Filed under: "canada", Conservative Government, Stephen Harper, Torture, USA | Tags: "canada", Barack Obama, CIA, Torture Practices, United Nations
Tuesday’s publication of the US Senate report into the CIA’s brutal interrogation techniques in the aftermath of 9/11 has shed new light on Ottawa’s complicity in acts of torture.
The response of the Conservative government was in keeping with its long-standing refusal to acknowledge any Canadian involvement in torture. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, answering a question in the House of Commons on Tuesday, declared, “This is a report of the United States Senate. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the government of Canada.”
Foreign minister John Baird reacted to a question from the press on the harm done to Canada’s reputation by its complicity with torture programs by arrogantly declaring, “Canada doesn’t torture. Period! Period!” He walked away without answering a follow-up query.
These are barefaced lies. Successive governments have been implicated in facilitating the brutal and inhumane techniques outlined in the Senate document. Canada acted as a major transit route for US rendition flights that sent captured suspects to third countries or CIA black sites to be tortured. According to the Globe and Mail, a total of 20 US aircraft made 74 stopovers at Canadian airports while on rendition flights. The number of flights was second only to the US itself.
Previously Canadian authorities have admitted that information CSIS used to argue for the indefinite detention of Adil Charkaoui and Mohamed Harkat came from Abu Zubaydah, an al-Qaeda terror suspect who figures prominently in the Senate report. The CIA used Zubaydah as something of a “guinea pig” in its torture campaign, including “waterboarding” him 83 times. For years, Canadian authorities insisted before the courts that there was no reason to think Abu Zubaydah had named Charkaoui and Harkat other than willingly.
The Conservative government’s assertions are also disproved by directives it has itself issued to the police and intelligence agencies that explicitly permit them to use information gained through torture and to supply information to foreign intelligence agencies even if it is likely to lead those named to be tortured. These directives apply to Canada’s Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the military, Canada’s signals intelligence agency (CSEC), and the border control agency.
According to the federal framework document on which the directives are based, in the event of a “substantial risk” that sharing information with a foreign agency will cause someone to be tortured, consultation with a deputy minister or minister is required to approve it. Guidelines state that the minister must take into account the immediacy of the threat and the danger to Canadian national security interests.
A statement released by the office of Public Safety Minister Stephen Blaney was no less disingenuous than Harper. “Our government does not condone the use of torture, and certainly does not engage in it.” But the statement then went on to make clear that information gained through the use of torture would be used by Canadian intelligence. “If we get a tip from any source that Canadian lives are in danger, we will act to save those lives.”
It is no secret that Canada, more than any other country, has integrated its intelligence and military services with those of its southern neighbour. Ottawa has been Washington’s unflinching ally for decades.
Canada’s intelligence services are a key component of the global five eyes alliance, which includes the American NSA, and the intelligence agencies of Britain, New Zealand and Australia. Speaking to CBC, a former CSIS agent explained that links were even more direct with the CIA, since CSIS liaison officers work in CIA headquarters, while CIA officials do likewise in Ottawa.
Criticizing Canada’s ties to the US intelligence apparatus, Ottawa-based human rights lawyer Paul Champ told the media, “I don’t think that anyone in the intelligence community in the world, at least in democratic countries, can wake up tomorrow and tell themselves that their relationship with the United States and the CIA can remain the same. Until and unless the United States shows that there’s going to be real accountability for these criminal acts, I think our relationship with the CIA has to be very closely monitored and reviewed at all times.”
In reality, a diametrically opposed approach is being taken by Canada’s ruling elite. Showing its contempt for democratic rights, Canada’s parliament is in the process of substantially expanding the powers of the spy agencies. Under an antiterrorism bill currently making its way through parliament, CSIS is explicitly authorized to share information with the members of the “Five Eyes” and to conduct investigations abroad.
This policy has the full backing of all of the parliamentary parties. The latest reforms to counterterrorist legislation have been backed at the committee stage by both the Liberals and Official Opposition New Democratic Party (NDP). In the wake of the torture report, the NDP merely called on the Harper government to revoke the directives issued in 2011 permitting the five government agencies to use information gained via torture. No call for a serious investigation, let alone the prosecution, of individuals implicated in torture was made.
A series of cases involving Canadian nationals demonstrate that Canada’s intelligence agencies not only assisted the US rendition program, but also developed its own version of the practice. This involved Canada’s national-security agencies encouraging the detention of Canadian terror suspects who were travelling abroad by third countries. These countries included authoritarian regimes where the prohibitions on detention without charge and the mistreatment of prisoners contained in Canadian law did not apply. The job of interrogating suspects, frequently with the use of torture techniques, was in this way subcontracted by Ottawa, which made intelligence gathered in Canada available to the country concerned.
