Khadr - Court rules he must be Repatriated

Sir Bandelot · April 24, 2009

The reason I posted the thread was not to re-fight the Khadr battle but to bring to shine a light on the need to treat Canadian citizenship seriously - to make sure those who apply truely believe in our democratic system and are willing to work towards a better future for them and our country. The issue of anything-goes multi-culturalism versus the Melting Pot is coming to a head. The Khadr family is a model of many things that are wrong with the path to citizenship.

Speaking of taking Canadian citizenship seriously, our government has certain obligations to the citizens that it currently does not live up to, and this case is one example. THe last westerner in Gitmo, apparently, and they don't want to allow him back, even without hard evidence or fair trial. People should be given due process, else every one of us is vulnerable to the abuses of some Ministers personal ideology,

And immigration is not a problem for millions of other people who come here.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

Topaz · April 24, 2009

The war of Iraq and Afghanistan, we know now are NOT 100% truthful as how things went down and who killed who! The torturing by the US has just now come out it came down from the top! There's alot of cover-ups on these wars and Khadr could also be a victim of the Bush-Cheney era, who I hope the Obama goes after! There were hundreds of people killed by "friendly-fire" in both countries and not one US soldier was ever charged. Khadr has gone through enough!

Keepitsimple · April 24, 2009

Speaking of taking Canadian citizenship seriously, our government has certain obligations to the citizens that it currently does not live up to, and this case is one example. THe last westerner in Gitmo, apparently, and they don't want to allow him back, even without hard evidence or fair trial. People should be given due process, else every one of us is vulnerable to the abuses of some Ministers personal ideology,
And immigration is not a problem for millions of other people who come here.

What about the 80,000 "Canadians" who we had to bring back from Lebanon at taxpayer's expense - there's only one example? There is no doubt that by far the majority of people who come to Canada are looking for a better life.....but all the more reason to filter out the bad ones and the "Convenient Canadians" so that we can admit more of the good ones who dream of being Canadian.

Molly · April 24, 2009

Keepitsimple.... that would be about 50,000, not 80,000, only about 20,000 of whom held dual, and not solely Canadian citizenship (aka, tourists) and it is the norm to make folks pay the bill for emergency evacuations. It is hardly their fault that the government called it a special situation and decided not to.

noahbody · April 24, 2009

Obviously you did not follow the US court case before it was shut down, so you don't know the facts.
Omar did not kill anyone. The grenade that killed the US soldier was a US grenade - 'friendly fire'.

Citation? As far as I'm aware that is possibility not a fact.

Smallc · April 24, 2009

Citation? As far as I'm aware that is possibility not a fact.

Nothing in the case seems to constitute fact...that's the problem.

M.Dancer · April 24, 2009

The ruling will be appealed....hooray for common sense.

Shakeyhands · April 24, 2009

The ruling will be appealed....hooray for common sense.

common sense?

DogOnPorch · April 24, 2009

Looks like he is trying to thread a needle or something to me... I imagine the the actual video hads the makings for the bomb visible... they're probably even marked ACME Bomb Co. or something. Beep Beep!

Those appear to be slapper detonator cables by the looks.

M.Dancer · April 24, 2009

common sense?

If he had not been caught, if his father had not been killed, there is a 100% likelyhood he would be trying to kill Canadians.

There is zero reason his justice should be postponed or averted. It's only common sense he be kept locked away till the threat of his reoffending had reached zero.

M.Dancer · April 24, 2009

Looks like he is trying to thread a needle or something to me... I imagine the the actual video hads the makings for the bomb visible... they're probably even marked ACME Bomb Co. or something. Beep Beep!

Those are anti tank mines.

capricorn · April 24, 2009

Here's an angle I hadn't thought of.

The fact is, the government must appeal this decision.
By Canadian constitutional practice, foreign affairs decisions are known as executive prerogative, meaning in practice they rest with cabinet or the prime minister. Justice O'Reilly acknowledges that and then keeps on going in paragraph 40 of his decision

[40] Generally speaking, decisions about foreign affairs fall naturally and properly to the executive. Still, Canadian courts have determined that the executive's prerogative in that area is subject to review under the Charter. As Justice Allen Linden has stated, "the exercise of Crown prerogative is beyond the scope of judicial review, except, of course, when a right guaranteed by the [Charter] is violated": Copello v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs), 2003 FCA 295, at para. 16, relying on Black v. Canada (Prime Minister) (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 215 (C.A.).

That's a fancy way of saying, we don't normally do this but.......we'll make an exception.

---

If the government doesn't seek appeal on this matter, it will end up ceding that the courts have a role to play in Canada's foreign affairs. While at this point the ruling says courts will only interfere because the rights of an individual are being infringed, who knows what will happen next. Perhaps an individual may present to the court a case for why Canada must or must not be involved in military action, be it Afghanistan or elsewhere, because otherwise their rights are being infringed. Principles of how our country operates are at stake here.

http://www.cfrb.com/node/917194

Justice O'Reilly bases his decision to order Khadr's repatriation on the Charter and international covenants.

I agree with Lilley that this decision has for effect the Judiciary interfering with the Executive's powers to set foreign affairs. I would think this would be a major facet of the government's appeal. Here's the link to the compete decision.

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/T...%20Decision.pdf

waldo · April 24, 2009

Here's an angle I hadn't thought of.
http://www.cfrb.com/node/917194

Justice O'Reilly bases his decision to order Khadr's repatriation on the Charter and international covenants.

I agree with Lilley that this decision has for effect the Judiciary interfering with the Executive's powers to set foreign affairs. I would think this would be a major facet of the government's appeal.

nice personal flip-flop fresh off your earlier suggestion that an appeal should not be pursued...

hey can we hear from, oh... say, a constitutional lawyer, for example... rather than a "radio correspondent"!

in any case, to your point/suggestion... utter rubbish. The Federal Court decision clearly aligns with a Charter 7 infringement of an individual, having nothing to do whatsoever with the judiciary setting foreign policy. Really, c'mon - how could such a Harper Conservative/government appeal argument be sustained, when it's the government itself implicated in the wrongdoing?

but since you've brought it forward... perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what piece of Harper Conservative foreign policy you feel is being undermined with this decision. Exactly what piece... please state the foreign policy in question that would presume to allow a Canadian citizen to languish for years in a foreign prison without his government pursuing remedy/protection for that Canadian citizen. What's the name/nature of that Harper Conservative foreign policy that you feel the Harper Conservatives should appeal on?

g_bambino · April 24, 2009

If the government doesn't seek appeal on this matter, it will end up ceding that the courts have a role to play in Canada's foreign affairs.

That's exactly what I first thought of when I heard about this on the news yesterday: what bloody role do the courts have in external affairs? Certainly, if Kadhr were here in Canada, his Charter rights would apply. But he's not in Canada, and Canada can't force the US to send him back (even though they probably would if asked).

Does the government have to appeal? Or can they simply ignore the ruling? Surely the Governor-in-Council isn't bound by the judges she herself appoints.

Shakeyhands · April 24, 2009

If he had not been caught, if his father had not been killed, there is a 100% likelyhood he would be trying to kill Canadians.
There is zero reason his justice should be postponed or averted. It's only common sense he be kept locked away till the threat of his reoffending had reached zero.

There is no doubt in my mind that he was up to no good, the fact remains that he was under 18 while doing it, and therefore classified a s a child soldier. No matter what we personally think, we live in a land that has a rule of law. Thanks goodness.

M.Dancer · April 24, 2009

There is no doubt in my mind that he was up to no good, the fact remains that he was under 18 while doing it, and therefore classified a s a child soldier. No matter what we personally think, we live in a land that has a rule of law. Thanks goodness.

He's not in our land and hopefully he never will be. I think the governemnt should send a strongly worded letter demanding Omar be sent back and then never raise the matter again.

Smallc · April 24, 2009

Does the government have to appeal? Or can they simply ignore the ruling? Surely the Governor-in-Council isn't bound by the judges she herself appoints.

I would think that no one is above the decision of the courts...though I'm really not sure how the judge could come to the conclusion that was reached...they must know something that I don't.

tango · April 25, 2009

Citation? As far as I'm aware that is possibility not a fact.

A U.S. soldier reported that he accidentally stepped on Omar Khadr following a firefight in Afghanistan because Khadr was covered in rubble, casting doubt on whether the 15-year-old Canadian could have thrown the grenade that fatally wounded Delta Force soldier Christopher Speer.

...

Friday's revelation is the latest evidence that has trickled out during the past two years of pre-trial hearings, chipping away at the prosecution's assertion that Khadr threw a grenade at the end of a firefight on July 27, 2002. The report that Khadr may have been covered under rubble at the time the grenade was thrown conflicts with testimony of other soldiers who are expected to state that Khadr was sitting on top of the rubble facing away from them when he was shot twice in the back and captured.

Yet another theory offered by the defence suggests that Speer may have been fatally wounded by a "friendly grenade" — meaning one thrown by a member of his own forces. Khadr's military-appointed lawyer, Rebecca Snyder, told the military commission that there was evidence the grenade wounds suffered by Speer were those from a U.S. military M67 grenade — not from a Russian F1 grenade, as the prosecution has asserted.

http://www.thestar.com/article/553022

This evidence was not presented in court, because the trial was halted at that exact time. Seems the US realized it was not going to look good for imprisoning and torturing a child for 6 years for a friendly fire incident.

Keepitsimple · April 25, 2009

The media often states that Khadr is the only detainee from a "Western" country that has not been repatriated. What they conveniently leave out is that he is the ONLY detainee who was charged with murder.

noahbody · April 25, 2009

common sense?

I think it's common sense that you don't release into your society someone who has been raised to be a terrorist and has proven himself to be your enemy in a war that is ongoing. I also don't think it's unreasonable to believe that he might want to revenge his father's death.

If you want to have sympathy for him because he was 15, that's fine. But release him to Pakistan. Canada will never be able to rehabilitate him, because being crazy is protected by the Charter.

CANADIEN · April 25, 2009

If he had not been caught, if his father had not been killed, there is a 100% likelyhood he would be trying to kill Canadians.
There is zero reason his justice should be postponed or averted. It's only common sense he be kept locked away till the threat of his reoffending had reached zero.

Common sense, justice and the rule of law demands that accused people be deemed innocent until they are found guilty, and that they be tried in a timelyand fair fashion. Say what you want about that low-life Khadr, his treatment by his American captors is a complete violation of those principles.

Similarly, the rule of law applies to our Government as well as each and everyone us. The Government cannot circumvent its constitutional obligations just because Khadr belongs in a jail for the rest of his life.

The Bush administration srewed things up. Our government should do the right, that is bring it back and put him on trial... preferably not ignoring the rule of law in the process.

CANADIEN · April 25, 2009

That's exactly what I first thought of when I heard about this on the news yesterday: what bloody role do the courts have in external affairs? Certainly, if Kadhr were here in Canada, his Charter rights would apply. But he's not in Canada, and Canada can't force the US to send him back (even though they probably would if asked).
Does the government have to appeal? Or can they simply ignore the ruling? Surely the Governor-in-Council isn't bound by the judges she herself appoints.

Canada cannot force the U.S. to send him back if the U.S government does not want to. But pur government cannot refuse a Canadian citizen entry in the country unless he has been found guilty of a crime in a proper court of law. Thanks to the Bush Administration, that has not happened in the case of Omar Khadr.

The government, and its policy, are not above the law.

CANADIEN · April 25, 2009

I think it's common sense that you don't release into your society someone who has been raised to be a terrorist and has proven himself to be your enemy in a war that is ongoing. I also don't think it's unreasonable to believe that he might want to revenge his father's death.
If you want to have sympathy for him because he was 15, that's fine. But release him to Pakistan. Canada will never be able to rehabilitate him, because being crazy is protected by the Charter.

Omar Khadr is a scumbag... And I would like to see the text of the judgement of a legitimate court of law that declared him to be guilty of a crime. Until that happens, he has the same rights as other Canadian citizens, including the right to enter Canada, the right to be watched by the police, and the right to be put on trial if he had violate Canadian law. I believe that all of these three rights should be recognized, especially the third one.

tango · April 25, 2009

He's not in our land and hopefully he never will be. I think the governemnt should send a strongly worded letter demanding Omar be sent back and then never raise the matter again.

Back where?

tango · April 25, 2009

I think it's common sense that you don't release into your society someone who has been raised to be a terrorist and has proven himself to be your enemy in a war that is ongoing. I also don't think it's unreasonable to believe that he might want to revenge his father's death.
If you want to have sympathy for him because he was 15, that's fine. But release him to Pakistan. Canada will never be able to rehabilitate him, because being crazy is protected by the Charter.

No getting around it. He belongs to us.