Jump to content

Compensating Khadr


betsy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Good point, actually.  Hmmmm.

Not quite that good but ... Everybody (in the USofA at least) has the right to make claims against others in court. The court will then determine whether those claims are legally valid or just a load of crap.

 The court in that case ruled that since Khadr had been found guilty of his crimes - in fact pled guilty and in those pleadings admitted he did indeed throw the grenade - and that the MC determined khadr to have done so illegally because he was an illegal combatant and then determined that Khadrs actions were not part of an ongoing war (contrary to the MC ) but terrorism (because Khadr was not a legal combatant therefore his actions were terrorism) , and because no one actually contested Mrs Spears charge (and the Utah Judge certainly was not going to become Khadrs lawyer on the spot) the court awarded Mrs Spears all the money.

  To me the odd thing is, that Mrs Spears had already received a judgment in her favour against Khadrs dad for his being responsible for her husbands death apparently by raising wee Omar to be a terrorist, that case also being uncontested in Utah and all sorts of monies awarded there. 

  Those Utah judgements will become pretty iffy should the MC's findings of guilt be dumped or partially dumped as a result of Khadr's appeals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, jacee said:

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.

Yup. Even the most undeserving of Rights still have those very same rights that everyone else has. Wether they deserve them or not is neither here nor there; They have them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, jacee said:

When you commit heinous hate crimes, you get due process and a fair trial too.

Not quite. Of late, alleged murderers and assorted criminals are not getting a trial at all but are set free. A google search turned up a number of cases where charges were stayed.

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=murder+charge+stayed

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Because her husband was murdered by someone who was supposed to be their ally.

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

No, her husband signed up to fight whoever the US government tells them to fight. Thus his being in afghanistan overthrowing the Taliban and conducting combat ops agains any or all who supported Al-queda or the Taliban in Afghanistan.  and, unfortunately being killed by those very same folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Peter F said:

No, her husband signed up to fight whoever the US government tells them to fight. Thus his being in afghanistan overthrowing the Taliban and conducting combat ops agains any or all who supported Al-queda or the Taliban in Afghanistan.  and, unfortunately being killed by those very same folks.

Khadr was no more a solider than Justin Bourque was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Peter F said:

Even the most undeserving of Rights still have those very same rights that everyone else has. Wether they deserve them or not is neither here nor there; They have them.

And this is why the Khadr file is essentially a political and emotional matter. One may recognize that Khadr's Charter rights were breached and on the other believe that it was wrong for Trudeau and his Liberals to pay Khadr $10.5M.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, capricorn said:

And this is why the Khadr file is essentially a political and emotional matter. One may recognize that Khadr's Charter rights were breached and on the other believe that it was wrong for Trudeau and his Liberals to pay Khadr $10.5M.

And once again, what if the case had of concluded and the check was doubled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, capricorn said:

What if...what if...we really don't know what the outcome would have been had the Liberals pursued the case before the courts.

It has been pointed out that there is at least something of a precedent regarding settlements to these types of cases.Given the circumstances of this case, settling the case commensurate with that precedent was probably wise if for no other reason that it saves a pile of court costs/legal costs.

 

Edited by Omni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

Fact:  Khadr's case was about charter rights, not war crimes (ignored by Conservatives)

Fact: Khadr was a child when he was taken to Afghanistan and was still a child when he was caught.  (Ignored by Conservatives).

Fact:  Khadr's confession was given after he'd been tortured (ignored by Conservatives).    

Fact:  There is very little evidence, other than a coerced confession, that Khadr threw the grenade; there is more evidence that he could not have thrown it (ignored by Conservatives).

Emotion:  Khadr was a hardened terrorist who is now benefitting from his terror activities because Trudeau/Liberals.

I'm afraid your "facts" are a little misconstrued.  The "fact" is, the Supreme Court ruled on January 2010, in a unanimous 9–0 decision, that the participation of Canadian officials in Khadr's interrogations at Guantanamo clearly violated his rights under the Charter. These interrogations occurred in February 2003 under the Cretien Liberals who were in power at that time, by Canadian Foreign Affairs intelligence officer Jim Gould and an official from CSIS.

It was also determined that the extent of "torture" he endured amounted to sleep deprivation, moving him around to different cells, and solitary confinement.

As far as there being little evidence that Khadr threw the grenade, killing Chris Speers was only one of the five charges he plead guilty to.  In addition to pleading guilty to murder in violation of the laws of war, he also admitted guilt to attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy, and two counts of providing material support for terrorism and spying.  There is video and photo evidence showing him assembling and planting bombs and IED's with other members of the Taliban which is irrefutable.

This "settlement" should have gone to court and played out through legal means, but the Liberals were only too happy to pay Omar off and then try and put Harper's fingerprints on it.  "Fact" is, Omar was in gitmo for the first 4 years with the Liberals in power, when Omar was interrogated and had his rights violated, prompting the Supreme Court Ruling.

Edited by Spiderfish
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

 

Come on Jacee here's a wake up call. Your opinions on Kadr do not put you on any higher moral ground. Get off the Cross..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Omni said:

It has been pointed out that there is at least something of a precedent regarding settlements to these types of cases.Given the circumstances of this case, settling the case commensurate with that precedent was probably wise if for no other reason that it saves a pile of court costs.

I'm not convinced so best to leave at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

I'm afraid your "facts" are a little misconstrued.  The "fact" is, the Supreme Court ruled on January 2010, in a unanimous 9–0 decision, that the participation of Canadian officials in Khadr's interrogations at Guantanamo clearly violated his rights under the Charter. These interrogations occurred in February 2003 under the Cretien Liberals who were in power at that time, by Canadian Foreign Affairs intelligence officer Jim Gould and an official from CSIS.

It was also determined that the extent of "torture" he endured amounted to sleep deprivation, moving him around to different cells, and solitary confinement.

As far as there being little evidence that Khadr threw the grenade, killing Chris Speers was only one of the five charges he plead guilty to.  In addition to pleading guilty to murder in violation of the laws of war, he also admitted guilt to attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy, or the two counts of providing material support for terrorism and spying.  There is video and photo evidence showing him assembling and planting bombs and IED's with other members of the Taliban which is irrefutable.

This "settlement" should have gone to court and played out through legal means, but the Liberals were only too happy to pay Omar off and then try and put Harper's fingerprints on it.  "Fact" is, Omar was in gitmo for the first 4 years with the Liberals in power, when Omar was interrogated and had his rights violated, prompting the Supreme Court Ruling.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Omni said:

And once again, what if the case had of concluded and the check was doubled.

It would not have been doubled. Absolute and utter nonsense to try defend not pursuing the dirty hands doctrine argument. Absolute and utter bull crap.

Present one case anywhere where a court in Canada ignored the dirty hands doctrine. Go on. You are being intellectually dishonest arguing the Supreme Court for any reason would have ignored Kadr's dirty hands. No court at any level let alone our highest court in the land would or can ignore the dirty hands doctrine. It supercedes all other legal considerations when determining an amount to be awarded. You come on this board claiming to be a legal expert and you don't know that?

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Omni said:

And once again, what if the case had of concluded and the check was doubled.

Then it would have cost us twice as much.  But at least it would have been under the premise of a court decision, not the decision of the government of an allied country willfully submitting to a terrorist and apologizing.  Our neighbors must be shaking their collective heads over this one.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

It was also determined that the extent of "torture" he endured amounted to sleep deprivation, moving him around to different cells, and solitary confinement.

Khadr, being a good little terrorist, was following the Al Quaeda Handbook:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/may/31/20050531-121655-7932r/

Quote

An al Qaeda handbook preaches to operatives to level charges of torture once captured, a training regime that administration officials say explains some of the charges of abuse at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

Notice that Khadr, upon capture, didn't immediately say, "Help me!  I'm a Canadian citizen who was forced by my father to fight here and I want to go home!"

No, he followed the manual.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Omni said:

It has been pointed out that there is at least something of a precedent regarding settlements to these types of cases.gal costs.

 

Utter rubbish. Either there was a precedent and you need to produce it or there was not. In law there is no such thing as "at least something of a precedent". At this point you fabricate posing as a legal expert inventing legal concepts that don't exist. There is no precedent. There is no case and no you aren't something of a precedent you either or are you are not in law.

At least something of a precedent What crap.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Peter F said:

No, her husband signed up to fight whoever the US government tells them to fight. Thus his being in afghanistan overthrowing the Taliban and conducting combat ops agains any or all who supported Al-queda or the Taliban in Afghanistan.  and, unfortunately being killed by those very same folks.

Unlike a terrorist her husband also has an obligation to follow the Geneva convention which makes your first sentence incorrect. If he's ordered to engage in a war crime he must decline by law. This would not apply to terrorists. Your attempting to equate a legal soldier and a terrorist as the same is false.

The soldier who went to Afghanistan did so agreeing to follow laws and a code of honour. The terrorists he went after are there to destroy any or all laws including the very laws you take for granted. Those laws come with a price. If they are not defended our society wil be destroyed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

Then it would have cost us twice as much.  But at least it would have been under the premise of a court decision, not the decision of the government of an allied country willfully submitting to a terrorist and apologizing.  Our neighbors must be shaking their collective heads over this one.

In addition, Canadians would have more respect for Justin and his government. Instead, this secretive back room deal to pay off Khadr in a manner to deprive a widow of having a lawsuit heard has irked most mainstream Canadians no end. And anyway, this government spending $10-15M is a drop in the bucket. They spend that in the blink of an eye. A look at the deficit is proof enough.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Except for him being given military and explosives training by Al Quaeda and being a member of Al Quaeda, you mean?

I mean Kadr is no soldier because unlike a soldier he follows no Geneva convention and he does not defend laws that protect the innocent, he is there to terrorize the innocent and destroy the laws created to protect them. He's no soldier. He has no code of honour, a terrorist is a lawless primate ignoring any or all laws of civilization and believes he can and should destroy society and replace it with himself. Its nothing more than apes whose primal inhibitions have broken down and no longer exist.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, capricorn said:

And this is why the Khadr file is essentially a political and emotional matter. One may recognize that Khadr's Charter rights were breached and on the other believe that it was wrong for Trudeau and his Liberals to pay Khadr $10.5M.

One may do that, yes. One may also think that a negotiated settlement is the right thing to do. 'One' in the latter instance being me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...