Widow suing Khadr

[eyeball]

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.

There are only two possible solutions at this point that will ever yield the vengeance that you folks are so thirsty for. Invoking the notwithstanding clause against the SCC or just scrap it altogether along with the Charter. Don't be so disingenuous as to act as if this isn't obvious to everyone.

Time to shit or get off the pot.

[bush_cheney2004]

There are only two possible solutions at this point that will ever yield the vengeance that you folks are so thirsty for. Invoking the notwithstanding clause against the SCC or just scrap it altogether along with the Charter. Don't be so disingenuous as to act as if this isn't obvious to everyone.

The U.S. already got its "vengeance" with a cherry on top. Canada's teenage terrorist and convicted war criminal can now play rope-a-dope with your kangaroo court system and look forward to a big payday from taxpayers. Don't forget that big "apology" too....terrorists like that.

[On Guard for Thee]

The U.S. already got its "vengeance" with a cherry on top. Canada's teenage terrorist and convicted war criminal can now play rope-a-dope with your kangaroo court system and look forward to a big payday from taxpayers. Don't forget that big "apology" too....terrorists like that.

Are you guys ever gonna lose that criminal operation in Gitmo, or will you just sign off on habeas corpus and human rights forever...

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

You think soldiers and families deserve compensation from people they go to war with? Even child soldiers? Good luck with that!

You don't think a child soldier who is tortured and left to be so by our government shouldn't get compensation? I'm not saying Khadr shouldn't have been punished. I believe in justice in all aspects. Punk kids have rights too.

[Rue]

Your question Moonlight is unintentionally misleading.Let me clarify it because I know what you are now asking.

First off I stated soldiers returning from war are entitled to benefits. I thought that is what you were against. Clearly your question now clarifies that is not what you are against. Point taken.

Now you in fact want to ask in fact- should a soldier be able to sue a terrorist personally? Go it. Different legal issue.

So now let m e answer that. Kadr was not a soldier. He was not a child soldier. He was a 15 year old who had been in a terrorist organization since he was very young.

Do not confuse him with a child soldier, i.e., a child forced into a conventional state's armed forces. There is a huge legal difference.

Armed forces or soldiers of armed forces of conventional states under or at legal age fighting conventional wars are covered under a range of Geneva conventions and other international and domestic laws.

At the present time there are no, I repeat NO international laws, conventions, treaties, that deal with the treatment of either child terrorists or regular terrorists. Terrorists to not subscribe to international laws. They reject all laws including international ones and so are not covered by international law. Only sovereign states and so their armed forces can agree to follow international conventions, not terrorists or their terrorist organizations.

Terrorists s individuals in fact fall under the domestic criminal and civil laws of the site nation were they commit their crime or tort or the jurisdiction of the nation of the citizen who they commit a crime or tortious act against. That is the law.

People sue in tort for wrongful death in foreign and their own courts. Of course they do. Why would you suggest they can't?

The law suit against Kadr followed basic tort law. Nothing new.

The fact Kadr was 15 at the time he committed his crimes and tort acts, does not absolve him of them.

Kadr was not a child soldier at the time of his crimes and tortious actions- he was a terrorist. The Geneva convention does not apply to him and never did. No law exempts him from his actions.That is not how the law works. The law may exempt certain evidence being used against him but it does not mean what he did can not be proven using other evidence and therefore expose him to both criminal and civil liability. I have said from day one, there was corroborated independent third party witness evidence not withstanding any evidence claimed to have been obtained by torture that incriminated him.He also confessed to his actions before he was water-boarded or as some claim was tortured. He never denied he threw a grenade. What his lawyer has argued is he has served sufficient time and should be released and also has argued any further time in jail is not supported under Canadian criminal law which is true.

Those arguing he was tortured so his crimes magically go poof and never happened do not understand the law. Its not how it works.

That said, the torture Kadr seeks compensation for is a different issue then the length of his sentence.

His alleged torturers are the sovereign state of the United States of America not Canada.

No Kadr should not sue Canada -they never tortured him.

Ler him try sue the United States of America because that is who he claimed tortured him. Good luck on that

No Canadian tortured him.

That said if you want to focus on Kadr as a victim in need of compensation save it for your selective friends on this forum who ignore the wives, children and loved ones Kadr injured and killed. Me I focus on his victims-the people he hurt-the brave soldier he killed, the brave soldier he blinded, their families.. not him. I have different priorities.

As for Kadr, if you think only he is the victim and want to ignore how he victimized others and ignore their pain, so be it. I will not.

For me to set up a double standard where he can sue and the victims of his crimes an tort actions can not is inconceivable.

Kadr has a free lawyer. He has his family dedicated to terrorism and the destruction of Canada with zero remorse living in this country on welfare in a home and enjoying a lifestyle no one in terrorist Muslim countries does-they enjoy the very benefits they spit on with contempt. Excuse me if I want them deported.

As for Kadr I believe he sees himself as a victim entitled to 2 million dollars from a government that feeds him for free, houses hi for free, and does the sae with his family.I think he should pay back it all back when he gets his lottery win for being a terrorist.

Should he have been water-boarded? No. Should he have been locked in a cell yes. In my legal opinion he belonged in an Afghani jail guilty of committing doestic crimes in Afghanistan.

Should he be released now? Yes. Under US law he would also be eligible for parole like he now is in Canada. He has served the sufficient time to be entitled to parole as much as I would like him to stay in jail AND ROT PERSONALLY. That is the law.

If he is awarded $2 million it will be a fiasco and I hope its appealed and if the appeal is unsuccessful than his money should be seized and paid back to the state for all the welfare his parasitical family sucks up and given to the families he has hurt-they are the victims.

Kadr is not a martyr, or a victim and as long as people prop him up like that he will never rehabilitate and see Canada as a nation that condones what he did. Its the wrong message.

Whether I like it or not, he has the right to be released. He has served his time. We let murderers out after 5-10 years in Canada. Its what we do. I disagree with that but its the law right now.

Just don't ask y tax money to be used to compensate him when soldiers are committing suicide because we fail to acknowledge their pain on return from war. Excuse me they are the priority-them and their loved ones, not Kadr.

I do acknowledge and have said so that the law Bush passed to create a hybrid military-civil-criminal systemin G Bay were found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

Doesn't mean he did not commit a crime,a tort, and is someone I should feel sorry for.

In my world he would have been shot dead. The fact the US was so civil as to save his life is testament to the ethics of the US Armed Forces an graphically displays the difference between them and terrorists so excuse me but that is why I SALUTE THEM not him.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Rue

[On Guard for Thee]

There are various international laws and treaties which set the minimum age of recruiting a soldier is 18. Khadr, at 15, was a child soldier.

[eyeball]

The SCC has ruled that Omar Khadr was a kid when he was 15.

How does one turn that reality around exactly?

[On Guard for Thee]

OPAC and the Paris Principles are quite clear.

[bush_cheney2004]

Child soldier....child war criminal....child terrorist. He must have missed out on some Barney videos as a pre-schooler.

[waldo]

Kadr was not a soldier. He was not a child soldier. He was a 15 year old who had been in a terrorist organization since he was very young.

Do not confuse him with a child soldier, i.e., a child forced into a conventional state's armed forces.

At the present time there are no, I repeat NO international laws, conventions, treaties, that deal with the treatment of either child terrorists or regular terrorists.

per the United Nations Paris Principles on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict 2007

your "conventional state" weasel wording fall-back is the standard recourse "your ilk" takes... as your claimed terrorist, you certainly have no qualms in charging, interrogating, torturing, trying, sentencing, convicting and incarcerating that, as you say, "child terrorist Khadr". However, for some strange reason you refuse to accept and attach established definitions of a child soldier to Khadr... the above referenced UN example being but one of several. Notwithstanding, by your own admission as I've bold-highlighted within your quote above, that Khadr recruitment you describe as being earlier than 15 years of age, clearly puts existing International standards of International Human Rights Law, International Criminal Law and International Humanitarian Law into consideration.

