Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
More on Omar Khadr Coverage
by C. L. Cook
Canadian Guantanamo Bay inmate, Omar Khadr made the news again last weekend when mentioned as being part of an Obama administration announcement of its intention to try finally some of the long-time detainees of Camp X-Ray.
by C. L. Cook
Canadian Guantanamo Bay inmate, Omar Khadr made the news again last weekend when mentioned as being part of an Obama administration announcement of its intention to try finally some of the long-time detainees of Camp X-Ray. Omar Khadr, you may recall, has languished in that emblem of modern American jurisprudence for nearly eight years now.
Obama's people revealed, Khadr will be one of several who will face trial under the auspice of the already discredited "Military Commission" court.
Omar Khadr at 15, shortly before he was captured in Afghanistan in 2002
He is charged with the killing of an American soldier, Sgt. Christopher Speer, who died during an attack against a remote compound in Afghanistan in 2002. The charge against Khadr, offered with no ironic acknowledgment, is "war crimes."
That's the end of Omar Khadr news, as far as the press south of the 49th parallel is concerned. In Canada however there's another dimension to the story.
Khadr is the only Canadian in Guantanamo's renowned Camp X-Ray, (as far as we're aware) and the last western national held there. Australia and the United Kingdom both entreated the United States repatriate their respective citizens some time ago, and those requests were granted during the late Bush presidency. Canada has made no such attempt; neither during the Liberal governments of Jean Chretien and successor Paul Martin, nor the current Conservative Harper regime.
Far from seeking the return of the prisoner, untried these last long years, Harper's 'New Government of Canada' is adamant it will never implore justice be done for Omar Khadr, despite the orders of Canadian courts saying it is the government's duty to intervene on behalf of the citizenry in cases of blatant injustice meted out by foreign powers, whether they be friend or foe. One ingenuous argument Harper has offered for his stubborn recalcitrance is the belief the Americans would be unlikely to free the boy anyway. So, their logic goes, let him rot forever.
Writing for the Canadian state broadcaster, CBC Kady O'Malley provides Canadians a little background reading on the Khadr case, citing a few of the recommendations made by the parliament's House Subcommittee on International Human Rights report of 2008.
It concluded, among other measures, the government of Canada should:
1. demand the immediate termination of Military Commission proceedings against Omar Khadr.
2. express objection to the position stated by the United States that it reserves the right to detain Omar Khadr as an "enemy combatant".
3. demand Omar Khadr's release from US custody at Guantanamo Bay to the custody of Canadian law enforcement officials as soon as practical.
4. call on the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate, and, if warranted, prosecute Omar Khadr for offenses under Canadian law.
5. take such measures as are necessary to ensure that possible security concerns are appropriately and adequately addressed upon the repatriation of Omar Khadr.
6. take measures consistent with obligations under Article 7 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and with Canadian law.
7. particularly, Canadian authorities ensure a rehabilitation and reintegration program is developed for Omar Khadr, taking into account security concerns.
These recommendations were, O'Malley says, concurred upon in the House, and yet a year later not one of them has been acted on. In fact, even as the Obama administration made its intentions on Khadr's fate public, the 'New Government' continues to fight a legal battle in the nation's Supreme Court in efforts to overturn lower court orders it intercede on Khadr's behalf. The Conservative's dissent from the will of parliament on the Khadr case is described within its dissent, argued before the Supreme Court.
Though the Harper government does not elucidate further on the singular dimensionality of its opponents in the House, (consisting of a majority vote across party lines by the members of the Liberal Party, New Democratic Party, and Parti Quebecois) its charge of oppositional monomania is echoed by arch-conservative media conglomerate Canwest Global editor, Kelly McParland who decries the "one-sided world of Khadr coverage", opining;
He is charged with the killing of an American soldier, Sgt. Christopher Speer, who died during an attack against a remote compound in Afghanistan in 2002. The charge against Khadr, offered with no ironic acknowledgment, is "war crimes."
That's the end of Omar Khadr news, as far as the press south of the 49th parallel is concerned. In Canada however there's another dimension to the story.
