cont'd

- it was inferred by the SCC but not proven that the Charter breaches exacerbated Khadr's situation. 

- later reluctance to repatriate Khadr would not attract damages because the SCC determined that it was not a Charter right.

As for the British vs. Khadr:

- UK group detained for intelligence purposes - Khadr detained as the result of a battle 

- US was happy to send the UK group back within a year or two -- US refused Canadian access to Khadr, refused repatriation and severely restricted the type of visits for several years

- 9/11 is fresh, Khadr is the son of a major Al-Qaida player and part of a serious jihadi family.  If you were the US, would you simply release him 'because he's 15?'?  Big difference between him and the UK folks.

Of the 10 years, Canada didn't put him there, they weren't obliged to bring him home, and at most, he was there an extra year or two while the repatriation and sentence transfer were worked out.  Much smaller set of damages if any.