Jump to content

Compensating Khadr


betsy

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, jacee said:

US terrorism is the problem.

Oh well then. Its the US's fault. Eye blames all "Western" nations.

Now imagine if you Kadr apologists woke up one morning and held  terrorists accountable for their own decisions and actions... Lol.

Yah I get it.  In your world blaming others for your own negative behaviour is the way to go. Got it. Privileged. Elitist. Sheltered. Silver spoon.

Its a world where being a terrorist, having a lethal tantrum is caused by others not giving you what you want. 

Save your simplistic scapegoating for Kadr. His moral failures began and will end with his own decisions.

No one is coercing him. No one is stopping him now from doing the right thing and handing his money to the widow.

Had he done that and openly apologized to her, there would be no discussion. He chose not to. He was given a monumental opportunity to show his remorse and instead he spit out anger towards her.

Go on, blame the US for that.

I thank God I was not brought up with your values  I thank God I was not brought up to make excuses for my failures.

Being a failure is a necessary part of life. Blaming others for those failures does not have to be. That's the huge difference you don't grasp.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-07-18 at 8:02 AM, Rue said:

Making excuses for not having done the right thing after the fact does not address the moral values violated, it simply makes excuses for the violation. The excuse won't make the act less immoral.

 

What moral values did Khadr violate?   What moral wrong did he do?    

 

 

Quote

 

Go look it up yourself. My father got in the air force just as he turned 16. He gave a forged birth certificate. It wasn't hard to change the date.

No one called them victims. No one defined them as child soldiers. No one made excuses for them and called their parents abusers.

You don't get the analogy. What I am arguing is by calling Kadr a child soldier, he's put on the same moral plane as such people.

He is not.


 

Sure no one called them victims, unless they were killed or maimed or imprisoned. Then there would be laments about how they shouldn't have even been allowed there to be killed or maimed and so the state failed them.  

If the wannabe recruit is not of 18 years of age (exception: 17 if both parents assent)  then the wannabe is told to go home and come back later.  No moral test is required. Not even during WW2.  To claim that Khadr failed some moral test by not deceiving the adults around him into believing that he was older than he was is ridiculous. To claim that those under 18 - even in the big noble one - are 'legitimate' through some nebulous greater morality and Khadr is an illegitimate because he doesn't fit that supposed morality is asinine.

  The morality involved is simply this: If you are not 18 you shouldn't be here. That morality is reflected in Canadian law, even during WW2. That your father got away with it because he successfully deceived the state, does not change the fact that if the state at the time had found out your fathers deceit they would have shipped him off right quick. The morality of your father has no bearing. There are no exceptions. You are 18 or you're not. If not, there are no exeptions for morals or eagerness.  Your father served illegally up until he was 18. Not that your father was committing some crime by doing so. He wasn't. The crime was allowing him to serve and that crime rests on the Canadian government  who allowed a child to serve. Which they do not do, even your dad. Thus the necessity of your fathers deceit. Boys will be boys.

 

  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one hand, Trudeau and Khadr apologists denounce the US-lead trial that found Khadr guilty of murder and war crimes, calling it a kangaroo court and such. Then they rely on the evidence presented at that very same trial by the defendant as proof of torture and innocence. That makes for some very, very confused logic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, capricorn said:

On one hand, Trudeau and Khadr apologists denounce the US-lead trial that found Khadr guilty of murder and war crimes, calling it a kangaroo court and such. Then they rely on the evidence presented at that very same trial by the defendant as proof of torture and innocence. That makes for some very, very confused logic.

Ya, yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hudson Jones said:

 

Whether we want to described him as a "terrorist" or a "child soldier," he was and is a Canadian citizen with rights. And, as determined by no less than the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canadian government was complicit in the violation of those rights.

 

You make some valid points, but what is missing here is the fact that on one hand, one "side" of this debate wants him to be excused for his actions because he was a "child soldier".   The other side points out he was a child terrorist, but this is all semantics.   Yes, he was a legal minor.  We have all ignored the detail that since he was a minor, his legal parents and/or guardians were responsible for his actions and care, and THEY failed in their obligations.   His old man got his in Afganistan, but Mamma Maha the avid (even rabid) terrorist supporter and financier got a PASS from Canada!!!!

Scheer has played and called this dead on the money.  There is NOTHING in the law to financially reward a child terrorist for being a child terrorist.   His reward was to be allowed to be a free man in Canada.   What is totally disgusting is that his Mother is too (I believe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, capricorn said:

On one hand, Trudeau and Khadr apologists denounce the US-lead trial that found Khadr guilty of murder and war crimes, calling it a kangaroo court and such. Then they rely on the evidence presented at that very same trial by the defendant as proof of torture and innocence. That makes for some very, very confused logic.

