So let me get this straight.
A) People defending their homes from foreign invaders are terrorists.
B) People who die invading a foreign country are murder victims.
C) Torturing enemy combatants is OK, by your moral lights.
Did I miss anything?
Tom
The issue is that soldiers' widows can't generally sue the soldier who killed their spouses. One soldier killing another in the course of a battle in a war isn't generally considered wrongdoing unless there are extenuating circumstances. This is why there aren't a ton of lawsuits filed by the widows on both sides after every war.
The reason that Sgt. Speers's widow wouldn't be successful in a lawsuit is that there isn't really a basis for a claim. Khadr didn't commit any crime, AFAICT. The law he was charged under wasn't even passed until years after the incident happened. His confession was extracted under torture; other American soldiers who were there reported that the grenade was thrown by a Mujahedeen who was killed in the fighting.
So:
- there's evidence that someone else killed Sgt. Speers.
- if Khadr did it, killing soldiers on the opposing side of a war generally isn't a crime.
- we generally don't hold child soldiers accountable for what they did as child soldiers.
Canadian courts would recognize all of this. THAT'S why Sgt. Speers's widow hasn't received any of the settlement.
... but the US is a whole different ball of wax. The US government should be liable for Khadr's torture, too. Maybe Sgt. Speers's widow would have better luck in a US court and would be able to get the courts to divert all or part of Khadr's settlement to her.
So that's the answer for
@Bob Jones - Sgt. Speers's widow hasn't received any settlement money because the US government has refused to acknowledge its wrongdoing.