Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

Argus · January 31, 2010

To me Omar Kkadr has come to symbolize just about all that is wrong about Canada's reasons for ever having waded into this morally ambiguous quagmire a.k.a. the War on Terror.

To me, he and his entire family symbolize all that is wrong with our immigration system, and why we shouldn't let people from third world shit-holes call themselves Canadians almost the instant they get off the cattle boat. It should take a minimum of ten years of residence before you can apply for citizenship, and children born here to non-Citizens should not be Canadians unless they are raised here.

Smallc · January 31, 2010

As I stated...the court provided no remedy, realizing that it couldn't.

Which doesn't change the reality of it's ruling. The Court often throws things back at the government and parliament.

bush_cheney2004 · January 31, 2010

Which doesn't change the reality of it's ruling. The Court often throws things back at the government and parliament.

Great...maybe the Khadrs of the world can now purchase wait time insurance! :lol:

Smallc · January 31, 2010

I'm waiting for the day when you actually add something of substance to an argument.

Peter F · January 31, 2010

...and that all such questioning and documentation be made available in Canada's official languages? What other Charter provisions do you think must be complied with in a foreign jurisdiction? What is the legal mechanism for doing this?

As for questioning and documentation in official languages; If khadr had have demanded a francophone interogator I'm sure CSIS would be required to provide one - and rightly so. And I'm willing to bet the documentation is available in French for whoever is cleared to read it. "only in Canada y'say? Pity."

All sorts of Charter provisions must be applied by Canadian functionaries acting as proxies to foreign powers. Thats the whole point of the thread. The legal mechanism is appeals to Canadian Courts, obviously.

Yet the court provided no remedy....very strange.

Of course they did. The only remedy possible:

"This Court declares that through the conduct of Canadian officials in the course of

interrogations in 2003-2004, as established on the evidence before us, Canada actively participated

in a process contrary to Canada’s international human rights obligations and contributed to Mr.

Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person

guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. Costs are

awarded to Mr. Khadr."

bush_cheney2004 · January 31, 2010

I'm waiting for the day when you actually add something of substance to an argument.

Maybe you didn't get it...so I will break it down just for you:

1) You stated that the SC often punts cases back for remedy

2) I synthesized a parallel with the Chaoulli ruling on health care and wait times

3) Add salt and bake for 5 seconds....serve laughing (hot or cold)

bush_cheney2004 · January 31, 2010

As for questioning and documentation in official languages; If khadr had have demanded a francophone interogator I'm sure CSIS would be required to provide one - and rightly so. And I'm willing to bet the documentation is available in French for whoever is cleared to read it. "only in Canada y'say? Pity."

Khadr was in a position to demand nothing. Also, the internals of an avionics suite for a CC-177 is markedly devoid of "Francophone" labels.

All sorts of Charter provisions must be applied by Canadian functionaries acting as proxies to foreign powers. Thats the whole point of the thread. The legal mechanism is appeals to Canadian Courts, obviously.

Legal mechanism without remedy...that is very constructive!

Gabriel · January 31, 2010

CANADIEN, full due process isn't necessarily promised to Gitmo detainees. Do you really need me to provide a link to prove it? I already explained that the SCOTUS ruled that Gitmo detainees are to be afforded the protections under the third common article of the Geneva Conventions. That isn't the same as full due process.

Here's the language: To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

If you read it carefully, it means a Gitmo detainee can't be convicted prior to receiving the judicial guarantees offered to it by the USA, which as you've stated, includes access to a lawyer upon request. What you're missing, however, is that prior to the trial process and possible conviction and sentencing, the detainee can be questioned without a lawyer. It's shocking that you seem to think civil rights in their entirety should be applied to captured enemies on the battlefield. Are we going to start sending armed lawyers with our military servicepersons along with the chaplains, medics, and reporters? Get real.

