Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[bush_cheney2004]

Afghanistan looks better.

There, that's better too.

[Born Free]

You have to wait....no other choice.

Khadr didn't go to Afghanistan to sell Girl Scout cookies.

I'll wait to see what is brought to light at the trial.

If convicted of committing terrorism, then put him away forever.

If convicted of the alleged murder by tossing a handgrenade, then put him away for as long as the law allows.

I'm just pleased that the law was upheld to grant him a tial.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Born Free

[bush_cheney2004]

I'll wait to see what is brought to light at the trial.

You have no other choice in the matter.....except perhaps suicide !

If convicted of committing terrorism, then put him away forever.

If convicted of the alleged murder by tossing a handgrenade, then put him away for as long as the law allows.

I'm just pleased that the law was upheld to grant him a tial.

No...deport him to Canada just to watch the ant farm reaction.

[Born Free]

You have no other choice in the matter.....except perhaps suicide !

No...deport him to Canada just to watch the ant farm reaction.

Silly little man.........

[CANADIEN]

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.

In Hamzi vs Rumsfled (sp) the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the military commissions initially set up to judge the Guantanamo detainees were in vuilation of one of the Generava Convention. Mind you, that violation did not come from the Canadian officials.

[bush_cheney2004]

In Hamzi vs Rumsfled (sp) the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the military commissions initially set up to judge the Guantanamo detainees were in vuilation of one of the Generava Convention. Mind you, that violation did not come from the Canadian officials.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) concerned unlawful detention without due process for a US citizen. Please cite your reference for a violation of "one of the Generava Convention" (sic). Here's some help for GC references in the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

Edited February 1, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[CANADIEN]

I'm sure I wouldn't enjoy it - I like my sleep - but I'm sure I'd survive it intact

On the impact of that type of torture, I'll take the word of people who have experienced it. I have quoted Menahem Begin. I've quoted him.

which is a helluva lot more than you can say about the roach infested dungeons which exist throughout the third world. If you really care about human rights and the mistreatment of people why focus on one of the cleaner, safer, saner places and ignore the more vile, evil, violent ones?

Because of people whose concern for human rights varies depending on who is the victim and who is committing the abuse.

When I state the evident facts that torture is evil and human rights violations are unacceptable, I mean by anyone, anywhere. Period. Were there people here arguing that China, for example, is a model of human rights and that they do not practice torture, they would get the same response that you get when you scream like a baby deprived of his lollipop because some have the audacity to say "the U.S. Government has done wrong".

(..)to self-hating Left wing wack jobs whose sole concerns hover around the gleeful opportunity to critize Americans or Jews.

This coming from a right-wing whack job who cannot accept the fact that the U'S' Government can do and sometimes do bad things.

Edited February 1, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Born Free]

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) concerned unlawful detention without due process for a US citizen. Please cite your reference for a violation of "one of the Generava Convention" (sic). Here's some help for GC references in the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."[1] Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

[CANADIEN]

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) concerned unlawful detention without due process for a US citizen. Please cite your reference for a violation of "one of the Generava Convention" (sic). Here's some help for GC references in the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

I stand corrected. It was Hamdan vs Rumsfeld. But then, considering the number of time the U.S. Supreme Court has slapped the wrist of the Bush Administration for its conduct towards detainees, one can be forgiven for confusing names.

In this particular case, the Court found that the military commissions violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions (specifically, Common Article 3 of the Conventions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

[bush_cheney2004]

I stand corrected. It was Hamdan vs Rumsfeld. But then, considering the number of time the U.S. Supreme Court has slapped the wrist of the Bush Administration for its conduct towards detainees, one can be forgiven for confusing names.

The Bush administration agrees with you 100%....forgiveness is far easier to get than permission. Still....Khadr remains detained at Hotel 'Gitmo.

