The Khadr verdict - Macleans.ca
 

The Khadr verdict


 

The Supreme Court has ruled that Omar Khadr’s rights have been violated, but that the Court will not, at this time, order the federal government to request his repatriation. The full ruling is here.

K is entitled to a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter.  The remedy sought by K — an order that Canada request his repatriation — is sufficiently connected to the Charter breach that occurred in 2003 and 2004 because of the continuing effect of this breach into the present and its possible effect on K’s ultimate trial.  While the government must have flexibility in deciding how its duties under the royal prerogative over foreign relations are discharged, the executive is not exempt from constitutional scrutiny.  Courts have the jurisdiction and the duty to determine whether a prerogative power asserted by the Crown exists; if so, whether its exercise infringes the Charter or other constitutional norms; and, where necessary, to give specific direction to the executive branch of the government.  Here, the trial judge misdirected himself in ordering the government to request K’s repatriation, in view of the constitutional responsibility of the executive to make decisions on matters of foreign affairs and the inconclusive state of the record.  The appropriate remedy in this case is to declare that K’s Charter rights were violated, leaving it to the government to decide how best to respond in light of current information, its responsibility over foreign affairs, and the Charter.

More from the GlobeCP, StarCanwest, Sun, CBC, Reuters, AP and Bloomberg.


 

The Khadr verdict

  1. The SCOC actually got it right. Foreign policy belongs to the government, not the courts.

    That it was even in question was a little nerve-wracking. But they got it right. And the radio news bulletin said it was unanimous.

    • "However, the court said that before stepping in to dictate a Canadian response on a sensitive question of foreign policy, the federal government must be given a chance to rectify Mr. Khadr's plight.

      But should the government fail to act, the court warned that it has the power to move more overtly to aid Mr. Khadr." Globe and Mail
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cana

      SCOC might have gotten it right, we will see. I agree that Court deciding that foreign policy belongs to government but this Globe article implies that Justices are only giving PM time to bring Khadr back to Canada and if government decides not to, SCOC might make move for him.

      • I didn't see that in the Post article. The two statements don't make sense, leaving it to the government to decide and then to intervene if they don't like the outcome.

    • No. The more unsettling idea is that the government could ignore constitutional responsibilities merely by engaging in agreements with other countries. While the court refused to go all the way and order acutal redress, they didn't endorse the curious notion that foreign relations are Charter exempt.

      • exactly! the conditions that prevented full redress were the court not knowing what discussions Canada and the US have, are having or will have on the issue and their inability to predict the consequences of a more forcefull decision.

        • Exactly seconded. Using executive power/national security/damage to international relations as CYA, as a means of covering up violations of international law, is an offence the courts have a responsibility to address, here as in the U.S. and the UK, and at least the UK High Court judges seem to have recognized that responsibility.

      • Yes they did.

        This is what they concluded was a violation of his rights: "The court concluded that the federal government violated Mr. Khadr's charter rights when a Canadian official interrogated him in 2004, knowing he had been subject to sleep deprivation to soften him up for questioning, and then passing along the fruit of the interview to U.S. authorities."

        This is not foreign relations, this is the Canadian government's treatment of a Canadian citizen, an interaction between two Canadians.

    • "got it right."

      That's one expression I want to see banished, or used only by those authorized to do so (in this case, a constitutional or legal expert of some reputation). It's intolerably obnoxious.

      I agree with this decision as far as it asserts that it's the government's responsibility to do act in this matter. If it continues to fail to do so, the SCC can rule again, at which point, it may have a stronger case to compel the government to act.

      • That's one expression I want to see banished, or used only by those authorized to do so…

        And in a thread discussing the applicability of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, too! Well done!

  2. Once again, evidence that all the rules in the world cannot mitigate the actions of a PM and government if they choose not to respect the various voices and institutions of our democracy.

    • That was my sense of the ruling. Considering they found in Khadr's favour on 4 out of 5 counts. Yes his rights were violated, something should be done about it, but ultimately the govt can do whatever it chooses since the jurisdiction is solely theirs. Correct perhaps in the strictest sense. Yet nevertheless conceding they can't prevent the govt using a person as a political football. Is it ever fair to put the label cowardly on a Supreme court decision? More handwring from the sidelines perhaps?

      • I'm not sure we want to go down a path of governance via litigation. It's still a fairly 'activist' ruling, in many respects.

        At some point, we have to realize that rules cannot guarantee good governance.

        • I think it's a mistake to frame it in those terms [ admittedly i know squat about the law] It's not governance by rules in the general sense, merely in this one case where the charter rights have not been followed. Or, as i prefer to look at it. In plain English: The individual has not yet recieved a fair trial. It's been long enough. Clearly there's been bad faith by this govt. The court should simply assert enough is enough, the US has not taken action within a reasonable amount of time…justice delayed…blah blah blah! But it's a person we have here, not a abstract point of law. There should be no blah blah about it.

  3. Rights aren't rights without remedy.

  4. That's not quite the whole story Aaron, if the Globe and Mail's version is correct:

    "..the court said that before stepping in to dictate a Canadian response on a sensitive question of foreign policy, the federal government must be given a chance to rectify Mr. Khadr's plight.But should the government fail to act, the court warned that it has the power to move more overtly to aid Mr. Khadr."

    • I read through the judgment on the SCOC website as soon as the radio bulletin was out. I didn't see that passage. What I did find was the distinction between putting up demands (no death penalty) before extraditing someone WE ALREADY HAD here in Canada (where the Court felt it had more influence) versus trying to deal with a foreign power over somebody who was NOT within Canada's jurisdiction.

      Will go dig some more in the judgment.

      • So does this have any implications on the Afghan detainee issue?
        The Govt is being accued by human rights groups, of being complicite in war crimes, in both cases…

        • I do not think the issue for the Canadian people is whether the SCC will hold the government accountable for agreeing to transfer prisoners who might be tortured.

          I think the issue is whether or not our government agreed to transfer prisoners in the face of reports those prisoners could be tortured, and then lied and then prorogued in order to cover it up.

      • It does not directly say that.

        What it does say is the Court can interfere with foreign policy decisions (paragraphs 37 and 38), but that here there is not enough evidence to justify interfering (paragraphs 43 and 44).

        Paragraph 43 says:

        "Mr. Khadr is not under the control of the Canadian government; the likelihood that the proposed remedy will be effective is unclear; and the impact on Canadian foreign relations of a repatriation request cannot be properly assessed by the Court."

        I think there is an implication that should this situation change in that it becomes clear the proposed rememdy is effective and the impact of the request on Canadian foreign relations can be properly assessed, the court could interfere.

        This is not a total vindication of the Harper government, though I expect that is little comfort to Khadr.

      • I believe the Globe is referring to this:

        'But if the government refuses to take adequate action to rectify the abuse of Mr. Khadr's rights, the Court warned, “courts are empowered to make orders ensuring that the government's foreign affairs prerogative is exercised in accordance with the constitution.” '

    • Thank God! I knew I should have read the decision before commenting. A bright ray of hope in this dark affair!

