Gabriel

Ha! It's ridiculous that eyeball is trying to suggest that somehow any Canadian in any circumstance should now fear being illegally arrested for no reason whatsoever when travelling abroad because the Canadian government will hang them out to try - as if Omar Khadr was a simple traveller on a boyscout convention. Ridiculous.

CANADIEN, full due process isn't necessarily promised to Gitmo detainees. Do you really need me to provide a link to prove it? I already explained that the SCOTUS ruled that Gitmo detainees are to be afforded the protections under the third common article of the Geneva Conventions. That isn't the same as full due process. Here's the language: To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. If you read it carefully, it means a Gitmo detainee can't be convicted prior to receiving the judicial guarantees offered to it by the USA, which as you've stated, includes access to a lawyer upon request. What you're missing, however, is that prior to the trial process and possible conviction and sentencing, the detainee can be questioned without a lawyer. It's shocking that you seem to think civil rights in their entirety should be applied to captured enemies on the battlefield. Are we going to start sending armed lawyers with our military servicepersons along with the chaplains, medics, and reporters? Get real. Peter F - Thanks for the link, I actually just checked the official decision prior to you linking it. It appears that Khadr was indeed interrogated by Canadian investigators looking to build a case against Khadr (CSIS). That was apparently a mistake without providing him a lawyer. Still, it's not a Canadian case, anyways. Since he was apprehended by the USA and was going to be charged by the USA, it's too bad that the SCOC seems to think it's inappropriate for Canadian security folks to assist our ally simply because certain components of his apprehension didn't adhere to the CCRF. Like I've already said several times, Gitmo isn't Canadian jurisdiction and to put a component of the CCRF above our national interest of security and cooperation with out allies doesn't make sense to me. I reject the idea that the CCRF applies outside of Canada, but I see some validity to international agreements Canada is a part of which apparently were transgressed in this case by American and Canadian officials. Smallc, you're missing bush_cheney2004's point. There's a very good reason why the SCOC didn't offer solutions, because they don't have one. Given the circumstances, I'd say Canada did a pretty good job in this case. Let's not ignore that America is our number one ally and our national security interests greatly overlap, and for Canada to not participate in important national security matters (such as assisting in the investigation of one of our nationals who is a terrorist killing our allies) because he was tired during an investigation and that he didn't have a lawyer present makes no sense. This reminds me of the whole Colvin Afghan detainee controversy. Let's assume there was a possibility that Afghan detainees apprehended by Canadian soldiers would be mistreated when transferred to the custody of the Afghanistan security forces - what's the alternative? To set them free so that these terrorists can kill more Canadian soldiers? It's called making the best of a difficult situation. Real life doesn't always accommodate the letter of the law. Peter F - You're right about the Maziar Bahari think not being relevant, I wasn't convinced that Canadians had participated in the interrogation process. By the way, Maziar Bahari is male.

But the Canadian officials didn't deny him any rights. Canada wasn't even in a position to deny those rights, he was in American custody. Obviously those rights are potentially impacted (limited) by the context in which you are having these dealings with Canadian officials. It's not like the room where Khadr was interviewed by the Canadian FA official was a little piece of Canada. Of course the Canadian FA official cannot deny a lawyer to Khadr if he is permitted one, but the Canadian official cannot guarantee a lawyer either since it is American jurisdiction. Again I ask you to think of a similar hypothetical scenario. Remember Maziar Bahari, the Canadian journalist who was imprisoned in Iran not to long ago for months? If a Canadian FA official was permitted to get in contact with him to interview him, would this official be complicit in violating his Charter rights? Obviously the Iranian system is cruel and doesn't subscribe to the basic standards we expect, such as protections from torture and access to a lawyer. I'm so bored of this conversation, hopefully this last hypothetical scenario will help you understand what I'm getting at.

You're wrong, they're not guaranteed access to a lawyer right off the bat. The third common article of Geneva Convention (which SCOTUS has stated applied to Gitmo detainees) includes a guarantee that prisoner not be convicted without having access to the standard methods of due process of a country. What that means is they're not to be tried or convicted without access to a lawyer. This doesn't mean they have access to a lawyer immediately after detention as would be the case for civilian criminals. Get your facts straight. You're making factual errors in every single post of yours. I never said or implied that Canadian officials are not bound to Canadian laws when abroad and interacting with other Canadians. What I did say was that Canada doesn't make the rules outside of Canada. So when the Canadian FA official went to interview (which Smallc claims was an interrogation) Khadr, they were doing so within the realm of American jurisdiction. As I've already told Smallc, Canada cannot go into Gitmo and dictate to the USA how Khadr must be treated. Canada cannot dictate that Khadr be given the chance to nap prior to speaking with the Canadian FA official. Khadr is under American jurisdiction and Canadian officials need to operate within that framework when going to Gitmo to speak with Khadr. If Americans were using sleep deprivation during their interrogation process, we cannot tell them to cease their operations on such a sensitive matter as national security to permit Khadr to sleep prior to speaking with our Canadian FA official. Since you've already made several factual errors, I cannot take your word for it that Khadr's interview with the Canadian FA official was thrown out by "US courts" (which court?). You seem to make up stuff as you go along.

