The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50817
opinion BACK PA G E BY EZRA LEVANT The perfect propaganda opportunity be a prosecutor's talking point. But that's what U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder boasted when he announced the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, in a civil court in New York City. Mohammed and four others had A already demanded to plead guilty before a military tribunal, and expected to be executed. But Holder's decision to give enemy combatants caught overseas a civil trial on American soil was a propaganda opportunity so great the five men changed their pleas to take advantage of it. Holder is right: it will be a once-in-a- century opportunity for these jihadists to have a propaganda tirade against the Great Satan, this time with every news- cast on Earth broadcasting their call to war in HD. That's a step up from scratchy audio recordings smuggled out of a cave. It's also an opportunity to use all the tricks of civil procedure to root around in the U.S. prosecution's case — everything from their secret anti-terrorism tactics to confidential intelligence memos to lists of other terrorists they're hunting. The CIA used waterboarding to gain invaluable information about how al-Qaida works from Mohammed. Now Mohammed, a confessed terrorist, will use civilian rules of court to gain invaluable information about how the CIA works. The trial is still months away, but his legal team already has grounds for appeal. Holder has publicly boasted about the certainty of a conviction. He told the U.S. Senate that "failure is not an option." President Barack Obama declared Mohammed would be "convicted" and have the "death penalty applied to him." It would be shocking if Mohammed's law- yers didn't argue the president and attor- ney general were directly interfering with a judicial process or tainting the jury pool. Mohammed did not have a sympa- thetic chorus in the media calling for a civil trial; it was a bizarre, unprompted decision by the Obama administration. But here in Canada, the push for civil- ian treatment for foreign terrorists has achieved momentum. The demand for the dainty niceties of our domestic criminal law to be applied to foreign wars against terrorists is not a serious policy position. Last fall I wrote that our centuries- old British legal traditions for dealing with pirates as hostis humani generis (enemies of all mankind) give us a prac- tical precedent for terrorists captured in Afghanistan: namely summary trials on the spot, with executions to follow. My friend Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen denounced it as barbaric, but declined my invitation to provide a prac- tical alternative. Let me take his position to its logical conclusion. What would it look like to give Canadian civilian fter the O.J. Simpson debacle, you'd think that promising a "trial of the century" wouldn't treatment to foreign terrorists caught in Afghanistan — terrorists who, by defi- nition, are not covered by the Geneva Conventions? We could bring Afghanistan's enemies to Canada. We'd likely have to build more prisons and, like Guantanamo Bay, spend millions on interpreters, halal food, and chaplains for the world's jihadists. Then we could have our own trials of the cen- tury, every week. We'd have to bring our soldiers back to Canada for weeks on end to submit to cross-examination, but what's low morale and combat readiness next to winning a Nobel Peace Prize? We could send a brigade of John Howard Society lawyers over to Kandahar, and have our dainty procedures right there in the field. We could send Canadian judges, clerks, stenographers, and even a Canadian jury of the terrorists' peers. Right in the field, when a Taliban soldier surrenders, we could give him a phone number to call for a free lawyer. Maybe we could even have an immigration court in Kandahar, too. Why not grant a captured Taliban refugee status? The final stroke of political correctness would be to apply Canada's gun control laws to our own Canadian Forces. If we don't let the gov- ernment shoot at Canadians, why should we let it shoot at the Taliban? Ridiculous? No, that word was offi- cially retired after the Canadian govern- ment flew Omar Khadr's brother, Abdul Karim, home from a terrorist firefight with Pakistani troops, so he could avail himself of Canada's free health care. Ezra Levant is a Calgary lawyer and author. He can be reached at ezra@ ezralevant.com McKellar. The first choice for structured settlements. No controversy. The McKellar Structured Settlement™ GUELPH 1-800-265-8381 Untitled-3 1 HALIFAX 1-800-565-0695 46 J A NU A R Y 2010 www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com EDMONTON 780-420-0897 USA 1-800-265-2789 www.mckellar.com 12/8/09 3:05:02 PM SCOTT PAGE