Compensating Khadr

[cannuck]

10 hours 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. 

 

It is not his Father's sin he needs to be accountable for, it is his.

Someone who is defending his country can be considered a citizen soldier.  Someone who willingly (in this case it seems more than a little willing) goes to another country to kill soldiers who are his own countrymen and their allies is a terrorist, not a combatant.   It is not a difficult concept.

This particular terrorist gets a pass on his crimes because he was both a minor and a Canadian, but I can't understand how any reasonable person could be worried about a lynch mob going after Khadr and be delighted to reward Khard to the tune of $10.5mm for joining a lynch mob to go after Canadians and their allies.

I hoped we had evolved beyond that.

[jacee]

12 minutes ago, cannuck said:

It is not his Father's sin he needs to be accountable for, it is his.

Someone who is defending his country can be considered a citizen soldier.  Someone who willingly (in this case it seems more than a little willing) goes to another country to kill soldiers who are his own countrymen and their allies is a terrorist, not a combatant.   It is not a difficult concept.

This particular terrorist gets a pass on his crimes because he was both a minor and a Canadian, but I can't understand how any reasonable person could be worried about a lynch mob going after Khadr and be delighted to reward Khard to the tune of $10.5mm for joining a lynch mob to go after Canadians and their allies.

I hoped we had evolved beyond that.

Yes I'd be worried about an uncivil lynch mob regardless. Duh.

Add

There is an appeal of his conviction, maybe in a real US court this time.

No point jumping to conclusions.

Edited August 8, 2017 by jacee

[cannuck]

Just now, jacee said:

Yes I'd be worried about a uncivil lynch mob regardless. Duh.

 

And you don;t think getting armed to the teeth, taking pledge to give up your own life for the cause, flying half way around the world to attack your fellow citizens in a foreign country is NOT an "uncivil lynch mob??"

[jacee]

11 minutes ago, cannuck said:

And you don;t think getting armed to the teeth, taking pledge to give up your own life for the cause, flying half way around the world to attack your fellow citizens in a foreign country is NOT an "uncivil lynch mob??"

He was 9.

It's over.

Except the appeal.

Peace.

Out.

Edited August 8, 2017 by jacee

[jacee]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

You are free to believe he was on a sightseeing tour.

No I wouldn't call it that.

I call it a child trying to survive so he can go back to Toronto and his playstation3.

[eyeball]

20 hours 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?

 There surely is but doing so would open a Pandora's Box of legal trouble for our coalition and how we conducted ourselves during the war. 

 

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 There surely is but doing so would open a Pandora's Box of legal trouble for our coalition and how we conducted ourselves during the war. 

 

Still, I'd say go for it.  Anyone on our side convicted of brainwashing kids to go to war should face the same.

[hot enough]

30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Still, I'd say go for it.  Anyone on our side convicted of brainwashing kids to go to war should face the same.

A change of heart, bcsapper, a measure of honesty? What has come over you? You know full well that kids were brainwashed into joining up for the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

A change of heart, bcsapper, a measure of honesty? What has come over you? You know full well that kids were brainwashed into joining up for the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

You got me, I didn't!

Do have their names and dates of birth?

[hot enough]

16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You got me, I didn't!

Do have their names and dates of birth?

Right back to your dishonesty. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Right back to your dishonesty. 

Just one then.  And I don't even need his date of birth. 

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Just one then.  And I don't even need his date of birth. 

Were you one of the duped, sapper?

[hot enough]

12 hours ago, cannuck said:

 Someone who willingly (in this case it seems more than a little willing) goes to another country to kill soldiers who are his own countrymen and their allies is a terrorist, not a combatant.   It is not a difficult concept.

The invasion of Afghanistan was a war crime. It was the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation based on a pack of lies. The US was dealing with the Taliban on rights to oil/gas pipelines right into August of 2001. The US were "wining and dining" the Taliban in the US thru the late 1990s, taking them on tours of US tourist sites. 

Bush's nonsense about OBL were all US lies. They sure did dupe a lot of the gullible folks. OBL was the main reason and OBL was not even involved in 911. By March of 2002, Bush said he didn't care about OBL, didn't hardly ever think about him. Indicative of just how badly the US lied. 

Edited August 8, 2017 by hot enough

[Omni]

34 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The invasion of Afghanistan was a war crime. It was the illegal invasion

Actually it wasn't but you've never been to clear about facts wherever you post, but we've become used to it so carry on.

[hot enough]

12 minutes ago, Omni said:

Actually it wasn't but you've never been to clear about facts wherever you post, but we've become used to it so carry on.

More Omni prevarication. You are as big an evidence free zone as Betsy. 

-----------------------

Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was every bit as illegal as the invasion of Iraq. Why, then, do so many Americans see it as justifiable?

By Marjorie Cohn / AlterNet

July 31, 2008, 9:00 PM GMT

•  

7719

Print

COMMENT NOW!

 

So far, President Bush's plan to maintain a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq has been stymied by resistance from the Iraqi government. Barack Obama's timetable for withdrawal of American troops evidently has the backing of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Bush has mentioned a "time horizon," and John McCain has waffled. Yet Obama favors leaving between 35,000 and 80,000 U.S. occupation troops there indefinitely to train Iraqi security forces and carry out "counterinsurgency operations." That would not end the occupation. We must call for bringing home -- not redeploying -- all U.S. troops and mercenaries, closing all U.S. military bases and relinquishing all efforts to control Iraqi oil.

In light of stepped-up violence in Afghanistan, and for political reasons -- following Obama's lead -- Bush will be moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq, many Americans see it as a justifiable response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the casualties in that war have been lower than those in Iraq -- so far. Practically no one in the United States is currently questioning the legality or propriety of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. The cover of Timemagazine calls it "The Right War."

The U.N. Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the Sept. 11 attacks and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; and the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information. In addition, it urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism.

The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the charter because the attacks on Sept. 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after Sept. 11, or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly.

Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and he was given safe haven in the United States. The people in Latin American countries whose dictators were trained in torture techniques at the School of the Americas could likewise have attacked the torture training facility in Fort Benning, Ga., under that specious rationale. Those who conspired to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty of crimes against humanity. They must be identified and brought to justice in accordance with the law. But retaliation by invading Afghanistan is not the answer and will only lead to the deaths of more of our troops and Afghans.

http://www.alternet.org/story/93473/afghanistan%3A_the_other_illegal_war

Edited August 8, 2017 by hot enough

[Omni]

Just now, hot enough said:

More Omni prevarication. You are as big an evidence free zone as Betsy. 

And you little buddy, are a joke.

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

And you little buddy, are a joke.

Two Omni posts, two evidence free posts. Just more Omni prevarication.

[Charles Anthony]

Guys, 

Stop the personal attacks. 

[GostHacked]

On 8/8/2017 at 11:48 AM, Charles Anthony said:

Guys, 

Stop the personal attacks. 

HAhaha , like that's gonna stop it.

[peoples advocate]

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎04 at 12:26 PM, Omni said:

Because the courts have ordered it.

never went to court

[Omni]

7 minutes ago, peoples advocate said:

never went to court

Its called "out of court settlement". 

Probably saved the taxpayer a lot of dough.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Omni

[peoples advocate]

12 hours ago, Omni said:

Its called "out of court settlement". 

Probably saved the taxpayer a lot of dough.

RIGHT I see

[Rue]

1 hour ago, peoples advocate said:

RIGHT I see

Actually the refusal to ask the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling on whether Kadr was entitled to ANY financial compensation and if so whether it should have only been a nominal amount because of the Doctrine of Clean Hands was never dealt with so we will never know whether in fact this government's decision to pay $5 million saved the government any money.

Omni with due respect is a Trudeau cult member. He is not able to discuss the Kadr issue without blindly spinning in favour of how Trudeau handled it.

In fact Trudeau engaged in a secret out of court settlement to avoid political fallout from Jean Chretien's previous actions. It was a crass political decision to cover up. What its also done is expose this country to a precedent we will pay terrorists millions when we violate their human rights ignoring the doctrine of  clean hands. In fact the government did not save us money, To say that suggests Omni is a psychic  and knows the doctrine of clean hands would not have been applied or the amount awarded was far too large. He has no clue at all. He parrots what he does because he can't fathom Trudeau is a spineless leader who avoids any conrraversy. Trudeau did not lead on this issue he hid from it because he's afraid if he made any decision other then what he did he would alienate Muslim voters,. Trudeau among many things such as spineless, gutless, dishonest,  coward, is a racist and bigot. He assumes all Muslims would not vote for him if he came down on Kadr and in so doing he insults those Muslims who think Kadr had dirty hands and not withstanding his charter rights being violated which they were, any compensation should be cancelled out because of the doctrine of dirty hands.

Then again Omni if you go back on this thread avoided the clean hands doctrine for pages upon pages of responses pretending the law said it did not apply then finally had to admit there is no case precedent that ever said the clean hands doctrine would not have applied.

Trudeau had an obligation on behalf of all Canadians to ask the court no withstanding the charter violations did the doctrine of clean hands apply to annul any compensation amount. Trudeau never did so we do not know.

Not only do we not know but legally the refusal to ask for direction means all terrorists from Canada  can now commit terror overseas or in Canada and if we violate their charter rights they can sue us for money.

This is for me the most cowardly and repulsive thing TRudeau has done in office other than exploiting Syrian refugees for pgoto ops and sticking his face and presence in a native ceremony for the late Gord Downie of Tragically Hip where he should not have been present trying to act like he was God Downie's buddy. Even in that private moment the narcissist Trudeau had to ttry bring attention to himself.

I consider Trudeau a spineless, eunuch who does not lead. He's a gutless, emotionally damaged boy who craves approval to the point where he has destroyed this country.

For Omni to come on this thread and keep saying Trudeau saved the country money is a total pile of crap. This is a man who spear heads a government than has placed this country in bankruptcy without out of control spending and attacks small business people as tax criminals while its Finance Minister and Prime Minister live off of trust funds and have never had to work. Morneau didn't even have the decency to put his assets in blind trust using a legal loophole while at the same time blasting small business people for using legal loopholes?

Morneau is a disgusting lying pig. He kept his hands on shares of Morneau Shepell which escalated in price when the federal government gave them added business.

This is the same Trudeau who claims transparency and accountability and chastised the Tories for not being upfront and ethical and engaging in conflicts of interest while his Finance Minister performed as a lying whore and Trudeau Mr. Photo Op man of the people? Well? He flies in private jets to have a private vacation with the Aga Kahn whose charity his government received millions from the federal government.

Canadians should have expected Trudeau selling this government out for a terrorist. Veterans come back from war and can't get a decent benefit from Afghanistan and he gives this terrorist 5 million. It speaks volumes.

[ironstone]

I wonder how many other cases like this are pending against the Canadian government now?I know this is going to encourage other lawsuits,no matter how frivolous and without evidence.They see there is little risk and possibly a huge reward at the end of it.

[Omni]

22 minutes ago, Rue said:

Omni with due respect is a Trudeau cult member. He is not able to discuss the Kadr issue without blindly spinning in favour of how Trudeau handled it.

Naught to do with Trudeau, I just understand how the law works in such cases.