news in review - curio.camedia.curio.ca/filer_public/80/5d/805df79d-34f0-42... · cbc news in...

www.cbc.ca/newsinreview

NEWS IN REVIEWSEPTEMBER 2007

R E S O U R C E G U I D E

News in ReviewResource GuideSeptember 2007

Visit us at our Web site at our Web site at www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/, where you will find News in Review indexes and an electronic version of this resource guide. As a companion resource, we recommend that students and teachers access CBC News Online, a multimedia current news source that is found on the CBC’s home page at http://cbcnews.cbc.ca.

Close-captioningNews in Review programs are close-captioned. Subscribers may wish to obtain decoders and “open” these captions for the hearing impaired, for English as a Second Language students, or for situations in which the additional on-screen print component will enhance learning.

CBC Learning authorizes the reproduction of material contained in this resource guide for educational purposes. Please identify the source.

News in Review is distributed by CBC Learning, P.O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5W 1E6 Tel: (416) 205-6384 Fax: (416) 205-2376 E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2007 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

CreditsResource Guide Writers: Jill Colyer, Sean Dolan, Peter Flaherty, Jim L’AbbéCopy Editor and Desktop Publisher: Susan Rosenthal Production Assistant: Carolyn McCarthyResource Guide Editor: Don QuinlanSupervising Manager: Karen BowerHost: Carla RobinsonSenior Producer: Nigel GibsonProducer: Lou Kovacs Video Writers: Mark Harrison, Jennifer Harwood, Nigel Gibson Director: Fred ParkerEditor: Brian GrobermanSwitcher: Joe MusitzAudio: Terry GouldingCamera: Stephanie Dunthorne Frame Storer: Liz Percival

CBC News in Review • September 2007 • Page �

ContentsIn This Issue . . . ......................................................................................... 4

THE TRIAL OF CONRAD BLACK ............................................... 6Introduction ..............................................................................................................6Video Review ...........................................................................................................8The Charges .............................................................................................................9The Prosecution Strategy .......................................................................................11The Defence Strategy .............................................................................................13The Verdict .............................................................................................................15Activity: The Sentence ...........................................................................................17

THE SEVEN WONDERS OF CANADA ..................................... 18Introduction ............................................................................................................18Video Review .........................................................................................................19Ancient Seven Wonders of the World ...................................................................21The Modern Seven Wonders ..................................................................................24What Makes It a Wonder? ......................................................................................26Canada’s Seven Wonders: Map of Canada ............................................................27Activity: Your Wonders ..........................................................................................28

TONY BLAIR’S TEN YEARS IN POWER ................................... 29Introduction ............................................................................................................29Video Review ........................................................................................................31Timeline: The Blair Years ......................................................................................33As Others See Him: Views of Tony Blair ..............................................................35Debating the Blair Legacy .....................................................................................37The Man Who Would Be King: Gordon Brown ....................................................39Evaluating a Prime Minister ..................................................................................41

OMAR KHADR: CANADIAN IN GUANTANAMO ................... 42Introduction ............................................................................................................42Video Review ........................................................................................................45The Incident ..........................................................................................................46Timeline .................................................................................................................48Document: Open Letter to PM Harper ...................................................................50Al Qaeda Family ...................................................................................................52Activity: You Be the Judge ....................................................................................54

News in Review Index ............................................................................ 55

CBC News in Review • September 2007 • Page 4

NiR Study ModulesUsing print and video material from archival issues of News in Review, teachers and students can create thematic modules for independent assignments, and small group study.

NiR Study ModulesGomery Report: Anatomy of a Scandal

December 2005Conrad Black: A Tycoon in Trouble

October 2004Turbulence: Air Canada & Bombardier

May 2003The Enron Collapse: A Political Scandal?

May 2002The Bre-X Gold Find: All That Glitters

May 1997

Related CBC VideosWar of Words

THE SEVEN WONDERS OF CANADA (Start: 14:25; Length: 14:5�)This summer the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation organized a contest to come up with the Seven Wonders of Canada. Canadians were invited to submit their nominations, and they responded in overwhelming numbers. More than 18 000 nominations were received and hundreds of thousands of Canadians voted for their choices. For this News in Review story we’ll look at the contest and how a panel of judges came up with their Seven Wonders

Related CBC VideosOther videos available from CBC Learning; see the back cover for contact details.

THE TRIAL OF CONRAD BLACK (Start: 00:25; Length: 1�:48)In mid-July former media baron Conrad Black was found guilty of obstruction of justice and three counts of mail fraud. The verdict came after a 15-week trial in a Chicago courtroom. Black, who will be sentenced in November, could be sent to prison for many years. In this News in Review story we’ll look at the Black trial and the conviction of the man who was once one of Canada’s most powerful business tycoons.

In This Issue . . .

Related CBC VideosA Day in the Life of CanadaGeologic JourneyThe Greatest Canadian InventionThe National DreamNorth Of 60: Life in the North


Sections marked with this symbol contain content suitable for younger viewers.

TONY BLAIR’S TEN YEARS IN POWER (Start: 29:28; Length: 15:06)In late June Tony Blair stepped down as Prime Minister of Britain. Blair is considered by many to have been one of Britain’s most successful prime ministers. In recent years, however, his popularity had slumped mainly because of his support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq. In this News in Review story we’ll take a close-up look at Blair’s decade in power and how he left his mark on Britain and the world.

NiR Study ModulesIran Seizes British Sailors, May 2007London Bombers: Alienation and Terror

September 2006London Bombs: A Summer of Terror

November 2005

OMAR KHADR: CANADIAN IN GUANTANAMO (Start: 44:45; Length: 16:0�)Omar Khadr is a young Canadian who is being held at the U.S. detention camp for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Khadr was just 15 years old when he was captured by U.S. forces in 2002, while fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan. He is accused of killing an American soldier with a hand grenade. This News in Review story reviews the case of Omar Khadr and how a Canadian teenager became a child soldier in Afghanistan.

Related CBC VideosAfghanistan: Captives of the WarlordsNuclear Jihad: Can the Terrorists Get the

Bomb?

NiR Study Modules Afghanistan: The Dead and the

Wounded, February 2007Canada’s Bloody War in Afghanistan

November 2006Toronto Arrests: 18 Face Terror Charges

September 2006London Bombers: Alienation and Terror

September 2006Afghan Fighting: Canadians Under Attack

May, 2006Afghanistan: Canadians Prepare for War

March 2006 London Bombs: A Summer of Terror

November 2005

The Battle For Kosovo: NATO Hits Yugoslavia, April 1999

The Euro: Birth of a Currency, March 1999Ireland: Voting For Peace, September 1998Scotland and Wales: Houses of Their Own

November 1997

Dying for Peace: Our Soldiers in Kabul March 2004

Canada Returns to Afghanistan November 2003

Canada’s Forces Go to Afghanistan March 2002

Afghanistan: Telling the Story February 2002

Routing the Taliban, December 2001Terrorist Attack: The Retaliation

November 2001


FocusThis month we report on the trial and conviction of Lord Black of Crossharbour on charges of fraud and obstruction of justice in a Chicago court. After a spectacular business career, Black finds himself an exile from Canada facing a long sentence as a prisoner in a U.S. jail. This News in Review module explains some of the reasons why this has happened.

Further ResearchA detailed timeline of major events in the life of Conrad Black can be found on the CBC Web site at www.cbc.ca/news/background/black_conrad/timeline.html.

THE TRIAL OF CONRAD BLACK

IntroductionThe verdicts are in, and the future is somewhat unclear. One thing, however, is certain. Conrad Black—Lord Black of Crossharbour—has fallen a long way.A convicted felon, Black faces a sentence of up to 35 years in jail. He remains free on $21-million bail, but is restricted to living in either the Chicago area (where he will be sentenced) or in his Palm Beach, Florida, home.

A former Canadian who gave up his citizenship for a British honour, Black may never be able to return to his Toronto home. His conviction will likely prevent him from ever being able to regain his Canadian citizenship. Hundreds of people have already begun a campaign to revoke his Order of Canada (only two people have so far had their membership revoked).

His major business enterprises are in tatters. His personal assets are frozen. U.S. government prosecutors are seeking the forfeiture of his Palm Beach property as well as his ownership interest in the company he was convicted of defrauding.

During his trial, more than a dozen lawsuits against Black were put on hold. These will now resume, and they include serious cases involving the Ontario Securities Commission and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The biggest civil lawsuit —for $542-million—was brought by Sun Times Media (formerly Hollinger International). It involves issues identical to those for which Black and other executives were facing charges in the criminal trial.

How could this happen?In a devastating article in The Globe

and Mail (July 14, 2007), Jacquie McNish gave a one-word answer: pride. She wrote: “Conrad Black has blamed

many enemies for the prosecution that led to yesterday’s guilty verdicts. He condemns the U.S. justice system for a ‘vicious and relentless’ inquisition. He fingered his first accuser, former U.S. securities regulator Richard Breeden, as a corporate-governance ‘zealot.’ And he has cast his rebellious shareholders as ‘ingrates’ and ‘terrorists.’

“The one person Lord Black seems genetically incapable of blaming is himself. For the sad truth is, he was his own worst enemy. Had he simply folded his losing hand when shareholders of Hollinger International Inc. first called him a ‘thief’ in 2002, Lord Black would probably not be facing the humiliation of prison.”

According to McNish, it was Black’s pride that made it almost impossible for him to avoid a good fight. He had battled with shareholders and employees throughout his career. He never admitted any wrongdoing. And, she writes, “. . . he enriched a generation of libel lawyers with a furious barrage of defamation lawsuits against anyone who accused him of wrongdoing.” Ultimately, this kind of behaviour probably forced the justice system to go after him.

Black’s trial became a spectacle for Canadians who watched his career for decades with fascination, if not always with admiration. He had built an international newspaper empire that gave him entry to the highest reaches of society at home and abroad. Unhappy with the political leanings of most Canadian newspapers, he founded the National Post to give a strong voice to Canada’s conservatives. Himself a writer, he was respected for his biographies of Maurice Duplessis and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (his recent biography of Richard Nixon was perhaps somewhat


less successful). Black and his wife Barbara Amiel (also a writer) maintained elaborate homes in Toronto, London, and Palm Beach.

Some Canadians felt a little bit of schadenfreude when the guilty verdicts were announced. But polls have indicated that the majority, while unsurprised, were saddened by the news.

It’s a good thing that Conrad Black loves a good fight. Few legal experts think his appeal in the criminal case

stands much of a chance. Most expect that he faces somewhere between five and 10 years in prison.

Even should the appeal succeed, the legal battles will continue.

Lawsuits and legal fees will eat away at what is left of Black’s corporate empire—and likely a good part of his personal fortune as well. All in all, a sad ending to a notable—and often notorious—career.

Did you know . . .Out of the more than 5 500 Order of Canada honours awarded over the last 40 years, only two have been rescinded: aboriginal leader David Ahenakew for anti-Semitic comments and hockey lawyer Alan Eagleson after his conviction on fraud charges.

DefinitionSchadenfreude is a very useful German word that has no exact equivalent in English. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines it as “the malicious enjoyment of another’s misfortunes.”

For DiscussionIn 1990, Conrad Black received one of Canada’s most prestigious awards, membership in the Order of Canada (www.gg.ca/honours/nat-ord/oc/index_e.asp). A movement is underway to strip him of this honour; the advisory council on the Order of Canada to the Governor General is expected to discuss his award this fall. In your opinion, does his conviction in a U.S. court on fraud charges justify taking away his membership? If it does, should the advisory council wait until the appeal process is completed?


THE TRIAL OF CONRAD BLACKVideo ReviewAnswer the following questions in the spaces provided.

1. Name the first newspaper that Conrad Black acquired. __________________

2. What was “his first big corporate prize”? _______________________________

How much was it worth? ____________________

3. Which of Black’s special interests turned into “a stage-managed metaphor for his career”?

4. Why was ownership of the London Daily Telegraph so important to Black?

5. How many newspapers did Black’s company own at the height of his

career? _____________

6. Which national newspaper did Black found in Canada? __________________

7. What did Black have to give up in order to become a member of Britain’s House of Lords?

8. What would it have cost Black to settle his dispute with the board of

directors of Hollinger International? ___________________________

9. Who gave key evidence against Black during his trial? What was his relationship to Black?

10. What does a newspaper owner guarantee when he sells a newspaper and receives a non-compete payment?

11. Black finally faced a total of 13 different counts or criminal charges. Of

how many was he found guilty? ________________

12. What step has Black already taken as part of his appeal process?

Quote“Greed is a motive that has not failed to move me.” — Conrad Black, quoted in the National Post September 1, 2004

Did you know . . . Conrad Black spearheaded fundraising to complete the largest Canadian war memorial in Britain. The Canada Memorial sits near Buckingham Palace and is a tribute to Canada’s efforts to help Britain in two world wars. Today the memorial is in disrepair, and Black is unable to fund its restoration.


THE TRIAL OF CONRAD BLACKThe ChargesFew observers would doubt that the U.S. government prosecutors, when they filed their charges, were out to make an example of Conrad Black. Black was originally indicted on a total of 14 criminal counts. If convicted on all of them, he faced a total of up to 101 years in prison and $164-million in fines. He would also have to forfeit up to $92-million in assets.

