can't believe the news today

apart from a brief mention of my disappointment with the possibility that our military might have enabled afghani authorities to torture suspected terrorists (read: random people), i haven't talked a lot about international affairs lately.  i want to take a minute to mention what happened on friday.

on 29 january 2010, around 9:45 est, the supreme court of canada handed down its ruling on the omar khadr case. this young man has been held by american authorities since he was fifteen. he is canadian-born, but was taken to afghanistan by his father at the age of 11. four years later, in 2002, during a skirmish with american forces in afghanistan, he was shot and then allegedly threw a hand grenade, killing an american soldier. (that soldier had medical training, so this is often reported as the murder of an american medic.)

since he has been in guantanamo, khadr has been tortured. the canadian government, under both the liberals and the conservatives, has been mostly silent on the matter. they did go and interrogate him early on, while he was victim to the "frequent flyer" program - being shifted from room to room every few hours so that you can't actually sleep. ever. so, when canada was involved, it tacitly endorsed the treatment he was receiving.

given the fact that he has been held for seven years *without trial*, it should come as no surprise that there has been a movement to seek khadr's repatriation. his lawyers are, of course, part of that movement. intervening in the case on his behalf were:

amnesty international, human rights watch, the university of toronto faculty of law, international human rights program, david asper centre for constitutional rights, canadian coalition for the rights of children, justice for children and youth, british columbia civil liberties association, criminal lawyers' association, canadian bar association, lawyers without borders canada, barreau du quebec, group d'etude en droits et libertes de la faculte de droit de l'universite laval, canadian civil liberties association, and national council for the protection of canadians abroad.

all bleeding hearts? i think not.

the issue is complicated: does a fifteen-year-old qualify as a child soldier when war hasn't been declared and when he's not wearing a uniform? will khadr face trial if he is repatriated? is it within the scc's jurisdiction to intervene in "foreign affairs"?

on friday, the supreme court of canada held that khadr's charge against the canadian government was sound:

"Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations and contributed to K’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice...There is a sufficient connection between the government’s participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K’s liberty and security of the person.  While the U.S. is the primary source of the deprivation, it is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before the Court that the statements taken by Canadian officials are contributing to K’s continued detention.  The deprivation of K’s right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.  The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects."

(the full decision can be found here! i urge you to read it!)

i have seen several troubling things happen in my country over the last few years. our prime minister pretends to be "tough on crime" and does what he can to take away judges' discretion. for instance, he advocated for minimum sentences in child molestation cases. when some people (i.e. the bloc quebecois) disagreed with him, he used *government funds* to paint them as pedophile sympathizers. never mind that lots of legal authorities have problems with the whole idea of minimum sentences!

harper has also undermined judges' discretion by introducing "truth in sentencing" legislation. judges would no longer be permitted to give (up to) 2-for-1 credit for time already served while awaiting trial. this is time that *alleged* criminals spend in *crowded, unsanitary* conditions, while they are *presumed innocent.* one of the functions of the 2-for-1 credit is to create a powerful disincentive for prosecutorial stalling. it helps ensure a speedy(ish) trial - a right guaranteed to all those charged under canadian law.

but, no.

also, maybe the state has the right to seek out your internet browsing history without a warrant.

also, maybe csis can tap your lawyer's phones and monitor your calls.

also, we may or may not have been involved in the torture of afghanis... but it doesn't really matter.

i don't recognize us anymore! when g.w. bush was re-elected, i was agog. if we let the same thing happen, i will actually weep. but i feel like this shouldn't have to wait until an election, you know? somehow, we have to care enough about justice today.

only... how?

(photo from theglobeandmail.com)