Harm and No Good

"I can't comment on any protected intelligence information. What I can say is that when the government takes the position that someone should be under a security certificate or that a Canadian overseas is on the UN no-fly list because of suspected membership in al-Qaeda, when we take such positions, it's not based on a hunch. It's not based on innuendo. It's not based on speculation. It's based on very robust intelligence.
"... All I can say is that I hope those who form these political support groups for individuals who have been the focus of security certificates or similar extraordinary efforts on the part of government think very carefully about this." Measures "are only taken on the basis of very compelling evidence that such individuals mean Canada harm and no good." Canada's Immigration Minister Jason Kenney

Adil Charkaoui and Abousfian Abdelrazik do indeed appear to have a number of Canadian supporters to back up their claims of innocence of any and all charges that they meant to do harm to Canada and Canadians. Far from being up to no good, these men claim to be good citizens, and their supporters are anxious to give them the comfort of knowing their assertions hold water with them.

All the evidence and the data that Canada's security agencies have amassed merely represent coincidences, certainly not damning evidence of any kind of conspiracy to violent jihad. And the two men, in support of their own claims of innocence, have taken another kind of initiative. For it has been well proven to work, in the past, that when attacked, counter-attack.

That kind of audacity under pressure seems to influence the thinking of a lot of people. And in this case, the counter-attack takes the form of a kind of psychological blackmail, posing as righteous indignation and insistence on human rights being denied. Litigation that would hold the Government of Canada to task for abusing the human rights of Adil Charkaoui and Abousfian Abdelrazik doesn't come cheap.

CSIS may allege, as an expert security institution, that Mr. Charkaoui is an al-Qaeda sleeper agent, but Mr. Charkaoui insists he is not, never was, never could be, and he is suing the Government of Canada for $24.5-million. Suing, actually, the taxpayer. For his part, Mr. Abdelrazik prefers the amount of $27-million and is suing Canada for that amount to soothe his hurt feelings over being considered a terror suspect.

The transcript of an encrypted conversation between the two men includes the proposal to board a plane to France with a keychain packed with explosives. "Throw that in the plane, and the whole plane blows up": Adil Charkaoui. Just joking, presumably, heh-heh. "Someone, somewhere, wants to smear him", Paul Champ, Mr. Abdelrazik's lawyer opines.

And to that end, invents a statement of intent that issues from the man's mouth?

The lawyer has agreed to the known fact that Mr. Abdelrazik was a friend of Mr. Charkaoui; however, on no occasion did they discuss a bomb plot. His client is innocent. Two other Canadians suspected of being al-Qaeda terrorists on a U.S. wanted list, also happened to visit with Mr. Abdelrazik. The lawyer allows as how his client did socialize at a mosque with the two men, but that was then, this is now.

Inconveniently for the defence, Mr. Abdelrazik often visited the apartment of Ahmed Ressam whose failed Los Angeles airport bomb plot landed him a hefty jail sentence. "The question is, are you branded for life as a suspected terrorist just because you knew someone who ended up trying to commit a criminal act?", asks Mr. Champ.

"Here it is, 2011, and Mr. Abdelrazik has to continue to answer for associations he had in the 1990s." Well, yes indeed. It's commonly referred to with the quaint phrase of having "skeletons in one's closet".

And definitely yes; one is known by the company one keeps; it speaks volumes. As do self-incriminating statements.