Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

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

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The deal that dare not speak its name

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, November 1, 2010 9:15am - 0 Comments

The final absurdity of the trial of Omar Khadr.

In Ottawa, the government continued to attempt to distance itself from Mr. Khadr’s early return. ”The matter remains between Omar Khadr and the U.S. government,” Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon’s spokeswoman Melissa Lantsman said.

But senior U.S. government officials, prosecutors and defence attorneys all say that Mr. Cannon has approved the deal and an exchange of diplomatic notes has confirmed the Canadian government will favourably consider Mr. Khadr’s repatriation bid in a year. The diplomatic notes make it explicitly clear that Ottawa has been involved. ”The Government of Canada therefore wishes to convey that, as requested by the United States, the Government of Canada is inclined to favourably consider Mr. Khadr’s application to be transferred to Canada to serve the remainder of his sentence, or such portion of the remainder of his sentence as the National Parole Board determines.”

The Star has posted the notes in question.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    Sigh….absurd from start to finish. Never once did we do the right thing.

    • ex-canuck

      What's the right thing? and from whose point of view? Only the bleeding hearts?

      • Emily

        a) nobody is ever charged for murder on a battle field, and certainly not in self-defence.

        b) he was 15

        c) he should have been sent home immediately

        d) the rule of law is the basis of civilization

        • Keith M

          The other option to not charging him is to keep him a prisoner of war until the war ends, that's the other way of treating captured soldiers. Since the war against Al Qaida will last decades I think Kahdr got off easy.

          • Emily

            The war with al Qaeda is long over….and he was a kid that should have been sent home.

            Perhaps we could long ago have discovered how and why young guys from Canada end up in situations like that, and take steps to prevent it here….we have it happen all the time.

          • GreatWallsofFire

            Just wow – I volunteer Emily to travel to Pakistan & Yemen to tell them.

          • tobyornotoby

            But Keith that option wasn't available either because it would have meant designating him as a combatant under the protection of the Geneva Convention, which the US refused to do because it wanted to be free to extract information from detainees with no oversight.

            The US didn't actually ever decide whether these were civilians or military, and didn't actually ever go by either civilian or military law,. Instead they cobbled together fake processes that were little more than show trials, rejected on appeal, and the legal limbo is what eventually coerced the plea. Khadr's "confession" is as ridiculous as the "confessions" captured soldiers were forced to read on camera by El Quaeda.

          • GreatWallsofFire

            You're all forgetting the third option – summary execution on the battlefield. Say what you will about any others, I suspect Khadr would be the first to acknowledge they don't look so bad relative to that one.

          • tobyornotoby

            So you're advocating the Drop All Pretense and Just be El Quaeda Option?

          • GreatWallsofFire

            Actually, I prefer to refer to it as "If, while he is looking for survivors to treat, your medic is killed when the enemy throws a grenade at him, you're at liberty to shoot him to prevent him from doing it again" option.

          • Thwim

            Or, because there was some doubt as to who threw the grenade.. just make sure to shoot any and all survivors in case one happens to be an enemy, yes?

            That seems so inefficient. I suppose we oughta just nuke the place. That'd handle it.

          • GreatWallsofFire

            "Or, because there was some doubt as to who threw the grenade.. just make sure to shoot any and all survivors in case one happens to be an enemy, yes?"

            Never been myself, but I do believe that is the general approach in the seconds following the detonation.

  • John W.

    Harper is leaving the door open that, if in a year from now the circumstances are favourable, he could double cross both Khadr and the US State Department.

  • John

    Note that right wing commentators completely endorsed and defended the process of military courts for detainees until it produced an outcome deemed not sufficiently harsh.

    • Keith M

      Military courts are not the same as civilian courts. If Kahdr didn't want to deal with military courts he could have done what his brother did and escaped Afghanistan.

      • TJCook

        Khadr has never been in a military court. A military court would never tolerate the abuse of process that Khadr was subjected to.

        Khadr was put through an ad-hoc process existing entirely outside both the civilian and military legal systems.

  • LaxAtlDfwYow

    So game this out…

    Plea agreement implemented in 2010 Nov. Likely Cdn election in spring 2011. Probable outcome: CPC minority or majority. Request xfr to Canada at earliest in 2011 Nov. Several months while the CPC government gives the request due consideration. Say 2012 Mar is a rough decision announcement point. Right in the midst of the US primary season and the beginning of Obama's reelection campaign.

    This will be fascinating. Would a CPC majority delay or renege outright and thus piss in Obama's pudding? Would a CPC minority delay and delay to pander to the base? Conversely, is having Kadr in Canada and/or paroled a powerful wedge issue for the CPC?

    This is far from over. Kadr will remain a potent political pinball for years to come.

    • Mike T.

      You forgot Lib minority – more likely than a con majority.

      • LaxAtlDfwYow

        We may not agree on who will form our government next time.

        Regardless, I'd not expect the LIbs to do anything but bring Kadr back quickly. No threat to a Lib minority as NDP and Bloc would be onside. Nor would a Lib government want to mess w/ Obama's reelection.

        • Mike T.

          Yeha the Libs would probably quietly do the right thing while the cons howl and obfuscate no matter what they do.

          • sourstud

            You mean sort of how the Liberals did nothing to help Khadr while they were in power, but the moment they were in opposition, they were against everything their government had done to him?

            What you willfully refuse to acknowledge is that the current government is only continuing the previous Liberal government's policies with regard to Khadr.

          • Emily

            “I think Bill Graham, who was foreign affairs minister at the time, said it the best. Which was, ‘If we had known then what we know now, then we would have taken strenuous steps to repatriate Mr. Khadr to Canada,' Mr. Martin told CTV's Question Period in an interview broadcast Sunday.

            The former prime minister conceded that it is “easy” to operate with the benefit of hindsight, but said, “We should have repatriated him, and I believe that we should do it now.”
            http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/arti…

          • sourstud

            Which begs the question: "Why didn't our government know more at the time?" And the answer to that is obvious: the Liberal's didn't give a damn.

          • Emily

            Or they just didn't know more at the time…it was an era of secrecy after all.

            Cons shouldn't do anything because Libs didn't do anything….is that the excuse you're going with?

          • sourstud

            You do realize that the little terrorist IS coming back to Canada, right? And under a Conservative government. The Liberals did nothing, the Conservative's will be the ones who brought him home.

          • Emily

            I certainly hope Khadr comes back to Canada, but I doubt it will be under a Con govt.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            I think you're only right if what you're saying is that you think the Conservatives will be beaten within a year. Khadr's coming home in a year, regardless of who's in office up here at that time. I'd say you can take that to the bank.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            I don't think the Conservatives really "did" anything either, they're just not willing to try to force the Americans to keep him against their will.

          • madeyoulook

            they're just not willing to try to force the Americans to keep him against their will.

            Explanation, if you please? Just how does Harper's team "force" the US military to do anything, here? If they don't want to keep him locked up, they have a REALLY bizarre way of showing it…

          • Mike T.

            It was late 2005 before there was even a minor procedural ruling that the Charter applied regarding CSIS questioning. So there were several months where the Libs were in charge. Things got worse and worse and worse as more and more info came to light.

            No, the bad guys here are the Harper cons.

            What we have seen from Sourstud is further proof of my point above. Conservatives operate through obfuscation and lies. It doesn't even have to be plausible anymore – just fill the void with words, make them respond to your absurd talking points rather than move forward constructively.

          • sourstud

            Everything that CSIS allegedly did wrong, was done under a Liberal government. Why were the Liberals allowing, if not ordering, CSIS to go around breaking the law? Why was this not remedied the second they found out? Because the Liberal policy regarding Khadr was exactly the same as the current government. They didn't give a crap about him then.

            And don't give me crap about "as more came to light". If the Liberals didn't know what was going on down there with Khadr at the time, then they were clearly ignoring the situation entirely. Which I would say is much worse than keeping abreast of the situation and doing nothing.

            And if you want to speak about moving forward constructively, I think that is exactly what's happening now. At least the current government acknowledges Khadr's existence, as opposed to while the Liberals were in power. The talking-points, lies and obfuscation is coming only from the Liberals, the government is actually dealing with the matter. At least the NDP has been consistent in it's position. The Liberals position is that it's alright for them, but not alright for the Conservative's, which is a story no voter with a brain would believe.

          • Mike T.

            Indeed – many bad things were done by the bureaucracy while a Liberal was prime minister. As the need to redress these came more and more to light (including the recent court cases which clearly showed his rights to be violated!) it was the Cons who did nothing.

            Culimnating in Harper's shameful response to not ask for his repatriation in response to a direct request!

          • sourstud

            Just wow! So when a Liberal government does something stupid, it's the bureaucracies fault, and it's the responsibility of the next Conservative government to clean it up?

            The Liberals really can't do any wrong in your world, can they?

          • Blue

            Mike T is an Emily clone ( actually they have never been seen together ). they have no reason in their arguments. It`s pointless conversing with them. Eventually one of them will call you a liar and the other insane.

          • sourstud

            What can I say, I enjoy feeding the trolls :)

  • Stewart_Smith

    Cannon's official portrait should show him with his fingers in his ears singing "la la la la la".

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

      Or perhaps without ears entirely?

      • tobyornotoby

        Aha! So you believe in evolution then?

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

          And domestic selection.

    • Mike T.

      With Tony as see no evil and Harper as speak nothing at all.

    • frobisher

      Somehow, a giant, epic oil of the minister heroically looking the other way comes to mind.

  • Tceh

    Its not surprising that the Conservatives are pathological liars. It is surprising that 30+ % of Canadians are OK with that.

    • Geiseric

      30% of Canadians are OK with anything that dances on Trudeau's grave.

      • Emily

        Which means that 30% of Canadians are living in the past.

        • Geiseric

          In their defense I'm sure they're not alone in that but between that and Adscam I'd say that makes for a pretty good rule of thumb.

          • Tceh

            Your witty retorts are so 2006! Keep them coming though, I'm sure some grizzled Con Oilsands Hillbilly on dialup in rural Alberta is laughing out loud at your originality.

  • gottabesaid

    Obviously, the 30 per cent increase in spending in the PMO for enhanced communications is money well spent. See all the transparency in government that extra money is buying?

    Actually, with that much money you'd think they could be a bit more creative in b.s.'ing us.

    • Mike T.

      Dude, there will be a "we're not bs-ing you" factsheet out within the hour. No press questions, please.

  • true north

    The operative words here are..The Canadian Government will favouribly ''consider '' Mr Khadrs repatriation. Mr. Khadr has to apply to the Canadian Government to be transferred back to Canada, which the Govt. will ''consider''. Then off to the National Parole Board for review, then to Corrections Canada to see where they can house him..then back to Mr. Cannons office to do final draft…ooopsies!!! Didn't like the wording in Para.2 item # 3 from Corrections..back to Corrections for a review and approval. This process could take quite some time…maybe years !! What a pity …….

    • gottabesaid

      But, according to Cannon, Canada had nothing to do with the plea deal at all… he wouldn't even acknowledge the 'consider favourably' part.

      • true north

        If that is indeed the case , then that could make the process take even longer, again…What a pity !

        • gottabesaid

          This particular issue doesn't have anything to do with the Khadr case, it has to do with ministers telling the truth. I'd prefer that ministers tell me the truth about things. I'm funny that way.

          • GreatWallsofFire

            Obviously too subtle a point for the likes of gottabesaid et al, but Cannon wasn't lying when he said Canada had nothing to do with the plea deal. The deal was between two parties – US and Khadr. US decided to approach Canada about Canada's position on an eventual request by Khadr, supported by the US, to be transferred to Canada after serving some period of time. Responding to a request from person "A", who is negotiating a deal with person "B', is NOT, I repeat NOT being "a part" of the plea negotiation. Let's say, in response to the request, Canada told the US it would refuse any request for repatiation, upon which the US reflected for a few minutes, then cut the exact same plea deal with Khadr – would you all be screaming and gnashing and grinding your teeth over Cannon/Harper's "lies" about not participating in the plea deal?

          • gottabesaid

            I thought I'd drag my knuckles to the keyboard to pound out a response.

            The government said it had nothing to do with the plea deal… but the U.S. government says the Canadian government said it would look favourably on a repatriation request from Khadr. That's a significant element of the deal, even if Canada wasn't a signatory to said deal. Canada was involved, as far as my feeble brain can surmise.
            http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/general/harper-g…

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      I think you may be misinterpreting the import of "favourably consider" as opposed to merely "consider" in diplomatic parlance. My reading of that note is that it says to the Americans "We can't pre-judge in writing what our arms-length bureaucracy will do if Khadr requests repatriation, but trust us, we know you want to get rid of him, and that his request would almost certainly be approved as these requests routinely are, so don't worry, we'll take him off your hands as per the plea agreement."