  5. It's not all the rules in the world. It's all the rules in Canada. That apply IN CANADA.

    • clear you did not read the decision.

      "Canada's participation in the illegal process in place at Guantanamo Bay clearly violated Canada's binding international obligations"

  6. Rights ARE rights. The remedies apply where the jurisdiction applies. Here. In Canada. The Court has said that it is up to the government to decide how to remedy the Charter breach in which it participated at Gitmo. Because he's not here. That's why the Court can't do anything.

    • This is incorrect. the government of Canada is subject to the canadian charter, period.

    • That's an interpretation of a ruling not supported by the facts. The SCOC and Khadr's team went out of their way to stress the unique nature of this case: that Canadian officials colluded with US officials in violating a Canadian citizen's rights, failed to provide consular services, etc., in a place and process deemed illegal (at the time) by the US's own courts.

      The gov't side lost mainly because they took a broad defense: the courts don't have a place in foreign affairs — which wasn't the question before the courts. Rather, it was: do Canadian courts have a say when a citizen's Charter rights are violated abroad by Canadian officials. Hence the ruling: yes, his rights were violated and yes, the gov't should move to remedy this. But they are giving the gov't (and the Obama admin) time to work out a way to achieve this.

    • MYL, i suggest you go read the decision. it does not take long. what you are saying is not consistent with the decision.

    • I agree with part of this. The SCOC has said the government has violated Khadr's rights, and now what are you going to do about it?

      It is up to the Canadian people to decide whether the answer to that question is good enough. We keep talking about how all the power is vested in PMO and the other MPs, and especialy the people voting for them, have no power. But here is a clear case where the power is ours. Just as we can't transfer our duty onto the GG, we can't expect the courts to do our job, either.

      • Well said, Jenn.

  7. Yes, it's been geography alone that has guided the Conservatives on this.

    • Geography guided the Conservatives. And, now, the Supreme Court of Canada. And common sense.

      • "Geography guided the Conservatives."

        Funny, that never stopped them from speaking out about Chinese prisoners, as one example.

        Fine and good if you agree with the decision, but can we at least allow that geography was likely far down the list of considerations for the government here?

        • Geography was MOST DEFINITELY far down the list. Here's my guess on the government's reaction to the entire Omar story (and yes, I am transferring my own thoughts to the government here): Too bad he got dragged over there by that poisonous family. But given that: Too bad he was there at the firefight. But given that: Too bad he survived. But given that: Glad we don't have him in OUR custody. Hope the Americans keep him forever.

          • In the same vein the SCoC's take. "Oh you are awful. Don't you know we have laws and rights in this country? Too bad. Hope the Americans keep him forever".

  8. "the federal government must be given a chance to rectify Mr. Khadr's plight"

    Let's all hold our collective breath, shall we? After all Harper has shown so much respect for independent bodies and officials that provide a democratic check on his regime.

  9. So – does this ruling imply the the powers of the executive branch supercedes the Charter?

    Can the government arbitraily decide how to apply charter rights?

    • No. It means the court can't throw its weight around outside our borders. That's all.

      • It doesn't mean that at all. It means that the court understands it needs to be sensitive to the political considerations of the government of the day. The Executive, and all Canadian officials STILL need to uphold the charter of rights, wherevery they are, but the Court is willing to provide some leeway in how they go about this in the exercise of foreign relations.

        • Summary:
          Here, the trial judge misdirected himself in ordering the government to
          request K's repatriation, in view of the constitutional responsibility of the executive to make
          decisions on matters of foreign affairs and the inconclusive state of the record. The appropriate
          remedy in this case is to declare that K's Charter rights were violated, leaving it to the government
          to decide how best to respond in light of current information, its responsibility over foreign affairs,
          and the Charter.

          Para2:
          the proper remedy is to grant Mr. Khadr a declaration that his Charter rights have been
          infringed, while leaving the government a measure of discretion in deciding how best to respond.

          Paras 38 – 47:
          The Court does not get to control foreign policy, but can tell the Canadian government how to protect persons it has under its own control (i.e. a foreign fugitive facing execution following extradition FROM Canada). The Court cannot possibly have the competence to evaluate the known and unknown details of international negotiations to tell Ottawa what to do in dealings with foreign governments about Canadians currently NOT in the control of the Canadian government. So it is indeed up to the federal government to decide how to redress the Charter violations as declared.

          If anyone can quote the text that says "We the SCOC reserve the right to come back later and demand that more be done," I'd appreciate it, because I've now gone through the judgment twice and can't find it.

    • In certain instances where the executive power is involved, yes, apparently. It's an ongoing breach of a right without a remedy.

    • I think the gist is that the executive gets to choose how it goes about not violating the charter. If it violates the Charter, the courts have to give the executive a chance to rectify its own action before the courts undertake any corrective or punitive actions.

      In other words, the executive is free to do anything that doesn't make the courts spank it. If it gets spanked, it has to figure out for itself how not to get spanked in the future.

  10. If I reading this correctly the SCOC is bringing it back to the breach of K's charter rights…which was the participation of CANADIAN government officials in passing along their transcripts when they knew that he had been sleep deprived etc etc. So the Candian Government violated his rights.

    Not; because he was a child soldier, because they hadnt asked for his repatriation.

    Another way to put this is, if I read it correctly, if the officials had not passed along the transcripts and information, there would be no breach and no discussion of remedy.

    A ruling I can buy into because it ties Canadian Government actions to rights violation of a citizen, not a broader crusade. So now the question is what is the remedy the government can come up with to remedy the rights violation in 2002/2003

  11. All governments in Canada are subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and are bound to respect the provisions in dealings with Canadians in Canada. The Charter cannot possibly bind its foreign relations with governments outside of Canada. Period.

  12. good points Vince : the gov't could always send a strongly worded letter to the USA ambassador registering their concerns (but not requesting Khadr's return) and then call for an inquiry of 2002/2003 – or – strike a committee – or judicial inquiry – or – or – or – and then get back to business.

  13. Perhaps the remedy is simply Khadr's right to sue the Canadian Govt.
    Arar did, Bill Sampson didn't.

  14. A ruling that the gov't must bring Khadr home in this particular case, where it has already ruled the individual's charter rights have been breached [ fancy way of saying right to a fair trial] does not IMHO set any kind of precedent of limiting the gov'ts scope in Foreign affairs. Surely it can be argued the ruling would be and is intended only to apply to this case? In effect obey the law, not skirt it for political purposes. Particularly when the end result is a person ends up being a political football. Shorter version: people are not political footballs.

  15. Or request that the information obtained by Canadian G-men questioning NOT be used in any proceeding (military or civilian) against him.

  16. Nonsense, it can and does. Extradition rights have long been subject to Charter scruitny, as are treaties. The issue is one of remedy.

  17. Well a right to sue is inherent, so that isnt a remedy. The open ended nature of the SCOC ruling means that even if the Canadian Government requests his repatriation and the US government accedes that they might decide that this was not enough of a remedy….they dont theaten it, it is just that they are silent on it and this means that they could be asked to rule on it in the future. The length of time to cure since the breach might affect the size of the award, or might not, but the basis for suing will be the 2002/2003 breach. I expect him to sue even if he comes home tomorrow.