One charge against Black—that of money laundering—was dropped during the trial. The remaining 13 fell into several categories.

Non-Compete AgreementsThe bulk of the charges related to non-compete payments made to Black and two other defendants. Non-compete payments are not uncommon in the newspaper industry. When a newspaper is sold, the new owner will often seek an agreement that prevents the seller from starting another paper in the same market. To obtain this agreement, the purchaser will agree to pay an additional sum to the seller as a non-compete payment.

What was uncommon in the cases cited by the prosecutors was the recipient of the non-compete payments. In non-compete agreements, the compensation almost always goes to the company (and thus, ultimately, to all its shareholders). In these cases, some of the money went directly to Black and some of his associates. The total amount of money involved in the non-compete payments in question totalled $80-million.

Abusing Company PerksBlack was also charged with using company funds for personal purposes. Three examples were highlighted. These

Further ResearchThe charges against Black are outlined in greater detail at www.cbc.ca/news/background/black_conrad/charges.html.

Did you know . . . Hollinger International is the American corporation whose stockholders’ accusations against Black led to the filing of U.S. criminal charges. However, Hollinger Inc. is a Canadian holding company that Black and his associates own, and that holds a majority voting interest in Hollinger International.

included a party that Black threw for his wife Barbara Amiel’s 60th birthday, costing about $65 000. Black had Hollinger pick up part of the tab, calling it as much a business gathering as a personal function. The second example was the use of a company jet to fly the couple to a private holiday on Bora Bora.The third example involved the purchase by Black of his New York apartment from Hollinger International. The prosecutors alleged that the apartment, purchased by Black for $3-million, was intentionally grossly undervalued. (When the apartment was sold in October 2005, the Chicago U.S. Attorney seized the $9-million proceeds from the sale.)

Tax FraudBlack and the three other defendants were also charged with tax fraud related to Hollinger International’s 1999 and 2000 tax returns. Both charges accuse the defendants of underreporting the corporation’s income by several million dollars.

Obstruction of JusticeThe charge of obstruction of justice related to a notorious incident actually captured on camera. On May 20, 2005, Black, his chauffeur, and his personal assistant removed 13 boxes of papers from Hollinger Inc.’s offices in Toronto. As they worked, they were photographed by a surveillance camera. Photographs of the team carrying out the boxes soon appeared in several newspapers.

At the time of the removal, an Ontario court order was in effect forbidding Black’s taking any papers from the building. A U.S. subpoena of the papers was also pending. Black returned the boxes within a matter of days, but


prosecutors decided to proceed with the charge. With a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250 000 fine, this was one of the most serious charges faced by Black.

RacketeeringThe racketeering charge was considered as serious as obstruction of justice (the same maximum penalty) but more difficult to prove. Racketeering requires prosecutors to demonstrate a regular pattern of criminal behaviour on the part of a defendant. The prosecution alleged

that Black saw Hollinger International as a regular source of fraudulent funds for himself and certain associates. The indictment listed seven separate examples that, it was argued, established the necessary pattern of behaviour.

With the exception of obstruction of justice and racketeering, the charges all were filed as either mail fraud or wire fraud. This means that the charges alleged that the U.S. Mails or different wire services had been used for interstate or international transfers of documents or funds related to various fraudulent activities.

Did you know . . . Conrad Black was expelled from the prestigious Upper Canada College in 1959 for stealing and then selling examinations. He allegedly earned $1500.

Did you know . . . Black was not tried alone but shared charges with Jack Boultbee, Peter Atkinson, and Mark Kipnis. All three were also found guilty of some of the charges.

For DiscussionSome commentators felt that the prosecution was filing an excessive number of charges in an attempt to convince potential jurors that where there was so much smoke there had to be at least some fires. One charge was withdrawn before trial and another dropped just before the prosecution rested its case. In the light of the ultimate result—four convictions on 13 charges— would you agree that this was likely the prosecution strategy? In your view, would the prosecution have been more or less successful if it had focused on fewer charges? Explain.


THE TRIAL OF CONRAD BLACKThe Prosecution StrategyThe indictment against Black and the other Hollinger International defendants was brought by Patrick Fitzgerald, one of the most famous U.S. Attorneys. Just prior to the trial, Fitzgerald had won the government’s case against Lewis Libby, an important official in the Bush administration who had been accused of lying in his testimony to a U.S. grand jury. Fitzgerald had also led the successful prosecution of several other corporate executives accused of fraud in their business dealings.

Though Fitzgerald brought the charges, he did not personally prosecute the case. Instead, he selected a team of young attorneys to handle the courtroom work. The team was led by Eric Sussman, an eight-year veteran with the Justice Department. He was assisted by three other lawyers. Perhaps the most notable of these was Julie Ruder, who made such a strong impact on the jury during her cross-examination of witnesses that Sussman selected her to lead the prosecution’s summing up.

David RadlerMany observers believed that the testimony of David Radler, Conrad Black’s closest associate, would be critical to the success of the prosecution’s case. Radler had worked with Black since their first investment in newspapers with the purchase of the Sherbrooke Daily Record in the 1960s. Together they built what became a huge newspaper empire.

Like Black, Radler was charged with several counts of fraud by the U.S. Justice department. Unlike Black, however, Radler arranged a plea bargain with the U.S. Attorneys. In exchange for his testimony against Black, Radler’s charges were reduced to a single count

of mail fraud, to which he pleaded guilty. The resulting sentence would be a maximum of 29 months in prison and a fine of $250 000. The prosecutors also agreed that they would not object to Radler’s application to serve his time in Canada, which should actually result in a much shorter time in jail. He also repaid to Hollinger $8.65-million that he had received from the non-compete agreements. Radler is to be sentenced on December 10, 2007.

Radler testified that Black was the man behind the idea to use non-compete agreements to generate extra cash for the two newspaper executives. According to Radler, in a January 1999 phone call, Black first suggested that 25 per cent of a non-compete payment should go to Hollinger Inc., the parent company of Hollinger International, which Black controlled.

According to Radler, it was in August 2000 that Black and Radler decided to add themselves to future non-compete agreements. This was after CanWest purchased $3.2-billion worth of Hollinger newspapers and asked for individual non-compete agreements with Black and Radler. Each received $19-million as part of the deal. After this, their names began to appear in all non-compete deals involving Hollinger International.

Radler’s testimony was important to the prosecution’s case, but they did not believe it to be critical. In their closing arguments, the prosecution stated to the jurors that they “do not need to believe a word David Radler told you to convict every single one of these defendants” (www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070626/black_trial_070626/20070626/).

Quote:“Bank robbers use masks and carry guns. These four dressed in ties and wore suits.” — Prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer, quoted in The Globe and Mail, July 14, 2007

Further ResearchAn excellent introduction to the career and the role of Patrick Fitzgerald in the Black trial is available from Maclean’s at www.macleans.ca/homepage/magazine/article.jsp?content= 20070312_103133_103133.


ObstructionOne major charge gave the prosecution great confidence: obstruction of justice. The camera evidence was undeniable: Black on film removing files from his former offices at a time when he was under a court order not to do so. The testimony of his personal assistant, Joan Maida, that the removal did not intentionally constitute obstruction because the papers were all personal was unconvincing. Almost all professional trial observers felt that this one charge would be very difficult for Black to overcome.

Non-CompetesBut the heart of the case against Black and the other defendants was the use of non-compete agreements for personal enrichment. The testimony of three witnesses involved in the purchase of newspapers from Hollinger International made an especially strong case against Black.

Mike Reed, Lloyd Case, and David Paxton own and run several dozen small-town newspapers across the U.S. All purchased papers from Hollinger International, and all were asked to pay a portion of the non-compete fees that normally would go to Hollinger to individuals, including Black. As Reed testified, “It just didn’t seem like the right thing to do. . . . We did not view these individuals as potential competitors” (The Globe and Mail, July 14, 2007). Black, three other executives, and Hollinger Inc. received a total of $30-million as a result of these deals.

In her closing argument, Julie Ruder emphasized these three non-competes. “The buyers didn’t request it. The case is about why. Why was the money paid?” (The Globe and Mail, July 14, 2007).

Quote“He suggested that we insert ourselves into the non-compete process and I agreed.” — David Radler, quoted in The Globe and Mail, May 9, 2007

AnalysisHow would you evaluate the effectiveness of the prosecution strategy? Note any changes that you might suggest.

CBC News in Review • September 2007 • Page 1�

THE TRIAL OF CONRAD BLACKThe Defence StrategyAs his trial was about to begin, Conrad Black proclaimed his innocence and predicted a complete victory. “The charges are nonsense and I am looking forward to putting this cataract of horrors finally behind me,” he wrote in an e-mail to the Financial Times (March 12, 2007).

Black chose two high-powered (and high-priced) lawyers to represent him during the trial. To the surprise of many observers, one of these was a Canadian who had never argued a case in a U.S. court.

Edward GreenspanThe Canadian was Edward Greenspan, one of Canada’s most famous criminal lawyers. Greenspan has defended a number of celebrity clients, such as former Nova Scotia premier Gerald Regan. He is known as an especially effective cross-examiner. But this was his first appearance in a U.S. courtroom, and U.S. courts place far less emphasis on verbal argument than Canadian courts. It seemed to take Greenspan a bit of time to adapt to the new arena.

Edward GensonEdward Genson was chosen as Black’s second attorney. Genson is one of Chicago’s top criminal lawyers. He, too, has defended a number of high-profile clients (most recently, he defended R&B singer R. Kelly against child pornography charges). Genson, who has a neuromuscular condition that requires him to use an electric scooter, is considered “colourful.” He likes to bang his cane on tables during trials as an attention-getting device.

The defence strategy anticipated the prosecution’s arguments and attempted to overturn them.

Discrediting David RadlerThe defence argued that David Radler was the real villain, if any fraudulent activity had actually taken place. Only Radler’s testimony indicated that Black had been the partner who came up with the idea for inserting individuals into the non-competes. The defence argued that it was far more likely that any wrongdoing at Hollinger was Radler’s responsibility. He, they claimed, was responsible for the day-to-day operations in Chicago. While Black was focused on operations in Eastern Canada and Europe, they said, Radler was responsible for Western Canada and the U.S. (where the alleged illegal activities had taken place).

Furthermore, Radler had received a sweetheart deal because of his plea bargain, and this gave him the incentive to testify against Black. In his cross-examination of Radler, Greenspan tried to force him to admit that, just as he had lied to prosecutors before he made his plea bargain, he was now lying to convict Black. While Radler was evasive in some of his testimony, most trial observers felt that the defence failed to totally discredit his testimony. In her instructions to the jury, however, Judge Amy St. Eve ordered them to consider Radler’s testimony “with caution and great care” (Financial Times, June 28, 2007).

Legitimizing the Non-CompetesThe defence argued that the non-compete agreements, central to the charges against Black and the other defendants, were a normal and appropriate business practice in the newspaper industry. In the case of these particular agreements, they argued that all of them had been disclosed to


Hollinger International’s auditors and authorized by the Hollinger Board of Directors. Several members of the board testified that they had indeed signed off on the payments, although they could not remember actually reading the papers that they had signed.

No Obstruction IntendedThe defence argued that Black had intended no obstruction of justice when he removed the boxes of files from his former office at Hollinger Inc. in Toronto. Black, they said, believed that the Ontario court order did not apply to his personal papers, which were all that the boxes contained. When he was informed that the order applied to all his papers, he returned them. The defence called Black’s personal assistant, Joan Maida, to testify; however, she became confused on the stand and failed to make the defence’s case.

The boxes finally made their way to court on May 8. The contents found within them at that time were indeed mostly personal papers such as tax forms and bank records.

No Testimony by the DefendantsNone of the defendants in the trial took the stand to testify in their own defence. In Black’s case, defence lawyers were reported to be especially concerned that he might come across to jurors as pompous and arrogant. Black’s past experience as a witness was not positive. He had previously testified on his own behalf in another case that went to trial in Delaware. The judge handling the trial said that he found Black “evasive and unreliable. His explanations of key events and of his own motivations do not have the ring of truth” (Vanity Fair, February 2007).

Did you know . . .In May 2005, several members of the Hollinger International board of directors agreed to pay $50-million to settle a lawsuit brought by shareholders. The lawsuit charged that they had been derelict in carrying out their duties.

Analysis 1. How would you personally assess the effectiveness of the defence strategy?

Identify any changes you would have made.

2. In your view, should defendants be forced to testify during trials? Explain.


THE TRIAL OF CONRAD BLACKThe VerdictOn June 12, Conrad Black and the three other defendants gave up their right to testify in their own defence for the last time. After 47 days of testimony by 21 prosecution witnesses and 13 defence witnesses, the defence rested its case (the prosecution rested on May 30). Only closing arguments remained before the judge, Amy St. Eve, gave the case to the jury for their decision.

