The torture scandal

By: Law is Cool · November 23, 2009 · Filed Under International Law, Politics · Add Comment 

Colvin a protected `whistleblower,’ Cannon says

The Canadian Press:

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon says diplomat Richard Colvin had a right to make his explosive allegations about Afghan prisoners.

He says Colvin exercised his prerogative as a whistleblower by saying Ottawa ignored his warnings that Canadian soldiers were turning Afghan detainees over to torture.

AdviceScene

Part II: Soldiering on? The invisible injuries of war

By: Law is Cool · November 8, 2009 · Filed Under Health Law, International Law, Politics · Add Comment 

Guest Post by Krystalline Kraus | Reproduced from www.rabble.ca with permsision

Next week, on November 11, veterans will get only two minutes of recognition — if people stop to reflect at all — while the rest of the year their sacrifice is forgotten.

If Canada’s mission in Afghanistan does end in 2011, 35,000 men and women will have served in that theatre — 133 have been killed thus far — and the Canadian Forces’ (CF) low estimate is that as many as 2,000 could be returning home with an Operational Stress Injury (OSI) such as PTSD.

These soldiers will return home with, among other things, an OSI or plagued by survivor’s guilt and the pressure to do good by their dead friends; first they bury them and then they bury their own feelings. As the saying goes: Survivors die twice.

Massacre at Fort Hood

The problems the U.S. military would prefer to hide violently surged to the public’s attention when Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a 39-year-old U.S. Army psychiatrist, allegedly opened fire yesterday afternoon at Fort Hood, Texas. He is accused of killing 13 people and wounding 30.

A New York Times article features an interview with Hasan’s cousin, who states that he expressed deep concern about being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan; the cousin also notes that Hasan’s job was to counsel returning soldiers suffering with PTSD which gave him an intimate window into the horrors of war. This made him fearful of deploying to either theatre. His cousin also claims he was having second thoughts about his military career a few years ago after other soldiers harassed him for being a Muslim.

Read more

Unique photos of Omar Khadr may be evidence of his innocence

By: Law is Cool · October 29, 2009 · Filed Under Civil Rights · Add Comment 

Omar Khadr Omar Khadr ‘innocent’ in death of U.S. soldier

Michelle Shephard writes for the Toronto Star:

Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr was buried face down under rubble, blinded by shrapnel and crippled, at the time the Pentagon alleges he threw a grenade that fatally wounded a U.S. soldier, according to classified photographs and defence documents obtained by the Star.

AdviceScene

National security invoked to block testimony

By: Law is Cool · September 30, 2009 · Filed Under Evidence · Add Comment 

Ottawa seeks to gag Afghan prisoner probe witnesses

Federal lawyers are trying to block government witnesses from testifying before a military watchdog investigating the treatment of Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan, The Canadian Press has learned.

AdviceScene

Transparency sought in Afghan inquiry

By: Law is Cool · September 7, 2009 · Filed Under International Law · Add Comment 

Subpoenas issued to federal officials in Afghan prisoner inquiry

A legal fight is looming over the federal government’s refusal to release information about alleged war crimes committed by the Canadian military.

Murray Brewster writes for the Canadian Press:

In its attempt to derail the commission inquiry, the federal government has argued that the handling of prisoners is “not subject” to oversight by the military police complaints process, and that the National Defence Act only gives the agency the power to investigate complaints against military police.

AdviceScene

Toronto bomb plotter sentenced

By: Law is Cool · September 3, 2009 · Filed Under Criminal Law · Add Comment 

Toronto 18 member gets 14-year sentence

A Mississauga man who confessed to being part of a homegrown terror plot aimed at blowing up buildings in downtown Toronto was sentenced today to 14 years, with credit given for pre-trial custody he was ordered to serve an additional seven years behind bars.

AdviceScene

Jameel Jaffer of ACLU is a Canadian!

By: Law is Cool · August 30, 2009 · Filed Under Civil Rights, International Law · Add Comment 

Today’s Toronto Star profiled a Canadian lawyer who has taken on the Bush Administration through the ACLU, and was key in helping discover the torture memos.

