tango Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) http://www.canada.com/news/CSIS+slammed+Kh...6308/story.html CSIS slammed for Khadr interrogation Canadian Gitmo detainee assigned civilian lawyer By Steven Edwards, Canwest News ServiceJuly 16, 2009 Canada's spy agency faced criticism Wednesday for the way it interrogated Omar Khadr in 2003--on a day a military court in Guantanamo Bay heard his new attorney will be a civilian once featured on the cover of Super Lawyers magazine. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service failed to consider Khadr's youthful age and possible mistreatment by American officials when its agents interrogated him in Guantanamo Bay, a watchdog committee said in Ottawa. The service also bowed to U. S. demands that the interrogators allow videotaping of the sessions, then provide the Americans with a report, the watchdog group said. This made it impossible for the CSIS agents to assure Khadr anything he said would remain confidential, as policy required. The study by the Security Intelligence Review Committee was launched in the wake of the release last year of the videotapes, which show Khadr crying for his mother and appealing for help. "The time may have come for CSIS to undertake a fundamental reassessment of how it carries out its work," said Gary Filmon, watchdog chairman and former premier of Manitoba. CSIS said in a prepared response that it has "had to adapt to the more recent phenomenon of youth radicalization." It said it would consider the report's findings as it "continues to assess how it deals with this threat." ... Justice has been horribly slow for this child 'soldier' ... but I see some hope dawning. Harper should be ashamed, but I don't think he feels shame. In related news ... Canadian at Gitmo: No military lawyers wanted (AP) – 1 day ago GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) — A Canadian charged with war crimes reaffirmed on Wednesday his decision to fire his military lawyers, saying he doesn't trust them after an internal dispute over legal strategy. The judge in the case at the Guantanamo jail for terrorism suspects agreed to appoint two new civilian lawyers for Omar Khadr, who declined an offer of a new attorney from the Pentagon. "I don't trust the office of military defense," Khadr told the judge. Khadr, 22, is accused of killing U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer of Albuquerque, New Mexico, with a grenade during a 2002 battle in Afghanistan. He is one of about 20 prisoners whose war crimes trials are on hold as President Barack Obama conducts a formal review of the system for prosecuting Guantanamo detainees in special military tribunals. The Toronto-born Khadr has been represented by Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, whose superiors in the Office of Military Commissions sought to fire him in an internal dispute over his handling of the case. At a hearing in May called to resolve the dispute, Khadr said he wanted to dismiss all his military lawyers. Told he had to keep at least one military lawyer, he chose Kuebler. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl..._eT8IAD99F4G400 And I guess we are still waiting for the outcome of the government's appeal of the order to repatriate him ... Ottawa's chilling claim to immunity Jun 28, 2009 04:30 AM Comments on this story (54) Should Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet have the exclusive right to decide the fate of Canadians who run into legal trouble abroad? And do Canada's courts have no oversight role in these cases? The Federal Court of Appeal is now weighing the matter after a hearing last week in which the federal government's legal team made the sweeping – indeed, chilling – claim that the courts should butt out. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/657490 I agree. Harper's handling of Omar ... captured as a 15 year old ... has been chilling. Edited July 17, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) I think we've seen enough topics on Khadr but just to poke another stick at the Harper-haters, let's not forget: 1) Liberals were in power in 2003, 2004, and 2005 for his capture, detention and "torture". 2) In defense of the Liberals, International Law regarding the use of Child Soldiers and the consequences they face was and still is, very convoluted (see below). The US has it's own view which the Liberals respected and so have the Conservatives. 3) Omar is the only Westerner still facing charges.....however, he is also the only one who has ever faced the serious charges of murdering or attempting to murder a US soldier. Other Westerners all faced lesser charges of providing material support to terrorism - that's why it was pretty easy to let them face justice in their own countries. 4) If anything, LIberals were responsible for letting it all happen....Conservatives are responsible for not taking any corrective action. International humanitarian lawAccording to Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977: The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest. As the ICRC commentary on Protocol I makes clear, this is not a complete ban on the use of children in conflict. The ICRC had suggested that the Parties to the conflict should "take all necessary measures", which became in the final text, "take all feasible measures" which is not a total prohibition on their doing so because feasible should be understood as meaning "capable of being done, accomplished or carried out, possible or practicable". Refraining from recruiting children under fifteen does not exclude children who volunteer for armed service. During the negotiations over the clause "take a part in hostilities" the word "direct" was added to it, this opens up the possibility that child volunteers could be involved indirectly in hostilities, gathering and transmitting military information, helping in the transportation of arms and munitions, provision of supplies etc.[9] Article 4.3.c of Protocol II, additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977, states "children who have not attained the age of fifteen years shall neither be recruited in the armed forces or groups nor allowed to take part in hostilities". Under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, which was adopted and signed in 2002, National armed forces can accept volunteers into their armed forces below the age of 18, but "States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities".[10] Non-state actors and guerrilla forces are forbidden from recruiting anyone under the age of 18 for any purpose. [edit] International labour law Forced or compulsory recruitment of anyone under the age of 18 for use in armed conflict, is one of the predefined worst forms of child labour, deemed a form of slavery, in terms of the International Labour Organisation's Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999, adopted in 1999. In terms of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation ratifying countries should ensure that forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict is a criminal offence, and also provide for other criminal, civil or administrative remedies to ensure the effective enforcement of such national legislation (Article III(12) to (14)). [edit] War crimes Opinion is currently divided over whether children should be prosecuted for committing war crimes.[11] International law does not prohibit the prosecution of children who commit war crimes, but the article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child does limit the punishment that a child can receive including "Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age."[11] Many child soldiers fought in the Civil war in Sierra Leone. In its wake the UN sanctioned the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) to try the participants for war crimes and other breaches of humanitarian law. The statute of the SCSL gave the court jurisdiction over persons aged 15 and older, however the Paris Principles state that children who participated in armed conflict: ... who are accused of crimes under international law allegedly committed while they were associated with armed forces or armed groups should be considered primarily as victims of offences against international law; not only as perpetrators. They must be treated in accordance with international law in a framework of restorative justice and social rehabilitation, consistent with international law which offers children special protection through numerous agreements and principles.[12] and this was reflected in the wording of article 7 of the SCSL statute which did not rule out prosecution but emphasised rehabilitation and society's reintegration. David Crane the first Chief Prosecutor of the Sierra Leone tribunal, chose to interpret the statute so that the tribunal's policy was to prosecute those who recruited the children rather than the children themselves no matter how heinous the crimes they had committed.[11] In the United States, prosecutors take a different view from David Crane and have repeatedly stated that they intend to try Omar Khadr, on several serious charges including murder, for offences they allege he committed in Afghanistan while fighting for the Taliban against United States forces while he was under sixteen years old. If found guilty he may be sentenced to life imprisonment.[11] From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_soldiers Edited July 17, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted July 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I think we've seen enough topics on Khadr ... Well the latest news was not posted and there's plenty to choose from. We should hear from the Federal Court of Appeal soon if they uphold the order for Harper to repatriate him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I think we've seen enough topics on Khadr but just to poke another stick at the Harper-haters, let's not forget:1) Liberals were in power in 2003, 2004, and 2005 for his capture, detention and "torture". Harper was in power while the details became public knowledge yet he didn't do anything to stop it; he condoned it. 2) In defense of the Liberals, International Law regarding the use of Child Soldiers and the consequences they face was and still is, very convoluted Only North American Lawyers would try to $ee it as "convoluted". 3) Omar is the only Westerner still facing charges..... Other Westerners all faced lesser charges of providing material support to terrorism - that's why it was pretty easy to let them face justice in their own countries. Or maybe because those countries understood their responsibilities... 4) If anything, LIberals were responsible for letting it all happen....Conservatives are responsible for not taking any corrective action. .... with the whole world watching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) I think we've seen enough topics on Khadr... Sorry, but it's not that simple. It's almost as though Harper will torture kids for political gain... Edited July 20, 2009 by Radsickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) ... sick. Edited July 20, 2009 by Radsickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) ... sick. Yes it is. I wonder if Harper will ever reconsider the morality of what he has done, say perhaps when his own son is 15 years old? http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...omar-khadr.aspx On April 23, a federal court justice ordered the Conservative government to lobby Washington to send Mr. Khadr to Canada. At the very least, the judge ruled, the government was obliged to try to protect Mr. Khadr from being unlawfully detained, from being abused by his captors, and from being locked up longer than necessary. The government didn't waste any time filing an appeal of the decision. In its appeal case, government lawyers recently argued that Ottawa has no obligation to even take the moderate step of raising the issue of Omar Khadr's repatriation with American officials - a position Liberal MP Irwin Cotler said is highly disturbing. "Omar Khadr's detention - and the Guantanomo process to which it is intimately tied - has been decried by both the Canadian and American Supreme Courts. Nonetheless the government is choosing to abandon this Canadian citizen," said Mr. Cotler. "The government must appreciate that it is not above the law. It has an obligation to protect the human rights of Canadians - and no decision coming from its offices can alter that reality." Edited July 20, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig1 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) If i was Khadr I would Blow Harpers head off! And commit all kinds of terror on Canadians. 1 year of my detention would equate 10.000 dead Canadians then i would propogate a culture of millions to kill Americans my family would infect thousands, and those thousands would propogate more thousands and gain with any anti American ally. what Canadians don't understand is we have fighters. You ever mess with my family and i will exterminate your race anyone who elected the arshole, or anyone responsible for the pain or death of any of my family will DIE! refute that! or don't fawk with family! Hate is allot more easy to spread than peace and Canada will pay for the deaths of others, keep the war up dill holes you can't drop a Nuke on your own country and you can't stop immigration ! Edited July 20, 2009 by Craig1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 If i was Khadr I would Blow Harpers head off! And commit all kinds of terror on Canadians. 1 year of my detention would equate 10.000 dead Canadians then i would propogate a culture of millions to kill Americans my family would infect thousands, and those thousands would propogate more thousands and gain with any anti American ally.what Canadians don't understand is we have fighters. You ever mess with my family and i will exterminate your race anyone who elected the arshole, or anyone responsible for the pain or death of any of my family will DIE! refute that! or don't fawk with family! Hate is allot more easy to spread than peace and Canada will pay for the deaths of others, keep the war up dill holes you can't drop a Nuke on your own country and you can't stop immigration! Hate is a lot more easy to type too, eh Craig1? Do you think this thread is being "anti American"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 If i was Khadr I would Blow Harpers head off! And commit all kinds of terror on Canadians. 1 year of my detention would equate 10.000 dead Canadians then i would propogate a culture of millions to kill Americans my family would infect thousands, and those thousands would propogate more thousands and gain with any anti American ally.what Canadians don't understand is we have fighters. You ever mess with my family and i will exterminate your race anyone who elected the arshole, or anyone responsible for the pain or death of any of my family will DIE! refute that! or don't fawk with family! Hate is allot more easy to spread than peace and Canada will pay for the deaths of others, keep the war up dill holes you can't drop a Nuke on your own country and you can't stop immigration! What a superb ambassador for tolerance you are. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 (edited) That's Kimmy being sarcastic again. Don't hate her; cynicism's popular. I would say Craig1 is an Ambassador for improving the public education system. Edited July 21, 2009 by Radsickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 If i was Khadr I would Blow Harpers head off! And commit all kinds of terror on Canadians. 1 year of my detention would equate 10.000 dead Canadians then i would propogate a culture of millions to kill Americans my family would infect thousands, and those thousands would propogate more thousands and gain with any anti American ally. Pretty much the stupidest thing ever said on this forum. what Canadians don't understand is we have fighters. You ever mess with my family and i will exterminate your race anyone who elected the arshole, or anyone responsible for the pain or death of any of my family will DIE! refute that! or don't fawk with family! I laugh at you, and your family if they are anything like you. I'm not afraid of rabid idiots on welfare. Hate is allot more easy to spread than peace and Canada will pay for the deaths of others, keep the war up dill holes you can't drop a Nuke on your own country and you can't stop immigration Yep hate is a lot easier to spread for sure. It's also a lot easier to propogate hate in a majority against a minority than it is the other way around. It's a pretty counter-productive initiative for the minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 I sure would appreciate a Canadian Government that upheld the beliefs and attitudes Canadians traditionally have. This government quietly conspires in the shadows... planning their next photo-op. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 I sure would appreciate a Canadian Government that upheld the beliefs and attitudes Canadians traditionally have. This government quietly conspires in the shadows... planning their next photo-op. Traditionally Canada was a strong nation that barred many from entering based on race until it was hijacked by the Liberals in the late 60's early 70's. So you want a return to that? Hrmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Traditionally Canada was a strong nation that barred many from entering based on race until it was hijacked by the Liberals in the late 60's early 70's. So you want a return to that? Hrmmm... I want a return to the Liberals, yes. you twit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Traditionally Canada was a strong nation that barred many from entering based on race Traditionally...no, but any time we did bar people for such xenophobic and hateful reasons, a sad chapter in our history was written to reflect it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Traditionally...no, but any time we did bar people for such xenophobic and hateful reasons, a sad chapter in our history was written to reflect it. It doesn't have to be xenophobic. If someone can't speak good english and contribute when they get here, we shouldn't let them in. It's not a RIGHT for a non-Canadian to live here. It's a priviledge and we can be as choosy as we like. I don't agree with profiling on religion or ethnicity, but if you don't speak the language and don't have any transferrable skills, NOTHANKSBYE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) It doesn't have to be xenophobic. If someone can't speak good english and contribute when they get here, we shouldn't let them in. Do we accept immigrants (I'm not talking about refugees) who are not able to speak reasonable English very regularly? Canada has always accepted immigrants from many places, and we're a better country because of it. Oh, and why would we limit it to English when we have two official languages? Edited July 24, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Do we accept immigrants (I'm not talking about refugees) who are not able to speak reasonable English very regularly? Certainly we do. For example, only one member of my family spoke any English when we came here... Language, however, should not be the main factor, in my opinion. A person who wants to become part of the society of the country to which they immigrate can learn a language in a few years time. That should be the determining factor - their mindset and intent. Are they willing to work hard and integrate into Canadian society, or are they planning to live in one of (for example) Toronto's ethnic ghettos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) It doesn't have to be xenophobic. If someone can't speak good english and contribute when they get here, we shouldn't let them in. It's not a RIGHT for a non-Canadian to live here. It's a priviledge and we can be as choosy as we like. I don't agree with profiling on religion or ethnicity, but if you don't speak the language and don't have any transferrable skills, NOTHANKSBYE! true, but we have so much unoccupied space and need of tax dollars; why not allow many more in and fork out a few bucks to help them learn French or English? I feel that the effort is paid back tenfold eventually. But I think Khadr's parents could speak English. Edited July 25, 2009 by Radsickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 It's a priviledge and we can be as choosy as we like. I don't agree with profiling on religion or ethnicity, but if you don't speak the language.... `Choosey' with an "ey", eh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted July 26, 2009 Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 true, but we have so much unoccupied space and need of tax dollars; why not allow many more in and fork out a few bucks to help them learn French or English? I feel that the effort is paid back tenfold eventually. Immigrants don't come to Canada to settle the wide open spaces anymore. That hasn't happened for at least 50 years. Immigrants come to Canada to live in the same ethnic enclaves in Canada's biggest cities where thousands of their countrymen already reside. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shraytus Posted July 26, 2009 Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 The Service, as most other Western intelligence agencies is only brought public and into the widespread media when they do something that's not ethical or such, which does happen of course, but considering the scope of their operations, fairly rare. What they do everyday, however, by ending threats to our national security and to the people themselves, that NEVER goes public. Because of this, when one hears of CSIS, their impression instantly beams to the faults of their past, not the plots that they uncover almost daily to kill innocent Canadians. As said in a recent movie, "They don't care what we do, they care what we get photographed doing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) The Service, as most other Western intelligence agencies is only brought public and into the widespread media when they do something that's not ethical or such, which does happen of course, but considering the scope of their operations, fairly rare. What they do everyday, however, by ending threats to our national security and to the people themselves, that NEVER goes public. Because of this, when one hears of CSIS, their impression instantly beams to the faults of their past, not the plots that they uncover almost daily to kill innocent Canadians. As said in a recent movie, "They don't care what we do, they care what we get photographed doing." CSIS is being singled out, unfairly, in today's newspaper, eh? CSIS was emailing how to `get rid' of Abousfian Abdelrazik when they realized he was innocent. CSIS might be tasked with preventing unlawful harm towards Canadian Civilians but, once they're outside of Canada, they seem to put on a different face... knowing that CITIZENS Abdelrazik and Khadr were tortured prior to their interviews... CSIS should be disbanded. Bring back the Canadian Airborne Regiment. At least they didn't resort to torturing Canadian Citizens as much Edited July 27, 2009 by Radsickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Immigrants don't come to Canada to settle the wide open spaces anymore. That hasn't happened for at least 50 years.Immigrants come to Canada to live in the same ethnic enclaves in Canada's biggest cities where thousands of their countrymen already reside. -k who's `they'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.