Search results

In that case, they would have had to pay costs, when they inevitably lost.  Don't take what I said as gospel though.  Just because I didn't hear it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Of that, I have no doubt you're right.  His family was his main influence, and we all know where that was going.  He was a kid though, dragged away from his home at 9 to go do god knows what.

I don't think so.  They had to pay costs for each of the judgements in his favour, but I didn't see anything about his continuing legal fees.

Most of it will go to his lawyers, who have been unpaid to this point.  There's also a slightly greater than 50% chance that Khadr's conviction will be overturned in US court (probably a greater chance than that actually).  If it is, the narrative changes significantly.

Do your values include our constitutionally guaranteed protections?  Mine do.

The Khadr payout is actually, ironically, aimed at upholding our values.

He denigrates himself.  The 'MSM' just report it.

It's probably because every single post in response to me (no matter what I happen to be talking about) gets the above response.  This issue has nothing to do with my interest in serving in uniform.  I happen to have a great deal of general knowledge in this area, because the study of the law...

Everyone can have an opinion.  Opinions that contradict facts are something else.

I fail to see what kind of legal insight being a soldier would bring you.

That's a matter for debate, not a fact.

Your 2 cents are worth about that much.  The Supreme Court has already ruled.

The US Supreme Court basically ruled that there was nothing lawful about the authority used at Gitmo.  That's how the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the Charter still applied to Khartoum in his dealings with Canadian officials.

My argument is that Canada must be held responsible for the violation of his rights, no matter who or what he is.

I'm also dogmatic when I know what I'm talking about - much less so when I'm not as sure. It's not a falsehood because I say it is - it's just a falsehood.  This has nothing to do with any Canadian imprisoned anywhere else in the world, unless we're violating their rights in the same way we...

I have explained the same thing (in far less eloquent words) several times in this thread.  I'm tiring of explaining the same thing, and then having the same falsehoods repeated over and over.  It's simply not valid to complain that a payout was given for something that it was not.

Your explanation from then on is irrelevant.  It wasn't about him being held in Gitmo.  It was about Canadian officials violating his rights under the Constitution as they applied in Gitmo.  That is what the payout and apology is for.

I think you need to go back and understand what this is actually about.

In my mind, what's deceiving and disgusting is pretending that this is a terrorist payoff.

The budget is actually already done that way in terms of accounting - that's why there's a cash basis accounting, and an accrual basis accounting.