Jameel Jaffer, only 39 years old, was born in London, Ontario, before graduating from Williams College, Cambridge University, and Harvard Law School and serving as a law clerk to Hon. Amalya L. Kearse, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the Rt. Hon. Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada.

What makes Jaffer unique is that he was co-lead counsel for ACLU v. Department of Defense, which released thousands of documents about prisoner abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay.

He was also lead counsel in Doe v. Ashcroft, which challenged National Security Letters (NSLs) under the PATRIOT Act, and counsel in MCA, et al. v. Ashcroft and Mueller, challenging the “chill” in donations to mosques as a result of the PATRIOT Act.

Jaffer might just be the Canadian who has done the most for civil rights in the U.S. during this crucial time, and should probably be better recognized and celebrated in his home country.

Here’s a clip from him via the ACLU:

Litigious

By: Law is Cool · August 25, 2009 · Filed Under Civil Rights, International Law · Add Comment 

Ottawa to launch Supreme Court appeal of Khadr ruling

The federal government will go to the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal a court order to bring Omar Khadr home from a U.S. military prison, according to a CBC report.

AdviceScene

What Doesn’t Work in Afghanistan

By: Law is Cool · June 9, 2009 · Filed Under International Law, Politics · Add Comment 

And what still won’t work.

Rethinking Afghanistan

By: Contributor · February 26, 2009 · Filed Under International Law, Politics · Add Comment 

See the Brave New Foundation’s site and blog.

International Law Conference Tackles Tough Contemporary Issues

By: Contributor · October 25, 2008 · Filed Under International Law · Add Comment 

By Daisy McCabe-Lokos of Windsor Law.

The Canadian Council on International Law held their 37th annual conference last weekend in Ottawa.  The conference ran three days and showcased a range of panels discussing a variety of issues.

I was surprised to see that a significant portion of the attendees were students from law schools across Canada.  This being my first chance to attend I am unsure whether this student turnout was unprecedented, however it seemed to indicate to me the increasing relevance of international legal issues in young law students’ educational experiences.

The conference not only gave us a chance to get a sense of the professional opportunities that exist in the international sphere, but it also gave us a snapshot of the developing fields of contemporary international law.

The panel that I found most enlightening was entitled “Law Applicable to Overseas Government Operations”.

It was chaired by John Currie – Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, and attended by Paul Champ - Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP; Oonagh Fitzgerald – Senior General Counsel, Department of National Defense/Canadian Forces Legal Advisor; Joanna Harrington – Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta; Major General Lewis Mackenzie (retired); and Christopher Waters – Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor.

The panel discussed the applicability of law – national and international – to international government operations.  Much of the focus was on the debatable “hierarchy” of law present during overseas military operations.

The panel touched on questions such as – do and should Canadian Charter values and obligations follow our armed forces on international operations?  Should the Canadian military be more susceptible to civilian oversight?

Professor Waters explored the courts’ deference to the military regarding issues of possible misconduct.  He discussed the reluctance of Canadian, American and British courts to rule on the actions of their militaries that might be seen as conflicting with Charter values or other obligations to respect international human rights.

Paul Champ gave us a practical example how some of these issues play out by discussing the Afghan detainee case.  This case deals with individual’s allegations of torture after being transferred (in Afghanistan) from the custody of Canadian military officials to the custody of Afghan military officials – where the alleged torture occurred.  The complications of legal jurisdiction and civilian oversight of military operations are evident under these circumstances.

Major General Lewis Mackenzie provided a completely refreshing albeit troubling perspective.

Having been involved in numerous peace keeping and military operations with the Canadian Military, General Mackenzie was able to enlighten us civilians on exactly how the international legal initiatives sometimes pan out on the ground.

He clearly articulated his frustration with the sometimes impractical and unreadable legal mandates provided by the United Nations during peacekeeping operations.  He expressed his concern about the bureaucratic and sluggish nature of legal process and its negative impact on the progress of UN missions and the ultimate safety of non-combatant civilians.

