Bin Laden is still alive and clearly acting as head of Al Qaeda, says CSIS Translator at Mohamed Harkat Bail Hearing. By YayaCanada  OTTAWA - Thurs. November 3,
2005:
Continuation of Cross Exam of "P.G.", a Senior Analyst with CSIS, by
defence counsel, Paul Copeland, at Mohamed Harkat bail hearing in
Supreme Court.Mr. Copeland handed the witness a document and asked: Are you aware of the memo of Alberto Gonzales, counsel to the President of the United States, advocating torture that was produced at the Arar inquiry? It contained a definition of torture that shocked some people. Answer: I have never seen this document before. As Senior Analyst for CSIS, you were never made aware of it? This document dealt with the treatment of [Abu] Zubaydah. Answer: I have no knowledge of that. Mr. Copeland read aloud: The memo included the opinion that laws prohibiting torture do "not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants." Further, the memo puts forth the opinion that the pain caused by an interrogation must include "injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions—in order to constitute torture." Answer: I recall reading such a definition. As Senior Analyst would it be appropriate to be included? Objection by CSIS counsel that P.G. was not in a position to answer that. Overruled. Should this have been brought to your knowledge? Answer: I am not aware of any discussion in that regard. I suggest CSIS doesn't care as long as they get the information. Answer: I've answered that before; that is not a true statement. The Service ensures information has been corroborated. Objection from CSIS counsel - defence counsel has been over this and should move on. Mr. Copeland said he was not satisfied with the answer. CSIS counsel said that was too bad. The Judge then said that he himself was not satisfied with the answer. Judge Lemieux: Have you ever asked whether or not the information was obtained by torture. Answer: I have never asked whether information was obtained by torture. "As a Senior Analyst", the Judge continued, "if you didn't ask under what conditions the information you received was obtained, how can you be satisfied that the information is reliable? As you yourself said, it affects reliability." Answer: "The key to analysis rests on corroboration - if you find the same information from a variety of sources you make the judgment that it is true and incorporate it in your analysis." But you did not ask about conditions for Zubaydah? Answer: We seek as many sources as possible. Mr. Copeland: So the CIA says we've got information for Zubaydah and Ramzi Binalshibh and you make no inquiry as to how they got the information? Answer: I would use the CIA as a source and look for corroborating information. You work with the CIA; that's public knowledge. Answer: Yes. Information from the CIA would go into a report. Is it possible that informations may end up in a report even though both were obtained from the CIA? Judge Lemieux interjects: How can you corroborate when you don't inquire whether the information was extracted under torture? Answer: The Service does not rely solely on information from foreign agencies. We use our own sources of information to corroborate. I personally have not made those inquiries, nor would know if others in the Service did so. How do you ever find out? Answer: I have sought to have information corroborated from other sources. You never made inquiries. Answer: Not personally, no. Why? Answer: I seek information elsewhere. Do you care? Certainly it does have an effect on reliability. Do you ask? Aren't you concerned? If it came from Syria, would you be suspicious? Answer: We consider all sources and seek corroborating information. Syria tortures people. Do you make inquiries? Answer: Specifically regarding Syria, yes I would have questions, but I am not in a position to question the Syrian government. How about questioning the person giving the information? Would you have any questions? Answer: I recall general discussions as to the reliability of torture information. Any specific countries? Answer: No. Have you ever discussed what the CIA might be doing? Answer: Specifically, no. In general discussion only. Are there conversations regarding Al Qaeda detainees being tortured? Answer: I have not participated in any specific discussions. Judge Lemieux interjects: And you're the Senior Analyst. Answer: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Copeland read an excerpt of a Human Rights Watch report concerning detainees being held without being made aware of the reasons. Witness: I have not seen this report - I saw a reference to it in the Globe and Mail this morning. Does this report cause you any concern about CSIS turning a blind eye to torture? Answer: I am confident CSIS uses information collected that is subjected to rigorous examination as to veracity. You seem unconcerned about the sources of information - how it was extracted. Answer: I have not personally inquired; I have no knowledge of anyone else doing it. You are not concerned that you might unknowingly use information that came from torture? Do you care? Answer: Yes. Judge Lemieux interjects: As a Senior Analyst, who is above you on this particular file? Answer: I work in the Analysis Branch and write papers. Some information is obtained through Services investigation branches. The Analysis Branch looks at material to summarize without disclosing sources in an effort to educate and apprise the Government of Canada. I am part of the management structure in Analysis Branch but not privy to all discussion or all information. Intelligence is received on a "need to know" basis. There could be information I am not privy to. I report to the Deputy Director General of Analysis Branch who reports to the Director General who reports to the Assistant Director of CSIS. Mr. Copeland asks: Did your supervisor ever ask if anything included information obtained by torture? Answer: I'm not aware of that, but there are a series of checks and balances. Does CSIS operate prisons anywhere in the world? Answer: Not to my knowledge. CSIS gets its information from non-Canadian sources? Answer: Yes. Judge Lemieux interjects: Do you recall your supervisors telling you that any information was suspect because it was obtained by torture? Answer: I can't recall a single instance of that. Mr. Copeland produced a two page document written by P.G. describing "the three faces of Al Qaeda", and asked him why he wrote it. Who was the audience? Answer: Government of Canada clients and, in this instance, some foreign partners as well. Is this the original document? Answer: The Services does multiple versions of the same report depending on the audience. I'm not sure if this is the complete report. What were your sources? Answer: I don't have access to the "facting document" that shows the sources, but this is more of an open paper so the sources would be varied and appear to be open sources [TV, Internet, Newspapers, etc.]. It also includes certain "value added" judgments based on my experience. Do you recall information stating my client was in Afghanistan? Answer: No. Are you familiar with the Adil Charkaoui case? Answer: Yes. Are you aware of whether he is a citizen of Canada? Answer: No. Are you aware he was released? Answer: Yes. Did you testify or anyone testify that he would pose a danger to national security? Answer: I did not; I am not privy to information about others. Were you approached to testify? Answer: No. Was there general discussion at CSIS about the case? Answer: There was disappointment at the decision; the Service still believes that Charkaoui is a threat and was not "neutralized" despite incarceration. Are you aware there has been no violation of conditions, nothing done to endanger society? Objection from CSIS counsel: this is impinging on sensitive areas. The witness says "once a Jihadist, always a Jihadist" said Mr. Copeland. Judge Lemieux decided to see the answer first and then he would rule. Answer: I am not very familiar with the Charkaoui case aside from general knowledge and I have not followed it since his release. Would you have known if he'd been arrested? Answer: Yes; that would be made public. You haven't heard that? Answer: No. Are you aware that, in the time since his release, his curfew has been extended; he has been given the right to be with his wife at the hospital while she gave birth to their child; he can now use a personal computer with Internet removed, and is allowed to use the Montreal Library Internet for research. Answer: I was not previously aware. Does the fact that Charkaoui has been out since February 2005 cause you to change your views? Answer: No it does not. Are you aware of the proposal being made for Mr. Harkat? He is to be under house arrest with his wife, his mother-in-law and one other person; he would be electronically monitored; he would be allowed no cell phone or outside of the home phone; no Arabic to be spoken on the phone; a non-association clause and a curfew of, I think, 9 o'clock; he would be allowed out only in company of surety and a total of 6 surety have been proposed; a cash bail has been arranged and surety bonds signed. You started your report shortly after Charkaoui was released in response to the release? Answer: Yes. What was the purpose of it? Answer: It is the Service's position that incarceration is not a deterrent, and we sought to illustrate cases from outside Canada of people who returned to terrorism after release. Are you aware that [Ahmed] Ressam cooperated with the U.S. authorities? Answer: Yes. The paper was based on analysis and knowledge that they would continue to pose a threat. The paper was designed to deal with situations of Islamic extremists and how long they last. It is the Services' strong belief that this does not dissipate. Judge Lemieux interjects: You're not talking about a person released under conditions such as Charkaoui. Answer: I'm not an expert on people released like Charkaoui. Others who did not attend training camps turned out just as radical and dangerous. Copeland: Your source? Answer: The four bombers in the UK and the individuals in Spain. Your are familiar with the London bombing? Answer: Yes. In the case of the Madrid bombing, two of them went to Pakistan. Were you trying to give an informed judgment? Answer: Yes. There are no judicial controls on the persons in your report. Answer: Correct. The Spanish media said Mr. [Allekema] Lamari was involved in planning only. Were there any intelligence reports that corroborated what you pulled out of the newspaper? Answer: I cannot answer that [national security]. Do you know what Mr. Lamari was in custody for? Answer: GIA activities. For how long? Answer: I don't know. You got the information from the Spanish media? Answer: Probably. He lived in an apartment, with no restrictions on him. The media said he was killed in a suicide bombing. Answer: Right. Was it suicidal or accidental? Answer: I can't recall. Are you aware of a plan to blow up the National Court in Madrid? Yes. I don't know if the GSPC is behind it. You learned of this in an Internet article - the Jamestown Foundation website. Do you consider Jamestown to be a reliable source? Answer: Yes, I read it regularly. With regard to [Ahmed Said] Khadr you said his notoriety didn't deter him. He was not on any form of controls or monitoring? Answer: I have no knowledge of that. Are you aware that senior Canadian government officials interceded on his behalf? Answer: I have no knowledge of that. Were there any discussions at CSIS on what information CSIS provided to those senior government officials? Objection from CSIS counsel - Extremely sensitive area. Judge Lemieux: He's asking does he know or not? Answer: I never participated in the Khadr affair. Were there any discussions? Answer: No. Wouldn't you have found that interesting before writing your report? Answer: I don't have interest in all interests. You mentioned a Chechnyan national released from custody who was involved in further terrorism; you used him as an example in oral questioning. How long was he in custody? Did he have any prior offences? What were the conditions of his release? Answer: I do not know. Concerning [Sayyid] Qutb, you made no mention of his being imprisoned in Egypt for having been in the Muslim Brotherhood or that he was unhappy with Nassar's policies. Answer: He was executed in 1966. For treason? Answer: I don't know what was the actual charge. You don't think that would have put Qutb in perspective? Answer: It is often difficult to decide what to include or exclude - but it was decided that the information included was sufficient to give the clients a solid picture. The purpose being to show that release was a bad idea. You hoped it would be used for that. Answer: Yes. You testified in other cases? Answer: I testified re Hassan Almrei and Mahmoud Jaballa. The ten people recaptured or killed after release from Guantanamo had no conditions? Answer: I'm not aware of any conditions. You based your information about the ten people on a Washington Post article. Would you say it was accurate? Answer: Yes. Could the CIA be putting false information into the Washington Post? Answer: It's possible; I couldn't speak to that. Has it been known to happen? Answer: Yes, in the past. But you used it word for word in your report. Answer: Yes. Judge Lemieux interjects: The ten people were only a fraction of the 202 people released. For 192 you have no information on their whereabouts or activities. Wouldn't it be fairer to say "less than 5%" to help people understand? Answer: I have no information on the activities of the others. Why? Didn't it seem important for the paper? As a Senior Analyst, wouldn't it help? Answer: There are always afterthoughts when one writes a paper. Copeland: Would you rewrite the paper and include the rest of the Washington Post report? Answer: I may or may not. Is it not important to your readers? Answer: Not necessarily, no. Is it the position of the Service that it would leave out information to assist in denying bail to persons? Answer: I have no idea. It is totally misleading to anybody who reads it. Answer: It is factual information. It is hugely misleading. Answer: I don't agree with your interpretation. Will you say what is necessary to achieve a result? Answer: The Service believes these people pose a threat. Judge Lemieux: You are aware that more than 10 have been released - that's a known fact. You have no knowledge of the other 192? Answer: Correct. Judge Lemieux: Here's a test: You knew the 10 captured went back to fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan. If more had returned to combat more would have been captured. Can't we assume nothing has happened or they would have shown up on your radar screen in other hot spots? Couldn't you deduce from your lack of knowledge that they have not returned to terrorist activities? Answer: I can assume they were not captured; I cannot infer they have not returned. If I don't have intelligence on all of them; I can't assume they no longer pose a threat. Judge Lemieux: How do you draw your conclusion that all released would return? Isn't that pure speculation on your part? Answer: It is speculation based on analysis of information. Judge Lemieux: You have no hard data? Answer: Correct. Copeland: You have no hard data on any of them. Answer: That is not the case; there is information from open sources, and also information from not open sources. END OF CROSS EXAMINATION of P.G. witness for CSIS in the bail hearing in Supreme Court of Mohamed Harkat. There will be more sessions, but they will be in camera between CSIS and the judge. Judge Lemieux will use leads from defence to probe the material presented by CSIS. He said it would be an exhaustive process to satisfy himself as to the reliability of secret information. He also said that there may well be some public disclosure and summaries of what comes out of the process so that Harkat is in a position to react to it. YayaCanada made a decision not to attend the afternoon re-direct by CSIS. The benches are extremely uncomfortable to sit on for long periods, and the CSIS lawyers are not as concerned about public education as defence counsel, so do not bother to use the mikes when they speak, and are therefore very difficult to hear. Summations - November 4th Related: Alberto Gonzales: A Record of Injustice Bush 'operating secret gulag in eastern Europe' yayacanada.com Main Page - "Abolish the Security Certificate" |