Compensating Khadr

Omni · August 2, 2017

7 minutes ago, Rue said:

That is what you mean. It was inadmissible because it was obtained by violating certain procedures said to violate the US constitution

Nope. You still don't get it. It was inadmissible because it was obtained while his charter rights were being denied. It was illegal when the results were divulged illegally. I can't make it any simpler.

Omni · August 2, 2017

6 minutes ago, Rue said:

I am a lawyer

So then you must have heard the term habeas corpus? Bush tried to write it off with the stroke of a pen with regard to Gitmo. That's a major part of what made the place illegal.

Rue · August 2, 2017

10 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.

The US Supreme Court never said a prison was illegal. They in fact stated the procedures leading to the imprisonment of Kadr were unconstitutional.

There were also judgements as to the illegality of the assumptions for creating the prison but not the prison itself. The physical prison could still be used for legal purposes.

Its the decisions leading to the detention not the place where the detention is done that might be unconstitutional.

The actual physical prison conformed with the Geneva convention. As physical prisons go it was far above the standards of most prisons in the world. Its physical state was never the issue. .

Rue · August 2, 2017

11 minutes ago, Omni said:

So then you must have heard the term habeas corpus? Bush tried to write it off with the stroke of a pen with regard to Gitmo. That's a major part of what made the place illegal.

No it was a major part of what made the detention of Kadr illegal as you call it. It did not make the place illegal, The floors were not illegal. The walls were not illegal. They didn't violate any building codes. Habeu Corupus is a remedy for release from deterention on the grounds the detention is unenforceable for violating the constititions of the US and Canada. The prison wouldn't be illegal unless I suppose it violated a building code provision. You are painful. Seek another profession to pretend to understand.

Omni · August 2, 2017

8 minutes ago, Rue said:

The actual physical prison conformed with the Geneva convention

Nope.

the Supreme Court of the United States held thatmilitary commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."^[1] Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated.

Omni · August 2, 2017

3 minutes ago, Rue said:

Seek another profession to pretend to understand.

Yes you should.

Omni · August 2, 2017

https://legalift.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/canadian-supreme-court-interrogation-of-khadr-at-guantanamo-was-illegal-but-orders-that-no-return-needed-now/

24] We conclude that Canadian conduct in connection with Mr. Khadr’s case did not conform to the principles of fundamental justice. That conduct may be briefly reviewed. The statements taken by CSIS and DFAIT were obtained through participation in a regime which was known at the time to have refused detainees the right to challenge the legality of detention by way of habeas corpus. It was also known that Mr. Khadr was 16 years old at the time and that he had not had access to counsel or to any adult who had his best interests in mind. As held by this Court in Khadr 2008, Canada’s participation in the illegal process in place at Guantanamo Bay clearly violated Canada’s binding international obligations

eyeball · August 2, 2017

56 minutes ago, Rue said:

I am a lawyer...

You're a lawyer? Hmmm, Did you represent the Harper government when it ran afoul of the supreme court by any chance?

But of course not, you would have won and Khadr would have received the death penalty.

jacee · August 2, 2017

On 2017-7-31 at 10:51 AM, drummindiver said:

And you still think having your rights violated allows you to kill people and gain financially.

Yup. Tell you what: YOU get forced into violence as a child, injured, jailed, 'interrogated', betrayed by the country that has a constitutional duty to ensure 'due process' for you ...

I'll bet you'd sue for damages too.

drummindiver · August 2, 2017

37 minutes ago, jacee said:

Yup. Tell you what: YOU get forced into violence as a child, injured, jailed, 'interrogated', betrayed by the country that has a constitutional duty to ensure 'due process' for you ...

I'll bet you'd sue for damages too.

Tell YOU what.

His family and ideology, not Canadians "forced' him into violence.

He was injured and jailed for murder and terrorizing.

He was interrogated for murder and terrorizing. Like you do with criminals. Why aren't you up in arms about interrogations of other murderers like Russell or Bernardo?

He contributed nothing g to Canada and his only wish was to kill us and our ways. We don't owe him a damn thing.

Of course I'd sue. JT won't negotiate with terrorists but will pay terrorists millions. I'd get to terrorize and be rich with the same actions while striking a blow at the west. Win win win.

Omni · August 2, 2017

13 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Tell YOU what.

His family and ideology, not Canadians "forced' him into violence.

He was injured and jailed for murder and terrorizing.

He was interrogated for murder and terrorizing. Like you do with criminals. Why aren't you up in arms about interrogations of other murderers like Russell or Bernardo?

He contributed nothing g to Canada and his only wish was to kill us and our ways. We don't owe him a damn thing.

Of course I'd sue. JT won't negotiate with terrorists but will pay terrorists millions. I'd get to terrorize and be rich with the same actions while striking a blow at the west. Win win win.

His rights were violated and laws were broken in so doing. He had the right to sue, did so, and won.It's been explained to you a number of times already.

jacee · August 2, 2017

59 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Tell YOU what.

His family and ideology, not Canadians "forced' him into violence.

Quote

He is not legally responsible for other people's actions, including his family.

He was injured and jailed for murder and terrorizing.

He was interrogated for murder and terrorizing. Like you do with criminals. Why aren't you up in arms about interrogations of other murderers like Russell or Bernardo?

Quote

The incarceration and interrogation methods used with Khadr are violations of law, especially with a minor.

Bernardo & Russell are adults under their own control. I assume their incarcerations and interrogations were by the book. It would be stupid to do otherwise and risk setting them free 'on a technicality' to possibly sue for damages.

He contributed nothing g to Canada and his only wish was to kill us and our ways. We don't owe him a damn thing.

Of course I'd sue. JT won't negotiate with terrorists but will pay terrorists millions. I'd get to terrorize and be rich with the same actions while striking a blow at the west. Win win win.

Of course you would do the same thing as Khadr did.

There is no indication that Khadr wants to "kill us and our ways". That's stereotyped racist nonsense.

We do owe Khadr and every Canadian, including the violent sexual deviants you mentioned, due process and a fair trial.

You are making immature emotional arguments based on stereotypes, with no basis in law or reality.

Edited August 2, 2017 by jacee

Rue · August 2, 2017

13 hours ago, Omni said:

Nope. You still don't get it. It was inadmissible because it was obtained while his charter rights were being denied. It was illegal when the results were divulged illegally. I can't make it any simpler.

The divulging of the results as you call them were a violation of his Charter Rights. You don't get it because you want to play lawyer and engage in incorrect terminology. No criminal law or regulatory law was violated when what you call "results" were divulged. The divulging didn't make the divillging illegal bit in fact unconstitutional and therefore inadmissible.

There is a difference in terminology and if you want to be ignorant in the same breath as patronizing others as to your alleged legal expertise I will challenge you for the crap you spew no mater how many times you deny it. Get back to me with the wording on the illegal prison. Still waiting.

Rue · August 2, 2017

42 minutes ago, Omni said:

His rights were violated and laws were broken in so doing. He had the right to sue, did so, and won.It's been explained to you a number of times already.

What laws other than the Charter of Rights in Canada? Finish it legal expert, what laws?

Omni · August 2, 2017

10 minutes ago, Rue said:

What laws other than the Charter of Rights in Canada? Finish it legal expert, what laws?

Rad the link provided already.

Rue · August 2, 2017

12 minutes ago, jacee said:

There is no indication that Khadr wants to "kill us and our ways". That's stereotyped racist nonsense.

No its you playing the face card to deny that not only was Kadr and his entire family members of Al Quaeda and terrorists but they were all supporters of terrorism and he was engaged in terrorism which Canadian soldiers were in direct action putting their lives on the line and dying to stop. He was in direct terrorist activity against not just the US but our soldiers and our country.

His family openly advocates as you write terrorism against the West.

How you deny that and then have the temerity to claim someone is racist if they mention that is absolute bull sheeyat. Their beliefs is what makes them terrorist. Go on explain how stating what Kadr was doing at the time he was apprehended is racist. Explain it. Finish once one of your baseless allegations. I can only assume when you make comments like that you are a Muslim extremist who feels Muslim extremists can play the Muslim card when they engage in terrorism and you think Islam as a description refers to a race.

Other then that your comment is baseless. You make a lot of allegations you can't back up.

Rue · August 2, 2017

31 minutes ago, Omni said:

Rad the link provided already.

There you go avoiding the answer again because you again have been caught spewing crap. Your m.o. never changes. Like Kadr you are unrepentant in your actions. Its no wonder you defend him as an innocent child. Pathetic. You deflected from your original false premises that a prison is illegal which you proved false to now call a violation of an international treaty an illegality not a violation which is a new misrepresentation or incorrect use of terminology which is all I am challenging.

The article refers to the principles of natural justice which are encoded in the Charter of Rights. I already stated the principles of fundamental justice were violated and are incorporated in the Charter of Rights. They no longer are referenced as standing alone. The Charter is used to enforce this principle.

There is reference to an international convention being violated yes. Violating an international convention properly stated is just that. Its international law. When you quote articles understand they are written by people who are not lawyers and do not understand the difference between an international and domestic law and so use the wrong terminology as you do.

If you are referring to the international convention having been violated, the Supreme Court of Canada stated and not the Charter or domestic Canadian laws or domestic US laws or the US constitution, that the convention was violated. They wouldn't use the term illegal to describe the violation. The reason for that is the correct reference is to distinguish it as a violation of an international treaty not an illegality because illegalities deal with violating domestic laws other than the Charter. . Its called violation not an illegality because in international law, Canada could say it does not subscribe to any international law at a moment's notice and walk away. It wouldn't turn what it did illegal-it would evidence Canada violates or no longer follows the international convention it signed. International laws require the voluntary consent of Canada to follow. There is no voluntary consent required to follow the Canadian constitution or its domestic laws when they are found to apply- we can't walk away from them like a sovereign nation can with an international convention.

Once again posing as a legal expert you spit out incorrect terminology trying to lecture on the law. My point is to expose you as anything but an expert.

Yah I know you are a graduate of the University of Venezuela Law School.

I only keep challenging you because you insist on maintaining this patronizing tone lecturing others as to the law as if you are more academically astute than they. Spare me the crap.

The proper terminology is the evidence was inadmissible-that properly refers to it losing any legal status to be used in any proceeding. The word is inadmissible not illegal.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Rue

Rue · August 2, 2017

23 minutes ago, jacee said:

There is no indication that Khadr wants to "kill us and our ways". That's stereotyped racist nonsense.

Right he was on vacation in Afghanistan engaged in sight-seeing when he was arrested. Al Quaeda who he was a member of has never made indication of what its agenda is to wipe out the West. His mother and father never discussed their beliefs and neither did he. Ever.

Rue · August 2, 2017

35 minutes ago, jacee said:

Of course you would do the same thing as Khadr did.

There is no indication that Khadr wants to "kill us and our ways". That's stereotyped racist nonsense.

We do owe Khadr and every Canadian, including the violent sexual deviants you mentioned, due process and a fair trial.

We do not owe any criminal financial compensation if they are found on a constitutional violation to have to be released due to inadmissable evidence. Its only when they are proven NOT to have engaged in any actions that led to their arrest that they are entitled to compensation. In this case Kadr had his rights violated but not even he denies he was a member of Al Queda and engaged in terrorism in Afghanistan-you do. This attempt to spin he was their sight seeing is a crock of sheeyat. He was engaging in terrorism. The fact he was entitled to release or preferential treatment for being under 18 does not mean he was innocent and had clean hands hard as you pretend he is a righteous martyr you hang on a cross an sing lamentations to.

Rue · August 2, 2017

1 hour ago, Omni said:

His rights were violated and laws were broken in so doing. He had the right to sue, did so, and won.It's been explained to you a number of times already.

..and as I have explained to you his right to appeal his detention is one issue. His right to sue for financial compensation was never referenced in court. Trudeau never referenced it. He just paid him without the reference. We do not know whether the courts would have upheld personal financial compensation because Trudeau refused to reference that to the Supreme court for direction.

Spin as fast as you want, I will unspin your crap.

Rue · August 2, 2017

13 hours ago, Omni said:

Nope.

the Supreme Court of the United States held thatmilitary commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."^[1] Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated.

You just proved my point. Read the above. Its not the prison that was illegal but the procedures. "Structures" doesn't refer to the friggin physical construction of the prison god God man it refers to the wording of the codes and conventions you quoted not the prison's physical being but the procedures of detention. Good God man you proved my point and are so thick you don't get even what you prove for me.

Omni · August 2, 2017

10 minutes ago, Rue said:

Its not the prison that was illegal but the procedures.

I guess you are trying to say the bricks and mortar the building was built from were not illegal. Don't waste my time with such silly hair splitting.

eyeball · August 2, 2017

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

Tell YOU what.

His family and ideology, not Canadians "forced' him into violence.

Tell you what, go ahead and charge them.

How do you explain why Canada refuses to do so? Even Harper wouldn't touch his mother or this issue with a ten foot pole.

You really don't have a goddamn clue why that is do you?

I'd love to see Canada charge his mother with indoctrinating a child soldier. I really would. Go for it, you know you wanna...and so do I.

Edited August 2, 2017 by eyeball

dialamah · August 3, 2017

Why is that all over Canada, girls and women are being "brainwashed" into burqas and niqabs by their family, but a young man can't be brainwashed into war by his family?

cannuck · August 7, 2017

On 8/2/2017 at 11:26 AM, Rue said:

We do not owe any criminal financial compensation if they are found on a constitutional violation to have to be released due to inadmissable evidence. Its only when they are proven NOT to have engaged in any actions that led to their arrest that they are entitled to compensation. In this case Kadr had his rights violated but not even he denies he was a member of Al Queda and engaged in terrorism in Afghanistan-you do. This attempt to spin he was their sight seeing is a crock of sheeyat. He was engaging in terrorism. The fact he was entitled to release or preferential treatment for being under 18 does not mean he was innocent and had clean hands hard as you pretend he is a righteous martyr you hang on a cross an sing lamentations to.

Thank you. THAT is a precise summary of the issue that has been eluding the whole thread for 88 pages.

Add to that, Dialamah's pertinent observation, and we should be done here.