News

Unlike citizens of Great Britain, the United States and Spain, the Canadian public has remained unscathed during the so-called war on terror. Even after Osama bin Laden named Canada an enemy, we seemed unconvinced that our multicultural, tolerant and peace-loving nation could experience what others have.

It all seemed so far away.

Yet in light of last weekend's arrests and the allegations that a homegrown terror cell planned to attack Canadian targets, perhaps that perception has changed.

And it must, says Wesley Wark, a University of Toronto intelligence and security expert who argues in Tuesday's paper that public complacency, among other things, compounds the challenge law enforcement organizations face in identifying and stopping homegrown terror threats.

"Such [homegrown] groups don't need foreign sources of money, and therefore don't expose themselves to any investigation of terrorist financing," Mr. Wark writes. "... They have an invisibility that is a product of the fact that they operate in a democratic society protective of their rights, and they blend in to that society as individuals ... [They] can find high-value targets in [their] own home town."

Mr. Wark was on-line right for an hour to discuss what Canada's security and law enforcement agencies — and what local communities — need to do to continue to prevent terror attacks. Your questions and comments appear below, along with Mr. Wark's replies.

Wesley Wark is an associate professor in the Department of History of the University of Toronto, a Fellow of Trinity College and an Associate of the Munk Centre for International Studies. He is an expert of Canadian and international intelligence and security issues, and has published numerous books and articles on this subject. He is a former president of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies (1998-2000) and organized the association's September 2000 conference held in Ottawa on the future of intelligence. Professor Wark is co-editor of the London-based journal, Intelligence and National Security and editor-in-chief of the forthcoming Oxford University Press encyclopedia, The Companion to Modern Espionage. He has served as a consultant to the Privy Council Office of Canada on intelligence policy.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Michael Snider, globeandmail.com: Hello Professor Wark, thank you for joining us today. And welcome readers. We've received a number of questions already, so a busy hour ahead so let's get to it. Professor Wark, what jumped out at me in your op-ed piece today was this sentence: "An official inquiry into the role of the British intelligence services in the London transit bombings affirmed that there were no prior warnings available to the British services and recognized that the London bombers left few traces that could have been picked up in advance by a spy service."

It made me wonder, did Canadian authorities just get lucky this time?

Wesley Wark: I think luck, good or bad, always plays a part in counter-terrorism operations. Terrorism investigations are among the most complex faced by intelligence services. They need some kind of initial break — it can be an electronic intercept that makes sense, an informant tip, a so-called "walk-in" with intimate knowledge of the operations of a threatening group, or a bit of information provided by a foreign ally. Good counter-terrorism cases should have a snow-balling effect, but you need the initial start, and sometimes luck plays an important part.

Jim Terrets from Vancouver writes: Why are Canadian security experts and agencies so eager to fan the flames of fear by invoking the magical words 'al-Qaeda' whether it is justified or not? This is more than obvious with police descriptions of the latest alleged terrorists as 'al-Qaeda inspired' when its obvious that this group has nothing at all to do with al-Qaeda. For example, al-Qaeda operates in small cells of 3-4 people whereas this group was one large cell; also, the group had no al-Qaeda literature or documents which is odd since they are easily downloaded off the Internet. Why does common sense and objectivity fly out the window when it comes to terrorism?

Wesley Wark: Dear Jim, We have to be alert to the possibility that the government will exaggerate its case. But we also have to accept that we don't know the full details of the case surrounding the Toronto suspects as yet. What we do know is that there was some electronic monitoring of the group being conducted and that members of the group visited jihadist web sites and took part in jihadist chat rooms. When the government says "Al Qaeda inspired" what I take them to mean is not that the Toronto cell was anything but homegown, but that they were able to plug into the global web of jihadist thinking via the internet, much of which is inspired by the inspirational messages delivered by Bin Laden, Zawahiri and other Al Qaeda officials.

Raymond Lowe from Calgary writes: To what extent would you say the security situation is different in Canada than in the United States. Since we both have now seemingly proof of an attempt to take terrorist action against Canadian targets - although this was foiled by the RCMP - would you say our security system should be more similar to the United States or should Canada take a different path? And if so, what would that path look like ?