Closing ArgumentsThe closing arguments made exactly the points that observers expected. In a seven-hour presentation, prosecutor Julie Ruder called Black a liar who stole from Hollinger International’s shareholders because he believed he was above the rules. Ruder urged jurors to ignore the paper trail of documents that indicated Hollinger’s directors signed off on the transactions. “It doesn’t matter that there is a paper trail. So what? That’s not what this is about. It’s about the ‘why.’ There was no reason for Hollinger International shareholders to lose this money” (The Globe and Mail, June 19, 2007).

In their summing up, the defence argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Black had intended to defraud anyone. Eddie Greenspan was especially contemptuous of the testimony of David Radler, whom he referred to as a “serial liar” who only testified against his associate Black because he received such a good deal from the prosecution.

DeliberationsOn June 27, the judge read to the jury 77 pages of instructions and then sent them off to begin their deliberations. These deliberations continued for many days—a sign that both the defence and the prosecution saw as favourable for them.

Quote “I ask you to find him not guilty in the name of justice, in the name of fairness, in the name of equality, and in the name of equal justice for all. . . . He is a rich man, . . . but in America you do not convict someone because they are rich.” — Edward Greenspan, quoted in The Globe and Mail, June 20, 2007.

On July 10, the jury informed the judge that they were having difficulty reaching unanimity on some of the charges. She asked them to go back and make another attempt to resolve their differences. On July 13, the jury finally announced that they had reached a verdict on all the charges under consideration.

GuiltyThe jury found all four defendants guilty on three of the charges of mail fraud. Black was also found guilty of obstruction of justice.

The three mail fraud charges were all related to the non-compete agreements at the heart of the defence case. Two of the charges involved companies that had been required to sign agreements that diverted money to Black and other defendants despite their owners seeing no valid reason for doing so.

The third conviction was the result of a bizarre non-compete agreement in which Black and his associates collected a non-compete payment from a small Hollinger subsidiary called American Publishing Company. In effect, Black was collecting money for agreeing to not compete against himself. Prosecutors successfully argued that this was intended to disguise the payments so that they would be tax-free, as were all non-competes in Canada. Each mail-fraud charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail and a fine of $250 000.

Only Black faced and was convicted on the most serious charge: obstruction of justice. Caught on a security camera removing materials from his former headquarters, Black had no way of denying his actions. The defence argued that he had not intended to do anything wrong, but was only removing personal


papers from an office from which he was being evicted. The jury found it impossible to accept that argument.

An obstruction of justice conviction carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in jail and a fine of $250 000. Sentencing on all charges has been scheduled for November 30, 2007.

AppealImmediately after the verdict was announced, Black’s lawyers announced that he was maintaining his innocence and would be appealing the decision. They brought on board Andrew Frey, a former deputy solicitor-general with the U.S. Department of Justice, to assist with the appeal. The process began on August 27, when Black’s lawyers

filed a motion with Judge Amy St. Eve requesting that she order a new trial. In a separate motion, they asked her to grant an acquittal, arguing that the government failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Few observers expect that either motion will succeed.

The next step will be to take the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel will hear the case. If the appeal is unsuccessful at this stage, it may be reviewed by a full panel of all the appeal court’s judges. Should it again fail, the defendant may then request the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. It will probably take a year or two for the appeal to run its course; during that period Black may remain free on bail.

Quote Just before the verdict was rendered, Hugh Totten, a Chicago lawyer and non-compete expert discussed the Black case with other legal experts for Maclean’s. He commented on the obstruction of justice charge: “There’s a question, I think, in the average jury’s mind: ‘Why would Conrad Black show up on a weekend, when he’s got a butler and a driver and an assistant, and then decide he’d all of a sudden comply with his landlord’s wishes to evict the premises.’” Maclean’s, June 25, 2007

Quote“We move on to the next phase of a long war. We got rid of most of [the charges], and expect to get rid of the rest on appeal.” — Conrad Black, quoted in The Globe and Mail, July 16, 2007

Analysis 1. In your view, was the trail of Conrad Black fair? Explain.

2. What is your personal response to the findings of the jury. Explain fully.


THE TRIAL OF CONRAD BLACKActivity: The SentenceWhat prison sentence do you feel would be appropriate for Conrad Black if his conviction stands?

Even though he is appealing the verdict, Black has been convicted of four crimes and will be sentenced by Judge Amy St. Eve on November 30. The possibility exists that Black, who just turned 63 on August 25, could spend the rest of his life in jail. Each of the three counts of mail fraud of which he was convicted carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail. The obstruction of justice charge has a maximum 20-year penalty. Theoretically, Black could face a 35-year jail term and a $1-million fine.

The prosecution team has stated that they will be seeking a prison term of 15-20 years. The defence has said it will argue that sentences for these kinds of offences are customarily considerably shorter. Judge St. Eve will hear the arguments from both sides and make the final decision. She will also issue a sentencing statement outlining the reasons for her decision. Black is expected to appeal whatever sentence she gives him, just as he is appealing the verdict in the trial.

For the purposes of this exercise, you must decide the total number of years you feel Black should spend in jail for the crimes of which he has been convicted. You should base your decision only on what you have learned about the nature of the crimes themselves and Black’s actions in committing them. Black’s lifestyle and past adventures should not enter into your consideration.

As you ponder your decision, you might bear in mind that, in the U.S., criminals really do serve their time. The most a prisoner can get off for good behaviour is 15 per cent of his or her sentence. Before you write your report, gather in a group with four of five of your peers to discuss your ideas and intentions.

Once you have made your decision, write a brief (one page or less) sentencing report explaining how you arrived at that decision. Be prepared to share your report with your classmates.

Notes:


FocusIn this News in Review story, we investigate the results of the recent CBC-inspired contest to select the Seven Wonders of Canada.

DefinitionThe notation CE stands for Common Era and reflects the time period that began with the birth of Jesus Christ. The notation BCE stands for Before the Common Era.

THE SEVEN WONDERS OF CANADAIntroductionIn the summer of 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) organized a contest to determine the Seven Wonders of Canada. Canadians were encouraged to nominate any natural or human-made wonder in the nation. Millions of Canadians participated. The final selections were made by a panel of respected judges. Only two of the final seven selections on the judges’ list were from the top seven list nominated by Canadians. This caused quite an outpouring of sentiment. Many Canadians felt the final seven wonders did not reflect the opinions of “average” Canadians who had taken the time to vote. The judges, however, had to consider factors other than just popularity in their final selections. Regardless of the outcome, the Seven Wonders of Canada competition was a huge success at getting Canadians talking about the nation and in generating excitement about our heritage.

Although the CBC’s Seven Wonders of Canada competition was a first for Canada, seven wonders lists are not

new. The original Seven Wonders of the World appeared on a list created around 300 BCE. This “Ancient Wonders” list, as it is commonly called, was used as a benchmark for all future wonders lists. And it contains some of the most amazing feats of engineering in human history.

Over the past 20 years, a number of locations and sites have been designated as “Modern Wonders.” But the lists differ depending on the criteria used to define “wonderfulness.” One of the lists focuses on engineering wonders (those created by humans), while another refers to natural wonders. The most recent list, released in July 2007, is the result of worldwide online voting.

In this News in Review story you will review the controversy associated with the Seven Wonders of Canada competition. You will also learn about the Ancient and Modern Wonders, and you will have the opportunity to reflect on the concept of “wonderfulness.” And finally, you will have the chance to create your own Seven Wonders of Canada list.

Planning AheadIf you were to select the Seven Wonders of Canada, what criteria would you choose for determining your list? Could the “Wonders” be both human-made and natural? Would they need to represent all areas of Canada? Should there be a balance of modern and older wonders? Should they be well-known or newly discovered?


THE SEVEN WONDERS OF CANADAVideo ReviewRespond to the following questions while viewing the accompanying video.

1. How many wonders of Canada were nominated for voting purposes?

2. Describe the nomination made by Anne Warr’s Grade 2 class in Newfoundland.

3. Do you think this nomination should have been selected as one of the Seven Wonders of Canada? Why?

4. Why was Number 5 Road in Richmond, British Columbia, nominated? Do you agree with this nomination? Why?

5. What is the significance of Pier 21?

6. What was the “tastiest” nomination on the list? Was this a worthy nomination? Why?

7. How did the judges’ list differ from the list that resulted from the online voting? How do you feel about this difference?


8. What is the only Ancient Wonder still standing today?

9. What was the People’s Choice for Canada’s top wonder?

10. List as many of the CBC Seven Wonders as you can.

11. Which is your favourite wonder of Canada? Why?


THE SEVEN WONDERS OF CANADAAncient Seven Wonders of the World Although the summer of 2007 was the first time Canadians compiled a list of their country’s seven wonders, people have been compiling lists of wonders for thousands of years. The list of the Ancient Seven Wonders that we know today is from the Middle Ages. Since the list came mostly from ancient Greek writings, only sites known and visited by the Greeks were included.

Focus question: What do you think amazed the Greeks about each of the Ancient Wonders?

TaskCreate an organizer that records specific information about each of the Ancient Wonders. Your organizer should include the following columns: Name, Features, Location, Date Built, Date Destroyed, and Cause of Destruction.

1. The Great Pyramid of GizaThe Great Pyramid is the only surviving Ancient Wonder. It is also the oldest. The pyramid was built near the city of Giza, which today is part of Greater Cairo in Egypt. The pyramid was built by the Egyptian pharaoh Khufu, around 2560 BCE, to serve as a tomb when he died.

It is believed that the pyramid was built over a 20-year period. The structure consists of about two million blocks of stone, each weighing more than two tonnes. The pyramid is about 137 metres high and was the tallest structure in the world for more than 43 centuries. Each side of the pyramid aligns with one of the cardinal points of the compass: north, south, east, and west. The maximum error between side lengths is less than 0.1 per cent. A number of corridors led to the inner sanctum, the pharaoh’s burial chamber.

History MysteryPeople continue to debate how the pyramid was built. One theory is that a straight or spiral ramp, raised as construction proceeded, moved the blocks into place. How do you think two million blocks of stone weighing two tonnes each could be moved without heavy construction equipment?

2. The Hanging Gardens of BabylonThe Hanging Gardens were an architectural masterpiece because they flourished in the middle of a desert. It is believed that Nebuchadnezzar II had the Hanging Gardens built for his wife Amytis, who was homesick for the lush and green landscape of her home, Media.

Built around 600 BCE, the multi-levelled gardens reached up to 22 metres in height. Plants and trees were planted in each level of the terrace and were watered by irrigation streams that flowed like waterfalls from terrace to terrace. It is reported that large trees even grew on the roof of the palace.

The Hanging Gardens are believed to have been located on the east bank of the Euphrates River, about 50 kilometres south of Baghdad, Iraq. They were destroyed by an earthquake after the first century BCE.

History MysteryAre the Hanging Gardens a myth? Historians today continue to debate whether the Hanging Gardens actually existed or if they were simply a Greek legend. The reason some historians doubt their existence is that many written records from the time period do


not make any reference to the gardens. However, more recent excavations at the ancient city of Babylon in Iraq have uncovered what may be the foundation of the palace.

�. The Statue of Zeus at OlympiaAccording to the Greeks, Zeus was the king of gods. The statue at Olympia, about 150 kilometres west of Athens, was built to honour the greatness of Zeus. Olympia was picked as the location because this is where the Ancient Olympic Games were held to honour Zeus.

Built around 450 BCE, the statue was huge. It measured about 6.5 metres wide at the base and was over 13 metres high—the equivalent of a four-storey modern building. It is believed that the sculptor, Pheidias, created the statue by carving different pieces of it while standing on a large wooden frame. Sheets of metal and ivory were used to provide the outer covering of the statue. The pieces of the sculpture were then assembled inside the temple at Olympia.

Historical records indicate the statue was moved to a palace in Constantinople after the Olympic Games were banned in 391 CE by the emperor Theodosius. It is believed that the statue was destroyed by either a fire or an earthquake around the fifth century CE.

History MysteryDid the sculptor make a mistake? When the statue was completed, it barely fit in the temple, and Zeus’s head almost touched the ceiling. Some critics have argued that the sculptor made an error when calculating the size of the statue. Others believe that the size was deliberate since it creates the impression that if Zeus stood up he could “unroof” the temple. This would serve as a reflection of his power.

4. The Temple of Artemis at EphesusAccording to the written records of those who visited the site, the Temple of Artemis was the most beautiful structure on Earth. It was built in honour of Artemis, the Greek goddess of hunting, wild nature, and fertility. Artemis was a popular god, and excavations of the site have revealed many gifts from pilgrims, including statuettes made of gold and ivory, earrings, bracelets, and other artifacts from as far away as Persia and India.

Located in the ancient city of Ephesus, about 50 kilometres south or Izmir (Smyrna) in Turkey, the temple took over 100 years to build, around 550 BCE. The temple was rectangular in form, but unlike other temples at the time, the building was made of marble and included 127 columns, each about 20 metres high.

In July of 356 BCE, a man named Herostratus burned the temple to the ground. Although many attempts have been made to rebuild the temple, to date these attempts have been unsuccessful.