Peter F - Thanks for the link, I actually just checked the official decision prior to you linking it. It appears that Khadr was indeed interrogated by Canadian investigators looking to build a case against Khadr (CSIS). That was apparently a mistake without providing him a lawyer. Still, it's not a Canadian case, anyways. Since he was apprehended by the USA and was going to be charged by the USA, it's too bad that the SCOC seems to think it's inappropriate for Canadian security folks to assist our ally simply because certain components of his apprehension didn't adhere to the CCRF. Like I've already said several times, Gitmo isn't Canadian jurisdiction and to put a component of the CCRF above our national interest of security and cooperation with out allies doesn't make sense to me. I reject the idea that the CCRF applies outside of Canada, but I see some validity to international agreements Canada is a part of which apparently were transgressed in this case by American and Canadian officials.

Smallc, you're missing bush_cheney2004's point. There's a very good reason why the SCOC didn't offer solutions, because they don't have one. Given the circumstances, I'd say Canada did a pretty good job in this case. Let's not ignore that America is our number one ally and our national security interests greatly overlap, and for Canada to not participate in important national security matters (such as assisting in the investigation of one of our nationals who is a terrorist killing our allies) because he was tired during an investigation and that he didn't have a lawyer present makes no sense.

This reminds me of the whole Colvin Afghan detainee controversy. Let's assume there was a possibility that Afghan detainees apprehended by Canadian soldiers would be mistreated when transferred to the custody of the Afghanistan security forces - what's the alternative? To set them free so that these terrorists can kill more Canadian soldiers? It's called making the best of a difficult situation. Real life doesn't always accommodate the letter of the law.

Peter F - You're right about the Maziar Bahari think not being relevant, I wasn't convinced that Canadians had participated in the interrogation process. By the way, Maziar Bahari is male.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Gabriel

Peter F · January 31, 2010

Khadr was in a position to demand nothing. Also, the internals of an avionics suite for a CC-177 is markedly devoid of "Francophone" labels.

Ha! Of course he was in a position to demand stuff. But he spoke english and CSIS requirements under the Official Languages Act were met. as for CC177 instrumentation labelling: Irrelevant since he was hooded and shackled well out of sight of the cabin at the time he was in the American equivalent.

Legal mechanism without remedy...that is very constructive!

This is news to you? Even the USSC cannot compel the government to act when they deem such action to be beyond the powers of the court....but both courts do their best.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Peter F

Jerry J. Fortin · January 31, 2010

I take it you are a proponent of arrest without trial.

I take it you understand this person was not caught with his hand in a cookie jar at the grocery store, he was apprehended in a combat zone during an internationally sanctioned military intervention. There seems to be evidence to suggest he caused the death of soldiers involved in that internationally sanctioned military operation, and in addition the individual in question was not wearing a military uniform. The very likely reason he is alive at all may be linked to some form of submission on his part, don't you think? Knowing that little fact and accepting the reality of the situation in which the individual came into the hands of the internationally sanctioned military folks carrying out operations there, I kinda think that not only did he ask for this treatment, that in fact he deserves it.

Justice is not blind....that is a myth. Nor should should it be. We don't have justice systems, we have legal systems.

bush_cheney2004 · January 31, 2010

Ha! Of course he was in a position to demand stuff. But he spoke english and CSIS requirements under the Official Languages Act were met. as for CC177 instrumentation labelling: Irrelevant since he was hooded and shackled well out of sight of the cabin at the time he was in the American equivalent.

Why would CSIS care about the official languages act in a foreign jurisdiction? How the hell do any Canadian contingents function outside of Canada with so much Charter baggage? You missed the CC-177 point entirely....language provisions are not as wide sweeping as you may think.

This is news to you? Even the USSC cannot compel the government to act when they deem such action to be beyond the powers of the court....but both courts do their best.

I disagree....obviously the USSC has bigger balls...taking such action and remedies repeatedly!

Edited January 31, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

bloodyminded · January 31, 2010

I take it you understand this person was not caught with his hand in a cookie jar at the grocery store, he was apprehended in a combat zone during an internationally sanctioned military intervention. There seems to be evidence to suggest he caused the death of soldiers involved in that internationally sanctioned military operation, and in addition the individual in question was not wearing a military uniform. The very likely reason he is alive at all may be linked to some form of submission on his part, don't you think? Knowing that little fact and accepting the reality of the situation in which the individual came into the hands of the internationally sanctioned military folks carrying out operations there, I kinda think that not only did he ask for this treatment, that in fact he deserves it.

