47

Over to you, Mr. Obama


 

The Justice Minister formally responds to the Supreme Court’s decision on Omar Khadr.

“In its ruling, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional responsibility of the executive to make decisions on matters of foreign affairs, given the complex and ever-changing circumstances of diplomacy, and the need to take into account Canada’s broader interests. The Supreme Court did not require the Government to ask for accused terrorist Omar Khadr’s return.

“In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Government of Canada today delivered a diplomatic note to the Government of the United States formally seeking assurances that any evidence or statements shared with U.S. authorities as a result of the interviews of Mr. Khadr by Canadian agents and officials in 2003 and 2004 not be used against him by U.S. authorities in the context of proceedings before the Military Commission or elsewhere.

“Omar Khadr faces very serious charges, including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, material support for terrorism, and spying. The Government of Canada continues to provide consular services to Mr. Khadr.”


 

Over to you, Mr. Obama

    • At least they did not violate his charter rights unlike the previous government.

      • the supreme court made clear the violation of his rights is ongoing. nice try.

        • Nice try. The Liberals gave "confidential" information to the Americans using our RCMP. The Liberals allowed the 15 year old to ROT for four years without blinking an eye. Only when they lost power did they start to adopt the NDP position.

          You have forgotten how Michael Ignatieff was full of praise for George W. Bush and the pentagon and their spreading of democracy. The sleep deprivation and tortue thingy was justified. (Janine Krieber noted it through her Facebook post).
          Michael Ignatieff noted in Ireleand Canada had a bogus peacekeeping relationship and if he wanted help he would turn to the U.S. He was disgusted in his country.

          [youtube wwDLjXb6FCM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwDLjXb6FCM youtube]

          • are you saying that whatever MI says goes? nice try at the bait and switch. i don't give an iota about what MI thinks on anything related to this in regards to appraising what is happening or has happened: he has never held power (and seems unlikely to anytime soon if at all).

            gawd, the partisan spin that the previous sin of a former government or one of its members provides a pro forma antecedent absolution for anything that might come thereafter is such hackneyed BS. is the following simple enough for you?

            "we conclude on the record before us that Canada's active participation in what was at the time an illegal regime has contributed and continues to contribute to Mr. Khadr's current detention…. The causal connection…between Canadian conduct and t…he deprivation of liberty and security of person is established."

          • The Coalition Deal does not expire until June 2011, if we have another election what is preventing the three smaller parties attempting another stunt? They are trying to prevent the PM from having the ability to prorogue in the first 12 months.

            It is NOT a partisan spin OMAR was left for 4 years at the hands of the Americans without a second thought, those are called inconvienent by some apologists.

            When did the Liberals "FIRST" suggest O.K. being held was a serious matter that required his return, can you provide the link?

            The Liberals have a record in power and than out of power.

            Look at Pay Equity, the legal issue spent 13 years appealing and fighting against it. The CPC spent Billions to settle the matter. In November 2008 they labelled latest move to adopt Ontario Equity Model as unfair, an attack on women and in 2009 the Liberals rolled over and passed it. In 2010 with the coalition trying to reform Pay Equity is back on the table..makes sense.

            I have NO difficulty in being critical of the current gov't on AGW and willingness to impose a Carbon Tax scheme tied to the US without the science being settled, a list of errors included in the man-made theory.

            I would have preferred a 2008 General election instead of a massive EAP program.

          • apparently it was not simple enough. you do realize that in the next election your party will have to run on its own record, right?

            …and oh yeah, keep that coalition boogie man alive CS……how tight is your tinfoil hat?

          • Is that the tinfoil hat you Gore-Suzuki TD funded alarmists are wearing?

            I have ZERO problem with the CPC losing the next election at the ballot box, we call it democracy. The coalition "booger" that drove the CPC to 46% in December 2008 was not of my making.

            If you can't accept the confessions of the people behind the scenes responsible for trying to steal an election and the REAL outrage versus the manufactured Facebook stunt, the tinfoil hat is yours.

            If the coalition after weeks calling it a dictatorship don't act to remove the PM in March 2010 than someone political party was just playing games.

            Any bets?

          • lets review. your original statement is this thread was that "At least they [the current government] did not violate his charter rights unlike the previous government.", to which i reminded you that the SCoC court found otherwise.

            now we are all suppose to interpret the validity of the SCoC finding though a careful consideration of 1) what the Libs did when in power; 2) what MI said before he was leader of the Libs about George Bush and his supposed support of torture; 3) the supposed life span of the defunct but supposedly not dead coalition; 4) the CPC and Lib and 'coalition' positions and handling of EI; 5) the CPC position on global warming; 6) the cross-party support for the stimulus spending; 7) the existence of the coalition and it evil scheme to "steal an election"; and, 8) the CAPP movement?

            and you suggest that the rest of us that don't agree with you are wearing a tin foil hat, eh? okay, sure.

          • Review the Supreme Court did not ORDER the return and sent it back to make the decision?

            His "rights" were violated by the Liberals for 4 years and you are upset the CPC allowed him to remain a guest of the Americans. Big deal, this alleged murderer who was born in Canada?

            What is it with some people interested in having convicted and alleged murderers return home?

          • The Supreme Court said the offense continues. Someone else may have started it, but the current government is the one that decides every day to persist with the offense, content in the knowledge that there are plenty of useful-enough idiots wandering around who are sufficiently afraid of 15 year old boys that they will happily provide cover for them.
            And so, Canadian Sense bleats and bleats and bleats.

          • I am not whining to bring him home, in fact I am interested in having him brought up before the American justice system.

          • If you're talking about a bona fide criminal trial in the American justice system, as opposed to some crazy military tribunal, then I'm not completely deaf to the argument that it makes more sense for the country who actually has a legal beef with him to try him.
            But, if you've been following the story, then you probably know that we're not talking about a real trial, how the Canadian government has needlessly complicated the situation, and what the Supreme Court has to say about it.
            So, considering all that, you're still really just spouting silly nonsense that doesn't have much to do with reality. It's no problem, really; it's not so difficult for me to ignore you when you get like this, but you're really frightening your mother.

          • The Liberal government was wrong on Khadr, and the former PM has said so.

            When Canada became aware of Khadr's capture it wasn't unreasonable to assume the US would deal with him legally and fairly, but that became less likely as time went on.

            Since the Conservatives took office the US and Canadian Supreme Courts have confirmed that Bush's system was illegal. The US officially defended what is torture under our laws. Canada is the only western country that hasn't repatriated its detainee. Obama said he would deal with prisoners legally and fairly, and that he wants to close Guantanamo. Yet, Khadr is still faced with essentially the same process as before.

            The Liberals' inaction was negligent. Despite everything that's happened the Conservatives have zealously fought legal battles to avoid taking corrective action, except for an attempt to improve their chances of fighting some future legal case.

          • Diana,
            In what context do you classify "zealously" fought legal battles?

            The current government has upheld the previous government decision in seeking a speedy trial for the alleged murderer of an American. I don't share the same level of concern for the well being of O.K. He is being held by the U.S. and we has been afforded consular visits. I do have more empaty and sorrow for the murdered American.

          • "The Liberals gave "confidential" information to the Americans using our RCMP"

            Uh, to use an extreme example to show what a silly statement that is, isn't that akin to saying "The Tories tasered Robert Dziekański to death using our RCMP"?

          • Are you denying the Liberal Government had information turned over collected by the RCMP to the Americans?

            I did not think so.

            For the record the RCMP officers in question should have been dismissed and charged.

          • "Being an apologist for the Liberals, only you would bring up the RCMP."

            You're very strange. YOU brought up the RCMP. Stranger still, by the logic you employ in the statement, I'm led to believe that you're a Liberal apologist. (Note to self: never ask CanadianSense to apologize on my behalf.)

          • I'm not "denying" that the Liberal Government ordered the RCMP to turn over the information to the Americans, but I'd like to see some evidence that the Liberal Government ordered the RCMP to turn over the information to the Americans. I was under the impression that the RCMP did that of their own accord, not that they were ordered to do so by their political masters, but if you have a link to evidence that the government told them to do it, then fair enough.

            Of course, "The Liberals did something wrong years ago, so they're hypocrites if they try to correct that error now" is hardly a compelling argument. I don't think many people will follow your "If you make a mistake, don't correct it or adjust your actions, otherwise you're just a big hypocrite" argument.

          • Wow, you blame the RCMP to shield the Liberals. Do you also suggest the RCMP at APEC were NOT following direction from the Liberals in spraying, detaining our fellow citizens so a dictator would not be offended?
            Read the Apec Inquiry and how the Liberals shut that down early as well. Funny how the current communications leader had the CBC taken off the story.

        • I think they said it was ongoing only because they evidence extracted through torture could still be used against him in court….

  1. "The Government of Canada continues to provide consular services to Mr. Khadr.”"

    Hilarious.

  2. Umm… shouldn't we be asking for assurances that NONE of the statements for which he was abused will be used?

  3. It's more than he deserves. Accept it with some grace, Khadr-huggers.

    • *hugs*

      I thought you could use one too.

    • I do hope you one day get treated as if you're guilty without trial. Just for karmic balance.

      • Reminds me of William Sampson who was left to rot in a Saudi Jail while being tortured. Remember those Saudi allies? Who helped bring home the Canadian again?

    • Not so much about desert…. really more about being a citizen of Canada. I think you're a terrible person, but that doesn't mean I would approve of the government taking away your citizenship.

  4. A well-worded response from the Justice Minister. We acknowledge that Khadr is a Canadian citizen. We formally ask that U,S. authorities not use evidence attained in the 03 and 04 Canadian interviews and we give no indication that we will interfere with an ally and a soverign country`s Justice system.

