Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[Keepitsimple]

The court has ruled that the Liberals first violated his rights by participating in an interview process that deprived Khadr of his rights. The Conservatives are now depriving him of his rights because the information derived from those "interviews" may be used against him at his trial. Canada could conceivably ask the US to exclude all evidence gained from the interviews as it realtes to his charges so as to safeguard Khadr's rights. Seems like a reasonable comprimise.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Born Free]

I tend to agree, seven years is a long time to bring someone to trial even in Canada, let alone the US.

I know that I'd sure like to see what the evidence is against Khadr. There are so many conflicting stories as to the actual events its frightening that he's still incarcerated without a trial after all this time.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I tend to agree, seven years is a long time to bring someone to trial even in Canada, let alone the US.

Sure it is. Sucks to be him doesn't it ! Lets step back here and suggest that he got himself into this little jackpot. Now he has to figure a way out of it. Sooner or later the Americans will get tired of playing with him, when that happens we get the dubious honour and expense here of having to put him on trial. Until that day I figure he isn't escaping justice for the moment and there just isn't any rush to have to deal with him.

[CANADIEN]

Sure it is. Sucks to be him doesn't it ! Lets step back here and suggest that he got himself into this little jackpot. Now he has to figure a way out of it. Sooner or later the Americans will get tired of playing with him, when that happens we get the dubious honour and expense here of having to put him on trial. Until that day I figure he isn't escaping justice for the moment and there just isn't any rush to have to deal with him.

Justice delayed is justice denied

[Wilber]

Sure it is. Sucks to be him doesn't it ! Lets step back here and suggest that he got himself into this little jackpot. Now he has to figure a way out of it. Sooner or later the Americans will get tired of playing with him, when that happens we get the dubious honour and expense here of having to put him on trial. Until that day I figure he isn't escaping justice for the moment and there just isn't any rush to have to deal with him.

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

[Bugs]

I tend to agree, seven years is a long time to bring someone to trial even in Canada, let alone the US.

Pickton waited six years for the police to find evidence against him, which is a kind of torture itself. Six years ... the fundamental reason being that the prosecutors didn't have the evidence to support the murder charges they laid against him. In fact, they never established that he killed a single woman, or that he's anything other than a damaged soul who served as a catspaw for the whole operation.

And nobody amongst this whatever number of lawyers he head, not one of those great legal minds, thought for a moment to ask about the man's so-called Charter Right to a speedy trial?

This whole thing is trumped up because the Liberal Party has no no valid criticism of anything the government is doing that would have traction with the public. What 'rights' has Khadr been deprived of, anyway? No body can seem to tell me.

I don't see it. His beef is with the US govt. and he catches a break when they decide to treat him like a PoW, rather than a brigand or terrorist. There's no need for a trial, as far as I am concerned.

If they return him to Canada, of course, there is no reason to try him here.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Bugs

[Smallc]

This whole thing is trumped up because the Liberal Party

Yes, the Supreme Court said everything it did because of the Liberal Party.

[Gabriel]

The good news is that the Supreme Court is leaving the decision with the government as to whether or not to repatriate Khadr. We all now the government's position on this - they will not try to bring Khadr back. I'm no lawyer, but since when do Canadian laws of justice apply to traitors who fight and kill our allies? Khadr voluntarily went to Afghanistan to join our enemies and killed an American soldier. Since when are terrorists or enemy combatants entitled the same standards of due process when captured on the battlefield? If Taliban terrorists aren't immediately given lawyers when captured, why should Khadr be any different? Since when do Canada's laws of due process extend beyond our borders? It seems like quite an overstatement to describe Khadr being interviewed when sleep deprived as a 'violation of human rights'. If we could create a gauge to measure the severity of human rights violations, this case would barely register on the meter.

EDIT - In all honesty, I'm much more concerned about a real Canadian waiting months for some sort of medical procedure to give him or her relief from pain than I am about this murderer being sleep deprived while at Club Gitmo.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Gabriel

[Bugs]

I don't know how you can be serious. The court clearly said that they had no place interfering in foreign policy.

Yes, but they meant that they, the Court, has no right to interfere in foreign policy. Not the government, the Court. That's recognizing that the Court is messing in politics, where they have no business.

The point about 'rights' has to do with Khadr. I doubt if the Supreme Court said what is being reported. What possible right could anyone have that would entitle them to -- what? -- incession? Khadr went to Pakistan to learn how to kill Americans, Afghan style, from ambushes, etc. He ended up being wounded and caught, and his life saved by a lot of American medical care.

Formally, the guy has no rights. He's caught, fighting without a uniform, in the employ of no state, killing Americans. Legally, he's just a criminal or an insurgent. Either way, he could have been lined up against the wall and shot, legally. He's lucky to be treated as a PoW.

Does Canada have an obligation to seek the freedom of Canadians fighting against NATO? I doubt it. It would be more likely a crime for Canadians to fight against NATO.

There's a lot of loose talk about 'rights' these days, as if everybody has a right to everything. The problem is -- they don't, and people who attack military units from ambushes take their own chances.

If I am wrong, identify the right that Omar Khadr has supposedly not been accorded.

I don't think you can.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Bugs

[Smallc]

Yes, but they meant that they, the Court, had no right to interfere in foreign policy. Not the government. the Court. That's recognizing that the Court is messing in politics, where they have no business.

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. The court is obligated to ensure that the Canadian Government complies with the Charter and Canadian Law. If you doubt that the Supreme Court said what is being reported, then you're wrong, and if you can't already, you'll soon be able to read (and watch) the judgement.

The Court has already said which rights were violated. They also (basically) said that it's up to the government, and not them to fix because of where the abuses took place.

[CANADIEN]

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. The court is obligated to ensure that the Canadian Government complies with the Charter and Canadian Law. If you doubt that the Supreme Court said what is being reported, then you're wrong, and if you can't already, you'll soon be able to read (and watch) the judgement.

The Court has already said which rights were violated. They also (basically) said that it's up to the government, and not them to fix because of where the abuses took place.

Well put.

the court said in essence to the Government: "You violated the rights of a Canadian. You decide how to remedy for it?. A far cry from - "it's foreign policy, so we have no right to say or do anything about it."

[Gabriel]

There's this line in the linked article from the OP - The charter does not normally apply to Canadians abroad, except in rare circumstances.

What circumstances would those be? I'm interested in knowing what type of lawyer the Supreme Court of Canada expected Khadr to have when he was being interviewed by a Canadian Foreign Affairs official. I'm seriously confused how Canadian due process laws extend beyond our borders, and particularly how they extend to areas in the most difficult of circumstances - a warzone with where we and our allies are battling terrorists. If anything, Khadr's been treated very well considering the circumstances. He's lucky to even be alive.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Gabriel

[Smallc]

I'm seriously confused how Canadian due process laws extend beyond our borders,

Then you must not have read the ruling. Our officials have to follow our rules when dealing with Canadians no matter where they are. That is exactly what the Charter guarantees. I like how so many conservative posters here think that they know more about our Constitution than the Supreme Court.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Gabriel]

Then you must not have read the ruling. Our officials have to follow our rules no matter where they are.

I read the article from the OP. What rules are you talking about, anyways? As I already quoted form the article, the Charter only applied to Canadians abroad in rare circumstances. What circumstances are those?

EDIT - I never said I knew more about the law than the Supreme Court. I'm asking an honest question about how our laws of due process extend to extremely difficult and unique circumstances such as the Khadr case beyond our borders. Should Khadr have been linked up with a Canadian lawyer when he was interviewed by a Foreign Affairs official when at Gitmo? An American lawyer? I'm looking for serious answers from those who know a thing or two about this stuff. If you can't answer the questions, then stop pestering me and trying to be funny. I also don't know why you're trying to describe me as a conservative.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Gabriel

[Smallc]

I read the article from the OP. What rules are you talking about, anyways? As I already quoted form the article, the Charter only applied to Canadians abroad in rare circumstances. What circumstances are those?

