RSS FeedThe 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.
Omar Khadr Video Round-up
Early yesterday morning, the Canadian government, in compliance with court orders, released a video of Omar Khadr’s interrogation by Canadian Security and Intelligence Service agents at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The video, which is the first ever seen of CSIS agents in action, is already making waves internationally. Within hours of the release, front-page headlines were sparked everywhere from The New York Times to the BBC to Al Jazeera.
I can only hope that all of this international coverage will bring more pressure to bear on the Canadian government to step up and do something to protect this young man from the torture he faces in Guantanamo Bay. Canada must request Omar Khadr’s repatriation so that he can face trial in this country.
Below I have collected a number of videos relating to Omar Khadr:
The Interrogation Video
“Before the rage, the resignation and the tears, came the trust. Teenaged prisoner Omar Khadr seemed sure that his countrymen from Canada had come to Cuba to help him and spoke freely when they asked questions. On the second day, the reality almost visibly dawned on his face.
… Much of the material released shows Mr. Khadr — who is wearing an orange uniform — sobbing and repeatedly saying, in a moan, “Help me, help me.”
Here is a short segment of the 8-minute interrogation video that has been released to the public so far. The full 7-hour video of the interrogation is scheduled for later release by the Canadian government. The audio quality is quite poor, but if you click the link to view the video at YouTube, you will find captions of the exchange.
There is no evidence of torture on the videotape, but it is reported that:
“Documents made public last week show that Mr. Khadr was subjected to weeks of sleep deprivation by U.S. military officials before being interviewed by Canadian officials, and that the Canadians were aware of the sleep deprivation.” (The Globe and Mail)
Opposition Parties Demand Action
On May 26, 2008, the NDP MP from Windsor-Tecumseh, Joe Comartin, challenged the government to respect the findings of torture by the Supreme Courts of Canada and the United States and to demand Khadr’s return:
On June 13, 2008, the Liberal MP from Davenport, Mario Silva, questioned the government as to how much longer it would sit on its hands and do nothing to repatriate Khadr:
Romeo Dallaire Weighs In
Arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada
In May of this year, the Supreme Court ruled on the (il)legality of withholding disclosure from Khadr’s defence team. The SCC’s ruling in Khadr is what precipitated the release of the interrogation video above.
In Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, 2008 SCC 28, the court ruled that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has some limited application outside the borders of this country. A thorough analysis of the judgment can be found at The Court, Osgoode Hall’s blawg.
Below is a video (unfortunately, quite short) of some of the arguments made before the Supreme Court in that case:
Letter to Harper regarding Omar Khadr
Below is a letter that I have written to Mr. Harper to protest the Canadian government’s treatment of Omar Khadr, one of its citizens. If you are not familiar with the story, you can find some excellent background at The Globe and Mail.
credit where credit is due: I received assistance from the staff of this blawg, but because this letter does not necessarily reflect their views, I have respected their wishes and not added their names.
A Letter to the Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa K1A 0A2
Dear Mr. Prime Minister Harper:
Re: Repatriation of Omar Khadr
I am writing to you to ask that you immediately issue a request to the relevant American authorities to have Omar Khadr repatriated to Canada.
Facts bearing on the problem:
- Omar Khadr holds Canadian citizenship;
- he was a minor at the time of his detention by American authorities;
- he has been detained at Guantanamo Bay since 2002;
- during his six years in custody, Omar Khadr has been denied habeas corpus and the due process of law; and,
- he has been subjected to, at the very least, psychological abuse amounting to torture.
The right of any person to be presumed innocent until proved guilty is fundamental to our justice system and is a principle embodied in our constitution. Thus, Mr. Khadr is an innocent Canadian citizen being tortured at the hands of the American authorities.
In addition, a number of incidents have exacerbated the situation further. Military interrogators have been caught destroying important evidence. And alternative reports have indicated that Khadr was not alone at the time of his capture, undermining the assumption that he was directly responsible for any deaths.
Ultimately however, the question of Mr. Khadr’s guilt or innocence is not relevant to whether Canada should request his repatriation. This is a question of Canada’s prestige and credibility on the international stage. Canada remains the only industrialized nation that has failed to intervene on behalf of its citizens.
There is no benefit to be gained from allowing Mr. Khadr to remain in American custody. There would be no diplomatic cost to requesting repatriation. The United States has explicitly indicated its willingness to hand over Mr. Khadr should Canada issue a request.
Conversely, the costs of failing to act are significant.
By failing to take action, when all that would be required to put an end to Mr. Khadr’s torture is a simple diplomatic request, Canada is being complicit in the gross violation of the basic human rights of one of its citizens.
In 1948, Canada became a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a source of great national pride that a Canadian, John P. Humphrey, was the principle drafter of the Declaration. Because of our extensive history of contributions to the field, Canada has been recognized as a worldwide leader in human rights.
Our policy with respect to Omar Khadr is a tarnish on this international reputation. Our inaction is interpreted by the international community as a silent endorsement of the activities at Guantanamo, including controversial acts of torture. Domestically, the faith of Canadians in this country’s commitment to human rights and the protection of its own citizens is undermined. History will judge us harshly for failing to act.
I therefore ask that Canada request repatriation of Omar Khadr and that he be tried for his alleged crimes in this country.
As a Canadian citizen and a strong believer in human rights and dignity, I cannot ignore what is happening to Mr. Khadr. Respectfully, I feel that a vote for the Conservative party in the next election would represent my own sanctioning of the policy towards Mr. Khadr. I refuse to condone the inaction of this government. Today, I am ashamed of the country I so dearly love.
Yours very truly,
[signed]
Lawrence A. Gridin,
Law Student
Scalia Openly Condones Torture
Creating a Legal Storm
US Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, made his first major television appearance this week on 60 Minutes.
Previously he has severely restricted media access, especially in his court, citing his,
First Amendment right not to speak on the radio or television when I do not wish to do so.
In 2004, he even had his security guards erase a recording of a speech he had made in Mississippi.
Scalia is a known controversial figure on the Supreme Court, going by the name Nino in reference to the storms he creates. He is often remembered for his objection to the Roe v. Wade ruling that allowed abortion in the U.S. in 1973.
He told 60 Minutes,
You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court can compromise. It canI was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change
Smartest Man on Supreme Court of US
Ed Lazarus, author of Closed Chambers, was interviewed by Brian Lamb in 1998,
LAMB: Who’s the smartest member of the Supreme Court now? Mr. LAZARUS: Oh, I don’t whether I could–you know, I don’t know what their IQ scores are. I will say this that–that Justice Scalia is a enormously powerful in–in–intellect. And he has a very powerful writing style. And he’s very sure of himself. And those factors combine to make him extraordinarily influential. He has a–a very steadfast view, although as I point out in the book, he–he’s not always consistent. But–but he puts forward a powerful ideology, and he’s–he’s quick as can be. And–and that makes him very influential.
Support for Torture
Perhaps Scalia’s greatest contemporary controversy is his recent support for the use of torture. In the 60 Minutes interview he stated,
STAHL: If someones in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person if you listen to the expression cruel and unusual punishment, doesnt that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I dont think so.
STAHL: Well I think if youre in custody, and you have a policeman whos taken you into custody
SCALIA: And you say hes punishing you? Whats he punishing you for? When hes hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldnt say hes punishing you. What is he punishing you for?
Scalia’s ideas are infiltrating the Canada as well. At a conference in Ottawa last year, Scalia repeated these comments on a panel on terrorism and torture said,
Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ‘What would Jack Bauer do?’
The statement was in reference to Scalia’s comments on the show,
Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. … He saved hundreds of thousands of lives. …Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?. Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don’t think so. ..So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes.
And earlier this year, Scalia told the BBC,
You can’t come in smugly and with great self satisfaction and say ‘Oh it’s torture, and therefore it’s no good.’
You can’t?
Article 2 of the UN Convention Against Torture states,
- Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
- No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
- An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Ali on Think Progress cites Human Rights First, who point out torture raises other constitutional questions besides 8th Amendment violations:
[I]t seems Justice Scalia has forgotten about the 5th Amendments guarantee of due process. Furthermore, a court holding a witness in contempt for refusing to cooperate with a judicial proceeding is, in fact, quite different than an interrogator resorting to physical abuse when a prisoner refuses to talk.
Anne Applebaum dispels The Torture Myth in the Washington Post,
Just for a moment, let’s pretend that there is no moral, legal or constitutional problem with torture. Let’s also imagine a clear-cut case: a terrorist who knows where bombs are about to explode in Iraq. To stop him, it seems that a wide range of Americans would be prepared to endorse “cruel and unusual” methods.
She thinks people like Scalia should stick to their fictional television, and avoid making judgments on subjects they know nothing about.
Applebaum interviews an array of military specialists who say that torture simply doesn’t work, and would provide faulty intelligence,
Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply “not a good way to get information.” In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no “stress methods” at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the “batting average” might be lower: “perhaps six out of ten.” And if you beat up the remaining four? “They’ll just tell you anything to get you to stop.”
Canadians are “idiots”
Scalia’s ideological basis is grounded in an “originalist” and “textualist” interpretation of the Constitution. He condemns judicial activism that introduces flexibility into the Constitution to allow for changing times and values.
Canada adopts the opposite approach, and a need for a broad and liberal reading of the Constitution to change with the times is Constitutionally entrenched.
Such flexibility has allowed for same-sex marriage in Canada, but also allowed women to sit in the Senate in Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), also known as the Persons case, because women were finally legally deemed to be people too.
Privy Council cited Sir Robert Borden in Canadian Constitutional Studies in the Persons case,
The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. The object of the Act was to grant a Constitution to Canada. Like all written constitutions it has been subject to development through usage and convention.
The danger in adopting Scalia’s rigid approach instead is openly apparent. NPR interviewed him yesterday and said,
By this logic, if capital punishment was constitutional in 1791, it would be constitutional today. Theoretically, this means that putting people in stocks in the public square, a punishment used in 1791, is also constitutional.
His response was,
I would say that may be very stupid, but it’s not unconstitutional, if indeed it was a punishment that was at that time accepted.
But a stupid argument is probably better than being called an idiot, which is what Scalia does for those who disagree with his Constitutional interpretation,
People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn’t change with society are “idiots.”
Publicity for Money, Or Avoiding Being Demonized?
All of this recent publicity for someone who has so strongly shunned and even attacked the media seems strange.
But the Law Times reports that his current media blitz is part of a recent (subsidized) strategy to improve his his image,
My kids have been working on me to get out and do more public appearances. They think it makes it harder to demonize you — and I agree.
It’s also probably no coincidence that on Monday he released his book, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges.
Adam Cohen claims in the New York Times that Scalia’s many antics, which also include obscene gestures and refusing recusal (due to conflict of interest), are bring disrepute to the highest legal institution in the most powerful country on Earth.
Cohen says,
More than any modern justice, Justice Scalia seems intent on presenting himself to the world as an outspoken champion of conservative values. But conservatives are people who believe in respecting and preserving existing institutions. There is nothing conservative about diminishing a great institution like the Supreme Court by making inflammatory and partisan off-the-bench statements and ignoring the rules of ethical judging.
And if you’re looking to avoid being demonized by the media and the public, being the poster boy for Abu Ghraib probably isn’t the best way to do it.
Podcast Feeds
Awards
Partners
- Advertise Here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Whiners - The Elusive Fish Creative Services
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- no win no fee solicitors
- Compensation Claims
- personal injury lawyer toronto
- no win no fee
- Pardons Canada Accident Claim Medical Negligence Whiplash Claim
- No win No fee Claims
- Venue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
