CANADIEN

Thgere are three issues here. One, is he a child soldier? I think not, but he is certainly welcome to have his lawyers argue that once there is a legitimate tribunal in place to try him. Second - can he be tried in Canada? If the Criminal Code qualifies as a crime the murder of a soldier of an allied country during a war Canada is taking part in, yes. If not, he has not violated Canadian law. (BTW, for thosewho may be tempted to argue I think otherwise, if it's not a crime let's change the criminal code) Third - I think many of those who want Khadr back (and I am not particularly interested in having him back, btw) are basing their opinion on the illegal treatment Khadr has been subjected to in Guantanamo.

The issue of what to do with the rest of the Khadr family is a different one. Feel free to start a new thread on it anytime. Sadly, confusing concern for the highest standard of conduct with sympathy for anyone is nothing new coming from those on the right who couldn't care less about it.

Just trying to reach yours... not that I expect to do so. I'll admit my example is a bit extreme, but then, if we are to participate in another country's interrogation of a suspect criminal no matter what they do, there cannot be exceptions. Khadr was, by the own admission of the CSIS agents in charge of Khadr 's interrogation, he was deprived of sleep for a full MONTH before he was inteerogated. Call it whatever you want, it's torture. Interesting... since it is not what I think. I do hold however that the Bush administration lost its moral compass. So... we should also abdicate our responsibilities regarding the treatment of prisoners because we have no infrastructure to do so? Another cop out, like "it's the Americans detaininghim". I wasn't aware that one was covered by either the Constitution or international conventions. But then, you keep ignore both. And then there is your interpretation of the Constitution.

He asked to be tortured. There is a legal way to deal which such criminals. Yet some seem to fear its use. Why?

Questioning of an ennemy combattant is not the same as questioning of a suspect in a crime. The US Government chose to treat the Gitmo derainess as not being lawful combattants. They can't have it both ways... And neither way includes torture. Get real. participating in a process that violate international law and due process and the rules of fundamental justice is not what I call a mistake. Or the internationa; ;aw. The Supreme Court got it entirely right. And assisting in the illegal interroration of Khadr was entirely wrong. What next - if an American captor had started to cut Khadr's limbs one by one, Canadian officials should have kept asking him question because"hey, they're our allies and he's their prisoner anyway" The point that tBC2004 puts forwards posting after posting is that the American government is not bound by any notion of morally, that it can do whatever it pleases. and it is not the one you state, as the ruling makes clear. To detain them ourselves.

What you do not understand, or claim to not understand, is that there is a difference between checking the condition of a Canadian detained abroad and participating in his interrogation. At least the Suepreme Court knows the difference.

Due process in the US mandates that a lawyer be present in the interrogation of a suspect of a crime if the suspects requests one. Get YOUR fact straight. Only that they can excuse themselves from their responsibilities if they can convenienctly blame others. So, if I walk in a convenience store being roobed, and the robber tells me "Go ahead, here's tenty dollars", I won't be able to claim "hey, but I am not the onw who was robbing the place". The Supreme Court got it. You don't.

They were in a condition to refuse to interrogate him or ask any question related to the crimes he is accused of unless he had first consulted with a lawyer of his choosing, and unless they were sure that the responses were not coerced. As for your contention that Khadr's rights were not violated, what is difficult to understand in the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that they were?

Actually, the U.S. Courts has never stated that Khadr or other Guantanamo detainees are to be considered prisoners of wars. It has stated that under the Geneva Convention they cannot be considered unlawful ennemy combattants (and therefore not subject to the protection given prisoners of war without a hearing by an independant tribunal). Also,they have on a number of occasions ruled that detainnes accused of a crime were entitled to all rights and protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, inckuding access to a lawyer. Your use of the fact POW do not have lawyers does not fly very high. Prisoners of wars do not stand trial unless they're accused of a crime. Further, the Guantanamo detainees do not fit the definition of a prisoners of war. Thanfully, the Justices of our Supreme Court have a better understanding of the law (and the facts) than you. Canadian officials operating abroad do not cease to be bound by the rules of Canadian law when interracting with Canadian citizens. In this case, they were not merely asking Khadr about his state of mind, or the conditions of his detention. They were interrogating him, gathering and sharing information to be sued in a subsequent criminal trial. Because of the conditions that surrounded the interrogation - later found to be illegal by US Courts. in case you forgot - this interview constituted a violation of the rights of a Canadian citizen by Canadian government officials. Period. To you.

The only funny is your (wilful?) ignorance of certain basic facts. When Canadian officials interrogated Khadr, he was held as a person accused of a crime. The interrogations were taped and monitored, and information gathered was given to U.S. authorities to use in its prosecution of Khadr. As for you statement about the facts that POWs are not given lasyers, it ignores two fact. First, the US government has consistently refused to grant Khadr and others in his situation POW status. Second, POWs do not stands are prisoners, not accused of a crime, and when they are are entitled to legal representations.

By your measure, any 15 year old child who belongs to a street gang is not responsible for his actions. Khadr is respnsible for his actions. If one day the U.S. Government decides to do the right thing and have a REAL trial for Khadr, his lawyers will be free to bring in the "he was not responsible for his actions" defence.. and lose.

Since the Courts have made clear that actions of Canadian officials when interrogating Canadians accused of crimes are subject to Canadian laws, including the Constitution. Since US COURTS said so. In all honesty. I don't care much about Khadr. What I care about is the Canadian Government and Canadian officials respecting Canadian law.

Very lucky to be treated like a PoW... especially since the US Government has constantly refused to treat him as such. And I don't think you even bothered to read the Court decision, or you would know the answer. Various aspects of the procedures and policies in place at Guantanamo at the time Khadr was interrogated by Canadian agents in 2003 were later found BY U.S. COURTS to be against both U.S. and international law. In the case of Khadr, these violations included denial of access to a lawyer and of habeas corpusAlso, Khadr was subjected to treatment, such as sleep depravation, that amounts to torture. By interrogating Khadr without a lawyer present while he was being subject to sleep depravation, Canadian officials violated his rights under the Constitution, as well as fundamental justice. Like it our not, under our Constitution, even those accused of the most hieous crimes have a right to a lawyer, and not to be tortured. Canadian officials had no right to interrogate Khadr knowing the conditions he was subjected to. Good thing we have the courts to remind us of that.

Well put. the court said in essence to the Government: "You violated the rights of a Canadian. You decide how to remedy for it?. A far cry from - "it's foreign policy, so we have no right to say or do anything about it."

Justice delayed is justice denied

Yet, has he ever deleted any of your postings just because he didn't like them? Nope I'd say. His responsiblity as a moderator is to monitor the site and enforce the rules. Not to agree with statements posted here, or to hide his opinion.

(WARNING: WHAT FOLLOWS IS SARCASM) Now now, Leafless has a point here. I, for example, had a soft spot for all those poor children that were eaten by the witch before Hansel and Gretel triomphed over her. Then I realized it was a fairy tale.... Exactly like those fairy tales about people being deprived of their rights because there are signs in French alongside Ontario highways... or English on business signs in Quebec, for that matter.(END OF SARCASM)

The demise of the French language has been predicted since 1763 - that's 237 years ago. It will still be predicted 237 years from now.

Until the passing of the Citizenship Act of 1946, we were still defined in Canadian immigration laws as Brtish subjects.

Next time you want to counter my statement of FACTS about the OLA stating English and French have equal status, do yourself a favour and do not post something that says exactly that.

Thanks for the English translation. And the highest form of attachment to one's country is to defend the rights of its citizens. (NOTE; WHAT FOLLOWS IS SARCASM) About time you start "patronizing" Canada. (AND OF SARCASM) Typical proof that you are too paranoid to get it.

Unlike what some may mistakenly assume, Khadr was not a child soldier. He was not abducted and tortured to make him into a mindless killing machine. He should have stand trial for his actions.

Mark the day. We agree on something.

Wrong comparision. Ronald Smith was treated according to the rule of law, had access to a lawyer, was given a fair trial, and he was not tortured. And our Government was not a participant in an illegal process.

The point of the judgement is that OUR GOVERNMENT is bound by our Constitution and the rule of law. A point rightfully bring forth by the Supreme Court... and brought forth by the U.S. Court everything it has come against actions by the U.S. government in Guantanamo Bay, which about each and every time they had to rule on the topic. I said it before, and I will make myself even clear in case you are ynable to get it. Omar Khadr should have been tried and found guilty of the crimes he committed years ago, ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF LAW AND FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE. He should have been given access to a lawyer of his choosing, be given access to the evidence against him, and most importantly he should not have been tortured. Not because he is a swell guy and a hero or a poor misguided kid - he is clearly neither of them. But because WE are better than the terrorists and WE take the rule of law. His rights should have been protected up to and including the time when he was sentenced for his crimes and the sentence was carried out. The U.S. Government chose do ignore it. It's problem. Our Government (again, I point out, liberal and conservative) joined in, and in doing so made it our problem as well as a country.