The Militant (logo)  

Vol. 74/No. 44      November 22, 2010

 
Canadian citizen sentenced in
Guantánamo military tribunal
 
BY ANNETTE KOURI  
MONTREAL—Omar Khadr, a prisoner at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, pleaded guilty to what the U.S. government calls terrorism-related charges. Khadr was 15 years old when he was shot and captured in Afghanistan more than eight years ago.

Khadr was convicted and sentenced by a military commission in which the judge and “jury” are military personnel appointed by the Pentagon. The prosecution can use hearsay and secret evidence. In the tribunal, government prosecutors can use statements obtained through beatings, threats, and forms of torture as “evidence.” Defendants are also denied the right to see and challenge secret evidence used against them.

Until now Khadr had maintained his innocence and contested the court procedures and conditions at Guantánamo. His guilty plea spared him a likely possibility of life in prison. He was sentenced to 40 years, but as part of a prearranged plea bargain he will serve one more year in Guantánamo and then be sent to Canada for a possible seven more years in prison.

Khadr is a Canadian citizen and the Canadian government has joined in the abrogation of Khadr’s civil rights since he was taken into U.S. custody. In 2003 Canadian intelligence interrogated Khadr at Guantánamo under conditions of extreme sleep deprivation. In January 2010 the Supreme Court of Canada recognized this as a violation of Khadr’s human rights. In its ruling the court agreed with lower Canadian courts that the Canadian government should request Khadr be repatriated. The decision, however, clearly stated that it was a recommendation to the Canadian government, not a demand.

Even Canada’s leading big-business newspaper, the Globe and Mail, commented recently on “the wrongful prosecution of Omar Khadr” and Canada’s role in that prosecution. “Forty-eight years for terrorism offences committed in those circumstances at age 15—the military-justice system is blind to any notion of a different moral standard for young people,” the paper said.

“And what role did Canada play?” the editorial continued. “Shamefully, it sent its official to bully him into giving out incriminating information that it then handed to his prosecutors, an act the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously condemned. The Canadian government then declared, ‘Let the process work.’ Some process.”  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home