eyeball Posted July 30, 2017 Report Posted July 30, 2017 4 minutes ago, Rue said: Now see that is anger. Blah blah blah is not anger it's ridicule. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Omni Posted July 30, 2017 Report Posted July 30, 2017 4 minutes ago, Rue said: Actually I have and don't hide what I am. I don't travel to countries that have a problem with me being a Jew or having been in Israel. Go figure out what why. I don't pay lip service to liberal ideals until they are inconvenient. Is it any wonder you find Kadr's use of Canadian citizenship as a convenience when it suits him. You walked into that. Once again hard to make heads or tails out of what you are trying to say. Quote
eyeball Posted July 30, 2017 Report Posted July 30, 2017 It'll be tails and heads next. It's a semantic shell game these genius' like to play. If they're actually trying to be sarcastic they really blow at it. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
OftenWrong Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 7 hours ago, Omni said: How many times must we go over this with you? He was held in what was deemed to be an illegal prison without access to legal council. That's the constitutional part. And I've already explained the illegal parts of his interrogation. Git it? He was not held by Canadians, and the interrogation didn't take place in Canada. I suspect if it went to trial it would cost a lot more, perhaps, but there are people here who say it would have been worth it anyway. I tend to agree. Moreover, I suspect the reason it was paid off was for the Canadian government(s) and various individuals to protect themselves. Quote
OftenWrong Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 6 hours ago, eyeball said: Blah blah blah is not anger it's ridicule. I expected better from you. So disappointed... Quote
Omni Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: He was not held by Canadians, and the interrogation didn't take place in Canada. Doesn't matter. The illegal interrogation was carried out by Canadian officials. 3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: e are people here who say it would have been worth it anyway. Worth it for what? 4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: I suspect the reason it was paid off was for the Canadian government(s) and various individuals to protect themselves. Protect themselves from what? Embarrassment perhaps. Quote
OftenWrong Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Omni said: Doesn't matter. The illegal interrogation was carried out by Canadian officials. Worth it for what? Protect themselves from what? Embarrassment perhaps. That's the point, the detention may not have been illegal. Worth it to have the truth brought out so that Canadian officials can be held accountable, if indeed a crime was committed. Yes. Quote
Omni Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: That's the point, the detention may not have been illegal. Worth it to have the truth brought out so that Canadian officials can be held accountable, if indeed a crime was committed. Yes. Why do we need to keep going over what's already in the history books? The detention was unconstitutional, and the Canadian interrogation was illegal. Full stop. Quote
OftenWrong Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Omni said: Why do we need to keep going over what's already in the history books? The detention was unconstitutional, and the Canadian interrogation was illegal. Full stop. Because it's not all that simple black and white. Does the constitution apply to Gitmo? What were the obligations of the Canadian government in regards to protecting detainee who was a traitor? What efforts were taken if any, by our government to get him out. There are many unanswered questions about Canada's role in this epic failure that resulted in a terrorist becoming quite wealthy. There should be an inquiry, except for my latter point that they want to protect themselves. There will not be. 2 Quote
Omni Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 1 minute ago, OftenWrong said: Does the constitution apply to Gitmo? It applies to Canadian citizens. 2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: who was a traitor? Your opinion only. 3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: What efforts were taken if any, by our government to get him out. None for a long time which is one of the reasons he was compensated. 4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: There are many unanswered questions Not from a legal perspective. The evidence used to contradict him was not congruous, and was contradicted by people who were actually there. Quote
OftenWrong Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Omni said: It applies to Canadian citizens. Your opinion only. None for a long time which is one of the reasons he was compensated. Not from a legal perspective. The evidence used to contradict him was not congruous, and was contradicted by people who were actually there. The supreme court made its ruling and it is what it is. I believe in the rule of law and that means, we just have to suck it up. That does not mean that I or a majority of Canadians should be satisfied with this situation and simply be done with it. I`d like to see some accountability. Quote
eyeball Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 42 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: I expected better from you. So disappointed... Sorry, I've been trying harder to make sense like a right winger but I guess I must still not quite getting it. I'll try even harder...If at first you don't succeed try try again right? Thanks for the input. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Omni Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: The supreme court made its ruling and it is what it is. I believe in the rule of law and that means, we just have to suck it up. That does not mean that I or a majority of Canadians should be satisfied with this situation and simply be done with it. I`d like to see some accountability. You are of course certainly well within your rights to disagree with the finding. You have a right to freedom of speech. However I would add that the majority of Canadians are not lawyers and therefore may not have a comprehension as to legal and constitutional intricacies that we all rely on to sustain our rights. Quote
