Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[capricorn]

Khadr might never be judged, if it comes down to release because of legal mishandling. Thus the only option is to keep him incarcerated indefinitely without trial, which in itself undermines the very idea of effective justice.

There's every indication that Khadr will be tried by the US (in the US if his transfer goes ahead) in the near future. There are a number of charges against him. No doubt all the evidence against him has not been made public but that in itself does not imply a guilty verdict. Wait and see is all we can do. In the meantime, Canada needs to keep the chequebook handy just in case.

[Sir Bandelot]

In the meantime, Canada needs to keep the chequebook handy just in case.

Thanks... I'll try to remember that as I'm fill out my income tax in the next few weeks.

[capricorn]

I feel your pain.

[Shady]

What if Khadr had been killed in Afghanistan by a rocket fired from an American drone? Would that have been a violation of his rights?

[capricorn]

Even better, what if Khadr had been blown to smithereens while setting an IED destined for Canadian soldiers? Which Charter right would that have broken?

[msdogfood]

How would the PMO comply? By saying "pretty please" to the Americans?

Yes thay may never get him back but thay are now reciord to fallow the charter!!!

[msdogfood]

For those who are interested, here's the released video of Omar Khadr's interview (it can hardly be described as an interrogation, in my view).

He definitely does NOT look sleep deprived to me, and he's being coddled as far as I can see. He seems to grasp the severity of his crimes and as far as I can tell, is crying our of fear of the consequences of his actions.

the younger the person is the better it is for them to deal with it!!

[msdogfood]

Before we can remember, it would be helpful to know which geneva convention you think we have violated?

This should not be a long search, given that most of the conventions related to belligerents do not apply to Omar Khadr.

did you look at it?? it appals!!.

[Gabriel]

the younger the person is the better it is for them to deal with it!!

That's the same opinion as the CSIS folks who investigated him. I think DFAIT officials also echoed your opinion. I also agree that his youth most likely contributed to his resilience in the face of the sleep deprivation he was subjected to. Keep in mind that he was subjected to sleep deprivation that can't honestly be considered severe. In my entirely unprofessional opinion regarding sleep deprivation, I'd guess that he was subjected to "mild-to-moderate" sleep deprivation.

[Sir Bandelot]

Khadr will be tried in the USA, though. They're moving forward with his case.

Democratic opposition to terror trials grows

Eighteen senators, including two Democrats and one Independent, unveiled a bill Tuesday to withhold funding the President requested to try terror suspects in civilian courts.

"It's an unusual thing we're doing here," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-CT. "We are trying to use Congress' power of the purse to stop these trials."

Democratic sources said the way Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown successfully used this issue against his Democratic opponent in last month's Massachusetts Senate race has spooked some congressional Democrats.

"I'm not going to vote for $200 million dollar more in security if we can try them in a place where you don't have to spend that money, not at a time when you have to cut funding for a lot of worthy things," said Bayh.

Count not thy chickens

Edited February 3, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[msdogfood]

For clarification purposes, I'm sure you'd agree it depends on the context. We can't make a blanket statement that sleep deprivation doesn't equate to torture. When evaluating whether or not sleep deprivation is or isn't torture, we need to examine the volume of sleep deprivation and the methods through which it was implemented. When examining how the USA under Bush used sleep deprivation on Gitmo, I've heard of only one case that borders on what I would consider to be torture - some detainee being kept awake for 180 hours.

you have a problem see geneva convention first!

[mikedavid00]

Is there anyway we can ask for him back, and then deport him and his family back to their country; Afghanistan?

I'm tired of having to work every day to have the gov't take money out of my paychecks to transfer over to his welfare family and relatives. Also the politicians and judges to look after his sorry little *ss my paychecks have to support.

I just want him and his family deported from Canada. Arar too. That's all I ask.

[Gabriel]

Democratic opposition to terror trials grows

Eighteen senators, including two Democrats and one Independent, unveiled a bill Tuesday to withhold funding the President requested to try terror suspects in civilian courts.

"It's an unusual thing we're doing here," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-CT. "We are trying to use Congress' power of the purse to stop these trials."

Democratic sources said the way Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown successfully used this issue against his Democratic opponent in last month's Massachusetts Senate race has spooked some congressional Democrats.

"I'm not going to vote for $200 million dollar more in security if we can try them in a place where you don't have to spend that money, not at a time when you have to cut funding for a lot of worthy things," said Bayh.

Count not thy chickens

That's interesting, but it still doesn't suggest that Khadr won't face trial. Whether in a civilian court or by military tribunal, he'll get a fair trial.

msdogfood - You can't seriously expect me to spend much time replying to you? You're one of those notorious one-liner forum dwellers. I understand English might not be your first language but at least make some effort to participate meaningfully to the dialogue in here. To respond to your Geneva Conventions post, the Geneva Conventions don't define torture.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Gabriel

[CANADIEN]

Is there anyway we can ask for him back, and then deport him and his family back to their country; Afghanistan?

I'm tired of having to work every day to have the gov't take money out of my paychecks to transfer over to his welfare family and relatives. Also the politicians and judges to look after his sorry little *ss my paychecks have to support.

I just want him and his family deported from Canada. Arar too. That's all I ask.

Now it's Arar too? Why? Because this INNOCENT man had the audacity to not shut his mouth after what had been done to it?

[Army Guy]

I found this while doing some research on the conventions and Canada laws refering to Omars case. I'm not sure what to make of it . It's a copy of a court transcript filed Under Omar...

While we have spent alot of band width discussing Torture or what constuits it...the court documnet does not spend a lot of time on it. infact it only suggests that what happened to Omar "May" constuit torture...i think it goes along way into explaining the courts actions...perhaps someone can give us a deeper explantion. The para i'm reffering to is under the OVERVIEW, and in Para 7

My linkwww.law.utoronto.ca/

[William Ashley]

I don't understand why there is so much debate over this issue the precedences are pretty clear cut.

The court does not have the power to petition for extradition without a motion to do so.

The trans-judicial systems for extradition orders aren't exercised through the courts in Canada, and the courts aren't willing to mandamus to order the department of foreign affairs or official to operate within the laws of Canada (which it has the legal responsibility to do)

Judges are peace officers meaning they have an obligation to serve the public interest pro bono pro socio, effectively the supreme court is stating that it isn't willing to police foreign affairs to conduct itself within the bounds of domestic laws, in insuring that the civil rights of citizens are upheld within all institutions of the government.

The same debate on civil rights restitution was being done in the supreme court, the tone of some of the lawyers was definitely along the line of "what the standard of the profession is" not what the expectations of the professions are as mandated by law.

It is truely unfortunate that the justice system is taking this path to allow corruption within the legal system - even so the supreme court.

The judges are exercising in errored judgment - the courts have reign over EVERY legal question within the jurisdiction of Canada and oversee administrative law in Canada, the fact is the department of foreign affairs and even the attorney generals office don't have free reign, they do have procedural capacity to shut down public prosecutions (more or less criminally) but this is the truncheon the public has given the overlords - the ability to override law without parliamentary consent. It is truly unfortunate both our courts and government support unconstitutional rule.

[Peter F]

While we have spent alot of band width discussing Torture or what constuits it...the court documnet does not spend a lot of time on it. infact it only suggests that what happened to Omar "May" constuit torture...i think it goes along way into explaining the courts actions...perhaps someone can give us a deeper explantion. The para i'm reffering to is under the OVERVIEW, and in Para 7

My linkwww.law.utoronto.ca/

Yes, a good point. The violation of Khadr's rights, according to the document you linked and also according to the SCC and FCC decisions, were not based on torture of Khadr. Torture doesnt enter into the courts decisions.

