To understand the strategy of Adil Charkaoui in advancing his terrorist ideals, grasp the fact he utilized the ideology advanced by Raunchy Sherene H. Razack, and the time line foibles of media reports by Romanticist Colin Freeze and others as they were published in conjunction with the actual Court Dockets surrounding his jihadi affairs.
We will shall continue through looking at the course of this Charkaoui Serpent’s Trail.
We now have two matters that need to be dealt with:
One: The reality of threat level that Adil Charkaoui currently represents to Canadian national security.
Two: The reality to the statement made by Colin Freeze that “Adil Charkaoui persistently won back his liberties as Canada’s spies bemoaned they were falling victim to a “judicial jihad” on their sources and methods.”
Colin Freeze– as published by The Globe and Mail Thursday, Sep. 24, 2009 gave a ‘time line’ of Charkaoui court cases after being jailed and branded a national security threat in 2003 until Feb. 20, 2009 when Charkaoui > wins a bid to lessen his surveillance regime given that a judge finds the Threat has been “Neutralized, in Large Part as a Result of THE PASSAGE OF TIME.”
And, this quite bluntly is a camel crap ruling by Justice Daniele Tremblay-Lamer on February 20, 2009. If anything, the man had increased in threat level to Canadian National Security by this date. To elucidate we shall be relating through Court Dockets the information and events provided through “the dozens of decisions that judges made along the way”.
All Docket information is directly linked to the Federal Court Decisions official web site and data base. Pursue them in entirety at your leisure.
To commence, on July 15, 2003 > Charkaoui lost his bid to attain bail. (Citation 203 FC 882 / File DES-3-03)
Take note: the signing of the security certificate (May 16,2003) and subsequent arrest warrant issuing and incarceration that took place on (May 21,2003) was some 55 days’ precedent to this decision.
Within the July 15 docket is the following:
“The ministers concluded that the respondent should be declared inadmissible because in their opinion he was or is a member of the Osama bin Laden network, an organization that engages, has engaged or will engage in acts of terrorism and that as such, the respondent is engaging, has engaged or will engage in terrorism and that consequently the respondent constitutes, has constituted or will constitute a danger to the Security of Canada.”
The reasonableness of the certificate was to be assessed by a judge, “however, the respondent’s counsel has already stated that she will be raising the issue of the constitutional validity of the entire procedure surrounding the certificate and the verification of its reasonableness, along with the continuation of the detention.”
Take note: The determination was reached before bail application that the eradication of security certificates through some constitutional means was the already projected goal of Adil Charkaoui
“Counsel for the respondent stated that “she considered her evidence incomplete since the immigration file on the respondent had been delivered to her with several exclusions. On behalf of the respondent, she has filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner concerning these exclusions and she is awaiting the results.
She also stated that she would have liked to have called the investigators of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (“CSIS”) to testify concerning certain interviews with the respondent but that she did not know their names.
It is common knowledge that the names of CSIS employees may be protected by section 18 and the oath of secrecy of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-23 (the “CSIS Act”), unless these names become public or other circumstances so warrant.
I suggested to the respondent’s counsel that if the respondent could identify these individuals by their names through an affidavit, I would then see to it that the necessary steps were taken if applicable, subject to the submissions by the ministers. The respondent’s counsel declined the offer and asked me to decide as to the continued detention on the basis of the evidence as presented.”
Take note: the Charkaoui legal team declined to utilize common knowledge and established legal precedent to pursue ‘justice’ surrounding the issues at hand.
“The only issue to be determined at this stage is the following: “Should the respondent continue to be detained, under sections 7, 11 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Taking into account the limitations imposed on me, I therefore identify, inter alia, three significant concerns that have not been satisfactorily addressed in the respondent’s evidence:
1) a. The respondent’s life from 1992 to 1995 in Morocco, and b. from 1995 to 2000 in Canada, including his trips.
2) The respondent’s trip to Pakistan from February to July, 1998.
3) The respondent’s contact with, inter alia, Abousfiane Abdelrazik, Samir Ait Mohamed, Karim Saïd Atmani, Raouf Hannachi and Abdellah Ouzghar.
Having clearly identified three concerns, I must note that I am unable, from the respondent’s evidence, to neutralize or alleviate them. The evidence as presented is incomplete, insufficient, and does not answer all of the findings made by the ministers in concluding that The Respondent, at the Time the Warrant was Signed, was A Danger To National Security or the safety of anyone or that he would attempt to avoid the proceedings and/or removal.
Having carefully reviewed the evidence of each party and having found that at the time the warrant of arrest was signed, the ministers had reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent was a danger to national security or the safety of any person or that he would attempt to avoid the proceedings and/or removal, I consider that he still remains a danger for the reasons given above and that the detention continues to be justified.
Take note: Justice Noel gives further information in the document surrounding evidence presented to him to elucidate his reasons for denial. Take note that his three main areas of concern about the lack of defence evidence are nothing more than the same reasons for the Ministers issuing the Security Certificate to begin with.
Adil Charkaoui’s’ associations, conduct and refusal to provide logical accountability clearly left him with the appearance of a national security threat due to terrorist proclivities and actions. Take notice: As Justice Noel has stated: “There is therefore a period of life from about 1992 to the end of the nineties that is unexplained in part.”
It is these ‘unexplained parts’ we intend to elucidate from the records and publications of the times examined.
Note: Justice Noel identified three significant areas of concern which I shall enter into through a few doorways, to conglomerate specific evidence packages which I believe ultimately should place Charkaoui back into confinement with all access privileges abrogated.
His seemingly relentless attack upon Canada’s security certificates was deployed because they allowed for the immediate removal and detention of suspected jihad terrorists based upon reasonable suspicion as to fullness of their threat of terrorist activity. To the Muslims this was essentially ‘a knock-out punch’ to their advancement of sharia that had to be eliminated through their political-legal jihad.
Thus, they undertook every means available to try to eradicate the use of Security Certificates and to disrupt the ability of CSIS to monitor them and the RCMP to police them.
Events ultimately show CSIS was proven astute in their claim that as an organization they were falling victim to a ‘judicial jihad’ on their sources and methods.”
We will move onward with evidence to the truth surrounding the Charkaoui foment of Islamic ‘Judicial Jihad” in THE ANGRIEST MAN SERIES – 3
The Islamic terrorist ADIL CHARKAOUI should be removed from the Nation by our Legal system. Right Now!
It is a righteous action with God that this be done.
Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?