Khadr case shows perils of ignoring global laws

Following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, U.S. Department of Defence lawyers conducted a survey of all of the law of war violations that thenIraqi leader Saddam Hussein had committed during the conflict. The results of their study were definitive: Not one single action committed by Saddam’s forces that violated the laws of war resulted in any kind of strategic gain during the conflict. At best, the actions were neutral; at worst, they were counter-productive.

This lesson also holds true for the West. In modern conflicts, it is difficult to point to strategic gains as a result of deviating from domestic and international legal norms when it comes to the fight against terror. Guantanamo Bay did not make the U.S. safer. Information gained from torture did not produce major intelligence finds; it only served to compromise evidence that could have been used in court. Abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib were a strategic disaster for the U.S., horrifying Americans and allies alike, as well as setting back the U.S. strategic narrative for years, if not decades.

This also holds true for Canada. The beating death of a Somali teenager by Canadian troops (and subsequent failed cover-up) in 1993 resulted in an inquiry, the disbanding of the Canadian Airborne Regiment and a stain on a mission put in place to help Somali citizens in the first place.

The polarizing effect of the news that the Canadian government is apparently reaching a settlement with former Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr should also serve as a reminder of this general rule.

To be clear, the actions of Canadian officials in the Khadr case are not those of the Canadian Armed Forces personnel in 1993. But the Supreme Court of Canada recognized, twice, that our federal government was failing in its duty to uphold Khadr’s

rights. Further, government documents on the affair indicate that Canadian officials were aware that Khadr was being tortured, but seem to have done little to prevent it.

It is unsurprising that many Canadians do not like seeing Khadr receive a payout; his actions led to the killing of a medic, Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, who left behind a grieving widow. But these Canadians should then also be furious at the governments whose actions allowed Khadr to be put in this position.

The Trudeau government did not decide to award a settlement. Instead, the actions of three Canadian governments guaranteed there would be financial compensation. The Supreme Court found that the actions of both Liberal and Conservative governments failed to uphold the minimum basic rights guaranteed for all Canadian citizens, even the ones we may disagree with the most.

Sadly, the circumstances around the case do not produce nuance: The 9/11 context; Khadr’s dubious family, who bragged on national TV about its support for al-Qaida; the child recruited, likely brainwashed and trained by his father to believe the West was his enemy; the crying teenager in Guantanamo. These touch hot-button issues that go to the heart of how democracies see themselves fighting extremism.

The lesson? Canada has been paying the financial price for when it or its allies failed to uphold legal norms in the War on Terror. Failure to live up to established norms has produced little and hurt us a lot.

These cases should stand as a reminder that we are better off when we are ourselves, adhere to the rule of law and make sure it applies to the hardest cases. Those who argue otherwise have little in the way of evidence to suggest that legal deviation will make us safer.

Stephanie Carvin is an assistant professor of International Affairs at Carleton University, a former national security analyst and the author of Prisoners of America’s Wars: From the Early Republic to Guantanamo.