OftenWrong Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Omni said: You are of course certainly well within your rights to disagree with the finding. You have a right to freedom of speech. However I would add that the majority of Canadians are not lawyers and therefore may not have a comprehension as to legal and constitutional intricacies that we all rely on to sustain our rights. Let me clarify again- the law is what it is, the constitution is what it is. Nothing can be done about that. What I want to see is ACCOUNTABILITY. So stop making like I disagree with the finding and have no legal comprehension. 1 Quote
Omni Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: Let me clarify again- the law is what it is, the constitution is what it is. Nothing can be done about that. What I want to see is ACCOUNTABILITY. So stop making like I disagree with the finding and have no legal comprehension. And let me make it clear, I am not jumping up and down to support what Khadr may or may not have done, however I do standby the concept his rights were violated. You don't want that to go unnoticed. Quote
Rue Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 14 hours ago, eyeball said: Blah blah blah is not anger it's ridicule. Really. I thought it was you feeding back your inability to keep up with words with more than one syllable such as kazam, kapow, yabba dabba doo and my favourite from you boyz in the hood,- tee hee. Quote
capricorn Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 8 hours ago, OftenWrong said: I expected better from you. So disappointed... Gotta be quick hitting that edit button to remove gutter insults. Rue quoted eyeball's original post before he had a chance to amend it. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Rue Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 7 hours ago, Omni said: And let me make it clear, I am not jumping up and down to support what Khadr may or may not have done, however I do standby the concept his rights were violated. You don't want that to go unnoticed. Your words "may not have done" contradict your first assertion where you claim you don't support what Kadr did.. You inserted them to suggest there is no proof what Kadr was arrested for..Of course you support what Kadr did. You have denied from the get go he is responsible for what he did and denied he has dirty hands. By denying he is responsible for what he did and denying he has dirty hands, you necessarily support what he did. When people engage in violence and get caught we have to make decisions how to deal with them. You want to pay them if their charter rights are violated, I do not. I think the government's violations must be dealt with in a way that does not entitle the violent perpetrator to financial gain but holds the government accountable in other ways, You don't. You agree with personally compensating perpetrators of violence and denying they were even violent pretending they MAY NOT have engaged in violence. Your model of alleged tolerance to means nothing to me In one breath you lecture on how we should not be intolerant of Kadr and in the next admit you travel to nations you know discriminate against people simply because they are not Muslim. Excuse me if I find your views questionable and inconsistent as to when you become and exercise tolerance See I can handle a Taxme-they are openly bigoted and don't hide the crosses they bring to burn. Yours you wear around your neck and pay lip service to.it on Easter or Christmas. Omni I don't have the luxury or moral code to be able to hide my name and deny what I am when I travel. I don't hide from the hatred Kadr was part of. I confront it. Ironically I confront it with gentiles not just Jews. Those gentiles include Muslims who have stood next to me in meetings and defended me and others and called out terrorism and extremism no differently than I have or Christian gentiles or atheist gentiles, etc. That is my point. I don't stand for Trudeau's lip service of photo ops with Syrian refugees fleeing Muslim extremism in one moment and attending extremist Mosques in another. I don't stand for Trudeau who panders to Muslims clapping as a Muslim MP singles out anti-Islam sentiment and then in the next breath ignoring Muslim anti-Semitic messages coming from Mosques in Canada. I don't stand for Trudeau who panders to Muslim conservative fundamentalists for their vote and then in the next breath ridicules the Conservative party leader for being a conservative Catholic. I don't stand for people who turn their tolerance on and off depending on whether it suits their needs. The gentiles who died fighting Hitler and who now fight terrorists don't have the luxury to pick and choose the depravity they defend us against. I stand by them. They personify what it took for my relatives to survive so I could be born in a country where the police do not arrest me for being a Jew. I can deal with superficial Trudeaus. What I can't deal with people who lecture me or others that we should ignore the very morals that built our society. The symbolic exercise of financially compensating Kadr symbolized condoning what heI did-something you just can not notice and acknowledge. If you see nothing contradictory in posing with refugees fleeing terrorist violence and paying Kadr-what have you noticed? If you see nothing contradictory in your Prime Minister in one breath saying we should not negotiate with terrorists while it now comes out less then a week before he said that he arranged his pay off with Kadr, what have you noticed? If you see nothing contradictory in Trudeau et al complaining Peter Kent wrote an aricle in an American newspaper criticizing him while Trudeau had just finished posing for a Rolling Stone article fawning about him, what have you noticed? How did you not notice this is the PM who came to office saying there would be no more secrets and back-room deals and he did exactly that with Kadr? How do you not notice this PM came to office and has put this country into a disasterous multi-generational debt from reckless spending and then in the next breath says he's concerned about the potential legal bill of Kadr's case was referenced further to the Supreme Court of Canada? How have you not noticed the epidemic of suicide in returning Canadian soldiers from Afghanistan and Trudeau is continuing to finance a law that will not provide them adequate social services but in the next breath says he as no money to finance a legal reference on Kadr? Tell me what do you notice? I notice a pattern far bigger than the pay out to Kadr that it is connected to. 1 Quote