  18. Of course the issue is of remedy. And the SCOC said it cannot possibly prescribe it, because it lies within the realm of foreign relations.

    • No, the SCOC didn't say that. It said that, in the circumstances of this particular case, it could not agree to the remedy prescribed by the trial judge viz. an order for the GoC to seek Khadr's repatriation. It did not exclude prescribing remedies in the area of foreign relations ; in fact, it cited case law to say just the opposite. The SCOC did prescribe a remedy : a declaratory remedy that the rights of Khadr had been violated by Canadian officials, thus providing a legal framework within which the GoC may decide what to do to remedy the violation. Subtle differences, granted, but differences nonetheless. The relevant paragraphs of the judgement are from 27-47.

      • That's the way i read it too. It wouldn't order the govt to seek repatriation. That is not the same as saying do nothing to remedy this, or worse do whatever yo damn well please.

  19. I've looked over the remedy part of the judgment now and I reluctantly concur with Gayle.

  20. I was thinking about that. That might be one part of the solution, I have no idea how practical that is, essentially the Feds saying we issued a letter to the US governemnt and to Khadr saying that they are not to use this information or anything based on it. I cant imagine a court not trhowing that out….who knows….I am sure the lawyers will work it out

  21. The issue there isn't the extra-territoriality, it's the executive privilege. We can apply the rights outside of Canada (or rather, the government is Canadian so it is Charter bound in its actions), but this was apparently a matter of executive privilege.

  22. Uh, Mike, the SCOC has stated that it is executive privilege BECAUSE it is extra-territorial. We have no more hairs to split here…

    • "The Charter cannot possibly bind its foreign relations with governments outside of Canada. Period.'

      It certainly should if the individual involved is a CC. Are you seriously arguing you wish your gov't to wring its hands and say:" sorry you've been wrongly accused of drug smuggling in wherever. Your CRs don't apply old boy…better luck next time…we'll see if we can get you a good lawyer…failing that a comfy cell."?

      • Are you seriously arguing that a Canadian's charter rights trump local laws? Can Canadians do whatever they like while abroad and if we charged by authorities with a crime we can say, sorry, I can do anything I like because my 'charter rights' protect me.

        And myl's point about Khadr's crime is a good one – Khadr should be facing charges of treason and not having all this hand-wringing about charter rights.

        It is interesting how Cons have to carry the can for Lib malfeasance – Libs sign agreement with known torturers in Afghan to give them prisoners but Cons get blowback. Libs ignore a citizen's charter rights back in 2003/04 but somehow Cons are too blame and expected to clean up mess.

        • Where did i say my charter rights trump local laws? I said if you were wrongfully accused…you see the presumption of innocense comes first, not after we find out the cops were bribed or whatever. If you were up on false charges in some squalid little backwater i guarantee you'd be howling for your govt.

          "And this sidebar ignores the issue of what this Canadian citizen was up to as a non-uniformed illegal enemy combatant engaged in hostilities against an ally of Canada"

          Another one who presumes to know the truth before the trial has even started. Yes, charge him with treason, or whatever. But for godsake charge him with something. Not merely outraging your sense of justice.

          Cons only carry the can for the libs cuz their too stupid to check and see what's inside first. :) You're right, life's not fair!

    • "In some situations, courts may give specific directions to the executive branch of the
      government on matters touching foreign policy. For example, in Burns, the Court held that it would
      offend s. 7 to extradite a fugitive from Canada without seeking and obtaining assurances from the
      requesting state that the death penalty would not be imposed. The Court gave due weight to the fact that seeking and obtaining those assurances were matters of Canadian foreign relations.
      Nevertheless, it ordered that the government seek them.

      [42] The specific facts in Burns justified a more specific remedy. The fugitives were under
      the control of Canadian officials. It was clear that assurances would provide effective protection
      against the prospective Charter breaches: it was entirely within Canada's power to protect the
      fugitives against possible execution. Moreover, the Court noted that no public purpose would be
      served by extradition without assurances that would not be substantially served by extradition with
      assurances, and that there was nothing to suggest that seeking such assurances would undermine
      Canada's good relations with other states: Burns, at paras. 125 and 136.

      [43] The present case differs from Burns."

      • You should have kept reading. Here is the comment from "Gayle" posted earlier:

        What it does say is the Court can interfere with foreign policy decisions (paragraphs 37 and 38), but that here there is not enough evidence to justify interfering (paragraphs 43 and 44).

        Paragraph 43 says:

        "Mr. Khadr is not under the control of the Canadian government; the likelihood that the proposed remedy will be effective is unclear; and the impact on Canadian foreign relations of a repatriation request cannot be properly assessed by the Court."

        I think there is an implication that should this situation change in that it becomes clear the proposed rememdy is effective and the impact of the request on Canadian foreign relations can be properly assessed, the court could interfere.

        • Hi Pat i wa just responding to MYL's argument that "the SCOC said it cannot possibly prescribe it, because it lies within the realm of foreign relations." which is inaccurate as per the portion of the decision i was quoting.

  23. Just because I am a flawed human being who loves to see his own words in print, I re-paste my April '09 prediction of the scenario that the SCOC has now thankfully stated need NOT necessarily take place:

    M Wilson: Ahem, Ms. Clinton (looks down to read aloud the printed text on the card): In conformity with our court order to more forcefully defend the rights of Mr. Omar Khadr, Canadian citizen currently incarcerated in Guan–

    H Clinton: Yes, Michael, several agencies were wondering who you'd come to first. Actually, you should go knock on the door of the Pentagon. Have a nice day!

    M Wilson: Ahem, Good Day, Mr. Defense Secretary (looks down to read aloud the printed text on the card). In conformity with our court order to more forcefully defend the rights of Mr. Omar Khadr, Canadian citizen currently incarcerated in Guan–

    R Gates: Hello Michael! The United States is greatly appreciative of Canada's contributions in southern Afghanistan. Any news on those CF-18's coming over to help? Sure could use 'em. Anyway, I know you've got this thing you're required to do. My secretary has already prepared the letter attesting that you came by. Mary, can you bring me the Operation Maple-Leaf-Dog-and-Pony file? Thanks. Here you go. Hope that helps settle down your little judge, Michael. Ask Mary for a parking voucher if you need one of those, too. Have a nice day!

  24. Well put.

  25. Go read "Bon Voyage, But" for an understanding of how LITTLE the Canadian government can offer you outside of Canada, and get back to us.

    And this sidebar ignores the issue of what this Canadian citizen was up to as a non-uniformed illegal enemy combatant engaged in hostilities against an ally of Canada.

    • "And this sidebar ignores the issue of what this Canadian citizen was up to as a non-uniformed illegal enemy combatant engaged in hostilities against an ally of Canada. "

      Allegedly, yes?

      • I didn't say he tossed the grenade that killed the US soldier. I am pretty sure my description above is acknowledged by just about everyone. Unless you have evidence that he was there as a tourist?

  26. Do not bring Khadr back to Canada, I don't trust our justice system to incarcerate him long enough. He should remain with the Americans and be tried by the Americans with an American sentence, whether it's a proper life sentence or the death penalty.

    I don't understand why anyone cares about this terrorist. I assume its just something to pin on Harper.

    • THANK YOU you are the only one to understand he went there and killed .

      • He was a teenager under the influence of his crazy dad. This has to be a huge mitigating circumstance in this case. How many 15 year old Westernised Canadians born kids have the guts to break from their family, much less a kid from a traditional Pakistani family? Some of the commenters on here are simply out for a blood lust revenge and can't seem to place things in a proper context. He's already done 9 years in prison. More time than some people get for killing multiple people while driving drunk. Bring him back to Canada in keep him in a mental facility until he works through all the issues he will have to work through.

        • How do you know he was under the influence of his dad? His dad was dead for several years at the time of his arrest, plenty of time to make a break or come back to Canada.

        • Mental facility, you got to be kidding. Here is a little hint, Omar belongs to Al-Qaida, he hates gays, he hates women and he especially hates liberal westerners, heck he hates conservative westerners as well. You know who they love, useful idiots, not mentioning any names here though.

          • How do you know all this? Without a trial, I mean.

    • And so, if the Americans try him and don't convict him, you'll abide by the decision and stop calling him a terrorist? Somehow I doubt it.

    • re your last point about anyone not caring about a terrorist: may I respectfully remind you that he IS NOT A TERRORIST.? …only A SUSPECTED terrorist until he gets a time in court.
      And lets be clear on another point. The CIA could be rightly accused of TERRORISM IN THE FIRST DEGREE for it's acknowledged involvement in various coups and assassinations around the world. Are we accepting the idea that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT?
      You first comment reveals you to be an anarchist in that you do not believe in our democratic rights through our Charter as a society. You clearly do not support our Canadian judicial system.
      Are you one of those American neocon imports who believes our only obligation in society is to make money and consume?

    • Right! He is allegeded to have committed crimes against Americans. He should be judged by their law. Who are we to interfere with due process in another country.

  27. Every time i see this Khahr my blood boils.As a veteran who has seen 139 Canadians die at the hands of this guy and his relatives and hear the opposition in this country hollering about a detainee being tortured by his own people I could explode..An American Mother lost a son at the hands of this little bas..rd and for the doves in this country to demand he be returned here while everyday our young soldiers can lose their lives.American courts are not Nazi Germany his trial will be fair.

    • Have you any contact with reality? Or barring that, facts?

      Even the American courts have said that the trial system in Guantenemo is a sham.
      There are reports that Khadr was found trapped underneath rubble in such a way that it would have been completely impossible for him to have thrown the grenade.

      They have confessions extracted out of a young teenager under extreme interrogation techniques. Because it's well known that nobody lies to get out of those situations.. oh wait..

      Save your outrage for where it's actually been shown that it's deserved.

    • Hey Gar….I couldn't agree more!!! His name and the word "Rights" should not be mentioned in the same sentence, unless it is to inform him that he gave his up..he has none..he deserves none.

    • Here here. Let him rot in jail. He and his whole terrorist supporting family should be kicked out of Canada for good.

    • Way to go Gar. As far as I'm concerned, this guy isn't a Canadian citizen anymore.He made his choice to go out there and shoot or bomb our guys (and girls) Even at 15, he knew damn well what he was going there for. There are too many bleeding hearts in this country. When you make a choice, you' ve got to accept the consequences, period.

    • An American Mother lost a son. A son who was fighting to preserve freedom, democracy, and rights. He should be honoured, and we should all be saddened by his mother's loss.

      And yet you would have us kick and spit on the things he was fighting for, and worse, use his name to do it. That is no way to honour this boy's memory, and it is no way to run a war, or a country.

  28. I think that this ruling poses an interesting question to the elite of the right (less so for the uniformed bigots that often huddle up next to them). If one believes in individual rights and the government's requirement to respect them, then who other than the Supreme Court to arbitrate when those rights are in dispute? That court has now clearly stated that those rights were and still are being violated.

    It would seem now that any supporter of individual rights with intellectual honesty would want to see the government provide a remedy that is both effective and quick and not opt for strategic delay or half measures. Even if one disagrees with the particulars of this Supreme Court decision, having a country that respects the rights of the individual wrt the government requires a process and that process has now been completed. The Courts intrusion into foreign policy is an important issue but clearly secondary to our fundamental rights as individual citizens.

    • It's always a bit of a sticking point for certain types that in a society governed by the rule of law, the only true protection from government interference comes from courts, which must interfere with elected officials.

    • Dear Stewart

      Thank you for your representations from the voices of pseudo intellectuals. It would seem, if one has it correct, that one would want to enlist the support of "uniformed bigots" in order to more clearly provide a remedy fer to hep the Khadr family fer to gettin back their little Omar so's they kin fixn him right in the head so's he dont do any more killin 'n such, and kin spen the rest of hisn life a setting on the porch in Pigeon Holler a wishn for his pappy whos a livin in heaven a kissin his 72 virgins.

  29. "“courts are empowered to make orders ensuring that the government's foreign affairs prerogative is exercised in accordance with the constitution.”

  30. And they just did. The Constitution says the SCOC can't tell Ottawa the specifics of how to deal with the "remedy" for the Charter violation in 2003.

  31. I am saying the SCOC said that, because it is a matter of foreign policy, the federal government must figure out the remedy, not itself. That was after first reading. I have now completed a second reading, and guess what — that is PRECISELY where they spanked O'Reilly.

    So I respectfully bounce that suggestion back in your direction.

    • Riddle me this. You argued above the charter has no jurisdiction outside the country. Then why is the SCoC stating K's rights were violated? These violations occurred outside of Canada. Either you or the court is mistaken…hmmm!

    • follow the bouncing verdict!

      respectfully myl, i think you have oversimplified – and as a result obscured – what the SCoC said. they established criteria in this specific case (i.e., the court not knowing what discussions Canada and the US have, are having or will have on the issue and their inability to predict the consequences of a more forcefull decision) that regarded as being sufficient to preclude specifying a remedy in this case. that does not preclude determining remedies in other matters of foreign policy.

      indeed, they went on to make clear that in other cases doing so is both legitimate and to be expected, even providing a specific example.

      [41] "…In some situations, courts may give specific directions to the executive branch of the government on matters touching foreign policy. For example, in Burns, the Court held that it would offend s. 7 to extradite a fugitive from Canada without seeking and obtaining assurances from the requesting state that the death penalty would not be imposed. The Court gave due weight to the fact that seeking and obtaining those assurances were matters of Canadian foreign relations. Nevertheless, it ordered that the government seek them.

      [42] The specific facts in Burns justified a more specific remedy. The fugitives were under the control of Canadian officials. It was clear that assurances would provide effective protection against the prospective Charter breaches: it was entirely within Canada's power to protect the fugitives against possible execution. Moreover, the Court noted that no public purpose would be served by extradition without assurances that would not be substantially served by extradition with assurances, and that there was nothing to suggest that seeking such assurances would undermine Canada's good relations with other states: Burns, at paras. 125 and 136.