We'll see what happens if that evidence is presented in the civil suit. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peter F said:

What moral values did Khadr violate?   What moral wrong did he do?    

 

 

Sure no one called them victims, unless they were killed or maimed or imprisoned. Then there would be laments about how they shouldn't have even been allowed there to be killed or maimed and so the state failed them.  

If the wannabe recruit is not of 18 years of age (exception: 17 if both parents assent)  then the wannabe is told to go home and come back later.  No moral test is required. Not even during WW2.  To claim that Khadr failed some moral test by not deceiving the adults around him into believing that he was older than he was is ridiculous. To claim that those under 18 - even in the big noble one - are 'legitimate' through some nebulous greater morality and Khadr is an illegitimate because he doesn't fit that supposed morality is asinine.

  The morality involved is simply this: If you are not 18 you shouldn't be here. That morality is reflected in Canadian law, even during WW2. That your father got away with it because he successfully deceived the state, does not change the fact that if the state at the time had found out your fathers deceit they would have shipped him off right quick. The morality of your father has no bearing. There are no exceptions. You are 18 or you're not. If not, there are no exeptions for morals or eagerness.  Your father served illegally up until he was 18. Not that your father was committing some crime by doing so. He wasn't. The crime was allowing him to serve and that crime rests on the Canadian government  who allowed a child to serve. Which they do not do, even your dad. Thus the necessity of your fathers deceit. Boys will be boys.

 

  

 

 

 

Your first question simply shows you do not believe Kadr acted immorally and that with due respect Peter F is something I think not worthy of a response. I don't believe you don't know the answer to the question or why its immoral to be a terrorist. I do think by asking the question you condone and defend terrorism.

In regards to your first comment, you need to speak with war vets. When they lament the loss of life of a soldier there age is not referred to. A death of a young or older soldier is equally as cherished. I think you again missed the point.

You are also wrong in your second paragraph. When any soldier is recruited at whatever age, and during WW2 recruitment they were and are given a psychological test that asks them questions about their moral values.

Next this comment you said: "to claim that Khadr failed some moral test by not deceiving the adults around him into believing that he was older than he was is ridiculous. To claim that those under 18 - even in the big noble one - are 'legitimate' through some nebulous greater morality and Khadr is an illegitimate because he doesn't fit that supposed morality is asinine."

You are right your contending the above is what I or anyone else said other than you is stupid.

What I stated and you appear not to have understood and therefore have assumed to mean the above is the sacrifice genuine child soldiers made for our country is not on the same moral plane as what Kadr did and so to call Kadr a child soldier and put him on the same level as our underage WW2 soldiers is disrepectful to them. Kadr did not sacrifice for our nation. He did nto go to war in a legally constituted army following the rules of the Geneva Convention. Kadr went to engage in terrorism with Al Quaeda who do not follow any laws or conventions but their own.

Our underage soldiers wore uniforms. They did not pose as civilians. They did not deliberately kill civilians as part of their very beliefs. They did not go to uphold a belief that violence and terror is the way to establish a government.

Why that is so hard for you to understand I do not know. I really do not understand how you or anyone can not see the difference between what Kadr was engaging in and what our Canadian underage soldiers did. Its beyond me how you could even begin to come up with the impression you stated above. Its not even remotely connected to what I said.

Now I want to conclude and address this comment:

"The morality involved is simply this: If you are not 18 you shouldn't be here. That morality is reflected in Canadian law, even during WW2. That your father got away with it because he successfully deceived the state, does not change the fact that if the state at the time had found out your fathers deceit they would have shipped him off right quick. The morality of your father has no bearing. "

No its not that simple. You simplify it.  In fact recruiters and the state were well aware during WW2 that people were underage and enlisting and they looked the other way precisely because the moral values of that day were NOT simple. Our nation was looking at a monster called Hitler. Things were not simple. The very moral values our country stood for were endangered and so the age of recruits as a consideration was NOT considered as important as the cause precisely because the moral imperative to fight and defend the nation came into conflict with the age restriction.

The morality of my father has everything to do with the issue. The morality of my father-those values which were shared by the entire nation and the brave soldiers  has everything to do with the issue. It wasn't just my father, it was a thousands of men and women who shared those values and its precisely those values that hold what Kadr believe in no differently than what Hitler and his stormtroopers did. Again how you don't get that and try suggest my father was the only one with such values is beyond me. This nation is built on the blood of  moral men and women who gave their lives for the moral values Kadr spits at to this day. To put them and him on the same moral plane for that reason is an insult to them not just me and many others.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Omni said:

The courts speak with a lot more authority than you ever will.

