Khadr - Court rules he must be Repatriated

[Sir Bandelot]

No kidding, murder in a war zone? Who'da thunk it

[Radsickle]

No kidding, murder in a war zone? Who'da thunk it

Well Said.

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.

I bet some of the others carried out and/or were charged with worse things than Khadr. Funny how you haven't provided a link to this claim of yours.

[capricorn]

Sir Bandelot, what makes you think murder cannot occur in a war zone? For example, a google search shows there have been cases of US soldiers charged with having committed murder in Iraq, as far back as 2006.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=us+soldier+c...rt=150&sa=N

[Sir Bandelot]

Sir Bandelot, what makes you think murder cannot occur in a war zone? For example, a google search shows there have been cases of US soldiers charged with having committed murder in Iraq, as far back as 2006.

Oh sure. I bet thats a rare exception, otherwise what would we do about all the "co-lateral damage" we kill from the air? Man, we would have to stop the war just to be able to press all the charges.

But I thought that in this case, he was accused of throwing a grenade that killed a US soldier. The soldier was a medical officer, but maybe Khadr didn't bother to ask him for his ID.

But seriously, what I'm wondering is- Why did the US let him get away, if he was a murderer? Especially if he murdered one of their own people. It never went to trial, as we all know, and yet they had so much time to do it. Even when the election was coming, when it would have been politically advantagous to get the trials done quickly, before there's a regime change in the US, they still didn't do it! What can we conclude from that...

I'll tell you why they don't want him back here, because they know there's nothing they can do to keep him in detention. They have analyzed the case and looked at their legal options, and they got nothing, no murder, no treason. If it could be proved in court they would take him back and lock him away.

Worse, he will sue the government of Canada when he comes back, with Maher Arar as his lawyer.

[g_bambino]

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... More recently, [the Supreme Court] 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.

Failing to seek the repatriation of Khadr is not the government's wrongdoing, though. That particular detail has been jammed onto another, completely separate issue: interrogation by CSIS officials of a Canadian in a foreign prison that doesn't meet Canadian standards. If those agents did indeed do wrong by questioning Khadr at Guantanamo Bay, demanding the return of Khadr will punnish neither them nor the department from which they took their directions. This is what I mean by observing that the two issues of consular conduct (the carrying out of orders issued from within Canada (which your examples all are)) and repatriation (the demand that a government without Canada perform a certain action) have been messily mashed together beyond their happenstantial associations. That the Bush administration never put Khadr before what Canada would recognise as a legitimate court, and in 2003 the Federal Court allowed CSIS agents to continue interrogating Khadr in Cuba, yet suddenly now the Federal Court demands the government demand the return of Khadr because he was interrogated in Cuba by CSIS agents, only seems to reinforce my interpretation; besides the prime minister in Canada, what exactly is the difference in Khadr's situation now to six years ago?

[CANADIEN]

Failing to seek the repatriation of Khadr is not the government's wrongdoing, though. That particular detail has been jammed onto another, completely separate issue: interrogation by CSIS officials of a Canadian in a foreign prison that doesn't meet Canadian standards. If those agents did indeed do wrong by questioning Khadr at Guantanamo Bay, demanding the return of Khadr will punnish neither them nor the department from which they took their directions. This is what I mean by observing that the two issues of consular conduct (the carrying out of orders issued from within Canada (which your examples all are)) and repatriation (the demand that a government without Canada perform a certain action) have been messily mashed together beyond their happenstantial associations. That the Bush administration never put Khadr before what Canada would recognise as a legitimate court, and in 2003 the Federal Court allowed CSIS agents to continue interrogating Khadr in Cuba, yet suddenly now the Federal Court demands the government demand the return of Khadr because he was interrogated in Cuba by CSIS agents, only seems to reinforce my interpretation; besides the prime minister in Canada, what exactly is the difference in Khadr's situation now to six years ago?

Now the Court knows that the conditions of Khadr's detention amount to torture. The Court now knows that the Government has been complicit in that, and that the Government must therefore takes reasonable actions to seek that it ceased and that he be allowed to be in Canada, like any other Canadian not standing accused of a crime.

For the Court to act otherwise would be giving the government carte blanche for participating in rendition and torture of Canadian citizens in foreign countries.

[g_bambino]

For the Court to act otherwise would be giving the government carte blanche for participating in rendition and torture of Canadian citizens in foreign countries.

There is a difference between participating in the incarceration of a Canadian in a foreign country and demanding that incarcerated Canadian be returned to Canada.

[CANADIEN]

There is a difference between participating in the incarceration of a Canadian in a foreign country and demanding that incarcerated Canadian be returned to Canada.

Indeed. In this case, one is committing an illegal action, the other one is applying the only available remedy for that action.

[Keepitsimple]

Well Said.

I bet some of the others carried out and/or were charged with worse things than Khadr. Funny how you haven't provided a link to this claim of yours.

It took a bit of time to find some links but in summary, none of the Britons was ever charged - and an Australian pleaded guilty. Here's a link to Thomas Hicks of Australia: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/3...alia.guantanamo

The 31-year-old former kangaroo skinner pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism. His father, Terry, said he made the plea only so he could return home after "five years of absolute hell" in the detention camp.

Today's hearing was called to decide whether the tribunal would accept the plea as genuine.

Hicks admitted he trained with al-Qaida and fought with its forces in Afghanistan in December 2001 for two hours before selling his gun so he could raise a cab fare and flee.

A Muslim convert who has since abandoned the faith, Hicks was not accused of shooting anyone. He was captured trying to escape to Pakistan by taxi.

Here's a link to the second Australian who was released in 2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4214747.stm

Although Mr Habib has never been formally charged, the Australian government has said the US believes he had prior knowledge of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, which had happened one month before his arrest.

The US has also alleged that Mr Habib spent time in Afghanistan and helped to train al-Qaeda militants, although, now the US has decided not to press charges, the precise allegations against Mr Habib may never be known.

In fact, ever since his arrest, it has not been clear what Mr Habib was being held for.

Here's the 9 British detainess who were released - ultimately, none were actually charged: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3089395.stm

At-a-glance: Guantanamo Bay Britons

Five of the nine British nationals being held by the American authorities at Guantanamo Bay detention camp are being released after more than two years in US military base in Guantanamo Bay.

They may face questioning by British police when they arrive in the UK.

US authorities have not brought charges against any of the Britons but two of the four detainees who will remain in Camp Delta, Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, are said to be candidates for "potential proceedings".

RELEASED DETAINEES

Asif Iqbal, 20, from Tipton, West Midlands

He was picked up by US special forces in Afghanistan. As a child he studied at the Sacred Heart school and the Alexandra High School in Tipton alongside Shafiq Rasul and Ruhal Ahmed.

He left school at age 16 to work in a factory.

Unconfirmed reports suggest he was detained in northern Afghanistan by the Taliban's enemy, the Northern Alliance.

It was at his family's suggestion that Asif went to Pakistan, and his father, Mohammed, accompanied him; his parents believed it was time for him to get married and settle down.

Mr Iqbal met his prospective bride during his first week in Faisalabad, but told his father he wanted some time to think and went to Karachi, but did not return, according to reports.

Shafiq Rasul, 24, from Tipton

Reportedly captured by US forces in Afghanistan.

He studied alongside Asif Iqbal at the Alexandra High School and Sixth Form Centre and they lived streets away from each other in Tipton. His family describe him as shy and "westernised".

He travelled to Pakistan in October 2001, apparently for a computer course, and his family lost contact with him in December.

He had only been abroad before for trips to Benidorm and Tenerife on an 18-30 holiday. He was a passionate Liverpool FC fan, was into fashion and clubbing, according to his family.

Mr Rasul is believed to have been captured in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan.

Ruhal Ahmed, 21, from Tipton

His father says he left for Pakistan in 2001 with Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal, apparently to attend a wedding. All three had attended the Alexandra High School in Tipton. He was held by American forces in Kandahar in Afghanistan before being sent to Cuba.

He is the third child in a family of six - two girls and four boys - and his father is a British citizen who moved to the UK from what is now Bangladesh

His family describe him as "a very friendly boy" who was a keen kick-boxer and a practising Muslim. After leaving school, he took a part time job in a local factory and also helped in community centres.

Jamal Udeen / Harith, 35, from Manchester

A web designer from Manchester, he was placed in detention in Cuba in February 2002, after being moved from Kandahar in Afghanistan.

He was believed to have been captured by US forces while being held in Kandahar Jail. He had been away from home only three weeks when he was captured.

According to reports, he told US soldiers he had paid a lorry driver to take him from northern Pakistan to Iran as part of a backpacking trip, but was stopped near the Afghan border by Taleban soldiers who saw his British passport and jailed him, fearing he was a spy.

Born Ronald Fiddler to devout churchgoing Jamaican parents, Udeen converted to Islam in his 20s.

His family say he is a gentle, quiet man who rarely spoke of his faith unless asked, and after four years learning Arabic and teaching English at Khartoum University in Sudan, seemed happy enough to return home, marrying and setting up a computer business with his wife.

He was a devoted father to their three children and was devastated when the marriage broke down, moving back to Manchester, where he worked as an administrator in a Muslim school.

Tarek Dergoul, 24, from east London

A former care worker for the elderly in east London, Mr Dergoul is the son of a Moroccan baker and a lifelong Muslim.

It is believed he was captured in the Tora Bora mountains to which the Taleban had fled after the US military onslaught. One of his arms was reportedly amputated after he was wounded.

He contacted his family in March 2002 to say he was being held in Kandahar. He originally told his family he was flying to Pakistan in 2001 to learn Arabic.

He was believed to have been sent to Guantanamo Bay in May 2002. His family have raised concerns that he is no longer sending letters to them from Cuba.

DETAINEES STILL HELD

Feroz Abbasi, 23, from south London

Born in Uganda he moved to Britain with his family when he was eight.

The family based itself in Croydon and Mr Abbasi reportedly attended Edenham High School.

After A-levels at the John Ruskin college, he took a two-year computing course at Nescot College in Epsom.

In November 2002 the British Court of Appeal said it found his detention in Cuba "legally objectionable", but stopped short of forcing the government to intervene on his behalf.

His mother says she is worried for his mental welfare and has not heard from him since late 2003.

Richard Belmar, 23, from London

Held by Pakistani authorities before being moved to Cuba. Said by his family to have converted to Islam, he travelled to Pakistan before the attacks of 11 September 2001.

It is believed he attended a Catholic school in north London, and converted to Islam in his teens, after his elder brother.

He worshipped at Regent's Park mosque, close to his home in Maida Vale, London.

Moazzam Begg, 36, from Birmingham

One of the two men who face a potential military tribunal.

The father-of-four from the Sparkbrook area had been held by the CIA in Pakistan in February 2002.

He was moved to Cuba in February 2003. His family have been refused permission to visit, although they have been able to write.

Mr Begg's father says he has not been told why his son his being detained and has not received any letters from him since August 2003.

Martin Mubanga, 29, from north London

He has joint Zambian and British nationality. His family moved to the UK in the 1970s. He is a former motorcycle courier and was raised as a Catholic before converting to Islam in his 20s

He was held in Zambia before the local authorities placed him in the custody of the Americans. It is reported that he arrived in Zambia after leaving Afghanistan.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[g_bambino]

In this case, one is committing an illegal action, the other one is applying the only available remedy for that action.

As I already noted, repatriating Khadr does nothing to reprimand CSIS for breaching Khar's Canadian rights.

[M.Dancer]

As I already noted, repatriating Khadr does nothing to reprimand CSIS for breaching Khar's Canadian rights.

How did they do that? What ever Canadian rights he had were made null when he was incarcerated in a non canadian facilty. He has only the rights afforded to him by US law.

[g_bambino]

How did they do that? What ever Canadian rights he had were made null when he was incarcerated in a non canadian facilty. He has only the rights afforded to him by US law.

