Khadr’s lawsuit aided by recent Supreme Court decision

Although his civil suit was initiated six years ago, it was only in the spring of 2009 that Omar Khadr increased his claim to 10 million dollars, from the original amount of 100,000$ after learning about the involvement of Canadian officials in his detention. Khadr was subject to a “sleep-deprivation” technique called the “frequent flier program” in addition to other forms of mistreatment.

The civil suit, which will be heard in Federal Court and is still many years away from resolution according to Khadr’s lawyers, was instituted because Khadr’s Charter rights were violated by Canadian government officials while being detained in the American naval base in Guantanamo as an “enemy combatant.” The recent unanimous Supreme Court decision – which held, unequivocally, that Khadr’s Section 7 rights were violated by Canadian officials who passed on their records of interviews with Khadr to their American counterparts, in order to build a case against him – will no doubt be of enormous help to his civil action.

2 Comments on "Khadr’s lawsuit aided by recent Supreme Court decision"

  1. Haunting Ghost | 17/02/2010 at 4:44 am |

    You are arguing (pontificating?) from the Ivory Tower…that is, black and white.

    Once one gets out of the bubble, one can see that the Khadr case is not black and white (regardless of what the Supreme Court unanimously ruled) and requires a certain level of realism. From a foreign policy standpoint (where it starts to get grey), it is extremely difficult for the Government of Canada to dictate what the USA (yes, another liberal democracy and our closest friend and ally) does with this guy. Not to mention that the USA is under no obligation to listen to little old Canada in its requests on the matter.

    You can have 2 views. The Government of Canada (involving the Liberals and then the Conseratives) are in cahoots with the Government of the USA (Bush and Obama) to systematically keep Khadr down and violate his rights because they do not like him for whatever reason, or, his case is not black and white and involves sensitive information that remains classified due to national securitiy issues.

    Regardless, it seems to me that if both governments (involving both sides of the political spectrum) are willing to keep him this long, there is absolutely no doubt there is just cause. Maybe that is naive.

  2. Daniel Sklar, Université d`Ottawa faculté de droit civil | 03/03/2010 at 12:28 am |

    I think you are trying to argue a point that I never made. As is clear from the post, I was merely saying that the SCC decision would help in a civil suit; no more, no less and this conclusion doesn’t require a lot of imagination. I never expressed any views on the issue of repatriation, nor was it my job to do so.

Comments are closed.