Canadian government brushes off criticism on ex-Guantanamo inmate deal

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

So what about the US army medic that he shot to death?

As has been noted earlier, the forensic evidence for that is weak. And his confession was obtained by coercion.

[300sd]

The payment may be a little much. But, don't worry, if he can't spend it all I'm sure he'll manage to send some overseas.  

 

 

 

 

[Grubster]

1 minute ago, 300sd said:

The payment may be a little much. But, don't worry, if he can't spend it all I'm sure he'll manage to send some overseas.  

 

 

 

 

He will be back in the news someday too, Boom   ahh  Hi girls.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

As has been noted earlier, the forensic evidence for that is weak. And his confession was obtained by coercion.

 

He's a victim.

 

[saakura]

Wrong as the judgement may be, wonder why nobody is commenting on this important statement which seems to be the main reason why the Canadian government aquacised to this settlement/payment : "A protracted litigation case would be very, very expensive ... and would lead almost inevitably to the disclosure of evidence that would bring the government of Canada into disrepute,"

Edited July 10, 2017 by saakura

[300sd]

The poor "victim", I'm so happy he is out of his misery.  I would have chosen a different payout along with many other Canadians. Gee when I was 15 years old I wasn't making bombs to kill Canadian soldiers, but I knew exactly what I was doing! 

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/05/omar-khadr-from-bomb-making-convicted-killer-to-multi-millionaire

[wcoast]

So what about the US army medic that he shot to death?

Gotta love these well researched folk....
Khadr was accused of tossing a grenade, not using a firearm.

Sent from my SM-A910F using Tapatalk

[anon4546543]

On 07/07/2017 at 5:29 PM, wcoast said:

Child soldiers are innocent by international law.
Confessions coerced by torture are not valid.
Khadr had been injured hours earlier, buried in rubble from a bombed building as well as blinded in one eye and with 2 bullets in his back.
The US created a new offence to charge him with retroactively because there was no current applicable law to charge him with.
The whole shit show is just that, a shitshow.

Sent from my SM-A910F using Tapatalk
 

And Khadr  was a young man and a fighter? He is innocent of atrocities that he committed because he is "young"

 Oh sorry,after killing innocent civilians, he was blinded in  one eye after some wholesome military advance overcome the scum.

You can post it, but you cannot defend wholesale murder and then claim the perpetrators were all innocents. Islam claptrap

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, spiderorchid said:

And Khadr  was a young man and a fighter? He is innocent of atrocities that he committed because he is "young"

 Oh sorry,after killing innocent civilians, he was blinded in  one eye after some wholesome military advance overcome the scum.

You can post it, but you cannot defend wholesale murder and then claim the perpetrators were all innocents. Islam claptrap

He killed "innocent civilians"? When did this happen? Not even the US prosecution claimed that.

[wcoast]

And Khadr  was a young man and a fighter? He is innocent of atrocities that he committed because he is "young"
 Oh sorry,after killing innocent civilians, he was blinded in  one eye after some wholesome military advance overcome the scum.
You can post it, but you cannot defend wholesale murder and then claim the perpetrators were all innocents. Islam claptrap

International law doesn't protect child thieves, it protects child soldiers and presumes all the atrocities of war. He was a child, he is innocent, end of story, deal with it.

Sent from my SM-A910F using Tapatalk

[Morch]

14 hours ago, saakura said:

Wrong as the judgement may be, wonder why nobody is commenting on this important statement which seems to be the main reason why the Canadian government aquacised to this settlement/payment : "A protracted litigation case would be very, very expensive ... and would lead almost inevitably to the disclosure of evidence that would bring the government of Canada into disrepute,"

 

If one reads up about the guy background and family history there's already enough to being the government of Canada into disrepute. Warning bells should have been ringing long time ago. "Disrepute" in this case, seems to rely on strict interpretation of law, so on this score, sure - the government can probably be found to have breached the law. Whether or not the laws in question were adequate for addressing the relevant issues doesn't come into it. Not when some are fixated on agenda.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, wcoast said:

Gotta love these well researched folk....
Khadr was accused of tossing a grenade, not using a firearm.

Sent from my SM-A910F using Tapatalk
 

 

Ah, that's ok then. Totally different.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

He killed "innocent civilians"? When did this happen? Not even the US prosecution claimed that.

 

He's a great guy. Does his adoptive country proud.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, wcoast said:

International law doesn't protect child thieves, it protects child soldiers and presumes all the atrocities of war. He was a child, he is innocent, end of story, deal with it.

Sent from my SM-A910F using Tapatalk
 

 

Unless mistaken he was just over the protecting age limit at the time, with regard to the "child soldier" thing. And this has nothing to do with innocence, just with legal definitions. He's not innocent by a long shot.

[wcoast]

Do you actually think if he was not fitting the description of child soldier Canada would have acted out of benevolence? Omg the IQ level here at times is astounding.

Sent from my SM-A910F using Tapatalk

[wcoast]

Furthermore, it's a war crime to enlist children 15 and under.

Sent from my SM-A910F using Tapatalk

[pegman]

42 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

He's a great guy. Does his adoptive country proud.

He was born in Canada what "adoptive" country do you speak?

 

There are a lot of conservatives in Canada whining about this. It needs to be noted that this payment was ordered by the Supreme Court which has a majority, including the Chief Judge, whose makeup were appointed by a Tory government. 

 

It was a war. People on both sides got killed. Since when does that make a combatant a criminal? This is not the only time Canada has had to pay for cooperating with the Evil Empire in having one of its citizens tortured. The other time it was contracted out to Syria.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/world/americas/27canada.html

Edited July 11, 2017 by pegman

[Morch]

Just now, pegman said:

He was born in Canada what "adoptive" country do you speak?

 

There are a lot of conservatives in Canada whining about this. It needs to be noted that this payment was ordered by the Supreme Court which has a majority, including the Chief Judge, whose makeup were appointed by a Tory government. 

 

It was a war. People on both sides got killed. Since when does that make a combatant a criminal? This is not the only time Canada has had to pay for cooperating with the Evil Empire in having one of its citizens tortured. The other time it was contracted out to Syria.

 

Read up on his family history, and their whereabouts. Adoptive seems fitting enough. Taking the system for a ride might be another.

 

I'm not arguing the upholding of the laws. They are what they are. I just think that strict interpretation of laws if often problematic when applied to such cases and situations as this one.

 

If the guy was Canadian, he had no business fighting that war, at least not on the side he chose. Whether his actions are criminal or not goes back to the above comment about the relevance of existing legal definitions.

[pegman]

On July 7, 2017 at 7:07 AM, wcoast said:

The new opposition leader Sheerer is a flake, as is his Conservative party. They were run out of office in the last election. They lost everything Supreme Court challenge they fought against.

Sent from my SM-A910F using Tapatalk
 

I don't think this pathetic bible thumper will ever be Prime Minister. You are right about losing all their attempts to subvert the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thing is that happened with 7 of the 9 judges being Tory appointments. Conservatives hate individual rights even though they are always talking about preserving them. 

Edited July 11, 2017 by pegman

[Morch]

@wcoast

 

I dunno that someone who relies on Google for complex legal definitions and their application is in a position to toss about "compliments" regarding other posters' IQ. But whatever floats your boat.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Morch

[pegman]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Read up on his family history, and their whereabouts. Adoptive seems fitting enough. Taking the system for a ride might be another.

 

I'm not arguing the upholding of the laws. They are what they are. I just think that strict interpretation of laws if often problematic when applied to such cases and situations as this one.

 

If the guy was Canadian, he had no business fighting that war, at least not on the side he chose. Whether his actions are criminal or not goes back to the above comment about the relevance of existing legal definitions.

Well then you don't support the rule of law. It's not a sometimes thing in a civilized country like Canada. He was a little kid when he was taken over there. Objectively do you think he made that decision to go there himself? 

http://rabble.ca/news/2010/02/torture-foreign-policy-omar-khadr-decision

Edited July 11, 2017 by pegman

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, pegman said:

He was born in Canada what "adoptive" country do you speak?

 

There are a lot of conservatives in Canada whining about this. It needs to be noted that this payment was ordered by the Supreme Court which has a majority, including the Chief Judge, whose makeup were appointed by a Tory government. 

 

It was a war. People on both sides got killed. Since when does that make a combatant a criminal? This is not the only time Canada has had to pay for cooperating with the Evil Empire in having one of its citizens tortured. The other time it was contracted out to Syria.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/world/americas/27canada.html

 

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Read up on his family history, and their whereabouts. Adoptive seems fitting enough. Taking the system for a ride might be another.

 

I'm not arguing the upholding of the laws. They are what they are. I just think that strict interpretation of laws if often problematic when applied to such cases and situations as this one.

 

If the guy was Canadian, he had no business fighting that war, at least not on the side he chose. Whether his actions are criminal or not goes back to the above comment about the relevance of existing legal definitions.

"Adoptive seems fitting enough."  There's you on one side, and the Oxford English Dictionary on the other.. 

"Denoting a country or city to which a person has moved and in which they have chosen to make their permanent place of residence"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/adoptive

Given his ideology, at least as it was back then, it would most likely be true to speak of Afghanistan as his adoptive country. But absolutely not Canada. And no, there's nothing complicated about it. As far as I can tell, no legal authority has questioned his status as a native of Canada.

 

[Morch]

Just now, pegman said:

Well then you don't support the rule of law. It's not a sometimes thing in a civilized country like Canada. He was a little kid when he was taken over there. Objectively do you think he made that decision to go there himself? 

 

I don't support posters implying things I don't subscribe to. Never said anything about not upholding the law. Just that I find current laws lacking in dealing with such cases. Not quite the same thing.

 

He was a kid, fine. He didn't make the decisions, maybe not all. Perhaps more relevant to later actions than to the course of life which led him to that point. But if that's so, then someone else ought to be held responsible (for example, family). 

[pegman]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

"Adoptive seems fitting enough."  There's you on one side, and the Oxford English Dictionary on the other.. 

"Denoting a country or city to which a person has moved and in which they have chosen to make their permanent place of residence"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/adoptive

Given his ideology, at least as it was back then, it would most likely be true to speak of Afghanistan as his adoptive country. But absolutely not Canada. And no, there's nothing complicated about it. As far as I can tell, no legal authority has questioned his status as a native of Canada.

 

That's right he never gave up citizenship in his birth country. Unlike conservative Foghorn Leghorn, Lord Conman Black, who did so so he could wear a funny grown when in London. If anyone needs deporting it's that felon.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

"Adoptive seems fitting enough."  There's you on one side, and the Oxford English Dictionary on the other.. 

"Denoting a country or city to which a person has moved and in which they have chosen to make their permanent place of residence"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/adoptive

Given his ideology, at least as it was back then, it would most likely be true to speak of Afghanistan as his adoptive country. But absolutely not Canada. And no, there's nothing complicated about it. As far as I can tell, no legal authority has questioned his status as a native of Canada.

 

 

No, there's you starting another petty argument over definitions. And then there's posting, as I did, that another way of looking at it would be "taking the system for a ride". Basically, choose whatever you want - it doesn't change the premise, that nothing about this is even remotely normative or conforms to a reasonable take on things. If it was, there wouldn't be any outrage expressed.

 

If the claim (as made by another poster) is that he is not responsible for decisions made by his family etc, then perhaps steps ought to be taken to address the family's decision making.

[pegman]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't support posters implying things I don't subscribe to. Never said anything about not upholding the law. Just that I find current laws lacking in dealing with such cases. Not quite the same thing.

 

He was a kid, fine. He didn't make the decisions, maybe not all. Perhaps more relevant to later actions than to the course of life which led him to that point. But if that's so, then someone else ought to be held responsible (for example, family). 

His father was killed. Seems that's playing the price.

As for a law to deal with these circumstances the Supreme Court of Canada, with 7 of 9 Conservative Party appointees, determined that the Charter applied. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-should-have-served-youth-sentence-supreme-court-rules-1.3073876

Edited July 11, 2017 by pegman

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, there's you starting another petty argument over definitions. And then there's posting, as I did, that another way of looking at it would be "taking the system for a ride". Basically, choose whatever you want - it doesn't change the premise, that nothing about this is even remotely normative or conforms to a reasonable take on things. If it was, there wouldn't be any outrage expressed.

 

If the claim (as made by another poster) is that he is not responsible for decisions made by his family etc, then perhaps steps ought to be taken to address the family's decision making.

No, there's you unable to admit to error even when it's absolutely the case.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

No, there's you unable to admit to error even when it's absolutely the case.

 

No, just not obsessed with petty arguments about definitions. That's your thing. Thanks for demonstrating it again.

 

[pegman]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, there's you starting another petty argument over definitions. And then there's posting, as I did, that another way of looking at it would be "taking the system for a ride". Basically, choose whatever you want - it doesn't change the premise, that nothing about this is even remotely normative or conforms to a reasonable take on things. If it was, there wouldn't be any outrage expressed.

 

If the claim (as made by another poster) is that he is not responsible for decisions made by his family etc, then perhaps steps ought to be taken to address the family's decision making.

Get something straight. About 75% of Canadians and 95% of Americans I know in Thailand are conservatives. That is not the case back in Canada by a long shot. Conservatives love torturing Muslims and sure as hell are not going to want to pay retribution. 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, pegman said:

His father was killed. Seems that's playing the price.

As for a law to deal with these circumstances the Supreme Court of Canada, with 7 of 9 Conservative Party appointees, determined that the Charter applied. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-should-have-served-youth-sentence-supreme-court-rules-1.3073876

 

Daddy getting himself killed got nothing to do with paying the price, as it relates to this case. Family been abusing the system for years. Taking a wild guess there's nothing to stop others from doing the same. And whether he should have served this term or another, tried as an adult or not - all of this doesn't make him innocent.