I'm not sure of my opinion on all this yet, but I don't get the crying about him receiving bail. No final determination has been made as I understand it, it's just that he's been properly granted bail under Canadian law.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/20...hadr-bail.html
If you think the judge was just a namby-pamby liberal or somehow diverged from established Canadian law, you might want to check that and take up your concerns with the "tough on crime" Harper Government:
From the Star article:
Quote:
But [Public Safety Minister] Blaney’s portrayal of Khadr as a dangerous terrorist is in stark contrast to what government lawyers said about the 28-year-old in court.
There was no evidence presented at Khadr’s March bail hearing to argue he posed a risk to society — a fact noted by Ross in her ruling Friday — nor did Department of Justice lawyers refute submissions about Khadr’s exemplary behaviour in custody.
...
But [Justice] Ross concluded that the “right to seek bail pending appeal is a principle of fundamental justice,” and Khadr’s right is guaranteed under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
|
If seeking bail is a constitutional right (you know, the things we're defending against the terrorists), the judge can only rule on the evidence put before him or her. Seems to me that if Khadr is a threat to the public whilst out on bail, the gov't lawyers either disagree or did a poor job or... he might not be a threat to the public on bail as the judge ruled.