“We’Ve Got Nothing To Be Ashamed Of,” Said The Not So Cunning Kangaroo

Chief prosecutor of these tribunals, Colonel Morris Davis, has little patience for expressions of sympathy where Omar is concerned, dismissing them as “nauseating.” He points out that: “Routinely in the United States 15-year-olds are held accountable for murders.” He might have also added that there are now over 2500 juveniles serving life sentences in US institutions sentences with no hope of parole or rehabilitation. It is a fair assumption the vast majority of these are poor, black, and were probably poorly represented at their trials. It is also most certain social deprivation was a mitigating factor in their crimes. Omar too will have less than capable representation. As Muneer Ahmad, professor of law at the American University in Washington points out, “He is represented by a thirty-one year old army captain who has never represented a defendant at trial in his life, even for charges of jaywalking. It would be laughable if the stakes weren’t so high.” Davis insists these will be “full, fair, open and transparent trials,” even though they will be held in camera and their legitimacy is now being reviewed by the US Supreme Court as a result of one judge ruling them illegal. Under the special rules of these tribunals defendants are not allowed to be present when “classified” evidence is being presented. This in itself becomes highly contentious as it can be used as a prosecutorial expedience where the integrity of the evidence eludes scrutiny. Anybody who has watched Perry Mason knows that a basic right of the accused is to know the evidence against them and challenge that evidence. Statements made by Davis have the eerie resonance of somebody who knows what he is doing wrong but is trying to convince himself it is right: We face an enemy like we have never faced before. Some say we are changing the rules as we go along, but the law has to be adapted to today’s environment. The “enemy” has in large part been manufactured by truculent US foreign policy, “changing the rules as we go along,” is pitifully obvious, and “the law has to be adapted to today’s environment” is mere euphemism for vigilantes flouting the law and human decency. Davis digs himself an even deeper hole!--“We’re here to prosecute the terrorists who attacked us, not to persecute any religious beliefs. We’ve got nothing to be ashamed of.” Davis conveniently ignores the fact that in both Afghanistan and Iraq the US was the aggressor. (None of the 9/ll terrorists were from Afghanistan; fifteen of the nineteen were from Saudi Arabia and there were never any US reprisals against that country. It has also been alleged the Saudi royal family was involved, but of course Saudi Arabia happens to be a valued US ally) A more impartial observer might conclude the “terrorists” in question were defending their homelands. To claim there is no religious persecution involved mocks the truth in a global conflict that is clearly racist. In the current edition of Vanity Fair magazine columnist James Wolcott states: “The US is the planet’s sole remaining superpower, unrivaled in military reach and might and yet our leaders have us leaping at every mouse.” The Khadr brothers are bit players, mice, in the grand deception, and victims of a monstrous double standard. American and British forces have killed Afghan and Iraqi civilians (“collateral damage”) in the tens of thousands but the killing of US troops is some how stipulated as murder. Prof. Ahmad considers these tribunals as nothing more than “kangaroo” courts. The kangaroo being not so cunning, just virulent. To read of the fate of the Khadr brothers and so many others like them it is little wonder that relations with the Muslim world are in a dangerous downward spiral where the conflict is expanding and the potential for further conflict only escalates. The esteemed prosecutor Colonel Morris Davis is an unwitting recruiting officer, a rallying cry, for future terrorists. He doesn’t grasp that there are very practical reasons why the rule of law must prevail--lawlessness simply foments more of the same. His immoral tribunals merely feed the monster. He might also like to give convincing testimony why the Geneva Conventions have been disregarded and why the US refuses to ratify its membership in the International Criminal Court. He might also consider that if terrorists, and the threat of terrorism, can lead us to knowingly subvert our own laws, our hard won civil liberties, sense of decency, and yes, resort to systematic torture, then we have awarded them their greatest victory. Canadian officials have a critical decision to make- intervene on be half of the Khadr brothers and defend their legal rights and rights of Canadian citizenship or become complicit in a ongoing mockery of justice. (Quotations drawn from articles in the Toronto Globe and Mail and Agence France-Presse ) [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on February 19, 2006]