Omar Khadr

[MigL]

For those who don't know, Omar Khadr is the Canadian born son of Afghan parents, who took him back to Afghanistan at a young age to train as a terrorist. There are pictures of him as a youth making IEDs.

At age 15 he was involved in a firefight with American soldiers, was wounded and tossed a grenade which killed a medic, Sgt. Speer.

He was taken to Guantanamo Bay, where he was interrogated by the American Government as well as the previous Canadian Liberal Government. He was held for about 15 yrs, during which time we elected a Conservative Government, and now, again a Liberal Government.

He has been re-patriated for a few yrs, and now our Government has decided to issue a public apology to him, plus $10mil in compensation, for violating his charter rights.

 

I wonder if PM Trudeau will issue an apology and compensation to the family of the victim, SGT. Speer, since the murderous act was conducted by someone PM Trudeau ( now ) embraces as a Canadian ?

 

When did the rights of a perpetrator become MORE important than the rights of a Victim ?

 

Or is this another case of bending over backwards to be seen to be politically correct ?

 

Your thoughts and opinions, as always, are valued and appreciated.

[rangerx]

Here, read this. It's called... the law.

 

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7842/index.do

 

Then quote me the part where Trudeau is supposed to ignore the law to uphold your false narrative.

[Delta1212]

If rights don't apply to despicable people then they aren't really rights.

 

I'm of the opinion that if you establish that a government is allowed to violate the rights of citizens who are obviously guilty, or who are guilty of particularly heinous crimes, that you have effectively eliminated the protections they are supposed to provide for everyone.

 

As such, I would hold that restitution for a violation of rights needs to come before and regardless of whatever else the person has done or been accused of doing. This can sometimes lead to outcomes I don't particularly like or benefit people I do not like, but I suspect I would like rather less living under a government that was allowed to develop for any significant period without being forced to treat that as a red line that it should not cross.

[rangerx]

If rights don't apply to despicable people then they aren't really rights.

 

I'm of the opinion that if you establish that a government is allowed to violate the rights of citizens who are obviously guilty, or who are guilty of particularly heinous crimes, that you have effectively eliminated the protections they are supposed to provide for everyone.

 

As such, I would hold that restitution for a violation of rights needs to come before and regardless of whatever else the person has done or been accused of doing. This can sometimes lead to outcomes I don't particularly like or benefit people I do not like, but I suspect I would like rather less living under a government that was allowed to develop for any significant period without being forced to treat that as a red line that it should not cross.

 

I could not agree more. He was a child captive of al Qaeda. He never got a trial, no less one afforded to him as a juvenile Canadian citizen or petitioned to be tried as an adult. We have no idea if was cajoled, under duress, of his own volition, or even the one who actually did it. The charges against him were leveled by the same people who claimed there were WMDs in Iraq. Instead of fighting to have him returned to Canada for trial, Harper let him be tortured instead, no less set before an illegal tribunal, without council. I do care what he's accused of and the plight of the victims, but he's innocent until proven otherwise. Period. It's not even debatable, after all it's entrenched in the constitutional law of a civilized country.

 

Like Nice Guy Eddie said in Reservoir Dogs, torture any person enough times, no less a 15 year old captive, they'll tell you they started the Chicago Fire.

[MigL]

OK, so he has all the rights of a Canadian as granted by the Charter.

 

If considered a soldier/combatant, what is he doing fighting in a war against a coalition that Canada is a part of ?

That used to be called treason, and was at one time ( not too long ago ), punishable by death.

 

If a civilian, and Canadian, with all associated rights, did he not kill an American ?

He can certainly be extradited and charged with murder.

 

So what exactly is he?

Sure his parents treated him badly, but they weren't there when he lobbed the grenade.

That was his decision.

 

You feel bad his rights were violated ? What about the rights of Sgt. Speer and his family ?

I don't hear anyone clamoring their rights were violated.

 

Or doesn't that fit your false narrative, ranger ?

[Delta1212]

What does the treatment of the soldier's family have to do with the treatment of this guy? Which of their rights do you think the government violated?

