Where will he land?
By Michael Friscolanti - Thursday, November 26, 2009 - 6 Comments
Omar Khadr may well make it back to Canada. Then what?
The exact timeline is still sketchy, but at some point in the coming weeks, a blindfolded Omar Khadr will be escorted out of his jail cell, shackled at the wrists and ankles, and carried onto a military cargo plane. Though he won’t have the pleasure of witnessing it with his own eyes, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba—Khadr’s prison for the past seven years, beginning at the tender age of 16—will disappear into the distance within a matter of minutes.
Where he will land is still a mystery. The White House announced last week that the 23-year-old is slated to face a military commission—somewhere on U.S. soil—for his alleged war crimes, including the murder of an American soldier in Afghanistan. Yet in the very same breath, Barack Obama’s attorney general left open the possibility that Khadr, a Canadian citizen, could be transferred to his home country before a trial ever begins. Fuelling such speculation is a separate hearing in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, which must decide, once and for all, whether Stephen Harper should be forced to at least ask the Americans to repatriate Khadr. The legal arguments are complex, but at the heart of the case is a growing sense that if the Prime Minister simply asked for his release, Washington would happily oblige.
In other words, that plane leaving Gitmo could fly straight to Canada.
It’s not quite that simple, of course. The Supreme Court may not issue a ruling until the new year, and even if it does order Harper to bite his lip and lobby for Khadr, there is no guarantee the Americans will hand him over carte blanche. But for a boy (now man) who has grown up inside Gitmo’s barbed wire, the end has never felt so close. Which means the biggest question of all—the one Harper is fighting in court to avoid—must now be answered: if Omar does return to Canada, what exactly do we do with him?
“I’m not going to argue that he hasn’t served enough time, but I might argue that he’s still a threat,” says Layne Morris, a retired U.S. army sergeant who lost his right eye in the 2002 firefight that ended with Khadr’s capture. “It comes down to security. Are we confident we can let this guy go and he’s not going to try to cut people’s throats next week? That’s the overwhelming question.”
There is no easy answer. To many, Khadr is still the loyal son of a senior al-Qaeda operative, a Toronto-born teenager who lived with Osama bin Laden and allegedly tossed a grenade that killed Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, a decorated Special Forces medic. To others, he is an innocent child soldier thrust into battle by his radical dad and tortured, over and over, until he confessed to a crime he didn’t commit. It’s no wonder the feds would rather let someone else (i.e., the Americans) figure out which label fits best.
If he is flown back to Canada, Khadr could—at least theoretically—face a bevy of criminal charges, including high treason (“waging war” against an army allied with Canada) and participation in a terrorist organization (al-Qaeda). But would a jury ever convict someone who was shot by U.S. troops at age 15, shipped to the world’s most notorious prison at 16, and who was clearly under the spell of his fundamentalist father? Even with a guilty verdict, it’s hard to imagine his young age would warrant a sentence other than time served.
The other option—allowing Khadr to reunite with his extremist family, where he is sure to become a folk hero for wannabe jihadists—is equally unattractive. His sister once wished she had “the guts” to be a suicide bomber, his eldest brother is an accused al-Qaeda gunrunner, and another brother is paralyzed from the waist down after being shot by Pakistani troops in the same clash that killed their father. The Cleavers they are not.
“Omar has been branded by the family,” says Dennis Edney, that family’s long-time lawyer. “When you talk about the Khadr brand, there is no distinction. But I have talked to Omar about not going back to his family, and Omar understands that and has agreed to that—and his family has agreed to that.” (Members of the family did not respond to emails from Maclean’s.)
Earlier this year, Edney released a so-called “reintegration plan” for his client that includes religious and psychological counselling, supervision by law enforcement officials, and a home-schooling program delivered by King’s University College in Edmonton. “I would take him home with me, in Alberta,” Edney says. “He’s just a kid who wants to be a doctor and who wants to just get on with his life. I’ve never met a more peaceful guy.”
It’s a difficult description to swallow; fellow Canadians have seen the infamous video of a young Omar smiling as he wires together land mines destined for the feet of coalition soldiers. Stephen Xenakis, a U.S. psychiatrist who has treated Khadr over the past year, has his own opinions about whether his patient is still a threat to society. And although he would prefer to save those opinions for a possible day in court, he does offer this much: “He is a really kind, decent, thoughtful, sensitive young man, and he cares about people. It’s really important to appreciate that he does not have any vindictiveness in his nature at all. There is not a hard edge to him at all, and there is no sense of vengeance.”
