Khadr’s terror trial

The only Canadian terror suspect at Guantanamo Bay has just been charged with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy and aiding the enemy in Afghanistan.

If convicted, Omar Khadr, 19, may face years in prison. While U.S. military prosecutors have wisely chosen not to press for the death penalty, Prime Minister Paul Martin has yet to see that in writing. Even when he does, Canadians will have reason to worry that Khadr may not receive a fair trial.

“ Khadr is a Canadian citizen who is entitled to due process, the right to his choice of American or Canadian counsel, and consular visits,” Dan McTeague, parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, told the Star this week. But winning even those modest concessions from U. S. President George Bush’s tribunals is proving to be an uphill struggle. Martin may be relieved that he won’t have to publicly press Bush to spare Khadr’s life, but Ottawa must monitor this case closely, and raise a fuss at the United Nations or in Geneva if Khadr receives less than a fair trial by international standards. A Canadian citizen, Khadr is the son of Ahmed Khadr, allegedly a former “ close associate” of Osama bin Laden. The Khadrs cheered the 9/ 11 attacks.

U. S. prosecutors contend Omar received Al Qaeda training in Afghanistan in 2002, spied on U. S. troops, planted mines and killed U. S. Army Sgt. Christopher Speer with a grenade during a firefight in which Khadr was shot. All this makes him sound like a seasoned terrorist.

In fact, Khadr was 15 at the time, a classic “ child soldier.” He was subject to his late father’s indoctrination and authority. He says he was “ dropped off” at the Al Qaeda camp shortly before U. S. troops surrounded it and the firefight began. Few Canadians have much time for the Khadr clan. Not when our troops are in Afghanistan, battling terror and delivering aid. But Canadians do care about justice. And what Khadr is likely to get may fall short. Khadr will not face his accusers in a credible court of law. The controversial U. S. military commissions at Guantanamo are anything but impartial.

Military officers function as judges and jurors. Evidence can be withheld from the accused. Information from unlawful coercion is admissible. There is no right of appeal or independent judicial review.

Indeed these military courts have sparked such controversy that the U. S. Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a challenge to their constitutionality. The Supreme Court already has shot down the administration’s claim that Guantanamo is beyond the reach of U. S. law. Khadr should have been brought before a competent court in Afghanistan, where his alleged crimes were committed. Or before a U. S. criminal court, or an international tribunal. He could even have been tried here. He could also have been set free, on humanitarian grounds. He has already spent years in detention.

Instead, Washington has chosen to put a child combatant before a partisan military tribunal to face years in prison for acts committed on his father’s orders, and under fire.

It is not the way Canadians do justice. There are better ways to serve freedom, and thwart terror.