adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

News

CSIS director supported invoking Emergencies Act, inquiry hears

Published

 on

OTTAWA — The head of Canada’s intelligence service told the prime minister he supported the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act last winter, despite his opinion that protest blockades across the country did not meet the service’s strict definition of a threat to Canadian security, a public inquiry heard Monday.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service director David Vigneault’s testimony is key to the Public Order Emergency Commission, which is scrutinizing the government’s emergency declaration and its invocation of special powers to disperse the protests.

The commission also heard from its first cabinet minister on Monday, with Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair taking the stand and saying the Emergencies Act had been used as a last resort.

The act identifies a public order emergency as a threat to Canada’s security, as defined in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

That definition includes espionage or sabotage of Canada’s interests, foreign influence, acts of serious violence against people or property with political, religious or ideological objectives, or the violent overthrow of the Canadian government.

No such threat materialized during the “Freedom Convoy” protests, Vigneault said, though CSIS was investigating some participants in relation to violent extremism.

Still, Vigneault said he was satisfied that a threat to national security had to be interpreted differently in the context of the Emergencies Act after he received advice from the Department of Justice.That advice will not be shared with the public because the government has not waived solicitor-client privilege when it comes to the invocation of the act.

“This I think is the crux of the issue,” Vigneault said during the hearing Monday. “In the context of the Emergencies Act there was to be separate interpretation, based on the confines of that act.”

The clerk of the Privy Council testified last week that the government took a wider interpretation, including threats to Canada’s economic security.

Provincial premiers were likely not informed the threat did not meet the strict threshold defined in the CSIS Act when they were consulted about the potential emergency declaration, Vigneault said, because provinces don’t have access to classified CSIS information.

Protesters with hundreds of large trucks and other vehicles arrived in Ottawa at the end of January, blocking city streets in what began as a demonstration against a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for cross-border truck drivers.

The protest quickly expanded to include dissent against all COVID-19 public health restrictions and the Liberal government generally, continuing for nearly a month.

Similar protests developed in cities across the country, and demonstrators blockaded several busy international border crossings.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared a public order emergency on Feb. 14 — the first time the legislation was used since its 1988 inception. He and seven cabinet ministers are scheduled to testify at the inquiry this week, with Trudeau’s appearance expected to come last.

Blair, whose portfolio is explicitly focused on emergencies, took the stand Monday afternoon. Convoy organizer Tamara Lich was among a small group of spectators watching his testimony in person.

He said that he believed the Emergencies Act was used as a measure of last resort, telling the commission: “I came to believe we needed to find a remedy.”

Blair said he was concerned about the security and integrity of Canada’s borders and of its critical infrastructure. “You don’t have to blow everything up to render it unusable,” he testified. “Rendering it unusable is an attack on critical infrastructure.”

Brendan Miller, a lawyer for Lich and other convoy organizers, accused Blair of having planned to use the Emergencies Act early on, a week into the protest.

Miller based the accusation on meeting notes taken by a scribe in the office of the prime minister’s chief of staff. The notes shown to the commission contain only the words “Emergencies Act”under the heading: “Blair’s current strategy.”

Blair said that the notes are from a meeting in which he told colleagues that it would not be appropriate to use the legislation at that time.

Vigneault said he was asked for his opinion before the Emergencies Act was invoked, and told the prime minister he believed it was “required” based on what was happening across the country.

“All of these elements of unpredictability, based on my experience having been around national security issues for quite a few years now, led me to believe that the regular tools were just not enough to address the situation,” he said.

The Emergencies Act granted extraordinary powers to governments, banks and police to create no-go zones around critical infrastructure, compel the co-operation of tow-truck companies and freeze the bank accounts of people suspected of being involved in the protest.

Vigneault testified on a public panel Monday morning with the CSIS deputy director of operations and the executive director of the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, a unit housed at the intelligence service.

The inquiry commissioner, Justice Paul Rouleau, has allowed CSIS to share some testimony and evidence privately with the inquiry because details could jeopardize the agency’s intelligence operations and national security.

Questions about investigative techniques, CSIS informants and any details about CSIS investigations were off-limits during the public hearing, but might have been asked during a closed-door hearing earlier this month.

CSIS produced five threat assessments of the convoy protest in Ottawa and similar protests that blocked border crossings, but the details of those assessments have been shared privately with the commission and will not be released publicly.

The intelligence service wasn’t specifically investigating the growing movement of Canadians opposed to public health measures, CSIS deputy director of operations Michelle Tessier testified Monday. Rather, it was concerned about people with more extreme views using the protest as an opportunity.

“It would be more the individuals who exploit that type of a movement to recruit individuals, to bring them more toward the extreme view of anti-authority ideology, wanting to use serious violence to kill to bring changes,” Tessier said.

The agency has seen an increase in “anti-authority” rhetoric, even after concerns about public health restrictions dwindled as the measures were lifted, she said. Threats against elected politicians are also on the rise.

