Nouvelles
La demande de gel de l’indemnité versée à Omar Khadr est rejetée
Radio -canada
2017-07-13 12:00:00
La Cour supérieure de l'Ontario rejette la demande de la veuve d'un soldat américain tué en Afghanistan en 2002 et d'un autre blessé...
Les requérants, qui avaient déjà obtenu un jugement d'un tribunal américain prévoyant un dédommagement de 134 millions de dollars, réclamaient le gel des actifs de l'ex-prisonnier de Guantanamo.
Omar Khadr a obtenu une indemnité du gouvernement canadien de plus de 10 millions de dollars.
La poursuite déposée aux États-Unis se base sur les aveux de M. Khadr devant une commission militaire de Guantanamo en 2010, selon lesquels il aurait lancé la grenade qui a tué le sergent Speer en Afghanistan en 2002. Omar Khadr s'est rétracté par la suite.
Selon ses avocats, ces aveux de culpabilité ont été faits sous la contrainte.
2911
9 commentaires
DSG
il y a 6 ansSo is the Barreau weighing in on this? Let me guess, they agree with the judgment. Allow me: The facts of the case show that there's no risk of the money not being available to satisfy a judgment on the merits. The defendant has no history of leaving the country unexpectedly for evil motives and he has absolutely no ties to organizations hostile to the country.
On a side note, does anyone remember when Khadr apologized to his victims in court saying how sorry he was for what he did? Why doesn't he save them the trouble and give them some money? Maybe he's not that sorry. Weren't people arguing with me earlier this week on the grounds that the money was secondary to need to uphold the supremacy of our values? I'm not entirely convinced. I think it's all about the money.
Anonyme
il y a 6 ansTo obtain the kind of relief they were seeking, the PLAINTIFFS would have had to show (it was their burden!) that there was a risk, based on OBJECTIVE grounds, that the money would not be there to satisfy the judgment if she were successful in her homologation attempts. There are no such circumstances here.
End of story. Easy application of trite legal principles. The result was predictable for anyone who looked at this objectively. Especially, nothing political, get over it!
For the rest, do you believe that every soldier should have the right to sue the people they are fighting? Especially when there is not a snowball's chance in hades that the USA would allow this kind of lawsuit against one of their own? Even if they were liable of the worst atrocities? There are precedents (rapes, extrajudicial killings etc) in that regard and the cases have always been thrown out of court.
DSG
il y a 6 ansThe guy he killed wasn't a soldier. He was an army medic. And yes, wrongful death suits are quite common in the United States. Check out the O.J. Simpson case.
Who's side are you on anyway?
ZtH
il y a 6 ans"The guy he killed wasn't a soldier. He was an army medic."
Hahahaha and you're the guy complaining about "pedantic distinctions"? The guy was a member of the USA army, the armed forces.
So what armed conflict are we talking about in the OJ case? Because "one of their own" refers to US military sued by a civilian who is a foreign national of another country (much less a soldier of another country.
"Who is this? Who's side are you on anyway?"
I am your father DSG. Come join me on the side of the rule of law, logic and truth. We sometimes have to deal with unpleasant contradictions, but we approach them rationally amd honestly rather than circle the wagons and throw stones at others.
DSG
il y a 6 ansIt's you again, G.I. Jamal. Well, 70% of the population is opposed to this, and we're all entitled to speak our minds. That's in your beloved Charter too.
Anonyme
il y a 6 ans"who's side are you on anyway" is by far the lamest and least convincing argument ever...coming from a lawyer (I assume), that's pretty pathetic.
Anonyme
il y a 6 ans70% of the population does not have a law degree. What's your excuse for ignorance?
By the way, just once I wish you actually knew your stuff enough to provide an answer that seemed even remotely related to law. You prefer coming on with these personality attacks. You clearly don't know your stuff, even something as basic as saisie avant jugement.
DSG
il y a 6 ansLawyers never have conflicting interpretations of the law or take an adversarial approach. Is that how you negotiate with your counterparts? "Your client should pay this simply because my interpretation of the law and of the facts is absolutely correct and the law is supreme." If that doesn't work then they must be racist. Call the Speer family and tell them that they are wasting their time in pleading this.
You're so vehement in supporting this settlement that it's apparent that you have a dog in this fight.
ZtH
il y a 6 ansFirst off, this latest comment was not written by me (although I agree your "reasoning" is incredibly weak).
As for different interpretations of the law, believe it or not, there are some principles that have been decided finally. Like when the Supreme Court has rendered a decision on the topic such as in this case. Argue all you want, it ain't gonna change. The guy's rights were breached by the Canadian government. End of story, no discussion.
That's why when you try to act as if this was not the case, there has to be a reason. That's when the inference starts.
In any case, I do have a dog in this fight: I swore to uphold the law and the Constitution is at the top of that list. I know it's not fashionable, but it's called principle.