The Khadr Thread

[jollyjacktar]

Ah well, the cartoonist is IIRC opposed to the bill.  I would just like to see her in bracelets for a bit.  The image in the cartoon appealed.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, suggests that Prime Minister Harper and his government (and maybe a very great many Canadians) are out of step with the law in so far as Mr Khadr is concerned:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/omar-khadr-youth-or-adult-question-decided-by-top-court/article24421830/

Supreme Court: Omar Khadr should be treated as if he were sentenced as a juvenile

SEAN FINE AND COLIN FREEZE
The Globe and Mail

Last updated Thursday, May. 14 2015

The Supreme Court of Canada dealt a blow to the federal government Thursday in a case involving Omar Khadr, the former teenage al-Qaeda member freed on bail last week in Alberta. It said Mr. Khadr should be treated as if he were sentenced as a juvenile. The federal government had argued that he deserved to be treated more severely, as an adult.

The ruling is unusual in that it was delivered from the bench shortly after the court heard arguments from the federal government and Mr. Khadr’s lawyers. Usually, the court considers its rulings for several weeks before releasing a decision. The promptness suggests that the court found the legal principles too obvious to require any more time to think about.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin told the court that the case came down to a straightforward matter of statutory interpretation. A U.S. military commission had sentenced Mr. Khadr to eight years for murder and other crimes, and since that eight-year sentence is below the Canadian minimum sentence for murder, he must be treated as if sentenced as a juvenile. Mr. Khadr was transferred to the Canadian prison system in 2012.

The Canadian government had argued that the eight-year sentence should be treated as five separate eight-year sentences on various charges, all of them running concurrently.

The ruling is another major defeat for the federal government involving Mr. Khadr.

Last week, the Alberta Court of Appeal rejected the government’s last-ditch attempt to deny Mr. Khadr bail, on the grounds that releasing him would cause irreparable harm to Canada’s relationship with the United States. The appeal court said the government provided no evidence of such harm and no statement from the U.S. government.

The U.S. captured Mr. Khadr on an Afghan battlefield when he was 15, and after detaining him in Guantanamo convicted him of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier, and other crimes. Now 28, he is appealing those convictions and was granted bail while waiting for the appeal.

Now that Mr. Khadr has been released, not much turns on the ruling. But if he had still been in jail, it would have meant that he would have been held in a provincial facility, rather than a federal prison. It also would have meant he could have gone before a Youth Court judge immediately to ask for release, rather than go before a parole board.

 

[FJAG]

This decision has little impact on the case. Khadr had previously been put into the Alberta Provincial adult correctional system because of the Alta Court of Appeal decision last year. This keeps him under that regime.

Alta CA decision here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2014/2014abca225/2014abca225.html

SCC decision here: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15359/index.do

I'm not sure why there was such a big push by Khadr to go into the provincial stream. Generally conditions are worse at provincial jails which are generally designed to hold people for 2 years or less and therefore there is less privacy and far fewer programs and privileges.

See for example: https://alexhundert.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/this-place-is-a-warehouse-imprisoned-people-speak-out-on-differences-between-federal-and-provincial-prisons/

I can see why the Feds wanted him in a fed penitentiary where he could be better isolated and controlled.

Anyway, I'm not losing sleep over this decision.

:cheers:

 

[thehare]

Just thought I'd post this here as I haven't seen it posted yet:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/omar-khadr-offered-a-seat-in-mcmaster-class-by-professor-1.3072934

Clark said offering a seat to Khadr would publicly answer the question if universities stand for peace.

I can think of a good many hardworking students who could use the offer to the university before a person who murdered a US serviceman. While I understand that Khadr went through severe hardships, they were a result of his own doing (he was 15 at the time yes, but 16 year olds can join our military. Are we going to claim they lack judgement in their actions as well?). He committed (in my opinion) treason when he attacked an ally of Canada, and while I'll withhold my opinion on whether or not his detainment in Guantanamo Bay was justified, claiming that offering him an open seat to the university is standing for peace is unfounded.

Caveats: It is noted in the article that the administration of McMaster doesn't "hold seats", but I still find it abhorrent that a professor would ask for it to happen regardless.

 

[OldSolduer]

158 of ours and four civilians lost their lives fighting people like this. Now we welcome them and practically hug them.

I feel sometimes that my son was thrown under a bus. :facepalm:

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

To be fair, Karla Holmka got a degree out of Queens for free whilst in prison.

 

[Good2Golf]

For those who believe he should be treated by Canada as a young offender, perhaps ask yourself this: "If a 15-year old in Canada threw a grenade that killed someone, anyone, why would the Young Offenders Act not apply, and such a grievous crime not be raised to adult court?" 

Mr. Seggie, while Sgt Chris Speer was Khadr's victim, his victim could have been your son as well, and I would hope that Canadians are not allowing their own perceptions of what occurred at Guatanamo Bay to haze their appreciation of what Omar Khadr did, knowingly and while most certainly influenced by his father's conduct, he did of his own accord. The misconception of pure innocence on Khadr's part is mind boggling. 70 years earlier, young men only a couple years older than Khadr were flying bombers deep over the heart of Germany dropping bombs. The difference being less one of age, but that they were legitimate combatants accountable to act in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict. 

Regards
G2G

 

[Loachman]

To be fair, Karla Holmka got a degree out of Queens for free whilst in prison.

So murderesses incur about the same length of obligatory service as RMC grads.

Okay.

 

[eharps]

For those who believe he should be treated by Canada as a young offender, perhaps ask yourself this: "If a 15-year old in Canada through a grenade that killed someone, anyone, why would the Young Offenders Act not apply, and such a grievous crime not be raised to adult court?" 

Mr. Seggie, while Sgt Chris Speer was Khadr's victim, his victim could have been your son as well, and I would hope that Canadians are not allowing their own perceptions of what occurred at Guatanamo Bay to haze their appreciation of what Omar Khadr did, knowingly and while most certainly influenced by his father's conduct, he did of his own accord. The misconception of pure innocence on Khadr's part is mind boggling. 70 years earlier, young men only a couple years older than Khadr were flying bombers deep over the heart of Germany dropping bombs. The difference bein less one of age, but that they were legitimate combatants accountable to act in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict. 

Regards
G2G

:goodpost:

 

[stealthylizard]

The difference is that this 15 year old threw a grenade in war.  WAR being the key component.  Whether it was as lawful or unlawful combatant, he did what any of us may have done in a firefight against an opponent. 

If he was on our side, and threw the grenade at our enemy, he would be hailed as a hero, but because he fought for the wrong side, he isn't.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Could this whole situation have been avoided if our allies to the south treated prisoners in accordance with the law of armed conflict and not gave this kid a spotlight by sending him to guantanamo bay?

 

[FJAG]

The difference is that this 15 year old threw a grenade in war.  WAR being the key component.  Whether it was as lawful or unlawful combatant, he did what any of us may have done in a firefight against an opponent. 

If he was on our side, and threw the grenade at our enemy, he would be hailed as a hero, but because he fought for the wrong side, he isn't.

Don't confuse public perception generated by special interest groups and disseminated by mass media for what the criminal law and law of armed conflict state. The fact that the public might tolerate criminal acts performed for "our side" makes them no less criminal.

I tend to have a more traditional view about incarcerating combatants in war (whether lawful or unlawful combatants) than many others these days. In my view if an individual has taken up arms to fight in a "war" then they should be held as prisoners until such time as hostilities are officially over (in addition they can concurrently be tried and punished for any war crimes committed). Obviously where the "war" is one where there is a party that is not a nation state with the ability to officially surrender and effectively stop hostilities, such prisoners will be prisoners for life -- and in my humble opinion, rightfully so.

Holding prisoners of war is in and of itself not a punishment but is a method by which the holding power guarantees that the prisoner will not re-enter the fight and runs quite independently of any period of detention awarded as a result of a conviction for a crime or war crime.

:cheers:

 

[Loachman]

I do not believe that he should have been tried for murder in the first place. I agree that he should have been treated as a prisoner of war.

The usual term of imprisonment for that is duration of the conflict. There is no "young offender" status.

A charge of reason, in that he took up arms against his "homeland" and our allies, would also have satisfied me.

If it had to be a murder charge, then he must be treated consistently with others tried for similar crimes.

My over-riding concern is his potential as a threat in the future, either directly or inspirationally. I just hope that he is watched very, very closely.

 

[FJAG]

I do not believe that he should have been tried for murder in the first place. I agree that he should have been treated as a prisoner of war.

The usual term of imprisonment for that is duration of the conflict. . . .

Small technical point. If a combatant is tried and convicted of a war crime in some countries he could be executed for the crime; you can't execute an ordinary POW. Further while an ordinary POW should be repatriated at the end of hostilities a convicted war criminal sentenced for a given period can continue to be held notwithstanding the end of hostilities (eg Hess and numerous other WW2 convicted war criminals)

The two concepts work concurrently not either/or.

