Compensating Khadr

[bush_cheney2004]

Now it's just getting weird...Canadian politicians appearing on U.S. television programs to attack Team Trudeau's Payout 10.5 while others see linkage to NAFTA negotiations.    At least it's not the same old mind numbing boredom usually found in Canadian politics.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-trudeau-cullen-khadr-1.4215008

 

[Rue]

5 hours ago, Omni said:

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.

Sp the courts did not say what you claimed but you don't have the integrity to admit you lied.

[Rue]

4 hours ago, Omni said:

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

No it was not and repeating your subjective opinion doesn't fool anyone. The doctrine of clean hands was never referenced in court and so we will never know what the amount would have been reduced to a nominal amount, Trudeau pre-empted that reference because he engaged in moral cowardice. He claims he did not go further because he wanted to save money....this coming from someone who has placed this country into debt in the trillions. He is a liar. He did not want to proceed further because he didn't dare have Chretien's mistakes aired and revisited.  Your legal opinion now that you clearly fabricate the words of courts is a joke to me and I hope others. Your blind liberal partisan bias is there for all to see to the point you were willing to fabricate and pass off your opinions as court wording. Nuff said.

[Rue]

5 hours ago, The_Squid said:

 

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.

From the SCC judgement:

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.

You sir are the wilfully ignorant one. Produce the wording from the court decision that said Canadian officials knew he was being tortured, It does not exist and never did. You now  fabricate, Provide the evidence Canadian  officials provided  and the wording of the court reffering to it in their  decision to determine torture. It never happened. Never. It does not exist. You haven't read the decision just like Omni has not, You two spin assumptions based on subjective political opinions not actial  law or legal facts or the wording of the court.

You want to call that weasel words? Put up or shut up.

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Rue

[Omni]

8 minutes ago, Rue said:

The doctrine of clean hands was never referenced in court

There's a good reason why. It didn't apply.

[Rue]

4 hours ago, The_Squid said:

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

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. 

Nothing in the above did anything but prove my point.  You  have no wording as to torture or determination of torture. Not a damn word. The only weasel words is you trying o spin an interpretation from the above words as to something it did not say.

[Rue]

4 hours ago, Spiderfish said:

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

 

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

Spider try as they might to spin torture out of words that never refer to torture that the courts said torture is exposed. The two, SQUID AND OMNI have clearly been caught spinning and fabricating words the courts never said, The inference sleep deprivation is torture is their  inference. As  a lawyer I would say to you given the very wide application the Charter gives its application it would probably define sleep deprivation as cruel and unusual punishment but whether it would be sufficient to justify ignoring the doctrine of clean hands when considering the amount to be awarded we will never know thanks to Trudeau. I can tell you  the UN convention does not define sleep deprivation as torture. I think we all know that extreme sleep deprivation causes pain and death and would be torture. We also niw. Its used all the time in interrogation by police and in labour negotiations, Fatigue is a tactic used to make people less resistant yes. When it crosses the line to become  torture is  a complex one not the automatic assumption Squid and Omni make because it suits their political agenda.

Omni and Squid assume what they do because they unlike Judges that can  jump to subjective conclusions based on unproven assumptions. Courts would need objective evidence including psychiatric and psychological reports and Kadr's being cross examined and full cross examination of the interrogators before they would have a sufficient basis to then consider whether the sleep deprivation claimed if it did happen, was torture.

This is why while the courts can say the legal system in Guantanamo was oppressive which no one denies, but they can't say it was torture without more than Kr's self serving statement or even simply knowing he was interviewed every 3 hours which interestingly they did not take judicial notice of.

I personally as a lawyer understand getting a statement by undue coercion is unacceptable. I am not sure in this case the coercion claimed went too far but I think there were other sufficient violations of the charter.

Bottom line, there is no proof of torture just Kar supporters assuming it.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

29 minutes ago, Omni said:

There's a good reason why. It didn't apply.

Only  a Judge could decide that not you. However I appreciate you feel your word is law.

[Rue]

4 hours ago, The_Squid said:

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

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. 

Clearly you did not and feel oppressive circumstances is torture so the courts must have concluded the same thing. They never did and you like Omni show you can't differentiate your subjective inference from actual court wording.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, Rue said:

Only  a Judge could decide that not you. However I appreciate you feel your word is law.

Were it applicable, DoJ lawyers would have tried to apply it. 

[Rue]

8 hours ago, Omni said:

Were it applicable, DoJ lawyers would have tried to apply it. 

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. The fact situation with Kadr and the application of the dirty hands doctrine has never been put to a court in the past so there is no precedent. This means no one can not know whether the doctrine would be applicable  or not until after a Judge decides whether its applicable in a reference. Your ignorance of the  law and star decisis (case precedent) and how law is determined is painful to read.

What the DOJ and any lawyer would know is the dirty hands doctrine has never been raised where someone seeks a remedy for a Charter violation and Trudeau's refusal to raise it leaves it open for other terrorists now to believe they will be compensated until such a reference is made.

Trudeau lacked the integrity to finish what Chretiens set into motion.

You lack the integrity to stop acting like you understand how lawyers practice law. Enough.

 

 

.

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Rue

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Rue said:

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. The fact situation with Kadr and the application of the dirty hands doctrine has never been put to a court in the past so there is no precedent. This means no one can not know whether the doctrine would be applicable  or not until after a Judge decides whether its applicable in a reference. Your ignorance of the  law and tar decisis (case precedent) is  blatanrly show.

Lord you really need to know when to stop.  That was absolutely stupid. The fact situation particular to Kadr's case has never been put before a court. What a stupid thing to suggest.

Next, what the DOJ and any lawyer would now is the dirty hands doctrine has never been raised where someone seeks a remedy for a Charter violation and Trudeau's refusal to

raise it leaves it open for other terrorists now to believe they will be compensated until such a reference is made.

Trudeau lacked the integrity to finish what Chretiens set into motion.

N

 

.

 

e.

 

You really need to slow down and parse your language a bit better. Otherwise it sounds like so much mumbo jumbo. And as I have already pointed out, if the dirty hands/clean hands doctrine had of been applicable, it would have been presented, by actual lawyers.

[Rue]

13 hours ago, Omni said:

You really need to slow down and parse your language a bit better. Otherwise it sounds like so much mumbo jumbo. And as I have already pointed out, if the dirty hands/clean hands doctrine had of been applicable, it would have been presented, by actual lawyers.

 I DON'T NEED TO SLOW DOWN YOU NEED TO STOP FALSE QUOTING what I said.

I edited my original draft on the board. You are now going to use that edit to say you responded to the first draft not the one I edited and pretend the crap you produced is what you responded to.. Oh I get the game Omni Fabricate crap and pretend I edited it to avoid your response.

My post and your attempt to restate it with garble is there for all to see.

You think if you false quote me and then  repeat the same idiotic statement and tell me to slow down it makes your assertion less idiotic?

My point is clear and I will state it again. You are engaging in nonsense. There has never been a previous case precedent from which to form a legal opinion as to whether the doctrine of clean hands can not be used to reduce an award for a Charter violation to a nominal amount. NEVER. Without a precedent no one can know or NOT know if  it would apply in Kad'rs case until it would be referred to the Supreme Court.

Trudeau openly stated he  pre-empted the dirty hands reference because he felt it cheaper to avoid pursuing it not because he thought it wasn't legally applicable.

You want to pretend he based it on a legal opinion. No lawyer without a precedent could tell him it would not be applicable.

 There is no basis in law for such a conclusion. Anyone who is a lawyer would know that which is why you deflect and try ridicule whether I am a lawyer or not. You know you are caught fabricating bull sheeyat so the personal attack.

I only brought up I am a lawyer after you and Hotty and others ridiculed me for being one and  when you now pose as legal experts insulting not just my professional status but the integrity of our legal system and what it actually stands for.

I could care less what you think of my status but I know a crap artist when I read one and you Sir are a crap artist who gets caught repeatedly passing off things as legal concepts when they are clearly only your subjective spins.

There is no legal opinion that states the doctrine of clean hands would not apply to amend a Charter violation compensation award to a nimonal amount. NONE.

There was most probably a political order from Trudeau's office saying get rid of Kadr, the longer it stays in court the worse we look. Trudeau chose to keep his memos on this case secret. This is a man who came to office claiming unlike the Conservatives he would be transparent. Like hell he was.

He made the decision to pay off Kadr in secret. One day the extent of his partisan considerations for paying off Kadr will come out.

I and many argue this is about Trudeau politics trumping and pre-empting a dirty hands doctrine reference because he placed his own partisan political needs before the integrity of the law. He pre-empted protecting the integrity of the law by  refusing to reference the clean hands doctrine to reduce Kadr's amount of compensation  for political reasons.

There is no case that exists discussing whether clean hands and public morality  doctrines can apply to reduce charter right violations remedies. Until its referenced and until we get a court ruling to that effect, what Trudeau has now done is expose this country legally to future terorist claims for compensation.