[BubberMiley]

But those are real, actually literate lawyers who've come up with that definition. Where's the credibiliy?

[GostHacked]

An exercise in futility, how does this woman ever expect to collect on this so called ruling?

[Rue]

Waldo efore you quote the Paris Principles, you might also want to read as well Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 adopted in 1997 which cut off the age of a child soldier, the term you use at 15.

Now read Article 38 of the Convention On The Rights of Children.

Now go back and read the preamble to the very principles you quite which sets the context for the above applying to STATES and therefore the context of child soldiers as you call them falling under the obligation of STATES not recruit them.

You have removed the principles you quote from their actual application-to preventing STATES from recruiting children NOT terrorist cells. Read the last paragraph of the preamble. It doesn't magically disappear. You have removed the context and intent of the principles in a simplistic exercise of cherry picking a reference without understanding what the reference is actually attached to when the rule it enunciates is applied.

Here is LSO why I have a problem with you calling Kadr a child soldier.

He is not a soldier, not by the definition prescribed by the Geneva Conventions. He did not wear a uniform, follow a chain of command, wear a visible uniform, agree to follow the convention's code on combat, i.e., agree not to attack civilians. So he is no soldier so stop ferreting (a ferret is a weasel(the word soldier..

What you have done is to take a set of principles which are NOT binding law but guidelines, intended to be followed by STATES in regards to h ow STATES treat children and remove it from its context. The US did not recruit Kadr nor do they recruit child soldiers.

For you a terrorist and a soldier are the same. They are not and international law has never defined what a terrorist is or a child terrorist is, and because of that ambiguity people like you and your ilk as you say, feel it should apply to terrorists as well as soldiers as long as someone is under 18. Doesn't make it so.

The Geneva Conventions do not say that. They never have.

Furthermore its interesting you are quick to point out that Kadr should use the principles to shield him from culpability for his actions but you are silent as to their applicability on Al Quaeda who recruited Kadr through his father.

Al Quaeda recruited him and the principles naively are supposed to do what? Stop terrorists like them from recruiting children? Hah. How do they apply when these terrorists refuse to recognize any law?

All you do is set up a law that will be deliberately ignored by terrorists and then will be used to shield terrorists from their actions and put them on a moal level of definition and protection and entitlement to compensation as a soldier. Good you and your ilk do that. I won't. By the way I have no ilk. I speak for me.

In fact the principles you trotted out were and remain is a guideline 105 states signed on to but not all of them feel it applies to child terrorists. Go find out why and stop quoting principles as binding international law they are not.

The issue is not black and white at all in law and it won't be until international conventions attempt to create regulations to deal with TERRORISTS,

I repeat again you can call Kadr a soldier all you want and put him on the same moral and legal level as a soldier but he was a terrorist and his age does not change that.

He acted as an adult. He threw a grenade to kill. He would have and was dedicated not just to fighting US soldiers but innocent civilians.

He was no soldier. He was an international outlaw,-someone who was part of a Muslim extremist terror cell who feel anything to do with Western laws is a joke. In his world, in the world he and his father and family still embrace, and he will not renounce, at 15 he was a man deliberately engaged in acts to terrify and kill as a religious act and vision and an expression of his Muslim beliefs to save the world from infidel.

See I don't use weasel words like child soldier to change what he was-you do.

Weasel words. Its not me calling a terrorist a soldier or like you trying to create a new extended definition of terrorist that magically turns them into soldiers-you have me mixed up with you and your ilk as you say.

To me he was and is an unrepentant terrorist. He's not a cute snuggly uni-browed bearded boy next door. He is a ticking time bomb being molly coddled

by sheltered privileged soft people who have no clue what a terrorist is and think they can adopt them and they will live happily after as some suburban baiged out couch potato.

He won't and when he commits an act of violence in the future which he will, you can come hug him.

[On Guard for Thee]

An exercise in futility, how does this woman ever expect to collect on this so called ruling?

From what I gather, they don't really expect to, especially since he's been locked up for 13 years. But they want to have a handle on him if he is successful suing the Canadian Gov. I suspect their case will have no merit once a proper court in the US hears his appeal and overturns his dubious conviction.