[Peter F]

Where do you think this is all heading...is it preparation for something to come....I just have a bad feeling that in one years time from now i'll be reading the news and it's headlines will read, Khadr set free, landmark lawsuit settled for millions....later on to be seen on terrorist networks on thier version of cribs....showing off thier new multi million dollar home....mean while back in the states they'll show the home of Sgt Speers widow, Canadian justice at it's finest....Or for that matter lets show them our wounded vets in court trying to stop government claw backs from meager wounded benifits....

Well who knows where it will all end up. I suspect it may very well end up like the case of US vs. Mohhamed Jawad.

Jawad was arrested in Kabul in 2002 for throwing a grenade at passing Americans seriously injuring them. He was arrested on the scene by Afghan police and confessed to the crime. Then he was turned over to the Americans and confessed again. Eventually he ended up in Guatanamo. Thats was the public story. Open and Shut, really. 'cept it turned out not to be.

His confessions were tossed by the MC judge as being the result of torture. There were also supposed to be witnesses but the

prosecution couldn't figure out who the witnesses were. Eventually all charges dropped. and Jawad sent back to Afghanistan in 2009.

As for Khadr, things will not be a straitforward as folks think they will be. I suspect any confessions Khadr made will also be tossed. But unlike the Jawad case, the case against Khadr isn't based on confessions and phantom witnesses.

If the case ever goes to an MC jury (lots of talk but no action yet) I'm sure they will find him guilty of something - but not "murder in violation of the laws of war" since it will have to be shown beyond reasonable doubt that Khadr threw the grenade. Providing aid and support to Al Queda maybe...just like Bin Laden's driver. I think that guy got sentenced to 10 years for that.

Counting time served he's out in two if I remember correctly.

Khadr will, I am sure, end up pretty much the same. In 2013 or 2014 'headlines will read, Khadr set free, landmark lawsuit settled for millions.'

Such is the cost of government ignoring rights.

[Born Free]

.... the Geneva Conventions don't define torture.

Actually it states that any kind of torture or cruelty is prohibited. Ergo, defining it isnt a requirement.

[Gabriel]

I did a little homework to test a suspicion I had about Amnesty International, let me know what you folks think. Let me preface this by saying that in no way to I intend to denigrate AI as a whole or throw everything they do or say into disrepute. I do, however, think that the organization does have ideological and political leanings that manifest themselves in what issues and events the organization chooses puts its efforts towards and how it goes about working on these issues and events.

Let's do a comparison, which I concede is not necessarily apples to apples for various reasons, of two current prisoners in different situations. Of course one of these prisoners will be Omar Khadr. When doing a search for Omar Khadr on the AI website, nine pages of results are yielded. Many of the articles and commentary about Omar Khadr very vocally call for Canada to repatriate him, and make very clear and detailed allegations that he has been denied fundamental rights and protections that should be afforded to him in contravention of American, Canadian, and international law. There are many clear allegations that he is mistreated and has been subjected to torture. AI stops short of calling for Omar Khadr's release, however.

When doing a search on Gilad Shalit, AI yields one and a half pages of results. The articles and commentary that I perused on AI with respect to the Gilad Shalit case is much less forceful and detailed than the Omar Khadr cases. I see no criticisms of Shalit being held without formal charges or access to lawyers and due process. Some of the articles and commentary about Gilad Shalit are diffused as they discuss the broader context of the I/P conflict. I did not notice this phenomenon when reviewing articles and commentary on AI's website dealing with Omar Khadr, although I concede I didn't go through every single article line by line. All AI demands is for Shalit to be treated humanely and for him to access to ICRC and family. There is no questioning of the legality of his abduction.

The bottom line is that there is a sharp contrast between the volume and content of AI's information on these two cases of prisoners. I think it is goes without saying that Omar Khadr has been extended far more humane treatment than Omar Khadr. Without question Omar Khadr has had much access to legal avenues of redress for his alleged crimes. Clearly Gilad Shalit, being a prisoner of Hamas, is suffering worse treatment and has no legal recourse available. Shalit's crime? Being a Jewish IDF soldier. Why the large disparity between the efforts of AI towards Omar Khadr, who actually was apprehend whilst fighting American forces s part of a terrorist group, and Gilad Shalit, who was abducted during relative peacetime?

I will acknowledge that there are important differences between the Omar Khadr and Gilad Shalit cases. First of all, Khadr's story began in 2001 and Shalit's in 2006. However, the earliest content of Khadr being a detainee at Gitmo on AI's site is from later 2003. The overwhelming bulk of the information on Omar Khadr at AI's website, though, is from the past few years. Gilad Shalit was 19 year old when he was abducted, as opposed to Khadr being 15 years old when he was captured. I find AI has information talking about broader political issues outside the scope of basic human rights, for example criticizing the USA's actions as 'unilateral' (which isn't true) and contributing to anti-American sentiment worldwide. It looks like AI is trying to expand its expertise, going into broader and more complex themes. I do no see these same messages when criticizing the conduct of Arab/Muslim organizations or governments, though. Apparently only Arabs/Muslims can be inflamed when their honour is offended. I could go on and on, but do you see my point? I think it's quite clear that AI is a highly politicized organization, and while doing good work in some areas, have a long way to go towards achieving true objectivity in line with their mission statement.

Cheers.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Gabriel

[Gabriel]

Actually it states that any kind of torture or cruelty is prohibited. Ergo, defining it isnt a requirement.

Wow. Did you really just say that? Are you denying that there can be legitimate disagreement as to what constitutes torture or mistreatment? You can't be this obtuse. Is being put in a cell mistreatment or torture? Being handcuffed tightly? It is up to signatory nations to determine how they implement their obligations to the GC. If you seriously believe that you're making a valid point, quite frankly I really don't think you can participate in this discussion as a serious contributor.

[eyeball]

I could go on and on, but do you see my point?

Please don't...and no I don't see the point at all.

Gilad Shalit has his country and it's allies working on his behalf, Omar Khadr doesn't. Obviously AI must see little point in directing what are likely it's far scarcer pool of resources towards Shalit given he already has so many working on his behalf compared to Khadr.

Edited February 3, 2010 by eyeball

[Gabriel]

Please don't...and no I don't see the point at all.

Gilad Shalit has his country and it's allies working on his behalf, Omar Khadr doesn't. Obviously AI must see little point in directing what are likely it's far scarcer pool of resources towards Shalit given he already has so many working on his behalf compared to Khadr.

"Far scarcer pool of resources"? Scarcer than what or who? It doesn't even matter about the resources, we're talking about writing articles and opinion pieces, not raising money and hiring lawyers. I highly doubt that AI is hurting for a few hours of research time from one of its arts student volunteers to write a few hundred words of an opinion piece. The 'resource' argument is completely irrelevant given what I'm talking about here - articles and content on a website. We're not talking about large amounts of money or time, here. Why don't you just acknowledge the discrepancy and concede that it is likely the result of politicization.

Let me ask you bluntly - is AI politicized or not? Do AI's political leanings and ideology impact which stories they are most concerned with, and how they report on such stories? Yes or no?

Edited February 3, 2010 by Gabriel

[eyeball]

Why don't you just acknowledge the discrepancy and concede that it is likely the result of politicization.

Because I think the disparity might have more to do with the availability of resources. Did you think of simply writing AI and asking them?

Let me ask you bluntly - is AI politicized or not? Do AI's political leanings and ideology impact which stories they are most concerned with, and how they report on such stories? Yes or no?

Amnesty International is just a thing don't forget it doesn't have real feelings - but no I don't think they are politicized in the malevolent way you seem to be implying they are. If AI had no articles whatsoever on Gilad Shalit and you could prove they were actively refusing to write or post any then you might have a case to make.

In any case I imagine the people who work/volunteer at AI are politicized, perhaps not as much as you are, but every human being is to some extent.

[eyeball]

delete

Edited February 3, 2010 by eyeball