Jump to content

Compensating Khadr


Recommended Posts

It makes sense that we should pay more and more each time our government breaks our laws. How else will we ever learn if we keep allowing it to do so?

We should take a cue; sooner or later someone might decide to fly airliners into our skyscrapers too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

It makes sense that we should pay more and more each time our government breaks our laws. How else will we ever learn if we keep allowing it to do so?

We should take a cue; sooner or later someone might decide to fly airliners into our skyscrapers too.

Terrorists only terrorize bad people.

That's been the sum of your babblings in many threads.

You repeat a fallacy that believes bad things only happen to bad people and if you are good (i.e., don't annoy terrorists), nothing bad will happen.

Its a childhood fiction children learn when they are old enough to understand they are being punished for being bad.

The point really is children learn they are punished when they are good as well and so they find punishment unfair.

I can only suppose people like you never move past the feeling that you were punished when you were good and fixate on this being unfair and so try repeat the mantra only bad people are punished.

Its a ridiculous postulation to promote any fallacy that bad things only happen to bad people or terrorists only attack people that provoke terrorists.

That reasoning is maladaptive. The person punished learns to blame themselves for being punished and not independently arrive at a conclusion as whether what they did was right or wrong. Their lesson is distorted and becomes a reaction to pain or perceived on-coming pain and avoding it, not reasoning out what is right and wrong.

Now when dealing with a child, when it comes to immediate danger issues such as placing a hand on a hot stove, a slap on the butt is more effective.

However we can see a generation brought up like you that does not question right and wrong-it simply fears any kind of adversary and struggle or confrontation and thinks if they smile and act nice, nothing bad happens.  That passive aggressive behaviour with the smile on the face has an angry soul bubbling underneath resenting those that cause it fear and never being able to express that fear.

The whole exercise of Kadr being paid off is an excellent example of how today's generation pays off to avoid uncomfortable confrontations The Prime Minister is a symbol of the feel good superficial photo op posing and smile of a shallow generation that doesn't have more than 10 seconds on its cell phone to grasp any issue and needs an instant pleasure reinforced.

We often hear atheists say, there is no God because if God existed bad things would not happen let alone bad things to god people.

Today's variation of that is terrorists (people who follow no laws, ie., Satan) molest us because God is silent (what is right is defeated easily by what is wrong).

Terrorists are nothing more than humans, homo sapiens, apes, reverting to basic primal behaviour where in the absence of a strong Alpha male ape to keep the pack in line, young horny apes fight for prospective mates.

Now and then an Alpha male emerges making the tell tale sounds of the loud Alpha male growl (law and order speeches and pledges to bring back law and order) but Alpha male politicians in today's age are few and far between.  Most are temporary and emerge for brief periods of ruling their packs before another devours them.

Also as does happen in ape packs, the elder females in fact run things domestically anyways because the males after fighting each other, have no energy to do anything else.

All that said, this continuing idiotic notion, this naïve childish belief that bad things go away if you are good as Eye states is the producy of frightened chidren adults. That is to say adults who have never had to deal with adversarial confrontations in their sheltered entitled worlds, and certainly don't want to have to fight for what they have-they have never been taught the price or value of what they have, its just an abstract given they expect not realizing the price their parents paid to get it although certainly feeling resentful if ever told what that price was or is.

Terrorists don't and have never  attacked only those that bother them. This fiction they only attack the West because the West attacked them I s the product of a generation of children brought up without having to critically analyze. They simply regurgitate the site on the intenet that suits their mood.

When dealing with trauma victims, war vets with ptsd who come back from war with unresolved emotional issues, therapists and fellow soldiers in group support will tell such people. don't focus on the past,  look to the future because the past can not be undone, but the future is yet to be made. We do  that in mediation to move people past conflict to new agreements/

In Judaism the story of Moses coming down the mountain with the two commandments was about the fact he could carry a heavy burden of responsibility as long as he felt hope but when he saw people dancing around a gold calf and he lost hope, he hurled the burden of the two heavy tablets down because that weight of responsibility now seemed overbearing.

In the politics of terrorism what people who have lived with it have learned and soldiers have learned who overcome and struggle with their post war pain, is that we can't avoid bad. We can't avoid evil. Its never going away. Its as inevitable as life itself. So we have choices. We were given the choice of independent thought which means, we can be like Eye and cower and pretend if we are nice evil goes way-or we can look the evil in the face and say-NOW WHAT- what do GOOD people do to prevent BAD people from terrorizing them

Soldiers become overwhelmed with grief and guilt over questioning whether what they did was the right thing. Victims of trauma question themselves and often blame themselves for bringing the bad upon themselves. So we say to such people-no its not what happened-its not what you did, its what we CAN DO now and in the future to see to it bad things don't happen. That is why we are born with the gift of free choice.

Terrorists attack the innocent. They look for weakness. The first people they come for are the Eyes in society-the soft underbelly of privileged, fearful, entitled, narcissistic children.

Its why hyenas pick off the weak in a pack not the strongest.

A lack of moral values in our Western society caused by over-reliance on defining value by how much material we acquire has fueled a spiritual malaise that makes it very easy for totalitarian packs of terrorist hyenas to look to soft, fat kittens and puppies to feast on.

Our over reliance on material comfort has created a softness that those in non material societies sense and are hungry to devour.

Terrorism is not about defending-its about attacking. Its just a variation of Barbarians or Vikings or Huns. The name of the "God" changes but the violence, the pillaging, the rape, the brutal imposition of force remains the same.

Terrorism is just the latest reincarnated version of uncivilized humans reverting to primal behaviour.

Its not based on logic, common sense, cause and effect. Its based on feelings of the moment-humans acting out urges for instant gratification.

It is the antithesis of civility (repressing certain feelings) and spirituality (feeling life is precious.

In my life I have travelled from the world of terrorists to the shopping malls of the Eyes and Hot Enoughies.

The only thing keeping these soft children from being eaten is the very soldiers and system they spit on.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rue said:

Terrorism is not about defending-its about attacking. Its just a variation of Barbarians or Vikings or Huns. The name of the "God" changes but the violence, the pillaging, the rape, the brutal imposition of force remains the same.

Terrorism is just the latest reincarnated version of uncivilized humans reverting to primal behaviour.

Its not based on logic, common sense, cause and effect. Its based on feelings of the moment-humans acting out urges for instant gratification.

**************

I agree. So how do we deal logically, democratically, with people who have none of those values? We will lose every time because our hands are tied by our own values. They will continue to win because they have no boundaries to the level of evil they are prepared to commit. They are not afraid to die, they believe their reward is getting to rape 72 virgins, and they love that idea. 

How do you deal with people like that? Ignoring them, saying nothing and just sitting back "hoping" that someday they get it, as apologists would have us do, is not working.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

How do you deal with people like that? Ignoring them, saying nothing and just sitting back "hoping" that someday they get it, as apologists would have us do, is not working.

Which is exactly why the US had to have Gitmo, and also rely on foreign powers to "handle" detainees.   We are constrained by a set of laws that assume a society based upon truth, integrity, accountability and a general intent to do good - mostly made possible because we have a business climate based on the same that has allowed the incredible prosperity for us to afford this navel gazing.  When you are forced to deal with an enemy that is not bound by any of those constraints, you need to find a proxy who can deal with them on their own terms.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Which is exactly why the US had to have Gitmo, and also rely on foreign powers to "handle" detainees.   We are constrained by a set of laws that assume a society based upon truth, integrity, accountability and a general intent to do good - mostly made possible because we have a business climate based on the same that has allowed the incredible prosperity for us to afford this navel gazing.  When you are forced to deal with an enemy that is not bound by any of those constraints, you need to find a proxy who can deal with them on their own terms.

Gitmo, Gulag, same thing. I don't want either on my soil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Omni said:

Gitmo, Gulag, same thing. I don't want either on my soil.

That's the point: we can not have them on our soil, for obvious legal and moral reasons.

Problem is: our laws based on all of those things I mentioned simply don't anticipate a Canadian family funding and participating in something beyond our cultural and ethical (not to mention legal)

 norms, then running back here to seek our welfare and protection of our personal rights and freedoms as citizens.

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

Trudeau and his government refused to pursue legal action in the Omar Khadr case, but they think nothing of continuing to spend our tax dollars trying to strip a Nazi of his Canadian citizenship.

Quote

Canada has once again stripped Helmut Oberlander, 93, of his citizenship for serving in a Nazi death squad and lying about it to enter Canada.

It’s the fourth time the government has taken this step after Oberlander defeated the government in court three times to restore his citizenship.

For the fourth time Oberlander is going to court to overturn the political decision, made this time by the federal cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“We are determined to deny safe haven in Canada to war criminals and persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide,” Pierre Deveau, spokesperson for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, said in a statement.

Liberal and Conservative governments have been pursuing the retired Waterloo developer since 1995 in a case that’s into its third decade and fourth prime minister.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/07/25/former-nazi-helmut-oberlander-stripped-of-citizenship-again.html

Oberlander will be appealing once again and he will probably win...again. So if Trudeau is so intent on saving us money on court cases why doesn't he drop all legal action against Oberlander and leave his citizenship intact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Omni said:

What was done to Omar was illegal.

So was EVERYTHING the Khadr family did with respect to al Qaeda since they came to Canada, and in ANY place, highly illegal (treasonous) what was done by dear old Dad and Omar when they left Canada to perpare for and attack Canadian soldiers and/or their allies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Omni said:

What was done to Omar was illegal.

No legal expert  it was unconstitutional." Illegal"  is properly used to refer to a criminal, provincial offences  or regulatory violation by an individual not by a government.

The only reason I bother at this point is to show you haven't a clue about what you try pose as a lecturer on,

As I stated you are ignorant of the law and pose as if you understand it. You clearly don't.

"source: https://warrentrogers.wordpress.com/previous-stands-2010/immoral-unconstitutional-and-illegal/"

Immoral, Unconstitutional and Illegal

Today, many Americans suppose that immoral, unconstitutional, and illegal are interchangeable terms, but each has a distinct and very important meaning.

1. Immoral means incompatible with moral principles.

2. Unconstitutional means incompatible with a constitution.

3. Illegal means incompatible with the law of the land.

Moral principles are eternal, universal and objective. Eternal means that they are the same past, present and future. Universal means they are the same both here and everywhere else. Objective means that they are true regardless of whether a person or group embraces or rejects them. Moral principles determine what is just or unjust. Moral principles determine what is good or evil.

Many people have vague or mistaken notions about what a constitution is. Some assume that whatever is established as tradition is the constitution. Others assume that morality is the constitution. Still others imagine that court opinions are the constitution. All these notions are wrong. A constitution is a document that formally states the powers that the people have consented to grant to their government. The people show their consent when they ratify or approve their constitution. Thus a constitution is not eternal truth, nor is it the will of God. It is the will of the people. A constitution governs government. A constitution determines a government’s powers and structure. A constitution is a written, ratified document and it can be changed only by another written, ratified document, a constitutional amendment.

What is the difference between saying that something is immoral and saying that it is unconstitutional? One key difference is that constitutions can be changed by amendments, but morality cannot be changed by any vote of any group. In order to know what is constitutional, one must study the constitution, whereas one can learn of morality by consulting the scriptures, his conscience, moral philosophers etc.

The government uses its power to make and enforce law. The law of the land is a standard of conduct enforced by earthly government. Government enforces laws by punishing law breakers. Morality is eternal, universal, and objective. On the other hand, laws differ from country to country so they are not universal. A law goes into effect only after it is passed and can be repealed by the legislature that originally passed it. Therefore, the law of the land is not eternal.

What is the difference between saying that something is illegal and saying that it is unconstitutional? The constitution governs government, but law governs persons. When government or a branch of government exercises a power that the constitution does not allow, the exercise is unconstitutional rather than illegal.

For the sake of brevity, I explain here only one of the reasons why it is important to differentiate between the concepts of morality and constitutionality. Remember, I said in my speech on my oath of office that in order for a limit on government to be effective, very many people must push back all at once when a government official steps beyond the limit and that very many people can push back all at once only if they all agree on what the limit should be. I further explained that a constitution provides that previously agreed standard. If we suppose that morality and constitutionality are the same concept then any different opinions that the people have among themselves regarding moral principles such as the proper role of government would cause different people to push back at different points rather than all at once. Government is so mighty that it will surely overcome people that oppose it a few at a time.

Differences in beliefs about what is just or unjust can arise from many causes, such as differences in religious beliefs, culture of origin (for immigrants etc.). Fortunately, regardless of our different opinions about what is morally right, we all do have one federal constitution and one state constitution in common. Remember, if we tell citizens to consult Holy Scripture to determine what is morally right, Christian and Muslim citizens will not turn to the same book. Because they are consulting different books, they can get different answers to the question, “what is morally right?”  On the other hand, there is only one U.S. Constitution that all U.S. citizens share and there is only one Utah State Constitution that all Utahns share.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Omni said:

Gitmo, Gulag, same thing. I don't want either on my soil.

 

Canada was using detention and "torture" with security certificates at facilities in Ontario, like the present "holding centre" at Millhaven Penitentiary.

This Canadian protocol was in place decades before 9/11 or Gitmo prison ever existed....still is.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, eyeball said:

In the case before us however its about retaliating.

Now rue will treat us to another book describing what I 'actually' said between the lines.

No need,  your incoherent, illogical  and nonsensical comments speak for themselves

No American or Canadian retaliated against Kadr othewise he'd be dead. He's not only alive and well but  laughing at you and what you stand for.

 

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada was using detention and "torture" with security certificates

Detention and deportation is what you meant to say. And the law was amended and approved by the SCC. We like to do things legally and within our constitution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Omni said:

Detention and deportation is what you meant to say. And the law was amended and approved by the SCC. We like to do things legally and within our constitution. 

 

Detained, tortured, and maybe deported after many months/years.   Canada had/has routinely violated the rights of "aboriginals" and foreign nationals, and none have ever received $10.5 million in jihadi lottery payoff.

Canada arrests...Canada detains...Canada tortures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Detained, tortured, and maybe deported after many months/years.   Canada had/has routinely violated the rights of "aboriginals" and foreign nationals, and none have ever received $10.5 million in jihadi lottery payoff.

Canada arrests...Canada detains...Canada tortures.

How many of your illegal Gitmo torturees have you compensated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Interrogating Khadr and then handing the information to American authorities is clearly illegal.

No it was unconstitutional. There is a legal difference. Illegal refers to acts of an individual, unconstitutional when its acts of a government official. You are free to misrepresent the law and be petulant about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Omni said:

Detention and deportation is what you meant to say. And the law was amended and approved by the SCC. We like to do things legally and within our constitution. 

No unlike you he is clear in what he says. Right now you want to pretend and fabricate  we acted constitutionally or as you erroneously state, illegally,  with our natives.  Even your prancing Prime Minister says otherwise and shed a tear over it which required he dab his eyes with a handkerchief for photo-ops..

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Omni said:

How many of your illegal Gitmo torturees have you compensated?

The same amount you have.  What now you want to pretend you paid Kadr. Do you ever give your moral righteousness a rest?  You sit on a toilet seat not a throne Saint Omni.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rue said:

No it was unconstitutional. There is a legal difference. Illegal refers to acts of an individual, unconstitutional when its acts of a government official. You are free to misrepresent the law and be petulant about it.

You seem to not understand the difference. When Khadr was imprisoned and not given access to legal council, that was unconstitutional. When he was interrogated by Canadian officials and then the results passed to the US officials at Gitmo, that was illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Unlike Trudeau/Canada, the U.S. does not compensate 'Gitmo war criminals and terrorists.

Unlike G. Bush/America, we don't throw people in illegal prisons and then convict them on flimsy evidence in a kangaroo court.

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
      10,713
    • 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...