5. The Mausoleum at HalicarnassusThe Mausoleum was the burial place of King Maussollos. The Mausoleum is famous, not for its size, but for its beauty. The structure, built around 350 BCE, was rectangular and reached a total height of 45 metres. The outside of the mausoleum was decorated with hundreds of statues of people and animals. A statue of a chariot pulled by four horses decorated the top of the tomb.

The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus was located on the Aegean Sea in southwest Turkey. In the early 15th century, invading crusaders built a massive castle, and stones from the Mausoleum were used as part of the building materials. The crusader castle remains at the city


of Bodrum, and the polished stone and marble blocks of the Mausoleum can be seen within the walls of the structure.

6. The Colossus of RhodesAlthough it only existed for about 50 years, the Colossus earned a place on the list of Ancient Wonders because of its size and because it symbolized the unity of the people who inhabited the island of Rhodes. Built to honour the sun god, Helios, the statue of the god took over 10 years to build and was completed in 282 BCE.

The statue was built at the entrance of the harbour of the island Rhodes, in Greece. Reaching a height of 33 metres, it is believed that an earthen ramp was built during construction of the highest points. The base of the statue was made of white marble, and the body and head of Helios were made of bronze. The statue stood until a strong earthquake hit the area in 226 BCE. The statue broke at the knee and toppled to the ground. The citizens of Rhodes considered restoring the statue, but an oracle was consulted and forbade the reconstruction.

7. Lighthouse of AlexandriaOf the six Ancient Wonders that have been destroyed, the Lighthouse of Alexandria was the last to disappear. It was the tallest building on Earth for centuries, and it contained a large mirror that reflected sun rays during the day and a fire at night. The reflections from the mirror could be seen more than 50 kilometres from shore.

Built in the third century BCE, the lighthouse was built on the ancient island of Pharos, which is now part of the city of Alexandria in Egypt. The island was connected to the mainland by a dike. The lighthouse was necessary to help sailors navigate the double harbour. At its highest point, the lighthouse measured 117 metres, which is about the height of a 40-storey building. The main tower was covered in white marble, and the centre core of the lighthouse was used to transport fuel to the top to keep the fire burning.

The Lighthouse at Alexandria stood for centuries but suffered damage from a number of earthquakes. In 1480, a medieval fort was built at the site, using fallen stone and marble from the lighthouse.

Did you know . . . The sites on this list were actually called theamata rather than “wonders” by the Greeks? Theamata translates into “must-sees.”

Follow-Up Activities 1. Work with a partner to complete your Ancient Seven Wonders organizer.

2. With your partner, discuss the following two questions and record your responses in your notebooks. Be prepared to share your answers in class.

• What made each of the Ancient Wonders so “wonderful.” Was it their size, the difficulty of construction, their beauty?

• Which Wonder is your favourite? Why?

Extension ActivityLocate illustrations or pictures of the Ancient Wonders on the Internet or in your school library. Which of the Ancient Wonders is the most visually impressive? Why? Does this new information change which one is your favourite?


THE SEVEN WONDERS OF CANADAThe Modern Seven WondersThere have been a number of Modern Seven Wonders lists compiled in the last 50 years. It seems that the lists of wonders change depending on the criteria used to determine “wonderfulness.” For example, if one of the criteria for selection is that the structure must be human-made, then the resulting list will be quite different from a list that focuses on natural wonders.

Below you will find information about three lists of wonders. How many of these wonders do you know?

Engineering WondersIn 1994, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) compiled a list of seven wonders to pay tribute to the greatest engineering achievements of the 20th century. ASCE selected the seven wonders from nominations submitted from around the globe. ASCE believes that its selections demonstrate “modern society’s ability to achieve the unachievable, [and] reach unreachable heights.”

• Channel Tunnel – connecting England with continental Europe

• CN Tower – Toronto• Empire State Building – New York• Golden Gate Bridge – San Francisco• Itaipu Dam – Brazil-Paraguay border• North Sea Protection Works –

Netherlands • Panama Canal – Panama

Natural WondersThis list of natural wonders was compiled in 1997 by the Cable News Network (CNN) in the U.S. on its Seven Wonders Web site. CNN quotes U.S. writer Henry David Thoreau, who

Further ResearchAmerican Society of Civil Engineers wonders:www.asce.org/history/ seven_wonders.cfm

CNN wonders: www.cnn.com/ TRAVEL/DESTINATIONS/ 9711/natural.wonders

New Open World Foundation wonders: www.new7wonders.com/ index.php?id=633&L=0

said: “We can never have enough of nature. We must be refreshed by the inexhaustible vigor, vast and titanic features, the sea-coast with its wrecks, the wilderness with its living and decaying trees, the thunder cloud, and the rains that last three weeks . . .”

• Grand Canyon – Arizona • The Great Barrier Reef – Australia• The Harbour at Rio de Janeiro – Brazil• Mt. Everest – Nepal• Northern Lights – Northern Canada• Paricutin Volcano – Mexico• Victoria Falls – Eastern Africa

The “Newest” Seven Wonders of the WorldOn July 7, 2007, a not-for-profit organization called the New Seven Wonders Foundation announced a new set of Seven Wonders based on online voting from around the world. The Foundation was established in 2001 by the Swiss-born Canadian filmmaker and author Bernard Weber to contribute to the appreciation and protection of the world’s human-built and natural heritage.

According to the foundation, the Seven Wonders list was compiled from more than 100 million votes cast online. Twenty-one finalists were selected by a panel of experts, and then online voting determined the final seven.

• Chichen Itza (Mayan City) – Mexico• Christ the Redeemer Statue – Brazil• The Great Wall – China• Machu Picchu – Peru• Petra (Ancient City) – Jordan• The Roman Colosseum – Italy• The Taj Mahal – India


Activities

1. Locate one of the Ancient or Modern Wonders on the Internet. Use the pictures and information you locate to create a tourism brochure about the site and its surrounding area.

2. Create a timeline to plot the Modern and Ancient Wonders. Hint: Begin your timeline with the Great Pyramid of Giza.

3. List three of the wonders listed above that you would most like to visit and briefly explain why.

4. Identify any of the above wonders that you have seen and briefly note your impressions.


THE SEVEN WONDERS OF CANADAWhat Makes It a Wonder?

Opening Task 1. In your notebook, define the word wonderful. Include any qualities you

associate with the word. For example, “special.”

2. Now think about a physical or geographic wonder. What elements does a particular area/region/landscape have to possess to be considered wonderful?

3. When you are finished, form a small group with two or three classmates and compare your answers. Then come up with a common list of five qualities that determine “wonderfulness.”

Further ResearchTo explore the CBC program that selected Canada’s Seven Wonders go to www.cbc.ca/sevenwonders.

The CBC CriteriaWhen the CBC began its Seven Wonders of Canada contest it had to establish a set of criteria to judge “wonderfulness.” After much discussion and debate, the CBC decided that to be considered a wonder, each selection would have to contain the following elements:• Essential “Canadian-ness” —

historically significant, character-filled, valued

• Originality/uniqueness of the pitch (how it was presented or “pitched”) and place

• Spectacular physical site or amazing human creation

• Ability to inspire• Range within the final seven —

diversity of location, type of wonderIn addition to these five criteria, the

judges also had to consider the results of the online vote when making their final selections.

Ancient Seven WondersWhen the Ancient Seven Wonders were selected, different criteria were used. Professor Alaa K. Ashmawy, of the University of South Florida, explains that in ancient times, buildings and monuments were considered wonders if they did the following:• Celebrated religion and mythology• Demonstrated artistic expression• Reflected power over the surrounding

landscape• Demonstrated understanding of science

Analysis 1. Compare your list of criteria with those used to determine Canada’s

Seven Wonders and the Ancient Seven Wonders. Look for similarities and differences in the lists.

2. What does this tell you about the nature of “wonderfulness”? Would you say it is a fixed or a fluctuating concept?

3. Do you believe the CBC did a good job of determining “wonderfulness”? Explain.


THE SEVEN WONDERS OF CANADACanada’s Seven Wonders: Map of Canada

Seven Wonders of Canada

Legend

An interactive version of this map can be found at www.cbc.ca/sevenwonders/map.html.

Selections made by judges

Selections made by judges and online voters

Selections made by online voters


THE SEVEN WONDERS OF CANADAActivity: Your WondersWhen the Seven Wonders of Canada were announced by the CBC, there was a great outcry from Canadians over the final selections. Many Canadians felt strongly that the wonders they had personally nominated and voted for were better than those selected by the judges. Although the results of the online vote were one of the factors considered by the judges, the other five criteria (“Canadian-ness,” originality, ability to inspire, “spectacularness,” and range of the final choices) carried more weight.

This is the way the judges’ selections compared with the results of the online vote (see map on page 27 for locations).

Seven Wonders of Canada — as determined by the judges• The canoe• Niagara Falls, ON• Pier 21, Halifax, NS• The igloo• The Rockies• Old Quebec City, QC• Prairie skies

Seven Wonders of Canada — as determined by the online vote• Sleeping Giant, Thunder Bay, ON (177 305 votes)• Niagara Falls, ON (81 818 votes)• Bay of Fundy, NB and NS (67 670 votes)• Nahanni National Park, NT (64 920)• Northern Lights, Northern Canada (61 417 votes)• The Rockies, BC and AB (55 630 votes)• Cabot Trail, NS (44 073 votes)

From these lists you can see that there was not a great deal of agreement regarding Canada’s Seven Wonders. Only two of the final selections were the same.

Your TurnNow it is your chance to select the Seven Wonders of Canada.

1. In a group of four or five students, create a list of seven places or “things” that you believe to be wonders of Canada. Don’t be afraid to include a wonder from your own community/region/province. Prepare reasons to explain your choices, as you will have to defend your selections to a panel of judges.

2. Make a brief presentation to your class about your choices.

3. Your teacher and a small group of students will act as judges.

4. Once the Seven Wonders have been selected, compare the list generated by your class with the results presented by the CBC. How many similarities are there? How do you explain the differences?


FocusThis CBC News in Review story focuses on the political life and legacy of outgoing British prime minister Tony Blair as he leaves office after a tumultuous decade in power full of major achievements and serious failures.

TONY BLAIR’S TEN YEARS IN POWERIntroductionBefore a hushed House of Commons on June 27, 2007, British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivered his farewell speech. After a decade in power, during which he had led his Labour Party to an unprecedented three victories at the polls, Blair was finally stepping down. He could point to many significant achievements over the course of his administration, including major social and economic reforms such as a minimum wage and greater spending on education and health care. His government had also introduced constitutional changes limiting the power of the unelected House of Lords and granting more self-government to Scotland and Wales. Even more remarkably, he had succeeded in negotiating a peace deal between warring Catholic and Protestant factions in Northern Ireland, a goal that had eluded his predecessors for decades. On the foreign policy front, he had promoted a major humanitarian aid package for Africa with fellow G8 leaders and had not hesitated to use British military force—along with the United States—to end ethnic violence and bloodshed in Sierra Leone and Kosovo.

But overshadowing all of these accomplishments and Blair’s undeniable intelligence and political abilities was the one issue that had dogged him in the last years of his mandate and had perhaps fatally undermined his popularity with the British public. This was his unremitting support for U.S. President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and his commitment of a major British military force as part of the occupation of that country. Blair’s endorsement of the Iraq invasion stemmed from his response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, after which he

believed the world could never be the same again. Along with Bush, he viewed the war on international terrorism as the most commanding issue of the day and quickly dispatched British troops to Afghanistan to root out Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The British public mostly backed this decision, believing it justified in view of the fact that Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the strikes on New York and Washington, had used Afghanistan as his base of operations.

However, when it came to the war in Iraq, public opinion, and Blair’s own Labour Party were both sharply divided. For his part, Blair was convinced that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had to be toppled because he possessed weapons of mass destruction that could pose a serious threat to international security. Blair’s decision to back the U.S. invasion that ousted Saddam flew in the face of international opinion and was not supported by the United Nations. Nonetheless, he believed it to be the morally right thing to do. For this reason he used all of his considerable rhetorical abilities to achieve a narrow victory in the House of Commons endorsing his decision.

But in the months after the invasion, when no evidence of such weapons materialized, Blair was accused of misleading the public and falsifying secret intelligence to make the case for the existence of these weapons more credible. As the situation in Iraq deteriorated disastrously in the aftermath of Saddam’s ouster, Blair took the blame for his unquestioning support of his ally George W. Bush in what was appearing to have been a disastrously mistaken operation with no solution or exit strategy in sight.

Further ResearchTo stay informed about the career of Tony Blair, consider visiting the following Internet sources: CBC News at www.cbc.ca/news, the British Broadcasting Corporation at news.bbc.co.uk, and CNN International at edition.cnn.com.

CBC News in Review • September 2007 • Page �0

Because of Iraq, and some scandals that tarnished his administration during his last year in power, Blair decided it was finally time to leave office. He had promised before his third electoral victory in 2005, with a sharply reduced parliamentary majority, that he would not seek another term in office. Thus began what journalists were to call his “long goodbye” from 10 Downing St., the British prime minister’s official residence in London. During this period, his one-time ally and now political rival, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or finance minister, began to plan his own rise to power. For years, Brown and Blair had been at loggerheads over a number of issues. Once it became clear that Blair was definitely stepping down, Brown saw that his chance had come at last, and he positioned himself skilfully within the Labour Party to achieve victory.

Tony Blair is undoubtedly one of the most important political figures in

modern British history. He transformed the Labour Party from a tired, almost irrelevant left-wing fringe group into a powerful political force capable of winning a record three-straight electoral victories. He inspired the British people with an optimistic image of what their country could be during his first successful election. He imposed his personal stamp on the country, most memorably during the aftermath of the tragic death of Princess Diana in August 1997. Dubbing Diana “the people’s princess,” he cannily captured the public mood and, in the process, probably saved the reputation of the Royal Family. He was without question an intelligent, magnetic personality with a remarkable ability to persuade others of the value of his arguments. But Iraq was in the end to be the tragic flaw that brought him down. It will now be up to the historians to evaluate his legacy and decide whether it is to be viewed positively or negatively in the years to come.

Quote“I think the way parts of the world view President Bush is absurd.” — Tony Blair in Men’s Vogue, September 2007

To Consider 1. In your view, what are Tony Blair’s most important achievements as British

prime minister on the a) domestic and b) foreign-policy fronts?

2. Why is Blair’s decision to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq likely to be viewed as his most serious mistake as Prime Minister?

3. What qualities made Blair such a remarkable and effective political leader? Who is his successor?

4. Do you think future historians will view Blair’s political legacy as mainly positive or negative? Why?

5. How do you personally view his career and legacy? Explain.


TONY BLAIR’S TEN YEARS IN POWER Video Review Watch the video and answer the questions in the spaces provided.

1. On what date did Tony Blair officially step down as prime minister of

Britain? __________________

How long had he been in power? _________________

2. What was Blair’s campaign slogan during his first successful election campaign as leader of the Labour Party in 1997?

3. How was Blair able to capture the public mood in Britain in the days following the death of Princess Diana in 1997?

4. What are some of the major accomplishments of Tony Blair’s government on the home front and in foreign policy?

5. Why did Blair back U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003? Why was this decision so unpopular with the British people and his own party?

6. How did the death by suicide of British arms expert David Kelly cast a shadow on Blair’s credibility over the Iraq issue?

7. What is Tony Blair’s new assignment after leaving the office of prime minister? What qualities will he be able to bring to his new job?

Quote“I didn’t come into politics to change the Labour Party. I came into politics to change the country.” — Tony Blair in a speech to Labour Party conference in October 1995


8. Briefly indicate the views of each of the following people interviewed in the video on Tony Blair and his political achievements and legacy:

Jim Naughtie (journalist and Blair biographer)

Neil Kinnock (former Labour Party leader)

Clare Short (former Blair cabinet minister)

David Blunkett (former home secretary)

Which of these viewpoints do you agree with most and why?

9. Discuss what you think Tony Blair meant when he stated:

“I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour, but sometimes it is the price of leadership.”

Do you agree with him? Why/why not?

10. In a well-written paragraph outline your personal evaluation of Tony Blair as a world leader. Use specific references to his career to support your ideas.

CBC News in Review • September 2007 • Page ��

TONY BLAIR’S TEN YEARS IN POWERTimeline: The Blair YearsHere is a timeline of the major events during British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s 10 years in power. Circle the three that you feel are most significant and be prepared to explain your choice.

198� Blair is elected Labour MP for Sedgefield, in northern England.

1984-92 Blair rises rapidly in Labour Party ranks and aligns himself with those who believe the party needs to reform itself and moderate its image and policies if it is ever to regain power.

1992 Blair is appointed shadow Home Secretary by Labour leader John Smith.

1994 Following Smith’s sudden death, Blair wins the party leadership and pushes through a number of major policy reforms to make it more moderate and electable, such as loosening its ties with the trade unions and abandoning hardline socialist policies.

1997 Blair wins a sweeping victory over the governing Conservatives and becomes the second-youngest prime minister in British history. That summer, he captures the public mood in the wake of the tragic death of Princess Diana by paying tribute to her as “the people’s princess.”

1998 Blair succeeds in negotiating the “Good Friday” agreement between rival Protestant and Catholic groups in Northern Ireland, ending decades of bloodshed in that troubled part of the United Kingdom.

1999 Blair joins U.S. President Bill Clinton in dispatching NATO forces to Kosovo to halt ethnic violence that Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic was committing against Albanians there.

2001 Blair is re-elected, becoming the first Labour leader to win two

Quote“But people everywhere, not just here in Britain, kept faith with Princess Diana. They liked her, they loved her, they regarded her as one of the people. She was the people’s princess and that is how she will stay, how she will remain in our hearts and our memories forever.” — Tony Blair, public statement August 31, 1997

consecutive majority governments. After the terrorist attacks of September 11 on New York and Washington, Blair declares his wholehearted support for U.S. President Bush’s “war on international terrorism” and sends British forces to Afghanistan.

2002 Blair releases an intelligence report claiming that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

200� Blair supports Bush’s decision to invade Iraq to topple dictator Saddam Hussein and remove the weapons of mass destruction he allegedly possesses. The move costs Blair significant political support at home and tarnishes his image abroad.

2004 Amid allegations that Blair falsified key intelligence reports on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, a five-member panel concludes that his claim that such weapons could be used within 45 minutes was completely false.

2005 Blair wins his third and last election, but with a sharply decreased majority and the lowest voter turnout in British history. But that summer, Blair regains some of his lost popularity by his adept handling of the crisis following the terrorist bombings that strike London.

2006 Pressure for Blair to resign as prime minister increases in the wake of allegations that he offered rich businessmen seats in the House of Lords in return for campaign donations to the Labour Party. A major terrorist plot to bring down 10 airliners is foiled.


2007 After 10 years in power, Blair steps down as prime minister and is succeeded by Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, a one-time friend and now strong rival for the position. He later accepts the

position of Middle East envoy from the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia.Source: CBC News In Depth: “Tony Blair’s Political Career: A Timeline”

Analysis 1. How did Blair prepare both himself and his party for their sweeping victory

at the polls in 1997?

2. What important achievements did Blair accomplish during his first term in office (1997 to 2001)?

3. Why did Blair back the U.S. invasion of Iraq? What statement made shortly before the invasion would come back to haunt him?

4. What issues and events put pressure on Blair to decide to step down as prime minister in 2007?

5. What do you think were Blair’s worst moment and finest moment? Explain.


TONY BLAIR’S TEN YEARS IN POWERAs Others See Him: Views of Tony BlairHere is a collage of quotes about former British prime minister Tony Blair from a number of prominent international figures. With which do you most agree and disagree? Be prepared to discuss your views.

“He has been a friend. He has been steadfast. In the face of negative public opinion, he has stood steady and we could always count on him. Well some people say you shouldn’t always have been able to count on him, but he made his own judgments, as to whether he should stand alongside America in some of these crisis periods. But having made that decision he stood firm. You never had to worry about him walking away from you, and that’s what you call a friend, and that’s what you call a strong leader.” — Colin Powell, former U.S. secretary of state

“He was guilty of a good deal of spin occasionally, when he allowed himself to say that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. Well, I think he must have realized that was all to influence the public to believe more than there really was to believe. Sometimes I felt it takes a lot of time to build up confidence, but you can lose it in less than 45 minutes, and I think that’s what he did.” — Hans Blix, former UN chief weapons inspector in Iraq

“He was very much struck by what had happened in Bosnia, and determined that the same thing should not happen in Kosovo. And on Kosovo, I think it will be a significant part of his legacy. And I think for most people that he did the courageous thing by saying the international community should intervene. But on the European Union, I think that there he has probably disappointed. He was the first British prime minister for a long time who felt instinctively at home inside the EU. At the same time, the politics of the issue in Britain and the support that he had from the Murdoch press constrained his ability to act. I think that on Europe he will above all else be remembered as the prime minister who did not take us into the Euro.” — Sir Stephen Wall, former Blair advisor on the EU

“He is a political figure who is capable of thinking over the horizon. He is a long-term thinker. I have found him to be a man who has kept his word, which sometimes is rare in the political circles I run in. When Tony Blair tells you something—as we say in Texas—you can take it to the bank. We have got a relationship such that we can have really good discussions. And so we will miss him.” — U.S. President George W. Bush

“I gained the distinct impression that he was totally committed to Africa, for example, when he said that ‘Africa is the sore on the global scene,’ and that unless we dealt with it, it would become an incurable sore. I happen to believe that Mr. Blair brought a moral voice to foreign policy issues by government and so on.” — Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, president of Sierra Leone

“The bonds with Prime Minister Blair have been forged through some of the most difficult times, through the time of 9/11, through the attacks on London, through


Afghanistan, Iraq, and Northern Ireland. President Bush did not just value Blair’s advice, but sought it out. He often said: ‘I need to know what Tony thinks.’ On Northern Ireland, President Bush’s view was that whatever Tony Blair needs, Tony Blair shall have.” — Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State

“Tony Blair has taken Britain from the fringes to the mainstream of the European Union. He has done this by engagement, not by vetoes. He has brought to Europe energy, engagement, and ideas and leaves an impressive legacy including his commitment to enlargement, energy policy, his promotion of action against climate change, and for fighting poverty in Africa. Above all he has shared in our determination to create an open, reforming, and strong Europe. I greatly value our friendship and I wish him success for the future.” — Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission

“He was the worst thing that ever happened to Africa. We hope that the children of Iraq and Afghanistan he is killing every day will haunt him for the rest of his life. We hope that he has learned from his mistakes if he is going to take an ambassadorial role in Africa. We hope Gordon Brown will have a different approach towards Zimbabwe, a more humane approach to things than Tony Blair.” — Bright Matonga, deputy information minister, Zimbabwe

“Tony Blair was a very unique introduction in the history, or should I say the tradition, of British life. Young, handsome, intelligent, devoted, religious, he came in at a very trying moment. In Great Britain there is great respect for tradition and yet a new age was born. On the one hand, the Europeanization of the political relations between Great Britain and Europe, on the other hand the global economy and then again the special relationship between Great Britain and the United States.” — Shimon Peres, President of Israel

“We hope that the departure of Mr. Blair and the coming of a new prime minister will lead to a serious change in British politics—one that is less biased towards Israel, that is more reasonable in co-operating with the Palestinian side, and that would support lifting the embargo on the Palestinian people. We hope to see a more independent British policy from that of the United States. Especially on issues related to the Middle East, Mr. Blair promised many initiatives, including a promise of an international peace conference, and he never conducted any of them.” — Moustafa Barghouti, Palestinian information minister

Source: BBC News Online: “Assessing Blair’s Foreign Policy” and “In Quotes: Reactions to Blair’s Exit”

Activities 1. For each of the quotes above, state the central issue or topic relating to

former British prime minister Tony Blair that is being addressed by the speaker.

2. For each of the quotes, indicate whether you think the viewpoint being expressed by the speaker of Tony Blair is positive or negative, and give reasons to support your conclusion.


TONY BLAIR’S TEN YEARS IN POWER Debating the Blair LegacyTony Blair leaves office as arguably one of the most effective political figures in modern British history, and certainly the most successful leader the Labour Party ever had. Yet his legacy is likely to be inevitably tarnished by his decision to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. According to Ian Kershaw, a professor of modern history at Sheffield University, and author of an acclaimed biography of Adolf Hitler, Blair’s term in office “will go down in history as a lost opportunity, a time when much was promised but relatively little attained.” In Kershaw’s view, this verdict on Blair’s leadership remains valid even when the Iraq disaster is removed from the equation. Kershaw faults Blair for his government’s reliance on “spin doctors” and unelected advisors, leading to a U.S.-style presidential form of government that weakened the House of Commons and traditional British democratic institutions. He also charges Blair’s “New Labour” administration with a failure to deal with problems in the country’s education, health care, transportation, and social services and a legacy of inner-city decay, juvenile crime, and increased economic inequality, despite an era of prosperity. In his opinion, “there is remarkably little to show for 10 years of Labour government, particularly in the position of the less well-off in society. Yet what is Labour for, if not above all to serve their interests?”

But more than anything else, it is Iraq that will go down in history as Blair’s biggest blunder, an “avoidable” disaster as far as Kershaw is concerned. However, for Andrew Roberts, another prominent British historian, Blair’s unwavering support for U.S. President George W. Bush in his war

on international terrorism was his greatest accomplishment and will stand as a positive legacy for his term in office. Roberts credits Blair with “Churchillian-style” leadership after the attacks of September 11 and praises him as an “exemplary war leader.” Unlike Kershaw, he does not find fault with Blair’s decision to back the invasion of Iraq, pointing out that at the time he had every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein did in fact possess weapons of mass destruction and posed a serious danger to international security. The fact that Blair was able to commit to this decision and maintain it in the face of widespread public opposition indicates to Roberts that he was a leader who was prepared to stick to his principles when he believed he was right, whatever the political consequences.

