Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I noted where Justin Trudeau mentioned that Mr. Khadr's Charter rights were violated. Frankly, I'm unsure how.
He is a Canadian citizen, that much is true. But we all know that our Charter rights do not obtain when we are outside Canada. No more than American citizens' rights obtain when they are in our country--much to the chagrin of Americans who claim, when arrested for possession of firearms at our border, that it is their right under the US Constitution to carry firearms. Yes, in the US, they're correct. But in Canada, the US Constitution does not apply.
Similarly, Mr. Khadr was not in Canada when he committed his alleged crime, so I'm starting from the point where the Charter does not apply. It is true that he was captured by US forces, and imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay; but again, that is outside of Canadian jurisdiction. I make no excuses for his treatment there, but it seems to me that he had the right, under the Vienna Convention, to request an interview with the Canadian Embassy in Cuba. If he did not know he had such a right, then the fault lies with the American authorities, who did not inform him of such. From what I understand, the Americans weren't very good at informing all detainees, of whatever nationality, of this right. The US fell down in this regard, in my view.
So what is Mr. Khadr's complaint? That the Canadian government didn't try very hard when he was incarcerated in Cuba? What could it have done, when the US had him, in a foreign country, and was convinced that he was a dangerous terrorist? All kinds of international law come into play here; and as the saying goes, possession is nine-tenths of the law. The US possessed him; there wasn't much Canada could do.
But. At all times, Mr. Khadr was a prisoner of the US, not subject to the Canadian charter, as he was not in Canada. Thus, I am not sure where he has a Charter complaint.
My own view? I'm not happy with how this whole thing was rushed through. It appears to me (and I may be wrong, as I have not analyzed all legal sources yet) that Justin Trudeau rushed this thing through by fiat (or Order in Council), which is not how we like to work nowadays. Certainly veterans' groups are upset, and IMHO, rightly so. So are the ordinary Canadians I meet every day. Still, as a constitutional scholar, I'd like someone more learned than me in the constitution to explain to me how this situation violated Mr. Khadr's Charter rights.
I noted where Justin Trudeau mentioned that Mr. Khadr's Charter rights were violated. Frankly, I'm unsure how.
He is a Canadian citizen, that much is true. But we all know that our Charter rights do not obtain when we are outside Canada. No more than American citizens' rights obtain when they are in our country--much to the chagrin of Americans who claim, when arrested for possession of firearms at our border, that it is their right under the US Constitution to carry firearms. Yes, in the US, they're correct. But in Canada, the US Constitution does not apply.
Similarly, Mr. Khadr was not in Canada when he committed his alleged crime, so I'm starting from the point where the Charter does not apply. It is true that he was captured by US forces, and imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay; but again, that is outside of Canadian jurisdiction. I make no excuses for his treatment there, but it seems to me that he had the right, under the Vienna Convention, to request an interview with the Canadian Embassy in Cuba. If he did not know he had such a right, then the fault lies with the American authorities, who did not inform him of such. From what I understand, the Americans weren't very good at informing all detainees, of whatever nationality, of this right. The US fell down in this regard, in my view.
So what is Mr. Khadr's complaint? That the Canadian government didn't try very hard when he was incarcerated in Cuba? What could it have done, when the US had him, in a foreign country, and was convinced that he was a dangerous terrorist? All kinds of international law come into play here; and as the saying goes, possession is nine-tenths of the law. The US possessed him; there wasn't much Canada could do.
But. At all times, Mr. Khadr was a prisoner of the US, not subject to the Canadian charter, as he was not in Canada. Thus, I am not sure where he has a Charter complaint.
My own view? I'm not happy with how this whole thing was rushed through. It appears to me (and I may be wrong, as I have not analyzed all legal sources yet) that Justin Trudeau rushed this thing through by fiat (or Order in Council), which is not how we like to work nowadays. Certainly veterans' groups are upset, and IMHO, rightly so. So are the ordinary Canadians I meet every day. Still, as a constitutional scholar, I'd like someone more learned than me in the constitution to explain to me how this situation violated Mr. Khadr's Charter rights.
Chevy; your analysis would appear to be in parallel with the facts.
There is only this small excerpt that raises some doubt.
“If your international human rights are known to have been violated, the Government of Canada may take steps to pressure the foreign authorities to abide by their international human rights obligations and provide basic minimum standards of protection,” the federal government’s directions read.
I hardly think that seeming inconsequential contradiction to what actually occurred rises to the Supreme Court supposedly stating the Canadian government having failed in it's obligations.
We "are being led to believe", the point at issue was; as a Canadian citizen he was entitled to Canada observing and subsequently demanding he be treated according to all of the international conventions agreed upon by both nations and that they not only failed to do so but actually may have aided in the process.
We are further being led to believe that had his case progressed without settlement; the Supreme Court of Canada has already indicated it would be predisposed to deciding in his favour.
I'm not liking this issue being announced and completed within what would appear to be "warp 9" on the scale of speed by which these "payout" things normally are moved through the governmental procedures.
I noted where Justin Trudeau mentioned that Mr. Khadr's Charter rights were violated. Frankly, I'm unsure how.
He is a Canadian citizen, that much is true. But we all know that our Charter rights do not obtain when we are outside Canada. No more than American citizens' rights obtain when they are in our country--much to the chagrin of Americans who claim, when arrested for possession of firearms at our border, that it is their right under the US Constitution to carry firearms. Yes, in the US, they're correct. But in Canada, the US Constitution does not apply.
Similarly, Mr. Khadr was not in Canada when he committed his alleged crime, so I'm starting from the point where the Charter does not apply. It is true that he was captured by US forces, and imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay; but again, that is outside of Canadian jurisdiction. I make no excuses for his treatment there, but it seems to me that he had the right, under the Vienna Convention, to request an interview with the Canadian Embassy in Cuba. If he did not know he had such a right, then the fault lies with the American authorities, who did not inform him of such. From what I understand, the Americans weren't very good at informing all detainees, of whatever nationality, of this right. The US fell down in this regard, in my view.
So what is Mr. Khadr's complaint? That the Canadian government didn't try very hard when he was incarcerated in Cuba? What could it have done, when the US had him, in a foreign country, and was convinced that he was a dangerous terrorist? All kinds of international law come into play here; and as the saying goes, possession is nine-tenths of the law. The US possessed him; there wasn't much Canada could do.
But. At all times, Mr. Khadr was a prisoner of the US, not subject to the Canadian charter, as he was not in Canada. Thus, I am not sure where he has a Charter complaint.
My own view? I'm not happy with how this whole thing was rushed through. It appears to me (and I may be wrong, as I have not analyzed all legal sources yet) that Justin Trudeau rushed this thing through by fiat (or Order in Council), which is not how we like to work nowadays. Certainly veterans' groups are upset, and IMHO, rightly so. So are the ordinary Canadians I meet every day. Still, as a constitutional scholar, I'd like someone more learned than me in the constitution to explain to me how this situation violated Mr. Khadr's Charter rights.
I am of a similar view. The government's party line is that it's simply complying the legal and rights framework, and that it had no choice. While I am sure this would likely pass "the legal test", it doesn't really pass the smell test.
He is a Canadian citizen, that much is true. But we all know that our Charter rights do not obtain when we are outside Canada. No more than American citizens' rights obtain when they are in our country--much to the chagrin of Americans who claim, when arrested for possession of firearms at our border, that it is their right under the US Constitution to carry firearms. Yes, in the US, they're correct. But in Canada, the US Constitution does not apply.
Similarly, Mr. Khadr was not in Canada when he committed his alleged crime, so I'm starting from the point where the Charter does not apply. It is true that he was captured by US forces, and imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay; but again, that is outside of Canadian jurisdiction. I make no excuses for his treatment there, but it seems to me that he had the right, under the Vienna Convention, to request an interview with the Canadian Embassy in Cuba. If he did not know he had such a right, then the fault lies with the American authorities, who did not inform him of such. From what I understand, the Americans weren't very good at informing all detainees, of whatever nationality, of this right. The US fell down in this regard, in my view.
So what is Mr. Khadr's complaint? That the Canadian government didn't try very hard when he was incarcerated in Cuba? What could it have done, when the US had him, in a foreign country, and was convinced that he was a dangerous terrorist? All kinds of international law come into play here; and as the saying goes, possession is nine-tenths of the law. The US possessed him; there wasn't much Canada could do.
But. At all times, Mr. Khadr was a prisoner of the US, not subject to the Canadian charter, as he was not in Canada. Thus, I am not sure where he has a Charter complaint.
+1
This is exactly what I argued.......he was captured in combat by American forces and detained in an US prison (so there was no "rendition" as someone tried to argue). I'm not questioning his mistreatment (other foreign nationals and US citizens were treated in this way at GITMO, the Khadr case is not unique). I do not think there was anything Canada could do to take him out of there.
His large compensation leave a lot of bad taste in a lot of people mouths and it may end up being, potentially, a public relation disaster for Canada.
Last edited by saturno_v; 07-11-2017 at 03:56 PM..
This is exactly what I argued.......he was captured in combat by American forces and detained in an US prison (so there was no "rendition" as someone tried to argue). I'm not questioning his mistreatment (other foreign nationals and US citizens were treated in this way at GITMO, the Khadr case is not unique). I do not think there was anything Canada could do to take him out of there.
His large compensation leave a lot of bad taste in a lot of people mouths.
He was renditioned. Darn it!
ren·di·tion:
"the practice of sending a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly to be interrogated in a country with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners."
We've been over this before. He was captured and flown to Guantanamo Bay so as to enable him to be treated with disregard to the various conventions governing prisoners of war far from any prying eyes. Ergo; "renditioned".
"The answer to why the detainees were not evacuated and instead forced to ride out the storm on Cuba seems obvious in light of this report: Their lawyers probably would have advised them to sue the pants off the US upon touching US soil."
"They also warn that the Bush Administration, having taken so many prisoners outside the realm of the law, may not be able to bring them back in. By holding detainees indefinitely, without counsel, without charges of wrongdoing, and under circumstances that could, in legal parlance, “shock the conscience” of a court, the Administration has jeopardized its chances of convicting hundreds of suspected terrorists, or even of using them as witnesses in almost any court in the world."
Khadr killed people, made explosives and is a POS. No amount of mental gymnastics will change that. It's a sad state of affairs in the world when the criminals are the victims, but that's how liberals roll.
"the practice of sending a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly to be interrogated in a country with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners."
We've been over this before. He was captured and flown to Guantanamo Bay so as to enable him to be treated with disregard to the various conventions governing prisoners of war far from any prying eyes. Ergo; "renditioned".
"The answer to why the detainees were not evacuated and instead forced to ride out the storm on Cuba seems obvious in light of this report: Their lawyers probably would have advised them to sue the pants off the US upon touching US soil."
"They also warn that the Bush Administration, having taken so many prisoners outside the realm of the law, may not be able to bring them back in. By holding detainees indefinitely, without counsel, without charges of wrongdoing, and under circumstances that could, in legal parlance, “shock the conscience” of a court, the Administration has jeopardized its chances of convicting hundreds of suspected terrorists, or even of using them as witnesses in almost any court in the world."
Once again; you say potato; I say rendition.
Maybe is my wrong interpretation of rendition...he was not handed to the authorities of a different country, GITMO is run by the US Military and technically Guantanamo Bay is US territory. He was always in US custody and there was nothing "covert" about it.
Maher Arar was indeed renditioned to Syria.
P.S.
I'm pretty sure my original statement still stand, Omar Khadr was technically not a rendition case...the legal experts can chime in.
Last edited by saturno_v; 07-11-2017 at 09:02 PM..
... GITMO is run by the US Military and technically Guantanamo Bay is US territory.
Well, if you want to speak technically, the US base at Guantanamo Bay is Cuban territory. The US just rents it, under a lease agreement, that was agreed upon before Castro took power. It is, de facto, US territory; but it is ultimately, de jure, Cuban territory.
As I understand things, the US has paid the rent each year, by check. Cuba never cashes the checks.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure my original statement still stand, Omar Khadr was technically not a rendition case...the legal experts can chime in.
If this is a request for me to contribute, I'm afraid that I cannot. At least not right now. I'd have to do a lot of research into such matters before I could speak knowledgeably; and I have a lot more paying matters on my plate, if you know what I mean.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
