Sharpshooter Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Canada's treatment of Khadr should be a source of national embarrassment This weekend saw two prominent stories involving Canadians returning to their country to face legal penalties for serious crimes committed abroad – one a convicted child rapist, the other an exploited child. The difference in their treatment says a lot about Canada’s priorities. The first, Christopher Neil, is an admitted serial sexual exploiter of children, caught in Thailand after officials decoded the computerized swirl patterns he’d used to disguise his face in numerous photos in which he sexually assaulted children. After having served his full sentence of three years and three months in Thailand, he was allowed to fly back to Canada. He strolled into Vancouver airport on Friday night and was arrested by the RCMP on precautionary grounds. As RCMP Corporal Mat Van Laer told reporters, Canadian officials felt “confident enough that some form of monitoring would be a good idea in this case.” The second, Omar Khadr, was not allowed to return home on his own, but was brought back in shackles, despite having already spent 10 years in the ultra-high-security U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He will face another six years in the penal system in Canada. Canada’s government has taken unprecedented efforts to prevent him being returned to his home country, even as every other Western country has fought to get its Guantanamo inmates returned to their soil. The discrepancy does not end there. If Mr. Neil was a confessed exploiter of children, Mr. Khadr was, among other things, an exploited child. There is no ambiguity in this: He was 15 when he lobbed a grenade at American soldiers during one of the initial skirmishes of the Afghanistan war, after his political-extremist family persuaded him to fight. As such, he was a young offender under Canadian law – a fact acknowledged by Canada’s courts, which have suggested that his Guantanamo convictions are unconstitutional – and a child soldier under every international legal definition. This fact was acknowledged by the United Nations secretary-general’s special representative for child soldiers, who told courts in 2010 that Mr. Khadr is an example of “the classic child-soldier narrative: recruited by unscrupulous groups to undertake actions at the bidding of adults to fight battles they barely understand.” The fact that Canadian officials are treating a badly mistreated child soldier far worse than an admitted child rapist should be a source of national embarrassment. Clive Stafford Smith, the British civil-rights lawyer who has acted on behalf of at least 128 Guantanamo inmates, said that he is shocked by Canada’s behaviour: While other countries fought to have their Guantanamo inmates repatriated, Canada fought very hard to keep Washington from releasing its sole inmate, the youngest in the system and the last of between 15 and 21 children to be released from the prison. Only after Mr. Khadr had agreed to plead guilty to terrorism – a dubious charge, given that his victims were soldiers, not civilians – was return to Canada even made a possibility. “It is a sorry state of affairs when you have to be found guilty before you can be set free,” Mr. Stafford Smith said from his offices at Reprieve, the London-based penal-justice charity. “This is the system with which Canada has been complicit. I am sad that Canada has behaved so badly over Guantanamo. I have always held Canada in high esteem, but the country has let us (and the rule of law) down on this score.” Mr. Stafford Smith points out that to continue to pretend that Omar Khadr was not a child soldier would represent an abandonment of core Canadian values – and of generally accepted morality. “There were, we are told, equal reasons why the current pope was not considered responsible for his membership in the Hitler Youth when he was precisely the same age (15),” he notes. “Certainly we did not try the Pope at Nuremburg, thank goodness, and it is fairly ludicrous that the US decided to try Omar Khadr as if he were an adult.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/khadrs-treatment-by-canadian-officials-a-sorry-state-of-affairs/article4579178/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Good article. The contrast between the two cases is interesting. The question is whether Canada convicts minors as adults for heinous crimes like murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Except that they miss the point that Neil served his entire sentence in Thailand and was only allowed to come once finished his sentence. Canada brought Khadr back before serving his setence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 And you missed the point that Neil received a fair trial and Omar didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 He was a noncombatant foreigner fighter found in the field participating in the battle. He does not dispute that. Omar had a lawyer and was represented at his trial. He agreed to a plea deal, pled guilty, and was sentenced. The problem most of us have is that it was a military tribunal, and not a criminal court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 He was a noncombatant foreigner fighter found in the field participating in the battle. He does not dispute that. Omar had a lawyer and was represented at his trial. He agreed to a plea deal, pled guilty, and was sentenced. The problem most of us have is that it was a military tribunal, and not a criminal court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I am above this place, but someone keeps emailing me saying I should come post all this stuff, so here I am to post it. Instead of just having the conversation in private, I will have the conversation here, even though I am above it. Wet, who is it that keeps emailing to you to come back to CDC? You should really just ask them to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I am above this place, but someone keeps emailing me saying I should come post all this stuff, so here I am to post it. Instead of just having the conversation in private, I will have the conversation here, even though I am above it. Wet, who