jacee

Don't answer personal questions. You don't know who this is, and it's suspicious that he's asking.

They are children. You are disgusting.

You are pretty full of hate for a 'Christian'. Kinda strange.

Yes, they made the children make the IED's. If the children didn't do what they were told, they were made to become suicide bombers - kill others and kill themselves. That's from an article written by one of Omar's older brothers, the one who, when he was old enough, defied his father and ran away ... because his father was threatening to make him a suicide bomber.

Yes I've read it. Very telling ... "Had the events happened under Canadian jurisdiction, they would not have been enough to lay a charge, let alone secure a conviction."

He never had a trial. He took a plea deal to get the hell out of Gitmo.

Deeply duped. 54% of the budget spent on wars-of-aggression-for-profit, paid for by American taxpayers who never see a penny from the resources stolen from the countries the US invades. They're just meekly paying for wars that make billionaires even richer. Duped.

There is no evidence that he threw that grenade. There is no evidence that he was a combatant at all. No one ever said he was armed, no spent ammunition, grenade pins, nothing. It was the other man found alive who was armed, but out of ammo. It's likely safe to assume that he had just thrown his last grenade. He was AlQuaeda, a friend of Omar's father. Omar was in his care. US soldiers executed him, a violation of the rules of war. They know who threw the grenade.

Not true. http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/five-false-things-right-wing-provocateur-gavin-mcinnes-said-in-a-cbc-interview/wcm/1d7c786e-78e5-4524-ac8b-10b221a116dd

Such a load of hooey. I thought you were smarter than that, Hal.

How often does a soldier's family get to sue an enemy for damages when a soldier's killed in a war? Never heard of such a thing. What about the other US soldiers who died in Afghanistan? Are their families suing anybody? If Speer's colleagues, US soldiers who shot 15 year old Omar in the back, had succeeded in killing him, this conversation wouldn't be happening. Maybe she should be suing the US military for sending Speer out without a helmet. Tragic.

Ya, I'm sure Pere Khadr would have just stepped right up and declared to Leitch that he's a bagman for AlQuaeda! Lol

To please the US masters. Same sicko reasons.

Do what?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change Syria is the latest example. (For the oil, ya know) You're the one who doesn't like refugees. I would think you'd have some idea how they have come to be refugees, and how it can be prevented.

If anyone is interested ... Canada's Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) conducted this review of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service's (CSIS) involvement in interrogating Omar Khadr in Guantanamo: http://www.sirc-csars.gc.ca/opbapb/2008-05/index-eng.html

Harper could have avoided this if he'd provided proper support for Khadr's rights. Instead he sent CSIS to participate in interrogation knowing that Khadr was being tortured. Neither party's hands are clean on this.

That's a big long load of hooey, Rue. It's very simple: Canada violated Khadr's Charter rights. Canada got sued for $20m for that. Canada settled the lawsuit for $10.5m Case closed.

Which of those are conducting 'regime change' wars-for-profit in other countries, creating millions of refugees? The US is the most violent and invasive country in the world, consuming trillions of dollars of US taxpayers' money to profit a few ultra-rich people.

I understand the court rulings on Aboriginal rights pretty well. I am just curious why you think there's something wrong with some or all of them. The courts always provide a detailed rationale for their judgements, so you can find out how treaties are interpreted and why, if you choose to. If you don't provide any evidence, support or even examples for your claims then you can't expect your concerns to be taken too seriously.

Do not condone what situation? You are talking in circles. The settlement has nothing to do with what Khadr did or didn't do. It has to do with the government's failure to uphold his Charter rights, eg, access to a lawyer, free from cruel and unusual punishment, held (10 years!) without charges, tortured, a minor, etc etc. "Khadr’s suit claimed Canada had violated his rights and was complicit with the United States when he was detained at the U.S. base in Cuba, denied access to a lawyer and tortured. The Supreme Court of Canada in 2010 ruled Khadr’s rights had been violated. The apology sparked fresh public debate about Khadr, but Trudeau says the settlement is not about the details of Khadr’s case but the fact his rights were violated. Trudeau says the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, “even when it is uncomfortable.” “When the government violates any Canadian’s Charter rights, we all end up paying for it,” he said." http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/08/pm-defends-payout-to-convicted-terrorist-omar-khadr 99 American citizens were among the insurgents apprehended in Afghanistan. Only 1 went to Guantanamo, and only until they realized he was a US citizen. The US did not violate the rights of its citizens, despite them being adult enemy insurgents. Only Canada was stupid enough to violate the rights of its citizens, and this one a minor at that! It's embarrassing. I'm glad it's over and he has his settlement.

??? The gov was already found liable. So they knew they were going to lose this lawsuit. But you think the Libs should have let the court decide the payout, even if it ended up being double what they were able to negotiate? That's baloney. You'd be screaming that they should have settled. I have no time for your petty partisan nonsense.

The gov was already found to have violated Khadr's rights. Courts do encourage parties to come to agreement out of court. But you're right, the Libs could have refused to do so. Then the court would have imposed a settlement, possibly for the full $20m + court costs. Then you'd be yelling at them because they didn't try to settle it for less! Some people just like to complain.

Some might say that engaging in regime change interference to gain corporate access to other countries' natural resources - ie, wars-for-profit - doesn't make 'the west' a very nice guy.

That's a load of speculation and vague nonsense. Perhaps you could give a specific example of a court interpretation of a treaty that you disagree with?