Bring Canadian Omar Khadr Home from Guatanamo?
 

Now that he's in a kind of limbo in Gitmo, does Canada have a responsibility to bring Omar Khadr back?

I think that at least on a legal level, it is essential that we do something. If the Americans cannot carry out what they think is justice, Canada must ensure that something gets done.

What do you think?

With the recent SCOTUS decisions, Bush's entire rationale of "war" justice is also in limbo. If Canada can exert the needed pressure to free Khadr, I would hope that they do so.

We have a legal system that is very effective and sometimes even fair. I think it far superior to what Bush would have us submit to.

I think bring him home is a no-brainer. Detaining someone and isolating them without meeting a standard of indictment is absurd.

The real question is what to do with him once he's here. Is there any precedent for a citizen who fights for an opposing force?

Regardless, I prefer the wheels of justice to turn transparently and not on a government's whim.

He should be released and allowed to come home.

Does anyone know of any petition or movement to do anything about his predicament. I've read about this, but sadly on my part, I haven't really looked into it as I should. If it were me, I'd sure as hell want people to be investigating and clamoring for justice.

He should be released and asked to swim to safety.

Really, I am against the war in Iraq and have been since day one. I don't hold with the US detention methods. Bush is a complete nutjob.

Having said that, this kid is now damaged goods. His family (in Scarborough, part of Toronto) are pretty hard core Islamists.

I wish he'd never gotten jailed to begin with, but now, honestly, he's more of a menace to Canada than when the US picked him up.

I have no desire to see him back here. Maybe the Excited States can feed and clothe him until he explodes like the time-bomb he now is.

Wasn't the reason he was detained was because he killed an American soldier?

I would say even if he has Canadian citizenship, he was fighting in his other country in which I think he also is a citizen, so the Americans have first dibs on him.

Yeah, and they already used up those dibs. But now what?

Now a court is ordering Harper to attempt to bring Khadr to Canada
 

PM must press U.S. for Khadr's return from Guantanamo, court rules

I can't believe Harper is going to appeal this. Khadr is the last Western citizen left sitting in Guantanamo.

Why should Khadr's fate depend on Obama's review of the situation? Khadr is a Canadian.

Is Harper worried about more bad press about allegations of torture? Is he just trying to keep his hands clean of the situation? I think it's already too late for that.

...

Bring him back, give him a trial, prove he was siding with terrorists and put him in a Canadian jail for the rest of his life and let Canadian taxpayers foot the bill.

And the 15 year old bit. I was 15 once also and knew exactly what was right and wrong.

And his mother speaking about the Canadian government, who control everything, and who can't be trusted,... maybe her good friend Osama bin Laden can give her a little moral support.

And the fact that Canadians want him home because he is Canadian? Canadian Shamadian,...he was fighting in another country for a terrorist organization. He should have his citizenship pulled and deported.

percy, your opinion is against the majority of Canadians, and I think it goes beyond the simple fact that he's a Canadian.

And you can't revoke the citizenship of or deport a natural-born citizen. Where are you going to deport him to? Cuba? Pakistan? The United States? That's a bit arbitrary, isn't it?

I think the biggest issue is that he's been stuck in Gitmo, and we know what that entails. I think the core issue here is the travesty of justice surrounding that whole operation.

I think what's at issue here is the rule of law. I think most Canadians support that same ideal.

the canadian people need to sway the canadian gov't in the same way the australians did with david hicks.

enough pressure, and the government will relent. its about the votes afterall.

in saying that, why apply different rules to a minor in terrorism cases as opposed to anything else, including murder? a minor is a minor in my eyes and deserves a second chance. you must also remember that he grew up in an environment under the nfluence of his father and OBL. do people really expect him to rebel?

the last i heard of him was seeing a video of him weeping calling out for his mother in an interrogation about a year ago.

It's not so simple, but we all know thee answer - he must come home. Having said that, we still have a few questions.

firstly, did he kill an American soldier and, even if he did, would he have been considered a child combatant? recent findings show that the US evidence against him is bogus and, and he WAS 15 at the time.

Secondly, he must be kept apart from his frickin' nut job family - my gawd, have you heard these people?!

Still, on the face of it, he should be sent back to Canada, IMHO.

Peace,
Pierre

his family is about as normal as the Adams Family.

didnt his older brother become an FBI informant and agreed to spy on other Gitmo prisoners and then bagged the US out after that when they dropped him off in the middle of nowhere in europe somewhere?


whatever his family has done though, it's no excuse for him not to be repatriated.

You're right. Let's bring him home.

And when that happens I certainly hope he has the decency, as a good Canadian, to wear red on Friday's to support our troops fighting in Afghanistan.

I don't even wear red on Fridays.

I'm sure if he's brought home, he will be too busy being charged with a serious crime to even think about his wardrobe.

I don't give a fuck about Omar Khadr.

He's hardly an innocent and I'm hardly going to be petitioning anyone on his behalf.

Let him have his day in court and let system decide what is done with him.

He will have his fair trial. It does not matter to me much whether that trial is conducted by the US or by Canada.