    • we acknowledge that Khadr's a citizen!?!?! was it ever in any doubt???? Last time I checked citizenship wasn't a subjective claim….. and certainly not under the Conservative Party's discretion

  5. The first paragraph of Nicholson's release is a half-truth. The Court granted the government's claim that foreign policy is the bailiwick of the executive, but it also said that claim cannot be used to cover up violations of the constitution.

    The second paragraph is the minimum Nicholson could have done, maybe not even that. As Jesse asks, why aren't we asking for assurances that no statements derived from abuse will be used? We know that Khadr was abused at Bagram air base — we know that from the lies the FBI extracted from him about Arar, which have been disproved by CSIS but which the FBI still try to use against Arar, all evidence and logic to the contrary. We know that Khadr was subjected to sleep deprivation at GTMO, and any medical adviser will tell you that that is potentially one of the worst forms of torture there is (although Ignatieff won't). We also know that CSIS and DFAIT were complicit in what happened to Khadr at GTMO and behaved much more spinelessly than did the FBI, who began sending alarms back to Washington in early 2002.

    The third paragraph is the same old blah blah blah, "faces very serious charges" — as though that meant anything at all.

    I think the court is going to have to act on its warning.

  6. How can the Government acknowledge that Canadian officials who played a minor role in the Khadr case acknowledge that they violated Khadr's rights while meekly accepting the much greater continuing violation of his rights by the American government, and pretending there's no problem as long as the US doesn't use the results of the particular interrogations conducted by Canadian agests.

    What gross dishonesty and hypocrisy.

    • We don't have any jurisdiction over American legal or quasi-legal actions. We do have a responsibility to live up to our obligations under the Charter. in this case Mr. Khadr's rights were violated by the officials who interrogated him under duress. I agree they played a minor part in his overall predicament. Still, the government is righ to take steps to correct that mistake.

      While I think Mr. Khadr got a bad break being born into the family he was, I'm not sure the rest of his problems are a matter of any particular interest to Canada, other than this country providing the usual consular services. There are Canadian citizens in other foreign prisons, such as Mr. Celil in China, who are at least as deserving of all this attention, don't you think?

      • The Canadian government has demanded repatriation of Mr. Celil and made repeated efforts on his behalf. (see Wikipedia)

        Harper says, "“When a Canadian citizen is ill-treated and when the rights of a Canadian citizen need to be defended, I think it's always the obligation of the government of Canada to vocally and publicly stand up for that citizen.”

        http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/

        He didn't mention it depends on who the Canadian is, or who his family is, or which country is ill-treating him.

        The Harper government IS very interested in this case. It's been fighting in the courts for years to avoid standing up for Khadr. The "ill-treatment" has been confirmed by both the US and Canadian Supreme Courts and the prison he's in is so famous for abuse and torture the American government considers it a blight on its reputation. Ever western country but Canada has spoken up for their detainees.

  7. I was referring to Lord Kitchener who brought up the RCMP example.

    • And I am saying that I checked before I said anything the first time, and I checked again before I posted this. Lord Kitchener did not bring the RCMP into this discussion. CanadianSense brought the RCMP into this discussion.
      Very, very strange.

      • Try to keep up. The Liberal Government had the information collected by (insert name) to Americans. The denial from the Liberal apologists for four years is NOT strange just typical.

        When presented with FACTS and dates like most apologists personal insults follow.

        • FACT: CanadianSense brought the RCMP into the discussion, then FACT: criticized Lord Kitchener for doing it, then FACT: denied that, then FACT: changed the channel.
          Though I might have predicted this before I made the decision to get involved, I have one (largely rhetorical) question before I resume ignoring CanadianSense: Do you do this on purpose, or are you getting straaaanger?

          • Funny how facts show the Liberals and their apologists are guilty in playing politics with the issue of O.K.

            Again repeating personal attacks.

  8. This is from the Justice Minister's web site:

    "While youth may know that their behaviour is wrong, they may not fully understand the nature and consequences of their acts for themselves and others. Further, some young people lack the structure, guidance and support in their communities needed to change behaviour patterns and overcome damaging influences."

    The Minister would apply this thinking to a 15 year old raised by a crime family in Canada who became involved in a shoot-out with police. And the Minister would give him all the legal benefits of ANY accused person, PLUS consideration for his age and circumstances because that's clearly appropriate and sensible.

    But that 15 year old would have FAR MORE of a chance of knowing what he did WAS wrong and WAS a war crime than Khadr did when he refused along with other fighters to surrender to American forces in Afghanistan in the summer of 2002, at age 15.

    And, yet, the Minister considers it acceptable for Khadr to be have been given NONE of those same legal rights and NO consideration for his age or circumstances, and his government still refuses to intervene in any meaningful way.

  9. The Quote in the first sentence is hanging.

  10. Diana 1976 seems to be exact in his words.

    How can the Government acknowledge that Canadian officials who played a minor role in the Khadr case acknowledge that they violated Khadr's rights while meekly accepting the much greater continuing violation of his rights by the American government, and pretending there's no problem as long as the US doesn't use the results of the particular interrogations conducted by Canadian agests.

    What gross dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Sign in to comment.