Omar Khadr’s millions: The fight for financial damages -

Omar Khadr’s millions: The fight for financial damages

Why Canada will almost certainly have to cut the convicted terrorist a very big cheque



Omar Khadr will be a free man one day. Even if he serves every last second of his current sentence—eight years for the murder of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, in addition to the eight-plus years he’s already spent locked away at Guantánamo Bay—Khadr will walk out of his Canadian jail cell in October 2018. At age 32.

He hopes to be sprung much sooner, of course, depending on the outcome of his latest court application (an attempt to have his maximum-security status downgraded, greatly improving his parole prospects). But no matter the ruling, Khadr’s time in captivity—4,100 days and counting—is winding down. At this point, there is only one real question left: When he does get out, how much money will be waiting in his bank account?

While so much attention remains focused on Khadr’s quest for freedom, the next legal battle is quietly ramping up: the fight for financial damages. And like everything else about this unprecedented case—the subject of such fierce, vitriolic debate—the process will polarize Khadr’s fellow citizens that much more. For many, the mere thought of him receiving even a dime of taxpayer money is, well, torture.

At the heart of the looming litigation is a $10-million lawsuit filed back in 2004, alleging numerous Charter breaches at the hands of Canadian officials who flew to Cuba to grill the Toronto-born teen in the early days of his detention. At first glance, the statement of claim appeared destined to fail. Khadr was in American custody, not Canadian, so how could his Charter rights have possibly been breached? But one decade and two Supreme Court decisions later, the suit suddenly seems unbeatable. Twice already, the country’s highest court has scolded Ottawa for stomping on Khadr’s constitutional rights.

From a strictly legal standpoint, it’s hard to imagine a scenario that doesn’t end with Khadr cashing a cheque. Even Daniel Livermore—a retired Foreign Affairs official who was director-general of the department’s security and intelligence branch when the 15-year-old was shot and captured by U.S. forces—says Ottawa didn’t do enough to protect and support Omar Khadr. “If he gets money, it doesn’t bother me at all; look at what the kid has gone through, and look what he is continuing to go through,” Livermore tells Maclean’s. “There was a problem with the Canadian response, and I acknowledge this as an official.”

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have already spent millions challenging every court application with Khadr’s name on it. Last month, when Khadr showed his face for the first time in a Canadian courtroom to dispute his maximum-security designation, the Prime Minister himself weighed in, telling reporters his government will “vigorously defend” any attempt to soften the penalty Khadr received for his “heinous acts.” That vigorous defence is sure to apply to the lawsuit. If the family case history confirms anything, the feds would much rather roll the dice in front of a judge than deal with the optics of an out-of-court settlement with a Khadr. (Ottawa’s latest statement of defence denies he “has suffered any loss or damage as a result of the acts of Canadian officials” and insists that “an award of monetary damages is not available.”)

To his many defenders, Khadr, now 27, was a vulnerable teen thrust into war by a radical father, then brutally tortured by U.S. interrogators until he confessed to the 2002 grenade attack that killed Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer. To others, he remains an admitted, committed jihadist, a boy-now-man who relished the chance to kill coalition troops, bragged about his battlefield exploits, and fabricated tales of horrific abuse in the hopes of securing his release. After more than a decade of spin, by all sides, the truth depends on which facts you’re willing to ignore.

But Khadr’s entire, twisted saga is not the focus of his $10-million lawsuit. Whether he ultimately gets paid will have little to do with who his father was or whether he actually tossed that grenade. His suit hinges entirely on the conduct of Canadian officials, not his own. In fact, the case will live or die on what happened—and what didn’t happen—during three specific visits Canadian officials made during his first two years in captivity.

When he was first apprehended, less than a year after 9/11, Khadr was held at a U.S. military hospital in Bagram. Unable to secure a consular visit, Foreign Affairs bureaucrats pleaded with their U.S. counterparts not to transfer him to Cuba, citing his tender age and Gitmo’s notorious lack of due process. The Americans sent him there anyway. At the time, Khadr’s father, Ahmed Said, was still very alive and very wanted, a reputed al-Qaeda financier fingered for his ties to Osama bin Laden by both the U.S. and the UN. And although Washington considered his son an “enemy combatant” out of reach of consular access, it did permit “intelligence” visits. CSIS was granted permission to interview him in February 2003, six months after his capture; an official from the Foreign Affairs intelligence branch was allowed to hitch along for the ride.

In chilling video footage released by a judge years later, a 16-year-old Khadr pleaded with the unnamed CSIS agents to bring him back to Canada, insisting he’d been tortured. “Promise me you are going to protect me from the Americans,” he begged. A subsequent report written by the visiting diplomat said Khadr’s abuse allegations “did not ring true.” CSIS, for the record, considered the visit “highly successful.” (Seven months later, in September 2003, CSIS made a second trip to Guantánamo, this time without a diplomat. Again, Khadr claimed his previous confessions about his family’s al-Qaeda connections were false, the result of “torture.” When asked to describe the abuse he endured, Khadr told CSIS: “Listening to other people scream.”)

It was those CSIS trips that triggered Khadr’s lawsuit in early 2004, alleging Canadian spies questioned him without advising him of his basic rights to silence and legal representation—knowing full well his answers would be shared with U.S. authorities, who were weighing potential criminal charges. When Khadr was finally charged in late 2005, his legal team filed another Federal Court action, demanding access to the fruits of those CSIS interviews. An epic fight over Khadr’s Charter rights, separate from the lawsuit, had begun.

In May 2008, after two divided lower court rulings, the Supreme Court sided with Khadr—for the first time. By then, America’s highest court had already ruled that Guantánamo, circa 2003, was an illegal operation where inmates had no right to challenge their incarceration. “To the extent that Canada has participated in that process,” the Supreme Court ruled, “it has a constitutional duty to disclose information obtained by that participation to a Canadian citizen whose liberty is at stake.”

When forced, Ottawa did release all relevant documents. Among them was another bombshell report from Foreign Affairs, this one describing a solo visit by the same diplomat who accompanied CSIS on that first flight to Cuba. The April 2004 memo revealed that Khadr had been subjected to three weeks of systemic sleep deprivation “in an effort to make him more amenable and willing to talk.” Dubbed the “frequent flyer program,” his U.S. jailers moved him from cell to cell every three hours for 21 consecutive days.

Armed with that discovery, Khadr’s lawyers went back to court, arguing yet another Charter breach and demanding Harper request his repatriation. The Supreme Court would not go quite that far, but it did conclude—again—that Canada violated his rights. Knowingly questioning a sleep-deprived teenager, the court concluded, “violates the principles of fundamental justice” and “offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.”

Inching along as all the other court battles played out, Khadr’s $10-million lawsuit is now nearly 10 years old. His lawyer is in the process of amending the statement of claim, and if approved, the damages being sought are almost certain to escalate. Two favourable rulings from the Supreme Court will do that.

But even if Khadr does win a judgment—next year, or five years from now—the fight will not be finished. Not even close.

Just months after he filed his lawsuit, Sgt. Speer’s widow launched her own claim in a U.S. court, demanding damages from the estate of Khadr’s dead father: a man who allegedly “coerced, aided, instructed and promoted his minor child to commit violent, dangerous and criminal acts of international terrorism.” Tabitha Speer’s sworn affidavit, filed in 2005, is a heartbreaking document. “Surviving every day without Christopher has been utter hell,” she wrote. “I would trade any amount of money to have him back. Every day I think about Christopher and imagine how our life would have been.”

In 2006, a Utah court granted a default judgment—worth a whopping US$102.6 million—in favour of Speer’s widow and another soldier, Sgt. 1st Class Layne Morris, who lost his right eye during that fateful firefight. The judge concluded that Ahmed Khadr was a “long-time member” of bin Laden’s terror network who “encouraged his sons to join al-Qaeda and to carry out its work.”

Nearly eight years later, Speer and Morris have not received a penny. But if Omar Khadr ever wins his lawsuit, the pair’s lawyers are ready to come to Canada and attempt to enforce their U.S. judgment. “First and foremost, it’s about keeping funds out of the hands of terrorists,” says Morris, now retired. “All the evidence is that Omar Khadr is a committed, dedicated jihadist, so to simply hand him a cheque for $10-million is really just turning that money over to al-Qaeda. There is no good that can come from that.”

In this case, 11 years on, nothing good has.


Omar Khadr’s millions: The fight for financial damages

  1. I hope he gets enough to set him up for the rest of his life, which our government deliberately ruined.
    I wish there were some way to make it only the poisonous sadists and bigots among his fellow countrymen who will pay, but I guess that’s not the way it goes and anyway we all have some responsibility.
    Meanwhile we could put the poisonous sadists and bigots behind bars without trial for the best years of their lives, threaten and beat them regularly, etc. An eye for an eye.

