Jump to content

Compensating Khadr


betsy

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, capricorn said:

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.

Agreed..it's not like the Trudeau Liberals to look for a deal.  I mean...why settle on 10 mil when you  can spend 20?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Argus and you are the ones arguing for the suspension of rights of Canadian citizens based in how you feel about people.

I did as well. Its also not based on how we feel although Kadr's uni-brow does annoy me. We have the opinion we do based on Kadr's dirty hands. If his crime in another country was not terrorism but being arrested for being a journalist and tortured and killed for that, as happened in  Iran, you bet I agreed with Harper severing diplomatic ties.

That said, maybe you should look at the feelings of the widow of the man Kadr killed and her children. Seems those are the only feelings that should matter not ours.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rue said:

There is no precedent.

There are at least two similar cases that were settled for similar amounts. That's somewhat of a precedent. And in this case (Khadr) you keep trying to flog this dirty hands idea but it is not applicable. His suit is based on his illegal treatment by Canadian officials at Gitmo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Omni said:

There are at least two similar cases that were settled for similar amounts. That's somewhat of a precedent. And in this case (Khadr) you keep trying to flog this dirty hands idea but it is not applicable. His suit is based on his illegal treatment by Canadian officials at Gitmo. 

What cases?  A cite would be helpful. 

Maybe you're referring to Maher Arar??  How many Americans did he kill again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

Khadr was no more a solider than Justin Bourque was.

So? Sgt Spears was there conducting military operations against who? why non-soldiers of course. It doesn't matter one little bit that Khadr was not a soldier. He was there. He was in a group that the US was conducting military operations against - be they solidiers or non soldiers, or legal combatants or illegal combatants.  Sgt Spear died of wounds suffered in that battle. He wasn't there by accident or happenstance. He was there because the USofA sent him there with great purpose and resolve to engage the enemy in combat and defeat them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Omni said:

There are at least two similar cases that were settled for similar amounts. That's somewhat of a precedent. And in this case (Khadr) you keep trying to flog this dirty hands idea but it is not applicable. His suit is based on his illegal treatment by Canadian officials at Gitmo. 

Name the cases and explain how they are applicable. They don't exist. There are no cases with facts close enough to serve as precedent for the Kadr case. I am calling you out.

I am also calling you out on your repeated false comment the doctrine of clean hands does not apply to Kadr. It is an absolute falsehood.

Unlike you I have sources. Please go to:

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/laplante.pdf

in particular in this article go to the wording at  paragraphs FN34 to FN38. It makes it crystal clear the doctrine applies.

Omni's unilateral claim that once a charter violation is determined the doctrine of dirty hands is pre-empted is false.  I am past being diplomatic with Omni. Its a blatant falsehood.

The conduct of the state determines whether the Charter of Rights was violated. The doctrine of dirty hands does not come into consideration for the determination of charter violations, its  a non issue.

Once and only once the charter violations are determined and the aggrieved party then seeks a remedy, i.e., monetary compensation, does the doctrine get considered. The doctrine is not used to determine whether a violation of rights occurred, only the amount that should be considered fair compensation for the violation once the violation is determined.

Only once the charter is violated, does the dirty hands doctrine consideration issue aand yes the courts most certainly can consider the aggrieved party's conduct leading up to, during and after the violations he seeks damages for. Omni is engaging in a falsehood suggesting, inferring its not applicable.

Here is an article that shows how wrong Omni is and what I have argued in previous posts on this thread as to why the doctrine of clean hands would be considered:

http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2470&context=ndlr

 

This paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2358229

makes it clear that the equitable principle of the doctrine of clean hands is very much a part of international law consideration


There is  most certainly a public policy rule in the common law that has been repeatedly applied in Canadian courts at all levels that has held a person can’t profit from their crime. To pretend its not applied to the someone seeking a Charter remedy is a falsehood.

Let Omni put up or shut up and show the case that states the doctrine of clean hands is pre-empted from application to those seeking a remedy under the Charter.

No case exists. In fact  the Charter has a limiting section in Section 1.

This section in fact allows the federal government and provincial governments to argue that certain infringements of Charter rights are allowed..In fact in every case in which a court discovers a violation of the Charter including the Supreme Court of Canada, they are required pursuant to  a section 1 analysis to determine if the violations or  Infringements can be justified   to achieve what would be recognized as an urgent or important objective in a free society. That argument to limit the Charter's application could be recognized if it could be  "demonstrably justified" to protect or uphold an important objective in free society.  The withholding of an award to Kadr not withstanding his rights being violated could have been argued under this section along with arguments as to him having dirty hands at the time of the violations and how indirectly awarding a terrorist any compensation undermines public moral values, in particular the moral values of the victims of the crimes Kadr engaged in.

The Justice Ministry abrogated its legal responsibility to argue public morality, section 1, and the clean had doctrines.

Omni is well aware the Charter was limited to prevent the anti-Semite Keegstra a high school teacher from claiming it was his Charter Rights that allowed him to preach the holocaust never happened in high school. Its also been used to uphold obscenity laws.

No where is there a Supreme Court case that says that once a charter violation is proven, common law doctrine as to public morality, equitable remedy of s.1 of the Charter can not be argued as to the amount of award.

 

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

What cases?  A cite would be helpful. 

Maybe you're referring to Maher Arar??  How many Americans did he kill again?

Arar is one and I don't have the other on the tip of my tongue. Arar killed the same number of Americans as Khadr if you follow the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Peter F said:

So? Sgt Spears was there conducting military operations against who? why non-soldiers of course. It doesn't matter one little bit that Khadr was not a soldier. He was there. He was in a group that the US was conducting military operations against - be they solidiers or non soldiers, or legal combatants or illegal combatants.  Sgt Spear died of wounds suffered in that battle. He wasn't there by accident or happenstance. He was there because the USofA sent him there with great purpose and resolve to engage the enemy in combat and defeat them. 

They were conducting ops against the Taliban....an enemy government. Good for the US for going and doing what needed to be done.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

Arar is one and I don't have the other on the tip of my tongue. Arar killed the same number of Americans as Khadr if you follow the evidence.

An admission of guilt is all the evidence needed to obtain a conviction.  Khadr provided this.

I ask again, how many Americans did Mahar Arar kill?

The fact that you are even trying to draw a comparison between the two cases shows an obvious glaring flaw in the argument you are trying to put forward.

Edited by Spiderfish
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

An admission of guilt is all the evidence needed to obtain a conviction.  Khadr provided this.

Generally coerced confessions aren't legal or accepted.  But if it suits propoganda we can just ignore the torture prior to his "confession" eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

An admission of guilt is all the evidence needed to obtain a conviction.  Khadr provided this.

Actually no it's not. Not if you obtain that admission under a dubious court such as the military commission in Gitmo, but even more so when it is obtained by torture. And so I turn the question back round to you, how many Americans did Khadr kill, that you can prove?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Generally coerced confessions aren't legal or accepted.  But if it suits propoganda we can just ignore the torture prior to his "confession" eh?

This one was both legal and accepted, by both the prosecution and the defense.  Confessions are only accepted by a court under very strict and specific criteria.  If they don't meet this criteria, they are not accepted by the court. 

Khadr plead guilty to the 5 charges in the face of irrefutable evidence against him.

Edited by Spiderfish
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

Actually no it's not. Not if you obtain that admission under a dubious court such as the military commission in Gitmo, but even more so when it is obtained by torture. And so I turn the question back round to you, how many Americans did Khadr kill, that you can prove?

Actually, yes it is.

Standard 14- 1.5. Determining voluntariness of plea

   The court should not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without first determining that the plea is voluntary. By inquiry of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and defense counsel, if any, the court should determine whether the tendered plea is the result of prior plea discussions and a plea agreement, and, if it is, what discussions were had and what agreement has been reached. If the plea agreement contemplates the granting of charge or sentence concessions which are subject to judicial approval, the court should advise the defendant, consistent with standard 14-3.3(e), whether withdrawal of the plea will be allowed if the charge or sentence concessions are rejected. The court should address the defendant personally to determine whether any other promises or any force or threats were used to obtain the plea.

 

To answer your question...of his own volition, Khadr pleaded guilty to murder in violation of the laws of war, and attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, among other offenses.

Edited by Spiderfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this article that sort of lays out some of the legalities that were struggled with in Khadr's case.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-secret-khadr-file/

 

Quote

 

By now, federal officials have no doubt watched the secret Welner tape. Technically, Toews still has every authority to deny Khadr’s transfer request, despite the diplomatic note that said Ottawa would be “inclined to favourably consider” it. The law that governs the minister’s decision (the International Transfer of Offenders Act) specifically states that an application can be refused on the grounds that the offender is likely to “endanger public safety” or “commit a terrorism offence.” A person who “left or remained outside Canada with the intention of abandoning Canada as their place of permanent residence” can also be refused. In Khadr’s case, there’s an argument to be made for all three.

But it’s not that simple, of course. When it comes to the Khadrs, nothing ever is. The real question facing Toews actually has nothing to do with whether Omar should be allowed to return to the country of his birth. He will come home, at some point, like all Canadians can. The real question is this: which Khadr do we want to welcome back? The one who serves the rest of his sentence in Cuba, only to fly home a completely free man in six more years? Or the one who can be eased into our prison system, and accountable to the parole laws that go with it?

If Omar Khadr is truly a remorseless threat—a jihadist rock star bent on revenge—which option best protects his fellow citizens?

 

This was Welner's testimony:

Quote

 

THREE WEEKS AFTER meeting Omar Khadr, Michael Welner submitted a 63-page report to military prosecutors. His findings were unequivocal: Khadr is conniving, unrepentant, as radicalized as ever—and a “spoiled celebrity.” Although charming and confident, his answers were often so elusive and so self-serving that they bordered on the ridiculous. “His responses,” Welner wrote in his report, “are such departures from the available record that his ability to carry it off as much as he does is impressive as well.”

As for the torture allegations, Welner wrote: “It is my professional opinion that the affidavit he submitted demonstrates his determination to do and say whatever he believes he must in order to help his case.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

ITHREE WEEKS AFTER meeting Omar Khadr, Michael Welner submitted a 63-page report to military prosecutors. His findings were unequivocal: Khadr is conniving, unrepentant, as radicalized as ever—and a “spoiled celebrity.” Although charming and confident, his answers were often so elusive and so self-serving that they bordered on the ridiculous. “His responses,” Welner wrote in his report, “are such departures from the available record that his ability to carry it off as much as he does is impressive as well.”

As for the torture allegations, Welner wrote: “It is my professional opinion that the affidavit he submitted demonstrates his determination to do and say whatever he believes he must in order to help his case.”

And this is the guy the entire Canadian progressive left has embraced with huzaahs of joy and delight. I'm waiting for the NDP to approach him to run for office. Maybe Niki Ashton will offer to bear his child.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

Yes, I don't really care which government was in power, Khadr's rights were violated.

Sleep deprivation is no walk in the park, which is why it is considered 'torture'.  Being randomly moved nay not sound like much to you, but when one is incarcerated psychological effects are very different for the prisoners.  Try looking up the Stanford Prison experiment and see how quckly that escalated and then imagine a real prison environment and the effects that may have on a teenage boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes, I don't really care which government was in power, Khadr's rights were violated.

Yes you do... it was the entire premise of your post!! 

Quote

Fact:  ....(ignored by Conservatives)

Fact: ....(Ignored by Conservatives).

Fact:  ....(ignored by Conservatives).    

Fact:  ....(ignored by Conservatives).

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

Lol, nice try!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Benz said:

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.

Herein lies the ridiculousness of the corners people paint themselves into over Khadr. The only way to get rid of him is to get rid of our charter, laws, SC and any international agreements and conventions we've signed onto that also seek to protect children.

Basically we have to give up so many of our freedoms that the terrorists would be able to cheer....bullseye and mission accomplished. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I found this article that sort of lays out some of the legalities that were struggled with in Khadr's case.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-secret-khadr-file/

Khadr is two-faced. Prior to receiving his $10.5M gift, all his media photos showed him grinning from ear to ear. I suspect his lawyers instructed him early on to keep a grin plastered on his face to make him look docile and harmless. Now that he has the money in his grasp, his facial expression on media pictures has changed quite a bit. Two-faced and a hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, capricorn said:

Khadr is two-faced. Prior to receiving his $10.5M gift, all his media photos showed him grinning from ear to ear. I suspect his lawyers instructed him early on to keep a grin plastered on his face to make him look docile and harmless. Now that he has the money in his grasp, his facial expression on media pictures has changed quite a bit. Two-faced and a hypocrite.

This whole thing stinks like Karla Homolka's "Deal with the Devil".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, capricorn said:

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

 

Yes, we have a serious problem with delays in the system causing  violations of the right. (b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

 

Edited by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peter F said:

So? Sgt Spears was there conducting military operations against who? why non-soldiers of course. It doesn't matter one little bit that Khadr was not a soldier. He was there. He was in a group that the US was conducting military operations against - be they solidiers or non soldiers, or legal combatants or illegal combatants.  Sgt Spear died of wounds suffered in that battle. He wasn't there by accident or happenstance. He was there because the USofA sent him there with great purpose and resolve to engage the enemy in combat and defeat them. 

The fact he is a soldier does not in law mean its legally acceptable for terrorists to kill him. Using your reasoning its acceptable for terrorists to break international laws and kill soldiers because soldiers know they can die trying to stop them

Hey now what next do you want to absolve murderers for killing police using this reasoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

The fact he is a soldier does not in law mean its legally acceptable for terrorists to kill him. Using your reasoning its acceptable for terrorists to break international laws and kill soldiers because soldiers know they can die trying to stop them

Hey now what next do you want to absolve murderers for killing police using this reasoning?

I want the USA to stop invading other countries for profit and creating terrorists so arms manufacturers can make money.

Quite the scam. 

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...