There were early indications that ideologically motivated extremists planned to attend the protest, says Jan. 27 briefing material prepared by CSIS.

The notes, which Vigneault indicated were used to brief Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, also make clear the agency was unaware of “any tangible plots or plans of serious violence.”

The overall threat level in Canada remained “medium” throughout the protests, CSIS reported to the commission.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 21, 2022.

 

Laura Osman, Stephanie Taylor and David Fraser, The Canadian Press

News

Judge tells Florida’s top doctor not to threaten TV stations over abortion-rights ads

Published

 on

 

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A judge has blocked the head of Florida‘s state health department from taking any more action to threaten TV stations over an abortion-rights commercial they’ve been airing.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker’s ruling Thursday sided with Floridians Protecting Freedom, the group that produced the commercial promoting a ballot measure that would add abortion rights to the state constitution if it passes in the Nov. 5 election. The group filed a lawsuit earlier this week over the state’s communications with stations.

“The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech is ‘false,’” the judge said in a written opinion.

He added, “To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it’s the First Amendment, stupid.”

State Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and John Wilson, who was then the top lawyer at the health department before resigning unexpectedly, sent a letter to TV stations on Oct. 3 telling them to stop running an FPF ad, asserting that it was false and dangerous. The letter also says it could be subject to criminal proceedings.

FPF said about 50 stations were running the ad and that most or all of them received the letter — and at least one stopped running the commercial.

The group said the state was wrong when it claimed that assertions in the commercial were false. The state’s objection was to a woman’s assertion that the abortion she received in 2022 after she was diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor would not be allowed under current state law.

The state hasn’t changed its position. In a statement Thursday, a spokesperson for the health department again said that the ads are “unequivocally false.”

The judge’s order bars further action from the state until Oct. 29, when he’s planning a hearing on the question.

The ballot measure is one of nine similar ones across the country, but the campaign over it is the most expensive so far, with ads costing about $160 million, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact. It would require the approval of 60% of voters to be adopted and would override the state law that bans abortion in most cases after the first six weeks of pregnancy, which is before women often realize they’re pregnant.

The administration of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has taken multiple steps against the ballot measure campaign.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

With brain injuries a growing problem, the US military tests how to protect troops from blasts

Published

 on

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The blast shook the ground and its red flash of fire covered the doorway as U.S. special operations forces blew open a door during a recent training exercise.

Moments later, in their next attempt, the boom was noticeably suppressed and the blaze a bit smaller, testament to just one of the new technologies that U.S. Special Operations Command is using to limit the brain injuries that have become a growing problem for the military.

From new required testing and blast monitors to reshaping an explosive charge that reduces its blowback on troops, the command is developing new ways to better protect warfighters from such blast overpressure and to evaluate their health risks, particularly during training.

“We have guys lining up to volunteer for these studies,” said retired Sgt. Maj. F. Bowling, a former special operations medic who now works as a contractor at the command. “This is extremely important to the community. They’re very concerned about it.”

The Defense Department does not have good data on the number of troops with blast overpressure problems, which are much harder to detect than a traumatic brain injury.

Traumatic brain injuries are better known and have been a persistent problem among combat forces, including those subjected to missile strikes and explosions that hit nearby.

According to the department’s Traumatic Brain Injury Center of Excellence, more than 20,000 service members were diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries last year. More than 500,000 have been diagnosed since 2000.

Josh Wick, a Pentagon spokesperson, said emerging information from evaluations of both acute blasts and repetitive low-level exposures shows links to adverse effects, such as the inability to sleep, degraded cognitive performance, headaches and dizziness.

“Our top priority remains our forces’ long-term cognitive well-being and operational effectiveness as warfighters,” said Gen. Bryan Fenton, head of U.S. Special Operations Command. “We are committed to understanding and identifying the impacts of blast overpressure on our personnel’s brain health.”

Fenton said research with academics and medical and industry experts is helping find ways to mitigate and treat overpressure. He said cutting-edge technologies are key to reducing the effects of repeated exposures, such as those many of his troops experience.

Out in a remote training area for Army special forces at Fort Liberty in North Carolina, commandos used what they call a Muchete breaching charge, specifically formed into a shape that more precisely directs the blasts and limits the harmful waves coming from an explosion. A small number of journalists were allowed to watch the training.

“The reduction on the blast overpressure coming back on the operator on average is generally between 40 and 60%,” said Chris Wilson, who leads the team at the command that oversees clinical research and other performance-related initiatives. “It really also depends on where somebody is standing. But it’s certainly a pretty dramatic reduction in the exposure. So I think that’s a win.”

Wilson said development and testing of the refined charge is ongoing but that units are using this one now in training until one gets final approval and can be more widely distributed.

Because of the extensive amount of training for special operations forces — both to hone their skills and to prepare for specific operations — troops may practice breaching a door dozens or hundreds of times. As a result, training is where they are most likely to have such repeated exposures. The command wants a better sense of how each person is affected.

During the demonstration, a number of the Army special forces soldiers were wearing small monitors or sensors to help leaders better understand the level of blast pressure that troops are absorbing. The sensors allow officials to compare readings based on where troops were standing and how close they were to the blast.

The command is evaluating a number of blast sensors on the market, and some higher risk troops are already using them. Testing and other studies are continuing with the goal of getting them out across the force in the next couple of years.

According to Wilson and Col. Amanda Robbins, the command’s psychologist, there are distinct differences between acute traumatic brain injuries and what is called long-term blast exposure or blast overpressure.

Traumatic brain injuries, they said, are acute injuries that are relatively well documented and diagnosed. They said repetitive blast exposure needs more attention because there are lots of questions about the impact on the human brain. The damage is far more complex to diagnose and requires more study to establish links between the repetitive blasts and any damage or symptoms.

To aid the research, Special Operations Command is looking at doing more routine testing throughout service members’ careers. One test is a neurocognitive assessment that the command does every three years. Officials also want warfighters to be assessed if they have had a concussion or similar event.

The Defense Department more broadly will require cognitive assessments for all new recruits as part of an effort to protect troops from brain injuries resulting from blast exposures. New guidance released in August requires greater use of protective equipment, minimum “stand-off distances” during certain types of training, and a reduction in the number of people in proximity to blasts.

The other test being done by Special Operations Command is a more subjective comprehensive assessment that catalogs each person’s history of injuries or falls, even as a child. It’s done early to get a baseline.

Robbins said what they have seen is that new, younger operators and those with 20 or more years of experience are more amenable to doing the testing.

“The challenge is going to be in the midcareer operators who may be more concerned about self-reporting potentially having a perceived negative impact,” she said.

She added that the assessment is a way to take into account incidents that may not be in their medical records, so that problems can be identified early on and people can get treatment.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Judge delays order in antitrust case requiring Google to open up its app store

Published

 on

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge on Friday delayed an order requiring Google to open up its Android app store to more competition until an appeals court decides whether to block the shake-up because of legal questions surrounding a jury’s verdict that branded Google as an illegal monopolist.

The delay granted during a court hearing in San Francisco comes less than two weeks after U.S. District Judge James Donato issued a decision that would have forced Google to make sweeping changes to its Play Store for Android smartphones starting Nov. 1.

The mandated changes included a provision that would have required Google to make its library of more than 2 million Android apps available to any rivals that wanted access to the inventory and also distribute the alternative options in its own Play Store.

Google requested Donato’s order be stayed until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could examine the handling of a monthlong trial that led to the December 2023 verdict, which framed the Play Store as an illegal monopoly that stifles innovation and drives up consumer prices.

In Friday’s hearing, Donato scoffed at the notion that Google could succeed in overturning the trial verdict. “The verdict in this case was amply supported by a mountain of evidence about Google’s anti-competitive conduct,” the judge said.

But he decided the Ninth Circuit should be given a chance to consider a postponement until a panel of judges can decide can consider Google’s appeal of the 2023 trial focused on antitrust claims lodged by video game maker Epic Games.

Donato said he wouldn’t be surprised if the Ninth Circuit imposes an even longer delay on his ruling, “but that is for someone else to decide.”

In a statement, Google said it was pleased Donato hit the pause button while it tries to extend the delay even further.

“These remedies threaten Google Play’s ability to provide a safe and secure experience and we look forward to continuing to make our case to protect 100 million U.S. Android users, over 500,000 U.S. developers and thousands of partners who have benefited from our platforms,” Google said.

Epic pointed to Donato’s critical comments about the merits of Google’s appeal in a statement that described the stay as a “procedural step.”

It’s unclear how long the Ninth Circuit will take to decide on Google’s request for a permanent stay of Donato’s ruling while its appeals unfolds — a process that could take more than a year.

In 2021, the Ninth Circuit delayed a provision of another federal judge’s order mandating that Apple allow links to alternative payment systems with apps made for the iPhone as part of another antitrust case brought by Epic.

Although Apple avoided being labeled an illegal monopolist in a trial involving the iPhone app store, it unsuccessfully fought the provision requiring the company to allow alternative payment links within apps. But delaying that requirement preserved Apple’s exclusive control of a payment system that has generated commissions ranging from 15% to 30% on some e-commerce occurring within apps. Apple exhausted its avenue of appeals in the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year.

Google also pockets billions of dollars annually from a similar commission system within its Play Store for Android phones — a setup that is allowed to continue as long as Google can prevent Donato’s ruling from taking effect.

In its arguments for delaying Donato’s order, Google said it wasn’t being given enough time to make the drastic changes it framed as “a Herculean task creating an unacceptable risk of safety and security failures within the Android ecosystem.” In its Friday statement, Epic blasted Google’s tactics as “fearmongering.”

Google also argued the shake-up would saddle it with unreasonable costs, a contention Donato also brushed aside during Friday’s hearing.

“I don’t want to be glib about it, but the expense that Google might incur appears to be a drop in the bucket compared to the profits it reaps annually from the Play Store,” Donato said.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending