RSS FeedInternational 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.
Law is Cool - Podcast #11
Show Notes
Total Running Time 35:44
1:06 Jacob Kaufman and Omar Ha-Redeye introduce themselves.
1:17 Jacob notices different opening music for this episode of Law is Cool, and Omar explains it’s a sound clip from a performance by Rich Droste of the London War Resisters Support Group.
1:47 Jacob, who is seeing the film for the second time, discusses The Dark Knight.
2:14 Omar raises some of the criticisms of the film, such as its promotion of vigilantism.
2:17 Jacob raises an article by Spencer Ackerman that says that Batman is how Dick Cheney sees himself, through extraordinary rendition, torture and going beyond the law to achieve his goals.
2:47 Jacob mentions how the Cogitamus blog argues that Batman is actually a critique of Batman’s techniques, and that the Joker is actually blowback from Batman working outside the law. But Matthew Yglesias says it’s just a movie where a man dresses up as a bat.
3:32 Omar asks why Canadian law students should care about American politics, and shares his meeting with the Democrats Abroad - Canada.
4:27 Jacob mentions Canada and the world’s perspective on Sen. Obama and some of the critiques raised against him on our site, but also his position on the War in Iraq.
5:45 Omar adds that many Americans also rejected the War in Iraq, including some that came to Canada. He introduces Rich Droste, a war resister that joined the army at the age of 17 and now lives in London, Ont.
6:57 Rich explains why he joined the Army as a combat engineer, and the circumstances around his life as to why joined.
8:03 Rich shares how he learned more about the world as he was in the Army for a longer period of time, but took issue with prostitution and human trafficking rings he personally observed.
8:57 Rich tells us how he filed to become a conscientious objector, what it means to be a conscientious objector, and how these papers were lost.
9:56 Rich finds out he’s being sent to Iraq, and his choices were to either go in jail or re-enlist in a different job, and then discovers he’s going to be training the elite Rangers. He’s placed on medications, and sent to a chaplain when he refuses.
12:29 Rich shares on why he chose to come to Canada, where there are about 200-500 other resisters, and was attracted by the advocacy and education initiatives here.
13:20 Rich shares some of the benefits of Legal Aid, and how he sought assistance from Canadian lawyers.
15:11 His legal status here in Canada is a pending refugee claimant, and has a hearing on Sept. 17, 2008 to find out if there is a deportation order against him.
15:27 Omar speaks to David Heap of the London War Resisters Support Group, who describes the three broad areas of work they engage in and why he got involved in these issues.
16:37 David draws parallels between the current conflict in Iraq and previous military engagements by America, as well as some of his grievances around the war.
17:47 The legal support offered to war resisters is described. A broader political statement is also sought. Some resisters who returned believed they would be getting unconditional discharges and were instead imprisoned.
19:15 David mentions a day of action that is planned for September 2008
19:31 Omar mentions Bob Rae’s editorial in the Toronto Star on war resisters, which provides some history and context to the subject.
20:00 Jacob and Omar debate the role of the military.
21:02 Omar introduces a book by Ari Kaplan, The Opportunity Maker, Strategies for Inspiring Your Legal Career Through Creative Networking and Business Development, which has an entire chapter dedicated to blogging in law school.
22:04 Ari relates some of the reasons why he wrote the book - to share strategies on things law students need to do and how to do it.
25:14 The importance of personal contact is emphasized.
25:46 Students should start thinking of rainmaking now. They can do creative things now because they are not fully affiliated with a firm as a lawyer and don’t require official sign-off. This is their chance to experiment.
28:13 The difference between law students and business students is described.
29:32 Ari mentions interviews he conducted with other students that can be found on the book’s site.
30:05 Ari describes the tremendous risk aversion built into the law, which often translates into a distaste for networking, and how many law students misunderstand this as using people. Instead, they should look to build meaningful relationships and to help each other out by connecting in a positive and genuine way.
32:10 The art of storytelling is is important because clients hire lawyers that tell the same kind of stories of success and enthusiasm that they tell.
33:21 Jacob likes that Ari mentioned one of his favorite bloggers, Jeremy Blachman of the Anonymous Lawyer, who eventually turned his site into a book.
34:12 Omar signs off with a song from Josh Randall, a Vietnam War Resister that moved to Canada and stayed here, and now helps resisters from the current war.
Omar Khadr: A Hero of Canadian Values?
by Hicham Safieddine and Diana Younes
Development of violence among the colonized people will be proportionate to the violence exercised by the threatened colonial regime
Frantz Fannon
A lot of ink has and is being spilled on upholding the legal rights of Omar Khadr in the face of the American extra-legal war on terror. Khadr has to come home to save and serve our Canadian values the argument goes. In essence, this discourse seems to be not about Omar Khadr, but about Canadian values.
It is the country’s conscience that is hurting, not the body of the accused. It is the Canadian government’s authority and international reputation that is being violated, not the humanity of the accused.
It is our sensibilities for due process and fair trial that are under attack, not the sanity and dignity of the accused. For supporters and opponents alike, bringing Khadr back or keeping him at Guantanamo is about one thing: saving our values, not his life.
We talk about what these values are, but we leave out the values of those we constantly claim to empathize with, values ascribed today to the realm of radical or imagined politics but that are in fact enshrined in international law[1], which we uphold in the highest regard: the right of all peoples to fight for self-determination against colonial domination and alien occupation and to carve out their own path to economic, social and cultural development; the moral duty of all nations to eradicate the evil of colonization and alien subjugation.
If we really support those universal values, then we need to possess the moral courage to accept the cost in practical terms- a cost that Canada was more than willing to pay when its own or its allies’ rights were threatened.
A right to self defense means in practical terms a right to carry arms and a right to counter violence with violence. For the same violence inflicted by occupying powers (invited by colonially-instituted puppet regimes or not) will be claimed by the occupied. From the legitimacy of the law of war that endows people to put trust in their armed forces and the necessity at times of armed conflicts, Canadians should understand if not accept the violence inflicted against their or their allied troops at war. Canadian troops do what they are told, we are constantly reminded. “Enemy” troops are no different.
Omar Khadr, 15 years old or 45, was doing what he was told and possibly what he believed to be defending an occupied land. And yet, he is denied Prisoner of War status, something even Nazi foot soldiers were not. He is charged with murder; a crime constantly committed by American and Canadian troops in Afghanistan[2]. Under The Hague Regulations and Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts,
Khadr is entitled to POW status for a reason, he is classified as a soldier or belligerent. But we do not want to think of Khadr as a soldier (let alone a child), and all the universal values attached to that label regardless of the side one is fighting against. The same way we would rather stick to a debate about some values and not others, and ultimately in isolation of the person in question or his alleged actions.
This is how drastic the debate has shifted in Canada away from what this war is all about and into the abstract sanitized space of moral values and legal rights. And that should not come as a surprise; given that the debate is not about Khadr, but rather about our ….values.
[1] United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 1514 adopted in 1960, which all countries are obliged to respect.
[2] Human Rights estimates dozens of children killed by ISAF since the invasion of Afghanistan.
Review: Taxi to the Dark Side
This past week, I had the opportunity to check out the Oscar-winning detainee torture documentary Taxi to the Dark Side.
The film was written and directed by Alex Gibney, of Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room and Who Killed the Electric Car? fame.
Taxi’s title refers to a young Afghan cab driver named Dilawar, whose plight was made public several years ago in a series of articles written by Tim Golden for the New York Times.
Shortly after picking up a fare in the eastern province of Khost, Dilawar was stopped by Afghan militiamen at a checkpoint. He and the three men he was chauffeuring were accused of being responsible for rocket attacks on an American army base in the region.
With nothing more than the word of the militiamen as evidence against them, the four were handed over to the American forces at Bagram detention center.
The men were questioned by poorly-trained interrogators that were given deliberately vague guidelines as to the kinds of techniques that they were allowed to employ.
Dilawar was handcuffed and chained to the ceiling of his small cell in a standing position, so that he could not fall asleep. The sleep deprivation was aimed at making him more pliable during interrogation.
The guards at Bagram believed they were explicitly authorized to use force to control detainees. It was thought that they were not allowed to strike the prisoners above the waist, but they were allowed to deliver strikes to pressure points in the legs in order to facilitate compliance. Guards were not impressed with Dilawar’s cries and pleas for help. They would take turns kneeing him in the thigh until they grew tired.
“He screamed out, ‘Allah! Allah! Allah!’ and my first reaction was that he was crying out to his god,” Specialist Jones said to investigators. “Everybody heard him cry out and thought it was funny.”
Other Third Platoon M.P.’s later came by the detention center and stopped at the isolation cells to see for themselves, Specialist Jones said.
It became a kind of running joke, and people kept showing up to give this detainee a common peroneal strike just to hear him scream out ‘Allah,’ ” he said. “It went on over a 24-hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes.”
(Source: New York Times)
After five days of torture, Dilawar died. He was killed by heart failure due to “blunt force injuries to the lower extremities.” The army pathologist who examined him ruled his death a homicide.
the tissue in the young man’s legs “had basically been pulpified.”
“I’ve seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus,” added Lt. Col. Elizabeth Rouse, the coroner, and a major at that time.
(Source: New York Times)
When public scrutiny finally fell on the case several years after Dilawar’s death, the military was forced to lay charges. The toughest sentence imposed for the torture and murder of Dilawar was 5 months. Two of the soldiers responsible received sentences of two and three months, respectively. None of the other guards who were convicted in the Dilawar case received any jail time at all. Furthermore, to my knowledge, none of the officers giving the orders, let alone the administration officials who drafted the policies permitting detainee abuse, were ever prosecuted.
Since detainees were denied the fundamental right of habeas corpus, they had no way to challenge their detention. It was later discovered that the Afghan militia leader who turned the four men over to U.S. authorities had himself been launching rockets at the American base. He had been arresting and turning in innocent Afghan civilians to curry favour with the Americans.
Even more frightening, it was later discovered that Dilawar’s captors believed he was innocent from the start:
“Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.”
(Source: New York Times)
The three occupants of Dilawar’s car were eventually released; it was of course too late for Dilawar.
He was one of the first prisoners to die in U.S. custody since the beginning of the War on Terror. He would not be the last.
While the taxi driver’s tragic tale sets the stage for the film, it is not the central focus. Dilawar becomes the anchor of a story that takes us all around the world from Bagram detention center in Afghanistan, to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and finally all the way up the chain to the Oval Office in Washington.
Taxi to the Dark Side persuasively argues that the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere were not the product of a “few bad apples.” Rather, the policies and attitudes that led to detainee abuse were implicitly and sometimes explicitly authorized at the highest levels of the Bush administration.
While the story has certainly been told before, Gibney has a talent for piecing it together succinctly and logically. That, coupled with the fact that the director managed to actually score interviews with Dilawar’s interrogators and abusers, makes this documentary an absolute standout.
I would highly recommend this film to anyone interested in the subjects of criminal law, the “war on terror,” war crimes and atrocities, and international law. While I think that any lay person with even cursory interest in the above subjects would find it disturbing, thought-provoking, and fascinating, the law student will appreciate it on a deeper level.
Trailer
Podcast Feeds
