The Canadian government has come under severe criticism for offering an apology to Omar Khadr and an alleged compensation of $10.5 million.
The government has justified the apology and compensation, albeit without full disclosure, for its alleged failure to protect a Canadian citizen’s Charter Rights. The government claims that our officials had failed to provide proper counsellor services to its citizen, who suffered humiliation and torture in Guantanamo prison.
Firstly, let’s look briefly at the facts of the case: Omar Khadr’s father was an Al-Qaeda Jihadi, who offered his Canadian born son’s services to Islamist terrorists fighting in the name of Islam. As a juvenile, Khadr fought in the rank and file of Islamist terrorist organizations in Afghanistan. It was alleged that a grenade attack by Khadr killed an American soldier, Christopher Speer, and wounded others. Khadr pleaded guilty to five war crimes including the killing of Mr. Speer.
The American military brought many captured terrorists to a prison in Guantanamo, including Omar Khadr, with an aim to interrogate and obtain more information on other terrorists and their terrorists activities.
In 2003, during the Liberal regime of Jean Chretien, the Canadian officials from CSIS and Foreign Affairs diplomatic corps interrogated Khadr and shared information with their American counterparts. What information was gathered, and what was shared with American officials remains secret to this date? Foreign Affair officials tried to interview Khadr again in 2004 but he declined to answer any questions.
Secondly, we need to discuss the question of responsibility of a ‘juvenile’ for his crimes. It’s been argued that a fourteen years old Khadr should not be held responsible for his terrorist acts because he was ‘juvenile’ at that time. In domestic criminal law, the courts are certainly more lenient in sentencing juveniles than adults.
It does not, however, mean that juveniles are excused from criminal responsibility. They know right from wrong, thus they are held responsible for their behaviour and face the consequences of their acts. Sentencing process, of course, takes into consideration the degree of responsibility for crime: Was it premeditated or impulsive?
Omar Khadr’s act was certainly premeditated. He was trained by his father and others into Jihadi terrorist ideology and warfare. Like other Jihadis, he must have also been convinced about the awards of fighting for ‘Allah’- permanent settlement in heaven with all material luxuries and gratification. He knew his ‘friends’ and ‘enemies’ as described by his handlers.
In fact, the word from Jihadi networks was that he was a ‘super’ fighter with special skills very useful to Islamist terrorist. Further, he admitted his war crimes. Should we, therefore, not hold him responsible for his behaviour? Should he not face the consequences of his acts?
Unfortunately, the fight against terrorism is cruel, unusual and unique. The terrorists know no boundaries of barbarism, from killing civilians in trade towers to the bombings of trains, buses, airlines and shopping centers for soft targets, where unarmed civilians are sitting ducks for these trained murderers.
The security forces fighting such a menace are forced to adopt harsh measures to interrogate captured terrorists to stop future attacks on civilians, including women and children.
The debate about the Charter Rights of murderous terrorists is missing the point of barbarism unleashed by these self-appointed warriors of God. They can behead, kill, destroy and mutilate people without caring for any human life and dignity, but holding them in a prison without the ‘right to an attorney’ is a cardinal sin.
What about the rights of Christopher Speer, who lost his life in a grenade attack? What about the rights of another soldier, who permanently lost eyesight in one of his eyes? What about the rights of tens of thousands of victims of terrorism?
Justin Trudeau has established a pattern by first fighting for the rights of the terrorists to maintain their Canadian citizenship with recent amendments to the Citizenship Act, and now offering an apology and large amount to a terrorist who admitted his guilt of war crimes including the killing of Mr. Speer. This has nothing to do with the defence of Charter of Rights, but it has everything to do with maintaining a ‘vote bank’.