Which court? Is this the same one that said the doctrine of dirty hands does not apply once the Charter is violated. You were caught red-handed with that shtick once before how many times you want to play like you are a legal expert.  What court? You have no credibility. What court are you now referring to and what wording and what did they refer to. We already have one genius with no sources thinking bold black letters make his comments legitimate. You have also demonstrated you feel your subjective inferences are in fact law.

Put up or shut up.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, capricorn said:

On one hand, Trudeau and Khadr apologists denounce the US-lead trial that found Khadr guilty of murder and war crimes, calling it a kangaroo court and such. Then they rely on the evidence presented at that very same trial by the defendant as proof of torture and innocence. That makes for some very, very confused logic.

It seems it's you who is confused, it has been supreme courts on both sides of the border that denounced the US military commission as a kangaroo court, Although they did use slightly loftier language.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rue said:

Which court. Is this the same one that said the doctrine of dirty hands does not apply once the Charter is violated. What court? You have no credibility. What court are you now referring to and what wording.

One is referred to as the SCOTUS, and the other the SCC. You can google those at you leisure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What burns me the most is the women that come to this guys defence. A guy brought up to look at women as cattle and property to do what they want with. To treat you with disdain. The same as Queers against Israeli apartheid. Go to Israel and have a pride parade, no problem, then go to thier neighbours that these people support and have a parade, and see what happens. People need to get past the left wing's media romance with this guy. It is getting embarrassing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's deal with this fantasy that Kadr was tortured.

In fact Khadr’s lawyers at Guantanamo claimed Khadr was tortured to argue his confessions should not used as evidence. They argued he was:

1-“forced into various ‘stress positions’ and left there for many hours on end”;

2-“suffocated until he passed out, revived, and then suffocated again”;

3-“terrorized by barking dogs while his head was  covered by a plastic bag tied tightly around his neck, making it hard for him to breathe”;

4-“doused with freezing water and left cold and shivering”;

5-forced to “urinate on himself” during lengthy interrogations;

6-temporarily blinded by a technique called “light pushing”;

7-“beaten by interrogators who shackled his hands and feet together”;

8-“abused until he could not stand”; and

9-“used by military police as a human mop to wipe his own urine and pine oil off the floor of an interrogations chamber.”

In fact it was  Khadr’s lawyers at Guantanamo who  filed an affidavit SUPPOSEDLYauthored by Khadr himself in support of their torture claims.

In fact Khadr never allowed prosecutors to cross-examine himself on these claims

So let's make it clear to legal expert Omni and any of the rest of the legal experts on this forum-such evidence without being cross examined, without being tested for its veracity, its authenticity, its accuracy, IS NOT EVIDENCE.

For Kadr  apologists anything Kadr says, is to be taken at face value.

Well this same Kadr who wants you to believe the above also wants you to believe he didn't make up the above to back pedal from his allegations.

Go on have Omni, Eye, Hudson Jones, Jacee, whoever-have them produce for you the EVIDENCE the above happened. It doesn't exist. In their world untested, unproven, allegations as long as it fits their political agenda, are to be believed.

In their world Kadr must be believed at face value but the people running Guantanamo Bay with NO proof whatsoever can be assumed to be torturers.

Now what law of evidence accepts as fact unproven allegations without testing them?

Where did the Supreme Court of Canada in its ruling state they reviewed evidence of torture?

The Charter violations that were clear cut were the length of time Kadr's matter took to bring to the tribunal, the failure to properly fully disclose the information being used against him and argued at the tribunal (preventing him from a proper defense) and a myriad of procedural flaws in the  tribunal process but torture? The veracity of his evidence is not material to the question of determining his Charter Rights were violated, they were.

The alleged claims of torture MIGHT be relevant when considering the amount of his damages and had the Supreme Court of Canada been faced with a legal reference asking to determine the amount, in addition to the doctrines of public morality, clean hands and applicability of s.1 of the Charter, they would have to ask - is the self-serving evidence of Kadr alone sufficient to establish more than nominal damages? His rights for the other reasons  were violated but their violation does not preclude only a nominal award for them.

What we do know  is there is evidence Kadr sent a US  Navy criminal investigator an unsolicited letter after their time together had come to an end. Clearly that person had not tortured him.

IN FACT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF TORTURE OTHER THAN KADR CLAIMING HE WAS TORTURED.

Legally there are numerous violations of his Charter Rights but torture? I ask anyone to provide the actual evidence of torture at Guantanamo, IT DOES NOT EXIST.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cannuck said:

You make some valid points, but what is missing here is the fact that on one hand, one "side" of this debate wants him to be excused for his actions because he was a "child soldier".   The other side points out he was a child terrorist, but this is all semantics.   Yes, he was a legal minor.  We have all ignored the detail that since he was a minor, his legal parents and/or guardians were responsible for his actions and care, and THEY failed in their obligations.   His old man got his in Afganistan, but Mamma Maha the avid (even rabid) terrorist supporter and financier got a PASS from Canada!!!!

Scheer has played and called this dead on the money.  There is NOTHING in the law to financially reward a child terrorist for being a child terrorist.   His reward was to be allowed to be a free man in Canada.   What is totally disgusting is that his Mother is too (I believe).

Ah but charging his mother with indoctrinating a child soldier upsets the narrative that's protecting government officials and Canada from charges of war crimes.  He wasn't a soldier, and it wasn't a war and he wasn't a POW because if he was...we're in even deeper shit.  This is what makes the political handling of Khadr such a hot potato issue and our inability to confront this reality will render our society dysfunctional in much the same manner a family is rendered dysfunctional by long term abusive behaviour.

You can see much of the same phenomenon occurring due to our unwillingness to face our collective crime and shame in our relationship with native people.  Ultimately it all comes down to how we allow the people in power over us to behave in our name.  In the democracy we live in we are where the buck finally stops.

Quote

There is NOTHING in the law to financially reward a child terrorist for being a child terrorist.

That's not what he was awarded for...

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

You make some valid points, but what is missing here is the fact that on one hand,

What is missing is that the US/UK/Canada/... illegally invaded Afghanistan, not to mention Iraq. It is truly stunning that there is so much kerfuffle about this young man when Bush, Cheney and all the other tens of thousands of war criminals/arch terrorists/ child murderers, rank thieves, ... are not in jail or hung, following US "principles".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Omni said:

It seems it's you who is confused, it has been supreme courts on both sides of the border that denounced the US military commission as a kangaroo court, Although they did use slightly loftier language.  

Who cares if the Supreme Courts were the first to call the military commission a kangaroo court. Some members here are only too glad to call the military commission a kangaroo court then turn around and rely on claims of torture presented in evidence at that very same kangaroo court as proof of Khadr's entitlement to a payoff. Not surprising as Trudeau uses similar circular reasoning to defend why he authorized paying off Khadr to go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, hot enough said:

What is missing is that the US/UK/Canada/... illegally invaded Afghanistan, not to mention Iraq. It is truly stunning that there is so much kerfuffle about this young man when Bush, Cheney and all the other tens of thousands of war criminals/arch terrorists/ child murderers, rank thieves, ... are not in jail or hung, following US "principles".

Hey, Van Winkle, you must have been in a deep sleep when these events were taking place.

Quote

From August 2003 to December 2014, NATO led the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which conducted security operations and helped build up the Afghan security forces.

ISAF is NATO’s longest and most challenging mission to date: at its height, the force was more than 130,000 strong with troops from 51 NATO and partner nations.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm

Some remedial history lessons are in order Rip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Omni said:

resulted in the success of his civil suit.

The civil suit was never heard in court. So you must mean the back room settlement was the result of Trudeau paying Khadr off. That ensures his beloved ex-PM Jean Chretien and ex-PM Paul Martin are spared the embarrassment of testifying in Khadr's civil suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, capricorn said:

Who cares if the Supreme Courts were the first to call the military commission a kangaroo court. Some members here are only too glad to call the military commission a kangaroo court then turn around and rely on claims of torture presented in evidence at that very same kangaroo court as proof of Khadr's entitlement to a payoff. Not surprising as Trudeau uses similar circular reasoning to defend why he authorized paying off Khadr to go away.

You seem to be the one going in circles. The (Supreme) courts didn't rely on kangaroo court evidence to determine what happened there. You can try and deny the torture aspect until the cows come home. But the compensation is based on the fact the SCC found that Khadr's charter rights were violated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, capricorn said:

The civil suit was never heard in court. So you must mean the back room settlement was the result of Trudeau paying Khadr off. That ensures his beloved ex-PM Jean Chretien and ex-PM Paul Martin are spared the embarrassment of testifying in Khadr's civil suit.

I think you forgot to mention your beloved Harper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Omni said:

But the compensation is based on the fact the SCC found that Khadr's charter rights were violated. 

No it's not. The Court may have found a breach of Charter Rights but the court did not grant a particular amount. The compensation paid to Khadr is based on what Trudeau felt was a proper amount in order to protect the Liberal Party and have Khadr go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

I think you forgot to mention your beloved Harper.

I'd match Harper's testimony on this matter anytime against the testimony lf Trudeau, Chretien and Martin. The best part Harper would get to testify it was he and his Conservative majority that managed to repatriate Khadr in 2012.

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...