Khadr - Court rules he must be Repatriated

[tango]

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.

If you were talking about Omar's father I might agree, but Omar was still only 15 after all of his alleged crimes, too soon to be written off as a "scumbag".

The US soldiers who came to his defense at their own risk said he was "salvageable".

The court can deal with all of that appropriately.

[Argus]

He's a Canadian citizen, he should be repatriated. Like it or not.

Can he stay with you?

[Argus]

He's coming back? Good. Now he can be tried in a real court of law.

Does every comment you post have to be so utterly clueless?

[Argus]

He's coming back? Good. Now he can be tried in a real court of law.

Does every comment you post have to be so utterly clueless?

[Argus]

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.

It used to take 7 years before you could apply for citizenship. In order to court ethnic votes the Liberals reduced that to 3. I think it should be raised to 10, and the would-be Canadian should be evicted and sent home for any violation of the law or any association with terrorist or extremist groups.

[Argus]

common sense?

Our foreign policy ought to be decided by the government, not some political hack judge.

[Argus]

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

And you know this because you've spoken so often with him and know his mind?

Like a lot of judges, I suspect he based his decision on his own personal preferences and ideological beliefs, then researched the Charter to see how he could "interpret" it to support the decision he had already made.

[Smallc]

I suspect

Well then, it must be true.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Smallc

[capricorn]

And you know this because you've spoken so often with him and know his mind?

I came to this conclusion after I read the decision which I linked in a previous post.

[g_bambino]

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.

Certainly. As Canadien alluded to, the government is not above the rule of law. However, the jurisdiction of Canadian courts lies squarely within this country's borders, and not beyond. As with you, it thus still fails to register with me how a Canadian judge can rule on what's to happen to an individual who is not presently in Canada.

Upon further reflection, though, I now suppose that the due process of appeal is preferred to a totalitarian goverment that silences or ignores the courts. It's just that, as I personally feel the judge grossly overstepped his bounds, pursuing appeal of such a ridiculous ruling seems like a terrible waste of time and resources. But, I'm certainly not a judge, so what do I know?

_[copyedited]

Edited April 25, 2009 by g_bambino

[capricorn]

Our foreign policy ought to be decided by the government, not some political hack judge.

This is especially true in that we can't fire the judge if we disagree with judicial decisions on matters of foreign affairs. Whereas if we disagree with government foreign affairs policies and actions, we can vote accordingly.

[tango]

This is especially true in that we can't fire the judge if we disagree with judicial decisions on matters of foreign affairs. Whereas if we disagree with government foreign affairs policies and actions, we can vote accordingly.

That's the whole point of the law - It is the same for everyone.

I'm glad the courts stepped in. If the politicians can violate the rights of one Canadian, they can violate yours and mine too.

In fact, it is clear that our politicians and government do violate the laws and people's rights unless constrained by the courts.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Khadr+must+come+home/1532848/story.html

But the court said that when Canadian officials interrogated Khadr, thereby participating in a process that was illegal under U.S. and international law, they became bound by the Charter's requirement to respect the principles of fundamental justice.

So what are those principles? Well, Canada has signed its name to conventions against torture and against the involvement of children in armed conflict. Once Canada has recognized these norms, the judge ruled, it can't back away from its obligations.

Still, Harper seems determined to try.

The Executive branch of government is not the defender of the Charter of Rights.

The judicial branch exercises that responsibility.

Edited April 25, 2009 by tango

[capricorn]

The Executive branch of government is not the defender of the Charter of Rights.

I would say that yes, it is. The Executive branch of government makes policy which should be consistent with the Charter. These policies are delegated to departments and agencies who apply the policies in the day to day workings of the government's business. It is when a party challenges that the Executive policy is deemed to contravene the Charter that courts get involved. This is what has happened in the Khadr case. The government's policy decision is that the Khadr case should make its way through the US justice system before any other decision is taken about Khadr's fate. Khadr's lawyers disagreed so they appealed the government's position in the Federal Court. This case is essentially a Charter challenge.

The judicial branch exercises that responsibility.

The Judicial branch interprets the Charter through the challenges that are brought before it. I suppose in that sense you could say it defends the Charter but it does so only when it is seized with a question about its application.

[jdobbin]

The Judicial branch interprets the Charter through the challenges that are brought before it. I suppose in that sense you could say it defends the Charter but it does so only when it is seized with a question about its application.

And in this case, the court said that the Canadian government's interview of Khadr in Cuba thereby participating in a process illegal under U.S. and international law. The government broke the principles of fundamental justice.

