'I can't point to any risks' - Macleans.ca

‘I can’t point to any risks’


An odd start to the government’s appeal of the federal court order to seek Omar Khadr’s repatriation. More from the Star and Globe.


‘I can’t point to any risks’

  1. complete abdication of duty to Canada's citizen's.

    Is Harper insane? Mad with power? Too dangerous to allow to stand in public office – especially PM of Canada?

    "Ms. Mueller argued that Canada's duty to protect its children ends at the border, and that Mr. O'Reilly got it wrong by surmising that the country's special justice system for minors applies abroad.

    "It is one thing when Canada is prosecuting a child . . . but it is quite another thing to say that Canada has these same obligations when a Canadian child is being prosecuted by another country," she said."

    • Here is what DFAIT, and international law, has to say about Canada's government and Canadians imprisoned abroad. It's not pretty:


      Khadr's FAMILY is where your insanity lies, Earth Man. Not Harper, and not Chretien or Martin before him. Send your kid abroad to pick a fight with the US military, will you? There's your deplorable, S_n_M.

      • Whatever the government's position as stated in its pamphlets may be, the relevant document is the decision from the actual, y'know, court.

      • haven't had chance to read it yet, but do you think having been subject torture as a prisoner, might make for an exception to standard case envisioned by those writing the book?

        • Lemme give you a Coles Notes version: Canada's sovereignty ends where another country's begins. You're imprisoned in another country? It therefore follows that you are therefore not imprisoned in Canada, and so Canada's laws cannot apply to your imprisonment.

          Oh, there's other stuff about consular access, and protecting your privacy, and offering communication assistance with family members. But the above is probably the take-home message you were looking for.

  2. Even if they want to continue the charade of an appeal, they should let him back in.

  3. Is that the office version of Judge-Plays-Foreign-Minister-For-A-Day Game? I feel an appeal is essential, regardless of what Ottawa may ultimately decide to do or not do about Khadr.

  4. No matter what they decide to do about Khadr, they MUST appeal this judicial usurpation of foreign policy.

    • Absolutely. And they can do both, bring him back to Canada (and charge him if able) AND clarify executive prerogative through the courts.

  5. I hate to be "this guy", but would this even be a question if the person detained at the age of 16 for war crimes was white with a European name?

    • I suggest it would. More-vs-less of a question may depend on what kind of "this guy" you feel like being, I suppose. But to me, a proven war criminal (which as of now Omar Khadr is NOT, I hasten to add) by any other dermal pigment is still as pungent.