Government loses again in Khadr case

By: Law is Cool · August 14, 2009 · Filed Under Civil Rights · Add Comment

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled today that the government offered no compelling reasons why it should not comply with an order to request that Khadr, 22, be repatriated to Canada.

Government argued that foreign policy is its exclusive prerogative. The court held that a court’s order to ask for Khadr’s repatriation is a “relatively small intrusion into the conduct of international relations.”

Post tags: federal court of appeal, foreign policy, guantanamo, guantanamo bay, omar khadr, ottawa, repatriation

CBA Joins Fight to Repatriate Omar Khadr

By: Lawrence Gridin · October 22, 2008 · Filed Under Criminal Law, International Law, Politics · Add Comment

The Canadian Bar Association has announced that it is joining with a number of other agencies to fight for the repatriation of Omar Khadr to Canada.

Omar Khadr, a 15-year-old boy at the time of his capture in Afghanistan, has been languishing in Guantanamo Bay since 2002.

Though the CBA has spoken out against Omar Khadr’s detention in the past, and has joined with other groups to call for the closure of Guantanamo Bay entirely, the Association has made the repatriation of Khadr one of its top priorities for this year.

In a statement to the House of Commons International Human Rights Subcommittee, the Bar Association explained that:

“Our commitment to justice is challenged where the individual is unpopular and accused of terrible crimes. It’s at times like this that we must speak out, and defend those rights. This is what the rule of law requires – that we recognize the rights of all, not just the favoured few.”

The CBA represents about 37,000 lawyers and law students across this country.

Post tags: canadian bar association, cba, Conservatives, cuba, foreign policy, guantanamo bay, harper, khadr, omar khadr, repatriation, Stephen Harper, torture

Rae: Canada Has Its Own Voice on the International Scene

By: Omar Ha-Redeye · October 10, 2008 · Filed Under Civil Rights, International Law, Law Career, Law School · 2 Comments

Hon. Bob Rae spoke this morning at the University of Western Ontario Law School on A Changing World: New Directions for Canadian Foreign Policy. What follows are notes (not a transcript) from his talk.

Law Students and Public Policy

Rae said that Canadian foreign policy as an issue that is a significant one in the politics of the country. As soon to be lawyers, the issue of Canada’s role in the world is a critical concern to all of us, and one that has tremendous opportunities as law students.

There is no clearer area of public policy where the ideological contrast between parties can be demonstrated. Western has produced some of the great legal minds of our time. Justice Rand, a former Dean of the school, made considerable contributions to the foreign policy of this country.

What is Canada’s Role?

Rae asked whether Is Canada’s role in the world is to essentially ally itself with the U.S. in terms of American foreign policy and position in the world. Or is Canada’s voice in the world one of greater independence – one in which we look to Canada’ expressing strong support for multilateralism, international law, and support for multilateral institutions in relation to trade relationships.

It seems over the past 50 years there has been an implicit debate in the country over these issues, and that Harper has now made this debate explicit. His view in the world is quite simple: Canada is a country whose values and interests are tied up with the U.S., who is our most important trade partner. Our primary role is therefore to be an ally and supporter of the U.S. Other areas of foreign policy are all subordinate to that. That is the key relationship, the driving force between Canada’s role in the world.

This is a view that puts a great deal of emphasis on military power, and expects that Canada has to play a much stronger role in the military side of the equation. It downplays Canada’s traditional role at UN in supporting international institutions. Our efforts against land mines and in support of the International Criminal Court are examples of this.

War in Iraq

Rae pointed to two speeches of by Howard Hampton and Stephen Harper at time of Iraq war. His point was made by a choice made by Chretien at the time – Canada was not willing to participate in invasion of Iraq. Harper saying yes we will. Interesting enough, the words he used were borrowed from President of Australia.

Canada’s decision not to participate in the Iraq war was a defining moment, and was based on two major factors:

The existence of WMDs
An imminent threat

The Canadian government did not believe Saddam had WMDs, or that the evidence supporting assertion was in any way adequate. The U.S. relying on secret information, but the information provided from Hans Blix could not justify assertion.

If Canada didn’t have that information, it would still have to establish some other idea as to why it is justified as act of outside invasion. Canada’s position was clear – but the U.S. and U.K. was emphatically on the other side that whether or not there were WMDs, the risk justified invasion.

It took courage for Chretien and Graham to explain to Canadians why we were not joining our two closest allies. Now people say it’s a no-brainer – because we look at it retrospectively at the mess it created. It was controversial at time, and the criticism came mostly from Harper, who bought Bush/Blair doctrine. Harper insisted that was where Canada’s interests lay, where our values should take us.

Economic Relations

When it comes to trade relations it was Mulroney, following Royal Commission Report, that took the great leap towards negotitiations on free trade that eventually became NAFTA. Mulroney believed that if we could get from out underneath the U.S. trade umbrella and trade harrassment it would be a great deal for Canada. We would benefit from coming firmly within an America economic framework, and at the same time free ourselves from trade harassment.

By way of contrast, many people believe our long term protection is not in bliateral protection but with many countries that include the Americans. The history of our free trade is well-known, and we are going to experience its full effects in the next major while.

And we have not been able to free ourselves from trade harassment. The U.S. Senate is based on states where less than 20 percent of population control 50 percent of Senate, and is therefore dominated by agriculture and natural resource interests. The U.S likes to portray itself as supportive of free trade, but it actually relies far less on free trade than any of its trading partners.

This is just another example of where our decisions to make a special deal has actually proved short sighted.

A Foreign Policy that is Our Own Voice

Whether it is on the economic or political side, do we want to have a foreign policy where we find our own voice, or do we see ourselves as essentially being the junior partners in the American enterprise?

In recent days that choice has become very clear and sharp, and a clear example of that is the case of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen. He grew up in Afghanistan and was eventually captured and charged in the efforts to kill an American soldier, and has since been incarcerated in Guanatanamo Bay for that last few years.

We have to try to understand what this issue means for Canada. It’s not just about the politics of do we like what he did or was accused of doing. There are two major issues:

What do we do with child soldiers?
What do we do with Canadians in these situations?

There have been enormous procedural delays in his trial, with the head of the military tribunal recently being replaced. There have been two recent Supreme Court cases in the U.S. critical of Guantanamo, and how it is being administered by the American government.

They stated that the law of habeas corpus does apply, and that it is not simply possible to incarcerate people without letting them know what htey have been charged with. These are fundamental principles of our justice system. The second case is worth reading simply to review the very basics of habeas corpus and its role in the legal system.

Canada is a signatory to the international treaty aimed at rehabilitating child soldiers. It’s fundamental to get these people out to rehabilitate them to let them continue on with their lives.

Sri Lanka has an issue with this on the rebel side, where people can be recruited as young as 12 and sent into battle by the age of 14 or 15. If you capture them, what do you do? Do you treat them as a soldier, as a child, or as a child soldier?

There are protocols that have to be followed. The U.S. military tribunal has said we are not interested in this, and it does not pertain to the treatment of Omar Khadr.

The Question for Canada

The question for Canada is that we’ve gone along for a long time to see what kind of justice people like Omar Khadr can get. We said, let’s hold judgment until we see what kind of treatment he gets.

And frankly, we’ve seen quite enough.

Senator Obama and McCain have both said they would close Guantanamo, and find another method to try people that are there.

We can also look at the issue of members of the Uighur community of Xinjiang in Western China, which has long issues with the extent of which it is being ruled and human rights issues. How do we respond as a country when dealing with the possibility of courts where we disagree with their approach to a legal system?

In the case of Guantanamo, it puts us in a ridiculous position where the only person thinking Omar Khadr should stay in the U.S. and would get a fair trial in the U.S. is Stephen Harper.

Again, even McCain says it should be closed. This is an absurd position for Canada to be in.

Differing with America is not Anti-Americanism

Mr. Rae also distinguished the mission in Afghanistan from that in Iraq. The U.N. agreed to the mission. contrary to Iraq. We believed we were going there to help set up a new government and support them.

The Liberals would like to change the focus to reflect this interest, away from military activities to training the Afghan army and politically helping the government create a more stable arrangement. The 2011 withdrawal date was what was initially agreed upon by parliament, and when all countries said the mission would come to an end.

These are the principles we should try to apply: that we intervene when we believe it is lawful to do so, and when it is justified by international law.

Canada is not a superpower. It is not an empire, and we do not have imperial ambitions. All we want to do is participate in a stable international world order.

That is why we’ve been such strong supporters of the U.N. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted by a Canadian after all.

Our interests as a small country, a relatively small power, are different from that of our neighbours. It means we will agree and disagree from time to time. It does not mean we are anti-American, it just means we have different interests.

Get Involved as Law Students

There are many ways you can be involved and engaged in this world.

Your generation has more opportunity to see more, to do more, to be more engaged than any generation in hum history.

Try to make a difference. Find out what gives you passion, and take those ideals and interests wherever you may go.

Post tags: bob rae, child soldiers, foreign policy, habeas corpus, International Criminal Court, iraq, Justice Rand, land mines, NAFTA, omar khadr, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of th, saddam hussein, Stephen Harper, uighur, war in iraq, WMDs

Global Terrorist Threat “Overblown”

By: Contributor · April 26, 2008 · Filed Under Civil Rights, Criminal Law, International Law, Legal Reform, Politics, Pop Culture · 1 Comment

Don’t believe the hype

Twenty years ago the classic Hip Hop group, Public Enemy, said in their hit song,

Some media is the whack
You believe it’s true, it blows me through the roof
Suckers, liars get me a shovel
Some writers I know are damn devils
For them I say don’t believe the hype
Yo Chuck, they must be on a pipe, right?
Their pens and pads I’ll snatch
‘Cause I’ve had it
I’m not an addict fiendin’ for static
I’ll see their tape recorder and grab it
No, you can’t have it back silly rabbit
I’m going’ to my media assassin
Harry Allen, I gotta ask him
Yo Harry, you’re a writer, are we that type?
Don’t believe the hype

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVk2jmz__XA[/youtube]

It seems we’re facing a similar hype in our generation, but one of a different enemy of the public, the terrorist threat.

At least that’s what John Mueller, Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University, would argue.

Dispelling Terrorist Myths

It started with a piece in 2006 in Foreign Affairs, entitled, Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?: The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy, published by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Mueller is the author of a 2004 book called The Remnants of War, which claimed since the fall of the Soviet Union warfare is actually obsolete. He argues that problems such as terrorism that the world currently faces are actually forms of civil disorder best dealt with by policing methods.

Mueller attributes in Foreign Affairs a lot of the panic around terrorism to baseless hype,

[I]f it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it?…

…One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered….

…If al Qaeda operatives are as determined and inventive as assumed, they should be here by now. If they are not yet here, they must not be trying very hard or must be far less dedicated, diabolical, and competent than the common image would suggest.

Mueller confirms what rarely heard experts have always been saying – Al Qaeda represents not a specific terrorist entity engaging in direct operational planning, but rather an ideological basis and “support group” for copycats that it would otherwise spawn.

Loren Colemen, author of The Copycat Effect, said,

…research shows potential terrorists become aroused by media presentations of terrorism, accept the violence as justified, and become tomorrow�s suicide bombers.
Contagion terrorism, unfortunately, makes compelling sense when we understand the simple but deadly psychology of the copycat effect. The global attention and blanket media coverage given the 7/7 London terrorist attacks will actually help create tomorrow�s suicide bombers who will feel fully legitimized in their future murder-suicides.

But even the fear of copycats, here at home or abroad, seems disproportionate to the actual threat.

Counting Down Those Freed

Earlier this month, charges were stayed against more of the accused Toronto 18.

Tony Carson of Carsons Posts said,

And that�s the problem: we get the great fanfare of the arrest and nothing much else � except the slow dribble of release announcements. The Toronto 18, at the time, sounded like they needed medical help more than they needed incarceration but we have been simply left to ponder what they were really thinking � and a year later we still don�t know, only that the Toronto 18 are now the Toronto 15 soon to be what? the Toronto 12 � 7� 3� 0?

Actually, we’re already down to 11.

Thomas Walkom of The Star explains the implications,

Seven of the original 18 have had their charges stayed � which, in simple English, means the government now admits it never had any real evidence against them.

Those remaining in jail are hoping, at the very least, to get out on bail.

One of the lawyers, Anser Farooq, is calling for a public inquiry as to why an innocent person was kept behind bars for 18 months in solitary confinement.

Terrorism Will Just Fade Away, Unless…

Even if we concede that any of the remaining 11 are guilty of some crime, Mueller provides some important context in an article yesterday in the Ottawa Citizen, Terror Without the Terrorists,

All of these rather hapless, even pathetic, people, should of course be considered to be potentially dangerous. From time to time they may be able to coalesce enough to carry out acts of terrorist violence, and policing efforts to stop them before they can do so are fully justified. But the notion that they present an existential threat to just about anybody seems at least as fanciful as some of their schemes, and any notion that these characters could come up with nuclear weapons seems far fetched in the extreme.

Mueller bases his conclusions on Marc Sageman (we’ve quoted him before), author of Leaderless Jihad, and a former intelligence officer with access to classified materials,

The threat presented by these individuals is likely, concludes Sageman, simply to fade away in time. Unless, of course, the United States overreacts and does something to enhance their numbers, prestige, and determination — something that is, needless to say, entirely possible.

This overreaction may have already occurred. But if has not, a drastic shift in policy is needed immediately.

The Best Choice is Proportionality

Proportionality is also required for domestic operations, and community agencies are now calling that the remaining 11 of the Toronto 18 be reevaluated for reasonable bail terms and conditions of solitary confinement.

Mueller is author of his own new book on the subject, Overblown, which argues that the terrorist threat is deliberately exaggerated by politicians and the military industry, who in turn fuel the fear that spreads terrorism.

And this might be why the Sageman solution, which “offers a ray of hope,” may be ignored by politicians to instead economically support the dominant military industry in Canada, a sector that admittedly does add thousands of jobs and millions of dollars to the Canadian economy.

But is that a choice that Canadians, if informed on the subject, are really willing to pay?