A veteran court-watcher on the Khadr issue: a fine balance

After the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling last week in the Omar Khadr case, advocates for the Canadian being held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay said the government had little choice now but to ask for Khadr’s return to Canada.

They argued that even though the court hadn’t ordered Stephen Harper’s government to demand Khadr’s repatriation, the ruling left no other option, since it found his Charter rights were being violated. Now, the government is suggesting it will do no such thing.

Is Harper defying the top court? I asked Eugene Meehan, former national president of the Canadian Bar Association, former executive legal officer of the Supreme Court of Canada, and now chair of the law firm Lang Michener’s Supreme Court of Canada practice group in Ottawa.

This particular decision requires close reading, and Meehan knows his judicial nuances. “The judgment is a carefully calibrated balance between the power of the judiciary to decide legal issues, and the power of  the executive to engage or not engage government action,” he said. “It’s like they used  a carpenter’s leveling tool to balance it all out.”

Some other observers said that since the court found Khadr’s rights were violated, the judges must have meant the government should do something about it. But the possibility of doing nothing doesn’t seem to have been excluded.

“When you boil the decision down,” Meehan said, “it says Charter was breached, but you, the government, get to decide what to do, or what not to do, in these circumstances.”

Reading the ruling, this sentence seemed key to me: “Mr. Khadr is not under the control of the Canadian government; the likelihood that the proposed remedy [asking the U.S. to send him home] will be effective is unclear; and the impact on Canadian foreign relations of a repatriation request cannot be properly assessed by the court.”

In other words, the judges admitted they can’t be sure the U.S. would return Khadr if asked, and they aren’t in a position to say making the request wouldn’t hurt Canada’s interests abroad. So they didn’t order that or any other particular action, avoiding a direct clash between the court and the executive.




Browse

A veteran court-watcher on the Khadr issue: a fine balance

  1. Canada should not be a haven for terrorists. Should Harper allow this terrorist into Canada, you can expect Canadian Muslims be stereotyped.

    • Whereas if he ensures that this Canadian citizen never returns to Canada, Canadian Muslims will be free from stereotyping for all time. Good point.

      • The Khadrs are only Canadian citizens of convenience. They use Canadian health care and welfare resources but CHOOSE to live outside of Canada, endevoring to destroy what Canada stands for, then come crawling back when they have medical troubles. The US should have just shot him "while trying to escape"

        • If you're really on the lookout for Canadians of convenience, you should head straight to the nearest mirror.

        • right on

    • How very convenient that you can ignore the government breaking the covenant that it signed stating it would not prosecute children!! Take a look around at a child of your own or friend and look at the fifteen year olds in grades nine and ten. Do they have the ability to make an informed decision? Is this why we don't let them drive a car, sign a contract or any other adult activity. Are they easily influenced? And since when do we judge an individual before he has been tried in an open court. There are many questions surrounding this particular case that too many are prepared to gloss over such as the military tribunal being illegal, a fair trial?, and most importantly this kid might be innocent of the charge as he was unconscious and wounded when he was supposed to have thrown the grenade. How we treat each and every citizen in this country sets a precedent for those that follow or those that are held in foreign countries with less civilized courts than ours. Would you want to be that citizen if your government decides you are not worth protecting on a purely arbitrary basis. This argument is so shallow Gus. took next to no thought.

    • Besides all the valid arguements that Mumra makes below:
      - we do not throw children in jail for 7 years
      - we believe people are innocent until proven guilty
      - every Canadian citizen deserves a fair trail
      - we don't pick and choose which Canadians to protect
      The judgement of the Supreme court is going allow the Khadr family to sue the government for millions. They will be laughing all the way to the bank and Stephen Harper's refusal to deal with this issue will cost BIG BUCKS for the taxpayer. Pyrric Victory indeed.

  2. What about filing charges against the government officials that are complist in his torture by the Americans?

    • Yes, Stephen Harper should be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced at the International Criminal Court in the Hague for assisting in this terrible war Crime.

  3. Making up facts, he was questoned

  4. What about the dead American medic?

    • Yes, what about the medic? Why aren't the Americans looking for his killer instead of persecuting a kid found wounded under a pile of rubble created when they blew their way into the compound? Aren't they interested in justice?

      • All the evidence points to Khadar. He's a murderer, and should be treated as such.

