Widow suing Khadr

[Rue]

Drum and Canada what I find completely lacking in credibiloty is On Guard'salleged personal insights as to how wonderful it was when Hussein ran Iraq. Bsed on what we are to believe was a couple of weeks visit, he poses as an expert on being able to argue Hussein's Iraq hey was a great place for a glass of wine. Talk about privilege. Someone advise him Iraq is a Muslm state and if a Muslim had a glass of wine, unlike him the consequences would be swift and severe. good Lord.

The denial and fantasy over Kadr is something, the pathetic attempt to white wash Hussein froma position of shelter and privilege and seletivity another

Its easy to white wash the Kadrs and Husseins when you live in a privileged world and have no idea what they did and stood for. In their world terrorists and psychotic killers are nice cuddly people.

As for Dre's comments sure its easy to talk tough and summarily dismiss the victims of Kadr.

I know personally mothers of children killed by terrorists or who have died in wars. To talk about them the way Dre does shows me a lot of why I believe his words lack any credibility.

He shows in the words of his responses a tell sale selectivity as to who he demands compensation for and sees nothing inconsistent with that selectivity.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Rue

[WWWTT]

Drum and Canada what I find completely lacking in credibiloty is On Guard'salleged personal insights as to how wonderful it was when Hussein ran Iraq. Bsed on what we are to believe was a couple of weeks visit, he poses as an expert on being able to argue Hussein's Iraq hey was a great place for a glass of wine.

As for Dre's comments sure its easy to talk tough and summarily dismiss the victims of Kadr.

I know personally mothers of children killed by terrorists or who have died in wars. To talk about them the way Dre does shows me a lot of why I believe his words lack any credibility.

You probably have the worst debate tactic that I have seen on any forum!

You dismiss another posters claim to having experience in such field when debating, then, in the very same comment, claim to have experience in another such field and use such self claimed experience as a debating tactic!

WWWTT

[dre]

So, my analogy holds up very well against your argument. You are not allowed to arbitrarily decide if you are for or against Canada

Yup and he didnt do that. He was in a foreign country living in a housing compound that was stormed by troops belonging to another foreign country.

Has he been charged with treason? Simple question.

[dre]

As for Dre's comments sure its easy to talk tough and summarily dismiss the victims of Kadr.

Victims of Kadr? There was one... maybe. US forces strafed a residential compound with helicopter gunships, then dropped bombs on it from f16's. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed over there, including thousands of Americans and Canadians, and you want to cry big crocodile tears over this one guy?

His wife shouldnt even get breakfast at dennies.

[GostHacked]

Drum and Canada what I find completely lacking in credibiloty is On Guard'salleged personal insights as to how wonderful it was when Hussein ran Iraq.

How's Iraq doing these days anyways? Still under the ISIS gun??

[Canada_First]

It seems what is truly effed up is your understanding of law. With the latest case of another gitmo detainees convictions in the same kangaroo court being thrown out, Khadr will in all likelihood see his thrown out as his appeal procedes.

Hussein gasing 300,000 Kurds. Yeah paradise, what was I thinking...

[On Guard for Thee]

Hussein gasing 300,000 Kurds. Yeah paradise, what was I thinking...

Not quite sure how you are trying to conflate these issues, but go ahead, I will wait to see how you do that.

[GostHacked]

Hussein gasing 300,000 Kurds. Yeah paradise, what was I thinking...

Again, how is Iraq doing these days?

[Canada_First]

Again, how is Iraq doing these days?

I don't care. Every country in the ME besides Israel is run as it was in the 6th century with the exception of technology. I just hope too many of those people don't come to Canada. Edited June 20, 2015 by Canada_First

[GostHacked]

I don't care. Every country in the ME besides Israel is run as it was in the 6th century with the exception of technology. I just hope too many of those people don't come to Canada.

You don't care? Maybe that's part of the problem. Decades of west and east intervention has turned the M.E. into a shithole for terror groups like ISIS. You don't like ISIS but yet as long as it's Muslims killing Muslims, you simply don't care.

Change comes from within, but the forced change on them over the past two decades with the failed war on terror only brought us more terror. Be a man and take some responsibility for the situation or please just STFU.

[Rue]

WWWT you missed the point of my response. I did not question him because he claimed personal experience. Zip over your head.I dismissed his claiming personal experience because he claimed based on that week visit Iraq was fine under Hussein. As for Dre I did not dismiss what he said because of personal experience-he never claimed any. In fact that was the point. If before Dre wrote off the wives and children of Kardr's victim and spoke to them he wouldn't write them off as he does.

At least read the friggin post before you go off on a tangent that was not being debated by me.

[WWWTT]

WWWT you missed the point of my response. I did not question him because he claimed personal experience. Zip over your head.I dismissed his claiming personal experience because he claimed based on that week visit Iraq was fine under Hussein. As for Dre I did not dismiss what he said because of personal experience-he never claimed any. In fact that was the point. If before Dre wrote off the wives and children of Kardr's victim and spoke to them he wouldn't write them off as he does.

At least read the friggin post before you go off on a tangent that was not being debated by me.

I give a ratts ass about the other posters whom you were debating.

Your debating style is clear!

You make many claims that can not be verified.

And then you use these claims to try to gain leverage or make assumption that you have greater credibility.

When another poster uses this tactic you go out of your way to discredit the other poster IDENTICAL DEBATE TACTIC as you use!

I found it actually very funny reading that comment that you made! For a time, I couldn't actually believe you were really discrediting another poster for doing the exact same thing you do!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

You know what I find is the best way to debate Rue? Stop wasting your time reading his walls of text.

[WWWTT]

Ya that was my position for some time.

However Charles Anthony gave me a warning point for doubting his claim that he is a lawyer as making an abusive comment.

What really set me off about that is that anyone whom posts here can't verify such personal claims!

Charles Anthony even removed a post I made about a friend I have in ACTRA over a year ago claiming no personal info allowed! This site remains anonymous!

But at the same time, we're not really allowed to make stuff up here on this site are we? We should provide links. This is all part of debating from a solid position and keeping this site a reputable debate site.

What CA effectively has done in giving me a warning point is allowing posters to make claims that can not be verified as an acceptable debate tactic.

Now I can see using some personal experiences in a limited capacity, however, Rue does it in every comment he makes that I have noticed. Mind you, a long comment paragraphs long is very discouraging for other posters to engage Rue in debate.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I should also note, making long winded comments can be interpreted as an debate tactic to discourage other posters from further engaging deeper!

WWWTT

[dre]

WWWT you missed the point of my response. I did not question him because he claimed personal experience. Zip over your head.I dismissed his claiming personal experience because he claimed based on that week visit Iraq was fine under Hussein. As for Dre I did not dismiss what he said because of personal experience-he never claimed any. In fact that was the point. If before Dre wrote off the wives and children of Kardr's victim and spoke to them he wouldn't write them off as he does.

At least read the friggin post before you go off on a tangent that was not being debated by me.

I didnt write off the wives or children. I said they should not be compensation in civil courts any more than anyone else who dies in a war.

[Canada_First]

You don't care? Maybe that's part of the problem. Decades of west and east intervention has turned the M.E. into a shithole for terror groups like ISIS. You don't like ISIS but yet as long as it's Muslims killing Muslims, you simply don't care.

Change comes from within, but the forced change on them over the past two decades with the failed war on terror only brought us more terror. Be a man and take some responsibility for the situation or please just STFU.

Just like as long as it's black killing black in our ghettos I don't care. Or bikers killing bikers I don't care. Or criminal killing criminal I don't care. Once any group starts to kill innocent people is when I start to have a problem.

Uhhmmm...take some responsibility for the situation? I had nothing to do with it. It's not my problem.

[GostHacked]

Just like as long as it's black killing black in our ghettos I don't care. Or bikers killing bikers I don't care. Or criminal killing criminal I don't care. Once any group starts to kill innocent people is when I start to have a problem.

Uhhmmm...take some responsibility for the situation? I had nothing to do with it. It's not my problem.

But it IS your problem as it is mine. If you allow them to attack each other, don't bitch about it when it spills over in your area, it WILL be your problem.

But allowing it to happen is different from contributing to the division between the groups allowing for more violence, which is happening in certain areas. I mean all we hear now on US media is RACE WAR !!!!!!! I blame reality TV for this suckage.

[Canada_First]

But it IS your problem as it is mine. If you allow them to attack each other, don't bitch about it when it spills over in your area, it WILL be your problem.

But allowing it to happen is different from contributing to the division between the groups allowing for more violence, which is happening in certain areas. I mean all we hear now on US media is RACE WAR !!!!!!! I blame reality TV for this suckage.

We will always have racial problems. Impossible to wipe out racism altogether. Even if every white person on Earth was gone. We'd still have racism. Latinos hate blacks too. They're ethnically cleansing blacks from Latino ghettos in LA.

I'm not the police. I let the police do their jobs and arrest the criminals. I have nothing to do with blacks shooting each other over drugs in Toronto. Thats not on me. It's on them. The people doing the shooting. If you want to stop the killing then you must convince them to stop not me.

Black thugs were used in this example but I could've used Native gangs, Asian gangs, bikers etc.

[Rue]

Dre just so you do not pull the tactic of trying to deny you said it, you have made it clear in post 266 and I quote;

" I said they(wives and children) should not be compensation(sic) in civil courts any more than anyone else who dies in war."

You prefaced the above comment by stating, " I didn't write off the wives and children."

Of course you did the words after your prefaced comment make that clear and its an example of how you deny what you say, then repeat what you deny in the very next sentence and its there for all to read.

It also shows how out of touch you are with the law. Go on try read:

http://.theglobeandlail.com/news/national/afghanistan-veterans-can-continue-lawsuit-against-federal-government-judge-says/articl/41768391/

Yah listen to you.The survivors of war veterans should not be allowed compensation in civil courts.

Oh wait, let's do the flip lop back dance and claim oh no its not what you meant, you just meant against Kadr or terrorists. Save it.

Veterans have no choice but to go to civil court when their pensions are cut back. What you think they will just vanish because you say so?

Now you want to write off the survival rights of the widow and children killed by a terrorist because you think he's cuddly and was a boy when he did it?

Is that your reasoning? Or do you think this medic deserved to die as he did.

What world do you live in where you write off the family of soldiers-talk about privileged, sheltered and entitled. You think that medic died and there is no price? That's it? Write him and his family off?

Right. You will come on this board with some others and was poetic about kuddly Kadr the misunderstood boy, but this family?

Tough right?

Wrong.

They have legal rights and they have rights to access civil courts in the US and Canada and sue Kadr and his mother who sits in a house collecting welfare and pissing on Canada.

In Russia in October of 2013, their Duma passed a bill saying the surviving relatives of terrorists must pay for the wrongful deaths and damages they cause.Come on now, you told everyone how wonderful Putin was...well?

Go on tell all the families whose loved ones died in 9-11 they shouldn't get compensation in civil court.

Go on.

Oh wait um uh what you wanna back dance and say oh you meant they can get compensation just not in civil court? Hmmmm?

Save it. Your comment is there.

Let's here you back flip now and rationalize why survivors of those they were dependent on can't sue for compensation-go on re-write the laws of tort.

In the United States the courts have awarded 8.8 billion dollars in class action law suit for the families of the 243 US soldiers killed in Beirut in the 1983 terrorist bombing against Iran.

In Britain a family sued Turkey and was awarded 1 million pounds for a terrorist bombing.

Afghani Vet families in Australia are suing for benefits in court.

Run along.

