• 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

Bird_Gunner45 said:
And as a Canadian, Khadr had the right to not be questioned illegally by CSIS while geld by a foreign nation.

No one us arguing he's a terrorist or that had the government's done their jobs he wouldn't have been convicted in Canada. It's that we bypassed this for political expediency is why we're paying. While emotion tells us that this is wrong, we're paying for liberal and conservative errors of the past. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll repeat his acyiobs, we'll prosecute him legally, and not defy our own values to get back at someone who clearly lacks them.

A few here have argued that he isn't a terrorist using arguments that he was 15, and the confession was obtained under torture. jmt18325 is one of those arguing he's not.

Anyways, I still and will always feel this was the wrong move, even though it may have been financially prudent, We are talking about such an in-significant amount of Canada's Budget, less that .001% of our GDP to fight something morally wrong is money well spent in my book.

We agree on a few things though, one thing I hope is he fades away to nothing, I don't want him to commit any other crimes. This is one area I want to be wrong on.
 
jmt18325 said:
Actually, that is not a fact, because of lack of due process at Guantanamo.  I have no belief that he's a great human being - his father certainly isn't one and he spent a lot of time with people that certainly weren't great nurturing influences. 

The lack of due process still don't erase the video. Still don't erase the fact he was living with and participating with Al Qaeda.

jmt18325 said:
But lets pretend that he is a terrorist.  It is irrelevant to the reason for the apology and the compensation.

It was also the right thing to do given that in 2008, 2010, and 2015, the government was told by the Supreme Court of Canada that is had violated Khadr's Canadian Constitutional rights.

See that is my argument, that if he is a terrorist ( and I strongly feel he is, as many others, even willing to argue its a fact), that it's not the right thing to do, regardless of what the Supreme Court said in previous settlements.

Even if this went to fruition and the Supreme Court ordered Canada to pay up, which I'll agree was more than likely. I still feel that was the right move.

 
gryphonv said:
See that is my argument, that if he is a terrorist ( and I strongly feel he is, as many others, even willing to argue its a fact), that it's not the right thing to do, regardless of what the Supreme Court said in previous settlements.

Even if this went to fruition and the Supreme Court ordered Canada to pay up, which I'll agree was more than likely. I still feel that was the right move.

My argument is that Canada must be held responsible for the violation of his rights, no matter who or what he is.
 
Scott Taylor's take: http://espritdecorps.ca/on-target-4/on-target-khadr-was-a-victim-not-a-terrorist

 
gryphonv said:
A few here have argued that he isn't a terrorist using arguments that he was 15, and the confession was obtained under torture. jmt18325 is one of those arguing he's not.

Anyways, I still and will always feel this was the wrong move, even though it may have been financially prudent, We are talking about such an in-significant amount of Canada's Budget, less that .001% of our GDP to fight something morally wrong is money well spent in my book.

We agree on a few things though, one thing I hope is he fades away to nothing, I don't want him to commit any other crimes. This is one area I want to be wrong on.

Hmmm... typo.... my post should read "no one is arguing he's NOT a terrorist". Chalk it up to autocorrect or using a cell phone....
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
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?

The Federal Court of Appeal ordered CSIS to stop interrogating Khadr on Aug 10, 2005 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/key-events-in-the-omar-khadr-case-1.1153759. Martin is in power. Are you suggesting (without any sort of evidence) that the Harper government defied the court order and had CSIS continue to visit him? Or are you simply just trying to grasp at straws on how this is somehow Harper's fault? Foreign Affairs staff visited him to determine if he could be safely held/rehabilitated in a Canadian facility during Harper's tenure.

The facts of the matter is that all of the rights violations happened under Chretien and Martin. Harper lost a court decision stating that Khadr should be serving his time as an adult. That's not a rights violation, that sort of motion happens when young offenders commit violent crimes. Khadr's transfer took exactly as long as other Canadian citizen's who have committed crimes in foreign soil take, over 2 years. He got his done in 18 months. It took a year for the US to even approve a transfer. You've niave if you think that's actively fighting his return. He needed to be convicted of something before the US would let him go. We can demand his return all we want, but unless we're prepared to conduct a hostage rescue operation at Gitmo to get him out, the US had him and was going to keep him.

$20M CAD is a lot of money, but not to the government. I'd rather we be dragged kicking and screaming into paying this terrorist out, than offering an apology and some hush money. That hush money, by the way, was immediately hidden by Khadr in someplace safe that the Speer's can't touch it. If that doesn't scream "I'm guilty and I'll lose a civil trial" then I don't know what does.

 
PuckChaser said:
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
PuckChaser even from your link you also conveniently failed to mention a few facts that didn't support your defense of Harper.

April 2009: A Federal Court judge orders the Canadian government seek Khadr's return, finding it has failed to ensure his treatment complied with international human rights norms. Ruling is overturned on appeal.

Aug. 2009: Canada's Federal Court of Appeal upholds ruling that requires the Canadian government to press for Khadr's return from Guantanamo Bay.

Jan. 2010: The Supreme Court of Canada rules Canada has violated Khadr's Charter rights by participating in illegal interrogation methods. It says the federal government must be given a chance to rectify Khadr's plight.

July 2012: Lawyers file a notice of application in the Federal Court to ask it to review why Canada was delaying Khadr's repatriation.

Lets face it both the liberals and the Conservatives both dropped the ball in this case.
 
2010 and 2012 dates have no bearing as they are not infringed rights. 2012 was never ruled on as Khadr was returned to Canada after the standard process was applied. 2010 was based on the CSIS interrogations under Chretien and Martin, which were ordered halted before Harper took over. The 2009 ruling ordering his return was overturned by the SCC.

You just cherry picked dates. Keep in mind Khadr would have no legal argument other than wanting repatriation if Chretien and Martin had kept CSIS away and treated him like any other Canadian arrested by lawful authorities in a sovereign country providing a consular liaison.
 
PuckChaser said:
... Khadr would have no legal argument other than wanting repatriation if Chretien and Martin had kept CSIS away and treated him like any other Canadian arrested by lawful authorities in a sovereign country providing a consular liaison.
If only there was a way to try Khadr as a Canadian under Canadian law for terrorism, without having to prove or not whether he threw a grenade, but just needing to prove he was part of a group -- oh, wait ...
 
PuckChaser said:
2010 and 2012 dates have no bearing as they are not infringed rights. 2012 was never ruled on as Khadr was returned to Canada after the standard process was applied. 2010 was based on the CSIS interrogations under Chretien and Martin, which were ordered halted before Harper took over. The 2009 ruling ordering his return was overturned by the SCC.

You just cherry picked dates. Keep in mind Khadr would have no legal argument other than wanting repatriation if Chretien and Martin had kept CSIS away and treated him like any other Canadian arrested by lawful authorities in a sovereign country providing a consular liaison.

The US Supreme Court basically ruled that there was nothing lawful about the authority used at Gitmo.  That's how the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the Charter still applied to Khartoum in his dealings with Canadian officials.
 
milnews.ca said:
If only there was a way to try Khadr as a Canadian under Canadian law for terrorism, without having to prove or not whether he threw a grenade, but just needing to prove he was part of a group -- oh, wait ...

^ This.

Let the issue of the death of Sgt. Speers and injury of Sgt. Morris remain a separate issue that must continue to be followed up in the U.S.

There was at the time, and remains today Canadian Law (see Milnews' link above to Bill C-41, 2001) that can be used to deal with Canadian citizens who perform terrorist acts.  Use it with Khadr, and should a conviction be made after prosecution, then use his unconsitutional treatment (which was not within the purview of the Canadian courts at the time) by Canadian officials in 2003-2005, which I fully agree was unconstitutional, as mitigating consideration during sentencing.  Note that unlike the U.S. military tribunal that found Khadr guilty of acts contrary to a post-event Act (Military Commissions Act, 2006), I have every reason to believe (including my own thoughts of seeing a smiling Khadr using VS-HCT anti-tank mines to make IEDs) that he contravened existing Canadian Law in conducting terrorist acts.

I take issue with anyone who does not fundamentally believe that in receipt of the Rights and Freedoms of the Canadian Charter, so too should a Canadian conduct themselves as a Canadian, which I believe at the very least, means conducting one's self so as not to contravene specific or equivalent sections of the Canadian Criminal Code (PART II.1, Section 83 - Terrorism and PART XI, Section 431 - Attacks on Property or Persons, Explosives or other lethal devices - again, note that these Sections of the Criminal Code of Canada were in place in 2001, pre-dating Khadr's actions), whether at home or abroad (CCC PART I, Section 3.7 - Jurisdiction).

