I dunno,
I don't really have any issue with a chief prosecutor coming out and saying "we have reviewed the purported evidence against Mr. Khadr with regard to various charges, including but not limited to treason, however given the high standards the courts place on evidential burden among other factors, there is not a reasonable likelihood of conviction."
* * * * *
Also keep in mind that the paper from the University of Ottawa was an overview of what happened to Omar Khadr while discussing whether it would be possible to charge him under Canadian law if the allegations were true:
Quote:
|
This section of the brief considers whether and how Omar Khadr might be tried in Canadian criminal proceedings for his alleged actions in Afghanistan, 2002. For the purposes of this analysis, the brief assumes that the allegations made by the United States against Omar are true (a supposition that may ultimately prove unwarranted).
|
It's not arguing that he SHOULD be tried, nor does it talk about the likelihood of conviction. It's a thought process with regard to whether the Canadian government could charge one of its citizens for an act of terrorism abroad.