# CSIS taping conversations between lawyers, terrorism suspects - Globe & Mail



## Yrys (18 Dec 2008)

CSIS taping conversations between lawyers, terrorism suspects, judge says

Canada's spy agency is taping conversations between men held as terrorism 
suspects and their defence lawyers, according to a Federal Court Judge, who 
suggests state agents cease such wiretaps and delete the tapes.

Madame Justice Carolyn Layden-Stevenson's written summary of secret 
evidence released Thursday left defence lawyers saying they were “apoplectic” 
with rage that hundreds of their conversations had been snooped on, and that 
one of the most basic and fundamental legal protections, solicitor-client privilege, 
is being flouted by the government.

Reviewing the case of an Egyptian living under house arrest because he once 
ran a farming operation for Osama bin Laden, Judge Layden-Stevenson released 
a summary of secret testimony given by a Canadian Security Intelligence Service 
agent.

The testimony revealed just how CSIS is helping another federal agency keep 
tabs on the “security-certificate” detainee, Mohammad Zeki Mahjoub. “The CSIS 
analyst … listens to all intercepted communications, including solicitor-client 
communications, if any, to the extent of being satisfied that the communication 
does not involve a potential breach of the terms of release of a threat to 
national-security,” the judge's summary reads.

Mr. Mahjoub consented to wiretapping in order to get released from six years 
of jail to house arrest in 2006. But lawyers say there was an implicit understanding 
that conversations with lawyers – a basic right protected for hundreds of years – 
would not be recorded.

That basic right should have been clear to the government, they say. “I feel like 
my house has been broken into, it's incredibly invasive,” said Barbara Jackman, 
a lawyer for Mr. Mahjoub. Co-counsel Marlys Edwardh said she explicitly began e
very phone call to Mr. Mahjoub by immediately identifying herself as his lawyer, 
which she felt was an overt signal for spies to turn off their tape recorders.

The lawyers said they now feel that hundreds of their conversations were overheard, 
they don't know how they'll next be able to communicate with their client after a court 
hearing ends Thursday. They said it's possible that any conversation with Mr. Mahjoub 
will be used against him, by any number of a host of security agencies.

Similar concerns have been raised in the another case, that of Mohamed Harkat, an 
Algerian security-certificate detainee living in Ottawa.

In more typical cases, CSIS and police seek judges to endorse warrants to allow 
for any wiretapping and only can listen to conversations with lawyers under the 
most extreme circumstances. But the cases at hand are not typical. The Canadian 
government has branded five Muslim immigrants as potential al-Qaeda agents, 
under the security certificate law that allows for indefinite jailing or monitoring
so long as they are in the country.

While the Canada Border Services Agency is in charge of monitoring the suspects, 
CSIS is lending the border guards expertise in wiretapping. Until today, government 
lawyers fought to keep that precise CBSA-CSIS relationship a secret.

The highly controversial security-certificate process also allows for secret hearings. 
Judge Layden-Stevenson released the summary of the CSIS evidence a day after a 
unnamed senior agent testified in camera. Her summary suggests the release 
order be amended so that government agents delete tapes and cease listening 
in on such conversations.


----------



## jonathan_power (6 Jan 2009)

IMO and based on my own values and ideas

I dont see why not, Canada is at war, terrorists dont play nice by any means and so why should Canada play nice for a suspected terrorist.
CSIS just doesnt go around pegging every immagrant as a terrorist,if CSIS is taping the conversations there probally is a good reason why.Terrorists strive to take the rights and freedoms away from others so why shouldnt we take away there rights?

just my opinion im sure you have yours


----------



## Redeye (6 Jan 2009)

If we used that logic, what would make "us" any better than "them"?



			
				jonathan_power said:
			
		

> IMO and based on my own values and ideas
> 
> I dont see why not, Canada is at war, terrorists dont play nice by any means and so why should Canada play nice for a suspected terrorist.
> CSIS just doesnt go around pegging every immagrant as a terrorist,if CSIS is taping the conversations there probally is a good reason why.Terrorists strive to take the rights and freedoms away from others so why shouldnt we take away there rights?
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jan 2009)

So?

Are we so naive that we wouldn't expect this?

Although these "things" would not be admissible in Court, nor be considered "Legal", as clandestine information gathering, it could perhaps provide quite a bit intelligence.


----------



## R. Jorgensen (7 Jan 2009)

Isn't CSIS one of those organizations that can make "exceptions" to laws and decrees if they suspect that something or someone is a threat to people or national security?

I know this is going to sound absolutely ridiculous and if I were a "real" terrorist I would highly disagree myself however; I wouldn't mind being tapped - I have never had anything to hide.

Well, except that one time... but lets not go into details.


----------



## GAP (7 Jan 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> If we used that logic, what would make "us" any better than "them"?



We aren't....get over it....we get intelligence however we are able. Why would we play by nice guy rules when the other guys don't.


----------



## Redeye (7 Jan 2009)

They can obtain sealed warrants when conventional investigative methods fail, but there are strict rules.  It's covered by S. 21 (IIRC) of the CSIS Act.



			
				R. Jorgensen said:
			
		

> Isn't CSIS one of those organizations that can make "exceptions" to laws and decrees if they suspect that something or someone is a threat to people or national security?
> 
> I know this is going to sound absolutely ridiculous and if I were a "real" terrorist I would highly disagree myself however; I wouldn't mind being tapped - I have never had anything to hide.
> 
> Well, except that one time... but lets not go into details.


----------



## R. Jorgensen (7 Jan 2009)

I don't know about anyone else but I feel like everyone else gets to obtain information anyway they want (like the controversy over the US Government tapping national phone lines [basically espionage] and such) and get away with it (however I do believe the US did not get away with it); but whenever Canada plays in the same sandbox we get in trouble?


----------



## rw4th (8 Jan 2009)

This is probably the most important statement in that story:



> Mr. Mahjoub consented to wiretapping in order to get released from six years of jail to house arrest in 2006.



He consented to the wiretapping as a condition of release. Voila, discussion over.

Then there's this gem:



> Co-counsel Marlys Edwardh said she explicitly began every phone call to Mr. Mahjoub by immediately identifying herself as his lawyer, which she felt was an overt signal for spies to turn off their tape recorders.



Really? And how are they supposed to know she is really his lawyer and that it's really her on the phone? How are they supposed to know when they are supposed to start listening again? If she wanted to have a privileged discussion, she should have been bright enough to meet her client in her office or at some other "official" location. As it stands now her outrage is really just a lot of fail at being a lawyer.


----------



## Braver.Stronger.Smarter. (9 Jan 2009)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Really? And how are they supposed to know she is really his lawyer and that it's really her on the phone? How are they supposed to know when they are supposed to start listening again?



I don't think it's really about listening in on the conversations as he obviously consented to that. It is the fear that if these conversations are recorded then they could come back to haunt him later.

And, as several people said, it makes no sense to be the nice guy and follow all the rules to the letter when no one else is following the rules and it could potentially have us miss out on valuable information.


----------



## brihard (9 Jan 2009)

States run in the western liberal tradition do a lot of things that, pragmatically, may not make sense out of interest for the civil and human rights of those residing in that state. That's what makes our country as good as it is.; our government does not (at least usually) take the sort of shortcuts around due process that autocracies and petty dictatorships do.

These sorts of convenient abrogations of due process are a very slippery slope. We've watched it happening in the United States, which if anything has a stronger tradition of defense of civil rights than we do, yet predatory legislation has granted the government powers that sometimes are truly frightening in their potential for abuse. It will take years to undue the legislative damage that America has seen in the last eight years.

Those legal protections all exist for a reason, and it's informed by hundreds of years of legislation, common law tradition, and legal and moral philosophy governing what a government owes its citizens. We cannot, as a free state, allow ourselves to backtrack along that course and let the government start ignoring parts of the law simply because it's not convenient. If they genuinely feel that this is something that needs to be changed to protect our country, send it to Parliament and let the representatives of the Canadian population decide if they want to make that change to our society. Our freedoms are far too important to let the executive branch or federal agencies take measures to circumvent the law without the due attention of our legislature and judiciary.

We walk along a thin line these days.


----------



## mariomike (1 Dec 2009)

Yrys said:
			
		

> The testimony revealed just how CSIS is helping another federal agency keep
> tabs on the “security-certificate” detainee, Mohammad Zeki Mahjoub.



"In a decision released Monday, Federal Court Justice Edmond Blanchard said Mohamed Zeki Mahjoub can leave a holding centre at Bath, Ont. -- as long as he wears a monitoring bracelet and honours other restrictions.":
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091130/mahjoub_091130/20091130?hub=TopStoriesV2


----------



## Journeyman (1 Dec 2009)

> "I am satisfied that, after nearly 10 years of detention and release under conditions, Mr. Mahjoub's ability to communicate with persons in the Islamic extremist networks has been disrupted."


