Did the Judge Error on Khadr?

Okay. I have to elaborate on this post by Candace at Walking Up On Planet X (curtsy).

You'll have to excuse me because I'm a little pissed (not drunk, angry). I wish I had more time to go over the legal parts, but the need to post was urgent. I did a much better job when I wrote Minister Cotler and copied the U.S. State Department (I was pissed then too in order to do that!)about this same subject, including a complaint about our judges.

That was in 2003. If I can find the letter by the Minister in response, I'll post it. But let me tell you, it wasn't much. As a matter of fact, it was nothing.

In the spring of 2000 when I was a practicing Muslim I met Maha el Samnah Khadr in London Ontario at a social housing complex called Limberlost (kinda appropriate no?). The Canadian woman who organized this meeting was named Farida.

Whatever her connections were, she was able to organize this meeting with Maha as a fundraising event to collect money for the orphanages she and her husband, Ahmed Said Khadr were running in Afghanistan.

Maha lied to us right then and there. She told the women who were from various cultures within the London Muslim community (Somali, Sudanese, Canadian, Palestian, Lebanese, whatever) that the customs and CSIS had stopped them at the airport when they returned to Toronto from Afghanistan.

Maha deliberately lied to us, feeding on the Muslim tendencies to not believe any Westerner. She said to us “they think we’re terrorists” and we believed her! We thought they were just racists and she led us to believe they were doing charity work when all the while her husband, who was killed on October 2, 2003 by the Pakistani military, was a senior leader for al Qaeda working with Osama bin Laden who was running al Qaeda training camps.

Well sorry Maha. You’re a liar and that makes you a hypocrite, which is an offense against Islam. (I will link this post to the transcript of Terrence McKenna’s “al Qaeda Family” once I get it typed).

Zainab, the daughter, who recently had her laptop taken by security officials at Pearson, says about suicide bombing “I don’t have the guts to do that yet”.

Yet…

YET!

So what is the Canadian government waiting for? More donations?

Not only that in 1996 Chretien had Maha and her sons visit him when he was in Pakistan to get her husband when he was still alive out of jail for complicity in bombing the Egyptian Embassy in Karachi. Chretien complied and told one of the sons, “maybe someday you’ll be Prime Minister. No doubt, at the rate we’re going. Are Canadian politicians a bunch of idiots?

First we have an idiot justice presiding and ignoring intimidation of witnesses in the Air India bombing. (Merit in the appointment, no?)

Now we have another federal judge (appointed on merit too?) who has made a judgement without taking into consideration we are “at war”. Or at least that’s what I thought was meant when our politicians used the phrase “war on terror”.

For one C.S.I.S is not the R.C.M.P charging baby-terrorist Omar Khadr with a criminal offense (yet). Since when do CSIS agents have to read anyone their rights to interview him under the C.S.I.S Act?

Having not read the rationale for ill-conceived judgement I’m wondering if he knows there is such a thing as High Treason in section 46 of the Criminal Code of Canada?

How bout this:

(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Or Sabotage?

52. (1) Every one who does a prohibited act for a purpose prejudicial to

(a) the safety, security or defence of Canada, or

Are our soldiers not defending Canadians from terrorism that has been imported from Islamo-fascist ideologues?

Does the government forget these words

Or what about TERRORISM? (Gee, I wonder why we have a law for that?)

Part II section 83.01 of the C.C.C titled

As defined: Terrorism is,

and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission,
or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act
or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission
that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the
place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or
conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities
undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official
duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of
international law

Um…do the civil rules apply when there is a war when the baby terrorist Khadr is in the hands of a foreign ally?

And what about this section?

Admission of foreign information obtained in confidence

83.06 (1) For
the purposes of subsection 83.05(6), in private and in the absence of the
applicant or any counsel representing it,

(a) the Solicitor General of
Canada may make an application to the judge for the admission of information
obtained in confidence from a government, an institution or an agency of a
foreign state, from an international organization of states or from an
institution or an agency of an international organization of states; and

(b) the judge shall examine the information and provide counsel
representing the Solicitor General with a reasonable opportunity to be heard as
to whether the information is relevant but should not be disclosed to the
applicant or any counsel representing it because the disclosure would injure
national security or endanger the safety of any person.

Return of
information

(2) The information shall be returned to counsel
representing the Solicitor General and shall not be considered by the judge in
making the determination under paragraph 83.05(6)(d), if

(a) the judge
determines that the information is not relevant;

(b) the judge
determines that the information is relevant but should be summarized in the
statement to be provided under paragraph 83.05(6)(b); or

(c) the
Solicitor General withdraws the application.

Use of information

(3) If the judge decides that the information is relevant but that its
disclosure would injure national security or endanger the safety of persons, the
information shall not be disclosed in the statement mentioned in paragraph
83.05(6)(b), but the judge may base the determination under paragraph
83.05(6)(d) on it.

2001, c. 41, s. 4.