Making a Security Omelette

In extraordinary times of suspense, fear and incipient disaster, often-unfortunate decisions take place when people in authority act in response to a perceived threat. This is, after all, what state security and intelligence agencies must contend with; to make sometimes-discomfiting decisions when faced with imminent threats, based on the level of the information available to them. That old adage, act in haste, repent at leisure, was never more resonant than when innocent people are charged with crimes they have never committed.

When circumstantial evidence seems to point to their involvement in dangerous plots to destabilize a country and its people; worse, to wreak bloody havoc, resulting in the deaths of innocents. Whenever conspiracies are thought to have been revealed in an atmosphere of high alert, police and security agents move in swiftly for the purpose of defanging imminent disaster.

We expect no less of them; to be alert to the dangers that radical elements pose to the well-being of the innocent. Errors comprise learning environments. However unfortunate and unfair that appears to be. And although authorities may regret unforeseen outcomes, they may not altogether eschew future defensive acts, as a result. They haven't that freedom; their responsibilities too great.

Those who have been drag-netted into the dark and dismal aura of suspicion as being involved in terror plots against governments, countries, institutions, populations with whom they violently disagree - fuelled by the fanaticism of ideology or religion - usually have the comfort of knowing that a justice system in a democratic country will either prove or disprove charges laid against them. They are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

In an atmosphere of international terrorism, fuelled by a covert and dangerous jihadist menace, such niceties of civilized action may be trampled, through the sharing of intelligence between countries. And when dual-passport-holders return to the country of their birth on a casual and personally innocent visit, and they're scooped up on suspicion of wrong-doing, they're fairly much on their own recognizance. Particularly if their birth country is not democratic, but totalitarian.

So while Syrian-Canadian Abdullah Almalki has had a gruelling experience of imprisonment on suspicion of terrorism, followed by years of interrogation and torture to extract data he was not capable of providing, he has much sympathy from the public for his ordeal. Life is all too often cruel, unpredictable, unquestionably unfair, and calamity can befall anyone, at any time. It is quite possible, as he and his lawyer claim, that Canadian intelligence may not have been alerted to the danger he was in when they should have been, in supplying Syria with information.

That he insists on a formal apology from the government of Canada as a result of his ordeal, and is also suing for $100-million in total to assuage his now-blighted life, however, is not quite an option many would support, in Canada. Why not attempt to extract from his country of birth an apology and take them to court for damages? This sounds very hard-hearted, I know, but it is not very realistic on the other hand, for someone who has suffered Mr. Almalki's misfortune to hold Canada responsible, given the circumstances.

Consider: A recently-revealed Federal Court ruling indicates that CSIS has been granted an emergency warrant to intercept overseas communications of (unidentified) Canadians suspected as security threats. Justice Richard Mosley granted a three-month warrant and extended it for an additional nine months. "As facts of the present application disclose, individuals who pose a threat to the security of Canada may move easily and rapidly from one country to another and maintain lines of communication with others of like mind.

"Information which may be crucial to prevent or disrupt the threats may be unavailable to the security agencies of this country if they lack the means to follow those lines of communication", explained Judge Mosley in disclosing the reasons for his determination. This extends CSIS's foreign intelligence collection mandate, by allowing it legal authority to listen in on Canadian citizens abroad, through the auspices of the Communications Security Establishment of Canada.

A move which, while respecting the territorial sovereignty of other countries, enriches Canadian intelligence agencies' abilities to obtain the vital data they require to isolate and pursue those who pose a real threat to Canada. And they most certainly are no figments of anyone's overheated imagination. Convicted terrorist Momin Khawaja represents as one outstanding figure of jihadist intent, as do the remnants of the original 'Toronto 18', some of whom have been tried and convicted, others still awaiting trial.

In the atmosphere of international espionage and real-time threats from terror groups, each country must perform actions it deems necessary to safeguard themselves against those proven threats. And, in the process, as with all human activities, errors will be made, lamentable as they most certainly are.