Hillary drops the A bomb on Cannon

At the G-8 foreign ministers wrap-up today, Hillary Cinton was asked about Canada's initiative on child and maternal health care in the Third World. Clinton responded:

"You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion."

She was seated next to Lawrence Cannon at the time. After she abandoned him on podium yesterday for excluding aboriginal leaders and three northern nations - Iceland, Finland and Sweden - from his Arctic summit, I figure his butt plug must be packed with smelling salts.

O' course, Hillary's bold pro-choice statement would carry more weight had Obama not just jettisoned abortion funding in the US in order to get his not-really-health care bill passed, but it doesn't look as if Harper's chances of using moms and tots to vault into a seat on the UN Security Council were much advanced by Cannon's shenanigans this week.

Abdelrazik vs the Government of Canada

Harper's quest to turn Canada into an outpost of apology for the worst crimes of the Bush administration continues today as the Government of Canada v. Abdelrazik shuffles into the Supreme Court - even as the UN states Canada is free to bring Abdelrazik home.

Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon in the House of Commons on Monday :

"Mr. Abdelrazik is on the list established by the United Nations Security Council as an individual with ties to al-Qaeda. Therefore, he is subject to a travel ban and an asset freeze. Our government is taking its obligations seriously and that is why we are not going to issue him a travel document to return home."

Richard Barrett, co-ordinator of the UN's Al-Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Team, which oversees the various United Nations resolutions establishing the blacklist on which Mr. Abdelrazik was placed at the request of Washington in 2006 :

"Canada is free to bring Abousfian Abdelrazik home and doesn't need to ask for permission"

Addressing the Justice Department's argument that "it is geographically impossible for [Mr. Abdelrazik] to travel from Sudan to Canada by air, land or sea without transiting through the sovereign territories (land, airspace or territorial waters) of numerous UN member states which are bound at international law to prevent such transit, " Mr. Barrett stated :

"The overflight states don't come into it and they haven't ever come into it."

Well there goes legal bullshit argument#1 of the Government of Canada vs Abdelrazik, being argued today in the Supreme Court of Canada.
This just leaves Justice Department bullshit legal argument #2 : that Abdelrazik is :

"close to Abu Zubaydah, a former lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, involved in al-Qaeda training and recruitment."

That would be Abu Zubaydah, the half-wit waterboarded 83 times to coerce a false confession linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.
.
For those able to attend, the hearing today is at Supreme Court, West courtroom, 301 Wellington Street, Ottawa at 9:30am.
Wear a suit, bring pitchforks.
.
And thank you, Paul Koring at the G&M, for your ongoing excellent coverage of Abdelrazik's plight.
Update : Dr. Dawg attended Thursday and will have another post up when he gets back Friday night.
.
Cross-posted at Creekside

This is just getting stupid

First, go read POGGE.

Get it? Omar Khadr was engaged in a combat action against another soldier. The PMO talking point, copied from the Bush administration, which is now nothing more than sewage, that Omar Khadr intentionally killed an individual with Geneva Convention credentials which protected him is an outright lie.

Those who repeat it are liars. Worse, is that they know they are lying.

Secondly, there is no conclusive evidence, (in fact there is evidence to the contrary), that Khadr actually threw the grenade which killed Sgt 1st Class Spears.

Thirdly, the United States had invaded Afghanistan, with full justification, and was now a belligerent party in a war. On the day, at the time and, at the moment that Khadr allegedly threw a grenade which killed Sgt 1st Class Spears neither party had surrendered. Since Spears was not wearing the appropriate insignia nor acting specifically in a manner to enjoy protection under the Convention, he would be deemed to have been a hostile combatant.

