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

A resolution that pleases no one

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, November 2, 2010 11:50am - 0 Comments

If it’s any consolation, it seems even the Harper government is displeased with the Harper government’s handling of Omar Khadr.

Conservative cabinet ministers are not happy with the Khadr deal and the reality that he will be returned to Canada next year and free shortly thereafter. On Monday when cabinet gathered to prepare for question period tempers flared. According to sources at the meeting and those close to cabinet ministers, there was yelling and accusations…

Questioned about why the government acted the way it did, one senior official threw their hands up in disgust.

Tags: Afghanistan, cabinet, Guantanamo, Omar Khadr, Ottawa, Parliament, Stephen Harper, terrorism, torture

More by Aaron Wherry

hollinm

Of course Wherry knows this because Brian Lilley of the Sun said so. Give credit where credit is due Wherry.
Who knows whether the column by Lilley was real or somebody had spun him.
The fact is the pleading heart Liberals are going to get their way. Khadr will come back to Canada and move in with Wherry and his family for a stint of rehabilitation :-)

whereisian

F'ing quotes, how do they work?

Emily

The Lilley column is embedded in the blog entry.
PeterboroDave

Hey, wasn't Violent J just voted mayor of Toronto?

ronin

hilarious! Gotta hand it to 'mothaf*cking Miracles'…

mary

Hollinm
you are dead on.. i suggest he moves in with Iggy who should then rehabilitate him….

shocking shocking.. the liberals fight to bring back a killer — truly the culture is living in its darkest night when mens and womens (some ) are truly taking our country down the path (but we wont let them.. our own tea party II is at work already).. .. to nowhere.

MostlyCivil

"No, hold on fellas, quiet down for a minute. We didn't take part in the negotiations, we simply said we'd agree to the agreement as long as we didn't have to agree with the original agreement. Agreed?"

Jan

If even the Con caucus doesn't buy this, Harper is really in trouble. I guess we've found their line in the sand.

Emily

Don't worry, Harper will soon find some way to blame all this yelling in cabinet over Khadr on the Libs.

brooster2

Sorry, Emily, not the Libs…the coalition. Get your scapegoats right.

Emily

Oh right….I keep missing these invisible things. LOL

Andrew (not PorC)

I should change my name to One Senior Official.
Conbuster

Well, once again, Harper has proved how to pxss off people. If for only trying to maintain his "base" (whatever that maybe) by negotiating in bad faith with yet another world power. Let's fact when Hillary Clinton calls Cannon with Harper listening in no doubt, you have p#ssed off Washington. This game of "dodge" by Harper and his goons with the U.S. has probably been going on for sometime over the Khadr case. This could of been avoided and handled in a much better way years ago.

And finally the Americans read Stephen "I make the rules" Harper the riot act. Yep, Harper is proving to be quite the loser on the international scene…a bothersome little yappy poodle that needs to slapped now and then to shut the F up.

Of course, here at home. The likes of Maclean mag touts Harper as the only man to lead this country.

Right. But to where.

sourstud

Where in the world do you get "pissed off Washington" out of this story?

ronin

Remember the CONs' ObamaGate?
The Dems did.

Payback's a b!tch.

Now roll over, Harper…

sourstud

So you think that Obama is the most petty President in history, and he's punishing Canada for something that happened 3 years ago? And you're cheering him on? Good to see you have Canada's best interests at heart.

Conbuster

Connect the dots. Usually such matters are handled with diplomacy. But Harper being who he is leaned on our Washington people not to deal with the Khadr case. To ignore it. Will how do you ignore an elephant in the room? Because Harper says it isn't there? For Clinton to call Cannon is like being hauled out on the carpet. It should have and have have never happened if diplomatic avenues were open. Secondly the White House believes that this country is being run by a bunch of neanderthal goons. Clinton's statement that a maternal health care foreign policy without safe and legal abortion is seriously flawed.