You play all the games you want Omni, what I said is clear to anyone reading it who does not play partisan politics with this issue.

Both Harper and Chretiens are equally as liable for the Charter violations. Its not a partisan issue. It was turned into one by Trudeau and you.  It started with Chretiens and Harper inherited the violations and at his juncture did not want Kadr back knowing he would be released. He is upfront his decision was political. You pretend Trudeau's and Chretien's were not.

That Sir makes you a spinner, a shrill and a pretty bad one at that,

By the way next time you want to throw back parsing errors read my edited copy before you jump. YOU SLOW DOWN and read the edit. You clearly have nothing substantial you can challenge so you not I rush  to play on typos I make to avoid the inadequacy of your contentions.

I make typos yes. Good for you pointing that out.  Guhd for ewe.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Rue

[Omni]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

There was most probably a political order from Trudeau's office saying get rid of Kadr, the longer it stays in court the worse we look

It was more likely an awareness by his office that the longer it stays in court the more it is going to cost.

[Rue]

59 minutes ago, Omni said:

It was more likely an awareness by his office that the longer it stays in court the more it is going to cost.

Why? That makes no sense,. He's run up trillions in a debts saying his government is not concerned with the costs he has incurred. Why would he not be concerned about trillions he's run up in debt, and only Kadr's legal bill?

Next since when is the cost to defend the integrity of the entire Canadian legal system not WORTH it?

What crap. Keep spinning,

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Rue said:

Next since when is the cost to defend the integrity of the entire Canadian legal system not WORTH it

Nothing to do with the integrity of the legal system,(where did you get that idea)?, simply to do with the strength of the case at hand. That's what out of court settlements are all about.

[PIK]

23 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.

So the police torture people very day then. If you think sleep deprivation is torture, I hope you don't find out what real torture is. like what your friends are doing in thier own home countries to thier own people in the middle east.

[PIK]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Nothing to do with the integrity of the legal system,(where did you get that idea)?, simply to do with the strength of the case at hand. That's what out of court settlements are all about.

Then he should be sueing america. Having his info given to the americans by canadian officials is not worth 10 m dollars. You are just being foolish.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, PIK said:

Then he should be sueing america. Having his info given to the americans by canadian officials is not worth 10 m dollars. You are just being foolish.

I don't know, you go and spend 10 years in prison without any ability to contest why you are there and see if you think you would be foolish to want some compensation, and get back to us. But you're right in one sense, he should be suing america. Except for the fact it wouldn't go anywhere, for the same reason the Speer suit won't go anywhere. The border is a bit of problem for those kind of legal matters.

[The_Squid]

38 minutes ago, PIK said:

So the police torture people very day then.

No, they don't.  What an idiotic statement.

39 minutes ago, PIK said:

If you think sleep deprivation is torture, I hope you don't find out what real torture is

It's not what I think....  the Canadian Armed Forces do not allow it as stated explicitly in their handbook/guidelines on interrogation because it contravenes the Geneva Conventions.  

39 minutes ago, PIK said:

like what your friends are doing in thier own home countries to thier own people in the middle east.

My friends?  oh burn...   I'm a terrorist lover says Pik...   Another idiotic statement.

[bush_cheney2004]

33 minutes ago, Omni said:

I don't know, you go and spend 10 years in prison without any ability to contest why you are there and see if you think you would be foolish to want some compensation, and get back to us. But you're right in one sense, he should be suing america. Except for the fact it wouldn't go anywhere, for the same reason the Speer suit won't go anywhere. The border is a bit of problem for those kind of legal matters.

 

That's right...."america" will not be paying Trudeau's favorite war criminal a damn dime.   Should send him a bill for medical care and lodging at 'Gitmo.

Apparently Omar Khadr's charter rights are worth a lot more than other Canadians' charter rights, even if Canada tortures/kills them.

[Omni]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Should send him a bill for medical care and lodging at 'Gitmo.

How much does the torture cost down there? Don't forget to include that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Omni said:

How much does the torture cost down there? Don't forget to include that.

 

In Canada, it only costs about $25,000 for "aboriginals".

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

In Canada, it only costs about $25,000 for "aboriginals".

Yes I would assume it's much higher in america.

[jacee]

On 20/07/2017 at 2:30 PM, 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.

Some Hitler Youth members were suspected of war crimes but, because they were children, no serious efforts were made to prosecute these claims. 

...

Since membership was compulsory after 1936, it was neither surprising nor uncommon that many senior leaders of both West and East Germany had been members of the Hitler Youth. Little effort was made to blacklist political figures who had been members, since many had little choice in the matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth