Compensating Khadr

[Guest]

On 2017-08-02 at 8:17 PM, dialamah said:

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?   

There should be some kind of prosecution for the family then, I suppose.  A $10.5 million fine should see it right.

Edited August 7, 2017 by bcsapper

[OftenWrong]

Nonsense. To compare the actions of Khadr with that of women wearing burkas is rather stupid. Women wearing burkas are not committing a crime per se. They are not making bombs or attempting to kill anyone by doing so. The notion that little Omar is a victim and his murderous actions are to be given a pass would not stand up in a court of law.

Leftists continually conflate and try to make everything equivalent to everything else. It is their ideological undoing.

[jacee]

51 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

There should be some kind of prosecution for the family then, I suppose.  A $10.5 million fine should see it right.

His father is dead.

It's odd that seemingly intelligent people here don't grasp that in a modern civil society, we don't hold children responsible for the sins or crimes of their fathers or other family members.

I'm glad we have laws, because without them I get the feeling we could easily have a rather uncivil lynch mob going after Omar Khadr.

I had hoped we had evolved beyond that. 

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by jacee

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, jacee said:

His father is dead.

It's odd that seemingly intelligent people here don't grasp that in a modern civil society, we don't hold children responsible for the sins or crimes of their fathers or other family members.

I'm glad we have laws, because without them I get the feeling we could easily have a rather uncivil lynch mob going after Omar Khadr.

I had hoped we had evolved beyond that. 

 

I was responding to the notion the his family had brainwashed him into it.  There ought to be someway to punish them for that, surely?  I'm glad his father is dead, (saved a lot of lives there, phew...) but what about the rest of them?

[jacee]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I was responding to the notion the his family had brainwashed him into it.  There ought to be someway to punish them for that, surely?  I'm glad his father is dead, (saved a lot of lives there, phew...) but what about the rest of them?

His mother is the only other adult who could be considered responsible, but I doubt very much that there would be any evidence that she she forced Omar into AlQuaeda. That was his father's doing. 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

The 15 year-old son of a Canadian diplomat was held accountable for his drug dealin' murdering ways in the U.S.

So what is so special about a 15 year-old Al Qaeda war criminal like Omar Khadr ?

Why does his legal accountability get a pass ?

[capricorn]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

So what is so special about a 15 year-old Al Qaeda war criminal like Omar Khadr ?

Why does his legal accountability get a pass ?

Omar Khadr is special because he is the son of Ahmed Khadr, a Jihadist and close friend and associate of Osama Bin Laden. Then Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien was instrumental in having Ahmed Khadr released from a Pakistani jail. Chretien took that action mainly in order to persuade Canadians that the Liberal Party was more compassionate than opposition parties and went to great lengths to stand up for Canadians abroad. For Trudeau to recognize that Omar Khadr is a killer and a traitor for fighting against our allies and our soldiers would be tantamount to condemning ex-PM Chretien's actions which set Ahmed free to continue murderous Jihadist actions. That would be harmful to the Liberal brand. Hence the 10.5M payoff.

[Omni]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

The notion that little Omar is a victim and his murderous actions are to be given a pass would not stand up in a court of law

It would in an actual court of law,  but they didn't have one at Gitmo. 

[jacee]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

The notion that little Omar is a victim and his murderous actions are to be given a pass would not stand up in a court of law.

Yes it would. He was a minor under control of his father.

We will see how a real US court deals with that during his appeal of his conviction. I think there is no real evidence that he even threw that grenade. It's much more likely that his father's AlQuaeda friend threw it.

[OftenWrong]

Just now, jacee said:

Yes it would. He was a minor under control of his father.

We will see how a real US court deals with that during his appeal of his conviction. I think there is no real evidence that he even threw that grenade. It's much more likely that his father's AlQuaeda friend threw it.

There are cases where minors were charged despite being under-aged, already pointed out to you. But you don't want to listen, of course.

Two-second google search-

http://www.lawlessons.ca/lesson-plans/2.7.adult-sentences-for-youth

 

[Omni]

15 minutes ago, jacee said:

Yes it would. He was a minor under control of his father.

We will see how a real US court deals with that during his appeal of his conviction. I think there is no real evidence that he even threw that grenade. It's much more likely that his father's AlQuaeda friend threw it.

I suspect his plea bargained conviction will be tossed out by a REAL court, especially when what he was convicted of were not war crimes during the time they are alleged to have occurred. Andd yes, the evidence he threw the grenade is flimsy and contradictory.

[jacee]

42 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

There are cases where minors were charged despite being under-aged, already pointed out to you. But you don't want to listen, of course.

Two-second google search-

http://www.lawlessons.ca/lesson-plans/2.7.adult-sentences-for-youth

 

It has to be an egregious crime with clear evidence.

Very doubtful.

It's not even clear that it's a crime to kill ... in war.

See Omni's post above.

[jacee]

32 minutes ago, Omni said:

I suspect his plea bargained conviction will be tossed out by a REAL court, especially when what he was convicted of were not war crimes during the time they are alleged to have occurred. Andd yes, the evidence he threw the grenade is flimsy and contradictory.

It's quite the tangled web.

I believe the US military court had to define Khadr as an illegal or non-combatant? to even charge him with a crime.

I also suspect his conviction will be overturned.

[Omni]

14 minutes ago, jacee said:

It's quite the tangled web.

I believe the US military court had to define Khadr as an illegal or non-combatant? to even charge him with a crime.

I also suspect his conviction will be overturned.

It certainly is, and the "court" in Gitmo failed to declare him an illegal combatant. But that's only one of the many legal frailties that surround his case and convictions, so there are strong arguments to support them being overturned. As a side note though, I'll bet his lawyer/guardian Dennis Edney has had a frank discussion or two with Khadr telling him don't even get a bloody speeding ticket for the time being at least.  

[OftenWrong]

27 minutes ago, jacee said:

It's quite the tangled web.

I believe the US military court had to define Khadr as an illegal or non-combatant? to even charge him with a crime.

I also suspect his conviction will be overturned.

 

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

It certainly is, and the "court" in Gitmo failed to declare him an illegal combatant. But that's only one of the many legal frailties that surround his case and convictions, so there are strong arguments to support them being overturned. As a side note though, I'll bet his lawyer/guardian Dennis Edney has had a frank discussion or two with Khadr telling him don't even get a bloody speeding ticket for the time being at least.  

You two are welcome to defend Islamic terrorists and murderers as well as traitors to Canada, just to support of your leftist agenda.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

You two are welcome to defend Islamic terrorists and murderers as well as traitors to Canada, just to support of your leftist agenda.

I don't mean to speak for Jacee but I'll go as far as to say what we are supporting is the proper application of the law.You on the other hand seem to think we should just chuck our constitution and charter out the window because people like you don't like Khadr. Our legal system would begin to resemble that of Somalia or the Soviet Union if we went down that road. No thanks. 

[OftenWrong]

14 minutes ago, Omni said:

I don't mean to speak for Jacee but I'll go as far as to say what we are supporting is the proper application of the law.

Which we didn't get to see here, thanks to the nice payoff this murderer received from JT.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

Which we didn't get to see here, thanks to the nice payoff this murderer received from JT.

Because the lawyers determined his case was strong, he'd win, and we would just waste tax dollars/court time by proceeding. 

[OftenWrong]

14 minutes ago, Omni said:

Because the lawyers determined his case was strong, he'd win, and we would just waste tax dollars/court time by proceeding. 

So what, we waste tax dollars on anything and everything else. Fuck the money. Make those who were responsible pay.

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

So what, we waste tax dollars on anything and everything else. Fuck the money. Make those who were responsible pay.

So do we sue the US military, the government, or both?

[OftenWrong]

13 minutes ago, Omni said:

So do we sue the US military, the government, or both?

Our so-called government.

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Our so-called government.

Our government has already paid, and that's what you're bitching about, so suggesting we sue them again is a classic example of circular thinking. 

[OftenWrong]

Just now, Omni said:

Our government has already paid, and that's what you're bitching about, so suggesting we sue them again is a classic example of circular thinking. 

I suggest something on a whole different level. Not financial.

[Omni]

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I suggest something on a whole different level. Not financial.

We have already compensated him, what more do we need to do?

 

[OftenWrong]

Just now, Omni said:

We have already compensated him, what more do we need to do?

 

Kill the bastard.