Senate’s follies

Re: Lettered Exhibit Now Looms Large, Christie Blatchford, May 5. The most lasting and telling legacy of the Duffy Hearings (as evidenced by Christie Blatchford’s apt coverage) falls under the category of unintended consequences and is summarized thusly: Question: How can a governmental body (the Senate), charged with the duty of providing sober second thought, function when it can’t comprehend its own thinking? Re: 5. As part of his plea-bargain deal, Omar Khadr promised not to appeal the conviction he received in the U.S. He is now appealing that conviction, tossing out his part of the plea bargain. Will he have to serve the full 40-year sentence he received instead of the eight years in the plea bargain if he loses his appeal? If not, how can he renege on the plea bargain without any ramifications?

Will the Canadian government ask the court to impose the full 40-year sentence on Khadr if he loses his appeal (or the Canadian equivalent, an adult sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act)?

‘Mob’ Rules, letter to the editor, May I agree totally with letter-writer Bill Kerson who criticizes the letter-writers who believe that Omar Khadr and his family should be denied the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian judicial process. In our fight against terrorists and their despicable values, we are in danger of acquiring some of the same values that we so much despise in the terrorists.

The great Israeli prime minister Golda Meir put this dilemma succinctly when