Protestors in Edmonton demand that Khadr be returned to Canada

by albertacowpoke | November 16, 2009 at 10:15 am

129 views | 18 Recommendations | 20 comments

Omar Khadr was arrested on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2002. He is alleged to have murdered a U.S. soldier with a grenade.

Supporters of Omar Khadr consider him a child soldier and want him brought back to Canada. A federal court has ruled that the Canadian Government is required to seek Khadr's release to Canadian authorities. The Federal government appealed this ruling and lost. This case is now in being argued in front of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Government position is that a court should not tell the Government how to deal with this prisoner. The case was heard on Friday. A decision is not expected for some time.

Friday the Attorney General, of the United States made an announcement as to the disposition of 10 Gitmo prisoner. Omar Khadr is on the list of those to be tried by a Military Tribunal. A CBC reporter asked the AG as to what the U.S. reaction would be if the request was made by the Canadian Government, the AG was uncommitted and said that the file would have to be reviewed.

Khadr is the only Westerner still held in Guantanamo. He was 15 at the time of his arrest.

Today there is a protest in Edmonton of a couple of dozen supporters of Omar Khadr. Their hope is that their voice will be heard by the Canadian Government. Their argument is that Omar Khadr did not know what he was doing and that no one should have to endure the torture at Guantanamo Bay.

Khadr's family has a long affiliation with Al Quaeda. Those that are supporting Omar Khadr's release, believe that Khadr should not have to pay for the sins of his parents.

EDMONTON — Several dozen people held a rally in downtown Edmonton to demand that Omar Khadr be sent back to Canada to face trial in a civilian court.

Khadr, 23, is being held by the Americans at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan seven years ago.

American authorities have announced that Khadr is among a group of terror suspects at Guantanamo who will be moved to the U.S. to face justice there.

Charlene Scharf, who is with the Edmonton chapter of Amnesty International, argues that Khadr was a child soldier when he allegedly killed the American soldier and didn't fully understand what he was doing.

Fellow protester, Justine Vandergrift, says no human being should have to endure torture in place such as Guantanamo Bay.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

MBenson82

at 10:43 on November 16th, 2009

The Government position is that a court should not tell the Government how to deal with this prisoner.

----------------------------------------------------------------

This scares me....If governments can't be held accountable for their actions (which is the logical conclusion to the thought behind this statement, correct me if I'm wrong), then are we truly living in free society?

As always ACP, great article.

albertacowpoke

at 10:57 on November 16th, 2009

I guess, in this case, they see it as policy issue as opposed to a constitutional issue. The Canadian Government accepted the Courts ruling on gay marriage. In that case though, it took the issue out of the political arena. It was also an issue challenged under the Charter of Rights.

The Khadr issue is complicated and you can get as many opinions on it as there are people in Canada. Even if the Canadian government complied, which I think they will if the Supreme Court rules against its logic, there is no guarantee that the United States will hand him over to Canadian authorities without some guarantees.

We run into similar issues when it comes to death penalty cases of Canadian citizens in the United States. While former governments have intervened, this one has chosen not to.

In the case of wanted criminals that have taken refuge in Canada, Canada has always sought guarantees that the death penalty not be on the table before extraditing them to the U.S>

MBenson82

at 11:04 on November 16th, 2009

Well, I learn something new (usually several somethings) every day. I did not know that Canada has no death penalty? I feel so ignorant....

The Khadr issue, the KSM issue, the Hasan issue, the....well, I could go on, but you get my point....It seems like a running theme these days with terrorists and our judicial systems. It seems, and I could be wrong, that Canada wants Khadr so they can give him a "lighter" punishment than the US would. It seems, and I could be wrong, the trying the 9/11 terrorists in NY is a REALLY bad idea. It seems, and I'm tired of being wrong (haha), that Hasan being tried by military court martial makes sense, but won't bring due justice.

albertacowpoke

at 11:15 on November 16th, 2009

In all likelihood, I would think, and this is speculation only, his lawyers feel that there would be a better chance to win the case for the defence.

I would think they could try to get the charges dismissed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions have articles that prohibit use of Child Soldiers.

MBenson82

at 12:20 on November 16th, 2009

Well that opens up a whole new can of worms, ACP. Do we consider Al Qaida and the Taliban militaries, or terrorist organizations? It would seem to me, that in order for the "child soldier" defense (it's an 's', not a 'c' :P) to hold any water then the organization he was fighting for would have to be considered a military, and he an enlisted soldier in that military.

