Spiderfish

No actually they didnt. According to a motion to suppress ruling by military judge Patrick Parrish, various interrogation techniques were used on Khadr, but it was ruled that there was no credible evidence that Khadr had been tortured as alleged, and that his confession was gained after it was revealed that Americans had discovered a videotape of Khadr and others making IED's.

Yes you do... it was the entire premise of your post!! Lol, nice try!!

Actually, yes it is. Standard 14- 1.5. Determining voluntariness of plea The court should not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without first determining that the plea is voluntary. By inquiry of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and defense counsel, if any, the court should determine whether the tendered plea is the result of prior plea discussions and a plea agreement, and, if it is, what discussions were had and what agreement has been reached. If the plea agreement contemplates the granting of charge or sentence concessions which are subject to judicial approval, the court should advise the defendant, consistent with standard 14-3.3(e), whether withdrawal of the plea will be allowed if the charge or sentence concessions are rejected. The court should address the defendant personally to determine whether any other promises or any force or threats were used to obtain the plea. To answer your question...of his own volition, Khadr pleaded guilty to murder in violation of the laws of war, and attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, among other offenses.

This one was both legal and accepted, by both the prosecution and the defense. Confessions are only accepted by a court under very strict and specific criteria. If they don't meet this criteria, they are not accepted by the court. Khadr plead guilty to the 5 charges in the face of irrefutable evidence against him.

An admission of guilt is all the evidence needed to obtain a conviction. Khadr provided this. I ask again, how many Americans did Mahar Arar kill? The fact that you are even trying to draw a comparison between the two cases shows an obvious glaring flaw in the argument you are trying to put forward.

What cases? A cite would be helpful. Maybe you're referring to Maher Arar?? How many Americans did he kill again?

Agreed..it's not like the Trudeau Liberals to look for a deal. I mean...why settle on 10 mil when you can spend 20?

Then it would have cost us twice as much. But at least it would have been under the premise of a court decision, not the decision of the government of an allied country willfully submitting to a terrorist and apologizing. Our neighbors must be shaking their collective heads over this one.

I'm afraid your "facts" are a little misconstrued. The "fact" is, the Supreme Court ruled on January 2010, in a unanimous 9–0 decision, that the participation of Canadian officials in Khadr's interrogations at Guantanamo clearly violated his rights under the Charter. These interrogations occurred in February 2003 under the Cretien Liberals who were in power at that time, by Canadian Foreign Affairs intelligence officer Jim Gould and an official from CSIS. It was also determined that the extent of "torture" he endured amounted to sleep deprivation, moving him around to different cells, and solitary confinement. As far as there being little evidence that Khadr threw the grenade, killing Chris Speers was only one of the five charges he plead guilty to. In addition to pleading guilty to murder in violation of the laws of war, he also admitted guilt to attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy, and two counts of providing material support for terrorism and spying. There is video and photo evidence showing him assembling and planting bombs and IED's with other members of the Taliban which is irrefutable. This "settlement" should have gone to court and played out through legal means, but the Liberals were only too happy to pay Omar off and then try and put Harper's fingerprints on it. "Fact" is, Omar was in gitmo for the first 4 years with the Liberals in power, when Omar was interrogated and had his rights violated, prompting the Supreme Court Ruling.

And yes, I have a problem with the way he speaks, particularly when off script. This guy represents our country, I expect better.

There's nothing to look for, the issue is obvious. Anyone who can't see it must either be blind or able to justify it away.

He sure seemed to have trouble finding the words when answering media questions. Trudeau isn't known for having strong speaking skills, but geez... 45 uuhh's and aahh's in less than 2 minutes. Those must have been some hard words to find.

Chances for what...to express their conscience? No chance...it's been contained...all's well in Liberal utopia.

And what about individual Liberals? Oh right, that situation has been "dealt with" ... Anti-abortion candidates need not apply in 2015, Justin Trudeau says

Probably nothing… aside from the fact he spoke like Elmer Fudd and he always looked like he was about 3 hours overdue for his afternoon nap. Likely the biggest strike against him in his role as Immigration Minister, he wasn’t a female or a visible minority. Being an old privileged white male, I’m frankly surprised it took this long for Trudeau to show him the door.

I think the point I was making may have escaped you, but thats ok. Environmental policies and assessing environmental impacts involves more than just focusing on evil carbon. Carcinogenic and health impacts to humans and wildlife, pollution and toxic by-products, and overall risk assessments of potential damage to the ecosystem and water are part of the equation as well. Look no further than the resistance to nuclear power as a perfect example of this.

Hard to have an honest discussion on the matter when objective facts raised are described as pointless propoganda.

It's unfortunate that the by-products of manufacturing solar cells is never discussed or factored into the equation, by-products such as hydrochloric acid, hydropfluoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and acetone. And that's just for the cleaning and purification of the semiconductor surface. Then there's gallium arsenide, copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, silicone tetrachloride. The process of refining quartz into metallurgical-grade silicon happens in giant furnaces, and keeping them hot takes a lot of energy, which produces a lot of emissions—mostly carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Then there's also the fact that most of the batteries, components, and solar panels themselves are manufactured in China. The main photovoltaic producing countries that produce today typically do the worst job of protecting the environment and their workers. And then there's getting all of those panels and components over to North America, which in itself generates a fairly significant carbon footprint. It seems at this point that battery storage is the least of the concerns regarding the use of solar.

Yeah, you're right...my guess was likely high. Who knows how many people she put into her basket for sure? Maybe Holt should have asked her. He seemed quite interested in getting to the bottom of what the candidates meant. Maybe after asking Trump what he meant when he said Hillary didn't look presidential, he should have then asked Hillary how many American voters exactly she thought were deplorable. Was it exactly half of trump supporters, or was that just a rough estimate? Maybe it was only 20 million, or 10 million. That would have surely made the comment much more acceptable. My comment was about the moderating, not about Trump or Hillary. I don't think either one of them are fit to be leader in my opinion, it’s either “bragadocious” buffoonery, or scandalous corruption take your pick.

Good point...the 50% of Trump supporters only likely amounted to 60-80 million American voters so no big deal. But yeah, she apologized so all good.

His answer was pretty straight forward, all she has to do is release her 33,000 deleted emails. What about the Clinton Foundation...Benghazi...the deplorables that make up half the American population?? Was her answer to those questions clear enough?...Oh right, she didn't have to account for or answer to those gems. The vacuous silence was crystal clear.

Like many others, my take was that Trump came out strong at the start but got caught up in the shyte later on, giving Hillary the upper hand and putting him on defense. But I’m wondering what was up with that moderator? In my opinion the discomfort I felt over some of Trump’s twisted up answers was only eclipsed by my surprise of the unabashed bias and one-sidedness of the questioning. While Trump was being fed questions like “don’t Americans have the right to know who you owe money to” or “why did it take you so long to acknowledge what most Americans have accepted for years (regarding Obama’s natural born citizenship)”, or “what do you have to say to people of colour”, or “why is your judgement of the Iraq war different than that of Mrs. Clinton's”, or what did you mean when you said Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have a presidential look”…while all that was coming at him from the moderator, the most pressing question asked of Clinton was ”would you like to respond to any of your email issues?" There were no questions about any of her skeletons, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, the DNC scandal by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the 11 million dollar speeches, calling half the American population deplorable, etc. While Trump was pressed no less than three separate times about his taxes, there was no follow up to Clinton’s email issues. I am definitely no fan of Trump and frankly think that America loses regardless of which one of them ends up as leader. But I would at least expect fairness and impartiality in the questioning if a winner and loser is to be determined in the debate.

Yeah, but the traditional norm is no longer acceptable, the bar has been raised by Trudeau himself. Remember?? Its 2016!! We no longer hire MP's based on merit without first assessing gender quotas. Centuries old dogmatic religious tradition certainly won't cut it. It has no place in the new Canada in 2016.

One can support religious freedom without supporting segregation and repression of "the sisters upstairs". Trudeau appears to support the latter, that's his choice, he can try and spin it any way he wants. People will make up their own minds how they feel about his actions.

No, it would be a question for Trudeau since he's seen as supporting both misogyny and gender equality...it's one or the other. Supporting Freedom of Religion does not obligate him to lend support to misogynistic religious practices, they are not mutually exclusive. This is not a Supreme Court issue.