Compensating Khadr

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

So, recently i saw an article about someone in Canada, a minor, charged and convicted as an adult, this happens with some regularity in Canada.  So generally minors who purposefully murder or otherwise commit violent acts probably come from bad families and bad parents, and no doubt each case is looked at individually, but it's a bit hard to imagine how a 15-16 year old building IED"S, coming from what seems like a fairly advantaged, yet evil family, wouldn't at least know what he was doing was wrong at least as much as any other teenager who murders or rapes someone.  Building bombs is a very cold blooded thing to do.

Speaking of illogical soups. The US is far and away the biggest weapons producer in the world, that would be "building bombs", Stan. These weapons are made cheerfully by average Americans who know full well that they will be used by their country [and others that the US sells to] to shake and bake innocents, to napalm innocents, to provide cluster bombs for children to play with, to carpet bomb innocent civilians, to plant landmines that still are killing people in countries the US brought freedom to.

The US illegally invaded Afghanistan and if some powerful foreign entity were to do the same thing to the UK or even the US, there would be many Canucks signing up to fight said entity. 

The Kahdr's knew full well how the US had been terrorizing, using the people of Afghanistan for decades as political pawns, caring not at all that millions would be killed. 

Therein lies the illogical soup. The evil lies with the USA/... the people who started all this murder and mayhem in others countries. But there is silence from the kind and benevolent west. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by hot enough

[Hudson Jones]

On 7/19/2017 at 7:35 AM, cannuck said:

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).

This is not a reward for his actions. This is a reward for his rights being violated. If the Canadian government did not fuck up and was not complicit in his rights being violated, there would be no payout + the millions that has been spent in legal fees.

This is not about how we feel, but about what the law says. The Canadian government was complicit in the violation and now the taxpayers will have to pay for it. If this dragged on any more, the payout would have been larger and the legal fees would have been more.

[hot enough]

On 7/19/2017 at 8:35 AM, cannuck said:

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).

I had to google to find out who this Scheer is. Oh great, Canada's new Trump. 

Quote

And so was Omar Khadr. In 2010 he was charged with a phony crime (“murder in violation of the laws of war”) under a law that hadn’t even existed in 2002. 

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/07/24/Omar-Khadr-Target-Vindictiveness/

So the rule of law US of A, the world's leading war criminals, hold a child in a US gulag, in a country the US has been terrorizing, committing war crimes against and genocide against for over a hundred years and they claim to have some moral high ground?!

Then they charge Omar with a law that is explicitly forbidden by the "rule of law" USA's own constitution. 

Is this Orwellian or what? You can't make this degree of evil up. Only the US can produce this. 

 

[cannuck]

10 minutes ago, Hudson Jones said:

This is not a reward for his actions. This is a reward for his rights being violated. If the Canadian government did not fuck up and was not complicit in his rights being violated, there would be no payout + the millions that has been spent in legal fees.

This is not about how we feel, but about what the law says. The Canadian government was complicit in the violation and now the taxpayers will have to pay for it. If this dragged on any more, the payout would have been larger and the legal fees would have been more.

And, where in "the law" does it say we owe someone millions of dollars when their rights have been violated with the complicity of the government???   If that were truly  the case, Andy McMechan would be a rich man today, as would every genuine victim of residential schools and even the orphanages operated by the Catholic cult???

[cannuck]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I had to google to find out who this Scheer is. Oh great, Canada's new Trump. 

 

We should be so lucky.  Maybe then we would enjoy leadership that stands up for Canada instead of al Queda

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, cannuck said:

And, where in "the law" does it say we owe someone millions of dollars when their rights have been violated with the complicity of the government???   If that were truly  the case, Andy McMechan would be a rich man today, as would every genuine victim of residential schools and even the orphanages operated by the Catholic cult???

Why would you ask such a silly question. This was a civil action brought by competent lawyers, for which the Canadian government knew that it could save itself mucho dinero to own up to, and accept that Harper acted in a cowardly fashion in sucking up to the USA.

[Hudson Jones]

5 minutes ago, cannuck said:

And, where in "the law" does it say we owe someone millions of dollars when their rights have been violated with the complicity of the government???   If that were truly  the case, Andy McMechan would be a rich man today, as would every genuine victim of residential schools and even the orphanages operated by the Catholic cult???

There are thousands of cases where people have been given a sum of money by the government when the government was complicit in their rights being violated. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Hudson Jones

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, cannuck said:

We should be so lucky.  Maybe then we would enjoy leadership that stands up for Canada instead of al Queda

Trump stands for nothing. If you don't know by now what an idiot, what a liar, what a cruddy human he is, there's little hope for you.

[cannuck]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Why would you ask such a silly question. This was a civil action brought by competent lawyers, for which the Canadian government knew that it could save itself mucho dinero to own up to, and accept that Harper acted in a cowardly fashion in sucking up to the USA.

because I was responding precisely to the statement quoted from this thread.

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, cannuck said:

We should be so lucky.  Maybe then we would enjoy leadership that stands up for Canada instead of al Queda

Canada's last Trump caused all this and you want a new one?!!

[jacee]

25 minutes ago, cannuck said:

And, where in "the law" does it say we owe someone millions of dollars when their rights have been violated with the complicity of the government???   If that were truly  the case, Andy McMechan would be a rich man today, as would every genuine victim of residential schools and even the orphanages operated by the Catholic cult???

Yes the law does say that governments are liable.

What's the point of a Charter of Rights if we can't enforce it?

Yes there were settlements paid to residential school victims too, whether enough remains debatable.

The Catholics? The government isn't complicit in that. 

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by jacee

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

Im not going to respond much to you, all you do is deflect away from points made and never seriously answer anything, the point is you and others will gladly defend him on ideological grounds and you will use any method you can to do it, even when its in complete opposition to other beliefs you are likely to hold.  Are all children, "children".  or are some children fully aware that when they murder someone at the age of 14 that they were murdering them, seemingly yes, and are other children at the age of 15, who grew up in a family of terrorists, somehow incapable of understanding that they were building bombs to kill people?  Maybe, but it seems pretty unlikely.  It's really your side that flogs the argument of him as a child, it's convenient to refer to arbitrary ages of adulthood and ignore the reality, if he had been 17 3/4 would he have been a child?  How about 18, the day he turns 18 all the lights come on and now he suddenly knows what he's doing?  it's nonsense.  And I don't think you really care about any of it, you care that he was there sticking it to the Americans, the rest of this is just backdoor ways of defending him.  But he was a child, and i bet if i looked i would find more than one of you here hoping for an under 18 voting age, letting children, who seemingly know nothing, vote, imagine.

 

His rights were violated, he was also building bombs that may have killed some of our own people, fighting against us, and he knew as well as anyone what he was doing, building bombs is a meticulous, cold blooded, premeditated task.  That's why you don't help hm with a settlement, or try to keep it quiet.  If he he didn't know what he was doing than why is it ever legal in this country to charge a minor as an adult?  They are all children, why the hell are they allowed on the highways?  Are we somehow unaware of all the accidental deaths these children cause?

It appears that making IED's was a task given to the children. Do you think the children of terrorists had a choice about that? Omar's father threatened his older brother with being made a suicide bomber when he dissented.

You should stick to trying to figure out your own beliefs, not guessing at mine.

If you're trying to make a sensible argument for Khadr being tried as an adult, you're not succeeding. Your opinion, or mine, matters little to any such deliberations, if there were any.

However, maybe that question will have to be addressed during his US appeal.

 

[capricorn]

4 hours ago, The_Squid said:

Very interesting. 

Yes, it's always interesting when it supports your world view.

[hot enough]

21 minutes ago, capricorn said:

Yes, it's always interesting when it supports your world view.

That's how you work, capricorn. Others work on a scientific, reality based metric. Remember, you are the one who decided that you were going to outright reject the evidence that makes the US conspiracy theory impossible, deciding instead that you wanted to stick with that fiction. 

[The_Squid]

36 minutes ago, capricorn said:

Yes, it's always interesting when it supports your world view.

I think the counterpoints, when made intelligently, are interesting too.  

[capricorn]

1 minute ago, The_Squid said:

I think the counterpoints, when made intelligently, are interesting too.  

On that I certainly agree.

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

Yes the law does say that governments are liable.

What's the point of a Charter of Rights if we can't enforce it?

Yes there were settlements paid to residential school victims too, whether enough remains debatable.

The Catholics? The government isn't complicit in that. 

 

To you, and Hudson Jones:  yes, I will grant that awards have been given, but IMHO this is what the CIVIL courts have interpreted, not what is strictly in the code (just assuming here, but have never encountered anything to the contrary ).

Enforcing the charter or rights does not mean that financial awards are due, or that would IN the law/charter.

Once again, residential school settlements are coming from an agreement made by government, NOT from any requirement of the law.

Finally, I can't let the last one go:  I have been personally acquainted with those who finally prevailed in the prosecution of Mount Cashel and can tell you I have heard "right from the horse's mouth" exactly how many government institutions and agencies were directly involved first in placing children in care, secondly in denying the strong evidence of abuse, thirdly in a massive coverup and finally in destroying the career of the first RCMP officer who attempted to prosecute.  You want to believe government(s) were very much complicit (and that child abuse and child sexual abuse was rampant in most orphanages in Canada run by churches).

[hot enough]

25 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I will grant that awards have been given, but IMHO this is what the CIVIL courts have interpreted, not what is strictly in the code (just assuming here, but have never encountered anything to the contrary ).

What point are you trying to make? Civil law is as much law as is criminal law. 

Quote

nally, I can't let the last one go:  I have been personally acquainted with those who finally prevailed in the prosecution of Mount Cashel and can tell you I have heard "right from the horse's mouth" exactly how many government institutions and agencies were directly involved first in placing children in care, secondly in denying the strong evidence of abuse, thirdly in a massive coverup and finally in destroying the career of the first RCMP officer who attempted to prosecute.  You want to believe government(s) were very much complicit (and that child abuse and child sexual abuse was rampant in most orphanages in Canada run by churches).

You believe this but yet you want to trust the lyingest government ever, the USA?

[jacee]

26 minutes ago, cannuck said:

To you, and Hudson Jones:  yes, I will grant that awards have been given, but IMHO this is what the CIVIL courts have interpreted, not what is strictly in the code (just assuming here, but have never encountered anything to the contrary ).

Enforcing the charter or rights does not mean that financial awards are due, or that would IN the law/charter.

Once again, residential school settlements are coming from an agreement made by government, NOT from any requirement of the law.

Finally, I can't let the last one go:  I have been personally acquainted with those who finally prevailed in the prosecution of Mount Cashel and can tell you I have heard "right from the horse's mouth" exactly how many government institutions and agencies were directly involved first in placing children in care, secondly in denying the strong evidence of abuse, thirdly in a massive coverup and finally in destroying the career of the first RCMP officer who attempted to prosecute.  You want to believe government(s) were very much complicit (and that child abuse and child sexual abuse was rampant in most orphanages in Canada run by churches).

Court precedent is application of the law, and it becomes law. 

Residential school settlements were court ordered due to a successful class action lawsuit.  

Action can be taken against government complicity. If it wasn't for Mt Cashel victims, that's too bad.

[bush_cheney2004]

Trudeau's huge payout to convicted war criminal and Al Qaeda terrorist Omar Khadr is roundly condemned by a majority of Canadians.    Individual and class action lawsuits for "aboriginals" who were routinely abused and killed in government sponsored residential schools dragged on for decades and were settled for far less per victim and/or remain unresolved to this day.   

Omar Khadr got express service for political reasons...."aboriginals" got more of the same Canadian shaft.

[cannuck]

14 minutes ago, hot enough said:

What point are you trying to make? Civil law is as much law as is criminal law. 

You believe this but yet you want to trust the lyingest government ever, the USA?

The courts in this country make a mockery of law most of the time.   BUT, when it comes to civil, you have to remember that judges are nothing but lawyers, and participate freely in abusing the courts for things that are a long way from justice using the framework of "the law" as they interpret it.   I have been directly involved in many cases that demonstrate this to an extreme.

BTW: what the heck do you mean by "trusting the USA"?????  You must be smokin' the good shit tonight.

[hot enough]

22 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

    Individual and class action lawsuits for "aboriginals" who were routinely abused and killed in government sponsored residential schools dragged on for decades and were settled for far less per victim and/or remain unresolved to this day.   

Omar Khadr got express service for political reasons...."aboriginals" got more of the same Canadian shaft.

As if you care anything about Canadian First Nations peoples. Omar Khadr was abused by US torturers in a US torture chamber, one of many the US keeps around the world. The masters of torture, the USA, taught it to many terrorists in its US terrorist training camp. Central and South American felt the pain from the lying US pretending all these many long years to be a savior of the oppressed. These are the evil folks you revere, love and maybe even emulate. How else could a body have so much love for such evil?

[jacee]

13 minutes ago, cannuck said:

The courts in this country make a mockery of law most of the time.   BUT, when it comes to civil, you have to remember that judges are nothing but lawyers, and participate freely in abusing the courts for things that are a long way from justice using the framework of "the law" as they interpret it.   I have been directly involved in many cases that demonstrate this to an extreme.

I see.

So the laws are irrelevant to you, because you think your judgement is better.

Mhm. OK.

cannuck law. 

Doesn't leave much to say.

[cannuck]

2 minutes ago, jacee said:

I see.

So the laws are irrelevant to you, because you think your judgement is better.

Mhm. OK.

cannuck law. 

Doesn't leave much to say.

Unlike most of the people who simply have an opinion, I have been personally involved in investigating, funding and contributing in may ways to pursuing some of the travesties of justice that DID NOT IN ANY WAY FOLLOW THE LAW (Andy McMechan's case for one), many others related to crimes by elected officials, illegal farm foreclosures, etc. and have been personally acquainted with people who went after some very high profile cases.

It is hardly only "my judgement" but very much a case of applying the actual laws of this country - very much contrary to the efforts of the crown.  But, you are free to spin from out there is left field - after all, it is still a free country (until you're lot get finished with it, anyhow).

[jacee]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

Unlike most of the people who simply have an opinion, I have been personally involved in investigating, funding and contributing in may ways to pursuing some of the travesties of justice that DID NOT IN ANY WAY FOLLOW THE LAW (Andy McMechan's case for one), many others related to crimes by elected officials, illegal farm foreclosures, etc. and have been personally acquainted with people who went after some very high profile cases.

It is hardly only "my judgement" but very much a case of applying the actual laws of this country - very much contrary to the efforts of the crown.  But, you are free to spin from out there is left field - after all, it is still a free country (until you're lot get finished with it, anyhow).

The Supreme Court ruled that Khadr's Charter rights were violated by our governments.

In response to Khadr's lawsuit for damages, the government settled out of court.

Nothing out of line there.