Almost Canadian

He was not awarded this amount by the Supreme Court, but as a result of the civil action he took against the Federal Government.

He was taken to Guantanamo by the US, not Canada, and, as an "enemy combatant" was not provided the process you speak of as would be afforded to him in the criminal courts. Whether that was correct or not can be debated to the end of time.

For example, unless the law of the UK has changed since I left, doli incapax may apply (I can't remember if the upper age limit for that is/was 14 or 15; I believe it was 14) and, at the age he was, I suggest that he would be found to have had the mental capacity to form the necessary mens rea for the serous assault he is alleged to have committed.

However, one has to wonder what he, and his peers, would have done to those fighting them, had they not won that particular firefight.

What is of more concern is how the US will view allowing Canadians incarcerated in the US to serve their sentences in Canada in the future. I suggest that they won't allow it.

Oakvillian

I am glad to see this Canadian government putting right some of the more ridiculous crassness of previous governments of both political stripes. It is clear (and has been acknowledged and ruled on by the Supreme Court) that CSIS and Foreign Affairs officials participated in the violation of Khadr's rights, in such a way that he was subsequently tortured into a confession he later retracted, and which was relied upon as pretty much the only evidence in his subsequent conviction. It's a pretty squalid affair however you look at it, and whatever the rights and wrongs of Khadr's position in the first place.

What this is fundamentally all about, IMO, is that Western democracies cannot allow themselves - as the US has sadly done consistently for the last decade and a half - to descend to the level of the terrorists. If there isn't visible and compassionate justice (and there's absolutely no doubt that the Guantanamo process was none of those things) then there is nothing to give the US and its allies the "moral superiority" needed to ultimately carry the day against people motivated by a warped sense of grievance against the West.

Almost Canadian

I believe that suggestion that "the West" can "persuade" those fighting "the West" that they are wrong to believe that "the West" deserves what they wish to cause it, is somewhat misguided and, even if it was correct, I fail to see how it can be achieved.

Having said that, I have no objection to those that believe it can be done, leading the way with forays into the "terrorists'" territory.

Almost Canadian

Unusually, assault and battery can be both a criminal offence, and a tort. If your husband wishes to sue the Argentinian pilot referred to, he need only identify the pilot, decide upon which jurisdiction has jurisdiction and, if the one that does permits such a claim, deal with any limitation issues he may face and then proceed.

Of course, the judgment, as in this case, may prove to be worthless if the pilot has no ability to meet it but, if he sues Argentina too, and if that State's finances improve in the near future, he may receive something.

Oakvillian

What I was driving at, as I'm sure you appreciate, is that further alienating groups of people who are already feeling alienated or disenfranchised, and who are already in Western countries, is counterproductive. There's not a very big leap from failure to condemn the travesty that is Guantanamo, to the mob-rule mentality that demands immigration bans against Muslims, or staking out mosques in Alberta. Nothing is more likely, IMO, to promote radicalization of disenfranchised young people. But I suspect you know that.

Tangram

Isn't the crux of it that his admittance of guilt was produced following torture and therefore the conviction was wrongly acquired ?

I'm not a lawyer so just going on what I've read. If the verdict was based on dodgy evidence, then it is a wrongful conviction ? and therefore he is entitled to compensation for wrongful imprisonment after a case is won ?

Again, I'm not sure. The 'fact' that he either did or didn't do anything hasn't been proven.

bats

I'm sure there are charts somewhere. Loss of sight, severe shoulder injury, pain and suffering, PTSD. Loss of earnings. Or how much money would you take to be locked up and tortured for 10years?

Almost Canadian

I fully appreciate that.

I just don't buy the argument that what happened at 9/11 was the result of the west's policies against Muslims at the time. I appreciate that some may wish to link what has happened since with what the likes of Trump has been saying against Muslims since but, those that do, appear to believe that it is a one way street. It isn't. But I suspect you know that.

Almost Canadian

The process used against him in the US was not subject to the usually rules of evidence for criminal trials in the US. I don't believe that the US has determined that his "conviction" was incorrect. That being the case, it appears that he doesn't have a claim against the US for "wrongful imprisonment."

The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that Canada acted inappropriately in its collusion with the US. That then, appears, to have persuaded him to sue Canada and a settlement appears to have been reached with him. That is the amount that is the subject of debate on this thread.

Whether he confessed because of torture, or whether he confessed because of the evidence against him is not really known. Each person can infer what they want.

What I don't believe is in doubt, is that he was part of a group that was fighting allied military. From my perspective, fighting against those that may be from your own country with a bunch that would not have afforded their opponents the same niceties you seek after you have been captured is somewhat spineless. I accept that others disagree.

Almost Canadian

I wouldn't have joined the fight in the first place but as you appeared to want to argue above, aren't the items in red what you said people sign up for when they elect to fight? Why the change of mind?

dave_j

When I first heard of this story, I was ambivalent. At first glance it was a case of bemusement. But I now have a clearer understanding of what has happened, albeit coloured from what I have gleaned from published accounts of the events and these may or not be true.

As a recent immigrant to Canada, I find some of the aspects of the country could be improved but that's just the way things are. In this case however, although not a citizen, I'm in agreement with how Canada has dealt with the issue. All civilised nations depend on the rule of law to protect the rest of us against the power of the state and we allow this to be voided at our peril. The Canadian government should be applauded for doing the right thing and we should all feel a little safer because of it.

In my view, the man has been treated badly and it's the very existence and uses to which Guantanamo Bay has been put and it's the association with canadian services that dictates that the man has no case to answer.

I find it incredible that a man, then a boy, should be judged in a US court to be at fault when killing a US soldier during what is agreed was a firefight. You have to ask yourselves the questions. What was the soldier there for? Why was he carrying a gun? Was he trying to kill the boy and his fellow insurgents? Why were the Geneva conventions not followed?

This man was vilified only because he is who he is and being where he was. This afghan conflict is a very murky affair. The tribal nature of the power brokers ensures that there are no good guys and no fixed alliances. Who knows, in 20 years time this man might be considered a hero, it all depends on how the political winds blow in the future.

Were I Omar Khadr, would I have done what he did? No. But I have had a different upbringing with different cultural influences. I'm minded to remember that my father considered travelling to Spain in 1936 to support the rebublican cause. How would Franco have thought of his possible involvement? How would his possible involvement be considered today? Times change.

magnumpi

IMO anyone who travels to these places (in this case with his bad dad) to fight for the enemy in this discusting war should have Canadian Citizenship taken away from them and their families even if they are born here, to take up arms against your own country of birth or their allies is treason and should be dealt with as such

https://www.taxpayer.com/resource-ce...pContentId=162

Over 50,000 people sign a petition against the award of this money

http://globalnews.ca/news/3579434/om...rs-federation/

Teaandtoday5

Over 50,000 people sign a petition against the award of this money

Petition against Omar Khadr’s $10M payout gains more than 50,000 signatures - National | Globalnews.ca[/QUOTE]

That doesn't mean they are right.

macadian

That doesn't mean they are right.[/QUOTE]

Or that they are not!

Not a cent, not one red cent!!!

magnumpi

That doesn't mean they are right.[/QUOTE]

Nope, it means they disagree with paying tax to legally fund terrorists