• Trudeau feels blowback from $8m Khadr settlement
    38 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's decision to give C$10.5m ($8m; £6m) to the former Guantanamo Bay prisoner has proved divisive, even in his own party. Meanwhile, a lawsuit from an American soldier's widow continues to draw the case out. Canadian-born Khadr, 30, was captured in 2002 in Afghanistan at the age of 15, and spent a decade in Guantanamo. He pleaded guilty to throwing the grenade that killed US Army Sgt Christopher Speer in 2010, but later recanted, saying he only confessed so that he could be released from Guantanamo and transferred to a Canadian prison. He was released on bail in 2015.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]An online poll of 1,512 Canadians conducted by Angus Reid between July 7 and 10 found that more than 70% of Canadians thought Trudeau should have fought the settlement in court. Most worrying for Mr Trudeau is that 61% of Canadians who said they voted for him in 2015 also disagreed with the settlement. Canada paid $8m to Omar Khadr Ex-Guantanamo detainee to get apology Howard Anglin, a former policy advisor to Mr Trudeau's predecessor, Stephen Harper, told the BBC this decision could be turned against him in future elections. "I can only assume they weren't aware of how badly this would play with Canadians," he said. Mr Anglin said even if Khadr was mistreated in Guantanamo Bay, it's a hard to understand why Canadian tax dollars should go towards his settlement. "Canada's involvement in this is so attenuated, so vanishingly attenuated, that we should not be the ones paying for this," he said. But other legal experts disagree. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40598484[/url] Surprised this hasn't been covered here yet. I don't think this guy should've received a dime, he's lucky that grenade didn't kill any other soldiers, I couldn't find whether or not anyone else was injured.
I don't think we have any real way to prove whether he did it or not. He said he did, and we have no proof otherwise. Now he says he didn't. Why are we believing it after a confession 15 years ago?
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52489590][url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40598484[/url] Surprised this hasn't been covered here yet. I don't think this guy should've received a dime, he's lucky that grenade didn't kill any other soldiers, I couldn't find whether or not anyone else was injured.[/QUOTE] His rights were violated, was forced into a confession and was a child solider at the time, he absolutely deserves some compensation. We can't just not enforce rights as we see fit.
[QUOTE=Daemon White;52489629]I don't think we have any real way to prove whether he did it or not. He said he did, and we have no proof otherwise. Now he says he didn't. Why are we believing it after a confession 15 years ago?[/QUOTE] To be fair, it says he went to Guantanamo in 2002 so if he confessed in 2010 he would have made a confession after 8 years of being in what is essentially an illegal torture pit which is not exactly bulletproof. If he really was a terrorist I think it would be a disastrous idea to give them 10.5 million though, regardless of whether their rights were violated. 10.5 million dollars in the hands of a terrorist living free inside of a country is just insane, that's more than 4 lifetimes worth of income for the average Canadian. That being said, I've also heard the original trial overlooked a huge amount of details and a lot of the foundation was really shaky.
Why was he in a Canadian prison? He violated no Canadian law and, even if he did, he did so outside of their jurisdiction, and, even if it was their jurisdiction, they lacked the evidence to prove the crime occurred. This is why you don't place POW's in civilian prisons.
If they hadn't gone with the payout, he would have gone to court, and he most likely would have won. This was probably the best option for everyone.
[QUOTE=GunFox;52489862]Why was he in a Canadian prison? He violated no Canadian law and, even if he did, he did so outside of their jurisdiction, and, even if it was their jurisdiction, they lacked the evidence to prove the crime occurred. This is why you don't place POW's in civilian prisons.[/QUOTE] It was part of the deal for transferring him out of gitmo. The united states refused to see him cross our border and simply walk free because he was now a showcase terrorist for them. IMHO seeing how once he was out he not only kept himself out of the spotlight (he didn't start demanding prisoners rights, religious babbling nor did his new neighbors make him feel unwelcome) but also went straight to university to get into nursing if I recall the guy isn't dangerous. I strongly doubt even half of what he confessed to is true. Adding to that, the wife of the killed soldier and another injured soldier have both been paid about $150 million in compensation and still want us to get back that extra few million. Everyone opposing this seems to be really really greasy.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52489590][url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40598484[/url] Surprised this hasn't been covered here yet. I don't think this guy should've received a dime, he's lucky that grenade didn't kill any other soldiers, I couldn't find whether or not anyone else was injured.[/QUOTE] I think the settlement was more than just. Charging a combatant in wartime with murder for fighting back is the lowest depth of cowardice. It shows just how much of a pussy the US really was. Want to be just? Charge every single soldier credited with a kill with murder, too. Then we'll talk.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52499383]I think the settlement was more than just. Charging a combatant in wartime with murder for fighting back is the lowest depth of cowardice. It shows just how much of a pussy the US really was. Want to be just? Charge every single soldier credited with a kill with murder, too. Then we'll talk.[/QUOTE] I don't really understand why you would give a settlement for a combatant that is aligned with an extremist group. Especially after the death of an allied country's soldier. Omar may not have had a choice in the matter but at the end of the day, neither do most kids caught up in an extremist regime. If Omar got his settlement, does that mean all Canadian born extremists deserve the same?
I don't have any problem with the settlement. Do people think that there aren't consequences for all these wars in the middle east?
[QUOTE=dangitbobby;52499442]I don't really understand why you would give a settlement for a combatant that is aligned with an extremist group. Especially after the death of an allied country's soldier. Omar may not have had a choice in the matter but at the end of the day, neither do most kids caught up in an extremist regime. If Omar got his settlement, does that mean all Canadian born extremists deserve the same?[/QUOTE] How is he aligned with an extremist group? He was accused with killing an american soldier with a tossed grenade 15 years ago, and from everything said so far, seems that he was forced into a guilty plea when in all honesty there is no proof it was him although there IS proof that his rights as a Canadian were violated.
[QUOTE=Elspin;52489681]If he really was a terrorist I think it would be a disastrous idea to give them 10.5 million though, regardless of whether their rights were violated. 10.5 million dollars in the hands of a terrorist living free inside of a country is just insane, that's more than 4 lifetimes worth of income for the average Canadian. That being said, I've also heard the original trial overlooked a huge amount of details and a lot of the foundation was really shaky.[/QUOTE] If that's a worry-worthy factor, maybe don't give it to him as a singular lump sum. Maybe drip-feed it to him as a compensatory "pension" of sorts?
Reading comments on Facebook posts about this is very disheartening. So many people refuse to acknowledge that he was taken from Canada as a minor and put into war as a minor and then put in this situation as a minor. Think of all the dumb stuff you thought, believed, did as a 15 yr old. Now imagine being raised by a father trying to indoctrinate you into extremism and then being put into life or death situations. Whether he threw it or not, he was put in a position where he likely felt he had little choice in the matter or he had been raised to believe it was the right choice by his family. He is a Canadian and he deserved to be tried and given the same legal courtesy that would have been extended to any other minor accused of murder. The woman lost her husband, that is terrible and all deaths are a horrible loss, but soldiers sign up to be there and know the risks. Khadr may have thrown the grenade, and he may have done so with malice and forethought, but it needs to be acknowledged that he was a child soldier.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52499383]I think the settlement was more than just. Charging a combatant in wartime with murder for fighting back is the lowest depth of cowardice. It shows just how much of a pussy the US really was. Want to be just? Charge every single soldier credited with a kill with murder, too. Then we'll talk.[/QUOTE] Yeah you're right, pows caught by isis don't get quite the same treatment, they get tortured and usually executed
someday i really want bush to answer to exactly why he thought it was a good idea to stick terrorist suspects into an extralegal prison system. like, get a republican to explain how they can justify a lawful, constitutional government, but advocate for an extra judicial prison system where the rules of law, even the constitution, gets checked at the door. every time a democrat tries to touch guantanimo, they get mauled by conservatives and end up having to make a compromise that makes moderates uneasy.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52499633]Yeah you're right, pows caught by isis don't get quite the same treatment, they get tortured and usually executed[/QUOTE] The "It's okay because they'd do the same to us" argument is indicative of a deficient intellect and a small mind. I wouldn't use it if I wanted to be taken seriously in a conversation with adults. He was denied due process, tortured into a confession, and his alignment with an extremist group has fuck-all to do with the fact he was charged with murder; he was not engaged in the commission of a terrorist attack at the time of the combat, and was fighting against an occupying military force. Perfectly legitimate. No soldier worth his salt would sanction such a mockery of justice.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52499785]The "It's okay because they'd do the same to us" argument is indicative of a deficient intellect and a small mind. I wouldn't use it if I wanted to be taken seriously in a conversation with adults.[/QUOTE] What are you on about?? He get's eight years in gitmo then 11 mil in the bank, while most US pows if very very very very lucky get to see their family again some day. You are all about fairness and justness it seems like, why don't you care about the fairness and justness for our own pows suffering. [editline]23rd July 2017[/editline] I guess not your pows.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52499869]What are you on about?? He get's eight years in gitmo then 11 mil in the bank, while most US pows if very very very very lucky get to see their family again some day. You are all about fairness and justness it seems like, why don't you care about the fairness and justness for our own pows suffering. [editline]23rd July 2017[/editline] I guess not your pows.[/QUOTE] 1. guess what, soldiers go to war knowingly facing these dangers. he did not. 2. he is getting 11 millions bux because our country let him rot in gitmo, doing so in contradiction of a rulling from our supreme court. canada is a country where the rule of law is respected and has such when the gvt screws with your basic rights, you are entitled to a reparation.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52499869]What are you on about?? He get's eight years in gitmo then 11 mil in the bank, while most US pows if very very very very lucky get to see their family again some day. You are all about fairness and justness it seems like, why don't you care about the fairness and justness for our own pows suffering. [editline]23rd July 2017[/editline] I guess not your pows.[/QUOTE] Way to miss the point. War is hell. People die. Get over it. Throwing a hissy fit just because a brown person had the temerity to kill a US soldier while involved in combat with them makes you a coward. So does charging them with murder - especially when those drone operators who have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians with hellfire missiles in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq aren't held responsible in the same way. If our countries start breaking our own laws of due process and the laws of war that we claim to uphold, then there's nothing that separates us from barbarians like ISIS. There's nothing stopping us from, in the future, using such bullshit against our own citizens. As western governments are supposed to be chosen by the people, and the people are the holders of power in western society, we must hold our governments to the highest standard. That is a solemn duty of everyone who lives in a democracy. People like you are no better than the barbarians themselves if you can't understand that. Due process means the law must apply equally to everybody. Even when you're offended. As for your "Not your pows" fuckery, Canadians fought, bled and died in Afghanistan, just like the USA. Canadians were captured and executed by terrorist groups. I love my country, and I hold our soldiers - and even US soldiers - in the highest regard as men and women brave enough to put their lives on the line to serve their country. I condemn the US government's treatment of Omar Khadr not because it wasn't a Canadian soldier who was killed, but because I'm principled. Unlike you.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52499633]Yeah you're right, pows caught by isis don't get quite the same treatment, they get tortured and usually executed[/QUOTE] I think it's really odd to compare a centuries old country to an upstart terrorist group. I'm not even sure what your point is in putting the two together. Should Khadr thank his lucky stars he wasn't killed?
The guy is objectively scum, settlement or not. Anyone fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Taliban and putting their IEDs in the ground is 110% a waste of otherwise good air and a blight on humanity. That's why he deserved to be smeared across the sand that day and it's a genuine fucking tragedy that he wasn't. Hopefully the universe sees fit to right that wrong eventually, and he ends up end the ground or an urn sometime soon. Fucked up. Mortally wounds a medic, then goes on to be saved by one in the same action. Then has the gall to speak about how he is a good person and that he deserves a chance. What a farce.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52500902]The guy is objectively scum, settlement or not. Anyone fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Taliban and putting their IEDs in the ground is 110% a waste of otherwise good air and a blight on humanity. That's why he deserved to be smeared across the sand that day and it's a genuine fucking tragedy that he wasn't. Hopefully the universe sees fit to right that wrong eventually, and he ends up end the ground or an urn sometime soon. Fucked up. Mortally wounds a medic, then goes on to be saved by one in the same action. Then has the gall to speak about how he is a good person and that he deserves a chance. What a farce.[/QUOTE] If you're going to use an emotional argument as the basis for your reasoning, then let me flip that on you. Let's say you're someone living quietly with his family in Pakistan, when suddenly an AGM-114K Hellfire missile streaks down from on high, brings your house crashing down around you, and kills your entire family, mangling their bodies so horribly that they're almost beyond recognizable as human. You later learn that the United States Military is responsible, that the target was some obscure Taliban lieutenant who was passing through the area, and that the deaths of everyone you ever loved were deemed "Acceptable collateral". You know what I'd do? I'd join the first cell, whatever their ruling ideology, heading down to Afghanistan, and I'd start killing American soldiers. I'd have lost everything, and the only thing that'd matter to me anymore was making the people responsible bleed, and causing their families the same suffering I experienced. And all that self-righteous anger, bloodlust, hatred and my desire for vengeance would justify it. You're normally decently levelheaded, Evilweazel, but in this, you're full of shit and you should be ashamed of yourself. If righteous anger was all it took to be right, then my god, ISIS and the Taliban are fucking superheroes. Hatred makes monsters of men, and you sound more monster than human, the way you're talking. If the man who died was a close friend or a member of your immediate family, it would be understandable. As he is almost certainly not either of those things, you've no ground to stand on. Calling something objective doesn't make it so, even if you're weak-willed enough to so easily convince yourself. Let's try this again, from a more rational perspective. Tell me, why is it acceptable for a Canadian citizen to be denied his rights, tortured into a confession, and why is it wrong when a government pays reparations for their mistreatment of him?
[QUOTE=archangel125;52501156] Tell me, why is it acceptable for a Canadian citizen to be denied his rights, tortured into a confession, and why is it wrong when a government pays reparations for their mistreatment of him?[/QUOTE] Because the joining of a terror cell that fights against our government should bear with it the revocation of one's citizenship since the person is committing treason in a foreign country and has clearly denounced our government and our country, and therefore in my opinion their own citizenship, and because the torture happened in the United States, so it should be the American government paying reparations for it, reparations that would immediately be paid to the widow of the soldier killed in the attack thanks to a $130-something-million dollar lawsuit against him, and rightfully so I think.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52501183]Because the joining of a terror cell that fights against our government should bear with it the revocation of one's citizenship since the person is committing treason in a foreign country and has clearly denounced our government and our country, and therefore in my opinion their own citizenship, and because the torture happened in the United States, so it should be the American government paying reparations for it, reparations that would immediately be paid to the widow of the soldier killed in the attack thanks to a $130-something-million dollar lawsuit against him, and rightfully so I think.[/QUOTE] Should, could, would. What does our law say on the matter? Do we suspend the law just because people are offended? That's the point I've been trying to make. Do we decide the law only applies when it's convenient? What good are our freedoms then? I agree, the US government certainly owes Omar Khadr massive reparations. Canada paid theirs because they did next to nothing to protect him.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52499383]I think the settlement was more than just. Charging a combatant in wartime with murder for fighting back is the lowest depth of cowardice. It shows just how much of a pussy the US really was. Want to be just? Charge every single soldier credited with a kill with murder, too. Then we'll talk.[/QUOTE] Because he wasn't fighting for a state-sanctioned army in abidance with the conventions for war. Plenty of Nazi prison guards were charged with murder for the things they did during the war, because the things they did were done outside of established conventions for war. Terror cells are not armies, and therefore are not enemy combatants in the same sense that a foreign army would be, because they have no state authority backing them and therefore no justification for their use of force in legal terms. What terrorists do when they kill someone is murder. When a soldier kills someone, they act on the authority of their government and in abidance, one expects, with established conventions of warfare, such that their killing is considered justified legally because it bears the authority of the use of force of their parent nation, and therefore their parent nation takes responsibility for their actions. Terrorists have no such justification for the use of their force, hence it is plain murder.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52501202]Because he wasn't fighting for a state-sanctioned army in abidance with the conventions for war. Plenty of Nazi prison guards were charged with murder for the things they did during the war, because the things they did were done outside of established conventions for war. Terror cells are not armies, and therefore are not enemy combatants in the same sense that a foreign army would be, because they have no state authority backing them and therefore no justification for their use of force in legal terms. What terrorists do when they kill someone is murder. When a soldier kills someone, they act on the authority of their government and in abidance, one expects, with established conventions of warfare, such that their killing is considered justified legally because it bears the authority of the use of force of their parent nation, and therefore their parent nation takes responsibility for their actions. Terrorists have no such justification for the use of their force, hence it is plain murder.[/QUOTE] I hardly think that setting IEDs to kill members of an illegally occupying hostile force is considered "Terrorism". Just because the US says it is does not make it so. It doesn't even come close to fitting the dictionary definition of terrorism. Our laws also reject the concept of guilt by association. What, then, was the act of terrorism that Omar Khadr was responsible for?
[QUOTE=archangel125;52501197]Should, could, would. What does our law say on the matter? Do we suspend the law just because people are offended? That's the point I've been trying to make. Do we decide the law only applies when it's convenient? What good are our freedoms then?[/QUOTE] I disagree with him being paid anything and hope that the widow gets all of it, but I understand why it was done. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it, nor agree with it or why it happened. As for the last question, I have some rather strong opinions on how our freedoms in Canada basically aren't worth shit because of how fundamentally flawed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, such that it can be ignored on a whim by either parliament or the judicial system through Sections 33 or 1 respectively.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52501207]I disagree with him being paid anything and hope that the widow gets all of it, but I understand why it was done. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it, nor agree with it or why it happened. As for the last question, I have some rather strong opinions on how our freedoms in Canada basically aren't worth shit because of how fundamentally flawed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, such that it can be ignored on a whim by either parliament or the judicial system through Sections 33 or 1 respectively.[/QUOTE] If you understand why it was done, we've nothing more to talk about. Rule of law cannot be suspended based on any crime, no matter how severe, nor can it be set aside for any amount of righteous anger. Without rule of law, we're no better than the worst of the corrupt banana republics out there. As distasteful as you may find it, what was done was right. Was it just? I suppose if we wanted to talk about that, we'd have to debate the legitimacy of the entire war, the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths caused as a result, and ask if it was all worth it, when the United States itself, through its meddling in the affairs of the Middle East in its proxy wars against Soviet Russia, was responsible for creating the man who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. That way lies madness. As a Canadian, I feel proud that my government was mature enough to recognize that it acted wrongly in failing to protect one of our citizens from the war criminals south of our border, and I'm very disappointed that most of my countrymen seem to disagree.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52501205]I hardly think that setting IEDs to kill members of an illegally occupying hostile force is considered "Terrorism". Just because the US says it is does not make it so. It doesn't even come close to fitting the dictionary definition of terrorism. Our laws also reject the concept of guilt by association. What, then, was the act of terrorism that Omar Khadr was responsible for?[/QUOTE] There is evidence of Khadr having built bombs and planted them, and out laws do in fact have guilt by association, I don't know where you got that idea from. If you are aiding someone in the commission of a crime then you are guilty for having done so. It is also illegal to associate with known terror groups categorically. Khadr was aiding terrorists in making and planting explosives, in murdering people, in intimidating the populations of Afghanistan for the political gain of radical Islamist ideologues, which meets the definition of terrorism almost perfectly by the way, and therefore he is guilty for having aided Al-Qaeda in having done those things. And if the occupation of Afghanistan was illegal, then take America before the Hauge. Since that hasn't happened yet, there was obviously some legal justification for them to be there.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52501220]There is evidence of Khadr having built bombs and planted them, and out laws do in fact have guilt by association, I don't know where you got that idea from. If you are aiding someone in the commission of a crime then you are guilty for having done so. It is also illegal to associate with known terror groups categorically. Khadr was aiding terrorists in making and planting explosives, in murdering people, in intimidating the populations of Afghanistan for the political gain of radical Islamist ideologues, which meets the definition of terrorism almost perfectly by the way, and therefore he is guilty for having aided Al-Qaeda in having done those things. And if the occupation of Afghanistan was illegal, then take America before the Hauge. Since that hasn't happened yet, there was obviously some legal justification for them to be there.[/QUOTE] Or perhaps certain countries wield too much power and influence to be made to answer for their crimes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.