Let the Americans punish him for his crimes and congratulations to the Harper government for their Supreme Court victory this week.

Regards,

D.V.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established by an international treaty called the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
The Rome Statute was signed by Bill Clinton on behalf of the United States, though it was never ratified.

In 2002, the The United States requested that it be removed from the list of signatories to the Rome Statute. The US indicated that it would no longer have any “legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000.”

In that same year, John Bolton, the U.S. Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, explained the reasoning behind the “unsigning” of the treaty. In a speech to the Federalist Society, he stated:

“For a number of reasons, the United States decided that the ICC had unacceptable consequences for our national sovereignty. Specifically, the ICC is an organization whose precepts go against fundamental American notions of sovereignty, checks and balances, and national independence. It is an agreement that is harmful to the national interests of the United States, and harmful to our presence abroad.”

By removing its signature, the United States joined a list of countries like Sudan, Somalia, China, Russia, North Korea, and Cuba that are not parties to the treaty and refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. Virtually every developed country in the world is a party.

Article 7(2)(e) of the Rome Statute defines torture as follows: “‘Torture’ means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions [emphasis added].
Sleep deprivation and the other “enhanced interrogation techniques” are certainly not inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Further, Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) defines

“outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”

as a war crime. Detainees under U.S. custody in Guantanamo and elsewhere are routinely subjected to degrading treatment, including sexual humiliation which is aimed specifically at undermining Islamic/Arab cultural values.

Furthermore, the principle of command responsibility, which was adopted at the Nuremberg Trials, is embodied in the Rome Statute, Article 25(3):

In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted; [emphasis added]

and also in Article 28: Responsibility of commanders and other superiors.

Child Soldiers

In recognition of the special status of child soldiers, Article 26 of the Rome Statute states:

The Court shall have no jurisdiction over any person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged commission of a crime.

Other international conventions, however, seem to set the age cutoff for child soldiers at age 15. Khadr was 15 at the time of the alleged “murder.”

For more on Khadr as a child soldier, see this article by Human Rights Watch.

See also this video where Senator Romeo Dallaire explains Khadr’s child soldier status:

Even if he is guilty- he was 14? 15? a minor under the influence of his parent(s)

They are the quilty ones.

This child does not deserve to be treated the way he has been.

Lawrence, fantastic letter, it’s just too sad that manipulative (if not corruptive) governments allow for injustices to happen. And that it’s all done for personal objectives. How far do they want to go, when do they finally say, “ alright, we’ve sucked enough of these ppl’s blood”

As a law student I’m sure right now you believe there is a Justice system. But once you get into the real world you’ll soon find its a legal system and not a Justice system and is determined by which LAWYER can manipulate THE FACTS the best.

Niki, are you a lawyer or a layperson? You have a pretty perverse view of the justice system, legal system, whatever you want to call it. Your attitude suggests that the legal system, being as broken as it is, serves no purpose in society.

“Ship them all back towhere they came from.” [sic]

Omar Khadr came from Canada. So yes, I’d also like for him to be shipped back here.

As for your complaint that Khadr’s lawyers are trying to manipulate public opinion, you’re correct: they are.

But it is perfectly legitimate to use the political process to effect change, especially when the Americans have made it impossible to use the legal process. Rallies, demonstrations, marches, media campaigns, petitions and letters are all legitimate ways of making one’s voice heard in a democratic society.

Khadr’s lawyers have made no effort to hide their “manipulation,” by the way.

From The New York Times:

Nathan Whitling, one of Mr. Khadr’s Canadian lawyers, said he hoped the airing of the videos, which were featured Tuesday on Canadian television networks, would increase public pressure on the government. “The only way to get him released is through a political process,” he said. “So we are pleading in the court of public opinion.”

I think you’ve made a mistake in your comment. Where you say “I hope that he is punished to the fullest extent of the law,” I think what you meant to write was “I hope he is punished.”

That’s because “the law,” if you take the words to mean fundamental western legal principles, doesn’t really apply in Guantanamo Bay. It’s a legal black hole.

If he was being treated in accordance with the law, I would have no problem with him being punished to its fullest extent. What I’d like to see first is a finding of guilt by a legitimate court having competent jurisdiction.

It’s unfortunate that you find the presumption of innocence to be such an offensive concept.