# The Khadr Thread



## The_Falcon (4 Mar 2004)

Read this in the Toronto Sun, it is a story from the Canadian Press, maybe it's time we start looking a little more closely at the background of people coming here.

 http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/03/04/369489.html 

'We are al-Qaida family'


By CP


A Canadian family that has long denied ties to al-Qaida now admits that they are not only terrorists but believe it's noble for them to die for the cause. Abdurahman Khadr told CBC-TV's The National last night that his two brothers and father fought as al-Qaida terrorists and the family even lived at Osama bin Laden's camp. 

"We are an al-Qaida family." 

His mother and sister, interviewed in Pakistan, said they were proud of their family's connection to bin Laden. 

Abdurahman Khadr, who was released from the U.S. jail and returned to Toronto last year, said he was "raised to become an al-Qaida, was raised to become a suicide bomber, was raised to become a bad person ... I decided on my own that I do not want to be that. 

"I want to be a good, strong, civilized, peaceful Muslim." 

Khadr said when the family was staying at the bin Laden camp, his father tried three times to persuade him to become a suicide bomber, telling him the sacrifice would make him the pride of the family. 

In Pakistan, his mother said she'd be happy if her children died the same way as her husband -- a martyr. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Devlin (4 Mar 2004)

> Khadr said when the family was staying at the bin Laden camp, his father tried three times to persuade him to become a suicide bomber, telling him the sacrifice would make him the pride of the family.
> 
> In Pakistan, his mother said she‘d be happy if her children died the same way as her husband -- a martyr.


Ah yes welcome to Canada sir, have you heard about our social assistance programs and low income housing. Come right in we‘ll get you all setup to live with the infidels.

This really burns my *** especially when I get apporached by some of my troops (reserve) who are barely scrapping by and are looking for extra days work here and there.

The_Falcon is bang on when he says we should be looking more closely at people who come to our country. I‘m all for diversity in a country‘s population, but our immigration rules are just a little too slack for my liking.

My $0.02


----------



## K. Ash (4 Mar 2004)

Yea definitly a little too liberal with immigration. 

I didn‘t actually see the National last night, but I did catch parts of it. Needless to say that I was quite disgusted. Didn‘t the women say they were happy about the attacks on 9.11? And appearently they were sad about the deaths of civilians but they paid taxes so therefore it was ok. 

Some people really got their head up their ***.


----------



## Jungle (4 Mar 2004)

The first thing to do is arrest them all for being members of a terrorist org. If we don‘t have the balls to deal with them, forfeit their CDN citizenship and turn them over to the US authorities... They‘ll deal with them.
F&$K THEM !!!


----------



## Gunnar (4 Mar 2004)

Well, from what I‘ve heard we have some of the best immigration laws in the world.  It‘s tough to come to Canada to become a landed immigrant or citizen.

Unfortunately, our immigration policy is entirely short-circuited by the refugee status claims, which bypass any of the checks and balances we have in place.


----------



## Marauder (4 Mar 2004)

To **** with arresting these phucks. They‘ve all but admitted to rendering aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. If the Liberals had any balls these b@stards would have been sent to their 72 virgins on a cold Toronto night after a no knock entry courtesy of the Dwyer Hill ski team.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Mar 2004)

Marauder couldn‘t agree more, you had me laughing my @$$ off! Dywer Hill ski team! I like that. Maj Baker you aren‘t knocking us, everyone here is well aware that our Refugee system is joke and that we are an easy target.


----------



## btk_joker (4 Mar 2004)

Marauder, to that post, I      you! 

J. Lightfoot


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Mar 2004)

Here is the transcript from The National that aired last night.

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr/index.html 

Al-Qaeda Family: The firefight at Waziristan
CBC News Online | March 3, 2004

Reporter: Terence McKenna
Producers: Nazim Baksh, Michelle Gagnon, Alex Shprintsen


Osama bin Laden  
After Sept. 11, 2001 Osama bin Laden and other senior figures in al-Qaeda left the city of Jalalabad, Afghanistan and fled south to the tribal areas that straddle the Pakistani-Afghan border.

For years these areas have been self-governing and self-policing, and the tribal leaders here were happy to give sanctuary to al-Qaeda members and their families in exchange for cash.

There have been sporadic military offensives to look for them ever since. 

One such offensive by the Pakistani army took place on Oct. 2, 2003. Senior al-Qaeda figures were reported to be holed up in a house in the province of Waziristan on the Pakistani side of the border. The Pakistan army surrounded the house and demanded a surrender. An intense firefight broke out and two Pakistani soldiers were killed.

The battle raged on for hours.



Finally a Pakistani Cobra attack helicopter shelled the house. 

After the attack, 18 prisoners were taken. Eight bodies were pulled from the rubble. The Pakistanis were disappointed they had not found Osama bin Laden. But they did find the body of another man long identified as a senior leader of al-Qaeda - a 57-year-old Canadian citizen named Ahmed Said Khadr who was born in Egypt. 


Ahmed Said Khadr  
In late February 2004, in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, Ahmed Said Khadr‘s wife, Maha, and 23-year old daughter, Zaynab, agreed to sit down for their first television interview since his death. 

They have always claimed that Ahmed Said Khadr was not a terrorist. But now they say that he was proud to die as a shaheed, a martyr, a soldier of Islam. 

"We believe that death comes when God had planned it, before He created the humanity, it‘s planned, so I just accept, [but] it hurt," Maha said.

"We believe dying by the hand of your enemy because you believe in... you‘re doing it in the way of Allah, that it‘s the best way to die," Zaynab told CBC. "My father had always wished that he would be killed... he would be killed for the sake of Allah. I remember when we were very young he would say, if you guys love me, pray for me that I get jihaded, which is killed."


Ahmed Said Khadr‘s wife, Maha, and 23-year old daughter, Zaynab  
At the Pakistani defence ministry in nearby Rawalpindi, Maj.-Gen. Shaukat Sultan has no doubt about the true identity of Ahmed Said Khadr. 

"So he was certainly a terrorist... because... he did not surrender voluntarily on the offer that was made earlier before the operation went in," Sultan said. 

"This man did not surrender. That was one. Number two, the firefight started and the firefight lasted almost for 12 hours. And those people who were killed they were certainly those who were fighting thoroughly with the army troops." 

Ahmed Said Khadr‘s 14-year-old son, Karim, lies in the military hospital in Rawalpindi, shot in the spine in the same battle that killed his father. He is paralysed from the waist down.

Maha would be happy if her children died the same way. "You know we are promised that we go to heaven," she says.

Zaynab says, "I‘d love to die like that. I‘d love my daughter to die... even if [it is] simple, very simple, naÃƒÂ¯ve," Maha says.

"Yeah it‘s heaven. It‘s heaven, you know," Zaynab says.

Ahmed Said Khadr‘s 22-year-old son, Abdullah, escaped the fighting that day because he was away from the house running an errand. 


Abdullah Khadr  
He agreed to an interview only if we concealed his face, because he is still considered a wanted al-Qaeda fugitive in Pakistan. He says his father talked about becoming a martyr.

"Dying for Islam is... hopeful for every Muslim," Abdullah says. "Everybody loves to die for his religion," he says. "Every Muslim dreams of being a shaheed for Islam... like you die for your religion. Everybody dreams of this, even a Christian would like to die for their religion." 

Two years ago, in Afghanistan, another of Ahmed Said Khadr‘s sons, Omar, now 17, was shot three times in a firefight with American troops.

Omar lost the sight of one eye. He is now in the infamous U.S. military prison at Guantanamo, Cuba, accused of killing an American soldier with a grenade.


Omar Khadr  
Maha is proud of Omar. "Of course. He defended himself," she says. "He just did not give any - you know, I thought they were very simple kids."

"If you were in that situation what would you have done? I must ask everybody that," Zaynab says. 

"I hope you don‘t say, ‘I would bow down.‘ No, no, no," Maha says. "Wouldn‘t you like your Canadian son to be so brave to stand up and fight for his right?"

"He‘d been bombarded for hours. Three of his friends who were with him had been killed. He was the only sole survivor," Zaynab says. "What do you expect him to do, come up with his hands in the air? I mean it‘s a war. They‘re shooting at him. Why can‘t he shoot at you? If you killed three, why can‘t he kill one? Why is it, why does nobody say you killed three of his friends? Why does everybody say you killed an American soldier? Big deal."


----------



## Gunnar (4 Mar 2004)

> "If you were in that situation what would you have done? I must ask everybody that," Zaynab says.
> 
> "I hope you don‘t say, ‘I would bow down.‘ No, no, no," Maha says. "Wouldn‘t you like your Canadian son to be so brave to stand up and fight for his right?"


So, the "right" to blow up women and children is somehow no different than the right to live a peaceful, free and unmolested life.  Only problem is, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".  But that‘s a philosophical point they wouldn‘t be able to grasp yet.  

If my son were to stand up and fight for his "right" to be a terrorist thug, I‘d be glad to paint him with the laser sight myself.

Terrorism is nothing more than the political expression of a misbehaved child.  When a child doesn‘t get his own way, he throws a tantrum and screams and cries until he gets what he wants.  If he repeatedly doesn‘t get what he wants, but in fact gets more discipline, he eventually learns that tantrums don‘t work.  The problem with suicide bombers is that they aren‘t around to see the complete indifference to their tantrum--sure, we‘re annoyed, but all we do is crack down on the remaining people with even more discipline.  If throwing bomb-tantrums worked, Israel would have given up, and given the Palestinians what they wanted...instead, they‘re locking the Palestinians in their room (the wall) since they don‘t know how to behave amongst civilized nations.  And they‘ll stay there until Israel decides they‘re ready to come out, with no supper either!

War is different, because the purpose of a war is to reject occupation, infringement of your rights & etc. by attacking the apparatus by which you are being attacked.  It‘s purpose is to stop the enemy from attacking and/or exploiting you.  It isn‘t tit-for-tat retaliation or punishment of the innocent (read bullying) because you lost.  If you feel somebody is bullying you, you stand up to him, or call in a higher authority.  You don‘t wait until he‘s not looking and let all the air out of his tires or steal his bike.  It doesn‘t help, and it doesn‘t send any sort of message!

And while we‘re on the topic, we‘re not oppressing them or infringing their rights.  What has occurred is that our way of life is SUPERIOR to the one they espouse (we don‘t worship death, we try to live), and they are losing their unique cultural identity to money and capitalism.  Since they can‘t compete on this level (unless they adopt our principles, which they don‘t want to do), they blow stuff up.  Well guys, the pen and the dollar, are mightier that the sword.  So you are losing, and will continue to lose.  Don‘t you get tired of losing all the time?

These people worship Death, not Allah.  They want nothing more than to die.  It‘s easy to die for religion, it is much harder to live for one.  Or, to quote Mohammed, the "real jihad is on the inside".  Those of us who want to live will outlive these little people and their little tantrums, and their "brave" acts of murder against women and children.  And the terrorist so-called muslims will be little more than a footnote in history, remembered sadly by the People of the Book who actually follow their books, and the "surrendered" of Allah.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Mar 2004)

I think a para course without a chute over the cave of their choice would be a good way to deal with the entire family.


----------



## Pikache (4 Mar 2004)

Isn‘t this the schmucks that claimed that they were in A-stan as ‘aid workers‘?

*Marauder*, my man, you have way with words.


----------



## pte anthony (4 Mar 2004)

So what actions are to be taken about this confession the goverment better sprout a set of nuts and ****in prosecute these ****s. This **** makes me sick man **** those dirty *******s need their life revoked   :soldier:


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Mar 2004)

Dunno, the link I provided in the second article brings your to a main page dealing with this family. If you go to the page on the right hand side the CBC has listed the links to all the articles they have on these nitwits.


Dwyer Hill Ski Team. Still laughing my butt off with that one.


----------



## K. Ash (5 Mar 2004)

The second part of the interview was on the National last night. Did anybody catch that?


One of the things that boils me most about this situation is after stating how pleased they were about her husband/father fighting and dying in Afghanistan she went onto say that she hopes to return to Canada so her injured son can get the best possible health care. 

OMFG....please tell me those people are not going to be allowed to return to this country...


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Mar 2004)

WHAT!!!! GRRRR!!!!!      :mg:    :fifty:    :akimbo:


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Mar 2004)

There are more transcripts on the CBC site about this family, but this is the one from last night were the mother hopes to come back here.  Its at the end. Well you know what b****, f*** you! your proud you hubby died a matyr as an enemy of Canada and her allies, then you stay over on that side of the world and rot!!

Al-Qaeda Family: Coming home
CBC News Online | March 4, 2004


Abdurahman‘s grandmother  
Abdurahman called his grandmother in Toronto and told her that he desperately wanted to come back to Canada. He told her to announce in the Canadian media that the Canadian government was not helping him.

After the news about him broke in Canada, Abdurahman says he was brought to a CIA safe house in Sarajevo. He says the Americans agreed to let him go back to Canada, and he promised he would not tell anyone of the CIA relationship with him.

He says the CIA took away all the things they had bought him and dropped him off at the Canadian embassy. 

When he arrived back in Canada he was met by his grandmother and her lawyer, Rocco Galati.



Days later he held a news conference and told lies about what happened after his release from Guantanamo. He stuck to the story he says was dictated to him by the CIA.

"You know, it is convenient but in the end it‘s only just about the truth. I‘m not saying this story for the people that are going to think it‘s convenient or for the people that think it‘s not convenient. I want everybody to know what happened."

Abdurahman had mentioned that he was twice subjected to polygraphs, lie detector tests by the CIA.


Lie detector test  
We asked him if he would submit to another series of polygraph tests to prove he was telling the truth now and he immediately accepted. The professional examiner asked him about working for American intelligence, being paid for it, being flown on a small jet to Bosnia for his mission there and other key parts of his story. On all major aspects of his story, he passed the polygraph test.

On February 1, 2004, thousands of Muslims gathered in Toronto for prayers to mark the end of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Abdurahman Khadr was among them. He volunteers at his local mosque and is looking for a job.



He hopes to be an accepted member of the Muslim community in Toronto, but is worried about the reaction to his story from other Muslims, especially from his own family. His mother and sister are still living in Pakistan and deny any family connection to al-Qaeda.

"They will dread me. My mother especially, she will dread me for doing this. She will totally dread me for doing this...She‘ll say ‘you left us. You sold out on your father. You sold out on your people. You know, you told a story, you know, you worked with the CIA.‘"


The vest  
Every day in Islamabad, Abdurahman‘s mother Maha carefully folds up a treasured family heirloom. It is the partially burned, blood-spattered military vest her husband was wearing when he was killed last October by the Pakistan military. She carries it with her everywhere as a kind of good luck charm, dreaming of the day that she and her children can join him in paradise, something she believes is guaranteed because her husband died the death of a shaheed, a martyr.



We did not tell Abdurahman‘s mother and sister the full details of his work for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, but they figured he must have offered some co-operation in order to be released from Guantanamo.

"He is intelligent and it‘s okay," Maha says.

"As long as he didn‘t really help them," Zaynab says. "He just fooled them. I don‘t mind it. If he really did something, I‘d be ashamed of him, because Islamically, you‘re not allowed to co-operate with the enemy. It‘ll cost you your life."

Abdurahman Khadr says he would like to write a book about his personal journey from Osama bin Laden to the CIA. For now he‘s getting re-acquainted with life in Canada.



In Toronto, he likes to spend time on Gerrard Street, where he can carry on in Dhari, Pashtu, Urdu, and Arabic, as well as English.

He hopes that one day all the surviving members of his family can join him here to start a new life.

In Pakistan, the women of the Khadr family are living on handouts and the kindness of old friends of the family. Maha hopes to be able to return to Canada soon with her 14-year-old son Karim, so that he can get the best medical attention for his spinal cord injuries. She, too, hopes that one day her family can be back together, in one country, under one roof.


----------



## clasper (5 Mar 2004)

So Abdurahman Khadr was working for the CIA?  And when they no longer had any use for this double agent, no doubt they fed him milk and cookies, and let him walk out the front door.  Something in his story doesn‘t quite add up.


----------



## K. Ash (5 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by The_Falcon:
> [qb]  Well you know what b****, f*** you! your proud you hubby died a matyr as an enemy of Canada and her allies, then you stay over on that side of the world and rot!!
> 
> [/qb]


My thoughts exactly. I guess it should give us an accurate idea about how Canada is viewed by terrorists and their supporters.


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Mar 2004)

Welcome to the world of being politically correct, and as I have said before, this is simply a language of cowards.

Read on..... (if you thinks its bad in Toronto...)

Some Sydney suburbs are havens for extreme Islam with many supporting 11 Sep and Bali bombings. On 12 Sep 01, many danced in the streets partying. Other so called ‘men‘ are wanted in Lebanon fo terror bombings, but they freely walk the streets here. The govt will not deport beacuse thye have become citizens! Thats shocking but true. They have become above the law!

Many have been picked up by ASIO, and are being monitered by ASIO and other agencies right now.

There are almost 300,000 muslims in Sydney alone. That almost 100,000 more than our native Aboriginies in the whole country!

They have develped a power base here now, and many Australians wonde where there country will be in 25 yrs.

The terror threat from within our own borders is alive and well and REAL, thanks to our limp wristed government for letting them in here in droves without proper checks.

Now we have become quite hard on migrants from the middle east for obvious reasons, and we are condemmed in the media for doing so. In my opinion, and in another 18,000,000 Australians, we are not hard enough!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## scm77 (9 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Marauder:
> [qb] To **** with arresting these phucks. They‘ve all but admitted to rendering aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. If the Liberals had any balls these b@stards would have been sent to their 72 virgins on a cold Toronto night after a no knock entry courtesy of the Dwyer Hill ski team. [/qb]


    That just made my morning.


----------



## Duotone81 (9 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by absent_element:
> 
> One of the things that boils me most about this situation is after stating how pleased they were about her husband/father fighting and dying in Afghanistan she went onto say that she hopes to return to Canada so her injured son can get the best possible health care.


That just proves they have no phookin idea what and who they are fighting. Someone said it best in another thread - War is part of there culture and always will be. It was ok to kill the Americans because they paid taxes?? WTF does that mean?    

Scum of the Earth. Words can‘t do justice in describing these "people".      :rage:


----------



## portcullisguy (9 Mar 2004)

As a front line border worker, I can tell you from personal experience the frustration we all feel at our collective inability to do anything to improve or influence immigration policy.

We, the workers, know the system is broken.  We cannot do anything to fix it, except do our jobs and hope things work out.

But alas, the situation is quite bad.

Often, because of the bureaucratic nightmare involved in a simple deportation, removal, or "permission to leave Canada" (huh?) document immigration CAN issue, it is often easier to simply suggest to a non-genuine visitor that they "withdraw" their entry to Canada, and leave voluntarily.

Of course, a week later, they come back and try their luck again.  Surprise!

This actually happened to me on a case I dealt with in December.

The details are unimportant, but a particular individual was sent to immigration by me, the front line customs officer, who was unwilling to decide to release this person freely into Canadian society.  Immigration did the best they could to poke holes in her story, and eventually, because there was no criminal history, and their documentation appeared in order, they were simply told to withdraw their entry, which the traveller did.

One week later, this same person showed up in Montreal.  This time, the person had been briefed properly by her handlers.  She had NO passport, and she immediately made a refugee claim.

Now, the "system" kicks in, and a person who was already asked to leave Canada once will now get a refugee hearing.  It is now believed the passport she had on her first trip was false, but since she didn‘t have it the second time, we don‘t have the evidence to prove it, and it wouldn‘t make a difference for her ref claim anyway.

By the way, it is an offence to use a forged passport to enter Canada... unless you are claiming refugee status!

There are a number of legitimate refugees that Canada receives each year, based on an allotment that the UNHCR decides for each industrialized naton.  They are screened, and are genuinely in need of protection from civil, political or religious strife somewhere in the world.  However, the vast majority who arrive at our borders -- EVERY DAY without fail -- are not genuine, and are simply jumping the queue, or taking advantage of our very weak system.

They cannot be screened properly at the port of entry, and we cannot detain them all.  Most of them are released with instructions to show up for their hearing, or face a warrant.  Big deal.  By the time the warrant is issued, they‘re long gone, living under another identity, or the warrant isn‘t in the computer system when/if they are stopped by police doing something they shouldn‘t be.

It is frustrating, and every border worker hates the situation.  But until those with decision-making power (ie, Cabinet) make significant changes, we are living with this obstacle to free and safe society.  Period.


----------



## NMPeters (9 Mar 2004)

"Word can‘t do justice in describing these "people". Well, in actual fact, words did. The media has just been used, big time, to promote the Al Quaeda organization. Because you know what? I‘ll lay money on it that there are some bleeding hearts sitting out there right now moaning and sniffling about the poor mother and child and how they should be allowed to come back to Canada. We are the "melting pot" after all. And there are some sitting out there poo pooing the CIA for the miserable treatment that they allowed to befall this poor soul. And some lawyer is going to volunteer their services to represent this family and get monetary retribution for what this country has put these poor people through. And this all happened because we allowed the media to interview this family and run with the story. 

Methinks the Al Quaeda psy ops is working quite well.


----------



## Duotone81 (9 Mar 2004)

What I meant to say was I couldn‘t think of any words that would properly portray them in their true context. Terrorists? That‘s a given. Homicidal maniacs? I‘m not qualified to make that assesment but they kill for no reason, IMO, so the line is very thin. 

Helping out Al Qeada‘s cause? Who knows but I do see your point. The mother was spouting off crap about how Osama was a normal everyday guy. LMFOA! Anyone who claims justification for murder because people pay taxes and claims this behind a full body robe because she feels it‘s neccessary for women to not show their bodies deserves a knock upside the head. If anything I thought the doc showed just how truely disgusting these people are.


----------



## venero (9 Mar 2004)

It‘s time we start protecting this country from getting raped.


----------



## scm77 (19 Mar 2004)

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=1076769c-4151-4ea7-a402-53ce7e49f6e2 

Khadr pleads for Ottawa to aid brother in Pakistan despite terrorist ties

COLIN PERKEL 
Canadian Press 

Friday, March 19, 2004

Abdurahman Khadr Toronto Friday. Canadian Press/Aaron Harris 

ADVERTISEMENT 



TORONTO -- A Canadian whose family has strong ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network pleaded with the federal government Friday to help his paralysed 14-year-old brother return to Canada from Pakistan. 

Abdurahman Khadr, 21, described his brother Karim, who was badly injured in a clash with security forces that killed their father, as an innocent victim. 

"As a child, forget what his father or his mother thinks," Khadr said at a news conference. 

"As just a child, a Canadian child, I think he needs help." 

Karim has been in a hospital in Pakistan since the shootout last October. 

Khadr, who lives in Toronto, also pleaded with the Canadian government to ensure his mother and sister, who have expressed sympathy for al-Qaida, are able to return from Pakistan. 

He said he worries they are under the spell of Muslim extremists and need to be away from them. 

The Canadian government has denied them passports because they have repeatedly lost previous ones. 

"My mother and my sister, they haven‘t done anything and I‘m trying to save them before they do something," he said, noting they may try to travel illegally. 

"That‘s why I want them to come back to Canada - to be away from that influence of al-Qaida." 

Khadr‘s 17-year-old brother Omar is still under American detention in Guantanamo Bay. 

He said Oman should be tried here in Canada. 

"What I‘m saying is, give them a chance to come back to Canada," Khadr said. 

Last year, Khadr raised eyebrows with a story that he was arrested by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay on suspicions of being a terrorist and then dumped without documents in Afghanistan. 

He later said he had lied, and in fact had been working undercover with the CIA that whole time. 

In a recent television documentary, members of his family admitted to being involved with and sympathetic to al-Qaida. 

Khadr, however, said he firmly rejected the hatred generated by Muslim extremists. 


- 


Some facts: 

Abdullah Khadr: Age 23. Whereabouts unknown but believed to be somewhere in Afghanistan. 

Omar Khadr: Age 17. Held almost two years by the Americans in Guantanamo Bay. 

Karim Khadr: Age 14. In hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Paralysed from the waist down in shootout with security forces last October. 

Abdurahman Khadr: Age 21. Lives in Toronto. Returned to Canada last fall. 

Zaynab Khadr (sister) and Maha Elsamna (mother): Living in Islamabad. Have previously refused assistance to return to Canada.
--------------------------------------------------

C‘mon right in folks.  Terrorist ties shmerrorist ties.


----------



## patt (19 Mar 2004)

i say dont let him in for security reasons and i think our governmet should hand over mr.Khadr to the US so they can deal with him because knowing Canada there not going to do anything about it.


----------



## smoky (19 Mar 2004)

are we forgetting something  the kids 14 years old??   and paralysed let him in and teach him another way of life just a thought


----------



## The_Falcon (20 Mar 2004)

Smoky ever heard of providing "aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war" you know thats treasonous right? He was shooting at Americans (our allies remember, and the could have just as easily been Canadians they were shooting at.) I say the soldier who shot him needs to work on his aim. It‘s supposed to be a double tap in the centre of mass to ensure the person is dead.  This is ridiculous, and is another reason why Canada should stop allowing it‘s citizens from having dual nationalities.  You pick one or the other, and if you choose to have Canadian citizenship, you are a CANADIAN all the time. Not when it is best for you, or so you can have access to the benefits the rest of us enjoy. Let em all rot.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2004)

I don‘t think we should let him in, especially considering his actions BUT i think your wrong when it comes to providing aid to the enemy. Once someone is a casualty or surrenders they are no longer a combatent and have to be provided for. Given water food sleep and protection from harm.

Anyone can help out a wounded friend it takes a man to help out a wounded enemy. Thats where professionalisim comes in.


----------



## Redeye (20 Mar 2004)

My wonder is what facilities are available to legally strip the Khadr family - or at least those known to have been involved in activities contrary to the national interest of Canada - of their Canadian citizenship, thus removing any concern for their welfare from Canadians.

I‘m going to disagree with you, Falcon, about dual citizenship.  Even states which don‘t allow dual citizenship technically cannot force someone to give up another citizenship, and if they could, what would it really matter?  The vast majority of persons holding two or more citizenships in this country do so out of convenience to maintain ties to family abroad, not to further illegitimate aims like the Khadrs seem to.

You say that this is "another reason" to ban dual citizenship.  What other reasons are there?  I can‘t think of any, and I‘d be more than a little offended if the Canadian government tried to tell me I had to renounce my British citizenship and give up my passport just to maintain Canadian citizenship.  I‘m a citizen of both countries with great pride, and bear true allegiance to both.


----------



## Corro (21 Mar 2004)

The people who shouldn‘t be allowed back in the country are this kids‘ mother, sister and older brother (the one the Pakistanis, CJTF, etc. are all looking for). Mom and sis, who cheerfully told CBC how much they hated the West, nonetheless want to bring the kid back to Canada to get access to our medical system. Big brother is seriously connected to al-Qaeda and the Taliban and can hope for nothing more than a one-way trip to Guantanamo Bay.
Since the mother and sister reportedly "lost" their Canadian passports (which presumably means "sold" or "donated to al-Qaeda") they should be refused new ones.
Or maybe Jean Chretien will intervene on their behalf ... again.


----------



## scm77 (22 Mar 2004)

I just finished reading "The Hunt For Bin Laden: Task Force Dagger" By Robin Moore.  

Near the end it has approx. two pages about daddy Khadr.  He was on Task Force Dagger‘s top 10 target list, because of his close relationship to Osama.  This is the guy Crouton got out of a pakistani prison because he was a Canadian.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (23 Mar 2004)

Canada has an obligation under law to give aid and etc to holders of Canadian citizenship. Only after under going a trial and been found guilty of serious crime, can any thing  be done. We have murderers amongst us that at 13 or 14 were declared juveniles etc. and sentenced to a few months in a holiday camp, until we take our rights and freedoms seriously we have no case to argue.


----------



## scm77 (23 Mar 2004)

But you can‘t abuse that, by being a terrorist in a foreign country, and then wanting to get back to canada when you are injured in a gunfight.  These people should all be stripped of their citizenship.


----------



## mattoigta (8 Apr 2004)

It just said on CBC that 2 members of the Khadr family - I believe the mother (who keeps "losing" canadian passports) and the son (who was injured in a gun fight with pakistani police men) - are on a plane to Canada. The flight is from Islamabad to Toronto, and is scheduled to land tomorrow afternoon.

  :gunner:


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Apr 2004)

I would not want them as my neighbours! Canada is seen as a softy, as Australia used to be. we went hardline back in Aug 2001, and since then, we turn ‘em away. There has been few illegals coming in since then. All were mainly ME people who paid over 20,000 US dollars to get here by Indonesia.

Canada must adjust its immigration policy so that ‘trash‘ like this family are not allowed to enter.

Frankly I find it a national disgrace that this has been allowed to happen.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Pte. Scarlino:
> [qb] It just said on CBC that 2 members of the Khadr family - I believe the mother (who keeps "losing" canadian passports) and the son (who was injured in a gun fight with pakistani police men) - are on a plane to Canada. The flight is from Islamabad to Toronto, and is scheduled to land tomorrow afternoon.
> [/qb]


I hate the way this country is run. I hate the government. And I definetly HATE people like this who think nothing of it to spit at the country providing them care, and at the same put thier hand out for aid. F|_|CK THEM! It reasons like this that make disgusted to be a Canadian, and make me want to move across the border.


----------



## 100235067 (9 Apr 2004)

It is absoultly sickening to me that this country let this family back in. For anyone who saw the CBC documentry on these people knows what i am talking about. They are admitted islamic extrmeists. Buddys with Osama Bin Laden, they admit they are against the west and agree with terrorism. And Yeah they claim they lost Canadian Passports, sure...and by lost they mean gave them to terrorists.......just sick. This Government needs to go!

and thats all IMO


----------



## scm77 (9 Apr 2004)

I would love to see the Toronto police arrest them and their son and charge them for being terrorists.  

Or like someone said before, they should be given a no knock visit from the Dwyer Hill ski team.


----------



## scm77 (9 Apr 2004)

Check out this article.

 http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=4fb9a358-4e1b-4587-9b16-6139825e57db 

Khadr already in Toronto: "I‘m happy they‘re back and I‘m hoping my sister and other family will get back soon." 

and

"We hope to get him into a hospital here", although he said the family has no idea yet how they‘ll pay for the boy‘s treatment. 

He did say however that the family hoped to get financial aid through charities.


----------



## Northern Touch (9 Apr 2004)

Man, that is BS.  I was about to post the story in a new thread but you beat me to it.  I just saw it on the news, and I honestly felt like moving out of this country after watching it.  I wish there was something as citizens we could do about it.  Can anyone explain the reasoning to me why the Canadian government let them return?  I‘m beyond baffled.


----------



## scm77 (9 Apr 2004)

Someone posted their comments about this story on a news site.  I think it was canada.com or cnews.  They said something along the lines of.

"I am going to be joining the Canadian forces, but when I see a story like this I ask myself why?  Why the **** should I risk my life to protect Canada from terrorism when the government gives them a free pass?"

That is so true.


----------



## scm77 (9 Apr 2004)

Edit Double Post


----------



## Northern Touch (9 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by scm77:
> [qb] Someone posted their comments about this story on a news site.  I think it was canada.com or cnews.  They said something along the lines of.
> 
> "I am going to be joining the Canadian forces, but when I see a story like this I ask myself why?  Why the **** should I risk my life to protect Canada from terrorism when the government gives them a free pass?"
> ...


When I told my mom about the news, she said almost the exact same thing to me.  All I could answer was "well, I hope the rest of the public in this country doesn‘t agree with it"  And I hope to god they dont.


----------



## Slim (9 Apr 2004)

Makes you wonder why we all bother...Why not just put up a sign "Terrorists welcome here"

  :gunner:    :mg:    :sniper:    :rocket:  .......  :skull:  That is the only thing we should be giving them!

Slim


----------



## scm77 (9 Apr 2004)

Welcome to our country, right this way please...

JTF2-->   :cam:      :rage:      :rage:   <--Mom and Son Khadr

That‘s how they SHOULD be handling this.


----------



## Northern Touch (9 Apr 2004)

So does anyone know the reason WHY they were let back into the country?

I find it funny that on the news they even said the area of Scarborough which they were going to be living in, and you could see almost half the outside of the house too.  Glad I don‘t live in Scarborough.


----------



## 100235067 (9 Apr 2004)

Ottawa gave them emergency passports, (whatever that is)and I suppose they are technically Canadian Citizens and therefore have the right to enter into the country. The scum bag "leader" of the family pleaded with the G of C to help bring the brother back to get health care, for an injury from Pakistanian forces.....to bad they didnt finish the job, which i add he does not qualify for because he was out of the country too long. 

Also, saw a quote form the mother eariler....she said "the only place for her sons are terrorist traning camps". what a sick F***

Yeah they did show alot of the house on TV.....I know that are pretty well, could probably find the house......    :mg:


----------



## patt (9 Apr 2004)

our friends in Ottawa gave them a emergency pass...you guys know dang well there up to something


----------



## Paul F (9 Apr 2004)

So, as long as your a Canadian citizen, no matter what you do or say, the government will always support you. Isn‘t the government elected by the people and therefore supposed to represent the wishes and interests of Canada? I don‘t think it‘s in the interests of Canadians to allow these terrorist supporting leeches to live in freedom here in Canada when they are supporting a group of cowards trying to destabilize the West and destroy our way of life. But no doubt, they will get a nice care package, including low cost housing and welfare while they continue to spout off their garbage about their father/husband being a martyr and how they are all going to go to paradise after they die. 

So the moral of the story: who gives two shits if you said about the 9/11 attacks "let them have it" or if you got your *** handed to you my forces allied with Canada like Khadr Jr. did. 

Like Stockwell Day said: If they aren‘t come to tell us where bin Laden is, their citizenship should be revoked. Citizenship means sometimes to us as Canadians.


----------



## patt (9 Apr 2004)

well at least someone has balls to say something lets see if he can do something


----------



## Bill Smy (9 Apr 2004)

Work through this scenario:-

Young lad living in Canada decides to go to the United States and join the US Army. He wants to do this because he believes in the philosophy espoused by the US.

Gets in, takes training and is sent off to a "war" zone. Gets wounded. Comes back to Canada and wants the Canadian health care system to look after him.

What would the "Canadian" response be? Of course, most Canadians would say that he made certain choices, free choices. Tough, but it‘s obvious that the onus is on the US to look after the kid. 

Now, why are we applying a separate set of rules for this terrorist? Who, if time and place had been different, could have easily been trying to kill Canadian soldiers?

We can whine all we want in this forum, but if you really want your voice heard, write your MP. I did.

Here‘s a link to get your MP‘s email address.

 http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/house/members/CurrentMemberList.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=3&Sect=hoccur&Order=PersonOfficialLastName


----------



## Bill Smy (9 Apr 2004)

Here is my letter to a select group of Cabinet members, the shadow cabinet, and local MPs:

I write to express my concerns with regard to the case of Karim Khadr who was wounded in Pakistan while fighting with al-Qaeda forces. Those concerns extend to his mother and brothers.

News reports state that the family "now admits that they are not only terrorists but believe it‘s noble for them to die for the cause" and had lived in bin Laden‘s camp.

The family has taken on a celebrity status -- this when for a difference in time and space, the soldiers that they were fighting could well have been Canadian. Sixty years ago this would have been deemed treason.

There seems to be a belief that now that they are back in Canada (as they have the right to do as citizens) there will be no consequences.

I have spoken to at least 25-30 friends on this matter and all believe each member should come under close scrutiny and if they have violated Canadian law they should be held accountable. Not one believed that Canadian citizens should be allowed to fight or support groups which Canada have declared terrorist, and then return without being subjected to the full extent of the law. I suspect that this is the belief of most Canadians.

Perhaps the authorities should be considering stripping away their citizenship and deporting them. After all, is that not what we are doing to other war criminals? Or is there a different standard?


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Apr 2004)

Mate, they are not Canadians, but foreigners  living in Canada like a big tick, sucking what they can from their host.

Their loyality is NOT in Canada, but in the greasy ill-moraled giant shyte hole from whence they came!

One day, being politically correct will be a crime, capital punishment will be law, and we will all not be afraid to offend someone by saying the wrong thing!

I say send these paracites packing with one GIANT boot print on their arses!

I would not bat an eye if these people mysteriously disappeared and were never seen or heard of again.    

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## K. Ash (10 Apr 2004)

No doubt this was a wrong choice by Canadian officials to let traitors like this family back into Canada. But, mayby were not seeing the whole picture. Perhaps there‘s a strategic reason behind it. 

I think I‘m going to do as Bill Smy suggested write my elected representive and state my concerns to him.


----------



## Pieman (10 Apr 2004)

> No doubt this was a wrong choice by Canadian officials to let traitors like this family back into Canada. But, mayby were not seeing the whole picture. Perhaps there‘s a strategic reason behind it.


I hope you are right, and the gov does have a strategic reason for this. 

If anything, these people could have a wealth of information about AQ, and bin ladden himself. If that is is the case, it would be better to have them here so officials can interact with them, rather than rotting away in Packistan. 

Taking a ‘Cooperate with us, or we will send you back.‘ attitude could prove useful.

If not, I feel this is a very stupid move by the government. I think there are very few people out there who like the idea of these people being let into this country and are angry about it. At the very least, I know  I don‘t like it one bit.


----------



## K. Ash (10 Apr 2004)

‘Cooperate with us, or we will send you back.‘ attitude could prove useful.

Should be: cooperate with us or we will charge you with treason and throw you in jail.


----------



## Pieman (10 Apr 2004)

That works too.....but then again, if they were charged, that would mean a big public trial which would be free publicity for AQ....and then God forbid they would get off! 

No thanks! Send them back. On a boat with a big hole in the bottom.


----------



## Slim (10 Apr 2004)

I have just written my MP about this issue. Probably won‘t do a lick of good, the most that the government ever does is pay some shoddy lip service to the people in Canada at best but at least I spoke up.

Slim


----------



## Jungle (10 Apr 2004)

> *No connection to al-Qaeda, says returning Khadr mother*
> Karim‘s mother, 47-year-old Maha Elsamnah, followed close behind, wearing a white headscarf. "I have no connection with al-Qaeda" was all she said as she made her way to the door.
> 
> Last month, in a TV interview from Pakistan, she praised her late husband as a martyr for Islam and said he chose the right path for her four sons. Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and its training camps instilled proper values, she said.  *She insisted that the time the Khadrs spent in the compound with Mr. bin Laden was better than a life in Canada, where her boys could have become homosexuals or drug addicts.*
> ...


Source:  Globe and mail article 
If life is so good in Pakistan, why come back here ? I hope they all join the dad soon...


----------



## Spr.Earl (10 Apr 2004)

Strip them of their Citizenship and ship them back to Pakistan.


----------



## Slim (10 Apr 2004)

Jesus...And the government just let them back in after saying that they were virtual enemies of this country!?

Ship them right the **** back out the door!


----------



## scm77 (10 Apr 2004)

Someone on TV said this.

Apparently Washington forget to tell Ottawa that there is a war on terrorism going on.  The United States is spending billions of dollars to keep terrorists out of their country while Canada is rushing them in on "emergency passports".


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Apr 2004)

I live in Scarborough, if per chance I see them crossing the street as I am driving around, who knows I might have sudden brake failure.


----------



## Slim (10 Apr 2004)

Just make sure its "justafyable." I wouldn‘t want to see anyone else loose their freedom or have their life ruined by these pieces of trash!


----------



## patt (10 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Jungle:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


2 things

1.tell others about plans (remeber a tape tellin us a plan was at 90% done)
2.use our ‘free‘ healthcare and taxpayers money


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Apr 2004)

These people have really pissed me off so I did a little searching and here are a few things I am posting here. The first is the Oath of Citizenship, see as how they weren‘t born here they had to take this oath to become citizens.

OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF CITIZENSHIP

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The second is the crime of treason taken straight from the criminal code siting on my desk.
PART II
OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

 Treason and other Offences against the Queen‘s Authority and Person

High treason 
 46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(c) ASSISTS AN ENEMY AT WAR WITH CANADA, OR ANY ARMED FORCES AGAINST WHOM CANADIAN FORCES ARE ENGAGED IN HOSTILITIES, WHETHER OR NOT A STATE OF WAR EXISTS BETWEEN CANADA AND THE COUNTRY WHOSE FORCES THEY ARE.

Treason
 (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Canadian citizen
 (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

Overt act
 (4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 46; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.

Punishment for high treason 
 47. (1) Every one who commits high treason is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Punishment for treason
 (2) Every one who commits treason is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(a), (c) or (d);

(b) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while a state of war exists between Canada and another country; or

(c) to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while no state of war exists between Canada and another country.

Corroboration
 (3) No person shall be convicted of high treason or treason on the evidence of only one witness, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.

Minimum punishment
 (4) For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by subsection (1) is a minimum punishment.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 47; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.

Limitation 
 48. (1) No proceedings for an offence of treason as defined by paragraph 46(2)(a) shall be commenced more than three years after the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed.

Information for treasonable words
 (2) No proceedings shall be commenced under section 47 in respect of an overt act of treason expressed or declared by open and considered speech unless

(a) an information setting out the overt act and the words by which it was expressed or declared is laid under oath before a justice within six days after the time when the words are alleged to have been spoken; and

(b) a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued within ten days after the time when the information is laid.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 48; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 29.

I highlighted (capitalized) the main clause I would use, but based on their statement on the CBC, they are guilty of treason in several other clauses.

Lastly I am posting a link to the Criminal Code Section regarding Terrorism.  Again based on their statements and media reports, they also appear to be guilty of several things in that section as well.    http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/40997.html  

This whole thing is just insane, sad, incomprehensible in this day and age.  Sometimes I truly wondering what we are doing here at all.


----------



## K. Ash (11 Apr 2004)

Absolutely ******* disgusting. The fact that the gov just let them back in, gave them emergency passports to come back. What kind country are we living in?

I heard somewhere that the 21 year old Kadr was asked what they were going to do for money and he responded by saying something along the lines of "depending on charities" OMFG...


----------



## bossi (11 Apr 2004)

Canada must be the laughing stock of the world - in less than one week, 100 refugee claimants ... (and, how the heck do they get on an international flight without proper travel documents?  I thought it was the responsibility of the airline to screen them, or else they‘d be responsible for their return voyage ... ?  Legitimate immigrants must be fuming at this abuse.)
PLUG THIS LEAK!!!  (oh, wait - what was I thinking - no wonder our doors are wide open to anybody and everybody ... it‘s a "make work project" for Foreign Affairs ... right, Sameer?  And, let‘s not forget - the Federal Liberal Party needs all the votes it can buy ... so what if some of these refugee applicants with terrorist ties have Canadian blood on their hands ... as long as they vote Liberal, right?)


Refugee claimants like new terminal
By TOM GODFREY, TORONTO SUN
Sun, April 11, 2004 


THE NEW $3.6-billion Pearson airport Terminal 1 is not only a hit with travellers, but refugee claimants love it as well. Nearly 100 claimants have sought refuge at the facility since it opened for business last Monday, airport officers said. 

Some refugees even arrived during the terminal‘s inaugural flight. 

Immigration and Customs agents said more than half of the claimants were detained in new airport detention cells because they had no travel documents. 

Janina Lebon, of the Canada Employment and Immigration Union, said officers are concerned about those arriving without proper documentation. 

"Officers want to know who these people are," Lebon said. 

She said claimants can be detained because they‘re a danger to the public, might not appear for hearings, or lack identification. 

Officers said the number of claimants has increased with the opening of the terminal. About a dozen claimants arrived nightly before. 

John King, of the Customs and Excise Union, said the unidentified claimants led to his officers obtaining bullet proof vests, batons and pepper spray. 

"We always deal with the unknown," King said. "We don‘t know who these people are and it is a concern." 

Officers said most claimants are from Costa Rica, Mexico, India and Pakistan. 

Immigration officials couldn‘t be reached for comment yesterday.

+++++++++++


Federal agents will grill Khadrs
CSIS HOPING FOR NEW INFO ON AL-QAIDA
By BILL RODGERS AND TOM GODFREY, SUN MEDIA
Sun, April 11, 2004


AS CANADIAN security agents begin to question the al-Qaida-linked Khadr family, U.S. police warn they‘re not welcome south of the border. "I can‘t imagine that their movements wouldn‘t be monitored" if they attempted to cross into the United States, an American government official told Sun Media yesterday on condition of anonymity. 

Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents were to begin yesterday interviewing Maha Elsamnah, 47, and her son, Karim Khadr, 14, who arrived in Toronto Friday from Pakistan. 

QUESTIONS ON BIN LADEN 

Security agents are hoping to find out if the two had recent contact with al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, or if other Canadians are involved in his terrorist network, police said. 

CSIS spokesman Nicole Currier refused comment yesterday. 

The family has publicly spoken about its links to bin Laden and its involvement with al-Qaida. 

One son, Omar, 17, is in U.S. custody in Guantanamo Bay after being arrested in Afghanistan two years ago, accused of killing a U.S. soldier. 

His older brother, Abdurahman Khadr, was released from the same prison camp last year after being held on suspicion of being a terrorist. He is living in Toronto. 

Abdurahman has admitted to being interviewed on at least two occasions by CSIS after returning to Canada. 

KILLED IN SHOOTOUT 

The father, Ahmed Said Khadr, an Egyptian-born Canadian and allegedly a close confidante of bin Laden, was killed in a gunfight with Pakistani security forces last October. His son, Karim, who returned to Canada with his mother last week, was paralysed in the same shootout. 

Foreign affairs continued its efforts to calm the public uproar over the return of the Khadrs. Spokesman Sameer Ahmed said there was no truth to a report that the Canadian government paid for the airfares of the returning family members. "The Khadrs used their own funds," Ahmed said, noting that Canadian diplomats arranged their flights home on one-time emergency passports.

++++++

‘Outrageous‘ Grit actions
By Bob MacDonald
Sun, April 11, 2004 


FAMILY AND friends of the 24 Canadians killed in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 must be shocked to learn that members of an "al-Qaida family" have been allowed back into Canada. I‘m referring to the arrival Friday at Pearson airport of Maha Elsamnah and her 14-year-old son, Abdul Karim Khadr. They are the wife and son of Egyptian-born Ahmed Said Khadr, a top official in Osama bin laden‘s al-Qaida terrorist network. 

Not only did the family -- including three other brothers -- live near the terrorist training camps of bin Laden in Afghanistan, but they were involved in fighting against anti-terrorist forces that included Canadians. 

The father, Ahmed, was killed recently in Pakistan in fighting with security forces. Karim ended up shot and paralyzed in the same firefight. 

GUANTANAMO BAY 

Another son, Omar, 17, is being held by U.S. forces at Guantanamo Bay. He‘s charged with killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan during a battle against al-Qaida and supporting Taliban forces. 

Another brother is still on the loose, believed to be an al-Qaida-Taliban commander in the Afghanistan- Pakistan region. 

And a fourth brother, Abdurahman Khadr, was released from a U.S. jail and allowed to return to Toronto. When he was interviewed by CBC-TV last month, he commented: "We are an al-Qaida family." 

His mother and a sister, interviewed in Pakistan, said they were proud of their family‘s connection to al-Qaida. The mother said she‘d be happy if her children died the same way as her husband -- an al-Qaida Muslim "martyr". 

What‘s really shocking about this family‘s return is that the federal Liberal government -- both under Jean Chretien and now Paul Martin -- has been so helpful to them over the years. 

Back in 1995, Ahmed Khadr was arrested in Pakistan for his role in a deadly embassy bombing. Later, on a visit to Pakistan, Prime Minister Chretien appealed to the Pakistan president to have him released. It was done. 

Apparently, a so-called aid program headed by Ahmed Khadr received help from a Canadian federal government agency. 

And what did Khadr do? Why, he ended up heading back to bin Laden -- along with the whole Khadr family. 

And now, these years later, the Paul Martin-led Liberal regime has gone out of its way to help these recent Khadr family members return to Canada. Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham‘s office interceded and gave special visas to the mother and son to return to Canada. 

No wonder Conservative foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day declared: "The whole thing is outrageous -- that she (Mrs. Khadr) would be afforded the full rights of Canadian citizenship when she and her family ... have been involved in the training fields and the killing fields of al-Qaida." 

Which brings us to that terrible day of Sept. 11, 2001 when a group of Arab-Muslim terrorists connected to al-Qaida hijacked civilian airliners and slaughtered more than 3,000 men, women, and children, including two dozen who were Canadians. 

They included the likes of Ken Basnicki, a 48-year-old father of two killed in the north tower of the World Trade Center. The last word from him was a cell phone call to his mother at 8:55 a.m. from the burning tower. 

And there was David Barkway, a 34-year-old executive from Toronto who was visiting a client on the 105th floor of the north tower. Before dying, he sent an electronic message to colleagues in Toronto, saying he was in trouble. 

‘A BIG HEART‘ 

There was Christine Egan, of Winnipeg, visiting her brother in the south tower. "She had such a big heart," recalled friend Sharon Judd. 

The truth is that the paralyzed Abdul Karim Khadr needs special medical care. And just as soon as he meets the residency requirements -- some say three months -- he‘ll be eligible for OHIP support paid for by Ontario and Canadian taxpayers. 

And some of those taxpayers will be the still-grieving families and friends of those ruthlessly murdered 24 Canadians. That is really outrageous. Thanks goes to Martin and his always vote-seeking Liberals.


----------



## Spr.Earl (11 Apr 2004)

Britain and Canada have the most relaxed Laws and are the most generous countries in the World when it comes to Refugees.
Right now in the Britain,Blare is in trouble over a back door policy the Labour Government did.


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Apr 2004)

ARRRGGHHH. Our government are idiots.  First the story of Refugee claimants. Since when has thier been fighting in Mexico or Costa Rica? WTF?!!! And like I posted earlier by their own statements and actions they are all guilty of Treason and High Treason.  One can only pray that the Liberals are turfed and we get a Conservative Government that has the cojones to interrogate these leeches and parasites and then try them and send them to prison for the rest of thier lives (unfortunately we no longer have the death penalty for Treason anymore, because they all deserve to hang from the end of a short rope). Doing this, and fixing our broken immigration system would show the world, we are not going to put up with this cr@p anymore.

I hope they all rot in he||, and the father who died a so called martyr, we I hope Robin Williams was right and their and their was a mistranlation. He won‘t see 72 virgins but rather 72 Virgians.


----------



## Bill Smy (12 Apr 2004)

Anyone know the web address for this petition so I can sign it?

====================
The Toronto Sun
Mon, April 12, 2004 

Petition to turf Khadrs

CANADIANS OUTRAGED AL-QAIDA SUPPORTERS ALLOWED ENTRY

By KEVIN CONNOR, TORONTO SUN

AN ONLINE petition has been created calling for the Khadr family to be deported as an alleged security risk to Canada. Maha Elsamnah and her 14-year-old son Karim Khadr, who both have had ties to al-Qaida, were granted entry into Canada on Friday without passports. 

"I, as a Canadian citizen, do not feel safe knowing that we have fundamentalists living in our own backyard. A family who hates everything this country stands for should not be welcome," said Donna Campbell, the 33-year-old Scarborough woman who started the petition yesterday. 

"My goal is to have this family deported as I fear for the safety of myself, my family, and my fellow Canadians." 

Elsamnah and Khadr are the wife and son of Ahmed Said Khadr, 57, who was killed in Pakistan last year during a raid against suspected terrorists. 

They are a family long connected to al-Qaida, have lived in a compound with Osama bin Laden, and spent time in terrorist training camps that supported the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. 

The petition to the federal government says the Khadr family should be immediately and permanently deported and that they should be barred from accessing Canadian benefits, such as the health care system. 

Karim Khadr was wounded last fall in a gunfight with Pakistani security forces and needs medical attention. The teen was shot in the spine during the shootout that killed his father. 

"The federal government, in allowing the Khadrs back into Canada, have insulted all Canadians and should be ashamed of themselves. This, and other Liberal farces will not be forgotten on election day," said Paul Jones, one of the dozens who have signed the petition. 

The government has gone mad allowing them in the country, Mair Traversy said. 

"There is no room on the soil that my husband fought for, over 60 years ago, for families that admit they have been trained by Osama," Traversy said. 

"We won‘t forget this."


----------



## Bill Smy (12 Apr 2004)

Wouldn‘t you know it, as soon as I post the previous request, a friend sends along the web address for the petition

 http://www.petitiononline.com/khadr/petition.html


----------



## patt (12 Apr 2004)

well atleast i hope our MP listens to this because alot of people are going to be pissed off if they dont do anything


----------



## Slim (12 Apr 2004)

Justsigned the thing. Felt right!


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Apr 2004)

I saw an argument on TV where some offical was defending the decision to let the bugger back into canada. Saying he was a canadian citizen and you can‘t just go and yank someones citizenship away. Kinda made sence to me. Let them him back in but throw him in jail, start the paper work to deport him.


----------



## Slim (12 Apr 2004)

After the first Gulf war we did the same thing. We welcomed people back into Canada that had gone and fought for the Iraqis.


----------



## scm77 (12 Apr 2004)

Found this online.  Immigration officials say it is unlikely to work, but I still encourage everyone here (that agrees) to sign it.  You should also read the comments.  Plenty about Paul Martin committing political suicide, and Stephen Harper being the next PM.    

  http://www.petitiononline.com/khadr/petition-sign.html? 

P.S. Not sure if this is the right forum.  If not please move it.


----------



## patt (12 Apr 2004)

wow everytime i keep lookin at it it goes up by 10 lol


----------



## webster (12 Apr 2004)

hahaha...i keep reloading and watching it as well!!
I really dont have a life...lol. I want in the army!!!


----------



## Jason Bourne (13 Apr 2004)

about time someone got something like that started...


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Apr 2004)

I just heard on the news, a petition is going around the internet to keep them IN canada...


----------



## scm77 (13 Apr 2004)

You kidding right...?


----------



## Thompson_JM (13 Apr 2004)

I signed it too...


this sorta thing is really starting to tick me off...


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Apr 2004)

That guy is an idiot, You can revoke Citizenship for people who were naturalized. Read this as well.


Family hearing threats: Get out or else


By Kevin Connor




MAHA ELSAMNAH is terrified by the numerous threats she has received from Canadians who don‘t want her in the country because of her links to Osama bin Laden, her mother said yesterday. Elsamnah and her 14-year-old son Karim Khadr -- who have had ties to al-Qaida -- returned to Toronto from Pakistan on Friday. 

"My family is getting threats to leave the country. We haven‘t harmed anyone and we are being judged," Elsamnah‘s mother said from her Scarborough home. She asked not to be named because family members would "kill her." 

"I have lived here for 30 years. I have no other country to go to. It‘s prejudice because we are Muslims." 

CSIS INTERVIEW 

Yesterday, Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents began interviewing Elsamnah and Khadr, hoping to find out if they had recent contact with bin Laden, or if other Canadians are involved in al-Qaida. 

Elsamnah was filmed in a recent documentary where she supported the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. "Our English isn‘t good. People take things the wrong way," her mother said. 

Elsamnah‘s mother says the most important thing is to get medical attention for her grandson, who was paralyzed in a battle with Pakistani security forces that killed his father. 

A petition has started asking Ottawa to refuse him medical treatment and to deport the family back to Pakistan. 

"Who are these people to decide that. He is a sick boy and we will find a hospital," his grandmother said.


I like how they say it‘s prejudiced because they are muslim. No it is because they are terrorist and traitors


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Apr 2004)

I just read the petition and signed (before I did the number who had signed was 666, spooky)


----------



## Infanteer (13 Apr 2004)

Face the ditch....


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Apr 2004)

I signed it, so those who have not, do it now.

Ta helll with being politically correct, stand up and be counted!

Do the right thing, and support your country.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## K. Ash (13 Apr 2004)

I signed it. I just hope it has the intended affect. 

"I have lived here for 30 years. I have no other country to go to. It‘s prejudice because we are Muslims." 

They (terrorists & supporters) always take the prejudice route, don‘t they?


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Apr 2004)

Yup.  But you know what I am prejudiced. I am completely prejudiced against terrorists, traitors, and everybody else who threatens the peace and security of my country, my neighbourhood, and my way of life, regardless of skin colour or religion.


----------



## scm77 (13 Apr 2004)

"I have no other country to go to. It‘s prejudice because we are Muslims."

No other country to go?  What about Pakistan?  I think what they ment to say was no other country to go where I can get free healthcare for my terrorist son.


----------



## girlfiredup (13 Apr 2004)

It is growing fast.. last count, 1387.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Apr 2004)

I hate to be negitive here guys but i really believe for each one of us who is insulted by this and wants the kid gone, 10 people will want to adopt him. It‘s sad but it‘s true. It‘s the mentality of a heck of a lot of people in canada. I just hope im wrong.


----------



## kurokaze (13 Apr 2004)

Maybe we can relocate them to Hans island.  They like being Canadian so much they can help protect our sovereignty!


----------



## girlfiredup (13 Apr 2004)

I‘ll adopt him only if I can tie him to a tree in my yard and put the boots to him.   Hehe.  Just kidding.  I‘ll let Infanteer take care of him.  You wouldn‘t mind would ya?


----------



## K. Ash (13 Apr 2004)

I just hope the petition proves useful.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Apr 2004)

"I‘ll adopt him only if I can tie him to a tree in my yard and put the boots to him. Hehe. Just kidding"

LOL
Awesome.


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Apr 2004)

Well at the rate it is going and the publicity it is getting in the media, it should top 5000 by tomorrow


----------



## kruger (13 Apr 2004)

If they openly announce that they wish to become martyrs like their deceased father, the Canadian government should, in their own welfare, help the family pursue their lifelong dreams and shoot them.
Just like the Israeli‘s helped sheik Yassin rendevous with his 72 virgins. Eutanasia through Hellfire missile is what I call it.


----------



## mattoigta (13 Apr 2004)

Yeah i just read an article in the Toronto Star where it was mentioned a few times


----------



## Tpr.Orange (13 Apr 2004)

2177


----------



## winchable (13 Apr 2004)

I like reading the comments.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Apr 2004)

Since when does being a jackass merit losing citizenship and being deported?  People in all walks of life make all sorts of treasonous utterances and involve themselves in all sorts of disloyal activity.


----------



## scm77 (13 Apr 2004)

People don‘t want them deported for "being a jackass".  They want them deported for being a terrorist.

2689


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Apr 2004)

OK, I haven‘t been following the matter that closely.  What did they do to qualify as terrorists?  Bomb an aircraft flagged to another country?  Shoot a doctor who performs abortions?  Bomb an industrial plant?  Donate money to a political front for terrorists?  Kidnap a foreign diplomat?  Execute a member of any level of government?  Anything in particular that wouldn‘t merit treatment as criminals of this country since they are citizens of this country?


----------



## scm77 (13 Apr 2004)

The one who already lives in Toronto, went to an alqaed training camp in a-stan.  I believe the 14 year old who is now paralized went to one as well.  The father who is dead was a close associate of Bin Laden.  They were all living with Bin Laden on 9/11.  The mother and daughter said things like "america got what what they deserved" (refrencing 9/11).  The mother said she encouraged her son to be a terrorist and a suicide bomber.

The 14 year old was paralized in a shootout with pakistani police/military, which also killed his father.  After hating western society they are now back in Canada so they can get free healthcare for their son.


----------



## Duotone81 (13 Apr 2004)

I know next to nothing about international law but couldn‘t the Americans get the paralyzed son extradicted to the US as a prisoner of war (or illegal/legal combatant or whatever the Americans call them)? Those people would prove to be useful in the hands of US authorities than back in Pakistan (or wherever they‘re from) one would think.


----------



## nULL (13 Apr 2004)

This may sound stupid, but couldn‘t it be a good thing to have them in the country? I mean, if you KNOW these people have connections to terrorist groups, isn‘t it better to keep an eye on them, know where they go, who they associate with (that could be important) etc? I mean, if deported, they are gone, and could just vanish. It‘s got to be safer to know that a bad guy is out there, than to NOT know, right?

Did that make any sense?


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Apr 2004)

From where I sit, then, it seems either they have performed deeds which were illegal under Canadian laws at the time, or they have not.  Either they may be tried, or not.  I don‘t see any grounds for deportation, yet.

Has any other country requested we extradite any of them?


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Apr 2004)

It makes sense nULL, but the only thing is do you think our government is really going to able to keep tabs on them for very long.  We have close to 25,000-30,000 illegal immigrants in this country that have just up and disappeared.  And as we have seen, despite tough talk from CSIS the government is quite friendly to this family, and this is the second time it has helped them out.

And to Brad Swallows I would suggest you actually read the laws we have on the books for terrorism and treason.  They have violated them both.  And even though they are Canadian citizens, this country in the past (although they have to forced kicking and screaming to do it) has stripped the citizenship and given the boot to Nazi War criminals


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Apr 2004)

As I wrote, if they‘ve violated laws they can (and should) be tried.

Did we give the boot to Nazi war criminals because they were Nazi war criminals, or because they violated one of the conditions for obtaining citizenship?

The crux of the issue: if a naturalized citizen obtained citizenship under completely legitimate circumstances, what (if any) are the grounds for treating him any differently than a citizen by birth?  I was born here.  If I were to commit a crime of terrorism, does the law provide for my deportation and to where would you presume to deport me?


----------



## Infanteer (15 Apr 2004)

> The crux of the issue: if a naturalized citizen obtained citizenship under completely legitimate circumstances, what (if any) are the grounds for treating him any differently than a citizen by birth? I was born here. If I were to commit a crime of terrorism, does the law provide for my deportation and to where would you presume to deport me?


I think all terrorists, foreign or domestic, should be deported to Berkeley, California.


----------



## Tyrnagog (15 Apr 2004)

Don‘t you think that‘s a little TOO cruel and unusual, Infanteer?  I mean.. Berkeley?  shudder...


----------



## dwild40 (15 Apr 2004)

woo hoo I am a number 6808


----------



## Tyrnagog (15 Apr 2004)

good for you?!?!


----------



## winchable (15 Apr 2004)

Not arguing the validity of the idea behind the petition; but does anyone find it harder to take a internet petition as seriously as they do one on paper?

It just seems like the same kind of person who would come on here, flame everyone and claim to be a JTF elite sniper, could easily sign this petition as many times as they want without leaving any method (other than an E-Mail) of contacting them to confirm their existence etc.

Just wondering if anyone knows if theres anything to prevent someone from signing it over and over again.


----------



## nbk (15 Apr 2004)

I was all ready to support them living in Canada until I read a news article with this quote:  



> Ms. Elsamnah told CBC television earlier this year that she would be proud to have her children become suicide bombers and said she sent her four sons to al-Qaeda camps because it was better than raising them in Canada.
> 
> "Would you like me to raise my child in Canada and by the time he‘s 12 or 13 to be on drugs or having some homosexual relation or this and that?" she said.


Send her back to Pakistan and let the authorities over there deal with disrespectful scum like that. Or better yet I could wish she fled to Afghanistan so I could push Infanteer aside and blow her away myself.       :mg:   

Yeah I know I‘m not being PC, so I will probably get flamed to **** (or the mods can edit my post if they think I went over the line), but when people are only Canadians when its convenient, and the stupid government decides to reward them with free healthcare and probably give them a pile of cash and 5 free extra passports, its just too bloody much for me. It is treason no question. And dare I say the government is almost acting along the lines of treason by allowing these ingrates to live here. Even if you put their disrespect aside, they are sort of connected to what may be a terrorist group, and that is enough reason to kick them out, as they pose a threat to the country.

I can just picture it, Dalton hand delivers her first welfare cheque she grabs it, spits on him and tells him to piss off cause he is a dirty infidel.

I mean what is wrong with the government? Kick her the **** out of the country now. The really sad thing is there is no good alternative to vote for, so we just have to put up this stupidity....arrrrg...


----------



## nbk (15 Apr 2004)

And let me just clarify before a mod wants to ban me: I do not intend that as a real threat to her, but her remarks just do not sit well with me. And I speak out of my emotional dissatisfaction with the Canadian Governments actions over this issue.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Apr 2004)

Now you know how I feel, nbk....


----------



## Superman (15 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Che:
> [qb] Not arguing the validity of the idea behind the petition; but does anyone find it harder to take a internet petition as seriously as they do one on paper?[/qb]


Hey... Well i think it is being taken seriously because this morning i was listening to the radio and with the story about that horrible family they mentioned that there is a internet petition going on to try and get the family removed.. They said it shows how much Canadians disapprove of this family living here..


----------



## Bill Smy (15 Apr 2004)

> I can just picture it, Dalton hand delivers her first welfare cheque she grabs it, spits on him and tells him to piss off cause he is a dirty infidel.


Naivete isn‘t grounds to gain refugee status 

The Standard 

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 01:00 

Editorial - It's doubful there's sympathy among veterans of the Canadian Forces and serving members of militia units such as Niagara's Lincoln and Welland Regiment for the refugee claim by Brandon Hughey. 

The 18-year-old Texan, who is living in St. Catharines while seeking refugee status in Canada, deserted from the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry on the same day his unit was being shipped out from Fort Hood, Texas, for the Middle East early last month. 

Hughey says when he enlisted in the army in August 2002, he saw it as an opportunity to go to college, never thinking he would be going to war. 

But this was less than a year after 9/11, and while war with Iraq might not have struck him as a possibility, there was enough turmoil around the globe that the chance of conflict involving U.S. troops was imminent, whether as combatants, peacemakers or peacekeepers. 

Indeed, this is the case for most western military forces. Even part-time soldiers such as members of the Lincs and Winks have served and are serving alongside regular forces in peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Afghanistan, where danger is always present â â€ as humanitarian agency workers know well. 

Perhaps it is the naivete of youth, but when someone enlists to be a soldier, the training is to ready him or her for combat, whether in an offensive, defensive or support role. 

Hughey says he is confident his refugee claim will be successful and that he will set up permanent residence in Canada. 

But one wonders on what grounds the Immigration and Refugee Board can grant him refugee status. As a deserter, he faces certain arrest and court martial if he is returned to the U.S., and a probable jail term. There is certainly no likelihood of the death penalty, although desertion in time of war is punishable by death in the U.S. â â€ a punishment not meted out since the Second World War. 

People might sympathize with a young man who perhaps was misled by the glamour and opportunities offered in recruiting brochures and spiels, but naivete is hardly cause for a refugee claim.


----------



## Bill Smy (15 Apr 2004)

NATIONAL POST 

KHADRS WILL GET MEDICAL, SOCIAL BENEFITS, MCGUINTY SAYS PROVINCE‘S RESPONSIBILITY 
April 14, 2004 

TORONTO - Ontario will "assume its responsibility" by offering health and 
social benefits to the Khadr family, the controversial clan with alleged links to al-Qaeda, Premier Dalton McGuinty said yesterday. 
Mr. McGuinty said until the federal government says otherwise, Canadian citizens Maha Elsamnah, her 14-year-old son, Karim, and his brother 
Abdurahman Khadr, 21, are entitled to receive health-care coverage or apply for social assistance benefits. 

"We will assume our responsibility on behalf of the citizens of Ontario. If the federal government wishes to change the status of those 
people, that‘s up to them." 

Ms. Elsamnah and Karim returned to Canada from Pakistan last Friday, reportedly to receive medical attention. Karim was paralyzed in October 
during a gun battle with Pakistani security officers near the Afghanistan border and had been in a Pakistani hospital. 

His father, Ahmed, who U.S. intelligence officials say was an al-Qaeda financier and advisor to Osama bin Laden, was killed in the 
same battle. 

Conservative MPP Bob Runciman criticized Ontario‘s Liberal government yesterday for not lobbying federal officials to have the Khadrs expelled, calling them "Canada‘s first family of terrorism." 

"They‘ve shown pretty clearly that that‘s the case. I don‘t think they merit continued Canadian citizenship. I think they forfeited 
their right to Canadian citizenship and all of the benefits that go with it." 

Mr. Runciman wants the federal government to amend the Citizenship Act so proven terrorists would have their citizenship revoked. 

"They are Canadians of convenience, there‘s no question about it. Come back here to recuperate and then move on to nefarious
activities," he said. 

The return of the paralyzed Karim has touched off a storm of controversy. 

An Internet petition www.petitiononline.com/khadr/petition.html) calls on the federal government to deny the family welfare and health benefits, and to deport them. The petition has received more than 3,000 
hits since being set up over the weekend, the Web site says. 

Health Ministry officials say new or returning residents of Ontario must live in the province for three months before becoming eligible for medical benefits. An official at the Ministry of Community and Social Services said 
no such requirements exist in order to collect welfare. 

Abdurahman Khadr returned to Canada last year after being released from U.S. detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

He made headlines around the world when he admitted to attending al-Qaeda training camps between 1992 and 2003. 

Their 17-year-old brother, Omar Khadr, remains in U.S. custody in Guantanamo Bay. He was arrested in Afghanistan almost two years ago and is accused of killing a U.S. soldier. 

Ms. Elsamnah told CBC television this year she would be proud to have her children become suicide bombers. She said she sent her four 
sons to al-Qaeda training camps because it was better than raising them in Canada. 

In the same CBC segment, Ms. Elsamnah‘s daughter, Zaynab, commented on the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: "They deserve it. They‘ve been doing it for such a long time, why shouldn‘t they feel it once in a while?"


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Apr 2004)

Number 7788!


----------



## girlfiredup (15 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Bill Smy:
> Hughey says he is confident his refugee claim will be successful and that he will set up permanent residence in Canada.


I‘m sure he is quite confident.  He must have heard about the Khadr family.  The guy bails out on his own country and runs straight into Canada and no doubt, we‘ll accept him with open arms, hand over a welfare check and a foot rub at the same time.


----------



## Bill Smy (15 Apr 2004)

I think the response is over 10,000. Here is Diane Ablonccczy‘s response--

Thank you very much for your recent correspondence regarding the return of members of the Khadr family to Canada.  This issue has upset many Canadians and my office has received several emails as a result.

"Canada has laws against expressing hatred or advocating violence against identifiable groups (Section 318 of the Criminal Code defines an identifiable group as, â Å“any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin.â ?)  So it is entirely consistent with Canadian traditions and values to refuse to accept those who violate these prohibitions (especially those who do so openly and explicitly) into the Canadian family, and to exclude those same people who were accepted prior to their repugnant views becoming known.

The Citizenship Act should be changed to provide clear and objective guidelines for refusing/revoking citizenship in such circumstances, and provide an expeditious and efficient due process for enforcing those guidelines."


----------



## Bill Smy (17 Apr 2004)

She‘s demanding her rights. We should demand her obligations
=================

KHADRS‘CITIZENSHIP FUELS PUBLIC OUTCRY

By COLIN FREEZE
From Saturday‘s Globe and Mail 

Behind the brick walls of his grandparents‘ house in Scarborough, where a tattered Maple Leaf flutters on the front porch, Karim Khadr lies listlessly on a pink rug in the living room watching TV.

There are Palestinian flags and Arabic verses on the walls, Hollywood movies beside the VCR and five threatening messages on the answering machine.

"You‘re not wanted in this country," says one anonymous caller. "Get the **** out of this country, you *******s," says another. "I thought maybe by now you‘d get the **** out of here and take off back to Pakistan with your al-Qaeda friends," says a third.

Karim, who has just turned 15 and is mostly paralyzed from the waist down, has been back in Canada for one week. Lying on the floor in his Toronto Blue Jays sweatshirt, he seems perplexed.

"I‘m not a bad person. Why am I a bad person?" he said, his head a foot away from his mother‘s painted toenails. "Maybe we‘re even a little bit better than some of them."

Six months ago, he was in Waziristan, Pakistan, with his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, a long-time terrorism suspect nicknamed al-Kanadi, Arabic for "the Canadian."

The father, known to global intelligence agencies as a close associate of Osama bin Laden, was a hunted man, once suspected of financing a bombing that killed 17 people. He fled Afghanistan with Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders as the United States invaded in 2001.

Last October, Pakistani agents caught up with Mr. Khadr, who kept Karim around to help him because he‘d been hobbled by a land mine 10 years earlier. Now, Karim has crippling injuries of his own, and his 57-year-old father is dead.

The boy said he was walking to a stream about 500 metres from his mud hut with his 16-year-old friend, Khalid. Without warning, a bullet struck.

"I was just walking, and they shot me from behind," he said. "My back."

He waited out the ensuing battle lying on the ground, conscious but bleeding, and watched as two helicopter gunships attacked the hut, killing his father and seven other militants.

Later, in hospital, Karim was shown pictures of the corpses, and identified his father as one of the dead.

Thus ended one long chapter of the Khadr family history. Another has now begun with the return of Karim and his mother.

This week, the name Khadr was once again on everyone‘s lips, and once again straining the limits of Canadian tolerance.

Since Karim‘s mother, Maha Elsamnah, and one of her daughters defended al-Qaeda and attacked Canadian values on national TV last month, the outrage has climbed from the grassroots to the highest political levels.

Almost 10,000 irate Canadians have signed an on-line petition demanding the family be kicked out of the country. The outcry put the Prime Minister and Ontario Premier on the defensive as they explained the family‘s rights to citizenship and health care. A Liberal MP is demanding that Ms. Elsamnah be charged under the anti-terrorism act.

But an opposite reaction has greeted the storm of protest. Yesterday, at the Salaheddin mosque near the Khadr home, Karim‘s grandfather was among the hundreds who gathered for Friday prayers. Two men, recently released after being detained for murky reasons in the Middle East, were also there.

Ahmad Abou El-Maati is a 39-year-old truck driver who was jailed for two years in Syria and Egypt. Helmy Elsherief had worked with the Afghanistan charities in which Ahmed Said Khadr was involved, before Egyptian authorities held him for three weeks. Neither man wanted to discuss the detentions, which seemed to be based on Canadian intelligence tips.

In his sermon, Imam Aly Hindy told the faithful that the senior Mr. Khadr may or may not have been a terrorist, but that it‘s now for God to judge.

As for the rest of the immediate family, "these people have extreme views," he conceded. "But who said if you have extreme views you should be kicked out?"

The imam said Muslims pay taxes and probably require fewer social services than non-Muslims because they eschew activities such as drinking, promiscuity and homosexual relationships. Then he spoke of the mercy between spouses, between brothers, even between animals.

"Even the lion mother might be very merciful to her child," he told the congregation.

Karim‘s mother, who now carries her teenaged son room to room like a toddler, is unrepentant. "I‘m Canadian, and I‘m not begging for my rights; I‘m demanding my rights," Ms. Elsamnah said yesterday.

Kneeling beside her boy, she said she has applied for Ontario hospital insurance, but since there is a three-month residency requirement, she doesn‘t know how she‘ll pay for the treatment he needs right away.

"Feel his spine," she said. She pointed out the entry wound on his back, the exit wound on his abdomen and the long scar that runs down from his sternum.

His calf muscles are disappearing from lack of use. "I can move them a little bit," Karim said, as he made a tiny movement.

The teenager‘s internal injuries keep him from eating much; he has lost a lot of weight and is easy for his mother to lift. Painkillers don‘t seem to work as they once did. He is irritable and can‘t sleep.

It‘s spring outside, and while children play at the Catholic school nearby, Karim sits inside and watches movies. His mother doesn‘t always like his predilection for adventure films.

"Yesterday he was watching Kill Bill. I hated it ..... it‘s one person killing hundreds of people," said Ms. Elsamnah, complaining about the blood. "I liked Lord of the Kings," she added, mispronouncing the movie‘s title, "because it‘s fighting for justice. I love that."

Ms. Elsamnah said she sees the hobbits as valiant warriors locked in a struggle against an evil, imperialistic power. For her, that power resembles the United States.

A figure of immense controversy, Ms. Elsamnah said she is clear in her conscience, safe in her citizenship and faithful to her God. She defends the family‘s decision to move to Afghanistan years ago and insists she and her husband were always charity workers, that Afghan training camps were good places for her sons to learn discipline.

And though she was friends with the wives of Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, she still insists she was never very close to al-Qaeda. "I disagree with some of what they do. ..... I hate bloodshed because I‘ve seen so much of it," she said. "I hope it‘s over soon â â€ in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Palestine."

She has denounced Canada‘s liberal social values, but the Palestinian woman insists she is proud of her 30 years as a Canadian citizen, except when her country blindly follows the United States. "You want to be a friend to a devil?" she asked.

Last week, she and Karim came to Canada after having fought to obtain special, single-use passports. Canadian High Commission officials were initially a little "nasty," but in the end were "very nice," she said. She hopes to see the rest of her children back in Canada soon.

Always a mother, she remembered her sons as young boys. Abdullah, now a 23-year-old fugitive in Pakistan, was the quiet one. Omar, the wounded 17-year-old in Guantanamo Bay who U.S. soldiers say killed one of their own during a raid in Afghanistan, was the disciplined one. Abdurahman, the 21-year-old who also spent a year in Cuba before going to work as a U.S. spy, was the rebellious one. She worries about him. "He‘s not bad, just different," she said.

And Karim? Six months ago, her youngest son could be a difficult boy who never did his chores and wanted to be the boss. Now, his demeanour has changed so much. Remembering the Pakistani helicopter gunships, his face darkens whenever he hears an airplane.

Maha Elsamanah sat down to a lunch of smoked salmon at her parents‘ house this week. She thought of her late husband: It was his favourite dish. She said he is a martyr for Islam and hopes that in the afterlife, they will be together again.

"It was not planned this way, but God willed it this way," she said of the turmoil her family has faced. "You can‘t blame me if we tried our best


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Apr 2004)

Thats awesome...

I consider my family  "Canadian".

I‘m in the military.
I have a cousin who was in the first gulf war
My uncle served in korea. 
My grandfather world war 2. 
My grand fathers father served in ww1.
I even have a relitive who served with the british empire (Empire loyalists i believe?) during the late 1700s.

Little bit of military service in my family. I don‘t think someone needs to serve time in the military to be considered canadian by any means. Lots of people contribute to this country. 
My little brother has to wait months to get an MRI for his back. (Or he can go to quebec and pay out of his pocket to get it done).
This woman is demanding her rights? What gives her that right? Shes a "citizen"? My ***.
I don‘t see this family as having contributed anything.
But they are citizens!
Well as much as i hate to agree infront of my peers here, i agree. A citizen should be entitled to everything the next citizen is. I mean we have child rapists and murderers who have done far worse things than this little boy and they are sitting in comfy jails getting steaks on friday reading playboys and getting free condoms for their cell mates.

Maybe the real thing to consider  here is that its too eazy to be a citizen. Were giving away so much. Why?
We should make being a citizen something important, something to work for and not just bennifit from.  (Yes thats the same idea from star ship troopers but i think its an excellent idea)

Its US who are paying for the health care, lawyers and welfare checks of these bottom feeders. If they are so proud of being a citizen, make them do something for it.


----------



## The_Falcon (17 Apr 2004)

The sheer arogance is really starting to piss me off.  The boy is claiming he was just walking across to a stream and the "without warning a bullet struck".  Right and then exactly after that, that is when the battle started.  It is just mind bogling that this was allowed to happen.  We can only hope that this scandal along with adscam, will finally stick to the Fiberals and a Conserative government will have the guts to strengthen our horrid immigration systems and charge these f|_|ckers with treason and terrorism.
Burn them all. I am close to finding out were they live.


----------



## Marauder (17 Apr 2004)

Must... control... fist...of ... death...

I would encourage eveyone to write/contact their MP, and for my fellow Ontartio residents, contact your MPP and start writing (professional) nastygrams to Dalton (The Dolt) McGuinty. This bullshit is so past unsat as to be out in fantasy land. Something NEEDS to be done.


----------



## Slim (20 Apr 2004)

I‘m so disgusted with these "people".

I got a message back from my MPP saying he wants to talk to me in person so can I please give him my home address and phone number!...

Yah, that‘l happen. NOT!


----------



## Bill Smy (21 Apr 2004)

Wed, April 21, 2004 

We‘re giving comfort to the enemy

By PETER WORTHINGTON -- For the Toronto Sun




WHAT TO do about the Khadr family? 

Probably nothing. 

The fact that they are all al-Qaida supporters cuts no ice with those who feel a person‘s (or family‘s) beliefs shouldn‘t affect their citizenship. 

In theory this is fine. But it hardly works in practice. 

Canada doesn‘t want nasty nutbar Ernst Zundel to keep his citizenship because he believes Hitler was a good guy and the Holocaust didn‘t happen. 

Canada‘s immigration department wants a handful of aging Ukrainians stripped of their citizenship and deported because as teenagers they were forced to work for Nazi auxiliaries in World War II. 

The Khadr family‘s involvement with al-Qaida is somewhat more than mere "beliefs," and has extended to participation, and working for them. 

Al-Qaida is an enemy of Canada. While we, as a country, opted not to go to war against Saddam Hussein, we did join the war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan. 

The issue of tolerating the Khadr family as citizens is more complex than tolerating dissenters. Al-Qaida killed Canadians who worked in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. 

Still, the Khadr family has benefited more than most from their Canadian citizenship. The father, Ahmed Khadr, was rescued from a Pakistan jail, where he was confined for suspected terrorist activities, owing to the personal intervention of then prime minister Jean Chretien. 

Ahmed was later killed when Pakistani troops attacked suspected terrorists. His son, also an al-Qaida fighter, was killed. Another Khadr kid, Karim, was slated to be a suicide bomber until he was shot and paralyzed. He‘s now in Canada getting medical treatment. The Children‘s Aid Society is reportedly checking to determine if it is a form of child abuse to encourage your kid to be a suicide bomber. 

Another Khadr son, Omar, is being held in Guantanamo Bay, suspected of killing a U.S. medic while fighting with al-Qaida. 

Son Abdurahman apparently agreed to be a spy inside al- 

Qaida after he was caught by the Americans, thus earning the enmity of his mother and sister. 

The mother, Maha Elsamnah, seems a piece of work, too, saying she‘s lived 30 years as a Canadian and was quoted in a Globe and Mail interview saying, "I‘m not begging for my rights; I‘m demanding my rights." 

The reaction of many Canadians is "beg away, lady, we don‘t want you." 

The arrogance and intransigence of the Khadrs is as awesome as it is infuriating. 

Reaction in letters and radio talk shows indicates Canadians are more upset than somewhat. 

On CBC radio‘s Cross-Canada Checkup last Sunday, predictable academics and civil libertarian worry-warts said revoking the Khadr family‘s citizenship would be a mistake and show Canada as an intolerant country. 

This is nonsense, of course. 

Accepting an immigrant as a citizen implies -- or should imply -- certain values and responsibilities. 

We often bend to accommodate newcomers and lose sight of our existing culture. No question, immigrants have added much to our culture. Most become valuable citizens. 

But those who bring a gun culture to our streets, or settle arguments with shootouts, or wage turf wars over drug distribution, are not the sort we should show much tolerance towards. 

The same goes for those who actively support or indulge in terrorist activities. As for al-Qaida, it is a terrorist organization that directly or indirectly has resulted in Canadians being killed. 

Simple belief in al-Qaida, or any cult, is far different from joining the enemy to destabilize the prevailing ethic. Or to advance a creed that seeks the destruction of others on religious grounds. 

A case can be made that the Khadr family are unworthy of Canada and have earned the right to have their citizenship revoked.


----------



## K. Ash (22 Apr 2004)

Hats off to Mr. Peter Worthington.

"On CBC radio‘s Cross-Canada Checkup last Sunday, predictable academics and civil libertarian worry-warts said revoking the Khadr family‘s citizenship would be a mistake and show Canada as an intolerant country."

That‘s a problem there Canada is too tolerant of country. 
We have to start placing greater restrictions on who can come here and set up house.


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Apr 2004)

A line as to be drawn somewhere, and an example must be sent. I hope that the government listens to the people (for once).

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Slim:
> [qb] I‘m so disgusted with these "people".
> 
> I got a message back from my MPP saying he wants to talk to me in person so can I please give him my home address and phone number!...
> ...


So you talk the talk but when you get the real opportunity to do something, you turn yellow.  Nice.  Guess I know how much your posts are worth.


----------



## Armymedic (22 Apr 2004)

My feelings are no different then the rest of you, but...

If she is a citizen of this country then she is entitled to those benifit within the law. I feel that while the family is here, and up until the day the gov‘t pulls thier citizenship (if they can) then the young lad should get the same medical care the rest of us enjoy (or hate either way). We do have much worse people in this country, people who I would rather get rid of before the Khadr family. 

As misguided in our minds thier beliefs are...you do have to respect them for thier convictions. 

And one burning question I do have is...

Is Mrs Khadr a leafs fan?


----------



## K. Ash (22 Apr 2004)

I know your probably just joking. But, I have absolutely ZERO respect for those people (terrorists and/or their supporters) they‘re all the same to me.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Apr 2004)

"So you talk the talk but when you get the real opportunity to do something, you turn yellow. Nice. Guess I know how much your posts are worth."

Reference the petition going around. If a soldier signed it, used their real name and stated they were a soldier could that hypothecially come back to bite them in the ***?  I assume that would be under soldiers not being allowed to sign petitions?


Canada is like the the little kid on the block who will do or say anything to get everyone to like him unfortinuatly.


----------



## nbk (22 Apr 2004)

I‘m suprised you got a response from your MP, old Dalton has never responded to anything I wrote him. I hate him. 

And also Armymedic, I heard Mrs Khadr is a Sens fan, and that is the real reason everyone wants her out.


----------



## Northern Touch (23 Apr 2004)

Actually, I believe that Khadr petition has been taking down, since I cna‘t access it anymore.  While searching for it on the website, I came across this one.

 http://www.petitiononline.com/pkm/petition.html 

To:  Prime Minister Paul Martin

The recent alarming increase in the number of acts of racism and hate across Canada causes us a great deal of concern. There is currently an online petition to strip of their Canadian citizenship and deport members of the Khadr family. We feel that this petition is racist and hateful. We find the nation-wide media attention that this petition has garnered to be both dissappointing and disturbing. We therefore respectfully request that you use your awesome power as Prime Minister to undertake the following solutions to the problem:

1) Immediately strip of their citizenship and deport the creator(s) of the online petition to deport the Khadr family.

2) Promptly strip of their citizenship and deport every Canadian who signed the above mentioned petition.

3) As quickly as possible strip of their citizenship and deport federal MP Stockwell Day, Ontario MPP Bob Runciman, and any other politician or public figure that supports denying Canadian citizens their rights.

4) Enact legislation which makes acts of racism and hate punishable by deportation.

We appreciate your timely attention to these urgent and serious matters.

Sincerely, 

The Undersigned


---------------------------------------------------

Maybe we can start another petition to deport those who want to deport those who want to deport the Khadrs.  Round and round we go.

I‘ve written my MP and I never got a reply.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Apr 2004)

Welldone to whoever wrote that.
Looks to me 75% of the people who signed it were for kicking the family out and are upset the initial poll was taken down. That and it‘s turning into a he said she said match. "i disagree with what poster number 40 said. Well i think poster number 67 is a terrorist bla bla bla"

idiots.

This fromthe petition
67. j. Dyer Brown....I‘ll get you....I have guns.....know where you live....really!....uh...will also post your address.....really..... Sharing a cell with Paul Bernardo not really 
66. Peter Peter 65 is phony balogny, and chews his own balogny. Alberta U.S. 
65. Peter #59 Peter #62 is a phony baloney


----------



## Slim (24 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
> So you talk the talk but when you get the real opportunity to do something, you turn yellow.  Nice.  Guess I know how much your posts are worth. [/QB]


Sorry for not responding to this Mike. I missed your post and another member was kind enough to point it out to me.

Perhaps I should have explained myself more fully.

I wrote to my MPP explaining why I objected to that family remaining in Canada after saying and doing what they have.

My MPP‘s office (not the man himself) have repeatedly  sent me e-mails asking for my Name, address, phone number and a brief personal history.

They had the ability to respond to me through my e-mail, but declined to do so. (it is an anonymous one)

I do NOT want my MPP to have all kinds of personal information about me as they have been known to abuse that information in the past. ( I know in the past you have requested proof of statements like that. I have a specific event in mind and will do my best to dig it up for you.)

My employment requires that I remain low key. I repeatedly requested that the MPP respond by e-mail (which would have been fine.) He didn‘t want to do that.If his office had a defense for the governments actions I would have been happy to read any letter he sent and respond in kind...Why, I wonder, was that not acceptable to him?!

Finally, Mike, You and I have exchanged posts in the past and I have always respected your opinion and readily admitted when I made a mistake. 

I don‘t think that the above post was appropriate and am surprised that it was you who made it.

Please feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss this further. I would be quite happy to answer any question (within reason) that you may have.

Slim


----------



## Bill Smy (24 Apr 2004)

This family just does not get it!    

Abdurahman Khadr‘s Canadian passport refused
CTV.ca News Staff

Abdurahman Khadr, the son of an alleged associate and financier of Osama bin Laden, has been refused a Canadian passport.

Khadr, 21, was informed earlier this week that his request had been denied 11 days after completing his application.

He said he wants Canada to be his permanent home but wants to the freedom to travel.

While no details were given for why his request was turned down, the National Post is reporting his link to al Qaeda was a factor.

Khadr‘s mother Elsamnah, and sister Zaynab, have been placed on a passport control list for repeatedly losing their passports and requesting replacements. 

Khadr has admitted attending a training camp in Afghanistan. He was detained by the United States, and returned to Toronto in December after a year-long stay at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

He claimed U.S. authorities took all of his travel documents and dropped him off in Afghanistan to fend for himself.

Months later however, he said he lied and was actually working as an undercover agent for the CIA.

The rights of the Khadr family have been a hot topic in Canada since the return of Abdurahman‘s mother and 14-year-old brother Karim this month from Pakistan.

Karim was wounded and left paralyzed after a gunfight in October, and is now in Toronto seeking medical treatment. 

Elsamnah admitted her family‘s links to al Qaeda and bin Laden during a CBC television documentary, but has since denied their involvement.

An online petition to have the Khadr family stripped of their Canadian citizenship has attracted more than 10,000 signatures.


----------



## 1feral1 (24 Apr 2004)

Wounded and left paralised! And guess who‘s gonna foot the years of bills for his medical treatment, wheel chairs, etc for his duration.? The taxpayers of Canada, along with the welfare cheques too.

They are just parasites, like the great Australian paralising tick, who sucks from its host (farm animals and domestic pets)until they die. In this case they suck the life out of the Canadian welfare system as much as they can.

I say, lead by example and show not only Canadians, but the world that Canada is not a softy on terrorist trash like this.

Its a national disgrace.

BTW Slim, the ‘finance nazi‘ had a go at me too, and behaved rather inappropiate.

Its suprising, as some of his posts were quite well in the past, but lately he has been very unnecessarily critical towards some.

Not even a small ‘sorry‘(not that that would have mattered, but there are such things as ‘basic‘ manners), but carries on in arrogance as if he owns the place. so, I would not take any critisism from him seriously, and take what he says to a mininum. 

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Rick_Donald (30 Apr 2004)

Most so called Canadians have adopted an attitude that as long as they don‘t have to live next door to the Khadr‘s and the rest of their infidel hating ilk they don‘t care and only want to get back to their big screen TV‘s, drive to the mall in one of their SUV‘s and buy another useless overpriced toy. When the Al Queda start blowing up Canadian institutions than maybe these techno drunken limp wristed lefties will wake up.


----------



## K. Ash (1 May 2004)

hmm...from what I‘ve seen and heard a helluva lot of Canadians are outraged over this.


----------



## Rick_Donald (1 May 2004)

Well we‘ll see if that is reflected in the next election, won‘t we.
What I mean is that if Canadians are outraged over this than they‘ll have to do more than ***** about it over the water cooler.
This is only one more unethical act carried out by this and the former government yet these criminals in Ottawa are still walking around calling the shots.


----------



## Paul F (1 May 2004)

The Pakistani forces should have just finished off the little ******* when they had the chance in Waziristan. Now we are paying for it bigtime with all his medical bills, while his mother and brother drain the very social programs they denounce and continue spewing their hatred for the USA. But now with the mother wanting to meet her husband in the afterlife, why don‘t we just speed up the process for the whole family?


----------



## mattoigta (20 May 2004)

So, I finally got a response back from my MP regarding the Khadr issue, here it is:

Julian Reed, M.P. Halton
May 12,2004

Dear Mr. Scarlino:
Thank you for your recent communication regarding the Khadr issue.
First of all, I must remind you that the Khadr family are Canadian citizens and as such must face Canadian justice. If in fact they are terrorists or espousing terrorism, that will be exposed through ourjustice system. We would not be able to lay charges if they were away in another country.
We have to get a message out to those people who would do us harm that being a Canadian citizen is not a ‘citizenship of convenience‘.
Currently as I understand it, there are two investigations underway and you must allow some time for the facts to emerge. Canada is a very special place. We respect the rule of law and the presumption of innocence. We definitely do not support Al Queda or anything resembling it. In fact Canada as we speak is at war with terrorism so please allow the justice system to play itself out
I realize this issue is very emotional and it‘s easy to ‘knee jerk‘ but as a Member of Parliament, I must take a firm but balanced view. Justice will prevail.
Sincerely,
Julian Reed, M.P. Halton


----------



## 1feral1 (21 May 2004)

Pollyspeak, which means nothing. A whole letter which just babbles on. Another gutless polly.

Cheers,

Wes

PS No matter where you are all pollys are liars, they kiss babys,and promise you the world til they are elected.


----------



## Northern Touch (21 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Scarlino:
> [qb]
> We have to get a message out to those people who would do us harm that being a Canadian citizen is not a ‘citizenship of convenience‘.
> [/qb]


I still don‘t get it.  A family with KNOWN terrorist ties can get a citizenship, but a WWII Veteran, who fought for Canada can‘t get one to return to his home country to visit.  (sorry can‘t find the story now, it was posted on this site ,or another one).


----------



## scm77 (22 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Scarlino:
> [qb]
> Currently as I understand it, there are two investigations underway and you must allow some time for the facts to emerge.[/qb]


I‘m guessing nothing will come from those investigations.  :threat:


----------



## K. Ash (22 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Northern Touch:
> [qb]


I still don‘t get it.  A family with KNOWN terrorist ties can get a citizenship, but a WWII Veteran, who fought for Canada can‘t get one to return to his home country to visit.  (sorry can‘t find the story now, it was posted on this site ,or another one). [/qb][/QUOTE]

Weird about that eh?


----------



## Figure11 (24 May 2004)

Pathetic. Political Correctness gone haywire.


----------



## George Wallace (24 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Scarlino:
> [qb]
> 
> ... Canada is a very special place...
> ...


Gee!  Now I feel like one of "Jerry‘s Kids".    

GW


----------



## kiltedtradesman (25 May 2004)

As an MP, he has to take a "firm but balanced view".  I agree with that.  If you want the Khadr family out, and out for good, then you must be patient and let the justice system do it‘s job.  If we don‘t have faith in justice, then we will have nothing left to protect our way of life.

However, the Hon. Julian Reed now has 34 days to give you the answer you want, or you can vote his *** out of there.


      :mg:          Al Queda


----------



## Armymedic (9 Feb 2005)

My thoughts are below...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1107973642723_89/?hub=Canada

Khadr teen tortured in Guantanamo Bay: lawyer
Canadian Press

TORONTO â â€ Lawyers for a Canadian teenager held by American authorities in Guantanamo Bay say Ottawa has been complicit in his alleged abuse by failing to speak out against his treatment.

They also said Canadian diplomatic efforts to bring Omar Khadr home from the U.S. prison camp in Cuba have failed miserably.

The Toronto-born 18-year-old, whose late father was a close associate of al Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, was arrested by American military forces in Afghanistan almost three years ago after he allegedly killed a U.S. soldier.

"Omar is abandoned in a legal black hole beyond the rule of law by a lawless U.S. administration,'' Dennis Edney, Khadr's Canadian lawyer, told a news conference Wednesday.

"And the Canadian government participates in that violation by allowing its officials and its agents to participate in interrogating Omar.''

Edney said federal documents show officials from Foreign Affairs, RCMP and Canadian security agents have all been to the prison to question Khadr.

The lawyers allege that information is being shared with American agents.

"The tragedy and the sadness of this is that, at first, Omar Khadr thought they had come to take him home, only to be told, `We're not here to help you, we only want information','' Edney said.

Dan McTeague, the parliamentary secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew, said Ottawa "had been vocal about this issue'' and was doing everything it could to ensure Khadr was properly treated.

McTeague acknowledged that Canada had failed to win consular access to Khadr.

"I realize that the Americans are treating the consular issue with all nations in a very, very steadfast way,'' McTeague said from Ottawa.

"But I believe that that doesn't detract from our demand that we be given an opportunity to see him and to ensure that his treatment is consistent with international conventions.''

Believed to be the youngest of 550 "enemy combatants'' held at Guantanamo Bay, Khadr is accused of planting mines aimed at U.S. convoys. The U.S. military also accuses him of killing an American army medic with a grenade. U.S. forces shot and badly wounded him.

No charges have yet been filed against him.

*While the U.S. military says it does not condone mistreatment of detainees, Khadr's American lawyer said he uncovered a litany of abuses during four days of talks with Khadr in November. 

He said Khadr was shackled in several painful positions for lengthy periods and threats of rape were made against him.

Khadr was also used as a "human mop'' after he had urinated on the floor during one interrogation session, the lawyer said.

"One of Canada's children has been tortured by the United States*,'' said Muneer Ahmad, a lawyer at American University in Washington, D.C.

"The physical and mental abuse that Omar Khadr has received is horrific, it's immoral and it's illegal.''

The lawyers want Canada to insist that the U.S. allow consular officials and his Canadian lawyers to visit Khadr and that Ottawa be outspoken in demanding assurances he will not be executed.

They also called on the federal government to press the United Nations to conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations of torture at Guantanamo Bay documented by, among others, the International Red Cross.

The U.S. Justice Department is investigating several allegations of abuse at the prison.

"Canadian diplomatic efforts to date have been a spectacular failure,'' said Edney.

"We ask Canada not to hide behind its so-called `silent diplomacy' but be outspoken in his defence and insist that the U.S. comply with its international obligations.''

In a statement, Khadr's mother Maha Elsamnah Khadr called on Canadians to put pressure on Ottawa to do more for her son.

"As a mother, I beg every Canadian mother and father to help me get justice for my son and bring him home,'' Elsamnah Khadr said.

"The Canadian government has done nothing to help my son, so I'm asking all Canadian mothers and fathers to push Canada to speak for him.''

Khadr is one of four Canadian sons of Ahmed Khadr, who died in a shootout with Pakistani forces in Pakistan in 2003 in which the youngest brother Karim, then 14, was shot and paralysed. Karim returned to Canada last year after his family went public with his plight.

Another brother, Abdurahman, was released from Guantanamo Bay after he worked for U.S. intelligence and also lives in Canada. 

 :skull: :skull: :skull:

Bloody WHAAA!!! He should be glad they didn't do another double tap to the back of his head when they found his broken wounded body on the field....



> Khadr is accused of planting mines aimed at U.S. convoys. The U.S. military also accuses him of killing an American army medic with a grenade. U.S. forces shot and badly wounded him.



....as opposed to the coup de grace he would surely give to any of the soldiers of the great infidel found wounded before him.




> One of Canada's children has been tortured by the United States



If he's one of Canada's children, why is he overseas learning the ways of those who wish to destroy the ways of life in the western Christian Democratic countries. (just because your born here doesn't automatically mean you are Canadian)


----------



## JasonH (9 Feb 2005)

Fully agree!


----------



## big bad john (9 Feb 2005)

If you blatantly tortures the enemy, you definitely achieve two things: 1) You lower yourself.
2) You open the door to the enemy doing the same to your troops.

This is not a good thing when an Army breaks its own laws.


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> If you blatantly tortures the enemy, you definitely achieve two things: 1) You lower yourself.
> 2) You open the door to the enemy doing the same to your troops.
> 
> This is not a good thing when an Army breaks its own laws.



Hear hear. 

Hard to condemn the savagery of others when one's busy engaging in it... or espousing it.


----------



## chriscalow (9 Feb 2005)

Lets see how his family cries when we show them what "tortures" are being done to coalition troops and other allies in captivity.   Eg: They CUT people's friggin HEAD'S off!!!!

I don't really agree with what has been done to him, but I've never been in that position.   I totally disagree with this whole bleeding hearts, everybody feel sorry for the little victim thing.   He went to a terrorist country to do .. whatever.  He knew what he was getting into.  He was captured in COMBAT fighting against the coalition.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (9 Feb 2005)

QY Rang said:
			
		

> Lets see how his family cries when we show them what "tortures" are being done to coalition troops and other allies in captivity.   Eg: They CUT people's friggin HEAD'S off!!!!
> 
> I don't really agree with what has been done to him, but I've never been in that position.   I totally disagree with this whole bleeding hearts, everybody feel sorry for the little victim thing.   He went to a terrorist country to do .. whatever.   He knew what he was getting into.   He was captured in COMBAT fighting against the coalition.


There is a distinction between being captured in combat and detained according to the Geneva Convention - and torture.   "Bleeding hearts" aside, treating enemy prisoners in a degrading manner degrades the claims we hold to being "better" than the Islamist barbarians who mistreat and murder ours.   The fact that we should not shed a tear for his being detained as an enemy combatant is a separate issue - and no, he does not deserve any sympathy nor does he deserve any effort to release him from Guantanamo - but torture goes over the line.


----------



## big bad john (9 Feb 2005)

QY Rang said:
			
		

> Lets see how his family cries when we show them what "tortures" are being done to coalition troops and other allies in captivity.   Eg: They CUT people's friggin HEAD'S off!!!!
> 
> I don't really agree with what has been done to him, but I've never been in that position.   I totally disagree with this whole bleeding hearts, everybody feel sorry for the little victim thing.   He went to a terrorist country to do .. whatever.   He knew what he was getting into.   He was captured in COMBAT fighting against the coalition.



Point 1) Beheading is the normal method of execution in a lot of Middle Eastern countries.   They feel the way you do about hanging.   They feel that it is barbaric.

2)   So what you're saying here is that his being captured in combat against the Coalition gives the US the right to torture him?

It has been said that one mans Terr is another mans Freedomfighter.   We have condemned our enemies use of torture over the years.   So now we sink to it.   It dirties our reputations.   I am not defending the Terrs or saying torture doesn't happen on all sides in a conflict.   But trying to i]Normalize[/i] it is wrong.   There is no excuse for saying what is wrong is right.   It is the start of eroding of everyones rights I fear.


----------



## big bad john (9 Feb 2005)

Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> There is a distinction between being captured in combat and detained according to the Geneva Convention - and torture.   "Bleeding hearts" aside, treating enemy prisoners in a degrading manner degrades the claims we hold to being "better" than the Islamist barbarians who mistreat and murder ours.   The fact that we should not shed a tear for his being detained as an enemy combatant is a separate issue - and no, he does not deserve any sympathy nor does he deserve any effort to release him from Guantanamo - but torture goes over the line.



You say much more clearly than I sir.


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Feb 2005)

While none of us can offer much beyond speculation as to whether this fellow is actually guilty or not, the ham fisted way with which the Gitmo prisoners are being handled is only opening the door for further attacks against the US administration. None of this would have happened if charges had been laid openly against the detainees in a public court. Instead, the prisoners are denied even the privilege of knowing what the charges against them are. There is not even a pretense to justice under a closed military tribunal. For example, the <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1166826,00.html> five Britons released last year</a> had spent 3 years in Gitmo before been simply released. No charges were laid, no evidence presented, nada. The 5 had simply been arrested and locked up for 3 fsuking years without even know what they were being accused of. Presumably they are not terrorists, since the British authorities simply sent all of them home after a brief questioning upon their repatriation to the UK. If this is the way the administration wants to operate, then it better be prepared for a lot of criticism.  We gave the Nazis a trial, for gods  sake, why don't these guys deserve the same?


----------



## GGboy (9 Feb 2005)

The behaviour of interrogators towards "detainees" in Gitmo, if reported accurately, is first and foremost STUPID.
Torture of any kind rarely yields any kind of useful int. The victim simply tells the torturer whatever he/she thinks they want to hear: whatever it takes to stop the torture.
I wish I could say this kind of idiocy surprises me, but given some of the plain dumb things the current administration has done in Iraq and elsewhere, sadly it doesn't...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Feb 2005)

None of us know the exact reasons, or the proof that put them there. They were captured during Ops. To speculate on "poor, misguided youth" or why people were released with no charges, is just that, speculation. 

As to Khadr, we have only his pack of jackal lawyers and his word as proof of his abuse. Gimme a break. We've seen this kind of one sided fawning before. He was captured in combat, wounded while carrying out terrorist activities. Tough. Only my 00.02.

As to beheading, agreed, it is the normal way over there. However, it's usually accomplished with one swift sword stroke. Not a thirty second saw fest with an old butcher knife.


----------



## Marauder (9 Feb 2005)

> "Bleeding hearts" aside, treating enemy prisoners in a degrading manner degrades the claims we hold to being "better" than the Islamist barbarians who mistreat and murder ours.



Hate to burst your bubble, but I think we're past the notion of who's better or who's soft side is softer. We're in play to win mode, folks. The Islamists aren't out to prove a point ala the USSR saying communism (more to the point Marxism and later Stalinism) works to the exlusion of other ideologies. The enemy we are now fighting is just out to kill and subjagate anyone not already in the House of Submission. They may kill each other over doctrinal and minor theological differences, but with the white guy in the Dar al Harb, it's only SUBMIT or DIE!!! WAKE. THE. FUCK. UP! This is the Marines fighting kamikaze nilhists on Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal, not the Allies taking it to the Hun face to face, man to man, across Europe. You can't be the "better man" when your whole unit/country/civilisation is dead and gone! 

As for the little terrorist shitstain disgracing my citizenship and yours, FUCK 'EM. If you're gonna play the big boy's game, you better be willing to play by the big boys's rules. I don't imagine First Sergeant Speer would get Cuban sunshine, three squares, and the right to read his chosen religous tome had he survived the grenade attack and been taken prisoner by junior's pals. 

No sympathy, no retreat.



> As to beheading, agreed, it is the normal way over there. However, it's usually accomplished with one swift sword stroke. Not a thirty second saw fest with an old butcher knife.


 Excellent point, RecceGuy. Funny though how some don't like to make the distinction.


----------



## chriscalow (9 Feb 2005)

I didn't say I agree with it, in fact I believe I said I don't agree with them torturing him.  Obviously "what do I know" comes into effect on this one, but I don't feel sorry for him.  I don't agree with hanging people, cutting their heads off.  I do feel that it is ludicrous that the U.S. Government would hold these people for so long with out even charging them.  I agree with his case (that they should charge him or let him go) , but I don't feel sorry for him.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2005)

Both sides are making interesting comments.  John is quite right to point out that we do ourselves no favours by reducing ourselves to wiping urine all over other people (if the allegations are true - as many like to point out, guilt must be proved).

Just a point though.  Blanket statements that state that a Gitmo prisoner is automatically innocent and is being "wronged" by being sent there are as foolish as blanket statements which assume that the US effort there is 100% successful.  These fellows aren't exactly being plucked off of the middle of the street, I am going to assume they were put there for good reason.  I remember reading somewhere that guys released from Gitmo were being found on the wrong side of Artillery strikes in Afghanistan.


----------



## big bad john (9 Feb 2005)

Perfectly true!  I personally suspect most of them are guilty as sin.


----------



## Armymedic (9 Feb 2005)

And we are assuming that young Khadr is telling the truth...

wheres the proof, or is this just another well orchastrated scam by his family and sympathetic lawyers?

Or are we being led to believe because at prison "A" islamic captives are being abused then they must be doing the same at Prison "B"?


----------



## chriscalow (9 Feb 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> And we are assuming that young Khadr is telling the truth...
> 
> wheres the proof, or is this just another well orchastrated scam by his family and sympathetic lawyers?
> 
> Or are we being led to believe because at prison "A" islamic captives are being abused then they must be doing the same at Prison "B"?



Right on, and this is exactly why the U.S. should press their charges and get on with the trial.


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Feb 2005)

> I am going to assume they were put there for good reason.



And here in western nations we have a benchmark for good reason, its called a fair trial in a court of law.

What defence could the US administration have, when it refuses to lay charges or provide evidence that any of the detainees should even be there? If he had indeed commited those "crimes" (whatever the definition of his actions could be) then why not charge him as such and put him on trial? Omar Khadr's detention itself was illegal and a violation of human rights by any western legal tradition.


----------



## S McKee (9 Feb 2005)

People like the Khadr family use their Canadian Citizenship like I use my Costco Card..gets you into the store for all the goodies. Should we feel sorry for these individuals or that their rights are violated? I think not. What about the rights of the 3000 people in the World Trade Centre. I could care less if the guy is put in a couple of stress postions so he'll talk. People like Khadr love using our rule of law and western values of human rights against us. The ultimate insult is that they will deny these rights to others. And before you philosophers out there respond with the "If we use torture we'll be no better than them argument" just remember in their eyes we are the infidel, the great Satan and Khadr's ilk are out to kill as many of us as they can before they zoom off to paradise.


----------



## Fraz (9 Feb 2005)

Indeed, this Khadr family seems to pop up every few months in the media, whether it was regarding the father who was killed while fighting Pakastani forces, the youngest son whom received special treatment due to his wounds suffered in combat with U.S Forces in Afghanistan.   If anyone recalls the 'special relationship' the family via the father had with Mr Bin Laden himself, or the multiple Canadian Passports that were issued to family members that went missing.... So many that in fact they have been refused new ones in recent applications.   Now the family and their lawyers want to create a media circus to discredit Cdn and U.S officials... 
    I for one do not condone torture and if it comes out that any of these allegations are true, well then the appropriate steps, (ie: courts martials and jail time should follow) but, I do NOT feel sympathy for this vile excuse for a human being who tore up his Canadian citizenship the moment he left for Afghanistan and participated in attacks against the coalition (of which Canada is a part) In my mind we should be more focussed on extradition hearings against the whole bloody family in lieu of continually supporting people who's concern only rests with milking our gov't for all they can get.
 As for the situation in Gitmo, as a whole we all know that it has been a can of worms from the start. To arrest, and detain persons without charge or trial is unlawful, however, as we also all know they are not prisoners of war, but detainees who are not protected by the Geneva Convention.   If a solution is to be found why not try them in the International Criminal Court? (oops forgot... the judge's panel is predominantly anti-semitic and sympathize with numerous terrorist groups: Hamas to name one) yet the world needs to find an effective and viable solution to deal with the extremists other than just letting them rot in Cuba.   
   All in all, I'm glad that lil Khadr is in a cell in Gitmo, as opposed to planting a mine or setting an IED in an alleyway that i might happen to walk through over there...


----------



## chriscalow (9 Feb 2005)

Fraz said:
			
		

> In my mind we should be more focussed on extradition hearings against the whole bloody family in lieu of continually supporting people who's concern only rests with milking our gov't for all they can get.



HEAR HEAR!!!  I agree with everything else you said too, you just said it better than I did.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Feb 2005)

I can only guess that they have some sort of "checks and balances" in place. As to what they should and shouldn't do, when I become King, I'll write them a letter. Right now, it's well and above my head. They have their reasons, I'm sure, and right now they're good enough for me. I'll be the first to agree that innocent people, since time began, have been wrongfully damned. However, in the vast majority of criminal endevours, if you get caught, you were doing something you shouldn't have. For people that like to fly planes into buildings, blow up innocent shoppers, try to upset and destroy my way of life, I have no pity or sorrow. And right now I'm willing to let the US's judgement stand on how they treat the terrorist prisoners. Not POW's or common criminals, but terrorists. If somneone is at the wrong place at the wrong time, without a good excuse, sorry about their luck. His brother is home, you'd think he could've helped his brother out. Just how I feel.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2005)

Like Fraz and so many others, feel no sympathy for this family.   They don't have a leg to stand on legaly as far as I am concerned.   Cries of "Innocent until proven guilty" seem to be one sided in this case.   They are crying foul about their treatment and want "Compensation".   What of the innocence of the other side?   If they demand "burden of proof" that they are involved with Terrorist Organizations, then they should also produce "burden of proof" supporting their own claims.

Personally, I'd rather see their family, complete, out of our country; along with several other Terrorist and War Lord's families.   We have them here from Somolia, Syria, Indonnesia, and God knows how many other countries, living freely amongst us, raising funds for their organizations.   Time to clean house.

GW


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Feb 2005)

A lawful combatant taken PoW may be detained without any sort of trial (indeed, one would not be expected) until cessation of hostilities.  From where comes this curious idea that unlawful combatants have a lesser liability to detention without trial?


----------



## big bad john (9 Feb 2005)

The problems stem from the fact that they are denied the rights of POWs, such as visits from a Protecting Power.


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Feb 2005)

As far as I am concerned even once released they are most likely to carry on where they left off.

Its just too bad they did not meet their fate on the battlefield, or now simply just conveniently disappear without a trace.

The whole lot of them are rotten.


My 2 cents,

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Feb 2005)

I fail to see how the terms, rights, trials, visits by Protecting Powers and POW's should be used in connection with terrorists. They're lucky to be alive. Strange there's no corresponding detention facility for the other side. Oh wait, coalition prisoners, aid workers and journalists, just get killed in front of cameras with no lawyer or trial, then the headless bodies are dumped into the rivers or tossed on the side of a road. Guess no facilities are needed afterall.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2005)

Two debates on the same thread here:   Detainment without Trial of Individuals and Torture of said Individuals (while being detained without trial).   Lets try not to get the wires crossed.



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> And here in western nations we have a benchmark for good reason, its called a fair trial in a court of law.



Is it possible to charge a terrorist fighter with crimes that are only really applicable in the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States?  Obviously, this doesn't fit and extradition treaties and international agreements with Afghanistan and Syria aren't going to work either.

As well, this statement is going on the assumption that what they are committing is a specific criminal act as opposed to carrying out general and continued hostilities against an opposing force.   As Brad Sallows pointed out, PW's are not entitled to a trial.   Seeing that these characters do not fit the status of an enemy PW nor a domestic criminal makes the situation a murky one at best, which can be termed a "4th Generation War" if you buy the theory, and lines get blurred when one doesn't fit into the preconceived designations.

That being said, getting back to the main topic of the thread, I think as Professionals and as citizens of a Western Liberal democratic country, we shouldn't be so quick to jeer at the notion of torture (if the allegations of the Kahdr chap is true - his ties lead me to believe otherwise).   Interrogation is a relevent capability and needs to be maintained, but torture clearly is something that we as a society cannot condone.   We've had it outlawed for at least a couple centuries now - why it should be acceptable now is beyond me.   As I said, the situation with these detainees is murky and doesn't fit our preconceived notions of "criminal" and "PW", but if we are resorting to torture one has to question if our approach to the murkiness is the right one to take.


----------



## big bad john (9 Feb 2005)

So do we have to sink to their level?   I guess then US law is only for US citizens   and then only at the US governments discrestion?


----------



## Ghost (9 Feb 2005)

See what happens when you don't listen

We told you to behave but no you had to go become a terrorist and its time to face the music asshole.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Feb 2005)

They are at this point alive, and I suppose somewhat well. Yes they are detained and if they go to trial it should be a military one with no civvies involved in the actual proceedings. But we're not snatching them off the street and cutting off their heads on TV. I think we're already above their level and staying there. I guess the decent thing to do would be to let them out, give them tickets to wherever they wanted to go and ask them to please not kill anymore civilians or squaddies. I hope someday they are properly tried, in the meantime, they can't hurt anyone. Including my family.


----------



## big bad john (9 Feb 2005)

The moral thing would be to treat them according to law or....pass a new law which would properly take into account how war is waged now.

Please don't misunderstand me, I have no sympathy for these Cretans.  They deserve what they are getting and more.  But we must follow the rule of law.


----------



## S McKee (9 Feb 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> They are at this point alive, and I suppose somewhat well. Yes they are detained and if they go to trial it should be a military one with no civvies involved in the actual proceedings. But we're not snatching them off the street and cutting off their heads on TV. I think we're already above their level and staying there. I guess the decent thing to do would be to let them out, give them tickets to wherever they wanted to go and ask them to please not kill anymore civilians or squaddies. I hope someday they are properly tried, in the meantime, they can't hurt anyone. Including my family.



Right on


----------



## big bad john (9 Feb 2005)

I saw this quote on the home page of this site and it succinctly says what I am not eloquent enough to say.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
- Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963


----------



## S McKee (10 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> I saw this quote on the home page of this site and it succinctly says what I am not eloquent enough to say.
> 
> Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
> - Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963



"Laws are inoperative in war"
- Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.): Pro Milone.


----------



## Gunnerlove (10 Feb 2005)

It is my personal opinion that the US is trying to figure out what to do with all of the detainees. If they were to put all of them on public trial they might end up looking like fools due to a widespread lack of evidence. Or they can hang onto them and not take the risk. Welcome to a very public game of hot potato.

Torture makes very little sense especially now as no one is going to provide any good Intel years after they were taken out of any loop they may have been in. 

If we surrender our morality to our fears what will remain?


----------



## Glorified Ape (10 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> So do we have to sink to their level?   I guess then US law is only for US citizens   and then only at the US governments discrestion?



Indeed. I don't like Khadr or his family and I'm sure I wouldn't be too fond of 99% of the prisoners at Gitmo but arbitrary detention without trial, charge, or evidence only demonstrates that self-righteous sermons on freedom, liberty, and justice are as hollow as they are ridiculous. 



			
				Ghost said:
			
		

> See what happens when you don't listen
> 
> We told you to behave but no you had to go become a terrorist and its time to face the music asshole.



You're tough-talking a guy that can't hear you?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Feb 2005)

There a lot of "assumptions" and "guesses" going on in this thread.   I have also heard that like in the days of slavery, opposing Muslims would sell out their neighbor for the cash reward in the early days of the war to 1) get the cash and 2) get rid of a problem which therefore results in some people going for an all expense paid trip to Cuba.   The detainees are being treated remarkably well for not even being POW and thats a fact.   Physical torture yields sketchy results at best as those having the screws but to them will tell you anything you want just to stop and that is also a fact.   Hell put me under a Chinese water torture long enough and I might start siding with Infanteer.   That said there are techniques that are being used that do provide positive results such as sensory deprivation, minimal diet, sleep deprivation etc.   There must also be a decision made on all dominate Christian society's as to what is the end goal of Islamic fundamentalists.   Is it total religious domination or merely the expulsion of heathens from their scared land.   If they plan on total domination then there is no place for negotiation and they all must be put to the sword wherever they are, whatever age, whatever sex and let history be the judge.   That isn't our way though and we pride ourselves on taking the moral high ground. We must decide whether we want to win and what it will take.   I believe that our culture has made us weak in that regard and we don't have the stomach to get the job done.   So we fight to a draw at best.


----------



## S McKee (10 Feb 2005)

CFL just what I was thinking but afraid to post


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Feb 2005)

A jumper with 22 years experience.   You can't expect to make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.   I have no doubtly upset the beehive but the thing is, is that most of us have not experienced hardship the likes of the "greatest generation" our parents and grandparents.   Therefore they have no idea of what the world is like past Scarbough.   Hell I've only been to Bosnia and what I came with from that tour was that we are seriously blessed to live where we do.   We have it VERY easy.   No one in this country has a clue as to the real hardships out there.   We are facing a potential cultural cleansing and not many people seem to care as long as Will and Grace is on next week.


----------



## Island Ryhno (10 Feb 2005)

Sigh...Jamie Murphy never had the luxury of being put in a stress position. He was on a patrol, protecting a way of life in CANADA where the Khadr's are harboured. Jamie was thinking of going home to Candace, Norman, Alice, Johnny, Rosemary and Norma, plus his friends and my friends. I believe some of you may see how wrong our helping the Khadr's is when you read the names of Jamies girlfriend, father, mother, brother and two sisters. The Khadr family has admitted    on NATIONAL tv to being tied to a terrorist group directly responsible for the most horrible crimes against humanity since the nazis. The Khadr kid can burn there, we should deport the lawyers fighting for them as well. Terrorists do not give trials, they do not give captured soldiers the right to see a lawyer. They only one agenda; Kill. The do not give anyone the opportunity to plead for help. The way our government protects the Khadr family is a disgrace to all the people who have died at the hands of a terrorist. I wonder if I was a canadian aid worker who was captured by terrorist forces would the canadian media and government be so quick to come to my aid? Would I get the chance to tell the world how poorly I was treated. The whole Kadr clan should be deported as a minimum. We are being raped by this family at every chance, it's time for them to pay the piper, send his brother down to help alleviate the lonliness.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2005)

I fully understand why the issue brings out such strong emotions, but in one way we are being suckered by this guy's lawyer. The "torture" being described is about as intimidating as we get if we are captured in an E&E exercise: isolation, the stress position, sitting in the "cage" listening to atonal music...It is a play for sympathy and to try to get some soft headed judge to spring him.

Unfortunatly, there have already been a few cases of detainees who were sprung, only to be killed in combat with US SF teams in Afghanistan a few months later. *The Laws of Armed Conflict are generally in agreement that captives can be detained until the end of hostilities*; since these clowns have chosen to unleash a 30 years war on us, it stands to reason they will be held in captivity for the rest of their natural lives. If "Gitmo" is getting a bit crowded, perhaps we could offer Baffin Island as an alternative?


----------



## big bad john (10 Feb 2005)

Island Ryhno said:
			
		

> Sigh...Jamie Murphy never had the luxury of being put in a stress position. He was on a patrol, protecting a way of life in CANADA where the Khadr's are harboured. Jamie was thinking of going home to Candace, Norman, Alice, Johnny, Rosemary and Norma, plus his friends and my friends. I believe some of you may see how wrong our helping the Khadr's is when you read the names of Jamies girlfriend, father, mother, brother and two sisters. The Khadr family has admitted    on NATIONAL tv to being tied to a terrorist group directly responsible for the most horrible crimes against humanity since the nazis. The Khadr kid can burn there, we should deport the lawyers fighting for them as well. Terrorists do not give trials, they do not give captured soldiers the right to see a lawyer. They only one agenda; Kill. The do not give anyone the opportunity to plead for help. The way our government protects the Khadr family is a disgrace to all the people who have died at the hands of a terrorist. I wonder if I was a canadian aid worker who was captured by terrorist forces would the canadian media and government be so quick to come to my aid? Would I get the chance to tell the world how poorly I was treated. The whole Kadr clan should be deported as a minimum. We are being raped by this family at every chance, it's time for them to pay the piper, send his brother down to help alleviate the lonliness.



I seem to remember the SS using that aargumenton "Terror Fliers".   They then sent 80 or so Commonwealth Aircrew to Belsen.   It took the Luftwaffe some months to free them.   Not all made it out.   I know what it is like when you see the people who hurt your ccomradesbragging and walking free.

We should change the laws and prosecute them, not deport the problem.   My problem is that we set rules for ourselves and then ignore these rules (read laws).   How can we expect others to respect our laws then?   Do they only apply when it is cconvenient   
"Officer my lad is really not bad.   It was his first time drinking and driving.   He didn't mean to kill those people.   So we'll just give him a pass".

If we are going to incarcerate these people, then let us set up a legal frame work to do so.   Otherwise we have no come backs on how other nations and organizations treat our troops when they become POWs.


----------



## Glorified Ape (10 Feb 2005)

Island Ryhno said:
			
		

> the most horrible crimes against humanity since the nazis



I'd say Rwanda, Sudan, Bosnia, Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge (to name a few) were a bit worse than 9/11.


----------



## S McKee (10 Feb 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> A jumper with 22 years experience.   You can't expect to make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.   I have no doubtly upset the beehive but the thing is, is that most of us have not experienced hardship the likes of the "greatest generation" our parents and grandparents.   Therefore they have no idea of what the world is like past Scarbough.   heck I've only been to Bosnia and what I came with from that tour was that we are seriously blessed to live where we do.   We have it VERY easy.   No one in this country has a clue as to the real hardships out there.   We are facing a potential cultural cleansing and not many people seem to care as long as Will and Grace is on next week.



Yeah I'm getting soft in my old age, too many hardlandings. But seriously your right, the vast majority of Canadians have absolutely know idea what the world is like outside the big " CBC, Charter of Rights, I'm ok your ok, we're better than the Americans." bubble we live in. If you want a real good idea what the Arab nations think of the West check out the Middle East Media Research Institute web site at http://www.memri.org/index.html 
 J.


----------



## big bad john (10 Feb 2005)

Might I suggest we take this topic down a notch or two emotionally.   It is a very emotional issue.   That is not a bad thing.   But I see no one here defending the prisoners.   We just seem to have different ideas on how to proceed.

I would suggest that the Forum Moderators keep a close watch on this topic.   That everyone, myself included take a deep breath before posting anything.   

I would also like to apologize if I have offended anyone.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Feb 2005)

Hey I'm cool as a cucumber.  8)


----------



## Tpr.Orange (10 Feb 2005)

i think the part that gets me the most peeved about this is
"One of Canada's children."


I hate the fact that Canadians can be linked in any ways shape or form to this type of terrorism. Call me what you will but i still have the image of the good, and wholesome Canada.


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Feb 2005)

> But I see no one here defending the prisoners



I am. 5 Brits were wisked away and locked up for 3 years, without access to legal counsel, a chance to face their accusers, or even to know what crimes they were being detained for.Even the Administration, by simply releasing them without any kind of follow-up, is tacitly admitting that they were completely innocent. I'm the only one who has a problem with that?

Gentlemen, I give you <a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6631668/>this</a>, and I quote:



> Could a â Å“little old lady in Switzerlandâ ? who sent a check to an orphanage in Afghanistan be taken into custody if unbeknownst to her some of her donation was passed to al-Qaida terrorists? asked U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green.
> 
> â Å“She could,â ? replied Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle. â Å“Someone's intention is clearly not a factor that would disable detention.â ? It would be up to a newly established military review panel to decide whether to believe her and release her.



This sure does't make ME feel any safer.

Yes, I read Infanteer's post about getting our wires crossed, but I don't see what basis any argument for torture has when there is no way of even proving the guilt of any of the prisoners.

We do live by principles in this country, and you all presumably signed up to defend those principles, not just to shoot ragheads.





Now, having said that, it doesn't seem to me that the allegations of "torture" have much basis in fact. I quote from <a href=http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041203/REPOSITORY/412030359/1013/NEWS03>this source</a>




> Leon asked if U.S. courts could review detentions based on evidence from torture conducted by U.S. personnel.
> 
> Boyle said torture was against U.S. policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline."
> 
> ...




 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Slim (10 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> Might I suggest we take this topic down a notch or two emotionally.   It is a very emotional issue.   That is not a bad thing.



AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boy that felt good! 

I, personally, am against torturing anyone...However, if this "torture" is just method of harsh interrogation (and I have had worse done to me before they stopped doing that training) then I believe that it is justified. There is a time/date stamp on how much info can be gotten from a detainee after capture and the lower the rank, the shorter the time (generally about 24 hours). A sense of shock and bewilderment must be maintained in order to keep the detainee off mental balance and make the job of interrogation that much easier.

During my Int interrogation training I have witnessed, first had, the methods of U,S, intelligence officers as they conducted interrogations during an ex...they are very good and proficient at what they do...Believe me you don't need the north American equivalent Chinese water torture to make people break down...

Slim


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Feb 2005)

I might add that I think there is a reasonable compromise between a full fledged western style trial with all the trimmings, which is evidently inappropriate for this situation, and just locking people up and throwing away the key. Perhaps a modified military tribune, or a supervised trial in the state where they were captured( Afghanistan presumably). But IANAL, so I won't go into too much more detail.


----------



## DFW2T (10 Feb 2005)

Yes I know the saying goes, "Much Ado About Nothing" and unlike that Shakespearean play the Iraqi prisoner abuse is no comedy but it does involve politics of a sort.   It IS something.   For good and ill it will remain an issue.   On the one hand right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day My Lai massacre.

I heard some Arabs are asking for an apology. I humbly offer mine here.

I am sorry that the last seven times the Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1 ? Kuwait, etc.)

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Arabs.

I am sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships.

I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their 'religious' schools.

I am sorry that Yasir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and high jacked the Palestinian "cause."

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporters of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA.

I am sorry that our own left wing elite and our media can't understand any of this.

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oilâ ? money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

I am sorry that those same bombers are seeking 72 virgins ? They can't seem to find one here on Earth.

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think babies are a legitimate target.

I am sorry that our troops died to free more Arabs.

I am sorry they stopped the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves with dissidents.

I am sorry they show so much restraint when their brothers in arms are killed.

I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy Cutters on Fallujah.

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of OUR Holy Sites.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings,etc.

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.

I am sorry the French are ? French.

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that's what we do.   We hang out our dirty laundry for all the world to see.   We move on.   That's why we are hated so much.   We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside when most Americans saw this reported in the news we were like... so what?   We lost hundreds and made fun at a few prisoners.   Sure it was wrong?   Sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners.   Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?   Come on.   Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujans.

If you want an apology from this North American your gonna have a long wait. You have a better chance of finding those 72 virgins.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Feb 2005)

>I am. 5 Brits were wisked away and locked up for 3 years, without access to legal counsel, a chance to face their accusers, or even to know what crimes they were being detained for.Even the Administration, by simply releasing them without any kind of follow-up, is tacitly admitting that they were completely innocent. I'm the only one who has a problem with that?

It depends on the circumstances under which they were detained.  Any lawful combatant taken prisoner may be detained as PoW for the duration of hostilities.  There is no trial and there should be no trial unless a PoW violates the laws of war or of his own armed forces; hence, there are no accusers to be faced and no right of access to legal counsel.  A PoW is simply detained.  A PoW should be repatriated as soon as practical after hostilities cease; a PoW may be paroled sooner at the discretion of the detaining power and if the prisoner accepts parole; a paroled PoW subsequently taken under arms against the paroling power may be treated as an unlawful combatant.

At a minimum, it stands to reason that any combatant - lawful or not - may be detained for the duration of hostilities at the discretion of the detaining power.  If the combatant is simply detained, there are no trials and no visits by lawyers are required.  Anyone who wishes to participate in some sort of open-ended crusade against the US may theoretically be detained for the duration of his natural life.  Until the holy warriors are victorious over the US, or whatever amounts to the highest political command authority of the holy warriors meets the terms of surrender dictated by the US, all of the holy warriors taken prisoner may remain in detention.

I don't know under what circumstances the 5 Brits were taken prisoner.  But, if they were taken in arms, they could still be in detention today if it pleased the US to retain them.  I haven't heard that Al Qaeda or any similar organization has offered terms of surrender, or that the US has accepted any such terms.


----------



## S McKee (10 Feb 2005)

DFW2T great post, I agree. I'm assuming from your post your an American, if so, my hat's off to you and your countrymen, thank God for the USA. J


----------



## DFW2T (10 Feb 2005)

Jumper,
   Actually I'm an ex CDN soldier working for an American company doing PSD work here in Iraq.  But thanks...wish there were more Canadians here!


----------



## P Kaye (10 Feb 2005)

I'm not sure how the process works for enemy combatants capture during combat... but what I have read in the media leads me to believe that they are held by the military.
I might suggest that it is a bad idea to allow POWs to be held by soldiers who are in any way linked to the combat.  Understandably, soldiers who have a role in fighting will be in a combat mindset, and will be emotionally embroilled in feelings of anger towards the enemy.  This, I suspect, could be the source of some of the alleged abuses that we have seen reported.  Combat soldiers develop a hatred for their enemy, and when they have an enemy held captive, it may be very difficult to resist the temptation to commit abuses.
Perhaps a policy should be put in place where POWs are IMMEDIATELY transferred to the supervision of specialists who are not directly involved in combat.  Perhaps these should be civilian lawyers and political scientists, with a small dedicated armed squad for security.  The combat soldiers could be kept completely away from the POWs.
Perhaps this would be difficult to acheive, logistically.  And of course there is always going to be a delay between the time the combat soldiers apprehend the POW and the time when they could actually be transferred out.
Does anybody know for certain how the process actually works in practice?


----------



## Horse_Soldier (10 Feb 2005)

P Kaye said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how the process works for enemy combatants capture during combat... but what I have read in the media leads me to believe that they are held by the military.
> I might suggest that it is a bad idea to allow POWs to be held by soldiers who are in any way linked to the combat.   Understandably, soldiers who have a role in fighting will be in a combat mindset, and will be emotionally embroilled in feelings of anger towards the enemy.   This, I suspect, could be the source of some of the alleged abuses that we have seen reported.   Combat soldiers develop a hatred for their enemy, and when they have an enemy held captive, it may be very difficult to resist the temptation to commit abuses.
> Perhaps a policy should be put in place where POWs are IMMEDIATELY transferred to the supervision of specialists who are not directly involved in combat.   Perhaps these should be civilian lawyers and political scientists, with a small dedicated armed squad for security.   The combat soldiers could be kept completely away from the POWs.
> Perhaps this would be difficult to acheive, logistically.   And of course there is always going to be a delay between the time the combat soldiers apprehend the POW and the time when they could actually be transferred out.
> Does anybody know for certain how the process actually works in practice?


I'll point out one thing that immediately strikes me with respect to your argument - the Abu Gharaib (and alledged Guantanamo) abuses were not committed by combat soldiers but by rear-area types, and in the case of what is alleged in Guantanamo, includes civilians.     To say that combat soldiers develop a hatred for the enemy also rings very false.   I've had many members of my family fight in WW2 (on both sides) and the one thing I never, ever heard from them was hatred for the enemy.   I would posit that hatred is the last thing you want a combat soldier to feel because it will cause him to commit stupid mistakes.   Combat soldiers are not ravening lunatics whose only aim is to kill - at least not in our (western) armies.   Once the fight is out of the enemy, the social inhibitions against violence that were suppressed under fire, come back.   POW abuse by front line troops has historically been rare enough to make it an exception - and many of those exceptions were committed by ideologically (political or religious) conditioned troops where the normal inhibitions to committing violence on unarmed people have been suppressed (the SS are an example).

I also fail to see where civilian lawyers and political scientists would be involved in guarding prisoners - the thing one is supposed to do with POWs is hold them until the end of hostilities so they can no longer fight.   For that all you need is a secure compound and enough rifles/machine guns on the perimeter to deter escape attempts.

POWs captured by front-line troops are handed over to whomever has the POW pick-up role ASAP and their first stop is the formation POW cage run by MPs.   From there, they are transported to POW camps by whatever means are available.


----------



## muskrat89 (10 Feb 2005)

> Perhaps these should be civilian lawyers and political scientists, with a small dedicated armed squad for security.



Please tell me that was "tongue in cheek"


----------



## P Kaye (10 Feb 2005)

>> Please tell me that was "tongue in cheek"

Well, I didn't think that aspect through very carefully.... all I was getting at is you might want to have some kind of experts on-hand at POW prisons for interrogation purposes... to help decide what kind of information the enemy combatants might have that could be valuable, and to assess whether the information being provided is accurate.

>> Combat soldiers are not ravening lunatics whose only aim is to kill - at least not in our (western) armies

Indeed, I agree and wholeheartedly hope this is always the case.  This point is somewhat related to a (very heated) argument I had very recently on a thread about the Marine Generals comment about killing being "fun".  I was arguing that soldiers should attempt to maintain the mindset that killing is just the job they have to do... and avoid taking pleasure in it out of hatred for the enemy.  Others were arguing against me that there is nothing wrong with a soldier enjoying his job (even killing), and that it might make a soldier more effective in combat.  I can see the point they are making, but I wholeheartedly disagree with it.


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I don't know under what circumstances the 5 Brits were taken prisoner.  But, if they were taken in arms, they could still be in detention today if it pleased the US to retain them.  I haven't heard that Al Qaeda or any similar organization has offered terms of surrender, or that the US has accepted any such terms.



While I am not an expert on the Geneva convention, it must be quite obvious that these rules cannot readily be applied in this instance. Those rules were made for uniformed soldiers captured under the circumstances of conventional warfare. If you are captured with a mauser in your hand and wearing a Nazi uniform, then there is no doubt that you are an enemy combatant and should be detained. Obviously, Al Qaida or the Talliban are not going to surrender or negotiate a prisoner exchange, so what recourse do those who are mistakenly detained have? Do you want to tell those 5 Brits (who never had any connection with either)  that they are detained indefinetly until OBL surrenders or calls to negotiate their release? I agree with the administration in that they are not formal prisoners of war.

Now, I suspect many of the detainees had no reason to be there, but if the administration had been more transparent with their methods, and formally laid out evidence and charges against the detainees, this whole shebang would have been more palletable to the public. Ultimately, some of the detainees would have to be aquitted for lack of evidence, and hey, we made a mistake, here's a T-shirt, no serious harm done. If they continue to insist on Gestapo methods, people like me are going to get a little nervous.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Feb 2005)

DFW2T

That was an excellent post but to bring it in line with the topic you should have appologized for the fact that their son was captured after throwing a grenade that killed Sgt 1st class Christopher J. Speer.

We appologize that you were sent rasied in the world of radical Islam and that you had to attend Bin Ladens terror training camps in Afganistan.

We are sorry that after the death of Christopher J. Speer you were saved by another army medic who saved your ass after you took three rounds.

We are sorry that your family has no remorse for your killing of a US army Medic but now want the Canadian Public on their side to get your release.

We are sorry you had to live in Canada, you could alway go back to living with Osama bin Laden if you don't like the rights and freemdoms your family has here.

i' am sorry but but i find it hard to believe these people want my sympathy.   Check the national post "Canada Liable for any Abuse" for where the appoligies of my post come from.


----------



## DFW2T (10 Feb 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> DFW2T
> 
> That was an excellent post but to bring it in line with the topic you should have appologized for the fact that their son was captured after throwing a grenade that killed Sgt 1st class Christopher J. Speer.
> 
> ...




   Wizard,
     Touche' ....Good points...... Thanks!

DFW2T


----------



## Fraser.g (10 Feb 2005)

One apology you forgot was

We are sorry that your son was wounded while attacking American troops and is now paralyzed. We are also sorry that you decided to move back to Canada so that you could access the health care system because the one in your homeland was discriminatory, archaic an corrupt.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> While I am not an expert on the Geneva convention, it must be quite obvious that these rules cannot readily be applied in this instance. Those rules were made for uniformed soldiers captured under the circumstances of conventional warfare. If you are captured with a mauser in your hand and wearing a Nazi uniform, then there is no doubt that you are an enemy combatant and should be detained. Obviously, Al Qaida or the Talliban are not going to surrender or negotiate a prisoner exchange, so what recourse do those who are mistakenly detained have? Do you want to tell those 5 Brits (who never had any connection with either)   that they are detained indefinetly until OBL surrenders or calls to negotiate their release? I agree with the administration in that they are not formal prisoners of war.
> 
> Now, I suspect many of the detainees had no reason to be there, but if the administration had been more transparent with their methods, and formally laid out evidence and charges against the detainees, this whole shebang would have been more palletable to the public. Ultimately, some of the detainees would have to be aquitted for lack of evidence, and hey, we made a mistake, here's a T-shirt, no serious harm done. If they continue to insist on Gestapo methods, people like me are going to get a little nervous.



This is why the situation is so ambiguous; Jihadis and their decendents are not and will not conform to the definitions developed to write the Laws of War. Historical analogies are a bit frightening. The Jihadis resemble the religious or ideological SS troops who do wantonly kill prisoners. 

Perhaps one of the reasons there is little transparency in the process is suspects are being picked up through the use of intelligence means, and if these means were reveled in a court room or simply by providing the defense with material evidence, then important assets would be lost or neutralized. The other reason is soldiers are not police, and if my section was to flush out some Jihadis and capture them, we would not have the training, time or inclination to gather forensic evidence other than the most obvious things like abandoned firearms. (even then, we are not wearing gloves or carrying evidence bags). I am sure new forms will be developed to deal with these situations, just as the police are discovering ways to fight Internet crime.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2005)

Although this was sent to me as a joke, it does hold some relevance in a discussion such as this and our dealings with the Liberal Left:



> The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
> Washington, D.C. 20016
> 
> Dear Concerned Citizen:
> ...



GW


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Perhaps one of the reasons there is little transparency in the process is suspects are being picked up through the use of intelligence means, and if these means were reveled in a court room or simply by providing the defense with material evidence, then important assets would be lost or neutralized. The other reason is soldiers are not police, and if my section was to flush out some Jihadis and capture them, we would not have the training, time or inclination to gather forensic evidence other than the most obvious things like abandoned firearms. (even then, we are not wearing gloves or carrying evidence bags). I am sure new forms will be developed to deal with these situations, just as the police are discovering ways to fight Internet crime.



Absolutely, and that is why a civilian court would be inadequate for most of the situations. I am all for a more lenient standard when it comes to evidence and what not. 

e.g. In your example, If you as the officer commanding, together with 2 troops on the scene, were willing to testify against the detainee, and the details of his arrest were made public( in sofar as OPSEC would allow , naturally), I think it would be a good enough case to satisfy public curiosity. It could even be done in writing, although I suspect the hardships of a week in Cuba won't put too much strain on your busy schedule. 

I don't think such proceedings will neccesarily stand up in a civilian courtroom, but a guesture of good faith is better than nothing.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Feb 2005)

RN PRN said:
			
		

> One apology you forgot was
> 
> We are sorry that your son was wounded while attacking American troops and is now paralyzed. We are also sorry that you decided to move back to Canada so that you could access the health care system because the one in your homeland was discriminatory, archaic an corrupt.



Yes excellent add on.

I think we are forgetting that these people are at a military instilation not a federal prision and therefore in my opinion should only be afforded the rights of POWs.  Not that of American citizens.  If (when) a Canadian citizen were to be caught in Iran do think he would be tried according to Canadian Law or Iranian law?  

Just cause the combatants don't dress like they are in the army is no reason to treat them any different then other POWs who do.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Feb 2005)

I think the whole prison abuse topic is a bit of a dead horse but i'm quite certian more went on than a little sleep deprivation or panties worn on prisoners heads.  

I would argue that prisoners died while in custody but someone would easily fire back prisoners die in our prisons all the time.

I'm sure the abuse in the prison wasn't some death camp type set up but lets not wave our hands and pass it off as some of the boys just getting a little out of hand.

Honestly,  can have a single thread here about the geneeva convention or  prisoners of war or abuse or the airborne regiment without someone mentioning somalia?  That word is the frankinstein of dead horses.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Feb 2005)

Agree with alot of what you said ghost.

But  I think Somlia may be the litmist test of abuse scandels and that is why it is always mentioned.


----------



## P Kaye (10 Feb 2005)

Agreed Ghost.

The list of "apologies", while perhaps midly entertaining, is only really serving as an amusing way to vent.  Nothing constructive is coming out of that...


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Feb 2005)

And what you plan on solving the worlds problems on public form?

it is an opinion post based on the article i mentioned.  Used to stimulate conversation be it good or bad.


----------



## P Kaye (10 Feb 2005)

>>it is an opinion post based on the article i mentioned.   Used to stimulate conversation be it good or bad. 

Fair enough.   Clearly we can't "solve all the world's problems" here, but if we can provide good, informed, insightful debate and try to minimize ranting and venting, the credibility of this forum will continue to grow.

I would love to think that Generals, and perhaps even the Minister of National Defense will visit this site and read the columns... if they did I would hope that they would find the posts to be generally intelligent and insightful, and give them things to think about.


----------



## S McKee (10 Feb 2005)

P Kaye said:
			
		

> Fair enough.   Clearly we can't "solve all the world's problems" here, but if we can provide good, informed, insightful debate and try to minimize ranting and venting, the credibility of this forum will continue to grow.
> 
> I would love to think that Generals, and perhaps even the Minister of National Defense will visit this site and read the columns... if they did I would hope that they would find the posts to be generally intelligent and insightful, and give them things to think about.



I have found the posts intelligent and insightful, having said that, this is a pretty emotional topic for most patriots. And dammit sometimes you just gotta vent. J


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Feb 2005)

If your air smelt like fresh pine trees and poutine and good beer i think you would transfer to my trade S_Baker   



Agreed, i'm not too sure the circumstances.   When something like this happens there always seems to be two extreames. In the prison case it often seemed to be 

a. the monster american soldiers were pulling the teeth out of these poor innocent until proven guilty prisoners and tourturing them for sick entertainment and,
b. there was no wrong doing here, just some troops getting out of hand. it happens all the time it's no big deal.

More often than not the truth is in the middle. (Which I would say for practically every topic discussed here. Saying its fun to kill people, somalia, what we should do to deserters, how to win the war in iraq, when is it okay to swear)



> As a military professional and an Army Officer I hate to second guess someones decision while they were in harms way.   It is important to analyze ones decisions but unless you were there it is difficult to criticize.


Agreed though I think that just because my feet wern't on the ground that I can't form my own opinion from what i see and hear in the media from reporters, military spoksmen and the soldiers that were there.   I think the key is to analyze and not criticize.   Passing judgement according to the first article/news flash you see is no good.

I'm a little biased (or maybe touchy/emotional?) when it comes to the somalia topic.      
Aside from kids going on about how we need the airborne regiment back(Yet they have no idea what a paratrooper does) , i personally find that many people bring up somalia as a sort of "Ya well you guys aren't so perfect either!".   
It's a mistake that people (who often seem to be near oblivious to the facts, yourself excluded) always always bring up thinking it's like check mate in a game of chess.
It bugs me the same way when people constantly put down the professionalisim dedication and sacrifice of the american soldiers by refering to the prison abuse issue or case of the soldier shooting the 'guy playing dead' again as a sort of "check mate" when it's clearly not. To me it's almost as silly as holding germanies actions in WW2 against their soldiers in the present.




> would love to think that Generals, and perhaps even the Minister of National Defense will visit this site and read the columns...



Of course they do. They are the ones that make up the goofy names and ask stupid questions just to get us going     ;D

EDIT: re-reading my post S_Baker, it might seem like I am directing my comments towards you. I appologize if thats how I sounded as it was not my intent.   I should have been more specific. I think there's a huge difference betweensoldiers and civilians  educated on the subject discussing the issue professionally and someone who just brings it up as an attack.   I think you made a great comparison of lack of leadership found in both incidents.


----------



## Fraser.g (10 Feb 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Just cause the combatants don't dress like they are in the army is no reason to treat them any different then other POWs who do.



Actually that is the exact case. Under the Geneva convention a member is only afforded the protection of the conventions if he/ she is recognisable from the general population by a garb or identifier. As these people were not in a uniform of any sort they are not protected by it. It would be the same way for a member of the SF or a spy who is caught behind enemy lines in Civi Dress. They are ukered.


----------



## Rick_Donald (10 Feb 2005)

Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding that everytime these Islamic Jihad sympathizers open their mouths its a pack of lies intended to penetrate the thin skulls of liberal's and weaken the western world's (the Great Satan) resolve to end this unholy war the only way possible. Only by bringing democracy to these oppressed nations and freeing the minds and bodies of these people will we ever experience peace.
That goes for all nations that use tyranny, oppression and fear to rule, China, North Korea, Iran, and Sudan. The States is on the right path but need more support from the international community. If the UN really cared about world peace and human rights than the US wouldn't be going this alone.
As for the Khadr's they should all be sent back to the cesspool they spawned from and stop trying to con the Canadian people with their lies. They've admitted to committing the crime so do the time.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2005)

RN PRN said:
			
		

> Actually that is the exact case. Under the Geneva convention a member is only afforded the protection of the conventions if he/ she is recognisable from the general population by a garb or identifier. As these people were not in a uniform of any sort they are not protected by it. It would be the same way for a member of the SF or a spy who is caught behind enemy lines in Civi Dress. They are ukered.



If you really want to get technical, people who fight disguised as civillians, fight from churches, mosques, hospitals, schools; target innocent civillians or use them as shields fall under a different category:

*Criminal.*

Historically, the way these people have been dealt with from ancient times to today is they are dragged into the middle of the street and shot (or stabbed if you go back far enough). The fact Uncle Sam sees fit to house these people in *any* sort of accomodations, feed and cloth them, give them access to US Army Imans, play a selection of C&W music for them to hear 24/7, and generally be prepared to do so for the remainder of their natural lives seems to indicate the Americans are way ahead of the curve, with the occasional throwbacks showing up in the guard house to spoil things.


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Feb 2005)

> play a selection of C&W music for them to hear 24/7,



And you say there's no torture?!


In all seriousness, some of the detainees were not captured during fighting, disguised as civillians or otherwise. Many were, in fact, simply snatched off the street in Pakistan or various African countries.  (Source <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1387829,00.html>here</a> and <a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6865216/>here</a>.)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Feb 2005)

I don't think democracy can be put in place by anyone else other then the people that live there regardless of how long it takes.  Otherwise the legitimacy will be in question.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Feb 2005)

Rick_Donald said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding that everytime these Islamic Jihad sympathizers open their mouths its a pack of lies intended to penetrate the thin skulls of liberal's and weaken the western world's (the Great Satan) resolve to end this unholy war the only way possible. Only by bringing democracy to these oppressed nations and freeing the minds and bodies of these people will we ever experience peace.
> That goes for all nations that use tyranny, oppression and fear to rule, China, North Korea, Iran, and Sudan. The States is on the right path but need more support from the international community. If the UN really cared about world peace and human rights than the US wouldn't be going this alone.
> As for the Khadr's they should all be sent back to the cesspool they spawned from and stop trying to con the Canadian people with their lies. They've admitted to committing the crime so do the time.




I could not have said it better myself.  

They use our own societies rules against us while adhere to none.  When you show up to fight and the bell goes i think some of the gloves have to come off or it will never be a fair fight.  This is not to say that we should not abide by the rules of our won society but maybe when fighting those that don't we should play by their rules.  

a_majoor i think we finally agree on something, they should be treated as criminals and punished under their laws.

RN PRN  yea they may be ukered but if we treated every one in that manner than we would either have a lot more enemies or a lot fewer.  I think when we go to war we treat every combatant as a forgien solider it is what makes Civilized nations another step ahead of some back ward state.  But i see your point.


----------



## Fraser.g (11 Feb 2005)

A_Majoor,

I stand corrected. I do not believe they would give any of our troops any quarter irregardless if the area, Afghan or Iraq. 
As for the Khdar family, there is the door. We do not have the same beliefs as you, nor do we tolerate the kind of biggotism that you are so flagrantly displaying. 

BYE! or Flush and swirl!


----------



## Wizard of OZ (11 Feb 2005)

As for the Khdar family, there is the door. We do not have the same beliefs as you, nor do we tolerate the kind of biggotism that you are so flagrantly displaying. 

BYE! or Flush and swirl!


wait wait 

don't forget to write so we know how your family is doing at the terror camps in Iran


----------



## big bad john (12 Feb 2005)

From todays Guardian:
Revealed: Britain's role in Guantanamo abduction 
Freed detainee tells of horrors in US terror camp 

David Rose
Sunday February 6, 2005
The Observer 

British intelligence officials played a crucial part in the secret abduction of UK citizen Martin Mubanga to Guantanamo Bay. There, he reveals today in an exclusive interview, he endured 33 months of ill-treatment and often abusive interrogation. 
Documents seen by The Observer disclose that even the Pentagon's own lawyers now accept that the intelligence that consigned him to Guantanamo may have been deeply flawed. Mubanga, who was released without charge after his return to Britain on 25 January, now plans to sue the British government. 

In his interview today, the first by any of the four Britons who returned from Guantanamo last month, Mubanga, 32, describes a horrifying catalogue of abuse: 

 · In one interrogation session, he was forced to urinate in the corner of the interview room while chained hand and foot. 

 · He was treated to a regime known as 'BI [basic item] loss'. This meant his thin mattress, trousers, shirts, towel, blankets, and flipflops were all taken away, leaving him naked except for boxer shorts in an empty metal box. 

 · Last autumn, while Pentagon lawyers were writing memos suggesting that Mubanga may not have had any involvement in terrorism at all and may not have been given a fair hearing, the Guantanamo authorities subjected him to the harshest treatment in his 33 months in Guantanamo, with three brutal assaults by the 'Instant Reaction Force' riot squad for trivial violations of the camp rules. 
  · Mubanga's worst moment came last March, when the first five British detainees were sent home. He had at first been told he would be joining them, but was instead confined in a block with prisoners he could not communicate with, and told he would be held there for many more years. 

The disclosure that British intelligence was instrumental in consigning Mubanga to Guantanamo raises serious questions about the consistency of British policy towards the controversial US camp. In public, ministers, led by Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, negotiated for months with the Pentagon for the release of British detainees. 

Mubanga's solicitor, Louise Christian, said yesterday that she planned to take legal action against the government. His arrest, detention and transfer had clearly breached British, Zambian and international law, she said. 'We are hoping to issue proceedings for the misfeasance of officials who colluded with the Americans in effectively kidnapping him and taking him to Guantanamo.' 

Mubanga, a former motorcycle courier, says he went to Afghanistan at the end of 2001 to study Islam. He was never, he insists, a sympathiser with al-Qaeda, and he condemned the 9/11 attacks. 'I do not approve of the killing of innocent men, women and children,' he said. 

He says he fled to Pakistan after the beginning of the war against the Taliban, but says that someone stole his passport. A dual British-Zambian national, he phoned his family from Karachi and asked them to post him his Zambian passport. He says he used this in February 2002 to go to Zambia, where he was joined by his sister and stayed with other relatives. 

However, on 2 March the Sunday Times claimed Mubanga had been arrested in Afghanistan, fighting with the Taliban - presumably this referred to the man who stole or was handed his passport. Soon afterwards, he was seized by Zambian security men. 

He was held in a series of guarded motels, where he was interrogated for days by a female American official and a Briton who called himself Martin and said he worked for MI6. 'Martin' produced Mubanga's British passport, together with a list of Jewish organisations in New York and a military training manual that he claimed Mubanga had handwritten. They had been found with the passport in a cave in Afghanistan, he said. Mubanga pointed out that his handwriting was nothing like that in the manual, and said he had never seen the documents before, or been to any caves. 

A few days later, Mubanga was loaded on to a plane by men in balaclavas and flown to Guantanamo. For more than two years, the claims made by the MI6 man - that he had been on a mission to reconnoitre targets in New York and had travelled to Zambia on false documents - were the main grounds for his detention. 

Last October, this was confirmed by a Guantanamo Combatant Status Review Tribunal, a panel of military officers. Later, however, this decision was reviewed by a US military lawyer, who found it deeply flawed. His report shows that Mubanga had asked to call members of his family in his defence, saying they prove that he had not travelled to Zambia on false documents for a terrorist mission, but to visit relatives on his own passport. 

Last night a Foreign Office spokesman said he could not comment on the activities of British intelligence or security agencies. He said Mubanga's 'transfer to Guantanamo Bay is a matter for the Zambian and American authorities'. 

Mod edit: took out the avertising stuff,
Bruce


----------



## Infanteer (12 Feb 2005)

First off, I peeing in a room corner and having no bed doesn't seem like the abject torture that seems to be indicated.

Second, he claims he went to Afghanistan to study Islam?  That would be like me going to Sudan to study basketweaving or something.  Sounds fishy to me, and this guy was probably stuck there for good reason.


----------



## winchable (12 Feb 2005)

It's not entirely far fetchedthat he might go to Afghanistan to study Islam.
For many, going to Saudi Arabia is very pricey.
Afghanistan would have been an inexpensive way to study at an Arabian madrassa....economy class If you will.

But As you said Inf. those are hardly "A catalogue of Abuses" 
I suppose to someone who isn't of that breed might find them somewhat horrific, and the whole Kafka-esque nature of his detention might give him a very genuine basis for his claim.

(was that good use of the term kafka-esque?)


----------



## big bad john (12 Feb 2005)

Excellent Che!


----------



## Island Ryhno (13 Feb 2005)

These are different situations big bad john, perhaps someone does owe this guy an apology. The Khadr kid was killing american soldiers, caught with the blood of a soldier on him. When a wide net is cast, sometimes innocents get caught in that net. The unfortunate part about terrorism is that the net has to be so wide as to entrap a whole religious belief. Unfortunate incident on the brits case IF it is true. Khadr is getting better than he deserves.


----------



## big bad john (13 Feb 2005)

I am not defending any of them.  I just threw it out there for discusion.  Stir the pot and get the old grey matter working so to speak.


----------



## big bad john (13 Feb 2005)

07:30   13 February 2005

Freed Australia Terror Suspect Says He Was Tortured

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australian former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib said on Sunday he was beaten and subjected to electric shock torture in Pakistan and Egypt and degraded by U.S. forces in Cuba during his almost three years in detention. 
Speaking for the first time since his release in January from Guantanamo Bay, Habib told Australia's 60 Minutes television program he was beaten by U.S. and Pakistani forces and tortured with electric shocks after his 2001 detention in Pakistan. 

"They take me in a jail and they have a concrete wall and wire inside and they lift me up. They put electric shock on it and make me run," Habib said. 
Habib was held on suspicion he helped Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s militant al Qaeda network after being arrested crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan (news - web sites) three weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. 
But the United States failed to find enough evidence to charge Habib and he arrived back in Sydney on January 28. 
Habib said an unnamed Australian government official had witnessed him being tortured in a Pakistani military airport and again in Egypt. "He seen me tortured in the airport," an emotional Habib said in the television interview. 

Australia says it has no evidence Habib was tortured or abused during his detention. 
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said on Sunday that Habib's passport had been canceled as the country's secret service, the Australian Secret Intelligence Organization (ASIO), had security concerns about him. 

"ASIO have great concerns about him. They have great concerns about his alleged involvement with al-Qaeda," Downer said. 

Habib said that during a three week detention in Pakistan, 15 Americans and four Pakistanis beat him and stripped him naked, and photographed and videotaped him. 

He said while naked a dog was brought up behind him and he was told that the dog had been trained to have sex with people. 
"The dog was behind me all the time, but it doesn't do anything to me --just scare me," Habib said. 
Photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq (news - web sites) shocked the world when published in 2004. 

Eight U.S. soldiers were implicated in the prisoner abuse, several have been court marshaled and one ringleader sentenced to 10 years jail. 
Habib said he was flown from Pakistan to Egypt, where he was tortured daily during his six month detention there before being moved to Guantanamo Bay. He said he was again subjected to electric shock, and also drugs, while in Egyptian detention. 

Habib said he falsely confessed under torture in Egypt to being involved with al Qaeda and prior knowledge of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

"I said yes. Nothing was true. I make them happy. I want to save myself," he said. Habib said he had never been to an al Qaeda training camp as alleged by U.S. authorities. Habib said he was in Pakistan in 2001 looking for a school and college for his children and for business opportunities because he wanted to leave Australia as he was being harassed by the country's secret service. 

Habib refused to say why he was in Afghanistan or who funded his trip. 
Habib said when he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, where he was held for more than two years, he was subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment by U.S. authorities. 
"They use everything possible to make me crazy," Habib said. 
"They put me in isolation all the time. I never see the sun. I never have shower like a human being. I never treated like a human being," he said. 
"No one should be treated in the way they are treated in Cuba. The Americans, how they are treating people, they are terrorists. They have no humanity." The United States has said it believes Guantanamo detainees are treated humanely.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Feb 2005)

On the other side of the coin....


Australian terror suspect allegedly had multiple meetings with Osama 

Date: 10 February 2005 1531 hrs (SST) 

URL: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/131813/1/.html 

SYDNEY : A detained Australian terrorist suspect had multiple meetings with Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden before returning home as a "sleeper" agent for the radical Islamic group, prosecutors alleged. 

Lawyers for the suspect, Jack Thomas, went before a Melbourne court to make their third bail for application for their client, who was arrested in November and has since been held in a maximum security prison. 

Prosecutors told the court that Thomas, a 31-year-old convert to Islam, met Osama on more than one occasion while training at an Al-Qaeda camp in Pakistan. 

They alleged that Thomas continued to associate with people linked to Al-Qaeda after the group carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. 

He was allegedly approached by one Al-Qaeda member on behalf of bin Laden to return home to Australia and act as a "sleeper" for the organisation, the court heard. 

Thomas, who at one point officially changed his name to Jihad - struggle or Holy War in Arabic - is charged with three offences including receiving money from, and providing support for Al-Qaeda when he was living in Pakistan in 2002 and 2003. 

Magistrate Ian Gray said he would consider Thomas' bail application and announce his decision at a later time. 

Thomas last applied for bail in December on the grounds that an Australian Federal Police interview that led to the charges against him breached the rules of evidence because it was conducted when Thomas was in custody in Pakistan with no access to a lawyer. 

That application and an earlier one were both rejected. 

His lawyer, Rob Stary, said before the hearing that Thomas was increasingly distressed by the conditions of his detention in the maximum security Barwon Prison, where he is in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day and has no contact with other inmates. 

"He is terribly distressed and I think his mental state is completely fragile," he said. 

His mother, Patsy Thomas, said her son's imprisonment was emotionally draining for the whole family. 

"Not to be able to touch him and cuddle your child and to not be able to touch and cuddle his children is heartbreaking - we feel it," she told ABC radio earlier Thursday. 

"One hour a month Jack is allowed to have contact with his two little girls," she said. 

"The rest of the time he only sees them on the other side of the glass with us (for) one hour a week." - AFP


----------



## big bad john (14 Feb 2005)

todays Ottawa Citizen:

Canada's JTF2 captives vanish at Guantanamo
U.S. stymies request for information about fate of Afghans caught in raids
  
a journalist 
The Ottawa Citizen 


February 14, 2005


1 | 2 | 3 | NEXT >> 

CREDIT: Andres Leighton, The Associated Press 
Detainees are shown in their cells facing Mecca during evening prayers in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in this 2002 photo. Canada has an obligation under the law of armed conflict to track the detainees its troops captured even after they are handed over to another country. However, U.S. officials have repeatedly refused to provide details on Guantanamo prisoners. 






Individuals captured in Afghanistan by Canadian special forces were transported to the controversial U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, but American officials have been reluctant to provide the government with information on what has happened to the captives.

Members of the Ottawa-based Joint Task Force 2 commando unit took at least three prisoners in January 2002 and another four during a raid several months later. But attempts by Canadian officers to find out what happened to the people appear to have been stymied by the U.S.

Canadian officials were told that once the captives were transferred to the American detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the U.S. would then decide whether to release them or to continue holding them. At least three of the captives taken in the January 2002 JTF2 raid ended up in Guantanamo Bay, according to records obtained by the Citizen under the Access to Information law. It is not known whether they are still being held there.

American officials also declined to provide further details to the Canadian Forces about what happened to four individuals JTF2 turned over to the U.S after the May 2002 raid.

The U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has been steeped in controversy since its establishment shortly after the Afghanistan war began. At the time Canadian government officials said they were confident any prisoners turned over to the U.S. would be treated properly by American authorities.

But since then there has been a steady stream of accusations of torture and sexual harassment of the prisoners, all denied by the Pentagon. The latest allegations involve Canadian teenager Omar Khadr, captured by American forces and accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.

FBI agents working at Guantanamo Bay have also raised concerns that support some of the prisoners' allegations about abuse.

Those concerns, made public in December, were contained in e-mails obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a lawsuit against the U.S. government. Recently a U.S. translator assigned to Guantanamo Bay also emerged with similar stories of abuse.

Asked over a two-day period last week for information on what became of the Canadians' prisoners, Defence Department officials said they did not readily have such details. Numbers of prisoners taken by Canadian troops in Afghanistan were also not readily available, Canadian Forces officials said.

In August 2003, a Canadian military intelligence officer reminded colleagues that Canada had an obligation under the law of armed conflict, as well as a national obligation, to track the detainees its troops captured even after they were handed over to another country.

However, right from the moment JTF2 turned over prisoners to the Americans in January 2002, Canadian military officials ran into problems finding out what happened to the captives. On Jan. 29, 2002, then-Commodore Jean-Yves Forcier wrote Canadian officers tried to check on the status and well-being of the prisoners. "U.S. authorities have maintained the position that they will not necessarily provide a status update concerning the detainees in question," he wrote.

Commodore J.P. Thiffault informed Vice-Admiral Greg Madison's office on Feb. 8, 2002 the Americans "could not advise on the future prospect of the detainees because a determination had yet to be finalized and will not be finalized until transferred to GTMO." GTMO refers to Guantanamo Bay.

Prisoners who were transferred by the U.S. to Guantanamo Bay were hooded, chained and sedated, prompting human rights groups to allege such methods were against the Geneva Convention.

In April 2002, then-defence minister Art Eggleton reassured the International Red Cross Canada remained concerned about the care and treatment of those captured and transferred into the U.S. system.

But when Canadian officials tried to find out what happened to the four people turned over by JTF2 to the Americans after a May 2002 raid on the village of Band Taimore, they were told the U.S would not provide further details. When Mr. Eggleton's successor, John McCallum, tried to find out that September what happened to prisoners, he was also unsuccessful. He was told by his senior military officials that "details on the captured individuals are sketchy at this time."

That joint U.S.-Canadian raid is still controversial because a 70-year-old man and a three-year-girl were killed in the operation. Canadian Forces officials stress JTF2 had left the compound before the killings took place. Canadian military reports indicate the elderly Afghan man was in U.S. custody and died after being struck in the head by a U.S. soldier's rifle butt. The girl's body was discovered after the raid at the bottom of the village well. It is believed she fell down the well in the confusion of the night-time special forces strike.

The Canadian reports note while any prisoners were in Canadian custody they were handled properly.

The Pentagon has stated it will not apply the Geneva Convention to prisoners turned over to their forces, but will treat such individuals humanely.

Canadian military police did make one trip to the U.S. "enemy prisoner of war" facility located at Kandahar airfield. According to police that facility was also visited by the International Red Cross. While the facility was austere, the police determined detainees were being properly treated at the time.

But human rights agencies note a number of Afghans have died while in U.S. custody in Afghanistan. Two of those have been classified by U.S. military pathologists as homicides. The third is still under investigation.

Canadian Forces officers were also sensitive concerning the language used to describe its prisoners in official reports. In a report from the Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Ray Henault, the term "persons are captured" was changed to "persons have been taken under custody" before the documents were sent on to the defence minister.

More than 500 people from 40 nations are being detained at Guantanamo Bay. It is unknown how many were captured by Canadian troops. A number have been at the prison for more than three years with no charges laid against them. They have also been denied legal representation. Another 208 prisoners have been released. Of those 62 were transferred to the custody of their home countries.

Last week lawyers for Canadian citizen Omar Khadr alleged at Guantanamo Bay he was drugged, threatened with sexual attack and repeatedly chained in stressful positions.

Mr. Khadr, now 18, has been in Guantanamo for the past 2 1/2 years. His family once lived with Osama bin Laden.

His lawyers allege the federal government failed to protect the Canadian citizen from torture. But Dan McTeague, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has said the Canadian government was given assurances by the U.S. Mr. Khadr is being treated in a humane way and the government takes the Americans at their word.

According to the FBI e-mails released in December by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Guantanamo prisoners were chained to the floor for 24 hours at a time. No food or water was provided and prisoners were allowed to defecate on themselves.

FBI officers also complained guards used snarling dogs to intimidate prisoners, a tactic the Pentagon had previously denied was being used.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2005)

I think a summary is in order here.

1. The people being detained are *not soldiers or combattents* in any sense of the word according to the Geneva convention or the laws of war. Even under the Laws of War, it is acceptable to incarcerate them until the end of hostilities.

2. The allegations of torture are just that; *allegations*.

3. The prime source of these allegations are lawyers representing these people, or released prisoners who want to launch multi million dollar lawsuits.

4. The descriptions of most of these alleged torture sessions in the hands of American authorities sounds about as intimidating as a day in Cornwallis (for those of us who remember that far back). We routinely accept much harder conditions when doing arctic warfare training or living in the improvised "bases" on tour (although it is voluntary on our part), so austere living isn't a grounds for complaint in my book.

5. There are questions as to the means used to identify suspects for capture and incarceration. I will only suggest people identified by sensitive intelligence should be housed separately from people captured in combat operations.


----------



## 043 (14 Feb 2005)

I sure hope there is no naive people on this site!!!! (sarcasm)

The LOAC and the Geneva Convention are guidelines for soldier conduct. Now that being said............if anyone here thinks that these are followed to a T, they are gravely mistaken.  Only a few cases are ever exposed and those are dealt with. It is human nature to want to exact revenge and each person reacts differently to stressful situations.  

The ROE's have evolved to become more Robust and give the soldier the opportunity to shoot first, take questions later...................finally!!!!!!!!!!!!! As long as someone can justify there actions, there is no reason to worry anymore. 

WOW, I don't know where I am going with this............

44 Out!


----------



## Slim (14 Feb 2005)

I know that I won't make friends or points with this statement but...Lets try to keep in perspective that what the Iraqi prisoners have suffered in Cuba is NOTHING compared to what the AQ has done to its prisoners!

If we listen to the AQ prisoners whining then we're only helping them (AQ) in the long run!

Slim


----------



## Rick_Donald (14 Feb 2005)

I think that what you are trying to say is "Kill em all, Let God sort em out."


----------



## Slim (16 Feb 2005)

Rick_Donald said:
			
		

> I think that what you are trying to say is "Kill em all, Let God sort em out."



No...Not that either...But I do think that an awful lot of the complaints are BS.


----------



## big bad john (22 Feb 2005)

Grilling Canadian teen at Guantanamo Bay necessary: CSIS
  
Colin Perkel 
Canadian Press 


February 21, 2005


TORONTO (CP) -- Canada's spy agency argues it needs to be able to interrogate a Canadian teenager held as an enemy combatant by American authorities at Guantanamo Bay as part of its fight against terrorism, documents show. 

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service also says the interrogations are not intended to help in any prosecution of Omar Khadr, whose family was intimately connected to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. 

Khadr is accused of killing an American soldier with a grenade in Afghanistan in July 2002, when he was 15, and could face the death penalty. 

His lawyers want the Federal Court to order an end to the interrogations and instead force Ottawa to provide him ``real and substantive'' consular help in Cuba. 

"Any efforts to limit or fetter the service's investigative powers ... will hamper the service's ability to advise the Canadian government,'' William Hooper, an assistant of director of operations with CSIS, said in an affidavit obtained by The Canadian Press. 

"(It would be) injurious to the public interest from a national-security perspective.'' 

Other heavily censored documents show Canada has made several low-key approaches to Washington about Khadr. 

But while U.S. authorities rebuffed Ottawa's single request for consular access, they have allowed Canadian intelligence agents, including those from Foreign Affairs, to question him on several occasions. 

In an interview Monday, Khadr's lawyer said the newly released information confirms Canada has not done enough to help. 

"There have been some polite requests, it's all been under wraps (but) there have never been any public demands,'' Nate Whitling said from Edmonton. 

"There's certainly never been any attempt to enforce Canada's and our client's rights.'' 

Khadr's Canadian lawyers, who have not had access to him, have criticized Ottawa's ``silent diplomacy'' as ineffective. 

Internal Foreign Affairs briefing notes show federal sensitivity to that kind of criticism. 

"The plight of detainees being held by U.S. forces, particularly in Guantanamo Bay, continues to generate considerable interest by the public, media, non-governmental organizations and parliamentarians,'' says one e-mail by a senior Foreign Affairs official to Canada's U.S. embassy in Washington in June 2003. 

Among the stated objectives of a visit by senior Foreign Affairs officials to Washington in December 2003 was to "reassure Canadians that our government is protecting the rights of Canadians abroad,'' said a departmental briefing note. 

Ottawa's key concern appeared to be whether Khadr, now 18, would be executed if convicted, although he has yet to be charged or stand trial. 

In a letter dated Oct. 6, 2003 to his American counterpart, then-foreign affairs minister Bill Graham said Canada's concerns were ``particularly acute'' given Khadr's age. 

In his partially blacked-out response, then-secretary of state Colin Powell simply stated that "all enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely.'' 

Ottawa said recently it accepted those assurances. 

However, Khadr's lawyers allege the teenager has been tortured at the U.S. prison in Cuba. 

Among other things, they say he has been shackled in painful positions for long periods and threatened with rape. 

Khadr's lawyers are trying to force Ottawa to release all relevant documents. 

The federal government argues doing so "would be injurious to international relations, national defence or national security.'' 

Ottawa even threatened the lawyers with "contempt of proceedings'' for releasing unclassified material. 

© Canadian Press 2005


----------



## George Wallace (22 Feb 2005)

I see the Khadr lawyers are trying to "rape" us.  They are trying to have a "Canadian" of dubious loyalties brought back to Canada.  They are probably trying to apply Canada's Young Offenders laws to an alledged murder in a foreign land.  I don't think there is any precedence in a Canadian convicted of a murder in a foreign land ever falling under Canadian Law,rather than that of the nation in which they were convicted.  Canadians who have committed murder in the US have been sent to Death Row and executed.  Why would we expect anything different for Khadr?  He did not commit murder in Canada.  He is being held for the murder of a US Army medic, in a conflict with US Troops, in which he apparently was a willing combatant.

GW


----------



## FredDaHead (27 Feb 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Heres a though, being on the subject of torture and all. While it is against the laws we abide by to torture or mistreat any prisoners, is torture justifiable on occasions? Would it be acceptable if, say, the CIA had the man who knew all the plans for 9/11 and they tortured him (say, sleep/food/comfort deprivation or mental/minor physical pain) in order to save the lives of the thousands that died that day? Or if they had the man who knew about Bali, or a rash of suicide bombings etc etc.
> 
> Is torture justifiable in certain cases? Do we need a system that says sometimes you have to kill/hurt one to save a thousand?



This is just my personal view but I think that the old saying "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," is totally right. So, yeah, torture and such are "acceptable" if it's going to save tons of people. 

The problem comes when you think "what if the intelligence people are wrong, and the guy doesn't know anything?" Do you torture an innocent man to try and save other innocent people?


----------



## S McKee (2 Mar 2005)

Avenging social activists protecting the rights of the down trodden, or greasy lawyers trying to make a name for themselves? You pick

Lawsuit lays blame for torture at the top
Christian Science Monitor, USA
Mar. 2, 2005
Faye Bowers, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
www.csmonitor.com 
"¢ More news articles on USA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ReligionNewsBlog.com "¢ Item 10422 "¢ Posted: 2005-03-02 03:24:46 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In unusual move, human rights groups sue Rumsfeld and others for abuse of prisoners.

WASHINGTON - Human rights organizations are attempting to take accountability for the US military's alleged use of torture to a place government officials have so far failed to go - the top of the chain of command. 

In a case that raises significant moral as well as legal questions about the Bush administration's conduct of the war on terror, a coalition of human rights groups, aided by former military officials, is suing to pin blame for the interrogation abuses in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere at the highest level of government. 

Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Human Rights First filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Illinois on behalf of eight men who they say were subjected to torture and abuse by US forces under the command of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.


"Secretary Rumsfeld bears direct and ultimate responsibility for this descent into horror by personally authorizing unlawful interrogation techniques and by abdicating his legal duty to stop torture," says Lucas Guttentag, lead counsel in the lawsuit and director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "He gives lip service to being responsible but has not been held accountable for his actions. This lawsuit puts the blame where it belongs, on the secretary of Defense."

The suit charges Mr. Rumsfeld with violations of the US Constitution and international law prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment. The lawsuit also seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the eight individuals allegedly tortured and abused by US military forces.

Although a civil case, it is building on a legal doctrine of holding top officials accountable for treatment of detainees in times of war, according to Scott Horton, chairman for the committee on international law at the New York City Bar Association. The legal rationale is rooted in the Nuremberg trials of 1946, he says, in which top officials were held responsible for establishing an "environment" permissive of abuse.

It's not clear, of course, if the charges will stick or even how the cases will proceed. Military historians can't recall a similar suit being filed. The closest, they say, occurred on the Philippine island of Samar at the turn of the 20th century. Still, those court martials did not go above the level of a brigadier general.

At press time Tuesday, neither Rumsfeld nor the Pentagon had responded to the charges levied in the lawsuit.

"This is obviously the opening gun in what is likely to be a very hard-fought case on both sides," says Eugene Fidell, a military law expert in Washington. "The authors have done an enormous amount of homework and have mined the reports generated over the last year as well as the information the ACLU and others obtained under the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act]."


The implications

The potential implications of this lawsuit are broad. If the prosecutions proceed, for instance, CIA officials could be charged for their role in the alleged torture of several Al Qaeda detainees they've had in its custody in undisclosed locations overseas.

The results of an internal investigation are expected soon. Moreover, the White House's general counsel wrote the memo believed to have created the atmosphere for the abuses. Will he be charged?

The human rights organizations vowed Tuesday to continue to push until they get to the bottom of the abuse scandal they say has tarnished the US at home and abroad. In the past few months, the ACLU has filed a number of FOIA requests that have resulted in the release of volumes of documents relating to torture, including a batch of FBI memos complaining about significant military abuses taking place at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


Examining America's human rights record

Information gleaned from these documents form the basis of the charges in these cases, human rights lawyers said Tuesday.

In addition to Rumsfeld, ACLU officials said suits were also filed against Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who at the time of the Abu Ghraib abuses was in charge of US military operations in Iraq. They also took legal action against Gen. Janis Karpinsky, in charge of the military police at Abu Ghraib, and Col. Thomas Pappas, in charge of the military intelligence interrogators. And they say they are continuing to investigate other s in the chain of command.

Two Pentagon-ordered reports have so far been completed - the Schlesinger and Taguba reports. Both found responsibility for the environment in which the abuses occurred, although not culpability, lay with higher-level officers. Another Pentagon investigation, instigated by the ACLU's release of the FBI memos criticizing military interrogation tactics at Guantanamo, was due out this week.

But on Monday, the Pentagon replaced a one-star general with a three-star general to head up that probe, and it is now not known when it will be completed. The one-star general, because of his lower rank, would not have been permitted to investigate the higher-ranked two-star general in charge of Guantanamo, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who is named in several of the FBI memos.


Moving up the ladder. 

Up to this point, only lower-level enlisted men and women have been charged. The most notorious, Spc. Charles Graner, was convicted on several accounts of abuse and sentenced to a 10-year prison term by a court-martial in mid-January. Pvt. Lynndie England and Spc. Sabrina Harman still face charges, while six others have entered guilty pleas.

This past November, US human rights lawyers filed a similar case against Rumsfeld and former CIA director George Tenet in Germany, because its laws allow war crimes prosecutions across national boundaries. But on Feb. 10, the German court ruled the case would not go forward.

"I would suspect the suit is an attempt to improve accountability," says a former Army general who still works for the Pentagon. "And it's to send a message to all involved in such operations that they can be held accountable individually and institutionally for actions on their watch."


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Mar 2005)

Interesting.  I wonder if the activists have considered what it means if the suits go forward and the defendants win.


----------



## Torlyn (2 Mar 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Interesting.  I wonder if the activists have considered what it means if the suits go forward and the defendants win.



Perhaps we'd all feel better if the likes of Rumsfeld and his Pentagon cronies were locked up for human rights abuses, and Khadr would be able to return to Canada a free man.  That'd sure make my heart sing...  I wonder how any of these lawyers would feel had the medic been their son or daughter...  Where's the justice for the medic?

T


----------



## Slim (2 Mar 2005)

OOooohhh the big, bad U.S. A.

Why does no one ever complain about the head-chopping (with a dull knife even) A.Q.?!

Don't you think that they may have committed an abuse or two?!

Or is it not cool to protest against their behaviour?!

Slim


----------



## Infanteer (2 Mar 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Why does no one ever complain about the head-chopping (with a dull knife even) A.Q.?!



Because we are evaluating our own actions by our own Western standards, not our enemy's actions by our standards or our actions by our enemy's standards.

I guess the question is whether the standards are relevent anymore?


----------



## Slim (2 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Because we are evaluating our own actions by our own Western standards, not our enemy's actions by our standards or our actions by our enemy's standards.



I think that that needs to change.

My $.02 is that the U.S. has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with Iraq. The insurgents (the press can't even call them rebels for f#ck sake) are waging a low-intensity war agains the new Iraqi regeim and the U.S. forces that are backstopping it.

-No uniforms
-No visible rank structure
-No respect or proper treatment of PW's
-No tolerance for anything different.

Unlike Vietnam I believe that the insurgents will ultimately loose this conflict. They'd loose it faster and with aloot less costto the U.S. if the U.S. did "take the gloves off" and became more agressive.

However, all the little monkey's who think that if we just act nice and say please the insurgency will subside, while hamstringing the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus even more. then, when something bad does happen, they scream and bitch that there was some great collosal failure on the part of the military or homeland security.

I don't know what's worse...Those people for talking sh*t in the first place, the press for picking it up and running with it or the average citizen for swallowing it hook line and sinker...


----------



## Glorified Ape (2 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Because we are evaluating our own actions by our own Western standards, not our enemy's actions by our standards or our actions by our enemy's standards.
> 
> I guess the question is whether the standards are relevent anymore?



Good point - when we start using the lowest common denominator as our standard of conduct, we've truly reached the bottom.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (2 Mar 2005)

I have to agree with ya slim.

You have to wonder how much of a fight the others would put up if they were treated the way they are treating the Americans.   They know that if they are captured they may face some interagation but not torture or be-heading like americans face.   I think if the war was fought using their rules instead of Western ones (even if they are laxed at times) not so many people would sign up to play the game.   

But if we become like them how do you justify it.   How do you justify lowering yourself to that level just this one time?   

Curious for arguments sake how do you?

I don't know the answer, i like to hear your thoughts.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2005)

Answer: *we don't, not now and not ever*

Ordinary Iraqis are the prime target for the barbaric treatment the Jihadis dish out, just as ordinary Afghanis were subject to the Taliban or ordinary Iranians have to deal with the religious "police". People can be held in check by fear for only so long, what the coalition forces offer by their civilized conduct is hope. While the Jihadis and their fellow travellers are "turned on" by the idea of using a gun to empower themselves at the expense of others *(the infamous "Root Cause" of terrorism and crime)*, more and more we see the ordinary people cooperating with the authorities to root them out of their neighbourhoods.

On a larger scale, this is the same sort of action that led to the Orange revolution in the Ukraine and the current mass demonstrations in Lebanon to push out the Syrians.

If we were to sink to the levels of barbarism the Jihadis exhibit, the Iraqis would withdraw from the coalition in fear and disgust, and perhaps the fear of local terrorists would win out over the fear of the foreign armies. This is not a profitable way to do business.


----------



## Blue Max (2 Mar 2005)

Well said a_majoor.   

Remember Wiz, that the criminal acts that some US service members are being accused of, and fewer already convicted of, are overshadowed by the techniques that most other countries in the middle east use to this day, without the light of camera's to shine on their actions.

Its only the 1st world countries that are worried and judged openly on the actions taken by their respective govt. 

A worthy high standard to strive for, but not always attained. Notice I did not use the torture word.

B M.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (2 Mar 2005)

Over shadowed or underscored?  

I think that the western press plays up the American misstreatment of prisioners a lot more then it does the Insuergent beheadings or their torture of the local population.

All i am asking is why do we hold our selves to this higher standard, when our enemy in this case does not play by the same set of rules.

If you can justify playing by the enemies rules how do you?  Would this weaken the insurgents knowing that they would be treated the same way that they are treating others?

Most of the attacks have been against the local population not against Americans although i am sure they are trying.  If you win the hearts of the people (as most would believe) the Americans are doing.  Could you not strike just as harshly against the insurgents without attacking the local population?

Remember this is spark thought not me saying we should start beheading people on national TV.  Eye for an eye type deal.  But how many cheeks do you have to turn.  Could part of this not be seen as weakness by the insurgents on the part of the Americans.

My personal opinion not one i will add here is quite different.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Mar 2005)

"My personal opinion not one i will add here is quite different."

Where is the fun/constructive debate in that?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (2 Mar 2005)

true but i will let my qustions stimiulate the grey matter for now and then when the time is right.  BOOM


----------



## Wizard of OZ (2 Mar 2005)

i don't know what is happening here but my computer is posting things twice.  Kinda like that double your airmiles thing, think of how fast i could get my 5th leaf.


----------



## Slim (3 Mar 2005)

If the U.S. had sunk to their lever they wouldn't have lost a single person...Just bombed the country out of existance and threatened to do the same to anyone who disagrres with them...But they didn't!

I'm not saying to sink to the same level as the trash that they're fighting...I AM advocating that they become realistic and not be hamstrung by special-interest groups that have no idea what's going on in the country, the war or the minds of their AQ "buddies"

Common sense!



> Good point - when we start using the lowest common denominator as our standard of conduct, we've truly reached the bottom.



Ape...You're thinking like a cop when you're supposed to be thinking like a soldier. If that bothers you then I'd suggest a career change...

Slim


----------



## Wizard of OZ (3 Mar 2005)

I never thought you said "sink to the level of trash they are fighting" (if that last was directed at me)

In fact I do agree with most of what you have said and along with ape.  I to feel that if we lower our selves to that standard then all we have accomplished since the dawn of our nations goes out in the wash.

But you would have to wonder if they would be less hesitant to attack if they knew that if they were captured nasty things would happen.

The concept of total war is long gone as 
1) munitions are to expensive
2) colateral damage makes the front page every time
3) dropping 5 million in bombs and doing 500 bucks in damage (broken mud huts) does not go well for the budget.


----------



## Kurhaus (3 Mar 2005)

Is anyone familiar with the Citizenship act?   But it seems to me that if this kid was involved in an attack on US troops in Afghanistan (who BTW are working with Canadian troops in some AOR's) that this kid has "technically" taken up arms against his country.   I don't see how bailing him out of "Gitmo" is the Cdn governments problem and his lawyers should know that.   But torture crosses the line.   

Now in regards to torture, after reviewing several posts on this forum it seems that many of you have forgotten the reason why the US went into Iraq in the first place.   One reason was threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction but another reason was to "Free the Iraqi people from Sadams brutal rule" (i.e. torture, mass murder, etc)   

So to condone the use of torture as an "approved tactic" in the war on Iraqi insurgents would make the US no better then Sadams regime and go a long way to creating the next generation of terrorists.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2005)

Hope you weren't in court making that statement... ;D

Khadr was captured in Afghanistan.  Don't want him getting off on a technicality.....


----------



## 48Highlander (3 Mar 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> I never thought you said "sink to the level of trash they are fighting" (if that last was directed at me)
> 
> In fact I do agree with most of what you have said and along with ape.   I to feel that if we lower our selves to that standard then all we have accomplished since the dawn of our nations goes out in the wash.
> 
> ...



The problem with using torture and "nasty things" is that for some reason they always seem to provide an admission of guilt, along with more names of "suspects" who need to be tortured so we can determine their guilt.  You give a skilled torturer an hour or two and he'll get you any admission you want from any random person you pick.  That pretty much defeats the idea behind our judicial system.  We've already got soldiers and cops trying to be Judge, Jurry, and Executioner, do we really need to encourage more such conduct by sanctioning the torture of prisoners who haven't even been found guilty of anything?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (4 Mar 2005)

Ohh agreed with the that fact.

But sometimes fear is a greater weapon then fact.  Why do you think they bag the heads of those captured.  Not always for security.  Has a nasty effect on ones mental process, (like maybe a double tap).

Anyway i do agree that torture is out.  it would totally defeat the purpose of the US being there and us supporting them but to some degree in Iraq i think an eye for an eye has to come into the thoughts of those on the ground.  

Slim

None taken, if my skin was that thin i would not have survived 5 posts on this form.


----------



## Slim (7 Mar 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Slim
> 
> None taken, if my skin was that thin i would not have survived 5 posts on this form.



 ;D


----------



## Rick_Donald (9 Mar 2005)

Lawyer's = Liar's


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Mar 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Ape...You're thinking like a cop when you're supposed to be thinking like a soldier. If that bothers you then I'd suggest a career change...
> 
> Slim



Why? Would you suggest I obey an illegal order or issue such orders to my men? Because that's what I would be doing if I participated in or ordered the practices we're discussing here. I'd say we need fewer people in the forces willing to do that kind of tripe, not more. 

I have no problem with employing the dirtiest tactics possible within the boundaries set for me by the CF but little "exceptions" tend to snowball into general practice if they're not nipped in the bud.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Mar 2005)

What are we discussing, Torture?

If its torture, Western nations have frowned on it for centuries.   Neither the Police or the Military of a Liberal Democracy should resort to torture - its simply against our principles as Canadian citizens and we'd be doing our Country no service if we did.   There is a reasonable difference between swift and sure justice and unnecessary and cruel punishment.

That being said, I'm willing to bet that Khadr wasn't tortured, he was only interrogated and perhaps, considering who he is, handled roughly.   He's using a typical "4th Generation Warfare" tactic of using our weakness against us - he is playing on Western fears by trying to promote the belief that we're "putting people on the rack and ripping their finger nails out" in order to undermine our resolve.   Piss on him (and his unprincipled lawyers), I say.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (9 Mar 2005)

He's using a typical "4th Generation Warfare" tactic of using our weakness against us - he is playing on Western fears by trying to promote the belief that we're "putting people on the rack and ripping their finger nails out" in order to undermine our resolve.  Piss on him (and his unprincipled lawyers), I say.

That i can totally agree with.  I hope this case goes no where but i bet he wins the lottery.


----------



## Torlyn (9 Mar 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Why? Would you suggest I obey an illegal order or issue such orders to my men? Because that's what I would be doing if I participated in or ordered the practices we're discussing here. I'd say we need fewer people in the forces willing to do that kind of tripe, not more.
> 
> I have no problem with employing the dirtiest tactics possible within the boundaries set for me by the CF but little "exceptions" tend to snowball into general practice if they're not nipped in the bud.



Well said...

T


----------



## patt (9 Mar 2005)

yea, when hes free hes a terriost when hes in jail hes a Canadian citizen askin for a free ticket out...


----------



## Slim (10 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That being said, I'm willing to bet that Khadr wasn't tortured, he was only interrogated and perhaps, considering who he is, handled roughly.   He's using a typical "4th Generation Warfare" tactic of using our weakness against us - he is playing on Western fears by trying to promote the belief that we're "putting people on the rack and ripping their finger nails out" in order to undermine our resolve.   Piss on him (and his unprincipled lawyers), I say.



Well said and straight to the mark!


----------



## Jonny Boy (15 Mar 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> If he's one of Canada's children, why is he overseas learning the ways of those who wish to destroy the ways of life in the western Christian Democratic countries. (just because your born here doesn't automatically mean you are Canadian)




wow i completely agree with you.



			
				patty said:
			
		

> yea, when hes free hes a terriost when hes in jail hes a Canadian citizen askin for a free ticket out...



and wow i completely agree with you to. unfortunately that happens allot


----------



## Brando304 (15 Mar 2005)

Them being tortured is bad, but not as bad as them cuttin captured soldier's heads off!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2005)

I think he'll probably die of old age before this thread does  :


----------



## Sgt.Fitzpatrick (15 Mar 2005)

JasonH said:
			
		

> Fully agree!


Fully agree! Too! To the media the way they showed this story is bais and the U.S. gov't has many good reasons to do arrest Khadr that the media can't know because it's top serect that type of thing.
Frankly I don't think Khadr was tortured and I don't think the U.S. tortures people.


----------



## scm77 (14 Jun 2005)

Mounties uncover 'Al Qaeda' cache
Plans, tapes diaries seized at Pearson
Zaynab Khadr denies they belong to her

MICHELLE SHEPHARD
STAFF REPORTER

OTTAWAâ â€The RCMP and Canadian military believe they've discovered a vital cache of information on Al Qaeda that includes the whereabouts of wanted members and details of attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan.

*The information is allegedly contained in a laptop, dozens of DVDs, audiocassettes and the pages of diaries, seized by the RCMP officers who met Zaynab Khadr at Pearson airport with a search warrant as she arrived back in Canada in February, court documents state.*

Khadr is the eldest daughter of a family that has admitted close ties to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and whose patriarch was once believed to be the highest-ranking Canadian member of Al Qaeda. Her younger brother, Omar, is currently Canada's only known detainee in the American camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

With the three-month time limit allotted to the federal police force to hold the items having now expired, the RCMP must go to a Toronto court this Friday to persuade a judge to allow them to continue doing a forensic evaluation of the seized materials. But Khadr's lawyer Dennis Edney says the Mounties are on nothing more than a "fishing expedition," and will argue that Khadr is entitled to her possessions.

Khadr, 25, said in an interview yesterday that anything found on the laptop, except personal pictures and a few "cartoons" that she downloaded, are not hers. She says she bought her laptop second-hand about seven months before coming to Canada. The audiocassettes, described in court documents as providing "significant information regarding `after-battle action reports' of Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents" involved in attacking coalition forces in Afghanistan, were found among her father's possessions after he was killed in 2003, Khadr said.

"I think it's my right to bring what I want since I'm not breaking any laws, so I decided to bring them," she said. "Although I don't know what's on them, I still thought I'd bring them."

Khadr has not been charged in Canada or Pakistan, where she lived with her young daughter and sister before returning to Scarborough to be with her mother and brothers.

The court documents state there are "still a number of steps" to be taken in the investigation, that cannot be disclosed, but that her written records are being studied by the RCMP's behavioural sciences unit for a "psychological analysis" and to determine if she is a "threat to society."

Among her possessions, the RCMP allege, are downloaded clips of bin Laden's voice and songs â â€ one titled "I am a Terrorist" â â€ which contain excerpts from speeches calling for the killing of Americans. There is also allegedly a video clip of a 2003 attack on a compound used by Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and cassettes about insurgent attacks in Afghanistan. Canada has troops stationed in Afghanistan.

*"(T)hey provide insights into the tactics, techniques and procedures by these insurgent groups," the documents allege. "They (also) provide time and place information regarding activities of key Al Qaeda and Taliban personalities who are presently at large and operating against coalition troops."*

The seven-page affidavit by RCMP Sgt. Konrad Shourie, filed last month in the Ontario Court of Justice, provides rarely revealed details about the terrorism investigation.

The Khadr family has created its share of controversy. Khadr's father, Egyptian-born and Canadian citizen Ahmed Said Khadr, generated enough public pressure in 1996 to convince prime minister Jean Chrétien to intervene when he was facing charges in Pakistan in connection with the bombing of the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad. He died in a battle in Pakistan in October 2003. After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks he was put on a list of suspected Al Qaeda terrorists. His family's connections to bin Laden were confirmed three years later with a documentary where his son, Abdurahman, admitted to growing up in an "Al Qaeda family."
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1118700615668
---------------------------
 :rage:


----------



## KevinB (14 Jun 2005)

Send her to Gitmo...


----------



## Island Ryhno (14 Jun 2005)

Goddamn Khadr's, when in the name of blue hell do we get off the PC f*cking pot and deport these b*stards, grrrr. It's not mine, some terrorist guy just happened to leave Al Qaeda tactics et al on the laptop I purchased.   : Jimmy Hoffa dissapeared but these f*ckers are still here, give me a break.


----------



## beach_bum (14 Jun 2005)

"Someone else put that stuff on my laptop!  I didn't even know it was there!"
"I didn't know what was on the tapes...I just decided to haul them around the world for fun!"

C'mon, give me a break!   :  Pack them off!   :rage:


----------



## Trinity (14 Jun 2005)

Gee...

in a time where airport security is tight and anything Al Qaeda
will be red flagged, she decided to just brings stuff into Canada
of this nature and didn't think anything of it?!  Right...

Jail


----------



## qor556 (14 Jun 2005)

She lives in Scarborough too eh, if only I can find out where.  > I would like to personally see what those tapes and such contain.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Jun 2005)

qor556 said:
			
		

> She lives in Scarborough too eh, if only I can find out where.   > I would like to personally see what those tapes and such contain.



Eglinton and Midland area.   When they came back to Canada, they showed the house and mentioned the last name of the grandmother who owns the house, and well a quick search on canada411.ca, presto I found the address and yes it was the place the showed on tv.  Unfortunately it has been some time since i searched, so I no longer remember the name or exact address, just the general area.


----------



## CH1 (15 Jun 2005)

Now Now, be nice or you will be branded a racist.  Remember they have more rights under the charter, than we do.  Heaven forbid if we violate these "rites". (spelling changed to change meaning of word)


----------



## Slim (15 Jun 2005)

I hope to God that the judge who is reviewing the warrant is not some pc clown with strong ties to the Lieberal party...Cause if he is you know what's going to happen!


----------



## P-Free (15 Jun 2005)

Sounds like the Khadr family is still in the game despite their father being killed, their brother being jailed in Gitmo, another brother being killed in Afghanistan and a third one being paralyzed there fighting the Americans. 

Is there anything they can do that will get them deported?


----------



## Slim (15 Jun 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> Is there anything they can do that will get them deported?



Vote Conservative...


----------



## KevinB (15 Jun 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Vote Conservative...



I was thinking TAP-RACK-BANG  ;D


----------



## PeterLT (15 Jun 2005)

Well well.....I suppose it's true. Canada *is* a terrorist haven. It's time folks shook their heads and slapped the person in the mirror. Unfortunately, the Canadian national sport is not hockey; it's _apathy_. So until there is a 911 style attack in Canada (hopefully in a Liberal riding) we will have to suffer the likes of the Khadrs.

Peter


----------



## qor556 (15 Jun 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Eglinton and Midland area.   When they came back to Canada, they showed the house and mentioned the last name of the grandmother who owns the house, and well a quick search on canada411.ca, presto I found the address and yes it was the place the showed on tv.  Unfortunately it has been some time since i searched, so I no longer remember the name or exact address, just the general area.



She lives in that area eh, if only i had a way to... Just kidding, it would have been an interesting listen (after getting it translated of course).


----------



## Blackhorse7 (15 Jun 2005)

We (Canada) have got got start integrating our border security better with the US.  I know, free country and all, but the steps that have been taken since 9/11 by this country are embarrasing.  What ever happened to those photo ID's for landed immigrants?  I haven't come across one yet.  And CSIS is a shell of what it should be in the sense of intelligence gathering capability...


----------



## Kunu (15 Jun 2005)

> Khadr, 25, said in an interview yesterday that anything found on the laptop, except personal pictures and a few "cartoons" that she downloaded, are not hers. She says she bought her laptop second-hand about seven months before coming to Canada. The audiocassettes, described in court documents as providing "significant information regarding `after-battle action reports' of Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents" involved in attacking coalition forces in Afghanistan, were found among her father's possessions after he was killed in 2003, Khadr said.
> 
> "I think it's my right to bring what I want since I'm not breaking any laws, so I decided to bring them," she said. "Although I don't know what's on them, I still thought I'd bring them."



So similarly, if someone was toting around a laptop with child porn on it...

I just hope the appropriate people in the government/legal system realize how much of a bad precedent letting this one go will be, and finally say enough is enough with this "Al-Qaeda family".


----------



## scm77 (15 Jun 2005)

Here's a follow up article

Khadr laptop has terrorist files
Mountie: Daughter of Ahmed: Family lawyer says al-Qaeda 'action reports' available online

Joseph Brean
National Post

June 15, 2005

The RCMP discovered al-Qaeda and Taliban "action reports" and information about fugitive terrorists in materials seized at Toronto's airport from Zaynab Khadr as she returned from Pakistan in February, an RCMP officer alleges in a sworn affidavit.

A search of her computer also unearthed files of Arabic songs that include Osama bin Laden's voice and video clips of terrorists in action or making speeches, all of which are "cause for concern and require further investigation," according to the officer, Sergeant Konrad Shourie.

But the Mounties cannot yet return Ms. Khadr's laptop computer, the audiotapes or even her Arabic diary before the legal deadline, which passed last month, because they need more time to copy the information and analyze it.

A forensic analysis of the computer's data, for instance, will take "several more months," the affidavit says, and a psychological analysis of Ms. Khadr based on her diary could take even longer.

Ms. Khadr and her brother Abdullah are under RCMP investigation for participating in the activities of al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization of which their deceased father, Ahmed, was reputedly a high-ranking financier. They have not been charged.

Their younger brother, Omar, is detained at Guantanamo Bay after allegedly killing a U.S. medic in a firefight in Afghanistan. Abdurahman Khadr, another brother who claims to have attended al-Qaeda training camps, has publicly renounced the jihadist sympathies of his family.

Sgt. Shourie is to make his request for a deadline extension at a hearing in Toronto this Friday, at which he is to be cross-examined by Dennis Edney, a lawyer for the Khadr family.

Mr. Edney says the material should be returned promptly. "They are looking for information that can lead to terrorist charges against Zaynab Khadr, and my belief is that they have no basis for doing so," he said.

"If you've scanned the laptop and scanned the hard drive, and you've had it for three months, what more do you need? And what does it take for you to press charges?" Mr Edney said. "How long does it take to know if someone's a terrorist?"

Sgt. Shourie's affidavit also details a lengthy telephone correspondence between the RCMP and a different lawyer for Ms. Khadr, in which the police seemingly offered to return the materials in April, but could not co-ordinate a time and place.

In her luggage, Ms. Khadr also carried DVDs that were allegedly pirated, six audio tapes of patriotic songs and poems, and two Arabic books about bin Laden, the affidavit says.

The "after battle action reports" by al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters are allegedly contained on 16 cassette tapes seized from Ms. Khadr. According to Sgt. Shourie, the tapes have "significant interest and value" to the Department of National Defence, because they provide insight into the tactics of insurgent groups and they might show the whereabouts of fugitive members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

Mr. Edney said he has not heard these tapes, and that Sgt. Shourie's descriptions are too vague to say for sure what they contain.

"Are we talking about something that's off a newsreel? Are we talking about an al-Qaeda group discussion? It doesn't say that. I would have thought that if you had something more direct you would say that," he said.

The Toshiba laptop computer, under analysis in London, Ont., contains songs with such translated titles as I am a Terrorist and Strike and Kill the Infidels and also video clips from the Chechnyan conflict zone and the 2003 bombing of a British/American civilian compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the affidavit says.

Mr. Edney said these items are poorly described, and that it is not known who made the videos -- whether a news agency, a private citizen or a participant in the attack.

"From my review of some of the stuff they're talking about, it's material one can get on the Internet or on TV," Mr. Edney said.

Sgt. Shourie's affidavit acknowledges that many of these clips can be freely downloaded from the Internet but says they are still "cause for concern."

Mr. Edney would not confirm Ms. Khadr's claim, reported this week by the Toronto Star, that she purchased the laptop second hand almost a year ago in Pakistan. Ms. Khadr could not be reached yesterday.
© National Post 2005


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Jun 2005)

Welcome to Kanada, a socialists dream and a terrorists paradise! :rage:

I'm positive our wonderful liberal government will do the right thing and suspend the RCMP officers who have obviously violated this fine upstanding citizens rights! :blotto:

I am rapidly losing faith in our country and the insanity that passes for decent government!  :-[


----------



## dutchie (15 Jun 2005)

Are these 'people' Canadians? No? Why have they left the airport? Why are they not back in their dirthole homeland? If this family is not a threat to national security, then what is? Has the 'PC Disease' infected our society so thoroughly that it now trumps common sense? Why aren't people protesting this instead of Wal-Marts in South Van?

Like anything else, it will take an act of terrorism against Canadians to wake people up. You know, like someone putting a bomb on a plane and killing hundreds of Canadians in the name of......wait, that's already happened.


----------



## 48Highlander (15 Jun 2005)

Ya know, I hate to play devils advocate in a case like this, but you gotta admit that the mounties aren't handling this very well.   I mean, three months of looking at these materials, and they still can't find something to charge her with?   How the hell is that possible?   They've had more than enough time to dig up information from which they can lay charges.   Once they've sharged her, the materials become evidence, and can be held at least untill the end of the trial.   Seing as how it'd probably take a year for her case to go to court, that would give them more than enough time to dig up anything they may have missed.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Jun 2005)

Maybe they could charge her for having copywritten material (DVD's). 
lol


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Jun 2005)

Quote,
_I mean, three months of looking at these materials, and they still can't find something to charge her with?  How the heck is that possible?  _ 

...its called investigating and 3 months is a drop in the bucket.
Think about it, do we really want a quick charge that her lawyer somehow gets thrown out and then have to listen to her on a soapbox?


----------



## Slim (16 Jun 2005)

I am of the opinion that there is some backroom dealing WRT this issue at the political level (although heaven knows what the angle is though)

It hardly matters as if the Mounties are being hamstrung by the govt wqe can all scream till we're blue in the face and it won't do a lick of good.

After all the Lieberals have survived an event that would have toppled most govts...They must be feeling pretty invincible right about now...

"Welcome to Canada. The amount of tax-free subsidy you get depends on you terms of service in the terrorist organization of your choice"

Oh God I'm so fed up with these people!

Slim


----------



## scm77 (18 Jun 2005)

*RCMP can hold items of Khadr family member, judge rules*

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/18/khadr-zaynab050618.html


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jun 2005)

We have the technology!

If her Lawyer does succeed in the requests to get her possessions back, do it.  Copy her tapes and then wipe the originals, giving her back her original tapes with nothing on them and then take the copies to analyse.  Give her back her laptop that she failed to claim as a purchase on a trip outside of the country and charge her tax on it.  Clean her harddrive for her for free, after copying it and then analyse the copies at your liesure.  Photocopy her diaries and give her back her original.  Simple....copy all her tapes, CDs, DVDs and Hard Drives.....preform a free cleaning of them and give her back her originals.....She gets back her original items in their original state - clean;  ;D  what more could her legal eagle want?


----------



## Kunu (19 Jun 2005)

> If her Lawyer does succeed in the requests to get her possessions back, do it.  Copy her tapes and then wipe the originals, giving her back her original tapes with nothing on them and then take the copies to analyse.  Give her back her laptop that she failed to claim as a purchase on a trip outside of the country and charge her tax on it.  Clean her harddrive for her for free, after copying it and then analyse the copies at your liesure.  Photocopy her diaries and give her back her original.  Simple....copy all her tapes, CDs, DVDs and Hard Drives.....preform a free cleaning of them and give her back her originals.....She gets back her original items in their original state - clean;    what more could her legal eagle want?



And of course, Ms. Khadr should not mind this service at all, as she definately could not have any use for material she was completely unaware of, right?  ;D


----------



## scm77 (20 Jun 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> I hear you man, I hear you.
> 
> The US of A is starting to look like a REALLY good place to move too. I wonder if the USMC is hiring.



Have you seen this thread?  Specifically this post?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28732/post-228457.html#msg228457

Sounds good to me 8)


----------



## CH1 (25 Jun 2005)

This is funny! I have another reason to get out of bed tomorow.  Funny how in another thread the thought of terrorists in Canada is being heralded as ridiculous.  But then Ms. Khadr is a voter  not a terrorist.  Makes you wonder if they can bring their game plan on a computer, into the country, what else is here.  Makes me wonder as to how many Sleepers there is in Canada & what is their target list like?

Cheers.


----------



## Slim (25 Jun 2005)

CH1 said:
			
		

> Makes me wonder as to how many Sleepers there is in Canada & what is their target list like?
> 
> Cheers.



Remember the street parties in Scarborough during 911? I'd say there's a good whack of them here...Probably fill a shopping mall there are so many...Then you could lock the doors and blow it up! 

they are our enemy too!

Slim


----------



## TCBF (25 Jun 2005)

I think we can learn from other cultures - the Japanese, for example.  I think we could employ Ms Khadr as a 'comfort woman' at CFS Alert.

As for the laptop, in Ontario, the gun dealer being arrested with his wife had all of his home files and electronic data siezed by the OPP.  He can now get it back, but it is not in it's original format, and he must buy the appropriate program from the OPP!

But, only white, middle aged, firearms enthusiasts get treated like that.  The Khadrs will get treated like gold.

Tom


----------



## Polish Possy (25 Jun 2005)

with all these "sleepers" does that make Canada a lesser target of terrorism or would it make it an easier target ?, And isn't the only terrorist attacks that we have had come from  Québec It is a double eedgedsword we could kick Ms.Khadr but would that create an anger towards us (Canada) Oh well I think that they will let her go but there will be a close eye on her and the people from her laptop maybe try to Identify the people in her personal pictures and watch them too ?


----------



## TCBF (25 Jun 2005)

Depends.  Most successful program is to watch suspects, but kill terrorists.

Tom


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (30 Jun 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Depends.   Most successful program is to watch suspects, but kill terrorists.
> 
> Tom



That's fine.....let's watch them while they're in Pakistan or Egypt or elsewhere.....not in Scarborough.

I'm all for a tolerant society that allows various points of view, but as soon as you not only invite, but then protect the rights of a Fifth Column within your country whose primary cultural objective is to destroy your society, you have to draw a frigging line in the sand.  

This is political correctness at it's most absurd.

With governments seemingly hamstrung, I think it is inevitable at some point in time you're going to see an "Operation Swordfish"-like entity that starts taking matters into their own hands.



Matthew.


----------



## TCBF (30 Jun 2005)

Time for a REAL "Neighbourhood Watch?

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Blackhorse7 (30 Jun 2005)

There are a lot of American companies in Canada that would be easy targets for a terrorist cell to hit in lieu of having to try and crack American security.  They still sting American interests with virtually no trouble... food for thought.


----------



## 48Highlander (30 Jun 2005)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> There are a lot of American companies in Canada that would be easy targets for a terrorist cell to hit in lieu of having to try and crack American security.   They still sting American interests with virtually no trouble... food for thought.



Except that terrorism is about creating terror.  Hitting a Canadian company might have a slight economic impact on the US, however, the majority of US citizens would be uneffected, and such an attack would only create more support for the "war on terror".  There's plenty of apologists out there claiming that the US "deserved" to be attacked.  What happens if the terrorists hit a country that not even these letie whackos could say has harmed them?  It wouldn't make any sense for them to target us if their goals is to harm the US.


----------



## J.J (30 Jun 2005)

It is a fact that the government will not admit, Canada second to the USA, has more terrorist factions than any other Western country. Due to our geography (close to the US) and our large immigrant population, Canada is an attractive home base for zealots. The terrorist operator or support cells can exist in relative anonymity in our large cities. It is, at times, impossible to discern who is a sympathizer or who the â Å“real dealâ ? is. The only way to defeat terrorism here in Canada is an competent intelligence agency and laws like the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to hinder and make much to difficult to reside in Canada.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Jun 2005)

CH1 said:
			
		

> Now Now, be nice or you will be branded a racist.   Remember they have more rights under the charter, than we do.   Heaven forbid if we violate these "rites". (spelling changed to change meaning of word)



A thought on the 'sleepers' lying in wait in Canada...

Call me old fashioned, old school or whatever, but its people like this who should just simply dissappear off the face of the earth. As for the govt, they should just say they have left the country to an undisclosed location (Davey Jones' Locker). I would not even blink if they were 'incinerated' in a single vehicle car accident. Ya gotta exercise cancers like this , not cave into it's every whim.

They should get no publicity at all. They would never be missed. A leopard can't change its spots, and the loyality this scum has for terrorism and its goals will never change.

But wait, the whinging left, and the govt will probably give them a new house, welfare, and a new computer to boot, maybe throw in a car too, what the hell. How about an appology with an invite for other terr family members to immigrate to Canada, and spread their hatred for us.

I hate this PC world. One day there will be a 180 degree turnaround with it all, but thats not going to happen in my lifetime. 

This truly disgusts me.

Wes


----------



## J.J (30 Jun 2005)

This is response to Blackhorse7's post on 15 June. It is not a widely known fact, but the US Homeland Security and Canadian Border Agencies have access to each others databases. Watch for targets can be placed in each systems where subjects will be intercepted by either country. There is Canadian Law Enforcement Officers who work in their offices as they do in ours. 

The Permanent Residents Cards are out there, unless you live in a border city, I doubt it would be a piece of ID the landed immigrant would carry day to day. 

For those of you who think that 3 months is to long or why don't we kick them out or jail them etc. Why do that? Why not have constant surveillance on them. Find out who they call, who they talk to, who they socialize with and start files on them. I doubt the Khadr's can fart without it making it into a surveillance log somewhere.


----------



## Polish Possy (1 Jul 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> A thought on the 'sleepers' lying in wait in Canada...
> 
> Call me old fashioned, old school or whatever, but its people like this who should just simply dissappear off the face of the earth. As for the govt, they should just say they have left the country to an undisclosed location (Davey Jones' Locker). I would not even blink if they were 'incinerated' in a single vehicle car accident. Ya gotta exercise cancers like this , not cave into it's every whim.
> 
> ...



wow I couldn't have said it better my self ..... I wouldn't mind if some of these terrorist cells happen to disappear off the face of the earth ...... Heres an Idea track down the cells then send them a card saying they won like a free trip to the white house but load them up in a bus and make a accident happen ....if you follow


Now don't be calling me a racist .... I enjoy other nations and other cultures ... but when those nations and cultures start blowing things up in my country I am not to happy about that....... Dam double  sided sword  :-\


----------



## Blackhorse7 (2 Jul 2005)

JJaques,

I'm a current Police Officer, and I didn't even know that.  Good info.

That being said however, I'll run a scenario for you all.  True story, I might add.  I arrested a guy a couple of weeks ago.  He provided an alias that had a warrant.  When told this, he gave his "true" identity, and further warrants were found.  He said he had dual citizenship, but I had doubts.  It was the weekend, and I am not kidding, it took me three hours on the phone with Immigration, Canandian Citizenship Registry, and the Douglas Border Crossing to get anything on the guy.  And at the end of all that, nobody _still_ could tell me if the guy had Canadian Citizenship or not.  Immigration would not extend a warrant to hold him, and the judge let him go.  

So, if you arrest a bad guy on the weekend, hope he's Canadian.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Jul 2005)

oh I'd be dropping an anonymous tip to the papers on that one.


----------



## TCBF (3 Jul 2005)

"So, if you arrest a bad guy on the weekend, hope he's Canadian.'

It does not matter what nationality he is.  If it happened in Canada, you can arrest him.  Were these 'Non Return Warrants'?  Meaning they won't pay to fly him back?  Obviosly, the guy didn't have a hooker in his trunk or anything..

Tom


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Jul 2005)

After more thought, if this guy has warrants for anything alias or otherwise couldn't you hold him over the weekend?


----------



## Blackhorse7 (3 Jul 2005)

Sorry, I should have clarified...

The warrants were all local unendorsed warrants, which for those not in the know means that I have to present the joker in front of a Justice of the Peace, and either seek further detention, or release.  We sought to hold him, but he can only be held over until such time as he can appear before a Judge.  That was Monday, and the Judge released him.  The immigration thing was entirely separate.  But you would think that in this day and age, particularly after 9 11 ( ), that I should be able to call up a 24hr centre, give my badge number, and ask "Is this fool a Canadian?" and get a reply right on the spot.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Jul 2005)

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (3 Jul 2005)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I should have clarified...
> 
> The warrants were all local unendorsed warrants, which for those not in the know means that I have to present the joker in front of a Justice of the Peace, and either seek further detention, or release.   We sought to hold him, but he can only be held over until such time as he can appear before a Judge.   That was Monday, and the Judge released him.   The immigration thing was entirely separate.   But you would think that in this day and age, particularly after 9 11 ( ), that I should be able to call up a 24hr centre, give my badge number, and ask "Is this fool a Canadian?" and get a reply right on the spot.



That's insane....

I'll second the "anonymous tip to newspaper/TV show" suggestion....



Matthew.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (4 Jul 2005)

I would do it, but I turned about as red as this screen, and ranted for two days straight about how sh**ty our security is since 9 11.  They would know it was me right away.  That day still burns in my mind.  I damn near quit and joined up in the CF again.


----------



## J.J (4 Jul 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt I can sympathize with your plight. Unfortunately Immigration is saddled with several rules and regulations dealing with privacy. In my neck of the woods there is good cooperation with Immigration-Customs-Police. That is something that would not happen here (I hope), but again when dealing with the Federal government bureaucracy...you never know. What I have done is foster some friendships/contacts with all concerned, so if I need confirmation or help with something I am working on most times it is a call away. What I can suggest is collect all the info and forward it to your local IBET team or Inland Immigration, but make sure it is Mon-Fri so you can be sure to get in contact with them....oh ya and not after 3pm they will be long gone!!!


----------



## Dare (17 Jul 2005)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45279



> Hollywood to fete
> 'son of al-Qaida'
> Canadian jihadist tied to bin Laden
> cashes in with movie deal
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jul 2005)

What's the title of the Film, Team America: World Police II?

Durka Durka.


----------



## rcr (17 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What's the title of the Film, Team America: World Police II?
> 
> Durka Durka.



With Marionette dolls? I can hardly wait! This whole issue makes me pound on the keyboard, really hard, as I'm typing.


----------



## KevinB (17 Jul 2005)

Anyone going to Toronto on leave - I'll lend you an AR10  

 Short Film - TEAM CANADA INTERNAL POLICE  :threat:


----------



## Baloo (17 Jul 2005)

TEASER

*Opening Scene - Four Taliban / Al Qaeda fighters are nestled in the rocks overlooking a valley in Afghanistan. Below, are five Humvee's travelling down a dusty path. Abdurahman Khadr (Sean Penn), Abdullah Khadr (Samuel L. Jackson), Omar Khadr (Susan Serandon) and Ahmed Saeed Khadr (Christopher Walken) watch as the Humvee's stop as a herd of goats are shepherded past them. The American commander of the convoy (Sean Bean) gets out of the lead vehicle and shouts at the shepherd "to get a move on, Abdul". The Afghan nods tiredly and shuffles forward. Then, he whips off his garments, to reveal two AKs, and begins firing wildly at the Humvee column. The four in the mountains open up. The fighting is intense. Americans go down. The shepherd is killed by a flying goat head, when his flock is obliderated by an M203. Sean Bean is hit in the stomach, and with bullets bouncing all around, comments to the medic, that the blood in his mouth "tastes like strawberries". Suddenly, a Chinook helicopter is seen flying overhead, with Gen. Tommy Franks (Keanu Reeves), cigar in mouth, shooting the insurgents in the mountain with the chain-gun from the gunnery position. Col. Douglas Seemstrom (Sylvester Stallone), a grizzled war hero, just wanting to get his tour over with, leads a glamorous bayonet charge up the mountain, with the sly Spanish PFC. Juan Gonzalez (Johnny Depp) saying such random phrases as "AIE YI YI" and "No me guesta...thees sheeit ees eentense, mayen" during the fight. Omar is killed, by a well placed 5.56 round to the forehead. In his dying words, he tells Abdullah to "Avenge me...my son...", which not only confuses Abdullah, but makes him angry. He stands up, and with one arm, fires an RPG, which hits Seemstrom in his face, ending his life, right after he had the chance to say, "I feel secure enough in my own survival, that Gonzalez, I will be the godfather to your child". A heart wrenching moment. Ahmed and Abdullah retreat to the mountains, leaving the wounded Abdurahman behind. His father told him he would be right back...he was just going to pick up some freedom fries. Abdurahman engages Tommy Franks in vicious hand to hand combat, all the while Franks keeps the cigar in his mouth. Franks wins, and captures Abdurahman. His is put in the back of the Chinook, where Franks tells the pilot to "book 'im, Danno". They fly off into the sunset...which really means he is going to Gitmo.

*Fast Clip - James Bond style torture scenes in Gitmo (ala, the North Korean interrogation), all the while "Eye of the Tiger" plays in the background. Inside the prison, he meets tough, reformed terrorist Saeed Bin Hassam (Martin Short), the wise-cracking man who, beneath his facade of hatred for the Yanqui peeg-dogs, has a heart of gold. Abdurahman sees the error of his ways.*

*Dramatic Climax - Abdurahman tells his father and brother, "he is out". Cue the camera quickly closing to the fathers eyes, and the furrowing of the unibrow. Abdullah (Jackson), sproting a new afro, says simply "You one dead mutha fucka". Hilarity ensues.*

*Cut to random explosions, screams, and shots of Abdurahman fleeing from technicals in the desert flats of the Mojave. "Kill Bill" style swordplay between Abdurahman and Abdullah. Various explosions. Ahmed overlooking his son in the hospital, fiftenn dead security guards outside the room. Abdurahman is in a coma. Ahmed reaches for the plug...A HAND GRABS HIS WRIST. "When Abdullah said he killed me last...he lied." DUH DUH DUH!*

Also Starring:

Jean Reno - the evil French connection. May find himself wearing a beret at some point.

Angelina Jolie - the woman he loved.

Al Pacino - the wise cracking, overly hated, golf playing Jean Chretien. Why him? The mouth thing...you know...

COMING, 2006...

"The Camel Rider Always Rings Twice"


----------



## Kunu (17 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Anyone going to Toronto on leave - I'll lend you an AR10
> 
> Short Film - TEAM CANADA INTERNAL POLICE   :threat:



Ya, and also give me a heads up if ya need a pad to crash at.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jul 2005)

Baloo, did you just make that shit up?!?  That's fricken hilarious....


----------



## MikeM (17 Jul 2005)

Kilo Mike, can we use your place as a firebase?


----------



## Baloo (17 Jul 2005)

Well Infanteer, it was a rather quiet Sunday afternoon...with a little bit too much time on my hands.


----------



## Kunu (18 Jul 2005)

MikeM said:
			
		

> Kilo Mike, can we use your place as a firebase?



Hmm...we're aren't using the backyard for too much these days...   ;D

Anyhow, I just hate it when grossly skewed movies become society's default source of knowledge for things (eg. Starship Troopers, Disney flicks, etc.).  I'm sure I'm only the only one who's got a bad feeling about this.


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 Jul 2005)

eff me baloo,

freaking priceless...

Who gets to play the wee hadji kid that finds himself on the outside of the gate at gitmo, with a tear in his eye waiting for when his brothers get released...all the while the song "fields of athenrye" is played by U2 in the background....

Clucking movie deal...and I can't even get an invite to the opening to the museum...harrumph...

dileas

tess


----------



## B.McTeer (18 Jul 2005)

ballo hots off to you you made my medical leave that much more entertaining lol. I think i fell of my chair almost to the point of tears (not to good for the hernia eh lol) oh man that is priceless you should sell that lol. ROFLMFAO


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Oct 2005)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/WarOnTerrorism/2005/10/28/1281752-ap.html

Utah soldier and widow win default judgment in lawsuit against Khadr estate
    
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A Utah soldier wounded in Afghanistan and the widow of a soldier mortally wounded in the same battle have won a default judgment against the estate of a Toronto man whose son allegedly was involved in the battle. 

The $10-million US lawsuit alleged Ahmad Sa'id Khadr was an al-Qaida financier who failed to control his then-15-year-old son, Omar, and prevent him intentionally harming others. The Khadr estate assets were frozen by the U.S. and Canadian governments and the United Nations. 
U.S. army Sgt. 1st Class Layne Morris of South Jordan, Utah, lost his right eye in the July 27, 2002, battle. Three other soldiers were wounded and Sgt. 1st Class Christopher James Speer, 28, died 10 days later from his injuries. 

Morris said Khadr hid inside a compound waiting for U.S. troops to come inside and tossed a grenade. 
U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell in Salt Lake City told the plaintiffs Tuesday to submit evidence within 20 days that establishes the amount of damages they expect. 

"This is my way of continuing the war against terrorism," said Morris, housing director for West Valley City. 
"And hopefully there will be money for Christopher Speer's widow and their two young children." 
Morris's lawyer, Donald Winder, said he will seek money from the funds that were frozen. 

Omar Khadr is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, over protests of the Canadian government that he is a juvenile. 
Morris's lawsuit said the boy's father, collected money from an Islamic front charity to run an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. He was believed killed in a gunbattle in Pakistan. 

His widow returned to Canada to seek treatment for their youngest son, Karim Khadr, for wounds suffered in the same firefight that killed his father. 
In April, Cassell issued an order allowing Morris to publicize the legal action in Toronto, where the Khadr family lives, after their lawyer refused to accept a copy of the lawsuit.


----------



## Slim (29 Oct 2005)

REGARDING THE ABOVE ARTICLE.

Gee, that's too bad.

That family is the proven enemy of my country.

End.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Oct 2005)

For some irony, put Khadr in the search feature and check the " did you mean to search for?" question.


----------



## Wolfe (30 Oct 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> For some irony, put Khadr in the search feature and check the " did you mean to search for?" question.



Hahahah ,this is what i do with those fu***rs :gunner:.......... 

Sorry, i just read this thread and it made me angry to know what our government is allowing like "people", if i can really call them by that word, to live in our great country Canada.


----------



## The_Falcon (30 Oct 2005)

Looks good on them, maybe the US authorities would like to take them and prosecute them for conspiring to kill US soldiers or something to that effect.


----------



## North Star (4 Nov 2005)

Sigh...

Good Old Iron Mike Harris wouldn't have allowed that family to claim OHIP for the kid...even if it did mean getting sued.


----------



## scm77 (7 Nov 2005)

*U.S. military charges Omar Khadr with murder*

CTV.ca News Staff

The U.S. military has laid formal charges -- including one of murder -- against Omar Ahmed Khadr, a Canadian citizen imprisoned at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba facility for suspected terrorists.

Some of those charges could possibly leave him facing the death penalty, one of Khadr's Canadian lawyers told CTV.ca on Monday.

"Potentially he is," said Nathan Whitling of Edmonton. "The U.S. has not taken the death penalty off the table. The Canadian government has formally requested that they do so many times, and they still haven't done so."

In some cases, the U.S. has done so, "so it's of concern they haven't done so yet," he said.

Khadr, 19, is "charged with conspiracy to commit offenses triable by military commission; murder by an unprivileged belligerent; attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent; and aiding the enemy," said a U.S. Defense Dept. news release on Monday.

An "unprivileged belligerent" is someone who isn't a member of a regular army, Whitling said.

The department said Khadr has the presumption of innocence, has the right not to testify without inference of guilty and must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

While the U.S. government will provide counsel, Khadr has the right to civilian counsel, but at his expense.

However, Whitling said there are major procedural issues with these military commissions.

Some of those issues will be decided in a U.S. Supreme Court case involving Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Hamdan is being held in Guantanamo Bay. The U.S.'s highest court agreed Monday to hear the case.

Here are some of Whitling's concerns:

    * The use of secret evidence and the ability of the commission to hear such evidence in the absence of both the defendant and his counsel
    * The fact Omar Khadr committed his alleged crimes when he was only 15
    * The application of torture at Guantanamo Bay and the fact that any such evidence gathered would be admissible.
    * Khadr was denied counsel while being interrogated
    * His capacity to respond because his physical and mental health have deteriorated
    * The lengthy delay between the alleged offence and the date charges were laid.
    * Limited ability to marshall evidence and call witnesses

On CTV's Newsnet, Amnesty International's Jumana Musa said her organization would like to see the commissions scrapped.

Arrested in Afghanistan

Khadr, 19, was born in Toronto. His family moved to Peshawar, Pakistan when he was four.

He was arrested in Afghanistan in 2002 by the U.S. military. They declared him an enemy combatant and shipped him to Guantanamo Bay.

At the time of his arrest, Khadr was 15. He is accused of throwing a hand grenade at U.S. soldiers.

One soldier died in the alleged attack and three others were wounded, with one soldier losing an eye.

Late last month, a Utah judge issued a default judgment against the estate of Ahmad Sa'id Khadr, Omar's father.

The lawsuit alleged the elder Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was an al Qaeda financier who failed to control his son.

Ahmad Khadr died in a 2003 gun battle with authorities in Pakistan province of Waziristan, which is next to the border with Afghanistan. His youngest son Karim was left paralyzed after being struck with a bullet.

Karim's mother brought her son back to Canada for treatment in the fall of 2004.

Ahmad's eldest son Abdullah is on the run, while Abdurahman Khadr is on the outs with his family after admitting to being a mole at Guantanamo Bay.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051107/omar_khadr_051107/20051107?hub=TopStories


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (8 Nov 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/11/08/omarkhadr051108.html

Ottawa accused of not helping Canadian held at Guantanamo charged with murder

Last Updated Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:24:49 EST 
CBC News

Omar Khadr's mother and members of his legal team say the 19-year-old Canadian is facing a "sham" trial at the hands of the U.S. military and that the Canadian government isn't helping. 
  

"The Americans are gods now," said Maha Elsamnah, Khadr's mother. "They make the law. Nobody can tell them anything." 

Elsamnah says Ottawa is doing nothing for her son who is accused of murder, attempted murder and aiding the enemy. 

Khadr was the only survivor of a strike on a suspected al-Qaeda compound in Afghanistan three years ago. He is charged with killing U.S. Sgt. Christopher Speer on July 7, 2002 when he allegedly threw a grenade at him during the raid. 

The charges call Khadr an "unprivileged belligerent," meaning someone not authorized under international law to fight a war. If convicted he may face execution. 

Omar is the son of the late Ahmed Khadr, an Egyptian-born Canadian who was close to Osama bin Laden. Ahmed Khadr died in a shootout with the Pakistani military in 2003. 

The military intends to try Khadr in a brand new Guantanamo Bay tribunal room, where he'll be judged by a military commission, not a court. 

The decision means that although Khadr is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is not entitled to be present at all times during his trial or to know the evidence against him. 

Muneer Ahmad, co-counsel for Omar Khadr, says the process is unfair. "We are talking about a sham process, which could result in the death penalty against someone who was 15 at the time of the conduct he is alleged to have committed." 

Sunil Ram, a professor at the West Virginia Military University, says he believes the young Khadr is a "terrorist." But, says Ram, Khadr's fate hangs on the personal bias of the officers chosen for the panel. "If they tend to be right-wing and endorse Bush's war on terror, you could end up with a kangaroo court." 

Dan McTeague, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs, is rejecting claims that Canada is doing nothing to help Khadr. 

McTeague says the government has asked the U.S. for assurance that Khadr won't face the death penalty if he is convicted and that he be allowed access to the lawyer of his choice. 

'It's going to be a very long process but, at a minimum, we want to make sure the rule of law is respected," said McTeague. 

Nathan Whitling, who is also part of Khadr's legal team, said in Edmonton on Tuesday that there are more questions about this case than answers. 

"You know what do we do about the fact that he's been held in these deplorable conditions for three years. And what do we do about the fact that its been in clear violation of international law, and his own human rights." 

Whitling says Khadr has been severely mistreated and tortured since his capture and that his Canadian legal team hasn't been allowed to see their client.


----------



## Armymedic (8 Nov 2005)

PPCLI MCpl said:
			
		

> "The Americans are gods now," said Maha Elsamnah, Khadr's mother. "They make the law. Nobody can tell them anything."
> 
> Elsamnah says Ottawa is doing nothing for her son who is accused of murder, attempted murder and aiding the enemy.
> 
> Khadr was the only survivor of a strike on a suspected al-Qaeda compound in Afghanistan three years ago. He is charged with killing U.S. Sgt. Christopher Speer on July 7, 2002 when he allegedly threw a grenade at him during the raid.



Gee, let me see how I feel about this....

1. He fights along side Al Queda and the Taliban regime whom are our "enemy".
2. He killed a medic,
3. Another US Army medic, Khadr was earlier trying to kill as well, saves his life, so he can imprisoned.
4. Now, and again, his family has done nothing but whine that Canada isn't supporting thier efforts to have thier son released, dispite the fact thier family supports our enemy both fiscally and morally.

hmm...

I hope he doesn't bounce too high at the end of his rope. :rage:


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Nov 2005)

cbc radio "the current" has been building up to this for the past week or so. I think they [the cbc] will likely take the position that the little baestard was a lawful combatant and his trial and probable execution a violation of international law.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (8 Nov 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> I hope he doesn't bounce too high at the end of his rope. :rage:



Agreed!!


----------



## George Wallace (8 Nov 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> cbc radio "the current" has been building up to this for the past week or so. I think they [the cbc] will likely take the position that the little baestard was a lawful combatant and his trial and probable execution a violation of international law.



Seems to me that the Death Penalty is still used in both Afghanistan and parts of the US of A.   The 'alleged' crime was committed in Afghanistan against Americans.   He is being tried by an American Judicial System.   'Canada' does not enter into the equation at all (other than his claim to Citizenship.).   He is being treated as any other foreigner would, if committing a crime in the US or in this case against a US citizen.   

There are numerous cases of Canadians on Death Row in the US. for crimes they have committed there.   Why should Canadians plea for this retches case?


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Nov 2005)

Well George, the cbc radio "the current" is not particularly open to the truth in the GWOT. They see it as an unwarranted and over zealous racial and religious attack by the US on poor innocent islamic types. blah blah blah you know the story. 

The other day they had a part of an interview with the Sampson guy from Saudi and it occurred to me at that time that this was the guy they are going to use for a comparison model. ... "Look at the outrage over what almost happened to the white Christian guy in a foreign jail facing the death penalty... why no such effort for the heroic innocent little Islamic freedom fighter in a US jail. "


----------



## KevinB (9 Nov 2005)

We should shoot him for treason -- if he claims Canadian citizenship and opposed the Coalition forces in OEF - he is a traitor plain and simple -- they should also shoot the a$$hat that had the death penalty removed from the QR&O's...


----------



## Infanteer (9 Nov 2005)

We should make him our next Governor-General....


----------



## aesop081 (9 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We should make him our next Governor-General....



Please don't give the liberals any ideas .... :


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Nov 2005)

Why should the Cdn tax payer have to cop the bill? As far as I am concerened, the Govt has nothing to do with an individual's terrorist behaviour, and pay for his actions conducting such activities. If he wants assistance, let him or his family pay for it.

He is on his own, and now its time to pay the piper! Let the US make an example of this murdering POS coward!

Too bad he just didn't cop a few ball rds the day he was 'captured', and this all would not be happening.

Truly disgusted (again),

Wes


----------



## Slim (9 Nov 2005)

Can you believethis latest statment from the family. I mean I guess you have to ay something...



> *Americans act like 'gods'*
> 
> Nobody can tell them anything,' says mom of Canadian prisoner
> 
> ...


___________________________________________________________________________________

These POS's are an emeny of my country and I personally wish the US would take the lot of them!

Slim


----------



## RecDiver (9 Nov 2005)

Moments like this, I envy the creative and 'freehanded' approaches of certain M/E country formed sometime last century. I am assuming if this family had harmed one of their own they would be have been bagged overnight on to a flight and shipped to A-gan or somewhere. Then they could file all their protest they want from oceans apart. 

Where are these creative lawyers when you need them? Why can't they find some long forgotton sliver of a law somewhere in the books to cancel their membership to Canadian Club ?


----------



## Guardian (9 Nov 2005)

Traitor.

The guy is no different than those who supported the Nazis. 

Let him face the consequences of his actions.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Nov 2005)

At least the Americans are putting the b*astard on trial, which is what I had hoped.  These people are disgusting, they were all proud when sonny boy killed the americans, but know want Ottawa to intervine and make sure the kid isn't executed for doing exactly that?  They need to get it through their heads Ottawa and 99% of Canadians do not support them, there cause, or there kid rotting away in gitmo.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (9 Nov 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> At least the Americans are putting the b*astard on trial, which is what I had hoped.   These people are disgusting, they were all proud when sonny boy killed the americans, but know want Ottawa to intervine and make sure the kid isn't executed for doing exactly that?   They need to get it through their heads Ottawa and 99% of Canadians do not support them, there cause, or there kid rotting away in gitmo.



I  had no idea what was going on with this guy untill I saw the news story on him last night. At first I assumed he was imprisoned just because of his family ties, which obviously would be suspicious... then I wonder what the heck he's doing in afghanistan in the first place...

so it turns out he throws grenades at the americans, kills one and seriously injures another one, his family jumps into pakistan to try and get help for him, it doesnt work out, so then they "whip out and start waving around the canadian passports". Thats just garbage. And the lawyers are actually trying to make a case for this dirtbag? Oh the government wont help you? Poor baby. Maybe you should not attack and kill our allies.

They should take their case back to pakistan because yeah, we sure as hell have no sympathy here.


----------



## redleafjumper (9 Nov 2005)

When did the death penalty get removed from QR & O's?  I've been out for a while and I'm not on the distribution list for such things anymore; I'd be most interested in what the amendment is.


----------



## garb811 (9 Nov 2005)

The Death Penalty was removed from the NDA in 1998 via 1998 c.35 (Bill C-25).  Maximum sentance is now imprisonment for life.


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Nov 2005)

Well, we can't hang the bugger, but hopefully the Americans will


----------



## S McKee (9 Nov 2005)

Apparently the Canadian Gov't has assurances from the the US that they won't hang the poor boy if he's found guilty. I think life in Leavenworth as somebody's bitch would be more appropriate for this little darling. :'(


----------



## KevinB (9 Nov 2005)

IIRC they can still shoot him via firing squad...  

May be a neat legal way out - Canada declares victory they wont hang him -- and justice is still served...


----------



## Blue Max (9 Nov 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Too bad he just didn't cop a few ball rds the day he was 'captured', and this all would not be happening.
> 
> Truly disgusted (again),
> Wes



Apparently he was badly wounded in that action and would have bled to death on the spot if not for the life saving efforts of the second medic of that US unit (the unit usually only had one medic, except that he was badly wounded in the same action). And for their efforts the Americans are being condemned by the family as torturers. >


----------



## KevinB (9 Nov 2005)

Acutally ODA's have two medics, a junior and senior medic on the team.

 He fragged the teams sr medic, and ironically was saved by the junior.  You really gotta respect the US for that, me I would have broke out a dip of chew and offered it around to the rest of the team until sh*tpump bled out.


----------



## acclenticularis (9 Nov 2005)

The Khadr family confuses me.  I was led to believe, based on the words spoken by the li'l bugger's mother and sister, that it is their wish that they all die and indeed die for their 'righteous cause'.  Then why do they care if he is strung up?  As long as it was for their cause.  Am I missing something here ... is there not a logic breakdown?  Also, because this family has openly said that they would all like to die for their cause (except one son, of course ... not the li'l bugger, his brother) and to do so would be the greatest honour, what are they doing demanding certain rights from a government that is considered an enemy by the terrorist group to which they are affiliated and sympathetic?  Canadian citizenship is not something that should be flashed when convenient for ones' own gain.  There are rights to being a Canadian, however, there are responsibilities too ... none of which include holding the country as an enemy.  'Oh please, help us we are Canadian citizens, and by the way, I hope to die while murdering as many Canadian infidels as possible, now, where do I go to exert political pressure to get my terrorist son back to Canada to continue the good fight'.  Does this seem as ridiculous to others as it does to me?  I believe in fundamental rights of all, however, there has to be accountability and responsibility for ones' actions.  Anyone that considers my infant son to be an enemy of theirs, is an enemy of mine and anyone who lives in Canada and believes that non-muslims are infidels to be eliminated, is also an enemy of mine.  May the li'l bugger rot in whatever awaits him after his hopefully judicial death.  Religion is a mystery to me, however, for his sake, I hope there is some kind of hell!


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Nov 2005)

Whats confusing about the Khadrs?  They want all the rights and priveledges of being Canadian citizens while at the same time they bite the hand that feeds them so to speak.  Sure it may not seem locigal to us but then again most of us on this site at some point in time have sworn aligience to Canada, the crown, and the laws that govern us, something these little phucks kinda mumbled during their citizenship oath.  Hang em, gas em, shoot em, poison em, electrocute em, just make sure he is dead (after his day in court first, that whole due process thingy), then mail back the ashes with an included "gift" curtesy of Uncle Sam and the SF unit involved in the firefight (I am sure the ODA's 18C Sgt(s) would be glad to help make this "gift").


----------



## aluc (9 Nov 2005)

It is truly a shame that liberal democratic societies welcome these people with open arms. In my opinion they show no respect or regard for the traditions and value systems of their new countries. As well as a lack of willingness to learn , appreciate, and adapt to the customs and values of their new land. They believe there is a right to carry on as they did back home. Supposedly they immigrate to a new land of freedom and opportunity because their homeland did not provide this for them. Interestingly, upon arrival they are granted their rights and freedoms ( as well as citizenship soon afterwards) yet have done nothing (aside from paying taxes) to really deserve these privileges. It appears they simply want to turn _______ (insert any liberal democratic society) into their former homeland. It sickens me to witness these people take advantage of our rights and freedoms and apply them for their own selfish ends (which mostly have nothing to do with the majority of Canadians or Canada) The actions of the Khadr family, as well as the deplorable actions taken by the family members of the suspected terrorists in Australia (when they severely beat a reporter who was simply exercising his right of freedom of the press) are extreme examples of this lack of regard for the values of liberal democratic societies across the globe. That beating conjured up images of those mass demonstrations you see on the news in ______(insert any middle eastern country). The soft and welcoming brand of multiculturalism, where everyone belongs, and no one has to adapt, is only helping to ruin Canada and everything she identifies with  and stands for. On a personal note - when my grandparents thankfully chose to come here after WWII they had to adapt to their new land, and they worked their as*es off. They had to learn the language, they adopted the holidays and customs of their new land. Why? Because it made them proud to do anything that would make them more Canadian.  They didn't whine a b*tch about the lack of social services, or not being able to write a drivers licence test in the language of their choice ( I think there are dozens of languages to choose from in Ontario - may be wrong) etc, etc. They wanted my parents (who came here at a very young age) to become real  Canadians, and they have.  Although my brother and I are the only members of my immediate family,(excluding cousins and such)  who were actually born in Canada, we couldn't give two  sh*ts about the our "motherland", and neither do my parents, we are all fiercely proud Canadians. And that's because my parents put that pressure on us to be Canadian - not Italian. The same thing was done to them. And this lack of pressure on new Canadians now a days to conform to the customs, values, and traditions that shaped this great nation (primarily English / French) is a contributing factor in the confusion that surrounds the new Canadian identity no one can really identify.

I just felt like ranting a bit...maybe a little off topic ....I think I'll stop now


----------



## scm77 (9 Nov 2005)

*Pentagon won't seek execution of Khadr: report
*
CTV.ca News Staff

A 19-year-old Canadian detained at Guantanamo Bay and facing trial by a U.S. military court for several charges, including murder, will not be executed if he's convicted, according to a report.

The Pentagon will not seek the death penalty against Omar Khadr, the Toronto-born suspect who is facing charges stemming from the death of a U.S. army medic during a 2002 grenade attack in Afghanistan, The Globe and Mail reports.

"The case will not be referred as a capital case," a U.S. Defence Department spokesman said Tuesday.

"They have assured me that the death penalty will not be a consideration in his case."

The announcement was welcomed in Ottawa.

"We have sought these kinds of assurances for some time now from the United States, that they would not seek the death penalty because of Mr. Khadr's age," Dan McTeague, the Canadian parliamentary secretary for Foreign Affairs told the newspaper.

"He was just 15 at the time of the alleged offence. But in addition, Canada opposes the death penalty in all instances as being inconsistent with Canadian values."

McTeague said Ottawa will continue to press the Americans to allow Khadr to have access to Canadian lawyers and to have civilian lawyers representing him when the military tribunal is convened.

Khadr was born in Toronto. His family moved to Peshawar, Pakistan when he was four.

Khadr is charged with hurling a hand grenade that killed an American soldier and wounded three others during a firefight with Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in July 2002, when he was 15.

Khadr arrived in Guantanamo Bay as a 16-year-old, the youngest enemy combatant detained there, and has been held at the base on Cuba amid accusations from supporters that he has been tortured.

Some legal observers have said they believe the Pentagon decided against seeking the death penalty, mainly because of the Supreme Court ruling in March that barred executions of criminals under 18 as cruel and unusual punishment.

In Toronto on Tuesday, Khadr's mother Maha Elsamnah, lashed out at both Washington and Ottawa over the detention and treatment of her son.

"The Americans are gods now. The Americans can do anything. They make the law. Nobody can tell them anything. Nobody can disagree with them."

"The Canadians have not been trying anything," Ms. Elsamnah told The Canadian Press. "Ottawa is allied to the Americans, so what do you expect?"

The Khadrs, all of whom are Canadian citizens, have had an uneasy relationship with Canada since it emerged that Omar's father, Ahmed Sa'id Khadr, was a close associate of Osama bin Laden.

The family patriarch was killed in a gun battle with U.S.-led coalition forces in Pakistan in October 2003. His youngest son Karim, was paralyzed during the same incident.

Karim's mother brought her son back to Canada for treatment in the fall of 2004.

Another son, Abdurahman, is on the outs with his family after admitting to being a mole at Guantanamo Bay.

The family's oldest brother, Abdullah, is believed to have been detained in Pakistan more than a year ago. 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051109/khadr_deathpenalty_051109/20051109?hub=Canada


----------



## Slim (10 Nov 2005)

Great msg that's being sent out to the world about Canada...

"Come to Canada where you can go to war with us, then live in the country who's soldiers you tried to kill!"


----------



## aluc (10 Nov 2005)

http://www.torontosun.ca/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2005/11/10/1300192.html

God bless Peter Worthington.

   	
He's no soldier - or Canadian

By PETER WORTHINGTON




There's something weird about murder and attempted murder charges being laid against Omar Khadr, now in his fourth year as a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

He was in Afghanistan, which was being invaded, and he was fighting the invaders, who killed everyone but him. Allegations are that he killed a U.S. medical corpsman and wounded another with a grenade. Surely that's "war," not murder?

That said, shed no tears for Omar Khadr -- described in our media as a "Toronto teenager." Although he was born here to a notorious al-Qaida family, Omar is hardly a typical "Canadian."

His loyalty, training and beliefs belong elsewhere. His Egyptian father chose Canada as a base from which to operate. Predictable hearts are now bleeding for this guy, the lone survivor of a raid on an al-Qaida position during the war against the Taliban.

Concerns that Omar, now 19, would face execution if convicted were never realistic. Despite a military tribunal not being a real court, Americans do not sentence 15-year-olds to death who throw grenades in war. Indeed the Pentagon confirmed yesterday that Khadr would not be executed.

Even if they convicted him of murder (a ridiculous charge since he was fighting back), the Americans were unlikely to embarrass the Canadian government, which opposes executions.

Omar's New York lawyer, Muneer Ahmad, calls him a "child" and says the U.S. government "has robbed Omar of his youth."

What rubbish.

Omar's "youth" was robbed by al-Qaida, for whom he fought. It was robbed by his father, who took him and his siblings to al-Qaida terror camps in Afghanistan. His mother, too, has made it clear theirs is an al-Qaida family.

One son, Adurahman, when caught by the Americans, rebelled against his al-Qaida-Taliban indoctrination and is now free in Toronto.

A younger brother was crippled by a bullet -- again, thanks to the fanatic father, Ahmed Said, who died in a gun battle with Pakistani security forces in 2003.

In 1996, then prime minister Jean Chretien persuaded Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to release Daddy Khadr, who was in prison for the bombing of the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad.

This is not the Walton family. Omar has claimed torture and abuse in Gitmo and gone on hunger strikes. Depending on one's definition of torture, nothing Omar has endured can compare with what his own side inflicted on disbelievers. Rather than torture, Omar and others have endured humiliation and degradation. So what? He still has his fingernails.

Complaints that the 500 confined at Gitmo don't fall under the Geneva Convention are baseless. These guys weren't fighting by civilized rules of war; they honoured no code of behaviour or practice.

Military tribunals are a far cry from regular courts and due process, which takes years in the U.S. The Americans understandably want to avoid such an endless charade. Canada has largely avoided getting involved in Omar's case, or commenting.

Ottawa can't be faulted for this, though Omar's defenders feel Ottawa should be protesting on behalf of a "citizen."

Some citizen! Canada ignored Bill Sampson's torture and death sentence on framed charges in a Saudi prison and ignored Maher Arar in a Syrian prison. So why expect Ottawa to react on Omar's behalf -- other than a chance to snipe at America.

Apart from Adurahman, the Khadr family seems unworthy of Canada. The sympathy Omar deserves is that his own family so poisoned his mind that he may well be unsalvageable.

The best that can be said for him is that he was a fighter for a misguided cause ... and lost.

Let's have no more whining and let him accept his fate like the soldier he thought he was.


----------



## long haired civvy (10 Nov 2005)

I think what we need in Canada is some form of legislation(similiar to the proposed UK anti terror bill) that would  allow authorities to expel(or better yet revoke the citizenship of) naturalized Canadian citizens who support or make statements of support for terrorist organizations. The British bill is aimed squarely at lowlife like the Khadrs, who while enjoying all the advantages of Canadian citizenship, work dilligently abroad spreading the plague of Islamic fundamentalism.


----------



## GO!!! (10 Nov 2005)

I have an innovative solution.

Ask for Khadrs release from Guantanamo. 

Offer the Syrians a "by" for their treatment of Maher Arar, and their guarantee that prisoners are poorly treated.

Then release Khadr - to the Syrians!  >  >  >


----------



## Armymedic (10 Nov 2005)

And to be somewhat equal, an oposing view from the Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1131576446129

Editorial: Khadr's terror trial
Nov. 10, 2005. 01:00 AM


The only Canadian terror suspect at Guantanamo Bay has just been charged with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy and aiding the enemy in Afghanistan.

If convicted, Omar Khadr, 19, may face years in prison.

While U.S. military prosecutors have wisely chosen not to press for the death penalty, Prime Minister Paul Martin has yet to see that in writing. Even when he does, Canadians will have reason to worry that Khadr may not receive a fair trial.

"Khadr is a Canadian citizen who is entitled to due process, the right to his choice of American or Canadian counsel, and consular visits," Dan McTeague, parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, told the Star this week. But winning even those modest concessions from U.S. President George Bush's tribunals is proving to be an uphill struggle.

Martin may be relieved that he won't have to publicly press Bush to spare Khadr's life, but Ottawa must monitor this case closely, and raise a fuss at the United Nations or in Geneva if Khadr receives less than a fair trial by international standards.

A Canadian citizen, Khadr is the son of Ahmed Khadr, allegedly a former "close associate" of Osama bin Laden. The Khadrs cheered the 9/11 attacks. 

U.S. prosecutors contend Omar received Al Qaeda training in Afghanistan in 2002, spied on U.S. troops, planted mines and killed U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Speer with a grenade during a firefight in which Khadr was shot. All this makes him sound like a seasoned terrorist.

In fact, Khadr was 15 at the time, a classic "child soldier." He was subject to his late father's indoctrination and authority. He says he was "dropped off" at the Al Qaeda camp shortly before U.S. troops surrounded it and the firefight began.

Few Canadians have much time for the Khadr clan. Not when our troops are in Afghanistan, battling terror and delivering aid. But Canadians do care about justice. And what Khadr is likely to get may fall short.

Khadr will not face his accusers in a credible court of law. The controversial U.S. military commissions at Guantanamo are anything but impartial.

Military officers function as judges and jurors. Evidence can be withheld from the accused. Information from unlawful coercion is admissible. There is no right of appeal or independent judicial review.

Indeed these military courts have sparked such controversy that the U.S. Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a challenge to their constitutionality. 

The Supreme Court already has shot down the administration's claim that Guantanamo is beyond the reach of U.S. law.

Khadr should have been brought before a competent court in Afghanistan, where his alleged crimes were committed. Or before a U.S. criminal court, or an international tribunal. He could even have been tried here.

He could also have been set free, on humanitarian grounds. He has already spent years in detention.

Instead, Washington has chosen to put a child combatant before a partisan military tribunal to face years in prison for acts committed on his father's orders, and under fire.

It is not the way Canadians do justice. There are better ways to serve freedom, and thwart terror.

 :skull:


----------



## 3rd Horseman (10 Nov 2005)

When will someone in Ottawa start stripping passports?

  It reminds me of that US citizen they caught at the first suurender in Afganistan of the TB. Forget his name but he was brought back to the US and tried and put in jail. Why not just strip him of his passport when he was in that sh*t hole jail in Afganistan and set him adrift countryless and in the hands of theb northern alliance who probably would have carved him a new as*hole. 

Kahdrs along with countless others on our country that dont play our game need to have the old passport and citizinship yanked and they need to be set adrift as world refugees.


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Nov 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> It is not the way Canadians do justice. There are better ways to serve freedom, and thwart terror.



It may not be the way Canadians do justice up here in Canada (The most morally superior high forehead nation in the world), but that is a good thing, considering the way we molly-coddle criminals in our "legal system" (We do not have "justice" system, despite what the bleeding hearts say).  Except maybe for this star reporter, the scumbags family and the usual left-wing suspects, Canadians as a whole are not going to cry in there beer/timmies over this waste of life.


----------



## Acorn (13 Nov 2005)

There is currently nothing in Canadian law that allows for the stripping of citizenship. Passports can, and have, be denied.


----------



## armyintheafterlife (16 Nov 2005)

aluc said:
			
		

> It is truly a shame that liberal democratic societies welcome these people with open arms. In my opinion they show no respect or regard for the traditions and value systems of their new countries. As well as a lack of willingness to learn , appreciate, and adapt to the customs and values of their new land. They believe there is a right to carry on as they did back home. Supposedly they immigrate to a new land of freedom and opportunity because their homeland did not provide this for them. Interestingly, upon arrival they are granted their rights and freedoms ( as well as citizenship soon afterwards) yet have done nothing (aside from paying taxes) to really deserve these privileges. It appears they simply want to turn _______ (insert any liberal democratic society) into their former homeland. It sickens me to witness these people take advantage of our rights and freedoms and apply them for their own selfish ends (which mostly have nothing to do with the majority of Canadians or Canada) The actions of the Khadr family, as well as the deplorable actions taken by the family members of the suspected terrorists in Australia (when they severely beat a reporter who was simply exercising his right of freedom of the press) are extreme examples of this lack of regard for the values of liberal democratic societies across the globe. That beating conjured up images of those mass demonstrations you see on the news in ______(insert any middle eastern country). The soft and welcoming brand of multiculturalism, where everyone belongs, and no one has to adapt, is only helping to ruin Canada and everything she identifies with   and stands for. On a personal note - when my grandparents thankfully chose to come here after WWII they had to adapt to their new land, and they worked their as*es off. They had to learn the language, they adopted the holidays and customs of their new land. Why? Because it made them proud to do anything that would make them more Canadian.   They didn't whine a b*tch about the lack of social services, or not being able to write a drivers licence test in the language of their choice ( I think there are dozens of languages to choose from in Ontario - may be wrong) etc, etc. They wanted my parents (who came here at a very young age) to become real   Canadians, and they have.   Although my brother and I are the only members of my immediate family,(excluding cousins and such)   who were actually born in Canada, we couldn't give two   sh*ts about the our "motherland", and neither do my parents, we are all fiercely proud Canadians. And that's because my parents put that pressure on us to be Canadian - not Italian. The same thing was done to them. And this lack of pressure on new Canadians now a days to conform to the customs, values, and traditions that shaped this great nation (primarily English / French) is a contributing factor in the confusion that surrounds the new Canadian identity no one can really identify.
> 
> I just felt like ranting a bit...maybe a little off topic ....I think I'll stop now




You know, this story isn't about immigrants, as much as the Canadian media keeps trolling, its about a young man getting all cranked up and set on hopeless journey by the morons that were supposed to be guiding him to maturity.  Instead of 'go read your math book' it was let's all go have a jehad.  Now these same folks want Canadians to feel sorry for their deviant son and will manipulate the media any way they can to get at the politicians, who will react consistent with how many votes they think they may lose or get.  Doesn't matter where he launched from, point is, his critical error was shooting at American soldiers.  For that he was kept locked up, likely questioned and will now be tried and punished for his crimes.  The rules for this sort of thing worldwide are simple: when you're in a country other than your own you are subject to the rules of that country and by extension, when you're in a country at war with America (or Canada for that matter) and you shoot at American troops, expect them to return effective fire.  If they get hold of you, expect to be treated like the POW you are.  Canada has no right or obligation to protect this person from the death penalty.  Last time I checked we were militarily allied with the U.S. and ought to hold up our end of that log.  If this isn't the case then we ought to stop signing international agreements that say we are.  End of story.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (17 Nov 2005)

I read somewhere that Canada has a law on the books that  makes it illegal to fight in a war that you are fighting againist Canadians or allies. I do not fully understand it. Read about in the Ottawa Sun in a story  about a Canadian that went to Nam, as part of the USMC . it was illegal for Canadians to go as it was not a declared war by Canada, and fighting for US was not legal either but the Canadian Government looked the other way  as they  did they  took in non Canadians during WW 2 when they wanted to join up north.

But if there is such a law on the books after they are done with the POS in the States, they need to send him home to face Canadian Law and see what  happens.

My personally feelings on this matter are very  uncaring 

1) they fought in an declared war, did not wear a uniform, did not belong to a legal army, killed women and children and other innocents, fired upon Medics.

2) They oppressed their own people for sake of power

3) some of them are involved in the drug trade

4) He personally  insulted his country and his family expects Canada to bail him out of Cuba ( give me a break )

5) he wants to protest his lack of freedom and lack of rights.

where is the freedom for the medic he shot 
where is the conventions of war for the people he killed, or tried to kiil or helped to capture.
where was he when his country  needed him to help defend it and support it
He did the crime let him do the time.

If he thinks he needs to be saved and given back his freedom, send him back to where he was captured and let the Afgan people decide what  sort of punishment he deserves. Let him rot in one of the fine 5 star jails they have over there. I am sure they  will give him a shower , 3 meals a day, time to pray, recreational area, and free medical care as needed.

if i had my way  i would drop the POS into the Ottawa River and see if he can walk on water with blocks of concrete around his neck. drown the bastard and forget about him, he does not deserve the help of Canada, and does not require court hearing, he was there armed, shooting at US forces. let him rot and die. I am sick of the people coming to Canada and brining the crap over here with them and then taking Canadian money , sending it back home to support terror, sort illegal businesses. then they want Canada to bail them out, screw them and the camel they  rode in on.


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Nov 2005)

A slight nitpick: The Taliban, being fanatical Muslims, adhered very strictly to the Koranic prohibition on the use of mind altering substances, that is, alchohol and any form of narcotic. The opium trade was essentially stamped out in Taliban controlled areas. The principle areas of opium cultivation were those controlled by the Northern Alliance, for whom it was essentially the only form of financing they had access to, prior to 9/11.

So, no, he probably wasn't involved in the drug trade.


----------



## Hollywog (17 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Seems to me that the Death Penalty is still used in both Afghanistan and parts of the US of A.   The 'alleged' crime was committed in Afghanistan against Americans.   He is being tried by an American Judicial System.   'Canada' does not enter into the equation at all (other than his claim to Citizenship.).   He is being treated as any other foreigner would, if committing a crime in the US or in this case against a US citizen.
> 
> There are numerous cases of Canadians on Death Row in the US. for crimes they have committed there.   Why should Canadians plea for this retches case?



Didn't Chretien do that when one of the Khadirs was held by Pakistan?


----------



## George Wallace (17 Nov 2005)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> Didn't Chretien do that when one of the Khadirs was held by Pakistan?


Yes.   And what thanks did he give?   He went back and was killed in a Firefight with the Pakistani Army.  Hope I got that right?  That family has had such a convoluted History in the Region, it is hard to keep track.


----------



## patt (17 Nov 2005)

maybe he should read up on his Charter of rights and freedoms..they dont apply when you do something bad outside of Canada


----------



## silentbutdeadly (17 Nov 2005)

So i guess when the americans hang this Killer, the family , living here in Canada, will blame us for his murder. Funny isn't it! :threat:


----------



## armyvern (17 Nov 2005)

silentbutdeadly said:
			
		

> So i guess when the americans hang this Killer, the family , living here in Canada, will blame us for his murder. Funny isn't it! :threat:



Well they already announced that they would not seek the death penalty. Too bad....perhaps I can start a lobby group entitled "let Vern have him for 10 minutes!!" Actually, give me 15 so that I can make sure it really hurts!!


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

In an attempt to learn more about the Khadr family, I watched this frontline episode focusing on the "blacksheep" of the family, Abduraman.  It was well worth watching (as with other Frontline episodes)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/khadr/view/

Osama bin Laden is a volleyball fan - I wonder if he gets many games in at his cave?  The Khadr women sure seem like a bunch of unrepentent bags; my opinion on them still stands.

Interesting to see that Bosnia is recognized as a major pipeline for Al-Qaeda activity - it certainly shores up some of my observations from being there.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (8 Dec 2005)

Bosnia had a very big Muji element in theatre during the war, they as I see now years later were AlQuida. They were brutal fighters and stayed close to the secretive Black Swan units who were well supplied by the CIA and Saudis. During early 95 the BIH government wanted to get them under control and was having problems with them and there hidden agenda in the new BiH government post war 95. During the mid summer 95 the BiH made an attempt to oust them from Bosnia sensing the war was ending soon. They requested the UN assist them, that didnt go very far.lp of the UN. They would have no part of it other than negotiations to ask them to leave. It fell upon the special assets in theatre to get ride of them and this activity was very productive. By the end of the fall most Mujis were gone, maybe now they have gotten a better toe hold. I can only imagine what effect all the money funneled into new mosques and madras's would have on that poor state as they rebuild there country after the war.


----------



## scm77 (18 Dec 2005)

*Abdullah Khadr arrested; faces extradition*

CTV.ca News Staff

The eldest son of the notorious Khadr family has been arrested in Toronto.

Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) took Abdullah Khadr, 23, into custody at approximately 7 p.m. Saturday. He was brought to Toronto's Metro West Detention facility.

His mother was also taken into custody after she became upset at the arrest. However, she isn't facing any charges.

"The RCMP was simply acting on the basis of a provisional warrant issued by the Department of Justice," spokesperson Cpl. Michele Paradis told CTV.ca.

A provisional warrant is issued based on accusations from another government. In Khadr's case, those accusations come from the U.S. government.

The RCMP declined to provide details of the arrest, except to say that it happened at a Toronto residence.

"I can't get into specifics," Paradis said. "We'd never give out that information."

According to a Saturday globeandmail.com report, Khadr faces extradition to the United States for allegedly planning to kill U.S. soldiers abroad.

The website of The Globe and Mail quoted Khadr's lawyer, Dennis Edney.

"The cops said they were acting on a provisional warrant from the United States," Edney said. "I can't say he sounded worried. I think he is in a state of shock."

Khadr returned to Canada from Pakistan in early December. He had been held, and he claims interrogated, in a Pakistani prison for 14 months.

When Abdullah returned to Canada, he denied having any ties to the al Qaeda Islamist terror organization. However, Khadr also said he feared the possibility that the United States would continue to seek custody of him.

According to Edney, the U.S. wants to charge Khadr with "possession and use of a destructive device in furtherance of a crime of violence that is conspiracy to murder a U.S. national outside of the U.S."

The Khadr family

Khadr is the eldest son of Ahmed Said Khadr. The Egyptian-born Canadian was killed during a gun battle with Pakistani forces in 2003. He was accused of being a fundraiser for al Qaeda.

Each of the four Khadr siblings have separately been jailed and accused of having links to international terrorism.

Abdul Khadr, 15, lives in Scarborough after being paralyzed in the gun battle with Pakistani security forces that left his father dead.

Omar Khadr, 19, is being held in the American detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He has been charged with murder for the death of a U.S. medic in Afghanistan during a 2002 gun battle.

Abdurahman Khadr, 22, was captured in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance and says he briefly worked for the CIA as an informant in Guantanamo Bay. He returned to Canada in December 2003 and is currently fighting a court case with the government to obtain a passport.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051217/abdullah_khadr_051217/20051217?hub=TopStories


----------



## career_radio-checker (18 Dec 2005)

1 down 2 to go... or is it 3 ???   I can't believe they let them back in to the country after what the mother and daughter said on the CBC. And then to get off the plane in Canada and say "I have no ties to Al-Quaida" grrrrrrrrrr :evil:


----------



## The_Falcon (18 Dec 2005)

Well it turns out some members of the board were right, we allowed them to return so we (law enforcement and Intelligence communities) could keep a better eye on them.  I hope who ever authorized the warrant doesn't get any flack, and that they get a promotion or someting.  AS for the rest of the family,  they (LE) better scoop them up right quick, before they disappear, before the US and Canadian Governments get a chance to disappear them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Dec 2005)

> The eldest son of the notorious Khadr family has been arrested in Toronto.



I can't believe that!  Someone from the Khadr family?

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?  

 I'm going to start a fund for this poor poor soul of this misunderstood family.  Anyone interested in donating money PM me.


----------



## Armymedic (19 Dec 2005)

speaking of money, where does this "poor immigrant"(my words) family get the money to travel back and forth overseas?


----------



## Shadowhawk (19 Dec 2005)

The Canadian Taxpayers. :threat:


----------



## The_Falcon (19 Dec 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> speaking of money, where does this "poor immigrant"(my words) family get the money to travel back and forth overseas?



Well they live in area of Scarborough that has a very high Muslim population (Midland Ave and Eglinton Ave E. area), and my best guess woud be that they get a large amount of money from other local muslims who may sympathize with them and/or thier cause.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2005)

Anyone think this Khadr fellow should marry Karla Homolka?


----------



## The_Falcon (20 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Anyone think this Khadr fellow should marry Karla Homolka?



Umm why?


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Dec 2005)

Screw that, I think he should marry Lorena Bobbit...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Feb 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/19/khard-utah060219.html
U.S. judge finds Khadr estate liable for attack
Last Updated Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:47:12 EST 
CBC News
A U.S. court has made a huge judgment against the estate of Ahmed Khadr, the patriarch of a Canadian family connected to al-Qaeda. 


INDEPTH: Khadr: al-Qaeda Family

Khadr is believed to be dead, killed in a 2003 fight with Pakistani soldiers on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. 

Omar Khadr, one son of Ahmed, was involved in a fight in 2002 in Afghanistan that killed one U.S. soldier and wounded another. 

The wounded soldier, Sgt. Layne Morris, and the widow of medic Christopher Speer, sued Ahmed under the U.S. Patriot Act. They said the father encouraged his sons, including the underage Omar, to kill Americans. 

The judge hearing the case said it may be the first of its kind because it makes attackers liable for their actions, even outside the U.S. 

He awarded $102.6 million US to Morris and Speer's widow on Friday in an uncontested case, although it's not clear how or even if they can collect any part of the money. 

It is believed the U.S. and Canadian governments have seized Ahmed Khadr's assets. 

The U.S. has accused at least two of Khadr's sons of attacks or planning attacks on American solders. 

Omar, 15 at the time of the battle and now 19, is being tried in Guantanamo Bay. He was captured in the attack that wounded Morris and killed Speer. His next court appearance is set for March 27. 


FROM JAN. 13, 2006: Khadr likely to get new legal team 

His brother, Abdullah, spent a year in a Pakistani jail before being released in 2005. He came to Toronto. The U.S. government is trying to extradite him. 


FROM FEB. 15, 2006: U.S. requests Khadr extradition 

U.S. officials allege he bought weapons for militants and accuse him of plotting to kill American soldiers.


----------



## Fraser.g (16 Mar 2006)

Here is the latest and greatest on this saga;

Could it be that we are actualy going to send him south? I hope so.

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060316/abdullah_khadr_court_060316

Abdullah Khadr to face extradition hearing 
CTV.ca News Staff

Canadian Abdullah Khadr will face an extradition hearing that could force him to return to the U.S. to face terrorism charges.

A ruling today in Ontario's Superior Court gave the U.S. leave to seek extradition.

The process is set to start on March 30, when prosecutors meet to discuss a date for the extradition hearing.

Khadr, 24, has been in jail since December, when he was arrested on a U.S. warrant.

In February, the U.S. formally requested extradition of Khadr, who was indicted in Boston on charges he supplied al Qaeda with weapons and plotted to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan.

The indictment said Khadr bought the weapons at the request of his father, Egyptian-born Canadian Ahmed Said Khadr, an accused al Qaeda financier killed by Pakistani forces in 2003.

Khadr admits attending an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan when he was 13, but denies being a terrorist.

Each of the five Khadr siblings, all of whom are Canadian citizens, has at one time or another been separately accused or investigated for alleged links to terrorism.

Omar Khadr, 19, is the only Canadian held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. He has been there since he was 16.

He is charged with aiding al Qaeda and murdering a U.S. medic in Afghanistan in July 2002. 

He faces a special military tribunal system for alleged terrorists that has been widely attacked as unfair.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an international human rights group, has taken up his case with the aim of getting his military trial suspended.

With files from The Canadian Press


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Mar 2006)

Stop, please your breakin' my heart..... :rofl:   

Terror suspect Khadr at 'urgent risk'
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/03/22/1500550-cp.html
By BETH GORHAM
  
WASHINGTON (CP) - An international human rights watchdog is demanding that U.S. officials intervene to protect Canadian teenager Omar Khadr from torture at Guantanamo Bay. 

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, affiliated with the Organization of American States, said Wednesday that Khadr faces an "urgent risk of irreparable harm." 
The commission's finding, after a one-day hearing last week, said American authorities must ensure Khadr, 19, isn't subjected to abuse, prolonged isolation or interrogation tactics that fail to comply with international standards of humane treatment. 

The group demanded an impartial investigation into Khadr's torture allegations and prosecution of anyone found guilty. Officials must also ensure that no statements obtained through cruel or degrading treatment be accepted in legal proceedings against the teen, the commission said. 
The watchdog gave the U.S. government 15 days to respond to its requests. So far, officials have refused to comply with five other urgent directives related to Guantanamo issued by the commission since March 2002. 

U.S. officials have always denied detainees are tortured. Yet a Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday the department is considering whether to issue new instructions to military commissions that specifically prohibit evidence extracted by those means. 
"This has been one area where there has been some concern raised and so the department is taking a look at it and may issue a special instruction on it," said Bryan Whitman. 

Sheku Sheikholeslami, part of an American University legal clinic that made the case to protect Khadr, said supporters are pleased with the commission's findings. 
"It sends a very important message that the conditions of his detention will irreparably harm Omar," she said. 
"This should be a wakeup call for the U.S. and especially for Canada," which has not taken a position on global calls to close Guantanamo. 

Khadr is charged with murdering a U.S. army medic in Afghanistan in 2002 when he was 15 years old and faces a second military tribunal hearing next month at the U.S. naval base in southeastern Cuba. 
Sheikholeslami argued at a closed-door March 13 hearing that Khadr's trial should be suspended. But the commission wants a full briefing on the tribunal process before ruling. 
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments this month on whether the system for so-called enemy combatants captured in the war on terrorism is constitutional since they've been denied the right to challenge their detention. 

Khadr's lawyers told the OAS commission that U.S. authorities aren't following global standards for juvenile justice, saying his trial sets a dangerous precedent as the first for war crimes allegedly committed by a juvenile. 
The teen, they said, has been threatened with rape, placed in a room with barking dogs while wearing a plastic bag over his head and forced to sit while shackled in stress positions for extended periods. 

U.S. government lawyers argued the commission has no jurisdiction over Guantanamo. 
They also failed to provide any specifics about Khadr's case, citing privacy concerns, the commission said. 
Only 10 of some 500 Guantanamo prisoners, including Khadr, have actually been charged and have made appearances at tribunals. 

The Khadr family has provoked intense debate in Canada. Each of the five Khadr siblings, all of whom are Canadian citizens, has at one time or another been separately accused or investigated for alleged links to terrorism.


----------



## sober_ruski (28 Mar 2006)

> Khadr faces an "urgent risk of irreparable harm."



The USMC medic faced urgent risk of irreparable harm. Those 2 pakistany soldiers faced urgent risk of irreparable harm. 3000 odd people in the planes, WTC, and pentagon faced urgent risk of irreparable harm. 
A pillow with a .22 would be the only irreparable harm this piece of fecal matter has to face.


----------



## Danjanou (29 Mar 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Well they live in area of Scarborough that has a very high Muslim population (Midland Ave and Eglinton Ave E. area), and my best guess woud be that they get a large amount of money from other local muslims who may sympathize with them and/or thier cause.



And I would bet you guess wrong skippy.  8)

Shadowhawk is right these lovely people get the money to travel back and forth to the homeland for "visits" from the Canadian Taxpayer usually in misappropriated welfare payments and other aspects of the social safety net (GST rebates, NCBS etc) that they despise. Of course any attempt to point out this serious violation of Canadian Law (Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, Section 19 of The Family Benefits Act, Section 79 of the Ontario Works Act, Section 59 of the Ontario Disabilities Support Program Act) would brand the person or persons who did so as inhumane, politically incorrect and perhaps racist, and maybe in violation of the Khadrs rights as enshrined in the Charter. :


----------



## aluc (29 Mar 2006)

I always thought that human rights did not apply to animals? ;D Where do many of these groups receive their funding anyways?


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Mar 2006)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> [quote author=Hatchet Man] Well they live in area of Scarborough that has a very high Muslim population (Midland Ave and Eglinton Ave E. area), and my best guess woud be that they get a large amount of money from other local muslims who may sympathize with them and/or thier cause.



And I would bet you guess wrong skippy.  8)

Shadowhawk is right these lovely people get the money to travel back and forth to the homeland for "visits" from the Canadian Taxpayer usually in misappropriated welfare payments and other aspects of the social safety net (GST rebates, NCBS etc) that they despise. Of course any attempt to point out this serious violation of Canadian Law (Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, Section 19 of The Family Benefits Act, Section 79 of the Ontario Works Act, Section 59 of the Ontario Disabilities Support Program Act) would brand the person or persons who did so as inhumane, politically incorrect and perhaps racist, and maybe in violation of the Khadrs rights as enshrined in the Charter. :

[/quote]

I wasn't saying they don't screw over taxpayers and abuse the system, but lets not fool ourselves into believing that they are not receiving funds from the local muslim community (at least the ones who support Al-Queada-Taliban and/or think this family is some how being persecuted).  The tamil tigers have been soliciting/harrassing members of that particular community(Which is mainly centred in Scarborough) for funds, for years.  Considering how closed and tight knit both groups are (tamils, muslims within Scarborough/Toronto), it is highly that this kind of activity is going on right now  in the local muslim community.


----------



## aluc (9 Jun 2006)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1149850847392&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News


Court backs Khadr's right to passport
Jun. 9, 2006. 01:13 PM
CANADIAN PRESS

The Federal Court says Ottawa can’t deny the son of an Egyptian-born terrorist a Canadian passport because of national security concerns.

The court has ruled that the federal government was wrong to deny Abdurahman Khadr’s application two years ago.

That’s because new anti-terror provisions didn’t legally exist when the self-proclaimed black sheep of the family made his application in 2004.

Lawyers argued the case in December.

Khadr returned to Canada two years after being arrested as a presumed member of Al Qaeda in November 2001.

He was later transferred to Guantanamo Bay and deported to Afghanistan.

His brothers Abdullah and Omar have been charged with terrorist activities.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 Jun 2006)

I think we should give them all passports, invite them to vacation anywhere they like, then under the 2004 rule changes revoke those passports.

In short, "Get lost.  Don't let the door hit you in the ass!"


Matthew.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (9 Jun 2006)

I just came across this gem...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/09/khadr.html

The federal government will review its options now that the Federal Court has ruled that the son of a suspected Egyptian extremist has the right to a Canadian passport.

The Conservatives don't want a passport issued to Abdurahman Khadr, despite the ruling, a government spokesman said Friday.

Stephen Harper's government wants to review the decision, said Jason Kenney, the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister.

The Tories support the previous Liberal government's decision to deny Khadr a passport, Kenney said.

The court ruled Friday that Ottawa can't refuse Khadr's application based on national security concerns.

New anti-terrorism provisions didn't legally exist when Khadr made his application in 2004.

Khadr returned to Canada two years after being arrested as a presumed member of al-Qaeda in November 2001.

He was later transferred to Guantanamo Bay and deported to Afghanistan, but later freed after agreeing to co-operate with U.S. authorities and returned to Canada.

In January 2005, Bill Graham, the foreign affairs minister, used his "royal prerogative" to keep former Guantanamo Bay detainee Abdurahman Khadr from leaving the country.

The minister used the rare power of intervention to deny Khadr a passport.

Al-Qaeda family

In an interview with CBC Television, Khadr described how his father fought alongside Osama bin Laden in the Afghan war against the Soviets in the 1980s.

However, the 23-year-old Abdurahman Khadr has said he does not share his father's sympathies.

Khadr appealed the decision to deny him a passport. At the time, his lawyer, Clayton Ruby, called the federal action a fundamental breach of his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

National security is not currently a specified reason for refusing to issue a passport.

The custom of royal or Crown prerogative is invoked mostly in ceremonial affairs, such as when the Governor General uses it to dissolve Parliament at the request of the prime minister.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jun 2006)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> And I would bet you guess wrong skippy.  8)
> 
> Shadowhawk is right these lovely people get the money to travel back and forth to the homeland for "visits" from the Canadian Taxpayer usually in misappropriated welfare payments and other aspects of the social safety net (GST rebates, NCBS etc) that they despise. Of course any attempt to point out this serious violation of Canadian Law (Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, Section 19 of The Family Benefits Act, Section 79 of the Ontario Works Act, Section 59 of the Ontario Disabilities Support Program Act) would brand the person or persons who did so as inhumane, politically incorrect and perhaps racist, and maybe in violation of the Khadrs rights as enshrined in the Charter. :



I remember there was a similar case where Mohamed Farah Adid (of Blackhawk Down fame) supposedly had some of his family in Canada, on welfare allegedly involved in a similar welfare scam. My search stringology is weak tonight, I can't seem to find details.


----------



## J.J (10 Jun 2006)

One of his wives and their kids were living in the London, Ont area....not sure what happened to them....probably still on welfare. :


----------



## Danjanou (10 Jun 2006)

Another wife, and kid or kiddies was in Rexdale (NW Toronto) which has a fairly large Somali community and on assistance too, can't recall if she/they were scamming though.

On the other hand didn't one of his sons join the USMC and serve honourably.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Jun 2006)

ya, if I remember right, some Somalies were using multiple identities and sending all the cash back to Shyteland. 

Now thats what I call taking advantage of Canada and Canadians at large! Its quite disgusting, isn't it!

As for Adid's family, I think adventually they did leave (if I remember correctly, but I might be wrong), but knowing the federal government, they probably begged them to return.

Cold beers,

Wes


----------



## Danjanou (11 Jun 2006)

Not just Somalis Wes. We busted a bunch of Tamil refugees being extorted by the Tigers to file false second refugee claims then collect welfare under these names and hand the cheques over. Can’t really blame them, they were the ones being extorted by the same scum that they came to Canada to get away from.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Jun 2006)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Not just Somalis Wes. We busted a bunch of Tamil refugees being extorted by the Tigers to file false second refugee claims then collect welfare under these names and hand the cheques over. Can’t really blame them, they were the ones being extorted by the same scum that they came to Canada to get away from.



Its a pretty sad state of affairs when you accept people because of their situation in their own country and they do this for their apprecation.

Cheeers,

Wes


----------



## aluc (13 Jun 2006)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150149010011&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Khadrs show up for suspects
Jun. 13, 2006. 06:59 AM
MICHELLE SHEPHARD AND HAROLD LEVY
STAFF REPORTERS

The alleged members of a Toronto-based terrorist group are receiving support from other Canadians who say their names have been smeared by terrorism allegations, including members of the Khadr family and the uncle of a detained Syrian.

Sitting in the front row at a court appearance for the accused yesterday was 17-year-old Karim Khadr, who was paralyzed when he was shot during a 2003 battle with Pakistani forces that killed his father, reputed Al Qaeda financier Ahmed Said Khadr.

Also watching was Khadr's mother, Maha Elsamnah, who has been living in Toronto since she returned from Pakistan with Karim two years ago. The Khadr family knows at least one of the suspects, Fahim Ahmad, who is accused of being one of the alleged leaders of what police call a homegrown terrorism cell plotting to attack southern Ontario targets.

The 12 adults and five youths under the age of 18 were arrested June 2 in raids across the city.

Lawyers for the men complained yesterday that the accused were enduring "cruel and unusual punishment" while detained. The allegations came as Justice of the Peace Keith Currie imposed a blanket publication ban on the legal proceedings.

No Khadr family members have been convicted of terrorism offences but two are now in custody: Abdullah, 25, in Toronto, fighting deportation to the U.S., where he has been indicted on terrorism charges, and 19-year-old Omar, who is Canada's only detainee in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Omar Khadr is being held on murder and attempted murder charges stemming from a 2002 battle in Afghanistan in which a U.S. soldier was killed.

A few rows back in the packed courtroom sat Ahmed Shehab, who had his Toronto photocopy shop raided by the RCMP a week after the 9/11 attacks, and his nephew Nabil Al Marabh, detained on terrorism allegations in the U.S.

The terrorism accusations against Al Marabh were later dropped, and he was deported on an immigration violation to Syria, where his uncle says he's now detained.

Shehab said yesterday he recognized some of the accused, but came to court to show his support and send the message that the suspects are innocent until the court rules.

The 17 accused were brought before the justice of the peace yesterday to set dates for their upcoming bail hearings. The five youths, who cannot be identified due to Canadian laws protecting suspects under 18, appeared first, shackled and handcuffed together.

The accused adults were brought into the court in groups of three and four. Some, like 21-year-old Asad Ansari, kept their heads bowed and looked only at the floor.

Others such as Ahmad looked constantly over their shoulders, smiling at friends and family members who filled one side of the courtroom.

A majority of defence lawyers opposed the ban, arguing the case had already been tried in public and their clients wanted the government to have to defend its claims in open court.

Lawyer David Kolinsky, who represents Zakaria Amara, another alleged leader of the group and the 21-year-old who sources say will be accused of allegedly arranging the purchase of ammonium nitrate to manufacture a bomb, told reporters outside the courthouse that a guard attacked his client at the maximum security facility in Milton, where he is being held.

"(He) was pinned down on the ground. He had the guard's finger drilled into his cheek and the guard also flicked him quite hard in the eye," Kolinsky said.

When claims of mistreatment and threats by guards at Maplehurst Detention Centre were discussed in court, accused Yasin Abdi Mohamed raised his handcuffed arms in the air and shouted "torture."

Mohamed and 22-year-old Ali Dirie pleaded guilty last October to weapons offences after their rented car was pulled over two months earlier at Fort Erie's Peace Bridge and they were found smuggling weapons and ammunition into Canada from the U.S. They had been serving two-year sentences in Kingston but are now charged with allegedly acquiring those weapons for terrorist activities.

Other lawyers yesterday complained of the conditions their clients are facing in segregation, including claims that the lights in their cells are left on 24 hours a day, they're forced to keep their eyes on the floor and are being woken up every 30 minutes.

Lawyers said that amounted to "cruel and unusual punishment," and breached their clients' Charter rights.

Lawyer Rocco Galati, who represents 21-year-old Ahmad Mustafa Ghany, added that when suspects are escorted "they must walk at a 90-degree angle with their legs upright and their torso across at a 90-degree angle with handcuffs stretched out."

"And they are being escorted by three armed tactical members of the security forces," he said.

Galati also accused the authorities of unfairly leaking selected information to the media "to ensure the denial of a fair bail hearing and the denial of a fair trial."

"After (the Crown has) had 10 days with the media, feeding the media whatever they want to feed the media, denying us disclosure of any evidence and doing what they need to do to conduct the trial in this parking lot of the courthouse, they now have the audacity to request a blanket publication ban of all proceedings," Galati told reporters outside of court.





> The alleged members of a Toronto-based terrorist group are receiving support from other Canadians who say their names have been smeared by terrorism allegations, including members of the Khadr family and the uncle of a detained Syrian.



You mean "other Canadians who are terrorists too!"




> When claims of mistreatment and threats by guards at Maplehurst Detention Centre were discussed in court, accused Yasin Abdi Mohamed raised his handcuffed arms in the air and shouted "torture."



 :rofl:        ya....laughing this hard is torture...I can't stop....too funny



They all know how to play the PR game so well....must be a chapter on it in the Al -qaeda training manual.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Jun 2006)

Isn't that like the leader of the Hell's Angels sitting on a trial for one of his Leiutenants (sp).


----------



## GAP (29 Jun 2006)

Hateful chatter behind the veil  
Key suspects' wives held radical views, Web postings reveal 
OMAR EL AKKAD AND GREG MCARTHUR 
POSTED AT 3:34 AM EDT ON 29/06/06 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060629.wxblog29/BNStory/National/?cid=al_gam_nletter_newsUp

Wives of four of the central figures arrested last month were among the most active on the website, sharing, among other things, their passion for holy war, disgust at virtually every aspect of non-Muslim society and a hatred of Canada.

Personally, I think we should help these people realize their objectives....bye bye !!!


----------



## Shadowhawk (29 Jun 2006)

This is just too much. Something must be done. I'm so pissed right now  

I will have to think about what I want to say about this before I rant about this one.  :rage:


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jun 2006)

Shadowhawk said:
			
		

> This is just too much. Something must be done. I'm so pissed right now
> 
> I will have to think about what I want to say about this before I rant about this one.  :rage:



Wait 'till you see the news later tonight on the Canadian Government's proposal to bring 19-year-old Omar Khadr to Canada from Guantanamo Bay.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jun 2006)

UPDATE

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f3b16de6-f361-491e-8d39-62e8830a0719&k=66282

  
Bring Khadr to Canada: Lawyer
U.S. Supreme Court quashes Guantanamo military tribunals
  
Sheldon Alberts 
The Ottawa Citizen 


Friday, June 30, 2006

WASHINGTON - The lawyer for a Canadian teen held at Guantanamo Bay by the U.S. military is urging the Canadian government to have him extradited home to be tried now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled American military tribunals are illegal.

Omar Khadr, 19, has been detained at Guantanamo since his arrest in October 2002 for allegedly killing a U.S. soldier and wounding another during a firefight in Afghanistan.

Now that a military tribunal will not be allowed to decide his fate, lawyers for Mr. Khadr are hoping that he will finally be sent home.

"It leaves the U.S. government in a bit of a bind as to what to do with him," Dennis Edney, one of Mr. Khadr's Canadian lawyers, said in an interview from Edmonton. "It turns everything on its head."

The United States Supreme Court yesterday struck down the system of war crimes tribunals established by President George W. Bush to try "enemy combatants," ruling the military commissions violated U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.

In a 5-3 decision, the high court found Mr. Bush had overstepped his authority as president by creating the commissions and said he failed to provide detainees with basic legal protections.

The decision throws the U.S. government's case against Mr. Khadr into legal limbo.

"The government of Canada really ought to be demanding him back," said Muneer Ahmad, a civilian attorney who has represented Mr. Khadr at two pre-trial hearings this year at Guantanamo.

"The United States' own Supreme Court has thrown the whole thing out. ... It is time for Canada to say enough is enough, we can't permit our citizen to languish in this system any longer."

Because Mr. Khadr was charged under a military tribunal system now deemed invalid, "I don't think the charges will survive," Mr. Ahmad said.

The Supreme Court decision dealt specifically with conspiracy charges against Salim Hamdan, a 36-year-old Guantanamo detainee who had served as a driver to Osama bin Laden.

In a 73-page opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court agreed with the argument that the tribunals were not authorized by any act of Congress or common law in the U.S.

The high court also found the tribunals violated U.S. law because they allowed for the inclusion of evidence obtained under coercion and because defendants were not allowed to see or hear certain evidence against them.

The military commissions failed to meet "the barest" rights accorded under the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, including the right for a defendant to be present at a hearing against him.

"The rules specified for Hamdan's trial are illegal," wrote Judge Stevens, 86, widely considered the court's most liberal justice.

The high court's decision does not require Mr. Bush to close Guantanamo, nor does it forbid the U.S. from holding indefinitely those prisoners classified as enemy combatants.

Of the 450 detainees still held at Guantanamo, only 10 had been charged with offences under the tribunal system.

Reacting to the decision, Mr. Bush raised the possibility of opening negotiations with Congress on a system of military tribunals that would conform to the Supreme Court's ruling.

"The American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street. ... I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people."

The Supreme Court ruling comes two weeks after three detainees at Guantanamo committed suicide, the first deaths at the prison since it opened in late 2001. Dozens of detainees have also staged periodic hunger strikes to protest their detentions, tactics the base commander at Guantanamo said were part of the terrorists' "jihad" against the United States.

"I want to find a way forward," said Mr. Bush, who recently said his preference would be to close Guantanamo altogether.

"I would like for there to be a way to return people from Guantanamo to their home countries, but some people need to be tried in our courts."

© The Ottawa Citizen 2006 

Copyright © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.


----------



## GO!!! (1 Jul 2006)

Simple fix:

We cannot release these detainees until the GWOT has been decided, because they will only rejoin the fight against us. As such, we will only detain these individuals until the terrorist attacks against western civilisation stop.

German and Italian troops and officers were detained in Canada and the US during WWII and released after the cessation of hostilities, I fail to see why this precedent cannot be followed.


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2006)

It's a little dated, but maybe something similiar should happen here....
  
Benefits stopped to 'al-Qa'eda' families
By George Jones, Political Editor
(Filed: 04/07/2006)

The Treasury took action yesterday to stop the households of people suspected of links to al-Qa'eda and the Taliban from receiving state benefits and tax credits
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/04/nterr204.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/04/ixuknews.html


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Jul 2006)

Yaknow, they used to call 5th to 12th century the "Dark Ages".  They did have this wonderful little tradition called "exile" or "banishment" in some circles..... Last call arseholes, you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here...


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2006)

Far northern Quebec, Ontario, etc...I'm sure the Inuit won't mind them scrambling about in their territory...we'll even give them a bow & arrows and some snare wire. Should do just fine.  >


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Jul 2006)

I'd rather see them under a condition that if they came within a decent bowshot of Canadian soil, it's jail for life, no trial, no appeals, but that's just me.


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2006)

and just about anybody else....except Jack & buddies


----------



## snowy (4 Jul 2006)

these people come to our land, eat our bread, and spit on our soil. the conclusion to sentence the Al-Qaida family would be depribe them of all canadian privileges and send them back from were they came from.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jul 2006)

The only problem with Snowy's solution is what to do with the ones born and raised here in Canada? Not just the Khadr children, but people like the 17 recently arrested for plotting to use three tons of Ammonium Nitrate to level CBC HQ, the Parliament buildings etc.

Sad to say, but there will probably have to be a "Gitmo North" facility created one of these days to house Canadian violent offenders who are willing to deprive all Canadians of their rights and freedoms, and who will probably remain dangerous offenders for the remainder of their natural lives.


----------



## karl28 (5 Jul 2006)

I think if any one is caught betraying there country like the 17 who where caught in Toronto regardless of who they are  they should be executed after a swift trail that will send a message that where not going ot tolerate that kind of behavior in Canada.


----------



## North Star (7 Jul 2006)

Yeah, but we're big softies. 

My solution: Room 101 (Anybody get the reference?)


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Jul 2006)

North Star said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> My solution: Room 101 (Anybody get the reference?)



Reference:  1984, by George Orwell.  Room 101 contained "the worst thing in the world", which, as a recall, for our heroic protaganist was rats.  

I imagine for the Khadrs, it would be pigs.


----------



## GO!!! (8 Jul 2006)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I imagine for the Khadrs, it would be pigs.



The worst thing in the world for the Khadrs?

It would have to be locked in room 101 with these strutting idiots.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SPORT/08/12/us.flagwaving/index.html


----------



## aluc (21 Jul 2006)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1153433434529&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News


Khadr turns his back on American legal help
Detainee wants to meet with Canadian lawyers Letters blamed
on Toronto teen's state of mind
Jul. 21, 2006. 01:00 AM
MICHELLE SHEPHARD
STAFF REPORTER

Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr has written letters to his Canadian lawyers and mother, telling them he no longer wants help from the Washington attorneys who have advocated for his release, or the military lawyers who were appointed to defend him.

The 19-year-old former Toronto resident also requested that all court applications filed on his behalf be withdrawn and asked to meet with the two Edmonton-based lawyers who have been fighting for his rights in Canada, but who have not yet talked with him.

The letters were written earlier this month and brought to Canada by an official with the Department of Foreign Affairs who visited the teenager at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

His writing is filled with spelling and grammatical errors and without punctuation.

"i hope you are not mad on me and am not and will not and dont thank because im not writing you often its because the situation down here thes days but will write when it gets better and please dear mom don't be mad," he writes in the July 13 letter to his mother Maha Elsamnah, who lives in Toronto.

"i have fired all my American lawyer i think i'm better with out them and Allah is our defender and helper."

Edmonton-based lawyer Dennis Edney said yesterday that he would try to get to the navy base to visit Khadr, but that his transportation is dependent on the co-operation of the Canadian and U.S. governments and so far has been denied.

"He has been treated badly by the same U.S. authorities in Guantanamo Bay who have provided him with their own military lawyers to represent him," Edney said. "In those circumstances it must be difficult for him to trust anyone."

The letters came as a shock to Lt. Col. Colby Vokey who was appointed to defend Khadr and has just returned to the U.S. after travelling to Afghanistan, Toronto and Ottawa to meet with those who know the teenager. But Vokey said yesterday he wasn't surprised that Khadr would be suspicious of any Americans and said he thinks the teen's detainment, now back in solitary confinement, is taking a toll.

Khadr was one of 10 detainees at Guantanamo charged with war crimes for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier during a July 2002 battle in Afghanistan. The top U.S. court ruled last month that the military tribunals violate American and international law but the U.S. administration has said it will work with Congress to develop a new process.

Calls to close Guantanamo got louder recently with the suicides of three of the 460 detainees.

"There have been the suicides, then the Supreme Court decision and he's held all alone. This is one confused kid down there," Vokey said.

Vokey intended to meet with Khadr this week but said he was told at the last minute that there wasn't a seat on the military flight he was scheduled to take.

This is not the first time Khadr has said he wants to fire his lawyers. Last year, before Vokey was appointed, he wrote a similar letter saying he no longer wanted to meet with his non-military American lawyers Muneer Ahmad and Rick Wilson, who are also representing him at Guantanamo and in a civil case challenging the legality of his detention.

The lawyers later met him and said Khadr changed his mind and blamed his letter on the helplessness and desperation he felt at the time.

Ahmad and Wilson have been concerned about Khadr's mental state for months and have been lobbying to get independent doctors to the base so he can be assessed. The Pentagon has refused the request, saying there are medical professionals at the camp who can treat him.


----------



## Skaha (21 Jul 2006)

Remember it was Jean Cretin who PERSONALLY intervened to get this family new passports after they "lost" theirs while training in Afghanistan with  Osama et al  . . .. . translation they sold them to counterfeiters.

Next time somebody praises Chretien's PM reign, remind them that a sitting CanadianPrime Minister personally responded to a terrorist's con job and got a whole family of terrorists new international travel documents.

Chretien . .   french for ASSHOLE


----------



## aluc (11 Aug 2006)

http://www.torontosun.ca/News/TorontoAndGTA/2006/08/11/1744314-sun.html


Fri, August 11, 2006
'Everyone's against us'
Khadr matriarch says Muslims being targeted by media, cops

By NATALIE PONA, TORONTO SUN



 Fatmah Elsamnah hadn't heard about the plot revealed yesterday to allegedly blow up U.S.-bound planes.

And she didn't know about this summer's arrest of alleged terrorists in the GTA, she said.

The matriarch of the Khadr family, who has two grandsons in custody on terrorism charges, said she doesn't watch the news anymore, troubled by what she contends are Muslims being targeted by the police and the press.

"They're always against us because we are Muslim. Everyone's against us now," Elsamnah said yesterday, from her Scarborough home.

"We have a big problem. We live in agony," said Elsamnah, 66, whose family knows Osama bin Laden. "(The media) write against us like we are your enemy. Why?"

The allegations against her own family prove officials can be wrong, she said.

"Many people are in jail now. Why?" she said, of the recent arrests. "They are innocent. They did not do anything, at least in Canada."

Elsamnah's grandson, Abdullah Khadr, 24, was arrested here in mid-December at the request of the U.S.

His brother, Omar, 19, has been in a Guantanamo Bay jail since 2002 when he allegedly threw a grenade that killed and wounded American soldiers in Afghanistan.

They are the sons of Ahmed Said Khadr, killed in a firefight with Pakistani forces in 2003.

No one believes the accusations against her family are false, she said, adding her experience is just the new way of life for Muslims.

"We sit and wait for God's help. We are helpless. Nobody wants to know the truth," she said. "I run away to Canada for a free country. Now I am in jail in my house. I go outside and my neighbour looks at me like I am a criminal." 




Where is the smiley face with a violin. So sad, too bad


----------



## GAP (11 Aug 2006)

> I go outside and my neighbour looks at me like I am a criminal."



She is


----------



## Kalatzi (11 Aug 2006)

"They are innocent. They did not do anything, at least in Canada."

At least in Canada? Rationalization like that is mind boggling ...

I dont recall if it was the 70''s or 80's when some Armenien??? I hope I got the origin right, Group Capped a security guard at the Turkish embassy. 

One of their lawyers said that Canadians were racsist for objecting too immigrants dragging their quarrels over with them. 

I guess that makes me a racsist

Oh well


----------



## patt (11 Aug 2006)

> They are innocent. They did not do anything, at least in Canada


Isn't Terriosm aginst International law? and when we do catch you and deport them, everyone b*tches and says there going to be Tortured.



> Nobody wants to know the truth



WE know the thruth, but you CAN'T handle the truth.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Aug 2006)

Maybe she should go to a place where they will be liked.


----------



## GAP (11 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Maybe she should go to a place where they will be liked.


Afghanistan


----------



## GO!!! (11 Aug 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Afghanistan



No no, we can't send them there!

One of her grandchildren was paralysed in a firefight with US troops. Since he needs medical care and appliances, we will keep him here and pay for it, so he doe'snt have to suffer. 

Only patriotic Canadians go to Afghanistan.  :


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Aug 2006)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Reference:  1984, by George Orwell.  Room 101 contained "the worst thing in the world", which, as a recall, for our heroic protaganist was rats.
> 
> I imagine for the Khadrs, it would be pigs.




+1 for ya mate. 

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## big bad john (2 Sep 2006)

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2006/09/01/pf-1791710.html

Give this Khadr a break 
By PETER WORTHINGTON

If you ask me, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay got it wrong when he refused a passport to Abdurahman Khadr for security reasons. 

What he should have done is okay 23-year-old Abdurahman his passport -- and start moves to revoke the Canadian citizenship of the rest of the Khadr family, which appears to have more allegiance to al-Qaida than to Canada. 

When Federal Court Justice Michael Phelan ruled last June that Abdurahman should not be denied a passport, it surely obligated MacKay to issue him one. 

For those with short memories, Abdurahman has said he rejects the al-Qaida creed and is at odds with the rest of his family. 

True, he has freely admitted that when he was a kid, his family lived in Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida compound in Afghanistan, and he was in training to be a suicide bomber or fighter. 

When captured in 2001 by the Americans and sent to Guantanamo Bay, it turned out there was not only no evidence against him, but he apparently co-operated and was released. 

He says he's against terrorism, and that he helped U.S. security in Cuba and Bosnia -- a claim the Americans don't challenge. 

The rest of the Khadr family are another matter -- notorious for exploiting Canada and supporting our enemies. 

The patriarch of the family, Egyptian-born Ahmed Said Khadr, was in custody in Pakistan in 1995 and charged with trying to blow up the Egyptian embassy. He was released as a goodwill gesture at the personal request of then-PM Jean Chretien, but killed in 2003 when Pakistani troops attacked an al-Qaida position. 

It was then learned that the elder Ahmed Said Khadr was an al-Qaida financier, had moved his family to live in bin Laden's compound and enrolled his sons in al-Qaida training. 

The youngest son, Karim, was partially paralyzed by a gunshot in the same battle in which his father was killed. 

Another son, Omar, was the only survivor in a fight with Marines and is now in Guantanamo, charged with murdering a medic with a grenade and wounding another who treated him (the wounded medic's family is suing him). 

Another son, Abdullah, is in Canada, fighting extradition to the U.S. for allegedly supplying al-Qaida with weapons. 

Abdurahman's mother and sister returned to Canada to get medical treatment for Karim and when interviewed, proclaimed faith in al-Qaida and reviled Canada -- the mother even declaring pride if her son became a suicide bomber. 

Only Abdurahman has categorically rejected his family's ethic, and proven by his actions that he wants a normal life. 

One wonders why CSIS and the government have it in for him. Why shouldn't he have a passport? If other countries don't want him as a visitor, they can refuse him a visa. 

I'd argue Abdurahman has earned an opportunity to prove himself a worthy citizen. Unless there's something we don't know, MacKay should return and renew his passport. 

More serious are terror suspects who are not citizens and face deportation who want -- and in some cases get -- the freedom of our streets. If we won't deport illegals who claim they'll be mistreated if they're sent home, surely Canada will become a haven for undesirables. 

Small wonder some view Canada as an incubator for terrorists. If we catch them, or even suspect them, we don't get rid of them. 

At least Abdurahman Khadr has shown by his actions that he is not a terrorist. So give the guy a break.


----------



## GAP (5 Apr 2007)

Ottawa's silence on Omar Khadr
 TheStar.com - opinion - Ottawa's silence on Omar Khadr 
April 04, 2007 
Article Link

"Guantanamo should be closed ... there is a taint about it."

That was U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates, speaking to American lawmakers just a few days ago about the infamous military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where 385 alleged terrorists are being held. He is right. The "military commission" trials being held at "Gitmo" are a travesty of justice that sully America's image and discredit its war on terror.

The American Civil Liberties Union calls the military trials "a mockery, no better than a kangaroo court." And the Democrat-led Congress is considering a bill to reverse a law passed last year by Congress when it was led by the Republicans that stripped away the right that detainees had to contest their incarceration in regular U.S. courts.

Yet even as Americans themselves recoil at the abusive system Washington created to deal with "enemy combatants," Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government remains publicly indifferent to the fate of the only Canadian detainee, Omar Khadr, at that very system's hands.

Now 20 years old, Khadr has been held since he was 15. He may soon face a renewed murder charge before a military commission for killing Sgt. Christopher Speer during a firefight between Al Qaeda and U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2002. Because the U.S. Supreme Court last year found the previous military process to be unlawful, the charges were quashed. Now, under a rejigged process, they may be reinstated. Khadr faces a maximum sentence of life in prison with no parole.

The trial this week of Australian David Hicks, another detainee held for five years, showed just how shabby the Guantanamo process is. Hicks pleaded guilty to supporting terror and drew nine months, to be served back home. In exchange, prosecutors extracted a statement from Hicks that he had not been subjected to "illegal" treatment, had him waive his right to sue for damages and imposed a one-year gag order not to talk about his detention. Why were military prosecutors so eager to restrain Hicks in so many ways? To insulate themselves from claims of abuse? 

Khadr can expect nothing like a Canadian standard of justice if he is put before a military commission. True, he belongs to a notorious family that supported Al Qaeda. But, like every accused, he should have due process.
More on link


----------



## Weinie (5 Apr 2007)

From later on in the article:

     





> Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act sets a maximum six years in custody for first degree, planned and deliberate murder, and four years for second degree. By our standards, Khadr has done ample time even if he were found guilty. Releasing him into Canadian custody, with a bond to keep the peace, should not shock the American public conscience.



      That fact that deliberate planned murder by a youth in canada only nets max 6 years should shock Canadian public conscience.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Apr 2007)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/03/08/3715883-cp.html
U.S. to charge Khadr with murder

WASHINGTON (CP) - The Pentagon has formally approved charges against Canadian terror suspect Omar Khadr. 
The move means Khadr, the only Canadian held at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will face arraignment within a month and the start of his tribunal within four months. Khadr, 20, is accused of murdering a U.S. medic in Afghanistan in 2002. 

He also faces charges of attempted murder, conspiracy, spying and providing material support for terrorism. 
Khadr has been in U.S. custody since he was 15, and his lawyers have repeatedly urged Canada to step in to ensure his rights aren't violated. 

The original charges were thrown out last year when the U.S. Supreme Court said the legal process for so-called enemy combatants was illegal, but Congress has since passed new rules for Guantanamo prisoners.


----------



## geo (24 Apr 2007)

The one big thing that concerns me is that, some time, some day, this fella will be released from jail and be allowed to return to Canada (he is a Citzen after all!).

5 years of cooling his jets in Guantanamo and saaay a 10 to 20 yrs conviction.  Talk about a fella that'll have an attitude.  What are you & I going to do with someone like that?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Apr 2007)

Whats one more with the thousands and thousands we have roaming around now after doing 20 years in jail?


----------



## midget-boyd91 (24 Apr 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Whats one more with the thousands and thousands we have roaming around now after doing 20 years in jail?


The ones roaming the streets now that have committed a murder did so as a "regular" crime.  

Khadr committed this crime believing that Allah god supported him. He was fighting a Jihad, and everyone here knows that a Jihad will not end with being arrested and imprisoned. 


PS: I hate to call the murders happening here a "regular" crime, but it was the best fitting word for comparing to Khadr's.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Apr 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> The one big thing that concerns me is that, some time, some day, this fella will be released from jail and be allowed to return to Canada (he is a Citzen after all!).
> 
> 5 years of cooling his jets in Guantanamo and saaay a 10 to 20 yrs conviction.  Talk about a fella that'll have an attitude.  What are you & I going to do with someone like that?



...........but he won't be going to jail in Canada, where 'life' means 10 years (maybe). I doubt we'll see him free in 20 years. There's all the other serious charges pending also. If they say 'life' down there, they usually mean it.


----------



## geo (24 Apr 2007)

can I get that in writing - please?


----------



## GAP (24 Apr 2007)

I think Foreign Affairs should petition the US to ensure NO discrimination.....he should serve his time in the general population.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Apr 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> can I get that in writing - please?



I'm not hedging my bets yet. They have an election coming.


----------



## proudnurse (26 Apr 2007)

Kitchener-Waterloo Record, Wed; Apr 25, 2007 

Article Link http://www.therecord.com/news/world/w042458A.html


Reproduced under the fairdealings provisions of the copyright act.

Pentagon lays new charges against Khadr in bid to get military tribunal going
BETH GORHAM

WASHINGTON (CP) - The U.S. Defence Department laid new terrorism charges Tuesday against Canadian Omar Khadr, paving the way for a long-delayed military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay.

Khadr, 20, who has been in U.S. military custody since he was 15 years old, is accused of murdering an American medic in Afghanistan in 2002. He also faces charges of attempted murder, conspiracy, spying and providing material support for terrorism.

The Pentagon said Khadr will be arraigned within a month at the American prison camp in Cuba and jury selection will begin within four months.

A trial schedule will be set after that.

Khadr may become only the second detainee to face a tribunal. Australian David Hicks reached a plea deal with U.S. authorities last month.

Lawyers for Khadr were livid Tuesday, saying the new charges aren't valid war crimes and he doesn't stand a chance of a fair trial despite changes to the system made by Congress last year after the U.S. Supreme Court declared it illegal.

"This is a system designed to produce convictions," said Khadr's civilian lawyer, Muneer Ahmad, a law professor at George Washington University.

Khadr's tribunal will be a "show trial" he said, and an attempt to prove the military commissions work after the Hicks deal short-circuited Guantanamo's first tribunal.

"The Ringling Brothers (of big-top circus fame) would be proud," said Ahmad.

"Hicks was a disaster for them. Everyone knows there was no law involved in that. It exposed the system as the same crazy ad hoc one thrown out by the Supreme Court the first time, he said.

"This is a hell of way to try to rehabilitate yourself."

Khadr's lawyers have repeatedly urged Canada to step in like Australia did to ensure Hicks could serve his prison term at home after he pleaded guilty.

But Khadr's chief military lawyer, Colby Vokey, who condemned the entire process as a "kangaroo court," said he has no sense that Canada is more willing now to negotiate a political solution.

Unlike most western countries, Canada hasn't publicly stated a position on the commissions or the prison camp. Britain, for instance, has refused to allow its citizens to be tried there.

Khadr, who attended some pre-trial hearings in January 2006 before the tribunals were declared illegal, hasn't seen his lawyers for several months.

In his first phone call to his family in Toronto in nearly five years, Khadr said last month he plans to boycott his trial and has no hopes of justice.

Vokey says he sympathizes entirely and has repeatedly asked that he be assigned some Canadian lawyers as well.

Khadr, who says he's been tortured and held in isolation for long periods, is charged with throwing the grenade that killed U.S. army Sgt. Christopher Speer in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002.

The Pentagon charge sheet also alleges Khadr converted landmines into improvised explosive devices and planted them to kill U.S. or coalition forces.

The conspiracy support of terrorism and spying violations allege Khadr received training from al-Qaida in 2002 and conducted survelliance against the U.S. military.

Rights groups have rallied behind the Canadian, blasting the U.S. for trying someone who was a child at the time of the alleged war crimes.

© The Canadian Press, 2007


----------



## proudnurse (26 Apr 2007)

I thought I would place my thoughts and feelings in respect to this, in a reply below as to keep the post for the article, easier to read. The article is stating, that Khadr has not had a chance to call home for 5 years. What about the Medic that was murdered that will not ever be able to call home again? I remember reading this article at work tonight, and in the past as I have followed it a little bit as it has come up. My question to myself, when I read articles such as this, is why is there such a need to run to the "rescue" of individuals that commit acts of Terror? And it makes me just as disappointed to hear of any "Rights" group that would stand behind anyone that commits these acts of violence, as stated at the end of the article. Shame on them. 

~Rebecca


----------



## benl (26 Apr 2007)

Here's a link to an interesting article regarding the laws governing the military trials of terror suspects and perpetrators.
http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/14373leg20011129.html

This is an excerpt from the article linked above which I believe may shed some light on your question of "why people support the terrorists?"

The breadth of the President's order raises serious constitutional concerns. It permits the United States criminal justice system to be swept aside merely on the President's finding that he has "reason to believe" that a non-citizen may be involved in terrorism. It makes no difference whether those charged are captured abroad on the field of battle or at home by federal or state police. It makes no difference whether the individual is a visitor or a long-term legal resident. Finally while the order applies in terms only to non-citizens, the precedents on which the President relies make no such distinction, permitting the order to be extended to cover United States citizens at the stroke of a pen. 

The basic, fundamental rights guaranteed in United States courts and in ordinary courts-martial will not necessarily be afforded the defendants. The order purports to prevent review by any civilian court - including the Supreme Court of the United States - to ensure that even those rights ostensibly granted in the military proceeding are not violated. The rules and regulations that govern the tribunals are still being formulated. But, at the Pentagon's discretion, trials can be conducted in secret, and evidence can be introduced without the defendant being able to confront it. Only two thirds of the military officers on the tribunal's jury need find a defendant guilty, and the order provides for no meaningful appeal, even in cases involving the death penalty. Other basic rights remain unprotected. These rights seek to ensure that the government gets it right, punishing the guilty and permitting the innocent to be cleared. 

In lieu of these comments you should see how these provisions could seem threatening to any citizens rights and freedoms.  Obviously these sanctions on the regular justice system were not imposed to detain your average citizen at the slightest whim of the president's fancy, but rather for the purpose of detaining legitimate terror suspects.

The real issue behind support of these suspects is that anyone who's bickering about these cases is obviously left of centre (at least...most likely far to the left).  That's why you have statements coming from them like "He was only a child when he threw the grenade :crybaby:".  Oh well...so what, give him another 5 years then.  Anyone that thinks that living in Afghanistan he would have shifted to a more lenient stance on Western policy is out of their mind...it would have been the complete opposite.  That's why we're fighting there for God sake!!

These people are terrified of anything that may infringes upon their rights and freedoms (even if it's intent is to bolster national security)...They are the types of people who like to organize protests and parades in support of whatever the hot button issue is at the time, be it the rain forest, gay rights, abortion or the rights of potential terror suspects.  They're afraid that they'll have their rights to protest/clamour about their little pet projects smashed to pieces by "Big Brother".  The bottom line here really is that these people don't live in a little place I like to call REALITY...and I stop right there before I fly off the handle and go on an angry rant. 
hope this gives you some insight


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jun 2007)

From today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/us/03gitmo.html?hp=&pagewanted=all



> A Legal Debate in Guantánamo on Boy Fighters
> 
> By WILLIAM GLABERSON
> Published: June 3, 2007
> ...


----------



## Roy Harding (4 Jun 2007)

> The charges against Omar Khadr, the only Canadian being held in the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, have been dropped.
> 
> Khadr, 20, had been facing charges of murder and terrorism, and was scheduled to be tried before a U.S. military commission in Cuba. He was to be arraigned on Monday.



More on link - here:  http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/04/khadr-charges.html


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Jun 2007)

Does this mean he's free to return to Canada?  Gee, I sure hope so  :


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jun 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> Does this mean he's free to return to Canada?  Gee, I sure hope so  :



They captured him in Afghanistan.  I believe they should return him to the point of capture ... maybe the locals want him.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Jun 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> They captured him in Afghanistan.  I believe they should return him to the point of capture ... maybe the locals want him.


That's a good point.  
"Sorry, we have nothing against you.  Please watch your head as you enter the aircraft."
"You're taking me to Toronto, right?"
"Um, no sir.  We're taking you back to where we found you."
"Afghanistan?  But, I'm Canadian!"
"That's ok, there are plenty of Canadians in Afghanistan.  I'm sure they'll take good care of you, sir."
*gulp*

 >


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jun 2007)

According to this American State Dep't official, Khadr could remain a guest for some time....



> Canadian Omar Khadr faces the possibility of indefinite imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, even if he is acquitted of murder and terrorism charges at his war crimes trial later this year, a senior U.S. State Department official said (29 May 07) ....  John Bellinger, the legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said the U.S. military could keep Khadr behind bars if he is found not guilty because it has already determined he is an 'unlawful enemy combatant' not subject to the same rights as a prisoner of war.  Although there is a "certain expectation that someone might be released" if found not guilty, the U.S. claims it would have the right under international law to keep Khadr detained until the end of the ongoing war with al-Qaida - a military conflict that could continue for decades.  "As a matter of law, we believe we may continue to hold someone even if they are acquitted," Bellinger told a group of Canadian reporters.  The detainees at Guantanamo "continue to be held because they are combatants and they would return to acts of combat," he said, "and we think, as a matter of international law, one can hold them until the end of that conflict."



(CanWest News Service, 30 May 07)

A bit more detail, courtesy of Associated Press, shared with the usual disclaimers...



> A military judge has dismissed charges against Canadian detainee Omar Khadr, saying the matter is outside the jurisdiction of the military tribunal system.
> 
> The ruling Monday by army Col. Peter Brownback came just minutes into Khadr's arraignment, in which he faced charges he committed murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism and spying.
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jun 2007)

While I'll await more details on why the change of heart by the prosecution.....I am willing to bet he'll be suing the Canadian government on some pretext or other.  :


----------



## KevinB (4 Jun 2007)

This guy needs to die.

Period - Full Stop


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Jun 2007)

Is the Globe and Mail "editorialising" in its headline to this story?

*U.S. case against Khadr collapses*

(source:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070604.wkhadr0604_1/BNStory/International/home)
GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — Charges against Omar Khadr were dismissed Monday by a military judge who ruled that his tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the alleged terrorist because the government had failed to designate him an "unlawful enemy combatant.''
"Charges are dismissed with prejudice," Colonel Peter Brownback ruled.
Congress created the military tribunals only to try so-called "unlawful" enemy combatants. The military panel that ruled on Mr. Khadr's status in 2004 designated him as an "enemy combatant."
Whether Monday's legal bombshell really means that Mr. Khadr faces no charges and might perhaps even be released or whether the government will find a way to file new charges against him remains unclear.
Mr. Khadr showed no emotion when the ruling was announced. He was quickly marched out of the courtroom with two guards holding his arms.
Wearing drab prison garb and black flip-flops during the two brief sessions, *Mr. Khadr refused to stand as his hearing began — signalling his disdain for the U.S. military tribunal that was intended to try him on murder and terrorist charges.*Mr. Khadr, now 20 and with a full beard and unruly hair, said nothing during the two sessions.
The ramifications for Mr. Khadr and hundreds of other detainees at prisons at this U.S. naval station in Cuba remain unclear.
Court was adjourned."

I don't think that the case "collapsed" against "Mr." Khadr.  Rather, there are questions about jurisdiction.  That's all.  My question: would a more appropriate headline had been "US drops charges against Khadr"


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jun 2007)

Good point, Capt S:
CanWest/National Post - Judge dismisses charges against Canadian Guantanamo detainee
BBC - Guantanamo Canadian case dropped
CBC - Charges dropped against Khadr in Guantanamo
Reuters - Guantanamo judge drops Canadian's charges

If MSM is to be believed (in this case, the Globe & Mail), it sounds like a classification error of sorts.....



> Charges against Omar Khadr were dismissed Monday by a military judge who ruled that his tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the alleged terrorist because *the government had failed to designate him an "unlawful enemy combatant.''*  "Charges are dismissed with prejudice," Colonel Peter Brownback ruled.  *Congress created the military tribunals only to try so-called "unlawful" enemy combatants. The military panel that ruled on Mr. Khadr's status in 2004 designated him as an "enemy combatant."*



Funny - his indictment (here in .pdf) filed in April of this year pretty clearly identifies him as an "alien unlawful enemy combatant".  Have to be patient, I guess, and wait for the primary paperwork to come in...


----------



## CanadaPhil (4 Jun 2007)

Unflipping believable.

Something to do with the prosecutors messing up the distinction between LEGAL and ILLEGAL combatants.

This does NOT mean that he will be released and will apparently remain in custody indefinately. 

I say fine, deem them as LEGAL combatants!! Since the war on TERROR will not be over anytime soon, and since the Taliban have vowed to "retake" Afghanistan, then the US would be well within there rights to keep them until their "LEGAL" enemy, SURRENDERS!. Until then, they can remain "POWS" and work on their Cuban suntans.


----------



## GAP (4 Jun 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> That's a good point.
> "Sorry, we have nothing against you.  Please watch your head as you enter the aircraft."
> "You're taking me to Toronto, right?"
> "Um, no sir.  We're taking you back to where we found you."
> ...



This sounds about right, or turn him over to the ANA....his crimes were committed in Afghanistan...


----------



## geo (4 Jun 2007)

well.... if he wasn't an unlawful combatant, then he is a lawful combatant.
Given that the war isn't over, guess that means that he is a POW.

March him back to his cell,
lock cell,
throw away the key,
B/F his docket to the day that war in Afghanistan is declared over.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Jun 2007)

Looks like the Army has a video showing Khadr planting a roadside bomb. Frankly they should let the kid go and if he returns to the sandbox he can become a martyr.


----------



## KevinB (4 Jun 2007)

There where comments elsewhere that he is getting new charges.

Canada had best make a case for treason if the US does not drop the hammer on him.
 Time like this I real an disgusted the Death penalty was removed from the NDA


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jun 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Canada had best make a case for treason if the US does not drop the hammer on him.



I'm not a lawyer, but sounds like a reasonable fit....
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec46.html

    PART II: OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
               Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person

High treason	

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason	

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Canadian citizen

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

Overt act


(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 46; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.


----------



## deedster (4 Jun 2007)

~jaw drops~
I couldn't believe it.
I wonder if the fact that he wasn't wearing his ROOTS sweatshirt today means his lawyers have advised him to _hold_ the Canadian  card for now.  There used to be a thing called _deportation_?


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Jun 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> High treason
> 
> 46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, *in Canada*,
> 
> ...


This is what I see as relevant and applicable to Mr. Khadr, potentially.  He could, in my opinion, be tried for high treason if it holds true that he "assisted an enemy at war with Canada", given the NATO invokation of article 5 of the treaty that the act of 9/11 was an act against all member nations.  The fact that there is no "declared" state of war is moot.  Now, the only problem is this (potentially).  IF it could be proved that he "assisted an enemy at war with Canada", what of the fact that AQ has no "state"?  
Perhaps such a charge against Mr. Khadr could be precedent setting in that the restriction to hostilities between nations, declared or not, may be seen as "moot" given the modern day reality of combatants without state.  That or they would have to say that he represented the (defunct) government of Afghanistan (eg: Taliban) at the time of the act.
(No, I am not a lawyer)
*EDIT:*
If convicted of high treason:
47. (1) Every one who commits high treason is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to *imprisonment for life*.
....
For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by subsection (1) is a *minimum punishment*.

(source:  http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec47.html)


----------



## Big Foot (4 Jun 2007)

Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable. I really hope this guy has charges awaiting him when, and if, he arrives back in Canada. He absolutely deserves to be charged with treason. He killed an American soldier, a NATO ally, in a country where we are at war. If he doesn't get charged with treason, or at very least, murder and attempted murder, there is something seriously wrong. With this being said, I am not usually a proponent of the death penalty but provided he is actually guilty of what he is accused of, I say he deserves nothing better than a trip to the gallows. It disgusts me to think that this individual is "entitled" to carry the same passport as the rest of us.


----------



## deedster (4 Jun 2007)

Well said Big Foot


----------



## Big Foot (4 Jun 2007)

Furthermore, the attitude of his family disgust me. the quote from his sister:


> "We always had hope and we pray and we're going to continue doing that," she told CTV Newsnet.


gives the impression that his family feels he has done nothing wrong, despite mudering an American soldier and fighting for a terrorist organisation in a nation where we are currently at war. How this family is still in Canada, God only knows...


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Jun 2007)

Instead of just focussing on this POS, consider Christopher Speer, the Sergeant First Class whom Khadr is accused of killing.


"He was remembered as a capable and confident soldier with an unflappable sense of humor. When the chips were down, friends said, he could pick up his co-workers with a smile and a laugh"
......
And the only reason he is still breathing today:
"Colonel Morris Davis, Khadr's prosecutor, in statements to the press, said that Khadr owed his life to American medics who stepped over the dead body of their colleague to treat Khadr's wounds. Speer died from his wounds on Aug 6 2002 at the age of 28."
(both above from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_J._Speer)


Here is a condolence page for SFC Speer:  http://www.groups.sfahq.com/3rd/speer_kia.htm

"Six days before he received the wounds that killed him, Sgt. 1st Class Christopher J. Speer walked into a minefield to rescue two wounded Afghan children, according to fellow soldiers.
He applied a tourniquet to one child and bandaged the other, they said. Then he stopped a passing military truck to take the wounded children to a U.S. Army field hospital.
Speer saved those children, his colleagues said."


----------



## gaspasser (4 Jun 2007)

Khadr WILLINGLY went to Afghanistan, WILLINGLY recieved training on how to blow things up, WILLINGLY threw and explosive at an American convoy.  Was treated by US Forces after killing an American.  Spent 5 years in Qit'mo...umm, can his ass back to Afghanistan and see how he does up against us this time.    :rage:
I hope they do NOT deport his butt up here.    :sniper: 
My 0.02


----------



## Big Foot (4 Jun 2007)

I'd almost agree with sending him back to Afghanistan, let him see just how plush Gitmo is when compared to the Kandahar Hilton...


----------



## cplcaldwell (4 Jun 2007)

From today's Toronto Star, SHared under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC

_My italics added_





> *Khadr charges dismissed*
> 
> 
> *Jun 04, 2007 01:31 PM
> ...


----------



## gaspasser (4 Jun 2007)

Wow, hard to beleive there are three threads about this POS.  Send him back to Afghanistan and see how he likes it there.  
Sorry, no sympathy here, it's in the dictionary between...you know the rest.
Would like to add this...HE, bag 7, FFE!!!


----------



## Yrys (4 Jun 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> *U.S. case against Khadr collapses*
> 
> (source:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070604.wkhadr0604_1/BNStory/International/home)



articles on the same subject 

Guantanamo Canadian case dropped

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6720315.stm

 Charges against Guantanamo detainee dismissed

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/04/guantananmo.detainee.ap/index.html


----------



## scas (4 Jun 2007)

I am sorry if I offend anyone here, but if he's sent back to Canada, Charge him with High Treason as he is a canadian, then put him in a jail with no windows, and make his roomate Paul bernardo, or some crazy canibal..


----------



## Yrys (4 Jun 2007)

scas said:
			
		

> or some crazy canibal..



Those are in hospitals.


----------



## seamus (4 Jun 2007)

The latest on Khadr's trial is that it was a technicality.This does not ensure release, as well as prosecutors can just rename under which heading he is being held and retry him. Hopefully the prosecution just resubmits the paper work. Some of the blogs out there concerning this case,(in which I have a fascination), talk about how he is only 15, a minor and how his father,(who moved him there). Had an influence over his thinking process(brainwashed). Hey as far as I am concerned if you are going to pick up the AK-47, you have to pay the price. And the brainwashed garbage, hey my father wanted me to become a doctor. Which I only obtained on some nights in my youth, when I was drunk and trying to pickup. In short he deserves what he gets,(hopefully a long stretch).


----------



## cplcaldwell (4 Jun 2007)

Quite right seamus, take a look at Tom Clark's report from CTV Newsnet, this is not a get out of jail card, just a confirmation that he remains in a limbo.



Note that first link is optimized for high speed, if you have trouble with it try, this link and choose *CTV Newsnet: Tom Clark explains the legal loophole 2:01* , from the menu on the right.


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2007)

Judge affirms ruling to dismiss Gitmo charges  
Article Link

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A military judge on Friday rejected the Pentagon's request to reinstate previously dismissed charges against a prisoner accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan in 2001, officials said.

 Judge Army Col. Peter Brownback dropped the charges against Canadian detainee Omar Khadr last month on the grounds Brownback's court lacked the jurisdiction to try him. 

Khadr was 15 when he was arrested.

The inability to prosecute centered on Khadr not being labeled an "unlawful" enemy combatant. 

Last month, Brownback said new congressional rules on trying detainees specify that a detainee must be designated an "unlawful enemy combatant."

Pentagon officials would not release Brownback's most recent decision, but said he ruled the prosecution had presented no new evidence or arguments to change his mind.

The prosecution has five days to appeal to the Court of Military Commissions Review in Washington
More on link


----------



## Journeyman (3 Jul 2007)

OK, my initial thought was to rant about what possible difficulty he could have with Khadr being designated an "unlawful enemy combatant." 

- was he actually "lawful," ie - wearing the military uniform of a legal state IAW Geneva Accords?
- was he not an "enemy," ie - was he actually cheering for the anti-AQ coalition forces?
- was he not a "combatant," ie - chucking a grenade that kills a medic during a firefight somehow isn't combat?

...leading me to tar military legal types with the same stereotype brushes as scumbags like OJ's Johnnie Cochran _et al_.

I can only believe that the judge made his decision so that a higher form of tribunal must hear the case, pre-empting a conviction loss at the hands of those aforementioned loophole lawyers who would eventually appeal the original court's jurisdiction.


Forgive me, however, if my cynicism precludes me holding out much hope against Khadr walking (and the Toronto family cult subsequently suing us taxpayers on some trumped-up grounds)


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jul 2007)

Journeyman:

The judge in question did not have jurisdiction to determine whether anyone is an "unlawful enemy combatant" - but for his court to have jurisdiction over someone, they must have already been declared as such.  The prosecution in this case did not provide evidence that Khadr had been declared as such, so the judge stated he had no jurisdiction.

On appeal, the prosecution introduced no new evidence, so the judge did not alter his original decision.


In brief: the prosecution screwed up.  Which is hard to do when you are writing the rules, but somehow they managed to do it...


----------



## Journeyman (3 Jul 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The judge in question did not have jurisdiction to determine whether anyone is an "unlawful enemy combatant" -


Yes, I read that...perhaps amazingly, I even understood the words. 

My point was how could Khadr be determined to be anything BUT an "unlawful enemy combatant."

I apologize for not being a lawyer, but the obvious appeared.......obvious. In the end, this is nothing but another kick at Christopher Speer's widow and family.


----------



## GAP (7 Jul 2007)

Pentagon Appeals Gitmo Detainee's Case
By PETE YOST The Associated Press Friday, July 6, 2007; 7:11 PM
Article Link

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon said Friday it had appealed a decision by a military judge to dismiss the case of a Guantanamo Bay detainee accused of murdering an American soldier in Afghanistan.

It is the first time that the appeals process has been used since it was created by Congress in late 2006 to handle cases involving Guantanamo detainees.

Omar Ahmed Khadr, a Canadian citizen, is one of two detainees whose military trials fell apart because they were not identified as "unlawful" enemy combatants.

The other is Yemeni detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden.

Prosecutors filed an appeal in Khadr's case with the Court of Military Commission Review on July 4, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler, a Pentagon spokesman.

Peppler said both sides will be given an opportunity to file written briefs.

Khadr and Hamdan are the only ones currently in the roughly 375-prisoner population at Guantanamo who have been charged with crimes under a reconstituted military trial system. The judge who threw out the charges against Hamdan has not yet ruled on prosecutors' motion to reconsider. Hamdan is accused of conspiracy and providing support for terrorism
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jul 2007)

I'm about 99.9% sure that I'm missing something but, it looks to me as though the judge said: "Hey, fellows! Congress said I can only preside over a trial of *illegal* combatants.  You fellows (battalions of government lawyers and clerks) have not declared this kid to be one of those so I cannot conduct a trial.  Go back to yourt offices, get your paperwork in order - you've got supercomputers, guys; how fricking hard can it be to amend a stack of documents? - then come back with the forms filled in neatly and correctly and we'll have ourselves a trial."

It also looks to me like the prosecutors stamped their little feet, held their little breath and then said: "We don't wanna!  We don't hafta!  We're the good guys an' god said it's OK to p!ss on the paperwork."

OK.  Tell me what I've missed.


----------



## GAP (7 Jul 2007)

nothing....I think that is as close as it comes to the truth..


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2007)

The latest from Canada's Liberal leader -- MSM coverage at European Commission media site (an amazing resource, esp. for int'l news, accessible free online) and Google News search "Dion + Khadr"....

*Harper Must Defend Rights of All Canadians Citizens: Dion*
Liberal Party of Canada news release, 19 Sept 07

TORONTO - Prime Minister Stephen Harper must demand the United States government remove Omar Khadr from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to ensure his rights as a Canadian citizen are protected, Liberal Opposition Leader Stéphane Dion said today. 

"Canada is alone among Western nations in not having secured the release from Guantanamo of one of its nationals. Prime Minister Harper must finally ensure Mr. Khadr receives the same consular support that any other Canadian - detainee or not - would receive," said Mr. Dion.

Mr. Dion made his comments following a meeting with the lawyers who have been appointed for Mr. Khadr in the American military commission process. Despite widespread condemnation of the detention centre, Omar Khadr remains the only Western citizen still detained at Guantanamo, the controversial American military prison in Cuba where people suspected of being al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives are held.

Mr. Khadr has been held in Guantanamo Bay since November 2002. In recent months, it has become increasingly clear that serious questions exist about the legality of the process under which he is to be tried. Despite this mounting evidence, the Conservative government has remained virtually silent. 

"It is time for Canada to intervene, as so many other countries have done, to ensure that the charges against its citizen are dealt with, that he is tried in a legitimate court and that he receives due process," said Mr. Dion.

Mr. Dion repeated his call made prior to the Security and Prosperity Partnership Summit in Montebello, Quebec, in August, that if the US is unwilling to provide these assurances, the Conservative government should demand Mr. Khadr's repatriation to Canada where he can be dealt with by our justice system, as has been the case with detainees from Australia, the United Kingdom and France.


----------



## COBRA-6 (19 Sep 2007)

attempting to deflect attention away from his failure in the Quebec by-elections and as leader of the Liberal party in general...


----------



## KevinB (19 Sep 2007)

Well I guess we could give the Americans Dion and try Kadhr up here -- but I think the Americans would not fall for it...

 Seriously Kadhr murdered an American SF Medic, and Dion cares about him?  WTF!
I for one am upset the Americans have not executed him which is what he truly deserves, if we still had the death penatly in Canada I'd be all for droping him in Canada.


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2007)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> attempting to deflect attention away from his failure in the Quebec by-elections and as leader of the Liberal party in general...



That, and all he'll get here in Canada is handing out Jelly Beans in Sunnydale, because he's so deprived..........now where is that sarcasm icon?

At least in  the states, life is life....and the other inmates will look forward to him arriving


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Sep 2007)

Wasn't he in Gitmo when the lieberals were in power. I don't remember them yelling, or trying, about bringing him home. 

Lie, Liebel, Liberal
The evolution of corrupt government.

At any rate, he deserves to rot there. We already have the rest of his parasite family feeding at the trough of the public taxpayer, with no return to the nation.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 Sep 2007)

What I'd love to see is him come back to Canada, face a military trial for treason, and then we shoot him.

I'm sick and tired of all this PC nonsense.  It's time to send a real clear message....



Matthew.


----------



## geo (19 Sep 2007)

While I am not thrilled at the prospect of seeing him returned to Canada for trial OR detention, I do pelieve that, if the US intends to try him, they should get the proverbial thumb out and get on with it.

From my perspective, it makes no sense for it to have taken so long to bring him to trial.... No?


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Sep 2007)

Maybe they just threw away the key, ha!

If he rots in Cuba for 5 more years, does not bother me a bit, after all  he is behind bars, and is not in our country.

As far as I am concerned the only rights he has are  .22 short, long, or long rifle.


Wes


----------



## Hunteroffortune (20 Sep 2007)

How can this help Dion? Or should I say what groups helped get Dion elected? Two MP's brought an ethnic contingent over to Dion during the leadership race, now, you have to ask yourself, what does Dion owe them? Why has he changed the Liberal position on the Afghan mission? Why did he block the bill that would have kept security certificates? Who or what group is behind Dion?

Bad move by Dion just after his parties lost in Outremont, so why did Dion not only meet with the lawyers, but hold a press conference? 

Beats me, maybe someone else has the answer.


----------



## Hunteroffortune (20 Sep 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> While I am not thrilled at the prospect of seeing him returned to Canada for trial OR detention, I do pelieve that, if the US intends to try him, they should get the proverbial thumb out and get on with it.
> 
> From my perspective, it makes no sense for it to have taken so long to bring him to trial.... No?



NO! In WWII how many POW's were granted a trial? Were they not just held until the war ended, then released? He is a traitor to Canada, why would we want him back? It's bad enough that we have his whole family here, when they have publically told us that they hate our culture, our country, and especially they just hate us. They are terrorists, plain and simple. For Dion to get involved, just after going down in flames in the by elections, is shear stupidity. 

Dion is listening to some radical groups that got him elected, he never should have made this an issue. It stinks.


----------



## geo (20 Sep 2007)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> NO! In WWII how many POW's were granted a trial? Were they not just held until the war ended, then released? He is a traitor to Canada, why would we want him back? It's bad enough that we have his whole family here, when they have publically told us that they hate our culture, our country, and especially they just hate us. They are terrorists, plain and simple. For Dion to get involved, just after going down in flames in the by elections, is shear stupidity.
> 
> Dion is listening to some radical groups that got him elected, he never should have made this an issue. It stinks.



Hunter... Khadr is not classified as a POW nor is he granted the usual rights of a POW.  The US has stated that he is in Guantanamo to stand trial & has made a big show of starting up a couple of times... only for it to peter out & have him led back to his cell.

The US has laid or alleged that as a civilian, he killed or was responsible for the death of a US Soldier.

They should make up their minds, conduct the trial if that is their intention, arrive at a decision and, if appropriate, mete out a sentence.
Then, let the appeals (if any) begin.


----------



## KevinB (20 Sep 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> The US has laid or alleged that as a civilian, he killed or was responsible for the death of a US Soldier.


I dont think anyone disputes that is a fact that he threw a grenade that kiled a 18D and inured another of the ODA.

  They have eyewitness (the team that captured him) and his family is rather proud of it.

The fact the gov't let him (and his family) keep their citizenship when they overtly treasonous make me ill.  I wish someone would hurry up and reunite the family with the dad  :threat:


----------



## HItorMiss (20 Sep 2007)

I personally am torn on this issue. I see nothing wrong with leaving him in his cell to rot until such time as the US finds the time to give him his day in court then find him guilty and hand out punishment. However as a person who in my mind defends what Canada stands for I find it almost wrong that he at this point has not been given his day in court as is his right.

Though after killing an 18D and committing treason to what rights if any is he truly entailed?

I agree with I6 though why is his family allowed to stay in this country, the fact that they do makes me sick as well!


----------



## GAP (20 Sep 2007)

I agree the US should get off the pot and convict him....period

As to Canada's involvement, we have none, other than periphery.....he was a Canadian citizen who traveled to another country(s), engaged in armed conflict, was captured,.......next!!


----------



## HItorMiss (20 Sep 2007)

Sadly Gap by rights he should be entitled to Consular service as a Canadian Citizen. However seeing as by act he has committed treason should that right be suspended?


----------



## NL_engineer (20 Sep 2007)

As long as he is locked up in Gitmo, we don't have to flip the bill; at least that would be understood by the accountants in government  ;D


----------



## geo (20 Sep 2007)

I think it is idiotic for this to persist / continue.
American, Australian & Brit illigal combatants have been repatriated, tried & dealt with.
I have no objection to having him serve 100 years for his deeds, once he has been found guilty.  
The US is welcome to keep him - just wish they'd get on with it and turn the page.


----------



## Exarecr (20 Sep 2007)

Is not his brother zooming around on a nifty powered wheel chair after sustaining battle injuries against American Forces in Afghanistan. Anyway, this little murdering yahoo deserves to spend 25 years awaiting trial. Not costing us a penny plus we get the added bonus of seeing Dion put his rather large foot in his mouth everytime he stands up for Khadr, the poster boy for everything wrong with our immigration system.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Sep 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> I think it is idiotic for this to persist / continue.
> American, Australian & Brit illigal combatants have been repatriated, tried & dealt with.
> I have no objection to having him serve 100 years for his deeds, once he has been found guilty.
> The US is welcome to keep him - just wish they'd get on with it and turn the page.



I agree.

The US administration appears to have buggered up the _enemy combatant_ thing beyond belief. Their own courts have said that they need to revise their rules but the administration seems hell bent on violating its own laws. Hubris might be the right word, perhaps arrogance, maybe just plain, old stupidity.


----------



## GAP (20 Sep 2007)

Was it not Chretien that got old man Kadar out of custody, and now Dion, another Liberal, is standing up for his son....this political party needs to decide just where they fit into the scheme of things.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Sep 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Was it not Chretien that got old man Kadar out of custody, and now Dion, another Liberal, is standing up for his son....this political party needs to decide just where they fit into the scheme of things.



Yes. Jean Chrétien was trolling for _ethnic_ votes – it was bad policy but good politics. In Canada politics almost always trumps policy, no matter which parties are involved.

Khadr, unfortunately, is a Canadian citizen who is being detained, possibly against US law, by the US government. He, being a citizen, has a _*right*_ to some levels of support or protection from his own government. If we do not fight for the rights of the worst of our fellow citizens then we devalue the rights of the rest, including the best. 

Two wrongs do not make a right. Chrétien was wrong when he intervened on behalf of Khadr _père_, he was wrong when he failed to intervene on behalf of Khadr _fils_; ditto Paul Martin and Stephen Harper.


----------



## geo (20 Sep 2007)

+1 Ed


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2007)

Khadr was engaged as an illegal combatant pursuant to the Rules of Land Warfare.

   He engage in those activties against a military force which we where part of, against one of our allies, and killed an American serviceman.
Rather than bemoan the rights that Khadr invalidated the minute he comitted treason - maybe we should look to the family of the dead SF Medic.

If I could get into Gitmo - I'd save you a lot of trouble and I'd put my 1911 against his head and shoot him dead.
   No fuss no muss and not a damn bit of concern about it either.


----------



## GAP (21 Sep 2007)

Now his lawyer is getting involved in it

American military lawyer rips Canadian hypocrisy on Omar Khadr
Article Link

OTTAWA - Canada has been an international leader on the plight of child soldiers but is now showing "reckless indifference" to one of its own, the American military lawyer for Omar Khadr said Thursday.

In a speech to law students at the University of Ottawa, Lt.-Cmdr. William Kuebler eviscerated the U.S. military commissions set up to try prisoners of the Afghan conflict. "Omar Khadr is facing a show trial in front of a kangaroo court," said Kuebler, dressed in his blue U.S. officer's uniform

But he spared Canadian governments past and present none of his outrage for refusing any effort to bring Khadr, a Canadian citizen, back to Canada for trial.

Kuebler was appointed by the U.S. military to represent Khadr, a 15-year-old when he was accused of killing an American special forces officer in Afghanistan in 2002. He faces a range of charges, including murder and aiding the enemy, for allegedly throwing a grenade during a firefight.

Khadr, who turned 21 this week, is believed to be the last detainee from a Western nation still being held in Guantanamo, the U.S. prisoner camp on Cuba's southern peninsula.

Countries including Australia, Denmark, France, Germany and Spain have secured the release of their citizens, while Britain has even won the freedom of non-citizen permanent residents.

Khadr's age makes his case doubly perplexing, said Kuebler.

"Every civilized legal system in the world recognizes the distinction between adults and children for purposes of criminal prosecution and punishment," he said. "Not the military commissions. One size fits all."

Evidence before a U.S. civil court suggested Khadr was as young as 10 when his father, known al Qaida operative Ahmad Khadr, recruited and indoctrinated him to the cause, said Kuebler.
More on link


----------



## McG (21 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Though after killing an 18D and committing treason to what rights if any is he truly entailed?


Maybe to be charged in a Canadian court with treason?  Even do it in his absence.  If he is found guilty we can wash our hands of him (I'm sure the Americans would be happy to keep him for the duration of any detention he might get from a Canadian court).


----------



## Boxkicker (21 Sep 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The fact the gov't let him (and his family) keep their citizenship when they overtly treasonous make me ill.  I wish someone would hurry up and reunite the family with the dad  :threat:



  To bad the media wont look at him and ask that if why these things were all good for a Liberal government. Why are they not good for a conservative government.


----------



## GAP (25 Sep 2007)

Appeals Court Rules Military Judge Has Jurisdiction Authority in Gitmo Case
By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Sept. 25, 2007 
Article Link

A military appeals court ruled yesterday that a military trial judge has the authority to determine jurisdiction in a military commission, a ruling that paves the way for proceedings to continue against suspected terrorists at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 
The Court of Military Commission Review made the ruling in response to an appeal filed by the prosecution in the case of Canadian detainee Omar Khadr, who was charged in April with murder, support to terrorism and conspiracy under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. On June 4, the military trial judge in Khadr’s case dismissed the charges against Khadr, ruling that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. 

This ruling was based on the fact that Khadr was officially classified as an “enemy combatant” in an administrative hearing at Guantanamo, and the Military Commissions Act requires detainees to be classified as “alien unlawful enemy combatants” before they can be tried by a commission. At the time, the judge also ruled that it wasn’t the military commission’s role to determine jurisdiction in these cases, even if the prosecution could present evidence showing the accused was an unlawful enemy combatant. 

On June 8, the government filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial judge denied on June 29. So, on July 4, the prosecution filed an appeal with the Court of Military Commission Review challenging the judge’s dismissal of the case. 

Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, the legal advisor to the Office of Military Commissions Convening Authority, said yesterday’s ruling gives the military judge authority to ascertain whether jurisdiction exists to try Khadr. 

“Both the prosecution and defense have been vigorously preparing for this day, whatever the outcome,” Hartmann said. “We have a ruling from the (Court of Military Commissions Review) that tells us how the military judge can determine jurisdiction. Now it is time to move forward.” 

Hartmann said he expects the prosecution to quickly begin forwarding cases to the convening authority for review. The convening authority will determine whether there is probable cause to send these cases to trial. 
More on link


----------



## Blackadder1916 (25 Sep 2007)

*Appeal court gives Pentagon green light to try Khadr*
Canadian's lawyer attacks legal 'gymnastics' after ruling allows terrorism case to proceed
  
Sheldon Alberts The Ottawa Citizen Tuesday, September 25, 2007

WASHINGTON - A U.S. military appeals court dealt Canadian Omar Khadr a major legal setback yesterday, overturning a decision to throw out murder and terrorism charges against the alleged al-Qaeda operative.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review means the Pentagon once again has the green light to put the 21-year-old on trial before a war crimes tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"We welcome the court's decision and will proceed in the most expeditious manner to get military commission cases to trial," Pentagon spokesman Jeffrey Gordon said last night.

"The timeline is up to the judge. He decides when we will be back in the courtroom."

The case was thrown into legal limbo last June when army Col. Peter Brownback ruled the Bush administration's war crimes tribunals lacked jurisdiction to try Mr. Khadr because the U.S. government had made no determination whether the Canadian was an "unlawful enemy combatant." The ruling left open the possibility that Mr. Khadr was legally engaged in battle with American troops.

He is accused of killing an army medic in a battle between U.S. troops and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan in the summer of 2002 when he was 15.

*In its ruling against Mr. Khadr yesterday, the military appeals court agreed there was a significant distinction between a detainee's status as a lawful or unlawful enemy combatant.

But it found that Col. Brownback erred by refusing to hear evidence that Pentagon lawyers said would prove Mr. Khadr was  an unlawful combatant at the time of his capture.*

Dennis Edney, one of two Canadian lawyers representing Mr. Khadr before the tribunals, said the decision confirmed his view that the Pentagon has stacked the legal deck against his client.

"It astounds me that this (U.S.) administration goes to such gymnastics to avoid giving this young man due process in an ordinary court of law with proper rules of evidence," Mr. Edney said last night.

He said he is worried the Pentagon will now rush Mr. Khadr to trial without giving his defence team proper time to prepare an appeal.

Mr. Khadr's lawyers have questioned the legitimacy of the appeals court. The three-person court was only assembled after the charges against Mr. Khadr were thrown out in June.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Nov 2007)

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/277808

CBS showing of Khadr tape 'outrageous': Lawyer  
Nov 19, 2007 01:13 PM 
THE CANADIAN PRESS

The lawyer of detained Canadian terror suspect Omar Khadr says it's outrageous that CBS News has broadcast a tape of his client allegedly building explosives.
Dennis Edney says that a U.S. judge previously ruled that the video couldn't be used as evidence in court.

Edney believes the American government leaked the tape to 60 Minutes in a bid to sidestep that decision.
The news program aired the tape last night.

U.S. authorities allege that Toronto-born Khadr killed an American medic in July 2002 after he threw a grenade in eastern Afghanistan.
The 21-year-old, who was charged with murder two years ago, is being held at the American naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


----------



## Big Foot (19 Nov 2007)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3516048.shtml

Link to the 60 Minutes article, including video, about Omar Khadr.


----------



## KevinB (19 Nov 2007)

I've got something for him...







Going about 2750fps...


----------



## riggermade (19 Nov 2007)

Personally I wished that Canada would revoke citizenship for the whole family as they obviousely see no problem with supporting terroism and hanging would be too quick for Omar in my opinion.

If a family openly supports these terror organizations then get rid of them


----------



## Greymatters (19 Nov 2007)

If only it was that easy!


----------



## Yrys (5 Mar 2008)

Khadr lawyers accuse Cheney office of video leak



> Defence lawyers for Canadian terror suspect Omar Khadr are investigating whether a video released to the media may have been leaked by the office
> of U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney. The video, broadcast last November on 60 Minutes, appears to show Khadr building a roadside bomb in Afghanistan.
> 
> Lt.-Cmdr. William Kuebler said his recent court filing cites Col. Morris Davis, the former chief proscutor of the military commission that will be trying Khadr in
> ...


----------



## BernDawg (20 Mar 2008)

Something new in the MSM.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/RedactedKhadrAffidavit_22Feb2008.pdf   :'(

I really like how he states that he just wants to return to his country.  Send the little piece of shit back to Iraq then!  And another thing that pisses me off is the papers continually showing the photo of him when he was 15 not the current image of the bearded hard-line Muslim.  Whether he threw the grenade or not he was there and he was engaged in armed conflict against an ally of ours. Let him rot.  I red the entire PDF and if he's telling the truth (LOL) he got what he deserves.


----------



## axeman (20 Mar 2008)

You know it'sweird that when they behead some one with a machete its glorious and in the name of god . When they strapa a semtex vest on and kill themselves a few soldiers  and some innicont by standers its for the greater good . But when they get captured and have to physically pay for the crime . ie getting shot while being captured after killing some one  it becomes al contrary to the goodness that i belive in .. well i belive in capital punishment and now this is fair punishment for me onecaught bloddy handed and with an entire family trying to kill soldiers well kick em out of the country . So you want to fight ,wear your uniform proudly  and dont try to claim your a civilian when  you get caught .


----------



## geo (20 Mar 2008)

Was reading in the MsM this morning - interesting personal diary of the Capt that led the assault on the compound where Khadr was captured.... within the press & MsM, the US Military will have tremendous difficulty prosecuting this case.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Mar 2008)

We are dealing with a different mindset here.
In the eyes of committed terrorists, there are NO innocent bystanders. In the eyes of Al-Qaeda, we are ALL legtitimate targets, including our children. The will stop at nothing to wipe us out, adn if theat means killing babies they will.
Of course they will play on our sensibilities when captured, crying human rights, poor treatment and crying for my favorite organization, Amnesty International. AI has never met a terrorist they didn't like.

Send this little so and so back.....and his family too.


----------



## TCBF (22 Mar 2008)

- This is what happens when you don't treat EVERYONE as a POW.  POWs get to go home when the war is over - not before.  So, when will the war end?  Good question, but they can wait until it is.  But imagine the lack of hassle if the USA was not cycling suspects through Gitmo then back to Iraq then back to Gitmo after they are caught - again.  

- Combat is messy, but coincidences are often remarkable.  A Brit para once wrote that the British, upon discovery that some of their Argentine POWs were actually Hispanic American mercenaries, alledgedly separated the Americans from the other POWs then  (my phrasing follows) discovered that the mercenaries had all been killed in action (my phrasing ends).  

- Thus preventing a regretable international incident.  The Brits display a certain maturity in these matters that some other nations do not.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (22 Mar 2008)

I think we need open dialog with the hardline Muslims in this country.Maybe give them their own province.


Having children opened my eyes to many things.And when are we as Canadians going to do something about it?When were the minority?Good luck then.Islamic religious schools in Scarborough...

We will leave a Country to our children that WE HAVE MADE.


Also on the little Khadr kid.Everytime I hear about the poor little 15 yr old on the news they show the poor little guy's school picture smiling.How about showing the picture of him hooking land mines up as IED's?Or the video still with him and his cute little AK.

Canadians will walk around Parliament to protect these peoples rights,yet when their put into OUR communities no one protests?Why do we let people like this feel at home?Maybe we should start airing be-headings on CTV evening news.As most Canadians have their head so far up their *** they have never sat and watched a man choke out his last few breaths.His only crime being driving a humanitarian truck in an Islamic country full of terrorist.

Maybe next time some one is petitioning on Parliament we can bring up some mothers of the soldiers killed by Khadr.

This subject vexes me very much.Almost as much as the average"I don't care till it's too late"Canadians.

And now that my neck vein is pumping I have to laugh.....

the spell check tries to change Khadr to Jihad.....coincidence>?


----------



## sgf (22 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I think we need open dialog with the hardline Muslims in this country.Maybe give them their own province.
> 
> 
> Having children opened my eyes to many things.And when are we as Canadians going to do something about it?When were the minority?Good luck then.Islamic religious schools in Scarborough...
> ...


Wow.. people like these?? what particular people are you talking about? Thats a bit of a generalization isnt it? Other religions have their particular churches, so why not Muslims? 

Up to last night, the War Measures Act has not been invoked, so I hardly think Canada needs saving from any group


----------



## X-mo-1979 (22 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Wow.. people like these?? what particular people are you talking about? Thats a bit of a generalization isnt it? Other religions have their particular churches, so why not Muslims?
> 
> Up to last night, the War Measures Act has not been invoked, so I hardly think Canada needs saving from any group



 hardline Muslims in this country.

It's in the first sentence.


----------



## sgf (22 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> hardline Muslims in this country.
> 
> It's in the first sentence.



what hardline Muslims and how do you tell the diffrence between a hardline and a regular Muslim Canadian in 
Canada? Have their been any reports about their activities against this country, say in the last two years? 

Interesting article that has a lot to say about Omar Khadr, especially the part about evidence against Omar



> Lately, it has dawned on Canadians that the United States may well have lied about its evidence against Mr. Khadr. Far from having proof that only he could have thrown the grenade that killed their soldier, the U.S. appears to have hidden the truth: that the teenage Canadian was in the company of an adult al-Qaeda fighter and was himself unarmed, on his knees and facing away from battle when a U.S. soldier shot him twice — in the back.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080320.wcoessay0322/BNStory/specialComment/home?cid=al_gam_mostview

another part of the article



> The irony has never really penetrated Canadians' consciousness. Canada, the country of the liberal Youth Criminal Justice Act, is the only Western nation to give the United States carte blanche with one of its nationals at Guantanamo. Britain, Australia, Sweden and Germany fought to repatriate their nationals — adults, all of them. And Canada let a juvenile languish.


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> what hardline Muslims and how do you tell the diffrence between a hardline and a regular Muslim Canadian in
> Canada? Have their been any reports about their activities against this country, say in the last two years?



Since this thread is thread is about the Khadr crowd, would that be the type he is talking about?  Ones that live in a free country like Canada, and support monsters like Binladen.

Does it have to be explained any simpler than that?

dileas

tess


----------



## X-mo-1979 (22 Mar 2008)

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=de3f8e90-982a-47af-8e5e-a1366fd5d6cc

Hows that for you?2006 good enough?Or is that too passe for you?

What is the difference between hardline Muslims and normal praticing Muslims?

Oh stuff like going to Afghanistan to fight,working here in Canada and sending money to terrorist groups disguised as humanitarian fund's.Running training camps for terrorist north of Toronto.Bringing in extremest Imam's to speak to your congregation from Saudi Arabia and England....

Do you need more examples or can you surf the net and watch the media yourself>?

http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/priorities/terrorism.asp


----------



## McG (22 Mar 2008)

sgf,
Slippery slope is not a logical argument, so you might want another angle if that is your intent.  You know that people in this thread are referring specifically to individuals who it has been determined are most likely actively supporting terrorist (or anti-coalition) activities.  These individual still deserve their due process (which some have advocated against), so maybe you want to set your aim there.


----------



## NL_engineer (22 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> what hardline Muslims and how do you tell the diffrence between a hardline and a regular Muslim Canadian in
> Canada? Have their been any reports about their activities against this country, say in the last two years?



The arrests outside Toronto in Sept 06, thats the first one that comes to mind



			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I think we need open dialog with the hardline Muslims in this country.Maybe give them their own province.
> 
> 
> Having children opened my eyes to many things.And when are we as Canadians going to do something about it?When were the minority?Good luck then.Islamic religious schools in Scarborough...
> ...



1+

One of the reasons we should take the US approch (An American first, or get the F*** out).  You don't see to many people using the US as a country of convenience

Well my personal views are that they should be treated as they treat others (ie. like the people they capture beheaded, and left to rot in a ditch).  But thats just my personal views, that I am entitled to as a Canadian Citizen


----------



## sgf (22 Mar 2008)

I read the quote about the arrests, but what about convictions? How long are the sentences these people have received?

 I also beg to differ about the States being used as a country of convenience, seems they have their own issues with illegal immigrants who are cross the Mexican border at will. 

 I dont doubt that there are many muslims that raise money and sent home, just like.. hmm lets see.. maybe irish immigrants who raised money for the IRA but I didnt hear a large outcry over that.


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I dont doubt that there are many muslims that raise money and sent home, just like.. hmm lets see.. maybe irish immigrants who raised money for the IRA but I didnt hear a large outcry over that.



I don't think the site was up and running at the time of the Irish Troubles, however I stand to be corrected....

Terrorists are terrorists, regardless what t-shirt they wear sgf.

Try as you might, you can't pidgeon hole anywone for being anti-muslim, 

Fair effort though.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (22 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I dont doubt that there are many muslims that raise money and sent home, just like.. hmm lets see.. maybe irish immigrants who raised money for the IRA but I didnt hear a large outcry over that.



One can find whatever they wish on the internet. Even old newspaper articles (where, during the IRA heyday -- the outcry occured) from the 70s/80s/90s decrying the funding of the IRA by immigrants & business fronts in North America. You just need to search for them, instead of pretending that "outcry" didn't exists simply because the "outcry" didn't occur during the internet era.

STOP YOUR TROLLING NOW.

Last warning.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## X-mo-1979 (24 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I don't doubt that there are many Muslims that raise money and sent home, just like.. hmm lets see.. maybe Irish immigrants who raised money for the IRA but I didn't hear a large outcry over that.



No?Maybe type "IRA Canada" into Google.Here is a good comparison actually.

Khadr family:
-mother quoted saying "We are an Al Qaeda family."

-Father arrest by Pakistani authorities in 1995 for siphoning off HCI funds to pay for an Al Qaeda terrorist operation 

-Wife Maha Elsamnah took her then 14-year-old son Omar from Canada to Pakistan in 2001 and enrolled him for Al Qaeda training. 

-Daughter Zaynab, 23, was engaged to one terrorist and married, with Osama bin Laden himself present at the nuptials, a Qaeda member in 1999. Zaynab endorses the 9/11 atrocities and hopes her infant daughter will die fighting Americans. 
-
Son Abdullah, 22, is a Qaeda fugitive constantly on the move to elude capture. Canadian intelligence states he ran a Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan during the Taliban period, something Abdullah denies. 

-Son Omar, 17, stands accused of hurling a grenade in July 2002, killing an American medic in Afghanistan. Omar lost sight in one eye in the fighting and is now a U.S. detainee in Guantánamo. 

-Son Abdul Karim, 14, half-paralyzed by wounds sustained in the October 2003 shoot-out that left his father dead, is presently prisoner in a Pakistani hospital. 

SO what does Canada do?
-On April 9, 2004, (brother)Khadr and his mother returned to Canada, flying from Islamabad, Pakistan, to Toronto.

Yet if you look here:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/05/26/ira-pei.html

Former IRA member turned back at the border
Last Updated: Friday, May 26, 2006 | 11:38 PM ET 
CBC News 
A former member of the Irish Republican Army was sent back to Ireland this week while en route to Fort Augustus, P.E.I., for Irish heritage celebrations.
Pat Treanor, the mayor of County Monaghan in Ireland, had been to Canada twice in the past year. But when he flew into St. John's on Wednesday, border security officials asked him whether he had a record.
He told them he was convicted once — for being a member of the IRA. He was refused admittance to Canada and sent back home.
"I'm disappointed and I would like to be part of the celebrations on Prince Edward Island," he told CBC News in an interview from his hometown.
But he expects he'll get this travel problem straightened out. "I do believe it was just some kind of a cock-up at the airport, seeing that I got in twice before. I will be meeting with the Canadian ambassador and I'm fairly confident we'll resolve whatever difficulties there are there."
The IRA officially ended its armed struggle against British rule in July 2005.
Treanor said he was a member for a few years in the 1970s, but that he's never committed any crime. He remains a member of Sinn Fein, the IRA's political wing.
The Canada Border Services Agency won't talk about the case. But spokeswoman Jennifer Morrison said people can be turned away for a number of reasons, such as having a criminal record or belonging to a terrorist group.
Treanor was travelling with three other members of the Monaghan county council, who were able to continue on to Fort Augustus.

So SGF yes Canada also takes a hard (I say HARDER)stance on other terrorist.The Khadr mother who said "We are an Al Qaeda family" gets to live here....yet an ex IRA terrorist is turned away.So yet another hole in your poorly argued,poorly researched, and trolling point of view.


P.S Can you please start using spell check,as it takes longer for other members to correct your work than their own when quoting you.


----------



## McG (24 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I dont doubt that there are many muslims that raise money and sent home, just like.. hmm lets see.. maybe irish immigrants who raised money for the IRA but I didnt hear a large outcry over that.


Ignoring the accuracy or inaccuracy of your statement, this is a wholly irrelevant argument.  The Canadian response to IRA funding in Canada neither validates nor invalidates arguments about what we should be doing today in response to terrorist supporters in Canada.  Appeal to hypocrisy is not a logical argument.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Mar 2008)

I dunno, I've never made any secret here of my feelings on that topic.  try this:

Re: Flap over UK Plan to Train Local Militia
« Reply #4 on: 05-02-2008, 14:12:28 »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Just going to hit the nest with a stick here.  The "Global War On Terrorism" is a misnomer.  If it were indeed a global effort, the Brits would have had a free hand to invade the Republic of Ireland and hunt down the IRA.  "We will root out terrorists and destroy them wherever they are, well, at least the brown ones that don't get funding from half the population of Boston and New York, anyway."


Nomex skiddies on, fire away.




			
				sgf said:
			
		

> I dont doubt that there are many muslims that raise money and sent home, just like.. hmm lets see.. maybe irish immigrants who raised money for the IRA but I didnt hear a large outcry over that.


----------



## sgf (25 Mar 2008)

There was an interview with Sean Fine today in the Globe and Mail, which had a lot of interesting questions and answers going back and forth..

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080320.wlivekhadr0325/BNStory/specialComment/home


----------



## X-mo-1979 (25 Mar 2008)

That article is along your view point for sure.
However what I don't understand with his view is he keeps repeating the poor kid is 15 years old and don't deserve the punishment.

Yet as he is held by Americans and committed the act/acts on American troops,should he not be treated as any other 15 year old American?

Here's an example of a 14 yr old who killed his teacher.What did that land him?28 years adult prison.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/07/27/brazill.sentencing/

So Khadr commits terrorism,kill's soldier and works at targeting coalition troops....and guys like this and yourself SGF want to bring them home?

We have young guys joining the Reserves at 16...so does this mean their not responsible for their actions?


----------



## sgf (25 Mar 2008)

It hasnt been proven that he has killed anyone yet. I havent said that he should return to Canada so dont attempt to put words in my mouth. I am not sure what exactly should happen to him but I am waiting until after the trial and see what is that outcome. I am just putting forth another idea to the case, thats all.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> It hasnt been proven that he has killed anyone yet.


Agreed.  He was, however, *there*, in a combat zone, with persons fighting against our allies.  IMHO, if/when he returns to Canada, he should face treason charges.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Mar 2008)

Is it only me, or is anyone else upset that the media have down played this over the past year or two.  It wasn't just a soldier that was killed; it was a Medic going to the aid of another wounded soldier.  To me that carries a lot more weight than "a soldier".


----------



## McG (26 Mar 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Agreed.  He was, however, *there*, in a combat zone, with persons fighting against our allies.  IMHO, if/when he returns to Canada, he should face treason charges.


I agree whole heartedly.  You don't go join the other side in a war against your home nation & its allies, and if you do then expect the consequences.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> It wasn't just a soldier that was killed; it was a Medic going to the aid of another wounded soldier.  To me that carries a lot more weight than "a soldier".


Was he wearing the red cross?  It makes a difference legally if the medic was visibly identifiable in his role or not.


----------



## TCBF (26 Mar 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> I agree whole heartedly.  You don't go join the other side in a war against your home nation & its allies, and if you do then expect the consequences.
> Was he wearing the red cross?  It makes a difference legally if the medic was visibly identifiable in his role or not.



1. What if he is a dual national?  What is the situation then if both your nations are fighting each other and you pick one? This ain't just about Khadr now, how many millions of Canadian 'duals' would fight for old country against Canada like the "Kamloops Kid" did in WW2? The answer may be disturbing.

2.  If you throw a grenade at the rough direction of the enemy and one of the enemy hit was a medic, was that a crime?  Nope.  You are not targetting a medic, you are targetting the enemy.  The medic happens to be one of them.  Do I NOT call arty on a group of 100 enemy in the woods because I figure in one hundred enemy there is probably at least one medic? My answer follows:

"G21 this is 42A, Fire Mission, over."


----------



## Yrys (26 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> 1. What if he is a dual national?  What is the situation then if both your nations are fighting each other and you pick one? This ain't just about Khadr now, how many millions of Canadian 'duals' would fight for old country against Canada like the "Kamloops Kid" did in WW2? The answer may be disturbing.



In the Kadr case, as far as I know, he wasn't fighting for a country, but for the insurgents. But I'm no SME ...


----------



## NL_engineer (26 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> 1. What if he is a dual national?  What is the situation then if both your nations are fighting each other and you pick one? This ain't just about Khadr now, how many millions of Canadian 'duals' would fight for old country against Canada like the "Kamloops Kid" did in WW2? The answer may be disturbing.



Thats why we should have something like this



> Solemnly, freely, and without mental reservation, I hereby renounce under oath all allegiance to any foreign state. My fidelity and allegiance from this day forward is to the United States of America. I pledge to support, honor, and be loyal to the United States, its Constitution, and its laws. Where and if lawfully required, I further commit myself to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, either by military, noncombatant, or civilian service. This I do solemnly swear, so help me God.



It may help get rid of those that use there Canadian Citizenship as a insurance policy.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Mar 2008)

I've just returned from the funeral for Sgt. Jason Boyes in Shilo. By all accounts, from his peers and superiors, he was a fine soldier, husband, father and son. May he rest in peace.
When I read on this forum that certain individuals who use this means as a platform for their anti military, anti war "peace at all costs" views, it makes me very angry, and sad that fellow Canadians do not, or refuse to understand the mindset of the enemy we MUST fight. 
Then, I remember we are fighting for our freedom of expression, religion, association and all the other freedoms we take for granted. I may not agree with your point of view, but I'll vigourously defend that right to freedom of expression. Do not expect me to be kind or understanding when I disagree. I think most soldiers will agree with me
As for Omar Khadr? The due process of law must prevail.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (26 Mar 2008)

All I know it makes me sick to know a poor Canadian family has these people for neighbours.

Why do an Al Qaida family DESERVE to live in our country?Isn't that like have lice,getting rid of them and saving one to place on your head....because you only want to get rid of the ones that bit you?Well guess what Canada that louse will bite.Guaranteed.

I am a huge fan of human rights,I'm also a huge fan of looking at terrorist scum through barbed wire and cement.
Maybe it's time to turn up heat on these people INCLUDING their family's.Maybe we have to start taking mommy Khadr into a dark room and finding out what she knows.Let's face,my wife can tell the difference between a T-54 and a T-62,she knows the gist of what is going on at my work place.So does Mrs Khadr within the terrorist ring.

Ship her off as well.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Mar 2008)

I vehemently disagree with sending the entire family off.  Remember that blood is thicker than water, and yes, they may have said things or whatever, but the sins of the father do not pass on to the entire family.  
Your wife may be able to tell the difference between a T-54 and a T-62, but mine doesn't.  And she's been an army wife for going on 12 years now.  Heck, she doesn't even know the rank structure, and she doesn't really care.  Nor should she.
Unless Mrs. Khadr does something illegal, let her be.  Live and let live.
As Old Soldeuer said: 


> The due process of law must prevail.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (26 Mar 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I vehemently disagree with sending the entire family off.  Remember that blood is thicker than water, and yes, they may have said things or whatever, but the sins of the father do not pass on to the entire family.
> Your wife may be able to tell the difference between a T-54 and a T-62, but mine doesn't.  And she's been an army wife for going on 12 years now.  Heck, she doesn't even know the rank structure, and she doesn't really care.  Nor should she.
> Unless Mrs. Khadr does something illegal, let her be.  Live and let live.
> As Old Soldeuer said:



I do see your point of view.
However ;D
If your wife was living with you in the field,on ex Royal Fist(ing) with you...I'm sure she would have an excellent understanding of what was going on,who was in charge,future op's etc.
Let's face it if every day you came back to camp sat around a fire and chatted about killing infidels with the family,what the main goals were,who wanted to get what done....
Not to mention the wife rumour mill's,sitting around base camp all day washing clothes tending to the children I'm sure they were talking about stuff that they had heard their wonderful spouses talk about.

In a family where every child,and her husband was/is a terrorist,add in no television,and a sand hut it slowly goes back to old days in North America.What else do you have to talk about?Britney spears drug addiction or breakdown has proably not reached them yet.

It's kinda hard to leave work at work when your house is a IED factory in a terrorist camp.


----------



## Trinity (26 Mar 2008)

Is having knowledge of the crime before it happens akin to conspiracy to those who are going to commit it?

She would have extensive knowledge of her husbands activities.  Now of course with no proof she's
technically able to live happily anywhere she pleases.


----------



## sober_ruski (28 Mar 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I vehemently disagree with sending the entire family off.  Remember that blood is thicker than water, and yes, they may have said things or whatever, but the sins of the father do not pass on to the entire family.
> Your wife may be able to tell the difference between a T-54 and a T-62, but mine doesn't.  And she's been an army wife for going on 12 years now.  Heck, she doesn't even know the rank structure, and she doesn't really care.  Nor should she.
> Unless Mrs. Khadr does something illegal, let her be.  Live and let live.
> As Old Soldeuer said:




http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr/timeline.html

Their entire family is all sorts of fucked up. 

What makes me angry, is that after one of them killing a Canadian soldier with in a suicide bombing, they bring another little shit rat for treatment after a "firefight". I wonder who it was "firefighting" against. wink wink nudge nudge


----------



## geo (28 Mar 2008)

sober_ruski said:
			
		

> What makes me angry, is that after one of them killing a Canadian soldier with in a suicide bombing, they bring another little crap rat for treatment after a "firefight". I wonder who it was "firefighting" against. wink wink nudge nudge


Huh?

Which Khadr killed a Canadian soldier?
I must have been away & asleep when this happened - when did it happen?


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> Which Khadr killed a Canadian soldier?
> I must have been away & asleep when this happened - when did it happen?



It was llater debunked.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/02/04/taliban040204.html

dileas

tess


----------



## McG (29 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> 1. What if he is a dual national?  What is the situation then if both your nations are fighting each other and you pick one?


That'd be fine should you renounce your citizenship to the other country.  If you don't want to give up either citizenship, then you'd better find a way to sit out the fighting.  



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> 2.  If you throw a grenade at the rough direction of the enemy and one of the enemy hit was a medic, was that a crime?  Nope.


This is basically my point.  A lot of people are hanging thier position on an emotional argument that a medic was killed.  That really does not matter unless you get down to the point of showing that he knew the target was a medic & that the medic was specifically the target.  I'd tend to suspect that the medic was not even marked as such & so would impact on the legal dynamic of the situation.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (29 Mar 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> This is basically my point.  A lot of people are hanging thier position on an emotional argument that a medic was killed.  That really does not matter unless you get down to the point of showing that he knew the target was a medic & that the medic was specifically the target.  I'd tend to suspect that the medic was not even marked as such & so would impact on the legal dynamic of the situation.



I don't think too many people are.
The fact is a US soldier was killed by an action of insurgents in this building.Was it Omar?Hard to say really.Either way with the video stills of the alleged Omar making IED's out of anti tank mines,his ranting with the koran in hand with his AK behind him and then being in a building where this all occurred....I'm saying guilty.

Maybe the reason some people are using the medic angle is to make it look like he killed a defenseless person,who was only there to help people.
Either way he was involved in the killing of these two fine men.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Mar 2008)

Hey X-Mo,

Cheers, I had not even heard about the videos and such, so I went looking;

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3518748n

dileas

tess


----------



## X-mo-1979 (29 Mar 2008)

N/P
Glad to get the information out there,not many people have heard of it.I'm slightly obsessed about this trial.

Here's another awesome video of SFC Layne Morris, who was there during the firefight.
Please give this video a look,and please wait till the CBC "the setup" is done.It has a interview with SFC Morris who was there during and after the firefight.

And then people say he isn't guilty?Give this a go.

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/30569/thehour/videos/20051109-Khadr_soldier.wmv


----------



## NL_engineer (29 Mar 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Hey X-Mo,
> 
> Cheers, I had not even heard about the videos and such, so I went looking;
> 
> ...



Well, I think he should be allowed to go after the war is over  ;D  that was we get our kick at the can, I think these will fit well:

1. Treason as defined here
2. Terrorism as defined here 
3. Murder in commission of offences as defined here
4. Murder during terrorist activity as defined here
5. Using explosives in association with criminal organization as defined here


Well thats all I can think of at the moment.


Maybe we can trial him in the US and lock him up in the US to reduce costs associated with him in a Canadian jail  ;D


Is it just me, or was that 14 year old talking about sex  :  I think someone needs to give him a smack up side the head and tell him to wait till his 18  ;D


----------



## McG (8 May 2008)

> Canadian child soldier faces Nuremberg-type charges
> Updated Wed. May. 7 2008 9:04 PM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080507/omar_khadr_080507/20080507?hub=World


----------



## karl28 (8 May 2008)

the 48th regulator  

     Thanks for posting that link  I found it very informative .  I to think he is guilty just from what the videos shown in that link you provided . The only thing I can't understand  is why in the world would we allow his family to live in Canada .    As far as I am concerned once a Terrorist always a Terrorist  .
       Leave it to Stephen Dion to cheer for a wrong cause just so he can gather some votes .  One more reason why he should never be aloud to be a Prime minister .


----------



## vonGarvin (8 May 2008)

So, "they" have been lobbying PM Harper "for years" on this one, eh?  As in "two" years?  I seem to recall him becoming PM in 2006.  This is 2008, so....

What was the "previous" government doing about Khadr's release prior to 2006?  Just curious....


----------



## BernDawg (8 May 2008)

Dollars to doughnuts that all Brenda Martin did was cash her pay cheque to be "guilty" of money laundering in Mexico.  The cases are not similar at all.  Were she found guilty of murder in Mexico she would not be sent home.  Not to mention that there was no action to re-pat her until she was tried and sentenced.  So if that is the standard we have a bit of a wait ahead of us yet.  I recall reading that the British subjects sent home from Gitmo were done so to serve out their sentences, no?
Every time I read about that little shit (kahdr) I get ill thinking about how his family has buggered our country and continues to do so.  :rage:


----------



## 1feral1 (8 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> As for Omar Khadr? The due process of law must prevail.



A .22 short in the back of the head, in a ditch on a quiet country road. No publicity, no media announcment, no hoop-la, just a muffled shot in the night.

Justice would be swift.

This whole family is a disgrace, and as far as I am concerend should just 'conveniently' disappear.


----------



## larry Strong (8 May 2008)

> Khadr was captured in 2002 following a firefight with U.S. Special Forces. He was brought to the country by his father, who had ties to al Qaeda and was killed in Pakistan in 2003. The Pentagon maintains Khadr threw a grenade during the fight, killing a U.S. soldier.
> 
> 
> "No part of this story is true," his lawyer U.S. navy Lt.-Cmdr. William Kuebler told a parliamentary committee in Ottawa last month.
> ...




Really to bad that was never carried thru.

 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080507/omar_khadr_080507?s_name=&no_ads=


----------



## armyvern (9 May 2008)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Really to bad that was never carried thru.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080507/omar_khadr_080507?s_name=&no_ads=



Moderator Warnings   after a few complaints coming in:

I realize that this topic is pretty emotional and everything ... but committing a war crime or sanctionning the commission of such? That is what that action would be.

Let's remember on this site exactly why we are "Lawful Combattants" shall we? The public and the media ARE seeing the words that you "say" here -- and sometimes the impression being left isn't all that nice.

Same with your's Wes -- murder is _still_ murder.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## 1feral1 (10 May 2008)

Complaining???

Good gawd.

Did you call them a whaaaaabulance, or offer them some cheese with their whine, or some tissues for their ussues  ;D ?

What we said was simply tongue in cheek from the ongoing frustration from this group of losers. None of us are serious. Those who can't read what we are saying have a hidden agenda. Thats as plain as the broken nose on my face.

Come on Sarge, sum up....

I hope the left wing liberal limpwristed snivel libertarian granola eating alph-alpha loving tie dye wearing metrosexual nose pierced flower wearing dope smoking head in the sand save the whales freakazoids who pander such crap feel happy by sufficating those of us who have opinions are happy now.

Enough of the PCness.

Anyone who thinks this Khadr family are not a disgrace (and should no longer grace our country's land) are un-Canadian as far as I am concerned.

Would those who complained have been happier if I said, its time for a group hug, so lets give them a new house, car, and a payout of 100 million bucks for offending them?  

I would not be the first person to suggest on here that they take a dirt nap, nor will I be the last. We are expressing our anger and outrage.

Being realistic, many of us are beyond frustrated by those who support open terrorism, then rape and pillage the wealth from the fruit of our great nation by sucking the welfare system, and using the laws we passed to protect ourselves against us. This family are undeserving, and should be deported via frogmarch on the next dirty empty oil tanker off the Halifax pier as far as I am concerned. Of course at night without media hype  

If they lived where I grew up, they would have been burnt out and long since moved on.

Please consider this a complaint against the whinging complainers  

Cold beers,

Wes

EDIT - Yes I am into the whisky tonight :blotto:


----------



## armyvern (10 May 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Complaining???
> 
> Good gawd.
> 
> ...



Drinking tonight or not -- *Fair Warning * --

Enough already.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Stoker (13 May 2008)

By John Ward, The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT

OTTAWA - Canada and the United States have sunk to the moral equivalent of terrorists in their handling of a young Canadian held at Guantanamo Bay, says Liberal senator and ex-general Romeo Dallaire.

Dallaire says the two countries have flouted human rights and international conventions in dealing with Omar Khadr and are no better than those who don't believe in rights at all.

He told a House of Commons committee Tuesday that Khadr is a victim - a child soldier who should be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society and not tried before what he called an illegal court.

Canada should be bending over backward to bring him home, said Dallaire, formerly Canada's special UN ambassador for children.

Khadr was 15 when he was captured after a fire fight in Afghanistan and has been held in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for six years. American authorities now are attempting to try him before a special tribunal.

Dallaire, whose troubling experiences during the 1994 Rwanda genocide helped make him an outspoken advocate of human rights, said the Khadr case points out a moral equivalence among Canada, the United States and al-Qaida.

The United States is ignoring its own laws in prosecuting Khadr and Canada is betraying itself by not fighting for Khadr's return home, he said.

He said the Americans were acting out of panic after 9/11 and Canada was playing politics and that left them no better than the terrorists.

"The minute you start playing with human rights, with conventions, with civil liberties, in order to say that you're doing it to protect yourself and you are going against those rights and conventions, you are no better than the guy who doesn't believe in them at all," he said.

"We are slipping down the slope of going down that same route."

Tory MP Jason Kenney asked if Dallaire really believes that. He pointed to a number of al-Qaida outrages, including an incident in which the terror group reportedly outfitted mentally challenged young girls with explosive belts and sent them to their deaths in a Baghdad animal market.

"Is it your testimony that al-Qaida strapping up a 14-year-old girl with Down syndrome and sending her into a pet market to be remotely detonated is the moral equivalent to Canada's not making extraordinary political efforts for a transfer of Omar Khadr to this country?" he asked.

Dallaire was adamant.

"If you want a black and white, and I'm only too prepared to give it to you, absolutely," he replied. "You're either with the law or not with the law. You're either guilty or you're not."

He added, though, that Kenney was using "extreme scenarios."

Kenney was dismissive: "I submit that the only thing extreme here is what you're saying."

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said he disagreed with Dallaire's choice of words, and hinted the senator could be disciplined.

"This is a matter to deal with the (party) whip, and we'll deal with that," Dion told reporters.

"I would express that in my own way. I would say that Canada should do like the other countries and ask the government of the United States to bring this Canadian home to be prosecuted in Canada."

"The inaction of the government is unacceptable."  


Wow, I lost a lot of respect for Dallaire for making comments like that, but its not surprising coming from a lieberal.
__________________


----------



## McG (13 May 2008)

> U.S. paid bounty for Khadr arrest in Pakistan
> COLIN FREEZE
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> May 12, 2008 at 9:32 PM EDT
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080512.wkhadr0512/BNStory/International/?cid=al_gam_nletter_newsUp


----------



## armyvern (13 May 2008)

Hmmm,

My take -- they paid a bounty for a terrorist who was admittedly running guns on behalf of Al-Qaida in Pakistan/Afghanistan who _happens_ to be a Canadian citizen (and being that WE are also in Afghanistan and Al-Qaida is our enemy -- seems quite like the definition of "traitor" to me). What seems to be the big deal?

His Canadian citizenship should somehow protect him from being sought out for his actions?? Spare me. Only in the purple sky world ...


----------



## 1feral1 (13 May 2008)

Maybe its time that Romeo offers him and his family a group hug, and a we're sorry poster.

I don't think dear sweet Romeo is going to generate much of a fan club shy of the LWDGs and other nutcases. He is not in touch with reality and the overall Canadain public (or so I think), and if he thinks he is scoring political points for his party, well I think he is not.

His comments to me, well personally, and to be serious for one word, are simply 'disgusting'.

Perhaps he should walk accross the floor to Taliban Jack and their ilk?


----------



## geo (14 May 2008)

While I might dissagree with Gen Dallaire, I do not think it is reasonnable for the US Government to perpetuate Khadr's detention without due process / trial.
If the US is not prepared to proceed with the due process, then quite possibly, Canada should step up and put him thru the court process...

Isn't that what the US , AUSTRALIA AND BRITAIN did with their own Citzens?


----------



## vonGarvin (14 May 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> While I might dissagree with Gen Dallaire, I do not think it is reasonnable for the US Government to perpetuate Khadr's detention without due process / trial.
> If the US is not prepared to proceed with the due process, then quite possibly, Canada should step up and put him thru the court process...
> 
> Isn't that what the US , AUSTRALIA AND BRITAIN did with their own Citzens?


Yes.  Put them through court processes.  Yes.  Totally reasonable.

:


----------



## NL_engineer (14 May 2008)

Well we should bring him back to Canada, and charge him with what I posted a few months ago, but only if it is harsher then he gets from the US; or even better fly a judge down to Cuba so we can charge him under Canadian Law at the same time.  That way he gets a faster "Go directly to Jail"  ;D



			
				NL_engineer said:
			
		

> 1. Treason as defined here
> 2. Terrorism as defined here
> 3. Murder in commission of offences as defined here
> 4. Murder during terrorist activity as defined here
> ...


----------



## geo (14 May 2008)

Considering all the false starts that have happened WRT this Khadr trial, it makes the US military judicial process appear so incompetent (or possibly corrupt - WRT information withheld fromn defense).  Let's do it - regardless of the endstate and move on.

As things stand, neither the Cdn or US Govts appear well in the court of public opinion.  Time to close this chapter


----------



## KevinB (14 May 2008)

:    Sorry GEO on this I think you following down similar lines as that crackpot Dallaire


----------



## geo (14 May 2008)

Hey Kev,

Don't think so... 
The US gov't has dictated that their military will put Mr Khadr on trial..... 
let them do so with all due haste - as they have indicated they will.

What is it about their DUE PROCESS that is stalling the trial?
They had the will and the means to coduct war crime trials in Nuremburg.... let's get er done.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 May 2008)

The Canadian tax payer should not be burdened one cent with this guy.

He commited a crime against the USA, and killed a US soldier in a foreign country while at war, and as far as I am concerned, let the Yanks foot the bill and throw away the key after the trial.


----------



## geo (14 May 2008)

Not a problem Wes..... would just like the Yanks to get it over with.
Get it out of the press - if that's at all possible... I'm tired of hearing about it & going thru with the trial is the only way I can see this being concluded.


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 May 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> :    Sorry GEO on this I think you following down similar lines as that crackpot Dallaire



Careful with that crackpot comment, some people on this site seem to worship at the altar of Romeo. > I personally think it was an apt description of him. 

My take on the Khadr clan is simple, 1. Send them all packing 2. Revoke their citizenship 3. Ignore the idiot in Gitmo.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 May 2008)

I do find it amazing that we want to thorw the book at teenage car thieves, but we treat this terrorist family with kid gloves.
I wouldn't shed too many tears over this individual. In fact, none at all.
As for Senator Dalliare, while I agree with some of his views, I can't agree with him on this.


----------



## geo (15 May 2008)

OS... Note that I do not dissagree with your last statement BUT, if the US has indicated that they will bring him to trial and see justice done.... then, let's get the show on the road and serve justice as prescribed....

The long drawn out story is just creating the impression that the US is trying to hide something ( what? )


----------



## OldSolduer (15 May 2008)

I agree with you on that one geo. Lets' get in done.
Have you ever listened to Black Op Radio?


----------



## geo (15 May 2008)

Black op radio... nope, don't need no stinking radio to see conspiracies.... they're everywhere >

Let's get it done


----------



## a_majoor (18 May 2008)

More evidence surfaces:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080515.wkhadrzaynab15/BNStory/National/home



> *Computer held by Khadr's sister contains al-Qaeda files, RCMP say*
> 
> COLIN FREEZE
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (23 May 2008)

> Supreme Court ruling a partial win for Omar Khadr
> 
> Updated Fri. May. 23 2008 1:04 PM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080523/khadr_SCC_080523/20080523?hub=TopStories


----------



## McG (3 Jun 2008)

> Khadr 'salvageable:' U.S. guard
> Steven Edwards ,  Canwest News Service
> Published: 2330ish, 02 Jun 08
> 
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=fe197c74-2c6a-427b-a1bb-e58e3314628a


----------



## GAP (10 Jul 2008)

Ottawa won't seek return of Khadr, Harper says
CAMPBELL CLARK Globe and Mail Update July 10, 2008 at 3:54 AM EDT
Article Link

TOKYO — Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he will not seek to bring alleged Canadian terrorist Omar Khadr home from Guatanamo Bay prison despite the unsealing of documents that reveal Canadian officials knew that he was deprived of sleep and forced to change cells every three hours to “make him more amenable and willing to talk.”

Mr. Harper's government has long insisted that it sought and received assurances from the U.S. that Mr. Khadr was being treated humanely, but the documents dating from 2003 and 2004 – when Mr. Khadr was 17 years old – indicate Canadian officials knew of his conditions and mistreatment.

On Thursday, Mr. Harper said Mr. Khadr is accused of serious crimes, and there's no real alternative to the special military hearings he faces – and he has no intention of asking for him to be sent to Canada.

“The answer is no,” Mr. Harper said. “The former government and our government, with the advice of the Department of Justice, considered all the questions there, and the situation remains the same.”

He argued that the special U.S. military trial that Mr. Khadr faces – in which he does not have the same standard of legal representation and rights he would in an ordinary criminal trial – is the only way he could be brought to answer the charges against him.

“Mr. Khadr is accused of very serious things. There is a legal process in the United States. He can make his arguments in that process,” Mr. Harper said on a visit to Tokyo after the three-day summit of G8 leaders in northern Japan.

“But frankly, we do not have a real alternative to that process now to get to the truth about those accusations, and we believe that this process should continue. So we are looking at that process with great interest. And we continue to seek assurances of the good treatment of Mr. Khadr.”

Mr. Khadr was 15 when he was captured after a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002. He faces multiple terrorism-related charges, the most serious dealing with the killing of a U.S. soldier. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.
More on link


----------



## RecDiver (14 Jul 2008)

I just sadly read that they are going to release the 7hr interrogation video which his family hopes to use for public outrage/rally to bring this killer terrorist home.

Home is where I live with my family and I do not want this terrorist here! He belongs where he is now to rot. The real outrage and public outcry should be now against these manipulative media reports with the possiblility of his return to Canadian soil.


----------



## geo (14 Jul 2008)

RecDiver said:
			
		

> I just sadly read that they are going to release the 7hr interrogation video which his family hopes to use for public outrage/rally to bring this killer terrorist home.
> 
> Home is where I live with my family and I do not want this terrorist here! He belongs where he is now to rot. The real outrage and public outcry should be now against these manipulative media reports with the possiblility of his return to Canadian soil.


If they want to use the video in his trial... not a problem - for local viewing.... only|
Why would they release the video to the public though ??? doesn't make any sense


----------



## CountDC (15 Jul 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> If they want to use the video in his trial... not a problem - for local viewing.... only|
> Why would they release the video to the public though ??? doesn't make any sense



I am sure they won't release the entire video.  They will go through it looking for anything "bad" that they can piece together to make it look like the poor little lad is being treated extremely bad and that he only gave his answers under extreme distress and threat of life. Personally I am beginning to think the idea of take no prisoners is sounding better and better everyday.


----------



## North Star (15 Jul 2008)

Lol...his family actually expects to get him back?

I suspect one of the reasons why the gov't is not asking for him back right now is so that he can be convicted of something. Then, we can negotiate his return like they did with that Martin woman and force him to undergo psychiatric treatment. If we asked the American to release him to us now, we couldn't really hold him on anything and he'd simply end up back in the Islamist community, having his mind warped even more. 

I saw bits of the video today...screwed up kid, but not too out of wack with a messed up metal-head or gansta from downtown TO. If Canadians want someone to blame for that, don't blame the guard at Gitmo who seem to have been sympathetic to him - blame his mother.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jul 2008)

A sobbing Omar Khadar being asked questions by Canadian officials.Sorry but I dont have much sympathy for al qaeda killers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7507216.stm

A videotape of a detainee being questioned at the US prison camp in Guantanamo Bay has been released for the first time. 

It shows 16-year-old Omar Khadr being asked by Canadian officials in 2003 about events leading up to his capture by US forces, Canadian media have said. 

The Canadian citizen is accused of throwing a grenade that killed a US soldier in Afghanistan in 2002. 

He is seen in a distressed state and complaining about the medical care. 

The footage was made public by Mr Khadr's lawyers following a Supreme Court ruling in May that the Canadian authorities had to hand over key evidence against him to allow a full defence of the charges he is facing. 

'Help me' 

Mr Khadr, the only Westerner still held at the jail, was 15 when he was captured by US forces during a gun battle at a suspected al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan. 

During the 10-minute video of his questioning in Guantanamo a year later, he can be seen crying, his face buried in his hands, and pulling at his hair. He can be heard repeatedly chanting: "Help me." 

At one point he lifts his orange shirt to show the foreign ministry official and agents from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) wounds on his back and stomach which he says he sustained in Afghanistan. 

"I'm not a doctor, but I think you're getting good medical care," one of the officials responds. 

Mr Khadr says: "No I'm not. You're not here... I lost my eyes. I lost my feet. Everything!" in reference to how his vision and physical health were affected. 

"No, you still have your eyes and your feet are still at the end of your legs, you know," a man says. 

Sobbing uncontrollably, Mr Khadr tells the officials several times: "You don't care about me." 

In an accompanying classified document describing the interrogation, Mr Khadr also says he was tortured while being held at the US military detention centre at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. 

One of Mr Khadr's lawyers, Dennis Edney, said they hoped the video would cause an outcry in Canada and pressure Prime Minister Stephen Harper to demand the US not prosecute their client. 

"I hope Canadians will be outraged to see the callous and disgraceful treatment of a Canadian youth," Mr Edney told the Toronto Star. 

"Canadians should demand to know why they've been lied to." 

Mr Harper reiterated last week that he would not interfere in Mr Khadr's military tribunal, due to begin at Guantanamo on 8 October. 

Mr Khadr, now 21, faces multiple terrorism-related charges, the most serious of which is murder. He faces up to life in prison if convicted.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jul 2008)

Al Khadar being treated in the field by US medics.


----------



## RecDiver (15 Jul 2008)

North Star said:
			
		

> - blame his mother.



and his father!


----------



## dukkadukka (15 Jul 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> One of Mr Khadr's lawyers, Dennis Edney, said they hoped the video would cause an outcry in Canada and pressure Prime Minister Stephen Harper to demand the US not prosecute their client.
> 
> "I hope Canadians will be outraged to see the callous and disgraceful treatment of a Canadian youth," Mr Edney told the Toronto Star.
> 
> "Canadians should demand to know why they've been lied to."



WHHAAT

Personally I thought they were being pretty nice to him.  It wasn't disgraceful (based on the video).


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jul 2008)

Anyone willing to share a link to said video?  Thanks in advance...


----------



## GAP (15 Jul 2008)

I am perfectly comfortable with him rotting in a US jail.....we owe him nothing


----------



## kincanucks (15 Jul 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Anyone willing to share a link to said video?  Thanks in advance...



http://www.nationalpost.com/


----------



## kincanucks (15 Jul 2008)

All I can say is that it sucks to be him.  Ain't karma a bitch.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jul 2008)

The video is also at the BBC web site.Follow the link.


----------



## North Star (15 Jul 2008)

I honestly feel a bit sorry for him...his father led him into a bad situation, brainwashed him, and then unleashed him on trained killers who, fortunately for the boy, saved his life. 

That being said, he needs to be held in custody. He can't be released without some form of rehabilitation, so he needs to be convicted of something. Then, the best he can hope for is that Canada asks for him to be transferred as a prisoner into our penal system, where he can be given the treatment he needs.

The blame rests solely on the shoulders of his mother and father. If anything, I'd arrest his mother for child abuse, and maybe treason.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jul 2008)

Thanks, all, for video links - here's one more, from the defence counsel:
http://98.130.220.175/


----------



## RCDtpr (15 Jul 2008)

This is stuff that really boils my blood.  The kid was fighting Americans, and I'm pretty confident would have fought us too had we been there.  The west are "infidels" and they will kill any of us just as happily as an American.  Now that he's been caught he expects Canada to do something for him?  Piss on that.

I can guarantee you this though.  With the time he's spent in gitmo letting feelings and hate fester.  IF he is for whatever reason released, you can be damn sure he's heading right back to the fight again.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jul 2008)

Whoa lets not jump to conclusions until all the facts are out....

Just kidding


----------



## Shec (15 Jul 2008)

Having yet to see the vid my twisted little mind is imagining a whirl of visuals:

(1)  A CSIS agent, dressed in jackboots and a black tunic, saying " Ve haf vays of,  shall we zay, persvading you.",

(2) Marathon Man's Sir Laurence Olivier holding a dental drill and asking Dustin Hoffman "Is it safe?",

(3) PM Taliban Jack awarding  poor, misunderstood, and angelic little Omar $10 Million and an Order of Canada.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jul 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Al Khadar being treated in the field by US medics.



Gross. 

I wonder if they used quick clot.
*I* Would have used quick clot.


----------



## Neill McKay (15 Jul 2008)

So.... anyone else have any interest in due process here, or am I the only one?


----------



## GAP (15 Jul 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> So.... anyone else have any interest in due process here, or am I the only one?



I agree....let him have his day in a court of the country of whom he shot and killed a member of their military....his aggression was against them, let them try him...


----------



## Armymedic (15 Jul 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> So.... anyone else have any interest in due process here, or am I the only one?


Nope, you're pretty much the only one.

He fought, intentionally or otherwise, on the side of a terrorist organization. He did so in a country that was not Canada. 

All his lawyers are trying to do is to pull heart strings to get a change in political mindset here. They are not interested in Justice either.

As far as I am concerned, he can sit in Gitmo for 15-20 years....then IF he is lucky, Canada will then bring him home and put him in to Kingston pen for TREASON for the rest of his life as well.


----------



## Neill McKay (15 Jul 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> I agree....let him have his day in a court of the country of whom he shot and killed a member of their military....his aggression was against them, let them try him...



Suits me.  My concern is not that he might face the US justice system, but rather that he's been in prison for six years without yet having done so.


----------



## North Star (15 Jul 2008)

Well, he's getting his court time now...

You have to remember, the precendents in this case are different. He's not exactly a POW, nor is he a simple criminal. It's taken all this time for the United States Supreme Court and the other components of the judiciary to figure it out (although I totally disagree with their extension of habeas corpus to aliens). 

Most of these guys should be thankful the US didn't just decide to shut Gitmo down, inform the respective governments of the inmates, and present them to all sort of sketchy law enforcement/intelligence agencies. They are getting a fair shake, if not a slow one.


----------



## abo (15 Jul 2008)

North Star said:
			
		

> Most of these guys should be thankful the US didn't just decide to shut Gitmo down, inform the respective governments of the inmates, and present them to all sort of sketchy law enforcement/intelligence agencies. They are getting a fair shake, if not a slow one.



Ya or worse yet, have been left in Afghanistan to be tried by the new Afghani judicial system. But like you said theres no precedent. Hes almost like a stateless individual. 

However I do think a 6 year wait for a secret military tribunal is somewhat ridiculous. 6 years in limbo aside. If theres no transparency in the process then accountability is moot. We wouldn't stand for it, if it was in Canada, why should our ideals be different just because its another part of the world. Hes still a human being after all.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Jul 2008)

abo said:
			
		

> Ya or worse yet, have been left in Afghanistan to be tried by the new Afghani judicial system. But like you said theres no precedent. Hes almost like a stateless individual.
> 
> However I do think a 6 year wait for a secret military tribunal is somewhat ridiculous. 6 years in limbo aside. If theres no transparency in the process then accountability is moot. We wouldn't stand for it, if it was in Canada, why should our ideals be different just because its another part of the world. Hes still a human being after all.


The young man is accused of war crimes.  The only thing he has in common with Canada is his citizenship.  Why should being a Canadian be a "carte blanche" for those who would commit crimes abroad?


----------



## GGboy (15 Jul 2008)

Appropos of nothing, time served awaiting trial (in Canada and the US) usually counts double towards eventual sentence, if any. Meaning young Mr. Khadr has effectively served a 12-year sentence, and counting. Which is over the average sentence for manslaughter (8 years) and the minimum parole eligibility period for 2nd-degree murder (10 years).
Another reason for the U.S. to stop dragging its feet and try the guy fergawdsake! The longer they take, the less time he eventually serves, always assuming the 2-for-1 rule applies in his case.
The worst thing about this case is that now it lets his charming mother and sisters tear their hair and plead for public sympathy ... these are the same gals who went on national TV a couple of years ago talking about how proud they'd be if their sons or brothers became suicide bombers. Maybe we should turn it over to Children's Aid.


----------



## GAP (15 Jul 2008)

You are forgetting that "life" in the US, is not 25 years, but life....period


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Jul 2008)

Greetings valued members and guests!

This 'video' was all over the Australian media this morning.

Along with Harper's views too  ;D


Regards,


OWDU


----------



## riggermade (15 Jul 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> So.... anyone else have any interest in due process here, or am I the only one?



Did the guy he killed get his day?


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Jul 2008)

Hello to all warm and fuzzy members and guests.

In my opinion, this person has deliberatly taken the life of an American citizen, and is being held and will be tried by Americans. Its an American legal process, none of our business.

Let them brunt the bills, and not our taxpayers. He can rot in their gaols, not Canadian ones.

Being Canadian, and a Canadian terrorist for that matter, does not give one special conditions.

Meanwhile this video is getting plenty of play in Australia today. As I said in on another thread, and so are Harper's views into it.

Happy days,

OWDU


----------



## GAP (15 Jul 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Hello to all warm and fuzzy members and guests.
> 
> In my opinion, this person has deliberatly taken the life of an American citizen, and is being held and will be tried by Americans. Its an American legal process, none of our business.
> 
> ...



What's the Australian take on it....are they all teared up over the poor lad and ready to rip Harper a new one, or the opposite?


----------



## Matty Lowe (15 Jul 2008)

First of all Khadr wasn't a child soldier; international law only recognizes those under the age of 15 as child soldiers. Khadr was 15-year-old when he was captured. I hope the traitor is sentenced to SuperMax and lives to be at least 90 years of age.


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Jul 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> What's the Australian take on it....are they all teared up over the poor lad and ready to rip Harper a new one, or the opposite?



Don't know. Will advise  ;D


----------



## fire_guy686 (15 Jul 2008)

I hope they lock him up for good. I for one will never shed a tear for him.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Jul 2008)

Neil McKay, just checked my pocket.  Sorry, but I am all out of sympathy for him.  He has sown, so now it is time to reap the whirlwind.  He can rot for all I care.  To agree with his quote on the CBC site, "You don't care about me".  Too right, I don't!!!!! plus I won't apologise for my attitude either and that goes for the rest of his clan to boot.  And I would still feel the same if he was my Son, perhaps doubly so.


----------



## Neill McKay (15 Jul 2008)

riggermade said:
			
		

> Did the guy he killed get his day?



In most western democracies when you're thought to have killed someone you're put on trial, and if convicted you're send to jail for what may turn out to be the rest of your life.  But being locked up for six years without a trial isn't on.


----------



## FoverF (15 Jul 2008)

15 YEARS OLD!! I can't emphasize that enough. 

This boy's father put a gun into his hands at _15 years of age_ and sent him off to fight, and people are acting like the kid is Rudolph f***ing Hess. No one on this board would allow this kid to play contact hockey without a visor, and yet he's been held indefinitely without trial, has been subject to some form(s) of torture, and looks to be spending probably the rest of his life in a hole, whether or not he even gets his secret military tribunal. For something he did in grade 9. 

That is nothing short of a disgrace. 

I don't support or encourage what he did, and I'm not recommending that my 13 year old brother fly off to Afghanistan and shoot at western soldiers. I'm not vouching for this guy's character, and I'm not saying that he can rejoin society as a contributing member. I also don't expect many on this board to have deep sympathy for him, given that he was actively trying to kill people in your line of work. 

_But I'll be damned before I advocate putting a 15 year old BOY in solitary confinement until he DIES._ Especially when his 'war crime' is being in a firefight with occupying military forces without wearing a uniform. Ernst Kaltenbrunner was a war criminal. Radovan Karadzic is a war criminal. Khadr was a brainwashed junior high kid. If we ever catch Karadzic, how many nights do you think he'll have to sleep in the open on a cement pad in a chicken wire enclosure?  

If Alberta was overrun by an invading army of Islamic fundamentalists, intent on imposing the laws of their religion, and my father put a gun in my hands at 15 and told me to fight back, I probably would have done it in a heartbeat. Even if I wasn't living in Alberta at the time. You can all tear a strip up one side of me and down the other, but if I was in this kid's shoes, I probably would have done the exact same thing.


----------



## MedTechStudent (15 Jul 2008)

Ok, heres my controversial two cents.

I think that the international laws on underage offenders are a bit silly, and here is why.  It makes sense to have these laws in Countries where childhood is structured and mostly all kids develop the same way.  Which is to say you are born, grow up go to school, graduate, and then go to post-secondary, work, or maybe even the military.  Like Canada for instance, these laws make sense. 

In other parts of the world, kids are born, grow up and then learn how to kill people.  They learn how to shoot guns, fight battles, and throw grenades at an early age.  I mean I understand what these laws try to do but age is nothing more than a physical measurement.  Childhood takes on a much different meaning in other parts of the world.  Not too mention how short it can be in some places.  If this young man had the skills, knowledge, and desire to kill an American Soldier, I believe he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  His Dad should go away too in my opinion, but the fact that his father took him over there does not change the fact that he made the conscious decision to take a life. 

I also believe that the only reason this story is under the microscope is because he is Canadian National.  And people look at this like "wow we don't treat Canadians this way."  Strange how a piece of paper with your birthplace on it can cause so much controversy.  I am more than anything curious to know how this young man was raised.  Who he was taught to respect, what countries ideals he learned to follow, etc etc.  That would give a better picture on his moral state when he committed the act itself.  So many unanswered questions...

Cheers, Kyle.


----------



## Kaleigh72 (15 Jul 2008)

FoverF said:
			
		

> [/i] Especially when his 'war crime' is being in a firefight with occupying military forces without wearing a uniform.



I'm sorry but when did we become a country with an occupying military presence??? Oh that's right were not!  He was not in Canada protecting himself, he went over there with his father to fight the infidels.  All he would have needed to say was help I don't want to do this, and someone would have given him aid.  But he did not behave like a Canadian would or should behave. Now that it is convenient to be Canadian he is trying (as well as his lawyers) to play that card.  Was he raised in Canada? Did he not have access to the Canadian school system? He should have known on some level of what he was doing was wrong. If he had not been injured and caught do you think he would be claiming what a proud Canadian he is? I certainly don't.

Kaleigh


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Jul 2008)

FoverF said:
			
		

> That is nothing short of a disgrace.



Dear Mr Fover,

I don't think so, but why don't you tell that to the family of the soldier killed.

How anyone can have pity for a terrorist who thrives on our own blood, I will never understand.

Its really none of our business how the US deals with murdering terrorists who they have caught killing their soldiers.

Even the Canadian PM approves with this terrorist in question.

In their culture they also put 15 yr old boys in charge of battalions of grown men. They do not have the same values and morales as us, but I guess you have to live it to comprehend that.

Too bad they did not finish him on the battlefield, but thats hindsight, and thats always 20/20.

Thankyou for your time to post your view.

Happy days,

OWDU


----------



## TheHead (15 Jul 2008)

If this kid did throw the grenade that killed that American Medic he needs to be tried and punished.   He's only been accused though so I'm not going to pass judgment till he is tried.    It's going to be a bad day if this kid is found to not have killed that Man.   Combat is an amazing experience and it does weird things to mind and memory.


----------



## stegner (15 Jul 2008)

Guess what no one on this site was there when this event happened so we really don't know what the heck happened.  We are speculating at best.   However,  I think most members would agree that were they to screw up in the course of the military careers that they would be entitled to due process.


----------



## Haggis (15 Jul 2008)

Imagine, for a minute, that this kid had been freed into Canada in 2004 or so.  Now imagine, for a minute, that he'd linked up with the accused terroists in Toronto prior to 2006 and passed on his AQ acquired combat/teerorist/counterintelligence skills and knowledge.

Now imagine him throwing grenades in the House of Commons, with mom and sis in the visitors gallery cheering him on.

He's just fine right where he is.


----------



## stegner (15 Jul 2008)

Wow Haggis that's lots of speculation.   It ignores the fact the Toronto Cell was under constant CSIS, police and even DND surveillance and that the state would have not been monitoring Khadr after his release.  The Toronto Cell did not need a 15 year old teaching them-they had there own trainers, including a former CF reservists (who was also a double agents).  I can tell you have not been to Parliament recently as you seem completely unaware of the security there.  He should be punished for crimes if he is found guilty not for nonsensical theories.


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Guess what no one on this site was there when this event happened so we really don't know what the heck happened.  We are speculating at best.   However,  I think most members would agree that were they to screw up in the course of the military careers that they would be entitled to due process.



Dear Sir,

So you would rather have our tax dollars spent on this terrorist, who would soon kill you as much as me.

He killed a US soldier, was captured by the US, and is in US custody. Its really none of our business.

Its an American situation, in which is being treated like all others, who are detained in Cuba. he is getting no special treatment.

Thanking you for your opinion,

Happy days,

OWDU


----------



## Haggis (15 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Wow Haggis that's lots of speculation.



Yep, sure is, isn't it?  No worse than the Globe and Mail, though.



			
				stegner said:
			
		

> It ignores the fact the Toronto Cell was under constant CSIS, police and even DND surveillance and that the state would have not been monitoring Khadr after his release.



DND surveillance... really???  I never saw that memo.



			
				stegner said:
			
		

> The Toronto Cell did not need a 15 year old teaching them-they had there own trainers, including a former CF reservists (who was also a double agents).



Apparently they needed all the help they could get. They got caught.



			
				stegner said:
			
		

> I can tell you have not been to Parliament recently as you seem completely unaware of the security there.


  

Yes, I have.  In fact I run on and past Parliament Hill quite often during PT.  Now I ask you:  is that security not in response to this plot?



			
				stegner said:
			
		

> He should be punished for crimes if he is found guilty not for nonsensical theories.



"Nonsensical" is quite an adjective to ascribe to my theories which are, in fact, no wilder than some of those postulated by the MSM regarding Bush's GWOT and our "ineffective" role in it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jul 2008)

In WW2 and conflicts since then if you were a POW were you released after a set number of years ? Nope. Prisoners werent released until the war ended. Being a POW has no limitation on how long you are held. While these terrorists arent POW's they are being treated as such.Those that have been released have gone back to rejoin the fight. These are dangerous people who wont quit until they are dead. This is something people dont understand. The left wants people to think that a bunch of farmers were shipped off to Gitmo. Frankly if it werent important to get information from these guys I would favor a take no prisoners approach to the war on terror.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Jul 2008)

He was 13 when he entered a terrorist training camp, 15 when he was wounded and allegedly killed a US soldier. He was 16 when the video was shot. Holding him in solitary at Gitmo makes no sense, and is illegal by any international definition.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jul 2008)

So?


----------



## abo (16 Jul 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> In WW2 and conflicts since then if you were a POW were you released after a set number of years ? Nope. Prisoners werent released until the war ended. Being a POW has no limitation on how long you are held. While these terrorists arent POW's they are being treated as such.Those that have been released have gone back to rejoin the fight. These are dangerous people who wont quit until they are dead. This is something people dont understand. The left wants people to think that a bunch of farmers were shipped off to Gitmo. Frankly if it werent important to get information from these guys I would favor a take no prisoners approach to the war on terror.



Uh.. a POW is only required to provide date of birth, rank and serial number in accord with the Geneva conventions. These guys aren't getting POW treatment, if they were it wouldn't be an issue, Omar would have been put in a camp with his peers and he'd be stuck there until someone negotiated for his release or the war came to an end.

Western nations have traditionally treated POWS very well since it opens the door for reciprocal treatment of our own troops. Not to mention the ethics of it. But when we label people terrorist and then throw them in places like Gitmo, were giving up the moral high ground. 

In fairness organizations like Al-Qaeda are the ones who started it, they do the exact same thing they're just more degenerate about it. They label us infidels then chop off our heads. 

But its in our best interests to treat these guys like POWS or guerrillas, then at least we can demand the same treatment for our own boys, god forbid they ever end up in such a circumstance.  :-\


----------



## FoverF (16 Jul 2008)

Now, I have to agree with Wesley that this IS essentially an "American" problem. I'm not really interested that this kid is a Canadian citizen, or Pakistani, or Syrian, or Martian. It was an American that got killed, they caught the alleged killer, he's in their custody, it essentially IS an American matter. But that doesn't mean I have to like what they're doing, and I'm still entitled to object to it in the most thorough terms. 

I know sometimes boys have to become men in an awful hurry. But you can't say on one hand that he's a Canadian citizen who enjoyed all the benfits of our enlightened society, and is therefore a traitor, then on the other hand say he's fully responsible for his actions because he's a rough and ready mountain kid from Pakistan, responsible as a man at age 15. The answer as always lies somewhere in between, but somewhere in between is no grounds for sentancing a junior high kid to life in prison. 

My main problems with this case are these:
1) I don't think he's a war criminal. -there are real war criminals out there, and this kid isn't one of them. This is just BS to justify his extra-judicial punishment.  
2) I don't think he was a terrorist. - a terrorist uses violence and/or the threat of violence against civilian targets, with the intention of drawing public attention towards their political objectives. Khadr attacked armed military pers who were deployed on combat ops. He may have associated with terrorists in some capacity, but that's for a fair and legitimate trial to sort out. 
3) He is being treated worse than either a war criminal, or a terrorist.- both of these groups recieve timely trials. They are also kept in facilities that operate _within_ the law, rather than facilities who only exist for the purposes of subverting the law. 
4) He was a minor at the time of the offence. - seriously people, this kid was pulled out of middle school and sent to war.
5) He is being denied basic human rights, not to mention his rights as a Canadian. - people here say he is a traitor, who has renounced his Canadian citizenship, and all rights associated. I say them's aweful big words about someone who has never been allowed to set foot in a courtroom, and who has never been tried or found guilty of anything. 
6) He will never get a fair trial. - ever. I don't like that. Even if he is a total dick, and deserves everything he's got and will get. He should still get a trial. It's called the rule of law. It's a good thing. 

Omar Khadr spent half his life growing up with a family that is completely insane. Then his family sent him to die for Allah. Then he got shot, and he's spent the last six years in a chicken wire cage being beaten, sleep deprived, and interrogated. In my ideal hippy-loving world where everyone eats rainbows and shits butterflies, this unbelievably damaged individual would at least get a fair shake at a trial before we lock him in a cell for the rest of his natural life.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Jul 2008)

FoverF said:
			
		

> In my ideal hippy-loving world where everyone eats rainbows and shits butterflies.....



Dear Sir,

Thankyou for your humble patience in responding to my post.

Your quote pretty much sums it up, doesn't it.

I don't know where you get your defintion of terrorism from, but in the real world, terrorists don't descriminate between civilian and military targets. Anything is game. Anything to create instability, mayhem, and panic. In regards to how you define terrorism, then what did I get caught up in Iraq in?

I don't think his family was insane, thats just his family's beliefs, and there is millions to take his place worldwide, yes many other 'paper' Canadians at home who would fill his shoes to slit my throat, all in the blink of a fat lady's eye.

Please stay bound in, and wrapped up in cotton wool, in your hippie world with those rose coloured glasses on, you'll be safe there.

Peace, live long and prosper ole chum.

OWDU


----------



## meni0n (16 Jul 2008)

FoverF,

Canadian rights stop right at the border of Canada. Once you leave Canada, you are at the mercy of the judicial system of the country you are in. Unless you have actual proof he was in a chicken cage being beaten or sleep deprived everyday of his stay in Guantanamo, then it's just rumour and hearsay. At 15, I knew the right from wrong and sure as hell knew the consequences if I killed someone. Going over to a country not of your origin, not wearing any uniform and killing someone, let alone a soldier will have serious consequences. He is lucky the Afghans didn't want to try him and send him to an Afghan prison, as he commited crimes in their country. He would have been wishing he was where he is now. He is breathing, eating and treated well. What human rights are being violated here? Considering his is accused of murder.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jul 2008)

abo said:
			
		

> Uh.. a POW is only required to provide date of birth, rank and serial number in accord with the Geneva conventions. These guys aren't getting POW treatment, if they were it wouldn't be an issue, Omar would have been put in a camp with his peers and he'd be stuck there until someone negotiated for his release or the war came to an end.
> 
> Western nations have traditionally treated POWS very well since it opens the door for reciprocal treatment of our own troops. Not to mention the ethics of it. But when we label people terrorist and then throw them in places like Gitmo, were giving up the moral high ground.
> 
> ...



I suggest people who think this way do a bit of research.

POW's are tightly defined by the Geneva convention (any version), and the prisoners in Gitmo do not fit the definition of POW in any way shape or form. (Go on, Google it; I'll wait).

As for "demanding the same treatment for our boys", you only have to look at the fate of _anyone_; local, civilian, foreign contractor, foreign diplomat or military; who comes under the control of the Jihadis to realize how far from reality that sort of demand is. A swift death is about the best they can hope for, the more likely fate is to star in a snuff video for Al Jezzera or one of the thousands of Jihadi websites that pollute the Internet. We were "treated" to some Taliban propaganda videos while at KAF, so I saw what "they" consider to be "proper" treatment of people in their power.


----------



## Neill McKay (16 Jul 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Canadian rights stop right at the border of Canada. Once you leave Canada, you are at the mercy of the judicial system of the country you are in.



That's true.  However, the United States judicial system has, up to now, operated along lines similar to ours in that an accused person is tried in court without an unreasonable delay, and not simply thrown in jail.



> What human rights are being violated here? Considering his is accused of murder.



The right to due process of the law -- a fair and speedy trial.  Accused murderers have that right in every civilized country on the planet, including the United States.


----------



## 2 Cdo (16 Jul 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I am sure they won't release the entire video.  They will go through it looking for anything "bad" that they can piece together to make it look like the poor little lad is being treated extremely bad and that he only gave his answers under extreme distress and threat of life. Personally I am beginning to think the idea of take no prisoners is sounding better and better everyday.



5 to 10 minutes out of a 8 hour tape showing him whining and crying. : Boo f*cking hoo. Also seen Dallaire on the news this morning with his usual rhetoric and nonsense. I find it hard to believe that useless oxygen thief was ever a leader of soldiers.


----------



## 2 Cdo (16 Jul 2008)

Everyone who wants Khadr released always mentions that he was a Canadian citizen. Nobody ever mentions that the family has dual citizenship in some Arabic country (I honestly can't remember which one) and frequently travelled on the other passport. Maybe we should release him back to the other country whose passport was used to travel to terrorist training camps.


----------



## meni0n (16 Jul 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> That's true.  However, the United States judicial system has, up to now, operated along lines similar to ours in that an accused person is tried in court without an unreasonable delay, and not simply thrown in jail.
> 
> The right to due process of the law -- a fair and speedy trial.  Accused murderers have that right in every civilized country on the planet, including the United States.



He has not been jailed yet, he is awaiting trial. There has been thousands of people at the detention facility, which takes time to process. Legal proceedings have been dragged out but they started a while ago. His lawyers could have filed to dismiss charges on the grounds you mentioned so that point is moot. Would you prefer he would have stayed and be tried in the original country where he commited the crime or do you believe he's better off where he is right now?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2008)

First: while I share the general lack of sympathy for young Khadr and his family, both FoverF  and Neil McKay  raise important and *valid* points about basic civil/human rights and what I see as a worrisome lack of respect for those rights in the USA, right now.

Our rights only matter to the extent that we are willing to defend them for the most wretched and despised in our society. If Khadr's rights can be violated, for whatever reason, then ours are worthless.

With regard to consular access: here are the US rules - it appears that the US is disobeying its own rules.

Second: Mods - could this thread (which has little to do with *Military* Current Affairs & News, be merged with the Khadr thread in the Canadian Politics section, please?


----------



## GAP (16 Jul 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Everyone who wants Khadr released always mentions that he was a Canadian citizen. Nobody ever mentions that the family has dual citizenship in some Arabic country (I honestly can't remember which one) and frequently travelled on the other passport. Maybe we should release him back to the other country whose passport was used to travel to terrorist training camps.



During the Khadr family interview a couple of years ago it was mentioned that they have serially have had to have their passports replaced 5 times because they were "lost"....and we don't even track who comes into the country.....


----------



## 2 Cdo (16 Jul 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> During the Khadr family interview a couple of years ago it was mentioned that they have serially have had to have their passports replaced 5 times because they were "lost"....and we don't even track who comes into the country.....



I'm of the opinion that losing your passport once should involve an extremely lengthy interview with either the RCMP or CSIS. "Losing" it again should be dealt with by no further issue of a passport. Finding the "lost" passport in the possession of some undesirable trying to enter the country should result in jail time for both parties. Lastly, the Khadr family complete should be sent to some shithole anywhere outside of Canada never to set foot in our country ever again!


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jul 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> First: while I share the general lack of sympathy for young Khadr and his family, both FoverF  and Neil McKay  raise important and *valid* points about basic civil/human rights and what I see as a worrisome lack of respect for those rights in the USA, right now.
> 
> Our rights only matter to the extent that we are willing to defend them for the most wretched and despised in our society. If Khadr's rights can be violated, for whatever reason, then ours are worthless.
> 
> ...



According to the video he had consular access. What rights are being violated ? He gets three meals a day. He is in jail after all after attacking US troops he was shot and seriously wounded,this makes him an *enemy combatant*. Same as Johnny Lindh who as a US citizen got a 20 year sentence. All prisoners at Gitmo get the same basic rights.


----------



## CountDC (16 Jul 2008)

FoverF said:
			
		

> 15 YEARS OLD!! I can't emphasize that enough.
> 
> This boy's father put a gun into his hands at _15 years of age_ and sent him off to fight, and people are acting like the kid is Rudolph f***ing Hess. No one on this board would allow this kid to play contact hockey without a visor, and yet he's been held indefinitely without trial, has been subject to some form(s) of torture, and looks to be spending probably the rest of his life in a hole, whether or not he even gets his secret military tribunal. For something he did in grade 9.
> 
> ...



 Stop trying to place our values and believes on this.  In his world he was not a boy - he was a man and a soldier out to prove to his father, family, friends, etc that he was one. He made the choice as a man to go to this other country he considered more important than Canada and fight. He was wearing the uniform of the force he joined - the everyday clothes that allow them to run and blend in with the locals. He made his choice as a man now he should live with it - not Canada. I am tired of people going outside Canada, making choices that get them into trouble and then crying for the Government to bail them out. This is a matter for the US and Afghan government to resolve not Canada.


----------



## CountDC (16 Jul 2008)

abo said:
			
		

> Uh.. a POW is only required to provide date of birth, rank and serial number in accord with the Geneva conventions. These guys aren't getting POW treatment, if they were it wouldn't be an issue, Omar would have been put in a camp with his peers and he'd be stuck there until someone negotiated for his release or the war came to an end.
> 
> Western nations have traditionally treated POWS very well since it opens the door for reciprocal treatment of our own troops. Not to mention the ethics of it. But when we label people terrorist and then throw them in places like Gitmo, were giving up the moral high ground.
> 
> ...



Where is the WE in this - last I saw this was an AMERICAN thing not CANADIAN. We as Canadians do treat our POW's good - a lot better than they treat us.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> According to the video he had consular access. What rights are being violated ? He gets three meals a day. He is in jail after all after attacking US troops he was shot and seriously wounded,this makes him an *enemy combatant*. Same as Johnny Lindh who as a US citizen got a 20 year sentence. All prisoners at Gitmo get the same basic rights.



Not as I understand it - based upon what I have read/heard over the past couple of days. And I would be very happy to be corrected.

It appears (and those appearances may be Canadian officials covering their asses) consular access was denied. The DFAIT consular official who visited Khadr (the fellow who is heard on tape) was allowed in because he was listed as an intelligence officer. I hope that's wrong but, on the surface, it looks like the US denied consular access - contrary to its own rules.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2008)

By the way, the *correct* course of action for Canada is:

1. Await the outcome of the current legal process; and

2. Assuming Khadr is found guilty and sentenced to prison, repatriate him to a Canadian prison IAW the existing Canada/US agreement; or

3. If he is acquitted, allow him to return to Canada - he is, after all, a Canadian citizen; or

4. If he is convicted on some charges, sentenced, and then charged again with variations of the charges on which he was not convicted: demand his return to Canada to serve out his existing sentences.


----------



## meni0n (16 Jul 2008)

Why should he serve his time here when he is convicted over there? Let him serve it there.


----------



## Neill McKay (16 Jul 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> He has not been jailed yet,



He has been placed in some form of secure custody, whether we call it a jail, a prison, a camp, or a facility.  I don't think the name matters much for the purpose of this discussion.



> he is awaiting trial.  There has been thousands of people at the detention facility, which takes time to process.   Legal proceedings have been dragged out but they started a while ago.



*Six years*, we're talking about.  There is an obligation on the part of the US justice system to move with a certain amount of despatch, whatever number of people there are to process.



> Would you prefer he would have stayed and be tried in the original country where he commited the crime or do you believe he's better off where he is right now?



That's a very poor argument.  However much better off he is now, he's still being treated in a way that is inconsistent with the norms of a western justice system.  The fact that some countries have terrible justice systems (or none at all) does not justify a developed country ignoring any of its own long-standing principles.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What rights are being violated ? He gets three meals a day. He is in jail after all after attacking US troops he was shot and seriously wounded,this makes him an *enemy combatant*. Same as Johnny Lindh who as a US citizen got a 20 year sentence. All prisoners at Gitmo get the same basic rights.



What's different is that he's had no sentence because he hasn't been tried, for anything.


----------



## Niteshade (16 Jul 2008)

I have to disagree.



> 1. Await the outcome of the current legal process; and


Agreed.



> 2. Assuming Khadr is found guilty and sentenced to prison, repatriate him to a Canadian prison IAW the existing Canada/US agreement; or


If he is guilty, he should spend time in a US prison or more appropriately in an Afghani prison as that is where is "crimes" where committed. I do not support Canada shacking this kid up when he did not break the law on our soil. Why should taxpayers have to pay for his incarceration?



> 3. If he is acquitted, allow him to return to Canada - he is, after all, a Canadian citizen; or


Certainly. The charter of rights and freedom's permits a person with Canadian Citizenship to be allowed to come and go from our borders.



> 4. If he is convicted on some charges, sentenced, and then charged again with variations of the charges on which he was not convicted: demand his return to Canada to serve out his existing sentences.



I disagree - he needs to sort out any and all legal problems he has with other countries prior to coming here. Canada is not a safe haven for terrorists while they await foreign charges.

As a final note, I am not a fan of this kid or his family being allowed to stay here despite their ties to terrorist support.

Nites


----------



## rn_sapper (16 Jul 2008)

If found guilty, keep him at GITMO or send him to a US prison. I am sure the criminal element and strangly very patriotic inmates at a federal pen would love to say hi to him >.

As far as I am concerned, he is Persona non Grata. His passport should be revoked.

Now, what if he is found not-guilty..... well then deport him back to Afganistan. I am sure the "legal" system would be happy to take care of him for us.


----------



## Rodahn (16 Jul 2008)

Just a couple of questions for all of the posters here, 

1. How many of you witnessed the accused of throwing said grenade, that he is accused of?

2. Do you know for a fact that he was not coerced or under duress when the incident happened?

To the best of my knowledge nobody here can answer either yea, or nay to either. Everything else is simply speculation on our part.


----------



## Sine Pari (16 Jul 2008)

How convenient that Omar Khadr wants protection from the same system he set out to fight.

Lest we forget, SFC Christopher J. Speer, September 9, 1973 - August 7, 2002


----------



## RecDiver (16 Jul 2008)

In all honesty I do not care if anyone saw him throw it or not or that he was coerced or tricked or whatever. He was caught in a terrorist war zone. Period. He was not picked up in downtown Toronto. He was in a place where he should not have been and he now has to live its consequences.

Btw, we seem to be losing the sight of the fact that this whole Kadr family is playing the country like a violin. They live on our medical and humanitarian funds (with the compliments of my hard earned tax dollars) and keep on cursing us Canadians. 

Any party who can pass a special law to revoke the Citizenships of these groups of folks will have my forver support.


----------



## meni0n (16 Jul 2008)

Neil, he is being tried right now. His lawyers have been filing motions for dismissal and appeals for more than a year now. Just because you don't see a trial doesn't mean there isn't a legal battle going on. Secondly, if due process have been violated then his lawyers can file appropriate legal documents for that. He is still in detention, he gets to eat well and gets medical attention, contrary as to what he whines about.


----------



## Bograt (16 Jul 2008)

Yesterday, I politely interupted a conversation between two ladies standing in line at the Walmart. They were talking about the awful situation this individual was enduring. I said, "Excuse my interuption ladies, I would like to kindly remind you that Mr. Khadr would have cut your head off six years ago for being an infidel."


----------



## Matty Lowe (16 Jul 2008)

It's a shame we will never see him cry as he walks up to the hangman's scaffold.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2008)

What happens if, say, a Canadian commits a crime in the UAE for some strange reason. Do they get sent back to Canada or do they serve time in their prison?


----------



## Shec (16 Jul 2008)

As if to summarize the majority opinion over the 46 pages on this thread poor misguided little Omar himself said:

"You don't care about me "

I compliment you on your succinct and lucid assessment young man.


----------



## visitor (16 Jul 2008)

I viewed Khadr in the  videotape and instantly wondered "where have I seen that behavior before?" and then it came to me.  There are some populations of middle east and south Asian  families who have moved to No. America that  coddle their kids and have virtually no expectations  of them.  As  children (and especially the boys),  when a teacher asks them to do anything that is remotely challenging, like doing a puzzle, or buttoning their own coat, they often do the EXACT same thing Khadr is doing:  complaining their hand hurts, or you don't like them,  or something.  He even uses the EXACT same facial expressions.  Then the parents whisk them away, cuddlng them and  reinforcing their whines  and learned helplessness.   North American and European kids are not generally treated like that. (These are gross generalizations, mind you.)  When they grow up, they continue to have this "poor me" mentality whenever they  do not get what they want. It is really a shame that this cultural context is not a part of how most Canadians are thinking about this videotape. Khadr's behavior says more to me about how he responds to expectations, than to what the questioner is saying. A prosecuting lawyer would do well to get some video tape of  young kids  acting  like him when they are asked to do their homework or something and the comparison in court would be very powerful.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Jul 2008)

You are comparing incarceration and sleep deprivation as well as other stress techniques with a  child not being able to complete a puzzle or buttoning a coat. Either your frame of reference is extremely skewed (ie you found it so hard as a child to button a coat that you repeatedly chanted "kill me" when left alone), or you simply have zero empathy and think you could breeze through 5 years + at Gitmo, whatever the crime.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2008)

Mr. Khadr should be treated as a child soldier, as he was only 16 at the time.
I watched with some amusement this morning at Senator Dallaire berating the PM for the lack of action the government has taken on behalf of Omar Khadr. Were the Liberals not in power at some time in the last five years?
As for young Omar, let's bring the poor young lad home. Then pack him and his terrorist family up and deport them, ASP.

My son is about the same age as Mr. Khadr, and he's over there doing what needs to be done.


----------



## Blindspot (16 Jul 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You are comparing incarceration and sleep deprivation as well as other stress techniques with a  child not being able to complete a puzzle or buttoning a coat. Either your frame of reference is extremely skewed (ie you found it so hard as a child to button a coat that you repeatedly chanted "kill me" when left alone), or you simply have zero empathy and think you could breeze through 5 years + at Gitmo, whatever the crime.



Sleep deprivation, stress techniques... Sounds like exam week. Or worse, first-time parents. Where's the blood? Where's the scars? Bruises? Gimme a break.


----------



## NL_engineer (16 Jul 2008)

Matty Lowe said:
			
		

> It's a shame we will never see him cry as he walks up to the hangman's scaffold.



Well I think he should be trilled in Texas.  Express line for him, and no more of the Canadian media saying what a poor boy.




IMO our justice system would just let him go  :  They don't want to look bad in the court of public opinion  :


----------



## 2 Cdo (16 Jul 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> Sleep deprivation, stress techniques... Sounds like exam week. Or worse, first-time parents. Where's the blood? Where's the scars? Bruises? Gimme a break.



Using his baseline as a reference I am going to sue the Canadian government and the Canadian Forces for "torturing" me during my basic training, every exercise I was on and every tour I was on. :


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2008)

Sleep deprivation? Stress techniques? Sounds like TQ 6B Infantry......and a few other things too.


----------



## FoverF (16 Jul 2008)

Yeah, basic, six years in Gitmo, same diff...


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Jul 2008)

It boggles the mind to think that some would actually compare being a prisoner at Guantanamo for 6 years with a basic training course lasting what, all of 3-4 months? The prisoners at Gitmo have no idea if or when they will be released. They are subject to sleep deprivation and water boarding, and are kept in isolation for much of the time. No comparison.


----------



## visitor (16 Jul 2008)

It is impossible to address all factors in a small post. I  was not addressing the issue of Khadr as a child soldier or anything else he might have experienced that impacts on his case.  I was merely observing that the behavior and demeanor of Khadr  IN THE VIDEO is  identical to what  some children of his culture,  exhibit when under more innocuous forms of stress. Parents will then cuddle the child and take him away from the "mean" teacher who is trying to "torture" him by forcing him to do a puzzle. My point was,  using his behavior in the video as "proof" that he  has been tortured, is not reliable evidence, when many, many young boys of his culture behave the same way for far less  demanding expectations. We need better evidence  and to interpret his behavior within a cultural context.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2008)

Pile on oldsoldier for making a joke!

Me first!


----------



## Niteshade (16 Jul 2008)

Who cares about this punk kid.

6 years ago, just prior to his arrest, This kid would shoot/maim/kill any of us. His family are a large group of taliban supporters. He has been raised to think this is acceptable behavior, and as such followed in their footsteps. Even though he was 15 years old he was old enough to know killing is wrong.

Also, this "woe is me" garbage is a joke. He just doesn't like the hand he has been given as a result of his actions. I bet you he was expecting to be a martyr before imprisonment.

Sleep deprivation is mild in comparison to the trauma/pain he caused others.

Nites


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2008)

I wonder if some of you turned your sense of humour in. Can we not make jokes? Or is that not politically correct?

Tell you how I really feel. 

Its too bad that a few more Taliban weren't killed at the time Khadr was taken......get my drift?


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I wonder if some of you turned your sense of humour in. Can we not make jokes? Or is that not politically correct?
> 
> Tell you how I really feel.
> 
> Its too bad that a few more Taliban weren't killed at the time Khadr was taken......get my drift?



I caught it and that's all that matters OldSolduer 

I don't think many people disagree that what this shit head did was wrong.(Well some of you had some wacked out theories but you admit you live in a rainbow and butterfly filled world)

 His dip shit parents put him in a bad place and he has them to thank for where he is now.  Most of the arguments seem to be over legal mumbo jumbo. Whats a war criminal, whats a POW, whats a combatant.
Looks to me like his lawyers are trying to use his Canadian citizenship as a get out of jail free card. That's not on.  He attacked and killed our allies. He's bad. He should be punished, We all agree to that right? 
Give him to the host nation to punish. Good luck son.
If his family has ties to terrorists deport them.


----------



## North Star (16 Jul 2008)

I though the best part was his complaint that his eyes and feet didn't work when clearly they did. 

To me, he exhibits the same kinds of behaviours that a teen exhibits when hauled in front of an authority figure for a serious issue (ei - a young offender during an interview with a detective). I don't think it really shows any evidence of "torture". He is certainly messed up and has issues with his parents - the urinating on photographs shows that (as for his being used as a mop for urine and that as "torture", I think making him clean up his own mess is quite justified). 

Ultimately, I wouldn't mind if the government asked for him to be repatriated. But as a citizen, I want iron-clad guarantees:

1) He be detained on arrival;
2) He not be permitted contact with his family;
3) He be forced to undergo psychiatric treatment (de-programming) for the years of Al-Q stuff he was subjected to; and
4) Upon release, he be subjected to monitoring for a reasonable period.

Problem is, if he's repatriated before he is found guilty of anything, we can't do any of that. I'm not even sure if fighting for an enemy of Canada (and even if there is such a definition in this age) is a criminal offense that a minor can be charged with and detained for. That's why he has to stay at Guantanamo and face a military tribunal: he needs to be found guilty of something before we can take him back under "positive control" and get him the treatment he needs to mitigate the risk to the public. 

The solution to this issue in the future is to make it a criminal offense to fight for an enemy of an ally of Canada. I think Treason isn't used because of narrow legal interpretations that have been applied since the Second World War. Other legislation may need to be enacted to allow the state to detain child-soldiers on arrival back in Canada to determine their risk-level to the public. Given the state can detain alledged terrorists for ridiculously long periods of time without trial, it's not asking for much. 

This issue has come up again and again. Scumbags from the Balkans shot at us, and then returned to the comfort of Mississauga and Edmonton without reprecussion. It's about time we did something about it. Khadr should be used as a rallying point for people concerned about how multiculturalism appears to be trumping loyalty to Canada, and the springboard for further thought on how to deal with these complex issues.


----------



## Shec (16 Jul 2008)

North Star said:
			
		

> The solution to this issue in the future is to make it a criminal offense to fight for an enemy of an ally of Canada. I think Treason isn't used because of narrow legal interpretations that have been applied since the Second World War. Other legislation may need to be enacted to allow the state to detain child-soldiers on arrival back in Canada to determine their risk-level to the public. Given the state can detain alledged terrorists for ridiculously long periods of time without trial, it's not asking for much.
> 
> This issue has come up again and again. Scumbags from the Balkans shot at us, and then returned to the comfort of Mississauga and Edmonton without reprecussion. It's about time we did something about it. Khadr should be used as a rallying point for people concerned about how multiculturalism appears to be trumping loyalty to Canada, and the springboard for further thought on how to deal with these complex issues.



No  need to re-invent the wheel. Simply amend to toughen up and throw the Foreign Enlistment Act at 'em:

"Offence to enlist with a foreign state at war with a friendly state

3. Any person who, being a Canadian national, within or outside Canada, voluntarily accepts or agrees to accept any commission or engagement in the armed forces of any foreign state at war with any friendly foreign state or, whether a Canadian national or not, within Canada, induces any other person to accept or agree to accept any commission or engagement in any such armed forces is guilty of an offence. 

R.S., c. F-29, s. 3."

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-28/index.html


----------



## North Star (16 Jul 2008)

Lol..my bad Shec...I used an old Criminal Code and didn't even think to look elsewhere!

Yes, an amendment allowing a psychiatric evaluation of involuntary child-soldiers would be well worth adding.


----------



## Teeps74 (16 Jul 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> It boggles the mind to think that some would actually compare being a prisoner at Guantanamo for 6 years with a basic training course lasting what, all of 3-4 months? The prisoners at Gitmo have no idea if or when they will be released. They are subject to sleep deprivation and water boarding, and are kept in isolation for much of the time. No comparison.



Two points. 

First, TQ 6B is not, I say again, not a basioc course. It's full name of the time was TQ (QL) SIX BRAVO INFANTRY PLATOON SECOND IN COMMAND COURSE.

Second. Anyone who has actually taken this course would probably make the same tongue in cheek comment. Sleep depravation, stress positions, "death marches". Hey, got the t-shirt, been there done that.

The course is now known as DP3B INF PL2IC CRSE.

Now, I am no fan of the Khadr's. I think they are a family of Canadians of convience, and traitors. They should be tried, jailed and then deported.

Having said that, we live in a society of laws, rights, and justice. This is what makes our society, the better society then the one they envision for us. 

Following this, the kid is innocent until proven guilty. Even if he is guilty, he is a product of his up-bringing from his cursed family, and frankly, it should be his surviving parent (and any other surviving parental guardians/influencers) that should be doing the time for him, while he is deported. His father is rotting in hell, and I wish a pox on the surviving adults who still support the terrorist ideology of their father and al'Qaeda.


----------



## North Star (16 Jul 2008)

Oh yes, after having read bits of the Act I'd torque up the punishment for the offence to at least 15 years. As it currently stands 1 and 2 years (what the hell is "hard-labour" anyway?) seems really lame.


----------



## larry Strong (16 Jul 2008)

A little more on the interviews in today "Red Deer Advocate". Reproduced in accordance with the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act


http://www.albertalocalnews.com/reddeeradvocate/news/national/Omar_Khadr_shifty_sullen_self-pitying_on_CSIS_interrogation_tape.html



> Omar Khadr shifty, sullen, self-pitying on CSIS interrogation tape
> By The Canadian Press - July 15, 2008
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Niteshade (16 Jul 2008)

> “There’s nobody to help me here.”



Good.

Nites


----------



## GAP (16 Jul 2008)

I see CBC Radio is really playing up the "Bring Khadr Home" theme....to the point I just turned it off....


----------



## Brutus (16 Jul 2008)

Hi folks, new member here with a few very basic yet important questions re: Khadr.

1- What is the basis for the criminal charge of murder? What I am driving at is this: is it the fact that he was not a member of the recognized military of Afghanistan at the time the crucial bit here? 

2- My understanding is that he is being held in Gitmo under a general guise of being a terrorist, but specifically for the criminal charge of murder, and held as an unlawful combatant. Is that the general assumption?


----------



## NL_engineer (16 Jul 2008)

Well I finally got the chance to watch the videos.  They seem to be the most doctored crock of S*** that I have ever seen.


----------



## MedTechStudent (16 Jul 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Well I finally got the chance to watch the videos.  They seem to be the most doctored crock of S*** that I have ever seen.



Agreed, even though the video was a real tear jerker : ... it does not change my opinion that he deserves what he got and what he will get in the future.  I mean what is this video trying to prove?  That young people cry during Federal interrogation?  Well, yea so would I :-\.  It's not like its a video of him being water boarded, so what's the motive behind releasing them?


----------



## Neill McKay (16 Jul 2008)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> so what's the motive behind releasing them?



It was ordered by the Supreme Court, wasn't it?


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2008)

Can't we deem him a traitor or something and take away his citizenship?


----------



## aesop081 (16 Jul 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Can't we deem him a traitor or something and take away his citizenship?



No. If we do that he will apply for refugee status and get back in here.

 ;D


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Jul 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Can't we deem him a traitor or something and take away his citizenship?



Hi FD, greetings from the tropics. I hope your day is going well, and you are enjoying the northern summer.

I agree with you, but he is in US hands, and may never see life above the 49th again. Lets just hope that once justice comes, he is gaoled in the US for the rest of his life.

I don't buy the pity the 'child soldier crying for mommy' attitude for a heart beat of a flea. He's guilty. He was the only one alive in some rubble, where a grenade was thrown, killing a US soldier, unless dead people have reflexes that is. He knew what he was doing, it was no accident. It was a deliberate act towards Coalition Forces. The only downside to it all is he lived, and the press got hold of it, now we are all paying for it.  60 yrs ago, that pile of rubble would have been met by a flame thrower, with the result of crispy critters and good riddance. 

I don't think one can strip citizenship from another, like stripping a resident of his visa if he commits a crime, and ends up being deported. They do that here all the time.

Our citizens should and MUST realise that once they leave our borders, they are at the mercy of the country they are in. Look what happens when one returns to their country of origin and is drafted into their army.

An example - we in Australia have had Australian citizens executed for drug crimes in Singapore and other countries, such as Viet Nam. Nothing could be done, and as much as I can have empathy for their parents, they new the risks, and so should this terrorist in custody now. Other Australian citizens currently s rot in foreign gaols in 3rd world countries for more drug crime, and other offences. Our government's hands are tied, but there is an exchange programme in the works with Indonesia. 

Now, personally, I beleive that all new migrants, upon citizenship should be on an at least 10 yr good behaviour bond, and within that time, if one is charged with a significant crime, (less petty things and vehicle infractions), they and their families would be deported to whence they came. I think thats a fair go, and commands that newly appointed citizens be responsible and accountable for their actions.

This may curb some, but not all from straying, but if you are a radical extremist, one paper law is going to keep you from committing a terrorist act.


Happy days from a sunny and pleasnat winter's day,


OWDU


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (17 Jul 2008)

I've said from the start that these "extremists" must be held to another standard, they don't recognize any other authority, legal or otherwise but in their misguided Jihad beliefs. This in itself places them in a category all to itself. So I believe that we should also have a special place for these international criminals and terrorists just like Guantanamo Bay, which separates them from domestic legal systems and treats them exactly the way they should be treated. "Like animals" "Chattel". Because when they willingly decided to and participated in the brutal killings, executions, be headings and the merciless killing of babies, children, women and of the mentally ill or handicapped. "Did I leave anyone out?" They then became lower than "animals" and this is exactly how they should be treated. "Scum, puke, vomit or feces. They should have no rights, no day in court, no bail or no quarter for a phone call. These animals need to be sent a message and that message is, if you so choose to become one of these cowardly lowly terrorists, you will then be captured and sent to a place just like  Guantanamo Bay, were you will enjoy all the trappings of a person who for all intensive purposes, does not exist anymore. And how can someone who does not exist, have any rights?

To sum up Khadr should stay exactly were he belongs for the rest of his natural life, Guantanamo Bay. Myself, I would find an island somewhere remote, place them all on it and then nuke it.


----------



## Blindspot (17 Jul 2008)

I'm just imagining if Khadr was a white kid brought up by neo-nazis or Klan. I wonder how much sympathy he'd be getting right about now.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Jul 2008)

Lets bring poor Omar back, the poor young terrorist!! What's a poor terrorist to do, those mean CSIS and American agents!!
Bring the rotten little p@ick back, try him and deport him and his terrorist family!!

How hard is that to understand? And we actually have people saying he had a right to be in Afghanistan with terrorists!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> I'm just imagining if Khadr was a white kid brought up by neo-nazis or Klan. I wonder how much sympathy he'd be getting right about now.



It should must not matter that Mr. Khadr is white or brown or green. He is a Canadian. He is, therefore, entitled to all the rights available to any other Canadian, including the support of the Government of Canada when he is in trouble abroad.  Our rights and freedoms exist, for all of us, only to the degree that we are willing to defend them for the most wretched and despised amongst us. If we deny Mr. Khadr any right then we are saying that we expect that right to be denied to us all – and to our brothers and sisters, too. Neither the government nor thinking Canadians can ‘cherry pick’ rights, nor can we ‘cherry pick’ the people who are entitled to have their rights protected.

With specific regard to Mr. Khadr, as I understand the situation – any my understanding may well be faulty, he, like any Canadian is entitled, by law, to consular access and the Government of Canada must do its best to ensure that Mr. Khadr is treated ‘properly’ and in accordance with the laws of the country with which he is involved. The Government of Canada is obliged to ensure that he is not treated unfairly – according to the laws of the country concerned – just because he is a Canadian.

In the case of the USA, the law is less than clear to Americans. The US courts are littered with challenges to ‘Gitmo’ and the military tribunals, and, and, and ... the rulings, to date, have been inconsistent which means that some US judges appear to have concluded that some US officials have failed, in some part, to _“support and defend the Constitution of the United States”_ as those officials have sworn an oath to do. Thus, the six years in question are understandable – the US law is in flux. Khadr is not being treated differently from any other detainees just because he is a Canadian.  

As to the ‘child soldier’ issue: there are no binding agreements regarding what a child soldier is but the UN says _” 18 [is] the minimum age for direct participation in hostilities, for recruitment into armed groups, and for compulsory recruitment by governments. States may accept volunteers from the age of 16 but must deposit a binding declaration at the time of ratification or accession, setting out their minimum voluntary recruitment age and outlining certain safeguards for such recruitment.”_ The US says that it _”ratified the UN Optional Protocol on the Use of Children in Armed Conflict that makes the minimum compulsory recruitment age 18”_ so it appears that Khadr ought to be considered a child soldier – probably would be considered a child soldier if he was being held in a US jail, anywhere inside the USA, proper, awaiting trial in front of almost any US court. But, once again, if Mr. Khadr is being mistreated it is not because he is a Canadian – his US lawyers will, eventually, have access to the US Constitution to deal with that issue.

Regarding the tapes: Khadr’s lawyers admit that they are trying to influence public opinion in order to challenge the current policy regarding Khadr’s detention; they want him brought back to Canada before he can be required to answer any US charges. It is, I guess about the best legal strategy available to them. They are being actively supported by a huge share of the Canadian _commentariat_ who, regardless of how they see young Mr. Khadr and his clan, view George W Bush as public enemy number one and Stephen Harper as his evil apprentice.

It is neither the right nor duty of the Government of Canada to challenge US law. It is the duty of the Government of Canada to ensure that all of Mr. Khard’s legal rights are provided and protected.


----------



## GAP (17 Jul 2008)

> It is neither the right nor duty of the Government of Canada to challenge US law. It is the duty of the Government of Canada to ensure that all of Mr. Khard’s legal rights are provided and protected.



And essentially, they have been.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jul 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Hi FD, greetings from the tropics. I hope your day is going well, and you are enjoying the northern summer.
> 
> OWDU


Thanks  OWDU. Good post. I agree. Also our cheerful disposition even when speaking about such a little turd is an example to us all  

E.R. Campbell,
I thought the US was one of the only two countries in the UN who hasn't signed the child soldier act?
While they generally do not send soldiers overseas unless they are 18, they still wanted to retain the capability to send younger soldiers if the need arose?

This was brought up during a briefing where the speaker was pointing out child soldiers are just as deadly, sometimes if not more as their adult counter part. The first US soldier killed in Afghanistan was by 'child soldier'.
Was he mistaken about the US not signing the child soldier act?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> ...
> E.R. Campbell,
> I thought the US was one of the only two countries in the UN who hasn't signed the child soldier act?
> While they generally do not send soldiers overseas unless they are 18, they still wanted to retain the capability to send younger soldiers if the need arose?
> ...



*Dunno!* Thus all my _weasel-wording_ and appears etc. But the link I provided indicates that the US did sign, at least, the optional protocol in the UNICEF link.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jul 2008)

WRT child soldiers, the way I understand it the signatories are obliged to refrain from recruiting, training or deploying children _for their own armed forces_ (although I could be wrong).

As well, the wording of the document is very similar to the way "soldiers" are defined by the Geneva convention. Omar Khadar (like his AQ counterparts anyplace on Earth) does not fall under or conform to the definition of "soldier" as spelled out in the Geneva conventions or implied in other documents such as the UN one quoted earlier. Omar Khadar is an illegal combatent by definition, and the big question in law is how to deal with this category of person. _How_ he came to be involved as an ilegal combatent against the Alliance may be questioned (was he brainwashed by the AQ, for example? Was his behaviour in Afghanistan voluntary or coerced?), and these questions should probably be explored by a court or tribunal.

I have very little sympathy for the family, however. They have chosen to publicly speak and act against Canada and Canadian law while at the same time demanding all the protections and privilages of citizens. If they don't like Canada, they are quite free to leave. Perhaps some Islamic paradise where Mrs Khadar is forced to remain housebound and silent under threat of severe beatings or death at the hands of male relatives would be more to her taste? (The irony of that "desired" end state by female Islamic radicals who blog on the Internet or speak in public in defense of their incarcerated menfolk is just overwhelming).


----------



## axeman (17 Jul 2008)

Boo Frickety Hoo. Let the  sap burn. I dont see any tears being shed for Daniel Pearl and many others that have been taken by his comarades, when they beheaded and mutilated them . If the bleeding hearts wanna lose sleep over someone like him who knew what he was doing when he was captured in a warzone with proven links to terrorists.. / freedom fighters. You wanna Fight ,you know some one lives and some one dies . I'll pay the 2 bucks for a round  and clean the  rifle after putting one into him. All this blaming someone else makes me sick at what point does one become responsible for his own actions...  screw him , he knew what he was doing ... if he doesnt get the death penalty  let him rot in jail.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jul 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *Dunno!* Thus all my _weasel-wording_ and appears etc. But the link I provided indicates that the US did sign, at least, the optional protocol in the UNICEF link.



I never read the link, I'll take a look.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Jul 2008)

I am surprised that people who have seen this image would doubt Khadar's guilt. If he had been in school in Canada he wouldnt be in Gitmo today. If Khadar was innocent how come he was shot during a firefight with US troops ? The kid is not innocent and must pay the piper. How long should he be sentenced for ? Twenty years is a good round number. These taliban/aq killers are so brainwashed or so committed to the cause that once they are released they will be back in the fight. We have seen this with previous Gitmo residents and even with the Kandahar jail break. I hate to say it but these fanatics need to be killed not captured. Locking them up doesnt work. Sounds like our civilian prison system.  



_Edited to fix link_


----------



## wannabe SF member (18 Jul 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I hate to say it but these fanatics need to be killed not captured. Locking them up doesn't work. Sounds like our civilian prison system.



Not sure I agree with you on this one. While calling these men regular criminals would be an understatement, there is no doubt that they are our prisoners and our responsibility.
We keep them because our values make it so, we're better than them and we prove it by feeding and providing the ones who fought us with a fair trial. What do they do? They behead and torture and commit all manners of atrocities. We're better than them and our treatment of prisoners prove it.

Besides, seeing the state in which khadr was during his interrogation(providing he wasn't faking) made it seem like he was pretty unhappy already.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Jul 2008)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> Not sure I agree with you on this one. While calling these men regular criminals would be an understatement, there is no doubt that they are our prisoners and our responsibility.
> We keep them because our values make it so, we're better than them and we prove it by feeding and providing the ones who fought us with a fair trial. What do they do? They behead and torture and commit all manners of atrocities. We're better than them and our treatment of prisoners prove it.
> 
> Besides, seeing the state in which khadr was during his interrogation(providing he wasn't faking) made it seem like he was pretty unhappy already.



Hi TIin,

Greetings and gooddiddly day,

You can't train cancer cells to be good, finatics are cancer, and must be destroyed. I have seen what they can do up close, smelled it, and tasted the fear.

Gitmo is not our responsibility, nor this the captured terrorist in question. Its all a matter of another country, the USA.

I am not saying destroy them once captured, thats murder, but they must be kept behind bars for life, any others on the battlefiled which are killed, well, so be it. There is a difference between killing and murder.

A leopard doesn't change its spots, never.

I do hope you are having a most pleasant evening, oops its morning in Canada now, just coming up 1900 here on a Friday nacht.

Happy days,

OWDU

His point is very valid.


----------



## McG (18 Jul 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If he had been in school in Canada he wouldnt be in Gitmo today.


There is no law prohibiting school aged children from leaving Canada, and there is no law prohibiting school aged children from being in Afghanistan.  The issue is not that Khadr was not "in school in Canada."  The issue is not even that he was in Afghanistan.  The issue is specifically his goals and activities while in Afghanistan.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If Khadar was innocent how come he was shot during a firefight with US troops ?


Innocent people have been shot during firefights involving insurgents & ISAF/OEF forces.  It is unfortunate, but it happens and is probably unavoidable.  While your picture is a wonderful emotional tool, it does not prove anything one way or another.



			
				Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Gitmo is not our responsibility, nor this the captured terrorist in question. Its all a matter of another country, the USA.


As Edward has pointed out, this is not true.  The Canadian Government has certain responsibilities for all of its citizens and (like it or not) Khadr is a Canadian citizen.

At the same time, I've not seen much (if anything) to prove "terrorist" applies to Khadr.  Yes, he did fight as an insurgent but (despite the fact that insurgent forces may employ terrorism) not all insurgents have involvement in terrorism.  In this case "terrorist" is just an emotionally charged word intended to win an argument without the need for facts to get in the way.

It seems that many will scream quite loudly when the left substantiates its positon on emotion as opposed to fact.  Yet, here many of the same faces seem ready to toss asside our values based largely on emotional arguments.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I hate to say it but these fanatics need to be killed not captured.


Absolutely not, and you know better.  We do not win by abandoning our values & becoming the worst of what our enemy is.



			
				Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> I am not saying destroy them once captured, thats murder, but they must be kept behind bars for life, any others on the battlefiled which are killed, well, so be it. There is a difference between killing and murder.


This does sound more reasonable to me.  The insurgent exists in some grey area between combatant and criminal (note: terrorists are not in this grey area as they are all the way into the criminal).  Once identifed as an insurgent by a competent tribunal, pers should be subject to longer incarcerations (with the potential for indefinate) and more restrictive release mechanisms.


----------



## 2 Cdo (18 Jul 2008)

If the US had just called them POW's from the start, then they would have been able to hold them, without trial, until the War on Terror was over. Be that 5 years or 50 years!


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Jul 2008)

> If he had been in school in Canada he wouldnt be in Gitmo today.
> There is no law prohibiting school aged children from leaving Canada, and there is no law prohibiting school aged children from being in Afghanistan.  The issue is not that Khadr was not "in school in Canada."  The issue is not even that he was in Afghanistan.  The issue is specifically his goals and activities while in Afghanistan.



I guess you missed my point. Normal kid stays in Canada goes to school,the mall and maybe has a part time job.Instead he is a jihadist at what 15 years of age ? Takes up arms against an ally of Canada. Thats not normal nor can it be condoned - at least by me.


----------



## KevinB (18 Jul 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I guess you missed my point. Normal kid stays in Canada goes to school,the mall and maybe has a part time job.Instead he is a jihadist at what 15 years of age ? Takes up arms against an ally of Canada. Thats not normal nor can it be condoned - at least by me.



It would also be against Canada as Canada had comitted to the Afgan mission as part of the 9/11 responce package.

Kadr is thus a traitor - I would hang him from the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill, and that would be Canadian nationalism in action.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jul 2008)

I also think we had troops in Afghanistan at the time, so it was perhaps only by chance that he missed engaging our guys.


----------



## stegner (18 Jul 2008)

Let's see after the Second World War did Canadian servicemen and women go around rounding up Hitlerjugend to be hanged from the Peace Tower?  (Now that's ironic; even more so then no fighting in the war room a la Dr. Strangelove).  Or did we try to rehabilitate them?  Did we doom them to death or criminality because they were influenced by very bad adults?  Or did we invoke an element of humanity that distinguishes us from our foes and transform that generation to one of the most successful German generations ever.   Despite the most macho assertions we can't kill all the extremists-we don't have enough bullets.    Again, no one here knows what exactly what occurred and the degree of guilt of young Khadr.   Could he have killed the medic?  Sure.  Could the medic been killed by someone else and even friendly fire as some claim?  Possibly.   Let's not condemn him without knowing all the evidence as that sounds like something like our foes would do.   Can we intervene in this situation?  Sure. Britain and other NATO allies have extricated their citizens from Gitmo and dispensed their justice.   Should we?   Not up for me to decide.  But, if the U.S wants to claim itself as the beacon of freedom to the world they should realize that this should reflected in their political system and not merely serve as empty platitudes.   Keep in mind that Khadr's lawyer is an American and a military officer-not just some hippie civilian.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jul 2008)

We (the Western Allies) did go after major war criminals. A Canadian court martial sentenced Kurt Meyer to death for the murder of Canadian prisoners by troops under his command early in Normandy when he was commanding 25 SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment. After the war the British tried and executed the CO of 2nd Battalion 26 SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment and one of his officers for the murder of other Canadian prisoners. I also believe that at least one Japanese guard was tried and convicted for mistreatment of Canadian prisoners of war. The main reasons we didn't go after more members of the Hitler Youth Division had nothing to do with humanity; the ones that escaped prosecution either had been killed, were unidentified or evaded successfully. In other words, we couldn't apprehend them.

I want to stress that fighting hard and/or being a brutish thug are not war crimes. In my opinion most of the members of 12 SS Panzer Division were not war criminals. There were, however, a significant minority including officers and NCOs that were.


----------



## stegner (18 Jul 2008)

Old Sweat you are off the mark. 

From wikipedia:
_
The Hitler Youth was disbanded by Allied authorities as part of the Denazification process. Some HJ members were suspected of war crimes but - as they were children - no serious efforts were made to prosecute these claims. While the HJ was never declared a criminal organization, its adult leadership was considered tainted for corrupting the minds of young Germans. Many adult leaders of the HJ were put on trial by Allied authorities, and Baldur von Schirach sentenced to twenty years in prison. He was however convicted of crimes against Humanity for his actions as Gauleiter of Vienna, not his leadership of the HJ._
_
Despite this, several notable figures have been "exposed" by the media as former HJ Youth members. These include Stuttgart mayor Manfred Rommel (son of the famous general Erwin Rommel); former foreign minister of Germany Hans-Dietrich Genscher; philosopher Jurgen Habermas; and the late Prince Consort of the Netherlands Claus von Amsberg.

In April 2005 the media reported that Pope Benedict XVI had, as 14-year old Joseph Ratzinger, been a HJ member. The German government's response was that compulsory membership of the HJ had little bearing on the pope's religious convictions or on his ability to lead the Roman Catholic Church._


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jul 2008)

I am not off the mark. I am specifically talking about the actions of 12 SS Panzer Division in combat in Normandy, and not about members of the youth group and their leaders in civilian life.


----------



## stegner (18 Jul 2008)

> The main reasons we didn't go after more members of the Hitler Youth Division had nothing to do with humanity; the ones that escaped prosecution either had been killed, were unidentified or evaded successfully. In other words, we couldn't apprehend them.



On this you are off the mark.  Consider this:



> The Hitler Youth was disbanded by Allied authorities as part of the Denazification process. *Some HJ members were suspected of war crimes but - as they were children - no serious efforts were made to prosecute these claims.* While the HJ was never declared a criminal organization, its adult leadership was considered tainted for corrupting the minds of young Germans. Many adult leaders of the HJ were put on trial by Allied authorities, and Baldur von Schirach sentenced to twenty years in prison. He was however convicted of crimes against Humanity for his actions as Gauleiter of Vienna, not his leadership of the HJ.


----------



## NL_engineer (18 Jul 2008)

Stegner, all tho child soldiers, they were part of the German Military, thus in turn LEGAL COMBATANTS.  Mr. Khadr on the other hand was part of a group of insurgents, thus he is an  ILLEGAL COMBATANT.  There is a big difference between the two.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jul 2008)

You obviously don't or won't understand the difference between a Waffen SS Division in battle and a civilian youth organization. Please stop dragging the latter into the argument. If you wish to do some reading into the division's atrocities in Normandy a good source is Conduct Unbecoming: The Story of the Murder of Canadian Prisoners of War in Normandy by Howard Margolian.

Back to the aim of this thread and sorry for the hijack. I suggest that Khadr's defence team may, repeat may, think that its case is weak. This could account for its attempts to politicize the case and to get him returned to Canada. A trial in Canada, either as a young offender or an adult, would likely either result in an acquittal or a conviction with a number of questionable points of law that could lead to a successful appeal. It could also be just delaying tactics in the hope that policy will change, the camp will be shut down, an amnesty will be declared or any other numbers of possibilities.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> On this you are off the mark.  Consider this:



Sorry, but it is you who is off base.

The HJ like every other NAZI *organization* was disbanded in 1945. The people who had been members of those organizations were a whole other problem. Many did not wait around for allied troops - they ran away, hoping they could blend in, back home, and avoid whatever consequences their individual actions might have allowed or required.

For example: some of the young men in 12.SS-Panzer-Division _Hitlerjugend_ might well have committed war crimes - when they were 18 years old - and some might well have escaped punishment simply by running away and hiding out at mommy's house.

Since you referenced a _Wikipedia_ article, you might want to consider this one.


----------



## Danjanou (18 Jul 2008)

Ok is anybody else finding it amusing that someone is engaging OS on actions in Normandy and using wikipedia as his source? :

careful OS he may start misciting certain books on the battle to prove his point.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jul 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ... I suggest that Khadr's defence team may, repeat may, think that its case is weak. This could account for its attempts to politicize the case and to get him returned to Canada. A trial in Canada, either as a young offender or an adult, would likely either result in an acquittal or a conviction with a number of questionable points of law that could lead to a successful appeal. It could also be just delaying tactics in the hope that policy will change, the camp will be shut down, an amnesty will be declared or any other numbers of possibilities.



Indeed; that is exactly what his Canadian lawyers have said. They expect him to be allowed full due process (a fair trial) under whatever processes pass muster in the USA (still not quite clear), and they expect him to be convicted on at least some of the charges. Their goal is to avoid that result by pressuring the Canadian government to seek his repatriation before he can be convicted of anything. Their action, in Canada, is 100% political because there is no legal case for Kadhr to answer here.

As I have said before: the Government of Canada is acting correctly - Kadhr is in trouble in a foreign country; the Government of Canada is duty bound to monitor his situation with the aim of ensuring that his Canadian citizenship does not interfere with due process in the foreign country. In other words, so long as Kadhr is not treated differently, at law, from other detainees *just because he is a Canadian* then his 'rights,' as a Canadian, have been protected by Canada. After he is convicted, if he is convicted, then, presumably, he can apply for repatriation to serve his prison term in Canada - as can other Canadians gaoled in the USA.


----------



## stegner (18 Jul 2008)

The HJ left no records for the Allies to find?  When the Abwehr, SS, Gestapo and every other Nazi organization including the concentration camps did. Highly unlikely!   My point is that the Allies did not try the children of the HJ precisely because they were children not because they could not find them.  Absurd!  Many of these folks were drafted, drafting requires paper work-lots of it.  The Germans left lots and lots of paperwork on the HJ and lots else.   If the Allies wanted to track them down they could have.  

The HJ was a civilian organization?  Certainly not-they were paramilitary.  Not too many civilian organizations send folks or children into battle with guns.  Look at any book on the Battle of Berlin-they will mention the activities of youths pressed in to service.     

I never talked about Normandy. In fact, I never mentioned the 12 SS Division until now.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jul 2008)

Nice try, but the Battle of Berlin was a case of defence of the homeland. Once again you are obsfucating the issue. The members of the Hitler Youth were children and there was nothing to be gained in prosecuting them after the war. There was a reason for going after those who had committed war crimes, which as I said, included members of the 12 SS Panzer Division. They were sought because of their alleged actions, not because of their membership in an organization. 

I suspect many of their elders with less than clean hands were relieved to find that the Allied governing nations (in the three western zones at least) were willing to let minor Nazis not implicated in war crimes off the hook in the name of rebuilding Germany.


----------



## stegner (18 Jul 2008)

But the obfuscation is coming from the linking of Khadr with war crimes committed by the HJ.  I was trying to demonstrate that what Khadr did was by no means a war crime, but comparable to what HJ were doing at the Battle of Berlin-not the war crimes committed by the 12 SS Panzer Division.  After all, the Taliban was once the sovereign government of Afghanistan, even after 9/11.  Could his actions not be seen as a defense on a homeland from a Taliban perspective?   This being said, would Khadr be comparable to a minor Nazi, such as a German youth under 18 who joined the HJ voluntarily or was brainwashed into doing so?  If so, why the difference in treatment?   That was my point.  Sorry that we have taken such a roundabout way to get here.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jul 2008)

I think OldSweat has made his point. The German HJ fought in uniform, and were recognized as combatants. Mr. Khadr fought as an insurgent, non uniformed.


----------



## GAP (18 Jul 2008)

stegner if you want to divert to talking about the SS etc., start another thread, that is not the issue here


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jul 2008)

If you want to link Khadr to the defence of Berlin, remember that neither he nor the Hitler Youth were members of an accepted military organization, and therefore were subject to the interpretation of their status by the winners. (Personally I think he should have been treated as a prisoner of war, but my feeling have no bearing on what will happen to him.)


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Jul 2008)

Two posts at _Daimnation!_ (usual copyright disclaimer for newspaper quotes):

Problems with prosecuting Omar Khadr
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011551.html

The Khadr options
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011557.html

And the foreign service officer involved at Guantanamo is noticed by the press (the foreign first, oddly):

Omar Khadr, the child soldier of Guantanamo, interrogated in his cell
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4339958.ece



> ...An official report made public yesterday [July 15] said that Jim Gould, a Canadian Foreign Ministry official who questioned Mr Khadr in 2004, considered him a “thoroughly screwed-up young man”. The diplomat also criticised the United States, saying: “All those persons who have been in positions of authority over him have abused him and his trust, for their own purposes. In this group can be included his parents and his grandparents, his associates in Afghanistan and fellow detainees in Camp Delta and the US military...



Ex-diplomat denies Khadr charges
'He was happy as a little clam . . . having fun'
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1068128.html



> A former Canadian diplomat whose cloak of obscurity has been ripped away by new insights into the treatment of Omar Khadr said Thursday he feels somewhat demonized for his fact-finding visits to the controversial Guantanamo Bay prisoner.
> 
> In an interview from Ottawa, Jim Gould was adamant neither he nor anyone else at the Department of Foreign Affairs requested, endorsed or acquiesced to American abuse of the teen.
> 
> ...



Disclosure: I know Mr Gould, a very bright and caustically honest man--with great knowledge relevant to the Islamism problem plus good Arabic.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Jul 2008)

OK, I have to differentiate between the Hitler Youth ("Hitlerjugend") and the 12th SS Panzer-division "Hitlerjugend".  
The former was an organisation in Germany during the period known as the third empire ("das dritte Reich").
The latter was an SS tank division whose soldiers ("Other ranks") were largely volunteers who had (naturally) come from the Hitler Youth Organisation.  Its NCOs and Officers, however, were battle-hardened veterans of the East Front.


> The origins of the 12. SS-Panzer-Division Hitlerjugend can be traced back to late 1942 and early 1943. In all probability, the idea to create a "Hitlerjugend" division was first tabled by SS-Gruppenführer Gottlob Berger for Hitler's consideration sometime in January of 1943. His vision called for the drafting of all HJ members who were born in 1926 and assigning them to a "Hitlerjugend" combat formation. Hitler liked the proposal and ordered Berger to commence organizing the division. The official order was issued on the 10th of February, 1943. Berger, probably thinking that, because the "HJ division" was "his" idea, nominated himself to be the first divisional commander of "Hitlerjugend". Much to everyone's amusement, Himmler politely declined Berger's candidacy a week later. Himmler gave that duty to SS-Oberführer Fritz Witt instead; a former HJ member.
> 
> In April of 1943, Hitler signed off on a number of additional decrees relating to the formation of the "Hitlerjugend" Panzergrenadier-Division; though it need be noted that Joseph Goebbels has serious reservations about the whole undertaking. One of Hitler's provisions called for the German Reichsarbeitsdienst (RAD) to release a number of HJ members for immediate transfer to the new embryonic HJ Panzer Grenadier Division. A number of pre-requisites however had to be met before a final transfer to the HJ division was officially approved:
> 
> ...


Source:  http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1963


----------



## Blindspot (18 Jul 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> If you want to link Khadr to the defence of Berlin, remember that neither he nor the Hitler Youth were members of an accepted military organization, and therefore were subject to the interpretation of their status by the winners. (Personally I think he should have been treated as a prisoner of war, but my feeling have no bearing on what will happen to him.)



It's funny when the left thinks it's absurd to compare the war on terrorism with fighting Nazis in WWII.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (19 Jul 2008)

Just read a book by Marc Sageman titled Leaderless Jihad http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14390.html

This guy is among the top of the pile looking at who the Jihadi`s are - states that the front end of the movement in contact with friendly troops are rarely aware of the issues on either side. Goes into quite a lot of detail on this.

Now with regard to Omar Khadr - my point - despite what he may have done - he equates to a piece of equipment in that he may not be able to think through why he was captured, now or when he was captured. 

Hence they probably have a useless inmate - can`t use him, must warehouse him. The CSIS video shows either an Ultra Operative of the other side - or a stooge - and so was probably useless to either side of the question.

The PM's sentiments of he did stuff and must go through the process....... are meaningless, closer to a civil case?, where the law? is blind. If there is a law it should be applied to him and then rehab - if possible. No way you say? We brought the FLQ Terror Fools to a Judge. 

Bringing him back probably easy - but then we get into the home base issues - let my kid out of Jail! You'd have a non-stop circus on the go in Toronto with the Black Clad Designer Glasses Home base team and the Douchebags who line up with them vs the government.

Catch 22 for all if ever there was one. A competant enemy he was not, dangerous yes, but like a land mine that has to be dis-armed. 

Now what to do?

Some searching on the law.gc.ca website shows (and its not exhaustive) - I ain't in the legal game so I have no opinion
See the Security of Information Act ( R.S., 1985, c. O-5 ) at link below

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowTdm/cs/O-5//20080719/en?command=home&caller=SI&search_type=all&shorttitle=Security%20of%20Information%20Act%20&day=19&month=7&year=2008&search_domain=cs&showall=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50

extract 

Security of Information Act ( R.S., 1985, c. O-5 ) 

OFFENCES
Prejudice to the safety or interest of the State

3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, a purpose is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State if a person 

(a) commits, in Canada, an offence against the laws of Canada or a province that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of two years or more in order to advance a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause or to benefit a foreign entity or terrorist group;

(b) commits, inside or outside Canada, a terrorist activity;

.........

(e) endangers, outside Canada, any person by reason of that person’s relationship with Canada or a province or the fact that the person is doing business with or on behalf of the Government of Canada or of a province; 

(f) damages property outside Canada because a person or entity with an interest in the property or occupying the property has a relationship with Canada or a province or is doing business with or on behalf of the Government of Canada or of a province;

(m) contrary to a treaty to which Canada is a party, develops or uses anything that is intended or has the capability to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people by means of 

(iv) an explosion; or

 does or omits to do anything that is directed towards or in preparation of the undertaking of an activity mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (m).

Harm to Canadian interests

(2) For the purposes of this Act, harm is caused to Canadian interests if a foreign entity or terrorist group does anything referred to in any of paragraphs (1)(a) to . 
R.S., 1985, c. O-5, s. 3; 2001, c. 41, s. 27.

See table of contents and OFFENCES - note areas where it  relates to outside of Canada

Now - the question - was he competetant? - could he think through the consequences of his actions or was he a pawn?

My conclusion - bring him back - pay scads of $ to high sounding leeches in the legal system - and see what happens.

Its a bit of a harder question than "let him rot."


----------



## North Star (19 Jul 2008)

My question is, why risk bringing him back for a trial when the Americans will do it for us?

If he's found guilty, then we get him back as part of a prisoner repatriation. If they let him go, we use the Statute you just posted to give it another go (a different offence than murder, in another sovereign's jurisdiction).


----------



## 54/102 CEF (19 Jul 2008)

North Star said:
			
		

> My question is, why risk bringing him back for a trial when the Americans will do it for us?
> 
> If he's found guilty, then we get him back as part of a prisoner repatriation. If they let him go, we use the Statute you just posted to give it another go (a different offence than murder, in another sovereign's jurisdiction).



The idea of an American precedent to try them seems to be iffy - if it wasn`t `the other foreign nationals that have been repatriated may still be there... I understand Khadr is the last in the line of losers still held. Curious that there`s a coalition to fight but not a coalition to clean up the puzzle pieces.

I see the following 

If a National law is on the books, and a citizen of the Nation breaks it - then the government is bound - like any Soldier or officer to do what they signed up to do - and cannot shirk its duties because its inconveniant - note this started with the Liberals

In my opinion the govt has to take control of him, examine him, and try him to prove he was fully aware of what he was doing - if he's found to be not accountable by reason of incapacity to understand what he was involved in - then it gets very hazy...... maybe they don't want to do this because their analysis suggests he'd get off.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (21 Jul 2008)

Earlier I wrote



			
				54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> If a National law is on the books, and a citizen of the Nation breaks it - then the government is bound - like any Soldier or officer to do what they signed up to do - and cannot shirk its duties because its inconveniant -* note this started with the Liberals*



Now we have the Right Hon Ex PM Martin diving into the swamp

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080720.wmartin21/BNStory/National/home

There is absolutely nothing like being Ready to do your duty after you`re no longer able to if you were ever willing to


----------



## sboatright (21 Jul 2008)

Paul Martin apparently has a soft spot for terrorists:

1990 - looks for support from International Sikh Youth Federation (identified as terrorist group by CSIS)
2000 - attends $1,000 plate fundrasier for Tamil Tigers
2008 - rallies for Omar Khadr


There's a disturbing pattern here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jul 2008)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Earlier I wrote
> 
> Now we have the Right Hon Ex PM Martin diving into the swamp
> 
> ...



Yup. Just another hot button issue that the libs can try and make political hay out of. This has nothing to do with Khadr, and everything about the libs standing opposite of Harper and trying to show themselves as still having influence in politics. Waffling gits with no backbone or honour. But Paul Martin? That's like the last time Joe Clark tried to reenter the fray. Totally ineffective and inconsequential. Washed up has beens with no cred. Guess they figure it's better to have an expendable patsy, in case it blows up in their face.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jul 2008)

Here's what CSIS is saying about the interviews in the recently-released tapes.....



> *Canadian Security Intelligence Service - 2003 Interviews with Omar Khadr - Media Coverage*
> Ottawa, July 21st, 2008
> 
> Information relating to interviews of Omar Khadr by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service CSIS and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) were recently released to Mr. Khadr’s legal counsel, following rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada in May 2008, and by the Federal Court of Canada in June 2008.
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2008)

Now what are the chances the mainstream media outlets will pick this up and publish it?


----------



## CountDC (23 Jul 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Now what are the chances the mainstream media outlets will pick this up and publish it?



about as good as me becoming PM in the next 5 minutes.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jul 2008)

Maybe less....


----------



## stegner (23 Jul 2008)

How would CSIS know what is going on at Gitmo though?  They don't.  How can one say it is not factual just because you don't happen to have facts about this?  Just because you can't or unable to confirm something didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't.    I am not saying CSIS is wrong or right, but it just seems odd that they would say what they are saying?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> They don't.


..and you know this how?


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jul 2008)

CSIS is not claiming anything. Khadr's lawyers and supporters in the media are making all the claims and *suggesting* that CSIS supports them.

CSIS said: *"CSIS had no information to substantiate claims that Mr. Khadr was being mistreated by U.S. authorities in conjunction with the CSIS interviews in 2003."* In other words every time one of Khadr's cheering section says Khadr was "sleep deprived according to CSIS documents" they are stretching the truth _waaaaay_ past the breaking point.


----------



## stegner (23 Jul 2008)

> In other words every time one of Khadr's cheering section says Khadr was "sleep deprived according to CSIS documents" they are stretching the truth waaaaay past the breaking point.



Ahh I can agree with that.  It was just the part of the statement were CSIS said there were_ factual _ mistakes.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Jul 2008)

stegner: Can you enlighten us on the epistemological implications?



> How can one say it is not factual just because you don't happen to have facts about this?  Just because you can't or unable to confirm something didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't.



Bishop Berkeley springs to mind (though an atheist myself):.
http://faithphilosophy.blogspot.com/2007/01/bishop-berkeley-if-tree-falls-in-forest.html

Do check the link, please.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081 (23 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> It was just the part of the statement were CSIS said there were_ factual _ mistakes.



which there were.......


----------



## stegner (23 Jul 2008)

The epistemological implications are such.  There are only a few ways in which CSIS can get info on Gitmo.  1) From the U.S 2) Conducting its own investigations 3) Open sources 4) Other nations.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Jul 2008)

stegner: Four avenues, diligently pursued, might lead to certain conclusions.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## stegner (23 Jul 2008)

> stegner: Four avenues, diligently pursued, might lead to certain conclusions.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Certainly


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Aug 2008)

Somebody needs to send this guy in Kamloops a medal...

Kamloops This Week 

Actually, the entire Khadr clan should be in Guantanamo 

By Christopher Foulds - Kamloops This Week

Published: July 19, 2008 12:00 PM 
So, Omar Khadr sobs a few sobs, utters a few woes-are-me and we are supposed to demand that Prime Minister Stephen Harper rescue the poor child from Guantanamo Bay?

Based on the wailing from the anti-American left in Canada, don’t be surprised to see the terrorist appointed to the Order of Canada.
Maybe then Dr. Henry Morgentaler will return his award in protest, thereby completing the ludicrous circle.

Omar Khadr is not a child soldier.

He was 15 and decided to follow his father and the rest of Canada’s first family of the jihad to Afghanistan to try to kill soldiers who represent the values of a society that allowed his family to denigrate all that we value, while sucking back taxpayer dollars of those they despise.

He is charged with killing U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer by lobbing a grenade during a battle.
Khadr denies doing this, of course, but the fact he was on the terrorist side of a battle against Canada and her allies should be more than enough to strip him of his citizenship. 
We routinely criticize the Canadian judiciary for its leniency in sentencing teens who commit the most atrocious acts on our streets, cognizant that a 15-, 16- and 17-year-old know full well right from wrong.
Yet Khadr is referred to by many as an innocent child soldier who is the victim in this saga.

Wrong. 

A child soldier is a nine-year-old in Sierra Leone, pumped full of heroin and handed a machete with which to wreak havoc.
Khadr was a 15-year-old who made the decision to become a terrorist and wage war against Canada and the rest of the West.
His sister, Zaynbar Khadr, watched the video of her brother — footage that is five years old and carefully edited by his legal team to extract maximum sympathy from those who refuse to see the truth.

She told Global News: “I don’t know what to expect from the Canadian government any more. I don’t expect them to be very nice.”
No, we don’t expect them to be very nice.

Any real Canadian would expect the Canadian government to be anything but nice to a murderous clan that has proven in action and in words that it detests the very country in which its members are, unfortunately, considered citizens.

However, by allowing the Khadrs to remain in Canada, by allowing public money to be funnelled to this hateful fa mily in the form of welfare payments and by allowing our public health-care system to spend precious dollars caring for Abdulkareem Khadr (Omar’s older brother by three years, who was paralyzed in a 2003 firefight with Pakistani forces. The clan’s father, Ahmed, was killed in the battle), the reality is Canada is being nice to a group of people that is Canadian in ink only.
How a family that declares its admiration for Osama bin Laden (who reportedly attended Zaynab’s wedding), spent as much time bouncing around terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did on Canadian soil and conveniently “lost’ plenty of passports can be considered Canadian is a mystery only gullible sympathizers can unravel.

Much has been said about the need for Canada to pressure the U.S. to follow rules set down by the Geneva Conventions.
A proposition: When a Canadian citizen travels around the world to join terrorists in a bid to kill soldiers of his own country and its allies, rules such as the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

Omar’s mom, Maha Elsamnah — yes, the woman who admitted to celebrating when the World Trade Center towers were attacked, the woman who waxed eloquent about how wonderful it would be to watch her offspring die as martyrs to the cause — watched her son as he wept in the video.

“My son is calling for me and I’m sitting here,” she told CBC.
In a perfect world, Omar would be calling for her and the rest of the treasonous Khadr clan as they sat together in a cell in Guantanamo Bay.

editor@kamloopsthisweek.com
http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/25637714.html


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Aug 2008)

HRC must be salivating over this one.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (30 Aug 2008)

I think they (HRC = Human Rights Commission) may not want to be involved 

What is discriminatory is here http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/H-6/bo-ga:s_1::bo-ga:s_2?page=2

Earlier in this thread I put up some links about what constitutes Terrorist Acts 

That boy dug himself a big hole.


----------



## Franko (30 Aug 2008)

I gave up on the system as soon as I heard the wailing for Khadr's release.

IMHO....The entire family, with Maha Elsamnah in the lead, should be stripped of their citizenship and deported back to where ever they came from.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2008)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> I gave up on the system as soon as I heard the wailing for Khadr's release.
> 
> IMHO....The entire family, with Maha Elsamnah in the lead, should be stripped of their citizenship and deported back to where ever they came from.
> 
> Regards



In fact only one of many problems we have with our current Refugee/Immigration/Visa Systems.  We also have the Somali Warlord's family in Toronto.  How many of these 'people' have been able to find loopholes or just slide through the cracks in our Security?  They are a minority who give the vast majority of Legal Immigrants and bona fide Refugees a bad name.


----------



## Franko (30 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> In fact only one of many problems we have with our current Refugee/Immigration/Visa Systems.  We also have the Somali Warlord's family in Toronto.  How many of these 'people' have been able to find loopholes or just slide through the cracks in our Security?  They are a minority who give the vast majority of Legal Immigrants and bona fide Refugees a bad name.



Then there are the Triads and their connections a few years back getting visas and passports. The "thug from Shawinigan" and his ilk pretty much covered it over.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20040327/wfive_immigration_040327/20040327/


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Sep 2008)

And this "thug" stated that our PM was wrong in that he did not attend the Olympics in Bejing. Yeah right.....

NOW get this, CHINA!! of all nations now doesn't want sausage casings made by Maple Leaf Foods. And this is the nation that sells us poisoned pet food, lead in the toys our little kids play with, and crap in the toothpaste. :rage:


----------



## GAP (10 Sep 2008)

Jonathan Kay on the Khadr family's warm-and-fuzzy web site: It's all about "giving, sharing and helping"
Posted: September 10, 2008, 3:42 PM by Jonathan Kay 
Article Link

As noted first on  DustMyBroom: The Khadr family has set up a web site to "tell our story." Surprise, surprise: It's a total whitewash of the family's role in promoting terrorism and radical Islam. Here, for instance, is what the site has to say about uber-terrorist patriarch Ahmed Khadr: "In 1985, after spending two summers volunteering in refugee camps, [Ahmed] resolved to move his family to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and try to help the country rebuild after its devastating invasion by the Soviet Union. This decision changed our lives forever, and made us who we are today. And so our life of giving, sharing and helping began ... For all the fear and hatred, for all the rumors and lies spread about us, we remain what we have always been; a Canadian family proud to have used our contacts and resources to build a series of orphanages, schools and hospitals across war-torn Afghanistan." 
More on link


----------



## Blindspot (10 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> "In 1985, after spending two summers volunteering in refugee camps, [Ahmed] resolved to move his family to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and try to help the country rebuild after its devastating invasion by the Soviet Union. This decision changed our lives forever, and made us who we are today. And so our life of giving, sharing and helping began ... For all the fear and hatred, for all the rumors and lies spread about us, we remain what we have always been; a Canadian family proud to have used our contacts and resources to build a series of orphanages, schools and hospitals across war-torn Afghanistan."



I think someone messed up. Here's my translation:

"In 1985, after spending two summers volunteering in terrorist camps, [Ahmed] resolved to move his chattel to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and try to plunge the country further into darkness after its devastating invasion by the godless Soviet infidels. This decision changed our lives forever, and made us who we are today. And so our life of throwing grenades, firing Kalishnakovs and aiming RPGs began ... For all the justifiable fear and hatred, for all the intelligence and documented truth spread about us, we remain what we have always been; a Canadian passport-holding family proud to have used our contacts and resources to bilk off the Canadian system, populate a series of orphanages, madrasas and hospitals across war-torn Afghanistan."


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Sep 2008)

Link to _La Presse_ article (in French) follows _Toronto Star_ article, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Khadr must face trial: Harper*
PM dismisses report he was open to returning Guantanamo inmate to Canada
Joanna Smith, Toronto Star, 26 Sept 08
Article link

Prime Minister Stephen Harper denied a report suggesting he would be open to bringing home Omar Khadr from Guantanamo Bay.

The Montreal newspaper La Presse reported today that shortly before the election was called, Governor General Michaëlle Jean asked Harper whether he would repatriate Khadr, a Canadian who has spent the past six years in prison accused of murdering an American soldier in Afghanistan in 2002.

According to La Presse, Harper told Jean he was not completely against an eventual repatriation but he said his caucus and party base would never accept such a thing.

"This story is false," Harper told reporters in Calgary today. "My position on Mr. Khadr is clear. He is charged with very serious crimes and we believe that he should face trial on those charges."

It is the same line he has delivered for months: that Canada must allow the American justice system to follow its course.

The newspaper said the discussion took place after the public release of an interrogation video in which a then 16-year-old Khadr cried and showed his wounds to a seemingly nonchalant CSIS official during a meeting inside the Guantanamo prison where Khadr has been for the past six years.

A spokesperson for Jean could neither confirm nor deny any meeting took place.

"They are confidential and you understand it is between the Prime Minister and the Governor General," Marthe Bloin said Friday. "I don't attend and I cannot even have the idea of trying to find out if it's true or not."

La Presse reported Jean and her husband, Jean-Daniel Lafond, consulted with experts in constitutional matters and international law and came to the conclusion that Canada should repatriate Khadr to respect his charter rights and also international conventions on child soldiers.

_With files from Les Whittington_



Vincent Marissal, "Michaëlle Jean a réclamé le rapatriement d'Omar Khadr," La Presse, 26 Sept 08


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Sep 2008)

And an editorial from today's Globe & Mail, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*The right to warn, but not to leak*

If true, reports that Governor-General Michaëlle Jean pressed Prime Minister Stephen Harper to repatriate Omar Khadr, who is accused of being a terrorist, to Canada from Guantanamo Bay would not constitute an abuse of her office. As the British constitutional thinker Walter Bagehot famously wrote, "The sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights - the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn."

Ms. Jean has neither the great experience nor the moral authority of the Queen; she is, however, the representative of our head of state, she meets large numbers of Canadians and she does have the benefit of independence and detachment.

If anything, it is unfortunate that a strain exists across Sussex Drive. The Prime Minister would benefit from regular meetings with the Governor-General, which were once a custom in this country.

The scandal here is not that Ms. Jean may have privately advocated Mr. Khadr's return, but that such an exchange would have been leaked, seemingly to cause political embarrassment to Mr. Harper in Quebec during a federal election campaign.

Mr. Harper on Friday said the La Presse story was wrong, but focused on the report's suggestion that he was not entirely against an eventual repatriation, but had told Ms. Jean his caucus and party base would never accept such a thing. "This story is false. My position on Mr. Khadr is clear. He's charged with very serious crimes and we believe that he should face trial on those charges," Mr. Harper said. But he was cagey on the question of whether Ms. Jean had intervened over the Khadr case: "Obviously I would not get into any discussion that would attribute political opinions to the Governor-General." It is proper that the Prime Minister would take such a position. The question is whether his discretion has been reciprocated.

La Presse reported that Ms. Jean's intervention came after she and her husband, Jean-Daniel Lafond, had consulted with experts in constitutional and international law, concluding that the government must repatriate Mr. Khadr to comply with Canada's Charter of Rights and international conventions on child soldiers. It is not the kind of information likely to have come from one of Mr. Harper's spin doctors. It happens to come a few days after Mr. Lafond, speaking in the context of the Conservative government's cuts to art funding, told The Globe "it's very safe for a politician to destroy culture."

If it is in fact shown that the Khadr leak originated at Rideau Hall, then questions would need to be asked about Ms. Jean's impartiality, and hence her ability to exercise her constitutional responsibilities.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2008)

This is, *potentially*, a very serious Constitutional problem.

That there are any leaks, on almost any subject, from Rideau Hall is a problem in and of itself – but usually a very minor one and easily put right.

But the _demi-official_ ‘conversations’ between the sovereign (or her representative) and her prime minister are, always and without fail, absolutely private. No one, beyond those two individuals, has any right or reason to be privy to their discussions. The *fact* that everyone who reads the papers in Canada know ‘knows’ that Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean “may have privately advocated Mr. Khadr's return” is a big problem .

It is not wrong that Mme. Jean is concerned about Mr. Khadr’s constitutional rights; it is not wrong that she ‘advocated’ a position, a proposal to the PM; it is Constitutionally *unacceptable* that her counsel was made public. That problem, if it involved her, her family or her staff, may cost Mme. Jean her job – as soon as a new government is installed.

Fortunately an excellent *potential* replacement lives just down the street and has always been willing to serve when called.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Sep 2008)

My son was repatriated through Trenton. This little b@stard can rot in hell, along with his terrorist family.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Sep 2008)




----------



## GAP (28 Sep 2008)

When Cretian/Martin (can't remember which one...Martin I think) picked the GG, they knew the controversy and the baggage she came with. They were content with it as long it was going to be them in power, but they had to have known at one point or another, if Harper got in, they were going to lock horns over her and her husband's orientation.....totally 180 degrees...

I'm glad it leaked out.....it tells us it time to put else someone in


----------



## geo (28 Sep 2008)

GAP,
To date, the GG has done a commendable job and neither she nor her husband have done anything to deserve the derision you are dishing out.

If anything, it'd be someone with a personal agenda - looking to "out" her - that intentionally leaked the info to the media.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Sep 2008)

I met the Governor General in Trenton. She is one of the nicest people I've ever met. SHE CARES!!
The former GG was there as well. SHE CARES TOO.

As for the Khadrs...I think you know how I feel about them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2008)

I don’t think anyone doubt’s Mme. Jean’s fine qualities as a person.

The issue- an important issue – is: who leaked the details of the conversation?

Who was there? Mme. Jean, of course, Mr. Harper, of course. Some staffers, too? Hers? His? Who, if anyone, did she tell what she planned to or did tell the PM? Who did Harper tell?

The list is not long. Someone needs to own up to either an error in judgment or a crass bit of political vandalism. If it was only the former then a slap on the wrist will suffice; if it was the latter then someone in Rideau Hall of on the PM’s team must go.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Sep 2008)

It could also be black information, that is a malicious story planted as a leak with a compliant journalist by a third party with an agenda. Perhaps not likely, but not outside the realm of possibility. Still, in the absence of any good intelligence, I would look for the culprit closer to home.


----------



## GAP (28 Sep 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> GAP,
> To date, the GG has done a commendable job and neither she nor her husband have done anything to deserve the derision you are dishing out.
> 
> If anything, it'd be someone with a personal agenda - looking to "out" her - that intentionally leaked the info to the media.



I thought so too, and she just disappeared off my horizon....everything to date seemed standard fare for a GG....better than Clarkson by a long shot, and more effective for ceremonial position...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> I thought so too, and she just disappeared off my horizon....everything to date seemed standard fare for a GG....better than Clarkson by a long shot, and more effective for ceremonial position...




Hmmm. I thought Mme. Clarkson did an excellent job, despite a few cheap shots and a disgraceful lack of support from several politicians.

My only objection to Mme. Jean was that the appointment, not the woman, was so ‘copycat.’

One can imagine Paul Martin saying: “Well, gee, Adrianne has done a great job. We need someone just like her: attractive, classy, well spoken in both languages, great communicator and so on.” One of the staff replies: “Hey! How about Michaëlle Jean, she’s attractive and classy, too, and a great communicator in both languages and she’s even more of a visible minority and even more feminine and a mother to boot!”

I was on one major ceremonial event with Mme. Clarkson; in my view she was superb at that part of the job – better than anyone since Vanier.

I heard that her exactly right response to the casualties in Kandahar (18 Apr 02) (leaving Buckingham Palace to meet the bodies in Germany and bring ‘her’ soldiers home) was entirely her idea, her instinctive reaction; the right reaction.

I know that she wrote her own moving address at the consecration of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier – she finished it, in both English and French, polishing a couple of phrases, in the limo, on her way to the ceremony and gave one hand written (French) copy to her ADC to give to the interpreters so that they would get it 'right' in French, as she intended.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don’t think anyone doubt’s Mme. Jean’s fine qualities as a person.
> 
> The issue- an important issue – is: who leaked the details of the conversation?
> 
> ...



This is where the walls have ears, and staff on all levels, need to be properly briefed on Security.  If there are staff, at any level, who are not trust worthy and discrete, then rumours will leak out.  It could be like a game of Clue, where the Butler did it, or perhaps a indiscrete Caterer's employee.  There are many people travelling in political circles at the lowest levels, who have no problems with not keeping what they heard in confidence, even if what they heard was only a partial conversation, or a conversation taken out of context.


----------



## GAP (28 Sep 2008)

She was probably everything you say she was ER....but  from here she struck me as eliteist.

The controversy over her budget didn't enhance her view in the public's eye. Just never took to her, but in all honesty it was not based on anything concret and I am affected by gossip as anyone....


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Sep 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> My son was repatriated through Trenton. This little b@stard can rot in hell, along with his terrorist family.



Brother,

You hit the nail on the head.

Let him rot, and never ever set foot on our land.  Not him.  Not his body.  Not his ashes. Not even a memory that he was ever a Canadian.

May the powers that be come to their senses.

dileas

tess


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Sep 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Brother,
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.
> 
> ...



Well said Tess, and in total concurrance.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Sep 2008)

OWDU and Tess thank you very much!! This little SOB needs to go back to Afghanistan or wherever the f&ck he came from.

Let him take his chances there.


----------



## GAP (28 Sep 2008)

Well if we just keep on going the way we are, the US will try him and serve time in their prison systems....I don't think life will be very comfortable for him there, at best......at worst.....he's fresh meat for awhile.

ps: he'd better hope it's a civilian prison system he gets put into, if it's military, I suspect everything wished on him will come true....


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Fortunately an excellent *potential* replacement lives just down the street and has always been willing to serve when called.



Say, don't _you_ live just up the road as well?  



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Well if we just keep on going the way we are, the US will try him and serve time in their prison systems....I don't think life will be very comfortable for him there, at best......at worst.....he's fresh meat for awhile.
> 
> ps: he'd better hope it's a civilian prison system he gets put into, if it's military, I suspect everything wished on him will come true....



Actually, I would expect he will have his person and rights much more rigorously protected at Fort Levensworth than in any civilian prison. I also expect the American MP's and soldiers in Kansas will uphold his rights until 2029 or so.....


----------



## Yrys (16 Oct 2008)

There is a french television show on Omar Khadr, at Radio-Canada, tonight at 20h, Eastern Time :

Le cauchemar d'Omar Khadr

(the nightmare of Omar Khadr)


----------



## geo (16 Oct 2008)

... in many ways, it is a hell of his own making.

Dream on my friend


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2008)

Rant time for a CSM!!
This little piece of crap doesn't belong anywhere near good Canadians. Let Jack and his bunch molly coddle and baby sit this little viper. With donations from the supporters of this murdering little b@stard.  :rage:


----------



## axeman (16 Oct 2008)

I am not a christian  but I just wish I could have the name of this person ~ I may want to shake her hand! I respect the faith's of other peoples! I respect other peoples rights to disagree ~ but I do not respect anyone who hides anywhere behind a cowardly mask! Behind anonymity ... you may not like what this says and that is okay ... that is what members of many families died fighting to preserve! Your right to agree or to disagree!


This was written by a Canadian woman, but oh how it also applies to the
U.S., U.K. and Australia


THIS ONE PACKS A FIRM PUNCH

Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister!

Written by a housewife in New Brunswick , to her local newspaper. This
is one ticked off lady.

'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not
started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001
and have continually threatened to do so since?

Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day,
in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from the nation's capitol and in
a field in Pennsylvania ? 

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible,
burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be
tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting
against in a brutal insurgency.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents
for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start
caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishable
by beheading in Afghanistan .

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking
off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed
throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come
out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by
hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blows themselves up in search
of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide
bombs.

I'll care when the Canadian media stops pretending that their freedom
of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on
the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when
something happens.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a CANADIAN soldier roughing
up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:

I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not
to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:

I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat,
and fed 'special' food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining
that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in
your heart of hearts:

I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran'
and other times 'Quran.' Well, Jimmy Crack Corn you guessed it,

I don't care!!

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail
friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this
ridiculous behaviour!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should
you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities
committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country!
And may I add:

'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a
difference in the world. But, the Soldiers don't have that problem.'

I have another quote that I would like to add, AND.......I hope you
forward all this.

One last thought for the day:

Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ

2. The Canadian Soldier.

3. The British Soldier.

4. The US Soldier, and

5. The Australian Soldier

One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom.


YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET ALL OF THEM.

AMEN!

And just in case you weren’t all aware, sometimes putting a face to a name makes it real.  These are just the Canadian soldiers that gave their lives for other’s freedom…


 First name
 Last name
 Rank
 Unit
 Province
 Date of incident


 Prescott
 Shipway 
 Sergeant
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Saskatchewan
 September 7, 2008


 Andrew
 Grenon 
 Corporal
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Ontario
 September 3, 2008


 Chad
 Horn 
 Private
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Alberta
 September 3, 2008


 Mike
 Seggie 
 Corporal
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Manitoba
 September 3, 2008


 Shawn
 Eades 
 Sergeant
 1 Combat Engineer Regiment
 Ontario
 August 20, 2008


 Stephan
 Stock 
 Sapper
 1 Combat Engineer Regiment
 British Columbia
 August 20, 2008


 Dustin
 Wasden 
 Corporal
 1 Combat Engineer Regiment
 Saskatchewan
 August 20, 2008


 Erin
 Doyle 
 Master Corporal
 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 British Columbia
 August 11, 2008


 Josh
 Roberts 
 Master Corporal
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry
 Saskatchewan
 August 9, 2008


 James
 Arnal 
 Corporal
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry
 Manitoba
 July 18, 2008


 Colin
 Wilmot 
 Private
 1 Field Ambulance
 Alberta
 July 6, 2008


 Brendan
 Downey 
 Corporal
 Military Police Detachment
 Saskatchewan
 July 4, 2008


 Jonathan
 Snyder 
 Captain
 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 British Columbia
 June 7, 2008


 Richard
 Leary 
 Captain
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Ontario
 June 3, 2008


 Michael
 Starker 
 Corporal
 15th Field Ambulance
 Alberta
 May 6, 2008


 Terry
 Street 
 Private
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Quebec
 April 4, 2008


 Jason
 Boyes 
 Sergeant
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Manitoba
 March 16, 2008


 Jérémie
 Ouellet 
 Bombardier
 1st Royal Canadian Horse Artillery
 Quebec
 March 11, 2008


 Michael
 Hayakaze 
 Trooper
 Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians)
 Alberta
 March 2, 2008


 Étienne
 Gonthier 
 Corporal
 5e Régiment du génie de combat
 Quebec
 January 23, 2008


 Richard
 Renaud 
 Trooper
 12e Régiment blindé du Canada
 Quebec
 January 15, 2008


 Eric
 Labbé 
 Corporal
 2nd Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment
 Quebec
 January 6, 2008


 Hani
 Massouh 
 Warrant officer
 2nd Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment
 Quebec
 January 6, 2008


 Jonathan
 Dion 
 Gunner
 5e Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada
 Quebec
 December 30, 2007


 Nicolas
 Beauchamp 
 Corporal
 5th Field Ambulance, 5 Area Support Group
 Quebec
 November 17, 2007


 Michel
 Lévesque 
 Private
 3rd Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment
 Quebec
 November 17, 2007


 Nathan
 Hornburg 
 Corporal
 The King's Own Calgary Regiment
 Alberta
 September 24, 2007


 Raymond
 Ruckpaul 
 Major
 Armoured Corps, The Royal Canadian Dragoons
 Ontario
 August 29, 2007


 Christian
 Duchesne 
 Master corporal
 5th Field Ambulance, 5 Area Support Group
 Quebec
 August 22, 2007


 Mario
 Mercier 
 Master Warrant officer
 2nd Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment
 Quebec
 August 22, 2007


 Simon
 Longtin 
 Private
 3rd Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment
 Quebec
 August 19, 2007


 Jordan
 Anderson 
 Corporal
 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Nunavut
 July 4, 2007


 Cole
 Bartsch 
 Corporal
 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Alberta
 July 4, 2007


 Colin
 Bason 
 Master corporal
 The Royal Westminster Regiment
 British Columbia
 July 4, 2007


 Matthew
 Dawe 
 Captain
 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Ontario
 July 4, 2007


 Jefferson
 Francis 
 Captain
 1st Royal Canadian Horse Artillery
 New Brunswick
 July 4, 2007


 Lane
 Watkins 
 Private
 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Manitoba
 July 4, 2007


 Stephen
 Bouzane 
 Corporal
 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Newfoundland and Labrador
 June 20, 2007


 Christos
 Karigiannis 
 Sergeant
 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Quebec
 June 20, 2007


 Joel
 Wiebe 
 Private
 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Alberta
 June 20, 2007


 Darryl
 Caswell 
 Trooper
 Royal Canadian Dragoons
 Ontario
 June 11, 2007


 Darrell
 Priede 
 Master corporal
 Army News Team, 3 Area Support Group
 Ontario
 May 30, 2007


 Matthew
 McCully 
 Corporal
 2nd Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group Headquarters and Signal Squadron
 Ontario
 May 25, 2007


 Anthony
 Klumpenhouwer 
 Master corporal
 Canadian Special Operations Forces Command
 Ontario
 April 18, 2007


 Patrick
 Pentland 
 Trooper
 Royal Canadian Dragoons
 New Brunswick
 April 11, 2007


 Allan
 Stewart 
 Master corporal
 Royal Canadian Dragoons
 New Brunswick
 April 11, 2007


 David
 Greenslade 
 Private
 2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 New Brunswick
 April 8, 2007


 Kevin
 Kennedy 
 Private
 2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Newfoundland and Labrador
 April 8, 2007


 Donald
 Lucas 
 Sergeant
 2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Newfoundland and Labrador
 April 8, 2007


 Brent
 Poland 
 Corporal
 2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Ontario
 April 8, 2007


 Christopher
 Stannix 
 Corporal
 Princess Louise Fusiliers
 Nova Scotia
 April 8, 2007


 Aaron
 Williams 
 Corporal
 2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 New Brunswick
 April 8, 2007


 Kevin
 Megeney 
 Corporal
 1st Battalion, The Nova Scotia Highlanders (North)
 Nova Scotia
 March 6, 2007


 Robert
 Girouard 
 Chief Warrant officer
 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 New Brunswick
 November 27, 2006


 Albert
 Storm 
 Corporal
 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Ontario
 November 27, 2006


 Darcy
 Tedford 
 Sergeant
 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Alberta
 October 14, 2006


 Blake
 Williamson 
 Private
 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Ontario
 October 14, 2006


 Mark
 Wilson 
 Trooper
 Royal Canadian Dragoons
 Ontario
 October 7, 2006


 Craig
 Gillam 
 Sergeant
 Royal Canadian Dragoons
 Newfoundland and Labrador
 October 3, 2006


 Robert
 Mitchell 
 Corporal
 Royal Canadian Dragoons
 Ontario
 October 3, 2006


 Josh
 Klukie 
 Private
 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Ontario
 September 29, 2006


 Glen
 Arnold 
 Corporal
 2nd Field Ambulance
 Ontario
 September 18, 2006


 David
 Byers 
 Private
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Ontario
 September 18, 2006


 Shane
 Keating 
 Corporal
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Saskatchewan
 September 18, 2006


 Keith
 Morley 
 Corporal
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Manitoba
 September 18, 2006


 Mark
 Graham 
 Private
 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Ontario
 September 4, 2006


 William
 Cushley 
 Private
 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Ontario
 September 3, 2006


 Frank
 Mellish 
 Warrant officer
 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Nova Scotia
 September 3, 2006


 Richard
 Nolan 
 Warrant officer
 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Newfoundland and Labrador
 September 3, 2006


 Shane
 Stachnik 
 Sergeant
 2nd Combat Engineer Regiment
 Alberta
 September 3, 2006


 David
 Braun 
 Corporal
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Saskatchewan
 August 22, 2006


 Andrew
 Eykelenboom 
 Corporal
 1st Field Ambulance
 British Columbia
 August 11, 2006


 Jeffrey
 Walsh 
 Master corporal
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Saskatchewan
 August 9, 2006


 Raymond
 Arndt 
 Master corporal
 The Loyal Edmonton Regiment
 Alberta
 August 5, 2006


 Kevin
 Dallaire 
 Private
 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Alberta
 August 3, 2006


 Vaughan
 Ingram 
 Sergeant
 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Newfoundland and Labrador
 August 3, 2006


 Bryce
 Keller 
 Corporal
 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Saskatchewan
 August 3, 2006


 Christopher
 Reid 
 Corporal
 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Nova Scotia
 August 3, 2006


 Francisco
 Gomez 
 Corporal
 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Alberta
 July 22, 2006


 Jason
 Warren 
 Corporal
 The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada
 Quebec
 July 22, 2006


 Anthony
 Boneca 
 Corporal
 Lake Superior Scottish Regiment
 Ontario
 July 9, 2006


 Nichola
 Goddard 
 Captain
 1st Royal Canadian Horse Artillery
 Alberta
 May 17, 2006


 Matthew
 Dinning 
 Corporal
 2nd Military Police Platoon
 Ontario
 April 22, 2006


 Myles
 Mansell 
 Bombardier
 5th (British Columbia) Field Artillery Regiment
 British Columbia
 April 22, 2006


 Randy
 Payne 
 Corporal
 CFB/ASU Wainwright Military Police Platoon
 Ontario
 April 22, 2006


 William
 Turner 
 Lieutenant
 Land Force Western Area Headquarters
 Ontario
 April 22, 2006


 Robert
 Costall 
 Private
 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Ontario
 March 29, 2006


 Paul
 Davis 
 Corporal
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Nova Scotia
 March 2, 2006


 Timothy
 Wilson 
 Master corporal
 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Alberta
 March 2, 2006


 Glyn
 Berry 
 Diplomat
 Department of Foreign Affairs, Canada
 Wales
 January 15, 2006


 Braun
 Woodfield 
 Private
 2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Nova Scotia
 November 24, 2005


 Jamie
 Murphy 
 Corporal
 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Newfoundland and Labrador
 January 27, 2004


 Robbie
 Beerenfenger 
 Corporal
 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 Ontario
 October 2, 2003


 Robert
 Short 
 Sergeant
 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment
 New Brunswick
 October 2, 2003


 Ainsworth
 Dyer 
 Corporal
 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Quebec
 April 18, 2002


 Richard
 Green 
 Private
 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Nova Scotia
 April 18, 2002


 Marc
 Léger 
 Sergeant
 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Ontario
 April 18, 2002


 Nathan
 Smith 
 Private
 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
 Nova Scotia
 April 18, 2002


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2008)

Thank you very much from the bottom of my broken heart. Mike Seggie is my son and was KIA in Afghanistan. Your words are comforting to me.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Nov 2008)

Latest numbers, from Angus Reid - full results attached as .pdf below.

*Canadians Ponder Repatriation of Omar Khadr*
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, 23 Nov 08
News release link

Adults in Canada remain divided over the fate of Omar Khadr, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies released by the Toronto Star. 42 per cent of respondents would demand Khadr’s repatriation to face due process under Canadian Law, while 37 per cent would leave Khadr to face trial by military commission in Guantanamo Bay.

In the event U.S. president-elect Barack Obama shuts down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, 48 per cent of respondents would repatriate Khadr, while 41 per cent would transfer him to the United States to face federal prosecution there.

Omar Khadr—a Canadian born in Toronto and the son of al-Qaeda fighter Ahmed Said Khadr—was detained by the United States military in Afghanistan in July 2002, after allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a special forces medic. Omar Khadr was 15 at the time. He was transferred to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in October 2002.

In June 2007, U.S. military judge Peter Brownback dismissed the charges of murder and terrorism against Omar Khadr, claiming he was authorized to try "unlawful enemy combatants" exclusively. An earlier review had deemed Omar Khadr was an "enemy combatant." However, the case against Omar Khadr was reopened in September 2007, when the new Court of Military Commission Review ruled that Brownback’s decision was in error.

In April, William Kuebler—Khadr’s military lawyer—argued during a pre-trial hearing that the deadly grenade may have been thrown by an American soldier. In July, a report revealed that Canadian officials were aware of the harsh treatment that Khadr was subjected to in Guantanamo. According to the document, the U.S. military "deprived" Khadr of sleep for weeks in order to make him "more amenable and willing to talk."

On Nov. 20, Canadian foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon appeared to rule out any change in policy, saying, "He is being held and it’s our government’s intention to follow and respect the process that’s in place and, of course, to respect American sovereignty on this issue."

Khadr’s military trial is expected to start on Jan. 26, 2009.

Polling Data
_As you may know, Canadian citizen Omar Khadr has spent more than six years in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, charged with throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in a July 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. Khadr, the son of al-Qaeda fighter Ahmed Said Khadr, was 15 when the alleged incident took place. Which of these policy options would you prefer in this case?_
Nov. 2008 
Jul. 2008
*Apr. 2008*

Demanding Khadr’s repatriation to face due process under Canadian Law
42%
37%
*43%*

Leaving Khadr to face trial by military commission in Guantanamo Bay
37%
38%
*38%*

Not sure
20%
26%
*19%*


_As you may know, United States president-elect Barack Obama has criticized the existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and there is speculation that he may order its closure. If the Guantanamo Bay facility is indeed shut down, which of these policy options would you prefer in the case of Omar Khadr?_

Repatriating Khadr to face due process under Canadian law
*48%*

Transferring Khadr to the United States to face federal prosecution there
*41%*

Not sure
*11%*

_Source: Angus Reid Strategies / Toronto Star
Methodology: Online interviews with 1,002 Canadian adults, conducted on Nov. 14 to Nov. 15, 2008. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent. _


----------



## ARMY_101 (23 Nov 2008)

I remain convinced that Khadr should be facing prosecution through the United States court system.  This is someone who supposedly killed a U.S. soldier in a U.S.-occupied area, so they can be the ones to hold his trial and find whether or not he is guilty.  Bringing him back to Canada is only going to allow people to run to Canada and claim sanctuary from prosecution.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (23 Nov 2008)

Considering that Khadr was taken into custody in Afghanistan by the US military, he IS thier property to do with as they see fit. Either they will put him through the system and seek to get a sentence on him or they will hand him over to Canadian authorities to deal with. Either way he WILL be put through the system in some capacity or other.

 If he kept in the states and is found guilty of the soldiers death then you can bet your bottom the US will seek to having him put in one of thier finest institutions for the rest of his existence or one step further and seek the death penalty for his actions.

 If he comes "home" to Canada and is put through the system anything can happen, my guess would be the bleeding hearts club will seek to get him a diamond encrusted soother, pat him on the back and turn him loose with a nice big multi-million dollar we're sorry cheque.  :

 Cheers.


----------



## ARMY_101 (23 Nov 2008)

axeman said:
			
		

> [I don't care Editorial from Canadian Woman]



It seems to be on a slippery slope of equivocating all middle eastern people into terrorist groups.  If innocent people have been unfairly detained and abused, it is quite uncaring and unfair to say that you don't care because of the alleged connection between terrorism and these people.

Don't get me wrong, if they have done something wrong then get the information from them and ensure they pay for what they did.  But if they were just an innocent person who had nothing to do with any crime, turning a blind eye and saying "I don't care" will only allow for worse occurrences to take place without anyone questioning why.


----------



## geo (23 Nov 2008)

IMHO, if the US gevernment intends to prosecute the fella..... DO IT!
Six years - it has dragged on waaaay too long & the longer it takes, the more of a farce it becomes.


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> IMHO, if the US gevernment intends to prosecute the fella..... DO IT!
> Six years - it has dragged on waaaay too long & the longer it takes, the more of a farce it becomes.



well honestly they can drag it out for 6 more and I would not shed a tear.

 Fuck him and the whole family.


----------



## geo (23 Nov 2008)

That's the good thing about living in a democracy, everyone is allowed to have his say & should feel free to express it...

if for nothing else, the US Government, with it's position that everyone should be entitled to a speedy trial - should get their act together and put the fella on trial.


----------



## Yrys (14 Jan 2009)

Khadr charges will be dropped after inauguration: lawyers

NEWYORK -- Charges against Omar Khadr will be dropped "without prejudice" shortly 
after Barack Obama's inauguration Jan. 20 as president, the Canada-born terror 
suspect's U.S. military lawyers predicted Monday.

The technical arrangement will effectively suspend the Jan. 26 start date for his trial 
before a military commission at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Mr. Obama's advisers say one of the new president's first duties in office will be to 
order the closing of the Guantanamo detention camps. Under the Bush administration, 
up to 80 detainees were to eventually face trial, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM), 
who has said he was responsible for planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks "from A to Z."

Mr. Khadr, 22, is accused of killing a U.S. soldier in a firefight when he was 15, and his 
trial is the only one currently scheduled to begin. "We can't imagine that the new president 
will move to close the camps without also addressing the military commissions," said 
Rebecca Synder, one of Mr. Khadr's Pentagon-appointed lawyers. "Otherwise, it may seem 
that he may end up giving KSM a fairer trial than Omar Mr. Khadr, a former child soldier."

Effective suspension of the charges will result in increased pressure on Prime Minister 
Stephen Harper to find a formula to return Toronto-born Mr. Khadr to Canada, according 
to navy Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, Mr. Khadr's lead Pentagon-appointed lawyer.

"I still think it is appropriate that he returns under certain supervisory conditions, but I also 
believe that it is possible the window for achieving that is now closing," he said. "We don't 
know exactly what Mr. Obama will do regarding this case. But there is a chance right now 
to ensure an arrangement is in place that gets Omar the things he needs for rehabilitation."

Harper said Monday he would wait to see what the Mr. Obama administration does with 
Mr. Khadr before deciding whether Canada's position should be changed. "We have a very 
different situation with Mr. Mr. Khadr. He is accused of a very serious thing and there is a 
legal process," he said.

With Mr. Obama weighing an imminent decision to order the closure of the U.S. military 
prison at Guantanamo Bay, leading human-rights agencies on Monday appealed for him 
to halt the looming trial. At a news conference in Washington, Senator Romeo Dallaire 
and several leading Guantanamo critics warned Mr. Obama will betray his campaign 
promises if he allows the 22-year-old Canadian to stand trial on Jan. 26.

In a letter to Mr. Obama, the group argued Mr. Khadr is a child soldier who should not 
face military justice at Guantanamo. "Really, what we're asking for here is not even for 
president-elect Mr. Obama to make a judgment about Omar Mr. Khadr's innocence or 
guilt -- or about his case -- but for his administration to call a moratorium, to freeze the 
proceedings," said Marsha Levick, the legal director of the Juvenile Law Center, 
a Washington-based advocacy group.

If the trial opens as planned, "it would be an enormous disappointment for those of us 
who have watched the campaign and trusted president-elect Mr. Obama's remarks 
with respect to his own views on the military proceedings," Ms. Levick said.

The future of the Guantanamo military prison looms as one of the biggest facing 
Mr. Obama in the days following his inauguration. The Associated Press reported Monday 
the incoming president is expected to issue an executive order within his first week in 
office ordering the prison closed, and to determine how best to relocate its 250 remaining 
detainees.

But that may leave unresolved the pressing question of Mr. Khadr's trial in a military 
commission process Mr. Obama himself has declared a "dangerously flawed legal" system.
"If the proceedings against Omar Mr. Khadr go on, and go forward Jan. 26, (Mr. Khadr) 
will in fact be the first child tried in the United States for war crimes in our history," said 
Ms. Levick.

A military commission judge last summer dismissed arguments by defence lawyers, 
who cited the UN optional protocol on children in armed conflict as prohibiting Mr. Khadr 
from facing a war-crimes tribunal. The U.S. signed the protocol in 2000.

Brooke Anderson, Mr. Obama's national security spokeswoman, declined to comment on 
Mr. Khadr's case Monday.

Sen. Dallaire, a former Canadian military general who has led efforts in Parliament to r
epatriate Mr. Khadr, said his staff has been in touch with Mr. Obama's transition team 
about the case. With Harper's government refusing to intervene, Sen. Dallaire said he's 
still hopeful Mr. Obama will order Mr. Khadr released into Canadian custody.

"I have gotten nowhere with the Canadian government. Although we have attempted 
to convince the prime minister that standing aloof from this process is inappropriate ... 
he refused to open up a conversation with the Americans in regards to Mr. Khadr," 
Sen. Dallaire said. "If the Canadians don't want to ask for him ... then maybe the 
solution is [for Mr. Obama] to offer him to the Canadians."

The spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Monday that 
Canada's position on Mr. Khadr has not changed. "We will be following with interest 
any developments under the incoming administration of president-elect Mr. Obama," 
said Cannon's spokeswoman, Catherine Loubier.

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bryon Wilfert repeated the Opposition's call for Harper to
ask for Mr. Khadr to be repatriated, just as western countries, such as Australia and 
Britain, have done with their nationals in Guantanamo. And he reiterated that Mr. Khadr 
should "face justice" from Canadian courts for the crimes he's accused of, and not simply 
be set free. "He should come home -- period. Whether Guantanamo is closed or not is 
a secondary issue," Wilfert told Canwest News Service.

"Closing Guantanamo isn't going to be done overnight, in any event. Mr. Obama's team 
is going to have to look very closely at it." Mr. Khadr's legal allies include five leading 
international human-rights organizations -- Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, 
the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights First and the Coalition to Stop the Use 
of Child Soldiers -- that made separate written appeals to Mr. Obama on Monday.

"We urge that, upon taking office, you act quickly to suspend the military commissions, 
drop the military commission charges against Mr. Khadr, and either repatriate him for 
rehabilitation in Canada or transfer him to federal court and prosecute him in accordance 
with international juvenile justice and fair trial standards," the groups said in their letter.

Also speaking on Mr. Khadr's behalf was Ishmael Beah, a former child soldier in Sierra 
Leone who last year rose to international prominence with the publication of a bestselling 
memoir about his wartime experiences.

Mr. Khadr's conviction for war crimes would signal a double standard in the way American 
policy treats child soldiers, Beah said. "Are we sending a message out there that says if 
a child that engages in war and is forced in war in any other country than the United States, 
then we are able to forgive them?" Beah asked. "But if a child is used in war in ways that it 
takes the life of a U.S. citizen, then we are not able to look at them as a child? That is not 
the kind of legal precedent we want to set."

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was a fierce critic of both the Guantanamo 
prison and the military commission system established by the Bush administration to try 
enemy combatants detained after the 9/11 terror attacks. But only last weekend, Mr. Obama 
said his pledge to close the prison likely would prove more difficult than he expected, and that 
it would be "a challenge" to shut it down during his first 100 days in office.

"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize," he told ABC News. Mr. Obama said 
he was struggling with "how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas 
corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, but doing it in a way that doesn't result 
in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up."

_With files from Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service_


----------



## geo (15 Jan 2009)

What kind of sentence does a criminal get for murder / manslaughter in the states ?

If the sentence is anything like 12 - 15 years...
do the conviction ASAP, sentencing usually doubles the value of the time served prior to conviction....

And return him to Afghanistan where they caught him in the 1st place.....


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jan 2009)

My solution:

The Government of Canada should take responsibilty for this poor young misguided person. Bring him back to Canada.

THEN: Deport him and his terrorist family to their country of origin.

I think you all know why I feel this way.

Sorry for the rant.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> What kind of sentence does a criminal get for murder / manslaughter in the states ?
> 
> If the sentence is anything like 12 - 15 years...
> do the conviction ASAP, sentencing usually doubles the value of the time served prior to conviction....
> ...


 >

Sounds like a "Catch and Release" policy that would be more effective than bringing him to Canada.


----------



## TCBF (21 Jan 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> well honestly they can drag it out for 6 more and I would not shed a tear.
> Fuck him and the whole family.



- At least the kid had the balls to put his ass on the line for what he believed in.  I'll take him anyday over the Limosine-Fedayeen who bad-mouth Canada while selling drugs in Toronto but wouldn't dare go toe-to-toe with NATO in the sandbox.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2009)

Interesting tie in to another case:

http://ezralevant.com/2009/01/charles-adler-show-today.html



> *Charles Adler Show today*
> By Ezra Levant on January 20, 2009 12:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (12) | Trackback
> 
> I'll be on Charles Adler's national radio show today at 4 p.m. ET, 2 p.m. MT, to talk about *Omar Khadr's statement that Maher Arar was indeed at a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.*
> ...


----------



## geo (21 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Interesting tie in to another case:
> http://ezralevant.com/2009/01/charles-adler-show-today.html


Might sound interesting Except..... they have such a dubious pedigree that they might just as well be a faerie tail


----------



## NL_engineer (22 Jan 2009)

> just because someone might have been at a terrorist camp in Afghanistan in 1993, doesn't necessarily mean they were a terrorist.



What kind of dumb a** wrote this?


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Jan 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> What kind of dumb a** wrote this?



If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers, and swims on the surface of water, allbeit happliy at that, its a duck, but not in the eyes of the author of that quote.

Very frustrating.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## proudnurse (23 Jan 2009)

And somewhere out there, a Medic's family deserves justice for thier son 

Edited to ad an article I've found

Kitchener Waterloo Record Thurs; Jan 22, 2009 Reproduced in accordance with fairdealings. 
article link: http://news.therecord.com/article/475370

Obama halts Khadr trial
Brennan Linsley, The Associated Press

GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA

A tiny crack appeared in Ottawa's long-standing reluctance to bring Omar Khadr home yesterday after a military judge called a 120-day halt to the Guantanamo Bay prisoner's war-crimes trial at the behest of U.S. President Barack Obama.

And, a senior Obama aide tells The Associated Press that Obama plans to sign an executive order today to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre within a year and halt military trials of terror suspects held there.

Obama, his presidency just hours old, ordered prosecutors to request the hiatus late Tuesday in order to allow for time to review the case of Khadr and 244 other detainees held at this infamous prison, according to prosecution documents.

That move prompted signals from Defence Minister Peter MacKay that the federal Conservative government would take Obama's cue and re-examine its oft-repeated position that due process in the U.S. should be allowed to run its course.

"Everyone involved in these cases will be reassessing their positions,'' MacKay said in Ottawa.

That appeared to bring out Kory Teneycke, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who reiterated the government's more familiar message: Khadr faces serious charges and the U.S. process must run its course.

"We are just not going to get into hypotheticals around different scenarios,'' Teneycke said.

"We'll simply wait and see what comes forward from the United States around this issue. We'll address other questions if and when they arise.''

Khadr's defence, which had earlier pushed hard for the charges to be stayed, did not oppose yesterday's motion.

"The practical effect of this ruling is to pronounce this military process dead,'' Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, Khadr's lawyer, said minutes after the judge, Col. Patrick Parrish, granted the continuance in a single-sentence ruling.

Reached in Toronto, Khadr's older sister expressed mixed feelings at the news.

"I'm glad my brother is not going to trial, but I really would have preferred he was coming home, and he's not,'' Zaynab Khadr said in an interview. "He has been there for six years. Delaying justice is not justice at all.''

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government to take the necessary steps to bring Khadr back to Canada.

"I don't pronounce on his innocence or guilt, I just think enough is enough,'' Ignatieff said in Montreal. "I want to make it clear -- I don't have an ounce of anti-Americanism in my blood. I have great respect for the constitutional and legal traditions of the United States of America, but I think Guantanamo has been a disgrace to those traditions.''

In addition to Khadr's trial, Obama's order also resulted in a temporary halt to the proceedings for the five accused co-conspirators in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Family members of 9/11 victims, gathered in Guantanamo to watch the proceedings, were outraged.

"Mr. Obama has offered up the lives of almost 3,000 Americans on the . . . altar of political correctness,'' said an angry Don Arias, whose brother Adam died in the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

The options now open to Obama, who during his election campaign promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay and who has since signalled doing so would be among his first priorities, include attempting to try the detainees in a U.S. federal or military court.

He could also establish a special terrorist court, although most observers consider that unlikely, in part because Democrats in Congress oppose such a move.

Detainees not considered dangerous could be sent back home.

The Toronto-born Khadr, 22, is charged under an internationally condemned military commissions process with killing an American soldier in violation of the rules of war.

It is alleged he tossed the hand grenade that killed Sgt. Chris Speer following a four-hour firefight near Khost, Afghanistan, in July 2002, when he was just 15.

Khadr is the lone westerner still held at Guantanamo, but Harper has steadfastly refused to get involved, saying the proceedings here had to run their course.

Harper can no longer "hide behind'' that argument, Kuebler said.

The defence had wanted all charges stayed against Khadr and the other detainees, but Kuebler said he'll settle for the suspension, which lasts until May 20, 2009, provided it leads to serious discussions about getting Khadr home.

"He is anxious, he is nervous, he doesn't quite know what is going to happen -- none of us does,'' Kuebler said of his client.

Guantanamo Executive Order

(Draft, dated January XX, 2009)

Draft says: "In view of the significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo and closure of the facility would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.''

Applies to: 245 men at Guantanamo.

What could happen next: 60 to 120 Guantanamo prisoners may be considered low-threat detainees and transferred to other countries, either for rehabilitation or release. Other detainees could be imprisoned in their home countries. The 120-day suspension could be extended indefinitely if the review concludes that current military trial system should end. If that happens, the cases likely will be heard by federal courts under long-standing military or civilian criminal law.


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2009)

Proudnurse,

The medic’s family deserves justice for their son… certainly

I agree that the family should.  However, let’s put things into proper perspective.  The medic was with troops who were conducting an assault onto an enemy defensive position.  He knowingly did go into harms way with his comrades & was just as likely to have gotten shot dead or blown up by an IED while moving forward.  It is not as if the medics were in a separate group from the US soldiers who fought that day – they were shoulder to shoulder with the bayonets throughout a four (4) hour firefight & anyone shooting at the soldiers would be shooting at the medic.

If this had been a conventional war with two uniformed armies facing off & one medic had gotten killed by accident (or intent) during a battle – the enemy soldier would have been disarmed & detained…. eventually to be released – returned to his homeland.

Has the US proceeded with the arrest, detention, trial and imprisonment of all other combatants who have fought them between 2001 and 2009?  The US has released hundreds of these detainees over the last nine (9) years.  Many of them very dangerous combatants who have returned to the field – killing others while possibly getting themselves killed… 

So why have they stubbornly hung onto 15 year old Omar Khadr for 6-7 years?

- Because he was born a national of a Western Country?
- Because he is the son of an AQ leader?
- Because he was an “illegal combatant” – a foreign national found alongside AQ & TB illegal combatants?
- Because he was a child soldier?
- Because he killed a Medic with a grenade tossed over a wall – a device used against a group of soldiers?


----------



## Jungle (23 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> So why have they stubbornly hung onto 15 year old Omar Khadr for 6-7 years?
> 
> - Because he was born a national of a Western Country?
> - Because he is the son of an AQ leader?
> ...


All of the above; while I respect the democratic processes and the new POTUS's decision, I feel very little sympathy for the young Khadr and hope he will never be returned to a Canadian neighborhood.


----------



## PanaEng (23 Jan 2009)

Jungle said:
			
		

> All of the above; while I respect the democratic processes and the new POTUS's decision, I feel very little sympathy for the young Khadr and hope he will never be returned to a Canadian neighborhood.


Although I feel the same way about his whole family, at least in Canada we will be able to keep tabs on him and not join Al-queda like most of the other freed detainees sent back to Saudi, Yemen, Pak, etc.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## KevinB (24 Jan 2009)

He gave up any claim to Canadian citizenship and protection of the Cdn gov when he joined Al-Queda and killed a American soldier.

  The only reason he should go to Canada is to be hung for treason.  

Some of these people are cancer, and there is nothing that can be done but kill them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jan 2009)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Although I feel the same way about his whole family, at least in Canada we will be able to keep tabs on him and not join Al-queda  like most of the other freed detainees sent back to Saudi, Yemen, Pak, etc.
> 
> cheers,
> Frank



You're kidding, right Frank?


----------



## PanaEng (24 Jan 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You're kidding, right Frank?


Actually, not this time. There have been many reports of recently released detainees joining back with Al-queda in different places - maybe they are being tracked, I don't know. If released back in Canada, CSIS or the RCMP could keep an eye on him and the people he contacts. We don't have many assets overseas that could do that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jan 2009)

Oh, I have no doubt they are rejoining their former comrades. I was more sceptical of us being able to keep an eye on Khadr. Unless he's granted 'high priority target' status, we don't have the resources to watch him once he walks out his front door. We can't even keep track of identified illegals in this country.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jan 2009)

Yup, he will rejoin only this time he will be collecting welfare while he's doing it....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jan 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yup, he will rejoin only this time he will be collecting welfare while he's doing it....


....and likely a medical pension to boot.


----------



## PanaEng (24 Jan 2009)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - At least the kid had the balls to put his *** on the line for what he believed in.  I'll take him anyday over the Limosine-Fedayeen who bad-mouth Canada while selling drugs in Toronto but wouldn't dare go toe-to-toe with NATO in the sandbox.


I wouldn't even give him that much credit. He was there because his dad and family were there. He was brainwashed into believing all that crap they believe in - that's all he knew an didn't have a choice but to be there. There comes a time when a person should "know better" and make the right decisions but without the right moral/value base how could anyone make the right decision? Their indoctrination makes them refuse any other ideas than those of their religious leaders - but that does not excuse them.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2009)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Actually, not this time. There have been many reports of recently released detainees joining back with Al-queda in different places - maybe they are being tracked, I don't know. If released back in Canada, CSIS or the RCMP could keep an eye on him and the people he contacts. We don't have many assets overseas that could do that.




 ;D  I really don't think CSIS or the RCMP are going to track him any better than they have others in the past.  Even in the US, tracking disillusioned youth is next to impossible.  Be they American or Canadian, if they become disillusioned or brainwashed and secetly desire to run off and join a fanatical or radical regime; they usually are able to do so "under the radar" and are only discovered after they are long gone.


----------



## old medic (25 Jan 2009)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Actually, not this time. There have been many reports of recently released detainees joining back with Al-queda in different places - maybe they are being tracked, I don't know. If released back in Canada, CSIS or the RCMP could keep an eye on him and the people he contacts. We don't have many assets overseas that could do that.




http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-detainee24-2009jan24,0,4983174.story

Saudi freed from Guantanamo rejoins Al Qaeda
Associated Press
January 24, 2009



> CAIRO, Egypt -- A released Guantanamo Bay terror detainee's re-emergence as an al-Qaida commander in Yemen highlights the difficulty President Barack Obama faces in his efforts to close the detention facility and decide the fates of U.S. captives.
> 
> A U.S. counterterror official confirmed Friday that Said Ali al-Shihri, who was jailed at Guantanamo for six years after his capture in Pakistan, has resurfaced as a leader of a Yemeni branch of al-Qaida.
> 
> ...


----------



## PanaEng (25 Jan 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Oh, I have no doubt they are rejoining their former comrades. I was more sceptical of us being able to keep an eye on Khadr. Unless he's granted 'high priority target' status, we don't have the resources to watch him once he walks out his front door. We can't even keep track of identified illegals in this country.


One thing all of us on this board can agree on is that all our national security services (CSIS, RCMP and Military) need a bit more funding. 
Illegal immigrants are pretty much at the bottom of the list and pretty much don't figure in the RCMP national agenda (provincial maybe, AFAIK). However, anything to do with national security/terrorism will be allocated some resources.

From George:





> Even in the US, tracking disillusioned youth is next to impossible.  Be they American or Canadian, if they become disillusioned or brainwashed and secetly desire to run off and join a fanatical or radical regime; they usually are able to do so "under the radar" and are only discovered after they are long gone.


A lot of targets get tracked but less than 20% get the light of the media. The 'London/Toronto 17' comes to mind as a success in finding and countering one such group. Off course, without a lead it is hard to find them in the first place but when you have previous knowledge and details of the members then the work is 50% done.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Yrys (1 Feb 2009)

Most want Khadr to face justice in Canada, poll finds

OTTAWA  -- Most Canadians believe accused terrorist Omar Khadr should be 
returned to Canada, but a healthy plurality want him to face justice here rather 
than simply being turned loose, a new poll indicates.

Fifty-four per cent of respondents to the Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey 
said Khadr, held by U.S. authorities for more than six years at Guantanamo Bay 
on murder and other charges, should be brought back to Canada. That included 
38 per cent who said he should face the courts in Canada, while 16 per cent 
said he should be released and placed in a monitoring and rehabilitation program.
Twenty-nine per cent of those questioned said Khadr should be dealt with through 
the U.S. court system.

The results were sharply split along party lines, reflecting a political debate that 
has gone on for months. Some 44 per cent of Liberal supporters thought Khadr 
should be tried in Canada while 24 per cent said rehabilitation in Canada would 
be the best course. Only 20 per cent favoured trial in the United States. Strong 
pluralities of NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Green party supporters also opted for trial 
in Canada.

By contrast, 46 per cent of Conservative backers said Khadr should be tried 
through the U.S. court system, while 31 per cent said he should return to Canada 
for trial and only eight per cent favoured release under a rehabilitation program.

There were also regional variations in the results, with support for a Canadian 
juridical process strongest in Atlantic Canada at 47 per cent, Ontario at 41 per 
cent and Quebec at 40 per cent. Support for U.S. judicial proceedings was highest 
in British Columbia at 38 per cent and Alberta at 32 per cent.

Jeff Walker, senior vice-president of Harris-Decima, summed up the bottom line: 
"Canadians are clear that they believe Mr. Khadr should face a trial, but more 
believe justice is best served if he faces it here (rather) than in the U.S."

Toronto-born Khadr, now 22, has been charged with murder and a variety of other 
terrorism-related offences. The murder allegation arose from the death of a U.S. 
soldier in a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002 when Khadr was 15. He had been slated 
for trial before a military tribunal at Guantanamo, but those proceedings were put 
on hold -- along with those of several other detainees -- by the new administration 
of President Barack Obama.

Obama has also signed an order to close the much-criticized Guantanamo detention 
facility within a year, but it remains to be seen what will happen to the prisoners held 
there. Some may be released, while others could be kept in custody elsewhere and 
tried under a yet-to-be-determined process.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said repeatedly his Tory government will wait for 
the U.S. legal process to play out before considering repatriation for Khadr, the last 
citizen of a western country held at Guantanamo.

Opposition critics say Ottawa should press for his return now and maintain he could 
be tried in Canada under a process that reflects his juvenile status at the time of the 
alleged offences.

There has been heated debate, however, about exactly what charges Khadr could face 
in Canada and the chances of a conviction. Many legal experts say most of the evidence 
compiled by U.S. authorities was obtained under duress, using sleep deprivation and 
other abusive techniques, and wouldn't be admissible in a Canadian court.

Some of his supporters have advocated a rehabilitation program that would include 
psychological and religious counselling and close monitoring to help him reintegrate 
into Canadian society.

The telephone poll of just over 1,000 Canadians was conducted between Jan. 22 and 25. 
The results are considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 per cent, 19 times in 20.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (2 Feb 2009)

Lets face the facts. Theres no way we can successfully rehabilitate radicals. Whether we throw them in prison for fifty years or let them go and try to keep tabs on them, because eventually they are going to go back to doing the same thing, trying to kill us. 

You can't reason with these people, and I use the word "people" lightly. They have been radicalized to the point that nothing else matters to them but that dark warped mindset that everyone in the west is evil and must be destroyed by what ever means possible. This means  it won't stop until *we kill every last one of them by any means possible*.

Sometimes we have to use the very same tactics that the enemy uses to gain the edge and if that means bending a few rules or placing our western values in our back pockets to work towards that objective, so be it, because in the end its either us or them. The problem as I see it is western nations are not prepared to take the steps necessary with the exception of Israel to do the job properly. Politicians see it as political suicide. The UN is incapable of doing anything but muttering empty protests every time a terrorist group bombs or kills Innocent people and now the US is closing the only tool that at the very least kept some of these animals behind bars.  

Until someone stands up and fights fire with fire and is prepared to pull out all the stops to get the job done right, this will be a war that will pass from generation to generation and maybe just maybe a hundred years from now when both sides decide to stop and ask themselves why are we fighting, the irony of it all will be, no one will remember the reason...


----------



## The_Falcon (6 Feb 2009)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Most want Khadr to face justice in Canada, poll finds
> 
> OTTAWA  -- Most Canadians believe accused terrorist Omar Khadr should be
> returned to Canada, but a healthy plurality want him to face justice here rather
> ...



I shouldn't be surprised by this, that liberals/granola munchers want this turd, to be tried here, with our oh so lenient legal system, but it is still aggravating.  I mean seriously try him as Juvenile? WTF?!?!? I can see it now on the news "The Afghan detainee, whose identity we can no longer show, was released on bail pending a show cause hearing" "The Afghan detainee, who's identity is protected under the YCJA, was sentenced to time served, and released to Keele St. halfway house".


----------



## Journeyman (6 Feb 2009)

> *....to help him reintegrate into Canadian society.*



I'd say that's a pretty forlorn hope, given that none of his family members have ever actually _integrated_ into Canadian society in the first place.


----------



## KJK (6 Feb 2009)

The only saving grace is that as a guest of the Americans he has already served more time than he would have here in Canada under the YCJA.

KJK


----------



## Danjanou (6 Feb 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'd say that's a pretty forlorn hope, given that none of his family members have ever actually _integrated_ into Canadian society in the first place.



Oh I don't know about that. They seem to have "integrated" into the use the public healthcare, collect welfare for life,  parts of Canadian Society really well  :


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Feb 2009)

Canoe news poll:

Can Omar Khadr be 'reintegrated' into Canadian life?

Yes   3% 
No   47% 
It should be attempted   8% 
It should not be attempted   38% 
Unsure   4% 
  

Total Votes for this Question: 513


----------



## GAP (10 Feb 2009)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Oh I don't know about that. They seem to have "integrated" into the use the public healthcare, collect welfare for life,  parts of Canadian Society really well  :



Don't forget....."repeated replacements of their passports for use by others"


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Feb 2009)

To be brief:

Deport them. They are leeches...worse. They have used our laws against us.
We've extended a hand of friendship and they have seen fit to spit on it.
The vast majority of Canadians would be shocked to hear of this IF the MSM would report it.


----------



## KevinB (10 Feb 2009)

Deport them about 20 miles off the coast without a boat...


----------



## Shec (10 Feb 2009)

Now, now.  Stop being such grumpy old men.  Remember many of us did some pretty wild and crazy things in our youth:  Sneaking into theatres, smoking in washrooms, chugging beer through a straw under a pool table, assembing bombs, lobbing grenades at our country's allies  - you know, that sort of impishly innocent youthful mischief.  We should be ashamed of ourselves for being so intolerant of the young lad and his fine, upstanding,  family.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Feb 2009)

I read that Bob Rae is actively hounding the government to brin our poor misunderstood young chap home.
Mr. Rae should volunteer to counsel and mentor this poor young person, in Mr. Rae's home.


----------



## KJK (11 Feb 2009)

That might be a little too rough for Bob Rae. How about shared custody between him and Taliban Jack?

KJK


----------



## Shec (11 Feb 2009)

Let's get young Omar and the rest of the Khadr family re-integrated and accepted by Canadian society by giving him the starring role in a new sitcom _Little Bomb Factory On The Prairie_.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Feb 2009)

KJK said:
			
		

> How about shared custody between him [Bob Rae] and Taliban Jack?


_Now_ I understand the expression, "by resorting to torture, we stoop to their level." Man, that's just harsh; I think that would be considered 'cruel and unusual' punishment.

(Although Infidel-6's suggestion may please Greenpeace. After all, we would be providing sustenance to natures' lovely sea creatures. Taliban Jack would have to back that  ;D )


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Feb 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Deport them about 20 miles off the coast without a boat...



ROTF pissing self

Kev, I just love the level of your political correctivenss  ;D

 :cheers:

Wes


----------



## GAP (12 Feb 2009)

*Let’s get serious about Omar* 
Wed, 2009-02-11 23:30. Brian Lilley
Article Link

Omar Khadr's lawyers, supported by community groups, "civil society" and politicians in Ottawa have presented a plan for bringing Omar Khadr back to Canada. The idea is for the government of Canada to enter into negotiations with the US government and Mr. Khadr to have him come back to Canada to live under specified terms.


According to Khadr's legal team, the agreement would set out where he would live, not with his family but a host family. There would be a team around Omar to provide for his schooling, he would be home schooled. An expert in torture would offer any needed counselling. There would be spiritual advisors who would make sure that young Mr. Khadr would be schooled in Islam but they stressed at their news conference it would not be a radical form of Islam, and all those around him would denounce terrorism.



It sounds like a wonderful plan to reintegrate Mr. Khadr back into Canadian society, but let's call this plan what it is. A sham.



I will not argue that Omar Khadr will need help reintegrating into Canadian society at some point and in his case, the John Howard Society might be a bit stretched to give everything this guy will need. But to think that a man who faces no charges in Canada, has not been convicted of any crime anywhere in the world, can be compelled by the government of Canada to submit to this plan is a joke.



Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen. While many see him as guilty of the crimes he was alleged to have committed on the battlefield, no court has pronounced a sentence and if he is brought back to Canada without first being convicted in the United States, Omar Khadr will never be convicted anywhere.



Dennis Edney, one of Khadr's Canadian lawyers, says his client is willing to face trial in Canada. All the while, Edney and his partners will also tell you that there is no way that IF their client were to face charges here he would ever be convicted. Omar Khadr is alleged to have thrown a grenade at the end of a battle, killing a US medic. Canadian law is not set up to prosecute people for crimes committed overseas. 



Ah yes, but what about treason you say?



I have yet to speak to a single lawyer, expert or otherwise that believes Canada's treason law, as written, would apply to Mr. Khadr. So, if he comes back to Canada he comes back a free man.



I'm not writing all this to say Omar Khadr will never or should never come back to Canada. Khadr was born in Canada and is thus able to claim civis Canadianus, all rights accorded to a Canadian apply to him. At some point, as his supporters say, he will come back. 

Liberal MP Bob Rae has been using this argument all week, that since Khadr will one day come back, he should come back under negotiated terms. Let's examine this. If Khadr and the government reached a deal saying that he would live with a nice family in Mississauga, study, attend the local and non-offensive mosque and be seen by a shrink, what would stop him from reneging on the deal once he was back in Canada? Nothing.



Such a deal would violate The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under sections 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 15. To sum that up, it would violate Khadr's rights to freedom of association; mobility; life, liberty and security of the person; the right not to be arbitrarily detained; his right to equality before the law. Such a deal, in short, would be thrown out in court. What judge, seeing that Khadr had signed this deal to get out of a prison alleged to be a place of torture, would not dismiss the deal and state plainly that without charges or convictions the government has no authority to tell Mr. Khadr how to live?

Omar Khadr's case is not a simple one. Its time politicians, journalists and others who should know better, stopped pretending it is simple.
More on link


----------



## KevinB (12 Feb 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> ROTF pissing self
> 
> Kev, I just love the level of your political correctivenss  ;D
> 
> ...



I'm just trying to save the Cdn taxpayer money...


----------



## BernDawg (13 Feb 2009)

"If Khadr and the government reached a deal saying that he would live with a nice family in Mississauga, study, attend the local and non-offensive mosque"

Oh no.  He should have to live with a nice conservative family in say Ardmore AB or Biggar SK that has about half a dozen beefy farm boys in it to keep him to the arrangement if, of course he actually lives past the first week.  Oh that's right no mosque there. So.......

Engage the Rant Off button before I get canned.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Feb 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> *Let’s get serious about Omar*
> Wed, 2009-02-11 23:30. Brian Lilley
> Article Link


Amongst the various views, rants (mine included), and wack-job propaganda out there, this is probably one of the best I've read.

And sadly, it's most likely correct.

I increasingly suspect that Khadr will end up back in Toronto, free, living with his Canada-hating family, swarmed with apologists, with both a muti-gazillion dollar law-suit against Canada and a book/movie deal in the works.

What happens next is, of course, up to him. Will he have matured and learned anything positive from all this and move forward in a manner beneficial to himself and society? Or will he become the poster child for further factionalizing Canadian society?

I'm not much of a gambler, but......


----------



## NL_engineer (14 Feb 2009)

I still say trial him with treason, and if he doesn't get convicted send him to a pro-Canadian foster home somewhere up north, and close enough to Alaska that it wouldn't take to much effort to hand him to the CIA.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2009)

Christie Blatchford's take in the Globe (.pdf attached in case link doesn't work).....


> ....Maybe Mr. Khadr, 15 at the time he was arrested, wounded, in the aftermath of that battle, didn't throw the grenade. Maybe he's just a poor boy (now, of 22) who needs a little TLC.  But the memory of Sgt. Speer, a son of the country which is our greatest ally, requires that Canada do more than put up a banner and throw a pretty party. There needs to be a proper prosecution, in a civilized country where the rule of law matters, where the evidence is put to the test at a trial. That country should be the United States...


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Feb 2009)

:rage:
I'd reintegrate him allright. You don't want to know how or where. :rage:


----------



## KevinB (18 Feb 2009)

I'd like to integrate him with something...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Feb 2009)

What do you have there?


----------



## CountDC (18 Feb 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> :rage:
> I'd reintegrate him allright. You don't want to know how or where. :rage:



but enough of us could give a good guess and would support it >


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2009)

Canada is still a common law nation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw



> In the common law of England, a judgment declaring someone an outlaw, known as a *"Writ of Outlawry"*, was one of the harshest penalties in the legal system, since the outlaw could not use the legal system to protect himself if needed, such as from mob justice.
> 
> *To be declared an outlaw was to suffer a form of civil or social death. The outlaw was debarred from all civilized society. No one was allowed to give him food, shelter, or any other sort of support — to do so was to commit the crime of aiding and abetting, and to be in danger of the ban oneself.*
> 
> An outlaw might be killed with impunity; and it was not only lawful but meritorious to kill a thief flying from justice — to do so was not murder. A man who slew a thief was expected to declare the fact without delay, otherwise the dead man’s kindred might clear his name by their oath and require the slayer to pay weregild as for a true man. Because the outlaw has defied civil society, that society was quit of any obligations to the outlaw —outlaws had no civil rights, could not sue in any court on any cause of action, though they were themselves personally liable.


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Feb 2009)

Canada to stay out of Khadr matter
By Lee-Anne Goodman, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Article Link

WASHINGTON - Canada's foreign affairs minister emerged from a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday to make clear the federal government would make no immediate demands about repatriating Canadian Omar Khadr, still imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. 

"This individual is, allegedly, a murderer," Lawrence Cannon told a news conference at the Canadian Embassy following his talks with Clinton at the State Department. 

"I have indicated today the government of Canada fully respects the process that the American government has put forward, and we will await the outcome of that process before anything takes place." 

More on link


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Apr 2009)

I guess there are many ways to worm your way into "things".......



 http://www.thestar.com/SpecialSections/article/612188
Break-in shines light on marriage of Khadr, judge's son

BILL GRIMSHAW FOR THE TORONTO STAR 
National Security Reporter

When Ottawa police received a routine 911 call for a suspected break-in last month, they could never have foreseen the strange saga that would unfold – one that involves a federal court judge, the notorious Khadr family, RCMP protection and a wedding that would set tongues wagging among Ottawa's political elite. 

The home belonged to Patrick J. Boyle, a well-known and connected judge of Canada's tax court. Police reportedly found the front door smashed, the house ransacked and what appeared to be holes from .22-calibre bullets in the windows. 
The incident combined with Boyle's position raised alarms since the police force was already investigating the murder of his colleague, former Tax Court Chief Justice Alban Garon, who was killed alongside his wife and a neighbour in 2007. 

But then another connection came to light. Boyle had recently become the father-in-law of Zaynab Khadr, the outspoken sister of Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr.
The link to the Khadr clan, once called "Canada's First Family of Terrorism" because of the patriarch's former association with Al Qaeda's elite, would make the already curious March 20 break-in even more suspicious. Boyle and his wife were given RCMP protection and the federal police force's INSET division, which normally investigates terrorism cases, was called in.

Although Ottawa police and the RCMP would not comment on the details of the case, the Star has learned that documents were reportedly taken from Boyle's home and that the three bullet holes indicated the shots were fired from close range. No one was home at the time of the break-in, which was discovered by Boyle's teenaged daughter that Friday afternoon. 
The investigation and the marriage are the latest twists in the Khadr family saga that has been ongoing since the mid-1990s. 

In a phone interview and through questions answered by email, Patrick Boyle and his wife Linda said they were unnerved by the break-in, but have been told by the RCMP that it is likely not related to their son's marriage or the unsolved homicide. 
"Our response was typical of how I believe most families would react upon a break-in – we felt that our sense of privacy and safety in our own home was violated," the couple wrote. 

As for their son Joshua's marriage, they said they have welcomed their new daughter-in-law and Zaynab's daughter from a previous marriage into their family. 
"As we have slowly begun sharing the news of our son's marriage with our close friends and colleagues, we have been touched by the sensitivity and concern shown in their responses, and in their unwavering support for our family," they said. 

"While we recognize that both Joshua and Zaynab come from different backgrounds and grew up in different cultures, it is our hope that love will prevail over these unique challenges," Linda wrote. "Zaynab is a part of our family now. She refers to me and my husband as 'Mom' and 'Dad,' and she treats us with all the respect you could hope for from a daughter-in-law. She has brought into our lives the gift of her daughter, now our granddaughter."

Now 29, Zaynab enraged Canadians in 2004 for comments she made in a CBC documentary praising her former life in Pakistan and Afghanistan and downplaying the 9/11 attacks. When Zaynab returned to Canada with her daughter and younger sister the following year, RCMP officers seized her laptop and personal possessions at the airport. The RCMP's Toronto national security unit continues to investigate her but she has not been charged. 

Her 25-year-old husband says she has been unfairly vilified. 
"If you take any person and the worst statement they've made at a difficult time and you repeat it ad nauseam in the press, anybody can look like a super-villain," Joshua Boyle said in an interview this week.

Boyle, a recent University of Waterloo graduate, met Zaynab in 2008 after becoming interested in national security cases and human rights issues. He later offered to work as a spokesperson for the family and issued press releases during Zaynab's October 2008 hunger strike on Parliament Hill as she tried to raise awareness about her brother's detention in Guantanamo. 

Boyle said he would not discuss his religious beliefs or where the couple were married. Although he was raised in a Mennonite community in Waterloo, his parents are active within Ottawa's Catholic community while the Khadr family is Muslim. Zaynab said she did not want to comment for the article.

The marriage is Zaynab's fourth  and her first in Canada. Her father, Ahmed Said Khadr, had arranged her previous marriages beginning when she was just 16, as he shuttled his children around Canada, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Khadr, a Canadian citizen born in Egypt, operated various charities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but after 9/11 fled with his family to the tribal border region. Long suspected of connections to Al Qaeda due to his acquaintance with its leader Osama bin Laden, both the UN and U.S. listed him as a suspected terrorist financier. He was killed by Pakistani forces in October 2003. 

U.S. Special Forces fighting in Afghanistan captured Zaynab's younger brother, Omar, in July 2002. The Pentagon held and interrogated the 15-year-old at Bagram for three months before transferring him to the American base at Guantanamo Bay where he remains today. Now 22, Khadr was charged under the Bush administration with five war crimes, including murder for allegedly throwing a grenade that fatally wounded U.S. soldier Christopher Speer. The case is currently under review and U.S. President Barack Obama has ordered the Guantanamo prison closed by next year. 

The eldest Khadr son is also in custody. Abdullah Khadr is fighting his extradition to the U.S. where he has been indicted on terrorism charges. His extradition hearing is set to begin later this month.


----------



## GAP (2 Apr 2009)

Interesting Article....busy little family those Khadar's are.....


----------



## geo (2 Apr 2009)

Curiousser & curiousser some more


----------



## GAP (4 Apr 2009)

Canadian officials probe Khadr lawyer firing
 TheStar.com - April 04, 2009 Allan Woods Ottawa Bureau
Article Link

STRASBOURG–A diplomatic row could be brewing over the surpise decision by the U.S. government to fire terrorism suspect Omar Khadr's military-appointed lawyer.

Canadian officials said this morning that they are looking into reports that U.S. Navy lawyer Lt.-Cmdr. William Kuebler had been removed from the case for improper supervision and management of 22-year-old Khadr's defence team.

Kuebler has led the defence for Canada's only Guantanamo inmate for the last two years.

Khadr is charged with five counts of war crimes linked to allegations he threw a grenade that killed U.S. Sgt. Christopher Speer during a firefight in Afghanistan in July 2002. The case has been suspended until May.

A spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, who is attending the annual NATO summit in this French-German border town, said the department is seeking more information on the decision to dump Kuebler. 

"Canada has always insisted that Mr. Khadr has access to competent counsel of his choice," said Catherine Loubier.

She declined to say whether Cannon had raised the issue with his U.S. counterpart, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, or if there was any intention to do so.

Just how hard the Conservative government could go to bat for Khadr is another question. The Tories have repeatedly refused calls to request Khadr's return to Canadian soil, even after U.S. President Barack Obama made clear his intention to close down the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

On Friday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy offered to take one of the detainees from the American-run prison, located in Cuba, saying that Guantanamo wasn't in keeping with U.S. values. The prisoner in question is reportedly an Algerian national.

"I was proud and happy to see that the U.S. has made the decision that we'd awaited, to close that camp." Sarkozy said, adding France's decision to take in a detainee was in response to a direct request from Obama.

"You can't condemn the U.S. because they have that camp and then wash your hands of the matter when they close it. That's not how you're an ally. That's not how you're a friend and that's not how you can be respected worldwide."
end of article


----------



## GAP (9 Apr 2009)

Judge reinstates Guantanamo lawyer fired by US
By BEN FOX – 18 hours ago 
Article Link

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — A military judge has refused to allow Pentagon officials to dismiss the lead attorney for the last western prisoner at Guantanamo, adding to turmoil for the Canadian's defense on Wednesday as a key deadline approaches.

Army Col. Patrick Parrish ruled late Tuesday that the chief defense counsel for the Guantanamo war crimes trials lacked authority to dismiss Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler from the defense team of Omar Khadr, who was 15 when captured after allegedly killing an American soldier.

Parrish said in a one-page ruling that only a judge could remove a lawyer under the rules of the military tribunals, which were suspended in January by President Barack Obama pending a review of the system for prosecuting Guantanamo prisoners as war criminals.

The chief defense counsel, Air Force Col. Peter Masciola, said he removed Kuebler because the defense team was "dysfunctional," and he asked the judge to reconsider his ruling.

Kuebler, who says his firing stems from strategy disagreements with Masciola, said he has been barred from the defense counsel's office and prevented from accessing files as the team tries to meet an April 15 deadline to submit documents to a review team appointed by Obama.

"I am Omar Khadr's lawyer and I am assigned to the office of military commissions and my boss is keeping me from doing my job," he told The Associated Press in a phone interview from his home in Alexandria, Virginia.
More on link


----------



## PanaEng (9 Apr 2009)

got to hate when family laundry gets aired in public.


----------



## mediocre1 (9 Apr 2009)

mattoigta said:
			
		

> It just said on CBC that 2 members of the Khadr family - I believe the mother (who keeps "losing" canadian passports) and the son (who was injured in a gun fight with pakistani police men) - are on a plane to Canada. The flight is from Islamabad to Toronto, and is scheduled to land tomorrow afternoon.
> 
> :gunner:



The American,British, Canadian leftist press have been  exploiting this isolated case on Khadr. 'Look, we  had SLIGHTLY committed an inconceivable ANd SLIGHTLY IRRATIONAL INCONCEIVABLE act that created a grey area in Canadian jurisprudence in need of a precedent. But don't exploit the issue in defense of communism and godless Leftism (journals and magazines of the  Communist Party of Canada) whose adherents are  all in 'perpetual fault'.'

It is similar to using Maher Arar as an issue but have never attempted to bring his perpetrattors in Syria to justice by way of invoking and indicting through international law. Double jeopardy of using Arar and covering up for the acts of those who tortured him. Double standards in dealing with terrorism by way of covering up the fact that ARar is considered a 'terrorist' under Syrian law for his affiliation with Syrian Brotherhood.

Perspicacious,, intuitive... those are the kind of writers among the politically correct democratic capitalilsm is what we need nowadays.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2009)

Holy Necro Posting! Batman.


----------



## KevinB (9 Apr 2009)

Necropost - Spam, and Troll all wrapped into one.

 Makes ones head hurt.


----------



## mediocre1 (9 Apr 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Necropost - Spam, and Troll all wrapped into one.
> 
> Makes ones head hurt.



It wasn't addressed to the previous poster, sir. It was an indictment of the flaws in Left journalism. It was satire.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2009)

mediocre1 said:
			
		

> It wasn't addressed to the previous poster, sir. It was an indictment of the flaws in Left journalism. It was satire.


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Holy Necro Posting! Batman.



5 yrs to the day!!!


op:


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Apr 2009)

This from the Canadian Press:


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has an obligation to immediately demand the repatriation of Omar Khadr from Guantanamo Bay because his failure to do so offends fundamental justice, a Federal Court judge ruled Thursday.
> 
> In a strong judgment, Judge Walter O'Reilly said Harper's refusal to get involved violated Canada's Charter of Rights.
> 
> ...


If you're inclined to read the whole Federal Court decision, it's attached.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Apr 2009)

> Whitling said he expected Harper and the Canadian government to take immediate steps to demand Khadr's repatriation.
> 
> "There's nothing at all to stop them from doing that. All they have to do is send a letter."
> 
> ...



I think that the fitting thing to do, is for the Government to write the letter requesting the immediate repatriation of Khadr from the US upon the completion of his Legal proceedings and Sentence (if any).   That will fulfill the demands of Whitling, O'Reilly and cronies.


----------



## KJK (23 Apr 2009)

Yes, write the letter but at the bottom put "P.S. I don't mean it and I don't want him back!"

KJK


----------



## George Wallace (23 Apr 2009)

Anyone find a few glaring flaws in Justice O'Reilly's  Judgment?



> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
> [1] Mr. Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was arrested in Afghanistan in July 2002 when he was
> 15 years old. He is alleged to have thrown a grenade that caused the death of a U.S. soldier. He has
> been imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay since October 2002 awaiting trial on serious charges: murder,
> ...




Ummmmm!

When did Canada have jurisdiction over 'Acts' that took place outside of Canada's 'Boundaries'?

When did Canadian Law have precedence over the Law of a Foreign Jurisdiction?

Mr Khadr allegedly committed this 'Act' on Foreign Soil and is being held by a Foreign Government to face that Governments Legal Process.  Mr Khadr has not been on Canadian soil or in any way fallen under Canadian jurisdiction for any time, shortly before and since, allegedly committing the crime for which he is incarcerated and being tried for.  

I could see the judgment being made had Mr Khadr's alledged actions taken place on lands falling under Canadian 'sovereignty', but they did not.

If this is the Justice's opinion, then perhaps he would like to go to Saudi Arabia and bring back the two Canadian brothers accused, tried and sentenced to death for a school yard fight resulting in the death of a fellow student and member of a mob who attacked them.

Is it also fitting that this has come out of a Court in British Columbia?  Why not a Court in Toronto, where the Khadr family resides?

[Edit.....What a "Read"]

Justice O'Reilly released this Judgment in Vancouver, BC on 23 Apr 2009.  The actual Hearings were in Toronto, on 28 Oct 2008.  Forty pages of Judgment separate the Vancouver date from the Hearing date in Toronto (found at the very end on page 42.)


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Apr 2009)

I would suggest that the Government respond by stating that they will consider Mr Kadr's request once his current legal troubles are resolved. Such a response would be consistent with the treatment of other Canadians accused of crimes in other jurisdictions. To my mind there are three reasonable outcomes:

a. try him by the aggrieved party (US);
b. try him in his country of origin (Canada); or
c. try him where the crime was committed (Afghanistan).

In any event, I feel the Government is under no obligation to lobby for his repatriation until his guilt or innocence is established.


----------



## Rinker (23 Apr 2009)

Well put ModlrMike

But in my opinion I think he is guilty (very bias), and I don't want him back in our cushy jails. But hey we have courts and judges etc for reason.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Apr 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I would suggest that the Government respond by stating that they will consider Mr Kadr's request once his current legal troubles are resolved. Such a response would be consistent with the treatment of other Canadians accused of crimes in other jurisdictions. To my mind there are three reasonable outcomes:
> 
> a. try him by the aggrieved party (US);
> b. try him in his country of origin (Canada); or
> ...



I would say that your second sentence disqualifies option 2.  

Although born in Canada, he was living in Pakistan and allegedly fighting in Afghanistan where he was captured.  Let the Americans try him, as they captured him, gave him medical aid and are detaining him on their sovereign soil.  That, or send him back to Afghanistan to face the Legal System there.  Canada has 'nothing on him' other than his place of Birth.  Everything else in reference to this case is 'outside of Canada and Canadian jurisdiction' in the hands of a "Foreign Judicial System".  

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if someone comes forward with the statement that after 911 he, along with his father and brother, had renounced their Canadian Citizenship, and that only now that he is being detained, is he crying for Canada to save him, a Canadian Citizen.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Apr 2009)

Justice O'Reilly's Judgment makes me wonder.  Has Canada's Legal System let us down.  When we look at it closely, forget about the Charter of Human Rights and Freedom of Speech and all the Civil and other Laws and Precedence; what does our Legal System really represent?  Does it honestly present a fair and equal ruling according to the Laws of the Land to the everyday citizen; or is it in reality a stage by which egos pontificate in debates for the sole glory of defeating their opponent in a debate, the Law be damned.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Apr 2009)

Please bring this poor misunderstood lad home. THEN DEPORT HIM AND HIS TERRORIST FAMILY TO PAKISTAN, if they love it so much. Maybe he will rejoin his thug brethern and our guys can have a second chance at his hide.
Rant ends...out! :rage:


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would say that your second sentence disqualifies option 2.



I agree, which is why I put in the codicil at the end. In retrospect, I should probably had that as option 3, with (not likely) appended to it.


----------



## geo (24 Apr 2009)

Mr. Khadr challenges the refusal of the Canadian Government to seek his repatriation to
Canada. He claims that his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (sections 6, 7
and 12) have been infringed:



> Section Six of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of that protects the mobility rights of Canadian citizens. By mobility rights, the section refers to the individual practice of entering and exiting Canada, and moving within its boundaries.


... can't be violating his rights - cause he isn't in Canada and left the country of his own free will with his father .  That he is stuck in another country should not make a difference.... Nope, no infringment here.



> Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government. This Charter provision provides both substantive and procedural rights. It has broad application beyond merely protecting due process in administrative proceedings and in the adjudicative context, and has in certain circumstances touched upon major national policy issues such as entitlement to social assistance and public health care. As such, it has proven to be a controversial provision in the Charter.



Protection from action by the government...... well, the Canadian government is doing nothing other than waiting for the US government to follow due process.... nope, no real infringment here either.



> Section Twelve of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as part of the Charter and of the Constitution of Canada, is a legal rights section that protects an individual's freedom from cruel and unusual punishments in Canada.


  Nope, no cruel and unusual punishment in Canada... he isn't in Canada.

All this to say that the Articles quoted by the Judge don't work for most Canadians - and certainly does not impress Mr Harper.  

That having been said, I really & truly would hope / wish that the US special tribunal would get it's thumb out & get going on this trial - Get 'er done & get 'er over with.


----------



## Shec (24 Apr 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Please bring this poor misunderstood lad home. THEN DEPORT HIM AND HIS TERRORIST FAMILY TO PAKISTAN, if they love it so much. Maybe he will rejoin his thug brethern and our guys can have a second chance at his hide.
> Rant ends...out! :rage:



But, before we do that charge them under the Foreign Enlistment Act,  sentence them to the max., and then deport them upon release.  

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-28/index.html


----------



## geo (24 Apr 2009)

Anyone notice what happened in the states this week.

There is / was a Italian "Don" who emigrated from Canada to the US (with Green card) when he was 15 yrs of age.   Most recently heading a multi milion dollar business AND a New York/ new Jersey crime family - he was convicted .... and put on a plane back to Montreal....


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Apr 2009)

The problem with removing the Kadr's from Canada is that they're not all naturalized citizens. Some are Canadian by birth. I don't know if there is any legal ability to strip a person of his citizenship thus rendering him stateless, as would be the case with Omar.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Apr 2009)

Commentary by Greg Watson in the Ottawa Sun
Article Link

Read the commentary and form your own opinions, however, I would like to point out this "tidbit":



> For his part, Omar Khadr was nabbed by American forces in Afghanistan after a firefight in which he allegedly killed a U.S. army medic with a grenade.
> 
> Those allegations having been seriously challenged by conflicting evidence -- some of it points to possible friendly fire as the culprit -- Harper's PR department has now trotted out some old footage supposedly showing Omar the bomb-maker.
> 
> The brilliant idea behind the video is apparently to *convince Canadians of limited IQ* that Khadr -- at about the age most kids are in Grade 8 -- was personally responsible for making the roadside explosives years ago that killed another Canadian soldier last week. Right.



Is he implying that kids in Grade 8 would not be intelligent enough to make IEDs?  I guess that could be true, if they have "limited" IQs.  :


----------



## George Wallace (28 Apr 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Commentary by Greg Watson in the Ottawa Sun
> Article Link
> Is he implying that kids in Grade 8 would not be intelligent enough to make IEDs?  I guess that could be true, if they have "limited" IQs.  :



You may have to read that aloud to yourself and put in all the pauses in the correct places.  He is saying that it is a simple example beign put forward to Canadians with Limited IQs (not Khadr) who will withness Khadr at a young age, the same age where most Canadians are in Grade 8, as he (Khadr) is making bombs (not low IQ Canadians).  Although, there have been instances where Low IQ people have blown themselves up, but those are usually found in the Darwin Awards.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (28 Apr 2009)

At age 8 I could shoot a shotgun with two eyes open and hit the target everytime.Why?My father taught me.Sure the average Canadian kid couldnt because they were not taught.

Children imitate who they look up to.His father was a terrorist and so was he.


----------



## Sythen (28 Apr 2009)

When I was in grade 6, a friend of mine was the first person I knew with the internet.. As soon as he got it, we printed off the anarchists cook book and started making things cause it was 'cool' to do.. We knew exactly what we were doing to those garbage bins and mail boxes.. 

Being young is no excuse.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You may have to read that aloud to yourself and put in all the pauses in the correct places.  He is saying that it is a simple example beign put forward to Canadians with Limited IQs (not Khadr) who will withness Khadr at a young age, the same age where most Canadians are in Grade 8, as he (Khadr) is making bombs (not low IQ Canadians).  Although, there have been instances where Low IQ people have blown themselves up, but those are usually found in the Darwin Awards.



George, I did read it.  Several times.  The whole commentary.  What Watson is implying is that Harper's video is fake and that Khadr (being about the age of a Grade 8 kid at the time) was not responsible for making bombs.  Never mind the remark about low IQs, except that he also implies that only those with low IQs would believe the video.

Try this:

"Those allegations having been seriously challenged by conflicting evidence -- some of it points to possible friendly fire as the culprit -- Harper's PR department has now trotted out some old footage *supposedly* showing Omar the bomb-maker.

The brilliant (sarcasm) idea behind the video is *apparently* to convince Canadians of limited IQ that *Khadr -- at about the age most kids are in Grade 8 -- was personally responsible* for making the roadside explosives years ago that killed another Canadian soldier last week. Right (more sarcasm)."


----------



## Rinker (30 Apr 2009)

This really should have nothing to do with us. He left fair and square. Did some bad things and got caught. Sure he WAS a Canadian. But honestly to have some go to war against us (I'm sure if it were Canadians killed there might have been less backlash about the whole issue) kill our allies, then want to come back to our protection and seek medical care from us taxpayers that also pay taxes to fry his type. That is just so ridiculous, I don't even know how to put how stupid it is. We spend money to kill him, now we try to get him back to protect him. I would understand the medical a little more if he was in our country as a POW.


----------



## wannabe SF member (30 Apr 2009)

Rinker said:
			
		

> I would understand the medical a little more if he was in our country as a POW.



Where's his uniform, rank, unit and serial number. He's not a POW, for that you have to be a soldier.
As far as I'm concerned, he's a civvy who commited murder as well as a terrorist.

Prosecute him and lock him away for good :rage:


----------



## Rinker (30 Apr 2009)

Yea I know, but I would give him medical as if he were a legit POW. After that lock'em up as a war criminal. Treat him as spy I don't care as long as he never gets back on the streets.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2009)

The latest from the Canadian Press:


> The Harper government is appealing a court ruling that ordered it to seek Omar Khadr's return from Guantanamo Bay, sticking with its view that he should remain in the U.S. military prison to face charges there.
> 
> Officials confirmed Friday that Ottawa filed an appeal of a Federal Court ruling that the government must demand that U.S. authorities return Khadr to Canada.
> 
> ...



More from the _Toronto Star_, National Post/CanWest, the Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France Presse.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (10 May 2009)

Has anyone thought of repatriating Khadr?  To Afghanistan to face Islamic justice.  He wouldn't object to that, or would he?


----------



## Shec (15 Jul 2009)

*CSIS ignored Khadr's human rights: report*
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/15/khadr-csis015.html

Oh my my, it appears that we did the misunderstood young lad an egregious act of irreparable harm and in so doing committed an historic wrong.  

Seems to me CSIS has been cleaning up a historic wrong made by Immigration & Citizenship way back when.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jul 2009)

"The Khadr family has longstanding ties to al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. A purported financier and extremist with the network, Omar's father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was killed by Pakistani forces in 2003.

Omar's brother Karim suffered wounds that left him a paraplegic in the shootout that killed their father. Another brother, Abdullah, is accused by U.S. officials of supplying weapons to al-Qaeda."

Straight from the CBC website. 

Now that its been determined his "rights" were violated, how many millions will this cost the taxpayer? :rage:


----------



## North Star (26 Jul 2009)

Probably lots, unfortunately. 

There seems to be a misunderstanding as to the role of intelligence services - they are not police. They are services designed to provide decision makers with information upon which to base their decisions. The Khadr saga has been unfortunate in that courts are becoming involved in the day-to-day business of intelligence agencies and seem to be projecting the roles and responsibilities of police forces onto them.

It does not surprise me that CSIS agents did not look at Mr. Khadr's participation in the frequent flyer program - it's not really in their mandate. The treatment of Canadian citizens abroad by a foreign government is a DFAIT thing. All CSIS is supposed to do is gather up info and ship it back. 

Years from now, when CSIS is under the same scrutiny as police services, and has the same limitations and rules of evidence applied to the information it collects, we'll form a true intelligence agency and allow the same to happen to it.


----------



## GAP (19 Aug 2009)

Why the Khadr fetish?
Ezra Levant, National Post  Published: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 
Article Link



T he Canadian Bar Association (CBA) has a crush on Omar Khadr. The left-leaning lawyers' club held its convention in Dublin last week, but even Ireland's charms couldn't get their minds off the accused terrorist, still detained in Barack Obama's prison at Guantanamo Bay.

The spark for the CBA's latest pronouncement on the matter was a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, ordering the Canadian government to seek Khadr's repatriation (the government is considering an appeal). But the CBA doesn't need a reason to talk about their favourite cause. Khadr has been the subject of more CBA press releases than everyone else on the planet combined.

The CBA is obsessed. A search of its website yields 232 items about Khadr. What about other Canadians trapped overseas, such as Huseyn Celil, a Canadian citizen currently being held on trumped-up charges by China, or William Sampson, who was held and tortured in Saudi Arabia? They are non-persons to the CBA -- no press releases for them, and no mentions on its website.

At any one time, there are typically about 1,000 Canadians detained overseas, most of them for good reason. In Khadr's case, he is charged with murdering a U. S. soldier, Christopher Speer, in Afghanistan, where Khadr had gone as part of his jihad.

Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention is pretty clear on the rights of people caught in Khadr's circumstances: If someone isn't part of a chain of command, doesn't wear a flag or emblem "recognizable at a distance," doesn't bear their weapons "openly" and doesn't follow the "laws and customs of war," they don't have rights as a prisoner of war. Khadr didn't do any of those things.

In the past, when Allied troops caught enemy combatants breaching those rules -- like some Germans did on D-Day-- they were shot on sight, or subject to expedited trials on the spot. Not Khadr; His life was saved by U. S. medics and he was flown to Guantanamo, where he has received food, shelter, a Koran and an imam -- and free lawyers. Sgt. Speer was flown home, too -- to a graveyard.

If the CBA had a general policy of demanding the return of Canadians caught in trouble overseas, its Khadr fetish wouldn't stand out so garishly. But the CBA doesn't do that. In fact, when it comes to the world's worst regimes, the CBA isn't just silent -- it participates in their PR rehabilitation.

Take Burma, a brutal country that just extended the illegal house arrest of democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize winner. The CBA recently sponsored a tourist junket to Burma, full of sightseeing and shopping. Suu Kyi has specifically called for a tourism boycott, saying in a 1999 interview "to suggest that there's anything new that tourists can teach the people of Burma about their own situation is not simply patronizing, it's also racist." But the CBA sent 60 vacationing lawyers to Burma on an itinerary that included some great bargains on lacquerware and rubies.

But the CBA's moral cover for Burma pales next to its collusion with the Chinese government. The CBA engages in legal exchanges with the All China Lawyers Association, a Communist Party front. If the CBA were meeting with legal dissidents, or were filing lawsuits or petitions on behalf of political prisoners, that would be one thing. But they're meeting with lawyers who work for the police state. It's an exchange alright -- the CBA vacationers get a great junket, and China and Burma get PR cover. They can point to the CBA's visits as proof of their liberalism. Oh, and you won't find the word Tiananmen on the CBA's website, either.

There is one more thing about Khadr. He was captured by the United States in 2002. But it wasn't until 2006 that the CBA began its noisy campaign to press the Canadian government for his release.

Was it a coincidence that the CBA didn't care about Khadr's repatriation until the Conservative government was elected?

Perhaps we should ask the keynote speaker at last year's CBA convention, Jean Chretien. - Ezra Levant blogs at ezralevant.com
More on link


----------



## Shec (19 Aug 2009)

It's interesting that such an august institution as the *Canadian* Bar Association has its convention offshore.  What's wrong, couldn't they get an off-season rate in Cuba so they could be closer to their beloved? So much for their patriotic fervor. Reinforces their credibility about as much as the Teamsters meeting in Las Vegas back in the day.


----------



## GAP (25 Aug 2009)

Ottawa takes Khadr ruling fight to Supreme Court
Last Updated: Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Article Link

The federal government will go to the Supreme Court in a bid to overturn court rulings that would require Ottawa to press for the return of Canadian Omar Khadr from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, CBC News has learned.

The government has decided to fight a Federal Court of Appeal decision this month that upheld a lower court ruling, unnamed sources told CBC parliamentary reporter Julie Van Dusen.

The Justice Department has filed a motion for a stay pending appeal, Van Dusen said. No minister was available to comment Monday evening, but the government told CBC News "its position remains unchanged" that "Omar Khadr has been accused by the U.S. of serious crimes including murder."

The Supreme Court will have to decide whether to review the case, Van Dusen said.

The Toronto-born Khadr, now 22, was arrested in Afghanistan in July 2002 when he was 15 years old. He is alleged to have thrown a grenade that caused the death of a U.S. soldier. He has been held at Guantanamo Bay since October 2002, awaiting trial on charges of murder, conspiracy and support of terrorism.

In Edmonton, Khadr's lawyer Dennis Edney told CBC News, "I think it's a mean decision by this government."
More on link


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Aug 2009)

What makes anyone think the US will simply hand him over anyways??

Another stupid waste of taxpayers dollars IMO.


----------



## Smity199 (25 Aug 2009)

IMO this kids parents should also be deported... who sends a 15 year old to afghanistan in 2002??..
I hope that he never sees the light of day again


----------



## Shec (25 Aug 2009)

Had it been a different order of battle that day, and it could easily been just that,  he would have lobbed that grenade at Canadian soldiers so arguably the Americans are saving us the trouble of trying him.   Let him continue to enjoy his sojourn in Cuba.


----------



## ruckmarch (25 Aug 2009)

Shec said:
			
		

> Had it been a different order of battle that day, and it could easily been just that,  he would have lobbed that grenade at Canadian soldiers so arguably the Americans are saving us the trouble of trying him.   Let him continue to enjoy his sojourn in Cuba.



Hey,

You ought to be careful with comments like that. It is alleged that he threw a grenade, another report claims he was just found squatting in a corner. We weren't there to confirm that, we are only going by what the US soldiers are saying, the same soldiers that put a leash around prisoners and piss on them from the videos we've seen from Gitmo.

To the poster that said Khadr should be repatriated.....he was born in Toronto!

Don't get me wrong, if there is concrete evidence that he did indeed take part in such a thing, then he ought to be punished in some way shape or form.


----------



## Bass ackwards (25 Aug 2009)

Speaking of comments we ought be careful of, could you please post a link or at least some credible reference to the aforementioned videos from Gitmo.
Also, it'd be nice to see some evidence that the same soldiers who claimed Khadr threw the grenade are the same ones doing all this prisoner abuse (certainly you weren't suggesting that *all * US soldiers are prone to abusing prisoners are you ?).


----------



## ruckmarch (25 Aug 2009)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Speaking of comments we ought be careful of, could you please post a link or at least some credible reference to the aforementioned videos from Gitmo.
> Also, it'd be nice to see some evidence that the same soldiers who claimed Khadr threw the grenade are the same ones doing all this prisoner abuse (certainly you weren't suggesting that *all * US soldiers are prone to abusing prisoners are you ?).



Hmmmmm.....I didn't mean the same soldiers were involved in the same accusations . Here is a link for ya, remember the female soldier with the leash?

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.infowars.com/headline_photos/iraqi_torture/leash.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.infowars.com/print/iraq/iraq_torture_archive.htm&usg=__3_MxI2wXLHyHYjfv2J04d3_41wk=&h=325&w=335&sz=19&hl=en&start=8&um=1&tbnid=_rdisk3_UfaBDM:&tbnh=115&tbnw=119&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dprisoners%2Bon%2Bleash%2Bat%2Bgitmo%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1


----------



## GAP (25 Aug 2009)

Without denying the abuse happened and all that stuff, you really should have picked a better website for information than  www.infowars.com/.../iraqi_torture/leash.jpg Alex Jones Infowars with headlines screaming that Vaccinations Kill
Invisible Empire: A New World Order, Official Trailer  
Fall Of The Republic Exposes How Brand Obama Is Destroying America 
etc. etc.


----------



## Bass ackwards (25 Aug 2009)

OK Ruck, thanks for the link, but you do realize, don't you, that all of that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq ?
And that the soldiers involved were all punished ? 
And that it has nothing at all to do with Guantanamo Bay ? 

If there is any credible source of proof that such things are going on in Gitmo, it's news to me. 

Hmmmmm.....I didn't mean the same soldiers were involved in the same accusations .

Ah OK...so then what you meant is that by virtue of being US soldiers they must have been involved in different accusations ? 

Do you see where we're going here ?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (25 Aug 2009)

ruckmarch said:
			
		

> To the poster that said Khadr should be repatriated.....he was born in Toronto!



The alleged crime took place in Afghanistan.  Let them try him and carry out a sentence they see appropriate.  I think they might find humour in the child-soldier defence.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Aug 2009)

ruckmarch said:
			
		

> To the poster that said Khadr should be repatriated.....he was born in Toronto!



And??? What does that have to do with anything.  Dozens (hundreds) of Canadian are currently sitting in foreign jails/prisons, what makes him so special?  The only reason people have been clamouring for his release is 1)He was a minor at the time, and we all know how pathetic our legal system is towards minors, ergo, the light treatment he would (hypothetically) receive.  2)He was a cough Canadian (of convience) cough caught up in evil George W's war on Terror. 3)We have a conservative governemnt in power, and pushing this issue makes them look evil, and racist in the eyes of the liberal/left wing.  I don't seem to recall this being much of an issue back when the liberals were still in power (I am willing to be corrected ont this though),


----------



## armyvern (26 Aug 2009)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> And??? What does that have to do with anything.  Dozens (hundreds) of Canadian are currently sitting in foreign jails/prisons, what makes him so special?  The only reason people have been clamouring for his release is 1)He was a minor at the time, and we all know how pathetic our legal system is towards minors, ergo, the light treatment he would (hypothetically) receive.  2)He was a cough Canadian (of convience) cough caught up in evil George W's war on Terror. 3)We have a conservative governemnt in power, and pushing this issue makes them look evil, and racist in the eyes of the liberal/left wing.  I don't seem to recall this being much of an issue back when the liberals were still in power (I am willing to be corrected ont this though),



He was born in Toronto - that means that he isn't a "Canadian of Convenience". His parents perhaps, but not he. Deporting him to his country of birth/origin would put him squarely back into Canada. Now, daddy took him back to 'the' homeland when he was (13??) - I'm sure that he didn't buy his own plane ticket over there - that being said, when you want to play with the adults you should also pay like the adults.

It's time for an overhaul of Canada's immigration policy and our Citizenship policies for sure. Sadly, we have many immigrants here in Canada who've never become Canadian citizens, but who've done much more for this country than the Khadr's (who obtained citizenship) have ever done for the place.

Something is just fucked up with that.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Aug 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> He was born in Toronto - that means that he isn't a "Canadian of Convenience". His parents perhaps, but not he. Deporting him to his country of birth/origin would put him squarely back into Canada. Now, daddy took him back to 'the' homeland when he was (13??) - I'm sure that he didn't buy his own plane ticket over there - that being said, when you want to play with the adults you should also pay like the adults.
> 
> It's time for an overhaul of Canada's immigration policy and our Citizenship policies for sure. Sadly, we have many immigrants here in Canada who've never become Canadian citizens, but who've done much more for this country than the Khadr's (who obtained citizenship) have ever done for the place.
> 
> Something is just ****ed up with that.



Yes he was born here, I never stated he wasn't.  That however doesn't preclude him (or anyone else for that matter), from abandoning all connections to their birth country, and only when the fit hits the shan do they emphatically wave their passports and wrap themselves in the flag, and thus being Canadians (or insert other country) of Convienance.  As well I never mentioned anything about deporting him.  He can stay and rot in Gitmo for all I care.


----------



## GAP (26 Aug 2009)

He would probably blossom into something wonderful if were given the opportunities available in the general populations of some US jail that houses those White Supremacy fellows.....they know how to party!!!  ;D


----------



## ruckmarch (26 Aug 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> He was born in Toronto - that means that he isn't a "Canadian of Convenience". His parents perhaps, but not he. Deporting him to his country of birth/origin would put him squarely back into Canada. Now, daddy took him back to 'the' homeland when he was (13??) - I'm sure that he didn't buy his own plane ticket over there - that being said, when you want to play with the adults you should also pay like the adults.
> 
> It's time for an overhaul of Canada's immigration policy and our Citizenship policies for sure. Sadly, we have many immigrants here in Canada who've never become Canadian citizens, but who've done much more for this country than the Khadr's (who obtained citizenship) have ever done for the place.
> 
> Something is just fucked up with that.



Exactly my point.....thank you. Hachetman, wake up and smell the coffee would ya mate? I bet if that had been some kid of a different background, you won't have said the same thing?

What next, start sending kids born here that happen to have connections to Serbian, nazi and Bosnian war criminals back to the motherland?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Aug 2009)

ruckmarch said:
			
		

> I bet if that had been some kid of a different background, you won't have said the same thing?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Aug 2009)

ruckmarch said:
			
		

> Exactly my point.....thank you. Hachetman, wake up and smell the coffee would ya mate? I bet if that had been some kid of a different background, you won't have said the same thing?



ruckmarch,

The membership is getting quite annoyed with you turning every thread into a 'the white guy is always racist' diatribe. You have this one warning to cease, unless you have proven documented proof that would stand a court test, you best not go down that road again.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Aug 2009)

IMHO, when you conspire to attack the country that you were born in, or their allies, that makes you a traitor. It doesn't matter what color, race or religion you belong to. You are a traitor, and Omar's family is a nest of traitors. He should consider himself lucky - I would venture to guess that US or Canadian soldiers would not have received the same treatment as sweet little innocent Omar if they were to be taken prisoner by the Taliban or AQ.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Aug 2009)

ruckmarch said:
			
		

> Exactly my point.....thank you. Hachetman, wake up and smell the coffee would ya mate? I bet if that had been some kid of a different background, you won't have said the same thing?
> 
> What next, start sending kids born here that happen to have connections to Serbian, nazi and Bosnian war criminals back to the motherland?



This is the last time I respond to you.  1) I am not your mate, friend, chum or bro. 2) You would lose that bet 3) I never mentioned deporting anyone in my second last post, and obviously you failed to read my follow-up to army vern's post.  To emphasize what I said, if you happen to commit a crime in another country and/or get detained/arrested/imprisoned by another country for comitting crimes, I don't care if you were born here or not, don't come crying to Canada to save your sorry rear end.


----------



## ruckmarch (26 Aug 2009)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> This is the last time I respond to you.  1) I am not your mate, friend, chum or bro. 2) You would lose that bet 3) I never mentioned deporting anyone in my second last post, and obviously you failed to read my follow-up to army vern's post.  To emphasize what I said, if you happen to commit a crime in another country and/or get detained/arrested/imprisoned by another country for comitting crimes, I don't care if you were born here or not, don't come crying to Canada to save your sorry rear end.



You are right about not being my mate, what was I thinking? I don't use the term bro anyway or buddy, so you don't have to worry about that.

Yes...don't reply to my posts, not going to lose sleep over that.

Cheers


----------



## ruckmarch (26 Aug 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ruckmarch,
> 
> The membership is getting quite annoyed with you turning every thread into a 'the white guy is always racist' diatribe. You have this one warning to cease, unless you have proven documented proof that would stand a court test, you best not go down that road again.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Recce...apologies. I was just asking a legit question, more should not be read into it like that.

I listen to quite a lot of talk radio, and if there is anything I can't stand by bigoted callers, it's their naivety about the  immigration system, difference between refugee and someone that emigrated, and their refusal to answer the presenter's question, when he or she asks if their opinion would have been the same if it had been some other person?

Note: I am not saying that is the case here!

Again....I hear you loud and clear


----------



## Scott (26 Aug 2009)

Now I am with you there, I can't stand bigoted people either. I also can't stand people who constantly bang the "bigotry drum" whereby anyone disagreeing with them in a topic where the argument can be made is automatically labeled as such.

Neither is fair.

Now please do as you have been asked and just drop it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2009)

ruckmarch said:
			
		

> , the same soldiers that put a leash around prisoners and piss on them from the videos we've seen from Gitmo.



The same soldiers who are flying over watch for our brothers and sisters in Afghanistan in their helicopters and jets protecting us risking getting blown out of the sky.
The same soldiers who are fighting and dying in Afghanistan along side us.
Yup. those guys.

Some Canadian soldiers have done stupid things in the past too.  Does that mean you're calling into question the honour of ALL Canadian soldiers, Ruckmarch?


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Aug 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> The same soldiers who are flying over watch for our brothers and sisters in Afghanistan in their helicopters and jets protecting us risking getting blown out of the sky.
> The same soldiers who are fighting and dying in Afghanistan along side us.
> Yup. those guys.
> 
> Some Canadian soldiers have done stupid things in the past too.  Does that mean you're calling into question the honour of ALL Canadian soldiers, Ruckmarch?


We haven't got a lot of room to talk, nor should we point fingers. We had a situation in 1993 that started the process of the disbandment of a regiment. My two cents....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Aug 2009)

The point's been made. Everyone move on.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## old medic (5 Oct 2009)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/abdullah-khadr-takes-stand-to-fight-extradition/article1312409/

Abdullah Khadr takes stand to fight extradition 
COLIN FREEZE
Monday, Oct. 05, 2009 



> It's shaping up to be a bad day for Abdullah Khadr.
> 
> The scion of Canada's most infamous family took the witness stand in his own defence against a U.S. extradition bid today, only to find Crown lawyers taking the opportunity to give Canada's so-called “al-Qaeda family” the trial it never got.
> 
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Oct 2009)

*Khadr photos show he's innocent: lawyers*
*Article Link*

The former defence lawyers for Omar Khadr are reported to have submitted photos and documents they say could show he did not kill a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.

The Toronto Star reported Thursday that the photos were submitted earlier this year by Khadr's formerly military defence team to a U.S. government task force looking into the detainee camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Khadr, now 22, is accused by the United States of killing a U.S. soldier with a hand grenade in Afghanistan in 2002, when he was 15. He has been held at Guantanamo Bay since then.

The newspaper said the photos it obtained show an injured Khadr under rubble from a collapsed roof. Beside Khadr lies a dead militant apparently killed by U.S. forces.

Khadr's former defence team contends that the dead man lying beside him in the photo may have thrown the grenade that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer.

More on link

How can they tell that's him in the photo?


----------



## Danjanou (29 Oct 2009)

Fine is he’s innocent then lets ship his ass back home and the minute he lands at Pearson have a couple of Mounties arrest him and have him charged for treason.  



> The Criminal Code establishes offences of "high treason" and "treason," and offences respecting acts related to treason; it also sets out certain evidential rules and limitation periods for the prosecution of treason offences.
> Under s46 of the Criminal Code, a person commits "high treason" who a) kills, attempts to kill, wounds, imprisons, or restrains the sovereign, *b) wages war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto, or c) assists an enemy at war with Canada or any armed force against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities, even if no state of war exists. *The punishment for high treason is life imprisonment, without parole eligibility for 25 years. A person commits "treason" who a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province, b) discloses, without lawful authority, military or scientific material to agents of a foreign state, if he or she knows or should know that the material may be used to impair Canada's safety or defence, or c) engages in certain listed conspiracies or attempted offences. The punishment for treason is life imprisonment; normal parole rules apply. Canadian citizens and persons owing allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada who commit acts of high treason or treason are punishable under Canadian criminal law even if the acts were performed outside Canada.
> The Criminal Code also penalizes such acts as alarming the sovereign, assisting an alien enemy to leave Canada, failing to make reasonable efforts to prevent the commission of high treason, intimidating Parliament or a legislature, sabotage, incitement to mutiny and sedition.


http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0008106


----------



## Maelstrom (29 Oct 2009)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Fine is he’s innocent then lets ship his *** back home and the minute he lands at Pearson have a couple of Mounties arrest him and have him charged for treason.



Is that possible if he was a child at the time?


----------



## Danjanou (29 Oct 2009)

Maelstrom said:
			
		

> Is that possible if he was a child at the time?



I don't see a minimum age in that quote. Mind he have to be charged as a "young offender" and get the same type of sentence as the scum bag gang banger wanabees here in TO. :

But as he was a "child" then I guess we can have Mommy charged with Child Endangerment or Abuse for neglecting him and putting him in a dangerous situation

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/facts-info/child-enf.html#whatis


----------



## Maelstrom (29 Oct 2009)

I agree the mother should be charged for at least something as well, for all the shit that has come out of her mouth.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Nov 2009)

*Khadr to face U.S. military tribunal *

Canadian Omar Khadr, the last westerner left in Guantanamo Bay, will face trial by military tribunal unlike the high-profile Sept 11, 2001, attacks plotters who will be brought to New York for trial in a civilian courts where they have far greater rights and protections, U.S. officials announced Friday. 

Mr. Khadr's lawyer Barry Coburn, accused the administration of resorting to Bush-era injustice. 

“We thought that the incoming Obama administration signalled a new day with respect to these cases, a new respect for civil liberties, an abhorrence of torture, a respect for the time-honored legal procedures and protections that are mandated by the Constitution and enforced by the federal courts,” he said. 

Instead and despite the president's promises it has failed “to make these fundamental protections available to Omar Khadr, who was fifteen years old when he was detained in Afghanistan as a child soldier and has been locked away in Guantanamo ever since, is, quite frankly, devastating and shocking to me personally. 

“I had thought this administration was better than that.” 

In a separate, Canadian, case, being argued today before the Supreme Court in Ottawa, the Harper government is fighting a lower court ruling ordering it to try and bring Mr. Khadr. Every other western ally has insisted its citizens be returned from the Caribbean gulag at Guantanamo, created originally by the Bush administration to keep terrorist suspects out of the reach and protections of U.S. law. 

During Friday's Supreme Court hearing in Ottawa, federal lawyer Robert Frater argued that the courts have no greater right to order Mr. Khadr be returned to Canada than they have to order the recall of Canada's' ambassador to Washington to protest his detention. 

Mr. Frater said that the government alone has the right to decide whether or not to request Mr. Khadr's repatriation from Guantanamo Bay without interference from the courts. 

“We are in the realm of diplomacy here,” Mr. Frater told the country's top court. “The government has the right to decide what requests should be made, how they should be made, and when they should be made. The courts are not in the best position to do that.” 

Meanwhile, self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other high-profile Guantanamo Bay detainees will face trial in a civilian federal court. 

More on link


----------



## X-mo-1979 (14 Nov 2009)

Caribbean gulag at Guantanamo....
You gotta be kidding me.

This writer needs a history/word meaning class.I'm sure the 1,053,829 people that died in the Gulag's would have LOVED a nice break in Gitmo.

Some writers should be banned from doing so.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Nov 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> *Khadr to face U.S. military tribunal *
> 
> During Friday's Supreme Court hearing in Ottawa, federal lawyer Robert Frater argued that the courts have no greater right to order Mr. Khadr be returned to Canada than they have to order the recall of Canada's' ambassador to Washington to protest his detention.
> 
> ...




If the court has any sense, it will seize on this idea and rule that it does not have jurisdiction over Foreign Affairs. That issue aside, I personally contend that it is not the governments' responsibility to rescue you from your misfortune at every turn.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (15 Nov 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Caribbean gulag at Guantanamo....
> You gotta be kidding me.
> 
> This writer needs a history/word meaning class.I'm sure the 1,053,829 people that died in the Gulag's would have



I understand that this is the number that the Russians admit to in the prison system and work camps only.  My guess is that this number is a lot higher and most deportees ended up in random Siberian communities outside camps.  My second cousins and their families ended up in Khazakstan in the winter of 1941/42 and half died from exposure, starvation etc.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Dec 2009)

From the _Globe & Mail_:


> After spending a third of his life in Guantanamo Bay, Canadian Omar Khadr and scores of other terrorist suspects will be shipped to a prison in Illinois as U.S. President Barack Obama works to make good on a promise to close the notorious camp.
> 
> The White House announced Tuesday that it will transfer as many as 100 of the 210 terrorist suspects held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba to the Thomson Correctional Center on the banks of the Mississippi River in western Illinois.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Dec 2009)

.....maybe he's NOT going stateside:


> It's not known if Omar Khadr will be among 100 detainees from the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, expected to be transferred to a prison in rural Illinois ....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Dec 2009)

Hope he packs his longjohns. ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Dec 2009)

Better yet, I hope he has no longjohns.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jan 2010)

This from CBC (via Twitter):


> SCOC says it doesn't have power to meddle in fed government's royal prerogative in foreign affairs, can't order Khadr repatriated


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jan 2010)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, complicates life for the government:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/supreme-court-says-canada-violated-khadrs-charter-rights/article1448678/


> Canada violated Khadr's Charter rights, Supreme Court says
> *But country's highest court also says Ottawa must be given chance to rectify Omar Khadr's plight before stepping in to dictate response*
> 
> Kirk Makin
> ...



The famous US Supreme Justice Robert Jackson (of Nuremburg War Crimes trial fame) said of the US Supreme Court court many years ago, _"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."_ This, our _Supremes_’ ruling is final – unless Harper uses the notwithstanding clause or finds some new, more _creative_ way to keep Khadr out of Canada.

I think Khadr wins; I’m just not sure how.


----------



## Yrys (29 Jan 2010)

Top court won't force feds to seek Khadr's return


It's seems to me that the gov. win that round,
but maybe I'm not reading it right...


----------



## GAP (29 Jan 2010)

No, you had it right. Harper said this government would not seek repaitriation of criminals being judged by democratic governments, and this upholds it.   Yeah!!!


----------



## Blindspot (29 Jan 2010)

Oddly enough, The Globe has since altered the title of that story to: "Supreme Court won't force Khadr repatriation".


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jan 2010)

....attached as a PDF - enjoy!


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Feb 2010)

The latest from the _National Post_:


> The Prime Minister's Office firmly shut the door Wednesday on seeking Omar Khadr's repatriation from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
> 
> Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said there will be no change in policy following a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that found the government violated Khadr's charter rights, but did not order the government to request his return to Canada as a remedy.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (6 Feb 2010)

Omar Khadr wants $10 M in damages from Ottawa
  By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News ServiceFebruary 5, 2010
Article Link

The Canadian government could be on the hook for a multimillion-dollar payout to Omar Khadr, after the Supreme Court of Canada appears to have strengthened his hand in a long-standing civil lawsuit by declaring his charter rights were violated.

The Guantanamo Bay detainee, in a damages suit launched six years ago, has recently bumped up his claim to $10 million from $100,000, court documents show.

The federal Justice Department acknowledges in separate court records that Khadr's maltreatment by a Canadian official, who questioned him in Cuba while knowing he had been softened up through sleep deprivation, could play a role in the outcome of the lawsuit.

"It may be a relevant factor in those proceedings," federal lawyers wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court as it considered whether to order the government to seek repatriation.

The civil suit is still "many years away from resolution," cautioned Khadr's lawyer, Nathan Whitling.

"That action is still out there but they're not about to write us a cheque for it," said Whitling, who asserted that the Supreme Court declaration that Khadr's charter rights have been violated should bolster his case.

The Federal Court gave Khadr permission last spring to increase the amount of his claim following revelations a Foreign Affairs official knew Khadr had been subjected to a "frequent flyer" sleep-deprivation program to make him less resistant to questioning.
More on link


----------



## wannabe SF member (6 Feb 2010)

How about we give the 10 M to the family of the killed medic saying "Sorry that scumbag came from our country".

Gap, your sig really comes to mind while reading this article.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Feb 2010)

This is what makes Lawyers look like such scumbags.  What if we took this article, and the Lawyer's motions, and substituted "Omar Khadr" with, just for shits and giggles, "Clifford Olsen", or "Paul Bernardo", or one of any number of other murderers?  As well, change "The Guantanamo Bay" to something like "Attica State Penitentiary".  What would the concensus be?


----------



## krustyrl (6 Feb 2010)

...and on WHAT grounds does the Canadian Gov't supposedly owe him this.??  I'd say at best a free plane ticket out of here and take any others with him.!  

This is insane... bet he gets it though.?  It's the "Canadian Way".! FFS      :rage:


----------



## mariomike (6 Feb 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As well, change "The Guantanamo Bay" to something like "Attica State Penitentiary".  What would the concensus be?



I don't think they would like Attica. I think that was the mother of all American prison riots.


----------



## SocialyDistorted (6 Feb 2010)

The riot wasn't so bad, only one Corrections Officer died. It was the aftermath that made it infamous. From what I remember reading last year in gr.11 law, the NY State Troopers and national guard killed 9 hostages and 29 inmates with thousands of live rounds fired into a cloud of tear gas, then tried to cover it up by saying the 9 hostages were killed by the inmates, then published false information in the papers, then paid $12m a few years ago in civil court to families of the dead inmates and hostages.

On topic, Khadr doesn't deserve a dime


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Feb 2010)

With how things go today, I reckon he'll get $ 20,000,000 and a huge televised appology from the government.

Pathetic!

We (the sheeple) are our own wrost eneny.

Khadr deserves nothing but his citizenship revoked and a life ban on living in Canada

My opinion.

OWDU


----------



## mariomike (6 Feb 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> We (the sheeple) are our own worst enemy.
> OWDU



I agree, Wes. 
Most of the people I talk to have pretty much given up on politics. Some don't like to even read the papers anymore for the sake of their blood pressure. They just skip to the sports section.


----------



## FastEddy (6 Feb 2010)

ONLY IN CANADA


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2010)

If things work out, he can come to Canada in about 25 years after his trial and sentence in Levensworth and try his luck in court.

By 2035, few people will even remember who this is, if there is a Liberal government in 2035, the outcome is predictable...


----------



## Franko (6 Feb 2010)

As far as I'm concerned, he gave up his Canadian status/ rights when he left the country and turfed a grenade at a soldier.

Let him rot IMHO.

As for the lawsuit....let's see which politician picks up his cause and runs with it.

Regards


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Feb 2010)

Highlights mine...

STATEMENT BY JUSTICE MINISTER ROB NICHOLSON REGARDING THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION ON OMAR KHADR 
February 16, 2010

OTTAWA, February 16, 2010 - The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, made the following statement today regarding the Government of Canada's response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Prime Minister of Canada, et al. v. Omar Ahmed Khadr:

    "In its ruling, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional responsibility of the executive to make decisions on matters of foreign affairs, given the complex and ever-changing circumstances of diplomacy, and the need to take into account Canada's broader interests. The Supreme Court did not require the Government to ask for accused terrorist Omar Khadr's return.

    "In response to the Supreme Court's ruling,* the Government of Canada today delivered a diplomatic note to the Government of the United States formally seeking assurances that any evidence or statements shared with U.S. authorities as a result of the interviews of Mr. Khadr by Canadian agents and officials in 2003 and 2004 not be used against him by U.S. authorities in the context of proceedings before the Military Commission or elsewhere.*

    "Omar Khadr faces very serious charges, including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, material support for terrorism, and spying. The Government of Canada continues to provide consular services to Mr. Khadr."

- 30 -


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Feb 2010)

This, via the Canadian Press:


> The Conservative government's decision not to seek Omar Khadr's repatriation from a U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is an "egregious" violation of the 23-year-old man's rights, his lawyer said Tuesday.
> 
> Khadr's legal team will file an emergency motion in Federal Court Wednesday asking that it quash a decision by the federal government to ask the U.S. government to refrain from using any evidence gathered by Canadian officials in any future prosecution of Khadr.
> 
> "It's an egregious violation to just completely not even allow us to write a letter or to even have notice of the fact that they are thinking of making a decision," Edmonton lawyer Nathan Whitling told The Canadian Press ....


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Feb 2010)

Another Khadr bites the dust. 

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/02/senior_al_qaeda_mili.php


Senior al Qaeda military commander killed in Predator strike
By Bill RoggioFebruary 20, 2010 12:13 PM 


The US killed a key al Qaeda military leader based in Pakistan's Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan during an airstrike on Feb. 17. 

Sheikh Mansoor was killed in a Predator attack that targeted a Taliban compound in the village of Tapi near Miramshah, the main town in North Waziristan. Two other "militants" were initially reported killed in the airstrike; it is not currently known if there were any other senior al Qaeda or Taliban operatives killed. Dawn News reported that the airstrike "left number of other important militants killed."

Both Geo News and Dawn reported that a funeral was held for Mansoor, and that Mohammed Haqqani, a mid-level Haqqani Network military commander and brother of the group's top military commander Siraj Haqqani, was killed by another drone strike while preparing to attend Mansoor's burial on Feb. 18. 

US intelligence officials contacted by The Long War Journal said they believe Sheikh Mansoor was killed in the attack on Feb. 17. 

"We're pretty sure that Mohammed Haqqani was killed while going to Sheikh Mansoor's burial," an intelligence official said. "We were gunning for Siraj but got his little brother instead. It is still a good kill; the Haqqanis are dangerous and Mohammed was involved in the family business."

Sheikh Mansoor was a commander in al Qaeda's Lashkar al Zil, or the Shadow Army, US officials said. He was based in North Waziristan but carried out attacks against US and Afghan forces across the border in Afghanistan.

Mansoor's family has a pedigree in jihad. His father was Ahmed Said Al Khadr, an al Qaeda operative who was killed in October 2003. Khadr, who is also known as Abdul Rehman Khadr al Kanadi, was born in Cairo, Egypt, but was a Canadian national. 

Khadr was a close confidant of Osama bin Laden, who invited Kanadi to join the Shura Majlis, the top leadership council, after the US invasion of Afghanistan. Khadr was tasked with helping al Qaeda families escape into Pakistan. He was also close to South Waziristan Taliban leader Mullah Nazir, who shelters al Qaeda leaders in the Wazir tribal areas. 

Khadr was wanted by the US for his suspected ties to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the US. He was also on the United Nations' 1267 Committee list of designated terrorists. Pakistani security forces killed Kanadi and several other al Qaeda fighters during a raid in October 2003.

Mansoor's two other brothers, Omar and Abdurahman, have both spent time at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba after being detained while fighting US forces in Afghanistan in 2001. Omar, the youngest detainee (he is thought to have been 15 when he was captured), is still in custody. Abdurahman was released in 2003.

Background on the recent strikes in Pakistan

US intelligence believes that al Qaeda has reconstituted its external operations network in Pakistan's lawless, Taliban-controlled tribal areas. This network is tasked with hitting targets in the West, India, and elsewhere. The US has struck at these external cells using unmanned Predator aircraft and other means in an effort to disrupt al Qaeda's external network and decapitate the leadership. The US also has targeted al Qaeda-linked Taliban fighters operating in Afghanistan, particularly the notorious Haqqani Network.

As of the summer of 2008, al Qaeda and the Taliban operated 157 known training camps in the tribal areas and the Northwest Frontier Province. Al Qaeda has been training terrorists holding Western passports to conduct attacks, US intelligence officials have told The Long War Journal. Some of the camps are devoted to training the Taliban's military arm; some train suicide bombers for attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan; some focus on training the various Kashmiri terror groups; some train al Qaeda operatives for attacks in the West; some train the Lashkar al Zil, al Qaeda's Shadow Army; and one serves as a training ground for the Black Guard, the elite bodyguard unit for Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and other senior al Qaeda leaders.

The air campaign has had success over the past three months. Since Dec. 8, 2009, the air campaign in Pakistan has killed three senior al Qaeda leaders, a senior Taliban commander, a senior Haqqani Network commander, two senior al Qaeda operatives, and a wanted Palestinian terrorist who was allied with al Qaeda. The status of Pakistani Taliban leader Hakeemullah Mehsud is still unknown.

Already this year, the US has killed Mansur al Shami, an al Qaeda ideologue and aide to al Qaeda’s leader in Afghanistan, Mustafa Abu Yazid; Sheikh Mansoor, a Shadow Army commander based in North Waziristan; Mohammed Haqqani, a military commander in the Haqqani Network; and Haji Omar Khan, a senior Taliban leader in North Waziristan. Jamal Saeed Abdul Rahim, the Abu Nidal Organization operative who participated in killing 22 hostages during the 1986 hijacking of Pan Am flight 73, is thought to have been killed in the Jan. 9 airstrike. And Abdul Basit Usman, an Abu Sayyaf operative with a $1 million US bounty for information leading to his capture, is rumored to have been killed in a strike on Jan. 14, although a Philippine military spokesman said Usman is likely still alive and in the Philippines.

In December 2009, the US killed Abdullah Said al Libi, the top commander of the Shadow Army; Zuhaib al Zahib, a senior commander in the Shadow Army; and Saleh al Somali, the leader of al Qaeda's external network [see LWJ report, “Senior al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 – 2010” for the full list].


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2010)

It's not nice to speak ill of the dead, so ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Good on _our side_ for continuing to _decapitate_ the terrorist bands' leadership.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Feb 2010)

I wonder if these events will inform/change/influence the minds of those who are calling for the return of Omar Khadr to Canada? 

I doubt it.


----------



## Franko (21 Feb 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I wonder if these events will inform/change/influence the minds of those who are calling for the return of Omar Khadr to Canada?
> 
> I doubt it.



Oh George, he's innocent and his remaining buddies/ family in Pakistan are misunderstood farmers who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He should be set free.

/sarcasm

Regards


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Feb 2010)

It's nice to see some good news for a change.  May he not be  the last.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Feb 2010)

While I am not going to loose any sleep over this, I am not sure he is a member of the Khadr family.

See this reference for a story which includes the family members. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr/

The other option is that he was missed by the media when they researched the story. If he was one of the family, this may mean he was a Canadian citizen. Anybody?


----------



## George Wallace (21 Feb 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Sheikh Mansoor was a commander in al Qaeda's Lashkar al Zil, or the Shadow Army, US officials said. He was based in North Waziristan but carried out attacks against US and Afghan forces across the border in Afghanistan.
> 
> Mansoor's family has a pedigree in jihad. His father was Ahmed Said Al Khadr, an al Qaeda operative who was killed in October 2003. Khadr, who is also known as Abdul Rehman Khadr al Kanadi, was born in Cairo, Egypt, but was a Canadian national.
> 
> ...



Looks to me that CBC missed something, or someone else is confusing the many similar names of insurgents in that region.  However, the alias of "al Kanadi" would point to a "Canadian".


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Feb 2010)

I think, although the story is vague, is that the reference to "al Kanadi" is to Khadr senior who was Egyptian.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2010)

A quick internet search suggests that third and Khadr brothers (there was a fifth who died in infancy) are:

+ Abdullah Ahmed Khadr (عبدالله أحمد خضر) (b. 1981) who, the news suggests, is or was, as late as Oct 09, still in custody in Toronto while a judge sorts out a request for extradition to the USA; and

+ Abdulkareem Khadr (عبد الكريم خضر) (b. 1989) who is a paraplegic (injured in the same blast that killed his father) and that he lives with his mother in Toronto.

The other two, of course, are Omer (in Guantanamo) and Abdurahman Khadr (عبد الرحمن خضر) (b. 1982).

Is the story suggesting that Sheikh Mansoon = Abdurahman Khadr? It doesn't look like that to me; it seems to suggest that there is a sixth brother.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Feb 2010)

That is an option, although he was the self-proclaimed black sheep of the family. He would have been in his late-20s, if he was Shiekh Mansoon.

The question is, as Edward notes, was there a sixth brother. Perhaps there is another wife and family somewhere. Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Feb 2010)

Sometimes Monday mornings aren't that bad, when news like this is heard.

OWDU


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Mar 2010)

Breaking news, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, on everyone’s favourite Canadian terrorist:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2652507


> U.S. trying to repatriate Khadr: sources
> 
> Steven Edwards, Canwest News Service
> 
> ...




This complicates life for Prime Minister Harper; the people who really want Khadr back would not vote Tory even if Harper gave every Khadr clan member millions of dollars for life; those who vote Tory want Khadr to rot in some prison anywhere but in Canada – they may decide to punish Harper if he cooperates in Khadr’s return.


----------



## GAP (8 Mar 2010)

True,  but Obama & Co. want to come across as the defenders of children, etc.....with the child soldier moniker, all the Democrat bleeding hearts are starting to believe their own propaganda.....as long as it doesn't effect them...


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Mar 2010)

"Child Soldier" is one thing, what M. Khadr is accused of was not that he was a child soldier.  Do we give 15 year olds carte blanche to go halfway 'round the world to engage us and our allies?  Methinks not.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Mar 2010)

My guess:

1. A fairly small minority of Canadians (probably < 25%) care deeply about Mr. Khadr's *rights* and they want him returned to Canada because, in the main, they believe his *rights* have been violated, continuously  and systematically, by the Canadian and US governments. This minority is, generally, well educated, vocal, persuasive and anti-Conservative;

2. A somewhat larger (likely > 25%) care deeply about the entire Khadr clan and their perceived *abuse* of Canada's legal/moral 'system.' This minority wants Khard punished, harshly, for whatever he may have done or even for what he may not have done. They are, in part, trying to punish Khadr senior, _al Kanadi_ or whatever he was called, and the other Khadrs, _mère et fille_  especially, for their _trash talking_ directed towards Canada, at large, and their (perceived, again) abuse of our hospitality and social services. This minority is, largely, pro-Conservative;

3. The largest segment of Canadians (say 50%±) could care less what happens to Khadr, here, in the USA or back in Afghanistan. They believe, broadly, that he has forfeited whatever *rights* and legal protections he undoubtedly had when he was an adolescent and they are not interested in giving him a break. Conversely, if the US wants to wash its hands of him they are not unwilling to allow him one, last chance here in Canada. This is the _majority_ with the votes Harper needs.


----------



## GAP (8 Mar 2010)

So fine....the US does not want him, Canada does not want him, send him back to where the crime occured and let him be judged under their laws....it is now a democracy....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Mar 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> So fine....the US does not want him, Canada does not want him, send him back to where the crime occured and let him be judged under their laws....it is now a democracy....


ditto


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Apr 2010)

This, from CanWest:


> Prosecutors are confident they can convict Canadian terrorism suspect Omar Khadr of murder, even if his case is transferred from a military to civilian court.
> 
> Khadr's U.S. defence lawyers have been preparing motions at two levels of the U.S. civilian court system as they seek to derail hearings next week that will lead to his trial in July at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2010)

This from the Toronto Star .... 





> Military prosecutors offered a sentence of five years in a U.S. prison if Canadian detainee Omar Khadr pleads guilty to war crime offences, the Toronto Star has learned.
> 
> Sources close to the case who spoke to the Star on the condition of anonymity said the offer was turned down, clearing the way for pre-trial hearings Wednesday morning.
> 
> ...




and this from Reuters:





> Prosecutors and defense lawyers in the Guantanamo tribunals have been trying to negotiate a deal that would let Canadian captive Omar Khadr plead guilty to reduced charges in exchange for leniency, a defense attorney said.
> 
> A plea deal would spare President Barack Obama from presiding as military commander in chief over the first U.S. war crimes tribunal to prosecute someone for acts allegedly committed as a minor.
> 
> ...



If you believe TorStar, we'll see this morning....


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Apr 2010)

Which still begs the question: what do we do with him once the let him out? I don't know if there's anything in the Citizenship Act that would allow us to strip him of his birthright and subsequently deport him (back to Afghanistan).


----------



## gcclarke (28 Apr 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Which still begs the question: what do we do with him once the let him out? I don't know if there's anything in the Citizenship Act that would allow us to strip him of his birthright and subsequently deport him (back to Afghanistan).



No person can be stripped of Canadian citizenship for any reason other than a conviction of fraud *in relation to their citizenship application or their application to be admitted as an immigrant to the country.* As Mr. Khadr became a citizen at birth, the only way he could become a non-citizen would be to voluntarily renounce his citizenship. Of course before that, he would first also have to become a citizen of another country, and as far as I'm aware, he never became a citizen of Afghanistan. 

As for any deportation, you can only deport someone to a country that they're a citizen of. Maybe Cuba, as he's been living there long enough?  

Regardless, I am appalled at the mess that has been made of this case. The man has been in detention for almost 8 bloody years without a trial. Put another way, he's been in detention for *one third of his life*, without being convicted of anything. Let's get it done with already so he can serve whatever time he's sentenced to and we can all move on.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Apr 2010)

Now.  If he gets brought back to Canada for Trial, what is the likelihood that if sentenced, he will be free due to "time served"?


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now.  If he gets brought back to Canada for Trial, what is the likelihood that if sentenced, he will be free due to "time served"?


I'd bet QUITE likely - although probation under strict controls would not be out of the question (better than nothing).

The latest - taking a break to read the new pam:


> A military judge postponed the war crimes hearing Wednesday morning for Canadian detainee Omar Khadr to give lawyers four hours to read the military commission rules.
> 
> Congress approved amendments last year to the Military Commissions Act, which was introduced under the Bush administration.
> 
> ...



...while word is Khadr Boy & Co. reportedly rejected a five-year deal:


> Military prosecutors offered a sentence of five years in a U.S. prison if Canadian detainee Omar Khadr pleads guilty to war crime offences, the Toronto Star has learned.
> 
> Sources close to the case who spoke to the Star on the condition of anonymity said the offer was turned down, clearing the way for pre-trial hearings Wednesday morning.
> 
> It is uncertain whether the proposed sentence would have meant that the Toronto-born detainee would stay here – if Guantanamo’s prison remains open – or have been transferred to a U.S. federal penitentiary .....


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Apr 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now.  If he gets brought back to Canada for Trial, what is the likelihood that if sentenced, he will be free due to "time served"?



I wouldn't bet against it.


----------



## GAP (30 Apr 2010)

Khadr's health becomes issue at U.S. base hearings
 By Steven Edwards, Canwest News ServiceApril 29, 2010
Article Link

U.S. NAVAL BASE GUANTANAMO, Cuba — A battle over Omar Khadr's objection to wearing blinder goggles during transfer to court erupted Thursday into claims the Canadian-born terror suspect is suffering terrible pain because of his shrapnel-injured eyes.

Barry Coburn, Khadr's chief U.S. attorney, called for a hearing on the health of the 23-year-old, who sat slumped over the defence bench for much of the afternoon after staying away from the morning session.

"The judge is responsible for essentially all aspects of the fairness of this proceeding," he told reporters attending the hearings at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "You can't have a fair trial unless the defendant can participate actively."

Both Khadr's eyes are afflicted with conjunctivitis, which is commonly known as pink eye, Coburn said. But he explained that what would typically provoke simple irritation in most people is compounded for Khadr, whose eyes suffered shrapnel wounds in the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan that led to his capture.

"There should be a substantial attempt made in order to alleviate the pain," Coburn said. "There may be all kinds of things that could be attempted in terms of medicating him."

But U.S. army Col. Patrick Parrish, the military judge in the case, was unconvinced during the hearing that Khadr's health condition played any role in his absence from the morning session.

He made the declaration after a member of the guard force testified Khadr had not turned up because he'd refused to don the goggles and earmuffs detainees are obliged to wear when being transported beyond their detention camps.

"This court is not going to (get) involved with allowing a detainee to set the conditions for how he is transported," Parrish said. "That is not going to happen."

Parrish signalled the guard force had the right to impose any reasonable security measures.

Court heard early Thursday that Khadr had begun the day complaining of pain in his left eye, in which he is blind because of the battlefield injuries.

U.S. Marine Corps Capt. Laura Bruzzese said she arranged to take him to hospital, where he received painkilling eye-drops before being released.

Khadr had proceeded to the point of getting into the van for the trip to court, but then refused to put on the goggles and earmuffs, pointing out the rear of the vehicle was windowless, and therefore prevented him from seeing anything anyway, Bruzzese told the court.

"The only reason (for our having to) put it on is to humiliate us," she quoted Khadr as saying about the goggles.
More on link


----------



## 1feral1 (1 May 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Which still begs the question: what do we do with him once they let him out?



He just disappears one day on the way to collect/cash his dole/welfare cheque?


Tongue in cheek comment  

OWDU


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> He just disappears one day on the way to collect/cash his dole/welfare cheque?
> 
> 
> Tongue in cheek comment
> ...




The comment may have been made "tongue in cheek" but I suspect it is prophetic.

I think, I'm more than happy to be corrected, that the rest of the Khadr clan already lives on 'welfare' of one sort or another. Why would the baby of the family be any different?


----------



## nathan lehr (2 May 2010)

The families and comrades of our fallen soldiers must be Heartbroken over this garbage


----------



## OldSolduer (2 May 2010)

nathan lehr said:
			
		

> The families and comrades of our fallen soldiers must be Heartbroken over this garbage


Not so much heartbroken as p*ssed at the kid glove treatment him and his family have received.


----------



## KevinB (2 May 2010)

I seriously cannot beleive that this guy still draws breath.

 Come on all ready lets flip the switch


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 May 2010)

This from the _Ottawa Citizen_:


> The Conservative government rejects the notion Omar Khadr's legal team can draw it into plea-deal talks for the Canadian-born terror suspect, saying no talks are authorized involving Canada -- secret or otherwise.
> 
> The position expressed Sunday by senior federal officials comes after Khadr's lawyers said Canada would be "simultaneously" involved in a "quadrilateral" effort to resolve his war crimes prosecution before the military commissions at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 May 2010)

From CBC.ca:


> The lawyer for Omar Khadr told CBC News on Wednesday he's willing to do whatever it takes — *including have his client live with him in Edmonton* — to get Khadr out of detainment in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
> 
> Dennis Edney has represented Khadr, who was born in Toronto, since 2002, when Khadr was put behind bars and accused of throwing a hand grenade that killed an American soldier in Afghanistan. Khadr, who is now 23, was 15 years old at the time.
> 
> ...


Good luck with that...


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 May 2010)

I'll take the liberty of speaking for my fellow Albertans:  frig off, we're full.


*I did not type "frig", "frig"ging censorship bots can frig off too*


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (5 May 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> including have his client live with him in Edmonton




NOOOooooo! -  Toronto?


----------



## Danjanou (6 May 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> NOOOooooo! -  Toronto?



Thanks but no, we have the rest of the family here, time to spread the wealth around.  As a compromise though I hear that Cornwallis Island  is lovely this time of year. 8)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 May 2010)

Baffin Island?


----------



## readytogo (5 Jul 2010)

Only in North America does something like this even see the light of day :rage:  Khadr as well as any other convicted felon gave up rights when they went to prison.  As far as mistreatment???? in my opinion perhaps if prisons were less enjoyable(ie televisions, university educations, beds, blah blah blah) people who do break the laws of the land will spend thier free time upon release doing whatever it takes to NEVER go back to those places again!!!  The majority of society has to find a measure of success on thier own and free rides ( like a 10 m settlement) are few and far between.

    The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms( although it is a beautiful thing) is a law that like all others it seems can be twisted to say whatever its reader wishes it to which like all law is its fundamental flaw!!!

Maybe its just me

RTG
(screw Khadr....not one penny of taxpayers money, you broke the law, suffer the consequences)

step off soapbox now ;D


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2010)

Well.  If the Khadr family wants to try this game, then I think it only fair that the family of the Medic that he "allegedly" killed also sue them (the Khadr family) for the same amount due to loss of income, trauma, loss of quality of life, etc.


----------



## Sapplicant (5 Jul 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.  If the Khadr family wants to try this game, then I think it only fair that the family of the Medic that he "allegedly" killed also sue them (the Khadr family) for the same amount due to loss of income, trauma, loss of quality of life, etc.




On the topic of fairness, IF he does get some kind of settlement, he should also have to pay the American Gov't for his past 8 years of tropical paradise accommodations, the transportations costs of flying from Bagram to Gitmo, the medical bill for the US army not letting him die (which should be the same bill someone would have to pay at a US hospital assuming they have no insurance plan), meals, etc... Also, pony up for the time his father spent in Toronto recovering (taking advantage of canadian healthcare) back in 1992.

Actually, lets save a LOT of time, hassle, and embarrassment here; take the 10M he wants, give half to the medic's family, half to Project Hero, and while those cheques are being drawn up, signed, and delivered, I'll be on my way back from the landfill, cord in hand. Do you have a good, hole-free bucket handy?  ;D



Edited for grammar


----------



## 4Feathers (5 Jul 2010)

He was a combatant plain and simple, if he gets anything, it should not exceed what we pay our own soldiers who are injured while on duty. As soon as we start paying our own 10 mil, then I might not be so repulsed to hear stuff like this.


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Jul 2010)

The $10m and apology is just a starting point; we're going to make him a Senator.

On a serious note, I believe all of this stems from the decision to add sleep deprivation to the "official" list of torture, because as soon as something gets the T word attached to it, it's golden.

The population doesn't see any different degrees of torture; it's almost like someone is at a Sandals resort or they are being tortured.  Having been sleep deprived for weeks on end I can certainly admit that it sucked (as can any new parent for that matter), but it's hardly in the same ballpark as having your teeth filed off or being raped by a guy with AIDS.  

Those are the sorts of things that should be getting someone a $10m settlement, not being asked difficult questions after sleep deprivation.

Maybe we need to invent new words to differentiate different levels of torture the way Greeks have different words for love and Eskimos have different words for snow, because only having the T word is about to cost every Canadiian 30 cents.


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2010)

> Also, pony up for the time his father spent in Toronto recovering (taking advantage of canadian healthcare) back in 1992.



After Chretian petitioned the Afghan government to release him because he was Canadian.... :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2010)

There will be no more talk of 'back alley justice' here. No cords, no shots, no holes, etc.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Dissident (5 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Maybe we need to invent new words to differentiate different levels of torture...



I have been asking everytime someone starts talking about torture to:"Define torture".

Being uncomfortable does not equates to being tortured in my books. The CF has removed some training methods that were contrary to Human rights, over the years, yet all of us will go through some discomfort while training. Does that means the CF tortures us? 

Sleep deprivation, long marches, sleeping uncomfortably, bad food, having to stand up for long period of times, being yelled at, being lectured to death and have to drink what some people call "coffee" are not tortures. (Feel free to add to this list  ) Hell, in the right context they can even be fun.

When I think about torture things that come to mind are mostly physical in nature: Acid, pulling out teeth/fingernails, cutting off body parts, sexual assault, SEVERE beating, hooking you up to a car battery. 

To me mild/medium (and some severe) discomfort does not equate torture.


----------



## FastEddy (5 Jul 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There will be no more talk of 'back alley justice' here. No cords, no shots, no holes, etc.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Preytell in your exalted wisdom, how you would like the Members to express their, DISCUST, OBJECTION, RAGE and INJUSTICE of this claim.

Not withstanding the fact that there are proponents who are advocating that it would Bankrupt the Country to properly take care of our Wounded Veterans and Families of our KIA.

Your suggestions as usual will be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Gunnar (5 Jul 2010)

Don't confuse his wisdom with his authority.  

It is understood that serving members would feel disgust etc., which is adequately demonstrated by writing such things as "This person is a waste of perfectly breathable air" and words to that effect.  However, as this site is read by MORE than military personnel, people who might not understand the context and feelings presented, thereby using such inflammatory comments as an occasion to make all members of the CF look bad to the press and/or the Canadian public, we follow guidelines.

That being said, this thread will follow the guidelines the moderator has laid out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Preytell in your exalted wisdom, how you would like the Members to express their, DISCUST, OBJECTION, RAGE and INJUSTICE of this claim.
> 
> Not withstanding the fact that there are proponents who are advocating that it would Bankrupt the Country to properly take care of our Wounded Veterans and Families of our KIA.
> 
> Your suggestions as usual will be greatly appreciated.



As usual, your grasp of the situation remains at a self centered, primary school level.

You've seen these types of responses here before, including your own IIRC.

You've also seen and read the Site policy as being zero tolerance to these comments.

The Staff can only assume that your short\ long term memory is in question;
You're incapacitated to reasonable thought by drugs or alcohol; or,
You're once more trolling and flaunting the Guidelines.

If you wish to escalate this and make anything you say, following this, official and open to sanction, fill your boots.
Rest assured your past history will be factored into any new decision by the Staff.

Now, back on topic.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jul 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Preytell in your exalted wisdom, how you would like the Members to express their, DISCUST, OBJECTION, RAGE and INJUSTICE of this claim.


If one feels it's necessary:
1) type something like, "I am disgusted at this suggestion, and I object with rage at its injustice." 
2) Proofread it to ensure it says what you think it does,
3) Hit <spell check> to avoid terms like "discust" [sic], 
4) If you want, see what it looks like when posted because of possible format/size changes, 
5) and then move on. 

For bonus points, however, one could also explain your opinions using facts, experiences....hell, tree-hugging _societal norms_. This gives a post what we call "value," and makes it stand out from a "rant."

Just making the effort will help some posters _appear_ not to be mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers. * 


Glad I could help answer the question posted.  



* For others, of course, there is only the wisdom of Max Ehrmann's _Desiderata_: 
Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, 
and remember what peace there may be in silence.


----------



## FastEddy (5 Jul 2010)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> Don't confuse his wisdom with his authority.
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, this thread will follow the guidelines the moderator has laid out.



What !, are you Bucking for membership in that Group or just Apple Polishing.

I would presume that you are just unaware of the number of Threads and Subjects that have run rampet in that Vein to their conclusion, which might have had the consequences as you have suggested.

If the Media can find anything that is posted here to Mass Discedit the CAF's Image,like "A wounded Vet is Pissed off with the Government the way he is treated, but can dish out 10 mil to that scum bag"then I'd say we didn't have any Image in the first place.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jul 2010)

LOL  


I wonder how much of that 10 Million our soldiers in Afghanistan will see thrown against them..


----------



## Sapplicant (5 Jul 2010)

While we're at it maybe we should give some money to each of the black bloc protesters we billy-clubbed in Toronto the other weekend. Also, has enough been done to pay back the families of EVERY person we might've harmed in the 2 world wars? Hell, we should just start a free cash program for anyone and everyone who's ever made a stupid choice in life and had to do suffer any sort of negative conseguences!!! We should take care of all the OTHER murderers too, since they will no longer be getting pensions.


----------



## 57Chevy (5 Jul 2010)

Court ruling may force feds to bring Omar Khadr back from Guantanamo:

OTTAWA — The federal government has been given a seven-day deadline to remedy violations of Omar Khadr's constitutional rights by the Federal Court.

Khadr's lawyer Nathan Whitling said Monday's ruling is tantamount to an instruction that Khadr be repatriated from Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. detention camp in Cuba where the young Canadian-born man has been held since 2002.

Judge Russel Zinn ruled that Khadr "is entitled to procedural fairness and natural justice in Canada's process of determining a remedy" for a breach of his constitutional rights that was found by the Supreme Court of Canada earlier this year.

The Supreme Court found officials from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the foreign intelligence division of Foreign Affairs Department violated the principles of fundamental justice when they questioned Khadr while knowing he had been subjected to a sleep deprivation program by American authorities.

The court also found that the government violated his rights in 2003 and 2004 by allowing officials to question him without a lawyer present.
The Harper government responded to the Supreme Court by asking the United States to refrain from using information obtained through those interviews.

The Toronto-born Khadr, now 23, was 15 when he was captured by American forces following a shootout with al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan in July 2002. He is charged with murder as a war crime, and five other charges, for allegedly lobbing a grenade that killed a U.S. army medic.

The government's long-standing position has been that Khadr faces serious charges and Canada must let the U.S. justice process run its course. Khadr's trial in military court is set for August.
 http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Court+ruling+force+feds+bring+Omar+Khadr+back+from+Guantanamo/3238341/story.html#ixzz0sqynWCdq

          (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jul 2010)

Federal Court of Canada decision and summary attached.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2010)

OK?

What is the Federal Court's judgement on the numerous other Canadians jailed thoughout the US, some on Death Row?  Surely they have some Constitutional Rights as well.  Heck!  We might as well start at the beginning of the alphabet and visit every country around the world and see how many Canadians are incarcerated and not being treated as per their Constitutional Rights.  I am sure that as soon as we get to Zaire, we will have found hundreds that have not had their Constitutional Rights properly adhered to by a foreign legal or judicial system.


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Jul 2010)

George,

As we have seen before, some Canadians in foreign custody get government attention...







...and some don't.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jul 2010)

Send her back to Mexico......

As far the court and Khadr..........."notwithstanding clause"


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2010)

As an aside, *most* Canadians in custody, including the weeping ones, in *most* foreign countries are there because they screwed up; we have free will; we make choices; then we pay the price for *our personal* choices.

The problem with written constitutions, like part of ours, is that they are rarely if ever drafted well enough to cover all _sensible_ eventualities without admitting a whole bunch of nonsensical ones, too. Thus we have lawyers, (nothing wrong with lawyers, they are, by and large, honourable men and women doing the  best they can to serve their clients) successfully, parsing every adjective and semicolon to find a way to make anyone and everyone a victim of the _system_.

I suspect that, eventually, an honest and honourable judge, maybe several of them, will decide that Khadr's rights were, indeed, breached and that it was *our* fault - yours and mine - and *our* money must be paid to provide acceptable redress. Governments and voters will weep and wail but we all will pay.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jul 2010)

I think there is 150 mothers, wives or husbands who need that 10 million. 

That 10 million this terrorist gets will go first to the lawyers, then to his terrorist supporting family.

Give me a break. :rage:


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Jul 2010)

Just sent this to our local MP:

"Good day sir:

I noticed with interest in the last week or so that two individuals, one accused of murder and the other a convicted murderer are seeking recompense from our nation.
One is Omar Khadr, who has been accused of murder as a fifteen year old while in Afghanistan, and since capture has been held prisoner by the United States of America in Guantanamo Bay. Mr Khadr is accused of murdering an American soldier, a medical soldier, with a grenade. 
Now Mr Khadr wants ten million dollars in recompense because his "rights" were violated by a Canadian CSIS official.

The second case I bring to your attention is Clifford Olsen, a convicted child serial killer. Mr Olsen has been incarcerated for a number of years, and is oone of Canada's most infamous serial killers. Mr Olsen is threatening to sue the Government of Canada if he does not receive his pension at age 65, claiming his "rights" will be violated.

Mr. Fletcher, our son Corporal Michael James Alexander Seggie, Second Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, Canadian Forces was Killed In Action on 3 September 2008. This is not what our son died for. He was not off in Afghanistan fighting so an accused terrorist can profit from his misadventures. Mike did not die in Afghanistan so Clifford Olsen could collect an old age pension and continue to haunt the memories of his victims families.

Mr Fletcher, we beleive that over thirty million Canadian citizens' rights have been violated by even entertaining the thought of paying these two individuals off. It insults the memories of over 100,000 Canadians who died during all our wars doing  their duty for their country. It makes a mockery of what well over one million Canadians who have served in the military have accomplished.

Mr Fletcher, we strongly encourage you to bring this to attention of the Prime Minister and the Canadian Parliament, and strongly encourage all Members of Parliament to "Just Say NO to Omar Khadr and Clifford Olsen". 

Thank you for your time."


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jul 2010)

Last week, from the Federal Court of Appeal....


> Canada's federal court on Monday gave the government up to seven days to remedy its breach of Guantanamo inmate Omar Khadr's rights.
> 
> In its ruling, the federal court said the government has so far failed to suitably rectify the transgression, even after being ordered to do so by Canada's highest court at the start of the year.
> 
> Khadr is entitled to "procedural fairness and natural justice," judge Russell Zinn said in his decision. "The steps taken to date were found not to remedy the breach." ....



Today, from Canada's Minister of Justice/Attorney General:


> The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, made the following statement today regarding the Government of Canada's decision to file an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal in the Khadr v. Prime Minister of Canada et al. case:
> 
> "After careful consideration of the legal merits of the July 5, 2010, ruling from the Federal Court, the Government of Canada will appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.
> 
> ...


----------



## HavokFour (12 Jul 2010)

Would it be wrong of me to say that I and every person I have ever come in contact do not consider the boy a Canadian because of what he's done? Heck, his mother is just as bad.

Let the little terrorist rot.  :nod:


----------



## HavokFour (12 Jul 2010)

Crap like this makes my blood boil. That man doesn't deserve a cent from Canada.


----------



## Gunnar (13 Jul 2010)

Ezra Levant has some commentary on this misunderstood Canadian high school student....worth reading a different opinion for a change.

www.ezralevant.com


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jul 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Would it be wrong of me to say that I and every person I have ever come in contact do not consider the boy a Canadian because of what he's done? Heck, his mother is just as bad.
> 
> Let the little terrorist rot.  :nod:



With all due respect, the little so and so is a Canadian by birth.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jul 2010)

... according to Angus Reid:


> .... Polling Data
> As you may know, Canadian citizen Omar Khadr has spent more than seven years in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, charged with throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in a July 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. Khadr, the son of al-Qaeda fighter Ahmed Said Khadr, was 15 when the alleged incident took place. Which of these policy options would you prefer in this case?
> 
> *Jul. 2010* May 2010 Feb. 2010
> ...



A bit more on attached news release.


----------



## TCBF (25 Jul 2010)

- Hey, I live in Edmonton, he can move across the street from me. Given the gluebags who live there now, I doubt anybody here would notice the difference.


----------



## Franko (25 Jul 2010)

So the majority of people polled want him to be tried in Gitmo. Sounds like a plan.

Maybe we should send his entire family there for moral support.

Regards


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (25 Jul 2010)

Interestingly enough, Omar Khadr's older sister Zaynab, married Joshua Boyle, son of Canadian Federal Tax Court Judge Patrick Boyle.  Apparently they met online while researching terrorism.


----------



## TCBF (25 Jul 2010)

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, Omar Khadr's older sister Zaynab, married Joshua Boyle, son of Canadian Federal Tax Court Judge Patrick Boyle.  Apparently they met online while researching terrorism.



- Well, tribal alliances are the key to this messy business, aren't they?


----------



## 57Chevy (25 Jul 2010)

Court ruling clears way for Khadr’s Guantanamo trial
 Khadr 
Any chance the Canadian government would come to Omar Khadr’s rescue before his murder trial starts in Guantanamo Bay next month seems to have been washed away with a court ruling.

The Federal Court of Appeals has sided with the Harper government, staying an order that required the Conservatives to quickly come up with and pursue ways to help the young Canadian terror suspect.

The court found a judge had overstepped his authority by ordering the government to help Khadr and by setting himself up to supervise and approve its actions. 

article continues...
                   (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jul 2010)

Huzzah! At least there's one judge in Canada that can look past politics and make a judgement based on the law.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Aug 2010)

This from QMI/Sun Media:


> The court-appointed lawyer for Canadian terror suspect Omar Khadr wants the U.S. Supreme Court to stop Khadr’s soon-to-be started trial for several war crimes.
> 
> U.S. Army lawyer Lt. Col. Jon Jackson argued that the military commissions set up at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Station in Cuba to try Khadr and other suspected terrorists is unconstitutional and unfair.
> 
> ...



More from Postmedia News, CBC.ca and the Associated Press.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Aug 2010)

Timely, as the US Supreme Court will be numerically left leaning as Ms Kagen, who soon to be confirmed, adds to the tilt.


----------



## North Star (3 Aug 2010)

I'm not really sure how Khadr "will suffer very significant harm" if the USSC allow the commission to proceed, and then overturn its findings...Probably hyperbole.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Aug 2010)

....is reportedly NOT being extradited to Boston to face terrorism charges, according to the Canadian Press:


> The lawyer for Abdullah Khadr says a judge has stayed the extradition hearing against his client.
> 
> Nate Whitling says Khadr could be released as early as today.
> 
> ...



More from the _Toronto Star_ here.


----------



## Sapplicant (4 Aug 2010)

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=25092853


----------



## BernDawg (7 Aug 2010)

:


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Aug 2010)

Khadr's confessions can be used at trial: judge


> Confessions that Omar Khadr made under interrogation are admissible as evidence in the Toronto native's war-crimes trial in Guantanamo Bay, a military judge has ruled.
> 
> Khadr's lawyers had asked that the confessions be excluded from the proceedings. But judge Colonel Patrick Parrish ruled that the jury will be allowed to consider the confessions, as well as a video of Khadr allegedly making explosive devices.
> 
> ...


More at link above


----------



## BernDawg (9 Aug 2010)

Score one for the good guys!


----------



## gaspasser (10 Aug 2010)

And yet they've let other-more seriously accused go home~~~and paid for the ticket!!! 
I'm not sure the lad will get justice ?~!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Aug 2010)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> And yet they've let other-more seriously accused go home~~~and paid for the ticket!!!
> I'm not sure the lad will get justice ?~!



I'm sure he'll get justice, but will he get enough of what he deserves. I'm tired of people jumping on the boo-hoo bandwagon with the liberals and disjointed one sided media for this terrorist and his treasonist family. It makes me sick to think that this country puts up with the likes of them and lets them live among decent honourable citizens.


----------



## krustyrl (10 Aug 2010)

I think (and it's strictly my own opinion) the film footage of him making IED's speaks volumes for me.          :yellow:


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Aug 2010)

krustyrl said:
			
		

> I think (and it's strictly my own opinion) the film footage of him making IED's speaks volumes for me.          :yellow:


As I understood the news broadcast I had watched (sorry, no link), those films are admissable as evidence against him.


----------



## BernDawg (12 Aug 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm sure he'll get justice, but will he get enough of what he deserves. I'm tired of people jumping on the boo-hoo bandwagon with the liberals and disjointed one sided media for this terrorist and his treasonist family. It makes me sick to think that this country puts up with the likes of them and lets them live among decent honourable citizens.


Amen Brother!


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Aug 2010)

Since Khadr's defense counsel is in hospital (and being evac'ed to mainland) after collapsing in the courtroom yesterday, initial reports from CBC and the _Globe & Mail_ say the trial could be on hold for about a month.


----------



## HavokFour (13 Aug 2010)

Oh for @&%$ sake.  

I want to call shenanigans, I really do.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (14 Aug 2010)

His military lawyers have been media whores to the point that I'm not sure what's going on.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> His military lawyers have been media whores to the point that I'm not sure what's going on.





			
				HavokFour said:
			
		

> Oh for @&%$ sake.
> 
> I want to call shenanigans, I really do.



So this officer, a Lt Col, was seen by doctors and admitted to the hospital, put on morphine and the prognosis by medical professionals is that he may have to go to the mainland for further treatment and you two amateurs thousands of miles away are saying he's bullshitting? Fucking amazing clairvoyance on your parts. You should go into business with each other and start a fortune telling business.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Aug 2010)

Not sure why there is even a trial,the kid confessed.


----------



## Brutus (15 Aug 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Not sure why there is even a trial,the kid confessed.



Due process? Just a thought.

edit: a confession is different than a guilty plea. A guilty plea is the only way to avoid a trial.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (15 Aug 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So this officer, a Lt Col, was seen by doctors and admitted to the hospital, put on morphine and the prognosis by medical professionals is that he may have to go to the mainland for further treatment and you two amateurs thousands of miles away are saying he's bullshitting? ******* amazing clairvoyance on your parts.



Thank you.  Far be it for me to accuse a lawyer of BSing.  It's just a very strange case that has seen delay after delay and the day the trial opens another delay.  Who knows, maybe when he gets back he'll be fired.  8 years to get to trial following multiple legal appeals and political appeals.  However, I am eagerly awaiting the testimony from Elvis.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Thank you.  Far be it for me to accuse a lawyer of BSing.



Yup....8 years of very public scrutiny. 8 years of living in a huge political storm. 8 years of tedious legal work. 8 years of living in front of the press. 8 years of.......

Stress does funny thing to people, his lawyer's body just may have had enough, who knows.

But then again, i bow to your obvious ability to smell out a conspiracy. You are obviously a highly tuned individual.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Aug 2010)

For someone who would die for the cause why opt for a trial ? Plead guilty. He probably wont be executed due to his youth.



> Gitmo trial delayed due to ill attorney
> 
> By Mike Melia - The Associated Press
> Posted : Saturday Aug 14, 2010 10:10:42 EDT
> ...



And this:



> Prosecutors: Gitmo inmate proud of slaying
> 
> The Associated Press
> Posted : Thursday Aug 12, 2010 10:53:45 EDT
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Aug 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Stress does funny thing to people, his lawyer's body just may have had enough, who knows.



[off topic] If it's gallstones, stress doesn't have much to do with an attack.  The cause is usually fatty food, which, consumption of, could be a sign of stress.    [/off topic]


----------



## GK .Dundas (15 Aug 2010)

Dundas"s Law # 235 You know it's never  a good sign  when your  lawyer upon opening your file, faints.


----------



## murray b (19 Aug 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> For someone who would die for the cause why opt for a trial ? Plead guilty. He probably wont be executed due to his youth.



The thing has become a media circus and there has been much distortion of fact.  Certain people are trying to claim that 15 years is too young to be responsible for one's actions.  There are international agreements that state that 15 year old soldiers can be tried for their crimes but not sentenced to death or something like that.

When I first heard the story I thought that U.S. forces had crossed the border and abducted a small child from a playground in Toronto.  That is how hard the media was spinning it.

It wasn't until later that the reports started to mention that this "child" had been accused of killing a medic overseas and was not actually in Canada when he was captured.  Gotta love our lieberal press.


----------



## HavokFour (20 Aug 2010)

*Omar Khadr not tortured: judge*​


> The U.S. military judge presiding over Omar Khadr's war-crimes trial says the Canadian was never tortured by his American captors or interrogators.
> 
> In a ruling released Friday, the judge says there is no "credible evidence" Khadr was abused.
> 
> ...



Read more...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 Aug 2010)

> The judge took a dim view of Khadr's affidavit in which he alleges abuse and mistreatment, especially given that the accused chose not to take the stand and be cross-examined on it



I think the above quote from the article is very relevant.  He chose not to be questioned on his affidavit so the judge had every reason to ignore it.


----------



## HavokFour (20 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I think the above quote from the article is very relevant.  He chose not to be questioned on his affidavit so the judge had every reason to ignore it.



Very good, I hadn't thought of that.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Oct 2010)

*Subject to confirmation elsewhere,* but this from an Al Arabiya correspondent in Washington, D.C.:


> AL ARABIYA BREAKING GTMO. Sources: Settlement has been reached. Khadr will spend majority of sentence in Canada, not gtmo.



Also offers link here ....


> A plea deal has been reached in the case of the accused war criminal Omar Khadr in Guantanamo that ... http://pk.gd/ZhX


.... but I'm firewalled from where I'm posting.

More, one way or another, as it pops up.

Edited to add this bit of "maybe, not quite there yet" copy from the _Toronto Star_:


> A plea deal in the Omar Khadr case is being negotiated, just days before his war crimes trial is set to resume Guantanamo Bay.
> 
> Canadian lawyer Nathan Whitling confirmed that a “potential deal” is in the works but that he could not comment on details.
> 
> ...



Edited again to include _Globe & Mail_ story:


> Omar Khadr will plead guilty to terrorism charges in exchange for a sentence – most of which will be served in Canada – as part of a plea bargain deal expected to be finalized in the next few days.
> 
> “We can confirm that there is a potential deal in the works,” said Nate Whitling, one of Mr. Khadr’s Canadian lawyers. Mr. Whitling declined to provide any details but said he expected an announcement soon.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Oct 2010)

....from the first outlet to break the news here, _Al Arabiya_ ....


> A plea deal was reached in the case of the accused war criminal Omar Khadr in Guantanamo on Thursday that ensures his return "soon" to Canada to serve the rest of his sentence, sources close to the trial told Al Arabiya.
> 
> Last night, the Military Commission's Convening Authority agreed to a deal presented by the Khadr's defense.
> 
> ...



.... the _Toronto Star_ ....


> A plea deal in the Omar Khadr case is being negotiated, just days before his war crimes trial is set to resume Guantanamo Bay.
> 
> Canadian lawyer Nathan Whitling confirmed that a “potential deal” is in the works but that he could not comment on details.
> 
> ...



.... and CBC.ca, as of this posting:


> CBC News has confirmed there are talks between the U.S. government and Canadian Omar Khadr's defence team aimed at reaching a plea deal ahead of the resumption of his war-crimes trial at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
> 
> Nathan Whitling, Khadr's Canadian lawyer in Edmonton, told CBC News a potential deal is in the works but he couldn't comment on the details.
> 
> "There is no deal right now," he said ....


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Oct 2010)

While the lawyers say "we're workin' on it," PM's Office tells QMI/Sun Media nothing's in place:


> Reports that accused Canadian terrorist Omar Khadr has reached a plea deal to bring him home are incorrect, according to the Prime Minister’s Office.
> 
> "Khadr (is) facing serious charges in the U.S. These serious charges would have to be addressed in the U.S. Therefore there is no such agreement," said Dimitri Soudas, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's director of communications ....


----------



## dogger1936 (14 Oct 2010)

I am starting to have mixed feelings on this.

To start off I will say I believe their family should be detained and deported. Openly admitting a tie to organisations that kill innocent people should be grounds for deportation.

However I kind of feel bad for Omar. He was a child living with his father when all this happened. How many children would turn against their own father in a firefight? Right or wrong.

Omar is an example of poor immigration legislation on OUR part. A family that is involved in this sort of thing does not belong in our country. 

I feel bad for his situation he was born into, but alas he should be given the death penality for killing the medic. 
If he returns to a canadian jail I hope he is murdered in jail. There is no rehabilitation of that many years of brainwashing by political Islam.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2010)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I am starting to have mixed feelings on this.
> 
> To start off I will say I believe their family should be detained and deported. Openly admitting a tie to organisations that kill innocent people should be grounds for deportation.
> 
> ...


He was not some 'poor child' and there is no reason to feel sorry for him. In the culture he was brought up in, he was old enough to be married and have a family, goats, and his own hut. Stop treating him like some poor, sheltered,  inner city kid that's never been off the block. He's a terrorist and he knew exactly what he was doing.


----------



## dogger1936 (15 Oct 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He was not some 'poor child' and there is no reason to feel sorry for him. In the culture he was brought up in, he was old enough to be married and have a family, goats, and his own hut. Stop treating him like some poor, sheltered,  inner city kid that's never been off the block. He's a terrorist and he knew exactly what he was doing.



No doubt. And I've killed people his age attacking us. In regards to being a "poor child" he was in my eyes. Any child brainwashed into that life has little choice. While you may not see/feel the need to feel sorry for the wasted life I certainly do. Put in the same situations he was I have little understanding what I or we would have done. And can't begin to comprehend it.

Having said that I also feel bad for other brainwashed farmers who couldnt point out canada on a map who I have killed with an AK in their hands; however I truly enjoyed taking their lifes...as they took my friends and comrades. There is a difference in having empathy for people, and being a peacenik. I believe Omar should recieve capital punishment for what he done. It's just saddening to see such waste of life that political Islam and Jihad is creating. 

Maybe it's time to look at our immigration policies that prevents these people from living here. Any father who would teach such hate doesnt belong in a western society.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2010)

> Canada has the ability to scuttle a plea deal that Omar Khadr is expected to trigger Monday when he must definitively decide whether he’ll admit to war-crimes charges he faces in exchange for a cap on his sentence.
> 
> The claim was made by a source close to the case came as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton injected the question of Khadr’s future into her diplomatic agenda Friday — calling Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, who was continuing a visit to China, to discuss the Canadian-born terror suspect.
> 
> Canadian agreement is necessary if the plea deal is to deliver on a proposal that — as Postmedia News has learned — would see Khadr transferred to Canada after spending just the first year of an eight-year sentence in U.S. custody ....


More on that here.

And a warning (with a hat tip to MarkOttawa and the Unambiguously Ambidextrous blog):


> .... Perhaps it is true that Mr. Khadr will spend seven years in prison in Canada – though it seems unlikely given our parole system. However, if the government of Canada allows this statement to pass without any caveat, we run the risk of being looked upon as skunks down the road by Americans if and when Mr. Khadr is granted an early parole. And, if and when that perception emerges, there would be no shortage of Congressmen and women to hold hearings on the affair even if it means damaging the bilateral relationship – as the British and Scottish governments are now discovering to their chagrin in the case of the release of the Lockerbie bomber.


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Oct 2010)

And if/when the Liberals form the government, he will be out on parole faster than you can say ...........


----------



## GAP (23 Oct 2010)

If he has to serve one year in a US jail, then it should be in the general pop.....just saying... ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Oct 2010)

That would mean a lot bigger butt plug will be required.......also just saying.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Oct 2010)

COMMENT REMOVED BY MILNET.CA STAFF

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/10/ap-us-and-canada-discuss-fate-of-gitmo-detainee-102210/

U.S. and Canada discuss fate of Gitmo detainee

By Rob Gillies - The Associated Press
Posted : Friday Oct 22, 2010 18:17:19 EDT
   
REGINA, Saskatchewan — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon on Friday and talked about the fate of the last Western detainee at Guantanamo Bay, a Canadian government source said.

The official said they discussed Canadian Omar Khadr and what options there are should Khadr reach a plea deal with the Pentagon to settle charges that he allegedly killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.

Khadr's lawyers have said a potential deal is in the works. The Canadian government official said the U.S. is looking to terminate the case early. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

The official described the talks as preliminary, a sounding out. The official said they don't think the U.S. can formally ask Canada to take Khadr until a plea deal is in place.

Khadr's trial at Guantanamo Bay is scheduled to resume Monday.

The son of an alleged al-Qaida financier, Khadr was captured after allegedly throwing a grenade that killed Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. If convicted, he faces a maximum life sentence.

Khadr, now 24, had pleaded not guilty to war-crimes charges including murder, conspiracy and spying. He faces the first Guantanamo trial under President Barack Obama.

U.S. State Department official P.J. Crowley confirmed the call took place and but he would not comment on the substance of the discussion. Another official said Clinton and Cannon did speak about a number of bilateral issues, including Afghanistan, the upcoming NATO summit and regional matters.

Defense attorneys say Omar Khadr was pushed into war by his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, an alleged al-Qaida financier whose family stayed with Osama bin Laden briefly when Omar Khadr was a boy. Omar Khadr was 15 when he was captured in 2002.

The Egyptian-born father was killed in 2003 when a Pakistani military helicopter shelled the house where he was staying with senior al-Qaida operatives.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government has steadfastly refused to request the return of Khadr, the youngest detainee held at the prison. The reluctance owes partly to Canadians' ambivalence toward the Khadr family, which has been called "the first family of terrorism."

Omar Khadr's youth has made his case one of the most closely followed by critics of Guantanamo. Child advocates have argued Khadr should face rehabilitation rather than a possible life sentence, and say prosecuting a minor for war crimes could set a dangerous international precedent and lead to more youths being victimized by war.

The case has been delayed for years by legal wrangling and a series of challenges to the system of war-crimes trials, known as military commissions, that was set up during President George W. Bush's administration and has been criticized by human rights groups for not including the same protections as federal courts or traditional courts-martial.

The Khadr trial is now the first under Obama, who revised the system to offer more protections to defendants and is considering it as a venue for the prosecution of more prominent suspects such as alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Oct 2010)

Omar Khadr pleads guilty

GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA—Canada's Omar Khadr has pleaded guilty to war crimes he committed as a 15-year-old.

In a courtroom in Guantanamo Bay, Khadr withdrew his previous not-guilty plea and then pleaded guilty.

That means he is admitting to throwing a grenade that killed an American special forces soldier in Afghanistan in 2002.

Khadr’s guilty plea to all five charges has reportedly won the 24-year-old a special deal for a sentence.

More here.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Oct 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Omar Khadr pleads guilty
> 
> More here.





> Col. Pat Parrish, the military judge, accepted Khadr's guilty pleas and revealed as part of the deal, the US government "will support" his application to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canada after one more year in U.S. custody. Other specifics of the deal and sentence are being kept secret until later this week.



and



> Sources suggest Khadr's plea-bargain sentence could be for eight years, with the last seven to be served in Canada.



Would the Canadian Judicial System then consider "Time Served" ?


----------



## HavokFour (25 Oct 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Would the Canadian Judicial System then consider "Time Served" ?



One can only hope it does not, but I have a bad feeling about this.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Oct 2010)

> Col. Pat Parrish, the military judge, accepted Khadr's guilty pleas and revealed as part of the deal, the US government "will support" his application to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canada after one more year in U.S. custody. Other specifics of the deal and sentence are being kept secret until later this week.



Which presupposes that Canada agrees to take him back. Personally, I say let him serve his time in a US jail, then deport him back to Canada after he's served his 8 years. We'll deal with him then. No government is going to fall on having not repatriated an admitted terrorist and murderer.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Oct 2010)

Good. He's plead guilty, the Judge has accepted the plea and he has waived to right to appeal. Now he's fully at the mercy of the court.

The great thing is, that Canada hasn't accepted, or negotiated, the deal. We can just ignore it and let the Americans deal with it.

Now his whiney mouthpiece is trying to blame us for not caring:



> Khadr let down by Canada, says lawyer
> Postmedia News October 25, 2010   Omar Khadr's Canadian lawyer charged Sunday that the "Canadian people" -- in addition to the Canadian government -- have let down the Canadian-born terror suspect.
> 
> Speaking on the eve of Khadr's return to a military court, Dennis Edney insisted that there was, as of Sunday morning, no signed plea deal between the United States and the Toronto native.
> ...




Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/news/world/Khadr+down+Canada+says+lawyer/3721171/story.html#ixzz13NpNAfRW


At the end of the day, at this point, it's up to the US to deal with it as it should be.


----------



## krustyrl (25 Oct 2010)

Do we really need/want this self-confessed murdering terrorist back in our country after the year is up in GBay.?   Ultimately it's not up to John Q Citizen, but this guy just confessed to killing a NATO Troop and terrorist activity against coalition forces . 

Where could this be headed when he is done serving ? Anyone have their crystal ball polished up.?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Oct 2010)

Well.  A precedence has been set with a Canadian born Somali being deported to Somalia.  I suppose the same can be done here with him being deported to Pakistan or Afghanistan.


----------



## krustyrl (25 Oct 2010)

I for one would hope that is/was a precedent... esp in this case.


----------



## rnkelly (25 Oct 2010)

He was a kid when it happened, 15 yrs old.  He's been "detained" in Cuba and Canada let the US try him.  This is their decision, I think we should respect it.  

Who knows how this Canadian kid got involved but I'd say in the fog of war it's pretty hard to judge.  Call him an insurgent, combattant, non-legal combattant, terrorist etc, he was still 15 yrs.  The coalition has occupied their country and understandably some of them see it as they're being invaded.  I think the Judge knows what he's doing and took things into consideration.  

We can't try him again, that wouldn't be fair (double jeopardy).

Deporting him after his sentence, should definitely be considered.

Is he a risk after release, definitely.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2010)

Deal, or no deal to return?  Who do you believe?


> The Canadian government has agreed to a clause in Omar Khadr's plea bargain that says he will be returned to Canada after a year, his Canadian lawyer says.
> 
> Khadr pleaded guilty Monday to murder, attempted murder, supporting terrorism, conspiracy and spying. His lawyer, Dennis Edney, said he is confident the Canadian government will honour its part of the bargain.
> 
> ...


More from QMI here.


----------



## GAP (25 Oct 2010)

he has to make it to release first.....that may be difficult if he's in general pop, and his reputation has preceeded him..........


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2010)

A bit more from the _New York Times_ - highlight mine:


> A former child soldier being held at the military prison on Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, pleaded guilty on Monday to terrorism-related charges, averting the awkward prospect that he would be the first defendant to stand trial before a military commission under the Obama administration.
> 
> Omar Khadr, 24, a Canadian citizen, admitted to a military judge that he threw a grenade that killed an American soldier during a July 2002 firefight and that he had planted 10 roadside bombs for Al Qaeda. Mr. Khadr, born in Toronto, was 15 years old when he was captured in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


The yellow bits _suggest_ to me that "the U.S. applying to move Khadr north"=/="Canada is automatically taking him".  

The text of the "Treaty between Canada and the United States of America on the execution of penal sentence" available here.


----------



## hold_fast (28 Oct 2010)

I've been really torn on the Khadr trial.
Here's my  :2c:, take it for what it's worth. Don't be offended - it's my opinion.

1) I don't understand how anyone can be charged with murder in a war. That's what war is.
2) He's either a) a child soldier who killed a NATO member; or b) pleaded guilty under a plea deal that prevents the possibility of a life sentence, which makes the circumstances murky at best
3) Sending him back to Afghanistan or Pakistan is a moronic idea. You really want to put him back where he can be cornered and recruited? I'd rather have him in Canada, where he'll most likely be secretly wiretapped and followed everywhere for the rest of his life.

Lastly, this...


			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> No doubt. And I've killed people his age attacking us. In regards to being a "poor child" he was in my eyes. Any child brainwashed into that life has little choice. While you may not see/feel the need to feel sorry for the wasted life I certainly do. Put in the same situations he was I have little understanding what I or we would have done. And can't begin to comprehend it.
> 
> Having said that I also feel bad for other brainwashed farmers who couldnt point out canada on a map who I have killed with an AK in their hands; however I truly enjoyed taking their lifes...as they took my friends and comrades. There is a difference in having empathy for people, and being a peacenik. I believe Omar should recieve capital punishment for what he done. It's just saddening to see such waste of life that political Islam and Jihad is creating.
> 
> Maybe it's time to look at our immigration policies that prevents these people from living here. Any father who would teach such hate doesnt belong in a western society.



...Made me puke in my mouth and want to log off permanently from this site. While I know that opinion is out there, the idea of enjoying killing someone is disgusting and along the lines of the very enemy you stand against.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Oct 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> I've been really torn on the Khadr trial.
> Here's my  :2c:, take it for what it's worth. Don't be offended - it's my opinion.
> 
> 1) I don't understand how anyone can be charged with murder in a war. That's what war is.



He killed another while not part of a uniformed, recognized force. That's murder, even in a theatre of war.



			
				hold_fast said:
			
		

> 2) He's either a) a child soldier who killed a NATO member; or b) pleaded guilty under a plea deal that prevents the possibility of a life sentence, which makes the circumstances murky at best



He's not a child soldier according to the UN Convention. He had passed his 15th birthday at the time of his capture.



			
				hold_fast said:
			
		

> 3) Sending him back to Afghanistan or Pakistan is a moronic idea. You really want to put him back where he can be cornered and recruited? I'd rather have him in Canada, where he'll most likely be secretly wiretapped and followed everywhere for the rest of his life.



We can't send him back. Whether we like it or not, he was born in Canada and remains a citizen.


----------



## HavokFour (28 Oct 2010)

*No Khadr return deal in place: Cannon*​


> The Canadian government has not committed to repatriating Omar Khadr as part of the Guantanamo Bay prisoner's plea deal with U.S. authorities, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon says.
> 
> Cannon's comments on Thursday come despite defence lawyers insisting Canada has signed off on an agreement that would see the Toronto-born Khadr returned to Canadian custody after serving one year in the U.S. detention facility in Cuba.
> 
> ...



Read more...


----------



## HavokFour (28 Oct 2010)

*Omar Khadr apologizes to widow*​


> Omar Khadr apologized Thursday to the widow of Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, who was killed by Khadr's grenade in 2001, saying that he is sorry for the pain he caused the American soldier's family.
> 
> "I'm really, really sorry for the pain I caused you and your family," he said during his most extensive comments since his capture. "I wish I could do something that would take away your pain."
> 
> ...



Read more...

An absolute pathetic display on his part. If he were sorry he'd have said it years ago. This is nothing but a bid to gain sympathy.


----------



## hold_fast (28 Oct 2010)

Or, you know, God forbid a prisoner actually be rehabilitated.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Oct 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEbzM2FUP9s


----------



## aesop081 (28 Oct 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> 1) I don't understand how anyone can be charged with murder in a war. That's what war is.



Educate yourself a little.........



> 3) Sending him back to Afghanistan or Pakistan is a moronic idea.



Its a perfect idea.



> .. enjoying killing someone is disgusting and along the lines of the very enemy you stand against.



I was going to give you credit but then, you said this. If you cant figure why there will always be a difference between us and them, you should log off and never come back here.


----------



## 2 Cdo (28 Oct 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> ...Made me puke in my mouth and want to log off permanently from this site. While I know that opinion is out there, the idea of enjoying killing someone is disgusting and along the lines of the very enemy you stand against.



Our job sometimes involves killing our enemies and I for one have no problems with that, maybe it's time you rethought joining our little club. It's not always about peacekeeping and handing out candy. :


----------



## rnkelly (28 Oct 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Educate yourself a little.........
> 
> Its a perfect idea.
> 
> I was going to give you credit but then, you said this. If you cant figure why there will always be a difference between us and them, you should log off and never come back here.


What's he going to educate himself about?  Just because we define terms like illegal combattants and insurgents doesn't mean anything to a people that see their country being invaded.  You do realize that NATO forces have committed atrocities as well right?  

The problem with deporting him is that we could possibly be sending him back to the battle for the other team.

What's the difference between us and them except for them being way less fortunate than us?

Honestly, I'd love to know because these are very complicated issues to me that you seem to understand very easily.


----------



## krustyrl (28 Oct 2010)

Speaking for myself and myself only, Kadr if he were to end up in Canada....needs to be punted.   Again , my opinion .   
Guilty = GTFO.!  
That also means out of my health plan, pension plan etc.  With any luck he can convince the rest of his AQ family to join him.!  


 :2c:


----------



## George Wallace (28 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> What's he going to educate himself about?  Just because we define terms like illegal combattants and insurgents doesn't mean anything to a people that see their country being invaded.



Toronto was invaded ?  ???




			
				rnkelly said:
			
		

> You do realize that NATO forces have committed atrocities as well right?



You could argue that, but it is not what this topic is about.



			
				rnkelly said:
			
		

> The problem with deporting him is that we could possibly be sending him back to the battle for the other team.



Or we could let him and his family set up a Sleeper Cell in Toronto.  




			
				rnkelly said:
			
		

> What's the difference between us and them except for them being way less fortunate than us?



Don't kid yourself.  The tools of war are not cheap.  To run smuggling rings to make cash to smuggle in weapons and explosives cancels out any ideas that they are "less fortunate" than us.  It just tells us that they are more fanatical and not tolerant of any beliefs other than their own form of radical Islam.  Read some more of what they are.  Watch more news on what they are doing.  Don't just stick with CBC, CTV, CBS and the other North American media outlets.  Look at what is being said in Europe and on al jazzera.  Surf the Internet and get informed.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> What's he going to educate himself about?



International law would be a good place to start.



> You do realize that NATO forces have committed atrocities as well right?



We dont go looking for inocent people to kill......maybe you realize that ?



> The problem with deporting him is that we could possibly be sending him back to the battle for the other team.



I'm all for it. He can get what he deserves that way.



> What's the difference between us and them except for them being way less fortunate than us?



They enjoy killing innocent people. We don't.


----------



## dogger1936 (28 Oct 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> Lastly, this...
> ...Made me puke in my mouth and want to log off permanently from this site. While I know that opinion is out there, the idea of enjoying killing someone is disgusting and along the lines of the very enemy you stand against.



Well welcome to the real world kid. Although it isnt something people talk about many of us did enjoy killing the enemy. What do you want us to say? "We HAD to do it... Ifeel so bad about it" would that better fit you British columbia university scene? I aplogise if the truth discusts you, however war isnt a great time. After months of watching your friends get blown to bits, shot at and hit,ambushed... you take pleasure in the little things.Like taking the lifes of those trying to kill you and your friends.


While I took time to ensure I was killing enemies they didnt care who they killed.I also patched up a 5 year old who the taliban blew her goddam legs off. innocent kids.



As for kadhr....he is a lost cause. deport to Afganistan and drop the hellfire on the first compound he dwells in.


----------



## krustyrl (28 Oct 2010)

But his statement indicated he feels remorseful, sorry and probably didn't intend to do the things he pleaded guilty to, so... he's good to go back to wherever he was trained and he'll be a reformed and model citizen.

So, maybe there's no fear in sending him back and becoming an AQ team member again.!


----------



## George Wallace (28 Oct 2010)

krustyrl said:
			
		

> But his statement indicated he feels remorseful, sorry and probably didn't intend to do the things he pleaded guilty to, so... he's good to go back to wherever he was trained and he'll be a reformed and model citizen.
> 
> So, maybe there's no fear in sending him back and becoming an AQ team member again.!



Wouldn't that be just Mamby Pamby..............Tissue?

Don't forget the comments made by members of his family in Toronto.  Some of them are strong advocates of AQ.


----------



## krustyrl (28 Oct 2010)

Don't get me wrong GW...I want this terrorist gone from refuge in Canada before he even gets here.!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## aesop081 (28 Oct 2010)

krustyrl said:
			
		

> So, maybe there's no fear in sending him back and becoming an AQ team member again.!



At least over there we can introduce him to our freinds....Hellfire and GBU-38. Here in canada we will release him for time served and he will probably sue the GoC.


----------



## krustyrl (28 Oct 2010)

EGG-zactly.!!!!!!


----------



## HavokFour (28 Oct 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Wouldn't that be just Mamby Pamby..............Tissue?
> 
> Don't forget the comments made by members of his family in Toronto.  Some of them are strong advocates of AQ.



I wonder why that hasn't been brought up in the trial yet. If he truly is _"rehabilitated"_ wouldn't it be a danger to send him back to a home full of AQ sympathizers, running the high risk of re-radicalizing him?


----------



## rnkelly (28 Oct 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> International law would be a good place to start.
> 
> We dont go looking for inocent people to kill......maybe you realize that ?
> 
> ...


Sorry didn't realize that you were also CDN Lawyer.

I'd argue that Khadr is a victim of the way International Law has been applied.  I'm not condoning what he did for the record.

Note:  While I think this topic is great to discuss/debate, it has disappointed me where this thread has gone.  Seeing CF members make reference to enjoy killing, using hellfire missiles  is in bad taste.  While understandable points of view I don't see this forum as the venue for such venting for supposed proffessional soldiers.
 :2c:


----------



## George Wallace (28 Oct 2010)

That Geico commercial again.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> Sorry didn't realize that you were also CDN Lawyer.



All that law of armed conflict stuff i took in University and in military training hasnt been a complete waste. What do you have on the subject ?



> Seeing CF members make reference to enjoy killing, using hellfire missiles  is in bad taste.



Killing is part of the job. I'm sorry that it does not sit well with you. I look forward to the day where i get to send a Mk46 towards an enemy of ours.......




> for supposed proffessional soldiers.



IMHO, you are ill placed to judge me or any other CF members.


----------



## rnkelly (28 Oct 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Toronto was invaded ?  ???
> 
> 
> You could argue that, but it is not what this topic is about.
> ...



I didn't mean Toronto but I think you knew that.  I was referring to where Khadr is from, the middle east.  Many Canadians, while born here, grow up to their immigrant parents' cultures and values.  This is what makes our country so great and diverse.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> I didn't mean Toronto but I think you knew that.  I was referring to where Khadr is from, the middle east.  Many Canadians, while born here, grow up to their immigrant parents' cultures and values.  This is what makes our country so great and diverse.



No, it makes our country weak and divided.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> This is what makes our country so great and diverse.



And every now and then, you get a family like the Khadrs......but we roll out the red carpet for them too. Great country indeed.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (28 Oct 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> No, it makes our country weak and divided.


Do explain.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Oct 2010)

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> Do explain.



Tamil Tigers........Toronto..........

Air India.........

Hows that for a start ?


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Oct 2010)

Really?  I really need to explain how bringing dark ages cultural practices to to a modern western democracy and forcing it accomodate your particular system of choice is devisive?  I'm all for being proud of where you're from, I'm not from here either, but leave your other crap in the place you left for a better life, not just the same one, except with Starbucks.


----------



## rnkelly (28 Oct 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> All that law of armed conflict stuff i took in University and in military training hasnt been a complete waste. What do you have on the subject ?
> 
> Killing is part of the job. I'm sorry that it does not sit well with you. I look forward to the day where i get to send a Mk46 towards an enemy or ours.......
> 
> ...


I'm not naive enough to believe that the military isn't required in todays world.  Further I support having the capability to Kill, I just wish more people were scared of getting killed so the capability wouldn't have to be used as much.  

My experience in the subject is pretty much the same as you, exceedingly inadequate.  But I still have opinions that are based on what I read and see.

I don't dare to judge you or any particular CF member (Sorry if it came off that way) but as a Canadian (Tax Paying) our interests and values should be represented.  By the way Canadians as a whole are the Judge and jury here, it's just too bad not too many of them participate in the discussion.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> but as a Canadian (Tax Paying) our interests and values should be represented.



I am a tax-paying Canadian too.



> it's just too bad not too many of them participate in the discussion.



They dont because they are quite happy ignoring reality and leaving the killing to other people.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> I didn't mean Toronto but I think you knew that.  I was referring to where Khadr is from, the middle east.



He is not from the Middle East.  He was born in Ontario in 1986 and then moved to South Asia, Pakistan, with his family, and then Afghanistan in 1996.


As for his family, go back to the original post in this thread and read it.




And please don't use "Dude".


----------



## rnkelly (28 Oct 2010)

Do you think he thinks of himself as a Canadian Sir?


----------



## HavokFour (28 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> Do you think he thinks of himself as a Canadian Sir?



Canadian of _convenience_.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> Do you think he thinks of himself as a Canadian Sir?



Does it matter?  What matters is the game that is being played out to seek the least amount of incarceration and to play on the sympathies of Canadians.  It is a matter of "convenience" for many in his family.  They are "using" Canada.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Oct 2010)

I swear I will lose my mind if the Canadian government pays him one red cent if and when he gets "repatriated"  and I use that term loosely. *My son was repatriated and to use that term to describe bringing back to Canadad that traitorous little SOB....*Further to this, if and when this terrorist comes back and is given a huge award, I will demand that the government stop it and sink the money into the Soldier On fund and Military Families Fund.


----------



## rnkelly (28 Oct 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Canadian of _convenience_.


I think we can all agree on that!



			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I swear I will lose my mind if the Canadian government pays him one red cent if and when he gets "repatriated"  and I use that term loosely. *My son was repatriated and to use that term to describe bringing back to Canadad that traitorous little SOB....*Further to this, if and when this terrorist comes back and is given a huge award, I will demand that the government stop it and sink the money into the Soldier On fund and Military Families Fund.


Don't worry Mr. Seggie, Khadr won't be getting the same type of Ceremony and Etiquette as your son.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Oct 2010)

No he won't. But Khadr is alive. He will be free. And him and his traitorous family may get a huge payout. How's that for justice?


----------



## rnkelly (29 Oct 2010)

He'll be free in 8 years but let's not jump the gone on a payout by the government, don't see that happening.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> He'll be free in 8 years but let's not jump the gone on a payout by the government, don't see that happening.



Oh really??? And just tell us how you don't see that happening?


----------



## aesop081 (29 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> He'll be free in 8 years but let's not jump the gone on a payout by the government, don't see that happening.



He will be free in much less than 8 years thanks to the Canadian justice system. After that, he will take the government to court for not bringing him back to Canada while he was in GB.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Oct 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> He will be free in much less than 8 years thanks to the Canadian justice system. After that, he will take the government to court for not bringing him back to Canada while he was in GB.



And that is why he will recieve a huge payout.


----------



## rnkelly (29 Oct 2010)

Well, he'd have to prove that the GoC knew he was getting tortured.  The definition of torture at the time was quite foggy.


----------



## sean m (29 Oct 2010)

It is interesting how you can come on here and say all these nice things about how things problems should be solved in nice peaceful ways, sadly this is not the case as we clearly see all over the world. Khadr does not seem to feel any remorse for what he has done, his family were given the opportunity to come here and enjoy life and yet they rejected that and left.  Radical Islam is a very real threat, and realistic threats in this day in age should not be taken lightly. Khadr has not deserved any right to come back to this country, there are thousands if not millions of people who desire to have what he and his family chose to give up here. You seem to have a rather negative view of the military. Let me ask you a question, who is it that keeps you safe from outside threats, if you were in a hostage situation with your life on the line in a foreign country.... Soldiers do. These people have given everything, including their lives at times, to protect our country and people. Obviously there are going to be rotten apples on the tree, but the majority of these apples are quite healthy and edible. It is easy for someone to criticize while sitting comfortably where ever they are, and who have never been or will ever be in a situation like a war zone. If someone really wants to better the world then that person should put it into deeds and not just continue to use it as words. Khadr was a part of a society which kills anyone who disagree with them, I don't feel compassion for someone like that. The world is not a pretty place, that is why there are soldiers and they do what they have go to do. Hopefully someday so will I as one. 




			
				rnkelly said:
			
		

> I think we can all agree on that!
> Don't worry Mr. Seggie, Khadr won't be getting the same type of Ceremony and Etiquette as your son.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> Well, he'd have to prove that the GoC knew he was getting tortured.



It didnt take much for the other guy to get his money.


----------



## dogger1936 (29 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> Sorry didn't realize that you were also CDN Lawyer.
> 
> I'd argue that Khadr is a victim of the way International Law has been applied.  I'm not condoning what he did for the record.
> 
> ...



Whats unprofessional about talking about killing? We do it. I'm at peace with it. no venting at all. Whats wrong with dropping a hellfire and humanely killing a terrorist? personally I got a wife and two kid's, I don't desire to leave home and risk my life for my country...but it's my duty to the country I serve.I put the country before them. The profession of arms involves killing. Whats hard to understand about that? Personally this Khadr has proven he's a broken toy. Send him back to Afgan and watch him. Let him lead us back to other terrorist and kill them.

As for enjoying killing, what do YOU wish me to do? I already feel horriable about watching comrades die...should I feel bad about killing the enemy to please you?


----------



## George Wallace (29 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> He'll be free in 8 years but let's not jump the gone on a payout by the government, don't see that happening.



Let's see.

Maher Arar  sued the Government.

Abousfian Abdelrazik sued the Government.

Yup!  It has been done before.


----------



## rnkelly (29 Oct 2010)

They didn't plead guilty.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> They didn't plead guilty.



I dont think thats going to matter much. He will say that he was tortured in Gitmo....that the GoC knew it and that the GoC did nothing to protect him.

He will win.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Oct 2010)

I've spent my entire career til about a year ago practicing and discussing ways we can have the Grim Reaper pay house calls on our nation's foes. There is absolutley nothing wrong with that. 
We are soldiers. Soldiers may have to kill people. If anyone has an issue with that being discussed on this board, maybe you should choose not  to participate.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> They didn't plead guilty.



If everyone who didn't plead guilty sued, where would we be today.  I would be taxed at ten times what I earn and I'd be broke.  So would you and everyone else on this board.


----------



## rnkelly (29 Oct 2010)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Whats unprofessional about talking about killing? We do it. I'm at peace with it. no venting at all. Whats wrong with dropping a hellfire and humanely killing a terrorist? personally I got a wife and two kid's, I don't desire to leave home and risk my life for my country...but it's my duty to the country I serve.I put the country before them. The profession of arms involves killing. Whats hard to understand about that? Personally this Khadr has proven he's a broken toy. Send him back to Afgan and watch him. Let him lead us back to other terrorist and kill them.
> 
> As for enjoying killing, what do YOU wish me to do? I already feel horriable about watching comrades die...should I feel bad about killing the enemy to please you?


I wasn't arguing about how you should feel.  Just the forum in which you express your feelings.


			
				sean m said:
			
		

> It is interesting how you can come on here and say all these nice things about how things problems should be solved in nice peaceful ways, sadly this is not the case as we clearly see all over the world. You seem to have a rather negative view of the military. Let me ask you a question, who is it that keeps you safe from outside threats, if you were in a hostage situation with your life on the line in a foreign country.... Soldiers do. These people have given everything, including their lives at times, to protect our country and people. It is easy for someone to criticize while sitting comfortably where ever they are, and who have never been or will ever be in a situation like a war zone. If someone really wants to better the world then that person should put it into deeds and not just continue to use it as words. The world is not a pretty place, that is why there are soldiers and they do what they have go to do. Hopefully someday so will I as one.



I'm a soldier.  I thought that was assumed by now.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> ......  I thought that was assumed by now.




You used the "assumed word"..........You know what that makes you and me.    >


----------



## rnkelly (29 Oct 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I dont think thats going to matter much. He will say that he was tortured in Gitmo....that the GoC knew it and that the GoC did nothing to protect him.
> 
> He will win.



With all your experience in law you would know that it isn't exactly an open and shut case.

Anyways that's just a bit of a side argument, who knows if he'll even go through with the litigation.  His priorities might be elsewhere.


----------



## rnkelly (29 Oct 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You used the "assumed word"..........You know what that makes you and me.    >



You got me there.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> With all your experience in law you would know that it isn't exactly an open and shut case.
> 
> Anyways that's just a bit of a side argument, who knows if he'll even go through with the litigation.  His priorities might be elsewhere.



Theres millions to be made here. He'll sue. We'll pay.


----------



## rnkelly (29 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I've spent my entire career til about a year ago practicing and discussing ways we can have the Grim Reaper pay house calls on our nation's foes. There is absolutley nothing wrong with that.
> We are soldiers. Soldiers may have to kill people. If anyone has an issue with that being discussed on this board, maybe you should choose not  to participate.


I think this is a healthy and good discussion.  I'm being devil's advocate a bit because this thread was getting a bit one-sided in my opinion.  Trust me I wasn't getting offended just hard to keep up with multiple people, I think I doubled my post count in one day.  I'll come back to check this thread again but for now it is time to catch some Z's.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> With all your experience in law you would know that it isn't exactly an open and shut case.



Yeah but all my real-life experience tells me otherwise.


----------



## hold_fast (29 Oct 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> He killed another while not part of a uniformed, recognized force. That's murder, even in a theatre of war.


First off, thank you for providing strong arguments against what I was saying. However, I'm unsure as to whether we can throw out the idea of the AQ as a non-uniformed and unrecognized force. If we do so, then we throw out all militias throughout military history, do we not?



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> He's not a child soldier according to the UN Convention. He had passed his 15th birthday at the time of his capture.


You're right. By the UN convention's standards, he was not a child soldier. Yet - the SRSG of the UN referred to him as such (http://www.un.org/children/conflict/english/09-august-2010-trial-of-omar-khadr.html) and also referred to the ICC's statute ("The statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) makes it clear that no one under 18 will be tried for war crimes, and prosecutors in other international tribunals have used their discretion not to prosecute children"). 

I was also looking over this document (I believe it is by Professor Macklin of the UofT), which further elaborates on the laws that govern the treatment of minors: http://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Mackin/Khadr_ChildSoldier.pdf
Found at this portal: http://www.law.utoronto.ca/search_content.asp?contentID=1617



			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Well welcome to the real world kid. Although it isnt something people talk about many of us did enjoy killing the enemy. What do you want us to say? "We HAD to do it... Ifeel so bad about it" would *that better fit you British columbia university scene? *


While I recognize the general opinions coming from the 'British Columbia university scene' (thanks for reading my profile, it shows me that you care ), I am not of that group. Do not pull out your old fashioned hatred for provinces, and to make snide remarks without foundation at academia is embarassing for you, at best.



			
				2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Our job sometimes involves killing our enemies and I for one have no problems with that, maybe it's time you rethought joining our little club. It's not always about peacekeeping and handing out candy. :


It's not just your club. You're a member, but you don't get to choose who joins. Don't patronize me.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Educate yourself a little.........


I have, and I still believe that one could make a strong argument that the AQ consider themselves an armed and unified force with a semblance of a chain of command and therefore as a recognizable enemy. While German POWs were mistreated post-WWII (or treated exactly as they deserved, depending on who you're speaking to), they weren't tried for murder. Are we at war with every terrorist in the world, or a certain sect of fanatical terrorists that are unified beneath one banner?



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Its a perfect idea.


I still stand that it's moronic.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I was going to give you credit but then, you said this. If you cant figure why there will always be a difference between us and them, you should log off and never come back here.


No, I think I'll stay. I understand that there are obvious differences between us and them. However, I also believe that it is apparent that we face an enemy that cannot be eradicated with bullets because that enemy is an idea, not a person. The only way to convince someone that your idea is the right one is to see them as an equal - demonizing our enemies is not the way that we should fight wars, though I'm sure it helps one sleep at night.




A bit off-topic here, but I need to say this:
Lastly, there seems to have been some miscommunication on what irked me in dogger1936's post. As a result, we've gone off on a tangent about the soldier's profession as a killer. Let me clarify: I was disgusted at the image of someone smiling while taking another man's life. Of someone taking joy in killing another. I am far from understanding war and I'm sure that, even when I'm lying on my deathbed, it will still confound me. 

As a result of my comments, individuals were quick to jump to the conclusion that I'm some hippy kid who is disillusioned as to the profession that I will be entering; yes, that is correct: the profession of arms that I will be entering. I will wear the very uniform that you do; I will don our Maple Leaf with pride, and even more so - I will ultimately enter as an officer in the Canadian Navy.

Make no mistake, I am not disillusioned as to my future career. When called to kill an enemy, I will without hesitation. But if the moment ever comes that I take joy in extinguishing another man's life, then that will be the moment that I hang up my uniform. That does not make me lily-livered. That makes me human.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Oct 2010)

A couple of points.



			
				hold_fast said:
			
		

> It's not just your club. You're a member, but you don't get to choose who joins.



Wrong.  2 Cdo may not have anything to say in who joins or not, but it is not a "Right" but a privilege and people are interviewed and accepted or weeded out in the process.




			
				hold_fast said:
			
		

> ...... While German POWs were mistreated post-WWII (or treated exactly as they deserved, depending on who you're speaking to), they weren't tried for murder.



Seems to me that many were.  Why else did we have the Nuremburg Trials?  Kurt Meyer was tried and served five years in Dorchester Penitentiary, in New Brunswick.


----------



## Danjanou (29 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> .... I'm a soldier.  I thought that was assumed by now.



No actually it wasn't. No details in your posts nor profile to imply that as far as I can see. The only thing we do appear to know for a fact is you have what appears to be a Simon Fraser University email.


----------



## dogger1936 (29 Oct 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> at academia is embarassing for you, at best.
> 
> A bit off-topic here, but I need to say this:
> Lastly, there seems to have been some miscommunication on what irked me in dogger1936's post. As a result, we've gone off on a tangent about the soldier's profession as a killer. Let me clarify: I was disgusted at the image of someone smiling while taking another man's life. Of someone taking joy in killing another. I am far from understanding war and I'm sure that, even when I'm lying on my deathbed, it will still confound me.
> ...



Well seems as every bit of life experience you have had on war and the military has been from books; go read On killing and on combat.You will quickly find it's normal. Calling a a member of the CF "un human" for having such feeling shows your total misunderstanding of what war is, what combat is. However thanks for being a pompus arrogant  uni student who can judge others. Maybe you should also look into non judgemental thinking; pick up some books on mindfulness. I can recommend a few books on that as well.

I hope war isnt something you ever experience. However some of us have.


----------



## dogger1936 (29 Oct 2010)

To add. I'm sure you have a mental picture of soldiers in some drama type show holding each other talking about or feelings after dropping arty on a section sized element of enemy. fact is we usually got back into relative safety of a cop and fob had a few cold perrier's and made dark humour jokes about the dark things we have to do.Have a good laugh about it and carry on.

I ask...who are YOU to judge anyone.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Oct 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> It's not just your club. You're a member, but you don't get to choose who joins. Don't patronize me.



The people who do get to chose who joins are members. The people who train those who join are members. The people who decide who gets to stay and who gets to leave are members.



> I have, and I still believe that one could make a strong argument that the AQ consider themselves an armed and unified force with a semblance of a chain of command and therefore as a recognizable enemy.



It does not matter what AQ "considers" themselves to be, it only matters what they are. You need to read up on what the LOAC considers to be a lawful combatant.



> While German POWs were mistreated post-WWII (or treated exactly as they deserved, depending on who you're speaking to), they weren't tried for murder.



Of course not. They fit the LOAC definition of lawful combatants. maybe you should read up on that.

Here, in case you just dont want to look it up :



> A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.






> Lastly, there seems to have been some miscommunication on what irked me in dogger1936's post.



No, we understood quite well.



> Let me clarify: I was disgusted at the image of someone smiling while taking another man's life. Of someone taking joy in killing another.



We understood what you were saying.



> the profession of arms that I will be entering.



MAY be entering......



> I will wear the very uniform that you do;



MAY wear........



> I will ultimately enter as an officer in the Canadian Navy.



MAY enter.........MAY stay........


----------



## aesop081 (29 Oct 2010)

Just so you are further clear :



> Unlawful Combatants : Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, *if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations*


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Oct 2010)

"Let me clarify: I was disgusted at the image of someone smiling while taking another man's life. Of someone taking joy in killing another. "

Tell you what: Get some experience and then talk to me. I, for one, may not take joy in taking another person's life, but if it is necessary, then so be it. The Canadian Forces aren't Boy Scouts. The whole point of it  the CF is "To close with and destroy the enemy"


----------



## rnkelly (29 Oct 2010)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> No actually it wasn't. No details in your posts nor profile to imply that as far as I can see. The only thing we do appear to know for a fact is you have what appears to be a Simon Fraser University email.



Aha, forgot about the profile thing, new to posting on forums.  Old email from when I joined army.ca but I see the humor that the two BC University dudes are of similar views.  I've been out of BC for a few years so shouldn't be too hippie anymore.

While it's hard to judge what people are basing their opinions on I don't think it's fair to blindly discredit all non-military posts.  Also, I thought that one of the points of Internet forums, was a certain anonymity, I know I don't want to post my personal details for all to know.

LOAC is great but interpreting it is where it gets tricky, the most powerful write the rule book.  They also seem to have the best lawyers to manipulate it to their needs.  It also helps that history is written by the victors.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> LOAC is great but interpreting it is where it gets tricky, the most powerful write the rule book.  They also seem to have the best lawyers to manipulate it to their needs.  It also helps that history is written by the victors.



Those definitions are from the Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war of August 12, 1949, part 1, article 4 (2). Afghanistan is signatory to that convention.


----------



## Danjanou (29 Oct 2010)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> Aha, forgot about the profile thing, new to posting on forums.  Old email from when I joined army.ca but I see the humor that the two BC University dudes are of similar views.  I've been out of BC for a few years so shouldn't be too hippie anymore.
> 
> While it's hard to judge what people are basing their opinions on I don't think it's fair to blindly discredit all non-military posts.  Also, I thought that one of the points of Internet forums, was a certain anonymity, I know I don't want to post my personal details for all to know.
> 
> LOAC is great but interpreting it is where it gets tricky, the most powerful write the rule book.  They also seem to have the best lawyers to manipulate it to their needs.  It also helps that history is written by the victors.



We don't blindly discredit all non military posts, nor do we demand you fill in your profile details, fully understanding the need for privacy and anonymity in some cases. Please reread the site guidelines you agreed to when you joined, they do make thse factrs clear.

That said and done the more one knows about a person, often translates into the more credibility they may have here, plus of course well thought out arguments irregardless of the point of view taken.


----------



## desert_rat (30 Oct 2010)

Hmmm, looks like he has at least one groupie mentor too : -  between his crusading lawyer Dennis Edney and this one, they'll probably throw him a F@$%ing homecoming parade in Edmonton when's he's "re-patriated" to the halfway house or whatever...

"Edmonton professor, Khadr exchanged letters for 2 years

King’s University College English prof urged convicted terrorist to read, write"


Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Edmonton+professor+Khadr+exchanged+letters+years/3749790/story.html#ixzz13s2lc4Pn


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Oct 2010)

Please avoid the word 'repatriate'. This is not "repatriation". This is laughing at us all the way to the terrorist bank.


----------



## HavokFour (30 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Please avoid the word 'repatriate'. This is not "repatriation". This is laughing at us all the way to the terrorist bank.



You're right. Can't repatriate someone who was never a patriot to begin with.


----------



## desert_rat (30 Oct 2010)

Indeed, my intent by use of the quotations was to imply sarcasm  - and it didn't translate well in my post - the idea very of "repatriation" of this individual in any way, shape or form is truly repugnant.


----------



## KevinB (31 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Please avoid the word 'repatriate'. This is not "repatriation". This is laughing at us all the way to the terrorist bank.



Roger that.

I cannot fathom the stupidity of Canadians in wanting this guy back (and I know the vast majority of this board does not want him for anything but target practice).

 IMHO the CF and the Cdn Gov should roll back the NDA and Q&RO's to 99, and sentence him to execution by firing squad for treason, he is a Cdn citizen, killed an allied soldier and deserves to die at the hands of a Canadian soldier firing C77 ball into his sorry ass.


----------



## GAP (31 Oct 2010)

Khadr sentenced 40 years, plea bargain for eight
Article Link
By BRYN WEESE, Parliamentary Bureau, QMI Agency
Last Updated: October 31, 2010 5:45pm

GUANTANAMO BAY US NAVAL BASE, Cuba - Canada's Omar Khadr to has been sentenced to 40 years behind bars for his war crimes, but will be free in eight because of a plea deal.

It took the military jury here just over eight hours over two days to hand down their sentence.

A plea deal, struck earlier this month, limits the time Khadr will spend in jail to eight years, with the last seven possibly served in Canada.

Sunday's sentence wraps up a week-long sentencing hearing here, which followed Khadr pleading guilty to murder, attempted murder, supporting terrorism, spying and conspiracy on Monday.

The jury, a seven-member panel of U.S. military officers from postings around the world, began deliberating Khadr's sentence Saturday at 11 a.m.

They handed down their sentence, which was 15 years more than the prosecution was asking for, Sunday at 5 p.m.

In closing arguments Saturday, the prosecution had portrayed Khadr as an "accomplished" al-Qaida terrorist who murdered U.S. Sgt. first class Christopher Speer with a grenade during a July 2002 Afghan firefight and attempted to murder "countless others" by making and planting roadside bombs.

Jeff Groharing, one of the prosecutor's in the case, said not only would the jury's sentence hold Khadr responsible for his actions, it would also send a strong message to other terrorists, that, "the United States will not tolerate the cowardly acts of terrorism and terrorists will be punished severely."

"We will meet you any day in the battlefield Š but al-Qaida is not an army and its terrorists like Omar Khadr are not soldiers," Groharing said in his closing arguments Saturday. "Omar Khadr is not a rockstar and he's not a victim. He's a terrorist and a murderer. Tell him that with your sentence."

While life behind bars was a possible sentence, even "appropriate" according to Groharing, the government asked for 25 years given Khadr's age of 15 when he committed his crimes.
More on link

Don’t welcome back Khadr
Slam shut Canadian doors to this psychopath — we don’t need him on our streets
By EZRA LEVANT, QMI Agency Last Updated: October 31, 2010 2:00am
Article Link

When life gets you down, what do you think about to raise your spirits? What’s the “happy place” in your mind? Someone you love? Something you’ve done that makes you proud?

When prison life got Omar Khadr down, he said he would think about how it felt to kill Christopher Speer, the U.S. army medic he murdered in Afghanistan.

Daydreaming about murdering Speer “would make him feel good.” He “felt happy” when he learned that Speer had died.

Khadr said building remote-controlled roadside bombs to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan was “the proudest moment of his life.” He had a special hatred for Jews.

That’s no run-of-the-mill murderer. That’s Russell Williams stuff. It’s Paul Bernardo territory. Normal people would feel remorse or disgust at taking a life. Only psychopaths feel pleasure and re-enact the murderers again and again in their minds.

Khadr is a psychopath. And he’s coming back to Canada.

The details of the secret deal between Canada’s foreign minister, Lawrence Cannon, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not been revealed. But reports out of Guantanamo Bay are that Khadr will be sentenced to eight years in prison: One year in the U.S. before coming to Canada for the rest of the sentence.

But, under Canadian parole laws, Khadr will be out on the streets almost immediately — likely within months of arriving here.

Khadr has never renounced the jihad. He has never renounced al-Qaida. And he most certainly has not renounced murdering Speer.
More on link


----------



## HavokFour (31 Oct 2010)

If he is allowed back into this country I am seriously considering organizing a protest, anything. Canada does not want this scumbag back.


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Oct 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> If he is allowed back into this country I am seriously considering organizing a protest, anything. Canada does not want this scumbag back.


I agree. We may have no choice as he is a Canadian citizen...one of very dubious loyalties. Make your feelings known to your MP.


----------



## HavokFour (1 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I agree. We may have no choice as he is a Canadian citizen...one of very dubious loyalties. Make your feelings known to your MP.



Writing him up now. If anyone else wants to write their MP but do not know who that may be, look here.


----------



## GAP (1 Nov 2010)

Will it take a coalition to welcome back Khadr?
Norman Spector Globe and Mail Update Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2010
Article Link

Contrary to some reports last week, there was no agreement between Lawrence Cannon and Hillary Clinton that Omar Khadr would return to Canada after serving another year at Guantanamo. As Paul Koring is reporting, the United States will allow him to make the request, but the "decision on that is solely up to the Canadian government." Which is pretty much what Vic Toews – the minister responsible for the International Transfer of Offenders Act – said last week. 

Given the overwhelming sympathy for Mr. Khadr in media circles, one can imagine a re-elected minority Conservative government – especially one with a thinner plurality – allowing Mr. Khadr to come home, where he could expect an early release on parole. However, in light of the 40 year sentence voted by the jury – and judging from the tone of this column, the Conservative base will likely remain quite bloody-minded at the prospect of Mr. Khadr's re-patriation. Moreover, Mr. Khadr’s lawyer didn’t do his client any favours by indicating that the stipulation of facts was all “fiction” and that he was “innocent.” And Mr. Khadr’s decision not to testify under oath – as is his right – which would have allowed him to be cross-examined, will raise doubts as to the sincerity of his repentance.

Mr. Khadr’s prospects for repatriation would be much better under a coalition government – which Michael Ignatieff says he's prepared to lead after the next election. And which is now in the cards, according to Frank Graves – though not according to Angus Reid.

How do we know that Mr. Khadr’s prospects would be better under a coalition government? 
More on link


----------



## George Wallace (1 Nov 2010)

So?  Does it now look like the return of Khadr may become an election issue.  The Left against the Right.  Those wanting his return vs those who don't.  Is it now the time to start the letter writing campaign, especially to the Liberal MPs who will likely be voting the Party Line to have him returned?


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Nov 2010)

I'm ok with bringing him back, as long as he ends up in Gen Pop of Kingston Pen. Then, prison justice will probably make him want to go back to Guantanamo.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is it now the time to start the letter writing campaign, especially to the Liberal MPs who will likely be voting the Party Line to have him returned?



I don't think writting Liberals will help.   Remember the gun registration? Liberals don't seem to mind pulling an 11th hour change of mind.


If Canada takes him back I wonder if he'll grab a university course or two while in prison.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Nov 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> If Canada takes him back I wonder if he'll grab a university course or two while in prison.



Has he not already stated that he intended to?


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Nov 2010)

No idea but now that you mention it I think I've heard people commenting about that.
Personally  I'll go out of my way not to listen to him sniveling and crying.


I love hearing the left talk about giving him a medal and him running for some kind of office  :


----------



## Gunner98 (1 Nov 2010)

Run for office?  Maybe we could give his own sitcom - Welcome Back, Khadr!


----------



## Fusaki (1 Nov 2010)

Omar Khadr belongs to an Al Qaeda family that, as far as I can tell, only likes Canada when it is time to take advantage of our health care after they've been injured while waging war in support of establishing a global Islamic caliphate.  _It's parisitic._

But sentencing him to 40 years in prison for war crimes is unethical and bad for the war effort.  if anything, the plea bargain only underscores how his trial is about politics - not justice.

The LOAC and the Geneva Convention is unsuitable for modern war.  These laws were developed with western-style state vs state conflict in mind, not the kind of population-centric armed social work we carry out in contemporary counter-insurgency or the kind of "global counter-insurgency" we carry out in the course of modern counter-terrorism.  Attempting to apply these antiquated laws in a war against the globalized influence of non-state actors such as Al Qaeda has limited our ability to carry out this war effectively and has lead us to give up much of our moral highground.

What are Canadian soldiers supposed to do in a war where every detainee we take is an unlawful combattant?  Are they _all_ war criminals?  Of course not!  _Most_ of them are just foot soldiers without uniforms.  It's unethical to treat them any less humanely than we would a uniformed enemy combattant.  Likewise, does it make sense to afford insurgents the same protections as non-combattants simply because they're not wearing uniforms? Of course not!  An insurgent who stashes his weapon and attempts to blend into the population is still an insurgent, armed or not.  Will insurgents avoid killing our medics becase it is against the Geneva Convention?  Then why do we still restrict our medics from engaging in aggressive action?  What are we supposed to do when we're sent to a country at the request of an international body to _assist_ in the stabilization of its government, but then we're told that it is illegal hand over detainees to that government if those detainees will be mistreated?  What if we need to work with warlords, drug barons, child-molesting cops, and illiterate and corrupt politicians in the short term, for the sake of long term stability?

We can not, on one hand, say that the current laws are inadequate for the current conflict when they restrict us from doing our job, but then on the other hand seek to apply those laws to the letter when they rationalize our vengeance on a child-soldier.

And that's what Omar Khadr is - a child soldier.  Calling him a _murderer_ and a _war criminal_ because he's an ununiformed combattant for a non-state actor cheapens those terms and it fails to address the nature of modern war.  In the eyes of the world we're seen as hypocrites, undermining our percieved moral highground.  Modern counter-terrorism is about showing the world that _we're_ not the bad guy.  It is about de-legitimizing the cause of Takfiri terrorists in the eyes of the world's Muslim population.

You want to make an example of Omar Khadr?  We should be showing our compassion.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Nov 2010)

Pardon me while I disagree with some of you assertions, Wonderbread. 
This individual and his family have shown no loyalty to our nation, nor humanity. Their avowed purpose is to terrorize the nation that welcomed them, while using the benefits of Canadian citizenship. They are traitors, pure and simple.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Nov 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> I love hearing the left talk about giving him a medal and him running for some kind of office  :



If you really want to get outrageous, think of Louis Riel.  One hundred years (plus) later, we have statues to him, schools named after him, and perhaps a holiday.  Will we see the same thing in one hundred years for a person like Khadr?


----------



## GAP (1 Nov 2010)

You're right....Manitoba celebrates traitor day Reil Day..... :


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Nov 2010)

The latest prediction is that our poor young misunderstood Khadr will be back on our soil in 18-24 months.  :rage:


----------



## brihard (1 Nov 2010)

My thoughts are best summed up elsewhere, so I'll just C&P them here.


If Khadr is in fact guilty of what he has pled guilty to - and I don't for a second doubt that the psychological coercion of eight years at Gitmo has has something to do with it - then he is a piece of shit and probably remains an ideological enemy of our country.

With that said, the manner in which he has been treated has been such a mockery of the rule of law and of common principles of justice as to make me gag. The quasi-judicial process can't even begin to be described as just. He's been slapped with this 'unlawful combatant' status, which is pure legal fiction by the United States to accommodate people they're unwilling to acknowledge as prisoners of war but to whom they don't wish to extend the protections of due process. Frankly, that scares the shit out of me, that the U.S. can arbitrarily invent such a status, enforce it, and yet recognize that it's such a bloody fake and unconstitutional fiction that they dare not try to enact it on the continental United States lest the courts properly kick them back into line.

Instead, out of a cold, cynical expediency and out of a desperation to show that Guantanamo's perversion of law has accomplished anything, they have convicted an individual who was a child at the time of the offense. They have done so through denial of due process, through suppression of evidence, through admission of tainted evidence, through denial of proper representation, and with utter disregard for the presumption of innocence that underlies any real criminal justice system. Guantanamo has been a kangaroo court in its most disgusting and blatant form.

The worst bit, that which pisses me off the most, is that our government (who, I regret to say, I helped to elect) have gone along with this mockery. Not content to allow the United States to piss all over its own rule of law, they've pissed all over ours, utterly disregarding the Supreme Court's findings that the government has a responsibility to govern all our dealings in the case according to our laws.

I'm convinced that Khadr wished us harm, and that given the opportunity he would have fought. I'm not convinced he did in fact do so. I'm not optimistic that he can be rehabilitated.

I am fucking CERTAIN that there is not one bit of harm, real or potential, that he can do to us, our allies, or anything we hold dear which comes close to the harm caused by our acceptance of a perversion of justice, discarding the rule of law, employment of legal fiction, and pandering to fear of the terrorist hiding under the bed in order to normalize the suspension of rights.

In the case of Khadr, both the U.S. and Canada have willingly abandoned the moral high ground that is the only thing that justifies our intervention in ugly, blasted countries. We have comrpomised our own principles in the Khadr case- which begs the question, if we're willing to do that, what the hell are we fighting for?

Khadr is responsible for his actions, whatever they may have been, and a guilty plea was his right to enter. But there is a tremendous burden on the state - both ours, and that of America - to execute its role in the process fairly and with proper resort to actual law. The rule of law is far too important and essential to abandon out of expediency.

I dearly hope that Khadr is returned to Canada and successfully appeals his incarceration under section 7 and that he is released under 24(2). Our government needs to be reminded what the law says, and hopefully such a slap in the face might help America wake up to what it's doing.

I will happily accept the miniscule risk to our safety if he is released, if that means that the rule of law and due process is defended.

This will, I'm sure, be an unpopular opinion around here. I'm fine with that.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If you really want to get outrageous, think of *Louis Riel*.  One hundred years (plus) later, we have statues to him, schools named after him, and perhaps a holiday.  Will we see the same thing in one hundred years for a person like *Khadr*?





			
				GAP said:
			
		

> You're right....Manitoba celebrates traitor day Reil Day..... :


Apples and oranges - even the most die-hard Khadr booster would be hard pressed to make a reasonable case that he was working with AQ to fight against what he considers an unjust _Canadian_ government for the betterment of _his own group on Canadian soil_ 1.  

Meanwhile, according to the _Globe & Mail_....


> The Harper government has agreed to allow convicted war criminal Omar Khadr to return to Canada after he serves one year of sentence in a Guantanamo Bay prison.
> 
> Noting the government was not involved in negotiating the sentence, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon confirmed that Ottawa will allow Mr. Khadr’s repatriation during Question Period on Monday.
> 
> ...



1 - _NOT_ necessarily agreeing with how Riel is perceived in some circles, only stating what the perception is - that debate is a whooooooooooooooole other thread's worth of discussion.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Nov 2010)

Does Khadr have a valid, current Canadian passport?  it would be very sad if his RTM were to be delayed because of some beaurocratic hiccup in the long, convoluted process of obtaining/renewing a passport.


----------



## Container (1 Nov 2010)

I dont understand how people can suggest that we just turn the other cheek with individuals like Khadr. 

I find most often its easy to claim the moral high ground when its someone elses blood. I see in our court system all the time.

I would suggest that being Canadian is more than your passport, and having one makes you Canadian in name only and when you kill a medic, performing emergency aid, with a handgrenade from inside a bomb making compound you have done something so uncanadian, and infact in-human, that you deserve whatever follows next. Be you 12 or 120.

Sorry kid, I know your dad taught you wrong. But you have to go to jail forever.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Nov 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> I dont understand how people can suggest that we just turn the other cheek with individuals like Khadr.
> 
> I find most often its easy to claim the moral high ground when its someone elses blood. I see in our court system all the time.


Like 152 Canadian soldiers, two Canadian aid workers, a Canadian reporter and a Canadian diplomat.


----------



## HavokFour (1 Nov 2010)

Food for thought.



> PART II
> 
> OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
> 
> ...



I'll make sure to include this in my letter, so should you.

May I also point out that Khadr supporters are a minority, they only look like the majority because of all the media attention they get.


----------



## TheHead (1 Nov 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> I love hearing the left talk about giving him a medal and him running for some kind of office  :




  Really?  Who on the left is saying he should recieve some kind of medal.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Nov 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> I love hearing the left talk about giving him a medal and him running for some kind of office  :


Just noticed this - any links to share along these lines?  I'm intrigued....


----------



## brihard (1 Nov 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> I love hearing the left talk about giving him a medal and him running for some kind of office  :



Citation needed.

Undoubtedly there will be one or two individuals who are right (or left?) the f*** out of 'er, but I challenge you to demonstrate any wide sentiment amongst 'the left' (whatever that mythical, monolithic thing you conceive of is) that suggest Khadr should be given a medal and elected or appointed to any position of responsibility.

Sounds like you may have read a very extreme position at some point, and are broadly attributing it to the entire side of the political spectrum you're not a fan of. I'm calling bullshit.

The majority of support for Khadr's release comes from a couple of sentiments or beliefs. Either;
- He was a child soldier and is entitled to be treated as such,
- The facts given in the case are wrong and he was innocent,
- He was utterly indoctrinated and brainwashed by a screwed up family, and;
- The entire quasi-judicial system at Guantanamo is a farce and ought not be dignified by our complicity.

In nearly all cases I've seen people opposing the treatment of Khadr not because they believe he 'did right' (whatever that personal individual believes he, in fact, did), but because our side has 'done wrong' in how he was treated since capture. There's a huge difference. Khadr is largely a symbol of two competing viewpoints; the protection of rights, justice, and the rule of law with the consequent acceptance of very marginally greater risk on one side, versus a more expedient and security oriented focus on the other side that accepts some compromise as necessary to protect what is believed to be an enhanced provision of security from terrorism. But to claim that the former perspective wants to see him handed a medal and put into office is so absurd as to verge on being deliberately dishonest.


----------



## Fusaki (1 Nov 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> I find most often its easy to claim the moral high ground when its someone elses blood. I see in our court system all the time.



This is irrelevant. An argument's cogency has nothing to do with the person espousing it.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (1 Nov 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> PART II
> 
> OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
> 
> ...



Khadr was decidedly out of country when he was caught.

*However....*



> assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.



His family remained in Canada while they sent/supplied an individual (Omar Khadr) to the enemy to fight. Would they not possibly be guilty of this?


----------



## HavokFour (1 Nov 2010)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> Khadr was decidedly out of country when he was caught.
> 
> *However....*
> 
> His family remained in Canada while they sent/supplied an individual (Omar Khadr) to the enemy to fight. Would they not possibly be guilty of this?




See:



> (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,
> 
> (a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or
> 
> (b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).



ie: Canadian citizens and persons owing allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada who commit acts of high treason or treason are punishable under Canadian criminal law even if the acts were performed outside Canada.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (1 Nov 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> See:



Seen.

Still wondering about his family though (as a seperate question).


----------



## HavokFour (1 Nov 2010)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> Seen.
> 
> Still wondering about his family though (as a seperate question).



Perhaps something would happen if a person or persons dragged this little gem into the light.  

EDIT: I've decided to shoot off an email to Lowell Green of 580 CFRA.


----------



## hold_fast (1 Nov 2010)

Out of curiosity, when was the last time someone in Canada was prosecuted for treason?


----------



## brihard (1 Nov 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, when was the last time someone in Canada was prosecuted for treason?



Just after WW2. A Japanese-Canadian left for Japan in 1938, served in the Japanese army, and was apparently a rather brutal guard at internment camps, including being responsible for the deaths of some Canadians taken prisoner at Hong Kong. He was hanged in '47.


----------



## HavokFour (1 Nov 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, when was the last time someone in Canada was prosecuted for treason?



Kanao Inouye


----------



## KevinB (1 Nov 2010)

Interesting parallel -- I'd vote for following the precedent...


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Nov 2010)

Can you imagine the howls of protest if we even contemplated executing a traitor?


----------



## brihard (1 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Can you imagine the howls of protest if we even contemplated executing a traitor?



Given the incredibly poor application of law in the Khadr case- in this instance, yes.

Personally I have a strong objection to the death penalty. Not for philosophical reasons, or because some people don't deserve it - some absolutely do - but because I simply don't trust the state to administer the criminal justice system effective enough to implement such an irrevocable sentence. You can't bring someone back to life if you screw it up, and so long as there is any rate of error in the justice system I don't think it's justifiable. 

I don't think any reasonable argument can be made that the gong show at Guantanamo is in any way a close enough approximation of an actual fair trial for such a result as the death penalty should even be contemplated. Even a real criminal justice system typically remains rather flawed, never mind what they've got going on down there.

If, somehow, we can devise a way to read minds with absolute 100% certainty, and from that can prove guilt or innocence in a case, then by all means go ahead with limited application of capital punishment. But not in the current system or anything we're likely to develop.


----------



## HavokFour (1 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Can you imagine the howls of protest if we even contemplated executing a traitor?



I'm not suggesting we execute him. More along the lines of throwing him down a deep _deep_ hole. (Oh, and there's that whole Martyr thing to consider...)

I encourage anyone who feels as strongly about this as I to write your MP. If we can't keep him out, we can damn well make his stay a living hell.  ;D


----------



## KevinB (2 Nov 2010)

Well Brihard, how do you figure that young Khadr is anymore ill treated than Italian, German, or Japanese POW's during WWII

 Inturned for the duration -- well guess what the GWOT is not done...


----------



## Gunner98 (2 Nov 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Given the incredibly poor application of law in the Khadr case- in this instance, yes.
> 
> Personally I have a strong objection to the death penalty. Not for philosophical reasons, or because some people don't deserve it - some absolutely do - but because I simply don't trust the state to administer the criminal justice system effective enough to implement such an irrevocable sentence. You can't bring someone back to life if you screw it up, and so long as there is any rate of error in the justice system I don't think it's justifiable.
> 
> ...



So someone pleading guilty is not certain enough for you?


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Nov 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Just after WW2. A Japanese-Canadian left for Japan in 1938, served in the Japanese army, and was apparently a rather brutal guard at internment camps, including being responsible for the deaths of some Canadians taken prisoner at Hong Kong. He was hanged in '47.





			
				HavokFour said:
			
		

> Kanao Inouye


That's a bit more apples-to-apples than Riel - good catch!

Meanwhile, here's what Hansard says was said during Question Period (QP) in the HoC yesterday - highlights mine:


> _Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ)_:  Mr. Speaker, we know that there were definitely no negotiations about the sentence, but there were certainly negotiations about the plea deal. And if it is true that Canada did not participate and that the Americans spoke on Canada's behalf, that is even more serious.  Diplomatic documents reveal that the government would support the extradition of Omar Khadr after he served one year in Guantanamo. Yet the Minister of Foreign Affairs' press secretary said that the plea deal was between the Americans and Omar Khadr.  Let us get the story straight: will the minister authorize the transfer of Omar Khadr once he has served one year in Guantanamo or not?
> 
> _Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC)_:  Mr. Speaker, the Government of the United States agreed to send Omar Khadr back to Canada, and *we will implement the agreement between Mr. Khadr and the Government of the United States.*



Later, in the same session of QP:


> Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, in a diplomatic note sent on October 23, Canada said that it was inclined to favourably consider Omar Khadr's application. The agreement negotiated would never have been possible without that guarantee. That proves that the government and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were involved.  Why is this Conservative government incapable of telling the truth? Why did the minister mislead the media, the House of Commons and, especially, Canadians?
> 
> Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the government did not participate in the negotiations on the sentence, and the prosecutor made that very clear. The American government agreed to allow Omar Khadr to return to Canada. *We will do everything we can to ensure that the agreement reached between the American government and Omar Khadr is carried out.*



Edited to add ==> Meanwhile, according to an Ipsos-Reid poll (news release and detailed response tables attached):


> .... While one half (49%) of Canadians believe that Khadr should serve ‘none’ of his time in Canada, the other half (51%) of Canadians believe he should be able to serve ‘all’ (25%) or at least ‘some’ (26%) of his sentence in Canada.  .... the majority (69%) of Canadians more closely believe that ‘Khadr probably is guilty and this plea bargain is too generous, and that the Canadian government was right not to have offered him any assistance up to this point’ ….


----------



## HavokFour (2 Nov 2010)

Lowell's talking about Khadr right now, tune in or listen online.

http://www.cfra.com/listen/listen-CFRA-StW.html

EDIT: He is taking calls now. (613)521-8255

EDIT 2: Apparently I'm not the only one that sent him the info on treason, talking about it now. Score!

EDIT 3: Lines are open again, call now if you haven't been able to get through.

And so begins my own personal _"jihad"_.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Nov 2010)

Some in Cabinet allegedly not happy with the latest?


> There’s an old saying that while the cat’s away the mice will play and that may very well be what happened in the Omar Khadr case.
> 
> Conservative cabinet ministers are not happy with the Khadr deal and the reality that he will be returned to Canada next year and free shortly thereafter. On Monday when cabinet gathered to prepare for question period tempers flared.
> 
> ...


More from QMI/Sun Media Senior Correspondent on Parliament Hill Brian Lilley in his blog here.  I'd be *hugely* surprised if the PM, no matter _where_ he was, had no sign-off or input on something this significant (diplomatic notes attached for reference).


----------



## Journeyman (2 Nov 2010)

> the suggestion that foreign affairs officials used this time to offer and accept more than Harper was willing to


IF true, it's just one more example of DFAIT being a left-leaning institution unto itself.


----------



## brihard (2 Nov 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> So someone pleading guilty is not certain enough for you?



At this point, in the case of Khadr, no.

False confessions are a very well known phenomenon in criminal investigations; the investigative and interrogative process is extremely adversarial and hostile, and it's not at all unknown for people to break down psychologically and confess to things they didn't do. I can't imagine what eight years in Guantanamo does to someone psychologically. His first confession years ago was shown to be coerced (they threatened to send him to a U.S. jail where he would be raped to death), and I've no faith that this one is any more legit. Note that they also made him confess to killing two Afghan soldiers, something he had not previously been charged with or accused of.

This was a show trial. http://www.nationalpost.com/Stalin+would+have+been+proud/3737862/story.html

Was Khadr an enemy? Yes. Did he have the intent to fight against us? Yes. Did he actually do so? I doubt it. I believe he shit his pants, hid in a corner, got shot up, somehow survived (better for all had he not), and then as the sole survivor got hauled in and a bunch of charges dumped on him so the Americans could have a showpiece.

And at the end of the day, guilty or not, my main objections about the entire Guantanamo system - the gross perversion of justice, the kangaroo court system, the abuse of due process and the abandonment of the rule of law - still compels me to stand on principle in this case. I reject entirely that Canada should go along with that farce in any way shape or form. Doing so only condones the abuses the Americans have conducted. Either someone is a criminal or is a prisoner of war. And this brings me nicely to Kevin's point- I'd be perfectly happy to see Khadr held so long as the conflict in which he was a combatant continues. However it'll be a cold day in hell before the Americans will treat GWOT detainees as prisoners of war, with all the legal protections that entails. If either one of the two legitimate legal statuses - prisoner of war, or criminal suspect - were adhered to properly I'd be satisfied.

Now, a charge of treason would be absolutely appropriate. I'd be curious to see how that would play out under the youth justice system.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Nov 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> IF true, it's just one more example of DFAIT being a left-leaning institution unto itself.



Or that it does a good job of providing plausible deniability and cover to its political masters.  This will let parts of the party rally their base, all while defusing the situation with the opposition.  It would not be the first time an organization folowed orders, then took the blame for them...


----------



## HavokFour (2 Nov 2010)

A woman on the radio brought up a very good point just a second ago.

When he was first captured, the Liberals were in power. They didn't make a peep. If they REALLY wanted him back it would have been done years ago.

This whole thing is purely political, the very same thing that is destroying this country.

Hypocrites.


----------



## hold_fast (2 Nov 2010)

Sure is "evil conspiratorial and anti-Harper DFAIT" in here.

It seems like everyone's looking for who to point the finger at - who agreed that Khadr could come back to Canada, who can they complain to (who can they hate). Yet, the fact is that he's a Canadian citizen still. Even under the grounds of treason, you can't have your citizenship revoked. In fact - I'm not sure of any way whatsoever that you can cease to call Khadr a Canadian, but feel free to correct me on that.

Maybe you're upset he's a citizen. I can understand that. Me? I'm upset that Russel Williams is. I'm upset that the two teenagers who raped and murdered another teen here in Victoria, and then took her body in a duffel bag out onto a hiking trail (via public transit, no less) and burned it with gasoline, are Canadian citizens. Pickton, Bernardo and Homolka, Olson, Legere - the list goes on. All of them I wish we could not claim as ours, but they are.

He'll be in a Canadian prison - where we'll foot the bill for the other seven years of his sentence, rather than the US. We should be responsible for our citizens, no matter what they do or where they are when they do it. That way, we can ensure that their rights are being respected - as is proper for all Canadians.

Feel free to argue your desire for the death penalty. Personally, I wish Williams had gotten it.


----------



## HavokFour (2 Nov 2010)

It is also proper as Canadians to not throw hand grenades at our Allies, and help an enemy we are currently at war with...


----------



## dapaterson (2 Nov 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> It is also proper as Canadians to not throw hand grenades at our Allies, and help an enemy we are currently at war with...


It is also proper for our Allies not to routinely and as a matter of policy resort to torture in their interrogations.  And not to kill prisoners with their abuse.

One of Mr Khadr's interrogators, Sgt Joshua Claus, was found guilty of "assault, prisoner maltreatment, and lying to investigators" related to the deaths of two prisoners in custody at Bagram.

He was given immunity by US prosecutors for any actions when interrogating Khadr in exchange for his testimony at Khadr's trial.


In any real judicial proceedings all the evidence against Khadr would have been tossed.


----------



## KevinB (2 Nov 2010)

We (being when I was in the CF) used to routinely hand prisoners over to elements of the US Gov knowning fully well that the little enclosure made loud noises sometimes.
   So lets not just point fingers.

Secondly there was eye witness testimony that little Khadr tossed the grenade, then was shot, and patched up.

 Me, if I knew he was a Canadian and had been there, I would have whispered go in the light and hummed a tune while he bled out...


----------



## dapaterson (2 Nov 2010)

There was also a written record that stated the attacker had been killed that was recanted and re-written months later - that would be your eyewitness who changed his tune.

There is no legally admissible evidence other than a confession obtained under extreme duress (to say the least).  The eyewitness recanted his original statement to implicate Mr Khadr.

And granting an interrogator/torturer immunity from prosecution reeks to high heaven.  I certainly hope that whichever state licensed the military judge calls him to the bar to explain his conduct in this case.  I am not sanguine that any such action will ever occur, though.


----------



## Gunner98 (2 Nov 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> At this point, in the case of Khadr, no.
> 
> False confessions are a very well known phenomenon in criminal investigations; the investigative and interrogative process is extremely adversarial and hostile, and it's not at all unknown for people to break down psychologically and confess to things they didn't do. I can't imagine what eight years in Guantanamo does to someone psychologically. His first confession years ago was shown to be coerced (they threatened to send him to a U.S. jail where he would be raped to death), and I've no faith that this one is any more legit. Note that they also made him confess to killing two Afghan soldiers, something he had not previously been charged with or accused of.
> 
> ...



I don't follow your logic:  his confession is no good... but he is guilty of treason...so we won't execute him...we can hang him?


----------



## Container (2 Nov 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> This is irrelevant. An argument's cogency has nothing to do with the person espousing it.



Bull it doesnt. How does someone who is so far removed from the actual sacrifice required for the "moral high ground" provide an argument that has any "cogency"? Their word that its the right thing to do is supposed to hold water?

Kid involved as enemy kills medic. Kid gets crappy deal at trial. Moral High Ground argues he should walk free. Kid gets free. Kid kills other not so crappy people. Moral high ground feels good because they arent the ones losing. 

The point is- whats "right" isnt so easy when YOU have to do the losing. Something most people who can afford to have such high thoughts aren't required to do. Im not saying that people here dont make sacrifices. Im just surprised is all.


----------



## Brutus (2 Nov 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Secondly there was eye witness testimony that little Khadr tossed the grenade, then was shot, and patched up.
> 
> Me, if I knew he was a Canadian and had been there, I would have whispered go in the light and hummed a tune while he bled out...



Agree 100%. 

If he had died, EVERYONE would be better off. I find it interesting that no one (in the media) is talking about the professionalism of the US troops who saved his life moments after he ended their buddy's life. I am sure there were some very strong temptations to just let him bleed.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Nov 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Agree 100%.
> 
> If he had died, EVERYONE would be better off. I find it interesting that no one (in the media) is talking about the professionalism of the US troops who saved his life moments after he ended their buddy's life. I am sure there were some very strong temptations to just let him bleed.



But you wouldn't have left him to bleed out. That is not in your nature. All your training tells you "do the right thing".


----------



## Brutus (2 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> But you wouldn't have left him to bleed out. That is not in your nature. All your training tells you "do the right thing".



Agreed, but people ARE human. I'm not advocating for or against watching him die, I'm pointing out the professionalism is assisting him in surviving moments after he killed their buddy. He owes them his life, IMHO.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Nov 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Agreed, but people ARE human. I'm not advocating for or against watching him die, I'm pointing out the professionalism is assisting him in surviving moments after he killed their buddy. He owes them his life, IMHO.


I agree with you. He does owe his life to those he tried to murder. I'm saying that we would probably have done the same.


----------



## Brutus (2 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I agree with you. He does owe his life to those he tried to murder. I'm saying that we would probably have done the same.



I'm sure we would have.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Nov 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Citation needed.
> 
> Undoubtedly there will be one or two individuals who are right (or left?) the f*** out of 'er, but I challenge you to demonstrate any wide sentiment amongst 'the left' (whatever that mythical, monolithic thing you conceive of is) that suggest Khadr should be given a medal and elected or appointed to any position of responsibility.
> 
> Sounds like you may have read a very extreme position at some point, and are broadly attributing it to the entire side of the political spectrum you're not a fan of. I'm calling bullshit.


Guilty, I was reading posts over at rabble.ca. I was banned there years ago but now and then I like seeing what those far left retards are spewing- it helps me right before I go to the gym.


----------



## brihard (2 Nov 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I don't follow your logic:  his confession is no good... but he is guilty of treason...so we won't execute him...we can hang him?


"his confession is no good... " Check
"but he is guilty of treason..." Wrong. There is sufficient evidence (in my mind) to indict him on treason and to bring him to trial.
"so we won't execute him..." Check
"we can hang him?" Wrong. I'm against the death penalty on procedural grounds. It tickles me to imagine what a youth court might make of a treason case, though.



			
				Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Guilty, I was reading posts over at rabble.ca. I was banned there years ago but now and then I like seeing what those far left retards are spewing- it helps me right before I go to the gym.



LOL, fair enough. I avoid that place. Too far left for me. I sit pretty center.


----------



## Fusaki (2 Nov 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> Wonderbread said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's called <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>argumentum ad hominem.</a>  If an argument truly makes sense, than it does so regardless the person putting it forth.  An attempt to show the invalidity of a premise by discrediting the speaker rather than the idea is a logical fallacy.


----------



## Container (2 Nov 2010)

The issue is that it doesnt actually make "sense". It only does in the mind of the individual saying it.

Its not an attempt to discredit anyone, it isnt an attack on any individual. Its an attack on the idea of flippantly suggesting sacrifice on others when you have no reasonable expectation of having to share the consequences. 

I find little solace in philosophy telling the man with the bloody nose to keep getting punched so he can claim the highground.


----------



## brihard (2 Nov 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> The issue is that it doesnt actually make "sense". It only does in the mind of the individual saying it.
> 
> Its not an attempt to discredit anyone, it isnt an attack on any individual. Its an attack on the idea of flippantly suggesting sacrifice on others when you have no reasonable expectation of having to share the consequences.
> 
> I find little solace in philosophy telling the man with the bloody nose to keep getting punched so he can claim the highground.



And yet every one of us who's signed the doted line and signed up has accepted exactly that. We don't have to join the military, but we choose to so that other Canadians will never have to. At the same time it's not at all unreasonable for Canadians to expect their military - which represents them - to abide by the values and principles they hold and, importantly, that our laws dictate must be upheld. Just because we have chosen to serve does not mean we get to tell those concerned about how we're used to go pound sand.


----------



## Container (2 Nov 2010)

So to you there is nothing offensive about bringing a murderer into your home to let him go free because of a procedural error?

You are a better man than I. 

I do what I do for Canada because myself and my family are free here. And for the most part safe. I welcome anyone to Canada who agrees that we dont have to agree but we have to respect each other. I do not welcome those who dont think I shouldnt exist. 

I didnt join the military when I did so others didnt have to. I did it because I believe our way of life, while not perfect, is a work in progress but the best option. I am willing to fight and die to keep my family safe and free. I accept rules of engagement as being the most, for lack of a better word, civil way of doing an "uncivil" thing. And I fight because my enemies demand it.

I have been around enough predators to know that they dont respect the highground. So Im willing to sacrifice my ideals, which includes not killing people, to keep us around so that we can afford to have high ideals.

I dont lose sleep at night because a man who killed someone in the act of trying to save lives had a long trial in a crappy jail. He's an afghan citizen too- and by his actions he loves it there. He can be sent back. At least the next time he wages his personal war we'll have a chance to shoot back. Unlike in Canada where at best he'll poison minds of youths with his crap, and at worst where he'll bring the fight home.

What good is whats "right" if ensures that whats "wrong" is protected?


----------



## Fusaki (2 Nov 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> What good is whats "right" if ensures that whats "wrong" is protected?



What's the point of fighting for anything if we become the "wrong" that we struggle against?


----------



## Gunner98 (2 Nov 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> "his confession is no good... " Check
> "but he is guilty of treason..." Wrong. There is sufficient evidence (in my mind) to indict him on treason and to bring him to trial.
> "so we won't execute him..." Check
> "we can hang him?" Wrong. I'm against the death penalty on procedural grounds. It tickles me to imagine what a youth court might make of a treason case, though.
> ...



Is the sky blue in your world or rose colored like your glasses?  And the combination of youth court and treason tickles you?   Hmmm - I give up!


----------



## brihard (3 Nov 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Is the sky blue in your world or rose colored like your glasses?  And the combination of youth court and treason tickles you?   Hmmm - I give up!



That's nice. Want a cookie?

It's a shit situation all around. I think it's more shit if we toss away our own principles and rule of law simply because a case is deemed suitably 'offensive' or 'bad'.

Container asked if I consider nothing to be offensive about this. Of course I do. Khadr's ideology and purported actions offended me to a great deal. But I am *more* offended that the nation I serve, in pursuing the conflict I have deployed on, would willingly shelf its own principles and rule of law, and sacrifice the critical rights and legal protections we hold dear just because a case is deemed wrong or disgusting enough. That's crap. 

Is my world rose coloured? Far from it. But I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that we as a society adhere to the principles that make us worth defending. I'll not stand silent while our country is party to blatant violations of the rule of law, due process, and basic human rights and dignities. If, from the start, the U.S. had treated Khadr as either a criminal suspect or a prisoner of war, with all the attendent requirements and protections due to whichever they chose, I'd have been fine with that. I will not accept my nation giving a wink and a nod to pure expedient legal fictions that make torture and show trials acceptable.

As I said, better had Khadr simply died. But he didn't, and part of being a responsible free state is that we deal with our problems in the manner accepted and prescribed by law. It also means that sometimes we have to choose an end state we don't like much, because to do otherwise would be even more wrong. That's the case here.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Nov 2010)

All the more reason to revoke citizenship of criminals.



> Container asked if I consider nothing to be offensive about this. Of course I do. Khadr's ideology and purported actions offended me to a great deal. But I am *more* offended that the nation I serve, in pursuing the conflict I have deployed on, would willingly shelf its own principles and rule of law, and sacrifice the critical rights and legal protections we hold dear just because a case is deemed wrong or disgusting enough. That's crap.


Our legal system is fucked up and murders and monsters make a mockery of our system. You should be *more* offended that the nation you serve in doesn't unanimously rise up and lay waste to anyone who shares Khadr's ideology  

People like this should seriously loose their "right" to be called a Canadian- and all the protection that comes with it.
I'll admit that his crime isn't that severe compared to pricks like Paul B and friends but seriously, what a waste of time effort and resources.


----------



## Brutus (3 Nov 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> All the more reason to revoke citizenship of criminals.
> Our legal system is ****ed up and murders and monsters make a mockery of our system. You should be *more* offended that the nation you serve in doesn't unanimously rise up and lay waste to anyone who shares Khadr's ideology
> 
> People like this should seriously loose their "right" to be called a Canadian- and all the protection that comes with it.
> I'll admit that his crime isn't that severe compared to pricks like Paul B and friends but seriously, what a waste of time effort and resources.



As much as I'd like to discard 'Canadians' like Paul B and Khadr, they were born here and have no status anywhere else. Even if we revoked their citizenship, where would we send them? 

And not to pull out the legaleze, but it's illegal to create a 'stateless person'.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Nov 2010)

Maybe just take away their right to vote, eligibility for welfare, if they shit the bed and commit a crime in another country then they can keep them.

I'll figure out a plan and get back to you.


----------



## Brutus (3 Nov 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Maybe just take away their right to vote, eligibility for welfare, if they crap the bed and commit a crime in another country then they can keep them.
> 
> I'll figure out a plan and get back to you.



Again, not trying to tear you apart when we're on the same side here, but the Charter unequivecoly protects the first point, welfare is the responsibility of the Province (and the Feds have no jurisdiction), and most countries will try, convict, incaricirate and THEN deport back to Canada and bar a Canadian who commits a crime there.


----------



## HavokFour (3 Nov 2010)

We can always just relocate him to Alert, and forbid him from leaving.

Just saying...


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Nov 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Again, not trying to tear you apart when we're on the same side here


All good brother  ;D



> but the Charter


is not set in stone, we can always hammer out a new one.



> unequivecoly protects the first point, welfare is the responsibility of the Province (and the Feds have no jurisdiction),



Like I said, remove someone from full citizen status and allow them "limited coverage" under their temporary loss of citizenship.
For example.

I'm a "Canadian Citizen" who also belongs to a radical religion and I'm caught trying to plant a bomb somewhere in an obvious terrorist act.

I'm found guilty, the following restrictions are placed on me during my incarceration and for a determined number of years after.

Section 3: the right to vote and to be eligible to serve as member of a legislature.
Loose my right to vote.
Section 8: freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
I've already proved I am a threat to Canada. The police can enter my home without a warrant anytime they want. Search my car. Search my computer
Section 9: freedom from arbitrary detainment or imprisonment.
Since I'm under suspicion, if I J walk then blammo I get the book thrown at me.
Section 11: rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
Denied. Since I tried to turn a bus into a blazing inferno of religious hatred should I come under suspicion for anything during my limited citizenship I will be considered guilty until proved innocent.
Section 12: right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
Not a lot of sympathy for someone who murders/rapes/tortures someone then tries to hide behind the justice system.
Section 13: rights against self-incrimination
This seems kind of stupid in any situation IMO.

Section 6, mobility. Ground me like a mouthy teenager. I can't fart without CSIS collecting an air sample.

If someone wasn't born Canadian and was given citizenship, have the option of stripping them of it and sending them home.

When you get a case like Karla.H where she makes a deal then laughs after the truth comes out I say take the piece of paper with the plea deal and rip it up in front of their face.  It's time we stop ***** footing around and get tough on this crap before we have to wake up at 430am to go to the market and avoid prime boom boom time in crowded areas.


----------



## Rafterman1 (15 Nov 2010)

I sent an email to my MP regarding my thoughts on Omar Khadr on 1 Nov.  Thought I would share her reply which I received today.  



Thank you very much for contacting me regarding Omar Khadr.  As you know, Mr. Khadr pleaded guilty to the charges against him.  It is important to note that the Government of Canada played no role in the plea negotiations that took place between him and the U.S. government.  Our government has always believed that Mr. Khadr had to face the serious charges against him in the United States, arguing against his repatriation all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.  At this point we face a legal wall on this issue and, in spite of Mr. Khadr’s admission that he committed these horrible crimes, our ability to legally block his repatriation does have limits.



Thank you once again for contacting me.



Sincerely,



Cathy McLeod, M.P.

Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo


----------



## captloadie (16 Nov 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> All good brother  ;D
> 
> is not set in stone, we can always hammer out a new one.
> 
> ...



We can't do this because it is a can of worms on a slippery slope. Once you make these amendments, it sets a precedence to further erode the Charter. It may start out as applying to "terrorist groups" but then it would expand to any Canadian not born here who commits any crime, and then to Canadians born here but forming criminal groups, and then Canadians born here who commit despicable crimes, then to Canadians born here who commit petty crimes, and then anybody living here who the police or politicians in power don't like. And then guess what, we live in a nation no different than the one we're fighting in to change.

And as far as Khadr is concerned, I'm not defending what he did, but if he were a teeneager in some hellhole in Africa, we'd have called him a child soldier and said he was too immature to understand his actions. IMHO, he is being punished for what his family was and did, not solely for his actions (as I can't bring myself to call them a crimes). Look at the majority of the other prisoners who were in Guantanamo and then sent back to "home". The majority of them are free men, and absurd as it may be, some are even being compensated for the hardships they endured in American captivity.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2011)

.... according to the Canadian Press:


> Convicted Canadian war criminal Omar Khadr will be seeking clemency in hopes of an early release from his prison cell in Guantanamo Bay and a quicker return to Canada, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> An application which could seek remedies ranging from an outright acquittal to a commuting of his eight-year sentence is set to go before the head of the military commissions within a few weeks.
> 
> ...


More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jul 2011)

..... shared with the usual caveats.


> The federal government is asking Canada's top court to take up the extradition case of Abdullah Khadr.
> 
> It says the Supreme Court should hear the case because it raises issues of national importance.
> 
> ...


Source:  The Canadian Press, 29 Jul 11


----------



## GAP (8 Oct 2011)

He might not find it as easy going as he envisions......there's still a huge resentment quotient out there about what he is and has done......

Omar Khadr makes bid for return to Canada
CBC News Posted: Oct 7, 2011
Article Link

Omar Khadr has started the process to come back to Canada.

Lawyers for Khadr, who is serving eight years in a U.S. prison for killing a U.S. soldier when he was 15, have filed the paperwork required to start the repatriation process.

Corrections officials have received the request for transfer and now have to determine if Khadr is eligible to return to Canada to finish out his sentence.

Once Canadian officials determine that, they send an official request to American officials. If U.S. officials agree, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has the final say. He has the option of refusing the transfer if he decides Khadr is a risk to public safety.

The process is expected to take about 18 months.

A spokesman for Toews said he doesn't comment on individual cases.
'Inclined to favourably consider'

The Canadian Embassy said in a memo dated Oct. 23, 2010, the Canadian government "is inclined to favourably consider" a request for a transfer to Canada for Khadr to serve the rest of his sentence after another year at Guantanamo.

Khadr is not allowed to fly into U.S. airspace, according to the plea deal, CBC's Laurie Graham reported last fall from Khadr's trial.

Once in Canada, he'll be subject to normal Canadian laws and will be able to apply for parole after serving one-third of his sentence.

Khadr will not be able to profit from his story.

"If he writes a book, any profit, any money made, will go back to the Canadian government," Graham said.

U.S. military prosecutors had called Khadr a radical jihadist, but U.S. Navy Capt. John Murphy softened his tone when he was asked whether Khadr will pose a threat when he's eventually set free in Canada.

"By returning him to his own country within a year, that presents the best prospects for his rehabilitation," he said.

Dennis Edney, Khadr's Canadian lawyer at the time of the trial, said that when he is released Khadr will not live with his Toronto family members, who have openly supported al-Qaeda.

"He's not a radical jihadist," he said. "He's a victim. He's a victim of his family, his father, adults, and he's a victim of this system."

Khadr pleaded guilty to five charges brought by the U.S. military, including killing Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer in Afghanistan in July 2002. He has been in custody since then.
end


----------



## Franko (8 Oct 2011)

He may not have been a radical prior to him being caught, but after this long in jail around other radicals festering in lock down, one has to wonder.

How long will it be before he does something after he's paroled? Don't say he won't see the light of day either...he'll be out soon enough due to a sympathetic public.

Regards


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> He might not find it as easy going as he envisions......there's still a huge resentment quotient out there about what he is and has done......


For sure, but I don't think this kind of wording ends up in Canadian diplomatic correspondence without the highest approvals:


> .... The Canadian Embassy said in a memo dated Oct. 23, 2010, the Canadian government *"is inclined to favourably consider"* a request for a transfer to Canada for Khadr to serve the rest of his sentence after another year at Guantanamo ....





			
				Nerf herder said:
			
		

> How long will it be before he does something after he's paroled? Don't say he won't see the light of day either...he'll be out soon enough due to a sympathetic public.


Indeed "when", not "if".


----------



## FlyingDutchman (8 Oct 2011)

I cannot help but feel sorry for him, mostly due to his age at the time of his arrest.  I hope other teens/kids do not follow his path.   Please note I do agree he does deserve punishment for his crime.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Oct 2011)

He was all of what 14 when he killed his first US soldier ? Maybe he should move into your neighborhood  Dutchman.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (8 Oct 2011)

Yes, 14, a technical child soilder who idolized his father and made a bad choice due to that idolization.  If he is truly reformed he can go where ever he pleases.  If not, well, keep your friends close.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Oct 2011)

The reality is that he is a Canadian citizen and has the right to return. However... the courts have the ability to impose severe, even draconian restrictions on him pursuant to his release. Whether they have the guts to do so is another question.


----------



## krustyrl (8 Oct 2011)

My opinion, and mine alone, I just as soon prefer this terrorist stay the h*ll out of my country.  Those types are not welcome by me.       :2c:


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Oct 2011)

krustyrl said:
			
		

> My opinion, and mine alone, I just as soon prefer this terrorist stay the h*ll out of my country.  Those types are not welcome by me.       :2c:



I'll second that.  And the rest of his clan can join him outside Canada too.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Oct 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> I cannot help but feel sorry for him, mostly due to his age at the time of his arrest.  I hope other teens/kids do not follow his path.   Please note I do agree he does deserve punishment for his crime.


Give me a f***in break. 14 year olds know right from wrong. 


No body from the Khadr clan feels badly about our 157 fallen......RIP troops.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (9 Oct 2011)

Yes, I know, see where I say he deserves punishment, which you quoted.

Alright, it appears that I may be coming along as soft for him.  I do feel sorry for him, as I said, but not in a 'poor guy, as a canadian kid he should have been wisked to canada and let go instantly' but more of a 'stupid kid, he should have known better, he had his whole life ahead of him but he killed a soilder which makes him an enemy and now we must watch him like a hawk.'. Do I have hope that he is reformed? Yes, but not alot.  Do I trust him?  Hell no, especially after he was in Gitmo, where he probably was influenced by older terrorists.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Oct 2011)

Quoting yourself so it looks like someone agrees with you?   ???


----------



## FlyingDutchman (9 Oct 2011)

Doh, quote is right beside modify.


----------



## brihard (9 Oct 2011)

He's our problem. He was born here. He's a Canadian. His parents radicalized him and brainwashed him from his youth and he became an ideological enemy of our way of life- yet under any system of law other than that farce of a one applied at Guantanamo he would have been afforded all the protections of either a young offender, a prisoner of war, or a child soldier. Like everyone else, he was not born with an innate concept of 'right and wrong', but learned his from those around him- and everything he heard told him that what he did was 'right' and even virtuous. Many of us, I think, are pretty aware of how damned hard it can be to deal with belligerents who genuinely think themselves to be morally correct in their actions.

I'm certainly convinced that he was guilty of committing hostilities- the video of him planting an IED, for instance. The murder charge though? B.S. He was all screwed up from grenades and had been shot several time. The Americans needed someone they could throw in court, and here was the kid inconveniently alive- even I'll concede it would have been simpler (and probably better) had he simply been killed as a combatant.

But he wasn't.

In war, once an enemy survives hostile action, there is a legal obligation to treat them with respect to their legal and human rights. That's what separates us us from the bloody heathens that we condemn for their barbarity.

Bringing Khadr back home is the only real course of action that will at all ameliorate the perversion of justice that was his incarceration, his Kangaroo Kourt trial, his psychologically coerced confession and his conviction. It's an ugly situation, but doing what is right is what makes Canada worth being proud of. He'll be watched by CSIS for the rest of his life- he'll never have the *opportunity* to be a threat to Canada. And meanwhile we can all be sure that our country has done what is _right_.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (9 Oct 2011)

Thank you, Brihard said it better than I ever could (even when I am not so hopped on cold meds that I tried to start my car with a fork this morning, and took my wife's cell phone thinking it was my wallet... and I may have tried to drink pasta sauce...)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2011)

I see no reason whatsoever for bringing him home before he has served his entire, full sentence in the US. 

Then he can come back and spend the rest of his life under a microscope.


----------



## krustyrl (9 Oct 2011)

I agree with recceguy.  Serve the full sentence without early release. Of course he would most likely be a "model" prisoner given his injuries and possibly mobility but make him serve the full time.  
Keep him out of Canada as long as legally possible, I say.


----------



## brihard (9 Oct 2011)

Don't kid yourselves. Everything about this was carefully orchestrated so as to serve everyone's interests. Khadr would no doubt have continued to remain detained essentially indefinitely had he and his team continued to pursue the myriad challenges available against the Guantanamo system; he would have been there for several years more. Inevitably, U.S. courts must necessarily have frowned upon how things go down there had appeals continued to challenge the military commissions on various constitutional grounds. He would have remained in limbo in Guantanamo for years. America would have continued to have been embarrassed by having a child soldier as the poster boy for their atrocious detainee system. The Canadian government would have continued to have been embarrassed by media attention and by court rulings.

Instead, and facilitated by the years of psychological pressure, all Khadr had to do was cave, give a confession that I'm convinced was largely bullshit, and he gets a rather short sentence which brings him back to Canada promptly. Everyone gets to sweep it under the rug, the underlying constitutional issues in both Canada and the U.S. get to be ignored, and Khadr, whose life is completely f***** anyway, gets to move on some years earlier than he would have. It's a complete perversion of justice and the rule of law in the interests of realpolitik.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Don't kid yourselves. Everything about this was carefully orchestrated so as to serve everyone's interests. Khadr would no doubt have continued to remain detained essentially indefinitely had he and his team continued to pursue the myriad challenges available against the Guantanamo system; he would have been there for several years more. Inevitably, U.S. courts must necessarily have frowned upon how things go down there had appeals continued to challenge the military commissions on various constitutional grounds. He would have remained in limbo in Guantanamo for years. America would have continued to have been embarrassed by having a child soldier as the poster boy for their atrocious detainee system. The Canadian government would have continued to have been embarrassed by media attention and by court rulings.
> 
> Instead, and facilitated by the years of psychological pressure, all Khadr had to do was cave, give a confession that I'm convinced was largely bullshit, and he gets a rather short sentence which brings him back to Canada promptly. Everyone gets to sweep it under the rug, the underlying constitutional issues in both Canada and the U.S. get to be ignored, and Khadr, whose life is completely f***** anyway, gets to move on some years earlier than he would have. It's a complete perversion of justice and the rule of law in the interests of realpolitik.



You are entitled to your opinion. However, I don't agree with it. While there is inevitably politics involved, in my mind he's still a traitor, terrorist and a killer, who has been judged and should be treated as such. I passed through my kumbaya stage over forty years ago and have no wish to return to that skewed view of the world.


----------



## brihard (9 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You are entitled to your opinion. However, I don't agree with it. While there is inevitably politics involved, in my mind he's still a traitor, terrorist and a killer, who has been judged and should be treated as such. I passed through my kumbaya stage over forty years ago and have no wish to return to that skewed view of the world.



That 'Kumbaya' stage you're referring to is my firm adherence to the concept of the rule of law, and the values and principles upon which our country is founded and which makes the flag worth wearing on my left shoulder. It's not some naive idea of a world where unicorns shit rainbows and where the children of the third world happily dance on streets cobbled with candy.

You take any kid who's been brought up in a family like that that has decided to make him believe the same things, and he will. You think he's any different, psychologically, from the Madrassa kids who get taken apart by 25mm or a mortar strike when they're spotted planting an IED? Or a kid in Africa who is kidnapped, given an AK and forced into combat after systemic ideological brainwashing? We merely look on them with pity, wishing circumstances had allowed them to be raised differently. This isn't a human being who's made some conscious decision to be evil despite knowing better; it's a kid who was brought up to know 'evil' in a different way from you and I, and whose conceptions of such can be fixed. In any case, he is a Canadian citizen by right of birth, just like you or I. He is a human being, and entitled to be treated as such. It is incumbent upon our government to see that since the U.S. has not justly represented his legal interests that we seek to do so inasmuch as is possible.

The funny thing about 'terrorist, traitor, and killer' is that those are all legal constructs that are enumerated under our laws, and indeed the laws of the U.S.- and not the ones that America created and then retroactively applied to his case in an _ex post facto_ perversion of justice. He was 'tried' under law that didn't come into existence until 2006 for actions he was alleged to have done in 2002. I challenge you to find me a jurisdiction in any free society where that kind of thing happens. The Guantanamo military commissions are a quasi-judicial system that would have done the _Cheka_ proud. They certainly are not in any way consistent with the values that the free world defends.

Khadr was 15 when he was taken in. That makes him either a young offender or a child soldier. America decided it was *inconvenient* to treat him and other detainees in a manner consistent with international law, and so out of pure expediency created a variety of legal fictions that have allowed them to more conveniently sweep this shame under the rug.

It has been a constant disappointment for me in the 10 years of the 'war on terror' to see otherwise principled persons so easily cast our principles and ethics aside out of expediency. I'm far more afraid of what it means for our society to abandon these principles than I am of what some terrorist piece of shit can do to our people, property, or infrastructure. Those are all much more easily rebuilt.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You are entitled to your opinion. However, I don't agree with it. While there is inevitably politics involved, in my mind he's  still a traitor, terrorist and a killer, who has been judged and should be treated as such. I passed through my kumbaya stage over forty years ago and have no wish to return to that skewed view of the world.



Exactly.  I have no pity in my heart for him or his clan.  He made his bed, choice of side to take and now must lie with the concequences.  Such a shame I don't see any thoughts directed towards his victim, Christopher Speer or his family from the hand wringers out there.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Oct 2011)

So when Khadr gets home and starts preaching terrorism or gets himself involved in that crowd again, it's all just because he's been brainwashed? I don't buy it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> That 'Kumbaya' stage you're referring to is my firm adherence to the concept of the rule of law, and the values and principles upon which our country is founded and which makes the flag worth wearing on my left shoulder. It's not some naive idea of a world where unicorns shit rainbows and where the children of the third world happily dance on streets cobbled with candy.
> 
> You take any kid who's been brought up in a family like that that has decided to make him believe the same things, and he will. You think he's any different, psychologically, from the Madrassa kids who get taken apart by 25mm or a mortar strike when they're spotted planting an IED? Or a kid in Africa who is kidnapped, given an AK and forced into combat after systemic ideological brainwashing? We merely look on them with pity, wishing circumstances had allowed them to be raised differently. This isn't a human being who's made some conscious decision to be evil despite knowing better; it's a kid who was brought up to know 'evil' in a different way from you and I, and whose conceptions of such can be fixed. In any case, he is a Canadian citizen by right of birth, just like you or I. He is a human being, and entitled to be treated as such. It is incumbent upon our government to see that since the U.S. has not justly represented his legal interests that we seek to do so inasmuch as is possible.
> 
> ...



Sorry. You're just not convincing me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So when Khadr gets home and starts preaching terrorism or gets himself involved in that crowd again, it's all just because he's been brainwashed? I don't buy it.



Better yet, I'm sure Brihard will take him in and keep an eye on him for us.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (9 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Better yet, I'm sure Brihard will take him in and keep an eye on him for us.


That brings up a good question, what will happen to him after he gets here and he serves his sentence?


----------



## HavokFour (9 Oct 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> That brings up a good question, what will happen to him after he gets here and he serves his sentence?



A very long, hard life with a reputation he will carry to his grave.


----------



## brihard (9 Oct 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> A very long, hard life with a reputation he will carry to his grave.



Indeed- he will never enjoy a normal life, and I'm fine with that- he'll never be a normal person.

Having worked with young offenders myself, however (yes, including two convicted of first degree murder, and others with a variety of quite serious crimes) I do not write all of them off by default. I challenge anyone here to tell me with conviction that a kid growing up his whole life in a household with very firm, radical beliefs will not take those same beliefs upon themselves, and will not be likely (exacerbated by the ardour of youth) to act upon them when pushed in that direction? That's the whole reason we have a distinct criminal justice system for youth; because they are *not* presumed (and in this case it's crystal clear he hasn't) to have had all the necessary opportunity to learn the same moral lessons that we have as adults. He quite simply never had the opportunity to learn the civic virtues that we take for granted, nor to learn and to actually buy into what we would deem acceptable definitions of right and wrong. He is most certainly paying the penalty for that which he was led to do. 

I will maintain that I do not believe his confession to have been made uncoerced and in good faith- false confessions are a frequently noted occurance, and the psychological coercion in his case greatly exceeds that which any criminal suspect in Canada or the U.S. will face. The odds that he actually killed Speer seem quite slim to me. And in any case, if you accept that what happened in Guantanmo was due process (I do not), you must accept the findings of the court and the subsequent decisions at the state level that include brining him back here. You don't get to simply say 'He's a terrorist piece of shit' and allow both nations to smugly write him off under a system of justice that is largely fictitious, then ball your fists and stomp your feet when a diplomatic process that is at least as legitimate results in his repatriation.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Better yet, I'm sure Brihard will take him in and keep an eye on him for us.



An irrelevant tangent that serves nicely as a cheap substitute for actual discourse.

If my professional career path should lead me into one of the various agencies whom would concern themselves with such things, then I would uncomplainingly execute that part of my duties if it came to that. Like I said- due process and rule of law. To snidely suggest I 'take him in' is as nonsensical as levying such arguments in any case of any criminal offender. I am perfectly willing to see Khadr back in our country and even my community. I do not fear him in any way, in part because of the scrutiny he will be under. While I do not *desire* to see him returned for his own sake, I accept that as a larger matter of principle it is necessary for _Canada_ to do what is right in both a legal and a moral sense. Bringing him back to the country is swallowing our pride and finally accepting accountability for something we ought to have concerned ourselves with to a much greater degree long ago. I am of the mindset that accountability still matters.

As I have said from the outset- better if the American soldier in question had been luckier in his shot placement, but he wasn't, and the kid - which he was at the time - survived. At that point decent nations have things that they must do in order to preserve moral legitimacy. The American government chose to take some ugly shortcuts of expediency that leave their commitment to principle in doubt. I do not wish to see our own country following blindly down that path. I don't give have a damn if my opinion on the matter is popular, as I have a firm conviction that is is ethically correct.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Oct 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> ethically correct.



I'm sorry but it is ethically correct when viewed by *you*.

What is ethical for one may not be for the other, thats the funny thing about ethics. Letting the kid rot where he is now is ethically correct to me.

Please do not assume you have the moral high ground here. You *may* be legally correct but, ethically, is another matter.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2011)

None of what you're espousing holds anything but your own personal biases and opinions. Simply, as my own do for me.

He does not deserve a normal life, simply because he is not a normal person. He is a traitor, he is a terrorist and he is a murderer.

I do get to consider him a 'terrorist piece of shit' simply because that is my opinion and in this country, so long as I don't cause harm, I am entitled to that opinion. He can sue me if he feels otherwise, which would be ironic because in his twisted culture, I wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of even getting to court.

Again, you are not going to change my opinion, and you are entitled to yours, which I can ignore. We'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## krustyrl (9 Oct 2011)

> As I have said from the outset- better if the American soldier in question had been luckier in his shot placement, but he wasn't, and the kid - which he was at the time - survived.


     :

The "kid" also committed an act of terrorism, he *knew* what he was doing and he also *knew* the objective he needed to obtain.  Young'uns have fought alongside others in every type of armed combat through the ages, nothing new here.

To put it in a 21st Century statement....."you f*ck with the bull - you may get the horn"  When it now suits him, he wants to plead "Canadian" to his favour.  As cold hearted (..or un-ethical) as it may seem....I say FUGM.!     :2c:    

Just sayin' .........


----------



## medicineman (9 Oct 2011)

Being that the US soldier he's accused of killing was a medic, and until the end of next week, so am I still, he doesn't get my vote...maybe let him come back but make him live up in Cambridge Bay or Resolute.  If he really wants to be a Canadian, let him guard a Canadian flag on Hans Island...

MM


----------



## Container (9 Oct 2011)

I dont want to get really into this since Im apparently posting too much, but there is an important point that Brihard needs to expand on-

You keep mentioning the coercive nature of the confession. People make duress and coercion arguments on statements to say that they didnt in fact do the action they admitted to. Your repeated mentioning of Khadr's statement implies that you dont believe his confession. Even though it supports the version of events reported by the others at his trial- what about his confession are you objecting to? I understand that the method of obtaining it has colored your opinion and thats fine- but in the SUBSTANCE of his confession what do you feel is coerced or a lie? This is important because if you disagree that he was a combatant or a terrorist at all of course you dont mind his being here.

As a side point- I dont believe that he will have a hard time here in Canada. He will be accepted into the community that supports his actions and will be monitored by authorities. Possibly living on a large settlement from the government. Watch and see- but there are communities that will ensure that he has a normal a life as any other extremist in Canada.

Personally Im tired of the "its the way they were brought up" argument. Its a nonstarter with me- thats a reason to increase people deployed in peacekeeping missions and hiring more social workers. It is not an argument for the "already" poisoned. They should be punished and held to the grind stone like anyone who breaks societies rules- we'll try and stop creating them but the dragons we already have need to be slayed as such. Metaphorically speaking.


----------



## brihard (9 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Again, you are not going to change my opinion, and you are entitled to yours, which I can ignore. We'll just have to agree to disagree.



That's fair. We'll leave it at that.



			
				krustyrl said:
			
		

> Young'uns have fought alongside others in every type of armed combat through the ages, nothing new here.



To 'put in a 21st century statement', as you put it- he was a child soldier, brought up to believe in a maniacal form of ideology. As I have said, and will continue to say, there is a reason why child combatants are treated differently once captured.  Kids are extremely easily warped to believe all kinds of things. Someone who committed such acts as a child can be help accountable without being written off as a human being. There's no shortage of child soldiers who've done a complete turnaround. It seems our compassion disappears when a child soldier fights against *us* in an unconventional conflict. Curious, that.

To the rest of you- note that I'm not advocating bringing him up here and giving him a house out in Kanata. We're speaking of him returning to Canada to finish his sentence before he goes on with anything else.



			
				Container said:
			
		

> You keep mentioning the coercive nature of the confession. People make duress and coercion arguments on statements to say that they didnt in fact do the action they admitted to. Your repeated mentioning of Khadr's statement implies that you dont believe his confession. Even though it supports the version of events reported by the others at his trial- what about his confession are you objecting to? I understand that the method of obtaining it has colored your opinion and thats fine- but in the SUBSTANCE of his confession what do you feel is coerced or a lie? This is important because if you disagree that he was a combatant or a terrorist at all of course you dont mind his being here.



Simply put, you put someone in a shitty enough situation for a long enough time, and let them perceive an easy way out by confessing to something that they feel they will inevitably be held culpable of anyway, and many will take it. It's a long established and heavily researched phenomenon in criminal justice, and that's even within very human criminal justice systems such as our own, never mind in a place like Guantanamo. I object to our government simply accepting the judicial product of the Guantanamo military commission _in toto_ as if it were a real system of justice with proper due process. The entire thing is a farce; his 'confession' merely a tragic final act. No self respecting free state dares utilize a system even approaching that of Guantanamo in a civil capacity. Only the terrorist boogeyman has allowed the U.S. to do so in this instance. Again, I invite anyone to point me to laws that are applied retroactively such as they were in this instance.


----------



## Container (9 Oct 2011)

Im sorry, perhaps it wasnt clear- I apologize.

I'm well aware of the problems involved in confessions and interviews as well as the phenomenon you are referring to. However, people provide truthful confessions under the same circumstance, as well in others they do tell the interrogator what they think they want to hear.

In this specific instance you keep using the confession as part of your argument, which I see where you are coming from even If I dont agree entirely, but if you are saying that the confession isnt true then you of course dont feel as strongly about his staying out, as say, these other folks do. So what is the part you object to? 

Seeing as you are introducing legality into the conversation you would also be aware of decisions that bring the administration of justice into disrepute. There would be two schools for your legal argument- the kangaroo court is such a travesty that they should let him walk. The other side of the "disrepute" argument would be that his treason and active fighting against out civilization- to some of us- outweighs the stupid legal process he was subjected to and the disrepute of the justice system is the fact that he would ever have the chance to walk our streets again.

I fall in the latter camp. I believe the court process and detainee process was gross and needs to be addressed. But I dont believe it gives people that were snagged a get out of jail free card. Because I TRULY believe that this is what we are looking at.

Brihard is correct though- laws are not applied retroactively like that. In Canada the only time is when the punishment is changed to be less. Then the new punishment is the one applied.


----------



## krustyrl (9 Oct 2011)

> It seems our compassion disappears when a child soldier fights against *us* in an unconventional conflict. Curious, that.



Perhaps our compassion may come back to cause us harm such as maybe when the compassionate Immigration System allowed his parents into the country to give his family a better life ,thus...to lead us to... well, where we are now, debating this young terrorist.  His 15 mins are up.


----------



## brihard (10 Oct 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> Im sorry, perhaps it wasnt clear- I apologize.
> 
> I'm well aware of the problems involved in confessions and interviews as well as the phenomenon you are referring to. However, people provide truthful confessions under the same circumstance, as well in others they do tell the interrogator what they think they want to hear.
> 
> In this specific instance you keep using the confession as part of your argument, which I see where you are coming from even If I dont agree entirely, but if you are saying that the confession isnt true then you of course dont feel as strongly about his staying out, as say, these other folks do. So what is the part you object to?



The confession is part of it, certainly - but  view the parts of my argument as pretty much all separable; the confession is only one of several egregious travesties of justice inherent in the entire process. I focus on the confession more because that was the specific mechanism that led in the immediate sense to a conviction, but the entire process from when he arrived in Guantanamo until now has been horribly flawed. I object to him not having access to the evidence against him, to him not having been afforded constitutional protections except for those grudgingly granted only after court intercession (e.g., Hamdan v. Rumsfeld), and I'm pissed off as a Canadian that our overnment just rolled with it the entire time, and moreover had the temerity to be disappointed when our supreme court ruled that they have been delinquent in their responsibilities.



> Seeing as you are introducing legality into the conversation you would also be aware of decisions that bring the administration of justice into disrepute. There would be two schools for your legal argument- the kangaroo court is such a travesty that they should let him walk. The other side of the "disrepute" argument would be that his treason and active fighting against out civilization- to some of us- outweighs the stupid legal process he was subjected to and the disrepute of the justice system is the fact that he would ever have the chance to walk our streets again.
> 
> I fall in the latter camp. I believe the court process and detainee process was gross and needs to be addressed. But I dont believe it gives people that were snagged a get out of jail free card. Because I TRULY believe that this is what we are looking at.



Funny enough, under Canada's 'bringing the administration of justice into disrepute - the 24(2) Charter argument - your side of this would fare better than under properly applied U.S. laws; whereas our exclusionary rules are tempered by reason through 24(2), in the U.S. the exclusionary rule is absolute with regards to evidence that has been gained by means that impugn constitutional rights. It's no surprise that the American administration has fought tooth and nail to resist constitutional protections over Guantanamo detainees.

'Treason' is a specific criminal offence, one that ought be proven in court. Khadr can, of course, only be accused of treason against Canada- and in such a case, 24(2) may serve the state advantageously in comparison to equivalent American jurisprudence, since certainly more benefit of the doubt is likely to be afforded to the prosecution of an al Qaeda terrorist than in most more pedestrian instances of criminality, and certain lapses in procedure might have been more easily forgiven due to the nature of the battlefield capture and the high degree of secrecy necessitated by who nabbed him- but due process must still remain present. One cannot simply damn someone as a 'traitor' and so have done with them; the Court of Star Chamber has long been abandoned as a form of prosecution.

In any case, to argue over 'bringing the administration into disrepute' one must accept a case moving into a legitimate criminal justice system such as our own. I would be very happy to see that happen- a new trial, right from the get go. There's plenty they could likely get him on, and justice would be seen to done. Simply accepting the verdict of the Guantanamo Kangaroo Court makes us morally complicit in what has happened there. There is no instance in which the fear of the administration of justice being brought into disrepute is a justifiable reason for abandoning the formal and legitimate system of justice entirely.



> Brihard is correct though- laws are not applied retroactively like that. In Canada the only time is when the punishment is changed to be less. Then the new punishment is the one applied.



Thank you.



			
				krustyrl said:
			
		

> Perhaps our compassion may come back to cause us harm such as maybe when the compassionate Immigration System allowed his parents into the country to give his family a better life ,thus...to lead us to... well, where we are now, debating this young terrorist.  His 15 mins are up.



Having our own principles bite us in the ass on rare occasion is a necessary sacrifice of living in a free society.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Oct 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> We're speaking of him returning to Canada to finish his sentence before he goes on with anything else.



Why should we foot the bill for his imprisonment? Unless we've set a precedent by bringing back every Canadian aboard who's gone to jail in the States, I say let him sit in Leavenworth to complete his sentence. If he wants to come back to Canada when he's released, that's his right as a citizen.


----------



## krustyrl (10 Oct 2011)

> Having our own principles bite us in the *** on rare occasion is a necessary sacrifice of living in a free society.


I consider  this a "risk" vice sacrifice in this instance. These terrorists operate on causing mass destruction and death.  Huge risk to what we as Canadians believe in and expect, regarding safety. National compassion goes out the window when you are protecting family and property.
I find it rather ironic I am discussing this turkey (Khadr) today....    :turkey:


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Oct 2011)

Guantanamo exists to house the most dangerous AQ operatives.People who are not even wanted by their own countries for the most part.Many that have been released end up fighting us in Afghanistan once again. Holding them in Afghanistan is a joke because in no time they will escape or simply be released to return to the fight. After Nazi Germany fell our biggest problem was reversing the brain washing caused by Nazi propagandists. I met woman once who had been a squad leader in the Hitler Youth as a kid and she was still a Nazi in heart god rest her soul.The fanaticism caused by the Nazi's,communists and islamists are all similar.Take one big idea and sell it to people who have nothing to lose.They all need a boogy man.The Nazis had the jews.The communists had capitalism.Khadr may realize one day that fighting the west is a suckers bet or he will be on a plane to Yemen or Afghanistan to continue the fight.I am betting he will return to the fight.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Oct 2011)

If T6 is right and he heads back out to Yemen, Afghanistan or some other part of the Islamic crescent, then justice will eventually be served up in the form of a Hellfire missile streaking from the sky or a sniper reaching out and touching him and the rest of his pals.


----------



## Osotogari (10 Oct 2011)

> If he wants to come back to Canada when he's released, that's his right as a citizen.



Here's a thought:  revoke his citizenship and those of the rest of his family as well, then deport them.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Oct 2011)

Osotogari said:
			
		

> Here's a thought:  revoke his citizenship and those of the rest of his family as well, then deport them.



How many frackin times does this have to be said? He's a citizen by birth, it can't be revoked. His family on the other hand, send them back from whence they came.


----------



## brihard (10 Oct 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Guantanamo exists to house the most dangerous AQ operatives.People who are not even wanted by their own countries for the most part.Many that have been released end up fighting us in Afghanistan once again. Holding them in Afghanistan is a joke because in no time they will escape or simply be released to return to the fight. After Nazi Germany fell our biggest problem was reversing the brain washing caused by Nazi propagandists. I met woman once who had been a squad leader in the Hitler Youth as a kid and she was still a Nazi in heart god rest her soul.The fanaticism caused by the Nazi's,communists and islamists are all similar.Take one big idea and sell it to people who have nothing to lose.They all need a boogy man.The Nazis had the jews.The communists had capitalism.Khadr may realize one day that fighting the west is a suckers bet or he will be on a plane to Yemen or Afghanistan to continue the fight.I am betting he will return to the fight.



On the contrary, hundreds have been released to their home or to other countries. Quite a number were found not to have been enemy combatants- remember the Uighurs who remained in detention after being acquitted only because it was thought that if returned to China they would be tortured? Over 550 detainees have thus far been released; of the 220 or so remaining in custody as of Dec. 2010, 126 have been recommended for release. This hardly sounds like a who's who of global terrorists. Certainly some absolutely were, whereas others were caught up in the variety of questionable practices and sketchy intelligence that ran people afoul of the U.S. detainee situation.

Curious that you'd choose a Nazi allusion, of all things. It's long been said that the pural of 'anecdote' is not 'data', and that instance of which you're aware of a woman who remains an unrepentant Nazi seems overshadowed by the vast majority of the German population who were never trouble again. Likewise many ex communists, or ex whatevers. Some people remain ideologically committed for their lives to violently radical causes. With intervention by external parties, it does not appear that this is the case for the majority.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Oct 2011)

I can argue "ethically correct" in circles with anyone in the classroom or on a bulletin board; there isn't really much ambiguity.

In the real world, though, I am prepared to shred "ethically correct" a little to preserve the basic essence of what we have.  It is irrevocably untrue that by "behaving like them" we become "no better than them".  Climb down in the gutter, fight the necessary fight, climb back out.  It's that easy.

The people in question have sworn to abrogate freedoms somewhat more fundamental than any civil rights brought into being and granted by government.  I find my interest in dancing around the head of pin to serve their interests diminishes with each passing year of this horsesh!t.


----------



## brihard (10 Oct 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I can argue "ethically correct" in circles with anyone in the classroom or on a bulletin board; there isn't really much ambiguity.
> 
> In the real world, though, I am prepared to shred "ethically correct" a little to preserve the basic essence of what we have.  It is irrevocably untrue that by "behaving like them" we become "no better than them".  Climb down in the gutter, fight the necessary fight, climb back out.  It's that easy.
> 
> The people in question have sworn to abrogate freedoms somewhat more fundamental than any civil rights brought into being and granted by government.  I find my interest in dancing around the head of pin to serve their interests diminishes with each passing year of this horsesh!t.



It's not serving *their* interests. Their interests being served are purely incidental. The interests being served by preserving the rule of law are those of everyone; anyone whoa t any point in time may find themselves run afoul of the state in some form, whether in an illegal manner or not. We cannot predict who will be in power in 10 or 15 or 20 years, and what sorts of laws they may pass.  We can't predict what issues may arise that any one of us here might take exception to in a manner that runs afoul of those laws.

The very purpose of confronting breaches of due process and principle in the most extreme cases are to prevent the incremental creeping of state power through the appeal to exceptionality. Rights, freedoms, principles and liberty are not intended to be defended in depth; you don't trade space for time. Our constitutional structure establishes a strict perimeter within which are our own rights as citizens, and without which is the power of the state. Allowing ourselves to legislate our own freedoms away is bad enough; where there are clear violations of the constitutional system of rights that we as citizens have negotiated as our contract with the state through the constitutional process, things are not right. 

It is always wrong to simply ignore such breaches just because we don't like that guy. How many here, for instance, have stood up and vociferously castigated the human rights tribunals, even when the subjects of their impositions on expression were real pieces of work like Marc Lemire? People who we would never shake hands with or invite into our home, yet their rights matter because every time the state fails to uphold them we are *all* at hazard of that creeping authority.

In the case of Khadr, any normalization of the abandonment of due process out of mere expediency is dangerous. There is absolutely nothing the state is achieving that could not be achieved through perfectly legitimate and legal means if the facts of the case justify it. We have an excellent national security system, as does the U.S.. Both states are capable of protecting themselves with resort to powers existent under law and within the bounds of constitutional guarantees of rights. If there is a clear gap there, such as in the al-Awlaki case, the answer is to solve that problem through proper legislative process, not merely ignore the law because it's inconvenient in this instance.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If T6 is right and he heads back out to Yemen, Afghanistan or some other part of the Islamic crescent, then justice will eventually be served up in the form of a Hellfire missile streaking from the sky or a sniper reaching out and touching him and the rest of his pals.



Let's not get our hopes up.......


----------



## jasonf6 (11 Oct 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The reality is that he is a Canadian citizen and has the right to return. However... the courts have the ability to impose severe, even draconian restrictions on him pursuant to his release. Whether they have the guts to do so is another question.


He may techically be a Canadian citizen but that is only because he was BORN here.  I believe he spent less than one year of his life here with the rest being spent in Afghanistan/Pakistan.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Oct 2011)

jasonf6 said:
			
		

> He may techically be a Canadian citizen but that is *only because he was BORN here*.  I believe he spent less than one year of his life here with the rest being spent in Afghanistan/Pakistan.


Until they come up with two-tier Canadian citizenship, that's all you need - and it appears it can only be taken away (I stand to be corrected) if it was granted under false pretenses - LOADS of discussion on that here.


----------



## Scott (11 Oct 2011)

jasonf6 said:
			
		

> He may techically be a Canadian citizen but that is only because he was BORN here.  I believe he spent less than one year of his life here with the rest being spent in Afghanistan/Pakistan.



 :facepalm:

So was I. So were a lot of folks I know who have spent a load of time out of the country.

Meh, nevermind...


----------



## Pusser (11 Oct 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Until they come up with two-tier Canadian citizenship, that's all you need - and it appears it can only be taken away (I stand to be corrected) if it was granted under false pretenses - LOADS of discussion on that here.



And gaining it under false pretenses should be the *only* way for one to lose Canadian citizenship.  Otherwise, any naturalized Canadian is automatically a second class citizen (because his/her citizenship could be taken away while a natural born Canadian's could not under the same circumstances) and I find that extremely offensive and morally unconscionable.  Citizenship, once gained, should be irrevocable.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Oct 2011)

I just heard he may land as soon as Friday.......


----------



## FlyingDutchman (11 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I just heard he may land as soon as Friday.......


Anyone know where he is being sent, prison wise?  I want to guess the Special Handling Unit.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Oct 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> Anyone know where he is being sent, prison wise?  I want to guess the Special Handling Unit.



I would guess he won't be in GP. Nor will he be in any gang range, especially an OMG range. As bad as OMGs are....they are a bit patriotic.

Besides, OMGs are generally the domain of WASPs.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I would guess he won't be in GP. Nor will he be in any gang range, especially an OMG range. As bad as OMGs are....they are a bit patriotic.
> 
> Besides, OMGs are generally the domain of WASPs.



Sounds perfect.  I'm sure he would make someone a good wife.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2011)

It's not being "afoul of laws" that is under discussion.  The brat didn't knock over a 7-11; he took up arms, and common sense and the history of the family tells me he was not "neutral" towards Canada.  I'm not too worried about releasing detained combatants at the end of hostilities except in cases where they've sworn to carry the struggle with religious fanaticism.

Sometimes we do trade rights, freedoms, principles, and liberty for time.  Case in point: strategic bombing campaign against Japan.  Unlawful, inhumane, immoral, by some standards unethical, but effective; not to be repeated unless that particular wheel turns again.   When necessary, we send armed forces abroad and incidentally place in jeopardy the lives of people who are not subject to Canadian law and have not committed any identifiable crime against Canada.  The outer bound of what we may do to one of our own is correspondingly greater.

We are not capable of protecting ourselves to any arbitrary standard within the boundaries of laws.  If we had infinite resources I might agree, but we don't; expediency is preferable to surrender.  The only caveat, which we have shown we can do, is to climb back out of the ditch after we finish.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Oct 2011)

High profile guy will get special handling I suspect.


----------



## Danjanou (11 Oct 2011)

Well I'm sure when he arrives here he'll spend his sentance in some form of segregation, one can only hope he ends up in gen pop.  >


----------



## brihard (11 Oct 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> We are not capable of protecting ourselves to any arbitrary standard within the boundaries of laws.



Nonsense. It has sufficed in every other instance we've ever faced. Terrorism is not an existential threat to our society; it cannot undo what is Canada; only we can do that.



> If we had infinite resources I might agree, but we don't; expediency is preferable to surrender.



Sorry, I didn't realize we were contemplating surrender to fifteen year olds now. I was under the impression that Canada as a nation state and as a set of principles was substantially stronger than a handful of terrorists. It is not 'surrender' to accept that principles as a *strategic* interest will stand in the way of occasional *tactical* victories in the war on terror that take place in the courtroom.



> The only caveat, which we have shown we can do, is to climb back out of the ditch after we finish.



And yet we still come out soiled and smelling like s***.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Oct 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> And yet we still come out soiled and smelling like s***.



Well then, we can sit on the high moral ground, get fixed in place and overun by the barbarian hoardes.


----------



## gcclarke (12 Oct 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well then, we can sit on the high moral ground, get fixed in place and overun by the barbarian hoardes.



I'm fairly certain that we are reasonably capable of defending Canada within the law, without having to compromise on our integrity in the process.


----------



## brihard (12 Oct 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well then, we can sit on the high moral ground, get fixed in place and overun by the barbarian hoardes.



I refuse to lie in bed at night cowering from some fictitious 'hordes' of terrorists. There are no boatloads of al-Qaeda disgorging on the beaches of Nova Scotia; the threat you're trying to describe doesn't exist. We do not face en existential threat from terrorists. Most are too stupid to accomplish anything but a premature violent death. Even those who are proficient can't actually harm our country in a lasting way.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I refuse to lie in bed at night cowering from some fictitious 'hordes' of terrorists. There are no boatloads of al-Qaeda disgorging on the beaches of Nova Scotia; the threat you're trying to describe doesn't exist. We do not face en existential threat from terrorists. Most are too stupid to accomplish anything but a premature violent death. Even those who are proficient can't actually harm our country in a lasting way.



My immediate concern isn't the lasting way. It is more like a few hundred people on a subway or a thousand in a building, in the present. Never say never.



_edit for clarity_


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Oct 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I refuse to lie in bed at night cowering from some fictitious 'hordes' of terrorists. There are no boatloads of al-Qaeda disgorging on the beaches of Nova Scotia; the threat you're trying to describe doesn't exist. We do not face en existential threat from terrorists. Most are too stupid to accomplish anything but a premature violent death. Even those who are proficient can't actually harm our country in a lasting way.



You are right - there are no boatloads of bad guys waiting to do jihad on us.

BUT - there are some already here  who want Sharia Law....and all the while condone honour killings and support the subjugation of women. The enemy is within, encouraged and supported by the enemy outside our borders.

We can stay in this forum and argue all day long....or longer...about the rule of law, the moral high ground etc. OR we can tell our so called elected representatives to damn well get off the fence and inform people like the Khadr clan (those that immigrated here), the Westboro Baptists and any other terrorist group  that they ARE NOT WELCOME and will be packed up and shipped out ASP. As for born Canadians who mean to do us  harm - prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Its been done already.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Oct 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> And yet we still come out soiled and smelling like s***.
> 
> I refuse to lie in bed at night cowering from some fictitious 'hordes' of terrorists. There are no boatloads of al-Qaeda disgorging on the beaches of Nova Scotia; the threat you're trying to describe doesn't exist. We do not face en existential threat from terrorists. Most are too stupid to accomplish anything but a premature violent death. Even those who are proficient can't actually harm our country in a lasting way.



I don't cower, nor do I envision "fictitious 'hordes' of terrorists" creeping up my stairs at night either.  If you wish to take the high moral stance in life and not risk getting some dirt on your shiny white suit, that's up to you and good luck to you as well.  

When my Dad was a little boy he emigrated here from England just after WW1 to a small mining town.  His Mum sent him to school in a nice pretty velvet short pants suit just like in England.  At the end of the day, he returned home bawling his eyes out.  His suit in ruins, blood all over his face and his nose neatly re-arranged for him.  His Dad looked at him and said "Well, Son looks like you'll have to learn how to fight".  He did, and engaged with them at their level and pretty soon was left alone.

That's what I am talking about.  You want to sit there with your Marquois of Queensbury rules in a pub fight, fine.  But don't be surprised when some Yob kicks you in the nuts and glasses your face.  Wring your hands all you want over poor Omar, other offenders  you deal with professionally and the process of decision making that was used to take Al-Awlaki out.  I'll not join you and the others in the pity party.   :boke:


----------



## CountDC (12 Oct 2011)

Where will he serve his time?  Most likely at home in no time with a large compensation from our tax dollars.  Won't take long for some bleeding hearts to argue that he has already done his time and should be released in the cause of justice. They will also argue that our government didn't do it's job on his behalf and should pay him millions which the courts will agree with.

Will he go back there to fight again? No, he will sit in Canada and give them a donation out of the interest he makes off his compensation, be worshipped by the extremist here and be a poster child for recruiting. Do I believe he has been rehab?  Not a chance.  He was so easily influenced in to doing his actions then I am sure sitting where he was has been a real influence too.

As for his terrorist supporting family - they should be deported but of course nothing will be done and in no time he will be back in the fold with them.

Yes he will be watched closely but there is always some places where you can get privacy and meet with others such as private gatherings at religious facilities. Not easy places for CSIS to get into when there is a restricted access list to the room.

Do I buy any of the sympathy crap - no.


----------



## krustyrl (12 Oct 2011)

> Will he go back there to fight again? No, he will sit in Canada and give them a donation out of the interest he makes off his compensation, be worshipped by the extremist here and be a poster child for recruiting. Do I believe he has been rehab?  Not a chance.  He was so easily influenced in to doing his actions then I am sure sitting where he was has been a real influence too.



Excellent point CountDC...'cause you KNOW there will be some sort book or "made for TV " deal here despite Khadr not able to make money on it.  Some station like Fox or ABC or whatever will make a movie.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (12 Oct 2011)

I worry about how a Fox movie will handle it.

EDIT: I have been unimpressed with most of Fox's recent outings.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Oct 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> I worry about how a Fox movie will slant it.



I think it is more realistic that he will sue the GoC.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Oct 2011)

I don't agree that we came out of WWII smelling like anything unpleasant.  Neither a person nor a nation is irrevocably and irredeemably stained by misdeeds, otherwise there could only be decline, never improvement.  Clearly most people don't end their lives scorned by all due to the lifetime sum of their wrongdoings; clearly nations have not all been sliding downhill since they were created as pure as the falling snow.

The notion that we can defend ourselves within the limit of the law carries the implied assumption that the law might change to erode as many of our freedoms as necessary in the pursuit of security, and that we should give up whatever we must to avoid crossing some arbitrary boundary - which is not a one-way trip in any event.   That is intolerable; hence, there must be a llimit beyond which we can secure our freedoms only by temporarily transgressing some of the limits we have set for ourselves.

[Add: for example, I am entirely dissatisfied with the security measures deemed necessary in airports, and I think it reasonable to restore those measures to status quo ante 2001; let the cost of whatever is necessary to allow that reversion to safely occur be borne by those who would make those measures necessary.]


----------



## GAP (27 Oct 2011)

In Omar Khadr’s legal saga, a new chapter begins
paul koring  Globe and Mail Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2011 
Article Link

Omar Khadr, Canada’s only convicted war criminal – a confessed murderer, spy and terrorist – is headed home soon. But just how soon remains unclear. Even murkier is when he will be freed.

Mr. Khadr is eligible for repatriation any time after Monday, to serve the rest of his sentence in a Canadian prison. That could be years or as little as a few months, depending on whether he can successfully challenge the Guantanamo war crimes conviction in Canadian courts. 

Mr. Khadr pleaded guilty to murder, spying and supporting terrorism as part of a plea bargain that resulted in him being sentenced to eight years, of which only the first year was to be served at Guantanamo.

After spending most of his 25 years abroad, first as a child in Pakistan as the son of a leading al-Qaeda family, followed by a brief summer learning bomb-making with Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan and nine years in Guantanamo, the Toronto-born Mr. Khadr will be eligible on Halloween to seek repatriation to Canada.

But it could take months or longer to hammer out his return, especially if Ottawa demands that he drop any further legal action as a condition of repatriation. Until then, Mr. Khadr remains one of only two convicted terrorists in a separate prison block in Guantanamo.

This week, huddled with his lawyers, Mr. Khadr may be examining his options.

He could agree to seek repatriation quietly, to serve his remaining time and try to re-enter Canadian society as unobtrusively as possible in an attempt to salvage something approaching normality for the remaining two-thirds of his life. That would require the Harper government to approve and quickly facilitate his return.

In return, lawyers familiar with his case believe Mr. Khadr would need to agree to abandon any further constitutional challenges.

But some lawyers believe Mr. Khadr could be out in less than a year if he takes his case again to the Canadian courts. They believe Mr. Khadr could challenge the U.S. war crimes conviction and the sentence, claiming both were illegal under international law. In Canada, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the government failed to properly protect Mr. Khadr’s rights. 
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2011)

> The Supreme Court of Canada will not hear the extradition case of Abdullah Khadr, shutting the door on American efforts to prosecute the man in a terrorism case.
> 
> The high court has dismissed the federal government's leave-to-appeal application in the case of Khadr, the older brother of Omar Khadr, the last Western detainee to be held at Guantanamo Bay.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 3 Nov 11


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Nov 2011)

Shame that.  It would have got one of them out of the country at least.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Nov 2011)

> Omar Khadr, the first Canadian convicted of murder, spying, and terrorism and held at Guantanamo Bay, needs another first before he can go home to serve out his sentence in a Canadian prison. Canada must first be certified as a fit place to send a convicted terrorist, a nation not likely to permit him to attack the United States, and one that has control of its prisons. That certification must be delivered to Congress signed by U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta with “the concurrence of” U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton. It’s new, but hardly trivial. It’s a part of the 2011 National Defence Authorization Act, the annual funding legislation for the entire U.S. military that, among other things, outlaws using U.S. taxpayer funds to airlift a Guantanamo detainee to the United States ....


_Globe & Mail_, 21 Nov 11


----------



## Pusser (22 Nov 2011)

Now the question is, do we get insulted if the Americans do not find us worthy, or chuckle softly and reflect on the bullet we dodge?


----------



## jasonf6 (22 Nov 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Now the question is, do we get insulted if the Americans do not find us worthy, or chuckle softly and reflect on the bullet we dodge?


I'd happily waive the insult fee in order to dodge that bullet.


----------



## Danjanou (22 Nov 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Now the question is, do we get insulted if the Americans do not find us worthy, or chuckle softly and reflect on the bullet we dodge?



The outrage over this should it happen by the NDP and the CBC etc alone will provide days if not weeks of entertainment.  8)


----------



## GAP (29 Jan 2012)

Whitewashing Omar Khadr
Confessed terrorist will soon walk free in Canada
By Ezra Levant, QMI Agency
Article Link

In a revealing new book, The Enemy Within, the Sun's Ezra Levant brings Omar Khadr's story back into the public eye. Having completed his U.S. sentence in October 2011, Omar Khadr could return to Canada at any time. He may well be released, thanks to a lenient system that will likely credit him for the time he has served awaiting trial in Guantanamo Bay. With Parliament back in session, Levant brings his razor-sharp perspective to bear on a story that is vital to our notions of citizenship and justice, and to our national security.

---

So, what can we expect to happen with Omar Khadr when he inevitably returns to Canada?

Unfortunately, it's not hard to guess. When Maher Arar came back to Canada after he was released from a prison in Syria, he was hailed as a hero and celebrity. Every anti-war, anti-Western activist with an axe to grind--which includes a large swath of Canada's mainstream media--turned his homecoming into a triumph. If only they treated our wounded soldiers returning from Afghanistan so warmly.

If Maher Arar became a minor celebrity after his wrangle with the Syrian security system, with a secondary role played by Washington and Ottawa, it's a virtual lock that Omar Khadr--the leading man in a supposed morality play pitting the Bush administration, perennial bugbear of the left, and its Guantanamo "gulag" against a purportedly naive and pitiable "child soldier" from Canada--is set to become nothing less than a superstar.

Unlike Arar, who enjoyed only a fraction of the sympathy and media coverage, Khadr will be coming home to the built-in fan club that he's amassed since his capture. Arlette Zinck, the professor at Edmonton's King's University College who struck up a tender pen pal relationship with Khadr -- "Whenever you are lonesome, remember you have many friends who keep you in their prayers. Each morning at 9 o'clock, I include you in mine," she wrote to him in Guantanamo, referring to Khadr as "my dear student"--has led the charge in turning her campus into a factory for Khadr groupies.


Zinck actually testified in Khadr's defence, calling him a "considerate young man ... thoughtful and generous in spirit" in a sentencing hearing for a murder he himself confessed he took pleasure in reminiscing about (how considerate). In 2008, her school hosted a talk by Dennis Edney, one of Khadr's lawyers, to give a speech about how "a young Muslim man has been branded a terrorist without trial" and the failures of the Canadian government in supporting Khadr's case. 
More on link


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Jan 2012)

Then this Zinck character can house him , feed him, clothe him, educate him and all that.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Jan 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Then this Zinck character can house him , feed him, clothe him, educate him and all that.


 :goodpost:


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Jan 2012)

So sad that he will never come close to enjoying the carefree, fun times as a young pre-teen.  The morally decrepit system has robbed him of the joy he once knew.  He looked so happy back then...poor Omar.  :'(


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Mar 2012)

.... from an unnamed (U.S.?) official:


> A "frustrated" Omar Khadr could be back in Canada by the end of May, with both Ottawa and Washington poised to approve his transfer from Guantanamo Bay, where the convicted war criminal has been held for almost a decade, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> A source familiar with the file said U.S. Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta was expected to sign off on the transfer within a week.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 28 Mar 12


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Apr 2012)

> The Canadian government has received a formal request for the transfer of convicted war criminal Omar Khadr from Guantanamo Bay to Canada, Ottawa confirmed Wednesday.
> 
> A spokeswoman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said Ottawa is now considering the request.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 18 Apr 12


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Apr 2012)

Please, say NO !

Hey! I live in Montreal, where the rest of the family still at large lives.


----------



## Danjanou (18 Apr 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Please, say NO !
> 
> Hey! I live in Montreal, where the rest of the family still at large lives.



They moved form Scarberia? 

" Honey break out the champagne  the property values in the neighbourhood just went up!"  8)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Apr 2012)

Didn't know they moved to Scarberia. Forget what I said. 

..... But still say NO, please !!!


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Apr 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ..... But still say NO, please !!!


Not a "no", but no details on "when" or "how" yet, either....


> Convicted al-Qaida terrorist and killer Omar Khadr is coming home.
> 
> Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said Thursday the government won't block the transfer of Khadr from a cell in the Caribbean to a Canadian prison.
> 
> ...


QMI/Sun Media, 19 Apr 12


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Apr 2012)

Bring him home and deny his parole until the full sentence is completed.


----------



## GAP (20 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Bring him home and deny his parole until the full sentence is completed.



In general population.....


----------



## Journeyman (20 Apr 2012)

Lock him up in Kingston Pen.......oh, wait.


----------



## medicineman (20 Apr 2012)

Compromise - KPH  ;D.

MM


----------



## Danjanou (20 Apr 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Lock him up in Kingston Pen.......oh, wait.



No that could still work. It will be some time between closing the place and actually tearing it down or converting it into a Walmart or Condos or whatver the plan is. It's probably a heritage building so that should double the paper shuffling involved. We could be talking decades here.

Lock him in his cell , before the last guard is gone and just leave him there.... without power, lights, heat, plumbing, food........eventually the problem will resolve itself. >


----------



## medicineman (20 Apr 2012)

Was going to say something about giving him some diving lessons into the bay from the Guard Towers, but remembered this was an open forum...guess I still have a problem with people that blow up medics.

MM

Edit for spelling oops.


----------



## krustyrl (20 Apr 2012)

I agree....  MM          :goodpost:


----------



## Haletown (20 Apr 2012)

He was a an IED maker at 14. He was 15 almost 16 when he murdered a medic on a battlefield.

He is now a 100% certified jihadi with a Canadian passport who will soon be walking the streets of Canada and being celebrated by the various Leftoids talking heads and the CBC.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Apr 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So sad that he will never come close to enjoying the carefree, fun times as a young pre-teen.  The morally decrepit system has robbed him of the joy he once knew.  He looked so happy back then...poor Omar.  :'(



Brutal.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> He was a an IED maker at 14. He was 15 almost 16 when he murdered a medic on a battlefield.
> 
> He is now a 100% certified jihadi with a Canadian passport who will soon be walking the streets of Canada and being celebrated by the various Leftoids talking heads and the CBC.



How do you counter this? Publish the truth about him and his terrorist family, on the open forums.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Apr 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> How do you counter this? Publish the truth about him and his terrorist family, on the open forums.



And then Mike gets to defend that truth when all the lawyers who are lining up to represent this poor misunderstood boy get hold of it.  The truth hurts, and not always those it's aimed at.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2012)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> And then Mike gets to defend that truth when all the lawyers who are lining up to represent this poor misunderstood boy get hold of it.  The truth hurts, and not always those it's aimed at.



Pardon me, not this one. Letters to the editors of newpapers, you MLA, MP etc.

I misspoke and I apologize. 

Back to my points - we know his father was a fund raiser for AQ, and I am going to assume that we have proof his brothers were linked to AQ, right? Just need references.


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Apr 2012)

Can their citizenship be revoked ?

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/rules/tool_03.asp


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2012)

Everyone needs to get used to the ideas that:

1. Our, Canadian, legal system is different from the one in the USA and it, broadly the Canadian legal system, is "offended" by the whole _Guantanamo_ episode in the US and will, most likely, treat Khadr as a young man who has been, at best, improperly tried and punished; and

2. Omar Khard will, soon, be on our streets as, at worst, a man who has "paid his debt to society" and he will be entitled to the full protection that our society offers - including the protection the CF provides for all Canadians.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Apr 2012)

My skin crawls at the thought of him freely walking the same streets as my children.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Apr 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Can their citizenship be revoked ?
> 
> http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/rules/tool_03.asp



Time for the government to amend the Citizenship Act. Should one take up arms against Canada or her allies one's citizenship will be revoked. Even if that citizenship is by birth and results in one becoming stateless. I don't care what the UN has to say about statelessness.


----------



## larry Strong (22 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Everyone needs to get used to the ideas that:
> 
> 1. Our, Canadian, legal system is different from the one in the USA and it, broadly the Canadian legal system, is "offended" by the whole _Guantanamo_ episode in the US and will, most likely, treat Khadr as a young man who has been, at best, improperly tried and punished; and
> 
> 2. Omar Khard will, soon, be on our streets as, at worst, a man who has "paid his debt to society" and he will be entitled to the full protection that our society offers - including the protection the CF provides for all Canadians.



As well as the million/s of dollars he will collect when he sues the Government.......


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> As well as the million/s of dollars he will collect when he sues the Government.......




Yep, I'm sure of it ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Apr 2012)

I was referring to revocation due to fraud.



> Revoked for fraud means that a person’s Canadian citizenship status was taken away by the Canadian government. Canadian citizenship law provides for the revocation of citizenship of persons who have obtained their citizenship or permanent residence status through false representation, fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances. If your citizenship was taken away for other reasons, answer “No” to this question.
> 
> Having your citizenship revoked for fraud is not the same thing as automatically losing your citizenship. For example, under previous legislation, Canadian citizens who left Canada for many years could automatically lose their Canadian citizenship. This is not a revocation of citizenship.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Apr 2012)

As much as it makes me want to puke buckets, this vile thing will come back to the country of his birth but not his heart.  He will be feted by the hoards of misguided, even if well meaning (in their eyes especially) liberal minded Canadians who have watched the west run roughshod over those oppressed brown skinned masses in SWA.  He has his supporters and I am sure he will take the Canadian Government to task legally and ultimately financially.  Unlike Mr. Arrar, Omar is a convicted terrorist who's guilt is without question.  But that won't matter one bit in the long run.

I expect that he will not serve his full time for if he does, he will be able to be released back into the bosom of his family compact without conditions.  On parole, the State will at least have some nominal overwatch on his reintegration into Canadian society.  While we at this time cannot revoke his citizenship as he was born here, I do hope they can prevent his obtaining a passport and at least keep him where he can be watched.  Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Apr 2012)

:ditto: :ditto: :goodpost:


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Apr 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.



mmmm, marriage.

No really. In the greater scheme of assholes Canada has produced this kid really isn't on top. The more we shout how much of a jerk he is the more his supporters are inclined to raise him up on their shoulders like a hero.  Canadians only have themselves to blame for the justice system.


----------



## captloadie (23 Apr 2012)

Since WWII, enemy combatants or the _bad guys, have been coming to Canada to live. Most of them were never tried for their "crimes", and until very recently, a blind eye was turned. Omar at least has served time, hard time, and paid his debt to society. What is the harm of letting him return and trying to move on with his life? If he sues the government for millions, and wins, doesn't that say that maybe he was wronged somehow? If he returns and starts spewing Taliban propaganda, then we deal with him like anyone else involved in hate crimes.

The more we put him in the spotlight, the greater martyr he becomes for others._


----------



## larry Strong (24 Apr 2012)

Talk about being spineless and passing the buck! This is an abdication of power. 

Posted with the usual caveats
*Treason charge for Khadr not up to feds*



> OTTAWA -- Federal Justice Minister and Attorney General Rob Nicholson says the question of laying charges of treason against Omar Khadr is a provincial and police matter.
> The issue was raised after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews announced last week that he had received an American request to transfer the Canadian-born convicted terrorist and murderer to Canadian custody.
> 
> "We cannot comment on specific cases," said Julie Di Mambro, spokeswoman for Nicholson. "In Canada, the decision to lay and pursue Criminal Code charges rests with police and provincial Crown attorneys."
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Apr 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Talk about being spineless and passing the buck! This is an abdication of power.
> 
> Posted with the usual caveats
> *Treason charge for Khadr not up to feds*


Anyone up for a private prosecution, then (more from the Criminal Code of Canada)?  Anyone?  Anyone?


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Apr 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> What is the harm of letting him return and trying to move on with his life?  If he returns and starts spewing Taliban propaganda (guess it would not have been such a good idea to return him to the nest, eh?  What if he did not stop at being a mouthpiece?), then we deal with him like anyone else involved in hate crimes. (looking at their track record, they'll do SFA or near enough to it to equal it) beige comments mine, jjt


Unlike several German veterans I have met over the years, they were not a risk to try and continue offensive operations against Canada either by voice or deed.  They also were not Canadian born, and therefore traitors.  You can  bet your bottom dollar that if any of the former Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine (can't say on SS as I am not sure if they were welcomed as immigrants) were viewed as a possible danger to Canada they would not have been allowed in, and if they became a threat they would have had their asses on a plane, deported back to the Fatherland faster than you can say Nazi.

If I had any confidence that poor poor Omar, was indeed poor poor Omar and would not be a possible threat, risk, danger, undesirable person by writ of charcter, word, thought or deed and had been done wrong.  I'd keep stumm.  But I don't, and I'm not alone and I may have to put up with what will come with his return to Canada but I f***ing well don't have to like it.  And I won't, nor will I give him the benefit of my doubt.   And if that makes me a bad person, well, I'll wear it with pride.


----------



## my72jeep (24 Apr 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Unlike several German veterans I have met over the years, they were not a risk to try and continue offensive operations against Canada either by voice or deed.  They also were not Canadian born, and therefore traitors.  You can  bet your bottom dollar that if any of the former Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine (can't say on SS as I am not sure if they were welcomed as immigrants) were viewed as a possible danger to Canada they would not have been allowed in, and if they became a threat they would have had their asses on a plane, deported back to the Fatherland faster than you can say Nazi.
> 
> If I had any confidence that poor poor Omar, was indeed poor poor Omar and would not be a possible threat, risk, danger, undesirable person by writ of charcter, word, thought or deed and had been done wrong.  I'd keep stumm.  But I don't, and I'm not alone and I may have to put up with what will come with his return to Canada but I f***ing well don't have to like it.  And I won't, nor will I give him the benefit of my doubt.   And if that makes me a bad person, well, I'll wear it with pride.




 :ditto: :goodpost: Well said


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Apr 2012)

I agree with jollyjacktar as well. 

I don't beleive for one second that poor misguided Omar has renounced his ways nor will he. 

A friend's grandfather was sent to an internment camp because someone heard him speaking German during WW2. He was a farmer in Manitoba. 

Now we are willing to let terrorists walk our streets.  :facepalm:


----------



## fraserdw (24 Apr 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Unlike several German veterans I have met over the years, they were not a risk to try and continue offensive operations against Canada either by voice or deed.  They also were not Canadian born, and therefore traitors.  You can  bet your bottom dollar that if any of the former Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine (can't say on SS as I am not sure if they were welcomed as immigrants) were viewed as a possible danger to Canada they would not have been allowed in, and if they became a threat they would have had their asses on a plane, deported back to the Fatherland faster than you can say Nazi.
> 
> If I had any confidence that poor poor Omar, was indeed poor poor Omar and would not be a possible threat, risk, danger, undesirable person by writ of charcter, word, thought or deed and had been done wrong.  I'd keep stumm.  But I don't, and I'm not alone and I may have to put up with what will come with his return to Canada but I f***ing well don't have to like it.  And I won't, nor will I give him the benefit of my doubt.   And if that makes me a bad person, well, I'll wear it with pride.



Canada did refuse readmission to 4 Canadians who entered Canada in the 20s and 30s and became citizens.  They heeded the call to the Fatherland in the 30s and served in the German Army during WW2.  Of course, that was before the Trudeauite Charter of Irresponsibility.  I have not been able to find the stories (they are online somewhere) but they remained in Germany and were never allowed back to Canada.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Apr 2012)

Yes, well the problem with dear Omar is that he is native born.  His family origins are Egyptian (IIRC), but he's ours in that regard.  I don't think he could be stripped of his citizenship as a naturalized citizen could possibly be.  Shame, that.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Apr 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> *Treason charge for Khadr not up to feds*


I can't believe this isn't in the "Dumbest Thing Heard" thread.

He was a traitor to Scarborough? He took up arms against the Victoria Park and Lawrence neighbourhood?   :not-again:


----------



## Prariedawg (24 Apr 2012)

I know that according to the letter of the law that we are left holding the bag with this whole khadr situation. Given the fact we have no option but to prove our moral superiority by proving we are a nation of laws what I want to know is

-Did khadr's mothers and siblings know where khadr senior was taking the poor "child soldier" and what his activity's would be, seems they did since they have admitted as much.

-Did they try to stop it to protect the tender lad whom the dew of childhood had barely dried on his brow?

-Did his mother or any sibling over 18 contact CFS once they could confirm khadr seniors plan, If not does this not constitute neglect and child endangerment and leave them liable to prosecution for the tragedy that has befallen "child soldier"omar? I'm fairly certain it does.

-Why has the government not prosecuted the family members for this seeing how we are a nation of laws?


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Apr 2012)

Prariedawg said:
			
		

> I know that according to the letter of the law that we are left holding the bag with this whole khadr situation. Given the fact we have no option but to prove our moral superiority by proving we are a nation of laws what I want to know is
> 
> --Why has the government not prosecuted the family members for this seeing how we are a nation of laws?



Sacrilege!! Blasphemer! How dare you suggest that!! Racist and intolerant! OMG I can't beleive you are asking this!!! :sarcasm:


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Apr 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Sacrilege!! Blasphemer! How dare you suggest that!! Racist and intolerant! OMG I can't beleive you are asking this!!! :sarcasm:



Not all families will be afraid Dec 2012.
Most families afraid will be afraid of zombies.
Some families will be afraid of most other families.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2012)

A couple of tidbits ....

1)  The neighbours and the petition:





> More than 270 Canadians from coast to coast have signed an online petition created by a Scarborough woman to try and stop teen terrorist Omar Khadr from being returned to Canada.
> 
> Shobie Kapoor said she lives in Toronto’s east-end where Khadr grew up and is terrified of his return.
> 
> ...


You can find the petition here

2)  A former CF officer opines:





> .... The suggestion is that Khadr should be charged with high treason for "assisting an enemy at war with Canada" or (assisting) those against whom the Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities. Bafflegab.
> 
> To view Khadr as "treasonous," or even as "criminal," is wrong to the point of absurdity. He's done nothing against Canada. His "crime" of murder -- to which he confessed, in order to facilitate return to Canada -- was fighting against an invader. America attacked Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, to whom Khadr had pledged allegiance.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 May 2012)

Mark Steyn speaks   http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/1221258968/ID=2224390047

April 18, 2012 News

The author and columnist sounds off on Omar Khadr, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the trial of Norwegian Anders Breivik


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 May 2012)

The opposition seems to span quite the range o' groups - highlights mine .....


> Some Toronto groups are handing out flyers and putting up posters in protest of the Canadian return of terrorist Omar Khadr to serve out a 40-year prison term.
> 
> The groups also plan to pay for an anti-Khadr advertisement at the Kennedy Subway Station, near to where they claim the terrorist could be relocated with his family in Scarborough - in east Toronto.
> 
> ...



QMI/Sun Media, 6 May 12


----------



## brihard (6 May 2012)

Either the law matters, or it doesn't. I believe it does. Disregarding entirely the question of his age at the time of capture, he is a natural born citizen and we consequently have obligations. Moreover, the entire Guantanamo situation is such a horrific legal mess that bringing him back into the country is perhaps the only way we can make up for some of our complicity in that horrendous stain on democratic principles.

Khadr will never be a danger again. CSIS et al will see to that. Yes, that will be a bit burdensome, but to adhere to our own laws and principles comes with modest cost. I'm more concerned by the consequences of us normalizing the disregard of law due to expediency than I am about the scant likelihood of one individual presenting a threat to our society.

Better had he simply died on the battlefield, but he didn't. So we have what we have- an onus to bring him back in. If it can be found that we can prosecute him criminally for something, great. At the same time, this is also our only chance to meaningfully repudiate what our neighbours to the south accepted as a necessary expediency in disregard of the rule of law as soon as they became scared. There are larger things at stake here than the fate of one boy.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 May 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Either the law matters, or it doesn't. I believe it does. Disregarding entirely the question of his age at the time of capture, he is a natural born citizen and we consequently have obligations. Moreover, the entire Guantanamo situation is such a horrific legal mess that bringing him back into the country is perhaps the only way we can make up for some of our complicity in that horrendous stain on democratic principles.
> 
> Khadr will never be a danger again. CSIS et al will see to that. Yes, that will be a bit burdensome, but to adhere to our own laws and principles comes with modest cost. I'm more concerned by the consequences of us normalizing the disregard of law due to expediency than I am about the scant likelihood of one individual presenting a threat to our society.
> 
> Better had he simply died on the battlefield, but he didn't. So we have what we have- an onus to bring him back in. If it can be found that we can prosecute him criminally for something, great. At the same time, this is also our only chance to meaningfully repudiate what our neighbors to the south accepted as a necessary expediency in disregard of the rule of law as soon as they became scared. There are larger things at stake here than the fate of one boy.


I think you're 100% right even though I'm a hypocrite and I'd like to see his citizenship revoked and him kicked out.

This child listened to his dad's BS and killed one of our allies.  I can think of an ex CF member that killed 2 of our own soldiers who deserves to have his citizenship stripped away more urgently.

I see him as much less a danger to Canadians than the serial rapists and murders we let out on the streets to re-offend.

They wanna stay in Canada have them under constantly observation- put more effort into changing the laws which we follow.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 May 2012)

> The Conservatives won't compensate terrorist Omar Khadr for what activist groups call Canada's complicity in torture at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
> 
> "The government of Canada has taken the position that he is not entitled to any compensation from Canadian taxpayers," said Julie Carmichael, a spokeswoman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.
> 
> ...


QMI/Sun Media, 22 May 12

Just for shiggles, I've attached the presentation from LRWC - remember, don't hate the messenger....


----------



## vonGarvin (22 May 2012)

Pardon my Anglo Saxon, but those lawyers can go fuck themselves.


----------



## GAP (22 May 2012)

Love the poll on the webpage link



> Poll
> Should Omar Khadr receive compensation from the Canadian government?
> 
> Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:29:30 EDT PM
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 May 2012)

If there is an argument to be made for bringing him back into Canada, it doesn't hang on adherence to law, respect for the law, fear of eroding our legal principles, or any other sanctimonious BS.  His treatment is not a horrendous stain on democratic principles.

We occasionally sacrifice principles for expediency.  As long as it doesn't become a habit, I am unconcerned.  Khadr's case is a singleton, or very nearly so.  If you want to bring him back, it should be sufficient when the US decides to no longer detain him as a combatant and repatriate him to a country of his citizenship.

Be realistic: if expediency compels us to carpet bomb the cities of a nation again, we will.  We did it once, and it did not stain us irrevocably.


----------



## larry Strong (22 May 2012)

What a white wash, not a single mention of him killing Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, or the video of him building IED's. Or the fact that he was given the choice to leave the compound with the women and children.


----------



## KevinB (23 May 2012)

He's a douche who deserves to die.

I have several friends in the unit that SFC Speer was in.  Every second he draws breath is a stain on Canada's honor.  

I will never waiver on this aspect.

He was an illegal combatant - a traitor, and as such deserves to die.

I would squish an ant with more remorse that killing this shitbag.


----------



## GAP (24 May 2012)

Residents plan rally to keep Khadr out
By Tom Godfrey, QMI Agency 
Article Link

TORONTO - Some Scarborough residents are planning a town hall meeting to rally the community and prevent terrorist Omar Khadr from returning to his east-end home.

A number of Scarborough residents were meeting on Wednesday to plan against Khadr’s return to Canada in months after spending a decade in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for terrorism offences.

“We need to have our voices heard,” said activist Shobie Kapoor, who has created an online petition calling for Khadr to stay away from Canada. “We are trying to find out what our options are when he (Khadr) returns to the community.”

Kapoor said at least 20 area residents, and a number of groups, have banned together to keep Khadr out of Scarborough, where he was born. No date has been set for a town hall meeting.

Her group plans to post flyers near homes where Khadr will be staying with family members. Members of the Canadian Hindu Advocacy have twice posted flyers near Khadr grandfather’s home on Khartoum Ave.

The group has formed Canadian Patriots Unite Against Terrorist Omar Khadr to help with the fight.
More on link


----------



## OldSolduer (24 May 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Residents plan rally to keep Khadr out
> By Tom Godfrey, QMI Agency
> Article Link
> 
> ...



No doubt the Khadr worshippers will trip all over each other in their rush to remind everyone about poor Omar's Charter rights and how they can't do this...plus the usual cries of "racist, bigot" and some anti USA rhetoric....all of which the MSM outlets will trip over each other to report.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 May 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> No doubt the Khadr worshippers will trip all over each other in their rush to remind everyone about poor Omar's Charter rights and how they can't do this...plus the usual cries of "racist, bigot" and some anti USA rhetoric....all of which the MSM outlets will trip over each other to report.



And those same people would protest a child molester or convicted rapist moving into their neighbourhood, and go right back to pleading Khadr's case afterwards.


----------



## BernDawg (24 May 2012)

Looks like his family found the poll  
I, for one, agree with KevinB.

  Should Omar Khadr receive compensation from the Canadian government? 
 Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:29:30 EDT PM 

  Yes, he deserves it.  
  No, he is not entitled to it.  
  Maybe, once he has served his prison sentence.  
Vote 
or view results 

5%

5 votes
 Yes, he deserves it.

  
94%

100 votes
 No, he is not entitled to it.

  
1%

1 votes
 Maybe, once he has served his prison sentence.


----------



## medicineman (25 May 2012)

I'm with Kevin...and not just because Christopher Speer was a medic, but because this clown knew damn well what he was doing, got caught and should pay - and alot longer than he's already done.

MM


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jun 2012)

"Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act." 




> Khadr's lawyers call on Ottawa to approve his transfer
> 
> 21/06/2012 12:56:16 PM
> 
> ...




WAIT A MINUTE !





> 'We'll send you packing,' Kenney tells foreign criminals
> 
> 20/06/2012 12:56:16 PM
> 
> ...





Guess that doesn't apply......    :-[


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jun 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Guess that doesn't apply......    :-[


The last I heard was that Khadr is a Canadian citizen, so he doesn't fit the "foreign criminal" pigeonhole.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Jun 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The last I heard was that Khadr is a Canadian citizen, so he doesn't fit the "foreign criminal" pigeonhole.



True, but it does not mean that his family can not be removed.


----------



## Danjanou (21 Jun 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> True, but it does not mean that his family can not be removed.



Those not born here could technically have their Citizenship revoked ( presuming the GOC decides to go through with that lengthy and troubled process), however Omar has an Ontario Birth Certificate so he's our's to deal with :


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Jun 2012)

Was watching the wingeing and hand wringing from a human rights lawyer as well as the reporters on CTV Newsnet.  The female anchor was saying there was a small but vocal group of opposition from Canadians.  It made me snarl in that while the vocal parts might be small I do not believe those who oppose his return to Canada are a small minority of Canadians.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jun 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> True, but it does not mean that his family can not be removed.


They could as long as they're _non-citizens_ and _convicted of crimes_, according to the latest proposal from Minister Kenny & Co.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It made me snarl in that while the vocal parts might be small I do not believe those who oppose his return to Canada are a small minority of Canadians.


Now THAT would be an interesting survey to conduct - any media up for it?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Anyone?


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Jun 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> They could as long as they're _non-citizens_ and _convicted of crimes_, according to the latest proposal from Minister Kenny & Co.



Which proposes the next logical question:

Should naturalized Canadians be subject to the same stipulations?


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jun 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Which proposes the next logical question:
> 
> Should naturalized Canadians be subject to the same stipulations?


"Two tiers of Canadian citizenship" arguing team - UP! 

Seriously, though, here's Senator Dallaire on this in the Senate yesterday:





> Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Honourable senators, this is not the first time that I have asked this question, but this matter continues to drag on because the person in question remains in prison. Could the leader inquire of the appropriate minister, perhaps even the Prime Minister, and tell us when the repatriation of Omar Khadr will take place in order for him to serve his seven-year sentence here, in Canada, as agreed by the United States and Canada?
> 
> [English]
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jul 2012)

Just spotted this bit of Senate discussion from the end of June:





> .... *Senator Di Nino:* I have not heard Mr. Khadr at any time express sentiments of regret or show any sign of remorse. That would go a long way to making me think this way.
> 
> Second, our country is acting within the law. They said they have and they are. These are complex issues and they take time. We are not a country that acts outside the law.
> 
> ...


----------



## KevinB (11 Jul 2012)

Good to see Romeo Dallaire is still a turd...


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jul 2012)

...living in some other alternate universe.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jul 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ...living in some other alternate universe.



Called the Liberal Party of Canada.

There is more than one alternate universe in Parliament.


----------



## 2 Cdo (12 Jul 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Good to see Romeo Dallaire is still a turd...



Your assessment is of Dullaire is way nicer than mine. 8)


----------



## beach_bum (12 Jul 2012)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Your assessment is of Dullaire is way nicer than mine. 8)



I was just thinking the same thing.


----------



## fraserdw (13 Jul 2012)

Did anyone receive an email from Senator Dallaire recently?  I did and a lot of folks I work with did.  The email was a request to sign a petition to bring Canada's favorite little terrorist home.  I was amazed that his organization would send this out to serving troops.  My reply was short and descriptive as to where the Senator and his little buddy could go and what they could do once there.


----------



## medicineman (13 Jul 2012)

Should have sent him a link to the thread on Jihadists and sodomy...

MM


----------



## KevinB (16 Jul 2012)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Your assessment is of Dullaire is way nicer than mine. 8)



Well its my public comment's  :nod:
   Its a fraud that his incompetent and worthless ass was graced with another public paid position.

The Belgian Para's in Afghan still consider him a war criminal -and after his comments about little shitstain I for one would love to send his ass to the Belgians.


----------



## Pusser (16 Jul 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Which proposes the next logical question:
> 
> Should naturalized Canadians be subject to the same stipulations?



Hell NO!!!

Citizenship, once granted should be irrevocable, with the sole exception of cases where someone has committed fraud in order to gain it.  Otherwise, naturalized Canadians become second class citizens and that is entirely unacceptable.  I've spent close to 30 years in this country's uniform and I'll be damned if I'll allow anyone to treat me as second class.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Jul 2012)

I agree. As a naturalized citizen myself, I find the idea morally repugnant. I just asked the question here, because it had been asked of me elsewhere.


----------



## winnipegoo7 (17 Jul 2012)

Is there any proof that Khadr ever killed anyone? The only evidence I can find is his 'confession', which I think was signed under duress.

It seems like a lot of what happened that day is secret and will probably remain secret for a long time to come. Hopefully the truth will come out one day.


*Edited, because I didn't read my post before I pressed submit.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2012)

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> Is there any proof that Khadr ever killed anyone? The only evidence I can find is his 'confession', which I was signed under duress.
> 
> It seems like a lot of what happened that day is secret and will probably remain secret for a long time to come. Hopefully the truth will come out one day.



Welcome to the site Mr Khadr.  If you did indeed sign a confession under duress, please give us the details.


----------



## KevinB (17 Jul 2012)

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> Is there any proof that Khadr ever killed anyone? The only evidence I can find is his 'confession', which I think was signed under duress.
> 
> It seems like a lot of what happened that day is secret and will probably remain secret for a long time to come. Hopefully the truth will come out one day.
> 
> ...



Yes there is.  The site was hit by a Special Operations Team due to the High Value Targets on site, and due to OPSEC and PERSEC issues most of the info is classified.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Jul 2012)

I, for one, am growing weary of the defenders of this murderous - oops - I mean misguided poor young urchin and the folks like him, including some of our more violent criminals - oops- I mean misunderstood and oppressed youths.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jul 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I, for one, am growing weary of the defenders of this murderous - oops - I mean misguided poor young urchin and the folks like him, including some of our more violent criminals - oops- I mean misunderstood and oppressed youths.


Me too.  Except that I reached the saturation point years ago.


----------



## GAP (20 Jul 2012)

No Khadr return without sealed video interviews: Toews
By Terry Davidson, Toronto Sun 
Article Link

TORONTO - Omar Khadr won’t be coming home to Canada any time soon.

The Canadian government has balked at the return of the convicted war criminal and murderer until U.S. authorities turn over allegedly-damning video footage of psychiatrists’ interviews with the Guantanamo Bay prisoner.

In a formal letter sent Thursday to both U.S. defence secretary Leon Panetta and Khadr’s Toronto lawyer, John Norris, Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews states that in order to have Khadr sent back to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canada, officials north of the boarder must be given access to sealed video footage of separate interviews with Khadr that were carried out by two psychiatrists during the lead-up to Khadr’s trial in 2010.

Toews also stated complete reports from Dr. Michael Welner and Dr. Alan Hopewell have not been supplied to Correctional Service of Canada and the parole board, and that both are required to administer Khadr’s sentence in Canada, according to sources familiar with the letter.

Welner — who interviewed Khadr for eight hours in June 2010 and spent “hundreds of hours” researching his history - charges Khadr has become an even more “dangerous” radical while serving time in Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, mainly because of the hard-line jihadist prisoners that are around him, Khadr’s continued connections to terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, his loyalty to his radical-Islamist family and his celebrity among militant, anti-West jihadis.

“I came to the conclusion that Omar Khadr (is) highly dangerous because of the nature of his role in the community of al-Qaida and other Islamist terrorists,” Welner said, adding the “street smart” Khadr, when he is eventually released from custody, will be “under tremendous pressure” from those around him to be a leader in radical Islam’s war on the West.


“His family continues to be ideologically motivated ... (and he) will be under tremendous pressure from (those) people who are the source of his self esteem,” Welner said, adding Khadr is considered a “rock star” among the jihadis being held with him in America’s Guantanamo Bay prison.

At Khadr’s sentencing hearing, Welner submitted a document of 73 points — all “undisputed” by Khadr’s lawyers, he said — as to why Khadr continues to be a threat, including his bragging about killing an American soldier, being “angry” and “manipulative,” and having the “capacity to be inspiring to others in his potential for further jihad violence.”

Welner also noted in his submission that Khadr “did not want to confront his previous actions and blamed others” when it came to video footage of him as a 15-year-old planting land mines near Khost, Afghanistan, in July of 2002.

Seven days later, Khadr, who was born in the Toronto suburb of Scarborough in 1986 into a family with connections to the al-Qaida terrorist group, was on a fighting mission when he killed U.S. Sgt. Christopher Speer with a grenade during an altercation with American troops.

Khadr pleaded guilty to murder and several other charges in 2010 and was sentenced to 40 years, but as part of a plea deal he received eight years and was to be returned to Canada to serve out the remainder of his sentence.

While Canada agreed to his repatriation in 2010, Toews has resisted Khadr’s return, arguing public safety trumps the wishes of Khadr’s sympathizers for his speedy return to Canada.

Toews has insisted he won’t be “pushed” into making a decision, despite attempts by Khadr’s legal team to force the matter in federal court, and his letter suggests Canada will not admit Khadr until it receives the documentation and video interviews Canadian officials need to determine how to deal with the convicted terrorist and murderer.

Meanwhile, a movement has been building in Toronto to keep Khadr out of Canada or have him charged with treason if he is returned. 
end


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2012)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Omar Khadr: Peace-loving Canadian or al-Qaeda royalty?
> LINK
> 19/07/2012 5:03:03 AM
> CBC News
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jul 2012)

More on the psych evaluation. This shoudl be widely disseminated to everyone inclined to sign the petition for his return. 

http://o.canada.com/2012/07/20/79175/



> *Feds demand sealed psych assessment of Omar Khadr before ruling on his return*
> 
> Tobi Cohen
> 15 hours ago
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jul 2012)

Disgust is really the only reasonable response to this, although effective action like cancelling subscriptions and boycotting anyone who advertises in this paper would drive the point home. It is too bad there is no other way to force these sorts of people out of their comfortable positions of influence:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/citizen-admits-biased-editorials-on-omar-khadr-started-in-earnest-after-harper-came-to-power/



> *Citizen admits biased editorials on Omar Khadr started in earnest after Harper came to power*
> July 24, 2012 — BC Blue
> 
> In a refreshing, honest blog post by the Ottawa Citizen’s Kate Heartfield, she comes clean about how the editorial staff gave the Liberal Party a free ride when it came to their 32 editorials on Omar Khadr:
> ...



and:

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/07/24/ten-years-of-citizen-editorials-on-omar-khadr/



> Ottawa Citizen>Blogs >Opinion>Ed Board Ed Board RSS Feed
> Ten years of Citizen editorials on Omar KhadrJuly 24, 2012. 12:16 pm • Section: Ed Board  3 2380
> 
> Posted on Jun 22, 2012
> ...


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2012)

Prosecution nixed Khadr guilty plea two years before conviction
Colin Perkel Toronto — The Canadian Press Thursday, Jul. 26 2012
Article Link

Two years before the plea deal that was supposed to mean his quick exit from Guantanamo Bay, Omar Khadr offered to plead guilty to terrorism charges in Canada in exchange for a relatively lenient sentence and speedy transfer to Canada, documents show.

The offer was one of two proposals Mr. Khadr’s lawyers put to military commission authorities in 2008 in hopes of avoiding a trial. The convening authority rejected both out of hand.

In the first proposal, Mr. Khadr’s Pentagon-appointed lawyer at the time, Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, called on Washington to ask Canada to “investigate and charge” his client under the Criminal Code offence of participation in the activity of a terrorist group.

The basis for the charge would have been video showing Mr. Khadr as a young adolescent helping make improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan.

“The defence believes sufficient evidence is currently available ... to initiate charges,” Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler wrote in the proposal dated July 18, 2008.

Under the proposal, Mr. Khadr would then have pleaded guilty in a Canadian court either via videolink or through a lawyer, followed by transfer to Canadian custody within 45 days.

The proposal called for a sentence of between nine and 18 months in custody – including a stint at an “appropriate rehabilitative facility” such as the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.

He would also have been subject to a three-year period of probation, including restrictions that he not live with his mother or sister in Toronto.

Now 25, the Toronto-born Mr. Khadr also would have given up appeal rights and waived any damages claims against the U.S. or Canada.

Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler attempted to sell the deal as “advantageous” to the United States, arguing it would avoid a legal fight over the fact that Mr. Khadr was 15 years old when he committed the crimes with which he was charged.

“As a former child soldier, Mr. Khadr has a strong legal challenge to the jurisdiction of the military commission,” Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler wrote.

“It is abundantly clear that Congress did not intend military commissions to exercise jurisdiction over juvenile defendants.”

Prosecuting Mr. Khadr by military commission was also “inconsistent” with American obligations under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the lawyer wrote.

Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler argued the case against Mr. Khadr for throwing a grenade that killed a special forces soldier was “extremely weak.” No one witnessed the throwing, and the on-scene commander wrote after the incident that the person responsible had been killed, the lawyer noted.

Like many others, Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler also questioned the validity of the charge – murder in violation of the law of war – a crime most legal observers outside the commission process don’t recognize.

Commission authorities responded by saying they had no jurisdiction to enter into such a plea agreement.

Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler tried again two months later, with similar results.

In September 2008, he proposed that Mr. Khadr would admit to being “part of a group of al-Qaeda operatives who engaged in U.S. military and coalition personnel with small-arms fire and grenades, killing SFC Christopher Speer, two Afghan militia force members and resulting in numerous injuries to coalition personnel.”

In exchange, Mr. Khadr was to receive a maximum nine-year sentence, minus time served in custody since his capture in Afghanistan in July 2002. Transfer to a Canadian prison would have occurred within 30 days of sentencing.

The convening authority rejected the proposal without giving reasons, but encouraged further negotiations.

In an agreement essentially written by the prosecution, Mr. Khadr finally pleaded guilty in October 2010 to all five charges he faced – including murder in violation of the law of war. In return, he was sentenced to a further eight years in custody, with only one to be served in Guantanamo Bay.

Ottawa’s subsequent delay in allowing his transfer to a Canadian prison to serve out his sentence as per the plea deal has drawn fierce criticism from Mr. Khadr’s supporters and others who argue the government is riding roughshod over his rights as a Canadian citizen.

Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler, who was fired as Mr. Khadr’s lawyer in April 2009, refused to discuss the proposed deals.
end


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Jul 2012)

I had an interesting discussion with a woman from Kentucky last night. Fully educated and normal in most other respects, I might add. However, she was clearly one of those people who Rick Mercer encounters on a regular basis:

Her: "You mean the Queen is still the ruler of Canada?"

Me: "Yes, and she has installed a Governor General in Ottawa and a Lieutenant Governor in each Province to make sure that we do her bidding"

Her: "What's Ottawa... what's a Province?"  :facepalm:


----------



## GAP (27 Jul 2012)

I thought it might have improved since the sixties, but apparently not....

I had a lot of fun telling folks in San Diego (parents down to see their Johnnies graduate boot camp) about the indian wars, how we tried that toilet thingy in our igloos, but it didn't work well....but hey the Americans seemed to have got it right....why, the stuff just disappears when you press that little handle.....I wonder where to though..... ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Aug 2012)

FYI, I split off the "Minister's spouses get Media 101 the hard way" posts to their own thread ....
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/106973.0.html
.... because there was good discussion on dealing with the media outside the Khadr fracas.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Aug 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Prosecution nixed Khadr guilty plea two years before conviction
> Colin Perkel Toronto — The Canadian Press Thursday, Jul. 26 2012
> Article Link
> 
> ...



.... But, didn't Canada convict one if its own for just that crime with respect to a wounded Taliban?


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Aug 2012)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> .... But, didn't Canada convict one if its own for just that crime with respect to a wounded Taliban?



He was found not guilty of murder, attempted murder and negligently performing a military duty but was convicted of disgraceful conduct.

Try convincing the Hague that murder in violation of the law of war isn't a crime...


----------



## GAP (14 Aug 2012)

U.S. set to hand over Omar Khadr videotapes to Canadian government
By: Colin Perkel, The Canadian Press 08/13/2012
Article Link

TORONTO - American authorities are expected to hand videotapes of Omar Khadr to the Canadian government this week now that the head of the military commission has signed off on their release.

Khadr's Canadian defence team, meanwhile, served three affidavits on the government on Monday in support of its Federal Court application to force Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to make a decision on the prisoner's transfer from Guantanamo Bay to Canada.

The government has a month to respond but the lawyers said they were hoping the hearing would be expedited.

Toews has demanded access to the tapes of two mental-health assessments done of Khadr prior to his trial two years ago in Guantanamo Bay.

One assessment was by Dr. Michael Welner, the prosecution's star witness at Khadr's military commission trial in October 2010. Welner concluded Khadr, 25, was an unrepentant and dangerous jihadist.

The other was by a U.S. military psychologist, Maj. Alan Hopewell, who considered Khadr to be defensive and manipulative, but also mentally stable, upbeat, and an independent thinker who sees himself as a Canadian.

Bruce MacDonald, the convening authority for the military commissions, agreed immediately to release the tapes.

"Upon request by the prosecution and the defence counsel, in accordance with the terms of the pretrial agreement, I order the videotapes of the examinations by Dr. Welner and Dr. Hopewell partially unsealed," MacDonald directed.

The tapes could only be released to Canadian officials "involved with making decisions related to Mr. Khadr's transfer and confinement" and to "appropriate" American officials involved in transfer discussions with Canadian authorities, MacDonald said.

The tapes are otherwise to remain sealed.
More on link


----------



## GAP (22 Aug 2012)

Canada doesn't want Khadr back: Poll
By David Akin, Parliamentary Bureau Chief 
Article Link

OTTAWA - Canadians overwhelmingly agree that convicted terrorist Omar Khadr can stay right where he is, in prison at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Though Canada's chief ally wants to send Khadr back to the home and native land where he was born, six in 10 Canadians don't want him back, a new poll finds.

Khadr, born in Toronto in 1986, pleaded guilty in front of a U.S. military court judge in 2010 to several crimes including the killing of an American soldier and two terrorism-related charges. Though a jury recommended he be sentenced to 40 years in jail, the judge gave him an eight-year sentence as part of a plea agreement in which the U.S. agreed that Khadr could serve his time back in Canada.

But though the U.S. government - Canada's most important ally - as well as groups like Amnesty International and the Canadian Bar Association have been pressing the Harper government to take Khadr back, Ottawa has been dragging its heels.

"Don't judge him based on what happened when he was 13- to 15-years old," Khadr's court-appointed lawyer U.S. Army Col. Jon Jackson told Sun News Network during a recent visit to Ottawa. "Judge him on the actions he's taken since then. I think what you'll find is he's a person of a good heart ... He's a good kid who deserves a chance at a very productive life. I think Canadians are going to see him as someon who is not a threat."

But the poll commissioned by Sun News Network and done by Abacaus Data of Ottawa, shows that a healthy majority of Canadians have not been swayed by that plea.

When asked if they support or oppose Khadr's transfer to Canada, 60% say they strongly or somewhat oppose it while just 24% say they strongly or somewhat support his return.

A majority in all parts of the country oppose the transfer though opposition is strongest in Alberta (69%) and Ontario (65%) and weakest in Quebec were 51% oppose the move. 
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Aug 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> .... (a) poll commissioned by Sun News Network and done by Abacaus Data of Ottawa, shows that a healthy majority of Canadians have not been swayed by that plea.
> 
> When asked if they support or oppose Khadr's transfer to Canada, 60% say they strongly or somewhat oppose it while just 24% say they strongly or somewhat support his return.
> 
> A majority in all parts of the country oppose the transfer though opposition is strongest in Alberta (69%) and Ontario (65%) and weakest in Quebec were 51% oppose the move ....


Abacus Data news release attached - detailed data table downloadable here.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Aug 2012)

> "Don't judge him based on what happened when he was 13- to 15-years old," Khadr's court-appointed lawyer U.S. Army Col. Jon Jackson told Sun News Network during a recent visit to Ottawa. "Judge him on the actions he's taken since then. I think what you'll find is he's a person of a good heart ... He's a good kid who deserves a chance at a very productive life. I think Canadians are going to see him as someon who is not a threat."


Jackson is Khadr's lawyer; of course he's going to say things like this. Is he willing to put Khadr up at his home? No. But then, it's easy to espouse opinions when you don't have to deal with the consequences.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2012)

All of which is meaningless ... the government and 6 out of 10 Canadians are on the legal and moral _wrong side_ of this issue. The sixty percent are wrong because they have not thought this thing through; the government is wrong because it is appeasing the vocal majority, not doing the right thing in the right way.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Aug 2012)

How so?  And please understand that I am blissfully ignorant of international law.  By extension, do we bring every low life Canadian born criminal home from all their third world shit hole prisons to serve out their time in air conditioned splendour?  I understand that a deal was struck between an American judge, and an American Prosecutor, to get a criminal captured by Americans for committing his act against Americans to do his time in Canada.  Why is Canada obligated to honour the deal?   And, not to come across as flippant, because I'm really not trying to be, but isn't the definition of democracy, majority rule?


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2012)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> How so?  And please understand that I am blissfully ignorant of international law.  By extension, do we bring every low life Canadian born criminal home from all their third world shit hole prisons to serve out their time in air conditioned splendour?  I understand that a deal was struck between an American judge, and an American Prosecutor, to get a criminal captured by Americans for committing his act against Americans to do his time in Canada.  Why is Canada obligated to honour the deal?   And, not to come across as flippant, because I'm really not trying to be, but isn't the definition of democracy, majority rule?




Basically, yes ... and that's why:

1. Canadians'views, no matter how strongly held, don't matter all that much; and

2. The government is on the _wrong_ side of the issue.

Politically the government is _making hay_ on the issue - even their worst enemies hate Khadr more than they hate Harper, but precedents and laws and agreements all matter, too. In the long run keeping our word, honouring our agreements and obeying our own laws all matter more than our collective distaste for Omar Khadr.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Basically, yes ... and that's why:
> 
> 1. Canadians'views, no matter how strongly held, don't matter all that much; and
> 
> ...



Respectfully, I must disagree.  Are we obligated to transport, feed, clothe and shelter someone apprehended, tried, convicted and sentenced for smuggling heroin into Singapore?  Does that not smack of interfering with another countries internal affairs?  Again, ignorance is bliss, I suppose, but to my mind if you break a country's laws, you endure their punishments.

Edited to add:  I'll stay out of the rest, I've already waded out of my depth here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2012)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Respectfully, I must disagree.  Are we obligated to transport, feed, clothe and shelter someone apprehended, tried, convicted and sentenced for smuggling heroin into Singapore?  Does that not smack of interfering with another countries internal affairs?  Again, ignorance is bliss, I suppose, but to my mind if you break a country's laws, you endure their punishments.
> 
> Edited to add:  I'll stay out of the rest, I've already waded out of my depth here.




The thing is governed by (a series of) Transfer of Offenders treaties; see here. The government does have some "rights" to refusal and one case, at least, where the government refuses to allow a prisoner in the USA to return home (because the Minister says he is a threat to public safety, even in prison), is being considered by the _Supremes_ right now.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The thing is governed by (a series of) Transfer of Offenders treaties; see here. The government does have some "rights" to refusal and one case, at least, where the government refuses to allow a prisoner in the USA to return home (because the Minister says he is a threat to public safety, even in prison), is being considered by the _Supremes_ right now.


And there's the rub.  Legally we are going to be compelled to bring this oxygen thief home.  I don't have to like it, and I won't.  But I'll have to watch it happen sooner rather than later.  I also don't believe for one moment Jackson's tune on Khadr's sterling character.  I just hope the Feds keep on him like white on rice until he is no longer a viable threat.


----------



## KevinB (24 Aug 2012)

Charge him with treason when he sets foot in Canada.  
   Shove him down a well and then pour in the concrete.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Aug 2012)

Was it ever decided if he was a either a prisoner of war or a criminal or is he still in some sort of War on Terror in-between?


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Aug 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Was it ever decided if he was a either a prisoner of war or a criminal or is he still in some sort of War on Terror in-between?


"Enemy combatant" (usual caveats re:  Wikipedia, but includes documentation) - more here from the U.S. government, and here (Federal Court of Canada):





> .... On August 31, 2004, after Mr. Khadr had been questioned by the Canadian officials, a summary of evidence memo was prepared for his Combatant Status Review Tribunal. The summary alleged that Omar Khadr had admitted he threw a grenade which killed a U.S. soldier, attended an Al-Qaida training camp in Kabul and worked as a translator for Al-Qaida to co-ordinate landmine missions. In addition, he was accused of helping to plant the landmines between Khost and Ghardez, and having visited an airport near Khost to collect information on U.S. convoy movements.[3] The Supreme Court found that “[t]he record suggests that the interviews conducted by CSIS and DFAIT provided significant evidence in relation to these charges”: Khadr II, paragraph 20 (emphasis added). The Combatant Status Review Tribunal reviewed Mr. Khadr’s status and concluded that he was an enemy combatant. In so ruling, Mr. Khadr’s continued detention by the U.S. was legal, according to American law ....


----------



## Infanteer (24 Aug 2012)

So, no different than a German soldier in WWII.  If I understand this right, he comes back to Canada to be released when the war is done.  Sounds pretty straight forward.


----------



## Danjanou (24 Aug 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> to be released when the war is done.


That works for me. Of course I don't see the need for special treament such as is done for sex offenders etc. Enjoy your 30-50 years in gen pop Omar. 8)


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Aug 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> to be released when the war is done.



Some were retained in custody for a period after the end of the war for various reasons including suspicion of war crimes, intelligence value, rank or appointment and perhaps that their homes were now in the Soviet zone.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Aug 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Charge him with treason when he sets foot in Canada.


That would be up to Ontario, if he comes here to live, according to the feds quoted by Sun Media:





> Federal Justice Minister and Attorney General Rob Nicholson says the question of laying charges of treason against Omar Khadr is a provincial and police matter.
> 
> The issue was raised after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews announced last week that he had received an American request to transfer the Canadian-born convicted terrorist and murderer to Canadian custody.
> 
> "We cannot comment on specific cases," said Julie Di Mambro, spokeswoman for Nicholson. "In Canada, the decision to lay and pursue Criminal Code charges rests with police and provincial Crown attorneys." ....


Of course, there's another option mentioned a few pages back....





			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Anyone up for a private prosecution, then (more from the Criminal Code of Canada)?  Anyone?  Anyone?





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> ....  to be released when *the war is done* ....


Which also leaves the fiery question:  which war in Omar's case?  The "war on terror"?  Our involvement in AFG?


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Aug 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Charge him with treason when he sets foot in Canada.
> Shove him down a well and then pour in the concrete.


I'll help you mix it up.


----------



## BernDawg (27 Aug 2012)

And I'm fully qualified to check the mixture. (just to make sure he can't swim to the surface)


----------



## winnipegoo7 (12 Sep 2012)

Back before winter, according to the HuffPo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/12/omar-khadr-canada-return_n_1878041.html?utm_hp_ref=canada


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Sep 2012)

Pure speculation until they at least state the type of source. "Multiple sources" could mean 3 rank and file staffers with no direct knowledge on anything to do with Khadr. I just hope once he gets back here, he serves his entire sentence out and has some stiff conditions afterwards.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Sep 2012)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/13/omar-khadr-canada-guantanamo-bay-return.html said:
			
		

> Canada blames the US for delays



Take you time, I say.  Who needs to be pointing fingers blaming anyone...


----------



## GAP (13 Sep 2012)

lots and lots of time....make sure everything is right......then double check...


----------



## Stoker (29 Sep 2012)

Guess he's coming back.

From MSN

Omar Khadr, who has been in a U.S. detention camp since October 2002 following his capture by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, is on his way to Canada from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to serve the balance of his sentence.
A military plane with Khadr on board left the U.S. Naval base on Cuba's southeast shore around 4:30 a.m. ET Saturday.
Under a plea deal with prosecutors in October 2010, Khadr admitted to being responsible for the death of American Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer.

In exchange for that plea, he was promised he would be transferred to Canada to serve out the rest of his sentence.
Top news

He agreed to a sentence of eight years, with no credit for time served, with the first year spent in U.S. custody


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Sep 2012)

A bit more from the Toronto Star. The story is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.


By Michelle Shephard National Security Reporter


Guantanamo prisoner Omar Khadr, the Toronto-born detainee whose decade-long case has bitterly divided Canadians, is on his way home to serve the remainder of his sentence.

The Toronto Star has learned that the 26-year-old prisoner was flown off the U.S. Naval base on Cuba’s southeast shore and expected to arrive in Canada early Saturday morning.

Guantanamo officials notified Khadr of his transfer Wednesday, assuring him he would be repatriated by the end of the weekend, a Pentagon source said.

Just where Khadr will be incarcerated – or where the U.S. military flight will land – continues to be a closely guarded secret.

But a Canadian government source told the Star in an interview earlier this year that the Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines’ maximum-security facility, near Montreal, was a strong possibility. The prison’s Special Handling Unit, nicknamed “the SHU,” houses the majority of Canada’s prisoners convicted of terrorism offences.

More information on his whereabouts is likely to be released once he arrives on Canadian soil. The Khadr saga began more than a decade ago, in June 2002, on a battlefield in Afghanistan. The 15-year-old was shot and captured by an American Special Forces unit following a lengthy battle where U.S. Delta Force Sgt. Christopher Speer was fatally wounded.

Khadr is the second youngest son of now deceased Egyptian-born Canadian, Ahmed Said Khadr, who was close with Al Qaeda’s elite. The Khadr family’s unpopularity overshadowed much of his case.

In October 2010, Khadr pleaded guilty before a Guantanamo military tribunal to five war crimes, including “murder in the violation of war” for Speer’s death. He received an 8-year-sentence and a diplomatic agreement from Ottawa that after one more year he would be transferred to Canada in return for the plea deal.

Yet the guilty plea did little to change public opinion on the case. Some believe pleading guilty was the Canadian’s only way out of the detention facility where he had spent a third of his life. Others argue the sentence was too lenient and urged Ottawa to refuse his transfer request.

Navy Capt. John Murphy, Guantanamo’s chief prosecutor, told reporters following Khadr’s trial that he felt justice had been served. While he maintained Khadr’s juvenile status did not merit special consideration during the trial, he conceded it was important in sentencing.

“I think good prosecutors don’t always strive to get the greatest possible sentence but they balance interests,” Murphy said, adding, “I was very comfortable that the result we achieved was fair to everyone.”

But the case once again became politically charged this year - much to Washington’s consternation - as Public Safety Minister Vic Toews failed to act on Khadr’s application for transfer. Khadr’s lawyers accused the government of “abuse of process” for deliberately delaying a decision and made an application to the federal court.

Senior Obama administration officials told the Star last week that Washington’s patience with Ottawa was wearing thin and the Khadr case was jeopardizing future relations between the countries – although it is not clear if this pressured Ottawa to act.

Under Canada law, Khadr will now be eligible to apply for parole by next summer. In 2008, Khadr’s lawyers proposed a rehabilitation plan that included psychiatric treatment at Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, religious counselling by a local imam and a tiered integration program that would see Khadr closely monitored for as long as four years.

However the government has given no indication that there is any formal plan in place for Khadr during his incarceration and has refused to answer questions on the case.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2012)

And the Cosmic Butterfly Corporation's version.....


> Omar Khadr, who has been in a U.S. detention camp since October 2002 following his capture by U.S. special forces in Afghanistan, is on his way to Canada from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to serve the balance of his sentence.
> 
> A military plane with Khadr on board left the U.S. Naval base on Cuba's southeast shore around 4:30 a.m. ET Saturday, according to a military source. No information has been released on where the plane will arrive in Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## fraserdw (29 Sep 2012)

To the same tarmac that our dead returned too........shame.


----------



## Franko (29 Sep 2012)

Should have dropped the ramp for him at 2600' and booted him out the door with the load master yelling " welcome back to Canada". 

No doubt someone in Parliament will bring it up on Monday about why he isn't released yet.....


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Sep 2012)

This story which includes offical confirmation of his arrival from the National Post site is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Omar Khadr has been returned to Canada, Vic Toews confirms

Canadian Press | Sep 29, 2012 9:58 AM ET | Last Updated: Sep 29, 2012 10:28 AM ET

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews confirmed that Khadr landed this morning at the Canadian Forces Base in Trenton, Ont.

In a statement from Winnipeg, the minister says the 26-year-old Toronto-born man will be held at the Millhaven Institution, a maximum-security prison in Bath, Ont.

In October 2010, Khadr pleaded guilty to five crimes in violation of the rules of war, including the killing of U.S. army medic Sgt. Christopher Speer during a gunfight in Afghanistan.

Khadr, Canada’s only convicted war criminal, has been eligible to return to Canada for nearly a year under a special plea bargain deal.

He was 15 years old when he was captured — badly wounded and almost blind — in the rubble of a bombed out compound in Afghanistan in July 2002.

He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay a few months later and has been held there since.

He applied to transfer to Canada in April of last year to serve the rest of his sentence in a Canadian prison.

Khadr is the son of Ahmed Said Khadr, an Egyptian-born Canadian with ties to al-Qaida and was the last westerner to be held at the U.S. military prison.

Vic Toews full statement on Omar Khadr’s return:

Early this morning, convicted terrorist Omar Khadr was transferred to Canadian authorities at CFB Trenton.

This was done pursuant to a decision I made earlier this week.

He arrived at 07:40 ET aboard a U.S. government aircraft travelling from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

He has been transferred from CFB Trenton to Millhaven maximum security prison at Bath, Ontario.

Omar Khadr is a known supporter of the al-Qaeda terrorist network and a convicted terrorist.

He pleaded guilty to the murder of Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer, an American Army medic, who was mortally wounded in a firefight in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002 and died on August 6, 2002.

Omar Khadr also pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy and spying.

Omar Khadr was born in Canada and is a Canadian citizen. As a Canadian citizen, he has a right to enter Canada after the completion of his sentence.

This transfer occurs following a process initiated by the United States government and determined in accordance with Canadian law.

The remainder of his prison sentence will be administered by the Correctional Service of Canada.
I am satisfied the Correctional Service of Canada can administer Omar Khadr’s sentence in a manner which recognizes the serious nature of the crimes that he has committed and ensure the safety of Canadians is protected during incarceration.

Any decisions related to his future will be determined by the independent Parole Board of Canada in accordance with Canadian law.

Thank you.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Sep 2012)

Official announcement.

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15592

IMMEDIATE RELEASE	No. 784-12
September 29, 2012


Detainee Transfer Announced


            The Department of Defense announced today that Omar Ahmed Khadr was transferred from the detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Canada. 

           Omar Khadr pleaded guilty, pursuant to a pre-trial agreement in a military commission, to murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying. 

           Pursuant to the pre-trial agreement, the convening authority approved an eight-year sentence of confinement.  The pre-trial agreement specifies that one year of confinement must be served in the custody and control of the United States, and that Khadr could be transferred to Canada to serve the remainder of his sentence in accordance with Canadian law. 

           The United States Government has returned Khadr to Canada where he will serve out his remaining sentence.  The United States coordinated with the government of Canada regarding appropriate security and humane treatment measures.  In accordance with statutory reporting requirements, the administration informed Congress of its intent to transfer Khadr to Canada. 

           Documents related to Khadr’s military commission proceedings are available on the Office of Military Commissions  website at  http://www.mc.mil/ . 

           Today, 166 detainees remain in detention at Guantanamo Bay.


----------



## GAP (29 Sep 2012)

Sure hope he gets placed in general pop......


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2012)

.... from the Public Safety Canada web page (also attached if link doesn't work for you):


> Good morning.  I will be making a short statement.
> 
> Early this morning, convicted terrorist Omar Khadr was transferred to Canadian authorities at CFB Trenton.
> 
> ...



From the Minister's decision, apparently signed yesterday (also attached):


> .... In determining whether the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of
> 
> Canada can effectively administer Mr. Khadr's sentence the following issues cause me concern:
> 
> ...


----------



## Stoker (29 Sep 2012)

So he spends a year in prison if we're lucky and he gets out on parole where no doubt he will sue the Canadian government and get a large cash payout.  :


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Sep 2012)

To borrow from the movie Invictus.  Changes mine. 





> [first lines]
> High School Boy: [seeing passing motorcade] Who is it, sir?
> High School Coach: It's the terrorist Mandela Khadr, they let him out. Remember this day boys, this is the day our country went to the dogs.


 :boke:


----------



## winnipegoo7 (29 Sep 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> To borrow from the movie Invictus.  Changes mine.  :boke:





> [first lines]
> High School Boy: [seeing passing motorcade] Who is it, sir?
> High School Coach: It's the terrorist Mandela Khadr, they let him out. Remember this day boys, this is the day our country went to the dogs.



I don't understand, so I'm going to ask instead of assume. Was that sarcasm? Or are you upset Apartheid ended?

*Edited because I can't quote properly.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Sep 2012)

I would have thought the crossing out of Mr. Mandela's name for the P.O.S. Khadr's name, following by me puking would be clue enough.  No. No sarcasm either or I would have used that smiley.  And yes, (with this borrowed and modified movie quote) I will echo the comment that with this a-hole's homecoming, this country has gone to the dogs.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Sep 2012)

JJ, just say you are sad apartheid ended so mister oo7 can get all indignant and go on a rant.

You know, because he can't read.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> JJ, just say you are sad apartheid ended so mister oo7 can get all indignant and go on a rant.
> 
> You know, because he can't read.


Only if I get to watch his head explode.   :nod:


----------



## winnipegoo7 (29 Sep 2012)

I can read, ...just not very well.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Sep 2012)

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> I can read, ...just not very well.



Really?   :sarcasm:


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Sep 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So he spends a year in prison if we're lucky and he gets out on parole where no doubt he will sue the Canadian government and get a large cash payout.  :



Thankfully being eligible for parole does not equal being granted parole.


----------



## Takeniteasy (29 Sep 2012)

What I posted on CBC;

This guy will receive more services and support then most of our wounded soldiers from the same conflict. 

How great is Canada that this can happen, everyone should ignore this guy, he will be paraded by some as the reason why Canada has great Human Rights laws. 

I for one wont waste to much time on this and will continue to support those who actually faught for this county and did so to ensure this guy could be a superstar.... $#%^& 

My two cents..
Andrew


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Sep 2012)

He wants to sue for 10 Million. All our wounded should sue him for part of that. 

Our wounded should sue for 10 million each.

No doubt in my mind he will be trotted out like a prize pony when the apologists want to make some headlines.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Sep 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Sure hope he gets placed in general pop......



Depends in what part of Millhaven he goes to. Millhaven is divided into two separate units; there's the Millhaven Assessment Unit (MAU) where all Ontario prisoners sentenced to Federal prison are assessed as to whether they will go to a maximum, medium or minimum prison. Inmates in the MAU are supposed to be there for about 6 months (in actual cases they may be there for longer) while they are processed.

Then there is the Millhaven Security Unit (MSU) which is for the hardcases. Inmates sent there will spend several years in residence. 

So, depending on whether Khadr goes to the MAU or MSU will/may give an indication as to where he spends his sentence.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Sep 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Depends in what part of Millhaven he goes to. Millhaven is divided into two separate units; there's the Millhaven Assessment Unit (MAU) where all Ontario prisoners sentenced to Federal prison are assessed as to whether they will go to a maximum, medium or minimum prison. Inmates in the MAU are supposed to be there for about 6 months (in actual cases they may be there for longer) while they are processed.
> 
> Then there is the Millhaven Security Unit (MSU) which is for the hardcases. Inmates sent there will spend several years in residence.
> 
> So, depending on whether Khadr goes to the MAU or MSU will/may give an indication as to where he spends his sentence.



My guess he goes into segregation, hopefully 23.5 hours per day lockdown for his own safety.

I want to rage right now....and rant....the f:cling apologists for this guy make me want to puke. Where is my son? I want to rub that in their faces.....where are our sons and daughters? They are dead, killed by the likes of this f:cking terrorist. :rage:


----------



## Scott (30 Sep 2012)

Jim's post sums it up. Anything else, especially the outrage, just makes us look like neanderthals. He's back here and we have to simply deal with that.

Scott
Staff


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Oct 2012)

And our situation has not been helped by the F35 controversy and the scandal - manufactured and otherwise - over the use of aircraft and helicopters by senior members of DND and the CF as well as the cost of the flight to bring the accused killer back from Germany and the soon to be trumpeted above the fold story about the taxpayer funded flight to return Khadr to Trenton.

_Mod edit:  pulled Khadr flights posts from Defence Budget thread to improve flow there and keep Khadr info together here._


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Oct 2012)

Old Sweat: Khadr was brought to Trenton in a US plane (whether or not that makes a difference):

"...
“Your side balked [and said] no military jet with a Maple Leaf on its tail was taking Omar home,” is how one U.S. official described Canada’s position. It was an issue that – according to a Canadian official – eventually wound up on the agenda for high-level talks, and U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta agreed. In the end, it was a U.S. Air Force jet that flew Mr. Khadr to Canada early Saturday..."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/omar-khadrs-return-an-unavoidable-evil/article4578639/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Oct 2012)

Mark

There was a story this morning that he was transported on a RCAF Airbus. I will see if I can find it, or if I will have a hearty bowl of words for supper.

Edit: The story is on page A4 of today's National Post. There is a picture of an Airbus parked at Trenton that, according to the caption, brought him back to Canada.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2012)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Old Sweat: Khadr was brought to Trenton in a US plane (whether or not that makes a difference):
> 
> "...
> “Your side balked [and said] no military jet with a Maple Leaf on its tail was taking Omar home,” is how one U.S. official described Canada’s position. It was an issue that – according to a Canadian official – eventually wound up on the agenda for high-level talks, and U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta agreed. In the end, it was a U.S. Air Force jet that flew Mr. Khadr to Canada early Saturday..."
> ...





			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Mark
> 
> There was a story this morning that he was transported on a RCAF Airbus. I will see if I can find it, or if I will have a hearty bowl of words for supper.
> 
> Edit: The story is on page A4 of today's National Post. There is a picture of an Airbus parked at Trenton that, according to the caption, brought him back to Canada.


Trenton's back-yard media says this:





> .... Khadr landed at CFB Trenton military base Saturday morning after being transported from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, *aboard a U.S. government plane* and was then brought to Millhaven maximum-security prison in Bath, Ont ....



The Canadian Press also says this:


> A decade after 15-year-old Omar Khadr was pulled near death from the rubble of a bombed-out compound in Afghanistan, the Canadian citizen set foot on Canadian soil early Saturday following *an American military flight* from the notorious prison in Guantanamo Bay ....



I'd bet on the U.S. military flight....


----------



## WingsofFury (1 Oct 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Mark
> 
> There was a story this morning that he was transported on a RCAF Airbus. I will see if I can find it, or if I will have a hearty bowl of words for supper.
> 
> Edit: The story is on page A4 of today's National Post. There is a picture of an Airbus parked at Trenton that, according to the caption, brought him back to Canada.



The caption doesn't say that the Airbus brought him back...



> A Canadian Forces plane stands on the tarmac at CFB Trenton on Saturday, September 29, 2012. Omar Khadr is back in Canada after spending nearly a decade in the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has confirmed that Khadr landed this morning at 7:40 a.m. ET at the Canadian Forces Base in Trenton, Ont. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Lars Hagberg



Plus they would never deploy a tanker for such a task, at least I don't think they would given the limited refueling assets in the area.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Additionally, according to a friend who keeps a radar box tracker of flights which pass through the Kingston control zone the only plane which arrived in the time slot indicated on that date is a C-17 from the USAF.  It arrived at about 0715 and departed at 0845.  There was no Polaris on the sched at all.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2012)

An update:


> "Omar Khadr should be monitored with electronic bracelets when he’s released from prison, says a Scarborough group that him charged with treason.  Shobie Kapoor, of Canadian Patriotic Society — a grass roots citizens group — insisted Sunday that Khadr will be used by Islamic extremists as a “propaganda machine on the GTA mosque circuit.”  She said Khadr, 26, can also be used to raise funds and recruits at Toronto-area mosques when he’s freed.  “He will draw out all the jihadis,” Kapoor said. “They will all pay big money to see him.”  Her group gave Scarborough Centre MP Roxanne Jame a 100-name petition which calls for Khadr to be charged with treason. The Conservative MP is expected to pass it along this week to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. ( .... ) “The Government of Canada is requested to try Omar Khadr for treason under the laws of Canada for his actions against coalition forces in Afghanistan,” said her group’s petition ...."


_Toronto Sun_, 7 Oct 12

A reminder:  unless the federal government's position changes, it's up to the province .....


> Federal Justice Minister and Attorney General Rob Nicholson says the question of laying charges of treason against Omar Khadr is a provincial and police matter.
> 
> The issue was raised after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews announced last week that he had received an American request to transfer the Canadian-born convicted terrorist and murderer to Canadian custody.
> 
> "We cannot comment on specific cases," said Julie Di Mambro, spokeswoman for Nicholson. "In Canada, the decision to lay and pursue Criminal Code charges rests with police and provincial Crown attorneys." ....


_Toronto Sun_, 23 Apr 12

Another alternative in Ontario:  private prosecution


> Generally, allegations of criminal activity are reported to the police. After the police investigate, they may lay criminal charges. However, anyone who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a Justice of the Peace.
> 
> When the information is presented to the court by a private citizen, it is then referred to either a provincial court judge or a designated justice of the peace, who holds a special hearing.  The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether a summons or warrant should be issued to compel the person to attend court and answer to the charge.
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (1 Jan 2013)

And from the "No, not the National Enquirer" department: Khadr's sister's ex-husband and his new wife are missing and feared kidnapped in Afghanistan.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1309097--khadr-s-canadian-ex-husband-and-new-wife-missing-in-afghanistan


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Jan 2013)

Why am I not surprised at all at his connection to that family.  When I read a bit about this couple and the situation I wondered to my self who be so totally stunned as to go there on a trip like that and not expect this to happen.  Seeing as he's been dancing close to the fire already it comes as no surprise.  Kind of like Beverly Giesbrecht, totally stunned.   :not-again:


----------



## garb811 (1 Jan 2013)

Interesting, when this story first went up and I read it, no mention was made of the Khadr connection, just that they were tourists.  Wonder why the sudden transparency?


----------



## overthefence (1 Jan 2013)

The case of Khadr was one of extreme patience and tolerance on the part of authorities or persons of authorities. If prompted to cover up the issue, they can easily convolute arguments invoking the Anti-Terrorist Law and juvenile crime laws. Knowing who among the justices of the Supreme Court and the lower courts can pass judgment on a contentious issue hounding the Anti-terrorist law to their favour, CSIS or RCMP can easily land the case on a sympathizer. But no, they have to pass the case to a presiding objective judge through raffle. Hence, adverse judgments on the Arar case and the rest. These rigged raffles are common in Arab countries like Iran,Iraq when it was under Saddam Hussein and Afghanistan under the Taliban. In other words, you cannot escape injustice committed by these terrorists. CSIS and RCMP have all the last aces in their sleeves to treat this one as a decided issue through convoluted arguments in connivance with sympathizers in SC. But no, the law must take its course. Rule of law in Canada made her one of the best places to live in!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Jan 2013)

I take it that English is not your first language....


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Jan 2013)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I take it that English is not your first language....



Or common sense......


----------



## overthefence (1 Jan 2013)

When you happenED to be a naive annd innocent tourist in Iran who just went there to practice the sport of rock or mounting climbing, I am betting my last 200 thousand, you will end up in jail as a suspected 'CIA' agent just like what happened to 3 teenagers. Of course, you have to 'appear in front of television and 'admit' them to escape the death penalty.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Jan 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> This just in.
> 
> Afghanistan isn't a good place to vacation.



Whoa.  So, that really good deal I got on the Internet for a 6 night stay at Disneyland Bagram wasn't such a good idea?


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Jan 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> This just in.
> 
> Afghanistan isn't a good place to vacation.



Oh really?


----------



## Journeyman (1 Jan 2013)

overthefence said:
			
		

> convoluted arguments


The only two words that made sense in all of that.....whatever that was.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jan 2013)

We really, really need a "thread on its way down the drain" emoticon.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jan 2013)

I only unlocked it so 'Dap' could post that article.............maybe the flies will go away if I lock up the trash again for a while.
Bruce


----------



## Loachman (27 Apr 2013)

The following Globe and Mail article is posted at the request of E.R. Campbell.

I am also unlocking the thread. We'll see how it goes for a while.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/omar-khadr-to-appeal-convictions-on-murder-terrorism-spying/article11587422/#dashboard/follows/

Canadian Omar Khadr to appeal terrorism convictions 

PAUL KORING

WASHINGTON — The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Apr. 27 2013, 6:00 AM EDT

Last updated Saturday, Apr. 27 2013, 7:17 AM EDT

Omar Khadr’s plea-bargained guilty plea and conviction on murder, terrorism and spying charges will be appealed to a U.S. civilian federal court that has tossed out similar Guantanamo military tribunal convictions for two high-profile al-Qaeda defendants.

If the appeal succeeds, Mr. Khadr could be freed immediately.

Mr. Khadr, now 26, is imprisoned in a special security unit dubbed Guantanamo North at Millhaven Penitentiary near Kingston after being repatriated last September from the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba.

“Omar has given his approval to file an appeal,” Dennis Edney, his Canadian lawyer confirmed. A U.S. appellate legal team has been named.

His lawyers expect the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn Mr. Khadr’s conviction – just as it did in the cases of two of Osama bin Laden’s close personal aides, Ali Hamza Bahlul and Salim Hamdan, both also convicted at Guantanamo.

That would create consternation in Ottawa, where ministers have called Mr. Khadr a terrorist and successive Liberal and Conservative governments refused to extricate him from Guantanamo despite his Canadian citizenship and his hotly debated status as a child soldier under international law. He pleaded guilty in 2010 to multiple crimes committed in Afghanistan in 2002. As part of that plea, he confessed to throwing a grenade that killed U.S. Sergeant Christopher Speer.

The Pentagon’s Office of the Chief Defense Counsel has named an appellate team of attorneys for Mr. Khadr led by a civilian Sam Morison. Now armed with a formal go-ahead from Mr. Khadr, the team is expected to file the appeal soon.

They’re confident the military tribunal convictions will be overturned. “In our view there are serious questions about the validity of all these convictions,” Mr. Morison said, adding: “As the law now stands, I don’t see how his convictions can be affirmed.”

In rulings on Mr. Hamdan last October and again in January on Mr. al-Bahlul, the civilian appeals court overturned the terrorism convictions against the two. It concluded the military war crimes tribunal created by the George W. Bush administration after the 2001 terrorist attack that levelled New York’s twin towers and left the Pentagon ablaze had tried and convicted detainees on crimes that didn’t exist when the defendants were captured. President Barack Obama has opted to retain the military commissions and keep Guantanamo running, despite his pre-2008 election vow to close the infamous prison complex.

Mr. Khadr’s case is additionally complicated because, unlike Mr. Hamdan or Mr. al-Bahlul, he pleaded guilty at his week-long trial in October, 2010, that included a remorseful statement to Sgt. Speer’s widow. As part of that deal, Mr. Khadr waived his right to appeal.

Mr. Khadr admitted to murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism and spying.

But if the underlying acts weren’t crimes – at least not war crimes – then the waiver may also be unreliable and the appeal could still be accepted by the U.S. federal court.

"Not only weren't they war crimes at the time of their commission but, I would argue," Mr. Morison said, "that none of them are crimes today, not in international law."

The exception is spying, which was so broadly redefined in the Military Commissions Act, it bears little resemblance to espionage as defined in international law.

It could be months before the appeal is formally launched, let alone heard.

In the meantime, Mr. Khadr, who has been held prisoner since 2002, will be eligible under Canadian law for a parole hearing in July this year, when he will have served one-third of the eight-year sentence he agreed to at his 2010 trial.

Mr. Khadr, near death, was dug out of the rubble of an Afghan compound bombed by U.S. warplanes in June, 2002, where the then-15-year-old son of a major al-Qaeda figure was living with a group of militants building and planting roadside bombs.

Even if Mr. Khadr threw the grenade that killed Sgt. Speer, killing a combatant on a battlefield isn’t a war crime except in narrowly defined cases. Those include shooting a defenseless descending parachutist, a wounded soldier or one indicating surrender.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2013)

> Even if Mr. Khadr threw the grenade that killed Sgt. Speer, killing a combatant on a battlefield isn’t a war crime except in narrowly defined cases. Those include shooting a defenseless descending parachutist, a wounded soldier or one indicating surrender.





Ummmm?  Was Sgt Speer not a medic and wearing a Red Cross?  If so, then it would be a war crime.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Apr 2013)

Yes, funny how a 'Geneva Convention-protected' medic didn't make the lawyer's list of war crime human targets... :not-again:


----------



## winnipegoo7 (27 Apr 2013)

Do we really think that Delta Force medics in Afghanistan in 2001/02 were wearing red crosses? Were they even wearing uniforms?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I would be surprised to learn that they were wearing either.


----------



## Container (27 Apr 2013)

He wasnt wearing a uniform. Thats a known detail about the incident.

I couldnt find my other reference. But even the Wiki mentions it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Speer


----------



## GK .Dundas (28 Apr 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> He wasnt wearing a uniform. Thats a known detail about the incident.
> 
> I couldnt find my other reference. But even the Wiki mentions it:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Speer


 All they (Wiki) mention is that he wasn't wearing a helmet.


----------



## winnipegoo7 (28 Apr 2013)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> All they (Wiki) mention is that he wasn't wearing a helmet.



"Speer, who was not wearing a helmet at the time because the mission called for indigenous clothing, suffered a head wound from a grenade and succumbed to his injuries approximately two weeks later."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Speer


----------



## FJAG (29 Apr 2013)

I quite frankly despair when I see what is bone idle laziness on the part of the Canadian Press.

The Globe story, which in general parrots the utterings of Khadr's off again on again lawyer, utterly fails to conduct any critical analysis of the situation.

Firstly, In 2011 Khadr fired his longtime Canadian lawyers and took up new Canadian lawyers. At the time it was reported that he wrote his old lawyers that "changing counsel at this time is in my best interests." 

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2011/08/05/khadr_fires_canadian_lawyers_hires_new_ones.html

Subsequent thereto he made his plea bargain.

Some time after Khadr was repatriated he met with his old lawyers and shortly thereafter his newer Canadian team felt compelled to withdraw and the old team was back.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/01/22/toronto-khadr-new-lawyer.html

To date no one has taken up the question about what is behind this shifting representation. I won't speculate but to me this is a fertile field which a good investigative reporter should have a field day with.

The second issue is the failure of the press to make even a half hearted attempt at a fair and balanced review of the legal issues. Instead we get a headline of "Will walk free if successful". No attempt to look analyse whether the Hamdan decision which revolved around a new crime of "providing material support" or the more recent Hamza decision re the same charge and making terrorist propaganda. Note in particular that the recent Hamza appeal court decision which was vacated the conviction was in itself vacated last week by the full seven member court pending a rehearing before the full court in September.

Last time I looked someone who is not a legitimate combatant under the Laws of Armed Conflict and who throws a grenade that kills someone, regardless of whether he wore a red cross armband etc etc is guilty of a crime that existed in 2001. That alone distinguishes this case from the other two. The fact that he pled guilty to this while having highly qualified legal counsel, and further agreed to waive his right of appeal for the reduced sentence that he got, are all further relevant factors to take into consideration.

Again. In MHO a reporter who is not just a lazy mouthpiece for the defence should be taking a more critical look at the circumstances and report all of the facts and potential outcomes to this case.

But then again I live in an imaginary world where reporters are actually interested in making fair and balanced reports rather than just publishing some shallow drivel from CP.  :2c:

 :deadhorse:


----------



## cupper (29 Apr 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> But then again I live in an imaginary world where reporters are actually interested in making fair and balanced reports



What a wonderful world that must be. Sun always shining, birds always singing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 May 2013)

So long Kingston, hello Edmonton!


> Former Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr woke up in an Alberta prison Wednesday after months stuck in isolation at a penitentiary in Ontario where an inmate had threatened his life, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> Khadr was flown to the Edmonton Institution Tuesday, potentially ending a situation in which he had been deprived of prison programming that complicated efforts to seek parole, his lawyer Dennis Edney confirmed.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press via CBC.ca, 29 May 13


----------



## OldSolduer (29 May 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So long Kingston, hello Edmonton!CBC.ca, 29 May 13



This isn't going to help matters either. Any where the poor little darling goes, it won't be long til  he's in seg again.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 May 2013)

I hear the red neck province is more tolerable of terrorists


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 May 2013)

Too bad it wasn't DB he was waking up in.  That's a proper institution.


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 May 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I hear the red neck province is more tolerable of terrorists




......., nah, never mind.


----------



## GAP (2 Jul 2013)

Omar Khadr eligible for day parole
By Jessica Hume, Parliamentary Bureau 
Article Link

OTTAWA - Convicted terrorist Omar Khadr, whose actions have been called treasonous by many Canadians, is eligible for day parole on Canada Day.

Technically, Khadr could be out on the streets Monday since under Canadian law, he is now eligible for day parole having served one-third of his sentence here.

Khadr has been behind bars for his entire adult life after throwing the grenade that killed an American medic in Afghanistan in 2002, when he was 15 years old.

As of Monday, he could find himself eligible to work, volunteer, attend classes at school and even move out of a correctional facility and into a halfway house.

But just because Khadr is eligible for his first taste of freedom doesn't mean he'll get it.

It is unclear whether Khadr has even applied for day parole and as of October 2012, his lawyers had filed no such application. 
little more on link


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Jul 2013)

:boke:


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jul 2013)

As upsetting at this is to most of us on this site, I tend to agree with ERC's comments in another thread about the way ahead:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I believe - maybe just sincerely hope - that the North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian _Islamic_ region is due for a series of wars and insurrections that will put the Thirty Years War to shame in terms of both savagery and death toll and in (eventual) positive outcome. The problem, I reiterate, in not (in my opinion) Islam, itself; it is the primitive, even retarded North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian culture which still thinks that public executions like this, so called "honour killings" and female genital mutilation are cause to shout "God is great!" That culture is unacceptable in the 21st century West; either the Muslims change it or we change them ... probably into ash. In the interim we should isolate them - sell them arms, by all means, so long as they can pay cash on the barrel head, but cut off all immigration, student visas, tourism, trade and so on for a generation or two.



Our new "Frontlines" will not be sending troops to assist bringing peace to those nations, but to strictly enforce immigration and prevent the spread of those barbaric and radical views into our society.  We have gone through the Crusades and Spanish Inquisitions to see the Protestant Reformation and Age of Enlightenment.  Society and cultural evolution in the West has for the most part criminalized those barbaric practices of the past.  Those societies and cultures that have not should not be allowed to spread.

I seriously think that the release of Khadr to have any chance of wandering off and practicing the radical views that he and some of his family living in this country hold would be a grave mistake.  What weight do our Laws have reference deportation of such "nonconformists to our society" back to their "native" countries have, if they can be so easily circumvented?  Send them all back to the society and culture they truly want.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Aug 2013)

Giving it another shot via the Canadian legal system ....


> Former Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr is challenging the legality of his detention, his lawyer arguing that the Canadian government has illegally held him as an adult for crimes committed when he was 15 years old.
> 
> An application calling for his immediate release was filed in Alberta, where Khadr is being held in the maximum security Edmonton Institution.
> 
> ...


_Toronto Star_, 13 Aug 13


----------



## BernDawg (13 Aug 2013)

And, quite often young offenders that commit murder are charged and sentenced as adults.....


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Aug 2013)

> ...An 8-year sentence could be imposed on a youth for similar offences for Khadr’s conviction had they occurred in Canada, the brief states....



Hmmmm, trying to rack my brain when the last time in Canada that a young offender lobbed a grenade into a crowd, killing someone -- something tells me there is no jurisprudence for such a case.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Aug 2013)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Hmmmm, trying to rack my brain when the last time in Canada that a young offender lobbed a grenade into a crowd, killing someone -- something tells me there is no jurisprudence for such a case.


Bloody well hope so.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2013)

Does it matter what 'instrument' a Young Offender uses to kill someone?  Gun, knife, baseball bat, hammer, grenade, pipe bomb?


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Aug 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Does it matter what 'instrument' a Young Offender uses to kill someone?  Gun, knife, baseball bat, hammer, grenade, pipe bomb?



Absolutely not, and society needs to sort itself out as to whether 'poor little innocent kid' deserves significant concessions from an upholding justice point of view -- it is a double whammy, reducing culpability and then following that with reduced sentencing relative to adults.  There needs to be serious dialogue regarding the case of presumptive offences, and whether 14 years of age is an appropriate minimum for such acts.  Aggravated criminal acts should be dealt with as they are with adults.  I do not believe that is currently the case with youths prosecuted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, in particular, for presumptive offences.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Sep 2013)

Via Small Dead Animals (SDA)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/08/20130830-185528.html

*Trudeau: Omar Khadr should be treated like 'any Canadian'*

KRIS SIMS - QMI AGENCY - 31 Aug 13

HALIFAX — Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau isn't ruling out compensation for Omar Khadr for the time the convicted terrorist served in Guantanamo Bay.

"Omar Khadr needs to be treated the way we treat Canadians according to the rules that exist, according to the laws and principles that govern," said Trudeau, adding the former teen soldier should be treated like "any Canadian who as been incarcerated outside of the country.”

"We need to be fair to the way we treat Canadians, and if people don't like the way the laws are now, well then, they need to change them," Trudeau said.

Trudeau made the remarks in Halifax Friday during a Nova Scotia tour supporting provincial Liberal Leader Stephen McNeil in a yet-to-be-called election.

"Justin Trudeau is in way over his head if he thinks convicted terrorist Omar Ahmed Khadr should get special compensation,” Steven Blaney told QMI Agency.

Khadr went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban after the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

The then 15-year-old was captured in Afghanistan 2002 by U.S. soldiers after he threw a grenade and killed U.S. Army medic Christopher Speer.

Khadr, who was born in Toronto, pleaded guilty to murder and terrorism as part of a plea deal in 2010 for his war crimes.

He is now serving time in Edmonton where he is eligible for day parole.

In June 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled Khadr's rights had been violated while being held in the American detention centre, opening the door to possible legal challenges and compensation requests in Canada.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Sep 2013)

If his rights were violated as the SCC says, then it was the US that did so.

Mr Trudeau needs to look up the word perfidy. That's the real crime that Khadr should have been charged with.


----------



## FJAG (3 Sep 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If his rights were violated as the SCC says, then it was the US that did so.
> 
> Mr Trudeau needs to look up the word perfidy. That's the real crime that Khadr should have been charged with.



Hate to burst your bubble but Canada did play a minor role. At the same time I don't want anything I say to be misinterpreted as any endorsement or support of young Trudeau (who I dislike as much as I did his father).

The problem is that the SCC decision expressly dealt with actions by CSIS agents who interviewed Khadr in Gitmo and turned the results of their interview over to the US. The court expressly held that with respect to one interview (at least) the Canadian agents knew that Khadr had been sleep deprived and therefore more susceptible to questioning. In short the court held that the Gitmo procedures in place at the time denied individuals fundamental justice. This decision was based primarily on several US Supreme Court decision which held various elements of the then existing processes at Gitmo to be illegal.

The SCC decision dealt with disclosure to Khadr of their interviews with him. The court declared that s7 of the Charter applied in these circumstances and disclosure was required. Do note however para 27 of the decision which states that merely interviewing a person held in a violative process may not constitute participation in the process. It also states that turning over the fruits of that interview does not necessarily constitute a breach of the subjects Charter 7 rights.

One should not confuse this SCC decision with the establishment of a right to compensation for Khadr from Canada. It goes no further than restating the US law at the time and stating that as a result of the state of the US law and the Gitmo procedures at the time that Canada had an obligation to provide Khadr with the documentation created by its agents' involvement through interviews.

I don't doubt that Khadr's lawyers will try their hand at getting compensation based on the CSIS agents' role. I personally think they probably wouldn't win the case as Khadr circumstances do not arise from or where not materially contributed to by Canada. I expect CSIS got nothing more out of Khadr than what the US already had. How such a claim would play out however will be anyone's guess.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Sep 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> ... lawyers will try their hand at getting compensation ....


Of course; it's what they do.



> I personally think they probably wouldn't win the case....


Nonetheless, Canadian taxpayers certainly lose out by funding the money-grab.  Let the bleeding hearts who wanted him back in Canada (but not in _their_ neighbourhood) pay for the lawyers.

    :not-again:


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2013)

And a court in Edmonton says "yer staying in Club Fed" ....


> Omar Khadr is staying put in the Edmonton Max.
> 
> Court of Queen's Bench Associate Chief Justice John Rooke on Friday denied the former Guantanamo Bay detainee's application to be transferred to a provincial medium-security jail.
> 
> ...


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2013)

I keep coming back to this thread hoping to hear he"s been shanked in prison and died slowly and painfully...


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Oct 2013)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I keep coming back to this thread hoping to hear he"s been shanked in prison and died slowly and painfully...


In Canada?

Not going to happen. He'll be so far in segregation they have to pump sunshine into him. You can bet no other inmate gets near him.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Oct 2013)

Accidents can't happen?


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Oct 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Accidents can't happen?



If it were my jail....no.

I'd have him in 23.5 hrs lockdown and only 30 minutes out daily, under watch of three staff. 

I cannot say what Edmonton Max does though.....


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2013)

I guess the staff shanking him would be a bad example?


----------



## Journeyman (19 Oct 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Khadr's lawyer said he plans to appeal ....


Again, of course -- it's what they do.  

And again, you know that poor oppressed Omar isn't paying the legal bills.  Thank you taxpayers.  :


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2013)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I guess the staff shanking him would be a bad example?



We actually frown on that sort of thing....


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Oct 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We actually frown on that sort of thing....


Pfft!  Where's your sense of adventure?


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2013)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Pfft!  Where's your sense of adventure?



Oh you mischievous  fellows,

 ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Oct 2013)

Which jail do u work at Mr Seggie


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Which jail do u work at Mr Seggie



Headingley Correctional Centre.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Oct 2013)

Ok. There is a guy here getting CM Tue and seems to think he is going to Stoney Mountain without even having his trial yet.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Ok. There is a guy here getting CM Tue and seems to think he is going to Stoney Mountain without even having his trial yet.



He's a moron and should come visit here for a bit.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Oct 2013)

One of the charges is min sentence 5 yrs if convicted. I'm hoping to go to the CM


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> One of the charges is min sentence 5 yrs if convicted. I'm hoping to go to the CM



I think you should stop talking about this and possibly jeopardizing the case.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Oct 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> He's a moron and should come visit here for a bit.



After looking at the charge sheet on the CM calender (innocent until proven guilty, and all), but I think you're right.


----------



## KevinB (24 Oct 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think you should stop talking about this and possibly jeopardizing the case.


CM's are open - and the list is open on the website...

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/upcoming-courts-martial.page

Nothing wrong with anyone posting open source info...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2013)

From Sun Media. One of their reporters was heckled and later assaulted for attempting to ask some pretty straightforward questions:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/khadr-s-lawyer-attacks/2902379828001#2902379831001

The sort of people the "supporter" movement attracts is pretty ugly


----------



## KevinB (9 Dec 2013)

Its gone to some sort of North Pole thing now...


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2013)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Its gone to some sort of North Pole thing now...


I'm getting the same "Way Up North" story.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2013)

WTF? Just checked and am getting the same thing.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Dec 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> From Sun Media. One of their reporters was heckled and later assaulted for attempting to ask some pretty straightforward questions:
> 
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/khadr-s-lawyer-attacks/2902379828001#2902379831001
> 
> The sort of people the "supporter" movement attracts is pretty ugly



This should do it:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/khadr-s-lawyer-attacks/2902379828001#2902379828001

Edit: Yep, this link works. I think you may have been watching another video first, and clicked onto the Khadr vid, but it didn't change the link in the title bar.


----------



## KevinB (10 Dec 2013)

Yup

Interesting.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Dec 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> This should do it:
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/khadr-s-lawyer-attacks/2902379828001#2902379828001


Unless the reporter did something _pretty_ bad before she rolled tape (I'll bet $ she didn't), Counsel for the Defence sure looks like a dick here.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Dec 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Unless the reporter did something _pretty_ bad before she rolled tape (I'll bet $ she didn't), Counsel for the Defence sure looks like a dick here.



I'd go with Counsel being a "DICK".


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Dec 2013)

I think he's just doing his job.

Khadr's case is almost as much _political_ as it is legal, and political issues need a "narrative." In this case the reporter challenged _Team Khadr's_ approved narrative so the lawyer attacked both the message and the messenger.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think he's just doing his job.
> 
> Khadr's case is almost as much _political_ as it is legal, and political issues need a "narrative." In this case the reporter challenged _Team Khadr's_ approved narrative so the lawyer attacked both the message and the messenger.



I didn't see it that way, unless I am looking at a different video.

Just because she declared that she was from Sun Media, does not automatically give the Lawyer the right to ridicule her.

The reporter was asked if she prepared her questions prior to coming in, and she answered yes, to which the Lawyer ridiculed her for it.  Don't you think that she was being more than professional in doing her job by preparing her questions in advance?

The reporter asked a simple question, whether Khadr should not be considered a threat to Canadian society, and again was ridiculed by the Lawyer.  I didn't hear him answer the question at all.

Nor does it appear that the audience was anything but a bunch of ill informed professional protestors from the sounds of their heckling of the reporter.  

Nope.  I stick to my opinion that the Counsel was being nothing more than a "DICK".


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Dec 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The reporter was asked if she prepared her questions prior to coming in, and she answered yes, to which the Lawyer ridiculed her for it.  Don't you think that she was being more than professional in doing her job by preparing her questions in advance?


And he doesn't prep his questions in advance?



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The reporter asked a simple question, whether Khadr should not be considered a threat to Canadian society, and again was ridiculed by the Lawyer.


More specifically, she asked what Khadr may be doing to prove he's not a threat - seems like a reasonable question.  

Now, he also said he'd answer the questions - if he did, I didn't hear the responses he gave, so he either didn't include the answers, or Sun Media didn't include them.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Nor does it appear that the audience was anything but a bunch of ill informed professional protestors from the sounds of their heckling of the reporter.


 :nod:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think he's just doing his job.
> 
> Khadr's case is almost as much _political_ as it is legal, and political issues need a "narrative." In this case the reporter challenged _Team Khadr's_ approved narrative so the lawyer attacked both the message and the messenger.


Yeah, he sure helped reinforce his team's narrative alright - he sure showed Sun Media!


----------



## MARS (10 Dec 2013)

I agree that part of the defence strategy has to be to attack all comers, owing to the political aspect of this thing.  I don't know anything about this lawyer's credentials or competence but I am left thinking that his application of such a strategy appeared boorish.  Surely there are more sophisticated ways attack the message and messengers, no?  I dunno.

He reminded me of Rocco Galati, who previously defended another member of the kahdr family.  He wa prone to a certain degree of hyperbole and came across, to me at least, as a bit of a boob.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Dec 2013)

MARS said:
			
		

> I agree that part of the defence strategy has to be to attack all comers, owing to the political aspect of this thing.  I don't know anything about this lawyer's credentials or competence but I am left thinking that his application of such a strategy appeared boorish.  Surely there are more sophisticated ways attack the message and messengers, no?  I dunno.


Good point - "how" can matter as much as "what".


----------



## FJAG (11 Dec 2013)

Many years ago when I was starting in law I interviewed with nine criminal defence law firms and one civil law firm because I thought that a career in criminal law might be interesting and challenging. At the end of the process I had, rightly or wrongly concluded that criminal defence lawyers are either: 1 burned out and jaded or 2 individuals who consider themselves heroic and lone white knights defending the rights of the downtrodden accused from a rabid police state. I decided I didn't want to be either one and went into a career in civil litigation.

I've seen much worse performances from lawyers than this one although I think his approach here was unwarranted.(While my philosophy leans to conservatism, I have no liking for Sun News either. The question posed to him was a fair one.)

What really disturbed me was the heckling mob in the background. Their sniggers started even before the lawyer replied to her question. It's quite clear that there is at least a core group of idiots out there who really and truly believe this guy is just a poor little misguided kid. God help us, but I think their propaganda may be winning because if Sun News is the only media group presenting Khadr for what he truly is, then we're all doomed.

:gloomy:


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Dec 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> What really disturbed me was the heckling mob in the background. Their sniggers started even before the lawyer replied to her question. It's quite clear that there is at least a core group of idiots out there who really and truly believe this guy is just a poor little misguided kid.


Good point - I haven't been able to find any indication of what kind of gathering it was, although I suspect it was fellow travelers supporting Khadr & Co., organized perhaps by same.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Dec 2013)

This from the _Toronto Star_:


> .... on Friday, but unrelated to the lawsuit, Corrections Canada lowered Khadr’s security classification from maximum to medium security, according to Khadr’s lawyer Dennis Edney.
> 
> Edney said he expects Khadr to be moved within weeks to Bowden Institute, a medium security facility in Innisfail, Alta.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Dec 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> FJAG said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, found a poster for an event in what appears to be the right place on the right date for the story in question - see attached.

It seems defence counsel may have been "playing to the base" in the room (also explaining the jeers) instead of playing to the media audience.  Yeah, THAT worked well.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Dec 2013)

That's cool, in medium he gets to walk around more.  Prisoners with a "name" don't always have an easy go with other inmates.......if ya' know what I mean.


----------



## KevinB (14 Dec 2013)

Do we have a Dead Pool running yet?


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Dec 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> That's cool, in medium he gets to walk around more.  Prisoners with a "name" don't always have an easy go with other inmates.......if ya' know what I mean.



You mean there won't people supporting him on the inside?  >


----------



## GAP (15 Dec 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You mean there won't people supporting him on the inside?  >



They support him, by holding him up for the next guy.... ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Dec 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Prisoners with a "name" don't always have an easy go with other inmates.......if ya' know what I mean.


Very true. It depends on what they've done.

If they beat up a cop or LEO type, they're good. Have sex with kids? Walking Dead Man


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Dec 2013)

There's not a medium security pen in Ontario he can go to?  Isn't he a product of Mississauga or some other part of that festering urban toilet?  Why inflict him on Alberta?  We didn't do nothin'.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Dec 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> There's not a medium security pen in Ontario he can go to?  Isn't he a product of Mississauga or some other part of that festering urban toilet?  Why inflict him on Alberta?  We didn't do nothin'.



I don't want him anywhere near Kingston!


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Dec 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> There's not a medium security pen in Ontario he can go to?  Isn't he a product of Mississauga or some other part of that festering urban toilet?  Why inflict him on Alberta?  We didn't do nothin'.


He's been a .... guest in Alberta since May of this year  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (15 Dec 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> There's not a medium security pen in Ontario he can go to?  Isn't he a product of Mississauga or some other part of that festering urban toilet?  Why inflict him on Alberta?  We didn't do nothin'.



Why put him up in Ontario where his family would have such easy access to him?


----------



## nn1988 (15 Dec 2013)

I never really understood why charges were/are not laid against the mother, that resides in Canada. Did she not have any parental responsibilities of keeping her Canadian born-'son' away from terrorists, rather than pushing him towards terrorism?


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Dec 2013)

ERR said:
			
		

> I never really understood why charges were/are not laid against the mother, that resides in Canada. Did she not have any parental responsibilities of keeping her Canadian born-'son' away from terrorists, rather than pushing him towards terrorism?



Despite the need to otherwise, its not against the law to be a terrible parent. Now, I'm not a lawyer but is there not child endangerment laws? Wouldn't that be excellent if it blew up in Mr. Khadr's face because his parents were locked up, after he tried to use them as a scapegoat for his actions.


----------



## FJAG (15 Dec 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Despite the need to otherwise, its not against the law to be a terrible parent. Now, I'm not a lawyer but is there not child endangerment laws? Wouldn't that be excellent if it blew up in Mr. Khadr's face because his parents were locked up, after he tried to use them as a scapegoat for his actions.



I'll take a stab at this but start right off by saying this is not within my area of expertise.

There are Criminal Code offences directed vis a vis children such a s 215 - failing to provide the necessities of life; and other general offences such as assault or sexual assault but none of those are applicable here.

Generally the welfare of children comes under the various Provincial Child and Family Services laws all of which are designed to protect a child that is at risk or in need of protection ultimately by removing the child from the family when all else fails. Really too late for that here.

To the best of my knowledge there is no offence for endangering a child as you see it. There might have been for aiding or abetting terrorism but those were put into our legislation after 2001 and I would presume that whatever law was in effect at the time has been run around within Justice and, considering no charges have been laid to date, considered to be a case with either no likelihood of conviction or otherwise undesirable to prosecute.

 :cheers:


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Dec 2013)

The more you know, thanks FJAG!


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Dec 2013)

I know we're stuck with Omar due to his being born here in Canada, but there's member's of his family that weren't.  Momma for example.  Send her packing back to whence she came.  Maybe the rest would follow.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jan 2014)

The latest from CBC.ca:


> The lawyer for former Guantanamo Bay inmate Omar Khadr says his client is to be transferred to a federal medium-security prison in central Alberta.
> 
> Dennis Edney said Khadr is to be moved to the Bowden Institution near the town of Innisfail, but it is not clear when.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jan 2014)

Let's not get too excited. There are a few facts we need to consider:

[o] Mr Khard is a Canadian, born here. He's also a convicted felon serving a sentence.

[o] The Correctional Services folks are duty bound to make him ready ~ as "ready" as possible ~ to rejoin society ... hopefully as a law abiding member of our society.

[o] He will be released; he will "walk amongst us again.

 :-\


----------



## CougarKing (19 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> [o] The Correctional Services folks are duty bound to make him ready ~ as "ready" as possible ~ to rejoin society ... hopefully as a law abiding member of our society.




Somehow, that's just another big "hope", since his vitriolic, openly anti-Western sister, Zaynab Khadr will probably influence "her poor little brother" to take up arms again.  

IMO, they should just strip both her and him of citizenship, rendering them stateless, and ship them to Egypt or Palestine where they have blood relatives on both sides of their family.  

Born here or not, the Khadrs give a bad name to immigrant families who have worked hard to stay in this country and appreciate all Canada has to offer- including its values.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jan 2014)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Somehow, that's just another big "hope", since his vitriolic, openly anti-Western sister, Zaynab Khadr will probably influence "her poor little brother" to take up arms again.
> 
> IMO, they should just strip both her and him of citizenship, rendering them stateless, and ship them to Egypt or Palestine where they have blood relatives on both sides of their family.
> 
> Born here or not, the Khadrs give a bad name to immigrant families who have worked hard to stay in this country and appreciate all Canada has to offer- including its values.



Syria might be an option. 

He was born here, and I do not know if we could strip him of citizneship.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jan 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> He was born here, and I do not know if we could strip him of citizneship.


Nope - same with sister, who was born in Ottawa.

Also, we're now hearing something slightly different .....


> Lawyer Dennis Edney says his client Omar Khadr will not be transferred to a federal medium-security prison, following a report he said misquoted him.
> 
> Edney said that there is no immediate plan to move Khadr out of the maximum-security prison in Edmonton, where he is currently being held. But Edney says he's been told his client may eventually be moved to the Bowden Institution, a federal medium-security prison located in Innisfail, Alta.
> 
> He said the reason for the move is that Khadr has been reclassified as a medium-security inmate, and is no longer supposed to be held in a maximum-security prison ....


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Feb 2014)

Here's what the lad's support web page has to say ....


> Last Friday February 7, Omar Khadr moved to the medium security prison Bowden Institution and Annex. The transfer is a step closer to justice and freedom, as he can finally earn his parole that allows his reintegrating into society. Many Canadians are pleased that the new classification will allow Omar to access programs, and services. However, it doesn’t alleviate the fact that Omar’s imprisonment is an abuse of human rights and the rule of law.
> 
> Dennis Edney, Omar’s lawyer said “My position is similar to that of the Ombudsman’s office he should be classified as minimum and released.” ....


Standby for media to follow?


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Feb 2014)

Maybe his loyal but misled minions can house and feed and supervise this snake and his family.  :rage:

Why are they so concerned with his rights.....never mind.....


----------



## KevinB (11 Feb 2014)

I'm more interested in justice for Chris Speer and his family.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 May 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I'm more interested in justice for Chris Speer and his family.


Moving forward from there, we have the latest ....


> The widow of a U.S. special forces soldier killed in Afghanistan and an American soldier blinded by a grenade are suing Canada's Omar Khadr for close to $50 million, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Utah, Tabitha Speer and Sgt. Layne Morris allege Khadr, then 15, was responsible for the death of Sgt. Christopher Speer and Morris's injuries in July 2002.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (22 May 2014)

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/05/22/omar-khadr-sued-soldier-widow-50-million_n_5375344.html



> The Toronto-born Khadr, currently incarcerated in the Bowden Institution in Innisfail, Alta., has since said he only pleaded guilty to get out of Guantanamo Bay and be returned to Canada.



So?  Now he is saying he lied.  What lies will he tell in the future?


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 May 2014)

Some backstory on previous (unsuccessful) American litigation ....


> The U.S. government is fighting a judge's order to hand over a suspected terrorist financier's money to a wounded Utah soldier and an Army medic's widow.
> 
> Federal officials have frozen the funds, but the U.S. government cannot hand over any money because it is not subject to rulings in civil lawsuits, says U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor.
> 
> ...


----------



## KevinB (23 May 2014)

:facepalm:

Knowing some of the guys who where on the raid that Chris Speer died on, it appalls me that Omar is living in Canada.  I hope they sue successfully and he lives the rest of his life owing every penny he makes (I really hope someone shanks him in the prison first though).


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 May 2014)

Hell, I hope it beggars the whole damn family.


----------



## BernDawg (23 May 2014)

W really do need a like button...  :goodpost:


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jun 2014)

The threads to the Khadr family activities are quite varied.  The former husband of one of the Khadr sisters is still held hostage in Afghanistan with his American wife.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The former husband of one of the Khadr sisters is still held hostage in Afghanistan with his American wife.


Oh, you mean, in the words of one story, "the married couple with a taste for exotic travel" - hope it's been "exotic" enough for them  :facepalm:


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jun 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Oh, you mean, in the words of one story, "the married couple with a taste for exotic travel" - hope it's been "exotic" enough for them  :facepalm:



Just another couple who are two of so many candidates for the Darwin Awards.


----------



## winnipegoo7 (3 Jul 2014)

> U.S. ‘drone memo’ offers legal ammunition in Omar Khadr case





> If CIA drone pilots cannot be charged with war crimes, how could the Pentagon convict former Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr?





> It may seem like a stretch to compare 27-year-old Khadr with an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, but since both are civilians, or what’s considered “unprivileged belligerents,” there are legal similarities in the cases, Khadr’s lawyers argue.



http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/07/02/us_drone_memo_offers_legal_ammunition_in_omar_khadr_case.html



> ...the office of legal counsel in the Justice Department concluded war criminality turns on a person's actions, not on factors such as whether the person is officially part of an army or wears a uniform.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-war-crimes-charges-lack-legal-basis-u-s-memo-suggests-1.2694614


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jul 2014)

In case you're interested, here's the 102 page document (PDF) filed by a U.S. military lawyer and Khadr's lawyer this week - shorter summary attached.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jul 2014)

If he's not a war criminal, but actually a lawful combatant, is he now a prisoner of war that we can hold indefinitely until hostilities cease? Seeing as how al-queda (no spell check on phone) has declared a perpetual state of war, and he was captured fighting with them, we can make a POW camp for him to rot in (Guantanamo?) until they surrender. Be careful what you wish for, Khadr.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jul 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If he's not a war criminal, but actually a lawful combatant, is he now a prisoner of war that we can hold indefinitely until hostilities cease? Seeing as how al-queda (no spell check on phone) has declared a perpetual state of war, and he was captured fighting with them, we can make a POW camp for him to rot in (Guantanamo?) until they surrender. Be careful what you wish for, Khadr.



I suggest a location such as: Iqaluit.


----------



## cphansen (3 Jul 2014)

No way, that would be a slap in the face for rhea cure t  population of Iqaluit


----------



## KevinB (3 Jul 2014)

SherH2A said:
			
		

> No way, that would be a slap in the face for rhea cure t  population of Iqaluit



Not if they tie him to a stick outside of town...


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Jul 2014)

SherH2A said:
			
		

> No way, that would be a slap in the face for rhea cure t  population of Iqaluit



From what I gather from people who inhabit places such as this it can be as dangerous after dark as Kandahar. Maybe it's not such a bad option.....


----------



## medicineman (3 Jul 2014)

The Angels were moving in up there in 98 when I was passing through...of course, they could chain him up with the sled dogs just off the end of the airport runway - nice view of the ocean there and four legged fury creatures to cuddle up with to keep him warm.

MM


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Not if they tie him to a stick outside of town... and spill the oil from sardine cans over him, or only on parts for selective eating......  :2c: + $1.89 for the can of sardines....


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jul 2014)

GAP said:
			
		

> KevinB said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Not if they tie him to a stick outside of town... and spill the oil from sardine cans over him, or only on parts for selective eating......  :2c: + $1.89 for the can of sardines....




 >

Would that be sort of like serving up Prairie Oysters to Polar bears?


----------



## Rocky Mountains (3 Jul 2014)

When are the courts going to get tired of this guy?  I wouldn't think the courts would be concerned about spending much effort on appeals of guilty pleas.  If he wasn't guilty, then he committed perjury.  His lawyers simply appear to be playing the legal aid free spending aggravation card.  They are making big bucks repeatedly bringing a dead case back to court.  I am not sure how a simple legal opinion, not tested in court, and not identical in fact is supposed to overturn a guilty plea.  The guy only has 4 years left and isn't getting parole until he actually reconciles with the past he plead guilty to in court.  A little contrition might have got him out a year or two early.  Flogging a dead means spending every minute of his sentence in jail.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jul 2014)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> When are the courts going to get tired of this guy?


OK, against my better judgement.....  :not-again: 

.......how many Canadian court appearances do you _believe_ Omar Khadr has made?

   op:


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2014)

Omar Khadr wins appeal, will be transferred from federal prison ~ Khadr should have had youth sentence, judges rule.


----------



## Privateer (8 Jul 2014)

I think, in fairness to the Court, that it is more accurate to say that the Court determined that Khadr must serve his sentence in an adult provincial facility, not a federal facility.  The Court noted that there was no basis to challenge the validity of the sentence itself; the only question was in what facility the sentence had to be served.  It had to be in a provincial facility because, had Khadr been sentenced in Canada, he would have been sentenced as a young offender and would have served his sentence in a provincial facility.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2014)

The Feds say they'll appeal.   I hope they do and win.


----------



## Privateer (8 Jul 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The Feds say they'll appeal.   I hope they do and win.



Why?  Just curious.


----------



## Loachman (8 Jul 2014)

Privateer said:
			
		

> had Khadr been sentenced in Canada



He should never have been sentenced, period.

He should have been treated as a PW, and simply held until cessation of hostilities like any other PW.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2014)

I have only one interest in Mr Khadr's incarceration ... assuming he survives (and some members here are correctional officers and I know that they take their duty to maintain the safety etc of the people in their charge very seriously) he will, sooner or later, be released. I believe (maybe just hope) that the conditions of his custody _might_ have some impact on how he comports himself in society.

He is who is; he did what he did; there's nothing we can do about the latter but, maybe, someone can do something about the former ... change him a bit.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2014)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Why?  Just curious.


I don't believe he should be in a Provincial jail.  He should remain in the Federal system as far as I'm concerned.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> He is who is; he did what he did; there's nothing we can do about the latter but, maybe, someone can do something about the former ... change him a bit.



I also don't believe he will change, honestly change towards something more positive.  As soon as he's released, the family (and others) will get their meat hooks into him again.  Did the Jesuits not say that if they had a child until he was 12 he was theirs for life (or words to that effect)?.  That being said, ER, I do hope I'm wrong and yours is the more optimistic view and hope.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jul 2014)

He will survive to see the outside world and walk among us once more. His case is such that it is in the interests of the system to ensure he survives to gain freedom. I would not want to be the Duty Officer,  Shift leader or Correctional Officer who has him get shanked on their watch. They will be subject to scrutiny beyond imagination and possible disciplinary action or administrative measures if they were found to be at fault for it.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Jul 2014)

I agree with Mr Campbell, he will ultimately be released. I'm very interested in how liberal or restrictive his release conditions are, and what liberties and penalties they contain.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jul 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I agree with Mr Campbell, he will ultimately be released. I'm very interested in how liberal or restrictive his release conditions are, and what liberties and penalties they contain.



I am no expert, but some conditions that may be applied are abstinence from drugs/alcohol, curfew, report to parole/probation officers, etc.

I have no idea if any of these may be applied to Mr. Khadr


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jul 2014)

>abstinence from drugs/alcohol

No problem if he's an observant Muslim.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jul 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >abstinence from drugs/alcohol
> 
> No problem if he's an observant Muslim.



True.
The conditions may also include not to associate with gang members or members of radical groups.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jul 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> True.
> The conditions may also include not to associate with gang members or members of radical groups.....



Can't associate with his family then.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (9 Jul 2014)

The whole point of transfer to provincial prison is stupid.  He sued the government to get transferred to Bowden.  Then when he gets to Bowden he sues to get transferred to a provincial prison.  It is simply a game of annoyance.  The minimum security federal Bowden is a lot better prison than the craphole Fort Saskatchewan and I do hope they send him there.  Then he will sue to get to a different prison.  Maybe he will start wearing a dress and want a women's prison.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jul 2014)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The whole point of transfer to provincial prison is stupid.  He sued the government to get transferred to Bowden.  Then when he gets to Bowden he sues to get transferred to a provincial prison.  It is simply a game of annoyance.  The minimum security federal Bowden is a lot better prison than the craphole Fort Saskatchewan and I do hope they send him there.  Then he will sue to get to a different prison.  Maybe he will start wearing a dress and want a women's prison.



Transgender/sex reassignment operations are now covered.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (9 Jul 2014)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The whole point of transfer to provincial prison is stupid.  He sued the government to get transferred to Bowden.  Then when he gets to Bowden he sues to get transferred to a provincial prison.  It is simply a game of annoyance.  The minimum security federal Bowden is a lot better prison than the craphole Fort Saskatchewan and I do hope they send him there.  Then he will sue to get to a different prison.  Maybe he will start wearing a dress and want a women's prison.



And finally land him in Drumheller... oh is Drumheller just _wonderful_


----------



## expwor (9 Jul 2014)

Just clarification, Khadr is at the medium security Bowden Instititution, not the minimum security Bowden Institution (there are two)  The minimum security is an annex to the medium security institution
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/institutions/001002-4001-eng.shtml
and 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/omar-khadr-to-be-moved-to-alberta-medium-security-prison-lawyer-says-1.2501283
I don't know what provincial facilities are like in Alberta but if anything like Ontario, after Khadr steps foot inside a provincial institution, if he steps foot inside one, he'll regret his decision.  They are much more restrictive, no, well very little allowed in the way of personal effects (like clothing, TV's, stereos etc)  In federal custody inmates are allowed a lot more.
Not to mention, does a transfer to provincial custody imply a reduced sentence too.  Provincial custody is for those serving sentences two years less a day
BTW I have no personal knowledge of the Khadr file, just general information from twenty nine years in the Correctional Service of Canada

Tom


----------



## expwor (9 Jul 2014)

I haven't been a case management officer in a long time but I dug this up about inmate security classification, and how an inmate is determined to be maximum, medium or minimum security.
From this link
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/acts-and-regulations/705-7-cd-eng.shtml#s2d

Security Classification
27.An inmate will be classified as: a.maximum security where the inmate is assessed by the Service as: 
i.presenting a high probability of escape and a high risk to the safety of the public in the event of escape, or
ii.requiring a high degree of supervision and control within the penitentiary

b.medium security where the inmate is assessed by the Service as: 
i.presenting a low to moderate probability of escape and a moderate risk to the safety of the public in the event of escape, or
ii.requiring a moderate degree of supervision and control within the penitentiary

c.minimum security where the inmate is assessed by the Service as:
 i.presenting a low probability of escape and a low risk to the safety of the public in the event of escape 
ii.requiring a low degree of supervision and control within the penitentiary

Tom


----------



## Rocky Mountains (9 Jul 2014)

expwor said:
			
		

> I don't know what provincial facilities are like in Alberta but if anything like Ontario, after Khadr steps foot inside a provincial institution, if he steps foot inside one, he'll regret his decision.



I knew someone who was in both Fort Saskatchewan and Peace River provincial prisons.  We sent him money once in a while because other than the basics, nothing is free.  Because most inmates are out in a max of  6 or 8 months, apparently fewer programs are offered than with the feds.  Mind you they must have some contingency for long-term young offenders.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jul 2014)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I knew someone who was in both Fort Saskatchewan and Peace River provincial prisons.  We sent him money once in a while because other than the basics, nothing is free.  Because most inmates are out in a max of  6 or 8 months, apparently fewer programs are offered than with the feds.  Mind you they must have some contingency for long-term young offenders.



Man, you just keep stacking up the points with your personal list of undesirables and acquaintances you have on the other side of the law.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jul 2014)

expwor said:
			
		

> Just clarification, Khadr is at the medium security Bowden Instititution, not the minimum security Bowden Institution (there are I don't know what provincial facilities are like in Alberta but if anything like Ontario, after Khadr steps foot inside a provincial institution, if he steps foot inside one, he'll regret his decision.  They are much more restrictive, no, well very little allowed in the way of personal effects (like clothing, TV's, stereos etc)  In federal custody inmates are allowed a lot more.
> Not to mention, does a transfer to provincial custody imply a reduced sentence too.  Provincial custody is for those serving sentences two years less a day
> BTW I have no personal knowledge of the Khadr file, just general information from twenty nine years in the Correctional Service of Canada
> 
> Tom



Unless he gets sent to the new Southwest Detention Centre in Windsor. All mods and pods there. Direct supervision model.

http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/corr_serv/ProposedSouthWestDetentionCentre/swdc_welcome_pub.html
http://blackburnnews.com/windsor/windsor-news/2014/05/02/south-west-detention-centre-ready/


----------



## Rocky Mountains (9 Jul 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Man, you just keep stacking up the points with your personal list of undesirables and acquaintances you have on the other side of the law.



But I only knew one guy well enough to give money to.  Every week someone is being sent away by the local court and I know a fair bunch of them.


----------



## cupper (10 Jul 2014)

:facepalm:


----------



## Rocky Mountains (14 Jul 2014)

Nobody wants Khadr to move to a provincial prison because there are no programs.  His lawyer loves earning those fees.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/07/14/khadr_stays_put_as_ottawa_sends_mixed_messages_on_case.html


----------



## KevinB (16 Jul 2014)

He should still be rotting in GITMO.  Hostilities with the islamofascists will never end, there for EPW's never need to be released (except to sea in a cement filled sleeping bag - IMHO).  However he is not a EPW, as he was an illegal combatant under the Rules of Land Warfare - and therefore should have been shot out of hand, or left suffering under the sun awaiting to walk into the light, unfortunately the US SMU that he assaulted are professional to a fault and rendered him aid.

The guy and his family are raving turds, and an embarrassment to Canada.  At VERY least he should have been hung for treason, it would have been a win for CANADA and Canadians - and a cost savings to the taxpayer.


----------



## winnipegoo7 (22 Jul 2014)

Retired U.S. Sergeant First Class Layne Morris quoted in a thestar.com article, speaking about Omar Khadr.




> U.S. Sergeant First Class Layne Morris, who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight and has since retired from the military, is among those who want to see Khadr questioned on camera. *“I’d love to hear what he’s going to say and I’d love to be able to make a judgment on what I think about what he has to say,”* Morris said during an interview in Utah late last year.





> Morris said he is not surprised to hear Khadr is eligible for full parole and could be released this year.* “On some level, you have to say, OK, the kid was 15 and regardless of what he’s become he at least deserves a chance,”* Morris said. *“If Omar Khadr demonstrates by his actions that he wants to be a contributing member to western society — you know, get a job, white picket fence, all that kind of stuff — then at some point, yeah he probably does deserve a shot at that.”*




http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/07/22/khadr_access_blocked_prompting_media_court_challenge.html


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Sep 2014)

Now it wants to try for $20M... again.     

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/omar-khadr-reattempts-to-sue-canada-for-20m-1.2753689


----------



## larry Strong (3 Oct 2014)

Not sure where this will lead.

Posted in accordance with the Copy Right Act:

http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/Default_entered_against_Omar_Khadr_in_US_suit_278070181.html



> Default entered against Omar Khadr in U.S. suit
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Larry


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Oct 2014)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Not sure where this will lead.



I hope it leads to the poor house for him and his clan.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Oct 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I hope it leads to the poor house for him and his clan.



Doubtful, I am willing to bet if the plaintiffs do try to seek compensation, Khadr's sympathizers (ie alot of public unions) will rally to his cause.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Oct 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Doubtful, I am willing to bet if the plaintiffs do try to seek compensation, Khadr's sympathizers (ie alot of public unions) will rally to his cause.


I have no doubt you're correct on the outcome.  The sycophants will come out of the woodwork like zombies and the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be similar.  Mrs. Speer will continue to get the shaft from the system as she has from the beginning as it's stacked against victims and in favour of criminals like Khadr.


----------



## KevinB (5 Oct 2014)

He'll behead one of his sycophantic morons - and then after a few more, they will eventually realize he's not a good guy...


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Mar 2015)

From The Canadian Press:


> Lawyers for former Guantanamo Bay inmate Omar Khadr say he’s optimistic, but not getting his hopes up, about getting out on bail.
> 
> Following a two-day hearing, an Edmonton judge said she needs time to make a decision on the “high priority” case.
> 
> ...


----------



## eharps (26 Mar 2015)

It never ceases to amaze me how educated people will always try to find some sort of rationalization for what should be an easy decision. The fact that the Khadr case is in uproar is appalling, he made his choice when took up arms against the country he was living in and it's allies.

“Omar Ahmed Khadr pleaded guilty to heinous crimes.... We have vigorously defended against any attempt to lessen his punishment for these crimes,” says a spokesperson for the Minister of Public Safety.


----------



## FJAG (26 Mar 2015)

What bothers me most about this case is that every time his lawyer farts out another piece of nonsense, the press reports it like it's the gospel. The government also has a lawyer submitting arguments to the court yet I have yet to see any report on what the crown's arguments are. 

Long story short: the press is bone idle lazy these days. They go for the cheap anti-government viewpoint every time and have completely given up doing any legal analysis beyond going for comments from the usual anti-government hacks.

 :2c:

 :cheers:


----------



## Rocky Mountains (26 Mar 2015)

Appealing a plea bargained sentence?  He should have had to return to Gitmo to appeal.  He is simply going to screw up the prisoner exchange deal for other people.  If Canada is going to spring people the US considers dangerous criminals, nobody will be coming home.  But then what does Khadr care.  He kills people trying to save lives.  I notice that he hasn't convinced the parole board that he isn't an innocent little baby and they are usually pretty gullible.


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> ... He is simply going to screw up the prisoner exchange deal for other people.  If Canada is going to spring people the US considers dangerous criminals, nobody will be coming home.  But then what does Khadr care. ...



- Hidden agenda? Let them rot where they do the crime?


----------



## eharps (31 Mar 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Let them rot where they do the crime?



I think this is the right idea. If Khadr decided it was a good idea to play with explosives and attack allies of the country that he was born in, he should be willing to accept the consequences. As soon as you turn your back on your country, I figure all of the rights that said country supplies you with, go out the window.

Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with being able to attack a country and then expect to be able to turn around and have it protect you when it is convenient for you? How do people think this is ok?


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Apr 2015)

:boke:

Omar Khadr granted bail, but release isn't immediate.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/omar-khadr-granted-bail-but-release-isn-t-immediate-1.3046775#commentwrapper


----------



## CougarKing (24 Apr 2015)

More on the above:

The Canadian govt. should have deported this traitor- along with his vitriolic, anti-western sister Zaynab Khadr- a long time ago!!! 

Canadian Press



> *NewsAlert: Alberta judge grants Omar Khadr bail pending appeal*
> The Canadian Press
> 
> By Colin Perkel
> ...






> It also said Ross had to take into account the fact that Khadr pleaded guilty to serious offences — including murder in violation of the laws of war for the death of an American special forces soldier in Afghanistan in 2002.
> Khadr has said he only pleaded guilty to the five war crimes he was accused of committing as a 15-year-old to get out of Guantanamo Bay and be sent back to Canada.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Apr 2015)

And right behind that ....


> Government will appeal Omar #Khadr bail decision


----------



## FJAG (24 Apr 2015)

The Alberta Queen's Bench decision can be found here:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb261/2015abqb261.html

In short, the decision is predicated on the following issues:

1. Not withstanding that Khadr signed a waiver of appeal, he has filed an appeal before the US Court of Military Commission Review and that in the Alta application for bail there was unchallenged evidence filed by the defence that this appeal in the US was not barred by the waiver and in fact stood a high chance of success;

2. That the treaty between the US and Canada (nor any other legal principle) did not bar the right to be granted bail pending appeal where there is a valid appeal process in play in the sending state (i.e. the US)

3. That the crown did not challenge the defence evidence that a) the appeal in the US would not be heard until after his jail term had run its course and therefore that if and when Khadr wins his appeal the win would be nugatory, and b) that Khadr was a strong candidate for bail in that he has been cooperative, a model prisoner, has support in the community and is a low risk for public safety.

IMHO the judgement is a very well reasoned one and correctly interprets the law as it stands. 

There is a question in my mind as to why the crown did not at least try to challenge the key factual issues (including expert evidence) presented to the court by Khadr's lawyers (perhaps they evaluated those and found that they couldn't). 

The crown's position seems to be centred, almost exclusively, on the interpretation of the _International Transfer of Offenders Act _which the judge points out may bar any appeals in the receiving state (Canada) of the foreign sending state's (US) judgement but does not bar an application for bail in the receiving state (Canada) where there is a valid appeal proceeding pending in the sending state (US).

 :cheers:


----------



## Rocky Mountains (24 Apr 2015)

Appeal a plea bargained conviction and sentence??  Why would the appeal courts consider it for a second?  The majority of cases are handled without trials and everyone seems to prefer it that way.  I think that as long as Legal Aid keeps writing cheques, Khadr's lawyer will be appealing something like the transfer to Provincial Jail that they didn't want anyhow.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Apr 2015)

The nearest mosque will scoop him up and have him back in Pakistan before the month is out.  A little R&R then off to join up with ISIL.


----------



## GAP (24 Apr 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The nearest mosque will scoop him up and have him back in Pakistan before the month is out.  A little R&R then off to join up with ISIL.



If someone sees the opportunity presented, now that he is no longer in protected custody..... :camo:


----------



## a_majoor (24 Apr 2015)

In one sense, I would almost welcome this, if it means a great many people get to see the smirking face of evil up close and personal.

Of course, the very people who should be presenting the face of evil as a warning will instead by doing hand waves at almost the speed of light in order to present the "narrative", and facts be damned (yes, this is directed at the lurking journalists who read Army.ca.)

So the best COA would be to let him rot in prison for the next 40 years.

Second best, should an enemy mosque spirit him away to Pakistan (and anyone who does this or is complicit with such an act is indeed an enemy of Canada), is to ensure that he does indeed pay the full price for his acts, by catching some piece of western ordinance delivered with extreme prejudice.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Apr 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The nearest mosque will scoop him up and have him back in Pakistan before the month is out.  A little R&R then off to join up with ISIL.


Unless a Christian school'll take him (albeit reluctantly)  ;D


> A Christian university in Edmonton is offering admission to Omar Khadr, even though he is unlikely to ever set foot on its campus due to safety concerns.
> 
> Dan VanKeeken, the vice-president of King’s University, told CTV News Channel that the school would accept Khadr, 28, as a “mature student” if he is free on bail and able to come up with the tuition fee.
> 
> However, “for the safety of our students, we don’t see him coming on our campus for a long time, if ever,” VanKeeken said Friday ....


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Apr 2015)

From CBC Radio Day 6.  Audio at link.  Day 6




> Military interrogator and blinded solider react to Khadr bail decision
> 
> Almost 13 years after the firefight in Afghanistan that led to Omar Khadr's capture, an Alberta judge has granted him bail. The federal government says it will appeal the ruling. The 2002 firefight killed U.S. Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer and two Afghan soldiers, and badly wounded the 15-year-old Khadr.
> 
> ...


----------



## FJAG (25 Apr 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Appeal a plea bargained conviction and sentence??  Why would the appeal courts consider it for a second?



The following is a link to the the Court of Military Commissions Review list of cases. The one you want is titled "Omar Ahmed Khadr (13-005)". There are 92 documents in this file and there are several that will let you look at the jurisdictional issues which are being argued and discussed. Feel free to review them at your leisure.

http://www.mc.mil/Cases.aspx?caseType=cmcr

As to your question, suffice it to say that there are a number of jurisdictional arguments being brought by his lawyers and I won't waste a minute of my day analysing or interpreting the mountain of material here. 

For me the issue is that 1) Khadr's lawyers had an expert allege that Omar a) has filed before the review court, b) that this filing constitutes an appeal in the US and c) that he has a high chance of success of winning his appeal AND finally 2) the fact that the crown appearing before the Alberta judge DID NOT CHALLENGE THIS EVIDENCE. My conclusion therefore is that, notwithstanding whatever feelings that I may have about Khadr, his family, his acts or his plea, the process within the US CMCR has been evaluated by our government's lawyers and found it to be unchallengeable (or at the least, difficult to challenge). In this respect I should also point out that the US government in it's submissions before the CMCR IS arguing that the commission had jurisdiction and that Khadr's waiver is effective notwithstanding that there were a number of clear failures to comply with the procedural process respecting the filing of waivers and actions of the convening authority (a precipitating one by Khadr himself in my view)

Long story short--this case concerns the finer points of legal procedure and highly technical issues being raised within a jurisdiction that has 1.2 million lawyers who thrive on parsing the technical language of statutes and court decisions. I've long ago stopped blaming the lawyers for doing their job and turned my righteous indignation in the direction of legislators who draft horribly worded laws (especially ones which are aimed at establishing thinly veiled religious agendas to deny the rights of various marginalized individuals to participate fully within our society).

 :cheers:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Apr 2015)

Perhaps he'll do the right thing and board a plane for Turkey.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (25 Apr 2015)

So if he wins his appeal, a good result could be heading back to Gitmo for a new trial but I'm pretty sure he will suffer no downside for his change of heart.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Apr 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Perhaps he'll do the right thing and board a plain for Turkey.



I am sure he would have a whale of a time on that plain.     >


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Apr 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Perhaps he'll do the right thing and board a plane for Turkey.



Watch you talking about Willis?!   ;D

He won't go to Gitmo. He'll join ISIS and give us another bite at the apple.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Apr 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Perhaps he'll do the right thing and board a plane for Turkey.


Assuming he'd be let on the plane, right?


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Apr 2015)

I think that Mr. K. will be on a very short leash and being minded closely by his shyster to ensure his nose is extra clean and tidy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I think that Mr. K. will be on a very short leash and being minded closely *by his shyster* to ensure his nose is extra clean and tidy.


Among others, no doubt ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2015)

FJAG: thanks for these explanations; they're very helpful.

I guess that, like many others, my fond hope was the Mr Khard would rot in jail, but it seems clear that a judge has made legally sound decision and we are, after all, a nation of laws. Justice must be fair and equal for all or it's not justice at all.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2015)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Why U.S. soldier who lost his eye during firefight involving Omar Khadr thinks Canadian judge made a big mistake
> 
> Tristin Hopper | April 27, 2015 | Last Updated: Apr 27 1:42 PM ET
> More from Tristin Hopper | @TristinHopper
> ...



LINK


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I think that Mr. K. will be on a very short leash and being minded closely by his shyster to ensure his nose is extra clean and tidy.



Wait for the media feeding frenzy he will cause when he's released on bail.....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Apr 2015)

Ezra got fired so I doubt you'll hear anything.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Apr 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Wait for the media feeding frenzy he will cause when he's released on bail.....



Oh you can say that again.  It will be nauseating.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Apr 2015)

Is Rick Salutin of the Star for real?

Should Omar Khadr get the Order of Canada?

Now that is really way out there.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (29 Apr 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Ezra got fired so I doubt you'll hear anything.



Lonely for Ezra

http://www.therebel.media/


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Apr 2015)

Not particularly


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Apr 2015)

I can think of several forms of recognition due Mr Khadr. None of them involve the bestowing of a medal, decoration, or order.


----------



## KevinB (29 Apr 2015)

As I said on Facebook, I am good with him getting the Order of Canada, as long as it is delivered via JDAM to him and his crowd of parasites


----------



## medicineman (29 Apr 2015)

Only in Canada would some dolt even consider putting up this guy for the Order...just shaking my head.

MM


----------



## BurnDoctor (29 Apr 2015)

What KevinB said above; as long as those who would nominate him are at his side.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Apr 2015)

BurnDoctor said:
			
		

> What KevinB said above; as long as those who would nominate him are at his side.



Nodding in agreement here. I am tired of apologists and his excuse makers. 

Maybe I need to go on the offensive.....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Apr 2015)

If I was the victims family I'd be thrilled.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is Rick Salutin of the Star for real?
> 
> Should Omar Khadr get the Order of Canada?
> 
> Now that is really way out there.



Some of the fallout/reaction to the above post of Rick Salutin in the Star:

http://www.therebel.media/the_toronto_star_actually_thinks_terrorist_omar_khadr_should_get_the_order_of_canada


http://www.ezralevant.com/khadr_and_the_law/


----------



## TCBF (3 May 2015)

- As far as the American opinion of Mr Kadr, they shot him and then took him prisoner and patched him up. Well, if you don't want to deal with a prisoner, don't. If that is murder, then fess up and do the time. If you don't want to do the crime and do the time, then take the prisoner, but shut the feck up when it turns into a sideshow.

- There were thousands of guys in the Waffen SS and similar who did far worse than Kadr and did less jail time. Give him a chance and see how it unfolds. If he goes feral, we can blame the Yanks for not getting a B zone when they had the chance.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 May 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - There were thousands of guys in the Waffen SS and similar who did far worse than Kadr and did less jail time. Give him a chance and see how it unfolds. If he goes feral, we can blame the Yanks for not getting a B zone when they had the chance.



Well, I'm sure that will be great comfort for anyone affected by him if he goes feral.  Not that I think he will personally, he might infect others on the other hand.


----------



## TCBF (3 May 2015)

- Once on the street he will get more attention than the new princess. The only thing he can infect without visibility will be his toothbrush.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 May 2015)

The limelight won't last forever.  The vultures of the press will move on to the next big story soon enough.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 May 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The limelight won't last forever.  The vultures of the press will move on to the next big story soon enough.


If I had to be a loony, I'd guess it won't JUST be the media keeping an eye on this guy once he's out.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 May 2015)

You're right.  He will be under the microscope for perhaps the rest of his days.  I don't believe he, personally, will be causing too much mayhem (legal or otherwise).  Others will be doing enough of that, in his name of not.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 May 2015)

Who's to say he cares about visibility.


----------



## CougarKing (4 May 2015)

FJAG, how likely is this "emergency stay of bail" to be granted?

CBC



> *Omar Khadr: Government to seek emergency stay of bail
> Judge ruled April 24 that Khadr should receive bail pending his appeal on war crime convictions*
> 
> The federal government is planning to seek an emergency stay of an Alberta judge's decision to grant former
> ...


----------



## FJAG (4 May 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> FJAG, how likely is this "emergency stay of bail" to be granted?
> 
> CBC



I'm afraid I handed in my crystal ball when I retired but here goes.

I did read the judgement and in my view it was well reasoned and, to me at least, the crown appeared to be hampered by leaving Khadr's evidence for the most part unchallenged. Factually I think Khadr has a firm footing. 

I think the judge also dealt well with the legal issues: 1) whether bail was legally possible in the case of an extra territorial conviction/transfer and, 2) if so, whether Khadr was a proper candidate for bail.

Basically I'd put the case at 70/30 in Khadr's favor.

 :cheers:


----------



## Good2Golf (4 May 2015)

This situation saddens me greatly, thinking of Tabitha Speer and her young children Taryn and Tanner.   

Firm definition of 'child soldier' being 14 years of age or less notwithstanding, and Khadr having been 15 years of age at the time, those who could look at photos of Omar Khadr happily smiling and skipping through the streets of Peshawar holding several severed men's hands, or leaning over explosives helping assemble and IED, and continue to tell themselves that he was an innocent hi knew not what he was involved in, could excuse anybody of anything...


----------



## TCBF (4 May 2015)

- Had he done those things as a Young Offender in Canada, he would be long free in Canada and we would not even know his name.

- Perspective, anyone?

 8)


----------



## OldSolduer (5 May 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Had he done those things as a Young Offender in Canada, he would be long free in Canada and we would not even know his name.
> 
> - Perspective, anyone?
> 
> 8)



You are right, but if our young offender received an adult sentence, he or she can be named in the press.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 May 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Had he done those things as a Young Offender in Canada, he would be long free in Canada and we would not even know his name.
> 
> - Perspective, anyone?
> 
> 8)



I don't think it's  8), in light of what he's done.  Had he done those things here, like waging war with grenades, I would hope he wouldn't have survived the incident.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 May 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Had he done those things as a Young Offender in Canada, he would be long free in Canada and we would not even know his name.
> 
> - Perspective, anyone?
> 
> 8)



Respectfully, I hope you meant this tongue-in-cheek, as a comment on the Canadian Young Offender's Act, rather than implying that, his father's evil influence notwithstanding, Omar Khadr should not be held to account for throwing a grenade and killing a medic?

Regards,
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 May 2015)

The latest:


> .... After a morning of arguments, Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Myra Bielby said, “I’m unable to render my decision right at this moment.” That means Khadr will stay in jail until at least 9:30 a.m. Thursday ....


----------



## eharps (5 May 2015)

Every moment he is not out walking the streets is a moment of justice in my books. Even if he does get bail, this is a small victory.


----------



## Remius (5 May 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> You are right, but if our young offender received an adult sentence, he or she can be named in the press.



There are other exceptions as well that would allow him to be named.  Most likely he would have been named in this type of situation as weird as it might be if it happened in Canada.


----------



## PanaEng (5 May 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> This situation saddens me greatly, thinking of Tabitha Speer and her young children Taryn and Tanner.
> 
> Firm definition of 'child soldier' being 14 years of age or less notwithstanding, and Khadr having been 15 years of age at the time, those who could look at photos of Omar Khadr happily smiling and skipping through the streets of Peshawar holding several severed men's hands, or leaning over explosives helping assemble and IED, and continue to tell themselves that he was an innocent hi knew not what he was involved in, could excuse anybody of anything...



My heart goes out to his wife and children as well as his mates.
And I definitely don't hold any 'warm' feelings towards his family, cause, religion or any actions he has taken - in case some of you are inclined to accuse otherwise ;-)
However, (I have held this view from the beginning - and not let it taint my perspective by emotional reactions) the definition of "child soldier" is not as 'Firm' as you state:
http://www.child-soldiers.org/about_the_issues.php
and 
https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/effects-of-conflict/six-grave-violations/child-soldiers/
as well as (the all popular wiki)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children

Now, the event that brought all of this, regardless if he was a 'child soldier' or not, and correct me if I'm wrong, is not that much special as far as warfare is concerned; and, if he wasn't notorious for the fact that he had a high profile father and a loud, ungrateful-to-Canada family, he would have been detained locally and release to the Afghans and probably been out a few months afterwards (although his chances for a healthy recovery or survival would have been minimal). I could recap the sequence of events, including contradicting accounts but I'm sure you are all familiar with them; including the fact that there is no conclusive evidence that he threw the grenade other than his confession which could be said was under duress. Another interesting fact is that when he was found, he was kneeling, already wounded by grenades, facing away from the combat and was shot twice in the back. 

Now, what would you have done if several dozen al-queda/taliban had surrounded your position and threaten to overrun it? would you have surrendered or gone out fighting?
what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 May 2015)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Now, what would you have done if several dozen al-queda/taliban had surrounded your position and threaten to overrun it? would you have surrendered or gone out fighting?
> what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.



If you want to take a chance of starring in the next jihadi snuff film, feel free.  I wouldn't and would take my chances at successfully fending them off.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (5 May 2015)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> However, (I have held this view from the beginning - and not let it taint my perspective by emotional reactions) the definition of "child soldier" is not as 'Firm' as you state:
> http://www.child-soldiers.org/about_the_issues.php
> and
> https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/effects-of-conflict/six-grave-violations/child-soldiers/
> ...



Seems pretty straight forward, in general.  If you volunteer, you can be a soldier at 15.  You cannot be conscripted until 18.  Regardless, Khadr was not a soldier.  He was a terrorist.  He wore no uniform and and represented no legit government.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 May 2015)

:goodpost:   But don't let Romeo D. hear you...


----------



## eharps (6 May 2015)

It seems as though Khadr has been deemed a "low-moderate" risk. In my mind, if there is any possible threat that this upstanding citizen may do something like this AGAIN, shouldn't the fact that he has done this in the past come into play and at least deny him bail until a verdict is reached?

His crimes all being "alleged" of course.  :


_A recent psychological assessment of convicted war criminal Omar Khadr, obtained by CBC News, found the young man poses a "low-moderate" risk to commit future violent crimes — as long as he stays away from "individuals or organizations involved in extremist or terrorist activities."_

Source:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/omar-khadr-poses-low-moderate-risk-to-commit-future-crimes-psychological-report-1.3062957


----------



## PanaEng (6 May 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If you want to take a chance of starring in the next jihadi snuff film, feel free.  I wouldn't and would take my chances at successfully fending them off.


exactly


----------



## dapaterson (7 May 2015)

Omar Khadr ca be rleased on bail, judge rules.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/omar-khadr-can-be-released-on-bail-court-rules-1.2362904


----------



## eharps (7 May 2015)

From the same article:

_"I've screwed up in the past, and I'm worried it will haunt me," Khadr told the psychologist. "People will think I'm the same person as I was 12 or 13 years ago."_

Is this an admission that his confession was true and not under duress? Oh well, doesn't matter now.  :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 May 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Omar Khadr ca be rleased on bail, judge rules.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/omar-khadr-can-be-released-on-bail-court-rules-1.2362904


And here's his bail conditions, via the _Toronto Star_ ....


> Here are seven of the conditions he now faces:
> 
> Must wear an electronic monitoring device.
> Must live with his lawyer Dennis Edney and wife Patricia in Edmonton.
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 May 2015)

I hope he runs


----------



## ModlrMike (7 May 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I hope he runs



Not exactly an option for him...  >


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 May 2015)

You think a tracker will stop him. Maybe if it was implanted in his hip.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 May 2015)

Please...  he is going to be on his best behaviour for some time to come.  His minders and others will have him on a very short leash.  It's a done deal now at any rate.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 May 2015)

$10 real money he's gone in under 365 days


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 May 2015)

I wouldn't want to take your money so easily.  

He's going to stick around and sue the shit out of the GoC and laugh all the way to the bank when he gets it too.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 May 2015)

And roll that money right over to ISIL.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 May 2015)

That may well be, but not before his lawyers and supporters curb stomp all who oppose him.


----------



## BurnDoctor (7 May 2015)

I am very surprised that his location (his lawyer's terrorist safe house) is being publicly disclosed.

I'd wager that lots of our tax dollars are being spent not only on public safety type surveillance of him, i.e. by CSIS, but also, mis-spent on HVT overwatch for his safety, by EPS or RCMP.

The liberal nature of our liberal democracy will certainly be the downfall of our liberal democracy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 May 2015)

If you're interested, Khadr's first media scrum outside his lawyer's house in Edmonton (~7 minutes @ YouTube).


----------



## Rocky Mountains (8 May 2015)

I wouldn't doubt that it will cost us a fortune in security to protect him from the justice he deserves (of the unofficial variety).


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 May 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If you're interested, Khadr's first media scrum outside his lawyer's house in Edmonton (~7 minutes @ YouTube).



Interesting to see him in the flesh at last so to speak.  It takes some of the horns off the devil.  I do hope he's genuine about his stated stance on extremist beliefs and wanting to do something positive with his life.


----------



## Shrek1985 (9 May 2015)

I give it ten years tops before he's an NDP candidate.


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2015)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> I give it ten years tops before he's an NDP candidate.


Only after he moves to Alberta


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Only after he moves to Alberta


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 May 2015)

Seeing as he's living in Edmonton now, he's closer to the Legislature than a future PC candidate will be.


----------



## FJAG (10 May 2015)

"Welcome back, Omar Khadr. It matters to say it. Welcome back, Omar Khadr. You're home,"  . . . "Omar Khadr, you've got more class than the whole fucking cabinet,"  Elizabeth May, the federal Green Party leader at the Parliamentary Press Gallery's dinner on Saturday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/05/10/elizabeth-may-omar-khadr_n_7252066.html

If I was charitable, I'd say Elizabeth May is a naive pollyanna. But I'm not; she's just plain stupid.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 May 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> "Welcome back, Omar Khadr. It matters to say it. Welcome back, Omar Khadr. You're home,"  . . . "Omar Khadr, you've got more class than the whole ******* cabinet,"  Elizabeth May, the federal Green Party leader at the Parliamentary Press Gallery's dinner on Saturday.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/05/10/elizabeth-may-omar-khadr_n_7252066.html
> 
> If I was charitable, I'd say Elizabeth May is a naive pollyanna. But I'm not; she's just plain stupid.



Anyone up for a round of Kumbaya? What a naive blithering idiot.


----------



## PanaEng (10 May 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> "Welcome back, Omar Khadr. It matters to say it. Welcome back, Omar Khadr. You're home,"  . . . "Omar Khadr, you've got more class than the whole ******* cabinet,"  Elizabeth May, the federal Green Party leader at the Parliamentary Press Gallery's dinner on Saturday.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/05/10/elizabeth-may-omar-khadr_n_7252066.html
> 
> If I was charitable, I'd say Elizabeth May is a naive pollyanna. But I'm not; she's just plain stupid.


You have that right!


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 May 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Anyone up for a round of Kumbaya? What a naive blithering idiot.



'Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake'

Napoleon (and Harper)


----------



## FJAG (11 May 2015)

Elizabeth May - apologises for not being funny and for swearing - does not apologise for her position on Khadr.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elizabeth-may-very-apologetic-about-omar-khadr-remarks/article24362772/

Elizabeth May - still an idiot.

 :facepalm:


----------



## FJAG (11 May 2015)

Christie Blatchford for a balanced view:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-some-observations-on-the-release-of-omar-khadr

 :cheers:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 May 2015)

May is an amatuer and a fucktard.   :2c:

I care more about the ingredient list on my bottle of water than anything that comes out of her cakehole.

Khadr never should have seen Canada from the inside.  He is free, the freak who cut someones head off on a bus is pretty much free.  Is anyone really surprised?


----------



## OldSolduer (12 May 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> May is an amatuer and a fucktard.   :2c:
> 
> I care more about the ingredient list on my bottle of water than anything that comes out of her cakehole.
> 
> Khadr never should have seen Canada from the inside.  He is free, the freak who cut someones head off on a bus is pretty much free.  Is anyone really surprised?



And if you object to either one being free, you are immediately labeled. Pick one. Does "bigot" work for either Khadr or Vince Li?


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 May 2015)

Halifax Chronicle Herald cartoon.  I would love to see this...  http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2015-05-12-editorial-cartoon


----------



## George Wallace (12 May 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Halifax Chronicle Herald cartoon.  I would love to see this...  http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2015-05-12-editorial-cartoon



Although I agree with the sentiment that she is an oxygen thief, I think that cartoon with its inclusion of Bill C-51 sends the wrong message.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 May 2015)

Ah well, the cartoonist is IIRC opposed to the bill.  I would just like to see her in bracelets for a bit.  The image in the cartoon appealed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 May 2015)

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, suggests that Prime Minister Harper and his government (and maybe a very great many Canadians) are out of step with the law in so far as Mr Khadr is concerned:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/omar-khadr-youth-or-adult-question-decided-by-top-court/article24421830/


> Supreme Court: Omar Khadr should be treated as if he were sentenced as a juvenile
> 
> SEAN FINE AND COLIN FREEZE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## FJAG (14 May 2015)

This decision has little impact on the case. Khadr had previously been put into the Alberta Provincial adult correctional system because of the Alta Court of Appeal decision last year. This keeps him under that regime.

Alta CA decision here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2014/2014abca225/2014abca225.html

SCC decision here: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15359/index.do

I'm not sure why there was such a big push by Khadr to go into the provincial stream. Generally conditions are worse at provincial jails which are generally designed to hold people for 2 years or less and therefore there is less privacy and far fewer programs and privileges.

See for example: https://alexhundert.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/this-place-is-a-warehouse-imprisoned-people-speak-out-on-differences-between-federal-and-provincial-prisons/

I can see why the Feds wanted him in a fed penitentiary where he could be better isolated and controlled.

Anyway, I'm not losing sleep over this decision.

 :cheers:


----------



## thehare (15 May 2015)

Just thought I'd post this here as I haven't seen it posted yet:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/omar-khadr-offered-a-seat-in-mcmaster-class-by-professor-1.3072934



> Clark said offering a seat to Khadr would publicly answer the question if universities stand for peace.



I can think of a good many hardworking students who could use the offer to the university before a person who murdered a US serviceman. While I understand that Khadr went through severe hardships, they were a result of his own doing (he was 15 at the time yes, but 16 year olds can join our military. Are we going to claim they lack judgement in their actions as well?). He committed (in my opinion) treason when he attacked an ally of Canada, and while I'll withhold my opinion on whether or not his detainment in Guantanamo Bay was justified, claiming that offering him an open seat to the university is standing for peace is unfounded.

Caveats: It is noted in the article that the administration of McMaster doesn't "hold seats", but I still find it abhorrent that a professor would ask for it to happen regardless.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 May 2015)

158 of ours and four civilians lost their lives fighting people like this. Now we welcome them and practically hug them.

I feel sometimes that my son was thrown under a bus. :facepalm:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 May 2015)

To be fair, Karla Holmka got a degree out of Queens for free whilst in prison.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 May 2015)

For those who believe he should be treated by Canada as a young offender, perhaps ask yourself this: "If a 15-year old in Canada threw a grenade that killed someone, anyone, why would the Young Offenders Act not apply, and such a grievous crime not be raised to adult court?"  

Mr. Seggie, while Sgt Chris Speer was Khadr's victim, his victim could have been your son as well, and I would hope that Canadians are not allowing their own perceptions of what occurred at Guatanamo Bay to haze their appreciation of what Omar Khadr did, knowingly and while most certainly influenced by his father's conduct, he did of his own accord. The misconception of pure innocence on Khadr's part is mind boggling. 70 years earlier, young men only a couple years older than Khadr were flying bombers deep over the heart of Germany dropping bombs. The difference being less one of age, but that they were legitimate combatants accountable to act in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict.  

Regards
G2G


----------



## Loachman (15 May 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> To be fair, Karla Holmka got a degree out of Queens for free whilst in prison.



So murderesses incur about the same length of obligatory service as RMC grads.

Okay.


----------



## eharps (15 May 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> For those who believe he should be treated by Canada as a young offender, perhaps ask yourself this: "If a 15-year old in Canada through a grenade that killed someone, anyone, why would the Young Offenders Act not apply, and such a grievous crime not be raised to adult court?"
> 
> Mr. Seggie, while Sgt Chris Speer was Khadr's victim, his victim could have been your son as well, and I would hope that Canadians are not allowing their own perceptions of what occurred at Guatanamo Bay to haze their appreciation of what Omar Khadr did, knowingly and while most certainly influenced by his father's conduct, he did of his own accord. The misconception of pure innocence on Khadr's part is mind boggling. 70 years earlier, young men only a couple years older than Khadr were flying bombers deep over the heart of Germany dropping bombs. The difference bein less one of age, but that they were legitimate combatants accountable to act in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## stealthylizard (15 May 2015)

The difference is that this 15 year old threw a grenade in war.  WAR being the key component.  Whether it was as lawful or unlawful combatant, he did what any of us may have done in a firefight against an opponent.  

If he was on our side, and threw the grenade at our enemy, he would be hailed as a hero, but because he fought for the wrong side, he isn't.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2015)

Could this whole situation have been avoided if our allies to the south treated prisoners in accordance with the law of armed conflict and not gave this kid a spotlight by sending him to guantanamo bay?


----------



## FJAG (15 May 2015)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> The difference is that this 15 year old threw a grenade in war.  WAR being the key component.  Whether it was as lawful or unlawful combatant, he did what any of us may have done in a firefight against an opponent.
> 
> If he was on our side, and threw the grenade at our enemy, he would be hailed as a hero, but because he fought for the wrong side, he isn't.



Don't confuse public perception generated by special interest groups and disseminated by mass media for what the criminal law and law of armed conflict state. The fact that the public might tolerate criminal acts performed for "our side" makes them no less criminal.

I tend to have a more traditional view about incarcerating combatants in war (whether lawful or unlawful combatants) than many others these days. In my view if an individual has taken up arms to fight in a "war" then they should be held as prisoners until such time as hostilities are officially over (in addition they can concurrently be tried and punished for any war crimes committed). Obviously where the "war" is one where there is a party that is not a nation state with the ability to officially surrender and effectively stop hostilities, such prisoners will be prisoners for life -- and in my humble opinion, rightfully so. 

Holding prisoners of war is in and of itself not a punishment but is a method by which the holding power guarantees that the prisoner will not re-enter the fight and runs quite independently of any period of detention awarded as a result of a conviction for a crime or war crime.

 :cheers:


----------



## Loachman (15 May 2015)

I do not believe that he should have been tried for murder in the first place. I agree that he should have been treated as a prisoner of war.

The usual term of imprisonment for that is duration of the conflict. There is no "young offender" status.

A charge of reason, in that he took up arms against his "homeland" and our allies, would also have satisfied me.

If it had to be a murder charge, then he must be treated consistently with others tried for similar crimes.

My over-riding concern is his potential as a threat in the future, either directly or inspirationally. I just hope that he is watched very, very closely.


----------



## FJAG (15 May 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I do not believe that he should have been tried for murder in the first place. I agree that he should have been treated as a prisoner of war.
> 
> The usual term of imprisonment for that is duration of the conflict. . . .



Small technical point. If a combatant is tried and convicted of a war crime in some countries he could be executed for the crime; you can't execute an ordinary POW. Further while an ordinary POW should be repatriated at the end of hostilities a convicted war criminal sentenced for a given period can continue to be held notwithstanding the end of hostilities (eg Hess and numerous other WW2 convicted war criminals)

The two concepts work concurrently not either/or.

 :cheers:


----------



## stealthylizard (15 May 2015)

I fail to see what he did constituted a war crime.  Closest legitimate violation of the laws of armed conflict I can come up with is killing a medic. But it wasn't as if Speer was walking around with big red cross identifying that he was a medic.

He was charged with Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Attempted Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Conspiracy, Providing Material Support for Terrorism and Spying - none of which constitute a war crime under any convention.  The first two charges don't even exist in international law (from my reading, I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer).

This whole trial thing was a sham, in my opinion.  He should have been stripped of his Canadian citizenship, and never allowed to set foot back in this country, but our laws don't allow for such action.


----------



## George Wallace (15 May 2015)

As this discussion progresses, we can see a development where the perceptions of the Canadian Public using Canadian Civil Law as a reference are quite different from the perceptions of military folk who are referencing the Laws of Armed Conflict, Geneva Conventions, etc.


----------



## Ostrozac (15 May 2015)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> I fail to see what he did constituted a war crime.  Closest legitimate violation of the laws of armed conflict I can come up with is killing a medic. But it wasn't as if Speer was walking around with big red cross identifying that he was a medic.



18D Special Forces Medics have never claimed the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are fully qualified SOF Operators, and don't wear red cross armbands or carry Geneva Convention cards. Was the death of SFC Speer murder? That's what the guilty plea says. But it isn't any special kind of murder because of SFC Speer's MOS.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 May 2015)

WHILE I FIND KHADR AND ANYONE LIKE HIM TO BE A PARTICULARLY NASTY ORGANISM THAT NEEDS TO BE STEPPED ON, HARD, I really don't get how you can level a murder charge at anyone when bullets, bombs, and bullshit are flying in all directions, in relatively equal measures. Gitmo was a wrong call for him, a nice quiet barbed wire compound somewhere in Outer Buttfukistan for the duration, then decide after the fact if he needs a treason, or any other, charge laid against him. Strip him and anyone associated with him of citizenship, return them to point of origin, and make him their problem.  We have now turned him into a rock star and role model for subsequent iterations of home grown Islamist fuckheads.


----------



## FJAG (15 May 2015)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> I fail to see what he did constituted a war crime.  Closest legitimate violation of the laws of armed conflict I can come up with is killing a medic. But it wasn't as if Speer was walking around with big red cross identifying that he was a medic.
> 
> He was charged with Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Attempted Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Conspiracy, Providing Material Support for Terrorism and Spying - none of which constitute a war crime under any convention.  The first two charges don't even exist in international law (from my reading, I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer).
> 
> This whole trial thing was a sham, in my opinion.  He should have been stripped of his Canadian citizenship, and never allowed to set foot back in this country, but our laws don't allow for such action.



The issue revolves around the fact that Khadr was not a lawful combatant within the meaning of the Law of Armed Conflict. Lawful combatants are allowed to take up arms and engage in combat. Anyone who is not a lawful combatant who takes up arms and engages in combat becomes an unlawful combatant and therefore will be subject to criminal prosecution for their activities. Where an unlawful combatant has killed someone the appropriate charge is murder. Where he has taken step to kill someone but not succeeded he can be charged with attempted murder. Conspiring with others to lay mines, actively assisting other combatants, doing reconnaissance can all equate to the charges Khadr faced.

The trouble with the whole thing (and why there is now a ballooning corps of so-called experts and commentators on the area of the Law of Armed Conflict) is that things have changed dramatically since the original four Geneva Conventions. The Additional Protocols were an attempt to address developing issues but they did not cover the situations which exploded later with Islamic extremism. Those issues came to the forefront after the Additional Protocols were released. There are now legions of legal advisors, legal officers and law professors who are trying to pigeon hole old-school Law of Armed Conflict concepts around what is effectively a large-scale, international conflict situation that amalgamates religious components, pure criminal acts and political opportunism. 

At this point pretty much anyone who has an axe to grind can sit down and parse the legal concepts to say whatever he wants them to say. 

Add to that our own domestic concepts of criminal responsibility of young offenders which simply do not work in situations of insurgencies in countries where the actual line of adulthood isn't conveniently drawn at eighteen and where insurgents routinely recruit and employ children. 

Best of luck to us all. Personally I'm going out to my deck to have a drink and watch the sun set.

 :cheers:


----------



## stealthylizard (15 May 2015)

So where are the charges against PMC's, who aren't lawful combatants?  Where are the charges against CIA drone operators, who also aren't lawful combatants?  They will not face any legal action because of whose side they fight on.  We have private citizens fighting against ISIS as mercenaries.  Will Canada file charges against these individuals?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (15 May 2015)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> So where are the charges against PMC's, who aren't lawful combatants?


Many of those organizations sometimes have much more strict rules of engagement than a professional military and are paid to protect assets of their clients (facilities, information, people, equipment). Those that did act out of scope will, and have been fined by the ICC. However, because they are considered "Asset Protection"/"Security" they are exempt from many of the same rules and laws that we follow because they are not in theatre to fight the war, they're there to protect their clients' assets from the war. (catch my drift?) Therefore, they are permitted to use lethal force to protect client assets; regardless of whether they are combatants or not. PMCs are not combatants, however they're not unlawful and their operation is not illegal.



> Where are the charges against CIA drone operators, who also aren't lawful combatants?


Does that make an A-10 pilot an unlawful combatant then? They are operators, uniformed, belonging to a distinctly identifiable professional military organization with ranks and a chain of command. Distance from the battle or method of payload delivery makes no difference.



> They will not face any legal action because of whose side they fight on.  We have private citizens fighting against ISIS as mercenaries.  Will Canada file charges against these individuals?


They're not mercenaries, they're actual members of the Kurdish Peshmerga. If you notice that even on the 1 NAF news releases, they say they are a "english-speaking, unit of the Kurdish Peshmerga". Which makes them also, members of a distinctly identifiable, professional military organization and therefore lawful combatants.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 May 2015)

The Hague and Geneva Conventions (and other associated works) are written in plain comprehensible language, not impenetrable legalese.  If you want to know who is lawful and who is not, read the Conventions.  Some people have a right to use arms lawfully, and some do not.


----------



## stealthylizard (15 May 2015)

Blackwater personnel killed 17 Iraqi's and were granted immunity.

A-10 pilot - air force, uniformed military person who would be protected under the Geneva conventions if captured in war
CIA drone operators (not USAF drone operators) -  non-uniformed people who would not be protected under the Geneva conventions if captured in war.  Murder in Violation of the Law of War was rewritten to protect CIA drone operators from that crime.

Yes I realize that since they are half a world away, their capture would be nearly impossible.  But this is what separates lawful combatants, and unlawful combatants. Or rather people protected by the Geneva Conventions, and those that aren't, since unlawful combatant does not exist in the conventions.  Those conventions are what we use to separate lawful and unlawful combatants.

Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must .... wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance".  What is this "fixed distinctive marking" that the Peshmerga wear?   The Peshmerga do not have a single standard uniform.

I personally don't care one way or another.  I just think the Khadr trial and his sentencing was a farce.  Based on the same standards, the same could be expanded to anyone not in uniform, but the same standards aren't applied.  The difference being whose side you are fighting on.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (15 May 2015)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> Blackwater personnel killed 17 Iraqi's and were granted immunity.
> 
> A-10 pilot - air force, uniformed military person who would be protected under the Geneva conventions if captured in war
> CIA drone operators (not USAF drone operators) -  non-uniformed people who would not be protected under the Geneva conventions if captured in war.  Murder in Violation of the Law of War was rewritten to protect CIA drone operators from that crime.



Do you have supporting evidence to back up your claims? I haven't heard nor read anything saying the any Laws of Armed Conflict or International Conventions of War had been modified or rewritten to suit the "world police" needs of the USA.

Also, the drone strikes are carried out by the USAF, directed by the CIA Drone Program. The CIA does not have its own operators. Therefore, being legal combat.

*Edit:* Forgot to add, yes Blackwater was granted immunity by the US State Dept., but that does not protect them from prosecution from Iraqi authority or the ICC. However the evidence in that shooting is conflicting. Blackwater had evidence to say their convoy was attacked, but the Iraqi investigation said that they were unprovoked. Now, something in me says that the Iraqi investigation is likely full of crap.



> Yes I realize that since they are half a world away, their capture would be nearly impossible.  But this is what separates lawful combatants, and unlawful combatants. Or rather people protected by the Geneva Conventions, and those that aren't, since unlawful combatant does not exist in the conventions.  Those conventions are what we use to separate lawful and unlawful combatants.
> 
> Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must .... wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance".  What is this "fixed distinctive marking" that the Peshmerga wear?   The Peshmerga do not have a single standard uniform.
> 
> I personally don't care one way or another.  I just think the Khadr trial and his sentencing was a farce.  Based on the same standards, the same could be expanded to anyone not in uniform, but the same standards aren't applied.  The difference being whose side you are fighting on.



The Iraqi-Kuridstan Peshmerga wear the flag of Kurdistan. There are other legal military organizations around the world that do not have a single standard uniform.

Let us also note that the Geneva Conventions only apply to conflicts which involve 2 or more sovereign states. Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIL, etc. are not sovereign states and are not lawful combatants that are obligated to be protected by the Conventions and protocols. HOWEVER, like Canada, most professional militaries will conduct themselves and treat their enemy and civilians in theatre as if the Conventions applied anyway.

That is why taliban captured in Afghanistan were Detainees, not PWs.


----------



## stealthylizard (15 May 2015)

The Pentagon delayed issuing a 281-page manual laying out commission rules until the eve of the hearing. The reason, officials say, is that government lawyers had been scrambling to rewrite a section about murder because it has implications for the C.I.A. drone program. - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/world/asia/28drones.html?_r=0

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. - Article 5, Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Whether or not they are protected persons under the Geneva Conventions, we are still bound by them, even though the enemy isn't.  They are law.  We don't get to pick and choose which laws to follow.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 May 2015)

*<fact check>*


			
				RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> *Edit:* Forgot to add, yes Blackwater was granted immunity by the US State Dept., but that does not protect them from prosecution from Iraqi authority or the ICC. However the evidence in that shooting is conflicting. Blackwater had evidence to say their convoy was attacked, but the Iraqi investigation said that they were unprovoked. Now, something in me says that the Iraqi investigation is likely full of crap.





			
				stealthylizard said:
			
		

> Blackwater personnel killed 17 Iraqi's and were granted immunity.


At one point, maybe, but not as of a month ago ....


> One former employee of the private Blackwater Worldwide security company was sentenced Monday to life in prison and three others to 30 years each behind bars for their roles in a 2007 mass shooting in Baghdad that left 17 people dead.
> 
> A federal jury convicted the four in October after a lengthy trial that saw some 30 witnesses travel from Iraq to testify against the security contractors. Prosecutors accused the men of illegally unleashed “powerful sniper fire, machine guns and grenade launchers on innocent men, women and children.”
> 
> ...


The man who got life is asking for a new trial.
*</fact check>*


----------



## FJAG (16 May 2015)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must .... wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance".  What is this "fixed distinctive marking" that the Peshmerga wear?   The Peshmerga do not have a single standard uniform.



You've left out several key elements covered in GCIII but more importantly there have been significant changes since GCIII. Read the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (AP) for more up to date information.

I think you'd be better off to think of a lawful combatant under Art 43 of AP1 as being any individual who is a member of a contracting state or at least a party to the conflict that is subject to international law who has been authorised by the state to conduct hostilities, is subject to a chain of command reporting to the state and which exercises effective control over the individual, who belongs to an organization of a military character, and which organization respects the laws of armed conflict. It's no longer a regular army concept but a controlled, armed organization responsible to and controlled by its government.

Remember too that GCIII dealt with the issue of post WWII and addressed the issues that arose there. AP1 (and 2) was issued in 1977 and dealt with issues of guerilla warfare and national liberation movements that had flourished in the 1950's to 70's. The GWT and its methodologies of conflict are a phenomenon that have arisen after AP1. 

Given time perhaps a new protocol will be developed for fighting large scale religious based terrorism.

 :cheers:


----------



## stealthylizard (16 May 2015)

Yes, i left off the rest of the elements of GCIII, because it wasn't relative to the discussion, since all the elements have to be met, not one or two of them to be protected under the conventions.  I admit my lack of knowledge on what changed with the additional protocols.

Sorry, I had to not kept up to date on the Blackwater employees.  I should have searched more indepth.

My knowledge is dated, so I retract my arguments.

My opinion has not changed on the validity of the Khadr trial, so I will leave it at agreeing to disagree.


----------



## GAP (18 May 2015)

Omar Khadr: Widow, ex-soldier move for final judgment on $134M lawsuit
Court documents filed in Utah same day that Alberta judge released Khadr on bail
By Colin Perkel, The Canadian Press Posted: May 17, 2015 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/omar-khadr-widow-ex-soldier-move-for-final-judgment-on-134m-lawsuit-1.3077608

The widow of an American special forces soldier killed in Afghanistan and another soldier partially blinded by a hand grenade have moved to finalize a default civil-suit judgment against former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr.

Court documents filed in Utah April 24, the day an Alberta court granted Khadr bail, show the plaintiffs are asking the courts to award them triple damages for a total of US$134.1 million.

Lawyer Laura Tanner, who represents Tabitha Speer and Layne Morris, said in an interview she would be filing a final order for the federal judge to review and sign within days.

Once that happens -—final word on damages would be up to the judge — the families can move to have the judgment enforced against Khadr, 28, in a Canadian court.

"It's actually something that gets done pretty regularly," Tanner said from Salt Lake City.

In their lawsuit, Speer and Layne Morris allege Khadr, then 15, was responsible for the death of Sgt. Christopher Speer and Morris's injuries in Afghanistan in July 2002. The suit leans heavily on Khadr's guilty plea to five war crimes before a widely maligned U.S. military commission in Guantanamo Bay in October 2010.

The plea deal included a stipulation of facts in which Khadr admitted among other things to murdering Speer in violation of the rule of war and four other war crimes — although he has since said he only pleaded guilty to get out of American clutches.

Khadr's lawyer, Nate Whitling, called it "unfortunate" his client was unable to retain a lawyer in Utah to defend against a suit he said has no legal merit.
more on link


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 May 2015)

Don't read the comments to the article if you want to keep your sanity. All anti Harper, libtard, Khadr\ terrorist apologists.

In other words, typical Communist Broadcasting Corporation fare. All emotion and no substance.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 May 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Don't read the comments to the article if you want to keep your sanity.


A good mental health maintenance tip with many online stories, in fact.


----------



## BurnDoctor (26 May 2015)

Meanwhile, the National Post is reporting today that the restaurant "Joe Beef" in Montreal has been named one of the world's top 100 restaurants. No word specifically though on whether this was "top 100 overall", or just "top 100 amongst restaurants that offer free meals to terrorists/convicted murderers".

I can guarantee that I will never be hungry enough to eat there.


----------



## Loachman (26 May 2015)

This is from the 25 May Kingston Whig-Standard. Today's excellent rebuttal, by the husband of our Chief Clerk, is not yet online. I'll check tomorrow.

http://www.thewhig.com/2015/05/24/letters-to-the-editor-may-25-2

U.S. mishandled Khadr case

Re: "Khadr needs to answer tough questions," May 12.

Candice Malcolm's comment column gets the law wrong and the facts wrong. First, despite Malcolm's insistence he's 28 now, Omar Khadr's present age had no bearing on his status as a child soldier 13 years ago. He was recruited to a non-state force at 15 and according to international law accepted both by the U.S. and Canada was a child soldier to be rehabilitated, not incarcerated and tortured--as he was.

Since May 25, 2000, states (like the U.S. and Canada) may accept volunteers who are 16, but non-state armed forces may not recruit or use under-18s. That's the law. Moreover, had an 18-year-old Khadr been recruited and then captured, according to the Geneva Convention he had to be treated as a prisoner of war and not, as Malcolm pretends, "a plain-clothed unlawful combatant, also known as a terrorist." George Bush's inventive staff came up with the category "unlawful combatant," but irregular forces, militias, and guerrillas if captured must be treated as prisoners of war if they fulfill four conditions (carrying weapons openly, wearing a distinctive badge or mark visible at a distance, having a chain of command, and conducting their operations according to the laws of war). Again, that's the law. The U.S. has not shown the force Khadr belonged to failed to meet those conditions. The court that tried Khadr followed neither the rules of criminal law of the U.S. nor its uniform code of military justice; that court admitted evidence and confessions obtained by torture or under duress and ignored the international convention on child soldiers and the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war. The prosecution claimed, falsely, that Khadr was the only survivor when Sgt. Christopher Speer died. An orderly miss-delivered papers intended for the prosecution and the defense learned that two insurgents were alive at that moment--and that the U.S. had known this all along. Malcolm questions Khadr calling him "Omar" like an elementary school teacher questioning a pupil, but claims we should take off the "kid gloves" in dealing with him--a boy and a man who suffered waterboarding and other tortures from 15 years old on. Kid gloves?! The U.S. is stalling Khadr's appeal hoping that his sentence will run out before the appeal court has to rule on his travesty of a trial. The matter then becomes moot and the U.S. avoids some well-deserved blame.

George Clark, Kingston


----------



## George Wallace (26 May 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> This is from the 25 May Kingston Whig-Standard. Today's excellent rebuttal, by the husband of our Chief Clerk, is not yet online. I'll check tomorrow.
> 
> http://www.thewhig.com/2015/05/24/letters-to-the-editor-may-25-2



Please do.


I really love the 'apologists' who say there is no proof that Khadr did what he is accused of, yet will boldly accuse the Americans of torturing him with no proof.  If they consider being incarcerated in a military prison torture, then I guess all our thousands of prisoners in various Federal, Provincial and Municipal prisons and jails are also being tortured.


----------



## dapaterson (26 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Please do.
> 
> 
> I really love the 'apologists' who say there is no proof that Khadr did what he is accused of, yet will boldly accuse the Americans of torturing him with no proof.  If they consider being incarcerated in a military prison torture, then I guess all our thousands of prisoners in various Federal, Provincial and Municipal prisons and jails are also being tortured.



There is documented evidence of the US employing techniques that US courts have held are torture.  The President of the US has admitted in public that "we tortured some folks".

The US are torturers: Not apologia; a statement of fact.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (26 May 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There is documented evidence of the US employing techniques that US courts have held are torture.  The President of the US has admitted in public that "we tortured some folks".
> 
> The US are torturers: Not apologia; a statement of fact.



The discussion here is about Omar Khadr not the overall American program.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The discussion here is about Omar Khadr not the overall American program.


If the lack of torture is mentioned in the thread ....


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I really love the 'apologists' who say there is no proof that Khadr did what he is accused of, yet will boldly accuse the Americans of torturing him with no proof.


.... a refutation of said statement seems like fair game.  While some say he was tortured, others either feel he wasn't, or that it didn't affect his confession/plea.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 May 2015)

Interesting take on a "documentary" recently done on Khadr here, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ....


> *Adrian MacNair: The whitewashing of Omar Khadr*
> _Adrian MacNair, Special to National Post | May 29, 2015 2:39 PM ET_
> 
> After watching CBC’s new interview and documentary of Omar Khadr I was left feeling sorry for the 28-year-old who was recently freed on bail after 13 years in custody.
> ...


----------



## FJAG (12 Jun 2015)

New decision in US may support Khadr's appeal decision.

See HuffPost article hear:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/12/us-court-ruling-adds-am_n_7571352.html?utm_hp_ref=canada

For the US Court of Appeals decision in Hamza Al-Bahlul see here:

http://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/al-bahlul.pdf

Note that this was a split decision. The dissent starts at page 49.

 :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Jul 2015)

I am sure that heads are exploding in some camps today.  Shared under the fair dealings provision of the copyright act.



> Omar Khadr lawsuit: U.S. soldiers awarded $134M US by default
> 
> The Associated Press Posted: Jul 02, 2015 12:13 PM MT| Last Updated: Jul 02, 2015 1:03 PM MT
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jul 2015)

Hopefully, if his ambulance chasing legal team is able to squeeze any kind of settlement from the Canadian Government, the monies will immediately pass to the US settlement. Straight from our coffers to the US plaintiffs. He shouldn't even get a sniff.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Hopefully, if his ambulance chasing legal team is able to squeeze any kind of settlement from the Canadian Government, the monies will immediately pass to the US settlement. Straight from our coffers to the US plaintiffs. He shouldn't even get a sniff.



I'd love to see that headline. And watch the apologists heads explode.  >


----------



## my72jeep (5 Sep 2015)

Have you seen the latest? This POS thinks his bail is to tough.
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.


Omar Khadr wants bail eased so he can fly to Toronto to visit family More at link.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/omar-khadr-wants-bail-eased-fly-toronto-visit-190206973.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Sep 2015)

One decision down, one more still to come ....


> A judge has agreed to ease some bail conditions for former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr and is considering other changes that would increase his freedoms.
> 
> Khadr's curfew is being eased so he can attend night classes at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology in Edmonton, where he plans to study to become an emergency medical technician.
> 
> ...


----------



## Teager (11 Sep 2015)

How ironic wants to study to be an EMT after killing a medic.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Sep 2015)

Teager said:
			
		

> How ironic wants to study to be an EMT after killing a medic.



How's he going to gain registration and/or employment when he won't pass the criminal records check?


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> How's he going to gain registration and/or employment when he won't pass the criminal records check?



A Pardon?    :dunno:


----------



## Teager (11 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> How's he going to gain registration and/or employment when he won't pass the criminal records check?



Funny my wife said the same thing. I'm not sure but wasn't his lawyer pursuing his sentence as a youth sentence? If you have a youth sentence is it easier to get a pardon?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Sep 2015)

Wants to fly to Toronto? Yeah- I can just see Westjet or Air Canada lining up to sell him a ticket.

I would also hate to be the guy in line behind him at security. That will be one really, really long screening....


----------



## cupper (12 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> How's he going to gain registration and/or employment when he won't pass the criminal records check?



Why not put him to work as an advisor to CSIS and the RCMP, mine the knowledge he has on radicalization and cultural attitudes.

If he's serious about making a new life, a new start, that would be a good place to start.


----------



## my72jeep (12 Sep 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Why not put him to work as an advisor to CSIS and the RCMP, mine the knowledge he has on radicalization and cultural attitudes.
> 
> If he's serious about making a new life, a new start, that would be a good place to start.



How about a start in some other country? Maybe one that is less tolerant of treason.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Sep 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Why not put him to work as an advisor to CSIS and the RCMP, mine the knowledge he has on radicalization and cultural attitudes.
> 
> If he's serious about making a new life, a new start, that would be a good place to start.



Good luck getting a security clearance to work at CSIS. He wouldn't even get in the door.

Who's to say he really wants to help Canada fight radicalization and terrorism? His whole defense so far was "I was naive and young", not a hint of remorse.


----------



## cupper (13 Sep 2015)

Never said that they had to let him in the door. 

And never said he had to be a willing participant.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (13 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Good luck getting a security clearance to work at CSIS. He wouldn't even get in the door.
> 
> Who's to say he really wants to help Canada fight radicalization and terrorism? His whole defense so far was "I was naive and young", not a hint of remorse.



He can be hired as an Informant. Not so different from being a confidential Informant with a police service. He would get paid as he provides credible information. Should the info not check out or he fails to cooperate, he doesn't get jack.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2015)

The latest:  No more ankle bracelet or monitoring software, and he can visit the family in Toronto (and speak other than English), but will he be able to fly there?


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Sep 2015)

So, back to his becoming an EMT. How much do you want to bet he launches a court challenge saying that his inability to gain provincial registration is unfair?


----------



## Rocky Mountains (18 Sep 2015)

How are they going to keep the passengers on the aircraft when they start noticing they are sharing space with an international terrorist and murderer?  How can he even be allowed to fly as no-fly lists were designed precisely for people like him?


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Sep 2015)

What happens when the AC or Westjet aircraft overflies US airspace on the way to Toronto?


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Sep 2015)

There will be some interesting discussions going on at the various airline headquarters, no doubt.  

I do believe, however, that he will be on his best behavior while off his leash so that he doesn't get put back on it.  And there will be plenty of eyes on as well.  I'll wager any aircraft he'll be on will be squeaky clean and safe as houses as it will have extra scrutiny.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What happens when the AC or Westjet aircraft overflies US airspace on the way to Toronto?


Don't know how the airways bend, but there could be a bit of that involved near the Soo.


			
				Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> How can he even be allowed to fly as no-fly lists were designed precisely for people like him?


I guess we'll soon find out if he's a member of the No Fly Club ....


			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So, back to his becoming an EMT. How much do you want to bet he launches a court challenge saying that his inability to gain provincial registration is unfair?


Is a criminal record check part of EMT registration in Alberta?  And how "deep"/far back? Dumb question, maybe, but I only ask because I don't know  :dunno:


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Is a criminal record check part of EMT registration in Alberta?  And how "deep"/far back? Dumb question, maybe, but I only ask because I don't know  :dunno:



Yes, one needs a criminal records check and a vulnerable sector screening done.


----------



## Teager (19 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> How are they going to keep the passengers on the aircraft when they start noticing they are sharing space with an international terrorist and murderer?  How can he even be allowed to fly as no-fly lists were designed precisely for people like him?



According to this MacLeans article no one knows if he's on a no fly list due to its secrecy until he buys a ticket and is either turned away or let on.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/is-omar-khadr-allowed-to-board-an-airplane/


----------



## KevinB (19 Sep 2015)

I'll laugh when someone has a PTSD moment in the seat beside him on the A/C and shanks him repeatedly...


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Yes, one needs a criminal records check and a vulnerable sector screening done.


Thx for that - then he will, indeed, have some 'splainin' to do ....


----------



## CougarKing (19 Sep 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I'll laugh when someone has a PTSD moment in the seat beside him on the A/C and shanks him repeatedly...



I'll laugh if that happens to his vitriolic sister Zaynab Khadr, who has been known to demonize American/western soldiers in interviews with media here.  

And speaking of which, how do we know his sister and other family members aren't hatching a plan to whisk him away from Canada to continue his radical intentions?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Sep 2015)

Who cares if they wish him away. Better chance he gets what's coming to him.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Sep 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> I'll laugh if that happens to his vitriolic sister Zaynab Khadr, who has been known to demonize American/western soldiers in interviews with media here.
> 
> And speaking of which, how do we know his sister and other family members aren't hatching a plan to whisk him away from Canada to continue his radical intentions?



Let's put it this way, if his family were to "whisk him away from Canada to continue his radical intentions", then the proof would be slapped squarely in the faces of all who fought for his pardon, and leave him and all those family members on so many lists for arrest, or worse, that they would not survive a decade anywhere in the world.


----------



## Teager (1 Oct 2015)

Guess he's not on a no fly list. He's now in Toronto.



> Khadr's arrival Thursday dispels questions as to whether he is able to board a commercial aircraft in Canada because of the potential he was on a no-fly-list.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/omar-khadr-flies-to-toronto-to-visit-grandparents-1.3252301


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2015)

Teager said:
			
		

> Guess he's not on a no fly list ....


THAT'S interesting - wonder who in government did what to make THAT happen?


----------



## eharps (2 Oct 2015)

Teager said:
			
		

> _Two weeks ago, Justice June Ross of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled Khadr could remove an electronic monitoring bracelet, be allowed to visit his grandparents in Toronto, and speak to them in a language other than English.
> 
> The judge also ordered the removal of monitoring software on the laptop computer Khadr uses for school. The software was interfering with the operations of the computer, and Alberta Justice had been unable to help resolve the problems.
> _
> ...


----------



## Robert0288 (5 Oct 2015)

> The judge also ordered the removal of monitoring software on the laptop computer Khadr uses for school. The software was interfering with the operations of the computer, and Alberta Justice had been unable to help resolve the problems.



Really?  I'm pretty sure people have been using various forms of keyloggers without individuals noticing for years.


----------



## eharps (6 Oct 2015)

Seems a bit lenient to me....  :


----------



## KevinB (16 Oct 2015)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> Really?  I'm pretty sure people have been using various forms of keyloggers without individuals noticing for years.



He's got a cell phone - one doesn't need something like an ankle bracelet anyway.  Hopefully this way he doesn't think he's being monitored  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Oct 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> I'll laugh if that happens to his vitriolic sister Zaynab Khadr, who has been known to demonize American/western soldiers in interviews with media here.
> 
> And speaking of which, how do we know his sister and other family members aren't hatching a plan to whisk him away from Canada to continue his radical intentions?



Like I said, when my son can fly home to see me I'll thinks it's ok for our poor downtrodden misguided to fly to visit his granny and grandpa. 

This is not OK. This ignores the rights of the many over the rights of a killer. Typically Canadian. I love this country but sometimes I wonder.


----------



## eharps (19 Oct 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> This is not OK. This ignores the rights of the many over the rights of a killer.



I completely agree with you. I, sadly, think however that we are in the minority of this kind of thought in Canada.


----------



## BurnDoctor (19 Oct 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Like I said, when my son can fly home to see me I'll thinks it's ok for our poor downtrodden misguided to fly to visit his granny and grandpa.
> 
> This is not OK. This ignores the rights of the many over the rights of a killer. Typically Canadian. I love this country but sometimes I wonder.



I am so sorry for your loss, Hamish - a loss that as Canadians we all share to a certain degree - and I completely agree with you: it AIN'T OK. He's not just a killer, he's a traitor, and our descent into softness on this and similar issues, will, I fear, ultimately be our undoing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2015)

BurnDoctor said:
			
		

> I am so sorry for your loss, Hamish - a loss that as Canadians we all share to a certain degree - and I completely agree with you: it AIN'T OK. He's not just a killer, he's a traitor, and our descent into softness on this and similar issues, will, I fear, ultimately be our undoing.





............and it's about to get so soft, it'll be complete mush at the end of the next four years.


----------



## Loachman (20 Oct 2015)

There are Senate seats available...


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There are Senate seats available...



And I'm certain I qualify for one.


----------



## Loachman (20 Oct 2015)

Not in the Dauphin's mind.

Khadr, on the other hand...


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Nov 2015)

Hmmmm ....


> The federal Liberals are reconsidering the government’s position on Omar Khadr’s case and may not fight the ruling that let the former Guantanamo Bay prisoner go free earlier this year, according to his lawyer.
> 
> Khadr spent 13 years behind bars for his role in a firefight in Afghanistan that left a U.S. soldier dead, but has been free since May, when an Alberta judge granted him bail.
> 
> ...


Let's hope they're also reconsidering this one, too ....


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2016)

An interesting development in the activities of members of the Khadr family:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Omar Khadr's sister Zaynab detained in Turkey
> Zaynab Khadr was under investigation by the RCMP for terror-related offences before she moved to Turkey in 2012.
> By: Michelle Shephard National Security Reporter, Peter Edwards Star Reporter, Published on Sun Jan 31 2016
> 
> ...




More on LINK.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Feb 2016)

Maybe it's the winter blahs, but I can't get excited anymore with anything attached to the Khadr name.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Feb 2016)

Unless it was a pitbull.............


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Feb 2016)

I wouldn't let my pitbull chew on anything that nasty.


----------



## CougarKing (18 Feb 2016)

Typical of this current Liberal govt., many of whose members see him as the victim "child soldier".

Canadian Press



> *Ottawa drops appeal of Omar Khadr's bail*
> Colin Perkel, The Canadian Press
> February 18, 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Feb 2016)

So here's my question: when he applies for membership in whatever province as an EMT, and is refused because of his conviction, does he take them to court? I bet he does.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Feb 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So here's my question: when he applies for membership in whatever province as an EMT, and is refused because of his conviction, does he take them to court? I bet he does.


Unless he can get a pardon - from who?


----------



## cavalryman (18 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Unless he can get a pardon - from who?


President Obama?  I'm sure there will be some pardons available in the weeks before he leaves the WH  ;D


----------



## Loachman (18 Feb 2016)

Hilary will likely be looking for one soon, but probably too late for Obama. Perhaps that nice Mr Trump will be kind.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Feb 2016)

He'll probably stay away from EMT...people throw grenades at those guys...some are even killed...


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> ... probably too late for Obama ...


NEVER too late (examples here and here), no matter where you are on the political spectrum!  >


----------



## Loachman (26 Feb 2016)

Her trial and endless appeals will drag on well past Obama's term. Maybe midway through President Trump's second term.


----------



## KevinB (25 Mar 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Her trial and endless appeals will drag on well past Obama's term. Maybe midway through President Trump's second term.



Well pretty sure the next AG is looking forward to this one.
cough Chris Christie cough 
 Rumor is he dropped out of the race in a deal with Trump to crucify her...


----------



## CougarKing (20 Apr 2016)

An arranged marriage with a bride originally from Pakistan/Egypt who may re-radicalize him the same way another bride radicalized the San Bernardino terrorist?

Yahoo News/Reuters



> *Ex-Guantanamo inmate Khadr engaged to be married*
> 
> By Kelsey Cheng
> April 19, 2016
> ...


----------



## ueo (21 Apr 2016)

And Carla Homolka is back in Canada.


----------



## Loachman (21 Apr 2016)

Oops. Good link: http://www.therebel.media/terrorist_omar_khadr_s_fianc_is_a_radical_muslim?utm_campaign=khadr_fiance&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Apr 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/b/message?sMid=0&fid=Inbox&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&filterBy=&ac=.R52lPWqMOpxv8grz5Vrq9TgRRM-&.rand=1983381251&midIndex=0&mid=2_0_0_1_1_AIlK2kIAAmojVxlbwgWtIAJzU3I&fromId=



You're trying to link to your personal yahoo email inbox, won't work for us to see. You can take screenshots using print screen and use a free image hosting site if you can't find it elsewhere.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Apr 2016)

ueo said:
			
		

> And Carla Homolka is back in Canada.



Hate to break the news to you, ueo, but she never left


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Apr 2016)

There were reports she did in fact leave. 
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=2a8b0256-b090-40e7-be6e-aa839bccb0fb&k=2217
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/karla-homolka-lives-in-guadeloupe-and-has-three-children-new-book-reveals/article4360378/


----------



## CougarKing (25 May 2016)

Who has been paying for Khadr's lawyers all these years? His family? Canadian taxpayers' money?  

Canadian Press



> *Court won't toss Khadr appeal judge but says serious issues at stake*
> [Colin Pekel, The Canadian Press]
> 
> May 24, 2016
> ...


----------



## winnipegoo7 (4 Jul 2017)

Guess who will be 10 million richer?


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Jul 2017)

My tax dollars being misspent.   :boke:



> New
> Ottawa reportedly set to pay Omar Khadr $10.5M
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/khadr-settlement-1.4189146
> 
> ...


_- mod edit to add link to story -_


----------



## Lightguns (4 Jul 2017)

Lest ye break faith.........


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jul 2017)

Why did I know this was going to happen.  :facepalm:


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Jul 2017)

And his enemies, including Cdn soldiers, have to fight VAC for a heck of a lot less. He was guilty so why?


----------



## FJAG (4 Jul 2017)

No. Words.

 :facepalm:


----------



## gryphonv (4 Jul 2017)

I hope the Widow of  SFC Christopher James Speer can get some of the money. Will be interesting if the American Government backs her up to pursue it. (The family already won a lawsuit in the US.)

Edit: Because grammar


----------



## FJAG (4 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I hope the Widow SFC Christopher James Speer can some of the money. Will be interesting if the American Government backs her up to pursue it. (The family already won a lawsuit in the US.)



Interesting.

The Ontario Court of Appeal just upheld the right of parties that had judgments in the US against Iran for terrorism to the tune of $1.7 billion, to pursue that judgment in Canada.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ontario-court-upholds-1-7b-judgment-against-iran-for-sponsoring-terrorism-against-americans/wcm/9b8e075d-cbd0-4166-9080-16d9030547bf

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/us-judge-awards-134-million-in-suit-against-omar-khadr/article25242269/

The Khadr case should be easier as it doesn't involve a foreign state as a party and ought to work on ordinary reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgment principles. Regretfully, my guess is that the award will be structured by the Feds and Khadr's lawyers in such a way that it can't be garnished or seized.

I'd love to see Speers' family succeed here.

 :cheers:


----------



## gryphonv (4 Jul 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> The Ontario Court of Appeal just upheld the right of parties that had judgments in the US against Iran for terrorism to the tune of $1.7 billion, to pursue that judgment in Canada.
> 
> ...



It will be interesting to see how this plays out, though somehow I think Speer's Family won't see a dime from Khadr.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Jul 2017)

Evil usually triumphs and decent people like the Speer family get screwed.  I would love to see this money be distributed to the Speers, especially as a taxpayer who will be helping to shell out the dough.  Makes me sick to think about it.


----------



## BurnDoctor (4 Jul 2017)

Omar Khadr: Eff that guy. That is all.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jul 2017)

How insulting to Americans to make this announcement on the 4th of July.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jul 2017)

https://twitter.com/larrymillermp/status/882302916413059072


----------



## Lex Justitia (4 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My tax dollars being misspent.   :boke:
> _- mod edit to add link to story -_




And it was somewhat avoidable. Of course, I have the luxury of speaking in hindsight, but the Martin and Harper governments should have had diplomatic/consular staff provide information to Khadr on legal representation; and the intelligence community, despite the risks, should have stayed out of it.

I'm not saying he didn't receive consular assistance, but Canada's involvement should have went no further than that.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jul 2017)

Lex Justitia said:
			
		

> And it was somewhat avoidable. Of course, I have the luxury of speaking in hindsight, but the Martin and Harper governments should have had diplomatic/consular staff provide information to Khadr on legal representation; and the intelligence community, despite the risks, should have stayed out of it.
> 
> I'm not saying he didn't receive consular assistance, but Canada's involvement should have went no further than that.



I will add to your less than accurate view, by pointing out that we have had the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act since 2012, which could give the Speer family, and other claimants, all of this money and more, should this in fact happen.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Jul 2017)

:rofl:
Wait for the prime minister and this guys selfie.


----------



## Lex Justitia (5 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> https://twitter.com/larrymillermp/status/882302916413059072




Did Mr Miller really call Khadr a "self-admitted murderer" after all of the legal determinations that his confession was procured under duress? Mr Miller seems to have ignored and taken for granted Canada's most basic protections, such as to be free from coerced confessions. It's not "plain and simple."

I hope Mr Miller doesn't think confessions procured through nefarious investigative practices, such as those used in the United States beginning around the 1930s through the early 1960s, are appropriate. Unfortunate for Mr Miller's analysis, sleep deprivation and protracted interrogation are coercive. I don't think he would appreciate being subjected to sleep deprivation while under protracted interrogation if he were accused of campaign finance offenses or fraud. 

 I'd write to Miller reminding him that confessions extracted by coercion do not make for "self-admitted" criminals. Can you imagine if it became acceptable to return to the 1940s  United States—to use stomach pumping (Rochin v. Carlifornia (1952)); deprivation of sleep, water, and food (Watts v. Indiana (1949)); continuous beating, whipping and burning (Ward v. Texas(1942)); protracted interrogation (Chambers v. Florida (1940)), beating, hanging, whipping (Brown v. Mississippi (1936)), to extract confessions. No, Mr Miller, Khadr is not a "self-admitted murderer;" and until he confesses while free of duress, nobody who has respect for our basic legal rights should believe that he is.


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Jul 2017)

At least 5 different court rulings (3 of the them from the Supreme Court of Canada) determined that Canada was complicit in the violation of Omar Khadr's human rights including those protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Several legal experts have given the opinion that a real court would have thrown out the circumstantial and conflicting evidence against him, and his forced confession.  He was tortured.  He was illegally placed in a federal penitentiary on return to Canada.  You don't have to like him, but there's no doubt that we've done wrong.

I saw a great quote on Twitter today.  Either the law applies to all or it doesn't apply at all.


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How insulting to Americans to make this announcement on the 4th of July.



No such thing was done.


----------



## Lex Justitia (5 Jul 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> The Ontario Court of Appeal just upheld the right of parties that had judgments in the US against Iran for terrorism to the tune of $1.7 billion, to pursue that judgment in Canada.
> 
> ...




I don't think comity is going to fall in their favor here. A Canadian court cannot be expected to recognize a foreign judgment that is at odds with a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. Doing so, arguably, could amount to res judicata (rehashing/disputing facts that have already been judicially determined) and could undermine the doctrine of binding precedent.

Further, the foreign award is predicated on material facts that were, later, disputed in Canada; the material facts post-Canadian proceedings don't support the basis for that award.

I sympathize with the Speers family, but they knew (or their attorney should have honestly advised them) that Khadr's conviction was unsafe and susceptible to rectification. If, regrettably, justice for their loss fell out of their reach, it was only because government conduct on both sides of the border failed them.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> At least 5 different court rulings (3 of the them from the Supreme Court of Canada) determined that Canada was complicit in the violation of Omar Khadr's human rights including those protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Several legal experts have given the opinion that a real court would have thrown out the circumstantial and conflicting evidence against him, and his forced confession.  He was tortured.  He was illegally placed in a federal penitentiary on return to Canada.  You don't have to like him, but there's no doubt that we've done wrong.
> 
> I saw a great quote on Twitter today.  Either the law applies to all or it doesn't apply at all.



The adversarial legal system that we have is based on the fact that you have at least two parties arguing at least two different positions. On average, lawyers are wrong half of the time so do not put too much credence on the fact that "several legal experts have said ..." I tend to wait until the Supreme Court rules before I get fairly confident that the last word has been spoken.

On this issue the Supreme Court has ruled https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7842/index.do?r=AAAAAQAFa2hhZHIB to the extent that Canada violated Khadr's rights by having CSIS and DFAIT agents interview him in Guantanamo and turn their work product over to the US; in having another DFAIT officer interview him again knowing full well that he had been subject to sleep deprivation techniques and that because of this the Cdn government had the obligation to release to Khadr transcripts of his interrogations and subsequently the court issued a declaration that Khadr's rights were violated and that it was up to the government to decide how to remedy the injustice.

A key part of the decision is that the US is principally responsible for Khadr's deprivation of rights and that Canada played a contributory role.

I won't comment on the Canadian Armed Forces Joint Doctrine Note (JDN) 2017-01 on Child Soldiers, because quite frankly I haven't seen it and it came after the fact anyway. But we clearly had a youth criminal justice regime which Canadian officials could and should have borrowed from to better understand how to deal with Khadr legally. I don't doubt that we had intelligence issues to address but someone at CSIS or DFAIT should have keyed on the fact that this was a youth and thus needed special handling, terrorist or not.

All that said, the SCC has put an obligation on the government to deal with Khadr. This they have done by repatriation and now have to deal with the issue of do they have a duty to apologize and pay cash. My gut tells me yes to both. The wording of the apology should be measured and in my view the payment for the "deprivation" of rights for which Canada is responsible should also be measured and proportional. Honestly, $10.5 million is well beyond what I consider appropriate and quite frankly is significantly more than I believe a Canadian court would award if the matter had gone to trial.

I presume in reaching this settlement the government put Khadr on a par with Omar Arar however Arar was cleared of any terrorist ties, didn't murder or injure anyone and a number of Canadian security officials played a role that firstly put Arar in harms way and secondly kept him there for longer than necessary. The two cases differ widely on the facts. :2c:

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (5 Jul 2017)

Lex Justitia said:
			
		

> I don't think comity is going to fall in their favor here. A Canadian court cannot be expected to recognize a foreign judgment that is at odds with a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. Doing so, arguably, could amount to res judicata (rehashing/disputing facts that have already been judicially determined) and could undermine the doctrine of binding precedent.
> 
> Further, the foreign award is predicated on material facts that were, later, disputed in Canada; the material facts post-Canadian proceedings don't support the basis for that award.
> 
> I sympathize with the Speers family, but they knew (or their attorney should have honestly advised them) that Khadr's conviction was unsafe and susceptible to rectification. If, regrettably, justice for their loss fell out of their reach, it was only because of government conduct on both sides of the border failed them.



No Canadian court has ruled on the issue of whether or not Khadr murdered anyone. There is no issue estoppel here. The Utah judgment stands and is capable of being reciprocally enforced.
http://www.citynews.ca/2015/07/02/us-judge-awards-134m-in-lawsuit-against-omar-khadr/r

The fact is that Khadr did signed a confession. In my view his recanting at this point should be treated with suspicion.

I do agree that the plaintiffs will have issues.

 :cheers:


----------



## devil39 (5 Jul 2017)

Child soldier.  Not charged under Geneva Conventions.  Confession attained under torture.  

I was a career Infantry Officer and  I cannot in good conscience see Khadr not compensated.  

Our wounded veterans (I'm not one) should have better access to this kind of compensation too.  These arguments are almost mutually exclusive of each other.


----------



## Lex Justitia (5 Jul 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> No Canadian court has ruled on the issue of whether or not Khadr murdered anyone. There is no issue estoppel here. The Utah judgment stands and is capable of being reciprocally enforced.
> http://www.citynews.ca/2015/07/02/us-judge-awards-134m-in-lawsuit-against-omar-khadr/r
> 
> The fact is that Khadr did signed a confession. In my view his recanting at this point should be treated with suspicion.
> ...




Does it not matter that the Utah award is predicated on a signed confession that was coerced? It was not predicated on anything independent of that signed confession. I am very doubtful the Supreme Court of Canada, should the foreign judgment recognition come up for appeal, will give recognition to a factual holding that is at odds with its own judgment.

Comity won't vitiate the holding that was made here, in 2010. I think the SCC will rule as much when (if at all) the time comes.

I also think that Speers' attorney(s) were forum shopping. (In their defense, maybe a U.S. federal court is best suited to apply the Alien Tort Statute). I don't know if the diversity jurisdiction or choice of forum/choice of law issues were brought up.

It seems unusual to me that a federal court in Utah even exercised jurisdiction because 1. the tort allegedly occurred in Afghanistan; 2. I'm assuming one of the claimants was resident in Utah at the time of the cause of action; and 3. the defendant was a citizen of and domiciled (although in confinement) in Canada, and had no connections to the United States at the time of the cause of action. That's three possible fora (though Afghanistan is pretty much a non-forum because of its substandard legal system--I think all parties would agree that it would not be a convenient forum). Pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute in the US, from my understanding of recent cases involving it, at bare minimum, a foreign defendant (i.e. one who is domiciled in another country) must be physically situated in the United States at the time the cause of action is filed in the proper forum. Khadr was not situated in the United States when the cause was tendered in Utah. I suppose I'll have to refer to the court's judgment there to see how it determined that it could exercise jurisdiction.

Another issue is that Khadr did not have representation. It was an ex parte proceeding before a court that, arguably, didn't have jurisdiction. While it's understandable for courts to proceed ex parte when foreign countries are named as defendants; Khadr had legal representation in Canada at the time and he could have arranged counterparts in the US to appear on his behalf. I think, without a doubt, these are issues that will be raised in the foreign judgement recognition proceeding in Ontario.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2017)

The Khadr family has long been known to harbour the ideals and philosophies of terrorist organizations and suspected of having maintained links with some of them.  What are the consequences of this 10M landing up being funnelled into those very hands that we have been fighting?  What links does he still maintain with his family?  Is it with 100% certainty that a worse case scenario will not take place?


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester

What is your opinion then, of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2012, and the Rights of the victims to collect from "known" and "convicted" terrorists?


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> Did Mr Miller really call Khadr a "self-admitted murderer" after all of the legal determinations that his confession was procured under duress? Mr Miller seems to have ignored and taken for granted Canada's most basic protections, such as to be free from coerced confessions. It's not "plain and simple."
> 
> I hope Mr Miller doesn't think confessions procured through nefarious investigative practices, such as those used in the United States beginning around the 1930s through the early 1960s, are appropriate. Unfortunate for Mr Miller's analysis, sleep deprivation and protracted interrogation are coercive. I don't think he would appreciate being subjected to sleep deprivation while under protracted interrogation if he were accused of campaign finance offenses or fraud.
> 
> I'd write to Miller reminding him that confessions extracted by coercion do not make for "self-admitted" criminals. Can you imagine if it became acceptable to return to the 1940s  United States—to use stomach pumping (Rochin v. Carlifornia (1952)); deprivation of sleep, water, and food (Watts v. Indiana (1949)); continuous beating, whipping and burning (Ward v. Texas(1942)); protracted interrogation (Chambers v. Florida (1940)), beating, hanging, whipping (Brown v. Mississippi (1936)), to extract confessions. No, Mr Miller, Khadr is not a "self-admitted murderer;" and until he confesses while free of duress, nobody who has respect for our basic legal rights should believe that he is.



I'm afraid if you're looking for support for the drum you're banging here about this POS Khadr, you're going to be leaving home empty handed from me and I suspect many other members here.  I don't give a fuck how long he spent visiting Cuba or how many stars were missing from his resort accommodation.  I have no sympathy for him, or the plight he found himself in as he was there in AFG to conduct combat operations against western troops.  Lastly, if you are dismayed by my lack of boo hoo about poor, dear Omar, TFB.  I'm holding back from saying what I would really like to say about this subject.


----------



## Lightguns (5 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm afraid if you're looking for support for the drum you're banging here about this POS Khadr, you're going to be leaving home empty handed from me and I suspect many other members here.  I don't give a frig how long he spent visiting Cuba or how many stars were missing from his resort accommodation.  I have no sympathy for him, or the plight he found himself in as he was there in AFG to conduct combat operations against western troops.  Lastly, if you are dismayed by my lack of boo hoo about poor, dear Omar, TFB.  I'm holding back from saying what I would really like to say about this subject.



Concur, we need a swear on swear off command, this is the time when the gloves should come off.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jul 2017)

So Canada is apologizing and will pay Khadr 10.5 m Canadian. Guess what the next step is for the widow of the soldier he killed ? Going to court to get some restitution.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/widow-goes-after-money-canada-will-give-ex-gitmo-prisoner-1.476659#.WVzfn8htm70


TORONTO — The lawyer for the widow of an American soldier killed in Afghanistan said Tuesday they have filed an application so that any money paid by the Canadian government to a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner convicted of killing him will go toward the widow and another U.S. soldier injured.

Lawyer Don Winder made the comments as a decision by the Canadian government to apologize and give millions of dollars to Omar Khadr came under mounting criticism.

An official familiar with the deal said Tuesday that Khadr will receive 10.5 million Canadian dollars (US$8 million). The official was not authorized to discuss the deal publicly before the announcement and spoke on condition of anonymity. The government and Khadr's lawyers negotiated the deal last month.


----------



## Remius (5 Jul 2017)

Well he stated that he wanted to show Canadians that he was a good person.

A good start would be to just hand over the money and avoid a lengthy ordeal for the families involved.

The problem I suspect as well is that his lawyers will be wanting a significant cut of that money.


----------



## Lightguns (5 Jul 2017)

This is going to be a political football in US/Canada relations.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jul 2017)

WRT the 10 million compensation I would withhold even a single dollar due to the families apparent ties with at least one terrorist organization and the likelihood hood of even $1, let alone 10 million, being used against Canadian military personal and civilians in the future.


----------



## gryphonv (5 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I hate that I agree with you but yes when all is said and told it looks like Canada crap the  bed with this.
> 
> WRT the 10 million compensation I would withhold even a single dollar due to the families apparent proven ties with at least one terrorist organization and the likelihood hood of even $1, let alone 10 million, being used against Canadian military personal and civilians in the future.



Fixed that.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Jul 2017)

10 mil will buy a whole lot of fertilizer and diesel, and maybe even a big truck to put it in. That way they won't have to go through the scratch and dent inspection at the rental agency. Stay tuned.


----------



## gryphonv (5 Jul 2017)

I just hope this is brought up when the House sits in September. Part of me thinks this was leaked now so the controversy will lose steam over Summer Recess.


----------



## CEDE NULLIS (5 Jul 2017)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Child soldier.  Not charged under Geneva Conventions.  Confession attained under torture.
> 
> I was a career Infantry Officer and  I cannot in good conscience see Khadr not compensated.



Agreed. It was disgraceful that we allowed a Canadian child to be tortured into confession and detained at Guantanamo. Opinions obviously vary widely but I stand by this 100%. Glad to see we are trying to make this right in some way.


----------



## Remius (5 Jul 2017)

CEDE NULLIS said:
			
		

> Agreed. It was disgraceful that we allowed a Canadian child to be tortured into confession and detained at Guantanamo. Opinions obviously vary widely but I stand by this 100%. Glad to see we are trying to make this right in some way.



I honestly don't think we are making things right.  Rather we are paying the price.


----------



## gryphonv (5 Jul 2017)

CEDE NULLIS said:
			
		

> Agreed. It was disgraceful that we allowed a Canadian child to be tortured into confession and detained at Guantanamo. Opinions obviously vary widely but I stand by this 100%. Glad to see we are trying to make this right in some way.



We made it right by bringing him back to Canada, which I still never agreed with, but it was his right as a Citizen. 

We locked him up because it was the only way the Americans would release custody of him to us. We had an agreement, after he was here we gave him parole after enough time. 

That is where making it right was acceptable. 

Giving him a cash payout, a handshake and an apology, is nothing less than a slap in the face of every soldier who went to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.  It's a big middle finger to the Speer's Family, and it won't be good for any relations with countries that were part of the ISAF coalition. 

This is a fail on so many levels it's mind boggling. Approval ratings for the Liberals will take a nose dive after this, and rightfully so.


----------



## Remius (5 Jul 2017)

As much as it would be nice to blame the Liberals for this, the Supreme Court actually ruled on this. Plenty of blame to go around between multiple governments Liberal and Conservative.


----------



## Lightguns (5 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I just hope this is brought up when the House sits in September. Part of me thinks this was leaked now so the controversy will lose steam over Summer Recess.



100% dead on.


----------



## gryphonv (5 Jul 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> As much as it would be nice to blame the Liberals for this, the Supreme Court actually ruled on this. Plenty of blame to go around between multiple governments Liberal and Conservative.



I have to disagree, the Conservatives were fighting the lawsuit in court, the Liberals settled it. If we let the case play out the compensation may have been the same, may have been more, may have been less, or may have been none. We will never know for sure now.

I honestly believe if the Conservatives were still in power, they would of fought this to the end.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jul 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> 10 mil will buy a whole lot of fertilizer and diesel, and maybe even a big truck to put it in. That way they won't have to go through the scratch and dent inspection at the rental agency. Stay tuned.



Wouldn't that be an epic hindsight moment? 10 million worth of fertilizer and diesel going up



			
				CEDE NULLIS said:
			
		

> Agreed. It was disgraceful that we allowed a Canadian child to be tortured into confession and detained at Guantanamo. Opinions obviously vary widely but I stand by this 100%. Glad to see we are trying to make this right in some way.



Do you think we should hold his mother, a Canadian citizen, accountantable for her childs actions? Allowing him to be put in harms way like that?


----------



## Remius (5 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I have to disagree, the Conservatives were fighting the lawsuit in court, the Liberals settled it. If we let the case play out the compensation may have been the same, may have been more, may have been less, or may have been none. We will never know for sure now.
> 
> I honestly believe if the Conservatives were still in power, they would of fought this to the end.



They would have but for how long.  Eventually you run out of appeals.  The Supreme Court has been unanimous every time.  

They (the CPC) also did nothing to repatriate him.  Yes we can all cheer that, but we also have to pay the piper at some point for mistakes made.   The liberals under Chrethien screwed this up from the beginning by doing what they thought was right but ended up causing this entire mess in the first place.  Successive Liberals continued by not trying to get bitten twice and the Conservatives continued that. 

Unfortunately the CPC set the precedent for the amount to be paid by other settlements they made with others that were mistreated as a result of handing over Canadian Citizens to other governments or just plain leaving them there. 

It sucks but sometimes you have to cut your losses.  One can hope he'll never see a dime or that he screws up on something trivial that lands him back in jail.  The best outcome would be for the Speer Family to get that money.

Everything that has been happening is because the courts have been ruling on a series of judicial errors committed by the Canadian government since the 90s.  It finally caught up to them.   And as I said we are now paying the price even though we know and feel that a great miscarriage of justice has happened.


----------



## Lex Justitia (5 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I honestly believe if the Conservatives were still in power, they would of fought this to the end.




And shelled out more taxpayer money for legal fees required to defend a lost cause? That's not very fiscally responsible.

(Before anyone pulls off a strawman, take this disclaimer that the last line does not explicitly, nor does it implicitly, make the claim that Trudeau and the Liberals have fiscally responsible spending habits)


----------



## gryphonv (5 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> And shelled out more taxpayer money for legal fees required to defend a lost cause? That's not very fiscally responsible.
> 
> (Before anyone pulls off a strawman, take this disclaimer that the last line does not explicitly, nor does it implicitly, make the claim that Trudeau and the Liberals have fiscally responsible spending habits)



Its a fair argument, but until the case played out, its impossible to be 100% its a lost cause. There are quite a few differences between this case and the other case they used as precedence for the compensation. In one case we were active participants, in the other we were passive and complacent. 

But I'm also of the mindset, its better to spend $10 to fight an injustice that would only cost you $1 if you shut up. 

If anything, if they dragged it out long enough, Maybe Khadr would of died, there is no way any court would of approved sending the money back up to his family, with proven links to terrorism and who don't have the convenient excuse of saying they were children during their crimes.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jul 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Concur, we need a swear on swear off command, this is the time when the gloves should come off.



You can change your filters as you see fit.  I, being a sailor, have switched my filters to sailor mode and you see exactly what I type with no soft, fluffy PC corrections unless I deem it so.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jul 2017)

Omar was an enemy combatant captured by US troops.He could have been left in Afghan custody,but the possibility of escape was too great. Going to Gitmo was the one sure way he would be held to account. He wasnt innocent so dont act like he was.


----------



## Lex Justitia (5 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> E. B. Korcz Forrester
> 
> What is your opinion then, of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2012, and the Rights of the victims to collect from "known" and "convicted" terrorists?




I think victims of terrorism should definitely recover from states/governments that sponsor terrorism (pardon me if that's not in there; I admit, I've not read it in full). I'm just perplexed as to why individuals convicted of terrorism offenses need to be singled out under a separate regime when tort law adequately provides? On a cursory search, it looks to me like that Act changes the repose (limitations on when, and under what circumstances, actions can be brought) for actions brought to recover in terrorism-related losses. Otherwise, to have a parallel system for torts through terrorism and all other non-terrorism torts seems like redundant politicization to score points.

I have also tried to look for the default judgment in the Utah court against Khadr. Unfortunately, I can't find a PDF of it that isn't behind a pay wall, but I managed to find the motion brought by Morris et al's attorney(s); and in that motion there is a single reference to "jurisdiction." They write: "_The Court’s jurisdiction over Khadr is grounded in the Antiterrorism Act of 1991, 18 U.S.C. § 2333 et seq. (“ATA”)." _So they have not relied on the Alien Tort Statute or ATS. 

Rather, they have relied ATA's sec. 2333 (on civil remedies) and the relevant provisions that follow: 2334 (jurisdiction and venue), 2335 (limitations), and 2336 (among other things, an act of war limitation). There may be an issue with 2334(d). Now, if we use my handy Cornell-run LII source, 2334(d) says:


"(d) *Convenience of the Forum.*— The district court shall not dismiss any action brought under section 2333 of this title on the grounds of the inconvenience or inappropriateness of the forum chosen, unless—                     

(1) the action may be maintained in a foreign court that has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over all the defendants;
(2) that foreign court is significantly more convenient and appropriate; and
(3) that foreign court offers a remedy which is substantially the same as the one available in the courts of the United States."

I don't know how the Utah court concluded that it was a more convenient forum than a Canadian court where the defendant was incarcerated. Morris et al claimants would have had to incur travel expenses to appear, but surely these would not have been a greater inconvenience than that of an incarcerated person who has to seek permission to appear in person, arrange for custodial accompaniment, _and_ incur travel expenses. (No opportunity to appear in person would run counter to due process and confrontation clause; and Boudimene v. Bush implied that constitutional protections in the U.S. apply to non-nationals who are involved in U.S. criminal or civil proceedings).



			
				gryphonv said:
			
		

> there is no way any court would of approved sending the money back up to his family, with proven links to terrorism and who don't have the convenient excuse of saying they were children during their crimes.



I can't disagree with that. Definitely wouldn't go to his estate.

Unless his the entirety of his estate was some of the community organizations combatting radicalization? You never know--maybe his counsel advised him to put that in his will as a PR stunt? XD


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2017)

The widow of the soldier killed is going to receive the lions share of that money.

So paying out Khadr is actually helping out the family of the soldier he killed.

I have no issue with that.


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Its a fair argument, but until the case played out, its impossible to be 100% its a lost cause. There are quite a few differences between this case and the other case they used as precedence for the compensation. In one case we were active participants, in the other we were passive and complacent.
> 
> But I'm also of the mindset, its better to spend $10 to fight an injustice that would only cost you $1 if you shut up.
> 
> If anything, if they dragged it out long enough, Maybe Khadr would of died, there is no way any court would of approved sending the money back up to his family, with proven links to terrorism and who don't have the convenient excuse of saying they were children during their crimes.



Except that in this case, the $10M is to right an injustice.


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Jul 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Omar was an enemy combatant captured by US troops.He could have been left in Afghan custody,but the possibility of escape was too great. Going to Gitmo was the one sure way he would be held to account. He wasnt innocent so dont act like he was.



He had rights - don't pretend that he didn't.


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Except that in this case, the $10M is to right an injustice.


Which would still end up in the hands of the widow, so it's a moot point.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Except that in this case, the $10M is to right an injustice.



Yes, if it goes to the Speer family and not to a convicted terrorist who killed their family member.  The injustice is that the Speer family have been given the finger up to this point.  I hope Khadr and any bloodsuckers that are leeching off him don't see a cent come their way.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jul 2017)

Rights under the Geneva Convention ? He went to Gitmo for his crimes.Kids that commit murder under US law upon conviction get a very stiff prison sentence. How did he come to be in Afghanistan anyway ? Most Canadian youth would have found a less dangerous spot to holiday. Well Omar is living in Edmonton and I am sure is gainfully employed. I dont know if he has given up jihad,but time will tell.


----------



## Loachman (5 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> He had rights - don't pretend that he didn't.


He should have been treated as a prisoner of war and held for the duration of the conflict in the traditional manner. Too many of his fellow internees returned to their previous activities once released.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Which would still end up in the hands of the widow, so it's a moot point.


Hopefully, that would indeed be the outcome, and a right and just one, but it is not yet assured.


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Jul 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Rights under the Geneva Convention ? He went to Gitmo for his crimes.Kids that commit murder under US law upon conviction get a very stiff prison sentence. How did he come to be in Afghanistan anyway ? Most Canadian youth would have found a less dangerous spot to holiday. Well Omar is living in Edmonton and I am sure is gainfully employed. I dont know if he has given up jihad,but time will tell.



When you were 15 and your family went somewhere, did you get to choose whether or not to go?


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jul 2017)

Correct me if I'm incorrect but I was under the understanding that those deemed to be terrorists are  not legally given the status of prisoner of war there for the rights afforded to POWs under the  geneva conventions technically don't apply. During Afghanistan Canada chose to treat all detainees/prisoners/enemy like POWs but that was our choice. 

Does it state somewhere that all combatants under a certain age will be treated as POWs regardless of legal status? 

In Canada parents get arrested for their kids drawing a picture of a gun, why was his mother not charged for child endangerment?


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> .......  The Supreme Court has been unanimous every time.



And in my lifetime, I have seen the Supreme Court make some very bad decisions in my opinion.  They are not infallible.  They can make mistakes.


----------



## Remius (5 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And in my lifetime, I have seen the Supreme Court make some very bad decisions in my opinion.  They are not infallible.  They can make mistakes.



No argument there.  we are stuck with what we have though.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And in my lifetime, I have seen the Supreme Court make some very bad decisions in my opinion.  They are not infallible.  They can make mistakes.



"The Khadr saga — from his capture in a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan to news this week of a settlement in a lengthy civil case — has spanned years when both the Liberals and Conservatives have been in power. 

Those close to the matter from both parties have said privately that the case was particularly personal for former prime minister Stephen Harper, under whom the government spent millions fighting three Khadr cases to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

The government lost all three cases and, ironically, it was the 2010 Supreme Court decision that may have helped seal the multimillion-dollar deal in this civil case. 

Calling his conditions in Guantanamo “oppressive,” the high court justices issued a “declaration” that stated unequivocally that Canadian intelligence officials had violated Khadr’s rights as a citizen during their interrogations of the Toronto-born teenager in 2003."

 https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/07/04/odious-or-overdue-reports-of-omar-khadr-settlement-draw-sharply-different-reactions.html


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Jul 2017)

This decision disgusts me. I have zero faith that this government will ever do anything to discourage terrorists. By paying poor little Omar all they have done is encourage others.


----------



## Lex Justitia (5 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And in my lifetime, I have seen the Supreme Court make some very bad decisions in my opinion.  They are not infallible.  They can make mistakes.




For sure, I think everyone here agrees that no court is infallible. But how many of the very bad decisions have been unanimous? And among those, how many had the support of all the lower courts? 

I'm sure every one of those courts remained sympathetic to Ms. Speer, her family, and Mr. Morris and his family, while delicately navigating the intricacies of the legal arguments and the implications that their holdings will have on society——the implications of turning their backs on basic Charter guarantees, as some people would rather have them do regardless of the consequences.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jul 2017)

Just in case some of you have never seen it, this is Khadr's plea agreement with the US Military Commission:

https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Mackin/Khadr_PreTrialAgree.pdf

And the Charges and Specifications to which it relates:

https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Mackin/Kuebler_ExhibitA.pdf

 :cheers:


----------



## Lex Justitia (5 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I don't give a fuck how long he spent visiting Cuba or how many stars were missing from his resort accommodation.




With, as always, all due respect, my friend: this isn't solely about the terrible conditions of Khadr's confinement. This is about the conditions of his interrogation that lead to a coerced confession, which the state later used against him. I wouldn't condone this for anyone——especially not a child.

Even if he was a prisoner of war in your view, like the view of our friend Loachman, whatever happened to the evolution of international law that gave us the pervasive understanding that we treat POWs as humanely as possible? Coercing by torture a POW into confession and then using that coerced confession to make adverse legal determinations against him is a regression of that evolution.

I, also, don't believe we bring civil proceedings against POWs (acts of war limitation; the U.S. statute that I cited earlier clearly bars this). Either he's a POW and victims of his "act of war" can't recover; or he's not a POW and has legal rights, all of which line up against coerced confession and indefinite detention/detention without charge.

The days of Vlad III, known for impaling any enemy he held captive and any of their supporters, have fortunately long been over. But torture, regrettably, still persists. Medieval brutality is now history and should remained confined to the history books.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jul 2017)

US had him, how are we supposed to get him back? We're not going to invade Gitmo to go get him. His grievance is with the US Government over his treatment. That same treatment would have happened regardless of whether CSIS shared information from their interviews with him or not to US authorities. If his treatment worsened, then clearly he implicated himself or had important intelligence in his noodle that he spilled to the CSIS agents, so the US continued their approach obviously being mindful that he was under 18, as Gitmo had far worse things they used in interrogations.

CSIS sharing the information in no way kept him in Gitmo longer, he was staying there until the judicial preceding concluded. The US released other prisoners without charge, including some Britons I believe, so why wasn't this "kangaroo court" convicting everyone in there? He threw the grenade, he killed a US medic, he confessed and pled guilty. He only changed his plea once he got back to Canada because I believe he's genuinely not remorseful. It is completely different than the Mahar Arar case, in which the US had complete grounds to hold Khadr as an illegal combatant, where Arar was detained by US authorities based on bad Canadian intelligence.

His "torture" was sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. If sleep deprivation was torture, the CAF owes me at least $5M.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> With, as always, all due respect, my friend: this isn't solely about the terrible conditions of Khadr's confinement. This is about the conditions of his interrogation that lead to a coerced confession, which the state later used against him. I wouldn't condone this for anyone.
> 
> Even if he was a prison of war in your view, like the view of our friend Loachman, whatever happened to the evolution of international law that gave us the pervasive understanding that we treat POWs as humanely as possible? Coercing by torture a POW into confession and then using that coerced confession to make adverse legal determinations against him is a regression of that evolution.
> 
> The days of Vlad III, known for impaling any enemy he held captive and any of their supporters, have fortunately long been over. But torture, regrettably, still persists. Medieval brutality is now history and should remained confined to the history books.



And again,  if you're looking for sympathy from me for anything Omar experienced while on vacation in Cuba,  you're still going to go home empty handed.  Sympathy can be found,as they say, between shit and syphilis in the Oxford dictionary.  He brought on whatever ill came his way the minute he took up arms and jihad against the rest of us.  If I have any regrets wrt him, it's that the team that overran his fighting position, did a poor job, which leads us to today.

In watching the bit of his interrogation where he wailed "you don't care about what happens to me", I thought "fucking right, I don't".


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> His "torture" was sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. If sleep deprivation was torture, the CAF owes me at least $5M.



Tell you what - when you become a Supreme Court justice, you can make that determination with authority.  He was tortured, and Canada violated his rights.  That determination was made at least 9 times.  You don't have to agree - your agreement doesn't matter.


----------



## Lex Justitia (5 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> His "torture" was sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. If sleep deprivation was torture, the CAF owes me at least $5M.




Sleep deprivation to extract a confession has been regarded as improper/coercion for a long time. Not sure about Canadian caselaw (haven't memorized that area of law), but in the United States, sleep deprivation during protracted interrogation was found to be contrary to constitutional safeguards back in 1949, in Watts v. Indiana (where the eight-judge majority wrote "_Disregard of rudimentary needs of life—opportunities for sleep and a decent allowance of food—are also relevant, not as aggravating elements of petitioner's treatment, but as part of the total situation out of which his confessions came and which stamped their character_").  I briefly mentioned that case of coercion in a post back on page 73.

Unless CAF deprived you of sleep to extract a confession, to be later used against you, you shouldn't hold your breath waiting for that to happen XD



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And again,  if you're looking for sympathy from me for anything Omar experienced while on vacation in Cuba,  you're still going to go home empty handed.  Sympathy can be found,as they say, between shit and syphilis in the Oxford dictionary.  He brought on whatever ill came his way the minute he took up arms and jihad against the rest of us.  If I have any regrets wrt him, it's that the team that overran his fighting position, did a poor job, which leads us to today.
> 
> In watching the bit of his interrogation where he wailed "you don't care about what happens to me", I thought "fucking right, I don't".



I'm sorry you feel passionately about this, and I won't, and frankly nobody should, blame you for it; but the implications on the rest of us are too great to hold that Khadr was treated in accordance with our laws.  : )


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Tell you what - when you become a Supreme Court justice, you can make that determination with authority.  He was tortured, and Canada violated his rights.  That determination was made at least 9 times.  You don't have to agree - your agreement doesn't matter.



The Supreme Court said his rights violation was information sharing between CSIS and US authorities after interviews with CSIS agents. Do not link Canadian intelligence agencies to Khadr's alleged torture. They are 2 completely separate discussions, and blending the torture into the rights argument is just an attempt to red herring the issue. If he wants compensation for torture, he can sue the US government. Canada didn't put him in Gitmo, and Canada's info didn't increase/decrease anything that wasn't already happening. Trying to compensate Khadr similarly to Arar is a ridiculous notion as they are completely different cases.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jul 2017)

Please, EB, don't feel sorry for me being passionate about hating a jihadi.  

I'm afraid I don't see what implications might affect me or my family about how he was treated.  No jihad happening in my house that might result a rendition trip with Uncle Sam.  And believe me,  were that to happen, then I would deserve every ice bucket challenge that came my way.  Karma's a bitch eh?


----------



## Lex Justitia (5 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Supreme Court said his rights violation was information sharing between CSIS and US authorities after interviews with CSIS agents. Do not link Canadian intelligence agencies to Khadr's alleged torture. They are 2 completely separate discussions, and blending the torture into the rights argument is just an attempt to red herring the issue. If he wants compensation for torture, he can sue the US government. Canada didn't put him in Gitmo, and Canada's info didn't increase/decrease anything that wasn't already happening. Trying to compensate Khadr similarly to Arar is a ridiculous notion as they are completely different cases.




Unless I'm mistaken, you're speaking of the 2008 ruling. There was the 2010 ruling, which characterized his confession as having been obtained under "oppressive circumstances." Torture, in other words.


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Supreme Court said his rights violation was information sharing between CSIS and US authorities after interviews with CSIS agents. Do not link Canadian intelligence agencies to Khadr's alleged torture. They are 2 completely separate discussions, and blending the torture into the rights argument is just an attempt to red herring the issue.



No, actually:

"The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-settlement-analysis-aaron-wherry-1.4189472


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> Unless I'm mistaken, you're speaking of the 2008 ruling. There was the 2010 ruling, which characterized his confession as having been obtained under "oppressive circumstances." Torture, in other words.



You really need to stop changing the font, Arial 2 is super hard to read.

You also should stop putting words into the Supreme Court's mouth. If they wanted to say torture, they would have said it. Oppressive circumstances is not torture. You can read the Globe and Mail synopsis here: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/omar-khadr-youth-or-adult-question-decided-by-top-court/article24421830/

Here's his National Post timeline: http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/a-chronological-look-at-canadian-born-omar-khadrs-legal-saga/wcm/5fbcfe95-b2c5-45aa-8501-4ea832162448 Some highlights below;



> Jan. 29, 2010: The Supreme Court overturns court orders that the Canadian government should repatriate Khadr, despite agreeing his human rights were violated.
> 
> Aug. 9, 2010: Khadr pleads not guilty to five war crimes charges, including murder. Judge Col. Patrick Parrish rules Khadr’s confessions admissible.
> 
> ...



Note he changes his plea well after he has counsel. His confession was admissible under US law. Canadian authorities violated his rights by improper questioning, but none of that led to a confession. He confessed to US authorities, in a US detention facility, that was admissible in a US court. If your issue is with the US process, take it up with them.

At best, we should apologize that "We're sorry you're a convicted terrorist, and that you murdered a US Army medic. We violated your rights by questioning you without counsel, however none of that line of questioning made you confess or plead guilty in a US military tribunal. You're lucky to have been transferred back to Canada after you took a plea deal, enjoy the rest of your life." Khadr doesn't want every detail of his time in Afghanistan going to trial, it'll be hard to paint a sympathetic picture of him while he's holding human hands and smiling, or details of how many IEDs he built is released.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> No, actually:
> 
> "The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects."
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-settlement-analysis-aaron-wherry-1.4189472



Thanks for proving my point, JMT. The court found CSIS violated his rights with the questioning. CSIS didn't sleep deprive him. CSIS didn't torture him. CSIS didn't control his day to day activities outside the interrogation room.

Mahar Arar's ruling explictly stated Canada was indirectly responsible for his torture in Syria. Khadr's ruling says nothing of the sort.


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Thanks for proving my point, JMT. The court found CSIS violated his rights with the questioning. CSIS didn't sleep deprive him. CSIS didn't torture him. CSIS didn't control his day to day activities outside the interrogation room.



CSIS knew his 'day to day activities' and questioned him anyway.  That's the problem.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> CSIS knew his 'day to day activities' and questioned him anyway.  That's the problem.



Brilliant!

What do you propose they should have done?  Rely on the transcripts of American interrogators?


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Tell you what - when you become a Supreme Court justice, you can make that determination with authority.  He was tortured, and Canada violated his rights.  That determination was made at least 9 times.  You don't have to agree - your agreement doesn't matter.



To be clear, he was not in any way tortured by Canada or by any Canadian, directly or indirectly. There was no evidence, ever, that the executive branch of the Canadian government  (Liberal, or Conservative) or any director or employee of any department in the service of Canada instructed, ordered, requested, condoned or acquiesced to his maltreatment. He was never prosecuted by Canada, or sentenced by Canada, or tortured by Canada. There are no facts on record that there was any reckless or wilful disregard for his life or his well being by Canada.  It is pure supposition that he had been intentionally harmed with any degree of malice whatsoever by anybody while in custody.  In fact he killed the man who saved his life. His interrogation was less intensive than a murder suspect might undergo in Canadian police custody. 

What is missing is the government of Canada being an active participant as his advocate involved in his legal proceedings within a foreign country. That is actually not uncommon.  His US lawyer actively and openly called for the Canadian government to publicly, politically and diplomatically intervene in a US legal proceeding because he knew he had a hopeless case for the things Khadr was charged. A cynic might even suggest he was setting the table for a speculative civil compensation case in Canada for his client after his inevitable release.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Jul 2017)

Something that bothers me:

a) Khadr was an enemy combatant;

b) he had not indicated surrender (as far as one knows);

c) how then was his killing one of his American opponents (whatever the status as medic in the situation) in any way criminal?

Honest question.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Brilliant!
> 
> What do you propose they should have done?  Rely on the transcripts of American interrogators?



By our own Constitution, what they did was illegal.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Jul 2017)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Something that bothers me:
> 
> a) Khadr was an enemy combatant;
> 
> ...



He reportedly feigned being wounded. He then threw a grenade killing the medic coming to help him. According to the ICRC that constitutes a war crime:



> ...simulation of being disabled by injuries or sickness because an enemy who is thus disabled is considered hors de combat and may not be attacked but must be collected and cared for...


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> By our own Constitution, what they did was illegal.



They questioned him.  

Police question suspects in jail all the time.  I guess by our own Constitution, you would interpret that as illegal as well?

Or are you insinuating that they water boarded or conducted some other form of physical and/or mental anguish on him?

Have you ever been detained by the Police or by an Enemy Force, for real or on Exercise?  It is not all sunshine and roses.  WAIT!  We have had this discussion already with a bunch of former CAF members seeking compensation for being treated badly on an Escape and Evasion Exercise in Wainwright back in the '80's......Silly me.  I really have to catch up with the times and start apologising for "all the sins of my fathers".  I am too old school......I have to change.



[PS:  As a member of 'Five Eyes' we share intelligence within the 'Five Eyes Community'.]


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They questioned him.
> 
> Police question suspects in jail all the time.  I guess by our own Constitution, you would interpret that as illegal as well?
> 
> ...



Water boarding?  You mean Freedom Baptism, right?


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jul 2017)

Damn milnews.ca ruined my fun again


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They questioned him.
> 
> Police question suspects in jail all the time.  I guess by our own Constitution, you would interpret that as illegal as well?



If the police are aware that the suspect they're questioning has in fact been tortured immediately before the questioning, then, yes.  These are facts and conclusions proven in an actual court.  They're not up for debate.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... Or are you insinuating that they water boarded or conducted some other form of physical and/or mental anguish on him? ...


Here's what The Supremes said in 2010:


> ... The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects ...





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Supreme Court said his rights violation was information sharing between CSIS and US authorities after interviews with CSIS agents. Do not link Canadian intelligence agencies to Khadr's alleged torture. They are 2 completely separate discussions ...


Here's exactly what the court decision said about that ...


> ... The record suggests that the interviews conducted by CSIS and DFAIT provided significant evidence in relation to these charges.  During the February and September 2003 interrogations, CSIS officials repeatedly questioned Mr. Khadr about the central events at issue in his prosecution, extracting statements from him that could potentially prove inculpatory in the U.S. proceedings against him ... A report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee titled CSIS’s Role in the Matter of Omar Khadr (July 8, 2009), further indicated that CSIS assessed the interrogations of Mr. Khadr as being “highly successful, as evidenced by the quality intelligence information” elicited from Mr. Khadr (p. 13).  These statements were  shared with U.S. authorities and were summarized in U.S. investigative reports ... This Court declares that through the conduct of Canadian officials in the course of interrogations in 2003-2004, as established on the evidence before us, Canada actively participated in a process contrary to Canada’s international human rights obligations and contributed to Mr. Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive  him of his  right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7  of the Charter , contrary to the principles of fundamental justice ...


If it's any comfort, though, it _was_ Team Red on the ice during 2003-2004 - I guess the Liberals screwed up then, too, right?


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> If the police are aware that the suspect they're questioning has in fact been tortured immediately before the questioning, then, yes.  These are facts and conclusions proven in an actual court.  They're not up for debate.



"subjected to sleep deprivation and sharing contents of interviews with U.S. authorities"

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7842/index.do

You make it sound like he was placed on "the Rack" or in "the Iron Maiden".  He was sleep deprived.  He was interviewed.


Many of us have gone through this and we didn't have to go to Gitmo for it.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jul 2017)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Something that bothers me:
> 
> a) Khadr was an enemy combatant;
> 
> ...



Mark. It is a good question and the answer to it would in itself be a three-day seminar on the Law of Armed Conflict with detailed discussions on Additional  Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, various laws passed in the US after September 11th and more legal opinion papers and articles on the subject than you would ever want to see.

For a brief precis turn to Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant#Change_of_meaning_in_the_United_States

Suffice it to say that at the relevant time there was a specific definition at play in the US law that defined it as follows:



> Enemy combatant’ shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces



For all intents and purposes the term has to be read in the following context:



> to include an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. However, unlike unlawful combatants who qualify for some protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention, enemy combatants, under the Bush administration, were not covered by the Geneva Convention. Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state or non-state actor, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States.



I know it's confusing, has been acknowledged as such and has been modified and argued amongst intellectual circles for a decade and a half.

 :cheers:


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> "subjected to sleep deprivation and sharing contents of interviews with U.S. authorities"
> 
> https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7842/index.do
> 
> ...



So, again, that he was tortured is not up for debate.  It happened.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jul 2017)

Anyway you look at it there are probably 10 million Canadians (that didn't murder one of our allies) who deserve compensation from the government a hell of a lot more than this guy.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So, again, that he was tortured is not up for debate.  It happened.



Really?  Sleep deprivation.....I am having sleep deprivation just reading your posts.  That is torture in your eyes.  YOU owe me $10.5 million.


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Really?  Sleep depravation.....I am having sleep depravation just reading your posts.  That is torture in your eyes.  YOU owe me $10.5 million.



This is the problem - facts aren't up for debate.  Court judgments are facts - settled.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jul 2017)

Regardless what terms of art are used (legalese), court judgements are basically just opinions.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jul 2017)

There have been a number of posts above relating to two subjects:

1. Khadr was tortured; and 

2. That his conviction/guilty plea therefore came as a result of a coerced confession.

That I think could use a little context.

1. *Torture* There is no doubt that Khadr was subjected to what the US calls "enhanced interrogation techniques". This appears to have included sleep deprivation, stress positions, threats of physical force and several other highly unpleasant activities. I'm not about to argue as to whether or not this constituted "torture" but it is quite clear that various courts have held that his initial confession came during the time that these "cruel and abusive" treatment took place (around the 2002-2004 mark) and when he did not have legal counsel. Based, in part, on his confessions he was determined to be an "enemy combatant" by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal and continued to be held at Guantanamo. (For those who aren't familiar with the Geneva Conventions, there is a similar process in use to determine if an individual is subject to be held as a POW under the Prisoner-of-War Status Determination Regulations. 

See: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-91-134/FullText.html]http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-91-134/FullText.html]http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-91-134/FullText.html)

2. *Guilty Plea* The main problem that I have with some of the statements made by some of the posters above deals with the allegation that because he was "tortured" his 2004 confession is of no worth and that his guilty plea is therefore also worthless. In my humble opinion that is dead wrong.

Between 2004 and his Guilty plea there were two major changes. Khadr was given access to legal counsel and the Mohammad Jawad case had been resolved.

Khadr had legal counsel by the fall of 2004, both American and Canadian. In 2005 he was formally charged with "murder by an unprivileged belligerent" and other charges. In 2006 the commissions structure to try those charges were struck down in the USSC _Hamdan v Rumsfeld_ decision. In response a new law was struck and a new commission created and in 2006 the charges were relaid. By the week prior to his preliminary hearing in July 2010 Khadr's legal team had been aggressively filing and arguing numerous motions for his defence when he suddenly fired them and said he would represent himself and a few weeks later engaged a new military lawyer who had apparently worked behind the scenes for a few months arranging a plea deal that would get Khadr back to Canada. Concurrently Khadr's Canadian legal team had been working for him in Canada including bringing his case before the SSC twice (2008 and 2010). (I've left out most of the numerous legal proceedings that took place for the sake of brevity)

What is noteworthy is that during the period 2005 to 2010, Khadr had a number of very competent legal counsel (including US military lawyers) who were representing his interests in the US/Guantanamo and Canada. 

During this time the Mohammed Jawad case was also making its way through the system. Jawad is of particular relevance as the case concerned an underage teenager (somewhere between 12 to 17 at the time he was taken into custody) who was alleged to have thrown a grenade at a Special Forces Humvee in Dec of 2002 wounding two. He was also taken to Guantanamo, was "enhanced interrogated" and made a confession.

In Oct 2008 a military judge threw out the confessions because of the manner in which they were obtained. (The initial confession was made to the Afghan Police under "threats of severe physical or mental pain or suffering". The subsequent confession was made to US interrogators). Jawad was released from Guantanamo and repatriated to Afghanistan in 2009.

Wikipedia page here:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Jawad#Release_order_and_possible_trial_in_a_civilian_court

A very enlightening article on the Jawad case and the Guantanamo Military Commissions by one of Jawad's lawyers here:

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1497&context=dlj

It is therefore in light of the very similar Jawad decision (and that tribunal's willingness to throw out coerced confessions) and with very expert legal counsel available to Khadr and preparing for his defence that Khadr decided to take a plea bargain where he freely and voluntarily admitted to the acts for which he was charged.

 :cheers:


----------



## GR66 (6 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Really?  Sleep deprivation.....I am having sleep deprivation just reading your posts.  That is torture in your eyes.  YOU owe me $10.5 million.



I really didn't want to step into this debate, but according to Khadr's lawyer anyway he was subjected to both waterboarding and being placed in stress positions/hung from his arms as per this 2015 National Post article:

http://nationalpost.com/g00/news/canada/harper-government-will-seek-emergency-stay-of-bail-for-ex-guantanamo-bay-prisoner-omar-khadr/wcm/3766acb0-a49f-4039-9cf1-50bd2873f05b?i10c.referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F

Also, as to the questions of what could Canada do as it was the US that was holding him, Omar Khadr was the last western national to be held at Guantánamo.  All other western nations had previously negotiated with the US for the repatriation of their citizens.  Canada was the only western nation not to do so.

Now I'm NOT in favour of the $10mil settlement given to Khadr.  He was not treated in accordance with Canadian law, or in my personal opinion, how I'd like to see child soldiers treated but he was an enemy combatant.  The government should have in my opinion tried to repatriate him so that he could be dealt with under Canadian standards.  If the actions of our government lead to his being treated contrary to Canadian or International law, then they were in the wrong and should apologize and make reasonable reparations.  Under the circumstances I don't think $10mil is reasonable and if he is sincere about his regrets then I'd hope he would give at least most of the settlement to those that were truly victims of the war.  

Intellectually I understand the legal and moral arguments against Khadr's treatment as a "child", but given the nature of the war who am I to criticize those who had their lives on the line fighting it for us for not having any sympathy for his situation.


----------



## Lex Justitia (6 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Many of us have gone through this and we didn't have to go to Gitmo for it.




While under investigation for a serious offense? Were they deliberately deprived of sleep by government agents with the aim of extracting a confession, which would later be used against them?

The condemnation is not necessarily levied because Khadr suffered sleep deprivation while in custody; it is levied against a government that deprived him of sleep_ to extract a confession which it later used against him_. It was the purpose of their mistreatment of Khadr (to extract a confession that opened a world of adverse legal determinations against him) that shocks the conscience. 

As said prior, the use of sleep deprivation to extract confessions has been disallowed in the United States since the 1949 _Watts_ decision. You don't need to adopt the belief that it equates to the rack-, the wheel-, dunking-, thumbscrew-style torture if you don't want to—but that still doesn't make it a legitimate method of obtaining voluntary confessions.


*Edit*: Just take it from Jim Smyth’s (for those who don't recall the name, he's the OPP interrogator who _lawfully_ and masterfully extracted a confession from former Col. Russell Williams in 2010) performance that all you need to get a confession is preparation, behavioral profiling and wit. Hahaha. I don't understand the need for "enhanced techniques" that transcend the boundary of what is lawful.


----------



## mariomike (6 Jul 2017)

For reference,

Forces.ca

The Law of Interrogation

Sleep Deprivation:

As with other disorientation techniques, sleep deprivation clearly fall within the definition of ill-treatment. In their report, Human Rights First defined the practice as follows: “The prisoner is deprived of normal sleep for extended periods through the use of stress positions, sensory overload, or other techniques of interrupting normal sleep.” Sleep deprivation is used to break down the detainee's resistance by impairing cognitive functions. Its affect can be to cause physical as well as physiological burdens on the detainee.

The ECrtHR has concluded that this practice, when used in combination with other forms of ill-treatment, can constitute a violation of Article 3.275 CF doctrine specifically prohibits sleep deprivation or manipulation.

Interrogation can be an exhausting experience and can be lengthy “due to the suspect's failure to cooperate, the complexity of the information sought, or in light of the need to obtain information urgently and immediately.” For this reason, the Israeli Supreme Court accepted that in some cases a detainee will be deprived of sleep during the course of the interrogation process. As such, the Court concluded that this practice is only prohibited “if [it] shifts from being a 'side effect' inherent to the interrogation, to an end in itself.” If the purpose of the sleep deprivation is intentionally prolonged to break the prisoner's will, “it shall not fall within the scope of a fair and reasonable investigation.” Such means, the Court found, “harm the rights and dignity of the suspect in a manner surpassing that which is required.” Where sleep patterns are manipulated in order to break a detainee from exhaustion or where non-stop interrogations are used for that same purpose, the conduct is not permitted.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law-strategic-legal-paper/law-interrogations.page#s279

An example of a successful 40-hour non-stop interrogation,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MqgmCjO7I0

"The best way to establish guilt or innocence is non-stop interrogation."


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Jul 2017)

They should have taken a page out of this guy's book:

Hanns Scharff


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Jul 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Allied airmen were generally well treated by the Luftwaffe. Including by Goring himself.
> 
> Not so well by German civilians, or the Gestapo and SS.
> 
> 168 Allied airmen were sent to Buchenwald.



Clearly not the point I was making.


----------



## mariomike (6 Jul 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Clearly not the point I was making.



ok I removed my post.

The point I was making was that before airmen were interrogated by the Luftwaffe, they had to worry about German civilians, local police, the SS and Gestapo. 

They, regretfully, were not as professionally understanding as the LW.

The possibly of being sent to Buchenwald via Fresnes Prison- rather than a LW stalag - was a real possibility.


----------



## Remius (6 Jul 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> ok I removed my post.
> 
> The point I was making was that before airmen were interrogated by the Luftwaffe, they had to worry about German civilians, local police, the SS and Gestapo.
> 
> ...



My Grandfather was shot down over Italy.  Was well treated by the locals and the Italian regulars.  Especially the nuns that would smuggle in treats and the occasional flask.  He didn't enjoy the occasional visits by the fascists when they came by.  Roughed up a bit but I don't think he was truly tortured in the way we think of in today's terms.


----------



## mariomike (6 Jul 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> My Grandfather was shot down over Italy.



My uncle was shot down over France. ( KIA )

Depends on who they came in contact with before being handed over to the Luftwaffe.

In France, where the great majority of people were friendly, help was never far away, but a fallen airman had to find it before he was found by the enemy.

"Quite apart from the day-to-day heroism of the average bomber crew, was the wonderful assistance given by the average French family to the airmen. For the French, it was all or nothing."
Massacre over the Marne by Oliver Clutton-Brock. 

"The married man or woman caught harbouring an Allied airman brought reprisals on the whole family - even small children were put to death. This was the price for patriotism, and as the Gestapo held most of the cards, the odds were strongly in their favour."
Rendez-vous 127 by ACM Sir Basil Embry.

The Last Raid by Dan Ford details the interrogation techniques used on American B-29 crews whose misfortune it was to be shot down over Japan.


----------



## Breacher (6 Jul 2017)

Shared with the requisite caveats.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com///opinion/would-you-apologize-to-omar-khadr/article35579228/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Jul 2017)

Thanks for sharing that.  Pretty mild to how I feel but it's good to see that not everyone is out to hug a thug like some "gentle souls".


----------



## jmt18325 (6 Jul 2017)

It's not about hugging him or even liking him.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Jul 2017)

If you say so.


----------



## Loachman (6 Jul 2017)

http://cherylgallant.com/omar/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Omar+Khadr&utm_content=Omar+Khadr+CID_1f353b1810598b11783b3cba7c3cce34&utm_source=MP+Host+Email+marketing+software&utm_term=STOP+PAYMENT+HERE


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Jul 2017)

Thanks for that as well.


----------



## larry Strong (6 Jul 2017)

$13M would have bought them their lives........instead they had their heads brutally hacked off....yet we can pay that POS...........

http://globalnews.ca/video/2235457/canadians-john-ridsdel-and-robert-hall-kidnapped-in-the-philippines


----------



## Lex Justitia (6 Jul 2017)

Breacher said:
			
		

> Shared with the requisite caveats.
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com///opinion/would-you-apologize-to-omar-khadr/article35579228/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe




Quoting one person throughout seems like idolizing, and isn't very convincing; if the author wanted to make the case that "[p]eople’s anger over the Khadr deal isn’t a partisan thing" and that "[p]lenty of people who vote Liberal are upset too," it would have done her well to quote more non-partisans than just Charles Alder (N.B.: the point is the author needed variety--there's nothing wrong with Mr. Adler).


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jul 2017)

Someone is upset.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Khadr lawyer upset by settlement reports
> Laura Payton, Ottawa News Bureau Online Producer
> Published Wednesday, July 5, 2017 3:53PM EDT
> Last Updated Wednesday, July 5, 2017 4:22PM EDT
> ...



More on LINK.

Sorry.  I am offended that you are upset that there may have been a "whistle blower" who leaked this information.  It is all about Government Transparency after all; is it not?


----------



## Breacher (6 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> Quoting one person throughout seems like idolizing, and isn't very convincing; if the author wanted to make the case that "[p]eople’s anger over the Khadr deal isn’t a partisan thing" and that "[p]lenty of people who vote Liberal are upset too," it would have done her well to quote more non-partisans than just Charles Alder (N.B.: the point is the author needed variety--there's nothing wrong with Mr. Adler).



It's an opinion piece. It's about Charles Adler's opinion. I'm not sure how quoting numerous others would add to the piece. Of course, that's just my opinion.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jul 2017)

Can I LOL this?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Conservatives must move on from demonizing Omar Khadr
> Konrad Yakabuski
> 
> The Globe and Mail
> ...



More on LINK.

"DEMONIZE".  

Point that everyone is overlooking is that a person under the age of 16, can be TRIED AS AN ADULT under certain circumstances.
15 year old (now 19) Winnipeg teen charged just this year for 2013 murder.


----------



## FJAG (6 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> ...
> *Edit*: Just take it from Jim Smyth’s (for those who don't recall the name, he's the OPP interrogator who _lawfully_ and masterfully extracted a confession from former Col. Russell Williams in 2010) performance that all you need to get a confession is preparation, behavioral profiling and wit. Hahaha. I don't understand the need for "enhanced techniques" that transcend the boundary of what is lawful. [/font]



One doesn't have to look at a Canadian, Smyth--who I agree is an excellent interrogator--to look at how wrong the CIA-inspired interrogation system was.

The FBI was initially involved in many of the pre and immediately post 9/11 terrorist interrogations and had much success. One agent in particular--Ali Soufan--had much success by techniques as simple as putting a carpet on the floor of the room and sitting on it while having chai and cookies with the subject. He was highly critical of the CIA-inspired techniques.

Here's one of the many articles about him:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/former-fbi-official-ali-soufan-condemns-guantanamo-torture-a-1014475.html

 :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jul 2017)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> $13M would have bought them their lives........instead they had their heads brutally hacked off....yet we can pay that POS...........
> 
> http://globalnews.ca/video/2235457/canadians-john-ridsdel-and-robert-hall-kidnapped-in-the-philippines


But then there's the whole "paying ransom to terrorists" thing there ...

In case anyone's interested, here's a link to the Supreme Court decision that led to this - also attached if the link doesn't work for you.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jul 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> But then there's the whole "paying ransom to terrorists" thing there ...
> 
> In case anyone's interested, here's a link to the Supreme Court decision that led to this - also attached if the link doesn't work for you.



But we ARE going to be paying ransom to a terrorist.     and hugs and kisses........


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But we AREgoing to be paying  ransom to a terrorist.     and hugs and kisses........



According to a source, we DID pay a terrorist on Wednesday, now for the hugs and kisses.....    Not that I was likely to, but this deal seals my vow to never vote Liberal.



> Omar Khadr receives $10.5M from Ottawa, sources say
> 
> Former Guantanamo Bay prisoner also expected to receive apology for wrongful imprisonment, abuse
> 
> ...


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (7 Jul 2017)

It's interesting how Trudeau is ok with paying $10M to Khadr of the Taliban but refused to pay Abu Sayyaf $6M for Robert Hall and John Ridsdel.  At the time of the Hall - Ridsdel kidnapping, Trudeau stated that Canada does not pay ransoms to terrorists.  I guess some terrorists are better than others, or he has changed his mind.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jul 2017)

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> It's interesting how Trudeau is ok with paying $10M to Khadr of the Taliban AQ but refused to pay Abu Sayyaf $6M for Robert Hall and John Ridsdel.  At the time of the Hall - Ridsdel kidnapping, Trudeau stated that Canada does not pay ransoms to terrorists.  I guess some terrorists are better than others, or he has changed his mind.


As I'm suggesting that bit in orange is also happening here when this sort of thing is mentioned ...


			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> $13M would have bought them their lives........instead they had their heads brutally hacked off....yet we can pay that POS...........
> 
> http://globalnews.ca/video/2235457/canadians-john-ridsdel-and-robert-hall-kidnapped-in-the-philippines





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> According to a source, we DID pay a terrorist on Wednesday, now for the hugs and kisses.....


What I mean is that nobody who's suggesting or supporting the comparison here seemed to be advocating paying ransom to bring Canadians home any time during the discussion of the Phillippines fracas on these means - mostly partisan "what are they doing about it?".  And there's not a ton of support for paying ransom on this thread about a Canadian kidnapped by bad guys.  And I don't see a lot of support in this thread for paying the Taliban to release the Canadians who are "guests" in Afghanistan.  So suggesting, "we should have paid ransom to folks we consider terrorists instead of paying this guy we consider a terrorist" doesn't seem entirely internally consistent, does it?  Or is it just me?  ;D


			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ... Not that I was likely to, but this deal seals my vow to never vote Liberal.


Based on the Fowler open source info, even if Canada didn't pay a ransom, the Gov't of the Day (Team Blue) didn't appear to _discourage_ payments from _someone_ to help get Fowler rescued, so I guess NDP's all that's left for ya (unless you're in QC) ;D


----------



## Lex Justitia (7 Jul 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> One doesn't have to look at a Canadian, Smyth--who I agree is an excellent interrogator--to look at how wrong the CIA-inspired interrogation system was.
> 
> The FBI was initially involved in many of the pre and immediately post 9/11 terrorist interrogations and had much success. One agent in particular--Ali Soufan--had much success by techniques as simple as putting a carpet on the floor of the room and sitting on it while having chai and cookies with the subject. He was highly critical of the CIA-inspired techniques.
> 
> ...




I once watched an interview with Mr. Soufan, and read a few things about him, but I've never heard that. Interesting.
Thank you for sharing that.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jul 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Based on the Fowler open source info, even if Canada didn't pay a ransom, the Gov't of the Day (Team Blue) didn't appear to _discourage_ payments from _someone_ to help get Fowler rescued, so I guess NDP's all that's left for ya (unless you're in QC) ;D



Ah, not necessarily.  I was able to vote for the independent candidate in my home riding last election.  This way I was able to give the finger to all three big brands and still exercise my civic duty as a citizen.


----------



## Altair (7 Jul 2017)

I might just stop voting again, seems easier.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ah, not necessarily.  I was able to vote for the independent candidate in my home riding last election.  This way I was able to give the finger to all three big brands and still exercise my civic duty as a citizen.


I stand corrected - and the bit in yellow would make it worth it some days, wouldn't it?


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jul 2017)

When it comes to matters of national security  and terrorism we should pump prisoners full of truth drugs and start asking questions.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jul 2017)

Rex Murphy has a good piece here.



> Rex Murphy: Justin Trudeau skips the theme socks for his scheming Omar Khadr apology
> 
> Three things mark the Khadr announcement. The government didn’t want to be associated with it. They wanted it done swiftly. And they didn’t want Trudeau on the same continent when the news broke
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jul 2017)

Aaaaaaaaand for the record, coming out mid-afternoon on a Friday, the info-machine's apology (also attached in case the link doesn't work for you) ...


> Today, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, issued the following statement:
> 
> “Today, we are announcing that the Government of Canada has reached a settlement with Mr. Omar Khadr, bringing this civil case to a close.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jul 2017)

:boke:


----------



## McG (7 Jul 2017)

Robyn Urback: Omar Khadr might be entitled to a settlement, but it's wrong to say he 'deserves' it.


----------



## jmt18325 (7 Jul 2017)

From the National Observer (this view endorsed by Kim Campbell, and from a former prosecutor:

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/07/opinion/what-if-omar-khadr-isnt-guilty


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Jul 2017)

Excellent piece by Terrible Terry Glavin (certainly one of our top journalists):



> The shady business of paying Omar Khadr
> _Khadr deserves to get on with his life, but Ottawa did everything wrong with his $10.5 million payout. This is going to leave a mark._
> http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-shady-business-of-paying-omar-khadr/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Jul 2017)

Meanwhile Maher Arar tweets:



> Maher Arar‏ @ArarMaher
> 
> Those who oppose the Omar Khadr settlement has more to do with racism than the actual established facts. Futile to argue with them.
> https://twitter.com/ArarMaher/status/883148422433394690



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Jul 2017)

Mr Arar could not be more wrong if he tried.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jul 2017)

That's the *IA* nowadays though, isn't it?  Throw the racist word out there, as most people will scatter least they also get branded.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jul 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> I might just stop voting again, seems easier.



I am thinking much the same.  This whole matter is OBSCENE.  The Liberals wait until the House of Commons is on break.  The Prime Minister leaves the "apology" to be done in printed form and announced by two Ministers.  The Prime Minister did not own up to the questions put to him about the payment, when it had actually happened days before.  Then there was the "Blame Harper" comment from the Ministers in their comments.  The actual amount of the payment is not being acknowledged by the Government.  Where is the "transparency"?  Someone even commented that the money went into Khadr's account and was already gone the next day......Unconfirmed rumour that it is, it still was not something that one would want to hear.  "Obscene" is the only word I have for this whole matter.


----------



## Lex Justitia (7 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> "Obscene" is the only word I have for this whole matter.



"Obscene" is the word I use to describe the politicization of this terrible ordeal (for which multiple governments on both sides of the houses of Parliament, and of the border, are responsible).

"Obscene" is the word I use to describe the divisiveness that this has caused. Canadians should not be divided when governments have failed to observe law. We expect the law to protect, and the government to observe law, when we find ourselves caught in legal quandaries or embroiled in other disputes; I would hope that everyone has the courtesy to expect the same for others.

And when a government (regardless of which species is in power) has failed to so observe, and we've been harmed in someway, we expect to be compensated; I would hope there is, still, the courtesy to expect the same for others. Otherwise, if there is not, we have lost our way.

*(N.B.: I'm not suggesting anyone here has self-interested motives or is inconsiderate of others' Charter entitlements; I was primarily lamenting at comments I've read on other platforms).*


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jul 2017)

:boring:  is how I feel about the rights of someone who would take up combat operations against us, then shake us down for millions.


----------



## Lex Justitia (7 Jul 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Obscene is giving an enemy bomb maker anything from our government other than a 7.62mm lobotomy.. I like cake.




I like how, when I started out here, someone here insinuated that I was a troll. 

  

@JollyJackstar. 

 There is scant proof that Khadr voluntarily left Canada. There is proof, however, that he left Canada because those who had lawful custody over him-—his parents (at least one of whom had ill-faith intentions, no less)—took him out of Canada. How many 15-year-olds voluntarily leave the country in which they are domiciled while knowingly waiving its protections, and do so _voluntarily_ to "take up combat?"


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jul 2017)

Really?  Really?  Don't pay much attention to history do you?  There have been plenty on all sides of conflicts.  Anyways,  carry on with your Khadr pity party, I won't be joining you in the celebrations.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jul 2017)

I'd just to remind everyone, when they are considering why the Liberals of today are doing this...to remember it was the Liberals of yesterday that were in power when this all took place.  Khadr arrived in Quantanomo in late October 2002.  I'll point you to the terms of office info on the link below.

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/politics-government/prime-ministers/pmportrait/Pages/item.aspx?PersonId=20


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> I like how, when I started out here, someone here insinuated that I was a troll.



 Troll no, recruiter yes.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> I like how, when I started out here, someone here insinuated that I was a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I kinda liked that too. Good times.

Look, you can quote all the legalese you like in order to justify this. First of all, ten mil is an outrageous amount, and I would not be shocked to find that nine mil of that is already on its way Bomb Vests R Us. The only reason we're here is because of the compassion of US soldiers when they found him bleeding. A slower helicopter or some better accuracy that day would have saved all of us a pile of grief.  I don't care about the legalities, quite honestly. I care that we are rewarding a badly behaved juvenile delinquent, who made war against us and our allies. How many teenagers have you raised? Ever try to make a 15 year old make a bed, let alone a bomb? He was a willing participant, full stop. The only thing this does is set a precedent.


----------



## Lex Justitia (7 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Troll no, recruiter yes.




Highly offensive, unsavory and respect-vitiating.

-100.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Really?  Really?  Don't pay much attention to history do you?  There have been plenty on all sides of conflicts.  Anyways,  carry on with your Khadr pity party, I won't be joining you in the celebrations.



My friend, it's not about pity. It's about your Charter entitlements, my Charter entitlements, and Khadr's Charter entitlements. He had _jus soli_ citizenship and remained with it during his mistreatment.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> Highly offensive, unsavory and respect-vitiating.
> 
> -100.



You can't just say "-100" and the milpoints disappear. You have to actually rate the post using the link just under the member's name in the post you want to rate.

Just want to remind everyone to keep the posts away from personal comments directed at a poster. Its a highly charged topic, but can be debated by attacking issues and statements, not the person.


----------



## Lex Justitia (7 Jul 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I don't care about the legalities, quite honestly.




You don't care when the consequences don't immediately affect you, perhaps. But others care, and the observance of 'legalities' is necessary in an orderly and just society--one for which many have fought and scarified to preserve; and why we don poppies on our chests, erect memorials and adorn them with wreaths. 

It's dismaying that such statement as that one you just made appeared here.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jul 2017)

Line crossed. Don't you dare to presume to lecture me about uniforms, poppies, and sacrifice. I lived it for 23 years, and while I was never in Afghanistan, lots of my friends drew their last breaths there.  I wonder how many of those IEDs had Omar's fingerprints on them. Dismissed.


To add. Legalities and justice never have had much to do with each other. This one is no different.


----------



## Lex Justitia (7 Jul 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Line crossed. Don't you dare to presume to lecture me about uniforms, poppies, and sacrifice. I lived it for 23 years, and while I was never in Afghanistan, lots of my friends drew their last breaths there.  I wonder how many of those IEDs had Omar's fingerprints on them. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> To add. Legalities and justice never have had much to do with each other. This one is no different.




I apologize if I crossed your line, but sometimes people need reminders of what underlies the sacrifice. It's surely not disorder and lawlessness.

The remark tying Khadr to IEDs is purely conjecture.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jul 2017)

That's what "I wonder" means.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jul 2017)

I've clearly painted myself as a knuckle dragging barbarian in this thread. And you know what? If that's your opinion then have at er. I freely admit that my lizard brain is in full control on this topic, and hats off to those of you who's Spock brain is driving your thought processes. I've said my piece, and won't say any more.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> My friend, it's not about pity. It's about your Charter entitlements, my Charter entitlements, and Khadr's Charter entitlements. He had _jus soli_ citizenship and remained with it during his mistreatment.



I am not the least bit worried about my rights and freedoms as I'm not a traitor who'll take up arms against my countrymen.  Unlike, poor Omar and Co.  And as I said, were I to do so, then as far as I am concerned,  I forfeit said rights by virtue of my actions.  Regardless of what 12 stuffed shirts think and spout on Wellington St about (not so) poor (now) Omar and how beastly the big bad Americans treated him while he visited Cuba, I don't agree and that is my right to do so (not that it changes SFA). As a fellow citizen, he is, dead to me.  I don't consider him or his family to be one of us and never will, they're a self identified AQ family. They can suck it for all I care.


----------



## Loachman (7 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> I apologize if I crossed your line, but sometimes people need reminders of what underlies the sacrifice. It's surely not disorder and lawlessness



You crossed my line, too.

You are awfully presumptuous for one so young and inexperienced.

Few people here need a lecture from you about sacrifice. You are not qualified.

In saner times, Omar's reward would have been rope not gold.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> You crossed my line, too.
> 
> You are awfully presumptuous for one so young and inexperienced.
> 
> ...



I heartily agree for 158 reasons and one of them is quite personal.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jul 2017)

158+ too many reasons.  In saner times, Omar and buddies would have been mopped up properly after being overrun and this thread wouldn't be a talking point.


----------



## Lex Justitia (7 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> You crossed my line, too.
> 
> You are awfully presumptuous for one so young and inexperienced.
> 
> ...




I would appreciate if the merits of what I say are assessed without looking at my age.

Any volunteers to, instead of digressing into a discussion of age, refute the contention that our wars were not fought for disorder and lawlessness? If not, then I am left to assume that you all concede that they were fought for a society of laws and of order, that which is fair and democratic; and if that's the case, politicizing this redress for serious breaches of the Charter should be unthinkable.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jul 2017)

I know I said I'm out, but this is like the Mob, you think you're out, but they pull you back.  Are you honestly equating disgust at rewarding a traitor, regardless of how he got this way, to lawlessness and disorder? That's a stretch you'd have to be Reid Richards to make. This is an injustice, that is all it is, just like a pile of unjust laws still on the books.


----------



## Loachman (7 Jul 2017)

Alright. Fine. Regardless of age, you still lack the experience to lecture us about sacrifice and what underlies it.

Our wars have been fought to eliminate or contain threats to our society, with the side aim of freeing or protecting others.

The Khadrs amply proved themselves to be a threat. I have no assurance that he is no longer a threat. The only Khadr currently guaranteed to not be a threat is daddy K.

On top of that, the amount slipped to him while nobody was looking was obscene.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Jul 2017)

I can tell you about sacrifices. Loachman can back me on this as can a few others.

RIP Mike


----------



## Lex Justitia (7 Jul 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I know I said I'm out, but this is like the Mob, you think you're out, but they pull you back.  Are you honestly equating disgust at rewarding a traitor, regardless of how he got this way, to lawlessness and disorder? That's a stretch you'd have to be Reid Richards to make. This is an injustice, that is all it is, just like a pile of unjust laws still on the books.




I take issue with branding him a "traitor" because you, nor I, have all the facts; nor is there really an accurate account of the events that day. Mr. Layne Morris recanted much of what he initially said in the immediate aftermath.

As for leaving Canada, not one person has demonstrated to me that 15-year-old Khadr left voluntarily (on the other hand, there is ample account that he left with adults who had custody, unfortunately, over him). Not one person has demonstrated to me that he left with the knowledge that he or others would take up armed combat/distorted jihad, nor with the intention of doing so. Not one person has demonstrated to me carried or threw a grenade (N.B.: Mr. Layne Morris recanted his earlier claim that Khadr was holding and threw a grenade). Not one person has demonstrated to me that he made the free choice—free of mental or physical coercion—to agree with the U.S. Army's account of the facts.

Until someone demonstrates those things to me, I decline to label him a "traitor;" I cannot answer your question because it is loaded—a fallacy. That is, if I answered it, I would have to agree with the presumption that he is a "traitor." That, I cannot do.

Facts are everything. Without them we have nothing; and we are left at the mercy of our emotions.


@Hamish Seggie: I am sorry to hear of your loss. (Unfortunately, I still refuse to politicize Khadr's ordeal, which, again, was the result of the collective failure of many governments)


----------



## NavyShooter (7 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> You crossed my line, too.
> 
> You are awfully presumptuous for one so young and inexperienced.
> 
> ...



Can we nominate Omar for the Louis Riel Challenge?

As for this fine Mr. Forrester who's contributing so much that exhibits his complete lack of understanding of our point of view, let me suggest that we try to see things from his for a moment....ok, that didn't work for me either....


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Jul 2017)

Despite your fancy words, he's a traitor. Let's not mince words - we will disagree on this.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> I would appreciate if the merits of what I say are assessed without looking at my age.
> 
> Any volunteers to, instead of digressing into a discussion of age, refute the contention that our wars were not fought for disorder and lawlessness? If not, then I am left to assume that you all concede that they were fought for a society of laws and of order, that which is fair and democratic; and if that's the case, politicizing this redress for serious breaches of the Charter should be unthinkable.



Paaaaleeeeese!  The Charter is here to protect us.  Unfortunately, the Charter can also be used to the advantage of an unscrupulous enemy of our society.  By protecting all, we sometimes protect an malevolent person and the result is more hurt to their victims.  The unscrupulous will use the Law to their advantage whenever they have the chance.  Although we have a great Legal System and the Charter, they can be tools that can be used against us, and they have been manipulated in the past.

I personally have yet to brand him a traitor.....He is, however, an "Unlawful enemy combatant" and has yet to prove that he is not.  This is something that time will only tell.

You may want to start paying attention to what "Sheepdogs" do in protecting the "Sheeple".  It is yet to be seen if there is still evil in the heart of Omar or not.  The "Sheepdogs" are naturally skeptical of wolves in sheeps clothing.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jul 2017)

I already stated that I was coming from a place of emotion, accept that as a given, councillor. What do you suppose that poor presumably completely innocent "child" was doing on a battlefield? A 15 year old is a willful creature, you can't "make" them do anything, and is far from a child. You're convinced, and you won't convince me, further rebuttal is futile.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jul 2017)

The fact remains that the Supreme Court declined to void his convictions, and he served time in a Canadian prison. In their multiple opportunities, they only stated CSIS violated his right to have counsel present while questioning him, and that info should not have been turned over to the US authorities not that any of the charges were not transferable to Canadian law. Legally, he is a convicted murderer and terrorist.

Little bit of facts on his actual charges: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/25/khadr.plea/


----------



## cavalryman (7 Jul 2017)

Khadr was an enemy combatant fighting against the country of his birth and it's allies.  I really don't give a **** about his age at the time.  That he's been given $10 million while those who served Canada are struggling with their injuries or are dead  is obscene.  I hope Khadr chokes on his ill gotten money.  If he wants me to acknowledge  him as a Canadian citizen, he can start by atoning and donating the money to his victims and their families.  Otherwise he remains a lying jihadi who has no place in civilized society.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jul 2017)

[quote author=PuckChaser] 

Just want to remind everyone to keep the posts away from personal comments directed at a poster. Its a highly charged topic, but can be debated by attacking issues and statements, not the person.
[/quote]

+100


Also, Roger Wilco.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> Highly offensive, unsavory and respect-vitiating.
> 
> -100.


Not meant as a personal attack but genuine opinion however it's not the time or place as indicated by the wise moderators so I apologize for the sidetrack.


----------



## Lex Justitia (7 Jul 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I already stated that I was coming from a place of emotion, accept that as a given, councillor. What do you suppose that poor presumably completely innocent "child" was doing on a battlefield? A 15 year old is a willful creature, you can't "make" them do anything, and is far from a child. You're convinced, and you won't convince me, further rebuttal is futil.




Unless I am mistaken, he was inside a compound that was his family's residence. I don't mean to sound condescending, and I figure you know this, but it's not unusual for an occupying military to encounter civilians in the occupied zone. I suggest to you that, for all we know (again, there is no accurate account that wasn't the product of coercion), certain persons, which probably included family, in the same compound were unlawful enemy combatants staging an attack against the occupying U.S. military, but that Khadr was there not for that purpose but because it was the family residence and he was caught in the "cross-fire," so to speak. If that was the case, that doesn't make Khadr an unlawful enemy-combatant. 



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The fact remains that the Supreme Court declined to void his convictions, and he served time in a Canadian prison. In their multiple opportunities, they only stated CSIS violated his right to have counsel present while questioning him, and that info should not have been turned over to the US authorities not that any of the charges were not transferable to Canadian law. Legally, he is a convicted murderer and terrorist.
> 
> Little bit of facts on his actual charges: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/25/khadr.plea/




Those statement of facts are from the U.S. military commission; in other words, they predicated on coerced confession and, thus, they are not a reliable account of the facts. That SCC said as much about the signed confession in its 2010 ruling.

As for not setting aside the conviction, I have not looked into explanations for that; I have not pored over all the proceedings and the documents from them. I am familiar with foreign judgment recognition for civil proceedings concluded abroad, but I have never heard of setting aside a conviction secured in a foreign court. Perhaps FJAG can enlighten me? I very much value his insight.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jul 2017)

The confession didn't matter, coerced or not. He pled guilty. He had to read an agreed statement of facts in court as part of his guilty plea stating exactly what he did. His guilty plea wasn't coerced, he had to do that all on his own in court. He's a convicted murderer and terrorist, that's a fact.

Your issue with how the US handled its detainees has no bearing here. Canada screwed up and shouldn't have even questioned him. We should have provided him consular services like any other Canadian charged in a foreign country, and let it be. We weren't getting him out of there, regardless of conditions, unless the US wanted him out. Have we now set the precedent that any Canadian questioned without counsel is now due $10.5M CAD? Joe from Lethbridge questioned without a lawyer present for an assault charge isn't going to get him anything other than his case thrown out, and that guy likely wouldn't have a free lawyer. Or is Joe from Lethbridge not entitled to the same compensation for his rights violation as a terrorist?


----------



## armyvern (7 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> Unless I am mistaken, he was inside a compound that was his family's residence. It's not unusual for an occupying military to encounter civilians in the occupied zone. I suggest to you that, for all we know (again, there is no accurate account that wasn't the product of coercion), the certain persons, which included family, in the same compound were unlawful enemy combatants staging an attack against the occupying military, but that Khadr was there because it is the family residence and he was caught in the "cross-fire," so to speak. If that was the case, that doesn't make Khadr an unlawful enemy-combatant.
> 
> 
> Those statement of facts are from the U.S. military commission; in other words, they predicated on coerced confession and, thus, they are not a reliable account of the facts. That SCC said as much about the signed confession in its 2010 ruling.
> ...



Oy.  He was charged with 5 terrorism related crimes; murder was only one of those.  One also does not need to personally throw the grenade to be party to the crime or convicted of it.

So, just in case he can't remember making IEDs with a big smile on his face (like he now "forgets" throwing the grenade), an act of terrorism I'll add.  And, one of those crimes for which he was also charged, pled guilty to and which was also NOT vacated by the Supreme Court, and just in case anyone would want to try to argue that he just happened to be in the compound because his family was there ...

Here's the video link to him constructing those IEDs in that compound.  Trigger alert for some of our members here ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EQjYowsBgc

And, I have to say that I'm NOT surprised that the Supreme Court did NOT vacate his convictions for terroristic acts given that, despite "his" memory, video exists of him actually committing some of those acts for which he was convicted pled guilty to.


I am wondering when the families of our actually innocent Canadians who have been held hostage overseas by terrorists are going to sue Canada.  After all, their loved ones certainly had the "right" for their government to do all it could to get them out too ... yet the government refused to pay ransom to get them out because, "We do not negotiate with terrorists -'directly or indirectly' " (PM Trudeau).  I think we do now and I also think that their government certainly could have successfully secured their release had they paid that ransom and, really, who cares how much the cost is when the court has ruled that you must do "all that you can" to secure their release.  I hope they do and I wish them luck.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jul 2017)

I liked the part where they used the cattle prod to make him smile while he worked.  Waaaaaiiiit....


----------



## Lex Justitia (8 Jul 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EQjYowsBgc




Much like leaving Canada, in the one scene depicting him making what appear to be IEDs, I don't think he was acting voluntarily.

I'll wait on FJAG's insight about the last post.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jul 2017)

They don't appear to be IEDs, they are in fact IEDs. I could probably list most of the components, and there are some experienced folks here who could tell you approximate explosive power. They weren't making lawn decorations that's for sure.


----------



## armyvern (8 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> Much like leaving Canada, in the one scene depicting him making what appear to be IEDs, I don't think he was acting voluntarily.
> 
> I'll wait on FJAG's insight about the last post.



What bit are you hung up on?  His age?

He was 15 (UN definition of a child soldier at the time was "under 15") - a couple months away from 16 (world-wise and mature enough to vote sayeth today's governing Liberals).

You do know that we often see serious crimes, uhmmm like murder, terrorist acts etc, bumped up to adult court right here IN Canada too?  "Kids" getting adult sentences??

Reena Virk Murder - Kelly Ellard was 15 when this heinous crime was committed - she's serving life just off the top of my head.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jul 2017)

I was 15 once, and knew better than to think I could throw a grenade at someone without expecting to be treated like an adult.

An unlawful combatant is essentially anyone who partakes without meeting one of the conditions required to be a lawful combatant.

Governments, including the federal government, are customarily highly effective at deciding what sort of compensation applies for loss of life, loss of a limb, PTSD, etc, etc.  10.5M is way out of any ballpark.  Even wrongful convictions only seem to be worth about 4-6M per 10 years, and Khadr was not wrongfully convicted.


----------



## Lex Justitia (8 Jul 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What bit are you hung up on?  His age?




Age and lack of proof of voluntariness. His age coupled with the fact that there is no proof that he left Canada voluntarily, nor with the knowledge that he would be instructed to take up distorted jihad once arriving in Afghanistan. He left with his parents who were, by all accounts, extremists and had mala fide intentions, but who had lawful custody (regrettably) over him. I genuinely believe that he was in Afghanistan against his will; and that, whatever he was making in that video, he was probably making it against his will. (He wasn't shown smiling at the starting scenes that depicted him handling what appears to be a component of an IED; the other scenes don't show him handling IEDs or their components). 

God only knows how his extremist father, or the other adult males there, would have reacted had he defied them and refused their instructions. He was under mental duress. Those reservations about voluntariness are no "bits," my friend.

Irrelevant analogy. I don't think it was possible for Ms. Ellard to be under duress in her starkly different circumstances.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I was 15 once, and knew better than to think I could throw a grenade at someone without expecting to be treated like an adult.




 Personal anecdotes and analogies won't work here. Khadr's circumstances at 15 and your circumstances at that age were worlds apart.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> You don't care when the consequences don't immediately affect you, perhaps. But others care, and the observance of 'legalities' is necessary in an orderly and just society--one for which many have fought and scarified to preserve; and why we don poppies on our chests, erect memorials and adorn them with wreaths.
> 
> It's dismaying that such statement as that one you just made appeared here.



Some, lots, of the *we* on this forum have served overseas, and in the face of the enemy, been at ramp ceremonies.  According to your profile, you haven't even been sworn in yet.

My advice to you is gear back the preachy-preach shit;  you're talking to some of the people who've protected your freedom while _you_ were still shitting in pull-ups and you've yet to repay the deed, to those that have already, or Queen and country. 

You've been given information to consider, yet constantly bat it away.  He did, he didn't voluntarily leave Canada...you know what?  Who gives a fuck?  Watch the video posted by ArmyVern.  Watch it again..that is your victim involved with IED manufacturing.

Then, take a look at the picture I am attaching of your, supposed, victim.  Yes, he looks distressed and fearful doesn't he?    :


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jul 2017)

There's a lot of I believe in your last post, after you derided people earlier for lack of facts. What you're doing is providing circumstantial evidence to try to create reasonable doubt, to counter all the facts put forth by everyone else. Unless you have proof that he was essentially kidnapped and made a slave, you'd be well served to stick in the realm of reality. Did Khadr even try to blame his father for his crimes? Any of the articles I've read didn't have him using that defense.


----------



## Lex Justitia (8 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's a lot of I believe in your last post, after you derided people earlier for lack of facts. What you're doing is providing circumstantial evidence to try to create reasonable doubt, to counter all the facts put forth by everyone else. Unless you have proof that he was essentially kidnapped and made a slave, you'd be well served to stick in the realm of reality. Did Khadr even try to blame his father for his crimes? Any of the articles I've read didn't have him using that defense.




Here and in the U.S., the presumption of innocence places the burden of proof on accusers. U.S. prosecutors were required to show, without coercion and unlawful "enhanced interrogation techniques," that he had knowledge. (Yes, Canada has reverse-onus for affirmative defenses, but not in the U.S. and prosecution occurred in the U.S.)

I can't tell you why his attorneys chose the route that they took; I can't tap into their minds and I'm not prepared to be a CNN-style pundit to comment on that. Also, again, I haven't pored over the copious amount of paperwork——most of which is under seal, and others which are behind a pay wall——from all the proceedings.

The difference between my last post and the ones I derided is that I never claimed or gave the impression that I've given an accurate account of the facts; I made it clear that it was belief——particularly where I wrote "I suggest to you"——and that I was making some conjectures. The post I derided was one that flatly branded him a traitor, and another that asked me a loaded question, essentially requiring me to accept the presumption that he was a "traitor" without an accurate account of the facts.


----------



## FJAG (8 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> Unless I am mistaken, he was inside a compound that was his family's residence. I don't mean to sound condescending, and I figure you know this, but it's not unusual for an occupying military to encounter civilians in the occupied zone. I suggest to you that, for all we know (again, there is no accurate account that wasn't the product of coercion), the certain persons, which included family, in the same compound were unlawful enemy combatants staging an attack against the occupying military, but that Khadr was there because it is the family residence and he was caught in the "cross-fire," so to speak. If that was the case, that doesn't make Khadr an unlawful enemy-combatant.
> 
> 
> Those statement of facts are from the U.S. military commission; in other words, they predicated on coerced confession and, thus, they are not a reliable account of the facts. That SCC said as much about the signed confession in its 2010 ruling.
> ...



Okay but bear in mind I've been out of this business for eight years now.

There are laws in each Canadian jurisdiction for the reciprocal enforcement of civil (and to an extent Maritime) judgments. They details vary by province (and applies to many but not all US states) but essentially there are procedures whereby the foreign judgment can be brought before a local court where there are some limited rights to challenge the judgement. Once accepted by the local court the foreign judgement becomes the same as any local judgement for enforcement purposes.

There is also  Hague convention that applies to family law cases as between a Canadian case and a foreign country case.

Criminal law is another matter. 

We subscribe to various processes whereby extradition of a person charged with a crime to or from Canada can take place. Within Canada that is governed by the Extradition Act.

In addition the International Transfer of Offenders Act implements treaties that we have between various countries to allow convicted offenders to serve out their sentence in their home country. This would be how Khadr came here.

There are no laws that I'm aware of that allows any one country to alter a foreign courts findings. Each jurisdiction, be it a province or state or national court has it's own appeal processes which allow a higher level court to review a lower level trial or appeal courts finding based on the legal principles that apply (those processes and principles vary between jurisdictions).

To put it bluntly, Khadr was convicted before a Military Commission based on his guilty plea and an accompanying Stipulation of Fact which Khadr signed indicating that he knowingly and voluntarily admitted was true. The only way that can be altered is by the appropriate appeal processes within the United States (ultimately before the USSC)

What the Canadian courts could and did do was consider the fact that Khadr could and should serve a youth sentence because at the time he committed the offences he was a youth. The Military Commission did not have a mandate to make any distinction between a youth and an adult but the Alberta Court of Appeal (confirmed by the SCC) held that he was entitled to serve his imprisonment in a provincial jail where interim judicial release was easier to obtain. (In Canada a youthful offender is evaluated prior to trial as to whether he should be tried as a youth or as an adult.) 

In 2015 Khadr brought an application for interim judicial release (ie bail) pending his appeal of his conviction before the US Court of Military Commission Review. The court granted his application and he was released on conditions:

Queen's bench decision here: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb261/2015abqb261.html?resultIndex=1

Alberta Court of Appeal decision here: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2015/2015abca159/2015abca159.html?resultIndex=1

The Conservative government brought an appeal to the SCC to revoke bail but after the election the Liberal government pulled the appeal. I have no idea when the US CMCR will take place.

In summary, no Canadian court has the power to overturn the US MC decision and has not done so. At best they have evaluated that Khadr's appeal before the US CMCR is not frivolous. This is a low level test and in no way suggests that Khadr is innocent of the charges but merely says the court accepts that he has something arguable without evaluating how certain or uncertain the outcome will be.

Let me add a separate note here. You've been arguing forcefully that Khadr was a young child at the time without any will of his own and there is no proof that he did any of the things that he was found guilty of except by way of coerced evidence and that therefore he is deserving of both an apology and a large payout. To put it politely, most of the people on this thread differ completely with your opinion and are not about to have their minds changed by you. 

While I'm not so naive as to think that there aren't some accused out there who plead guilty when they feel that they are not guilty (often because they think they have a technical defence and not because they are lily-white innocents) in order to make a deal with an overworked court system, I personally don't see that here. As I posted before, he "Knowingly and voluntarily" signed a Stipulation of Fact (see here: http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2010/10/26/10/stip.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf)when he had a herd of lawyers advising him and when he was no longer being subjected to any of the coercive treatment he received back in 2002-4. For me that seals the issue. To argue that he only admitted to these facts in order to get out of Gitmo and back to Canada is disingenuous at best.

 :cheers:


----------



## TCM621 (8 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> Age and lack of proof of voluntariness. His age coupled with the fact that there is no proof that he left Canada voluntarily, nor with the knowledge that he would be instructed to take up distorted jihad once arriving in Afghanistan. He left with his parents who were, by all accounts, extremists and had mala fide intentions, but who had lawful custody (regrettably) over him. I genuinely believe that he was in Afghanistan against his will; and that, whatever he was making in that video, he was probably making it against his will. (He wasn't shown smiling at the starting scenes that depicted him handling what appears to be a component of an IED; the other scenes don't show him handling IEDs or their components).
> 
> God only knows how his extremist father, or the other adult males there, would have reacted had he defied them and refused their instructions. He was under mental duress. Those reservations about voluntariness are no "bits," my friend.
> 
> ...


"whatever he was making" is an IED . You don't have the experience or the knowledge to know that  but I do and so do others on here. And bomb making isn't something one does under duress. It is a good way for everyone to end up dead. While I am fortunate enough not to personally know anyone who died as a result of an IED, I do know several people who were injured because of them. Many of them will carry scars (both external and internal) that exceed Khadr's. 

Max payout for an injured vet is 360,000 or a little more than 3% of what Khadr got. That is injustice.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Jul 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> To put it bluntly, Khadr was convicted before a Military Commission based on his guilty plea and an accompanying Stipulation of Fact which Khadr signed indicating that he knowingly and voluntarily admitted was true.



Short version: he's a self admitted traitor.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jul 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Short version: he's a self admitted traitor.



Yup. 

If anything give him the going rate for a missing eye ball.


----------



## Lex Justitia (8 Jul 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Okay but bear in mind I've been out of this business for eight years now.
> 
> There are laws in each Canadian jurisdiction for the reciprocal enforcement of civil (and to an extent Maritime) judgments. They details vary by province (and applies to many but not all US states) but essentially there are procedures whereby the foreign judgment can be brought before a local court where there are some limited rights to challenge the judgement. Once accepted by the local court the foreign judgement becomes the same as any local judgement for enforcement purposes.
> 
> ...




Thank you for that. I would have given more milpoints if 40 wasn't my max.
I will need to read these things in full before I comment on the October 2010 stipulations.

I think that'll be enough from me for today (or maybe for a long time; I don't think I want to oppose prevailing views on these boards after Jarnhamar's very crass and hostile reply earlier. I'd like to thank everyone else for remaining composed)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar you big meanie  rly:


----------



## armyvern (8 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> ... The post I derided was one that flatly branded him a traitor, and another that asked me a loaded question, essentially requiring me to accept the presumption that he was a "traitor" without an accurate account of the facts.[/size][/font]



Here's some light reading that you may be interested in then:

*The Khadr Allied Papers* - Defence Counsel circa 2008 et al


----------



## kratz (8 Jul 2017)

To cool things down, 

E. B. Korcz Forrester   has been muted for a time.

You are asked to contribute to the topic without further interference.

**edit: to correct a reference in error. **


----------



## AbdullahD (8 Jul 2017)

So since someone decided to drop my name.. in a thread I had barely even been keeping tabs on allegeding I was some troll. I suppose now I need to make my stance known. 

First, I have not even really been following this khadr crap because it does not really impact my life.

Second, I do not have the requisite knowledge of the events to have an informed opinion.

But here is my opinion on it. He should not get one red cent, wether he is a traitor or not i dont know i heard something about him having dual citizenship so if he did and he was fighting for one country he had citizenship against an invading force from another country he had citizenship i do not know if that makes him a traitor.

But at the very least, he was old enough to use a weapon, he was in the battle field forum.. so he was an enemy combatant the fact that he was alive after killing one of our own is payment enough. We have starving vets, starving families, a broken mental health system etc and to pay him 10 million or whatever the heck it is because of his feathers getting ruffled actually annoys me. That is money i could personally allocate far better.

But i am woefully ignorant on this subject and i hate talking about things i have no clue on. But linking my name to any and every pro terrorist or pro muslim or muslim apologist who shows up here is a quick way to get under my skin.

I am Abdullah D***** i use my real first name and the first letter of my last name as seen on my passport to post here. You guys can find where i live by reading my posts, i do not hide behind aliases to view any differeing opinions i have. If i have a differing opinion i will use my own name to voice it, because i find it keeps me honest.

I just worked 13hrs today and was hoping to read this post and learn something, but instead here i am ranting like a little child >.<

Abdullah


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2017)

I have to agree at Abdullah's confusion at being dragged into the EB vs the world fest muting here as he hasn't been in this bun fight (that I've noticed).   :dunno:


----------



## armyvern (8 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I have to agree at Abdullah's confusion at being dragged into the EB vs the world fest muting here as he hasn't been in this bun fight (that I've noticed).   :dunno:



I was confused by Abdullah's name drop too and sent a note to the mod last night looking for clarification on what the heck. It confused the hell out of me and I still haven't figured it out.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I was confused by Abdullah's name drop too and sent a note to the mod last night looking for clarification on what the heck. It confused the hell out of me and I still haven't figured it out.



Especially as he's not in EB's corner.   :stars:


----------



## Loachman (8 Jul 2017)

I was driving until 0230 and checked in here around 0300, then spent a fair amount of time trying to see what I was missing - I had at least a dozen windows open for that. We'll get it sorted. I'm back on the road in a little while, and will look in when able, but only on my phone.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2017)

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> Unless I am mistaken, he was inside a compound that was his family's residence. I don't mean to sound condescending, and I figure you know this, but it's not unusual for an occupying military to encounter civilians in the occupied zone. I suggest to you that, for all we know (again, there is no accurate account that wasn't the product of coercion), certain persons, which probably included family, in the same compound were unlawful enemy combatants staging an attack against the occupying U.S. military, but that Khadr was there not for that purpose but because it was the family residence and he was caught in the "cross-fire," so to speak. If that was the case, that doesn't make Khadr an unlawful enemy-combatant.



I doubt that the location of where this all took place, other than being in Afghanistan, is of any great importance.  To argue that he should not be charged because he was in a "family" compound is just as poor an argument, when in the Muslim faith the measurement of when one is an adult is when they reach puberty.  As such, he would be regarded as an adult by those in whatever compound he was found in.   To argue that he was a "Child Soldier" has been disproven on several counts; through the beliefs of the Muslim faith, through the UN description of what a "Child Soldier" is and in the Geneva Conventions.  

I think we can dispose of the "Child Soldier" arguments.


----------



## GR66 (8 Jul 2017)

It seems to me that what E. B. Korcz Forrester seems to missing is that Omar Khadr can both be guilty AND have been treated unconstitutionally.  However, being deemed by the courts as being wronged by the government's (in)actions doesn't undo any guilt that he may have.  

I agree with Forrester that in a order to have a truly just society we need to apply our laws equally to all people...even if at times it feels distasteful due to the fact that the person that was wronged is in fact a bad person.  But I think what offends most people is willingness of his defenders to completely ignore his guilt and focus only the violation of his rights.  The courts have deemed that his rights were violated.  That should not have happened and perhaps there should be consequences for that.  However, I don't think that those consequences should be such that he is in effect rewarded for his guilty acts.  Making him wealthy beyond the dreams of any ordinary Canadian...and in particular those Canadians that have sacrificed their own lives and limbs to defend our country is not an appropriate consequence.  

The whole case has some very tricky issues to reconcile.  Khadr is a Canadian citizen by birth (1986) but only lived here only briefly from 1995 to 1996 with annual visits afterward.  Otherwise he grew up with his extremist family in Pakistan or in bin Laden's compound in Afghanistan.  So on paper he's a Canadian citizen and legally has the rights of such, but what are the practical and reasonable limits of such citizenship?  Should living with and working with people who's avowed goal is the destruction of that very same society put some limits on the benefits you should receive from being a citizen of that country?  I was never a Harper supporter, but I can certainly understand the CPC's reluctance to embrace Omar Khadr as one of our own as if he was an innocent victim of these tragic circumstance.

Khadr's defenders will point out his age..."he was only 15!".  Of course I don't know him, but I'm damned sure that he wasn't brought up with the same sense of right and wrong and attitude toward the liberal West as the average Canadian 15 year old.  And I don't subscribe to the defence that he was "brainwashed" with extremist beliefs.  His attitudes and beliefs were not radically different that a great many other people in the part of the world in which he lived.  Do all the other islamic extremists in the conflict get to fall back on the same defence that they were brainwashed by their parents?  Of course not.  Their beliefs are extreme when compared to the vast majority of Muslims in the world, but in the part of the world he grew up in those beliefs are common in a large portion of the population.  He wasn't brainwashed he was culturally acclimatized.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jul 2017)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> So since someone decided to drop my name.. in a thread I had barely even been keeping tabs on allegeding I was some troll. I suppose now I need to make my stance known.



For someone barely keeping tabs on this 80 page thread you have impeccable timing to catch your name being dropped my friend. 

I suspect you may have been mentioned due to some posting similarities.


----------



## Loachman (8 Jul 2017)

There are no posting similarities that I can see, and a lot of differences. Unless a split personality is at play, I am confident that the two posters are not the same.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jul 2017)

I found the "I'm tired I'm going to bed" quite singular (and picular)  to their posts but i can see how a very pro-islam view point might  cause  some to think them one in the same at first glance.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jul 2017)

The bigger, scarier, and unstated, issue with sentences for terrorists that are perceived to be too lenient is that soldiers will be less likely to take prisoners on the battlefield.

I'm sure that this consideration did not factor into the decision in this particular case.


----------



## kratz (8 Jul 2017)

I made an error in comparing the two members and steps have been taken to amend the mistake.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2017)

kratz said:
			
		

> I made an error in comparing the two members and steps have been taken to amend the mistake.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The bigger, scarier, and unstated, issue with sentences for terrorists that are perceived to be too lenient is that soldiers will be less likely to take prisoners on the battlefield.



I don't have an issue with the thought of less terrorists returning to the west to commit further mayhem and get mega bucks from the taxpayers.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I don't have an issue with the thought of less terrorists returning to the west to commit further mayhem and get mega bucks from the taxpayers.



Sgt Blackman may disagree with you, now that he's out of jail:

"Blackman ordered Marine B and C to stop administering first aid to the insurgent and eventually shot the man in the chest with a 9 mm pistol,saying: "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you c8nt. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."He then added: "I just broke the Geneva Convention."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Helmand_Province_incident


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2017)

I agree once you start FA and or take custody of the pricks, then its LOAC rules and pinkys up.  I was thinking more along the lines of fighting harder to minimize the need to administer FA or deliver survivors to POW cages.  

That being said, what was done to Sgt Blackman was shitty, just like Capt Semrau.  Blackman was far more humane with what he did than they would have been to a RM in their hands.


----------



## AbdullahD (8 Jul 2017)

kratz said:
			
		

> I made an error in comparing the two members and steps have been taken to amend the mistake.



Thank you kratz.

Jarnhamar, due to my work, my usual time for checking army.ca is late at night quite often. It does not mean i do not check at other times, but quite often I do check late at night which feeds the 'late im going to bed' but the last time i did it in the terrorist thread was purely a joke. My impeccable timing is just a coincidence man.

Now i will leave off the subject.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jul 2017)

>Personal anecdotes and analogies won't work here. Khadr's circumstances at 15 and your circumstances at that age were worlds apart.

What reasonable people do or are likely to do is 100% relevant.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jul 2017)

[quote author=AbdullahD] . My impeccable timing is just a coincidence man.
[/quote]
Indeed. No worries Abdullah. 'there are no wolves on Fenris' Ive read. 


Should you chose to wade back into the conversation I have a question. You have your finger on the pulse of a lot of Muslims across Canada it seems. What's your opinion on their overall reaction to this case and specifically the apology and settlement?


----------



## mariomike (8 Jul 2017)

For reference to the discussion,

-For Immediate Release-

(Ottawa – July 4, 2017) The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), a prominent civil liberties & advocacy organization, welcomes news of the federal government’s decision to apologize and compensate Canadian citizen Omar Khadr for his ordeal.
https://www.nccm.ca/nccm-welcomes-governments-apology-to-omar-khadr/


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Jul 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> For reference to the discussion,
> 
> -For Immediate Release-
> 
> ...



Colour me shocked.


----------



## AbdullahD (8 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Indeed. No worries Abdullah. 'there are no wolves on Fenris' Ive read.
> 
> 
> Should you chose to wade back into the conversation I have a question. You have your finger on the pulse of a lot of Muslims across Canada it seems. What's your opinion on their overall reaction to this case and specifically the apology and settlement?



To be honest I do not know, but we have liberal and conservative Muslims. We are hardly one homogenous group.

I suspect though they would be largely sympathetic with him though. But to be honest i know less then many posters in this thread. Some of my friends who are Muslim are critical of both him and his treatment. So maybe Muslims, as a group, are more centered then i think. But I do not know.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The fact remains that the Supreme Court declined to void his convictions, and he served time in a Canadian prison. In their multiple opportunities, they only stated CSIS violated his right to have counsel present while questioning him, and that info should not have been turned over to the US authorities not that any of the charges were not transferable to Canadian law. Legally, he is a convicted murderer and terrorist.
> 
> Little bit of facts on his actual charges: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/25/khadr.plea/



Stole that for my FB page.


----------



## Strike (10 Jul 2017)

GR66 said:
			
		

> It seems to me that what E. B. Korcz Forrester seems to missing is that Omar Khadr can both be guilty AND have been treated unconstitutionally.  However, being deemed by the courts as being wronged by the government's (in)actions doesn't undo any guilt that he may have.
> 
> I agree with Forrester that in a order to have a truly just society we need to apply our laws equally to all people...even if at times it feels distasteful due to the fact that the person that was wronged is in fact a bad person.  But I think what offends most people is willingness of his defenders to completely ignore his guilt and focus only the violation of his rights.  The courts have deemed that his rights were violated.  That should not have happened and perhaps there should be consequences for that.  However, I don't think that those consequences should be such that he is in effect rewarded for his guilty acts.  Making him wealthy beyond the dreams of any ordinary Canadian...and in particular those Canadians that have sacrificed their own lives and limbs to defend our country is not an appropriate consequence.



That right there.

And it's unfortunate that this is not the first time that a government agency has put a person's rights on the back burner.  I also note that in that other case (which some may say is related because of Khadr's testimony, which was later deemed to be false in this case) the award was the same, although that person was deemed innocent of all charges.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jul 2017)

We were talking about this yesterday and someone brought an interesting question:

Is it morally right to subject a person to a system that they have clearly chosen to tear down? In effect declaring "I don't want to live in your society, I want to violently change it into something else".

I think most of us here can agree that under current law his rights were violated, although we equally disagree with the remedy. Notwithstanding, does one's goal of destroying our rule of law, not set them outside it? Should we not strive to treat them as if they were protected, but at the same time not be legally obligated to do so?


----------



## gryphonv (10 Jul 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> We were talking about this yesterday and someone brought an interesting question:
> 
> Is it morally right to subject a person to a system that they have clearly chosen to tear down? In effect declaring "I don't want to live in your society, I want to violently change it into something else".
> 
> I think most of us here can agree that under current law his rights were violated, although we equally disagree with the remedy. Notwithstanding, does one's goal of destroying our rule of law, not set them outside it? Should we not strive to treat them as if they were protected, but at the same time not be legally obligated to do so?



Ironically Bill C -24 gave the government the power to revoke the citizenship of both naturalized and natural born citizens if they were convicted of terrorist activities. Or taking up arms against Canada. Which I'm sure Khadr and his family were prime targets. 

One of the first major bills the Liberals passed was Bill C -6 which revoked a lot of Bill C -24,including the power to revoke natural born citizens of their citizenship. 

I have a mixed view on this subject, because I feel some cases could be warranted but it is a slippery slope when a siting government starts revoking citizenships. 

As far as I can tell(I'm not up on my citizenship law) currently the only citizens that can have their citizenship revoked are naturalized citizens who committed fraud on their application, ones convicted of committing terrorist activities, or taking up arms against Canada. 

As much as I hate to support Khadr, the rights of a natural citizen should be paramount to any political or public attitude of the day. Even if that person became a natural citizen under dubious circumstances.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jul 2017)

The person shouldn't be left stateless, if we're revoking citizenship. I'm not sure if Khadr has any other citizenship other than Canadian, his mother is Palestinian and his father is Egyptian.


----------



## Gunner98 (10 Jul 2017)

All I wish to say on this subject is that the spectrum of Canadian values now includes a payout to Khadr and allowing Karla Homolka to volunteer at a Montreal Elementary School.  We are a forgiving nation! :facepalm:


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The person shouldn't be left stateless, if we're revoking citizenship. I'm not sure if Khadr has any other citizenship other than Canadian, his mother is Palestinian and his father is Egyptian.



I take your point, but many countries have citizenship by descent, so one might still not be stateless. In this specific instance, he qualifies for Egyptian citizenship due to his parentage, but Egypt's rules on dual citizenship are imprecise. Egypt recognizes both jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship, but their rules on children born abroad are unclear.

There are other countries, Ireland for example, that recognize citizenship by descent in perpetuity.


----------



## Lex Justitia (10 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The person shouldn't be left stateless, if we're revoking citizenship. I'm not sure if Khadr has any other citizenship other than Canadian, his mother is Palestinian and his father is Egyptian.




It's not only a moral question; legally, states which have agreed to and ratified the 1954 _Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons_and the 1961 _Convention on the Reduction of Stateless_ have an obligation to avoid rendering persons stateless. 

While the Conventions contain exceptions, governments must meticulously consider the implications every time they contemplate rendering someone stateless.

It's a very tricky task striking a balance in the context of furthering security interests. Taken too lightly, its use can become politicalized and we could see--although I admit this is a far-fetched warning--a political dissident who travels abroad return to find that their citizenship has been revoked. Citizenship then becomes a tether by which government controls opposition. A dangerous and ghastly result.


----------



## FJAG (11 Jul 2017)

CAMPBELL CLARK
*In the court of public opinion, Canadians say Trudeau chose wrong on Omar Khadr settlement*



> Most Canadians think the government’s settlement with Omar Khadr was wrong. And if anything is fuelling that anger, it’s the belief that Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government had other options, but chose to pay.
> 
> Public opposition to the settlement is broad, strong in every region, age group and both sexes, according to a new survey conducted by the Angus Reid Institute – echoing the expressions of anger since reports of a settlement first broke last week.
> 
> ...



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/in-the-court-of-public-opinion-canadians-say-trudeau-chose-wrong-on-khadr-settlement/article35651376/

 :cheers:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

Luckily, we are a society governed by the rule of law.   That to me is way more important than the monetary value of the settlement, which is less than what the government would have spent paying him out.  It's about as much of a win for the government as could have been hoped for.

Mr. Khadr has been given the chance to hit reset, lets see what he does with it.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Jul 2017)

And lead by spaghetti backboned politicians.  I hope this is remembered come next election, I won't forget.


----------



## McG (11 Jul 2017)

It would seem Canada is not the first country to offer such a large sum of a settlement to someone who fought against us.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/khadr-settlement-far-from-unprecedented-u-k-australia-made-similar-deals-1.3496779

... but the apology is a first.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And lead by spaghetti backboned politicians.  I hope this is remembered come next election, I won't forget.



It won't be remembered by next week.


----------



## McG (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> It won't be remembered by next week.


I saw a poll that suggested 71% of Canadians do not approve.  This might have more staying power than one would expect.


----------



## McG (11 Jul 2017)

Here is reference for that 71%

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-khadr-poll-1.4198306


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> I saw a poll that suggested 71% of Canadians do not approve.  This might have more staying power than one would expect.



Yep, I saw the same thing.  It's an emotive topic for sure.  

I read that the Government has spent $5 million fighting Mr. Khadr already and the suit was for $20 million.  Simple arithmetic tells me that $5 million + $10.5 million = $15.5 million.  On a case where almost every legal expert has said the government doesn't have a hope in hell of winning, I'd say that's as much of a WIN as the Government could have hoped for.  Potential savings of $4.5 million on a bad investment, I say good job cutting your losses.  

Sometimes the most unpopular decisions are the best ones, that's called leadership  :nod: 

Whatever you may think of Mr. Khadr, he was a child when this happened and it was war.  The Psychology behind ideological indoctrination is an amazing thing.  What exactly makes throwing a grenade in battle a war crime?  They could have killed Mr. Khadr but he got them first, tough luck, that's war.  

Last time I checked, the United States doesn't participate in the International Criminal Court which puts them at odds with every other NATO and Western Aligned Country.  They only enforce international criminal law when it's convenient for them to do so which, against themselves, is never.

That puts them in the same league as Russia and China, you are the company you keep.    






(ICC Member States)

Note that Cuba also isn't a signatory  ;D

Obama should of used this in his "bringing Cuba back in to the fold speech"

"Out of our shared distaste for the International System, Raul Castro and I have decided to put our differences aside"  ;D


----------



## Pencil Tech (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Yep, I saw the same thing.  It's an emotive topic for sure.
> 
> I read that the Government has spent $5 million fighting Mr. Khadr already and the suit was for $20 million.  Simple arithmetic tells me that $5 million + $10.5 million = $15.5 million.  On a case where almost every legal expert has said the government doesn't have a hope in hell of winning, I'd say that's as much of a WIN as the Government could have hoped for.  Potential savings of $4.5 million on a bad investment, I say good job cutting your losses.
> 
> ...



100%


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Yep, I saw the same thing.  It's an emotive topic for sure.
> 
> I read that the Government has spent $5 million fighting Mr. Khadr already and the suit was for $20 million.  Simple arithmetic tells me that $5 million + $10.5 million = $15.5 million.  On a case where almost every legal expert has said the government doesn't have a hope in hell of winning, I'd say that's as much of a WIN as the Government could have hoped for.  Potential savings of $4.5 million on a bad investment, I say good job cutting your losses.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the extremely reasonable position and well thought out analysis.  It's a refreshing change from most of what's said on this topic.


----------



## gryphonv (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Yep, I saw the same thing.  It's an emotive topic for sure.
> 
> I read that the Government has spent $5 million fighting Mr. Khadr already and the suit was for $20 million.  Simple arithmetic tells me that $5 million + $10.5 million = $15.5 million.  On a case where almost every legal expert has said the government doesn't have a hope in hell of winning, I'd say that's as much of a WIN as the Government could have hoped for.  Potential savings of $4.5 million on a bad investment, I say good job cutting your losses.
> 
> ...



I have to add this was a political football. No matter what path the government had choosen to take with this, the opposition would of had something to latch onto.

I think those reasons are why the decisipn was leaked while Trudeau was off the continent, and two months before the house sits again.

I disagree with the settlement but even then I can see a payment was pretty much inevitable. Personally I would of fought it tooth and nail until no other legal options were available. Yes that probably would of cost more in the end.

This one issue won't get the liberals to lose their next election, but it will haunt them. As with every elected party in Canada, it's more about what the outgoing party has done then what the incoming promises to do. 

 One argument though that I disagree with is that the previous government spent 5m on legal proceedings fighting Khadr in court. While the end cost may be accurate, we have to remember most of these lawyers are already on the payroll, that the majority of that money would of been spent fighting another issue as it was fighting this issue.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> What exactly makes throwing a grenade in battle a war crime?



In my mind:

This from the ICRC:

"acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence"

Combined with this from the agreed statement of facts:

At the time that Khadr threw the grenade that killed SFC Speer and injured another U.S. soldier, Khadr was not under the impression that U.S. soldiers were preparing to charge his position, attack or engage him. Rather, Khadr thought that the soldiers entering the compound were looking for wounded or dead and that the firefight was over.


I think that would be considered an act of perfidy, which is a statutory war crime.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2017)

[quote author=jmt18325]   It's a refreshing change from most of what's said on this topic.
[/quote]

He does bring up a great point. At the same time I'm sorry to see you  inconvenienced by this topic which clearly has reason to hit home for you.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> He does bring up a great point. At the same time I'm sorry to see you  inconvenienced by this topic which clearly has reason to hit home for you.



This topic inconveniences us all - but not for the reason for which you're mocking me.  This is not about what Khadr did or did not do.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This topic inconveniences us all - but not for the reason for which you're mocking me.  This is not about what Khadr did or did not do.


So you're the deciding authority on what this is about?  What it means to everyone here?


----------



## gryphonv (11 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This topic inconveniences us all - but not for the reason for which you're mocking me.  This is not about what Khadr did or did not do.



I don't speak for everyone but it don't inconvenience me. I'm more then willing to debate divisive topics that interest me.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So you're the deciding authority on what this is about?  What it means to everyone here?



I'm not the deciding authority on what the payout is actually about - that would be the court and the government.  People here always talk about people needing to stay in their own lanes, yet here they are questioning the decisions of Canada's highest court.  I'm not so arrogant (in this case, anyway).  The payout and apology were made because of those court decisions.  They have nothing to do with Khadr's actions, his guilt (sic), or any feelings that people may have for the various reasons that they may have them.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I don't speak for everyone but it don't inconvenience me. I'm more then willing to debate divisive topics that interest me.



I'm always willing to debate.  The topic at hand though should concern everyone.  We should expect our government to respect our Constitutionally guaranteed rights.  We should expect them to apologize when they don't.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> In my mind:
> 
> This from the ICRC:
> 
> ...



The entire highlighted bit is what is called supposition.  We will never be certain what happened because Khadr was tried in a Kangaroo Court.  Now if the US had brought him to the ICC, maybe they would have been able to prove their accusations in an independent court.  The US doesn't want that though, they want to make their own rules.  

Khadr is being paid for what happened after he was captured, not what happened before.

I don't give a damn what happened before, it's completely irrelevant to his lawsuit and settlement with the government.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This topic inconveniences us all - but not for the reason for which you're mocking me.  This is not about what Khadr did or did not do.



Amen jmt!



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm always willing to debate.  The topic at hand though should concern everyone.  We should expect our government to respect our Constitutionally guaranteed rights.  We should expect them to apologize when they don't.



Amen again!


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2017)

I'm comfortable believing the current government played a big factor in how this decision was reached. 

There are other of cases Canadian citizens who aren't murderers and in bed with terrorism having their rights infringed upon and aren't made rich beyond 99. 9% of other Canadians wildest dreams. Firearm owners come to mind. 

The families terrorist ties should come into play due tonth chance of that 10 million being used against Canadians IMO.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Jul 2017)

So then, the gist of what I am getting from you pro-payment guys, is that because the poor baby's rights were trampled on, he gets a fat payout.  OK... so what about the rest of us?  Will anyone else get $10.5 tax free everytime they get treated badly?  Usually when your rights get trampled on, you are not convicted/or charged of whatever transgression you're accused of.  How come he's so special?  Why wasn't his convicting then just overturned and his not being incarcerated at Bowden when he was repatriated?  Isn't this going to start a free for all from all the other poor babies out there?  How much do we as taxpayers need to foot and for how long?  Better this should have been fought tooth and nail to the bitter end and only then cough up if we had to.  This opens all sorts of doors to others now and if it does, I won't thank the PM for it.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> How come he's so special?



I'm going to go with 9 court rulings (3 from the SCOC) for $1000, Alex.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm comfortable believing the current government played a big factor in how this decision was reached.
> 
> There are other of cases Canadian citizens who aren't murderers and in bed with terrorism having their rights infringed upon and aren't made rich beyond 99. 9% of other Canadians wildest dreams. Firearm owners come to mind.
> 
> The families terrorist ties should come into play due tonth chance of that 10 million being used against Canadians IMO.



You're confusing international law with national law.  Two very different things.

The government is paying Khadr out because we violated our own laws by allowing the United States to detain him, torture him and not give him a fair trial.  Not only that, we were complicit in the entire thing.

We would lose the lawsuit so the government paid him and saved you some money.  Be happy it only cost the taxpayer 15.5 million as opposed to 25 million. 



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> So then, the gist of what I am getting from you pro-payment guys, is that because the poor baby's rights were trampled on, he gets a fat payout.  OK... so what about the rest of us?  Will anyone else get $10.5 tax free everytime they get treated badly?  Usually when your rights get trampled on, you are not convicted/or charged of whatever transgression you're accused of.  How come he's so special?  Why wasn't his convicting then just overturned and his not being incarcerated at Bowden when he was repatriated?  Isn't this going to start a free for all from all the other poor babies out there?  How much do we as taxpayers need to foot and for how long?  Better this should have been fought tooth and nail to the bitter end and only then cough up if we had to.  This opens all sorts of doors to others now and if it does, I won't thank the PM for it.



I'm not pro/for payment, I'm pro law.  We saved money by settling.

Also, this doesn't go to trial so there won't be any precedence set.  Good for us in the long run  8)


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

Canada v Khadr (2008) 

K is entitled to disclosure from the appellants of the records of the interviews, and of information given to U.S. authorities as a direct consequence of conducting the interviews.  *The principles of international law and comity of nations, which normally require that Canadian officials operating abroad comply with local law and which might otherwise preclude application of the Charter  to Canadian officials acting abroad, do not extend to participation in processes that violate Canada’s binding international human rights obligations.  The process in place at Guantanamo Bay at the time Canadian officials interviewed K and passed on the fruits of the interviews to U.S. officials has been found by the U.S. Supreme Court, with the benefit of a full factual record, to violate U.S. domestic law and international human rights obligations to which Canada subscribes.  The comity concerns that would normally justify deference to foreign law do not apply in this case.  Consequently, the Charter  applies.* [2-3] [21] [25-26]

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4638/index.do

 PM v Khadr (2010)

*Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations and contributed to K’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7  of the Charter , not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.  *Though the process to which K is subject has changed, his claim is based upon the same underlying series of events considered in Khadr 2008.  As held in that case, the Charter  applies to the participation of Canadian officials in a regime later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by international law.  There is a sufficient connection between the government’s participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K’s liberty and security of the person.  While the U.S. is the primary source of the deprivation, it is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before the Court that the statements taken by Canadian officials are contributing to K’s continued detention.  The deprivation of K’s right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.  *The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.
*

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7842/index.do

Bowden Institution v Khadr (2015)

 Accordingly, we would dismiss the appeal with costs and confirm the order of the Alberta Court of Appeal that Mr. Khadr’s sentence is a youth sentence to be served in a provincial correctional facility for adults.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15359/index.do

Not once did Khadr lose in court.  The government was wrong over and over and over again.  I would submit that is what makes him special.


----------



## gryphonv (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Also, this doesn't go to trial so there won't be any precedence set.  Good for us in the long run  8)


Arguable this settlement used the precedence started from the Maher Arer  settlement.

It don't have to go to trial or a trial to go to completion for a precedence to be set.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Arguable this settlement used the precedence started from the Maher Arer  settlement.
> 
> It don't have to go to trial or a trial to go to completion for a precedence to be set.



Agreed but it would set additional precedence.  The last thing the law makers want is more legal precedence filling up the grey areas.


----------



## ueo (11 Jul 2017)

Isn't "saving money by settling" a term used by BIG industry to defend the indefensible?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2017)

There comes a time in every democracy when courts and governments arrogantly lose touch with the people that they work for. Citizens that reign in their governments, control them. Those that don't, become sheep for the slaughter. Stop blaming the courts, governments and Kahdar. The fault lies 100% with the voter for letting our employees run our country contrary to our wishes and refusing to discipline those that do not have Canadians' best interest in mind.

The best that can be hoped for are a series of unexpected demises for our elected rogues.  

Laws be damned. There are times when we need to step back and just do what is right. Good people know this inherently. Politicians and courts not so much.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm going to go with 9 court rulings (3 from the SCOC) for $1000, Alex.



He's no more special than any other criminal who didn't have a lawyer present while being questioned.  That pig isn't more equal than the other pigs, despite being treated thus.  He just has deeper pockets with his bloodsucker being willing to gold dig longer to hit paydirt than perhaps your average dirtbag out there.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

ueo said:
			
		

> Isn't "saving money by settling" a term used by BIG industry to defend the indefensible?



Government is big industry  8)



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> There comes a time in every democracy when courts and governments arrogantly lose touch with the people that they work for. Citizens that reign in their governments, control them. Those that don't, become sheep for the slaughter. Stop blaming the courts, governments and Kahdar. The fault lies 100% with the voter for letting our employees run our country contrary to our wishes and refusing to discipline those that do not have Canadians' best interest in mind.
> 
> The best that can be hoped for are a series of unexpected demises for our elected rogues.
> 
> Laws be damned. There are times when we need to step back and just do what is right. Good people know this inherently. Politicians and courts not so much.



It's up to the voters to change the government if they don't like what they see.

We can't blame the courts, they only uphold the laws they don't make them.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There comes a time in every democracy when courts and governments arrogantly lose touch with the people that they work for. Citizens that reign in their governments, control them. Those that don't, become sheep for the slaughter. Stop blaming the courts, governments and Kahdar. The fault lies 100% with the voter for letting our employees run our country contrary to our wishes and refusing to discipline those that do not have Canadians' best interest in mind.



I don't think that universal human rights are contrary to our interests.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Jul 2017)

Our notions of human rights don't apply in China, North Korea, etc. I'm sure everyone is aware of that.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Our notions of human rights don't apply in China, North Korea, etc. I'm sure everyone is aware of that.



And?


----------



## gryphonv (11 Jul 2017)

Honest question.

Does this settlement open up the flood gates for other Citizens that are incarcerated abroad outside of our legal system? Like the Pastor who was held in North Korea?

I can't help but feeling, any incarcerated citizen who Canada don't use every effort to return them to Canada  can use this settlement as a precedent for their own lawsuit when they get back to home soil.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Government is big industry  8)
> 
> It's up to the voters to change the government if they don't like what they see.
> 
> We can't blame the courts, they only uphold the laws they don't make them.



The courts don't make laws.  :rofl: The courts walk a fine line. The courts have been for awhile, and continue to do so. They've trodden on more than a few toes, outside their own jurisdiction.

I'd sooner see the system they have stateside and elect our judges, JP's, police chiefs, city administrators, etc. Politicians are holding Canada for ransom. Sometimes there's room for semantics and lawyer double speak with platitudes about open and just society, that they typically espouse, but seldom follow themselves. There is many starting to move beyond that point, where pitchforks and torches may become more appropriate.

Now, that's just my  :2c:. I am not required to defend what I see with my own eyes. You can decide to agree or not.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Honest question.
> 
> Does this settlement open up the flood gates for other Citizens that are incarcerated abroad outside of our legal system? Like the Pastor who was held in North Korea?
> 
> I can't help but feeling, any incarcerated citizen who Canada don't use every effort to return them to Canada  can use this settlement as a precedent for their own lawsuit when they get back to home soil.



The settlement is not about Khadr not being brought home in a timely fashion.  Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled that the executive has prerogative over that.  In short, no.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The courts walk a fine line. The courts have been for awhile, and continue to do so. They've trodden on more than a few toes, outside their own jurisdiction.
> 
> I'd sooner see the system they have stateside and elect our judges, JP's, police chiefs, city administrators, etc. Politicians are holding Canada for ransom.
> 
> Now, that's just my  :2c:. I am not required to defend what I see with my own eyes. You can decide to agree or not.



You are required to defend your assertion that the courts have made decisions outside of their jurisdiction.

I'm also obliged to point out that the US Supreme Court is no more elected than the Canadian one.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You are required to defend your assertion that the courts have made decisions outside of their jurisdiction.
> 
> I'm also obliged to point out that the US Supreme Court is no more elected than the Canadian one.



You are allowed to discount my OPINION, if you don't agree with it. What you require and what I require are two different things. I'm not obliged to even speak with you if I wish, and I'm most certainly NOT REQUIRED to do a single thing you wish.

And seriously, are you kidding me? The SC is appointed? Holly fuck!!! Stop the presses.

We may not ever agree on things, but let not start calling each other stupid. I mean, if you really want to go down that road, I'm happy to oblige, but I'm sure the owner wouldn't like it. Probably you either.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And?


and what? Just thought I'd point that out to you.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You are allowed to discount my OPINION, if you don't agree with it. What you require and what I require are two different things. I'm not obliged to even speak with you if I wish, and I'm most certainly NOT REQUIRED to do a single thing you wish.



You're right, you're not required to do anything.  If you expect your assertion to be taken seriously, it would probably be a good idea to back it up.



> And seriously, are you kidding me? The SC is appointed? Holly frig!!! Stop the presses.



This particular situation has arisen because of rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada.  Pining for the US system of elected judges wouldn't have changed anything in the case of the Supreme Court, and that's why I pointed it out.



> We may not ever agree on things, but let not start calling each other stupid. I mean, if you really want to go down that road, I'm happy to oblige, but I'm sure the owner wouldn't like it. Probably you either.



I haven't called you stupid.  I'm having a discussion.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> and what? Just thought I'd point that out to you.



And in this case, our system of rights applied.  That's why I don't understand the relevance.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The government is paying Khadr out because we violated our own laws by allowing the United States to detain him, torture him and not give him a fair trial.  Not only that, we were complicit in the entire thing.
> 
> We would lose the lawsuit so the government paid him and saved you some money.  Be happy it only cost the taxpayer 15.5 million as opposed to 25 million.



I know you're right I just wish we would be able to find a way around the pay out. I think it's supporting terrorism.  

I don't recall if it was here or elsewhere but I remember the topic about members of the military getting sex changes and boob jobs which pissed a lot of people off (who can't get laser eye surgery)  but I think  the logical explanation was that the CAF has to provide the same kind of care as OHIP etc.. and if it went to court  the CAF would end up losing and it just kissing away money. Figure it's essentially the same when it comes down to numbers. 

As for allowing the US to detain him we didn't have many options. I suppose we could have threatened to pull our forces out of the crusade unless they returned our errant Canadian citizen. Or mounted a rescue mission  

Im just rambling but  I find argument that we're doing the just and right thing a little  hollow. Our PM shows gay pride Islam socks while allowing weapons to be sold to Saudi Arabia. 

For sure the numbers game you mention is a legit thing but I think this move  also has to do with the countries slide to left wing politics and policies while cementing that voting base.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I don't think that universal human rights are contrary to our interests.



There's no such thing as universal human rights.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The courts don't make laws.  :rofl: The courts walk a fine line. The courts have been for awhile, and continue to do so. They've trodden on more than a few toes, outside their own jurisdiction.
> 
> I'd sooner see the system they have stateside and elect our judges, JP's, police chiefs, city administrators, etc. Politicians are holding Canada for ransom. Sometimes there's room for semantics and lawyer double speak with platitudes about open and just society, that they typically espouse, but seldom follow themselves. There is many starting to move beyond that point, where pitchforks and torches may become more appropriate.
> 
> Now, that's just my  :2c:. I am not required to defend what I see with my own eyes. You can decide to agree or not.



I disagree with you.

The courts don't make laws, they apply them as they are written.  I think your sights are lined up on the wrong targets, point them at the politicians and we would be in violent agreement.  There is a mechanism for getting rid of them though, it's called voting. 

I understand your contempt for politicians as we all have certain grievances with X and Y political parties; however, I don't get your hate for the courts?



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> The courts don't make laws.  :rofl: The courts walk a fine line. The courts have been for awhile, and continue to do so. They've trodden on more than a few toes, outside their own jurisdiction.



When, where and how have the courts trodden on a few toes, walked a fine line or gone outside their jurisdiction?

You can't just make a statement like that and not back it up with an example, fact or source.  

Sorry I lied, you can do that, but it means you don't have an argument and are just trolling.


----------



## Lumber (11 Jul 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Laws be damned.



The laws we are discussing here are the Constitution of Canada and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; not carbon taxes and prohibition era liquor control laws.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> There is many starting to move beyond that point, where pitchforks and torches may become more appropriate.



And when this lot shows up with their pitchforks and torches to contest the Constitution and the Charter, I'll be there in my uniform with my Canadian Flag on my shoulder telling them to back the f*** up.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> There's no such thing as universal human rights.



There is if we decide there is and defend said rights - we did that.  Canada's Charter applies to all of us, and we're very lucky to have such a document.


----------



## gryphonv (11 Jul 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> And when this lot shows up with their pitchforks and torches to contest the Constitution and the Charter, I'll be there in my uniform with my Canadian Flag on my shoulder telling them to back the f*** up.



Imagine if the 5 from Halifax had their uniforms on?


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> There is if we decide there is and defend said rights - we did that.  Canada's Charter applies to all of us, and we're very lucky to have such a document.



Human rights are UN suggestions and not legally binding.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Human rights are UN suggestions and not legally binding.



I'll go back, again, to Canada (Justice) v Khadr:

The principles of international law and comity of nations, which normally require that Canadian officials operating abroad comply with local law and which might otherwise preclude application of the Charter  to Canadian officials acting abroad, do not extend to participation in processes that violate Canada’s binding international human rights obligations.  

----

They don't sound like a suggestion to me - at least not as far as Canada is concerned.


----------



## Loachman (11 Jul 2017)

One wonders what the Sun King's response will be to Andrew Scheer's "You had an option, sir" in the next round of election debates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_had_an_option,_sir


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Human rights are UN suggestions and not legally binding.



jmt used the wrong word, what he really means is political, legal and civic rights, which is what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is all about.

For those who need a refresh, here is a link to the document:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'll go back, again, to Canada (Justice) v Khadr:
> 
> The principles of international law and comity of nations, which normally require that Canadian officials operating abroad comply with local law and which might otherwise preclude application of the Charter  to Canadian officials acting abroad, do not extend to participation in processes that violate Canada’s binding international human rights obligations.  \
> 
> ...



You're correct, we've signed the document so the expectation is we uphold it, of course we don't have to; however, that would bring great discredit to us internationally.

One of the reasons Russia was so heavily sanctioned following Crimea is because they violated international law, laws they were signatories to.  Are people suggesting we do what the Russians do and go against the international system?


----------



## Mick (11 Jul 2017)

Perhaps Recceguy can explain his incredulity at JMT's assertion that the Supreme Court of the United States is not an elected elected body (unlike other levels of the US court system).  Please explain how a presidential nomination requiring senate confirmation is "elected"?  

If you find the Supreme Court of Canada too politically intrusive / active now (with appointed justices), do you really believe having judges running for re-election will be less politicized?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2017)

mick said:
			
		

> Perhaps Recceguy can explain his incredulity at JMT's assertion that the Supreme Court of the United States is not an elected elected body (unlike other levels of the US court system).  Please explain how a presidential nomination requiring senate confirmation is "elected"?
> 
> If you find the Supreme Court of Canada too politically intrusive / active now (with appointed justices), do you really believe having judges running for re-election will be less politicized?



 :rofl: Seriously? Go back and read. Try read it with cynicism and sarcasm.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2017)

We have a specific topic on the Supreme Court of Canada here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/120832/post-1396690.html#msg1396690

Any discussion on changing the court makeup should be over there, it doesn't have a bearing on this topic at all.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You're right, you're not required to do anything.  If you expect your assertion to be taken seriously, it would probably be a good idea to back it up.



No problem. If I recall something and decide to post from memory, so be it. I'm not required to sit here for an afternoon researching things to satisfy YOUR curiosity. I can say what I want and really don't care if you agree or engage or anything else. Matter of fact, as I seldom agree one way or another with you, I'll likely stop engaging with you anyway. I have a solution.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)




----------



## Lumber (11 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Imagine if the 5 from Halifax had their uniforms on?



If you're trying to compare what those 5 did to what recceguy is suggesting, you're missing the mark. He's insinuating that the decisions (Khadr) being made by our present democratically elected government are so "wrong", and reasons why we got their in the first place (Charter and the Supreme Court) that it might be time for the people to rise up with pitch-forks and torches and ignite a revolution and tear down not only the current government, but apparently the court system as well (which in effect means ripping apart the constitution).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Jul 2017)

Personally, I have no beef with how the Supremes are appointed.

But i would like it to be prerequisite that, before they get appointed, they get to be imbedded in an infantry unit deployed on ops outside of Canada for 3 months... to learn about the real world. If they are still fit to serve on the court after their two to three years of therapy following the embed, then they can take their place on the bench.

 [


----------



## gryphonv (11 Jul 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> If you're trying to compare what those 5 did to what recceguy is suggesting, you're missing the mark. He's insinuating that the decisions (Khadr) being made by our present democratically elected government are so "wrong", and reasons why we got their in the first place (Charter and the Supreme Court) that it might be time for the people to rise up with pitch-forks and torches and ignite a revolution and tear down not only the current government, but apparently the court system as well (which in effect means ripping apart the constitution).



[quote author=Lumber ]
And when this lot shows up with their pitchforks and torches to contest the Constitution and the Charter, I'll be there in my uniform with my Canadian Flag on my shoulder telling them to back the f*** up.  
[/quote]

No my comment was in reference to your comment, hence why I quoted it. You said when people contest the Constitution or the Charter. You'll be there. The 5 in Halifax did the same with the Native Protesters, they went there to question a group who was challenging Canadian Values, who then told them they are not welcome there, nor able to fly their flag, Both of which are their Constitutional Rights.  

The only difference between what you said and what they did is the fact they were not wearing a uniform. And look at how well that worked out for them.


----------



## Lumber (11 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> The only difference between what you said and what they did is the fact they were not wearing a uniform. And look at how well that worked out for them.



The difference is they were just protesting and raising awareness in a perfectly democratic and peaceful way.

What I was referring to was an insinuation of open and violent insurrection.


----------



## gryphonv (11 Jul 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> The difference is they were just protesting and raising awareness in a perfectly democratic and peaceful way.
> 
> What I was referring to was an insinuation of open and violent insurrection.



This is getting off this thread and into the territory of another, so this is the last I'll say regarding your comment, but I would say pushing for acknowledgement that this land is unceded is pretty much the same as a violent insurrection, as the implications of that, if ever acknowledged will go all the way to the UN. Anyways, if you decide on your own to stand up to a popular or unpopular uprising in Canada while still serving, don't expect the brass to be so open minded.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> The only difference between what you said and what they did is the fact they were not wearing a uniform. And look at how well that worked out for them.



If they're smart, they'll each be $10.5M richer. fftopic:


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

The documents outlining aboriginal rights in Canada are actually constitutional documents.  I know that because it says so in the Constitution.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The government is paying Khadr out because we violated our own laws by allowing the United States to detain him, torture him and not give him a fair trial.  Not only that, we were complicit in the entire thing.



The part in yellow is where my question goes to;  the US captured him and detained him, outside of Canada.  Canadian citizen or not, what would have happened if then-PM Chretien said "hey, he's a Canadian citizen - hand him over"?  Back in those times, I think the answer would have been a politely worded "go f&&k yourself".

Which is interesting...I've seen numerous comments on the subject where posters are out waving the "this is all Harpers fault, he let this happen!!" and have to  :facepalm:.  It was the Liberals in government when all this happened (capture, imprisonment in 2 places prior to Gitmo).  

I guess, at least if the GoC would have issued a formal statement requesting he be turned over to Canada, if/when the US said GFY, well...*we tried* might apply.


----------



## gryphonv (11 Jul 2017)

One thing I'm curious about, if he Khadr was from Quebec, would he still of got the award. 

I ask, not because of some slight to Quebec, but because they still haven't signed the Constitution.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> One thing I'm curious about, if he Khadr was from Quebec, would he still of got the award.
> 
> I ask, not because of some slight to Quebec, but because they still haven't signed the Constitution.



Quebec signed the constitution in 1867.  Their 'signature' in 1982 would only have been ceremonial, and isn't necessary for legal reasons.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> If you're trying to compare what those 5 did to what recceguy is suggesting, you're missing the mark. He's insinuating that the decisions (Khadr) being made by our present democratically elected government are so "wrong", and reasons why we got their in the first place (Charter and the Supreme Court) that it might be time for the people to rise up with pitch-forks and torches and ignite a revolution and tear down not only the current government, but apparently the court system as well (which in effect means ripping apart the constitution).



Wow, talk about hyperbolic and reaching. I was not advocating civil disobedience. Simply speculating that people are fed up and may not be willing to take it any more. I don't like our system of positioning public servants. I am far from an anomaly there. Stop trying to demonize me because I don't fit your roll over status quo. Stop questioning the courts and government and your in trouble. Just because the court and government says it's right, doesn't make it so. I guess it's ok to throw your morals and fair play to the curb because some toff in a powdered wig says so. There are laws and then there is what is right. They are not always the same thing. When something goes wrong and everyone knows it shouldn't have happened but the law says it's OK, well, who are we to question such sage advise, right? So, if the SCC says it's OK to have sex with 10 year olds as long as there is no penetration, or likewise with domestic animals, how do you square your conscience? Must be OK, right? The SCC and Ottawa says so.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

>



Agreed, because for me, paying off the terrorist is out there, like Pluto, as the saying goes.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The part in yellow is where my question goes to;  the US captured him and detained him, outside of Canada.  Canadian citizen or not, what would have happened if then-PM Chretien said "hey, he's a Canadian citizen - hand him over"?  Back in those times, I think the answer would have been a politely worded "go f&&k yourself".
> 
> Which is interesting...I've seen numerous comments on the subject where posters are out waving the "this is all Harpers fault, he let this happen!!" and have to  :facepalm:.  It was the Liberals in government when all this happened (capture, imprisonment in 2 places prior to Gitmo).
> 
> I guess, at least if the GoC would have issued a formal statement requesting he be turned over to Canada, if/when the US said GFY, well...*we tried* might apply.



Because they did things while he was in custody that violated his charter rights and we allowed that to happen, even though we have an extradition treaty with the United States.  What should have happened was we should have requested his extradition and dealt with him here.

I'm certain the US got their pound of flesh holding him.  



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Wow, talk about hyperbolic and reaching. I was not advocating civil disobedience. Simply speculating that people are fed up and may not be willing to take it any more. I don't like our system of positioning public servants. I am far from an anomaly there. Stop trying to demonize me because I don't fit your roll over status quo. Stop questioning the courts and government and your in trouble. Just because the court and government says it's right, doesn't make it so. I guess it's ok to throw your morals and fair play to the curb because some toff in a powdered wig says so. There are laws and then there is what is right. They are not always the same thing. When something goes wrong and everyone knows it shouldn't have happened but the law says it's OK, well, who are we to question such sage advise, right? So, if the SCC says it's OK to have sex with 10 year olds as long as there is no penetration, or likewise with domestic animals, how do you square your conscience? Must be OK, right? The SCC and Ottawa says so.



You need to separate the justice system and the law makers.  You make it sound like they are one and the same. 

I know you know they aren't but are merely trying to keep your argument going, any way possible.  

I think we can all admit it sucks a terrorist got paid $10 million bucks.

Don't get mad at the justice system, get mad at the successive governments that wrote the laws.  

I see this whole thing as Trudeau mopping up Chretien, Martin and Harper's mess.


----------



## FJAG (11 Jul 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Personally, I have no beef with how the Supremes are appointed.
> 
> But i would like it to be prerequisite that, before they get appointed, they get to be imbedded in an infantry unit deployed on ops outside of Canada for 3 months... to learn about the real world. If they are still fit to serve on the court after their two to three years of therapy following the embed, then they can take their place on the bench.
> 
> [



There used to be a time when four of the nine had been in the artillery: Ritchie, McIntyre, Estey and Dickson (1 Diefenbaker and 3 P Trudeau appointments)

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jul 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> There used to be a time when four of the nine had been in the artillery



Well, there's your problem, right there.


----------



## FJAG (11 Jul 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Well, there's your problem, right there.



 [Xp

  :cheers:


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Because they did things while he was in custody that violated his charter rights and we allowed that to happen, even though we have an extradition treaty with the United States.  What should have happened was we should have requested his extradition and dealt with him here.



That's incorrect. The US is a sovereign nation and we can do the square root of zero to force them to return him. We violated his rights by questioning him without an attorney present, and then giving that info to the US authorities who used it against him legally. Any legal claim based on how he was treated needs to be dealt with in their judicial system. We can request all we want, but the answer is almost always pound sand. He was definitely not treated in accordance with Canadian prison standards, but we have 0 control over what happens there. 

Are you suggesting we now pay out anyone stuck in a third world countries prison system because we didn't ask for them back? Or paying out $10M to anyone in a Canadian prison who's been to solitary confinement?

I see a lot of stretching of truths here, trying to drag the Supreme Court ruling to fit their view of the whole situation. The fact is he was paid out a lot of money for a very narrow portion of his time in Gitmo. Had we left him there and provided consular support like any other foreign detained Canadian, Khadr wouldn't be getting a dime.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's incorrect. The US is a sovereign nation and we can do the square root of zero to force them to return him. We violated his rights by questioning him without an attorney present, and then giving that info to the US authorities who used it against him legally. Any legal claim based on how he was treated needs to be dealt with in their judicial system. We can request all we want, but the answer is almost always pound sand. He was definitely not treated in accordance with Canadian prison standards, but we have 0 control over what happens there.
> 
> Are you suggesting we now pay out anyone stuck in a third world countries prison system because we didn't ask for them back? Or paying out $10M to anyone in a Canadian prison who's been to solitary confinement?
> 
> I see a lot of stretching of truths here, trying to drag the Supreme Court ruling to fit their view of the whole situation. The fact is he was paid out a lot of money for a very narrow portion of his time in Gitmo. Had we left him there and provided consular support like any other foreign detained Canadian, Khadr wouldn't be getting a dime.



I get it, everyone is mad that he is being paid out, heck, I'm mad about it but we didn't do things properly and that's why he is being paid money.  

I blame three successive governments for royally screwing it up.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Because they did things while he was in custody that violated his charter rights and we allowed that to happen, even though we have an extradition treaty with the United States.  What should have happened was we should have requested his extradition and dealt with him here.
> 
> I'm certain the US got their pound of flesh holding him.
> 
> ...



Well, I'm not. However, when you get done with your crystal ball..............

I've said my piece. Unlike many others though, I don't subscribe to the Canadian credo that the SC and other men aren't fallible. They may be gods to many here, on this forum, but they aren't to me. There was a time, just before mid last century when people failed to stand up to laws and say this is wrong. I'm not invoking Godwin, but the world is full of corruption, has been and likely always will. I'm sure people have and will defend those courts too. It's just easier. It's better to give it over to some faceless pogue that you can point to and say, "well I guess that's it. Their decision, I'm absolved." The old saying 'The Law is an Ass' has basis in fact.

I have a moral compass that doesn't swing because of words written in Ottawa. I'll finish by saying it may be the law, but it is wrong and if you have any kind of decency and fair play, you'll agree. No matter what the words say. If you can clear your conscience to say that your friends may have died or been injured in vain, that Veterans can't get a fair shake but Khadar deserves what he got, I'd rather you never speak to me again. I may be a prick and an asshole, but I know right from wrong, which apparently doesn't mean a lot anymore. I'm not religious, but our moral codes and sense of decency don't come from laws, and it disgusts me that people stand behind them instead of standing up for what's right and decent.

I'm done with this one.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> You need to separate the justice system and the law makers.



I have already said earlier that I do not believe that the Supreme Court is infallible.  I am willing to accept their decision, although it sure sounds like some of the lawyers speaking out do not have all their facts right, especially when I hear one say that it is only "alleged that he threw the grenade" while stating that in fact he WAS "tortured".  Having had surgery, I know that the marks can remain on your body for several months; could any marks that a NON-medical qualified lawyer seen been wounds healing from surgery, and then alleged to be signs of torture?  Just a question as I hear more and more of the case.  
I am also getting tired of hearing the term "Child Soldier" thrown out in arguments.  He was far from being a Child Soldier and video has shown him building IEDs as well as burying them.  He is far from being an "innocent child who did not know what he was doing".  He knew fairly well what he was doing.

The fact is: there is the "Law" and then there is "What is Right".  This is NOT RIGHT.




			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I see this whole thing as Trudeau mopping up Chretien, Martin and Harper's mess.



Was not all the denial of his Rights and the CSIS "interviews" ( I think too many civilians are equating "interrogation" with torture. ) done under the watches of Chretien and Martin; and it was Harper who reluctantly repatriated him home to his 'freedom'?


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2017)

>What exactly makes throwing a grenade in battle a war crime?

Not meeting any of the criteria for being a lawful combatant.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Quebec signed the constitution in 1867.  Their 'signature' in 1982 would only have been ceremonial, and isn't necessary for legal reasons.



From what I have seen; if it is in their interests then yes.  If it is not in their interests, then No.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I get it, everyone is mad that he is being paid out, heck I'm mad about but we didn't do things properly and that's why he is being paid money.
> 
> I blame three successive governments for royally screwing it up.



2 governments, Chretien and Martin. CSIS was banned by the Canadian Supreme Court from interviewing him in August 2005. During Harper's time, his hands were tied. He had to wait until Khadr pled guilty in October 2010 before initiating repatriation, just like any other Canadian in foreign detention. The US was never going to release him without a conviction/prove innocence, so the Tories hands were tied.

This is a ridiculous payout, that sets a terrible precedent that should have been allowed to be sorted out in court. The Liberals wanted to hush the trial because everything that happened incorrectly happened under their watch. Paying him out hides all those facts and they can continue to blame Harper for everything.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 2 governments, Chretien and Martin. CSIS was banned by the Canadian Supreme Court from interviewing him in August 2005. During Harper's time, his hands were tied. He had to wait until Khadr pled guilty in October 2010 before initiating repatriation, just like any other Canadian in foreign detention. The US was never going to release him without a conviction/prove innocence, so the Tories hands were tied.
> 
> This is a ridiculous payout, that sets a terrible precedent that should have been allowed to be sorted out in court. The Liberals wanted to hush the trial because everything that happened incorrectly happened under their watch. Paying him out hides all those facts and they can continue to blame Harper for everything.



The Harper government is equally complicit in all of this.  It had nearly a decade in power to sort this whole thing out and chose instead to fight it out in court.  Why?  I can only speculate that it's because we were involved in Afghanistan at the time.  

The first casualty when war comes is truth.  Each governing party is guilty for at least some of this fiasco.  Time to cut losses, move on and not make the same mistakes again.

This whole sordid affair is just one small speck of the poor foreign policy we've been forced to endure.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2017)

I'm sure the current government wanted to cut its losses with litigation, as they renew the legal arguments against veterans.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm sure the current government wanted to cut its losses with litigation, as they renew the legal arguments against veterans.



That's a battle they can actually win though and it's going to cost them a heck of a lot more than $10.5 million if they don't which is why it's worth sending their army of lawyers to fight.

It's also irrelevant to this discussion.  

God I love when legal issues become partisan political issues  8)


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> God I love when legal issues become partisan political issues  8)



When its done in covert and reeks of partisan politics, where there's smoke there's fire. If this was the right thing to do, make an announcement. Don't hide it and play surprised later.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> When its done in covert and reeks of partisan politics, where there's smoke there's fire. If this was the right thing to do, make an announcement. Don't hide it and play surprised later.



I was half joking when I said the above  8), TBH I'm actually finding this entire discussion fascinating.

Off Topic:

If we all put as much time and effort in to finding a way to help prevent the government from FUBARing Vets as we have in to being angry about Omar Khadr making bank, we'd probably have a pretty good case laid out.

Let's not let the sideshows (Khadr being one of many) distract us from the real issues actually affecting us :2c:


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's incorrect.



Actually, you're right, which is why I posted the relevant portion of the rulings.  That the US had him was not the problem.  Our complicity in certain activities, and our failure to follow our own laws was.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Was not all the denial of his Rights and the CSIS "interviews" ( I think too many civilians are equating "interrogation" with torture. ) done under the watches of Chretien and Martin; and it was Harper who reluctantly repatriated him home to his 'freedom'?



The denial was under all 3 governments.  The Harper government was specifically to blame for the failure to recognize his status as a youth offender in Bowden Institution v Khadr.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> From what I have seen; if it is in their interests then yes.  If it is not in their interests, then No.



You don't get to pick if it applies or not.  It applies to Quebec - end of story.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> When its done in covert and reeks of partisan politics



How many settlements have you seen negotiated in public?


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2017)

Maybe there is a person or two out there outraged that the settlement was negotiated in private, but even a muddled reading of a number of published opinion pieces today makes it clear that it is the means by which the settlement came to light (ie. a conveniently timed leak) that has raised so many eyebrows.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You don't get to pick if it applies or not.  It applies to Quebec - end of story.



REALLY?

From what I have seen if it suits Quebec, then they agree with the Constitution that they did not sign when it was repatriated.  If it doesn't suit Quebec, then they use the "I did not sign" excuse.  Funny that.


----------



## Scott (12 Jul 2017)

This thread is about Khadr.

Let's keep it about Khadr.

Not Quebec, or the other circular arguments.

Scott
Staff


----------



## Loachman (12 Jul 2017)

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/11/liberals-miscalculated-on-khadr-settlement

Liberals miscalculated on Khadr settlement  

By Lorne Gunter , Edmonton Sun  

First posted:  Tuesday, July 11, 2017 06:17 PM EDT  | Updated:  Tuesday, July 11, 2017 06:29 PM EDT 

Get ready to write a lot of cheques.

According to Global Affairs Canada, there are over 1,400 Canadians imprisoned in other countries, many victims of mistreatment by foreign governments.

If the Trudeau Liberals feel the need to compensate every one of them as they have war criminal Omar Khadr, Canadian taxpayers could be on the hook for $15 billion.

Just to handle all the paperwork, they’ll probably need a new ministry - Apologies Canada.

Of course, I’m being facetious.

The Trudeau government isn’t going to compensate most (any?) of the others as it has compensated Khadr.

They aren’t even trying very hard to get most of the others released.

So why the Trudeauites’ fixation with Khadr?

First, “progressives” love nothing more than to show off their political correctness, again and again.

In Khadr, the Liberals see the chance to show they are so tolerant they are even willing to kowtow to a Muslim with a terrorism conviction.

How very open-minded (and how out-of-touch with ordinary Canadians).

The Khadr case also permits them to assert their moral superiority over the Americans, not to mention poking the former Harper government in the eye.

But mostly, I think Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s brains trust truly believed the $10.5 million payout to Khadr would be politically popular, that most Canadians would share their view that here was a poor, young man, an unwitting participant in the Afghanistan war, and a victim of America’s post-9/11 pre-occupation with homeland security.

They believed we would all line up behind the notion that Khadr’s settlement proves Canada is a tolerant, compassionate country.

(It’s the same thinking behind their rush to admit Syrian refugees without proper security screening and to leave our borders open to anyone willing to sneak across.)

However, polls show even Liberal voters strongly oppose this settlement.

Seventy-one per cent of Canadians surveyed oppose Khadr’s cash prize, according to Angus Reid polling, including 61% of Liberals. Just 29% of Canadians approve.

In this way, the Khadr case resembles that of U.S. infantryman Bowe Bergdahl.

After allegedly deserting his post in 2009, Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban and held for five years in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In 2014, then U.S. president Barack Obama traded five senior terrorist prisoners from Guantanamo Bay for Bergdahl.

He and his aides clearly believed bringing home an American PoW would make the president a hero.

Instead, they were taken aback by the outrage of citizens, including Democrats, over trading terrorists for an alleged deserter.

Justin Trudeau and his minions were likely shocked, too, that their Khadr settlement was widely unpopular.

It is so unfair compared to others’ treatment.

The Canadian government dismissed Capt. Robert Semrau from the army in 2010 for shooting a horribly wounded insurgent in Afghanistan, to put the enemy out of his obvious misery. Semrau’s conduct was labelled “disgraceful.”

Khadr confessed to killing a U.S. special forces medic (a confession he later disavowed), and rather than brand his actions as “disgraceful,” the Trudeau government gives him a $10.5-million bonus.

Most Canadians in jail abroad are there for drug or other criminal offences, but Amnesty International says several are political prisoners, subjected to torture.

Most of those being tortured were arrested for being champions of democracy or human rights, or because they were Christian missionaries.

They were not fighters for al-Qaida, as Khadr was.

The Trudeau government has its sensibilities and priorities screwed on backwards.


----------



## jmt18325 (12 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> REALLY?
> 
> From what I have seen if it suits Quebec, then they agree with the Constitution that they did not sign when it was repatriated.  If it doesn't suit Quebec, then they use the "I did not sign" excuse.  Funny that.



The courts don't care about that.


----------



## Loachman (12 Jul 2017)

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

Liberals could have defended Khadr case  

By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun  

First posted:  Wednesday, July 12, 2017 05:07 PM EDT  | Updated:  Wednesday, July 12, 2017 05:16 PM EDT  

The Trudeau Liberals insist they had little choice but to settle with Omar Khadr for $10.5 million.

This in light of Khadr’s $20 million civil suit against them and because the Supreme Court found in 2010 that the Jean Chretien and Paul Martin Liberal governments violated Khadr’s Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person in 2003 and 2004.

That was when they sent CSIS and foreign affairs interrogators to question Khadr in Guantanamo, and shared the information they obtained with his American captors, knowing he had been sleep deprived.

The Supreme Court ruled subjecting Khadr to this as a youth, while questioning him without access to legal counsel, violated his rights.

None of that, however, means the Trudeau government couldn’t have defended the Khadr suit, nor that it would automatically have had to pay $10.5 million or more.

A veteran lawyer I spoke with said the amount awarded by the court could have been much less, given that the Liberal government could have mounted a credible defence, based on several factors.

First, the 2010 court decision did not require the federal government to try and repatriate Khadr, who was nonetheless repatriated just two years later, under the Stephen Harper government.

Second, plaintiffs routinely ask for much more than they expect to be awarded if they win, so there was nothing written in stone about Khadr’s $20 million claim.

Third, while it’s likely (though not automatic) the government would have been found liable for damages, given the 2010 court ruling, it could have argued those damages should be well short of $10.5 million.

For example, by noting the major violator of Khadr’s rights was the U.S., not Canada, and that Canada isn’t responsible for what the U.S. did.

Then there’s the issue of to what extent Khadr was the author of his own misfortune, known legally as volenti non fit injuria,

Here, the lawyer said, the Trudeau government could have argued Khadr caused the situation he was in - by participating in a firefight against U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan in 2002, that led to the death of Sgt. Christopher Speer and the blinding of Sgt. Layne Morris in one eye.

In a car accident, for example, damages to a plaintiff can be eliminated or reduced if it’s found he was speeding and/or not wearing a seat belt.

In the Khadr case, the court would have had to decide to what extent Khadr acted under his own free will at 15 years of age, and to what extent he was under the influence of his terrorist father, Ahmed Said Khadr, who sent him to terrorist training camps operated by the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

Given these arguments, the lawyer said, the court could have awarded damages substantially less than $10.5 million, or the $11.5 million, with an apology, that Maher Arar settled for in 2007 with the Harper government.

That was another case, caused by the Chretien government, in which Arar, who was innocent, was deported by the Americans to Syria in 2002 and tortured, after the RCMP gave the U.S. false information about his supposed ties to terrorists.

In other words, the Chretien government’s actions were far worse than with Khadr.

Simply put, the Trudeau government, which claimed the Khadr case has already cost almost $5 million - which the lawyer said sounds extraordinarily high - could have defended itself had it wanted to. It didn’t.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Jul 2017)

Two good opinion pieces there.  No boo hooing or pity partying.


----------



## MARS (12 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No boo hooing or pity partying.



...which has nothing whatsofuckingever to do with whether an opinion piece is 'good' or not...just saying


----------



## Loachman (12 Jul 2017)

http://www.nugget.ca/2017/07/11/the-government-is-rewarding-terrorists-and-punishing-vets

'The government is rewarding terrorists and punishing vets' 

By PJ WILSON, The Nugget 

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:50:22 EDT PM 

The federal government’s decision to compensate “an admitted terrorist” is “a slap in the face” to any Canadian who served in Afghanistan.

“They are glorifying a self-confirmed terrorist,” Mike McNeil says.

McNeil is no longer in the Canadian Armed Forces. He took a medical release in 2014, five years after he drove over a Taliban improvised explosive device (IED) that left him with traumatic brain injury and possible spinal problems.

“I was 30 days in and did another 186 days,” McNeil, a North Bay native, says.

It was early afternoon Nov 14, 2009. The time and date are written on a piece of metal – part of a brake – blown off the one-man vehicle he drove to find IEDs and mines.

At about 1 p.m. that day, McNeil, then a member of the 4 Combat Engineer Support Regiment from CFB Gagetown, was leading a convoy.

His vehicle was towing a six-ton trailer that was supposed to find any explosives his vehicle failed to detonate.

The blast tore his vehicle to pieces and left a three-metre crater in the Afghanistan road. He was knocked unconscious, on the other side of the crater from the rest of the convoy.

It took them about half an hour to reach him as they searched for any other explosives that might have been there.

When they reached him, McNeil managed to get up on the wreckage of his vehicle for a “hero shot” before he was choppered back to the base hospital.

The explosive McNeil drove over was similar to those made by Khadr, a Canadian who was awarded a reported $10.5 million Friday by the federal government after he was held by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.

In announcing the deal, the government claimed it had “no choice” but to settle, pointing out the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 the government was complicit in the violation of Khadr’s rights as a citizen, when he was visited in Guantanamo Bay prison by CSIS agents in 2003 and 2004.

The government and the Supreme Court argued that whatever Khadr may or may not have done on the battlefield in Afghanistan was irrelevant to the settlement. (He pleaded guilty to five war crimes, including throwing the grenade that killed U.S. special forces Sgt. Christopher Speer in 2002. He is currently appealing the conviction.)

Expert opinion is united that the government would eventually have lost in court.

Seven out of 10 Canadians, however, say the government made the wrong call by settling out of court, according to an online survey conducted by the Angus Reid Institute over the weekend.

McNeil agrees.

He’s bitter that Khadr, who was wounded and captured by U.S. forces when he was 15, is being “rewarded” for his actions.

McNeil will receive $331,000, which was “reverse indexed” down from $360,000.

The federal government, he says, “is going around telling everyone they are giving vets all this money. But this is all I am going to get from the government for the rest of my life.

“And they are giving a terrorist – there are videos of him making the exact same IEDs I drove over – our government is giving him $10.5 million.

“The government is rewarding terrorists and punishing vets.”

The explosion changed McNeil, he says. Numerous specialists – psychologists, neurologists, neuro-psychologists – have examined him and have come away with the same diagnosis.

Traumatic brain injury.

One of the most noticeable effects is the stutter he now battles as he talks.

“The words get scrambled between my brain and my mouth,” he says.

“I couldn’t walk. I was stuttering – I’d never stuttered before.”

McNeil was put on light duty for eight days before he was back with his unit, searching for and clearing mines.

And while the members of his unit “had my back all the way,” it’s not something he can say for the Canadian government.

McNeil says he fought the Taliban for 216 days. But he’s been fighting the Canadian government for 2,700.

“I’m tired of fighting,” the onetime corporal in the Canadian army says.

He received the Canadian Forces Sacrifice Medal in 2012 – awarded to Canadian military personnel “wounded or killed under honourable circumstances as a direct result of a hostile action or actions intended for a hostile force.”

“It’s great, that,” he says. “But you don’t get any benefits for that.”

McNeil was medically released from the military March 12, 2014, just days shy of nine years in uniform.

“I left on good terms,” he says. “I was a good soldier. If they asked me to do something, I did it. I might have been pissed off about it, but I did it.”

There was almost no acknowledgement from the government that he had suffered any injury in the explosion. He filed claim after claim, but each was denied.

“My lawyer sat down with the VA lawyer, and they threatened to cut my benefits if I kept fighting,” he says. “If I kept appealing, my benefits would be reduced.”

Finally, earlier this year, Veterans Affairs acknowledged McNeil had suffered serious injury in the blast and approved the settlement - $30,000 less than he had been led to expect.

“I’m done begging the government for things they promised,” he says.

McNeil says he visited Nipissing-Timiskaming MP Anthony Rota’s office with his paperwork. Staff there made some photocopies of his information, but it was only a small portion of the papers he had with him.

In an e-mail, Rota told The Nugget "We can't comment on any one case due to confidentiality. We continue to work diligently to get our citizens the best outcome possible."

With files from John Ivison, Postmedia


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Jul 2017)

MARS said:
			
		

> ...which has nothing whatsofuckingever to do with whether an opinion piece is 'good' or not...just saying



It does to me....just saying back at you


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Jul 2017)

This will be my final post in this thread, it's a blog article written by Craig Forcese, B.A., M.A., L.L.B., L.L.M. Who is a professor of law at the University of Ottawa.

If you want to actually understand the legal issues surrounding this case, read it.  Continue to be mad about it if you wish but understand this is WAY BIGGER than petty partisan politics.



> *A Once & Final Parsing of the Legal Context for the Khadr Settlement*
> Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 10:49AM
> craigforcese in Canada, General Commentary, khadr, settlement
> 
> ...



Link to original:  http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/national-security-law-blog/2017/7/11/a-once-final-parsing-of-the-legal-context-for-the-khadr-sett.html


----------



## FJAG (13 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This will be my final post in this thread, it's a blog article written by Craig Forcese, B.A., M.A., L.L.B., L.L.M. Who is a professor of law at the University of Ottawa.
> 
> If you want to actually understand the legal issues surrounding this case, read it.  Continue to be mad about it if you wish but understand this is WAY BIGGER than petty partisan politics.
> 
> Link to original:  http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/national-security-law-blog/2017/7/11/a-once-final-parsing-of-the-legal-context-for-the-khadr-sett.html



 :goodpost:

I must admit that before reading the article, when I saw the academic credentials, I immediately formed the impression that this is an academic with no trial experience. When I checked his bio, I confirmed for myself that he had only two years practical experience before joining academia and said to myself: Well here we go; another ivory tower lecture.

It didn't help when in the preamble to this article he disclosed having worked--albeit peripherally--on the Khadr defence team; Ah ha a biased viewpoint.

It was a major surprise to me, therefore, that in fact this article (and the prior one on his website) is well balanced and looks very closely at the real, numerous issues involved. He almost (but not quite by a hair) won me over to the side that the settlement, as written, is worthwhile. I agree with him whole heartily with the unstated premise that "a bad settlement is better than an uncertain trial". I've lived with that motto for many years in my own practice but there always comes a time where the client insists that "it's a matter of principle". 

My view is not that I think the government might have won; they wouldn't have for the reasons he states. And it's not because it might have been cheaper in the long run; it wouldn't have been for the reasons he stated. It's entirely because of the bad optics of "voluntarily" paying a terrorist $10.5 million (especially when there are currently very real issues between the government and the poorly compensated wounded veterans who served it). The most recent polls make it clear that the vast majority of Canadians (even Liberals) were/are against this settlement. My guess is that this will be an election issue ("Mr Trudeau; You had a choice!")

Thanks HB. Good find.

 :cheers:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Jul 2017)

That was was a good article.  I add my thanks, as well.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This will be my final post in this thread, it's a blog article written by Craig Forcese, B.A., M.A., L.L.B., L.L.M. Who is a professor of law at the University of Ottawa.
> 
> If you want to actually understand the legal issues surrounding this case, read it.  Continue to be mad about it if you wish but understand this is WAY BIGGER than petty partisan politics.
> 
> Link to original:  http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/national-security-law-blog/2017/7/11/a-once-final-parsing-of-the-legal-context-for-the-khadr-sett.html



Excellent article HB.  While It hasn't caused me to change my position; I do recognize it's my emotion and personal belief that keeps me from supporting this settlement and apology. 

Cheers HB.


----------



## Lightguns (13 Jul 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> I must admit that before reading the article, when I saw the academic credentials, I immediately formed the impression that this is an academic with no trial experience. When I checked his bio, I confirmed for myself that he had only two years practical experience before joining academia and said to myself: Well here we go; another ivory tower lecture.
> 
> ...



So in the end it all comes back to what the Liberal govt of 2003 should have done but chose not to - charge Khadr.  As a nation state, we have a duty to ensure that the world does not suffer for our bad apples and when it does we clean up the mess with our justice system.  The settlement still stinks and I am still owed a VA pension for life.  So **** them all, libs, cons, terrorists and peaceniks.


----------



## 7thghoul (13 Jul 2017)

IMHO The reason you guys (and all Canadians) SHOULD be pissed off is because if the feds grew a pair and handled it back in the Chretien & Harper days our current gov't wouldn't have to pay this guy a dime. I don't know if he is innocent or not, there's a lot of conflicting info out there, but I don't like him at all - he gives me the god damn heebie jeebies and now he has 10.5 stacks to spend or give away as he see's fit. I'll believe he's a reformed man when he writes a check for all of it in the name of Speer's wife. 


EDIT: and look what I just found. http://globalnews.ca/news/3593721/omar-khadr-assets/?utm_source=GlobalToronto&utm_medium=Facebook

EDIT 2: Nevermind, that article is pretty garbage. Clickbait titles win again. Should be called "Omar sits at home while Tabitha Speer misunderstands how injunctions work"


----------



## Lumber (13 Jul 2017)

Instead of a blanket apology, could they not have just done what my subordinates do, and sandwich the apology between deprecating arguments?

"Your are a sorry excuse for a human being, but we didn't treat you the way we've promised to treat all Canadian universally, and we're sorry for that, but in our opinion you should still be rotting in a prison somewhere you piece of sh*t."

And then instead of giving him $10.5 million, cover his legal fees and donate $10.5 million to some charity.

Seriously though why does it have to be $10.5 million?

I really believe that people in general (not just Canadians, but all people), have an near-impossible time judging people fairly. When they hear about prison inmates complaining about the justice system or the state of their prisons or some other unfair treatment, I've honestly heard the argument from lay-people that "they're criminals, who cares". Similarly, average people seem to not understand why it's important that alleged criminals have access to adequate defence counsel for trials; they assume defence attorneys are crooks because they are "defending" criminals, despite the fact that many of them are pleading guilty and the attorneys are their just to make sure they are treated fairly. 

And I find it's even worse when the subject is terrorism; there are people out there (I get the feeling some on this site maybe even) who honestly believe if you are a terrorist, that you have no rights and that torture and death are perfectly acceptable treatments for you.

Now, for the most part you can sit down and successfully explain to these people that despite their misgivings, everyone, criminals and terrorists included, have a right to be treated fairly and in accordance with the rule of law. 

But, with this $10.5M settlement, good luck getting anyone to sit down and listen objectively.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (13 Jul 2017)

I tend to agree with Mr Forcese’s parsing of the issues pertaining to this situation.  The problem that I have is the absence of leadership from the Prime Minister on this issue.  An aspect of leadership is making the hard decisions, the unpopular decisions, and the difficult decisions.  However, when a true leader makes these sorts of decisions, they stand up and make the announcement themselves and face the tough questions.  They explain what the issues are, why they exist, and what needs to be done.  A true leader will take the time to explain the difficult decisions.  They take responsibility and ownership of the issue.

I am convinced that the Liberal Govt chose to leak the information rather than take responsibility.  There was no benefit to the Khadr camp to leak the information.  In fact, the leak provided the families in the US opportunity to move quickly in court in an effort to freeze the money.  Without the leak, the families would have been unaware of the payment until possibly after all of the money was hidden, spent, secured, etc.  

There was no official announcement, nor did Trudeau stand up publicly, as a leader, and explain to the Canadian people why the decision was being taken.  His after the fact remarks fell short.  The information was leaked while Parliament was not sitting, so there could be no challenge or questioning in Parliament by elected officials.  The leaked information came out while Trudeau was out of the country on government business, so access so him was restricted.  I also think that the Liberal Govt tried to distract the Canadian taxpayer from the issue with good news stories such as Trudeau and the Queen, Trudeau being awarded an honorary degree in Edinburgh and most recently the leak of Julie Payette as the new GG.  

Leadership was absent when this decision was made to pay out the money and make the apology.  They knew it would be unpopular.  Trudeau should have stepped up and taken ownership of the decision.  He did not.  Rather he ducked out and left his subordinates to face the wrath of the Canadian people.


----------



## Strike (13 Jul 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Instead of a blanket apology, could they not have just done what my subordinates do, and sandwich the apology between deprecating arguments?
> 
> "Your are a sorry excuse for a human being, but we didn't treat you the way we've promised to treat all Canadian universally, and we're sorry for that, but in our opinion you should still be rotting in a prison somewhere you piece of sh*t."
> 
> ...



I'm guessing, but it's probably because that's around what Maher Arar got (although he was found not to be guilty of anything).

Your first point is bang on and probably, if we all think deeply on it, why we are all so pissed off.  It's that our own government (really doesn't matter who is or was in charge at any point) allowed this situation to happen.  It's the same feeling everyone gets when someone gets off for murder or sexual assault because of a technicality and you know they're as guilty as sin.  We put most of our anger on the person instead of the system that got us to that point.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jul 2017)

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> ... There was no official announcement, nor did Trudeau stand up publicly, as a leader, and explain to the Canadian people why the decision was being taken.  His after the fact remarks fell short ... Leadership was absent when this decision was made to pay out the money and make the apology ...


Incorrect on the bit in orange (albeit late in the day on a Friday, with ministers "talking" & not the PM), but bang on with the bit in yellow.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Jul 2017)

We can't have the fair haired boy look bad now, can we?


----------



## Loachman (13 Jul 2017)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-legal-analysis-aaron-wherry-1.4199409

What 3 legal minds think about the Omar Khadr settlement

Detailed perspectives to put alongside the polarized public and political reactions

By Aaron Wherry, CBC News  Posted: Jul 12, 2017 11:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Jul 12, 2017 11:00 AM ET 

It has been a week since word leaked that the federal government had agreed to pay Omar Khadr a settlement of $10.5 million to resolve his civil suit over allegations of mistreatment and breaches of his charter rights.

According to an Angus Reid Institue survey released Tuesday, many Canadians seem unhappy about the payment, but also seem to believe that Khadr has not been treated fairly.

The Liberals and Conservatives, meanwhile, have staked out diametrically opposed positions.

The government argues that it had "virtually no chance" of winning the case, that further contesting Khadr's suit would have cost more and that, above all, an individual's rights were violated.

The Conservatives, under leader Andrew Scheer, object to the notion of paying a "convicted terrorist," a reference to the 2010 plea deal that Khadr is appealing, and say they would have fought his lawsuit in court.

Since the case is ultimately a legal matter, CBCNews.ca reached out to three legal minds for their perspective.

Each was asked about Khadr's chances of success, how much he might have received and whether Justin Trudeau's government was wise to settle. Their comments, posted below, were lightly edited or shortened for clarity.

Craig Forcese, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, who briefly assisted Khadr's American counsel, has also written two long posts on the settlement here and here.

'The government really had no choice'

Eugene Meehan is a former executive legal officer to the Supreme Court of Canada and now a lawyer at Supreme Advocacy LLP in Ottawa, specializing in Supreme Court matters. Meehan references Vancouver vs. Ward, a ruling in 2010 that established that damages can be awarded for the breach of charter rights. (Supreme Advocacy acted as an Ottawa agent for Khadr's lawyers in the Supreme Court hearings, providing technical and procedural advice.)

The [Supreme Court of Canada] did hold, in a full-bench unanimous decision, that Mr. Khadr's constitutional rights to "life, liberty and security of the person" were violated.

The court also indicated the "proper remedy" is a declaration that his charter rights were infringed, but specifically held back from stating how that remedial declaration should be dealt with: "leaving the government a measure of discretion in deciding how best to respond."

The court did go on to say that "through the conduct of Canadian officials …Canada actively [acted] contrary to … international human rights obligations."

Vancouver vs. Ward came out six months after the Supreme Court's Khadr's decision. The Vancouver vs. Ward case stands for the proposition that charter damages are available independent of tort or proof of bad faith.

Given those two decisions, the government really had no choice. It's likely the Supreme Court believes what the government did here was the constitutionally right thing to do — but of course we'll never know that.
  
 Given that the Supreme Court found clear charter breaches, Mr. Khadr almost certainly would have been successful at trial. The real question is, how much would he be awarded? Calculating damages is not an exact science, especially when it comes to charter breaches.

The most recent guidance is found in the Ivan Henry case. In 2016, after having been successful in the Supreme Court in 2015, he was awarded $8 million at trial. He was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for almost 27 years. Most of the award was to vindicate Mr. Henry's breached charter rights, and to deter similar breaches of charter rights.

Similarly, David Milgaard was paid $10 million in 1999 for over 22 years imprisonment. Steven Truscott received $6.5 million for 10 years in jail and living with the stigma of being a convicted murderer for almost 50 years.

The payments for wrongful convictions likely serve as the upper limit for charter breaches. For government, a certain practicality comes in: what's the price of not having this dragged out for another 10 years and having a possible further loss at the Supreme Court of Canada? That's where the $10.5 million figure comes from.

A complicated case that deserved clarity

Howard Anglin was deputy chief of staff and senior adviser, legal affairs and policy, to former prime minister Stephen Harper from May 2013 to October 2015. Quoting former prime minister Brian Mulroney, Anglin would advise Trudeau that "You had an option, sir."

Omar Khadr's 2004 lawsuit against the government of Canada sought $100,000 in damages. Over the next decade, it was amended several times, with concomitant increases in damages until it reached $20 million in the 2014 "amended amended amended fresh as amended" statement of claim.
  
The most significant amendment was the last one, alleging that Canada had conspired with the United States to violate Khadr's rights. This was important because, if proved, it would overcome the inconvenient fact that the alleged mistreatment was at the hands of the Americans, not Canadians. The government would still have been able to argue that there was no conspiracy and, even if there were, Canada was not liable for the alleged mistreatments which Khadr himself said occurred in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay before Canadian officials visited him.
  
The separate claims founded in Canada's alleged failure to bring him back to Canada before 2012 were similarly complicated. There was good reason to have the courts hear and decide these claims, as they could affect how Canada treats future consular cases. If Khadr can be compensated for Canada's alleged failure to repatriate him sooner, how does that affect the cases of Canadians imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, North Korea or China? How should a court weigh a putative duty to act in the best interests of a detained Canadian against competing diplomatic considerations that fall within the Crown's prerogative power over foreign affairs? These are not straightforward legal questions.
  
To state the obvious, this was never a routine case. Most commentary ignores the (sui generis?) novelty of the Supreme Court's charter analysis in 2008 and 2010, which makes a poor basis for predicting the outcome of a separate civil suit. The originality of the issue was reason enough to make Khadr establish his case to a standard of legal proof in court. 

I am sure the government received a risk analysis from Justice Department lawyers, which may have said that $10.5 million was a reasonable settlement. That should have factored into the government's decision, but it didn't need to be decisive. Unlike a class action, where the potential compensation could have ranged into hundreds of millions of dollars, the upper range of the risk in this case was limited.
  
Back in 2014, Khadr's own lawyer looked forward to "a full hearing and full airing of what happened to Omar and how he was treated by both the United States and Canadian government authorities." The Canadian government should have given him that opportunity, for his sake, for the taxpayer's sake, and for the sake of clarity and certainty in the law.

Khadr's suit had a 'pretty reasonable chance'

Lorne Sossin is dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School at York University. Sossin also spoke with CBC radio's Metro Morning this week.

If the question is whether there was a sound basis for the government's decision to settle the civil suit by Mr. Khadr, I think the answer is yes.

The suit for $20 million Mr. Khadr brought in 2014 after his repatriation to Canada (following his plea arrangement) had a pretty reasonable chance of success. In effect, Mr. Khadr would have used the findings of fact accepted by the Supreme Court in 2010 (which found his charter rights had been violated by the involvement of Canadian officials who shared fruits of their interrogation with American officials) as a foundation for claims for charter damages, and damages for various torts (including conspiracy and misfeasance of public office).

Taking this bitterly contested civil suit to trial would have taken years, cost many tens of thousands of dollars (with the government paying both its and Mr. Khadr's legal fees if Mr. Khadr succeeded), and prevented both Mr. Khadr and the government of Canada from reaching any kind of closure on this painful saga. 

The case demonstrates (again) that law has real limits. It cannot bring back the life of Sgt. Christopher Speer, lost in the attack on the Afghan compound, nor can it bring back the years of Mr. Khadr's youth spent enduring unlawful confinement and unlawful treatment at Guantanamo Bay. Settlements, similarly, are imperfect. No one gets what they want or feel they deserve. Both sides make compromises in the interest of closure and this case is no different. Settlements are not for winners or losers; they are for people willing to move on.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jul 2017)

My opinion is that the AQ leadership was grooming him for leadership positions, he came from “good stock”, would have been considered reliable, secure, educated and able to move through Western countries with ease. In the video where he was seen handling explosive material, another senior leader of AQ was identified. Apparently it was not possible to id the other terrorist who were killed at the battle as the locals had removed them and were not willing to tell where they had buried him. I suspect that due to the location being close to Tora Bora and the fact they hid the bodies, it’s likely they were important or trusted associates of the Taliban and/or AQ. At the end of the day interrupting his career at such an early stage would still be cheaper than hunting him as an adult. I think the fallout of this is that these people in the future will be left in the hands of the local authorities and will be unlikely to survive for any period of time.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jul 2017)

Maybe we will get lucky and the government will do the same thing with Kadhr as they did with the long gun registry.  You know, where they forgot to do what they said they would.


----------



## Loachman (13 Jul 2017)

Great.

Only $1.9895 billion more to be wasted.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Jul 2017)

Maybe they should recover what they paid Mr Arar, considering Mr Khadr is partly responsible for his treatment.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (13 Jul 2017)

I can understand why people are so upset, but they also have to be realistic- despite the actions of Khadr he was a Canadian citizen who 3 successive Canadian governments of both political stripes allowed to sit in Guantanamo and have his rights as a Canadian violated. The violation of his Canadian rights is why he got the money; if the Liberals and Conservatives had made any effort to bring him back for trial, incarceration, etc than we wouldn't be where we are. The $10.5 million has nothing to do with him being a Taliban fighter and everything to do with him being a Canadian stripped of rights. This lies at the Feet of messers Chretien, Martin, and Harper. 

For those who would say, "oh but he's an enemy" and "he should have his rights stripped" there is actually precedence in Canada for this. Take the examples of Cpl John Galaher, Pte George Hale, and Pte Martin who were Canadians who fought with the SS (you know, those guys who did that whole holocaust thing) after being captured. They were sentenced in 1945 to life imprisonment and pardoned in 1954. So, for literally joining the SS, they got 9+ years in jail, roughly the same as Khadr. Im guessing circa 1954 that made people pretty upset as well.

Is it unfortunate that this worked out the way it did? Yes! Should the government treat veterans better? definitely. Is any of that relevant? not at all. 

  http://oshawaremembers.wordpress.com/page/2/


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Jul 2017)

"I am a soldier, and unapt to weep or exclaim upon fortune's fickleness." 

Henry VI


----------



## X Royal (14 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Here, the lawyer said, the Trudeau government could have argued Khadr caused the situation he was in - by participating in a firefight against U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan in 2002, that led to the death of Sgt. Christopher Speer and the blinding of Sgt. Layne Morris in one eye.


As to Layne Morris there is many sources that show he made up his testimony and wasn't at the scene of the attack that took Speer's life.
He was reported to be injured eariler and evacuated before the attack that killed Speer's.
A simple search of United States v. Omar Khadr and clicking on the University of Toronto's pre trial report may present a different viewpoint than most have seen. 
In the report it states the only other person in a position to see Khadr throw the grenade was uninjured in the attack. This was not Morris.
Further more the CO of the unit reported the grenade thrower was killed in the attack before the report was changed. Also in the end no one could actually state they seen who threw the grenade.
Also check out the Wikipedia report on Layne Morris and look at the foot notes 4, 14 & 16 in particular.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jul 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ... So, for literally joining the SS, they got 9+ years in jail, roughly the same as Khadr. Im guessing circa 1954 that made people pretty upset as well ...


Sounds like they may have been, indeed ...

Thanks for sharing that historical bit.


----------



## Loachman (14 Jul 2017)

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/13/former-pm-stephen-harper-reaches-out-to-khadr-victim

Former PM Stephen Harper reaches out to Khadr victim 

By Joe Warmington, Toronto Sun

First posted: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:30 AM EDT | Updated: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:48 AM EDT 

First it was a Toronto Sun reader buying a full-page advertisement to apologize to Omar Khadr’s victims for the eight-figure settlement he received from the Canadian government.

Now former prime minister Stephen Harper has reached out to the families to express his outrage.

Upset about the Liberal government’s $10.5-million settlement with Khadr, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s predecessor picked up the phone Wednesday and called American soldier Layne Morris at his home in Utah.

“Layne spoke with Prime Minister Harper today,” his wife, Leisl, said on Wednesday night.

The call came just hours before lawyers for Morris and the widow of American special forces Sgt. Christopher Speer went into court to attempt to freeze Khadr’s assets with a view that the windfall could be applied to a $134-milllion American court judgment they won.

It is believed Harper made a similar call to Speer’s widow, Tabitha, but neither side has confirmed.

However, Leisl Morris said her husband had a good talk with Harper.

“Layne had a little trouble matching schedules with Prime Minister Harper but once they did connect, they spoke for a little over six minutes,” she said.

Her husband was thrilled by the gesture.

“He was very nice,” she said of Harper. “Prime Minister Harper apologized for the payout to Omar.”

And although he appreciated the former prime minister saying that, Morris said it was not necessary.

“Layne told him he did not need an apology because he knows the heart of the Canadian people and understands it’s the government and the current prime minister’s doing,” Leisl said.

She also said it “touched our hearts” that a “concerned” Canadian would spend their own money to take out a full-page ad in the Toronto Sun to let the families know not all Canadians agree with both the amount of the settlement to Khadr and the official apology.

The man who took out the ad told me Thursday: “I am staying anonymous for now because it was meant to come from the sentiment of regular Canadians who feel this way and not just from one. I did it because I felt I needed to put my money where my heart was.”

He said he also appreciated seeing similar commentary from Canadians from coast to coast, including from Harper himself.
Harper has been critical on social media of the settlement.

“The government today attempted to lay blame elsewhere for their decision to conclude a secret deal with Omar Khadr,” Harper wrote in a statement Friday. “The decision to enter into this deal is theirs, and theirs alone, and it is simply wrong. Canadians deserve better than this.
“Today my thoughts are with Tabitha Speer and the families of all Canadian and allied soldiers who paid the ultimate price fighting to protect us.”

And now Harper has expressed this sentiment directly to Khadr’s victims.

jwarmington@postmedia.com


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jul 2017)

It's nice to see there are still people out there that have morals, a sense of decency and know how to behave, even when the fallible laws of government and the total idiocy of our leaders take precedence. Laws are made by man. They are far from perfect and judges aren't always right. In my mind, standing behind a flawed law as an excuse for paying off a terrorist is deceiving and disgusting.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Jul 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's nice to see there are still people out there that have morals, a sense of decency and know how to behave, even when the fallible laws of government and the total idiocy of our leaders take precedence. Laws are made by man. They are far from perfect and judges aren't always right. In my mind, standing behind a flawed law as an excuse for paying off a terrorist is deceiving and disgusting.



In my mind, what's deceiving and disgusting is pretending that this is a terrorist payoff.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Jul 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's nice to see there are still people out there that have morals, a sense of decency and know how to behave, even when the fallible laws of government and the total idiocy of our leaders take precedence. Laws are made by man. They are far from perfect and judges aren't always right. In my mind, standing behind a flawed law as an excuse for paying off a terrorist is deceiving and disgusting.



By "flawed law" you mean the constitution?  As I said before,  the payment has nothing to do with him being a terrorist, veterans, etc and everything to do with his charter rights.

Harper is also being something of a hypocrite in that he could have stopped thus during the 9 years he was in power by bringing Khadr back to Canada and treating him like a citizen, including trying him in Canada. This situation is the making of harper, Chretien,  and Martin, not Trudeau.

The total idiocy of our leaders in this case was before Trudeau came to power, by both team blue and team red. Focus some of your anger on team blue too. As Mulroney said, "sir (Harper in this case), you had a choice".


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Jul 2017)

The GoC does and should hold the CAF to the highest standards of following the Constitution, the Geneva Convention and other international laws of armed conflict.

In this case they disregarded their legal (and moral) obligations to a Canadian citizen and so we're all collectively paying for it.  If CAF personnel had done any of the stuff that happened to Khadr there would be a whole lot of heads in uniform rolling; why should the GoC not be expected to meet the same standard they (and Canadians) demand we do?

I don't like the settlement, but the fundamental purpose of a government is to do a whole bunch of stuff to keep their citizens safe.  If they can pick and choose when it's convenient then I don't see why we pay taxes.


----------



## gryphonv (14 Jul 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> By "flawed law" you mean the constitution?  As I said before,  the payment has nothing to do with him being a terrorist, veterans, etc and everything to do with his charter rights.
> 
> Harper is also being something of a hypocrite in that he could have stopped thus during the 9 years he was in power by bringing Khadr back to Canada and treating him like a citizen, including trying him in Canada. This situation is the making of harper, Chretien,  and Martin, not Trudeau.
> 
> The total idiocy of our leaders in this case was before Trudeau came to power, by both team blue and team red. Focus some of your anger on team blue too. As Mulroney said, "sir (Harper in this case), you had a choice".



Chances are Harper would of fought it to the end, and with Bill C-51, the government had a legal avenue of removing Khadr's citizenship, which I think would of been the path they took. Thus changing any possible outcomes. 

We can argue back and forth about the settlement. Saying the Supreme court would of decided one way or another with certainty is a fallacy. You can say what is likely to happen, but until the trial ran it course, nobody can predict with 100% certainty what would of came out of it. 

Chance may have been slim for the Government to win, but slim is still enough in most people minds to fight this. 




			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> In my mind, what's deceiving and disgusting is pretending that this is a terrorist payoff.



Even outside his conviction, there is plenty of evidence that shows him aiding and colluding with terrorists. Thus he is a terrorist in my mind, and the minds of many Canadians. 

Does Terrorist Settlement sound better? 

In my mind being a terrorist should override his citizenship. Trudeau don't feel that way, hence why he and his party pushed bill C- 6 so fast  

Whether he is still a terrorist remains to be seen, time will tell, and hopefully nothing more comes out of this.

One thing is for certain, if any of that money ends up traced back to terrorist activity. I can guarantee the Liberal Party won't hold the Power anymore with the next election.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> In my mind, what's deceiving and disgusting is pretending that this is a terrorist payoff.



He's a convicted terrorist, and was paid off to avoid an embarrassing trial for the Liberals. Ergo, its a terrorist payoff. Its not difficult to understand if you simply look at the facts.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> By "flawed law" you mean the constitution?  As I said before,  the payment has nothing to do with him being a terrorist, veterans, etc and everything to do with his charter rights.
> 
> Harper is also being something of a hypocrite in that he could have stopped thus during the 9 years he was in power by bringing Khadr back to Canada and treating him like a citizen, including trying him in Canada. This situation is the making of harper, Chretien,  and Martin, not Trudeau.
> 
> The total idiocy of our leaders in this case was before Trudeau came to power, by both team blue and team red. Focus some of your anger on team blue too. As Mulroney said, "sir (Harper in this case), you had a choice".



Your quote choice is cute, but you're missing some facts. The fact that he was detained in Gitmo was not one of his charter rights that the Supreme Court said was denied. It was that he was questioned without counsel present and the information given to US authorities. That was in 2003. Under Chretien. The illegal visits continued until 2005, when the SCC ordered CSIS to halt them. Under Martin. Flash forward to 2010, the SCC overturns lower court rulings ordering the government to return Khadr to Canada. Under Harper. Later that year, Khadr pleads guilty and he's sentenced to 8 years due to his pretrial agreement. 18 months later, US Defense Secretary signs off on transfer order, and 6 months later (less than 2 years after conviction), he's returned to Canada to Millhaven. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/timeline-key-moments-in-the-case-of-omar-khadr-1.2363587

At what point, in your clouded world view, has Stephen Harper's government violated any of Khadr's rights? All of the violations occurred under a Liberal banner (Chretien and Martin), yet it was Harper who brought him back to Canada. There are literally hundreds of Canadians serving in foreign jails, Omar Khadr isn't a special flower to get his transfer moved quickly. Take a look at this article from 2016: http://globalnews.ca/news/2542128/not-enough-being-done-to-help-hundreds-of-canadians-detained-abroad-lawyers/

Trudeau could have fought this, or could have paid him out without an apology. The apology is what stings Canadians and most people here, as well as the insistence of the current government to fight numerous other cases that they are bound to lose (Veterans compensation...) while paying out someone who pled guilty to numerous terrorist activities.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He's a convicted terrorist, and was paid off to avoid an embarrassing trial for the Liberals. Ergo, its a terrorist payoff. Its not difficult to understand if you simply look at the facts.
> 
> Your quote choice is cute, but you're missing some facts. The fact that he was detained in Gitmo was not one of his charter rights that the Supreme Court said was denied. It was that he was questioned without counsel present and the information given to US authorities. That was in 2003. Under Chretien. The illegal visits continued until 2005, when the SCC ordered CSIS to halt them. Under Martin. Flash forward to 2010, the SCC overturns lower court rulings ordering the government to return Khadr to Canada. Under Harper. Later that year, Khadr pleads guilty and he's sentenced to 8 years due to his pretrial agreement. 18 months later, US Defense Secretary signs off on transfer order, and 6 months later (less than 2 years after conviction), he's returned to Canada to Millhaven. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/timeline-key-moments-in-the-case-of-omar-khadr-1.2363587
> 
> ...



His rights were violated every time he was questioned by a CSIS agent without representation, which happened under Harper as well as the others (you may have missed the part where I blamed all 3 PMs involved). he is a special flower, as you say, since Canadians questioned him and actively fought his return. Saying he was freed under harper  due to a SCC ruling is dishonest at best. He was fried by the SCC, not Harper. Harper had years to ensure charter rights were upheld and didn't.  He has responsibility as well. I suspect your concern was less about Khadr's rights as a Canadian and more that we have to admit Harper had a role in this.

If trudeau had kept going the gverwnt would have lost at a higher cost? Would khadr getting 20 Million make you feel better?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Chances are Harper would of fought it to the end, and with Bill C-51, the government had a legal avenue of removing Khadr's citizenship, which I think would of been the path they took. Thus changing any possible outcomes.
> 
> We can argue back and forth about the settlement. Saying the Supreme court would of decided one way or another with certainty is a fallacy. You can say what is likely to happen, but until the trial ran it course, nobody can predict with 100% certainty what would of came out of it.
> 
> ...



Citizenship can and should be seen as a moral or legal compact between the state and it's citizens. 

I suspect if Trudeau came out and said that heavy polluters were terrorists (eco-terrorists) and could be stripped of citizenship you, recceguy, and others would be losing your ever loving minds.

It's a slippery slope. End story- khadr us canadian, went and fought against the US in Afghanistan, was captured,  tortured and stripped of his rights. Canada could have had him extricate,  tried here, and justice served. 3 X PMS refused that option


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jul 2017)

This case and payout makes me think Heinlein's civilian/citizen model is really something to consider.


----------



## gryphonv (14 Jul 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Citizenship can and should be seen as a moral or legal compact between the state and it's citizens.
> 
> It's a slippery slope. End story- khadr us canadian, went and fought against the US in Afghanistan, was captured,  tortured and stripped of his rights. Canada could have had him extricate,  tried here, and justice served. 3 X PMS refused that option



We were part of the ISAF, So Khadr fought against us as well as any other country part of it at that time. Not just the US.

But let me correct something for you, Canada could of 'tried' to  had him extricate,  tried here, and justice served. There is no way the US would of turned him over.  

Khadr was the Jewel in their crown with who they imprisoned,  There was nothing Canada could do that would of forced the US to turn him over. Espically since their war on terror was still ramping up and their public pretty much out for blood. 

Though I do concede they could of made a very public display of trying to get him back. Which would of altered things. Though one thing you left out, the 3rd PM (Harper) did ultimately have him extradited. Yes it was late, but he still did it. Which at the time was still a very unpopular move.


----------



## gryphonv (14 Jul 2017)

One thing about all this, which shows how bullshit this is, we have Canadian Citizens all over the world incarcerated in many countries with less than stellar Human Rights (North Korea, China, Myanmar (Burma)) etc.

All of them could argue Canada isn't upholding their Chartered Rights if we let them rot, and likely die in these countries. 

A lot of these people's crimes were definitely much less that the ones Khadr has either done or (been alleged of doing, for those who feel his confession isn't valid).

I guarantee these people won't see an official apology or cash reward/settlement/etc, for their mistreatment. 

And for those that will argue these are different scenarios for what ever reason, sure, but there are more then enough parallels in a lot of the cases. 

In the end there are many Canadian Citizens incarcerated abroad that Canada has little to no power to get them returned to Canada before they server their sentence.


----------



## Inspir (14 Jul 2017)

Just throwing a hypothetical situation out here. Say that this went to trial to its full extent. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Kadhr. Roughly $30 million for the sake of argument. The government of the time knowing the public outrage refused the courts order to pay out. What can they do?


----------



## gryphonv (14 Jul 2017)

Inspir said:
			
		

> Just throwing a hypothetical situation out here. Say that this went to trial to its full extent. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Kadhr. Roughly $30 million for the sake of argument. The government of the time knowing the public outrage refused the courts order to pay out. What can they do?



Well that is the Crux of the argument here, a party could say they fought it, and were forced to do something vs voluntarily doing something.

This could of been appealed for years, maybe even decades, on both sides. Eventually a decision would have to be abide to. At that point either the Gov pays up, or Khadr gets nothing. 

Both have their pro's and cons. The biggest con of letting this play out, means it could of cost much more money. Nothing is certain though, as we can't predict with 100% certainty what the Supreme Court would of decided. Especially with regards to Compensation. 

One thing a lot of people seem to forget is this suit has been in the works for over a decade, its just been amended many times to change the compensation being sought. It started at 100k in 2004(may be off on the actual year). 

Letting it play out would of had political fall out as well. The opposition could of seized on that and said they were not financially prudent. But I think the political fall out from that would of been less than from their decision to voluntarily settle.


----------



## Loachman (14 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Chances are Harper would of fought it to the end, and with Bill C-51, the government had a legal avenue of removing Khadr's citizenship, which I think would of been the path they took.



That was C-24, and would not have applied anyway.

He was born here.


----------



## gryphonv (14 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> That was C-24, and would not have applied anyway.
> 
> He was born here.



Yeah sorry, got the bills mixed up. But Bill C-24 gave the rights to revoke Natural and Naturalized Citizens Citizenship for offenses such as Terrorism. 

Edit: I have to read up on the Bills, but c 51 was the big terrorism bill, it might have been tied into the C 24 bill, I do know one of them gave the Government the power to revoke both Naturalized and Natural Citizens

Edit 2: After reading, it seems it only applied to dual citizens.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> One thing about all this, which shows how bullshit this is, we have Canadian Citizens all over the world incarcerated in many countries with less than stellar Human Rights (North Korea, China, Myanmar (Burma)) etc.



I think you need to go back and understand what this is actually about.


----------



## gryphonv (14 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I think you need to go back and understand what this is actually about.



I know you are mistaken on what I actually understand.

But hey, nice nitpicking a post which I explain my reasonings for that statement, without actually giving any valid counter arguments.

It's starting to get old.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> This case and payout makes me think Heinlein's civilian/citizen model is really something to consider.



Why? Would you prefer the state have the power to decide what is a citizen and change that definition? It's a slippery slope and one we would be foolish to start walking down


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I know you are mistaken on what I actually understand.
> 
> But hey, nice nitpicking a post which I explain my reasonings for that statement, without actually giving any valid counter arguments.
> 
> It's starting to get old.




You're lack of understanding is getting old. CSIS agents visited him without representation. That violates charter laws. Harper didn't have him released, the SCC did. Past events (the 3 SS members) show we can enforce our law on our own citizens and provide a useful case for a trial.

Further, the "evidence" was gained under torture and would be thrown out in any court in Canada not withstanding the fact his lawyer wasn't there. The evidence is also arguable at best. This conviction wouldn't hold up here and would be equivalent to a north Korean court ruling in this light. 

Just because he's a "bad dude" doesn't mean we, Canada, can just flagrantly violate his rights. I'd that was the case there'd be a lot of pedophiles,  rapists, etc that would be candidates for such treatment. We fought in Afghanistan to defend our values, which include the rule of law. Sorry, but your beliefs are based on emptiness,  mob mentality, and not representative of the values we fought to uphold


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I know you are mistaken on what I actually understand.
> 
> But hey, nice nitpicking a post which I explain my reasonings for that statement, without actually giving any valid counter arguments.
> 
> It's starting to get old.



Your explanation from then on is irrelevant.  It wasn't about him being held in Gitmo.  It was about Canadian officials violating his rights under the Constitution as they applied in Gitmo.  That is what the payout and apology is for.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Jul 2017)

:crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby: :boring:


----------



## gryphonv (14 Jul 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> You're lack of understanding is getting old. CSIS agents visited him without representation. That violates charter laws. Harper didn't have him released, the SCC did. Past events (the 3 SS members) show we can enforce our law on our own citizens and provide a useful case for a trial.
> 
> Further, the "evidence" was gained under torture and would be thrown out in any court in Canada not withstanding the fact his lawyer wasn't there. The evidence is also arguable at best. This conviction wouldn't hold up here and would be equivalent to a north Korean court ruling in this light.
> 
> Just because he's a "bad dude" doesn't mean we, Canada, can just flagrantly violate his rights. I'd that was the case there'd be a lot of pedophiles,  rapists, etc that would be candidates for such treatment. We fought in Afghanistan to defend our values, which include the rule of law. Sorry, but your beliefs are based on emptiness,  mob mentality, and not representative of the values we fought to uphold



Thanks for giving a better counter argument, maybe jmt18325 can learn something, or understand how it makes a post look valid. 

Anyways, I agree the some of the evidence would of been thrown out. There is also evidence(video) of him partaking in creating IEDs, that wouldn't be thrown out, that wasn't obtained under torture. Just because his confession was obtained under torture, doesn't negate all of the other evidence against him.

My belief are not based on emptiness, its based on right vs wrong. Helping good people out, punishing people who deserve to be punished. It's not based on mob mentality, as quite often I go against the mob, as I've done on server other topics. 

I believe if a person takes up arms against a country, that person should no longer be considered part of that country. Full stop. 

This is not about being a bad dude.

And I'm not sorry if that offends you. 

The crux of this is, the Liberal Government made a decision that many don't agree with, no law forced them to settle, they took that on its own. There are a lot of what if's and could ofs both before and after that decision, nothing can be certain, as they didn't happen. It's not about the law, its not about what Khadr did ultimately, it's about the settlement and apology. Both of which, regardless of law, is not of any working moral compass in my book.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Thanks for giving a better counter argument, maybe jmt18325 can learn something, or understand how it makes a post look valid.



I have explained the same thing (in far less eloquent words) several times in this thread.  I'm tiring of explaining the same thing, and then having the same falsehoods repeated over and over.  It's simply not valid to complain that a payout was given for something that it was not.


----------



## gryphonv (14 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I have explained the same thing (in far less eloquent words) several times in this thread.  I'm tiring of explaining the same thing, and then having the same falsehoods repeated over and over.  It's simply not valid to complain that a payout was given for something that it was not.



Well if you are tired, you can simply stop posting in the thread.  >

Anyways, just because you feel it is a falsehood, doesn't make it so. Same goes with how I feel about some 'falsehoods' you say, we are on a board which we posts our opinion, some with more facts to back them up, some with strawman arguments, etc.  

Khadr was a terrorist which is a fact. Whether being a child at the time affects that, is debatable.

This settlement wasn't forced by law, it was done by trying to predict an outcome that hadn't happened yet. That is a fact. 

Those two things are the basis of why I and many others feel the Liberals made the wrong move. And as a Canadian Citizen, I'm free to share that, as you are free to nitpick my posts. That is a fact also. 

Edit: And just to be clear, I would of been ok with if the Government let this play out and had to pay more in the end. We are talking about  less that .01% of our GDP to fight what the majority of us think is wrong.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Well if you are tired, you can simply stop posting in the thread.  >
> 
> Anyways, just because you feel it is a falsehood, doesn't make it so. Same goes with how I feel about some 'falsehoods' you say, we are on a board which we posts our opinion, some with more facts to back them up, some with strawman arguments, etc.
> 
> ...



And as a Canadian, Khadr had the right to not be questioned illegally by CSIS while geld by a foreign nation. We, Canada violated charter rights. I also understand the, "there's Canadians imprisoned elsewhere" argument but don't feel it holds water. The US is our closest ally and we have years and years of extradition cases. If we really wanted him it could have happened.

No one is arguing he's NOT a terrorist or that had the government's done their jobs he wouldn't have been convicted in Canada. It's that we bypassed this for political expediency is why we're paying. While emotion tells us that this is wrong, we're paying for liberal and conservative errors of the past. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll repeat his actions, we'll prosecute him legally, and not defy our own values to get back at someone who clearly lacks them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jul 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Why? Would you prefer the state have the power to decide what is a citizen and change that definition? It's a slippery slope and one we would be foolish to start walking down



I'd prefer it yes.   I think you're discounting the model in that civilians would have rights too but not as many benefits, or perhaps as many rights , as a citizen who actively contributes to society in whatever meaningful way. 

Wanna be a citizen? Don't go off and make ieds. 




Yeaaaa two wrongs don't make a right but we all know the government has failed to pay up when they were supposed to at times. Paying this shit head is a bad time to start being honest lol


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Well if you are tired, you can simply stop posting in the thread.  >



I'm also dogmatic when I know what I'm talking about - much less so when I'm not as sure.



> Anyways, just because you feel it is a falsehood, doesn't make it so. Same goes with how I feel about some 'falsehoods' you say, we are on a board which we posts our opinion, some with more facts to back them up, some with strawman arguments, etc.



It's not a falsehood because I say it is - it's just a falsehood.  This has nothing to do with any Canadian imprisoned anywhere else in the world, unless we're violating their rights in the same way we did Khadr's



> Khadr was a terrorist which is a fact. Whether being a child at the time affects that, is debatable.



Actually, that is not a fact, because of lack of due process at Guantanamo.  I have no belief that he's a great human being - his father certainly isn't one and he spent a lot of time with people that certainly weren't great nurturing influences.  

Khadr was 'convicted' of terrorism through a confession obtained under duress.  The US Supreme Court has ruled that the methods used at Guantanamo do not adhere to the US Constitution.  He was never convicted in an actual court, and it's quite likely that his conviction will be overturned, as have others obtained at Guantanamo using the same methods.  

But lets pretend that he is a terrorist.  It is irrelevant to the reason for the apology and the compensation. 



> This settlement wasn't forced by law, it was done by trying to predict an outcome that hadn't happened yet. That is a fact.



It was also the right thing to do given that in 2008, 2010, and 2015, the government was told by the Supreme Court of Canada that is had violated Khadr's Canadian Constitutional rights.



> Those two things are the basis of why I and many others feel the Liberals made the wrong move. And as a Canadian Citizen, I'm free to share that, as you are free to nitpick my posts. That is a fact also.



The actual reason for the payout is not a nitpick, in my opinion, anyway.


----------



## gryphonv (14 Jul 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> And as a Canadian, Khadr had the right to not be questioned illegally by CSIS while geld by a foreign nation.
> 
> No one us arguing he's a terrorist or that had the government's done their jobs he wouldn't have been convicted in Canada. It's that we bypassed this for political expediency is why we're paying. While emotion tells us that this is wrong, we're paying for liberal and conservative errors of the past. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll repeat his acyiobs, we'll prosecute him legally, and not defy our own values to get back at someone who clearly lacks them.



A few here have argued that he isn't a terrorist using arguments that he was 15, and the confession was obtained under torture. jmt18325 is one of those arguing he's not. 

Anyways, I still and will always feel this was the wrong move, even though it may have been financially prudent, We are talking about such an in-significant amount of Canada's Budget, less that .001% of our GDP to fight something morally wrong is money well spent in my book. 

We agree on a few things though, one thing I hope is he fades away to nothing, I don't want him to commit any other crimes. This is one area I want to be wrong on.


----------



## gryphonv (14 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Actually, that is not a fact, because of lack of due process at Guantanamo.  I have no belief that he's a great human being - his father certainly isn't one and he spent a lot of time with people that certainly weren't great nurturing influences.



The lack of due process still don't erase the video. Still don't erase the fact he was living with and participating with Al Qaeda. 



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> But lets pretend that he is a terrorist.  It is irrelevant to the reason for the apology and the compensation.
> 
> It was also the right thing to do given that in 2008, 2010, and 2015, the government was told by the Supreme Court of Canada that is had violated Khadr's Canadian Constitutional rights.



See that is my argument, that if he is a terrorist ( and I strongly feel he is, as many others, even willing to argue its a fact), that it's not the right thing to do, regardless of what the Supreme Court said in previous settlements. 

Even if this went to fruition and the Supreme Court ordered Canada to pay up, which I'll agree was more than likely. I still feel that was the right move.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> See that is my argument, that if he is a terrorist ( and I strongly feel he is, as many others, even willing to argue its a fact), that it's not the right thing to do, regardless of what the Supreme Court said in previous settlements.
> 
> Even if this went to fruition and the Supreme Court ordered Canada to pay up, which I'll agree was more than likely. I still feel that was the right move.



My argument is that Canada must be held responsible for the violation of his rights, no matter who or what he is.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jul 2017)

Scott Taylor's take: http://espritdecorps.ca/on-target-4/on-target-khadr-was-a-victim-not-a-terrorist


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> A few here have argued that he isn't a terrorist using arguments that he was 15, and the confession was obtained under torture. jmt18325 is one of those arguing he's not.
> 
> Anyways, I still and will always feel this was the wrong move, even though it may have been financially prudent, We are talking about such an in-significant amount of Canada's Budget, less that .001% of our GDP to fight something morally wrong is money well spent in my book.
> 
> We agree on a few things though, one thing I hope is he fades away to nothing, I don't want him to commit any other crimes. This is one area I want to be wrong on.



Hmmm... typo.... my post should read "no one is arguing he's NOT a terrorist". Chalk it up to autocorrect or using a cell phone....


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jul 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> His rights were violated every time he was questioned by a CSIS agent without representation, which happened under Harper as well as the others (you may have missed the part where I blamed all 3 PMs involved). he is a special flower, as you say, since Canadians questioned him and actively fought his return. Saying he was freed under harper  due to a SCC ruling is dishonest at best. He was fried by the SCC, not Harper. Harper had years to ensure charter rights were upheld and didn't.  He has responsibility as well. I suspect your concern was less about Khadr's rights as a Canadian and more that we have to admit Harper had a role in this.
> 
> If trudeau had kept going the gverwnt would have lost at a higher cost? Would khadr getting 20 Million make you feel better?



The Federal Court of Appeal ordered CSIS to stop interrogating Khadr on Aug 10, 2005 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/key-events-in-the-omar-khadr-case-1.1153759. Martin is in power. Are you suggesting (without any sort of evidence) that the Harper government defied the court order and had CSIS continue to visit him? Or are you simply just trying to grasp at straws on how this is somehow Harper's fault? Foreign Affairs staff visited him to determine if he could be safely held/rehabilitated in a Canadian facility during Harper's tenure.

The facts of the matter is that all of the rights violations happened under Chretien and Martin. Harper lost a court decision stating that Khadr should be serving his time as an adult. That's not a rights violation, that sort of motion happens when young offenders commit violent crimes. Khadr's transfer took exactly as long as other Canadian citizen's who have committed crimes in foreign soil take, over 2 years. He got his done in 18 months. It took a year for the US to even approve a transfer. You've niave if you think that's actively fighting his return. He needed to be convicted of something before the US would let him go. We can demand his return all we want, but unless we're prepared to conduct a hostage rescue operation at Gitmo to get him out, the US had him and was going to keep him.

$20M CAD is a lot of money, but not to the government. I'd rather we be dragged kicking and screaming into paying this terrorist out, than offering an apology and some hush money. That hush money, by the way, was immediately hidden by Khadr in someplace safe that the Speer's can't touch it. If that doesn't scream "I'm guilty and I'll lose a civil trial" then I don't know what does.


----------



## X Royal (14 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Your quote choice is cute, but you're missing some facts. The fact that he was detained in Gitmo was not one of his charter rights that the Supreme Court said was denied. It was that he was questioned without counsel present and the information given to US authorities. That was in 2003. Under Chretien. The illegal visits continued until 2005, when the SCC ordered CSIS to halt them. Under Martin. Flash forward to 2010, the SCC overturns lower court rulings ordering the government to return Khadr to Canada. Under Harper. Later that year, Khadr pleads guilty and he's sentenced to 8 years due to his pretrial agreement. 18 months later, US Defense Secretary signs off on transfer order, and 6 months later (less than 2 years after conviction), he's returned to Canada to Millhaven. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/timeline-key-moments-in-the-case-of-omar-khadr-1.2363587


PuckChaser even from your link you also conveniently failed to mention a few facts that didn't support your defense of Harper.

*April 2009*: A Federal Court judge orders the Canadian government seek Khadr's return, finding it has failed to ensure his treatment complied with international human rights norms. Ruling is overturned on appeal.

_*Aug. 2009*: Canada's Federal Court of Appeal upholds ruling that requires the Canadian government to press for Khadr's return from Guantanamo Bay.

*Jan. 2010*: The Supreme Court of Canada rules Canada has violated Khadr's Charter rights by participating in illegal interrogation methods. It says the federal government must be given a chance to rectify Khadr's plight.

*July 2012*: Lawyers file a notice of application in the Federal Court to ask it to review why Canada was delaying Khadr's repatriation.
_
Lets face it both the liberals and the Conservatives both dropped the ball in this case.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Jul 2017)

2010 and 2012 dates have no bearing as they are not infringed rights. 2012 was never ruled on as Khadr was returned to Canada after the standard process was applied. 2010 was based on the CSIS interrogations under Chretien and Martin, which were ordered halted before Harper took over. The 2009 ruling ordering his return was overturned by the SCC.

You just cherry picked dates. Keep in mind Khadr would have no legal argument other than wanting repatriation if Chretien and Martin had kept CSIS away and treated him like any other Canadian arrested by lawful authorities in a sovereign country providing a consular liaison.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... Khadr would have no legal argument other than wanting repatriation if Chretien and Martin had kept CSIS away and treated him like any other Canadian arrested by lawful authorities in a sovereign country providing a consular liaison.


If only there was a way to try Khadr as a Canadian under Canadian law for terrorism, without having to prove or not whether he threw a grenade, but just needing to prove he was part of a group -- oh, wait ...


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 2010 and 2012 dates have no bearing as they are not infringed rights. 2012 was never ruled on as Khadr was returned to Canada after the standard process was applied. 2010 was based on the CSIS interrogations under Chretien and Martin, which were ordered halted before Harper took over. The 2009 ruling ordering his return was overturned by the SCC.
> 
> You just cherry picked dates. Keep in mind Khadr would have no legal argument other than wanting repatriation if Chretien and Martin had kept CSIS away and treated him like any other Canadian arrested by lawful authorities in a sovereign country providing a consular liaison.



The US Supreme Court basically ruled that there was nothing lawful about the authority used at Gitmo.  That's how the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the Charter still applied to Khartoum in his dealings with Canadian officials.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jul 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If only there was a way to try Khadr as a Canadian under Canadian law for terrorism, without having to prove or not whether he threw a grenade, but just needing to prove he was part of a group -- oh, wait ...



^ This.

Let the issue of the death of Sgt. Speers and injury of Sgt. Morris remain a separate issue that must continue to be followed up in the U.S.

There was at the time, and remains today Canadian Law (see Milnews' link above to Bill C-41, 2001) that can be used to deal with Canadian citizens who perform terrorist acts.  Use it with Khadr, and should a conviction be made after prosecution, then use his unconsitutional treatment (which was not within the purview of the Canadian courts at the time) by Canadian officials in 2003-2005, which I fully agree was unconstitutional, as mitigating consideration during sentencing.  Note that unlike the U.S. military tribunal that found Khadr guilty of acts contrary to a post-event Act (Military Commissions Act, 2006), I have every reason to believe (including my own thoughts of seeing a smiling Khadr using VS-HCT anti-tank mines to make IEDs) that he contravened existing Canadian Law in conducting terrorist acts.

I take issue with anyone who does not fundamentally believe that in receipt of the Rights and Freedoms of the Canadian Charter, so too should a Canadian conduct themselves as a Canadian, which I believe at the very least, means conducting one's self so as not to contravene specific or equivalent sections of the Canadian Criminal Code (PART II.1, Section 83 - Terrorism and PART XI, Section 431 - Attacks on Property or Persons, Explosives or other lethal devices - again, note that these Sections of the Criminal Code of Canada were in place in 2001, pre-dating Khadr's actions), whether at home or abroad (CCC PART I, Section 3.7 - Jurisdiction).

Was Khadr treated unconstitutionally in 2003, 2004 and 2005 when interviewed by CSIS agents?  Yes.  Let him be prosecuted I.A.W. the applicable Sections of the Criminal Code as it was at the time of Khadr's actions, and let the infringement of his rights be considered during sentencing upon successful conviction.  OR, have his conduct and his treatment be dealt with separately, but BOTH issues addressed, not just his unconstitutional mis-treatment by others but his terrorist actions.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 2010 and 2012 dates have no bearing as they are not infringed rights. 2012 was never ruled on as Khadr was returned to Canada after the standard process was applied. 2010 was based on the CSIS interrogations under Chretien and Martin, which were ordered halted before Harper took over. The 2009 ruling ordering his return was overturned by the SCC.
> 
> You just cherry picked dates. Keep in mind Khadr would have no legal argument other than wanting repatriation if Chretien and Martin had kept CSIS away and treated him like any other Canadian arrested by lawful authorities in a sovereign country providing a consular liaison.



they do matter though. The CSIS events occurred under Martin/Chretien, agreed. However, when the Supreme Court orders you 3 times to get him back and you refuse (in which time the amount of injuries requested grew exponentially, btw) for political expediency you have some responsibility for the overall outcome as well. Harper wasn't innocent by any means. Further, when a government leaves you in the custody of an ally that you know is using torture and conducting what can be called, at best, a kangaroo court, than you have some responsibility for the overall result. Note- though you seem to only respond to the "conservative/Harper" element, I have never argued he was fully responsible; more, he was the last in the line of PMs who willingly (and arguably cowardly) allowed the situation to unfold the way it did. You state, "if Chretien and Martin had just kept CSIS away...", however that's the problem. Khadr was being tortured, was captured in a country that was not the US, and was sent to Guantanamo to allow military tribunals to operate outside the US constitution. This was always a case outside US juristiction (unless you believe the US has the right to arrest anyone, anywhere based on its interests) and the government had the RESPONSIBILITY to protect or at least attempt to protect its own citizens. 

oddly enough, the one guy who had actually zero role in the Khadr debacle, Trudeau, is the one taking the flack for it. It was handled poorly undoubtedly. But aside from admitting that it was a lost case and that we DID violate this mans rights there was no further role for the current PM. While there are many things to criticize the PM and the government of the day about, saving $10-30 million on a lost case where CLEAR violations occurred and offering a meek apology (not for apprehending him as a terrorist, but for violating his charter rights) isn't one of them. That said, criticize the way it was done by all means- there should have been a clear explanation of the situation from the get go.


----------



## gryphonv (15 Jul 2017)

Ironically Khadrs lawyer is now representing the 5 who are in a suit towards CSIS.

Business must be good for him...


----------



## Loachman (15 Jul 2017)

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/07/14/anger-at-omar-khadr-deal-inspires-134000-in-donations-to-killed-us-soldiers-family.html

Anger at Omar Khadr deal inspires $134,000 in donations to killed U.S. soldier’s family

Over the past week, more than 2,200 donors in both Canada and the United States have given to the family of Sgt. Chris Speer, who was killed in the firefight where Omar Khadr was captured.

By Colin PerkelThe Canadian Press
Fri., July 14, 2017

Canadians across the country have been reaching into their wallets to donate money to the family of an American soldier whom Omar Khadr is accused of killing in Afghanistan 15 years ago.

The online fundraising effort - part political protest, part generosity - comes amid a furor over the $10.5 million the federal government reportedly paid Khadr for breaching his charter rights while he was an American prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

Jerome Dondo, of St. Claude, Man., who said he donated $10 to the campaign, decried the federal payout while the widow and children of U.S. special forces soldier Sgt. Chris Speer were fighting in Canadian court for that money.

“The Canadian government should have at least waited until a court decision was made before sending the payment,” said Dondo, a married accountant with nine children. “This was my way of showing the Speer family support for their loss.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reiterated his sympathies for the families of the alleged victims of Omar Khadr Friday, but unlike his prime ministerial predecessor, said he has not reached out to them directly.

It’s an omission Opposition Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said he intends to rectify, arguing it is important the families know that not all Canadians agree with a decision by the Liberal government to settle Khadr’s multimillion-dollar lawsuit.

That message was communicated once already this week; former prime minister Stephen Harper is reported to have called and apologized to the families of both U.S. Sgt. Chris Speer, who died, and fellow Delta Force soldier Layne Morris, who was blinded in one eye, during the 2002 incident that led to Khadr’s imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay and the subsequent interrogation and torture.

Scheer said he finds it difficult to believe Trudeau cares about the money, calling it just a “rounding error” for the government, and accused of him of shifting around the Liberals’ defence of the payment in a bid to ease the public outcry.

“Nobody believes that Justin Trudeau is trying to save taxpayers’ money,” Scheer said. 

“I do think that outrage that’s being expressed by Canadians is certainly more than what the Liberals were expecting. And I think it certainly shows that they are out of touch with Canadians on this one.”

Over the past week, more than 2,200 donors in both Canada and the United States have contributed $134,000 to Tabitha Speer and her two children, Taryn and Tanner, now in their mid- and late-teens.

The family, and blinded former U.S. soldier Sgt. Layne Morris, failed this week to freeze Khadr’s assets while they try to enforce a $134-million (U.S.) wrongful-death award against him from a Utah court.

Heike Pfuetzner, a retiree in Abbotsford, B.C., called it a “personal thing” to donate $15.

“I am disgusted with the government giving so much money to a convicted criminal,” Pfuetzner said. “I’m just really upset.”

Ottawa-based talk-radio host Brian Lilley, co-founder of right-wing Rebel Media, who started the fundraising campaign, said he shared the anger of many Canadians over the settlement and wanted to channel the outrage into something positive.

“It’s trying to show generosity out of a political situation,” Lilley said.

While most people tell him they’re are glad he started the fundraiser, he said, a small number have accused him of “grandstanding.”

Speer has not responded to requests to talk about the situation but in the past expressed appreciation for a similar fundraiser in 2012, when Khadr was returned from Guantanamo Bay to Canada to serve out his sentence. That campaign raised about $100,000 — with about half coming from the Edmonton-based South Alberta Light Horse Regiment.

The current campaign aims to raise $1 million over a month. Donors who give at least $2,500 will have their names engraved on a “solidarity” plaque that will be sent to Speer but most donated amounts range from $10 to $100. Lilley could not say how many donors were from the United States.

Georges Hallak, 47, a businessman in Montreal put up $25.

“It’s very simple: I find it unfair that (Prime Minister Justin) Trudeau is allowed to give money to a convicted terrorist . . . and (the widow of the) person that he killed - or supposedly what he was tried for - she’s getting nothing,” Hallak said.

Khadr, now 30, is on bail in Edmonton while he appeals his 2010 conviction for five war crimes before a widely discredited military commission in Guantanamo Bay.

He argues that the acts he is accused of committing as a 15-year-old in Afghanistan were not war crimes at the time. He says he pleaded guilty to throwing the grenade that killed Speer only as a way out of American captivity.


----------



## gryphonv (15 Jul 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> While there are many things to criticize the PM and the government of the day about, saving $10-30 million on a lost case where CLEAR violations occurred and offering a meek apology (not for apprehending him as a terrorist, but for violating his charter rights) isn't one of them.



The thing is the case wasn't lost as it wasn't rulled on. Saying it is lost is purely conjecture.


----------



## Loachman (15 Jul 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> we DID violate this mans rights



"We" did not violate his rights to the tune of $10.5M.

It's nice that those involved in the veterans' class-action suit received a similarly-generous settlement and apology, at least.


----------



## Loachman (15 Jul 2017)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/veterans-khadr-settlement-1.4206063

This is why many Canadian veterans are troubled over the Khadr settlement

For veterans fighting for their compensation, it's hard to watch the government hand over millions

By Sean Bruyea, for CBC News Posted: Jul 15, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jul 15, 2017 5:00 AM ET 

Veterans' reactions are being unfairly dismissed as little more than conservative barking. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press) 

When pressed about the issue on the Senate floor Thursday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he understood Canadians' "concerns" about the $10.5 million payout to Omar Khadr. "In fact," he added, "I share those concerns about the money; that's why we settled." But to the thousands of men and women who have served in Canada's military, their concerns go far beyond the simple dollar amount.

Many veterans and their families are not happy about the Khadr settlement - that much is obvious. But in the climate of vicious and partisan name-calling that seems to accompany all things Khadr, veterans' reactions are being unfairly dismissed as little more than conservative barking. (In fact, while the military and its veterans traditionally have been the natural constituents of the right, that largely changed during the last federal election.)

Fighting for benefits

At the core of the issue is benefits - specifically, the grueling adventure race veterans have to endure to plead for their parsimonious assistance. Certainly Khadr had to fight for years for justice. Veterans, likewise, often have to fight years - and often decades - to receive their benefits. 

Khadr sued the Canadian government for mistreatment and violations of his rights. Veterans are barred from suing government for mistreatment when seeking benefits. What's more, veterans are limited to using the military's rotten veterans tribunal system, one that provides "free" lawyers employed by the very department from which veterans are trying to seek benefits.

Legal settlements in Canada do not fall under taxable income, therefore Khadr will pay no tax on his $10.5 million. But ever since Ottawa replaced lifetime pensions for wounded veterans with one-time lump sums, 95 per cent of the benefits received by severely injured veterans and their survivors is now taxable. The court case to return to lifelong pensions continues for its fifth year, even though Trudeau promised to end court cases against veterans and return to lifelong pensions.

To prove permanent disability, Canadian veterans must make humiliating annual declarations that they are still missing their legs, or that their minds and spirits continue to be devoured by the lingering trauma of war. Should the most injured attempt some part-time employment for a more meaningful life, the government deducts every dollar earned. Indeed, the government already deducts pension, CPP disability, OAS and GIS from veterans' benefits. Khadr, on the other hand, gets to keep every cent of his settlement.

What's more: the $10.5 million was made rather surreptitiously - the government hasn't actually even confirmed that amount, nor has it explained how the precise dollar figure was determined.

Because we don't know the details of the Khadr settlement, the reasons for the discrepancies are speculative. But for those who have devoted their lives to defending Canada and now fight to receive their deserved compensation, watching the Canadian government simply hand over $10.5 million to someone who allegedly fought against our ally is unsettling, to say the least.

Indeed, for all the government's rhetoric about sending signals about fairness and justice, out-of-court settlements have minimal effect upon future court decisions. And as for Trudeau's claim that "when governments fail to respect people's rights, we all end up paying," there is no indication that the bureaucrats who actually breached Khadr's rights according to the Supreme Court ended up paying anything. Instead, you and I are paying the price.
  
Among Trudeau's justifications for paying Khadr was the idea that it would have cost the government more to fight than to pay. But justice, fairness, openness and transparency about a government's actions should not be dependent on how much it costs to avoid paying a debt. Veterans are owed billions in lifetime pensions. Should we wait until Ottawa racks up a billion-dollar legal bill before settlement is possible?

When they see such comprehensive government action to try to right the wrongs done to Khadr, veterans and their fellow Canadians simply can't understand the gross discrepancy. Why are those willing to make the supreme sacrifice for our country so persistently left behind?


----------



## Loachman (15 Jul 2017)

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10679/omar-khadr-settlement

Canada's Multi-Million-Dollar Pay-Out to a 'Foreign Terrorist Fighter'

by Ruthie Blum

July 15, 2017 at 5:00 am

- "Has any soldier who fought FOR Canada ever received as generous a reward as this soldier who fought against us?" — Canadian Senator Linda Frum.

- In 2003, Khadr confessed to throwing the grenade that killed U.S. Special Forces Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer and caused Sgt. 1st Class Layne Morris to lose an eye. Years later, he retracted his confession, claiming it had been extracted under duress. In fact, it was part of a plea deal that enabled him to be extradited to Canada to serve the rest of his sentence there.

- "There was a Canadian flag flying along with the American flag at our base there, so it's quite a thing that now Canada is giving millions to a guy who would attack a compound where Canadians were serving. I don't see this as anything but treason. As far as I am concerned, Prime Minister Trudeau should be charged." - Sgt. 1st Class Layne Morris, who lost an eye from the grenade thrown by Omar Khadr.

The government of Canada recently issued an official apology - and acknowledged awarding an "undisclosed" sum of money - to Toronto-born Islamist terrorist Omar Khadr for his "ordeal" at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and "any resulting harm" he was caused by the "torture" (specifically, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and threats) that led to his confession.

On July 7, Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Ralph Goodale released a statement announcing the "hope that this expression, and the negotiated settlement reached with the Government, will assist him in his efforts to begin a new and hopeful chapter in his life with his fellow Canadians."

The civil settlement was reached with Khadr, 30, who was 10 when his family returned to the Middle East, and 15 when he was arrested fighting in Afghanistan with al Qaeda and the Taliban, the terrorist organizations to which his father was affiliated -- on the basis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 2003, Khadr confessed to throwing the grenade that killed U.S. Special Forces Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer and caused Sgt. 1st Class Layne Morris to lose an eye. Years later, he retracted his confession, claiming it had been extracted under duress. In fact, it was part of a plea deal that enabled him to be extradited to Canada to serve the rest of his sentence there.

With news of the large settlement he received - 10,500,000 Canadian dollars (approximately USD $8,000,000) - he gave an extensive interview to CBC's Power & Politics host Rosemary Barton, in which he said he thinks that the apology from the Canadian government "restores a little bit my reputation here in Canada, and I think that's the biggest thing for me." He declined to comment on having just received multi-millions in tax-free dollars.

He also had the effrontery to say that he just wants "to be a normal person" and finish his nursing degree to help under-served communities. "I have a lot of experience with... and appreciation of pain," he explained, expressing only sorrow that the Speer and Morris families consider him responsible for their own pain.

Amid harsh criticism against the Liberal government by opposition Conservatives and members of the public outraged that their tax dollars are going to a convicted terrorist, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to reporters' questions on the matter during a press conference marking the July 8 close of G20 summit in Hamburg.

Trudeau said that the settlement had nothing to do with Khadr's 2002 actions on the battlefield in Afghanistan, but rather with the fact that his rights had been violated. This is precisely what the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in 2008 and 2010, after Khadr's lawyers sued for damages.
Trudeau added that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, "even when it is uncomfortable. When the government violates any Canadian's Charter rights, we all end up paying for it."

Meanwhile, Goodale tried to evade responsibility, by casting aspersions on the previous government, headed by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in power when Khadr was returned to Canada in 2012 to serve the remainder of his prison sentence for five counts of war crimes. Goodale accused Harper of having "refused to repatriate Mr. Khadr or otherwise resolve the matter."

In spite of the fact that Khadr was arrested and detained when Liberal governments were in power in Canada, Goodale was referring to appeals during Harper's tenure - which began in 2006 - by Canadian Liberal and human rights lawyers to "bring Omar Khadr home."

In 2008, former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler wrote:

"I join other scholars and associations of jurists in calling for Omar Khadr to be transferred into the custody of Canadian law enforcement officials, to be afforded due process under Canadian law, with prospects for appropriate rehabilitation and integration."

Cotler also stated,

"Admittedly, the Khadr family has emerged, as some have put it, as synonymous with terrorism. But, the test of the rule of law is not its application in the easy cases, but its retention in the unpopular ones... Omar Khadr, a child victim, should now be afforded the justice denied him all these years, however unpopular and unpalatable his case may appear to be."

In response to Goodale's implication that had it not been for the previous government, the current one would not have been forced to apologize to and pay Khadr, Harper immediately took to social media, writing:

The government today attempted to lay blame elsewhere for their decision to conclude a secret deal with Omar Khadr. The decision to enter into this deal is theirs, and theirs alone, and it is simply wrong. Canadians deserve better than this. Today my thoughts are with Tabitha Speer and the families of all Canadian and allied soldiers who paid the ultimate price fighting to protect us.

Canadian Senator Linda Frum railed against the settlement, tweeting: "Has any soldier who fought FOR Canada ever received as generous a reward as this soldier who fought against us?"

Given Khadr's family history, Frum's fury is justified.

As the New York Post reported, Khadr is the son of a Palestinian mother and an Egyptian father (Ahmed Khadr), who had strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and became one of Osama bin Laden's loyal lieutenants. After 9/11, Ahmed Khadr was placed on the FBI's most-wanted list in relations to the attacks. He was arrested in Pakistan in 1995 on suspicion of financing the suicide bombing at the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, in which 16 people were killed. Protesting his innocence, he went on a hunger strike, and the Canadian government, then headed by Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, rallied behind him.

While on a trade mission to Pakistan, Chrétien appealed to Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and a few months later, Ahmed was released from prison and sent back with his family to Toronto. However, according to the New York Post, the Khadr clan soon returned to Pakistan, where Ahmed Khadr resumed his connections with al Qaeda and the Taliban. Young Omar Khadr not only met with the leaders of these terrorist groups, but lived with his parents and siblings in the bin Laden family compound, attending al Qaeda training camps, which his father - who was killed in 2003 - partly funded.

The report continued:

"A month before he joined an al Qaeda cell in 2002, Omar was sent by his father for private instruction in explosives and combat... [where he] learned to launch rocket-propelled grenades and became skilled at planting improvised explosive devices that were used to blow up US armored vehicles in Afghanistan."

In his interrogation about the incident that led to his arrest and subsequent incarceration at Guantanamo, Omar Khadr said he had been on a suicide mission "to kill as many Americans as possible."

This did not prevent the U.S. military from flying an ophthalmologist to the Bagram Air Base - where was being treated for wounds he sustained while fighting American and Canadian soldiers - to save his eyes and keep him from going blind.

Nor did it cause Omar to experience gratitude on the one hand, or remorse on the other. On the contrary, as military court documents revealed, when he was informed that Speer had died, he said he "felt happy" for having murdered an American. He also said that whenever he remembered killing Speer, it would make him "feel good."

According to a report in the Globe and Mail, the Toronto lawyer representing Morris and Tabitha Speer - who won a default judgment in 2015 in the U.S. against Omar for $134 million - began proceedings to contest the Canadian government's settlement and prevent it from going forward.

It is clearly too late for that; the money has already been transferred to Omar. Furthermore, the transaction was done swiftly and "quietly," to make legal action by taxpayers in Canada or the Morris and Speer families in America virtually impossible.

Morris is understandably angry and hurt. "The fact is Chris Speer and myself were fighting with Canadians in Afghanistan," he said.
"We were alongside the PPCLI (Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry). There was a Canadian flag flying along with the American flag at our base there, so it's quite a thing that now Canada is giving millions to a guy who would attack a compound where Canadians were serving. I don't see this as anything but treason... As far as I am concerned, Prime Minister Trudeau should be charged."

Thus far, the administration in Washington has remained silent on Khadr pay-out, which came to light during the weekend of the G20 summit in Germany, where U.S. President Donald Trump heaped praise on his Canadian counterpart.

Trump even opened his speech at a World Bank event to promote and finance women entrepreneurs in developing countries by declaring: "We have a great neighbor in Canada and Justin [Trudeau] is doing a spectacular job... Everybody loves him, and they love him for a reason..."
This assertion, given the information that has since emerged about Khadr case, was unfortunate. Far more ironic under the circumstances, however, was the "Statement on Countering Terrorism," signed by the leaders of the G20.

Its 21 clauses include a commitment to "address the evolving threat of returning foreign terrorist fighters ... from conflict zones such as Iraq and Syria and remain committed to preventing [them] from establishing a foothold in other countries and regions around the world," and to "facilitate swift and targeted exchanges of information between intelligence and law enforcement and judicial authorities... [to] ensure that terrorists are brought to justice."

Such words are empty without actions to back them up. Omar Khadr is a classic example of a "foreign terrorist fighter." Yet the Canadian legal system categorized him - in Cotler's words - as a "child victim, [who] should... be afforded the justice denied him all these years."

It is bad enough to describe a teenager who set out to "kill as many Americans as possible" in this way. It is far worse that he is a free - and still very young - man, paid not only respect by the government whose values he was raised to abhor, but millions of dollars, to boot. If anything serves to encourage other terrorists to leave North America and Europe to fight in the Middle East, it is stories such as this one.

The Trump administration must call Trudeau to task for this perversion, and offer an immediate and very public apology to Khadr's American victims, who did not receive a penny for their patriotic sacrifice.

Ruthie Blum is the author of "To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the 'Arab Spring.'"


----------



## Loachman (15 Jul 2017)

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-trudeau-must-explain-how-khadr-payout-was-ever-the-honourable-option/wcm/4b10bfa6-0e42-407e-9fa8-edff40b9e073

Rex Murphy: Trudeau must explain how Khadr payout was ever the honourable option

Canadian soldiers, especially those wounded in Afghanistan, must be asking which of them has been so distinguished with a cash bonanza for doing the right thing by their country?

July 14, 2017
11:44 AM EDT
Last Updated
July 14, 2017
7:16 PM EDT

The Khadr stew still simmers.

“The measure of a just society is not whether we stand up for people’s rights when it’s easy or popular to do so, it’s whether we recognize rights when it’s difficult, when it’s unpopular.” That was Justin Trudeau’s initial public response last week in Ireland. The settlement was primarily a matter of national honour.
  
Well, if the settlement - amount and apology - is really a case of doing the honourable and virtuous thing, regardless of public sentiment, why has the Prime Minister not highlighted the decision, boldly stood up and clearly stated the thinking behind the government’s actions?

Instead, the Khadr settlement reached Canadian ears, as I wrote earlier, by a leak between our Canada Day celebrations and Trudeau’s trip out of the country. A time chosen for least impact and greatest distraction.

Honour doesn’t hide or speak from behind a curtain. If our “just society” is proud of doing the right thing when “it’s difficult,” why hasn’t the Prime Minister, on so central a subject, dedicated one specific appearance to explaining it?

This week, back on Canadian soil, the rationale has shifted. Trudeau, again:

“If we had continued to fight this, not only would we have inevitably lost, but estimates range from $30-40 million that it would have ended up costing the government.”

Last week, it was national honour at stake. This week, it’s expediency. We settled not for virtue’s sake but for the money. Honour and expediency are not twins, however much the latter likes to dress as the former.

Last week, it was national honour at stake. This week, it's expediency. The decision is now presented as an inevitability

This week, the decision is presented as an inevitability. “Had we continued to fight” we would have “inevitably lost.” A very strange statement for a civil action, any court action.

No court case has an inevitable outcome. Inevitable outcomes would obviate the need for courts in the first place. God forbid, and let the heavens fall, we wouldn’t need lawyers either.  

That which is “inevitable” invites no considerations of either the Charter or honour. Fate rules all. This week’s comments explode last week’s rationale.

Trudeau’s performance to date suggests a politician auditioning his responses, trying to find the one to match the country’s mood, rather more than a person convinced of his own choices.

It also suggests he doesn’t know why the public is angry. There are three “actors” in the Khadr story. In order of influence and importance, they are: (a) his family, (b) the Americans, and (c) the Canadian government.

By far the main reason Khadr was in Afghanistan, in the firefight, and for that matter in Guantanamo, was (a) his own family, father, mother and sister. It was his father, Osama bin Laden’s friend, that made him the child soldier. He wasn’t kidnapped in some civil war as are the majority of these unfortunates. He was designed by his own parent to be such. That’s a distinguishing feature of this case.

The Americans, our allies, had him in Guantanamo, and by their lights very rightly. He killed one of their soldiers, a medic; they saved him and fixed his eyes. And, however long he was there, they consented to his repatriation.

So people are wondering, why is the Canadian government, the least responsible party, the one making the huge cash settlement and public apologies?

Then there’s us, the Canadians, last on the scale. So people are wondering, of this trinity of causes, why is the Canadian government, the least responsible of the three, the one making the huge cash settlement and public apologies? They are further enflamed when they ask, very legitimately: was release from Guantanamo, repatriation, full return of citizenship and escape from all penalty, and a cleansing apology, not “reparation” enough?

And finally, not to avoid a matter that should not be avoided, Canadian soldiers, especially those wounded in Afghanistan from IEDs, must be asking which of them has been so distinguished with a cash bonanza for doing the right thing by their country? Why someone, who at the very least, regardless of his “child soldier” status, killed an allied solider, and possibly was complicit in the wounding of Canadian soldiers, receives Prime Ministerial absolution and a vast cash reward.

They sense a drastic incompatibility between the treatment many of them have received and Khadr’s situation. This is the greatest gap in the government’s explanation so far.

These are some of the reasons why people are angry. The Prime Minister has not addressed these questions. If it’s all about honour and how a just society acts, he will.


----------



## shawn5o (15 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> "We" did not violate his rights to the tune of $10.5M.
> 
> It's nice that those involved in the veterans' class-action suit received a similarly-generous settlement and apology, at least.



I fail to see how his "rights" were violated.

According to the Charter:

"Proceedings in criminal and penal matters...
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;"

The second problem - Was Khadr a "child soldier"?

I don't believe he was contrary to Roméo Dallaire's  :'(

INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE STANDARDS
The Rome Statute criminalizes the conscription, enlistment or use in active hostilities of child soldiers
under the age of fifteen years, both in international and non-international armed conflicts. [Article
8(2)(b)(xxvi), (e)(vii)]

My two cents


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jul 2017)

I'm guessing the Phoenix pay system is still a mess and employees are still owed thousands of dollars. 

My pay and the pay the pay of a bunch of other people I know is messed up and not reflecting our new pay raise. 

Any guesses on whether or not Khadr's pay was messed up?


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Any guesses on whether or not Khadr's pay was messed up?



What?  Are you some kind of monster?  The poor wee lad has suffered enough...

 :sarcasm:


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Jul 2017)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> I fail to see how his "rights" were violated.



Your 2 cents are worth about that much.  The Supreme Court has already ruled.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> "We" did not violate his rights to the tune of $10.5M.



That's a matter for debate, not a fact.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Your 2 cents are worth about that much.  The Supreme Court has already ruled.



On this forum 2 cents x 26 years of service goes farther than you might think chief.


----------



## gryphonv (15 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> On this forum 2 cents x 26 years of service goes farther than you might think chief.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Your 2 cents are worth about that much.  The Supreme Court has already ruled.



A little bit snarky aren't we? Everyone can have an opinion even if you don't agree. You've been preaching that so practice it.


----------



## gryphonv (15 Jul 2017)

In the end our illustrious PM vastly miscalculated the public reaction from this. A large majority of Canadians don't feel financial prudence trumps morals. 

People will argue the laws make it so, and have nothing to do with morals. Which is true at the present. But eventually given enough public pressure Laws can and will be changed (unfortunately not retroactive).

Right vs wrong should never be about saving a few bucks.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> On this forum 2 cents x 26 years of service goes farther than you might think chief.



Unless those 26 years of service were in the JAG branch or as a member of the supreme court than they really dont


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Jul 2017)

Stop taking shots at each other and stay on topic.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jul 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Unless those 26 years of service were in the JAG branch or as a member of the supreme court than they really dont



Well they mean more to me and my eyes and ears are my universe.  



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Stop taking shots at each other and stay on topic.


You're right I'll stick to milpoints. 

Edit oops.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> On this forum 2 cents x 26 years of service goes farther than you might think chief.



I fail to see what kind of legal insight being a soldier would bring you.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Jul 2017)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> A little bit snarky aren't we? Everyone can have an opinion even if you don't agree. You've been preaching that so practice it.



Everyone can have an opinion.  Opinions that contradict facts are something else.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Everyone can have an opinion.  Opinions that contradict facts are something else.



No, they're still opinions.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I fail to see what kind of legal insight being a soldier would bring you.



Honestly it had more to do with you being a civilian with zero interest in serving in uniform who's becoming more and more snarky with your posts (in my opinion). 
Yes you're a smart articulate dude who makes some really astute observations and points in your time on the forum but at the same time you're attitude seems to be taking a shitty dive. But that's off topic. And I'm not very smrt.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Honestly it had more to do with you being a civilian with zero interest in serving in uniform who's becoming more and more snarky with your posts (in my opinion).



It's probably because every single post in response to me (no matter what I happen to be talking about) gets the above response.  This issue has nothing to do with my interest in serving in uniform.  I happen to have a great deal of general knowledge in this area, because the study of the law and government has been my hobby for more than half of my life.  So yes, I sometimes get snarky.  It's not intentional, and it's not meant to offend, and I apologize for that. 

Like you said, we're off topic.


----------



## gryphonv (15 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Everyone can have an opinion.  Opinions that contradict facts are something else.



And that's your opinion. 

One thing is true though, don't expect to come on a pro military forum where the majority of people either want to serve or have served, and question the value of someones service and have posters here to let that slide.

Respect can be earned in my book, and 26 years of service is a hell of a lot of earning. But with that said, I actually do value having a counter argument here, while I don't agree with your viewpoint on this topic. All debates need counters. 



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I fail to see what kind of legal insight being a soldier would bring you.



See if you have served you will see how stupid this statement is. Soldiers are trained in a lot more then to point a gun down range. Legal training, especially international laws are very much a part of every soldiers training. In fact outside of trade specific training, we spend a large part of our training time on rules and regulations, both internal and external.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I fail to see what kind of legal insight being a soldier would bring you.



If you know anything about the military you would know we do study military law. Not to the extent of FJAG but we have to know how the laws apply to the CAF.


----------



## Scott (16 Jul 2017)

Right, time for a cooling off period. 

And when this gets opened back up, the shots at one another stop.


----------



## Scott (16 Jul 2017)

OK, I am going to open this back up. 

Knock off the shots at one another. Last friendly reminder.


----------



## Loachman (16 Jul 2017)

http://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/gormley-khadr-pay-off-betrayed-our-values

Khadr pay off betrayed our values

John Gormley, Saskatoon StarPhoenix Updated: July 14, 2017 6:00 AM CST

Like a mythical serpent eating itself, it was a sight to behold as Saskatchewan Liberal MP and Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale swallowed himself on national television trying to defend the indefensible as the government paid Omar Khadr $10.5 million and apologized to him.

As a teen fighting in Afghanistan on the side of the Taleban, just weeks before his 16th birthday, Khadr pleaded guilty to the “murder in violation of the laws of war” of U.S. Delta Force medic Sgt. Chris Speer who was killed by a hand grenade tossed after a firefight in 2002.

Khadr was held for 10 years in the U.S. military detention facility in Guantanamo Bay and was released to Canada where he spent three more years in jail before being freed on bail in 2015.

Saying that the Liberal government had “no choice” but to pay Khadr, Mr. Goodale gazed at the cameras, tucked in his chin, lowered his voice half an octave and opined with great gravitas.

But the redoubtable politician act fell flat. Within seconds, Goodale was desperately trying to justify the Khadr payout because the “Harper government” had not “repatriated Mr. Khadr or otherwise resolved the matter.”

In 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) clearly ruled that the federal government did not have to repatriate Khadr.

The Court, however, did rule that Khadr’s international human rights and his Charter right to “life, liberty and security of the person” had been violated back in 2003 when Canadian officials sent to Guantanamo Bay interviewed Khadr and then turned over the transcripts to his American captors.

The SCC has never ordered damages to be paid to Khadr.

Oddly, Goodale mentioned none of this. Nor did he explain his own personal role as a senior Liberal cabinet minister from 2002-06 when he was presumably briefed on Khadr sitting in Guantanamo Bay.

It was only later, safely back home, that Khadr sued Canada, demanding $20 million for his rights violations.

To understand the frustration and anger of right-thinking and fair-minded Canadians - 71 per cent of whom oppose Goodale and Trudeau’s unconscionable decision - two things must be realized.

First, real people never bought the spin surrounding Khadr, so skilfully crafted by his legal team and elites in the media and politics.

While many people acknowledge some factual ambiguity in the case, they will not accept the unquestioning dogma that Khadr was a completely blameless victim, an innocent manipulated and brainwashed by evil parents, pressed into action as a “child soldier” and incapable of renouncing violence.

They won’t buy that he could not control his own actions (including smirking on videos) as he proudly built and buried roadside bombs designed to kill and maim young Canadian and allied soldiers.

And, while the guileless little Omar seemed to know specific details of the killing when he admitted to it under oath, it turns out he was lying all along - heroically, of course, to thwart the evil Americans - to escape sleep deprivation and solitary confinement.

His current “I can’t remember, maybe I dreamed it all” version lacks an air of reality.

Second, Canadians understand that if you claim to be entitled to something, then you’d best prove it.

Had Trudeau and Goodale not ended this case by paying Khadr millions, the final determination of his demand for damages could have ended up in the hands of the Supreme Court, as it arguably should have.

So far, no court has established a test for compensating someone whose rights have been violated after they were actively fighting against Canada on foreign soil, betraying their own citizenship and admitting to deliberately killing an allied soldier.

While litigation costs and the final payment might (or might not) have been more expensive had the case gone to trial, the principle of paying a terrorist is too important not to have final judicial certainty.

Having a trial also would have seen the long overdue testing of Khadr under cross-examination.

Beyond lawyers and publicists speaking for him and several softball interviews from friendly media, no one has ever heard Khadr explain himself in his own words.

Far from “no choice,” the Trudeau Liberals had plenty of choices.

They just made the wrong one that embarrassed Canadians and betrayed our values.

John Gormley is a broadcaster, lawyer, author and former Progressive Conservative MP whose radio talk show is heard weekdays from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Jul 2017)

The Khadr payout is actually, ironically, aimed at upholding our values.


----------



## gryphonv (16 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/gormley-khadr-pay-off-betrayed-our-values
> 
> Khadr pay off betrayed our values
> 
> ...



This is a home run in my book. Exactly the sentiments I am feeling.


----------



## Loachman (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The Khadr payout is actually, ironically, aimed at upholding our values.



Your definition of "our" does not match mine.

_My_ values do not include turning enemies into multi-millionaires.


----------



## mariomike (17 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This will be my final post in this thread, it's a blog article written by Craig Forcese B.A., M.A., L.L.B., L.L.M. Who is a professor of law at the University of Ottawa.
> 
> If you want to actually understand the legal issues surrounding this case, read it.  Continue to be mad about it if you wish but understand this is WAY BIGGER than petty partisan politics.
> 
> Link to original:  http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/national-security-law-blog/2017/7/11/a-once-final-parsing-of-the-legal-context-for-the-khadr-sett.html



 :goodpost:


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Your definition of "our" does not match mine.
> 
> _My_ values do not include turning enemies into multi-millionaires.



Do your values include our constitutionally guaranteed protections?  Mine do.


----------



## Lex Justitia (17 Jul 2017)

The discussion is becoming repetitive. Let's just agree to disagree.

I pain to point out that while the CAF training regime does include domestic and international law, applying laws *objectively* to a set of fact is a skill that develops independently of CAF training. Many, regrettably, appear to run into problems with the "objectively" part. Subjectivity abounds.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Your definition of "our" does not match mine.
> 
> _My_ values do not include turning enemies into multi-millionaires.



Or mine.   :goodpost:


----------



## Loachman (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Do your values include our constitutionally guaranteed protections?  Mine do.



Please point us to the section that says he should have been handed $10.5M tax-free.

This should have been fought to the bitter end, just as the Liberals are fighting the veterans' class-action suit to the bitter end.

Liberals are quite selective when it comes to who does and does not receive constitutional protection. Read the Firearms Act of 1995.


----------



## gryphonv (17 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Please point us to the section that says he should have been handed $10.5M tax-free.
> 
> This should have been fought to the bitter end, just as the Liberals are fighting the veterans' class-action suit to the bitter end.
> 
> Liberals are quite selective when it comes to who does and does not receive constitutional protection. Read the Firearms Act of 1995.



Loachman  settle down I can only upvote you so much in one day.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Jul 2017)

In an effort to lighten the discourse a bit, I am passing on a suggestion made by a public servant on CFRA in Ottawa this morning. The suggestion was to disburse Khadr's award in monthly payments using the Phoenix pay system.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Do your values include our constitutionally guaranteed protections?  Mine do.



Maybe we should have tested the amount of a breach of charter rights on a convicted terrorist in the Federal/SCC instead of just cutting a cheque? If I was Mahar Arar, I'd be pretty pissed right about now. Khadr's case is nothing like what happened to Arar, but they got the same payout.


----------



## gryphonv (17 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe we should have tested the amount of a breach of charter rights on a convicted terrorist in the Federal/SCC instead of just cutting a cheque? If I was Mahar Arar, I'd be pretty pissed right about now. Khadr's case is nothing like what happened to Arar, but they got the same payout.



I concur. Not once did I feel angry about Arars settlement.  The only sad thing is they used it as precedence for this one. One man with clear links to terrorism and another who by all accounts is a peaceful law abiding man.


----------



## Gunner98 (17 Jul 2017)

This Trudeau pay-off to Khadr reminds me of the payouts that the US military and others handed out while I was in Afghanistan on tour.  Commanders and their staff literally walked around handing out money to Afghans whose lives, personal effects and homes had been 'damaged' by coalition force actions.  Canada did not adhere to this cash settlement philosophy.  I totally agree that we should use the justice system to determine 'damages'. 

Some folks see that the only route to becoming 'whole again' is through a delivery truck loaded with bags of loonies?  I don't see the Pope running around handing out money to children 'damaged' by deranged priests.  It will be a sad day when 'hush little baby money' is preferred to 'justice'.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Do your values include our constitutionally guaranteed protections?  Mine do.



Lots of gun owners in this country wished they had Charter Protections


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The Khadr payout is actually, ironically, aimed at upholding our values.



*HALF* of our values.  

The other, "un-upheld" value of being a good person who deserves the rights and freedoms?  You know, being "Canadian."  Not so much.  

Many argue that the legal process should be respected.  I agree FULLY! :nod:  

Don't limit the legal process to determining if his rights and freedoms were infringed upon...use it also to determine whether Khadr contravened the Criminal Code of Canada, particularly Sections 83 and 431 (which, as noted here, everyone knows to have been in place in 2001, well before Khadr appears to have committed terrorist acts such as making IEDs in AFG).  Then, no one can complain that he was prosecuted unfairly in another system using an Act that post-dated Khadr's actions.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jul 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ... The other, "un-upheld" value of being a good person a Canadian who deserves the rights and freedoms?...


I'm unhappy about the settlement, but the value being upheld is that of _all_ Canadians getting fair access to the rights & freedoms bin, not just those we like/agree with.  Otherwise, there'd be no need for courts or defence counsel for _any_ criminal - just lock 'em up & throw away the key.  That said, though ...


			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ... Don't limit the legal process to determining if his rights and freedoms were infringed upon...use it also to determine whether Khadr contravened the Criminal Code of Canada, particularly Sections 83 and 431 (which, as noted here, everyone knows to have been in place in 2001, well before Khadr appears to have committed terrorist acts such as making IEDs in AFG).  Then, no one can complain that he was prosecuted unfairly in another system using an Act that post-dated Khadr's actions.


That.  Right.  There.  And if previous governments of both colours chose to use the legal process this way, the results may have been quite different.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Jul 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> *HALF* of our values.
> 
> The other, "un-upheld" value of being a good person who deserves the rights and freedoms?  You know, being "Canadian."  Not so much.
> 
> ...



I know I said I wouldn't post here again, I lied, sorry  8)

I think you bring up a great point though G2G.

I feel like successive governments, in an effort to keep their hands out of the immediate fire line, made short term decisions that made political sense at the time.  

Long term though, they are politically damaging.  The Khadr case exists in the same legal vacuum as the Afghan detainee issue.  

We actually had two different forces operating in Afghanistan:

ISAF (which was a UN mandated mission, operating in Afghanistan on request of the Afghan government, which was installed by the United States) 8) and;

Operation Enduring Freedom (which operated independently of our ISAF mission and waa focused on anti-terrorism and was fought primarily by our Clandestine forces).  

The government escaped by the skin's of their teeth WRT detainees because the Canadian public doesn't give a toss about Afghans.  They weren't so lucky this time.

All this to say, as we were never officially at war in Afghanistan, I think the real lesson in all of this is don't go to war or use military force if you aren't prepared to go all the way or clean up the mess you made afterwards.

The French learned this the hard way in Algeria, I think we are now also having our own little moment of 'Beau Geste' 

 :2c:


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> All this to say, as we were never officially at war in Afghanistan, I think the real lesson in all of this is don't go to war or use military force if you aren't prepared to go all the way or clean up the mess you made afterwards.



HB, this too must be part of the Canadian dialogue when issues such as Khadr and other Canadians acting in places far away, but still 'connected' via contemporary issues, are in play. :nod: 

There are many questions that can come of this.  What happens if Canadians that appear to be legitimately looking to augment foreign forces against terrorism (eg. fighting with YPG, etc... in IRQ to fight ISIS) are involved with a group that could swing its focus and be considered less than aligned with Canadian values?  Would they get the same positive reception upon their return to Canada?

Just to be clear, my point above is to reinforce yours, HB, that Canadians need to be ready to discuss the issues, not that Canadian's fighting against ISIS currently are anywhere close to Khadr and others.  I still can't help wondering to myself if any of the IEDs that it appears Khadr was helping to make, were involved in any incidents where Canadian soldiers were killed or injured.

Food for thought, all around, for sure.

Regards
G2G


----------



## RCPalmer (17 Jul 2017)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> This Trudeau pay-off to Khadr reminds me of the payouts that the US military and others handed out while I was in Afghanistan on tour.  Commanders and their staff literally walked around handing out money to Afghans whose lives, personal effects and homes had been 'damaged' by coalition force actions.  Canada did not adhere to this cash settlement philosophy.  I totally agree that we should use the justice system to determine 'damages'.
> 
> Some folks see that the only route to becoming 'whole again' is through a delivery truck loaded with bags of loonies?  I don't see the Pope running around handing out money to children 'damaged' by deranged priests.  It will be a sad day when 'hush little baby money' is preferred to 'justice'.



Canada was compensating Afghan nationals for a variety of damages resulting from Canadian Forces activity such as vehicle accidents, damaged crops, etc.  This was a big part of the BG LEGAD's job on my deployments.  A number of "Ex Gratia" payments were also made to the families of Afghan civilians killed as a result of Canadian Forces actions.    

Without completely derailing the thread, what would the alternative be?  There were definitely some downsides to the approach.  People were intentionally causing vehicle accidents to get a payout. Compensating a landowner for a poppy field destroyed in a CAF operation might be indirectly funding the Taliban.  However, I couldn't see us leaving those people high and dry for a number of ethical, and tactical reasons.


----------



## Loachman (17 Jul 2017)

Not unlike Manoeuvre Damage paid to Germans by 4 Brigade.

Although more chickens were killed than civilians.

Aside from a bunch of tank ruts in cornfields, I know of one woman's car being crushed by a Leopard (she survived), a few buildings in villages with narrow streets and tight corners clipped by various armoured vehicles, and a couple of Combat Jacuzzis created when engineers dug in the wrong spot and hit watermains.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Jul 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> HB, this too must be part of the Canadian dialogue when issues such as Khadr and other Canadians acting in places far away, but still 'connected' via contemporary issues, are in play. :nod:
> 
> There are many questions that can come of this.  What happens if Canadians that appear to be legitimately looking to augment foreign forces against terrorism (eg. fighting with YPG, etc... in IRQ to fight ISIS) are involved with a group that could swing its focus and be considered less than aligned with Canadian values?  Would they get the same positive reception upon their return to Canada?
> 
> ...



G2G, your insight in this thread is a welcome addition.

How much do you want to bet the next political hot potato that rears its ugly head is the Kurdish question?

We've aligned ourselves with a group that is actively going against our political position of a unified Iraqi state.  

People need to stop focusing on the minutiae and start looking at the real issues.


----------



## suffolkowner (17 Jul 2017)

Hasn't it been illegal to fight in foreign wars since the Spanish civil war? i thought that Harper had re strengthened it as well?


----------



## gryphonv (17 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> G2G, your insight in this thread is a welcome addition.
> 
> How much do you want to bet the next political hot potato that rears its ugly head is the Kurdish question.
> 
> ...



There will be no win with that. I never realized how bad the attitude towards Kurdish was until I had a dorm mate in university from Turkey. It was unbridled anger and vitriol when we asked him about Kurdish people. And for all other aspects he seemed pretty level headed. 

They are pretty much universally hated by all the nations around them, I doubt there is a peaceful way forward with any of the nations around there that ends with the Kurdish having their own state.


----------



## shawn5o (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Your 2 cents are worth about that much.  The Supreme Court has already ruled.



By a 5-4 ruling. And the SCC does make mistakes


----------



## shawn5o (17 Jul 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Unless those 26 years of service were in the JAG branch or as a member of the supreme court than they really dont



BrdGunner - I guess opinions and viewpoints don't matter, right? And speaking of JAG branch, wasn't it quiet on Omar?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jul 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> G2G, your insight in this thread is a welcome addition.
> 
> How much do you want to bet the next political hot potato that rears its ugly head is the Kurdish question?
> 
> ...



Frankly we should have kept silent on the Kurdish question or had the balls to make the right decision to back them. The Kurds have had the dirty end of the stick since at least the fall of the Ottomans and the fact that they tried to make it work with Iraq is impressive. Iraq failed the Kurds once again, why would the kurds ever trust them, particularly with such heavy Iranian influence?

Any ways the Shiites are still going to have their hands full with the Sunni tribes, if they go full nutbar again, then perhaps KSA might feel obligated to provide a "safe zone" in the Anbar region.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Jul 2017)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> By a 5-4 ruling. And the SCC does make mistakes



Close only counts in horse-shoes and hand grenades though.  Whether or not they made a mistake is kind of beside the point.  They're the final arbiter of such things, and they've already decided.


----------



## Stoker (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Close only counts in horse-shoes and hand grenades though.  Whether or not they made a mistake is kind of beside the point.  They're the final arbiter of such things, and they've already decided.



You're absolutely right and I think we need to move on. Here's hoping great harm falls upon him.


----------



## FJAG (17 Jul 2017)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> BrdGunner - I guess opinions and viewpoints don't matter, right? And speaking of JAG branch, wasn't it quiet on Omar?



Neither the JAG nor any legal officers had any role in this matter one way or the other.

Legal services to CSIS and all other agencies involved came and comes from the Department of Justice.

 :cheers:


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Jul 2017)

Oh! oh! Trump might notice:



> The federal payout to Omar Khadr had received meagre attention in the U.S. media – until now.
> 
> The Wall Street Journal has published a scorching op-ed written by opposition MP Peter Kent that’s now gaining traction elsewhere.
> 
> ...



Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/17/omar-khadr-canada-pays-ex-gitmo-detainee-who-killed-us-soldier-millions-but-soldiers-widow-may-never-see-dime.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Close only counts in horse-shoes and hand grenades though.  Whether or not they made a mistake is kind of beside the point.  They're the final arbiter of such things, and they've already decided.



[A slight derail] Correct me if I'm wrong, (and I'm not referring to the SCC decision on Khadr, but SCC decisions in general) but the SCC is not the "final arbiter of such things," its Parliament. [Back on to topic]


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Jul 2017)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> [A slight derail] Correct me if I'm wrong, (and I'm not referring to the SCC decision on Khadr, but SCC decisions in general) but the SCC is not the "final arbiter of such things," its Parliament. [Back on to topic]



Parliament has (partial) authority to change the Constitution and full authority to change the law.  The SCOC interprets it as written.


----------



## Loachman (17 Jul 2017)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-jihadist-hits-the-jackpot/article/2008843

A Jihadist Hits the Jackpot

Why did Canada shell out millions to an al Qaeda killer?

Jul 24, 2017 | By Candice Malcolm

When former president Barack Obama initiated efforts to implement his pledge to close Guantánamo Bay and transfer its detainees to U.S. and foreign prisons, he started a cascade effect that has boosted the global jihadist insurgency. The most recent example of the impact of Obama’s foreign policy comes from just across the 49th parallel. On the Fourth of July, news broke that an Obama acolyte - Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau - would offer a historic settlement and official apology to a former Guantánamo Bay inmate. Trudeau’s Liberal government secretly awarded C$10.5 million to Omar Khadr, a man convicted of war crimes and the murder of an American soldier; Guantánamo’s youngest detainee is now 30 years old and living in Edmonton, Alberta.

The case of Omar Khadr is as provocative as it is unusual. Khadr was born in Toronto, a Canadian citizen, but his Egyptian-Palestinian family spent most of Khadr’s childhood in Pakistan. Khadr was brought up under the guidance of a mother who preferred her children be raised not in Canada but in an al Qaeda training camp and a father intent on grooming his seven children to participate in jihad. The father, Ahmed Said al-Khadr, was a senior al Qaeda officer and financier described by his wife as an “old friend” of Osama bin Laden. The Khadr family once lived in the bin Laden compound, and the al Qaeda leader himself attended the wedding of the eldest Khadr daughter, Zaynab - an unabashed Islamist who has expressed her own support for the 9/11 mastermind. Another son, Abdurahman Khadr, who took a different path than Omar and has worked with American intelligence agencies, told PBS he grew up “in an al Qaeda family.”

By the age of 15, Omar Khadr was in Afghanistan, attending jihadist training camps and meeting with senior al Qaeda figures, including bin Laden. He had taken part in a number of operations meant to kill or injure U.S. forces. He was captured following a gunfight between plain-clothed terrorists and U.S. Delta Force soldiers at an al Qaeda compound near Khost, Afghanistan. After the battle, American army medics were sent in to tend to any survivors, and Khadr threw a grenade that killed one of those medics, Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer.

Khadr himself faced life-threatening injuries from gun wounds; he survived only because he was treated by U.S. medics who made it through the firefight.

Khadr was airlifted to Bagram, the largest U.S. military base in Afghanistan, where he received further medical attention and was subject to initial questioning. Here Khadr stated that “he felt happy when he heard he had killed an American” and signed a statement of facts confessing to the murder of Sgt. Speer. Khadr later claimed the confession was the result of torture and coercion, but a military judge ruled that Khadr signed the statement after he learned investigators had found a videotape showing him building IEDs. Khadr was transferred to Guantánamo - his home for the next decade - where he was held, interrogated, and prosecuted in a military tribunal. He was found guilty in 2010 of five counts of war crimes, including the murder of Sgt. Speer.

Rather than letting him serve the 40-year sentence handed down by the military tribunal, however, Khadr’s lawyers negotiated a plea deal, and the Obama administration reportedly began pressuring Canada to accept custody of Khadr.

Years later, it was revealed through Hillary Clinton’s leaked private emails that she and her staff had personally intervened and encouraged Canadian officials to repatriate Khadr.

In 2012, Khadr was transferred to a maximum-security prison in Canada, and by 2015, he was released on bail by the country’s notoriously liberal court system. Meanwhile, Khadr and his lawyers had filed a civil lawsuit against the government of Canada, alleging that it had failed to uphold his rights as a Canadian citizen. The country’s Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the Canadian government had indeed infringed upon Khadr’s rights when it sent its own interrogators to Guantánamo to question, as the court’s opinion put it, “a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors.” Khadr first sought C$100,000 in damages in his civil suit; he later raised the amount to C$20 million. _*The Supreme Court ruling, however, said nothing about financial compensation*_, “leaving it to the government to decide how best to respond” and noting that the “remedy sought” by Khadr was “an order that Canada request his repatriation.”

The question therefore remains: Was Trudeau’s Independence Day decision a deliberate provocation and an anti-American gesture or simply an unassuming, if not naïve, attempt to right an extraordinary wrong? The answer to this question depends largely upon one’s view of Omar Khadr. Some see him as a traitor who defected to fight alongside the enemy, an al Qaeda terrorist and a convicted war criminal, while others see a victim, a brainwashed son and a former child soldier.

Those who defend the Trudeau government’s payment to Omar Khadr rely upon two essential propositions. First, they assert, Khadr was a child soldier and should therefore be treated differently from other terrorists captured and detained at Guantánamo. And second, Khadr’s advocates say that his confession and admission of guilt were the result of torture and routine rights violations, and should not be upheld as a true guilty plea.

A close examination of the facts, however, shows that both assertions are myths that do not hold up to basic scrutiny.


----------



## Loachman (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The SCOC interprets it as written.



Yes, it does.

Every single time.

Really, it does.

Honestly.

Without fail.

"Activist courts" is fake news.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Yes, it does.
> 
> Every single time.
> 
> ...



It really is 'fake news', as interpreting laws within their foundational context, as well as the modern context in which we live, is also part of their job.


----------



## Loachman (17 Jul 2017)

There's a difference between "interpreting" and distorting to achieve an end desired by a handful of unelected social-engineering elites:

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/supreme-courts-judicial-activism-corrupting-rule-law-crowley-globe/

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-supreme-court-euthanasia-ruling-marks-the-death-of-judicial-restraint/wcm/e908dd8e-1a8a-4f4e-9ab0-73379aa26bd5

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/who-is-judging-the-judges/article23069380/


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It really is 'fake news', as interpreting laws within their foundational context, as well as the modern context in which we live, is also part of their job.



And their job is just that, a job.  They're not anointed by a divine being, being human have faults, can make mistakes and forget themselves at times.  They don't make the law, Parliament does.  Lastly,  what they say is just another opinion too.  Just like assholes, everyone has one.  And some, are asshole opinions... 

You may be overawed by them, many aren't, including me.  Meh...


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And their job is just that, a job.  They're not anointed by a divine being, being human have faults, can make mistakes and forget themselves at times.  They don't make the law, Parliament does.  Lastly,  what they say is just another opinion too.



That's true.  Their opinion is wholly more informed than yours...or mine.  The law is their area of expertise.  I'm sure you wouldn't want them wading into yours.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There's a difference between "interpreting" and distorting to achieve an end desired by a handful of unelected social-engineering elites:
> 
> http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/supreme-courts-judicial-activism-corrupting-rule-law-crowley-globe/
> 
> ...



The funny thing about those 'articles' - each of them are also opinions.  And again, each of those opinions are held by people an order of magnitude less qualified than the justices.


----------



## Loachman (17 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The law is their area of expertise.



And that does not make them infallible or immune to bias.

Justice and what the courts say are not always the same thing.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Jul 2017)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> BrdGunner - I guess opinions and viewpoints don't matter, right? And speaking of JAG branch, wasn't it quiet on Omar?



Opinions and viewpoints within someone's lane are fine and should be seen as an expert opinion to be sought. 

While I know that the army receives legal training to a small extent, no one outside of the legal system/SCC is qualified or has the expertise to make the decisions.

It'd be akin to show a justice how to use a C7 and then having him brief the Bn Comd on how a BG attack went on based on his training.

So no- I categorically do not believe that 26 years of military experience, outside the JAG branch, counts in this regard.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And that does not make them infallible or immune to bias.
> 
> Justice and what the courts say are not always the same thing.



I agree - they're completely fallible.  They're simply more qualified to make the determination.


----------



## FJAG (17 Jul 2017)

Honestly guys. This s**t is getting lame.  :blah: Move on. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Remius (17 Jul 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Honestly guys. This s**t is getting lame.  :blah: Move on.
> 
> :cheers:




I tend to agree.  No one is going to convince anyone here.  When it comes to Khadr, each side of this is pretty entrenched.


----------



## gryphonv (17 Jul 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Honestly guys. This s**t is getting lame.  :blah: Move on.
> 
> :cheers:


Thank you.

We all established where we stand in this thread several pages ago. I doubt anyone here is going to change their opinion. I know I'm not in this regard. To me Khadr is a terrorist regardless of how or why or a confession. And there are those who don't feel that, or something else entirely


I'm all for seeing new news articles added here from all viewpoints and developing stories, but for the commenters, including myself, going back and repeating something over and over adds little to this going forward.

A few of us need to share a few beers and agree to disagree.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Jul 2017)

Good suggestion,  FJAG, this topic isn't worth the sweat off my balls.  I'm going to stay off this thread.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Jul 2017)

Then lock it and bury it.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jul 2017)

Traveling the Maritimes right now, and it seems that the whole matter has completely disappeared from their collective radar.  In travelling from ON to NB seemed to be a magical imaginary line where outrage turned instantly to apathy.  I have seen absolutely nothing in the Press in NB, NS, nor PEI on Khadr.  Any predictions that this will have a negative on the Liberal Red Voters in the Maritimes will likely be long forgotten in 2019; as they are already forgotten.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jul 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Then lock it and bury it.



Please do. And George is right - in 2019 it won't matter.


----------



## Loachman (18 Jul 2017)

http://www.ottawasun.com/2017/07/17/ndp-havent-been-all-that-vocal-about-khadr-deal-and-heres-why

NDP haven’t been all that vocal about Khadr deal and here’s why  

By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network  

First posted:  Monday, July 17, 2017 06:56 PM EDT  | Updated:  Monday, July 17, 2017 07:01 PM EDT  

It’s risky business, being a politician on the left these days.

They champion new-fangled progressive issues and this makes them the darlings of social justice warriors and the liberal media.

But they do so at the risk of alienating the non-elite, blue collar folks within their ranks for whom these increasingly fringe concerns just don’t resonate.

The political fallout from the Omar Khadr payout has largely been portrayed as a Liberal government vs. Conservative opposition issue – with Conservative leader Andrew Scheer taking a stand against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The NDP has managed to stay largely off the radar, despite being in the midst of a leadership race. Lucky for them.

Lucky because this has become a wedge issue that isn’t as easy for them as you might at first suspect.

It perfectly exemplifies the big split that exists among the rank-and-file of Canada’s left-wing party: the champagne socialists vs. the blue collar types.

The Angus Reid Institute poll on the matter showed 71% of Canadians opposed the government’s settlement deal with Khadr and would have preferred they tough it out and fight it in court.

When broken down by voter intention, the Conservative opposition was highest at 91%.

However 64% of NDP voters also rejected the deal, several points higher than the Liberal opposition, at 61%.

That’s a red flag to the NDP caucus and party grandees that this is one of those common sense issues where they risk upsetting a huge swath of their support if they play it wrong.

But it looks like they already know this.

Because for all of the strongly worded opinions we’ve heard and read from people across the spectrum, the NDP has been surprisingly quiet on it.

Evan Solomon writing in Maclean’s summarizes the political reactions as: “There are the ‘Never Pay’ Conservatives, the ‘Had to Pay’ Liberals and the ‘Must Pay’ NDP.”

As an ardent Hill watcher, Solomon is no doubt right that this is the position they’re articulating in Ottawa.

But they didn’t exactly blast it over the megaphones to make all Canadians crystal clear on where they stand, as the Conservatives did.

The party website features no releases on the matter, even though a scroll through recent ones is a reminder they’re not shy about speaking up on issues of the day.

On social media, where the Khadr debate has been high octane, even by online standards, all four of the leadership candidates have curiously been near silent.

Only two of them - Guy Caron and Jagmeet Singh - posted about the issue. Just once, on Twitter.

And they managed to do it in a way that voiced their disapproval of Khadr’s prolonged legal ordeal, without commenting on the steep, $10.5 million pay-out.

Similarly, that was the thrust of NDP justice critic Alistair Macgregor’s position: former Liberal and Conservative governments are to blame for getting us into this position in the first place.

The focus was on the charter rights angle. There was little talk of the cash payment to Khadr, nor of rationalizing or downplaying his jihadist past, as some voices have done.

Smart move. Good luck arguing with factory workers that this is a virtuous use of their tax dollars.

As savvy politics goes, the party and leadership candidates were wise to not jump in with both feet into this conversation.

But it’s quite the contrast: Leftist SJWs online passionately embracing the payout while almost two-thirds of social democrat voters polled reject it.

What a split to reconcile.


----------



## Loachman (18 Jul 2017)

http://www.ottawasun.com/2017/07/17/tory-mp-cheryl-gallant-slams-citizen-other-media-for-fake-news-around-omar-khadr

Tory MP Cheryl Gallant slams media for 'fake news' around Omar Khadr  

Olivia Blackmore

First posted:  Monday, July 17, 2017 10:42 PM EDT  | Updated:  Monday, July 17, 2017 11:31 PM EDT  

Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant is accusing media outlets, including seemingly the Citizen, of putting out “fake news” in regards to their coverage of the federal government’s $10.5-million settlement with Omar Khadr.

"Whether it's the Toronto Star, CBC, Globe and Mail, CTV or even the National Post, editorialists and columnists have been tripping over themselves in a rush to justify Justin's payout to Khadr," Gallant said, in a video posted to her Facebook page last week, against a backdrop that included media signs including the Ottawa Citizen logo.

Gallant, the MP for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, made the statement in a 10-minute news-style segment called “Gallant Night News” or GNN.

She introduced her video by talking about her previous episode in which she had interviewed a veteran who was injured in Afghanistan. She also talked about Julie Payette becoming the next Governor General, about the Bank of Canada raising interest rates and about her thoughts on how some media outlets have covered the $10.5-million payout to Khadr. The money was part of a settlement of Khadr’s multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the federal government for violating his charter rights during interrogations at Guantanamo Bay.

“(The media) has been working overtime to ‘media-splain’ why you should zip it and just accept the payout,” Gallant said.

“They brought out fake news story after fake news story claiming that it was all somehow Harper’s fault. That Trudeau had no choice.”

Gallant said that apart from letters to editor and “a few rebels” it was hard to find media who oppose the payout.

“They have so thoroughly cocooned themselves into their tiny media bubble that no amount of basic common sense can be penetrating,” Gallant said.

Gallant refers to the recent poll released by the Angus Reid Institute that said 71 per cent of Canadians believe that the government made the wrong decision by settling with the Khadr.

“Canadians do not want a government that gives $10 million to somebody who built a roadside bombs when the same government is refusing to give a benefit to a qualifying veteran injured by a roadside bomb,” Gallant said.

In her last video posted two weeks ago, Gallant interviewed a veteran named Roger Perrault who was injured by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan and who she said was denied his critical injury benefit.

The video has received 1,400 views on Facebook. 

oblackmore@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/olivia_blckmr


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Jul 2017)

Gateway Pundit has a piece on Khadr. On Fox news Tucker Carlson interviewed a soldier who was blinded by Khadr's grenade. By giving Omar 10.5 million the Canadian government has provided the people he injured/killed the means to achieve restitution that they otherwise wouldnt have gotten.Seems fair.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/former-canadian-prime-minister-called-us-hero-apologize-trudeaus-shameful-actions-video/


----------



## Lightguns (19 Jul 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Gateway Pundit has a piece on Khadr. On Fox news Tucker Carlson interviewed a soldier who was blinded by Khadr's grenade. By giving Omar 10.5 million the Canadian government has provided the people he injured/killed the means to achieve restitution that they otherwise wouldnt have gotten.Seems fair.
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/former-canadian-prime-minister-called-us-hero-apologize-trudeaus-shameful-actions-video/



Except there are members of the governing party that seem to be willingly assisting in making sure that money is never available to a Canadian court.  In this case, these folks may have to use the process to ensure that he never enjoys the money and contributes heartily to his lawyers retirement fund.


----------



## shawn5o (19 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Close only counts in horse-shoes and hand grenades though.  Whether or not they made a mistake is kind of beside the point.  They're the final arbiter of such things, and they've already decided.



What I am saying and the point you missed is the SCC was divided in its ruling. If the SCC made a mistake - it is a huge mistake.

Secondly, the SCC ruled that Canada failed its "international human rights obligations". What the SCC really means is Khadr was tortured. Of that, I highly doubt it happened. Water-boarding? Only Khadr's lawyer and khadr claim that happened. Was proof presented to the SCC? Answer: No.

Third, the SCC also ruled that Canada was complicit in Khadr's imprisonment. And this, of course, deprived Khadr of his Charter rights, specifically, his right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7.

Anyone can see the problem with that ruling.

Finally, a quote that sums up my position of the SCC:
"'If the law supposes that,' said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, 'the law is a *** — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.'"

Another two cents of mine


----------



## shawn5o (19 Jul 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Opinions and viewpoints within someone's lane are fine and should be seen as an expert opinion to be sought.
> 
> While I know that the army receives legal training to a small extent, no one outside of the legal system/SCC is qualified or has the expertise to make the decisions.
> 
> ...



Yes, brdgnr - you do have that right to dismiss my complaint as I have the right to dismiss the JAG and the SCC. Frankly I don't care if the JAG or the chief justice is Jesus Christ, returned. I still will flip him or her or JC the bird in regards to this case


----------



## Remius (19 Jul 2017)

So on another issue that is related. 

Brian Lily of CFRA is looking to raise 1 000 000$ for the Speer family.  Canadians so far have stepped up and donated 200,000 or so in very little time.  

Regardless of how you feel or what side of the argument you are on, this is a worthy gesture.

Link is here. 

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-raise-1-000-000-for-sgt-chris-speer-s-kids#/

Mods if this violates site policies about solicitation please remove.


----------



## shawn5o (20 Jul 2017)

I know that this Khadr debate is moot. However, I wish to draw attention to the Canadian taxpayer's Federation petition against the pay-out.

Dear supporter,

Thanks again for signing our petition opposing the $10.5 million payment to Omar Khadr.

In the first nine days, more than 133,000 Canadians signed the petition. Excluding the middle of the night, that’s 1,000 Canadians per hour.

To put this into context, the most successful e-petition tabled in the House of Commons was around 130,000 and that took four months. We beat that in nine days!

…

We might not have been able to stop this payment, but getting organized made an impact. There’s no doubt that the Prime Minister heard loud and clear that Canadians are upset. Hopefully that will cause him to reconsider next time he’s faced with a similar decision.
(Taxpayer.com)
----------------

If I offended anyone with my rants, I apologize.


----------



## Wookilar (20 Jul 2017)

It's not so much the payout that bothers me, or some of the recent opinion pieces coming out stating opposition/support of said payout...
What bothers me is some of the language used, repeatedly, when this was announced. It was the right thing to do....oh and we saved a metric-buttload of money as well :nod: see aren't we S-M-R-T?

I've been having a discussion with a local journalist, one with a pretty solid rep, on some of the stranger aspects of this whole thing. He pointed me to this opinion piece: 

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/07/opinion/what-if-omar-khadr-isnt-guilty *ATTENTION:* a few photos in here that some may find disturbing. However, I think they are extremely important to see. Perspective is vitally important and so much of what we have always gotten about this entire affair has been muddied and filtered through so many political screens that the truth, as we all know, lies somewhere off screen.

Thoughts?


----------



## Loachman (20 Jul 2017)

I could never understand the "murder" bit, given that this was an armed conflict. PWs have traditionally been kept until the conflict du jour was over, and this conflict still continues.

Regardless, he took up arms against this Country and an ally, and he would have been happy if one of his IEDs had killed one or more of our guys.

He is still a traitor, still undeserving of that much money, and should still be behind bars (iron, not gold) for his actions.


----------



## blacktriangle (20 Jul 2017)

This whole thing just confirmed why I have no faith in our society. Who really wants to put on a uniform and go to bat for this country when your leaders will throw you under the bus and give 7 figure payouts to enemy combatants.


----------



## gryphonv (20 Jul 2017)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> This whole thing just confirmed why I have no faith in our society. Who really wants to put on a uniform and go to bat for this country when your leaders will through you under the bus and give 7 figure payouts to enemy combatants.



This is one of my main issues with this. For one it won't help recruitment for us, but I'm sure this could be spun by terrorist organizations as a positive recruitment drive for them.


----------



## gryphonv (20 Jul 2017)

http://nationalpost.com/g00/news/canada/omar-khadr-describes-firefight-that-killed-u-s-soldier-im-just-going-to-throw-this-grenade/wcm/b1a0b60f-7871-4764-92bc-b1a526053b80?i10c.referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F

This is an older article from 2015... but one quote from Khadr here pisses me off. 

'“I was thinking, ‘What should I do…?’ I didn’t know what to do. So I thought, I’m just going to throw this grenade and maybe just scare them away.”"

So a guy who was making IEDs felt a grenade would scare people away.


----------



## Loachman (20 Jul 2017)

Thanks for digging that one up.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jul 2017)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> It's not so much the payout that bothers me, or some of the recent opinion pieces coming out stating opposition/support of said payout...
> *What bothers me is some of the language used, repeatedly, when this was announced. It was the right thing to do.*...oh and we saved a metric-buttload of money as well :nod: see aren't we S-M-R-T?


I've been thinking about that. Previously I was grudgingly onboard with the logic that it's better to pay him 10 million rather than 20 but what's 10 more? Aren't we about to _donate_ 20 million dollars to the Clinton foundation? How much money did the Liberals piss away in their orgy of mad spending when they hit the office?
In hindsight I'd rather see the government blow 50 million fighting tooth and nail to deny him $1.00

Yea we might lose.  Sometimes fighting a losing battle is still the right decision to make.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jul 2017)

30 Billion dollar deficit. Another 10 mil is pocket change.


----------



## Wookilar (21 Jul 2017)

Agreed. $10-20-30M is nothing in the world of government finance. That kind of money is gone in a blink of an eye in the federal world. Don't get me wrong, that's a lot of cash for an individual, but for a government, it's nothing. With the proper written SOW, I can spend well over a million in a heartbeat and probably sole-source due to "technical specifications."

The spin might be that it was a "good deal" but I'm not buying it. I was with Jarnhammer at first, until I put my budget hat on and thought about it. The feds (all of them) care about $10M like I care about $10. Actually, I probably care far more about $10.

I was speaking to my MP last week about this. Told him I'd be very happy with a settlement that just covered my wages until the end of my contract that was cut short....it's only about  $1.4M. Pocket change, right?

I see in the news this morning that Khadr's US lawyers are waiting on a US SC decision to rule on a similar case that hinges on whether or not what he did should be considered a war crime in accordance with the US constitution. All the other crap aside, I am quite interested in what happens to these charges of "war crimes" from these US military tribunal hearings and how that might shape the risk management side on the part of governments sending their troops into other countries.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jul 2017)

[quote author=Wookilar]
The spin might be that it was a "good deal" but I'm not buying it. I was with Jarnhammer at first, until I put my budget hat on and thought about it. The feds (all of them) care about $10M like I care about $10. Actually, I probably care far more about $10.
[/quote]

Probably deserving of it's own thread but yes the government has some weird ethics when it comes to money.
This guy saved the City of Toronto $50'000 for an over inflated estimate to build a stair case and instead of saying thank you city officials are pissed.  Looks like they just got caught with a bullshit over inflated estimate and are embarrassed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40676256

10 million to Kadhr? Agreed, $10 to you and me.


----------



## Remius (21 Jul 2017)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> It's not so much the payout that bothers me, or some of the recent opinion pieces coming out stating opposition/support of said payout...
> What bothers me is some of the language used, repeatedly, when this was announced. It was the right thing to do....oh and we saved a metric-buttload of money as well :nod: see aren't we S-M-R-T?
> 
> I've been having a discussion with a local journalist, one with a pretty solid rep, on some of the stranger aspects of this whole thing. He pointed me to this opinion piece:
> ...



Good article.  

To be honest I think we have to look at each issue independently even though they are linked.  I have no issue with the government being held accountable for it's action or inaction.  sadly it ends up compensating an enemy. 

My issue is that no one has been able to explain the pay out effectively.  Why that much? How is it calculated?  Is 10.5 million the going rate for being tortured or is it a psychological number that by adding half a million more than the cost of fighting this a way to show somehow it was worth fighting to start with? 

Those that sympathise with Kadhr though should ask themselves this:  If he hadn't been detained or captured or wounded, what do you think he would be doing right now? How many more people would be dead because of him.  I have yet to see anything that merits redemption yet.  There are steps he could take to do that.  Meaningful ones, but I have yet to see those at all.  

I won't blame the Trudeau government for the situation we are in now.  I blame them for not effectively explaining their position on this and I blame them for not justifying the payout amount.


----------



## RCPalmer (21 Jul 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Good article.
> 
> To be honest I think we have to look at each issue independently even though they are linked.  I have no issue with the government being held accountable for it's action or inaction.  sadly it ends up compensating an enemy.
> 
> ...



Generally speaking, settlements in civil litigation cases are kept private, and neither party is supposed to talk about it.  Keep in mind that apart from the apology (which was inherently public), most of what we know about the details of the settlement was based on leaks.  As far as I know, no government officials have actually confirmed any details of the settlement. Rather, they just talk around the information already in the public domain without actually confirming it.  In Khadr's interview with CP, he stated that he is not permitted to discuss the details of the settlement either.  The government may wish to provide more information, but they are likely constrained by the terms of the settlement.


----------



## Wookilar (21 Jul 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> To be honest I think we have to look at each issue independently even though they are linked.  I have no issue with the government being held accountable for it's action or inaction.  sadly it ends up compensating an enemy.
> 
> I have yet to see anything that merits redemption yet.  There are steps he could take to do that.  Meaningful ones, but I have yet to see those at all.



There was some talk, can't find it now, where I believe it was a government spokesperson was trying to explain how his actions in A'stan had nothing to do with the actions/inaction of the Canadian government and her agents afterwards, which is what the settlement is about.

Time to get my tinfoil hat on, but I am becoming very curious on what pertinent information the Khadr team has that the government doesn't want coming out?

As for the redemption of Omar, for Omar's sake,.....I'm not sure there is much he could do that would sway my opinion.


----------



## gryphonv (21 Jul 2017)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> As for the redemption of Omar, for Omar's sake,.....I'm not sure there is much he could do that would sway my opinion.



Giving the settlement to the Speer family and Mr. Morris. Like 90% or more. That would be a good start.


----------



## Loachman (21 Jul 2017)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Time to get my tinfoil hat on, but I am becoming very curious on what pertinent information the Khadr team has that the government doesn't want coming out?



There was an editorial in yesterday's Kingston paper that discussed the irrelevance of the cost to fight this and the potential for Liberal embarrassment if it did go to trial. I have not been able to find it online.

Cover-up is not an outlandish theory, and makes at least as much sense as any other reason given.


----------



## Loachman (21 Jul 2017)

But I just found this, while looking for the Whig-Standard editorial:

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-glavin-khadrs-payout-looks-to-canadians-like-its-burying-a-liberal-scandal/wcm/3b11fcc4-0561-4c58-9f25-27ad039c07c4

Terry Glavin: Khadr's payout looks to Canadians like it's burying a Liberal scandal

The public mood should not be expected to soften unless Trudeau manages to dispel the impression that the deal was a kind of hush-money arrangement

Terry Glavin

July 11, 2017 8:24 AM EDT

We’re still in the early innings, but it would appear that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s pieties about the sanctity of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms aren’t quite a match for the blowback over his government’s decision to cough up $10.5 million and an apology in a secret deal with Guantanamo Bay’s loudly-argued-about former inmate, Omar Khadr. 

It turns out that Canadians are so put off by the arrangement - 71 per cent of respondents in an in-depth Angus Reid public opinion survey say it was the wrong thing to do - that three in five Liberals, even, agree with Conservative leader Andrew Scheer that the case should have been fought in court, to the end.

Unsurprisingly, Conservative-leaning voters are the most likely to express revulsion about the deal, which was leaked to the news media last week. The agreement settles a lawsuit Khadr’s lawyers filed in 2004 alleging that Canadian officials collaborated with U.S. military interrogators at Guantanamo in a way that “offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects,” in the words of a 2010 Supreme Court of Canada ruling.

A poll found 61 per cent of Liberals were opposed to the payout

The Angus Reid poll found 91 per cent of Conservative voters said the Trudeau government did the “wrong thing” in settling with Khadr. But 61 per cent of Liberals took the same view, and 64 per cent of New Democrats also agreed that the government “should have fought the case and left it to the courts to decide.” That is precisely what Conservative leader Andrew Scheer has been saying.

The public mood should not be expected to soften unless Trudeau manages to dispel the impression that the deal was a kind of hush-money arrangement, designed to make the Khadr problem go away and head off the scandal that would inevitably emerge from the evidence in a hard-fought court trial.

Khadr’s civil suit was heavily focused on the unconstitutional conduct of the Liberal government in the 2002-2003 Chrétien-Martin period. Liberal heavyweights and officials from that epoch were included in formulating the Khadr settlement. Because of the deal’s convenient confidentiality clause it is not even clear whether or when Trudeau approved it or whether he learned of the deal’s contents only when everybody else did, last week.

Last Friday, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale attempted to fault the previous Conservative government for the mess: “The Harper government could have repatriated Mr. Khadr or otherwise resolved the matter.” But that falls flat, and not just because Goodale was a cabinet minister back in 2002-2003 when misdeeds were being committed by Canadian officials apparently working on the instruction that Khadr’s constitutional rights did not exist.
In 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned lower-court orders and agreed with Stephen Harper’s Conservative government that it was perfectly entitled to drag its feet in Khadr’s repatriation from Guantanamo, which was completed in 2013, when Khadr was transferred to a Canadian prison. Now 30, Khadr was released on bail in 2015, pending his appeal of a variety of Guantanamo military-court convictions, and lives in Edmonton.
The Liberals have also been insisting that the deal’s $10.5 million payout should be understood as a cost-saving measure, because Khadr was certain to win his suit — he was going for $20 million, and you never know what a judge might decide. In other words, the government had no choice. Two-thirds of Angus Reid’s respondents don’t believe it. More than half of the poll’s Liberal respondents (56 per cent) don’t believe it, either.

The Liberals have been insisting that the payout should be understood as a cost-saving measure

Also, that Ontario Superior Court injunction application aimed at heading off any payout to Khadr, filed June 8 by the widow of Delta Force Sergeant Christopher Speer, the U.S. soldier Khadr may or may not have murdered in Afghanistan in 2002? Just an astonishing coincidence, we are told to believe.

The main talking points the Liberals are sticking to like syrup are all variations on the theme Trudeau articulated in his first proper statement on the affair last Saturday, six days after the news broke, in response to a question at a G20 press conference in Hamburg: “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, every one of us, even when it is uncomfortable. When the government violates any Canadian’s charter rights, we all end up paying for it.”

There’s little in the Angus Reid findings to suggest that Canadians disagree with this eminently defensible but otherwise purposely point-missing, subject-changing piety, or require instruction in the principle that governments should generally make restitution when a citizen’s rights are ignored or trampled. But there is a lot in the poll’s findings to suggest that Canadians are skeptical about the degree of injustice Khadr is ordinarily said to have suffered.

Asked if they believed Khadr had been treated fairly or unfairly, 42 per cent of respondents answered that they weren’t sure or couldn’t say, 34 per cent said Khadr had been treated fairly, and only 24 per cent said Khadr had been treated unfairly. While roughly four in 10 Canadians said they’d have offered Khadr neither apology nor compensation (the view of one in three Liberals, too), another one in four said an apology alone should suffice.

In a commonplace failing of public opinion polls, one question appears to unfairly expect respondents to know things they would have no way of knowing. Asked whether Khadr is potentially a “radicalized” threat to Canada, two-thirds of poll respondents said they believed he was.
Khadr’s notorious Al Qaida family put him in harm’s way in Afghanistan when he was an adolescent, and Khadr spent his post-9/11 time there building improvised explosive devices for the Taliban. In 2002, when Khadr was a combatant in that firefight in which he may or may not have murdered Sgt. Christopher Speer, he was only 15.

In the years since his return to Canada, Khadr has never expressed anything less than remorse about his past

In the years since his return to Canada, Khadr has never expressed anything less than remorse about his past, and he has given every impression of being a rather sad but otherwise hopeful and respectable person who just wants to get on with his life.

As for Trudeau’s hopes to get on with his political agenda, this whole sorry business looks like bad news all around. But you never know.
During the 2015 election campaign, public opinion polls showed an overwhelming majority of Canadians supported the Conservative proposition that the wearing of niqabs and other such face-veilings should be prohibited during the swearing of citizenship oaths. In several emotional speeches, Trudeau went out of his way to traduce the proposition, going so far as to compare niqab-ban supporters to the “none is too many” cretins who were content to turn away Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany.

Trudeau wasn’t punished for it. He was rewarded at the polls for his pluck and obstinacy. If, in place of an honest accounting of what went into the Khadr deal, all we get from Trudeau is another series of florid and extravagant speeches about the Charter of Rights, you never know.
It just might work.


----------



## Loachman (21 Jul 2017)

This is the editorial that appeared in the Kingston Whig-Standard that I mentioned earlier, courtesy of the Toronto Sun:

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/16/khadr-case-about-saving-money-really

Suddenly, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of the never-ending federal deficits is worried about spending too much of our money.

POSTMEDIA NETWORK
First posted: Sunday, July 16, 2017 05:13 PM EDT | Updated: Sunday, July 16, 2017 05:30 PM EDT 

That was his latest explanation last week for his decision to settle Omar Khadr’s $20 million civil suit against the government for $10.5 million and an apology.

Trudeau says he understands Canadians are concerned about the $10.5 million payout and he is too, which is why the government made the deal.

Otherwise it could have cost up to $40 million, Trudeau said.

Where to begin?

First, there are some court cases the government should defend on principle, which is what many Canadians believed about the Khadr suit.
Second, the $29.5 million difference between $10.5 million and $40 million is the kind of money a skeptic would say the Liberals spill at lunch.
Remember Trudeau’s broken election promise that “modest” Liberal deficits over his first term in office would total $24.1 billion, with a $1 billion surplus in 2019-20?

Current Liberal projections put that figure at $93.3 billion, an increase of 287%, with a $20.4 billion deficit in 2019-20, $18.7 billion in 2020-21, $15.8 billion in 2021-22 and no end of annual deficits in sight.

So much for saving taxpayers’ money.

Third, while it may be accurate, where does Trudeau’s estimate of up to $40 million come from?

And where is the documentation to show Khadr’s civil suit has already cost taxpayers’ $5 million, as the Liberals claim?

Are the salaries of federal lawyers and civil servants who would have been doing other work for the government anyway wrongly included in those amounts?

Did the government hire outside lawyers? If so, let’s see their invoices.

Our belief is the Trudeau government settled because it wants the Khadr case to be forgotten by voters well before the next election in October, 2019.

After all, the trial would have included an examination of how the Liberal Jean Chretien and Paul Martin governments violated Khadr’s constitutional rights in 2003 and 2004, according to the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2010 ruling.

That’s why, we believe, Trudeau’s Liberal government was so anxious to settle the Khadr suit.

Not out of concern for our wallets.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jul 2017)

With the Khadr case now as a precedence, what kind of can of worms shall we expect from the Trudeau Government when this comes to fruition:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Ottawa may have no choice but to repatriate, prosecute captured Canadian ISIL members: experts
> Turning a blind eye to maltreatment of Canadian ISIL members by Iraqis or others could lead to a human-rights claim like Khadr’s, a prof says
> Tom Blackwell
> The National Post
> ...




More on LINK.


"Watch and Shoot!"


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> With the Khadr case now as a precedence, what kind of can of worms shall we expect from the Trudeau Government when this comes to fruition:



There is no way to blame the precedent on the Trudeau government.


----------



## Stoker (22 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> There is no way to blame the precedent on the Trudeau government.



He ordered the check to be cut, he had them pay it out quickly so the widow of his victim couldn't get an injunction, he didn't have the guts to fight for what was right even though the majority of his citizens didn't agree with the payout I lay the blame and the precedent set by his feet.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> There is no way to blame the precedent on the Trudeau government.



Where have you been hiding?  Who cut the cheque?  The Trudeau Liberals did.  

Don't try to tell me, or anyone, that the Supreme Court did.  They did NOT.  They only ruled that his Rights were violated.  Trudeau cut the cheque and had two flunkies do the apology.  

Why are so many amoured with a sociopath?  How to spot a sociopath.


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Jul 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> He ordered the check to be cut, he had them pay it out quickly so the widow of his victim couldn't get an injunction, he didn't have the guts to fight for what was right even though the majority of his citizens didn't agree with the payout I lay the blame and the precedent set by his feet.



The precedent has nothing to do with the cheque, but rather the court decisions related to people like Khadr and Arar.  The court decisions are what placed an obligation for reparations on the government.  Yes, the Harper government chose Arar's reparations, and yes, the Trudeau government chose Khadr's, but that's not the central issue.  It's about abuse of rights and abuse of process.  If the courts see that, we're in trouble.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The precedent has nothing to do with the cheque, but rather the court decisions related to people like Khadr and Arar.  The court decisions are what placed an obligation for reparations on the government.  Yes, the Harper government chose Arar's reparations, and yes, the Trudeau government chose Khadr's, but that's not the central issue.  It's about abuse of rights and abuse of process.  If the courts see that, we're in trouble.




And?

The article tells of Canadians who have departed to fight for ISIS......When we repatriate them, and judge them to have had their Charter of Rights violated by any capturing forces, do we pay out another $10.5 million per head?  By your argument; we do.


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The article tells of Canadians who have departed to fight for ISIS......When we repatriate them, and judge them to have had their Charter of Rights violated by any capturing forces, do we pay out another $10.5 million per head?  By your argument; we do.



That's not actually what it says at all.


----------



## Loachman (23 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The precedent has nothing to do with the cheque



Yes, it has.

That amount was obscene, and unnecessary.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... Who cut the cheque?  The Trudeau Liberals did.
> 
> Don't try to tell me, or anyone, that the Supreme Court did.  They did NOT.  They only ruled that his Rights were violated.  Trudeau cut the cheque and had two flunkies do the apology ...[/url]





			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> He ordered the check to be cut, he had them pay it out quickly so the widow of his victim couldn't get an injunction, he didn't have the guts to fight for what was right even though the majority of his citizens didn't agree with the payout ...


... all because of mistakes made by both Team Red & Team Blue governments before him -  sorta like the reminders around here that the NVC was a Team Red mistake (even after it was approved unanimously by a Team Blue government). #NoShortageOfBlameToGoAround


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ......When we repatriate them, and judge them to have had their Charter of Rights violated by any capturing forces, do we pay out another $10.5 million per head?  ...


Or they _could_ be brought back to Canada, tried under our own terrorism laws/due process, thus avoiding potential problems?


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Jul 2017)

Any organization can set, or reinforce a precedent within its area of responsibility.

The Supreme Court of Canada could, with Khadr, be said to have reinforced a precedent it set with Arar regarding the finding that a Canadian citizen's rights and freedoms were infringed upon.

The difference is that Arar was entirely without own fault for his predicament.  Khadr, not so.

The other difference is the Government's Executive branch did not wait for the Legislative branch's position to run its course through the legal system, effectively and rather ironically truncating the due process of Canadian law and its application.

Additionally, the Executive, contrary to what the ruling party stated ad nauseam about transparency etc..., deliberately through its actions, stole from Canadians, the Representative function to have discourse on an important issue that many if not most Canadians clearly feel quite strongly about.  Announcement made late on a Friday afternoon in the post-Parliamentary session period...classic "Joe and Jane Canuck will forget about this by Monday morning as they come back from the cottage and get a Timmies double-double before work."

So of the three tenets of Canadian democracy, the Legislative branch gets shortchanged, the Representative branch entire subverted and the Executive branch playing the "we pre-judged the Court's outcome and saved Canadians money" card. 

Sunny ways indeed.


Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jul 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ... the Executive, contrary to what the ruling party stated ad nauseam about transparency etc..., deliberately through its actions, stole from Canadians, the Representative function to have discourse on an important issue that many if not most Canadians clearly feel quite strongly about.  Announcement made late on a Friday afternoon in the post-Parliamentary session period...classic "Joe and Jane Canuck will forget about this by Monday morning as they come back from the cottage and get a Timmies double-double before work." ...


Announced in a cowardly fashion?  No question  :nod:


			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ... the Representative branch entire subverted ...


This apology wasn't done in the House of Commons, even after the then-PM said he wouldn't apologize.  Even though a lot of executive actions don't _have_ to go that route, it _would_ have been more transparent & convincing - especially if the boss himself makes the announcement, as was done in the example apology.


			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ... the Government's Executive branch did not wait for the Legislative branch's position to run its course through the legal system, effectively and rather ironically truncating the due process of Canadian law and its application ...


... which mirrors how other previous Executives/Cabinets (Red & Blue) _denied_ the courts a chance do their job by not bringing Khadr back to face Canadian law in Canada courts.  Canadian courts could have led to fewer mistakes & rights issues, and no settlement - just jail time.***
*** - Admitting my crystal ball's no better than others' here.


----------



## McG (23 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> With the Khadr case now as a precedence, what kind of can of worms shall we expect from the Trudeau Government when this comes to fruition: LINK.


Given that the $10.5 million pay-out was a political precedence and it is really only legal precedent that is binding, I think Canada does have options.  We could seek to repatriate captured Canadians and tried them under Canadian laws. But, I don't think the legal precedence says we have to do that; I think the legal precedence actually leaves the timing and decision on repatriation to the executive.  What the legal precedence tells us is what we cannot do, and that is we cannot be complicit in acts which by Canadian standards would be judged as torture.  So we can neither conduct nor encourage torture, and we cannot directly exploit the "benefits" of torture we know to be happening (so, no interviews/interrogations inside of a captor's sleep deprivation regime).  I would assume the government must also take reasonable steps to protect against torture commensurate to any reasonable expectation that torture will occur.  Had the Khadr claim gone all the way to conclusion at the supreme court, we might have been provided a little more legal definition to apply in defining new cases in Iraq.  But really, we already have a system in place to do what is required; it is just a matter of treating these individuals like every/any other Canadian arrested abroad: https://travel.gc.ca/assistance/emergency-info/arrest-detention


> If a Canadian citizen is arrested and detained abroad, Canadian officials abroad can:
> 
> ask the appropriate authorities for immediate and regular access to you
> ...
> ...


From what I have read, there seems to be a feeling in Iraq that if you want to go into that country to do violence against the country, then you are going to be tried by their courts.  I don't think that is an unrealistic expectation on the part of Iraq.  Canadian courts have already identified that the if/when of repatriation is an executive prerogative.  Selection of the most appropriate tools from the diplomatic tool box (which includes everything up to military force) must also be an executive prerogative when engaging a sovereign state on the protection of a Canadian citizen in detention.  I think Iraq is going to decide for us that Canadian (and any other nation's citizens) will stay in Iraq to receive their justice.  We will go forward keeping the detention of Canadian citizens under a microscope and exercising what influence we need/can to ensure those Canadians are treated humanely.


----------



## Wookilar (24 Jul 2017)

I'm tending to agree with you. We have a long tradition of letting convicted drug smugglers rot away in SEA countries, I don't see where being convicted of any other serious crime would be any different .... as long as those crimes are processed through a judicial/law structure set down by a sovereign nation and not some kangaroo court hidden away on some extra-territoriality rock in the middle of the ocean.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jul 2017)

I'm still baffled by the idea that people who take up arms against Canada and her allies have any "rights" or claims against Canada at all, and that we have any "obligations" to people who fight against Canada and her allies outside of our LOAC responsibilities.


----------



## Wookilar (24 Jul 2017)

When a group of Iraqi bureaucrats came to Canada to examine our federal system (2007?), they were absolutely baffled that the Bloc were a federally funded political party (and that the military really does listen to the politicians). They were amazed at how our constitution was applied, across the board.

On the legal side of the house, I honestly don't see this as any different from any other criminal case. There have been many cases where "criminals" of all stripes get various restitution based on how their rights/freedoms were trampled on.


----------



## Loachman (24 Jul 2017)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> There have been many cases where "criminals" of all stripes get various restitution based on how their rights/freedoms were trampled on.



How many got $10.5M for not being allowed a nap before and a lawyer during an interrogation?


----------



## Stoker (24 Jul 2017)

People are up in arms because that little turd was kept awake calling it torture. I wonder if John McCain's 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton is similar? I bet he never got 10.5 million. That little shit don't know what torture is.


----------



## shawn5o (24 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Giving the settlement to the Speer family and Mr. Morris. Like 90% or more. That would be a good start.



Yes, a very good start


----------



## shawn5o (24 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> With the Khadr case now as a precedence, what kind of can of worms shall we expect from the Trudeau Government when this comes to fruition:
> 
> Andrew Gowing, a spokesman for Public Safety Canada, said the government would not speculate on what it would do with any captured Canadians, but said all citizens have a right to consular assistance.
> 
> ...



I guess Gowing didn't get the memo about the "Lost Canadians", eh

The lost Canadians are still waiting for their recognition but because they're not from the Middle East they don't count, right


----------



## shawn5o (24 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The precedent has nothing to do with the cheque, but rather the court decisions related to people like Khadr and Arar.  The court decisions are what placed an obligation for reparations on the government.  Yes, the Harper government chose Arar's reparations, and yes, the Trudeau government chose Khadr's, but that's not the central issue.  It's about abuse of rights and abuse of process.  If the courts see that, we're in trouble.



Oh sweet Lord. What abuse of rights? And abuse of process? Give me a break


----------



## Loachman (24 Jul 2017)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/medic-account-omar-khadr-1.4218853

U.S. Army medic has no regrets about saving Omar Khadr's life

'There's more to this story than just talking points,' former medic Donnie Bumanglag says

By Colin Perkel, The Canadian Press  Posted: Jul 24, 2017 12:27 PM ET| Last Updated: Jul 24, 2017 2:13 PM ET 

For years the battle-hardened and decorated American veteran wrestled with his conscience, with whether he'd done the right thing in saving the life of Omar Khadr, seen by many as a terrorist who profited from his crimes.

Now, watching the furor over the government's $10.5-million payout to Khadr from afar, Donnie Bumanglag wants to tell his story, offer a perspective born of bitter experience - one he admits may not be popular with many Canadians, or even some of his own former comrades in arms.

Bumanglag, of Lompoc, Calif., 36, has spent years coming to terms with his former life as an elite airborne medic supporting U.S. special forces during three missions to Afghanistan and Iraq. He's been haunted by flashbacks, frequently thrown back to that time in the summer of 2002, when he spent hours in the back of a helicopter frantically working on Khadr, then 15 years old and at the very edge of death.

"This is a human life. This is war. This is something that most people can't fathom, and they want to be real quick to give an opinion just because it makes them feel good about themselves," Bumanglag said. "[But] there's more to this story than just talking points."

Bumanglag gave a series of interviews to The Canadian Press, and recounted details about saving Khadr on a podcast he co-hosts.

Khadr resembled medic's relative

Doc Buma, as the 21-year-old Ranger medic was known, was looking forward to leaving the remote area of Afghanistan in which he had been operating for more than a month and heading to Bagram for a shower and some downtime before redeploying to Kandahar.

Instead, as they flew toward Bagram that day in July 2002, a distress call came in with orders to pick up an "enemy fighter" who had been shot. The MH-53 helicopter veered toward Khost and an encounter that would stay with him for years.

With the chopper gunners providing covering fire, they landed in a field. With Bumanglag trailing Edmund Sealey, the Rangers platoon sergeant, they threaded their way through a suspected minefield, down a road, and connected with a group of U.S. special forces soldiers.

On what appeared to be a wooden door lay the wounded enemy fighter, shot twice by one of the elite Delta forces. The soldiers had found the casualty barely alive in a compound the Americans had pounded to rubble during a massive assault. One of their own, Sgt. Chris Speer, had been fatally hit by a grenade, and another, Layne Morris, blinded in one eye. It was apparent to the incoming medic that the Delta soldiers were in "some pretty severe distress" over the loss of their comrade.

"There's a look on somebody's face when the whole world went to shit 10 minutes ago and it's too much to process," Bumanglag says.

As he recalls, the soldiers gave him bare-bones biographical data on the casualty: The fighter had killed Speer. He was a Canadian who had been Osama bin Laden's "houseboy." They also told him to keep the high-value detainee alive because he would be a vital source of information and passed him off.

Bumanglag was now charged with saving Khadr, son of a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda. He didn't know Khadr was 15 years old, but his youth struck him.

"I don't know if I can call him a little kid but he sure looked little to me. He's 80 pounds or something. He's a little guy who's on a door, basically," Bumanglag says.

Fraught helicopter ride

They moved the patient up the ramp and the chopper took off. The medic immediately began working to save the boy, who was covered in blood and sand.

"Omar, with gunshot wounds and flex cuffs like an animal had been shot, didn't look human," Bumanglag recalls. "But moving in closer and working on him as a patient and seeing the facial features and seeing the skin pigmentation, those images always stuck with me."

Khadr, it turned out, bore a striking resemblance to one of Bumanglag's cousins, which bothered the young medic then, and for years after.

"All I seen was a kid that looks like a kid that I knew."

As the chopper bobbed and weaved toward Bagram, Doc Buma worked to stabilize his disoriented, barely conscious patient, who was writhing and moaning in pain. At the other soldiers' insistence, Khadr's hands remained handcuffed behind his back out of concern he might turn violent.

Bumanglag's main task was to deal with Khadr's two gaping bullet exit wounds on his chest. His head raced with thoughts about whether he should save the life of this "terrorist," whether he'd have enough medical supplies for his own guys should something happen. He even pondered pushing the enemy fighter out the chopper and being done with it.

"He's rocking his body around everywhere," he says. "I took it as aggression. You get this idea that everybody is jihad and they're going to fight to the death."

Then there was his ego, he admits: the notion that saving this captive would earn him praise, would show he had what it took. So he kept working, trying to staunch the bleeding.

'There was no politics in it then'

"My mission, my job was just to save him, keep him alive. There was no politics in it then. I was a young Ranger and this was my chance," Bumanglag says. "I worked on him for over two hours in the back of a helicopter as the sun went down. At the end, I'm working under finger light."

He kept working, and Khadr kept living, not saying anything, just making noises.

"His body indicated that he was a pretty brave guy. He fought for his life just as much as we fought to save him," Bumanglag says. "Some people have a will to live and some people don't. He definitely did."

Life was hanging in balance

They finally touched down at Bagram.

"We plugged all the holes and we tried to keep things viable," he says. "I pass him off and I don't know whether he's going to live or die."

What he did know was that Khadr hadn't died on his watch and it was therefore mission accomplished - one for which he would later be commended for by his superiors. It would take another year or so before Bumanglag learned that Khadr had survived.

Omar Khadr, born in September 1986 in Toronto, spent several months recovering from his wounds at Bagram, where, from the moment he was conscious and able to speak, he was interrogated by the Americans.

A few months later, in October 2002, he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. He had just turned 16.

It was in his early days at the infamous U.S. military prison in Cuba that Canadian intelligence officers went down to interrogate him. The Americans made the interviews conditional on having the information he provided passed on to them. The Canadians also knew the teen had been subjected to the "frequent flyer program," a brutal process of sleep deprivation designed to soften him up.

Video would surface years later of a weeping teen, now realizing the Canadian agents weren't there to help him, whimpering for his mother.

Khadr ultimately pleaded guilty to five war crimes in 2010 before a widely discredited military commission. He later disavowed his confession to having killed Speer, saying it was the only way the Americans would return him to Canada, which happened in 2012.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal government had violated Khadr's rights. The ruling underpinned the recent settlement of his lawsuit in which Ottawa apologized to him and, sources said, paid him $10.5 million.

"If you say you'd go through what he went through for $10 million, you're out of your mind, and that's the truth," Bumanglag says.

Khadr has said he no longer remembers the firefight and would not comment on Bumanglag's account.

Doubts Khadr could have split from father

Doc Buma returned to his native California and left the military in 2003. He became a police officer, working anti-narcotics, for almost 10 years. Ultimately, the flashbacks, the post-traumatic stress, bested him and he retired as a cop about five years ago. He studied educational psychology, he said, as part of trying to sort himself out.

He took up co-hosting a podcast, Sick Call, in which he and a fellow vet talk about a variety of issues, including topics related to the military and law enforcement. In one recent episode, he talks about Khadr. It's all part educating others, part therapy for himself, he says.

The years since his days in the military, when he was ready to drop everything at a moment's notice and heed the call of duty wherever it took him, he says, have afforded him time to grow up, to gain some perspective on war, on his life as a soldier, on demonizing people he has never met or with whom he has no personal quarrel.

"I've been on the worst combat missions. I bought into the ideology. Now it's time for reflection," he says.

Time and again, he is careful to make clear he intends no disrespect to Speer's relatives or to Morris and empathizes with what they have lost.

"Omar lost his eye, too. I don't know how much more symbolic that can be."

At the same time, he is clear that Speer and Morris were grown men who had signed on the line to become elite professional soldiers, knowing the risks of their jobs.

On the other hand, Bumanglag also makes it clear he empathizes with the young Canadian who was taken by his father to another country and thrown into an ideologically motivated war over which he had no control.

No walking away from Afghan compound

As a married father of four, Bumanglag says it's naive to believe Khadr could somehow have just walked away from the compound his father had sent him to. More to the point, he says, had he found himself as Khadr did that fateful day in July - under heavy bombardment with the fighting men dead and the enemy closing in for the kill, he likely would not have hesitated to throw a grenade.

"What happens if the shoe is on the other foot? This is the scenario that I've played in my head," Bumanglag says, his mind turning to those who are furious at the Canadian government's settlement with Khadr.

"They can be upset but the reality is that they don't understand the full story. I don't think any of us do."

Doc Buma says he no longer frets that he should have let Khadr die.

"Everybody may hate him but I'm glad I saved his life," he says. "It just wasn't his time then."

© The Canadian Press, 2017


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Jul 2017)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Oh sweet Lord. What abuse of rights? And abuse of process? Give me a break



The ones that were ruled to have happened by the courts.  Your sweet lord has nothing to do with it.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jul 2017)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> On the legal side of the house, I honestly don't see this as any different from any other criminal case. There have been many cases where "criminals" of all stripes get various restitution based on how their rights/freedoms were trampled on.



Yes.  One of the faults of our Legal System is that the criminals have more Rights than the Victims.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The ones that were ruled to have happened by the courts.  Your sweet lord has nothing to do with it.



Actually ruled to have allegedly happened.  Show me the proof that he was indeed tortured.


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually ruled to have allegedly happened.  Show me the proof that he was indeed tortured.



If I said torture, I didn't mean to say torture.  It was mistreatment and abuse of process.


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes.  One of the faults of our Legal System is that the criminals have more Rights than the Victims.



Not at all - they have the same rights.  That's why our system works so well, even if we don't always like the result.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> > Quote from: George Wallace on Yesterday at 22:03:27
> > Yes.  One of the faults of our Legal System is that the criminals have more Rights than the Victims.
> 
> 
> Not at all - they have the same rights.  That's why our system works so well, even if we don't always like the result.



Quite right! Now, if George Wallace had added one word and said "... that convicted criminals have more ..." he might have been less wrong. In _my opinion_, and it's not an _*opinion*_ shared by some jurists I really respect, convicted criminals should, temporarily, lose the right to vote, for example, as well has have some restrictions placed on other rights, like liberty.

I do not think that criminals, convicted or not, have *more* rights than others ~ not unless George Wallace wants to get into the business of saying that "free" room and board is some sort of "right." That was the trap into which the dimwits who drafted all the *rubbish rights* (everything after about Article 15) in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) fell. 

Keep up the good, contrarian work, jmt18325.


----------



## suffolkowner (25 Jul 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not at all - they have the same rights.  That's why our system works so well, even if we don't always like the result.
> 
> 
> Quite right! Now, if George Wallace had added one word and said "... that convicted criminals have more ..." he might have been less wrong. In _my opinion_, and it's not an _*opinion*_ shared by some jurists I really respect, convicted criminals should, temporarily, lose the right to vote, for example, as well has have some restrictions placed on other rights, like liberty.
> ...



i'm not sure about the loss of voting privileges for one I doubt many would miss something they don't use.

I find the whole Khadr episode disturbing on many levels though I wonder how it would play out if he had been fighting on a side we were sympathetic too instead of directly opposed to


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jul 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Quite right! Now, if George Wallace had added one word and said "... that convicted criminals have more ..." he might have been less wrong. In _my opinion_, and it's not an _*opinion*_ shared by some jurists I really respect, convicted criminals should, temporarily, lose the right to vote, for example, as well has have some restrictions placed on other rights, like liberty.



I would bet a lot of money that if a few people could go back in time, they would have added a few more caveats to the Charter.  I agree with you that convicted criminals should lose more of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they violated their contract with society, IMO.  Still, I like the general idea of guaranteed rights that politicians can't touch.  It's the one place where I think Parliamentary supremacy needed to be curbed, and I'm glad it was (there are other places that I'm less happy about - such as making changes to Parliament in terms of the makeup of the Senate).  I would never agree, on the other hand, that accused criminals should lose any rights beyond what is absolutely necessary for justice to be carried out.


----------



## Gunner98 (25 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I would never agree, on the other hand, that accused criminals should lose any rights beyond what is absolutely necessary for justice to be carried out.



To bring this back on topic, IMHO criminals who confess to crimes should lose the rights on a sliding scale with the severity of their crimes.  I am one who believes in the death penalty for those who are murderers.  In my world someone like Khadr does not get a cheque for $10M, nor does he need a trial, he gets a firing squad.  The reason he was medevaced was not because he was a dying young man, but that he was perceived a high-value informant due to his role in the house of Al-Qaeda. If his time in Guantánamo included torture (which is in dispute) then it was for the same reason to obtain mission-related information.  Canada's current challenges with solitary confinement concerns me as well.  Humane treatment is a two-way street - act like a human be treated like one.  Protecting a person, deterrence and punishment are on a sliding scale in my books.

When politicians take justice into their own hands against the better judgement of the general population, I think we lose important elements of democracy...consultation and representation.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (25 Jul 2017)

Next up on "the Price is Right" will be Aaron Yoon.....

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/31/aaron_yoons_return_to_canada_a_government_secret.html

And of course the associated accusations that the government did nothing for him.....

http://www.lfpress.com/2013/04/06/canadian-officials-deny-aaron-yoon-getting-no-help-in-overseas-jail

After all he was just there to study Islam, because, you know, Mauritania is known as a great place to study Islam.  Of course, this situation was a few years ago, but with the Khadr payout, and an enterprising lawyer, who knows.


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jul 2017)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> To bring this back on topic, IMHO criminals who confess to crimes should lose the rights on a sliding scale with the severity of their crimes.  I am one who believes in the death penalty for those who are murderers.  In my world someone like Khadr does not get a cheque for $10M, nor does he need a trial, he gets a firing squad.



That would hardly be fair, seeing that the laws of neither Canada (according to the Supreme Court of Canada) nor the US (according to the Supreme Court of the United States) were followed in obtaining that confession.  In my view, the confession is next to useless.



> The reason he was medevaced was not because he was a dying young man, but that he was perceived a high-value informant due to his role in the house of Al-Qaeda. If his time in Guantánamo included torture (which is in dispute) then it was for the same reason to obtain mission-related information.  Canada's current challenges with solitary confinement concerns me as well.  Humane treatment is a two-way street - act like a human be treated like one.  Protecting a person, deterrence and punishment are on a sliding scale in my books.



Let me just say that I am glad your view is not the law of the land.  Rights are not a two way street, nor do they have a sliding scale - nor should they.



> When politicians take justice into their own hands against the better judgement of the general population, I think we lose important elements of democracy...consultation and representation.



When the people take justice out of the hands of people who have a more learned and impartial interest, it is their own undoing.  Democracy was never meant to be absolute - at least not in our context.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I would bet a lot of money that if a few people could go back in time, they would have added a few more caveats to the Charter.  I agree with you that convicted criminals should lose more of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they violated their contract with society, IMO.  Still, I like the general idea of guaranteed rights that politicians can't touch.  *It's the one place where I think Parliamentary supremacy needed to be curbed, and I'm glad it was* (there are other places that I'm less happy about - such as making changes to Parliament in terms of the makeup of the Senate).  I would never agree, on the other hand, that accused criminals should lose any rights beyond what is absolutely necessary for justice to be carried out.



That's where we'll have to agree to disagree ...

I think that the supremacy of parliament needs to be _*absolute*_ and, therefore, parliament and the (absolutely independent) courts need to be locked into a continuous _*constitutional*_ struggle. 

I think I have mentioned before that I dislike ALL written constitutions. They range,_* in my opinion*_, from being useless (the common law (backed up by a few acts of parliament) can and usually does do everything a written constitutions does with less fuss and bother) to downright bothersome because, of necessity, they reflect the pressing concerns of the people who drafted them 240, 70 or just 35 years ago and those concerns might not even be relevant today ~ who, in the USA, cares all that much about "a well regulated militia?"


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jul 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That's where we'll have to agree to disagree ...



Definitely - human rights is the only place that I don't see a need to bend to the will of the people or their representatives.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Definitely - human rights is the only place that I don't see a need to bend to the will of the people or their representatives.



Define human rights. Which era?  Roman? Middle Ages? 18th Century? 21st Century?

Which culture? Pashtun? Cree? Scottish?


----------



## cld617 (25 Jul 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Define human rights. Which era?  Roman? Middle Ages? 18th Century? 21st Century?
> 
> Which culture? Pashtun? Cree? Scottish?



Anything other than modern and local is relevant how exactly?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jul 2017)

I believe, SK is simply offering up the question of exactly who gets to determine what a human right is. Those alleged rights were as varied back then as they are today. So are peoples' opinions of them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jul 2017)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Anything other than modern and local is relevant how exactly?



Recce guy nailed it. In the 23rd century, our view of human rights ( assuming you can get any two people to agree upon what exactly are fundamental human rights) may appear quaint. or Primative. Or cruel.

My point is: how do you codify human rights? Are they not culturally and temporally dependent? How do you make something like that a) timeless b) universal?

I am not trolling. I am genuinely curious.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2017)

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/06/15/dual-canadian-citizens-will-no-longer-lose-citizenship-if-convicted-of-terrorism-under-new-bill.html


> Dual Canadian citizens will no longer lose citizenship if convicted of terrorism under new bill
> 
> Bill C-6, which passed the Senate on June 15, was designed to repeal many of the previous Conservative government’s changes to how people become citizens — and how they can lose that status.




 :


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jul 2017)

Seems that the Perverts are in power.  Removal of the wording "Barbaric practices of Female Genital Mutilation and Honour Killings not acceptable in Canadian society" from prerequisites of becoming a Canadian.  Dumbing down the Law against Bestiality.  "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" now entrenched with this Liberal undoing of an Act to strip dual citizens of their Canadian Citizenship if they are convicted of Terrorism.  This Government is getting more and more OBSCENE every day.


----------



## medicineman (25 Jul 2017)

I notice how they slipped that one in under the radar...

MM


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Seems that the Perverts are in power.  Removal of the wording "Barbaric practices of Female Genital Mutilation and Honour Killings not acceptable in Canadian society" from prerequisites of becoming a Canadian.  Dumbing down the Law against Bestiality.  "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" now entrenched with this Liberal undoing of an Act to strip dual citizens of their Canadian Citizenship if they are convicted of Terrorism.  This Government is getting more and more OBSCENE every day.



The SCC said it's ok. They are all powerful and knowing far beyond the realm of normal Canadians. At least that's what I was reading in this thread. If the SCC rules sexually abusing animals is OK, it's a good thing the same people think it's proper to pay a terrorist while their soldier protectors rot for their patriotism.

It's ok to jerk off a dog, fight against your own country and not lose your passport as a citizen. Yup, the ones making those decisions are the ones I'll follow to hell in the sake of righteousness, fair play and the education of the human race.  :

One can only assume that if someone thinks we wronged a confirmed treasonous terrorist because they think that all laws ruled on, by the SCC, are righteous, honest and fair, it must be assumed that they also agree with having sex with animals. Keep it to masturbation though, our learned colleagues have determined if you fuck a goat, sheep, camel or any other animal, THEN you're a pervert breaking the law. Otherwise, you're good to go.

PETA just took on a whole new meaning, thanks to our lawmakers and justice system.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Seems that the Perverts are in power.  Removal of the wording "Barbaric practices of Female Genital Mutilation and Honour Killings not acceptable in Canadian society" from prerequisites of becoming a Canadian.  Dumbing down the Law against Bestiality.  "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" now entrenched with this Liberal undoing of an Act to strip dual citizens of their Canadian Citizenship if they are convicted of Terrorism.  This Government is getting more and more OBSCENE every day.



I cannot believe the SCC upheld that bestiality acquittal.  If I read that article right the accused used an animal to sexually abuse his daughter and the SCC said because penetration didn't happen its fair play ? 

They upheld that acquittal 6-1.

Sorry for the derail... I just couldn't believe what I just read.


----------



## Lightguns (26 Jul 2017)

So we are stripping the citizenship and sending back the drafted NAZI interpreter but 10.5 million for the Islamist is OK.  I am going to put in more rations and ammo, this sh@thole is gonna implode soon.


----------



## gryphonv (26 Jul 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I cannot believe the SCC upheld that bestiality acquittal.  If I read that article right the accused used an animal to sexually abuse his daughter and the SCC said because penetration didn't happen its fair play ?
> 
> They upheld that acquittal 6-1.
> 
> Sorry for the derail... I just couldn't believe what I just read.



Unfortunately Morality and Legality don't necessarily coincide. This is why laws need to be worded very specifically, any ambiguous language can be open to interpretation. Any obvious language can open big loop holes. These are the areas that criminal defense make their bread and butter off of technicalities.  

Not guilty in the legal system, doesn't always mean a the person never committed a crime. Same thing with guilty verdicts, they don't always mean the person committed a crime.


----------



## gryphonv (26 Jul 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> So we are stripping the citizenship and sending back the drafted NAZI interpreter but 10.5 million for the Islamist is OK.  I am going to put in more rations and ammo, this sh@thole is gonna implode soon.



Their will be no imploding, Canadian memories are short. And unfortunately the current cult of Trudeau get distracted by shiny things Trudeau does.


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Jul 2017)

Yesterday at 1700 I attended a meeting hosted by my MP to discuss the Khadr issue. It was pretty well attended and the participants displayed a wide spectrum of views ranging from outright support of the settlement (and the victimhood of Khadr) to something close to a lynch mob mentality. In balance, most were opposed to the settlement, or at least the sleazy way it was handled.


----------



## jmt18325 (26 Jul 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> My point is: how do you codify human rights? Are they not culturally and temporally dependent? How do you make something like that a) timeless b) universal?



We have made them somewhat universal in Canada.  We have a generally agreed upon list that has existed for at least half a century.  That's not long, but on the other hand, I don't see it ending any time soon.


----------



## jmt18325 (26 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Seems that the Perverts are in power.  Removal of the wording "Barbaric practices of Female Genital Mutilation and Honour Killings not acceptable in Canadian society" from prerequisites of becoming a Canadian.  Dumbing down the Law against Bestiality.  "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" now entrenched with this Liberal undoing of an Act to strip dual citizens of their Canadian Citizenship if they are convicted of Terrorism.  This Government is getting more and more OBSCENE every day.



I'm pretty sure FGM and most 'barbaric' practices are just as illegal as they were.  I'm also sure that the bestiality decision had nothing to do with perversion.


----------



## jmt18325 (26 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Their will be no imploding, Canadian memories are short. And unfortunately the current cult of Trudeau get distracted by shiny things Trudeau does.



There's actually been no discernible impact even now to the Liberal poll numbers.  They've actually gone up.


----------



## Lightguns (26 Jul 2017)

Which polling firm?  Two of them have relatives working for Trudeau.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure FGM and most 'barbaric' practices are just as illegal as they were.  I'm also sure that the bestiality decision had nothing to do with perversion.



All totalled together, they tend to point to perversion in my eyes.  If you don't find them perverted, I would be curious why.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure FGM and most 'barbaric' practices are just as illegal as they were.


And yet we had a judge give a lighter sentence because of culture and the man allegedly not knowing that its illegal to smash the shit out of your wife.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jul 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> So we are stripping the citizenship and sending back the drafted NAZI interpreter but 10.5 million for the Islamist is OK.  I am going to put in more rations and ammo, this sh@thole is gonna implode soon.



Seems that this is just one more of the "Daily Liberal Faux Paux".  

This 93 year old man has already won his fight in the Courts on four occasions to maintain his Canadian Citizenship.  His history is that of a seventeen year old German national in the Ukraine being drafted as an Interpreter (not a combatant) into a Nazi unit.  Interesting the similarities and differences with his case and Khadr's.  Both could be considered "Child Soldiers" by the Lefties, if they would not have any anti-Nazi bias.  One, however, was a non-combatant, while the other was a illegal combatant.  Another interesting hypocrisy in the Liberal move to deport an old man and strip him of his Citizenship after half a century of being a contributing member of Canadian society, is that they are reinstating the Canadian Citizenship of a Convicted Terrorist from the Toronto 18 who is a young man and still a credible threat to Canada.


----------



## shawn5o (28 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The ones that were ruled to have happened by the courts.  Your sweet lord has nothing to do with it.



CSIS interviewed him and shared the info with the yanks. Oh the horrors!!! But the yanks wouldn't allow an interview unless the info was shared.

As you know, CSIS isn't a law enforcement agency. I suppose the agents should have read him his rights.

BTW, you don't seem to understand interjection. I guess I should have wrote, Oh my gosh


----------



## gryphonv (28 Jul 2017)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> CSIS interviewed him and shared the info with the yanks. Oh the horrors!!! But the yanks wouldn't allow an interview unless the info was shared.
> 
> As you know, CSIS isn't a law enforcement agency. I suppose the agents should have read him his rights.
> 
> BTW, you don't seem to understand interjection. I guess I should have wrote, Oh my gosh



Shawn don't feed the wildlife  :blotto:


----------



## shawn5o (28 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> If I said torture, I didn't mean to say torture.  It was mistreatment and abuse of process.



What abuse of process?


----------



## shawn5o (28 Jul 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That would hardly be fair, seeing that the laws of neither Canada (according to the Supreme Court of Canada) nor the US (according to the Supreme Court of the United States) were followed in obtaining that confession.



Canada was not involved in the confession.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> In my view, the confession is next to useless.



i am glad that your not part of the legal process



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Let me just say that I am glad your view is not the law of the land.  Rights are not a two way street, nor do they have a sliding scale - nor should they.



Why does the Charter flip flop on some rights? 



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> When the people take justice out of the hands of people who have a more learned and impartial interest, it is their own undoing.  Democracy was never meant to be absolute - at least not in our context.



Tell me, have you read the SCC's judgement? Believe me, it was and still is NOT impartial. 

The SCC claimed that Khadr was tortured without providing proof - I highly doubt he was tortured (including the so-called "frequent flyer program").


----------



## shawn5o (28 Jul 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Shawn don't feed the wildlife  :blotto:



Sorry, I can't help it  :bowing:


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jul 2017)

Shawn5: If you're going to start the debate again, organize everything into 1 post. Reading through the thread and quoting/responding one post at a time just turns it into a mess that's extremely hard to read.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Shawn5: If you're going to start the debate again, organize everything into 1 post. Reading through the thread and quoting/responding one post at a time just turns it into a mess that's extremely hard to read.



Sometimes hard to do when replying to several different posts.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jul 2017)

Hold Ctrl and click on the quote button it'll open it in a new window, then you can copy and paste into a main reply. That's how I normally do it, very quick and makes everything nice and clean.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Hold Ctrl and click on the quote button it'll open it in a new window, then you can copy and paste into a main reply. That's how I normally do it, very quick and makes everything nice and clean.


As it was, he had a short post and a long post......Are you suggesting he compile all into a long novelette?

We would become quite bored after reading replies to the first three or four of jmt's quotes.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As it was, he had a short post and a long post......Are you suggesting he compile all into a long novelette?



100% that's what I'm suggesting. If you look at the posting times, less than an hour and a half in between. When coming into a thread with lots of unread replies, its prudent to read through everything, pick a few you want to respond to, and make a bigger post. Sure, its a big post, but we waste more space with the headers  on 5 posts than we would with a couple extra carriage returns separating quotes.

People have written short stories on here before as responses, and as always you can exercise the free will not to read it. That's probably why Reddit has a TLR (Too Longidn't Read) system for their posts.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> We would become quite bored after reading replies to the first three or four of jmt's quotes.



Imagine having to read all of JMTs posts, and then the replies! :sarcasm:

If my suggestion is a big issue for you, please feel free to PM me and discuss it. Otherwise, no need for the discussion on it taking away from a good topic.


----------



## shawn5o (30 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Shawn5: If you're going to start the debate again, organize everything into 1 post. Reading through the thread and quoting/responding one post at a time just turns it into a mess that's extremely hard to read.



Sorry 'bout that. I allowed emotion to overturn my beer-addled brain.   :nod:


----------



## shawn5o (30 Jul 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 100% that's what I'm suggesting. If you look at the posting times, less than an hour and a half in between. When coming into a thread with lots of unread replies, its prudent to read through everything, pick a few you want to respond to, and make a bigger post. Sure, its a big post, but we waste more space with the headers  on 5 posts than we would with a couple extra carriage returns separating quotes.
> 
> People have written short stories on here before as responses, and as always you can exercise the free will not to read it. That's probably why Reddit has a TLR (Too Longidn't Read) system for their posts.
> 
> ...



Sorry about that puckchaser. I do get carried away.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Aug 2017)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Sorry 'bout that. I allowed emotion to overturn my beer-addled brain.   :nod:



Labatt 50 will do that to a man.


----------



## jmt18325 (3 Aug 2017)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> CSIS interviewed him and shared the info with the yanks. Oh the horrors!!! But the yanks wouldn't allow an interview unless the info was shared.



Take that up with the court, not me.


----------



## jmt18325 (3 Aug 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 100% that's what I'm suggesting. If you look at the posting times, less than an hour and a half in between. When coming into a thread with lots of unread replies, its prudent to read through everything, pick a few you want to respond to, and make a bigger post.



I'm going to have to defend him here.  With my personality and brain style (i.e., my mind is all over the place), I find such things hard to do.  Especially posting from work .  That said, now that you've made your position clear, I'll do my best in the future to be more organized.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Aug 2017)

The latest ...


> *Widow of U.S. soldier seeks enforcement of Utah judgment against Omar Khadr in Alberta*
> The claim calls on the Court of Queen’s Bench to recognize the U.S. judgment, and to issue a “corresponding” award in the amount of $173.88 million.
> By Colin Perkel, The Canadian Press, Thu., Aug. 24, 2017
> 
> ...


----------



## BurnDoctor (27 Aug 2017)

The latest today is that he wants his bail conditions relaxed to allow unfettered, unsupervised visitation with his hate-spewing sister.

The NP article also mentions that he is a nursing student in Red Deer. Presumably he'll need some sort of waiver to actually work in healthcare once he graduates, given that typically his type of background would preclude employment in healthcare and many other fields.

I still maintain that he ought to have been tried in Canada for treason.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Aug 2017)

How does he enter a health occupation training programme? Don't  you need a police screening beforehand?


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Aug 2017)

BurnDoctor said:
			
		

> The latest today is that he wants his bail conditions relaxed to allow unfettered, unsupervised visitation with his hate-spewing sister ...


More details from The Canadian Press, via the _Toronto Star_ ...


> Former Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr returns to court this week to ask that his bail conditions be eased, including allowing him unfettered contact with his controversial older sister, more freedom to move around Canada and unrestricted internet access.
> 
> In support of his request, Khadr notes the conditions originally imposed two years ago were necessary as a graduated integration plan following his 13 years in American and Canadian custody. No issues have arisen since his release and the various restrictions have been revised several times — most recently in May last year, he says.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Sep 2017)

The latest:


> A hearing to determine whether bail conditions for former Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr should be eased allowing him unsupervised visits with his controversial sister did not go ahead as planned Thursday.
> 
> It was put over to Sept. 15 after lawyers for the Justice Department said they needed time to consult with the federal government.
> 
> ...


op:


----------



## larry Strong (25 Sep 2017)

He has been rejected in regards to the sister and allowed internet access...

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/omar-khadr-visits-with-sister-remain-restricted-but-can-use-internet-freely


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Oct 2017)

Our very own Milnews highlighted that the Khadar family has links to this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Boyle


----------



## gryphonv (6 Nov 2017)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/ex-gitmo-captive-set-to-sue-canada-for-50-million-for-alleged-complicity-in-torture-1.3664243

It seems they are starting to come out of the woodwork.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Nov 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/ex-gitmo-captive-set-to-sue-canada-for-50-million-for-alleged-complicity-in-torture-1.3664243
> 
> It seems they are starting to come out of the woodwork.



Any bets he’ll settle for 10.5 million?


----------



## gryphonv (6 Nov 2017)

I'm curious how this one plays out. But glaring difference, he don't have Canadian citizenship. And if he did, since it wasn't by birth, it could of been removed for the terrorism charges.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Nov 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I'm curious how this one plays out. But glaring difference, he don't have Canadian citizenship. And if he did, since it wasn't by birth, it could of been removed for the terrorism charges.



No it couldn't. You may recall that Trudeau's Liberals have revoked that law, and even retro-actively given back to convicted terrorist their Canadian citizenship.

To Trudeau's Liberals, "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" no matter how unsavoury their actions, even against Canadians and the Canadian state's are. Remember, Trudeau himself envies the Canadian citizenship of those who acquire it through immigration and wished he could do so himself*.


*: Personally, if Trudeau wanted to renounce his Canadian citizenship (perhaps acquiring the Chinese one, since he admires them so much), go live somewhere else (perhaps the Aga Khan's caribbean retreat) while applying for immigration to Canada, come back here as an immigrant, wait the three (?) to five years needed and took Canadian citizenship again, I would have no problem with that - would get him out of our "hair' for that long at least.  ;D


----------



## gryphonv (6 Nov 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> No it couldn't. You may recall that Trudeau's Liberals have revoked that law, and even retro-actively given back to convicted terrorist their Canadian citizenship.
> 
> To Trudeau's Liberals, "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" no matter how unsavoury their actions, even against Canadians and the Canadian state's are. Remember, Trudeau himself envies the Canadian citizenship of those who acquire it through immigration and wished he could do so himself*.
> 
> ...



I forgot about that. 

At least he has nice Hair. /s


----------



## Platitudinarian (13 Dec 2018)

Not meaning at all to reignite any debate about Omar's detention in Gitmo, or the Harper governments efforts to keep him there indefinitely, but trying to go to to Saudi at this time seems like a bad idea. They just murdered Khasshogi and Canadian and SA relations are not exactly at their best. Such a high profile visitor might attract some very unwanted attention or political reprisal. Don't do it bro. 


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/omar-khadr-passport-travel-saudi-arabia-sister-1.4940009


----------



## Loachman (13 Dec 2018)

You consider him your "bro"?

Most here, I think, would support his trip to Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Dec 2018)

Not that he needs it, but I'd contribute to a GoFundMe for the airline ticket.   :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Dec 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> You consider him your "bro"?
> 
> Most here, I think, would support his trip to Saudi Arabia.



One way, with passport surrendered at the last Canadian airport he was in.


----------



## my72jeep (13 Dec 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not that he needs it, but I'd contribute to a GoFundMe for the airline ticket.   :nod:


Let the buger pay out of his own pocket, why should he get any more of our money?


----------



## AbdullahD (13 Dec 2018)

Wait.. we paid him millions of dollars and now he wants to go to Saudi to visit his "sister" who has been under investigation previously...

Am I the one thinking this is insane? I think if he leaves this country.. he will take his money and not come back....

Why wont his sister come here? Why now? It is not Ramadan or anything that I'm aware of either.

Sorry I'm suspicious 
Abdullah


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Dec 2018)

Platitudinarian said:
			
		

> Not meaning at all to reignite any debate about Omar's detention in Gitmo, or the Harper governments efforts to keep him there indefinitely, but trying to go to to Saudi at this time seems like a bad idea. They just murdered Khasshogi and Canadian and SA relations are not exactly at their best. Such a high profile visitor might attract some very unwanted attention or political reprisal. Don't do it bro.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/omar-khadr-passport-travel-saudi-arabia-sister-1.4940009



Your bro? Really? 

Please rethink your line of thought and be cognizant of the thread your posting on. We’re not too terrorist friendly here.


----------



## Platitudinarian (14 Dec 2018)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Your bro? Really?
> 
> Please rethink your line of thought and be cognizant of the thread your posting on. We’re not too terrorist friendly here.



Did mean that sarcastically. Obviously he can use the 105 million dollar settlement to get his ass there. Brought it up just because of the timing, I'm not "terrorist-friendly" FFS. 

It would be really weird political conundrum if something were to happen to him there. Like if he and his sister join what's left of Al Qaida, well that would set a really shitty precedent for others seeking reparations for illegal imprisonment for detention in places like Gitmo. And if the Saudi's murder him, what's the GOCs response supposed to be? And if nothing happens and he just comes back, is that really going to be the end of it?


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Dec 2018)

Personally, I want him to have his rights and go. As a thought experiment, how far would the current CanGov go to free him from the Saudis compared to the two unlucky bastards in China. He's their fucking golden boy, let him go.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Dec 2018)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> He's their fucking golden boy, let him go.


Just to be clear, do you mean the Canadian government or the Saudi's?  I suspect that, like his sister, he faces absolutely no risk in Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Dec 2018)

Both. He’s got 10 million, worth a ransom to someone. It can be arranged I’m sure.


----------



## Teager (17 Dec 2018)

I still find it odd how he managed to get in a nursing program with his record. Not exactly sure how things work in Alberta but my wife is in a nursing program and is required to have a vulnerable persons check done every 6 months.

I find it odd how his big plans were to go into this nursing program and now he is unable to "focus" in it and all of a sudden wants to go visit his sister all after a year or so of receiving his payment. Perhaps his sister has some "investment" opportunities for him.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Dec 2018)

Teager said:
			
		

> I still find it odd how he managed to get in a nursing program with his record.


Easy. He's a celebrity.  He could probably arrange a meeting between himself and the PM fairly easily if he wanted to.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Dec 2018)

Maybe some don’t understand that calling a terrorist “bro” even jokingly is not funny. Khadr was lucky he didn’t catch one in the head the day he murdered a medic.


----------



## brihard (17 Dec 2018)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Maybe some don’t understand that calling a terrorist “bro” even jokingly is not funny. Khadr was lucky he didn’t catch one in the head the day he murdered a medic.



Other than a recanted confession under threat of torture and indefinite detention in Gitmo, what actual evidence is there that he threw the grenade? I remain completely unconvinced that he is guilty of that particular act. Sure as hell there's nothing there that would stand in any court in a place that recognizes due process and rule of law...


----------



## Czech_pivo (17 Dec 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Other than a recanted confession under threat of torture and indefinite detention in Gitmo, what actual evidence is there that he threw the grenade? I remain completely unconvinced that he is guilty of that particular act. Sure as hell there's nothing there that would stand in any court in a place that recognizes due process and rule of law...



From a National Post article - May 29, 2015. "Edited" - I'm adding the link - https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/omar-khadr-describes-firefight-that-killed-u-s-soldier-im-just-going-to-throw-this-grenade

"In an interview, Khadr, now 28,  remembers grenades being tossed inside the remote compound of an alleged al-Qaida cell, something exploding beside him and U.S. forces “screaming and shouting.”

“I got scared,” a bearded Khadr, now 28, says in a documentary collaboration by the Toronto Star, CBC and White Pine Pictures.

“I was thinking, ‘What should I do…?’ I didn’t know what to do. So I thought, I’m just going to throw this grenade and maybe just scare them away.”

The evidence is his own words.


----------



## Loachman (13 Mar 2019)

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/omar-khadr-purchases-edmonton-strip-mall-for-3-million/

Omar Khadr purchases Edmonton strip mall for $3 million

by Roberto Wakerell-Cruz Mar 12

Amidst the legal battles that surround Canadian former Guantanamo Bay prisoner has decided to purchase a strip mall in Edmonton for $3 million.

According to Sheila Gunn-Reid, documents related to the purchase show "the 9,150 sq. ft. commercial property was purchased with a cash lump sum on Nov. 29, 2018, by a numbered company, 2156536 Alberta Ltd., which lists Khadr as a director. The five-unit strip mall has an assessed value of just over $1.5 million, the documents show, and was last sold 2009 for $850,000." Khadr has refused to make a statement regarding the matter, via his lawyer Nate Whitling.

The story was originally published by media outlet The Rebel Media with comments obtained by The National Post.

<snip>

The reviews on the businesses that are running out of this strip mall have been hit drastically, as many one-star reviews flood in. "Found out that this location pays its rent to Omar Khadr. Please boycott until the owners relocate otherwise you are indirectly paying a terrorist," one person posted about the travel agency.

It should be noted though that the tenants of the building have no choice with regards to who owns their building, and punishment for their business being in this strip mall may seem unwarranted.

<snip>


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Mar 2019)

Maybe he's going to:
- open a sporting goods/gun store.

- Site for 2019 liberal campaign headquarters.

- a hair dressing salon

- specialty travel agency

EtC.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> If criminals don't follow the law, how is new legislation going to stop criminals and gangs?


An often repeated observation which is nothing new to firearm owners and completely ignored by anti-firearm advocates. 




> I honestly believe that armed men are citizens; unarmed men are subjects.



In Canada unarmed men who travel to war zones with the intent of joining terrorist forces and fighting against the west, including Canada, while committing all kinds of atrocities are still considered Canadian citizens.


----------



## TimneyTime (20 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> An often repeated observation which is nothing new to firearm owners and completely ignored by anti-firearm advocates.
> 
> 
> 
> In Canada unarmed men who travel to war zones with the intent of joining terrorist forces and fighting against the west, including Canada, while committing all kinds of atrocities are still considered Canadian citizens.



The second point:  That's sad but true.  Some of them even get $10 million from the government for reasons.  Shocking that a terrorist can still be labelled a Canadian citizen.  That in itself should revoke Canadian citizenship.

Omar Kadr killed a US Delta Force Sgt. so he could be moved to Canada and avoid US conviction.  He's now appealing the court case against him in the US.  His father was a top commander in Al-Quaeda.  What a deal he got.


----------



## Haggis (20 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> Some of them even get $10 million from the government for reasons.



*Slight tangent:*  The general legal opinions pretty much agree that Khadr would have won his $50M (plus costs) suit against the Government of Canada (GoC) for his rights being violated and that the GoC would've spent far more than $10M defending against his suit.  Optics aside, we got off cheap financially and legally.


----------



## Jed (20 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> *Slight tangent:*  The general legal opinions pretty much agree that Khadr would have won his $50M (plus costs) suit against the Government of Canada (GoC) for his rights being violated and that the GoC would've spent far more than $10M defending against his suit.  Optics aside, we got off cheap financially and legally.



There are a whole lot of other ways to piss away 40 million dollars for the sake of national pride and moral justice.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> ... can you strip out the Khadr stuff that doesn't have to do with gun laws please, if you can ...


Done & moved to a more appropriate area.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Done & moved to a more appropriate area.
> 
> Army.ca Staff



Tanks!


----------



## TimneyTime (20 Mar 2019)

I was under the impression that the very essence of our nation was to fight against these terrorists.  What happened, Canada?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2019)

Only if the media decides its worth it to its readership.
People here are ambivalent unless it punches them in the face and becomes personal.
We talk a big talk but dont walk the walk.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Only if the media decides its worth it to its readership.
> People here are ambivalent unless it punches them in the face and becomes personal.
> We talk a big talk but dont walk the walk.



You are correct.
We can walk the walk only if it doesn’t cost too much in $$.


----------



## CBH99 (21 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> The second point:  That's sad but true.  Some of them even get $10 million from the government for reasons.  Shocking that a terrorist can still be labelled a Canadian citizen.  That in itself should revoke Canadian citizenship.
> 
> Omar Kadr killed a US Delta Force Sgt. so he could be moved to Canada and avoid US conviction.  He's now appealing the court case against him in the US.  His father was a top commander in Al-Quaeda.  What a deal he got.




I agree with much of what you've said here TT.  From a moral perspective, I don't think anybody disagrees with you.

And yes, from both a financial & legal basis, we probably got off pretty light.  I can't say after years of being tortured and imprisoned, I'd have the strength to carry on a lengthy legal battle if someone offered me $10M to go away...


At the end of the day though, these people ARE Canadian citizens.  Period.  Whether we like it or not, they are.

And as such, the course of actions of military operations, how law enforcement deals with things, and how the courts deal with things are greatly influenced due to the fact that they ARE citizens, and are entitled to the same legal protections as the rest of us...as undeserving as they may be.


----------



## TimneyTime (22 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> *Slight tangent:*  The general legal opinions pretty much agree that Khadr would have won his $50M (plus costs) suit against the Government of Canada (GoC) for his rights being violated and that the GoC would've spent far more than $10M defending against his suit.  Optics aside, we got off cheap financially and legally.



That's no excuse to give him $10m... He should be getting the electric chair imo.

And the big caveat is that he might have cost, not would have.  It's no excuse to wave off his ties with Al-Quaeda, and his atrocities over what could have been the court costs... especially when Khadr himself is reaping the benefits of the settlement.

My suspicion is that the government is just saying $40 million, to make what they did seem more palatable.

Trudeau literally stood there quoting the charter of rights and freedoms as his defence for paying $10.5 million.  Unfortunately, murder is against the law.

So if someone commits murder, I don't think the next logical response is to pay them $10.5 million dollars.

We definitely don't have to stand up for the rights of murderers.  Nor do we have to stand up for the rights of members of Al-Quaeda and their families.

Trudeau said:

“That when a government violates a Canadian, any Canadian’s fundamental rights, and allows them to be tortured, there are consequences and we all must pay,”

I say, who cares if Khadr was "tortured"... he's a terrorist.


----------



## FJAG (22 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> *Slight tangent:*  The general legal opinions pretty much agree that Khadr would have won his $50M (plus costs) suit against the Government of Canada (GoC) for his rights being violated and that the GoC would've spent far more than $10M defending against his suit.  Optics aside, we got off cheap financially and legally.



I'd like to see the source on that "general legal opinion". Considering the minimal extent of involvement of the Canadians in his case I would think that any damages would have been substantially less. Canadian courts ain't that generous.

op:


----------



## larry Strong (25 Mar 2019)

Judge rules Omar Khadr's sentence has expired

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/judge-rules-omar-khadr-s-sentence-has-expired-1.4350209



> EDMONTON -- An Alberta judge has ruled that a war crimes sentence for former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr has expired.
> 
> An eight-year sentence imposed in 2010 would have ended last October had Khadr remained in custody.
> 
> ...





Cheers
Larry


----------



## TimneyTime (25 Mar 2019)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Judge rules Omar Khadr's sentence has expired
> 
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/judge-rules-omar-khadr-s-sentence-has-expired-1.4350209
> 
> ...



I'd love to ask Speer's family how they feel about this.


----------



## brihard (25 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> I'd love to ask Speer's family how they feel about this.



Frankly it’s not relevant. Tragic as his death in theatre was, there isn’t actually any evidence that Khadr is culpable for that particular act. A recanted confession made against the backdrop of a youth trying to avoid indefinite detention and abuse at Guantanamo bay is about the single most useless thing known to law or anything pretending to be such.

I can understand the Speer family’s anger, but their government set them up for disappointment in the first place by trying to use their family member’s death as an expedient answer to what the hell you do with a captured fifteen year old in Afghanistan who quite petulantly declined to die when it would have been more convenient for everyone else involved. I believe to this day that they took what scant details they could be sure of and trumped up the (ex post facto, I might add) charges that they then coerced Khadr into confessing to.

His case is an excellent example of why the rule of law matters when our actions overseas are predicated on being the good guys.

I do not have answers for what *should* have done with him (and I must always defer to the law against my own comfort or preferences). What *was* done was about the worst case in terms of things they should have expected to be an embarrassing bite in the ass down the road.


----------



## TimneyTime (25 Mar 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Frankly it’s not relevant. Tragic as his death in theatre was, there isn’t actually any evidence that Khadr is culpable for that particular act. A recanted confession made against the backdrop of a youth trying to avoid indefinite detention and abuse at Guantanamo bay is about the single most useless thing known to law or anything pretending to be such.
> 
> I can understand the Speer family’s anger, but their government set them up for disappointment in the first place by trying to use their family member’s death as an expedient answer to what the hell you do with a captured fifteen year old in Afghanistan who quite petulantly declined to die when it would have been more convenient for everyone else involved. I believe to this day that they took what scant details they could be sure of and trumped up the (ex post facto, I might add) charges that they then coerced Khadr into confessing to.
> 
> ...



Khadr's father was an Al Quaeda commander, and he has all kinds of other ties to the organization.  So while we may be dealing with a case where he shot the sheriff but not the deputy... it doesn't really matter.  What's clear is that he is a terrorist from a family of terrorists.  You can't deny his lineage.


----------



## TimneyTime (25 Mar 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Frankly it’s not relevant. Tragic as his death in theatre was, there isn’t actually any evidence that Khadr is culpable for that particular act. A recanted confession made against the backdrop of a youth trying to avoid indefinite detention and abuse at Guantanamo bay is about the single most useless thing known to law or anything pretending to be such.
> 
> I can understand the Speer family’s anger, but their government set them up for disappointment in the first place by trying to use their family member’s death as an expedient answer to what the hell you do with a captured fifteen year old in Afghanistan who quite petulantly declined to die when it would have been more convenient for everyone else involved. I believe to this day that they took what scant details they could be sure of and trumped up the (ex post facto, I might add) charges that they then coerced Khadr into confessing to.
> 
> ...



Also, it's kind of hard to justify defending Khadr, when he was accused of throwing a grenade at Speer.  Did the grenade materialize out of thin air and explode in Speer's face?  I don't think so.  I also doubt anyone else would have thrown the grenade, as it's pretty restricted who would have been at the scene at the time the crime was committed.  Unless we put our tinfoil hats on and say it was an inside job, I'm not sure what the options are here.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Mar 2019)

Could it have been the al-Qaeda fighter also present there, who was shot and killed before US forces shot Khadr in the back?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-witness-account-shows-khadr-charges-should-be-dropped-lawyers-1.765709?ref=rss


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2019)

Khadr has admitted to throwing grenades. Did he throw THE grenade? I don't know. 
I'm probably wrong, but was he not the only belligerent still alive at the time?


----------



## brihard (25 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Khadr has admitted to throwing grenades. Did he throw THE grenade? I don't know.
> I'm probably wrong, but was he not the only belligerent still alive at the time?



As best as I can dig up, he and one other fighter survived the air strike on the compound, so two belligerents were still alive when the grenade went off. This evidence was actually covered up until January 2008 when it was accidentally released to reporters. Who threw it will never be known. What I am confident is that as evidence for a criminal proceeding, his later recanted confession is as tainted and as inadmissible as it gets.



			
				TimneyTime said:
			
		

> Khadr's father was an Al Quaeda commander, and he has all kinds of other ties to the organization.  So while we may be dealing with a case where he shot the sheriff but not the deputy... it doesn't really matter.  What's clear is that he is a terrorist from a family of terrorists.  You can't deny his lineage.



Right, but we don’t prosecute people for the crimes of their fathers. To convict Khadr of murdering Speer, it has to be proven that he threw the grenade that killed him.



			
				TimneyTime said:
			
		

> Also, it's kind of hard to justify defending Khadr, when he was accused of throwing a grenade at Speer.  Did the grenade materialize out of thin air and explode in Speer's face?  I don't think so.  I also doubt anyone else would have thrown the grenade, as it's pretty restricted who would have been at the scene at the time the crime was committed.  Unless we put our tinfoil hats on and say it was an inside job, I'm not sure what the options are here.



One other adult fighter remained alive at the time of the grenade, and was shot and killed close to Khadr shortly after.

Khadr was a combatant, no question. He was ‘fair game’ as a military target. There is video of him building IEDs. I’m not defending his actions, character, or choices. He was certainly at one time our enemy... I’m not convinced he is anymore.

What I must defend is the rule of law. You simply cannot criminalize something after the fact, charge someone with that, hold a show trial without any regard for anything approaching standards of evidence admissibility, cover up exculpatory evidence, and expect the result to be taken seriously. Guantanamo Bay military commissions were a kangaroo court. If America had deliberately sought the worst way to botch this they could hardly have done worse.

Khadr was an enemy combatant who provided material support to hostile parties and who probably tried to kill allied soldiers. He was captured, and legally should probably have been treated as a child soldier, although such treatment would have been very imperfect for the circumstances. If charged criminally it should have been under a properly constituted court of law with recognized legal jurisdiction and proper judicial processes. Had that happened the result would have been ugly and imperfect, and quite unsatisfying, but not nearly the embarrassment that it turned into. And we probably wouldn’t have shelled out $10 mil.


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Mar 2019)

I don't know what people would have the Judge do in this case that would survive appeal to a higher court. The man was not given a life sentence, he was a young offender at the material time and he has served much more prison time than many others in the age group for similar crimes under Canadian law. So really, that is the law that applies to him now and not the law of the jungle. Nobody is being asked to forgive or forget, or hold different views of him, but time moves on and limited time was the most he could be sentenced to. It is now done.


----------



## FSTO (25 Mar 2019)

I'm ready to move on from this person. I just wish the PM would recant his comment about our wounded veterans asking for more than what the government is prepared to give. Those words would make the 10 million easier to swallow.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Mar 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I'm ready to move on from this person. I just wish the PM would recant his comment about our wounded veterans asking for more than what the government is prepared to give. Those words would make the 10 million easier to swallow.



If I never hear of this again I will not complain.


----------



## Gunplumber (26 Mar 2019)

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/omar-khadr-describes-firefight-that-killed-u-s-soldier-im-just-going-to-throw-this-grenade

His own words. “I was thinking, ‘What should I do…?’ I didn’t know what to do. So I thought, I’m just going to throw this grenade and maybe just scare them away.”

Child Soldier: He was born September 19, 1986. In the early morning of July 27, 2002, a team made up of the 19th Special Forces Group, the 505th Infantry Regiment and about twenty[38] Afghan fighters associated with Pacha Khan Zadran, were sent to a house on a reconnaissance mission. Geneva Convention states: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities". Khadr was 16 at the time. He was not a child soldier.

There are plenty of Canadians in lots of prisons in other countries who have been by that countries laws and convicted. Just look at all the drug smugglers. They were not tried under Canadian law so why should Khadr get that option? The only law he should have been tried under is the Geneva Convention at it war an international "war". He was not wearing a uniform or a "That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" so he was an unlawful combatant was he not? "An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify for POW status under GCIII Articles 4 and 5."


----------



## TimneyTime (26 Mar 2019)

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/omar-khadr-describes-firefight-that-killed-u-s-soldier-im-just-going-to-throw-this-grenade
> 
> His own words. “I was thinking, ‘What should I do…?’ I didn’t know what to do. So I thought, I’m just going to throw this grenade and maybe just scare them away.”
> 
> ...



I don't think grenades were designed to "scare people away".  I think a 15-16 year old knows exactly what grenades are for, and throwing one is intent to do harm, or property damage, or both.  Especially when what you're throwing the grenade AT is people.

I believe Khadr gets the option to be tried under Canadian law because he and his family have serious dirt on Canadian politicians, and that the $10mil was hush money.  Can I prove it... no.  But the whole situation just stinks of it.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Mar 2019)

The child soldier thing. Again. At the time of the self throwing grenade incident, the nearest person to it's point of origin was 15 years old. The UN at that time defined a child soldier as someone UNDER (as in "not yet") 15 years of age. Ipso fatso, he was not a child soldier. QED, innit?


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Mar 2019)

What I really want to know is why pay q3 million dollars for a property assessed at 1.5 million and previously sold for $850,000.


----------



## brihard (26 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> I believe Khadr gets the option to be tried under Canadian law because he and his family have serious dirt on Canadian politicians, and that the $10mil was hush money.  Can I prove it... no.  But the whole situation just stinks of it.



That’s some serious tin foil stuff right there.


----------



## Remius (26 Mar 2019)

Timney, where are you getting that from?


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Mar 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> That’s some serious tin foil stuff right there.



Tinfoil bought at the Khadr strip mall no less.


----------



## suffolkowner (26 Mar 2019)

I've read this thread a few times and I'm still having a problem with the Khadr situation. If Khadr was a combatant what was he charged for? Does this mean that any third party/country can grab any combatant that they don't like and grab them bring them to their home country and interrogate them and convict them. Does this mean that those I know who fought in Afghanistan can be kidnapped and brought to trial in Afghanistan. I know I must be missing something here but if Omar Khadr committed a crime should he not have been tried in Afghanistan or Canada as a Canadian citizen?


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What I really want to know is why pay q3 million dollars for a property assessed at 1.5 million and previously sold for $850,000.


Maybe it isn't easy to find land and buildings to open up  a returning Jihadi welcome centre, co-located with a passport office and driver training school.


----------



## blacktriangle (26 Mar 2019)

So does he go into some kind of high priced witness protection now?


----------



## brihard (26 Mar 2019)

standingdown said:
			
		

> So does he go into some kind of high priced witness protection now?



No, why would he? He’s a convicted criminal whose sentence is up. So far as I can tell he’s a free man without any further conditions.



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I've read this thread a few times and I'm still having a problem with the Khadr situation. If Khadr was a combatant what was he charged for? Does this mean that any third party/country can grab any combatant that they don't like and grab them bring them to their home country and interrogate them and convict them. Does this mean that those I know who fought in Afghanistan can be kidnapped and brought to trial in Afghanistan. I know I must be missing something here but if Omar Khadr committed a crime should he not have been tried in Afghanistan or Canada as a Canadian citizen?



Yup, this is a fair concern too and one we want to be careful of. We go into conflicts that aren’t declared wars, and the legality is increasingly open to interpretation as coalitions go doing their own thing. It’s all fine as long as we keep winning. Could we imagine a situation where Canadian troops end up in the custody of a belligerent force in a context where they won’t get prisoner of war status? Absolutely. It’s happened before. The more we normalize the exceptional, the more the exceptional becomes the norm.


----------



## TimneyTime (26 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> I don't think grenades were designed to "scare people away".  I think a 15-16 year old knows exactly what grenades are for, and throwing one is intent to do harm, or property damage, or both.  Especially when what you're throwing the grenade AT is people.
> 
> I believe Khadr gets the option to be tried under Canadian law because he and his family have serious dirt on Canadian politicians, and that the $10mil was hush money.  Can I prove it... no.  But the whole situation just stinks of it.



Huh, -300 points for this?  I'm confused.  

Journeyman seems to think this is some kind of crazy insane stuff I have to "stay in my own lane" over, because I don't know what I'm talking about.

I don't remember putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to believe this.

Maybe Journeyman should give this guy -300MP too:

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/glavin-why-the-khadr-payout-has-a-hush-money-feel-to-it

or this report:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/omar-khadr-apologizes-to-widow-1.902720

or this one:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-s-plaintiffs-fire-back-at-khadr-defence-over-damages-award-enforcement-2

How's that for staying in my own lane, and "knowing the subject", Journeyman?


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (26 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Maybe it isn't easy to find land and buildings to open up  a returning Jihadi welcome centre, co-located with a passport office and driver training school.



Perhaps its his constituency office for the next election.  You know, new Lib MP for Edmonton Griesbach, in which the Kensington neighbourhood resides.


----------



## Remius (26 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> Huh, -300 points for this?  I'm confused.
> 
> Journeyman seems to think this is some kind of crazy insane stuff I have to "stay in my own lane" over, because I don't know what I'm talking about.
> 
> ...



So the way you initially stated it, the Khadrs had some dirt on politicians.  That isn't very clear in any of your posts but I appreciate the links you posted for context. 

Hush money in the context of the opinion piece by the Ottawa Citizen article you linked is more about making an uncomfortable problem go away rather than some sort of black mail deal that your post was insinuating.  The problem being that Trudeau could not be a champion of eth charter when we have an ongoing charter violation ie Khadr's treatment at the hands of the government.


----------



## TimneyTime (26 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> So the way you initially stated it, the Khadrs had some dirt on politicians.  That isn't very clear in any of your posts but I appreciate the links you posted for context.
> 
> Hush money in the context of the opinion piece by the Ottawa Citizen article you linked is more about making an uncomfortable problem go away rather than some sort of black mail deal that your post was insinuating.  The problem being that Trudeau could not be a champion of eth charter when we have an ongoing charter violation ie Khadr's treatment at the hands of the government.



Yeah, I extrapolated the dirt on politicians with my tinfoil hat.

Truth about the charter violation.


----------



## Teager (22 Apr 2019)

If anyone's see the video of people cheering for him it's rather difficult to watch.

I always wondered about him wanting to be a nurse and here's his reply on that.



> It has been hard to find work, Khadr said, or to get accepted into school where he hopes to study nursing. “A lot of times when I apply for work or volunteering I don’t hear back from people. In the nursing program I applied and of course you have to do a criminal background check and of course when that comes back all the charges come up. So realistically for the time being I don’t think that anybody is going to be willing to risk, like, people like me but are not willing to take that risk to employ somebody with a history as mine.”




https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/this-settlement-is-not-only-for-me-its-for-every-canadian-the-highlights-of-omar-khadrs-appearance-on-quebecs-most-popular-talk-show/amp?__twitter_impression=true


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Apr 2019)

Teager said:
			
		

> If anyone's see the video of people cheering for him it's rather difficult to watch.
> 
> I always wondered about him wanting to be a nurse and here's his reply on that.
> 
> ...



I think everyone knows the feelings I have. Suffice it to say CBC and this thug have found a new way to persuade us we are totally wrong about our way of life.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Apr 2019)

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> Perhaps its his constituency office for the next election.  You know, new Lib MP for Edmonton Griesbach, in which the Kensington neighbourhood resides.



Yeeesh...


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (23 Apr 2019)

In Khadr's comments he doesn't outright say he is innocent or that the events didn't happen, its just that he perceives the situation differently from the soldiers who survived.  I think his PR agent has taken a page from Trudeau, because, well you know.... "two people can experience the same event differently".   rly:


----------



## Kokanee (23 Apr 2019)

*lights fire*

I'm still amazed that so many years later, there are people who can't wrap their heads around the fact that he was a child soldier when this all went down...


----------



## FJAG (23 Apr 2019)

Kokanee said:
			
		

> *lights fire*
> 
> I'm still amazed that so many years later, there are people who can't wrap their heads around the fact that he was a child soldier when this all went down...



Maybe its because there are many of us who don't believe the fiction that until one reaches the magical age of 18 one is a "child" and only becomes an adult when one crosses the line. Ages of majority vary from country to country and most have provisions in their courts whereby it can be determined that someone under the age of majority can be tried and punished as an adult.

Something that I rarely do is quote the Bible but in the words of 1 Corinthians 13:



> When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.



When one lives with terrorists, trains with terrorists and takes up arms with terrorists, one has "put away childish things" and deserves to be viewed and treated as a criminal.  

:2c:


----------



## Teager (23 Apr 2019)

Kokanee said:
			
		

> *lights fire*
> 
> I'm still amazed that so many years later, there are people who can't wrap their heads around the fact that he was a child soldier when this all went down...



You do realize that even Khadar said he didn't view himself as a child soldier.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Apr 2019)

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> In Khadr's comments he doesn't outright say he is innocent or that the events didn't happen, its just that he perceives the situation differently from the soldiers who survived.  I think his PR agent has taken a page from Trudeau, because, well you know.... "two people can experience the same event differently".   rly:



This same event, two different experiences is leeching into everything and frankly, it's a poor excuse.  Quite a while ago, a remarkable judge articulated a criminal defence hypothesis test known as the "air of reality".  Everything about Omar Khadr has no air of reality to it, unless a person is living in fantasy fairy land, like our PM, in which case reality is absent.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Apr 2019)

>child soldier

A useful concept (particularly to protect the very young teenagers and pre-teens conscripted by armed mobs) which has been distorted beyond use, not the least by the scolds who won't pass up a chance to browbeat countries like Canada so that we were forced to take action in respect of our minimum ages of recruitment into a professional, ethical army governed by a competent authority.


----------



## Loachman (25 Apr 2019)

I wish that he'd just shut up and lead a quiet life. His celebrity status is a constant and unnecessary irritation.

He's served a reasonable sentence, and it's time to move on. For everybody. And especially him.

The gross overpayment was wrong and remains annoying, but his claim that the "settlement is not only for me it's for every Canadian" is extremely offensive. None of us received any benefit from that, but we all helped to pay for it, and make a former enemy rich.

I don't need the reminder.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Apr 2019)

And neither do I. He’s a stain on this nation.


----------



## Haggis (25 Apr 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The gross overpayment was wrong and remains annoying, but his claim that the "settlement is not only for me it's for every Canadian" is extremely offensive. None of us received any benefit from that, but we all helped to pay for it, and make a former enemy rich.



I detest the way this whole thing played out and continues to garner too much attention.  However, the "gross overpayment" is one fifth of his claim of suit against the Crown for his rights being violated, which was the finding of the Supreme Court.  It quite probably would've cost Canadians tens of millions more in legal fees to defend a case which we would've lost had his claim gone to trial.  We got off cheap.

Second, I take his statement that the settlement was fr all Canadians to mean that maybe the Government will think twice about the financial and political cost before allowing a similar set of circumstances to befall another Canadian.

I will agree that the optics and politics of this suck.  I'll also state that he should never have been accorded the celebrity status conferred by that CBC program as he is in the same league as Bernardo, Olsen and Picton.  A convicted killer.  Will any of them be the next guests on that show?  Probably not, because they don't fit the government's narrative of the rehabilitated returning foreign fighter.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Apr 2019)

Rehabilitated? Time will tell. I have my doubts.


----------



## Haggis (25 Apr 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Rehabilitated? Time will tell. I have my doubts.



As do I.  But given his "red" celebrity status, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Liberals didn't trot him out as a shining pre-election example of how they stood up for the "Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" slogan used to counter Harper in 2015.

Right next to Joshua Boyle.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Apr 2019)

We should all show up at the next interview and throw sandals in his general direction. Just being culturally sensitive and all that.


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Sep 2019)

Khadr is appealing his war crimes conviction: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/u-s-military-court-appoints-panel-to-hear-omar-khadr-s-war-crimes-appeal-1.4610196

"In October 2010, Khadr pleaded guilty to five purported war crimes before a widely maligned U.S. military commission and was sentenced to eight more years in prison. He later said he pleaded guilty as his only way out of Guantanamo Bay.
_Khadr's appeal argument -- with some support from U.S. courts -- is that the commission convicted him of offences that weren't crimes at the time he allegedly committed them. However, the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review that sits as a first appeal forum for commission verdicts has steadfastly refused to hear his case._
That precludes Khadr, who turned 33 last week, from taking his fight to a civilian appellate court where normal rules of evidence apply."


Are Canadian taxpayers are funding these legal proceedings?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Sep 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Khadr is appealing his war crimes conviction: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/u-s-military-court-appoints-panel-to-hear-omar-khadr-s-war-crimes-appeal-1.4610196
> 
> Are Canadian taxpayers are funding these legal proceedings?



Doesn't matter either way; taxpayers pay for it directly or indirectly through the millions the Canadian gov't awarded him because of various "abuses" he suffered at the hands of Canadian officials.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jan 2020)

Oh FFS Romeo Dallaire et al, I assume that Dalhousie won't be giving equal time to a presentation on 'Dead US soldiers' rights'  :

Event Details

The Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative, in partnership with Dalhousie University’s Open Dialogue series, is hosting an exclusive event with keynote speakers Omar Khadr and Ishmael Beah.

https://alumni.dal.ca/?post_type=apt_event&p=48123&preview=true

Post-Millennial Article https://www.thepostmillennial.com/breaking-omar-khadr-is-giving-a-keynote-address-at-dalhousie-university/


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Jan 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Khadr is appealing his war crimes conviction: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/u-s-military-court-appoints-panel-to-hear-omar-khadr-s-war-crimes-appeal-1.4610196


U.S. Court:  No appeal for YOU!


> An American civilian court has refused to order a military court to decide an appeal from former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr.
> 
> In a brief decision this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied Khadr’s request to force the issue.
> 
> “At this time, (Khadr) has not demonstrated a ‘clear and indisputable right’ to the extraordinary remedy,” the court said ...


A bit more @ the link.


----------



## MAJONES (24 Jan 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> As do I.  But given his "red" celebrity status, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Liberals didn't trot him out as a shining pre-election example of how they stood up for the "Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" slogan used to counter Harper in 2015.
> 
> Right next to Joshua Boyle.



Well, let them.  Never interrupt an enemy while they are making a mistake.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jan 2020)

Rubbing salt in the wounds.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Feb 2020)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdWJeBN6tCA&feature=youtu.be

Anyone see this on the Cdn National News? The complete clip?

One of the three medals he is wearing is a Sacrifice Medal which means he was wounded by hostile action(info for non military readers).


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Feb 2020)

An “insult to the Waffen SS” is all most people heard. New headline:  Racist White Canadian Veteran Praises Nazi SS and Hitler Youth in Child Soldier rant.


----------

