magnumpi

Someone known to be a terrorist with video proof does not deserve the same rights as someone who may just be accused out of the blue.

So it's obvious that you are in full support of this action and happy that your tax money is going to a just and lawful outcome.

I am glad for you, for me, it's still an outrage however lawful the Gov or people like you sees it.

It's only on here that I have seen support for this action, even the Toronto Star is appalled by it all (see my link above somewhere)

BristolUK

Who gets to decide what constitutes evidence if not a court?

magnumpi

The fact he was instrumental in making IEDs and fighting for the Taliban is not disputed. That is treason and he should have been tried for treason.

BristolUK

You didn't answer who gets to decide the evidence but I see you have moved from your earlier stance to him actually being tried.

What kind of court? Is he allowed a defence?

bats

No I'm not happy that successive governments ****ed up and and then compounded their ****ery by ignoring The Supreme Court thus giving cause to be sued successfully.

People who object to the money don't seem to understand the distinction between the guilt or otherwise of his actions and the governments' errors.

Steve_

They had a bunch of lawyers on the news saying they wouldn't be able to get an enforcement order in a Canadian court. They weren't terribly clear on why but they seemed pretty certain. In any event, the judgement entered against him was by default so he can easily use the money to try and get it overturned. If they've got any sense, they'll agree to a settlement.

There are various parts to this but I think he is fully entitled to the settlement. The SCC ruled his Charter Rights were massively violated, which they plainly were. He was tortured, he confessed under duress, most likely simply to be released. He has no memory of the event (because he was blown up and shot) so he can't legally plead guilty to something he can't remember. I think the most damning point though is that the US after action report indicated he didn't throw the grenade that killed the US SF medic anyway.

The reason it's $10.5 million is because the previous Govt. established that as the baseline in the settlement to Maher Arar.

Whether or not he was a terrorist at the time isn't really relevant anymore, at what point does someone cease to be a terrorist? Are the former members of the Germany Army from WW2 still Nazis?

As for treason, you can argue it from a moral standpoint but it doesn't fit the legal definition. The legal definition is based around helping a country or nation state in war against Canada. Or levying war against Canada. Neither of which he did, they were Americans. And as for making IEDs, that's an offence under Afghan law, not Canadian - and he might have been 15 when he was captured, but he was younger than that when he was making IEDs.

My personal view is the whole thing is ridiculous, with comparisons to Canadian military veterans, etc. Were they locked up and tortured as teenagers? Okay, he might have been a 15-year old terrorist but two wrongs don't make a right.

DaveLovesDee

Does that include the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to depose leaders they disagree with, and to protect oil and gas pipelines owned by American interests?

Almost Canadian

The Judgment was in the US. I have successfully had English judgments enforced against people in Canada so I would be amazed if he is unable to do so.

I don't believe that he was tortured by Canadians, nor has any Canadian Court convicted him so, if he wishes to overturn anything that happened in the US or sue the US for anything that happened to him at Gitmo, his remedy for that is in the US. Whether he did, or didn't, throw the grenade is irrelevant, the family have obtained a civil judgment against him.

I haven't made any comment about whether the amount was appropriate.

I haven't made any such comments

As I have stated above, I don't believe that it has been argued that Canadians locked him up as a teenager, or tortured him.

Pizzawheel

It's sad that so many people think this decision was somehow political. He sued Canada in a Canadian court of law and won.

As far as I know child soldiers are anyone 15 and under. Not sure where that leaves Magnumpi in the RAF, but things were different back then.

Whatever with Trump around the hate is only going to build and the peace get less.

Almost Canadian

No Canadian Court has ever awarded him damages. You are correct when you say he sued but the government settled it, rather than taking it to trial. It can be argued that this was the sensible thing to do but it has been stated that there was a confidentiality agreement as part of the settlement. Such things are not routine.

bats

The U.K is backward when it comes to minimum enlisting age

From Wikipedia
United Kingdom Edit
The minimum age to join the British Armed Forces is 15 and 7 months; parental permission is required for those under the age of 18. Approximately one fifth of new recruits are 16 or 17 years of age. The UK adopted the "Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the involvement of children in armed conflict" on 24 June 2003. The Convention calls on ratifying governments to do everything feasible to ensure that members of their armed forces who are under 18 years of age do not take part in hostilities, however between June 2003 and July 2005, the British government inadvertently sent fifteen 17-year-old soldiers to Iraq, explaining the mistake as due to "the pressures on units prior to deployment".

Pizzawheel

On the other hand the child soldiers rule was intended to protect child soldiers in third world countries, so the intent may not function when applied to westerners.

The question of willingness then arises.

DaveLovesDee

Remember, if the military can't take them at 16-18, the kids'll be harder to train and more likely to question anything they're told.

Its easier to indoctrinate them younger, which is why the military likes things like Army, Sea and Air Cadets.

caretaker

My essay on it, "Voluntary De-humanisation of an Individual Subject to Military Indoctrination" got the best mark in the class, and the teacher was a former Captain in the Irish Rangers.

macadian

And your point is? I joined the Royal Navy in the early 60's having just turned sixteen. I served almost eleven years. When I joined my education standard was poor, I had little self confidence, or self esteem. I left as a senior NCO, higher education and brimming with self esteem and confidence as well as leadership qualities I could never have dreamed of. Looking back, my military service shaped my life positively, the best move I have ever made. I appreciate this may not be everyone's experience but it was mine! De-humanisation? Indoctrination? What utter bollocks sir! However, self reliance, self discipline, working within a team structure, and personal responsibility for ones actions, most certainly.