Stephen Harper couldn't negotiate a fire hydrant for a piss on the international scene and he had his puny spinless dick slapped for it.

sourstud

1) Harper's people did more for Khadr than the previous 2 governments did, combined
2) Considering the language you use, I'm guessing you're not the diplomatic genius you think you are.
3) Seeing as how the Democrats are about to be involved in one ugly blood-bath tonight, I think that being on the other side of Obama isn't such a bad thing.
4) If you think that two international powers can't disagree on certain subjects without resorting to vengeance, I feel sorry for you.
5) Your dick isn't supposed to have a spine, your spine should be in your back. You might wanna get that checked out,

Reverend_Blair

Ah, Conservative incompetence leading to Conservative infighting.

In this day and age of advanced communications…a world where I can have a casual conversation with friends in Europe and Asia whenever I please…Harper was out of the loop because he was travelling? Sorry, doesn't hold up. Either he okayed this deal in spite of what his cabinet was telling him, or he wasn't doing his job so somebody was forced to make a decision for him.

WHACKOJACKO

Bingo brother. The Harper spin goons are no doing the Harper clan any favors by citing that somehow things fall apart when Harper is out of town.

It's simply brazen lies. The Harperites take Canadians for fools. And lie about everything from how our Parliamentary Democracy works to the attempted bribery by Harper himself of Chuck Cadman.

Thwim

Slow down a bit. There's no evidence that Harper himself bribed Chuck Cadman.

There is some evidence that he was aware that some CPC members were going to try to bribe Chuck, and that his only concern about it was that he didn't think it would work.

WHACKOJACKO

Excuse me? He was aware that some CPC members were going to try to bribe Chuck Cadman? Really? Who do you think sent them? And who gave a writer/journalist an interview on audio tape in the driveway of Cadman's house. Harper that is who. Harper knew about, more so, even concocted the entire scheme. He was the one that felt that he would gain the most. It's his character, a political sociopath. Next you'll be saying that Harper never wanted to form a coalition with the Bloc. Or that Harper never voted for the Long Gun Resgistry, or that Harper never voted against the purchase of helicopters (which he did in all three cases)

Get with the program…Harper is all about Stephen "I make the rules" Harper and everybody else, including our country can wait.

Thwim

Trust me, you don't have to ask around here much to see I'm hardly an apologist for Harper, but when you go all frothy and start claiming things that don't have evidence, it makes it easier for the reasonable but undecided people to conclude that nothing anybody claims about him is legit.

Stick to what we have some support for.. it's damning enough.

Jan

They've had enough practice lying, you'd think they'd be better at it by now.

RIGHTLIB

I think that Ignatieff is being extremely wise. Understanding and watching the Harper slowly tear itself apart over the Long Form Census, F-35's, Potash and Khadr. When individuals such as Harper rule people by fear and intimidation it is only a matter of time before people overcomer their fears and fight back.

This is why, one always hears that Leader which garner respect, have a loyal following that doesn't fall into crisis and animosity every other day.

You're finished "Steve"…you have your gold plated pension…now get lost…the money Canadians must pay you will well be worth it.

sourstud

Scaaaaaarrry Stephen Harper! He's so terrifying and intimidating! Halloween is over dude.

Blue

The majority of the Conservative caucus are a good representation of the Canadian public so of course they will not be happy with the possibility that Khadr will return to Canada.

He represents all that is wrong with a very small percentage of immigrant families that insist on only using Canada as a home base for raising money to carry on their old battles in their former homeland.

Don`t bother sending missiles my way correcting me that Khadr was born here ( his family had close enough ties with their former homeland to wage war there ) and that I am anti- immigrant ( I believe the economic and social benefits of immigration keep Canada on top of all nations ) I am just against the Khadr family of immigrants.

Mike T.

minus one billion.
Emily

Cons don't remotely represent the Canadian public.

And immigrants have been using Canada as a base to carry on battles in their homeland since the Irish.
brooster2

"The majority of the Conservative caucus are a good representation of the Canadian public…"

Typically innumerate Con math.

Thwim

Wait.. did he just call the Canadian public stupid liars?

Douglass

Is this 'immigrant' thing a talking point, or do you really just have a problem with immigrants? I'll use this moment to re point out that Khadar (the kid they threw into Gitmo) is a Canadian born citizen. Stop with the nonsense.

Blue

I clearly stated how benefical I feel immigration has been to Canada`s recent ecomomic and social situation. You are welcome to reread.

To all Lib-followers here—It would be a big mistake for you to imagine that your pro Liberal feelings are in any way representative of the general Canadian populace. You should understand that the repetetion of the same old points from the same old people is satisfying only to the same old people.

Emily

70% of the electorate didn't vote for Harper….sorry.

Zarton

And an even greater percentage didn't vote for the other parties.

Jenn_

I feel for ya, Blue.

Ahem. Taking your comment in the spirit in which it was written, the problem is this: Last year, or two years ago, the Harper government had the opportunity to negotiate with Khadr for the terms under which they'd repatriate him. They could have demanded almost anything they'd like, say serve five years in a medium prison facility, followed by immediate deportation to a country that would take him (Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iran?) of both himself and his mother (I still don't understand why we didn't try her for treason) or twenty further years with an ankle bracelet or whatever.

The U.S. would have been delighted we'd taken this mess off their hands, the Canadian public would have been pleased we got a child soldier out of the gross miscarriage of justice he'd been enduring, and the Canadian public would also not have to worry about this guy on the street. But to stick to this sorry, lame "very serious charges" bullsh$t, only to end up paying the price anyway, is shortsighted and irresponsible. And if I saw it coming, how could our Prime Minister not? In other words, does it make Harper sleep better at night knowing that Khadr is now a "convicted" terrorist? Was that worth it?

madeyoulook

They could have demanded almost anything they'd like, say serve five years in a medium prison facility, followed by immediate deportation to a country that would take him (Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iran?) of both himself and his mother (I still don't understand why we didn't try her for treason) or twenty further years with an ankle bracelet or whatever.

Really? A Canadian citizen negotiates with his government, and agrees to imprisonment as a condition of re-entry to his own country? A Canadian government uses extra-judicial imprisonment followed by immediate non-tribunal deportation as a condition of return for one of its own citizens? Including non-tribunal deportation of another Canadian citizen? How do you get a national government and a citizen together to negotiate the terms of deportation of yet another citizen? Jeebus, what country are you living in?

And you think Canada has been unfair to Omar thus far? Read your own suggestion again, Jenn. If you still like it, read it again. Repeat as long as necessary.
Blue

Jenn: A voice of reason in the darkness.
I`ll agree, I hate how this whole Khadr thing is being played out, but don`t forget when you propose that Khadr shoud have been deported after a short stint in a Canadian prison two years ago, you are working on the benefit of brilliant hindsight.
I would like to think that any Canadian Gov`t would have been able to carry out your wishes, but
I don`t know if we could have got the ok from any country to send him away.
I don`t know what the legalities of deportation would have been.
I have no idea what to do with his mother.
I don`t know how a minority gov`t that most certainly would have had three opp. parties opposed to them could have carried out what you proposed without it dragging out indefinetely in Parliament, the courts, the media and with a few elections tossed in.
Jenn_

All your points are valid except the hindsight one, because I did say this two years ago, or whenever it was.

I expect the Civil Liberties union would have taken it to court (I kind of hope they would, anyway) and there's little doubt they'd have won. Maybe forego the five years in jail and go straight to deportation, then, so he's long gone by the time justice has spoken. The three opposition parties will be opposed anyway, so I don't see what difference that would have made to the government.
madeyoulook

Maybe forego the five years in jail and go straight to deportation…

Deport to where? He's Canadian, it appears to need to go WITH saying…
Jenn_

Geez. I thought I answered that at the time. To wherever he'd like to go that will have him. Maybe nobody would have agreed to have him, and in that case the government would have needed a backup plan, such as monitoring–which he'd already indicated his willingness, and even volunteered for. Because the one thing the Conservatives were most vocal about was the desire not to have him just set free to do whatever nefarious thing he wanted here in Canada.

Which is what we have now, in a year or two's time.
madeyoulook

To wherever he'd like to go that will have him.

Oh my, what have you done to Jenn tonight? That's not a deportation. If I had enough cash I could end up in any country that will have me by next week, without the dab gummint deporting me anywhere.

We'll let you into your own country as long as you promise to leave as soon as you're out of jail, and we'll hold you to it. PLEASE stop trying to ruin the precious value of Canadian citizenship, Jenn, or whoever you are.
Jenn_

You could if you weren't languishing in Guantanamo, and had the cash.

This is already an option the government has on the books, I understand (for use with immigrant Canadian citizens, granted, who've run into trouble with the law) so don't go thinking this is all my idea. I don't like it much, myself. But I firmly believe a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. If it's good enough for immigrant Canadians, it should be good enough for the rest of us. If it ISN'T good enough for the rest of us, how then is it good enough for immigrant Canadians?
madeyoulook

If I were languishing in Guantanamo, why would my country be negotiating my eventual deportation from my country? Tell the class, Jenn: where was Omar born?

Immigrant Canadians who LIED about their situation that led to Canadian citizenship may have that citizenship revoked. If you are even considering deporting a Canadian-born Canadian citizen, Jenn, to "wherever he'd like to go that will have him," you will please, and I'm begging here, you will please keep your paws off the federal levers of power.
Jenn_

Oh, make up your mind, MYL!

Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen by virtue of being born in Canada. Precisely the way I'm fortunate enough to be a Canadian citizen.

Immigrant Canadians, who are ALLEGED to have lied about their situation that led to Canadian citizenship may have that citizenship revoked WITHOUT A TRIAL.

I'll agree to not deporting any Canadian citizens if you will.
madeyoulook

Precisely the way I'm fortunate enough to be a Canadian citizen.

And so why are you debasing the meaning of that Canadian citizenship by "deporting (sic)" such a native-born Canadian to god-knows-where? Where shall we send you?

My mind is very well made up, Jenn.
Jenn_

Well, I'm not sure that any country would have me, MYL, so I don't know.

But you are good with having two classes of Canadians? The ones allowed to be deported somewhere, and those who are not?

I AM surprised.

Jan

The Con caucus are worried about saving their butts. Pure and simple.
gottabesaid

'The majority of the Conservative caucus are a good representation of the Canadian public.'

If that were the case, then they'd have a majority government, wouldn't they? As soon as any one party says they speak for all or a majority of Canadians, look out.
ronin

"The majority of the Conservative caucus are a good representation of the Canadian public"

Never were; never will be….
McC_

we don't protect child soldiers because they're nice people, or we condone the horrible things they've done; we should protect child soldiers because what was done to them – turning them into damaged, hateful weapons (often abused and drug addicted) – is even worse. In fact creatign child soldiers is a crime against humanity, of which the child soldier is not the only victim, but so to are all those who are harmed by the child soldier (in this case Sergeant Christopher Speer), they are also victims of the same crime against humanity (in this case perpetrated by Omar Khadr's odious family).

Zarton

Khadr was/is not a child soldier. Read the law. No organized military structure, no uniform, no insignia = no soldier.

McC_

imagine that, I have: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc-conflict.ht…
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution A/RES/54/263
of 25 May 2000
entry into force 12 February 2002

Article 4
1. Armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years.

2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to prevent such recruitment and use, including the adoption of legal measures necessary to prohibit and criminalize such practices.

3. The application of the present article shall not affect the legal status of any party to an armed conflict.

ParticipantSignatureRatification, Accession(a), Succession(d)
Canada5 Jun 20007 Jul 2000
United States of America
5 Jul 2000 23 Dec 2002

Zarton

The United States of America has never ratified the treaty. It is meaningless under US law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_ratification_of_t…

Secondly, the forces Omar was involved with were terrorists, not defenders of the homeland. They are not soldiers and not armed forces (in the context of this law). Al-Qaida do not qualify as armed forces; organized armies qualify. Omar is not a child soldier under this or any other law.

