Khadr Sentenced To 40 Years By Military Tribunal

[Wetcoaster]

The courts in Canada have had involvement in the Khadr case in the past and their rulings may indicate they might look favourably on setting aside the guilty plea as they have found Charter violations in the past.

In 2007, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court of Appeal ordered the Canadian government to turn over its records related to Khadr's time in captivity as it was apparent that Canada had violated international law.

The government appealed and on May 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the government had acted illegally, contravening S. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ordered the videotapes of the interrogation released.

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2008/2008scc28/2008scc28.html

In April 2009, the Federal Court of Canada ruled again that Khadr's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated concluding Canada had a "duty to protect" Khadr and ordered the Canadian government to request that the U.S. return him to Canada as soon as possible.

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2009/2009fc405/2009fc405.html

In August 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision in a 2–1 ruling.

http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2009/2009fca246/2009fca246.html

In January 2010, in a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the participation of Canadian officials in Khadr's interrogations at Guantanamo clearly violated his rights under the Charter. In its sharply worded decision, the Supreme Court referred to the denial of Khadr's legal rights as well as to the use of sleep deprivation techniques to soften him up for interrogation:

Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations and contributed to K’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, not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Though the process to which K is subject has changed, his claim is based upon the same underlying series of events considered in Khadr 2008. As held in that case, the Charter applies to the participation of Canadian officials in a regime later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by international law. There is a sufficient connection between the government’s participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K’s liberty and security of the person. While the U.S. is the primary source of the deprivation, it is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before the Court that the statements taken by Canadian officials are contributing to K’s continued detention. The deprivation of K’s right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.

K is entitled to a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The remedy sought by K — an order that Canada request his repatriation — is sufficiently connected to the Charter breach that occurred in 2003 and 2004 because of the continuing effect of this breach into the present and its possible effect on K’s ultimate trial. While the government must have flexibility in deciding how its duties under the royal prerogative over foreign relations are discharged, the executive is not exempt from constitutional scrutiny. Courts have the jurisdiction and the duty to determine whether a prerogative power asserted by the Crown exists; if so, whether its exercise infringes the Charter or other constitutional norms; and, where necessary, to give specific direction to the executive branch of the government. Here, the trial judge misdirected himself in ordering the government to request K’s repatriation, in view of the constitutional responsibility of the executive to make decisions on matters of foreign affairs and the inconclusive state of the record. The appropriate remedy in this case is to declare that K’s Charter rights were violated, leaving it to the government to decide how best to respond in light of current information, its responsibility over foreign affairs, and the Charter.

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc3/2010scc3.html

[Wetcoaster]

Yes from an international standpoint many child soldiers are kidnapped/orphaned then forced into it.

From a Canadian standpoint this might be less of an issue. So if under Canadian law it's grounds to remove the child how does that apply once the child has left for Afghanistan as an example? Can the parent be prosecuted?

Regardless of whether Kadr ended up in gitmo the issue really is how did a Canadian citizen become a child soldier?

[Sharpshooter]

The courts in Canada have had involvement in the Khadr case in the past and their rulings may indicate they might look favourably on setting aside the guilty plea as they have found Charter violations in the past.

In 2007, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court of Appeal ordered the Canadian government to turn over its records related to Khadr's time in captivity as it was apparent that Canada had violated international law.

The government appealed and on May 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the government had acted illegally, contravening S. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ordered the videotapes of the interrogation released.

http://scc.lexum.umo.../2008scc28.html

In April 2009, the Federal Court of Canada ruled again that Khadr's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated concluding Canada had a "duty to protect" Khadr and ordered the Canadian government to request that the U.S. return him to Canada as soon as possible.

http://decisions.fct.../2009fc405.html

In August 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision in a 2–1 ruling.

http://decisions.fca...2009fca246.html

In January 2010, in a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the participation of Canadian officials in Khadr's interrogations at Guantanamo clearly violated his rights under the Charter. In its sharply worded decision, the Supreme Court referred to the denial of Khadr's legal rights as well as to the use of sleep deprivation techniques to soften him up for interrogation:

Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations and contributed to K'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, not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Though the process to which K is subject has changed, his claim is based upon the same underlying series of events considered in Khadr 2008. As held in that case, the Charter applies to the participation of Canadian officials in a regime later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by international law. There is a sufficient connection between the government's participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K's liberty and security of the person. While the U.S. is the primary source of the deprivation, it is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before the Court that the statements taken by Canadian officials are contributing to K's continued detention. The deprivation of K's right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.