        • instead of just leveling an empty accusation, why don't you present the case against stud? you are serious about the issue after all right?

    • Still dead, as far as we know.

    • This is the one part of the debate that seems to constantly be missing. People forget this isn't just some kid who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He murdered an American soldier, and would have done the same if the soldier was Canadian. He is not innocent, and he and his family do not deserve to be Canadians.

  5. This seems to be building into a hot button wedge issue. While ignoring the fact Mr Kahdr's rights have been violated raises a slippery slope flag, there is also a strong feeling amongst many voters that he is a terrorist
    Wedge issues can be effectively mined for political gold – the US is a prime example.
    In the absence of a definitive legal answer, emotion takes over. Given the level of gamesmanship being employed by all parties, it is not a stretch to think this will be used as a lever. But who will benefit the most from it? Will polls determine the outcome? Cynical as it reads, I doubt either the Liberals or the Conservatives would draw lines in the sand if they thought it would cost them a significant number of votes

    • This shouldn't be a wedge issue, political or otherwise. The liberals at least should draw a line in the sand – and defend it, win or lose at the polls. Not something they are famous for – at least these liberals. Nevertheless i'm sure they know what the right thing to do is…as in all likelihood do some of the Conservatives.

  6. Although it does not sit well with the circumstances around the suspect. I feel that a trial is in order, but rights are for everyone, because if they are not observed now, the line has been crossed to allow those in power to target who they will help, and who they will not, which makes the Charter of Rights meaningless. Only to be pulled out when conveinent. I feel he should be given the rights or the US and Canada become the terorists. Could the reason be that we can not truly enforce the laws set out, and that individuals or groups believe the justice is in the hands of the elite, it is not. This is a bad move by the US and Canada governments. I am proud the courts have seen the logic in due process. Now it is up to the US to be logical (hahaha), that was a wasted sentence looking to the track record of the US. Fools that act like children under their self absorbed self proclaimed greatness. Send him back to Canada, let him face the charges and allow the truth and justice to take its course. Not all is what it seems in this case, the US is hiding something again.

  7. Alternate response:

    Yes, the government should do all it can to ensure that Canada continues to be free of people who've been accused of serious crimes, as it always has been.

    • Getting tough on accusations of crime is important for our children!! Why won't the Liberals see this?

  8. I feel sorry that we have lost perspective on this young man. Omar Khadr was taken as a young impressionable child, brought to Afganistan by his own Family, trained as a child soldier and ordered to fight. Yes what he did was appalling but what his family did to him was even more appalling. We have left a 15 year old boy sit in an American detention Camp for 7 years. Yes, he should have consequences for his actions but he should also have gotten the counseling, support and education every child deserves. I feel sad for what this child's family has submitted him to but I also feel sad that my country has not stepped in when he was still a young boy and helped him. Now, this young man has spent the last seven years with adult criminals and extremists. Sad, really sad.

    • Mary, the point is that Khadr belongs with adult criminals and extremists. He's 21 now, therefore he is an adult. There is videotape evidence of him making roadside bombs to kill Western soldiers, therefore he is an islamic extremist.

      Canadian soldiers = Western soldiers.

      To date, we've lost almost 140 Canadian soldiers, most due to roadside bombs. The same kind Omar Khadr was making prior to his capture.

      Methinks the air atop your soap-box is a little thin.

      If Jack Layton or Michael Ignatieff want to bring Omar Khadr back "home"…..then we should insist that the fine young fellow lives in one of their homes.

      • Yes we lost brothers in arms. I personally served in the army for 8 years, my husband 11 years, my brother 13 years and my father 18 years. My two brothers in law still serve, one of which is getting ready for his second tour in Afganistan and one of my good friends has volunteered for his fourth tour. Unless you have served and have lost friends and gone to a few funerals METHINKS you should get off your soapbox. We little people in the military are trying our damndest to try to help this population and especially the children that are the most vulnerable. If we do not help these child soldiers who will? If we lock them up with adults that are twisted and warped with their ideologies what do you think they are going to learn and be like when they get out of jail? Furthermore this young man has been held in detention for seven years without a trial. What he did was wrong, but throwing him in a jail with adults for seven years without basic children's rights is also wrong. You do not make thing right by doing wrong. We make things right by adhering to our values and principles, without them we are no better.

