*** Still the biggest act of terrorism against Canadians in our history.
CSIS / RCMP issues still remain - such is the nature of organizations tasked to collect/analyze/disseminate intelligence products in competition with one another. Thankfully Canada has only a handful of such agencies and when you look at the U.S. with its massive bureaucracies, it should be sufficient to convince us to be very cautious about engaging in national security while in competition with one another.
Air India was a national tragedy for Canada and it remains so because lessons are truly not learned. A government report by virture of issuance cannot correct the inherent flaws to be found in large bureaucracies, especially those MOST resistant to change (police, military types). Change must come from within, which requires a recalibration of mindset and perspective. The question is: does the will to do so exist? MS ***
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100919/national/air_india_reyat
VANCOUVER - Convicted bomb maker Inderjit Singh Reyat didn't flinch when he heard the word "guilty" in court Saturday, nor when a judge said he'd be held in custody pending a sentencing hearing for a perjury conviction.
Reyat, 58, has spent almost a quarter century in and out of prison, and in November he will likely learn he'll be serving more time behind bars after two prior convictions related to the 1985 bombings.
His third conviction could be the last chapter in the Air India saga, a tragedy of unmatched proportions in Canadian history, but one with a most unsatisfactory ending because others believed to be involved in the disasters that killed 331 people have not been held responsible.
Reyat, a bespectacled Sikh who wears a turban and has a long greying beard, told court in 2003 at the trial of two other men facing mass murder charges that he became a baptized Sikh at age 16 after his family moved from India to England three years earlier.
He said he was the only member of his family to be baptized and that his mother prepared separate meals for him so he could adhere to his religion, which bans the eating of meat.
Reyat testified that when a leader of a Sikh separatist group asked him to collect bomb-making materials in Vancouver in 1984, he agreed to do so "to help people in India."
"I complied with Parmar's request because I was very upset with the Indian government's treatment of the Sikh people and I wanted to assist their cause in any way that I could," he said in a February 2003 affidavit for his second conviction.
That netted him a controversial five-year sentence for the bombing deaths of 329 people aboard Air India Flight 182 on June 23, 1985.
Reyat had already served a decade-long sentence for another bombing that day at Tokyo's Narita Airport, where two baggage handlers died when a suitcase bomb meant for Bangkok-bound Air India Flight 301 exploded prematurely.
Reyat's lawyer, Ian Donaldson, said his client was merely a "soldier" who followed orders from a "general" when he agreed to collect bomb parts.
The Crown maintains the two bomb-laden suitcases originated at Vancouver's airport as part of a plot against government-owned Air India by British Columbia-based Sikh extremists who felt the Indian government was oppressing Sikhs, a minority in their former homeland.
In June 1984, a year before the Air India bombings, the Indian army stormed the Golden Temple in Amritsar, home to the religion's holiest shrine, in an effort to oust Sikh separatists fighting for an independent homeland called Khalistan they wanted to carve out of the province of Punjab.
Thousands of Sikhs died in "Operation Bluestar" and the religious fervour and anger that resulted spread to Canada.
In Vancouver,Sikhs including Reyat rallied by the thousands outside the Indian Consulate and called for the death of then-prime Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi, who was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in October 1984.
In 1986, a year after the Air India bombings, Reyat moved back to England with his wife, Satnam Kaur Reyat, with whom he had four children.
He was extradited from England to face the Narita charges after police found evidence at the blast site and connected it to bomb-making material Reyat bought in Duncan, B.C.
The Crown subpoenaed Reyat to testify in 2003 at the trial of Ajaib Singh Bagri and Ripudaman Singh Malik, who were charged with mass murder in the Air India bombings.
Malik and Bagri were acquitted, and Reyat was charged with perjury in 2006.
The Crown accused Reyat of lying 19 times to minimize his involvement in the bombings and to protect others who targeted Air India.
Major Sidhu, whose sister died aboard Flight 182, said "everybody knows that (Reyat) was lying" at the Air India trial.
Sidhu said Reyat repeatedly made false statements at the trial because he feared retribution and despite others' involvement in the plot, he is the only one who has been punished.