 

I mean, yeah, I'm more sympathetic to that family than his family, but so what? Civil rights aren't a popularity contest.

 

So I agree, he should have been arrested and extradited for murder and then tried on the evidence.

 

But that's not what happened. And because it's not what happened, it fundamentally undermined the ability to bring justice in this case. The fuck-up is not giving restitution to the person whose rights were violated. The fuck up that robbed the family of the slain soldier of a just and fair resolution was the decision by our governments to chuck the rule book that we have created for achieving that outcome when in came to this person in the first place.

[rangerx]

OK, so he has all the rights of a Canadian as granted by the Charter.

 

If considered a soldier/combatant, what is he doing fighting in a war against a coalition that Canada is a part of ?

That used to be called treason, and was at one time ( not too long ago ), punishable by death.

 

If a civilian, and Canadian, with all associated rights, did he not kill an American ?

He can certainly be extradited and charged with murder.

 

So what exactly is he?

Sure his parents treated him badly, but they weren't there when he lobbed the grenade.

That was his decision.

 

You feel bad his rights were violated ? What about the rights of Sgt. Speer and his family ?

I don't hear anyone clamoring their rights were violated.

 

Or doesn't that fit your false narrative, ranger ?

 

Being branded a combatant and sent to Gitmo isn't in the Charter. That was deemed illegal by the SCC.

 

He didn't have a trial, I cannot say he did or didn't do it. Neither can you. And yes, he certainly can be extradited and charged with murder, but Harper declined to do that, instead consented him to be tortured and detained without due process.

 

Unless you think draconian punishment and retributive feudalism are acceptable practices in today's society, the rights of Speer and his family don't provide them the entitlement to deny the constitutional rights of anyone in the absence of a fair trial. If it were my family, I would expect my PM to bring them to trial, promptly and if found guilty to impose the maximum penalties applicable. Harper undermined their rights, not Trudeau as you would have everyone believe.

 

I read the SCC case. It stands as fact, so to suggest I have a false narrative is odious and outright ludicrous. Fail.

 

As to narrative, yours (and pretty much every other conservative) is to defame our PM in a hyper partisan manner without even reading the order. Fake news at it's height.

 

You're outraged. I get it. To be honest, I don't like it either, but my outrage is no excuse to ignore the law. You do realize, if Harper won the last election, he'd be compelled to apologize and order the coffers compensate him too, right? The only difference is Harper caused it, and Trudeau had to fix it. Trudeau has no choice in the matter, but apologize and pay out on behalf of Canada, yet you'd lay it at his feet to blame him for Harper's bad deeds. So typical.

IV. Conclusion

 

[48] The appeal is allowed in part. Mr. Khadr’s application for judicial review is allowed in part. This Court declares that through the conduct of Canadian officials in the course of interrogations in 2003-2004, as established on the evidence before us, Canada actively participated in a process contrary to Canada’s international human rights obligations and contributed to Mr. Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter , contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. Costs are awarded to Mr. Khadr.

[Area54]

You feel bad his rights were violated ?

I don't think anyone has suggested that. Rather, the concern is that anyone's rights were violated. Justice is blind. If his rights were violated without redress yesterday, yours can be violated without redress tomorrow.

[MigL]

I didn't turn this into partisan political football, rangerx, you did.

You do remember that the Liberals under J Chretien and P Martin were in power for about 4 yrs after O Khadr was taken to Guantanomo, don't you ? What exactly did they do ?

Or are you conveniently forgetting that just to dump on 'evil' S Harper and Conservatives again ?

 

Have you read the charter ? It guarantees freedom of movement to any Canadian. That means every jail sentence is in violation of a basic Canadian right ( there is also a limitations clause which allows for suspension of rights for up to 5 yrs ).

Do you advocate letting all criminals/murderers out of jail or apologizing to them after release and giving them millions in compensation ?

