In large part because of the Canadian public's extreme dislike of Mr. Khadr's al-Qaeda-affiliated family, many politicians were unwilling to call for his release from Guantanamo Bay.

Such unsubstatiated horseshit . " Canadian public's extreme dislike... " Where's the poll to back it up ? G&M is writing like NYT ; if the slur sounds good , run it , doesn't matter whether it's true or not.

Give credit to G&M for printing the story about 50 teenagers . In America 50 million could protest and MSM wouldn't run the story.

The sooner the American Empire implodes , the better for all of us

If the article mentioned that it was the government of Canada that has an extreme dislike of the Khadr family, it would be accurate. Most Canucks don't give a damn about someone who's not much of a threat.

Agreed that the statement about the Khadr family being 'disliked' by the Canadian Public.... fact is, the vast majority of Canadians probably know very little about the Khadr family and their political activities other than what's been told to us in the MSM, which of course is probably mostly false.

AS well, since when is defending yourself on a battlefield against an invading army a 'serious crime'? If Khadr is being charged for murder because he participated in a battle, then it stands to reason that EVERYONE who participated in that battle, on BOTH sides, should be charged with murder.

Entire media and political circus, here in Canada, worked very hard to free accused swindler from Mexican jail and bring her back to Canada after spending only couple of months there, but they could not care less about kid kept in concentration camp for 6 years.

He is dark skinned Muslim, why bother!

Throwing a grenade at oncoming US Military. Sounds like self defense to me.

Canadians should all expect to be in that same position when the oil situation in the USA gets worse. I doubt they will ask "pretty please" for us to hand over all of OUR oil(largest supply in the world BTW) when the time comes.

There is ample evidence that Omar may not have thrown the offending grenade, since there was a second person alive with him at the time (he was executed in the field by the US folks.

Omar was shot in the back twice, resulting with his chest being blown apart and exposing his heart, according to a US witness. they were going to execute him to but a special services soldier orderd them not to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

it is a sad, sad, well doumented story...

canuckchuck said: Canadians should all expect to be in that same position when the oil situation in the USA gets worse

I would suspect that it will be the WATER the yanks will come for, before the oil. We gladly ship our oil south, but have been fighting against bulk water exports for many years... Considering, there is a major shortage of potable water in the states, and Canada has an abundance, it's only logical to think that the bullies to the south will come and take it.

It's been disheartening to see many other foreign nationals repatriated back home to Britain, Germany, Australia, and all eventually released, while Canada remained silent, for 6 years. Neither the Liberals (then) nor the Conservatives (now) were and are willing to stand up to Bush and demand Khadr's repatriation. It's been a shameful period that one hopes will soon come to an end.

There are 2 types of Canadian citizenships. One for white people and one for coloured people. This case proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Guess which one is worthless?

cedross

I agree with these comments. The invasion of Afghanistan was illegal, in any case, and I fail to see how resisting such an invasion is a crime. This, of course, assumes he threw the grenade, which appears increasingly unlikely.

To the extent that the Canadian public has a negative view of Khadr's family it's due to the mass media's constant harping on how bad the family is. We hear this almost every time Omar Khadr is mentioned in the media. Excuse me, folks, his family isn't on trial, he is. (I use the word "trial" in an extremely loose sense...)

Adnan, you are so right on.

Mexico we can push around a bit, I guess. (And they don't want to lose their tourist trade with bad publicity, do they?) We can't offend our buddy George, though!

Ronald et al, if the Globe and Mail are talking about it, it is a mainstream story. Note that the Globe and Mail mentioned the fact that the Liberals were in power when Omar Khadr was first imprisoned - something Harper threw in the Liberal's face today when the Liberals called on the government to get Omar Khadr back to Canada.

Note how the Globe and Mail mentions the charge of throwing the grenade but not the latest revelations that:

(1) Omar Khadr was not the only one alive when the Americans captured the compound, but they shot the other guy;
(2) The original report said that the one who threw the grenade was deceased;
(3) The Americans were throwing grenades into the compound, leaving the possibility that it was just another "friendly fire" incident;

BTW - what do you know about Leutenent General Romeo Dallaire and his time in Rwanda?

Adnan, in fairness, Brenda Martin was there for two years and would probably still be there if her friend did not work with the dilligance of a Monia Mazigh - though I would be more concerned about the child in Saudi Arabia who is facing beheading than Martin. A group of kids we beating up Mohamed Kohail's brother and Mohamed came to his brother's defense. Mohamed punched a guy and he hit the ground the wrong way and died.

RE: - Throwing a grenade at oncoming US Military. Sounds like self defense to me.

Technically, it would be moreso if the grenade was thrown into the compound and had not yet exploded. In such a case, one would not so much be throwing a grenade at someone as trying to get rid of an active grenade before it explodes and kills you.

RE: - To the extent that the Canadian public has a negative view of Khadr's family it's due to the mass media's constant harping on how bad the family is.

Like the choice of word "harping" - as in Harper. Though there is not much mention of Omar Khadr's older brother, which the Americans used as a spy.

Strange how the Globe and Mail article fails to mention the name of the teacher whose students were protesting - or that the students were from Quebec.

Yesterday's Question Period - where the Bloc mentions the students the Globe and Mail refers to (today's isn't up online yet):

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some students from my riding, Joliette, and a number of human rights advocates met on Parliament Hill today to call on the government to bring Omar Khadr back to Canada. These young people from my riding came to see me and gave me some one thousand post cards, all calling for this child solder, who has been wrongfully accused of war crimes, to be brought back to Canada.

These young people feel that Omar Khadr's rights have never been recognized, that he has been subjected to numerous interrogations without the benefit of legal counsel and that there has been no investigation into the allegations of the torture and mistreatment he has endured.

Despite the many requests made by Amnesty International, those of many advocates for Omar Khadr's repatriation and those of the Bloc Québécois, this government refuses to listen. That is why students from the Polyvalente Thérèse-Martin in Joliette are reaching out and calling for Omar Khadr to be brought back to Canada.

I would like to personally commend the initiative of the students and their teacher, Marcel Lacroix, as they demonstrate a social conscience that this government clearly lacks.

If you are not sick to your stomach yet, read Friday's Question Period on Omar Khadr (following today's CTV article).

Canadian child soldier faces Nuremberg-type charges

Canadian Omar Khadr is about to become the first child soldier to be tried for war crimes since the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis.

A military judge in the United States has given the go-ahead to a military commission to prosecute the child soldier for war crimes. ...

"It's the freedom of a Canadian citizen that's at stake," Dion said during question period in the House of Commons.

"Why is the prime minister refusing to demand the return of a Canadian citizen?"

Harper's response to questions about the child soldier's fate was similar to answers he has been given about his government's handling of election tactics, environmental policies, and bureaucratic issues -- he said the previous government was no different. Harper said the Liberals did not do anything to help Khadr when they were in power.

"The only thing that has changed is that in 2006 Canadians changed governments," Harper said.

Harper said Khadr, who was taken by his father to war-torn Afghanistan as a child, faces serious charges.

Deputy Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff brought up the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080507/omar_khadr_080507/20080507?hub=TopStories

Friday, May 2, 2008

Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Omar Khadr left Canada as a dutiful son following his father, as any boy of 13 or 14 years of age would do; misguided yes, but as with most children, loyal to his father and with no real comprehension of the potential consequences of his actions.

Later, at the age of 15, this boy was apprehended following a firefight with American special forces. Khadr had been shot twice in the back while he was turned away from the fight. In fact, one American officer had to step in to prevent another from executing him on the spot with his pistol.

Omar was taken to a field hospital where, while he was still in a great deal of pain recovering from his wounds, he was exposed to the American style of enhanced interrogation, and after months of recuperation was transported to Guantanamo. By all definitions and particularly the one contained in the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child combatant is anyone under the age of 18 years. In all senses of the word, Omar Khadr is a child combatant and our government must first accept this conclusion and then move to have him repatriated to Canada.

==========================

Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Omar Khadr's military lawyer told the Subcommittee on International Human Rights that all western countries had successfully negotiated the repatriation of their nationals and that Great Britain had promised to lay charges, on condition that they were warranted under British law. No one in Great Britain has been tried.

Should the government not follow Great Britain's example and request Omar Khadr's repatriation so that he can receive a fair and just trial?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Khadr faces some serious charges. The Government of Canada has sought and received assurances that Mr. Khadr is being treated humanely. Department officials have carried out several welfare visits with Mr. Khadr and we will continue to do so.

Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister often tells us that he is closely monitoring Mr. Khadr's trial in the United States. But according to Mr. Khadr's military lawyer, the commissions were set up in Cuba precisely because they would not be allowed in the United States.

Does the minister realize that by refusing to act to repatriate Mr. Khadr, he is complicit with the Bush administration in violating the rule of law?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I stated, Mr. Khadr faces serious charges. We will continue providing cultural assistance where we can, but any questions on whether Canada plans to ask for the release of Mr. Omar Khadr from Guantanamo are premature and speculative as the legal process and appeals are going on.

Meanwhile, American teenagers happily munched away on GM-laden fast-food, empty calories, while playing World of Warcraft while the evening's parade of "the drug of a nation" spewed forth from the TV.

Harper basically said that his government was no worse than the previous. Unless all of Canada responds humanely to this travesty, can it be said that Canadians are no worse than their southern neighbors? Obviously, it would be extremely difficult to be more slovenly than the bulk of the American populace, but I have faith that Canadians will rise to a higher standard.

It is not clear that the war in Afghanistan is illegal. Nations have an international duty to ensure that other nations are not attacked from their soil, and failure to adequately protect other nations from such attacks can I believe be considered an act of war. NATO as (sadly not) "a strictly defensive military alliance" is pledged to respond to such an attack on any member state. As a Canadian I think the wrong issue is being debated when the focus is on whether we should be in Afghanistan. Being in Afghanistan is a logical consequence of being in NATO. What should be discussed is (a) whether Afghanistan did commit an act of war against the US and (b) whether Canada should be in NATO.
The first is I think debatable.. the second question somewhat less so.

ijdavis;
Is a nation responsible for a group of terrorists who launch an attack from their soil? That is the question that you should be asking. How much control did the Taliban gov't have over the actions of Al-Q; we don't know, the yanks claim that they're responsible for their actions but how credible is that claim really? Was the gov't of Canada responsible for the bombing of the Air India flight which was destroyed by a group of Sikh terrorists operating out of BC? The RCMP knew they were up to something, yet not only did they fail to act, they fucked up the prosecution of the offence.

NATO was formed as a defense against a feared Soviet attack, it wasn't meant to be a defense agreement that allowed for a war to occur outside of Europe or North America. It certainly wouldn't have formed if the members thought that an event like the terrorist attack on the Archduke of Austro-Hungary in Sarajevo 1914 could lead them into another war.

ijdavis:
When I said the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal this was my thinking:
There are 3 things that might have made it legal: (a) the US was defending itself against an armed attack by another state, namely Afghanistan (no evidence was provided or has ever been provided to indicate the state of Afghanistan attacked the US); (b) the UN Security Council authorized the invasion (it didn't: please read UNSC resolutions 1368 and 1373--you'll find no authorization of an invasion of Afghanistan); (c) the invasion was a humanitarian intervention (clearly not).

Even if the US was attacked by a group operating from Afghanistan (denied by the Taliban and never proved, despite the 9-11 Commission Report) there is no legal basis to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the de facto government and install a new one.

I think this issue of legality is very important. The recent report of the Manley Panel in Canada grossly misrepresents it and therefore does not deal with the legality of the Canadian presence.

RE: - Harper basically said that his government was no worse than the previous. Unless all of Canada responds humanely to this travesty, can it be said that Canadians are no worse than their southern neighbors?

Basically, but you know the old addage about Liberals running like the NDP and ruling like the Conservatives. The NDP (and, to a certain extent, the Bloc) have been fighting for Khadr's return from the beginning. The fact that the Liberals have officially come on board means that this is too popular an issue to ignore.

But note how the author portrayed this as a demonstration (which would make it a quite small one) rather than an envoy which came down to deliver what basically amounts to a petition. The kids were from a particular riding (ie voting district) and the signatures were from that riding only. I wonder about the other 74 Quebec ridings - what their students are up to.

RE: - It is not clear that the war in Afghanistan is illegal.

That Afghani government were quite willing to hand over Osama Bin Laden, but not to the Americans. They wanted him to have a fair trial and didn't think that the Americans were capable of providing him one. We are being told that it is more of a peacekeeping mission than it is.

RE: - Was the gov't of Canada responsible for the bombing of the Air India flight which was destroyed by a group of Sikh terrorists operating out of BC? The RCMP knew they were up to something, yet not only did they fail to act, they fucked up the prosecution of the offence.

I think that you are oversimplifying it. Strange that the guy with the sniffing dog was sent home that day. Some people were covering their asterixes, but I am sure that he who got off scott free had a few cops on his payroll - it can't just be the Mafia that does this!

Hear about the American soldier who died while training in Canada. Why are American soldiers training in Canada! There is supposed to be an investigation.

The exchange I told you about yesterday:

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Why is the government refusing to ask for the return of a Canadian citizen and the only remaining westerner to be imprisoned by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I believe the member refers to Omar Khadr. Mr. Khadr, as we all know, has been there for some years, since 2002. In fact, the government is following exactly the same policy established by his government in 2002.

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, citizenship has to mean something. Since 2002, all the governments of western countries that had nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay have asked for and obtained the return of their citizens, after seeing that the American system, which they had given a chance, was unfair to their citizens. And that is the situation we are in with respect to Omar Khadr.

I ask him once again why he is refusing to ask for the return of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Khadr has been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002 and was therefore held for four years under the Liberal regime. Mr. Khadr is facing very serious charges. The government has received assurances from the United States, and Government of Canada representatives visit Mr. Khadr regularly.
next intervention previous intervention

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a lot has happened since 2002. For example, last week, the court—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, the freedom of a Canadian citizen is at stake. Last week, the court that will decide Mr. Khadr's fate stated that it would not take into account his status as a child soldier, even though it is recognized by international law.

By remaining silent, the Prime Minister is allowing the American army to violate the basic rights of a Canadian citizen. I ask him again to stand up and defend the rights of a Canadian citizen, as other heads of state have done.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, Mr. Khadr is facing very serious charges. He is now before the courts.

The only thing that has really changed is that, in 2006, the Canadian people changed their government. That is the only reason why the Liberal Party has changed its position.

Ah man, Stephen Harper makes me want to puke.