Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

'The steps taken to date were found not to remedy the breach'

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, July 5, 2010 3:53pm - 0 Comments

The federal court rules on a review of the government’s response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the treatment of Omar Khadr.

Omar Khadr sought judicial review of Canada’s response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s declaration in Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr (2010) that Canada had breached his Charter rights.  Canada responded by deciding that it would continue to refuse to request his repatriation from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and by requesting, by way of diplomatic note, that the United States not use any of the information Canada had supplied it in its prosecution of Mr. Khadr.

The Court concluded that Canada’s decisions were amenable to judicial review, even though they involved the executive’s exercise of a royal prerogative, because they affected the rights and legitimate expectations of Mr. Khadr.  The breach of his rights remained ongoing and the Court concluded that he had a legitimate expectation, following the Supreme Court of Canada’s declaration, that Canada would take steps to remedy its breach.  The steps taken to date were found not to remedy the breach.

The full ruling is here.

Bookmark and Share
  • Anon Liberal

    I'll get the Conbots started…

    I am mad as hell at these activist judges!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisInKW ChrisInKW

    In your opinion, does this make an election more likely?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

      What on god's earth does this have to do with an election? I can't believe there is a single vote to be changed because of Khadr.People on all sides have made their decision long ago on this issue.

      • Lord Kitchener's Own

        I kinda figured Chris was making a joke.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisInKW ChrisInKW

        The executive is sworn and entrusted to defend the constitution and charter. The judiciary is sounding the alarm, saying the government has failed in performing this sworn duty and refused to come up with a remedy–even when called on it. While it's doubtful an election could be fought over this singular issue, it could support an interesting narrative if used as a trigger.

        Just as the detainee abuse question morphed into an issue about the supremacy of Parliament, this has bigger implications than a young man named Omar Khadr.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

    Well, I guess this is good news for Khadr… but I am not sure at all it is good news for Canada. From the summary,

    "The Court concluded that Canada’s decisions were amenable to judicial review, even
    though …."

    You don't have to be a friend of Khadr or a Taliban sympathizer to realize that the governments pushing of the Khadr case to the Supreme Court was a mistake. At its core, Khadr's case pits the Charter Rights of individual Canadian citizens against the government perogative to set foreign policy. A year ago, it looked like Harper had one a narrow, vindictive victory at the cost of a more activist judiciary with an expanded scope.

    Now it seems that narrow victory might not even hold.

    I think while everyone else was playing checkers, Haper was out back playing tiddlywinks.

    • http://www.lyracrostic.com CrescentHeightsGuy

      To be fair I think everyone else plays Clue, while Harper plays Texas Hold'em.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/DZulu Dave Z.

      Judicial review of foreign policy has been around for a very long time. Justice Bertha Wilson expressed it in Operation Dismantle v. R. (1985) as:

      "It might be timely at this point to remind ourselves of the question the Court is being asked to decide. It is, of course, true that the federal legislature has exclusive legislative jurisdiction in relation to defence under s. 91(7) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and that the federal executive has the powers conferred upon it in ss. 9‑15 of that Act. Accordingly, if the Court were simply being asked to express its opinion on the wisdom of the executive's exercise of its defence powers in this case, the Court would have to decline. It cannot substitute its opinion for that of the executive to whom the decision‑making power is given by the Constitution…. The question before us is not whether the government's defence policy is sound but whether or not it violates the appellants' rights under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a totally different question. I do not think there can be any doubt that this is a question for the courts. Indeed, s. 24(1) of the Charter, also part of the Constitution, makes it clear that the adjudication of that question is the responsibility of "a court of competent jurisdiction". While the court is entitled to grant such remedy as it "considers appropriate and just in the circumstances", I do not think it is open to it to relinquish its jurisdiction either on the basis that the issue is inherently non‑justiciable or that it raises a so‑called "political question"

      • Orson Bean

        Bertha Wilson didn't think that there was anything that wasn't a question for the courts.

  • Mike T.

    For clarity, I think the quote above is talking about first original case, and the last sentence is a finding of that court, not a new ruling issued today.

    From the order part of the case (which is all I've read), it looks like what they are ruling on is an order for the government to tell Khadr, within a week, what it has done to rectify things.

  • http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

    Canada’s decisions were amenable to judicial review, even though they involved the executive’s exercise of a royal prerogative…

    The saddest and most frustrating thing about the premise of this decision (at least for reactionary Tories like me!) is that very few will realise the implications of what the court is saying about "the executive's exercise of a royal prerogative".

    Constitutionally, the royal prerogative is both separate from and more powerful than the executive; the Crown is obviously a higher constitutional authority than the prime minister and his cabinet.

    But because the powers of the Crown (along with those of its vice-regal agent) have fallen into functional desuetude and can no longer be invoked by their actual bearers (because that would be "undemocratic", of course), our prime ministers get to use the abandoned powers for their own purposes, often circumventing the law and Parliamentary norms. Khadr is lucky to have had wide publicity and legal advocacy on his side. Imagine the plight of someone languishing under the heel of an irresponsibly applied royal prerogative without access to those resources. It could happen to any one of us tomorrow.

    • Pat

      Nate Whitling, one of his lawyers, really is brilliant. See what attendance at an Ivy League school and clerking with the SCC can get you!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

    Bottom line: we wouldn't need the expense and Baroque deliberations of high courts for cases like Khadr's if we had Governors-General who had the guts to actually use the royal prerogative vested in them and refuse to sign off on patently unlawful gambits like Harper's.

  • Amateur Hour

    Methinks the Court tires of the duplicity shown by Messrs. Harper, Nicholson and Cannon.

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    I'm still convinced that the Americans are just going to end up freeing him before we get around to doing anything which, it seems to me, will be rather awkward when he just shows up at Pearson one day free and clear.

    • Pat

      I don't know why they don't just do that. Deport him to Canada and be done with it.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        There is that trifling detail of the dead US medic. I am led to understand that the US millitary is taking that detail rather seriously.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

          But how serious are they? Ie, what's the roadblock in the way of taking some kind of definitive action against Khadr, or would you gather that the long term plan is to just keep Khadr locked up in Guantanamo indefinitely?

          The current arrangement does not provide either the satisfaction of a guilty verdict or the legitimacy of a trial, military or otherwise.

          Am I missing something?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            To be fair to the US military, there have been many attempts to get (and keep) the process rolling. Civilian courts (theirs; ours have been quite busy but have been relegated to the how-quaint children's table where the kids should be seen but not heard) have dared to tinker enough to draw things out. The new Commander in Chief, rather than close Gitmo, opted to suspend all these proceedings instead, and the military judge, to his credit, eventually told his CiC where to shove it (I mean, where to shove it, Sir!). And apparently an August date is set to keep at it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

            Hmmm, I was not aware of the August date. Hopefully something definite – and, as a bonus, final – comes out of that proceeding (not holding my breath on either count, though).

            I understand the desire to avenge the death of that soldier, but this saga is not a shining example of the exercise of justice.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            From the Zinn ruling, today:

            [92] In this case, if the Court was satisfied on the record that the only potential remedy not yet
            tried by Canada that could cure the breach was to issue an order requiring Canada, before Mr.
            Khadr’s military commission proceeding commences on August 10, 2010, to request the U.S. to
            return Mr. Khadr to Canada, that order would be issued.

            And I would say, with respect, that everyone's sense of justice is the problem here. It's war. He was a non-uniformed belligerent illegal enemy combattant, specifically excluded from any Geneva protection. "Child soldier" gets iffy because he was fifteen years and whatever months of age, and definitions vary right around that particular birthday. Bush ordered that these undeserving people be granted the protections of Geneva anyways, probably to appeal to certain people's sense of, ahem, justice. And here we are.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

            OK, interesting…

            I'm going to assume that Bush had at least one other option (at least theoretically, perhaps not practically), which was to stick to the letter of the Geneva Conventions. If Bush had done that would there be any limits on how he US could treat Khadr? Ultimately, could a US soldier have executed Khadr "on the spot" as it were?

            I accept that sticking to the letter of the Geneva Conventions would have been legal, but I'm doubtful that it was a practical option.

            And just to clarify, is Khadr actually being treated with all of the protections that would be offered to an enemy soldier? I don't actually know, you seem up on this stuff, so I'm asking.

          • madeyoulook

            I'd hate to give the illusion of being totally up on this stuff. But I do remember GW Bush ordering something to the effect of: "These detainees do not qualify literally for POW status with full Geneva protections, but we'll offer them the humane treatment Geneva calls for anyways."

            UPDATE: And I am pretty sure that even Geneva would not tolerate the on-the-spot execution of captured illegal combattants, but I would defer to more authoritative declarations than my own on that point.

            UPDATE: I suggest you have a look at this CNN news story from 2002 (what did anyone do before Google?). Some of the specifics of "POW status" that are NOT being offered to Khadr and others are explained therein. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/07/ret.bush.de…

          • Lord Kitchener's Own

            He was a non-uniformed belligerent illegal enemy combatant, specifically excluded from any Geneva protection.

            Not to quibble, but I think he can only be considered a "combatant" if he threw the grenade, which has yet to be proven. If he was actually cowering in a corner of the hut behind the man who actually threw the grenade (as I believe is what his lawyers argue), then I think it's at least possible that he can't be considered a "combatant". Unless just being in the hut is sufficient for him to be considered a combatant, which may be legally so (though that would seem somewhat unjust).

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

          I am led to understand that the US millitary is taking that detail rather seriously.

          Indeed they are. Far more seriously than they took the detail of four Canadian soldiers bombed by an insubordinate American pilot and the detail of a Blackwater mercenary unit firing indiscriminately into a crowd of Iraqi civilians, killing scores. But, hey…you gotta pick your battles.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

            Harsh, yet funny, and as an added bonus, you make me hate myself for laughing. Huzzah!

  • Don

    Interesting to witness the hew and cry for Khadr's repatriation to Canada for trial. I suppose the Charter is meant for all of us, including those "Canadian's of Convenience".
    Khadr allegedly commited a crime while in a foreign (to a Canadian!) country, and we want him tried here.
    Conrad Black is Canadian by birth, and commited his crimes in Canada. Yet he was tried, convicted and is currently serving a sentence in U.S. custody, which is far more severe than he would ever have gotten in his own country. (Yes, you're correct–but due mainly to the incredible pettiness of our then Prime Minister!)
    Is this not a double standard?

    • Mike T.

      Black's constitutional or international legal rights weren't violated, let alone by Canadians.

    • Amateur Hour

      The Court previously found that Canadian officials were derelict in their duties to protect a citizen's rights, that they failed their consular duties while he was in US custody and were complicit in assisting a legal process determined to fail accepted standards of justice (what with the torture, lack of due process, lack of evidentiary challenges, etc).

      Khadr is the last Gitmo prisoner from a western country left in US custody, solely because Harper is the ONLY western leader to refuse to demand his return.

      If Harper were not a duplicitous fellow, he would — long ago — have demanded repatriation, then worked with the US Justice Dept. to extradite Khadr to face criminal charges in a US court … vs. languish in a no-man's land devoid of any legality whatsoever.

      But Harper is duplicitous and refuses to assert Canada's sovereignty over its citizens, to demand an acceptable forum for justice or even to seek criminal charges against Khadr in a US or Canadian court.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

      I agree that Conrad Black was treated awfully by Chretien and that Khadr has clearly been treated too well… indeed he gets seems to be treated (well almost) like he is actually a Canadian citizen. Perhaps to set things right we could have them swap places. That would fix the double standard!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

      Ah, yes. Double standard. A British subject breaks American laws, and is tried and convicted in America. Goes to jail for a maximum of 6.5 years.
      vs:
      A Canadian is detained for murder by Americans in Afghanistan, and taken to Cuba. Held for 7 years plus, without a trial.

      Yeah, that's a double standard. Nice of you to point it out.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

        Ouch! ;)

        Is there a doctor in the house? Someone's just had his false analogy run through with a rhetorical rapier…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

      Interesting to witness the hew (sic) and cry for Khadr's repatriation to Canada for trial.

      Time to renew MYL's perennial never-answered question, just for fun: Exactly what Canadian law do the huers and criers think would be invoked at a Canadian trial? Anyone who could copy and paste the relevant section of the Criminal Code of Canada (relying on available allegations of Khadr's conduct, not yet proven in a court of law), along with proof that our justice system has authority to prosecute such (alleged) offences if (allegedly) committed outside our own (alleged) borders, and proof that any statute of limitations for such alleged crimes (as, say, the three years for treason) have not caused the window for criminal proceedings to have expired (wow, what an awful sentence this is turning into), would earn my eternal admiration. So, who needs MYL's eternal admiration, besides these crickets?

      • Mike T.

        I'm pretty sure that was answered.

        • Mike T.

          s. 83.18 of the Criminal Code as amended by the anti-terrorist act, esp. sub s. (e).

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            I presume you mean section 3(e). If it was answered in the past I missed or have misremembered it. So thank you. You are on the verge of earning my eternal admiration, Mike.

            (Try to conceal your glee. OK, you're concealing it rather well. OK, too well. You could reveal a little glee. Tad, perhaps? Smidgen?)

            Do you know if these provisions apply fully to young offenders? While there remains some debate in international diplomacy about the age cutoff for the definition of a "child soldier," there is no question that this Canadian was under eighteen years of age when the events he is alleged to have committed took place.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Fish_30 Al O'Wishes

      Khadr was born in Canada. And unlike Conrad, he never renounced his Canadian citizenship.

      • madeyoulook

        Good thing, too! Why, just look at the shining example of his closest relations, reappearing in the Great White North after an, ahem, extended absence, and demanding an immediate reappearance of Ontario's OHIP benefits! Six month rule, Shmix month rule! Taxes, shmaxes! At least we didn't renounce!

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Fish_30 Al O'Wishes

          You seem to think that I'm defending the actions of the Khadr family, which I am in no way doing. What I am doing is pointing out the exact place where Don's accusations of a double standard when looking at Conrad Black and Omar Khadr completely falls apart. To reiterate, Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen by birth. Conrad Black is no longer a Canadian citizen. Like it or not, them's the facts.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Not for one minute did I think you were defending the actions of the Khadr family. I only raise their example to point out that an active world-travelling terrorist good-for-nothing treasonous violent scum loaded for jihad bear would have to be a fool to renounce his or her gift of Canadian citizenship.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/FACLC FACLC

        None of the "Canadians of convenience" possessing dual citizenship for questionable benefit for Canada have renounced their citizenship. Hoorah.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      I'm not sure most of the hew and cry is to repatriate Khadr for trial here, so much as to just repatriate him and let him go. No civilian charged with murder could ever spend 7 years in jail without trial without having the charges against them thrown out by a judge as a massive abuse and denial of due process.

      Frankly, I think most people who are complaining just want us to do SOMETHING before the American judicial system lets him go free an clear without any input from us.

  • barry

    a summary execution in the battlefield. that's military law as it applies to undeclared enemy combatants out of uniform.
    if that cockroach wanted to be tried in civilian court, he should have taken up jihad shoplifting or spray painting slogans, not murdering a medic.
    the time is overdue to demand loyalty to our democratic institutions and respect for our culture as a condition for canadian citizenship of entire migrant families like the khadrs. this could include immediate deportation of islamofascists demonstrating for sharia courts here. a suicide jihadist may only be deterred if his actions backfire on his family/tribe.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      Did he murder a medic? Funny.. I thought we had to wait for a trial to determine that..

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

        Eh-raabs don't get trials, Thwim. Trials are for civilised people.

        Eh-raabs get a bullet in the head, just like Barry said.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        Actually, I am not as certain as you are that a belligerent non-uniformed illegal enemy combattant enjoys the Geneva niceties of an impartial trial including an opportunity to confront his or her accusers or to present evidence. In fact, belligerent non-uniformed illegal enemy combattants do not enjoy Geneva at all…

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

          EVERYBODY enjoys portions of the Geneva conventions.. especially those portions about.. oh.. no torture.

        • Lord Kitchener's Own

          Again, (as above) I'm not sure, but I think perhaps that he can only be called a "combatant" (illegal or otherwise) if he actually threw the grenade. If he was cowering in a corner while the firefight was going on, behind the man who actually threw the grenade (which is what I believe his defense team argues) then I'm not sure he can be labeled a "combatant" at all.

    • The Real Jan

      Barry has nicely summarized Harper's position on Khadr.

  • Anon 001

    Why don't the judges love the troops? Why are they such Taliban lovers?

  • bergkamp

    "The breach of his rights remained ongoing and the Court concluded that he had a legitimate expectation, following the Supreme Court of Canada’s declaration, that Canada would take steps to remedy its breach. The steps taken to date were found not to remedy the breach."

    I have no idea how this works but it seems odd to me that Federal Court rules on whether Supreme Court expectations were met or not. Why doesn't the Supreme Court decide whether Fed Gov't was compliant enough?

    Should I be outraged at activist judges or is it standard practice for Fed Court to rule on Supreme Court affairs?

    • Thwim

      Supreme Court is the final place where the bar is set. Whether the condition of the court is met or not is up to the courts. If the gov't doesn't like this decision, they can appeal it.

      Which I expect they will.