 

O Khadr was extradited to the US for crimes committed against an American. At that point American law takes over and he is subject to the American Justice System. Not ours or our rights, as our Charter has no standing in American courts. If they chose to put him in Guantanamo Bay according to their laws ( and no, I don't care to discuss whether those laws were just, that is for Americans to decide ), who are we to complain. Do we apologize and give restitution to other Canadians convicted in foreign countries, like Turkey or Mexico, and sent to inhumane jails for drug possession ? Or do you think people should realize that the rights granted by one society may be different from those granted by a different society ? Do you think Americans should give an apology and a huge settlement to the student who was stupid enough to go to North Korea, commit a crime, and subsequently suffer brain damage due to torture, because his rights were violated ?

[CharonY]

My reading of the situation is similar to ranger's with the addendum that Khadr was apprehended before Harper. My feeling is without the Supreme Court ruling either government would be happy to let this thing vanish.

I may have not seen that Khadr was lawfully extradited to the US. In fact the Canadian embassy sent a letter to request Khadr not to be transferred to Guantanamo.

As a whole, I am not even sure what there is to discuss as the Supreme Court ruling makes it fairly clear that this is not a political, but a judicial issue. On top of it, some deeper reading makes the whole ruling highly problematic, not only because of the coercive circumstances, but also because there were very contradicting accounts of the events. The whole thing is a mess with a conviction only following torture and questionable tribunals. The US and Canada have a history of attacking the lawfulness of those convictions and trying to repatriate their citizens if they happened in other countries (there have been prominent examples from Saudi Arabia and North Korea, for example).

 

But even worse, here the government appears to be complicit in breaking their own laws. So what option would they have? The only thing would to try to defend in court, which would likely be more costly and even more embarrassing, considering the Supreme court ruling.

 

I absolutely fail to see how this could be interpreted as a kind of PC move. Harper may have tried to challenge it, but it would just be posturing. Except, of course that is what you think what should have done. I am pretty sure the lawyers were reasonable certain of the outcome.

 

Edit: found an interesting blog discussing the case:

 

http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/national-security-law-blog/

 

 

In sum, the Government of Canada screwed this up. Massively. And now a criminal trial is impossible because of tainted evidence, maltreatment, double jeopardy (from the US process that may, ironically, end up overturned on appeal in DC because of all the retroactive crimes). Nor would a trial serve any purpose: even with a conviction, hard time in Guantanamo (in pre-trial detention, no less) exceeds anything a Canadian court would hand out.

 

 

 

What about Khadr’s lawsuit: Shouldn’t the government have fought it?

It did. Since 2004. Here’s the Federal Court docket. It got to the point that the government’s legal tactics were costing it. For instance, in resisting Khadr’s amendment of his statement of claim, the government skated past the point of credibility. And here’s what the judge ordered in 2014:

The Plaintiff [Khadr] was successful on nearly every aspect of this motion. Only a handful of the Defendant’s [Canada’s] myriad arguments had any merit. By opposing this motion, the Defendant considerably increased the costs and delay of this complex action, which has occupied this Court for ten years now. Consequently, I exercise my discretion to award costs in favour of the Plaintiff, pursuant to Rules 400 and 401

In the end, Khadr was suing Canada for a lot of things, not just the Charter breaches everyone is talking about:

$20,000,000 in compensatory damages alleging negligence, negligent investigation, conspiracy with the United States in the arbitrary detention, torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of mental distress and assault and battery of the Plaintiff, failure to comply with domestic and international obligations with regard to treatment while confined, and misfeasance in public office. In the alternative, he sought an award of damages pursuant to s 24(1) of the Charter and a declaration that the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s ss 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 15 Charter rights.

Would he have won? On the Charter breaches, the Supreme Court of Canada had already concluded (twice) that Canada had breached Khadr’s Charter s.7 rights through the CSIS interrogation and sharing of resulting information with the Americans. The issue of what damages should be paid for that had not been decided – it was not before the Supreme Court and that was what the Federal Court lawsuit was about. But the existence of the constitutional breach was probably governed by “issue estoppel” – it had already been decided by the Supreme Court, and so that legal question was decided (although, per its habit, the government would have likely contested this, racking up more costs).

I don’t underestimate the complexities of the Ward case and its standard for damages in Charter cases. But basically, the Khadr case was probably mostly just a question of quantifying the damages.

Edited July 14, 2017 by CharonY