Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

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

In the balance

by Aaron Wherry on Saturday, October 16, 2010 1:04pm - 0 Comments

While the Prime Minister’s Office continues to distance the Harper government from any decision in the case of Omar Khadr, Michelle Shephard reports that discussions are taking place between officials in Washington and Ottawa. John Ibbitson figures the final decision Mr. Khadr’s fate will rest with Stephen Harper, at least so long as Barack Obama asks Mr. Harper to make a decision. But any deal would first, of course, have to be accepted by Mr. Khadr, who is due to meet with his lawyers today.

One way or another, here perhaps is the start of an ending to what Scott Horton described last month as both a “rollercoaster ride” and a “train wreck.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Jenn_

    Aaron, you didn't finish your thought at the end of the first paragraph.

    • Halo_Override

      That was weird, eh? I've found that usually, whenever the subject of someone's writing doesn't have anything to do with Candleja

  • Emily

    If Khadr will agree to a plea deal, take it and then deport him to Canada to serve whatever sentence he gets..

    Call Harper when he lands in Toronto.

    • wilson

      You wish.
      Harper can thank Obama for his support at the UN by leaving Kadhr in a US jail, for life.

      • JoeC

        Wow, that response should be in the dictionary under "asinine".

        • Jan

          It's Wilsonian.

      • Blues Clair

        How principled of you wilson.

      • Gayle

        wilson

        You miss the point. If the US releases Kadhr and deports him, Harper will have no choice but to accept him into the country. Rumour has it the plea arrangement is for 8 years, so even if he serves that time in the US, he's coming back to Canada eventually.

        Obama could just tell Harper to take him in prison for the 8 years, or the US will simply release him and send him back to Canada without any prison sentence at all.

        Which choice do you prefer?

        • Dubh

          Easy. No prison sentence at all.

          • Mike T.

            Seeing as he was 15 years old and has already been 8 years in jail, I do think it would be appropriate for him to get released as soon as a resolution is reached, no matter what that resolution.

          • true north

            Don't you think he should wait untill some Taxpayer funded Lawyer sue's the Feds for say oh…ten million dollars first ? That , at least will help him blend back into Canadian society, maybe re-connect with his terrorist supporting brother , take Mom for a vacation to Afghanistan to see the Dads ex Boss, Osama..Goodness his options will be endless…….

          • Mike T.

            It's incontrovertible he was left out to dry by two judicial systems and countries that should be ashamed of their treatment of him, no matter his actions. But at this point just releasing him is probably best (at one point, just getting a decent trial would have been best, but that time has pretty much passed).

          • true north

            And when( if,, hopefully never ) he is released, you can rest assured that he is not going to be very happy… but then again as I said in my above post, If we play Kissy up maybe Omar will forgive us nasty Westerners………..

          • Mike T.

            Obviously you aren't very familiar with our justice system, but very few people who are ever released from prison are very happy. Even less, I imagine, those who spent almost a decade and a third of their lives confined while the idea of a fair trial was yanked away and his prime minister personally said "no, I will not do anything about it".

          • true north

            Mike T. :Agree… But , Khadr already had a problem with western civilization well before the U.S. shot him…he hated his country then, and he is going to hate it even more when, or if he gets out of Prison….

          • Emily

            He was 15

          • true north

            Your correct, and he has had a long time think about things, and after being Shot, interrogated for days on end ,and being locked up in Gitmo for a very long time, do you think he is going to be a happy camper ? or even sane one for that matter….Probably not…….

          • Emily

            Oh I agree he won't be a happy camper….I certainly wouldn't be.

            And he may well not be sane anymore after all he's been through.

            But considering how Mandela turned out, we can't be sure of either

          • Blacktop

            Get real; he is not in the same class as Nelson Mandela. While this guy is worthy of all the heart-rending, sleeve tearing, sympathy of the far left, he and his family is a good example of why the citizenship process is too fast and too shallow. He and his family should be deported to whence he came, Afghanistan if no other on the grounds of actions to the prejudice of good citizenship.

          • true north

            Emily, comparing Mandela and Khadr ? Oh Please, very bad comparison…Try again please……

          • Richard_S_Argent

            I'm fairly certain that her point was that one never can tell how someone will react to being unjustly imprisoned for a long period. Not that Khadr is the modern equivalent of Mandela.

            Of course we should remember that prior to being imprisoned, Mandela and the ANC had largely eschewed non-violent civil disobedience and increasingly relied guerilla-style tactics in their fight against apartheid.

