But what about Canada? During the latter half of 2005 reports started to emerge that there had been landings of these planes at a range of Canadian airstrips – in at least 2 Canadian provinces, as well as in Canada’s northern reaches. At first the number was a handful, then grew to 55, now there is talk of 74. As in Europe the government has been asked to explain, investigate and respond. But the response has been tepid at best. There has been internal review of some description. The review has determined that normal operating procedures were met with respect to the flights in questions – leaving the impression that the review has merely checked to ensure that flights logs had been properly filed and that safety checks were in order. We and others have asked whether the government investigated to determine whether any of these flights may have been involved in activities that breach international human rights legal obligations? But we are told that the details of how the review was conducted and the criteria involved will not be publicly disclosed. A secret? Whether Canada seeks to adhere to international legal standards?


The third concern, staying with the issue of rendition and secret detention centres, is Guantanamo Bay, which is in some ways the crown jewel in that whole murky international network of lawlessness. I don’t intend to go into the details of what is wrong with Guantanamo Bay. The record, for over 6 years now, speaks for itself.


But what is the Canadian connection here? First and foremost there is a Canadian being held in Guantanamo Bay. Omar Khadr was fifteen years old when he was apprehended in 2002 following a firefight in Afghanistan. He stands accused of throwing a grenade that killed a US soldier. He was held in Afghanistan for a few months and then transferred to Guantanamo Bay, where he has been held for over 5 years now. During that time he has been allowed very little consular assistance, limited access to lawyers, has not been treated according to international legal standards governing juvenile prisoners or child soldiers, and is now one of the few who will face the flawed military commission proceedings. And what of Canada? Strong protestations – akin for instance to the clear objections we heard from virtually any other government who has nationals held at Guantanamo, many of whom were subsequently released? Not at all.


What we hear is silence. Instead what we know is that Canadian security officers went into Guantanamo and interviewed him – not to provide consular help, but rather to gather security information. It took a Canadian federal court order to put an end to that. And then last week, a powerful unanimous decision from the Supreme Court of Canada has ordered the Canadian government to turn over to Khadr’s legal team all materials gleaned from those interviews; at least all materials that are not subject to national security confidentiality. The basis for that conclusion, the court ruled, was that the legal regime under which Omar Khadr was held at the time of those interviews was clearly violative of international legal standards. As evidence the Supreme Court of Canada looks no further than the US Supreme Court’s rulings in Rasul, in 2004 and Hamdan, in 2006. Nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are willing to state the obvious when it comes to Guantánamo Bay. But neither the current, nor previous Canadian government has that same courage or sense of principle. #p#分页标题#e#


Omar Khadr’s military commission began, was adjourned, then overturned and has now been reinstated on appeal. As various preliminary motions and challenges conclude, the likelihood of his proceedings officially beginning draws nearer. All at the same time as recent explosive evidentiary revelations which cast a whole new light on the events at the heart of the case, raising serious questions if not doubts about the evidence that has been marshaled against Khadr.


And all the while the international voices protesting Guantanamo mount – virtually every European nation has spoken out, as have numerous other governments around the world, the past and current UN Secretaries General have spoken out, as have numbers of UN human rights. But still Canada’s public utterances remain shamefully mute – be it with respect to Omar Khadr in particular or Guantanamo in general.


Let me move on to a fourth, very serious issue – deportation to torture. International law is crystal clear: not only is torture absolutely and unequivocally prohibited, it is equally absolutely forbidden to send someone to a country where they are likely to face torture. Challenges to the fundamentally important ban on torture, have of course become one of the most contentious aspects of the security and human rights debate. A little bit of torture, we are told, might actually help enhance security. Proponents have included such notables as Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, who has proposed the idea of court-ordered torture warrants.


Loosening the prohibition on torture is very worrying for at least three reasons. First, practicality. The proposition that torture works is, quite simply, fallacious. Individuals will finger anyone, confess to anything, to bring torture to an end. Good information and intelligence that is likely to bolster security doesn’t come through the crude brutality of a torture chamber. Second, the slippery slope. Once you allow some torture it quite simply never ends. If the suspected terrorist can be tortured, what about someone who knows where he is hiding? His brother? Someone who shares his political views? Goes to the same mosque? Someone who goes to the same mosque as the brother of someone who knows where he’s hiding? The reality is that once you allow torture it knows no end. Lines do not get drawn and the ugly tentacles of torture reach out and claim more and more victims.


But third, it is the principled position to take. Torture is absolutely banned, quite simply because it must be. Because torture, by its very nature, destroys the basic sense of physical and mental integrity that lies at the heart of human dignity, at the foundation of the very notion of fundamental human rights. This must hold even when societies are faced with threats such as terrorism. To respond to terrorism with the terror of torture does not take us to a better, more secure world. It simply fuels the horrifying cycles of violence and revenge which spark acts of terrorism and even lead to wars. We remain trapped in a world which meets violence with violence. A world which creates more victims, more resentment, more fear. #p#分页标题#e#


Canadian law and practice however continues to maintain and accept that it is permissible to deport individuals, who are alleged to pose a threat to national security, to countries where they are likely to be tortured. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld that position in the 2002 Suresh case, dealing with an individual who was alleged to be a fundraiser for Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers. The Court did eloquently recognize that international law is clear – no deportations, of anyone, to torture – but in applying that international norm domestically, through the lens of the Canadian Charter of Rights, kept open an unspecified window of “extraordinary circumstances” that might justify sending someone off to face torture.


Canada and a growing number of other countries also try to get around on the inconvenience of the ban on deporting to torture by seeking promises from the governments concerned that they won’t torture. We know that US authorities apparently asked Syria for such assurances before sending Maher Arar off on his nightmare. European governments do this all the time. The logic goes something like this. Torture is illegal. It is banned in international law, banned in our own constitution. We constantly deny that it happens in our prisons. However, we promise not to do what we say we don’t do anyway and which we are already legally bound not to do – and this time you can believe us. Would you put confidence in that promise?


Torture is not the answer to insecurity. Canadian law and practice needs to confirm that torture and deportation to torture are always banned. The UN has repeatedly called on Canada to do so: the UN Committee against Torture in 2000 and again in 2005, the UN Human Rights Committee in 1999 and 2005. But Canada has not yet acted on these recommendations. Deporting someone facing allegations of support for terrorism to the waiting arms of a torturer does not further justice. The answer must instead lie in justice and accountability: arrests, charges, fair criminal proceedings.


The fifth issue, again involving concerns about torture, arises on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Canadian forces have had an active presence in Afghanistan since the early months of the military operation there in 2002. Over the past 3 years our presence has been renewed and become quite substantial, with some 2500 Canadian troops in the country. Throughout Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan there has been the thorny issue of what to do with prisoners captured during military operations. Early on Canadian officials decided they would not develop any capacity to keep prisoners in custody, and would instead hand detainees over to US troops. This became more and more problematic though as reports emerged about US detention practices, in Afghanistan, including clear indications that prisoners apprehended in Afghanistan were ending up in Guantanamo Bay. Those concerns continue. Today there are still some 600 individuals held without charge, without access to any fair legal process at the US base at Bagram in Afghanistan. #p#分页标题#e#


Canada kept handing over, even after there were indications that some of those transferred by Canadian forces had in fact ended up in Guantanamo Bay. No assurances sought or obtained that the death penalty would not be imposed, no guarantees of independent monitoring of torture concerns, no promises that legal process and access to lawyers would prevail. Canadian officials knew this was a problem, but years went on and still nothing was done to develop our own capacity to detain prisoners.