What is wrong with these highly-educated, supposedly-intelligent legal minds?
Subject: Mohamed Harkat, Algerian native who spent time in Peshawar, Pakistan – a noted Mujahideen transit point and gateway to Afghanistan – and is alleged to be an Al Qaeda associate. Entered Canada on a fake Saudi passport.
Words of Federal Court Madam Justice Eleanor Dawson: “On the basis of confidential information, it is clear beyond doubt that Mr. Harkat lied under oath in court in several important respects,” including his denials of knowing and assisting Islamic extremists.” (from pg. 2 of Globe & Mail article)
Justice Dawson’s decision: RELEASE HARKAT TO HOUSE ARREST (June 2006)
SUBJECT: Mohamed Zeki Mahjoub, Egyptian-born refugee who arrived in Canada in 1995 under false pretenses, and was ordered deported in 2001.
Words of Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley (source: Reuters Story, Feb. 15/2007):
Mosley adopted previous findings of the court that there was an objectively reasonable suspicion that Mahjoub:
– had been a high-ranking member of what the court called the Islamic terrorist organization Vanguards of Conquest
– “had engaged in terrorism”
– had significant contacts with “persons associated with international Islamic terrorism,” including bin Laden and a man accused of helping bomb the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
Justice Mosley’s decision: RELEASE MAHJOUB TO HOUSE ARREST (released April 12/07)
Subject: Mahmoud Jaballah, Egyptian terror suspect who entered Canada illegally in 1999.
Words of Federal Court Madame Justice Carolyn Layden-Stevenson (source: Globe & Mail, April 14/2007):
“There are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Jaballah was a senior member of [Egyptian al-Jihad] who acted as a communicator among terrorist cells of the AJ and al-Qaeda” during the time of the deadly 1998 al-Qaeda bombings in Africa.
She says the suspect’s late-1990s phone records have never been adequately explained: “Although provided with the opportunity to address the 72 calls to Yemen, the 47 calls to Azerbaijan, the 75 calls to London, England [to an alleged al-Qaeda front] . . . and the 20 calls to the United Kingdom, Yemen, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan within a two-day time frame, Mr. Jaballah either failed to do so or was evasive.”
Madame Justice Carolyn Layden-Stevenson’s decision: RELEASE JABALLAH TO HOUSE ARREST (Released April 13, 2007)
Can someone please explain to me how these decisions make sense? I know that the Supreme Court’s recent decision makes it harder to hold suspects on security certificates; I know that these suspects have not been charged with crimes in Canada; I know that these people will supposedly be tortured in their home countries if they are deported there. But how will these judges live with themselves if one of these men helps further a terrorist plot? How will they live with themselves if other terrorists use these decisions as a signal to use Canada as a place of refuge? How do they reconcile this “justice” with the justice denied to those whose families have been destroyed and whose lives have been lost because of the alleged actions of these men? How can these men being back on the street (I mean, under family supervision) not make Canada and the world a less-safe place?
Please, please explain. Simple-minded peons like me want to know how these brilliant, unaccountable patronage appointments come up with this stuff. LEND ME YOUR NUANCE!