Canadian intelligence passed information to the US on Maher Arar, A Syrian-born Canadian citizen who was arrested in New York in 2002. Arar was then flown to Syria, where he was imprisoned for a year and tortured. During this time, Canadian intelligence gave information to the Syrian regime to be used in his interrogation, including a list of questions he was to answer. False confessions were extracted from him that he had participated in an Al-Qaeda plot. Recognizing the injustice done to him, he was awarded over $10 million in a court appeal following his release.
Another infamous case is that of Omar Khadr, who was arrested in Afghanistan as a 15-year-old and transferred by the US to Guantanamo Bay where he was tortured. Canadian agents visited him at the prison camp to carry out their own interrogation, even though they were fully aware that he had been subject to sleep deprivation immediately prior to their visit. Despite strong government opposition, he has since been returned to Canada. The Harper government is currently engaged in an attempt to have the Supreme Court overturn a lower court decision to consider him as a young offender, because were it to stand, Khadr would likely be released.
Canada’s military is also complicit in torture. Canadian forces in Afghanistan passed detainees on to both the US and Afghan troops, although Ottawa and the military knew there was a strong likelihood they would be tortured. Approximately 400 detainees were handed over by Canadian troops to the Afghan army, while 40 were transferred to US custody, according to a report in the Toronto Star. This is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, which make it illegal to transfer persons to authorities where there is a reasonable belief that they will be tortured.
The Harper government repeatedly blocked efforts to investigate the full extent of Canadian involvement in torture in Afghanistan. Citing national security considerations, it prevented a parliamentary committee from accessing documents from the Canadian Armed Forces authorizing the transfers. Officials who could have provided more information on what went on, such as one of Ottawa’s leading diplomats in Afghanistan, Richard Colvin, were threatened with prosecution if they spoke publicly.
A UN report in 2012 issued a further condemnation of this practice, accusing the Canadian government of “complicity in torture.” The UN committee also called on Ottawa to pay compensation to three torture victims, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abu Almaati and Muayyed Nureddin, who had been the subject of a public inquiry over their arrests in Egypt and Syria. These cases provided yet more examples of how Canadian intelligence worked directly with authoritarian regimes, first to have their nationals detained, and then abused using torture methods to extract confessions.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: 1979 Iranian Revolution, Americans, Azad, Azadi, Basiji, CIA, Electoral Fraud, Green Revolution, Hojatolislam Mohamed Khatami, Iran, Iran Coup D'etat, Iran Election, Iran Election 2009, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mirhossein Mousavi, Protest, Riot Police, Shah of Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Tehran, Tehran University, Zionist
Filed under: Asia, Middle East, North America | Tags: Ali Khamenei, Arab, Baloch, Barak Obama, Basiji, CIA, Election Fraud, Green Revolution, Hossein Mousavi, Imperialism, Iran, Iran Elections 2009, Iran Protests, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kurds, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mass Protests, Mossad, Pakistan, Protests, State Repression, Tehran, Zionism
* * * * *
18 June 2009
Source: The Hindu
The paranoia about interference from the West is worrying — but it may also be justified.
Long-term instability in Iran is an alarming prospect for western countries keen to resolve disputes over the country’s nuclear programme and other contentious issues. But continuing political weakness in Tehran is also likely to produce the opposite effect — increased regime concern about external attempts to interfere, destabilise, and exploit its vulnerabilities. This paranoid trend threatens unpredictable, even dangerous consequences – but may be justified.
Pinning blame for Iran’s post-election turmoil on Continue reading
Filed under: Asia, Middle East | Tags: 2009 Election Iran, Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah, Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Montazeri, Bush Administration, CIA, CIA Destablization Plan, CIA orchestarated Protests, Color Revolution, Colour Revolution, Covert "black" Operation, Georgia, Iran, Iran Election 2009, Iran Protests, Iranian Government, Iranian Protests, Islamic Republic, Kenneth Timmerman, London telegraph, Military, military attack on Iran, Montazeri, Mousavi, National Endowment for Democracy, Neoconservative, New Yorker, popular revolution, Protests, Reactionary, Seymore Hersh, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Tehran, Ukraine, Washington
* * * * *
19-21 June 2009
A number of commentators have expressed their idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of Tehran. The CIA destabilization plan, announced two years ago (see below) has somehow not contaminated unfolding events.
The claim is made that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because the outcome was declared too soon after the polls closed for all the votes to have been counted. However, Mousavi declared his victory several hours before the polls closed. This is classic CIA destabilization designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early declaration of the vote. The longer the time interval between the preemptive declaration of victory and the release of the vote tally, the longer Mousavi has to create the impression that the authorities are using the time to fix the vote. It is amazing that people don’t see through this trick.
