*** CSIS collects information in support of identifying threats to Canada and it seems this is exactly what they were doing in Afghanistan so I don't see the issue here. And it sounds like a really, really stupid idea to be sending them to Afghanistan and not be armed when talking to those, "unfriendly at best". MS ***
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100919/national/csis_afghan_detainees
OTTAWA - Canada's spy service admits interrogating up to 50 Afghan prisoners captured by the Canadian Forces, but insists they were never mistreated, federal documents reveal.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service's involvement in interviewing suspected Taliban fighters alongside military intelligence officers was revealed by The Canadian Press last March, though details of the agency's role and actions have remained largely cloaked in secrecy.
Briefing notes prepared for CSIS director Dick Fadden take pains to emphasize the conduct of agents has been above reproach and that the spy agency is bound "in every instance by the law, ministerial directives and internal policies."
The documents, obtained under the Access to Information Act, were drawn up to brief Fadden for a June interview with the CBC, but the broadcaster did not ask him about the role of CSIS role in Afghanistan.
"CSIS officers have been serving alongside the Canadian Forces and willingly share some of the risks faced by our soldiers," say the notes, which acknowledge the spies were armed.
The briefing materials lift the curtain ever so slightly on the agency's activities, but also raise more questions in the mind of a legal expert.
University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes said the notes raise the spectre of spies travelling along with soldiers in combat — or perhaps taking part in ultra-secret special forces operations. Such actions may be beyond CSIS's legislated mandate, he said.
"We've got to look at that very carefully and ask many more questions," said Mendes. "Intelligence gathering is absolutely within the mandate of CSIS, but actually going out on missions is a legal issue as to whether it's within their jurisdiction."
The notes say CSIS personnel in Afghanistan have been authorized to carry guns because "they are often required to meet individuals — some who would be described as unfriendly at best — in very dangerous situations while carrying out their work" in the region.
The Canadian army is thought to have captured hundreds of suspected Taliban fighters over the last nine years of operations in Kandahar. Recent reports indicate that since 2006 almost 500 have been handed over to Afghan authorities.
CSIS questioned Afghan detainees from 2002 through late 2007, when the military began to conduct interrogations without assistance, Michel Coulombe, the service’s assistant director for foreign collection, told the Commons special committee on Afghanistan in May.
"CSIS did interview a small number of suspected Taliban insurgents captured or in the custody of the Canadian Forces — approximately 40 or 50," say the CSIS notes. These interviews were designed primarily to determine the identities of the individuals. Decisions to transfer suspected Taliban insurgents to Afghan authorities were not made by CSIS."
Mendes said if the numbers are accurate they indicate the spy service limited itself mostly to operations by Joint Task Force 2 — JTF-2 — the army's highly trained commando and counter-terrorism unit.
Those operations would have been directed at al-Qaida suspects operating in Afghanistan, senior Taliban commanders and the leaders of bomb-making cells.
The spy service's mandate is flush out direct security threats to Canada and the note insists that at no time did the agency cross the line during interrogations as the CIA admits to doing. CSIS said it does not use coercive techniques, such as waterboarding, where a person is subjected to simulated drowning.
The spy agency also appears to deny knowledge of alleged torture by Afghan authorities of some prisoners handed over by Canada, currently the subject of several inquiries.
"While CSIS is aware of media allegations of mistreatment of Afghan detainees, we have no reliable proof of mistreatment or torture of detainees," the notes say.
"CSIS has not and does not mistreat those it interviews, nor does it assist or counsel others to do so."
Previously released records showed the intelligence agency was undertaking an internal review of its involvement with detainees for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.
CSIS spokeswoman Isabelle Scott cited confidentiality in declining to discuss the review or the latest briefing notes.
The documents say Aghanistan and the neighbouring region is, and will remain for some time, the epicentre of al-Qaida core leadership and a source of real threats to Canadians.
"I cannot say if CSIS will remain in Afghanistan post-2011," add the notes prepared for Fadden's use, "but I can say that the Service will certainly continue to investigate these threats and will remain actively interested in this region."
Scott would not comment further on the possibility.
Showing posts with label CSIS torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CSIS torture. Show all posts
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
CSIS TO USE INFO GAINED FROM TORTURE?
