Compensating Khadr

[drummindiver]

14 hours ago, hot enough said:

Torture chambers may be alright with you, dd, you've exhibited your "moral base" a number of times. 

 

Lol....cells to hold criminals are now called torture chambers? I guess we better let Bernardo et al out and start saving the money to pay the settlements.

Edited July 28, 2017 by drummindiver

[Rue]

4 hours ago, Omni said:

And that of course is the limit of your discussion, how hot the blond is. Do you even understand weather? Of course not.

Lol I agree with thou.

[Rue]

24 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Lol....cells to hold criminals are now called torture chambers? I guess we better let Bernardo et al out and start saving the money to Kay the settlements.

Actually if the public knew how Bernardo lives they would be up in arms. He in fact lives in a very nice self contained apartment with a large screen t.v. He does not live in the tiny cell people thing he does.

The people on this forum pissing on GBay have no idea what its facilities provided either. They assume because they read an internet article that said he was woken every 3 hours, at one point to be interrogated, this automatically made the GBay facilities evil.

The actual physical facilities were in total conformity to the 3rd Geneva Convention at all times and in fact impeccably clean.

There isn't a damn prisoner anywhere in the Middle East who is remotely treated the way prisoners in G bay were.

What Kadr claims was torture, is a routine practice of interrogation used by police across the world and in Canada and the US. If it constitutes torture then using that reasoning we should be paying hundreds of thousands of people financial compensation for being cross examined while they were tired or because they cried.

There's a reason Kadr's lawyers wouldn't allow him to testify about his alleged torture. It would have revealed his crying, his emotional stress was not caused by torture but the awareness no one was coming to save him. His feelings of immortality were shattered.

That's got nothing to do with torture and everything to do with someone who realizes he aint the tough guy he thought he was.

Prisons do that.  Try explain that to people who have never been out of Mama's basement. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

19 hours ago, jacee said:

In your quote above, did you notice the word "sent"? His father "sent" him?

When he was captured, he was in the care of the man who died near him, who likely threw the grenade, an AlQuaeda friend of his father's.

He did what he was told by his father.

His father threatened his older brother to do as he was told or he'd die a suicide bomber.

Omar did what he was told, to survive.

In regards to your first comment, his father in fact never sent him. Someone else did. His father sent him to a terrorist training camp.

In regards to your second comment,  when he was captured he was not in the care of another man, you fabricated that. You also fabricate the other man through the grenade because your bias can not allow you to think of Kadr as a terrorist murderer-in your fantasy world he was just sitting doing nothing.

In regards to this second comment you also fabricated the other terrorist he was with was a friend of his father's. You have no evidence to that fact. You assume becaue Kadr;s father was an Al Quaeda terrorist every other terrorist was a friend of his. This is a naïve stereotype you create where you think Al Quaeda terrorists are one cohesive unit of friends. In fact they are as likely to kill one another as they are the "infidel". That you have no clue about because you don't have a clue how terrorists operate.

Terrorists work in cells. Loosely knit cells where they are not comrade but men brought together with different emotional and intellectual levels and ideologies whose sole thing in common is they are both angry.

Terror cells are packs with an Alpha male and usually range from 4  to 5 to maybe 30. Each alpha male or cell leader reports to a contact or handler. The handler does not tell them about other cells so if they are caught they can't be tortured into explaining what the other cells are doing. There is actually little if any contact between cells and when there is it usually breaks down as competing cell leaders get into battles as to who is in charge.

You say as well he did what his father told him. Sure in your fantasy world if he never had an independent though it makes him a sweet innocent angel in your eyes which you badly need to believe in. The other alternative, that he did not always do what his father told him, in fact he did what he himself chose and that was violence, would blow the crap out of your fantasy scenario.

You then fabricate some story about his brother. Again the script supports your fantasy that his brother as well only operated based on fear of his father, never on his own accord. The alternative, that the brother acted not just based on his father's beliefs, but his own petrifies you into a complete denial.

Your last sentence is meaningless.  The entire world could use that rationalization to avoid any responsibility for what they did. You present convenient, simplistic, pat formulas for complex behaviour-it makes the world safe for you. In your world there is no one who actually engages in evil things, they are simply evil because they are trying their best to survive.