Khadr is the only Canadian in Guantanamo's renowned Camp X-Ray, (as far as we're aware) and the last western national held there. Australia and the United Kingdom both entreated the United States repatriate their respective citizens some time ago, and those requests were granted during the late Bush presidency. Canada has made no such attempt; neither during the Liberal governments of Jean Chretien and successor Paul Martin, nor the current Conservative Harper regime.
Far from seeking the return of the prisoner, untried these last long years, Harper's 'New Government of Canada' is adamant it will never implore justice be done for Omar Khadr, despite the orders of Canadian courts saying it is the government's duty to intervene on behalf of the citizenry in cases of blatant injustice meted out by foreign powers, whether they be friend or foe. One ingenuous argument Harper has offered for his stubborn recalcitrance is the belief the Americans would be unlikely to free the boy anyway. So, their logic goes, let him rot forever.
Writing for the Canadian state broadcaster, CBC Kady O'Malley provides Canadians a little background reading on the Khadr case, citing a few of the recommendations made by the parliament's House Subcommittee on International Human Rights report of 2008.
It concluded, among other measures, the government of Canada should:
1. demand the immediate termination of Military Commission proceedings against Omar Khadr.
2. express objection to the position stated by the United States that it reserves the right to detain Omar Khadr as an "enemy combatant".
3. demand Omar Khadr's release from US custody at Guantanamo Bay to the custody of Canadian law enforcement officials as soon as practical.
4. call on the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate, and, if warranted, prosecute Omar Khadr for offenses under Canadian law.
5. take such measures as are necessary to ensure that possible security concerns are appropriately and adequately addressed upon the repatriation of Omar Khadr.
6. take measures consistent with obligations under Article 7 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and with Canadian law.
7. particularly, Canadian authorities ensure a rehabilitation and reintegration program is developed for Omar Khadr, taking into account security concerns.
These recommendations were, O'Malley says, concurred upon in the House, and yet a year later not one of them has been acted on. In fact, even as the Obama administration made its intentions on Khadr's fate public, the 'New Government' continues to fight a legal battle in the nation's Supreme Court in efforts to overturn lower court orders it intercede on Khadr's behalf. The Conservative's dissent from the will of parliament on the Khadr case is described within its dissent, argued before the Supreme Court.
"Our government believes that the opposition [parliament] is approaching the case of Mr. Omar Khadr in a way that 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. The government has serious concerns, which are left unaddressed by this committee, especially with regards to the one-dimensional [emphasis added] approach to the study and the limited scope of testimonies that upheld an interpretation of Mr. Khadr as a victim. The official opposition [Liberal Party of Canada] has taken up Mr. Khadr’s banner. Indeed, on this issue, it is difficult to differentiate between the policy of the current government with that of the previous Liberal government. In absence of any explanation from Liberal members of the Committee, the official opposition’s recent interest in Mr. Khadr’s case, it seems, can be attributed to nothing more than a recent sway in public opinion and the potential for political gain."
Though the Harper government does not elucidate further on the singular dimensionality of its opponents in the House, (consisting of a majority vote across party lines by the members of the Liberal Party, New Democratic Party, and Parti Quebecois) its charge of oppositional monomania is echoed by arch-conservative media conglomerate Canwest Global editor, Kelly McParland who decries the "one-sided world of Khadr coverage", opining;
"If you read the outpouring of coverage on Omar Khadr on the weekend you might be wondering why President Obama hasn't kept his pledge to close Guantanamo by the end of this year, and why he's allowing cases like Khadr's to go to the military tribunals George Bush was so heavily abused over."
Like Harper's 'New Government,' McParland's article does little to bring context to the case beyond proffering his predigested opinions, and offering an ironic attack against those with the temerity to question the jettisoning of such quaint legal instruments as habeas corpus, (the right of an accused to face a court, or remain at liberty) and the rejection of "evidence" evinced under torture or the threat thereof. Instead, "pseudo-jurist" McParland bitterly condemns the "ignorance is bliss Khadr cheerleaders," saying;"That's what we get on Khadr, though: an announcement followed by ritual denunciations by civil libertarians, lawyers sympathetic to Khadr, members of the NDP and "activists" whose expertise, as usual with activists, is limited to their firm belief in the righteousness of their opinions."
