Compensating Khadr

[Rue]

22 minutes ago, capricorn said:

According to one reporter, we should find out in the fall the amount of the settlement when the government publishes financial information on claims against the Crown and how much was paid out.

Right now Ralph Goodale is claiming he will never relrease such info saying its part of the agreement to keep the amount a secret. Yah man that's the transparent government Justin talked about. Lol. Oh by the way anyone seen Mr. Photo boy? Lol he's in Europe. Coincidence.

Somebody tell Justin this one will cost him.

 

[Rue]

17 hours ago, Omni said:

I guess it is a bit confusing if you have no legal background.

Your posing as a legal expert and lawyer is fun. Keep it up, Does it like your smarmy tone upsets moi?  This posing that you are th eonly one that understands Canadian law is hilarious Continue.

[Argus]

On 7/6/2017 at 3:30 PM, jacee said:

Not the majority.

Oh of course it's the majority.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/22/canada-doesnt-want-khadr-back-poll

[capricorn]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

Right now Ralph Goodale is claiming he will never relrease such info saying its part of the agreement to keep the amount a secret. Yah man that's the transparent government Justin talked about. Lol. 

Goodale was caught off guard by some of the questions of reporters. He won't release the monetary amount but agreed with the reporter that the amount will be released in the fall when claims against the Crown are published. Oh boy!

Quote

Oh by the way anyone seen Mr. Photo boy?

He's out buying socks or accepting socks as gifts.

[Omni]

10 minutes ago, capricorn said:

No, I suggested the government should have taken its chances and gone to court to answer to Khadr's monetary demands.

On one hand you're complaining about legal costs incurred by the government, and then on the other suggesting they didn't go to court. Which is it?

In fact DOJ lawyers were handling the case up to when it was settled. When you get sued you kinda have to go to court.

[capricorn]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

On one hand you're complaining about legal costs incurred by the government,

I did not complain about it. I simply stated it as a fact.

[Omni]

22 minutes ago, Rue said:

Your posing as a legal expert and lawyer is fun. Keep it up, Does it like your smarmy tone upsets moi?  This posing that you are th eonly one that understands Canadian law is hilarious Continue.

You don't even need to be a legal expert here, all you need is the ability to read and understand what the courts have already decided.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

You don't even need to be a legal expert here, all you need is the ability to read and understand what the courts have already decided.

As with everything that is a fait accompli, the argument is about whether or not one agrees with it.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

May have?  I thought Canadian officials did play a role!  Isn't  that's why we're paying?

You figure the officials should be who pays or just those of us who elected/hired them to do our filthy work?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

From how the government acted to expedite giving the money asap - looks like the Liberals are really complicit to make sure the victim's don't get their hands on Khadr's reward.

The Liberals are still sending weapons to dictators so I fail to see why you right-wingers should be so down on them. I mean c'mon, I bet Trudeau is still making the Bois Proud.  You guys are so all over the map its ridiculous.

[Goddess]

15 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

As with everything that is a fait accompli, the argument is about whether or not one agrees with it.

I think the problem is that we all DO understand the legalities of the situation.  In this case, our laws were used against us.  It's what Muslim extremists do.

I'm pretty sure it's why the Khadrs are always smirking. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Goddess

[Goddess]

This is the government's fault for not revoking their citizenship 20 years earlier.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/khadr/family/canada.html

Quote   » "The Liberal Government is Wrong to Let the Khadr Family, Which Has Strong Al-Qa'ida links, Back into Canada" Op-Ed -- Edmonton Journal Byline: Lorene Gunter April 15, 2004 "It is absolutely appalling that members of the Khadr family have been rushed into Canada with the assistance of the Liberal government. The Khadrs have spent nearly two decades funding and waging terrorist war against the West from Pakistan. That they are still citizens and free to enter this country at will is a sign of how casually the feds treat terrorism, still. … … Elsamnah - Mrs. Khadr - has recently changed her tune. In the same CBC story as her son confessed the Khadrs were Al-Qa'ida through and through, Elsamnah told reporters the Americans got what 'they deserved' on 9/11 and that she preferred Afghan and Pakistani terrorism camps for her boys to Canadian schools where they would be corrupted by Western materialism and sexuality. But last Friday, on her return to Canada to seek medical treatment for crippled Karim, Elsamnah insisted her family has 'no connection to Al-Qa'ida.' That's simply too convenient. Now that her son needs better medical care than he can get amid the jihadi battlefields, Elsamnah becomes a proud and innocent Canadian, when mere weeks ago she was bad-mouthing the Western way of life to both Bell and the CBC. The government's excuse that they were powerless to keep the Khadrs from returning because they are citizens is feeble and insulting. Under Canada's new anti-terrorism laws, the suspicion that someone might pose a security threat is enough to keep them outside the country, or at least detain them at the border until their case is resolved."

[Goddess]

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-khadr-family-a-timeline/wcm/d6ae9160-1cd4-41c2-8632-58bc24ff8e59

 

Seriously, is this the timeline of the average Canadian citizen?  Or the average Mulsim extremist?

[Smallc]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Oh of course it's the majority.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/22/canada-doesnt-want-khadr-back-poll

That's because they assume he was actually guilty:

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

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, Goddess said:

This is the government's fault for not revoking their citizenship 20 years earlier.

Actually its our own fault for sending lackeys and not confronting the Russians directly ourselves.

You want something done right you should do it yourself.From your...timeline...whatever the hell that means.

Quote

1985

Ahmad Said Khadr moves to Peshawar, Pakistan during the Soviet War in Afghanistan, ostensibly to do humanitarian work. He first meets Osama bin Laden as they both run money into Afghanistan to support the battle against the Soviets.

 

 

[Argus]

39 minutes ago, Smallc said:

That's because they assume he was actually guilty:

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

The justice system was never designed or intended to prosecute people involved in wars - legal or otherwise. I mean, in the case of a firefight do you try each of the surviving members of the opposition for murder, which would need evidence against each individual (fingerprints, firearms tests to match with bullets, paraffin tests to see if they fired guns, etc). No, you simply assume everyone on the other side was involved in the fighting against you. That's all you CAN do.

Now in the case of military personnel what they 'd be doing was legal, and they'd be taken prisoners of war until such time as their nation state surrendered, at which point they would be released. But Khadr and the rest of the people on this base weren't members of any actual military organization. They were terrorists. And so what they did was illegal.

What his supporters would have us believe is that a boy raised by a fundamentalist terrorist on terrorist bases, who received, by his own admission, military training, including small arms and explosives, was not involved as a participant, but was just a sweet, innocent child. That beggars belief. He was a military trained participant in a terrorist force that fought against the US, and is guilty whether or not you can prove he threw the actual grenade.

In our civilian courts, all participants in an illegal act are guilty if someone dies. If you and your buddy rob a bank and he shoots someone you're still guilty. That's called culpable homicide. I see no reason why it should be any different for Omar Khadr. I don't need proof he threw the grenade.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Argus

[eyeball]

Just now, Argus said:

The justice system was never designed or intended to prosecute people involved in wars - legal or otherwise.

Of course it was, and it's taken all the fun and profit out of getting involved in wars too.

Where were the Proud Boys when we really needed them?

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Now in the case of military personnel what they 'd be doing was legal, and they'd be taken prisoners of war until such time as their nation state surrendered, at which point they would be released. But Khadr and the rest of the people on this base weren't members of any actual military organization. They were terrorists. And so what they did was illegal.

What his supporters would have us believe is that a boy raised by a fundamentalist terrorist on terrorist bases, who received, by his own admission, military training, including small arms and explosives, was not involved as a participant, but was just a sweet, innocent child. That beggars belief. He was a military trained participant in a terrorist force that fought against the US, and is guilty whether or not you can prove he threw the actual grenade.

I've read quite a few times now that this particular firefight was over 4 hours long and they were given multiple opportunities to surrender.

Omar chose not to.  Even after his father was killed.  He still chose to lob a grenade rather than surrender.

[dialamah]

45 minutes ago, Smallc said:

That's because they assume he was actually guilty:

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

This won't make any difference to those who have made up their mind.  Clearly a boy buried in rubble can throw a grenade and the witness onsite and at the time cannot possibly have a better handle on events than an anonymous source two years later.

[bush_cheney2004]

Omar Khadr is a convicted war criminal, but U.S. mercy compels me to send him all the Canadian coins that show up in my pocket change jar.

Hope he doesn't relapse and send it to Al Qaeda to build more IEDs.

 

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Omar Khadr is a convicted war criminal

Convicted by a bogus US military commission without any legal representation. Of course your namesake decided he could do away with habeas corpus with the stroke of a pen. Maybe he should be convicted. Oh yeah, he already has been.

[ironstone]

Here is  link I hope most of you will check out.

https://www.therebel.media/r?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.SpeerKids.com&e=7f4ce171878fcbb7d35c609e88054c48&utm_source=therebel&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rr_07_07_17&n=3

[cannuck]

Count me among those who could not believe the Khadr family was allowed back into Canada, never mind allowed in the first place.  Massive failure due to our relentless drift to the left - regardless of WHICH party is in power at any point in time.  So, if there is a fickle finger to point, that is where it goes first and foremost.

Yes, we did indeed sign onto the child soldier treaty, but Omar Khadr was not a soldier, he was a terrorist - so in my understanding, it does not apply.  Further, the UN treaty as I understand it applies to children FORCED into service.   Khadr was a very willing participant executing a terrorist attack beside his Father. In a criminal case in Canada, such acts would likely have a minor elevated to be tried as an adult, but of course, the UN would never want such a thing in their headlong charge into globalism.  So the next finger to point in order of rank would be the courts that served as the handmaiden to Rotten Ralphie.   Why do I reserve such vitriol for Mr Goodale??   Well, it seems the courts did his bidding when Mr. Justice Ross Whimer ruled that "there is nothing that would compel a farmer to seek a licence to export his barley" then had Andy McMechan locked up for months for taking his tractor seized by customs for an offence that the courts clearly ruled had not taken place.  Lest we forget, judges are but lawyers with political backing - a class of people who's ethics are prostituted for a nickel by definition.   Add to that, our current Minister of "Public Safety" (there's a laugh, bring some more terrorists in, makes me feel REALLYY safe) is nothing but another petitfogging ambulance chaser himself.

Finally, the only reason Khadr didn't get the 72 virgins as did his old man is that some American medic saved his life.

As Father-in-law to an officer who is a decorated Afgan vet, the insult to how we treat terrorists vs. our own servicemen is sickening beyond belief.

I have finally reached the point where I am ashamed to call myself a Canadian.

[Hal 9000]

You people who are supporting this make me fuKng sick, you really do.  WTF is the matter with you that you actually fuKng gloat about what this guy has done to us.  He is a terrorist, we know that, you know that - and you love the little fuKr.  Now, I can take losing the money, but to have our Liberal government actually side with this POS is staggering.  I would've at least respected Trudeau if he'd faught the case- win or lose.  But not only did they side with them, they are appologizing, they  are covering up details and they slipped it under the radar so the Americans could do nothing about it.  And you dumb fUkng liberals are cheering it on and even gloating - my god, what is matter with you?

You are the same people who hate our military personnel and would literally spit on them for protecting you, they're the people I really feel for today. - well congratulations, our Prime Minister just spat on them for you.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Hal 9000

[Omni]

18 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Prime Minister just spat on them for you.

What a silly comment. In fact in this case Canadian laws were broken, human rights were denied. The courts have shown that and so compensation was required. I wasn't in Afghanistan to see what really happened, and neither were you, but 10 years in jail with no access to legal council is against our, and US laws, except in this case access to law was denied by creating a basically illegal prison on foreign soil. Better handling of the case may have produced an outcome more in line with you rant.