Send the Bacons to Guantánamo...

...the matriarch, the patriarch, and the surviving brothers. They've done more damage to Canada and the world than have the Khadrs. Maybe we can do a swap.

Bad Guys

See also, Battle of Lake Erie, War of 1812, decisively lost by the British Navy. Who exactly were the Bad Guys then?

Christy Clark and The Great Bitumen Swamp of Alberta

In the spring of 2011 - infamous spring in Vancouver - the Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, famously said the Province of BC would not assist the City of Vancouver with extra policing during the Stanley Cup playoff final, but would be happy to contribute to the Stanley Cup victory parade.

Subsequently, after there was a riot after the Stanley Cup final due in some measure to lack of adequate policing, Christy Clark was all over the criminal investigation and court proceedings, all conducted at Provincial expense, and which she tried to get covered on television.  The word "hypocrisy" comes to mind, in large neon Day-Glo letters, flashing on and off like hideous Christmas decorations.  Fortunately, she failed.

Now, we have her "policy" on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal, which was concocted after months of dithering and is still completely confused.  The pipeline is more of a risk than an asset she says, unless of course Alberta pays us money.  Christy could wait for the result of the formal review, but since that won't come down until immediately before the next BC provincial election - if she's lucky - she apparently is impelled to launch a public relations offensive that is transparently stupid.

In fact, that's the good news:  the government of BC is so transparent that its policy is obviously stupid.

Orwell in Syria

So a Syrian Rebel, an Afghan Insurgent, and a Pakistani Militant walk into a bar.  And the bartender says, "You know, I can't tell you guys apart."

And the Rebel says, "Donworryaboudit.  Neither...can...the BBC."

"But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."
George Orwell
Politics and the English Language

"The failure of airborne democracy"

"2000—01 seem to support this idea:  many conversations in the Afghan capital and beyond reflected the desire of Afghans of different walks of life to determine for themselves their own political future."

Thomas Ruttig
Afghanistan Analysts Network
in  Snapshots of an Intervention:  the unlearned lessons of Afghanistan's decade of assistance 2001-2011.

Welcome Back, Khadr

Malcolm Mayes Cartoon - July 24

Photograph by: Malcolm Mayes, edmontonjournal.com

So Omar Khadr might be brought back to Canada over Rob Nicholson's dead body.  It's another win/win.

Apart from the obvious advantages of not having Nicholson as Canada's Attorney-General, there is the obvious difficulty of what would happen if Khadr were returned to Canadian custody to serve out his "sentence."

Here's the Charter:

Proceedings in criminal and penal matters 11.
Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;

[emphasis added]

So there you have it.  As a Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr is guaranteed the right not to be found guilty of a crime unless "it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations".

Khadr was tried and convicted in a court that is not recognized under Canadian or international law, or the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations; that used evidence not admissible in Canada or under international law; and that does not meet the standards for a "military tribunal" defined by the Geneva Conventions of 1949, signed by the United States and Canada.  Here's Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, regarding prisoners of war:

"Art 5.

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

It seems obvious that whatever went on at Guantanamo, Khadr and fellow prisoners did not enjoy the protection of the Convention and their status was never determined by a competent tribunal. Arguments that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to Khadr and his ilk are best answered in the words of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal in their judgement on Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel:

When, on 8th September, 1941, OKW issued its ruthless regulations for the treatment of Soviet POW's, Canaris wrote to Keitel that under international law the SD should have nothing to do with this matter. On this memorandum in Keitel's handwriting, dated 23rd September and initialled by him, is the statement: " The objections arise from the military concept of chivalrous warfare. This is the destruction of an ideology. Therefore I approve and back the measures." ...

There is nothing in mitigation. Superior orders, even to a soldier, cannot be considered in mitigation where crimes as shocking and extensive have been committed consciously, ruthlessly and without military excuse or justification.

Keitel was hung at Nuremberg.

So if Omar Khadr is returned to Canada, he'll walk, as he should. Canada and the United States will look very stupid, and in breach of the international humanitarian law both have signed, and which the Supreme Court of Canada has said is binding.  

Nicholson  will, arguably, be complicit in a war crime.

Yessss.  Myles Kirvan should resign, like Sims did.

They should charge him with treason...

If the US government has proof that Bradley Manning consciously "aided the enemy" then they should charge him with treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

American Constitution, Article 3 Section 3

So if Manning has adhered to America's enemies, "giving them aid and comfort," he should be charged with treason.  He hasn't.

On the other hand, his Oath of Enlistment reads:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The Constitution is silent about the consequences of disobeying military orders in order to support and defend the the Constitution of the United States.

We're back to :

Testimony July 16, 1973, by former Major Hal Knight, USAF,  at Hearings of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Ninety-Third Congress, on bombing in Cambodia - particularly regarding falsification of records of  B52 targets - page 44

Mr. Knight.  Frankly, sir, I felt that the Senate Armed Services Committee was deceived.  On this side of the House, if you go up through the military chain, I don't imagine that anybody was deceived.

Senator Thurmond.  It was your duty to act within the military channel and to pass on anything to higher headquarters which you felt was improper, wasn't it?

Mr.  Knight.  Yes, sir, but I didn't take an oath to support the military, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.  That goes beyond strictly military channels.

 (emphasis added )