Monday, June 29, 2015
TRUELY HONEST LAW ENFORCEMENT
When my family and I were being harassed and harmed by Canadian Intelligence over the years because of the fraudulent 30-08 warrants against my wife and I we realized there were 2 types of agents. There were the ones that knew we were being setup by Canadian Intelligence and that wanted to help us survive and then there were the evil ones that didn’t even care about their fellow agents or anything but causing harm and intimidating people and throwing a wrench into the intelligence operations against us. It was a weird and conflicting contrast to see from people tasked with protecting Canadians safety and souvernty. We remember when they used to come to our home to harass us. They would usually show up at our home with 3 or 4 agents together to try and start conflict with my wife and family and I. They would interrogate my wife and kids and I and they would try to turn us against one another. They would take our kids in another room and tell them how evil we were and ask them if they wanted to leave home because of their mom and dad being so evil. My kids always knew what they were up to and they never fell for their setups. My kids would get mad at them and order them to leave us alone and they would tell them to quite harassing my mom and dad. My kids stood up to the agents and that made the agents angry but I felt proud of my kids for standing up for us. They would take my wife in a room alone and offer her money and perks if she would leave me, they would tell her that her and the kids would be taken care of if she left me but she knew better than to trust them. The agents would usually take me into a room alone and try to pick fist fights with me. They would start swinging their fists in the air right by my head and would say to me “COME ON, COME ON, LETS GO, YOU THINK YOU’RE TOUGH, LETS GO, WE WILL SHOW YOU HOW TOUGH YOU ARE.” They were pissed at me for critisizing BOB PAULSON and STEPHEN HARPER in the media on CRAIGSLIST between 2008-2009 about the harassment from Canadian Intelligence against my family and I. Then you would have the good agents come by to speak to us and they were nice, they would warn us to be careful that our lives were in danger. We are still alive because of the good agents helping us. We even let some of them have sex with my wife because they were so nice. They harassed our children for years, they even harassed them at their schools for years. We don’t know what they were telling the schools but they would show up at their school about every month or so and drag them out of the classroom and interigate them about us. That went on for years, my kids would come home crying to my wife and I to make them stop but there was nothing we could do. We sought legal advice from a lawyer and we were told if we interfered they would take our children away from us. That is how they got our 2 older daughters to work for them was by harassing them at school. They went to work for Canadian Intelligence just to stop the harassment against them. The last time they tried to harass us at our home was the same day that they went by Quebec radical Martin Rouleau’s home. It was October 9th 2014 they came by our home here in B.C. We spoted them right away on our securety camera lurking around outside of our house. They were here for about 15 minutes knocking on our door and pointing up at our security camera wondering why we weren’t answering our door. We just didn’t want to be harassed any more so we didn’t answer. They pulled out their cell phones and their tablets and they were texting and calling and pointing up at our security camera and fingering their tablets flipping through webpages for we don’t know what. After about 15 minutes they realized we were not going to answer and they left. Thank god we didn’t answer but Quebec radical Martin Rouleau did answer the door that day.
Aaron Derfel, Montreal Gazette
Published on: October 21, 2014 Last Updated: October 21, 2014 5:29 PM EST
Some national security experts are questioning why the RCMP never detained Quebec radical Martin Rouleau before he decided to ram his vehicle into two Canadian soldiers — killing one of them — in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu Monday morning.
RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson confirmed to reporters Tuesday that Rouleau — who was shot dead by local police following a high-speed car chase — had been placed on a watch list of 90 individuals in Canada who have either returned from fighting for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or who sympathize with the terrorist group. Paulson added that Rouleau’s “passport was seized by us” recently.
Ray Boisvert, a former assistant director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the country’s spy agency, said tough questions must be asked about how intensively the RCMP monitored Rouleau, who had posted images of ISIS black flags on his Facebook page as well as anti-Western rants.
“The quintessential issue is why wasn’t this guy already detained or arrested, given what we know so far that he seemed to have been motivated by this political-religious issue, took it upon himself to commit (a violent act) and he was on the national-security radar screen, ” Boisvert told The Gazette.
RCMP officials refused to answer questions on whether Rouleau was being surveilled prior to Monday’s attack, when his passport was revoked and whether he knew about it, saying that the force’s Integrated National Security Investigations team in Montreal would be conducting a probe into the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Officials with CSIS and Citizenship and Immigration, which is responsible for issuing passports, also declined to comment.
Wesley Wark, a visiting professor at the University of Ottawa and an expert on national security, intelligence and terrorism, suggested it’s easy in hindsight to assign blame to the RCMP.
“But clearly, there seems to be enough evidence about this case, even if it’s sparse, to suggest it needs really detailed scrutiny to see if there were any identifiable failures — either failures in assessing the information that they had or failures in terms of deciding whether the time was ripe and the evidence sufficient to engage in a criminal prosecution,” Wark said in an interview.
We don’t understand the radicalization process. Who do we turn to, who do we work with, who can we speak to who will defuse that process? — Michel Juneau-Katsuya
Still, he added that it’s always a difficult call for law-enforcement authorities to make on when to detain or arrest a suspected terrorist whom they have been surveilling.
“The question revolves around trying to determine whether an individual might have accomplices or other people in a network,” Wark explained. “You always have to weigh the question of whether you want to take direct action against an individual in what you think might be an early stage of an investigation and give up the possibility of leads that might take you in other directions or might expose a larger and more dangerous plot.”
Boisvert agreed that such investigations are fraught with risk.
“I’ve been involved in cases over the years where there have been high numbers of people who talk a great game, high levels of rhetoric, but never have any real clear intent that they’re actually going to act and hurt others,” Boisvert said. “That’s the big dilemma in national security work.”
Michel Juneau-Katsuya, a former CSIS senior intelligence officer, told the CBC that authorities don’t have “the tools” to deal with the phenomenon of “homegrown terrorists,” individuals who have become “radicalized.” What’s worse, he said, is that people in the community don’t know really who to contact when they suspect someone they know might suddenly pose a national-security threat.
“We don’t understand the radicalization process,” he said. “Who do we turn to, who do we work with, who can we speak to who will defuse that process?”
Ironically, on Oct. 8 Paulson testified before a parliamentary committee that the RCMP had sufficient resources to manage its watch list.
Wark expressed concern that the RCMP inquiry will be internal and that “the public will never get to know or scrutinize such things,” noting that in England parliamentary commissions do have the power to hold such inquests in public.