Wesley Wark: Dear Raymond, I would say that the security situation for the United States is vastly different from that of Canada. They are a super power and their self-proclaimed war on terror is truly global. Canada is a not a super power and we have taken a different path in terms of our contribution to a war on terror overseas and in terms of how we confront terrorism threats in Canada. Our traditions, our laws, and our security and intelligence practices are different. But Canada and the U.S. do face a shared problem of public safety and while the problem is more grave for the U.S., because it is the primary target of terrorist activity, we still have to live in a shared North American space. This is why the two countries have been exploring the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" effort to co-ordinate safe economies, safe travel and secure borders. Wearing my historian's hat, I would say that we have as a country a long tradition of learning to live next to the Elephant — and we have managed to continue that tradition in the new world of 21st century security threats.

John Chuckman from Toronto writes: ... The IRA and ETA and many others conducted campaigns for years. The U.S. largely ignored them, but as soon as the U.S. was struck for similar reasons (its incursions into Muslim lands), suddenly 'terror' became a world problem. It's nonsense. Sound law enforcement, good intelligence, and a sensible government can handle these things. All these requirements were ignored by the U.S. when it blundered into Afghanistan and Iraq like a military Frankenstein monster. Our best strategy is to dissociate ourselves from a nightmare American foreign policy and to help those abroad according to our traditional spirit and goals.

Wesley Wark: Dear John, This is not the history as I see it. The U.S. has had its own experience of terrorism and has had to confront it as a major power since the 1970s, often suffering grievous losses, as in Beirut for example. The history is set out well by Timothy Naftali in a study entitled Blind Spot. I don't see much ignoring of the problem. Honest people can and do disagree about the extent to which al-Qaeda represents something new, or poses a genuine existential threat to the West. From my perspective, the struggle ahead is not so much to disassociate ourselves from the United States, which is not always possible given our economic ties, but rather to assist in the effort, internationally, regionally and locally to eradicate support for terrorism. In my view terrorism is a scourge, not the only scourge but one we must fight.

Tony Burson from Toronto/Campinas, Brazil writes: Is it not inevitable that since Canada has moved from the role of peacekeepers to warriors in Afghanistan, that terrorists should see us as a target?

Wesley Wark: Tony, I think that Canada's military role in Afghanistan is bound to raise our profile as a target for international terrorist groups under the Taliban/al-Qaeda banner. This is part of the price we have to pay for that mission. More worrying, perhaps, is that Canadian extremists will also fasten on to the Afghanistan issue and use it as a motivator for planning or conducting terrorist activities in Canada, as is suggested in the current case of the Toronto group. On May 29, Jack Hooper, the Deputy Director of CSIS, told a Senate committee that we have to be concerned (he put it in the future tense) about blowback from Afghanistan.

Irene Cornwell from Morinville writes: Doesn't our safety basically depend a great deal on the co-operation of the Muslim community in Canada? If you can recall when U. S. cities were literally burning in the late 60's, Seattle had no major uprising. That was due largely to the fact that Boeing was a truly equal opportunity employer and paid good wages and promoted on merit. I lived in an integrated neighbourhood and black men in their 40's and older simply patrolled our street every night. Why? Because they owned their own homes and didn't want a fire on their block. I believe if we are supportive of the Muslim we 'know' they will be our most valuable 'neighbour'.

Wesley Wark: Irene, Yes, I think you are right that our security efforts depend on good co-operation from ethnic communities in Canada that might find themselves faced by extremists in their midst. Its a difficult situation to get right. Ethnic communities must police themselves to some extent, but must also trust in government and its law enforcement and intelligence services to do a good job of investigating problems. For its part the government has to prove to such communities that it knows them, trusts them, and can assist them in a join effort to combat unwanted threats. I think we can construct this kind of relationship between government and communities but it is not fully present yet.

Krista Sloan from Richmond Hill writes: What are your ideas regarding what we can do to not be so complacent? I would like to think I would notice something like that, but the truth is that we do try to stay out of peoples business and assume the best in others without being nosy, racist or suspicious. What can we do to identify these things?

Wesley Wark: Dear Krista, to the extent that Canadians are complacent, I think there are three remedies: One is to hold the media to high expectations that they will report the news fully and objectively. The second is to demand more of ourselves as consumers of knowledge. We need to know more about international politics, world religions and cultures, the history of terrorism and so forth. Knowing more is an excellent insurance against complacency. The third element is that we have a right to be kept fully informed by our government about the ways in which the state understands threats to our security and the practices that the state is adopting to combat such dangers. I think there is a lot of work to be done on all three fronts, including in my own field of education.

Robert Stewart from Tillsonburg, Ontario writes: I understand that this group organized itself — at least in part — through an internet chatroom. The police have been reluctant to cite any connection with al-Qaeda or any foreign terrorist organizations. Do you think that this is a homegrown group of fundamentalist which is independent of foreign control or is it more likely that the group was established through a few 'sleepers' who came to Canada some time ago and have been busy being innocuous in the meantime?

Wesley Wark: Dear Robert, I don't have the answer to your question. We may know more in future about how the terrorist cell came together and how it was motivated. My guess is that the pattern is similar to that of the London bombings of last summer, which involved radicalisation via the internet and exposure to extremist preaching. It is important to discover the roots of this thinking within the Toronto cell so that we can take steps to combat such manifestations in future.

S Hewitt from Birmingham, UK writes: Last week before a Senate Committee, Jack Hooper of CSIS said that his organization had adopted a 'diffuse and disrupt mode' against a group of eight men in the Toronto area that they suspect are involved in terrorist activities but who are unable to be arrested due to a lack of evidence. Leaving aside the negative historical parallels of such actions, do you think such tactics are wise? Would they not cause these individuals to become more cautious thus making it more difficult to collect evidence to charge them? And, if they are innocent, would that not convince some Muslims that Canadian state intelligence is conducting a campaign of harassment against Canadian Muslims, thus generating greater hostility and less co-operation?

Wesley Wark: Dear S Hewitt, the tactic that Mr. Hooper describes no doubt has its pitfalls. To judge its efficacy or wisdom would require us to know more about the specifics than we do. I believe that disruption tactics, which often mean little more than making clear to suspects that they are known to the authorities (for example by engaging in visible surveillance) is a fairly common tactic and perhaps used primarily against lower level threats. Under the CSIS Act, the Canadian spy service is required to meet certain legal and evidence thresholds to engage in different forms of intelligence collecting. In essence the greater the perceived threat, the more intrusive the surveillance that might be warranted. I would assume that disruption tactics are still surrounded by these legal thresholds. In other respects, I think the problem is that suspicions entertained by ethnic communities who feel themselves targeted can feed on both real and imagined activities.

Marcel DeCoste from Canada writes: Dear Dr Wark: I find some of the assumptions being aired here rather depressing--people seeking to make history conform to their own political convictions. Is it not, in your opinion, significant that this group has been watched since 2004 — i.e., before the Tories were elected, before even the Liberal Government changed the nature of our Afghan involvement — or that the Bali bombings happened before Australian involvement in Iraq, or that 9/11 was being planned before George W. Bush became President? It seems to me that these facts need to be taken into account when people start saying that certain leaders they dislike, or certain actions they disapprove of, are the (justifying?) causes for plans to do indiscriminate violence on Canadian civilians. Put briefly, then, where do you stand on the question of what we do or who we are, when it comes to the question of explaining Islamist antipathy? And if it is really about the latter, why has this particular group or ideology taken so prominently violent a tack (in a way not seen, for example, as emergent in other dispossessed or frankly oppressed communities worldwide)?

Wesley Wark: Dear Marcel, Well, the reality of people, Canadians, taking up the cause of jihadism is deeply depressing. There is a terrible pull that al-Qaeda and other jihadist thinking can have on the minds of people, too young to know better, or old enough to know better. I wish I had an answer as to have the magnetism could be shut off in one easy action. The best I can offer is that we have to understand that jihadism holds, at its heart, a classic conspiracy theory about how the world works. The world is out to deny Islam its rights, heritage, and religion. Islam under attack, enjoins redress. It can all be falsely argued via Koranic statement. Its appeal is visceral and for those who bite on the conspiracy theory, the evidence is all around: Muslims being oppressed and killed in Palestine, the Gaza strip, Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan. Our task in Canada and the West is to find a way to convince people that the conspiracy theory is wrong — this requires words and deeds, education and action to solve some of the world's gravest conflicts.

Michael Snider, globeandmail.com: Professor Wark, thanks very much for coming on today. It was a very good discussion. And readers, thank for joining us as well. Please continue to add your thoughts on the discussion or the topic by clicking on the "comment" link below.

If you would like to see a particular reporter/columnist invited on or a particular subject covered, let us know. You can email your suggestions to msnider@globeandmail.com