[GostHacked]

From what I gather, they don't really expect to, especially since he's been locked up for 13 years. But they want to have a handle on him if he is successful suing the Canadian Gov. I suspect their case will have no merit once a proper court in the US hears his appeal and overturns his dubious conviction.

What case would he have to sue the Canadian government? It was the US who threw him in Gitmo.

[The_Squid]

What case would he have to sue the Canadian government? It was the US who threw him in Gitmo.

Have you really not been paying attention all this time?

The SCC has ruled that Khadr's Constitutional rights were violated by the Canadian gov't.

In 2008, the court ruled Canadian officials had acted illegally by sharing intelligence information about him with his U.S. captors.

In 2010, the top court declared that Ottawa had violated Khadr's constitutional rights when Canadian agents interrogated him in Guantanamo Bay despite knowing he had been abused beforehand.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-should-have-served-youth-sentence-supreme-court-rules-1.3073876

[bush_cheney2004]

Khadr is Canada's problem now...but that terrorist and war criminal probably wants his windfall paid in USD.

Edited July 14, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

Khadr is Canada's problem now...but that terrorist and war criminal probably wants his windfall paid in USD.

Thanks for that so helpful dialogue that furthers the discussion.

[On Guard for Thee]

Khadr is Canada's problem now...but that terrorist and war criminal probably wants his windfall paid in USD.

Nope, US courts still have to judge his appeal. Except it has to be done in an actual court this time.

[Rue]

Waldo I already responded to this lifting of the law you took out of its actual context. Better read the whole thing. You have removed it from its actual context which is that it only applies to the soldiers of the armed forces of a sovereign state that has signed on to the treaty you are quoting, not terrorists or even armed people of non sovereign state terror or armed cells. Armed Forces or Armed Groups of SOVEREIGN state militaries is what it applies to Can you try understand isolating a clause from its entire treaty does not give a clear picture what it applies to.

Sovereign nations signed this treaty not to apply to terrorists but their own armed forces.

[eyeball]

Now it applies to sentient beings. Nations need to grow up and get with the program.

[On Guard for Thee]

US appeals court recently overturned the conviction of another Gitmo detainee, Ali Hamza al Bahlul, finding that the Military Commissioner was unconstitutional and didn't have the authority to even consider such charges as he was convicted of. This of course will strengthen Khadr's appeal.

[ReeferMadness]

A soldier in what army?

Which begs the question. If there were no other army, who was the US army fighting?

[On Guard for Thee]

Which begs the question. If there were no other army, who was the US army fighting?

You hit the nail on the head. They must have been fighting somebody there for well over a dozen years.

[Army Guy]

Which begs the question. If there were no other army, who was the US army fighting?

Several terrorist organizations, who's goals were to enslave an entire nation through brute force and terror.....so they could preserve a perverted interpretation of the KORAN for their own gains. YA that sounds about right.....and Omar was a part of that, who believe in it so much he risked his own life to take part in it....His family also believed in it, so much they willing were to sacrifice their own sons for the cause.....

and yet here we sit today, His family are still residing in Canada, living off the tit of our good will, our tax dollars.....and here is the kicker, we the people of Canada are considering paying Omar off because we violated his basic rights.....

The same government that did intervene on his behalf, ensuring he did not receive a death sentence, that he could serve the rest of his sentence in Canada in a Canadian jail.....

I just wonder how many Canadian citizens are sitting in foreign jails, serving sentences , did they receive the same treatment.....how many have been transferred to canadian jails....Have their rights been violated, can they sue.....I know lots of questions....

What frustrates me to no end is Canadians have agreed that the action of our government outweighs anything Omar has done....that and the fact that the treatment our soldiers get when killed or wounded fighting our enemies of our nation.....do not merit the time or effort that Omar has received....it sickens me to know that he may profit from his actions while many of my comrades in arms have to cope with handouts.....and Canadian citizens are good with that, and yet hope Omar may get millions for his trouble....