  I guess it's safe to assume that there's no IQ test for appointing judges. My dog could manage to track down and contact an Islamic extremist network.   :


----------



## MasterInstructor (1 Dec 2009)

I dont see much a problem with it. Coming from a country where terrorism is so close to home ( Turkey ) I have seen much worse. I would never want to see those methods here in Canada and thats why I live here but at the same time, I don't want to see those terrorists, here in Canada... Its a fine line where both sides have good points. 

As long as there is no torture, intelligence should be gathered using all technological advancements and tools out there...


----------



## Delta (1 Dec 2009)

Isn't this a case of "fruits of the poisoned tree?" I believe the courts will ignore any evidence gathered from invalid methods of investigation as it violates human rights.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Dec 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> If we used that logic, what would make "us" any better than "them"?



Yes, we are better than them.  At such time as we are flying jets into buildings, blowing up schools, throwing acid at little girls, launching rockets into markets, hiding missile batteries in school yards and hospitals, defrauding the people and governments of other sovereign nations of millions of dollars in fraud, auto theft, narcotic trafficking, arms dealing and illegal fund raising, well....maybe then we should look in the mirror with a hangdog expression.  Listening to an asshat (with his consent) talk to his lawyer?  Not even fucking close.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> States run in the western liberal tradition do a lot of things that, pragmatically, may not make sense out of interest for the civil and human rights of those residing in that state. That's what makes our country as good as it is.; our government does not (at least usually) take the sort of shortcuts around due process that autocracies and petty dictatorships do.



That is the same reason that terrorists, and criminals in general, run roughshod over the citizenry of this country.  I don't see this as making our country "good".  I think it makes our country weak.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> These sorts of convenient abrogations of due process are a very slippery slope. We've watched it happening in the United States, which if anything has a stronger tradition of defense of civil rights than we do, yet predatory legislation has granted the government powers that sometimes are truly frightening in their potential for abuse. It will take years to undue the legislative damage that America has seen in the last eight years.



So rather than take the fight to an enemy that is clearly on our shores and had show a desire to destroy us, we should wring our hands and be fearful of the "potential" of misuse of possible legislation and procedures?  That slope you refer to has two sides.  The other one, the liberal socialist nightmare that would see our country resemble a farming collective, is just as slippery.  And that happens to be the slope we are currently sliding down.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Those legal protections all exist for a reason, and it's informed by hundreds of years of legislation, common law tradition, and legal and moral philosophy governing what a government owes its citizens. We cannot, as a free state, allow ourselves to backtrack along that course and let the government start ignoring parts of the law simply because it's not convenient.



Can you honestly say that a hundred years of tradition is a good reason to not change with the times?  The running of the bulls at Pamploma is an old tradition.  That doesn't make it any less idiotic.  This is not the same thing as dealing with criminals.  Criminals are motivated by greed for the most part and are more akin to animals.  They are frequently ignorant but can potentially be corrected (not that anything in our system does that, but that is a whole other situation).  Islamic extremists have dedicated their lives to destroying our culture.  They are smart.  They are motivated.  They are persistent.  They think (some of them anyway) they are doing Gods work.  They will pursue every possible advantage they can find, and our supremely weak system creates a terrorism facilitating utopia for them.  Canada is such a safe haven for terrorism and the fund raising that they so badly need.  It is our laws and their ineffectivenes that allows this to happen.

As for what the law "owes" its citizens, it is protection from the wolves that would maul them.  The system is currently 99.9% reactive.  I would have thought that the Toronto 18 would have woken the sheeple up, but apparently a body count is all anyone is going to respond to.  

As for "convenience", how does it make sense to create a massive briar patch of bureaucracy and red tape to tie the hands of the people that are trying to protect this country?  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> If they genuinely feel that this is something that needs to be changed to protect our country, send it to Parliament and let the representatives of the Canadian population decide if they want to make that change to our society. Our freedoms are far too important to let the executive branch or federal agencies take measures to circumvent the law without the due attention of our legislature and judiciary.



Seriously?  You really think that anything productive is getting done in Parliament these days?  And the judiciary are the ones who can be thanked for the shabby state of the country.  They don't need a larger hand in this, they've done quite enough as it is.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> We walk along a thin line these days.



I agree.  Some of us are trying to keep the whole thing from falling into the abyss.


----------



## Greymatters (3 Dec 2009)

I like Z-Cops answers, and the two posts together are a good example of the two contrasting opinions in this country: one one hand, a person who believes strongly in a governing and judicial system but unaware of the many loopholes and vulnerabilities in the system that non-compliant person like to exploit; on the other hand, a cynic who has seen the system in action and is well aware of how predatory persons manipulate the system to their advantage and use the same system to protect themselves from being detected or prosecuted.


----------