The Harper minority agrees with McParland's position that "righteousness" and civil libertarians have no place in the Khadr debate. Indeed, they believe there is no room for old-fashioned legal concepts, writing in their legal dissent to court orders they act on Mr. Khadr's behalf, the merits of the Obama administration's decision to "try" Omar Khadr through the Military Commission court, a court U.S. military lawyers have termed "a kangaroo court."
Of these, the Harper team says;
"Most of the witnesses agreed 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. Mr. Anglin argued that traditional courtrooms are inadequate in prosecuting unlawful combatants detain on the battlefield."
"Indeed, it's a virtual necessity given the circumstances under which battlefield arrests take place. Many witnesses are dead, there's no forensic detective squad to document the scene, and most of the surviving witnesses are serving overseas at the time of trial. For all these reasons, military commissions throughout history have not applied the same evidentiary standards we demand of a civilian criminal trial. If they were required to do so, it would be virtually impossible to ever try detainees."
Not completely content to leave Khadr to rot in the belly of the Black Hole of Guantanamo Bay, Harper's representatives in court hedge their bets, recommending should Khadr ever see the light of day, and be returned to the land he called home, they would like to see section 818.01of the criminal code of Canada be employed against him. That statute, adding to the controversial Anti-Terror Laws states;
"A person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit an offence under section 423.1, a criminal organization offence or a terrorism offence may, with the consent of the Attorney General, lay an information before a provincial court judge."
That is, Khadr could be held under a "preventative" arrest, and held without evidence or trial indefinitely in the Canadian equivalent of Camp X-Ray, a "Gitmo North."
Ain't democracy grand?
In what Canwest editor Kelly McParland doubtless considers "one-sided coverage" of the Khadr case, the Toronto Star's Thomas Walkom provides the context McParland's piece lacks, writing;
"U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder insists he merely wants to differentiate between those accused of attacking civilians and those charged with crimes against the military. He says that's why Mohammed, [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] accused of bringing down the twin towers, will be tried by a civilian court in Manhattan. And he says that's why Khadr and four others charged with attacking U.S. soldiers will be tried by military commissions.This is the excuse. The real reason, I suspect, is that Washington knows that 9/11 ringleaders like Mohammed will be happy to publicly acknowledge their crimes, thus making their convictions a near certainty. But Khadr is not angling for martyrdom. And in a real court of law, the case against him would almost certainly fail.
"First there is his age. Fifteen at the time of his capture, he would be considered a child soldier under United Nations conventions (military commissions are specifically entitled to disregard this).Second, as my colleague Michelle Shephard writes in her book, Guantanamo's Child, Khadr – seriously wounded in the Afghan firefight – was in such bad shape during questioning that even his U.S. interrogator feared he might die. In civilian court, statements obtained under such circumstances would be dismissed as coerced.Lurking behind all of this is the Canadian government's obdurate refusal, in Parliament and the courts, to request his repatriation. It's not clear that the U.S. would agree to such a request if one were made. Holder was deliberately opaque when asked yesterday, saying only "we will, as that case proceeds, see how it should be ultimately treated. What we do know, however, is that after seven years in custody in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, this particular Canadian citizen is heading for a low-level show trial."
Here's a wealth more on Khadr's twisted experience with what passes for justice in the modern western world; all of it one-sided, and unabashedly in defense of the founding principles of western jurisprudence as formulated to stay the powers of wicked kings and despots, and History's endless line of acolytes to power.
Comments (2)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by paul siemering, November 28, 2009
There is no evidence against Omar. He was found after an air raid on a compound where he was. a u.s. soldier got himself killed by whatever means, having nothing to do with Omar That of course does not matter in a military commission. But if a civilian judge looked at this case he would dismiss it in 2 seconds, and send Omar home.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
[Why not? Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen. If you don't believe one Canadian deserves support of the state, then you believe no Canadian does. Is this the Canada you wish to see? Is this the democracy and decency you wish this country project to the world? If so, is that nation's ethos worth taking across the world and promoting in Afghanistan? - ed.]