• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Khadr Thread

Lumber said:
Instead of a blanket apology, could they not have just done what my subordinates do, and sandwich the apology between deprecating arguments?

"Your are a sorry excuse for a human being, but we didn't treat you the way we've promised to treat all Canadian universally, and we're sorry for that, but in our opinion you should still be rotting in a prison somewhere you piece of sh*t."

And then instead of giving him $10.5 million, cover his legal fees and donate $10.5 million to some charity.

Seriously though why does it have to be $10.5 million?

I'm guessing, but it's probably because that's around what Maher Arar got (although he was found not to be guilty of anything).

Your first point is bang on and probably, if we all think deeply on it, why we are all so pissed off.  It's that our own government (really doesn't matter who is or was in charge at any point) allowed this situation to happen.  It's the same feeling everyone gets when someone gets off for murder or sexual assault because of a technicality and you know they're as guilty as sin.  We put most of our anger on the person instead of the system that got us to that point.
 
Sprinting Thistle said:
... There was no official announcement, nor did Trudeau stand up publicly, as a leader, and explain to the Canadian people why the decision was being taken.  His after the fact remarks fell short ... Leadership was absent when this decision was made to pay out the money and make the apology ...
Incorrect on the bit in orange (albeit late in the day on a Friday, with ministers "talking" & not the PM), but bang on with the bit in yellow.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-legal-analysis-aaron-wherry-1.4199409

What 3 legal minds think about the Omar Khadr settlement

Detailed perspectives to put alongside the polarized public and political reactions

By Aaron Wherry, CBC News  Posted: Jul 12, 2017 11:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Jul 12, 2017 11:00 AM ET

It has been a week since word leaked that the federal government had agreed to pay Omar Khadr a settlement of $10.5 million to resolve his civil suit over allegations of mistreatment and breaches of his charter rights.

According to an Angus Reid Institue survey released Tuesday, many Canadians seem unhappy about the payment, but also seem to believe that Khadr has not been treated fairly.

The Liberals and Conservatives, meanwhile, have staked out diametrically opposed positions.

The government argues that it had "virtually no chance" of winning the case, that further contesting Khadr's suit would have cost more and that, above all, an individual's rights were violated.

The Conservatives, under leader Andrew Scheer, object to the notion of paying a "convicted terrorist," a reference to the 2010 plea deal that Khadr is appealing, and say they would have fought his lawsuit in court.

Since the case is ultimately a legal matter, CBCNews.ca reached out to three legal minds for their perspective.

Each was asked about Khadr's chances of success, how much he might have received and whether Justin Trudeau's government was wise to settle. Their comments, posted below, were lightly edited or shortened for clarity.

Craig Forcese, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, who briefly assisted Khadr's American counsel, has also written two long posts on the settlement here and here.

'The government really had no choice'

Eugene Meehan is a former executive legal officer to the Supreme Court of Canada and now a lawyer at Supreme Advocacy LLP in Ottawa, specializing in Supreme Court matters. Meehan references Vancouver vs. Ward, a ruling in 2010 that established that damages can be awarded for the breach of charter rights. (Supreme Advocacy acted as an Ottawa agent for Khadr's lawyers in the Supreme Court hearings, providing technical and procedural advice.)

The [Supreme Court of Canada] did hold, in a full-bench unanimous decision, that Mr. Khadr's constitutional rights to "life, liberty and security of the person" were violated.

The court also indicated the "proper remedy" is a declaration that his charter rights were infringed, but specifically held back from stating how that remedial declaration should be dealt with: "leaving the government a measure of discretion in deciding how best to respond."

The court did go on to say that "through the conduct of Canadian officials …Canada actively [acted] contrary to … international human rights obligations."

Vancouver vs. Ward came out six months after the Supreme Court's Khadr's decision. The Vancouver vs. Ward case stands for the proposition that charter damages are available independent of tort or proof of bad faith.

Given those two decisions, the government really had no choice. It's likely the Supreme Court believes what the government did here was the constitutionally right thing to do — but of course we'll never know that.
 
Given that the Supreme Court found clear charter breaches, Mr. Khadr almost certainly would have been successful at trial. The real question is, how much would he be awarded? Calculating damages is not an exact science, especially when it comes to charter breaches.

The most recent guidance is found in the Ivan Henry case. In 2016, after having been successful in the Supreme Court in 2015, he was awarded $8 million at trial. He was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for almost 27 years. Most of the award was to vindicate Mr. Henry's breached charter rights, and to deter similar breaches of charter rights.

Similarly, David Milgaard was paid $10 million in 1999 for over 22 years imprisonment. Steven Truscott received $6.5 million for 10 years in jail and living with the stigma of being a convicted murderer for almost 50 years.

The payments for wrongful convictions likely serve as the upper limit for charter breaches. For government, a certain practicality comes in: what's the price of not having this dragged out for another 10 years and having a possible further loss at the Supreme Court of Canada? That's where the $10.5 million figure comes from.

A complicated case that deserved clarity

Howard Anglin was deputy chief of staff and senior adviser, legal affairs and policy, to former prime minister Stephen Harper from May 2013 to October 2015. Quoting former prime minister Brian Mulroney, Anglin would advise Trudeau that "You had an option, sir."

Omar Khadr's 2004 lawsuit against the government of Canada sought $100,000 in damages. Over the next decade, it was amended several times, with concomitant increases in damages until it reached $20 million in the 2014 "amended amended amended fresh as amended" statement of claim.
 
The most significant amendment was the last one, alleging that Canada had conspired with the United States to violate Khadr's rights. This was important because, if proved, it would overcome the inconvenient fact that the alleged mistreatment was at the hands of the Americans, not Canadians. The government would still have been able to argue that there was no conspiracy and, even if there were, Canada was not liable for the alleged mistreatments which Khadr himself said occurred in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay before Canadian officials visited him.
 
The separate claims founded in Canada's alleged failure to bring him back to Canada before 2012 were similarly complicated. There was good reason to have the courts hear and decide these claims, as they could affect how Canada treats future consular cases. If Khadr can be compensated for Canada's alleged failure to repatriate him sooner, how does that affect the cases of Canadians imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, North Korea or China? How should a court weigh a putative duty to act in the best interests of a detained Canadian against competing diplomatic considerations that fall within the Crown's prerogative power over foreign affairs? These are not straightforward legal questions.
 
To state the obvious, this was never a routine case. Most commentary ignores the (sui generis?) novelty of the Supreme Court's charter analysis in 2008 and 2010, which makes a poor basis for predicting the outcome of a separate civil suit. The originality of the issue was reason enough to make Khadr establish his case to a standard of legal proof in court.

I am sure the government received a risk analysis from Justice Department lawyers, which may have said that $10.5 million was a reasonable settlement. That should have factored into the government's decision, but it didn't need to be decisive. Unlike a class action, where the potential compensation could have ranged into hundreds of millions of dollars, the upper range of the risk in this case was limited.
 
Back in 2014, Khadr's own lawyer looked forward to "a full hearing and full airing of what happened to Omar and how he was treated by both the United States and Canadian government authorities." The Canadian government should have given him that opportunity, for his sake, for the taxpayer's sake, and for the sake of clarity and certainty in the law.

Khadr's suit had a 'pretty reasonable chance'

Lorne Sossin is dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School at York University. Sossin also spoke with CBC radio's Metro Morning this week.

If the question is whether there was a sound basis for the government's decision to settle the civil suit by Mr. Khadr, I think the answer is yes.

The suit for $20 million Mr. Khadr brought in 2014 after his repatriation to Canada (following his plea arrangement) had a pretty reasonable chance of success. In effect, Mr. Khadr would have used the findings of fact accepted by the Supreme Court in 2010 (which found his charter rights had been violated by the involvement of Canadian officials who shared fruits of their interrogation with American officials) as a foundation for claims for charter damages, and damages for various torts (including conspiracy and misfeasance of public office).

Taking this bitterly contested civil suit to trial would have taken years, cost many tens of thousands of dollars (with the government paying both its and Mr. Khadr's legal fees if Mr. Khadr succeeded), and prevented both Mr. Khadr and the government of Canada from reaching any kind of closure on this painful saga.

The case demonstrates (again) that law has real limits. It cannot bring back the life of Sgt. Christopher Speer, lost in the attack on the Afghan compound, nor can it bring back the years of Mr. Khadr's youth spent enduring unlawful confinement and unlawful treatment at Guantanamo Bay. Settlements, similarly, are imperfect. No one gets what they want or feel they deserve. Both sides make compromises in the interest of closure and this case is no different. Settlements are not for winners or losers; they are for people willing to move on.
 
My opinion is that the AQ leadership was grooming him for leadership positions, he came from “good stock”, would have been considered reliable, secure, educated and able to move through Western countries with ease. In the video where he was seen handling explosive material, another senior leader of AQ was identified. Apparently it was not possible to id the other terrorist who were killed at the battle as the locals had removed them and were not willing to tell where they had buried him. I suspect that due to the location being close to Tora Bora and the fact they hid the bodies, it’s likely they were important or trusted associates of the Taliban and/or AQ. At the end of the day interrupting his career at such an early stage would still be cheaper than hunting him as an adult. I think the fallout of this is that these people in the future will be left in the hands of the local authorities and will be unlikely to survive for any period of time. 
 
Maybe we will get lucky and the government will do the same thing with Kadhr as they did with the long gun registry.  You know, where they forgot to do what they said they would.
 
Maybe they should recover what they paid Mr Arar, considering Mr Khadr is partly responsible for his treatment.
 
I can understand why people are so upset, but they also have to be realistic- despite the actions of Khadr he was a Canadian citizen who 3 successive Canadian governments of both political stripes allowed to sit in Guantanamo and have his rights as a Canadian violated. The violation of his Canadian rights is why he got the money; if the Liberals and Conservatives had made any effort to bring him back for trial, incarceration, etc than we wouldn't be where we are. The $10.5 million has nothing to do with him being a Taliban fighter and everything to do with him being a Canadian stripped of rights. This lies at the Feet of messers Chretien, Martin, and Harper.

For those who would say, "oh but he's an enemy" and "he should have his rights stripped" there is actually precedence in Canada for this. Take the examples of Cpl John Galaher, Pte George Hale, and Pte Martin who were Canadians who fought with the SS (you know, those guys who did that whole holocaust thing) after being captured. They were sentenced in 1945 to life imprisonment and pardoned in 1954. So, for literally joining the SS, they got 9+ years in jail, roughly the same as Khadr. Im guessing circa 1954 that made people pretty upset as well.

Is it unfortunate that this worked out the way it did? Yes! Should the government treat veterans better? definitely. Is any of that relevant? not at all.

  http://oshawaremembers.wordpress.com/page/2/

 
Loachman said:
Here, the lawyer said, the Trudeau government could have argued Khadr caused the situation he was in - by participating in a firefight against U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan in 2002, that led to the death of Sgt. Christopher Speer and the blinding of Sgt. Layne Morris in one eye.
As to Layne Morris there is many sources that show he made up his testimony and wasn't at the scene of the attack that took Speer's life.
He was reported to be injured eariler and evacuated before the attack that killed Speer's.
A simple search of United States v. Omar Khadr and clicking on the University of Toronto's pre trial report may present a different viewpoint than most have seen.
In the report it states the only other person in a position to see Khadr throw the grenade was uninjured in the attack. This was not Morris.
Further more the CO of the unit reported the grenade thrower was killed in the attack before the report was changed. Also in the end no one could actually state they seen who threw the grenade.
Also check out the Wikipedia report on Layne Morris and look at the foot notes 4, 14 & 16 in particular.
 
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/13/former-pm-stephen-harper-reaches-out-to-khadr-victim

Former PM Stephen Harper reaches out to Khadr victim

By Joe Warmington, Toronto Sun

First posted: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:30 AM EDT | Updated: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:48 AM EDT

First it was a Toronto Sun reader buying a full-page advertisement to apologize to Omar Khadr’s victims for the eight-figure settlement he received from the Canadian government.

Now former prime minister Stephen Harper has reached out to the families to express his outrage.

Upset about the Liberal government’s $10.5-million settlement with Khadr, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s predecessor picked up the phone Wednesday and called American soldier Layne Morris at his home in Utah.

“Layne spoke with Prime Minister Harper today,” his wife, Leisl, said on Wednesday night.

The call came just hours before lawyers for Morris and the widow of American special forces Sgt. Christopher Speer went into court to attempt to freeze Khadr’s assets with a view that the windfall could be applied to a $134-milllion American court judgment they won.

It is believed Harper made a similar call to Speer’s widow, Tabitha, but neither side has confirmed.

However, Leisl Morris said her husband had a good talk with Harper.

“Layne had a little trouble matching schedules with Prime Minister Harper but once they did connect, they spoke for a little over six minutes,” she said.

Her husband was thrilled by the gesture.

“He was very nice,” she said of Harper. “Prime Minister Harper apologized for the payout to Omar.”

And although he appreciated the former prime minister saying that, Morris said it was not necessary.

“Layne told him he did not need an apology because he knows the heart of the Canadian people and understands it’s the government and the current prime minister’s doing,” Leisl said.

She also said it “touched our hearts” that a “concerned” Canadian would spend their own money to take out a full-page ad in the Toronto Sun to let the families know not all Canadians agree with both the amount of the settlement to Khadr and the official apology.

The man who took out the ad told me Thursday: “I am staying anonymous for now because it was meant to come from the sentiment of regular Canadians who feel this way and not just from one. I did it because I felt I needed to put my money where my heart was.”

He said he also appreciated seeing similar commentary from Canadians from coast to coast, including from Harper himself.
Harper has been critical on social media of the settlement.

“The government today attempted to lay blame elsewhere for their decision to conclude a secret deal with Omar Khadr,” Harper wrote in a statement Friday. “The decision to enter into this deal is theirs, and theirs alone, and it is simply wrong. Canadians deserve better than this.
“Today my thoughts are with Tabitha Speer and the families of all Canadian and allied soldiers who paid the ultimate price fighting to protect us.”

And now Harper has expressed this sentiment directly to Khadr’s victims.

jwarmington@postmedia.com
 
It's nice to see there are still people out there that have morals, a sense of decency and know how to behave, even when the fallible laws of government and the total idiocy of our leaders take precedence. Laws are made by man. They are far from perfect and judges aren't always right. In my mind, standing behind a flawed law as an excuse for paying off a terrorist is deceiving and disgusting.
 
recceguy said:
It's nice to see there are still people out there that have morals, a sense of decency and know how to behave, even when the fallible laws of government and the total idiocy of our leaders take precedence. Laws are made by man. They are far from perfect and judges aren't always right. In my mind, standing behind a flawed law as an excuse for paying off a terrorist is deceiving and disgusting.

In my mind, what's deceiving and disgusting is pretending that this is a terrorist payoff.
 
recceguy said:
It's nice to see there are still people out there that have morals, a sense of decency and know how to behave, even when the fallible laws of government and the total idiocy of our leaders take precedence. Laws are made by man. They are far from perfect and judges aren't always right. In my mind, standing behind a flawed law as an excuse for paying off a terrorist is deceiving and disgusting.

By "flawed law" you mean the constitution?  As I said before,  the payment has nothing to do with him being a terrorist, veterans, etc and everything to do with his charter rights.

Harper is also being something of a hypocrite in that he could have stopped thus during the 9 years he was in power by bringing Khadr back to Canada and treating him like a citizen, including trying him in Canada. This situation is the making of harper, Chretien,  and Martin, not Trudeau.

The total idiocy of our leaders in this case was before Trudeau came to power, by both team blue and team red. Focus some of your anger on team blue too. As Mulroney said, "sir (Harper in this case), you had a choice".
 
The GoC does and should hold the CAF to the highest standards of following the Constitution, the Geneva Convention and other international laws of armed conflict.

In this case they disregarded their legal (and moral) obligations to a Canadian citizen and so we're all collectively paying for it.  If CAF personnel had done any of the stuff that happened to Khadr there would be a whole lot of heads in uniform rolling; why should the GoC not be expected to meet the same standard they (and Canadians) demand we do?

I don't like the settlement, but the fundamental purpose of a government is to do a whole bunch of stuff to keep their citizens safe.  If they can pick and choose when it's convenient then I don't see why we pay taxes.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
By "flawed law" you mean the constitution?  As I said before,  the payment has nothing to do with him being a terrorist, veterans, etc and everything to do with his charter rights.

Harper is also being something of a hypocrite in that he could have stopped thus during the 9 years he was in power by bringing Khadr back to Canada and treating him like a citizen, including trying him in Canada. This situation is the making of harper, Chretien,  and Martin, not Trudeau.

The total idiocy of our leaders in this case was before Trudeau came to power, by both team blue and team red. Focus some of your anger on team blue too. As Mulroney said, "sir (Harper in this case), you had a choice".

Chances are Harper would of fought it to the end, and with Bill C-51, the government had a legal avenue of removing Khadr's citizenship, which I think would of been the path they took. Thus changing any possible outcomes.

We can argue back and forth about the settlement. Saying the Supreme court would of decided one way or another with certainty is a fallacy. You can say what is likely to happen, but until the trial ran it course, nobody can predict with 100% certainty what would of came out of it.

Chance may have been slim for the Government to win, but slim is still enough in most people minds to fight this.


jmt18325 said:
In my mind, what's deceiving and disgusting is pretending that this is a terrorist payoff.

Even outside his conviction, there is plenty of evidence that shows him aiding and colluding with terrorists. Thus he is a terrorist in my mind, and the minds of many Canadians.

Does Terrorist Settlement sound better?

In my mind being a terrorist should override his citizenship. Trudeau don't feel that way, hence why he and his party pushed bill C- 6 so fast 

Whether he is still a terrorist remains to be seen, time will tell, and hopefully nothing more comes out of this.

One thing is for certain, if any of that money ends up traced back to terrorist activity. I can guarantee the Liberal Party won't hold the Power anymore with the next election. 




 
jmt18325 said:
In my mind, what's deceiving and disgusting is pretending that this is a terrorist payoff.

He's a convicted terrorist, and was paid off to avoid an embarrassing trial for the Liberals. Ergo, its a terrorist payoff. Its not difficult to understand if you simply look at the facts.

Bird_Gunner45 said:
By "flawed law" you mean the constitution?  As I said before,  the payment has nothing to do with him being a terrorist, veterans, etc and everything to do with his charter rights.

Harper is also being something of a hypocrite in that he could have stopped thus during the 9 years he was in power by bringing Khadr back to Canada and treating him like a citizen, including trying him in Canada. This situation is the making of harper, Chretien,  and Martin, not Trudeau.

The total idiocy of our leaders in this case was before Trudeau came to power, by both team blue and team red. Focus some of your anger on team blue too. As Mulroney said, "sir (Harper in this case), you had a choice".

Your quote choice is cute, but you're missing some facts. The fact that he was detained in Gitmo was not one of his charter rights that the Supreme Court said was denied. It was that he was questioned without counsel present and the information given to US authorities. That was in 2003. Under Chretien. The illegal visits continued until 2005, when the SCC ordered CSIS to halt them. Under Martin. Flash forward to 2010, the SCC overturns lower court rulings ordering the government to return Khadr to Canada. Under Harper. Later that year, Khadr pleads guilty and he's sentenced to 8 years due to his pretrial agreement. 18 months later, US Defense Secretary signs off on transfer order, and 6 months later (less than 2 years after conviction), he's returned to Canada to Millhaven. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/timeline-key-moments-in-the-case-of-omar-khadr-1.2363587

At what point, in your clouded world view, has Stephen Harper's government violated any of Khadr's rights? All of the violations occurred under a Liberal banner (Chretien and Martin), yet it was Harper who brought him back to Canada. There are literally hundreds of Canadians serving in foreign jails, Omar Khadr isn't a special flower to get his transfer moved quickly. Take a look at this article from 2016: http://globalnews.ca/news/2542128/not-enough-being-done-to-help-hundreds-of-canadians-detained-abroad-lawyers/

Trudeau could have fought this, or could have paid him out without an apology. The apology is what stings Canadians and most people here, as well as the insistence of the current government to fight numerous other cases that they are bound to lose (Veterans compensation...) while paying out someone who pled guilty to numerous terrorist activities.
 
PuckChaser said:
He's a convicted terrorist, and was paid off to avoid an embarrassing trial for the Liberals. Ergo, its a terrorist payoff. Its not difficult to understand if you simply look at the facts.

Your quote choice is cute, but you're missing some facts. The fact that he was detained in Gitmo was not one of his charter rights that the Supreme Court said was denied. It was that he was questioned without counsel present and the information given to US authorities. That was in 2003. Under Chretien. The illegal visits continued until 2005, when the SCC ordered CSIS to halt them. Under Martin. Flash forward to 2010, the SCC overturns lower court rulings ordering the government to return Khadr to Canada. Under Harper. Later that year, Khadr pleads guilty and he's sentenced to 8 years due to his pretrial agreement. 18 months later, US Defense Secretary signs off on transfer order, and 6 months later (less than 2 years after conviction), he's returned to Canada to Millhaven. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/timeline-key-moments-in-the-case-of-omar-khadr-1.2363587

At what point, in your clouded world view, has Stephen Harper's government violated any of Khadr's rights? All of the violations occurred under a Liberal banner (Chretien and Martin), yet it was Harper who brought him back to Canada. There are literally hundreds of Canadians serving in foreign jails, Omar Khadr isn't a special flower to get his transfer moved quickly. Take a look at this article from 2016: http://globalnews.ca/news/2542128/not-enough-being-done-to-help-hundreds-of-canadians-detained-abroad-lawyers/

Trudeau could have fought this, or could have paid him out without an apology. The apology is what stings Canadians and most people here, as well as the insistence of the current government to fight numerous other cases that they are bound to lose (Veterans compensation...) while paying out someone who pled guilty to numerous terrorist activities.

His rights were violated every time he was questioned by a CSIS agent without representation, which happened under Harper as well as the others (you may have missed the part where I blamed all 3 PMs involved). he is a special flower, as you say, since Canadians questioned him and actively fought his return. Saying he was freed under harper  due to a SCC ruling is dishonest at best. He was fried by the SCC, not Harper. Harper had years to ensure charter rights were upheld and didn't.  He has responsibility as well. I suspect your concern was less about Khadr's rights as a Canadian and more that we have to admit Harper had a role in this.

If trudeau had kept going the gverwnt would have lost at a higher cost? Would khadr getting 20 Million make you feel better?
 
Back
Top