Jump to content

Compensating Khadr


Recommended Posts

3 hours 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.

 

No. Yan't process the actuak legal argument.  Had the Trudeau government fulfilled its proper mandate it would have asked fo r a reference as to whether the amount should have been nominal or an actual large number. It would not have meant the Charter was not  violated.

The only good who does not undwerstand the legal issue that was at stake is you at this point and your buddy Omni who pretends to ignore it by refusing to acknowledge it.

This reference has nothing to do with left or right wing political partisan views. It is in fact a non-partisan issue dealing with the integrity of the court system and avoiding the appearance of undermining that integrity.

 

Your reference to goofs is fabricated. They do not exist anywhere but in your mind when you raise them to stereotype an imagined group who you think disagrees with you. You then project on them your convoluted and illogical comments including your misunderstanding of what the actual legal issue was and projecting your incorrect misunderstanding on those you stereotype.

If you don't understand what the doctrine of clean hands is go find out before you make such nonsensical comments that show your ignorance of it. That issue is not and is not dependent on the Charter having been violated. It only has to do with Kadr's behaviour at the time of his apprehension and before it.

How many times does it need to be repeated he determination of charter violations and the determination of the applicability of dirty hands are not one in the same issue and are founded on separate sets of evidence.

Another graduate from the Omni School of Law.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 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:

.

The above is a false statement. The Conservatives made it clear they wanted a reference as to the dirty hands doctrine so you are not looking at reality, you are fabricating a false position of the Conservatives-that's not reality-that's your subjective partisan distortion so you can put your reality to bed. By the way your proclamation that you feel this thread doesn't say anything intelligent when you disagree with something simply reflects your closed mind. You came on this board, engaged in racist stereotypes of whites as bigots and have made numerous pronouncements that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

This is why I take pleasure in staying on this thread as long as you morally righteous, terrorist supporting apologists stay on the board.

You want to applaud and condone a terrorist, I have the right to call that terrorist what he is, an unrepentant immoral, manipulative killer-a person who with malice, intent and premeditation set out to deny the people of Afghanistan their right to live in a peaceful country.

I call him out for what he is, a terrorist invader and part of one of many terror cells that were created to deny any or all laws and simply impose their own religious views with violence, torture.  terror and death.

Not one of your lot has the integrity to say what Al Quaeda stands for and what Kadr was doing when caught. You engage in fantasy that he was a soldier, a child and you pretend the doctrine of clean hands is not applicable when it still is and the only reason its not pursued is because of cowardly partisan Liberals covering up what Chretiens did.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jacee said:

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.

Now spit it out. Who are the CSIS-CIA trolls on this board. Provide names or will you leave that as a passive aggressive cowardly accusation? Enough with your smeers.

If you call people out for disagreeing with you CSIS CIA trolls then that makes you an Al Quaeda terrorist using your logic.

Spit my way I will send it back.The fact that you apologize and condone what Kadr does and I find that repulsive does not make me a CSIS troll. It makes me like the majority of Canadians-disgusted this bastard walks free and set for life while thousands of soldiers are at the poverty line improperly taken care of since their return home many with painful lingering illnesses and injuries.

 

 

 

Edited by Rue
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

The Conservatives made it clear they wanted a reference as to the dirty hands doctrine

If anyone has "dirty hands" in this case it would be the kangaroo court at Gitmo, and the Canadian officials who went there to interrogate him and then passed the results of those discussions to his prosecutors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eye, Hudson Jones, Omni,  Marcus, all of you terrorist apologists who have come on this board on this thread and in past threads accused others of being anti Muslim-go on answer the issue raised the whole lot of you hide from. If Kadr is a good Muslim and not a Muslim terrorist, why does he not follow his faith and take the money he was awarded and give it to the widow and her children and the other wounded soldier. Please tell me. You are all experts on Islam-explain why its basic precept of not profiting from violence is being ignored by Kadr. Explain how the Koran in fact says he should give the money to the widow and children. Go on have the integrity to explain.

Who any of you. Hah.

Your silence as to Kadr violating basic Muslim sharia law as to charitable intent speaks for itself. Its the same dishonest silence you engage in refusing to acknowledge the concept of dirty hands and how it would have been applicable here had a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada have been made about it.

Not a peep from the lot of you. Just pathetic apologies, condonation and child fantasy scripts.

What's Kadr's excuse now hmmmm? Who is coercing him now from handing over the money?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

If anyone has "dirty hands" in this case it would be the kangaroo court at Gitmo, and the Canadian officials who went there to interrogate him and then passed the results of those discussions to his prosecutors. 

1. Two wrongs would not make a right in law so your entire response is illogical, and idiotic for that reason.

2. The finding of whether Kadr had dirty hands, to justify lowering his award to a nominal amount, is not dependent on, predicated by, or determined in any way by the fact that the Canadian government was found to have violated the charter. The determination of his dirty hands is only determined by his actions leading up to and during his apprehension.

You again misrepresent the doctrine of clean hands thinking if you repeat this crap over and over it what becomes legal?

In law, you can't profit from a wrong-doing. It may get you out of incarceration but it does not permit you to profit, until now, thanks to Trudeau covering up what Chretiens did and refusing to follow his mandate to fully challenge the award's amount.

Get it clear-you Eye, Jacee, the whole lot of you, the fact the Charter was violated was one issue. The Supreme Court could have admonished the Canadian government for that and awarded a nominal amount to Kadr to acknowledge his hands were dirty. Neither party was above criticism for their actions.

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

As usual you misrepresent the issue. They were found to have violated the Charter of Rights. That is not the issue. There having violated the charter does not magically undo Kadr's dirty hands. You again engage in dishonest fiction. Their actions do not clean his hands. You are well aware of that. His dirty hands are not dependent on whether they violated the charter. You know that yet you repeat this line of crap.

 

What you don't seem to get is that, under law, his hands weren't dirty in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I want compensation for having to repeat the doctrine of dirty hands on this thread over and over to Kadr apologists. No I do not want tickets to watch Omar on the next edition of Dancing with the Stars. Its only a matter of time until he is a political analyst on CBC., has a reality show and starts franchises across Canada of Omar's Fine Middle East Cuisine. Canada. Such a warm and welcoming country as long as you are not a soldier or follow the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Omni said:

What you don't seem to get is that, under law, his hands weren't dirty in the first place.

False. You continue to misrepresent. Again you lie. Present the law that says his hands were not dirty. Go on. I have asked you to repeatedly and you repeatedly do not provide any law because none exists. I am calling you out as a liar on the above statement. No law exists to say that. I have produced the doctrine of dirty hands that makes clear what its predicated on. There is NO case, no law, no statute that says his dirty hands were clean. Go on put up or shut up. You keep repeating the same falsehood over and over with zero proof.. Provide the law or cease and desist with your lie. To anyone who cares, the doctrine of dirty hands can be found easily and this fiction Omni engages in that violating the Charter cleaned Omar Kadr's hands is an out and out lie. There is no case law, no statute, no regulation, that states this.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Omni said:

If they wanted to prove his guilt they should have prosecuted him legally.

That makes no sense again. There is no international convention on the treatment and prosecution of terrorists.

I suppose at this point your fabrications should be clear to anyone. On the one hand you claim any attempt to prosecute him would be illegal then in this breath say they should have prosecuted him legally. No disconnect with your arguments. You just say whatever pops to mind at the moment convenient to your b.s. .

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Rue said:

Yan't process the actuak legal argument.  Had the Trudeau government fulfilled its proper mandate it would have asked fo r a reference as to whether the amount should have been nominal or an actual large number. It would not have meant the Charter was not  violated.

The only good who does not undwerstand the lega

 

Any wild idea as to what might actually be talking about here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Omni said:

If anyone has "dirty hands" in this case it would be the kangaroo court at Gitmo, and the Canadian officials who went there to interrogate him and then passed the results of those discussions to his prosecutors. 

And that is worth 10mil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Omni said:

That's a damn good question. I do see hints of English but not coherency.

I don't have any trouble figuring it out.  I think Rue maybe has some "fat fingers" when it comes to keyboarding.  For instance:

10 minutes ago, dre said:

Any wild idea as to what might actually be talking about here?

Dre's comment is also incorrect.  I surmise he either means "Any wild idea as to what RUE might actually be talking about here?"

Or maybe "Any wild ideas as to what is being talked about here.?"

See how easy that is?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Omni said:

Apparently. What is 10 years of your life worth to you?

Life in jail if I did what the kid did. I also think he is BS on the torture, maybe sleep deprivation. Torture by all accounts was not used on him, and why he is just a kid trained to blow up soldiers. This is not a case where a kid is kidnapped and forced to fight after being drugged. This is a trained member of a terror group and the bombs that he made, how many canadians died or were hurt by them? Just imagine if Chretien never used his power to have Khadr's father released for a pakistani jail, none of this would have happened and the people that his father killed could be alive today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PIK said:

I also think he is BS on the torture,

That has been proven over and over here, but the same ones keep spouting out about his "torture."

He was following the Al Quaeda Training manual by accusing authorities of torturing him.

Then he refused to elaborate.  The few things he said "tortured" him were everyday life in jail for terrorists - like people screaming in other cells.  That was one of the things he said was "torture".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PIK said:

I also think he is BS on the torture, maybe sleep deprivation.

Sleep deprivation is a recognized form of torture.

 

4 minutes ago, PIK said:

re by all accounts was not used on him,

All who's accounts?

 

6 minutes ago, PIK said:

This is not a case where a kid is kidnapped and forced to fight after being drugged

He was taken to Afghanistan at 10 years old. I don't know if he was drugged, but he was certainly a kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Omni said:

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

Once again, to try and enlighten you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

I have no doubt you will pass this information by and continue denying the facts.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...