Rue Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Omni said: You are of course certainly well within your rights to disagree with the finding. You have a right to freedom of speech. However I would add that the majority of Canadians are not lawyers and therefore may not have a comprehension as to legal and constitutional intricacies that we all rely on to sustain our rights. How about you? Why do you make such patronizing comments about people who are not lawyers? You spell counsel, council. You have shown you have no clue what a precedent is and how it is required to base a legal opinion and you still want to come on this forum posing as if you know better then others on this thread because they aren't lawyers? What about you? You want to pretend you are a lawyer? This arrogance you display, this presumption you came on the board to lecture others not as smart a sy ou on the law has been an epic failure. Give it a rest and stop posing. In fact people like me with legal training have zero issues with people disagreeing with laws or legal interpretations of the law or enforcement of the law. Why would we? We do have issues when people misrepresent the law. The law itself is meant to be apolitical. When people spin it for political purposes we challenge it as compromising the law's true purpose which is not to take sides but balance the sides in dispute. More to the point there has never been a legal reference as to whether Kadr's amount should have been rendered a nominal one due to dirty hands. That's a legal issue never decided because its never been dealt with. Until it is the assumption its been ruled on is not true and Often was referencing the Charter violation finding not the reference as to his dirty hands lowering his amount to a non personal reward and nominal amount.. I say to Often and others, we still have the legal option to make that reference. The money has been transferred now thanks to Trudeau making a deliberate political decision to avoid that reference-but it still needs to be done so that future terrorists can't get personal compensation as Kadr did. A citizen's group will need to come forward to mount this challenge now. Its up to the people not Lord Justin of Ilovemyself. Edited July 31, 2017 by Rue Quote
OftenWrong Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 8 hours ago, eyeball said: Sorry, I've been trying harder to make sense like a right winger but I guess I must still not quite getting it. I'll try even harder...If at first you don't succeed try try again right? Thanks for the input. That's ok. You had a moment of weakness. Your emotions just got the better of you. Forgiveness is a conservative virtue... Quote
cannuck Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 On 7/28/2017 at 3:05 PM, Rue said: now you disagree. I am stating this because people trained as lawyers see the law as a balancing act not a partisan political act. We weigh all the issues not just select the ones that suit our political agenda. I politically despise everything Kadr is and stands for. I do understand why the law releases him from detention, It did so as a balancing act so in the future innocent people do not have their rights violated. However where we differ is I don't stop there and pretend the issue dies there. I see that as only one of the issues to be addressed the other being to ask when does someone whose rights are violated get pecuniary awards. First of all, please let me thank you and whoever pays your bills for the time and effort you put into participating in this and other debates on this website. I really DO appreciate what some people who have studied the law try to do in what they believe is the "right thing". HOWEVER (and this is a big however) the many times I have had to become involved with the process, it is precisely because I see practicioners at all levels applying the law precisely to suit their political and/or financial agenda, not to protect any kind of rights that are assumed to exist for Canadian citizens. This Khadr compensation thing is a perfect example. I hope you can take my criticisms as intending to be constructive, as I would not want to dull your idealistic image of the institution - just help you appreciate from a framework of reality the level of scum that abuses it - "in the name of the law". 1 Quote
Omni Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Rue said: You spell counsel, council. How long are you going to try and make something of that? I guess if that's all ya got. Quote
Omni Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Rue said: I think the government's violations must be dealt with in a way that does not entitle the violent perpetrator to financial gain but holds the government accountable in other ways, What other ways would you suggest? A nasty scolding I suppose? Quote
drummindiver Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 10 hours ago, Omni said: Why do we need to keep going over what's already in the history books? The detention was unconstitutional, and the Canadian interrogation was illegal. Full stop. Absolutely horse shit. The detention was legal as was the interrogation. Sharing info with the Americans (our allies and the nationality of the ppl killed and mained) was the only thing the SCC deemed illegal. You've been told/shown/linked/proven wrong by multiple ppl multiple times. Full stop. Quote
Omni Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 1 minute ago, drummindiver said: Absolutely horse shit. The detention was legal as was the interrogation. Sharing info with the Americans (our allies and the nationality of the ppl killed and mained) was the only thing the SCC deemed illegal. You've been told/shown/linked/proven wrong by multiple ppl multiple times. Full stop. You just completely contradicted yourself. I suggest you stay away from law as a profession. LOL Quote
Recommended Posts
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.