed to see the ‘Secret Evidence’ but cannot communicate this to the Detainee or his lawyer. Their role is to represent the detainees interests in the secret trials. They are allowed to meet and talk with the detainee and his lawyer only before they see the secret documents, and not again after that.

There are two kind of hearings – public ones where a public summary of the allegations is provided to the detainee and his lawyers, and secret ones where only certain people get to see the ‘Secret Evidence’ but neither the Detainee nor his lawyer.

Let me introduce you to the characters:

1. person holding secret evidence box takes his/her place near ‘Secret Evidence Box’

2. the Detainee (who is at side of stage looking sad and confused)

3. the Judge has access to all of the information both secret and public and it is his or her responsibility to determine, through the course of the reasonableness hearing, to determine whether or not the detainee poses a danger to Canadian national security.

(walks across the front to the secret evidence box and looks inside while Narrator is reading and stays by the box)

4. the Government lawyer(s), who represent the interests of both the CBSA and CSIS also have access to all of the information available and are able to argue their case against the detainee in both open and secret trials. (walks across the front to the secret evidence box and looks inside while Narrator is reading and stays by the box)

5. the Special Advocate, the only person representing the interests of the detainee in the secret trials, may see all of the secret information and question the accuracy and sources of information and argue on behalf of the detainee. (walks across the front to the secret evidence box and looks inside while Narrator is reading, after looking in the box mimes asking questions of the government lawyer before the judge)

(two characters – Government lawyer, Special Advocate - depart the stage)

6. the Detainee’s lawyer and the Detainee receive a publicly authorized summary of the allegations which is the main document they are fighting against in the public hearings. They may never know the full case that the government lawyers have prepared and must present evidence and argue their case to the best of their efforts. The ‘Reasonableness Hearing’ is not about guilt or innocence of the detainee, but rather whether or not it is reasonable to detain - in jail or under strict house arrest – indefinitely, based on allegations that cannot be proven and without enough evidence to press charges under Canada's existing anti-terrorism laws.

(detainee and his lawyer walk across to the secret evidence box and are not allowed to look in the box but are given or take the redacted document - lawyer shows it to the audience revealing blacked out lines; they look at each other and sadly walk off stage)

Today, two detainees, Adil Charkaoui and Hassan Almrei are free men. Federal court judges found the security certificates against them to be unreasonable. Mohammed Harkat has had his certificate upheld earlier this year and remains under house arrest as an appeal is underway. Mahmoud Jaballah and Mohammed Mahjoub are currently in the midst of their reasonableness hearings and are awaiting a final decision.

Mahjoub Hearing – 'Disclosure' - Monday, April 11, 2011

Hi all:

Well, this was supposed to be the resumption of the ‘Reasonableness of the Security Certificate Hearing’ but it wasn’t. Four friends of Mohammad Mahjoub attended, some arriving for the 9:30 am start, but what was observed was that Public Counsel (M.’s lawyers) had sent a letter written Thursday, April 7 to the court asking for further disclosure of a wider range of documents than had been previously requested, including transcripts of RCMP interviews of M. going back to 2001 when he was held at Metro West, Toronto, as well as not limited to CSIS but including Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), and CBSA recordings and transcripts both pre and post 2008. P. C. also asked for an adjournment of the Reasonableness Hearings until this lack of disclosure was set right. The court went ‘in camera’ from about 9:30 am until 10:45 am.

Court resumed public session at 10:45 am with Judge Blanchard hearing brief back and forth arguments from Public Counsel Yavar Hameed and Ministers’ Counsel Mr. Tyndale as to the need for the disclosure of the documents asked for by P.C. Mr. Tyndale argued that there has been no evidence for the need for further disclosure while Mr. Hameed argued that “before the closing of Mr. Mahjoub’s case there is a need to see all the evidence that has been presented against Mr. Mahjoub”. In the best zinger of the morning, Mr. Tyndale said - “on non-issues, the evidence may be inadmissible and we may as well all go home.” The four of us interpreted that to mean that in that possibility, the case against Mr. Mahjoub would be over and we had to restrain ourselves from cheering.

Judge Blanchard with the support of M.C. Mr. Tyndale lectured P.C. Mr. Hameed about why P.C. had not asked for these disclosures previously even as recently as the one day hearing presided over by Judge Noel. Mr. Hameed’s reply was that he had done so “in a general way”, if not specifically. There was further technical legal discussion regarding “grounds and warrants” and the “timing of this request”.

Judge Blanchard set some parameters and dates for production of materials and resumption of the Reasonableness Hearing, with Tuesday May 24 being the date set for resumption.

Judge Blanchard said he wanted no further delays to this hearing which he said, “is now in its third year.”

This hearing was adjourned around 12 pm with the next date tentatively set for Tuesday, May 24.

I found out after the hearing that the problem with the lack of disclosure was that these wide disclosures had not been asked for by M.’s previous lawyers. I don’t have the legal background to know why that was the case or whether it is a good or bad thing for M.’s case.

Next Hearing – tentatively Tuesday, May 24, 2011, Federal Court, 180 Queen St., W., Toronto

Mahjoub Hearing – Thursday, March 31, 2011; Next Hearing Monday, April 11, 2011

Hi all:

Solicitor Client Privilege – Abusive Process Motion. There were four of us at this hearing on a Motion by Mohammad Mahjoub to have all telephone recordings of Mr. Mahjoub made by CSIS since 1996 be disclosed, or the derivatives (meaning written reports made from the recordings) be disclosed to the court. The hearing which lasted from 9:30 am to about 1 pm consisted of arguments for disclosure, by public Counsel Yavar Hameed and Paul Slansky and against disclosure by Ministers’ Counsel Mr. Tyndale, of some of these records or derivatives, and not others, some of which Ministers’ Counsel said have been destroyed by CSIS. The reason for Mr. Mahjoub’s request is the admission by CSIS witnesses on more than one occasion that solicitor-client privilege had been violated by CSIS recording those calls, even after there was a court order in 2008 for CSIS to stop recording solicitor-client calls. This was described by Public Counsel as an ‘abuse of process’. Judge Noel presided in today’s hearing. Some case law was brought up including ‘Charkaoui 2’ and the ‘Stinchcomb case’ as well as Section 8 wiretap application and Section 21 – CSIS Acts regarding warrants.

There was discussion of the "derivative materials" – written reports from recordings which were not ordered to be disclosed which left Mahjoub in a Catch-22 situation, since he would not have a record of the missing calls. The action of CBSA and CSIS was by implication not in good faith, since they knew perfectly well they were not supposed to be listening in in the first place, and they were acting in contempt of a court order. Even Ministers’ Counsel Tyndale who seemed a bit embarrassed by the position he was being expected to defend, said something about the world being imperfect and in response to a question from Judge Noel replied that “I may later have to apologize”. Mr. Tyndale argued that it was not necessary for the government to comply with Mr. Mahjoub’s request for all the records for no specific reason; that Mr. Mahjoub is required to “point to some argument he wants to advance”. He also said that his clients had disclosed “to the best of their knowledge” to which P. C. Paul Slansky replied later, was not good enough and that the government needed to ‘respond with evidence’. “This was not a mere error but was done deliberately – even after the (court) order to stop”. The government should have stopped all this recording, and didn't. P. C. Slansky pointed out in his final reply that even if the solicitor-client recordings were not used, they could still provide a ‘prejudicial effect’ – that the “subconscious knowledge by a witness of conversations may have helped them as witnesses in court”. Mahjoub himself has gone through all the materials, and seen what is missing. In the face of Tyndale's suggesting that it would be too much bother to produce a lot of irrelevant recordings or accounts of them, and should just be asking for specific records, Judge Noel himself asked how Mahjoub could point to a specific phone call he needed a record of when he could not know what would advance his case.

There was agreement that solicitor/client conversations should be sacrosanct in law, and this sanctity had been breached. Something about Section 7 rights being "malleable," and that case law there was hard to interpret. The abuse of process motion is for the future, and evidence for that is still emerging. Mr. Tyndale had another issue which was to be raised immediately in camera, and shared with public counsel and the special advocates. Obligations to disclose change as the process changes, but it seems the "derivative materials” still exist. CSIS and CBSA have disclosed relevant materials "to the best of their knowledge," but it was pointed out that they may not even have disclosed all Mr. Tyndale needed to know. It is up to the judge to assess what is relevant or not, said Tyndale - to which Judge Noel replied, "How can we assess what we don't know?"

