Widow suing Khadr

[Shady]

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

No evidence of that was ever examined in a proper court of law. If it had been there would have been so much reasonable doubt because of conflicting eyewitness accounts amongst other things and charges would have been dropped.

You know this, its all been hashed out before.  In any case so what if Khadr had killed him, if actual laws and conventions were being followed properly and his status as an indoctrinated child-soldier were taken into account these would have protected him from the sort of consequences reserved for murderers.  He would never have been charged with anything in the first place.

Again, all hashed out here before and quite likely behind closed government doors in the sort of frank terms that would make outraged snowflakes like you burst into flames that were visible from space.

I'm not sure why you think anyone disagreeing with Omar's settlement is a snowflake.  It doesn't effect me in any direct way.  I just think he's human garbage.  As does a large percentage of Canadians.  He's about as disgusting of a person as I can think of.  But I don't think of it much outside of the forum.  It's just funny to see people like you worship him like a God.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Shady said:

I'm not sure why you think anyone disagreeing with Omar's settlement is a snowflake.  It doesn't effect me in any direct way.

I guess that's why you keep coming back to it like a dog goes back to its vomit.

[Shady]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I guess that's why you keep coming back to it like a dog goes back to its vomit.

Still better than Omar. 

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I guess that's why you keep coming back to it like a dog goes back to its vomit.

Maybe blame the media?  Khadr is the one who's flying freely on airlines, demanding the return of his passport and unsupervised visits with his terrorist sister and mother.  After shelling out over 10 million to this POS, maybe taxpayers have the right to know what he's up to.

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Maybe blame the media?  Khadr is the one who's flying freely on airlines, demanding the return of his passport and unsupervised visits with his terrorist sister and mother.  After shelling out over 10 million to this POS, maybe taxpayers have the right to know what he's up to.

They have a bigger right to know why their government screwed up so badly in his case that it required $10 million in compensation to settle things. You dingbats still insist it was all just due to lefty bleeding heart sentiments.

Edited February 19, 2020 by eyeball

[Goddess]

Just now, eyeball said:

They have a bigger right to know why their government screwed up so badly in his case that it required $10 million in compensation to settle things. 

Also true.  So maybe lay off shaming people who comment on this thread. Since you're here returning to the "vomit" as well.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

Also true.

Care to expand on why you think so?

Quote

So maybe lay off shaming people who comment on this thread. Since you're here returning to the "vomit" as well.

No. I'm returning to shameful pukes.

[Shady]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Care to expand on why you think so?

No. I'm returning to shameful pukes.

While defending a shameful puke.  More hypocrisy.

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Care to expand on why you think so?

It's been discussed here already.  I agreed with Rue's legal explanations of why it was done and possibly why it shouldn't have been done at all.

[taxme]

On 1/19/2020 at 11:48 AM, dialamah said:

He was a child soldier, recruited while under 18 and captured while under 18. 

Here's info on child soldiers:

Regardless of how children are recruited and of their roles, child soldiers are victims, whose participation in conflict bears serious implications for their physical and emotional well-being. They are commonly subject to abuse and most of them witness death, killing, and sexual violence. Many are forced to commit violent acts and some suffer serious long-term psychological consequences. The reintegration of these children into civilian life is an essential part of the work to help child soldiers rebuild their lives.

The UN's declaration on child soldiers include this clause:  

States will demobilize anyone under 18 conscripted or used in hostilities and will provide physical, psychological recovery services and help their social reintegration.

Both Canada and the US signed onto this agreement.  In Khadr's case, neither Canada nor the US made any effort to offer recovery services, or reintegrate him into society.  UN agreements are not legally binding, so that hardly matters - although I daresay if the child had been not-Muslim, these details would have mattered.

Still, Canadian and US laws were broken in Khadr's case.  Multiple court cases on both sides of the border demonstrated that.  Khadr got the payout because of the injustice meted out by the Canadian government.   It wasn't about a "speedy trial" at all.

There's also evidence that he didn't kill anyone, though we'll probably never know for sure.  

Continuing to insist that Khadr's payout was unjustified ignores many facts.  It also suggests that you'd be ok with a "shithole country" justice system, where facts don't matter, laws are applied randomly, and people can be made examples of, regardless of their guilt or lack of it.

We are pretty much already living in a shit hole country. The country is molded together with shit, and very soon all that pile of crap will start to melt down, and it will all soon be washed down the drain by the rain. I wonder if Kdhar is now a full fledged member of the liberal party, and has donated some of our taxpayer's tax dollars that were stolen from them and given to Trudeau and his ilk? Just wondering. 

[Rue]

On 2/20/2020 at 9:24 PM, taxme said:

We are pretty much already living in a shit hole country. The country is molded together with shit, and very soon all that pile of crap will start to melt down, and it will all soon be washed down the drain by the rain. I wonder if Kdhar is now a full fledged member of the liberal party, and has donated some of our taxpayer's tax dollars that were stolen from them and given to Trudeau and his ilk? Just wondering. 

Your words reflect self-entitlement and living in a bubble perceptions. Had you lived in a shit hole of a country you would know better. This country is molded together by many people-many who do not fit your narrow definition of an acceptable white person-you use Kadr as a platform to spew hatred about all Canadians. Kadr reflects one person-himself just as your words reflect one person-yourself.

You referring to anyone or anything as shit simply reflects your own self-loathing perception projected through externalization.

[taxme]

On 2/22/2020 at 8:18 AM, Rue said:

Your words reflect self-entitlement and living in a bubble perceptions. Had you lived in a shit hole of a country you would know better. This country is molded together by many people-many who do not fit your narrow definition of an acceptable white person-you use Kadr as a platform to spew hatred about all Canadians. Kadr reflects one person-himself just as your words reflect one person-yourself.

You referring to anyone or anything as shit simply reflects your own self-loathing perception projected through externalization.

I appears as though you prefer anarchy and terrorism instead. I am entitled to be able to move freely about in this country. No one should be allowed to interfere in my or anyone else from going anywhere about their business peacefully. These terrorists have done just that to millions of Canadians since these illegal blockades started three weeks ago. You got that? Three weeks ago?

The our economy is in jeopardy and will only get worse and you come on here and try to make me look like I should not have or give my own opinion on here. The problem with you is that you do not want to hear what needs to be said or done. All you want to see is just more talking-talking-talking where we have seen so far, nothing is happening by talking. So go away with your high pompous  attitude that you care. i never see you ever give a dam about what is going on in this country. And when someone like me says it has it should be said,, all I get called by you is that I am a racist-racist-racist. You should have that word racist tattooed on your head seeing that you like to say and repeat it so much.  I want new immigrants to assimilate into our British/European or as you say "white" culture and traditions and learn to speak the language of this country. Let them keep their religion and culture in their own homes. That is what is acceptable to me. Kadhr is not one who is going to care about or accept Canada and it's traditions and values. All Kadhr has done is made fools of the rest of Canadians and no doubt has had a good laugh over our foolishness and at our prime mistake who went grovelling at his terrorist feet. 

As long as we keep giving into terrorists like Kadhr, this country will start to become a shit hole. It has too happen. There is no spewing hatred of any kind here. That is you and the spreading of lies. Kadhr represents what all Canadians are not. An Islamic terrorist who gets millions of our Canadian tax dollars for free by killing someone. The terrorist killed an American soldier and you must think that we should all be happy about this killer living here among us and being paid off for his terrorism? Why I keep wasting my valuable time on you is a mystery indeed. All I will ever learn from you is how to name call other people and label them with nasty insulting offensive descriptions.  I am surprised that you did not call me a racist again. Mellowing out, are we? Just asking. 

 

[Abies]

On 2/19/2020 at 6:17 AM, Rue said:

There were no conflicting eyewitness accounts.  Also the arguments you make do not mean he did not do what he did they simply raise legal procedural issues that nullify his conviction not that he threw the grenade.The fact is the trajectory was proven. It could not have come from anyone else and there were no other witnesses who said it was thrown by someone else. You missed the point and evidence with due respect and the exercise of defining Kadr as a victimized child is romantic but does not explain why today he profits from what he did and has not seen fit as a true Muslim to evidence repentance and provide money to the widow and not profit personally from the death of another.

You can romanticize and turn Kadr into a martyr but the fact remains he is an unrepentant Muslim and using the faith doctrine he claims to follow he is a bad Muslim. Intteresting. There are some on this form who claim Islam is peaceful and does not condone  terrorism but do not point out why Islam would not condone what Kadr did and is doing. I do. I am trying to be consistent and show Muslim terrorists like Kadr use Islam to be terrorist and then Westerners make apologies for this bastardization of Islam and look the other way.

I repeat again Islam does not condone terrorism or profiting from the death of another and it requires repentance for the killing of another, all things Kadr violated and in his religion he claims to follow he has no excuses for his life today based on blood money and refusing to acknowledge what he did.

I argue Kadr shows no repentance because he is a sociopath. His lack of emotions and rehearsed answers all these years later show a manipulative, cold blooded individual. In the future Kadr will snap. It will happen one day at his wife, at one of his children, at a stranger but its only a matter of time until he snaps and rages.

Been there done that. He's know cuddly puppy. He is a wild animal. You do not take wild animals home as pets.

None of the evidence has been tried because he took a plea deal after being tortured and his rights violated by Canada. There was no proof offered to the court because there was never a chance to do so when he took a plea deal. 

[eyeball]

On 2/19/2020 at 6:17 AM, Rue said:

There were no conflicting eyewitness accounts.

There's quite a pile of them actually. 

 

 

Quote

 

Inconsistent and inaccurate statements from the prosecution

There was lots to choose from. The U.S. military reports and filed statements describe a hodge-podge of confusing and inconsistent positions, including the following range of scenarios:

(1) The assault team entered, encountered and returned enemy fire and killed the shooter. Omar Khadr, positioned behind a crumbling wall, then threw a grenade at a group of soldiers who were talking. He did not consider them a threat to his safety, but just planned to kill as many Americans as he could (U.S. government stipulation of facts, 2010, paragraphs 41-43, agreed to by Khadr in his guilty plea);

(2) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire, including a thrown grenade. They shot and captured Khadr, who was the only survivor in the compound during the exchange. Being the only survivor, Khadr must have killed Speer (false public position of U.S. military until 2008, as per CBC report);

(3) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire, including a thrown grenade. They killed the shooter who also threw the grenade. They then captured Khadr, who did not throw the grenade (Report by Maj. Randy Watt, senior U.S. officer at battle, July 28, 2002);

(4) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire and a witness identified as OC-1 saw a grenade thrown over a wall. Because of the timing of the shooting and grenade, he did not believe one person could have done both. OC-1 killed the shooter. He then found Khadr seated and facing away from the assault team and shot him in the back. According to OC-1, Khadr was the only person who could have killed Speer (Statement by witness OC-1, dated March 17, 2004, almost two years after the event);

(5) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire and saw a grenade thrown over a wall. They killed the shooter and two Delta Force members confronted Khadr, who was armed and stood facing them. They shot him in the chest (per summary of statements, originally reported by Michelle Shephard in the Toronto Star);

(6) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire and saw a grenade thrown over a wall. Soldiers outside the compound were also throwing grenades in response to the firefight. U.S. forces first killed the shooter, then shot and captured Khadr (per Los Angeles Times report of statement evidence). This opens the possibility that friendly fire accidentally killed Speer.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/07/opinion/what-if-omar-khadr-isnt-guilty

 

 

[dialamah]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

There's quite a pile of them actually. 

Interesting that it's the most damning story they had him plead guilty to, offering him transfer to Canada as inducement.  

[Rue]

Eye I did make one error I now admit. Kadr did apologize once. Apparently he said once to the widow of the deceased:

“I’m really, really sorry for the pain I caused you and your family,”...

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2010/10/28/omar-khadr-apologizes-to-widow-of-soldier-he-killed/

However As I said however, he has never offered any amount of money to the family or stated what he did was wrong and he waited a long time to even say the above..

Now in regards to the many articles that exist that speculate he could have been killed by friendly fire  they did not provide eye witness statements as to someone other than Kadr killing Speer. In fact you provided an article raising "scenarios". Scenarios are theories not eye witness reports.

Next, Mr. Kadr himself admitted to killing Speer, specifically:

par.5:

"In February and September 2003, agents from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (“CSIS”) and the Foreign Intelligence Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (“DFAIT”) questioned Mr. Khadr on matters connected to the charges pending against him and shared the product of these interviews with U.S. authorities. In March 2004, a DFAIT official interviewed Mr. Khadr again, with the knowledge that he had been subjected by U.S. authorities to a sleep deprivation technique, known as the “frequent flyer program”, in an effort to make him less resistant to interrogation.  During this interview, Mr. Khadr refused to answer questions. ,,

par.20:

["The record suggests that the interviews conducted by CSIS and DFAIT provided significant evidence in relation to these charges.  During the February and September 2003 interrogations, CSIS officials repeatedly questioned Mr. Khadr about the central events at issue in his prosecution, extracting statements from him that could potentially prove inculpatory in the U.S. proceedings against him (CSIS Document, Exhibit “U” to Affidavit of Lt. Cdr. William Kuebler, November 7, 2003 (J.R., vol. II, at p. 280); Interview Summary, Exhibit “AA” to Affidavit of Lt. Cdr. William Kuebler, February 24, 2003 (J.R., vol. III, at p. 289); Interview Summary, Exhibit “BB” to Affidavit of Lt. Cdr. William Kuebler, February 17, 2003 (J.R., vol. III, at p. 292); Interview Summary, Exhibit “DD” to Affidavit of Lt. Cdr. William Kuebler, April 20, 2004 (J.R., vol. III, at p. 296)).  A report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee titled CSIS’s Role in the Matter of Omar Khadr (July 8, 2009), further indicated that CSIS assessed the interrogations of Mr. Khadr as being “highly successful, as evidenced by the quality intelligence information” elicited from Mr. Khadr (p. 13).  These statements were  shared with U.S. authorities and were summarized in U.S. investigative reports (Report of Investigative Activity, Exhibit “AA” to Affidavit of Lt. Cdr. William Kuebler, February 24, 2003 (J.R., vol. III, at pp. 289 ff.)).  Pursuant to the relaxed rules of evidence under the U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006, Mr. Khadr’s statements to Canadian officials are potentially admissible against him in the U.S. proceedings, notwithstanding the oppressive circumstances under which they were obtained: see United States of America v. Jawad, Military Commission, September 24, 2008, D-008 Ruling on Defense Motion to Dismiss — Torture of the Detainee (online:  http://www.defense.gov/news/Ruling D‑008.pdf). The above interrogations also provided the context for the March 2004 interrogation, when a DFAIT official, knowing that Mr. Khadr had been subjected to the “frequent flyer program” to make him less resistant to interrogations, nevertheless proceeded with the interrogation of Mr. Khadr (Interview Summary, Exhibit “DD” to Affidavit of Lt. Cdr. William Kuebler, April 20, 2004 (J.R., vol. III, at p. 296))."

The above paragraphs can be found at: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7842/index.do

The above case report goes on to explain that the evidence was iegally obtained., i.e,  was obtained by breaching Kadr's Constitutional Rights under s.7 and the fundamental rules of natural justice. NO WHERE DID ANYONE SAY THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED WAS INACCURATE. In fact had it been his lawyers had full opportunity to have plead him not guilty. Instead they chose to please him guilty. His lawyers were not tortured or forced to do anything.

Most certainly under Canadian law he evidence was illegally obtained but it did not make his staements inaccurate. The fact is the kind of sleep deprivation used did not inflict pain and Mr. Kadr would not have felt physical pain coercing him to say what he did. The technique used on him would not alter his capacity or free will but it would make him less likely to yell, scream or become emotional. It would be the equivalent of giving him Lorazepam a mild anti anxiety agent.

Next the articles about it could have been friendly fire are not forensic evidence or contradictory eye witness reports.In fact these after the fact articles written by people who do not understand the close proximity Kadr was in with Speer immediately prior to the attack did not address the  or the constellation of open wound patterns on both Kadr and the deceased, the blood splash pattern or what Kadr was in fact doing. More to the point if these writers felt the evidence was not fulsome or conclusive why did his lawyers not think this as well> Perhaps  they can go ask Kadr's lawyers why they did not plead Kadr innocent.

Instead they plead him guilty. They only raised an appeal once they realized he would not be allowed back in Canada and the appeal did not claim the testimony was false, but that it was obtained illegally. That timing  and the choice of legal arguments on appeal says it all. 

Let us be clear, the entire line of defense on appeal was only raised once and only once Kadr was refused re-entry to Canada on procedural irregularities...no lawyer who had the full opportunity when representing Kadr let hm plead guilty in the first place stopped him from doing so. His lawyers without coercion voluntarily pleaded him guilty based on his interviews knowing the techniques used because they had no concern as to the techniques used. They only raised the issue of constitutional illegality ONCE and only once he was not allowed return to Canada which was there right and quite frankly their arguments dismissing the evidence were correct but these legal arguments were based on procedures pertaining to admissibility not the accuracy of what Kadr said.

Do also please give me the name of the eye witnesses who saw someone other than Kadr kill Speer. None exist.

 

 

 

[

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Rue

[Rue]

8 hours ago, dialamah said:

Interesting that it's the most damning story they had him plead guilty to, offering him transfer to Canada as inducement.  

Interesting is right. Not one of his damned 6 lawyers thought to plead him not guilty and only raised their legal arguments not as to the accuracy of what he said but to admissibility only once he was not allowed back in Canada. Interesting indeed.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Eye I did make one error I now admit. Kadr did apologize once. Apparently he said once to the widow of the deceased:

“I’m really, really sorry for the pain I caused you and your family,”...

Rue, the evidence even conflicts with Khadr's version of events. 

The photo on the left, taken in Ayub Kheyl in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002, shows the scene found by the assault team approaching the area where the shooter was killed. Khadr lies beneath the rubble, apparently beneath a collapsed roof. The photo on the right shows Khadr (figure highlighted) after debris has been pulled back. Classified photos obtained by the Toronto Star from an 18-page submission presented in 2009 by Khadr's former military defence team to an Obama administration task force investigating Guantanamo.

 

[dialamah]

16 hours ago, Rue said:

Interesting is right. Not one of his damned 6 lawyers thought to plead him not guilty and only raised their legal arguments not as to the accuracy of what he said but to admissibility only once he was not allowed back in Canada. Interesting indeed.

If the goal was to get him back to Canada, and the only way to do that was for him to plead guilty, why would his lawyers advice him otherwise?

As a lawyer, I'm sure you are aware how often people are convicted after they've been pressured into a guilty plea in exchange for guaranteed less/no jail time.  "Proving" guilt through trial is not as common as having people admit guilt in exchange for lighter sentence. 

My son, after two years of pressure by his own lawyer, restrictions on his freedom (not even in jail, let alone in Guantanamo), bankruptcy and not being able to see his kids had him willing to take the deal offered - he was willing to accept a criminal record and a few days in jail to relieve the pressure and uncertainty, and so he could see his kids again.  Luckily for him, the prosecutor changed, he got a new lawyer, the two talked, the new prosecutor realized there was no evidence and his case was dismissed.  

So don't pretend that a guilty plea, given in exchange for a "deal" is the same as proving someone is guilty.  I can understand how someone, having no experience with the criminal "justice" system, believing nobody would admit guilt if they were innocent, but not someone claiming to be a lawyer.

[Rue]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Rue, the evidence even conflicts with Khadr's version of events. 

The photo on the left, taken in Ayub Kheyl in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002, shows the scene found by the assault team approaching the area where the shooter was killed. Khadr lies beneath the rubble, apparently beneath a collapsed roof. The photo on the right shows Khadr (figure highlighted) after debris has been pulled back. Classified photos obtained by the Toronto Star from an 18-page submission presented in 2009 by Khadr's former military defence team to an Obama administration task force investigating Guantanamo.

 

Yes now explain what proof you have it means he could not have thrown the grenade he claims he did.   See the problem is people assume he could not have thrown the grenade but whY Explain why please. In fact look at the deris. Its not on top of Kadr its to the side of Kadr. That was not his body under the debris. He's not bneath the rubble he is to the side of the rubble.

This is a classic example of the description of a photo not matching the photo. Been there one that with idiots after the fact who interpret pictures incorrectly.

[Rue]

29 minutes ago, dialamah said:

If the goal was to get him back to Canada, and the only way to do that was for him to plead guilty, why would his lawyers advice him otherwise?

As a lawyer, I'm sure you are aware how often people are convicted after they've been pressured into a guilty plea in exchange for guaranteed less/no jail time.  "Proving" guilt through trial is not as common as having people admit guilt in exchange for lighter sentence. 

My son, after two years of pressure by his own lawyer, restrictions on his freedom (not even in jail, let alone in Guantanamo), bankruptcy and not being able to see his kids had him willing to take the deal offered - he was willing to accept a criminal record and a few days in jail to relieve the pressure and uncertainty, and so he could see his kids again.  Luckily for him, the prosecutor changed, he got a new lawyer, the two talked, the new prosecutor realized there was no evidence and his case was dismissed.  

So don't pretend that a guilty plea, given in exchange for a "deal" is the same as proving someone is guilty.  I can understand how someone, having no experience with the criminal "justice" system, believing nobody would admit guilt if they were innocent, but not someone claiming to be a lawyer.

You missed the point Dialamah.   The way to get him back to Canada was not predicated on pleading him guilty. Not at all. 

[dialamah]

23 minutes ago, Rue said:

You missed the point Dialamah.   The way to get him back to Canada was not predicated on pleading him guilty. Not at all. 

Khadr agreed to an eight-year sentence with no credit for eight years already served and the possibility of a transfer to Canada after a minimum of one year and parole eligibility after three years

Wkipedia.

the plea deal added only another eight years to the eight Mr. Khadr had already spent in Guantanamo, and the chance to be sent to Canada, the country of his birth, to serve most of the remaining sentence.

Globe and Mail, Feb 28 2013

So yeah, transfer back to Canada was an inducement for his guilty plea.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Yes now explain what proof you have it means he could not have thrown the grenade he claims he did.   

Rue the whole point of this is that no explanation fits any evidence to the degree required in a real court of law.

See the problem is people assume...

Precisely.

In any case the fact was just a kid still predominates whatever else that was wrong about his persecution. 

[Shady]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Rue the whole point of this is that no explanation fits any evidence to the degree required in a real court of law.

 

 

Precisely.

In any case the fact was just a kid still predominates whatever else that was wrong about his persecution. 

Not true.  There's plenty of evidence to convict had the circumstances been different.  Regardless, he was old enough to know right from wrong.  It wasn't like he was 5 or 6 years old.  Stop making excuses for this human pile of garbage.

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, Shady said:

Not true.  There's plenty of evidence to convict had the circumstances been different.

The only circumstance in which that could have occurred is if America'a military tribunals had the same legal standing as a real court.

You'd also have to scrap the Geneva Conventions and do away with consideration for children that are indoctrinated and taken into armed conflicts....

Between that and all the dialing back of Canada's laws and Confederation and what have you to bulldoze pipelines thru indigenous lands...you right wing conservatives sure like tilting at windmills don't you?