Fourthly, since it was a battlefield, under the Convention, murder is extremely difficult to prove, if not impossible. One combatant killing another in combat is not murder. Both have the same hostile intent unless one side has clearly and unequivocally shown and demonstrated the act of surrender. An enemy which has been defeated in the field but which does not purposely give themselves into the hands of the enemy, without arms, remains a hostile enemy. It doesn't matter if the winning side thinks it's over. They haven't won until the vanquished declare themselves the loser by accepting their own surrender and then displaying recognized symbols to communicate their acceptance of defeat.

That never happened.

Omar Khadr, when captured, was a child soldier. It doesn't matter how he came to be there. It matters that he was one. His age today is irrelevant. At the time of his capture he was under 18. Additionaly, he was governed by his father who he was expected to obey.

Sixth, this is the tough stuff. Nothing is simple when it comes to repatriating a Canadian accused of a heinous crime. But you wanted power and now you're afraid to use the sovereignty of this country for fear of pissing off a regime which was as close to Hitler's Germany as we have ever come.

But we elect governments to handle the tough stuff. Instead, we have posse of clowns who shun the most difficult of issues in order to appease a US administration which no longer exists.

And to keep the racist, mouth-breathing morons which constitute their political base marginally happy between assaults on 24s of cheap beer.

The worst part is the part you have not yet gathered in.

The government of the United States of America has told the government of Canada that they are willing to release Omar Khadr to Canadian custody on Canadian soil. All that has to happen is that the Canadian government officially request repatriation. That's the only condition.

Think I'm making that up? Then ask them. I know it's a fact. The US, as a matter of saving face in four different directions, wants to rid themselves of Omar Khadr but they need to do it under the proper optics. All that needs to be done is to have the Harper government make a public request. No back-channels.

Think I'm wrong?

Ask them. Ask them, if the Canadian government made a formal request to the government of the United States for the repatriation of Omar Khadr would he be returned to his country of birth?

Because if that happened Khadr would be on his way to Canada, in custody, but at least where the rule of law still has some meaning.

So, why won' Lawrence Cannon do that?

Because the "conservative" voting base would go ape-shit.

And the Harper government doesn't do tough stuff. They're a pack of fluff merchants, racist to boot, and would rather fill their "pending" baskets instead of clearing their "out" trays.

I don't like Khadr anymore than the next person, but he's Canadian and should be dealt with here.

That's the tough stuff and it's something the Authoritarians in the Harper government have never been able to handle.

Cowards.

Canada has moved the goalposts on Abdelrazik once again

Montreal man in Sudan has to get off blacklist before he can fly :

"Abousfian Abdelrazik was initially told he could obtain travel documents, such as an emergency passport, in order to return to Canada – as long as he had a plane ticket.

But Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon now says the 47-year-old must get his name off a UN terrorist blacklist before he can come home.

His comments come little more than a week after a group of 170 Canadians pooled their money to purchase a plane ticket. They did so knowing they could be charged under Canadian law for contributing financially to someone who is on a UN terror list."

A UN terrorist blacklist, you say, Mr. Cannon?

Canada feared U.S. backlash over man trapped in Sudan

"Senior government of Canada officials should be mindful of the potential reaction of our U.S. counterparts to Abdelrazik's return to Canada as he is on the U.S. no-fly list," intelligence officials say in documents in the possession of The Globe and Mail.

"Continued co-operation between Canada and the U.S. in the matters of security is essential. We will need to continue to work closely on issues related to the Security of North America, including the case of Mr. Abdelrazik," the document says.

The Abdelrazik documents - prepared by senior intelligence and security officials in Transport Canada, the unit that creates and maintains Canada's own version of the terrorist "no-fly" list - make clear that it was the U.S. list that kept Mr. Abdelrazik from returning to Canada when he was released from prison three years ago. "

OK. So really it's about the US list. And the Canadian government's position is that sacrificing a Canadian citizen and the sovereignty of Canada is just the price of keeping those trucks flowing back and forth across the border without tripping over any accompanying U.S. frowny faces.

How's that working out for us?

U.S. Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano said this week :

"a recent northern border review by her department highlighted ongoing U.S. worries about how Canada conducts risk assessments of people entering the country and "very real" differences in immigration and visa policy.
"That of course is a security concern," she said."

Christopher Sands, a Canada-U.S. border expert at the Hudson Institute, called Napolitano's comments "arresting" and said they show Washington is not yet convinced that Canada has done enough on security around who enters the country.

"She said, there's a security risk there," said Sands. "They have looked and seen differences between what the U.S. does, and what Canada does, and seen it as a source of concern."

As has been noted here before, Sands, whom the Montreal Gazette fails to note is also on the North American Competitiveness Council and co-author of Negotiating North America : The Security and Prosperity Partnership, put it more succinctly back in November :

"In exchange for continued visa-free access to the United States, American officials are pressuring the federal government to supply them with more information on Canadians.
Not only about (routine) individuals but also about people that you may be looking at for reasons, but there's no indictment and there's no charge."

"Homeland security is the gatekeeper with its finger on the jugular affecting your ability to move back and forth across the border, the market access upon which the Canadian economy depends."

They've made their deal, I'd say.

Dr. Dawg has it about right.

Chris wrote to his MP asking what assurances he has that as an international traveller the government will protect him. You can do the same.
To contact Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon directly :
Telephone: (613) 992-5516
Fax: (613) 992-6802
EMail: CannoL@parl.gc.ca .

Canada, Sudan, and Abdelrazik : a mighty stench of hypocrisy

Two headlines on Canada and Sudan today, just hours apart ...

Canada urges Sudan to cooperate with the International Criminal Court
after the bench issued an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Beshir for war crimes in Darfur.
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon :

"Canada strongly supports the work of the ICC, including its work in Sudan," he said, calling for "ongoing international scrutiny of Sudan's commitments to human rights."

Sure. Unless, of course, Canada is making use of Sudan's crappy human rights record to detain and torture a Canadian citizen, Abousfian Abdelrazik. Then we're not so keen on either the "scrutiny" or those "commitments to human rights" :

CSIS asked Sudan to arrest Canadian, files reveal
Abdelrazik is 'first case of Canadian rendition,' MP says

"Canadian security operatives asked Sudan - a country with a notorious record of torture and abuse in its prisons - to arrest and detain Canadian citizen Abousfian Abdelrazik, according to heavily redacted Canadian documents, marked "secret."

The newly obtained documents provide the strongest evidence to date that Canadian Security Intelligence agents engaged in the Bush-era U.S. practice of getting other countries to imprison those it considered security risks aboard rather than charge them with any crime."

Abdelrazik fled to Canada in 1990 after being imprisoned in Sudan for his political beliefs following a coup by the same President Omar al-Beshir the ICC is after today.
Abdelrazik was granted refugee status and in 1995 he became a Canadian citizen.
While he was visiting his ailing mother in Khartoum in 2003, Canada had him arrested and interrogated there. Despite his being declared innocent of terrorist ties and released from prison by Sudan - even despite Sudan's offer to fly him home to Canada - Canada refused to return or reissue his expired passport and his name subsequently went on the U.S. no-fly list.

G&M :

"When faced with interrogation by Sudanese and FBI agents, Mr. Abdelrazik feared he would again be imprisoned and tortured in Sudan's notorious jails and pleaded for a Canadian diplomat to accompany him to the interrogation."

On April 3, 2007, Foreign Affairs point man on the case, Sean Robertson, sent a response to the Canadian embassy in Khartoum :

"Mission staff should not accompany Abdelrazik to his interview with the FBI."

A month later a Canadian embassy official in Khartoum told Ottawa that Mr. Abdelrazik had been told by the FBI that he would never see Canada again unless he implicated others as al-Qaeda operatives.

I do believe we've been here before.

Let Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon know you're watching - Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca. -and support Abdelrazik's return to Canada on Facebook.

See previous Creekside posts on Abdelrazik or Dr. Dawg's superior coverage

Cross-posted at Creekside