      [43] The present case differs from Burns."

      • Burns was IN CANADA. I don't know how to make it any more plain than that.

        • MYL, what you said to me was "I am saying the SCOC said that, because it is a matter of foreign policy, the federal government must figure out the remedy, not itself."

          You can't possibly be arguing that nothing that happens within Canada, has foreign affairs implications, are you?

          Burns, notwithstanding his geographical location within Canada, had foreign affairs implications.

          • Sigh. Have we gotten this far just because I failed to insert "when the Canadian in question is not in Canada"…?

            If so, I apologize for not stating what I thought everyone knew.

          • no need to apologize, but i was responding to what you wrote is all.

  32. And the victim's rights?

    If found guilty, does the victim's family not have the right to remedy?
    If Khadr is found guilty, the victim had his right to 'life' taken from him.

    • Those are rather large "if"s you've left hanging out there. And until they're answered, doesn't the presumption of innocence require we treat the person fairly? Or are you willing to suggest that being accused is enough for the gov't to trample over your rights?

    • wilson as I noted, I doubt if my question is really of much interest to you.

  33. The Courts intrusion into foreign policy is an important issue but clearly secondary to our fundamental rights as individual citizens.

    How soon we forget that the individual is not in Canada. That "foreign policy" thing cannot possibly be secondary here.

    • Sorry, I want Canada to look out for Canadian citizens wherever they are.. especially when it comes to how they're treated by Canadian officials. We may not be able to control foreign governments, but we damn well can control our own officials. So yes, it is secondary.

    • So a Canadian outside Canada is not quite so Canadian. The Court said his rights were violated by the Canadian government. My point is that the Canadian government has to seek to remedy that violation. The fact that the individual is outside the country is certainly germane to the violation and remedy but I made no presumption of what action the Canadian government needed to take. I simply noted that for anyone who believed in primacy of individual rights one option would be to adopt the view that the remedy should be immediate or effective. (even if they disagreed with the particulars)

      The other option is to live in a state of denial as an intellectual hypocrite.

      • A Canadian outside Canada is Canadian. But don't try to suggest that the USA is somehow less of the USA just because they're incarcerating a Canadian.

        The remedy can be immediate AND effective: invade Guantanamo Bay and rescue him forthwith. The Yanks would never see the Canucks coming from our current garrison in Porte-au-Prince.

        Or the remedy could be more modest (and less violent) and more in keeping with the national interest than that. We the electorate may then judge whether the immediacy and the effectiveness are to our liking.

        • I didn't state that the US had any obligation to cooperate, of course they don't. But the government has an obligation and one that goes beyond simple politics. Freedom from government intervention into our private lives is a right that exists independent of our ability to move public opinion to our side and it is a right that exists between elections.

  34. Well said, except for the last part, where we must differ. If the government of the day does not desire the job of cleaning up the previous administration's messes, it should not govern.

    And anyway, I do not see that here. This government has adopted a policy towards Khadr and how to deal with what came before it assumed power. I am cool with it. But if they start to whine about the mess the Liberals left them, they will lose points with me, big time.

    • "If the government of the day does not desire the job of cleaning up the previous administration's messes, it should not govern."

      Quite right.

      I was not presenting argument that government should take, it was more of rant from frustration with libs and their sanctimony. Khadr and Afghan torture are two great moral issues of our time and it is Libs who are on the wrong side of both but somehow the conservatives are bad guys.

  35. No, not at all. Let's skip your paraphrasing and go for the real quotes:

    [41] In some situations, courts may give specific directions to the executive branch of the government on matters touching foreign policy. For example, in Burns, the Court held that it would offend s. 7 to extradite a fugitive from Canada without seeking and obtaining assurances from the requesting state that the death penalty would not be imposed. The Court gave due weight to the fact that seeking and obtaining those assurances were matters of Canadian foreign relations. Nevertheless, it ordered that the government seek them.

    [

  36. That was dealt with in the earlier cases. Where international law isn't being followed locally and Canadians are involved, the Charter may become applicable.

  37. Stupid left-wing, activist, jurisdiction interfereing Supreme Court… oh wait a minute… we'd my conservative talking points go??

  38. Then all I ask is that you re-read paragraph 44. That pretty clearly says that the SCOC feels out of place in matters of diplomacy. And they're right.

    So I shall ask again: If anyone can quote the text that says "We the SCOC reserve the right to come back later and demand that more be done," I'd appreciate it.

  39. Hang the rotten terroist bas**rd. As well send is terrorist family packing to. It's about time we ended this political correctness crap. For one just do what makes common sense.

    • Most would be happy if the US or Canada simply prosecuted him under laws and processes accepted as valid.
      This is something you and your tub-thumping ilk seem unwilling to try.
      If we can try homegrown terrorists, mobsters and bikers … we can handle this one.

    • People keep wandering over from the Steyn planet. There must be an app for that.

      • Mark's teleporting them over…but he's not telling them once they're over there's no way back.

    • Hey Ziggy
      You are a helluva lot scarier than Omar Khadr. He was a kid, being shot at by
      Americans. Hang all of them, too

  40. Well, now the ball is in Harper's court – he's either a believer in human rights or he's not. He brags that he is – this will show whether he is or not.

    Can't have it both ways

    • I suspect he'll find a way to. He nearly always does.

    • Harper believes in Harper. Period.

  41. Sorry.. it's not specifically there. I paraphrased based on the rest of the judgement, as you yourself did.

  42. And while we're at it, why not just ditch all those funny turban wearing folks at the same time.. save a lot of trouble in the long run, right?

  43. I shall rephrase then. My appeal was poorly worded — sorry — I was not looking for those specific words. So: If anyone can quote the text that suggests "We the SCOC reserve the right to come back later and demand that more be done," I'd appreciate it.

  44. Take that to the SCOC. It sure isn't secondary in this case's judgment.

  45. Pray tell where I agreed with the SCOC's ruling?

    • I never said you did. I suggested you take your argument to the SCOC, which implies that I figured you disagreed.

  46. The confusion here appears to arise from what is under the control of the GoC and what is not. Khadr's rights were violated by Canadian officials acting outside of the physical borders of Canada, but within its legal jurisdiction. The SCOC would not have jurisdiction over what officials of other countries do or don't do regarding Canadian citizens. So, the Charter does apply outside of the physical borders of Canada, but only to the actions of the GoC, their agents and servants.

    • That makes sense. But does that mean my charter rights [ how i loath that term] only apply outside of the country, only so far as my dealings with the GoC and their agents go…which would seem to make sense again. A CC shouldn't actually have carte blanch as far as rights go when abroad…although i do expect minimum standards to pertain, ie., Pof Inn..right to a fair trial and so forth.

      • "But does that mean my charter rights [ how i loath that term] only apply outside of the country, only so far as my dealings with the GoC and their agents go … "

        As far as the Supreme Court and remedies available under Canadian law go, yes. National law in the states concerned and international law are also available, just not the institutions of the Canadian state.

  47. Do not return Omar Khadr to Canada. This piece of human garbage, with his venomous siblings, fanatical Muslim mother and a dead terrorist father, have no place in this country. His return to Canada must be vigorously opposed. Please have your staff dig up as much news and video footage of Omar Khadr's immediate family's manifest hatred of and poisonous rants against Canada. Remind and illustrate to decent Canadians how this family has repeatedly spit upon and derided the very country, Canada, which extended its hand of security, safe harbour and generosity to them. Illustrate, in detail, the cancerous rhetoric the matriarch of this little band of murderous, treasonous ingrates spews daily against the very country of which she and they, happily avail themselves of its resources. The SCOC has now washed its hands of the matter and now it falls on the shoulders of all Canadians and our governments, at all levels, to slam the door shut, once and for all, on Citizens of Convienience who commit murder. Our government has been elected in good faith by Canadian citizens. Now, they must acquit themselves of the burden of public office

    • "Citizens of Convienience"

      While your vitriol may apply to other members of the Khadr clan, Omar was born in Canada, and is thus a citizen through and through, like it or not.

      "cancerous rhetoric". Modified noun. See Don's comment above for a prime example.

      • Note how he reaches all those conclusions absent a fair trial…that's efficiency for ya! Actually i have no problem kicking his family out, if the law allows for it, and a reasnable process of inquiry takes place and reaches the same conclusions. But what Don wants is arbitrary treatment, and off the cuff populous justice.

        • Some people are just born into the wrong times. He'd have been great as part of one of those western "string 'em to the nearest tree" posses, wouldn't he?

    • The great thing about this country is that short of hate speech, you can say all sorts of vile absurd things, even about the country itself. Thw wrongdoings of Khadr and his family will hopefully someday be redressed in a fair trial, but they won't include saying mean things you don't like.

    • I suspect you voted for Harper, and will again. Idiot.

    • Every time you insist that a Canadian citizen is not entitled to his or her rights as a Canadian citizen, you "spit upon and deride the very country, Canada, which extends its hand of security, safe harbour and generosity" to you and all Canadians.

  48. I would have some sympathy for Omar if at any time, before he got himself into this mess, he or his family had shown some appreciation for Canada. The freedoms and opportunities extended to them here they used only to propogate hate against their adoptive country and the values it and we hold sacred.
    To the best of my knowledge Canada had no hand in the circumstances that led to his actions and their consequences. None of this took place in Canada. The fact that he seems to hold a Canadian passport of convenience presents a moral delema for our government, that's obvious. However I hope they continue to use some discretion here and let the US legal process look after the issue, after all the Obama administration is hardly some third world dictatorship.

    • Let's hope that you were never judged by the actions of your family and friends. I agree that his family are a bunch of c u next Tuesdays, but he was only a kid when this happened. In enligtened socities such as ours, we take things like this into account. Were you strong enough at 14 or 15 to tell your dad to get stuffed?

      • Your point is well taken and certainly has merit. I have to say that at 14 or 15 I do not remember myself, or anyone else, not being held responsible for their actions to some degree. Keep in mind that the US court system also makes allowences for indictable acts committed by youth as verses adults. It was an American he is accused of killing and the act he is charged with happened outside of Canada. Why should we be so self rightious as to presume that only we can deliver justice here?

        • "Keep in mind that the US court system also makes allowences for indictable acts committed by youth as verses adults"

          Too bad for Khadr, then, that he wasn't being held in a place subject to the US court system. No, they had/have him under military justice only, which takes into account the age of the combatant very little, if at all. It also appears to be silent on little things like torturing the detainees, etc., While the US court system may be perfectly acceptable to our idea of due process and a fair trial, that is irrelevent to the situation at hand.

      • My family immigrated to Canada also but they never did anything but work hard and show appreciation for their good fortune to be given the opportunity at a new life. To do harm to this country or to ask any family member to do so was a thought too horrible to contimplate. If I had been asked by my father to commit acts of terrorism I would have declined and done all in my powere to convince him of its folly. But this is a hypothetical question so not entirely valid.
        As to being judged for actions done at the age of 14 or 15, of course we are. Its called youth court and if the crime is serious enough the prosecution can ask for it to be raised to adult court.

    • That's the beauty of this country. You can hate it AND expect the benefits of citizenship (see Québécois, Bloc).

      What you should not expect is that Mommy Maple Leaf will come and kiss the boo-boo and make everything better no matter where you are on earth. Whether or not you or your family members hate your country.

      The SCOC has said that Canadian government officials blew it when they attempted to gather intelligence from a Canadian citizen for an ally, because the fruits of that interrogation were knowingly obtained after the US did things the SCOC didn't like, and because the results of that intel are (maybe the only thing — debatable but let's play along) helping keep Omar locked up. But the remedy lies within the realm of international diplomacy, so the Court has wisely not taken on the responsibility of insisting on the remedy.

  49. At last somebody has hit the nail on the head and it is about time that we all view such terrorist activities with disdain. Nobody gets arrested or locked up in any civilized country for no good reason and suggestions and comments in favour of terrorists do not help our country in any way. Most os us are immigrants and it is our duty to defend our new home and country and not encourage any form of terrorism out of pity for an individual or a family who have involved themselves in questionable activities.When we migrated to Canada we decided to make Canada our home and our country and it is therefore our duty to protect our homeland in every possible way. We have absolutely no reason to even voice a negative opinion in favour of anyone who even attempts to indulge in any questionable activities which adversely affect our country or any other country

    • It may have escaped your attention, but this "is' a democracy…dissent is not illegal…yet anyway!

    • "Nobody gets arrested or locked up in any civilized country for no good reason"

      How I wish that were true, that we could somehow be 100% accurate that the people we charge with a crime actually did the crime. Sadly, that isn't the case, and there are tons of examples to prove it.

  50. He hasn't even been tried in a court – kangaroo or otherwise – and you've already convicted him?

    You law and order Conservative types tend to forget the "law" part of the equation, and part of that is innocent til proven guilty.

  51. When he's put before a proper court of law and not a show tribunal, I'll be more trusting of the US – Obama or no Obama. He was a child soldier at the time and should be also looked at in that context.

  52. What unbelieveable slapdash mob psychology is demonstrated here. There are people in this "conversation" who appear to believe that emotion should replace logic. Emotion stirred up, as in most crowd vigilanty situations, for political or religious reasons (ie: we are right because we are RIGHT, and you are wrong if you disagree with us)

    • Strange, you sneer at emotion as the undercurrent of sentiment in this matter……..

      Seems to me that our soldiers overseas, the benefit of whose service and mortal sacrafice you so casually avail yourself of, are there for emotional reasons….its called pride in your nation and a willingness to protect all that you hold dear…for right or wrong…..Its not logic that sends a surge of warmth up your spine and brings a smile to your face when you stand on a parade ground on Remembrance Day. Its not logic that renders you inconsolable as you remember cradling a comrade as his life's blood drained away. Its not logic that makes you weep as you tell a widow and her children how brave their father and husband was and how he spoke of them in his dying moments….

      Logic plays no part in any of this because from where I'm standing and as a former Canadian soldier……logically I and they wouldn't want to be shot and killed…………and logically I do not want a man living in my country who at the drop of a hat (with passion not logic) wraps himself in explosives and sets himself alight in a crowded marketplace on Danforth Avenue……

    • Emotion nearly always does replace logic. Which is a good reason to have the laws we do, so that an objective, unemotional body (like a court) can look at the case and use the logic subsumed by the emotions in others. Which is a good reason to be upset at the treatment of Khadr, because if one can fall through the logic crack, how safe are we all? The other thing about emotion is you may not believe it should replace logic, but you can't find the logic through the emotion to see that's what you're doing!

  53. Teneckye just called Khadr "a little terrorist" on CTVnews channel.

    said this is a step toward him spending the rest of his life in an american jail.

    • Shorter Teneckye: Mob rule for everyone!

      • i think it is worse than that Thwim.

        Shorter Teneckye: the law matters when/how we say!

    • That would be an incredibly dumb move by Teneckye. Anyone know of a link to an online clip of that?

        • Tom Clark asked what Teneckye thinks the government view was, and he failed completely to state flat out, as the FORMER spokescritter, that he can only provide his own personal opinion, etc. Of course, Clark failed to make that clear, either (except for the quick little "former" in the intro).

          But the sins of the father (Chretien springing papa Khadr) is a dumb argument to make on the merits of the son's case. Probably a frank explanation of the government's stance, but still a dumb argument to make on TV. And I doubt anyone CURRENTLY in the PMO or the DFAIT would make it.

          • reminds me of how Brodie made clear the GST was a stupid policy but good politics in their estimation at the time of the decision (though maybe less so now!).

            but, yeah, the whole interview was unbelievably dumb, esp with Teneckye barking at the dude at the end after saying incredibly dumb things.

          • "Sins of the father"…….incredibly dumb?………this family has a history……plain and simple……and while this may be somewhat pedestrian…will you agree to surrender your life and the life of every member of your family if Omar Khadr kills one, just one, person if he were to be released tomorrow…….no, I didn't think so…..but if you are loathe to surrender your own life and the lives of your loved ones then perhaps err on the side of caution and don't play fast and loose with the lives of others..

          • Don, I would be prepared to accept that you might be a Libtroll trying to absurdly caricature the anti-Khadr crowd. Which means I probably should not respond. But I have a slight fear you might be serious. So:

            ABSOLUTELY the father's conduct is irrelevant in judging the son's charges. But there may be a contribution in his sentencing, if found guilty.

            Once you have decided that the enemy deserves a trial, that's what you've got to face. Unlawful enemy combatant with no Geneva protections would have worked much nicer, but Bush said Geneva would apply. So we're stuck with what we have.

          • Where are you, Don? Shall we lock you up, lest you go and kill someone? I wouldn't want to surrender my life and the life of every family member if I passed up that opportunity to save one, just one person from your continued freedom to kill & maim the innocent. Hey, just erring on the side of caution here.

          • If the government has a smart argument I haven't heard it.

  54. So who cares a rats ass.

    • i believe the saying is: who gives a rat's ass?

  55. That's obvious…fortunately you've only got one vote.

  56. Human rights in Canada should be for all, especially for those that we do not like.
    Mr Kadr has yet to be convicted of any crime except that of public opinion. The media have accepted all the statements from the US military of his guilt in the attack. Over time it has been revealed that another person was present (so he was not the only possible culprit), Mr kadr has been tortured, evidence suppressed, lawyers and judges fired from his case (by the state) and now the likelihood of a conviction downgraded. This has all happened to a child soldier. We can now admit that the "evidence" was actually propaganda for the state and not evidence at all.
    It is extremely rare that a crime can be morally defended, this is why they are crimes and the guilty punished. However it is not a crime until a conviction has been obtained in a recognized court (and not Guantanamo Bay"s kangaroo court). Until then all of your rights still apply. Even after a conviction certain rights apply to prisoners. Mr Kadr's case is important because his rights have been denied and this denial of rights has been aided and abetted by our own government!
    Does this now mean if you are charged with a serious crime (in the United States or elsewhere) that you will be abandoned by your government, and our spies will attempt to coerce a confession from you after or while you are being tortured?
    Unfortunately the limits to our collective rights are demonstrated by how our country treats our most vulnerable citizens.
    Somehow this government thinks that just because something is not explicitly spelled out in law, that they have no moral responsibility. To hold elected office used to be called public service for a reason.
    This government is a disservice to all Canadians. It has taken generations of hard work to have the rights we have. We have created a country that is looked up-to around the world. This is too important to sacrifice for crass political gain.

  57. The law is only there for the just ,right? Naturally you get to decide who that is.

  58. This has nothing to do with supremacy of the SCC over the "executive branch" as MDH bemoans. It has to do with the Charter to which Harper is as bound as you or me. Besides, while Harper may resemble Cheney, it's the Americans who have an "executive branch", not Canada. That gaffe betrays a profound misunderstanding of our parliamentary system and our laws.

    • it does indeed have to do with the Charter's power to bind officials in certain capacities, as you say. But there is a Canadian version of the executive, the cabinet, although it is usually made up of people who are also in the legislative branch.

  59. There is little difference between the parade of liberal left wing sniviling hand wringing apologists who spew their sympathy on Omar Khadr and grovel and fawn at the feet of this homocidal terrorist (so evident in this thread) and those who are responsible for allowing radical muslims (terrorists and "out spoken" muslim immigrants and "new" citizens) to ravage and culturally rape Britain and most of Europe. The attitudes of the politically correct bureaucrats, politicians and the judiciary in this country are a mirror image of their counterparts in Europe. The difference is we have seen the effects of their lunacy and are loathe to allow that to any degree to happen in this country. With rights come responsibilities plain and simple. We are now dealing with a new breed of immigrant who arrives on our shores with hand extended and an overwhelming sense of entitlement and expectation based on nothing more than the ability to fog a mirror. Gone are the immigrants who came to this country to escape hardship and conflict…now we are host to those who drag their petty conflicts and wars along with them.

    Citizenship must be earned……and for engaging in terrorist activities one should be stripped of the same.

    • "Gone are the immigrants who came to this country to escape hardship and conflict…now we are host to those who drag their petty conflicts and wars along with them." I suggest you take a crash course on Canadian immigration history, before another obtuse statement like this. Old country conflicts are always localised in the new country to some extent. The difference here is that technology and transportation have made it easier to maintain an intimate contact with the old country' and old ideas. Thus making it harder to make a clean break and assimilate fully into the value system of the new country. This is made even harder when the new immigrants are of a totally different religion and from places lacking liberal democracy and rule of law as staples of society.

    • I don't know how/why it is so easy to obtain Canadian citizenship for those not born here, and I am perfectly willing to see if we can't tighten up those rules. But that is irrelevant since Omar Khadr was born here. In addition, stripping someone of citizenship once they have it is exactly the same as having two classes of citizens–how can you strip citizenship of Canadians who "earned" it by being born in Canada? A citizen is a citizen is a citizen.

      • Anybody that gets involved in fighting along the enemies of Canada should be stripped of citizenship no matter if he has been born here or not. Actually he should be tried as a traitor. Citizenship is not all about rights there are also obligations of loyalty to Canada which the bleeding hearts liberals/lefties ignore.

        • There you go — a trial!

          I'm fully in agreement with traitor charges, as long as there is due process and all that. And sure, I'd even be willing to go with banishment if the person is convicted. But then you're talking about an agreement with another sovereign state, so I'll keep other punishment options open as well.

          • He is accused of committing a grave crime of murdering a US soldier. He is in custody of the US which has legal apparatus as good as Canada. If the trial is delayed because of bickering between lawyers it is a US problem. Obviously he as any accused will lie about his involvement and claim that he is mistreated that is the standard song and only fools believe it.

  60. Thanks.

    Phew. The FORMER communications critter for the PMO… will watch past the first minute…

  61. yeah he stepped down a number of months ago. still incredibly dumb tho.

    • Thank goodness, because he seems to think it is perfectly acceptable to use the laws of Al-Quaida, instead of the laws of Canada, the United States, international law, etc.

      Thanks for the link.

  62. You just know how this is going to end up. Omar will be returned, the Khadr family of miscreants and Canadian bashing Al Queda lovers will sue for damages and be the happy recipients of a $10 million cheque from the Government (taxpayers) of Canada. Mama Khadr will then be able to bundle her terroist kids and take them to sunnier climes while bashing this country of "homosexuals and libertines"

    Now that's Canadian Justice!!

    • If we, or the Americans had gotten this guy some help or even a timely fair trial, that wouldn't be a realistic scenario…as it is you could be right.

  63. Yes he was born in Canada but there is not even an ounce of Canadian values in him. He is no different from the 18 would be terrorists most of them born here that were conspiring spread death and mayhem in Canada. His buddies are blowing up Canadian Soldiers that are trying to free Afghani children and women from the terror of ideology that he espouses. We have enough jihadi terrorists that sneaked into our country and can not be deported because the liberal courts rule that they may be mistreated in their country of origin. Canada became a haven for terrorists and we don't need to import another one whether he was born here or not. He is not a child and as 15 year old was not a child when he participated in war along the Alqueda. They train 12-year-old children to become savage executioners cutting off of head of their captives with a dull knife. By age of 15 there are master executioners. He will receive a fair trial in the US. Just remember the young Muslim guy that was trigger man in the Washington beltway murders was spared execution because of his youth
    Harper does the right thing not asking for his return and I believe he has the support of majority of true Canadians in doing so.

    • The true Canadians that don't believe in innocent until proved guilty, a speedy trial, human rights, and of course Charter rights, you mean.

      I am hopeful that there aren't that many of those.

      • "Master executioners…dull knives…" You spend way to much time on sick websites buddy.

      • True Canadians are those that are supporting our soldiers and not the enemies. As to the famous Trudeau boondoggle the Charter of Rights which amounts to the right of criminals and their lawyers to victimize law abiding citizens of this country. Canada was just fine before that and is going down the drain ever since. The interpretation of the charter of being over righteous results in a situation that is as bad as being unjust.

      • True Canadians are those that are supporting our soldiers and not the enemies. As to the famous Trudeau boondoggle the Charter of Rights which amounts to the right of criminals and their lawyers to victimize law abiding citizens of this country. Canada was just fine before that and is going down the drain ever since. The interpretation of the charter of being over righteous results in a situation that is as bad as being unjust.

      • I couldn't agree more Jenn. You and I must both have been dazzled by the speedy and smoothly conducted Air India trial. The Americans should take a lesson eh?

        • One outrage does not excuse another. And we know how abysmal that turned out, so why do that again?

  64. Parliament makes the laws the Supreme Court interprets them . it is time parliament made laws in Layman's language so we all could interpret them just like the new insurance policies

  65. You guys know what's gonna happen. Mr. Khadr will be welcomed at the airport by Jack Layton and Michael Iggyot. He will be presented with a huge cheque, courtesy of you and me – I'd say somewhere in the neighbourhood of 6 million clams.

    Then we'll close down the Highway of Heroes, and drive him right to Ottawa to pick up his Order of Canada.

    What a farce. I'd like to ask each of you who is so concerned about Omar Khadr this question: Can you name the name of one Canadian who gave his life in Afghanistan? (start Googleing…..).

    • so i take it from your disdain you are ok with selective violations of charters rights?

    • Can you name the name of one Canadian who gave his life in Afghanistan in order to oppress Charter rights, deomocracy, due process and the like?

      Oppress: b : to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority
      Merriam-Webster

      Just in case you needed the help.

      • Hey cool. When I was a student, I always started my essays with dictionary definitions too. What are you, 13?

        BTW, there's a medic who had some rights violated too – the right to breathe, "just in case you need the help"….

    • Can you name the name of one Canadian who gave his life in Afghanistan?

      Of course: Cpt. Nichola Goddard, the first female member of the CF to die in combat, in the Battle of Panjwai. You know, the big long battle the PPCLI fought with nary a peep from the Harper government that it was going on; when the CDS had to scream to get the Harper Government to allow the media to cover the return home of soldiers who had fallen for their country. How dare you suggest that only anti-Khadr, pro-Harper people are pro-military?

      • Unbelievable. Listen, if you've got enough energy to be upset about street names, I'm not going to waste typing time on you.
        Nice googleing though…

        • Remarkable that someone who pretends to be pro-military thinks no Canadian has heard of Nichola Goddard; confirms my theory that the jingoes out there actually encourage anti-military sentiment so as to give themselves something to denounce. The thoroughly Americanised militarists in this country are the worst friend the CF never had.

          • Jackie Boy. You're much more interesting when you're talking about streets and traffic.

    • This guy apparently committed a crime in Afghanistan against American soldiers.Where does our Charter have any jurisdiction concerning two foreign countries.The americans should tell our supreme court to butt out.If any remember the Ing case the mass murderer who was hiding in Calgary an American citizen.We argued with the American for seven years and millions of tax dollars because he faced the death penalty. He was an American millions of our tax dollars spent on lawyers.The americans have their own justice we should butt out

      • Well if you're not even goibg to read the post you are commenting on, why would any of us take the time to consider your position?

        Uninformed isn't a principled position.

        • "Uninformed isn't a principled position." It is if you are a CPC voter.

  66. Ahh, the Khadr's….. Proof that Canadian Citizenship is given away far too easily.

    • He was BORN here, got his citizenship same way you likely did.

      Are all you poeple completely uneducated,, incapable of reading,, lacking in the ability to do anything but spew garbage rants against others.

  67. The Supreme Court has given the Minority Harper Government a chance to do the right thing, as also decided by our Parliament.

    If it doesn't, right minded Canadians can show that Government what they think of it at the next election.

    Abusing or torturing a kid caught up on the wrong side of a war as a result of his family's and other adult's actions, and charging him with war crimes, is contrary to our law, international law, fundamental principles of justice, as the Court said, human decency and common sense.