Mark H.

Some impressive coverage - best example was the one by Randall that Trestman challenged.

Huge props to the OL tonight - truly the heart of this team

Defense was great tonight. That TD came on special teams so they only gave up 18 points. Good pressure on Ray and some nice coverage from the DBs, Randall & Heath in particular.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in his favour twice, based on what you refer to as 'catch phrases.' Sorry, but I don't see how that can be considered to be open-minded. It's a mess, the optics aren't good, but you have to at least respect legal rulings.

Employers like vegetable growers and slaughter houses would have to pay oil patch type wages without immigrant labour. Slaughter houses used to do this before Maple Leaf took over most of the industry.

Settlements aren't for winner or losers - they are for people ready and willing to move on. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-legal-analysis-aaron-wherry-1.4199409

https://thewalrus.ca/omar-khadr-and-the-shame-of-the-canadian-press/

This article provides a summary of the events from 2008 - 2015 - make of them what you will. I have experience with law, and based on the precedence of previous rulings, I think the out of court settlement was a wise move. But hey, you don't have to agree with me. At any rate, I'm moving on... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/omar-khadr-youth-or-adult-question-decided-by-top-court/article24421830/ One week after a judge set him free, former teen terrorist Omar Khadr has won yet another legal battle with the Conservative government, after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that he was sentenced as a juvenile, not an adult. While the ruling doesn’t affect the 28-year-old’s freedom, it means that if he is returned to jail, it would be to a provincial reformatory, rather than a federal prison. But the symbolism looms larger than the practical effects. The Canadian government was intent on demonstrating, as it has since the United States military captured Mr. Khadr on an Afghan battlefield when he was 15, and accused him of throwing a grenade that killed a soldier, that it believes he should be punished as severely as the law allows. And the Supreme Court said that the law is much less severe than the federal government thinks it is. Adding insult, it needed only a few minutes after the hearing ended to deliver its unanimous ruling from the bench. Most rulings come several weeks after a case is heard. “They’re saying, ‘That’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?’” Wayne MacKay, a law professor at Dalhousie University, said of court rulings made during or immediately after a hearing. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said it was a straightforward matter: A U.S. military commission sentenced Mr. Khadr to eight years in prison for the war crime of murder, and the mandatory adult penalty for murder in Canada is life. Therefore it had to be a juvenile penalty. The Canadian government argued that Mr. Khadr had received five concurrent penalties of eight years for murder and other charges. The judges expressed bafflement at the argument. “We can’t slice and dice the eight years,” said Justice Marshall Rothstein, a conservative member of the court. It was the third time the Toronto-born Mr. Khadr got his name on a Supreme Court ruling – which tied Henry Morgentaler for the most Supreme Court appeals. In 2008, Mr. Khadr defeated the Canadian government at the Supreme Court. It ruled unanimously that the government had to disclose all records of interviews conducted by Canadian officials with him, and information given to U.S. authorities. He was being held by the U.S. government at its prison for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In 2010, the court ruled partly in the government’s favour and partly in Mr. Khadr’s. It said unanimously that Canadian interrogations of Mr. Khadr, in the absence of counsel, after he had suffered three weeks of sleep deprivation while in U.S. custody, “offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.” But the court also said it could not force the government to ask the U.S. to send him home to Canada. Last week, an Alberta Court of Appeal judge rejected a last-ditch attempt by the federal government to deny Mr. Khadr bail while he awaits an appeal of his U.S. convictions. A U.S. military commission found him guilty in 2010 of the war crime of murder and several other charges. The government argued freeing him would irreparably harm relations with the U.S., but Justice Myra Bielby said it had provided no evidence of that from U.S. authorities. Pollster Nik Nanos said the string of losses for the Conservative government may simply reinforce Canadians’ feelings on the issue, no matter where they stand. “I don’t think the Conservatives consider this a significant defeat,” he said in an interview. “What the Conservatives want to convey is that they are tough on terror.” He said that, while he has not done polling on attitudes toward Omar Khadr, “Canadians support a fairly hard line against anyone perceived to be engaged in promoting terror.” Mr. Khadr’s lawyer, Dennis Edney, accused the government after the ruling of persecuting his client to make a political point. The Alberta Court of Appeal had said that the government’s implicit position was that eight years was too soft a sentence for Mr. Khadr’s crimes. Mr. Edney told reporters that Mr. Khadr is enjoying his first few days of freedom. “He has been embraced by the community, he has a new bike. He is happy to be out. It will be a slow journey.” With a report from Colin Freeze in Ottawa

Not at all. Given the charter rights that were breached, I think he would've been awarded more than $10 million. And the government would more than likely have been on the hook for his legal expenses.

I think I've explained often enough why I wrote what I did.

Almost all civil cases are settled out of court.

There would have no award without the issue first being appealed in court. The government made an out of court settlement instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's final judgement.

In any legal discussion, there are certain things we should be able to assume are part of the discussion. 1. The basics of how the courts function, such as the out of court settlement the government made with Khadr, in lieu of waiting for the Supreme Court decision. 2. The facts surrounding certain evidence and how it works- example: sleep deprivation used as torture 3. The concept of a guilty mind vs. the prohibited act and how they must be viewed together. Example: viewing Khadr's past as child soldier as being connected to the prohibited act he committed. 4. The laws concerning young offenders in Canada, including the fact that young offenders are only rarely tried in adult court.

Fair enough, clarity appreciated.

The fact that he did it and the fact that he was a child soldier - those two things are not mutually exclusive - they must be viewed together. It doesn't matter whether or not you said it, it was part of Nutt said, and it is the context in which she said 'he did it.' And no, I'm not moving goal posts, those are the goal posts.

1. I've already clarified the out of court settlement - which should have been obvious enough but somehow required another half dozen posts. 2. It doesn't make sense to keep saying he wasn't tortured, there is enough evidence that proves he was. The Supreme Court doesn't accept appeals for which there are no legal grounds. 3. I'm not cherry - picking. The court made the decision, not the government. It's this Canadian thing called division of powers. 4. In Canada, young offenders are rarely tried as adults, even though it's possible. This a fact that has nothing to do with cherries. 5. Sleep deprivation has already been clarified.

Of course they didn't, it was an out of court settlement. The government could either settle with Khadr now or accept whatever ruling Supreme Court made later. The vast majority of civil cases end this way.

It was a Supreme Court ruling. No matter how many times you say it's not or how many shades of grey you try to introduce - it's still going to be a Supreme Court ruling.

Jeremiah Johnson

All these posts people are putting out there blaming Justin Trudeau for this settlement need to know some facts: -Omar was a child when this incident occurred. He was a a child when he was sent to Guantanamo Bay where he was tortured. If you think it is ok to torture people, even children, without consequence I see a huge issue with that. -he is also a Canadian citizen. His rights as a citizen were violated. The Canadian government turned their back on him and knew he was being tortured. Not Justin Trudeau but prime ministers like Harper. -his confession was obtained though torture. He was finally given an ultimatum: confess and be transferred to a Canadian prison with more humane conditions or maintain innocence and spend the rest of his life in Guantanamo Bay possibly being tortured. He, himself has said he has no memory of the event. He may have thrown the grenade, he may not have. He just happened to be the only person who survived in that house. A house he was left at as a minor. He was blamed. There is no concrete evidence. If there was he would have spent the rest of his life in a Canadian prison after a fair trial. He didn't get a trial at all. -Justin Trudeau didn't offer him money. It's not a decision he makes, despite how badly conservatives want to blame him for this. His settlement was decided upon by the Supreme Court, which Trudeau does not control. It's called separation of powers. It's the same court that would rule a payment to you if the government had violated your charter rights. The fact is you are mad that a minor, a child, a Canadian citizen may be guilty of something or may not be and was tortured, again as a child, and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled this was wrong and mandated the government pay him. Finally, since he was released from prison he has been a model law abiding citizen. A university student.

The same amount of mental gymnastics are being used to make it appear cut and dried.

The Supreme Court made the decision and awarded the money, not the PM.

Do not sully such prose with a translation

You need to crack the first beer while barbecuing - that is all