RSS FeedReview of Dennis Edney’s Lecture, “The Rule of Law in an Age of Terror”
“Human rights have a dysfunctional relationship with justice. The language is certainly beautiful, but it’s all dressed up with nowhere to go,” charged Dennis Edney in a scathing lecture at the Faculty of Law at UBC on September 15.
Edney worked from 2004 to 2011 on Omar Khadr’s defence against charges stemming from the July 2002 firefight death of a US soldier. Khadr, who is Canadian, was 15 at the time. American forces interrogated him for three months in the US-operated Bagram Theatre Detention Facility in Afghanistan, before transferring him to Guantanamo Bay, where he remains. In 2005, Khadr’s chief interrogator from Bagram, US Sergeant Joshua Claus, was found guilty of offences relating to the routine torture and homicide of Bagram prisoners. Claus received a five-month prison sentence. He testified at Khadr’s military trial in 2010.
In April 2009, the Federal Court ruled that Canada was complicit in the US’s torture of Khadr and ordered Ottawa to seek his repatriation. The Federal Court of Appeal concurred, but the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that though Canada was violating Khadr’s human rights, it was not obliged to seek his repatriation.
In October 2010, after insisting on his innocence for years, Khadr pled guilty in a military trial to terrorism-related offences, in exchange for a promise from Canada to repatriate him by October 2011 to serve the rest of his prison sentence in Canada. On September 20, the Conservatives tabled the controversial omnibus Bill C-10, which adds “additional criteria” to decisions about “whether or not to allow the transfer of a Canadian offender back to Canada to serve their sentence.”
Shortly after the trial, Edney declared that Khadr “would have confessed to anything, including the killing of John F. Kennedy, just to get out of this hellhole” and that if he had refused, Khadr would have been faced with “an unfair [military] trial based on evidence that would be inadmissible in a real court.” On Thursday, Edney said the detainees are entitled “to all kinds of international protections, but our governments are not asking for them. And by not asking, we become complicit.” There are nearly 800 prisoners in Guantanamo, but only 4 have been charged and given a trial. Detainees cannot see the evidence used against them.
In his lecture, Edney denounced the Canadian government for perpetuating a culture of fear in the camp’s defence. Edney stated that “since there has always historically been terrorism, and since there will always be terrorist threats, this war on terror – if allowed to be one – is unlike any other, because it is never-ending.” Thus, last decade has been marred by “habeas corpus being abandoned, secret courts being created to hear secret evidence, guilt inferred by association, torture and rendition nakedly justified.”
“I went into Guantanamo Bay as a lawyer and I came out as a broken father,” said Edney. “I never thought that in my lifetime I would go to such an evil place and see such evil being done.” Of the infamous cages, Edney said that “people go into those cages thinking they’re having a holiday in there.” He drew attention to Camps 5, 6, and 7. The first two are “designed for enhanced interrogation tactics: torture.” He said about Camp 7 that “We are not allowed to talk about it. We have prisoners in there who came from Europe, about a year and a half ago, and they’re going to be there forever, because there’s no one there to help.”
Edney discussed the 9/11 witch hunt, in which “the US government detained hundreds, if not thousands, of people of colour on the suspicion of terrorist activity, some of them up to a year, all without charges.” He continued that “almost none of those individuals were found to have been in any way connected with terrorism. Yet many continue to be held without being formally charged with any crime or immigration violation.” In this way Guantanamo “provides powerful evidence of how America and the West are making war on terror synonymous with the war on Islam. No white Anglo-Saxon goes to Guantanamo Bay. Any American picked up for terrorism offences gets due process in a federal court system in New York.”
One audience member suggested that the camp must serve some purpose, because otherwise US President Barrack Obama would have followed through on his promise to shut it down. Edney responded that the camp primarily functions as “an important propaganda tool.” He argued the Obama administration has in fact “systematised” the culture of torture normalised under George W. Bush, for instance by disallowing victims of extraordinary rendition from suing Washington for torture suffered overseas.
Edney was also critical of “lazy” media and academics who have persisted in “slotting events into a sort of juicy clash of civilisations story,” as exemplified by mainstream media coverage of Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist attack in Oslo. He killed 69 people in July, avowedly to protect Europe from Muslims. Edney said, “as soon as the bomb went off, media organisations began reporting on jihadist organisations.” This, he said, “fit perfectly the story we have all been telling each other since 9/11 that who else, who else could be so hateful, so crazy, so disrespectful of life but Muslims.” He pointed out that though Breivik is a white Norwegian Christian, “we don’t hold Christians or conservatives or liberals responsible for Brievek’s despicable acts.”
He said that “since September 11 2001, race, ethnicity, and religion have become proxies for suspected terrorist activity, which in turn has become a pretext for the application of Canadian immigration laws in an unequal manner towards Arabs, South Asians, Muslims and so on.” In an apparent nod to Bill C-4, the anti-refugee bill that the Conservatives tabled on Tuesday despite widespread condemnation, he noted that “we just have to listen to media descriptions coming out of Ottawa when we talk about refugees today. We call them queue jumpers and potential terrorists.”
Edney also expressed anger at the public’s willingness to be lulled into complicity. He described the transfer of the prisoners to Guantanamo “in rows in aircraft, hooded and shackled for transportation across the Atlantic” as similar to eighteenth century slave ships. He maintained that for “the watching world, no knowledge of international humanitarian conventions is needed to understand that what was being witnessed was simply unlawful.” He blamed public apathy for “allowing anti-Muslim sentiment to become part of our mainstream conversations.” He said, “I say to you we cannot tackle manifestations of intolerance, unless we learn and understand how the constant use of fear pervades our everyday life, and how that fear is being used to influence how you and I think and how you and I act. It’s that same manipulation of fear that has allowed military escapades into countries beyond those who bombed the twin towers. It is that same message that has been exploited by participating countries to reduce civil liberties and infringe upon human rights by allowing such places as Guantanamo Bay to exist.”
The need for action had been a prevailing theme throughout the lecture. Edney returned to it at his lecture’s close: “Not only does it [Guantanamo] continue to exist, they continue building it. Guantanamo is going to be there for a long, long time, unless you do something. Unless you really do something about it.” He concluded that “the only crime equal to wilful inhumanity is the crime of indifference, the crime of silence, the crime of forgetting.”
In that vein, we cannot afford to forget that Guantanamo Bay’s precedents in the West include Canada’s own internment camps, built in BC expressly to detain Japanese-Canadians during WWII. Similarly, Bill C-4’s predecessors include the Chinese head-tax policy.
World Institute for Research and Publication (WIRP) Presentations
I presented a couple papers this morning at the Annual Meeting of the World Institute for Research and Publication – Law. You can read more about the conference over at Slaw.
The presentations, with audio and complete papers, are available on the WIRP site, or on SlideShare below:
Full Paper: Media Narratives in Times of Turmoil: Depictions of Minorities in Canada Post 9/11
Full Paper: Admissibility of Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Reports
A Trial to End all Terrorism
I recently presented this paper, A Trial to End All Terrorism: How the United States Could Have Won the War on Terrorism Before it Even Began, with the Trial of Only One Man at the 3rd Annual Law Student Conference held at Windsor Law.
The torture scandal
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.
OMG! Law Talk Episode 2
Law Blawgers Omar Ha-Redeye, Michael Carabash and Garry J. Wise return with Episode 2 of OMG! Law Talk.
THIS WEEK ON OMG! -
·Google Juice
·Law Firm Public Relations Strategies
·Getting Legal Information Online
·Blogging and the Election of George Bush
·Responding to Torture
·On Mark Steyn and Freedom of Speech in Canada and America
OMG! Law Talk is a weekly series, jointly presented by Wise Law Blog (www.wiselaw.blogspot.com) , Dynamic Lawyers (www.dynamiclawyers.com) and www.OmarHa-Redeye.com)
National security invoked to block testimony
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.
Transparency sought in Afghan inquiry
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.
Mau Mau to sue the British Government
First Posted on Commercial Law International on June 24, 2009.
Concentration Camps
By Charles Wanguhu
The above move by the Kenyan freedom fighters to sue the British government has elicited some very interesting responses from some readers of the times online paper:
This is all about money and bashing the UK. Africa does not want to take responsibility for its current problems
Also if this happened in the 50’s so why have they waited till now?
Lawyers and Money again: A poisonous mix. Why after so long drag up these horrors. The Mau Mau allegedly used to drink the blood of the white farmers they killed. The British allegedly tortured Mau Mau. What good can come of this knowledge now? Time to put these things back in the box of history
While the above sentiments may be of a few it may be worth placing their arguments in a context. Firstly during the emergency in Kenya loads of kikuyu men were rounded up and accused of being Mau Mau based on accusations by guards who were collaboratoring with the british. We can therefore not claim that all those held in prison camps tortured and killed were indeed Mau Mau fighters.
Secondly what is more at stake is the recognition by the UK government that it was official colonial policy to run concentration camps and that it was sanctioned at the top.
In the article :
Professor Anderson states that is doubtful the lawsuit in its current form — targeting the state rather than those surviving individuals who allegedly carried out the abuse — will succeed.
“There can be no doubt that torture was used by British Forces . . . but the question remains ‘who is responsible?’,” he said.
Whoever this notion is flawed in that when a criminal offence occurs it is not the role of the victim to seek evidence against the offender and then bring in criminal charges against them. When a state decides to open up institutions of incarceration it is the states responsibility to ensure that the inmates are treated in a humane way and not subjected to torture. In this instance the British colonial state failed in their duty and they should therefore be brought to account for their inaction when it was clear what is happening. The Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya by Caroline Elkins is an account of the atrocities carried out on the Kikuyu population in Kenya and is worth a read for any individual prior to defending the british actions.
The Mau Mau atrocities cannot be denied and were definitely atrocious. It is however pretentious to claim that they were on a similar scale as the colonial state with their better equipped and organised forces. In addition the fact that they used Machetes and not guns is akin to declaring that the British killings were undertaken in a humane way.
The question is should it be placed in history and forgotten about? Well while seeming to take a leaf from its predecessors the Kenyan Government extra judicially killed up to 400 Kikuyu young men accusing them of being Mungiki (a group not too dissimilar to the Mau Mau if not claiming their inspiration from the Mau Mau) should we forget about them as well.
While it is in the interest of majority of British people to be forward looking, the victims of atrocities still seek justice. History appears to be relative as the World Cup win in 1966 is considered fresh enough to be brought up at every opportunity but atrocities committed six years earlier than the win are too far to be worth remembering.
The issue is not so much monetary compensation but recognition that it was official British Gvt policy to carry out such atrocities and that indeed the victims of these actions were in some instances innocent people who happened to be members of the wrong ethnic community at the time.
Could George W. Bush Be Charged With War Crimes?
George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are coming to Canada on March 29 to speak to an estimated crowd of up to 5,000 people.
David Knowles of the Politics Daily describes the showdown,
The event will consist of the two men seated in chairs between a moderator who has not yet been chosen.
No matter how civil the discourse, the thought of Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton on stage is bemusing, given the animosity of the past 16 years, and the efforts under way to overcome it…
One thing to keep an eye on is whether the two men will allow questions on torture. Given the legal consequences for former Bush administration figures, this could be one potato too hot for handling. Otherwise, I suspect we’ll hear a cordial conversation with plenty of respectful disagreement..
Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has continued to defend controversial interrogation techniques that many concede as torture.
But the issue of torture is not just theoretical posturing. Canada is a signatory to the International Criminal Court, which is charged with convicting three crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
When the release of further photos of Abu Ghraib abuses, including torture and rape, were reported blocked yesterday, Iraqis did call for investigations and charges of crimes against humanity.
Crimes against humanity require widespread or systematic abuses.
The ICC Prosecutor determined there was a reasonable basis that grave breaches had been committed by British troops during the 2003 Iraq invasion for willful killing (8 (2)(a)(i)), and torture or inhumane treatment (8)(2)(a)(ii). But he did not proceed with it because at that time there evidence only demonstrated only 4-12 individuals were subjected to willful killing, and,
[only a] limited number of victims of inhuman treatment totalling in all less than twenty persons.
War crimes, on the other hand, can be covered by even an isolated act by an individual soldier, even without direction or guidance from superiors, which is why Article 8 of the Rome Statute begins with what Hermann von Hebel and Daryl Robinson call a non-threshold threshold in The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, and Results,
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular [but not limited to] when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
The United States is not a signatory, and it was Bush himself who instead of ratifying the ICC actually had America’s signature removed. His rationale was “politicized prosecutions and investigations” could result in Americans being brought before the ICC.
