I have quite a bit to catch up on regarding developments on the Maher Arar case but I couldn't let this particular article go by without comment. Stockwell Day wants to assure us that a case like Arar's couldn't happen today because we've come so far since then. Look how far Stock himself has come:
Among the changes to national security protocol are improvements in intelligence sharing."There have to be caveats attached to that information that would say, 'All right, here's some evidence about a particular individual, however, there's a caveat to this,' " Day explained. "A caveat is, for instance: 'We have no firm information that this person is involved with terrorist activity.' "
In a security context that's not a caveat, it's a reliability assessment. Attaching a written caveat to the information you're sharing puts limits on the purposes for which the recipient can use the information, e.g. for intelligence purposes only. A caveat can also constrain the recipient from sharing the information with anyone else without at least getting permission from the originating agency.
Anyone who's spent any quality time with O'Connor's report knows the difference between a caveat and a reliability assessment. Methinks Day is trying to fake it. That doesn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
Y'know, pogge, there is something I have noticed about your posts.
I wouldn't claim that it is "a fact," exactly, but it is something that "may be of interest."
I do see patterns, y'know? I ... see things. I could be wrong, of course, since I haven't checked any of this out with anyone, beginning with you. And I have no firm information that you are involved with anything very serious, anything frivolous, for that matter. I just ... see things.
I'm sure we should be watching you, though. So is that a caveat or a reliability assessment?
NB: Your answer will be assessed.
I agree. Why even bother? Great article.
Stumbled onto this site, just thought I'd say hi.
According to CBC's Evan Dyer, FBI and "other US intelligence agencies" are actually attending INSET [Canadian Integrated National Security & Enforcement Teams] meetings where ongoing unproven allegations about possible Canadian suspects are discussed.
So Zaccardelli going on TV on Oct 1 and assuring Canadians that "paper documentation" will be properly vetted before being shared with US authorities is just bullshit. Ditto Stock's statement today.
As I said at the time, the FBI can presumably take their own notes while they're there.
Video of Evan Dyer's report upper right hand side of CBC page here.
skdadl: Hee!
Notice that he isn't answering?
Coincidence? I think not.
"A caveat is, for instance: 'We have no firm information that this person is involved with terrorist activity.' "
Y'know, even if he weren't wrong about what a caveat is, that's a pretty big fricking caveat!
My god, this guy actually ran for Prime Minister once. Man did we dodge a bullet with that one. (perhaps it was more like dodgeing a musket ball)
Is a caveat something like an asterisk on a sports record as in:
YARDS THROWN BY A PROFESSIONAL QUARTERBACK:
Allen (Toronto)- 20 kazillion
Moon (various)- almost 20 kazillion
croghan27*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(*in his own mind)