For Anthony Seldon, who has written a biography of Tony Blair, his sheer ability to transform the Labour Party from an almost irrelevant socialist group with a record of electoral failure into a potent political machine capable of winning three consecutive majorities is enough to ensure a positive legacy. Under his leadership, Britain’s economy grew, and its status in the world was enhanced. Although Iraq was a serious miscalculation, it can be counterbalanced by significant achievements such as the “Good Friday” peace agreement in Northern Ireland, long overdue overhauls to the education and health-care systems, and closer ties to the European Union. Blair may not have succeeded in advancing the three international causes closest to him—reducing poverty and HIV/AIDS in Africa, dealing with the environmental crisis of global warming, and negotiating an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict—but Seldon


is convinced that “Britain’s standing in the world, and in Europe, is higher in 2007 than it was in 1997.” To him, this is in large measure thanks to Tony Blair’s leadership. And the fact that neither the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, nor Conservative Party leader David Cameron is likely to depart from

his policy directions to any substantial degree (with the possible exception of Iraq) is also the ultimate test of the legacy of Tony Blair on his country’s political scene.

Source: BBC News Online: “How Will History Judge Blair?”

Quote“I actually have no regrets about removing any of the regimes I’ve had a part in removing. Yes, it is very tough, tougher than anyone imagined, but it has not stopped me from believing it was still best to remove Saddam.” — Tony Blair in Men’s Vogue, September 2007

Activities 1. Form groups to read and analyze the passage above. Summarize the main

points that each author makes about Tony Blair and his political legacy. Indicate whether you think the author’s overall evaluation of Blair is positive or negative, and why.

2. In your groups, review the arguments and evidence each author makes to support his viewpoint of Blair’s legacy and state whether or not you agree with it and why.

3. Try to come to a consensus on the primeministership of Tony Blair and present your findings to your peers.

Notes:


TONY BLAIR’S TEN YEARS IN POWERThe Man Who Would Be King: Gordon BrownGordon Brown and Tony Blair have been both close allies and bitter rivals over the course of their remarkably similar political careers in the British Labour Party. Both men were elected to Parliament for the first time in1983 and rose rapidly through the party ranks, attracting the favourable attention of leaders such as Michael Foote, Neil Kinnock, and John Smith. They also shared the view that after spending so many years in the political wilderness during the regime of Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Labour was in need of a serious overhaul if it were ever to regain power. They devoted all of their efforts to persuading the party faithful to abandon cherished socialist dogmas such as public ownership and unilateral disarmament, and instead focus on developing policies that would appeal to middle-of-the-road British voters who were growing weary of Thatcher’s hardline right-wing administration.

Born in Scotland in 1951, Brown pursued careers as a university lecturer and television journalist before entering politics. Known as a somewhat dour, serious individual with little personal charisma, Brown was also a hard worker who always kept his focus on the task at hand. As a result, both he and Blair quickly established themselves as the rising young stars in the Labour Party during the early 1990s. When party leader John Smith died suddenly in 1994, they were both viewed as likely contenders to succeed him. To work out their differences, the two men met at an upscale Italian restaurant in the fashionable London suburb of Islington and worked out a deal. Labour insiders such as party media chief Peter Mandelson were convinced that Blair was a more favourable choice for party leader,

Did you know . . .Since becoming PM, Gordon Brown has made poverty at home and abroad a central issue for his new government. He has pledged to build 50 000 social housing units a year for three years in Great Britain.

since he projected a much more media-friendly public image than the serious, dour Brown. In return for a promise to bow out of the leadership race, Brown received from Blair the commitment that once Labour regained power he would become the most powerful Chancellor of the Exchequer, or finance minister, in the history of Britain. Reluctantly, Brown agreed to the deal, and Blair easily won the party leadership.

The two men worked tirelessly to ensure a sweeping victory for Labour in the 1997 general election, and Brown found himself the second most powerful politician in the country. But quickly the ambitions of the two men came into conflict, as Brown and Blair found themselves in conflict over a number of issues. Their biggest dispute was over the issue of whether or not Britain should enter the Euro zone and abandon the pound sterling as its unit of currency. An ardent Europhile, Blair strongly backed the Euro, but Brown was much more reluctant. He imposed a set of stringent economic tests that he insisted should be passed before he would agree to put the question before the British people in a referendum. At the same time, both Blair and Brown continued to build up their own personal power bases within the government and Labour Party, leading many to wonder who was actually running the show. According to Matthew Taylor, Blair’s former policy chief, party insiders began to feel like “children in a dysfunctional family where mom and dad are too busy arguing with each other to ever talk to the kids.”

During his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Brown achieved the near-impossible, gaining for Labour the reputation for sound management of the British economy. He was able to fund


substantial increases in government spending on health, education, and the police force, largely through tax increases, leading some of his opponents to accuse him of raising taxes “by stealth.” However, his economic policies found favour with the voters and were one of the most important factors behind Labour’s convincing second-term victory in 2001.

By 2003 Blair’s political position became less tenable as a result of a massive negative public backlash over his decision to support U.S. President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Brown did not publicly distance himself from this position at the time, although he harboured some doubts about it in private. But he did use Blair’s new vulnerability to advantage over another contentious issue that emerged at the time. This was Blair’s decision to raise university tuition fees, a measure that met with strong opposition from students. Brown was also strongly opposed to this idea, believing it flew in the face of Labour’s traditional commitment to equal access to education. He waited until the very last minute to instruct his supporters in the House of Commons to give Blair the votes necessary to pass the bill raising tuition fees. In doing so, Brown was signalling to Blair that he could not continue to govern without his support.

In response, after the 2005 election, which Labour only narrowly won, Blair began a secret plot to remove Brown from office and replace him with someone more loyal. For his part, Brown was adroitly positioning himself as the leader-in-waiting after Blair’s public

announcement that he would not seek a fourth term as prime minister. Brown was eager for Blair to step down and pressured him to announce a definite date for his departure rather than engage in the “long goodbye” from office. When it became obvious that no Blair supporter was waiting in the wings to challenge Brown for the party leadership, Labour insiders reconciled themselves to the fact that Brown would be their next chief.

To some within the party ranks, Brown appears to be a more traditional socialist who never really embraced all of the “New Labour” policies Blair so strongly championed. This may be true regarding some issues such as taxes, government spending, education, and health-care reform. However it is unlikely that Brown’s administration will depart in any significant way from his predecessor’s moderate, centrist positions on most questions, especially if it hopes to win another term in office against a resurgent Conservative opposition. It is likely, though, that Brown will seek the earliest feasible opportunity to withdraw British troops from Iraq, since he is aware of how deeply objectionable their presence there is to most British voters.

At long last, Gordon Brown achieved the position he had coveted for so long when his former friend and rival stepped down at the end of June 2007. The man who would be king now found himself on the throne and clearly relished the position. But whether or not he would be able to retain it for long with his party so badly bruised by Iraq and other issues was an entirely different question.

Quote“I have no advice for Brown. He is perfectly capable of doing the job.” — Tony Blair in Men’s Vogue, September 2007

To Consider 1. What are the main similarities and differences in the personalities, political

beliefs, and careers of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown?

2. Why were the two men destined to be both allies and rivals during their years in politics?

3. In your opinion, in what ways do you think Brown’s administration is likely to differ from that of his predecessor? Be specific.


TONY BLAIR’S TEN YEARS IN POWEREvaluating a Prime MinisterAs Tony Blair leaves office as prime minister of Britain, journalists and historians are already beginning to evaluate his period in office and what its lasting legacy is likely to be. Using the material contained in this resource guide and the accompanying video, form groups to prepare and present your own assessment of the career, accomplishments, failings, and likely legacy of this remarkable politician.

You could use the following criteria in preparing your evaluation—and also develop others:

• Domestic achievements

• Foreign policy achievements

• Political image and abilities

• Major mistakes or failures of his administration

• Electoral success

• Popularity with British voters

• International reputation

• Relationship with George W. Bush

On the basis of these criteria or others, each group should determine whether it believes that Blair’s political legacy will be viewed as mainly positive or negative, and why. After the groups have finished preparing their evaluations/assessments, they can present them to the class as a whole. Following this, the class can engage in a general discussion of Tony Blair’s accomplishments and failings as prime minister of Britain, and how he and his government are likely to be remembered by future historians.

Notes:

Further ResearchMuch useful information can be explored at the official Web site of the British prime minister at www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp.


FocusOmar Khadr is a member of one of the most notorious families in Canada. His father was an Al Qaeda lieutenant and financier, his brothers were trained at Al Qaeda militia camps in Afghanistan, and his mother and sister are both vocal opponents of the U.S. This News in Review module examines the story of Omar Khadr, accused of killing a U.S. soldier when he was just 15, as he continues to languish in the controversial U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

OMAR KHADR: CANADIAN IN GUANTANAMO

“Enemy Combatant”U.S. Military Commission judge Colonel Peter Brownback must have been shocked when he read the indictment laying out the charges against Canadian terrorism suspect Omar Khadr. Everything seemed clear at first: Khadr was accused of killing a U.S. Special Forces medic, planting landmines against U.S. army convoys, and working as a translator for Al Qaeda. All of this occurred in Afghanistan after the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. However, there was one major error in the prosecution’s case: they had failed to identify Khadr as an “unlawful enemy combatant”; instead he was referred to as simply an “enemy combatant,” and that was enough to have the charges dismissed. Brownback must have wondered how the legal process had been so seriously derailed.

The original military tribunal system proposed by the Bush administration had been initially declared unconstitutional, and then illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court. This forced the government to pass the Military Commissions Act implementing a new tribunal system that could legally—in the eyes of U.S. law—prosecute detainees if certain procedures were followed. Had the prosecutors not read the act? Brownback found himself in the woeful position of having to issue a ruling that would no doubt embarrass his country’s handling of prisoners captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, shed more light on the awful conditions at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and see the charges against Omar Khadr—a potential enemy of the state—dismissed. And that is exactly what happened in June 2007. Brownback dismissed the charges against Khadr

Introduction

because of an error in the wording of the indictment, thus sending the U.S. military justice system into another tailspin.

The Case of Omar KhadrWhat makes Omar Khadr’s case unique is that he was only 15 when he allegedly threw the grenade that killed U.S. Special Forces medic Christopher Speer in the summer of 2002. A U.S. air strike had just flattened the Al Qaeda safe house where Khadr had been hiding. After the bombing, Speer and his U.S. Special Force troops moved in, expecting to find nothing more than rubble. Suddenly, a grenade came at them. The explosion seriously wounded Speer and several others and, when the alleged assailant stepped out into the open, the troops fired three bullets into his chest. While Khadr survived being shot, Speer did not survive the grenade attack. The 15-year-old was treated and interrogated at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan before being shipped to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Canadian authorities learned about Khadr’s arrest about a month after the incident in Afghanistan. They asked for and were not granted consular access to see the boy. Instead they received assurances from the International Red Cross (www.icrc.org/) that he was doing well. After Khadr was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, the Canadian government asked the U.S. for access to the boy, and in the winter of 2003 a series of “welfare visits” began. However, the nature of these visits became the subject of great controversy. Reports emerged that Canada’s spy agency, CSIS, and the Department of Foreign Affairs had interrogated Khadr


and handed the information over to the United States. This was a far cry from looking into the boy’s welfare.

Government SilenceThe Canadian government has been surprisingly silent with regard to the case of Omar Khadr. As a Canadian citizen, Khadr might have assumed that his government would at least try to get him out of the prison at Guantanamo Bay—a prison that has been almost universally condemned by other allies of the United States for its inhumane treatment of prisoners. Britain fought to have five British residents—not citizens—released from Guantanamo and brought back to the UK. Australia negotiated the release of detainee David Hicks, agreeing that he would serve his sentence in an Australian prison with Hicks’s assurances that he would not tell the media he had been tortured while he was in custody. Meanwhile Canada has sat tacitly by while charges against Khadr have been brought forward and dismissed twice, and the tribunal system of justice for detainees has been ruled illegal and unconstitutional by U.S. courts. The UN—along with many nations around the world—have called for the closing of the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay.

But Khadr’s case has aroused little sympathy among Canadians. Khadr and two of his brothers were trained at Al Qaeda military camps in Afghanistan. His father, Ahmed Said Khadr, who gained his citizenship after emigrating from Egypt, was a reputed senior Al Qaeda lieutenant, a personal friend of Osama bin Laden’s, and a financier for the organization. Some say the government’s silence regarding Khadr’s plight is a case of the son being held accountable for the sins of his father, citing the 1996 incident where Prime Minister Jean Chrétien intervened

on behalf of Khadr’s father when he was accused of financing the terrorist attacks on the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan. Ahmed Khadr was eventually released, and he and his family moved to Jalalabad, Afghanistan, to live with bin Laden. Omar and his brothers attended Al Qaeda training camps while living in the midst of bin Laden and his Al Qaeda cohorts. Sympathy for Khadr became further complicated after his capture when his mother and sister appeared on the CBC, championing the efforts of those fighting the U.S. and endorsing the actions of Omar on that fateful day in the summer of 2002.

Growing MomentumRegardless of his family background, momentum has been building in support of Omar Khadr as human rights advocates begin to rally behind his cause. These advocates argue that any Canadian held by a foreign power deserves the protection of the Canadian government—whether the person is wrongly accused of something, as in the case of Maher Arar, or simply accused of committing an offence, as in the case of Omar Khadr. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed for all Canadians and cannot be ignored or used to discriminate between noble and detestable causes or citizens. With this in mind, Khadr’s Canadian and military lawyers brought their case to the Canadian Bar Association’s annual conference in the summer of 2007 and received almost universal backing for their fight to get Khadr out of Guantanamo. Just prior to the conference, an open letter was sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper—signed by current and former parliamentarians, over 100 academics, and a number of human rights organizations—asking the prime minister to intervene on behalf of Khadr. They argued that the civil rights

Further ResearchTo stay informed about the activities of CSIS visit www.csis-scrs.gc.ca. To learn more about the Department of Foreign Affairs, visit www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca.


of all Canadians were in jeopardy if the government was to start picking and choosing who it would defend.

In the meantime, Omar Khadr continues to live in confinement at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay. He is now 20 years old but, according to his lawyers, is still very much a boy. Having been unable to associate with anyone since the age of 15, his maturity has been severely delayed. During one visit, his lawyers say he asked for crayons and paper, while noting the stress and anxiety displayed by him

throughout their meeting. Khadr’s lawyers, both civilian and military, have called for his immediate release from the prison in Guantanamo Bay. They insist that his age must be taken into consideration before proceeding to any kind of trial. Meanwhile, the Bush administration, still reeling from the Brownback decision, is working feverishly to bring new charges against Khadr in an effort to hold him accountable for the actions he allegedly took against the U.S. military after September 11, 2001.

Did you know . . . Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba and the Cuban government views the U. S. presence there as illegal. Cuba refuses to cash the annual rental cheques sent by the U.S.

To Consider 1. What decision did Colonel Brownback have to render after reading the

indictment against Omar Khadr?

2. What is Khadr accused of doing in the summer of 2002?

3. Why hasn’t the Canadian government intervened on behalf of Khadr?

4. How has momentum been building among some Canadians to get Khadr out of the prison in Guantanamo Bay?

5. Briefly describe your initial impression of this case.


OMAR KHADR: CANADIAN IN GUANTANAMO Video Review Watch the documentary and respond to the following questions.

1. What was Omar Khadr accused of doing in July 2002?

2. Where was Khadr eventually taken for detention as a prisoner?

3. What did Maha and Zaynab Khadr mean when they used the word shaheed?

4. Do you sympathize with Maha and Zaynab Khadr’s defence of Omar’s actions in July 2002? Explain your response.

5. Why does Abdurahman Khadr consider himself to be the “black sheep” of the family?

6. Briefly describe the path that led the Khadrs into becoming active members of Al Qaeda.

7. What was Ahmed Said Khadr accused of doing in 1996?

8. Describe Abdurahman Khadr’s experience in a military training camp in Afghanistan.

9. How do you feel about Maha, Zaynab, and Abdullah’s reactions to the attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001?

10. What happened when Omar Khadr went to trial in June 2007?

11. Why is it considered unlikely that Omar Khadr will be released from U.S. custody anytime soon?


OMAR KHADR: CANADIAN IN GUANTANAMOThe Incident

The Capture of Omar KhadrBy the summer of 2002, the Taliban had been ousted from power and had fled along with their Al Qaeda allies to the outskirts of Afghanistan. Most went to areas in the south and east of the war-torn nation, with many seeking safe haven among the Pashtun tribes in the mountain regions straddling the Afghan-Pakistani border. U.S. troops pursued them and, according to one intelligence report in July 2002, a small group of Al Qaeda operatives had settled near the border town of Khost. U.S. Special Forces troops moved in and attempted to apprehend five men holed up in a mud brick house in the tiny hamlet of Ab Khail. Initial efforts to get the men to surrender failed, so the troops sent in translators in an effort to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the standoff. The men in the house killed the translators, prompting the U.S. soldiers to call in air support to level the house and kill the operatives.

Several hours later, the soldiers approached the now-flattened house, expecting to find nothing more than debris, when suddenly a grenade was thrown at them from behind a wall. The explosion caused injuries that led to the death of Special Forces medic Christopher Speer and wounded several others. When a combatant stepped out from behind the wall, U.S. troops pumped three bullets into his chest. Still, the alleged assailant lived and, as the soldiers approached the person they had just shot, they noticed that he was a boy, perhaps as young as 13. “Kill me. Please just kill me,” he mumbled in perfect English.

The Detention of Omar KhadrThe boy was stabilized at the scene before being transported to Bagram Air

Base near Kabul. Eventually the identity of the wounded individual emerged: he was Omar Khadr, a 15-year-old boy from Toronto. He was a Canadian citizen who had been living abroad with his family for years. His father was considered by U.S. authorities to be a senior Al Qaeda operative. Khadr and his brothers were trained at Al Qaeda military camps in Afghanistan and had been fighting U.S. troops since their arrival in fall 2001.

According to an article published in Rolling Stone magazine, Khadr was repeatedly interrogated at Bagram Air Base. He was wheeled in on a stretcher and was, on occasion, denied pain medication so that interrogators could get the information they wanted from him. The story goes on to say that Khadr was forced to clean the interrogation room floor on his hands and knees while his wounds were still healing. When he could stand up, his hands were tied to the top of a door frame and he was forced to stand for hours. If he fell or even slumped, the pain would shoot through his arms. The article also states that at one point soldiers put a hood over his head and tied his hands behind his back, while attack dogs were brought forward, leaping at his chest (“The Unending Torture of Omar Khadr,” Rolling Stone, August 10, 2006). A Washington Post report claims that Khadr was “particularly talkative” while being questioned at the Bagram Air Base, quoting one U.S. soldier as saying the boy was “singing like a bird” (“Canadian teen may be U.S. source,” The Globe and Mail, October 30, 2002).

Khadr at Guantanamo BayThe now-famous pictures of shackled prisoners with hoods over their heads kneeling on an airport tarmac in orange

NoteThe reports and accusations surrounding Omar Khadr and his detention at Guantanamo Bay are quite controversial. Khadr has been convicted of nothing in a court and must still be viewed as innocent until proven guilty. Equally, charges about U.S. treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo are generally alleged and have not been proven in any legal forum. This is a troubling case for the young Canadian on a range of levels.


jumpsuits have been seared into the memories of many people following the U.S. “war on terror.” Khadr was one of those shackled inmates as he was transported from Afghanistan to the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. What most people don’t know is that prisoners, chained at the hands, feet, and waist, often waited for hours on the tarmac before boarding the C-130 transport that would take them to Cuba. Once onboard the flight, sensory deprivation gear was put on the prisoner: mittens bound tightly at the wrist to cut off blood circulation in the hands, goggles used to cover the eyes, and soundproof headphones to keep out all noise. For 15 hours, Khadr and many other Guantanamo prisoners endured this punishment before arriving in Cuba.

Upon arrival, Khadr was transported to his prison cell, an open-air cage the size of a closet, where he would stay until the U.S. military had finished building a nearby permanent prison. Interrogators picked up where their counterparts had left off in Afghanistan. Whatever information Khadr had about Al Qaeda must have been extracted relatively easily since the boy was allegedly subjected to physical and psychological torture at Guantanamo. According to Rolling Stone (August 10, 2006), in one instance, guards took him from his cell to an interrogation room and shackled him in the fetal position by his hands and feet to an eye-bolt in the floor. After leaving him for several hours, they returned

and shifted the chains so that Khadr’s hands and feet were now behind his back, meeting at the eye-bolt in the floor. Once again, he was left for hours. Upon their return, guards noticed that Khadr had urinated so they poured a cleaning product on his body, disconnected the chains, and used him as a human mop to clean the floor. They returned him to his cell and didn’t let him change his clothes for two days. This is just one story that has emerged from Khadr’s detention at Guantanamo. He is living in solitary confinement and has not had a substantial conversation with anyone but his lawyers for over five years. He is routinely subject to physical assaults, sleep disruptions, and isolation. Khadr has been a “person under control” of the U.S. military since he was 15 years old. Now 20, there is no telling what kind of man Khadr has become.

Five years after the fact, Omar Khadr continues to be held at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. He has had charges brought against him on two occasions, with military judges throwing the charges out both times. No doubt the U.S. military will try again. Meanwhile, Omar Khadr awaits trial, imprisoned at Guantanamo, subject to horrific living conditions, with no end to his ordeal in sight.

Sources: CBC News In Depth: “The Khadr Family,” cbc.ca; “The Unending Torture of Omar Khadr,” Rolling Stone, August 10, 2006

Did you know . . .There was a special facility at Guantanamo Bay called Camp Iguana, which was used to hold three prisoners under the age of 16. Reportedly it was more humane and even offered schooling. It was closed when the three were returned to their homelands. Khadr was never held in Camp Iguana.

Inquiry 1. In your opinion, should Omar Khadr’s alleged actions be considered

murder, self-defence, or the byproduct of war? Support your answer with evidence from the article.

2. The U.S. military maintains that it does not torture prisoners. Explain whether you consider the actions taken against Omar Khadr to be torture or necessary interrogation tactics.


OMAR KHADR: CANADIAN IN GUANTANAMOTimelineCarefully read the following timeline and complete the activity that follows.

September 11, 2001 Terrorists lead attacks against the United States, using airplanes to slam into targets in New York and Washington. One plane does not make it to its target and crashes in a farmer’s field in Pennsylvania. Thousands die in the attacks.

October 2001 U.S. forces enter Afghanistan in an effort to oust the Taliban from power and capture members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group.

November 2001 U.S. President George W. Bush issues Military Order #1, effectively giving himself the power to detain terrorist suspects indefinitely.

March 2002 The U.S. Department of Defense reveals the rules relating to the military tribunals that will be used for the trials of terrorist suspects.

April 2002 The U.S. completes construction of a long-term prison facility at Guantanamo Bay.

July 2002 Omar Khadr is captured after a U.S. Special Forces raid on a suspected Al Qaeda safe house in eastern Afghanistan. Khadr is accused of killing a soldier.

October 2002 After recovering from injuries sustained in the July incident, Khadr is shipped to the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A few months after his arrival, members of Canada’s spy agency, CSIS, and the Department of Foreign Affairs interrogate Khadr.

October 200� Khadr’s father, Ahmed Said Khadr, is killed in the province of Waziristan, located in Pakistan near the Afghan border. His younger brother, Abdul Karim, is paralyzed in the incident.

February 2004 The first of the over 700 detainees at Guantanamo Bay are charged with terrorism-related offenses.

November 2004 The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the military tribunal system is unconstitutional.

May 2005 An article in Newsweek magazine alleges that U.S. forces desecrated the Qur’an—Islam’s most sacred book—of several detainees. A month later the Pentagon confirms the story, referring to the incidents as being of “minor significance.”

August 2005 A Canadian federal court judge rules that CSIS must stop questioning Omar Khadr because the interrogations are a violation of his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

September 2005 The U.S. releases documents outlining Omar Khadr’s alleged terrorist activities in Afghanistan. The documents allege that Khadr killed a U.S. special forces medic, translated for Al Qaeda, planted landmines on roads used by U.S. military convoys, and performed surveillance tasks on convoys, reporting his findings back to his Al Qaeda superiors.

November 2005 Khadr is formally charged for the murder of the U.S. medic and for terrorism-related offenses.

February 2006 The United Nations calls for the closing of the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay.

May 2006 The United Nations releases a report that, once again, calls for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison. The report implores the U.S. to release


prisoners to the countries from which they came (unless their release would lead to torture by their own government) or to charge and try terrorist suspects immediately.

June 2006 The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the military tribunal system is illegal.

July 2006 The U.S. government finally agrees that detainees are subject to the protections entitled to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

September 2006 The U.S. writes the Military Commissions Act to effectively legalize the military tribunal system.

March 2007 For the first time in five years, Khadr is permitted to phone his family.

June 2007 On the first day of trial, charges against Khadr are dismissed

because the prosecution lawyers failed to identify him as an “unlawful enemy combatant.” Instead he is identified in the indictment as an “enemy combatant” which, according to the Military Commissions Act, is not adequate enough to stand up legally.

June 2007 Prime Minister Stephen Harper receives an open letter from a group of politicians, lawyers, and human-rights organizations urging him to take action on behalf of Omar Khadr.

August 2007 The Canadian Bar Association (www.cba.org), Canada’s largest legal organization, calls on Ottawa to intervene on Khadr’s behalf. Khadr’s U.S. military lawyer, Lt.-Cmdr. William Kuebler, receives a standing ovation after addressing the lawyers at their annual conference.

Sources: CBC News In Depth: “Omar Khadr,” cbc.ca; The Globe and Mail.

Further ResearchTo view the complete text of the Geneva Conventions visit the site of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Refugees at www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm.

Quote“The difference between an unlawful enemy combatant and a lawful enemy combatant is the distinction between being guilty and not guilty. It’s not just a word, it’s a point of criminality.” — Canadian lawyer Nathan Whitling (Toronto Star, August 9, 2007)

ActivityUse the information in the timeline to write a newspaper article about the Khadr case. A good newspaper article strives to communicate the facts of the case and steers clear of opinion or bias. Your article should be 250-400 words in length.