      • Orson Bean

        It seems to me that this latest procedural klusterf*ck could have been entirely avoided if the Supreme Court of Canada would have simply offered up a judicial remedy in the first place, instead of punting the selection of an appropriate remedy back to the government. So far, the "constitutional dialogue" has essentially been

        Court: do something
        Govt: okay, we did something
        Court: yeah, but what you did wasn't good enought, IMO

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

          It was more like:

          Court: His rights have been violated. You need to fix this.
          Gov't: Yeah.. uh. We think it's already been fixed, nothing we need to do.
          Court: Perhaps you weren't listening…

          • Orson Bean

            I don't disagree with your characterization. But in this case, I think the court should have at the very least given some indication of what it thought an appropriate remedy would be. Because they didn't, we're basically back at square one. With more taxpayers' money having been pissed away in the meantime.

          • Hazel

            Actually, if you read the ruling, the judge DOES indicate what an appropriate remedy would be. He says specifically that repatriating Khadr would fix the breach. He's kinda like "bringing him home would definitely do it, but maybe you'll be able to come up with other options too. I'll give you a week to try, and if you don't find something better I'll decide for you." I don't think it's not knowing what to do that's stopping the government. I don't know what is… ego, or sheer pigheadedness…

            What I didn't realize before reading this thing was that the "ongoing charter breach" they talk about IS Khadr's detention. Canada's interrogating him helped the US justify keeping him in prison, making Canada culpable in unlawfully depriving a citizen of freedom (obviously not allowed in the chater of rights and freedoms).

            All this to say, bringing Khadr home would obviously "fix" the "ongoing breach."

      • Poker Face

        Won't that effectively allow them to wait out the August 10 date?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/BGLong BGLong

    A cultural aspect to consider ….

    http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100703/N…

  • madeyoulook

    (Post taken from "Need to Know" section, with additional content)

    The SCOC: The appropriate remedy in this case is to declare that K’s Charter rights were violated, leaving it to the government to decide how best to respond in light of current information, its responsibility over foreign affairs, and the Charter.

    The SCOC said the courts can neither comment on nor carry out the remedy since it entails the diplomacy of foreign relations. Only that a remedy is called for, and federal government must decide how to apply it. So where does Judge Zinn get off trying to do exactly what the SCOC said the courts could not do?

    From the Sun (linked in the "NtK" post): Zinn says he will impose a solution if the government doesn't find one.

    Really? Does that include rustling up the sextagenarian security guards from his courthouse and leading this posse on an amphibious assault of the naval base of our most important military ally?

    • madeyoulook

      Question: So where does Judge Zinn get off trying to do exactly what the SCOC said the courts could not do?

      Answer: For the reasons that follow, in the unique circumstances of this case, I find that Omar Khadr was entitled to procedural fairness by the executive when making its decision as to the appropriate remedy to take. I further find that the executive failed to provide Mr. Khadr with the level of fairness that was required when making its decision. Both the degree of fairness to which he was entitled and the remedy for having failed to provide it are unique and challenging issues.

      Answer explained: because this is such a special case, I'm gonna make it up as I go along.

      I sure hope the SCOC will remember the Constitution when this makes it back to them.

      • Pat

        Do you have a law degree? If you do, can I suggest you re-read the decision and get back to us?

        • Orson Bean

          I just think the courts are being too cute by half here. Instead of playing this game of silly bugger, they should come out and at least give one or more examples of what remedies, in their view, would suffice. I realize the govt hasn't been cooperative, but it's just silly for the court to say the government has to do something, then the govt does something (albeit something pretty lame), and then the court says that's not good enough. Basically the SCC opened a loophole in its previous ruling and the govt rather predictably took advantage of the loophole. The court should just state what damn remedy or remdies would satisfy it, & then we'd get closure on this farce.

          • Mike T.

            This sounds quite reasonable.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            Either that or they should start arresting people. Of course we know they'd not do that, because of course there was no law that was broken.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

            The government argued against this in the Supreme Court case, arguing that they had specialized knowledge and expertise that the court did not have in foreign affairs. The SC agreed with them, reserving the right to judge whether the violation of Khadr's rights had been remedied (presumably an area where the courts claim specialized knowledge and expertise.)

            This dilemma arose exactly because the Khadr case pits individual Charter rights against foreign policy, and as a result both the executive and the courts have a legitimate claim to jurisdiction. The courts were slow to move and gave the government plenty of time to address the issue. If the government had addressed the issue the courts could have simply ruled in their favor, instead by not being "cooperative" the government forced the courts to first rule on jurisdiction, before ruling on the Khadr case. The ruling from the Supreme Court was that courts do indeed have the right and obligation to intervene in foreign policy. Of course, the ruling goes on to say that they should be extremely reluctant, careful etc. The point is that with the passage of time, caveats such as those tend to be watered down or removed. That will occur because the big precedent that opened the doors for cases to even be considered will remain and each of those cases is an opportunity to open the door further.

            Canadians who are passionate about human rights and believe that includes scumbags should be deeply concerned about the government's handling of the Khadr case.

            Conservatives who believe that a smaller, less obtrusive government is necessary for a free society should be apoplectic. (see Madey Oulook the lawyer from Iqaluit above.)

          • Orson Bean

            That's a good summation of the situation, Stewart, so thanks for that. My only point beyond that is once the court takes the somewhat interventionist position that it took, it has then committed itself to a certain extent, it can't just bail out on the consequences. Put another way, once the court ruled that it had jurisdiction in the area of foreign policy, then it was also effectively ruling that it had the jurisdiction to fashion and dictate a remedy, which in turn means that it had to be prepared to actually do so. And that's where we find ourselves. Personally, I think they should have just come right out of the gate in the first place with their suggested remedy.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

        I don't read Zinn that way. I don't think he's going beyond the parameters the SCOC set down in its decision.

        Zinn is merely saying that the executive has failed to proceed according to the prescriptions provided by the SCOC. The fact that the SCOC allowed the government to rectify the situation without further judicial direction was not an admission that the case is otherwise ultra vires the courts. In fact, the SCOC explicitly invokes the possibility that "K’s Charter rights were violated," a situation that very obviously would be open to judicially mandated remedy.

        This whole situation reminds me of the court's same-sex marriage decision, which effectively strongly "suggested" that the government find a remedy in order to save the court the trouble of imposing one.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

          The SCOC did not invoke the possibility that his rights were violated. It confirmed they were. It left the remedy up to the federal government, because it (logically) could not possibly make the foreign policy / diplomacy decision in the absence of full information about Canada's overall interests in dealing with a foreign government.

          And if the SCOC felt that Ottawa should decide, but it had better decide what the SCOC wants it to decide, then the SCOC may as well have told Ottawa how to decide. The SCOC did not do that.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            It confirmed they were.

            Well, the SCOC appears to want to equivocate on that point. Notice that it uses the word "violated" when talking about its agreement with the lower courts and then uses the far weaker word "infringed" when suggesting its own remedy, almost as if unwilling to fully commit to the implications of the former word. The SCOC seems to want to posit what one might call a "constitutional inappropriateness" in Khadr's case rather than a pure "violation" of Charter rights.

            At any rate, I still don't think the SCOC meant to place the courts totally outside the scope of authority as regards foreign relations. In fact, the SCOC placed itself inside such authority just by demanding an executive response to its decision. It would have been illogical for the court to expect a response on a matter totally ultra vires its jurisdiction. I think you're imposing a juridical either/or that the SCOC doesn't acknowledge, though the court obviously grants the priority of the executive's discretion over the conduct of foreign relations.

          • Orson Bean

            I think most constitutional lawyers — and most lawyers, for that matter — would tell you that there's really no substantive difference between an infringement and a violation of a constitutional right. Legally, the import and consequences are identical.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            …there's really no substantive difference between an infringement and a violation…

            Denotatively, no. But I can't help but feel that the SCOC was hedging somewhat in failing to use "violation" when expressing its own view. Really, what else is legal argumentation but a series of disputes over minute semantic distinctions?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Really, what else is legal argumentation but a series of disputes over minute semantic distinctions?

            A series of minute semantic distinctions pre-selected to confirm one's own preconceived notion. Or, at least, the notion that is paying the lawyer's fee.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

        because this is such a special case, I'm gonna make it up as I go along.

        I think you've hit the nail on the head. The judge is a loon.

    • Thwim

      You may want to look at that ruling again. Specifically the words "in light of current information". Well, it's been a while now, and we have a new piece of information that's been added — to wit, the gov't hasn't done anything.

      Now beyond that, you can find the full original ruling here: http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc3/20…

      The part you're taking is from the summation. The actual ruling reads in section I.2)

      For the reasons that follow, we agree with the courts below that Mr. Khadr’s rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated. However, we conclude that the order made by the lower courts that the government request Mr. Khadr’s return to Canada is not an appropriate remedy for that breach under s. 24(1) of the Charter. Consistent with the separation of powers and the well-grounded reluctance of courts to intervene in matters of foreign relations, the proper remedy is to grant Mr. Khadr a declaration that his Charter rights have been infringed, while leaving the government a measure of discretion in deciding how best to respond. We would therefore allow the appeal in part.

      Having not exercised that measure at all, it comes once again to the courts to demand that something be done.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        to wit, the gov't hasn't done anything.

        False. You may not like what the gov't has done. But it has not done nothing.

        And that's not even what Zinn is saying. He is saying the government wasn't "procedurally fair" in deciding what it has done.

        • Orson Bean

          Seems to me it's quite a delicate dance that the courts are trying to do here. But IMO, once they found a breach of Charter rights, the courts had basically crossed the Rubicon. Sure, they said they didn't want to stray into the realm of the conduct of foreign policy, but substantively that's in effect what they're doing here.

          That's the way constitutional litigation sometimes goes: the boundaries of potential constitutional litigation are never closed (they're only limited by firm precedent and the human imagination). And because plaintiffs will always push those boundaries, you sometimes get results like this (and the predictable criticisms of allegedly undue judicial activism).

      • Poker Face

        Sorry for being semantic, but discretion involves choosing to act, as well as *not* to act. That last sentence is really a question of interpretation. " A measure"? How long is it? What's unacceptable? Why? Why couldn't the court have said "such measures as deemed appropriate by this court"?

        Also, you missed this sentence: the order made by the lower courts that the government request Mr. Khadr’s return to Canada is not an appropriate remedy for that breach under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

    But it has not done nothing.

    Well, the government has refused to request Khadr's repatriation or take steps to ensure that his confinement and projected trial satisfy conventional protocols, but I'm not sure those are the kinds of remedies the SCOC had in mind.

    • Orson Bean

      But this is where it gets silly to me. The Canadian government cannot, practically or realistically, tell the US government how to run or conduct a trial in the United States or at Gitmo. Even if the Canadian govt did so, the US govt would just tell us to take a hike. So that's not an effective or realistic remedy. So doesn't that mean that the only real remedy that will satisfy the SCC and/or the FCC must entail repatriation of Khadr to Canada? And if that's the case, why don't the SCC and FCC just say so?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        The Canadian government cannot, practically or realistically, tell the US government that it must repatriate an accused illegal enemy combattant, either. The Canadian government can ask. Pretty please, even. And the US might say yes, as it has for the citizens of other allied countries. In some cases, this turns out to be the most efficient (albeit costly) method of killing them: later on, on a subsequent battlefield.

        Then there is the trifling matter of the dead US medic. So for ANY Canadian court to presume that "the only real remedy that will satisfy the SCC and/or the FCC must entail repatriation of Khadr to Canada" requires the suspension of belief that the US will happily comply with our little pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top-and-a-cherry request across the 49th. It is wrong to presume that. And it is WAY wrong for the Court to dictate foreign policy enough to insist that the elected government even try.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

          …an accused illegal enemy combattant…

          Should we could keep in mind that the process by which American officials pronounced Khadr an "illegal combatant" had about as much juridical and moral validity as the process by which Stalin declared Kamenev a reactionary enemy of the revolution?

          The only "illegal" aspect of Khadr's presence on the battlefield (presuming he was actually carrying a weapon, something so far undetermined, because, gosh…he hasn't had a trial) is the side he was on—fighting for the army of a regime that, for years after coming to power, the U.S. treated as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            The only "illegal" aspect of Khadr's presence on the battlefield… is the side he was on — fighting for the army of a regime…

            Looks like someone has brushed up on his Geneva conventions. You want Geneva protections, you'd better be identifiably uniformed in the service of that army. That army / state had better be a "High Contracting Party" to the conventions themselves.

            So yeah, there's no shartage of "illegal" in what Khadr was (allegedly! Gotta say allegedly!) up to, and enough to permit the US military to ignore the Geneva conventions, if it wanted to.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            …identifiably uniformed…

            Yeah, I love that phrase. It would apply admirably to Napoleon's Grande Armée and Montgomery`s Desert Rats. A bit less so to the post-modern situation where the CF Digital CADPAT is, to lay observers, almost totally indistinguishable from standard U.S. Marine Corps camo, which is, in turn, not frightfully dissimilar from the cool camouflaged fatigues slacker teens wear to school. "Identifiably uniformed" my sweet ass. Most Third World armies can't afford a reliable supply of bootlaces, must less standardized field gear.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            I see. You only like those parts of Geneva that… you like. The rest can be suitably forgotten. Gotcha.

            Oh, and Napolean? He was sooooo not 20th century…

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            I'm rather fond of the whole of Geneva, broadly speaking. I'm especially fond of it when its provisions are interpreted according to the realities of post-modern warfare rather than sheer cynical national self-interest. An "identifiable uniform" means something quite different today from what it meant a hundred years ago.

            Oh, and Napolean[sic]? He was sooooo not 20th century

            I invoked Napoleon to point out the anachronistic premises of the U.S. interpretation of the clause in question.

            I take it, then, that you consider U.S. Special Forces to be, by definition, illegal combatants?

          • madeyoulook

            Depends. The covert stuff might indeed end up outside Geneva protections. Which may be why they plan things as well as possible NOT to be captured.

            Addendum: And just how anachronistic, in your mind, is the term "High Contracting Party," in your fond-of-the-whole Geneva Conventions, please?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            I'd say that's pretty much what Khadr was indicted for—getting caught. If the poor shmuck had just been more discreet, he could have ended up with a nice gig in the Afghan National Army, like so many of his fellow "former" (*cough*) Taliban.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Are you forgetting, or are you ignoring, that the US military invested considerable resources right there on the battlefield to save this guy's life, so that all the right tut-tutters can now heap collective scorn on two great countries?

            Your poor shmuck, at the hands of any other fighting force in the world, would have exhaled his last carbon atom a very long time ago. And the current difficulties welcoming true allies to the Afghan National Army have to do with anything on this page, how, exactly?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            …the US military invested considerable resources right there on the battlefield to save this guy's life…

            That's called “the Western way of war”. It's one of the reasons it's so expensive. You should look into how expensive it was for Canada to heal, house and feed its wounded SS prisoners in North-Western Europe.

            Believe it or not, the Wehrmacht also went to considerable expense to heal, house, and feed its wounded Canadian POWs. Americans deserve a medal for being as tolerably civilised as any other developed nation why, exactly?

            Your poor shmuck, at the hands of any other fighting force in the world, would have exhaled his last carbon atom a very long time ago…

            Indeed. We Canucks or the Norwegians or the Dutch or the Brits would have totally smoked the kid a round in his skull (after pulling out his fingernails, slowly) rather than attend to his wounds and take him into custody.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            We Canucks or the Norwegians or the Dutch or the Brits would have totally smoked the kid a round in his skull (after pulling out his fingernails, slowly) rather than attend to his wounds and take him into custody.

            Notwithstanding certain less enlightened people believing this guy deserved exactly that, the Canucks or the Norwegians or the Dutch or the British do not have nearly the same on-the-battlefield (or, especially, after-the-battlefield) trauma care.

            The Americans deserve no medal for saving the guy's life. Never said they did. Just trying to point out that we can thank the very country we all seem to enjoy sneering at for the privilege of sneering at them.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            I'm not sure "sneering" is a term I would apply to the expectation that a nation treat a POW in ways consistent with its own announced values.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            Oh and to your addendum—as Afghanistan is, in fact, a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by way of that tangent.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Fine. If NATO allies want to go to war with Karzai's army, I suppose your factoid might mean something someday.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            No. If NATO allies should ever go to war with Karzai's army, its soldiers shall be immediately redefined as "illegal combatants". Believe me; it's been done.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Wow. Speaking of tangents, eh?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            Not really. The notorious convertibility of "friend"/"foe" status in U.S. foreign policy is quite apposite here. "Friends" are not those who are nicest, or most "civilised", or who wear the most identifiable uniforms. They're the most serviceable for U.S. purposes, no matter how barbaric they are. See the careers of Saddam Hussein, Noriega, Bin Laden, Marcos, Duvalier, etc.

            I suspect Karzai's guys will be America’s foes in the not too distant future. Karzai is, himself, already a foe, as you've no doubt read.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

          Kid was a mercenary? So are Blackwater "contractors", to whom we would expect the granting of Geneva protection. Wasn't wearing a regular uniform? Neither have any of the "freedom fighters" the U.S. has used to fight their proxy wars. Perhaps, after they lynch Khadr, they should retroactively detain and try all of the un-uniformed mujahideen they used against the Soviets. Next, they really need to track down the Contras. And so on.

          Rest assured that the White House would be all about the Geneva Conventions if a U.S. Special Forces/Delta Team/NSA/CIA operative were caught in, say, Waziristan being naughty.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Not sure you are replying in the right place, but anyhoo:

            Nope. The US only has the interest (not obligation, but privileged interest) in pursuing its enemies who have no Geneva protections. It has no obligation to pursue its allies who have no Geneva protections.
            http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256…

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            It has no obligation to pursue its allies who have no Geneva protections.

            Heh. Looks like someone has brushed up on his Chomsky. Or is it Machiavelli you're channelling here? In either case, you're absolutely right.

        • Ralph

          The Canadian Government has acted no differently toward Khadr between 2006 and 2010 then it had acted between 2003 and 2006.
          Now what could have happened to the Canadian Government in 2006 that would cause this type of irrational and illogical thinking from Sir Francis above who had been such a brilliant thinker prior to 2006 that he would never have argued that our gov`t " pretty please " just ask the Americans to follow international norms ?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

    …including those "Canadian's[sic] of Convenience"

    …you mean like David Frum, Mark Steyn, etc?

    Sadly, yes—the Charter extends even as far as the moral wasteland inhabited by those chaps.

    • Ralph

      I I follow your analogy further I might assume that Steyn and Frum have been charged with murdering an American soldier in Afghanistan————-unless, of course it was just a stupid analogy.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

        I[sic] I follow your analogy further…

        No. You're pushing it.

        The analogy is merely this—that Frum and Steyn are also Canadians of convenience—much more so than is Khadr, by the way, since they decided to abandon Canada as adults, while Khadr did so under parental pressure. Nevertheless, as I've said, they both would deserve Charter protection, as does Khadr.

        Are there any other elementary logical formulae I can help you untangle?

        • Ralph

          Sorry, I have forgotten about your original deleted comment as quickly as the public forgets about the latest screaming rant from Mark Holland or some other Liberal Shill.
          You will have to show more logic in your silly comments before offering to teach the rest of us about logic.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            I moved my comment, in order to place it in the correct thread. I assume you can handle the distinction between "deleting" and "moving"…

            But please—tell me more about how describing someone as a Canadian of convenience implies that he's a murderer. I'm fascinated, you master logician, you.

          • Ralph

            You can move your comment clear out into cyberspace but it was still stupid. I have no idea why you would choose to slander Steyn or Frum—-they are opinion writers, this ruling is about a Canadian who alledgedly willingly went to Afghanistan to murder. Steyn or Frum did not committ a crime no more than the opinion writers on this site do every day. It was silly to bring their names here.

            The continued extremist statements by the left whether on the streets of Toronto, or the backbench of the increasingly smaller Liberal caucus, or on the pages of MacLeans comment section will only ensure the continued reluctance of anybody but the diehards to return to the Liberal side.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            All I said was that Steyn and Frum are Canadians of convenience (i.e. ostensible citizens who are more loyal to a foreign nation than to ours). The connection with Khadr went no further; you dreamed it up. No slander was involved—only facts.

            But, if you must—David Frum worked for the Bush administration, whose failed wars have slaughtered hundreds and thousands and that would have happily press-ganged Canada into its insane and illegal aggression (against the wishes of the vast majority of Canada's people). I'll let readers make their own judgments on the question of Frum's loyalty to Canada and his overall moral stature.

            The continued extremist statements by the left…

            I'm not on the “left”, any more than you're on the “right”. Stop hiding behind meaningless ideological abstractions.

          • Ralph

            When you find yourself in a hole and you dug the damn hole, put away the shovel !

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            And Ralph brings out the big guns…

            Next, it'll be "I know you are, but what am I?"

          • s_c_f

            You're really reaching. I mean, it's rather absurd. Ralph is right, put away the shovel. Steyn and Frum are the furthest thing from Canadians of convenience. Same goes for Pamela Anderson and Michael J Fox. Justin Morneau and Sidney Crosby. Jennifer Granholm and Naomi Klein. Celine Dion and Avril Lavigne.

            Give it up.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            You're kidding, right? How many days a year do those people spend in Canada (except for Klein, who I believe spends most of her time here)?

            My standard of citizenship requires actual residency. Doesn't yours?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

            Absolutely not. Unless you are talking about a leader of an opposition party, in which case any time spent out of the country means he's just here for convenience's sake. But this in no way implies that anyone else who lives the majority of their adult lives voluntarily outside the country is not proudly held up as a model Canadian citizen. Particularly if their politics runs to the right of the far right of the field. Get it now?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Jenn, don't take it too seriously. Why, give Mr. Just Visiting a little more time here, and I am quite sure that more and more Canadians will be only too happy to see this Canadian resume his globetrotting ways. I myself might learn to sew just to have the privilege of placing the blessed Maple Leaf on his backpack for him as we see him off — you know, a little something for him to remember us by.

            I said more and more Canadians. Not all. CPC members will be quite sorry to see him go.

          • s_c_f

            I knew someone would bring up Iggy.

            Iggy and the rest of those names are all Canadian. Of course, that doesn't mean that their extended absence should be ignored when considering whether one of them may deserve my vote for PM. To be PM you need a certain familiarity with Canada that goes beyond mere citizenship. Now, that also doesn't mean I think that should rule Iggy out. It's just one of many things that people should consider. To be eligible for the job you need to be Canadian. To get the job you need to be the best candidate. There's probably a number of people outside Canada who could get my vote, despite their locality, because of their other great qualities. Iggy is surely not one of them.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            My standard of citizenship requires actual residency. Doesn't yours?

