Je suis Omar Posted May 22, 2015 Report Posted May 22, 2015 More than Canada too...far more. Yet Canada is the USA's #1 economic trading partner and a military ally. Are you unable to see your disjointed thinking? There's no connection between your two ideas. On your first, typically uninformed, point, no. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 22, 2015 Report Posted May 22, 2015 Are you unable to see your disjointed thinking? There's no connection between your two ideas. On your first, typically uninformed, point, no. Disjointed only to you and your agenda....so easily mocked by many here. Canada can pay off Khadr too...which means even less money for humanitarian aid...after buying more bombs and strike aircraft from the USA. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Je suis Omar Posted May 22, 2015 Report Posted May 22, 2015 ... On your first, typically uninformed, point, no, the USA hasn't given more. The USA, after having stolen trillions from the poorest countries on the planet, won't even give some of those stolen funds back as aid. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 22, 2015 Report Posted May 22, 2015 .. More nonsense....with nothing to back it up. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted May 23, 2015 Report Posted May 23, 2015 Maybe you should think about what people think of you, OGFT, cowardly running from discussions that you have raised. Oh I guess I hit a nerve. Quote
PIK Posted May 25, 2015 Report Posted May 25, 2015 Omar how is the white mans guilt. It seems to be bothering you big time. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Civis Romanus sum Posted May 25, 2015 Report Posted May 25, 2015 Omar how is the white mans guilt. It seems to be bothering you big time. What makes you think he's white? Quote
PIK Posted May 26, 2015 Report Posted May 26, 2015 Good question, I don't know, just by going by the sounds of his posts. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
On Guard for Thee Posted June 12, 2015 Report Posted June 12, 2015 Some good news for Khadr. A US appeal court has thrown out convictions of another Gitmo detainee saying the military commission has no authority to render such verdicts. Khadr's appeal can now proceed. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 12, 2015 Report Posted June 12, 2015 It's like I mentioned in the other thread. The tribunal only had the authority to hear cases of war crimes under international law. Khadr's charges were not war crimes, thus the tribunal had no authority to render a decision in his case. He will likely have all 5 of his charges thrown out on appeal now, as this case sets a clear precedent. Quote
eyeball Posted June 12, 2015 Report Posted June 12, 2015 But he has a beard dammit, Doesn't that count for anything? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Big Guy Posted June 13, 2015 Author Report Posted June 13, 2015 Looks like Khadr will not have to catch up on his education and/or develop some marketable skills so that he can earn a living. If Maher Arar was assigned over $10 million for Canada screwing up a couple years of his life and causing a little torture then Khadr will probably get 10 times that for what has been done to him. That is not including the book contract and movie rights. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
On Guard for Thee Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 It's like I mentioned in the other thread. The tribunal only had the authority to hear cases of war crimes under international law. Khadr's charges were not war crimes, thus the tribunal had no authority to render a decision in his case. He will likely have all 5 of his charges thrown out on appeal now, as this case sets a clear precedent. Add to that that the law he was eventually charged under didn't exist until roughly 4 years after his incarceration. Retroactively charging and convicting someone doesn't really fit into any accepted version of international law, so I guess the outcome was inevitable. Quote
eyeball Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 It's like I mentioned in the other thread. People were mentioning that he'd be exonerated a decade ago. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Rue Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Cyber I am not sure what you stated in the past but yes to your comment. It has been explained by many including myself on this board prior to and along with your comments that for an international law to apply to terrorists, they would have to sign the international treaty of that law, and volunteer to follow it. International law was created to be followed by sovereign states, and international law is only as good as the signatory states, and for that matter those signatory states who volunteer to follow the treaty. Terrorists believe they operate outside any law. The laws available to the US once Kadr killed the US soldier were limited as stated many times before as there are no international laws that applied to him. The US tried to create a new domestic criminal law for international terrorists which now the court of appeal in DC said was unconstitutional but that is no surprise as it follows 3 earlier US Supreme Court decisions to thateffect and the top courts in the UK and Australia as well as the US Supreme Court stated the laws Bush tried to create did not follow their laws of natural justice which are the same as Canada's. The Canadian Supreme Court would never ignore British or Australia top court edicts, and would be extremely reluctant to ignore the US Supreme Court in this case as their decisions were based not just on their constitution but basic interpretation of common law criminal law and administrative law which are what all us commonwealth nations follow. So this is not really a new decision or development. Kadr's convictions were flawed from the get go as they violated US law said their