Jump to content

Compensating Khadr


betsy

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Omni said:

I'm somewhat bolstered in that our courts system finally got around to acknowledging that. 

Yah and no doubt you and Hudson were somewhat bolstered in the fact that your court system didn't get around to raising the doctrine of clean hands, public morality and s.1 arguments as to the amount awarded and just pre-empted that crucial legal reference and dished out money so that a terrorist can profit from his wrongdoings. No doubt you are bolstered in that Trudeau has undermined our court system and our basic fundamental principles of law to sweep what Chretiens did under the rug.

Yah you are bolstered.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Omni said:

Let me slow it down for you dude, there..is...no...proof...he...was...working...for...any....army. .

Statements like the above prove you are intellectually dishonest. You are fully aware he was and remains a member of Al Quaeda a terrorist organization. For someone who is a legal expert this is the kind of semantics you want to play on this thread? Who you playing with. You now want to pretend what, that he was not a terrorist? What he wasn't a  member of Al Quaeda? Go on say it. Stop playing semantics with the word army. What b.s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Omni said:

Apparently it is for you. He was a child. His rights were denied, child or not. He's got a pocketful of your money because of the stupidity. Sorry.

You get red handed caught by Hal misrepresenting him as a child soldier when you knew he was not in an army but was a member of Al Quaeda then when caught this is your flimsy answer and you blame Hal for Chretien;'s decision? Yah that was credible.

As a legal expert now you don't know the convention on child soldiers does not deal with child terrorists? You the legal expert? You the legal expert now claim Hal made the decision to live Omar in G Bay? He got a pocketful of money because the Liberal party which you have blind partisan support violated the charter now cover up what they did with a pay off to a person whose hands drip with blood. You blame Hal while you condone what your government did. Typical Liberal. Everyone but you and your party are to blame.

This is why you have zero credibility. You continually make false ad misrepresenting comments as to the legal issues for partisan reasons to support the Liberals.

Run along. Yer done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Omni said:

Hamdan v Rumsfeld was one, you can go ahead and look up the others What allegations and what courts are you flailing around about?

How is that case relevant? At this point you are quoting cases that are not related. Finish what you started. How is this case applicable legal expert? You are the one flailing about throwing out cases now that are not relevant to the legal issues raised trying to suggest they are and that pathetic "look up the others" no Omni, you know how it works, you allege something prove it. No one works for you. Maybe in your world you are used to taking your sliverspoon and pointing it at the hired help but in this world you carry your own bags. You allege something prove it. You think bluffing and throwing out a case name will prove your point? Try that crap with someone else. I am fed up with your intellectual dishonesty and misrpresentaion of the law to "bolster" your partisan political  biases.

The cases you mentioned do NOT, I repeat do  NOT have relevance to the Kadr situation. The facts are not close enough and in Kadr's case the issue isn't whether his rights were violated, its whether he's entitled to anything other than a nominal amount because of his dirty hands, s.1 of the Charter and the public morality arguments which you falsely tried to dismiss and still ignore.

You spin all you want Omni, this government had an obligation on behalf of all Canadians to challenge the amount of the award and they chose instead to cover up Chretien's mistake and not pursue that challenge so they would not have blow back from what Chretiens did. Guess what Omni, by not doing the right thing and paying this man who has dirty hands the blow back will come back and bite the whole sordid lot of you Liberals next election. Yah I know you are bolstered. Let's see how many people are bolstered next election at paying off a terrorist without raising his dirty hands as a criteria for determining the amount he got.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Charlie said:

I really don't know. His family has ties with terrorists. His dad and mom are clearly Jihadis.  But that doesn't mean he is also a terrorist by association or he killed someone at the age of 15... It's complicated. 

Yah some people find the concept of how sexually transmitted diseases are spread complex too. You have a point? I mean I could provide you some pictures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

Geneva Convention considers anyone under 18 a child soldier.  

We have an entire legal system specially for kids under 18 or 19 because they are considered less culpable than adults.  

 

In regards to the first sentence, Kadr was not a child soldier, he was a terrorist so the Geneva convention does not apply. There is no international law for the treatment of terrorists or child terrorists. With due respect this is why Bush tried to create a law, to fill the void and his attempts with the B Bay system failed but while Kadr was in G Bail h e was afforded all the rights of a prisoner of war. The claim he was tortured is based on the fact he had a light in his room which never went off which he claims deprived him of sleep. He also says he found the repeated questioning of what he did upsetting. That is the torture arguement. There was no water boarding, electrocution, no one placed their hands on him and injured him. Under the UN Convention as to the definition of torture, this probably doesn't even constitute torture.

Your second sentence is wrong. Youth 16 to 18 can be considered as culpable as adults for crimes.

Next your comment is incorrent. The issue with Kadr is not that he is less culpable. Like youth in Canada, if he commits a crime the Youth crime laws were drafted with the contemplation the younger someone is, the more likely we can rehabilitate them not that they are less culpable. There is no legal concept of being less guilty. You are or you are not. There is no such thing as a little bit of pregnancy. You either are found liable or not liable for a crime.

The difference in treatment with youth goes to the concept they still have their whole life in front of them let's rehab them.

That concept is under fire and the youth laws have ben changed 3 times and about to change a 4th time to lower the age precisely because the arbitrary age of 16 has proven to be a farse with children deliberately breaking laws knowing they will get a light sentence.

There's also something else you are not addressing. Even if you believe the magic no.15  applies to Kadr how does it act like magic to absolve him of what he did?

In my world of the law. youth are detained for murder. The fact they are 9, 10, 11, 12,  doesn't mean they get to terrorize and kill people and walk in Canada. Of course they don't.

You want me to bring you to some of the hospitals where these sociopathic children live and have you talk to them? You think they are innocent and just because of their age aren't dangerous?

I know someone who wacked both his parents with an axe handle and caved in their heads because he was bored, no other reason/ You think because he was under 16 he should presto poof walk away from that? Where you think he is? He's in a prison for the criminally insane? You want him released?

With due respect Dialamah this fiction of turning Kadr or anyone else into a cuddly teddy bear because they were 15 is crap.

You remind me of people who walk up to bear cubs and try pet them and wonder why they get bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Dude, no one is deflecting anything in regards to his age - I think if you read more slowly...and sound out the words, you'll learn that fact.  I've simply asked what army he was fighting for, a question that you seem unable to answer.  For someone who knows so much about the legal case, surely you know what army this child solider was representing - don't you?

According to the USofA - which did in fact conduct the only trial ever against Khadr - he was a member of Al - Queda or associated forces with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Rue said:

You remind me of people who walk up to bear cubs and try pet them and wonder why they get bi

LOL.   You might be right about everything else, but you are wrong about that.

I still think you and others are underestimating the effect of the indoctrination he experienced between the ages of 9 and 15.  And if the law thinks younger people can be re-habbed, why wouldn"t that also apply to Khadr?

In any case, evwrybody has made up their minds, JT might be out over this in a couple of years and we can have a good Christian making decisions based on his version of Godly morals.  :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like the court filing to freeze the money is not impressive:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/omar-khadr-fights-back-at-efforts-by-u-s-soldiers-widow-to-go-after-his-assets/wcm/221b65f0-5754-4ce4-ab14-b3418f41c1fe

This will be a BIG problem too:

Quote

As a result, the American applicants have not shown a strong case for enforcement of the Utah judgment here given Canadian courts are statute barred from enforcing foreign judgments if they would be counter to Canadian public policy, the factum says.

I doubt the plaintiffs will want to discuss the evidence against Khadr and how it was obtained in a Canadian courtroom.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice the media is trying hard to make this look like Omar is the REAL victim. Poor fella.

How many of you can name the woman described by the media simply as "the widow of a soldier" (et al) without looking it up? Not many, I'm betting.

But we know allllllllllll about Omar...and his rotten family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rue said:

He got a pocketful of money because the Liberal party which you have blind partisan support violated the charter now cover up what they did with a pay off to a person whose hands drip with blood. You blame Hal while you condone what your government did. Typical Liberal. Everyone but you and your party are to blame.

Another angle to consider is that Justin and co. were desperate to keep the Khadr matter away from any court action in order to shield Chretien and Martin from having to be called as witnesses and testifying. One more reason why they struck a secret back room deal with Khadr's lawyers to protect Chretien and Martin from a burgeoning Liberal scandal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re my post above, the French media has picked up on the angle to protect Chretien and Martin. It's en francais but a google translation will give you an idea.

Quote

Si on avait laissé le soin à un juge d’établir la juste réparation à verser à Omar Khadr, il aurait fallu entendre toute la preuve qui établit la responsabilité du Canada. Qui savait dans les haut placés du Parti libéral du Canada? Quelle autorité politique a consenti à ce que des agents du SCRS se rendent à Guantanamo participer à la torture de Khadr et pourquoi? Qui était au courant?

Chose certaine, on ne me fera pas croire que personne dans la haute direction du pays à l’époque n’avait reçu de briefing de renseignement sur l’affaire Khadr. C’est littéralement impossible.

Bref, on a fait le choix politique de payer Khadr pour s’éviter un procès. Pas pour sauver de l’argent comme les ‘’spins doctors libéraux’’ voudraient le faire croire, mais bien pour sauver la face de deux anciens premiers ministres libéraux et leurs amis, dont plusieurs en mènent encore large au Parti libéral du Canada.

http://princearthurherald.com/fr/culture-2/payer-khadr-pour-couvrir-chretien-et-martin-laurent-proulx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2017 at 0:51 PM, Rue said:

Yah if you had your way we would sit in silence while terrorists terrorize until of course it impacted on you personally, then you would be the first screaming and whining demanding protection.

 

I bet.....he's among those who naively thinks, "as long as we don't offend them, they'll leave us alone."

This "breed of Canadians" we debate with, will be raising the white flag at the drop of a hat.  That's their game plan. :D

 

Mind you....when the nation is high on marijuana........will they even give a darn?

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Map of Canadians killed by IEDS in Afghanistan. Same kind sweet Omar was videotaped gleefully building. He was quoted as saying killing Westerners made him very happy.

Oh happy happy sunny days.....

IMG_20170713_115910.jpg

Building...and planting.  I wonder how many innocent people, or families he  blew up before he was stopped that we dont know about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Charlie said:

I don't get this part. How is he a terrorist when nobody could prove it. Are we living in Somalia or Saudi Arabia or China where you could tag anyone as terrorist because you feel so. 

Uhm, he was trained as a terrorist by a terrorist organization, including in the use of explosives, and went on missions with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

Uhm, he was trained as a terrorist by a terrorist organization, including in the use of explosives, and went on missions with them.

He was a Canadian caught in a firefight in Afghanistan, fighting WITH Al Quaeda AGAINST Western forces.

What do you think he was doing over there? Teaching the locals how to make daisy chains?:rolleyes:

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

I notice the media is trying hard to make this look like Omar is the REAL victim. Poor fella.

How many of you can name the woman described by the media simply as "the widow of a soldier" (et al) without looking it up? Not many, I'm betting.

But we know allllllllllll about Omar...and his rotten family.

Her name is Tabitha Speer.

Is she the only military widow to ever expect to sue the enemy?

I expect her lawsuit to be delayed until Khadr's appeal of his conviction is complete.

 

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...