Innocent until proven guilty. Judge not, lest ye be judged. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Due process and fair trials for those accused of grievous crimes, as opposed to kangaroo courts, torture and coerced confessions.
While most Canadians would (hopefully) no doubt agree with the above statements, many at the same time seem altogether far too willing to make certain exceptions based more on emotions than solid evidence.
This has become crystal clear following the seemingly growing fracture in regards to public opinion following the fallout of the recent Omar Khadr settlement.
Personally, to be clear, I'm not particularly keen any more than anyone else about the $10.5-million tax dollars compensating the formerly brainwashed child soldier.
But then again, I am even less fond of torture, coercion, as well as turning a blind eye to due process and failing to uphold the charter of rights we claim to hold so dear. This is, after all, supposed to be Canada, a country that upholds the rule of law, not some banana republic that makes a contemptuous mockery of it.
"For almost 15 years, Canadian treatment of the Khadr case has been dominated by the presumption of guilt. Yet the evidence tells a different story," reads a July 7 National Observer piece written by Sandy Garossino.
"For all the fury boiling up over news of his settlement, there's precious little insight or knowledge about the facts. As a former prosecutor, something has always troubled me about this case, and my deep unease hasn't abated with time," she writes.
"Any experienced trial lawyer would be troubled to open this file. With the exception of Khadr's ëconfession,' wrung from a traumatized and severely wounded teenager under an abusive interrogation, the evidence against him was remarkably thin."
Garossino highlights the fact that what shreds of proof do exist tend to appear confused, inconsistent or even contradicted elsewhere. Among the largest gaps in the evidence are pictures of the scene showing then 15-year-old Khadr all but completely buried in rubble, which seriously puts into question how he could possibly have thrown the grenade that claimed the life of American Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer.
"Photographs of the attack scene released in 2009 appear to directly conflict with the prosecution's summary of its own case. Had the events happened under Canadian jurisdiction, they would not have been enough to lay a charge, let alone secure a conviction."
If in our blind rage and unquenchable thirst for quick revenge we ignore due process and the means by which a confession was obtained, do we really retain any kind of moral high ground?
Any Canadian would likely cast serious doubts upon any "confession" made by a person accused of subverting a regime such as North Korea. Unlucky travellers who have previously publicly apologized after being convicted of bogus offences in the hermit kingdom nearly all recanted their statements upon finally being freed.
So how could anyone take seriously the coerced confession of a teenager?
Besides, torture has been proven to yield shoddy information at best. Simple fact is a person under such physical and mental duress will start to say pretty well anything just to end the pain.
"That interrogators went too far is now common knowledge. But the problem with torturous or abusive questioning isn't just that it violates the prisoner's rights, but that subjects will give false information to escape the agony," writes Garossino.
If we really want to be upset over the $10-million settlement, we should be equally upset about the lack of proper due process previous governments followed, as it is this deplorable absence of diligence that set the stage for this civil suit in the first place.
On that note, the Liberal government of this day had actually very little to do with the decision ó it is the Supreme Court of Canada that concluded justice was not properly served when handling Khadr's case. Trudeau and his party merely had the dubious honour of dealing with the fallout ó settle now and get it over with, or waste even more tax dollars in a drawn out legal battle destined to lose anyway?
"Successive Liberal and Conservative governments washed their hands of Khadr, only to aid and abet his Kafka-esque ordeal and trial by torture. Precious few stood up to take his side as he was convicted in the court of public opinion without a trial," Garossino states.
And even had the government decided to further challenge the case in court, chances are instead of a $10-million settlement, the supreme justice would have ruled in favour of Khadr, resulting in double the payout at our expense. Not to mention the costly legal fees involved. Imagine the outrage then!
This whole debacle is reminiscent of Maher Arar, an innocent man sent off to be tortured in Syria with complicit participation of Canadian and U.S. authorities.
"That lesson cost us a cool $10.5 million in foreshadowing, but didn't teach us a thing. We turned around and did it again. To a kid," said Garossino.
We should never combat extreme ideologies ó which for the record unquestionably must be rooted out ó by ignoring our charter of rights and resorting to the same types of tactics employed by dictatorial regimes.
Otherwise, what are our soldiers even fighting for?
ó Ducatel is the Sundre Round Up editor
If in our blind rage and unquenchable thirst for quick revenge we ignore due process and the means by which a confession was obtained, do we really retain any kind of moral high ground?