"I think he was under pressure from other people and he was scared," said Sidhu, who was a regular spectator at the trial in 2003 and 2004.
Sidhu said it's a well-known fact in the Indo-Canadian community that Reyat's devotion to his Sikh cause is so extreme that his wife and four kids have suffered as a consequence.
"His daughter got married in Toronto, and he was in jail," Sidhu said.
B.C. Supreme Court Judge Ian Josephson, who presided over the Air India trial in 2003 and 2004, cited Sikh extremism in his written ruling, which paid tribute to the deaths of 331 people, mostly Canadians, who lost their lives in the disasters.
"These hundreds of men, women and children were entirely innocent victims of a diabolical act of terrorism unparalleled until recently in aviation history and finding its roots in fanaticism at its basest and most inhumane level," he said, comparing the Air India bombings to the 9-11 attacks in the U.S.
Perviz Madon's husband Sam Madon was on the doomed plane when it crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Ireland.
She attended Reyat's perjury trial and heard a recording of the same lies he told at Malik and Bagri's trial seven years earlier.
"I'm really happy that the jury saw (the lies), and it's a good message that we're sending that you can't get away with lying under oath," she said.
"I hope that this is the end of it."
Showing posts with label Air India inquiry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Air India inquiry. Show all posts
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
AIR INDIA INQUIRY - CSIS RCMP CULTURE CHANGE NEEDED ?
*** These agencies need the right kind of support from lawmakers and the public. Is it so bad to want them to succeed in making sure some idiot doesn't blow his underwear off and kill everyone around him? I would hope not. MS ***
FROM: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Culture+change+needed+CSIS+RCMP+Major/3169124/story.html
The RCMP and CSIS are Canada's defence line against terrorism.
But they can be terrible teammates.
According to the Air India inquiry report, the RCMP philosophy is "the less information we receive from CSIS, the better," while CSIS is reluctant to hand over its intelligence to police for fear it will be disclosed in court.
The 9/11 Commission found a similar problem when it examined the U.S. government failures leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It used a football analogy to explain: The players were in position but they weren't working together and there was no quarterback calling the plays.
Air India commissioner John Major wants Canada's national security advisor to play quarterback; he has proposed a much bigger role for the advisor in deciding how government agencies respond to terrorist threats.
Supposeasuspectedmember of a terrorist group flies to Canada after training at an overseas camp. Should the RCMP arrest him at the airport? Should CSIS instead follow him to see what he does and whom he meets? If he's not Canadian, should the Canada Border Services Agency deport him?
Those calls would be made by the national security advisor (NSA), who works out of the Privy Council Office. "In these and other situations," Judge Major writes, "the NSA will act in the public interest, transcending institutional self-interest."
The advisor would have the power to pass CSIS intelligence on to police, part of a series of proposed reforms that appear to be nudging Canada in the direction of the United States and Britain, where criminal prosecutions of terrorists are much more common.
The Air India report proposes making greater use of CSIS intelligence by police, restructuring the RCMP to better deal with terrorism prosecutions and improving the relationship between the two agencies.
During the Air India investigation, CSIS and the RCMP "were unable to co-operate effectively, or sometimes at all," the report says. And that awkward relationship continues to some extent to this day.
That is partly a reflection of conflicting mandates. The RCMP fights terrorism by collecting evidence that can be used to prosecute suspects in open court. CSIS fights terrorism by collecting intelligence that guides government action and that is not intended to be publicly disclosed.
The system apparently worked during the Toronto 18 investigation. CSIS found out about the young extremists and notified the RCMP, which conducted its own parallel investigation and made the arrests. (MS: Using the same agent, I should add.)
But to use the 9/11 commission's football analogy, the two agencies sometimes find themselves covering the same man. And that overlap only got worse after Canada criminalized terrorism in 2001, throwing police into areas -- such as the investigation of terrorist financing and planning terrorist acts -- that had once been the domain of CSIS.
The report calls for a "culture change" in both agencies. Judge Major wants the RCMP to stop avoiding CSIS intelligence that could protect Canadians. And he wants CSIS to accept that its secrets may have to be disclosed as evidence against terrorists.
The commission goes so far as to propose the national security advisor have the authority to compel CSIS to hand its intelligence to police.
