drummindiver Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, Omni said: You just completely contradicted yourself. I suggest you stay away from law as a profession. LOL No contradiction at all. Interrogating is different than sharing info. I can get you dictionary definitions if you are struggling. Clearly, I'll leave the lawyering in your capable hands. Quote
Omni Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 13 minutes ago, drummindiver said: No contradiction at all. Interrogating is different than sharing info Sharing the info obtained from this type of interrogation is totally illegal. Total contradiction. I think you need more than a dictionary for this one. Quote
drummindiver Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 31 minutes ago, Omni said: Sharing the info obtained from this type of interrogation is totally illegal. Total contradiction. I think you need more than a dictionary for this one. Lol....dude, read what you wrote. Get back to me when you have an inkling. Quote
drummindiver Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 45 minutes ago, Omni said: Sharing the info obtained from this type of interrogation is totally illegal. Total contradiction. I think you need more than a dictionary for this one. And yet again. I'll send crayons to help connect the dots if you like. http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/a-chronological-look-at-canadian-born-omar-khadr-s-legal-odyssey-1.3493488 Quote
Omni Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 Just now, drummindiver said: And yet again. I'll send crayons to help connect the dots if you like. http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/a-chronological-look-at-canadian-born-omar-khadr-s-legal-odyssey-1.3493488 You keep your crayons. More your style. Quote
drummindiver Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, Omni said: You keep your crayons. More your style. Any debate, counter argument, fact of any sort? Quote
Omni Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 1 minute ago, drummindiver said: Any debate, counter argument, fact of any sort? Counter argument? To what? I'll put it simply for ya: Khadr's charter rights were violated, he spent 10 years in an illegal prison, he ended up with about a million a year compensation. Maybe next time we'll pay better attention and save the taxpayer some money. Quote
drummindiver Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, Omni said: Counter argument? To what? I'll put it simply for ya: Khadr's charter rights were violated, he spent 10 years in an illegal prison, he ended up with about a million a year compensation. Maybe next time we'll pay better attention and save the taxpayer some money. Yet you still don't know why. And you still think having your rights violated allows you to kill people and gain financially. Simple enough? Quote
Omni Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, drummindiver said: And you still think having your rights violated allows you to kill people and gain financially. No. That's just your ever simple minded version. The grown ups will continue to take care. Quote
drummindiver Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 2 hours ago, Omni said: No. That's just your ever simple minded version. The grown ups will continue to take care. It's the ever simple truth of the matter. And with grown ups like JT looking after things we are in a world of hurt. Quote
Rue Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 6 hours ago, Omni said: Counter argument? To what? I'll put it simply for ya: Khadr's charter rights were violated, he spent 10 years in an illegal prison, he ended up with about a million a year compensation. Maybe next time we'll pay better attention and save the taxpayer some money. A prison is inanimate. A prison can not be illegal lawyer expert. The detention procedures might be unconstitutional. You really want to keep repeating such stupidity and pose as a legal expert to others? People engage in illegalities. Its their actions that may be illegal. Quote
Rue Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) On 2017-07-30 at 4:55 PM, Omni said: Once again hard to make heads or tails out of what you are trying to say. You are being passive aggressive in feigning selective confusion when it suits you. Edited July 31, 2017 by Rue Quote
Rue Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 23 hours ago, eyeball said: 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. That was helpful. Thank you. I wasn't sure what Omni was doing pretending he suddenly does not understand me....a semantic shell game you say. I had no idea he needed shells to do that. Quote
Rue Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 19 hours 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. Again you engage in passive aggressive posing suggesting you can't understand why it would be important for our government to reference the Supreme Court of Canada to ask whether Kadr's compensation should have been anything other than nominal. . Edited July 31, 2017 by Rue Quote
Rue Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 8 hours ago, cannuck said: 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". Bang on. I defer to the comment. I think that was an excellent point. Quote
Rue Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 8 hours ago, Omni said: How long are you going to try and make something of that? I guess if that's all ya got. Not too much longer. I have taken your counsel as to this matter to my council and the are making a determination whether I should make you spell supeona. Seriously I think the public deserves better then our politicians twisting laws to suit politically partisan interests that are put in priority before the public's interests. I think compensating Kadr financially compromised public integrity and the way to have acknowledged government constitutional violations was a public apology but not financial compensation. You deliberately pose as if you don't understand that argument put forth by 70% of Canada as if they can not understand the law. They want the law when its faced with conflicting issues such as Kadr's actions and the government's actions, to engage in a balancing act not a one sided capitulation to Kadr. Law is supposed to seek compromise and balance not create undue power in the hands of indviduals. Kadr being given financial compensation gave him too much power over our government. It doesn't remedy what the government does, it undermines the government in future encounters with terrorists and it sets a precedent not just for Canadian citien terrorists but terrorists period. I personally would pass a law stripping people of Canadian citizenship and the right to return if they leave the country to engage in terrorism. If they are "children" as you say then I want to know why the mother of this "terrorist" who played a vital role in turning him into a terrorist and condoning his crimes and to this day condoning his crimes is still a Canadian citizen? You not I came on this thread with other Kadr supporters blaming his father and gave stayed silent on his mother and sister who sit in Brampton pissing on everything this country stands for, advocating terrorism and Al Quaeda political philosophy and the mother and sister weren't put on trial for their role in 'brainwashing" Kadr? Which one is it Omni? If he was brainwashed why are they not being tried for treason, child abuse, aiding and abetting the corruption of a minor? Hmmm? You think non lawyers don't understand the two faced bullsheeyat that absolves Kadr of being a terrorist and blaming it on his parents, and then doesn't hold his beloved Mama accountable? It is a travesty his family lives in Canada using their citizenship as a convenience while they continue to spew hateful pro terrorist views daily. Quote
