Canadian government brushes off criticism on ex-Guantanamo inmate deal

[Morch]

Just now, pegman said:

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. 

Get something straight yourself - I don't care about your learned assessment of political points of view among expats. It doesn't have much to do with what I posted, anyway. Same, and even more so, goes to the garbage about "love torturing Muslims".  And what I post is not strictly about not wanting to pay "retribution".

[the guest]

On 2017-07-07 at 5:43 AM, webfact said:

Khadr, 30, was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 at age 15 after a firefight with U.S. soldiers. He pleaded guilty to killing a U.S. Army medic and became Guantanamo's youngest prisoner.

 

At the very least he should have been given a trial in the USA.

 

Either way, if he or his family was involved with any terrorist activity (must be proven of course), he (and his family) should instantly lose their Canadian citizenship and immediately deported at their expense.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, the guest said:

 

At the very least he should have been given a trial in the USA.

 

Either way, if he or his family was involved with any terrorist activity (must be proven of course), he (and his family) should instantly lose their Canadian citizenship and immediately deported at their expense.

Deport him to where? He was born in Canada. Which makes him a Canadian citizen.

[wcoast]

[mention=108543]wcoast[/mention]
 
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.

He's a child soldier, deal with it. The definition of a child is someone under 18, is the math too hard? He falls under the definition of a child soldier, hence he is absolved of guilt. End of story.

Sent from my SM-A910F using Tapatalk

[300sd]

What happened to Khadr cannot be changed. A large number of Canadians are outraged at this compensation package. It has nothing to do with whether a Canadian is liberal or conservative. I have many friends in Canada and I don't know how they vote and don't care, but here is a quote from one of them:

 

" You should see how pissed off everyone here is. Literally everyone I know is absolutely enraged by our prime minister."

 

Personally I think he should have gotten a much smaller payout with no apology. I think he and his family owe the apology!

 

 

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, wcoast said:

He's a child soldier, deal with it. The definition of a child is someone under 18, is the math too hard? He falls under the definition of a child soldier, hence he is absolved of guilt. End of story.

Sent from my SM-A910F using Tapatalk
 

 

If you say so. Won't be looking up as a legal advisor, though.

Try this again - I don't think there's even a legal claim that he's fully innocent. I don't think that most reasonable people see the current legal "solution" as just or satisfactory. Teaming up with foreign terrorist organizations is not what most people have in mind when they refer to civil rights.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Deport him to where? He was born in Canada. Which makes him a Canadian citizen.

If he's a Canadian citizen, he had no business fighting for a terrorist organization overseas. If he's not to be held responsible, then perhaps the family ought to be. I've no idea if deportation is the answer of if its applicable, just pointing out that there's a flaw in the system when it comes to dealing with this.

[wcoast]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/khadrs-critics-ignoring-realities-of-combat-433757483.html

Sent from my SM-A910F using Tapatalk

[ilostmypassword]

36 minutes ago, Morch said:

If he's a Canadian citizen, he had no business fighting for a terrorist organization overseas. If he's not to be held responsible, then perhaps the family ought to be. I've no idea if deportation is the answer of if its applicable, just pointing out that there's a flaw in the system when it comes to dealing with this.

And I have no idea why you posted this in response to my comments about deportation.

[300sd]

Everyone has their own opinion on this and so do the majority of Canadians:

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/10/the-numbers-are-in-and-even-trudeaus-own-supporters-reject-the-khadr-deal

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And I have no idea why you posted this in response to my comments about deportation.

 

If you wish to say that the guy cannot be deported because he was born in Canada, that's one thing. It was also claimed he's not to be held responsible. A counter argument was that if he's not to be held responsible, perhaps his family ought to be. The post you replied to touched on the possibility of them (or at least those who were naturalized) being the subject of legal action. Hope that clears it up for you.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, 300sd said:

Everyone has their own opinion on this and so do the majority of Canadians:

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/10/the-numbers-are-in-and-even-trudeaus-own-supporters-reject-the-khadr-deal

Do Canadians get to vote for their Supreme Court Justices?

[shaurene]

Jeez. that young man is very lucky. UK travel insurance waste of time and money. 

They will come up with a reason to regect it. Like not covered for adventure type incidents, also comes in the bracket, elephant riding, go carting, water jets, treckng and many more.

Dangerouse sports.

mark my words. 

Hope we hear how it ended. He will not be allowed out of the hospital untill it is paid, also the helicopter ride.

Get well Son.

[thaihome]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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.

Just curious,  but does guilt or innocence in your mind dictate what civil  rights a person has in a democratic  criminal justice system?

 

I think it is plain that he was not paid $10 million because he was innocent.  It was paid because the Canadian Government went along with the the denial of his basic civil rights to legal due process.  

 

Do you think that is OK if a person is guilty? If that due process is denied for a guilty person should the deniers get off scott free?

TH 

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

If you wish to say that the guy cannot be deported because he was born in Canada, that's one thing. It was also claimed he's not to be held responsible. A counter argument was that if he's not to be held responsible, perhaps his family ought to be. The post you replied to touched on the possibility of them (or at least those who were naturalized) being the subject of legal action. Hope that clears it up for you.

 

 

Then reply to the guy who raised the issue of responsibility. My post had only to do with the question of whether a certain punishment was even possible - nothing to do with whether or not it was deserved.

[wcoast]

Here's a good read....
https://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/the-silence-surrounding-omar-khadr/


Sent from my SM-A910F using Tapatalk

[Morch]

17 hours ago, thaihome said:

Just curious,  but does guilt or innocence in your mind dictate what civil  rights a person has in a democratic  criminal justice system?

 

I think it is plain that he was not paid $10 million because he was innocent.  It was paid because the Canadian Government went along with the the denial of his basic civil rights to legal due process.  

 

Do you think that is OK if a person is guilty? If that due process is denied for a guilty person should the deniers get off scott free?

TH 

I'm not the one who stated pushing the "he's innocent" line. My comments on this were that as far as innocence goes, he is nothing of the sort. Not in any reasonable everyday meaning. That he may be legally off the hook with regard to certain things is another matter. With regards to the "civil rights under a democratic criminal justice system" - don't think I specified anything like the condition you asserted. What I do think is that there are instances in which the principals of democratic justice systems get abused or twisted. Some of the posters on here stress this issue when it applies to actions of the state and its representatives, I point out that such behaviors exist also on the part of those on the other end. And to be clear, I do not see this as limited to the the justice system, but to being part of a democratic society in general.

 

I did not claim he gets his money because he's innocent. He's getting it because his civil rights were denied. Doubt he's committed to the sentiments and values represented by some posters favoring his cause. That's not to say he shouldn't get his money. Those are the rules.

 

Do you think this guy believes in due process, rule of law, civil rights and the rest of the package? I don't. Not unless it applies to his person. Does that mean his rights should be curbed or denied? No. Does it mean I have to like it? No. I'm not denying that the way he was treated was not in line with due process etc. Just saying that as far as mascots for pushing such issues, this one's stinks.

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

I'm not the one who stated pushing the "he's innocent" line. My comments on this were that as far as innocence goes, he is nothing of the sort. Not in any reasonable everyday meaning. That he may be legally off the hook with regard to certain things is another matter. With regards to the "civil rights under a democratic criminal justice system" - don't think I specified anything like the condition you asserted. What I do think is that there are instances in which the principals of democratic justice systems get abused or twisted. Some of the posters on here stress this issue when it applies to actions of the state and its representatives, I point out that such behaviors exist also on the part of those on the other end. And to be clear, I do not see this as limited to the the justice system, but to being part of a democratic society in general.

 

I did not claim he gets his money because he's innocent. He's getting it because his civil rights were denied. Doubt he's committed to the sentiments and values represented by some posters favoring his cause. That's not to say he shouldn't get his money. Those are the rules.

 

Do you think this guy believes in due process, rule of law, civil rights and the rest of the package? I don't. Not unless it applies to his person. Does that mean his rights should be curbed or denied? No. Does it mean I have to like it? No. I'm not denying that the way he was treated was not in line with due process etc. Just saying that as far as mascots for pushing such issues, this one's stinks.

 

 

 

But you seem to be pushing the "he's guilty" line.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

But you seem to be pushing the "he's guilty" line.

You seem to push imaginary interpretations of my posts.

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

But you seem to be pushing the "he's guilty" line.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

You seem to push imaginary interpretations of my posts.

 

"My comments on this were that as far as innocence goes, he is nothing of the sort. Not in any reasonable everyday meaning."

Schrodinger's defendant.

 

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"My comments on this were that as far as innocence goes, he is nothing of the sort. Not in any reasonable everyday meaning."

Schrodinger's defendant.

 

Taking bits of posts out of context. Didn't expect anything better from you. Can't address the issue, hence cherry-picking. I know it's hard some to comprehend, but not all of us hold a definitive dogmatic stance on each and every issue. You want to see things in black and white, go ahead.

 

[300sd]

On 7/11/2017 at 5:36 PM, ilostmypassword said:

Do Canadians get to vote for their Supreme Court Justices?

Couldn't care less, but that gov't could have done a better job then they did of this. Below is one persons opinion:

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/12/liberals-could-have-defended-khadr-case