Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds

CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8248
Reputation: 277
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John Ivison: Khadr apology likely to unite Canadians, but not how Liberals hoped

Awarding Khadr $10.5M has made Conservatives incandescent, and many Liberals uncomfortable. It could have a far-reaching impact on the political landscape

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould discuss the $10.5 million payment to Omar Khadr in Ottawa on July 7, 2017.THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand

John Ivison
John Ivison

July 7, 2017
9:09 PM EDT

The Omar Khadr case has left Canadians deeply divided, said public safety minister Ralph Goodale as he made a statement of apology Friday to the former child soldier.

He might have had a point in 2015, after Khadr’s release from prison — one Angus Reid Institute poll at the time said 55 per cent of Canadians agreed Khadr “remains a potential radicalized threat,” while 52 per cent agreed he had “served his time.”

But voters are likely to be more united by the news that Khadr has received an official apology — and not in the way the government might wish.

The decision to award him a rumoured $10.5 million in compensation has made Conservatives incandescent, and many Liberals uncomfortable. It could have a far-reaching impact on the Canadian political landscape.

Omar Khadr, 30 Colin Perkel/CP

The coalition that includes “purple” Conservative-to-Liberal vote-switchers may start to unravel, in the same fashion that the decision to approve the Trans Mountain pipeline frayed the coalition’s support at the edges among progressives.

This was a clear choice by Justin Trudeau. Stephen Harper would have litigated until Satan was skating to work. Even if it cost millions more, it would have negated the need to apologize.

Khadr was mistreated at the notorious U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He was also guilty of, at the very least least, supporting terrorism. After being incarcerated for 13 years, most fair-minded people would probably have urged him to keep his head down, enjoy his second chance at life in Canada and prove his doubters wrong.

He chose instead to keep the flame of his victimhood burning.

He has been a political pawn for much of the past 15 years but on this occasion, he walked into the spotlight.

Goodale fanned the partisan flames Friday by blaming the Harper government for failing to resolve the case, even though the original transgression by Canadian officials at Guantanamo occurred while the Liberals were in power.

On Friday evening, Harper responded with a terse statement on Facebook:

“The government today attempted to lay blame elsewhere for their decision to conclude a secret deal with Omar Khadr. The decision to enter into this deal is theirs, and theirs alone, and it is simply wrong. Canadians deserve better than this. Today my thoughts are with Tabitha Speer and the families of all Canadian and allied soldiers who paid the ultimate price fighting to protect us.”

The apology and settlement hand the Conservatives a gift in their argument that the pendulum of justice rewards perpetrators and penalizes the rights of victims.

Liberals defend payout in Omar Khadr settlement 3:31

See Also Rex Murphy: Justin Trudeau skips the theme socks for his scheming Omar Khadr apology
In a terse statement, Liberals formally apologize to Omar Khadr
‘I’m not a hardened terrorist’: Omar Khadr on his past, his future and the $10.5M settlement

Justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said the takeaway for Canadians should be that rights are not subject to the whims of the government of the day, and that serious costs accompany the violation of the rights of citizens.

But I suspect the impression most people will take with them is of a government quietly striking a deal with a man convicted of killing a U.S. soldier, in an effort to thwart attempts by the soldier’s widow to win her own compensation.

For the record, the Prime Minister’s press secretary Cameron Ahmad, said that any suggestion the payment was rushed to avoid the Speers’ legal claim is “wrong and offensive.”

“The payment was made in accordance with the court-assisted mediation scheduled months ago,” he said.

Khadr said in an interview with CBC the apology restores his reputation in Canada.

On the contrary, the reputation he considers restored is now once more being sullied by reference to actions he committed in 2002 at the age of 15, under the malign influence of his al-Qaida-supporting father, Ahmed.

The facts of the case are complex and their nuance will be lost. Still, they bear repeating.

Goodale said the legal settlement resolves Khadr’s civil case on the precise question of whether Canadian government officials contravened his human rights when they interrogated him, knowing he had been subjected to sleep deprivation, and passed on to U.S. authorities what they learned.

The minister said a Supreme Court decision in 2010 found that Canada had acted contrary to the “principles of fundamental justice”.

“This lies at the heart of the civil suit — it’s not about the battlefield in Afghanistan, it’s about the acts and omissions of the Canadian government,” he said.

Goodale is likely to be in a small minority who divorce the actions of the Canadian government from Khadr’s activities in Afghanistan, where U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Speer died during a firefight.

Post-9/11 the U.S. enacted a new law making it a war crime to kill a soldier in conflict. Khadr was the only captive prosecuted with “murder in the violation of the laws of war.” He was 15 at the time of the incident, which makes it even more curious why he was the only person prosecuted.

Conservative leader reacts to Khadr settlement 3:49

In 2010, Khadr accepted a plea deal to get out of Guantanamo, admitting he threw the grenade that killed Speer. He has since questioned whether he could have been the killer, and his Guantanamo guilty plea is being appealed in Washington.

But what is not in doubt is that he supported terrorism — there is video of him converting landmines into improvised explosive devices used to target NATO forces.

Goodale considered these facts irrelevant to the settlement. He said the government had already spent $5 million in legal expenses defending itself against Khadr’s $20-million civil suit and would have spent still more on the case “with virtually no chance of success.”

“Reaching a settlement was the only sensible conclusion,” he said.

That sounds like wishful thinking. The Harper government fought hard against Khadr’s repatriation and his release on bail. “We regret that a convicted terrorist has been allowed back into Canadian society without having served his full sentence,” said Steven Blaney, the then Public Safety Minister. Opinion in Canada has hardened on domestic terror issues and, even when they were trusted on little else, the Harper Conservatives were judged credible on public safety.

Andrew Scheer, the new Conservative leader, said he would not have struck a settlement that compensated Khadr, adding Khadr’s repatriation from the U.S. should have been considered the compensation for any Canadian missteps.

He said if Khadr is truly sorry for the pain he has inflicted, the money should go directly to Sgt. Speer’s widow.

As Khadr discovers that his reputation has been diminished by this legal action, he might come to agree. Good standing is more valuable than money and far from being restored, Khadr’s reputation is now tinged with the grubbiness of what many will consider unjust gain.


Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5268
Reputation: 270
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What strikes me is the sanctimony, as if Justin's gang are correcting a festering injustice, or removing a spot from our reputation as a nation. The announcement was made after our heroic PM headed off for Hamburg, and days of receptions and 'working sessions', leaving poor old Ralph to handle the barbs.

Ask yourself -- why $10 million? Wouldn't $100,000 done as well? After all, whatever guilt Canada collectively bears is surely mitigated by the fact that he volunteered, eagerly, for the opportunity to kill people like his neighbors just for their wrong-headed religious ideas. He crossed half the world for the opportunity.

He wore no uniform of a state, he was not a soldier, so all of that Geneva stuff doesn't apply. Legally, he's a common murderer. It's his good fortune that he was considered a prisoner of war -- he didn't have to be. Then, he had a military trial. Rough justice, let's admit, but that doesn't mean their verdict was wrong.

And the hand-wringing about Guantanamo ... I think that any honest observer would admit that doing time in Gitmo beats the crap out of ... say ... New Jersey State Penitentiary, where rapes are part of one's reception and classification.

Then there's the "hurry-up" scenario, where the payment was made in such a way that the widow of the murdered medic would have no legal opportunity to press her claim.

The real takeaway from this ought to be a lot of suspicion with the Liberal Party, and the suspicion that this was affected, perhaps, by one of those pay-for-access meetings the Liberals introduced?

Either that, or they're too stupid to govern.
Toronto Centre

Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 950
Reputation: 110.1
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
What strikes me is the sanctimony, as if Justin's gang are correcting a festering injustice, or removing a spot from our reputation as a nation.

Well in fact they pretty much are. " At the time, Canada was a global champion for new international standards for protecting child soldiers. Yet when one of our own children needed that protection, we deliberately turned away.

It was a disgrace."


Ask yourself -- why $10 million? Wouldn't $100,000 done as well?

The govt had already spent $5M on legal costs and all those sources said they would almost certainly lose. And Khadr was asking for $20M .
So....no $100G would not have cut it.

But I suppose spending $millions more delaying , obfuscating and then getting nailed in court and having to pay out even more makes sense to Canadians. If that is so, then I am sorry for the lack of smarts folks have.

Then, he had a military trial. Rough justice, let's admit, but that doesn't mean their verdict was wrong.

Most sources suggest his appeal will be won. Now what when that happens?

And the hand-wringing about Guantanamo ... I think that any honest observer would admit that doing time in Gitmo beats the crap out of ... say ... New Jersey State Penitentiary, where rapes are part of one's reception and classification.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Then there's the "hurry-up" scenario, where the payment was made in such a way that the widow of the murdered medic would have no legal opportunity to press her claim.

Brilliant move by our Govt.
It means she has to go after Omar, and I am happy about that. The govt has no involvement with her and the costs they would incur. Smart smart move. You would do the exact same if it were your money to lose.

The real takeaway from this ought to be a lot of suspicion with the GOVERNMENTS OF THE DAY

iI fixed this for you ^

Here is a good read from someone who was there.


Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5268
Reputation: 270
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Child soldier? I don't think so. Those people are abducted as twelve-year-olds, and socialized into warfare as a way of life. Their parents have often been killed. Omar's old man even went with him. Whatever injustice involved in this is the injustice being done to the Canadian taxpayers who end up 'paying' for all of this legalistic bungling.

Courts and legal procedures are supposed to achieve something approaching justice. Canadian courts create are more adept at creating injustices than they are at resolving them.

I don't want to bother with TC's unsupported claims ... they're only a dismissive snort, they aren't fact-based. I only wish he could spend a week in New Jersey State Penitentiary so he'd know what he's talking about ...

This is what other people think.

Canada’s sympathy for Khadr is a disgrace


Canadians are being treated to the latest episode in the long-running Omar Khadr sob story.

Now, he’s getting $10.5 million and a grovelling apology from the Canadian government.

The outraged widow of the U.S. medic killed by Khadr is dissed in Canadian media with story titles such as, “Widow goes after money Canada will give ex-Gitmo prisoner” (doubtless a greedy money grubber), and comments such as Khadr is only “alleged to have killed” his victim as a “child soldier” when he confessed to the killing.

(Khadr later said he only confessed so he could be transferred from Guantanamo to serve out his sentence in Canada).

Nevertheless, it is useful to review the record to remind Canadians of the Khadr reality — not the “poor little boy/child soldier” legend perpetrated by media driven by hostility to the United States and/or the previous Stephen Harper government in Canada.

Omar Khadr, was convicted of killing a U.S. Army medic and severely wounded (blinding in one eye) another U.S. soldier in Afghanistan in 2002.

Khadr, who was 15 years old at the time, was fighting as an illegal combatant for the Taliban when, rejecting calls to surrender, he grenaded the U.S. soldiers.

Although themselves wounded, U.S. forces effectively treated Khadr and subsequently transferred him to the Guantanamo prison facility, where in October, 2010 he pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to eight years in prison (not including time served).