        • Mary wrote:
          " If we do not help these child soldiers who will?"

          Actually Mary, I had more "time in" than you and your husband combined.

          If your brother in law steps on an IED and comes home in a box, ask your sister how she feels about this "child soldier" you are so quick to defend.

          If you want to help Omar Khadr and people like him……you don't treat them to the benefits of a society they detest.

          You put a bullet in their heads.

          Makes everyone happier. Fanatic gets his virgins, and we get some comfort knowing there is one less nut-job out there trying to kill your brother in law.

          (Our Charter never stopped any Islamist from trying to kill you Mary, but it has released more than a few who may try again at another time)

          • Sir, you and your kind are the reason I am a pacifist. Giving you a gun frightens me more than any terrorist does.

            Mary – Thank you for giving me some comfort that there are reasonable and compassionate people serving in the Canadian Forces. I pray you are the new face of the forces and the likes of JamesHalifax are a fading bread if they ever were representative of the Canadian Forces.

    • no no no.what is appalling is that we let this family into our country.

      • I asolutely agree and have done since Kadr's mother returned to Canada with her son who was disabled while fighting in Pakistan. Not to mention that the airfare was paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.

  9. Being Canadian is a priviledge, should not be a right. You give up that right when siding with terrorism.

  10. Give up that priviledge. Sorry.

    • You could argue (though I would strenuously disagree) that that should be the case. You cannot argue, unless you really enjoy being demonstrably wrong, that it is in fact the case. So here's the question: do you want the state to act in accordance with what the law is, or in accordance with what you would like the law to be?

    • He was a kid at the time. And his status as a terrorist remains an allegation. And citizenship is not a revokable status.

      Other than that, I think you're on to something.

      • His age is irrelevant, he was not a child soldier. His status as a terrorist is not in question. He has lengthy ties to Al-Queda, and no sane person would suggest otherwise. No, his citizenship can not be revokoed, but he could be left to rot in Gitmo for the rest of his life.

        • "His age is irrelevant, he was not a child soldier"

          What was he, then?

          "He has lengthy ties to Al-Queda."

          Really? He was 15 years old. At what age do you consider one legally accountable for decisions, and how do you define lengthy?

          "no sane person would suggest otherwise"

          Are you saying I'm insane? Really?

          "but he could be left to rot in Gitmo for the rest of his life."

          From this, I glean two bits of information about you. First, you have little education in history, and its lessons about mob judgements based on race and ethnicity (or you do have some education, and simply don't care because it will never affect you), and b) you'd probably support lynchings.

  11. The Attorney General, Rob Nicholson is the minister responsible in this case and as such in due course he should provide a definitive public statement on what efforts he has made to ensure Khadr receives a fair trial in the USA. I would expect him to seek to have tainted evidence excluded from the judicial process undertaken in the USA.

  12. The question is, what now? The courts essentially issued a not-so-veiled threat, in that they didn't want to force the government's foreign policy, but the law indicates that they might have an obligation to do so.

    This is bad precedent, either way. Either the government is now above the law, and can ignore citizen's rights on a whim so long as they're out of the country, or the court has some influence to set foreign policy. I'm not entirely sure which is more dangerous. I'm leaning towards the former, if only because the latter precedent has many restrictions – if the court only has power over foreign policy when a citizen's human rights are violated (and flagrantly so), then hopefully this issue wouldn't pop up often enough to be an issue, but it's still unsettling.

    Of course, this would all be a non-issue if the Conservatives do what the law tells them to do, but respect of the law seems to be lacking of late from that caucus…

  13. In America, Mr. Khadr will receive Justice.

    In Canada — he would be walking the streets and we'll have Toronto Lawyers suing the Government for millions because we didn't respect the little dirt-bags Charter Rights.

    It's amazing how many lawyers respect Charter Rights when it means a big pay day.

    • Yes, how dare we respect someone's Charter Rights.. why, next they'll be giving them to prisoners here in Canada even.. what's that? They do already?

      • The charter should be used to protect the rights of Canadians who don't try and murder our soldiers. Terrorists, no matter where they are born should have no protection from it.

        Lawyers who are trying to protect these Islamic extremists aren't interested in Charter Rights…..they're looking for a multi-million dollar pay day. Keep feeling morally superior Thwim, but I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to Mary. If one of these "charter protected" nut-cases becomes responsible for killing someone close to you, will you still be so quick to defend?