What Khadr wants, Xenakis says, is “fair justice.” Speer’s widow and two young children crave the very same thing.
-
The “Khadr effect”
By Michael Friscolanti - Thursday, November 12, 2009 at 8:17 PM - 45 Comments
Why Stephen Harper is so afraid of Omar Khadr
Among the bureaucrats at Foreign Affairs, it’s known as the “Khadr effect”—the fear that sticking up for a Canadian citizen arrested in another country may come back to haunt the government. The cautionary phrase dates back to 1995, when the World Trade Center was still standing and the Khadr name meant something only to a handful of spies at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).In those days, Toronto’s Khadr clan was shuttling between Pakistan and Afghanistan, mingling with al-Qaeda elites and dabbling in “charity” work. In November of that year, when a bomb leveled the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad and killed 16 people, the family patriarch, Ahmed Said Khadr, was among the suspects rounded up by Pakistani authorities. Ottawa has never forgotten what happened next.
Khadr proclaimed his innocence, embarked on a hunger strike, and ended up in a hospital. His case became front-page news in Canada—just as Jean Chrétien was flying to the region for a trade mission. Under pressure from the press, the prime minister took time out of his busy schedule to meet the suspect’s wife and children, and made sure to broach the case with Pakistan’s late leader, Benazir Bhutto. A few months later, Ahmed Khadr was a free man—kissing the ground when his plane landed in Canada.
-
Pain don't hurt
By selley - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 3:51 PM - 4 Comments
I agree with just about every word of Wesley Wark…‘s piece in today’s
I agree with just about every word of Wesley Wark‘s piece in today’s Ottawa Citizen, in which he argues that Canada’s policy on Omar Khadr has finally run up against “a realpolitik wall.” The new administration in Washington will want the remaining detainees at Guantanamo dealt with once and for all, and that means, like it or not, that Khadr must and shall come home. So, Wark suggests, let’s get on with figuring out how best to manage that eventuality. (The government, naturally, will have none of it.)
It’s only at the very end that I’d niggle with Wark’s argument. “Reversing course on Omar Khadr will be painful for the Conservative government,” he says. That makes sense intuitively, but recent weeks have brought the idea of political pain into focus. The Harperites are frantically jettisoning long-held economic principles, taboos and shibboleths as if Death himself was gaining on them in a speedboat race. Recession! Deficits! Corporate welfare, over the side! For the love of God, faster! That’s politically painful stuff, or it ought to be, especially given Stephen Harper’s still-wet assurances that the economy was pretty much okay. (We shall see how much of a price the Harperites do, in fact, pay, though logically it will have far more to do with what happens next than what’s happened so far.)
But repatriating Khadr? All our government has ever said is some variant on, hey, there’s a legal process underway in the United States, and aside from assuring he’s treated humanely, we’re going to let that process run its course. Continue…
-
Between the Pundits: "Moral obligations at best"
By selley - Wednesday, June 18, 2008 at 7:25 PM - 0 Comments
Not surprisingly, yesterday’s report from the Foreign Affairs committee, recommending that the government demand…
Not surprisingly, yesterday’s report from the Foreign Affairs committee, recommending that the government demand Omar Khadr’s repatriation to face charges under Canadian law, features a written dissent from the government. It complains that the report “downplays Mr. Khadr’s alleged crimes and ties to terrorism while framing the government’s failure to repatriate him as a violation of Canadian laws,” and that it exaggerates the feasibility of trying him under Canadian law and restricting his movements, associations and activities once he returns. As position papers go, it’s not particularly substantial or groundbreaking—its basic message is “that a balance [must] be struck between individual rights and national security considerations.” But given that it’s not Peter Van Loan accusing Stéphane Dion of making sweet love to Mullah Omar, it’s pretty much the best we have to go on. So, a few thoughts:
The dissent raises the “child soldier” issue only to note that “there is nothing in the optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, customary international law, Canadian law, or U.S. federal law that bars the prosecution of a minor for war crimes.” This is true, though, since the government brought it up, it’s worth noting the optional protocol also demands that child soldiers be offered “all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration.” Which brings us to this: “If returned to Canada, the government believes Mr. Khadr would have no other recourse than to reestablish his ties with his family, a group of suspected terrorist-sympathizers espousing an extremists [sic] ideology.”