You are right to say there "seems to be some evidence" against him. Unfortunately for the hang-'em-high brigade, it is not a done deal. The key witness is not positive that Khadr is guilty.

But you think he "deserves the treatment" anyway. Because...well, just because.

cybercoma · January 31, 2010

Omar Khadr should make us afraid to illegally attack and murder soldiers if we go abroad or worse, are taken there against our will for taking part in criminal activities in a war zone.

Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

Smallc · January 31, 2010

I take it you understand this person was not caught with his hand in a cookie jar at the grocery store, he was apprehended in a combat zone during an internationally sanctioned military intervention. There seems to be evidence to suggest he caused the death of soldiers involved in that internationally sanctioned military operation,

Then his trial should be a slam dunk. It doesn't matter how obvious something is, it still have to be fairly tried.

CANADIEN · January 31, 2010

CANADIEN, full due process isn't necessarily promised to Gitmo detainees. Do you really need me to provide a link to prove it? I already explained that the SCOTUS ruled that Gitmo detainees are to be afforded the protections under the third common article of the Geneva Conventions. That isn't the same as full due process.

Here's the language: To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

If you read it carefully, it means a Gitmo detainee can't be convicted prior to receiving the judicial guarantees offered to it by the USA, which as you've stated, includes access to a lawyer upon request. What you're missing, however, is that prior to the trial process and possible conviction and sentencing, the detainee can be questioned without a lawyer. It's shocking that you seem to think civil rights in their entirety should be applied to captured enemies on the battlefield. Are we going to start sending armed lawyers with our military servicepersons along with the chaplains, medics, and reporters? Get real.

Questioning of an ennemy combattant is not the same as questioning of a suspect in a crime. The US Government chose to treat the Gitmo derainess as not being lawful combattants. They can't have it both ways... And neither way includes torture. Get real.

Peter F - Thanks for the link, I actually just checked the official decision prior to you linking it. It appears that Khadr was indeed interrogated by Canadian investigators looking to build a case against Khadr (CSIS). That was apparently a mistake without providing him a lawyer.

participating in a process that violate international law and due process and the rules of fundamental justice is not what I call a mistake.

Still, it's not a Canadian case, anyways. Since he was apprehended by the USA and was going to be charged by the USA, it's too bad that the SCOC seems to think it's inappropriate for Canadian security folks to assist our ally simply because certain components of his apprehension didn't adhere to the CCRF.

Or the internationa; ;aw. The Supreme Court got it entirely right. And assisting in the illegal interroration of Khadr was entirely wrong.

What next - if an American captor had started to cut Khadr's limbs one by one, Canadian officials should have kept asking him question because"hey, they're our allies and he's their prisoner anyway"

Smallc, you're missing bush_cheney2004's point.

The point that tBC2004 puts forwards posting after posting is that the American government is not bound by any notion of morally, that it can do whatever it pleases.

There's a very good reason why the SCOC didn't offer solutions.

and it is not the one you state, as the ruling makes clear.

This reminds me of the whole Colvin Afghan detainee controversy. Let's assume there was a possibility that Afghan detainees apprehended by Canadian soldiers would be mistreated when transferred to the custody of the Afghanistan security forces - what's the alternative?

To detain them ourselves. Edited January 31, 2010 by CANADIEN

Gabriel · January 31, 2010

Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

Ha! It's ridiculous that eyeball is trying to suggest that somehow any Canadian in any circumstance should now fear being illegally arrested for no reason whatsoever when travelling abroad because the Canadian government will hang them out to try - as if Omar Khadr was a simple traveller on a boyscout convention. Ridiculous.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Gabriel

bush_cheney2004 · January 31, 2010

The point that tBC2004 puts forwards posting after posting is that the American government is not bound by any notion of morally, that it can do whatever it pleases.

I think you mean "morality"...but no matter...the US government is certainly not so bound, especially to the tortured Canadian version.

Edited January 31, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

Gabriel · January 31, 2010

CANADIEN, you've hit a new height of absurdity.... cutting off hands and limbs? Are you serious? It shouldn't have to be said, but there's quite a range between not having a lawyer present when being interviewed by CSIS and having your limbs cut off. And sleep deprivation isn't necessarily torture, no matter how many times to try to imply that it is. It's so typical to suggest that the USA is some bully that goes around the world abusing everyone, and doing whatever it pleases. My initial impression of you was correct.

