Compensating Khadr

[Rue]

6 hours ago, Omni said:

No thanks. We respect our constitution up here.

You are not a "we". You are one person. No doubt you may be a Queen, but your constant references to yourself as a "we" is either the result of a delusion, swollen ego, or choice of lifestyle either way, you are a you.  You speak for no one but yourself and perhaps some Kadr groupies.

[Omni]

3 hours ago, Rue said:

You are not a "we". You are one person. No doubt you may be a Queen, but your constant references to yourself as a "we" is either the result of a delusion, swollen ego, or choice of lifestyle either way, you are a you.  You speak for no one but yourself and perhaps some Kadr groupies.

We have this song we all sing once in a while here, it goes "Oh Canada, We stand on guard for thee" Are you a Queen?

[marcus]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

Good, so give me the link. 

Besides needing to pause to read what you're responding to, you may also want to look at your post before pressing submit so it doesn't look garbled and confused.

There is no need for me to cover for your laziness. The link is in his post. Go find it.

[PIK]

20 hours ago, hot enough said:

The absolute gall of the worst war criminals and terrorists, child murderers and their cheerleaders pointing fingers. Show some humility you world class, ... ,  what's worse than Nazis, oh I know, you world class Americans!

That has to bee one of the dumbest post ever. I guess you are to young to know about the nazi's. The most feared of them all was the nazi youth. Mean lean killers. Trained form birth just like Omar.

[Rue]

3 hours ago, Omni said:

We have this song we all sing once in a while here, it goes "Oh Canada, We stand on guard for thee" Are you a Queen?

Actually no, YOU have a song though you keep singing all the time, "Oh Canada we stand on guard for Omar."

As for your last question what's with all you attempts at dating on this thread. First Hotty and Taxme now you?

Here let me spell it out for yah, no sweetie we are not. 

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Rue

[Omni]

Just now, Rue said:

Actually no, YOU have a song though you keep singing all the time, "Oh Canada we stand on guard for Omar."

Now as for you asking me whether I am a Queen, no I'm definitely not a Liberal honey.

 

You don't have to like Omar, but you need to understand and respect the law.

[Rue]

18 minutes ago, PIK said:

That has to bee one of the dumbest post ever. I guess you are to young to know about the nazi's. The most feared of them all was the nazi youth. Mean lean killers. Trained form birth just like Omar.

I would agree with you except you should read some of his 9-11 conspiracy crap . . He's a scientist you know.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Stop the personal comments and derailment. 

[Rue]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

You don't have to like Omar, but you need to understand and respect the law.

I do which is why I acknowledge the Charter was violated and he's entitled to his legal fees. Its also why Trudeau and you should respect the law and understand what the doctrine of clean hands and the doctrine of public morality are there to uphold basic respect for the law  and so as fundamental principals  are not extinguished by the Charter when considering any amount of damages.

Zip over your head.

 

[Rue]

2 hours ago, marcus said:

Besides needing to pause to read what you're responding to, you may also want to look at your post before pressing submit so it doesn't look garbled and confused.

There is no need for me to cover for your laziness. The link is in his post. Go find it.

Have you found the link to the evidence of torture yet Marcus? Would you please hurry. I need to call Donald Trump and tell him before he finds out we paid Omar.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

18 hours ago, Omni said:

"Schooled"? no. It seems some people have trouble reading and/or understanding court rulings. As to Gitmo still being opened, you should be embarrassed.

Your continuing to misrepresent and fabricate what the court said is pathological.

You falsely stated  the Supreme Court of Canada stated Charter violations rule out the doctrine of clean hands and doctrine of public morality or even a s.1 Charter being raised to argue the award should only be nominal. You falsely stated  the Supreme Court made a ruling based on evidence that Kadr was tortured,

Now you repeat the falsehoods. You've been repeatedly asked to provide the words you claim people won't read and you can't because they don't exist then you write the above pretending people who point out you fabricated the words won't acknowledge words that don't exist.

Omni the shtick is done. So is any credibility you once hand. Its one thing for Marcus and Hudson Jones to try pass off subjective opinon as fact. We see that all the time from Hot Enough, now you. You pass off your subjective beliefs as to how you want the law interpreted as wording from court decisions but you know damn well the wording does not exist. Save it Omni. Some of us read. This arrogant pretention, this attempt to bluff about things that don't exist, its done like dinner. Your inability to provide the words shows loudly you fabricate and try pass off those fabrications as actual court rulings.

Your subjective partisan views of what you want the law to be and how you think it should be applied is fantasy, no more no less.

Put up or shut up. Produce the wording. You can't.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Rue

[The_Squid]

22 hours ago, drummindiver said:

And they never said he was tortured.

He absolutely was tortured.  

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/yes-sleep-deprivation-is-torture/

Quote

International and Canadian law leaves no doubt: what Omar Khadr experienced in Guantanamo was torture

Canada is a party to the UN Convention Against Torture, where “torture” is defined as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person” for certain acts, including obtaining information. This is cited as a source of the international law which binds military operations in the Canadian Armed Forces Law of Armed Conflict Manual, which also states that “no physical or mental torture, or any other form of coercion, shall be inflicted” on POWs or detainees. Further, the CAF doctrine on interrogations states unequivocally:

Interrogation tactics which involve physical force—beatings, stress position, deprivation of food, and subjection to cold or hot temperatures are prohibited. Methods which are more subtle but have a harmful psychological effect are equally prohibited. Sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, isolation, humiliation, music and light control, use of phobia, and environmental manipulation are also prohibited.

Anyone who claims he wasn't tortured is either ignorant or lying.

Edited July 20, 2017 by The_Squid

[Omni]

14 minutes ago, Rue said:

Put up or shut up. Produce the wording. You can't

You can easily google what the courts have said. I have.

[Rue]

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

You can easily google what the courts have said. I have.

How does one google what does not exist?  Go on, if its so east to google it, get it and show everyone how wrong I am.  I can't google what does not exist. Your shtick of pretending something exists and refusing to produce it is pathetic Omni and its now given the repeat nature of your responses, pathological.

[The_Squid]

The SCC didn't say torture, but the did refer to his interrogation as "oppressive circumstances", and referred to the tactics as offending the basic Canadian standards.  The SCC directly referred to Khadr's treatment.  Go ahead and use some weasel-words to try and say that the court didn't comment on his "torture".  They were very clear that what was going on with Khadr violated his rights.

 

Quote

 

 CSIS officials obtained evidence from Khadr under "oppressive circumstances" during interrogations at Guantanamo Bay in 2003 and then shared that evidence with U.S. officials. The ruling said the interrogation "offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects," as:

• Khadr was a minor and had been denied adult counsel.
• He had been repeatedly deprived of sleep over a three-week period using a technique designed to make detainees more compliant.
• The interrogation was designed to elicit statements about "the most serious criminal charges."
• The information was to be shared with U.S. prosecutors.

The court agreed that Khadr's rights continue to be violated given the role of the information in his upcoming trial. It also concluded that bringing Khadr back to Canada would stop the violation of his rights by preventing him from facing trial.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/khadr-repatriation-overturned-by-top-court-1.893059

[Omni]

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

How does one google what does not exist?  Go on, if its so east to google it, get it and show everyone how wrong I am.  I can't google what does not exist. Your shtick of pretending something exists and refusing to produce it is pathetic Omni and its now given the repeat nature of your responses, pathological.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/07/07/omar-khadr-receives-105-million-settlement-from-ottawa.html

The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the Canadian government’s participation in the “then-illegal military regime” at Guantanamo breached Khadr’s guarantee of fundamental justice under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

Records show they deprived Khadr of sleep by moving him from cell to cell, a practice known as the “frequent flyer program” designed to break down resistance to interrogation.

In February and September 2003, officials from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Foreign Affairs questioned Khadr at Guantanamo and shared the results of their interrogations with the Americans.

[Rue]

12 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

He absolutely was tortured.  

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/yes-sleep-deprivation-is-torture/

Anyone who claims he wasn't tortured is either ignorant or lying.

Squid do you know what the difference is between a subjective opinion piece written by a columnist and actual fact? Clearly not. This columnist wrote an opinion piece offering her subjective opinion that she feels being woken up every 3 hours is torture. She has no proof Kadr was woken up every 3 hours. She assumes this is what happened because Kadr who never testified as to this,  was said by his lawyers to have claimed that.

They raised that defence on the last day of the trial when they determined his confessions would not get him released -so they back tracked and now asked for the confessions to be thrown out on the grounds they were coerced. The lawyers and Kadr  confessed and made no retractions until it no longer served his purpose.

This is the same Kadr who can't remember what he was doing in Afghanistan at the time of his being apprehended  but could remember he was Canadian. This is someone who claims he was tortured as a basis to then argue his testimony was coerced but never allowed anyone to question him as to his coercion.

Kadr has engaged in  repeated admitted manipulations and a self serving arguments. You believe him. I don't. I believe he's a pathological liar and killer and is playing you.

Yes there were sufficient violation of his Charter rights making the entire process inadmissible in Canada. No there is no proof he was tortured other than his say so. The opinions of columnists simply assuming what he said is true is not fact or proof of anything other than their subjective sympathy for him.

Sleep deprivation IF PROVEN  under our Charter  given that our courts give the Charter the widest application possible would most likely be considered cruel an dunusual punishment a violation of the Charter rendering evidence obtained from it inadmissable. but that is a moot point as there were numerous cviolations of he Charter other than th alleged and unproven sleep deprivation that rendered the entire process unconstitutional.

When determining the amount Kadr would claim  for entitlement to pain and suffering he would need to prove his damages. Simply stating he was not allowed to sleep in itself is not a slam dunk argument of torture worth 5 million and I say 5 million because the government claims  it paid 5 million for legal bills.

The question of what his alleged pain and suffering was/is worth in terms of  money was never pursued. It was assumed by our government in secret without any transparency. It was hidden from WE Canadians, you know WE Canadians, Ask Omni what that means, He seems only to use it when he refers to people that he thinks agree with him.

Certainly extreme sleep deprivation can be shown to cause brain damage other serious symptoms and lead to pain, suffering and death.

Where it gets that extreme to constitute torture depends on each fact situation that is proven.

Millions of people are sleep deprived by their young babies or work stress or other stress. We know they cope..

In court it would come down to competing psychiatric/psychological testimony as to whether the deprivation once proven was to such a degree as to constitute measurable for damages.

Even if an amount could be established, and say it was 5 million as it was, this still did not preclude the courts from still having to ask, given he was involved in criminal actions, does not the doctrine of clean hands and doctrine of public morality then operate to say, while you were entitled to 5 million, you don't get it because our laws can not allow you to profit from engaging in wrongdoings.

Kadr being 15, being brainwashed, using any romantic concept you want to make him innocent was not and it doesn't make his engaging in crime in Afghanistan not a crime.

It may get him released early-it may entitle him to specific treatment as to how long he stays in a jail.  but it it doesn't automaticalluy entitle him to compensation if his hands are dirty and they were  because the acts he engaged in inherently and necessarily were dirty.

Legal defences to get one released do not erase the action's inherent nature only the release date. A murderer released on a technicality can't then inherit his wife's estate when he killed her. This is precisely why OJ Simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but culpable in civil court for wrongful death and not entitled to benefit in writing a book entitled "IF I DID IT".

The entire lot of you Kadr groupies don't want to acknowledge the inherent nature of what Kadr did. You live in a fantasy world he's innocent. He's not innocent. His government phacked up in how it handled him, but it doesn't make him innocent.

You and your entourage romanticize Kadr because the truth staring you in the face is to scary to accept and that is Kadr despises you, spits on you, and wants you and everything you stand for to blow up. Go on hug him.

Kadr is capable of rehabilitation but not as long as people like you throw money at him and tell him he's a victim. By so doing you enable him to avoid taking responsibility for what he did. You reinforce him as a victim and entitled to what he wants.

Our court should have said to him in a reference-no Omar, you get nothing but they were never given that opportunity because Justin Trudeau engaged in the moral cowardice defence. This  moral coward argued it was cheaper to pay him off rather than do the right thing, Yes this he would have you believe, Justin Trudeau oh so fiscally responsibke over Kadr while at the same time bankrupting this nation with out of control spending.

 The government was wrong and so must acknowledge its legal procedures were wrong., however what Kadr did  is not erased by giving him money.

  Brainwashed people don't magically turn Canadian when caught-manipulators do.

Raising the the torture defence only when he realized his  confession would not get him released-was manipulation.

 Claiming he was a victim because of his Muslim beliefs but refusing to follow them and give his compensation to the widow as Muslim beliefs would require him shows manipulation,

Kadr knows right from wrong and plays it for his advantage,

By the way you want to quote McLeans, go back and read their article on his family. See where he comes from and understand, he's  in contact with them and he fundamentally believes in everything they believe in

The 5 million won't turn him into a cuddly boy it enables him to continue being a terrirust. That blood on his hands aint coming out no matter how much money you throw at him. It will only come out when he shows remorse and he doesn't have to, not when he's got groupies like you turning him into a martyr saint. .

 

[Rue]

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

The SCC didn't say torture, but the did refer to his interrogation as "oppressive circumstances", and referred to the tactics as offending the basic Canadian standards.  The SCC directly referred to Khadr's treatment.  Go ahead and use some weasel-words to try and say that the court didn't comment on his "torture".  They were very clear that what was going on with Khadr violated his rights.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/khadr-repatriation-overturned-by-top-court-1.893059

There is a major  difference. The fact you don't understand it and the law's application  does not make it weasel words-it just means you don't understand the difference,.

"Oppressive circumstances"  was a reference by the courts used to  refer to the entire legal process at Guantanomo  violating his Charter rights NOT  torture. No torture was ever proven. 

I have never said or argued Kad'rs Charter rights were never violated.  I explained they were in other threads long before Omni came on this thread posing as a legal expert lecturing others on what he claims the court said.

In fact you have now proven he lied and he only weasel words come from above trying to justify his lies.

There remains no proof of torture. Kadr refused to testify as to it and be examined and cross examined. It was never proven and because of that it is false to say he was paid for being tortured. He was not. T

he violations of his rights as I explained came from lack of disclosure of the evidence against him and length of time to get him to trial as well as other procedural violations.

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Rue

[Omni]

7 minutes ago, Rue said:

This  moral coward argued it was cheaper to pay him off rather than do the right thing,

Simply a case of pay me now, or pay me later. And don't forget to add the legal fees.

[The_Squid]

3 minutes ago, Rue said:

Squid do you know what the difference is between a subjective opinion piece written by a columnist and actual fact?

 

Now you're being willfully ignorant...   here is what the Canadian Armed Forces say is a no-no when interrogating a prisoner.  I highlighted the part that you skipped over or don't understand.

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

Interrogation tactics which involve physical force—beatings, stress position, deprivation of food, and subjection to cold or hot temperatures are prohibited. Methods which are more subtle but have a harmful psychological effect are equally prohibited. Sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, isolation, humiliation, music and light control, use of phobia, and environmental manipulation are also prohibited.

From the SCC judgement:

Quote

 

In March 2004, a DFAIT official interviewed Mr. Khadr again, with the knowledge that he had been subjected by U.S. authorities to a sleep deprivation technique, known as the “frequent flyer program”, in an effort to make him less resistant to interrogation.

 

The facts of the case are that Canadian officials knew he was being tortured (sleep deprivation), not that his lawyers said he was....   Canadian officials knew this.  They didn't hear it from Khadr's lawyer, like you are trying to say happened. Nice try at distorting the facts.

[The_Squid]

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

Oppressive circumstances WAS USED to  refer to the entire legal process at Guantanomo

Nope.  Here it is in context from the SCC judgement.

Quote

 

Mr. Khadr’s statements to Canadian officials are potentially admissible against him in the U.S. proceedings, notwithstanding the oppressive circumstances under which they were obtained...

 

The "oppressive circumstances" referred to how Khadr's statements were obtained.  You are trying to use weasel-words again.

Clearly you haven't read the SCC judgement. 

[Spiderfish]

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

The SCC didn't say torture, but the did refer to his interrogation as "oppressive circumstances", and referred to the tactics as offending the basic Canadian standards.  The SCC directly referred to Khadr's treatment.  Go ahead and use some weasel-words to try and say that the court didn't comment on his "torture".  They were very clear that what was going on with Khadr violated his rights.

they were also very careful not to describe or define it as torture.  Kind of odd, don't you think?

 

2 hours ago, The_Squid said:

He absolutely was tortured.  

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/yes-sleep-deprivation-is-torture/

Anyone who claims he wasn't tortured is either ignorant or lying.

Maybe no one on the SCC reads the Macleans magazine opinion column.

[Goddess]

 

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

 

Quote

 

Sleep deprivation was one of the five techniques used by the British government in the 1970s. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the five techniques "did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture ... [but] amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment", in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.^[68]

The United States Justice Department released four memos in August 2002 describing interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency. They first described 10 techniques used in the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, described as a terrorist logistics specialist, including sleep deprivation. Memos from May 2005 introduced four more techniques and claimed that the combination of interrogation methods did not constitute torture under United States law.^[69]

The question of extreme use of sleep deprivation as torture has advocates on both sides of the issue. In 2006, Australian Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock argued that sleep deprivation does not constitute torture.^[70] Nicole Bieske, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International Australia, has stated the opinion of her organization thus: "At the very least, sleep deprivation is cruel, inhumane and degrading. If used for prolonged periods of time it is torture."^[71]

 

I don't have a problem with them using this to get information from terrorists.

I'm not certain what Khadr experienced was "extreme" sleep deprivation.

If it was, then one of my children owes me 10.5 million.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Goddess

[The_Squid]

21 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

they were also very careful not to describe or define it as torture.  Kind of odd, don't you think?

Not really...  they described what happened and what it was called by the Americans and Canadian officials.  Were they "careful" not to say torture?  That's your interpretation.  You haven't read the actual judgement, have you?  You should...   it goes into great detail on how Canada violated Khadr's rights.  And goes into why the SCC didn't prescribe particular remedies for the government.  

 https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7842/index.do

 

24 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I don't have a problem with them using this to get information from terrorists.

Doesn't matter how you personally feel.  What matters are the facts of the case.

[drummindiver]

4 hours ago, The_Squid said:

He absolutely was tortured.  

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/yes-sleep-deprivation-is-torture/

Anyone who claims he wasn't tortured is either ignorant or lying.

The SCC never said he was tortured. They must be lying and ignorant (which I think they are but that's neither here nor there)

You've linked an op ed piece from the same rag that displayed him as a victim of violence on their cover with some ladies who were actually victims of violence.

Edited July 20, 2017 by drummindiver