Reflection Paper Example on Omar Khadrs Case

Omar Khadr was born at the Scarborough Centenary Hospital in Canada; thus, making him a Canadian citizen. He was convicted in the U.S for a decade for the murder of 1st class Sargent Christopher Speer and held at Guantanamo Bay prison from 2002 to 2012. However, after being convicted he pursued a lawsuit against the Canadian government for human rights violations that he endured for the decade that he was held at Guantanamo. Among the key concerns in his lawsuit was unspeakable torture, mentally, emotionally and physically. In 2010 Khadr won the case against the Federal government of Canada in which the panel of judges unanimously agreed that his rights were indeed violated. The court further cited that Omar had rights and the abandonment by the government was a violation of his fundamental human rights. As a result, the government decided to settle Omar for the vindications and suffering that he went through. It was agreed that Khadr is settled CAD$10.5 million as well as an apology. Despite pleading in the case that led to his conviction in the U.S Omar Khadr was settled the CAD$10.5 million as a compensation. This reflection seeks to rationalize Omar Khadrs case against the Canadian Federal government and the subsequent settlement while considering the extent to which the Canadian legal system is, and should be informed.

OMARS EXPERIENCE AT WAR AND IN THE AMERICAN COURT SYSTEM

Omar was convicted of the murder of Army Sargent Christopher Speer and was sentenced to serve a 10-years term imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay. The U.S court system blamed the father, Ahmed, who took his son to military training at the age of 15 and shortly he joined the battlefield; thus, making a soldier under the U.S national and internal law. In 2002 when he was 15 years, the U.S forces captured Omar Khadr for allegedly killing the U.S Sargent with a grenade. Even though he was seriously wounded, Omar was captured and held at Guantanamo for a decade. The attorney who represented Omar argued that it was not his fault that he got involved in the terrorism but his fathers, Ahmed who introduced him to the Al-Qaeda leaders and told him to go there. The lawyer further cited that Omar was vulnerable and was exploited by the people who should have protected him. Therefore, Omar was not the offender or perpetrator but the victim of the circumstances; the lawyer further explained. The U.S court system flouted its obligation under the national and international law by subjecting a juvenile offender to years of unspeakable suffering and torture. Omar was also subjected to abusive interrogations where he was held at Guantanamo Bay prison, one of the harshest and notorious abusive centers in the world, for a decade. Under the U.S national laws, children or persons below 18 years can be detained for the shortest period, in any case, it is the last resort. However, what happened to Omar Khadr was a violation of the national juvenile laws. He was held with the adults and denied access to an attorney for two years.

THE GROUNDS FOR KHADR TO PURSUE LEGAL CHALLENGES AGAINST THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT

While in the U.S custody, Omar Khadr was denied many privileges including sleep deprivation and prolonged solitary confinement. Even though the U.S military and court systems are primarily responsible for the treatment of Khadr, but the Canadian government cannot escape the share of the blame as well. Khadrs mistreatment was collusion between the U.S and the Canadian intelligence officials. As the Canadian Supreme Court ruled, this was a violation of the fundamental and basic Canadian standards regarding the treatment of detained minor suspects. The factual backgrounds behind Omar Khadrs pursue the legal challenges against the Canadian government include the events that led to his arrest and detention. As mentioned in the introduction, Khadr was a Canadian citizen and was born in Canada in 1986. His family moved to Pakistan in 1990 where his father, Ahmed was arrested for allegedly involved in terrorism. Even though he presented at a gun-battle in Afghanistan where the U.S decorated Sargent was killed with a grenade; the allegations which he denied. Further, he was seriously injured when he was arrested by both bullets and shrapnel.

The conditions at Guantanamo also contributed to his pursue legal challenges against the Canadian government. He was denied the privileges of convicted; for instance, he could not communicate with the outside world, mistreated and abused. As a result, he suffered emotionally, physically, and mentally. The Canadian government abandoned Omar Khadr despite being aware of the horrific torture that he was going through at Guantanamo Bay prison in the U.S. As a Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr had the right to challenge the government for abandonment and violation of the human rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The human rights in Section 7 of the Charter state that when a persons life, liberty or security is at stake the Canadian officials need to respect the fundamental justice. The findings of the Canadian Supreme Court stated that Khadrs liberty interest was infringed by the Canadian officials through the virtue of participation in an unlawful process that denied Khadr his right of disclosure, which is a key principle of fundamental justice. Therefore, Omar Khadrs pursuant to the legal challenge against the Canadian Federal government was within his rights.

THE RULING OF THE CASE AND REASONING FOR THE SETTLEMENT

The Canadian Supreme Court ruled in favor of Omar Khadr citing that the special circumstances of the case demonstrated that his rights under the section 7 of the Canadian Charter had been infringed. The judge cited that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom section 6, 7, and 12 were violated and infringed and seeks remedy. The reasoning behind the ruling include the events that led to Khadrs arrest and the conditions that he went through at the Guantanamo Bay prison which have all been discussed in the previous section of this paper. The court further cited that the Canadian government neglected its responsibility as enshrined in the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC). The convention states that the government has to take all legislative, administrative, social, and educational measures to ensure that the rights of children are protected from all forms of physical and mental injury. Based on the definition of a child in the CRC, a child is a person under the age of 18 years. All these rights were infringed according to the Supreme Court since by the time Khadr was arrested and convicted at Guantanamo Bay prison he was only 16 years.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS RULING

The CRC states that the government has a responsibility to ensure that no child is subjected to torture and other cruel or inhuman degrading treatments. Therefore, the Supreme Courts assessment of the case of Khadr against the state was right. The court has a responsibility to a made determination on the case that has been presented before and the evidence before it. Based on the different reasons that the court cited during their ruling, it is clear that they considered every aspect of the law as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The CRC states that any child who has been deprived his or her liberty to be separated from adults and has the right to maintain contact with the family through visits or correspondence. These are just but a few rights of the child enshrined in the CRC which Khadr was deprived and denied while he was convicted in the U.S prison. Following the circumstance that Khadr was in at the Guantanamo, Canada had some specific duties to ensure that his rights were protected. Canada had a responsibility to take steps to protect Khadr from any form of physical and mental violence, abuse or mistreatment. The court further cited that even though Canada raised concerns about the conditions that Khadr was subjected to in the U.S prison, but it had a duty to protect him according to the requirements in the CRC.

As a child who had not developed well, Khadr deserved protection from the government. Khadr was introduced to the terrorist group, Al-Qaeda when he was still young and the mind had not developed. As a result, he could not make effective and proper decisions to determine what was wrong and right at the time. Psychologists argue that the human mind develops in stages and proper reinforcement is required to ensure that the mind develops properly. Khadr was only 15 years when he was sent to military and shortly joined the battlefield. Influence from the militia group that he joined also influenced his actions. The things that he did were wrong and should be condemned with the strongest terms possible, but because he was brainwashed when he joined the military. He was made to adopt the beliefs of the militia group which is mainly conflict and war. Therefore, the government of Canada had a responsibility to protect Khadr as a child. Therefore, the Supreme Court was correct in its assessment of the case of Khadr against the Canadian Federal government.

THE POSITION THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY HAS TAKEN IN REACTION TO THE SETTLEMENT

The federal conservative party was not happy with the decision of the court that led to the office of the Prime Minister settling $10.5 million to Omar Khadr. The party launched a website criticizing the government of its move to pay the settlement citing that it was inappropriate for the government to pay the money and also publically apologize for a former child soldier and Guantanamo detainee. Laura Stone explains that conservative MPs have been criticizing the governments settlement calling it cynical subversion of the Canadian principles. The conflict between the conservatives and the liberals has been there for as long as one can remember. Democratic states like the U.S and UK have always used the concept of populism as a barometer of their democracys health and future prospects. Populism concept which is also the same principles that the liberal Canadian federal government base its governance, involves the notion that people are the fundamental source of authority. However, shifts in the social values as embodied by the political movements and actors have impacted the legal systems in Canada. The case of Omar Khadr is an exemplary scenario of the impact of the shift in the social values in the Canadian legal system.

As Wherry explains, the conservative officials were the first to condemn the governments multimillion-dollar settlement. When the news broke out that the government has agreed to settle former Guantanamo detainee the $10.5 million and also agreed to apologize former defense minister was the first to condemn the move citing that because Khadr had confessed for the allegations that led to his conviction in the U.S, he was supposed to be imprisoned to pay for his crimes and not get profit for it. The former defense minister in his tweeter further claimed that settling the former Guantanamo detainee was a waste of Canadian taxpayers money. Despite the logic and reasoning behind their arguments, Khadr was still a Canadian citizen. Whatever he did or did not do while he was a child or teenager in Afghanistan that led to his conviction does not amount to the criticism that the conservatives have piled on the Canadian federal government. Whether they are ready to accept the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling or not, it is clear that the government was liable for the violation of the basic and fundamental human rights accorded to Khadr. Whether they decide to describe him as a terrorist or a child soldier as many have been referring to Khadr, the federal government, the conservative being part of it, have a right to ensure that every child is protected and all thei...