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
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

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
  • dan in van

    Interesting that RApheal chooses the Kahdrs as the face of Canada’s “Trudeauian multiculturalism” policy. I’m not certain how the other people who came to our fallable but still grand nation would feel about that. Certainly, most would agree that the program of a mosaic multiculturalistic society may be a touch idealism. Perhaps Rapheal embraces the ‘bubbling cauldron’ that is our neighbour’s preference?
    I’m not going to put words on Rapheal’s cursor. While he may not have faith in the past system, i’m sure he’s blindly backing the Harper ‘shift.’

  • boudica

    “And as for, “How far a Canadian government chooses to go to help out a Canadian citizen arrested abroad (beyond demanding consular access and a fair trial with adequate defense) SHOULD be determined on a case-by-case basis: quality of the judicial system, evidence against the accused, greater national interest of friendly relations, all of it counts”.

    Absolute nonsense!!!

    In a democracy, it is terribly short-sighted, foolhardy even to allow a government the right to pick and choose which of its citizens will receive fair and equitable treatment on foreign land.

    We either abide by the rule of law or we don’t. I, for one, do not want Stephen Harper or any other politician to be given the right to decide whether I am worthy of my government’s protection.

    That we would even debate this is simply outrageous and further underscores the importance of ensuring that Khadr be repatriated.

  • madeyoulook

    Ahem, boudica, last anyone checked, Gitmo is NOT flying the Maple Leaf. Democracy or not, we Canadians cannot “pick and choose which of its citizens will receive fair and equitable treatment on foreign land.” Ever. For the simple “on foreign land” reason. We can only pick and choose which of our citizens deserve our raising a diplomatic stink. You probably don’t like it, but I have the sense a big heaping chunk of Canadians who would prefer to disavow the Khadr clan’s citizenship, and feel that this vermin-infested family is unworthy of any Canadian investment on the diplomatic front.
    If your default position is that every Canadian citizen abroad is entitled to our government somehow unilaterally usurping the sovereignty of a foreign nation, whether ally or foe, to ensure “fair and equitable treatment” of said citizen abroad, do yourself a favour, don’t get a passport, and don’t ever leave the country. Or Google “Bon voyage but” and see what DFAIT can and cannot do for you if you leave the country with the expressed intent of causing trouble. Coles Notes version: not nearly as much as you might like, nor foolishly feel is your entitlement.

  • Jim

    Khadr and his family are Canadians of convenience whose family has in the past publicly expressed their distaste for this country. They get all of the social benefits that we has responsible citizens pay for and that is hwy they are here. They were permitted entry because of the unbelievable ineptness of the former liberal governments and an immigration system which puts vote gathering ahead of what is best for Canada.

    This family and their evil ideology do not belong in Canada and should never have been allowed in. Former Nazi’s have had their citizenship stripped of them and been deported. Why should there be a different outcome here. These people and their twisted beliefs represent everything Canada is not. They do not belong here.

  • T. Thwim

    Be that as it may, Jim, until that happens, they are Canadian citizens, and deserving of equitable treatment.

  • Wayne

    Hey T. : he is receving standard ‘ equitable ‘ treatment as after all our gov’t has sent strongly worded diplomatic letters to all the usual suspects just like we would for any canadian citizen what Khadr is not receiving is ‘ Special ‘ treatment and nor should he after all his court date is coming up in October so where is the problem in this file? The real test of equity would be if the yanks picked up another canadian and sent him to Gitmo and we treated him differently than Khadr – then I would agree with you.

  • T. Thwim

    So then you’re of the belief that equitable treatment of Canadians should be allowing them to be mercilessly interrogated and tortured for days on end? Interesting.

  • boudica

    “Ahem, boudica, last anyone checked, Gitmo is NOT flying the Maple Leaf. Democracy or not, we Canadians cannot “pick and choose which of its citizens will receive fair and equitable treatment on foreign land.” Ever. For the simple “on foreign land” reason. We can only pick and choose which of our citizens deserve our raising a diplomatic stink. ”

    Ahem right back at you.

    Ensuring fair treatment of Canadians citizens on foreign land INFERS raising a diplomatic stink.

    This goverment’s silence also INFERS that acquiescence. Acquiescence INFERS that we agree with the said foreign land’s breaking of international law.

  • Wayne

    That is not what I stated at all T. What I said was equitable treatment as an example let’s say I went to Afgahnistan tommorrow to buy andsell arms for Al Qaeda and the Talioban and a firefight erupted with me in the middle and the next thing you know I wake up in Gitmo – at this point I would expect my Gov’t to send all the strongly worder diplomatic letters to all the appropriate people.

  • boudica

    “Be that as it may, Jim, until that happens, they are Canadian citizens, and deserving of equitable treatment.”

    They don’t just deserve it, they have a RIGHT to it. If it’s ok for Khadr, it is open season on any of us who end up being charged abroad, guilty or not.

  • boudica

    “he is receving standard ‘ equitable ‘ treatment as after all our gov’t has sent strongly worded diplomatic letters to all the usual suspects just like we would for any canadian citizen what Khadr is not receiving is ‘ Special ‘ treatment and nor should he after all his court date is coming up in October so where is the problem in this file?”

    Wayne, being allowed to sleep 3 hours in 21 days is equitable treatment where you come from? Not being allowed to speak to your lawyer while detained for 5 years is equitable treatment on your planet?

  • Johnny LaRusic

    When did arguing a prisoner is deserving of basic human rights become arguing for “special” treatment?

  • boudica

    “at this point I would expect my Gov’t to send all the strongly worder diplomatic letters to all the appropriate people.”

    Really Wayne? Than why was Brenda Martin brought back home? Why was that other gentleman in Eastern Europe brought home? Why has Harper himself intervened on behalf of Cecil with the Chinese?

    Why do they get support from Harper but not Khadr?

  • Wayne

    Hey Boudica – yes and yes again and then finally yes and by the way we are treating this just brenda martin after her trial she comes home and the after Khadr has his trial is pronounced guilty … I am quite sure the PM will bring this poor little wayward boy back home and wel will picking up the tab as usual.

  • boudica

    Wayne, the problem with your after-the-trial assessment is the trial itself. The entire proceeding is illegal and THAT is what Harper is supposed to object to. THAT Khadr should face a trial is without question. The difference is that we Canadians, at the exception of our Prime Minister, believe that it should be a legal one.

    If the Yanks have lost their moral compass, that is THEIR problem but we most certainly should not be party to this farce by subjecting a Canadian, let alone an underaged Canadian to it.

  • Wayne

    Your use of ‘ we ‘ seems to be somewhat premature as I and apparently quite a few others even some those posting here don’t agree. As to the legality of the his Trial that will be in October if I am not misstaken that is being dealt with by those repsonsible for such matters and since neither you nor myself are experts in international law our input in that area is moot so it all boils down to alot of noise and business as usual. Such is life.

  • boudica

    Ok Wayne. Let me put it to you this way…

    Because Harper is an intelligent man, I am convinced that he knows what most people have agreed on which is that Gitmo and this military trial are illegal. I also believe that he fully accepts this and simply does not care. This is a classic example of facts coming in conflict with ideology and one choosing the latter over the former.

    This is the kind of exercise that some have to go through in order to avoid facing the fact that they were wrong all along and that some of their core beliefs don’t hold water.

    In Harper’s mind, Khadr is a small price to pay to save face.

    I think that this dilemma is something that you share with our Prime Minister.

    You have to believe that Gitmo is perfectly legitimate. You have to believe that torture is justified. You have to believe that giving the death penalty to a child soldier is the moral thing to do because if you don’t…

  • Wayne

    Hey B. I will leave it up to you when it comes to mind reading personally I just go by the reality of the situation as it is, take people at their word and do my best not to attribute motives to others that may or may not be true and in which more than likely my own prejudices would tend to colour any conclusions I would come to. Frankly the issue of Gitmo is an american problem and they will have to sort it out just like we have a similar problem with the fighters we captured in Afghanistan and are still working on. 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 – I know I know what due process at Gitmo = definitely a quandry but there you and since his trial is in October that will resolve all of these issue to your liking probably not but none the less.

  • madeyoulook

    boudica says: “Ensuring fair treatment of Canadians citizens on foreign land INFERS raising a diplomatic stink.”
    Forgive me, I thought when you said “foolhardy even to allow a government the right to pick and choose which of its citizens will receive fair and equitable treatment on foreign land,” I took it to mean you had granted the Canadian government some decision making power over the treatment of Canadians abroad. All the government can do is pick and choose the raising of the diplomatic stink. If you believe that’s one and the same, I repeat, don’t ever leave the country to raise trouble, you’ll be in for a nasty surprise!
    PW’s point is the NDP should hoist the bleeding-heart flag up the pole, staking out that territory to prevent the Liberals’ hypocritical claims from gaining traction. I remain not quite convinced that such a strategy will win them a whole lot of votes among the Canadian electorate.

  • paul haalboom

    Paul, I suspect your strategy in this article is to support our prime minister by trying to get the ndp to pick up the cause and fight with the liberals about it. This will take the heat off Harper.

  • Johnny LaRusic

    Wayne: Actually, many countries have repatriated their citizens from Gitmo. I think the number of repatriated detainees is in the hundreds, but certainly countries like Britain and Australia have done as much for their citizens.

    Simply put, there is no legal obstacle preventing us from repatriating Khadr.

  • Wayne

    Johnny check the facts again the others were not charged with murder were they?

  • madeyoulook

    I am not sure how many are stating there is a legal obstacle to repatriation, Johnny. What I sense is a political obstacle: Not enough Canadians care to bring the little angel home. As far as I am concerned, the NDP can play footsie with the Khadr family all they like.

  • madeyoulook

    OK, so maybe at least one is making the argument that there is a severity-of-the-charge legal obstacle. Fair enough.

  • Wayne

    By Michael Dobbs
    The Washington PostJuly 13, 2008 – 12:00 am

    “By the way, thirty of the people that have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again. One of them just a couple of weeks ago as a suicide bomber in Iraq.”

    -John McCain, Town Hall meeting, Pemberton, N.J., June 17

From Macleans