*** The trouble is, non democratic countries do not subject themselves and their systems to the rigours of analysis and self-criticism. As one such liberal democratic state, Canada cannot afford to not deal with or liaise with its political counterparts, otherwise, if we are to disengage from all countries that engage in serious human rights abuses, we are left to have to deal with any potential threat on our own - and THAT is just plain stupid. MS ***
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100912/national/csis_torture
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, CANADA, - Canada's spy agency says it would use information obtained through torture to derail a possible terrorist plot — a position critics argue will only encourage abusive interrogations.
The statement from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, contained in briefing notes released to The Canadian Press, echoes remarks by a spy agency official that sparked a public controversy — and a quick retraction — last year.
CSIS will share information received from an international partner with the police and other authorities "even in the rare and extreme circumstance that we have some doubt as to the manner in which the foreign agency acquired it," say the notes prepared for use by CSIS director Dick Fadden.
The notes say that although such information would never be admissible in court to prosecute someone posing an imminent threat, "the government must nevertheless make use of the information to attempt to disrupt that threat before it materializes."
The CSIS position is "alarming" and contravenes a federal government directive to the spy agency to shun brutal methods, said NDP public safety critic Don Davies. "CSIS appears to be trying to open the door to be able to rely on information derived from torture, and that's in violation of the policy."
The federal directive, made public last year, says the government "is steadfast in its abhorrence of and opposition to the use of torture by any state or agency for any purpose whatsoever."
It instructs CSIS to "not knowingly rely upon information which is derived from the use of torture" and to take measures "to reduce the risk that any action on the part of the Service might promote or condone, or be seen to promote or condone the use of torture."
The CSIS position spelled out in the briefing notes falls short of an "absolute repudiation" of torture, said Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada. On the contrary, it indicates the spy agency would use information gleaned through coercive tactics, he said.
"And that's problematic, because anything that sends a signal to torturers that there's a ready and willing market for the fruits of their misdeeds is only going to encourage further torture."
The briefing notes, drafted for Fadden's June interview with CBC-TV, were recently obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. The CBC did not raise the subject of torture during the interview.
Critics say torture is not only a barbaric violation of fundamental human rights, but a highly unreliable method of intelligence gathering because people being abused will often say anything to make the pain stop.
CSIS has never condoned torture and finds it abhorrent, the briefing notes say.
They add, however, that Canadians would not forgive the intelligence service if it completely ignored information that could have been used to investigate and prevent a terrorist attack because that tip came from a country with a suspect human rights reputation.
In addition to sharing such information with Canadian police, CSIS would pass it to relevant foreign agencies after taking steps to ensure it would be used appropriately, the notes say.
Neve said Amnesty International is not suggesting CSIS turn a blind eye to suspect information about a possible threat.
"If a signal has come to their attention that a threat, a potential attack, is in the offing, then other avenues need to be pursued to explore and see whether that truly is a legitimate threat, other avenues which don't involve further complicity in torture," Neve said.
A federal inquiry by Justice Dennis O'Connor into the Maher Arar torture affair recommended in 2006 that policies include specific directions "aimed at eliminating any possible Canadian complicity in torture, avoiding the risk of other human rights abuses and ensuring accountability."
Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was jailed in Damascus and tortured into giving false confessions about terrorist links.
CSIS maintains it has implemented all of O'Connor's recommendations to prevent a recurrence.
But the spy agency's position on torture hasn't always been clear.
In March last year, CSIS lawyer Geoffrey O'Brian told the Commons national security committee the agency would use information gathered through torture in the rare instance that it could prevent a catastrophic terrorist plot like the 1985 Air India bombing or the 9-11 attacks.
"The simple truth is, if we get information which can prevent something like the Air India bombing, the Twin Towers — whatever, frankly — that is the time when we will use it despite the provenance of that information."
O'Brian's comments drew sharp criticism from opposition MPs and human-rights advocates, and prompted then-public safety minister Peter Van Loan to quiz Jim Judd, CSIS director at the time, about the agency's policy on torture.
O'Brian back-pedalled two days later, telling the committee in a letter that CSIS does not condone torture, nor knowingly rely on information obtained through such means.
The latest briefing notes say CSIS would "follow up on any and all leads" related to an imminent threat to Canada or Canadian interests. "We would be remiss in our duties if we did not."
Davies said the government and CSIS must clearly condemn the use of force to get people to talk.
"It can't be equivocal, where, 'Well, if the information's really important to us, then it's OK.' Otherwise, you really don't have a prohibition on the use of torture."
The latest CSIS statements beg clarity, Neve said.
"I think we are still left in a very confused and uncertain place, and that's not where we should be when it comes to something as profoundly important as how the issue of torture is being handled."
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100912/national/csis_torture
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, CANADA, - Canada's spy agency says it would use information obtained through torture to derail a possible terrorist plot — a position critics argue will only encourage abusive interrogations.
The statement from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, contained in briefing notes released to The Canadian Press, echoes remarks by a spy agency official that sparked a public controversy — and a quick retraction — last year.
CSIS will share information received from an international partner with the police and other authorities "even in the rare and extreme circumstance that we have some doubt as to the manner in which the foreign agency acquired it," say the notes prepared for use by CSIS director Dick Fadden.
The notes say that although such information would never be admissible in court to prosecute someone posing an imminent threat, "the government must nevertheless make use of the information to attempt to disrupt that threat before it materializes."
The CSIS position is "alarming" and contravenes a federal government directive to the spy agency to shun brutal methods, said NDP public safety critic Don Davies. "CSIS appears to be trying to open the door to be able to rely on information derived from torture, and that's in violation of the policy."
The federal directive, made public last year, says the government "is steadfast in its abhorrence of and opposition to the use of torture by any state or agency for any purpose whatsoever."
It instructs CSIS to "not knowingly rely upon information which is derived from the use of torture" and to take measures "to reduce the risk that any action on the part of the Service might promote or condone, or be seen to promote or condone the use of torture."
The CSIS position spelled out in the briefing notes falls short of an "absolute repudiation" of torture, said Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada. On the contrary, it indicates the spy agency would use information gleaned through coercive tactics, he said.
"And that's problematic, because anything that sends a signal to torturers that there's a ready and willing market for the fruits of their misdeeds is only going to encourage further torture."
The briefing notes, drafted for Fadden's June interview with CBC-TV, were recently obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. The CBC did not raise the subject of torture during the interview.
Critics say torture is not only a barbaric violation of fundamental human rights, but a highly unreliable method of intelligence gathering because people being abused will often say anything to make the pain stop.
CSIS has never condoned torture and finds it abhorrent, the briefing notes say.
They add, however, that Canadians would not forgive the intelligence service if it completely ignored information that could have been used to investigate and prevent a terrorist attack because that tip came from a country with a suspect human rights reputation.
In addition to sharing such information with Canadian police, CSIS would pass it to relevant foreign agencies after taking steps to ensure it would be used appropriately, the notes say.
Neve said Amnesty International is not suggesting CSIS turn a blind eye to suspect information about a possible threat.
"If a signal has come to their attention that a threat, a potential attack, is in the offing, then other avenues need to be pursued to explore and see whether that truly is a legitimate threat, other avenues which don't involve further complicity in torture," Neve said.
A federal inquiry by Justice Dennis O'Connor into the Maher Arar torture affair recommended in 2006 that policies include specific directions "aimed at eliminating any possible Canadian complicity in torture, avoiding the risk of other human rights abuses and ensuring accountability."
Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was jailed in Damascus and tortured into giving false confessions about terrorist links.
CSIS maintains it has implemented all of O'Connor's recommendations to prevent a recurrence.
But the spy agency's position on torture hasn't always been clear.
In March last year, CSIS lawyer Geoffrey O'Brian told the Commons national security committee the agency would use information gathered through torture in the rare instance that it could prevent a catastrophic terrorist plot like the 1985 Air India bombing or the 9-11 attacks.
"The simple truth is, if we get information which can prevent something like the Air India bombing, the Twin Towers — whatever, frankly — that is the time when we will use it despite the provenance of that information."
O'Brian's comments drew sharp criticism from opposition MPs and human-rights advocates, and prompted then-public safety minister Peter Van Loan to quiz Jim Judd, CSIS director at the time, about the agency's policy on torture.
O'Brian back-pedalled two days later, telling the committee in a letter that CSIS does not condone torture, nor knowingly rely on information obtained through such means.
The latest briefing notes say CSIS would "follow up on any and all leads" related to an imminent threat to Canada or Canadian interests. "We would be remiss in our duties if we did not."
Davies said the government and CSIS must clearly condemn the use of force to get people to talk.
"It can't be equivocal, where, 'Well, if the information's really important to us, then it's OK.' Otherwise, you really don't have a prohibition on the use of torture."
The latest CSIS statements beg clarity, Neve said.
"I think we are still left in a very confused and uncertain place, and that's not where we should be when it comes to something as profoundly important as how the issue of torture is being handled."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
