Security and torture

by Aaron Wherry

The Montreal Gazette obtains a CSIS memo that raises more questions about CSIS and the use of information obtained through torture.

In the letter, Judd urges the minister to fight an amendment to C-3 proposed by Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh that would prohibit CSIS and the courts from using any information obtained from torture or “derivative information” — information initially obtained from torture but subsequently corroborated through legal means.

“This amendment, if interpreted to mean that ‘derivative information’ is inadmissible, could render unsustainable the current security certificate proceedings,” Judd writes. “Even if interpreted more narrowly to exclude only information obtained from sources and foreign agencies who, on the low threshold of “reasonable grounds” may have obtained information by way of torture, the amendment would still significantly hinder the Service’s collection and analysis functions.”

As I noted in September, a ministerial direction issued by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews in 2010 seems to allow for the use of information obtained through torture—a possibility the government dismissed after it was raised by a CSIS lawyer in 2009.




Browse

Security and torture

  1. The “Americanization” of Canada, Starring LUCIFER THE GREAT AKA StePHen Harper,
    Devil Bless this dude…..

  2. If torture, according to the Cheney analysis, is so effective at getting accurate and useful information perhaps Dear Leader will not object to putting Peter MacKay on the rack.

  3. Crazy talk.  This weekend the Crazy Lefties have got their spin doctors mudslinging and spinning beyond their normal crazy talk.

    As if some officers would torture someone and ask them if they where a terrorist, thats just stupid, that info is meaningless, If they where torturing them, first they would be asking for locations to find other terrorists and bomb making locations etc, and who else was involved, and then they would look for these people.  It would be hard to make up names and places and times and plans.

    And What does this Country know about Human rights.  They Hate Fathers, they consider them scum and rule in most cases that the mother is the only fit person to parent them.  What a stupid biggotted statement.  As if a Man who can do just about anything all of a sudden becomes unable because of a break up.  That all of a sudden ONLY the man is bad after a break up.  Funny how biggoted the Courts are destroying lives, robbing children, kidnapping children from parents cause another parent doesn’t like them anymore, and some how this court is against torture.  They somehow think its not noticed that people in suits use corrupt biggoted Judges to kidnap kids.  But they look so official in those robes.

    All thanks to the Loony Left. Our nation protects terrorists that want to blow planes out of the sky but smashes families appart turning Men in nothing more than dogs and children into unfeeling that won’t apparently be affect by this loss.

    Protect that terrorist at any cost, that one in 500 million people, but destroy 250 million children’s homes and smile about it.

    • Gee, Scott, you certainly sound emotionally stable to me.

    • Actually very stable, fact is Children are suffering, being terrorized right here in Canada.  Seperations are skewed by Mothers who always claim Always claim its all the Mans fault and therefore the best thing is to terrorize the children by removing them from any connection with their father.  I have seen it time and time again.  If a father is accused of anything, the court orders protection in the best interest of the child, but if the mother is accused its just mudslinging.

      fact is Fathers rarely accuse mothers of many of the terrible things Women dream up against their Husbands to secure costody.  The Court Always Always Always sides with the mother without evedence.
      I could count the number of fathers with custody on one hand in all of Canada compared to the Mothers.  And don’t tell me that half of our nation of fathers are all bad, and this is a reason to terrorize children. 

      Its about money, simple, women will tell the courts they think the man is molesting the children (without any proof,(its not happening.)) but they say so, and the courts male judges alike stupidly believe it and error on the side of caution.

      So how is it that we are talking about Terrorists and torture, something that is not used in Canada almost never used per capita in all the world, but we never talk about the Children and Fathers being savaged in Canada.

      Same on the Left, and shame on the right for not fighting for children and fathers, because they both have more value or equal value to terrorists or should I say mothers and courts who follow their attacks.

      • way to address the topic at hand, Scott

      • Scott – Your allegations are both outlandish & outrageous.  I think you’re in serious need of therapy.

    • This is not a thread about your divorce problems.

  4. Utterly shameful.

  5. “This amendment, if interpreted to mean that ‘derivative
    information’ is inadmissible, could render unsustainable the current
    security certificate proceedings,”

    Sounds like a win-win to me. Remove the motivation for our security establishment to use torture (directly or indirectly) and put a stop to an unaccountable, constitutionally-dubious process at the same time.

    • Win-wins are for losers in the current environment.

  6. Judd writes. “Even if interpreted more narrowly to exclude only information obtained from sources and foreign agencies who, on the low threshold of “reasonable grounds” may have obtained information by way of torture, the amendment would still significantly hinder the Service’s collection and analysis functions.”

    Is this some kind of admission that we are significantly dependent on the product of torture in order to provide our citizens security? If it is the price is just too damn high. Frankly i don’t rest easy knowing that my security may partially rest on someone else’s agony. What about all the potential mistakes, false trails and wrong person scenarios, not too mention the cases that turn out to be politically or criminally motivated?
    Can csis point with confidence to even one conviction or one life saved through the admittance of torture tainted evidence into our justice system? I challenge them to!
    A policy that sub-contracts out moral responsibility for the actions of our national security collection agencies is just so wrong. If we don’t refuse point blank to deal with torturers and criminals such as the late Gaddafi, Saddam, Pinochet, Marcos,Noriega, Galteiri…the list is a long and depressing one…what incentive is there for them to not use such techniques, or  moderate their behaviour, when they see just how shallow runs our commitment to merely ordinary decent behaviour? It is even likely we are creating market conditions for the vile trade.
    In any case evidence even remotely tainted with torture should NEVER form the basis for  conviction alone. The fact that these sort of trials are only conducted secretly says it all really – its too shameful a process to be conducted publically. If there is no other corroborating independent evidence there is no case period. 

    For God’s sakes why are we still debating this stuff in the 21st century?

  7. What the Judd memo means is that we depend almost entirely on American scraps for intel, and there is no way of knowing, these days, what American intel is obtained through torture; so a ban on using any information that might have come from torture would shut down virtually our only source of intel on terrorism. 

    The problem is thus not Canadians’ countenancing torture.  The problem is twofold: total dependence on the CIA/FBI by CSIS, and the American use of torture.

    • Both of which can be handled by enabling CSIS to do more abroad.  This actually *is* something the CPC has put into motion and I give them credit for it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *