Khadr - Court rules he must be Repatriated

Argus · April 26, 2009

We need to learn the truth about Omar, what happened and Canada's role. There are far too many uninformed Canadians

And you're their spokesman.

jdobbin · April 26, 2009

According to the opinion of one Liberal Party judge.

O'Reilly was appointed judge by the Liberals in 2002.

O'Reilly worked as a lawyer for the Conservative government in the 1980s.

I can find no links to any political party although you seem to think he was a card carrying Liberal.

I know that many on the right hate the courts but it is getting to be a tired argument that everyone on the court is out to you.

If the Tories disagree with the court's ruling, they can appeal. If they don't like that ruling, they can invoke the notwithstanding clause. Stop playing the helpless card. The Constitution gave the government the bully club to disobey court rulings or any other item in the Constitution if they wish it.

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.

And the court ruled the government was not above the law. If Canada had not participated in the process of interrogation of Khadr, the government would not be be legally bound by agreements and laws they wrote into legislation and signed internationally.

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.

The Tories have shown they have no policy for Khadr other than hoping the U.S. can make the case against him.

I have said repeatedly here that the case doesn't look it will be stand up in U.S. courts and we will likely see Khadr turn up at our border.

The Tories have shown they don't respect the Constitution and make things up as they go along. They hate the courts. They hate the judges. They hate the media that covers the story. Lastly, they hate that they have no plan for when Khadr shows up at the border.

The Tories can blame the Liberals all they want but Canadians respect the law and if the government feels they can act against it, it will be the Conservatives who will take the heat.

Edited April 26, 2009 by jdobbin

CANADIEN · April 26, 2009

According to the opinion of one Liberal Party judge.

... who happens to be right.

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.

I could point out that the government is made up of politicians, who in many cases will do what will get them votes instead of following the law. But suffice to say that the Government is not above the laws, and is not above the Constitution.

If the courts say that they have the right to order the government how to behave on foreign policy issues (...)

they have the right and the obligation to strike down laws, actions and policies contrary to the Constitution.

the goverment ought to bring in legislation which says otherwise, and use the notwithstanding clause.

Any other area where you should throw out the rule of law? Let's deal with them in one big piece of legislation.

Oh I doubt the opposition will let them put it through (...)

Good, that would be one rare shining moment for them.

(...) but then they can tar the Liberals with wanting to sublimate the will of parliament to the will of politically appointed judges

Instead of saying the truth, which is that the Parliament would have recognized that the rule of law applies to Government too.

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.

The U.S. won't keep Khadr, because of the mess THEY created. So, they do not send him here, where we would be able to try HIM n a real court of law? Where do they send him then? Pakistan? Egypt? Will the past and current government take the blame for what he does there, considering that they remained mostly silent while the U.S. government was skrewing things up and violating fundamental principles of justice.

Edited April 26, 2009 by CANADIEN

jdobbin · April 26, 2009

According to the originally cited article, the case was not about the activities of Canadian interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.

I have seen the AFP article. The ruling of the judge said that had Canada not participated in the process, Khadr's Charter Rights would not have been been violated and would not have triggered his strongly worded response of repatriation.

The government is free to disagree but the process for that is to appeal.

Edited April 26, 2009 by jdobbin

g_bambino · April 26, 2009

I have seen the AFP article. The ruling of the judge said that had Canada not participated in the process, Khadr's Charter Rights would not have been been violated and would not have triggered his strongly worded response of repatriation.

This is exactly what implies that you indeed haven't seen the AFP article, as you seem to have the claims mixed up: the demand for repatriation was the ruling of the court; it was the interrogators' actions that was a "strongly worded response."

So, even if Canadian officials violated a citizen's rights, what does that have to do with ordering the Governor-in-Council to demand a foreign government return said citizen? Charge the officials, or their department, or whatever with the crime committed, but repatriating the victim is a completely tangential issue.

_{[ed. for sp.]}

Edited April 26, 2009 by g_bambino

CANADIEN · April 26, 2009

This is exactly what implies that you indeed haven't seen the AFP article, as you seem to have the claims mixed up: the demand for repatriation was the ruling of the court; it was the interrogators' actions that was a "strongly worded response."
So, even if Canadian officials violated a citizen's rights, what does that have to do with ordering the Governor-in-Council to demand a foreign government return said citizen? Charge the officials, or their department, or whatever with the crime committed, but repatriating the victim is a completely tangential issue.

_{[ed. for sp.]}

It is not a tangential issue. The Canadian officials in question were acting on behalf of the Government. By not asking for Khadr's return, the Government is legitimizing the process he had been submitted to, including the illegal interrogations.

Besides, it is the Government's job to defend the rights of its citizens above, including asking that they not be subjected to treatment contrary to fundamental justice.

Edited April 26, 2009 by CANADIEN

jdobbin · April 26, 2009

This is exactly what implies that you indeed haven't seen the AFP article, as you seem to have the claims mixed up: the demand for repatriation was the ruling of the court; it was the interrogators' actions that was a "strongly worded response."

Sorry, my response was that I had seen the article but have seen other stories written by Canadian media on the 43 page report that said that the ruling came as a result of Canada's response to Khadr in Cuba.

The AFP report is an American media outlet and like the Reuters report misses why the judge ruled as he did.

So, even if Canadian officials violated a citizen's rights, what does that have to do with ordering the Governor-in-Council to demand a foreign government return said citizen? Charge the officials, or their department, or whatever with the crime committed, but repatriating the victim is a completely tangential issue.
_{[ed. for sp.]}

Officials acted in their capacity as agents of the government. This wasn't a rogue operation of a few people in one government department. It was government policy set at highest level. As such, the judge said that participation in the process meant that Canada should have advocated for their citizen's rights. The judge gave no timetable for repatriation but the lack of a conviction in the U.S., the conventions on remand and habeus corpus, the protocols on youth involved in violence around the world and the articles of the Charter of Rights compelled the judge to order the government to act.

Edited April 26, 2009 by jdobbin

g_bambino · April 26, 2009

It is not a tangential issue. The Canadian officials in question were acting on behalf of the Government. By not asking for Khadr's return, the Government is legitimizing the process he had been submitted to, including the illegal interrogations.
Besides, it is the Government's job to defend the rights of its citizens above, including asking that they not be subjected to treatment contrary to fundamental justice.

Fundamental justice according to whom? The Canadian idea of fundamental justice goes only as far as the Canadian border; so, where does a Canadian judge get off decreeing what another country has done right or wrong? As I said, if agents acting on behalf of the government violated a Canadian's rights abroad, then lay whatever charges are appropriate; the orders those officials were operating under eminated from Canada, which makes it an internal affair. However, Kadhr's imprisonment is currently decreed by another country, over which neither the Canadian justice system nor the Canadian government has any control. So, it seems ridiculous at best, and dangerously egotistical at worst, for a Canadian judge to demand how international affairs are to be conducted.

I am not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of Khadr's detention, nor am I questioning the judge's ability to rule on directions given by the government. What I am concerned about is where the judge feels he can step into and direct relationships between nations. It's a federal court of Canada, not the International Court of Justice.

CANADIEN · April 26, 2009

Fundamental justice according to whom? The Canadian idea of fundamental justice goes only as far as the Canadian border; so, where does a Canadian judge get off decreeing what another country has done right or wrong? As I said, if agents acting on behalf of the government violated a Canadian's rights abroad, then lay whatever charges are appropriate; the orders those officials were operating under eminated from Canada, which makes it an internal affair. However, Kadhr's imprisonment is currently decreed by another country, over which neither the Canadian justice system nor the Canadian government has any control. So, it seems ridiculous at best, and dangerously egotistical at worst, for a Canadian judge to demand how international affairs are to be conducted.
I am not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of Khadr's detention, nor am I questioning the judge's ability to rule on directions given by the government. What I am concerned about is where the judge feels he can step into and direct relationships between nations. It's a federal court of Canada, not the International Court of Justice.

Let's forget for a moment that the actions of the American government have been deemed illegal again and again in American courts; that's indeed besides the point.

What's relevant is that the Government of Canada, through its representatives, has engaged in actions contrary to Canadian law - namely the interrogation of a suspect of crime in conditions that amount to turture. Having engaged in such actions, the Government has a legal obligation to make reasonable efforts to have it stop, that is to have Khadr brought back to Ccanada.

It's important to note that no Canadian court has directed the U.S Government to do anything. Our courts have directed the Canadian Government to do its job by requesting the return of Omar Khadr. Big difference.

Edited April 26, 2009 by CANADIEN

Keepitsimple · April 26, 2009

What is truly sickening is the gyrations that posters and the media go through to defend the abomination that our "citizenship" has become. The entire Khadr family has hated the West for their entire lifetime - but considered their Canadian citizenship very useful to abuse our healthcare system. Look up the Khadr's in Wikipedia and travel through their disgraceful history of how various members lived in Pakistan and Afghanistan but kept coming back to Canada for medical treatment. For those who think there is no proof that Omar murdered the American medic - so what? There is no doubt he was over there supporting terrorism as a combatant - so he's deserved every bit of incarceration he has received to this point. I started this thread to create some discussion on how we should change our citizenship requirements to weed out - either before or after the fact - those would be citizens who would abuse the priviledge of being Canadian. The media play up the "rights" of a Canadian - how about giving the same attention the the responsibilities of being Canadian.

jdobbin · April 26, 2009

The media play up the "rights" of a Canadian - how about giving the same attention the the responsibilities of being Canadian.

If there is a crime in Canada to be charged with then make the charge. Otherwise, citizenship means the government doesn't pick and choose who it gives rights to.

noahbody · April 26, 2009

Look up the Khadr's in Wikipedia and travel through their disgraceful history

Actually do this:

Go to Wikipedia and click on the ahmed or Abdullah (these are the only two I reviewed but I'd imagine the others are the same).

Then click on history at the top and compare the original versions with the latest, which I had noticed both appeared to be written as pro-khadr propaganda with links to the family website.

What you'll find is the condemning facts have been edited out, such as:

He has admitted buying weapons for [[al-Qaeda]], but maintains that he was merely on friendly terms with its leaders due to his father's prominence, and not a member himself. He has said that he would "be the first one to stop" any potential attacks against Canada.<ref name="only">Freeze, Colin. [[Globe and Mail]], "I only buy and sell weapons for al-Qaeda", November 3 2006</ref>

g_bambino · April 26, 2009

What's relevant is that the Government of Canada, through its representatives, has engaged in actions contrary to Canadian law - namely the interrogation of a suspect of crime in conditions that amount to turture. Having engaged in such actions, the Government has a legal obligation to make reasonable efforts to have it stop, that is to have Khadr brought back to Ccanada.
It's important to note that no Canadian court has directed the U.S Government to do anything. Our courts have directed the Canadian Government to do its job by requesting the return of Omar Khadr. Big difference.

I don't see at all why there's a difference between two Canadians detained in a foreign country, one that has been interrogated by Canadian officials and one who has not. Why is it that as soon as the former has been visited by said officers, he suddenly must be repatriated, while the other can sit there until he dies, so long as no individual working for the Canadian government ever speaks to him? In other words, though it seems some are trying to force the two ideas together to create a desired picture, I personally can't find any link between the interrogation of Khadr by Canadians and the demand that it be demanded that he be returned. That the court commanded this - telling the government to do its job, as you put it - certainly is not anyone telling the US government what to do (it wasn't my intent to say as much, if that's how I came across). But it is, as I said, the court getting involved in relations between countries - international relations - which is well beyond its intended scope. The article even acknowledges that the courts of other Commonwealth countries have made no such similar ruling to that which has recently been handed out by this federal justice.

CANADIEN · April 26, 2009

I don't see at all why there's a difference between two Canadians detained in a foreign country, one that has been interrogated by Canadian officials and one who has not. Why is it that as soon as the former has been visited by said officers, he suddenly must be repatriated, while the other can sit there until he dies, so long as no individual working for the Canadian government ever speaks to him? In other words, though it seems some are trying to force the two ideas together to create a desired picture, I personally can't find any link between the interrogation of Khadr by Canadians and the demand that it be demanded that he be returned. That the court commanded this - telling the government to do its job, as you put it - certainly is not anyone telling the US government what to do (it wasn't my intent to say as much, if that's how I came across). But it is, as I said, the court getting involved in relations between countries - international relations - which is well beyond its intended scope. The article even acknowledges that the courts of other Commonwealth countries have made no such similar ruling to that which has recently been handed out by this federal justice.

Omar Khadr was not merely visited by Canadian officials, he was interrogated while in kept condition that amount to torture. Therefore, the Government of Canada has broken Canadian law (the Constitution) and must remedy to this situation. Since the U.S. Government will not try Khadr in a proper court of law, the only remedy the Government can bring is to request his repatriation.

Our Government is not above the law when dealing with foreign governments. It could not, for example, sign a treaty imposing on it to take away women's right to vote. As interpreter of the law, the Courts have the responsibility to require the Government to follow the law, even if it affects foreign relations.

As for the fact that courts in other Commonwealth country have not rendered similar judgements; how foreign courts interpret foreign laws is their business, and has no bering on how our courts should interpret our laws.

CANADIEN · April 26, 2009

What is truly sickening is the gyrations that posters and the media go through to defend the abomination that our "citizenship" has become. The entire Khadr family has hated the West for their entire lifetime - but considered their Canadian citizenship very useful to abuse our healthcare system. Look up the Khadr's in Wikipedia and travel through their disgraceful history of how various members lived in Pakistan and Afghanistan but kept coming back to Canada for medical treatment. For those who think there is no proof that Omar murdered the American medic - so what? There is no doubt he was over there supporting terrorism as a combatant - so he's deserved every bit of incarceration he has received to this point. I started this thread to create some discussion on how we should change our citizenship requirements to weed out - either before or after the fact - those would be citizens who would abuse the priviledge of being Canadian. The media play up the "rights" of a Canadian - how about giving the same attention the the responsibilities of being Canadian.

Khadr was not merely incarcarated. he has been detained and interrogated under conditions that amount to torture, and been subjected to court procedures that fall short of the standard of the American (or Canadian) justice system.

What he deserved was to be incarcerated and tried for his crimes in a legitimate court of law, then sentence for any crimes he would have been found guilty of. Thanks to the Bush administration, that has not happened and is unlikely to happen.

g_bambino · April 26, 2009

Omar Khadr was not merely visited by Canadian officials, he was interrogated while in kept condition that amount to torture. Therefore, the Government of Canada has broken Canadian law (the Constitution) and must remedy to this situation. Since the U.S. Government will not try Khadr in a proper court of law, the only remedy the Government can bring is to request his repatriation.
Our Government is not above the law when dealing with foreign governments. As interpreter of the law, the Courts have the responsibility to require the Government to follow the law, even if it affects foreign relations.

As for the fact that courts in other Commonwealth country have not rendered similar judgements; how foreign courts interpret foreign laws is their business, and has no bering on how our courts should interpret our laws.

Yes, I'm well aware of and accept that Canadian interrogators may have done wrong by questioning Khadr at Guantanamo Bay, and have said I understand how those actions specificially could form a case that could be tried by a Canadian court. None of this, however, addresses my question of why a Canadian prisoner in a foreign jail must be returned to this country only after, and only because, he has been visted by Canadian officials while imprisoned. The attempt to fuse the two concepts of contact with Canadian officers and repatriation to Canada merely seems to be a poorly contrived way to justify the court's intrusion into international affairs, which, to my mind, are not within their jurisdiction; if that were not true, judges would certainly have a role in deciding what treaties Canada may enter into, what countries Canada may conduct affairs with, what the nature of relations between Canada and other states should be, etc., etc. I'm still firmly convinced that a court cannot tell the Governor-in-Council what to say to another country, even if that other country is holding a Canadian in conditions that don't meet Canadian standards.

I should add that though you're right in that other countries' laws are not ours, other Commonwealth courts' rulings are of some relevance because their legal systems are based on the same principals as ours, and their, and even US courts', decisions can be cited as precedence in matters before Canadian justices.

_{[ed. to add]}

Edited April 26, 2009 by g_bambino

CANADIEN · April 26, 2009

Yes, I'm well aware of and accept that Canadian interrogators may have done wrong by questioning Khadr at Guantanamo Bay, and have said I understand how those actions specificially could form a case that could be tried by a Canadian court. None of this, however, addresses my question of why a Canadian prisoner in a foreign jail must be returned to this country only after, and only because, he has been visted by Canadian officials while imprisoned.

Nobody here is arguing that the Government cannot and should not intervene on behalf of Canadians held in foreign jails unless there has been wrongdoings by Canadian government. The Government has in this case a responsibility to correct its wrongdoing, and since the US Government will not try Khadr in a legitimate court of law, the only remedy left for the Canadian government is to seek repatriation.

If the Bush administration had brought Khadr before a legitimate court of law, there would be no need for the federal Government to demand is request, and no need for the court to direct the government to request it.

The attempt to fuse the two concepts of contact with Canadian officers and repatriation to Canada merely seems to be a poorly contrived way to justify the court's intrusion into international affairs, which, to my mind, are not within their jurisdiction; if that were not true, judges would certainly have a role in deciding what treaties Canada may enter into, what countries Canada may conduct affairs with, what the nature of relations between Canada and other states should be, etc., etc. I'm still firmly convinced that a court cannot tell the Governor-in-Council what to say to another country, even if that other country is holding a Canadian in conditions that don't meet Canadian standards.

ALL actions to the government are subject to judicial review if they have legal ramifications. For example, in the 1930's, the Supreme Court held that the federal government had the power to sign treates pertaining to areas of provincial jurisdiction. More recently, it also heard cases on whether or not Canada could deport fugitives to foreign countries where they faced the death penalty; while the court concluded in the positive, it did so on the ground that this action would not violate the Charter, not on the ground it had to do with foreign relations.

Shakeyhands · April 27, 2009

According to the opinion of one Liberal Party judge.

Typical of the Right, if you don't like something someone says.. attack them personally.

I wonder when his wife will be exposed as an undercover CSIS agent :rolleyes:

Sir Bandelot · April 27, 2009

Nobody here is arguing that the Government cannot and should not intervene on behalf of Canadians held in foreign jails unless there has been wrongdoings by Canadian government.

I don't know, it seems like some here do. Read the posts.

ALL actions to the government are subject to judicial review if they have legal ramifications. For example, in the 1930's, the Supreme Court held that the federal government had the power to sign treates pertaining to areas of provincial jurisdiction. More recently, it also heard cases on whether or not Canada could deport fugitives to foreign countries where they faced the death penalty; while the court concluded in the positive, it did so on the ground that this action would not violate the Charter, not on the ground it had to do with foreign relations.

Exactly, it is necessary to keep the government in check when they are not conforming to the law. Voting cannot be the only means to hold them accountable. We cannot wait for them to call a vote on every issue.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

Keepitsimple · April 27, 2009

It's too bad that the media has focused on bringing Khadr back to Canada instead of the root problem - that our ctizenship process should have prevented the entire Khadr family from obtaining Canadian citizenship in the first place. If the media had any courage and nationalistic pride, some responsible journalist would have taken our citizenship process to task - step by step - and shown how it failed to detect this family whose disdain and loathing of Western culture and by extension, Canada has been plain for all to see. The media should go on to demonstrate how the entire Khadr family "played" Canada for suckers - year after year. Sure.....the letter of the law is that we are stuck with "defending the rights" of every Canadian who holds a Passport.....but since this particular Khadr has joined in his family's hatred of the West and his own country, I laud our government for not being in any particular hurry to expedite the process. I can only hope that Jason Kenney's review of the citizenship process will start to balance rights with responsibilities.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Keepitsimple

Sir Bandelot · April 28, 2009

I wonder why all those other prisoners from western countries were taken back already, but not our boy.

I can only hope that Jason Kenney's review of the citizenship process will start to balance rights with responsibilities.

You hope that? Good for you.

Radsickle · April 28, 2009

Gosh, if only immigration review and the process to become a citizen was a simple as math, eh?

I would say our system is ok but we're a culture of blame and policy is an easy target for the lame.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Radsickle

capricorn · April 28, 2009

I wonder why all those other prisoners from western countries were taken back already, but not our boy.

As part of Obama's plan to close Gitmo, his administration have put out feelers to see which countries would accept the remaining Gitmo detainees. Seeing as Canada was so heartless to abandon this "child soldier", I wonder why no country has come forward to save him.

It's interesting to note that middle eastern countries have not shown any interest in repatriating their own Gitmo detainees.

capricorn · April 28, 2009

Gosh, if only immigration review and the process to become a citizen was a simple as math, eh?

Actually, math is an integral part of our immigration process.

Canada uses a point system to assess all Independent/Skilled Worker applicants. To be eligible for permanent residence in Canada, you must obtain at least 67 points in the point assessment.
The most important point assessment criteria are related to occupation – that is, what you intend to do for a living in Canada and why you are qualified to do it. Immigration officials will look at your education and training, current and past employment duties, and skills and experience to assess whether you are qualified for Canadian immigration. You will earn significantly more points if you have “Arranged Employment” in Canada. “Arranged employment” means a job offer in Canada that has been approved by Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) or that is exempt from HRDC approval.

HOW THE POINTS ARE DETERMINED

There are six factors to consider in pre-determining how many points you should receive:

1. Education

2. Languages (English and/or French)

3. Work Experience

4. Age

5. Arranged Employment in Canada

6. Adaptability (including previous work or study in Canada, arranged employment, relative in Canada and partner’s education)

http://www.immigrate.net/law/en/Visaslaws/PointSystem.asp

Keepitsimple · April 28, 2009

I wonder why all those other prisoners from western countries were taken back already, but not our boy.

Because Khadr was the only one accused of murder......the others from Britain and Australia were charged with various charges of providing material support to terrorism. Funny how we never hear about that in the media.