The American war crimes trial of Canadian-born Omar Khadr for terrorist acts is likely to have a profound impact on many aspects of law around the world, including here in Canada.
Khadr is accused of having thrown a grenade that killed an American soldier during a firefight in Afghanistan. Khadr himself was seriously injured. He ended up at Guantanamo Bay where he has been imprisoned for seven years, and is presently the only Western citizen behind bars there. While at Guantanamo Bay, he is said to have made a confession as a result of or under threat of torture.
One of the key legal questions is the validity of a confession gained through torture. Most people in this part of the world have always equated torturing confessions out of people with events like the Spanish Inquisition – brutal, uncivilized, and counter-productive. How American authorities in the year 2010 can deem such a confession acceptable in a court of law is disturbing to the extreme.
But then, this trial contravenes a lot of accepted legal standards we take for granted in our free and democratic part of the world. What about a “jury of one's peers?” The jury at Khadr's war crimes trial is made up of American military personnel, as are the judge, prosecuting team and defence attorney. What about “innocent until proven guilty?” Imprisoning a man for seven years and then putting him on trial would appear to make a finding of guilt somewhat redundant.
There is also the question of citizenship. Khadr was born in Canada although he and his family have spent little time here. His family's allegiance has never been to this country but to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist ilk, the very people who kill Canadian soldiers as well as American ones every chance they get in the war in Afghanistan. Canada's failure to protect one of its citizens has been widely criticized by rights advocates around the world, but in every way that counts, the Khadr family is not Canadian.
The trial has drawn attention to “citizens of convenience.” The Khadr family is not the only one that uses Canadian citizenship as a “get out of jail free” card. We have grown weary of “Canadians” who contribute nothing to this country, reside in other countries, support causes in those countries that may conflict with Canadian interests, espouse values that are contrary to ours, and who clearly do not consider themselves Canadian – until they land in trouble. Then out comes the maple leaf.
Canadians like to consider our country a land of opportunity, freedom and refuge for people of many nationalities and religions. We do not appreciate seeing Canadian citizenship abused and debased. Many people in this part of the country think it is time our government revoked some of those “get out of jail free” cards. The Khadr family might be a good place to start.
The issue that has the greatest potential to affect people in this very community, is age. Most countries around the world consider a 15-year-old combatant a child soldier, and thus a victim, not a criminal. Child soldiers in other countries are testifying as witnesses at war crimes trials, not being tried themselves. Some of them have committed horrendous atrocities and many murders.
In this country, two sisters about Khadr's age – one was 15 and the other 16 – drugged their mother and drowned her in the bathtub – a deliberate and well-planned act no one coerced them into committing. Under present youth justice legislation, the maximum time either girl could spend behind bars was six years. Khadr, at 15, was doing the bidding of his adult relatives, admittedly with apparent enthusiasm, but in an environment where reluctance was not an option. He has already been imprisoned for seven years and is looking at a possible life sentence.
While an American war crimes trial at Guantanamo Bay would seem to have little in common with proceedings in small town Ontario against local n'er-do-wells, the outcome of the Khadr trial cannot help but influence how legal systems both American and Canadian view young criminals, in particular the extent to which they may be held accountable for serious offences.