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      As above, I think you're misreading the diplomatic note, but are you really suggesting that we're going to tick off the Americans by refusing to repatriate Khadr because we just dislike Khadr SO MUCH!?!?!?

      Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face!

      Refusing to repatriate Khadr after all but promising the Americans that we'd repatriate him would just be piling idiocy upon idiocy. Not that I'd put it past our current government to pile idiocy upon idiocy but still, that just seems irrational. Angering our largest trading partner and strongest military ally by refusing to repatriate a Canadian citizen who has plead guilty to charges related to things he did a decade ago when he was 15, all because some Canadians really hate him would just be mind-bogglingly stupid (again, not that I'd put it past them!).

      I'm absolutely certain that a year from now, the Americans' desire to get rid of Khadr will trump, by a country mile, our desire for them to keep him!

      • true north

        No, no, LdKitchenersOwn, I didn't mean to suggest that we are not taking Khadr back, I was merely trying to describe how long and drawn out the Government process ''could'' be once the application process begins. The return of Mr. Khadr to Canada is inevitable, whether one likes it or not.

        • GreatWallsofFire

          So what if he strangles a guard or consorts with other imprisoned jihadis or announces he intends to take up arms on behalf of al quaida at the earliest opportunity or simply decides not to apply for repatriation to Canada – still "inevitable" he'll end up back here? I suspect part of Canada's willingness to express to the US that, at the appropriate time, it will "favourably consider" any request to repatriate him is the potential Khadr could shoot himself in the foot in some way so as to relieve Canada of any commitment, however, informal.

  • Amateur Hour

    Cannon, Clement, MacKay, Toews …

    Parties aside, I'm more than a bit disturbed that senior ministers of our government lie so frequently and without consequence.

    • John W.

      You would think the journalists would call them on it over and over and in a big way; headline stuff. But, they accept it as ok; i guess they're used to it; it's routine.

      • Amateur Hour

        To be fair, the G&M and MacLean's are, in this instance, pointing out that everything Cannon has said about Khadr's plea agreement (that they've had nothing to do with it) is bull. You can't really fault them for not covering the lies, it's just that they seem to have become as shocking as the daily weather report.

        I have more of a problem with what you hit on in the second part of your statement; that the press have simply gotten used to ministers lying. I see this in even the Khadr reports, where the lie issue is presented de rigueur in the middle of the text vs. as the screaming headline (that it once would have generated). In this, I fear, we see that the press is very much like the rest of the population. We've become inured to BS and are more upset when someone says something that it bluntly true, if unpopular, than when they spout comforting crap.

        It would be satisfying to see a clear listing of false statements made by ministers lined up with the facts, so that people could see the frequency of them … maybe a weekly round-up of official BS. It could be contrasted with statements we wish weren't true, but are.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          a weekly round-up of official BS

          Let's make it available electronically only.

          My Canada includes trees.

        • John W.

          I nominate Wherry.

        • GreatWallsofFire

          Okay, I've put on my tin foil hat and entered your bizarro alternate universe where the fact a citizen "A" of nation "B" stands accused by nation "C" of commiting crimes gives nation "A" a seat at the table where citizen "A" and nation "C" are negotiating a plea bargain. Let's change the facts a bit – citizen "A" is Russell Williams, who turns out to have been born in Kalamazoo – on what basis would the US govt be invited to participate in any plea bargain negotiations between Williams and Canadian prosecutors (and, rest assured, "because he's a US citizen" is utterly insufficient)?

          And before you answer "the difference is that Khadr's Canadian "charter rights" were infringed by the US – how would THAT give Canada a seat at the plea bargain negotiating table? Not even in Trudeau's wettest of charter dreams would he ever have thought the Canadian Charter was required to be adhere to by foreign nations. If one nation's constitutional provisions apply equally to citizen's of other nations, I can't wait to exercise my right to bear arms.

          • frobisher

            You seem to have glossed over the facts that the incarceration of 'A' is a result of events which transpired in rapidly failing nation 'D'. All which makes your dragging in of the Williams' case even more irrelevant.

          • GreatWallsofFire

            As relevant as Khadr's nationality is to the plea bargain negotiations he had with the US prosecutors. Look, for all we know, the US asked Afghanistan, Pakistan and Liechtenstein what THERE positions would be if Khadr applied to be repatriated after being convicted and sentenced – is it your position that being asked what their position would be would allow us to describe each of these countries as being "a part" of the plea bargain negotiation and to call their respective foreign ministers liars if they deny it?

            I think the "Cannon is a big fat liar" folks here are overlooking one highly pertinent fact – it was Khadr, not the US, that was insisting that Canada be approached about the issue of repatriation. I have little doubt that Khadr's lawyers had been trying at the get-go to drag Canada into it with, appropriately, no success. It was only after Khadr put "repatriation to Canada" on the plea bargain negotation table that the US considered the point, thought "well, there's no harm in the asking" and approached Canada with the request to be informed about Canada's position. Canada's position turned out to be we'll "favourably consider" the request, the US threw it back at Khadr and the plea bargain was concluded. I strongly suspect, if Canada would have said "unfavourably consider", the US would have equally thrown in back at Khadr and the plea bargain would still have been concluded – 8 years, all served in a US prison, is still preferable to (as we now know) 40.

          • Amateur Hour

            What alternate universe?
            http://www.thestar.com/staticcontent/883838

            Cannon is our Minister of Foreign Affairs. He's in charge of our Embassies. The Khadr plea deal explicitly involved diplomatic notes made between the US DoD, the US Department of State and Canada's Embassy in Washington. The US couldn't/wouldn't complete the plea deal without assurances from Canada, because part of the plea deal involved transferring Khadr to Canadian custody.

            Despite these interactions between his Ministry and the US, Cannon repeatedly denied that his department had anything to do with the the Khadr plea deal's substance or process. He continued his denials even after the notes had been publicly referred to by the US.

            This isn't a referendum on Khadr, it's is another example of Cannon not telling the truth.

          • GreatWallsofFire

            "The US couldn't/wouldn't complete the plea deal without assurances from Canada, because part of the plea deal involved transferring Khadr to Canadian custody."

            It most assuredly could have – see above. It was Khadr who was insisting Canada be asked about its position on repatriation before further plea bargain negotiations. Had the US said, at that point – sorry, Omar, this is between you and us – the whole "repatriation to Canada" thing is off the table – do you seriously think Khadr would have immediately ceased trying to negotiate a plea bargain?

            Khadr and his Canadian legal counsel have been trying desperately to drag Canada into his predicament since day one, despite Canada's only connection to Khadr being the great misfortune to be the country of his birth. Having failed at every turn to so drag Canada into it, Khadr's lawyers think Canada's polite response to the US' request allows them to call Canadian officials "liars" for suggesting they had no part in a proceeding they had no part in.

            I do hope Khadr's lawyers and all you Khadrophiles out there keep the volume of the rhetoric high right up until Omar actually makes his formal request – I know what compulsion I'd feel to accede to the request of a convicted murderer/terrorist whose lawyers and supporters had loudly and incessantly continued to screech "liar" at me after I'd informed my good friend and neighbour I'd be prepared, as a favour, to take said murderer/terrorist off their hands in a year or two.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Had the US said, at that point – sorry, Omar, this is between you and us – the whole "repatriation to Canada" thing is off the table…

            Sure, but isn't the point that prosecutors DIDN'T say that, but instead made repatriation back to Canada a part of the plea deal? The government of Canada may be free to not view his request for repatriation favorably once it is made, however, at that point I'm pretty sure his plea goes out the window, and we're back to square one. As I understand it, repatriation back to Canada after a year was a CONDITION of his plea agreement. If that condition is not met then in a sense Khadr did not plead guilty. If you enter a plea based on agreement X with prosecutors, and a condition of said agreement is then not enforced, then the plea is null and void.

            The Americans want to get rid of Khadr. There is just no scenario that I can envision in which our Canadian government would force the Americans to keep Khadr, forcing them to renegotiate his plea deal (or worse, re-start his trial!) and forcing them to keep Guantanamo Bay open for another eight years past their already passed promised date to shut it down. If the Canadian government is really willing to cause so much trouble for our largest trading partner and ally just because we hate Khadr SO MUCH, then our government really has jumped the shark.

          • John W.

            You must mean Russell Peters!!!

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    The final absurdity of the trial of Omar Khadr.

    Yes, Wherry, how do you sleep at nights?

  • Blue

    Unfortunately for Khadr, he is being made an example off in the sense that he and his family made a choice to leave their adopted homeland, with monies raised here to combat our and our allies troops.
    That is why Khadr will receive little mercy from the Canadian Gov`t who have received much support on their hard line with Khadr from clear thinking Canadians including the immigrant community who don`t want Khadr as the poster child of immigrants.
    I would not expect Khadr back here ever. No wise Canadian Gov`t would want to be the one who willingly allowed a terrorist to set up shop here.

    • Douglass

      I recently took my kids on a trip that involved visits to 5 different countries. Do you think they had a choice in going or staying behind? Hell no! Khadar was 12 when he left his home and was taken to Afganistan by his parents. Doesn't sound like much of a 'choice' to me!

      Khadar will return. Lets hope that he get the support he need to re integrate into society. This man needs some long term deprogramming therapy.

      • Blue

        ………..and when you told your 15 year old to join that fire fight and kill that US Medic, he said……….I don`t think so dad……….get real.

    • Douglass

      "the Canadian Gov`t who have received much support on their hard line with Khadr from clear thinking Canadians including the immigrant community who don`t want Khadr as the poster child of immigrants."

      What the what? You get that Khadar was born in Canada right? Read: not an immigrant.

      • Blue

        ………..child of immigrants………

        • Douglass

          so…….?

    • tedbetts

      You think he actually "decided" to go to Afghanistan, do you? At the age of 12??

      This is why Canadians are not buying what the Conservatives are selling on Kadr. Their own rhetoric doesn't make any sense. Add the lies, obfuscation, misdirection, secret deals they try to deny then lie about.

      A murderer is entitled to due process. A serial killer is entitled to due process. A terrorist is entitled to due process, either under civilian or military law. Khadr has been run roughshod and has denied due process, and his own country has done as little as possible (read nothing).

      More or less, Canadians agree this guy should be punished. Whenever a government can run roughshod over your due process rights, every Canadian shivers about finding themselves faced with the justice system. Canadians get that. Why doesn't this government?

      (And ps. Blue? Harper has already agreed to take him back as part of their approval of the plea deal. Glad you are joining the rest of us and admitting that Harper and his government are not wise though.)

      • Blue

        Maybe you`re right Ted—maybe he will be a model citizen after an enjoyable stay in the Canadian Penal System—maybe he will move in next door to you—-maybe he`ll marry your cousin. ……but maybe he won`t….and if he turns into a wildman you can always blame it on the Conservatives for keeping him in Guatom.

        And ps ted——-I haven`t had time to read the whole plea deal but I thought the Canadian Gov`t only agreed to hear his appeal for transfer and not necessarily approve it.

        • brooster2

          Definition of a dilemma: Khadr graduates from medical school, as he now claims he wishes to do, and decides to set up practice in your physician-lacking community.

        • tedbetts

          Thank you Blue for demonstrating the quintessential problem Canadian have with the Conservative Party of Canada. Faced with any kind of criticism, they and their supporters completely make sh*t up. Completely. Well done, Blue.

          I think this guy should be locked up. For a long time. AS I WROTE, dumbass. Nobody, nobody, nobody is claiming he is or is going to be a model citizen.

          YOU claimed this 12 year old “decided” to move to Afghanistan and become a terrorist. Get REAL.

          And the issue here is how OUR government has once again lied to US. Again. And Again. And again.

          Please stay on topic.

          the media can’t keep protecting Harper from his own culture of deceit. Canadians are catching on.

  • Katherine

    I'm not inclined to be mad about this, as it shows that at least the Conservatives' actions on this issue have been better than their words. Whatever anyone thinks about the accuracy or lack thereof of the charges against Khadr, he was a 15-year-old.

    I'm the same age as he is. I remember being 15. I was in Grade 9 and enjoyed cross-stitch, climbing trees, math class, a choir. I can't imagine what it would be like to have your family teaching you to kill at that age; I can't comprehend what it would have been like to spend all my life from Grade 9 up until the present in prison with no trial and no access to anyone I knew.

