the articles, and i think the government as well, are focusing on the question of a cost-benefit analysis: how does the government spend the least amount? but, the backlash to this is really from social conservatives and not from fiscal conservatives. maybe it's an intentional bait and switch, but i think the government is just not engaging with the opposition to the settlement.

from what i've seen of the case, i think omar khadr deserved a settlement. i don't even think his age matters; if he had been an adult at the time, he'd still deserve a settlement. if he had the intent to kill, he'd even still deserve a settlement. the people that are upset are disagreeing with this for the reason that they think that committing a crime should strip an individual of all of their rights. this is a position that is completely outside of canadian law.

even if omar khadr was the worst serial killer in the history of the country, he would still deserve a settlement for being tortured. being bad doesn't mean you deserve to be tortured, and doesn't mean you should be stripped of your rights.

there is consequently a more substantive rights issue at play and i'd like to hear the government be a little more vocal about that, rather than retreat to this cost-benefit analysis.

that said, i don't know how these numbers were calculated. is 10 million dollars a reasonable settlement simply because it represents a savings of x% over a trial? that seems a little crude. it also feels a little like extortion. it's maybe a little much. but, i do agree with the prime minister: the lesson is that you shouldn't torture people.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-legal-analysis-aaron-wherry-1.4199409