Compensating Khadr

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Correct...dear Omar is now a convicted war criminal and murderer.    Maybe he will send his supporters a thank-you card.

Convicted by an illegal court (according to your legal court) and now with bucks in his pocket to compensate. Maybe he'll send you a thank you card.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

Convicted by an illegal court

 

Other members have already corrected this false assertion several times.

Moving right along, some disgusted Canadians are taking matters into their own hands:

 

Quote

Canadians across the country have been reaching into their wallets to donate money to the family of an American soldier whom Omar Khadr is accused of killing in Afghanistan 15 years ago.

The online fundraising effort – part political protest, part generosity – comes amid a furor over the $10.5 million sources said the federal government paid Khadr for breaching his rights while he was an American prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3600743/canadians-donate-to-family-of-slain-u-s-soldier-in-wake-of-omar-khadr-settlement/

 

[drummindiver]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

And as per usual the left always emerges as the perennial bogyman that's fucking everything up.

It would be nice if we could keep killing proxies in other people's country's forever so we can avoid having to kill each other here but the day of our reckoning is inevitable. Eventually we will have to bury our hatchets in our own heads ourselves.

There's that white guilt again.

 

[drummindiver]

5 hours ago, Omni said:

Again I think I'll go with what the courts have found.

And they found your nonsense never happened

 

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

There's that white guilt again.

 

Where? You're suggesting the right-wing's timidity and fear of confronting its most feared bogeyman at home is a racial issue? 

[Omni]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Other members have already corrected this false assertion several times.

Sorry but no they have not. The SCOTUS has ruled 3 times against Gitmo. Here's just one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/washington/29cnd-scotus.html

Edited July 17, 2017 by Omni

[Rue]

16 hours ago, GostHacked said:

This is a really good point in my view.

What that every soldier killed by a terrorist is worth 134 million. You bet. In your rush to cheer lead this attempt to denigrate the  value of a soldier's life you

once again can't even spit out a sentence without it biting you in the ass.

[Rue]

16 hours ago, jacee said:

Ya, I agree. I don't understand why this one soldier's death in combat 15 years ago warrants such a lawsuit. What about all other soldiers?

Logic seems to pain you and Ghost. You claim you don't understand the value of Speer's  life but you sure as hell know the value of Kadr's alleged "suffering". How is that?  You and , Ghost, "Hudson Jones" , et al,  know the value of Kadr but not this soldier. Right.

The whole lot of you come on this thread like flies to dead flesh,  denigrating the value of this soldier's life and the cost to that soldier's family.

The whole lot of you value a terrorist;s life  more than you do a soldier's. That is all that needs to be said . You came on this forum claiming to  your claim to speak of moral values when defending Kadr. You now show you have none and morality is just a politically partisan concept you exploit for people you think you "side" with. Go on cheer lead Kadr and denigrate this soldier. The whole pack of you denigrating this soldier and questioning the value of his life show what you all will go to, to defend your partisan pro terrorist views.,

Edited July 17, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

14 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

We're gonna run into more and more domestic Islamic terrorism.  I think this case should alert us that we need to update some laws in order to deal with this.  I think we now see the "loopholes" in our legal system.  We could start by updating our treason law.

Are you kidding? This is the Trudeau regime that has allows the border and immigration system to collapse allowing thousands of illegals to break the law daily to undermine our immigration nd refugee system. Him plug a loophole hah/ This is a regime whose leader attends radical mosques to pander for Muslim votes while in the next breath pissing on a democratically leader for being a traditional Catholic while Trudeau embraces sexist, homophobic, anti semites and sees no inconsistency.

This is a Prime Minister who at the same time as paying off Kadr made a comment in Europe that we should not negotiate with terrorists! This is a Prime Minister who refused to raise the doctrine of clean hands to ask for a nominal award so he could instead cover up Chretien's misdoings. This is a man who has as his no.1 Middle Est advisor, Omar Alleghbra, an avowed defender of Hamas, Hezbollah and who openly calls for the violent end of Israel at meetings in Mississauga.

This government? This government that uses photo ops to pose while it has bankrupt the next 4 to 8 generations of Canadians?

This is a government with two faced, spineless, posers.  It apologizes for terrorists and thinks if it pats them on the head in a patronizing manner they won't bite back.

Trudeau is a silver spoon brought up in a cacoon and who is insulated from the world by the family trust fund. His perspective is skewed from this sheltered vantage point.

He's never travelled anywhere with a germ.

Good luck. By the way you want to find him? He'll be posing with burning fire in BC and pretending his under-funded army by his capable direction has things under control.

That's the leader you have, a two faced poser. His head is one big loop hole.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎16 at 0:07 AM, Omni said:

I confess too, to having taken off one day from an airport in northern Haiti (Gonaive) heading north over Cuba. I spoke to my co and I said "lets  go right over Gitmo" (which was a violation of air regs as the US military had designated it restricted airspace) My ire was based on the idea that how can the US lease some land, open a prison on it, and say US law doesn't apply because it's not actually US soil, but then say they can apply US law to the airspace over it. I recall both of my middle fingers were twitching as we went by. I guess we are lucky we didn't get shot down.

Yah meanwhile I was flying in my spaceship over A; Quaeda headquarters and I spoke to God and said, let's go right over its leader and I asked, God how do you allow this man to exist and have no laws to prevent him. Then God said, "my son ask Omni".

Excuse me if I vomit now with these fantasy scripts.

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎15 at 4:03 PM, The_Squid said:

Cons on this site still avoiding the question about child soldiers....  

You have a problem? He was not a child soldier. He was a terrorist,  Go read the convention. You need that repeated again?

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎15 at 8:48 PM, Omni said:

We can only provide you with the facts. If you can't comprehend, or don't want to accept, them that is up to you.

You as usual provided no facts just a spin.

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎15 at 9:33 PM, Hudson Jones said:

To call Khadr a terrorist or murderer is ludicrous in the extreme – the incident that led to his capture was clearly a firefight with distinct combatants on both sides. Nobody was out to terrorize anybody.

The above comment is not only ludicrous in its extreme but cognitively challenged by such extreme pro terrorist bias as to serve to warn anyone on this forum what your agenda is.

You want to make unilateral pronouncements because you support terrorist activities that anyone who does is not is ludicrous and extreme? Lol.

You came on this thread to denigrate the value of Speer's life for all to see. You used passive aggressive references to suggest he's not worth more in value than Kadr and to suggest Kadr was engaged in "battle", i.e., an honourable war.

Kadr was a terrorist. He was killing innocent civilians using terrorism as part of a terror cell that had illegally invaded Iraq. A battle? What a phony attempt to equate what he did as an honourable soldier in a confrontation covered under the Geneva Convention. He was not involved in legal war. He was not following conventional rules of war. He was not dressed in a soldier's uniform engaging in legal war rules.

He was a sniveling coward hiding in ambush and threw a grenade. Battle, firefight. You've never been to war. You've never been attacked by a terrorist. You have never been shot at, spit at, had a grenade thrown at you. You weren't there. You have no clue what a soldier goes through trying to locate a terrorist in a pile of rubble or hiding in a crowd of civilians using a civilian guise.

You sit thousands of miles from the violence and crime cheer leading what Kadr did posing as  as a war analyst.

Your words drip in support of a terrorist engaging in terrorism, pure and simple.

You come on this forum to cheer lead Kadr as an honourable soldier on the same moral plane as Speers until you then denigrate Speer's life value.

Go on cheer lead terrorists and paint them as honourable soldiers engaged in battle.

 

Pathetic.

 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Rue

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

You have a problem? He was not a child soldier. He was a terrorist,  Go read the convention. You need that repeated again?

I'm sure you've also read the assessment of Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN secretary-general's special representative for children and armed conflict who said; Khadr represents the "classic child soldier narrative: recruited by unscrupulous groups to undertake actions at the bidding of adults to fight battles they barely understand."

You have a problem with the UN? Before you answer recall this is the same UN that gave its blessing to invade Afghanistan in the first place.

[Omni]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

You as usual provided no facts just a spin.

Supreme courts tend to deal in facts, whether you like them or  not.

[jacee]

Looking at the reality, it's clear that neither Liberals nor Conservatives would really want this to go to trial, so I think we can put that idea to bed:

http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/national-security-law-blog/2017/7/11/a-once-final-parsing-of-the-legal-context-for-the-khadr-sett.html

Either way, if you fight a trial, here’s what will happen:

• Because of what he needs to prove for the negligence and misfeasance causes of action especially, plaintiff will call the former Prime Ministers Chrétien, Martin and Harper, and all of their former foreign affairs and public safety ministers, CSIS, DFAIT and RCMP officials (former and present) and any number of other officials.
• Former officials will have their own reputational exposure (at minimum), and will likely want independent legal advice, indemnified by the government of Canada.
• Departments will divert resources, as they did during the commissions of inquiry of the last decade. There will be oodles of lawyers and staff time on this – do not underestimate the resources poured into this.   ...

Maybe you’d like all this to have come out in open court – certainly, I would have found it interesting as a national security law academic.  Maybe it would have been good to expose the government malfeasance.  Maybe the responsible should be exposed, and heads put on spikes.  Maybe all that would serve as a cautionary tale for security services, on the (unlikely) assumption they would do a repeat in the same manner.  Maybe you don’t care about any of the reasons, but do care about the symbolism.

That is your prerogative. But none of your reasons for supporting a full civil trial in Khadr should be “because it would have been cheaper” or “because it would be a good way to support the security services”.

 

There's a great irony here:

Those who believe that Khadr was mistreated, you would think would be the ones wanting government and security malfeasance exposed at a trial. But we're not demanding heads on spikes.

Those who believe Khadr was an unrepentant 'terrorist' seem to be the ones demanding a trial ... that would only expose government and security malfeasance. IE, they'd get the wrong heads on their spikes. Lol

I doubt that ANY government, party or security establishment really wants Khadr's settlement to be fought further in court. Just a lot of empty sabre rattling now, and words of the disgruntled who don't really understand the implications.

[eyeball]

27 minutes ago, jacee said:

 

I doubt that ANY government, party or security establishment really wants Khadr's settlement to be fought further in court. Just a lot of empty sabre rattling now, and words of the disgruntled who don't really understand the implications.

Amongst the implications is the reality that to punish Khadr the way his persecutors would like to see him punished we'd have to get rid of the Charter, the Geneva Conventions and whatever other international agreements that govern our conduct will have to go.

These goofs understand the implications perfectly well. They've been screaming about getting rid of these things on general principles for decades.

Of course the only way to do that is to get rid of all the lefties.

 

[jacee]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Amongst the implications is the reality that to punish Khadr the way his persecutors would like to see him punished we'd have to get rid of the Charter, the Geneva Conventions and whatever other international agreements that govern our conduct will have to go.

These goofs understand the implications perfectly well. They've been screaming about getting rid of these things on general principles for decades.

Of course the only way to do that is to get rid of all the lefties.

 

Those would be "the disgruntled who don't really understand the implications." 

AND... the CSIS/CIA 'security' trolls here doing what they're paid to do ... brainwash and blow the dog whistles for "the disgruntled who don't really understand the implications".

Either way, the intelligent discussion is over.

[capricorn]

17 minutes ago, jacee said:

Either way, the intelligent discussion is over.

You said the conversation on this thread was going around in circles 15-20 pages ago. Yet, you haven't stopped posting since. Are you sure this time that there is nothing else of value to discuss?

[capricorn]

On 2017-07-15 at 9:31 PM, Hudson Jones said:

You just said you believe in "Law and Order".

You either do or you don't. It sounds like you are being selective.

Just because I believe in law and order doesn't mean I have to agree with all court decisions and all government actions.

[taxme]

On 7/15/2017 at 6:37 PM, Hudson Jones said:

The widow and family of Christopher Speer have been awarded  $134-million (U.S.) by a U.S. court in a ruling alleging Khadr killed the American soldier and partially blinded another. 

That Speer was killed while serving his country is a tragic loss.

But why would his family be entitled to such a massive sum? Speer was killed in battle, he was not murdered in his bed.

If Speer’s loss is worth $134-million, why wouldn't the deaths of every one of the Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan be worth the same?

 Hey, why not pay off all Canadian relatives of a family member that died on the Canadian taxpayer's battle field for all the taxes and fees and licences that they have been forced to pay for all their lives, and like that $12,000 that the taxpayer's of Canada had to pay out to that muslim for his hurt feelings. I will take it that you are quite happy to see this terrorist get that $12,000, eh?  To pay someone $12,000 because some infidel walked on his carpet with his shoes on is bloody ridiculous. Hurt feelings is starting to become a great way for many in trying to suck some money out of someone else just because there feelings were hurt by that someone. Is this the kind of Canada that you enjoy living in these days because I am certainly not. 

[Hal 9000]

3 hours ago, jacee said:

Looking at the reality, it's clear that neither Liberals nor Conservatives would really want this to go to trial, so I think we can put that idea to bed:

http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/national-security-law-blog/2017/7/11/a-once-final-parsing-of-the-legal-context-for-the-khadr-sett.html

Either way, if you fight a trial, here’s what will happen:

• Because of what he needs to prove for the negligence and misfeasance causes of action especially, plaintiff will call the former Prime Ministers Chrétien, Martin and Harper, and all of their former foreign affairs and public safety ministers, CSIS, DFAIT and RCMP officials (former and present) and any number of other officials.
• Former officials will have their own reputational exposure (at minimum), and will likely want independent legal advice, indemnified by the government of Canada.
• Departments will divert resources, as they did during the commissions of inquiry of the last decade. There will be oodles of lawyers and staff time on this – do not underestimate the resources poured into this.   ...

Maybe you’d like all this to have come out in open court – certainly, I would have found it interesting as a national security law academic.  Maybe it would have been good to expose the government malfeasance.  Maybe the responsible should be exposed, and heads put on spikes.  Maybe all that would serve as a cautionary tale for security services, on the (unlikely) assumption they would do a repeat in the same manner.  Maybe you don’t care about any of the reasons, but do care about the symbolism.

That is your prerogative. But none of your reasons for supporting a full civil trial in Khadr should be “because it would have been cheaper” or “because it would be a good way to support the security services”.

 

There's a great irony here:

Those who believe that Khadr was mistreated, you would think would be the ones wanting government and security malfeasance exposed at a trial. But we're not demanding heads on spikes.

Those who believe Khadr was an unrepentant 'terrorist' seem to be the ones demanding a trial ... that would only expose government and security malfeasance. IE, they'd get the wrong heads on their spikes. Lol

I doubt that ANY government, party or security establishment really wants Khadr's settlement to be fought further in court. Just a lot of empty sabre rattling now, and words of the disgruntled who don't really understand the implications.

I've never been fond of sweeping things under the rug when it comes to political issues.  I think a trial would've have provided some answers to issues that we will certainly face in the future.  As it is, the gov't is told "don't do it again" and everything will be fine, but what about next time we deal with a homegrown terrorist? 

[Rue]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm sure you've also read the assessment of Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN secretary-general's special representative for children and armed conflict who said; Khadr represents the "classic child soldier narrative: recruited by unscrupulous groups to undertake actions at the bidding of adults to fight battles they barely understand."

You have a problem with the UN? Before you answer recall this is the same UN that gave its blessing to invade Afghanistan in the first place.

1. I have a problem with you being unable to tell the difference between the current UN Convention on Child Soldiers and this individual who expressed a personal subjective opinion that is neither a legal opinion or has any legal status.

2. I have a problem with the idiot you quoted and he is a complete and utter idiot because the facts are clear Kadr chose to remain in Afghanistan and knew exactly what he was doing.

3. I have a problem with the UN and the idiots like the one you quote who precisely because they play partisan politics will not call terrorists terrorists-do not differentiate them from child soldiers and who represent corrupt nations run by terrorists and tyrants.

4. I have a problem with the entire UN which long ago failed its mandate to be a neutral third party and come up with a convention as to the treatment of terrorists.

5. I have a problem with you and your entourage on this forum engaged in fiction and fantasy trying to deny Kadr was a terrorist and equate him to being a soldier let alone a child let alone a child soldier.

Get back to me when you understand what a legally binding law is and what the difference between that and a subjective political partisan opinion is. It clearly zips past you at this point.

Here let me help:

Omar was a good boy. His making bombs, oh come now it was just leggo.

[Rue]

5 hours ago, Omni said:

Supreme courts tend to deal in facts, whether you like them or  not.

Quite with the intellectual disghonesty. Once again you misrepresent. You are fully aware the Supreme Court was not asked to deal with the doctrine of clean hands, the principal of public morality and s.1 of the Charter let alone the ppgg clause's application.  Its kind of hard to deal with facts, when some dishonest slimy politician refuses to present them for reference.

How long you going to play this dishonest omission of the reference? You think at this point you fool anyone with your pretending that Trudeau made a political decision to refuse to bring these issues for consideration to the court?

Courts tend are asked to address legal issues. The facts relate to the legal issues but are not presented alone. They must be attached to a legal issue to be presented for the judge to them comment in their relevance.

You continue to misrepresent the legal process. Now you play this bull sheeyat that Judges consider facts as if they consider the facts in a vacuum.

Stop lecturing people when you don't have the intregrity to present the legal process in an accurate and truthful manner.

 

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

You are fully aware the Supreme Court was not asked to deal with the doctrine of clean hands,

You keep trying to flog this "clean hands" idea and it doesn't apply in this case. Maybe look for a different avenue.