Lack of publicly revealed evidence does not mean a lack of evidence.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601284
The guy murdered was associated with one of the alleged perpetuators later on according to Canadian court records.
The perpetrators weren't "let go"; they had a trial (the most expensive trial in Canadian history), and two of the three charged were found not guilty. Which is how things work in a liberal democracy.
> The guy murdered was associated with one of the alleged perpetuators later on according to Canadian court records.
Pretty sure that's not a crime in Canada. And if it is one, it doesn't meet the standard of "summary execution while sitting in ones car", which is definitely not a thing in Canada.
Is the destruction of critical evidence also part of a liberal democracy? Not to mention failure to prevent critical witnesses from getting killed before being able to give testimony.
> June 2, 2003:
> Opposition MPs call for an inquiry into accusations that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) blocked the RCMP investigation into the bombing.
> According to RCMP documents, CSIS ordered the destruction of hours of wiretaps to conceal the fact that one of its agents, Surjan Singh Gill, had penetrated a circle of Sikh extremists planning the attack. He was ordered to pull out three days before Air India Flight 182 blew up.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/air-india-bo...
> June 17, 2010:
> Major releases his final report. Over more than 3,200 pages, he tears into the government and its "wholly deficient" agencies. He says failure to prevent the bombing was "inexcusable," the CSIS was "ineffective" and notes a "lax security culture" at airports. The RCMP "failed" to protect threatened witnesses, he adds.
> Major says he cannot understand why CSIS deleted its wiretap tapes: "Inconceivable, incomprehensible, indefensible, incompetence," he writes
> He also says successive governments had treated the victims' families "like adversaries, as if they had somehow brought this calamity on themselves." Politicians' failure to plug security holes was "inexcusable."
> The inquiry concludes Talwinder Singh Parmar was the mastermind behind the deadly bombing.
Maybe you know more than the retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice John C. Major.
Did the presumably new information change your mind? Or do you still think it was a standard part of a liberal democracy?
Here's the then Canadian PM's apology after 25 years. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/stephen-harpers-apology...
Fair trials are indeed a cornerstone of liberal democracy, with fairness being an attribute given to those accused of a crime, not necessarily the unfortunate victims. The accused tends to get the benefit of the doubt because of the cost of the loss of freedoms that hinge on a guilty verdict. CSIS fucked up. The RCMP fucked up. But there is a standard to which prosecutions are held and the government didn't meet it.
And none of this excuses _gunning down a person sitting in their car_ which, in case you forgot, was the original topic of this discussion. It doesn't matter who they associated with, what they were involved with, or what they did.
[1] https://espionage.substack.com/p/canadian-intelligences-dirt...
[2] https://espionage.substack.com/p/how-canadian-intelligence-a...
There is evidence that CSIS destroyed evidence that led to the acquital of the defendants. And your response is "CSIS fucked up. The RCMP fucked up." Nothing to see here!
True, the Indian government fucked up.
As for liberal democracies: you'll find many examples of the spies (i.e. counter-intelligence) working at cross purposes to the criminal justice system. Think MI5 vs the Met, or the NSA vs local law enforcement. The spooks are often much more interested in protecting sources and methods than they are in criminal prosecutions. That's partly why the USA has gotten so good at parallel construction.
I don’t understand this line of thought.
If not to justify the murder then what are you trying to achieve?
In all likelyhood the evidence does not exist.
> Weeks before Trudeau's announcement, Canada had asked it's closest allies, including Washington, to publicly condemn the killing, according to a Western official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a diplomatically sensitive matter. But the requests were turned down, the official said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/19/india-expels...
>"Reports that Canada asked the U.S. to publicly condemn the murder and that we refused are false and we would strongly push back on the rumours that we were reluctant to speak publicly about this," the official said.
US formally support Canada investigation, urged India to cooperate. That doesn't happen behind the scenes if US can wiggle out of allegations. Canada wouldn't have gone to G20 with allegations on sidelines unless they have sufficient FVEY intelligence. That's read between the line of formally supporting Canadian allegations but trying to find a position not throw everything into the shitter. Which they could have during Indian G20 to make this the dominating narrative. The most charitable interpretation right now is FVEY/US supports CA allegations, but still hoping this somehow IN/CA can manage crisis in way it would blow over.
> Canada had asked it's closest allies, including Washington, to publicly condemn the killing
> US formally support Canada investigation, urged India to cooperate.
They got a much, much weaker level of support than they wanted.
Would you need to review someone else’s evidence to decide if you committed a murder?
Third party evidence is relevant only to the extent that they didn't do it as a matter of state policy but a rogue agent or group might have done it.
As long as there is no evidence provided by Canada, India is the victim here, with Canada leveling baseless allegations on her.
That's why I said, India has to confirm Canada's factual evidence first, because it can be any politically motivated bullshit for all we know.
Or the attacks may have been carried out by a rogue agent, with no hand of the Indian government in it. But even then the Canada has jumped the gun and claimed that the killings were state sponsored. In that case too India is the victim with Canada making false accusations against her.
I don't get how you infer support of Canada's allegations from a statement that the Indian government doesn't need to rely on Canada's evidence to determine whether or not they carried out an assassination, since they either know that they did it or know that they didn't do it.
> Or the attacks may have been carried out by a rogue agent, with no hand of the Indian government in it.
What do you think I meant when I said, "Third party evidence is relevant only to the extent that they didn't do it as a matter of state policy but a rogue agent or group might have done it."
It would be nice if your responses to other people's posts showed some sign that you were actually reading those posts rather than going off on a canned tirade that isn't in any meaningful way relevant to what it is nominally a response to.
In either case, India wouldn't need evidence from anybody else to determine its own innocence or guilt, because surely it knows whether it did what it is being accused of doing.
Even if this murder thing is true, it could have been some rogue agent in the government. In that case the evidence would flush them out. India does have a lot to lose, reputationally, in this case. But not enough to lose that they would simply accept whatever Canada says.
From the Indian point of view Canada has also brushed off situations where India approached them with evidence against Canadian citizens. So if Canada now approaches with demands of their own, dismissing these is perfectly alright without precise evidence.
India has no obligation to preserve whatever sources some 5 eye(I) country has within their government, and just cooperate with Canada no questions asked.
From my perspective, the crime would need to be officially sanctioned by the person or people in power, for it to be called "done by the government". Just like if a US government employee is turned rogue, deciding to act against the US government, I wouldn't say that the US government is now against the US government.