Jump to content

Widow suing Khadr


Recommended Posts

The widow of the US Medic killed in Afghanistan will be trying to sue Khadr for the killing of her husband, really? No doubt if the Harper government can help knowing the way they feel about this guy, she may do it unless a Canadian court says no. IS this were society has come were widows or other family members can sue someone in war, when they went to war knowing that they could get killed. I'm sorry she lost her hubby but this unreal. I heard her on TV and she wants any money Khadr gets to go to her and she also pointed out that she heard Khadr was going to sue the Canadian government and so SHE wants that money. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/widow-ex-soldier-move-final-judgment-134m-suit-150008141.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She'll have to prove he actually killed her husband. Good luck with that.

Oh well, maybe it'll help push the SCC towards total exoneration for Khadr. It's obvious that's the direction this is all going.

In civil litigation she won't have to prove it. She'll just have to prove that it was likely that he did. The problem she'll have in the case is defending her argument against the argument that Khadr was acting in self-defence when her armed husband showed up at the door as a party to an occupying military force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The widow of the US Medic killed in Afghanistan will be trying to sue Khadr for the killing of her husband, really? No doubt if the Harper government can help knowing the way they feel about this guy, she may do it unless a Canadian court says no.

If Harper were against the lawsuit, I wonder what you would say?

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure her lawyer knows that Khadr is set to receive millions from the Canadian government in the near future for all his rights violations... and she wants to cash in on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure her lawyer knows that Khadr is set to receive millions from the Canadian government in the near future for all his rights violations... and she wants to cash in on that.

Why shouldn't she cash in? He killed her husband. He's a murderer.

Edited by Shady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't she cash in? He killed her husband. He's a murderer.

A soldier in a war.... how many WWII deceased soldier's widows cashed in on Germans after the war? It's a silly concept... especially a child soldier who was torured and was found to have his rights violated in a myriad of ways...

Edited by The_Squid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A soldier in a war.... how many WWII deceased soldier's widows cashed in on Germans after the war? It's a silly concept... especially a child soldier who was torured and was found to have his rights violated in a myriad of ways...

A soldier in what army?

Edited by Shady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A soldier in a war.... how many WWII deceased soldier's widows cashed in on Germans after the war? It's a silly concept... especially a child soldier who was torured and was found to have his rights violated in a myriad of ways...

You can't kill a soldier if you aren't part of an army without committing a crime. But yes, try to make this the same as a WWII battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In civil litigation she won't have to prove it. She'll just have to prove that it was likely that he did. The problem she'll have in the case is defending her argument against the argument that Khadr was acting in self-defence when her armed husband showed up at the door as a party to an occupying military force.

Won't even ever come to that.

Many things going on that will probably prevent the superior court of justice from looking at this lawsuit.

He was a minor at the time for first!

Not sure if the court will handle a case revolving around an event that happened outside of Canada.

Statute of limitations is not pivotal on whether Omar has money or not.

Don't think the death of a soldier in combat could ever be ruled accidental.

There's probably several other things going on that would prevent this from going to trial.

As well, there's many Afghans living in Canada, if this case ever went through, the flood gates would burst wide open against the Canadian military. Since this hasn't happened, I'm inclined to believe that there are many obstacles in the way from such cases ever coming to light in Canada.

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't kill a soldier if you aren't part of an army without committing a crime. But yes, try to make this the same as a WWII battle.

So Khadr was extradited to the USA for trial in civilian court with a civilian crime, as is the law? Since, you know... he wasn't a soldier.... even though we are at war with people like Khadr, no?

You people are so confused, it's not even funny...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Khadr was extradited to the USA for trial in civilian court with a civilian crime, as is the law? Since, you know... he wasn't a soldier.... even though we are at war with people like Khadr, no?

No, he was tried as a terrorist. Different systems were developed for that. You're the confused one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't kill a soldier if you aren't part of an army without committing a crime. But yes, try to make this the same as a WWII battle.

You can't declare war with a state army against civilians either.....but hey, let's talk about how many ways that Convention was busted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't declare war with a state army against civilians either.....but hey, let's talk about how many ways that Convention was busted.

You can attack armed militant groups as a matter of self defence actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You remember when Justin Bourque, an armed militant, was cutting down RCMP officers in Moncton and the RCMP was caught with its pants down because they didn't provide the proper equipment to Codiac RCMP to deal with that situation?

You know who they didn't send in to deal with that armed militant? The military, despite the base being a little more than an hour away and they most certainly had the equipment necessary.

You know why they didn't send the military? Because they're not allowed to engage with civilians.

So when you argue that Khadr is a civilian, you're arguing that the military had no authority to go after him. When an occupying force shows up at his house with guns pointed in his face, they're pointing them at an illegal target by international convention. When he responds by attacking them, he's fighting a state military, which is actually more legal by international law than what the US military themselves were doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...