Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Khadr and the old democrats

by Paul Wells on Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:02pm - 0 Comments

If I were a left-of-centre party desperately seeking concrete differences with the Liberals, I’d be awfully interested in the case of Omar Khadr, the former child soldier whose abuse at Guantanamo Bay has by now been amply documented.

The Harper government won’t lift a finger to repatriate him, a shirking of duty decried even in such occasionally friendly precincts as this week’s Maclean‘s editors’ page. (Harper campaigned on a promise that under him, Canada would have a foreign policy that would actually get noticed, and that’s certainly what he’s achieving with Khadr: Under this prime minister, Canada’s foreign policy is uniquely supine, a state of affairs that’s winning our country positively glowing coverage in Vietnam and Germany, just to name two.)

The Liberals are, of course, making a fuss about all this. But the problem for the Liberals is that when that video footage of Khadr’s Guantanamo interrogation was shot, Jean Chrétien was the prime minister of Canada. Defending the Liberals’ seriously late-breaking interest in the quality of treatment accorded Guantanamo prisoners is tricky, as Megapundit points out. This should, it seems to me, present an opportunity for the NDP, who could say — truthfully — “The Liberals let this happen and the Conservatives refuse to bring it to an end.”

The NDP’s hand would be strengthened, to be sure, if they had made a greater fuss about waterboarding, extraordinary rendition and the rest from the outset. But at least they have this fellow Michael Byers on board, who wrote a whole book about such matters.

Bookmark and Share
  • T. Thwim

    My goodness, all the more reason to shoot every one of them as we round them up, eh?

  • DWO

    I don’t see why, when a segment of the population that is probably using Canada as a flag of convenience turns its children into human time bombs, we should be running around playing referee. Sure, Kadr is in bad shape. What did parents expect would happen if he got caught?? I say leave him there, and let the Americans, whose ox he gored, pay for the trial and the punishment.

  • madeyoulook

    My dear deluded T, the current enemy feels no particular obligation towards international law niceties (instructions to allied forces: do not get captured!). The current good guys do feel that obligation. That’s why everyone’s Favourite Canadian Hero survived the confrontation in the first place, to become the USA’s problem now.
    The first time I heard about the wake-up and move around every three hours routine, I thought “that’s not torture, that’s parenthood!”
    Accuse our staunchest ally of evil all you like; put unconscionanle words in your debating opponents’ mouths unfairly if it makes you feel better. I for one sleep far better knowing I am in a freedom-loving democracy protected by the most powerful nation on earth who happens to share the same values of freedom, peace & the rule of law. So do you, especially for someone willing to make such a ridiculous charge.
    I am not personally getting too worked up over the fate of this Canadian citizen. So sue me.

  • boudica

    “Even if and I say even if I completley agreed with you and my boy Stevie woke up tomorrow am and changed his mind what could he do? Demand that Khadr come here and we will try him – be serious the Yanks do not let people out of prison that they charge with murder that would be a precedent of untold proportion and more than likely not legal itself as once you are charged with a crime there is due process – ”

    Wayne, point well taken about mind reading. I guess it is hard for me to accept that anyone with an ounce of intelligence can actually believe that the processes established at Gitmo are legitimate.

    As for your quote above, if the Brits and the Aussies were able to get their accused citizens back, exactly why would Harper not be able to do the same?

  • Wayne

    Hey B. were the detainess that had british or australian passports charged with murder?

  • globetrotter

    Peace! guys. Why not look for a truly “solomonic” solution to this problem? Since prisoner exchanges, as ridiculous and shortsighted as they may be, seem to be the flavour of the month, why not send his wretched mother and sister down to GITMO in exchange? After all, they were the ones who “guided” him in his formative years. Besides, according to my wholly unscientific “survey”, 98.99% of Canadians wouldn’t mind see them gone, forever. The “boy”, at least, might be “salvageable”, which doesn’t seem to be the case for the two women.

  • Jack Mitchell

    It’s absurd to start charging enemy soldiers with murder. *That’s* the fundamental violation of the Geneva Convention here, not the torture (bad as that is).

    What is totally overlooked in this debate is the fact that Al Qaeda, from the mid-’90′s to 2002, was both a terrorist organisation *and* part of the Taliban’s army – in fact, the shock troops in the war against Ahmed Shah Massoud. The fact that they did not themselves make a distinction between the two jihads (one terrorist and one military) has allowed the USA to treat all the Al Qaeda people as terrorists. While they would certainly have been *potential* terrorists, the fact is that the Al Qaeda the US met in Afghanistan was acting in its military capacity as Taliban allies.

    When Khadr threw his grenade, therefore, he was an enemy soldier performing a soldierlike action. Frankly it seems to me he would be guilty of dereliction of duty if he hadn’t thrown the grenade; and actually I’m pretty impressed that a 15-year-old had the presence of mind to keep fighting when under attack by the US Army.

    Anyway, to turn around and treat an enemy soldier as a terrorist is the most grotesque violation of the laws of war that I can imagine. The USA will have nothing to complain about when their soldiers start getting shot as spies in the next war.

  • joe palaschuk

    The khadar kid didn’t have a choice whether to folow his father to the hell hole and as a kid he is emune from prosectution as a boy soldier. The americans in all likely hood went looking for a scape goat for their friendly fire on thier own. This is an illigal farce at gitmo and harper must take action to get him home asap or be compacent in a travasty of justice of a canadian at the hands of an illigal entitly. He could be charged for not carrying out his duty as prime minister

  • boudica

    “Hey B. were the detainess that had british or australian passports charged with murder?”

    I’m not sure that the Yanks had enough time to charge them with anything given the intervention of their acccused’s respective countries but they most certainly were brought there to be charged and tried for murder.

    Wayne, these “detainees” were grabbed on the field of battle, after the Yanks launched their attack. Every one of them have been brought to Gitmo for what the Yanks have decided to define as murder. In Bush’s head (and apparently Harper’s), those “enemy combatants” were supposed to stand still while being shot at. Any response back constitutes murder or attempted murder and that is what Khadr is being accused of.

    In the “good old days,” Khadr and the others would have been grabbed and given status of POWs and released after the war. They most certainly would not have been accused of murder.

    I don’t understand your reasoning. What did you think those detainees are being kept at Gitmo for?

  • http://www.todaysautonews.com jwl

    Boudica

    In the ‘good old days’ Khadr would have been shot and we wouldn’t be having this debate.

    Khadr was on a battlefield, not wearing a uniform and not fighting for any particular country. He’s not considered a POW because he is/was a religious mercenary, or somesuch, and does not deserve our protection.

  • robert cochrane

    It appears the Harper position is to deny obligations under Child Soldier provisions signed by Canada, the USA etc. So be it. Why doesn’t he pass the necessary legislation that would allow conservatives to ignore the little bastard.
    Not content with the obvious, Harper compounds matters by stating clearly he will not interfere in the legal affairs of legitimate democracies. Since Gitmo has been declared illegal by no less an authority than the US Supreme court, doesn’t Harper have an obligation to ‘interfere’?
    As for the circus conservatives have created of the hearings as run by Jason Kenney and Jason’s pubescent response to Romeo Dallaire, perhaps the day will come when Jason will mature enough to realize the good Senator is his better; his better in service to his country and beyond, in education and in qualification.
    Perhaps Jason might some day become man enough to realize the character growth opportunity before him and apologise to Dallaire; for a man who has never held a real job in his life and a man who fell into an golden nest by pure dumb luck, he at least owes that much to Canada, Dallaire and the democracy he toots about.

  • JPLH

    The Khadr issue leaves Canada with an uncertain future. Here we have Harper continuing to support Bush’s agenda with less than 6 months left in his reign. How will Harper change once America is no longer controlled by a right leaning agenda? Hopefully Canadians will not have to vote prior to a change in guard south of the border. Much better to have all the cards on the table prior to setting our direction for the next 4-5 years.

  • Patricia Pottie

    Perhaps, Mr. Wells, we could bring back Mr. Khadr and he could live with you. Perhaps you have forgotten that “charming” and bone chilling interview with his mother and sister a couple of years ago. Or perhaps you have forgotten who his father was and where he and his brother learned their tactics. A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of age. Remember N. Ireland.

From Macleans