I don't know whether you've had time to read the Supreme Court's decision. This time around, my questions will be a little more specific. First, do you think the Supreme Court is implying, by its decision, that the government should do more than just turn over the transcripts to Khadr's defence lawyers? In your opinion, does this ruling give Omar Khadr another argument with which to defend himself, aside from the transcripts?
I would also like to know what you think about the US military commissions. Earlier, I said that the US Supreme Court had ruled on the legality of these military commissions. Do you believe that these commissions meet international law detention, prosecution and fair trial standards?
In your opinion, was the Supreme Court sufficiently clear on the means of guaranteeing compliance with applicable international law standards? In other words, do you believe political authorities must comply immediately with the court's ruing? I imagine that you will say you need to read the decision carefully and that you will reserve your comments until later.I will understand if that is the case. However, on reading the decision, perhaps you will spontaneously say that it implies the government should do more than just turning over records. You might have a lot to say.
Try to look beyond the traditional legal way of thinking. You are here before a parliamentary committee. I am not speaking as a judge any more. In its ruling, did the Supreme Court implicitly call for the government to do more than just turn over records?