Monday, December 19, 2005

This is Very Troubling

In my morning browse through the headlines, I ran across this article about Abdullah Khadr being arrested in Canada. Within a week of this man being returned to Canada from a year in Pakistani custody, the United States brings forth two charges:

1) possession and use of a destructive device to further a crime of violence
2) conspiracy to murder a U.S. national outside the United States.


The history of the Khadr family has hardly been a shining example of a successful immigration into Canada. However, what bothers me is the principles that are being applied in the charges the United States is bringing forth.

The first concern I have is the second charge itself. It is the extraterritorial nature of the charge that is deeply disturbing. The United States is asking the world to hand over people it accuses of 'conspiracy', but not merely conspiracy to commit a crime on American soil, but conspiracy to commit a crime against an American outside of American territory.

Consider the implications - essentially, it asserts a principle similar to the notion of an Embassy which is considered to be 'national soil' even though it is in another country but applies the principle to each individual person. We are not even talking about the actual comission of a crime, but rather conspiring to commit one. Further, the Americans have essentially attempted to assert that their laws are not only to be applied within the boundaries of the United States and its protectorates, but also elsewhere in the world.

While the specifics of the charges will no doubt attempt to play on the Khadr family's links to al-Qaeda, I am not at all comfortable with the United States demanding his extradition on the basis of crimes allegedly committed in another country altogether. Like the situation involving marijuana activist Marc Emery, it strikes me as being not only extraterritorial, but somewhat unwarranted as well.

With the Bush administration continually denying the validity of due process in the so-called "war on terror". With the situations (numerous) that indicate that the United States is not applying its own laws appropriately, any extradition request must be viewed with considerable caution. Canada must insist upon both clear evidence of a crime, but also we need guarantees from the United States that they will act within due process of law in all situations regarding the suspect involved. No presidential fiat, no holding people indefinitely without charge (Jose Padilla, for example). If the United States is not willing to provide such guarantees, Canada should be correspondingly unwilling to extradite suspects to the United States.

No comments:

The Cass Review and the WPATH SOC

The Cass Review draws some astonishing conclusions about the WPATH Standards of Care (SOC) . More or less, the basic upshot of the Cass Rev...