Nouvelles
Déconstruire les mythes de l’affaire Khadr
Julien Vailles
2017-07-25 14:30:00
Ce n’est pas parce que le règlement dans l’affaire Khadr nous déplaît qu’on peut balayer le droit et les faits du revers de la main, dit un avocat...
Les arguments de ceux qui s’opposent à la compensation, note l’avocat, se recoupent généralement ainsi : la Charte ne s’applique pas hors du Canada; même si c’était le cas, les violations alléguées à celle-ci sont très limitées; quoiqu’il en soit, Khadr est moralement coupable et l’artisan de son propre malheur, puisqu’il a admis avoir tué un soldat américain; et la Cour suprême n’a jamais ordonné une telle compensation.
Application de la Charte à l’étranger
Il suggère de reprendre ces arguments un à un. Tout d’abord, il est clair que la Charte s’applique à un tel cas, note l’avocat, même si les détracteurs de l’entente disent le contraire. Ceux-ci se basent sur l’arrêt Hape, rendu en 2007, qui dit que la Charte ne trouve pas application en matière de fouilles, perquisitions et saisies effectuées à l’étranger par des policiers canadiens.
Et en 2008, le plus haut tribunal du pays a précisément conclu que cette exception s’appliquait à l’affaire Khadr. Il est clair, donc, que la Charte doit s’appliquer, argue M. Spratt.
Des violations minimales?
Ensuite, on suggère que les violations de la Charte sont minimales, et que les policiers canadiens n’ont voyagé à Guantanamo uniquement pour poser quelques questions à Khadr.
Mais la Cour suprême a conclu de manière opposée en 2010. Elle a statué que les agents canadiens avait interrogé Khadr en toute connaissance de cause, alors qu’ils savaient que celui-ci était détenu dans un camp qui violait les lois internationales.
La Cour d’appel fédérale a d’ailleurs conclu que le programme « grand voyageur » qu’il a subi constituait une peine cruelle et inusitée. Donc, le Canada a été complice dans la torture dont il a été victime.
Pire, les fruits de l’interrogation ont été livrés au gouvernement américain; les aveux ainsi obtenus ont donc eu un impact actif dans la situation de M. Khadr.
Aveux inadmissibles?
Ces aveux, d’ailleurs, ont été obtenus dans des conditions d’oppression et de torture, ce qui fait douter de la sincérité du principal intéressé. Une telle confession ne serait jamais admissible devant un tribunal canadien, écrit l’avocat.
Mais cela n’a aucune importance. Car Khadr est en fait indemnisé pour des violations de la Charte s’étant produites après les événements sur le champ de bataille. Les actions de celui-ci ont peut-être contribué à sa détention, mais il n’a rien fait pour mériter d’être torturé.
D’ailleurs, peu importe qu’il soit coupable ou non, croit M. Spratt, car la Charte s’applique aussi bien aux coupables qu’aux innocents, indique-t-il.
Compensation démesurée?
Dernier argument des « anti-Khadr » : rien ne justifierait une compensation aussi élevée. Reste qu’une telle compensation a eu lieu après d’énormes efforts de médiation par des juristes très expérimentés.
Ce montant aurait-il pu être différent dans un procès? Bien sûr. Certains experts s’entendent d’ailleurs pour dire que ceux-ci auraient pu se situer entre 30 et 40 millions de dollars. En ce sens, 10,5 millions n’est pas si mal…
En somme, conclut l’avocat, c’est une chose d’être mal à l’aise avec l’entente Khadr, mais celle-ci s’appuie sur le droit et les faits.
Et vous, qu’en pensez-vous?
4537
DSG
il y a 7 ansIt's understandable that a criminal defense attorney will stir around the jurisprudence like a bowl of alphabet soup in order to come to a conclusion that suits the criminal. But these are extremely weak arguments and not worthy of publication.
He himself states that in the Hape case applies to Canadian police operating outside of Canada. Last I checked the U.S. government is not a representative of the crown.
In his introduction he repeats what I've been saying (which is that no monetary compensation was granted in the judgment) yet in his arguments he makes no judicial link between that fact and the fact that a monetary compensation that was granted.
Was Khadr's admission and apology when the deal was struck to extradite him to Canada also inadmissible? And who are these experts that everyone keeps referring to that are higher and mightier than our government and our courts who just decide that Khadr would have been entitled to more even though there is absolutely no precedent in Canadian law for this type of situation?
Time and time again people are defending this settlement on legal grounds yet as per this article, I have yet to see anything convincing in Canadian law that justifies it. It's purely political, that's it.
Legal Counsel
il y a 7 ansOh my God...thank you! This whole settlement, at best, reeks of a P.R. stunt by the Government.
You want to know why people are defending this? The phenomenon has been called the "bigotry of low expectations". As someone who is left-leaning, politically speaking, I have witnessed the dawn of this fringe of regressive left idiots and apologists who have totally consumed the Kool-Aid that is cultural relativism. So, when a situation like the Khadr saga comes along, they have this knee-jerk reaction in their minds that goes prevents them from being critical of him or his behavior in any way, simply because of his Muslim faith. They refuse to hold him to the same standard they would hold you or I, because his skin is brown. Then come the tortured legal arguments seeking to justify an inherently flawed position.
Anonyme
il y a 7 ansYou persist in showing off the fact that you don't grasp the concepts at play.
You present arguments that have been refuted in the text (and in the Supreme Court)! You repeat again that the Cdn gov did nothing wrong when the Supreme Court has stated the opposite.
Let me help you out, I'll spell it out for you: Khadr was going to win money. How much? That is the only question. People in the know and the government's lawyers say that $10.5M is a fair compromise.
'Last I checked the U.S. government is not a representative of the crown."
You are right, but do yourself a favour and read the decision to grasp what the Supreme Court has decided.
"no monetary compensation was granted in the judgment"
That is true, but no monetary compensation was requested at the time. That is why this is a second distinct case where the decision from the Supreme Court (i.e. that his rights were breached) has full precedential value.
"Was Khadr's admission and apology when the deal was struck to extradite him to Canada also inadmissible?" Yes, it says so clearly in the text! Is it a language issue?
"I have yet to see anything convincing in Canadian law that justifies it".
Either you are of extremely bad faith and stubborn, either you should stop pretending that you are a lawyer!
"It's purely political, that's it."
This is the most insidious part of your comment because you are implying that this is beneficial for the Libs because an entire community supports this or his actions. Those who support this actually don't care about the guy's religion or ethnicity (as opposed to a significant portion of those who are against it), they believe in the rule of law.
DSG
il y a 7 ansSo where's your legal argument? Where's your case law? It's bleeding hearts like you who keep invoking the rule of law, that the experts say he could have gotten more and the court indirectly said that he was entitled to money, so on and so forth. But I have yet to see you cite a single precedent that supports a 10M$ payout. You can't make a legal case so you throw insults. I question your legal abilities. At least the author of the article tried to justify it in law. He failed miserably, but at least he tried.
Anonyme
il y a 7 ans"prevents them from being critical of him or his behavior in any way, simply because of his Muslim faith. They refuse to hold him to the same standard they would hold you or I"
You're missing the point. Actually, you don't know to what standards those who support the settlement would hold him. The fact is that this is not the issue. Your guilt or prior actions cannot be used as justification for breaching his Charter rights or even reducing the compensation. They are 2 distinct issues.
In my opinion, and I have repeatedly defended the settlement, the guy should have been tried for treason for attacking an ally of Canadian forces. This should have been done before a regular court of law within a reasonable amount of time, with regular counsel having access to all the evidence and taking into account the fact that he was 15 at the time. Of course he should not have been tortured. All of these factors should have led to specific results under Canadian/ international law.
But this is not what happened. You can't chuck all your law aside because you don't like the result or you don't believe that the process is expedient enough.
So it's not about holding him to a standard. The issue- conveniently predecided by the Supreme Court- was whether his rights had been breached by the Canadian government.
The colour of his skin or his faith should not have an impact on the fact that the Canadian government respected the highest law of the land.
Anonyme
il y a 7 ansLa seule raison pourquoi vous pensez que l'auteur (un journaliste par ailleurs) a échoué est que vous ne comprenez pas le processus en cause et vous êtes aveuglé par vos préjugés.
DSG
il y a 7 ansenough said
Anonyme
il y a 7 ansPour vous citer (2 commentaires plus haut): "You can't make a legal case so you throw insults."
hahaha
Anonyme
il y a 7 ansIt's all in there. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Anonyme
il y a 7 ansIncredibly mature, I'm impressed. So, thin-skinned troll it is!
