eyeball Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 1 minute ago, turningrite said: I believe Scribblet was being sarcastic. Fine, the question still stands then. Quote I believe Khadr is inadmissible to the U.S. so he doesn't have to worry about what Trump might or might not do to him. That still leaves all sorts of room for the other things you'd like done to him, like taking his settlement back, reinstating the restriction or charging his sister and mother. Am I to believe Conservatives will honour Khadr's settlement and permission to see his sister for the same reason Trudeau honours the deal Conservatives made with the Saudi government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, turningrite said: Constitutional provisions sometimes have unintended consequences. Just ask many Americans about the Second Amendment (i.e. "the right to bear arms") if you want to comprehend the dilemma.There has been much debate in this country in recent years about Charter and judicial overreach. The Charter altered the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches in Canada. Many who initially saw the Charter as a good idea have no doubt since concluded that it likely ceded too much power to the judiciary. Ultimately, democracy is about the collective power of voters (and not judges) to determine public policy. Undermining this proposition surely can't be considered "progressive" under any historically valid meaning of that term. What's stopping Conservative politicians from using the notwithstanding clause to go after Khadr? Absolutely nothing. Oh I forgot, progressives....Goddamned progressives...somebody outta do something about them one day...someday... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningrite Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 1 minute ago, eyeball said: Fine, the question still stands then. That still leaves all sorts of room for the other things you'd like done to him, like taking his settlement back, reinstating the restriction or charging his sister and mother. Am I to believe Conservatives will honour Khadr's settlement and permission to see his sister for the same reason Trudeau honours the deal Conservatives made with the Saudi government? I believe the deal with Khadr can't be undone, by the Conservatives or anybody else. What can be done is to pass legislation to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again and toughen up rules applicable to Canadians who fight for enemy entities, stripping them of their citizenship rights if necessary. Trudeau, who doesn't believe in Canada (a 'post-national' state, he sniffs), thinks that a 'Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian', while most Canadians probably believe that the rights and privileges accorded Canadian citizens are not necessarily immutable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningrite Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, eyeball said: What's stopping Conservative politicians from using the notwithstanding clause to go after Khadr? Absolutely nothing. Oh I forgot, progressives....Goddamned progressives...somebody outta do something about them one day...someday... I think you misunderstand the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, eyeball said: So just get rid of or update the laws you don't like. Exactly what is stopping you? What stopped Harper when he had the chance? The easiest way to deal legally with terrorists is to uphold our principles. Those are what I support. NO the easiest way to deal legally with terrorists is with a 5.56mm, and lots of them....you don't have to pay out dead terrorist, nor do you have to figure out how to bring them back into the country. for resettlement, reeducation, at the tax payers expense....So lets recap they went over to Syria to play HOLY WARRIOR, cause thats fun, cut a few heads off, rape a few women, blow up some American soldiers, along with our allied. Edited December 12, 2018 by Army Guy 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 24 minutes ago, Army Guy said: So lets recap they went over to Syria... Hmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 54 minutes ago, turningrite said: I think Scribblet was being sarcastic. And I believe Khadr is inadmissible to the U.S. so he doesn't have to worry about what Trump might or might not do to him. Somewhat :)- but his affidavit does say his bail conditions are psychological, a daily reminder of what he went through at Gitmo.. so yeah, no doubt Trudeau wouldn't want him to suffer at all, and if he did, he (Khadr ) would probably sue for another 10M knowing Trudeau's penchant for paying out big bucks. 'My side' undoubtedly would not have given him a 10 million, certainly not without a fight, like Trudeau did, and I believe that 'my side' would appeal his request. The judge had her reasons for imposing those conditions, which should stand at leastvuntil his U.S. appeal is decided IMO he's a risk, especially if allowed to visit his terrorist relatives... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinkinoutsidethebox Posted December 14, 2018 Report Share Posted December 14, 2018 I find the arrogance of this guy pretty incredible. After virtually being let off his charges, given an apology and over ten million of our dollars he is still making demands. If Canada is not big enough for this guy maybe we should kick him out. If were him I'd be keeping a low profile, this is going to get him killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted December 14, 2018 Report Share Posted December 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said: If were him I'd be keeping a low profile, this is going to get him killed. No, he's a hero to a lot of folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted December 14, 2018 Report Share Posted December 14, 2018 Khadr is indeed a very arrogant man and he really should be so thankful to have citizenship in the land of milk and honey. I am pretty certain that he will soon regain his passport and get to visit wonderful,free,Saudi Arabia.Trudeau and the courts will continue to bend over backwards to accommodate him. This whole affair has been such an embarrassment to Canada . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinkinoutsidethebox Posted December 15, 2018 Report Share Posted December 15, 2018 9 hours ago, Goddess said: No, he's a hero to a lot of folks. It's not the "alot of folks" he needs to worry about... He's pissed off people from almost every group if you think about it. This fiasco is irritating to normal people who are trying to make a living, it makes me wonder how many get pushed that much closer to either ending their lives or going on a rampage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted December 16, 2018 Report Share Posted December 16, 2018 On 12/12/2018 at 4:47 PM, eyeball said: What's stopping Conservative politicians from using the notwithstanding clause to go after Khadr? Absolutely nothing. Oh I forgot, progressives....Goddamned progressives...somebody outta do something about them one day...someday... Your comment makes zero sense. Only a government can invoke the above clause and for that matter only a government with the jurisdiction to deal with the subject of the law they want to use the clause on. Hey don't let reality hit you on the ass on the way out of Leftist la la land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted December 16, 2018 Report Share Posted December 16, 2018 On 12/12/2018 at 4:55 PM, turningrite said: I think you misunderstand the law. He does that a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted December 16, 2018 Report Share Posted December 16, 2018 (edited) Kadr wants to be in regular contact with his sister an open and admitted terrorist extremist supporter. Omar (we are on first name basis I have lunch with him often at the Rich Boy's Club) is an arrogant whining ass-whole. His sister and mother live in Brampton in a large home collecting welfare and preaching at Mosques and gatherings that Canadian democracy is weak, a joke and we are all morally corrupt and the world needs to be cleansed by a Muslim holy war and he wants to be in regular contact with Sis and these views? Listen Omar is married. He has a wife to complain to about his unibrow werewolf look. Or he can get a Gawd damn therapist with the money he has. Boo hoo I want Sis. What a damn joke. Edited December 16, 2018 by Rue 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted December 21, 2018 Report Share Posted December 21, 2018 Denied! https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/omar-khadr-denied-eased-bail-conditions/ar-BBRfLNF?li=AAggNb9&ocid=spartandhp Quote EDMONTON - An Edmonton judge has denied former Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr's request for relaxed bail conditions and a Canadian passport. Justice June Ross says there's no evidence of hardship or that the conditions are needlessly onerous. She says nothing has really changed since the last time Khadr asked for changes to his bail conditions and the restrictions he faces are reasonable. He's like the jihadi version of Paul Bernardo - always trying to get out. I hope they keep denying him. Quote Ross says her decision is not etched in stone and conditions could change in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted December 22, 2018 Report Share Posted December 22, 2018 On 12/10/2018 at 3:05 PM, Goddess said: Of course we will have to give it to him because he cites religious reasons - he wants to go to Saudi Arabia to see Mecca. He also wants unrestricted access to his terrorist sister. Prior to this, he was only allowed to visit her with a lawyer present, now he wants unfettered access to her. I'm sure Trudeau will fast-track this for him. And of course, we will have to compensate him for this travesty of justice and his suffering. So scared! 17 hours ago, Goddess said: Denied! And so wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 22, 2018 Report Share Posted December 22, 2018 2 hours ago, dialamah said: So scared! And so wrong! Not to mention unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 5, 2019 Report Share Posted January 5, 2019 If you are bitter about Omar Kadr being compensated by the Canadian government, you should direct your anger at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. They were well aware that the Americans were committing technical war crimes in running an extra judicial concentration camp outside the bounds of national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, and as such they shouldn't have touched it with a ten foot pole. Instead they went down there and made the Crown of Canada complicit in said crimes, wherein we the Canadian taxpayers were implicated by default. If they had just stayed away, then we the Canadian taxpayers would be off the hook, but because they had to stick their noses into America's crimes, and we didn't stop them, we're on the hook, and rightly so. The price of total Canadian apathy vis a vis national security and what it being done in our name. As to why they gave him $10 million? They asked the lawyers, the lawyers told them they were busted, dead to rights war crimes committed by the Crown of Canada, and as such he was going to win, and since he was suing for $20 million, that was what he was going to get, so they settled for $10 million to cut their losses and make it all go away. /shrugs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 5, 2019 Report Share Posted January 5, 2019 Not to mention that, even if Omar Kadr threw a hand grenade at American pers in the act of launching a no warning no notice raid on an objective in Afghanistan, which is an unproven allegation, that doesn't actually amount to terrorism. Everyone has the fundamental right to individual and collective self defense, even civilians. When you launch a raid like that, the onus is entirely on the raiding force to avoid such confliction. Under national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, the Americans assumed all the liability by launching the raid. You're actually bound to give warning and allow non combatants to flee the area. If you don't, that's not a crime, but if a civilian shoots you because you kicked his door down, no notice, no warning, that's your problem, it's not on the non combatants to figure out who you are when you breach. If you're going around foreign countries lighting the civilians up as all being "terrorists" by default, that's actually Nazi Germany's definition of "terrorism", to wit, anybody behind the lines who we light up and fights back as a result, is a "Terrorist" said Adolf Hitler on 22 June 1941 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 5, 2019 Report Share Posted January 5, 2019 5 hours ago, Dougie93 said: If you're going around foreign countries lighting the civilians up as all being "terrorists" by default, that's actually Nazi Germany's definition of "terrorism", to wit, anybody behind the lines who we light up and fights back as a result, is a "Terrorist" said Adolf Hitler on 22 June 194 Except they actually WERE terrorists, members of Al Quaeda, and it wasn't even their country to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montgomery Posted January 5, 2019 Report Share Posted January 5, 2019 13 minutes ago, Argus said: Except they actually WERE terrorists, members of Al Quaeda, and it wasn't even their country to begin with. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. If the US wasn't waging wars of aggression throughout the world in foreign lands, Khadr would have had no need to become a freedom fighter. Canada abided by international law and paid Khadr his due. The US is not the law, it is the lawbreaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 5, 2019 Report Share Posted January 5, 2019 2 hours ago, Argus said: Except they actually WERE terrorists, members of Al Quaeda, According to whom? The United States government? Please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 5, 2019 Report Share Posted January 5, 2019 1 hour ago, montgomery said: One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. If the US wasn't waging wars of aggression throughout the world in foreign lands, Khadr would have had no need to become a freedom fighter. Canada abided by international law and paid Khadr his due. The US is not the law, it is the lawbreaker. 5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: According to whom? The United States government? Please. Yep , the USA loved Al-Queda when they were freedom fighters, armed them, and then they became terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 5, 2019 Report Share Posted January 5, 2019 9 minutes ago, GostHacked said: Yep , the USA loved Al-Queda when they were freedom fighters, armed them, and then they became terrorists. Well, I'm certainly prepared to accept the United States governments assertion that AQ and associated splinter groups are a legitimate national security threat subject to application of military force, but when it comes to counterterrorism, you have to be precise, under international law and laws of armed conflict, the legal definition is called Direct Participant in Hostilities (DPH) and in the case of Kadr specifically, they've failed to convince me that Kadr was in fact a DPH prior to him being swept up in a raid, and of course it doesn't lend them credibility when they have extracted confessions by torture, at that point I was pretty much forced to throw their case out of my court, prima facie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 6, 2019 Report Share Posted January 6, 2019 7 hours ago, Dougie93 said: According to whom? The United States government? Please. According to every western government, including Her majesty's government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.