    • This comment was deleted.

      • racking up the kills of American and Canadian soldiers

        You mean those same soldiers, all members of a foreign army, that were racking up kills in a foreign land? Please explain how a child can be charged with murder in an act that was self defence against a foreign invading army.

        • Omar Khadr was a foreigner too

          • Still is.

        • Exactly !
          Any fool can see that a Canadian (Khadr) who travels half-way across the world to kill the soldiers of Canada and it`s allies is only acting in “self defence against a foreign invading army “.
          This same fool should also try to forget the fact that these ” invading armies” were not at war against Afghanistan but the poison ( Bin Laden and his followers ) that had taken up residence in Afghanistan.

          • The army was not there when he got there, and at 15 he’s really, genuinely not responsible for the political opinions forced on him.

          • Wrong, UN and Afghanistan 15 is a legal age. And if you can kill our own soldiers, that be TREASON.

          • You can’t claim him as an mature adult Afghan and a treasonous Canadian minor at the same time.

            But, generally, your view is that soldiers should sit there reading the newspapers, trying to figure out when to desert?

        • Well then, in my mind he should then not be Canadian and ship him back to Afghanistan.

          • I think we should take good Canadian guys like you, dave777, and ship you down to ground level from helicopters.

        • So Omar kills his own people? I call that treason.

      • “good on you for wanting to toss Chretien and Martin and Axworthy behind bars”

        Thanks. I don’t think we should be soft on those who attempt to undermine our freedom. A heavy hand would definitely discourage future governments from attempting it.

        I find it a bit comical that you think “poisonous sadists and bigots” must by definition be directed at CPC supporters and their darlings.

    • He ruined his own life by going to war in Afghanistan for the taliban. Not many Canadians choose to go to war against fellow Canadians.

      • There were no Canadians there when he went to Afghanistan. And 15-year-olds do not have — and should not have — the power to defy their fathers.

        • His father was not at the scene, nor anywhere near it, when he threw a grenade at an American.

          • His father enlisted him in an AQ militia.
            Or do you think soldiers should sit there thinking, “Hmm, who are those guys attacking us? Friends? Maybe I should sit this one out.”

    • Then you support terrorism. Giving money to a terrorist is terrorism. You should be reported to authorities. We have to save the world not just from terrorists but from their liberal enablers.

  2. No amount of money will ever make Khadr’s life right again…..or cure his PTSD….but I hope it’s big enough and bad enough to hurt officialdom starting at the PMO level, so they never again forget the rule of law.

    • I feel little sympathy for someone only Canadian by birth. I judge not by the colour of his skin, nor the religion he practises, but by his actions and perceived values. Albeit, he is not a terrorist, but he is no Canadian.

      • LOL….first dual citizens weren’t ‘real’ Canadians.

        Then immigrants weren’t ‘real’ Canadians

        Now not even BORN IN CANADA Canadians are Canadians!

        Is there anyone pure enough for you lot?

        • This comment was deleted.

          • Apparently! All these big brave people frightened of a colour!

        • Here, metis 450 years of history!
          By the way, Kadhr ‘ s statement was clear: I am not a Canadian! His actions spoke louder than any of his words!

          • He is. By birth and by choice. Although we haven’t given him any reason to want to be.

  3. For years there has been a succession of closet bigots and their enablers at the highest levels of government, Liberal and Conservatives alike. First there was Maher Arar; awarded $10 million after his rendition and torture in Syria.

    In addition to Khadr, there is Abousfian Abdelrazik. The disgraceful former Foreign Affairs minister Lawrence Cannon (who lost his seat in 2011 and was then appointed as ambassador to France) is now being deposed about his “bad faith” behaviour in promising and denying a passport for Abdelrazik until ordered to by a Federal court judge. Or Suaad Mohamud, the Canadian mother stranded in Kenya for 3 months before being issued an emergency passport only after providing DNA.

    That pesky Charter of Rights keeps getting in the way of these high level Archie Bunker archetypes, but that does not deter these meat-heads from spending millions on legal fees defending the indefensible.

    Mr. Friscolanti is right. There will be many more millions awarded in the future for the reprehensible behaviour on the part of government ministers. And this is going to enrage their supporters and constituencies even more.

    OK – calling all bigots – let the flame wars begin.

  4. This comment was deleted.

    • you do not even know what it means to be Canadian.

      In Canada we believe (or claim to believe) in real courts not kangaroo courts like the Volksgerichtshof in Guantanamo that “convicted” a child soldier..

      Btw Canada adheres to the convention on the rights of the child, even claims to have played a leading role in its adoption.

      Obviously many here couldn’t care less.

      • Wrong… in Canada we “believe”, well, we don’t really” believe”, but we do live under the belief that Pierre Trudeau’s warped imposed ideology is our own.

  5. Harper has shamed us . England, Australia etc repatriated their falsely accused citizens at the first possible opportunity . Harper no only abdicated but parroted the inane Bushisms and fought against doing the right thing. It was becoming an embarrassment for the U.S because after being imprisoned since 2002 at age fifteen, without charges, tortured, the U.S wanted him out and even made noises to Canada , please take him. They knew he could not be convicted. But our ideologue PM could no see the forest for the trees. Harper is pandering to his voter base. The born again , waiting for the rapture right.

  6. “To his many defenders, Khadr, now 27, was a vulnerable teen thrust into war by a radical father, then brutally tortured by U.S. interrogators until he confessed to the 2002 grenade attack that killed Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer. To others, he remains an admitted, committed jihadist, a boy-now-man who relished the chance to kill coalition troops, bragged about his battlefield exploits, and fabricated tales of horrific abuse in the hopes of securing his release.”

    There is certainly a third opinion: that Khadr was (and is) a dangerous individual who half-tempted, half-scared a weak, ill principled government into a horrible short-term strategy that placed political gain well ahead of charter rights and the country’s interest. Bob Rae provided Harper with a get-out-of-jail free card that would have respected Khadr’s charter rights while still keeping him under watch. Harper decided to grandstand and now Khadr will get his money. The outcome was completely predictable and must have been understood by Harper when he made the call. In the process, Harper’s legal team virtually forced the Supreme Court to declare that they had at least limited jurisdiction over foreign policy. For Canada that will ultimately be a much bigger cost than the millions Khadr will collect due to this bungled file.

    • Integration. rehabilitation, charter rights. All beautiful words.
      That`s Bob Rae for you. If only Harper had listened to the beautiful words of Bob Rae then we could have had Khadr for years now with a get-out-of-jail free card, we would have respected Khadr`s charter rights, and kinda-sorta keep him under watch. That may have been difficult because Khadr would have probably hired Bob Rae by now to represent him in front of Human Rights Tribunals and Courts to argue that his mobility rights were being trampled on.
      And when Khadr would have posed a threat to the safety of Canadians we could say it is only happening because of the way he was mistreated by the Harper government. Good Liberals will use it as an opportunity to blame it all on Harper. It`s our Liberal way.

      • If you like beautiful words, then you should have listened. Rae never made a pitch for rehabilitation and never made a pitch for shortening his sentence.

        In a short time Khadr will be out and about, free as a lark, due to Harper’s strategy.

        Moreover, the next time some leftist kook wants to argue Canadian foreign policy violates someone’s Charter rights there will have been a precedent set that this is within the court’s justification. I guess you think this is a good thing.

        • My point about the beautiful words is that they are just that, beautiful words, completely devoid of any constructive use. He is now taking funds from the Native Community that should be providing clean water and better living conditions to pay his salary for what, more words, more Harper criticism.
          Tell me, in concrete terms how, under Rae`s suggestion, Canadian authorities could have kept a watch on Khadr after his release.
          Would he have lived in Rae`s basement ? Your basement ? Don`t bother telling me Corrections Canada has the wherewithall to keep tabs on a Khadr if he wishes to do harm.
          If Rae were to suggest that Khadr should be kicked out of the country for treason, then let the Supreme Court play with that.

          And stop with the blaming of poor precedent decisions from the Supreme Court on the Harper Government. The Courts should be responsible for their own actions and people will judge them accordingly.

          • My point is that anyone unhappy about Khadr’s current privileged situation should be upset with PM SH who buggered the file.

            Rae suggested a brokered return to Canada. In exchange for Khadr getting to move to a Canadian prison, he would have agreed to the ongoing monitoring following release. Perhaps it would mean a bracelet, perhaps checking in with authorities, perhaps it would mean staying away from certain groups of people. Could it have worked? We will never know, Harper wasn’t interested in finding out.

            The court did not make a mistake. Is Khadr guilty? I think he is. Was he given a fair judicial trial? Absolutely not. You think it is more important that Khadr be punished because we all know he is guilty. I think it is more important that the rights of all Canadians should be recognized and respected by the government especially with respect to the legal process.

            I suspect you would kinda agree with the last statement above, provided you and PM SH get to pick which Canadians.

          • Good luck with the bracelet.
            I have no interest in punishing Khadr. I wish him a long life. But not here.
            This guy will not be allowed to live in the country. His name is as poisonous as Homolka. I suspect he will have a similar fate. An offer he cannot refuse, to leave the country and not come back.

            I do agree with your rights statement and you are right, I would probably have only one condition on those Canadians who would be recognized.
            You lose all your rights to the legal process once you commit treason.

          • Then you’re on a fast track to losing all your rights, because treason is in the eye of the beholder and we’re looking at you.

          • And sarcasm won`t work on you. You are too stupid.

          • My mistake, though it wasn’t exactly well advertised; and most of your fellow anti-Khadr types on these threads are advocating just that, stripping him of his rights.

        • This case was new in the terms of the specific remedy it sought (and it wasn’t successful in that regard, the government couldn’t be forced to ask to bring him home). But there was already a growing body of law regarding Charter applicability outside of Canada, usually when Canadian police, acting in concert with foreign police depts., arrest people abroad, and when allowing for extradition from Canada when the death penalty is being considered in the requesting country.

      • You didn’t understand a single word of Stewart’s comment, did you?

    • “bragged about his battlefield exploits”

      as a 15 year old!

      • 12 to 15 year olds love going to war. They dream about guns and gangs and driving tanks. With only the littlest bit of training, they make excellent hired guns and assassins.

      • Mr Friscolanti should have been clearer. There is no evidence that Mr Khadr /”bragged about his battlefield exploits”/ — rather I think he included this phrase in his article as part of what anti-Khadr commenters /believed/ Mr Khadr had done.

    • Funny… it’s seems you’re blaming PM Harper for the imposition of Trudeau’s Charter… thats quite amusing!

  7. I am sick of your worn tired phrase “convicted terrorist”. In Germany there was a court similar to the kangaroo court that convicted Omar Khadr. It was called Volksgerichtshof and it is unCanadian to accept the judgement of such an outfit.

    Shame on all of you who don’t even know what it means to be Canadian.

    • @Betty C:”what it means to be Canadian?”

      With our extensive hockey experience, we obviously make excellent child soldiers.

    • I know that you’re not much of a Canadian. That’s for sure.

  8. I hope at least that any payout is deferred until the Speers lawsuit is settled. I’d far rather see my taxes going to the widow of the man Omar KILLED (yes, the precious little snowflake killed somebody) than to any member of the Khadr terrorist clan.

    • and just how do you know that?

      • Help me put this into context. Are you also a moon-landing denier?

        • A couple of years ago there was a Canadian woman who had worked as a cook for a rich guy in Mexico. At the time she worked for him she didn’t know, nor did any of his other domestic staff know, that he was a stock swindler, that he was running a Ponzi scheme — as they allowed him to manage their retirement contributions in his Ponzi scheme.

          She was the only employee he didn’t end up swindling — but only because he fired her.

          He ended up being captured, and convicted in the USA. The tens of millions he swindled disappeared. Greedy Mexican police, who wanted to steal his stolen loot arrested her — but didn’t charge her, and then didn’t try her. Why? On the off-chance she was an accomplice, and could lead them to the hidden loot.

          The Harper government lobbied for her, with the Mexican government — as they should have lobbied for Mr Khadr.

          It took a couple of months but she was eventually convicted, but allowed to serve out her sentence in Canada. Well, under our rules, where time in custody prior to trial counts double, she was eligible for parole as soon as she landed in Canada, and she spent less than a week in custody here before she was released.

          Everyone knows that, although she is a convicted stock-swindler, she was innocent all along.

          The US never had meaningful evidence to convict Mr Khadr — evidence that would have held water at a FAIR TRIAL — which is why they wanted to try him under the Guantanamo system.

          Thirty years from now, when the classification on his file expires, the world will see Mr Khadr was innocent all along

          • There is only one question to ask: Who was Kadhr fighting for? Oh against Canadians and Americans. Is anybody debating that? Do you really believe we was working secretly for CF?

    • Are you god? Were you there? Oh I know, you read minds and that’s why you ‘know’ he killed a soldier (…in a battle….in a war…..)!?

  9. Murderers don’t have rights. The soldier he killed had rights. Any money he received should go to the victim as the law states you cannot profit from your crime and killing someone (no matter the method) is a crime. His age at the time doesn’t make the soldier any less dead. If he couldn’t stay out of the politics of a foreign nation that is not our (as a country) financial responsibility. He was lucky he wasn’t shot.

    • and your utter lack of knowledge of anything connected with this doesn’t make you right.

      And btw in Canada “Murderers do have rights” at the very least a right to due process. (That is assuming that he was the one who killed Speers.)

    • “He was lucky he wasn’t shot.”

      Your lack of knowledge is perfectly illustrated by this.

    • Murderers do have rights, yes. I don’t know why you think that they wouldn’t. A conviction results in a temporary restriction of certain rights, but many rights are considered unalienable and apply to murderers. Though, killing soldiers in an engagement in a foreign nation is not typically called murder. Curiously, by your definition “killing someone (no matter the method) is a crime” would make criminals out of many active-combat duty soldiers, including, quite possibly, the soldiers that Khadr allegedly killed.

      The laws on profiting from crime are actually quite narrowly defined. If you steal something, you aren’t allowed to keep it or the proceeds, even if convicted. That’s about the extent of what the law allows. If Khadr wins his suit, the money would be lawfully acquired and would not be subject to confiscation. That does not preclude the Utah suit from going forward against him once those assets are acquired.

      • Active-combat soldiers are a whole different situation than a displaced teenager throwing grenades. He was not acting on behalf of the Canadian government and therefore should not be accorded the same rights as the soldiers. If he was acting on behalf of a foreign government he is their responsibility. If he wasn’t, he’s a terrorist.

        • That’s not what you said. You said that “killing someone (no matter the method) is a crime”. The parenthetical remark, “no matter the method” would clearly include lawful killings, such as self-defense or military action. You’ve defined it in such a way that the situation is, in fact, entirely irrelevant.

          • Self defense doesn’t cover throwing a grenade at a soldier.

          • By tradition, nobody has a legal right to commit acts of war unless he’s a soldier, with some exceptions. If Canadians took up arms against the Canadian military the government would charge them for whatever they did. It becomes complicated in a civil war situation where there’s no recognized government and foreign powers and groups are involved, like in Afghanistan at the time. Legal experts have been arguing for years about the Khadr prosecution, but common sense would say it wasn’t reasonable to treat a person like him the way he was treated, and the Canadian courts considered his treatment by the US illegal. The US courts might too, and there will be a case related to that, although he had to give up appeal rights for the plea deal, the point being for the government to avoid an appeal, but there could be another way to challenge it.

          • There are many sides to this story but the bottom line still remains. He killed a soldier, one of Canada’s allies. All the hot air and legal opinions will never change that. This country has already spent millions on legalities. I do not agree we have to pay him for personally discovering that actions have consequences.

          • Do you think all the thousands of western soldiers killed or wounded in over a decade of war in Afghanistan were crime victims? Or just the ones in that particular fight with the US military in mid-2002? Thousands were captured. Where are the other trials by the US or other western countries of prisoners for fighting their military?

          • The difference is the other soldiers killed were not killed by Canadians. You may approve of his behaviour but I do not, nor do I think he should be paid for it.

          • I don’t think either of us believes Canadians should fight on the opposite side of wars from Canada. I guess the difference is that I would consider his age and circumstances in how he should have been dealt with.

            A lot of the people on the other side of the war were foreigners from many countries. For the US, he was just another foreigner, but he was the only one they convicted of “war crimes” solely for fighting their military in the two recent foreign wars, if not in any, and the first minor convicted of any kind of war crimes since WWII.

            Canada either refused, or wasn’t allowed, to take responsibility for Khadr until the US was finished with him. But I think his treatment by the US was harsher than anything a court would have allowed here, even if Canada did have responsibility and tried him for treason because he was born here.

          • His treatment by the U.S.was within their mandate. Canada did request him back at one point and was refused. What did he expect? And why does he expect we should pay him for his consequences?

          • Nobody can say with any certainty at all that the US trial was valid and there are lots of indications it wasn’t, including court decisions in the US and Canada.

            Canada didn’t ask for his return. Courts, the bar association, parliament (all opposition parties) and many legal and human rights groups tried to push the government to ask the US to let Canada give him a trial here, after the Supreme Court said Canada had been complicit in the illegal US process, the first time in 2008, but the government refused.

            If a court ever awards him damages, it won’t be because of what he did. It will be because of something the government did. So far Canadians have paid plenty of money for the government to make sure he’s treated as harshly as possible but apparently a lot of them think it’s worth it.

          • Why are people so surprised the U.S. wanted to try a terrorist who murdered one of their own? He needs to be responsible for his own actions. Paying him would be murder for profit.

          • Because when the US sends soldiers to wars it expects some will be killed or wounded and many have been. It doesn’t normally result in US trials and law suits. But in Omar Khadr’s case it did.

            Usually when you call a person a terrorist it means he committed terrorism. But in Omar Khadr’s case his “material support to terrorism” charge, like all the others, meant fighting in the Afghan war against the US military. Btw, in two other cases a US appeals court said that “war crime” and another one Khadr was charged with didn’t exist. Probably explains why nobody ever heard of any of them.

            The “child soldier law” – “optional protocol to the CRC on children involved in armed conflict” – was adopted and promoted by the US and Canada because they normally agree that minors shouldn’t be punished for being recruited into wars. It applies to people under 18 recruited by armed forces or armed groups. But, in Omar Khadr’s case it was ignored.

            As to why a court might award damages to Khadr some day, as I said it would have nothing to do with what he did or didn’t do, or who his family is. If a court decides the government harmed somebody, no matter who, by treating him illegally, it could award damages. That’s just how things work in democracies.

          • I am disgusted at those in this forum, would think it is okay to torture then interagate a 15 year old kid. It’s all a lot of crap! We screwed up just so Harper could look good to his american cronies. The law is clear. To twist it for one is to twist it for all. We have a constitution for a reason and it is to protect the rights of all.
            Like it or lump it. We have no right to call yourself a Canadian, if you can’t live with our laws as written or our constitution.

      • ABarlow has an interesting take on the activities of Canadian soldiers abroad.
        When the Chretien government legally sanctioned the military action of Canada in Afghanistan in 2001 it could be reasonably assumed that Canadian citizens like Khadr who opposed the Action did not have the right to travel to Afghanistan and attempt to kill Canadian soldiers.

        If ABarlow feels that Khadr had the right to side with al-Quaeda in Afghanistan then all those Canadians who opposed our involvement in Afghanistan should have been able to travel there and kill Canadian soldiers, if it were part of the war action. Thousands of professional protesters could have been fighting fellow Canadians and according to ABarlow ” killing soldiers in an engagement in a foreign nation is not typically called murder.
        ABarlow has no concept of right and wrong.

        • I assume that foreign nations that we choose to invade will defend themselves against us regardless of the legality of our actions as far as Canadian laws are concerned; likewise, I assume that were some other nation to invade Canada, we would launch a robust defense against those invaders regardless of their legal justification for invasion. Treating casualties of war as murder is a bizarre misunderstanding of the legal usage of the term, especially, again, as we were the aggressors in this situation.

          • The complete obfuscation in that reply tells me you are either deliberately stupid or most likely a lawyer.
            I thought I made it clear that the difference between a typical casualty of war situation and the Khadr killing was the treasonous action of Khadr.
            He was a Canadian.
            If you think it okay for him to kill fellow Canadians then it must be okay for anyone with a beef to kill Canadian soldiers.

            Deal with that.

          • Khadr was technically guilty of treason, I would say, but if he was ever charged with it, there would be serious issues in terms of his age at the time and the fact that he was raised mainly in a foreign country. It’s true that 15 year olds can be expected to know better thán to commit a crime, but the decision to join a war is completely different. That’s why no minors have been charged with war crimes since WWII, except Omar Khadr, and because of the system he was in at Gtmo, his “war crime” consisted if being in the war, which makes it all the more unusual.

            His real problem, and the most likely reason the US wanted to prosecute him was his family connections. But they might have prosecuted him at that time even if he was an Afghan kid fighting for a war lord with no AQ connection because the US government really wanted to hold some trials to show they were finding people with any kind of link to 9/11 and the main suspects, such as the 9/11 terrorists weren’t at Gtmo yet. (Comments of former prosecutor). It’s true that the first few picked for prosecution were very minor players. It amounted to a kind of testing of the new system.

    • He was lucky he wasn’t shot.

      For the record, Khadr was shot. Twice. In the back.

      • Why Lord Kitcheners Own? Perhaps because he used forced recruitment and shanghaied boys as young as 14. If they showed cowardice they were shot. As he was either a terrorist or a traitor (killing out allies) I am surprised the Americans nursed him back to health. I don’t agree with some of these people but I don’t plan on shooting them because of. That is the difference between them and us.

        • I’m not at all surprised that the Americans, having shot Khadr twice in the back, then nursed him back to health after the smoke had cleared. That’s consistent with American policy on wounded people on the battlefield as far as I can tell. I’ve always been a LITTLE surprised that they shot a 15 year old who’d already been blinded by shrapnel from all of the mortar and artillery fire that the Americans were raining down on his location. That they felt it necessary to shoot someone who’d already been severely wounded by shrapnel, in the back no less, confuses me a bit, but “fog of war” and all that I suppose.

          I’ve also personally always been more persuaded by the eyewitness accounts that said that the guy NEXT to Khadr threw the grenade in question (which is why that guy was subsequently shot in the head) and I’ve always found the fact that the Americans ended up prosectuting the ONLY PERSON LEFT ALIVE IN THE ROOM with throwing that grenade to be a bit dubious, but I suppose that’s moot now that Khadr plead guilty. Of course, when faced with the options of “plead guilty and we’ll sentence you to a prison term” or “don’t plead guilty and we’ll keep you locked up forever” I think most people would eventually choose to plead guilty.

          • hear hear, LKO.

      • Evidently not often enough…

        • Khadr is, it’s true, the ultimate survivor, it would seem.

          Somehow, the Americans managed to kill ever single person in that compound except Khadr, despite shooting him twice in the back after he’d been severely wounded by shrapnel. It’s downright miraculous that they managed to keep alive the only person in the compound who actually killed an American.

          I continue to be amazed at the ability of the Americans to diligently re-visit and re-work their initial reports (which had stated that the guy NEXT to Khadr (who subsequently got shot in the head) was actually the guy who threw the grenade in question) to determine that it was, in fact, the severely wounded and blinded in one eye 15 year old who tossed it. What luck to have managed to save the only guy who was guilty of murder, and not one other person!

          Or was it, just possibly, that they prosecuted the only guy left alive because he was the ONLY GUY LEFT ALIVE.

    • Khadr was nowhere nearly old enough to make political decisions when he was first brought to live in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Some people join wars for political reasons but they certainly all don’t and the younger they are the less likely the decision involves some assessment of political issues.

      Can you explain why you think the soldiers killed or wounded in that particular fight in the Afghan war are crime victims? Many thousands of soldiers have been killed or wounded in that and many other wars recently and in the past. Do you believe there was something special about that case?

      Some people believe it involved the war crime of killing a non-combatant soldier on medical duty, but he wasn’t, although he was trained as a medic as well as being a combat soldier, and Khadr wasn’t charged with that war crime. Others believe it had to do with him not being a soldier, as such, and it did, but nobody on the other side of the war was, same for most of the Iraq war and others. In fact some on the US side weren’t regular soldiers in the early part of the war. Such combatants are sometimes allies, sometimes enemies. Others think it’s because he came out of nowhere and threw a grenade when nobody expected it, but the military report contradicts that idea.

      • I’ll change the terminology to terrorist if that suits you better. He is claiming all the advantages of being a Canadian and proceeds to kill an ally. He wants it both ways and that never works. Actions have consequences. If you take the action you have to be prepared for the consequences. Last I knew the only one with a licence to kill was James Bond, 007.

  10. The government had legal obligations. It failed to fulfill them in spectacular fashion.

    Sometimes that has consequences.

    Simple as that.

  11. We can only hope that any winnings he gets will be promptly captured by the families of his victims.

    • I think most Canadians will agree with you.

    • He only had one victim, the American medic, a battlefield casualty.

      I must say I can’t think of many things more cowardly or despicable than suing a captured enemy fighter who killed your husband on the battlefield.

      • If I might help you to find something cowardly and despicable, try this one:

        A country accepts an immigrant family into the country. The family receives free medicare and welfare. The country joins allies to snuff out terrorists in Afghanistan that had been responsible for killing thousands on 911. The family then goes over to Afghanistan and fights against the soldiers of the country that had just accepted them.
        Even you must see the despicability of that.

        • You might want to double-check the timeline you’re spouting. I’m pretty sure the Khadr family was in Afghanistan BEFORE our/US soldiers were there.

          • So that would then make it okay for you. You have very low standards for Canadians killing Canadians.

  12. Obviously the mistake was taking the little scum prisoner in the first place. Had he simply been shot in situ there would be none of this nonsense.

    • Thank goodness our soldiers receive better training than the horsepucky this guy is spouting.

  13. So why is a lot of his family on social assistance?

    I still think he needs High Treason to Canada for those IEDs. Letting this criminal terrorist out is a slap in the face for anyone who has served in the CF.

  14. Enforcement of laws and one new law would solve this.

    Enforce falsification of entry rules and yank citizenship for the members of Khadr’s family.

    Second, if you fight for the enemy in any way, you have 2 choices. Face high treason or disavow your citizenship. In fact, if you you fight for the enemy and you have dual citizenship, make it automatic you lose Canadian citizenship forever.

    But finding politicians with morals and guts in Canada is tough.

    • Nonsense. Every Canadian of every sort should be angry about the way the government handled this and accepting of any penalty meted out to it.

      Anything less is a slap in the face to this great country and its fine traditions.

      • He fought against our allies. Doesn’t get much more treasonous than that.

        • Why do you suppose Canada was never willing to charge him, and still isn’t, not even the Harper government? I think they know they would lose or look ridiculous because it makes no sense. Whoever heard of charging a kid raised mostly in a foreign country with treason because he was sent to a war against an ally by his father? And this by a country that claims to uphold the child soldier law for everybody else in the world, except him. I think even the Harper Government knows it would make them look crazy. They’re content just to punish him as much as they can based on the illegal US trial.

    • Canada apparently was asked by the US to try Khadr for treason and refused, according to one of the judges involved in his cases here, possibly because they knew it would make them look idiotic considering the circumstances, or they knew they would lose. Canada didn’t have the option of inventing a new justice system with rigged trials just for Omar Khadr, as was done in the US for Gtmo detainees, and that system only worked at all because they, including Khadr, were all non-American citizens and lacked the usual legal rights.

    • Dave777, it all makes sense what you say. Dual citizenship is always a problem. To whom does the loyalty belongs to???? I see people with dual citizenship from countries at war. They come here as refugees, become canadian, keep their original citizenship, then go back to their country and expect Canada to fight for them when they get in trouble; using our tax dollars. Are they out of their minds?

  15. The Harper Government appears to be more interested in punishment and playing to the most hateful crowd in the country than in taking the best approach on security, unless they have some scheme for keeping Khadr in prison beyond the sentence.

    Khadr would have to be considered some potential security risk because of his background combined with having been locked up either in solitary confinement or among adult suspected jihadists for 8 years from age 15, if for no other reason. On the other hand there is, as far as I know, no record of anyone with first hand knowledge who could be considered objective actually assessing him as dangerous. That was claimed by one of the two mental health professionals on the Prosecution team. His prediction was contradicted by his two counterparts on the Defence side and was not backed up by the other one on the Prosecution side. Their reports have all been posted on the Internet.

    Corrections Canada has applied a formula to arrive at a maximum security classification. Their decision is currently under court review and was also criticized by the federal prison ombudsman. It’s hard to understand their reasoning because it means accepting the US trial as legitimate, in spite of court decisions here and the US suggesting otherwise.

    It seems unlikely the US considered Khadr much of a security risk because they had the option of keeping him imprisoned indefinitely with or without a trial and regardless of any trial result, as a prisoner of war, as they are doing with many others who are considered dangerous. They were under no obligation to offer a plea bargain and transfer to Canada, meaning he would be released across their border in 8years or less. Their military prison authorities, who would be in the best position to know, must have believed whatever security risk there was could be managed. The best way to do that would seem to be through rehabilitation and gradual and conditional release under the parole system. The Harper government has vowed to do the opposite. It’s as if, as one of Khadr’s lawyers said, they are trying to set him up to fail at gaining the ability to lead a normal life.

  16. Why is it even contemplated to be financially “compensating” a terrorist? The US would be right to brand us as an accessory to murder, essentially paying this terrorist to kill US soldiers.

    “Child” soldier or not, the act was terrorism and deserves the same punishment reserved for terrorists. The idea of “financial compensation” is sickening.

    • Throwing a grenade on the battlefield is NOT terrorism!!

      • OK Frank, for the sake of argument lets accept the questionable claim that the blinded and severely wounded Omar Khadr threw the fatal grenade, please explain to me how doing so would terrorize civilians?

        US soldiers know combat is dangerous — even if you have the other gys surrounded, with overwheliming force, and you can call in another air strike if you aren’t sure your opponents are all dead.

        Soldiers may feel fear in battle. They may want to run away, they may actually say to themselves “I feel terror.” But we don’t consider them as being terrorized when their opponents are other uniformed soldiers. I question whether it is meaningful to say they are being terrorized when they choose to engage with irregular fighters, who shoot back, and throw grenades.

    • He wasn’t charged with personally doing anything normally called terrorism, war crimes or murder. Terrorism usually means directing attacks at civilians. War crimes are defined in international laws of war and, for the most part, they also include attacking people who aren’t participating in the war, civilians, non-combatant military personnel, incapacitated or imprisoned combatants. Neither usually include fighting a military force because that’s what war is about.

      Under the system put in place at Gtmo after 9/11, any non-American citizen with links to AQ, the Taliban, etc., could be charged with violating US law of war either by committing terrorism against the US or by fighting the US military, which was considered providing material support to terrorism, and tried by a military commission. Only a handful or so ever were and Khadr seems to be the only person the US charged for fighting its military, likely because of endless legal problems and criticism.

      That’s why the charges against Khadr all amount to being on the wrong side of a war as a direct result of his father’s influence and his decisions on where, how and among whom to raise his children. That’s why Sgt Layne and Mrs. Speer where able to blame Khadr’s father for Omar Khadr’s actions to win their law suit against the dead father. That’s why the head of the UN child soldier program told Khadr’s military commission he was a “classic” example of people the law was meant to protect. (It wasn’t relevant to the commission because, by that time, Khadr was charged under a newer US law that took precedence.) That’s why Harper was wrong to say Khadr didn’t qualify under a law Canada claims to uphold and that’s why his government is wrong to use a US trial process, declared illegal by the Supreme Court, as an excuse for punishing Khadr as much as they can, as he said they would do.

      (Info is from the trial transcripts, the Speer/Layne law suit, the charges and stipulation of fact, the letter the head of the UN child soldier program wrote to the commission, the child soldier law (optional protocol to the CRC on involvement of children in armed conflict.)

    • You wrote:

      “Child” soldier or not, the act was terrorism and deserves the same punishment reserved for terrorists.

      Actually many legal scholars question whether throwing a grenade in a firefight is terrorism. Note, it has never been established Khadr did throw the fatal grenade.

      Under the Guantanamo system, the USA says it can continue to hold individual indefinitely — even if they are acquitted on all charges. In a system where acquittal doesn’t win release, but agreeing to plead guilty does win a promise of a fixed release date, you or I or Khadr would have to be crazy not to agree to plead guilty, no matter how sure we were that we were innocent.

      The compensation would not be to reward the acts he was accused of. Rather compensation is due because Canada did nothing to try to make sure he had a genuinely fair trial.

  17. It will be interesting to see if all the judges Harper has appointed, a majority on the Supreme Court, will make a difference. I wonder if they could just claim the Court was wrong twice before in declaring Canada complicit in Khadr’s mistreatment by the US??

    The last judge Harper appointed dissented on the Federal court of Appeal decision upholding the lower court’s order that the Government seek repatriation. He didn’t think the Canadian government should have been considered complicit in the US mistreatment of Khadr. He said the Canadian interrogators shouldn’t have participated in the illegal US process but that was remedied by the Court ordering the Government to share the info with the defence and Canada had no control over what the US did to Khadr.

    I don’t think there ever was much Canada could do until the US was ready to release Khadr to them. They could have complained publicly but it wouldn’t have made any difference except to make Canada look better. I would say, though, that the Canadian Government is wrong to treat the US trial as legitimate in determining how they treat him here. I don’t know how that can be justified.

  18. Send him back to Guantanamo.

    • This comment was deleted.

      • Good luck with that, Frank. If their tracking ability is as good as your spelling, I have no worries.

        • I haven’t misspelled anything.
          And you can be certain that they could easily find out where you live and who you are.

  19. Apparently the United Nations Charter for the treatment of child soldiers doesn’t include Muslims. The boy was FIFTEEN YEARS OLD!!

    • UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child. Note paragraph 2 and 3 on your 15 years old argument is null and void in the statement “not attained the age of fifteen”; he attained the age of 15 therefore he is categorically an adult. I really love your victimization statement on the treatment of Muslims, it is very telling of your position (or naivete).

      Convention on the Rights of the Child.

      Article 38

      1. States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child.

      2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.

      3. States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.

      Additionally, he is not even a soldier as defined in the Third Geneva Convention, Article 4. There are four criteria”: 1. part of a chain of command 2. show a flag or emblem 3. openly carry weapons 4. follow the laws and customs of war. He was part of none of these.

      So what can we learn from the UN and Geneva Convention. He was an adult and not a soldier hence not a “child soldier”.

      • Forgot something..a pretty important part:

        “The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Annex I of a resolution (54/263) on 25 May 2000.
        The protocol came into force on 12 February 2002. The protocol requires
        that ratifying governments ensure that while their armed forces can
        accept volunteers below the age of 18, they can not be conscripted and
        “States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members
        of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not
        take a direct part in hostilities”.
        Non-state actors and guerrilla forces are forbidden from recruiting
        anyone under the age of 18 for any purpose. As of August 2013, 152
        states are party to the protocol and another 20 states have signed but
        not ratified it”

        Guess what? Canada and the US both signed it.

        • Guess what? He was not recruited by the Canadian forces but by
          Al-Quaeda so blame them and his country of origin. Canada has nothing to do with that. Kadhr wanted everyone to know that he is a terrorist and is actually proud of this accomplishment.

          • While I don’t know how that’s in any way relevant to what I wrote, actually he was not recruited by anyone, least of all AL Qaeda. But don’t take my word for it.

            Samuel Morison (United States Department of Defence):

            “Omar Khadr didn’t end up in Afghanistan on the strength of his own convictions. He was brought there as a child. He was brought there by his parents. One of the more amusing facts in the conspiracy charge against Omar is that he’s alleged -from 1996 to 2001- to have travelled around Afghanistan meeting various bad people. What that conspicuously omits is that he was 9 years old when that started.

            I think the reason the case took on the life that it did, is that the United States thought, given who his father was, they must have an intelligence bonanza on their hands. But when he was questioned about what his father was doing talking to all these people, this is what he told them:

            “Khadr often said he did not know what his father talked about with people, as he was outside playing with other kids.”

            So in 2002, his father -for reasons that we don’t know- left Omar, who at that time was 15 years old, in the custody of this man, who is Abu Laith Al-Libi. A-Libi was the head of a militant islamic ogranization in Eastern Afghanistan called ‘The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’, which in 2007 became affiliated with Al Qaeda. In 2002, it was not. In 2002, they were Libyan Nationalists who were fighting with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

            Omar’s father left him with Al-Libi and Al-Libi immediately turned around and gave Omar to a bomb making cell in a remote village in Eastern Afghanistan. I would suggest to you that Omar had absolutely no control over this. He had no choice in the matter, it’s not like he could simply go buy a bus ticket and come back to Toronto. He was literally out in the middle of the Wild West in Afghanistan and he found himself sucked into the vortex of armed conflict over which he had no control and about which he understood very little.“



            Maybe you should bring that up to your guru, Ezra Levant’s attention – not that he’s much concerned about factual accuracy, though. Where does your claim that he ‘wanted everyone to know that he is a terrorist and is actually proud of this accomplishment’? Can you even provide evidence there’s any truth to that? Let me guess, he admitted it during the course of his repeated torture. Well, I’m sure you’d say a hell of a lot worse if you were put in those circumstances. You don’t strike me as someone with very strong emotional and character traits but more of a weak follower who feels good about himself by condemning while he doesn’t know or care to know most of the facts and thinks that gives him the right to claim he knows better than everyone else! You wouldn’t even last 5 minutes. Lol

          • You wrote:

            Kadhr wanted everyone to know that he is a terrorist and is actually proud of this accomplishment.

            Oh, and wo told you that? Was it Ezra Levant?

            I have followed Khadr’s case extremely closely. I have come across zero support for your claim he ever asserted he was a terrorist. I have come across zero support for your claim he ever asserted he was proud of the things US prosecutors claimed he did.

            Other than the bogus guilty plea he was forced to make I know of no place where he asserted he had actually committed any of the acts the prosecution accused him of.

  20. By all accounts Sergeant Christopoher Speer was an honorable man. His comrades say he risked his life and proceeded into a mine-field to rescue and treat some wounded Afghan children a few days or weeks prior to the fatal shootout.

    It seems to me that Layne Morris’s behaviour, since the firefight, has been far from honorable. He is frequently quoted about how lightly he thinks Omar is being treated, arguing for the harshest possible treatment. But in the case he and Tabitha Speer filed, for access to the estate of Ahmed Said Khadr, they asserted that Omar Khadr was merely a puppet of his father.

    Layne Morris can’t have it both ways. If he was a pawn of his father, as he asserted in that civil suit, they he doesn’t deserve the very harsh penalties he also argues for.

    Layne Morris routinely comments on Mr Khadr’s character, his training, his motives, his appearance. Anyone listening to these comments would think Mr Morris had personal knowledge to base his opinions on.

    Reporters who interviewed him seem to routinely assume Mr Morris has a meaningful basis for thies opinions. He doesn’t. He was wounded and evacuated from the site of the firefight four hours before Mr Khadr was wounded. Morris never met him. All of these opinions he expresses are based on the same press reports the rest of us formed our opinions on.

    • When Sgt Layne testified at the trial, he had some apparent difficulty remembering that law suit against Omar Khadr’s dead father for “coercing” his “minor child” into the war. He seems to be a favourite guest of Ezra Levant in his campaign against Khadr. Of course, he’s presented as knowing all about what happened.

      I wonder if the court would award Khadr damages. The Supreme Court definitely said Canada was complicit in his illegal treatment by the US but I suppose the government could argue it didn’t change the outcome for Khadr. The Americans had their own illegally obtained self-incriminating evidence. They didn’t need or use the results of the Canadian interviews at the trial and they were able to pressure him into pleading guilty, finally. It’s hard to say how the 2 or 3 Canadian interviews affected anything. The Supreme Court said Canada was complicit because the Canadian info might affect the trial.

      If Canada harmed Khadr I think it’s by using the result of that US trial to determine his treatment here. How does that make sense when the court has already condemned the Canadian government for even having anything to do with it? The transfer deal refers to opportunity for parole and the government is reducing his opportunity by applying a formula based on the sentence received in that US trial, treating it as legitimate. The chance of parole was likely part of what convinced Khadr to accept the deal, and give up appeal rights in the US, which is now important because of other decisions on Gtmo cases there. I think their approach reduces access to rehabilitation.

      They’re actually treating him as if he killed somebody in Canada, not in a war, as an adult. I don’t know how that can be justified, but I guess we’ll know when the judge gives his decision on the recent case. I think the government has to be concerned about whatever security risk there may, be when he’s released, based on actual objective assessment, but this government’s whole priority seems to be about punishment and political points for looking “tough”. I don’t see how their approach is even in the interest of security.

      • Can’t edit. Meant to say Sgt. Layne Morris.

  21. The most important thing readers (and reporters!) should remember is that Mr Khadr’s plea agreement was bargained under Guantanamo military commission system.

    For some decades now the justice system here in Canada, and that in the USA, jave accepted plea bargainsing as a basically fair addition to the justice systems. Plea bargaining is seen as fair based on the theory that an innocent man or woman will insiste on going to trial, where an absence of evidence will lead to their acquittal, and freedom.

    Leaving aside all the other ways it is unbalanced, and strongly favours the prosecution, under the Guantanamo system the USA has reserved to itself the choice to continue to hold individuals even after they have been acquitted. The USA has reserved to itself the choice to hold individuals for the rest of their lives — even if they have been found innocent on all charges.

    Under a system like this what incentive is there for an innocent man to continue to insist on their innocence?

    Under the Guantanamo system the smartest thing for an innocent suspect to do is to agree to plead guilty, because this is the only way they can look forward to a fixed release date.

    Yes, Mr Khadr agreed to plead guilty — under a system where any of us would agree to plead guilty. While, technically, this makes him a convicted murderer, it is far from clear that he was genuinely responsible for killing Sergeant Speer, or wounding Sergeant Morris.

    Mr Khadr’s lawyers are appealing Mr Khadr’s muder conviction. The other charge, material support for terrorism, is already irrelevant, because it was overturned as a nonsense charge in the cases of other men who plead guilty

    • arcticredriver, you are missing the whole point. The man is a traitor working for Al-Queda. The lawyers are not even appealing the fact that he did or did not do it. They are appealing a technicality. Kadhr signed a document that he will not litigate against any nations to be moved out of the States. Canada saves him and he litigates against us. You want to pay for a traitor. Hey, they would be paying with taxpayers’ money. Sick andtwisted!

      • When did Canada ‘save’ him? On what planet? And they are not appealing a ‘technicality’. Do you know *anything* at all about this? It’s obvious you’re totally clueless.

        If the government was concerned about tax payers money they would not have had to be brought to court and gone through more than one trial/appeal to still hear they were culpable and had denied Omar’s rights under Canadian law. They wouldn’t have needed to waste tax payers’ money on it and would have acted according to our laws.

      • You wrote:

        Kadhr signed a document that he will not litigate against any nations to be moved out of the States.

        Contracts signed under duress aren’t legally valid. Everyone knows that.

        Do you really not understand how the Guantanamo system works? The USA says they get to keep him — even if he had a trial, with witnesses, counter-witnesses, expert witnesses, cross-examination — and the jury acquitted him on all charges.

        In what kind of justice system do the authorities keep a man once he has been acquitted? Answer — a Kangaroo Court Show Trial system.

        Do you not understand that Khadr’s only hope of a fixed date he could look forward to, when he would eventually be released was by agreeing to plead guilty?

        If Khadr had been an adult, who made the choice to travel to Afghanistan as an adult, that would be a different matter. But he was a minor, a youth. His father left him with the jihadists. Are you suggesting he should have (1) disobeyed his father; (2) escaped; (3) tried to sneak his way to the closest Canadian embassy, and request the officials there help him get home to Canada?

        Do you have any idea how dangerous that would have been? The USA were paying a bounty to anyone who would turn in a foreigner. Would Canadian diplomatic officials have helped him? For all he knew they might have quietly turned him over to the Americans. (There was a Canadian who visited is ancestral village in Africa, was denounced for something his grandfather had once done. When he was released from prison there, and made his way to the Canadian embassy, Canadian officials would not issue him a new passport. The Americans had put him on their no-fly list — because of his capture. And, under racist Harper, our diplomats weren’t authorized to issue new passports to anyone on the US no-fly list. So, he had to live in a waiting room in the embassy FOR SEVERAL YEARS. The Harper government didn’t issue him a new passport until the UN criticized them for not doing so.

        Finally, what you call a technicality — no one wants to see an obviously guilty person get away with a crime on a genuinely trivial technicality. On the other hand, if the “technicality” is that the person was innocent all along, no one wants to see them go to jail anyhow. Khadr’s innocence hasn’t been proven. Neither has his guilt.

        The “technicality” as you call it was whether the Military Commission system had the legal authority to try him for “murder”, when it was only supposed to try genuine war crimes.

        Most legal scholars don’t consider murder a war crime. If Khadr met the criteria for a “privileged belligerent” as per the Geneva Conventions the Geneva Conventions would protect him from being tried for hostile acts. If he breached any of he criteria in articles 3, 4 and 5 of the third Geneva Convention, he could be tried.

        The USA had an obligation to convene what the Geneva Conventions calls a “competent tribunal”, to determine whether he met the criteria for protection from prosecution. The USA convened 1300 of those competent tribunals during the 1991 Gulf Was, and convened zero in Afghanistan. Shame on them.

        I am not a lawyer, but I did read the Geneva Conventions, and the USA’s 150 page regulation on how to conduct those Tribunals, and it is my opinion that if the USA had honoured its international commitments Khadr would have been protected from prosecution.

        Most legal scholars think that if Khadr wasn’t protected from prosecution by the Geneva Conventions, he should not have been tried in a miltary court, or by a military commission. Rather they think that for the civilian crime of murder he should have been charged in a civilian court

        Although he genuine guilt was never established you stand ready to treat him as his guilt had been established. While I acknowledge it is possible that he might have thrown the fatal grenade — we just don’t know enough — I suspect he was innocent.

  22. So much hatred is being focused on this one person who was raised mainly in a foreign country among people who would have encouraged him to join a war at age 15. You would think he went out and murdered people in the streets of Toronto. Or, you would think he was the only person in the Afghan war and the only soldiers killed or wounded were the ones in a particular fight on one day in 2002. There seems to be a whole context missing in the way some people look at this.

    Maybe the government could do what the US did. Declare war on Al Qaeda, etc. and build a special prison on an island which we would buy or rent from another country so it wouldn’t be in Canada, just for our one prisoner of war. We can keep him there forever because our war against Al Qaeda, etc. will never end as long as he”s alive. If Bush could do it, why not Harper? He could be a hero to a lot of people it seems, with his own one-prisoner mini-Gtmo.

  23. For all you Khadr supporters. When he is released, be it tomorrow or in 2018, invite him to rack in your crib. Oh, I didn’t think so.

    • I have no idea what ‘rack in your crib’ means but in english, I have no problem if he became my neighbour tomorrow. I’m certainly not the only one. That’s what happens when you don’t fall for the fearmongering and you actually inform yourself instead of just making inane comments without knowing anything.

      You should try it.

      • I truly hope when this POS is released that he moves in next door to you. You deserve him. Oh and for being informed, killers are not the best of neighbors.

        • I’ve already told you I had no problem having him as a neighbour. FWIW I’d rather have Omar Khadr as a neighbour when he’s released than an angry, obstinately small minded reactionary like you.

          So are you saying you would be too scared to live next door to a someone who’s been a soldier or a police office because you think he’s killed someone?

          • “I’ve already told you I had no problem having him as a neighbour. FWIW I’d rather have Omar Khadr as a neighbour when he’s released than an angry, obstinately small minded reactionary like you.”

            Me too.

            If you are trying to contend that little Omar is a Soldier or a Police Officer, you are in need of very serious Mental Health Care. Good luck with that.

          • Good argument. Oh, right. You didn’t even bother giving one. Yes, it’s all about my very serious need of mental health care: I’d need a lobotomy to accept your unsupported claims and take you seriously.

  24. If anything, find the hidden Khadr family money and confiscate it for the legal bills and keep.

  25. The Day this Terrorist Becomes a Free Man is the day Canada Becomes Less Safe…This individual is a threat to us all….Keep him Locked up 4Life…

  26. This is all ridiculous. ANYONE that thinks a 15 year old doesn’t make up his own mind is an idiot. Any parent will tell you that a 15yo decides what he’s going to do regardless of his parents, especially in Canada where you cannot touch your child with a shred of physical punishment without being slammed into a prison for torturing your children. everyone knows children have a free ride in Canada to do as they please. It doesn’t matter anyway, if someone is fed propaganda for 40 years there isn’t a person on te planet that doesn’t know it’s wrong to kill someone, they may try to justify it, but at the end of it they know they are killing someone and it’s wrong, even at 15. He should rot in jail and his father should be buried upside down under a pig slaughtering plant…

    • ya…sun news network. no thanks.

      whatever. i mean, really.

      • Oh, grow up. The ‘tolerant’ left. Silly twit.

      • yah might want to open your mind a bit, you could (gasp) LEARN something Leftard

        • Sun News is the last place I expect to help keep my mind open. lol What a joke.

          If you ever want to step out of the echo chamber, there are lots of actually knowledgeable people and sites where one can listen to someone other than Ezra Levant’s annoying, manipulative vitriol.I have a feeling that’s how you like it but if you ever change your mind:

          I get that you’ve got no real argument so you’re tempted to resort to the usual childish ‘insults’) such as the incredibly clever and original ‘leftard’ – oh i’m so offended lol), may I suggest that it might be wiser to resist that temptation?

          Because you know, right now, it’s not ‘leftards’ who are making complete fools of themselves after being caught doing a long list of illegal, stupid and illegal things… You just have to look in Ottawa and Toronto right now and it’s not a very favourable picture one can be very proud of. It’s more of a bad joke.

          So you might want to lay low for a while, maybe learn to actually come up with your own argument and debate on the merit of those arguments (by supporting them with facts) because calling me a leftard doesn’t actually hide the fact that you’ve got nothing of value to say. And bringing attention to yourself as an angry, rabid right wing nutjob doesn’t really help your case like you seem to think it does.

          Just a bit of advice, troll.

          • We need more people like Ezra Levant who can call a spade, a spade! His information is all backed up with facts, interviews and is very credible!

