Local Stations 
 

Pick your location

All CTV Stations

 

Related TV Shows

Gossip Girl

Gossip Girl

Gossip Girl

Gossip Girl

Gossip Girl

CTV News | Supreme Court ruling a partial win for Omar Khadr

Top Stories -   

News Sections

Canada

World

Entertainment

Sports

Business

Sci-Tech

Health

Politics

Weather

News Programs

CTV National News with Lloyd Robertson

Canada AM

W5

Features

Autos

Consumer

Browse:

Video

Galleries

MyNews

News Team Bios

Sign up for Alerts, Mednews Express, weather and more

Home

Schedule

Home : Top Stories : Supreme Court ruling a partial win for Omar Khadr

Supreme Court ruling a partial win for Omar Khadr

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News: Rosemary Thompson on the decision
Mike Duffy Live: U.S. Navy Lt.-Cmdr. William Kuebler, Omar Khadr's lawyer and Amir Attaran, law professor at the University of Ottawa
Mike Duffy Live: Alexa McDonough, NDP international development critic, James Moore, Parl. sec. to public works minister and Irwin Cotler, Liberal human rights critic
Canada AM: Nathan Whitling, lawyer for Omar Khadr
Canada AM: Paul Champ, lawyer for Amnesty International

Watch: See all Videos in the Player

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(63)

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Fri. May. 23 2008 1:04 PM ET

Omar Khadr won a limited victory in the Supreme Court of Canada Friday, but his lawyer had hoped for more.

In a 9-0 ruling, the SCC said that Khadr has a constitutional right to material related to interviews conducted by Canadian officials in 2003 at Guantanamo Bay.

But the ruling allows the government to object to releasing some documents for national security reasons. The SCC ruling also said that Khadr does not have the right to access some of the documents that Ottawa holds regarding the case.

Khadr's Canadian lawyer, Nathan Whitling, told Canada AM that the ruling contained both "good and bad news."

Whitling said that he won't get many of the documents he wanted.

A Federal Court judge will review the materials and decide which ones to disclose.

The SCC decision was based on a "U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2004 that said that the Guantanamo Bay process violates international law," CTV's Rosemary Thompson told Canada AM Friday.

The ruling could have far-flung implications as legal experts say it could decide whether, diplomats, intelligence officials and military officials are bound to uphold the Charter of Rights in overseas dealings.

"The process in place at Guantanamo Bay at the time Canadian officials interviewed K(hadr) and passed on the fruits of the interviews to U.S. officials has been found by the U.S. Supreme Court ... to violate U.S. domestic law and international human rights obligations to which Canada subscribes,'' the ruling said.

Khadr, now 21, is the only remaining Western prisoner at Guantanamo Bay. The Canadian government, unlike other Western nations who had citizens detained there, has not pushed to have Khadr returned home.

Khadr was captured in 2002 following a firefight with U.S. Special Forces. He was taken to Afghanistan by his father, who had ties to al Qaeda and was killed in Pakistan in 2003. The Pentagon maintains Khadr threw a grenade during the fight, killing a U.S. soldier.

Foreign Affairs and CSIS officials questioned Khadr at Guantanamo in 2003, and shared their findings with the U.S.

With files from The Canadian Press 

Comments are now closed for this story

K McQuay
said

I am glad that the Harper government has refused to intervene in Khadr's case. This is a young man who chose to fight against our allies and against the Canadian cause and now hopes to escape the consequences by wrapping himself in the Canadian flag. The choices we make have consequences and now Khadr has to face the consequences of his choice.


Nick
said

Just what was a 15 yr old Toronto-Born Canadian fighting in Afghanistan? I believe at that age you have a sense of values that borders on some basic adult right/wrong etc.
If Khadr was in a gun battle fighting against Allies and was caught he is a prisoner/detainee and should be treated that way. I don't care if he is 15 yrs old. What was he doing there in the first place???


david williams
said

I hope the Supreme Court rules that it cannot seize itself of jurisdiction as the action and consequences occurred outside Canada.
The fact that a Canadian was involved does not give this Court the right to impose Canadian law on a Court outside Canada.
To do something like that would send a strong message to people that says 'it's ok to contravene the laws of another country, we will step in and rescue you'.


Rob O.
said

Step away from the Khadr case, and look at the broader issue.

The protection of our rights abroad is a fundamental issue. I am glad this case is going to the SCC. Let Khadr's lawyers have access to the documents. They should be able to defend themselves properly. It is the evidence which will find himself guilty.

On a granular level. He was not fighting against Canada. He was defending his country from those who invaded it. Imagine another country invading Canada, and you fight against the invaders, and then you go to jail for it...

The evidence will find him guilty or not, but fairness should be a fundamental right


John-Pembroke
said

He was a kid, a child, and now the only remaining NATO citizen left in an illegal human rights breaking dungeon. I am ashamed that our goverment has done nothing to help this poor child who was led astray by his family.


DD
said

Khadr was 15. He didn't "choose" anything. He was forced into a situation and it's insane to hold him responsible. There isn't even enough proof to say he threw the grenade. The witnesses said "it came from his direction" where he was laying wounded.

We wouldn't put a 15 year old boy in prison here for 7 years without representation and with such flimsy evidence. Why do we allow the US to do it? It seems all they have to do is apply a title (terrorist) to him and suddenly it's a different animal altogether.

How about they apply a different title? A terrified 15 year old BOY.

This is a disgrace to the Harper government and only proves that they are sucking up to the US...and Khadr has to suffer because of it. Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful.


James in Calgary
said

The USA invaded a sovereign nation and the people of that nation defended themselves. If it is OK to attack and kill them why is it not OK for them to defend their country? Does this mean that Canadian soldiers could put on their uniforms march into America start killing their citizens and when the US citizens defend themselves we could charge them as criminals?

I find it repugnant that Stevie has refused to apply diplomatic pressure to have this child soldier released and repatriated. He was in Afganistan at the time that the alleged crimes were commited they only nation with standing to charge him with a crime is Afganistan.


Eric S. Smith
said

Never mind imagining a Canadian arrested for repelling a foreign invasion -- imagine a Canadian arrested for participating in an invasion. Everybody here would be carrying on about how soldiering isn't a crime and how we should be bombing the offending country continuously until the prisoner was released.

In this case, the evidence, as it is slowly leaking out, begins to suggest that Khadr didn't even commit the crime -- shooting back! -- of which he's accused. Ah, but I guess a blanket charge of "consorting with known foreigners" would satisfy the mob here. After all, the guy's grown a beard, which shows that the forces of justice were right all along.


Alex
said

I don't think it's all that far-fetched that the SCC has extended Charter protection to Omar Khadr, who many conveniently forget is a Canadian citizen who has been interrogated by Canadian officials i.e. CSIS, etc. outside of Canada. There is quite an abundance of case law in support of the general principle that in cases such as extradition, wherein Canadian officials provide investigative support to foreign officials, such actions must comport with the due process rights protected under the Charter.


Jim
said


The poor kid, he was only 15. How would he know it was wrong to throw grenades at people? How would he know that fighting in a military combat would result in some sort of consequence. Wake up people.

I have an 11 year old. She knows that shooting and killing is wrong. Our government should do nothing to help this guy.

He is a POW and until the hostilities are renounced by his organization he should stay where he is.

sistoh
said

Finally, an ounce of justice for this Canadian!!! Shame on the Canadian government for not doing more for Khadr, especially when the US government hasn't provided a shred of evidence to back up their accusations. Diplomats, "intelligence" officers, and military officials should absolutely be bound to uphold the Charter of Rights anywhere in the world - we can never be selective when it comes to human rights and due process. I think it's morally reprehensible that the US and Canadian governments are persecuting a child in their war on "terror" - what they've done to Khadr reeks of desperation and illegitimacy, and is absolutely shameful. This young man has already had 6 years of his life stolen, and one can only imagine the psychological and physical torture he's endured in Guantanamo. He needs to be returned to Canada immediately, released on bail, heavily compensated by both the US and Canadian government, and then afforded a fair trial on what I suspect are false charges to begin with.


Beverly Nelson-Walker
said

How sad that we have so vilified a 15 year old boy, influenced by his father for all of his young lifetime, that we would deny him rights under our Canadian charter, as we have with Omar Khadr. Although this boy was raised for many years in Canada I would suspect that he was always made to feel an alien and we have certainly not treated him as either a child, under the definition of 'child soldier' or as a Canadian. we certainly 'talk the talk' but we don't 'walk the walk' when it comes to international treaties that we as a country have signe.


Mike Webster
said

He is not a soldier nor is he a child. Soldiers serve in legally recognized miltary forces, wear accepted and recognizable uniforms and obey the laws and customs of warfare. ... Like most Canadians, I'm glad that our government has done the right thing and left him to face his just punishment.


Eric
said

So what about German soldiers near the end of WWII??? The ones that never left Germany, and were defending their land from allied invaders. They were imprisoned by the Americans, Brits, and Russians. Worst of all, they carried the label NAZI all their life and no one had a a problem with that. They were just 'BOYS' too.


Zaphod
said

Rob O. is fundamentally wrong in his comments.
Khadr's country is Canada, or at least he claims so. He was fighting against Canadian allies in a U.N. sanctioned NATO operation. His actions are treasonable and he should be judged on that basis.
To those who make much of his tender age, remember that Canada's oldest and last surviving veteran of the First World War was fifteen when he joined the Canadian army. Individuals at that age certainly should understand right from wrong and the concept that actions have consequences.


Judy
said

Khadr was born in Canada and went to Pakistan with his father to fight, his country is Canada. If you participate in unsavoury action, then you should pay the price.


Dean
said

Our laws have no jurisdiction anywhere but here. He was a combatant and since he was captured, all he is entitled to is to be treated as a POW. Why should we go to bat for him? At 15, a person is certainly aware of what is right or wrong and that any action has results, good or bad. He was caught, too bad. Let it be a lesson for all those "would be" combatants. As for the argument that he was forced into it, there's no proof of that.


Ian K
said

I think holding a person for more than 5 years without laying charges and a trial is enough to release him.

However charging him would have been good. Afghanistan under the Taliban provided safe-haven and operating bases for Al Queda and so, in light of 9/11, the US was fully justified in invading. Khadr fought as an irregular' and so is not covered by the Geneva Convention. He could have surrendered but did not and therefore has to suffer the consequences. A 15 year-old knows right from wrong and how to wave a white flag; untold thousands of German 15 year-olds surrendered to the Allies in WW 2. Those who fought often died.

Canada's refusal to help Khadr is good. It sends a clear message to any Canadian contemplating such action: if you're caught, you're totally on your own.

Strange that SCOC ignored the fact that CSIS interviewd Khadr a year before the US Supreme Court ruling about Guantanimo. A case of 'after the fact' (ex post facto) law. That's usually a legal no-no.


dawn
said

This kid has been in gitmo since he was 15 years old and our government has turned a blind eye to his blight and that is absolutely disgusting because we know from what others have said that they were tortured not by *muslim radicals* but by one of our allies. DISGUSTING AND WRONG


DW
said

Mr Omar Khadr is still and should still be treated as a combatant. He fought against our troops and the Americans and should be held accountable for his actions. He has acted against Canada by his own actions and should be deported back to his original home. If this is not done Canada should then be held responsible for harbouring terrorists, and pay the consequences for that.



CM
said

The fact remains the Khadrs involved themselves in a conflict that was not supported by Canada. At no time has Canada been in armed combat against the US. Why should the Khadrs be able to use their Canadian ties now after the fact? Why didn't they stand behind Canada and not involve themselves right from the start? Khadr's father took him overseas and as such, his own family is responsible for this young kid being in a place where he shouldn't have been. As a Canadian, I don't want to be held responsible for poor choices that this one family makes.


PBW
said

SO much criticism! Was it not the LIBERALS in power when Afghanistan was invaded? Was it not the government of Chretien and Martin that sent Canadian troops there?

Vis a vis Khadr, one poster says he was "defending his country"; but he is Canadian - isn't that what all the fuss is about? And what if it had been Canadian troops he killed with his grenade - would we still be claiming his innocence? Oops, I forgot: at that point the Youth Criminal Justice Act would apply, and as a first-time offender, he would simply get probation and a good talking to by the judge. Other nations, though, have a different approach to crime, whether in peace or in war.

We must be very careful that all Canadians who travel abroad understand that in a foreign country they are subject to the laws of that country, and any penalties that apply. Similarly, any Canadian citizen travelling to a country where civil strife or war is in progress must be warned that different rules apply.

While our Charter has many good points(?), it only applies to Canadians IN CANADA. We cannot expect other nations to honour our charter over their own laws - that would be the height of arrogance on our part.


deedee1818
said

Firstly no one seems to ask the question: why are US, Canadian prisoners held in Cuba, i.e. a country the US also calls a terrorist state......maybe because they can torture 'prisoners' there but not on US or Cdn. soil? There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this child did what he was accused of...only that he was born in to a family that the US has been chasing. 15 years' brains aren't fully developed to make informed and consentual decisions about anything (ever had your 15 year old take your car for a spin, throw a party while you weren't home, stay out longer than their curfew, drink underage...etc. etc.). As previously perfectly stated this boy was put in a position (if he did it) to defend himself and his parents homeland. You and I would surely do the same if our country was invaded and under seige. God forgive us all for allowing these autracoties to occur under 'our watch'.


David in Canada
said

Rob O:
Omar Khadr was born in Toronto. He is as Canadian as I am.
He was not defending his homeland. He is alleged to have attacked US soldiers in July of 2002. As a reminder, Canadian Forces were in Afghanistan at that time (as they remain today). He is alleged to have engaged in combat against an allied force. If he were to be brought to Canada, he could possibly be tried for Treason.


Chris
said

Why is it that anytime there is an issue in a foreign country, we get people on here preaching about how those other countries should uphold Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms? It's a great document, to be sure, but there is absolutely no way we can force another country to abide by it. Why can't people get that through their heads? Would it be great if every country followed the Charter? Absolutely! Unfortunately, we cannot impose our laws on something that has happened in another country.

Brenda Martin, I'm looking at you.


mac
said

It wasn't a UN-sanctioned NATO operation when the US invaded.

UN and NATO got involved to try and preserve something of the world order that the US regime was and is dedicated to destroying . . . because the US has realized it can't win unless it cheats.





Gary Keigan
said

It's easy to judge when events occur that are against our beliefs and principles. I do not believe that wars occur because people like to fight and kill. All soldiers, in my opinion, risk their lives for what they belive to be a true cause, and for what they have been taught is rightous. Imagine, and oh my goodness, what if our opinion on what is right and wrong, was incorrect and that those we prosecute, were actually correct. We judge the world against what we belive to be true. All soldiers that fight in war have risked their lives for their belifs and their to defend their country and way of life. Please remember, regardless of age, soldiers belive that what they are doing is correct. Now obviously, someone must be wrong, however, in my opinion, a soldiers motive should never be in question, regardless of who's side they are on. I just wanted to throw a different approach to insight. Please do not think I am anti American or Canadian. I fully support soldiers from both countries, however, a fifteen year old in pretty easy to brainwash especially when it came from his father. Did he know what he was doing was wrong or was he simply trying to preserve he country and ways of life, as I think we all would.


DD
said

Jim, he's not a POW. He is being held as an enemy combatant without the rights that are given to POWs. He is subject to interrogation and is being TRIED for the "crime" he was supposed to have committed without having access to the information he needs to defend himself.

If Canada was invaded by another nation, would you still think it is wrong for your 11 year old daughter to defend herself????????????

Perspective. Too many here lack that.


truthseeker
said

When I was 16 I joined the Canadian Army Reserves. A couple months after my basic training was complete the Sept.11th attacks happened. On that very day I was called and asked from our government if I was willing to be shipped anywhere in the world within 24 hours. I said YES in a heart beat, because when America was attacked, Canada was attacked, we are allies to the end!
It turned out I was not needed, but none the less I was prepared to die for Canada, and its allies. I made that decision knowing that I could be captured and killed over in the Middle East.

Khadr was 15; he knew exactly what he was doing, he deserves to be in prison. Some Canadian’s should grow a spine, and stop being sympathetic to someone who tried to fight against Canada and its allies.



Vince M.
said

Who is paying for these lawyers?


CS
said

Now that it has been proven that there were no "weapons of mass destruction", when is Bush going to be put up for war crimes in an international?


Chris
said

First of all, "Canada" was in combat against the US, that is the primary difference between our peoples, have we so soon forgotten the history of our countries?

Second, the US paid a $500,000 bounty on Khadr and Canada knew about it for one year. Canadian intelligence questioned Khadr after they knew that the bounty had been paid. That makes Canada complicit in supporting torture of its own citizens.

Third, he is a child citizen of Canada. You cannot simply say, "Oh, well this one, well, he's 15, but he should know better, therefore I'm redefining adult down to 15 from 18." That sort of precedent comes from the supreme court.

Fourth, Canada has now decided to turn a blind eye to suspension of habeus corpus. The US and the UK have already done this, and it's in their laws, so it's no surprise we would follow suit. Do you really believe that habeus corpus should not be a universal right?

Fifth, even if this man wasn't a child at the time of his incarceration, it would not change the fundamental problems with this case. The age issue is just the icing on the US torture cake.

Oh wait, right, the US doesn't torture, Pakistan does. Fortunately we allow outsourcing for that kind of thing. Dirty work by a dirty people, glad we don't have to do it...


Joanne from Barrie
said

My eyes cannot believe some of the postings that are before me.

The reason that this country is in trouble with our youth is because of the bleeding hearts that view this individual as a "POOR BOY"

Give your heads a shake people, have we all forgotten our fight against terrorism? This boy was fighting AGAINST us, not very becoming of a Canadian citizen.

I am extremely satisfied that Mr. Harper has stayed out of this issue, and allowed the chips to fall as they may.

Lets all stay focused, and try to battle terrorism one day at a time.


Willis Goldman
said

The arguments that he was defending a sovereign nation from outside attack and that he was at the same time, too young to bare the consequences of his decision are both weak and ultimately, inconsequential.

The real issue here is that a Canadian citizen outside his country has no protection from his government when he is arrested, tortured and allowed to rot in an illegal bedlum set up by our 'ally'. That's right, no trial, no sentence, just some good ol' vigilante justice reminiscent of the days when black slaves were given the same privileges when they were illegally tortured, beaten and hung from trees. Bravo Harper, way to show to show your pedigree





Kevin D
said

Even though everyone wants to argue about the Khadr case that is not what went to the SCC. The SCC was looking into documents made by Canadian diplomats working on a task for a Canadian citizen. The SCC has made a statement that it doesn't matter where Canadian diplomats are working in the world they must respect and follow Canadian law as if they were in Canada. The fact that it has to do with the Khadr case is coincidental to this ruling as these documents being released aren't going to clear Khadr's name and they're not going to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As for the Khadr case, Canada should have been pushing to have the case heard but not for his direct release. It is unjust to both sides to have a case linger 7 years before seeing a judgment as it makes it more difficult for the prosecution to get witnesses to recall with accuracy what happened 7 years ago which will mean there will be more conflicting statements between prosecution witnesses. On the flip side the defendent has to wait 7 years to find out the result which while the delay probably helps his case he is incarcerated during that time.


Mike Webster
said

Mac...check your facts. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, NATO voted unanimously to invoke article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty - the part which declared an attack on one NATO member to be an attack on all NATO members. In other words, it was a NATO sanctioned operation from the beginning and under international law, countries that are attacked (as the US was on 9/11) have the right to fight back. Contrary to what some may wish to believe, the UN is not some world governing body that has power over any soverign government. Whether they agreed with the retaliatory attack on Afghanistan or not is completely irrelevant. In fact, it's almost as irrelevant as the UN itself has become.


Vince M
said

Wrong, wrong, wrong, James in Calgary. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The U.S. did not invade a sovereign country. NATO invaded Afghanistan after the U.N. approved the intervention. The intervention only went ahead when the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden.

This is basic stuff.




Terry K.
said

For those of you going on how he is a soldier just defending his country...where is his uniform? Right, he didn't have one on. So I guess he isn't a soldier.

And I don't have to remind you that he's Canadian, not Afghan. There is no defending his home land here.

And he was fighting one of our NATO allies. And for those of you who say the US invaded Afghanistan, do you not remember why?? Or do you think it's ok for over 3000 people to die and there be no response??


Paul in BC
said

The Supreme Court of Canada was correct in its decision in respect to Omar Khadr.

When governments act outside the rule of international and Canadian law we have the checks and balances in place to correct their errors.

We should never forget; Canada is known as a decent country and when we forget to treat others as we would treat ourselves we become what we ourselves condemn in others.


Ian from N.B.
said

This is not the U.S.'s call to make, he is one of our citizens and should be tried in our country. If he's guilty then you'd hear no sympathy from me, but let's just get him back so we can actually try him and see the end of it.

I also believe that, while he may have been aware of his actions, he may not have had a choice. Think of it, allied soldiers in front of you, muslim fundamentalist soldiers behind you. Which ever way you run is a shot in the back, he was a kid back then and that is a huge desicion to make especially when in one direction is your own father. Those are difficult desicions to make especially when a gun battle is going on. Give the kid a little bit of sympathy, war makes a person do stupid things, just ask George...


Hope
said

I would normally say "Let the chips fall were they may", but there is something fishy here.

They have had this young man in custody for 6 or 7 years and have not taken him to trial -- which can only mean that they have very little if any incriminately evidence!! I think they are still trying to find away to get out of this mess without getting egg all over their face!!

As for the war on Terror and the Americans (Homeland Security), I gave up having much faith in any of their information after they accused Canada of spying on them using the red Poppy that was put on some Canadian coins!!!

They have not been able to produce any of these
"Weapons of Mass Destruction". The purported reason they invaded Iraq. I also remember them stating quite clearly that Great Britian and the US did not need any help from other countries with regard to the invasion of Iraq.
It didn't take them long to figure out that they had bitten off more than they could chew -- American Intelligence again!

For all those who want to have this young man deported to his own country -- it is my understanding that he was born in Canada, so you are, in fact, saying that you want him returned to Canada.

The sad thing about this war on terrorism is that Bin Laden and his crew don't have to do anything else in North America. The Americans are already in high paranoia mode.


Aaron in Toronto
said

It is interesting to read some of the comments that point the finger at the Harper's government when this happened while we were under the Liberal government. So what if he was born as a Canadian? Was he representing Canada during combat? If not, then it happened outside of Canada and we should not get involve. If it's okay for the Liberal not to act then why it is not okay for the PC government to stick to the Liberal path? I only see double standard here and quite frankly I am sick of the Khadr's family to pull the Canadian card when it works to their advantage.


James from Calgary
said

Yes Khadr was fighting against allied forces.

Yes he is a Canadian citizen.

Though, one of the fundamental issues about the invasion of Afghanistan is that NATO was not fighting against an organized army. They declared war against the Taliban, the government of Afghanistan that we (NATO) helped to gain power. None of the Taliban's fighters had/have uniforms; does that make all of them 'unlawful combatants'? They were not dressed like soldiers so does that mean that they were not soldiers?

I think the lines are getting more and more blurry the more the invasion is scrutinized.

As Canadians we have to choose to support Khadar or strip him of his citizenship.

If we choose not to strip his citizenship then he is as deserving of our help as Brenda Martin was. She was found guilty of money laundering, applied to serve her sentence in Canada and we spent thousands to repatriate her and get her out on bail.

If Khadar is a Canadian citizen will must do the same for him.

If we do nothing; what does it mean? Do we have separate rules for different classes of Canadians? Do we stop being Canadian if our crime is distasteful of politically ackward?



JB
said

I thought people in this country were innocent until proven guilty. The boy should have a fair trial and then we can talk about his guilt -- 5 years is to long to wait for a trial.


Bernard Romanycia
said

What's the supreme court's ruling on JIHAD? Bunch of legal beagle boneheads.
This holy war has been going on long before Canada was ever a country and even had a constitution.


John
said

These guys just laugh at us and our justice system ... they know damn well that, even when caught in the act they always have a chance of getting away with it. And when it's a crime as severe as this one, that is incomprehensible to me. Terrible decision.


Grim
said

Rob O.
Khadr was fighting to defend his country? I thought he held dual Canadain and Pakistani citizenship? How is fighting in Afghanistan defending his country? Give your head a shake.


David Biggs (Dave - Ottawa)
said

He was a foreign national in Afghanistan to receive terrorist training, he had a Canadian passport guess where he was going to return. The US invaded & he became a foreign fighter participating in a deadly ambush on American troops. He got injured & captured, boo hoo.

Until he's been convicted he can't be returned to Canada to serve his sentence (probably in a Club Fed). He would doubtless qualify for early parole Canadian style and be released to a halfway house in Toronto. Kind of brings a tear to your eye. Hello Toronto tick tock.


Cara B
said

He is officially NOT a POW. There are no POW's at Gitmo because the US refuses to follow the international rules for detaining POW's so they created an entirely new status of "enemy combatant" to get away with this. The existence of Gitmo itself and what they do there does not follow the rules for POW's just as they have not been following the 'customs of warfare'. The US is making up the rules and new laws as it goes along to justify what they are doing. Their own court system has ruled against what they have done and continue to do, so they created their own 'court system' just to deal with 'enemy combatants'. What international rules and customs are they following here??? They are violating basic human rights and Canada is turning a blind eye.

To Terry K - The US has invaded Iraq in an unprovoked attack (ie no weapons of mass destruction, that was made up as they went along as well) and killed far in excess of 3,000 of it's citizens, many of them totally innocent. But apparently it's ok for THEM to do it?




Socialism is killing us
said

Gotta love all the bleeding hearts on here. A 15 year old knows the difference between right and wrong. He didn't defend Canada but fought against it in a UN sanctioned, Nato led war approved by the Liberals (Chretien) and extended by the Liberals (Martin). I know all the bleeding hearts, if they were attacked by Khadr would nicely sit him down and politely ask him to not kill them while he's stabbing them in the back.


ance
said

The fundamental issue here is due process of the law.

If the evidence supports the case against him...
if the evidence does not support the case against him...there is no case for withholding the information.

The courtroom he will be tried in is completely closed. It is absolutely secret so the "national security" exclusion is hogwash.

Let the evidence speak... it should settle things.

Even if he is guilty, why should anyone be tried on speculation alone?

It doesn't fit for a country that is supposed to be a model for democracy.


Ray
said

he knew what he was doing, that can not be disputed because of what the rest of the family was involved in. If my 15 went to another country and particpated she would know first it wrong and second there would be consequences.

Also, even if he did not throw the grenade he was party to the incident and just like in regular crimanl law in even if you dont fire the gun you are still responsible for murder.

CDN government should not do anything and by particpating in this situation he has shown he is not a CDN. He is (be honest) the junior terrorist in a family of terrorists.

At his age you know right from wrong, that simple and know he should not be allowed to hide behind the freedoms he was fighting against.


DG
said

Relax people! The SCC said he has the right to a fair trial. They didn't say he was innocent.


LM
said

Summary

1) I'm a Canadian
2) I support my terrorist ties and want to kill Canadians and Americans.
3) I'm a Canadian and didn't know what I was doing --help me Canada.

Maybe he can claim insanity?


Scott
said

I'm confused. "He was attacking his county's invaders" and "He's the only Westerner still in custody". Last I checked, Canada wasn't invaded, so if Afghanistan is his country, let the Afghan government stick up for the kid. Canadians who joined the Nazi movement in WWII were not protected by Canadian law when captured by the US, what makes this little killer any different?


WTJ from Calgary
said

The usual cocaphony of ignorance and heartlessness is always so loud in this country; this was a 15 year old child, he was a child soldier who under international law can not be tried or treated as an adult, except if they're Muslims apparantly because "Christian" Child soldiers of Africa were all taken to safety, rehabilitated and released to their respective nations. But there is no maniacal wrath like that of the hypocritical war criminal Americans, right? And their allies in Canada, apparently.

He was a child.


Adam
said

After looking at the results from the poll (do you agree with the supreme court`s ruling in favour of khadr) I`m quite confused. At the time that I`m looking the results are clearly in disagreement with the supreme court`s ruling. Is this because people misunderstood the question, or is there a good reason that people feel that Omar Khadr does not deserve to receive a fair trial. In other words why (if there is more information pertinant to the case)would you not want the information brought to light? Is it because of racism? If his name was John Smith, would the results be the same? Why would people want information to be witheld by the supreme court?


Linna
said

Jim ... khadr is not classified or treated as a POW by the Americans ... remember? Kkadr has been a prisoner of the United States government for seven years without classification, charges or lawyers. If Khadr was a POW, the Geneva conventions would protect him and provide legal guidlines for the Americans to follow in their treatement of the boy. Your daughter may know its wrong to kill but, if you, her father, told her that it was her duty to protect you and her mother and her family from 'foreign invaders', she would pick up arms and do what you told her because she loves and trusts you. That makes YOU the criminal, not your innocent child.


Mike in Ottawa
said

"Rob O", I'll try and keep this civil. First of all, Khadr was born in Canada, not Afghanistan, so it wasn't his country that was invaded. In fact, nobody in his immediate family is from Afghanistan. Secondly, the documents in question are most likely classified and I'll bet that his lawyer does not have the required security clearance to view them. However the documents can be viewed in Camera by a judge who is cleared. Would you honestly expect the Canadian government to come to your aid if you deliberately killed someone overseas? Wake up. You are right, he does deserve and will get a fair trial but don't be naive, he knew exactly what he was doing, there is even video tape of him making bombs. Finally, a 15 year old who, if found guilty of murder in Canada should and most likely is tried as an adult.




mac
said

US is a rogue state.

US attacked Afghanistan 7 October 2001.

UNSC authorized ISAF 20 December 2001.

Got it? There was no authorization by UN of the US invasion--only for trying to repair the damage.

International Security Assistance Force is the name of a NATO-led security and development mission in Afghanistan which was established by the United Nations Security Council on 20 December 2001 and consists of about 47,000 military and civilian personnel as of April 2008. Forty different nations contribute troops to this military force, including contributions from Canada, the United States, European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Turkey and Singapore.


Guy
said

I can't believe most of these comments. Either a significant portion of the posters have been holed up in a cave, or have been completely misled by the left wing media.
1) Omar Kadr was born in Canada.
2) Omar Kadr and his brothers went to Afghanistan to train at insurgence camps.
3) Omar Kadr and his other family members have all pledged allegiance and tacit support to al Qaida.
4) Their was no invasion of Afghanistan where Kadr was caught, the NATO forces were invited in by Afghanistan to rout the Taliban.
5) Guantanimo Bay Cuba, is a US Military Base and not a Cuban Facility.
6) Omar Kadr was not a child soldier, he was not a soldier at all, he was an unlawful enemy combatant.
7) Unlawful Enemy Combatants are not covered under the POW status under the Third Geneva Covention, or any other international law. Even if you considered him a Lawful Enemy Combatant, then he could be considered a POW, and the Third Geneva Convention allows POWs to be held until the end of the conflict.

Summary : Omar Kadr was a misguided, possibly abused child, brainwashed to believe all westerners were evil and better off dead. In 2002 he acted on those beliefs and was caught fighting with insurgents in Afghanistan. Acting as an Unlawful Enemy Combatant he was transfered to Guantanimo Bay Cuba. According to the Third Geneva Convention he does not have any special rights, and can be held without charges at least until the end of the conflict.

If we bring him back to Canada, he should be thoroughly assessed and if dangerous, should be rehabilitated until such time as he is no longer dangerous. If he wants to leave Canada he should be Expatriated. Any Canadian that pledges support, then performs acts as an Unlawful Enemy Combatant, fighting against Canadian Soldiers or our Allies Soldiers, should loose their Canadian Citizenship.


N/A
said

I think a lot of people put too much emotional input in thise case. All the talk about his father & defending his country is understandable but irrelevant.

If he chose to fight against one of the Canadian allies (being a Canadian citizen), certain consequences will & should follow.

He should be tried, however it definitely should not be taken so long. The timing is ridiculous & brings even more doubt & shadow to the original accusations.

A (fair) trial is all this called for. Whether the charges were legitimate in the fist place is a whole other story.



PB
said

Omar Khadr maybe be a Canadian citizen on paper but he and his entire family are about as anti canadian as they come. Although as Canadians they have legal rights and a standing, that im not sure will or should extend to those who are fighting in foreign countries, however, if I had anything to say about this I would not lift a finger to assist this guy. I have a hard time feeling sorry for a family asking Canadians to stand up for his rights when they themselves have no respect for Canada or what it stands for


User Tools

Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Related Stories

Contest

Related Websites

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz

Most Viewed News Stories

View More News Stories

Most Talked about Stories

I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.

J Stad

Alberta going for broke with record $4.7B budget deficit

Got something to say? Share on CTV News

News Categories

Shows