GostHacked Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Khadr can't go to the US. So how was he to defend himself? Also a civil court in the US has no jurisdiction in Canada. The only way would be if Kadr has business in the US. WWWTT The simple answer is, no and from noone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 So let me get this straight: An American signs up for the military, a very dangerous occupation, then his country invades another, and then the soldier goes and points guns at a 15 y/o kid living in that invaded country, and then that kid allegedly throws a grenade and kills the soldier....and the widow wants to sue? Haha good luck getting a dime! Next you're going to tell me the families of the 3 million or so Vietnamese killed by Americans in Vietnam are going to be suing those soldiers. Or the families of the many thousands of killed Iraqis will sue US soldiers and expect any kind of payment. Good luck everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) Not really, the US court finding could be upheld in Canada (they often are) but an application would have to be filed and accepted with a Canadian court. It is unlikely it would be in this case since Khadr had essentially no opportunity to defend himself. And of course even if it were, there's the old blood from a stone situation here big time. I see it a kind of differently. In order for the ruling to be binding, Khadr must have the opportunity to counter sue! This aspect is slightly different from being only given the opportunity to defend. Also, can Khadr sue the US government? What if he claims he suffered loses due to the US? As well, having money has no bearing on weather or not the widow can get money in this case. WWWTT Edited July 4, 2015 by WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 So let me get this straight: An American signs up for the military, a very dangerous occupation, then his country invades another, and then the soldier goes and points guns at a 15 y/o kid living in that invaded country, and then that kid allegedly throws a grenade and kills the soldier....and the widow wants to sue? Haha good luck getting a dime! Next you're going to tell me the families of the 3 million or so Vietnamese killed by Americans in Vietnam are going to be suing those soldiers. Or the families of the many thousands of killed Iraqis will sue US soldiers and expect any kind of payment. Good luck everyone! It's called a "kangaroo court". WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 I see it a kind of differently. In order for the ruling to be binding, Khadr must have the opportunity to counter sue! This aspect is slightly different from being only given the opportunity to defend. Also, can Khadr sue the US government? What if he claims he suffered loses due to the US? As well, having money has no bearing on weather or not the widow can get money in this case. WWWTT He doesn't have to counter sue in order for the suit against him to fail. He does need the chance to defend. The Utah court claimed he made no response to the suit, and we see the outcome. Again, I suspect a Canadian court would see it differently. Could he sue the US gov., I suppose he could, but he is obviously being advised by his lawyers and has chosen instead to sue the Canadian government for compliance. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 He doesn't have to counter sue in order for the suit against him to fail. He does need the chance to defend. The Utah court claimed he made no response to the suit, and we see the outcome. Again, I suspect a Canadian court would see it differently. Could he sue the US gov., I suppose he could, but he is obviously being advised by his lawyers and has chosen instead to sue the Canadian government for compliance. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. No I didn't say he needs to counter sue, just have the opportunity to do so. I'm aware about defending. This is why I say that this court is a kangaroo court because they should have known that Khadr would not be able to enter the US to defend. Not even sure how the papers were filed to Khadr? In Canadian courts, they have to be handed over to Khadr in person. But I'm sure the courts in the US give a ratt's ass about being legit and just took this woman's money fully aware it was a waste of time. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 Money well spent to sue a convicted war criminal and terrorist. He might be a war hero in Canada, but he sure ain't "south of the border". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 No I didn't say he needs to counter sue, just have the opportunity to do so. I'm aware about defending. This is why I say that this court is a kangaroo court because they should have known that Khadr would not be able to enter the US to defend. Not even sure how the papers were filed to Khadr? In Canadian courts, they have to be handed over to Khadr in person. But I'm sure the courts in the US give a ratt's ass about being legit and just took this woman's money fully aware it was a waste of time. WWWTT He wouldn't have actually had to enter into the US to offer a defense. Apparently attempts were made to obtain representation but didnt come to fruition before the trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 Money well spent to sue a convicted war criminal and terrorist. He might be a war hero in Canada, but he sure ain't "south of the border". Apparently Merika doesn't understand or subscribe to international law all the time. Any bets on what happens to his appeal...or do you prefer the head in the sand position... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 I hope Khadr sues the US government for torturing him, especially as a child soldier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted July 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 The widow said that since Khadr was going to sue the Canadian government, with the help of the Canadian government, she would get that money from Khadr. Harper shouldn't make promises he not going to be able to keep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 Money well spent to sue a convicted war criminal and terrorist. He might be a war hero in Canada, but he sure ain't "south of the border". To be fair,I would say Omar Khadr is a war hero to the Canadian left.People with a moral compass rightfully despise him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 To be fair,I would say Omar Khadr is a war hero to the Canadian left.People with a moral compass rightfully despise him. to be fair... your comment is indicative of a right-wing moral compass posturing ideologue; one who broadly generalizes for self-serving partisan aggrandisation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 to be fair... your comment is indicative of a right-wing moral compass posturing ideologue; one who broadly generalizes for self-serving partisan aggrandisation! To be even fairer, you are a terrorist apologist posturing as someone with a social conscience whilst espousing your apologue to further promote the malefaction committed against your arch nemesis, our allies, the USA while condoning and supporting terrorist activities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) Kadr killed as a terrorist not a conventional soldier a soldier and blinded another. At the tie he was engaged in an illegal act of terrorism.He was in a terror cell engaged in terror attacks against the sovereign nation of Afghanistan and the US soldiers under international law had a mandate fro the UN to protect Afghani citizens from terrorists. What I now see are people who apologize for Kadr.They quote international law to defend his rights but ignore the international rights he violated and the maiming of people sent to enforce the very same international rights Kadr rejected which include the rights of the soldiers and the families. One poster provides what I consider a half assed poorly thought out comment that the soldier should have expected to die and not get compensation.-yet believes Kadr should get compensation. Yep there's logic. On the other hand these same apologists who say the soldier is not entitled to compensation whine and get their pants in a knot claiing Kadr is a victim and should sue. The victims here were an remain the families of the dead soldier and the blinded soldier and his family not Kadr. This ignoring of these soldiers and their families and puffing up Kadr as some martyr for the left is pathetic. The attempt by Guard to suggest there is no evidence a grenade was thrown is past laughable. Yah the shrapnel fell from heaven. Edited July 7, 2015 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 To be even fairer, you are a terrorist apologist posturing as someone with a social conscience whilst espousing your apologue to further promote the malefaction committed against your arch nemesis, our allies, the USA while condoning and supporting terrorist activities. to be fairest, unlike you, I didn't directly assign the statement to the member; rather, I specifically used the words "indicative of". Clearly, you're so frighteningly maligned as to label me a "terrorist apologist... condoning and supporting terrorist activities"... and yet, I said not word one about Khadr himself. Rather, I focused on the broad-based hyper-partisan attachment of "lacking a moral compass to the left"! The only exaggerated fable here appears to be yours as you endeavour to promote your fantasy of a 'child soldier' current-day terrorist... notwithstanding his purposeful and designed manipulation through the ranks of U.S. military "justice", all in the name of "FREEDOM"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 to be fairest, unlike you, I didn't directly assign the statement to the member; rather, I specifically used the words "indicative of". Clearly, you're so frighteningly maligned as to label me a "terrorist apologist... condoning and supporting terrorist activities"... and yet, I said not word one about Khadr himself. Rather, I focused on the broad-based hyper-partisan attachment of "lacking a moral compass to the left"! The only exaggerated fable here appears to be yours as you endeavour to promote your fantasy of a 'child soldier' current-day terrorist... notwithstanding his purposeful and designed manipulation through the ranks of U.S. military "justice", all in the name of "FREEDOM"! To be the most fair in the land, your comment is indicative of " a terrorist apologist posturing as someone with a social conscience whilst espousing your apologue to further promote the malefaction committed against your arch nemesis, our allies, the USA while condoning and supporting terrorist activities". I gotta be honest Waldo, I've seen many comments indicative of the Liberal bent to never take responsibility for one's actions and to be soft on criminals as well as terrorists, but now your comment is indicatively indicting the whole US military system , which has constructed a conspiracy of thousands to malign your uberkind Khadr. "notwithstanding his purposeful and designed manipulation through the ranks of U.S. military "justice", all in the name of "FREEDOM"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 No, not the whole US military system, just the kangaroo court part of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 I gotta be honest Waldo, I've seen many comments indicative of the Liberal bent to never take responsibility for one's actions and to be soft on criminals as well as terrorists, but now your comment is indicatively indicting the whole US military system , which has constructed a conspiracy of thousands to malign your uberkind Khadr. "notwithstanding his purposeful and designed manipulation through the ranks of U.S. military "justice", all in the name of "FREEDOM"! I gotta be honest, you clearly have a self-serving agenda driven view of that particular U.S. military tribunal kangaroo court. Notwithstanding your apparent disdain for and unwillingness to accept the SCC multiple rulings against the Harper Conservative government in regards the rights of Khadr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 I gotta be honest, you clearly have a self-serving agenda driven view of that particular U.S. military tribunal kangaroo court. Notwithstanding your apparent disdain for and unwillingness to accept the SCC multiple rulings against the Harper Conservative government in regards the rights of Khadr. Surprise, the Canadian SCC upholds the rights of convicted terrorists. Just like they uphold the rights of convicted pedophiles and murderers like Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo. . Is that really what you want to base your argument on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Surprise, the Canadian SCC upholds the rights of convicted terrorists. Just like they uphold the rights of convicted pedophiles and murderers like Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo. . Is that really what you want to base your argument on? Ummmm..Clifford Olsen died in jail, Paul Bernardo likely will as well. Not sure where you are trying to go with those examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 No, not the whole US military system, just the kangaroo court part of it. The court that engages in extra-judicial hearings by trying people for things that aren't crimes under international law? That one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 The court that engages in extra-judicial hearings by trying people for things that aren't crimes under international law? That one? Or the one that puts people in jail for 4 years and then creates a law with which to charge them. I suspect we are talking about the same one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Ummmm..Clifford Olsen died in jail, Paul Bernardo likely will as well. Not sure where you are trying to go with those examples. So? The SCC still upholds their right to multitude of things. Don't be so ingenuous as to act like you don't know this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 So? The SCC still upholds their right to multitude of things. Don't be so ingenuous as to act like you don't know this. Not sure what this multitude of rights is you speak of. They, like all of us, have a right to the legal system. Thats what put them behind bars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.