How would you separate an armed gang of thugs with teenage members from what Omar was involved with? You can't. Omar is not a child soldier.
McC_

You're hilarious, I link to the treaty, and you link to wikipedia, and claim authority. Look here, the US ratified the treaty on 23 Dec 2002: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src… and in their declaration explicitly states that they understand the following:
" (4) ARMED GROUPS.- The United States understands that the term "armed groups" in Article 4 of the Protocol means nongovernmental armed groups such as rebel groups, dissident armed forces, and other insurgent groups."
Zarton

Well, you are right and wrong. I was not aware that a state could sign up to a protocol (optional) without signing up to the top-level treaty. I learned something. However, as I read the US State Department interpretation here: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/83929.htm

I find that what the U.S. is talking about is its own laws regarding the recruitment of personnel, not terrorist groups. They indicated that it is illegal in the United States for militia groups to form to take on foreign combat roles (see Article 4, para (29)). There is a statement of how the US contributes money via USAID to various causes but in no way does the treaty exempt persons who commit homicide against US forces. Such persons are subject to trial under military law unless Congress states otherwise.

Omar Khadr is not a child soldier because – he is not a soldier; he is a violent teenage thug. He had a medic coming to help him but instead he picked up a hand grenade and murdered the medic. He is the same as the violent teenagers who shoot/beat people when drug deals go bad in places like Toronto. If Omar is a child soldier then any underage gangsta is a child soldier. But he and they are not.

YYZ

Really? Then why isn't he being tried in a civilian court?

Amateur Hour

Wherry: From the report, the issue that made the senior official throw their hands up in disgust was NOT the plea deal, but rather the botched communications about the deal (i.e. Cannon lying). Full text for context:

"As noted here on the blog Sunday night, the government denied they offered Khadr any assurances he would come back to Canada. Then the deal became public showing they had put those assurances in writing.

Questioned about why the government acted the way it did, one senior official threw their hands up in disgust. The way the government denied a deal they clearly had signed off on has been called “bewildering” and “a lie by any other name” by people close to the government."

Note: This is Brian Lilley we're talking about, so it may all be spin. The first half of his report suggests that the plea deal was struck behind Harper's back, which is pretty far-fetched.
Richard_S_Argent

Am I the only one kind of surprised that the link didn't take me to a Taber column? :)

(or does she only have the goods with unnamed Liberal officials?)
kcm

When you scroll down to Lilley's comments you find one or two very disatisfied conservative voters. Perhaps this at least partly explains why Cannon is turning himself into a pretzel over the "deal.' It's all our politics seem to be about now – not alienating the base you have [ all parties] since the voter turn-out is so shabby. Whenever i hear anyone talking about principles these days i reach for the barf bag – or the bottle, whichever is handier. Having principle used to mean [ partly anyway] being willing to stand up for them, even when they're unpopular with your friends, or supporters.
Style

Can anyone remember a foreign policy decision by any recent Canadian government that didn't have a senior official throwing their (sic) hands in the air? Hands went up when Chretien announced we wouldn't go to Iraq, hands went up when Martin decided we would go to Kandahar, hands were waving all over the place with the International Policy Statement. These senior foreign policy officials, they're good with their hands…

Mike T.

They went up when it turned out Canada may or may not have been funding abortions which may or may not have been against government policy…

This one does seem a bit special for its lack of competence,though.

Style

True, that abortion one may or may not have been a decision that may or may not have been terrible.

ronin

Why do visions of a 3 stooges-style slap fight when I read stories about right-on-right squabbles…?
McC_

I hate reporting like this (the Sun's, that is), what on earth is a "senior official"? Parliamentary reporting used to distinguish between political staffers (e.g., Ministers' staff and PMO staff) and government officials (i.e., public servants working for departments or the central agencies like PCO), they are very different species of official!
tobyornotoby

It had to happen sooner or later … the Conservatives have run out of people to blame, so now they are blaming each other.
gar

If this is Harper's answer to Conservatism the liberals have nothing to worry about .they already have their Coalition Harper and Iffy.as a Conservative i have come the the conclusion that Harper is only interested in Harper. I will start pushing for a leadership review unless this guy finds where his intestinal fortitude is located.It took us a good number of years to gain power only to become a new Liberal party.As much as i can not stand the NDP at least they do try and live up to the will of their party members regardless of consequences.Is he now going to lose 13 seats in Saskatchewan by stupidly giving control of our potash control on the world market
Zarton

Omar Khadr is not a child soldier under international law. No uniform, no organized miltary structure, no insignia = no soldier. If Omar Khadr is a child soldier then any 15 year old hanging out with a band of goons who murders people is a child soldier.

Remember Khadr's dad? He who was imprisoned in Pakistan for terrorist activities. He who then was released due to pressure from Canada's government (i.e. Jean Chretien visiting Benazir Bhutto). He who then took his child (Omar) to Afghanistan to fight for Al-Qaida. The same Al-Qaida that flew jetliners in to buildings killing 3,000 innocent people.
Al-Qaida is not a branch of the armed forces of Afghanistan: it is a terrorist organization. Omar Khadr is not a child soldier.

Also don't forget the Liberals were in power when Omar's illegal CSIS interrogation took place.

Don't blame the Conservatives.

Amateur Hour

"Omar Khadr is not a child soldier under international law. No uniform, no organized miltary structure, no insignia = no soldier."

Most of the child soldiers in the Sierra Leone and Liberian conflicts didn't have uniforms or insignia either, and their experiences helped push the passage of the very international laws you claim (falsely) doesn't cover them.

You're also badly confusing one of the Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions with the treaty on child soldiers and its optional protocol — all of which became Canadian Law when the signed and ratified.

Feel free to detest the Khadr clan. But try not to make declarations about international laws you clearly are not familiar with, including:

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38, (1989)
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)
Optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (2000-2002)
McC_

wrong, read the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, which was Ratified by Canada on 7 Jul 2000, and ratified by the U.S. (under George W Bush, no less!) on 23 Dec 2002. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc-conflict.ht…

Zarton

You said: "and ratified by the U.S. (under George W Bush, no less!)"

read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_ratification_of_t…

You don't know what you are talking about.

Amateur Hour

But I do Zarton (see above). And you are quite incorrect.

McC_

I blame the Liberals for their part in this sorry affair, and I blame the Conservatives for everything since January 2006, and so should you, the current Government doesn't get a pass on respecting ratified International Law just because the previous Government ignored its obligations to this child soldier.

GWB

Khadr should be considered a prisoner of war. Accordingly, he should be released when the war is over and that may be a long time.
craigola

Maybe the CPC should break up if they can't get along.

Amateur Hour

Preston is that you?
Stock?
David O.?
Blue

…..still hoping for a way to get back in power boys. Sorry …..not gonna happen.

craigola

Really? Not ever? You immigrants sure have a lot to learn about Canadian politics.

barry

multiculturalist leftards whine"he's a child soldier" as though his gang's involvement of killing a medic is like a walmart shoplifting offense and that khadr was like some 8 year old abductee in liberia being forced at gunpoint to kill their own neighbors.
but on the other hand, since some feel that all cultures are equal, perhaps we should free khadr from prison but deport him(and his pro sharia family)back to pakistan as insurrectionist traitors to answer to the non sunnis there victimized daily by his fellow islamofascists.
gee, when i was a teen, i often felt like killing bullies at school.maybe if i had done that and in the name of allah, i'd have bleeding hearts excusing me as an innocent but errant muslim.

craigola

Were you bullied as a child, barry? There there, lil' buddy. If you haven't gotten over it by now then you're probably not going to, but there there.
Lord Kitchener's Own

I'm almost certain that the government can't deport someone who was born in Canada to Pakistan.

Jan

It doesn't have to make any sense, as long as it sounds tough. The fact that Khadr's father came from Egypt doesn't even enter it…

Pat

I love it when people exaggerate the opinions of others in order to justify their own. I have yet to read anyone here compare Khadr to a shoplifter. Well, except you of course.

LdKitchenersOwn

Well, no, nobody's compared Khadr to a shoplifter, but I was just getting around to it… In fact, I was just reading a story the other day about a shoplifter who was shot twice in the back by police after the building they were shoplifting in was leveled to the ground, and who then spent two years in an offshore prison waiting to see a lawyer for the first time, and 7 more years in prison waiting for his trial to start.

Seemed like an apt case to compare Khadr's case to.

LdKitchenersOwn

For the record, if you'd killed one of those bullies back when you were 15 there's almost NO WAY you'd spend eight years in prison for it, and ABSOLUTELY no way you'd spend two years in jail waiting to talk to a lawyer, and another seven waiting for your trial to start…

madeyoulook

Except that Canada did not torture or lock up. And your self-liked answer still involves JAILING a Canadian citizen without a trial and then expelling this Canadian citizen from the country, as a condition to permitting this Canadian citizen to re-enter his own country. It is repugnant, pure and simple. And this from MYL, who was only too pleased to let this jihadi du jour be the USA's problem for as long as we could hold out…

Jenn_

Yes, of course it is repugnant. But I bet you will find it repugnant when you bump into him on the street in two year's time, as well. There's little difference, to my mind, between jailing him without a trial at all and jailing him with the cruel joke that pretended to be a trial that he just had. The rule of law has, either way, been smashed to bits in this case. Canada and the U.S. might as well be Iran if this is the sort of thing we're going to pass off as justice. And by agreeing to the plea deal, not to mention everything that went on before it, we've basically given our consent to this form of "justice" so it's a little late for you to concern yourself with that. My way the optics look as bad as they really are. At least this way we're more honest about it.

madeyoulook

There's little difference, to my mind, between jailing him without a trial at all and jailing him with the cruel joke that pretended to be a trial that he just had.

Uh, no, you just said you liked the "without trial" thing better. And you were willing to have a government and a Canadian throw a mother under a bus without any trial.

Jenn_

Yeah, I do. Because there is little difference between the two, and the one is more honest. And if I can't have justice, I'll take honesty.

Throwing a mother under a bus? I thought 'throwing someone under a bus' meant leaving an underling with little to no say in a thing out to take the fall when whatever the thing was goes sour. If, as the Conservatives firmly believe (and I strongly suspect myself) Mrs. Khadr threw her son under the bus in the first place by raising him to become a terrorist, it isn't throwing her under a bus by having the fall stick to her as well. On the other hand, she may have had no more say than Omar himself. So, if you (Conservatives) are concerned about her and wish her to face a fair trial as to whether she could have done anything about it or willfully participated in this treasonous act, I'm very much down with that. Or, we could continue to blame her without one. Pick!

madeyoulook

If… Mrs. Khadr threw her son under the bus in the first place by raising him to become a terrorist, it isn't throwing her under a bus by having the fall stick to her as well.

She has pretty much admitted that. And she STILL needs a trial to have "the fall stick to her."

I am a lover of individual freedom, Jenn. I am not (and never have been) a capital-C Conservative. Do take a moment to study the origin of the root word within your own party's name, if you please.
Jenn_

Okay, so you aren't the Conservative I wish I was having this conversation with.

I like your choice!

jim

sigh, and I thought Canadians were civilized, judging from the comments many aren't!
As an American, I am ashamed of Guantanamo, the holding of a person for 7+ years without trial, the kangaroo court disguised as a Military Tribunal, the coerced confession and the trying of a child soldier.
I am glad that the current leadership in Canada is making an effort to help one of its citizens obtain freedom.
Emily

Well generally speaking we ARE civilized….however we currently have a minority govt that is NOT civilized….they are the ones who've kept Khadr out of our country and refused to help him all this time.
Colin

Strictly speaking the current government is doing everything in its power to deny him his freedom. If they had wanted to request repatriation (like all other Western countries with citizens in Gitmo have done successfully) they could have years ago. Their position here is mainly brought about by diplomatic and legal (given the ongoing supreme court case) obligation.