But he isn't guaranteed a full night's sleep when in American custody at Gitmo after being captured as an enemy combatant in Afghanistan. Your Charter rights don't follow you around the world, you know? They exist only within our borders. I still reject your use of the term "interrogate" when all I've seen are interview. Was there Canadian participation in an investigatory capacity to build a case against Khadr? Specifically, was Khadr's interview with the Canadian FA official done with intent to prove his guilt? If not, then he didn't need a lawyer. If this was the case, however, Canada still doesn't have the authority to enforce these standards of provision of a lawyer at Gitmo without America's permission. End of story.

But they're not in the position to make the environment comply. Don't you get it? How can the Canadian government be expected to make the rules at Gitmo? Khadr could only be afforded a lawyer at America's discretion. Khadr could only be well-rested at America's discretion. These decisions were not to be made by the Canadian government. If Khadr is in American custody, they make the rules, not us. If America wanted him to have a lawyer, he would have been provided one at the time. He's not protected by the Charter when apprehended by Americans as a terrorist in Afghanistan. There's no Canadian government complicity in violating Charter rights and freedoms when interviewing Khadr while in American custody. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Did you ever think that perhaps the Canadian official had to operate within the rules of Gitmo? What if Gitmo official wouldn't permit a non-recorded interview? Since when can Canadian officials go to Gitmo and dictate how Khadr should have been treated? If Khadr was in the midst of investigation by Americans, and undergoing interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation, what do you expect the Canadian government to do? To demand that the Americans cease their procedures so that Khadr might be well-rested prior to his interview with the Canadian FA official? Should Americans put their national security on hold while we uphold Khadr's Charter freedoms to have a nap? Khadr is under American jurisdiction at Gitmo, and Canada doesn't have much of a say in that matter. You can't force the Canadian Charter into a place that isn't under Canadian jurisdiction. What you're saying makes no sense. And to suggest that the official who interviewed Khadr is somehow complicit in Charter violations is absurd. What else was the official to have done - NOT conduct the interview because Khadr's Charter rights weren't being afforded to him at Gitmo?

When did the Canadian courts make it clear that Canadian laws apply to Canadians held in another country's custody? Since when did Canada ever interrogate Khadr, either? This article states he was interviewed by a Canadian FA official, and doesn't say that he was interrogated by any Canadians on some sort of investigatory capacity. Being interviewed by a Canadian FA official for diplomatic purposes isn't the same as an interrogation conducted with the intent of unearthing evidence of Khadr's crimes. And the American courts NEVER stated that enemy combatants or POWs are entitled to standard due process. After checking online, the SCOTUS decision was to guarantee minimal freedoms to those captured and held at Gitmo under the third section of the Geneva Conventions. They absolutely are NOT guaranteed the full rights of those on American soil. You're just plain wrong on that one. I also care about Canadian law being respected.... in Canada. You seem to think that our jurisdiction extends beyond our borders.

How can the Charter apply when Khadr is in American custody, and at Gitmo, for that matter? Gitmo was used because it was considered to be outside of American legal jurisdiction to allow for an easier way to deal with prisoners caught on the battlefield. How can you expect the Charter to apply in such a scenario? Consider as well that he committed war crimes outside of Canada. Let's recap - Khadr committed his crimes in Afghanistan, where the Charter doesn't apply. Khadr was captured by Americans and brought to Gitmo, where the Charter doesn't apply. Khadr was interviewed by a Canadian FA official while in American custody, still at Gitmo, where the Charter doesn't apply. How could Canada provide a lawyer to Khadr in a place where Canada doesn't make the rules? It just doesn't make any sense. Imagine a Canadian FA official went to Iran to speak with the recently imprisoned Canadian journalist, would the government be breaching the charter if it didn't provide a lawyer to him? How could we provide a lawyer in a place where we have no authority? I know Iran and Gitmo are different, but Canada has no authority in Gitmo and can't override Gitmo's rules. Khadr could only have been provided a lawyer had the USA provided him with one. It's not our place to say otherwise.

Hey there CANADIEN, I'm not quite certain you've got your facts in order. As I recall, the USA Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Gitmo were entitled to certain basic protection under the Geneva Convention. I do not believe those protections include access to a lawyer. I'm quite sure you're wrong about sleep deprivation necessarily meaning torture. Remember that the cause of controversy was water-boarding, not sleep-deprivation. There are also varying degrees of sleep deprivation. Towards the extreme I'm sure it would constitute torture, but I don't think the sleep deprivation techniques used at Gitmo were described as illegal torture by any legal authority. Again you're bringing up Canadian rights, but my question is do they apply to Khadr at Gitmo? Canadian laws end at our borders. Canadian law doesn't have jurisdiction abroad. How can Canadian due process apply to an enemy combatant captured by America in a warzone? The CCRF doesn't follow Khadr around everywhere he goes. It applies to him when he's in Canada, not when he's outside of Canada, and certainly not when he's captured in a warzone. I also don't know that Khadr was interrogated by a FA official. The article says he was interviewed, and doesn't suggest that the interview was executed with some sort of investigatory motive to gather evidence towards supporting a case to convict Khadr of his crimes. I'm aware that the article also states that some of the interview between Khadr and the FA official was handed over to the American authorities, but so what? He's under their jurisdiction. This case is baffling.

Do you think you're being funny, or something? It's hardly that simple. The article itself plainly states that the CCRF doesn't apply to Canadian abroad, except in rare circumstances. I'd like to know what those circumstances are. The Khadr case is clearly an exceptional circumstance. Was the Canadian Foreign Affairs official supposed to bring a lawyer along when interviewing Khadr? I'm also unsure why he needs a lawyer if the Foreign Affairs official wasn't an investigator. The FA official wasn't there in a law enforcement capacity, I don't think, so why would Khadr have needed a lawyer? Again, what type of lawyer(s) should he have had? The very concept of a lawyer seems to imply that he's a civilian criminal (if that's a term I can use) rather than an enemy combatant. Is it standard for POWs (and he's not even a conventional soldier, but a non-uniformed terrorist) to be given lawyers when captured? It'd be interesting to get more insight from somehow familiar with the relevant laws of this case, if such a person exists on this forum.

I read the article from the OP. What rules are you talking about, anyways? As I already quoted form the article, the Charter only applied to Canadians abroad in rare circumstances. What circumstances are those? EDIT - I never said I knew more about the law than the Supreme Court. I'm asking an honest question about how our laws of due process extend to extremely difficult and unique circumstances such as the Khadr case beyond our borders. Should Khadr have been linked up with a Canadian lawyer when he was interviewed by a Foreign Affairs official when at Gitmo? An American lawyer? I'm looking for serious answers from those who know a thing or two about this stuff. If you can't answer the questions, then stop pestering me and trying to be funny. I also don't know why you're trying to describe me as a conservative.

There's this line in the linked article from the OP - The charter does not normally apply to Canadians abroad, except in rare circumstances. What circumstances would those be? I'm interested in knowing what type of lawyer the Supreme Court of Canada expected Khadr to have when he was being interviewed by a Canadian Foreign Affairs official. I'm seriously confused how Canadian due process laws extend beyond our borders, and particularly how they extend to areas in the most difficult of circumstances - a warzone with where we and our allies are battling terrorists. If anything, Khadr's been treated very well considering the circumstances. He's lucky to even be alive.

The good news is that the Supreme Court is leaving the decision with the government as to whether or not to repatriate Khadr. We all now the government's position on this - they will not try to bring Khadr back. I'm no lawyer, but since when do Canadian laws of justice apply to traitors who fight and kill our allies? Khadr voluntarily went to Afghanistan to join our enemies and killed an American soldier. Since when are terrorists or enemy combatants entitled the same standards of due process when captured on the battlefield? If Taliban terrorists aren't immediately given lawyers when captured, why should Khadr be any different? Since when do Canada's laws of due process extend beyond our borders? It seems like quite an overstatement to describe Khadr being interviewed when sleep deprived as a 'violation of human rights'. If we could create a gauge to measure the severity of human rights violations, this case would barely register on the meter. EDIT - In all honesty, I'm much more concerned about a real Canadian waiting months for some sort of medical procedure to give him or her relief from pain than I am about this murderer being sleep deprived while at Club Gitmo.

Come on, Topaz... I thought you were a smart guy. You can't honestly believe this story. Harper has never said anything even remotely suggesting that he desires some sort of North American union. How can you create this thread with the fake story and still keep a straight face? Please don't be one of those freaks who tries to suggest that agreements between the USA and Canada (and perhaps Mexico) on important issues is somehow synonymous with us all becoming on state.

I think Topaz intended to write "aren't too happy..." Apparently the Iraqi government has issued a public statement expressing strong dissatisfaction with the ruling. I don't know the intricate details of the case, so I can't comment strongly on this decision. I imagine it's the right decision, though (based on the little that I do know about this story).

According the CNN and Fox News, two of the terrorists in the recent video claiming responsibility for this attempted mass murder were former detainees at Guantanamo released under the Bush administration. How absurd is it to release folks who are still a clear and present danger? Unreal.

Everyone needs to be subject to standard screening. Special screening, however, is pointless with a 60-year-old white grandma from the midwest. A young, Middle Eastern, Muslim/Arabic male (or female, actually), travelling alone with little or no luggage on an overseas flight needs to be scrutinized. I've been at an airport recently, and I sometimes see ridiculous things. Spare us the political correctness, is all we're saying.

That's exactly what I'm saying, that they're checking everyone equally when they need to be utilizing profiling, which often includes racial/ethnic/cultural profiling. It's ridiculous, clearly Arabic/Muslim passengers are higher risk than non-Arabic/Muslim passengers. Anyone with a brain knows this.

You just *know* that airports are screening 40-something year old Jon Smith from Fort Lauderadale as vigilantly as Muhammed bin Adbulareman from London.... which is ridiculous.

Well of course, that goes without saying. But in all seriousness, what examples do we have in recent history of airlines terrorism that AREN'T Islamic? As I was saying earlier, 'terrorism' has almost become synonymous with 'Islamic terrorism', to the point that most news agencies aren't even using the term 'Islamic' anymore... it's as if it's a given that terrorism is necessarily Islamic.

I think the airline was Northwest. Anyone think the airline will reward the passengers and crew involved in some way? Perhaps giving the passengers involved in detaining this animal a certain number of complimentary air-trips per year for the rest of their lives?

This story has been covered extensively since the moment it happened. CNN and Fox News have been ALL OVER IT. As was said by bush_cheney2004, airline passengers now seem to be ready to respond to a would-be Islamic terrorist very quickly. The passengers and crew that apprehended this monkey are heroes. Hopefully he'll be executed for his failed attempt at mass murder. I noticed the news coverage on CNN and Fox News to be playing down the Islamic element of this story during the first day, at least - primarily with their unwillingness to describe this terrorism as Islamic terrorism. Although perhaps terrorism has now become synonymous with Islamic terrorism, to the points that the adjective "Islamic" is no longer necessary when it comes to reporting on terrorism, it's simply understood that terrorism is almost necessarily Islamic.

Your whole post is completely irrelevant. What does your anecdote about a previous and apparently dentist have to do with anything? Perhaps dentists and other professionals occasionally behave unethically, abusing the trust of their patients/clients by recommending unnecessary services in order to increase revenues. This has nothing to do with the philosophy of science, or Health Canada's regulation of various industries (i.e. natural health products, prescription medicines, and even traditional Chinese medicine). Tea tree oil has been proven to be a strong disinfectant, so it isn't a hocus pocus remedy (i.e. most traditional Chinese medicine). Tea tree oil isn't traditional Chinese medicine, either (it's only available from the eucalyptus plant, which I think is only indigenous to Australia and/or New Zealand). With respect to flossing, when you say 'aggressive', I sure hope you are referring to frequency and not to brushing technique. Aggressively brushing your gums, forcefully and abrasively, is a BAD IDEA. That'd probably explain why you may have recessed gums. Anyways cheers, this thread is now officially off-topic and beyond pointless. I'll happily continue a thread where we discuss ridiculous health trends and regulation. I'm down for some chiropractic-bashing. Let's also trash homeopaths and naturopaths who portray themselves as doctors and prey on the desperate and ignorant.

What women haven't been allowed to seek justice? At first I thought you were knowingly lying about this story, but now it's apparent that you actually believe the lies. Did you even read my posts in this thread? I specifically said that tehe internal policies of a company DO NOT override a person's ability to seek resolutions from outside the company. More specifically, the company policies DO NOT restrict someone from going outside of the company to address problems - i.e. calling the police about a discrimination or sexual assault. The internal policies only state that the employee IS REQUIRED to report such incidents to relevant internal bodies, such a human resources department. This is a normal and appropriate policy. If you've ever worked for a large company you'd realize that they normally require you, as a part of policy (usually agreed to via a employment contract), to report any unsavoury activity that you are aware of. For example, if you know of theft going on within a company, you are required to report. The same goes for more serious offences like discrimination and assault. An employee MUST report this internally. This reporting DOES NOT prevent the employee from escalating the issue with proper law enforcement authorities. The bottom line - this is NOT anti-rape legislation. This is bullshit legislation grandstanding as anti-rape legislation, when it reality it is trying to block the government from doing business with companies that have NORMAL and INTELLIGENT internal policies. Btw, is English not your first language?