If you compensate all of these jihadis who have been put in similar situations then you will end up funding terrorism and bigotry because they haven't all magically been reformed into Secular Humanists.
Not my idea of a good way to spend tax $$$. If such money was used in this way, would you still consider it ethical to pay compensation?
Frankly, my higher priority is the criminal prosecution of the people involved in the illegal detentions.
Civil courts have methods for determining damages; whether it's the best use of funds is irrelevant.
There are already mechanisms in place to prevent money from flowing to terrorist states or organizations. If you don't think these protections are strong enough, I'm more than open to strengthening them.
The government can learn from its experience and acknowledge what it did that was wrong and take steps to prevent it from happening in the future, but the greater good is not served by giving millions to assorted violent extremists who have been involved in the murder of civilians.
In a country that respects the rule of law, people who have been wronged are entitled to redress. People who have been held without trial for years in inhuman conditions have been wronged.
If officials have broken the law then they can even be prosecuted.
I'm glad we agree on that point.
Accountability doesn't simply mean paying millions to jihadis.
I didn't say that it did, but in both of our countries, people who have had their rights violated are entitled to restitution.
If those people violated the rights of others, then the people that they wronged are also entitled to restitution in turn.
If you have to, award him damages and transfer them to his victims' families instead seeing as they permanently lost their rights.
If the person has victims who can denonstrate that they've been wronged, this could be the practical consequence.
It may very well happen in future with Omar Khadr - I have no idea. As it stands now, his American criminal conviction and civil judgement were so riddled with problems and injustices that it's likely the Canadian courts won't honour them by enforcing the American order and taking money from his settlement. The American military and justice system screwed up royally. If Khadr had a fair criminal and civil trial, things might be different... but they're not, so he gets the presumption of innocence under the law.
It's not for simple 'misbehaviour' it is for being involved in violent attempts to revoke the rights of others.
Human rights are inviolable, regardless of what a person does. The only time they can be infringed is when it's necessary to protect the human rights of others, and then only to the extent necessary and only proportionate to the threat.
I agree with Popper "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Respect of fundamental human rights is not "unlimited tolerance". Opposing detention without trial is not "unlimited tolerance."
The nature of the conflict makes it very problematic to have a 'fair' civilian style trial anywhere though, it's not like he can just call up a few Jihadis and get them to pop over to Canada or they can send a police forensics team to gather evidence at the site.
Then too bad for you, because there are only three legitimate options in a case like Khadr's:
- treat him like a child soldier and work to rehabilitate him, not punish him.
- treat him like an adult soldier and hold him in similar comfort to what your own troops receive until the cessation of hostilities, at which time you release him.
- treat him like a criminal and afford him all the rights normally granted to a criminal defendent, such as habeas corpus and a fair and speedy trial.
There are no other legitimate options. If you decide to treat him like a criminal but because of circumstances you can't meet the normal standard for a conviction, you release him.
