The Poor, Misunderstood Khadr Family

[WarBicycle]

Computer held by Khadr's sister contains al-Qaeda files, RCMP say

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

COLIN FREEZE

May 15, 2008 at 4:48 AM EDT

RE-COPIED article deleted

She should be sitting in a cell next to her two brothers in US custody.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Charles Anthony
re-copied article deleted by moderator

[Rue]

She should be sitting in a cell next to her two brothers in US custody.

Look I know the Kadr family does not exactly generate sympathy. In a way they typify what happens when some people abuse democracy and freedom of speech. Its a classic case of a family that comes to Canada, enjoys its medicare, all its social services, its standard of living, all the benefits of being Canadian and those of us born in Canada probably take for granted. They came and enjoyed all the benefits they then would have us believe they have nothing but contempt for and consider evil and need to be defeated.

I appreciate its the utmost in hippocracy and it infruriates people. Yes the idea someone can commit terror and believe in intolerance and then use the same legal system they are sworn to destroy to protect themselves from their actions is hard to swallow.

The problem is that portion of this issue, which causes strong emotional resposnes such as anger, contempt, the desire to seek revenge and lash out and punish-its all understandable but it doesn't address another portion of the debate.

If we allow our laws to be subverted by not following a due and fair process, sure you might get what you think is revenge on the Kadrs but what about others who may not be the Kadrs and may not have done what they did?

The concern I have is not over the Kadrs but over whether the precedents that have been established by the U.S. violate both the U.S. constitution and Canadian constitution and in effect create a precedent to not just suspend but permanently take away basic concepts of fundamental justice that are the building block of a democratic society.

The problem here is the rules of evidence that our criminal and civil litigation systems follow have been thrown out. The fundamental rules of natural justice our administrative tribunals follow, has been thrown out.

The due process required to make sure the legal proceeding that would find Kadr guilty (which everyone assumes he is) has been thrown out-tossed.

Even if you think someone is guilty there is a reason we have process and procedures to assure its proven fairly. Its to safeguard us all not just Kadr from potential abuse in unrelated cases.

The tendency to be myopic and say, who gives a shit, hang the little twit is tempting but its not just about Kadr or his family, its about the US and Canadian legal systems and the integrity of their processes.

The tribunal set up to hear Kadr does not follow the law of the military that was based on a code of honour and ethics. It deliberately creates a new and different system that neither follows military law or our civil or criminal laws. It fuses or mixes politics and a process to impose certain political assumptions. The fact that we may agree with those political assumptions, doesn't make them legitimate or legal.

You want to try Kadr it should have been done according to existing military law or international law. What the U.S. and Bush regime did was create a new system so it would not be accountable to international law or military law or its own constitution and that is just plain wrong.

Canada unlike Britain, did not ask for Kadr to be returned and tried under Canadian laws. This has set the wrong legal precedent. The British were right. If the individual is a Canadian citizen he belongs in Canada under Canadian laws unless he is held as a prisoner of war by the U.S.

But the U.S. created a new prisoner of war category and created a new law. They have in fact invented a new category for terrorists. The problem with that is the formula they use to define terrorist was never defined or stipulated. All they did was to say he's not a soldier at war, but he's not entitled to civilian or international laws.

So they created this new category by attrition, by defining what Kadr is not, not what he is. Law is formulated on stating what is, not what isn't. Simply stating what isn't simply creates ambiguity and in fact a state of lawlessness.

What the U.S. has one is create a tribunal and system to be lawless, i.e., to cricumvent its own military, civilian, criminal and constitutional laws, international law, and all Canadian laws.

Harper had a legal obligation to assure certain things were respected no matter how repugnant Kadr may appear to you. By relinquishing our sovereign right to have control over our citizens if they are not prisoners of war, we send a signal to the world that will not defend our own sovereignty.

In this case it may seem great because you hate Kadr but its going to be used in future situations where the citizen is NOT a terrorist and has been mistakenly accused of something they did not do. Then what?

There's a reason Britain pulled the suspected terrorists that were British citizens out of G-Bay. Is anyone going to accuse Britain of being soft on terror? Of course not. It did so because of legal issues it was not willing to see violated.

The major issue with Kadr is this. Until there is a new internal legal convention states sign as signatories and they agree to follow as to how to deal with terrorists-we have 2 laws to deal with terrorists. One is military law where they are apprehended as prisoners of war and fall under the Geneva Convention and ordinary military law as to treatment of prisoners of war OR they are arrested as criminals and tried as criminals under the domestic criminal laws of the nation where the crime was committed-but the US can not have it both ways and invent a new law that is a little bit of military law, a little but of criminal law, but scraps any due process and basically turns it into a political tribunal no different then the very kangeroo courts we criticize in Muslim countries like Iran or totalitarian countries like China.

No I do not like the Kadr family. I find there continued enjoyment of Canada's laws and social benefits to be the utmost in hippocracy. However that to me is not the issue. Assuring our laws follow due process so that democracy is not endangered from others using the Kadr precedent for future abuse is.

As for Kadr himself it was and continues to be my opinion he should have been treated as a prisoner of war.

If this shows us nothing else it is that we need new international law as to how terrorists are to be treated and tried. I doubt that will ever happen at least not at this point in time. Russia, China and the U.S. will never agree to it.

Even in Israel contrary to what some of you might believe, when they arrest and detain a terrorist and place them in prison, although the trials are not public domain, there are certain basic rules that must be followed including what evidence must exist and there is full disclosure of evidence provided the person arrested and defined as a terrorist and the Supreme Court of Israel has over-turned and released individuals suspected of being terrorists when these rules and processes were not followed.

I could understand if the U.S. had concerns about wanting to keep these proceedings closed to the public, but that was never the issue. In fact it appears they want this process they have invited to be a public show-case-its designed for public display. Its precisely the US Bish regime's intention to make this a public display that destroys its credibility.

This should have been handled by a US military tribunal following prisoner of war procedures. Its bastardized the US military and turned their officers into performing monkeys for a political agenda. It is an affront to military tradition and their laws.

[AngusThermopyle]

Excellent post Rue, really can't disagree with what you said.

I don't like the Khadr's, not one little bit, but I do agree that we must abide by the law in all cases. Personally I would like to see them stripped of citizenship and sent packing but that too would become a huge debate and result in little solid resolution.

Bush has indeed begun a process of removing basic rights, all one has to do is read the actual Patriot Act in order to see this. Its actually a pretty scary read, in a nut shell it places all power into the hands of one man, GW himself. When you consider this person is more suited to changing a tractor tire at the side of a dusty road than he is to running the most powerfull nation on the planet it becomes somewhat worrisome.

The Khadr's will continue to be problematic for us in the conceivable future and no satisfactory solution appears to be in sight. This is why I favour the deportation option, however not being a lawer I have no idea of the more subtle ramifications of such an action.

[WarBicycle]

Khadr was an unlawful combatant, he was not a member of any nation's military force and, therefore, should not be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, nor is he entitled to child-soldier status as our liberal press would like everyone to believe.

[Wild Bill]

Khadr was an unlawful combatant, he was not a member of any nation's military force and, therefore, should not be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, nor is he entitled to child-soldier status as our liberal press would like everyone to believe.

Good point! These cases are unusual and while I too believe in the rule of law I am starting to believe that "circumstances alter cases".

Some folks treat the 'Golden Rule' as a loophole in games theory. They know their opponent will turn the other cheek and they count on it as an advantage to grant them a win! Those who continue to 'play by the rules' lose!

With things like terrorism it can be so difficult to protect your society that perhaps the only way is to get a little looser with 'guaranteed rights'. The alternative is to allow a LOT more innocents to be killed!

This is essentially the same argument behind questions like "is it better to allow a thousand murderers to go free than to falsely convict one innocent man?"

To my way of thinking, those who do take on the blame for the thousand murdered victims.

I'm not calling for a police state either and am far too libertarian to want to see further eroding of individual rights and liberties. Still, when I see a case like the Kahdr family it sure looks to me like a textbook example of someone abusing the Golden Rule against a naive opponent.

Suppose one of them had managed to use ricin in downtown Toronto? Suppose we managed to set young Khadr free and it was HE who did it? The odds are FAR from trivial!

I don't have the answers but one thing I do know, I don't feel comfortable anymore in any major population centre.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Shakeyhands]

nor is he entitled to child-soldier status.

Ok, but why not?

[Oleg Bach]

Ok, but why not?

Canadian tolerance! Where is it? The guy was just a stupid kid much like your own. What I thought was insidious was that the BOY...Was held untill he was older and had a scarey beard. Then Mr. Harper states like a Bushite propogandist manipulator "MR...khadr has been charge with SERIOUS crimes..Give me a break for god's sake! Why did Harper not say in the begining..."the infant teenager is a child and should not be tormented"...No..they waited for the kid to age in order to justify child abuse..jerks!

[Keepitsimple]

There's been a fuss made about the fact that all other countries (i.e. Britain and Australia) have successfully requested the return of their Gitmo-accused to face punishment in their own countries.......and Canada has not. There is however, a big difference. All were captured as illegal combatants or providing material support to terrorism - but Khadr is the only one who is facing murder charges. This fact seems to be continuously and conveniently overlooked by the media.

[Oleg Bach]

There's been a fuss made about the fact that all other countries (i.e. Britain and Australia) have successfully requested the return of their Gitmo-accused to face punishment in their own countries.......and Canada has not. There is however, a big difference. All were captured as illegal combatants or providing material support to terrorism - but Khadr is the only one who is facing murder charges. This fact seems to be continuously and conveniently overlooked by the media.

The media do not overlook it on purpose or with sinister intent. They are just not that bright and lack ethical thought...today I saw the emotionally manipulative head line "United in grief" - talk about pandering to negative emotions to sell stupid papers at the cost of de-basement of the mass! Lets get this thing back on track. "Illegal combatants - providing meterial support - to terrorism" - is a crock...material support come primarily out of Saudi Arabia. No one wants to deal with our false oil friends in a mature and honest manner. Instead they divert the fact and send resourses and troops to that rock pile Afghanistan. This cowardly concept of having the kid charged with murder is base on the fact that he is a kid..and the kid is to stupid to instruct council..so it was a lot easier to persecute him then a wiser more informed adult..the whole thing stinks...especially in the fact that new evidence has shown that he was set up by the cruel and stupid Bushites.

[Topaz]

The media do not overlook it on purpose or with sinister intent. They are just not that bright and lack ethical thought...today I saw the emotionally manipulative head line "United in grief" - talk about pandering to negative emotions to sell stupid papers at the cost of de-basement of the mass! Lets get this thing back on track. "Illegal combatants - providing meterial support - to terrorism" - is a crock...material support come primarily out of Saudi Arabia. No one wants to deal with our false oil friends in a mature and honest manner. Instead they divert the fact and send resourses and troops to that rock pile Afghanistan. This cowardly concept of having the kid charged with murder is base on the fact that he is a kid..and the kid is to stupid to instruct council..so it was a lot easier to persecute him then a wiser more informed adult..the whole thing stinks...especially in the fact that new evidence has shown that he was set up by the cruel and stupid Bushites.

I'm 100% agree with you on this one,Oleg! I always wondered who saw this kid kill an American on the battlefield and it turn out that too were pack of lies! The only person Bush says did 9/11 will never be found and turned in OBL is either dead or never had anything to do with 9/11 and I believe Bush knows exactly what REALLY happened on that day along with Cheney.

[noahbody]

Khadr was an unlawful combatant, he was not a member of any nation's military force and, therefore, should not be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, nor is he entitled to child-soldier status as our liberal press would like everyone to believe.

This article isn't about Omar, it's about Abdullah and his sister. Regardless, it seems they all participated in terrorist acts after becoming Canadian citizens. If you can't revoke citizenship for that, it's pretty sad.

[Fortunata]

If you can't revoke citizenship for that, it's pretty sad.

Can you revoke citizenship of a person born in Canada? Some of the Khadr kids were born here weren't they?

Khadr was an unlawful combatant, he was not a member of any nation's military force and, therefore, should not be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, nor is he entitled to child-soldier status as our liberal press would like everyone to believe.

He was a child soldier and should have been treated as such. If his last name wasn't Khadr I think the conversation here would be different.

[WarBicycle]

Ok, but why not?

Combatants fourteen years and under are considered child-soldiers under international law; Omar Khadr was fifteen when he was captured and charged with murder.

Edited May 15, 2008 by WarBicycle

[WarBicycle]

This article isn't about Omar, it's about Abdullah and his sister. Regardless, it seems they all participated in terrorist acts after becoming Canadian citizens. If you can't revoke citizenship for that, it's pretty sad.

They should be charged with treason. They are Canadian citizens and owe allegiance to this country, but have betrayed us by committing or supporting overt acts against Canada.

Edited May 15, 2008 by WarBicycle

[Wilber]

They should be charged with treason. They are Canadian citizens and owe allegiance to this country, but have betrayed us by committing or supporting overt acts against Canada.

Canada charge someone with treason? Are you out of your mind? It will never happen in todays Canada.

[WarBicycle]

Canada charge someone with treason? Are you out of your mind? It will never happen in todays Canada.

The silent majority is now calling the shots; attitudes towards patriotism will change for the better.

[guyser]

They should be charged with treason.

Wont happen because no lawyer would be dumb enough to try.

Her actions werent treasonous.

[Borg]

Canada would be far better off without any of this family within its borders.

Leave that "little baby" to rot in a prison outside this country. Bring him here and he will be free in days. We would live to regret that.

A bad dog is almost always a bad dog - usually they need to be "put down" to truly solve the problem.

Borg

Edited May 16, 2008 by Borg

[peter_puck]

Personally, I think that Canada owes an apology to the entire Kadr family.

The reason I say this is because their 6 yearold cousin has an AK-47 pointed at my head. If it were not for that, I would advocate shipping them back to the rock under which they came.