Canadian court releases former Gitmo detainee on bail

Published time: May 08, 2015 01:49 Lawyer Dennis Edney answers questions during a news conference after his client Omar Khadr was released on bail in Edmonton, Alberta, May 7, 2015 (Reuters / Todd Korol)

An Alberta court has decided to release the former Guantanamo inmate Omar Khadr, who had spent almost 13 years in custody, on bail. A judge denied the government’s emergency plea to keep the Canadian citizen behind bars.

“Mr. Khadr you’re free to go,” said Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Myra Bielby on Thursday, after postponing her decision for 48 hours on Tuesday, when the Federal Crown prosecutor Bruce Hughson argued that his release on bail could do “irreparable harm” to Ottawa’s diplomatic relations with other nations.

Omar Khadr speaks for 1st time since release from prison, wants to be judged for the person he is not the name #cbc pic.twitter.com/Dcx1LybU0v

— Bryan Labby (@CBCBryan) May 8, 2015

Captured at the age of 15 and jailed in America’s notorious Guantanamo Bay prison, Khadr was finally released into the custody of Dennis Edney, with whose family he will be living in Edmonton Alberta. While on bail, he will have limited access to family members and only be able to communicate with them in English. He is also prohibited from using the internet.

Omar Khadr is finally free, free Alberta. ‘A great day for justice:’ Omar Khadr free on bail after 13 years in prison http://t.co/Jk0oWvZyDj

— Fotis Kanteres (@FotisKanteres) May 8, 2015

Other restrictions include wearing an electronic monitoring device and observing a nightly curfew.

“I look forward to Omar Khadr letting the public see who he is,” Edney said outside the court.

#omarkhadr bail order just entered. #gtmo pic.twitter.com/jPyOYZf7Bv

— Nate Whitling (@NWhitling) May 7, 2015

Khadr’s bail has been debated since the April 24 order from Court of Queen’s Bench Justice June Ross, which ruled that the former Gitmo detainee, 28, should be granted bail as he waits for the appeal of his war crimes conviction in the US. An appeal hearing is likely to be scheduled for the fall.

Poll by Evan Solomon - ignorance of Canadians: 51% fear #Khadr's release. Be very afraid of PM's bigotry politics! http://t.co/9S8HKQFO0A

— janice williamson (@jwilliambao) May 8, 2015

READ MORE: ‘Threat to foreign relations’: Canada delays former Gitmo detainee’s bail decision

The young man was detained by American forces in Afghanistan in 2002 and taken to the Bagram Air Base and later Guantanamo. There he pleaded guilty to tossing a grenade that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer, according to military prosecutors.

After the inmate was transferred to Canadian custody in 2012, Khadr maintained that he pleaded guilty to the killing because he was “left with a hopeless choice” of either accepting the charges or risk facing “continued abuse and torture” at the hands of his Gitmo jailers.

I'm not celebrating Khadr's release #ConfessYourUnpopularOpinion

— Sports Masochist (@CarcelMousineau) May 8, 2015

The controversial case of Khadr has split Canadian society. The government sharply criticized and opposed the idea of his release, while human rights advocates such as Amnesty International have argued that Khadr has been denied access to due process since a young age.

#omarkhadr walks free. pic.twitter.com/e4AQJLaXN4

— Nate Whitling (@NWhitling) May 7, 2015

Meanwhile, spokesman for Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney expressed disappointment with today’s decision. “[We] regret that a convicted terrorist has been allowed back into Canadian society without having served his full sentence,” Blaney said in a statement.

You know what's disappointing?The Minister for Public Safety #Khadr's release 'disappointing,' public safety minister http://t.co/D2HLNaVqwS

— Peter (@ArawakWarrior) May 7, 2015

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Appeals court tells FCC to let merger docs stay secret

A federal appeals court has ruled that secret business documents related to the proposed merger between AT&T and DirecTV don’t need to be disclosed.

The Federal Communications Commission said previously that confidential business information involving the relationships between content producers and DirecTV and similar television service providers should be open for the public to analyze.

CBS, Viacom and Disney took aim at the FCC’s request, however, and brought the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. There, on Friday this week, Circuit Judge David Tatel quashed the FCC’s demands and sided with the producers who insisted that publishing the contracts would “cause substantial harm” to their businesses “and the highly competitive programming marketplace in which they operate.”

In response, the DC Circuit said it did not believe the FCC had adequately proved why disclosure to the public was “necessary

” to the agency in determining whether or not to approve the $48.9 billion proposed merger.

“[T]to justify disclosure, the information must be ‘necessary’ to the Commission’s review process. Otherwise, Congress and the Commission have decided, the risk to the affected businesses will not be worth it,”

the motion reads in part. According to the appeals court, the FCC’s request does not meet this requirement.

READ MORE: AT&T to buy DirecTV for $48.5 billion in mega acquisition

“We share petitioners’ apprehension about a process that puts tremendous pressure on the commission, the parties and this court to get their ducks in a row in a short time,”

the court said in its decision. “In our view, the commission has failed to make its case.”

In response to the ruling, a spokesperson for FCC said the agency was “studying the opinion now and considering the options available to the commission.”

Meanwhile, Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, said in a statement: “We are delighted the court sided with broadcast networks and NAB in protecting highly confidential information from being widely disseminated during merger reviews.”

View the original article here