I don't want to derail the thread into the Afghan detainee issue, but there's a slight problem with suggesting that Canada detain all of its prisoners WITHOUT ANY OF OUR OWN INFRASTRUCTURE. Imagine if someone like you was in charge, you'd led the detainees go because they didn't have access to correspondence education courses in prison.

There's reality, and then there's your fantasy.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Gabriel

CANADIEN · January 31, 2010

I take it you understand this person was not caught with his hand in a cookie jar at the grocery store, he was apprehended in a combat zone during an internationally sanctioned military intervention. There seems to be evidence to suggest he caused the death of soldiers involved in that internationally sanctioned military operation, and in addition the individual in question was not wearing a military uniform. The very likely reason he is alive at all may be linked to some form of submission on his part, don't you think? Knowing that little fact and accepting the reality of the situation in which the individual came into the hands of the internationally sanctioned military folks carrying out operations there, I kinda think that not only did he ask for this treatment, that in fact he deserves it.

He asked to be tortured.

There is a legal way to deal which such criminals. Yet some seem to fear its use. Why?

Jerry J. Fortin · January 31, 2010

You are right to say there "seems to be some evidence" against him. Unfortunately for the hang-'em-high brigade, it is not a done deal. The key witness is not positive that Khadr is guilty.

But you think he "deserves the treatment" anyway. Because...well, just because.

There seems to be enough evidence to hold and question him. Please keep in mind this person knowingly and willingly put themselves into the position they now find themselves. A number of choices were involved and gee wizz guess what? The person made some bad choices. Any reasonable person can conclude from the already available information that the individual in question went thousands of miles out of their way to cause harm to soldiers that were part of an alliance that our own soldiers were a part of. Yes I think he deserves to be treated the way he has been.

Peter F · January 31, 2010

Peter F - ...By the way, Maziar Bahari is male.

Thank you for the correction.

Peter F - ... Since he was apprehended by the USA and was going to be charged by the USA, it's too bad that the SCOC seems to think it's inappropriate for Canadian security folks to assist our ally simply because certain components of his apprehension didn't adhere to the CCRF.

What the USofA did/does is really of only background interest to the SCC. No one on the face of the earth can compel the USofA
to adhere to foreign (to Americans) fundemental norms of justice. Khadr's keepers can beat him daily with a stick, if they so desire, and there ain't snot anyone in Canada can do about it. But the question before the court wasn't wether the Americans were adhereing to norms of fundemental justice, but when Canadian functionaries in other lands don't adhere to such norms what then?

Like I've already said several times, Gitmo isn't Canadian jurisdiction and to put a component of the CCRF above our national interest of security and cooperation with out allies doesn't make sense to me. I reject the idea that the CCRF applies outside of Canada...

I undertand and acknowledge your recognition of international agreements. But again, to clarify, This isn't a question of whether Americans were behaving badly or not. They behave however they wish and are not subject to the CCRF. They have their own courts and laws to worry about. The point is when a foreign power does behave badly does the CCRF apply to Canadian government flunkies? Are they to partake in bad behaviour simply because they are not in Canada anymore? Can such flunkies partake in torture? Can they profit from the detainee's lack of CCRF rights? Should they take incriminating statements from the detained and provide them to the badly behaving party? The Supreme court didn't step beyond their jurisdiction. There were no orders to the American government or any Americans at all to do something or stop doing something.

Smallc, you're missing bush_cheney2004's point... There's a very good reason why the SCOC didn't offer solutions, because they don't have one.

BC's point is that Canada is a paltry powerless place and the USofA is not and can act with impunity.

Let's not ignore that America is our number one ally and our national security interests greatly overlap, and for Canada to not participate in important national security matters (such as assisting in the investigation of one of our nationals who is a terrorist killing our allies) because he was tired during an investigation and that he didn't have a lawyer present makes no sense.

