I start this off by saying that this is a Canadian issue to be decided by Canadians - not by a USian whose last Canadian resident was his maternal grandfather.

So, my comment is limited. I read the Globe article and all of the Globe's archived articles. As in the BM case, we have a lot of statements and very little evidence (much of the evidence seems to be classified - or at least has not been disclosed).

Therefore, I have no opinion as to whether AA was what we (US) would consider an "unlawful enemy combatant", or whether he went afoul of some "terrorist" law. Judging from the relatively few habeas cases decided after merits hearings, that is a logical position to take (Judge Leon's cases, admittedly dealing with lower level people, have broken roughly 50-50).

If this were a US case (if AA were a US citizen sitting in a US embassy), it would indeed be a lulu. I imagine it would commence as a habeas proceeding in DC District Court - and would also include a count seeking his removal from the "no-fly" list. That aspect of the "War on Terror" is about due for some judicial review.

AA is an interesting case. I would love to know the complete evidence (or lack thereof). Keep us abreast, Rex. Thank you for the link.