Rue Posted July 31, 2017 Report Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Omni said: Sharing the info obtained from this type of interrogation is totally illegal. Total contradiction. I think you need more than a dictionary for this one. What info? Seriously what info? Are you saying there was no info placing him at the scene of his crimes and engaging in criminal actions other than his oral testimony? Res ipsa loquitor is the expression. Certain facts speak for themselves. His physical presence, his membership in Al Quaeda his terrorist connection activities, all are non disputed facts. His selective amnesia whether he threw a grenade means sweet phack all. It doesn't magically erase what he was doing. His forgetting what he was doing but remembering he was Canadian like his refusal to be cross examined on his claims of torture showed he was playing the system. If he was genuinely tortured why did his lawyers not let him not testify to that effect? Listen You want to pretend he was not in Afghanistan as an Al Quaeda terrorist engaged in armed violence go ahead. I guess that's what Eye calls a semantic shell game hmmm? Edited July 31, 2017 by Rue Quote
Omni Posted August 2, 2017 Report Posted August 2, 2017 On 7/31/2017 at 2:29 PM, Rue said: A prison is inanimate. A prison can not be illegal lawyer expert. The detention procedures might be unconstitutional. You really want to keep repeating such stupidity and pose as a legal expert to others? People engage in illegalities. Its their actions that may be illegal. P prison is a place into which you put living people. It is certainly not inanimate, and can certainly be deemed illegal. According to the SCOTUS. Quote
Omni Posted August 2, 2017 Report Posted August 2, 2017 On 7/31/2017 at 3:07 PM, Rue said: What info? Seriously what info? Apparently you are not paying very close attention, or you lack legal comprehension. Canadian officials went to Gitmo and interrogated khadr and then divulged the results of that interrogation to US officials there. That is illegal. How many times must I explain that to you? Quote
Rue Posted August 2, 2017 Report Posted August 2, 2017 15 minutes ago, Omni said: P prison is a place into which you put living people. It is certainly not inanimate, and can certainly be deemed illegal. According to the SCOTUS. Prisoners are animate, prisons inanimate. Your Scotus appears to be infected with something. I'd get a shot of penicillin.. Quote
Omni Posted August 2, 2017 Report Posted August 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, Rue said: Prisoners are animate, prisons inanimate. Your Scotus appears to be infected with something. I'd get a shot of penicillin.. You think you know law better than the SCOTUS do you? I can tell you you are a long way off. Animate or inanimate has naught to do with the issue. Quote
Rue Posted August 2, 2017 Report Posted August 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, Omni said: Apparently you are not paying very close attention, or you lack legal comprehension. Canadian officials went to Gitmo and interrogated khadr and then divulged the results of that interrogation to US officials there. That is illegal. How many times must I explain that to you? No it wasn't illegal when it was disclosed there. It was later found to be a violation of Kadr's Charter Rights because he's a Canadian citizen. Get that Scotus cleaned up Omni. It appears to be infecting your memory. More importantly nothing disclosed was of significance and not already proven with other information other than Kadr's confession. By the way had they been able to get vital information out of him to save lives from dying because of terrorist actions, you are whining to the wrong person. The luxury of thinking you let people die rather than get a confession out of a terrorist is a product of your sheltered life not mine. I don't live in your world. Never have. I have no desire either. I know your neighbourhood. You sob's sound tolerant and hip until someone with a tan moves in, then you panic. Know your kind real well. I can join your club but only if I manage your plantation for you. No thanks Bwana Sahib.. Quote
Omni Posted August 2, 2017 Report Posted August 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, Rue said: No it wasn't illegal when it was disclosed there. If you were a lawyer, you would know that it was totally illegal. Read the court ruling and try to understand it. Quote
Rue Posted August 2, 2017 Report Posted August 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, Omni said: You think you know law better than the SCOTUS do you? I can tell you you are a long way off. Animate or inanimate has naught to do with the issue. Now you again engage in fantasy and fabrication. Provide the words from the US Supreme Court calling a prison illegal. You just don't quit. Can't wait. Could you at least stop trying just once to act like a pompous twit and understand you are misquoting basic legal terminology. Judges don't refer to prisons as being illegal. They refer to the detention procedures illegal. The prison building has no mind where it can form mens rea or criminal intent. Listen genius the information that was obtained was NOT admissible. That is what you mean. It was inadmissible because it was obtained by violating certain procedures said to violate the US constitution which I stated months before you came on this forum posing as a legal genius misquoting the courts and judges. Quote
Rue Posted August 2, 2017 Report Posted August 2, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Omni said: If you were a lawyer, you would know that it was totally illegal. Read the court ruling and try to understand it. I am a lawyer and that is why I know you claiming a prison is illegal is as stupid a contention as I have ever heard from someone acting as if he understands the la and that is why you responded by changing the word "prison" to "it" to try give yourself a way to get out of the idiotic statement you made. I also know the difference and correct terminology for explaining why evidence is inadmissible because it violates the US Constitution or Charter of Rights. You clearly do not. Illegal is a term we lawyers most often will use to describe someone who has violated a criminal law, provincial offence or regulatory offence. We don't as a general rule use it when explaining constitutional violations. We male it clear a lack of constitutionality vitiates the application of the law to distinguish it fro illegal acivities people and not governments engage in and I was polite enough to give you an article explaining that which you of course ignored. Inanimate objects are not illegal. The title to their possession or their use may be depending on how a human uses them. You are past painful. Get back to me when you find wording that describes the prison and not the act of imprisoning as having been illegal. Can't wait I am off. Every time I think you can't something more idiotic, you do. Edited August 2, 2017 by Rue 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.