Omar Khadr's Defence Team is Angry

Here's a text of a letter they released to the Miami Herald:

``We have just learned that our client, Omar Khadr, has been charged by the United States government with several offenses that are not even valid war crimes, for which he will be tried by military commission under The Military Commissions Act of 2006. This is the third set of charges laid against Omar. Yet, no matter how many times the government issues new charges, the military commissions system will continue to be an illegitimate one. Indeed, the system is virtually indistinguishable from the one previously invalidated by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld just last year.

'The recent plea agreement accepted by David Hicks after less than a day of military commission proceedings and after significant negotiations between Australia and the U.S. demonstrates that the resolution of these cases is political and not the result of a legal process. Clearly, the U.S. is using the case of Omar in an attempt to rehabilitate the military commissions, which Hicks' plea demonstrated is a tainted process. In doing so, the U.S. will be the first country in modern history to try an individual who was a child at the time of the alleged war crimes. Indeed, the charge of conspiracy against Omar is based on alleged acts some of which occurred when Omar was less than 10 years of age.

``Omar Khadr was taken into U.S. custody at the age of 15 and has been detained at Guantánamo since he was 16, in conditions equal to or worse than those given to convicted adult criminals, such as prolonged solitary confinement and repeated instances of torture. After nearly 5 years in such conditions, the government is now demanding his appearance before what can only amount to a kangaroo court. The fact that this Administration has seen fit to designate this youth for trial by military commission is abhorrent.

``Now is the time for Canada and the U.S. to negotiate a political resolution because the commissions system is incapable of justice. Otherwise, Omar, just barely twenty years of age and a minor at the time of the alleged crimes, is guaranteed to be convicted in one of the greatest show trials on earth. This should not be the legacy of America or Canada.''

Signed,

Muneer Ahmad
Kristine Huskey
Richard Wilson
American University College of Law
Washington D.C.

Lt. Col. Colby Vokey
U.S. Marine Corps.

Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler
U.S. Navy

The Washington Post has more:

Opponents of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay criticized authorities for subjecting Khadr to the same military trial system as adult terror suspects. In any other conflict, he would have been treated as a child soldier, said Jumana Musa, advocacy director of Amnesty International.

"This was, in fact, a child," Musa said. "From the beginning, he was never treated in accordance with his age. He was treated like any adult taken into custody."

A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, said Khadr must be held accountable.

"The Defense Department will continue to uphold the law and bring unlawful enemy combatants to justice through the military commissions process," he said.

In other words, the US government doesn't care who it goes after or how - even children.

Khadr has already lost a civil suit filed against him:

The U.S. military said Khadr hurled a grenade that killed Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, 28, of Albuquerque, N.M., and wounded Army Sgt. Layne Morris, of West Jordan, Utah. The charges say those acts were carried out "in violation of the law of war," but did not elaborate.

Speer's widow and Morris filed a civil lawsuit against Khadr and his father. In February, a judge awarded them $102.6 million.

And what do the families of innocent civilians killed by Americans receive as compensation from the US military? A maximum of $2500, while torture victims like Maher Arar and Khaled al-Masri have had their civil suits against the US government thrown out on the grounds of "national security".

Meanwhile, Gonzales' justice department has decided to limit Gitmo detainees' access to their lawyers. The noose around their necks is tightening with every right Bushco tries to strip away from them.

Lawyers representing some of the hundreds of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay have angrily condemned efforts by the Bush administration to make it more difficult for them to visit their clients. The lawyers say restrictions already in place make their jobs all but impossible.

The US Justice Department has requested that a federal court impose tighter restrictions on the lawyers, claiming their visits with prisoners have "caused intractable problems and threats to security at Guantánamo". In a brief to the court the department claims information passed from prisoners to their lawyers and then given to the media.

Lawyers representing some of the 385 prisoners still held at the US Naval base on Cuba yesterday reacted angrily to the accusations leveled by the department. They said what was really driving the request was the US government's desire to further diminish the already severely limited scrutiny that Guantanamo receives.

Clive Stafford Smith, legal director of the UK-based group Reprieve which represents several dozen prisoners, said of the claims: "They say the lawyers have caused unrest, they say we have caused hunger strikes. This is monumental crap. They say we are inciting them. Of course, we have talked to them about their hunger strikes – that is our jobs. But the hunger strikes are done in reaction to their treatment. And any information we gather has to go through the censors."

He added: "This is being done to stop information coming out of Guantanamo. It's being done to stop any journalists finding out what they did to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others." Under the proposals, filed earlier this month in Washington DC, lawyers would be restricted to just three visits with an existing client, correspondence they sent to their clients would be vetted by military intelligence officers and government officials would be empowered to prevent lawyers from having access to secret evidence used by military tribunals to decide whether the prisoners were "enemy combatants".

Gitmo is definitely a "legal black hole" as are the rest of the secret prisons the CIA still maintains around the world where untold numbers of people we've never even heard of have been tortured and disappeared.

And don't expect any changes coming from the US senate any time soon either:

Senate skirmish over detainees at Guantanamo Bay ended in a draw Thursday, with Democrats urging action on the prisoners' behalf but running into stiff opposition from Republicans.

"What is the hurry?" Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. The indefinite detention of nearly 400 prisoners without charges is "unconstitutional. It's un-American," said the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.), one of half a dozen witnesses.

CNN's Jack Cafferty has more:



As for Khadr's case:

On Friday, Khadr and fellow Gitmo prisoner Salim Hamdan have an appeal to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The issue is whether they have a right to certain constitutional guarantees before a military tribunal in a case where they face the possibility of life imprisonment or death upon conviction.

A law passed by the U.S. Congress limits the right of appeal for Gitmo prisoners.

If the court decides to accept their case, oral arguments could follow within a few months and delay Khadr's tribunal.

Still stuck in legal limbo after all of these years with no end in sight. I guess that's the new American Way™.
 

Random News & Views Roundup

- Springtime Subpoena Fest! Better than a hot dog-eating contest by a country mile.

- Albertans slacking on environmental actions:

Fifty-seven per cent of Quebecers polled said they are promoting better behaviour toward the environment, while only 36 per cent of Albertans said they are doing the same.

Well, why bother? All of that pollution coming out of the oilsands projects is going to kill us anyway. /snark

- Did you know that today is World Water Day? This year's theme is water scarcity.

- With all of the political sparring in Canada lately over the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan, one thing I haven't heard an opinion about from our prime minister (unlike, say the Netherlands foreign minister and representatives of the US and UK) is what he has to say about Italy cutting a deal with the Afghan government to free 5 jailed Taliban commanders in exchange for one of its citizens.

- By the way, if our prime minister doesn't care about the fate of detainees in Afghanistan (and they are not all confirmed members of the Taliban), then why does he even bother with the Geneva Conventions or agreements to protect their rights? His attitude endangers our troops. Period. Did he even notice the fallout from the Abu Ghraib scandal? Disrespect human rights and you place soldiers' lives in even more peril.

- From the "why did Gates say that?" file:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates cautioned on Thursday the Army would face problems without emergency funds but insisted U.S. forces could fight a third war despite being stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.

- Meanwhile, the UN Security Council is scheduled to vote on tougher Iran sanctions on Saturday.

- College Republican groups in the US are holding blatantly racist anti-immigrant events:

This week, Boise State University College Republicans have joined the list of College Republicans who have held anti-immigrant "games" by creating a despicable ad to promote a conservative speaker on campus. The ad advertises a food stamp drawing and a free meal at a "Mexican restaurant" for students who "climb through the hole in the fence" and submit illegal identification. This recent derogatory stunt comes on the heels of national news reports that confirm the rise in hate groups who are feeding off of anti-immigrant sentiments. Sadly, while these activities continue on America's campuses and while Republican presidential candidates use harsh words on immigration for political gain, the national Republican Party has remained quietly on the sidelines.

It has been three weeks since Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and DNC Hispanic Caucus Chair Ramona Martinez sent a letter to RNC General Chairman Mel Martinez regarding the despicable conduct of College Republicans. The Republican Chairman has yet to respond.

Sick, sick people.

- LA's Vicious War on the Homeless:

On the morning of February 8, a white hospital van stopped a few feet from a curb in Los Angeles' skid row area. According to witnesses, a man wearing a soiled hospital gown fell through the doors, and the van, later connected with Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, drove away.

The man, a paraplegic, began crawling down the street, a bag of his belongings clutched in his teeth and a colostomy bag dragging behind him. Other homeless people helped the disoriented man into a nearby park, just before police called an ambulance.

This horrible scene came just three months after the city attorney's office filed an indictment against Kaiser Permanente for dumping a 63-year-old patient on the streets of skid row in her socks and a hospital gown last year, an incident that was captured on videotape.

Patient dumping has become so widespread there's a bill in the California State Senate to criminalize the practice.

But these practices go deeper than a few isolated incidents. They are part of a system of abuse against LA's poor and homeless population.

- John Bolton: neocon warmongering monster:

Former US United Nations Ambassador John Bolton told the BBC today that he was “damned proud” of how the U.S. intentionally blocked efforts to achieve a ceasefire last summer when Israel was bombing Beirut and many other locales in Lebanon.

Does O'Connor Know Where the Missing Detainees Are?

Bolstered by a few cagey smirks defence minister O'Connor, in response to questions by Jane Taber on Sunday's CTV Question Period about the fate of the missing Afghan detainees, responded with vague hints that he actually knows where they are. "Everybody can be found", O'Connor said, adding that we should "wait until the end of the investigation" to find out what happened to them. "We'll wait to see whether they're missing or not", O'Connor added.

What exactly does that mean? And if he knows where they are, why isn't he admitting that? It would seem to be incredibly naive to publicly imply that the DoD knows where the detainees are. If they actually escaped custody to run from their alleged crimes, they've now been told that this defence minister has a handle on their location. If they are in hiding because they were abused while being transferred and/or detained, they've now been told that their location is unsafe. Either way, they will most likely disappear once again which will only frustrate any investigation into their alleged abuse by Canadian forces.

The only other possibility is that the DoD has them in custody somewhere and isn't admitting it.

O'Connor is far too comfortable with how alleged suspects are treated once Canadian forces hand them over to the Afghanistan government.

"We're there in support of the Afghan government and when we get insurgents who break the law we hand them over to the authorities," O'Connor said.

First of all, it's not up to the Canadian forces to decide who has broken the law. That's the role of the courts.

"We want assurances that they're treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. I know according to the rules of law they don't have to be treated under the Geneva Convention, but we insist that they are. We are reliant on the International Red Cross to monitor this and now we're asking the human rights organization to also do it."

The problem with relying on the ICRC is that it is not required to make its findings public. That problem was highlighted when a confidential report about the treatment of detainees at Gitmo was leaked in 2004. So, while O'Connor says he can be assured by ICRC reports, we have no way of knowing about the real circumstances facing detainees who are handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian troops. O'Connor also added that he wasn't aware of any reports back from the ICRC about the detainees who have been handed over to Afghan authorities but he added that the ICRC is "quite pleased" with what the Canadian forces do. So, which is it, O'Connor? Is the ICRC reporting to you or isn't it?

Furthermore, O'Connor seems to be blissfully unaware of what the Canada-Afghanistan agreement says:

The Canada-Afghanistan Detainee Agreement does not provide adequate safeguards to ensure that detainees will not be tortured by Afghan forces. Canadian officials are not given the right to monitor detainees after they have been transferred. And although the agreement anticipates that detainees first held by Canada may be moved onwards to the custody of a third country it fails to provide safeguards to ensure they will not be subject to torture or even execution. The previous practice by Canadian Forces of transferring detainees directly to United States forces led to serious human rights violations in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The clear possibility of further transfer of detainees to United States custody remains under the current agreement...

In addition, Afghanistan's human rights organization was only brought into the picture last week when a secret agreement was signed after the news of the alleged abuse of the 3 detainees was splashed all over the front pages and following Amnesty International's call for a judicial review, although O'Connor said on Question Period that this agreement had been in the works since June 2006. That's hardly comforting. Why would it have taken so long to process such a straightforward agreement with a body concerned about human rights?

This just doesn't add up and Canadians, along with those in Afghanistan who are being tranferred over to the authorities there, deserve far more than this continual deception being fostered by this defence minister. I have a feeling that once these 4 investigations into what happened to these Afghan detainees wrap up, O'Connor won't come out smelling like the rose he seems to think he is.

A Detained Canadian Child in Texas Pleads for Help

"Kevin", the 9 year old Canadian boy in US detention with his Iranian parents has sent this letter to PM Harper to ask for his help:


Heatbreaking.

The Globe and Mail has Peter MacKay's reaction to the situation:

WASHINGTON — A young Canadian boy and his parents held at a Texas detention centre won't be deported to Iran while officials consider their status, says Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.

Mr. MacKay said Canada is offering consular assistance to the nine-year-old boy named Kevin and his Iranian parents.
[...]
Mr. MacKay said Friday he has been told that they will remain at the centre in Austin until Canadian officials have looked at all the options.

I'd like to think that Mackay is finally paying attention to this case based on the pleas many of us in the blogosphere have made since this case came to light. Regardless, at least MacKay is stepping up to the plate and has received assurances that the family will not be sent back to Iran. Let's hope the US government keeps its word.

Annamarie of Verbena19 blog (who has been working feverishly on this case) also sent me a link to this Maclean's magazine article about the situation which outlines some of the legalities involved.

"Under the terms of the [Safe Third Country] agreement, there is room for exceptions to be made for reasons of public policy," she said. "The agreement doesn't articulate what the criteria are for an exception… [but] you could argue that an exception should be made when they have a child who's a Canadian citizen."

The public policy claim, in other words, would be that the Safe Third Country agreement is effectively thwarting a nine-year-old boy's right to live in the country where he gained citizenship by virtue of birthplace. And whatever the future might hold for the family, that might at least free the boy from what he and his father describe as fairly grim conditions.

The fact that this family ended up in the United States as the result of odd circumstances ought to be a major consideration when it comes to making an exception to that agreement as should the conditions at the Hutto facility:

Macklin argues that such facilities might themselves represent a flaw in the Safe Third Country agreement. "The premise underlying the…agreement is that the two countries provide more or less equivalent protection to refugees and more or less abide by their international legal obligations," she said. "Obviously if there were wild disparities between the two, it wouldn't be fair to refugee claimants to force them into one system or the other.

"The widespread use of the detention of children is a significant difference between Canada and the United States, and that detention of children is itself considered by many to be a violation of international human rights norms."

That's definitely an avenue that needs to be explored but, considering the fact that the Bush administration has no qualms about violating the human rights of protected persons under international conventions and even US laws, pursuing that angle may well be fruitless at this point.

Please see this action alert for more background and to find out how you can help.
 

Why is a 9 year old Canadian Citizen Being Detained in Texas?

Democracy Now! has the story of a Canadian boy being held in a detention center in Texas who is a victim of unanticipated circumstances. Amy Goodman interviewed his father (who is using a pseudonym).

AMY GOODMAN: I’m going to break in for one minute, because we have just gotten a call from the Hutto detention facility. We're joined on the phone by an Iranian immigrant named Majid, from inside the Hutto Detention Center in Taylor, Texas. He, his wife, his nine-year-old son Kevin have been held at the center for the past nineteen days. Majid, your story is quite a remarkable one. Can you tell us how you ended up at this Texas jail?

MAJID: Hello. Thanks for taking my call. I was on my way to go to Toronto, Canada, and my plane was -- after three hours in the flight, somebody died on the plane and had an emergency landing to Costa Rica. After that, they said everybody should come out. After that, we went out. Immigration, they said you need to have American visa. We had no American visa. And they hold us over there --

AMY GOODMAN: Now, just to be clear, you were never planning to end up in the United States, is that right? You were flying to Canada, but another passenger on the plane had a heart attack, and so you guys had a forced landing in Puerto Rico, and when you had to come out of the plane, while he was taken off the plane, that's when they took you?

MAJID: Yes. This happened, yes -- was a Canadian Zoom Airline, and our ticket was direct from Guyana to Toronto. And this happened. They hold us -- my son is Canadian -- hold child is nine-and-a-half years old, and they put us in detention in Puerto Rico. And from Monday to Friday, I was in the jail in Puerto Rico between criminal people, and my wife and son was other place. We had no news from each other from Monday morning until Friday at noon, until we see each other in a Puerto Rico airport. After that, they brought us here to Hutto Detention Center, and here we are in same part, but different room. My wife and my son is room, but it’s totally inside the room, uncovered toilet. My son has asthma, and he’s very bad and still comes here. It’s very horrible here. And we are in very bad situation. We need help. We need the people help me --

JUAN GONZALEZ: Majid, in other words, basically, what reason did they give you for holding you if you never intended to enter the United States at all? What reason did they give for locking you up?

MAJID: Because they said, “You have an American visa?” That's why you have to stay here. Just plane was waiting one hour for us, but they didn't let us pass. A few officers came. They said Immigration officers -- six, seven -- they said, “We’re going to send you, but let us make decision.” After that, they called the police chief. He came there. He said, “Let me think five minutes.” After five minutes, he came, he said, “I’m going to send you to Canada, but I’m afraid to lose my job. But usually we have to send with your plane, but we keep you here. America is much better than Canada. Here you have safer place. We send you to hotel, and after a few days, you're going to be free.” But they broke their promise. That's why they keep us here, and we have very bad situation here.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Do you know whether any other passengers on your plane were also detained in the same way, or was your family the only one, as far as you can tell?

MAJID: Only my family. No other passenger.

"Majid" was deported from Canada to Iran in December where he now claims he was imprisoned and tortured. The family was interviewed by someone from the Canadian consulate who reportedly told them they'll just have to let their lawyer handle their case. Goodman also interviewed the son, "Kevin", and a lawyer familiar with these types of cases and detention facilities.

AMY GOODMAN: Joshua Bardavid is an attorney that we are sitting with in the New York studio. When you listen to this story, what are your thoughts?

JOSHUA BARDAVID: Unfortunately, this is -- what he is experiencing is a very common experience. It is the reflexive use of detention for asylum seekers. The Majid family, they’re survivors -- from what he’s describing, he’s a survivor of torture. He was detained in Iran. He is seeking freedom, in this case, in Canada, arrives in the United States and is placed back in detention. The re-traumatizing effects of being placed back in detention cannot be underestimated. You have a child who is sleeping in what was a jail cell for a maximum-security prison that has been converted, but they still leave the exposed toilet, you know, sitting in the middle of their room. There's no privacy. With other children, he's in a room separate from his parents. Now, but the door may be not locked at night, but that door is certainly shut, and it’s a steel heavy door. They are placed in a prison. There's no doubt that this is a prison. And what is particularly troubling about this is that this was designed for the purpose of holding families, yet they made a conscious decision to maintain the facility as a prison, to leave the barbed wire, to leave the doors, to leave the environment as a prison.

It seems to me the Canadian government should be launching a protest with the US government about these horrible conditions and the fact that a 9 year old Canadian boy is being held indefinitely with his family in a process that could take months or even years to clear up.

We do have a foreign affairs minister who's busy hobnobbing with Condi today. Please contact him to request that he takes an active interest in this case.