is it that keeps emailing to you to come back to CDC? You should really just ask them to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Why? You are opposed to becoming informed and educated on a complex matter with overlapping legal issues?? If the person who asked me to post in this thread wishes to identify himself/herself - that person is free to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I'm not opposed to you informing or educating me, or anyone else at all. In fact, it's quite useful. What I am opposed to, and what I thought I specifically addressed is why you have to introduce each of your lectures with "I'm above this, but since you all need it, here I am..." Couldn't you just type this into your personal conversations and have it copy/pasted here, if you hate this place so much? I don't want to derail the thread, I just don't get why you've gotta start almost every one of your posts with that garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Thanks for the post Wetcoaster. Unfortunately too many people just don't see or care. Hard,troubling times are coming if people don't start standing up to corrupt power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Wetcoaster, you should have been his attorney. You know I respect you but there is nothing like reading your filibuster. After 2006, Boumediene v. Bush, he had the right to habeas corpus. Regardless of how stacked the deck was, his attorney never pursued that avenue in the public courts--where were the lawyers lined up to take his case? His attorney can say whatever he wants now. But at the end of the day his attorney was the one who advised his client to plead, and Kadhr pled out. If you are not guilty, you do not plead guilty or no contest, or make a plea deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackberries Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Awesome post wet, Always a pleasure to read your stuff. Despite other sentiment, your writing is still very much appreciated at CDC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Wetcoaster, you should have been his attorney. You know I respect you but there is nothing like reading your filibuster. After 2006, Boumediene v. Bush, he had the right to habeas corpus. Regardless of how stacked the deck was, his attorney never pursued that avenue in the public courts--where were the lawyers lined up to take his case? His attorney can say whatever he wants now. But at the end of the day his attorney was the one who advised his client to plead, and Kadhr pled out. If you are not guilty, you do not plead guilty or no contest, or make a plea deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Thanks for the info Wet....much appreciated. I am above this place, but someone keeps emailing me saying I should come post all this stuff, so here I am to post it. Instead of just having the conversation in private, I will have the conversation here, even though I am above it. Wet, who is it that keeps emailing to you to come back to CDC? You should really just ask them to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 in ordinary circumstances before a real court of law that may be true. However in this case the deck was so stacked and facing a kangaroo court the only feasible way out was the plea agreement otherwise he was never getting out. I would not be surprised to see a suit filed here to set aside the plea agreement and since the Canadian government was involved in it, that gives the Canadian courts sufficient jurisdiction to act IMHO. Just last night on CBC his lead counsel, John Norris dd not rule out such a suit and Eddie Greenspan offered a similar opinion. BTW Khadr's counsel did file as one of the series of the habeas corpus applications - there were actually three habeas applications on behalf of Omar Khadr. Here are the two main ones: http://www.law.utoro...r_USSCBrief.pdf http://www.law.utoro...beas-Motion.doc There was an amicus brief in support of one of the habeas applications filed by Canadian Parliamentarians and Professors of Law: http://www.law.utoro...AMICUSBRIEF.pdf His lawyers did a superb job given that the game was rigged against Khadr from the get-go. And the fact that the Canadian government did nothing despite urging by both his Canadian and US military defence counsel is abhorrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 As is the current demonization of Omar from the moment he entered Canada, by the current Harper Gov't by the equally abhorrent Vic Toews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 And Toews may have really put his foot in it (legally speaking). Once Khadr's transfer was signed by Toews, he was under the jurisidiction of a quasi-judicial tribunal... the National Parole Board as well as the Correctional Service of Canada. The rule of thumb is that the executive should not be commenting upon such cases. It raises issues of reasonable apprehension of bias, conflict of interest, etc. And in this case it is even worse. Remember who has jurisdiction over the the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board ( the name rhymes with Mick Woes) and NPB members are appointed by Cabinet. And on the braying by Toews: "Now that he's back in Canada the government should simply clam up. It has no more duty in regards to this individual. He's now within the process of our judicial system and in that context the executive has no right to interfere in the judicial process," Dallaire said. And Khadr's counsel, Brydie Bethell, makes the same point and may be laying the groundwork for a bias claim with the National Parole Board and/or the courts. "In my view, it's quite impermissible for a member of government and a minister of the Crown to be interfering in any way with corrections officials' jobs," Bethell said, adding that it's "very unfortunate" that the minister is "continuing to demonize Omar in the media." And it seems the federal government realizes that it may have created more problems for itself. Toews' office said Monday that he won't be commenting further on Khadr's case. That announcement is well past time. http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ill-monday.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.