Harper should seek release of Khadr
by Audrey Macklin
This commentary was first published in The Calgary Herald on July 12, 2008.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper figures his core electoral supporters are content to see Omar Khadr rot in Guantanamo Bay. Despite persistent appeals from many Canadians, from the Canadian Bar Association, from jurists, judges, lawyers and human rights activists worldwide, Harper's calculus is that there are no votes to be gained by seeking Khadr's repatriation -- and perhaps a few votes to be lost. So, the best strategy is to do nothing.
In response to questions and requests, the Harper government continues to recite the following script verbatim: "Mr. Khadr faces very serious charges. The government of Canada has sought and received assurances that Mr. Khadr is being treated humanely. Any questions regarding whether Canada plans to ask for the release of Omar Khadr are premature and speculative as the legal process and appeals are still ongoing."
The reason for seeking Khadr's repatriation is that the conditions at Guantanamo Bay violate the most fundamental and universal of human rights, whether you regard him as a prisoner of war, a combatant, an alleged terrorist, or a criminal. If you care about the fact that he was only 15 when captured on the battlefield in 2002, it only makes the violations worse. The military commission process violates U.S. constitutional law, U.S. military law, international human rights law and the international law of war. Khadr has spent more than six years, or about a quarter of his life, in detention in Guantanamo.
The most serious charge Khadr faces is the killing of a U.S. soldier arising from the throwing of a grenade. Consider for a moment the recent conviction of a 12-year-old Medicine Hat girl who, under the influence of her older boyfriend, participated in the grisly first-degree murder of her parents and eight-year-old brother. No one dared suggest that because the charges against her were "very serious," or that because she was the girlfriend of a seemingly bad man, she forfeited her entitlement to be treated as a human being and given a fair trial.
Indeed, her trial and her sentence (four years in psychiatric custody, four-and-a-half years of conditional supervision,
18 months credit for time served in pre-trial custody) were consistent with the special rules applicable to young offenders, including young offenders accused of a most serious crime: first-degree murder of one's mother, father, and brother. We all understand rights are not only for the people we like or consider good -- they are also for people whom we believe are sick or bad.
The statement that Canada has sought and obtained assurances of humane treatment assumes the audience will not notice the difference between getting assurances and verifying the truth of those assurances. The reports of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo are by now well known.
In Khadr's case, specific mistreatment includes denial of timely medical treatment and pain relief for bullet wounds in the chest, long periods of solitary confinement under bright lights and cold temperatures, and sleep deprivation. At one point, prison guards terrorized Khadr to the point where he urinated himself. They then dipped him in disinfectant and used him as a human mop to wipe up his own urine. He would have been 17 at the time.
Now we know, thanks to disclosure ordered by the Federal Court, that Canadian officials were aware of the abuse while it was happening.
The claim that it is premature and speculative to request Khadr's repatriation genuinely insults the intelligence of Canadians. Every other western nation and U.S. ally sought and obtained the release of its citizens (and even non-citizen permanent residents) without waiting for a trial.
They recognized the circumstances of detention were abhorrent and correctly predicted the likelihood of any fair process emerging from a military commission was nil.
Six years after Khadr was taken into detention, it recently came to light the report identifying him as the combatant who threw the grenade originally identified another combatant (executed on the battlefield) as the perpetrator. The report was altered after the fact.
We know evidence obtained by torture and cruel or degrading treatment will be admitted at trial. We know the original military commission judge assigned to hear the case was sacked and replaced after making a procedural ruling that the Bush administration considered unfavourable. Finally, we also know the Bush administration announced that, even if Khadr is acquitted of the charges against him, he can be detained indefinitely anyway.
Can anyone believe there is any merit to letting such a process run its course as a prerequisite to seeking Khadr's release?
Perhaps one might be concerned that Khadr could pose a danger to Canadians if returned to Canada, but the Harper government is well aware Canada's justice system offers options for trying, treating, rehabilitating and re-integrating Khadr into Canadian society. And no western government that has requested the release of its citizens from Guantanamo has been turned down yet.
Harper's assertion the other day that Canada "frankly has no real alternative" to doing nothing is simply false.
Harper was not prime minister when Khadr was captured and detained, nor were the Conservatives responsible for his interrogation by Canadian officials. They are the government now, however, and they have the power to act.
In the face of such glaring injustice, what moral position could justify the continued refusal to seek Khadr's repatriation to Canada: That his father was a terrorist? That his family holds odious views? That pasting the label "al-Qaeda terrorist" or "unlawful enemy combatant" on a 15-year-old is sufficient to expel him from humanity?
Prime Minister Harper needs to be reminded that Canadians are neither stupid nor immoral, and that he has run out of excuses for refusing to do the right thing.
