Leaderboard

Well, he says he's remorseful now, and he wants to show Canada that he's turned over a new leaf. He realizes what he did was wrong and hopes he can be forgiven for the damage he's caused. I think a good start to walking this new noble path would be for him to honour his debt to Speer's widow and voluntarily give her the 139 million he owes her, or at least a 10.5 million dollar down payment towards rectifying his debt to her.

Sgt. Spears, the rest of the US, Canadian, Australian, British, etc. forces were part of a UN Security Council approved effort to engage those who attacked the US in 9/11 - expressly to eliminate the foundation of terrorism that was threatening several UN countries and thus world peace and security - and they were doing so at the invitation of and co-operation with the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Queda - for whom the Khadr's voluntarily left their adopted nation ( to go to a country NOT of their origin but one of their terrorist group's sites of invasion of another sovereign state - clearly violating their sworn Oath of Allegiance as naturalized citizens). Any attempt to legitimize or excuse what they were doing as being "soldiers" or "defenders" is purely BS. I might once again point out that CANADA had its citizens fighting on behalf of the alliance forces in defense of the peace and security of many other nations without the balls to stand up to the same terrorists they are now being attacked by. The Khadrs may have killed some Americans, but they could just as easily have been attacking Canadian forces. Trying to hide this behind the "child soldier" defense is similarly disgusting. The little crapbag was not forced into this situation, he went by all accounts extremely willingly and knowledgeable (and thoroughly trained) about what his purpose was. Deportation is far too good for the surviving Khadrs, a firing squad would be far more appropriate.

Lets sort this out, his entire family are admitted terrorists. Mom and Dad sent him to terrorist school. He is seen on video making bombs, He was caught on a battlefield in Afghanistan with another person (killed) and plenty of spent ammo. He has admitted to killing a US solider and commented that that was the best day of his life. In recent interviews, he nearly fesses up again that he did it. Now, not only does common sense dictate that he's a terrorist, your "gut feeling" should also tell you that he's a terrorist. It's not as complicated as you make it out to be. I'll let you in on a secret, regardless of what a court found...OJ Simpson is a murderer - that's right! My common sense and gut feeling tell me so - a court finding him not guilty, did not complicate my belief. My issue now, is wondering how the school system can fail so many people and render them helpless to use common sense.

Remember last year for the MLB Allstar game, one of the Canadian Tenors went rogue and changed the lyrics and sang about "All Lives Matter". Which is, of course, a racial lightning rod because it diminishes the relevance of Black Lives Matter. Well last night in Miami this happened. https://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/2017/07/11/anthem-giggle-by-canadian-singer-gets-justin-smoaks-attention-before-all-star-game.html Can't we get "good" recording artists at these Big Sporting Events?

Lol...says the guy who deletes posts from cons with opposing views. You know what's what at 15. I was on my own working, as was my partners father by that age.

No he wasn't, he was awarded compensation because CSIS and the Canadian Foreign Affairs Officer under the Liberal Government interrogated him and then shared the information obtained with the commission, which the Supreme court ruled was a violation of his constitutional rights. The ruling said absolutely nothing about his incarceration being illegal. Are you in possession of any of the facts, or just innuendo?

Yes I agree I have heard that flimsy argument so often on here. Good on ya for pointing it out but of course it will have little impact on the converted.

That scenario is highly unlikely for a 15 year old. Does he fully support AQ now? I don't know. BTW the family are an extenuating factor, not an aggravating one. I see them often brought up as making his guilt worse which is not the case in our system.

Here's one. There are tons. https://www.aclu.org/news/supreme-court-says-guantanamo-bay-military-commissions-are-unconstitutional-aclu-calls-decision

Do you really think the apologists would have gone along with Muslim children being taken away from Muslim parents? Chretien probably didn't want to be labelled a racist and an Islamophobe at the time. This is why the ones who screech about Islamophobia are the ones who are truly helping terrorists.

I hope if Khadr decides to blow himself up he does so in a crowd of fawning, adoring progressives.

He was 10 when he was recruited. What age Betsy? Simple question. If he was 14? 5? In diapers?

Khadr has not heard the last of this lawsuit. The US attorneys acting in this lawsuit on behalf of the widow were probably well aware they were wasting their time in the Ontario Superior Court. I strongly suspect they have something up their sleeve. And as I said earlier, I hope this matter drags on no end to make Justin and his Liberals sweat bullets.

Okay, so you have put forward a claim that the Supreme Court has ruled that Parrish's judgement was rejected. I have given you plenty of direction and opportunity to lead you to the facts that would show you that you are completely wrong on this point. Could you provide anything at all that would substantiate your claim? And the Speer application was merely to freeze his assets, this story is far from over. He still has a 134 million dollar wrongful death judgement against him that he lost. This case will be heard in a Canadian court. Hate to bust your bubble, I know you were getting excited in your incorrect thinking that this thug was home free.

anybody with brown skin and a funny foreign sounding name?

If he was recruited at 10 years old but isn't considered a child soldier, then what would the cons on this forum consider a child soldier? 5 years old? still shitting their diapers?

Cite that it's changing quickly? EV's still make a very tiny percentage of the total car market. I think EV's will work as commuter cars within cities assuming they can drop in price without a huge government subsidy. But that technology can't replace long haul trucks. Or cars that can take you across a country without long stops for re-charging. It's funny. 10 years ago environmentalists were talking about peak oil. Now people think Oil will be useless soon. Cheap oil actually helps the IC engine. Governments are trying to make oil artificially more expensive with Carbon taxes actually.

The Russian woman shouldn't be IN the US because her VISA had been up over 6 months but Obama let her stay and she said she hadn't had any contact with any Russian official, which she did, the Ambassador and the DEMS, started using "Russia" soon after the election against Trump.

Unlike JT, pure class. http://m.torontosun.com/2017/07/13/former-pm-stephen-harper-reaches-out-to-khadr-victim

Have you heard anything about Ukraine helping Clinton?

No they won't. This is less a study than some dude's environmental wet dream. Someone buys a new combustion engined car today, in 8 years that car will be banned? Gimme a break! Also the only reason you can even get EVs that are close to $30,000 is because of huge government subsidies. Will that continue?

Another angle to consider is that Justin and co. were desperate to keep the Khadr matter away from any court action in order to shield Chretien and Martin from having to be called as witnesses and testifying. One more reason why they struck a secret back room deal with Khadr's lawyers to protect Chretien and Martin from a burgeoning Liberal scandal.

by whose accounts?

I won't be a white dude, that's for sure!

I heard somewhere that there is evidence of the Democrats colluding with Ukraine during the election. Haven't seen it on CNN yet. Anyone else hear this?

You probably never believed in Big Bird's friend Mr. Snuffleupagus either.

Another way of looking at it is that the courts had access to all the above information and much more. But they still didn't convict him. Probably because, there wasn't enough proof against him. A more ethical question is that should we punish a person if there is a 50% probability that he is a terrorist? What about 80% probability? What about 99% probability? Or going one step further, should we punish a person if we suspect that he might turn out to be terrorist even though he hasn't committed a crime yet? You see this is a slippery slope.

No, feeling (and flat out denial) are what you people are spewing. Logic and common sense sides with Khadr being a terrorist. A canadian terrorist - sure, a young terrorist - sure, but FFS, just like his mom, dad, brother and sister, he is a terrorist. And, what's more - you women can't "save" him.

I don't get this part. How is he a terrorist when nobody could prove it. Are we living in Somalia or Saudi Arabia or China where you could tag anyone as terrorist because you feel so.

Very interesting thread. I think that both liberal and conservatives arguments are built on some basic assumptions. Conservatives have already assumed that Khadr killed a person and is a terrorist because his affiliation with his family. Liberals seem to believe that allegations against him are not proven, he was a child who spent his 10 years under unfair detention. With this huge gap in assumptions, productive discussion can't happen. It is more of an emotional issue than a logical one. That being said, I think Canada is a better country than Afghanistan or most of the third world countries (and US too) because of its strong institutions, focus on human values and equal rights. $10M is a little cost to pay for preserving our values. We don't have to stoop down to third world levels where legal system is broken, illegal detentions are common and innocent people die in jail for no reason.

