National security secrecy replaced cross-examination with an oblique analyst, embedding the profile as truth.

Evidence

Signs that Almrei carries the seeds of terrorism within him must tell the whole story of his disloyalty, since no direct evidence of his culpability is available. The first empty space that the signs must fill is the departure of the right to face one’s accuser. At the hearing Almrei’s lawyer, Barbara Jackman, began by attempting to secure the right to cross-examine CSIS or the RCMP agents who were the authors of the case against Almrei. Denied access to the specific agents involved, in the interests of national security, instead she is only allowed to cross-examine an intelligence analyst, J.P. Since J.P. discusses generalities more than he is able to discuss the specifics of Almrei’s case, this decision secures for the profile its privileged place as truth. In cross-examination, J.P. acknowledged that the file of evidence against Almrei included items that may not be directly connected to him, for example, email in which Almrei’s name does not appear. He agreed that the Service does not always collect its own evidence, relying instead on media reports. — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 103

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s work on extrajudicial process and how procedure shapes outcomes; also parallels the Milgrom material on how institutions substitute for missing information.