Compensating Khadr

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

Right and the quote proves you misrepresented what I said because you removed moot point out of its actual context to  deliberately misstate what I said. The issue as to Kadr' rights being violated was a moot point, i.e, already resolved because as I stated, the US Supreme Court tied the Canadian Supreme Court's hands by declaring the entire Guantanamo Bay legal apparatus unconstitutional. No where did I say that made the decision of the US Supreme Court of Supreme Court of Canada's subsequent decision not important. I stated the decision was a moot point because the issue of the GBay proceedings and incarceration issue that were originally legally challenged one calle unconstitutional by the US  Supreme Court made it impossible for them to conform to the Charter of Rights  making something that at  one point was debatable,  no longer practically applicable which is what a moot point is.

The lack of disclosure of information pertaining to Kadr's charges which render Gbay's proceedings unconstitutional were the same fundamental rules of natural justice the Canadian constitution upholds. In fact the British and Australian legal opinions on Gbay as well as thw US Supreme Court's findings all rendered whether his charter's rights were violated a moot point or foregone conclusion.

Don't misrepresent. If you don't understand what a moot point is ask. 

Again, none of this makes any sense. How for instance, were the Canadian SC's hands tied? 

[Rue]

10 minutes ago, capricorn said:

Khadr is out on bail as of April 2015. In essence he is a convicted criminal on release from prison with strict conditions. He was charged and convicted of a number of crimes and is currently appealing such conviction. Should not have the $10.5M been placed in an escrow account pending the outcome of his appeal? What if the courts uphold the guilty verdict? If that should happen, no way would Khadr be entitled to access that money. It's a well established premise in Canada that convicted criminals not profit from their crimes.

The money should have been put in escrow because the Canadian government was advised by lawyers for the spouse of the person Kadr killed and another soldier they would be proceeding to court in Ottawa to request the right to be heard to discuss whether they could enforce their law suit in Canada from the state of Utah.

For that reason alone, the federal government had no right to act in any way prejudicial to those parties pending review of their application and should for that reason have placed the money in escrow. They chose instead to lie. Our government lied to the lawyers. It leaked a false story it would pay Kadr ;this last Friday when in fact it gave him the money a week earlier. Our government orchestrated a fake leak to mislead these lawyers into thinking they could have asked for an injunction  Friday to keep the money in escrow pending a legal review of their rights. It was a dishonest and unethical act and one deliberately done to prejudice these legal parties. It was a deliberate, crass, political manouver and I hope Canadians can figure out how disgusting and unethical this government is. This is the lowest act of any Canadian government. It shows Trudeau and his cronies have contempt for anyone and any legal right that doesn't fit into their perspective of wha is right.

The Justice Minister should be ashamed of herself for allowing her government to have done this. There she was standing like a baboon cheering on what they did. I hve lost any respect I  had for her.

 

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Rue said:

The money should have been put in escrow because the Canadian government was advised by lawyers for the spouse of the person Kadr killed and another soldier they would be proceeding to court in Ottawa to request the right to be heard to discuss whether they could enforce their law suit in Canada from the state of Utah.

There will be no lawsuit because the US decision was made by supporters of US war crimes/terrorism.

[Rue]

18 minutes ago, Omni said:

Again, none of this makes any sense. How for instance, were the Canadian SC's hands tied? 

The US Supreme Court declared the detention of Kadr unconstitutional and in breach of provisions in its constitution identical to provisions and standards stipulated in our Charter of Rights.

It doesn't make sense to you because instead of finding out what US constitutional sections were violated you prefer to try challenge me.

Full disclosure. Its a concept where if I want to charge you with something, I must fully disclose to you what the nature of your charges were. This is a fundamental rule of natural justice both the US Constitution and Canadian Charter of Rights uphold.

Its also a basic right the British and Australian courts uphold and why they pulled their captured terrorists out of G Bay.

Harper should have in hindsight brought Kadr back to a Canadian legal system.

The problem is he knew under Canadian Law Kadr would have been released at least while Canadian soldiers were still in Afghanistan dying. The optics would have been bad so he left him in G Bay.

All this political manouvering came about because the domestic criminal laws of the US, Canada, Australia, etc., don't at this point, adequately contemplate how to detain and treat terrorists engaged overseas with their citizenship and there is no international treaty dealing with the treatment of terrorists.

So in that sense and its the only thing I agree with Jacee on, everyone has dirty hands on this one because political considerations collided with legal ones.

Bottom line is we need an international convention on the treatment of terrorists and until we come up with one, this vacuum in directiom as to how to treat the Kadrs of the world will continue.

.

 

Edited July 8, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

8 minutes ago, hot enough said:

There will be no lawsuit because the US decision was made by supporters of US war crimes/terrorism.

No, There may not be a law suit because the federal  court could state they do not have a reciprocal agreement with the State of Utah over civil matters and/or that the civil suit in Utah is based on evidence obtained that violated Canadian Charter principles.

The same goes if the lawyers try to enforce their decision in a provincial Alberta court.

However its not a foregone conclusion. In fact the actual deliberations could take many years.

Your babble is not helpful it only serves to indicate you are full of rhetoric and don't understand the legal issues.

Stick to calling steel eutectic. This is over your head.

[Omni]

15 minutes ago, Rue said:

The US Supreme Court declared the detention of Kadr unconstitutional and in breach of provisions in its constitution identical to provisions and standards stipulated in our Charter of Rights.

It doesn't make sense to you because instead of finding out what US constitutional sections were violated you prefer to try challenge me.

Full disclosure. Its a concept where if I want to charge you with something, I must fully disclose to you what the nature of your charges were. This is a fundamental rule of natural justice both the US Constitution and Canadian Charter of Rights uphold.

Its also a basic right the British and Australian courts uphold and why they pulled their captured terrorists out of G Bay.

Harper should have in hindsight brought Kadr back to a Canadian legal system.

The problem is he knew under Canadian Law Kadr would have been released at least while Canadian soldiers were still in Afghanistan dying. The optics would have been bad so he left him in G Bay.

All this political manouvering came about because the domestic criminal laws of the US, Canada, Australia, etc., don't at this point, adequately contemplate how to detain and treat terrorists engaged overseas with their citizenship and there is no international treaty dealing with the treatment of terrorists.

So in that sense and its the only thing I agree with Jacee on, everyone has dirty hands on this one because political considerations collided with legal ones.

Bottom line is we need an international convention on the treatment of terrorists and until we come up with one, this vacuum in directiom as to how to treat the Kadrs of the world will continue.

.

 

Again you have gone on at length to say not much. He was detained illegally under Canadian law, and Canada was complicit in that detention. Hence he was able to sue for compensation. It's rather simple.I don't what you think Australia laws have to do with anything.

[hot enough]

17 minutes ago, Rue said:

No, There may not be a law suit because the federal  court could state they do not have a reciprocal agreement with the State of Utah over civil matters and/or that the civil suit in Utah is based on evidence obtained that violated Canadian Charter principles.

The same goes if the lawyers try to enforce their decision in a provincial Alberta court.

However its not a foregone conclusion. In fact the actual deliberations could take many years.

You described the legal issues that I used to state that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting their phony lawsuit going in Canada.

 

Quote

Stick to calling steel eutectic. 

The issue that, like all other 911 science issues, you flee from after stating the craziness crap imaginable. There is eutectic steel, Rue. You are quite fond of stating your delusions. The English language is also not one of your long suits.

 

[Omni]

21 minutes ago, Rue said:

No, There may not be a law suit because the federal  court could state they do not have a reciprocal agreement with the State of Utah over civil matters and/or that the civil suit in Utah is based on evidence obtained that violated Canadian Charter principles.

There will be no valid lawsuit because the one being attempted is based largely on statements by the US commission which has been declared invalid by the Canadian SC.

[Rue]

38 minutes ago, Omni said:

Again you have gone on at length to say not much. He was detained illegally under Canadian law, and Canada was complicit in that detention. Hence he was able to sue for compensation. It's rather simple.I don't what you think Australia laws have to do with anything.

In fact it is you being inane at this point but please carry on.

[Rue]

28 minutes ago, Omni said:

There will be no valid lawsuit because the one being attempted is based largely on statements by the US commission which has been declared invalid by the Canadian SC.

Again for someone who does not understand what I say you do parrot it when you feel like it.

[Hal 9000]

I know that you guys want to gloat about this and about the law, but not one of Omni, Jacee, Hot enough or eyeball has come close to saying "yeah, it's a bad situation, but I guess the law has spoken".  Instead, you people are jacked, you're excited for this muslim terrorist.  You're not pleased that the law prevailed, you're happy that a terrorist got rewarded for killing an American solider.  - it's really kinda sick.

[Omni]

17 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I know that you guys want to gloat about this and about the law, but not one of Omni, Jacee, Hot enough or eyeball has come close to saying "yeah, it's a bad situation, but I guess the law has spoken".  Instead, you people are jacked, you're excited for this muslim terrorist.  You're not pleased that the law prevailed, you're happy that a terrorist got rewarded for killing an American solider.  - it's really kinda sick.

Don't blame us, we didn't write the law, we just understand it. Perhaps you don't care about your constitutional rights.

[Omni]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

It doesn't make sense to you because instead of finding out what US constitutional sections were violated

Look up Hamdan v Rumsfeld some time and you'll get the picture. Hopefully.

[Hal 9000]

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

Don't blame us, we didn't write the law, we just understand it. Perhaps you don't care about your constitutional rights.

Ok, personally, I don't think you know what town you live in, let alone know the law, but what do you "personally" think of the Khadr situation? 

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

The YCJA was never drafted in contemplation of interrogating child terrorists

First, he wasn't a terrorist. The notion of the world's biggest terrorists calling anyone a terrorist is ludicrous.

The phrase 'war on terrorism' should always be used in quotes, cause there can't possibly be a war on terrorism, it's impossible. The reason is it's led by one of the worst terrorist states in the world, in fact it's led by the only state in the world which has been condemned by the highest international authorities for international terrorism, namely the World Court and Security Council, except that the US vetoed the resolution. Noam Chomsky

The only country ever to be convicted of international terrorism, the USA. 

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. Noam Chomsky

Quote

 

 Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism. Noam Chomsky

A million Iraqis slaughtered by the US in the 1990s with a planned genocide. They knew and discussed beforehand what the bombing of the Iraq water treatment facilities would do and they went ahead with it. 

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

First, he wasn't a terrorist.

 

Yes he was, and will always be a convicted terrroist war criminal.  He is an Al Qaeda bomb maker (IEDs).

Maybe he should write a book....his supporters in Canada would snap it up.

No cross border shopping for Khadr.

Edited July 8, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[hot enough]

52 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

You're not pleased that the law prevailed, you're happy that a terrorist got rewarded for killing an American solider.  - it's really kinda sick.

You have the gall to say that but have we ever heard from you condemning the million Iraqis murdered by the US/UK in the 1990s, including some half million children. The US knew in advance what bombing the Iraqi water treatment facilities would do, how many it would kill - I think they counted on a couple million dead. 

The further million or so in the illegal invasion and all the resulting crimes that flowed from that - the one the US/UK own. 

Now let's talk about truly sick, Hal. 

[Omni]

14 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Ok, personally, I don't think you know what town you live in, let alone know the law, but what do you "personally" think of the Khadr situation? 

Yes I live in a nice little town on southern Van. Isle. Now maybe your reading comprehension is a little off as I have explained what I think of the Khadr situation. Put simply for you, Khadr was wronged, and the courts have attempted to reinstate his rights.

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes he was, and will always be a convicted terrroist war criminal.  He is an Al Qaeda bomb maker (IEDs).

Maybe he should write a book....his supporters in Canada would snap it up.

No, he was convicted by a US kangaroo court, one that many US lawyers would have nothing to do with. What part of US torture chambers are you missing, lover of war criminals and terrorists, lover of millions being slaughtered by successive US governments.

Did you have a hand in any of those illegal invasions, terrorist actions? You seem to delight in such evil.

He should write a book for there is much evil to discuss when it comes to the USA.

Edited July 8, 2017 by hot enough

[Hal 9000]

Just now, Omni said:

Yes I live in a nice little town on southern Van. Isle. Now maybe your reading comprehension is a little off as I have explained what I think of the Khadr situation. Put simply for you, Khadr was wronged, and the courts have attempted to reinstate his rights.

You're wholly incapable of giving an opinion or even an independant thought.  Yes, you agree with the law - we all get that.  But what is you're opinion of the person - Omar Khadr?  Are you happy for him?  would you be his friend? Do you think he's deplorable, but justified?  C'mon, give us something.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

No, he was convicted by a US kangaroo court,

 

 

No, he was convicted by his own actions.    The U.S. military saved his life instead of leaving him to die in Afghanistan.

[Hal 9000]

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You have the gall to say that but have we ever heard from you condemning the million Iraqis murdered by the US/UK in the 1990s, including some half million children. The US knew in advance what bombing the Iraqi water treatment facilities would do, how many it would kill - I think they counted on a couple million dead. 

The further million or so in the illegal invasion and all the resulting crimes that flowed from that - the one the US/UK own. 

Now let's talk about truly sick, Hal. 

I'm not "giddy" about the situation - as you people are.  It seems that a victory for Khadr, which is clearly a victory for Islam, is a victory for you - is that a fair statement?

[hot enough]

17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

No, he was convicted by his own actions.  

No one trusts a person who loves terrorists and war criminals. Consider how easily the US governments and its people lie. Lying is just like breathing to many Americans.

Have you ever have a hand in any of these US illegal invasions, US terrorist actions? You seem to delight in such evil.

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

You're wholly incapable of giving an opinion or even an independant thought.  Yes, you agree with the law - we all get that.  But what is you're opinion of the person - Omar Khadr?  Are you happy for him?  would you be his friend? Do you think he's deplorable, but justified?  C'mon, give us something.

I certainly wouldn't want to have gone through what he apparently did as a kid. And yes some of things he got up to could be considered criminal, except he was a child. He was taken down that path by his father, and he ended up paying a heavy price for it. I obviously didn't know the kid then, and I really don't know the man now, at least not enough to form a valid opinion of him. Although I know there are some here who have. The interviews I have heard with him of late don't lead me to think he is a rabid terrorist. And once again, the law is the law.

[hot enough]

21 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I'm not "giddy" about the situation - as you people are.  It seems that a victory for Khadr, which is clearly a victory for Islam, is a victory for you - is that a fair statement?

Let's do the comparison, Hal, to the millions of Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians, Libyans, ... murdered by the US in its terrorist actions.