[CANADIEN]

That simply isn't true. According to that logic, arresting someone and putting them in a cell is also a form of torture. It's not a fundamental right of your to be permitted to sleep for ten hours every 24 hour cycle. There is obviously a point where sleep deprivation would constitute torture, and this is CLEARLY a subjective question, and one that is obviously in the hands of authorities (legal system, security agencies, etc). There is definitely no legal foundation for your claim that sleep deprivation is necessarily torture. There's definitely no reasonable foundation for it, either. You can't honestly tell me that you believe sleep deprivation for a couple of days constitutes torture, and then put physical abuse in the same category, regardless of "degree". Lastly, I'm definitely not some Bush fanboy.

We are not talking here about lettinbg people sleep 8 hours instead of 10, or waking them once during the night. We are talking about a continuous regime designed to weaken the subject physycally and mentally. In some cases, like the "frequent flyer program" used at Guantanamo Bay, the subject is a waken every two or three hours, night and day, constantly moved around as to confused him both about where he is and how long he has been treated that way. Menahem Begin, the former Premier of Israel, described a regime in which the subject was kept awake for days at atime, then suddenly allowed to sleep, only to be awaken after one hour or two for interrogation.

Feel free to argue that this is not torture. Feel also free to make a fool of yourself by pretending what we are talking about is a 7 hour night instead of a 10.

[Gabriel]

We are not talking here about lettinbg people sleep 8 hours instead of 10, or waking them once during the night. We are talking about a continuous regime designed to weaken the subject physycally and mentally. In some cases, like the "frequent flyer program" used at Guantanamo Bay, the subject is a waken every two or three hours, night and day, constantly moved around as to confused him both about where he is and how long he has been treated that way. Menahem Begin, the former Premier of Israel, described a regime in which the subject was kept awake for days at atime, then suddenly allowed to sleep, only to be awaken after one hour or two for interrogation.

Feel free to argue that this is not torture. Feel also free to make a fool of yourself by pretending what we are talking about is a 7 hour night instead of a 10.

Menachem Begin's experience was his own. You're free to read the link I provided to the Huffington Post article which has the memos released by the Obama administration regarding the interrogation dialogue between the CIA the DoJ: there are three parts embedded on the webpage. The memos quite clearly define the type of sleep deprivation that was permitted by the DoJ at the time. There are degrees of sleep deprivation, to some lengths it constitutes torture, at other lengths it does not constitute torture. Furthermore, it depends who you're asking. I endured nearly a month of sleepless nights due to severe health complications involving severe pain. I have some degree of experience with this sort of thing and of course it's no fun. I'm not trying to imply that care must not be implemented when utilizing these techniques towards assisting in an interrogation, but it's simply incorrect to say that all sleep deprivation amounts to torture without having the details and context. I highly doubt Khadr was subjected to dleep deprivation to the degree that would be viewed as torture by reasonable people. I have sated plainly already that sleep deprivation can indeed constitute torture, but it also may NOT be torture. It depends on the degree to which it was implemented as well as other details regarding how the sleep deprivation technique was implemented.

[CANADIEN]

Here's a link to a Huffington Post article which links to the released Bush Administration enhanced interrogation technique memos.

I'm not trying to derail this thread, but I thought it'd be interesting to see various opinions (legal, political, and other) from official sources regarding various interrogation techniques - specifically sleep deprivation, as it is directly connected to the Khadr case.

If you go to Part 1 of the report from the US DoJ, about halfway down there's a section 12, which discusses sleep deprivation. According to the report, at the time of its writing only a dozen detainees were subjected to sleep deprivation beyond 48 hours, only three were subjected to sleep deprivation beyond 96 hours, and only one was subjected to the maximum allowable by the CIA - 180 hours. Since these memos were dated May 10, 2005, they cover the time under which Khadr was undergoing interrogation. At least according to this timeline. According to the timeline, Khadr was being interrogated by CSIS folks around February of 2003. The video I linked earlier was one except of these interviews during February 2003, a video I'm sure we'd all agree reflect much more of a coddling than an interrogation. The claims that Omar Khadr was deprived of sleep for three weeks are unfounded as far as I can see, and at the very least are completely devoid of context. In other words, without knowing specifically what volume of sleep deprivation Khadr was subjected to and the specific methods used (shackles, waking him up, etc), it is simply incorrect to automatically label these methods as torture from either a legal or non-legal reasonable perspective.

