Thursday, January 21, 2016

Canadian Terror Patsies Trial Update: Is CSIS a foreign mole in Canada?

Terror Patsy Trial Defendants, Nuttall and Korody

CSIS was the focus of a lot of discussion this week between judge and lawyers participating in the CanadianTerror Patsies Trial here in Vancouver.  Readers are encouraged to carefully read the synopsis and commentary copied from today's Vancouver Sun. My thoughts and comments to follow:


Ian Mulgrew: Lawyers attempt to pull curtain over terror plot trial
Citing national security concerns, government lawyers want documents kept secret
By Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun
January 21, 2016 6:48 PM
Call him Bond, not James Bond, OO7, but Superintendent Daniel Bond — one of B.C.’s top RCMP liaisons with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
He joked outside B.C. Supreme Court that he is ribbed about his name by those who know what he does but his involvement and the role of the country’s national security apparatus has become the focus of the Canada Day terror plot trial.
A poor Surrey couple, John Nuttall and Amanda Korody, were convicted last summer of terrorism offences for planting inert pressure-cooker bombs at the legislature on July 1, 2013.
But their lawyers have asked Justice Catherine Bruce to stay the guilty verdicts and release the pair because of police misconduct.
Recovering addicts and recent converts to Islam living in a Metro Vancouver basement suite, the common-law couple were entrapped by the RCMP, who preyed upon their vulnerabilities, which included daily doses of methadone, the lawyers say.
In stunning testimony Wednesday, Bond testified Nuttall was targeted by CSIS in 2012 and the agency had an “investigative technique engaged” in early 2013 when they pointed the Mounties at him.
“What was the investigative technique CSIS told you they had engaged with respect to Mr. Nuttall at this meeting on Feb. 1, 2013,” lawyer Marilyn Sandford innocuously asked.
CSIS lawyer Donnaree Nygard was immediately on her feet:
“My lady, the answer to that question may require the witness to refer to sensitive or injurious information protected by section 38 under the Canada Evidence Act.”
Bond was told to step down from the witness stand.
For the second time this month, Bruce ordered the public removed from the gallery and shut the doors to conduct a secret hearing without giving media the customary notice to mount objections.
On Thursday, media lawyer Daniel Burnett was before her arguing heavy-handed measures were unnecessary.
The trial, which is entering its second year of proceedings, is in danger of becoming a shredding machine for the country’s open-court principles.
The spy agency’s involvement, which was not an issue during the jury portion of the trial, has injected a measure of intrigue and allowed defence lawyers to suggest a potential CSIS agent provocateur may have been at work in the months before the RCMP launched Operation Souvenir against Nuttall.
As a result, the judge has ordered CSIS to disclose material to her about a person X who may have been a CSIS informant involved with Nuttall.
The government wants that issue resolved privately with only a vetted transcript being made available later.
CSIS is even demanding an ex parte proceeding with only its lawyer and the judge present for some of the discussion about its secret documents.
Nygard told the judge that is non-negotiable.

Bond’s testimony has triggered other questions with which Bruce must wrestle.
Bond was the key liaison with CSIS during the sophisticated sting involving 200-plus officers.
He chaired the province’s Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET), the shadowy guardians of public safety.
Bond was the man who kept CSIS abreast of what the Mounties were doing with Nuttall and Korody and received tidbits about what the parallel spy operation gleaned.
Although Nygard emphasized that in these areas involving potential CSIS sources and operational techniques people’s lives could be at risk, at the same time there are innocence-at-stake questions as to whether the RCMP had legal authority to target Nuttall and Korody, and whether someone connected with the spy agency helped radicalize the couple.
What is emerging is that the mandate of the country’s national security apparatus appears to have been broadened from concentrating on foreign powers, corporations and their agents — the professional and state actors of Ian Fleming-style fiction.
Instead, individuals such as Nuttall and Korody look like they are being targeted because their prosecution supports the dominant political narrative about the rise of the lone-wolf terror threat and the need for greater state surveillance.
In 2012, Surrey RCMP dealt with Nuttall as a nuisance with mental health issues.
By 2013, he had somehow become a serious threat to national security requiring expensive CSIS and RCMP operations: “Work the file hard,” Bond was told. Why?
When you consider some RCMP officers didn’t think Nuttall had the capacity or the resources to pose a serious concern, how did he become an “imminent threat” and why were all these resources deployed and expended?
That is what the government is really trying to keep the public from hearing and why it is trying to bring down a national security curtain on this trial.

Of course the Federal Government would-be spooks are trying to bring down a national security curtain on this trial.  Their security agencies' dirty laundry is being exposed and is hanging and twisting in the wind...letting off a stench that fouls the entire width and breadth of this land. I have been saying literally for years that CSIS is a foreign mole set up in this country to destroy it.  It has no other purpose.  It's like the US's CIA--that JFK tried to break up and scatter to the winds--before it shot him down like a dog in the street....and went on to foment more than a dozen murderous wars.  

 

We've known for a long time that CSIS is a foreign mole in Canada...whose foreign mole?
this Video explains a lot


Until CSIS is broken up and scattered to the four winds...this country Canada is at great peril. Who will "stand on guard"? If this trial is shut down, then we will know the answer to that question. "No one".

No comments: