If he wants to fight with them, he should be able to deal with the consequences.

International law only goes as far as those states who choose to sign a binding treaty to uphold it. The U.S. has not ratified the CRC so it is not applicable. International law is not some fuzzy wool blanket that covers the earth. If a state has not signed up to treaty then the law is not applicable for that state. I do not know where you are getting the idea that the U.S. has broken international law by not upholding the CRC. There may be other treaties, perhaps, but not this one.

1) Futile does not equal feasible in my dictionary. The Canadian government may ask for Mr. Khadr’s return politely and it will be told ‘no’ politely. If it asks less politely, it will be told ‘no’ less politely. The matter is before the military tribunals as established by Congress. Only the courts (the U.S. courts) can say whether the treatment Mr. Khadr has received has violated due process or other rights established by U.S. law.

2) The SCoC decision proves nothing to Americans. The decision dealt with disclosure of documents to Mr. Khadr (under s.7 or the Charter) and made a ruling that Canada had violated its human rights obligations by participating in the interrogation process. The ruling makes no pronouncements about the legality of U.S. actions.

3) I am not familiar with all of the foreign detainees but I do not believe others released were facing charges of homicide. These are serious charges Mr. Khadr is facing.

As far as the precedent(s) (absent any citation(s) whatsoever) you are referring to, perhaps the Canadian government did discuss issues of law and the treatment of accused with the Mexican government but this is at the political option of both governments. The Mexican government is not legally obliged to discuss matters before the Mexican courts with Canadian officials. Any allegations of treaty violations (i.e. the right to consular assistance of an accused under Article 36, subparagraph 1(b), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations) have to be brought before a court of law, not the government, if the independence of the courts is to be maintained. Motions and arguments would be presented and the court would make a ruling. If the government, including the Mexican government, were allowed to just haul an accused from court and ship them out then the independence of the courts would be destroyed.

You are entitled to your opinions of the U.S. and its acts but these are not legal arguments and are of no use in Mr. Khadr’s case. There is no feasible option here but to allow the military tribunals to finish their hearings and to make their rulings. Afterwards the case will begin winding its way up to SCOTUS if the government and Mr. Khadr want to fight it that far. The President has asked for and Congress has approved these military tribunals. The two political branches of government have spoken so there is no opportunity for political action anymore: the matter is before the courts. No intervention from outside sources will have any weight at all. Asking the PM to intervene is futile, not feasible.

My personal opinion is that the family is more than half responsible for Mr. Khadr’s (the child soldier’s ) predicament, having allowed him to head to a war zone with his father. Read this and let me know what you think. Omar’s brother was paralysed for life in the shootout that killed his father. I do not believe that a family who was concerned about the welfare of their 15 year old child would have sent him to a war zone.

In fact, what his flailing argument proves is that the U.S. is an international pariah!!! One doesn’t have to research for too long to know that the U.S. spares no occasion to refuse to commit to international law…thus when we refer to international law, the point is that Canada has an obligation to uphold it in the face of pariahs like the U.S. This means that

1) The Canadian government is required to take “all feasible measures” [Convention on the Rights of the Child] to ensure protection and care for Khadr who is considered a child soldier under international law. Whether the U.S. has signed to it or not is irrelevant since we are not asking that the U.S. government be prosecuted under the convention for violating it (though that would save the world so many lives). The Canadian government has not taken any measures, even something as basic and feasible as an official request for extradition or a strong statement calling on U.S. to return Khadr.

2) The Supreme Court of Canada decision is not binding south of the border and we did not argue as such. The court’s proclamation, which should be binding on the Canadian government, proved that Khadr was not being rehabilitated in Guantanamo, unless torture counts as rehabilitation. Again, we mentioned it to argue that the CANADIAN government has an obligation based on that assessment and international law to take “feasible measures” to repatriate and rehabilitate Khadr, not that the Canadian Court’s order be enforced in U.S. jurisdiction. This becomes an even stronger argument given that Canada is a state party to the conflict in which Khadr was involved in.

3) Other countries like Britain were able to reportedly use this logic to bring back their citizens. To say there are no legal arguments to compel Canadian government to seek repatriation of Khadr is countered by precedent.

Finally, there is precedent where Canada has exerted pressure to repatriate citizens when the legal system they are subjected to is suspect (e.g. Mexico). And the U.S. is such a place when it comes to cases relating to the so-called war on terror by testimony of its own Supreme Court. No one expects the government to send special forces or issue an order for the return of Khadr. But the government is not even willing to consider any form of pressure. Arguing that Canada’s hands are tied based on legal arguments when not a single objection by Canada has been raised in the face of a lawless and terrorizing administration like Washington is false and misleading. All of this to show that politics hidden in the garb of law is motivating this debate.

If anyone has a flailing moral argument, it is those who are eager to bend the law and devise every possible strict interpretation to justify torture, propagate Islamophobia, and hide the truth of what the U.S. and Canadian governments are doing around the world behind the mask of self-righteousness and moral superiority.

FACT: Canada is obligated under international law to cooperate in the social integration and rehabilitation of child soldiers in armed conflict

Perhaps (though no citations of statute or treaty were provided), but only where the government has legal jurisdiction to act. The government (including the courts) have no jurisdiction to compel any person in the United States to do anything. If the laws of Canada applied in this case then the courts in Canada could issue writs of mandamus to have Mr. Khadr released: but they don’t. Why? Because it would be meaningless to do so. So it goes for the PM. He has no authority either. Parliament? – same thing.
For a court to tell the PM to demand that the US return Mr. Khadr would simply be the court telling the PM to do something futile because the court knows it would be futile for itself to demand it. QED.

FACT: Omar Khadr was legally a child soldier aged 15 when he was captured by U.S. forces in 2002 in Afghanistan during an armed conflict.

Has the US signed a a treaty stating this? Two links I followed said no, it has not: only the executive branch has signed. The Constitution of the United States (s2) requires that the Senate ratify a treaty by a two-thirds majority. The articles I read stated that the CRC had not been ratified by the Senate. If not ratified then the treaty is not a law of the United States therefore international law does not apply in Guantanamo. QED

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled last May …
The SCC is a magnificent and powerful institution in Canada but its rulings are not binding south of the border. SCOTUS can tell the president what to do if the executive branch has broken the law; the SCC, not so much. QED

RATIO … For when the law is not enforced in clear cut cases …
Who is not enforcing the law? The RCMP? Well, the FBI won’t let them do that (not to mention the US Marines). How would the law be enforced? The Canadian state has no legal jurisdiction here, otherwise a Canadian court could issue a writ to command that Mr. Khadr be brought before the court: but it can’t. QED

Flailing moral arguments do not trump legal ones. Only the laws of the United States apply here. Anyone who wants to help Mr. Khadr had better crack open some US law books.

How is this right formed in law? What form does the ‘protection’ take?

Although other countries may have constitutions with principles similar to our own, the other countries will not recognize our Charter as valid law in their respective jurisdictions. The previous statement applies to statutes and precedents as well. If this right cannot be enforced then it is not a right (at least not in law).

The United States (and other countries) are just as zealous in protecting their sovereign jurisdictions as we are in protecting our own.

Mr Khadr’s rights, such as they exist in law, will have to be determined by US courts in accordance with the laws of the United States.