What an insult to people who have had to survive after choosing not to do what they were told because they knew it was wrong.

Yah I know in your world, children, youth, they are morons. They simply do what they are told. None of them think for themselves.

What patronizing crap.

[Rue]

13 hours ago, jacee said:

Hate.

On both sides, terrorism is about propagating hatred against particular peoples.

It's not the goal, it's just the tool to divide and conquer peoples.

Keep us hating and living in fear of the 'other'.

While they make out like bandits sucking out resources and wealth.

Terrorism is propagating hatred, inciting - and arming - violence.

Usually for greedy purpose.

Follow the money.

Ka-ching!

Thank you for illustrating my point. You use this wide ambiguous definition that throws in disjointed subjective personal biases you have that you project as qualities of a so called terrorist but your definition does not define terrorist or terror.

Your definition is nonsensical and illogical. Plenty of people propagate hatred against particular peoples but it doen't make them a terrorist.

Plenty of people divide and conquer others, its a basic Machiavellian principle we see in all institutions and taught as a management technique in business schools-doesn't make it terrorist.

Greedy people making money doesn't make them terrorist.

You throw out your subjective feelings and call them terrorist.

It renders your discussions on terrorism farsical.

Terorism was never intended to cater to your subjective peoples about greed or behaviour.

It is a definition that simply states it is an individual or group of individuals who reject any or all laws but their own and believe only their rights are legitimate AND then that this gives them the further right to engage in violence, murder, crime, acts that cause people to react with negative behaviour such as fear and anger, to be able to impose their beliefs.

That's all it was meant to mean. Those who fit the above definition but do NOT impose themselves on others are not yet terrorists. Until they put into action their plans to be violent, murderous, they have not yet engaged in actual terrorism but in our laws planning terrorism is considered as serious as physically carrying it out.

Planning it or conspiring to do it activates the terror definition.

A person who has violent views until he or she can be shown to be planning to carry them out is not technically yet a terrorist.

That's how the law works domestically.

Internationally there is no definition yet of a terrorist.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Rue

[eyeball]

On 7/27/2017 at 6:49 AM, PIK said:

He should be happy that he is alive. Americans saved his ass after he killed one, if they are so evil,they would have let him die. Harper brings him home and the 1st thing he does is sue the government. He was in battle against us and he is now a millionaire. Wait till trudeau sends our soldier to Mali on his little peacekeeping run. Our soldiers will be up against REAL CHILD SOLDIERS ,so do we pay everyone we catch and talk to 10m dollars????

Especially if we torture them, so we better talk nicely.

We should know better by now wouldn't you think?

[jacee]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Thank you for illustrating my point. You use this wide ambiguous definition that throws in disjointed subjective personal biases you have that you project as qualities of a so called terrorist but your definition does not define terrorist or terror.

Your definition is nonsensical and illogical. Plenty of people propagate hatred against particular peoples but it doen't make them a terrorist.

Plenty of people divide and conquer others, its a basic Machiavellian principle we see in all institutions and taught as a management technique in business schools-doesn't make it terrorist.

Greedy people making money doesn't make them terrorist.

You throw out your subjective feelings and call them terrorist.

It renders your discussions on terrorism farsical.

Terorism was never intended to cater to your subjective peoples about greed or behaviour.

It is a definition that simply states it is an individual or group of individuals who reject any or all laws but their own and believe only their rights are legitimate AND then that this gives them the further right to engage in violence, murder, crime, acts that cause people to react with negative behaviour such as fear and anger, to be able to impose their beliefs.

That's all it was meant to mean. Those who fit the above definition but do NOT impose themselves on others are not yet terrorists. Until they put into action their plans to be violent, murderous, they have not yet engaged in actual terrorism but in our laws planning terrorism is considered as serious as physically carrying it out.

Planning it or conspiring to do it activates the terror definition.

A person who has violent views until he or she can be shown to be planning to carry them out is not technically yet a terrorist.

That's how the law works domestically.

Internationally there is no definition yet of a terrorist.

 

 

Your definition of terrorism is just obfuscation, Rue, which I would expect from you given your broad anti-Muslim Zionist agenda.

My definition is pretty clear and simple, and applies to radical so-called 'Islamic' extremists as well as the western powers who perpetrate hatred for greedy purposes. 

"Terrorism is propagating hatred, inciting - and arming - violence."

In fact, the west created 'Islamic' extremists to serve it's own greedy purposes.

Who is making money from selling the arms in Syria?

The purpose of inciting violent terrorism is greed ... for money (arms sales), resources (oil, etc) or land (Israel/Palestine). 

Violent terrorism would not exist without greed.

Edited July 28, 2017 by jacee

[Hydraboss]

On 7/27/2017 at 0:48 PM, jacee said:

If you think Guantanamo is "right", you aren't Canadian.

I believe Gitmo is absolutely justified, and I was born and raised in Canada.  Still live here so I guess your assumption is incorrect.

On 7/27/2017 at 0:48 PM, jacee said:

Anybody who thinks violating people's rights and subjecting them to torture is "right" is a f'kng animal, a terrorist

Nope.  I'm a homosapien (which actually IS part of the "animal" kingdom) - so I guess you get partial points on that one for being partially correct.

On 7/27/2017 at 7:49 AM, PIK said:

He should be happy that he is alive

I'm sure Kahdr is happy he's alive.  Me....not so much.

19 hours ago, hot enough said:

You can't deny away US/UK/Israeli war crimes and terrorism

Actually, anyone can deny anything at any time.  No one needs your permission.  Sorry.

12 hours ago, Omni said:

limit of your discussion, how hot the blond is

Meh...she's semi-cute but certainly not hot enough.  But really, who is?

[Omni]

18 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

I believe Gitmo is absolutely justified, and I was born and raised in Canada.  Still live here so I guess your assumption is incorrect.

So you disagree with out charter. Who's charter would you prefer?

[capricorn]

On 2017-07-27 at 0:36 PM, jacee said:

In your quote above, did you notice the word "sent"? His father "sent" him?

Think about that.

I'll let you obsess over one word in a media article. I have better fish to fry.

Quote

He was always under supervision.

No he was not. This is par for you. Changing and molding the facts to suit your opinion.

Quote

His father threatened his older brother to do as he was told or he'd die a suicide bomber.

If this came from the lips of a Khadr, I don't believe a word.

Quote

Omar did what he was told, to survive.

BS.

[drummindiver]

5 hours ago, jacee said:

Your definition of terrorism is just obfuscation, Rue, which I would 

In fact, the west created 'Islamic' extremists to serve it's own greedy purposes.

 

Wtf ever. There have been Islamic extremists since the beginning of Islam.... nature of the beast.. mpbuh

[Hydraboss]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

So you disagree with out charter. Who's charter would you prefer?

The Canadian Charter is an absolute embarrassment and should never have been put into force.  Another move by the most destructive Prime Minister that Canada has ever had.

[Omni]

Just now, Hydraboss said:

The Canadian Charter is an absolute embarrassment and should never have been put into force.  Another move by the most destructive Prime Minister that Canada has ever had.

So maybe you should move to Russia and see how you like having no rights.

[capricorn]

2 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

The Canadian Charter is an absolute embarrassment and should never have been put into force.  Another move by the most destructive Prime Minister that Canada has ever had.

His son is well on his way to match or surpass that record.

[Hydraboss]

We had lots of rights before that stupid document.  Are you saying that no citizen of Canada was permitted to vote before 1982?  That citizens weren't innocent until proven guilty before 1982?  The Charter was about a french politician putting in protections for french people in this country (Language Rights) and sucking up to natives.  Nothing more.  The "rights" Canadians had in 1981 weren't altered in 1982.

[Hydraboss]

2 minutes ago, capricorn said:

His son is well on his way to match or surpass that record.