From the originally cited article at the start of this thread:

Canadian officials' complicity in Khadr's mistreatment abroad triggered Khadr's constitutional rights, the Canadian court said.

[bush_cheney2004]

From the originally cited article at the start of this thread:

Interesting....so does said complicity separate Khadr from the garden variety Canadian axe murderer awaiting execution in Montana? Or do they both have the same Canadian "constitutional rights" to be defended equally?

[M.Dancer]

From the originally cited article at the start of this thread:

What proof do they have he was mistreated? Certainly not by the standards he was fighting for. Anyway, I don't buy it. CSIS had no authority over him and there was nothing they could do to make his situation any better or worse.

If CSIS is to be criticised, it's for not dropping out of a copter over the atlantic.

[g_bambino]

CSIS had no authority over him and there was nothing they could do to make his situation any better or worse.

Apparently, forcing the Governor-in-Council to ask for Khadr's repatriation will make it all better.

[CANADIEN]

As I already noted, repatriating Khadr does nothing to reprimand CSIS for breaching Khar's Canadian rights.

I didn't say punishment, or penalty, I said remedy.

[CANADIEN]

What proof do they have he was mistreated? Certainly not by the standards he was fighting for.

I don't particularly care for HIS standards, but for OURS. As for his mistreatment, there's plenty of evidence.

If CSIS is to be criticised, it's for not dropping out of a copter over the atlantic.

In other words, for not murdering him?

[M.Dancer]

I don't particularly care for HIS standards, but for OURS. As for his mistreatment, there's plenty of evidence.

In other words, for not murdering him?

Depends...can he swim?

You aay to him...Listen Son...if you don't want to talk...the door is right there....

Edited April 28, 2009 by M.Dancer

[CANADIEN]

Depends...can he swim?

You aay to him...Listen Son...if you don't want to talk...the door is right there....

That's called torture, no matter how you put it. Somehow, I thought you had higher standards than that.

[M.Dancer]

That's called torture, no matter how you put it. Somehow, I thought you had higher standards than that.

Actually it's assisted suicide. Most on the left approve of it.

[Argus]

Now the Court knows that the conditions of Khadr's detention amount to torture.

Fingernails pulled out, were they? Hung from his wrists and whipped? Electrocuted? Hot pokers shoved into his eyes? Castrated?

Amounts to torture? Give us grownups a break.

[Argus]

How did they do that? What ever Canadian rights he had were made null when he was incarcerated in a non canadian facilty. He has only the rights afforded to him by US law.

Your rights are whatever a judge decides your rights are, interpreting law in any way he or she chooses to interpet it.

[Argus]

That's called torture, no matter how you put it. Somehow, I thought you had higher standards than that.

How is that torture? It would be illegal to actually throw him out, but it's not torture to threaten him with it.

[Army Guy]

In the near future our nation is going to have to make some hard decisions in regards to this case. Ones that will reflect how we treat terrorists or enemy combatants. Many different groups from many different countries will be watching these proceedings very closly....as they will have an impact on future operations...I don't think our legal system or our people are up to the challage in making the hard chioces....instead i see a major payout to the khadr family and a "I"M SORRY"after all it is what we do best.....And our nations soldiers are not going to look all that favourable to that decision, when they have recieved a small payouts for missing limbs or severe PTSD...

I think we are all getting confused in what laws and conventions prisoners are afforded regardless of contry of orgin....If we where smart we return him to Afghanistan where the crimes where commited, and let them test thier justice system...

Canada is just looking to repeat the same mistakes as the US did in thier attempts to bring justice about....trying to equate US civil law with inter national law and the conventions regarding persons in combat...or trying to uphold the same standards of evidence and investagation.

[M.Dancer]

If he ever sees the light of day, give him the phone number of the john howard society and be done with it.

• We didn't take him to Afghanistan
  
• We didn't make him join Al Qaeda
  
• We didn't teach him to make IEDs
  
• We didn't take him prisoner
  
• We didn't treat his wounds
  
• We didn't incarcerate him on an Island Paradise.
  

Our obligations to him are zero.