Yes it does make sense. Sleep Deprivation - as carried out at Gitmo - is torture. Even the US Military Commissions have determined that. (see the Military commissions case of Mohammad Jawad). If the CSIS guys didn't know that they should have.
and Americans have no need for CSIS guys to come in and interview detainees. That was a mere courtesy, nothing more. Do you think the FBI and CIA couldn't crack him in years where CSIS could in a day?

This reminds me of the whole Colvin Afghan detainee controversy. Let's assume there was a possibility that Afghan detainees apprehended by Canadian soldiers would be mistreated when transferred to the custody of the Afghanistan security forces - what's the alternative? To set them free so that these terrorists can kill more Canadian soldiers? It's called making the best of a difficult situation. Real life doesn't always accommodate the letter of the law.

The alternative is to not turn them over to Afhan brutes. The Canadian Forces do have MP's. We set up our own compounds. That makes the best of a difficult decision. And it is well within our power to do.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Peter F

CANADIEN · January 31, 2010

CANADIEN, you've hit a new height of absurdity....

Just trying to reach yours... not that I expect to do so.

cutting off hands and limbs? Are you serious?

I'll admit my example is a bit extreme, but then, if we are to participate in another country's interrogation of a suspect criminal no matter what they do, there cannot be exceptions.

It shouldn't have to be said, but there's quite a range between not having a lawyer present when being interviewed by CSIS and having your limbs cut off. And sleep deprivation isn't necessarily torture, no matter how many times to try to imply that it is.

Khadr was, by the own admission of the CSIS agents in charge of Khadr 's interrogation, he was deprived of sleep for a full MONTH before he was inteerogated. Call it whatever you want, it's torture.

It's so typical to suggest that the USA is some bully that goes around the world abusing everyone, and doing whatever it pleases.

Interesting... since it is not what I think. I do hold however that the Bush administration lost its moral compass.

I don't want to derail the thread into the Afghan detainee issue, but there's a slight problem with suggesting that Canada detain all of its prisoners WITHOUT ANY OF OUR OWN INFRASTRUCTURE.

So... we should also abdicate our responsibilities regarding the treatment of prisoners because we have no infrastructure to do so? Another cop out, like "it's the Americans detaininghim".

Imagine if someone like you was in charge, you'd led the detainees go because they didn't have access to correspondence education courses in prison.

I wasn't aware that one was covered by either the Constitution or international conventions. But then, you keep ignore both.

There's reality...

And then there is your interpretation of the Constitution.

Peter F · January 31, 2010

Why would CSIS care about the official languages act in a foreign jurisdiction? How the hell do any Canadian contingents function outside of Canada with so much Charter baggage? You missed the CC-177 point entirely....language provisions are not as wide sweeping as you may think.

They don't care about the official languages act in foreign jurisdictions. But the documentation of the Khadr interviews is available in English with a French translation sure as cows crap in Kansas. And if Khadr had have been a fracophone there would have been a francophone CSIS guy down there asking him questions in French. Hell, even the Americans have interpreters running alongside every MI op or sitting in on every detainee interview. So save the Official Languages Act for something relevant.

I disagree....obviously the USSC has bigger balls...taking such action and remedies repeatedly!

Yah, it sure does. As long as 'such action' and 'remedies' are within their jurisdiction and not without. Sorta like the SCC.

bush_cheney2004 · January 31, 2010

...So save the Official Languages Act for something relevant.

No...the Official Languages Act serves as a wonderfully absurd example of what would constitute a breach of Omar (The Kid Terrorist) Khadr's precious Charter rights. I wonder if the Froot Loops boxes at 'Gitmo are printed in French?

Yah, it sure does. As long as 'such action' and 'remedies' are within their jurisdiction and not without. Sorta like the SCC.

Nope...the USSC has a much longer legacy than the SCC, which only grew fderal balls in 1949.

msdogfood · January 31, 2010

Why the delay? I suspect that they dont have a case.

The changes made as a result of the 2007 ruling are still likely to be challenged.

The changes made included access to security-cleared lawyers, permitting the accused to attend the hearings, challenge government evidence and generally protect the rights of the accused. You know, the kind of stuff that you disagree with.

you can not use Domestic security certificate any more as the federal court of Canada can & will kill it!!