Yes, but like everything else with Justin, it will take twice as long as any normal, intelligent person.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

We had lots of rights before that stupid document.  Are you saying that no citizen of Canada was permitted to vote before 1982?  That citizens weren't innocent until proven guilty before 1982?  The Charter was about a french politician putting in protections for french people in this country (Language Rights) and sucking up to natives.  Nothing more.  The "rights" Canadians had in 1981 weren't altered in 1982.

Obviously you haven't read the thing nor understand the changes it made. Prior to the charter you had simply the bill of rights which was specifically a federal statute and not a constitutional document. Go read awhile.

[Hydraboss]

I know it by rote.  Thanks for the suggestion though.

[Omni]

8 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

I know it by rote.  Thanks for the suggestion though.

Ah, you'll forgive me if I have to doubt that.

[Rue]

5 hours ago, jacee said:

Your definition of terrorism is just obfuscation, Rue, which I would expect from you given your broad anti-Muslim Zionist agenda.

My definition is pretty clear and simple, and applies to radical so-called 'Islamic' extremists as well as the western powers who perpetrate hatred for greedy purposes. 

"Terrorism is propagating hatred, inciting - and arming - violence."

In fact, the west created 'Islamic' extremists to serve it's own greedy purposes.

Who is making money from selling the arms in Syria?

The purpose of inciting violent terrorism is greed ... for money (arms sales), resources (oil, etc) or land (Israel/Palestine). 

Violent terrorism would not exist without greed.

More political partisan crap.  My definition is straight from the bloody dictionary yours is not. Do me a favour as well, I appreciate you need to have the world laid out in simple black and white simplistic terms for you but get this crystal clear-the fact that I believe Jews have a right to a political collective state does not mean I am anti Muslim.

Provide the words or rreferences where I was anti Muslim. Go on. Every time I have asked for proof not one of you who accuses me of being anti Muslim can find a damn word that says I am - go on, provide the words.

The West did not create Islamic extremism. It existed thousands of years before we existed. The fact you don't understand this and think it was la la land in the Muslim world prior to the Western nations coming about and needing oil simply reflects your ignorance of Muslim history and selective bias that not only absolves Kadr of any responsibility for being a terrorist but any  Muslims not just from being terrorists but extremists. That is a crock of crap.

Now you want to ask who is making money selling arms in Syria, go ask Russia, China or are you so oblivious to their role in propping Assad?

No the purpose of inciting "violent" terrorism (all terrorism is inherently and neccessarily violent, your comment is as idiotic as stating "fatal murder") isn't greed-its because individuals or groups of individuals believe their beliefs should be imposed in such a manner.

This selective fantasy you have that someone must be greedy is assinine. Hezbollah is full of terrorists who live materially modest lives. They are far from greedy.

Terrorism most certainly exists with or without greed.

No tall terrorists are motivated by greed. Many are fueled by altruistic beliefs and idealism.

You make sweeping generalizations to suit your selective take on blaming the West for being terrorist and absolving anyone else from terrorism.

Its why I contend you have zero credibility and live in a bubble so removed from reality as to defy basic common sense.

La La Leftism is I suppose the best way to describe your fantasy script where terrorists are only so if they are big bad Western capitalists.

Tell me are you Muslim? Do you subscribe to the kind of Islam that fuels Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas?  Go on have the integrity to say so.

This blame game you play in scapegoating the West for terrorists does that include you or are you immune from it?

 

[Rue]

59 minutes ago, Omni said:

So maybe you should move to Russia and see how you like having no rights.

If you are going to pull that ridiculous comment our your asp then wear it....maybe you should move to  Saudi Arabia or Iran and tell everyone you are a Jewish feminist gay trade unionist-even better still, go live with  Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Intifada. Lol I give you 30 seconds before you call Mama crying an asking to come home.

 

 

 

[Rue]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

So you disagree with out charter. Who's charter would you prefer?

First did you make a spelling mistake?  Oh me oh my. Imagine you doing that. I thought only moi did.  See we do have so much in common.

Next, I disagree with how the charter is applied. I don't speak for other critics. I think the reasoning that it be applied as widely as possible has created a pendelum that has swung so far from its original intent to now threaten its very purpose.

Whether s.1 will ever be used to swing the pendelum away from an extreme in wide application remains to be seen. I don't see such decisions in this generation.

That said, I did have the luxury of taking a graduate course in constitutional law at Osgoode Hall when I did my Master's, It's a bizarre area of law full of baffle gab. What I found fascinating though was Prof. Hogg who assisted Trudeau and drafted much of the Charter. He spoke candidly to me while we were eating dinner and said neither he nor Trudeau had envisioned the Charter being used as it was in criminal law. They only envisioned it as a way to protect equality rights of French, natives, gays. He said the Charter has taken on a life of its own because of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to interpret it as widely as possible.

I found that very interesting and its why I say to you without partisan bias, I think the Charter is not the problem, sometimes its wide application may be questionable. Charters, constitutions are essential components of democracy and to be safeguards for democratic processes they have to have teeth and be enforced. I would not argue against that, of course not if that is your point. You are right, constitutions that are not enforced become jokes like the one in Russia which sounds fantastic when you read it.

The point is its far to say what you do that a constitution with teeth protects a democracy but it can at times undermine it if it goes too far. So far it has not. The Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of violations at Kadr in regards to fundamental rules of Justice as no different than the US Constitution finding it so as well as the Australian and British high courts. That's not the issue. The Charter was violated for Kadr. It entitled him to return and release-the other issue whether he should be financially compensated personally (other than being released and his legal bill paid) was never brought to the Supreme Court of Canada to reference and interpret. It remains unknown. As long as its not referenced TRudea's refusal to reference it lends to the appearance terrorists as long as they are Canadian can personally gain financially if their charter rights are violated.

That violates our most fundamental of legal doctrines that wrong doing can never lead to personal financial reward. The only criminals who have been compensated were in fact proven not to have ever engaged in the actions leading to their arrest. You've failed to grasp that difference. You feel the procedural violations of the Charter magically undo the actions that led to Kadr's detention. They do not. They were wrong actions whether he was brainwashed, a child, fully knew what he did, had no understanding fo what he did. Terrorism doesn't cease being terrorism based in a legal procedural error, it only allows a technical defence to prevent detention.

That was and has always been the law until Trudeau for political reasons avoid the public morality and dirty hands doctrine references. Those references stand side by side the charter. The Charter has no section that extinguishes them and I think had they been referenced the courts would have set the government's wrong doing could be addressed, remedied and acknowledged in ways OTHER than giving Kadr personally, money.

The pay off I believe creates a bad precedent that undermines all our laws and the Charter until such a reference is done.

I know you disagree. I am stating this because people trained as lawyers see the law as a balancing act not a partisan political act. We weigh all the issues not just select the ones that suit our political agenda. I politically despise everything Kadr is and stands for. I do understand why the law releases him from detention, It did so as a balancing act so in the future innocent people do not have their rights violated. However where we differ is I don't stop there and pretend the issue dies there. I see that as only one of the issues to be addressed the other being to ask when does someone whose rights are violated get pecuniary awards.

Using your logic  a drunk driver who kills someone and gets off on a technicality, i.e., the court waited too long to try him even though the blood test shows he was way over the limit,  should be able to get financial compensation. I disagree.

[Omni]

50 minutes ago, Rue said:

If you are going to pull that ridiculous comment our your asp then wear it....maybe you should move to  Saudi Arabia or Iran and tell everyone you are a Jewish feminist gay trade unionist-even better still, go live with  Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Intifada. Lol I give you 30 seconds before you call Mama crying an asking to come home.

 

 

 

Well I've been to Saudi and Iran, and I worked for two years in Afghanistan. (hey that rhymes eh) I would have had a hard time calling mama since I don't have a number to heaven or wherever she is.

[Omni]

29 minutes ago, Rue said:

First did you make a spelling mistake? 

Yeah I make the odd spelling mistake, but at least I try to remain coherent.

[taxme]

14 hours ago, Omni said:

I'll try from time to time to simplify the things I say for your edification

No, just talk and make more common sense and logic for a change rather then continuing on with your snowflake liberal garbage. It would appear as though it is you that needs to be edited. Chuckle-chuckle. But hey.