          • Emily

            LOL yes, that's what I meant….we have no idea how an individual will react to an experience like that….and I'd point out as well that Cons were convinced for years [and Rob Anders still is] that Mandela is both a terrorist and a communist.

          • true north

            Thankyou for clearing that up…using Mandela and Khadr in the same sentence sort of creeped me out…Brrrrr….I guess what I am trying to say is that you had an angry, unstable young man before you locked him up in Gitmo…by the time he gets out ,your going to have an angrier unstable young man, with a vendetta .I doubt if this fellow is going to forgive and forget………..

          • Richard_S_Argent

            Oh no doubt he'll be angry and frustrated, who wouldn't? He's been in limbo for most of his adult life. But worrying about how someone may or may not react once released really shouldn't be a reason to keep him imprisoned – if it was, Milgaard, Truscott, Philion, and Morin might still be behind bars.

            cheers.

          • true north

            Good point, and point taken….'' Salud ''

    • ex-canuck

      Put him in your protective custody, Emily.

      • Emily

        He's Canadian, you're not. End of story.

        • chet

          So just to recap:

          I focus my energy on speaking out against terrorists who stone gays, bomb children, and seek to bring our way of life down to a barbaric horrid existance.

          The others here focus on the terrorists well being and speaking out in favour of those terrorists' concerns.

          How lovely.

          • Emily

            chet….the guy who believes in democracy and the rule of law….as long as they don't get in the way of his racial hatreds

            A Con's Con.

          • brooster2

            "I focus my energy on speaking out against terrorists who stone gays, bomb children, and seek to bring our way of life down to a barbaric horrid existance."

            How noble…just like a comic book hero. Save it for a situation where it's relevant.

          • chet

            It's not noble. Just sane.

            It seems if you want to be on the top of the list for progressives' utmost protection and attention, get yourself captured from a terrorist training camp teaching the art of killing Westerners.

            If you happen to be captured, tortured and murdered by a dictatorial thug for simply championing freedom? You're gonna have to wait a long long time before the "proressives" get aroung to championing your cause.

          • Emily

            chet, nothing about you is sane.

          • brooster2

            A little over the top, maybe? This isn't a Rambo flick. It's a 15-year-old kid who was charged (and not yet convicted) with lobbing a grenade at a soldier.

            If you get yourself this amped up over one juvenile's alleged felony, you'll have nothing left for genuine threats.

          • madeyoulook

            "Lobbing a grenade at a soldier," eh? Care to add the OUTCOME of that lobbing event on the soldier in question? What is HIS side of the story, I wonder…

          • brooster2

            A soldier died in action, ALLEGEDLY as a result of a grenade thrown by Omar Khadr.

            There, happy to add that detail to the discussion, which only strengthens the argument that a fair trial is required here in order to tried to establish the facts of the case. You know, get at the truth in as objective a process as can be applied in these circumstances. You have a problem with that standard? Why is that so unreasonable?

            It could be suggested that the American military authorities would very much like to avoid an actual hearing in this case because the evidence is circumstantial and may have been acquired through illegal process, not to mention the optics of trying a juvenile.

          • madeyoulook

            You seem to suggest I have a problem with TRUTH as a standard, after I ask you for the WHOLE TRUTH in your own comment. Are you all right this evening, brooster2?

          • brooster2

            Yeah, my apology for going off on you there. I realized it was inappropriate as soon as I hit "send".

            I guess I displaced the frustration I have with (unnamed) others whose facile solutions to the complex issues in this case would make us indistinguishable from the extremists among our adversaries.

          • madeyoulook

            OK. Thanks.

          • Holly Stick

            So you are all over the unjust treatment of Alex Hundert, are you, chet? You oppose the way his rights have been trampled on, do you? If not, why not
            http://creekside1.blogspot.com/2010/10/alex-hunde…

          • chet

            radical islamic terrorism is a race?

            what else is a race? Please enlighten us.

          • Emily

            Arabs and Jews are Semites. That would make you anti-semitic.

            It's like hating all christians because the terrorist Timothy McVeigh was a christian

          • chet

            Oh I see.

            You place moderate peace loving Muslims, as a shield in front of the radical Islamist terrorists, such that if I dare to speak out against the radicals, you brand me a hater of all muslims.

            How very low. Low and expected. As for McVeigh, ahh yes the standard bearer for the fiction that "radical christians" are the same as radical muslim extremists. That leftists have to go back decades to continually point to a single incidence (where in fact he did not kill in the name of Christ as Muslim terrorists do in the name of Allah), juxtaposed to the worldwide Islamic terror organization carried out by the thousands week after week month after month, speaks for itself.

            There's a reason why no one fears mocking christ publicly, while mocking allah may bring a very real concern for being killed, and that reason lies at the heart of your morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest equivalence.

          • Emily

            There are over a billion Muslims chet….and the few who hit the tower are all dead.

            Get over it.

            And yes radical christian loons are exactly the same as radical muslim loons….and radical hindu loons…and radical jewish loons.

            They are all loons….that's the common denominator

            So give the bullshi*t a rest.

          • gottabesaid

            I have no love for radical Islam or terrorists. I have no sympathy for radical Islam or terrorists. However, I do have a love for that great Western tradition of the rule of law — wonderful stuff like due process, innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law. It's fundamental to our society and something which makes our society great. It's a value worth defending. Therefore, I think Kadr deserves a fair trial. I'm not convinced he's getting one. It's not a matter of having sympathy for him or the cause he is alleged to have taken part in, or 'going light on the terrorists'. It's about due process, and it's non-negotiable. While I see you're passionately against Islamic terrorism, which is great, Kadr's case has to be looked at dispassionately. And giving someone due process is not a weakness, it's a strength.

            I think this issue gets viewed through the prism of domestic politics, and that's unfortunate. The Amnesty International chapter where I live has members from all the different political parties, but they've been uniform in demanding Kadr be brought to Canada for to be dealt with here. They've also worked hard to defend the human rights of those whose human rights are being trampled in those countries where the rule of law is not so important, in cases that haven't been given nearly as much attention as the Kadr case.

            Put it this way: We've got troops dying in Afghanistan in the hopes that someday that country can enjoy basic human rights. If we're going to waffle on something a fundamental as due process, why are we there?

            I'm not getting into one of the typical yelling matches here on this board, just offering some food for thought.

          • D.D.S

            you don't need to recap Chet……..we all get what you are saying………loathsome….repulsive and as un-Canadian as it is..

  • chet

    "He's coming back to Canada eventually"

    Technically maybe, just as he was technically a citizen, but had severed whatever tenuous residential ties he may have formed during his stays in Canada whil away from his terrorists havens, and had most definitely forgone any allegiance to Canada (indeed he sought to destroy our country as we know it).

    Chances are after he's out of the clink, he'll go back to his terrorist sponsoring region from whence he came.

    Perhaps we can dispense with the charade that he's just like any other Canadian citizen wanting to get back to his homeland.

    • Jan

      Canadian citizenship under the Harper regime. – conditional.

      • chet

        Are there any enemies of Canada? Or is it just Harper?

        Are there any loathsome characters in this world that you wouldn't side with in your efforts to smear Harper?

        It seems that to many on the left, the political/class warfare based blinders are so thick, nothing else matters other than getting the "wrong" guy out of power.

        • Jan

          Well, chet, one of the minimum requirements I have of a Prime Minister is that he respect the rights of Canadian citizens. All Canadian citizens, not just the ones he approves of. I believe the Supreme Court shares this view.

          • Richard_S_Argent

            And the countdown to the inevitable Conrad Black/Jean Chretien comment begins……now. ;)

        • Emily

          I'd sure love to know who these vague, mysterious….but apparently evil….'lefties' are, that you're always quoting. LOL

          • D.D.S

            they are hiding out with the commies…socialists….elitists………..and everyone else that doesn't think Harper walks on water

        • Blue

          Though they won`t admit it, your third sentence pretty much sums up the whole reason to live of those anti-Harper folks around here.

      • chet

        Vowing to destroy Canada?

        Training to kill our women and children?

        Openly declaring allegiance to an ideology that seeks to have gays stoned, "impure women' hung, and little girls banned from schools?

        All to be overlooked if it means a "gotcha" cheap political attack on Harper.

        Today's progressive left. Where the enemy of my enemy is my friend, no matter how despicable that enemy of my enemy is.

        • Jan

          We're in Afghanistan trying to establish respect for the Rule of Law. If we can't do it at home with our own citizens, what kind of example are we setting?

          • Blacktop

            Did Kahdr?

          • brooster2

            Did Khadr what? We don't know what he did. The facts have yet to come out in a trial. Isn't that the whole point of this debate?

        • brooster2

          He's never had a trial and has yet to be convicted of any of these offenses. Doesn't that matter?

          • Jan

            Not in the chet system of justice. Due process is for lefty wankers who sympathize with the enemies of the state, named or unnamed.

        • Reverend_Blair

          I wasn't aware that Stephen Harper had done all things, at least in public. Geeze, he's even worse than I thought.

    • Pat

      Since when did being born here make one a "technical" citizen?

      • chet

        When? You mean when is one is a citizen in name only? Who has the technical legal status, but no other characteristics of a citizen in all senses of the word?

        How about when one is granted citizenship (by whatever means) but has virtually no ties to Canada while choosing to live abroad while being dedicated to the destruction of Canada, our Canadian way of life, and the murder of Canadian women and children.

        • Emily

          He was born here chet. He's as Canadian as you are.

          And no one is trying to take out Canada, or our way of life, or wanting to murder Canadians.

          • BCer in Mtl

            Is it me or did I think Chet was actually talking about Ignatieff? With him & some of the other cheerleaders, its hard to tell the talking points apart. Maybe he copy / pasted the wrong ones?

        • Pat

          One is not "granted" citizenship when he is born here. He is a citizen the moment of his birth. That applies whether or not you want him to be one.

          There is absolutely nothing technical about it.

          • Holly Stick

            He was born free.

        • D.D.S

          Sometimes I get the impression from all you reactionary types that Canada should just round up all those Muslim folks and put them in camps…..you know ….just for their own "protection"………..I mean we did it before didn't we……and the vitriol at the time was remakably similar to the hyberbole I am hearing now

          • Blacktop

            The time you were referring to was different. The hyperbole was true. But they wern't citizens but technically enemy aliens. The Citizenship Act came in much later so those born in Canada were simply children of enemy aliens. Which is irrelevant. Thing is, I went to school with those kids until they were hauled away to the Kootenay. They did not go back to Japan and shoot at American soldiers, not one.

            Irrelevant that he was a child. He was big enough to hold the weapon and shoot it at one of our allies. Did some tell that to his father? Did his mother? Did his brother?

            And why does he have to be tried in Canada when the "alleged" crime was in another country against one of our Allies?

          • Emily

            It is not irrelevant that he was a child. That's the whole point.

            No one holds 'child soldiers' accountable.

            And in any case, he wasn't holding a weapon…or shooting.

            He's being tried in the US, not Canada….assuming they ever get around to a full court proceding. The question is where he should serve his sentence, if he gets one.

    • Diana1976

      You seem to be blaming Khadr for where his parents decided to live and to raise him. Actually, the fact that he was raised mainly in and near Afghanistan, only went to school for one year (grade one in Canada) is exactly why it's so ridiculous to blame him for getting in a war there, as if he'd decided to hop a plane to Afghanistan himself when he was 15. People are so full of hate they can't think straight.

  • chet

    It's funny but in many juristictions the notion of "dual citizenship" isn't permitted. The mere act of being a citizen of another country may disintitle you to claim citizenship. It's premised on the basic concept of LOYALTY.

    Yet to the leftists here, suggesting that vowing to destroy the country of your citizenship (and kill her women and children) may be – not legally mind you, but in a broader sense of the world, uncitizenlike,

    draws rapturous scorn from those leftists in the comments here.

    • Emily

      Lot's of countries allow both dual and multiple citizenship chet. We even have a start-up of world citizenship.

      Those 'lefties' chet, are actually just those voices in your head.

      • Mike T.

        And very few will strip you of your citizenship even if you commit a crime.

        • chet

          "a crime"

          how very antisceptic. Like shoplifting or something.

          Don't you love how today's left desperately tries to belittle the desire of radical terrorists to kill our women and children and destroy our way of life. Aw shucks, just a bunch of misunderstood kids, gettin in a bit of trouble, that's all.

          • brooster2

            Get a grip there, chet…the guy hasn't been charged with "killing women and children". And do you really believe our "way of life" is so fragile it could be destroyed by a 15-year-old child soldier?

            By the way, he hasn't been convicted of anything. It's too bad your facile notion of criminal justice doesn't take such details into account.

          • chet

            Yeah, thinking Al Qaida's terrorist training camps were trying practice killing innocent women and children is just crazy talk.

            I'm sure they were just gathering to organize a peacful sit-in campaign at the UN or something.

            You're right, I really do need to "get a grip".

          • brooster2

            I hate to burden your primitive risk assessment with facts, but he hasn't been tried or convicted of anything. If you really want to do your part to make the world safe for democracy, maybe you could fight for the notion of due process, the right to a fair trial, and the rule of law. If you're so confident that ours is the superior "way of life", wouldn't that achieve the outcome you're seeking (presumably, a conviction for murder) if he's found guilty as charged?

            If your apparently vigilante notion of "justice" finds a place in our "way of life", it'll look pretty much like the terrorist regime you're so fanatically reviling.

            Thanks, but no thanks for your kind of vigilance.

          • BCer in Mtl

            Or, Chet could file a complaint with the appropriate authorities (RCMP say), so they could investigate (not sure if they are bound to do so, or if a private citizen can make a complaint for somrthing that did not directly affect him, but nothing stopping him from trying). If the police investigate, and find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Khadr committed crimes contrary to the Crimimal Code, then charge him & try him.

            Surely that would be a more productive approach for him than ranting here.

          • D.D.S

            and would spare us all of the idiocy of said rant…..

          • BCer in Mtl

            its a win-win

    • Richard_S_Argent

      Maybe what we need is a good old fashioned purge, eh comrade? ;)

      • TJCook

        You bring the pitchforks, I'll light the torches!

    • chet

      Treatment of Taliban prisoners, being of the utmost concern,

      Kadhr's plight being a top priority,

      Of all those suffering in the world today, funny how the left's tacit (and oftentimes not so tacit) support of radical Islamists terrorists shine through as being at the forefront. Terrorists deserve our utmost defence and attention. Those languishing in Cuban gulags (or simply taken in the night and shot) for simply daring to voice their desire for freedom and democracy? Not so much for them. Actually not a peep for them.

      Radical terrorists only need apply for today's "correct" causes.

      Much has been written about the anti-capitalist/anti western left's alliance with radical Islam.

      Today's "progressive left".

      • Richard_S_Argent

        Hey chet! Maybe you didn't see it, but I asked you a question earlier on the F-35 comment thread, I was hoping you could get around to answering it for me. I'm interested in hearing your take.

        cheers

    • Jenn_

      Chet! You are out to destroy Canada, or at least the Canadian way of life. Because here in Canada, we do allow dual citizenship. You must be a citizen in name only. Technically, if you will. Certainly, you have no loyalty.

      • craigola

        Rule of law, too. Every time he suggests that Khadr isn't entitled to a trial, chet takes another run at the Canadian way of life. Very disloyal.

        • madeyoulook

          According to the Geneva Conventions: As a non-uniformed combatant, he is an illegal combatant, and therefore not entitled to its protections.

          So all we've got is "child soldier." But i (vaguely) recall that some international agreements define that as "under fifteen years of age" and others use "fifteen and under." Does anyone have useful links to educate us all further on that one?

          • true north

            madeyoulook : U.N. Definition of a Child Soilder Article 77.2 defines Child Soldier as a person who is 15 years of age and over…Under 15 is not considered a child soldier….This apparently is the definition that the U.S. Military is using….hope that helps somewhat. P.S someone said he was charged with First degree murder..No he is not, Kahdr is Charged with ""Murder In Violation of International laws of War "" Comes under International Humanitarian Law…(similar to war crimes ).

          • Holly Stick

            No, UNICEF defines them as any child under the age of 18. The Optional Protocol of 2000 was signed by Canada and the US.
            http://www.unicef.org/emerg/index_childsoldiers.h…

          • true north

            Correct, "U.N.I.C.E.F. '' defines a child soldier as under 18 years of age, what that refers to is the Cape Town Principles, Children of Armed conflict. of Africa, Not U.N. law which applies to Mr. Khadrs case….The child soldier issue can be confusing ,and as of Aug.25 2009, the U.N was being pressured to re-visit the issue of raising the age limit to 18 Years old, which I think would make more sense ……

          • madeyoulook

            Holly and true north: thank you for this discussion. TN, did you reverse the the article 77.2 definitions? Seems to me "Under 15 is not considered a child soldier" is exactly backwards. Or is it that 15-18 are the child soldiers, and under 15 gets another designation entirely?

          • true north

            Your welcome madeyoulook… ..you are right , my apologies, Lets try that again shall we….A child soldier is defined as ''under'' 15 years of age…A regular soldier is defined as 15 years of age and older. Sorry for the confusion….Probably the first sign of old age setting in …lol.

  • Emily

    That's why he's held out against a plea bargain.

  • Out There

    I get the feeling that Harper refuses to repatriate Khadr for the same reason that he refused to readmit Helena Guergis to his caucus: once he makes a decision, he never, ever, ever, changes his mind.

    As for Khadr: I agree with the majority here. As a Canadian citizen, he deserves a fair trial. If, during that trial, he is found guilty, he can then, and only then, be treated as a criminal. Even Paul Bernardo – a man far more odious than Khadr – was given a fair trial before he was incarcerated.

  • Philanthropist

    Omar Khadr must be sent to Afghanistan for trial since that is where he killed and terrorized people. Afghans deserve to see justice being done or else it will look to them as though anyone who just happens to hold a Western passport can get away with murder.

    • Emily

      In other words, you know nothing about this case.

  • chet

    Interesting inconvenient fact for those throwing around "the rule of law" as if it operates one-sidedly, solely for the purpose of defending terrorists' rights:

    The Geneva Convention doesn't apply in a number of scenarious including where enemy combatants do as terrorists do and don't wear identifiable uniforms, for one thing.

    Do you know the purpose of this rule of war (yes there are international rules of war)?

    It should be obvious, but soldiers are supposed to kill only soldiers. Not civilians. Going into battle without being identified as a soldier threatens civilians because you can't tell them apart. Of course that indiscretion is child's play compared to terrorists who openly and unapologetically try to kill civillians.

    • brooster2

      Look, chet…nobody on this board, except you, is advocating a "one-sided" application of the rule of law. We're merely arguing for everyone's right to due process, including Khadr.

      • true north

        Brooster, you forgot one thing,: It is the Law according to "Chet !"

  • chet

    Fynny how not only do we not here about that particular "rule of law" from the Johnny come lately law and order types here,

    they openly advocate against that very important rule of law…to the detriment of women and children…by arguing that such a rule of law (there I am using that pesky term again) shouldn't apply to those captured in terrorist training camps or on the terrorist battlefield, argueing that Geneva convention and similar rules should apply regardless.

    The Rule of Law?

    Only if it applies to benefit the captured terrorists.

    Those Rules of Law that take away terrorists rights (by virtue of the terrorists' own despicable conduct)? We'll let's not talk about those…

    so says today's progressive left.

    • Emily

      The first rule of law is innocent until proven guilty.

      • chet

        Emily you are woefully ignorant as to the rules that apply in this scenario, so I won't bother addressing any more of your obivously misguided concepts,

        but actually no. That particular principal does not apply in the battlefield scenario Kadhr placed himself in.

        The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, do not act without rules or principle. They are legally holding the GITMO detainees. They're doing so based on very sound Rules of Law.

        That you chose to ignore those rules of law, doesn't make them go away.

        • Emily

          It applies in every case chet….innocent until proven guilty.

          Khadr was in the village of Ayub Kheyl, when it was attacked by the Americans.

          And Gitmo violates the Geneva Conventions.

          Gitmo was in fact established in order to skirt the rule of law.

    • brooster2

      Actually, if you grasped the argument here, you'd realize that we're advocating the application of the rule of law in an even-handed, dispassionate manner for everybody, including alleged terrorists. It's that very principle that differentiates "our" democracy from "their" tyranny.

      Unless, of course, people like you win the day, in which case it'll be barbarity everywhere.

      • chet

        So suggesting the Geneva convention and other similar rules of law that apply to terrorists be thrown out, and instead have them be tried as ordinary criminals with all of the corresponding rights as those in the Canadian (and American) constitutions?

        Ignoring rules of law intended to save civilians from terrorists is good. And supporting that rule of law is "bargarity"?

        Well this IS a Macleans blog comment thread.

        • Richard_S_Argent

          Chet, I'm still hoping you'll answer my question from the earlier thread on the F-35s!

        • brooster2

          The Geneva Convention, which the United States circumvented by creating the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, establishes due process and presumes innocence.

          If you're suggesting the Geneva Convention should apply here then, finally, we're in agreement. So why hasn't it been respected with Khadr and other Guantanamo detainees?

          And what is "bargarity", anyway?

          • Richard_S_Argent

            if you do a little poking around the internet, you'll see this argument pop up quite a bit amongst the far right-types – since terrorists don't wear identifiable uniforms they aren't really soldiers and therefore aren't granted the protections afforded to soldiers.

            The fact that they are still afforded a number of rights simply by being human doesn't enter into their equation – their choice to become terrorists means they've voluntarily ceded any rights, and in the rightwing view, they've ceased to be human altogether ("monsters", "scum" etc etc)

          • Emily

            I know, but it doesn't matter if they are soldiers or civilians, the Geneva Conventions are quite specific on how they must be treated.

            Americans are now making the same mistake the British did in 1776. You'd think they, of all people, would know better.

          • brooster2

            Ironically, this demonizing of the "other" as monsters, scum, etc. mirrors the Islamic extremist portrayal of the "other" as infidels.

            They deserve each other. Sadly, the world is stuck with both.

          • madeyoulook

            Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
            (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

            (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
            (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
            (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
            (c) that of carrying arms openly;
            (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

            Was there a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance? Accordance with laws and customs of war? Those don't seem to be well-known features of Taliban or Al Qaeda operations.

            So that argument is not a "far-right types" thing. It's actually the text of the Conventions themselves.

            http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256…

          • lenny

            Nobody is suggesting that he falls under the Convention as a combantant. If he did, what we he be charged with? In warfare, are enemy soldiers captured and charged with murder?

          • madeyoulook

            Uh, lenny, you will want to re-think that. I haven't seen anyone here ever suggest he wasn't a combatant. Maybe you should have gone with his age or his despicable parents for placing him in this predicament, if you wanted any credibility.

            You really should follow the link, and learn something. Captured and disarmed enemy soldiers are PRECISELY afforded the protections granted to prisoners of war.

            Go ahead. Read up, and try again.

          • lenny

            So, answer my question. Do we charge soldiers with murder for killing their enemies in combat?
            He's either a POW and entitled to treatment as such under the Convention, or he's a criminal entitled to the criminal process in the US.
            The position that Richard is referring to is that, because he wasn't in uniform, he somehow falls into some black hole in which the US is entitled to make it us as they go along.

          • madeyoulook

            I did answer your question: Captured and disarmed enemy soldiers are PRECISELY afforded the protections granted to prisoners of war.

            Yup. You definitely need to read the Geneva Conventions. Nothing in there says the detaining country must offer "criminal process" to the criminals. Only that a fair tribunal must decide whether the Conventions apply or not to these murky cases. The fact that he was a non-uniformed combattant defines him as outside the protections of Geneva.

            What makes it more, um, nuanced, is his age, and the fact that Bush fils declared that the protections of Geneva would be applied even to those who didn't deserve it. But a military tribunal is expressly called for in Geneva to deal with the status of these ill-defined hostile belligerents.

          • lenny

            "Nothing in there says the detaining country must offer "criminal process" to the criminals"
            "The fact that he was a non-uniformed combattant defines him as outside the protections of Geneva. "

            It's you who needs to try reading them.
            Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDo…

          • GreatWallsofFire

            It's obviously not that simple – laws and conventions and protocols that evolved based on "conventional" warfare, where sovereign nations declare war against other sovereign nations and send their clearly identified militaries to do battle have limited, if any, application in the "war on terror". Far and away, the primary reason for Khadr languishing for 8 years is that some of the brightest and best legal and political minds in western civilization can't reach consensus as to how to treat "armed combatants" like Khadr.

            Which is why it is so tiresome to hear and read the bleatings of the Khadr-istas about the delays in seeing him brought to justice and, in particular, how these delays somehow inform his innocence or guilt or whether he's received "due process" or his rights as a Canadian have been infringed. It is because the side that (almost) 16 year old Omar threw in his lot with operates in a new and highly unconventional fashion, that the western powers have had to come up with an equally new and arguably unconventional approach to dealing with he and his fellow jihadis That Omar has been forced to wait as a result isn't the least concern to me – his pre-hearing time at Gitmo will probably seem like a veritable Halal picnic compared to the hard time he'll be doing once he is rightfully convicted.

          • GreatWallsofFire

            Err, no – they're held as prisoners of war until the end of hostilities. Somehow, I don't think your fellow travellers posting here want this particular aspect of the Geneva Convention they hold so sacrosanct to apply to young Omar – the fact a trial is actually imminent, albeit 8 years after his capture, is to the US' credit, since no one in their right mind would consider there to have yet been an end to hostilities.

          • frobisher

            Bargarity, if nothing else, is always fynny.

          • Richard_S_Argent

            I literally laughed out loud there…nice work :)

          • chet

            It doesn't apply in the instant case, for the reasons I stated above.

