Rue

Yah meanwhile I was flying in my spaceship over A; Quaeda headquarters and I spoke to God and said, let's go right over its leader and I asked, God how do you allow this man to exist and have no laws to prevent him. Then God said, "my son ask Omni". Excuse me if I vomit now with these fantasy scripts.

Are you kidding? This is the Trudeau regime that has allows the border and immigration system to collapse allowing thousands of illegals to break the law daily to undermine our immigration nd refugee system. Him plug a loophole hah/ This is a regime whose leader attends radical mosques to pander for Muslim votes while in the next breath pissing on a democratically leader for being a traditional Catholic while Trudeau embraces sexist, homophobic, anti semites and sees no inconsistency. This is a Prime Minister who at the same time as paying off Kadr made a comment in Europe that we should not negotiate with terrorists! This is a Prime Minister who refused to raise the doctrine of clean hands to ask for a nominal award so he could instead cover up Chretien's misdoings. This is a man who has as his no.1 Middle Est advisor, Omar Alleghbra, an avowed defender of Hamas, Hezbollah and who openly calls for the violent end of Israel at meetings in Mississauga. This government? This government that uses photo ops to pose while it has bankrupt the next 4 to 8 generations of Canadians? This is a government with two faced, spineless, posers. It apologizes for terrorists and thinks if it pats them on the head in a patronizing manner they won't bite back. Trudeau is a silver spoon brought up in a cacoon and who is insulated from the world by the family trust fund. His perspective is skewed from this sheltered vantage point. He's never travelled anywhere with a germ. Good luck. By the way you want to find him? He'll be posing with burning fire in BC and pretending his under-funded army by his capable direction has things under control. That's the leader you have, a two faced poser. His head is one big loop hole.

Logic seems to pain you and Ghost. You claim you don't understand the value of Speer's life but you sure as hell know the value of Kadr's alleged "suffering". How is that? You and , Ghost, "Hudson Jones" , et al, know the value of Kadr but not this soldier. Right. The whole lot of you come on this thread like flies to dead flesh, denigrating the value of this soldier's life and the cost to that soldier's family. The whole lot of you value a terrorist;s life more than you do a soldier's. That is all that needs to be said . You came on this forum claiming to your claim to speak of moral values when defending Kadr. You now show you have none and morality is just a politically partisan concept you exploit for people you think you "side" with. Go on cheer lead Kadr and denigrate this soldier. The whole pack of you denigrating this soldier and questioning the value of his life show what you all will go to, to defend your partisan pro terrorist views.,

What that every soldier killed by a terrorist is worth 134 million. You bet. In your rush to cheer lead this attempt to denigrate the value of a soldier's life you once again can't even spit out a sentence without it biting you in the ass.

In regards to the first sentence, Kadr was not a child soldier, he was a terrorist so the Geneva convention does not apply. There is no international law for the treatment of terrorists or child terrorists. With due respect this is why Bush tried to create a law, to fill the void and his attempts with the B Bay system failed but while Kadr was in G Bail h e was afforded all the rights of a prisoner of war. The claim he was tortured is based on the fact he had a light in his room which never went off which he claims deprived him of sleep. He also says he found the repeated questioning of what he did upsetting. That is the torture arguement. There was no water boarding, electrocution, no one placed their hands on him and injured him. Under the UN Convention as to the definition of torture, this probably doesn't even constitute torture. Your second sentence is wrong. Youth 16 to 18 can be considered as culpable as adults for crimes. Next your comment is incorrent. The issue with Kadr is not that he is less culpable. Like youth in Canada, if he commits a crime the Youth crime laws were drafted with the contemplation the younger someone is, the more likely we can rehabilitate them not that they are less culpable. There is no legal concept of being less guilty. You are or you are not. There is no such thing as a little bit of pregnancy. You either are found liable or not liable for a crime. The difference in treatment with youth goes to the concept they still have their whole life in front of them let's rehab them. That concept is under fire and the youth laws have ben changed 3 times and about to change a 4th time to lower the age precisely because the arbitrary age of 16 has proven to be a farse with children deliberately breaking laws knowing they will get a light sentence. There's also something else you are not addressing. Even if you believe the magic no.15 applies to Kadr how does it act like magic to absolve him of what he did? In my world of the law. youth are detained for murder. The fact they are 9, 10, 11, 12, doesn't mean they get to terrorize and kill people and walk in Canada. Of course they don't. You want me to bring you to some of the hospitals where these sociopathic children live and have you talk to them? You think they are innocent and just because of their age aren't dangerous? I know someone who wacked both his parents with an axe handle and caved in their heads because he was bored, no other reason/ You think because he was under 16 he should presto poof walk away from that? Where you think he is? He's in a prison for the criminally insane? You want him released? With due respect Dialamah this fiction of turning Kadr or anyone else into a cuddly teddy bear because they were 15 is crap. You remind me of people who walk up to bear cubs and try pet them and wonder why they get bit.

