In Accordance With Canadian Law

The developing story of Omar Khadr, a former child soldier, is now familiar to most Canadians. Held in Guantanamo Bay since his capture in Afghanistan at the age of 15 in 2002 and tried before a military commission in 2010, Khadr accepted a plea bargain deal – guilty of multiple charges, including murder and terrorism – in exchange for an eight-year sentence. The catch: Only one year would have to be served at the now-notorious detention facility.

In an exchange of diplomatic notes between Canada and the United States, the Harper government suggested it would be "inclined to favourably consider” Khadr's transfer back to Canada. Now a formal transfer request sits on the desk of Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, and his office has only replied that a decision will be made “in accordance with Canadian law.”

The government’s attachment to “Canadian law” would be touching had it not been so egregiously ignored in the recent past. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled twice on Khadr’s case, strongly condemning Canadian officials who were complicit in his interrogation process at Guantanamo Bay, which violated his charter rights and international human rights laws, and judicially demanding disclosure of the videotapes of those interrogations.

The U.S. military commission that tried Khadr would have imposed a 40-year sentence, the length of which hints at obvious legal and ethical flaws. In any event, the entire legal regime of the Guantanamo military commissions falls short of both Canadian and international standards, and has been roundly condemned by legal scholars, jurists, and civil society organizations the world over. Ironically, given the extra-territorial reach of Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, had he been returned to Canada in 2001, Khadr could have been tried at home, “in accordance with Canadian law” and with the safeguards built into our criminal justice system.

Since 2009 Khadr has been the only citizen of a western state still held in Guantanamo Bay. Both Australia and the United Kingdom have successfully petitioned for the repatriation of their citizens; only Canada failed to do so.

It is no state secret that American authorities would be more than happy to be rid of Khadr. No doubt public sympathy failed to materialize for him and therefore, political pressure became difficult to generate on his behalf, partially because of the nature of his family’s beliefs and activities, dubbed by the media as Canada’s “first family of terrorism.”

Leaving aside questions that continue to hover over his legal or factual guilt, Khadr is most properly considered either a child soldier under international law that Canada purports to uphold, or a youth criminal justice offender under domestic criminal law. Indeed, Khadr’s case should be decided “in accordance with Canadian law” – what makes this case continually distressing is that Canadian law has never been upheld.

It is time to finally bring Omar Khadr home – into the Canadian criminal justice system, where his legal team can advocate successfully for its client, giving him the same opportunities for rehabilitation and re-entry into Canadian society as any other first-time offender.

Original Article
Source: the mark news
Author: Barbara J. Falk