Friday, June 09, 2006

Federal Court Decides Khadra Gets Passport

And we wonder why the U.S. wants to tighten security at the the border...

The Federal Court ruled Friday that Ottawa can't deny former Guantanamo Bay detainee Abdurahman Khadr a Canadian passport because of national security concerns.

The court has ruled that the federal government was wrong to deny Khadr's application for the travel document in 2004.


Info available at CTV, CBC and CNews.


But don't worry boys and girls. Everything is fine.

22 comments:

PGP said...

And thats why I keep saying there needs to be controls put on the Judiciary.
Stupid Bastard!

Of course the Feds could put through a specific change to the law to make sure this does not happen again.

Nevertheless....that judge is One Stupid Bastard.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joanne (True Blue) said...

Oh, but we must be politically correct; even if it kills us.

Anonymous said...

This is beyond belief! When you hear things like this you wonder if there is any hope for this country or is it too late. If the feds have the inclination to do something about this all the usual suspects will be crying out!

Hopeless in Mississauga

Roy Eappen said...

This is shocking.This man is a terrorist from a terrorist family. Now he can travel. How frightening.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I saw him being interviewed on T.V. He said he will be a model citizen.

We are such suckers in this country.

Anonymous said...

Ridiculous reasoning. Idiots on the Court. He can travel without a Passport, no one is stopping him from doing so, but because he's a savage terrorist SOB he should not be entitled to government documents that represent Canada.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Another case of Judge-Made law.

Blake said...

Native protesters wreak havoc, response insufficient. Response from there here parts? "Uphold the rule of law."

Duly appointed judges make a ruling based on the law at the time of the situation in a court of law, with both sides being able to present their case fairly. Response from there here parts? "Instruct the oficials to not grant these bastards a passport."

Interesting.

Anonymous said...

I have never been allowed to vote for anyone who passes these judgements on other people, that should change because these Judges obviously couldn't care less about my values or the safety of my family.

ps. I have never voted for Canada's representative at the United Nations either - and I haven't always appreciated the way I've been represented there. Canada should push for an entirely elected UN.

Blake said...

"Another case of Judge-Made law."

As I understand the case, it was the judges interpreting the law as it existed at the time of the application. Like it or not, it seems like the judges did their job here, and while I have no sympathies for terrorists, their defense counsel made a good point. Something along the lines of applying the law as it existed, and then if desired, revoke the passport later, as long as it was done openly.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Yeah, well, maybe the judge didn't have a lot of latitude on this one. It just doesn't sit right though.

Roy Eappen said...

i just reread the article from canada.com
The judge also says the passport can be immediately revoked. So the victory is pyrrhic. I just posted on it.

Blake said...

"I have never been allowed to vote for anyone who passes these judgements on other people, that should change because these Judges obviously couldn't care less about my values or the safety of my family."

Yes, you did - you voted for the representatives who appoint them. These judges are held accountable to you by your representatives.

And the job of a judge is to interpret the law, which in this case, they did. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems they did exactly as the law allowed at the time of the situation. Now, you may or may not like the ruling, but then ask for the law to be changed.

Roy:

Good post.

Joanne:

(I can't believe I'm writing this.) Good post.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I decided to delete the comment by "anonymous", even though there were some worthwhile ideas. It was way over the top in language.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Dr. Roy, thanks for the info. Good post at your site.

Also from today's National Post:

"...Mr. Ruby applauded the court decision for reinforcing the very foundations of Canadian democracy.

"This is what democracy looks like. In defending democracy, you must not stray from the very principles that make it possible."

Mr. Ruby chided former Liberal foreign affairs minister Bill Graham for making up laws on the fly -- not out of any real threat to national security -- but out of fear of what the United States would think if one of the notorious Khadr clan was issued a passport.

"Not bad for a dictatorship, not good enough for Canada," Mr. Ruby quipped.

When Mr. Khadr applied for a renewed passport in April, 2004, he cited a desire to visit family overseas and explore job opportunities in the United States.

He was rejected without reason and five months later Canada changed its rules to add national security concerns as a basis for refusal. In the meantime, Mr. Graham had signed a secret order to deny Mr. Khadr's passport application."

Blake: Good comment (I can't believe I'm writing this). It seems that Zac's approach has rubbed off on you, and I think that's great. You actually do have a lot to contribute once we can get past the mud-slinging.

Blake said...

"Blake: Good comment (I can't believe I'm writing this). It seems that Zac's approach has rubbed off on you, and I think that's great. You actually do have a lot to contribute once we can get past the mud-slinging."

As do you, once you decide to approach a situation without attempting to make it a Liberal smear. That's what brings out the beast in me.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Blake, if you directed even a fraction of your self-imposed "Accountability" agenda towards MSM, we'd all be better off.

Blake said...

Joanne, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: pointing the fingers at the MSM, or the Liberals, or the NDP, or the atheists, or whomever you choose to point fingers at, isn't helping your Party. You need to hold them accountable, and yourself accountable. If you make a mistake, I'll be there to call it out. When the mistake is corrected, you'll be better off for it, right? If the MSM is making errors, then that's their thing, but we're talking about you right now.

You say that "the truth will set us free" and herald it as your animating purpose for this blog. (We'll discuss the misuse of that verse from its biblical context some other day.) The question you have to ask yourself is, "is the truth important regardless of who's speaking it, or are some allowed to take it less seriously than others?".

I love truth, Joanne. And if I make an error, I don't go pointing the finger at others who may or may not make more egregious mistakes than I do. I don't know if you can find any point of correspondance in that mindset, but I offer that to be helpful.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mmm... Why does the old adage, "with friends like that who needs enemies" come to mind?

x2para said...

did Ruby work for free? if not where did this guy get the money to pay for him. The last lawyer I had was 400 bucks an hour so I bet Ruby must be in the 1,000 area.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Yes, and Ruby has somewhat of a notorious past himself as I recall.