Well, I think it might be more fair to say, instead of "its complicated", "We're not prepared to go setting precedents"... which I suppose is the Supreme Court's job.
It IS complicated though. I mean, for one, its not the best idea to go messing with the US on these things when its a pretty hard sell to convince anyone here he doesn't deserve to be locked up. Or, to go and tell our big brother "excuse me, we want this guy, who once upon a time was a citizen of ours, to be given to us, because you're a bunch of war criminals."
Its just a dangerous ball of yarn, and I'd be afraid to start picking at it too.
The Court's real problem is with constitutional remedies. There are some things that the court just can't do because it's not an elected body. They can find that he's had his rights infringed, no problem. But ordering the government to demand his return would walk all over the separation of powers.
Put it this way. Obama's a good guy. Telling Harper to tell him to hand the guy over doesn't seem like a huge deal. But imagine this was the case: Canada apprehends an Israeli citizen for some crime against the Palestinian people, but doesn't have enough evidence to convict him.
Palestine says to Canada, 'if you let him go, it's war. War with Israel, war with you.' The Court doesn't want to set a precedent here in Khadr so that in THAT situation the Israeli dude's lawyer can demand that the Court effectively declare war on Palestine. There are some decisions we don't let unelected people make, no matter how good they are as lawyers
( ... )
Khadr was 15 when he was captured, which is the legal age to be engaged in hostilities. A person is a child soldier if he is under the age of 15 (the U.S. is one of the few countries that does not automatically recognize a person under the age of 18 as a child and 15 is legal age for going to war). I suppose that would then make him a prisoner of war. POW must be repatriated once hostilities have ended or the combatant is unlikely to resume hostilities upon release. The U.S. has played this up for all it's worth. Treating people as both POW's and Terrorist criminals when the need arises. A POW shouldn't be receiving a trial for actions taken in combat against a legitimate military target
( ... )
Comments 16
It IS complicated though. I mean, for one, its not the best idea to go messing with the US on these things when its a pretty hard sell to convince anyone here he doesn't deserve to be locked up. Or, to go and tell our big brother "excuse me, we want this guy, who once upon a time was a citizen of ours, to be given to us, because you're a bunch of war criminals."
Its just a dangerous ball of yarn, and I'd be afraid to start picking at it too.
Reply
I wonder if these complications would allow me to build my teddybear/landmine company finally.
Reply
Put it this way. Obama's a good guy. Telling Harper to tell him to hand the guy over doesn't seem like a huge deal. But imagine this was the case: Canada apprehends an Israeli citizen for some crime against the Palestinian people, but doesn't have enough evidence to convict him.
Palestine says to Canada, 'if you let him go, it's war. War with Israel, war with you.' The Court doesn't want to set a precedent here in Khadr so that in THAT situation the Israeli dude's lawyer can demand that the Court effectively declare war on Palestine. There are some decisions we don't let unelected people make, no matter how good they are as lawyers ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Just get a teddy bear and threateningly state, "Bear is mine."
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment