Compensating Khadr

[Rue]

2 hours ago, Omni said:

Maybe because Khadr spent 10 times the amount of time illegally detained.

That's not the reason at all as you are well aware. Its based on double his alleged legal fees.

[Melanie_]

Hal, I'm just trying to understand the law Army Guy referred to. Even if it's the law, I'm pretty sure most people in the scenario I described would try to defend themselves. 

[Rue]

3 hours ago, Omni said:

The law suit had nothing to do with the SC.

It has everything to do with what the Supreme Court did, would, could or can  decide.  Yah I know you are a legal expert.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

3 hours ago, Omni said:

And had they not settled the case, the courts would likely have awarded the full amount.

That is a false  assumption because you continue to ignore that the doctrine of clean hands, pogg clause in the Charter, doctrine of public morality could have all been argued to reduce the amount to a nominal amount. You ignore those doctrines because you have no way to deny them so you do what liberals are good at, pretending they don't exist as options. You are a snively liberal partisan deliberately ignoring the nominal award argument which the Liberals chose not to pursue because had they, Chretien's role in creating this legal fiasco would come out.

But go on keep repeating your selective "legal expertise"..

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

It has everything to do with what the Supreme Court would or could decide.  Yah I know you are a legal expert.

No I think it has more to do with what the SC decided years ago with regard to Khadr's charter rights.

[Hal 9000]

1 minute ago, Melanie_ said:

Hal, I'm just trying to understand the law Army Guy referred to. Even if it's the law, I'm pretty sure most people in the scenario I described would try to defend themselves. 

You're also suggesting a "self-defence" scenario.  Khadr himself went to a place where he could kill soliders - American, British...or Canadian, made no difference to him.  He would've killed Army Guy - and still would today.  

[Melanie_]

Hal, do you know what you do when you're 10 years old and your dad says you're moving to Afghanistan? You move to Afghanistan. He didn't choose to go there. 

[Hal 9000]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

No I think it has more to do with what the SC decided years ago with regard to Khadr's charter rights.

Did the SC decide what his restitution, if any would be?

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

Did the SC decide what his restitution, if any would be?

That's just another nonsense question. As I stated, they decided his rights had been denied, which adds support to his civil suit. Get a handle on the history here.

[Rue]

1 hour ago, Melanie_ said:

So, if a civilian is in a private home that is attacked by a foreign army intending to kill everyone in it, but said civilian is not in a uniform or wearing an armband or carrying arms openly in public, they cannot take part in hostilities and have no right to defend themselves?

Your scenario talks of self-defence to family and private property. Terrorists like Kadr are not engaging in self-defence of family and private property they in fact illegally enter nations, declare they do not agree with any laws of not just that nation but internationally and declare they can use any amount of force to impose their political will on anyone including soldiers and civilians

Kadr was engaged in terrorism. He was not a soldier in a legally defined army defending his legally defined nation nor a civilian protecting his own property or family. He was engaging in terrorism.

Why is it you and others can't differentiate between a soldier, a civilian and a terrorist? Is it really that difficult or is it a political bias that  you think terrorists are legitimate entities?

[Hal 9000]

1 minute ago, Melanie_ said:

Hal, do you know what you do when you're 10 years old and your dad says you're moving to Afghanistan? You move to Afghanistan. He didn't choose to go there. 

Oh wow, you're playing the 10YO angle now too - just like Jacee....wait a minute????

What I do know...and did know at the age of 15, is not to throw grenades.  Khadr knew all about explosives well before that age - he was fully complicit and knowing what was going on.  

You see, the problem is; you people want to assign western belief systems to people who have a completely different ideology than we do.  A 15YO Khadr is not like a 15YO you see at a skatepark in small town Canada.  

[Hal 9000]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

That's just another nonsense question. As I stated, they decided his rights had been denied, which adds support to his civil suit. Get a handle on the history here.

How is it a nonsense question?  Because, you don't like the answer - yeah, real mature!

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Inter national / and Canadian law....both of them state that a civilian can not partake in hostilities unless they are clearly in a uniform ,  or have  an armband, or carrying arms openly in public...this is done in order to protect civilians in the area....( so there is no confusion who the bad guys are....) In Omars case he was declared a illegal combatant , which is a war crime in itself....

What war? How does one commit a war crime when no war has been declared?

The same way a detainee isn't a POW. You people pretend it's a war when it suits your bullshit but then you switch gears when it doesn't.

That's why Omar's mother has never been charged with indoctrinating a child soldier.

If this was a real war we'd have a lot more to answer for but since it isn't....we can just make shit up as we go.

Trouble is, so can the enemy...whatever that means. I'm an enemy, or so I've been told.

[Hydraboss]

As far as I know, there are no internationally recognized treaties that address "child terrorists".  As this guy was not a national (he was a Canadian), the only way he could legally be recognized as a "child soldier" would be if he was officially fighting for one of the "recognized" sides.  He wasn't - he was engaged in terrorist activities, which as far as I am aware, carries no protections whatsoever.  Canada should have had absolutely no responsibility to him as he had abdicated his citizenship for all intents and purposes.

[Rue]

11 minutes ago, Omni said:

No I think it has more to do with what the SC decided years ago with regard to Khadr's charter rights.

The SC was never asked and so could not  rule on the doctrine of clean hands, pogg clause in the Charter or doctrine of public morality as considerations when asking what the amount should be if one was to be awarded Kadr. Trudeau deliberately refused to seek to ask this question so your comment is legally incorrect as it does not take into consideration all the legal issues Trudeau would not put to the SCC so he could cover up what Chretiens did.

Your comment makes no legal sense because it assumes considerations never asked would not have been considered by the SCC.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Hydraboss said:

As far as I know, there are no internationally recognized treaties that address "child terrorists".  As this guy was not a national (he was a Canadian), the only way he could legally be recognized as a "child soldier" would be if he was officially fighting for one of the "recognized" sides.  He wasn't - he was engaged in terrorist activities, which as far as I am aware, carries no protections whatsoever.  Canada should have had absolutely no responsibility to him as he had abdicated his citizenship for all intents and purposes.

How convenient is that? 

[Rue]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What war? How does one commit a war crime when no war has been declared?

.

Terrorists have declared a war and engage in one each day and they have never officially declared war. What is your point?

[Rue]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

How convenient is that? 

What is convenient is apologists like you using the Charter of Rights, domestic youth laws of Canada, and the arbitrary number 15  or 10 to decide Kadr does not have anhy culpability for his actions.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

How is it a nonsense question?

Quite simply because the civil suit was not heard by the SC so of course they didn't determine restitution. Duh!

[Rue]

9 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

As far as I know, there are no internationally recognized treaties that address "child terrorists".  As this guy was not a national (he was a Canadian), the only way he could legally be recognized as a "child soldier" would be if he was officially fighting for one of the "recognized" sides.  He wasn't - he was engaged in terrorist activities, which as far as I am aware, carries no protections whatsoever.  Canada should have had absolutely no responsibility to him as he had abdicated his citizenship for all intents and purposes.

100% agree

[eyeball]

Just now, Rue said:

What is convenient is apologists like you using the Charter of Rights, domestic youth laws of Canada, and the arbitrary number 15  or 10 to decide Kadr does not have anhy culpability for his actions.

It's not arbitrary at all, unless it's not a war.

BTW, you still interested in charging Omar's mom with indoctrinating a child soldier or were you just in the middle of changing your underwear at the time? 

[Hal 9000]

Just now, Omni said:

Quite simply because the civil suit was not heard by the SC so of course they didn't determine restitution. Duh!

Thank you.  Was that so hard?

Here's another one; Which government official willingly stuck his tongue in the sphincter of a terrorist? 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

Here's another one; Which government official willingly stuck his tongue in the sphincter of a terrorist? 

Thy're your silly questions so I'll leave it to you to answer them.

[SpankyMcFarland]

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

Your scenario talks of self-defence to family and private property. Terrorists like Kadr are not engaging in self-defence of family and private property they in fact illegally enter nations, declare they do not agree with any laws of not just that nation but internationally and declare they can use any amount of force to impose their political will on anyone including soldiers and civilians

Kadr was engaged in terrorism. He was not a soldier in a legally defined army defending his legally defined nation nor a civilian protecting his own property or family. He was engaging in terrorism.

Why is it you and others can't differentiate between a soldier, a civilian and a terrorist? Is it really that difficult or is it a political bias that  you think terrorists are legitimate entities?

What is an act of terrorism? It's often in the eye of the beholder. If Khadr was firing at civilians in Ottawa it would be easy to classify that as terrorism but once you are living in a country that has been invaded things are more complicated. I presume the Taliban, like any government in such circumstances, welcomed any help it could get at the time. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan but I fully expected armed resistance from the inhabitants. 

I presume the Speer family lawyers will try to avoid having to defend Khadr's dubious confession in a Canadian court as it will be given rough treatment for multiple obvious reasons and may not be admissible as evidence. 

People present the dreadful record of the Khadr family as an aggravating factor against him. That is Taliban thinking that has no place in this country. He was BROUGHT to Afghanistan by his family. To listen to Harper (and HIS family now) you'd think this guy was Osama B. Laden.

[Rue]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What war? How does one commit a war crime when no war has been declared?

The same way a detainee isn't a POW. You people pretend it's a war when it suits your bullshit but then you switch gears when it doesn't.

That's why Omar's mother has never been charged with indoctrinating a child soldier.

If this was a real war we'd have a lot more to answer for but since it isn't....we can just make shit up as we go.

Trouble is, so can the enemy...whatever that means. I'm an enemy, or so I've been told.

In regards to comment 1, terrorists don't declare war but engage in a war of anarchy.

In regards to your second comment, A detainee could or could not be a pow depending on wo arrests him and what his satus is. If he is a terrorist since there are no international laws dealing with terrorists there are two ways he can be detained, one as a prisoner of war by a military armed force, or two detained as a criminal by a civilian criminal law system of the nation where the crime was committed. You clearly can't understand either or you wouldn't have made the ridiculous accusation someone is pretending both exist,, They exist. The fact you can't understand them and remain ignorant of them does not mean they don't exist.

In regards to your third comment  that's not why Omar Kadr's mother has not been charged. She hasn't been charged because under the fundamentalist beliefs of Al Quaeda she is not to have a role in indoctrinating soldiers but her role is to say home and produce babies to become jihadi. Again the comment you made feigns you are ignorant of what her role was and pretend she was indoctrinating child soldiers but was not charged for it. Her role was to bring her child up as a fundamentalist Muslim who did not question and should not question-the actual terrorist training was done by others. Her role was to teach extreme Islamist beliefs and you raise an issue as to how this country  may be welcoming Muslims or other extremist fundamentalists into this country and by allowing them religious freedom giving them cover to teach hatred and terrorism.

Maybe she should be arrested and maybe certain mosques should be closed down, in particular the two Trudeau campaigned in when running for office and call for the killing of Jews and attack of the West. Tell me are you the slightest bit concerned as to terrorism that is being taught in Canadian mosques by Mullahs or by Muslims in their homes? Who you? You give a damn about the Kadr family and what their beliefs are-you? Right. Go on tell me how innocent they are and what good citizens they are.

Your fourth comment is an out and out falsehood. The Geneva convention does  and did apply to the Canadian Armed Forces in Afghanistan and there does not have to be a "real" war for it to apply. Our Armed Forces have never violated the Geneva Convention in Afghanistan. Next you use a the idiotic phrase "real war". The wa rin Afghanistan exists. It can not be declared as a war between two nations because its a war between a nation and terror cells who are not a nation. Again you pretend terrorists operate in some fantasy world where what they do is not real.

You are not an enemy, you are just another sheltered, soft, elitist, Canadian who has no clue about war, terrorism or conflict but assume you living in Mama's basement living through the internet.

You've never been in Afghanistan, you've never served in an army, you've never witnessed a civil war or terrorist act and it shows in each and every word you post where you refuse to acknowledge what terrorists are and what they do and only choose to criticize the soldiers we send to contain them.

The soldiers go because our politicians send them to protect us from terrorism so people like you can live sheltered, elitist, privileged lives in Mama's basement.

 You and Justin and Omni and Hot Enough et al clearly don't understand what it is to have to deal with and clean up after terrorists.