Mahmoud Jaballah is called a "terrorism suspect." He has been in jail for five years but he's never been found guilty of anything. That means he's an innocent man according to my sense of justice and he'll remain innocent until proven guilty.Yesterday he learned that he will soon be released. Today's Toronto Star has the story [Terror suspect ordered freed].
Toronto terrorism suspect Mahmoud Jaballah will be released on strict bail conditions after more than five years in jail without charges, despite government protests he remains a danger to Canada.
His release comes on the heels of last month's Supreme Court ruling that struck down an immigration law as unconstitutional and deals another blow to the government's handling of security cases involving non-citizens.
2 comments :
He has been in jail for five years but he's never been found guilty of anything.
Worse than that -- he's never even been charged with anything. Whether he's guilty or not, a fundamental requirement of any successful justice system is that the state must formally charge someone with a specific crime before they can deny the person their liberty.
I'm willing to have short-term concessions in the system, even -- like holding someone for 48 hours, because the machinery of justice takes a certain amount of time to move. But the 5 years this man spent in jail without charge or disclosure of evidence is a stain on Canada's record of human rights.
The bail conditions are ridiculous too. Charge these men, or set them free. We don't, as a country, have the right to keep anyone in limbo like that.
It is called a justice system, and the term should have some content after all. The men responsible for perverting it is motivated either by the same emotions of fear and retribution that fuels the use of death penalty or the perception that incarceration will block terrorist action or give information.
On the surface, they seem indifferent to the possibility that it will happen to themselves or people they know 'because they don't know terrorists'. I'm not against death penalty on principle, but AFAIK it has been shown again and again that it's worse than the alternative on all accounts - it kills innocents without chance for appeal, it doesn't prevent more than the alternative, it fuels desperation acts in participants or accused innocents, released persons may be harmed for life, and it is expensive. Much the same here.
The chance that it will block terrorist action is likely minimal, and the cells or new cells will probably continue on short notice. The same goes for the possibility to get vital information. I would like to see some studies showing that this is effective and not a waste of personal life and anti-terrorist efforts both, before even thinking of endorsing such actions.
The agencies responsible are supposed to be specialists on terrorism. Yet the actions that seem effective has always been prevention at sensitive sites, infiltration triggered by terrorist activities or activities directly against known terrorists.
Good for Canada and visiting non-citizens, I say. Sweden also jumped on the US train by agencies illegally allowing non-citizens to be extradited into incarceration. Hopefully that is stopped now that it has become known.
Post a Comment