Omni

You're concluding what is the "right thing" because it suits your opinion, which your right. Others around the table may conclude that he was denied his rights, and for a long time, and therefore has a right to at least some compensation.

And I'll agree with you on that.

I would have to agree with jacee on this for sure. Doing what you call the right thing could very well have cost the taxpayer double, and I would imagine the DoJ lawyers advised the current government of this based on the prior decisions of the SC.

And where's yours to the question I keep asking, and you keep putting your tail between your legs and running away from as to why the planes hit the buildings. Please don't bother us with anymore of your conspiracy's until you can explain that one.

Now then, I'm still waiting for you attempt to tell us why those planes crashed into the towers under the guidance of their rightful aircrew.

Airplanes are made of aluminum. Burning jet fuel, especially mixed with other flammable materials from the offices, burns hot enough to melt aluminum, not steel. And as the article explains, "there is no documented evidence of molten steel at the WTC site".

Maybe you should re-read the last line there. And then you can read this link. As you go down the page you will find how the "molten steel" theory has been debunked. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11

Aluminum.

Oh and here all along I heard the hijackers were Arab not WASP.

So you have nothing on that question as I suspected. Planes don't usually hit buildings especially when they are flown by competent pilots in clear weather.

I'll wait for you to catch up by answering the question as to what caused the planes to hit the buildings if you think there were no hijackers.

Prove there weren't. (hint: their names can all be found lots of places)

So tell us why the planes flew into the buildings. Did they take over themselves and do it? Speak of delusional.

Badges eh? A very strange thing to be proud of.

There's nothing really to understand. You're just ranting with no basis.

You can hyperventilate and hurl all the insults you like. The courts have to interpret and apply the law and are therefore held to a much higher standard. I'm not a fan of Khadir but I how the courts applied the law. Perhaps this should be a lesson to the US with regard to setting up illegal operations like Gitmo.

What a silly comment. In fact in this case Canadian laws were broken, human rights were denied. The courts have shown that and so compensation was required. I wasn't in Afghanistan to see what really happened, and neither were you, but 10 years in jail with no access to legal council is against our, and US laws, except in this case access to law was denied by creating a basically illegal prison on foreign soil. Better handling of the case may have produced an outcome more in line with you rant.

I don't think those are impeachable.

Nope, they're investigating emoluments, collusion, obstruction, article 25, and that's just part of the list. If he continues to provide evidence, it will continue to be followed.

Stop being it, we'll stop describing it.

Oh I think no one here doubts you are honest about your beliefs. That's why the label keeps popping up I suppose.

And the rest of us use words we know the meaning of and that actually have meaning. I used to live in Ontario so I know what a snowflake is.

Convicted by a bogus US military commission without any legal representation. Of course your namesake decided he could do away with habeas corpus with the stroke of a pen. Maybe he should be convicted. Oh yeah, he already has been.

Why would I? You're the one who keeps flogging it around, and now you admit you don't know what it means. tsk, tsk

Standby, he's looking it up.