Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[Gabriel]

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.

From a report by Amnesty International USA (2005)

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.

The USA deporting Maher Arar to Syria isn't the same as the USA torturing him. Canada has apologized for its role in the Maher Arar scandal, already. The Harper government has issued an apology and worked on Arar's behalf to assist him with respect to American travel (to get him removed off the terrorist watch list, for example). Anyways, we're talking about Omar Khadr, here. Maher Arar is irrelevant. Please don't try to sidetrack this thread in an effort to build some sort of case alleging that the USA is a country that engages in torture. The USA has the strongest tradition of any country towards upholding civil liberties and freedoms. Spare us your broad diatribe and let's get back on topic, specifically, your assertion that Khadr was tortured (he wasn't).

[ToadBrother]

Why speculate? He's going to be charged in the USA and the PMO has made it clear that they will not seek to repatriate Khadr. If he WAS returned to Canada, hypothetically of course, he should be charged with everything we can think of. From illegally fighting as part of some non-uninformed terrorist organization (a war crime) to providing material support to a terrorist organization to treason. Lay on as many charges as possible and relentlessly pursue them to give him the most lengthy sentence possible.

Which, because he was a minor, would amount to six months in a juvenile detention center playing pinball and getting his GED.

[Gabriel]

Which, because he was a minor, would amount to six months in a juvenile detention center playing pinball and getting his GED.

Perhaps that's why Khadr's team tried for so long to get him repatriated to Canada... and why some bleeding hearts want him back here, too.

[dizzy]

But how can Khadr be permitted to do so as a Canadian? He's not an Afghan national. Furthermore, our enemies in Afghanistan fight unlawfully. SO each and every one of them is a war criminal - not that I care much for the rules of war. It's kind of silly to put rules on how you can kill each other, especially when the rules are only adhered to by one side of the conflict - us and our allies. I also understand that it is silly to expect the enemy to abide by the conventional rules of war, as they would be annihilated. How can one put a law before his or her own life or success in a war? I don't expect the Taliban to rule out certain strategies of theirs because it might contravene some UN convention. Still, he is guilty of something along the lines of treason, as he is providing material support to terrorists as they murder us and our allies.

I know it's unpopular to say this in forum world, but I honestly don't have a strong counter argument to yours. Still, I remain unconvinced that he is a war criminal. The crimes against humanity and war crimes act has three provisions, one of which might be applicable:

“crime against humanity”

« crime contre l’humanité »

N/A. Applies to crimes committed against civilian populations.

“genocide”

« génocide »

N/A for obvious reasons.

“war crime”

« crime de guerre »

“war crime” means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a war crime according to customary international law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.

source: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-45.9/FullText.html

Does this last provision apply? If so, how in a Canadian context, other than to adopt the 'enemy combatant' legal position?

[Born Free]

Please don't try to sidetrack this thread in an effort to build some sort of case alleging that the USA is a country that engages in torture.

You must have missed all the news about that. They did engage in it....with a little help from their friends..

Edited February 2, 2010 by Born Free

[dizzy]

Paul Bernardo is a human being - technically, but I can deny him the slightest sympathies or care about his well-being if I so desire.

If the immigration laws in this country weren't so wacked none of the Khadrs would be "canadians". There should be a ten year waiting period before you can even apply for citizenship. That allows us to know just what kind of people these prospective citizens are. It used to be seven years - I'd settle for that. The Liberals lowered it to three, probably to curry favour with immigrants.

Almost everything the Liberal party has done has been designed to benefit itself at the expensive of Canada.

This is great stuff for your election campaign, but it doesn't change the law. Omar was born here. He is a canadian citizen. I don't like this family, either. I do care about maintaining the principles that make our democracy work.

[Gabriel]

I know it's unpopular to say this in forum world, but I honestly don't have a strong counter argument to yours. Still, I remain unconvinced that he is a war criminal. The crimes against humanity and war crimes act has three provisions, one of which might be applicable:

“crime against humanity”

« crime contre l’humanité »

N/A. Applies to crimes committed against civilian populations.

“genocide”

« génocide »

N/A for obvious reasons.

“war crime”

« crime de guerre »

“war crime” means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a war crime according to customary international law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.

source: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-45.9/FullText.html

Does this last provision apply? If so, how in a Canadian context, other than to adopt the 'enemy combatant' legal position?

Well Canada is a signatory to international treaties that govern the laws of war. Being part of a terrorist organization that intentionally attacks civilian targets and engages in illegal warfare (no uniforms, illegal weaponry such as IEDs, etc) certainly must be a breach of some the laws of war, making him a war criminal. That's some of how Khadr could be dealt with legally in a Canadian context. I'm no lawyer, though, so I'm not the best person to ask this question.

As I've already said, I don't put much stock into the whole idea of "war crimes" in many ways. How can we expect our enemies to abide by the rules of war if it would result in their annihilation? Of course the Taliban and other terrorist organizations will no come out for a "fair fight" in a non-civilian combat zone with uniforms, declarations, etc. Their survival depends on them maintaining their terrorist tactics from the shadows, exploiting every opportunity they have of us abiding by the rules. It's understandable, in a way. It's just frustrating that adherence to dignity and rules is one-sides in these battles, with us following the rules and being chastised harshly by leftists at any breach of the rules, however insignificant (whether real or falsely perceived), while the enemy gets to operate with impunity with complete disregard for these rules.

One more thing about criminal liability in the Canadian context, I imagine fighting for our enemy is a breach of something - isn't that called treason? Even if Khadr isn't a war criminal, he's certainly a bad person and guilty of other offenses.

[Argus]

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.

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

That would be just about everyone on this topic who is snivelling because a terrorist didn't get his sleep.

When I state the evident facts that torture is evil and human rights violations are unacceptable, I mean by anyone, anywhere. Period.

Right. Sure. That is the lawyer's response. Of course, we don't see you on any other topics howling and shrieking about the human rights abuses anywhere else. Ever.

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".

Apparently, in addition to your misunderstanding of words in common usage - like torture - you have a comprehension problem. I never said the US has done no wrong. I found their attempt to explain away things like waterboarding to be absurd, and their childish attempts at psychological torture ineffective, embarrassing and counterproductive. It's just that, unlike you and the other wretched far leftists, I don't choose to spend all my time condemning them for it because I have a sense of perspective.

The only reason we hear about things like waterboarding and sleep deprivation is because the US, unlike scores of other countries, lets its prisoners go rather than putting a bullet behind their ear and giving them an unmarked grave. I can probably put up a list of 100 countries which treat their prisoners far, far, far worse than the US does.

[Argus]

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.

Sleep deprivation is designed to break down the will to resist interrogation - without torture.

If it doesn't hurt - it's not really torture.

[Army Guy]

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.

So let me get this straight, Amnesty international is the worlds leading experts on the defination of torture. Not the UN or geneva convention but AI. And they have declared in this case of Omars defense that he was subjected to torture based on all the facts in this case.

Is there a cite for this claim?

I mention that because it is really a major portion of the claims made by some on this board that Canada is guilty of violating Omars rights. They have indicated that CSIS persons interviewed him knowing that he had been tortured and did not take any action on his behalf....And will play a major role "if" he is returned to Canada for proscution...

I'm not sure i'm ready to refer to AI for what may or may not be a large payout of tax payers money to a known terrorist.

[Gabriel]

Sleep deprivation is designed to break down the will to resist interrogation - without torture.

If it doesn't hurt - it's not really torture.

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.

[Gabriel]

So let me get this straight, Amnesty international is the worlds leading experts on the defination of torture. Not the UN or geneva convention but AI. And they have declared in this case of Omars defense that he was subjected to torture based on all the facts in this case.

Is there a cite for this claim?

I mention that because it is really a major portion of the claims made by some on this board that Canada is guilty of violating Omars rights. They have indicated that CSIS persons interviewed him knowing that he had been tortured and did not take any action on his behalf....And will play a major role "if" he is returned to Canada for proscution...

I'm not sure i'm ready to refer to AI for what may or may not be a large payout of tax payers money to a known terrorist.

I'm willing to trust that Amnesty International does indeed view Omar Khadr's treatment as contrary to domestic and internationals laws, as well as their sensibilities. I'm assuming you've got some familiarity with AI, and it's not a stretch to assume that they strongly support Omar Khadr and most likely have engaged in vigorous activities to advance his best interests - i.e. spending money to support his legal defense, trying to build goodwill for Omar Khadr by making public statement supporting him, etc. I think AI actually leveld a lawsuit against Canada on Khadr's behalf, or something like that. Generally speaking, AI tends to support the enemies of the West. I won't be asking CANADIEN for evidence regarding his claim that AI has described Khadr's treatment at Club Gitmo as torture - I'm sure it's true.

[waldo]

Generally speaking, AI tends to support the enemies of the West.

are advocates for the recognition of human rights, supporters of, as you say, "enemies of the West"?

[Army Guy]

I'm willing to trust that Amnesty International does indeed view Omar Khadr's treatment as contrary to domestic and internationals laws, as well as their sensibilities. I'm assuming you've got some familiarity with AI, and it's not a stretch to assume that they strongly support Omar Khadr and most likely have engaged in vigorous activities to advance his best interests - i.e. spending money to support his legal defense, trying to build goodwill for Omar Khadr by making public statement supporting him, etc. I think AI actually leveld a lawsuit against Canada on Khadr's behalf, or something like that. Generally speaking, AI tends to support the enemies of the West. I won't be asking CANADIEN for evidence regarding his claim that AI has described Khadr's treatment at Club Gitmo as torture - I'm sure it's true.

I'd still like to read a cite as i can not find one, to get the entire picture from all sides..One would hope that the courts did infact look at this charge in detail and using Canada's own definition of torture and compare them with actual events. not those displayed in the media where it is assumed that was torture of the worse kind. But in stating all that...

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....

[waldo]

I'd still like to read a cite as i can not find one, to get the entire picture from all sides..

Amnesty International - Document - USA: Who are the Guantánamo detainees? Case Sheet 14: Canadian National: Omar Khadr.

Amnesty International - Document - Canada: Supreme Court of Canada rules that Canadian authorities violated Omar Khadr’s rights; fails to order effective remedy

[Army Guy]

Thanks waldo.

[Gabriel]

are advocates for the recognition of human rights, supporters of, as you say, "enemies of the West"?

Let's not pretend like the laws relating to human rights and civil liberties are entirely objective. It's entirely possible to have differing interpretations of how the laws and spirit or human rights and civil liberties can apply to various situations. As much as AI puts itself forward as a champion of human rights, they can on occasion throw their support behind the wrong cause. AI does not OWN the definition of what is and isn't acceptable with respect to these issues in all scenarios. Don't act like one cannot have legitimate disagreements with AI.

One of many examples I can think of is AI's strong support for Omar Khadr. Most recently, there's an article on the AI-Canada website encouraging people to do what they can (i.e. copy and paste a prepared letter by AI and send it to Stephen Harper) to pressure the government to repatriate Khadr. Rather than being concerned with obtaining the best outcome with respect to ALL issues on the table (Omar Khadr's rights and freedoms AS WELL as the need for justice with respect to him answering for his crimes), AI is obsessed with only the transgressions of Omar Khadr's rights (domestic and international), both real and perceived. AI consistently ignores the difficulty of many scenarios faced by our military and government with respect to difficult scenarios. Khadr's status with respect to rights was highly debatable, despite AI's claims to the contrary. There's been no acknowledgement from AI that I've seen regarding the legitimate questions over specifically what rights Khadr is entitled to. Being part of a terrorist group that breaks all conventions and laws of combat (and civil/political conduct!) perhaps DIDN'T entitle him to all the protections of the Geneva Conventions. AI also made many strong definitive claims that Khadr was tortured (he was not tortured), along the same lines as CANADIEN insisting that sleep deprivation always constitutes torture - no ifs ands or buts. It's simply not true, and the protections of the law afforded to prisoners with subjective language such as the right "not to be subjected to degrading or inhumane conditions" (or something along those lines...) is SUBJECTIVE. Where CANADIEN and AI (and perhaps yourself) view all forms of sleep deprivation as torture, myself and many others (as well as the SCOTUS and the Obama administration) disagree with you. I could go on and on, but to oversimplify AI as the be-all-and-end-all of what defines right and wrong with respect to human rights and civil liberties is plain nonsense. They don't own these issues. Every single little word and letter in human rights and civil liberties legislation do not trump all other social needs and concerns in every single situation. AI, being ideological, cannot recognize that.

[Gabriel]

Amnesty International - Document - USA: Who are the Guantánamo detainees? Case Sheet 14: Canadian National: Omar Khadr.

Amnesty International - Document - Canada: Supreme Court of Canada rules that Canadian authorities violated Omar Khadr’s rights; fails to order effective remedy

Check this out, near the top of your second link, in reference to Omar Khadr - He has been subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during his time in US custody, and continues to face unfair trial by military commission for crimes he is alleged to have committed when he was still a child.

This is simply untrue. Being put on a regimen on not being permitted to have more than three hours of uninterrupted sleep (which does NOT mean he was not permitted to sleep more than three hours a day, or even consecutively) IS NOT torture, and it certainly is not cruel, inhumane or degrading. Let's not forget that he is NOT an American citizen and was legally defined as an enemy combatant for many years, and in a legitimate legal limbo. He was well taken care off, with access to medical and psychological services. If you read declassified reports that reference American and Canadian intelligence and other officials who had dealings with Khadr, he was in good condition. In fact, he was often uncooperative and mocking these officials, and providing contradictory statements. No doubt he was coached by the older terrorists at Gitmo on how to behave with these officials.

In short, AI *never* acknowledges that there are broader questions of justice and right vs. wrong in the Omar Khadr case. His lack of having a lawyer present when being held as an enemy combatant when being interviewed (it hardly looked like an interrogation to me if you see the portion of the video that was released, as well as descriptions of Khadr's state by Canadian officials) isn't some GRAVE breach of fundamental freedoms. Let's analyze with a little bit of common sense about what really would constitute a grave breach of fundamental standards of justice - i.e. North Korea.

[waldo]

Generally speaking, AI tends to support the enemies of the West.

are advocates for the recognition of human rights, supporters of, as you say, "enemies of the West"?

Let's not pretend like the laws relating to human rights and civil liberties are entirely objective. It's entirely possible to have differing interpretations of how the laws and spirit or human rights and civil liberties can apply to various situations. As much as AI puts itself forward as a champion of human rights, they can on occasion throw their support behind the wrong cause. AI does not OWN the definition of what is and isn't acceptable with respect to these issues in all scenarios. Don't act like one cannot have legitimate disagreements with AI.

bold emphasis added

are advocates for the recognition of human rights, supporting causes, be they "right"... or "wrong"?

[Gabriel]

bold emphasis added

are advocates for the recognition of human rights, supporting causes, be they "right"... or "wrong"?

Are you asking me a question, or....?

[Sir Bandelot]

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....

Sadly you may be right this could be the outcome, which will have a lot of people quite angry, myself included. Although I do want Khadr or anyone to get a real trial and to be judged, what I don't want is this kind of BS, that is just another form of injustice. Fact is, if that does happen I would blame the government(s) who cocked this up. Maybe some of THEM should go to jail as well, for idiotic incompetence that results in the release of potentially harmful persons back into society, complete with multi-million dollar cash awards. I have no doubt this is exactly why Harper doesn't want to touch it. But ignoring it as they have up until now is even MORE irresponsible, and damaging in the long run. But it might be too late now to stop the inevitable. 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.

[Gabriel]

Sadly you may be right this could be the outcome, which will have a lot of people quite angry, myself included. Although I do want Khadr or anyone to get a real trial and to be judged, what I don't want is this kind of BS, that is just another form of injustice. Fact is, if that does happen I would blame the government(s) who cocked this up. Maybe some of THEM should go to jail as well, for idiotic incompetence that results in the release of potentially harmful persons back into society, complete with multi-million dollar cash awards. I have no doubt this is exactly why Harper doesn't want to touch it. But ignoring it as they have up until now is even MORE irresponsible, and damaging in the long run. But it might be too late now to stop the inevitable. 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.

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

[dizzy]

Well Canada is a signatory to international treaties that govern the laws of war. Being part of a terrorist organization that intentionally attacks civilian targets and engages in illegal warfare (no uniforms, illegal weaponry such as IEDs, etc) certainly must be a breach of some the laws of war, making him a war criminal. That's some of how Khadr could be dealt with legally in a Canadian context. I'm no lawyer, though, so I'm not the best person to ask this question.

As I've already said, I don't put much stock into the whole idea of "war crimes" in many ways. How can we expect our enemies to abide by the rules of war if it would result in their annihilation? Of course the Taliban and other terrorist organizations will no come out for a "fair fight" in a non-civilian combat zone with uniforms, declarations, etc. Their survival depends on them maintaining their terrorist tactics from the shadows, exploiting every opportunity they have of us abiding by the rules. It's understandable, in a way. It's just frustrating that adherence to dignity and rules is one-sides in these battles, with us following the rules and being chastised harshly by leftists at any breach of the rules, however insignificant (whether real or falsely perceived), while the enemy gets to operate with impunity with complete disregard for these rules.

One more thing about criminal liability in the Canadian context, I imagine fighting for our enemy is a breach of something - isn't that called treason? Even if Khadr isn't a war criminal, he's certainly a bad person and guilty of other offenses.

Yeah, I need to sit back and rethink my position. I'm less convinced of it than when I began participating in this discussion.

[CANADIEN]

Right. Sure. That is the lawyer's response. Of course, we don't see you on any other topics howling and shrieking about the human rights abuses anywhere else. Ever.

Unlike you, I do not feel the need to shriek constantly. TAnd if I decide not to waste my postings on thread where everyone except complete lunitics are or at least should be in agreement - like the evil of the Chinese or North Korean regimes, for example, it's my business, not yours.

Apparently, in addition to your misunderstanding of words in common usage - like torture - you have a comprehension problem. I never said the US has done no wrong.

Only whine "leftist!" about every time somebody mentions it.

Edited February 3, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

I'd still like to read a cite as i can not find one, to get the entire picture from all sides..One would hope that the courts did infact look at this charge in detail and using Canada's own definition of torture and compare them with actual events. not those displayed in the media where it is assumed that was torture of the worse kind. But in stating all that...

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....

If he ever gets any cent out of it, it should be seized to pay the sum awarded to the families of his victims by a U.S. Court.