    Canada ought to have acted on this sooner. If the Americans think he's a terrorist who's killed one of their soldiers (setting aside, for the moment, the fact that terrorism is typically defined as the killing of civilians, they could have put him on trial in 2002, instead of 2010. Because that's how civilized nations act: we bring charges and act through the judicial system and provide people with the information being used to bring charges against them. And as the Americans weren't willing to do that, we ought to have done so. I don't have any complaints about transferring him to a Canadian jail; there are plenty of people in our prisons more dangerous than he is. I have plenty of complaints about the way his imprisonment and trial was conducted.

  • tedbetts

    Is anyone surprised that in the Conservative culture of deceit, their first instinct is to lie and misdirect and hide the truth?

    The whole debacle reminds me of how they have handled their "made in Canada" environmental plan and so many files.

    Makes me think of this:

    Q: How many Harper Conservatives does it take to change a lightbulb?

    A: Five: one to promise a high efficiency lightbulb (in the national media), one to promise no change in type of lightbulbs (to the local media), one to devise a communications and signs strategy to tell everyone they are changing the lightbulb, and one to defend themselves when the Auditor General finally asks why, after so many years and public announcements, the light bulb still hasn't been changed, and one to blame the Liberals for the old lightbulb.

    • dougrogers

      And the sixth to stand around whistling with the lightbulb behind his back and not change it.

      • Holly Stick

        A seventh to cancel the lightbulb funding program and an eighth to smear the light fixture as pro-terrorist and anti-Semitic.

        • tobyornotoby

          And a ninth to ensure Quebec's right as a nation to install its own lightbulbs.

  • sourstud

    If you're going to call me a liar, you could at least point out exactly what I said that was a lie. But you won't, because you can't. Now please stop obfuscating.

  • g10tony@roger.com

    700 Gitmo detainees "processed".

    Zero acquittals.

    No wonder Khadr took the deal.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      He may have also taken the deal because he knew that, at Gitmo, acquittal does not equal freedom.

      Plea deals are a lot more attractive when you're held in an off shore prison and the government that's holding you maintains the right to continue to hold you indefinitely even if you're found not guilty.

  • SunshineCoaster

    Sort of like fixed term elections were a done deal! Or perhaps like open, fair, transparent and accountbale government.

    There is no telling how low the Harper Conservatives can stoop.

  • John W.

    Perhaps he thinks Obama might be on the way out and not a factor in his estimation at that time. By being tough when this comes up (one year plus some delay time) Harper plays to Tea Party types in US, and the base at home. Maybe an election is on here.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    Had the "trial" actually technically started? I was under the impression that the plea agreement was reached while they were still engaged in preliminary hearings and pre-trial motions.

    Regardless, my assumption would be that diplomatic efforts can take place at any time the countries involved darned well please. It's not as if we always wait until the trial is over before bringing diplomatic pressure on, say, China or Iran to free people we think are being dealt with unjustly. Furthermore, if his repatriation back to Canada was actually part of the deal the prosecution was offering, how could they offer it without checking with Canada first? I see the point you're making, and perhaps there would have been some ban on making the diplomatic efforts known publicly before they were announced in court; but surely, the agreement having been made public, there's no reason to continue to deny that the agreement was made.

    Here's an interesting question. If the Harper government were to subsequently renege on their promise to repatriate Khadr after a year (something that some people are suspicious that they plan to do, hence all of the obfuscation and pretzel-like explanations of what actually happened) then would Khadr have a case to argue that his whole plea agreement was null and void, and that prosecutors either have to negotiate a new deal with him, or let him go? It seems to me that his repatriation after a year was actually a condition of the plea, so it would be fascinating to see what would happen if the Canadian government interfered with the enactment of that condition.

    I'm not sure there's any limitation on the making of diplomatic overtures while a trial is ongoing, but certainly there wouldn't be any such limitation surrounding the Gitmo tribunals, a procedural set-up that we're not yet sure will pass muster with the Supreme Court of the United States when all is said and done, never mind be considered legitimate legal proceedings by the international community. I think you may be confusing the Harper government's constant refrain that they "will not" engage diplomatically while the trial is ongoing with the idea that they "could not".

  • ZestyMordant

    Somehow I get the feeling that there are several more absurdities to come on this file.

Previous

Next

From Macleans