Skip to main content

U.S. military judge Colonel Patrick Parrish has issued an order setting a trial start date of August 10 for Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, who will turn 24 in September.  At that time, Mr. Khadr will have spent more than one-third of his life in prison, most of it inside the "detention facility" at Guantanamo Bay, a location chosen because it keeps detainees beyond the protections of U.S. law, proving that American justice has definite geographical boundaries.

In January 2010, in an unanimous 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the participation of Canadian officials in Khadr's interrogations at Guantanamo clearly violated Khadr's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The Supreme Court of Canada objected, in that decision, to the denial of Khadr's legal rights as well as to the use of sleep deprivation techniques to soften him up for interrogation:

The deprivation of [Khadr's] right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. 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.

However, the Supreme Court stopped short of ordering the government to seek Omar Khadr's return to Canada. Instead, it left it up to the [Harper] government to determine how it would exercise its duty to conduct foreign affairs while also upholding its obligation to respect Khadr's constitutional rights.

I think the Supreme Court of Canada knew very well that Stephen Harper's government would refuse to uphold this citizen's rights and demand his release.  I believe they covered their own asses while trying to put the responsibility for the protection of a Canadian citizen's rights into the hands of a government they knew didn't care.

Canadians: pay attention.  When this man's rights were violated, your principles were violated and your own rights were threatened.  That's how this thing works: you were sent a message that your Charter rights are subject to the situational interpretation of the current government.  Do you accept that?  I don't.  Our rights are not granted to us by the government.  They cannot be taken from us by the government.  They can only be violated, infringed upon, defiled and spat upon.  Omar Khadr retains his Charter right.  He never lost those -- the government violated his rights and worse, the government put you on notice:  "We tell you what your rights are.  We decide.  We are more powerful than your precious Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because we can render that charter null and void whenever we choose."

How important is the "presumption of innocence" in our legal system and in the collection of principles that we call those which are essential to our definition of who we are as a people?  That's a very interesting question because, while it is indisputable that our society holds the maxim of "innocent until proven guilty," that maxim doesn't come to us through our body of laws.  It's not in the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Declaration of Independence of the United States, or in the Constitution of the United States.  The maxim has been firmly embedded in English jurisprudence since the earliest time, since before historical records.  It is part of the development of anglo-saxon civilization.  And it has simply come down to us as a part of our system of common law jurisprudence. You know:  it's one of those "core" values we all share.  It's part of who we are.  It's one of those value for which each and every one of us will willingly and unhesitatingly sacrifice our lives and our futures rather than betray!  Right?  How important is the presumption of innocence?  It's absolutely vital to Americans and Canadians.

That's why the violation of Omar Khadr's right to be presumed innocent, to be formally charged, to be shown the evidence supporting the charges, and to face his accuser in court, showed such an absolute contempt for our values.  I'm not claiming that what offends me most is the violation of Omar Khadr's "civil rights." The US government claims that he has no such rights.  The Canadian Supreme Court says his values were violated, but the Harper government refuses to uphold that decision, or defend Khadr (a Canadian citizen) against the United States.  But Khadr's rights are not what is most important to me.

The case of Omar Khadr is not primarily about the violation of his civil rights, hear me now: it was a violation of our very most basic principles of justice.  American and Canadian principles of justice.  It was a violation of my principles, and I hope, yours.  And I'm left wondering how anyone can see this being only about one man (whose life is expendable), about one man's "rights" (which are rescindable), in a place like Guantanamo Bay where truth and justice are unwelcome intruders and where honor is misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted as complete obedience to authority.

I'm concerned about America, and I'm concerned about Canada, and I'm concerned about the future of those nations, both of which have been my homes. And you should be too.   Because there are certain things we (Americans and Canadians) simply don't do.  We don't do them because they violate our most basic values.

Originally posted to Charles in AL on Mon May 17, 2010 at 04:43 PM PDT.


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Does the Canadian Supreme Court (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    have the authority to order Harper's government to seek repatriation?

    The truth is wordless. Words, at their best, are only a doorway.

    by Troubadour on Mon May 17, 2010 at 04:57:40 PM PDT

    •  That is a good question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That's a good question, but I do believe the Supreme Court has the authority to order that the government adhere to the law and repatriate Omar Khadr.

      Perhaps, however, the Supreme Court did nothing more than the most they could. The same certainly can't be said of the Harper government, can it?

    •  As a Canadian, (0+ / 0-)

      I would say that yes, the Supreme Court of Canada has the authority to order the Harper government to seek Omar's repatriation, but I am not a lawyer.

                 Standing for Omar,

      Planning a March for Legal Accountability for Torture in Washington, DC, September 4th, 2010, the Saturday of Labour Day Weekend.

      by Chacounne on Mon May 17, 2010 at 05:11:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Omar Khadar would have been better protected... (0+ / 0-) the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had he stayed in Canada, rather than going to Afghanistan.

    This machine makes fascists feel bad. (Meteor Blades-approved version)

    by Rich in PA on Mon May 17, 2010 at 05:01:40 PM PDT

  •  A few things: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Charles in AL, esquimaux

    It should be noted that the lower courts in Canada had, in fact, ordered the government to request Omar's repatriation.

    The Supreme Court of Canada found that the government had, in fact, violated Omar's rights by aiding and abetting what the US had done.

    The Supreme Court of Canada found that what the Canadian government had done was inconsistent, not only with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also with Canada's obligations under international law.

    The Supreme Court of Canada found that ordering the Canadian government to request Omar's repatriation would be interfering with the government's role diplomatic relations.

    The Canadian government did send a diplomatic note to the US asking that they not use the information that the Canadian Intelligence Security Service had obtain while interrogating Omar at Gitmo, information that CSIS gave to the US authorities.

    The US declined Canada's request, saying that it was up to the Military Commission judge in Omar's case to decide the admissibility of the evidence.

                  Standing with Omar,
    and horrified by the Canadian government's conduct,
                  Heather, a Canadian

    Planning a March for Legal Accountability for Torture in Washington, DC, September 4th, 2010, the Saturday of Labour Day Weekend.

    by Chacounne on Mon May 17, 2010 at 05:06:21 PM PDT

  •  re: Gitmo and territorial limits (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, radmul

      The SCOTUS shot down Bush's theory that Gitmo's location put it beyond the jurisdiction of the courts and the constitution. (see Boumediene v Bush)

  •  The presumption of innocence has largely (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Charles in AL

    been reduced to a procedural ploy, a starting point for a trial or contest between the prosecution and the defense.  That's why it's not unusual for a court to enter a plea of innocence on behalf of a defendant whenever a defendant refuses to participate in the process by saying anything.  In a sense, that's a partial melding with procedure in the civil court where a defendant's failure to respond results in an automatic judgment for the plaintiff, by default.  It's a matter of procedure taking precedence over equity.

    In reality, all of our human rights are subject to being diminished or vitiated by "due process" of law.  There is an implicit ranking of society in the Constitution which elevates the interests of the state over those of the individual person.  That's why suspects are now liable to being subject to different procedures, if what they are suspected of is causing terror.  A terrorized population is, presumably, a threat to the stability of the state and the stability of the state takes precedence over individual rights.

    This is not an argument I agree with.  I present it as a devil's advocate.  The reasons I disagree with it are two-fold.  First, there's the likelihood that a state based on the consent of the governed will be significantly destabilized, if the rights of individuals aren't honored -- i.e. the violation of individual rights in the name of stability is counter-productive.  Secondly, the elevation of process over equity or moral considerations is a prescription for mischief because it means all kinds of deprivation of rights can be justified under cover of law, as, indeed, slavery was at the nation's founding.  Human rights were compromised then and are continuing to be compromised now in the name of the rule of law.  That's because the rule of law continues to be used as a shield or veil behind which inhuman behavior is countenanced.  When the rule of law is used as a shield for inhuman behavior, it serves to disguise the responsibility of those who act for their actions.  "Just following the law" was what Pontius Pilate was about when he washed his hands.

    Apparently, Jesus of Nazareth's sacrifice was not sufficient to end legal wickedness for ever.  Perhaps, when he prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," it didn't occur to him that some men are willfully unknowing or ignorant and hide behind the law on purpose.  Some men fear responsibility and obligation to such an extent that they prefer subjugation.  Slavery doesn't look so bad, if it means never having to be wrong.

    Natural persons can be free because nature's limits are quite severe. Artificial persons need to be restrained.

    by hannah on Tue May 18, 2010 at 01:45:38 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site