Jump to content

Compensating Khadr


betsy

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, capricorn said:

At 15, he was not a child. He was an adolescent and knew perfectly well what he was doing when he planted the IEDs he built.

He was a child but regardless, the accused have a right to seek legal council, that was denied him.  

Unless of course you are a fan of Russia or Saudi Arabia legal systems.

Edited by Omni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

people held without access to legal council is illegal.

:rolleyes:

 

Where does it say that Guantanamo itself, is illegal?  If Gitmo is illegal, it would've been closed long time ago.  Even Obama - of all people - didn't close it asap.:lol:

 

Read his statement: 

Quote

Keeping the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay open is "contrary to our values," President Obama said Tuesday,

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/23/obama-release-plan-close-guantanamo-bay/80793530/

 

He didn't say, it's illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

As has already been shown that charge was dismissed. He has won his case. Why not move on?

 

This thread is about the money given to Khadr.

It's hard to move on when we reward terrorists with taxpayers money.  Especially that amount.

If Justin had chosen to reward him instead,  through his Trudeau Foundation - maybe, we can move on.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, betsy said:

It's hard to move on when we reward terrorists with taxpayers money.  If Justin had chosen to reward him instead,  from his Trudeau Foundation - maybe, we can move on.

Ignoring peoples charter rights gets expensive it turns out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, betsy said:

:rolleyes:

A lot of them do.  If given the choice between working in sweat shops (which means food in their tummies), or hunger.....what do you think they'll choose?

If it will help you survive starvation - wouldn't you volunteer?

 

The problem with bleedin' hearts - they try to equate their charmed lives with those that are barely surviving.          Their priorities aren't quite the same as yours!

Do you think that's what Jesus would say Betsy? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The_Squid said:

 

 

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!  :huh:

I didn't say he will be, I said he should be.  What a difference one small word makes to sentence.  

No, I think he closer to getting the "Order of Canada" than he is getting charges levied.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I didn't say he will be, I said he should be.  What a difference one small word makes to sentence.  

No, I think he closer to getting the "Order of Canada" than he is getting charges levied.

Wow. Sounds like you have quite the inner conflict boiling away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

betsy

A lot of them do.  If given the choice between working in sweat shops (which means food in their tummies), or hunger.....what do you think they'll choose?

If it will help you survive starvation - wouldn't you volunteer?

 

The problem with bleedin' hearts - they try to equate their charmed lives with those that are barely surviving.          Their priorities aren't quite the same as yours!

 

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Do you think that's what Jesus would say Betsy? 

 

I don't think you have any idea at all what Jesus would say.  Your post reveal that.  Read again what I've stated above.....and study the Bible.  If you're going to bring up something, at least you better get a grasp on it.  Anyway, if you want to continue this line of argument - raising the Jesus card - create your own thread for it.

 

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Do you think that's what Jesus would say Betsy? 

:rolleyes:  Why Jesus is even brought up when we talk about natural reaction of people who are starving, is beyond me.   It's not like as if a starving person wouldn't try to do anything to get something to eat.

  Get a grip.  Be realistic.

 

Just look at your response.  Like I said......

 

The problem with bleedin' hearts - they try to equate their charmed lives with those that are barely surviving.          Their priorities aren't quite the same as yours! :)

 

I suppose........ stealing and robbing is more to your liking.  After all, you've already got the justification. 

At least, give these poor folks major plus points for still trying to do the right thing in the face of their impoverished existence.  We need not take away their livelihood in the name of politicking - we can call for humane laws that would protect people from all kinds of exploitation.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, betsy said:

:rolleyes:

 

Where does it say that Guantanamo itself, is illegal?  If Gitmo is illegal, it would've been closed long time ago.  Even Obama - of all people - didn't close it asap.:lol:

 

Read his statement: 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/23/obama-release-plan-close-guantanamo-bay/80793530/

 

He didn't say, it's illegal.

Obama wanted to, but the military would not let him close it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, betsy said:

 

He's just spouting off ignorant opinion!

 

4 hours ago, capricorn said:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-jihadist-hits-the-jackpot/article/2008843#!

I would not categorize Omar Khadr's treatment in Gitmo as torture. There is just too much evidence against such a claim. Yet, if it's repeated often enough that he was tortured some people begin to believe it, just as the claim that he was a child soldier.

Check the MC trial of Muhammad Jawad, also a juvenile charged with war crimes at Guantanamo. His military-appointed lawyers argued that the sleep deprivation regime carried out at Guantanamo was torture and therefore his charges should be dismissed. The Military Judge in that case didn't actually agree that sleep-deprivation was torture but it most certainly was abusive, so ruled that all Jawads statements of guilt need be tossed being the result of inhumane treatment.   The evidence presented by the defence to prove the abuse were the same methods applied to Omar Khadr during that same period that Jawad suffered them.   They had the prison records to prove it.  

When this was presented by the defence in Khadr's trial, in a motion to dismiss, the judge there determined that it may or may not be inhumane treatment or even torture - let the panel decide. The judge most certainly did not find that Khadr wasn't tortured; only that he (the judge) was not convinced and so not dismissing the charges. He certainly allowed that the defence could make the argument when it presented its case to the panel. Of course this did not preclude many headlines announcing "Khadr Not Tortured Rules Judge" 

 

...the panel never got to consider the question since the Khadr's lawyers never had the opportunity to present the evidence to them. 

Edited by Peter F
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Yes , it does, however show me the quote where it says that children CAN NOT be held responsible for their crimes...And are you saying that we here in Canada have not given a child an adult sentence for serious crimes?

well he had to have been sitting up to get 2 bullet holes into the back .....time line is everything here....

Consider nothing.....every been to a car accident, or robbery, something traumatic.....talk to 100 people and you'll get 100 different stories....on top of that not everyone was in the same location, their stories will be from different angles....different stories....

No one will ever get the same level of evidence from a battle field engagement that is required here in Canada....there is no CSI unit that comes in after the battle to make sure it was all above board....and yet there are investigations that happen all the time, Take a look at the Capt Semeau case...very little evidence and what was collected would be in no way to the same level as here at home....and yet he was charged.   

You are trying to argue both ways: 

'He should be convicted. Childhood doesn't matter'

And 'You cannot get enough evidence.'

I don't really see how any of that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Peter F said:

 

...the panel never got to consider the question since the Khadr's lawyers never had the opportunity to present the evidence to them. 

So, there was never a definitive answer as to whether he was tortured or not. Of course, Khadr and his lawyers can maintain he was tortured and, given the situation, claiming torture can be seen as a self-serving accusation. One red flag is the fact Khadr never wanted to testify on the matter of alleged torture. Had he done so and not presented credible corroborating evidence, his claim for compensation could have been impacted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours 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.

 

Trying anybody for 'murder' requires evidence.

So far, none has been provided.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours 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. 

We didn't compensate him because his dad corrupted him.  His charter rights were not violated because his dad "took him down this path".  You have chosen not to accept this so I realize I'm talking to a brick wall, but it was determined that his charter rights were violated by improper interrogation procedures by our Liberal Government and CSIS, and information exchange with the commission...that's it....that's all....That's the extent of the SCOC ruling, period.

  • Like 3
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...