Wideleft

How is pointing out your blatantly obvious confirmation bias an attempt at being a bigger person? You're so upset you can't even come up with a rational response to anything in this thread. Others have posted a mountain of information to validly contradict your views and you refuse to acknowledge any of it, clearly because it clashes with your views.
The truth hurts, eh.
Just out of curiosity, were you this blindly outraged when Maher Arar was given $10M+ and a public apology under the previous Harper Conservative gov't back in 2007?

So, you have nothing .... Awesome. I win.  

Please explain how he was not a child soldier. You are welcome to your own opinion, but not your own "facts".

Just because you don't believe in the facts, doesn't mean that they are not true- no matter how hard you plug your ears and scream into the sand. Facts are facts:
Not theory. Not fabrications. Not lies. 
your own personal political/moral beliefs make these facts brought into light or wholly ignored and obfuscate the truth, But facts will remain facts. 
 
 
Just because you don't believe in them- doesn't mean they don't exist. 
 
 
 
 
 
These are facts... choosing to ignore them doesn't make them any less real, it just reinforces one's ignorance.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in his favour twice, based on what you refer to as 'catch phrases.' Sorry, but I don't see how that can be considered to be open-minded. It's a mess, the optics aren't good, but you have to at least respect legal rulings. 

Lol. This is the worst attempt at being the bigger person that I've ever seen.

If you would have taken a moment to click on some of those links, you would see that the evidence to convict isn't as rock solid as some would want you to believe. I would link it here... but I know you won't even bother, it doesn't fit your narrative.
 
So I will just quote it here and bold some points for you.
 

If you take facts into consideration, people's views are moot. Seriously, give the above article section a quick read and come back to the table and pick it apart. That would be awesome. 

Hyperbole from either side does nothing to advance the discussion.  I would encourage anyone who is presented with an argument (or evidence) that contradicts their view to look critically at it .. research it .. find holes in it .. then present an intelligent counter argument to refute that point.  The inability to reason through this is more ideological than it is political (though politics is a central theme to the ongoing discussion).
It's not enough to say it's true because I believe it .. I would expect anyone with strong convictions to say that it's true because I believe it, here's why and here's where your argument falls short.
 

There is ample information provided here to show what took place and why the settlement was paid, but it gets wilfully and easily ignored.
Confirmation bias is a really unfortunate affliction.

Hey guys.
 I'll just step in here and ask that we keep all the commentary on the topic and not each other.  
Gracias.

That Khadr was the person who actually killed him.  I'm not saying he was totally innocent - but the US military reports of the incident did change over time.

That still has not been proven.  Facts are important to this discussion.

That was the U.S. military's first mistake.  They didn't.  Speaking of laws that evolve - the US also made up a new law saying that soldiers could now be considered "terrorists" - whatever that means.  Khadr was arrested, detained and convicted without the benefit of a lawyer or trial.
Canada's mistake was failing to prevent them from doing so.  As for him being a murderer - that simply hasn't been proven.  Saying it more loudly or more angrily won't change that.
This is an application of law.  Take the facts of this case and remove Khadr from the equation and replace him with any Joe Shmoe.  Then consider if what Canada did was ok.  I'm not a lawyer, but if you can prevent emotion from affecting objectivity, this is pretty simple.  The Supreme Court found in Khadr's favour.  Fighting it would have resulted in a loss of time and probably more money.

That Khadr was the person who actually killed him.  I'm not saying he was totally innocent - but the US military reports of the incident did change over time.

That still has not been proven.  Facts are important to this discussion.

More clueless commentary. Well done.
I suggest you read up in the links provided in this thread and get a better idea of what's actually going on, instead of telling others to cool down.

That was the U.S. military's first mistake.  They didn't.  Speaking of laws that evolve - the US also made up a new law saying that soldiers could now be considered "terrorists" - whatever that means.  Khadr was arrested, detained and convicted without the benefit of a lawyer or trial.
Canada's mistake was failing to prevent them from doing so.  As for him being a murderer - that simply hasn't been proven.  Saying it more loudly or more angrily won't change that.
This is an application of law.  Take the facts of this case and remove Khadr from the equation and replace him with any Joe Shmoe.  Then consider if what Canada did was ok.  I'm not a lawyer, but if you can prevent emotion from affecting objectivity, this is pretty simple.  The Supreme Court found in Khadr's favour.  Fighting it would have resulted in a loss of time and probably more money.

That still has not been proven.  Facts are important to this discussion.

Welcome change around this thread to see more facts & good debate over the American style hyperbolic-nonsense this thread had become. For those that need a refresher...  
#15 - she's bang on about.
 

This is nonsense, you either respect our legal system or you don't, you can't apply the rules randomly to suit your prejudices and apply random justice.  You do know that he brought suit for $20M against the CDN. govt. and it was before the courts?  You do know that the Supreme court has already ruled on the legality of his imprisonment and confession?  Trudeau has nothing to do with the decision the court renders, he is simply following best legal advice and offering a payout and an apology to put an end to it and cut their eventual losses.  Khadr spent 10 years imprisoned in Guantanamo which is basically a Gulag created by the Bush administration exempt from US law.  The only reason Harper brought him back at all is because Obama basically forced him to, which just exasperated the situation by confirming the CDN. govt.'s true intent was to ignore the constitutional rights of a citizen.

I love this:
 
 
 
 
 
 

Settlements aren't for winner or losers - they are for people ready and willing to move on.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-legal-analysis-aaron-wherry-1.4199409

doing a little more reading on this... it seems to me like the gov't really shot themselves in the foot by not getting him out of Gitmo asap.... had they done that, we would be a lot better off... morally and financially...

That's really what this hub-bub is all about, "politics".  Conservatives want to keep this issue front and center for as long as possible, pointing fingers and throwing accusations as if their party had nothing to do with the current situation.  The Libs. want to bury it and move on asap, as the ruling party they are attempting to steer clear of divisive issues that stink. 
The legality of the matter is cut and dried and there can be no rational discussion if the evidence is studied and understood, the Feds. screwed up and the taxpayers are going to pay the tab, regardless.  People can argue until their blue in the face but the reality is, it is wiser to follow best legal advice and limit damage, because inevitably a payout and an apology was coming.  Anyone who thinks there was another possible result is unfamiliar with the legal process or is just trying to score political points for their team.
I personally detest both politics and religion as I see them as nothing more than hallucinatory distractions brought into this world to obscure reality.