A symbolic figure of $1 or $10 million makes zero difference to the government. It's not like $10 million of tax payers money is any real deterrent to a politician who suffers no personal costs.
The behaviour of the Canadian government suggests otherwise. Right now, we have a number of people who are having to deal with serious political fallout so that Khadr will get $10M less than would probably happen otherwise. That $10M difference matters to them a great deal, apparently.
We have already agreed there can be consequences that do not involve funding terrorism and extremism which is the inevitable consequence of the policy you are endorsing (I assume you accept this last point).
Frankly, I'm not clear at all on what you're proposing.
There are laws against
anyone in Canada funding terrorism. There are financial controls to stop this from happening. Khadr would almost certainly get extra scrutiny in this department. I've already said that I'm open to strengthening these protections and laws if you don't think they're strong enough right now to do their job. You haven't touched this suggestion at all, which implies to me that it's not what you're after. Whether this is because you don't think it's a viable option for stopping the flow of money to terrorists or because this whole "don't fund terrorism" thing is just a cover for your real goals, only you know.
Regardless, in Canada - as in most countries - when someone's rights are violated, they're entitled to sue the person who wronged them and get an award for damages. You imply that you want to change this important legal principle.
You say that you don't want Omar Khadr to get any money from the government; on what grounds? Supreme Court rulings on his "conviction" have pretty well established that, if it were only up to Canadian law, his conviction ought to be overturned. Omar Khadr does not have any convictions that meet the standards of Canadian law; as far as the law is concerned, he's an innocent man.
He isn't even on the no-fly list. How would you change the law to stop Khadr from getting his settlement? What criteria would you use?
There's already a mechanism to stop terrorists from profiting from terrorism:
the courts. If that Utah civil trial had respected jurisprudence enough for Canadian courts to honour its judgement (and if it had established wrongdoing by Khadr while doing that), then it would have been a simple matter for the plaintiffs to have a Canadian court redirect the settlement money to them.
Those plaintiffs still have the option of suing Khadr in Canada. If they can establish Khadr's wrongdoing under Canadian law in a
fair and just court, then they'll be able to get money from Khadr. They haven't done that yet, though, so we don't pre-judge what this decision would be (if the Utah plaintiffs decide to bring a case forward at all).
You seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't wait for Khadr to be properly convicted before we treat him as convicted under the law.
This violates the principles of fundamental justice.
You may be convinced that Khadr committed acts of terrorism, but this has not been properly established according to the law. In a nation of laws that upholds justice,
we do not punish people until their guilt has been established by a fair and competent court.
Don't you understand how dangerous it is to give a government the power to deny a person's rights when it hasn't been properly established to the courts that he's done anything wrong?
Should victims of any later terrorist attack also get the right to sue the government for its role in facilitating terror?
What are you talking about? What terrorist attack?