Now he can afford an Armani or Brooks Borthers burqa.

It was a butchered rendering of Canada's national anthem even without the flakey giggling. When I heard her singing the anthem last night, I wondered if she was high on drugs.

Name the cases and explain how they are applicable. They don't exist. There are no cases with facts close enough to serve as precedent for the Kadr case. I am calling you out. I am also calling you out on your repeated false comment the doctrine of clean hands does not apply to Kadr. It is an absolute falsehood. Unlike you I have sources. Please go to: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/laplante.pdf in particular in this article go to the wording at paragraphs FN34 to FN38. It makes it crystal clear the doctrine applies. Omni's unilateral claim that once a charter violation is determined the doctrine of dirty hands is pre-empted is false. I am past being diplomatic with Omni. Its a blatant falsehood. The conduct of the state determines whether the Charter of Rights was violated. The doctrine of dirty hands does not come into consideration for the determination of charter violations, its a non issue. Once and only once the charter violations are determined and the aggrieved party then seeks a remedy, i.e., monetary compensation, does the doctrine get considered. The doctrine is not used to determine whether a violation of rights occurred, only the amount that should be considered fair compensation for the violation once the violation is determined. Only once the charter is violated, does the dirty hands doctrine consideration issue aand yes the courts most certainly can consider the aggrieved party's conduct leading up to, during and after the violations he seeks damages for. Omni is engaging in a falsehood suggesting, inferring its not applicable. Here is an article that shows how wrong Omni is and what I have argued in previous posts on this thread as to why the doctrine of clean hands would be considered: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2470&context=ndlr This paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2358229 makes it clear that the equitable principle of the doctrine of clean hands is very much a part of international law consideration There is most certainly a public policy rule in the common law that has been repeatedly applied in Canadian courts at all levels that has held a person can’t profit from their crime. To pretend its not applied to the someone seeking a Charter remedy is a falsehood. Let Omni put up or shut up and show the case that states the doctrine of clean hands is pre-empted from application to those seeking a remedy under the Charter. No case exists. In fact the Charter has a limiting section in Section 1. This section in fact allows the federal government and provincial governments to argue that certain infringements of Charter rights are allowed..In fact in every case in which a court discovers a violation of the Charter including the Supreme Court of Canada, they are required pursuant to a section 1 analysis to determine if the violations or Infringements can be justified to achieve what would be recognized as an urgent or important objective in a free society. That argument to limit the Charter's application could be recognized if it could be "demonstrably justified" to protect or uphold an important objective in free society. The withholding of an award to Kadr not withstanding his rights being violated could have been argued under this section along with arguments as to him having dirty hands at the time of the violations and how indirectly awarding a terrorist any compensation undermines public moral values, in particular the moral values of the victims of the crimes Kadr engaged in. The Justice Ministry abrogated its legal responsibility to argue public morality, section 1, and the clean had doctrines. Omni is well aware the Charter was limited to prevent the anti-Semite Keegstra a high school teacher from claiming it was his Charter Rights that allowed him to preach the holocaust never happened in high school. Its also been used to uphold obscenity laws. No where is there a Supreme Court case that says that once a charter violation is proven, common law doctrine as to public morality, equitable remedy of s.1 of the Charter can not be argued as to the amount of award.

You come on this forum to applaud terrorists and call Canadian soldiers paid killers. It speaks loudly to what an inexperienced child you must be to be unable to tell the difference.

You don't have to make sense of anything....this is my resentment and I own the burden it creates no one else....You can make all the excuses you want for Omar and his family that's on you not me..... And your right , I don't like the way it has turned out.... I have a lots of hobbies but thanks for your concern.....Many Canadians do support our military and it's vets , just not the Majority of them....one day perhaps... You should do some home work Liberals have deployed more soldiers in our history than all other parties put together.....Why is it that just the cons get the warmongers label.....

President Trump keeps rolling....in Poland. The crowd chants, "USA USA USA !" Big difference from NATO deadbeats Canada and Germany.