            If terrorists want the Convention to apply to them, they must operate within its framework – wearing uniforms, not intentionally killing civilians ect.

            What's remarkable is how the terrorists have no problem opting out of international legal norms (with the obvious corresponding acknowlegement that they have waived those rights),

            but the leftist come running to their defence arguing that the convention should apply.

          • Halo_Override

            You know, I'm starting to get the impression that you're hiding from Richard's question in the "$16-billion debate" thread. Page 2. Near the top.

          • Richard_S_Argent

            It's a pity too – I was actually interested in hearing his answer.

          • true north

            You know, I'm actually interested in hearing his answer now too…Damn !!!!

          • Richard_S_Argent

            Chet, now I'm no legal scholar or nothing, but I *think* the UN Declaration of Human Rights would trump any convention about soldiers wearing uniforms. Here's some articles that may be germane to the discussion at hand:

            Article 9
            No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
            Article 10
            Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
            Article 11

            1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
            2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

          • true north

            Ouch…thats going to hurt…Chet ? your up buddy…good luck !

          • chet

            Article 9 – catching a guy lobbing grenades at you on the battlefield is far from "arbitrary"

            Article 9, 10 and 11, this isn't a criminal matter but a battlefield matter. That is precisely why the Geneva convention was created.

            Look, I realize you all desperately want to defend despicable terrorists, while at the same time trying to avoid the moral repugnance of that, so you try and cloak your argument on "the rule of law".

            Except your actually arguing against the proper law.

            In effect what your doing is doubly bad. Defending terrorists AND circumventing the rule of law.

            A perfect storm of moral repugnance.

          • brooster2

            So, come down from that mountain of moral rectitude you've claimed for yourself and tell us mere mortals how you'd dispose of this case. Jurists, lawyers, diplomats, politicians and military authorities around the world would, I'm sure, appreciate some guidance on this one.

          • lenny

            Would you kindly reference this "proper law" and what exactly it prescribes in this case?

          • Emily

            It applies to everyone chet….whether the 'other side' adheres to it or not.

            You don't know very much about this doya…..

  • Holly Stick

    The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child was signed by Canada, the US, and other countries in 2000. It raised the age of child soldiers to 18.

    Omar Khadr was and must be treated as a child soldier. He should have been rehabilitated, not tortured and thrown into prison for so many years with no fair trial.
    http://www.cdi.org/program/issue/document.cfm?Doc…

    • chet

      But he's not a "soldier". Look it up.

  • Gayle

    Speaking of the rule of law, here is what the SCC said about youth offenders:

    [68] The preceding confirms, in my view, that a broad consensus reflecting society’s values and interests exists, namely that the principle of a presumption of diminished moral culpability in young persons is fundamental to our notions of how a fair legal system ought to operate.

    • chet

      Your confusing legal rights within our framework of those accused of crimes commited in Canada, and those captured on the battlefield where the armed aggressors have opted out of the Geneva conventions, by virtue of their not wearing uniforms, targetting civilians ect.

      Shorter version: you're applying the law of apples to oranges.

      • Holly Stick

        Nobody opts out of the Geneva Convention, cut the crap.

      • Gayle

        Hi Biff. I am not talking about legal rights, I am talking about principles of fundamental justice. It is a principle of fundamental justice in this country that we accept young people are entitled to a presumption of diminished moral culpability due to their age. Geography has nothing to do with it.

  • chet

    In case anyone is at all interested in the proper legal rules as they apply to the Gitmo detainees you only need peruse the legal briefs prpared by the Bush administration counsel, and now adopted by the Obama administration counsel.

    Though I suspect most really aren't interested at all.

    It's much more politically expedient to simply cast Kadhr as a victim of US lawlessness.

    • Emily

      The Geneva Conventions apply chet….even though Bush considered them 'quaint'.

    • craigola

      I'd be more inclined to say that I'm not at all interested in taking your word for any of this. You just blab and blab and blab while making assertions that run completely counter to standard notions of law and common sense, while smearing anyone who disagrees with you. Like, who the hell are you, anyway, and what makes you any greater authority on the Geneva Conventions, the rule of law, Canadian citizenship, etc., than anyone else? And YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED RICHARD ARGENT'S QUESTION ABOUT F-35s FROM THE OTHER THREAD!
      And seeing as you won't answer her, either, when she calls down to the basement, your mom asked me to tell you you need to get a job or get out already.

From Macleans