Compensating Khadr

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Common sense over emotions.

Argus and you are the ones arguing for the suspension of rights of Canadian citizens based in how you feel about people.

[Boges]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Are all widows of war entitled to sue someone?  I really don't understand this part of it; why should this one person be allowed to sue for compensation while other widows/widowers and orphans cannot?  If Syrians catch a member of the Western coalition and torture him till he confesses to operating a drone that dropped a bomb on an apartment building, should an orphaned family who was in that apt building then be entitled to compensation from him?

If his rights are important, so are hers. You could say that taking up arms against Canada and it's NATO allies is treason and your rights should be suspended regardless. 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Boges said:

If his rights are important, so are hers. You could say that taking up arms against Canada and it's NATO allies is treason and your rights should be suspended regardless. 

 

Yep.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

If his rights are important, so are hers. You could say that taking up arms against Canada and it's NATO allies is treason and your rights should be suspended regardless. 

Good point, actually.  Hmmmm.

[capricorn]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

Her husband signed up to fight terrorists, not be killed by a Canadian citizen on foreign soil.

And that killer being a civilian to boot.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

Good point, actually.  Hmmmm.

 

Never occurred to you until now, eh?

Figures.

[jacee]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

The fact is that Khadr and his family used Canada for welfare and free medical care for most of his life. He spent his formative years in terrorist training camps in the Muslim world. He probably didn't even speak much English before spending time at Gitmo. His miserable excuse for a family would have all been deported under any sane, reasonable immigration system. In fact, under a sensible immigration law they'd never have been allowed in in the first place. This is why, to borrow from another topic we should keep out people who believe women should wear bags over their heads. It would keep this kind of filth away.

I hear the spitting outrage and I think ... Man there are some really ugly people here!

'I wonder how many of them are violent criminals, white supremacists or otherwise no good creeps?'

We have no way of knowing who we're actually talking to on here. You could be a serial killer in jail, or a person who goes around committing hate crimes. 

The more the outrage and hatred, the more likely I think it is that you aren't someone whose opinion is worth much.

 

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, jacee said:

I hear the spitting outrage and I think ... Man there are some really ugly people here!

'I wonder how many of them are violent criminals, white supremacists or otherwise no good creeps?'

We have no way of knowing who we're actually talking to on here. You could be a serial killer in jail, or a person who goes around committing hate crimes. 

The more the outrage and hatred, the more likely I think it is that you aren't someone whose opinion is worth much.

 

 

Hahah...blackmail is the answer.

[capricorn]

Just now, jacee said:

I hear the spitting outrage and I think ... Man there are some really ugly people here!

'I wonder how many of them are violent criminals, white supremacists or otherwise no good creeps?'

We have no way of knowing who we're actually talking to on here. You could be a serial killer in jail, or a person who goes around committing hate crimes. 

The more the outrage and hatred, the more likely I think it is that you aren't someone whose opinion is worth much.

 

Oh boy. I think you were right in a previous post when you said "going around in circles". You clearly don't have anything of significance to add to this thread. Maybe a break is in order.

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, Boges said:

If his rights are important, so are hers. You could say that taking up arms against Canada and it's NATO allies is treason and your rights should be suspended regardless. 

So now I am wondering if that is considered treason and if so, why he wasn't charged for such.  Could it be because there were no Canadians involved?  I don't think treason against allies makes sense.

[Argus]

8 minutes ago, jacee said:

I hear the spitting outrage and I think ... Man there are some really ugly people here!

'I wonder how many of them are violent criminals, white supremacists or otherwise no good creeps?'

We have no way of knowing who we're actually talking to on here. You could be a serial killer in jail, or a person who goes around committing hate crimes. 

The more the outrage and hatred, the more likely I think it is that you aren't someone whose opinion is worth much.

You often sound delusional but you seem to have slipped over the border into paranoia now too.

"Hey, Joe, it's that crazy old white woman in a burka again, the one who keeps trying to sneak onto the reservation claiming she's a native."

Edited July 12, 2017 by Argus

[Hal 9000]

34 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Not potato/potahto.  As Canadians, we enjoy certain rights.  Those rights exist even if we break the law.   If our government is permitted to ignore those rights for people suspected of or even convicted of crimes, then what good are they really?  We protect those rights for everyone, we have to also apply them to people we don't like, disapprove of or believe are guilty of crimes. 

Add to the above that the physical evidence at the scene, including pictures, doesn't actually support Khadr's guilt, and what we have is a witch hunt against Trudeau, led by the Conservative party.  Their campaign is based on emotionalism and partisan politics and supported by a public that prefers to be outraged instead of thoughtful.

Whaddya mean "we"?......

[jacee]

13 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Your other hubby, Omar. He declared war on Canada making him not a citizen except to a scumbag lawyer and folks like yourself.

You really don't like freedom and democracy and equal rights for all citizens, do you?

You'd be the one organizing the lynch mobs. Lol

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

So now I am wondering if that is considered treason and if so, why he wasn't charged for such.  Could it be because there were no Canadians involved?  I don't think treason against allies makes sense.

It's been a clusterf*&^K from the beginning.  I think no one knew how to handle a "Canadian" family turned terrorist, and going abroad to fight against Canada and its allies.

If they had revoked their Canadian citizenship 20 years ago (when the family renounced it), you'd be arguing how unfair it was of them to do that and screaming Islamophobia.

[Hal 9000]

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Are all widows of war entitled to sue someone?  I really don't understand this part of it; why should this one person be allowed to sue for compensation while other widows/widowers and orphans cannot?  If Syrians catch a member of the Western coalition and torture him till he confesses to operating a drone that dropped a bomb on an apartment building, should an orphaned family who was in that apt building then be entitled to compensation from him?

Because a court decided it.  You people aren't gonna question a court ruling....are you?  You people put a 100% of your effort into defending our court ruling and seem disgusted by a court ruling in the USA against lil'Omar. 

Our government jumped into action before our court even ruled on restitution for Khadr...because of a court ruling, then went sideways to avoid a court ruling against Khadr by our ally - the USA. 

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

, you'd be screaming Islamophobia.

Screw you too.

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, jacee said:

You really don't like freedom and democracy and equal rights for all citizens, do you?

 

 

Not for your terrorist friends that declare war on myself, my family and Canada...no.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Screw you too.

 

Victory to Goddess.

[Goddess]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Screw you too.

You would support the Canadian government revoking a Muslim family's citizenship?  Sorry, but I really believe you'd be screaming Islamophobia and opining about how we had to keep them, just in case their children could be rehabilitated and how they have the religious right to raise their children any way they want.  Well, that's what we did and look at the mess.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Goddess

[Hal 9000]

Khadr could not be both a solidier...or even child solider and a Canadian citizen.  If he is a Canadian, he is simply a murderer/terrorist because he's not part of the Canadian military, If he is a child solider, or any solider, then he has joined a new side or country and is therefore not a Canadian anymore - and should not be our responsabilty.

[Omni]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

No, his criminal charges were dismissed....however during his "administrative hearings" where they were determined to be “illegal combatants."  the administrative hearing are a separate process, not done by the military commission or Kangaroo court as you called it.....That being said being an Illigal combatant is a war crime in its self , and he has not been charged with this crime....

A no-nonsense military judge lobbed a bombshell into the Bush administration's controversial terrorist tribunals, dismissing all charges against Canadian Omar Khadr Monday because prosecutors failed to label him an "unlawful" combatant.

"Charges are dismissed without prejudice," Colonel Peter Brownback said brusquely, putting an abrupt end to Mr. Khadr's trial - at least for the moment.

[Peter F]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

No, his criminal charges were dismissed....however during his "administrative hearings" where they were determined to be “illegal combatants."  the administrative hearing are a separate process, not done by the military commission or Kangaroo court as you called it.....That being said being an Illigal combatant is a war crime in its self , and he has not been charged with this crime....

Unfortunatley, it was the Military Commissions judge that ruled Khadr was an illegal combatant.   Judge Brownback dismissed the charges during the first edition of Khadrs trial, the US prosecuting authority appealed that ruling (that being that the MC required an illegal combatant in order to try Khadr and all Judge Brownback had before him was a combatant)  to the Court of Military Commission Review.

 That particular court of review had to be rushed together because there wasn't one yet but certainly a lot of government memo's circulating that perhaps it would be a good idea to set one up.    The MC dismissed the charge (without prejudice) and certain minds then got focused and the Court of MC Review was created.

  That Court heard the government appeal agreed that the judge was correct in that he did indeed require an illegal combatant and not any ol combatant but then also determined that the MC was quite capable of determining the legality or illegality of Khadr's combattantship prior to actually trying Khadr on the charges levelled.  Judge Brownback subsequently did so and concluded khadr was an illegal combatant.

  Shortly after that Judge Brownback was removed from his position and Judge Parrish assigned to replace him. Then the USSC ruled that the MC's as constituted were contrary to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and Khadrs trial stopped until the next edition of the MC's were cooked up.  the next edition of the MC's were passed in Congress and the Senate and the MC's kicked off again.   

  There was/is  only one administrative hearing outside of the MC and that was the Combat Status Review Panel held at Guantanamo with only determines (Then and now) wether the person held is a combatant or not - it does not and cannot determine legality of supposed combatantship.  

 

see http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/Omar07-001/T Military Judge Authority and Remanding Case to MJ to decide MC jurisdiction over Khadr case, 24 September 2007.pdf

 

[jacee]

54 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Not for your terrorist friends that declare war on myself, my family and Canada...no.

Then you truly don't understand it at all.

The Charter protects the right to due process and a fair trial.

Otherwise hooligans like you and Argus would be selectively lynching anyone you choose.

And that works both ways, of course: When you commit heinous hate crimes, you get due process and a fair trial too.

[Peter F]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

Doesn't anyone find  it ironic/twisted that the world praises 15 year old Malala for her stand against the Taliban, but 15 year old Khadr JOINS them gleefully and Canada pays him 10 million dollars?

Where do you get the idea that Khadr joined them gleefully?

[jacee]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/11/liberals-miscalculated-on-khadr-settlement

 

 

Lorne Gunter doesn't mention how our government screwed up badly by sending CSIS to participate in illegal interrogation.

Semrau shooting a wounded insurgent: That's exactly what the US soldiers did to the armed (but out of ammo) man still alive: a war crime. And they tried to do the same to Khadr.

I'm glad to know that Canadians don't consider such war crimes 'standard practice' the way the US does.