As for the grand ayatollah Montazeri’s charge that the election was stolen, he was the initial choice to succeed Khomeini, but lost out to the current Supreme Leader. He sees in the protests an opportunity to Continue reading
Filed under: Asia, Middle East | Tags: 1979 Iranian Revolution, Afghanistan, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Anglo-American, Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, Ayatollah Khomeini, Barak Obama, British Petroleum, Carter Administration, Central Asia, CIA, CIA coup, CIA Destablization Plan, Coup D'etat, Democracy, Egypt, Ex-Foreign Minister Yazidi, George Bush, Haiti, Hamas, Hezbollah, Hosni Mubarak, Iran Election 2009, Iran Guardian council, Iran Interior Minister, Iran June 12 Presidential Election, Iran Protests, Iran Ruling elite, Iran's Parliament, Iran's Prime Minister, Iranian, Iranian Street protests, Iranian workers, Jean-Bertrand Aristed, Jebhe Melli, Lebanon, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mir Hussein Mousavi, Mohammed Javed Mozafar, Mohammed Mossadegh, Monarchy, National Front of Iran, NATO, Palestine, Pashto Radio, Protests, Republicanism, Reza Shah Pahlavi, Sadeq Mahsouli, Seymour Hersh, Soviet Union, Stolen Election, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Tehran, Tehran University, Theocratic State, Theodore Roosevelt, US Media, Venezuela, Wall Street Journal, Washington, Washington Post, White House
* * * * *
18 June 2009
Source: Global Research
In the run-up to Iran’s June 12 presidential election, early indications suggested the media’s reaction if the wrong candidate won. On June 7, New York Times writer Robert Worth reported “a surge of energy (for) Mir Hussein Mousavi, a reformist who is the leading contender to defeat Mr. Ahmadinejad (and) a new unofficial poll (has him well ahead) with 54 percent of respondents saying they would vote for him compared with 39 percent for Mr. Ahmadinejad.” No mention of who conducted the poll, how it was done, what interests they represented, or if Mousavi winning might be the wrong result. More on that below.
Writing for the influential far right Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Fariborz Ghadar described the contest as “pit(ting) the hard-line Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against two relatively moderate and one conservative challenger.” In spite of one or more independent polls showing Ahmadinejad way ahead, he suggested that “the outcome (isn’t) Continue reading
Filed under: Asia, Middle East | Tags: 1979 Iranian Revolution, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, British Intelligence, CIA, Coup D'etat, Iran, Iran 2009 Election, Iran Rigged Election, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Mass Protests, Millions Protest Iran, Mossadegh, Mousavi, Paramlitary, President Ahmadinejad, Tehran
* * * * *
13 June 2009
Source: The Nation
It’s Saturday afternoon in Tehran, and the streets are generally quiet. But the aftermath of Iran’s rigged election, in which radical-right President Ahmadinejad and his paramilitary backers were kept in office, has left Iran’s capital steeped in anger, despair, and bitterness.
Last night, after the polls closed, heavily armed troops from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps were in evidence in the streets. In one area of north Tehran, where backers of opposition challenger and reformist ex-Prime Minister Mousavi are concentrated, I saw a convoy of at least fifteen military vehicles filled with armed guards idling along the side of the road. The street in front of the Interior Ministry, where votes are counted, is blocked and heavily guarded after rumors that Mousavi supporters might gather there to protest the election count.
Mousavi himself has pledged to fight the Continue reading
Filed under: Indian Subcontinent | Tags: Al-Qaeda, Barak Obama, Bush Administration, CIA, Civilian Casualties, Colonialism, Drones, Fata, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hussain Haqqani, Imperialism, Islamabad, Obama bombs Pakistan, Osama bin Laden, Pakistan, Predator Attacks, President Obama, Racism, Racist, Robert Gibs, Secretary of State, State Terror, Taliban, Terrorism, Terrorist training Camps, US Administration, US military Aid, War Crimes, War on Terror, White Supremacy, White Terror
* * * * *
WASHINGTON, Jan 24: Hours after US missiles killed 22 people in Fata, President Barack Obama convened a meeting of his top national security advisers and endorsed the decision to continue drone strikes into Pakistan.
The US media, quoting unidentified official sources, reported that the first meeting of Mr Obama’s National Security Council focused on Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The New York Times reported on Saturday that the decision to attack alleged terrorist targets in Fata on Friday “dispelled for the moment any notion that Mr Obama would rein in the Predator attacks.”
The Washington Post noted that the strikes Continue reading