            We are close to agreement, here. Study or work abroad, with a remaining attachment, loyalty and intention to return easily qualify in my book. Whining that there was no shuffleboard on the boat Canada sent into Beirut to hightail my suddenly-reinvented Canuck ass off to Cyprus until the American Apparel store windows' glass got replaced: not so much. Departure from Canada to obtain citizenship elsewhere: not at all. Newly acquired Canadian citizenship while failing to renounce previous citizenship: not a fan.

          • s_c_f

            Intention to return is not something easily measured. Therefore it's simply not feasible. I really don't think there is anything wrong with a Canadian living elsewhere for a long time. But I do agree that if they hold citizenship elsewhere, then that may be something to affect citizenship in Canada.
            Taking advantage of multiple citizenships including a Canadian one is an unfair advantage that can be used to exploit one of those countries or to divide one's allegiance.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

            Many Canadians live abroad for extended periods. They are still Canadians. I speak from personal experience.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            If my Canadian employer sends me out on a project with a fixed term to Africa or Asia or Europe, that's intention to return.

            If I am studying at Hahvahd for a degree and have no work permit or other visa than student, that's intention to return.

            If I meet the person-of-my-dreams at Hahvahd, and this person takes me and my heart back to Australia to live a life of matrimonial, domestic and family bliss just outside of Sydney, that's NOT an intention to return.

            Sure, there'll be a lot of we'll-just-see-what-happens grey areas. But many situations are far less grey than that.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            I really don't think it's the government's business to monitor someone's activity like that.

          • madeyoulook

            I'm not out to tell governments how to measure anyone's activity. I am answering the question about my own personal "standard of citizenship." It is a definition I wish more people would apply in their own personal lives. It is NOT a prescribed definition for citizenship judges or governments. It is an appeal to the Beirut parasites to reconsider the "Canadian" in "Canadians of convenience."

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            Wow, you're being highly idealistic today. The reality is, even those with such high standards would not renounce citizenship. There really is no point in doing so. I don't fault people for getting all they can with what they've got. I don't fault all those Canadians of convenience in Lebanon whom we rescued years ago because they managed to snag a Canadian passport.

            I fault us for allowing that to happen. So the only rules I'd suggest are ones that can be applied by governments and judges.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Wow, you're being highly idealistic today.

            Uh, ok. Thanks… I think. I just thought I was answering the question:

            My standard of citizenship requires actual residency. Doesn't yours?

          • s_c_f

            No, mine does not. I think people should have the freedom to live abroad without being penalized and having their citizenship stripped. Once it's gone it's not easy to get back, and frankly I see no reason why Canadians cannot live abroad and remain Canadians. No reason whatsoever.

            I think Iggy and those others I've mentioned, along with a lot of people I know, should have freedom to live elsewhere without having their citizenship stripped.

            As for idealism, the concept of "citizenship" is something granted by judges and courts and maintained by a government database. I don't think think there is such a thing as a "personal standard of citizenship". Unless by that you simply mean a personal opinion.

            I see nothing wrong with being patriotic about it. But in reality, citizenship is not a religion, nor is it a gift. Everyone deserves the right to be a citizen of one nation or other, and it's not something that should be stripped from individuals unless there are very, very strong reasons for doing so.

          • madeyoulook

            Well, not to belabour (oh, but it is so way too late for that, I think), I didn't ask the question. I just answered Sir Francis with my own "personal standard of citizenship." And spending my life in Beirut with no intention of being Canadian until Syria gets even more ornery than usual just doesn't meet my personal standard. That's all. Really, that's all.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            Yes, I agree with you there. In that case, those people all hold Lebanese citizenship as well. And when people hold multiple citizenships, it can be used to exploit one country (as they do) and it also divides their allegiances. So in such cases I do think there is something that should be changed.

          • Poker Face

            Funny, seems as though you were stating earlier that questiosns of what is "illegal" and not are deserving of trials…. Only when it's "convenient", of course.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

          Abandon Canada? People come and go. All the time. Some arrive, some leave. Everybody has their reasons. Don't take it so personally.

        • Poker Face

          I'll go fishing for hyper-partisans here (I know it's irresponsible):

          I'll add Michael Ignatieff to your list.

  • http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

    The Canadian government cannot, practically or realistically, tell the US government how to run or conduct a trial in the United States or at Gitmo.

    Our government cannot tell, but can certainly ask, U.S. authorities to follow international norms in its handling of Khadr. That's within the "foreign relations" realm the SCOC made note of as the most feasible vehicle for an acceptable remedy.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

    Someone left your cake out in the rain, didn't they?

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    If we really believe that Khadr needs to be tried for the serious crime he's been accused of, could we not simply ask for his repatriation to Canada on the understanding that we'd immediately extradite him to the U.S. to stand trial in a proper court of law for the serious crime he's been accused of? It's not like the Americans haven't freed EVERY SINGLE OTHER WESTERN CITIZEN HELD IN GITMO, without exception, some of whom were accused of things every bit as serious as Khadr, were over 18 when they committed the alleged offense, and are completely free today.

    It would seem to me that one of the main reasons Khadr has to be kept locked up in Gitmo without trial is because everybody knows that he couldn't be convicted in a proper court of law at this point. To my mind, he's basically being held indefinitely without trial because it's clear that he couldn't be convicted in an actual trial seven years later, at least not a trial that could pass anyone's smell test as a fair trial. If he was something other than a punk I could maybe see past the notion of keeping him locked up indefinitely without trial because we (that is to say they) can't successfully try him in anything approaching a legitimate court – but we're not talking about Osama bin Laden here. To my thinking, keeping Khadr locked up indefinitely without trial does more harm to us than Khadr could ever do himself if we let him out.

    Khadr's of WAY more use to our enemies locked up in a cell in Cuba than he could ever be to them as a free man.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

    Let him rot.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      This is just to see how committed Ben is.

      • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

        Let him rot.

        :p

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

        Nice!

From Macleans