Omar Khadr cashes in

[The Unknown Poster]

A civil case between two individuals or an individual and a corporation is very different.  This involves the taxpayers.  One could argue the government had the duty to minimize the damages by settling.  But one could also argue they had a duty to see it through and fight for a victory.  And of course, they could have stalled in an attempt to let the widow try to have her US judgement certified in Canada so she's get the money.

The government made the decision to MAKE SURE a convicted terrorist got paid and they made sure a widow of a murder victim had no chance at the money.  What's next, will they hide some of OJ's assets too?

[Atomic]

1 minute ago, Mark H. said:

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. 

Maybe, maybe not.  That's an assumption but it's not necessarily correct.  I'd rather the government kept fighting and did it the right way rather than capitulating and doing a shady deal in secrecy.

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Wasn't the appeal by the feds in 2008 easily shot down by the SCoC? Seems like it would've been a losing battle to keep trying to appeal, not to mention prohibitively costly.

I believe the incurred costs thus far were relatively minimal.  It doesnt change the secretive nature or the decision by this government that this was the right thing to do.  We shouldnt make excuses here.  The Liberal government wanted this outcome.  Its not like they were dragged kicking and screaming.  

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Atomic said:

Maybe, maybe not.  That's an assumption but it's not necessarily correct.  I'd rather the government kept fighting and did it the right way rather than capitulating and doing a shady deal in secrecy.

Also, Im not sure if the Court would have (or could have) weighed the actions of the criminal.  But they had already decided it was none of their business how Canada ran its foreign policy and had no opinion on whether Khadr should be repatriated.  Its possible they'd have found in favour of Khadr and awarded him nothing.

[kelownabomberfan]

This is a tweet from a Liberal MP trying to justify the secret payment to Omar the Terrorist.  He seems to think that Khadr is from Afghanistan?  If that's so Ken, then why doesn't Afghanistan pay him $10.5 million? This is how seriously deluded some of these people are, to call Afghanistan "his" country.  And the US was not "invading" either, they were invited in to help out the Afghan government fight the Taliban, who everyone seems to forget, are some really really bad dudes. 

[blue_gold_84]

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

I believe the incurred costs thus far were relatively minimal.  It doesnt change the secretive nature or the decision by this government that this was the right thing to do.  We shouldnt make excuses here.  The Liberal government wanted this outcome.  Its not like they were dragged kicking and screaming.  

Nobody's making excuses, so do us all a favour and spare comments like that. It isn't unreasonable to surmise a case such as this would've been in court for years and cost a significant sum of money (either as much as the settlement was or higher). That entire sum would be on the gov't to pay. In other words, on the taxpayer.

You sure seem to know more than most regarding the federal governments' intentions and motivations here. What's your source? Or are you just speculating?

[Atomic]

Just now, blue_gold_84 said:

Nobody's making excuses, so do us all a favour and spare comments like that. It isn't unreasonable to surmise a case such as this would've been in court for years and cost a significant sum of money (either as much as the settlement was or higher). That entire sum would be on the gov't to pay. In other words, on the taxpayer.

You sure seem to know more than most regarding the federal governments' intentions and motivations here. What's your source? Or are you just speculating?

IMO this is bigger than just dollars and cents cost to the taxpayer.  There are important principles here and precedents being set.  If the government fights and loses, so be it.  But at least they're going through the appropriate channels and standing up for what's right.  Again, in my opinion.

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Nobody's making excuses, so do us all a favour and spare comments like that. It isn't unreasonable to surmise a case such as this would've been in court for years and cost a significant sum of money (either as much as the settlement was or higher). That entire sum would be on the gov't to pay. In other words, on the taxpayer.

You sure seem to know more than most regarding the federal governments' intentions and motivations here. What's your source? Or are you just speculating?

Nah, Ill make comments I feel are appropriate, thank you.  Where do you get the impression I have a government source?  Is my opinion or speculation less relevant than yours (or do you think its more relevant?)  

[kelownabomberfan]

[blue_gold_84]

Just now, Atomic said:

IMO this is bigger than just dollars and cents cost to the taxpayer.  There are important principles here and precedents being set.  If the government fights and loses, so be it.  But at least they're going through the appropriate channels and standing up for what's right.  Again, in my opinion.

It's always about the money, though. The public purse is at the forefront of all government dealings these days, and this particular situation is no exception.

The fact is this: a settlement or a lengthy court battle both cost a hefty sum of public money. What principles or precedents set with the settlement differ from the latter option, especially when there's a good chance it would cost much more for the taxpayer? The SCoC ruled unanimously Khadr's basic human rights were violated. What would a second appeal have accomplished in a case involving a person's Canadian Charter Rights being violated?

I don't agree at all with paying him a settlement - he doesn't deserve a plugged nickel as far I'm concerned. I also don't agree with the notion of potentially wasting even more money in a years-long court battle at the Supreme Court level, either. It's like being stuck between a rock and hard place. You're hooped either way and sadly, the "solution" is to throw money at the problem and expect it to go away.

 

[Mark H.]

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

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, blue_gold_84 said:

It's always about the money, though. The public purse is at the forefront of all government dealings these days, and this particular situation is no exception.

The fact is this: a settlement or a lengthy court battle both cost a hefty sum of public money. What principles or precedents set with the settlement differ from the latter option, especially when there's a good chance it would cost much more for the taxpayer? The SCoC ruled unanimously Khadr's basic human rights were violated. What would a second appeal have accomplished in a case involving a person's Canadian Charter Rights being violated?

I don't agree at all with paying him a settlement - he doesn't deserve a plugged nickel as far I'm concerned. I also don't agree with the notion of potentially wasting even more money in a years-long court battle at the Supreme Court level, either. It's like being stuck between a rock and hard place. You're hooped either way and sadly, the "solution" is to throw money at the problem and expect it to go away.

 

The disagreement is that many feel Canada's obligation was to repatriate him, not make him a millionaire.  If you feel it was in the nation's interest to pay him, secretly and quickly, that's your opinion.  Others disagree.  Im not sure we'll come to an agreement on that.  He is a convicted murderer.  I'd applaud the government if they had fought til the end, lost and begrudgingly paid whatever the court said they owed.  Are we going to argue over a few million?  It wouldnt make a lick of difference to taxpayers' bottom line in the big picture.

Plus, if they had fought and the widow was able to enforce her lawful judgement and seize the money, wouldn't that have been a win-win? (or a lose-win in the case of Canada losing a judgement).

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

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

I believe that specific ruling was appealed and the Liberals withdrew it.  Chances are, the government would have lost, but again, the government chose not to fight it, or more accurately the Liberal government chose not to whereas the previous government did.

 

[blue_gold_84]

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

The disagreement is that many feel Canada's obligation was to repatriate him, not make him a millionaire.  If you feel it was in the nation's interest to pay him, secretly and quickly, that's your opinion.  Others disagree.  Im not sure we'll come to an agreement on that.  He is a convicted murderer.  I'd applaud the government if they had fought til the end, lost and begrudgingly paid whatever the court said they owed.  Are we going to argue over a few million?  It wouldnt make a lick of difference to taxpayers' bottom line in the big picture.

Plus, if they had fought and the widow was able to enforce her lawful judgement and seize the money, wouldn't that have been a win-win? (or a lose-win in the case of Canada losing a judgement).

You seem to be missing the part where Khadr filed a $20M lawsuit against the GoC in 2013, roughly double the settlement he was given.

Factor that amount with the legal costs and it seems pretty reasonable to conclude a lengthy court battle would've been considerably more expensive for the taxpayer than the $10.5M settlement.

What good is there in fighting a losing battle at the Supreme Court level, anyway? The federal gov't has egg on its face all the same.

[kelownabomberfan]

4 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

The disagreement is that many feel Canada's obligation was to repatriate him, not make him a millionaire.  

Sounds like Andrew Scheer and you think alike.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, blue_gold_84 said:

You seem to be missing the part where Khadr filed a $20M lawsuit against the GoC in 2013, roughly double the settlement he was given.

Factor that amount with the legal costs and it seems pretty reasonable to conclude a lengthy court battle would've been considerably more expensive for the taxpayer than the $10.5M settlement.

What good is there in fighting a losing battle at the Supreme Court level, anyway? The federal gov't has egg on its face all the same.

What if the government had won?  Or the court lowered the amount?  You're basing your position of an outcome that cannot be known.  We can say "likely" all we want.  But the government chose to give up.  That might have been the advice they were given legally.  But they still didn't need to do it.  And they certainly didnt need to keep it hush hush if it was such a right thing to do.

[The Unknown Poster]

2 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Sounds like Andrew Scheer and you think alike.

 

I dont feel like that is a compliment ;-)

EDIT: But he's not wrong.  He sums up how many Canadians feel.  The Supreme Court ruled and the previous government accepted that ruling.  

Edited July 11, 2017 by The Unknown Poster

[Atomic]

I tire of this argument.  My beliefs are that:

1. Omar Khadr was screwed by his family and they are the real villains in this ordeal.
2. Omar Khadr did not deserve to be held in Guantanamo Bay.
3. Omar Khadr should have been brought back to Canada.
4. Omar Khadr should have been allowed to walk free if it was determined he was not a risk to the Canadian public.
5. Omar Khadr should never have received a rich settlement nor an apology.  He should have been given exactly that which is given to new refugees by the Canadian government and allowed to integrate into society as a new refugee would.
6. Paying a large settlement, under cover of secrecy and outside the rule of law, to a former terrorist (whether as a child or not) is the height of absurdity and a black mark on this government.

And that's all I will say, and no one will change my mind on any of these six points.  I think many people feel the same way I do.

[kelownabomberfan]

1 minute ago, blue_gold_84 said:

You seem to be missing the part where Khadr filed a $20M lawsuit against the GoC in 2013, roughly double the settlement he was given.

Factor that amount with the legal costs and it seems pretty reasonable to conclude a lengthy court battle would've been considerably more expensive for the taxpayer than the $10.5M settlement.

What good is there in fighting a losing battle at the Supreme Court level, anyway? The federal gov't has egg on its face all the same.

What about the option of charging Khadr with treason?  He fought on behalf of an evil terrorist organization and killed a US solder, an ally of the Canadian forces.  If Khadr had been a US citizen and had killed a Canadian medic, would we be happy if he got $10.5 million from the US government, secretly, on Canada day, and deliberately paid in this manner to screw over the widow of the Canadian solder?  Of course not, and if that happened, you guys would be screaming about Trump and what a giant **** he is.

[kelownabomberfan]

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I dont feel like that is a compliment ;-)

it was meant that way.

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, kelownabomberfan said:

What about the option of charging Khadr with treason?  He fought on behalf of an evil terrorist organization and killed a US solder, an ally of the Canadian forces.  If Khadr had been a US citizen and had killed a Canadian medic, would we be happy if he got $10.5 million from the US government, secretly, on Canada day, and deliberately paid in this manner to screw over the widow of the Canadian solder?  Of course not, and if that happened, you guys would be screaming about Trump and what a giant **** he is.

Another great point that hasnt been talked about.  He finished his sentence in Canada but were there no charges he could have been subject to here?

If I join ISIS and then come back, do I get a welcome home party or criminal charges?  There should be consequences.

Khadr did the crime, did the time.  He won his case when he was brought back to Canada and worked his way through the corrections system (going fro Maximum to medium security and eventually released).  The government chose to pay him and apologize (like above all, what the heck was up with the apology?)

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I tire of this argument.  My beliefs are that:

1. Omar Khadr was screwed by his family and they are the real villains in this ordeal.
2. Omar Khadr did not deserve to be held in Guantanamo Bay.
3. Omar Khadr should have been brought back to Canada.
4. Omar Khadr should have been allowed to walk free if it was determined he was not a risk to the Canadian public.
5. Omar Khadr should never have received a rich settlement nor an apology.  He should have been given exactly that which is given to new refugees by the Canadian government and allowed to integrate into society as a new refugee would.
6. Paying a large settlement, under cover of secrecy and outside the rule of law, to a former terrorist (whether as a child or not) is the height of absurdity and a black mark on this government.

And that's all I will say, and no one will change my mind on any of these six points.  I think many people feel the same way I do.

I agree other than about treating him like a refugee.  He was a Canadian citizen.  Should have been brought back, tried and, if convicted, sent to prison.

[blue_gold_84]

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

What if the government had won?  Or the court lowered the amount?  You're basing your position of an outcome that cannot be known.  We can say "likely" all we want.  But the government chose to give up.  That might have been the advice they were given legally.  But they still didn't need to do it.  And they certainly didnt need to keep it hush hush if it was such a right thing to do.

Do you seriously think the gov't would've had a chance at getting the SCoC to rule in its rule when it had previously ruled unanimously the plaintiff's basic human rights had been violated? The previous gov't appealed the decision and it was shot down, also unanimously.

I have absolutely no idea where you think the defendant (GoC) had a snowball's chance in hell in winning under such circumstances, much less that the settlement could've been reduced from the initial $20M.

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Do you seriously think the gov't would've had a chance at getting the SCoC to rule in its rule when it had previously ruled unanimously the plaintiff's basic human rights had been violated? The previous gov't appealed the decision and it was shot down, also unanimously.

I have absolutely no idea where you think the defendant (GoC) had a snowball's chance in hell in winning under such circumstances, much less that the settlement could've been reduced from the initial $20M.

What are this week's lottery numbers?

[blue_gold_84]

7 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

What about the option of charging Khadr with treason?  He fought on behalf of an evil terrorist organization and killed a US solder, an ally of the Canadian forces.  If Khadr had been a US citizen and had killed a Canadian medic, would we be happy if he got $10.5 million from the US government, secretly, on Canada day, and deliberately paid in this manner to screw over the widow of the Canadian solder?  Of course not, and if that happened, you guys would be screaming about Trump and what a giant **** he is.

What part of a unanimous ruling by the SCoC are you not understanding? That ruling is why he received the payout.

And way to make childish assumptions. Who's "you guys," anyway? I'm shocked you didn't label me a SJW again, albeit erroneously.

Edited July 11, 2017 by blue_gold_84