        • Defend their charter rights? Absolutely. You see, unlike you, I think with my brain. This means I'm aware that if we decide we can ride roughshod over anybody's charter rights, there's no guarantee that should I be arrested on some charge or another, even if false, that my own charter rights won't similarly be trampled.

          I'm not defending his charter rights for him.. I'm defending them for me.

    • You're too stupid to be Canadian. You need to be deported.

  14. "So, Mr. Khadr faces a mandatory life sentence in Canada for acts of High Treason committed while in Afghanistan while over the age of 12 years"

    I am sure you must mean provided the Crown (if it were to proceed as you suggest) could produce satisfactory evidence supporting such a contention beyond a reasonable doubt. You would agree that tainted evidence should be excluded.

    • Of course I favor due process, and don't feel that any reference to so called "tainted evidence" is needed for a successful prosecution – either in the US or in Canada. I doubt that any confessional testimony obtained from Mr. Khadr during his interrogation at Guantanamo would do more than gild the ample material evidence available from other sources. I don't think that it would even be necessary to call his interrogators to the stand, in which case the issue of "tainted evidence" would not even arise at trial.

  15. Sorry Stephen, I am not understanding your argument. When did Omar allegedly engage Canadian troops? Are you assuming that Canadians who might have a conflict with the US are committing a treasonous act against Canada? Where exactly did this conflict take place? It wasn't in Canada or The USA was it? Was this so called terrorist acting against civilians?

    • He didn't have to engage Canadian troops. He indisputably engaged American troops. Canada was and is allied with the US efforts in Afghanistan through UN security council resolutions and the North Atlantic Treaty. When Khadr engaged in hostilities against American troops, he effectively engaged in hostilities against the Canadian government.

    • Dave, to my knowledge Mr. Khadr was not engaged directly by Canadian troops; however this does not matter since engaging any forces with which Canada is allied in a conflict is considered to be an attack against the interests of Canada equivalent to engaging Canadian Forces themselves. If he had been attacking Poles or Germans or French or even Afghan Government forces it would still be considered to be High Treason against Canada.

      As per 46.(3)(a), it does not matter where in the world the offense took place.

  16. There's no prima facie case at all yet, there are relatively recent specific anti-terrorist provisions in the code far more applicable than treason charges, and 15 year olds still get Young Offenders status even if the charging age is 12.

    Seriously, that was weak.

    • I guess we will have to agree to disagree about whether, on the face of it, being arrested, wounded, in Afghanistan after a firefight against Allied forces, on top of a documented history of terrorist sympathies, featured appearances in bomb making videos, etc. etc., provides grounds for suspicion. Perhaps your standards are higher than mine in that respect.

      As to Young Offenders treatment, that relates only to punishment and not to culpability.

      • Or you could learn exactly what prima facie means. You still have to try evidence for it to be prima facie. What you should have said "based on media reports there appears to be strong evidence". Normally I wouldn't quibble, but when try to puff yourself up using terms you don't have a grasp of, it should be pointed out.

        And there's a full range of treatment which applies to the treatment of young offenders, although ultimately many of the principles are the same. Furthermore, you yourself brought up punishment in your ill-conveived babbling about a life sentence.

        • Sorry Mike, but I am not the one that seems to be confused. But of course I don't expect you to simply take my word for it; Here is a definition from Wikipedia:
          "Prima facie (pronounced /ˈpraɪmə ˈfeɪʃiː/, from Latin prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression meaning on its first appearance, or by first instance; at first sight. The literal translation would be "at first face", prima first, facie face, both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which — unless rebutted — would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.

          Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling. This may be called facile princeps, first principles."

    • I agree that Mr. Khadr also faces jeopardy under multiple provisions of Bill C-36. He could certainly be charged – and in my opinion be convicted – under both acts. An "embarrassment of riches" for prosecutors.

      Any decision not to prosecute Mr. Khadr would have to be entirely political, and would be utterly contemptuous of the Rule of Law.

  17. " I doubt that any confessional testimony obtained from Mr. Khadr during his interrogation at Guantanamo would do more than gild the ample material evidence available from other sources."

    I am wondering if you will identify the material evidence you purport to be available. Specifically what other sources are you referring to?

    • Brian Havelock.

      Would video tape evidence of Omar Khadr making explosives from old Russian anti-tank mines be enough to convince you that Mr. kahdr was up to no good?

      We don't need waterboarding or sleep deprivation evidence when it comes to young Omar…..we have VHS.

  18. I could show you video tape of a lot of people making mines. What's your point?

    • What's yours? You care more for terrorist rights than of their victims – innocent people killed in suicide & roadside bombs, girls harrassed and mutilated for trying to get an education, women who are kept as property by their husbands, fathers & brothers, & who are murdered for " dishonoring" their menfolk? This terroist spawn should rot where he is, and die a slow, painful death. So should his overweight, overbearing mother, sister & brothers.

  19. In Canada Mr. Khadr could not be charged for High Treason as he did not commit an act against Canada. If Mr. Khadr has done something wrong he must pay the consequences of his actions. The problem is he has been sitting in a jail for 7 years without a fair trial. Serial killers in the US are given more rights than this young boy was given. Even the international tribunal which deals with crimes against humanity holds its trails within a reasonable time line. You cannot keep people in jail without holding a trial. If their evidence is that clear cut, why have they not held a trial? In my opinion, if the US is not holding a trail it's because they are trying desperately to hide something. By law, both in the US and in Canada there is a limit of time in which you can hold someone without giving them their day in court. By law, time severed before sentencing counts as double. This means that he has already served 14 years. The way this is going, if he does another few years before being granted a trial, the US will have to let him go upon sentencing. If the US is too incompetent to hold a trial and Canada does not want to deal with it, the case should be remanded to the international tribunal of The Hague.

    • As to your claim that Mr. Khadr "did not commit an act against Canada", I am afraid that you are simply incorrect for reasons already discussed above. I agree, however, that he should have been brought to trial sooner. I think that he would have been convicted and would now be serving time for the crimes committed, rather than serving time waiting for process. Perhaps a distinction without a difference?

  20. "Would video tape evidence of Omar Khadr making explosives from old Russian anti-tank mines be enough to convince you that Mr. kahdr was up to no good? "

    That certainly would interest me although it certainly wouldn't be proof of murder which, as you should know, is the one being pursued by the Americans.

  21. "Would video tape evidence of Omar Khadr making explosives from old Russian anti-tank mines be enough to convince you that Mr. kahdr was up to no good? "

    Although the previous poster has raised the question you should be aware that the charge against Khadr in the USA is one of murder. Try to focus on the issue at hand rather tha going off on an irrelevant tangent.

  22. “The judgment is a carefully calibrated balance between the power of the judiciary to decide legal issues, and the power of the executive to engage or not engage government action,” he said. “It's like they used a carpenter's leveling tool to balance it all out.”

    In simple man in the street laymans's terms, the court choked!

    'In other words, the judges admitted they can't be sure the U.S. would return Khadr if asked, and they aren't in a position to say making the request wouldn't hurt Canada's interests abroad. So they didn't order that or any other particular action, avoiding a direct clash between the court and the executive'

    Are we down the rabitt hole with Alice now? Who in the world, other than this gov't and it's supporters, and possibly the SCoC thinks it would hurt our interests anywhere?

    • I imagine the SCoC is not only thinking of this case, but of the precedent it'd set. I'm not sure I agree with their solution so far, but I completely respect their judgement in going that way.. the least intervention possible. What remains to be seen is what happens if the government refuses to take any action whatsoever.

  23. Our country, recognizing this Jihadist's rights, is cognizant of the balancing role of its actions and seems to have opted for responsibility, thankfully.

  24. Why are Canadians giving Omar Khadr a second glance? If your neighbor was a terrorist and wanted to kill you would you still want him as your neighbor? Canadians are morons. Bring back the death penalty. Treason and murder are still crimes the last time I checked. Get rid of him. Get rid of them all.

    • readytogo, kcm et al that say "get rid of him" and support the governments stance on this: put your money where you mouth is and agree to pay for the multi millions that will be awarded to Khadr when he sues us (the Canadian people). Start a bank account and start filling it with YOUR money to fund the award. Then I will have sympathy for your stance. Wake up and smell the coffee.

  25. If the Americans are trying Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in Federal Court then it would seem to me it wouldn't be unreasonable for Canada to seek the same venue for Omar Khadr rather than the discredited military tribunal. Alternatively Canada could seek Khadr's return to Canada and if the evidence warrants a prosecution move the issue to trial.