The Canadian fibrillations over Khadr reflect simple anti-Americanism and are a caricature of reality.

Omar Khadr was the luckiest teenager in the world and remains one of the world’s most fortunate adults.

Just how many times in combat does an enemy kill the unit medic and survive to be captured?

Let alone that Khadr was operating outside any formal, national military framework and instead fighting de facto as part of a terrorist gang.

That he was not summarily executed is apparently irrelevant to Canadians.

These critics of U.S. action expend not a scintilla of concern for the widow and perpetually fatherless children of the murdered medic (and the blinded U.S. soldier often goes unmentioned).

Somehow, Khadr became the victim -- as if Canadians should be able to travel the world, kill U.S. soldiers, and suffer no consequences (particularly if they do so under the age of 18).

Recalling history and the individual capabilities of teenagers, an American might conclude that if Khadr was old enough to be throwing grenades, he was old enough to imprison.

After protracted legal pushing and pulling, Khadr was transferred to a Canadian prison and ultimately released in May, 2015.

Following his release, Khadr was lauded as heroic, free to milk his miraculous survival into profit.

Ultimately, nevertheless, there may be a legal comedownance to his expectations of riches.

The widow of the murdered medic, and the blinded former soldier, sued Khadr in a Utah district court, and were awarded US $102 million which was essentially uncollectable at the time.

However, the 2012 Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act allows for the collection of damages from U.S. judgments in Canadian courts.

Now they are attempting to block the government of Canada’s $10.5 million payment to Khadr, and obtain appropriate compensation.

Khadr is far from finished paying for his crimes.

Jones is a retired senior U.S. State Department diplomat who served as political minister counsellor at the U.S. embassy in Ottawa.

What is hard for TC to grasp is that it is an injustice, not a resolution, when innocent people end up paying the price of the transgression.

That shouldn't be held against him -- he's just morally insensitive ... dumb as a rock, actually. He can't help that.

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8248
Reputation: 277
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the sun is right , this truly is a low point for this government and something they really have no explanation for . and it is insulting to the Canadians who actually served in Afghanistan that someone who was essentially an enemy combatant is being made a millionaire )

Khadr payoff a slap in the face to all who serve

First posted: Sunday, July 09, 2017 03:33 PM EDT | Updated: Sunday, July 09, 2017 03:49 PM EDT

The casket of Canadian soldier Sgt. Robert Short is carried by pallbearers upon arriving at a Canadian Forces Base in Trenton, Ontario, October 5, 2003. Two Canadian soldiers were killed and three injured when their vehicle ran over an explosive device while on patrol in Kabul, Afghanistan on October 2. (Sun files)

The Trudeau Liberals truly have no shame.

Mark our words, the $10.5 million payout to Canadian-born al-Qaeda combatant Omar Khadr will be a millstone around the Liberals’ neck that will hopefully sink any hope they had at re-election.

The majority of Canadians are sickened.

They have had enough.

We have had enough.

Our prime minister, off at the G20 summit, didn’t even have the guts to face Canadians himself, and sent out three of his cabinet ministers to polish the unpolishable.

By rewarding and then apologizing to Omar Khadr, expert bombmaker and the killer by grenade of U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Speer, our government just slapped the face of every Canadian who has ever worn our country’s military uniform, and insulted beyond repair the names of those who died and those who lost limbs or were severely wounded during our role in Afghanistan.

We have seen the video of Khadr making the kind of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that claimed the lives of 97 of our soldiers along the roadsides surrounding Kandahar.

How many of those shrapnel-packed bombs did Khadr make?

If it were only one, it was one too many, but suffice he was making those IEDs to kill Canadian, American and allied soldiers.

By rights, Omar Khadr should have been tried for treason, not rewarded for being the traitor that he is.

The Criminal Code of Canada reads that anyone who “assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country, is guilty of high treason.”

The penalty is life imprisonment.

It is not $10.5 million and an apology.

A pox on the Liberals, too, for the way they rolled out Khadr’s payoff — using two selective media leaks, undoubtedly emanating from the PMO itself — so that it wouldn’t hit the fan in one stinking heap.

It’s sneaky, its conniving, but it is also the way the Liberals operate.

They are without shame, a collective disgrace.

The 2019 federal election cannot come soon enough.

The Trudeau Liberals deserve to go down, with the Khadr millstone rightfully taking them straight to the bottom.


Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5268
Reputation: 270
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree. They issued this in the summer, during vacation time, while Justin was out doing selfies in Hamburg, and posing as the next anti-Trump hero, but never actually taking the dragon on.

He's running away from this one.

What kind of government is it when, two years into it, its own leader has to hold his nose and get out of town when it makes announcements like this? What will it be like after four years? Six? Eight?

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8248
Reputation: 277
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Khadr’s Compensation: 71% of Canadians say government made wrong call by settling out of court

Many say they would have offered apology, but not financial compensation

July 10, 2017 – The vast majority of Canadians say the federal government made the wrong decision in settling a lawsuit with former child soldier Omar Khadr and instead apologizing and paying him $10.5 million in compensation for his treatment as a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

A new survey from the Angus Reid Institute indicates more than seven-in-ten (71%) are of the opinion the Trudeau government should have fought the case and left it to the courts to decide whether Khadr was wrongfully imprisoned.

Further, most Canadians reject the notion that government officials had “no choice” but to settle – but money appears to be the main source of opposition to the deal. Canadians are slightly more inclined to have said sorry to Khadr than offer compensation, had the decision been in their own hands.

While Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale blamed the previous Conservative Government of Stephen Harper for not dealing with the issue sooner, current Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has responded by calling the settlement “disgusting”. Unsurprisingly, views diverge sharply along political lines. Where past Conservative voters are unequivocal in their views, there is less consensus among those who voted Liberal and NDP in the 2015 election.

Key Findings:khadr compensation
•When asked if Omar Khadr has ultimately been treated fairly or unfairly, Canadians most commonly answer that they are unsure (42%); slightly more are inclined to say he’s had fair treatment (34%) than unfair (24%)

•Two-thirds (65%) reject the notion the Trudeau government had “no choice” but to settle and offer Omar Khadr an apology and compensation

•The same number (64%) also agree that Khadr remains a “potential radicalized threat” now living in Canada


•Part 1 – Canadians say government made the wrong decision

•Part 2 – What would Canadians themselves have done?

•Part 3 – Did the Trudeau government have a choice?

The Background:

On July 7, the Liberal government confirmed reports that had been circulating all week about a settlement to the civil court case brought by Omar Khadr’s lawyers. A Canadian citizen, Khadr has been a subject of debate and political angst in this country for more than a decade.

Born in Toronto, Khadr moved back and forth between Pakistan and Canada during his youth, his family eventually settling in Afghanistan in 1996. It was in that country that he was arrested in 2002, at the age of 15, allegedly killing an American soldier during a firefight. His father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was reportedly a founding member of the al-Qaeda terrorist group.

Gravely injured in the conflict, the younger Khadr survived and eventually spent ten years at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay. While there, he pleaded guilty to several charges and was convicted by an American military tribunal. He later said the guilty plea was made under duress.

In 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Canadian government of the day acted unconstitutionally after Khadr’s arrest, and that it is partly responsible for his continued imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay. He was transferred to a prison in Alberta in 2012 and released on bail in 2015 while appealing his US conviction. In 2004, he sued the federal government for $20 million for wrongful imprisonment.

As mentioned, the Canadian government has now responded by settling out of court, offering a formal apology to Khadr, and paying him just over half the amount he had been seeking. Khadr has said that he hopes the apology will help to restore his reputation, as he moves on to the next phase of his life.

Part 1 – Canadians say government made the “wrong decision”

In the days since the settlement was confirmed, some prominent voices have noted that, given the unanimous nature of the 2010 Supreme Court ruling stating Khadr’s rights had been violated, a settlement was inevitable.

But the majority of Canadians say the government made the wrong decision in settling the lawsuit filed by Khadr’s lawyers. The government’s decision is unpopular with at least two-thirds of residents in each region of the country. It resonates most poorly in Alberta where more than eight-in-ten (85%) say the wrong decision was made.

khadr compensation

Support does not appear to be affected by awareness of Omar Khadr and his story, or by gender (see comprehensive tables for more detail) but political affiliation plays a major role. Just one-in-ten past Conservative Party voters (9%) say that the Liberal government made the right move, while support rises to four-in-ten among Trudeau’s 2015 supporters (39%):

khadr compensation

Notably, their opposition to the government’s decision does not necessarily mean that Canadians are satisfied with how Khadr has been treated throughout the past 15 years.

Three-quarters of Canadians (74%) say that Khadr was a child soldier at the time of his arrest, and should have been treated as such. Under international agreements endorsed by Canada such as the Paris Principles (which came into effect long after Khadr’s arrest), child soldiers are to be treated first as victims of the violence they are indoctrinated into, rather than as perpetrators of it. Programs for offending child soldiers are often built around rehabilitation rather than punitive measures.

Perhaps for this reason, a large segment of Canadians is unsure of whether Khadr received fair treatment since his 2002 arrest. Four-in-ten (42%) aren’t sure, while one-in-three (34%) say he has been accommodated as much as is required, and one-quarter (24%) say he has been treated unfairly. Older Canadians (those ages 55 and up), and men, are more likely to say that he has been treated fairly:

khadr compensation

Part 2 – What would Canadians themselves have done?

The Canadian government has referred to the 2010 Supreme Court of Canada decision as its reason for settling with Khadr. In briefly addressing the issue while overseas last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must protect Canadians, “even when it is uncomfortable”.

While the details of the legal agreement were hammered out by senior government officials, what would Canadians have done?

Asked what their course of action would have been had they themselves been part of the negotiations, one-in-three Canadians (29%) say they would have pursued the path that the government has taken – offering a formal apology and $10.5 million in compensation.

The sticking point for many, one that has been criticized by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and Conservative politicians, appears to be the financial component of the agreement. Indeed, one-quarter of Canadians (25%) say they would support a formal apology but not a financial settlement. The largest group, just over four-in-ten (43%) say they would offer neither component:

By comparing the responses to this question by those would have offered something, the Angus Reid Institute finds that just over half of Canadians say they would have apologized to Khadr, but just one-in-three (32%) would have chosen to offer $10.5 million.

khadr compensation

There is a negligible difference in terms of what past Liberal voters and past NDP voters say they would have done. In each case close to four-in-ten would have pursued the same approach as the Trudeau government, while three-in-ten say they would have offered neither part of the deal. The strongest opposition comes from past CPC voters. Of that camp, seven-in-ten (68%) say they would have offered nothing to Khadr, and just one-in-ten (11%) would have taken the Trudeau government’s approach.

khadr compensation

Women (61%) are more likely than men (47%), and Millennials (66%) more likely than older Canadians (35-54 52%, 55+ 47%) to say that they would have apologized (see comprehensive tables).

Part 3 – Did government have a choice?

Not only do most Canadians think their government made the wrong decision – they firmly believe it had an option to withhold the deal. Two-thirds (65%) disagree with the statement “The Trudeau government had no choice but to offer an apology and compensation to Omar Khadr.”

As might be expected, those who think the government made the wrong decision are overwhelmingly inclined to believe it had a choice in the matter. Some 85 per cent of them disagree with the statement, including 62 per cent who disagree strongly. Those who think the Trudeau government did the right thing are nearly unanimous in agreeing that the government had no choice, but fewer of them feel strongly about their position, as seen in the following graph:

khadr compensation

Those who voted for the Conservative Party of Canada in 2015 are especially likely to say this Liberal government could have chosen not to offer an apology and compensation to Omar Khadr, but it’s worth noting that even a majority of those who voted Liberal disagree Trudeau “had no choice.”

khadr compensation

Canadians in Khadr’s own age group – those who have grown up alongside him over the years – are more sympathetic to the government’s approach to his situation. Nearly half of those ages 18 – 34 agree that the Trudeau government had no choice but to offer Khadr an apology and compensation (47%). Other generations are far less divided. More than two-thirds of those over age 35 disagree with this statement, as seen in the graph that follows.

khadr compensation

One data point that may help explain the lack of sympathy in this survey toward Omar Khadr and the government’s handling of his lawsuit: the belief that he remains a potential threat to Canada.

Though Khadr has publicly renounced the radicalized worldview of his father, almost two-in-three Canadians (64%) don’t appear to believe him.

The number of Canadians who agree Khadr remains a potential radicalized threat has grown – from just over half to two-thirds – since his release from prison in 2015, and in the wake of this settlement:


Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5268
Reputation: 270
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baloney Meter: ‘A little baloney’ in claim feds couldn’t stop Khadr lawsuit
By Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press — Jul 13 2017

OTTAWA — "Further protracted proceedings in the civil suit would add millions more in costs beyond the $5 million already accumulated and not including the damage claim itself of another $20 million in a case with virtually no chance of success."

— Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, outside the House of Commons on July 7, 2017.

The Trudeau government formally apologized last week to Omar Khadr after federal officials breached his Charter rights while he was a U.S. prisoner at Guantanamo Bay in 2003.

The apology was prompted by a $20-million lawsuit that Khadr had launched against the government for the Charter violation, and included an out-of-court settlement reportedly worth $10.5 million.

Goodale on Friday defended the settlement by stating during a news conference that the government had no real chance of stopping Khadr's lawsuit.

That was why it was cutting its losses now to avoid having to pay even more in legal fees and damages.

Is it true, as Goodale said, that the government had virtually no chance of defending itself from Khadr's $20-million lawsuit?

Spoiler alert: The Canadian Press Baloney Meter is a dispassionate examination of political statements culminating in a ranking of accuracy on a scale of "no baloney" to "full of baloney" (complete methodology below)

This one earns a rating of "a little baloney" — the statement is mostly accurate but more information is required.

Here's why:


Canadians are sharply divided over Khadr and his story, which is extremely complicated and stretches over 15 years. But the facts relating to his $20-million lawsuit are largely straightforward.

Khadr was sent to the Guantanamo Bay when he was 16 years old after being captured during a firefight with U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2002.

He would spend 10 years at the notorious U.S. military prison, during which time he was interrogated by American and — in two instances in 2003 and 2004 — Canadian intelligence officials.

The Supreme Court later ruled in 2010 that those Canadian officials had violated Khadr's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms during their interrogations.

Among the reasons was that he was questioned without a lawyer, despite being a minor, and officials knew during his second interrogation that Khadr had been intentionally deprived of sleep for three weeks.

"Canada actively participated in a process contrary to Canada's international human rights obligations and contributed to Mr. Khadr's ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by (Section) 7 of the Charter," the court ruled.

Khadr's lawsuit included allegations that Canadian officials were negligent and conspired with American counterparts to keep him detained, neither of which were tested by the Supreme Court.

But the main focus, which Goodale repeatedly cited as the reason for the settlement, was on whether the government owed him compensation for having violated his Charter rights.

One other thing to note: The Supreme Court officially ruled in 2010 that governments could be sued for violating an individual's Charter rights.


Legal experts were generally in agreement that the government had little chance of defending against Khadr's lawsuit.

"The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that the government breached Khadr's Charter rights," said University of Ottawa law professor Bruce Feldthusen.

"This cannot be re-litigated. It is a given. So there is no possibility of 'winning' the case on the grounds the government did not violate his rights." [....]

One of the things that makes this so offensive is that the costs are so immense. I am not sure where our responsibility to a child of a naturalized citizen who turns our to be a brigand, part of an informal army made up of war-lords and village chieftains, killing Americans.

The support our own veterans to a maximum of $365,000. The award should be in proportion to that. Omar had his life saved by the very people he was trying to kill. He comes out of it with no injuries, but with the loss of a decade of his life, all certified by American judicial procedures. Military justice, sure, but his torture was sleep deprivation -- have we ever discussed what the Taliban did to prisoners?

Why wouldn't $25,000 be an adequate sum?

Canada seems to have violated his rights simply by not doing all they could to intervene on Omar's behalf.


It's another topic, but the article shows how expensive the Supreme Court has become. It can't solve the problem if it takes $millions to mount an action. TC reeled off a bunch of million dollar fees as if its normal. I don't like to cite such an unreliable source, but what is reliable is his off-handish attitude towards public money.

In the private sphere, how many people in the country can take that one on? It means that private citizens have very little chance of using the court to protect themselves.
The lawyers are having a field day, and if you look at it, this is all judge-made law, including the right to sue the Crown over violations of one's civil rights. Is it any wonder that the whole profession is so passive, when there is hardly a single 'member of the profession objecting to the changes in the rules of evidence in sexual offenses. From a civil rights point of view, they're bought off.

It isn't as if there aren't issues they shouldn't be forced to rule on. The Supreme Court winks at violations of the Charter every day that it lets Human Rights Commissions operate under their own rules, for example. Who cares?

We recently saw a man charged criminally with a sexual harassment ... and dragged through two years of legal procedures, loss of his job, and a $50,000 legal bill ... for perfectly respectful tweets he made, but which made the women receiving them angry. Two years of living in purgatory for behaviour that never before could be prosecuted, and yet the law never changed! Just the interpretation of the courts.

The legal pretense is that it is up to the citizen to know the law ... but in these cases, knowing the law could betray you. You might think that you couldn't be charged with a sexual offense for a tweet, for example. How could you comply, when it the law is changing without it actually changing?

This is profoundly undemocratic, and not even good jurisprudence.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5268
Reputation: 270
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Terry Glavin: Khadr's payout looks to Canadians like it's burying a Liberal scandal
The public mood should not be expected to soften unless Trudeau manages to dispel the impression that the deal was a kind of hush-money arrangement

We’re still in the early innings, but it would appear that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s pieties about the sanctity of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms aren’t quite a match for the blowback over his government’s decision to cough up $10.5 million and an apology in a secret deal with Guantanamo Bay’s loudly-argued-about former inmate, Omar Khadr.

It turns out that Canadians are so put off by the arrangement — 71 per cent of respondents in an in-depth Angus Reid public opinion survey say it was the wrong thing to do — that three in five Liberals, even, agree with Conservative leader Andrew Scheer that the case should have been fought in court, to the end.

Unsurprisingly, Conservative-leaning voters are the most likely to express revulsion about the deal, which was leaked to the news media last week. The agreement settles a lawsuit Khadr’s lawyers filed in 2004 alleging that Canadian officials collaborated with U.S. military interrogators at Guantanamo in a way that “offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects,” in the words of a 2010 Supreme Court of Canada ruling.

A poll found 61 per cent of Liberals were opposed to the payout

The Angus Reid poll found 91 per cent of Conservative voters said the Trudeau government did the “wrong thing” in settling with Khadr. But 61 per cent of Liberals took the same view, and 64 per cent of New Democrats also agreed that the government “should have fought the case and left it to the courts to decide.” That is precisely what Conservative leader Andrew Scheer has been saying.

The public mood should not be expected to soften unless Trudeau manages to dispel the impression that the deal was a kind of hush-money arrangement, designed to make the Khadr problem go away and head off the scandal that would inevitably emerge from the evidence in a hard-fought court trial.

Khadr’s civil suit was heavily focused on the unconstitutional conduct of the Liberal government in the 2002-2003 Chrétien-Martin period. Liberal heavyweights and officials from that epoch were included in formulating the Khadr settlement. Because of the deal’s convenient confidentiality clause it is not even clear whether or when Trudeau approved it or whether he learned of the deal’s contents only when everybody else did, last week.

Last Friday, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale attempted to fault the previous Conservative government for the mess: “The Harper government could have repatriated Mr. Khadr or otherwise resolved the matter.” But that falls flat, and not just because Goodale was a cabinet minister back in 2002-2003 when misdeeds were being committed by Canadian officials apparently working on the instruction that Khadr’s constitutional rights did not exist.

In 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned lower-court orders and agreed with Stephen Harper’s Conservative government that it was perfectly entitled to drag its feet in Khadr’s repatriation from Guantanamo, which was completed in 2013, when Khadr was transferred to a Canadian prison. Now 30, Khadr was released on bail in 2015, pending his appeal of a variety of Guantanamo military-court convictions, and lives in Edmonton.

The Liberals have also been insisting that the deal’s $10.5 million payout should be understood as a cost-saving measure, because Khadr was certain to win his suit — he was going for $20 million, and you never know what a judge might decide. In other words, the government had no choice. Two-thirds of Angus Reid’s respondents don’t believe it. More than half of the poll’s Liberal respondents (56 per cent) don’t believe it, either.

The Liberals have been insisting that the payout should be understood as a cost-saving measure

Also, that Ontario Superior Court injunction application aimed at heading off any payout to Khadr, filed June 8 by the widow of Delta Force Sergeant Christopher Speer, the U.S. soldier Khadr may or may not have murdered in Afghanistan in 2002? Just an astonishing coincidence, we are told to believe.

The main talking points the Liberals are sticking to like syrup are all variations on the theme Trudeau articulated in his first proper statement on the affair last Saturday, six days after the news broke, in response to a question at a G20 press conference in Hamburg: “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, every one of us, even when it is uncomfortable. When the government violates any Canadian’s charter rights, we all end up paying for it.”

There’s little in the Angus Reid findings to suggest that Canadians disagree with this eminently defensible but otherwise purposely point-missing, subject-changing piety, or require instruction in the principle that governments should generally make restitution when a citizen’s rights are ignored or trampled. But there is a lot in the poll’s findings to suggest that Canadians are skeptical about the degree of injustice Khadr is ordinarily said to have suffered.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick/File
Asked if they believed Khadr had been treated fairly or unfairly, 42 per cent of respondents answered that they weren’t sure or couldn’t say, 34 per cent said Khadr had been treated fairly, and only 24 per cent said Khadr had been treated unfairly. While roughly four in 10 Canadians said they’d have offered Khadr neither apology nor compensation (the view of one in three Liberals, too), another one in four said an apology alone should suffice.

In a commonplace failing of public opinion polls, one question appears to unfairly expect respondents to know things they would have no way of knowing. Asked whether Khadr is potentially a “radicalized” threat to Canada, two-thirds of poll respondents said they believed he was.

Khadr’s notorious Al Qaida family put him in harm’s way in Afghanistan when he was an adolescent, and Khadr spent his post-9/11 time there building improvised explosive devices for the Taliban. In 2002, when Khadr was a combatant in that firefight in which he may or may not have murdered Sgt. Christopher Speer, he was only 15.

In the years since his return to Canada, Khadr has never expressed anything less than remorse about his past

In the years since his return to Canada, Khadr has never expressed anything less than remorse about his past, and he has given every impression of being a rather sad but otherwise hopeful and respectable person who just wants to get on with his life.

As for Trudeau’s hopes to get on with his political agenda, this whole sorry business looks like bad news all around. But you never know.

During the 2015 election campaign, public opinion polls showed an overwhelming majority of Canadians supported the Conservative proposition that the wearing of niqabs and other such face-veilings should be prohibited during the swearing of citizenship oaths. In several emotional speeches, Trudeau went out of his way to traduce the proposition, going so far as to compare niqab-ban supporters to the “none is too many” cretins who were content to turn away Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany.

Trudeau wasn’t punished for it. He was rewarded at the polls for his pluck and obstinacy. If, in place of an honest accounting of what went into the Khadr deal, all we get from Trudeau is another series of florid and extravagant speeches about the Charter of Rights, you never know.

It just might work.

Glavin's point is that the Liberals are covering up the fact that it was their people who violated Omar's civil rights. Do you care much? And you are likely a partisan Tory.

Trudeau says the Charter protects us all. That's such bullshit ... it didn't protect our oldest institutions, such as marriage. The reason is that the Court is using the existence of the Charter to cover for the fact that it has disposed of the common law. And, in the British system, the common law was what protected the rights of most of the subjects most of the time. Yeah, yeah, Magna Carta, and all that, but that was a deal between aristocrats. It's the common law that got the Magna Carta applied to the rest of society. And so on.

The Supreme Court does not protect our freedoms, forget that notion right away. It is engaged in a vast social engineering project. Our new constitution has created a two-headed monster, with sovereignty seemingly resting with the Court, as well as Parliament. It is NOT a simple adjudicator -- it is a player, and it has an agenda.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5268
Reputation: 270
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In regard to who it is that "doesn't get it" ...

First, exhibit one, Rex Murphy ...


... “The measure of a just society is not whether we stand up for people’s rights when it’s easy or popular to do so, it’s whether we recognize rights when it’s difficult, when it’s unpopular.” That was Justin Trudeau’s initial public response last week in Ireland. The settlement was primarily a matter of national honour.

Well, if the settlement — amount and apology — is really a case of doing the honourable and virtuous thing, regardless of public sentiment, why has the Prime Minister not highlighted the decision, boldly stood up and clearly stated the thinking behind the government’s actions?

Instead, the Khadr settlement reached Canadian ears, as I wrote earlier, by a leak between our Canada Day celebrations and Trudeau’s trip out of the country. A time chosen for least impact and greatest distraction.

Honour doesn't hide or speak from behind a curtain

Honour doesn’t hide or speak from behind a curtain. If our “just society” is proud of doing the right thing when “it’s difficult,” why hasn’t the Prime Minister, on so central a subject, dedicated one specific appearance to explaining it?

This week, back on Canadian soil, the rationale has shifted. Trudeau, again:

“If we had continued to fight this, not only would we have inevitably lost, but estimates range from $30-40 million that it would have ended up costing the government.”

Last week, it was national honour at stake. This week, it’s expediency. We settled not for virtue’s sake but for the money. Honour and expediency are not twins, however much the latter likes to dress as the former.

Last week, it was national honour at stake. This week, it's expediency. The decision is now presented as an inevitability [....]

Trudeau's performance to date suggests a politician auditioning his responses, trying to find the one to match the country's mood

It also suggests he doesn’t know why the public is angry. [....]

So people are wondering, why is the Canadian government, the least responsible of the three, the one making the huge cash settlement and public apologies? They are further enflamed when they ask, very legitimately: was release from Guantanamo, repatriation, full return of citizenship and escape from all penalty, and a cleansing apology, not “reparation” enough?

And finally, not to avoid a matter that should not be avoided, Canadian soldiers, especially those wounded in Afghanistan from IEDs, must be asking which of them has been so distinguished with a cash bonanza for doing the right thing by their country? Why someone, who at the very least, regardless of his “child soldier” status, killed an allied soldier, and possibly was complicit in the wounding of Canadian soldiers, receives Prime Ministerial absolution and a vast cash reward.

They sense a drastic incompatibility between the treatment many of them have received and Khadr’s situation. This is the greatest gap in the government’s explanation so far.

These are some of the reasons why people are angry. The Prime Minister has not addressed these questions. If it’s all about honour and how a just society acts, he will.

He's got no backbone, he's got no loyalty to us, he's too busy being an international celebrity based on his friggin' looks, rather than his brains! And he sure knows how to belly up to the bar when it comes to the expense account! What are his good points, anyway?
Toronto Centre

Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 950
Reputation: 110.1
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After a week up north I see the Canadian ignorance is still alive and well !

So much ink and almost none of it on the issue . Sounds very much like the Renfrew MP spewing her stupidity for all to see. Claims 'fake news' . Hard to make up this level of stupidity/ignorance. But if it is what her supporters want well then....there you go.

And when one poster misses the mark so badly then accuse another poster of not having the facts (when that is all I have dealt with) it is truly laughable.

This issue has nothing to do with ...
1) Speers (smart move by Govt not being in the middle. We owe nothing to her)
2) CDN Soldiers being injured. (we can agree they all deserve more no question)
3) Rewarding anyone for fighting .
4) What the Taliban do.
5) Judge made laws....since there are none on our books...ever.
5) NJ penal system.

Maybe someone needs to re-read why Khadr is being paid.

Dont like the amount? No problems there. But one must realize abuses of power costs money. Money we all send to Ottawa. No one is happy that the Feds give it as compensation but without it Govt would run amok.

Dont like Omar? No problems there. Suspect I wouldnt either.

Wish he died on the field? Sure, knock yourself out.

Stick with the facts please.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5268
Reputation: 270
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why don't you just tell us?

Show where Parliament did anything that would require it to borrow another $10.5 million to make sure those Canadian citizens who want to blow us up because we don't conform religiously were not offended? I would really like to know when that happened.

Because if it did, it did it in a way that kept it from the public. You know, the public, the stupid ones who don't understand why this guy gets the golden ring, while our own soldiers are capped at $365,000?

Where do we read that we have to do this. Where do you show us how it would cost tens of $millions just to go to court ... what kind of so-called legal system are we building when it costs that kind of money to use it?

Where does our legal obligation come from? And what makes the Canadian public -- really, their children because our government will borrows the $10,500,000.00 -- liable?

That would be a contribution, rather than showing us your contempt -- particularly when you have so little to be contemptuous about. Canadians are never good enough for its civil servants, it seems.
Toronto Centre

Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 950
Reputation: 110.1
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Why don't you just tell us?

Oh thats been done however some just have an issue seeing this for what it is. Go back and re-read, it should not be too hard unless......

Show where Parliament did anything that would require it to borrow another $10.5 million to make sure those Canadian citizens who want to blow us up because we don't conform religiously were not offended? I would really like to know when that happened.

Is there some sort of belief that the Govt is going to pay this money back? If so I will donate my $0.30 back to the Fed Gvt.

You know, the public, the stupid ones who don't understand why this guy gets the golden ring, while our own soldiers are capped at $365,000?

And right there you go full on ignorance. Congrats !

BTW...when our Govt violates the rights of our soldiers then I hope they get paid. (but we both know that didnt happen but it makes it more appealing to those who havent a clue and try to input some emotion instead of facts..."think of the children" )

Where does our legal obligation come from? And what makes the Canadian public -- really, their children because our government will borrows the $10,500,000.00 -- liable?

Gosh....The CHarter of Rights and Freedoms. Are you honestly not understanding of this?
We all have rights, and if abused sufficiently then one can sue for damages. Even you !

That would be a contribution, rather than showing us your contempt -- particularly when you have so little to be contemptuous about. Canadians are never good enough for its civil servants, it seems.

Well I wouldnt mind contributing more but facts seem in such short supply when you post and give your ill educated off base immaterial ideas about what went down instead of the facts so why bother again?

One can lead a horse to water ya know....
Toronto Centre

Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 950
Reputation: 110.1
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Posts # 6 &7 and 10 should be a good start.

Happy reading !

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5268
Reputation: 270
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not a good start at all ... if you don't know where our liability comes from, it's OK to say that you are ignorant on the subject. It isn;t as if that will shock anybody.

Like an idiot, I went to the posts TC indicated. The first is an article posted by RCO entitled "Omar Khadr's undeserved jackpot" but it's most notable new point is that Omar is a confessed murderer!

The next post referenced is by me, and asks TC what politicians should learn from this. (I am still curious. It seems to me we ought to know what our liabilities are, just so we can avoid incurring them. Is that unreasonable?)

TC responds in a way that reveals him to be a lawyer. "This payment is for the abuse/mishandling that the Canadian Government is responsible for. "

Yeah, what abuse would that be? Oh well, more Orwellian propaganda, I think to myself -- he doesn't know what he's talking about.

The closest I could find, in anything TC posted, that explains it is this ... a statement that it describes as a HINT of the Supreme Court bias ... not a ruling, not a precedent, but perhaps a hint of a precedent ... It is not what the headline of the article says it is -- a Supreme Court ruling on facts parallel to this case. (Fake news from the government news, aka the CBC.)


For a counterpoint — and for a hint that a settlement was perhaps inevitable — one can turn to the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling on Jan. 29, 2010, that found Khadr's human rights were being violated at Guantanamo Bay.

In that case, the court dealt with the visit of CSIS and Foreign Affairs officials to the prison in 2003 and 2004, under the previous Liberal government.

"The deprivation of [Khadr's] right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice," the court ruled.

"The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects."

But this doesn't say why that Canada is responsible! His Canadian charter rights are being violated by another sovereign nation (because he has confessed to the murder of one of theirs) but why should Canada borrow the money to pay him? The Court didn't go that far!

He did plead guilty to murder. (Frankly, I don't know how a court can ignore this.) The question is -- why is Canada responsible. Shouldn't Omar go to the US for his remedy?

And where's the justice in Canadians being stuck with the costs, in the form of an eternal annual payment? What did they do to warrant this -- vote Liberal?

TC says nothing in response to the queries -- which are, surely, basic questions. He is an empty vessel. My charge: he doesn't himself know where our liability comes from either. Or if he knows, he won't say because it will reveal something worse. He doesn't know how we could have avoided this payment.

Since when is a sovereign nation guilty for what another sovereign nation did? In all the absurdity that collective guilt takes us into, surely this is the most bizarre.

He is just defending Trudeau. His mouth moves, but it's like music without lyrics. There's words there, but no content, no meaning.

The Sage of Blither!
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Omar Khadr to get apology and compensation

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB