Toronto Star Google Maps- Homicides in the GTA, 2008

Click the link below to view the Toronto Star Homicide Map of 2008.

Toronto Star Google Maps

Liam O'Connor's review of "Taxi To The Dark Side"

 

Any desire to be a prison guard?  A police officer?  A military prosecutor?  A soldier to eradicate evil and fend off the eastern hordes who threaten the very fabric of our society and the great All-American Way?

 

If so take in a viewing of the winner of this year's Academy Award for best documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side.

 

It follows the American Administration's history with military detainees, first at Bagram, Afghanistan then Abu Gharib and finally Guantanamo Bay.

 

At the time of the completion of the film there are 105 confirmed dead detainees, 37 of which the US authorities themselves have deemed "homicides".  And they weren't killed by each other.  If they were deemed murdered they were murdered at the hands of US soldiers.

 

Interestingly, the movie contends that only 7 per cent of the detainees were actually captured by US forces.

 

The other 93 per cent of detainees were turned over to US forces by Afghani forces/warlords/independent troops for bounty money.  Those groups effectively  told US forces "hey,  we found these bad guys for you. Do with them what you will.  They're your enemy."

 

A number of the soldiers that have been convicted of killing, torturing or just humiliating detained prisoners are often described as soft spoken, gentle and good soldiers.

 

Many concede they "should've gone with our  own morality" instead of doing what we did. Many claim they felt morally isolated in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Some said they did what they did because they wanted the detainees  to be guilty because it made their units look good.

 

Interestingly as well, the film doesn't really demonize the soldiers.  Rather it castigates those at the top of the food chain,  the military brass and most of all the Bush Administration and the architects behind the use of torture.

 

And who pray tell were those architects? Lawyers!

 

Legal counsel were the architects that built the way to permit torture and gave Bush the argument that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to suspected terrorists.

 

Head amongst those was senior lawyer from the Office of Legal Counsel to the President, John Yoo.  He was the man behind the  so-called" illegal memo" which allowed the President to institute the use of illegal torture methods and violence on military detainees.

 

It was the memo that allowed Dick Cheney to say "we  can't tie the hands of our intelligence people."

 

It was the memo that led Bush to announce:  "One by on the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice."

 

Systematically indicted in the film are: VP Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Justice Minister Alberto Gonzalez, and Secretary of State  Rumsfeld among others.

 

But where did these beacons of what is supposedly right and moral obtain their tools of torture? Where did they obtain the information that allowed the US soldiers to move away from being unsophisticated brute-like 15th century amateurs to modern thugs operating at a level of pure "genius"?

 

Apparently from the ground-breaking research of a Canadian professor from McGill University.  Our proud Canuck, Prof. Hebb  has made some remarkable progress in studying  sensory deprivation as used particularly at Guantanamo.

 

The apparent brilliance of it was what moved the soldiers away from administering torture though physical pain.  Instead real progress was deemed to be made via  the use of stress positions, sleep deprivation, male prisoners being forced to  wear women's underwear, forced masturbation, sensory deprivation/assault, standing chained to the ceiling, sexual molestation of males by female soldiers, unmuzzling German Shepherd dogs in interrogation, promises of future execution and the ever popular water-boarding.    

 

Thankfully a central theme of the movie is that torture does not work.

 

At one point an FBI commentator points out that if your real goal is to stop terror attacks on the US then your goal has failed horribly.  That's because all that one terrorist has to do is show some of his uncommitted brothers the one photo of a naked detainee being dragged on the floor by a US female soldier on a chain attached to a dog collar (as the picture exists) then you will have no shortage of converts prepared to reign terror on the US.

 

The film also follows the clever strategy followed by the Bush Administration  once the Supreme Court found their actions at Guantanamo illegal.

 

Instead of halting the torture Bush simply drafted new laws to: 1) remove the availability of habeus corpus; and 2) grant anticipatory  pardons for President Bush and his staff just in case any charges of committing war crimes are ever raised against them in the future.

 

As of time of movie there have been  83000 detainees held by US forces.  To date no one has yet gone to trial.

 

Lost in the monstrous horror, however,  is Dilawar.  He was the innocent little Afghani taxi driver who was picked up and murdered within two days by interrogating US soldiers.  He had nothing to tell them because all he was was a taxi driver.  Pathologists have concluded that had he lived both os his legs would have needed to be amputated.  They had been repeated beaten, kicked and  punched by interrogators.  On his little stone grave reads Dilawar the Martyr.

 

Will his death be in vain?

 

Working in favor of that is the generally held belief that because some terrorists flew on to our continent that "whatever" we need to do to them is alright if it keeps us safe.  But I am certain when the world sees this movie this ideas will be challenged.

 

But Bush has general apathy working in his favour.

 

I saw the movie by myself with only four others sitting in the theatre.  It is  a theatre that seats 350. 

 

And therefore Bush is winning.

 

Would someone else please go see the movie. Tell Dilawar's story.  Don't let his death and  murder have been in vain.

