• Trudeau feels blowback from $8m Khadr settlement
    38 replies, posted
[QUOTE=archangel125;52501216]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] And I'm disappointed that our government had to pay a convicted terrorist millions of dollars because of the way our legal system is set up. The anger being faced here can be used to ensure that such a settlement doesn't happen again by changing the laws in some way to ensure that those who fight against Canada are no longer considered Canadian. I fail to understand why we need to show courtesy to someone who so adamantly denounced our nation that he actively sought to fight against it. The disagreement comes from the fact that these people don't view him as Canadian, since he fought against our government as part of a terrorist organization of his own free will. He never should have been afforded the protection that comes with being a Canadian, because he should have ceased being one when he went to Afghanistan. As our laws are set up now, he was paid the settlement because he was a Canadian who the government did not do enough to protect the rights of, which is correct. The anger being expressed over the settlement is because he never should have been eligible for it to begin with, because having fought against our country, he should have ceased in being considered a citizen of it.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52501234]And I'm disappointed that our government had to pay a convicted terrorist millions of dollars because of the way our legal system is set up. The anger being faced here can be used to ensure that such a settlement doesn't happen again by changing the laws in some way to ensure that those who fight against Canada are no longer considered Canadian. I fail to understand why we need to show courtesy to someone who so adamantly denounced our nation that he actively sought to fight against it. The disagreement comes from the fact that these people don't view him as Canadian, since he fought against our government as part of a terrorist organization of his own free will. He never should have been afforded the protection that comes with being a Canadian, because he should have ceased being one when he went to Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] Wait, you're saying he's criminally responsible? He was fifteen years old. His father had brought him to Afghanistan. So he should stop being considered a Canadian citizen because he was dragged to Afghanistan and made to fight by his extremist father? We're convicting child soldiers now? This gets better and better.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52501246]Wait, you're saying he's criminally responsible? He was fifteen years old. His father had brought him to Afghanistan. So he should stop being considered a Canadian citizen because he was dragged to Afghanistan and made to fight by his extremist father? We're convicting child soldiers now? This gets better and better.[/QUOTE] He was not considered a child soldier by the laws of the day, which placed the cutoff at 15. He also was known to have actively worked to aid the terror effort of his own accord by building and planting bombs. As well, depending on the severity of the crime in question, there is already lengthy precedent to charge a minor as an adult when they stand trial for the crimes they committed. Yes he's criminally responsible because he did work to aid Al-Qaeda. Being a minor does not absolve you of guilt in the commission of a crime. In accordance with conventions of the time, he was also not considered a child soldier, the threshold was not raised to 18 until some years later. So yes, charge him.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52501251]He was not considered a child soldier by the laws of the day, which placed the cutoff at 15. He also was known to have actively worked to aid the terror effort of his own accord by building and planting bombs. As well, depending on the severity of the crime in question, there is already lengthy precedent to charge a minor as an adult when they stand trial for the crimes they committed. Yes he's criminally responsible because he did work to aid Al-Qaeda. Being a minor does not absolve you of guilt in the commission of a crime. In accordance with conventions of the time, he was also not considered a child soldier, the threshold was not raised to 18 until some years later. So yes, charge him.[/QUOTE] I demand, by the same standard, that every member of the US administration and the soldiers fighting in Iraq be charged with murder and crimes against humanity, as the UN, which we can consider a legal authority, deemed the invasion illegal. [editline]24th July 2017[/editline] Oh, and as an aside... anyone in Canada who was held for years without access to a lawyer and tortured would have any criminal case against them thrown out, as is only just. Even if, as much as I disagree with it, he was legally culpable, the miscarriage of justice basically absolves him. Beyond absolving him, considering the circumstances of his detention, it entitles him to legal reparations far greater than those he was granted, in my opinion.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52501253]I demand, by the same standard, that every member of the US administration and the soldiers fighting in Iraq be charged with murder and crimes against humanity, as the UN, which we can consider a legal authority, deemed the invasion illegal.[/QUOTE] Then based on the conventions of war the US, acting under its national authority, is the entity that should stand trial for the actions of its soldiers because it has the authority to sanction them to act. Unless an individual soldier defied the laws of warfare (and the ones that did were indeed charged for it) then no individual solider should face guilt because they acted under the orders and authority of a state. The guilt lies squarely on the state. I already explained this, and you seem to want to ignore it rather than acknowledge the differences in the situations that led to Khadr being charged with murder, while the killings by US soldiers were not, and cannot be, legally considered murder. The United States and its generals are the ones who bear the guilt if the war was deemed illegal, and in such a case then it is up to the UN to take them before a tribunal and decide on the punishment, but when soldiers act on the behalf of a state, the soldier bears no individual guilt, the guilt rests entirely on the state and those in the state crafting the battle plans and commanding the troops. [editline]24th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;52501253] Oh, and as an aside... anyone in Canada who was held for years without access to a lawyer and tortured would have any criminal case against them thrown out, as is only just. Even if, as much as I disagree with it, he was legally culpable, the miscarriage of justice basically absolves him. Beyond absolving him, considering the circumstances of his detention, it entitles him to legal reparations far greater than those he was granted, in my opinion.[/QUOTE] As it stands now, yes. I will point out though, if for no other reason than because I want to highlight the flaws in our constitution that can allow the government to take away that right, the government could enact a law or a series of laws under the authority of the notwithstanding clause, section 33 of the charter, that would allow them to detain people indefinitely, without cause, and torture them, and for 5 years there would be nothing that could legally be done about it because the government said that the laws were going to be enacted notwithstanding the sections of the Charter that prevent such a law from existing. As well, if the Supreme Court were to somehow be "stacked," which thankfully is a very difficult thing to do in Canada, they too could use the Section 1 override to decide that laws that indefinitely detain and torture people who are considered terrorists will be allowed to stand despite being unconstitutional because they feel that such laws would be the best thing for the country and could be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." I think we can all be thankful that such laws haven't been enacted, but the mere fact that there exists the possibility in our charter for them is something I take great issue with.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52501271]Then based on the conventions of war the US, acting under its national authority, is the entity that should stand trial for the actions of its soldiers because it has the authority to sanction them to act. Unless an individual soldier defied the laws of warfare (and the ones that did were indeed charged for it) then no individual solider should face guilt because they acted under the orders and authority of a state. The guilt lies squarely on the state. I already explained this, and you seem to want to ignore it rather than acknowledge the differences in the situations that led to Khadr being charged with murder, while the killings by US soldiers were not, and cannot be, legally considered murder. The United States and its generals are the ones who bear the guilt if the war was deemed illegal, and in such a case then it is up to the UN to take them before a tribunal and decide on the punishment, but when soldiers act on the behalf of a state, the soldier bears no individual guilt, the guilt rests entirely on the state and those in the state crafting the battle plans and commanding the troops.[/quote] The administration alone, then. Either way, there are war criminals going unpunished in the United States solely because the country is too rich and powerful to make demands of justice of. As far as I'm concerned, true rule of law no longer exists in the States. The rich and powerful have, time and again, demonstrated that they are virtually above the law. It is very important to me, then, that it be preserved in Canada. [quote] As it stands now, yes. I will point out though, if for no other reason than because I want to highlight the flaws in our constitution that can allow the government to take away that right, the government could enact a law or a series of laws under the authority of the notwithstanding clause, section 33 of the charter, that would allow them to detain people indefinitely, without cause, and torture them, and for 5 years there would be nothing that could legally be done about it because the government said that the laws were going to be enacted notwithstanding the sections of the Charter that prevent such a law from existing. As well, if the Supreme Court were to somehow be "stacked," which thankfully is a very difficult thing to do in Canada, they too could use the Section 1 override to decide that laws that indefinitely detain and torture people who are considered terrorists will be allowed to stand despite being unconstitutional because they feel that such laws would be the best thing for the country and could be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." I think we can all be thankful that such laws haven't been enacted, but the mere fact that there exists the possibility in our charter for them is something I take great issue with.[/QUOTE] I agree with you there. The charter needs to be written into our Constitution, somehow.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52501293]I agree with you there. The charter needs to be written into our Constitution, somehow.[/QUOTE] The Charter is part of our constitution. I believe you misunderstand my issues with the Charter. Here is the Charter, the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982: [url]http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html[/url] My issues, in this case, are with the following sections: Section 1: [quote]Rights and freedoms in Canada 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.[/quote] This means that the Supreme Court can ignore a violation of the Charter if they deem that it can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, and that decision is entirely up to the judges. Now the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Oakes_test]Oakes test[/url] is the current standard used when Section 1 is applied, however the Oakes Test is not required by law when considering a Section 1 override, so it can essentially be ignored if the judges decided so, and it is also not applicable in all cases. So as you can see, my issue with this part of the Charter is that it gives an override of the Charter to the judicial branch. Section 33 reads: [quote]Exception where express declaration 33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. Marginal note:Operation of exception (2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration. Marginal note:Five year limitation (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration. Marginal note:Re-enactment (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1). Marginal note:Five year limitation (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).[/quote] This allows the government to enact a law and explicitly declare it will ignore one part of the Charter for at least 5 years. This could then be used by the government through a law, or a series of laws, to censor the internet/news, to legalize torture, to legalize indefinite detainment, to legalize detainment without cause, and to legalize arbitrary searches, among other things. This gives the legislative branch an override of the Charter, though not as severe of one compared to the override given to the judicial branch in Section 1, since there is a built-in sunset clause for the law of 5 years, upon which the law expires or requires a vote to renew it. This is my issue with the Charter. It is supposed to grant us rights that cannot be taken from us, but in these 2 places (Section 15, subsection 2 is another place I take issue with as it constitutionally protects affirmative action, which is something I disagree with, but that doesn't apply here) it allows the government and/or the judiciary to ignore those rights seemingly on a whim, and I take great issue with that. [QUOTE=archangel125;52501293]The administration alone, then. Either way, there are war criminals going unpunished in the United States solely because the country is too rich and powerful to make demands of justice of. As far as I'm concerned, true rule of law no longer exists in the States. The rich and powerful have, time and again, demonstrated that they are virtually above the law. It is very important to me, then, that it be preserved in Canada.[/quote] And I can agree with you on that point.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52501308]The Charter is part of our constitution. I believe you misunderstand my issues with the Charter. Here is the Charter, the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982: [url]http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html[/url] My issues, in this case, are with the following sections: Section 1: This means that the Supreme Court can ignore a violation of the Charter if they deem that it can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, and that decision is entirely up to the judges. Now the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Oakes_test]Oakes test[/url] is the current standard used when Section 1 is applied, however the Oakes Test is not required by law when considering a Section 1 override, so it can essentially be ignored if the judges decided so, and it is also not applicable in all cases. So as you can see, my issue with this part of the Charter is that it gives an override of the Charter to the judicial branch. Section 33 reads: This allows the government to enact a law and explicitly declare it will ignore one part of the Charter for at least 5 years. This could then be used by the government through a law, or a series of laws, to censor the internet/news, to legalize torture, to legalize indefinite detainment, to legalize detainment without cause, and to legalize arbitrary searches, among other things. This gives the legislative branch an override of the Charter, though not as severe of one compared to the override given to the judicial branch in Section 1. This is my issue with the Charter. It is supposed to grant us rights that cannot be taken from us, but in these 2 places (Section 15, subsection 2 is another place I take issue with as it constitutionally protects affirmative action, which is something I disagree with, but that doesn't apply here) it allows the government and/or the judiciary to ignore those rights seemingly on a whim, and I take great issue with that.[/QUOTE] Well, shit. When you mentioned section 33, I was thinking of a different section of a different legal document. To tell the truth, I didn't know such an oversight existed. It seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52501318]Well, shit. When you mentioned section 33, I was thinking of a different section of a different legal document. To tell the truth, I didn't know such an oversight existed. It seems like a disaster waiting to happen.[/QUOTE] I believe that most people who take great pride in the Charter don't truly understand the flaws within it like these that undermine its core purpose. Certainly, the intentions of the Charter, the constitutional guarantee of certain rights, is a noble cause to be proud of, but when there are in-built exceptions like this it undermines the entire purpose. I like making people aware of these flaws, because I want them to be changed, but that's never going to happen if people aren't aware of them and why they're a problem, because there will be no demand for it politically.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.