The eventual revelation that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq should serve as a constant reminder of the hazard of simply accepting at face value evidence gathered from the shadowy world of intelligence sources.

Such evidence is notoriously unreliable, coming from unidentified sources whose knowledge or motives are unknown, or who may have simply confirmed "information" put to them by interrogators in order to end a particularly excruciating bout of torture.

And yet Canadian immigration law allows our authorities to use such evidence - unchallenged - to detain indefinitely an immigrant or refugee claimant they believe might pose a security threat. The Harper government last week defended the government's right to detain people on immigration "security certificates," arguing before the Supreme Court that such sweeping powers are necessary to protect Canadians against terrorism. Five Muslim men have been held in Canada under these certificates for the past few years.

But surely the best means of protecting ourselves, not to mention our democracy and the rights of the accused, lies in learning the truth.

The system of security certificates makes it very difficult to learn the truth. Under the system, the accused are tried in secret courts. Neither they nor their lawyers are permitted to know the evidence against them, making it impossible for them to challenge this evidence, whatever it might be.

Criminal lawyer Marlys Edwardh notes that this means the judge must weigh the evidence, without any way of knowing the weaknesses in the government's case.

The government may, for instance, argue that an accused was at an Al Qaeda training camp at a particular time. How can the judge challenge this, asks Edwardh: "What can he say: Are you sure?" Meanwhile, the accused is denied the opportunity to present evidence that may show he was fully employed in Canada at the time and, therefore, couldn't have been at the training camp.

It's often asserted that, in these cases, there's a clash between the goal of protecting civil liberties and the goal of ensuring the safety of Canadians. But wrong information about terrorist threats does nothing to ensure our safety. Indeed, wrong information can lead us to confuse real and imagined terrorist threats - with possibly dangerous consequences.

Is there any evidence that the American people are safer because they invaded Iraq, out of the false belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

If Canadians join U.S. wars - prodded by fears of terrorist plots that may not even be true - it's hard to see how this makes us safer. It might well do the opposite.

"He's more popular now than a year ago. He's on the rise," said Nasser Hadian-Jazy, a professor of political science at Tehran University. "I guess he has a 70% approval rating right now. He portrays himself as a simple man doing an honest job. He's comfortable communicating with ordinary people."

While there are no reliable national opinion polls in Iran, western diplomats acknowledged that support for Mr Ahmadinejad is growing, defying widespread predictions after last June's election that he would not last more than three months.

"An indication of his power is the way he has whipped up public opinion on the nuclear energy issue," a western diplomat said. "If there was an election today, he would win." It was possible that Mr Ahmadinejad could become a liability to the government if Iran were taken to the UN security council, he added. "But I think in that situation, he gets stronger."

Vahid Karimi, of the government-affiliated Institute for Political and International Studies, said: "Certainly his popularity is increasing. People like what he says. It's not so much because he stands up to the west but because he's not corrupt. This is very important." Independent Iranian sources said many people were surprised that Mr Ahmadinejad had not turned out to be as socially conservative as many expected. His attacks on the privileges enjoyed by some among Iran's ruling clerical elite and his recent unsuccessful attempt to allow women to attend football matches had made a big impact.

Mr Ahmadinejad's rising political fortunes run counter to American attempts to isolate Iran, which it brands a rogue state. US officials have described the Iranian president as a threat to world peace and claim that he faces a popular insurrection at home.

Professor Hadian-Jazy said Mr Ahmadinejad was initially surprised by the furore that greeted his outspoken criticism of Israel and apparent denial of the Holocaust. "Coming from his background it was not uncommon to say that stuff. He never thought that as president it would be different. But once he got the reaction, he realised it could establish him as a strong leader among Muslims. It was a calculated move."

Palestinian rights are strongly supported by Iran. But the president's anti-Israeli statements made an even bigger impact in the Arab world, said Sayed Mohammad Adeli, Iran's former ambassador to Britain and head of the Econotrend thinktank. "They see Ahmadinejad's resistance as admirable. He has become a hero of the people on the street."

Mohammad Atrianfar, founder of the leading reformist newspaper Shargh and an ally of Hashemi Rafsanjani, the president's rival, said Mr Ahmadinejad would not have it all his own way. "The reform movement is alive, despite last year's defeat," he said, although he added it would take some time to regroup. Meanwhile, the government was mishandling economic policy, and that could be its undoing.

"The present economy, due to the rate of oil prices, is in a good situation. But the management of the state sector is very bad. I can compare him to a wicked child who has inherited a large amount of money and goes on a spending spree. He has taken horrid and rushed decisions."

Mr Atrianfar said that windfall oil revenue was being squandered through state handouts to impoverished provinces and commodity subsidies. But there was insufficient investment in long-term projects and infrastructure, foreign investment was falling, and the country was suffering capital flight and a brain drain.

Saeid Jalili, deputy minister of foreign affairs, confirmed in an interview that renewed discussions were under way. "My colleagues have talked with Mr Solana over the phone and the gentleman has expressed a willingness to come and explain the ambiguities. That is good, and we welcome that.

"So far we have not arranged anything. It is just an expression of willingness."

A western diplomat confirmed the EU initiative. "We have offered them a further meeting. It would be semi-private and there would be no press conferences." He said the meeting could take place in Vienna or Tehran.

Mr Solana's offer has underlined the high stakes riding on Iran's acceptance of the western package, designed to halt the long-running dispute over its controversial nuclear activities.

The EU said on Monday it expected to have a formal response - and hopefully an acceptance of the offer - by the end of the month. The western diplomat agreed there was a de facto deadline: "Time is important. The G8 foreign ministers meet at the end of the month and the G8 [leaders] in mid-July. They will say what is Iran's response to our proposals."

But Iran has publicly insisted it will not be pressurised and will accept no pre-conditions for talks. The foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said this week the package was being debated by expert committees. Iran's final word is expected to come from the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or from Mr Larijani.

The US president, George Bush, warned Iran on Monday that Washington "would not waver" from its insistence that Tehran cease all enrichment activities at its Natanz nuclear facility. If Iran did not comply, he implied the US would refuse to participate in future negotiations.

Meanwhile, AFP reported that British forces, backed by attack helicopters, pressed deep into southern Afghanistan.

British commanders said the operation in Helmand province, the birthplace of the Taliban movement, is going much faster than expected, with troops also using small arms fire and light artillery to attack Taliban fighters.

"We have done far more of the mission now than we thought we would do," said Brigadier Ed Butler, commander of the British forces in Afghanistan.

Britain has deployed more than 3,300 troops in Helmand province to take over from the U.S. army there by the end of July under the umbrella of a NATO-led force.

Butler said the deployment was about 85 percent complete, noting: "I expect to have all the forces in by the 1st July."

More than 40 foreign forces have been killed in combat in Afghanistan this year, almost 30 of them Americans, in the worst flare-up of violence since the U.S. invaded the country in late 2001.

In a separate development, an Afghan MP said that Taliban armed men killed 32 of his friends and relatives in southern Afghanistan, adding that ten others went missing after the attack.

"Yesterday morning in Taliban attacks, 32 of my relatives and friends were killed," MP Dad Mohammad Khan told AFP.

"Ten relatives of mine are still missing and five are wounded," he added.

The attack was also confirmed by deputy provincial governor, Mullah Amir Akhund.

"A total of 30 people were killed in the attack in Sangin district yesterday, which includes two brothers of MP Dad Mohammad, one of his sons and the rest are mostly his relatives," he said.

"His other son and three more are wounded."

A self-proclaimed Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility for the attack on Sunday.