Was Khadr treated unconstitutionally in 2003, 2004 and 2005 when interviewed by CSIS agents?  Yes.  Let him be prosecuted I.A.W. the applicable Sections of the Criminal Code as it was at the time of Khadr's actions, and let the infringement of his rights be considered during sentencing upon successful conviction.  OR, have his conduct and his treatment be dealt with separately, but BOTH issues addressed, not just his unconstitutional mis-treatment by others but his terrorist actions.

Regards
G2G
 
PuckChaser said:
2010 and 2012 dates have no bearing as they are not infringed rights. 2012 was never ruled on as Khadr was returned to Canada after the standard process was applied. 2010 was based on the CSIS interrogations under Chretien and Martin, which were ordered halted before Harper took over. The 2009 ruling ordering his return was overturned by the SCC.

You just cherry picked dates. Keep in mind Khadr would have no legal argument other than wanting repatriation if Chretien and Martin had kept CSIS away and treated him like any other Canadian arrested by lawful authorities in a sovereign country providing a consular liaison.

they do matter though. The CSIS events occurred under Martin/Chretien, agreed. However, when the Supreme Court orders you 3 times to get him back and you refuse (in which time the amount of injuries requested grew exponentially, btw) for political expediency you have some responsibility for the overall outcome as well. Harper wasn't innocent by any means. Further, when a government leaves you in the custody of an ally that you know is using torture and conducting what can be called, at best, a kangaroo court, than you have some responsibility for the overall result. Note- though you seem to only respond to the "conservative/Harper" element, I have never argued he was fully responsible; more, he was the last in the line of PMs who willingly (and arguably cowardly) allowed the situation to unfold the way it did. You state, "if Chretien and Martin had just kept CSIS away...", however that's the problem. Khadr was being tortured, was captured in a country that was not the US, and was sent to Guantanamo to allow military tribunals to operate outside the US constitution. This was always a case outside US juristiction (unless you believe the US has the right to arrest anyone, anywhere based on its interests) and the government had the RESPONSIBILITY to protect or at least attempt to protect its own citizens.

oddly enough, the one guy who had actually zero role in the Khadr debacle, Trudeau, is the one taking the flack for it. It was handled poorly undoubtedly. But aside from admitting that it was a lost case and that we DID violate this mans rights there was no further role for the current PM. While there are many things to criticize the PM and the government of the day about, saving $10-30 million on a lost case where CLEAR violations occurred and offering a meek apology (not for apprehending him as a terrorist, but for violating his charter rights) isn't one of them. That said, criticize the way it was done by all means- there should have been a clear explanation of the situation from the get go.
 
Ironically Khadrs lawyer is now representing the 5 who are in a suit towards CSIS.

Business must be good for him...
 
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/07/14/anger-at-omar-khadr-deal-inspires-134000-in-donations-to-killed-us-soldiers-family.html

Anger at Omar Khadr deal inspires $134,000 in donations to killed U.S. soldier’s family

Over the past week, more than 2,200 donors in both Canada and the United States have given to the family of Sgt. Chris Speer, who was killed in the firefight where Omar Khadr was captured.

By Colin PerkelThe Canadian Press
Fri., July 14, 2017

Canadians across the country have been reaching into their wallets to donate money to the family of an American soldier whom Omar Khadr is accused of killing in Afghanistan 15 years ago.

The online fundraising effort - part political protest, part generosity - comes amid a furor over the $10.5 million the federal government reportedly paid Khadr for breaching his charter rights while he was an American prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

Jerome Dondo, of St. Claude, Man., who said he donated $10 to the campaign, decried the federal payout while the widow and children of U.S. special forces soldier Sgt. Chris Speer were fighting in Canadian court for that money.

“The Canadian government should have at least waited until a court decision was made before sending the payment,” said Dondo, a married accountant with nine children. “This was my way of showing the Speer family support for their loss.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reiterated his sympathies for the families of the alleged victims of Omar Khadr Friday, but unlike his prime ministerial predecessor, said he has not reached out to them directly.

It’s an omission Opposition Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said he intends to rectify, arguing it is important the families know that not all Canadians agree with a decision by the Liberal government to settle Khadr’s multimillion-dollar lawsuit.

That message was communicated once already this week; former prime minister Stephen Harper is reported to have called and apologized to the families of both U.S. Sgt. Chris Speer, who died, and fellow Delta Force soldier Layne Morris, who was blinded in one eye, during the 2002 incident that led to Khadr’s imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay and the subsequent interrogation and torture.

Scheer said he finds it difficult to believe Trudeau cares about the money, calling it just a “rounding error” for the government, and accused of him of shifting around the Liberals’ defence of the payment in a bid to ease the public outcry.

“Nobody believes that Justin Trudeau is trying to save taxpayers’ money,” Scheer said.

“I do think that outrage that’s being expressed by Canadians is certainly more than what the Liberals were expecting. And I think it certainly shows that they are out of touch with Canadians on this one.”

Over the past week, more than 2,200 donors in both Canada and the United States have contributed $134,000 to Tabitha Speer and her two children, Taryn and Tanner, now in their mid- and late-teens.

The family, and blinded former U.S. soldier Sgt. Layne Morris, failed this week to freeze Khadr’s assets while they try to enforce a $134-million (U.S.) wrongful-death award against him from a Utah court.

Heike Pfuetzner, a retiree in Abbotsford, B.C., called it a “personal thing” to donate $15.

“I am disgusted with the government giving so much money to a convicted criminal,” Pfuetzner said. “I’m just really upset.”

Ottawa-based talk-radio host Brian Lilley, co-founder of right-wing Rebel Media, who started the fundraising campaign, said he shared the anger of many Canadians over the settlement and wanted to channel the outrage into something positive.

“It’s trying to show generosity out of a political situation,” Lilley said.

While most people tell him they’re are glad he started the fundraiser, he said, a small number have accused him of “grandstanding.”

Speer has not responded to requests to talk about the situation but in the past expressed appreciation for a similar fundraiser in 2012, when Khadr was returned from Guantanamo Bay to Canada to serve out his sentence. That campaign raised about $100,000 — with about half coming from the Edmonton-based South Alberta Light Horse Regiment.

The current campaign aims to raise $1 million over a month. Donors who give at least $2,500 will have their names engraved on a “solidarity” plaque that will be sent to Speer but most donated amounts range from $10 to $100. Lilley could not say how many donors were from the United States.

Georges Hallak, 47, a businessman in Montreal put up $25.

“It’s very simple: I find it unfair that (Prime Minister Justin) Trudeau is allowed to give money to a convicted terrorist . . . and (the widow of the) person that he killed - or supposedly what he was tried for - she’s getting nothing,” Hallak said.

Khadr, now 30, is on bail in Edmonton while he appeals his 2010 conviction for five war crimes before a widely discredited military commission in Guantanamo Bay.

He argues that the acts he is accused of committing as a 15-year-old in Afghanistan were not war crimes at the time. He says he pleaded guilty to throwing the grenade that killed Speer only as a way out of American captivity.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
While there are many things to criticize the PM and the government of the day about, saving $10-30 million on a lost case where CLEAR violations occurred and offering a meek apology (not for apprehending him as a terrorist, but for violating his charter rights) isn't one of them.

The thing is the case wasn't lost as it wasn't rulled on. Saying it is lost is purely conjecture.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
we DID violate this mans rights

"We" did not violate his rights to the tune of $10.5M.

It's nice that those involved in the veterans' class-action suit received a similarly-generous settlement and apology, at least.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/veterans-khadr-settlement-1.4206063

This is why many Canadian veterans are troubled over the Khadr settlement

For veterans fighting for their compensation, it's hard to watch the government hand over millions

By Sean Bruyea, for CBC News Posted: Jul 15, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jul 15, 2017 5:00 AM ET

Veterans' reactions are being unfairly dismissed as little more than conservative barking. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

When pressed about the issue on the Senate floor Thursday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he understood Canadians' "concerns" about the $10.5 million payout to Omar Khadr. "In fact," he added, "I share those concerns about the money; that's why we settled." But to the thousands of men and women who have served in Canada's military, their concerns go far beyond the simple dollar amount.

Many veterans and their families are not happy about the Khadr settlement - that much is obvious. But in the climate of vicious and partisan name-calling that seems to accompany all things Khadr, veterans' reactions are being unfairly dismissed as little more than conservative barking. (In fact, while the military and its veterans traditionally have been the natural constituents of the right, that largely changed during the last federal election.)

Fighting for benefits

At the core of the issue is benefits - specifically, the grueling adventure race veterans have to endure to plead for their parsimonious assistance. Certainly Khadr had to fight for years for justice. Veterans, likewise, often have to fight years - and often decades - to receive their benefits.

Khadr sued the Canadian government for mistreatment and violations of his rights. Veterans are barred from suing government for mistreatment when seeking benefits. What's more, veterans are limited to using the military's rotten veterans tribunal system, one that provides "free" lawyers employed by the very department from which veterans are trying to seek benefits.

Legal settlements in Canada do not fall under taxable income, therefore Khadr will pay no tax on his $10.5 million. But ever since Ottawa replaced lifetime pensions for wounded veterans with one-time lump sums, 95 per cent of the benefits received by severely injured veterans and their survivors is now taxable. The court case to return to lifelong pensions continues for its fifth year, even though Trudeau promised to end court cases against veterans and return to lifelong pensions.

To prove permanent disability, Canadian veterans must make humiliating annual declarations that they are still missing their legs, or that their minds and spirits continue to be devoured by the lingering trauma of war. Should the most injured attempt some part-time employment for a more meaningful life, the government deducts every dollar earned. Indeed, the government already deducts pension, CPP disability, OAS and GIS from veterans' benefits. Khadr, on the other hand, gets to keep every cent of his settlement.

What's more: the $10.5 million was made rather surreptitiously - the government hasn't actually even confirmed that amount, nor has it explained how the precise dollar figure was determined.

Because we don't know the details of the Khadr settlement, the reasons for the discrepancies are speculative. But for those who have devoted their lives to defending Canada and now fight to receive their deserved compensation, watching the Canadian government simply hand over $10.5 million to someone who allegedly fought against our ally is unsettling, to say the least.

Indeed, for all the government's rhetoric about sending signals about fairness and justice, out-of-court settlements have minimal effect upon future court decisions. And as for Trudeau's claim that "when governments fail to respect people's rights, we all end up paying," there is no indication that the bureaucrats who actually breached Khadr's rights according to the Supreme Court ended up paying anything. Instead, you and I are paying the price.
 
Among Trudeau's justifications for paying Khadr was the idea that it would have cost the government more to fight than to pay. But justice, fairness, openness and transparency about a government's actions should not be dependent on how much it costs to avoid paying a debt. Veterans are owed billions in lifetime pensions. Should we wait until Ottawa racks up a billion-dollar legal bill before settlement is possible?

When they see such comprehensive government action to try to right the wrongs done to Khadr, veterans and their fellow Canadians simply can't understand the gross discrepancy. Why are those willing to make the supreme sacrifice for our country so persistently left behind?
 
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10679/omar-khadr-settlement

Canada's Multi-Million-Dollar Pay-Out to a 'Foreign Terrorist Fighter'

by Ruthie Blum

July 15, 2017 at 5:00 am

- "Has any soldier who fought FOR Canada ever received as generous a reward as this soldier who fought against us?" — Canadian Senator Linda Frum.

- In 2003, Khadr confessed to throwing the grenade that killed U.S. Special Forces Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer and caused Sgt. 1st Class Layne Morris to lose an eye. Years later, he retracted his confession, claiming it had been extracted under duress. In fact, it was part of a plea deal that enabled him to be extradited to Canada to serve the rest of his sentence there.

- "There was a Canadian flag flying along with the American flag at our base there, so it's quite a thing that now Canada is giving millions to a guy who would attack a compound where Canadians were serving. I don't see this as anything but treason. As far as I am concerned, Prime Minister Trudeau should be charged." - Sgt. 1st Class Layne Morris, who lost an eye from the grenade thrown by Omar Khadr.

The government of Canada recently issued an official apology - and acknowledged awarding an "undisclosed" sum of money - to Toronto-born Islamist terrorist Omar Khadr for his "ordeal" at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and "any resulting harm" he was caused by the "torture" (specifically, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and threats) that led to his confession.

On July 7, Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Ralph Goodale released a statement announcing the "hope that this expression, and the negotiated settlement reached with the Government, will assist him in his efforts to begin a new and hopeful chapter in his life with his fellow Canadians."

The civil settlement was reached with Khadr, 30, who was 10 when his family returned to the Middle East, and 15 when he was arrested fighting in Afghanistan with al Qaeda and the Taliban, the terrorist organizations to which his father was affiliated -- on the basis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 2003, Khadr confessed to throwing the grenade that killed U.S. Special Forces Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer and caused Sgt. 1st Class Layne Morris to lose an eye. Years later, he retracted his confession, claiming it had been extracted under duress. In fact, it was part of a plea deal that enabled him to be extradited to Canada to serve the rest of his sentence there.

With news of the large settlement he received - 10,500,000 Canadian dollars (approximately USD $8,000,000) - he gave an extensive interview to CBC's Power & Politics host Rosemary Barton, in which he said he thinks that the apology from the Canadian government "restores a little bit my reputation here in Canada, and I think that's the biggest thing for me." He declined to comment on having just received multi-millions in tax-free dollars.

He also had the effrontery to say that he just wants "to be a normal person" and finish his nursing degree to help under-served communities. "I have a lot of experience with... and appreciation of pain," he explained, expressing only sorrow that the Speer and Morris families consider him responsible for their own pain.

Amid harsh criticism against the Liberal government by opposition Conservatives and members of the public outraged that their tax dollars are going to a convicted terrorist, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to reporters' questions on the matter during a press conference marking the July 8 close of G20 summit in Hamburg.

Trudeau said that the settlement had nothing to do with Khadr's 2002 actions on the battlefield in Afghanistan, but rather with the fact that his rights had been violated. This is precisely what the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in 2008 and 2010, after Khadr's lawyers sued for damages.
Trudeau added that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, "even when it is uncomfortable. When the government violates any Canadian's Charter rights, we all end up paying for it."

Meanwhile, Goodale tried to evade responsibility, by casting aspersions on the previous government, headed by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in power when Khadr was returned to Canada in 2012 to serve the remainder of his prison sentence for five counts of war crimes. Goodale accused Harper of having "refused to repatriate Mr. Khadr or otherwise resolve the matter."

In spite of the fact that Khadr was arrested and detained when Liberal governments were in power in Canada, Goodale was referring to appeals during Harper's tenure - which began in 2006 - by Canadian Liberal and human rights lawyers to "bring Omar Khadr home."

In 2008, former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler wrote:

"I join other scholars and associations of jurists in calling for Omar Khadr to be transferred into the custody of Canadian law enforcement officials, to be afforded due process under Canadian law, with prospects for appropriate rehabilitation and integration."

Cotler also stated,

"Admittedly, the Khadr family has emerged, as some have put it, as synonymous with terrorism. But, the test of the rule of law is not its application in the easy cases, but its retention in the unpopular ones... Omar Khadr, a child victim, should now be afforded the justice denied him all these years, however unpopular and unpalatable his case may appear to be."

In response to Goodale's implication that had it not been for the previous government, the current one would not have been forced to apologize to and pay Khadr, Harper immediately took to social media, writing:

The government today attempted to lay blame elsewhere for their decision to conclude a secret deal with Omar Khadr. 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.

Canadian Senator Linda Frum railed against the settlement, tweeting: "Has any soldier who fought FOR Canada ever received as generous a reward as this soldier who fought against us?"

Given Khadr's family history, Frum's fury is justified.

As the New York Post reported, Khadr is the son of a Palestinian mother and an Egyptian father (Ahmed Khadr), who had strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and became one of Osama bin Laden's loyal lieutenants. After 9/11, Ahmed Khadr was placed on the FBI's most-wanted list in relations to the attacks. He was arrested in Pakistan in 1995 on suspicion of financing the suicide bombing at the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, in which 16 people were killed. Protesting his innocence, he went on a hunger strike, and the Canadian government, then headed by Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, rallied behind him.

While on a trade mission to Pakistan, Chrétien appealed to Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and a few months later, Ahmed was released from prison and sent back with his family to Toronto. However, according to the New York Post, the Khadr clan soon returned to Pakistan, where Ahmed Khadr resumed his connections with al Qaeda and the Taliban. Young Omar Khadr not only met with the leaders of these terrorist groups, but lived with his parents and siblings in the bin Laden family compound, attending al Qaeda training camps, which his father - who was killed in 2003 - partly funded.

The report continued:

"A month before he joined an al Qaeda cell in 2002, Omar was sent by his father for private instruction in explosives and combat... [where he] learned to launch rocket-propelled grenades and became skilled at planting improvised explosive devices that were used to blow up US armored vehicles in Afghanistan."

In his interrogation about the incident that led to his arrest and subsequent incarceration at Guantanamo, Omar Khadr said he had been on a suicide mission "to kill as many Americans as possible."

This did not prevent the U.S. military from flying an ophthalmologist to the Bagram Air Base - where was being treated for wounds he sustained while fighting American and Canadian soldiers - to save his eyes and keep him from going blind.

Nor did it cause Omar to experience gratitude on the one hand, or remorse on the other. On the contrary, as military court documents revealed, when he was informed that Speer had died, he said he "felt happy" for having murdered an American. He also said that whenever he remembered killing Speer, it would make him "feel good."

According to a report in the Globe and Mail, the Toronto lawyer representing Morris and Tabitha Speer - who won a default judgment in 2015 in the U.S. against Omar for $134 million - began proceedings to contest the Canadian government's settlement and prevent it from going forward.

It is clearly too late for that; the money has already been transferred to Omar. Furthermore, the transaction was done swiftly and "quietly," to make legal action by taxpayers in Canada or the Morris and Speer families in America virtually impossible.

Morris is understandably angry and hurt. "The fact is Chris Speer and myself were fighting with Canadians in Afghanistan," he said.
"We were alongside the PPCLI (Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry). There was a Canadian flag flying along with the American flag at our base there, so it's quite a thing that now Canada is giving millions to a guy who would attack a compound where Canadians were serving. I don't see this as anything but treason... As far as I am concerned, Prime Minister Trudeau should be charged."

Thus far, the administration in Washington has remained silent on Khadr pay-out, which came to light during the weekend of the G20 summit in Germany, where U.S. President Donald Trump heaped praise on his Canadian counterpart.

Trump even opened his speech at a World Bank event to promote and finance women entrepreneurs in developing countries by declaring: "We have a great neighbor in Canada and Justin [Trudeau] is doing a spectacular job... Everybody loves him, and they love him for a reason..."
This assertion, given the information that has since emerged about Khadr case, was unfortunate. Far more ironic under the circumstances, however, was the "Statement on Countering Terrorism," signed by the leaders of the G20.

Its 21 clauses include a commitment to "address the evolving threat of returning foreign terrorist fighters ... from conflict zones such as Iraq and Syria and remain committed to preventing [them] from establishing a foothold in other countries and regions around the world," and to "facilitate swift and targeted exchanges of information between intelligence and law enforcement and judicial authorities... [to] ensure that terrorists are brought to justice."

Such words are empty without actions to back them up. Omar Khadr is a classic example of a "foreign terrorist fighter." Yet the Canadian legal system categorized him - in Cotler's words - as a "child victim, [who] should... be afforded the justice denied him all these years."

It is bad enough to describe a teenager who set out to "kill as many Americans as possible" in this way. It is far worse that he is a free - and still very young - man, paid not only respect by the government whose values he was raised to abhor, but millions of dollars, to boot. If anything serves to encourage other terrorists to leave North America and Europe to fight in the Middle East, it is stories such as this one.

The Trump administration must call Trudeau to task for this perversion, and offer an immediate and very public apology to Khadr's American victims, who did not receive a penny for their patriotic sacrifice.

Ruthie Blum is the author of "To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the 'Arab Spring.'"
 
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-trudeau-must-explain-how-khadr-payout-was-ever-the-honourable-option/wcm/4b10bfa6-0e42-407e-9fa8-edff40b9e073

Rex Murphy: Trudeau must explain how Khadr payout was ever the honourable option

Canadian soldiers, especially those wounded in Afghanistan, must be asking which of them has been so distinguished with a cash bonanza for doing the right thing by their country?

July 14, 2017
11:44 AM EDT
Last Updated
July 14, 2017
7:16 PM EDT

The Khadr stew still simmers.

“The measure of a just society is not whether we stand up for people’s rights when it’s easy or popular to do so, it’s whether we recognize rights when it’s difficult, when it’s unpopular.” That was Justin Trudeau’s initial public response last week in Ireland. The settlement was primarily a matter of national honour.
  
Well, if the settlement - amount and apology - is really a case of doing the honourable and virtuous thing, regardless of public sentiment, why has the Prime Minister not highlighted the decision, boldly stood up and clearly stated the thinking behind the government’s actions?

Instead, the Khadr settlement reached Canadian ears, as I wrote earlier, by a leak between our Canada Day celebrations and Trudeau’s trip out of the country. A time chosen for least impact and greatest distraction.

Honour doesn’t hide or speak from behind a curtain. If our “just society” is proud of doing the right thing when “it’s difficult,” why hasn’t the Prime Minister, on so central a subject, dedicated one specific appearance to explaining it?

This week, back on Canadian soil, the rationale has shifted. Trudeau, again:

“If we had continued to fight this, not only would we have inevitably lost, but estimates range from $30-40 million that it would have ended up costing the government.”

Last week, it was national honour at stake. This week, it’s expediency. We settled not for virtue’s sake but for the money. Honour and expediency are not twins, however much the latter likes to dress as the former.

Last week, it was national honour at stake. This week, it's expediency. The decision is now presented as an inevitability

This week, the decision is presented as an inevitability. “Had we continued to fight” we would have “inevitably lost.” A very strange statement for a civil action, any court action.

No court case has an inevitable outcome. Inevitable outcomes would obviate the need for courts in the first place. God forbid, and let the heavens fall, we wouldn’t need lawyers either.  

That which is “inevitable” invites no considerations of either the Charter or honour. Fate rules all. This week’s comments explode last week’s rationale.

Trudeau’s performance to date suggests a politician auditioning his responses, trying to find the one to match the country’s mood, rather more than a person convinced of his own choices.

It also suggests he doesn’t know why the public is angry. There are three “actors” in the Khadr story. In order of influence and importance, they are: (a) his family, (b) the Americans, and (c) the Canadian government.

By far the main reason Khadr was in Afghanistan, in the firefight, and for that matter in Guantanamo, was (a) his own family, father, mother and sister. It was his father, Osama bin Laden’s friend, that made him the child soldier. He wasn’t kidnapped in some civil war as are the majority of these unfortunates. He was designed by his own parent to be such. That’s a distinguishing feature of this case.

The Americans, our allies, had him in Guantanamo, and by their lights very rightly. He killed one of their soldiers, a medic; they saved him and fixed his eyes. And, however long he was there, they consented to his repatriation.

So people are wondering, why is the Canadian government, the least responsible party, the one making the huge cash settlement and public apologies?

Then there’s us, the Canadians, last on the scale. So people are wondering, of this trinity of causes, why is the Canadian government, the least responsible of the three, the one making the huge cash settlement and public apologies? They are further enflamed when they ask, very legitimately: was release from Guantanamo, repatriation, full return of citizenship and escape from all penalty, and a cleansing apology, not “reparation” enough?

And finally, not to avoid a matter that should not be avoided, Canadian soldiers, especially those wounded in Afghanistan from IEDs, must be asking which of them has been so distinguished with a cash bonanza for doing the right thing by their country? Why someone, who at the very least, regardless of his “child soldier” status, killed an allied solider, and possibly was complicit in the wounding of Canadian soldiers, receives Prime Ministerial absolution and a vast cash reward.

They sense a drastic incompatibility between the treatment many of them have received and Khadr’s situation. This is the greatest gap in the government’s explanation so far.

These are some of the reasons why people are angry. The Prime Minister has not addressed these questions. If it’s all about honour and how a just society acts, he will. 
 
Loachman said:
"We" did not violate his rights to the tune of $10.5M.

It's nice that those involved in the veterans' class-action suit received a similarly-generous settlement and apology, at least.

I fail to see how his "rights" were violated.

According to the Charter:

"Proceedings in criminal and penal matters...
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;"

The second problem - Was Khadr a "child soldier"?

I don't believe he was contrary to Roméo Dallaire's  :'(

INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE STANDARDS
The Rome Statute criminalizes the conscription, enlistment or use in active hostilities of child soldiers
under the age of fifteen years, both in international and non-international armed conflicts. [Article
8(2)(b)(xxvi), (e)(vii)]

My two cents
 
Back
Top