[BurlOak]

Really? FFS.

Why are facts so frowned upon here?

 

[Videodrome]

Not quite "Harper appointed SCC" - given there are justices he appointed, and some that he didn't.

AoD

I meant that in the sense that Harper appointed a lot of Justices and in theory, had enough on his side. Of course, their multiple decisions against his government are well documented,

 

[BurlOak]

I meant that in the sense that Harper appointed a lot of Justices and in theory, had enough on his side. Of course, their multiple decisions against his government are well documented,

Supreme Court judges have ultimate decisions on all laws in Canada.

If there is such a thing as a biased judge, or even one slightly leaning to the left or right, then the entire process would be a joke. All judges are completely bias free.

And by the way, when the court case happened in 2010, Harper had 0 (zero) appointments to the Supreme Court.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Supreme Court judges have ultimate decisions on all laws in Canada.
If there is such a thing as a biased judge, or even one slightly leaning to the left or right, then the entire process would be a joke. All judges are completely bias free.
And by the way, when the court case happened in 2010, Harper had 0 (zero) appointments to the Supreme Court.

Nice try laying it on the SCC - especially considering how much of Harper's own signature legislations were struck down by the court unanimously post Harper's own appointments. And you just begged the question in your argument, btw. All people are biased to some degree - therefore we need to throw out our entire justice system out because of that imperfection equates to jokes. That argument will go far. Besides, on the matter of facts, Marshall Rothstein and Thomas Cromwell are two of the justices on SCC who presided over the Khadr ruling - and both are Harper appointees.

It's funny for one to be complaining about bias consider one's record of argument. It's like someone complaining about corruption and then turn the other cheek when Duffy comes along.

AoD

 

[jje1000]

Apparently the fact that there was a payment was leaked out to the media (by someone in the government or the Liberals themselves).

Regardless, I think the fact that the Trudeau government went to such lengths to hide and ensure the payment went through will be a tarnishing point against the payment itself.

 

[TOareaFan]

The guy looking the worst in all of this (to me) is the lawyer.....what looked like some sympathetic, human rights fighting, do good lawyer supporting Mr. Khadr as he assimilated back to life in Canada....turned out to be a long play contingency play....seems that the settlement is getting split generously (heard one radio report that it is 50/50) between Mr. Khadr and his lawyer/friend.

 

[Videodrome]

Just re-elect Trudeau already. With Scheer as CPC leader, the SoCons and alt-right have taken over the party. Did they learn nothing from the last election?

 

[jje1000]

Probably. Somehow the resolution is unsatisfying in so many different ways. It will have to be the coda that it is.

AoD

I think you're correct that the resolution feels unsatisfying- maybe perhaps it was so sudden, secretive and the sum fairly significant (likely greater than what most Canadians will make in their lifetime).

Also interesting the notion 'terrorist' plays in muddying the waters- compare to the Maher Arar case which is more cut and dried in its morality.

Khadr’s Compensation: 71% of Canadians say government made wrong call by settling out of court
Many say they would have offered apology, but not financial compensation

July 10, 2017 – The vast majority of Canadians say the federal government made the wrong decision in settling a lawsuit with former child soldier Omar Khadr and instead apologizing and paying him $10.5 million in compensation for his treatment as a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

A new survey from the Angus Reid Institute indicates more than seven-in-ten (71%) are of the opinion the Trudeau government should have fought the case and left it to the courts to decide whether Khadr was wrongfully imprisoned.

Further, most Canadians reject the notion that government officials had “no choice” but to settle – but money appears to be the main source of opposition to the deal. Canadians are slightly more inclined to have said sorry to Khadr than offer compensation, had the decision been in their own hands.

While Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale blamed the previous Conservative Government of Stephen Harper for not dealing with the issue sooner, current Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has responded by calling the settlement “disgusting”. Unsurprisingly, views diverge sharply along political lines. Where past Conservative voters are unequivocal in their views, there is less consensus among those who voted Liberal and NDP in the 2015 election.

Also interesting is this belief- perhaps due to his continued contact with his extremist family (who were responsible for radicalizing him in the first place) and inconsistent interviews.

One data point that may help explain the lack of sympathy in this survey toward Omar Khadr and the government’s handling of his lawsuit: the belief that he remains a potential threat to Canada.

Though Khadr has publicly renounced the radicalized worldview of his father, almost two-in-three Canadians (64%) don’t appear to believe him.

The number of Canadians who agree Khadr remains a potential radicalized threat has grown – from just over half to two-thirds – since his release from prison in 2015, and in the wake of this settlement:

http://angusreid.org/omar-khadr-compensation/

 

[BurlOak]

The guy looking the worst in all of this (to me) is the lawyer.....what looked like some sympathetic, human rights fighting, do good lawyer supporting Mr. Khadr as he assimilated back to life in Canada....turned out to be a long play contingency play....seems that the settlement is getting split generously (heard one radio report that it is 50/50) between Mr. Khadr and his lawyer/friend.

The lawyers job is to get the best deal for his client. You can't blame him.
He knew that Trudeau did not want to go to court because then it would be highlighted that the Charter violations all occurred under Chretien and Martin (i.e. the Liberal Party). With this knowledge, he managed to get a very good deal for his client.

Compare Arar, who also had his rights violated during the Chretien Liberal era. He was completely innocent, taken from the airport, and given roughly the same settlement as Khadr who was taken from the battlefield fighting against Canada and her allies. With the Arar case as precedent, Khadr would have got a fraction of the amount if it had gone to trial.

 

[ttk77]

With the Arar case as precedent, Khadr would have got a fraction of the amount if it had gone to trial.

Only if the judges know as little, or are as willfully ignorant as the majority of Canadians seem to be right now. He was taken to the middle east as an 8 year old, indoctrinated by his parents and made to fight in a war as a child soldier. When he was captured at 15 years old, still a minor, there was no indication that he had killed the American soldier. On record it was done by a middle aged man. Only much later was he implicated in the case. He spent 10 years in an offshore prison where human rights abuses are known to have occurred, without being charged with anything while both the Liberal and Conservative governments fought tooth and nail, spending millions of dollars trying to prevent his repatriation, and violating his rights as a Canadian citizen. He was eventually offered a trial only on the condition that he'd plead guilty. Unless someone believes that the charter of rights and freedoms shouldn't be applied equally to every Canadian, I don't see how anyone could know all this and still not think it was as big a blight on our human rights record as the Arar case.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

When someone loudly proclaim the SCC has no Harper appointees in 2010 and present it as a fact without fact-checking and then insinuate that the then PM therefore has no role to play in this saga just makes me not take it all seriously.

AoD

 

[BurlOak]

When someone loudly proclaim the SCC has no Harper appointees in 2010 and present it as a fact without fact-checking and then insinuate that the then PM therefore has no role to play in this saga just makes me not take it all seriously.

AoD

Sorry, I looked at Wikipedia, which shows that none were appointed by Harper prior to 2011. I didn't realize that Harper made 2 appointments that already retired.

 

[kEiThZ]

Having seen the inside of government I don't get the conspiracist mindset. I think the Justice Department lawyers told the government, a loss was likely and what the cost would be. The government chose the alternative offered.

When has the government ever paid out more in settlement than they had to? And bureaucrats don't give a hoot about political machinations. Their job is to work in the national interest.

 

[kEiThZ]

I find the public discourse quite interesting. Other than some very loud voices, even military opinion has been been divided among friends and colleagues. With most of us who are officers supporting the government on this one. Something about all those lectures in staff courses emphasizing that war is fought on a moral plane as well....

He would have been a young offender in Canada had this been a case of murder. Under international rules, he'd be a child soldier. Hard to argue that he should have been repatriated and rehabilitated. And now the government is paying for not having met its obligations.

My only peeve with the Khadr case are his parents. Why has his mother never been prosecuted for child endangerment. Surely, there should be some penalty for taking your child to a war zone and inducting them into a terror group.

 

[BurlOak]

Having seen the inside of government I don't get the conspiracist mindset. I think the Justice Department lawyers told the government, a loss was likely and what the cost would be. The government chose the alternative offered.

When has the government ever paid out more in settlement than they had to? And bureaucrats don't give a hoot about political machinations. Their job is to work in the national interest.

The national interest is very subjective.
I think the civil servants job is to implement the mandate of the government.
If the government requests an opinion, the civil servant can tell truth to power - or at least their interpretation of what the truth is. But once the Minister makes a decision based on that input as well as input from others (both other civil servants and political goals), the civil servant must implement the final political decision.