Excerpts from a piece entitled: Irony abounds on human rights in Canada, U.S.
Just days after bragging that it was his government's principled stands that Canada primarily lost its bid for the Security Council, Mr Harper demonstrates a complete lack of said "principals".
His so called "Principled stand", what is that? Does he mean his catering to Israel and stomping all over the Palestinians human rights? Principled stand! Sheesh. But, as full of baloney as PM Harper is, the Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon sinks to all time lows as he "trotted out the list of crimes admitted to by Guantanamo prisoner Omar Khadr".
All the better to fool you with, via the main stream media.
According to international observers and his own lawyers, Mr. Khadr had little choice but to plead guilty to five charges -- including murder in violation of the law of war, supporting terrorism, and spying -- if he was to avoid an almost certain life sentence.
Why would a young man, now incarcerated for a third of his life be left with no choice?
The obvious answer is - The system was gamed against him.(thanks slozo)
The U.S. system is so terribly flawed that the White House had to change its definition of the charges against Khadr, so that CIA operatives now fighting an unconventional war in the States and abroad would be excluded.
I will repeat the White house had to change the definition of charges against Khadr so they would not be applied to covert CIA operatives. You see, in amongst the charges against Khadr was one that went like this- he was a foreigner fighting in Afghanistan and not in uniform.
"The Obama White House had to rewrite the rules of engagement to exempt the U.S. operatives from the very rules it was using to convict the Canadian."
Sure it is because CIA operatives are not only working on the ground and out of uniform in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they are also launching remote deadly Predator drone attacks.
Another problem- the Canadian government's persistent refusal to demand his repatriation meant there was no place for Mr. Khadr to turn. Although he has consistently maintained his innocence to the crimes for which there is almost no evidence of his guilt, Mr. Khadr would have faced a life sentence dictated by a military tribunal of questionable validity.
While the author of this piece calls this ironic. I call it a double standard. An injustice.
For the US:
It is a deep irony that a country would continue to bill itself as a defender of democracy after it tortures and tries a child soldier, and then forces him under threat of life in prison to admit that, because he was an "alien, unprivileged, enemy belligerent," he's unqualified to defend himself in a battle and is thus guilty of "murder in violation of the laws of war."
To have a prime minister and foreign minister who so recently accused the majority of the world of lacking their principles should consider it a victory that Mr. Khadr was cornered into taking a plea bargain instead of facing a fair and open trial as did his co-accused from countries such as Australia and Britain.