Khadr’s reward should have been Canada, not money
There are statements made in two different letters to the editor published in your recent publication regarding the federal government payout to Omar Khadr, that require correction.
Mr. Ward states that, “The U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal and the soldiers who participated in them were defying the United Nations, violating international law and therefore engaging in war crimes…”. Correct! However, he goes on to state, “when they (U.S. soldiers) …were attacked”. Not so!
There was full coverage on the CBC Fifth Estate that disclosed the fact that the U.S. soldiers “attacked” the compound where Khadr was ordered to stand guard, and not the other way around as Ward states. As a matter of fact the soldiers expressed surprise that anyone survived the U.S. attack.
In another letter Perry Foster states that Khadr, “on the advice of both his American lawyer and Canadian lawyers” pleaded guilty “to murder, spying and terrorism” and “if his team thought him innocent why did they not fight to prove it?”
Now let me see if I have this correct! Two unlawful combatants, fighting each other, in a country that neither one of them had any damn business being in, and one gets killed, and the other is charged with “murder”? This is insane! Given the circumstances it should have been called “fair game” for either one, not “murder”.
To answer Perry Foster’s question, how in heck does one “prove” anything in one’s defence if there are no “credible” witnesses? Also, Khadar and his lawyers were fully aware that Khadr would have died and rotted in Guantanamo if he did not admit to the charges.
Khadr’s “reward” for enduring Guantanamo should have been the “privilege” to return to Canada, that is, provided he gave up his religious fanatical views, and not a cash settlement. However, that wouldn’t happen because Khadr’s lawyer would have been done out of his big chunk of money.
John Walker
Cobble Hill