Fallacy of Terrorism: Complicity of Canadian Intelligence Agencies to Terrorize Citizens
Mahboob A. Khawaja, Ph.D.
Do cruelty, falsehood and wickedness have known faces and shapes? Only if you have experienced it, you will know it. If so, would you not strive to seek the protection of law and ultimate goal of justice? The quest for justice itself presupposes injustice. In Western democracies, manufactured "suspicion" and individual opinions, not the facts of life, are fast becoming the criterion measurement of legal provisions to prosecute innocent citizens as alleged terrorist across North America and Europe . Guatanama Bay could well be identified as the "Abu Ghraib" of America .
The American led " war of choice": perpetual war creating perpetual fear contributing to perpetual profits, the mutual alliance of the governments and mass media networks to carve up images of Muslims and Islam as the focused creed of alleged terrorism. Eric Margolis (" The big lie about "˜Islamic Fascism'": Aug 28, 2006), a distinguished Canadian journalist quotes the observation of Sir Peter Ustinov: "terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."
Canadian Maher Arar was the first victim. He was guilty of traveling thru JFK shortly after the 9/11 attacks, but Canadian intelligence agencies identified him as a fundamentalist and security risk. He was suspected to have been involved in something that later on Canadian establishments could not prove except they arranged third party torture and victimize him for long time. The political dictum of "suspicion" was used to imprison Maher Arar in Syria . How conveniently suspicion was transformed into accepted norm to arrest, imprison and torture Muslims throughout the Western world.
"Suspicion" became the threshold for police actions, not the societal laws to use force to demonstrate the opinions and preconceived notions of the few minority elite against the citizens.. History was re-enacted not learnt from, when people of Japanese origin were interned in Canada and the US during the 2nd WW. It was suspicion implied as law of the land "“ a political, moral and legal injustice to the citizens of Canada and America who had no role to play in the making of the WW2. Half century later, both Canada and the US offered apology to those either in graveyards or their succeeding generations kept the harsh memory of sufferings alive. After the Maher Arar tragedy, it was Dr. Khawaja and his family, the next targeted victims of the "War on Terror."
According to the Globe and Mail (July 18, 2005), President Bush had instructed Paul Martin to "fix Khawaja." On March 29, 2004, Canadian Intelligence armed brigade attacked the Khawaja family residence in Orleans and at gunpoint arrested his wife and school children were called out of the classroom under the guise of "bomb making" but found no evidence to support the accusation.
The newspaper Citizens and CBC were instrumental to falsify the information base and articulated fear mongering fictitious episode to misinform the public. While this stunt was staged near the capital, the agency formally requested Saudi Arabia to detain Dr. Khawaja who was teaching in a university. What were the charges against as per the documentary evidence? He is father of accused Momin Khawaja, who since March 2004 is a political prisoner of conscience at a Canadian detention center without a trial on charges of "terrorism" involvement in the UK case of March 2004. The then Security Minister Ms. Anne McClellan denied ever requesting a foreign government to arrest the scholar. The real world events and documentary evidence provide a different picture that the Canadian Government was lying to safeguard its illegal action against its own citizen. Does a political Minister ever lie? Do agents of intelligence services ever lie? The honorable Judge presiding over the Maher Arar investigation clearly pointed out the history of misinformation and lies involving the official intelligence organizations. Consequently, the Chief of the one of the intelligence agency was asked to resign.
To poison the mindset of soft-hearted Canadian public thru the media screen, young Momin was chained to show the public that he is abnormal and dangerous to public interest, not that he has done anything wrong or illegal. Four years later, his case has not gone to trial because the government has no tangible evidence to prove the accusation in a public court. The prosecution uses dogmas, not facts that a secret trial should be conducted to protect the interest of the state. In a democratic valued society as Canada is, how ridiculous it seems that if the prosecution is sure of its claim, why not have an open public trial? Why to look for escape from the real world?
After all, what is so secret about political terrorism? Does it mean that informed public will no longer trust in the official version and realize that it was a political trial, not a criminal case to start with? Consequently, the masses will point finger at the continuing failure of the intelligence services to use "suspicion", and not the law of the land to prosecute its own citizens. Now the prosecution insists on a secret trial of Momin Khawaja whereas public opinions are questioning the official dictum. For Four years, Momin has been imprisoned for unproven allegations under the law of suspicion to have participated in some conspiracy to bomb making theory.
The defense lawyer Mr. Greenspon argues to have access to secret files on terror suspect and clarifies that "MOMIN KHAWAJA IS AT RISK OF BEING WRONGLY CONVICTED"¦and "THAT HE COULD BE WRONGFULLY IMPRISONED FOR LIFE IF THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS ON WITHHOLDING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IT ADMITS IS RELEVANT TO HIS DEFENCE AGAINST TERRORISM CHARGES." Contrary to this, the prosecution claims that an open trial would harm the national security and relations with foreign governments. To defy logic and facts, the prosecution contends two distinct orders of TRUTH.
Truth is One, not many, that it is a political trial as it is being identified by the Canadian Justice Department to be mindful of "security policy" and relations with foreign governments "“ as the reasoning to hold the secret trial. In democratic governance, the official opinion is flawed, secret trials are a negation of liberty, human rights, freedom and justice "“ justice delayed is justice denied. Momin and his family are continued to be punished, not because they are guilty of any crimes except on suspicion; they are being treated as guilty of crimes without committing any crimes.
In several communication, Dr. Khawaja asked the Federal Minster, why he and his family are being systematically victimized? The Minister would only reply with "no comments." Amnesty International asked the Canadian Government the same question but got abstract reply. Would the new Progressive Conservative Canadian Government review its policy and take initiative to apologize from the innocent victims of its inherited policy on terrorism? Would it free Momin Khawaja after four years of harsh ordeal at a detention center? Would the current Minister of Security with first-hand knowledge of the issues initiate action and facilitate measures to deliver justice and compensate the Khawaja family for the state sponsored terrorism against its own citizens?
After all President Bush is leaving the White House soon and perhaps Canada needs to see its own policy interest and national priorities rather than blindly follow the American adventures to undo the world peace and harmony. Eric Margolis sheds more light on the media created images fostered by the governmental policy sponsorship: " In the Western world, hatred of Muslims has become a key ideological hallmark of rightwing parties. We see this overtly in the United States , France , Italy , Holland "¦and most lately Canada ."
End cannot be assumed based on the notion of "suspicion", and dogmas cannot replace truth to explain the facts of human life. When facts live in denial, dogmas construct dark illusions to assert the political agenda for encroachment of human rights, dignity and real freedom. The Canadian intelligence apparatus enjoys history of flawed record to victimize people under the "war on terror." Given the obvious public mistrust, they seem to be overwhelmingly occupied in building castles over moving sand.
British author and producer Adam Curtis ("Power of Nightmares re-awakened" BBC), made attempts to re-awaken the human conscience that the myth of international terrorism is a misleading political phenomenon to embark on American ambitions of global hegemony. Michael Meacher, MP and former UK Minister of Environment of Blair's Cabinet points out to the same agenda ("This War on Terrorism is Bogus:"): "It seems that the so called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives." On the part of targeted victims of this war of choice is similar to those cases of the 2nd WW internment of people of Japanese, German and Italian origins in North America .
The search for justice itself implies the pr-existence of injustice. Justice and societal harmony cannot be preached in the name of illegal detentions and systematic torture of the citizens. Targeted victims look to human conscience to stop the continued political cruelty, violations of human rights and travesty of justice. Those whose lives have been destroyed by the false official claims of terrorism, do ask the living and THINKING People of the globe, could there be two distinct orders of truth? Is there any legal stipulations in Canada to prosecute state sponsored terrorism and wickedness?
____________ _________ _________ _________ _____
Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja, the author is a political scientist with interests in strategic studies and comparative cultures and civilizations affairs of Muslims and the West, and author of several publications including: Muslims and the West: Quest for Change and Conflict Resolution and " Pakistan : Enigma of Change."
http://www.canada. com/ottawacitize n/news/story. html?id=74d217e2 -2605-4b06- a9e3-42a9b805011 0&k=66297
Provincial magistrate in Khawaja case frustrated by interference from Federal Court
Ian MacLeod, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, January 25, 2008
An Ottawa judge suggests it may be an "impossibility" to conduct terrorism trials in general criminal courts after the federal government gave notice yesterday it will, once again, attempt to invoke an extraordinary national security law to keep secret some of its information from the trial of accused terrorist Momin Khawaja.
The likely new delay in Canada 's first post-9/11 terrorism trial, already a year late in starting, has two leading legal scholars calling for Canada to adopt a streamlined British approach to terrorism prosecutions involving sensitive national security information.
As the first criminal prosecution under the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act, the Khawaja case has, as anticipated, been the subject of a storm of constitutional challenges over the new and untested law, appeals and cross-appeals. Few people, however, expected the pre-trial legal skirmishing to last this long, almost four years after the Orléans software developer's March 2004 arrest. The delays in getting the landmark case to trial put Canada well behind Britain , the U.S. and Australia in mounting a terrorism prosecution.
By comparison, six British men accused of conspiring with Mr. Khawaja in a thwarted plot to bomb bars, trains, a mall and energy targets around London in 2004, were tried, convicted and imprisoned by a British jury last spring. And that followed the longest terrorism trial in British history, the longest criminal jury deliberation, plus months of pre-trial arguments over national security issues.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Douglas Rutherford, the magistrate to preside over any eventual Khawaja trial, allowed his frustration to spill out in an Ottawa courtroom yesterday.
"It almost spells (the) impossibility of doing a trial like this," he said, in an apparent display of judicial discontent with the current two-tier Canadian system.
Only designated Federal Court judges now have jurisdiction over whether potentially sensitive national security information can be withheld from accused individuals and their defence lawyers. Provincial criminal court judges, meanwhile, are responsible for overseeing the trials.
Yesterday, Justice Department lawyer Linda Wall informed Judge Rutherford of the government's intention to ask the Federal Court for an order under Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act to withhold some government information related to the case from Mr. Khawaja and his lawyers on grounds it could harm national security and international relations. She did not elaborate. (Information withheld under Section 38 also cannot be used by trial prosecutors. )
There is no telling when the Federal Court will agree to hear the new Section 38 application and how long that will take. Before yesterday, Judge Rutherford hoped the anticipated three-month trial might begin May 20.
But when the government sought a previous Section 38 order in the case last year, winning a partial victory, the Federal Court hearings, deliberations and subsequent appeals took almost a year.
Mr. Khawaja, who denies the charges and has chosen trial by judge alone, is now awaiting word on whether the Supreme Court of Canada will grant the 28-year-old leave to appeal a Federal Court of Appeal ruling related to last year's Section 38 case.
"You can't force him on to trial when he has serious constitutional issues to be tried, but I think this demonstrates the unworkability of the Section 38 regime that requires the involvement of a court other than the trial judge," said David Paciocco, a University of Ottawa law professor.
Instead, trial judges should be given jurisdiction to deal with disclosure issues related to national security, as is done in Britain . "If you can trust citizens to appoint them to the bench, you should be able to trust them to deal with issues of national concern," he said.
Craig Forceses, a University of Ottawa expert on national security law, agrees with harmonizing the two roles under a single trial judge.
Federal Court judges would have more time to devote to other cases. And in instances where a trial judge orders some information withheld from the defence on national security grounds, the judge could have the standing authority to later reverse the decision if it becomes apparent that the excluded information is vitally important to the defence, he said.
The government's new bid for a Section 38 order also brings back into play a fundamental legal issue for the Federal Court to again consider: What happens when accused terrorists and other individuals are brought before open criminal courts on offences related to national security? Are they entitled to know all the incriminating evidence prosecutors have against them, even if that compromises confidential sources, relations with foreign governments and state secrets?
Or do certain cases of government secrecy outweigh Canada 's open-court principle and an accused person's right to a fair trial, including the ability to challenge all the evidence against them?
Mr. Khawaja, who has been held in an Ottawa jail cell since his arrest in Ottawa by the RCMP, has waived his right to a speedy trial so his legal team can pursue constitutional and other legal challenges.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
http://www.canada. com:80/ottawacit izen/news/ story.html? id=049cbb77- 19c1-46f5- bf33-df6a0359467 0&k=86195
Ian MacLeod, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, December 01, 2007
The delays dogging the start of Canada 's first post-9/11 terrorism trial hit an "alarming proportion" yesterday, with the prosecution of Ottawa 's Momin Khawaja now not expected to start until next year at the earliest.
An exasperated Ontario Superior Court Judge Douglas Rutherford, who is to preside over the trial, made the comment after defence and Crown attorneys informed him they are still awaiting a Federal Court of Appeal ruling on a constitutional challenge Mr. Khawaja's lawyers made in October.
What's more, both sides suggested they may seek leave to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, a move that would add months more delay.
It is already nearly five years since Mr. Khawaja, 28, was arrested in March 2003 for allegedly plotting with a London al-Qaeda cell to bomb the British capital. His trial initially was to start last Jan. 2 but was postponed four times.
Judge Rutherford eventually gave up setting tentative new dates, only to see them abandoned as lawyers fought in the federal courts over fundamental legal issues raised by the first criminal prosecution under the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act.
By comparison, six Britons are serving lengthy prison terms after being convicted in May for their roles in the same plot. And that is after a 13-month trial, the longest terrorism trial in British history.
Mr. Khawaja denies the charges and has waived his right to a speedy trial so his chief lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, can concentrate on pursuing constitutional and other legal challenges in the federal courts. In the meantime, he remains in an Ottawa jail cell.
As the first prosecution under the new anti-terror provisions of the Criminal Code, the Khawaja case is in uncharted legal territory. It was destined from the outset to be challenged on constitutional grounds, yet no one envisioned the storm of appeals, cross-appeals and other legal actions launched by Mr. Greenspon and the federal Justice Department, including a failed attempt by Mr. Greenspon to get the Supreme Court of Canada to quash the case.
The stakes are high for both sides. If convicted, Mr. Khawaja faces life in prison. The RCMP, especially after its failure in the Maher Arar affair and questionable activities related to other alleged terrorism cases, is under pressure to prove it is capable of discovering, apprehending and imprisoning terrorists. By extension, Canada 's international reputation to combat terrorism is on trial, too.
The issue before the Federal Court of Appeal is the practice of government officials appearing at secret hearings before a Federal Court judge to make arguments to keep secret certain information related to security cases on the grounds its release would harm national security and relations with foreign governments. The procedure was used in the Khawaja case.
Last spring, Mr. Khawaja's lawyers argued before the Federal Court of Canada that the ex-parte hearings, which they were not allowed to attend, were fundamentally unfair and violated their client's Charter right to a fair trial and to make full answer to the charges against him.
The Federal Court, however, upheld the practice, which triggered Mr. Khawaja's latest appeal.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007