[Newsbot]

Title: After years in a French prison, Hassan Diab talks about extradition
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2018-01-17 08:51:52
Canadian

[Freakinoldguy]

So given his religious bent and the fact that the French put him in "solitary" confinement for 22 hours I guess we're on the hook for another 10.5 million dollars in compensation and the fact that he doesn't want a penny from Canadian taxpayers while admirable likely won't stop our PM from giving him a financial windfall anyway.

[martin14]

$1:

"I don't want any penny from the taxpayers in Canada," he said.

Pretty much guarantees it.

[Sunnyways]

From what I can see in that link, it’s hard to understand why he was extradited in the first place.

[fifeboy]

I heard him say tonight that he wants an inquiry into extradition laws, not cash... but rant on...

[Freakinoldguy]

fifeboy fifeboy:

I heard him say tonight that he wants an inquiry into extradition laws, not cash... but rant on...

He's not the problem, our spendthrift PM is and for the record I'm just waiting for this guy to collect his windfall from the poor abused terrorists fund or, as I like to call it General Tax Revenues.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/201 ... rture.html

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

fifeboy fifeboy:

I heard him say tonight that he wants an inquiry into extradition laws, not cash... but rant on...

He's not the problem, our spendthrift PM is and for the record I'm just waiting for this guy to collect his windfall from the poor abused terrorists fund or, as I like to call it General Tax Revenues.

You know that all the people who the government has been complicit in abusing, have been under former government, right?

This guy is no different. France had zero evidence on him, but kept him in jail for 3 years anyhow. If they had been able to show he was actually in Lebanon taking exams at the time he's supposed to have been involved with a bombing during his extradition hearing, he never would have been extradited to France. But Canadian law makes the assumption that foreign courts have determined there is a cause for extradition already.

How would someone here like to be accused of something in Saudi Arabia, and have to rely on their system of due process in a Canadian court?

[herbie]

I dunno, ask Marc Emery

[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

fifeboy fifeboy:

I heard him say tonight that he wants an inquiry into extradition laws, not cash... but rant on...

He's not the problem, our spendthrift PM is and for the record I'm just waiting for this guy to collect his windfall from the poor abused terrorists fund or, as I like to call it General Tax Revenues.

You know that all the people who the government has been complicit in abusing, have been under former government, right?

This guy is no different. France had zero evidence on him, but kept him in jail for 3 years anyhow. If they had been able to show he was actually in Lebanon taking exams at the time he's supposed to have been involved with a bombing during his extradition hearing, he never would have been extradited to France. But Canadian law makes the assumption that foreign courts have determined there is a cause for extradition already.

How would someone here like to be accused of something in Saudi Arabia, and have to rely on their system of due process in a Canadian court?

So blame France don't blame Canada because I'm pretty sure they didn't just phone up and say

"hey we've got no evidence on this guy but we want to have you extradite him anyway so we can put him in solitary for 22 hours".

They had to put something forward that was credible evidence in order for him to be extradited so, it should fall on them to pay him for his illegal incarceration. But given past history and the sock puppet's propensity for shelling out tax dollars like mana from heaven we'll likely end up paying for France's fuckup which is wrong.

But here's a thought. Since we have extradition treaties with these countries perhaps it's time to have a clause inserted that states if you submit false or incorrect evidence to garner an extradition then, if that evidence is found to be faulty your country is responsible for all legal and financial penalties incurred from your mistake.

I agree that this guy shouldn't have been incarcerated but, by the same token we as a country shouldn't be held responsible for following our legal obligation WRT our extradition treaties and just because that extradition was based on false or incorrect information shouldn't mean we are the liable party.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

France had zero evidence on him, but kept him in jail for 3 years anyhow.

While this may be totally what it seems to be it may also be one of those cases where the evidence against him was from an intelligence agency and it was kept classified to protect some aspect of national security. Then they held the guy in the hopes that they could make a case against him using conventional means.

It happens.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So blame France don't blame Canada because I'm pretty sure they didn't just phone up and say

"hey we've got no evidence on this guy but we want to have you extradite him anyway so we can put him in solitary for 22 hours".

They had to put something forward that was credible evidence in order for him to be extradited so, it should fall on them to pay him for his illegal incarceration. But given past history and the sock puppet's propensity for shelling out tax dollars like mana from heaven we'll likely end up paying for France's fuckup which is wrong.

From the Article:

$1:

"There is no sworn evidence. A foreign official need only sign a piece of paper that makes allegations against a Canadian. How do you defend against that?" said Bayne.

Also:

$1:

"I don't want any penny from the taxpayers in Canada," he said.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

While this may be totally what it seems to be it may also be one of those cases where the evidence against him was from an intelligence agency and it was kept classified to protect some aspect of national security. Then they held the guy in the hopes that they could make a case against him using conventional means.

It happens.

From another article:

$1:

Judges in France ordered Diab's release on at least eight occasions before he was finally set free, but under the French system prosecutors were able to keep him behind bars by appealing those release orders on grounds that Diab was a flight risk and public danger.

$1:

He remained imprisoned despite the fact that he did not match a fingerprint left by the perpetrator of the Paris bombing in 1980, and could demonstrate that he was in fact sitting exams in Beirut at the time it occurred. Both university records, and the stamps in Diab's passport, backed his claims.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hassan- ... -1.4489738

Diab also said during the interview, that at his extradition trial, the Judge believed the evidence against him was flimsy, but had no choice but to comply with the extradition order.

So Canadian law is to blame for extraditing him, and French law is to blame for continually keeping him in prison despite judges orders, under the name of 'terrorism' and 'security'.

[Freakinoldguy]

Perhaps this will clarify what's required for a foreign country to get an extradition treaty against a Canadian Citizen

$1:

Rules of Evidence
Definition of document

31 For the purposes of sections 32 to 38, document means data recorded in any form, and includes photographs and copies of documents.

Marginal note:Evidence
32 (1) Subject to subsection (2), evidence that would otherwise be admissible under Canadian law shall be admitted as evidence at an extradition hearing. The following shall also be admitted as evidence, even if it would not otherwise be admissible under Canadian law:

(a) the contents of the documents contained in the record of the case certified under subsection 33(3);

(b) the contents of the documents that are submitted in conformity with the terms of an extradition agreement; and

(c) evidence adduced by the person sought for extradition that is relevant to the tests set out in subsection 29(1) if the judge considers it reliable.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-16


Never believe a lawyer since the process is a little more complicated than "just asking" for a Canadian citizen to be extradited

If I have the system correctly worked out, any extradition request has to go to court and the evidence against the accused has to be shown even if it's not acceptable by Canadian law. Then a Judge will weigh all evidence and if he feels there is enough compelling evidence to extradite the citizen he authorizes the extradition order. Otherwise it's a no go.

It's not like France came here and said, hey we don't know shit about this guy and have zero evidence of him doing or being anything so, let's get him extradited for shits and giggles. Somehow, somewhere his name came up and between the French request and the evidence they presented there was a compelling enough case for the Judge to grant their request.

Now, whether that evidence was accurate or even relevant is another question. Which, is why I said in my previous post that we shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of foreign countries especially if they accidentally or purposely deceive us in order to garner extradition orders.

[Sunnyways]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

France had zero evidence on him, but kept him in jail for 3 years anyhow.

While this may be totally what it seems to be it may also be one of those cases where the evidence against him was from an intelligence agency and it was kept classified to protect some aspect of national security. Then they held the guy in the hopes that they could make a case against him using conventional means.

It happens.

Possible. Also possible is that the info collected by such sources was unverifiable rumour. I believe the defendant claimed he was doing an exam in Lebanon at the time of the offence? You'd think that would leave a fair bit of evidence if true.