Compensating Khadr

[Omni]

7 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

and yet he was charged.   

By a bogus court. And I am surprised you would try to substantiate the validity of such a charge based on what you also posted here. I think you just gutted your own argument pal.

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Osama Bin Laden was a CIA/US asset. Remember how he was used to fight the Soviets?  Much worse than this Khadr guy.

And Osama paid for his crimes with a bullet to the head, to trail, to chance for a judge to f*** everything up, his body then flown out to sea and dropped off for fish bait....or so the story goes...

[Hal 9000]

26 minutes ago, Omni said:

Even if I run out of things to say I think I'll avoid the "you're a dummy" fall back. But to each their own. 

If you tell me what it was about that post that you didn't understand, I'll gladly apologize.  The problem is; you misrepresent every single post.  I used to think maybe it was intentional in order to make a point, but you don't ever make a point.  You have 4000 posts and the only point you've ever made is that you hate Trump and you agree with the courts decision on Khadr.  I like to have grown up discussions, and that mostly causes for disagreement - that's a good thing, but dude, you've not doing it intentionally - are you?  I don't know your diagnosis, but I can guess as where the issue lies, so please, if you don't understand something, seriously slow down and read it again.  Go ahead and disagree and put forth a point, it would be apprieciated more than this "silly bastard" routine.  I know that I'm not the only one getting exasperated with this.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Hal 9000

[Army Guy]

43 minutes ago, Omni said:

That is of course the real point of all this but I do have an answer for AG.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/guantanamo-judge-drops-charges-against-khadr-1.656485

The charges are dropped in 2007, and yet he was released in 2014/15...how could that be......i know our justice system is slow but 8 years slow...come on....i think your article is timed out....written before the transfer to Canadian prison....ask your self this why transfer him to prison if the charges had been dropped....it does not make sense....or maybe i'm missing something....

The charges were dropped a couple of times, mainly because of the mistake made by the administrative commision that claimed Omar was a enemy combatant....when that very commision was instructed by the US government and the President to classify all taliban and terrorists as Unlawful combatants.....this all stems from the UN not being able to clarify the definition of terrorist....and because of that it was not able to produce any updates on illegal combatants...which is already a definition used by the UN.

[Army Guy]

27 minutes ago, Omni said:

By a bogus court. And I am surprised you would try to substantiate the validity of such a charge based on what you also posted here. I think you just gutted your own argument pal.

why is it a bogus court, military commissions have been around since WWII , and will be around for quit some time in the future....and we will see more Omars in them....The reason the SCOTUS had issues with it, is because the judge had pronounced him as an enemy combatant...which has no jurisdiction to bring charges or hear charges of  legal combatants....The judge messed up.....and was replaced.

[Accountability Now]

5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The charges are dropped in 2007, and yet he was released in 2014/15...how could that be......i know our justice system is slow but 8 years slow...come on....i think your article is timed out....written before the transfer to Canadian prison....ask your self this why transfer him to prison if the charges had been dropped....it does not make sense....or maybe i'm missing something....

 

AG...maybe this helps. The quoted article was from June of 2007, but read Sept 2007

 

September 2007

A three-member appeal panel rules that the decision was in error and reinstates the charges against Khadr. Khadr's lawyers later filed an appeal, seeking to stop the U.S. military case against their client. A judge ordered in October that Khadr's trial proceed.

June 4, 2007

A U.S. military judge drops all charges against Omar Khadr because he is an "enemy combatant," and the military commissions have jurisdiction only over "unlawful enemy combatants."

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/key-events-in-the-omar-khadr-case-1.1153759

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

why is it a bogus court, military commissions have been around since WWII , and will be around for quit some time in the future....and we will see more Omars in them....The reason the SCOTUS had issues with it, is because the judge had pronounced him as an enemy combatant...which has no jurisdiction to bring charges or hear charges of  legal combatants....The judge messed up.....and was replaced.

It was a bogus court for various reasons, but the most important is probably because people were held without access to any legal representation. That by itself goes against both US and Canadian Constitutions.

[Army Guy]

3 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

AG...maybe this helps. The quoted article was from June of 2007, but read Sept 2007

 

September 2007

A three-member appeal panel rules that the decision was in error and reinstates the charges against Khadr. Khadr's lawyers later filed an appeal, seeking to stop the U.S. military case against their client. A judge ordered in October that Khadr's trial proceed.

June 4, 2007

A U.S. military judge drops all charges against Omar Khadr because he is an "enemy combatant," and the military commissions have jurisdiction only over "unlawful enemy combatants."

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/key-events-in-the-omar-khadr-case-1.1153759

Thanks, clears up alot of things....on my side....

[Army Guy]

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

It was a bogus court for various reasons, but the most important is probably because people were held without access to any legal representation. That by itself goes against both US and Canadian Constitutions.

You mean held in Gitmo, just curious where where they to hold these combatant/ illegal combatants. and why would they need legal representation....only those that were charged needed a legal beagle....and i'm sure Omar had a military lawyer did he not....The rest where just being housed off the battle field ...And i'm sure the Canadian Constitution means squat when your sitting in a POW camp....

Edited July 14, 2017 by Army Guy

[Hal 9000]

4 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

AG...maybe this helps. The quoted article was from June of 2007, but read Sept 2007

 

September 2007

A three-member appeal panel rules that the decision was in error and reinstates the charges against Khadr. Khadr's lawyers later filed an appeal, seeking to stop the U.S. military case against their client. A judge ordered in October that Khadr's trial proceed.

June 4, 2007

A U.S. military judge drops all charges against Omar Khadr because he is an "enemy combatant," and the military commissions have jurisdiction only over "unlawful enemy combatants."

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/key-events-in-the-omar-khadr-case-1.1153759

Clearly he was an "unlawful combatant".  

All we can hope is that the Americans and Canadians toughen up a bit and leave no survivors -- regardless of age.

[Army Guy]

4 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Clearly he was an "unlawful combatant".  

All we can hope is that the Americans and Canadians toughen up a bit and leave no survivors -- regardless of age.

if it smells like sh**, taste like sh**, odds are it is Sh**....

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

You mean held in Gitmo, just curious where where they to hold these combatant/ illegal combatants. and why would they need legal representation....only those that were charged needed a legal beagle....and i'm sure Omar had a military lawyer did he not....The rest where just being housed off the battle field ...

Under US (and Canadian) law when you deprive someone of their freedom because they may have broken a law,you have to provide a means for them to defend themselves. I didn't write the law, I appreciate the law, and it was ignored at Gitmo.I'm sure if you ever find yourself in trouble you will grasp closely to that law.

[Army Guy]

SO are we to forget he was taken off a battle field in Afghanistan......as some form of POW>>..where they can hold you as long as the conflict is ongoing....Did the US government not provide Omar with a military lawyer, yes or no....again i am no lawyer, and by no means an expert.....and i am trying to educate myself in this matter.....it seems black and white to me....am i missing something or not...

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

SO are we to forget he was taken off a battle field in Afghanistan......as some form of POW>>..where they can hold you as long as the conflict is ongoing....Did the US government not provide Omar with a military lawyer, yes or no....again i am no lawyer, and by no means an expert.....and i am trying to educate myself in this matter.....it seems black and white to me....am i missing something or not...

One of the major points in this case is NO, he was not provided valid legal representation. Where have you been?

[SpankyMcFarland]

45 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

why is it a bogus court, military commissions have been around since WWII , and will be around for quit some time in the future....and we will see more Omars in them....The reason the SCOTUS had issues with it, is because the judge had pronounced him as an enemy combatant...which has no jurisdiction to bring charges or hear charges of  legal combatants....The judge messed up.....and was replaced.

How many US soldiers will face such justice in foreign countries? This seems like a fairly asymmetrical process.

[Accountability Now]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Under US (and Canadian) law when you deprive someone of their freedom because they may have broken a law,you have to provide a means for them to defend themselves. I didn't write the law, I appreciate the law, and it was ignored at Gitmo.I'm sure if you ever find yourself in trouble you will grasp closely to that law.

I can appreciate that the laws we have in place have dictated this situation. But I feel the anger by those who oppose this outcome is driven by the idea that these laws should change. In other words, if someone leaves Canada to fight against Canada or its allies then they should risk losing these rights. I'm not saying you do or should agree with this but that's what this really come down to, IMO.

[Omni]

8 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

I can appreciate that the laws we have in place have dictated this situation. But I feel the anger by those who oppose this outcome is driven by the idea that these laws should change. In other words, if someone leaves Canada to fight against Canada or its allies then they should risk losing these rights. I'm not saying you do or should agree with this but that's what this really come down to, IMO.

I get your point But in this particular case we are talking about someone who was a kid when this tale began. If you're 10 years old and your dad says we are going to Afghanistan, what are you going to do? You're going to go to Afghanistan. And his dad took him down this path and he paid a big price for that. We have to be careful when we talk about when we talk about depriving people of their charter/human rights. 