Interesting that Canadian reports quoted in the Supreme Court judgement indicate that Khadr was submitted for a period of three weeks to a sleep-deprivation regime consisting of waking him up about every three hours, day and night. That may not be six consecutive days without a single minute of sleep, but the effect is certainly not different.

[bush_cheney2004]

Interesting that Canadian reports quoted in the Supreme Court judgement indicate that Khadr was submitted for a period of three weeks to a sleep-deprivation regime consisting of waking him up about every three hours, day and night. That may not be six consecutive days without a single minute of sleep, but the effect is certainly not different.

Then I guess poor little terrorist Khadr would also not make a very good mother:

Nursing mothers often bear the brunt of sleep loss. Many newborns breastfeed as often as every hour or two, leaving their moms struggling to stay alert during the day. One sleep-deprived nursing mom, 26-year-old Christi Shackelford-Grammer, describes her experience as "just sleepwalking, trying to make it from one feeding to the next."

[Gabriel]

Interesting that Canadian reports quoted in the Supreme Court judgement indicate that Khadr was submitted for a period of three weeks to a sleep-deprivation regime consisting of waking him up about every three hours, day and night. That may not be six consecutive days without a single minute of sleep, but the effect is certainly not different.

Please link me to those reports. Also, the effect is certainly NOT the same. It is much harsher to not be permitted to sleep for six straight days than it is to only be allowed three hours of sleep at a time over several weeks. I do not consider what you described to constitute torture, but I'm just a guy. For what it's worth, the Obama administration has put a stop to several of the advanced interrogation techniques. Sleep deprivation, for example, can now not extend beyond a 4 hour uninterrupted sleep every 24-hour period. So the Obama administration partially agrees with you on this subject.

[CANADIEN]

I endured nearly a month of sleepless nights due to severe health complications involving severe pain. I have some degree of experience with this sort of thing and of course it's no fun.

And i can berely sleep these days. Yet, nobody is preventing me from sleeping.

I highly doubt Khadr was subjected to dleep deprivation to the degree that would be viewed as torture by reasonable people. I have sated plainly already that sleep deprivation can indeed constitute torture, but it also may NOT be torture.[]quote] You have also tried to trivialized the whole thing by joking that "not having 10 hours of sleep at night is not torture'> Three weeks of sleep deprivation, consisting of short repetitive periods so short that a person no longer knows where they are and don't even know if it's day or night, is a form of mental torture. And that's the process that, according to CSIS, was applied to Khadr before its interrogation.

To quote a spokesperson for Amnesty International Australia:

At the very least, sleep deprivation is cruel, inhumane and degrading. If used for prolonged periods of time it is torture[/quote}

If Khadr had been kept up late two or three nights, I would not be talking about torture, Had he been awaken twice every night to make sure he wasn't attempting to escape, I would not be talking about torture. What we have here is different.

[eyeball]

Nursing mothers often bear the brunt of sleep loss.

It's not just mothers. I'm quite certain colic ranks somewhere close to torture.

[Gabriel]

And i can berely sleep these days. Yet, nobody is preventing me from sleeping.

I highly doubt Khadr was subjected to dleep deprivation to the degree that would be viewed as torture by reasonable people. I have sated plainly already that sleep deprivation can indeed constitute torture, but it also may NOT be torture.[]quote] You have also tried to trivialized the whole thing by joking that "not having 10 hours of sleep at night is not torture'> Three weeks of sleep deprivation, consisting of short repetitive periods so short that a person no longer knows where they are and don't even know if it's day or night, is a form of mental torture. And that's the process that, according to CSIS, was applied to Khadr before its interrogation.

To quote a spokesperson for Amnesty International Australia:

At the very least, sleep deprivation is cruel, inhumane and degrading. If used for prolonged periods of time it is torture[/quote}

If Khadr had been kept up late two or three nights, I would not be talking about torture, Had he been awaken twice every night to make sure he wasn't attempting to escape, I would not be talking about torture. What we have here is different.

Why don't you just link us to the report so we can see it for ourselves? Also, Amnesty International is not the kind of group that I'd consult to identify what does and doesn't constitute torture. Reasonable people know that Amnesty International is entirely too sensitive in this regard. Their definition of torture isn't important to me. I'm trying to find information on what Canada defines as torture from official sources, at the moment.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Gabriel

[bush_cheney2004]

And i can berely sleep these days. Yet, nobody is preventing me from sleeping.

Nobody is preventing you from becoming a terrorist either.

[CANADIEN]

Then I guess poor little terrorist Khadr would also not make a very good mother:

Nursing mothers often bear the brunt of sleep loss. Many newborns breastfeed as often as every hour or two, leaving their moms struggling to stay alert during the day. One sleep-deprived nursing mom, 26-year-old Christi Shackelford-Grammer, describes her experience as "just sleepwalking, trying to make it from one feeding to the next."

Wake me up when you have something worth reading to contribute.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wake me up when you have something worth reading to contribute.

No.....I wouldn't want to be accused of torture and human rights violations. LOL!

[Gabriel]

Here's a link to an application (or something else?) from Khadr's legal team to Justice O'Reilly.

If you go to page six of the document, you'll find this quote of DFAIT official when describing Omar's conditions and his subjection to the "frequent flyer" sleep deprivation techniques:

In an effort to make him more amenable and willing to talk, [blank] has placed

Umar on the “frequent flyer program.” [F]or the three weeks before [the] visit, Umar

has not been permitted more than three hours in any one location. At three hours

intervals he is moved to another cell block, thus denying him uninterrupted sleep and

a continued change of neighbours. He will soon be placed in isolation for up to three

weeks and then he will be interviewed again.

. . .

Certainly Umar did not appear to have been affected by three weeks on the “frequent

flyer” program. He did not yawn or indicate in any way that he was tired throughout

the two hour interview. It seems likely that the natural resilience of a well-fed and

healthy seventeen-year old are keeping him going.

For accuracy's sake, it doesn't look like Khadr was never permitted to sleep for more than three hours at any given time. Rather, he was never permitted more than three hours of uninterrupted sleep. The more I look into this, the softer the treatment towards him becomes. There are other details in the linked document (I've only read a bit of it) indicating that Canada did make efforts that were in Khadr's best interests - such as seeking assurances that the USA not seek the death penalty and requests to remove him from Gitmo to a more "suitable" place for a person accused of committing a crime under the age of sixteen.

I'm still looking for information regarding official Canadian policy or legal precedents with respect to defining torture, specifically with respect to sleep deprivation: how, if at all, may it be applied during interrogations? The only thing I've found so far is that at one time there was a document provided to Canadian diplomats regarding warnings for possible torture of prisoners, with the USA and Israel on the list as possible at-risk countries. The document was eventually made public via Amnesty International, and the Harper government apologized for this and removed the USA and Israel from the list, suggesting that at least our current government doesn't believe (rightly so, I might add) that the USA or Israel engage in torture.

[CANADIEN]

ame='CANADIEN' date='01 February 2010 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1265070724' post='505698']

Why don't you just link us to the report so we can see it for ourselves?

Unfortunately (for you), the CBC placed ibn its Website copies of reports prepared by Canadian officials, that were later used and mentioned by the Supreme Court. The Heatherington report, describing the treatment of Khadr prior to the first Canadian interrogation, is about mid-way. Do I also need to scroll the text down for you?

(http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/khadr-docs.pdf)

As for Amnesty International, I am afraid we are not taling about the same organization. I am talking about the one that reasonable people know to be one of the foremost and best human rights organizations on the planet. I will in almost every case trust their definition of human rights and violation of human rights and torture about anything you will dig up in an attempt to convince yourself that the type of sleep deprivation Omar Khadr was subjected to does not constitute torture. Not because ot fits my opinion, but because I KNOW them to be reliable.

[CANADIEN]

Here's a link to an application (or something else?) from Khadr's legal team to Justice O'Reilly.

For accuracy's sake, it doesn't look like Khadr was never permitted to sleep for more than three hours at any given time. Rather, he was never permitted more than three hours of uninterrupted sleep.

If you are deluded enough to think there is more than a semantic difference here, I guess that's what the ignore button is for.

But first.

The document was eventually made public via Amnesty International, and the Harper government apologized for this and removed the USA and Israel from the list, suggesting that at least our current government doesn't believe (rightly so, I might add) that the USA or Israel engage in torture.

From a report by Amnesty International USA (2005)

The Bush Administration cited Egypt for beating victims with fists, whips and metal rods. And yet US Major Michael Smith testified at an administrative review hearing last year that an autopsy of a captured Iraqi general revealed he had suffered five broken ribs that were “consistent with blunt force trauma, that is, either punching, kicking or striking with an object or being thrown into an object.”

Just one example. The shipping of detainees to "ghost camps" and to foreign countries Mahar Arar anyone?), the documented abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib and Bagram, the training in torture methods provided for years to Latin America military at the infamous "School of the Americas" should put to rest any delusion that U.S administrations have never ever engaged in torture.

Nobody in their right mind would say that the U.S. is a giant prison, or that they rank to the same level of depravity as China, North Korea or Syria, for example. But there is a difference between that and wilful naiveté.

[Gabriel]

Unfortunately (for you), the CBC placed ibn its Website copies of reports prepared by Canadian officials, that were later used and mentioned by the Supreme Court. The Heatherington report, describing the treatment of Khadr prior to the first Canadian interrogation, is about mid-way. Do I also need to scroll the text down for you?

(http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/khadr-docs.pdf)

As for Amnesty International, I am afraid we are not taling about the same organization. I am talking about the one that reasonable people know to be one of the foremost and best human rights organizations on the planet. I will in almost every case trust their definition of human rights and violation of human rights and torture about anything you will dig up in an attempt to convince yourself that the type of sleep deprivation Omar Khadr was subjected to does not constitute torture. Not because ot fits my opinion, but because I KNOW them to be reliable.

All that does is confirm what I've already stated earlier regarding the specifics of the sleep deprivation Khadr was subjected to. You misleadingly suggested that Khadr wasn't permitted to sleep for weeks, then it became clear the was moved every three hours for three weeks to prevent him for getting more than three hours of uninterrupted sleep. His condition was never described by interrogators as bad. Again, I see no evidence of abuse or torture. Of course Amnesty International will view basic imprisonment as an infringement on human rights. They are not the authority on what does and does not constitute torture. You can agree with their definitions if you want to, and I will disagree with them. More interesting to me is what institutions with power think of this issue, not extreme leftist organizations like Amnesty International. Your very own link mirrors exactly what the link I provided says, that Khadr did not seem affected by the frequent-flyer program, was not yawning and was able to keep his attention on the interview. Hardly evidence of torture.

I doubt you've actually read the document you linked me (thanks for linking it, though, it's very interesting). It's interesting to see how uncooperative and contentious Khadr has behaved, and how it is likely that he has been coached from other terrorists at Gitmo (and most likely his lawyers) on how to behave during interviews. It's interesting to read about how he defends his father and other such craziness.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Gabriel