22 August 2007

Adil Charkaoui was in court today to argue that he should not continue to be subject to restrictions on his liberty by virtue of a law that the Supreme Court has declared illegal. (Full legal arguments here.)

Charkaoui took the witness stand to give a powerful testimony about the humiliation and practical difficulties created by the conditions that he is forced to respect, including curfew, being denied access to the internet, being restricted to the island of Montreal, and being accompanied every time he leaves his home. "How can you explain to a three year old that Papa cannot decide to take him to the park without first getting permission from his own papa?" he asked. He continued ironically, "For most young Quebeckers, Pere Noel comes once a year. But my kids have the impression that he comes every few months, every time I have to go to Judge Noel to beg permission to go to the zoo or the park outside the island of Montreal and he grants us this gift." He finished, "I do not accept these conditions, but I have no choice but to respect them. But in my heart I do not accept them. They seem to me to be more a form of punishment than actually designed to prevent terrorism." Charkaoui concluded by challenging the government, once again, to publicly prove that he poses any danger to anyone.

His lawyer brought forward a hefty dossier of information to repudiate allegations and claims which the government has made against Charkaoui publicly, but has never substantiated in the context of a fair and open trial.

In response to the government's claim that Ahmed Ressam, the so-called 'millenial bomber', recognized Charkaoui, Charkaoui's counsel, Me. Larochelle, presented the court with two letters written by Mr. Ressam to Fabrice de Pierrebourg, a Montreal journalist. Both letters state that Mr. Ressam was under considerable psychological strain and pressure when he made statements to Canadian intelligence, and that he now retracts these statements. In addition, Larochelle questioned why the government had failed to provide the court with information which throws doubt on Ressam's testimony from the beginning; namely, that he had identified an incredible 130 "members" of the "extremist Islamist network linked to Bin Laden", that he was known to have suffered a mental breakdown while in prison, that two previous "terrorism"-related cases had been dismissed because of Ressam's evidence, and that Ressam had an interest in providing information to American authorities because he thereby lessened his own sentence. Finally, Me. Larochelle noted that, in any case, the government has so far failed to provide any proof that Mr. Ressam himself is a member of the "Bin Laden Network".

In response to a similar claim that Abu Zubaydah recognized Charkaoui, Me. Larochelle provided several sources to show that Abu Zubaydah had been tortured in CIA custody, including a statement by George Bush made in September 2006. She further noted that this would not be an isolated incidence of CSIS's use of information obtained under torture: according to a newly released memo dated 10 October 2002, CSIS believed that Maher Arar was sent by the Americans to be tortured. CSIS nevertheless included information obtained from Maher Arar in the file justifying Mr. Harkat's security certificate, which was executed two months later, on 10 December 2002.

In response to information sourced to Moroccan prisoner Noureddine Nafia'a, Me. Larochelle presented the affadavit of a Radio Caanada journalist citing a letter in which Mr. Nafia'a says that he was tortured and coerced into signing a confession that he never saw. CSIS bases its theory that Charkaoui is a member of the Groupe Islamique Combattants Morocain (GICM) on Moroccan newspaper articles about this confession. However, an official document of the Moroccan government dated March 2007, which Me. Larochelle gave to the court, includes a list of all individuals Morocco believes to be members of the GICM, and Mr. Charkaoui's name does not appear in this list.

Larochelle argued that, in light of the information she provided, the government had failed to demonstrate to the public that Charkaoui poses any danger. She further argued that, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in February that the security certificate procedure itself is unconstitutional, the judge could not base his judgement on untested information provided in secret by the government. Consequently, the federal court should lift the restrictions on Charkaoui's liberty. The argument will continue tomorrow.

Also tomorrow, Me. Johanne Doyon will present arguments relating to the criminal leak of secret information in Mr. Charkaoui's file, with a view towards ending the security certificate proceedings against Mr. Charkaoui entirely. A witness from La Presse, the journal that printed the sensational leaked information, is expected to testify tomorrow.

... to be continued tomorrow.