ProudToBeCanadian
It's a question.
The latest from our COLUMNIST SECTION:
-
Tuesday, Mar 09, 10:01 PM
Mike S. Adams
The Breyer Patch -
Monday, Mar 08, 10:01 PM
Mike S. Adams
The University of Notre Shame -
Sunday, Mar 07, 08:04 PM
David Warren
Tyranny of but -
Sunday, Mar 07, 08:18 AM
Doug Giles
Should Christians Use Saul Alinsky’s Tactics in Exposing Corruption? -
Saturday, Mar 06, 10:03 AM
Salim Mansur
Protect free speech, even if offensive -
Saturday, Mar 06, 08:45 AM
Rory Leishman
A rare display of political courage -
Saturday, Mar 06, 08:41 AM
David Warren
The pampered, privileged public service -
Friday, Mar 05, 10:21 AM
S. Wray Gregoire
Are We the World? -
Friday, Mar 05, 10:19 AM
Susan Martinuk
Insite doesn’t do enough to change addicts -
Wednesday, Mar 03, 07:49 PM
Ann Coulter
Subprime Mortgage Crisis Hits Whorehouses -
Wednesday, Mar 03, 08:08 AM
David Warren
Competitive thrills -
Wednesday, Mar 03, 08:05 AM
Barbara Kay
Refugees R Us -
Monday, Mar 01, 10:01 PM
Mike S. Adams
Our New LGBTQIA Center -
Sunday, Feb 28, 09:55 AM
David Warren
Hockey night in Canada -
Sunday, Feb 28, 09:52 AM
Doug Giles
ACORN Goes Madonna and Tries to Reinvent Itself -
Saturday, Feb 27, 10:55 AM
Salim Mansur
Long, bloody road to Islam reform -
Saturday, Feb 27, 10:52 AM
David Warren
The limits of youthful enthusiasm -
Friday, Feb 26, 09:08 AM
Susan Martinuk
From Clark Kent to Superman—Canada gets heroic -
Thursday, Feb 25, 10:01 PM
Mike S. Adams
I Am Woman Hear Me Toot -
Wednesday, Feb 24, 05:45 PM
Ann Coulter
What Part Of ‘Party Of No’ Don’t You Understand?
Click here to see more of our columns or use the drop-down menu atop this stack)
.jpg)
Free-Market Capitalist Consumer Information:
These companies choose to advertise on the
socialism-reliant CBC:
(Links lead to mailing addresses)
• AIG (insur)
• Air Canada
• AOL Travel
• Bank of Montreal ("BMO")
• Best Western
• Canada Protection Plan
• Canada Revenue Agency (!)
• Canadian Tire Fin Serv
• Chip Home Income Plan
• CIBC
• Cold FX
• Desjardins (insurance)
• Directbuy, Inc
• Edward Jones
• General Motors
• Grand and Toy
• Grey Power (insurance)
• H&R Block
• Hilton Hotels
• iContact email marketing
• Infinity (cars)
• Koodoo mobile
• Lens Crafters
• Monster.ca
• National Post
• Neutrogena
• Nutrisystem
• Quicktax
• RBC (Royal bank)
• Rogers Cable
• ScotiaBank
• Shaw Cable
• Texas Travel
• The Co-operators (ins)
• Tim Hortons
• Travelodge
• Vonage
• WeightWatchers
• Westjet
• Working.com
• Zip.ca
Please read more here.
PTBC Columnist Team
Columnists -- with bite! We feature conservative-friendly writers from Canada and the U.S. who help clarify the difference between liberals and conservatives. All have personally agreed to be a part of our team here at PTBC.
Rory Leishman
posted on Saturday, November 21, 2009
Bio/Email | Rory Leishman Archives | Printer-Friendly Version
The key issue before the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Omar Ahmed Khadr versus The Prime Minister of Canada is straightforward: Who has ultimate responsibility for Canadian foreign policy—unelected and unaccountable judges in the courts or elected representatives of the people in the Government and Parliament of Canada?
For the past seven years, Khadr, a 23-year-old Canadian, has been held without trial in Guantanamo Bay on suspicion of murder in the death of a United States soldier who was killed with a hand grenade during a firefight in Afghanistan. In 2003 and 2004, agents of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Department of Foreign Affairs interviewed Khadr in Guantanamo Bay and shared the resulting information with the United States, although they knew Khadr had been subjected to sleep deprivation.
On this basis, the majority on the Federal Court of Appeal held in a two-to-one ruling on August 14 that the government of Canada was complicit in the torturing of Khadr and had thereby violated his right to life, liberty and security of the person as guaranteed in section seven of the the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a remedy for this violation of Khadr’s Charter rights, the Court ordered the government of Canada to request the government of the United States to return Khadr to Canada as soon as practicable.
The Supreme Court of Canada should have no hesitation in overturning this ludicrous judgment on appeal. In a compelling dissent in Khadr, Mr. Justice Marc Nadon of the Federal Court of Appeal observed that there is no link between the allegedly inappropriate interviews and the remedy of repatriation.
Furthermore, Nadon maintained that the courts have no constitutional authority to issue such an order that directly interferes with the conduct of Canadian foreign policy. He explained: “How Canada should conduct its foreign affairs, including the management of its relationship with the U.S. and the determination of the means by which it should advance its position in regard to the protection of Canada’s national interest and its fight against terrorism, should be left to the judgment of those who have been entrusted by the democratic process to manage these matters on behalf of the Canadian people.”
That’s exactly right. Let us hope that the majority on the Supreme Court of Canada exhibits similar judicial restraint in upholding the fundamental separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers under the Constitution of Canada.
Meanwhile, United States Attorney-General Eric Holder announced last week that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several other al Qaeda operatives will be put on trial in New York City federal court. Khadr is not part of this group: He and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be put on trial in a military tribunal.
Why this difference in treatment? Holder has explained that he decided upon a military tribunal for Khadr and others because the United States government does not have sufficient evidence to assure their conviction in a civilian court.
In Khadr’s case, it seems that much of the evidence against him is based on statements he made to United States and CSIS officials after undergoing sleep deprivation. These statements cannot be used in a civilian court, but they might be admissible under the rules of the United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, provided “the totality of the circumstances renders the statements reliable and possessing sufficient probative value” and “the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statements into evidence.”
The Obama administration has good reason to put Khadr on trial in a military commission. Correspondingly, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is right not to request Khadr’s immediate return to Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada should not presume to interfere with this key foreign-policy decision.
It is in the interests of both Canada and the United States that Khadr is brought to trial before a United States military commission—the kind of institution that is best equipped to deal with war crimes and suspected terrorists.

Rory Leishman is an award-winning former full-time editorial writer and columnist at the London Free Press and has taught courses at the University of Western Ontario on Canadian federalism, Quebec politics and introductory political theory. Buy his book “Against Judicial Activism - The Decline of Freedom and Democracy in Canada through Amazon.ca.
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
•
• Category: Rory Leishman +


.jpg)