Combined report by Brydon Gombay and Murray Lumley – based on what we each thought we heard in court and not from the beginning at 9:30 am.

Court will sit for the resumption of the ‘Reasonableness of the Security Certificate’ hearings which were interrupted by other matters described in previous blogs. This will begin on Monday, April 11, 2011; 9:30 am at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W., 6^th floor.

Again, it will be good to have a number of interested observers in the courtroom beginning on Monday.

Mahjoub Hearing – Wednesday, March 23, 2011; Next Hearing - Thursday, March 31, 2011, Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W., Toronto

Hi all:

Today’s hearing was about the ‘Detention Review’ for Mr. Mahjoub, which has been considerably delayed since it is supposed to happen every six months for Immigration detainees who have not been charged with anything. I arrived about two hours after the hearing began and heard the continuation of Public Counsel Yavar Hameed’s arguments. I understood that the part I missed had to do with P.C.’s argument that using any evidence or material prior to the Charkaoui decision which resulted in the Security Certificate legislation being struck down by the Supreme Court in February 2007, and rewritten a year later with Special Advocates added, is inadmissable. It is also true that any testimony obtained by torture has since been removed from the case against Mr. Mahjoub.

Mr. Hameed continued with what I thought was a very strong statement of support for Mr. Mahjoub – that the public allegations against him are very weak and that the case for Mr. M. being a danger to national security has not been established. P.C. also brought up the recent regime change in Egypt as a sign that some of the principals such as former Vice President Suleimani have definitely been linked to torture. He continued that there is a presumption of innocence for Mr. Mahjoub and that the onus is on the the Ministers to establish guilt. (Later during the Ministers Counsel argument I heard Counsel Mr. Tyndale say that presumption of innocence does not apply in an Immigration case as long as there is a regular detention review!)

Most of the witnesses brought to testify over past months such as Professer Wark and Professer Gerges have concluded that Mr. Mahjoub is likely innocent of the allegations against him and Mr. Hameed even said that “the allegations are theories and it is the case that hypotheses against Mr. Mahjoub are built on other hypotheses”. Mr. Hameed pointed to the ‘absurd testimony’ of CSIS witness, a Mr. Michel Gay who said that Mr. Mahjoub would “pose a threat to national security notwithstanding the passage of time.” Mr. Hameed said this means that Mr. Mahjoub is “damned if if he does and damned if he doesn’t” (get free), meaning that the longer Mr. Mahjoub is held incommunicado, the more notoriety he achieves with possible young jihadists who may wish to speak to him. What becomes clear to anyone listening to Ministers’ Counsel is that this is what CSIS and the Ministers are most afraid of – that Mr. Mahjoub might at some time be a negative influence on some young person. And that is why they have taken away his freedom and particularly his right of communication with anyone he feels like as the rest of us take for granted, for more than a decade.

Public Counsel went on to demonstrate the absurdity of, on the one hand Mr. Mahjoub being considered a dangerous risk to national security, while at the same time a Federal Judge has decided that Mr. Mahjoub should have four hours per day of unsupervised outings within a defined area near his Toronto apartment, carrying a GPS unit by which CBSA can track his movements. However, as Mr. Hameed pointed out nothing actually prevents Mr. Mahjoub from speaking with someone on his daily outings. And the evidence given by the written ‘Risk Assessment’ which CBSA/CSIS had provided for this hearing says that Mr. Mahjoub strictly adheres to all of his conditions. There is no evidence at all that he has ever tried to communicate with anyone. If he needs to go to an appointment outside his allowed zone he always calls CBSA and arranges for one of his two supervisors to accompany him. The two supervisors were also described in the ‘Risk Assessmen’ as being completely reliable. There was also a Dr. Byman mentioned who has given testimony earlier that Mr. Mahjoub would always be a threat if freed and Mr. Hameed countered this testimony as well.