I am not convinced that the Harper government would win an appeal and they are probably getting a legal opinion on that right now.

Khadr is eventually going to turn up back in Canada. I have said this all along and yet we have no response. Harper has been hoping that the U.S. will deal with it. They probably will. Khadr will be deported to Canada.

[Radsickle]

What's to be learned? That it's improper and unacceptable for a person to be held for six or seven years before being tried in a court of law? Seems to me that is at the heart of the matter in this case.

We need to learn the truth about Omar, what happened and Canada's role. There are far too many uninformed Canadians who will continue to perpetuate all the lies and rumours that can be found in these forums if Canada doesn't take responsibility for this citizen and grant him his day in court, a real court or a public inquiry, but something. There's too many people trying to `muddy the water' and distract from what is a very serious issue for every citizen. Our current PM is even trying to ignore it, like a child.

[CANADIEN]

Corrected to remove a gross error on my part.

Let's not forget one thing here. If we get stuck with Khadr, it will be because the U.S government chose not to treat him according to the fundamental rule of law... a ral trial, in a real court of law.

Edited April 26, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Radsickle]

Let's not forget one thing here. If we get stuck with Arar, it will be because the U.S government chose not to treat him according to the fundamental rule of law... a ral trial, in a real court of law.

Let's not forget the name of the person we're discussing; OMAR KHADR IS NOT MAHER ARAR!!! :angry:

Your mistake reveals a lot.

(Your quick edit is graceful)

Edited April 26, 2009 by Radsickle

[CANADIEN]

Let's not forget the name of the person we're discussing; OMAR KHADR IS NOT MAHER ARAR!!! :angry:

Your mistake reveals a lot.

About how absent minded I was when I mixed names and wrote this particular post. My apologies to all.

Edited April 26, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Shakeyhands]

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.

We agreed to abide by International laws as well Mo-D.

[noahbody]

Let's not forget the name of the person we're discussing; OMAR KHADR IS NOT MAHER ARAR!!! :angry:

Your mistake reveals a lot.

Like Arar's mistake revealed he had relationship he wished to hide with a suspected terrorist?

Back to the topic...

Edited April 26, 2009 by noahbody

[g_bambino]

And in this case, the court said that the Canadian government's interview of Khadr in Cuba thereby participating in a process illegal under U.S. and international law. The government broke the principles of fundamental justice.

According to the originally cited article, the case was not about the activities of Canadian interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. It was about forcing the Governor-in-Council to "demand" the US send Khadr back. The judge merely noted that the Canadian officials had acted "illegally" by participating in what the judge deemed as mistreatment by a foreign government; which thus assumes that Canadian law is applicable beyond the country's borders. I find that claim very tough to swallow, as do, apparently, other Commonwealth courts in relation to their respective states' laws.

_{[ed. to add]}

Edited April 26, 2009 by g_bambino

[Radsickle]

Like Arar's mistake revealed he had relationship he wished to hide with a suspected terrorist?

Back to the topic...

Like Noahbody's mistake revealed he had a habit of redirecting, misdirecting, and general bait-n'-switching mainly for attention yet noahone knew what he was trying to say....

But anyways.... back to .... oh yea, OMAR KHADR

Edited April 26, 2009 by Radsickle

[noahbody]

Like Noahbody's mistake revealed he had a habit

Intelligent comeback.

Edited April 26, 2009 by noahbody

[Radsickle]

Sorry, Narcissus, but Omar Khadr is the topic.

Any thoughts on what our idiotic Prime Minister will do in response of the Canadian Court telling him he must repatriate Omar Khadr?

[Argus]

And in this case, the court said that the Canadian government's interview of Khadr in Cuba thereby participating in a process illegal under U.S. and international law. The government broke the principles of fundamental justice.

According to the opinion of one Liberal Party judge.

I am not convinced that the Harper government would win an appeal and they are probably getting a legal opinion on that right now.

Depends. I think that foreign policy should be up to the government, not lawyers who, through donating funds, sucking up enough, or perhaps providing free legal services to political parties during elections, manage to get themselves a judge's robe.

If the courts say that they have the right to order the government how to behave on foreign policy issues the goverment ought to bring in legislation which says otherwise, and use the notwithstanding clause. Oh I doubt the opposition will let them put it through, but then they can tar the Liberals with wanting to sublimate the will of parliament to the will of politically appointed judges AND more clearly associate the party with the Islamist scumbag Khadr so that when he comes back, the Liberals will be seen as responsible for everything he does.