OMAR KHADR: CANADIAN IN GUANTANAMO Document: Open Letter to PM HarperJune 14, 2007

The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, PC, MP Prime Minister of Canada Ottawa, Ontario

Dear Prime Minister Harper:

The undersigned call upon the Canadian government to intervene in the case of Omar Khadr, the Canadian detained by the United States military at Guantánamo Bay since 2002. Now 20, Khadr was apprehended when he was 15 years old and has spent a quarter of his life in U.S. detention.

Khadr has twice been brought before military commissions in Guantánamo—and twice the charges have been dismissed. In June 2006, the first case against him was dismissed when the United States Supreme Court declared the entire commission system set up by President Bush unlawful. Only days ago, the charges brought against him under the new Congressionally authorized military commissions were also dismissed when the judge determined the commissions did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Khadr has now been returned to detention without charge as the United States government tries to decide what to do next. Just prior to these events, a U.S. government official declared that even if Khadr were acquitted of all charges against him, the United States could detain him indefinitely anyway. That same official also added that Canada has initiated no discussions with the United States over the transfer of Khadr from Guantánamo Bay to Canada.

The military commission’s dismissal of charges against Khadr confirms our apprehension that the process devised by the United States to try detainees is fundamentally and irreparably flawed. Our concern about the unfairness of this ad hoc regime at Guantánamo Bay is underscored by the fact that the military commission is authorized to try only non-U.S. citizens. If the system is not good enough for Americans, it should not suffice for Canadians either. We do not believe that Canada should remain silent while the U.S. subjects a Canadian citizen—especially someone who was a minor when first detained—to such a process.

Every other ally of the United States, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Australia, has acted to protect their citizens detained at Guantánamo Bay. Each of these states has succeeded in repatriating its citizens and, in the case of Germany and the UK, permanent resident non-citizens. In all cases except that of Australian David Hicks, the country of citizenship undertook to investigate whether its citizen had committed any war crimes, crimes against humanity, or violations of domestic criminal law.

We urge the Canadian government to follow the precedent of other U.S. allies and insist on the repatriation of Khadr. Like these states, Canada must assert its sovereign interest by providing diplomatic protection to its citizen. We are confident that the Canadian justice system is competent to

Quote“I think it is high time for all Canadians to be speaking out to end this horrendous lack of due process. — Parker MacCarthy, President Canadian Bar Association (Toronto Star, August 1, 2007)


adjudicate the appropriate legal consequences for Khadr, bearing in mind his age at the time the alleged acts occurred.

We are aware that, setting aside any of Khadr’s own actions, the notoriety of his family makes him unsympathetic in the eyes of some. But it is plainly unjust to punish the son for the sins of the father, or to deny a citizen the protection of his government because of the words or deeds of family members. Passively allowing the travesty at Guantánamo Bay to continue not only deepens the damage done to Khadr, it also does a disservice to all those Canadians who, when abroad, expect their government to exercise its full influence in securing their proper treatment. Canadians rightly pride themselves on their global commitment to fair play and human rights. That commitment must now be brought home to Canada. And that means bringing Omar Khadr to Canada.

Yours truly, The Undersigned.

The Undersigned included current and former MPs, over 100 academics, and a number of human rights organizations, including Amnesty International.

Source: “Omar Khadr: Open Letter to Stephen Harper,” www.amnesty.ca

ActivityWrite your own letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that either supports or challenges the position taken in the letter above. Use specific facts from the Khadr case to support your position.

Length of letter: 200-250 words You may use the following organizer to prepare your letter.

Arguments in favour of the Amnesty International Position

Arguments opposed to the Amnesty International Position


OMAR KHADR: CANADIAN IN GUANTANAMOAl Qaeda Family The strength of the Canadian cultural mosaic is the rich diversity that immigrants bring with them to Canada. Our nation has become a tapestry that weaves together a variety of languages, beliefs, philosophies, and ancestries into, in the overwhelming majority of cases, an admirable unity. However, on occasion, the unity of the tapestry becomes disturbed by a pattern that is contrary to the flow of the fabric of mainstream Canadian consciousness. Such is the case with the Khadr family. Perhaps the most infamous family in Canada, the Khadrs have aroused the passion and emotions of Canadians who feel the family’s beliefs and actions are radically opposed to the unity and power of the Canadian cultural mosaic.

The Khadr family story begins in 1977, when Ahmed Said Khadr emigrated to Canada from Egypt. He met and married his wife, Maha, and acquired his Canadian citizenship shortly thereafter. The Khadrs also started a family, eventually having six children—four boys and two girls. Ahmed Khadr has been described as a fundamentalist, radicalized Muslim, who, upon seeing the plight of other Muslims around the world, was eager to become involved in causes he felt would aid those in need. In the 1980s, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Khadr uprooted his family to go and help Afghan-Muslims.

He worked as a fundraiser for an Ottawa-based organization named Human Concern International that was helping orphans and refugees in Afghanistan. According to some reports, many of those orphans and refugees were later trained at the militia camps of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. In 1992, Ahmed Khadr’s

work was cut short when he was nearly killed by a landmine. He and his family made their way back to Canada where, for two years, he recovered from his injuries. As soon as he was healthy enough to travel, Ahmed and his family travelled back to continue his work with Human Concern International. However, the organization was put under the microscope in 1996 when a suicide bomber attacked the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan, killing 17 people and injuring many others. Ahmed Khadr was caught at the border with a large sum of money shortly after the attack and was arrested and imprisoned by Pakistani authorities. He was accused of financing the attack.

While in custody, Khadr went on a hunger strike, proclaiming his innocence to anyone who would listen. Eventually he was hospitalized and, from his hospital bed, he summoned the media and told his story. According to Khadr, he was an innocent Canadian being held by Pakistani authorities for a crime he did not commit. Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, on a trade mission in Pakistan at the time, had a conversation with Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who promised that Khadr would receive a fair trial. Shortly thereafter the charges against Ahmed Khadr were dropped. Having been fired by Human Concern International after the financing allegations surfaced, he and his family moved to Jalalabad, Afghanistan, where they lived in a compound with Osama bin Laden. While living with bin Laden, Ahmed’s sons Abdul, Abdurahman, and Omar received military training in Al Qaeda camps. The boys were trained in military tactical procedures as well as small arms use and bomb-making.

When Al Qaeda carried out attacks on

Quote“We don’t want to be the world’s jailors. At the same time, we also don’t want to see very dangerous people allowed to walk the streets freely so that they can pose a threat to our citizens as well as others.” — U.S. State Department spokesperson, Sean McCormack (Toronto Star, August 8, 2007)


U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing over 200 people and injuring thousands of others, the Khadrs celebrated along with their comrades in Jalalabad. Similar celebrations occurred after Al Qaeda successfully organized attacks against the U.S. on September 11, 2001, levelling the twin towers of the World Trade Center and severely damaging part of the Pentagon, killing thousands of Americans in the process.

However, the payback for the Al Qaeda attacks would come in the form of an all-out U.S. offensive in Afghanistan that saw the Taliban driven from power and Al Qaeda sent scrambling into the mountains along the Afghan-Pakistani border. The Khadrs found themselves similarly scattered. • Omar, just 15 at the time, followed a

group of Al Qaeda operatives to a safe house just outside Khost, Afghanistan. The U.S. Special Forces discovered the safe house, flattened it with an air strike, and took Omar—the lone survivor—into custody.

• Abdurahman surrendered to the Northern Alliance near Kabul and agreed to co-operate with U.S. authorities as a CIA informant. Eventually he abandoned the CIA and returned to Canada in the fall of 2003.

• Abdullah, Ahmed’s oldest son (who authorities believe ran Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan in the 1990s), was captured in Pakistan, released, and then made his way back

to Canada, where he was arrested in Toronto in 2005 at the request of U.S. authorities.

• Ahmed and his youngest son, Abdul Karim, crossed into Pakistan and moved to Waziristan. In October 2003, the Pakistani army engaged in a firefight with Ahmed and several others occupying what was believed to be an Al Qaeda safe house. A Pakistani Cobra attack helicopter levelled the house, killing Ahmed (along with seven others) and paralyzing Abdul Karim from the waist down.

• The Khadr women found safe haven in Pakistan and eventually returned to Canada with Abdul Karim in 2004. Canadian society has almost

universally condemned the activities of the Khadr family. Their plight has aroused little sympathy except from family friends and a few members of the Canadian Muslim community. The Khadrs have been very open about their personal beliefs regarding the righteousness of religious martyrdom and the value of killing those opposed to Islam. Maha Khadr, who lost her husband, cares for her paralyzed son, and has two other sons incarcerated by authorities, expresses pride in the fight her family has participated in. In particular, she is proud of Omar, who stands accused of killing a U.S. soldier and is currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Analysis 1. How are the activities of the Khadr family seen by many as being contrary

to the values of mainstream Canadians?

2. Since the Khadrs are Canadian citizens, should the government intervene on their behalf when they experience persecution? For example, should Canadian authorities be working hard to protect the rights of Omar, who is currently being held by the U.S. military in Cuba or to protect the rights of Abdullah, who is currently being held without charge in a Toronto jail? Please support your opinion clearly.


OMAR KHADR: CANADIAN IN GUANTANAMO Activity: You Be the Judge

Your TaskUsing the information provided in this News in Review story and any other knowledge that you have acquired, you will be part of a mock hearing to decide whether or not Omar Khadr should be returned to Canada.

Here is what you will do:

• Form groups of six.

• Each person in the group will take on a role:

Role #1A judge will hear the arguments of lawyers and decide whether or not to release Omar Khadr to Canadian authorities. The judge can rule that Khadr must stay in prison in Guantanamo Bay, dismiss the charges, or place conditions on his transfer—e.g., Khadr must be tried in a Canadian court, Khadr is subject to the Young Offenders Act, Khadr must serve his sentence in a maximum security facility, etc.

Role #2The defendant Omar Khadr will work with his lawyer to fight for his release. He will testify about the conditions at Guantanamo Bay prison.

Roles #� and #4Two defence lawyers will represent Omar Khadr and will argue for his release. The lawyers may ask that all charges be dropped or they may negotiate conditions for Khadr’s release.

Roles #5 and #6Two prosecution lawyers will argue that Omar Khadr needs to remain in prison and be held accountable for the death of Christopher Speer and the actions he took against U.S. troops while he was a member of Al Qaeda.

You will have one class to prepare for this hearing, one class to conduct your hearing, and the judge will reveal her/his decision at the start of the third class. Since most classes will have four or five groups working simultaneously, the post-decision discussions should be very interesting.

Further ResearchTo prepare for this exercise, consider a visit to CBC News In Depth and look at the file www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr/omar-khadr.html.

Quote“When Omar Khadr purportedly tossed the grenade that killed an American infantryman, he was neither child nor soldier. At 15, he was age-appropriate for marriage in Afghan culture and old enough to enter military service.” — Rosie DiManno, (Toronto Star, August 17, 2007)


SEPTEMBER 2006Lebanon War: Israel Battles HezbollahToronto Arrests: 18 Face Terror ChargesLondon Bombers: Alienation and TerrorThe Big Melt: Canada’s Changing Arctic

OCTOBER 2006A Gunman Attacks Students in MontrealA Canadian Rides the Shuttle into SpaceCanada Hosts World AIDS Conference 9/11: The Day that Changed the World

NOVEMBER 2006Canada’s Bloody War in AfghanistanTrying to Stop the Killing in DarfurMichaëlle Jean: Our Governor GeneralCanada’s Famous Dinosaur Hunter

DECEMBER 2006The Liberals Choose a New LeaderThe North Korean Nuclear CrisisTeaching Children How to CareRestoring the Parliamentary Library

FEBRUARY 2007The U.S. Sends More Troops to IraqAfghanistan: The Dead and the WoundedTaking The Right To Play to EthiopiaVisiting Second Life’s Virtual World

MARCH 2007A Call for Action on Climate ChangeThe Trial of Robert PicktonThe Forgotten War in BurmaRepression and Fear in Russia

APRIL 2007The Budget: Countdown to an Election?Quebecers Vote in a Provincial ElectionArrest in a 1964 Mississippi Cold CaseFashion and the Dangerously Thin

MAY 2007Remembering Vimy RidgeIran Seizes British SailorsThe Dangers of Global WarmingLiving as a Homeless Person

News in Review IndexA list of the stories covered last season and to date in the current season is provided below.

The complete chronological index for all 17 seasons of News in Review, and a subject-oriented index listing News in Review stories appropriate for various subject areas can be accessed through our Web site at www.cbc.ca/newsinreview. Hard copies of these indexes can also be obtained by contacting CBC Learning.

CBC LearningP.O. Box 500, Station AToronto, Ontario, Canada M5W 1E6Tel: (416) 205-6384Fax: (416) 205-2376Internet: [email protected]

Image credit: NASA

www.cbclearning.ca www.cbc.ca/newsinreview

Toll free: 1-866-999-3072 Phone: (416) 205-6384Fax: (416) 205-2376 [email protected]

CBC LearningBox 500 Station AToronto, ONM5W 1E6

H

news in review - curio.camedia.curio.ca/filer_public/80/5d/805df79d-34f0-42... · cbc news in...

Documents