[Accountability Now]

20 minutes ago, Omni said:

I get your point But in this particular case we are talking about someone who was a kid when this tale began. If you're 10 years old and your dad says we are going to Afghanistan, what are you going to do? You're going to go to Afghanistan. And his dad took him down this path and he paid a big price for that. We have to be careful when we talk about when we talk about depriving people of their charter/human rights. 

At what point does that not matter though? As a previous poster stated, what if he was brought in when he was 10 and captured when he was 25? I think the only thing to consider is the age at which he was when captured. 

If a child in this country can be tried as an adult for murder here then there should be rules available to do the same in this case.  So what's the youngest that a child was ever tried for murder? I believe the minimum age for this is 14 which seems to reflect the thought that many posters have stated in that at that age the person should have an idea of what they are doing.

 

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

At what point does that not matter though? As a previous poster stated, what if he was brought in when he was 10 and captured when he was 25? I think the only thing to consider is the age at which he was when captured. 

If a child in this country can be tried as an adult for murder here then there should be rules available to do the same in this case.  So what's the youngest that a child was ever tried for murder? I believe the minimum age for this is 14 which seems to reflect the thought that many posters have stated in that at that age the person should have an idea of what they are doing.

 

He was captured when he was 15, not 25. I think 10 years makes a big difference with regard to ones accountability at these ages. . And not just legally. You can argue 'till the cows come home as to what a child is. The findings in this case go beyond that to indicate the kangaroo court in Gitmo is just that. At least according to the SCOTUS,  

[Accountability Now]

18 minutes ago, Omni said:

He was captured when he was 15, not 25. I think 10 years makes a big difference with regard to ones accountability at these ages. . And not just legally. You can argue 'till the cows come home as to what a child is. The findings in this case go beyond that to indicate the kangaroo court in Gitmo is just that. At least according to the SCOTUS,  

So what if he was here until 15 and then went over and still captured as a 15 year old. Would that change things?

[marcus]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

if it smells like sh**, taste like sh**, odds are it is Sh**....

"Tastes like shit"? Buddy...You don't need to go that far to know that it's sh**. 

Edited July 14, 2017 by marcus

[Hal 9000]

There has to be a point in which your Canadian rights are taken away or severely diminished.  There obviously isn't one now, but in this day and age, we can't (like europe) get into a position where we have obvious "unlawful combatants" coming home from fighting ...us and getting a job, going on pogey or using our medical system to recover.  It's insanity.

Once it's known that someone has travelled off and fought against us or our allies - brown people...and yes, whites too, they should have their passport revoked and put on the next plane back, in the case that that is not possible, there should be treason charges levied upon arrival.  

I think the idea of; "Don't go away and fight against us, but if you do, we'll give you medical and a big fat cheque", may not be effective. 

[The_Squid]

5 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Well then, tell me what army he was working for?

Me:  Child soldiers don't need to be in an army to be child soldiers.

You:   Then what army was he in?

Me:  

[Hal 9000]

5 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

Me:  Child soldiers don't need to be in an army to be child soldiers.

You:   Then what army was he in?

Me:  

So, he wasn't in any army, but he was a solider?  If he was a solider, and it wasn't for Canada or any other organized nation, then it was for a terrorist group - which makes him an "unlawful combatant".  And even if he was a solider, being Canadian, he should face treason charges.

"Under s46 of the Criminal Code, a person commits "high treason" who a) kills, attempts to kill, wounds, imprisons, or restrains the sovereign, wages war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto, or c) assists an enemy at war with Canada or any armed force against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities, even if no state of war exists. The punishment for high treason is life imprisonment, without parole eligibility for 25 years. A person commits "treason" who a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province, discloses, without lawful authority, military or scientific material to agents of a foreign state, if he or she knows or should know that the material may be used to impair Canada's safety or defence, or c) engages in certain listed conspiracies or attempted offences. The punishment for treason is life imprisonment; normal parole rules apply. Canadian citizens and persons owing allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada who commit acts of high treason or treason are punishable under Canadian criminal law even if the acts were performed outside Canada."

[The_Squid]

 

2 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

treason charges

 

Yes, I'm sure Khadr is going to be charged for treason!  LOL

What have you been smoking???   The SCOC says his rights were violated, Canada pays him $10 MIL and apologizes...  and you think he'll be charged with treason!