Are the Columbine shooters "child soldiers"? The so-called "trench coat gang", are they a group of child soldiers? Of course not. They're radically misguided, true, but they're just terrorists, same as Khadr.

albertacowpoke

at 12:50 on November 16th, 2009

You left one other definition out of the mix. Enemy combatants, a term used by the Bush administration as a way to get away from the Geneva conventions. I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to be. The question is how does that term fit with in the Canadian Charter of Rights or any of the UN or Geneva conventions. It is, without a doubt, a difficult legal issue. Thanks again for your comments. Please note that Defence, (the spelling thereof) depends whether or not you use the Queen's English or American English.:)

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Home/

http://www.defenselink.mil/

MBenson82

at 13:06 on November 16th, 2009

Hahahaha, yes ACP, I know defense vs defence, I was just making a not-so-funny :)

Oh believe me, I'm not a lawyer either, I was just trying to bring out some of your knowledge of the Canadian legal system, because I'm sadly ignorant of it. Also, your personal opinion wouldn't be unappreciated.

I mean, really, let's cut away the political and bureaucratical nonsense and talk in plain Queen's English (if you prefer :-P).....The guy's a terrorist. He commited acts of terrorism as a child, granted, but he's an adult now, and I'm fairly sure turning 18 didn't change his anti-US/anti-Christian/anti-whatever views. The liberal-minded can try to hide behind Geneva and Canada's legal system, to try to protect this guy's human rights, but I firmly believe some people (Khadr, Hasan, etc) no longer deserve human rights. Inhumane acts doth not a human make. (Just made that up, think I should copyright it?)

albertacowpoke

at 13:29 on November 16th, 2009

You bet there are two sides to this issue for sure. I don't know where the Obama Administration stands on this issue, however I think if they felt that he was something other than a terrorist they would have asked Canada to take him back already.

Politically, I think there would be an awful backlash against the Administration if they decided to cut him lose and Canada's legal system were able to get the case dismissed.

I think they have already taken a big risk with KSM and four others with their decision to try them in New York. Obviously they have evidence on those five guys that will convict them under the U.S. legal system.

Khadr has been selected to be tried in a Military Tribunal though, maybe all the evidence they have on him would be thrown out in a civil court.

I find it odd that five would be tried in civil court, while the others are being tried by Military Tribunal.

I also think that the prisoner released to third countries to this point had not been charged, but don't quote me on that lol.

MBenson82

at 13:39 on November 16th, 2009

The issue with trying KSM+4 in civil court is the evidence, ACP. If their defens(c)e lawyers start asking questions of the CIA on "how did you learn this", "where did you get this", etc, there's going to be a LOT of classified information involved there, and if his miranda rights were never read to him, or if there were search and seizures performed without warrants, the entire thing could be called a mis-trial and thrown out.

It's an EXCEPTIONALLY bad idea to try these guys in civil court.

As for Khadr...well, we'll just have to wait and see what happens. Once the U.S and Canada reach a decision it's going to have "awful backlash" no matter which direction it goes, I think.

albertacowpoke

at 13:47 on November 16th, 2009

I agree, I think we both said the same thing in different ways.

MBenson82

at 13:57 on November 16th, 2009

Yeah it's the end of my work day and I'm tired.... :)

Roy C

at 15:01 on November 16th, 2009

It is a policy issue. Where does it say in your constitution that the gov't has to do this? You can castigate the gov't for doing the wrong thing, but that is the limit.

What part of what document is the issue supposed to have indicated in? I thought Canada had no one document as a constitution, but rather a collection of rulings from the Magna Carta on down to today.

albertacowpoke

at 15:09 on November 16th, 2009

The Constitution Act of 1982:

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html

Roy C

at 15:02 on November 16th, 2009

I have news for the Canadian libs. If you commit a crime in another country, you don't automatically get to demand to be returned to your country of origin to serve your sentence.

albertacowpoke

at 15:10 on November 16th, 2009

Roy I know this is just a play with words, but you do get to demand. The demand doesn't automatically get granted:)

Roy C

at 15:16 on November 16th, 2009

Demand the right policy or let the court play tyrant based on stuff they imagine to exist in the constitution?

Roy C

at 15:18 on November 16th, 2009

If you are out of uniform, essentially, it is a criminal act, no? And he was. So, he has to do some time as a juvenile who committed murder.

albertacowpoke

at 15:28 on November 16th, 2009

I think the issue is really more complicated than that. The U.S. classified him as an enemy combatant. He was picked up on the battlefield and the Taliban nor Al Quaeda wear uniforms. Apparent your Attorney General agrees with this take, after all he wants to try him with a Military Tribunal, while KSM and four others are being tried in civilian court.

I think those that want to get him brought home and also hope to have charges dismissed will be using the Canadian Charter of Rights and not the Constitution Act of 1982.

Some also consider him a child soldier under the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter.