Compensating Khadr

[Melanie_]

Yes, I do play the 10 year old angle. He had no choice in where he was, and it wasn't like he could just pick up and leave if he disagreed. And yes, he may not have disagreed... kids are easily manipulated to support the views of those around them. This is why we have different laws for minors, up to the age of 18. And this is why the Supreme Court said we should have intervened. 

[Rue]

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

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? 

I never raised that issue you did. I have answered it in a previous response. If I had my way she would have been stripped of her citizenship and deported to her country of origin along with all the Kadrs since Canada has been so unjust to them. I would alo award Omar on penny and a cup of Tim Horton's coffee and a poster of Jean Chretiens to remind him of how convenient it was to invoke Canadian citizenship once being caught as a terrorist. 

 

Edited July 11, 2017 by Rue

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

You and Justin and Omni

Understand the law.

[Rue]

13 minutes ago, Melanie_ said:

Yes, I do play the 10 year old angle. He had no choice in where he was, and it wasn't like he could just pick up and leave if he disagreed. And yes, he may not have disagreed... kids are easily manipulated to support the views of those around them. This is why we have different laws for minors, up to the age of 18. And this is why the Supreme Court said we should have intervened. 

You are honest. I like that. I also respect what you are saying nd think in  some cases its very relevant but in others it may not be. Sorry I live in a world where I have seen children 8 9. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, make choices in the face of violence, terror NOT to go along with it. I h ave seen brothers from the exact same refugee camp where one becomes a terrorist and one a doctor saving lives.  Sorry its far more complex then any of us understand or think we do what makes a person a terrorist. Your assumption Kadr had no choice and was brainwashed is an assumption. Its based on a world where no one can possibly actually be violent by choice but must be compelled by society or a parent to be violent. You make a l romanticize Kadr' plight . I don't think you would have those romantic notions of his plight if you lived as an actual victim of what he did or have seen what the direct result of terrorism is. 

Edited July 11, 2017 by Rue

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

not to take money directly or indirectly from an act of violence

He received money from having had his rights violated. 

[Rue]

12 minutes ago, Omni said:

Understand the law.

Yah and you probably think you have nice breath and no body odour ....your point?.

 

Edited July 11, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

He received money from having had his rights violated. 

Finish the sentence AS A RESULT OF HIS ENGAGING IN TERRORISM.

What you think by deleting the end of the sentence you don't have to deal with the implications of his dirty hands?

 

 

[Melanie_]

3 minutes ago, Rue said:

Sorry I live in a world where I have seen children 8 9. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, make choices in the face of violence, terror not to go along with it. Your assumoption Kasr had no choice and was brainwashed is an assumption. Its based on a world where no one can possibly actually be violent by choice but must be compelled by society or a parent to be violent. You make a lot of assumptions that romanticize Kadr. I don't think you would have those romantic notions of his plight if you lived as an actual victim of what he did.

We are all making assumptions, you included. Perhaps a fair trial would have eliminated all the assumptions, and we could have a clearer understanding of who and what he truly was. That ship has sailed, so everyone has their own interpretation of the "facts". 

[Omni]

Just now, Rue said:

Finish the sentence AS A RESULT OF HIS ENGAGING IN TERRORISM.

What you think by deleting the end of the sentence you don't have to deal with the implications of his dirty hands?

 

 

You're struggling now. He didn't get compensation for engaging in terrorism. We know why, and I've explained it. You don't have to agree with the courts, that's your choice.

[Omni]

22 minutes ago, Melanie_ said:

We are all making assumptions, you included. Perhaps a fair trial would have eliminated all the assumptions, and we could have a clearer understanding of who and what he truly was. That ship has sailed, so everyone has their own interpretation of the "facts". 

Indeed. If this case would have been heard in the open air of a proper court instead of under the control of the much maligned Gitmo military commission, we very likely wouldn't be having this discussion, and our taxpayers would be ahead a few million. 

[Hal 9000]

44 minutes ago, Melanie_ said:

Yes, I do play the 10 year old angle. He had no choice in where he was, and it wasn't like he could just pick up and leave if he disagreed. And yes, he may not have disagreed... kids are easily manipulated to support the views of those around them. This is why we have different laws for minors, up to the age of 18. And this is why the Supreme Court said we should have intervened. 

Thanks for that Jacee!

[Peter F]

1 hour 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.

That doesn't make any sense.   He was fighting for one of the 'recognized' sides: Al-queda or associated forces thereto, including the Taliban. He was therefore subject to the Combat Status Review Tribunal held at Guatanamo which determined him to be a combatant and therefore subject to military detention. Then the Military Commissions trial determined him to be an alien illegal enemy combatant and therefore subject to the Military Commissions trial. You don't get to be an enemy to the Armed Forces of the USofA by merely killing somebody. Khadr was a recognized enemy due to the US declaration of War on Al-Queda and associated forces. 

 Otherwise, if you were correct, Khadr would have been put on trial for his terrorist activities in a regularly consituted civl court just like many, many others accused and tried for terrorism. 

[Peter F]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Finish the sentence AS A RESULT OF HIS ENGAGING IN TERRORISM.

What you think by deleting the end of the sentence you don't have to deal with the implications of his dirty hands?

 

 

No, his rights were violated not because, or as a result, of his engagement in terrorism, but because CSIS - of which he had absolutely no control over - interviewed him and passed the results of that interview on to the Americans to use in a criminal case against him.  It wasn't khadr's actions that compelled CSIS to ignore his god-given charter rights. Thats all and completely on CSIS.

[SpankyMcFarland]

The whole thing was overdone from the start. He should never have been sent to Gitmo, never charged and Harper should have brought him back ASAP. That would have saved us all a fair chunk of change. 

[drummindiver]

8 hours ago, Omni said:

Maybe they settled to save you 10 million.

Omar doesn't care about saving us money.  

Don't worry, he has ten.five ready to be funneled to terrorism.  

Mmmmmm.......millions towards destruction of the west. 

 

[drummindiver]

2 hours ago, Peter F said:

No, his rights were violated not because, or as a result, of his engagement in terrorism, but because CSIS - of which he had absolutely no control over - interviewed him and passed the results of that interview on to the Americans to use in a criminal case against him.  It wasn't khadr's actions that compelled CSIS to ignore his god-given charter rights. Thats all and completely on CSIS.

God given...  wtf you talking bout Willis?

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Omar doesn't care about saving us money.  

Don't worry, he has ten.five ready to be funneled to terrorism.  

Mmmmmm.......millions towards destruction of the west. 

 

Those are quite the interesting little assumptions. Any proof or just demonstrating a little more of the old right wing xenophobia?

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Rue said:

I never raised that issue you did.

Damn right I did.  Why didn't you?

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

That's not what you said at all.......this is your quote right.....    (.Its freaking disgusting to think we're sending people like you abroad to defend our values.) You brought up how you paid your taxes.....and how you volunteered your time......No where did I say my time was worth more than yours , nor did I say I paid more taxes than you.....I have said you lived in a tree, like most tree huggers...have not contributed to our nations security, except bitch and moan about it....and the last time I checked I did volunteer for our nations military......that's got to piss you off......I'm a killer like you were a conservationist......

 

The real point is that I don't contribute to our nation's insecurity like you do.  That's what I'm bitching about and as far as I'm concerned that makes me a better Canadian than you and anyone else who thinks like you.

Did you know I was actually paid to be a conservationist?  Paid well too, out of public funds no less. I know that's got to piss you off.  I was even paid to fling shit on occasion.

[Hal 9000]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The real point is that I don't contribute to our nation's insecurity like you do.  That's what I'm bitching about and as far as I'm concerned that makes me a better Canadian than you and anyone else who thinks like you.

Did you know I was actually paid to be a conservationist?  Paid well too, out of public funds no less. I know that's got to piss you off.  I was even paid to fling shit on occasion.

You're a idiot and a troll

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

You're a idiot and a troll

You're a complete asshole.

[Hal 9000]

Just now, eyeball said:

You're a complete asshole.

Yeah, I can live with that.  Nobody has ever called me a troll though.  Trolling is just so...desperate....and sad.

[eyeball]

I even owned a troller once.

[Benz]

7 hours ago, Rue said:

You are honest. I like that. I also respect what you are saying nd think in  some cases its very relevant but in others it may not be. Sorry I live in a world where I have seen children 8 9. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, make choices in the face of violence, terror NOT to go along with it. I h ave seen brothers from the exact same refugee camp where one becomes a terrorist and one a doctor saving lives.  Sorry its far more complex then any of us understand or think we do what makes a person a terrorist. Your assumption Kadr had no choice and was brainwashed is an assumption. Its based on a world where no one can possibly actually be violent by choice but must be compelled by society or a parent to be violent. You make a l romanticize Kadr' plight . I don't think you would have those romantic notions of his plight if you lived as an actual victim of what he did or have seen what the direct result of terrorism is. 

What you are saying is not false, but it's not compelling in that specific case.

Children have rights. If the child of a Jehovah's Witness is dying and need blood transfusion, we will take the child from its parents and give it no matter what the parents think. Because we think children's rights are more important than the parents' rights over their children.

In the case of Khadr, we failed at all levels. We fail to protect him from his dad, we failed to prevent his move to Afghanistan to serve the terrorists as his dad wanted, EVEN IF WE KNEW his dad is a notorious terrorist... whether or not he was the one that throw that bomb does not change anything. He was a child and the justice should have been adapted accordingly. We failed at that as well.

Whether you have seen from your own eye or not, a little 8 years old girl blowing up herself as a human bomb and kill dozens of innocents, it does not make any difference. If we would have patriated Khadr and have a tribunal for youth, the system  would have take care of his reeducation.

Noooo, instead, we violated his rights and now we give me 10M.

You think children should ne judged the same way of the adults? Be my guess, try and change the system.

[Rue]

12 hours ago, Omni said:

You're struggling now. He didn't get compensation for engaging in terrorism. We know why, and I've explained it. You don't have to agree with the courts, that's your choice.

Of course he did. Had he not engaged in terrorism his being apprehended as a terrorist would not have triggered his being apprehended. You subjectively ignore this causal connection because you won't acknowledge the doctrine of clean hands or public morality.  Play your game with someone else its lame and spent.