Overall the panel was balanced and informative.  There were contrasting viewpoints and a variation of experience among speakers.  Many of the other panels held by the CCIL were similarly enjoyable and did not disappoint.

Follow-up: Reply Letter from Foreign Affairs Minister regarding Omar Khadr

By: Lawrence Gridin · September 30, 2008 · Filed Under Criminal Law, International Law, Politics · 2 Comments 

On July 15, I posted a letter that I had written to Prime Minister Stephen Harper regarding Omar Khadr’s continued detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The letter was signed by myself and 10 other law students.

On September 16, 2008, I received a reply letter from the Prime Minister’s Office indicating that the letter would be passed along to the Minister of Foreign Affairs who would “certainly be interested in [our] views” regarding Omar Khadr.

I looked upon that letter as a Prime Ministerial brush off. I thought it would be the end of the matter.

To the government’s credit, I today received a follow-up letter from The Honorable David Emerson, Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The entire text of the letter is reproduced below:

September 24, 2008.

Dear Mr. Gridin and Co-signatories:

The office of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, has forwarded to me on September 16, 2008, a copy of your letter (Folder: 664583) concerning the case of Mr. Omar Khadr, Canadian citizen detained at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

I understand your concerns and I can assure you that the Government of Canada has an interest in Mr. Khadr’s case and in his treatment. Canadian observers have been present at his hearings before the Military Commission in Guantanamo Bay and the Court of Military Commission Review in Washington D.C. Furthermore, officials of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada have carried out several visits with Mr. Khadr and will continue to do so. The visits allow access to Mr. Khadr to assess his welfare and treatment, and to obtain information about his mental and physical condition.

Although Mr. Khadr is no longer a juvenile, he was 15 years old when he was alleged to have committed crimes in Afhanistan. Canada has sought to ensure that the treatment of Mr. Khadr is consistent with internationally recognized norms and standards for the treatment of juvenile offenders, and that his age at the time the alleged events occurred is considered in all parts of the process. Canada has also consistently sought to ensure that Mr. Khadr receives the benefits of due process, including access to Canadian counsel of his choice. The Canadian government has received unequivocal assurances from U.S. authorities that Mr. Khadr will not be subject to the death penalty, and indeed the charges against him were referred to the Military Commission on a non-capital basis.

In keeping with Canada’s long-standing policy, the Canadian government strongly believes that the fight against terrorism must be carried out in compliance with international law, including established standards of human rights and due process.

With respect to Mr. Khard’s repatriation to Canada, it is premature to discuss this issue since his case is still before the courts.

Thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns.

Sincerely,
[sgd]
The Honourable David L. Emerson, P.C., M.P.

While I do appreciate the reply from Mr. Emerson, I do not accept that the government is doing enough.

Omar Khadr has been in detention for 6 years. The “several visits” during this period to check up on his well being are virtually meaningless. He has been the victim of serious psychological and possibly physical abuse at the hands of his captors.

The extreme isolation of growing up inside a military prison is unimaginable. Omar Khadr’s development from a child to an adult has been stifled, and at this point, it is unlikely that he will ever be a normal, adjusted individual.

The assurances of due process are also hollow. Omar Khadr is being tried by a kangaroo court, in proceedings that have been the subject of problems and numerous complaints. Most recently, a military prosecutor at the Guantanamo Bay tribunals resigned over “ethical qualms.”

Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld quit, allegedly after the government withheld exculpatory evidence from the defence.

The U.S. government denies this allegation. But internal documents obtained by the Associated Press indicate that Col Vandeveld declared to the tribunal that that “potentially exculpatory evidence has not been provided.”

He is the fourth prosecutor to quit.

In the Khadr case specifically, there have been claims that the government “manufactured evidence” against the accused.

The culture of secrecy and political implications of this case are reasons why ultimately, the military tribunal is not the appropriate forum to hear Omar Khadr’s case. Mr. Khadr needs to be repatriated to Canada immediately to face trial at home. This should be a trial subject to Canadian legal protocols and consistent with the values that we hold dear, including those enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Law students across the country are organizing to put further pressure on the government on this issue. Stay tuned for more.

Next Page »