K is entitled to a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The remedy sought by K — an order that Canada request his repatriation — is sufficiently connected to the Charter breach that occurred in 2003 and 2004 because of the continuing effect of this breach into the present and its possible effect on K's ultimate trial. While the government must have flexibility in deciding how its duties under the royal prerogative over foreign relations are discharged, the executive is not exempt from constitutional scrutiny. Courts have the jurisdiction and the duty to determine whether a prerogative power asserted by the Crown exists; if so, whether its exercise infringes the Charter or other constitutional norms; and, where necessary, to give specific direction to the executive branch of the government. Here, the trial judge misdirected himself in ordering the government to request K's repatriation, in view of the constitutional responsibility of the executive to make decisions on matters of foreign affairs and the inconclusive state of the record. The appropriate remedy in this case is to declare that K's Charter rights were violated, leaving it to the government to decide how best to respond in light of current information, its responsibility over foreign affairs, and the Charter.

http://scc.lexum.umo...3/2010scc3.html

[لني]

Not from the perspective of the putative child soldier - how it occurred is not relevant.

[Wetcoaster]

What I'm asking is: can anything be done prior to these children becoming child soldiers.

He's a Canadian citizen who became a child soldier. Are other children who are Canadian citizens at risk? If so what laws etc are I place to prevent such an occurrance?

From the well being of a child gitmo is but one potential outcome. Others include death, slavery etc

[لني]

Post #38.

We can prosecute war crimes in Canada that have occurred outside our borders under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act passed after Canada signed the Rome Statute which was an international instrument granting universal jurisdiction over war crimes.

[GarthButcher]

I have to say a huge thank you to Wetcoaster and Sharpshooter in this thread. As a Cdn living outside of Canada, I'll often post things on here to try to get a Canadian perspective on domestic issues. Sadly, this forum can often be a voice for the lowest common denominator in Cdn intellectualism. Not the case in this thread.

The question I wonder about. After all these years in Gitmo, the sad reality is that Khadr is probably in a seriously deteriorated mental state. Most normal people would harbour a lot of resentment towards his captors, and his government who left him hanging out to dry and even were a party to the torture (CSIS). I wonder if he'll be a victim of his circumstance, as other governments have said about their detainees there that "if they weren't terrorists before, they sure are now."

If we choose to respect our core principles (where the US has burned theirs), this guy should not be in jail or should at least face a fair trial which would most likely exonerate him. The question is if we will do that or not.

The Harper government has show multiple times that it cares little about international standards or public opinion (mocking the UN, global climate change, Israeli war crimes prosecution, Afghan detainees, etc). I wonder how the Canadian public can continually let this government get away with these actions without holding them to account. Are they apathetic about politics, or simply uninformed?

But also, isn't it true that both the Liberals and Conservatives have left Khadr hanging? I that he was captured during the Liberal government's reign (when his mom and sister did that disastrous interview). Just like the Afghan campaign in general, the fact that everyone has their hands dirty limits the amount of bold and right thinking actions to solve the problem.

Thanks again for the thoughtful posts (for the most part), and it's always nice to hear the views of a real Cdn hero, Romeo Dallaire.

[Polish Eagle]

The Harper government has show multiple times that it cares little about international standards or public opinion

[Wetcoaster]

So nothing preventative?

[Wetcoaster]

I have to say a huge thank you to Wetcoaster and Sharpshooter in this thread. As a Cdn living outside of Canada, I'll often post things on here to try to get a Canadian perspective on domestic issues. Sadly, this forum can often be a voice for the lowest common denominator in Cdn intellectualism. Not the case in this thread.

The question I wonder about. After all these years in Gitmo, the sad reality is that Khadr is probably in a seriously deteriorated mental state. Most normal people would harbour a lot of resentment towards his captors, and his government who left him hanging out to dry and even were a party to the torture (CSIS). I wonder if he'll be a victim of his circumstance, as other governments have said about their detainees there that "if they weren't terrorists before, they sure are now."

If we choose to respect our core principles (where the US has burned theirs), this guy should not be in jail or should at least face a fair trial which would most likely exonerate him. The question is if we will do that or not.

The Harper government has show multiple times that it cares little about international standards or public opinion (mocking the UN, global climate change, Israeli war crimes prosecution, Afghan detainees, etc). I wonder how the Canadian public can continually let this government get away with these actions without holding them to account. Are they apathetic about politics, or simply uninformed?

But also, isn't it true that both the Liberals and Conservatives have left Khadr hanging? I that he was captured during the Liberal government's reign (when his mom and sister did that disastrous interview). Just like the Afghan campaign in general, the fact that everyone has their hands dirty limits the amount of bold and right thinking actions to solve the problem.

Thanks again for the thoughtful posts (for the most part), and it's always nice to hear the views of a real Cdn hero, Romeo Dallaire.

[ronthecivil]

I have to say a huge thank you to Wetcoaster and Sharpshooter in this thread. As a Cdn living outside of Canada, I'll often post things on here to try to get a Canadian perspective on domestic issues. Sadly, this forum can often be a voice for the lowest common denominator in Cdn intellectualism. Not the case in this thread.

The question I wonder about. After all these years in Gitmo, the sad reality is that Khadr is probably in a seriously deteriorated mental state. Most normal people would harbour a lot of resentment towards his captors, and his government who left him hanging out to dry and even were a party to the torture (CSIS). I wonder if he'll be a victim of his circumstance, as other governments have said about their detainees there that "if they weren't terrorists before, they sure are now."

If we choose to respect our core principles (where the US has burned theirs), this guy should not be in jail or should at least face a fair trial which would most likely exonerate him. The question is if we will do that or not.

The Harper government has show multiple times that it cares little about international standards or public opinion (mocking the UN, global climate change, Israeli war crimes prosecution, Afghan detainees, etc). I wonder how the Canadian public can continually let this government get away with these actions without holding them to account. Are they apathetic about politics, or simply uninformed?

But also, isn't it true that both the Liberals and Conservatives have left Khadr hanging? I that he was captured during the Liberal government's reign (when his mom and sister did that disastrous interview). Just like the Afghan campaign in general, the fact that everyone has their hands dirty limits the amount of bold and right thinking actions to solve the problem.

Thanks again for the thoughtful posts (for the most part), and it's always nice to hear the views of a real Cdn hero, Romeo Dallaire.

[ronthecivil]

Canada was at the forefront in pushing for the UN Child Soldier convention and was the first signatory. Canada has also been a leader in developing what is known as DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration) rehabilitation programs for child soldiers so there is a degree of expertise. In fact a DDR assessment and plan has already been prepared and filed with a Canadian parliamentary sub-committee recommending what Canada should do with Omar Khadr.

http://www.michelles...ehabProgram.PDF

2008 welfare reports (ordered released by the court) indicated that US officials dealing with Khadr termed him "salvageable", non-radcalized" and a "good kid" who was well-liked in the camp. The US military contact to the welfare agency expressed concern that continued detention at Gitmo could radicalize him.

http://www.michelles..._March_2008.pdf

http://www.michelles..._April_2008.pdf

http://www.michelles...rt_May_2008.pdf

Here is an affidavit from Khadr describing interrogation techniques and treatment he received dated 22 Februaury 2008.

http://www.michelles...dacted_2008.pdf

[Wetcoaster]

Given that he almost certainly has a less than stellar opinion of the west I find it kind of funny (not in a ha ha way) that people are cheering the thought that he might be walking our streets sooner rather than later.

[Wetcoaster]

Given that it's 2010 now one would think that someone might do another assement before we just set him loose. Mind you, given our justice system, I have zero faith that even a favorable assesement would prove to be correct (isnt' the rest of the family still pretty radical?) or that even a negative assement will keep him locked up, god forbid we violate his charter rights!

[Sharpshooter]

Isn't that a good thing? who wants a government that constantly monitors public opinion polls and does whatever is the popular thing from week to week, I certainly don't

[JAH]

Is it still legal to shoot child soldier in battle?

[ronthecivil]

Yes. The Law of Armed Conflict (which includes the GC) does not distinguish legal target from illegal one based on age. If you think about it it makes sense. If someone is shooting at you (or in the case of this POS, throwing a grenade), he is still a threat and you have the legal right to eliminate that threat.

[Sharpshooter]

You know what I find funny (ha ha) is that those who mock other's who seek the protection of their rights under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will often be the first among the 'brave', 'free' and 'patriotic' to cry foul and wrap themselves in the Charter's protective blanket at the first sight of their own perceived oppression.

It never ceases to amaze me...the disconnect and hypocrisy.

[ronthecivil]

The reports on Khadr prepared by Canadian officials seem to indicate the opposite.

[JAH]

One thing that is forgotten here is that this murderer would not be alive today if it were not for the swift actions of his victim's buddies. They came to his aid and saved his life as their friend, his victim, bled out in front of them. By legal right, they could have 'taken care of him' right them and there, but they didn't. I assume they were ordered to capture as many AQ as they could, for the LOAC allowed them to engage their threat until it was dead.

He is a killer, a terrorist, and sadly, a Canadian. He's one lucky SOB.