Khontinued from [url=HERE[/url]">http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/khadrs-khangaroo...
[excerpt][T]he government's handling of the Khadr case has raised troubling questions that seemed long settled until the last few years -- by which I mean since the 17th century. On Aug. 23, 1628, a naval officer named John Felton murdered George Villiers, formerly Lord High Admiral under Charles I. The murder raised fears of a broader treason. Charles asked his judges if Felton, who refused to name his accomplices, could be tortured to make him speak.
Blackstone, the great English jurist, later wrote: "The judges, being consulted, declared unanimously, to their own honour and the honour of the English law, that no such proceeding was allowable by the laws of England."
Torture was known in England, but it was never authorized by the Common Law. As early as 1460 Sir John Fortescue hailed England's refusal to condone torture as one of the its proudest claims. From its earliest days, the Common Law rejected torture not only because of its cruelty, but also because it degraded all who used it. From time to time, the Executive condoned torture of prisoners because of fears of rebellion -- or what today we might call terrorism -- but judges never did. As an English court noted in 1846, in Pearse v Pearse, "Truth, like all other good things, may be loved unwisely -- may be pursued too keenly -- may cost too much." Truth obtained by torture has always been too costly for the Common Law. So evidence obtained through torture is no evidence at all, which in Khadr's case means no grounds for a trial.
It's also true that Khadr was a "child soldier" of 15 when captured, and that the case against him was looking flimsier by the day before Obama shut down the Guantanamo trials, but those matters are secondary. He was tortured. He cannot be tried on evidence resulting from that. Full stop.
Some people today argue that "coercive interrogation" is not the same as torture, and that distasteful acts may be necessary in the fight against terrorism. Others have seriously suggested allowing torture itself in extreme circumstances, but only after a judge has issued a "torture warrant." One American legal scholar suggested that such a warrant "would limit the torture to non-lethal means, such as sterile needles being inserted beneath the nails to cause excruciating pain without endangering life." He later claimed that he raised the issue only to spark debate, but at least to the Common Law, there are some things so obviously wrong as to not require debate. The mere enunciation of such a position is enough to show how repugnant it is.
The abolition of torture in England in 1640 was a significant step toward restraining the executive and making supreme the rule of law, including the view that no one is above the law. No one, not even the executive, may lawfully torture anyone else.
The danger in not protesting when other nations conduct "coercive interrogation," or torture -- as Canada has so far not protested on behalf of Omar Khadr -- is the degrading effect such silence has on the law everywhere. Along with the rest of the Common Law world, Canada has built its civic freedoms slowly, over time. But freedoms can be eroded in the same way. To allow "coercive interrogation" is to take a step away from freedom. Refusing it may briefly benefit a few wrongdoers, but it benefits everyone else -- has benefited everyone else -- for centuries.
Forget about it, M. Spector. Not as long as the Lib-Kon Koalition reigns.
Kommandant Harper will bring in "refugees" that suit his political and ideological needs. Like anti-China ones (and who knows, quite possibly real terrorists at that):
[url=">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090204.wgitmo04/BNS...
Canada close to accepting three Gitmo detainees[/url]
No f***ing kidding.
These foreign nationals must not be allowed into Canada. They were kidnapped and illegally held by the U.S. It is the resonsibility of the U.S. to treat them with justice and dignity, compensate them if required, and provide them with asylum if that's what's needed under international law. We are not a dumping ground for Mr. Obama's half-hearted guilt trip.
If this belongs in a new thread, someone let me know please.
Bring Omar Khadr home now!
"It's also true that Khadr was a "child soldier" of 15 when captured,..."
This goes to the entire point. He was a child soldier. Full stop. Yes the case against him is false but the real point is that it doesn't matter if he was found weak and wounded or healthy and returning fire. There is an obligation to reintegrate child soldiers safely into their home societies without fear of retribution. Khadr needs to come home and under no circumstances be charged with any offence or face any judicial proceeding whatsoever.
It's appalling to think that we are going to consider taking other detainees from Gitmo as refugees while Khadr sits unwanted and fearing persecution here in Canada.
Why do they keep repeating this BS? His "trial" has been suspended and this fact is being used to unjustly prolong his ordeal.
F Cannon and F the Cons. If Khadr was a blonde, christian kid in a similar situation, they would have him home by now and would not have tolerated his unjust imprisonment and abuse. If they were honest, Harper and his gang of thugs would just admit they don't ever want Khadr back in this country. IIRC, while in opposition, Harpher and his gang were spewing all kinds of abuse towards the entire Khadr family, much as they did towards Maher Arar. Each day that these thugs are in power makes me more embarassed for being from a country with a sociapath as PM.
Slight correction: Omar was a child. He was not a soldier/combatant.
This accounts for Harper's snide comment that Omar was "not a child soldier".
It's true. He was just a child in the care and control of adults.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/02/09/8328856-cp.html
snip
What the hell is Khadr's Canadian lawyer doing talking about negotiating to restrict his rights as a Canadian citizen?
Whose rights is he supposed to be looking after, anyway?
[url=Source[/url]">http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/02/09/meanwhile-back-in-canada/#more-34463]...
I sent an Amensty form letter a while back and got the following response (letter first, response after) :
Dear Prime Minister Harper,
Taken into custody by US forces in 2002 at the age of 15, Omar Khadr's
human rights as a minor have never been recognized. For the first three years
of detention, he was interrogated without access to legal counsel. Reports of
torture and other ill-treatment remain uninvestigated. A number of other child
detainees were released years ago, but Omar Khadr, now 22, faces a grossly
unfair trial before a military commission in Guantánamo Bay.
The gradual release of evidence during pre-trial motions and the recent
publication of reports from the Department of Foreign Affairs describing Omar
Khadr as likable, not radicalized and 'salvageable', have cast
significant doubt on the official story told to date. The swell of voices
calling for Omar Khadr to be brought back to Canada is growing every day. Yet
the Canadian government continues to claim that intervention in this case is
premature, while at the same time taking highly publicized - and effective -
action on behalf of other Canadian citizens detained abroad.
Other governments moved to protect the human rights of their citizens by
seeking their release and repatriation years ago. It is incomprehensible to me that the Canadian government has not done the same- especially when the alleged crime M Khdar is detained for occurred when he was a minor.
It is time for the Canadian government to make up for the persistent
failure of the US authorities to apply international human rights standards to
"war on terror" detainees. Canada should immediately request the repatriation
of Omar Khadr and, if there is sufficient and admissible evidence, arrange for
a fair trial before a Canadian court.
Sincerely,
Dear Ms. C:
The Office of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, has
forwarded to me your email of November 15, 2008, concerning the case of
Mr. Omar Khadr, Canadian citizen detained at the U.S. military prison at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
I understand your concerns and I can assure you that the Government of
Canada has an interest in Mr. Khadr's case and in his treatment.
Canadian observers have been present at his hearings before the Military
Commission in Guantanamo Bay and the Court of Military Commission Review
in Washington, D.C. Furthermore, officials of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade Canada have carried out several visits with Mr.
Khadr and will continue to do so. The visits allow access to Mr. Khadr
to assess his welfare and treatment, and to obtain information about his
mental and physical condition.
Although Mr. Khadr is no longer a juvenile, he was 15 years old when he
was alleged to have committed crimes in Afghanistan. Canada has sought
to ensure that the treatment of Mr. Khadr is consistent with
internationally recognized norms and standards for the treatment of
juvenile offenders, and that his age at the time the alleged events
occurred is considered in all parts of the process. Canada has also
consistently sought to ensure that Mr. Khadr receives the benefits of
due process, including the access to Canadian counsel of his choice. The
Canadian
government has received unequivocal assurances from the U.S. authorities
that Mr. Khadr will not be subject to the death penalty, and indeed the
charges against him were referred to the Military Commission on a
non-capital basis.
In keeping with Canada's long-standing policy, the Canadian government
strongly believes that the fight against terrorism must be carried out
in compliance with international law, including established standards of
human rights and due process.
With respect to Mr. Khadr's repatriation to Canada, it is premature to
discuss this issue since his case is still before the courts.
Thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns.
Sincerely,
The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Foreign Affairs
From the first daty he was put in guantanamo I was wonderinmg what that kid was doing there, and why the candian government hadn't brought him back, why no public outrage. He's brown of course, so that's the simple answer : racism. He was under his father's inluence.
I don't think it's his skin colour. It's the fact that he's a political enemy of the rulers of U.S. and Canada.
Just wait till Harper starts bringing some Uighurs here. Nothing to do with race. They're our allies.
15 year-old Khadr was a designated bogeyman for the American inquisition constructed around the events of 9-11. The world still doesnt know who was responsible for the terror attack on the trade towers, and it doesnt really matter for the inquisitors at this point in time. And since then it's been full speed ahead with the phony war on terror. Our stooges in Ottawa arent curious either. Trust and obey, it's the only way for our old line party lap dogs in Ottawa.
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090211.wkhadr0211/B... brushes off Khadr plea[/url]
Mr. Harper's spokesman told The Canadian Press he doesn't expect either leader to raise the issue of the Guantanamo Bay detainee.
#[email protected]$#%%$#!!
Arrogant insufferable child abuser Harper!!
Listen to the three stooges of the ex-Koalition:
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/11/khadr-appeal.html]
Omar Khadr's return in country's best interest, say opposition MPs[/url]
And the BQ and NDP stooges condemned Bob Rae for this comment!!! Right?????? Uhhhh, wrong.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2009/02/11/8350161-cp.html
http://www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/enquete/2008-2009/
Among other things it seems that Mr Kahdr was not the one that killed the american soldier as the grenade was an american grenade. One of the famous friendly fire accident.
Mr Kahdr was also shot twice in the back.
There are a lot of people that should be brought up on War Criminal charges.
If Binyam Mohamed is returned to the UK, maybe Khadr will be returned to Canada soon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7891565.stm
Obama review
Ethiopian national Mr Mohamed is the last recognised British resident held at Guantanamo Bay.
He says he was secretly flown to Morocco and tortured before being moved to Afghanistan and finally, in 2004, to the US naval base in Cuba, where he remains, although charges against him were dropped last year.
After becoming president, Mr Obama issued an executive order establishing a review of all inmates held at Guantanamo.
Lawyers acting for Mr Mohamed have campaigned for alleged evidence of his torture to be made public.
Earlier this month, judges refused to order the disclosure of a summary of US reports on his detention, citing a threat to US intelligence-sharing with Britain.
Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones ruled that some parts of papers referring to Mr Mohamed should remain secret, citing a threat from the US to halt the sharing of information on terrorism.
They said Foreign Secretary David Miliband believed there was a "real risk" such a move by the US would increase the danger of terrorism in the UK, but Mr Miliband later insisted there had been "no threat" by US authorities.
Mr Mohamed's lawyers now argue that the courts should reconsider their decision on the reports' disclosure after being misled about a threat over intelligence-sharing.
"Harpher and his gang were spewing all kinds of abuse towards the entire Khadr family, much as they did towards Maher Arar. "
That is an insult to Maher Arar. The Khadr family (as much as they have a right to their opinions like any other people) are pretty revolting people what with their viciously homophobic and woman-hating statements they made on national television etc... - but horrible people have the same rights as everyone else. Maher Arar has never said anything like that and seems to be someone who believes in liberal democracy.
What about Maher Arar's family? Didn't one of them suggest she would break ranks and not vote with her Party if it supported same-sex marriage?
There is a big difference between proudly declaring your allegiance to Al-Qaeda and saying that dying while fighting in a Jihad in Afghanistan is preferable to having one of your children be a "drug addicted homosexual" in Canada - and saying that you will abstain if there is a vote in Parliament on same sex marriage.
So, my memory was accurate. I don't think you had to attack Kara there, Stock. She didn't say anything terrible.
who is Kara?
Dang me, but I know quite a few good ol' Saskatchistan boys who would say the latter.
...and they are horrible people too. My point is that believing in due process and that someone like Omar Khadr needs to have his constitutional rights protected - doesn't mean that anyone should feel obliged to be an apologist for the nauseating views his family members have expressed over and over again.
These kind of people werent considered disgusting when the CIA was recruiting them to wage holy old jihad against secular socialism in Central Asia in the 1980s and 90s. I think our western newsies referred to them as "freedom fighters" then.
No they aren't. They're the salt of the earth, and great guys, for the most part.
Ronald Wilson Reagan (count the number of letters in each name...666)
said the same thing:
link
Ummmmmmm, the poster who said this upthread and triggered an indignant reply from you:
Shocking that they did not condemn that, isn't it. Such courage that our politicians have! The "Re-integration" plan outlined in the same article is very strange. Why does a 22 year old need to live with host families and why is it obvious that he cannot live with his own family? (His own lawyer says this). His family has not been convicted of any crime and are living peacefully in Canada. Why can he not live with them. Where is the legal precedent saying a 22 year old is to live in what is in effect a glorified foster family set up? This would be an additional violation of his rights in addition to what has already occured over the past 7 yrs.
Who would determine this time and what is the legal basis? More importantly, why do the three Khoalition members think that such a plan somehow restores Khadr's rights?
"These kind of people werent considered disgusting when the CIA was recruiting them to wage holy old jihad against secular socialism in Central Asia in the 1980s and 90s. I think our western newsies referred to them as "freedom fighters" then."
I for one thought these religious freaks were horrible, evil people in the 80s and 90s and I still think they are now - what the CIA and Reagan said and did in that era is not my responsibility.
If only you put such passion and hatred (instead of apologias) into your discussions of Israeli mass murder, or Catholic public schools in Ontario, as you do in talking about a powerless family which is the victim of U.S. imperialism and Conservative-Liberal complicty. Your moral standards are interesting.
If they are "victims of U.S. imperialism" why did they choose to live in a country that is a satellite of the American empire (ie: Canada)? Especially when their biggest criticism of Canada seems to be that there are too many "drug addicted homosexuals" (sic.).
This thread is about Omar Khadr and his family. There are plenty of other threads about Gaza and about separate schools in Ontario.
Stockhom thinks Canada should not be a welcoming place for victims of US imperialism.
Only supporters and collaborators with US imperialism need apply for immigrant status.
Hell, I've got much harsher criticisms of Canada than that. Should I be sent to Guantanamo Bay as well?
No, you shouldn't and neither should Omar Khadr. I've been unswerving in my support for him to be brought back to Canada - even if I still think that his family has some excreable, bigotted views on human rights and equity issues. Khadr's views are irrelevant to whether he should be in Guantanamo or not. Even if he had been a gunman for a rightwing death squad in Guatemala or was a white supremacist - I'd still say bring him home. Of course if his family were supporters of rightwing death squads in Latin America or were members of Rev. Phelps congregation in Topeka - I wonder if any babblers would be so sympathetic to his plight.
So why the fuck do you keep bringing up the views - not of Khadr himself, necessarily, but of his family, for chissakes - in this thread?
Because some people keep trying to be apologists for them. i don't see why we can't fight for him to be repatriated as a matter of principle - WITHOUT having to pretend that his mother is some sort Rosa Parks of Canada.
To me, its like the ACLU defending the rights of neo-Nazis to stage a march in Chicago. Its about the legal principle at stake - even if what they stand for is nauseating.
That's not an accurate analogy. The Northern Alliance in Karzai's government are former mujahideen, those good guys who finally toppled the Marxist-secular PDPA government in Kabul some two and half years after the end of the USSR. And they celebrated by raping and pillaging and tearing the country a new one from stem to stern.
Then the mujahideen were beaten by the Taliban and confined to about 10% of Northern Afghanistan. Taliban are the product of dirty war in Central Asia and Taliban the orphans. They graduated from CIA-Saudi funded religious seminaries in Pakistan and Afghanistan for the indoctrination of militant Islam.
So all in all, I think the analogy would be as if our governments today, or perhaps the former Soviets were to completely ignore secularists and religious moderates in order to back a resurgent KKK against neo-Nazis and right-wing militia groups which we also would have funded and supported in the 1980s against Rosa Parks' grandchildren still fighting for African-American rights in some possible version of fundamentalist rightwing America. At some point these groups might converge realizing their common interests, and tearing that country a new one from stem to stern while NATO countries pretty much ignore the whole deal for half a dozen years or more.
- Canadian Press
Name one babbler who does that. You can't.
The only person who keeps bringing up Khadr's family's politics is you, in a thinly-veiled attempt to discredit Khadr himself and undermine the campaign to free him. It's the same tactic used by the Harper government.
You're not fooling anyone.
Stockholm - Khadr's family has not been charged with any crime. Why do these three stooges think he cannot live with his family? How the hell are their proponents for his rights when they come on stage with a strait face proposing a glorified foster-family set up for a 22 year old?
And following through with Stockholmers analogy. If the state of collapse of USSA's economy is comparable to that of 1989 USSR, that would mean it's time for some country's secret intel agency to covertly ship bullets costing $5 dollars apiece and stinger missiles to the political adversaries of women's rights movements and those in opposition to Rosa Parks' descendants.
Did anyone see Enquete on Radio-Canada that was all about guantanamo and their treatment of the prisoners?
You can watch it [url=HERE[/url]">http://tinyurl.com/da2ntv]HERE[/url].
(It's actually the French version of [url=The">http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2008/omarkadr/#][=mediumblu... US v. Omar Khadr[/][/url]. )
I had no idea it was originally in english. It was a very good documentary.
I will check out Doc Zone.
[url=Kuebler">http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/bring-omar-khadr... fired by Pentagon[/url]
In preparation for the "closing" of Guantanamo, Obama appears to be cleaning house. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, in case anyone has forgotten.
Actually there are a lot of white Muslims. Afghan Pashtu are white. In anycase, I don't know why Unionist insists that his political enemies assert the same anti-racist ideals he espouses. Of course the fact that Khadr is not white has a lot to do with his treatement. Just as Dewar was entirely correct in pointing out that Cannon's treatment of Abdelrazik, who is presently languishing in our embassy in Sudan is overtly racist.
of course "a lot of white Muslims" but for the intents and purposes of the Harper government, brown will suffice quite nicely.
*U's political enemies" don't need to "assert" it - it's implied!- the minority skin-tone is a tool they can - and DO - use, with their idiot base - "who do you fear?"... "the other"
that'strue - but their determination, to keep him out, is sure not because - as these guys (Harper, Cannon, Kenney, et al) would hope to claim, at every turn - that he might represent some "national security threat" - because he doesn't - but Harper and the boys, following the Rovian/Straussian model laid down by Bush/Cheney et al, need every embodiment of "danger!" they can cram into their quiver - and Khadr is IT
it doesn't hurt that his name - and skin colour - have Muslim overtones
That's my point. Unionist seems to think imperialism is colour blind. I don't know why he thinks this. But he does. Generally he is right on the money about a lor of thing, but for some reason he thinks that Khadr remains in jail only because he opposed the new world order. I maintain that the only reason he is alive is because when he was shot he was speaking English, and if were not for that, he would be dead.
Certainly racism has played a roll in killing the support that most white Canadians in his position would have gotten once the facts in the case came out, but nothing for Khadr.
Kuebler's gone. That is big news. Kuebler has been a rock solid advocate for Khadr for a few years now. I smell a deal afoot.
I don't know why my February comment has been revived here, but I stand by it.
Khadr is barred from Canada by Harper. Galloway is barred from Canada by Harper. The motives in both cases are identical. It has absolutely nothing to do with skin colour.
I guess, given the fog created above, I should say what those motives are:
Both Khadr and Galloway represent active opposition to the New World Order pursued by U.S. imperialism and its "allies".
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "security" concerns either.
I should have thought this much was obvious.
Pages