DSG
il y a 7 ansIt wasn't an insult. You really are stupid. If your doctor tells you that you are diabetic (per example), he's not insulting you. You actually do have a deficiency of brain cells or lack of blood circulation in your head. Think about it, mastermind. You disagree with what I say so I must prejudiced. Simple as that. That's what your law degree has earned you. That's the kind of reasoning that causes women to think that men who are not attracted to them are gay.
Anonyme
il y a 7 ansReach the bottom and determined to keep digging.
hahaha
Is that the best you got? Just keep to what's within the scope of your capabilities and stick with the fart jokes....
SMMD
il y a 7 ansJ'en mangerais mon chapeau à voir un tribunal canadien accorder des dommages non pécuniaires de 30 ou 40 millions de dollars, même à Omar Khadr.
Je ne suis pas contre le fait de l'indemniser pour la faute commise à son égard par l'État, mais gardons le quantum à un niveau décent.
Quand je pense que les dommages non pécuniaires des victimes de fautes civiles causant des dommages corporels au Canada ont été limités à 100 000 $ (ajustés à la hausse pour l'inflation) par la Cour suprême dans l'arrêt Andrews, c'est un peu difficile d'avaler la pilule de ces experts établissant les dommages à 40 millions... même en tenant compte des distinctions de l'espèce.
Quant aux aveux, qu'en est-il des excuses qu'il a présentées en pleine salle d'audience à la famille du soldat américain ? Il n'y était pas obligé mais il a spontanément avoué sa faute en faisant ces excuses-là et on ne me dira surtout pas qu'il l'a fait à cause d'une quelconque torture, car celui-là était bel et bien volontaire.
Anonyme
il y a 7 ans" Il n'y était pas obligé mais il a spontanément avoué sa faute en faisant ces excuses-là et on ne me dira surtout pas qu'il l'a fait à cause d'une quelconque torture, car celui-là était bel et bien volontaire."
Good point. However you surely understand that his guilt or innocence has no impact on the outcome of the civil case. Further, and more importantly, they came AFTER the settlement which means that they probably would not have been made if this thing had gone to trial.
And I agree about the 30-40 million amount.
SMMD
il y a 7 ansAs I understand it, he gave non-specific condolences to the family after the settlement came in, but the apology I am referring to was a previous one from 2010.
And I know his innocence or guilt has no bearing on whether or not his rights were violated, but since the subject was discussed by the author anyways, I took the liberty of adding my 2 cents because when the subject of the inadmissibility of his "confession" comes up, his initial, pre-settlement apology rarely is mentioned.
http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-world/khadr-says-sorry-to-slain-soldiers-widow-20101029-176fg.html
DSG
il y a 7 ansHow can you say that? Even the most blatant violation of the Charter is measured against the severity of the crime and the impact on the image of justice if the accused were acquitted solely on the Charter violation. There are loads of judgments on that point.
Anonyme
il y a 7 ans"if the accused were acquitted solely on the Charter violation."
This is criminal law.
Here, it's a civil case. So yes, his guilt or innocence has no impact on the outcome of the case.
Anonyme
il y a 7 ansPlease don't waste your time. DSG does not understand the process and keeps repeating the same fallacies time after time. He should really keep to his forte, fart jokes!
DSG
il y a 7 ansThe remedy in criminal matters is acquittal if there is a charter violation and the violation is measured against the severity of the act committed by the person against whom the violation occurred. The test is the same be it civil or criminal matters. Per example an illegal search reveals that a person didn't pay taxes, the court will take into account the number of years and the amounts in question. If its hundreds of millions as opposed to a few thousand the courts will take that into account in applying the remedy for the violation (even if it consists of an order to pay or not to pay the taxes).
Anyways you people are too stupid to have a legal argument so you just resort to name calling.
Anonyme
il y a 7 ansNo one is as clueless as the one who is clueless and does not know this....
And in this case, thin-skinned too.
PP
il y a 7 ansLe plus gros mythe de tous concernant l'affaire d'Omar Khadr est qu'il était un enfant innocent à seize ans lorsqu'il a tué le soldat américain et blessé l'autre.
Notre société célèbre désormais le mauvais et condamne le bon, c'est surréaliste.