5120 Carney Road N.W., Calgary, AB, T2L 1G2

Phone: 403-282-8260 FAX: 403-289-4272

Stop terrorists from getting

Weapons of mass destruction

November 22, 2001

Lawyers for Social Responsibility called today for laws which would prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Laws should require the abolition and destruction of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The Chemical Weapons Convention needs to be ratified by every state. The Protocol to the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention needs to be finalized and ratified. The global community needs to agree on the immediate abolition of nuclear weapons.

Bev Delong, President of LSR, said: "The worst nightmare we face from international terrorism is the use of weapons of mass destruction. International law that prohibits the development and possession of weapons of mass destruction, coupled with effective global inspection, means that the manufacturing of these weapons can be nipped in the bud before they get into the hands of terrorists."

David Wright, former President of LSR, said: "The development of international law is more than just a statement of ideals. Any law, once implemented, has practical effects on the ground, affecting not only what people want to do, but also what people can do. The comprehensive implementation of a law that renders

illegal the development and possession of all weapons of mass destruction would mean that these weapons would no longer exist and the threat they could pose once in terrorist hands would disappear."

Jay Waterman, LSR Director, said: "The September 11 terrorist attacks and the harbouring of those responsible by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan shows that international terrorism can not exist without the tacit support and complicity of the government on whose soil the terrorists plot their deeds and then hide. Effective global inspection to root out the development of weapons of mass destruction would mean that terrorists would not be free to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction against innocents."

David Matas, a Director of LSR said: "We must combat the values of terrorists with our own values, their lawlessness with our laws. We must not abandon the use of global standards and the implementation of those standards as a response to terrorism. Rather, we need to develop international law in response to the lawlessness of international terrorism. At the end of the day, the rule of law, including international law, is both our best defence against the lawlessness of terrorism and the ultimate reason why we stand against terrorism."

Page 1 of 2 ........

Dr. Penelope Simons, Vice President of LSR, said: "The international legal chemical weapons abolition regime is a state-of-the-art disarmament treaty with intrusive verification measures however it must be universally ratified. There must be no exceptions to its endorsement. The procedures for verifying compliance with the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention still need finalization. The nuclear

weapons abolition regime is in its infancy. The number of weapons is decreasing. However, their total disappearance is regrettably today a distant mirage, despite the judgment of the International Court of Justice in 1996 requiring all states to negotiate the elimination of these weapons. Biological and nuclear weapons

should be as unacceptable as chemical weapons are."

Lawyers for Social Responsibility is a group of Canadian legal professionals who are concerned about the continuing existence of over 30,000 nuclear weapons worldwide. We seek the resolution of conflicts through rule of law and diplomacy.

For further information contact

Bev Delong (403) 282‑8260

David Matas (204) 944‑1831.

Penelope Simons (416) 932‑9287

‑ 30 ‑

........................................................................

Honourable John Manley

Minister of Foreign Affairs

and International Trade

Government of Canada

Dear Mr. Manley,

Lawyers for Social Responsibility asks that you protest the

extraterritorial assumption of jurisdiction by the United States

over Canada and Canadians under its Military Order: Detention

Treatment and Trial of Certain Non‑Citizens in the War against

Terrorism. That Order applies to "any individual not a United

States citizen" with respect to whom the President of the United

States makes certain determinations [section 2(a)]. Once a

person is subject to such a determination, the person may be

detained by the US Secretary of Defense at any location within or

outside the US designated by the US Secretary of Defense [section

3(a)]. US military tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction with

respect to offenses by any individual subject to the Order

[section 7(b)(1)]. The individual is denied any remedy sought in

any court of any foreign nation or any international tribunal

[sections 7(b)(ii) and (iii)].

Accordingly, the US president could determine that the Order

applies to a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil. The US Secretary

of Defense could then order the detention of the person in Canada

and the prosecution of that person by a US military court. The

detention of that person in Canada would not be subject to review

in Canadian courts. The person could not be prosecuted under the

Canadian criminal law.

The Government of Canada should make clear to the United States

that it will not accept the detention by the US authorities of

Canadian citizens in Canada. The Government should further

assert that we consider any detention in Canada to be subject to

review by Canadian courts and that we do not consider as binding

law in Canada an American law ousting jurisdiction of the

Canadian courts. Canada should emphasize that it reserves the

right to try any person in Canada under Canadian criminal law.

Canada further reserves the right to bring the United States

before the International Court of Justice should the United

States persist in its assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

There have been regrettably, in the past, instances of kidnapping

of American accused on Canadian soil for the purpose of bringing

the accused before the American courts. The Government of Canada

has protested these kidnappings. The recent Military Order

appears to threaten and legitimize [future] such kidnappings WHICH

MAY OCCUR IN THE FUTURE. The

Government of Canada should protest, before [the]ANY kidnappings

occur, an Order which would legitimize American kidnappings on

Canadian soil.

The Order, in our view, sets up a legal procedure that violates

international standards of fairness and due process. It would be

objectionable even if it were to apply only to persons on

American soil.

However, a fair legal procedure would not solve the problem of

extraterritoriality raised by the Order. The Order should not,

under any circumstances, apply to persons on Canadian soil.

Sincerely yours,

Bev Delong

President