FWIS3

Reports are the fed gov't will shortly hold a press conference announcing a formal apology to Omar Khadr and a $10.5 m payment has been made, settling his lawsuit against the federal gov't.

Khadr spent 10 yrs in gitmo. Arrested on the field in Afghanistan. A grenade thrown killed one U.S. serviceman and a medic was blinded in the same firefight. He was 15y.o. at the time of arrest. A Can. S.C. decision ruled his constitutional rights had been violated, while being held at gitmo. The widow of the serviceman (Spears) killed was to file an injunction to stop the payment, get a split, as no payments have been made from a US decision ($134m ).

I just don't know what to say. This seems so wrong that the payment and apology will be made.

I don't pretend to understand the legal precedents they followed. He was a minor (age 15) when he was captured. He apparently threw the grenade that killed a U.S. service member. The military treated him as an adult enemy combatant. I am supposing that Canada's courts feel that he should have been treated as a minor with full civil rights accorded any other citizen. I am speculating that they felt he was under the influence of his father who was radicalized and took the boy to Afghanistan.

My opinion is colored by far too many years in the military. The moment he threw the grenade he forfeited the right to be treated as a minor, or a civilian non-combatant, and IMO he lost the right to claim civil rights protections he was trying so hard to repudiate.

Getting paid to kill US soldiers. Fuck this shit.

The gov't line is, CSIS and Cdn officials who interviewed him at Gitmo, understood the treatment he was getting at Gitmo, but still shared info from their interviews with US officials at Gitmo. It was at this time that his constitutional rights were violated as canadian officials did not do their job properly. That is what the Supreme Court decisions are based on, not what happened before.

It was on the SC rulings that Khadr was suing the gov't for $20 m, according to the press conference, yesterday, the gov't has already spent $5 m on court costs and feels they may well have lost in court, based on the previous SC rulings. Many up here are upset with the decision made by the gov't. They announce it after Parliament had risen for the Summer, Trudeau is at G20 and the info came out over leaks to the press, earlier this week (not sure if from gov't sources or Khadr's team) that this was in the works. The payment was made on Wednesday, no official confirmation by either side on the amount, stating bound to an agreement. The sum will be made public later in the year, when the record of public accounts gets released. The SC decision left it to the gov't to "remedy" what had happened to Khadr. No mention that it had to be cash. No idea how the sum was arrived at. It leaves a bad taste in many mouths, up here.

ETA: There are politics being played with the issue, as well. Liberals basically stated that the SC decisions came down while Harper was in power, it is the Conservatives' fault. The Conservatives point out, the interviews at Gitmo happened while previous Liberal gov'ts were in power.

SciFiFisher wrote:I don't pretend to understand the legal precedents they followed. He was a minor (age 15) when he was captured. He apparently threw the grenade that killed a U.S. service member. The military treated him as an adult enemy combatant. I am supposing that Canada's courts feel that he should have been treated as a minor with full civil rights accorded any other citizen. I am speculating that they felt he was under the influence of his father who was radicalized and took the boy to Afghanistan.

My opinion is colored by far too many years in the military. The moment he threw the grenade he forfeited the right to be treated as a minor, or a civilian non-combatant, and IMO he lost the right to claim civil rights protections he was trying so hard to repudiate.

Funny thing, international law actually only defines child soldiers as children under 15, and 15 and over you don't get classified as such. So Canada can do what they want, but international law agrees with your assessment.

Rommie wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:I don't pretend to understand the legal precedents they followed. He was a minor (age 15) when he was captured. He apparently threw the grenade that killed a U.S. service member. The military treated him as an adult enemy combatant. I am supposing that Canada's courts feel that he should have been treated as a minor with full civil rights accorded any other citizen. I am speculating that they felt he was under the influence of his father who was radicalized and took the boy to Afghanistan.

My opinion is colored by far too many years in the military. The moment he threw the grenade he forfeited the right to be treated as a minor, or a civilian non-combatant, and IMO he lost the right to claim civil rights protections he was trying so hard to repudiate.

Funny thing, international law actually only defines child soldiers as children under 15, and 15 and over you don't get classified as such. So Canada can do what they want, but international law agrees with your assessment.

I disagree. International law is slippery and often contradictory but I believe prevailing international law prohibits using children 15 or younger as a soldier but defines a child as someone younger than 18.

geonuc wrote:

Rommie wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:I don't pretend to understand the legal precedents they followed. He was a minor (age 15) when he was captured. He apparently threw the grenade that killed a U.S. service member. The military treated him as an adult enemy combatant. I am supposing that Canada's courts feel that he should have been treated as a minor with full civil rights accorded any other citizen. I am speculating that they felt he was under the influence of his father who was radicalized and took the boy to Afghanistan.

My opinion is colored by far too many years in the military. The moment he threw the grenade he forfeited the right to be treated as a minor, or a civilian non-combatant, and IMO he lost the right to claim civil rights protections he was trying so hard to repudiate.

Funny thing, international law actually only defines child soldiers as children under 15, and 15 and over you don't get classified as such. So Canada can do what they want, but international law agrees with your assessment.

I disagree. International law is slippery and often contradictory but I believe prevailing international law prohibits using children 15 or younger as a soldier but defines a child as someone younger than 18.

In my humble opinion: You sound like a lawyer!

Does international law allow for treating someone under 18 as an enemy combatant? And trying them in military courts as such?

Parrothead wrote:The gov't line is, CSIS and Cdn officials who interviewed him at Gitmo, understood the treatment he was getting at Gitmo, but still shared info from their interviews with US officials at Gitmo. It was at this time that his constitutional rights were violated as canadian officials did not do their job properly. That is what the Supreme Court decisions are based on, not what happened before.

ah yes. Essentially, they are saying that because he was being water boarded ( I assume this is part of the violation of his civil rights) and "tortured" at Gitmo the Canadian officials had a duty to protect him as a citizen of Canada. And because they shared the information they had, which was obtained while violating his civil rights, they failed in their duty. At least that is what I am assuming the courts were getting at.

SciFiFisher wrote:

Parrothead wrote:The gov't line is, CSIS and Cdn officials who interviewed him at Gitmo, understood the treatment he was getting at Gitmo, but still shared info from their interviews with US officials at Gitmo. It was at this time that his constitutional rights were violated as canadian officials did not do their job properly. That is what the Supreme Court decisions are based on, not what happened before.

ah yes. Essentially, they are saying that because he was being water boarded ( I assume this is part of the violation of his civil rights) and "tortured" at Gitmo the Canadian officials had a duty to protect him as a citizen of Canada. And because they shared the information they had, which was obtained while violating his civil rights, they failed in their duty. At least that is what I am assuming the courts were getting at.

Yup. That's the argument and the basis of the decision.

Dunno why you had to put quotes around "tortured" when it's pretty clear it is.

Re: who's a child vs child soldier, sounds to me like there's a bit of a loophole there.

Rommie wrote:Dunno why you had to put quotes around "tortured" when it's pretty clear it is.

Re: who's a child vs child soldier, sounds to me like there's a bit of a loophole there.

Because there is still some doubt about the illegality of the practices being conducted. At the time they had a ruling from the DOJ stating that it was not torture. Based on support from qualified psychological professionals who claimed that the practices did not constitute "torture". And the U.S. has never formally acknowledged that what was done at GITMO was torture. Perhaps I should have used the legalese and said alleged torture.

I realize that what they did was probably immoral. And even I question the value of the intelligence gained by using the methods that we do know about. But, there is a difference between harsh interrogation techniques and torture. Water boarding is probably the one exception I am willing to concede crosses the line from harsh to sadistic and brutal. I.e. it could be called Torture.

SciFiFisher wrote:In my humble opinion: You sound like a lawyer!

Does international law allow for treating someone under 18 as an enemy combatant? And trying them in military courts as such?

Well, I did take a class on International Law in law school. Very enlightening, it was. My main take out of that class was what I said earlier: IL is vague and slippery.

Two things: One, I don't know that prevailing IL has come to grips with the concept of 'enemy combatant'. Two, just because IL might say one thing, unless it's characterized as a war crime or some such, specific national law generally generally prevails with that nation's citizens. So, for example, if Canada says its Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated with respect to a Canadian citizen, that's what the law is. IL does not supersede the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Third thing: as a lawyer, I definitely support the rule of law. And one of the rules is that if a person's rights are substantially violated, the case against them is irreparably damaged and they must be released no matter how heinous their alleged crime or how obvious their guilt. To do otherwise is to sanction government overstep when prosecuting anyone they don't like. You can imagine the slippery slope into fascist hell that might lead to. Better ten guilty people go free than one innocent be convicted. Mind you, I am in no way remotely convinced that this guy is guilty.

Part of the deal, that did get him repatriated had him pleading guilty to murder (Speers) and IIRC, a charge of attempted murder (Morris?). Since being repatriated he has fought to have the pleas overturned (still making its way through the US court system), stating they were made "under duress".

This goes back to the mid 90's. His dad was being held in Pakistan, suspicion of being part of an embassy bombing. Chretien gov't asked the Pakistani authorities to make sure he was treated fairly. Bhutto gov't sent him back here. Some time later, moved the family to Pakistan or Afghanistan. Reportedly/allegedly, Omar was building IEDs at age 12.

From a bit of web research, IL under 15 cannot take part in fighting. 15 and over what geonuc said.

Khadr was suing the Cdn gov't based on the SC findings, that his rights were violated. The SC left it to the gov't to decide what "remedy" to make. The SC did not make any remedy recommendations. How the gov't decided on apology and payment, we don't know. They only state the amount already spent and given the SC rulings, it was felt chances of winning were not favourable.

The payment having been made, makes it more difficult for Speers' widow and others to put in a claim, for any portion/all of the settlement money.

geonuc wrote:Third thing: as a lawyer, I definitely support the rule of law. And one of the rules is that if a person's rights are substantially violated, the case against them is irreparably damaged and they must be released no matter how heinous their alleged crime or how obvious their guilt. To do otherwise is to sanction government overstep when prosecuting anyone they don't like. You can imagine the slippery slope into fascist hell that might lead to. Better ten guilty people go free than one innocent be convicted. Mind you, I am in no way remotely convinced that this guy is guilty.

Depends on how you define guilt/responsibility for his actions. He apparently threw a grenade which resulted in the death of one U.S. service member and the injury of another. He was 15 at the time. He also had been being raised to be a good little jihadist from a very young age. The U.S. intelligence community (apparently) felt he was guilty enough and had enough collateral information to incarcerate him and use harsh interrogation methods for several years.

Guilt is not IMO the real question. The issues really boil down to this:

1. Is 15 old enough to be held accountable for murder as an adult - opinions vary both socially, culturally, and on the international/national law front.
2. At the time he did it could he be considered to be accountable or responsible for his actions
3. Was he an enemy combatant, an irregular soldier for a non-state entity, or something else altogether?
4. Did he willingly participate in combat/insurgent activities against the coalition forces?

According to this wiki account he was where he was voluntarily. There is also some evidence that suggests he helped build and place IED's prior to being wounded and captured in the fight that led to his capture. The article details his claim that he was at least partially a voluntary recruit to the cause.

You do realize that when I write "Mind you, etc ..." that that is an aside and I'm not positing it as the 'real question'?

All that stuff you mention is in the category of evidence, substantiated and otherwise. None of it matters a whit if the guy's fundamental rights were substantially violated and the Canadian government has determined they were. Refer to what I wrote previously. That is my opinion.

The rule of law demands due process. Absent due process, you have a kangaroo court and I do not support anything that comes out of such proceedings.

geonuc wrote:You do realize that when I write "Mind you, etc ..." that that is an aside and I'm not positing it as the 'real question'?

All that stuff you mention is in the category of evidence, substantiated and otherwise. None of it matters a whit if the guy's fundamental rights were substantially violated and the Canadian government has determined they were. Refer to what I wrote previously. That is my opinion.

The rule of law demands due process. Absent due process, you have a kangaroo court and I do not support anything that comes out of such proceedings.

Gotcha! I am not sure I agree. But, it doesn't matter in the end. Because the Canadian SC did think his rights were violated. And the Canadian Gov't felt they needed to compensate him and/or it was cheaper to settle.

In war even babies get killed. As such they have the right to defend themselves. So if a baby can hold and fire an ak47 in self defence, they can be treated as combatants, legal or otherwise.
The problem in this world is that there aren't enough armed babies and this imho breaches the 2A.

vendic wrote:In war even babies get killed. As such they have the right to defend themselves. So if a baby can hold and fire an ak47 in self defence, they can be treated as combatants, legal or otherwise.
The problem in this world is that there aren't enough armed babies and this imho breaches the 2A.

You are thinking in a limited way. We need to arm these defenseless babes in the womb.

I've been following this for awhile now, and I wouldn't be surprised if this single event ends up killing Trudeau's career as Prime Minister. And I don't really have a problem with that.

Really? What do you have against Trudeau? Genuinely curious as you don't live here/ have a skin in the game of Canadian politics so far as I understand.

Just as someone who has only been following Canadian sources on this story and only recently realized this got really picked up by the conservative media of late, I'm not sure I agree because while most Canadians think it's way too much money most also think he should have been treated better. At least, that's been my impression- here is one article with various analyses on the issue which I found interesting. (TL;DR of it is if he had a case under Canadian law, which most analyses said he did, they likely would have had to pay out much more.)

I also suspect that no, this won't undo Trudeau, because frankly the conservative party doesn't really have much leadership right now, which matters quite a lot. No one's gonna call for an election they don't think they can win.

I wasn't saying that because I particularly have something against Trudeau. I certainly disagree with his choice to settle instead of allowing the trial to go forward, but I don't know that much about his government and I wouldn't decide to be against him based on this alone. It's a pretty complicated situation. But I've seen a lot to indicate that a lot of Canadians are upset about their taxes going to a terrorist. Not only that, they transferred the money really quickly so that the U.S. will have trouble going after it. Speer's widow was awarded $134 million in her trial, and of course Khadr doesn't have that kind of money, but she wants to go after what she can get.

There's a petition by the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation protesting this payment. It got 52,000 signatures in less than 48 hours. I don't know where the petition is, as I read about this in a news article that didn't link to the petition, so I don't know if it slowed down after 48 hours or not.

You definitely have a better view of the situation, but now you know how it's being sold here in the U.S.

It's only been a week, so time will tell if this is just temporary outrage. People get distracted pretty easily after all.

For the record, I think Guantanamo is one of the worst things we've done in awhile, so that changes what constitutes justice in this situation. I mean, you have to stop getting tit for tat at some point, and they obviously didn't have enough evidence to execute him, so something has gone wrong here. I haven't read all the facts of the case, so how can I judge Khadr? But I don't think the correct solution is a multi-million dollar payout.

The running man solution?

Two things from a week or so ago:

1) An Ontario court judge shot down an attempt by Speers' widow and Morris to freeze Khadr's assets.

2) A survey came out stating 71% of those surveyed were unhappy with the cash settlement.

Conservatives are still arguing, repatriation was enough, no cash settlement should have been made. The new leader, Andrew Scheer (chosen almost two months ago), states the gov't should have kept fighting Khadr's case. The Liberals and PM have stated continuing the fight could have cost taxpayers $30 - $40 million. We have no idea, how these amounts were calculated. Parliament doesn't sit again, until September.

We have fixed election dates, next election is on or before Oct. 21, 2019. Liberals have a majority, technically, the PM could ask the Gov.-Gen. to dissolve Parliament, before the date.