As much as you don't care about Khadr, this is getting ridiculous. Here we are clogging up the justice system, wasting tax-payers dollars, all for what? To leave a Canadian citizen in legal limbo in an American military prison? Isn't Canada the only G8 nation taking this position? Everyone else had their citizens extradited.

But no. Here we have the Canadian government refusing to follow a ruling stating that Khadr be returned. Why is that? Politics?

Harper is waiting to see what the Americans do with him. Well, how long has it been? How much has happened?

This isn't just about Khadr. This is about national sovereignty and standards of justice.

It looks like Khadr's human rights may have been ignored by Canadian officials at the time of his interrogation by the U.S.

CSIS ignored Khadr's human rights: report

...

This whole situation is an embarrassment to Canadians. The abdication of responsibility of our government towards one of it's own citiziens is disgusting.

...

according to the latest news, Omar Khadr will be tried in a revamped military tribunal, whilst the masterminds of 911 will face civilian trials in NYC.

9/11 suspects to be tried in New York | World News | News.com.au


that just doesnt make sense to me

None of this makes any kind of sense to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the justice system.

...

And then there is the issue of deporting American war resisters, which goes against Parliamentary votes.

It's clear Harper is playing politics, and he values staying on the good side of the American government and military despite the wishes of parliament, the judiciary, and the Canadian public (and despite the decisions of other members of the Commonwealth with regard to foreign nationals in Gitmo). I don't know why Harper would otherwise go against the grain on these matters. I hope this eventually becomes his undoing.

We can only speculate what Chrétien or Martin would have done.

Chrétien would have paid his cronies to look into ways of doing nothing. The cost would have been far more than $1.3 million. Martin would have taken a vacation in Europe, at cost of over $1 million. Both of those guys were so corrupt and inept their only legacy was to rehabilitate Brian Mulroney's image and make him look marginally competent. Their only real salvation has been that Harper is SO bad, they look slightly less crooked than they actually were.

Imagine how good they'd look in comparison to Harper with a majority government!!

...

Seven years later and this kid is still in Gitmo...

Well as plain and simple the absurdity surrounding Omar Khadr is I've only recently become familiar with the history of the Khadr family as a whole. To me, it seems like the Canada/US desire to keep the Omar Khadr case locked in purgatory is somewhat resultant of his father's "shady" past. I'm curious how those of you who know more about this than I view the life of Ahmed Khadr. It seems that the US-Canadian government has tried to paint him as a Islamic Extremist from the start, while on the other side people have said he was just a philanthropist who eventually found himself increasingly immersed in a hairy and hairy situation....

There's little doubt that the Khadr family has some shady dealings with terrorists. Philanthropist? Yes, but in the same way that Bin Laden is a philanthropist to those who protect him (maybe not as bad as that, but in the same vein).

BUT... Omar was a 15-yo kid in a compound attacked by US forces, whose life was threatened in an hours-long firefight that eventually resulted in the breaching of the compound wall by explosives, and an invasion of armed military personnel. To claim that the US soldier was murdered is ludicrous. It was a military operation operation, and the people inside the compound were justifiably afraid for their lives. It was not a police operation where they went up to the door and asked to enter.

To deny any prisoners taken there the benefits of the Geneva Convention is an embarrassment to the US (all of Gitmo is). To allow the evidence attained through torture to be used is in blatant violation of international law. To torture a 15-yo boy into confessing is just abhorrent.

And the fact that the Canadian government is fighting so hard to abdicate ITS responsibility to make sure its citizens are protected to the fullest extent of international law and conventions is simply sickening. There is nothing in this situation that any US or Canadian politician can be proud of.

I think it's pretty clear that he should be repatriated and given a fair trial back in Canada. He is a natural born Canadian citizen and should be treated as such regardless of his actions.

...

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have a legitimate question, maybe somebody here can help me.

Silent Jay raises fair questions, as well as those about the Geneva Convention. So maybe one you international treaty buffs can help me out here.

Since by and large language from the Hague treaty seem to be the legal standing by which America has operated Gitmo and it's tribunals, how does this young chap fit the listing of an identified combatant, or how does the Geneva convention that would protect him, designate him?

Ditto. The point I was making though was that a potentially huge driving force behind the prevailing Canadian-US attitude could be as a result of the kid's family. I'm definitely not saying that's right, I was just trying to get some further insight into Ahmed Khadr/HCI.

Very interesting point you're making about criminal acts during wartime... but to me if the military did have proof that a militant was responsible for the deaths of one or several of its members they probably would have some avenue to pursue punishment, regardless of the fact that these things are inevitabilities in a war. I'm sure there's other cases of this which might be a little more black and white; I'll do some digging when I'm off work.

And as a quick aside, I personally wouldn't spend too much time worrying about comments you see on news websites... from my experience the overwhelming vast majority of people who weigh in on discussions have I.Q.s somewhere in the one-digit region.

...

Supreme Court unanimous in Canada's and the US's violation of Khadr's Charter rights
 

Khadr ruling sees top court clash with Tories - The Globe and Mail

Not only is this an interesting turn of events, but the timing is impeccable: just as Harper--with his newly stacked Senate--gears up his crime agenda.

How this will play out will largely determine Harper's ability to govern both domestically and in terms of international relations. It's one of several things now that could make or break his government.

Will Harper uphold the Charter, or will he continue as usual with this politicking?

This is a disgusting and shameful decision for Canada. The cowardice of our Supreme Court is in full light with this. The decision was NOT IN ANYWAY about foreign policy... it was ENTIRELY ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS. And the court chose a simplistic illogic to avoid having to live up to its duty to enforce our laws.

I'm embarrassed to be a Canadian right now.

I still don't want him back here.

I don't care if he was a "child soldier" or whatever you want to call him. (I just call him a terrorist - keeps it simple - cause that's what he (and his entire family) is.) If Omar Khadr had not been captured that day, ask yourself where he would be right now. Would he be living in Canada, working here, contributing here, paying taxes, being part of Canadian society, or would he be continuing the fight on the side of the Islamists in Afghanistan and Pakistan killing Canadian and NATO soldiers?

He and his entire family renounced their citizenship as far as I am concerned the second they packed up and went over to the Afghanistan to fight with Al Qaeda against Canada and NATO. The entire Khadr family has open disdain for everything this country stands for. They have been very up front about that. The only reason that they are here is to have free health care for their other son Karim who was injured in a fire fight with NATO troops in Afghanistan where his father was killed.

Sometimes in life, you have to pick a side and live by the consequences of that decision.

The entire Kahdr family has made their choice. They stand with the Islamo Fascists of the world. As such, this is the price they pay for their allegiances.

I trust the Americans to handle the case of Omar Kahdr within the confines of their justice system.

GreyWolf: I don't understand your response. You don't agree with the Supreme Court decision that Khadr's rights were violated? You don't think CSIS et al are bound by the Charter in this case, dealing with a Canadian citizen?

james t kirk: "What ifs" aren't very useful. They are an exercise of fantasy, especially at this point. I regard this case as more about upholding the Charter in a post-9/11 world. I regard it as how Canada's affairs reflect us as a nation, both to ourselves and abroad. We are in the minority in terms of how we handled our nationals who ended up in Guatanamo. I think this case deserves due process. Obama has shut down the commission. Khadr should be brought home to face justice here based on that alone, but unfortunately the case is made more complex by the fact that human rights violations are involved.

There is no longer any reason why Khadr should remain in U.S. custody. He should be extradited to Canada and held accountable to our own justice system. Justice in American hands has failed...miserably.

No, I agree wholeheartedly that his rights were violated. I disagree completely with the cowardly, unacceptable, and poorly reasoned decision that the Supreme Court cannot order the government to live up to its duties to protect the rights of Canadian citizens, which is what the decision boils down to. They hid behind an illogical arguement that somehow that would be dictating or interfering with foreign policy.

The rationale is so weak as to be facetious, and is simply an abdication of responsibility on the part of the court.

The government and CSIS ARE indeed bound by the charter, and their violations thereof must be censured and corrected. The court chose to say the former, but not the latter.

See, I think the issue is less to do with their cowardice or lack of logic and more to do with maintaining their role. I'm not sure the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is meant to go beyond interpreting the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, etc. To have them dictate the executive's actions in foreign policy, unless I'm mistaken, would be unprecedented. This ruling in itself is already unprecedented. It's a challenge to the executive to abide by their constitutional responsibility. To go against this ruling has far-reaching implications politically---domestically and internationally. (Harper is suffering already with the decision to prorogue parliament...the Liberals and the NDP have already gained in the polls.)

Going against the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms isn't something a government does lightly, especially in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling. But what's not to say something further won't happen if the government ignores this ruling?

Do you really think that the liberals and the NDP would be so stupid as to make Omar Khadr and election issue? (Well, mabye the NDP, they might be that stupid.)

The vast majority of Canadians feel exactly as I do - Fuck him and his entire terrorist family. I am not a fan of Harper I can assure you. I think he's an arrogant controlling fucker. HOWEVER, if the liberals were to be so stupid as to make Omar Kahdr an elelction issue - I would vote for Harper in a nano second.

As far as I am concerned, the Kahdr family renounced their citizenship the second they took up arms against this country in this war. And we are at war folks. I know it might not seem like it while everyone seems to go about their regular lives uninterrupted, but we are at war. Don't forget that. And the Americans are taking this war far more seriously than we are. (BTW, there is discussion being carried on at the present time as whether or not Canadian law should be ammended to define instances in which an individual through his or her actions abroad effectively results in them losing their citizenship.)

At the very best, Omar Kahdr is no different than any number of common criminals on trial or being incarcerated in the United States at the current time. (There are lots of them and I don't see anyone crying about them.) And none of them took up arms as traitors against Canada.

At the end of the day, however, the Americans are not going to let him go. (Nor are they going to let any other of the Canadian common criminals in their justice system go.) They don't have to abide by our rules.

The American justice system is a fair justice system. It is not some kangaroo court. Omar Kahdr has skilled representation and he will be judged fairly by the American system. I truly have no doubt of that. If they decide to let him go - then he can go. If they decide that he is a murderer then that's what he is.

I don't weep for Omar Kahdr.