I won’t go into detail with the testimony of the Ministers’ lawyer Mr. Tyndale except to point out that for him, nothing has changed due to the ‘new regime’ of legislation since 2007. He said that all the facts of the allegations are the same. He reviewed the SIRC document to list these that go back to the time before Mr. Mahjoub came to Canada. He saw some differences between Mr. Charkaoui being a permanent resident while Mr. Mahjoub is not etc. Ministers’ Counsel recommended that none of Mr. Mahjoub’s conditions be reduced now, while the ‘Reasonableness of the Security Certificate’ hearing is ongoing; that any changes could wait.

Mr. Hameed’s final reponse to the Ministers’ Counsel recommendations was, “stop looking backwards and look forward.” Many of Mr. Mahjoub’s alleged connections are dead or in prison somewhere so there is no possibilty of communication with the past anyway.

The conditions the Public Counsel is asking be removed or lightened are: 1. the GPS tracking device; 2. the 24 hour video surveillance at M.’s door – which captures anyone including his family members, meaning young children; 3. the two-way monitoring device – which has never been used; 4. the two supervising sureties which have been already described as being necessary for travel outside the proscribed zone; 5. removal of the 4 hour limit for daily outings and Mosque visits.

Judge Blanchard will give a ruling on the ‘Detention Review’ as well as on the previous hearing this week, as soon as possible.

The next hearing was scheduled to hear the “CSIS listening in on ‘Solicitor-Client conversations’ matter”. It is scheduled for Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 10 am, in Federal Court, 180 Queen St., West, 6^th floor.

A good turnout of observers would be welcome.

Mahjoub Hearing – Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Hi all:

Today’s hearing at Federal Court, 180 Queen Street, 6^th floor, actually began at 1:30 pm rather than 9:30 am as I had posted in the last blog. Even Mohammad did not know of the change.

Two of M.’s friends were there for the afternoon hearing. It’s purpose was to hear the ‘Disclosure Motion’ debated by the two lawyers Yavar Hameed, Public Counsel and Mr. Tyndale, Ministers’ Counsel, before Mr. Justice Blanchard. The four items under discussion were: 1. Video images captured by the camera outside M.’s apartment door – Public Counsel wants all video footage to be released to M. so he and his lawyers can see how wide ranging and intrusive it may be. It can also be used to settle disputes with CBSA where they have accused M. of violating conditions by his receipt of packages (like a mousetrap in a box) by a delivery person who M. says is actually the superintendent.

2. Public Counsel has asked for the complete CBSA – CIC file in order to see the record of the solicitor-client privilege being violated by CSIS listening in to telephone conversations between M. and his lawyers. Previous testimony by CSIS agents has been that they have a policy for dealing with such surveillance which means they do not use it, However the Public Counsel and M. want to see for themselves.

There were two other items of disclosure asked for by Public Counsel that I did not fully understand. The argument was that having full disclosure of videos for example would make it easier to automatically eliminate the charges brought to court by CBSA of condition violations by M. Just viewing the videos would settle the matter.

Public Counsel asked for these disclosure items and defended these requests to Judge Blanchard. The judge did have some hard questions for Public Counsel that made me feel like the judge was biased in that he seemed to accept the testimony of the CSIS agents that they had a policy for dealing with ‘listening to privileged conversations’ and why didn’t Public Counsel just accept that.

Ministers’ Counsel Mr. Tyndale spent his time belittling the requests for disclosure by Public Counsel. He said that Public Counsel had failed to establish any connection between its disclosure requests and its arguments against non-compliance accusations by CBSA of M.

Judge Blanchard said that he would make a ruling on this matter as soon as possible.

Tomorrow – Wednesday will be dedicated to the ‘Detention Review’ for Mr. Mahjoub. It will begin at 9:30 am and will go all day.

Again, it will be very valuable to Mr. Mahjoub’s cause to have spectators at court tomorrow. Please if you are able, come out for an hour or two.

The location is 180 Queen Street West, near Osgoode Station, 6^th floor.