Judge Major wants fundamental change at CSIS. He wants the agency to treat the information it collects as evidence that might be used in a prosecution. To that extent, he wants CSIS to begin acting as a law enforcement agency.
He also recommends CSIS end its practice of destroying its records, suggesting it hang on to them for at least 25 years. At the same time, the report recognizes the need to keep sensitive intelligence from the public.
In a passage reminiscent of the 9/11 report, Judge Major writes: "What must be avoided is a diffusion of responsibilities, where each agency and each official acts properly but where they fail collectively to achieve the ultimate goal: protecting the security of Canadians to the greatest extent possible.
"Promises by agencies to co-operate with each other are only part of the answer. Better rules, supported by legislation, are required."
sbell@nationalpost.com
FROM: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Culture+change+needed+CSIS+RCMP+Major/3169124/story.html
The RCMP and CSIS are Canada's defence line against terrorism.
But they can be terrible teammates.
According to the Air India inquiry report, the RCMP philosophy is "the less information we receive from CSIS, the better," while CSIS is reluctant to hand over its intelligence to police for fear it will be disclosed in court.
The 9/11 Commission found a similar problem when it examined the U.S. government failures leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It used a football analogy to explain: The players were in position but they weren't working together and there was no quarterback calling the plays.
Air India commissioner John Major wants Canada's national security advisor to play quarterback; he has proposed a much bigger role for the advisor in deciding how government agencies respond to terrorist threats.
Supposeasuspectedmember of a terrorist group flies to Canada after training at an overseas camp. Should the RCMP arrest him at the airport? Should CSIS instead follow him to see what he does and whom he meets? If he's not Canadian, should the Canada Border Services Agency deport him?
Those calls would be made by the national security advisor (NSA), who works out of the Privy Council Office. "In these and other situations," Judge Major writes, "the NSA will act in the public interest, transcending institutional self-interest."
The advisor would have the power to pass CSIS intelligence on to police, part of a series of proposed reforms that appear to be nudging Canada in the direction of the United States and Britain, where criminal prosecutions of terrorists are much more common.
The Air India report proposes making greater use of CSIS intelligence by police, restructuring the RCMP to better deal with terrorism prosecutions and improving the relationship between the two agencies.
During the Air India investigation, CSIS and the RCMP "were unable to co-operate effectively, or sometimes at all," the report says. And that awkward relationship continues to some extent to this day.
That is partly a reflection of conflicting mandates. The RCMP fights terrorism by collecting evidence that can be used to prosecute suspects in open court. CSIS fights terrorism by collecting intelligence that guides government action and that is not intended to be publicly disclosed.
The system apparently worked during the Toronto 18 investigation. CSIS found out about the young extremists and notified the RCMP, which conducted its own parallel investigation and made the arrests. (MS: Using the same agent, I should add.)
But to use the 9/11 commission's football analogy, the two agencies sometimes find themselves covering the same man. And that overlap only got worse after Canada criminalized terrorism in 2001, throwing police into areas -- such as the investigation of terrorist financing and planning terrorist acts -- that had once been the domain of CSIS.
The report calls for a "culture change" in both agencies. Judge Major wants the RCMP to stop avoiding CSIS intelligence that could protect Canadians. And he wants CSIS to accept that its secrets may have to be disclosed as evidence against terrorists.
The commission goes so far as to propose the national security advisor have the authority to compel CSIS to hand its intelligence to police.
Judge Major wants fundamental change at CSIS. He wants the agency to treat the information it collects as evidence that might be used in a prosecution. To that extent, he wants CSIS to begin acting as a law enforcement agency.
He also recommends CSIS end its practice of destroying its records, suggesting it hang on to them for at least 25 years. At the same time, the report recognizes the need to keep sensitive intelligence from the public.
In a passage reminiscent of the 9/11 report, Judge Major writes: "What must be avoided is a diffusion of responsibilities, where each agency and each official acts properly but where they fail collectively to achieve the ultimate goal: protecting the security of Canadians to the greatest extent possible.
"Promises by agencies to co-operate with each other are only part of the answer. Better rules, supported by legislation, are required."
sbell@nationalpost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
