Canada: The Full Awakening Of The Security State?

From the CBC:

Canada's spy agency has the green light to meet with Canadians detained abroad before consular officials do when there are "urgent national security or terrorism-related considerations," says a newly disclosed federal agreement.

And if this doesn't make your brain do a double take, then read this one further:

Under the memorandum, Foreign Affairs, upon learning a Canadian is being held abroad as apart of a national security or terrorism case, is responsible for initiating immediate inquiries with the foreign state.

The department will also "promptly inform CSIS" in order to seek information that might help provide consular services to the Canadian or furnish the spy service with details relevant to national security threats.

When CSIS becomes aware of such a detention, it is supposed to promptly notify Foreign Affairs, which will then take the lead in "ensuring that there is a co-ordinated approach."

So - CSIS will be expected to actually come forth with any kind of information in order to essentially give away its jurisdiction in intelligence matters? We are talking about this CSIS, right? This very one? Yes? Yes? Really?

This oh-so-open-to-oversight CSIS?

But wait. Here's the clincher, which reveals typical legalese double-talk and utter ignorance of the very recent past:

"This is particularly important where there is a suspicion that the conditions of detention are inconsistent with international human rights instruments or customary international law," says the document.

"CSIS will not meet with a Canadian citizen detained abroad until after a consular officer has gained access, unless there are urgent national security or terrorism-related considerations," the agreement says. In such cases, the spy service is to consult with Foreign Affairs before seeking access.

Sounds like that kind of legalese double talk, no?

In effect, Foreign Affairs will leave it up entirely to CSIS to make its own call - and defer to it.

Without any outside oversight whatsoever.

Plain and simple.

And regardless of the recently demonstrated "trustworthiness" of CSIS to make its own calls in the matters of Maher Arar, Omar Khadr, and others. Not counting those we do not even know of.

Case in point: this shining example of CSIS "infallibility" and openness to recognize mistakes.

The danger here is plain and simple:

Critics said Wednesday the memorandum's provisions may leave the door open to potential abuses.

"I don't believe that anyone would seriously trust the judgment of CSIS to be the ones who are going to make the determination as to whether or not there's credible evidence of torture," said Lorne Waldman, who served as one of Arar's lawyers.

"Because the past would suggest to me that when they have a strong interest in the investigation, they're going to proceed and to ignore the human rights implications of it. And they justify that in the name of national security."

Waldman said the decision should not ultimately be left up to CSIS.

"There would have to be someone outside of CSIS who makes that call, not CSIS. Because they have too much of a vested interest in their investigation, and run the risk of tunnel vision."

In other words:

It is a given fact that governmental security agencies are not seekers of truth, but seekers of guilt. Whenever they are given any powers to spy on their own citizens, they will do so - for reasons frivolous, paranoid or (apparently very rarely as demonstrated so far) actually justified.

Think about this. Hard.

No one is safe.

This is how your Security State fully awakens, folks: when a country's secret security agency is given the power of life and death, of freedom and detention, over its citizens and whose judgement prevails over constitutional, civilian institutions supposedly mandated to deal in such matters.

And if nothing here sounds any alarm bells, then I give you this little reminder:

(...) because something/anything deemed potentially disruptive (even remotely or not at all) to "the safety and security of Canadians or the integrity of Canada's critical infrastructure" may or may not happen, this warrants the full use and deployment of the government's terrorism monitoring apparatus to spy on lawful citizens.

Let this reality sink in for a minute or two ... or five ... or ten.

Do you get it now?

This means that anything can and will be viewed by our security agencies within the narrow, paranoid prism of terrorism and threats to security.

Anything.

From blogging to writing a dissenting letter to a newspaper editor to a journalist trying to do investigative work to gathering at a coffee shop to rant about politics to reading "suspicious" stuff (books, blogs) to organizing/participating in activist actions (letter/phone/email campaigns, peaceful protests), etc., etc., etc.

Because any such activities may or may not - immediately or at some point in time or never at all - lead to acts which may or may not "threaten the safety and security of citizens or the integrity of the country's critical infrastructure".

So just in case and to be safe, let's monitor and survey and spy away on the citizenry.

And that is the ever convenient rationale of authoritarian security states for spying on their citizens.

I repeat: security agencies are seekers of guilt, not of truth.

If you are jailed by another country - then it must be because you are guilty to begin with, right?

Get it?

So - anyone else other than me who is deeply troubled and outraged by this new agreement between Foreign Affairs and CSIS?

Anyone?