Murray

Next Mahjoub Hearings – Tuesday and Wednesday, March 22 and 23, 2011

Mohammad Mahjoub has informed me that there will be a ‘Detention Review’ for him on Tuesday and Wednesday, March 22 and 23, starting at 9:30 am this week. The notice is short because it was confirmed late in the week.

This ‘Review’ should be a positive experience that we hope will result in some of the conditions on M. being removed. It would be advantageous to M.’s case to have a good show of interest in these two days of hearings. Even an hour or two of your time, with people coming and going would be great.

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.

Thanks, Murray

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

Mahjoub special hearing – on the ‘Solicitor-Client Privilege Motion’

Friday, December 17, 2010

Mahjoub special hearing – on the ‘Solicitor-Client Privilege Motion’, that was the result of a CSIS witness telling the court that CSIS has been listening to phone conversations between Mohamed Mahjoub and his lawyers since 2001.

Elizabeth Block and Brydon Gombay attended the hearing and below are their reports:

Elizabeth Block wrote:

I was in court today. Brydon Gombay came too, and probably understood more than I did, which wouldn't be hard.

The required documents arrived at the government lawyer's on Tuesday night, and Mahjoub's lawyer didn't get them until last night or this morning. She hasn't read them, let alone analyzed them.

The judge had some questions: What does this motion seek (by any of production of documents) that wasn't covered in his judgement re: Jaballah? Some of this material may have to be dealt with in camera, with the special advocates.

Judge Blanchard had ordered Mr.Tyndale – Ministers’ Counsel - to produce materials - logs of solicitor-client calls. (I understand that CSIS and CBSA were ordered by the court quite a while ago NOT to eavesdrop on solicitor-client phone calls, but they have gone on doing it anyway.) This material has to be kept away from the trial judge, so he is not contaminated by it (whatever that means).

Brydon Gombay wrote:

I have little to add, except to say that everyone recessed for over an hour during the morning, and returned appearing good humoured, as though they had settled things in camera to everyone's (relative) satisfaction. It is interesting to observe how legal minds are expected to compartmentalise their knowledge in this way - but I was left with the impression that anything which may have been important took place outside the courtroom. My understanding was that Mr. Kapur, one of the special advocates, spoke of a document or documents which he had just glimpsed briefly after they came in to his Ottawa office, and which they would not all be able to discuss until next Tuesday - but I might well have got that wrong. It doesn't make much difference, anyway; the fact remains that he had knowledge he was not free to discuss until next week, but which he felt would cast new light on the issue under discussion. He remarked that he was not free to speak openly about any of this.

The Ministers’ Counsel (Mr. Pearce) agreed to produce the remaining CBSA intercepts as soon as possible. The special advocates will review all this and discuss with Judge Blanchard whether there is further need for another appointment with today's sitting judge – Judge Alto. He will make himself available for January 13 in case he is needed again. Madame Duhamel, Public Counsel, (Mr. Mahjoub’s lawyer) emphasised the fact that they want access to all the intercepts, from 2007 until now. Witnesses will be called on January 11 and 12, when the special advocates should also be present. Almost more time was spent by all parties cloistered outside the courtroom rather than in it.

This matter will be continued on Thursday, January 13th, if possible, i.e. if the required documents have been produced before then.

Mahjoub Hearing – Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Hi all:

I attended today’s hearing starting at about noon. Jean Smith also came in the afternoon.

The hearing continued from yesterday with the testimony of U.S. lawyer Joshua Dratel, expert in ‘U.S. national security and terrorism’. From questions by Public Counsel Yavar Hameed, he continued to speak about the ‘U.S. Embassy Bombings’ in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 by Al Qaeda operatives and the trial that ensued in which he defended one of the accused. A lot of Mr. Dratel’s testimony told about one star witness in particular, a former Al Qaeda operative and businessman in Sudan who fled his bank debts and Al Qaeda and ‘sold himself’ to the U.S. government, agreeing to cooperate in return for $ million, and witness protection for his extended family of 12 in the U.S and a variety of other perks. Mr. Dratel pointed out that this witness’s first testimony to U.S. marshalls was videotaped without the knowledge of the prosecutors and when this video evidence was revealed it was noticed that his story had changed many times – with him creating a more important picture of himself when testifying in court. In short he was ‘selling himself’ to his captors but this to Mr. Dratel made him a completely unreliable witness. Mr. Dratel has asked and is still waiting for a retrial for his client who was convicted based largely on the testimony of this witness.

