Compensating Khadr

[montgomery]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

According to every western government, including Her majesty's government of the  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The UK. Completely sold out to US warmongering. It can't be brushed off as being of no consequence. Espcially the Iraq war. This is the reason why another attack by Muslims against either war cirminal nation will be revenge.

Sadly, Canada being a part of Nato, the same shoe fits. Hopefully Chretien keeping us out of Iraq the second time around, could be seen by freedom fighters to be at least a partial apology?

[turningrite]

On 1/5/2019 at 5:02 AM, Dougie93 said:

1.) They were well aware that the Americans were committing technical war crimes in running an extra judicial concentration camp outside the bounds of national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, and as such they shouldn't have touched it with a ten foot pole. Instead they went down there and made the Crown of Canada complicit in said crimes, wherein we the Canadian taxpayers were implicated by default. 

2.) If they had just stayed away, then we the Canadian taxpayers would be off the hook, but because they had to stick their noses into America's crimes, and we didn't stop them, we're on the hook, and rightly so.  The price of total Canadian apathy vis a vis national security and what it being done in our name.

3.) As to why they gave him $10 million?  They asked the lawyers, the lawyers told them they were busted, dead to rights war crimes committed by the Crown of Canada,  and as such he was going to win, and since he was suing for $20 million, that was what he was going to get, so they settled for $10 million to cut their losses and make it all go away.

1. & 2.) I don't believe the SCC rulings on Khadr's rights directly addressed this matter at all. It's not as if Canadian law has any jurisdictional impact on how the Americans conduct their affairs. I don't believe the SCC rendered any judgement or opinion relating to what you call "war crimes" or other violations of international law by the Americans, nor should it have. The SCC ruled that the Canadian government wrongly participated in the Gitmo interrogation process, thus rendering it liable for Charter violations, and erred in making inadequate efforts to bring Khadr back to Canada and thereby remove him from the extrajudicial environment in which the Americans were holding him, thus compounding the Charter violations. The first aspect of this is particularly chilling and problematic because it implies that when Canadians are held abroad it might now be in the government's and taxpayers' interest to simply ignore their plight. The second aspect is also problematic in that it validates the existence of vicarious liability on the part of the Canadian government in relation to the treatment of Canadians who get into trouble outside of the country, something that could be very difficult to limit in relation to the unfortunate impacts of events that are very often beyond the control of Canadian government.

3.) The matter should have been settled in court. If damages were to be applied, we'd have to understand the extent to which an actual court might have deemed the government financially liable. Some believe the SCC rulings were satisfied upon Khadr's return to Canada. There are also, potentially, issues of contributory liability relevant to this matter that were never considered by a court because, well, the Trudeau government didn't permit them to be considered. Perhaps the Trudeau government was skittish about how the penalty phase of an open trial might work out, but it shouldn't have been. As it is now, the settlement establishes an atrocious extralegal precedent that promotes moral hazard. If people can get themselves into trouble elsewhere, even in pursuit of activities that are contrary to our national interest, knowing that the Canadian government and Canadian taxpayers are on the hook to bail them out, the settlement has in this aspect transformed the Charter into a monstrosity - until, eventually the courts weigh in to limit such dangerous nonsense.

[Dougie93]

24 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1. & 2.) I don't believe the SCC rulings on Khadr's rights directly addressed this matter at all. It's not as if Canadian law has any jurisdictional impact on how the Americans conduct their affairs. I don't believe the SCC rendered any judgement or opinion relating to what you call "war crimes" or other violations of international law by the Americans, nor should it have. The SCC ruled that the Canadian government wrongly participated in the Gitmo interrogation process, thus rendering it liable for Charter violations, and erred in making inadequate efforts to bring Khadr back to Canada and thereby remove him from the extrajudicial environment in which the Americans were holding him, thus compounding the Charter violations. The first aspect of this is particularly chilling and problematic because it implies that when Canadians are held abroad it might now be in the government's and taxpayers' interest to simply ignore their plight. The second aspect is also problematic in that it validates the existence of vicarious liability on the part of the Canadian government in relation to the treatment of Canadians who get into trouble outside of the country, something that could be very difficult to limit in relation to the unfortunate impacts of events that are very often beyond the control of Canadian government.

3.) The matter should have been settled in court. If damages were to be applied, we'd have to understand the extent to which an actual court might have deemed the government financially liable. Some believe the SCC rulings were satisfied upon Khadr's return to Canada. There are also, potentially, issues of contributory liability relevant to this matter that were never considered by a court because, well, the Trudeau government didn't permit them to be considered. Perhaps the Trudeau government was skittish about how the penalty phase of an open trial might work out, but it shouldn't have been. As it is now, the settlement establishes an atrocious extralegal precedent that promotes moral hazard. If people can get themselves into trouble elsewhere, even in pursuit of activities that are contrary to our national interest, knowing that the Canadian government and Canadian taxpayers are on the hook to bail them out, the settlement has in this aspect transformed the Charter into a monstrosity - until, eventually the courts weigh in to limit such dangerous nonsense.

I don't believe the SCC ruling is why they settled, I believe they settled because Kadr's lawyers asserted that Canada had entered into a conspiracy with the United States to keep Kadr in Gitmo indefinitely, that's why they amended their submission to up the damages sought to $20 million, apparently the government did not want this conspiracy case to go to court at all, for whatever reason, so they quickly settled to make it go away.

[montgomery]

Conservatives need to just let go of the Muslim hate and be happy that justice was served for Khadr. 

What's so difficult to understand about US illegal wars in foreign lands? What's wrong with the Conservative mindset that they wouldn't understand that Khadr's victim had it coming?

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

Conservatives need to just let go of the Muslim hate and be happy that justice was served for Khadr. 

What's so difficult to understand about US illegal wars in foreign lands? What's wrong with the Conservative mindset that they wouldn't understand that Khadr's victim had it coming?

The United States did not violate national/international law and the laws of armed conflict by invading Afghanistan per se, that was backed up by several international mandates, the legality issue starts with the United States giving terrorists legitimacy by arresting them and charging them as civil criminals.  See, terrorists have no standing under the laws of armed conflict on the battlefield, so the United States could have charged them thusly and had them executed as unlawful combatants, but, that's a very old statute, and in this day and age, politically radioactive, so instead the United States charged them with other crimes, split the baby, at which point you have to treat them as de facto POW's under Geneva, which the United States did not do, ergo, legal jeopardy, war crime.

POW's under Geneva have a lot of rights, you can't even put them in civilian jail, civilian jail is a war crime if imposed on a lawful combatant in a war, they have to put in special POW camps where they get all sorts of privileges and whatnot and can pretty much run their own affairs inside the camp as a de facto military unit, like Hogan's Heroes kind of thing.

So if you invade Afghanistan under the laws of armed conflict, so be it, but then you have to operate under the laws of armed conflict, you can't go back and forth and have it both ways, US domestic criminal  law cannot be imposed on combatants in a war, because war itself, is not actually illegal, thus there is only two options, you either charge them as unlawful combatants and shoot them, or you treat them as POW's with all that that entails, because under Geneva, any civilians you intern have to be treated as de facto POW's, which, yes, international law is capricious, but it is what it is.

So, if you run a concentration camp like Gitmo, you're doing what the Nazis did on the Eastern Front basically "extra-judicial black hole", and whatever justifications the Americans have invoked, rest assured the Nazi's invoked all those justifications as well "new kind of war, old rules don't apply, blah, blah, blah"

Edited January 7, 2019 by Dougie93

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't believe the SCC ruling is why they settled, I believe they settled because Kadr's lawyers asserted that Canada had entered into a conspiracy with the United States to keep Kadr in Gitmo indefinitely, that's why they amended their submission to up the damages sought to $20 million, apparently the government did not want this conspiracy case to go to court at all, for whatever reason, so they quickly settled to make it go away.

The only legal basis for the suit was the tort that was ostensibly established by the SCC rulings. That's what the whole thing was about. Unfortunately for Canadians, the process did not wend its way through the courts. If it had, we would have had a much better idea of the Charter implications relating to such matters. My guess is that Trudeau's Libs settled for political reasons, including the fact that they didn't want to face the risk of a further public backlash relating to the federal government's role in bringing the Khadr family to Canada in the first place as well, I suspect, as wanting to avoid having to address the broader issue of the existence of extremist feelings, beliefs and sympathies among some Muslim immigrants. Also, they likely didn't want the case in court in the run-up to or during the 2019 federal election, and, finally, they didn't want to further undermine the Charter's reputation, which surely would have been the case if the courts awarded Khadr anything near the amount he was claiming. They wanted to pay him off and see the issue go away quietly, although even though they sure tried they didn't quite manage to achieve this. 

[montgomery]

52 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The United States did not violate national/international law and the laws of armed conflict by invading Afghanistan per se, that was backed up by several international mandates, the legality issue starts with the United States giving terrorists legitimacy by arresting them and charging them as civil criminals.  See, terrorists have no standing under the laws of armed conflict on the battlefield, so the United States could have charged them thusly and had them executed as unlawful combatants, but, that's a very old statute, and in this day and age, politically radioactive, so instead the United States charged them with other crimes, split the baby, at which point you have to treat them as de facto POW's under Geneva, which the United States did not do, ergo, legal jeopardy, war crime.

POW's under Geneva have a lot of rights, you can't even put them in civilian jail, civilian jail is a war crime if imposed on a lawful combatant in a war, they have to put in special POW camps where they get all sorts of privileges and whatnot and can pretty much run their own affairs inside the camp as a de facto military unit, like Hogan's Heroes kind of thing.

So if you invade Afghanistan under the laws of armed conflict, so be it, but then you have to operate under the laws of armed conflict, you can't go back and forth and have it both ways, US domestic criminal  law cannot be imposed on combatants in a war, because war itself, is not actually illegal, thus there is only two options, you either charge them as unlawful combatants and shoot them, or you treat them as POW's with all that that entails, because under Geneva, any civilians you intern have to be treated as de facto POW's, which, yes, international law is capricious, but it is what it is.

So, if you run a concentration camp like Gitmo, you're doing what the Nazis did on the Eastern Front basically "extra-judicial black hole", and whatever justifications the Americans have invoked, rest assured the Nazi's invoked all those justifications as well "new kind of war, old rules don't apply, blah, blah, blah"

In my opinion, you're wrong on about 6 counts but I know it would be a futile waste of my time to try to convince you on just about anything. I'll just once again refer to the fact that the US has started 40 wars of aggression since WW2 alone, and Afghanistan was no different. 

I'll always be of the opinion that starting a war in which hundreds of thousands of Afghanistan's people were slaughtered under US bombs is not an apporpriate reaction for a revenge attack by 17-19 Saudis on 911. 

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, turningrite said:

The only legal basis for the suit was the tort that was ostensibly established by the SCC rulings. That's what the whole thing was about. Unfortunately for Canadians, the process did not wend its way through the courts. If it had, we would have had a much better idea of the Charter implications relating to such matters. My guess is that Trudeau's Libs settled for political reasons, including the fact that they didn't want to face the risk of a further public backlash relating to the federal government's role in bringing the Khadr family to Canada in the first place as well, I suspect, as wanting to avoid having to address the broader issue of the existence of extremist feelings, beliefs and sympathies among some Muslim immigrants. Also, they likely didn't want the case in court in the run-up to or during the 2019 federal election, and, finally, they didn't want to further undermine the Charter's reputation, which surely would have been the case if the courts awarded Khadr anything near the amount he was claiming. They wanted to pay him off and see the issue go away quietly, although even though they sure tried they didn't quite manage to achieve this. 

And furthermore the Harper government in the first place did not want to bring him back, because it was very likely he would have to be freed by the Canadian courts, while at the time Canadian soldiers were fighting and dying in Afghanistan, which is why I think the assertion of a conspiracy is probably true.

But this is all political, which is why I don't really have a problem with Kadr being duly compensated, because as per my post above, Canada was not just complicit in a minor offence here, but rather the second most egregious offence on this earth, the only thing above being Crimes Against Humanity, and as a classically liberal limited government conservative,  I place the rule of law over and above cynical political calculation, and furthermore, if they can operate lawlessly vis a vis Kadr, they could operate lawlessly against any of us, so I want some deterrence against that sort of thing.

[DogOnPorch]

We paid a man to fight and kill Canadian and American soldiers. That's how stupid this all is.

[turningrite]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada was not just complicit in a minor offence here, but rather the second most egregious offence on this earth, the only thing above being Crimes Against Humanity, and as a classically liberal limited government conservative,  I place the rule of law over and above cynical political calculation, and furthermore, if they can operate lawlessly vis a vis Kadr, they could operate lawlessly against any of us, so I want some deterrence against that sort of thing.

That's totally over-the-top. Our military role in Afghanistan was as part of a NATO-sanctioned response to the Taliban regime's support for and assistance provided to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Thus, there was nothing illegal about it. The creation and use by the U.S. of extrajudicial means of dealing with those it deemed war criminals is another matter, but Canada's role in this was so tangential as to render as "vicarious" any ensuing liability on the part of the Canadian government. Vicarious liability in such a context can establish a very slippery slope. For better or worse, the U.S. is our principal ally and it famously and consistently holds that it is not subject to international law. It also applies its own laws in an extraterritorial fashion (i.e. Ms. Meng). Does such behaviour render us complicit in its practices and behavior when for practical purposes we often have little choice but to go along? The Harper government's big mistake, apparently, was failing to make reasonable efforts to bring Khadr back to Canada from Gitmo, but was in fact entirely consistent with his government's general approach to the plight of Canadians ensnared in foreign legal processes and systems.

[montgomery]

6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

We paid a man to fight and kill Canadian and American soldiers. That's how stupid this all is.

No, not Canadian soldiers, but if a Canadian did happen to be involved in that illegal US war of aggression in a combat role, then he/she would have had it coming. Canada must stop being coerced into taking part in US led wars. None of them are legitimate wars that are defenive in nature or on account of Canada being threatned.

The threat to Canada is first being a part of US wars of aggression, which then might lead to revenge attacks by Muslim freedom fighters. Sadly, we're down that wrong road already and so Conservatives can argue about stumbling further down that wrong path. 

Bring Canada's troops home! That's the only way we can support them.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, turningrite said:

That's totally over-the-top. Our military role in Afghanistan was as part of a NATO-sanctioned response to the Taliban regime's support for and assistance provided to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Thus, there was nothing illegal about it. The creation and use by the U.S. of extrajudicial means of dealing with those it deemed war criminals is another matter, but Canada's role in this was so tangential as to render as "vicarious" any ensuing liability on the part of the Canadian government. Vicarious liability in such a context can establish a very slippery slope. For better or worse, the U.S. is our principal ally and it famously and consistently holds that it is not subject to international law. It also applies its own laws in an extraterritorial fashion (i.e. Ms. Meng). Does such behaviour render us complicit in its practices and behavior when for practical purposes we often have little choice but to go along? The Harper government's big mistake, apparently, was failing to make reasonable efforts to bring Khadr back to Canada from Gitmo, but was in fact entirely consistent with his government's general approach to the plight of Canadians ensnared in foreign legal processes and systems.

I never said our military role in Afghanistan was a war crime, the war crimes Canada has committed have to do with being complicit in the kidnapping of Canadian citizens to be rendered to places like Syria or Egypt to be tortured, and in the Kadr case conspiring to keep Kadr in an extra-judicial black hole concentration camp, which, again, if they can get away with that, they can get away with pretty much anything, and if they can do it them, they can do it to me and they can do it to you.

[Dougie93]

23 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

We paid a man to fight and kill Canadian and American soldiers. That's how stupid this all is.

Who is "we"?  You've seemed to have internalized the state as being indistinguishable from yourself as an autonomous individual, which, again, as a classically liberal limited government conservative, I do not do, and I would caution others from doing so as well.

[turningrite]

42 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I never said our military role in Afghanistan was a war crime, the war crimes Canada has committed have to do with being complicit in the kidnapping of Canadian citizens to be rendered to places like Syria or Egypt to be tortured, and in the Kadr case conspiring to keep Kadr in an extra-judicial black hole concentration camp, which, again, if they can get away with that, they can get away with pretty much anything, and if they can do it them, they can do it to me and they can do it to you.

This topic doesn't intend to address the practice of "extraordinary rendition" as applied, for instance, in the Arar case. Khadr's case did not involve extraordinary rendition. Arar had no reason to believe that any behavior on his part could or would amount to him being handed over to a foreign government for detention and torture, nor did the Canadian government have a legitimate basis for facilitating such an outcome. Canadian authorities did absolutely nothing, on the other hand, to put Khadr and/or his family members in harm's way. Our government's sin, apparently, was to vicariously validate Khadr's treatment in an extrajudicial system to which he was exposed by his or his family's volition when coming into conflict with the U.S. military on foreign soil. There's simply no comparison to be made between the Khadr case and the other cases you are apparently raising.

Edited January 7, 2019 by turningrite

[turningrite]

38 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Who is "we"?  You've seemed to have internalized the state as being indistinguishable from yourself as an autonomous individual, which, again, as a classically liberal limited government conservative, I do not do, and I would caution others from doing so as well.

I interpret "we" in this case to mean Canadian taxpayers. In my opinion, it is a correct usage of the pronoun.

Edited January 7, 2019 by turningrite

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, turningrite said:

This topic doesn't intend to address the practice of "extraordinary rendition" as applied, for instance, in the Arar case. Khadr's case did not involve extraordinary rendition. Arar had no reason to believe that any behavior on his part could or would amount to him being handed over to a foreign government for detention and torture, nor did the Canadian government have a legitimate basis for facilitating such an outcome. Canadian authorities did absolutely nothing, on the other hand, to put Khadr and/or his family members in harm's way. Our government's sin, apparently, was to vicariously validate Khadr's treatment in an extrajudicial system to which he was exposed by his or his family's volition when coming into conflict with the U.S. military on foreign soil. There's simply no comparison to be made between the Khadr case and the other cases you are apparently raising.

Except that's not actually true, IIRC, the RCMP are the ones who put Arar in harms way, because it was the RCMP who flagged him as a "terrorist", and it is also not true that the RCMP and CSIS were not aware that the Americans were going to render him, they were in on it from the beginning and in fact concocted the whole thing, it was actually the Americans who were relying on them to make sure they had the right guy not the other way round.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Dougie93

[turningrite]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

Except that's not actually true, IIRC, the RCMP are the ones who put Arar in harms way, because it was the RCMP who flagged him as a "terrorist", and it is also not true that the RCMP and CSIS were not aware that the Americans were going to render him, they were in on it from the begging and in fact concocted the whole thing, it was actually the Americans who were relying on them to make sure they had the right guy not the other way round.

I don't think you read my post. I don't dispute the role of Canadian officials in the Arar situation. My contention is that Arar's case is not in any substantive fashion similar to Khadr's.

[Dougie93]

It's all of a piece from where I'm sitting, in that essentially with regards the GWOT in the wake of 9-11, the Canadian government went just as crazy and off the deep as the American government did with regards to throwing the rule book out the window, and to say otherwise I would submit, is what Bush-Cheney2004 has accurately ascribed to the pathological Canadian inability to take any responsibility for anything and rather blame everything on the United States, "the Canadian Disease", which I would add is all inclusive to "Fake Country" in that Canada is de facto not a sovereign state but rather a former de jure British colony which has simply converted itself into  de facto colony of the United States upon collapse of the British Empire.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Dougie93

[turningrite]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

It's all of a piece from where I'm sitting, in that essentially with regards the GWOT in the wake of 9-11, the Canadian government went just as crazy and off the deep as the American government did with regards to throwing the rule book out the window, and to say otherwise I would submit, is what Bush-Cheney2004 has accurately ascribed to the pathological Canadian inability to take any responsibility for their own shit and rather blame everything on the United States, "the Canadian Disease", which I would add is all inclusive to "Fake Country" in that Canada is de facto not a sovereign state but rather a former de jure British colony which has simply converted itself into  de facto colony of the United States upon collapse of the British Empire.

There are virtually no legal similarities between the two cases. Sorry to tell you that. As for your other contentions about whether Canada is a de facto colony of the U.S., I think your position somewhat specious. It clearly is a sovereign state under international law. We are an ally of the U.S. and like many other countries often rely on its clout for our own security and as such often comply with and/or participate in its actions. But we aren't technically bound to do so. We didn't participate in the second Iraq war, for instance. We didn't have anything to do with Khadr landing in Gitmo and neither did our Supreme Court allege we did. Canadian liability, oddly enough, was determined to exist from the point that Canadian officials attended Gitmo in relation to Khadr's detention and interrogation by the Americans. How else Canadian officials should have behaved remains a mystery to many. Should they have jumped up and down and insisted on taking Khadr home in a government jet? Would the Americans even have paid any attention had they done so?

[Dougie93]

16 minutes ago, turningrite said:

There are virtually no legal similarities between the two cases. Sorry to tell you that. As for your other contentions about whether Canada is a de facto colony of the U.S., I think your position somewhat specious. It clearly is a sovereign state under international law. We are an ally of the U.S. and like many other countries often rely on its clout for our own security and as such often comply with and/or participate in its actions. But we aren't technically bound to do so. We didn't participate in the second Iraq war, for instance. We didn't have anything to do with Khadr landing in Gitmo and neither did our Supreme Court allege we did. Canadian liability, oddly enough, was determined to exist from the point that Canadian officials attended Gitmo in relation to Khadr's detention and interrogation by the Americans. How else Canadian officials should have behaved remains a mystery to many. Should they have jumped up and down and insisted on taking Khadr home in a government jet? Would the Americans even have paid any attention had they done so?

Impasse on legal "similarity" as, again,  there is obvious similarity from where I'm sitting.  In terms of Fake Country I said "de facto" rather than "de jure" colony of the United States rendering international law moot.  On "ally" of the United States I would say "with allies like us, who needs enemies?". On rely on clout of US military security I would submit we are the ultimate free rider as we rely totally on the United States as no other country of our scale does.  On didn't participate in Iraq War; not true, we sent air and naval forces inclusive to Operation Iraqi Freedom, simply declining to send ground forces. On not interning Kadr at Gitmo, does not absolve us of complicity once he was there. As far as how else could we have acted; I'm willing to discuss further but would rather not do so by wall of text. On the Americans keeping Kadr from us, as I said earlier, the opposite was the case, they actually wanted rid of him as Gitmo had become politically radioactive, but as I said, my suspicion is that Harper government did conspire with the Americans to keep him there, because even tho they were complicit, they wanted to keep all that offshore to avoid the legal and political ramifications upon his stepping back onto Canadian soil.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Dougie93

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

We paid a man to fight and kill Canadian and American soldiers. That's how stupid this all is.

No, that's a complete mischaracterization of what happened. We clearly compensated a man for criminally maltreating him when he was a kid, just like his parents criminally maltreated him when he was a kid.

Why we let his parents off the hook is the stupidest thing we've done in all this.

Edited January 8, 2019 by eyeball

[turningrite]

18 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, that's a complete mischaracterization of what happened. We clearly compensated a man for criminally maltreating him when he was a kid, just like his parents criminally maltreated him when he was a kid.

Why we let his parents off the hook is the stupidest thing we've done in all this.

You might want to rewrite your post to make it more accurate by stating that we compensated a man for the Americans "maltreating" him when he was a kid who was taken into custody by the Americans on foreign soil as an enemy combatant... Just saying. The SCC ruling focused on the federal government's "duty to protect" Khadr once he was in U.S. custody and not on the reason(s) he was there.  If anything, the case and rulings against Canadian government seems to have been based mainly on arguments of negligence. It's my understanding that Khadr's criminal record under U.S. law was not expunged by the SCC rulings nor has it been expunged in the United States.

[montgomery]

9 minutes ago, turningrite said:

You might want to rewrite your post to make it more accurate by stating that we compensated a man for the Americans "maltreating" him when he was a kid who was taken into custody by the Americans on foreign soil as an enemy combatant... Just saying. The SCC ruling focused on the federal government's "duty to protect" Khadr once he was in U.S. custody and not on the reason(s) he was there.  If anything, the case and rulings against Canadian government seems to have been based mainly on arguments of negligence. It's my understanding that Khadr's criminal record under U.S. law was not expunged by the SCC rulings nor has it been expunged in the United States.

Eyeball has it basically right and you have it dead wrong. Except that eyeball's comments about the parents make no sense. What could he/she be suggesting? That Khadr shouldn't taught to oppose US wars of aggression and the slaughter of his people?

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, turningrite said:

You might want to rewrite your post to make it more accurate by stating that we compensated a man for the Americans "maltreating" him.

No. We stood shoulder to shoulder with the US in the war on terror with all its illegal, amoral and unprincipled warts so it's entirely accurate to say we maltreated him.

Personally I think he should have been given $110 million, 10 million to compensate him and a 100 million to punish Canada for being so fucking stupid. 

[DogOnPorch]

12 minutes ago, montgomery said:

Eyeball has it basically right and you have it dead wrong. Except that eyeball's comments about the parents make no sense. What could he/she be suggesting? That Khadr shouldn't taught to oppose US wars of aggression and the slaughter of his people?

 

His people?