Omar F*****G Khadr is getting $10.5 milion

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In fact, as I understand it, both of Khadr's lawyers have provided their services pro bono and indeed have even paid disbursements such as airfare out of their own pockets. I've heard Mr. Edney speak a number of times. Very charismatic and interesting man.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...beandmail.com&

The government lawyers, on salary, probably just put in a whole bunch of extra unpaid late nights at the office.

Please stop disrupting the tired narrative of greedy lawyers, thx. Everyone knows they should work for free.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I don't know where you got that information. These links suggest the judgment is against Omar:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle25242269/

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...e-baf61b4bdb15

But also, it might not be enforceable in Canada:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...1-d3123678bf95


EDIT: I guess it comes down to whether wikipedia is more accurate than the journalists.

I was wrong.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/20061...S%20v.%20KHADR

[Drummer]

I think that if he gets the $10 million it should be transferred to that lawsuit. Only $110 million more to go.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It looks like they can apply to have the judgment enforceable in Canada...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/khad...rris-1.4190468

They can apply but as I recall there have been a few attempts to apply liability to juvenile offenders and all have been thrown out.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Drummer

I think that if he gets the $10 million it should be transferred to that lawsuit. Only $110 million more to go.

It's would actually be $125 million since it's in US dollars. Although since he was in jail he would likely have strong grounds to ask the courts to vacate the civil judgement.

[Backlunds_socks]

Good

[SebC]

Originally Posted by photon

"What's Wikipedia?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Drummer

I think that if he gets the $10 million it should be transferred to that lawsuit. Only $110 million more to go.

Out of curiosity, why do you think this?

[CaptainCrunch]

Tabatha Speer's filed in Canada a few weeks ago when they found out this deal was happening

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/07...ec_a_23017205/

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Admittedly I am somewhat confused with this case.

Ok, I get that the Canadian government was aware of his capture and his detention in gitmo and was subject to potential torture during his imprisonment. But the Canadian government didn't carry out those acts, nor did Canadian soldiers.

Does this mean that Canada has an obligation to try to get nationals out of foreign prisons under any circumstance? Aren't there hundreds of other Canadians locked up abroad in pretty abhorred conditions for things like drug running?

Can anyone expand on this?

How exactly does the USA capturing and holding him have anything to do with Canada?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Out of curiosity, why do you think this?

I can't speak for the guy you're quoting, but in my mind, the Canadian officials' violation of his rights weren't so egregious to merit a $10million payout.

The Americans, yes. The Canadians, no.

I'd venture to say that no matter what the Canadians did, Mr. Khadr would have received the exact same treatment by the Bush administration. I'm not thrilled about $10 million of tax payer dollars going to this guy who did commit crimes against NATO forces, despite very unfortunate circumstances with his deadbeat jihad dad.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Can anyone expand on this?

How exactly does the USA capturing and holding him have anything to do with Canada?

Because the Canadian Supreme Court decided in a unanimous decision that the gov't of the time (Liberal) violated his constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was breached in Omar Khadr's case, as Canadian officials contributed to the violation of his rights to life, liberty and security of the person.

It noted that CSIS officials obtained evidence from Khadr under "oppressive circumstances" during interrogations at Guantanamo Bay in 2003 and then shared that evidence with U.S. officials. The ruling said the interrogation "offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects," as:

Khadr was a minor and had been denied adult counsel.
He had been repeatedly deprived of sleep over a three-week period using a technique designed to make detainees more compliant.
The interrogation was designed to elicit statements about "the most serious criminal charges."
The information was to be shared with U.S. prosecutors.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/khadr-...court-1.893059

So the court seems like it is saying you can't knowingly let someone else do your dirty work.

[chemgear]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/u-s-app...hadr-1.3489512

The lawyer for the widow of an American soldier killed in Afghanistan said Tuesday they have filed an application so that any money paid by the Canadian government to a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner convicted of killing him will go toward the widow and another U.S. soldier injured.

Lawyer Don Winder made the comments as a decision by the Canadian government to apologize and give millions of dollars to Omar Khadr came under mounting criticism.

[Weitz]

Good. They are the ones who deserve the money.

[Wormius]

Is this lawsuit happening because these guys were medics or is there something else in play here? I assume that medics have been killed in other wars and there were no lawsuits filed?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I can't speak for the guy you're quoting, but in my mind, the Canadian officials' violation of his rights weren't so egregious to merit a $10million payout.

The Americans, yes. The Canadians, no.

I'd venture to say that no matter what the Canadians did, Mr. Khadr would have received the exact same treatment by the Bush administration. I'm not thrilled about $10 million of tax payer dollars going to this guy who did commit crimes against NATO forces, despite very unfortunate circumstances with his deadbeat jihad dad.

Alright. I presume that DOJ lawyers disagree with you, but ignoring that discussion for now, why should those tax payer dollars be given to the US soldier's widow? It certainly doesn't help Canadian taxpayers any.

My gut feeling (and it's nothing more than that really) is that if Khadr had defended the widow's claim, it would have had very little chance of success. There are a large number of complex issues raised (particularly with respect to conflict of laws and international law of war.)

Further, from a purely moral viewpoint, I'm not at all convinced that a militant should be personally liable for the death of an enemy combatant of an occupying force on foreign soil.

[Zarley]

I'd like to see the money go to the Speer family, I doubt it will happen though.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Is this lawsuit happening because these guys were medics or is there something else in play here? I assume that medics have been killed in other wars and there were no lawsuits filed?

As far as I understand it, the Delta Force soldier who was killed was not there in a medic capacity (although he was trained as a medic). It was a reconnaissance mission, not a medical evacuation. To me, he would have been indistinguishable from the other soldiers. The area had also just been heavily bombed and strafed by gunfire by American helicopters, killing several members of Khadr's militant unit.

EDIT: I suspect that argument in the claim is that Khadr was an "unlawful combatant" pursuant to the War Commissions Act (US legislation) because he was not a member of a state military organization. Therefore his killing of a US soldier was unlawful.

I think that there are a lot of problems with that argument. For instance, it seems very dangerous to permit states to unilaterally determinee who is an "unlawful combatant" (invariably the guys on the other side) if it is inconsistent with international law. Curiously, many of the Syrian rebels currently supported by the US military would presumably be "unlawful combatants" under the US legislation.

I think there are a lot of reasons why Canadian courts should be very cautious about allowing enforcement in Canada.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Alright. I presume that DOJ lawyers disagree with you, but ignoring that discussion for now, why should those tax payer dollars be given to the US soldier's widow? It certainly doesn't help Canadian taxpayers any.

My gut feeling (and it's nothing more than that really) is that if Khadr had defended the widow's claim, it would have had very little chance of success. There are a large number of complex issues raised (particularly with respect to conflict of laws and international law of war.)

Further, from a purely moral viewpoint, I'm not at all convinced that a militant should be personally liable for the death of an enemy combatant of an occupying force on foreign soil.

I'm not even advocating for that to be honest. Again, these are all just my opinions, but war is war. They are all (presumably) willing combatants. The Americans attacked, and Mr. Khadr, under orders from his dad, along with his militia, fought back. I don't think anyone should be suing anyone here.

The Americans have definitely committed crimes here in detaining and torturing a combatant.

Having a third party (Canadian government) paying reparations just doesn't make sense in my head.

[Ducay]

How can his rights be violated? By definition Charter rights, and/or Human rights only apply to humans.