Circumstances where Canadian Officials are dealing with Canadian Citizens.

[CANADIEN]

Formally, the guy has no rights. He's caught, fighting without a uniform, in the employ of no state, killing Americans. Legally, he's just a criminal or an insurgent. Either way, he could have been lined up against the wall and shot, legally. He's lucky to be treated as a PoW.

Very lucky to be treated like a PoW... especially since the US Government has constantly refused to treat him as such.

If I am wrong, identify the right that Omar Khadr has supposedly not been accorded.

I don't think you can.

And I don't think you even bothered to read the Court decision, or you would know the answer.

Various aspects of the procedures and policies in place at Guantanamo at the time Khadr was interrogated by Canadian agents in 2003 were later found BY U.S. COURTS to be against both U.S. and international law. In the case of Khadr, these violations included denial of access to a lawyer and of habeas corpusAlso, Khadr was subjected to treatment, such as sleep depravation, that amounts to torture.

By interrogating Khadr without a lawyer present while he was being subject to sleep depravation, Canadian officials violated his rights under the Constitution, as well as fundamental justice.

Like it our not, under our Constitution, even those accused of the most hieous crimes have a right to a lawyer, and not to be tortured. Canadian officials had no right to interrogate Khadr knowing the conditions he was subjected to. Good thing we have the courts to remind us of that.

Edited January 30, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

I'm no lawyer, but since when do Canadian laws of justice apply to traitors who fight and kill our allies?

Since the Courts have made clear that actions of Canadian officials when interrogating Canadians accused of crimes are subject to Canadian laws, including the Constitution.

Since when are terrorists or enemy combatants entitled the same standards of due process when captured on the battlefield?

Since US COURTS said so.

EDIT - In all honesty, I'm much more concerned about a real Canadian waiting months for some sort of medical procedure to give him or her relief from pain than I am about this murderer being sleep deprived while at Club Gitmo.

In all honesty. I don't care much about Khadr. What I care about is the Canadian Government and Canadian officials respecting Canadian law.

Edited January 30, 2010 by CANADIEN

[eyeball]

Unlike what some may mistakenly assume, Khadr was not a child soldier. He was not abducted and tortured to make him into a mindless killing machine. He should have stand trial for his actions.

Khadr was a conflict child then. What possible difference could there be in a national army or a terrorist army from a kid's perspective? His moral compass was deviated, very deliberately, at a young impressionable age by his parents and other adults. This is no better than a pedophile ring that lure kids into to believing pornography is normal. Its abuse, pure and simple.

He was abducted, in every sense of the word from normal society - from the village it also takes to raise a child so to speak - and stripped of his human rights and robbed of his future and potential, in a very real sense society was also robbed of his potential. Of course following hot on the heels of this there is the official abuse of his rights as evidenced by repeated supreme court rulings.

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. Is this a new conflict or an old war? Is it a military campaign or a police action? If they're criminals are we the police? Did history start on 9/11 or before? Do al Queada have real grievances or don't they?

It seems to me that the reasons for not dealing with Khadr resonate with the reasons for not dealing with questions surrounding the root causes of things like 9/11 and why so many people in the world do have grievances against the west - I think it's because the implications that branch off these questions point towards answers that many people just can't or don't want to face.

Actually dealing with Omar Khadr makes him a far greater threat to the west than he ever was before he was turned into...whatever he is.

Edited January 30, 2010 by eyeball

[CANADIEN]

Khadr was a conflict child then. What possible difference could there be in a national army or a terrorist army from a kid's perspective? His moral compass was deviated, very deliberately, at a young impressionable age by his parents and other adults. This is no better than a pedophile ring that lure kids into to believing pornography is normal. Its abuse, pure and simple.

He was abducted, in every sense of the word from normal society - from the village it also takes to raise a child so to speak - and stripped of his human rights and robbed of his future and potential, in a very real sense society was also robbed of his potential. Of course following hot on the heels of this there is the official abuse of his rights as evidenced by repeated supreme court rulings.

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. Is this a new conflict or an old war? Is it a military campaign or a police action? If they're criminals are we the police? Did history start on 9/11 or before? Do al Queada have real grievances or don't they?

It seems to me that the reasons for not dealing with Khadr resonate with the reasons for not dealing with questions surrounding the root causes of things like 9/11 and why so many people in the world do have grievances against the west - I think it's because the implications that branch off these questions point towards answers that many people just can't or don't want to face.

I actually think Omar Khadr is now a far greater threat to the west than he ever was before he was turned into...whatever he is.

By your measure, any 15 year old child who belongs to a street gang is not responsible for his actions.

Khadr is respnsible for his actions.

If one day the U.S. Government decides to do the right thing and have a REAL trial for Khadr, his lawyers will be free to bring in the "he was not responsible for his actions" defence.. and lose.

[Gabriel]

Circumstances where Canadian Officials are dealing with Canadian Citizens.

Do you think you're being funny, or something? It's hardly that simple. The article itself plainly states that the CCRF doesn't apply to Canadian abroad, except in rare circumstances. I'd like to know what those circumstances are. The Khadr case is clearly an exceptional circumstance. Was the Canadian Foreign Affairs official supposed to bring a lawyer along when interviewing Khadr? I'm also unsure why he needs a lawyer if the Foreign Affairs official wasn't an investigator. The FA official wasn't there in a law enforcement capacity, I don't think, so why would Khadr have needed a lawyer? Again, what type of lawyer(s) should he have had? The very concept of a lawyer seems to imply that he's a civilian criminal (if that's a term I can use) rather than an enemy combatant. Is it standard for POWs (and he's not even a conventional soldier, but a non-uniformed terrorist) to be given lawyers when captured? It'd be interesting to get more insight from somehow familiar with the relevant laws of this case, if such a person exists on this forum.

[Smallc]

Do you think you're being funny, or something? It's hardly that simple. The article itself plainly states that the CCRF doesn't apply to Canadian abroad, except in rare circumstances. I'd like to know what those circumstances are.

And I've given you those circumstances. I don't know what's so hard to understand. I don't think I'm being funny at all. It seems that the Charter only applies when Canadian citizens are being dealt with by Canadian officials when outside of Canada.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Gabriel]

Very lucky to be treated like a PoW... especially since the US Government has constantly refused to treat him as such.

And I don't think you even bothered to read the Court decision, or you would know the answer.

Various aspects of the procedures and policies in place at Guantanamo at the time Khadr was interrogated by Canadian agents in 2003 were later found BY U.S. COURTS to be against both U.S. and international law. In the case of Khadr, these violations included denial of access to a lawyer and of habeas corpusAlso, Khadr was subjected to treatment, such as sleep depravation, that amounts to torture.

By interrogating Khadr without a lawyer present while he was being subject to sleep depravation, Canadian officials violated his rights under the Constitution, as well as fundamental justice.

Like it our not, under our Constitution, even those accused of the most hieous crimes have a right to a lawyer, and not to be tortured. Canadian officials had no right to interrogate Khadr knowing the conditions he was subjected to. Good thing we have the courts to remind us of that.

Hey there CANADIEN, I'm not quite certain you've got your facts in order. As I recall, the USA Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Gitmo were entitled to certain basic protection under the Geneva Convention. I do not believe those protections include access to a lawyer. I'm quite sure you're wrong about sleep deprivation necessarily meaning torture. Remember that the cause of controversy was water-boarding, not sleep-deprivation. There are also varying degrees of sleep deprivation. Towards the extreme I'm sure it would constitute torture, but I don't think the sleep deprivation techniques used at Gitmo were described as illegal torture by any legal authority.

Again you're bringing up Canadian rights, but my question is do they apply to Khadr at Gitmo? Canadian laws end at our borders. Canadian law doesn't have jurisdiction abroad. How can Canadian due process apply to an enemy combatant captured by America in a warzone? The CCRF doesn't follow Khadr around everywhere he goes. It applies to him when he's in Canada, not when he's outside of Canada, and certainly not when he's captured in a warzone.

I also don't know that Khadr was interrogated by a FA official. The article says he was interviewed, and doesn't suggest that the interview was executed with some sort of investigatory motive to gather evidence towards supporting a case to convict Khadr of his crimes. I'm aware that the article also states that some of the interview between Khadr and the FA official was handed over to the American authorities, but so what? He's under their jurisdiction.

This case is baffling.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Gabriel

[capricorn]

This whole thing is trumped up because the Liberal Party has no no valid criticism of anything the government is doing that would have traction with the public. What 'rights' has Khadr been deprived of, anyway? No body can seem to tell me.

It is reported that Khadr was interrogated 6 times by Canadian authorities in the period 2003/4. It was in 2005 that the Federal Court ruled that Canadian agencies, including CSIS, violated Khadr’s Charter rights and must stop interviewing him. Of course, this was during a Liberal government.

Looking at the timeline of events, it's also clear that there were numerous legal procedural challenges, from the US authorities and Khadr's lawyers, and the federal government in Canadian courts in response to the latter. With respect to the delays in getting him to trial, I can't see that as a violation of his charter rights.

His charter rights may well have been violated by Canadian authorities in 2003-4. But the Canadian authorities or the government cannot be held responsible for the trial delays as those delays took place in the course of another country's legal processes or were commenced by his lawyers. Heck, even Obama's review of what to do about Guantanamo delayed the trials of detainees and kept them in limbo.

Khadr's lawyers have pretty well said they won't take any other action other than attend to the upcoming trial which has finally been scheduled. Well, I should hope so because in the end, the only big winners here are the $$$$$ lawyers.

[Born Free]

Sure it is. Sucks to be him doesn't it ! Lets step back here and suggest that he got himself into this little jackpot. Now he has to figure a way out of it. Sooner or later the Americans will get tired of playing with him, when that happens we get the dubious honour and expense here of having to put him on trial. Until that day I figure he isn't escaping justice for the moment and there just isn't any rush to have to deal with him.

I gather you arent a proponent of having a trial so you can see the evidence for yourself.

The Americans and proponents of the status quo are flying in the face of their Constitution and they dont even know it.

[Gabriel]

And I've given you those circumstances. I don't know what's so hard to understand. I don't think I'm being funny at all. It seems that the Charter only applies when Canadian citizens are being dealt with by Canadian officials when outside of Canada.

How can the Charter apply when Khadr is in American custody, and at Gitmo, for that matter? Gitmo was used because it was considered to be outside of American legal jurisdiction to allow for an easier way to deal with prisoners caught on the battlefield. How can you expect the Charter to apply in such a scenario? Consider as well that he committed war crimes outside of Canada. Let's recap - Khadr committed his crimes in Afghanistan, where the Charter doesn't apply. Khadr was captured by Americans and brought to Gitmo, where the Charter doesn't apply. Khadr was interviewed by a Canadian FA official while in American custody, still at Gitmo, where the Charter doesn't apply. How could Canada provide a lawyer to Khadr in a place where Canada doesn't make the rules? It just doesn't make any sense.

Imagine a Canadian FA official went to Iran to speak with the recently imprisoned Canadian journalist, would the government be breaching the charter if it didn't provide a lawyer to him? How could we provide a lawyer in a place where we have no authority? I know Iran and Gitmo are different, but Canada has no authority in Gitmo and can't override Gitmo's rules. Khadr could only have been provided a lawyer had the USA provided him with one. It's not our place to say otherwise.