supreme court. Much of the discussion was over his being a minor at the time of the crime and so being entitled to be treated as a minor for criminal charges of murder, not whether he was a war criminal under international law-but whether he should be tried with the same standards as an adult or whether evidence against him was coerced and did not exist on its own without being obtained by torture. Had he handed over to the Afghanis they could have tried him as per their domestic laws. Technically by committing a crime overseas The US could pass yet another law for terrorists but it will have to call them something other than war criminals and deport them to US criminal courts not the hybrid ones Bush set up which were neither domestic or international. Now in fairness to Bush he was faced with terrorists and now laws to deal with them so he tried to invent new ones. He knew under US military law which he openly rejected, if placed in a military prison they would not have interrogated him the same way and they would have released him by now or had to send him either to the Afghanis or Canada or maybe a US domestic court for federal crimes. Problem is existing federal laws do not state if you commit a a homicide overseas US domestic courts have primary jurisdiction. They are subject to the court of jurisdiction of the geographic site of the crime and then deportation to the US if it has a deportation treaty with that country so it gets very complicated. Interestingly had Kadr managed to escape to Canada from the US and was not a Canadian citizen he would qualify as a refugee. Our laws need some major reforms to deal with terrorists. We need a new treaty that tries all terrorists in an international court as terrorists not war criminals. They are not soldiers or civilians the two categories war crimes apply to. We need a legal definition for terrorist that would remove them on consent from the jurisdiction of the nation where they commit the crime and be flown on consent to this international court. It won't happen. There is no consensus among world nations as to this and never will be. The cold blunt reality is we may be better off jus taking out terrorists rather than affording these murderers protection from the very laws they piss on. As a lawyer I must uphold rule of law so as much as I despite sob's I understand without rule of law we all become them or certainly blur the lines making it hard to no the difference at ties. Kadr's length of sentence already served would be impossible to extend in Canadian law. We don't have a law to allow that-we'd have to pass a new law working back-words (retrograde) which is only done with tax law but very rarely any thing else. He's not going back to jail. This is why I say make sure the widow of the US medic sues him and assures he can not make money over the death he is responsible for. The notion he is a victim and martyr and wrong done by and deserving of money fro a for t.v.movie, celebrity status, etc. which I see happening, is a crock. He makes any money off his celebrity status, anyone want to pay for his school, I say give it to the children of the deceased and/or a charity for the victims of terrorism the tax payers already paying for him and his family dearly. Edited June 13, 2015 by Rue Quote
cybercoma Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 Cyber I am not sure what you stated but it has been explained by many including myself on this board prior to your comments that for an international law to apply to terrorists, they would have to sign the international treaty of that law, and volunteer to follow it.Good. I'm glad you can see that the military tribunal was operating outside of its jurisdiction then. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 13, 2015 Report Posted June 13, 2015 Cyber I am not sure what you stated in the past but yes to your comment. It has been explained by many including myself on this board prior to and along with your comments that for an international law to apply to terrorists, they would have to sign the international treaty of that law, and volunteer to follow it. International law was created to be followed by sovereign states, and international law is only as good as the signatory states, and for that matter those signatory states who volunteer to follow the treaty. Terrorists believe they operate outside any law. The laws available to the US once Kadr killed the US soldier were limited as stated many times before as there are no international laws that applied to him. The US tried to create a new domestic criminal law for international terrorists which now the court of appeal in DC said was unconstitutional but that is no surprise as it follows 3 earlier US Supreme Court decisions to thateffect and the top courts in the UK and Australia as well as the US Supreme Court stated the laws Bush tried to create did not follow their laws of natural justice which are the same as Canada's. The Canadian Supreme Court would never ignore British or Australia top court edicts, and would be extremely reluctant to ignore the US Supreme Court in this case as their decisions were based not just on their constitution but basic interpretation of common law criminal law and administrative law which are what all us commonwealth nations follow. So this is not really a new decision or development. Kadr's convictions were flawed from the get go as they violated US law said their supreme court. Much of the discussion was over his being a minor at the time of the crime and so being entitled to be treated as a minor for criminal charges of murder, not whether he was a war criminal under international law-but whether he should be tried with the same standards as an adult or whether evidence against him was coerced and did not exist on its own without being obtained by torture. Had he handed over to the Afghanis they could have tried him as per their domestic laws. Technically by committing a crime overseas The US could pass yet another law for terrorists but it will have to call them something other than war criminals and deport them to US criminal courts not the hybrid ones Bush set up which were neither domestic or international. Now in fairness to Bush he was faced with terrorists and now laws to deal with them so he tried to invent new ones. He knew under US military law which he openly rejected, if placed in a military prison they would not have interrogated him the same way and they would have released him by now or had to send him either to the Afghanis or Canada or maybe a US domestic court for federal crimes. Problem is existing federal laws do not state if you commit a a homicide overseas US domestic courts have primary jurisdiction. They are subject to the court of jurisdiction of the geographic site of the crime and then deportation to the US if it has a deportation treaty with that country so it gets very complicated. Interestingly had Kadr managed to escape to Canada from the US and was not a Canadian citizen he would qualify as a refugee. Our laws need some major reforms to deal with terrorists. We need a new treaty that tries all terrorists in an international court as terrorists not war criminals. They are not soldiers or civilians the two categories war crimes apply to. We need a legal definition for terrorist that would remove them on consent from the jurisdiction of the nation where they commit the crime and be flown on consent to this international court. It won't happen. There is no consensus among world nations as to this and never will be. The cold blunt reality is we may be better off jus taking out terrorists rather than affording these murderers protection from the very laws they piss on. As a lawyer I must uphold rule of law so as much as I despite sob's I understand without rule of law we all become them or certainly blur the lines making it hard to no the difference at ties. Kadr's length of sentence already served would be impossible to extend in Canadian law. We don't have a law to allow that-we'd have to pass a new law working back-words (retrograde) which is only done with tax law but very rarely any thing else. He's not going back to jail. This is why I say make sure the widow of the US medic sues him and assures he can not make money over the death he is responsible for. The notion he is a victim and martyr and wrong done by and deserving of money fro a for t.v.movie, celebrity status, etc. which I see happening, is a crock. He makes any money off his celebrity status, anyone want to pay for his school, I say give it to the children of the deceased and/or a charity for the victims of terrorism the tax payers already paying for him and his family dearly. Doubtful if the suit goes anywhere due to the tainted evidence against him, and if it does he can just up the ante in his suit against the Canadian government. Quote
jbg Posted July 2, 2015 Report Posted July 2, 2015 Looks like Khadr will not have to catch up on his education and/or develop some marketable skills so that he can earn a living. If Maher Arar was assigned over $10 million for Canada screwing up a couple years of his life and causing a little torture then Khadr will probably get 10 times that for what has been done to him. That is not including the book contract and movie rights. What was done to him, please! What about what he and his family did or tried to do to Canada? After all they're supposedly Canadians. They should love their country. Yet they have always spouted venom. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Big Guy Posted July 2, 2015 Author Report Posted July 2, 2015 To jbg - We have been continually been informed of what Kahdr has done to Canada and how his family has treated their Canadian citizenship. There is no secret there and I have no doubt that someone either has or will soon document that in a book. My point is that to this point in time, he has never been allowed to describe what happened to him, how he was treated or what his attitude may be. I am looking forward to reading what he has to say. Does no one want to hear from him? Should one not hear from both sides before deciding on an opinion? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
cybercoma Posted July 2, 2015 Report Posted July 2, 2015 What was done to him, please! What about what ... his family didInteresting position for a lawyer to hold. Punish people for their family's transgressions. I thought we did away with that in the Dark Ages? Quote
PIK Posted July 2, 2015 Report Posted July 2, 2015 He was punished for what he did. And the support for him in this country ,when he had no problems with the fact he could be killing fellow Canadians and maybe one of his bombs did, makes me puke. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
cybercoma Posted July 2, 2015 Report Posted July 2, 2015 You could be killing fellow Canadians. We don't punish people for what they could be doing. Needless to say, his punishment sure as hell didn't fit the crime. There's serial killers in US supermax prisons treated better than Khadr was in Guantanamo. Quote
PIK Posted July 2, 2015 Report Posted July 2, 2015 He was a bomb maker , he has lots of blood on his hands. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
jbg Posted July 2, 2015 Report Posted July 2, 2015 Interesting position for a lawyer to hold. Punish people for their family's transgressions. I thought we did away with that in the Dark Ages? Your ellipse gives it away. He was part of the attack on Allied forces. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Canada_First Posted July 3, 2015 Report Posted July 3, 2015 I wouldn't be surprised if some nut job tries to take this guy out or beat him at some point. He's hated as much as Bernardo in this country. Maybe more so. It wouldn't surprise me. Thats for sure. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.