Khadr : le Barreau ravi que le fédéral reconnaisse ses torts

Ignorance is bliss?
The money was paid as a settlement of a case where the Supreme Court had already rules that his rights had been breached. There is no way the government would have won and the amounts that he would have had to pay would have been greater.

You may disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, but in the end there is nothing that the government could do, the conclusion was inevitable. As such, if you're worth anything as a lawyer, you know the government did the only reasonable thing, settle to try to pay less, regardless of the after taste. Those who contest typically don't understand these simple facts. Is this your case?

I also question why you insist on calling him a terrorist. It just seems like a lazy shortcut to allow you to dismiss him easily.

To be clear, he did not seek to instill terror in the civilian population (i.e. the definition of terrorism), he fought for the other side in an armed military invasion. Are all soldiers terrorists?

I know the USA conveniently decided that anyone who opposed the invasion was an "illegal combatant", but in the end he fought against the invasion. Treasonous? Perhaps. Terrorist? Not from I heard.

By the way, all occupiers call people who oppose them terrorists. The Germans called the French resistance terrorists. The fact that they use these terms does not make it so.

That said, I agree that the Bar did not have to voice an opinion on this issue and they shouldn't have an opinion to give on political issues.

They had a choice
They could of passed a special law negating any compensation to Omar Khadr, with the use of the notwithstanding clause for section 2, 7 to 15.

BAM 5 minutes and there is no problem anymore and that killer Omar Khadr can enjoy the sunshine without the 10.5 milion.

Great
Great comment (including the last bit).

I disagree
I didn't want to get into the whole debate because it upsets me, especially since it's the self proclaimed brilliant legal minds that come to this guy's defense with these pedantic legal technicalities. Did the Supreme Court set the settlement at 10M$ or did they not say that demanding his return was enough? If a monetary settlement was required by the courts don't you think that the amount should have remained confidential so as to not send the wrong message to other people like him? And the stuff about invaders and the distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters; just remember that we have young men not much older than Khadr was at the time being maimed and killed in Afghanistan. If we are going to reward the enemy, bring them home immediately. At one point the Trudeau government wanted to tax the measly pay our troops were getting for risking their lives for this country. This a country in which every nonsensical and ridiculous action taken by the government or the courts is justified by a piece of paper called the Charter. What ever happened to the reasonable test for determining severity of a violation under a free and democratic society? The U.S. uses the base of Guantanamo because their civil liberties don't apply outside the U.S. But the arrogance of our Judges and our politicians makes it so that our Charter applies to people who renounce our ideologies and it applies to foreign lands. And making the announcement on July 4th, was that also the doing of the Supreme Court who wanted to slap our most important alley in the face? No, it's not political. How about this, we give him some money (since according to you we are forced to do it by law) on condition that he gives a piece of it to Christopher Speer's wife and kids who had to grow without a father? He was an army medic, by the way, not an invader. I bet the government didn't even think of that. Hey, Speer's family won't vote in the next Canadian federal election. The closet supporters of the cause will, however.

The Barreau did not have the right to make that statement. We just had an election not long ago and there was a lot of talk about rendering justice more accessible (whatever that means), salaries, shoplifting etc. Never was it mentioned that they would lobby to get retribution for war criminals.

Democracy?
So, you want the government to pass a law depriving one specific citizen from remedy for a breach of a Constitutional right recognized 7 years prior by the Supreme Court?

Almost certain that section 33 would not allow this in this context, but have you really considered the ramifications of such actions?

You may want to consider whether you value the concepts of separation of powers, rule of law etc.

Seriously your suggestion is the kind of crap they pull in dictatorships and which we decry vehemently. Way to lose any moral authority we may have had.

Oh, as far as terrorism, I don't buy this "anyone who defended our invasion is a terrorist" BS that was served by the Bush administration. How many innocents were slaughtered

clicked too soon
Oh, as far as terrorism, I don't buy this "anyone who defended our invasion is a terrorist" BS that was served by the Bush administration.

How many innocents were slaughtered with the perpetrators on the invading side never meaningfully punished? It's not the act, it's the side you're on.

Life is sacred unless you're a poor afghan or Iraqi child in which case you're just collateral damage. Sorry!

Never wrong when you make the rules, no?

it's your right guaranteed under the Charter
"pedantic legal technicalities. Did the Supreme Court set the settlement at 10M$ or did they not say that demanding his return was enough?"

So, you decry 'technicalities' such as the fact that you wrongfully use the word terrorist or simply the fact that the amount was paid as the settlement of a lawsuit. But then, you use your own legal technicalities to try to justify your position.

You really don't know about the case, do you? You don't even know what the Supremes decided in 2010.

That seemingly does not prevent you from spewing your biases and prejudices. If you don't know what you're talking about, how about you just hush and let those who at least understand what is going on have a conversation?

The guy was essentially punished before being found guilty as he spent over 10 years in lock-up before trial. Democracies don't do this, and this is what gives us the moral high ground. Considering your attraction for despotic ways and your disregard for the rule of law, I suppose that this does not matter when you've already made your decision like you have.

He made his admissions under duress (i.e. see the previous paragraph) to get out of the Kafkaesque situation he had been in for 10 years.

He was 'convicted' by a kangaroo court. His defense lawyers, (i.e. members of the American military) have stated that among other things, evidence was withheld, right to counsel was breached etc. Get a hold of his American counsel's interview (he's a US soldier!!!). And Canada was a willing participant!

In a glaring example of 'might makes right' the US essentially determined that anyone who opposed their invasion of a foreign country (justified in my opinion BTW) was a criminal rather than a soldier. How convenient! Anyone who fights back is a dangerous 'terrorist", catnip this word for guys like you. Funny how Germans were actually punished at Nuremberg for doing this to the French resistance during WWII.

To be a terrorist you need to use terror as a means of advancing your cause. He was involved in a firefight during a military invasion. These are not the actions of a terrorist.

Being brainwashed by his nut-job of a father who fed him a constant diet of hate, it is not a surprise that he wound up as a child soldier at 15. This has consequences under law.

We sign Conventions and agreements on this topic, try to rally the world to our view on child soldiers but seemingly only to affect other nations. When it comes to us, we have a different perspective. Do as we say, not as we do.

Hey, the kid's a "terrorist", end of the story. No more treaties on child soldiers, no more fundamental rights under the Charter (se the suggestion from a colleague in a prior comment suggesting the use of the notwithstanding clause in this case), we can do whatever we want and partake in the worst atrocities.

Supreme Court's decision? Not worth the paper it's printed on. Even if you didn't read it!

Nothing matters, we are on the side of the militarily powerful. And to the rest of the world: do as we say, not as we do.

Condescending bastard
Like a typical leftist you degrade people who disagree with you and label them as biased and as having prejudices. There is no point in debating with people like you. You can keep your arguments for your yoga class. It just disturbs me that young men and women serve in the military for bleeding heart do-gooders like you who are so inebriated on their own warped ideals that they can't even distinguish between right and wrong anymore.

Short response
I don't see any "legal" reason why Parliement cannot use section 33 to create a special law concerning one citizen.

Section 33 can void section 2, 7 to 15 that is enormous.

As for separation of powers, I think Parliement is at the top when it would use section 33, or else that section would make no sense if the Court could curb it then the Court would be at the top.

Paradox?
In light of your usual comments, it is rather paradoxical that you would call anyone condescending. Seems I really touched a nerve there. Good!

What you seemingly do not understand is that the essence of our politicical, justice and value systems are what you call my warped ideals: primacy of the rule of law, respect for fundemental rights such as due process, presumption of innocence, right to a fair and impartial hearing, equality under law, freedom of religion and opinion.

These are the things that our boys and women in uniform are fighting for. These are the things which make democracies the best systems.These are the things that you swore to uphold when you became a lawyer.

These are the principles that we should never betray lest we lose ourselves. The lazy cowards are willing to forego our essence in their spite. If you do not have these anymore, what is this country?

These are some of the things that our government did not respect and there is no reason for this except fear and laziness. That is what the Supreme Court found, this is what is being compensated.

Of course you are too lazy to actually read the decision and too fearful of confronting your ideas to a reasoned decision based on the facts and the state of our law. So yeah, biased and prejudiced.

I remember that you had the same opinion on the Maher Arar settlement. None of what you level against Khadr was at play there. Yet the guy had done nothing wrong but he was tortured for over a year in part because of the actions of the Canadian government. But I guess he was one of the "others", right? So yeah, biased and prejudiced.

Sorry to shatter your stereotypes, but I am former military and I served overseas. And I know what I served and fought for. You are more likely to find me at a gun range than at a yoga class. And I like my meat rare.

So yeah, it is not that there is no point in debating people like me, it is that you cannot. You spew your prejudices and ill-informed opinions but do not have answers when it is time to dig just a little deeper. You wave the flag (US it seems) and do the right-wing patriot shuffle but you cannot back it up when push comes to shove. Not even intellectually. What kind of a lawyer are you?

Thin skin
A thin-skinned troll, who knew?

What's the matter, you dish it out but you can't take it?

Tout à fait d'accord
Je vous remercie pour vos excellents commentaires. Bravo, je suis tout à fait d'accord. La Primauté du Droit est fondamentale à mon engagement comme avocat.

There you go again
I made my point that this was a political move and so forth. You go on thinking that I am prejudiced, biased, lazy and a terrible lawyer. So is Harper and all the other conservative opposed to this settlement. That's the classic fallback for leftist shmucks.

Believe me, I can take it. I just don't want the Bar to speak on my behalf. That was my main point.

re again
Actually, you're missing the point. Totally.

The fact is that it's not politically motivated, there are valid reasons for what they are doing like there were valid reasons when Harper did it in the Maher case. But you refuse to acknowledge that.

What's worse is that these reasons are the at the very essence of the justice system.

This is the first time in my life someone has called me left wing. But I swore to uphold the rule of law, I believe in Charter rights, habeas corpus, due process etc.

If he had been found guilty at the end of a regular trial (which he never had), before a regular court (which it was not) with all evidence disclosed to the defense (a exculpatory document was not disclosed in due course) and with the exclusion of evidence obtained by torture of a minor defendant (again, big fail), then he may be guilty of something and deserve the punishment dished out.

But the whole process was so severely lacking that it was a travesty of justice, especially for countries that profess to be a shining beacon of liberty on a hill.

I couldn't care less about the radicals and I hope thay get what they have coming. I do care about my government following the rules and laws it enacts, especially the more fundamental ones.

The question is not why is a lawyer supporting the payment, the question is why is someone -who as a lawyer is supposed to be knowledgeable on the issue- so ignorant?

Ignorance can be remedied and as a lawyer, especially one who spews off at these things, you should endeavour to do so. You may not agree in the end but at least you'll understand where I am coming from and be able to defend your point of view with a minimum of arguments beyond inaccuracies and platitudes.

He is being called a terrorist and for people like you, that is the end of the story. You can and should do better.

For the record, I actually agree that the Bar did not have to voice an opinion on this or any other political matter.

re short response
"I don't see any "legal" reason why Parliement cannot use section 33 to create a special law concerning one citizen."

Of a Supreme Court decision rendered seven years prior? Targeting one special individual? There are other principles at stake here. I would not be surprised in the least if someone came up with a truly compelling argument against it, either based on the Charter or otherwise.

In any case, still leaves the question of the type of country you want to live in. Dictatorships would not attempt to avoid the payment of a judgment by invoking a new law. And if they did, democracies would decry it.

On any other matter, I suppose that you would argue against what you are proposing here. But this one touches a nerve. I get it.

My opinion is that for most people who actually understand what the guy went through with the complicity of the Canadian government, the torture, the breach of all rights we hold important, the reversal of the presumption of innocence, the 10 year incarceration without trial, the denial to see a lawyer etc etc etc, we should pay him to show the world that we mean what we say when we proclaim the primacy of the rule of law.

Otherwise, we talk the talk but certainly don't walk the walk.

Ok, last time
You write so much that I feel obliged to respond. Yes, the rule of law and all that stuff. I agree, but as it pertains to our society. When you leave to fight against us in foreign lands, all bets are off. There's a war going on over there. In times of war civil liberties are suspended. The only reason the Americans kept him alive was to get information from him. That's why they use Gitmo. It's horrible, but for them it works. They tortured him, not us. The court ruled that as a Canadian we were required to demand his release. We did, he's home. But we didn't need to make him a millionaire. I'm sorry, but see my previous comments. This was political.

Voyons
Règlement hors cour d'une cause perdue d'avance la Cour suprême ayant déjà déterminé que ses droits avaient été violés.

Qu'est-ce qui est difficile à comprendre? Êtes-vous vraiment avocat?

Nous réglons tous des dossiers où le client n'est pas heureux de payer et ne pense pas devoir payer quoi que ce soit. Mais devant une cause perdue d'avance, quelle est l'alternative?

Avocat
De un, mon ordre professionnel n'a pas à discuter de ce dossier, ni d'autres d'ailleurs.

De deux, «devant une cause perdue d'avance, quelle est l'alternative»? Se battre contre le montant demandé. Mais évidemment, Trudeau préfère faire des déficits et encourager la belle diversité canadienne en donnant des millions à un djihadiste.

De trois, même si ses droits ont été violés (par un autre pays), ça ne vaut pas ça. Il s'est ramassé là d'abord et avant tout parce que c'est un terroriste, point.

Pas avocat dans le domaine de toute évidence
Quand on ne connaît pas une affaire, vaut mieux éviter de commenter. La Cour suprême a tranché que ses droits ont été brimés par le gouvernement canadien. Lisez donc la décision, tout y est.

Pour le montant, souvenez-vous que Maher Arar avait obtenu la même somme et des excuses du gouvernement Harper (un autre multi-culturaliste peut être?).

La Cour suprême se fiche du statut de criminel ou autre quand vient le temps de déterminer si des droits ont été brimés. Et comme le Canada est responsable (d'après les Supreme), je soupconne qu'il aurait obtenu pas mal plus.

Finalement, un terroriste n'est pas quelqu'un qui se bat contre l'armée dans le cadre d'une invasion. Je sais que c'est plus facile d'utiliser ce terme, mais il faudra jour reconnaitre que de toute évidence, il ne s'applique pas

re : avocat
"Trudeau préfère faire des déficits et encourager la belle diversité canadienne en donnant des millions à un djihadiste"

Quand je me balade à Montréal ou Toronto, je ne vois pas la coexistence pacifique de plusieurs groupe ethniques/ religieux/ nationaux comme étant le symbole de la diversité canadienne, je vois l'argent payé par le gouvernement dans le cadre d'un règlement hors-cour dans une cause où la Cour suprême a statué que des droits fondamentaux avaient été brimés.

Votre haine de Trudeau et de l'Autre brouille votre vision. C'est pas très beau.