    • Why should Canadian taxpaypayers support the defense, prosecution & court costs of a trial or incarceration for this Canadian of convenience, who has not contributed a single dime in tax revenue, done anything for the Canadian people, and is the product of others who drain the system? Let him rot in Gitmo. Hope he actually is found guilty of any crime, and executed for it – would not shed a tear for this person or his evil family.

  26. Well said Stephen Bogner – and apparently legally researched by the look of this comment ! I am one that believes that Mr Khadr should first meet his day in court – in an American court – as he obviously chose to personally enter the armed conflict that the US Armed Forces were engaged in, at the time of his capture .

    It is my understanding ( not being a Canadian lawyer ) that any Canadian that leaves Canada to enter a foreign war or conflict against Canada or any of our NATO associated countries – is automatically considered a traitor to Canada , and can be tried as such after the Legal process that is covered in your detailed comment .

    Canadian legal services MAY be offered to assist such individual – but the Supreme Court of Canada has no constitutional rights to interfere with the direct responsiblities of the Government of Canada in exercising these " Foreign Affairs " matters .

    The fact that the SCOC has in effect , steered clear of such direct conflict in this case is proof that they had no duty what so ever to try and influence the government to enter this case at all !

  27. Khadr is a terrorist as is his whole family. Even at 15 he knew what he was doing when he killed that Medic.
    I hope that the U,S executes him

  28. Though historically a Liberal, I give three cheers to Harper. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are the only party attending to the security of Canada. Canada has become a haven for terrorists and their supporters. In addition to courts assuring they have Charter Rights, protected at taxpayer expense, as soon as they get onto Canadian soil, politicians help them. I note, in particular, Bill Graham's blocking the Tamil tigers being labeled a terrorist group to ensure the support of a large Tamil population in his riding. Now Bob Rae is sucking up to the now terrorist base in the riding.

  29. Have to agree with most of the commentors, Kadhr is and was a terrorist. Why should some appointed judge put anada's security at risk to satisfy Kadhr's family – who have openly proclaimed their hatred for Canada, its people, & all things western? Time to use a bit of common sense in keeping Canadians who want to be part of the country safe, & not listen to idealistic rhetoric spouted by people too ignorant to understand what Kadhr really stands for int relation to our culture – absolutely nothing. His family contributed absolutely nothing to Canada, and continues to act like greedy parasites, drawing off welfare payments, medicare, & whatever else they can scrounge from taxpayers- as though it's an honor to support these freeloaders.

  30. For those who might actually be interested in Mr. Khadr's legal prospects in Canada, in the unfortunate circumstance that he once again sets foot on Canadian soil, I draw your attention to the following 153 page legal brief prepared by Members of the 2007-08 Foreign Policy Practicum under the supervision of Craig Forcese, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, which was submitted to the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights in January 2008.

    http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~cforcese/other/khadrrepat

    From the Executive Summary:
    "…Contrary to recent statements recounted in the media, and provided the US allegations against Omar are true, this report concludes that viable criminal charges against Omar can be brought using a number of legal avenues, namely:
    A. Sections 431.2, 83.18 and 83.2 of the Criminal Code relating to terrorist activity; and Sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Security of Information Act relating to terrorist influenced threats of violence and communicating information to terrorist groups;
    B. Section 46 of the Criminal Code relating to treason and high-treason;
    C. Section 6(3) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act relating to war crimes; and
    D. Section 3 of the Foreign Enlistment Act relating to enlisting with a foreign state at war with a friendly state."

    It also observes that:
    "…any Canadian prosecution of Omar will have to consider that confessions made by Omar to US authorities may be inadmissible and Omar's age may affect the nature of the proceedings against him and the length of any sentence imposed."

  31. While attempts have been made to extract intelligence from Omar Khadr under dubious circumstances, this has nothing to do with the case against him for shooting at an American soldier. If Canada's laws don't require a declaration of war for a treason conviction, then one is definitely possible in his case. However, a life sentence is not mandatory, because he may not necessarily be tried in adult court – he might be convicted as a young offender. And, of course, for political reasons, it is entirely possible he might not even be charged.

  32. Should anyone having Canadian citizenship accused of a crime in a foreign country be brought back to Canada for trial? Get a life you bleeding hearts.

Sign in to comment.