Perhaps people are not aware, but Khadr offered to be charged and plead guilty to domestic criminal offences together with waiving any right to sue the governments of the US or Canada but was rejected out of hand by the Guantanmo military commission.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...beandmail.com&
That bit of info might influence how some people look at that element of the debate.
Also, on the topic of how the settlement was handled, I thought back to a case I argued several years ago that I said the Crown should be obligated to explain why they were conceding parts of my argument in a public-law Charter case and I relied on this decision from back in 1997 from the Federal Court:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc...ocompletePos=1
Quote:
Bluntly speaking since it is the Minister's role, and the Attorney General's role, to uphold and enforce the public law, the Court, and by extension the public, need to know, and to fix the Minister publicly with, cogent reasons for "throwing in the towel". The Court and the public need to be assured that it is not a case of favouritism, or that the would-be immigrant or refugee is not a genocidal monster or other sort of criminal, and therefore that the Court has not gone along with the Minister's consent "no questions asked". This Court asks questions, and will not subscribe to the risk of being, by silence in public law, complicit in an unlawful or remotely possibly corrupt deal. No one can assert that it cannot happen here.
So, would it kill the Minister and Crown counsel to give a cogent reason for consent, assuming that consent is accorded for a good, lawful, cogent reason? Then the Minister and the government would be publicly fixed with it, as is proper in public law for the upholder and enforcer of the public law; and the Court would not have to ask many or any questions, and certainly not have spur the Minister to fulfil his or her public office.
That is why the Court will not accept a dry, taciturn and groundless consent to the government's apparent lying down on its job. Justice must not only be done, but must be manifestly seen to be done.
|
This appears to be close to on point with what a lot of people are saying about not having been given sufficient information to understand why the government chose not to fight to trial (even if just over the amount of damages).
To be clear, the requirement to explain a consent to have a court make an order involves the court process and therefore is not the same as an out of court settlement. But if the above principle had been followed, it might have made things a lot easier for everyone to understand / accept even if they still disagree with the government decision.