Yah some people find the concept of how sexually transmitted diseases are spread complex too. You have a point? I mean I could provide you some pictures.

How is that case relevant? At this point you are quoting cases that are not related. Finish what you started. How is this case applicable legal expert? You are the one flailing about throwing out cases now that are not relevant to the legal issues raised trying to suggest they are and that pathetic "look up the others" no Omni, you know how it works, you allege something prove it. No one works for you. Maybe in your world you are used to taking your sliverspoon and pointing it at the hired help but in this world you carry your own bags. You allege something prove it. You think bluffing and throwing out a case name will prove your point? Try that crap with someone else. I am fed up with your intellectual dishonesty and misrpresentaion of the law to "bolster" your partisan political biases. The cases you mentioned do NOT, I repeat do NOT have relevance to the Kadr situation. The facts are not close enough and in Kadr's case the issue isn't whether his rights were violated, its whether he's entitled to anything other than a nominal amount because of his dirty hands, s.1 of the Charter and the public morality arguments which you falsely tried to dismiss and still ignore. You spin all you want Omni, this government had an obligation on behalf of all Canadians to challenge the amount of the award and they chose instead to cover up Chretien's mistake and not pursue that challenge so they would not have blow back from what Chretiens did. Guess what Omni, by not doing the right thing and paying this man who has dirty hands the blow back will come back and bite the whole sordid lot of you Liberals next election. Yah I know you are bolstered. Let's see how many people are bolstered next election at paying off a terrorist without raising his dirty hands as a criteria for determining the amount he got.

You get red handed caught by Hal misrepresenting him as a child soldier when you knew he was not in an army but was a member of Al Quaeda then when caught this is your flimsy answer and you blame Hal for Chretien;'s decision? Yah that was credible. As a legal expert now you don't know the convention on child soldiers does not deal with child terrorists? You the legal expert? You the legal expert now claim Hal made the decision to live Omar in G Bay? He got a pocketful of money because the Liberal party which you have blind partisan support violated the charter now cover up what they did with a pay off to a person whose hands drip with blood. You blame Hal while you condone what your government did. Typical Liberal. Everyone but you and your party are to blame. This is why you have zero credibility. You continually make false ad misrepresenting comments as to the legal issues for partisan reasons to support the Liberals. Run along. Yer done.

Statements like the above prove you are intellectually dishonest. You are fully aware he was and remains a member of Al Quaeda a terrorist organization. For someone who is a legal expert this is the kind of semantics you want to play on this thread? Who you playing with. You now want to pretend what, that he was not a terrorist? What he wasn't a member of Al Quaeda? Go on say it. Stop playing semantics with the word army. What b.s.

Yah and no doubt you and Hudson were somewhat bolstered in the fact that your court system didn't get around to raising the doctrine of clean hands, public morality and s.1 arguments as to the amount awarded and just pre-empted that crucial legal reference and dished out money so that a terrorist can profit from his wrongdoings. No doubt you are bolstered in that Trudeau has undermined our court system and our basic fundamental principles of law to sweep what Chretiens did under the rug. Yah you are bolstered.

Produce the words from the decision that said the above. Can't wait.

No where in the UN Convention on torture does it define sleep deprivation as torture. Yah you knew that. You also know resolutions are not legal documents or binding. Yah you knew that too. Another legal expert.

What are you talking about. How is the fact situation of Arar relevant to Kadr. Please explain.

If you call sleep deprivation cruel and inhumane treatment yes he was "tortured". In my world on a scale of 1-10 its a 1. I have seen victims of torture by Al Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah-if you think they come close to Kadr having to sleep with a light on all the time (that's what the basis of the torture was) think again. He was treated far better than any ne captured by Al Quaeda He was ever physically beaten. He claims the light being left on made it impossible for him to sleep. He claims the repeat questioning hour after hour was cruel. Excuse me if I do not shed a tear. I have seen far worse results and injuries then what he complained about. Am I mean? Guess so. I have worked in a court system and seen real chlld victims of horrendous acts. Its done a number on me yes. So don't expect me to even give Kadr's complaints too much thought. Seen far worse. I am being honest. I do not mean to be rude to you. I do respect your opinions on this and other things.

He shouldn't be. He should be deported. As for me I was born here so can't be deported but if I comimitted terrorism overseas this country should not take me back. I have no right as Canadian to commit crimes and terrorism overseas. What crap to say that is my Canadian right . Its not my right as a Canadian. Furthermore unlike Kadr I did not piss on this country and then only use it when it was convenient. I don't try kill my fellow country people and I respect my soldiers. I don't smeer whites or anyone else like you do. I am just a shmuck over taxed, under paid and bloody grateful to be Canadian and have people like Army Guy put his life on the line for me and other soldiers die to defeat Hitler and scum values like the ones Kadr embraced.

Ok so now you are going to use this thread as an excuse to hate white people? Jacee? Is that really you? Would you not be the first person to lecture me not to blame all Muslims for Muslim terrorists? Why do you then do this with white people? Hey you think I have not been on the receving end of some neo Nazis in my day? Lol. Of course. Listen let's get real. My mother grew up in a country where the Japanese invased and tortured everyone except Jews. Her parents fled white anti semites to China in the first place and made it to Shanghai. She got over her fear of Japanese before she died. She was petrified of them. My grandparents escaped pogroms, a holocaust and many of my relatives perished at the hands of very angry nasty white people and so? Should I hate all Christians, Germans, Russians, Ukrainians, Poles because of what happened? No thanks. They taught me to overcome fear and hatred of others. its why I don't hero worship terrorists or make excuses for them. But come on Jacee using this thread for a rampage on whites? Come on. Bigots come in all shapes and sizes and the fact is the majority of the world's terrorists today claim to be Muslim. Also you fabricated your comment. You have no statistics about white terrorism in Canada or white racism. Racists in Canada come in all colours and in new Canadians bringing their hatred with them having it protected by people calling their beliefs multi cultural.

His confession and his words mean nothing to me. His actions and conduct leading up to and during the events that got him captured are what is relevant for me and many others. If anything you prove how cheap and meaningless words are.

How do you know it was coerced. You assume it was because Kadr said so.. This is the same Kadr who didn't say he was physically beaten but lied because of repeat interogations so he could get out. So he admitted to lying when it was convenient to him. He also found it convenient to invoke his Canadian citizenship only when he got caught not before. He also finds it convenient to ignore Muslim law he claims he is a devout follower of to engage in terrorism and now to accept money that he knows came about indirectly from his actions as a terrorist in the name of Allah. Under Islam he is not supposed to attack unarmed civilians let alone accept any money directly or indirectly used to engage in violence. He conveniently ignores that. Tell you what, you believe what he says, I think he is a pathological liar and manipulator and think the fact he won't give any of his money to the widow of the person he killed says it all as do his latest public insults directed towards her in the last few days. I don't believe a bloody thing he said or says. I do not see the innocent panda bear you do. You go hug him. If I had my choice he'd be deported to Pakistan or Egypt. His convenient use of Canadian citizenship to engage in terrorism and play child victim is for you, not me.

The fact he is a soldier does not in law mean its legally acceptable for terrorists to kill him. Using your reasoning its acceptable for terrorists to break international laws and kill soldiers because soldiers know they can die trying to stop them Hey now what next do you want to absolve murderers for killing police using this reasoning?

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.

I did as well. Its also not based on how we feel although Kadr's uni-brow does annoy me. We have the opinion we do based on Kadr's dirty hands. If his crime in another country was not terrorism but being arrested for being a journalist and tortured and killed for that, as happened in Iran, you bet I agreed with Harper severing diplomatic ties. That said, maybe you should look at the feelings of the widow of the man Kadr killed and her children. Seems those are the only feelings that should matter not ours.

I mean Kadr is no soldier because unlike a soldier he follows no Geneva convention and he does not defend laws that protect the innocent, he is there to terrorize the innocent and destroy the laws created to protect them. He's no soldier. He has no code of honour, a terrorist is a lawless primate ignoring any or all laws of civilization and believes he can and should destroy society and replace it with himself. Its nothing more than apes whose primal inhibitions have broken down and no longer exist.

Unlike a terrorist her husband also has an obligation to follow the Geneva convention which makes your first sentence incorrect. If he's ordered to engage in a war crime he must decline by law. This would not apply to terrorists. Your attempting to equate a legal soldier and a terrorist as the same is false. The soldier who went to Afghanistan did so agreeing to follow laws and a code of honour. The terrorists he went after are there to destroy any or all laws including the very laws you take for granted. Those laws come with a price. If they are not defended our society wil be destroyed.

Utter rubbish. Either there was a precedent and you need to produce it or there was not. In law there is no such thing as "at least something of a precedent". At this point you fabricate posing as a legal expert inventing legal concepts that don't exist. There is no precedent. There is no case and no you aren't something of a precedent you either or are you are not in law. At least something of a precedent What crap.

It would not have been doubled. Absolute and utter nonsense to try defend not pursuing the dirty hands doctrine argument. Absolute and utter bull crap. Present one case anywhere where a court in Canada ignored the dirty hands doctrine. Go on. You are being intellectually dishonest arguing the Supreme Court for any reason would have ignored Kadr's dirty hands. No court at any level let alone our highest court in the land would or can ignore the dirty hands doctrine. It supercedes all other legal considerations when determining an amount to be awarded. You come on this board claiming to be a legal expert and you don't know that?