A vast majority? I don't think so. Canadians are split on whether Khadr should be brought here to face justice. The opposition doesn't even need to make this an election issue; there are enough Canadians who think this is getting ridiculous.

And despite what actions he took overseas, Khadr's still a Canadian citizen. You seem bent on keeping the perspective merely on him, but as I said this is not just about him; it's about how we conduct ourselves legally and morally. Those forty some odd percent of Canadians who want to see due process of the law aren't necessarily "weeping for Khadr." Many of them (myself included) are concerned about how our government upholds that which is important to us: basic human rights and the due process of the law.

Khadr is in a legal limbo. That's bullshit and Canada needs to do something about it because we are responsible to ensure he gets what is due him with regard to his rights and the due process of the law. It's that simple.

This isn't just about him. It's about us as well. Are we upholding our values or not? It's bad enough that we have allegations of torture or the accessory to torture in other cases; this is just yet another issue that we need to address. This is not only because of some kind of sympathy for Khadr. It has more to do with whether we abide by our own laws.

If that were the case, then I'd agree with you on this point. But the Supreme Court has said "you've violated the Charter of Maybes & Freedoms... shame on you". There is NO SANCTION, NO ORDER TO ABIDE, NOTHING!!

Our government broke our laws and constitution (through its agents), abdicated its responsibility to correct that and protect Canadian citizens, and the Supreme Court said you shouldn't have done that. It's NOT foreign policy. It's a total failure of the executive function in Canada, aided and abetted by the judiciary.

...

"Our brother is being held in Guantanamo Bay based on the lies told by both the American and Canadian governments," she stated. "(An) election is the perfect opportunity to tell those politicians that we are not going to be their bogeyman any longer."

Zaynab Khadr and her mother Maha Elsamnah were vilified in Canada following a March 2004 CBC documentary entitled Al Qaeda Family. The story profiled Khadr's older brother Abdurahman but featured interviews with his sister and mother where they spoke with ambivalence about the 9/11 attacks and criticized Canada's liberal laws. Elsamnah said she would rather raise her children to fight than live in Canada where they could become homosexuals or addicted to drugs

Link:

Khadr family views won't help Omar, lawyer says - thestar.com

I don't see any large protests in the streets of Canada crying for the release of Omar Khadr, or in support of his terrorist family. I would argue that that lack of support would indicate that the vast majority of Canadians are indifferent at best. One could conduct a survey I am sure and depending on how you worded the question - the answer could go either way. From my point of view, the Question would be "Do you think that the Canadian government should intercede against the United States on behalf of one Omar Khadr who is being held by the American government after he was captured by NATO troops fighting for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in fire fight where NATO troops were killed by said terrorists?"

I wonder how the "vast majority" of Canadians would answer that question.

You guys can write your own question from the NDP point of view. (Just so long as my question gets read to the people surveyed at the same time as your question.)

I don't see any large protests in the streets of Canada crying for the release of Omar Khadr, or in support of his terrorist family.

As an aside,

Interestingly enough, I cannot find a link to the famous "Al Qaeda Family" on the CBC. Perhaps it has been censored by the good folks at the CBC.

I respect your right to have your position on the issue, however, I strongly disagree with it. I find your position extremely naive. You are both very tolerant of a group of people who are very intolerant of you and would love nothing more than to see this Country and everything it stands for go up in a mushroom cloud. I am far more concerned about the average tax paying Canadian citizens who abide by our laws and find themselves out of work, or fighting for economic survival while doing the right thing than I am about Omar Khadr or his entire family.

They've already done surveys. As many as 40% want him brought here to face justice. And a sizable chunk are indifferent, leaving fewer who actually just want him to stay where he is. It's generally a split situation. There is no "vast majority." There isn't a majority of any stripe.

And I find nothing naive about upholding this nation's Constitution and Charter of Rights. It is naive to think that doing so will result in the tolerance of terrorism----or, as you suggest, in merely supporting such an initiative.

Bullocks.

...

As I said, it depends on how you ask the question. If you phrase the question from the point of view of Canada coming to rescue of one of its citizens, or you phrase it from the point of view of Canada expending a great deal of time and energy to rescue a terrorist. It's all in how you spin the question. Surely you know that.

There are something in the order of 400 Canadian Nationals being held in various jails for various crimes around the world.

What makes this one so special?

---------- Post added at 02:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------

Actually I like the CBC.

NDP bias and all.

Thanks for the link.

---------- Post added at 02:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 PM ----------

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply around the world. We have no jurisdiction over the Americans. This has nothing to to with upholding the Constitution and the Supreme Court would agree.

Omar Khadr is not worth it.

Here is an example of wording:

Canadians still split on Omar Khadr, poll shows - thestar.com

So what you have is basically an even split between Canadians who want "due process under Canadian law" vs. "left to face trial by military commission at Guantanamo Bay." And then you have a third group half the size of each who are uncertain.

Not all cases have the same weight. I admit much of the attention on Khadr is a result of media/political profile, but then you have this situation where both the American and Canadian authorities have been found to have violated Khadr's rights. The main focus should be the fact that he remains in legal limbo. There is no guarantee that he is set to receive his due process under the law, which is what a lot of people are concerned with. Despite what you or others think about Khadr, his family, or the situation, we are still responsible, as a nation, to provide him with due process. He is technically a citizen of Canada. It is our responsibility.

If there are 399 other cases where our citizens are not provided with this due process, then they too should be on our radar. However, I'm not sure how many of them have had their rights violated by their own nationals.

So, despite how criminal Khadr may or may not be, it reflects badly on us if we do not ensure he is given his most basic rights. He's not guilty until he's had a trial that's determined as much.

---------- Post added at 02:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 PM ----------

It applies to Canadian citizens and how our government and authorities conduct themselves with those citizens, and this is where Canada failed to uphold them.

We don't have jurisdiction over Americans, but there is something called international/foreign relations. That's how other nations extradited their nationals out of the travesty of justice that was going on in Guantanamo and into their own court systems.

Omar Khadr isn't worth what? Demonstrating that we value and uphold due process of the law—especially in the wake of a ruling by our top court that states rights were violated? What are you saying? The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled unanimously that the Canadian government violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Ok, are you going to jump on this guy's band wagon too? (I'm not.)


Thai court jails pedophile arrested after INTERPOL global appeal

When you do, I'll take your protestations about poor Omar much more seriously. Omar is in the headlines because the left views him as some innocent victim of the George Bush Doctrine and have made him their poster boy. (I just don't happen to care about Omar. Which when you think about it is pretty friendly because "in the good ole days" Omar just would have been shot as the treasonous dirt bag that he is.)

Omar will get his day in court. I trust the Americans to do this much. If he's found "Not Guilty" then he's free to go where he wants or can. (Just hopefully not back to Canada.)

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------

See I read that article and I see that despite the NDP wording of the Question, 58% of Canadians don't want Omar back in Canada and only 42% do.

I guarantee you if you change your wording to something along the lines of my question, the numbers against repatriating Omar would tip to well into the high 60 percents or even higher.

I've travelled far and wide in Canada and I can assure you that Toronto is not the rest of the country (save Vancouver and Montreal). Go into the railway towns, the mining towns, the farming communities, the blue collar towns (you know, the places the Toronto Star doesn't call) and ask them about Omar Khadr and his terrorist family. I guarantee you that you will find no sympathy for him.

You mean the guy pursued by INTERPOL based on photographic evidence? The guy tried in a Bangkok court who pleaded guilty and received a reduced sentence? I'm not sure what the concern is here. He received his due process in a court system and now he's paying for the crime he committed. I'm not sure what you're getting at here; it seems like a bit of a red herring.

As I mentioned above, the case you linked isn't the same situation by a long shot. Khadr is in the headlines for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

• He was a minor at the time of his apprehension in a combat zone.
• He was and is a subject of the deplorable operations of the Guantanamo Bay facilities and the American commission operating there.
• The Canadian and American governments have both been found guilty of violating his rights by the Supreme Court of Canada. In Canada's case, specifically, his rights as protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• It has been 8 years, and there is yet to be any semblance of adequate due process of the law.
• There is no indication whether he will face trial or a commission in a timely manner.

We don't know when or how, or whether it will be done so according to internationally acceptable legal processes. And I'm saying it's already too late for that; they fucked it up. Considering Canada's culpability in the inadequate handling of his capture, "interrogation," and now trial, I'm arguing that Canada has waited too long to take over just as virtually every other NATO/G8 nation has when it comes to those brought to Guantanamo.

Where are you getting that 58% number? Because 42% want him processed here and 19% are unsure how it should be handled.

This question would introduce bias into any survey, btw. That's why they don't ask questions like that. If you like to call bias-neutral questioning "NDP questioning," then so be it. I just think that would be a misnomer; the NDP are far more socially progressive and activist than that.

Speaking of bias, I'm sure that going into white bread, blue collar towns to pick a sample would yield great results. In case you don't know, Angus Reid, though not at all perfect in their methods, chooses random samples and makes statistical adjustments to reflect the population of Canada when it comes to surveys like these. It's a common thing in statistics. This wasn't a survey of Torontonians.

One cannot expect the Canadian Gov't to ride to your rescue if you've committed an offense in a foreign jurisdiction. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not extend outside of Canadian boarders. The Supreme Court basically said exactly that. (Wouldn't it be grand if it did though.)

Most Canadian govts over the years have been consistant, if you do a crime in a country that has a "western" justice systyem you are on your own , they will recomend a reasonable local lawyer they know and monitor the situation but you get what you deserve. Omar finds himself in that situation.

We have repatriation treaties with some countries where if BOTH countries approve a convicted criminal is set home to finish his sentence , in some cases the request is refused due to our parol standards being too leniant.

But I will ask a very simple question then......

Name me one instance of where a Canadian has been arrested under the American Justice system and External Affairs Canada has interceded on his behalf and brought him back to Canada?

Just one example.

Omar will get his day in court. The wheels are currently in motion on that front. He has been provided with skilled representation (which he has fired) and new representation after that. As far as i am aware, they are working on their case (though their client has not been very co-operative).

I can't think of a situation off of the top of my head. However, Khadr's case isn't exactly typical. I am reminded of a number of cases, though, where Western nations extradited their nationals out of Guantanamo.

The role of the Charter in situations like this indicate that if a right of a Canadian citizen is violated and it happens to be outside of our boarders, this could require an extradition request. Since our aim is to uphold the contents of the Charter where our citizens are concerned, a violation of rights should put the government in a position where they do what they can to rectify it. And that was a ruling made last year by a federal court when they ruled in favour of forcing the Harper government to extradite Khadr (which was subsequently appealed).

For the record, these were the sections of the Charter that were pertinent to the ruling:
And so in this ruling, the "remedy" was to have the federal government extradite Khadr so that he could face actual justice.

I'm not viewing this as a "rescue." I'm viewing this as the government upholding a very important aspect of our nation. I view as important such things as due process of the law, the rule of law, and ensuring that when these things fail to happen that it is rectified.

The failure of the government to continue to ignore this is a bit unnerving. When the Supreme Court of Canada rules unanimously that the governement has violated to Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the government ignores it, what are we supposed to think?

There is far more evidence of Omar Khadr's abuse than there is of his committing the crime he is accused of.

Shall we just draw this to a close right now? Correct me if I'm wrong....

• You are more concerned with terrorism than you are with a lawful society.
• I am more concerned with a lawful society than I am with terrorism.

Is this why we are reaching an impasse?

You are, at least, more concerned with keeping an accused child soldier out of our system of law than you are with our government's refusal to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I find that interesting and at least a little bit disconcerting.

It might be oversimplified, but, as roachboy says, this is a forum.

Now you're being silly.

I would argue that I AM MORE CONCERNED about a lawful society than you are since I am deferring to the law. There simply is no law in Canada that says that External Affairs will ride to your rescue if you are arrested elsewhere in the Globe. The Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged that and ruled as such.

I do not consider Omar a "Child Soldier" since Canada did not put him in that position. His own mother and father did. You want to blame someone - blame them. Better yet, deport them.

Unless you can site other examples of where Canada has forced the US to hand over Canadian Nationals facing trial in the United States for fear of facing a kangeroo court, your arguement is based strictly on your passion and not the rule of law.

But I agree, you are never going to change my mind on this issue, nor is anyone else who weeps for Omar Khadr and his terrorist family. The entire point of me posting in this forum was to demonstrate in no uncertain terms to you and Silent Jay and anyone else who weeps for Omar Khadr that there is a huge silent majority of Canadians (like myself) who are connected to what's going on in Canada and the world and we do not agree with your position. You are not going to move me in the least and I am not going to move you. But at least you will KNOW that not everyone in Toronto thinks along the same lines as you.

If given the choice of whom to weep for - Omar, or the Canadian Soldiers he and his ilk are trying to kill - I choose the latter.

Okay, I think I get it. You don't seem to value the Charter in the wake of your being swept up in the whole GWOT. Either that or you simply wish to ignore or severely downplay the implications of the Charter when it comes to these issues for a reason unknown to me.

And by the way, your continuance to ignore or otherwise misinterpret my position, your misleading assumptions about the reasons for my position, and your appeals to pity reveal more about your own position than they do mine.

I kindly ask you to stop making conjectures about me to satisfy your own feelings about the issue.

...

Here's the facts:

1. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canada has no jurisdiction to bring Omar home.

2. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not extend outside of Canada's political boarders.

3. Canada has NEVER interceded in the USA to bring a Canadian citizen back to Canada from the US to face trial here rather than in the US. Not once. (Neither of you can provide a single example.)

4. Omar will get his day in court. In fact it is scheduled for this July.

5. Omar has competent legal representation (free of charge in fact).

6. Omar has fired his court appointed legal team in the past resulting in delays in his case proceeding

7. Omar is not facing a kangeroo court.

I'm sorry, I missed your fact based arguements in all of this fun.

Ah yes, the "Child Soldier" angle, and the big bad "War on Terror"

You're missing some facts.

...including such things as: evidence was extracted from Khadr while his rights were being violated and this (illegal) evidence could still be used against him in court. This means his rights are still being violated. You also failed to mention that in refusing to do anything, the Canadian government is essentially breaking the law and getting away with it.

You seem to be choosing only facts that are convenient to you, and some of them are debatable.

In answer to your question of extraditions to Canada from the U.S., I don't have this information readily available. But can you cite many examples where U.S. & Canadian authorities violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whereby a top court unanimously ruled that such rights were violated and continue to be violated now and possibly in the future, and said court acknowledged that repatriation would be the logical thing to do? This is an unprecedented case, which is why there isn't an Internet rife with examples (i.e. it's not that a lack of examples proves anything).

Places such as Britain, Australia, and France have already done such a thing. They've all repatriated their nationals to their own justice systems, and they aren't the only ones to do it. (How is that for examples?) Why is it so difficult for you to accept this as a possibility? This is something the government should be doing if it respects the rule of law.

If the government decides to follow the rule of law (fancy that), they will need to do something to rectify the fact that they have violated the law. If, instead, they are willing to gamble that they won't lose too many votes by ignoring it, they can technically do just that. That is unless they are forced to by a court order. It's just that that hasn't happened here.

And your suggestion that Khadr isn't facing a kangaroo court is debatable, especially if the authorities decide to use illegally obtained evidence. If they use any evidence obtained while his rights were violated and/or they don't give him his full due process, it would pretty much be a kangaroo court indeed.

Repatriation of Khadr in the wake of this Supreme Court ruling would be a reasonable decision for the government to make.

...

The ONLY arguement you could EVER make for Omar is that he is an enemy combatant and as such, he is entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. (And the Americans DO NOT want to do that.)

My personal opinion is that those who are actually fighting NATO troops in Afghanistan are soldiers for the other side.

I do not agree with them being labeled as criminals. As long as they are grabbing a machine gun, or a rocket launcher and fighting other soldiers, then they are soldiers.

The only problem for Omar is that then makes him a Traitor and there are penalties for that too. Stiff ones. Further he becomes a POW and doesn't get released until the war is over and that might never happen.

Either way, Omar doesn't get a pass.

...

Hardly.

Let me explain it to you because to me, it's crystal.

Canada did not send Omar off to Afghanistan to fight with and for the Taliban. As such, we do not bear the guilt of whether or not he is a "Child Soldier" or any other kind of soldier for that matter. He is either a Traitor or a Murderer depending on your definition of whether he was a soldier or terrorist. I don't care how old he was at the time. As a soldier he gets to ride out the rest of the war in a POW camp (where he currently is and would most likely be there for a very long time as I don't see this war ending anytime soon) or as a terrorist he gets to face a trial and if found guilty will be sentenced according to US law.

My statement was that those fighting the NATO armies for the so called Taliban are soldiers because they are taking up arms against other soldiers. I don't see the traditional distinction that soldiers have to wear uniforms in order to qualify as soldiers under the terms of the Geneva Convention. Those who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in crowded market places killing 23 civilians are terrorists.

(In my opinion.)

Whether Omar was 10 years old, 15 years old, or 25 years old is irrelevant to me. He was fighting against NATO soldiers. His family put him there, not Canada. He is either a Traitor and should be tried as such, or he gets to face an American Military Commission charged with murder as a Terrorist. Roll the bones whichever way you want, but the fact of the matter is that Omar isn't getting a pass because he was only 15 at the time. It may mitigate any determination of sentencing, however, that's not Canada' s jurisdiction.

Both the Supreme Court and as of yesterday, the Canadian Gov't have said so.

The Americans caught him, and the Americans are going to deal with him. Good enough for me.

...

jamestkirk, its quite simple...

you both agree that he's a soldier, so no bones there.

but if you were going to shout omar a fun day out and take him to the movies, and admittance for an adult was +18, would you buy omar an adult ticket?

two words really. child. soldier. denial does not make it go away

...

I heard Omar Khadr is sueing Canada for 10 million.

I think he would fit right in the Rosedale section of Toronto with that type of coin.

Unless he buys his bud Osama bin Laden a new sand resistant dialysis machine.

Maybe all those who support his return can pass the hat around. Or maybe he will take the money and turn the terrorist training camp he trained at into a tourist destination.

Maybe have a drive in theatre too. And a Timmy's.

But I digress.

I think that all those who are advocating so strongly for his return to Canada should pay for his legal bills, the cost to the system, his lawsuit, and then when he's back in Canada, they should let him live at their house.

No?

james, you're missing the point here again bud

members here arent advocating for his return but rather advocating for the rule of law. there's a difference. you've got to take personal issues away from this.

if he has been denied justice, he should be compensated for this, and thats for a judge to decide. if he's found guilty, throw the book at him. just give him his day in court.

Hear, hear.

Let's not get too emotionally involved.

...

now this topic has been ticking me off
for coming up to near a decade
yeah i know
a few more years
you get the gist
cbc a number of years ago had a article
entitled
the rehabilitation of omar kadhar
no longer it appears accessible
anyone else happen to save it?

...

Damn... admitting guilt to take 30 years down to 5? It's difficult getting into the mind of a man who was tortured as a child soldier.

And, of course, the Harper government has already dropped the ball on the chance to repatriate him in the wake of the Supreme Court hearing.

No matter which way this goes, it's a shameful travesty of justice and human rights. It will forever be a stinking stain on Canada's global reputation. But, hey, our relations with the U.S. are doing all right, eh?

...

For 4 of the 8 years Omar has been in jail the liberals were in power in Ottawa.

They no more wanted the little darling back than the conservatives.

http://ezralevant.com/Khadr%20IEDs.JPG

Here's a photo of the little darling in Terrorist bomb making school - learning how to make IEDs to blow up Canadian Soldiers.

http://ezralevant.com/Khadr%20AK-47.JPG

And here's our little darling posing with his AK-47......every terrorist needs an AK 47

Hey, it's a good thing we changed that rule about posting photos of minors on TFP; otherwise, we wouldn't be able to see your little darling.

Regardless, the Tories are in power and the Supreme Court made its decision.

I'm having a really hard time understanding the weird legal loopholes Harper is jumping through in order to not recognize Omar Khadr as a child soldier during the period in question. His status as a child soldier is invoked independent of any alleged activity during a conflict in which a child soldier is in the field. This is without even addressing the torture post-capture.

You're not supposed to understand it; it's a disgrace.

...

Yeah, it's all very interesting what happens when a child soldier captured during an incident is then run through the questionable apparatus of "justice" built around the GWOT.

Within that apparatus, it appears that being a brown Muslim child soldier specifically is a really bad thing. Even your own country might abandon you. However, I wouldn't have expected Canada to be the only one to do it---and with a minor, no less.

1. The definition of a child soldier is a person 14 or under. When OK was caught after the fire fight with the Americans - he was 15. Therefore, not a child soldier.

International humanitarian law
According to Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977:

‘The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.’

2. Canada did not make him a child soldier - his parents did.

3. OK does not meet the recognized definition of a soldier.

I see no need to jump through any loopholes.

---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 PM ----------

Hardly as I pretty much always vote liberal. I'm not a fan of Harper, I thought Paul Martin was a good man.

I'm just pointing out the fact that the liberals had 4 years to do something about OK and they chose not to.

And here's a fact you can bank on....

If the liberals were elected tomorrow (not that that is going to happen) they wouldn't do anything any differently.

AND, the Americans wouldn't give OK back anyway.

OK will get his day in court. If he stopped playing games and firing legal team after legal team after legal team, maybe they could get it over with already.

If you look at the UN's Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, you will find these passages:
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts

Here are relevant Articles (emphasis mine):
What's particularly important is Article 4, regarding armed groups that aren't armed forces of a State.

This protocol was adopted, signed, and ratified by the UN, and it became enforced in 2002, which postdates the Geneva parameters.

Generally, this means that Khadr was a) enlisted as a child soldier, and b) captured as a child soldier.

Have a look at the position of Sen. Dallaire. It's one I agree with. The Canadian government has failed to uphold our values regarding human rights.

Dallaire accuses Canada of hypocrisy on Khadr case - CTV News

...

...

...

...

jay, did you think at any time that this was going to be a fair trial? seriously.

crying torture is only a plot of hardened AQ terrorists in order to get evidence around them shot down. Because americans soldiers have never tortured people in the war on terror, nor has any american leader sign off on any torture techniques. it just doesnt happen.

what kind of warped world do you live in thinking that the american military is even capable of torture?

we all knew the outcome of this trial from years ago. Someone's got to take the punishment in order to appease the Speer family and the waiting media entourage. if he walks free, they'd be an uproar. Whatever his sentence, it will always be too light in the eyes of the Speer family.

...

More causalities in the GWOT.

It would seem the Canadian Left's favourite little Terrorist is now going to change his plea to guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence, most of which is to be served in Canada.

So much for the "he couldn't have done it cause he was only 15" crowd.

No deal has yet been concluded but the shape of one – Omar Khadr pleading guilty to some or all of the war crimes charges, including murder and terrorism, in exchange for a reduced sentence and the option of serving at least some of it in Canada – has emerged.

Source:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1757064/

Are the Tory fascists happy about this? :rolleyes:

...

I know. I was a bit confused by the response. In a way, I felt like I was being painted a bleeding heart terrorist lover simply for wanting justice.

I probably should have said more, like how Canada should indeed take on responsibility for repatriation and that sentencing should be done in Canada, but I would have run the risk of being accused as a terrorist sympathizer.

...

Pretty much.

I think that you believe that your opinion is correct and mine is wrong. I also think that during the heat of this thread that the tone of your argument has been patronizing at best, insulting at worst. (Something I have tried to avoid.)

Even now when Khadr has confessed to the murder of the US soldier, you continue to plea his case. I have maintained from the begining that he is a terrorist (he is), he took up arms against this country (he did), he murdered a US soldier (now we know he did).

I have also stated that the majority of Canadians would prefer to keep him out of the country (I do believe that) and you disagreed with me. Well, there's a poll out in McLeans I believe that shows that 48% of Canadians feel that the gov't should do everything in their power to keep him out of the country period, another 12% feel that he should serve his sentence in Canada, and 39% feel that he should have been repatriated a long time ago.

So you see, my arguement is not wholely unsupported. In fact, quite the opposite.

You weep for Khadr because you think him a victim of George Bush's "War on Terror". You use him as a poster boy for how the policies of George Bush have somehow made a mockery of justice and the Canadian Constitution both at the same time. You don't seem to care about the circumstance of how this all came to be, or the fact that a US soldier was killed by him, or that Khadr was building and planting roadside bombs to kill Nato Soldiers. You only see him as some symbol against the "Tory Fascists" (which is laugable because it was the Liberals who agreed to join NATO in Afghanistan, and the Liberals did nothing to repatriate Omar Khadr).

Anyway, with Khadr's confession, so goes your arguement.

When he's out of the clink in however many years you can invite him to live with you. (I'm pretty sure you won't though.)

james, your presumptions are still showing. You might want to... oh, never mind.

For the record, I have never claimed, nor will I claim, that you hate children and brown people.

That, just for the record.

...

hmm...let me see... another decade or more languishing in cuba or a sentence with a finite end in site and maybe some closure at the end of it if you could call it that. its a pretty easy call.