[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, I’m not missing the point, you guys aren’t reading the article. Two different government agencies wanted an alternate approach due to the impact the original approach would have on how they do their jobs (including Global Affairs ability to manage diplomatic relations).

Nobody dismissed the threat, nobody handcuffed CSIS into doing nothing. The government agencies CSIS consulted with wanted an approach that wouldn’t compromise their work, and instead CSIS did nothing.

But seriously, do you honestly think that was just… it? Nothing happened between 2017 and now? Nothing was done, CSIS continued to do nothing (despite having enough knowledge to accurately warn Hardeep of his death)?

That is clearly not what the article says:

CSIS planned a major intervention in 2017 to shut down rapidly growing Indian intelligence networks in Vancouver that were monitoring and targeting the Sikh community, according to a confidential Canadian foreign interference review.

But Ottawa blocked CSIS’s operation due to “political sensitivity” and fears it would impact Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s upcoming trip to India, the top secret June 2019 report says. And so, the Indian diplomat in Vancouver targeted by CSIS continued to run his networks “unabated.”

Unabated meaning without any reduction in intensity or strength.

In the meeting, Jean raised questions about whether Trudeau administration plans to change the CSIS Act, would impact CSIS’s use of threat reduction operations, the NSICOP report says.

However, the report explains, before launching threat reduction operations, CSIS must consult with other departments including Global Affairs Canada and Public Safety Canada. And these departments often discounted CSIS warnings, while Global Affairs tended to value trade and political deals with China and India, over national security measures.

It sure sounds like it is being claimed that these departments have a history of dismissing threats for various reasons not related to security and intelligence.

As a result of other departments telling CSIS to stand down, NSICOP says that CSIS “met with a smaller number of individuals from Mr. Jain’s network, but did not, as originally planned, engage elected officials or journalists.”

Perhaps more shockingly — in light of CSIS’s original plans to disrupt the growing Indian intelligence networks targeting Sikh communities in Vancouver — after these meetings in Ottawa, CSIS did nothing to target the Vancouver diplomat, “Mr. Singh or his network.”

In addition, in CSIS’s original threat reduction plan, Global Affairs Canada “had committed to inform senior Indian diplomats in Canada of Mr. Singh’s activities,” NSICOP says.

But later, for political reasons, Global Affairs was mute on CSIS’s concerns in Vancouver.

“For its part, Global Affairs did not raise Mr. Singh’s activities to senior Indian diplomats,” the NSICOP document says, “because it had concerns that preparations for the Prime Minister’s trip to India were reaching a critical point and may be negatively affected by such an intervention.”

CSIS did nothing after these meetings. They probably became heavily involved again after the murder though.