|
After all, the US has one of the fairest justice systems in the world.
Normally it does, but not in this case. The American Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to an impartial jury, as well as the right to test evidence used against the accused. The problem is, Omar Khadr is not subject to regular American law. Instead, the US invented a new “Military Commissions” system that denies many rights that are essential to a fair and impartial trial.
Omar spent 27 months in Guantanamo before he ever saw a lawyer, three years until any charges were laid against him, and five years before he was allowed his first phone call to his mother. The “legal black hole” that is Guantanamo Bay allows evidence obtained from mistreatment, permits political interference, withholds evidence from the accused, and denies access to constitutional protection or civilian courts.
A system like this is not designed to find the truth, but to secure convictions. But even if he is acquitted, the US claims Omar could be detained indefinitely.
Indeed, the legal system at Guantanamo Bay is so controversial and unfair that it cannot be applied to Americans who stand accused of the same crimes as Omar. If this system isn't good enough for Americans, it isn't good enough for Canadians.
Normal Western justice systems have been engaged in a balancing act between protecting society and the rights of the accused for a long time now. These systems have the tools necessary to deal with the threat of terrorism, and are dealing with it as we speak. Canada, the UK and Spain are all using regular domestic criminal law to prosecute alleged terrorists. -
►Read a summary of the legal inadequacies of the Military Comissions Act -
►Amnesty International's report, Justice Delayed, and Justice Denied? on the injustice of the Military Comissions Act -
►Check out the letters from the Canadian Bar Association, calling for Omar's repatriation and describing the problems with Guantanamo Bay's system, sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2006 and 2007. -
►Judge in Khadr case replaced: An appearance of interference, Globe and Mail, June 3 2008
|
