corporate re-education is so fun!

Canadian Rule of Law - Guantanamo

A <Canadian> Federal Court judge has ordered Canadian intelligence to cease questioning Guantanamo Bay's youngest prisoner, in a decision criticizing counterterrorism agents for flouting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Though the Americans have never clarified his legal status or charged him, agents from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade have travelled to Guantanamo at least three times to speak to Mr. Khadr, with an eye to furthering their own investigations.

Hundreds of "enemy combatants" remain jailed in Guantanamo as U.S. courts wrestle with the legality of the prison experiment, but "this is the first judgment I know of where America is found not to be complying with the rule of law," Mr. Edney said.

Discuss
Permalink Mongo 
August 10th, 2005
In other news, Arar is sueing the US government for their having 'rendered' him to Syria:

  "The US government is attempting to have Arar's lawsuit dismissed. Invoking the rarely used "state secrets privilege" the Justice Department claims that any release of information on Arar could jeopardize "intelligence, foreign policy and national security interests of the United States." "

http://www.pacifica.org/programs/dn/050810.html

  "Seeking to dismiss the suit, Justice Department attorneys argued Arar was deported because the U.S. had classified evidence linking him to al-Qaida and the discretion to decide where he would be sent."

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2005/08/11/1167921-sun.html
Permalink Christopher Wells 
August 11th, 2005
The article you cited said, in part ...

  "The U.S. government may regard Guantanamo Bay as a limbo where standard legal protections for prisoners do not apply, but Judge von Finckenstein said the Charter compels Ottawa's spies to play by the rules even when they travel abroad."

.... which also implies that Canada at least will not be be doing any rendering itself ... I think I assumed it wouldn't be doing that anyway, however (I think that fear of torture is considered reasonable grounds for applying for asylum in Canada ... like I think that Canada doesn't extradite unless it's assured that the death penalty won't be applied ... it will extradite people, and/or refuse them asylum, to stand trial abroad though).

One thing I've just noticed about the Charter is that some of its clauses begin with "every citizen", for example:

* "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote ..."

* "Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada ..."

... but some other clauses begin with "everyone" (which is more inclusive than "every citizen"), especially the clauses regarding "Legal Rights".
Permalink Christopher Wells 
August 11th, 2005
>> but some other clauses begin with "everyone" (which is more inclusive than "every citizen"), especially the clauses regarding "Legal Rights".

I read it that way, as well.

But then, I also read this in much the same way:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that _all_ men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."
Permalink Mongo 
August 11th, 2005
Whatever happened with the whole CIA agents being charged with kidnapping in France (I think it was)?
Permalink I am Jack's infinite id 
August 11th, 2005
It was Italy.
Permalink Christopher Wells 
August 11th, 2005
Yes, I remember now. I knew France didn't seem right because Bush would just tell them to stick it anyway.

But did anything ever come of any of it? It just sort of dropped off the radar. I think the girl in Aruba disappearing obscured it some. Because you know, affluent females disappearing is much more important information.
Permalink I am Jack's infinite id 
August 11th, 2005
> But then, I also read this in much the same way

You can read "All human beings" and "everyone" in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which I assume the US is a signatory ... though I don't know whether it's ratified there as law): http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm
Permalink Christopher Wells 
August 11th, 2005
> ... I think that Canada doesn't extradite unless it's assured ...

Today's news is that Britain has just signed such an agreement with Jordan: that Jordan undertakes to not mistreat nor execute anyone that Britain extradites to Jordan.

Britain then promptly arrested some [10] people, to be extradited to Jordan to face charges there. Britain intends to sign more such agreements, with 9 other Middle-Eastern countries.

One pundit suggested that this development (agreements being signed and then suspects being extradited) might be good if the agreement is monitored: i.e. if someone (?Britain?) is subsequently given access to and allowed to monitor the relevent prisons/prisoners in the Middle East.
Permalink Christopher Wells 
August 11th, 2005
4 years later and still waiting:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/saddam-better-off-than-hicks-says-lawyer/2005/08/12/1123353486418.html

Precis: the Australian Government is comfortable with Pentagon reassurances about the continued detention without trial of the Australian citizen David Hicks despite learned criticism.
Permalink trollop 
August 12th, 2005
Only one, I think, of those arrested yesterday are from Jordan the rest are from other countries also with deplorable human rights records. Much as the Home Office is blarting about preparing to deport these people it remains to be seen whether these Memorandums of Agreement are going to impress the Courts or let them derogate the Human Rights Act in individual cases.

After all Sweden has such an agreement with Egypt (I think) and it didn't stop Egypt torturing the guy and threatening his family when he got there.

I'd be much happier if they discovered some reasonable infringement of UK law that enabled them to arrest and hold them properly.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 12th, 2005
> I'd be much happier if they discovered some reasonable infringement of UK law that enabled them to arrest and hold them properly.

The BBC world news said that one is wanted in Jordan to stand trial for bombing (i.e. murder). Perhaps there's enough evidence to warrant his standing trial there, and perhaps he has commited no crime so serious in the UK ... in which case, ideally(*), he should be standing trial in Jordan, shouldn't he?

(*) If we thought that the Jordanian justice system were ideal.
Permalink Christopher Wells 
August 12th, 2005
> Discuss

I'm not sure what you want to discuss, Mongo. Mr. Edney, the lawyer for the defence, said:

  "This is the first judgment I know of where America is found not to be complying with the rule of law."

That seems to be saying that *America* hasn't complied with *Canadian* law: I'm like "What do you *expect*? Is this *news* to you? Are you trying to *make* something of it?"
Permalink Christopher Wells 
August 12th, 2005
Just like Canada we don't allow extradition to countries with the death penalty, well at least we did until Blair knelt and allowed an extradition treaty with the US to go ahead. It's still true for everywhere else.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 12th, 2005
> we don't allow extradition to countries with the death penalty

Yes, I remember the BBC's saying that was the agreement with Jordan: no mistreatment, and no execution.

> Blair knelt and allowed an extradition treaty with the US

SFAIK Canada will extradite to the US: on the condition that the US agrees that they won't execute the prisoner [even] if he's convicted.
Permalink Christopher Wells 
August 12th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: August, 2005 Other topics: August, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics