g_bambino Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 You've conveniently overlooked the fact the US has practically been begging Canada to take Khadr off their hands since day one. In the context of this discussion, yes. It had nothing to do with the fact the Supreme Court did not say the government must repatriate Khadr because it had violated his rights by sending CSIS agents to interview him in Guantanamo. Quote
eyeball Posted October 4, 2012 Report Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) Taking words out of context won't prove your claim. Did the appeal ruling say a repatriation was wrong or stupid or contrary to justice? No, it simply said it wasn't up to the court to order it. Leaving the part about the violation of Khadr's rights intact and advising the government that the record of Khadr's treatment was still before the court indirectly said do the right, smart and just thing here. I never set out to prove or claim anything actually, I'm arguing against your claim that this old 2010 ruling closes any future case Khadr might make for suing the government for a settlement for violating his charter rights. The repatriation issue is water under the bridge but the government's violation of his charter rights is anything but. The flood of money likely coming Khadr's way will probably wash it out. Edited October 4, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted October 4, 2012 Report Posted October 4, 2012 Did the appeal ruling say a repatriation was wrong or stupid or contrary to justice?I'm arguing against your claim that this old 2010 ruling closes any future case Khadr might make for suing the government for a settlement for violating his charter rights. This just gets weirder and weirder. Not only did I not say there's no way he could sue again for a breach of his rights, even if you thought I had, your response was not to counter with the grounds upon which Khadr could build another breach of rights case, but, rather, you chose to say the government was "still on the hook" for "not following [the court's] ruling", implying that's what you thought Khadr could base a future case on. Except there was nothing in the 2010 ruling for the government to follow! Regardless, you continued on trying to substantiate that theory by presenting Khadr's lawyers' request that Khadr be repatriated as though that was the instruction the court gave the government but the government didn't follow and ergo is now "on the hook" for not following it and Khadr can sue for that. What a total clusterfuck of a conversation. Quote
eyeball Posted October 4, 2012 Report Posted October 4, 2012 This just gets weirder and weirder. even if you thought I had, your response was not to counter with the grounds upon which Khadr could build another breach of rights case, but, rather, you chose to say the government was "still on the hook" for "not following [the court's] ruling", implying that's what you thought Khadr could base a future case on. Except there was nothing in the 2010 ruling for the government to follow! Regardless, you continued on trying to substantiate that theory by presenting Khadr's lawyers' request that Khadr be repatriated as though that was the instruction the court gave the government but the government didn't follow and ergo is now "on the hook" for not following it and Khadr can sue for that. What a total clusterfuck of a conversation. No kidding, arguing with you is like trying to argue with AW it's just a friggin headache. Not only did I not say there's no way he could sue again for a breach of his rights, Tell me about...on the other hand, go tell someone who gives a shit. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted October 4, 2012 Report Posted October 4, 2012 Omar is going to sue the government and win just like Maher Arar. For what? Violating his Charter rights. That case was already opened and closed years ago. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 I'm going to let your smarmy little insults pass and give you one last chance. Violating his Charter rights. What violation of his rights? Because the violation carried out by the CSIS agents has already been dealt with. Quote
eyeball Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 I'm going to let your smarmy little insults pass and give you one last chance. I'm going to let you go bite yourself. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 I'm going to let you go bite yourself. Spoken just like a person embarassed by the exposition of their own idiocy. Quote
eyeball Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 Spoken just like a person embarassed by the exposition of their own idiocy. Spoken to someone who shamelessly puts their inability to differentiate between right and wrong on display. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 Spoken to someone who shamelessly puts their inability to differentiate between right and wrong on display. Oh, I already made the contrary clear by showing how wrong you were. Quote
eyeball Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 Oh, I already made the contrary clear by showing how wrong you were. I guess we'll see about that when the government gets its sorry ass hauled back into court. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 I guess we'll see about that when the government gets its sorry ass hauled back into court. Yep, for not following that request by Khadr's lawers the Supreme Court never told the government to follow. Quote
eyeball Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 Yep, for not following that request by Khadr's lawers the Supreme Court never told the government to follow. Nope, for violating his rights. Initially set at $100,000, the damages were bumped to $10 million in early 2010 after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the government violated Khadr’s charter rights. My link Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 Nope, for violating his rights.My link So, instead of simply providing that link or explaining that he was pursuing further damages for the same breach of rights that was (as I said) already determined years ago, you took us off with a bizarre theory Khadr would sue because the government had breached his rights by not following some never-court-ordered repatriation demand by Khadr's lawyers. Only you know why you chose that course of action; though, I have my suspicions. If the lawsuit is the same that's been continuing since 2010, one wonders why it wasn't settled ages ago. Perhaps the optics of being a multi-millionaire detainee weren't to Khadr's advantage. Quote
wyly Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 If the lawsuit is the same that's been continuing since 2010, one wonders why it wasn't settled ages ago. Perhaps the optics of being a multi-millionaire detainee weren't to Khadr's advantage. how could be settled when any damages would be still ongoing?... he's spent another two years in prison and maybe in for another year...any compensation awarded in 2010 couldn't anticipate another 2-3 years in prison which will also have to be calculated into the settlement... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 how could be settled when any damages would be still ongoing?... he's spent another two years in prison and maybe in for another year...any compensation awarded in 2010 couldn't anticipate another 2-3 years in prison which will also have to be calculated into the settlement... The government of Canada cannot be held accountable for the actions of the government of the United States, only for its own actions. That's why the government was deemed by the Supreme Court to have breached Khadr's Charter rights when CSIS agents were sent to interview Khadr at Guantanamo, where the rights Khadr was entitled to in Canada weren't available to him. According to the article provided by eyeball, that's the breach his lawsuit is based upon. Since no more Canadian officials had contact with Khadr at Guantanamo after that instance, his rights weren't subsequently violated by the Canadian government. Quote
wyly Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 The government of Canada cannot be held accountable for the actions of the government of the United States, only for its own actions. That's why the government was deemed by the Supreme Court to have breached Khadr's Charter rights when CSIS agents were sent to interview Khadr at Guantanamo, where the rights Khadr was entitled to in Canada weren't available to him. According to the article provided by eyeball, that's the breach his lawsuit is based upon. Since no more Canadian officials had contact with Khadr at Guantanamo after that instance, his rights weren't subsequently violated by the Canadian government. canada not repatriating him as it should have while other countries did so quickly, ignoring the international treaty Canada was part of in regards to child soldiers, taking part in his detention and interrogation/torture, needlessly adding time to his imprisonment...I'm no lawyer but I'm reasonably sure those issues will all come up in any compensation package...I'll guess he's looking at a 10 million payout... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
eyeball Posted October 6, 2012 Report Posted October 6, 2012 So, instead of simply providing that link or explaining that he was pursuing further damages for the same breach of rights that was (as I said) already determined years ago, you took us off with a bizarre theory Khadr would sue because the government had breached his rights by not following some never-court-ordered repatriation demand by Khadr's lawyers. Only you know why you chose that course of action; though, I have my suspicions. If the lawsuit is the same that's been continuing since 2010, one wonders why it wasn't settled ages ago. Perhaps the optics of being a multi-millionaire detainee weren't to Khadr's advantage. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted October 6, 2012 Report Posted October 6, 2012 The government of Canada cannot be held accountable for the actions of the government of the United States, only for its own actions. We can hold the Americans to account for the war crimes they committed, but of course that's two way street. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
jbg Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Nope, for violating his rights. His right to make war against Canada's allies? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
eyeball Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 His right to make war against Canada's allies? That is just about the stupidest goddamn thing I've heard all year. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Peeves Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) That is just about the stupidest goddamn thing I've heard all year. :rolleyes: Nope, that is. These were NATO troops and could just as well have been Canadian. Clearly the murdered medic was attired in a manner showing he was a non combatant. Clearly the attacking near 16 year old bomb maker and supporter of Osama bin Laden, our Canadian enemy, meant to kill him.He blinded another of our NATO soldiers. He confessed. A 16 year old, not a child soldier, attacked our NATO forces. He admitted the charges. He went to trial. He was sentenced. Apparently the sentence (had there not already been an agreement), was 40 years. Since his family corrupted him into terrorist anti- Canadian attacks, his likely hood of any favorable law suit in less than the more likely charge against his mother for abuse. Edited October 7, 2012 by Peeves Quote
eyeball Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 Could one of you geniuses please cite the section of our Charter that guarantees the right to kill war criminals? If you really think Khadr was denied this too then maybe he should be rewarded for killing Speers as well as being framed for his murder. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
jbg Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 These were NATO troops and could just as well have been Canadian. Clearly the murdered medic was attired in a manner showing he was a non combatant. Clearly the attacking near 16 year old bomb maker and supporter of Osama bin Laden, our Canadian enemy, meant to kill him.He blinded another of our NATO soldiers. He confessed. A 16 year old, not a child soldier, attacked our NATO forces. Khadr's supporters seem to want the West to lose no matter what. It's fruitless arguing with them. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
eyeball Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 Khadr's supporters seem to want the West to lose no matter what. It's fruitless arguing with them. Khadr's enemies seem to want to pick a fight with his supporters. Friggen' well bring it on if that's how you really feel. I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick to death of suffering these sycophantic sphincters gladly anymore. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
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.