:cheers:

 

[stealthylizard]

I fail to see what he did constituted a war crime.  Closest legitimate violation of the laws of armed conflict I can come up with is killing a medic. But it wasn't as if Speer was walking around with big red cross identifying that he was a medic.

He was charged with Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Attempted Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Conspiracy, Providing Material Support for Terrorism and Spying - none of which constitute a war crime under any convention.  The first two charges don't even exist in international law (from my reading, I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer).

This whole trial thing was a sham, in my opinion.  He should have been stripped of his Canadian citizenship, and never allowed to set foot back in this country, but our laws don't allow for such action.

 

[George Wallace]

As this discussion progresses, we can see a development where the perceptions of the Canadian Public using Canadian Civil Law as a reference are quite different from the perceptions of military folk who are referencing the Laws of Armed Conflict, Geneva Conventions, etc. 

 

[Ostrozac]

I fail to see what he did constituted a war crime.  Closest legitimate violation of the laws of armed conflict I can come up with is killing a medic. But it wasn't as if Speer was walking around with big red cross identifying that he was a medic.

18D Special Forces Medics have never claimed the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are fully qualified SOF Operators, and don't wear red cross armbands or carry Geneva Convention cards. Was the death of SFC Speer murder? That's what the guilty plea says. But it isn't any special kind of murder because of SFC Speer's MOS.

 

[Kat Stevens]

WHILE I FIND KHADR AND ANYONE LIKE HIM TO BE A PARTICULARLY NASTY ORGANISM THAT NEEDS TO BE STEPPED ON, HARD, I really don't get how you can level a murder charge at anyone when bullets, bombs, and bullshit are flying in all directions, in relatively equal measures. Gitmo was a wrong call for him, a nice quiet barbed wire compound somewhere in Outer Buttfukistan for the duration, then decide after the fact if he needs a treason, or any other, charge laid against him. Strip him and anyone associated with him of citizenship, return them to point of origin, and make him their problem.  We have now turned him into a rock star and role model for subsequent iterations of home grown Islamist fuckheads.

 

[FJAG]

I fail to see what he did constituted a war crime.  Closest legitimate violation of the laws of armed conflict I can come up with is killing a medic. But it wasn't as if Speer was walking around with big red cross identifying that he was a medic.

He was charged with Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Attempted Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Conspiracy, Providing Material Support for Terrorism and Spying - none of which constitute a war crime under any convention.  The first two charges don't even exist in international law (from my reading, I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer).

This whole trial thing was a sham, in my opinion.  He should have been stripped of his Canadian citizenship, and never allowed to set foot back in this country, but our laws don't allow for such action.

The issue revolves around the fact that Khadr was not a lawful combatant within the meaning of the Law of Armed Conflict. Lawful combatants are allowed to take up arms and engage in combat. Anyone who is not a lawful combatant who takes up arms and engages in combat becomes an unlawful combatant and therefore will be subject to criminal prosecution for their activities. Where an unlawful combatant has killed someone the appropriate charge is murder. Where he has taken step to kill someone but not succeeded he can be charged with attempted murder. Conspiring with others to lay mines, actively assisting other combatants, doing reconnaissance can all equate to the charges Khadr faced.

The trouble with the whole thing (and why there is now a ballooning corps of so-called experts and commentators on the area of the Law of Armed Conflict) is that things have changed dramatically since the original four Geneva Conventions. The Additional Protocols were an attempt to address developing issues but they did not cover the situations which exploded later with Islamic extremism. Those issues came to the forefront after the Additional Protocols were released. There are now legions of legal advisors, legal officers and law professors who are trying to pigeon hole old-school Law of Armed Conflict concepts around what is effectively a large-scale, international conflict situation that amalgamates religious components, pure criminal acts and political opportunism.

At this point pretty much anyone who has an axe to grind can sit down and parse the legal concepts to say whatever he wants them to say.

Add to that our own domestic concepts of criminal responsibility of young offenders which simply do not work in situations of insurgencies in countries where the actual line of adulthood isn't conveniently drawn at eighteen and where insurgents routinely recruit and employ children.

Best of luck to us all. Personally I'm going out to my deck to have a drink and watch the sun set.

:cheers:

 

[stealthylizard]

So where are the charges against PMC's, who aren't lawful combatants?  Where are the charges against CIA drone operators, who also aren't lawful combatants?  They will not face any legal action because of whose side they fight on.  We have private citizens fighting against ISIS as mercenaries.  Will Canada file charges against these individuals?