Families of the war dead are entitled to compensation and access to civil court to sue anyone who in the name of terrorism kills their loved ones. The legal precedent for that is as loud as can be.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Rue

[On Guard for Thee]

I suspect the suits will end up being deemed to have no merit since the convictions they rely on will very likely be overturned on appeal.

[Rue]

The law suits do not require any convictions in a criminal court or military court to have merit.

So I suspect you would be dead wrong. The law suits will be initiated in the US not Canada.

Here's a hint go try find out why OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a criminal proceeding but liable in a civil one for the same actions.

[cybercoma]

And the suit will go nowhere because the courts don't have jurisdiction over what happens on a battlefield in a foreign country.

[On Guard for Thee]

The law suits do not require any convictions in a criminal court or military court to have merit.

So I suspect you would be dead wrong. The law suits will be initiated in the US not Canada.

Here's a hint go try find out why OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a criminal proceeding but liable in a civil one for the same actions.

There are a number of differences between those cases, but a major one is the evidence (eye witness) against Khadr basically fell apart where the evidence against OJ never did, it just failed to meet reasonable doubt standard for a criminal conviction. But they can always spend money trying.

[Peter F]

Posted by Rue 23 june 2015:

Let's here you back flip now and rationalize why survivors of those they were dependent on can't sue for compensation-go on re-write the laws of tort.

In the United States the courts have awarded 8.8 billion dollars in class action law suit for the families of the 243 US soldiers killed in Beirut in the 1983 terrorist bombing against Iran.

In Britain a family sued Turkey and was awarded 1 million pounds for a terrorist bombing.

Afghani Vet families in Australia are suing for benefits in court.

Run along.

Families of the war dead are entitled to compensation and access to civil court to sue anyone who in the name of terrorism kills their loved ones. The legal precedent for that is as loud as can be.

Sure they can sue in civil court. Hell, anyone can sue in civil court. The real issue is can they prevail in civil court? Often they can and you have provided examples of that. But it isn't open and shut is it? The mere filing of the suit does not guarantee success.

There are issues that need to be resolved - legal issues. I'm no lawyer ("but I play one on the web") but I see some issues that may need overcoming before plaintiffs prevail.

1. as Cybercoma pointed out, Was the death of Sgt Speers and the wounding of the other soldier an Act of War? Or was it an act of Terror?

If it was an act of War then no compensation will be forthcoming.

The US government had most definitely declared war on Al Queda and the Taliban. The US government whole-heartedly directed the US armed forces against Al Queda and the Taliban to prosecute that war. That was why Sgt Speers et all were at Khost. That is why they demanded the surrender Khadr and his compatriots. The entire legal basis of his capture; designation as an 'enemy combatant'; detention and trial under the 2006 Military Commissions, is because the US is at War with Al Queda and the Taliban.

The argument that it Sgt.Speer and Morris were victims of terror and not War seems pretty slim considering the conditions and circumstances under which they were injured: An assault on a compound being held by those their superiors were conducting war against.

This isn't somebody lobbing a grenade into a passing jeep, or trying to ignite shoes/underwear in an airplane, or planting bombs in luggage.

The examples of civil suits prevailing (Lockerbie, Beirut bomb etc) occurred in conditions of no state of war whatsoever existing.

2. Will the child-soldier argument be addressed and decided upon at the civil court? Can a child-soldier be held financially responsible for his actions?

Can any juvenile? Usually, as I understand it, the parents of the child are held financially responsible for redress of the actions of the juvenile. In fact Tabitha Speers and Layne Morris got a default judgment of quite a few millions out of Omar's now deceased dad for the acts of his juvenile son at Khost. (Actually they haven't got a dime for that since the US govt seized all daddy's assets and yet to release them - if any actually exist).

I think there was a very good reason Mrs.Speers and Mr. Morris didn't seek a civil judgement against Omar Khadr back in 2006 but pursued their claim agains Omars dad instead.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Peter F