You should look at
the accusations and how they are being supported by the
prosecution then formulate questions to ask in order to test how
stable they are. Your job is easier because others have already
done that for you. For every article you read (many of them
provided below) will always present the accusations. There is
really nothing beyond that as it relates to further context
because the prosecution refuses to present their case in public.
Before looking at sources, there is one guiding principle that
has to be upheld when observing this case: THE BURDEN OF PROOF
IS ON THE ACCUSER (in this case, the RCMP and CSIS). All
questions should be concentrated on: "Has the burden of proof
been met?" This should not even be subject to disagreement.
It is impossible for someone to say that the burden of proof has
been met because everything is shrouded in mystery culminating
on the refusal of the prosecution to have preliminary hearings.
That in itself should cast a shadow of doubt on the
prosecution's case. Opinions regarding this case can only be
shaped by accusations and the counters to them. We have plenty
of the former and none of the latter. That is not enough to form
an informed opinion. But, it is enough to put into question the
credibility of the prosecution's case. Asking questions about
whether or not the prosecution has met the burden of proof can
hardly be considered a counter. That is a basic moral function
that everyone should undertake: to ask questions. The defense
has had zero opportunity to present their arguments in public
unlike the prosecution before the media ban.
This event is about getting the other side of the story across.
Accused: The Story of
the Toronto 18
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 7pm to 9pm
University of Toronto, Mississauga
Room: TBA
http://utoronto.facebook.com/event.php?eid=6746632318
Although,
even that is misleading because the family and the lawyers of
the defendants are extremely limited in what they can reveal
because of the media ban. In a nutshell, even the most casual
observer will find the prosecution's case really suspicious.
So again, no one can tell you what to believe. What I can tell
you is to demand the burden of proof to be met by the accusers.
Has it been met? I personally think that they are not even
close. Their accusations are shrouded in mystery and has not
even been subjected to any sort of serious public scrutiny. The
accused are just that "accused", they have all been imprisoned
for nearly three years as innocent men. No one is even allowed
to look at the evidences provided by the prosecution to see if
there is enough to go to trial. Again, all of this sounds like
one big joke after another.
Even when the criminal trial finally moves forward, questions
regarding how much the jury has been influenced by the media
should be seriously taken into account. It should push all of us
to reflect on how the media dealt with this story when it first
broke out.
A general overview of the accusations can be found here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/toronto-bomb-plot/index.html.
Right now, this is only what the public is mainly aware of:
accusations. If you notice, this "in-depth look" is mainly
focused on the accusations and none of the recent developments
are being highlighted. Also, there are barely any counters (if
there are any at all) presented in this piece.
To put everything into context look at the articles below. I am
sure there are more available, just google for some more. Just
keep the guiding principle I said in mind.
1)
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070910_109132_109132&source=srch
Maclean's article: The Informant, Mubin Shaikh
2)
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071008_110111_110111&source=srch
Loose talk hastens a terror trial
3)
http://www.thestar.com/article/260191
The Star, Thomas Walkom, Sept 25, 2007
4)
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070212_140696_140696&source=srch
Maclean's article: Four million dollar rat
5)
http://www.thestar.com/article/242644
6)
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/260004
7)
http://www.thestar.com/article/261325
8)
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/276460
9)
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/274645
10.)
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=4eaa1f1f-2c7c-4c22-8e6f-c4e7ee111fc1&p=1