Bush’s fears may not have been completely vain, because the ICC does define war crimes to include acts such as torture and inhumane treatment. Other Geneva Conventions that could allegedly be breached include deprivation of a fair trial, willful killing, and wanton destruction of property.
As a signatory to the ICC, Canada could theoretically be asked to bring Bush before it. But that would never happen, given a 2002 Act passed under Bush that allowed the U.S. military to storm the Hague by force and recover any Americans being tried there.
Robert Marquand of the CSM describes the implications of the Act,
Formally titled the American Service Members Protection Act, the measure is widely and derisively known here as the Invasion of The Hague Act.
Odd as it may seem, the law allows the US to constitutionally send jack-booted commandos to fly over fields of innocent tulips, swoop into the land of wooden shoes, tread past threatening windmills and sleepy milk cows into the Dutch capital – into a city synonymous with international law – and pry loose any US troops.
Today, the Dutch mostly treat the issue as a joke, a cowboy American moment. But it is widely felt that if President Barack Obama’s foreign policy team wants to achieve a symbolic break with the previous White House, it could rescind the invasion law.
As a Dutch Ministry of Justice official put it, “I wouldn’t overstate how seriously we take this any more, but it does seem a bizarre symbol.”
The implications for Canada are a little more vague,
One controversial offshoot of the invasion law is called “bilateral immunity” – a policy requiring all states except Israel, Egypt, Taiwan, and those in NATO to sign a waiver stating that they will contravene the ICC if any Americans are arrested. Countries that don’t sign the waiver forfeit US military assistance. The policy pressured small states to comply – whether or not they felt it proper.
Indira A.R. Lakshmanan explains the reason behind this move,
There is a tension in U.S. foreign policy that’s pretty longstanding: The U.S. is far more comfortable as the maker of international rules than as subject to them.
That didn’t stop the Toronto Coalition Against the War from investigating whether Bush could be charged by the ICC. In addition to a planned protest outside the event, the group held an info session last week with Prof. Michael Mandel of Osgoode Hall. Mandel described some of the other challenges of accomplishing such a conviction and the low likelihood of how something like this could happen.
Prof. Mandel mentions the “Crime Against Peace,” or a war of aggression, one which is not fully included under the ICC yet due to lack of consensus by the signatories, but called the “supreme international crime” according to the Nuremberg Tribunal.
However, Attorney General Goldsmith warned Prime Minister Blair in 2003 that the invasion of Iraq could lead to possible prosecution for the crime of aggression because it was recognized by customary international law and therefore imported into the domestic law, a notion later affirmed by the House of Lords in R v. Jones [2006] UKHL 16.
There is another significant barrier to the prosecution of Americans or other allies in Iraq for crimes of aggression that Mandel did not cover. Article 5 of the Rome Statute lists the ratione materiae, or subject matter jurisdiction of the court,
2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
[emphasis added]
Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations states,
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
If acts of aggression can only be defined by the Security Council, then Lionel Yee points out that no permanent member of the Security Council could ever be prosecuted for the crime of aggression.
However, the International Court of Justice may have indicated otherwise. In Nicaragua v. United States (1986), the dissenting opinion of Judge Schwebel stated that a Security Council determination of aggression is based on political considerations, and not a legal judgment,
60. Moreover, while the Security Council is invested by the Charter with the authority to determine the existence of an act of aggression, it does not act as a court in making such a determination. It may arrive at a determination of aggression – or, as more often is the case, fail to arrive at a determination of aggression – for political rather than legal reasons.
However compelling the facts which could give rise to a determination of aggression, the Security Council acts within its rights when it decides that to make such a determination will set back the cause of peace rather than advance it. In short, the Security Council is a political organ which acts for political reasons. It may take legal considerations into account but, unlike a court, it is not bound to apply them.
[emphasis added]
The Separate Opinion of Judge Simma in Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda (2005) went further, indicating that Security Council approval was not even necessary for the determination of aggression,
3. It is true that the United Nations Security Council… has never gone as far as expressly qualifying the Ugandan invasion as an act of aggression…
The Council will have had its own ⎯ political ⎯ reasons for refraining from such a determination.
But the Court, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, does not have to follow that course. Its very raison d’être is to arrive at decisions based on law and nothing but the law, keeping the political context of the cases before it in mind, of course, but not desisting from stating what is manifest out of regard for such non-legal considerations. This is the division of labour between the Court and the political organs of the United Nations envisaged by the Charter!
[emphasis added]
The ICC is not a body of the UN, but theoretically may work with the ICJ to determine a case of aggression independently of the Security Council. Article 39 determinations may also theoretically be challenged as ultra vires.
The Yugoslav Tribunal Appeals Chamber stated in the Tadic case,
It is clear from this text that the Security Council plays a pivotal role and exercises a very wide discretion under this Article. But this does not mean that its powers are unlimited. The Security Council is an organ of an international organization, established by a treaty which serves as a constitutional framework for that organization. The Security Council is thus subjected to certain constitutional limitations, however broad its powers under the constitution may be. Those powers cannot, in any case, go beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of the Organization at large, not to mention other specific limitations or those which may derive from the internal division of power within the Organization. In any case, neither the text nor the spirit of the Charter conceives of the Security Council as legibus solutus (unbound by law).
In particular, Article 24, after declaring, in paragraph 1, that the Members of the United Nations “confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security“, imposes on it, in paragraph 3, the obligation to report annually (or more frequently) to the General Assembly, and provides, more importantly, in paragraph 2, that:
- “In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.” (Id., Art. 24(2).)
The Charter thus speaks the language of specific powers, not of absolute fiat.
[emphasis added]
Despite the willingness of many people around the world to have some strong international statement made that these types of military acts in Iraq are inappropriate, these political organs will prevent any determination of war crimes or crimes of aggression.
It’s unlikely that the ICC or other international mechanism will be used in this manner any time in the near future – a conclusion Mandel would likely agree with.
Videos of Prof. Mandel’s talk included below for interest sake below:
Law Students Demand Repatriation of Omar Khadr
Hundreds of law students from across the country have added their names to the growing list of people calling for the repatriation and fair trial of Omar Khadr, as well as the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility where he is currently held.
Canadian law students created the Omar Khadr Project last fall, pursuing the goal of repatriation and fair treatment for Omar Khadr. The organization is composed of law students and young lawyers from across the country who believe that respect for human rights is a fundamental Canadian value.
In May 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously found that the conditions under which Omar Khadr was being detained “constituted a clear violation of fundamental human rights protected by international law” (Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, 2008 SCC 28, at para 24.)
The Court found that Canada’s participation in Khadr’s case breached our own obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Geneva Conventions.
Below is a press release (abridged) sent to us by the Omar Khadr Project discussing the strategies that the group has been pursuing.
Canadian Law Students Take Actions Calling on Harper, Obama to Ensure Repatriation of Omar Khadr, Closure of Guantanamo Bay
This week, the Omar Khadr Project launches a series of actions calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President-elect Barack Obama to ensure Khadr’s repatriation as a key step in the closure of the illegal Guantanamo Bay detention centre.
It is expected that one of President-elect Obama’s first executive actions will be to begin shutting down Guantanamo Bay. But, “the looming questions for Omar Khadr,” explains Project member Kate Oja, “are whether the new President will act in time to stop Omar’s deeply flawed ‘trial’, and whether Prime Minister Harper will agree to bring Omar back to Canada.”
This week, the Omar Khadr Project joins with groups across Canada, the U.S. and beyond to put pressure on both Canadian and American governments to act quickly in the spirit of justice. We are launching 4 actions:
- Hundreds of law and articling students signed a petition calling on the Canadian government to repatriate Omar Khadr and protect his human rights. The petition will be officially presented to Parliament once it resumes.
- A letter was written to President-elect Obama to draw his attention to the urgency and injustice of Khadr’s case.
- As a Christmas present, and in honour of the 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the Omar Khadr Project sent Prime Minister Harper, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice copies of a children’s picture book on basic human rights, emphasizing sections on fair trial rights and the rights of the child.
- On Saturday 17 January 2009, a rally is being held outside the U.S. Consulate in Toronto, along with Amnesty International, the Coalition to Repatriate Omar Khadr, and other
supporters.
Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen detained at age 15, remains the only national of a Western country to be held at Guantanamo. His trial before the internationally-condemned military commission system is scheduled to begin on January 26th, just 6 days after Obama’s inauguration.
Note: Law students interested in assisting Khadr’s legal defence team can contact us for more information.
International Law Conference Tackles Tough Contemporary Issues
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.
CBA Joins Fight to Repatriate Omar Khadr
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.
