The Khadr Thread

[observor 69]

And in my lifetime, I have seen the Supreme Court make some very bad decisions in my opinion.  They are not infallible.  They can make mistakes.

"The Khadr saga — from his capture in a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan to news this week of a settlement in a lengthy civil case — has spanned years when both the Liberals and Conservatives have been in power.

Those close to the matter from both parties have said privately that the case was particularly personal for former prime minister Stephen Harper, under whom the government spent millions fighting three Khadr cases to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The government lost all three cases and, ironically, it was the 2010 Supreme Court decision that may have helped seal the multimillion-dollar deal in this civil case.

Calling his conditions in Guantanamo “oppressive,” the high court justices issued a “declaration” that stated unequivocally that Canadian intelligence officials had violated Khadr’s rights as a citizen during their interrogations of the Toronto-born teenager in 2003."

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/07/04/odious-or-overdue-reports-of-omar-khadr-settlement-draw-sharply-different-reactions.html

 

[OldSolduer]

This decision disgusts me. I have zero faith that this government will ever do anything to discourage terrorists. By paying poor little Omar all they have done is encourage others.

 

[Lex Justitia]

And in my lifetime, I have seen the Supreme Court make some very bad decisions in my opinion.  They are not infallible.  They can make mistakes.

For sure, I think everyone here agrees that no court is infallible. But how many of the very bad decisions have been unanimous? And among those, how many had the support of all the lower courts?

I'm sure every one of those courts remained sympathetic to Ms. Speer, her family, and Mr. Morris and his family, while delicately navigating the intricacies of the legal arguments and the implications that their holdings will have on society——the implications of turning their backs on basic Charter guarantees, as some people would rather have them do regardless of the consequences.

 

[FJAG]

Just in case some of you have never seen it, this is Khadr's plea agreement with the US Military Commission:

https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Mackin/Khadr_PreTrialAgree.pdf

And the Charges and Specifications to which it relates:

https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Mackin/Kuebler_ExhibitA.pdf

:cheers:

 

[Lex Justitia]

I don't give a fuck how long he spent visiting Cuba or how many stars were missing from his resort accommodation. 

With, as always, all due respect, my friend: this isn't solely about the terrible conditions of Khadr's confinement. This is about the conditions of his interrogation that lead to a coerced confession, which the state later used against him. I wouldn't condone this for anyone——especially not a child.

Even if he was a prisoner of war in your view, like the view of our friend Loachman, whatever happened to the evolution of international law that gave us the pervasive understanding that we treat POWs as humanely as possible? Coercing by torture a POW into confession and then using that coerced confession to make adverse legal determinations against him is a regression of that evolution.

I, also, don't believe we bring civil proceedings against POWs (acts of war limitation; the U.S. statute that I cited earlier clearly bars this). Either he's a POW and victims of his "act of war" can't recover; or he's not a POW and has legal rights, all of which line up against coerced confession and indefinite detention/detention without charge.

The days of Vlad III, known for impaling any enemy he held captive and any of their supporters, have fortunately long been over. But torture, regrettably, still persists. Medieval brutality is now history and should remained confined to the history books.

 

[PuckChaser]

US had him, how are we supposed to get him back? We're not going to invade Gitmo to go get him. His grievance is with the US Government over his treatment. That same treatment would have happened regardless of whether CSIS shared information from their interviews with him or not to US authorities. If his treatment worsened, then clearly he implicated himself or had important intelligence in his noodle that he spilled to the CSIS agents, so the US continued their approach obviously being mindful that he was under 18, as Gitmo had far worse things they used in interrogations.

CSIS sharing the information in no way kept him in Gitmo longer, he was staying there until the judicial preceding concluded. The US released other prisoners without charge, including some Britons I believe, so why wasn't this "kangaroo court" convicting everyone in there? He threw the grenade, he killed a US medic, he confessed and pled guilty. He only changed his plea once he got back to Canada because I believe he's genuinely not remorseful. It is completely different than the Mahar Arar case, in which the US had complete grounds to hold Khadr as an illegal combatant, where Arar was detained by US authorities based on bad Canadian intelligence.

His "torture" was sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. If sleep deprivation was torture, the CAF owes me at least $5M.

 

[jollyjacktar]

With, as always, all due respect, my friend: this isn't solely about the terrible conditions of Khadr's confinement. This is about the conditions of his interrogation that lead to a coerced confession, which the state later used against him. I wouldn't condone this for anyone.

Even if he was a prison of war in your view, like the view of our friend Loachman, whatever happened to the evolution of international law that gave us the pervasive understanding that we treat POWs as humanely as possible? Coercing by torture a POW into confession and then using that coerced confession to make adverse legal determinations against him is a regression of that evolution.

The days of Vlad III, known for impaling any enemy he held captive and any of their supporters, have fortunately long been over. But torture, regrettably, still persists. Medieval brutality is now history and should remained confined to the history books.

And again,  if you're looking for sympathy from me for anything Omar experienced while on vacation in Cuba,  you're still going to go home empty handed.  Sympathy can be found,as they say, between shit and syphilis in the Oxford dictionary.  He brought on whatever ill came his way the minute he took up arms and jihad against the rest of us.  If I have any regrets wrt him, it's that the team that overran his fighting position, did a poor job, which leads us to today.

In watching the bit of his interrogation where he wailed "you don't care about what happens to me", I thought "fucking right, I don't". 

 

[jmt18325]

His "torture" was sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. If sleep deprivation was torture, the CAF owes me at least $5M.

Tell you what - when you become a Supreme Court justice, you can make that determination with authority.  He was tortured, and Canada violated his rights.  That determination was made at least 9 times.  You don't have to agree - your agreement doesn't matter.

 

[Lex Justitia]

His "torture" was sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. If sleep deprivation was torture, the CAF owes me at least $5M.

Sleep deprivation to extract a confession has been regarded as improper/coercion for a long time. Not sure about Canadian caselaw (haven't memorized that area of law), but in the United States, sleep deprivation during protracted interrogation was found to be contrary to constitutional safeguards back in 1949, in Watts v. Indiana (where the eight-judge majority wrote "Disregard of rudimentary needs of life—opportunities for sleep and a decent allowance of food—are also relevant, not as aggravating elements of petitioner's treatment, but as part of the total situation out of which his confessions came and which stamped their character").  I briefly mentioned that case of coercion in a post back on page 73.

Unless CAF deprived you of sleep to extract a confession, to be later used against you, you shouldn't hold your breath waiting for that to happen XD

And again,  if you're looking for sympathy from me for anything Omar experienced while on vacation in Cuba,  you're still going to go home empty handed.  Sympathy can be found,as they say, between shit and syphilis in the Oxford dictionary.  He brought on whatever ill came his way the minute he took up arms and jihad against the rest of us.  If I have any regrets wrt him, it's that the team that overran his fighting position, did a poor job, which leads us to today.

In watching the bit of his interrogation where he wailed "you don't care about what happens to me", I thought "fucking right, I don't".

I'm sorry you feel passionately about this, and I won't, and frankly nobody should, blame you for it; but the implications on the rest of us are too great to hold that Khadr was treated in accordance with our laws.  : )

 

 

[PuckChaser]

Tell you what - when you become a Supreme Court justice, you can make that determination with authority.  He was tortured, and Canada violated his rights.  That determination was made at least 9 times.  You don't have to agree - your agreement doesn't matter.

The Supreme Court said his rights violation was information sharing between CSIS and US authorities after interviews with CSIS agents. Do not link Canadian intelligence agencies to Khadr's alleged torture. They are 2 completely separate discussions, and blending the torture into the rights argument is just an attempt to red herring the issue. If he wants compensation for torture, he can sue the US government. Canada didn't put him in Gitmo, and Canada's info didn't increase/decrease anything that wasn't already happening. Trying to compensate Khadr similarly to Arar is a ridiculous notion as they are completely different cases.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Please, EB, don't feel sorry for me being passionate about hating a jihadi. 

I'm afraid I don't see what implications might affect me or my family about how he was treated.  No jihad happening in my house that might result a rendition trip with Uncle Sam.  And believe me,  were that to happen, then I would deserve every ice bucket challenge that came my way.  Karma's a bitch eh?

 

[Lex Justitia]

The Supreme Court said his rights violation was information sharing between CSIS and US authorities after interviews with CSIS agents. Do not link Canadian intelligence agencies to Khadr's alleged torture. They are 2 completely separate discussions, and blending the torture into the rights argument is just an attempt to red herring the issue. If he wants compensation for torture, he can sue the US government. Canada didn't put him in Gitmo, and Canada's info didn't increase/decrease anything that wasn't already happening. Trying to compensate Khadr similarly to Arar is a ridiculous notion as they are completely different cases.

Unless I'm mistaken, you're speaking of the 2008 ruling. There was the 2010 ruling, which characterized his confession as having been obtained under "oppressive circumstances." Torture, in other words.

 

[jmt18325]

The Supreme Court said his rights violation was information sharing between CSIS and US authorities after interviews with CSIS agents. Do not link Canadian intelligence agencies to Khadr's alleged torture. They are 2 completely separate discussions, and blending the torture into the rights argument is just an attempt to red herring the issue.

No, actually:

"The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-settlement-analysis-aaron-wherry-1.4189472

 

[PuckChaser]

Unless I'm mistaken, you're speaking of the 2008 ruling. There was the 2010 ruling, which characterized his confession as having been obtained under "oppressive circumstances." Torture, in other words.

You really need to stop changing the font, Arial 2 is super hard to read.