- Liam

Liam O'Connor is a practicing lawyer and senior partner with the law firm Pinkofskys in Toronto.  For viewing times of this movie in Toronto, click here

Flickr Tags: Taxi to the Dark Side,Liam O'Connor,Review,Lawyer,Toronto,Murder,Torture,Pinkofskys,Dilawar

Canadian Lawyer Magazine - The pros and cons of...(being a criminal defence lawyer in Toronto)

Canadian Lawyer Magazine has just released an interesting article about the ups and downs of being a criminal defence lawyer in Toronto.  There are also a number of other lawyers who participated in providing their opinions on different cities, different areas of practice, and different life plans with law.  A worthwhile read for law students considering what do when they graduate.  The article can be found in the link below.  My comments were as follows, but I highly recommend you ink to the entire article to read others views on these sorts of issues:

Sean Robichaud, Criminal defence, Pinkofskys, Toronto

PROS:

 

• Being in court almost every single day, cross-examining witnesses. “The whole excitement of courtroom drama is always there, and you’re living that every day,” he says.  “If you like the roller-coaster of emotions that befits a litigator, criminal law is what you should practise.”

• Satisfaction of protecting people’s right to liberty. “There isn’t the cost-benefit analysis that goes into litigation in the civil context. There’s great satisfaction, especially in cases you truly believe in. It’s much more effective advocacy. You’ll have your ultra-highs where you think someone is totally innocent and they’re acquitted.”
• The unpredictability of court and the flexibility that brings. “If your day does finish early, which it very often does, you can go and enjoy time with your family.
• The variety criminal work brings. “Every day is different. I like going to court and not having any idea about what could happen. The courtroom is more like a dance than it is a science.”
• Practising in a big city allows you to litigate very aggressively. “Not having to worry about burning bridges for the next day. You tend to have a higher level of advocacy because people aren’t concerned about those issues, having to deal with the same Crown attorney, the same judge, the next day.”
• There will always be work for criminal lawyers. “If you want to practise exclusively in criminal law, there’s enough work to just do that. In a smaller community you would likely not survive. You’d have to do some family and real estate and become more of a general practitioner.”
•The benefit of proximity when doing appeals. “If you decide that something has merit, it’s very easy to work that out because the appellate courts and the higher courts are all in Toronto.
• The culture of the city

CONS:

• Losing cases. “If you feel someone is innocent, and they’re convicted, it totally destroys you,” he states.

• Especially for newly minted lawyers, getting emotionally involved.
• Working with sensitive material, like child pornography or sexual assault. “Like any human being, it’s often hard to completely detach yourself from the substance of what you’re arguing.”
• Work/life balance at times. “My phone is always on. People get arrested at all times of the day, more so probably at night. As a criminal lawyer, you have to always be able to assist your client.”
• Difficulty in planning your life.  A day in court “may take a lot longer than you expected. Criminal law is not for a person who doesn’t like chaos.”

Check out more here: Canadian Lawyer Magazine - The pros and cons of...

Police went too far, judge rules | TheStar.com | GTA |

 

On Thursday, Justice Brewer released her judgment on R. v. Fitzroy Osbourne.  Police, acting under in their capacity as T.A.V.I.S.,  attempted to stop and question Mr. Osbourne as he and his friend were returning from a soccer game.  Mr. Osbourne, who was not engaged in any criminal or unlawful activity at the time, was approached by police and asked to identify himself.  Mr. Osbourne refused to cooperate.  He made it clear to police that he was aware of his rights and told them in no uncertain terms ("What the fuck do you guys want, we don't have to talk to you guys") that they were not interested in speaking with them. 

Mr. Osbourne and his friend attempted to continue walking and leave the situation, as they were entitled to do.  Police then exited their vehicle and continued their unfounded investigation on foot.  Mr. Osbourne repeated his intention of not speaking to them with the same degree of certainty.   Police continued to followed him and then threatened to arrest him for causing a public disturbance.  (Incidentally, at trial I asked the officer "If I was to push a bowling ball down a hill and it smashes into your car, would you say that I caused the damage, or the bowling ball?). Using this newfound justification of causing a disturbance for arrest, police then attempted to arrest him. It was alleged that during the arrest he struck one of the officers intentionally.

In dismissing all charges against Mr. Osbourne, Justice Brewer wrote:

 

[16] Community-based policing policing generally involves increased interaction between police and officers and the public they serve in an effort to reduce the incidents of crime and alleviate fear in the neighborhood [...]

 

[17] the police have the authority to stop and question a pedestrian, but not to detain that person, unless the detention is also permitted by law: R. v. Mann (2004), 185 C.C.C. (3d) 308 (S.C.C.) at 33-35.  Further, every citizen has the well established right to refuse to answer questions asked by the police [...] It is crucial that officers engaged in the community based policing be mindful of the proper scope of their authority.

 

[18] In this case, when the officers drove up to the defendant, he was under no obligation speak with them.  It is unfortunate that Mr. Osbourne chose to express his unwillingness to communicate with the police in such a gratuitously confrontational and obnoxious manner.  Nonetheless, he was within his right in asking to be left alone, no matter how rudely he expressed it.  Both officers acknowledged that after the initial exchange at the police car the two men were walking away.

 

It appears that this judgment explicitly recognizes the need for police to be properly trained, and to follow that proper training, in the rights of the individuals, particularly in the context of "community based" policing like the T.A.V.I.S. unit.  Time will tell whether anything is done or whether people like Mr. Osbourne will continue to experience this sort of unmitigated and brazen breaching of civil liberties.

The article on the case from written by Betsy Powell from The Star cane be found here:

TheStar.com | GTA | Police went too far, judge rules