He was a child soldier, in every respect. There are also wider issues about whether or not tossing a grenade at soldiers who are attacking you is defensible. The whole point of Guantanamo Bay and the 'enemy combatant' designation was to bypass both the US judicial system and Geneva Conventions. Were he considered a soldier (child or otherwise) it would not be a crime, basically. Finally, thanks to the nature of the
trials military tribunals and commissions, it is not at all clear if Khadr did kill anyone. At this point, he may very-well not know.
That's all well and good, but it could be argued it was not Canada's problem... except the Supreme Court disagreed, and not in a light fashion.
Wikipedia wrote:Khadr's defence attorneys claimed that the Canadian government acted illegally, sending its counsel and CSIS agents to Guantanamo Bay to interrogate Khadr and turning their findings over to the Tribunal prosecutors to help convict Khadr,[157] and that the release of the documents might help prove Khadr's innocence.[63] In 2007, the Federal Court of Appeal ordered the Canadian government to turn over its records related to Khadr's time in captivity, as judge Richard Mosley stated it was apparent that Canada had violated international law.[73] The government appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2008, arguing that Khadr was just "fishing" for information and that disclosing their records, which included an initial account of the firefight that differs from all previously seen reports,[158] could jeopardise national security.[159] Critics alleged that the refusal to release the classified documents was due to the "embarrassment" they caused the government.[159][160]
On May 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the government had acted illegally, contravening s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ordered the videotapes of the interrogation released.[161]
In April 2009, the Federal Court of Canada ruled again that Khadr's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated. It concluded that Canada had a "duty to protect" Khadr and ordered the Canadian government to request that the U.S. return him to Canada as soon as possible.[162] In August 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision in a 2–1 ruling.[163] Finally, in January 2010, in a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the participation of Canadian officials in Khadr's interrogations at Guantanamo clearly violated his rights under the Charter. In its sharply worded decision, the Supreme Court referred to the denial of Khadr's legal rights as well as to the use of sleep deprivation techniques to soften him up for interrogation:
The deprivation of [Khadr's] right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.But, the Supreme Court stopped short of ordering the government to seek Khadr's return to Canada. It left it to the government to determine how to exercise its duty to conduct foreign affairs while also upholding its obligation to respect Khadr's constitutional rights.
I find opinion's like Christie Blatchford's (linked in the original post) rather cross-eyed. It boils down to:
He has plenty of supporters in this country and more of a shot at a fresh start than many of those who walk away from prison with nothing and absolutely no one in their corner.
Why isn’t that enough? Why can’t Khadr be content with what he has been given, and the rest of us with knowing that if he wasn’t always treated perfectly, he now enjoys freedom?
In the same opinion piece, Blatchford mentions more than once that the 'legal' process Khadr was subjected to was bunk. Yet, it concludes by basically declaring Khadr deserves the same treatment as any other criminal who has gone through the Canadian justice system. That's bullshit, and the 'why' behind the twisted logic is made clear in the same opinion piece:
If nothing else, at the very least, it’s a brilliant victory for the Taliban, al-Qaida, ISIL and all the other extremists: A young jihadist is now a hero in Canada for killing an infidel – and look, he got a big payday and an apology to boot.
If Blatchford's point is that the Canadian justice system clings to punitive punishment, rather than reform, leaving criminals who may otherwise be redeemable up the creek without a paddle, I would tend to agree. The point, though, seems to be that Khadr is a lucky guy, and should be satisfied with being back in Canada, despite the Canadian government's best efforts, and therefore (watch your step, this is quite a logical leap) this result is akin to a "brilliant victory for the Taliban". Sure... the people who behead folks at the drop of a hat (that is some twisted phrasing) will celebrate Canadian justice finally running its proper course after the government failed to protect a Canadian citizen, because he's Omar Khadr. I see what Blatchford is selling, but I ain't buying it.
The next couple paragraphs extend the thrust of Blatchford's column into lunacy via a very greasy slope.
What’s next: Do we apologize to the Germans for winning what another friend calls “those two memorable misunderstandings?”
“We did win both. Tore down the fabric of their society, twice. Killed a lot of their young men. Became an occupying force. Really, really sorry about that.”
I seem to recall quite a few German soldiers being held as prisoners of war and not tortured or tried for murder. I also seem to recall a number of German soldiers and government types being
tried for war crimes. In both cases, we on the 'good' side held ourselves to a higher standard than the 'bad' side. Turning to the other major enemy of WWII, we locked-up Japanese folks,
and we apologized, forty years later, because it was wrong.
In the end, what I find disturbing is people can't see past 'Khadr is a terrorist and therefore doesn't deserve the same treatment as other Canadians' (he was born in Toronto). Canada cannot abandon its duty to protect its citizens, wherever they are, whomever they are, and whatever they have been accused of, from clearly sub-standard legal processes. Worse, Canada actively participated in this fiasco. That is shameful.
A quantum state of signature may or may not be here... you just ruined it.