          • Lol Yah, the same person who writes a book titled ‘Ethical oil’. I mean really. That anyone takes that clown seriously says a lot about them. Ezra Levant is only good at using bigots on his show in order to make it seem like the garbage he spews is being corroborated.

            Do you know what ‘cherry picking’ means? Cause that’s what his #1 strategy is. Not only is there loads of inaccurate information about Omar and has been from the beginning, there’s been a deliberate effort by the US and this government to influence the public’s opinion and the media’s unquestioning repeating of lies and distortion has helped accomplish this.

            For you to actually make those comments shows how gullible you are and obviously happy believing anything you’re told because it’s supposedly contrarian. Ezra Levant gives repeated air time to the most ignorant, hateful bigots, which discredits his garbage right away to people who like to think for themselves and don’t rely on knee-jerk panic in the face of situations we don’t understand.

            People who are able to understand nuance and aren’t arrogantly convinced that everything has to be black or white. There can obviously never be anything we agree on because you clearly to care to think for yourself and are satisfied with the uncritical acceptance of people like that vile Ezra Levant’s cleverly dishonest crafted presentation of what he wants you to believe.

            You’re free to continue being an ignorant follower but don’t actually think it gives your arguments (well, if you can manage to come up with any, that is) have any credibility when you deliberately choose to ignore a huge amount of information that Levant conveniently pretends doesn’t exist or rejects simply because he’s decided he’s right and apparently doesn’t think he needs to provide any evidence (which clearly he doesn’t with a crowd of people like you who believe anything he says without questioning anyway!) or in the rare cases he makes an attempt to do so, he cherry picks, takes out of context or relies on professional bigots and self declared ‘experts’ that are anything but unbiased and often have no credibility with anyone else outside the echo chamber they’ve created as an outlet for their repugnant claims.

            So I’m sorry but you can certainly believe whatever nonsense Levant tells you to believe and remain uninformed, ignorant and vicious but don’t act like your unsupported claims and opinions deserve any legitimacy in the real world of people who prefer to think for themselves and find all the facts instead of blindly accepting what they’re told..

            I hate to burst your little bubble here but no, actually, he doesn’t back up his nonsense with facts, certainly not honestly, and he or the people he interviews are NOT ‘credible’ – not by a long shot. Eve Levant.. Please! Give me a break! Only in your world can such a hateful idiot be described as credible. Lol You people are like a cult of brainwashed, credulous and mindless bots. Get real!

  27. Letting this IED maker and /traitor out is a slap in the face to the Canadians in the CF.

  28. Omar Khadr claims that we oughter
    Acknowledge his “rights” in the Charter.
    So he’ll pull an Arar.
    (He thinks he’ll to go far.)
    As for his claim: it’s a real non-starter

  29. If Omar Khadr gets $10 mln, then an 85 year old Ontario granny, tasered by three burly police thugs, should make a similar claim: her Charter rights were violated by the state. I want all Canadians who were abused and injured by police or died in custody of police to claim financial compensation in the million$.

  30. Why will Canadian taxpayers be forced by unelected judges to cut a massive check for a murdering terrorist maggot? Pierre Trudeau and his warped, imposed Charter thats why.

  31. Only in Canada could a guy fight in an anti-western war, explode a medic with a grenade, and then be in position to become a multi-millionaire from the nation’s coffers.
    And we claim to be a moral and enlightened society.

    Fuddle duddle!

  32. When a family immigrates to Canada to become Canadian citizens and goes on TV and publicly announces support for Al-Qaeda as the Khadr family has and condems western culture we as a country then have a problem!!! There is no rehabilitation for these kind of people!! What Canada does is lets the most undesireables into this country and puts Canadian law abiding citizens at risk!! This makes no sense and the laws should be changed. It is too bad we don’t have any government officials that have the backbone to take a stand and make a difference!!! This will only continue and the money paid out will go to support terrorism!!!

    • Canadian Born, I totally agree with you. There will be no money paid out. Kadhr has signed a document that he will not litigate any nations once he leaves the States. He broke the condition so he cant stay in Canada. I am sure the Al-Qaeda will be happy to have one of their own back, without the money.

  33. Be paid for ruining his life? What about the life and family of the man he killed? (while he was a POW) He shouldn’t get a cent, the whole family stripped of citizenship, made to pay back the welfare payments and medical costs paid by their enemy, the Canadian people, and sent from whence they came. Period.

    • Ya and we should just become just like Iran or maybe Saudi Arabia.

      Stupid. Period.

      • MB what is the part of the word that you dont understand in T E R R O R I S T!

        • Actually you’re mistaken, I do understand every part of the word. Well, as much as I can understand it because there is not universal agreed definition. Even different groups within the same country (US for example) don’t even agree and have different definitions of what terrorism means! And more importantly, I don’t think the word can only apply to one or certain groups and can never apply to ‘my side’ like people like you do. I also don’t think it’s honest to assume ‘my side’ can always do whatever it wants, is automatically right or justified and anyone who is ‘against’ us is not allowed to do the same or anything at all because that is ‘terrorism’ (how convenient). I don’t blindly assume ‘my side’ is entitled to play by different rules and has a right to expect everyone else to give up on their rights because it is going to benefit us and therefore it is the right thing.

          But beyond that, I have informed myself about the high likelihood that Omar never could have thrown the grenade because there are several (not one but SEVERAL) conflicting facts and questionable claims that when looked at even a bit closely, make the claims that Omar was the one responsible for throwing the grenade absolutely undeniably ridiculous and not possible. But you know nothing about that, will never hear about it or certainly not bother to find out for yourself so why would you claim to know what you’re talking about and expect anyone to believe what you say?

          That’s not even all of it, there’s still the question of him being tortured, detained for years before being prosecuted, forced to face trial in a show trial in a ridiculous kangaroo court on bogus charges for crimes the US decided to invent because under their existing laws as well as international law did not contain any that would have made Omar’s alleged actions actual crimes (let alone that both the US and Canada are signatories of the laws granting child soldiers special treatment and calling for rehabilitation over punishment and the fact that until Omar, no child soldier had been prosecuted since before WWII, I believe), that our own Supreme Court ruled – not once but twice – that our government participated in his torture and that it had allowed the US to torture a Canadian citizen who was also a minor (despicable!) – just to name a few more relevant and important aspects your crowd dismisses,

          I think your cries of ‘terrorist’ are only meaningful to your cult of bigots. There are other words you seriously need to get familiar with. And while we’re talking about terrorists, you’re aware that he’s not been charged or convicted of ‘terrorism’, right?

  34. “Sgt. Speer’s widow launched her own claim in a U.S. court, demanding damages from the estate of Khadr’s dead father”

    Hello? He (Sgt. Speer) was a soldier fighting in a war. A lawsuit.. Are you kidding me? I realize she lost her husband but 1)he volunteered to be there knowing there was a risk he could be injured or die 2)would Khadr’s family have been justified to launch a claim against the soldiers if he had been killed him, which the soldiers almost did? We’re talking about a soldier who was part of a team who had spent the last several hours attacking the house Omar was in, we’re not talking about a bystander or civilian than wasn’t involved in the fighting!

    I hope Omar gets awarded some money because the way our government treated him is absolutely disgusting and shameful.

    What’s also shameful is how the Canadian media has done a crappy job at reporting the truth and instead simply repeating the lies of the US without ever questioning the complete ILLEGALITY and ILLEGITIMACY of the entire process (from the day he was captured, then tortured, threatened, detained incommunicado, denied his rights, treated, tried and sentenced as an adult, prosecuted in a military commission that had no authority to prosecute him, for crimes that did not even exist under US law, etc). It is utterly shameful that our media has only repeated the same facts, framed the way the US thugs have framed it and have totally failed to challenge what they were told.

    Just watch this great presentations filmed in Edmonton that have recently been uploaded, which explain a lot more than I’ve ever learned from the msm.

    The first one covers legal aspects and explains just how much of a sham the military commission was:

    The second is just as fascinating and is by (retired Brigadier general) Dr. Stephen Xenakis, who was/is Omar’s psychiatrist.

    I hope Omar wins and receives a large compensation for what the government has done to him.

  35. Wake up! A lot of you making comments. If one can commit a murder which is an adult act, one should be tried as an adult. Treason should have been enough to strip him of his Canadian citizenship. He promised in writing that he would not litigate against any nations. And he is suing Canada who helped him to come back to this country. A lyer, a traitor. What a a piece of garbage!

  36. Omar knowingly built IEDs and mines that he knew would cripple and kill innocent untold numbers of people along with soldiers. Some probably killed Canadian soldiers. For this he should be charged with treason and hung by the neck until dead.

  37. I am truly saddened someone didn’t shoot him dead.