Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[Rue]

Would we be having this conversation if it was Canadian soldiers in which he engaged....and are we just having trouble with this because all he engaged is the US army.

Did he break inter national law, terrorist activities are clearly again'st inter national law , as well as the UN charter...as well again'st the law here in Canada in fact in most western countries....

Your first comment/question I find poignant and to the point. Its precisely because he was engaged in a war with the US Army, a lot of the discussion has become clouded and why I believe you raise a good point about a possible double standard.

Now in regards to your second question it is my personal and legal opinion that he engaged in acts of war and as such should have been detained as a prisoner of war subject to the convention regarding the detention of prisoners of war.

It is precisely because international law has no law or convention that deals with a civilian engaging in conventional war but who may also be engaging in terrorist activities, i.e., attacks on civilians that we have this mess.

What we have is someone who is a hybrid. He is both a terrorist as well as a combatant who could be defined as per the Geneva convention. The problem is he is both, not just one or the other, and so until the international laws clarifies such a situation and how it wishes it to be treated in a convention which countries then agree to abide by, the only international law we have is the one referring to conventional combatants.

The United States felt since he was a hybrid of both and international law does not deal with such a hybrid they can unilaterally create a hybrid law and that is what they set out to do. Only the process trying Kadr which mixed elements of civilian and military law has not worked. The major problem with the U.S. law is that it violates the constitution of the United States to which all American laws must conform.

It violates the U.S. constitution in regards to preventing the accused from having full disclosure of the information that is being used to prove his guilt. That is a serious flaw. Conventional U.S. military law by the way demands full disclosure.

This is why I would argue the Americans should not have attempted to engage in trying to create a hybrid law for terrorist combatants that takes bits and pieces of civilian and military law it likes, but throws out the rest.

That was a defective exercise reflected by the political biases of the Bush regime which openly stated they feel it is acceptable to ignore the U.S. constitution if they pass legislation saying they can. They have tried this time and time again and each time they have, the US Supreme Court has told them they can't and no legislation is above the US constitution.

To me he should have been imprisoned as a POW because at the time of the combat for which he was engaged in, during the actual actions that led to his detention, he was engaged in combat with US soldiers, not civilians. That to me defines it as a conventional combat act contemplated in the existing Geneva convention for enemy combatants.

Had he been engaged in attacks on civilians at the time the US soldiers caught him, then I would argue he was engaged in criminal actions as per the domestic criminal laws of the country in which he attacked the civilians and therefore should have been arrested and tried as a criminal in that country of the site of the crime.

The problem still remains, until we h ave an international law dealing with terrorists and that defines what a terrorist is - we have the domestic criminal and civil laws of the country of the site of the incident, or the Geneva convention to follow.

The US decision to try create a new hybrid law for terrorists is still a US domestic law and there was no law with the site country that stated if he commits a crime in that country he should be deported to the US and stand trial under US domestic laws.

Clearly what we have is an example of the US trying to impose its own domestic law on other nations which violates the basic rule of sovereignty of nations. In fact the US has acted as an international outlaw by doing what it did and morally it makes it difficult to arrest, try and detain terrorists when the country doing that, is engaging in the same actions as terrorists in regards to certain aspects of what terrorists do when they violate laws.

I am sympathetic to what the US was trying to do but feel their legal exercise was defective because of its political agenda which tainted its ability to be fair and impartial and provide the basic fundamental rules of natural justice which include right to full disclosure and right to trial within a reasonable time period.

This is why I argue had he been detained as a pow, then the reasonable time period and full disclosure requirements are simplified and expedited under the pow process-he'd still be in a prison but we wouldn't be engaged in all this bullshit that makes a mockery of the US legal process.

[jay22]

1) Which international law did he break? and if so why is he not before an International court?

2) There certainly would, in a timely manner one would hope. Justice delayed is justice denied and all that

Researching the Khadr family is a waste of time. Omar khadr should be held responsible for his own actions, not those of his brothers sisters aunts uncles or parents.

1)He is accused of commiting war crimes which for the most part is a international law.

2)I do agree he should only be responsibe for his own actions.

I do feel he is getting a raw deal but at the same time we can not be setting everyone free.

[Peter F]

1)He is accused of commiting war crimes which for the most part is a international law.

2)I do agree he should only be responsibe for his own actions.

I do feel he is getting a raw deal but at the same time we can not be setting everyone free.

We can set everybody free, in fact should set everybody free, if they are found not-guilty of the crime.

Thus trials.

[Radsickle]

You cannot try someone for an offence commited prior to the law being created.

Bill C-36, the basis of Canada's new anti-terrorism legislation, was rushed into law in the fall of 2001.

`Buckshot Bob', as he became known at Bagram Air Force Base due to his wounds, was caught on July 27th, 2002.

The bill has gone through some revisions over the years, with parts of it proven unconstitutional, but Omar's case could be tried here.

[Army Guy]

Your first comment/question I find poignant and to the point. Its precisely because he was engaged in a war with the US Army, a lot of the discussion has become clouded and why I believe you raise a good point about a possible double standard

I think there is a double standard, alot of Canadians see young Mr, Khadr as a innocent Canadian Kid, caught up in a war and actions of his parents...which to some degree is true, but the other facts remain, he was involved in an armed conflict, he did take part in combat activities, including intel gathering all for the other side....and while his intended targets were US soldiers , i might add that Canada is part of that same coalition....

The reason i brought up the WWII example is this would have been a clear cut case, and everyone would have agreed....nothing more would have been said, he would have been tried and sentence carried out...

Now in regards to your second question it is my personal and legal opinion that he engaged in acts of war and as such should have been detained as a prisoner of war subject to the convention regarding the detention of prisoners of war

I don't agree there are conventions both listed in International law, Genva convention, also Canadian law, that list everything you need to come under the protection of those conventions and laws....and he has broken or does not qualify as a prisoner of war...

In Most cases i would agree that alot of taliban fighters are just that ,combantants, but Mr. Khadr case is a little different, although he was just a young child when all this began, he did know what he was getting into, his father was one of the leading fund raisers for Al quada and Bin Ladin was a family friend...the training he recieved was not one that baked cakes on the weekend, but rather hard combat training which included handling of wpns, explosives, tactics, and taking part of actual combat missions..With a group of known terrorists...a group which assisted taliban and carried out the talibans dirty work, such as the assignation of one of the northern alliance leaders Via a terror attack, and dozens of other terrorist attacks....But what we are saying is that he is not a terrorists until convicted of terrorist activity....and yet he is at the very least complicit

in his actions...

When you join such an organization you aspire to be all you can be...and like his father and brothers he wanted this.Most of these young boys and men believe in what they have been taught, and would not dare question it...an example of this ...His mother who wanted her boys to volunteer to become suicide bombers, that act clearly shows in her beliefs, and her dedication to thier teachings ...can you find a western mother willing to sacrafice her children for any cause....and yet we allow this family the rights to stay here in Canada, when they or most of thier family clearly hates the very instution that they take advantage of....

defination of terrorism.

.

international law.

UN DEFINATION OF TERRORISM.

I think there is plenty of laws out there that deal with terrorism, just nobody wants to try them out, here in Canada i believe the first case has been tried....i'm not sure of the outcome...But Mr. Khadr's case will be special as we now have lots of Canadian citizens fighting in wars on the oposite side of our allieds...and something will have to be decided, soon...

I don't think you can be both a terrorist and combantant, as soon as your chargesd with terrorism and proven guilty your a terrorist period....and should be treated as such...

This is why I argue had he been detained as a pow, then the reasonable time period and full disclosure requirements are simplified and expedited under the pow process-he'd still be in a prison but we wouldn't be engaged in all this bullshit that makes a mockery of the US legal process.

I agree with you, this whole set of events has done more to harm this mission than anything else....including placing doubt in a soldiers mind, is it worth taking POW's at all.

[jdobbin]

The reason i brought up the WWII example is this would have been a clear cut case, and everyone would have agreed....nothing more would have been said, he would have been tried and sentence carried out...

Would it? How many under 15 year old faced military tribunals in World War II?

Canadians don't think Khadr is sweet innocent boy. He certainly was a danger in Afghanistan to coalition forces. However, he was an underage fighter who is being treated as an adult despite Canadian and other international conventions not to do so.

The trial in the U.S. has been a mess from the start and what will be the result? If Khadr is sentenced, he will probably have to serve his time in the U.S. where civilian courts will take over and likely revisit the question of his age.

Canada should have considered what its own options were before washing their hands of the thing. One possibility that the government hasn't even conceived of is that Kahdr will be set free and be returned to Canada after a short time.

[Army Guy]

Would it? How many under 15 year old faced military tribunals in World War II?

Ok, i can't find a ref to children under 15 that did face a military tribual....that being said, with all the child soldiers involved in WWII that not one commited a war crime, or not one that was charged with one seems unlikely......

Canadians don't think Khadr is sweet innocent boy. He certainly was a danger in Afghanistan to coalition forces. However, he was an underage fighter who is being treated as an adult despite Canadian and other international conventions not to do so.

I guess then there is something wrong with our system is there not....they are not afforded any special treatment on the battle field, there is no rule saying that you can not target an armed child taking part in a conflict....but step off the battle field and all of sudden they become a child once again....one that should be afforded special treatment...Mr. Khadr ceased being a child years before he was captured, his childhood was stolen by AL Quida and his parents....and by his chioce to become a combatant...

The trial in the U.S. has been a mess from the start and what will be the result? If Khadr is sentenced, he will probably have to serve his time in the U.S. where civilian courts will take over and likely revisit the question of his age.

Yes it has been a mess, and it should have been quick and easy....As for where he serves his time, who cares...as long as it is served....and correct me if i'm wrong but even under age criminals that have murdered once they become of age serve the remainder of thier term in adult prison....

Canada should have considered what its own options were before washing their hands of the thing. One possibility that the government hasn't even conceived of is that Kahdr will be set free and be returned to Canada after a short time.

Yes they should have, the entire family should have been asked to leave.....and this mess could have faded into the past...but they did'nt and are to blame for some of this mess....that being said it does not excuse what Mr. Khadr did nor should it effect the outcome of his punishment....

[moderateamericain]

Here is a solution, drop him off at my house. Ill take care of it.

[Guest American Woman]

He broke no Canadian laws. I don't think we have any laws against going somewhere else and causing trouble.

Do you have a law against going to another country and taking up arms against Canada? If you don't, you most definitely should. That's treason in most nations.

[Army Guy]

Section 46 of the Criminal Code of Canada has two degrees of treason, called "high treason" and "treason." However both of these belong to the historical category of high treason, as opposed to petty treason which does not exist in Canadian law. Section 46 reads as follows:

"High treason

(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

( levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

© assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

( without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

© conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( and manifests that intention by an overt act."

It is also illegal for a Canadian citizen to do any of the above outside Canada.

The penalty for high treason is life imprisonment. The penalty for treason is imprisonment up to a maximum of life, or up to 14 years for conduct under subsection (2)( or (e) in peacetime.

[Guest American Woman]

Section 46 of the Criminal Code of Canada has two degrees of treason, called "high treason" and "treason." However both of these belong to the historical category of high treason, as opposed to petty treason which does not exist in Canadian law. Section 46 reads as follows:

"High treason

(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

( levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

© assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

( without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

© conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( and manifests that intention by an overt act."

It is also illegal for a Canadian citizen to do any of the above outside Canada.

The penalty for high treason is life imprisonment. The penalty for treason is imprisonment up to a maximum of life, or up to 14 years for conduct under subsection (2)( or (e) in peacetime.

So wouldn't Khadr have allegedly committed treason then? Shouldn't he actually be tried for high treason?

Seems to me this-- assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are -- would apply to what he is accused of.

[jbg]

Would it? How many under 15 year old faced military tribunals in World War II?

Even the Nazis didn't use under 15 year old as walking bombs or combatants. Islamic fighters do that freely.

[guyser]

Wait a sec...

"High treason

(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

Where does this come from then?

It is also illegal for a Canadian citizen to do any of the above outside Canada.

Some thing is not making sense.

I understand it can only be charged for while done in Canada.

Edited October 2, 2008 by guyser

[jbg]

Some thing is not making sense.

I understand it can only be charged for while done in Canada.

I would find it hard to believe that treason would be allowed if done within Canada though the Bloc makes me wonder.

[Peter F]

Wait a sec...

Where does this come from then?

Some thing is not making sense.

I understand it can only be charged for while done in Canada.

I think it refers to this part of the code (additional to what ArmyGuy posted above):

Criminal Code

PART II: OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person

Canadian citizen

3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

Overt act

4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

Legal Information Institute

Edited October 2, 2008 by Peter F

[guyser]

, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

Overt act

4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

Merci.

That makes sense.

[Peter F]

So wouldn't Khadr have allegedly committed treason then? Shouldn't he actually be tried for high treason?

Seems to me this-- assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are -- would apply to what he is accused of.

Sure he could be if he was in Canadian custody. But as yet Canada has not sought his custody. Perhaps they will when the Americans are done with him - then again, perhaps not. As yet the Canadian government has expressed zero interest in gaining that custody.

If they did, I suppose Treason (if nothing else) would be something they could charge him with. But, even if found guilty of such, he would not hang or be shot but confined instead. I suspect the court would take into account his age at the time of his treasonable acts, the circumstances that led up to his treasonable acts, the effect of his treasonable acts and last but not least his pretrial confinement and treatment.

I suspect, that even if found guilty of treason he would serve one or two more years at most.

[Peter F]

I would find it hard to believe that treason would be allowed if done within Canada though the Bloc makes me wonder.

well, someone would need to point out how the Bloc's actions fit the crime of Treason....under Canadian Law specifically.

[Guest American Woman]

Sure he could be if he was in Canadian custody. But as yet Canada has not sought his custody. Perhaps they will when the Americans are done with him - then again, perhaps not. As yet the Canadian government has expressed zero interest in gaining that custody.

If they did, I suppose Treason (if nothing else) would be something they could charge him with. But, even if found guilty of such, he would not hang or be shot but confined instead. I suspect the court would take into account his age at the time of his treasonable acts, the circumstances that led up to his treasonable acts, the effect of his treasonable acts and last but not least his pretrial confinement and treatment.

I suspect, that even if found guilty of treason he would serve one or two more years at most.

I have to wonder why the Canadian government cares so little about it. I absolutely think Khadr deserves a fair trial and I do think his age is a factor. But what about his family, the things that have been said about Canada, and how they used the Canadian health system as they were off in Afghanistan training with al Qaeda? I have to admit, if I were Canadian, that would really rub me the wrong way.

[Peter F]

I have to wonder why the Canadian government cares so little about it. I absolutely think Khadr deserves a fair trial and I do think his age is a factor. But what about his family, the things that have been said about Canada, and how they used the Canadian health system as they were off in Afghanistan training with al Qaeda? I have to admit, if I were Canadian, that would really rub me the wrong way.

I suspect that the government is perfectly happy letting the Americans deal with him because his most serious alleged crime was specifically directed against Americans (illegally killed, allegedly, a US soldier). None of his alleged crimes - entirely brought by the USofA - were directed specifically against Canada. In the clause he would be charged treason under, the wording implies that he had to be fighting in the armed forces and/or aiding the armed forces of a country that Canada is officially or unofficially at war with. Would the Taliban apply as the armed forces of a country? If so which country?

I am also sure those legal questions are not insurmountable ... but then some lawyers can make pretty good arguments making such legal questions insurmountable.

So, if the Americans have him, and his alleged crimes were committed almost entirely against Americans, why not avoid the legal conundrums by letting the Americans deal with him? Thats what I think the Canadian government thinks. They prefer, as ususal, that somebody else deal with it.

As for the Khadr's using the Canadian health system: Why shouldn't they? they're Canadians too. The Canadian healthcare system serves all Canadians no matter what thier politics are and no matter what their moral values are. It really cannot be any other way.

[bush_cheney2004]

....As for the Khadr's using the Canadian health system: Why shouldn't they? they're Canadians too. The Canadian healthcare system serves all Canadians no matter what thier politics are and no matter what their moral values are. It really cannot be any other way.

Mostly true...except for expats returning to Canada...they have to wait 3 months or longer (but maybe that is normal anyway).

[Oleg Bach]

Mostly true...except for expats returning to Canada...they have to wait 3 months or longer (but maybe that is normal anyway).

Expats are like ships that are registared in convienence. The sail in and plunder and leave till be forget - then they return to suck up some more service. What ever happened to the day when Canada belonged to Canadians who were actually loyal and loving citizens?

[bush_cheney2004]

Expats are like ships that are registared in convienence. The sail in and plunder and leave till be forget - then they return to suck up some more service. What ever happened to the day when Canada belonged to Canadians who were actually loyal and loving citizens?

I believe you man.....there are web sites dedicated to teaching Canadian expats how to sneak back in, including $10,000 money limits, movement of household goods, even how to get pets in. Amazing!

[Oleg Bach]

I believe you man.....there are web sites dedicated to teaching Canadian expats how to sneak back in, including $10,000 money limits, movement of household goods, even how to get pets in. Amazing!

That's plain old fashioned usery. I notice this type of mindset in my adult kids regarding dealing with people that are not out for their best interests - They can not tell the vampires from the life givers. The average Canadian does not discriminate between what is good for them or bad for them. So what you have is a nation of fools that welcome in people that have come to take and destroy...and the trusting twits do not see this as bad - we have an educational system that instills the idea that there are no bad people - this is a twisting of the ancient Christian doctrine - a twisting into a state where the person or nation becomes a willing host for parasites...It is immature and a severe error that the host will pay dearly for.

[Guest American Woman]

I suspect that the government is perfectly happy letting the Americans deal with him because his most serious alleged crime was specifically directed against Americans (illegally killed, allegedly, a US soldier). None of his alleged crimes - entirely brought by the USofA - were directed specifically against Canada. In the clause he would be charged treason under, the wording implies that he had to be fighting in the armed forces and/or aiding the armed forces of a country that Canada is officially or unofficially at war with. Would the Taliban apply as the armed forces of a country? If so which country?

The Taliban in and of itself is an 'armed force' fighting against Canada. Does it have to be the armed forces of a specific country in order to be treasonous to fight against Canada? That wouldn't make any sense.

So, if the Americans have him, and his alleged crimes were committed almost entirely against Americans, why not avoid the legal conundrums by letting the Americans deal with him? Thats what I think the Canadian government thinks. They prefer, as ususal, that somebody else deal with it.

I guess I can't argue that.

As for the Khadr's using the Canadian health system: Why shouldn't they? they're Canadians too. The Canadian healthcare system serves all Canadians no matter what thier politics are and no matter what their moral values are. It really cannot be any other way.

Just seems to me if someone moves to Canada, becomes a citizen, and then moves away again and only comes back to use the health care system, there should be some restrictions on it. You have a large population of immigrants in Canada. What if they all did that? Or most of them? Or even half. It would would put a big strain on those actually living and working in Canada to support all the "Canadians" not living in Canada.

But I specifically brought up what I did, the things members of his family have said about Canada, because it seems to me when citizenship is granted, allegiance to Canada should be part of the privilege of being granted Canadian citizenship. So that's why if I were Canadian it would really rub me the wrong way.