There are many other details of this person and others as well that I won’t go into here. A general conclusion that one can draw is that the reliabiltity of any witnesses used by the U.S. to put people behind bars is called into question when the witnesses they used were trying to save their own skins and were busy ‘selling themselves’.

A more specific set of conclusions was given in Mr. Dratel’s affidavit part of which he read out in court, to the effect that there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Mahjoub ever had any connections to any terrorist acts or training while he was working at Damasine (sp) Farm in Sudan in the mid - 90’s. In fact the clincher for me was Mr. Dratel’s statement that, “he had never heard of Mr. Mahjoub prior to preparing for this hearing.” He also pointed out that his knowledge of events of the Embassy bombings is always at the forefront of his mind because he is often interviewed by media about the Embassy bombings – and he has never seen or heard Mr. Mahjoub’s name. It was stated during this hearing that there were 277 co-accused connected to the Embassy bombings and Mr. Mahjoub’s name is not one of them.

The Ministers’ Counsel tried to cast doubt on Mr. Dratel’s testimony because so far he has been unsuccessful in obtaining the retrial of his client even though it is known that the main witness was unreliable, but I think Mr. Dratel acquitted himself well.

There may be some gaps in this report but I hope it gives you some sense of today’s testimony.

The ‘Reasonableness of the Security Certificate’ hearings were recessed at the end of this afternoon and will not resume until Monday, January 10, 2011.

However, a ‘Solicitor-Client Privilege Motion’ will be heard this Friday, December 17 starting at 9:30 am, due to the revelation by a CSIS witness at these hearings that CSIS has been listening to phone conversations between Mr. Mahjoub and his lawyers, since the year 2000. This hearing will be presided over by a Judge Alto.

I am unable to attend due to my son having his second surgery in a week at Hamilton General Hospital on Friday. If anyone can attend and email me a report I will post it on this blog.

Thanks for your support and see you in court in January.

Mahjoub Hearing – Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Hi all:

I attended much of the hearing today. It consisted of the examination by Public Counsel Yavar Hameed and cross-examination by Ministers’ Counsel (a woman whose name I didn’t get), of a Mr. Joshua Dratel who heads a New York City law firm. He was called to be a witness by Public Counsel because of his expertise on ‘U.S. National Security and Terrorism’. See http://tinyurl.com/25puxch

Mr. Dratel is one of the editors of The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib http://tinyurl.com/273xep8

He has been a defence lawyer for about ten years (30 years altogether) for at least one of the accused in the ‘Embassy bombing trial’, related to the U.S. embassies that were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, allegedly by the Al Qaeda organization. Mr. Dratel has also defended some Guantanamo detainees and has won awards for his work.

Most of the day’s arguments that I heard consisted of the Ministers’ Counsel’s attempts to discredit Mr. Dratel’s expertise, saying that being a defence lawyer does not make one an expert on terrorism or an expert on a Canadian case such as the one being heard. Public Counsel made the case that Mr. Dratel is indeed a renowned and experienced defence lawyer and an expert on international law whose testimony will bear on the present case.

Over the lunch recess from 1:45 until 2:30 pm, Justice Blanchard made his decision and just after 2:30 pm, Justice Blanchard announced that indeed Mr. Dratel was an expert witness that should be heard in his court. Public Counsel proceeded to examine Mr. Dratel and we heard quite a bit about the history of Al Qaeda; how and why it formed and about its activities and those of bin Laden and others in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the Soviet occupation; the bin Laden activities in Sudan and other parts of Africa – some of which involved legitimate businesses and agricultural operations, as the court heard previously from Professor Wark. Several of the co-conspirators in the Embassy bombings were named as well.

The testimony of Mr. Dratel continues tomorrow – Wednesday, December 15 and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the history that has affected all of us since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Court sitting is to resume on Wednesday morning, 9:30 am, December 15, 2010 at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W. (near Osgoode station), 6^th floor, room D.

Please consider attending even if it is for one or two hours.