You also should stop putting words into the Supreme Court's mouth. If they wanted to say torture, they would have said it. Oppressive circumstances is not torture. You can read the Globe and Mail synopsis here: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/omar-khadr-youth-or-adult-question-decided-by-top-court/article24421830/

Here's his National Post timeline: http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/a-chronological-look-at-canadian-born-omar-khadrs-legal-saga/wcm/5fbcfe95-b2c5-45aa-8501-4ea832162448 Some highlights below;

Jan. 29, 2010: The Supreme Court overturns court orders that the Canadian government should repatriate Khadr, despite agreeing his human rights were violated.

Aug. 9, 2010: Khadr pleads not guilty to five war crimes charges, including murder. Judge Col. Patrick Parrish rules Khadr’s confessions admissible.

Oct. 25, 2010: Khadr changes his plea to guilty on all five counts; gets opportunity to apply for a transfer to a Canadian prison after one more year at Gitmo.

Oct. 31, 2010: Khadr is sentenced to 40 years in prison but pre-trial deal limits sentence to eight more years.

Note he changes his plea well after he has counsel. His confession was admissible under US law. Canadian authorities violated his rights by improper questioning, but none of that led to a confession. He confessed to US authorities, in a US detention facility, that was admissible in a US court. If your issue is with the US process, take it up with them.

At best, we should apologize that "We're sorry you're a convicted terrorist, and that you murdered a US Army medic. We violated your rights by questioning you without counsel, however none of that line of questioning made you confess or plead guilty in a US military tribunal. You're lucky to have been transferred back to Canada after you took a plea deal, enjoy the rest of your life." Khadr doesn't want every detail of his time in Afghanistan going to trial, it'll be hard to paint a sympathetic picture of him while he's holding human hands and smiling, or details of how many IEDs he built is released.

No, actually:

"The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-settlement-analysis-aaron-wherry-1.4189472

Thanks for proving my point, JMT. The court found CSIS violated his rights with the questioning. CSIS didn't sleep deprive him. CSIS didn't torture him. CSIS didn't control his day to day activities outside the interrogation room.

Mahar Arar's ruling explictly stated Canada was indirectly responsible for his torture in Syria. Khadr's ruling says nothing of the sort.

 

[jmt18325]

Thanks for proving my point, JMT. The court found CSIS violated his rights with the questioning. CSIS didn't sleep deprive him. CSIS didn't torture him. CSIS didn't control his day to day activities outside the interrogation room.

CSIS knew his 'day to day activities' and questioned him anyway.  That's the problem.

 

[George Wallace]

CSIS knew his 'day to day activities' and questioned him anyway.  That's the problem.

Brilliant!

What do you propose they should have done?  Rely on the transcripts of American interrogators?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Tell you what - when you become a Supreme Court justice, you can make that determination with authority.  He was tortured, and Canada violated his rights.  That determination was made at least 9 times.  You don't have to agree - your agreement doesn't matter.

To be clear, he was not in any way tortured by Canada or by any Canadian, directly or indirectly. There was no evidence, ever, that the executive branch of the Canadian government  (Liberal, or Conservative) or any director or employee of any department in the service of Canada instructed, ordered, requested, condoned or acquiesced to his maltreatment. He was never prosecuted by Canada, or sentenced by Canada, or tortured by Canada. There are no facts on record that there was any reckless or wilful disregard for his life or his well being by Canada.  It is pure supposition that he had been intentionally harmed with any degree of malice whatsoever by anybody while in custody.  In fact he killed the man who saved his life. His interrogation was less intensive than a murder suspect might undergo in Canadian police custody.

What is missing is the government of Canada being an active participant as his advocate involved in his legal proceedings within a foreign country. That is actually not uncommon.  His US lawyer actively and openly called for the Canadian government to publicly, politically and diplomatically intervene in a US legal proceeding because he knew he had a hopeless case for the things Khadr was charged. A cynic might even suggest he was setting the table for a speculative civil compensation case in Canada for his client after his inevitable release.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Something that bothers me:

a) Khadr was an enemy combatant;

b) he had not indicated surrender (as far as one knows);

c) how then was his killing one of his American opponents (whatever the status as medic in the situation) in any way criminal?

Honest question.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[jmt18325]

Brilliant!

What do you propose they should have done?  Rely on the transcripts of American interrogators?

By our own Constitution, what they did was illegal. 

 

[ModlrMike]

Something that bothers me:

a) Khadr was an enemy combatant;

b) he had not indicated surrender (as far as one knows);

c) how then was his killing one of his American opponents (whatever the status as medic in the situation) in any way criminal?

Honest question.

Mark
Ottawa

He reportedly feigned being wounded. He then threw a grenade killing the medic coming to help him. According to the ICRC that constitutes a war crime:

...simulation of being disabled by injuries or sickness because an enemy who is thus disabled is considered hors de combat and may not be attacked but must be collected and cared for...