Compensating Khadr

Spiderfish · July 14, 2017

Just now, jacee said:

Because some people get off on being jacked up on hate.

Facts mean nothing.

This garbage gets old and completely undermines any arguement you are trying to make. Calling people racist or haters or any other label you can think of because they dont agree with a government decision is lazy and sad.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Spiderfish

jacee · July 14, 2017

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

It means some members at MLW actually admire this POS.

You don't have to admire someone to acknowledge that they have rights.

DogOnPorch · July 14, 2017

At least THEY know who they are.

:lol:

Spiderfish · July 14, 2017

Just now, jacee said:

Khadr's lawsuit against the government requested compensation. Based on that SCoC finding of fault against the government, compensation was inevitable.

The SCOC did not rule that compensation should be paid. There was no court ruling on compensation, period.

drummindiver · July 14, 2017

10 minutes ago, jacee said:

Unh ... No.

Good grief, you really have no clue at all about the facts.

Do you ever read anything, or do you just spout off in complete ignorance?

Already cited. Good grief, your grasp of facts is tenuous at best. Do some reading instead of getting on your progressive pedestal.

jacee · July 14, 2017

5 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

The SCOC did not rule that compensation should be paid. There was no court ruling on compensation, period.

There was a lawsuit in progress. The court suggested that the parties come to a settlement, which they did. That agreed upon settlement will be part of the court's judgement.

As has been explained repeatedly ... If the gov had continued to fight it to let the court decide, it would have cost much more.

But hey, beat your head against the wall and wallow in your hate.

You're only poisoning yourself.

drummindiver · July 14, 2017

25 minutes ago, jacee said:

No he did not have a trial. He took a plea deal.

There was no evidence presented.

No trial ?

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.870059

jacee · July 14, 2017

4 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

No trial ?

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.870059

He took a plea deal. There was no evidence presented.

Khadr is now appealing that, based on US violations of his rights, I believe. It may be that the US will finally be required to present evidence during that appeal.

Edited July 14, 2017 by jacee

drummindiver · July 14, 2017

1 minute ago, jacee said:

He took a plea deal. There was no evidence presented.

Of course there was. Quit pretending you know before you read. The article clearly states the evidence given.

Trial. Evidence. Confession. Terrorist.

jacee · July 14, 2017

4 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Of course there was. Quit pretending you know before you read. The article clearly states the evidence given.

Trial. Evidence. Confession. Terrorist.

Opening statements, delay, plea deal.

There was no evidence presented to the jury.

Stop lying.

Edited July 14, 2017 by jacee

drummindiver · July 14, 2017

2 minutes ago, jacee said:

Opening statements, delay, plea deal.

There was no evidence presented to the jury.

Stop lying.

Lots of evidence. Your obfuscation is indicative of the black hole of moral deficiency progressives will stoop to in defence of terrorist ideals.

Read the damn trial manuscripts. Oh wait, the facts would detract from your narrative.

Simply covering your eyes and ears won't make the facts any less factual.

jacee · July 14, 2017

5 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Lots of evidence. Your obfuscation is indicative of the black hole of moral deficiency progressives will stoop to in defence of terrorist ideals.

Read the damn trial manuscripts. Oh wait, the facts would detract from your narrative.

Simply covering your eyes and ears won't make the facts any less factual.

What trial manuscripts?

What trial?

"the black hole of moral deficiency" :lol: :lol:

I think you're referring to the idea that every person is entitled to due process and a fair trial.

So who's morally deficient, those who agree or those who disagree? :lol:

Edited July 14, 2017 by jacee

drummindiver · July 14, 2017

Just now, jacee said:

What trial manuscripts?

What trial?

Linked to you once already. Read it for you also. Comprehension from here on in is up to you.

jacee · July 14, 2017

3 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Linked to you once already. Read it for you also. Comprehension from here on in is up to you.

I read it.

There was no evidence presented to the jury.

drummindiver · July 14, 2017

4 minutes ago, jacee said:

I read it.

There was no evidence presented to the jury.

Clearly you did not. Just one nugget.

"Khadr's sentencing hearing adjourns unexpectedly after an hour. Defence lawyers use the time to enter into evidence an unsworn statement by Khadr in which he admits he initially lied to U.S. interrogators in Afghanistan after his capture."

drummindiver · July 14, 2017

5 minutes ago, jacee said:

I read it.

There was no evidence presented to the jury.

Or this

"Khadr admitted in the military court to throwing a grenade that killed U.S. Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer during a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002. When asked if he conspired with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, Khadr also answered "yes."

OftenWrong · July 14, 2017

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Al Qaeda terrorists don't get council...they get 'Gitmo.

And in Canada, they get $10M. Working for Al Qaeda can be quite lucrative!

Edited July 14, 2017 by OftenWrong

jacee · July 14, 2017

9 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Clearly you did not. Just one nugget.

"Khadr's sentencing hearing adjourns unexpectedly after an hour. Defence lawyers use the time to enter into evidence an unsworn statement by Khadr in which he admits he initially lied to U.S. interrogators in Afghanistan after his capture."

That's a sentencing hearing following his plea.

jacee · July 14, 2017

10 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Or this

"Khadr admitted in the military court to throwing a grenade that killed U.S. Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer during a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002. When asked if he conspired with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, Khadr also answered "yes."

There was no evidence presented for judgement.

There was only a plea deal.

Hal 9000 · July 15, 2017

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

At least THEY know who they are.

Jacee has a crush on Omar!

Hudson Jones · July 15, 2017

On 7/13/2017 at 4:23 AM, Rue said:

No where in the UN Convention on torture does it define sleep deprivation as torture. Yah you knew that.

It was more than just sleep deprivation. Regardless, I'm sure you know this:

UN torture report condemns sleep deprivation among US detainees

In a review of the human rights record of the US, the first of its kind since 2006, the world body’s committee against torture has slammed the country for its ongoing violations of international treaties.

Link

Quote

You also know resolutions are not legal documents or binding. Yah you knew that too. Another legal expert.

I was responding to BushCheney's earlier comment about his support for UN resolutions. But that's okay. With your "non-binding" comment, it's obvious that you're here to condone torture of children. Much like you have done in the past when this was brought up: Israel Tortures Palestinian Children.

jacee · July 15, 2017

58 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

And in Canada, they get $10M. Working for Al Qaeda can be quite lucrative!

If the government hadn't violated his rights, there wouldn't be a settlement necessary.

Harper might have fought it, just for political reasons, and it would have cost us a lot more.

capricorn · July 15, 2017

1 hour ago, Hudson Jones said:

IUN torture report condemns sleep deprivation among US detainees

Edited July 15, 2017 by capricorn
off topic

capricorn · July 15, 2017

9 minutes ago, jacee said:

Harper might have fought it, just for political reasons,

Here it is folks, the obligatory reference to Harper. The fact is if Harper had fought it, it would have been for principled reasons. Instead, we have Justin and his Liberals backing down because they declare "it would have cost us more to fight it", when all the while in large measure the true reason is it was to shield their former PMs Chretien and Martin from having to take the stand and to protect the Liberal brand. Hypocrites the bunch of them.

OftenWrong · July 15, 2017

16 minutes ago, jacee said:

If the government hadn't violated his rights, there wouldn't be a settlement necessary.

Yes, the laws, constitution or what have you are what they are. That is not going to change any time soon, and so here is the result. This is a total morass, and I mean mor-ass. My view is that he was not initially responsible for what happened, his fate was sealed. But that doesn't change the fact of what he is, and has done.

What angers me is that these kind of political/judicial/administrative errors are the result of bungling fools who have no accountability for their actions. Successive Canadian and US governments were involved, as well as various intelligence agencies and courts. These bungling jackasses should be held responsible for giving away my tax money to a person who is a traitor and killer, a maker of IED's no less. They made him and his terrorist-supporting family quite rich. This pisses me off immensely. Mr. Trudeau, please explain to me why I should continue to be honest and fair when paying my taxes.