• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Khadr Thread

AbdullahD

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
13
Points
210
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,513
Points
1,010
>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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,968
Points
1,060
[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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
584
Points
1,260
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

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,124
Points
1,060
mariomike said:
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/

Colour me shocked.
 

AbdullahD

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
13
Points
210
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,917
Points
1,260
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
786
Points
960
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

Full Member
Reaction score
12
Points
230
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,384
Points
1,060
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

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1
Points
360
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

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
786
Points
960
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

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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 Personsand 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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,901
Points
1,040
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.

In all, 71 per cent said the Trudeau government did the wrong thing and that “it should have fought the case and left it to the courts to decide whether Mr. Khadr was wrongfully imprisoned.”

There’s no doubt that adds up to political danger for Mr. Trudeau. While the anger certainly seems stronger from Conservative supporters, even Liberal voters aren’t happy: 61 per cent of them thought Mr. Trudeau’s government made the wrong choice, too.

It’s not that Canadians are rock-solid certain about how they feel about Mr. Khadr’s case. When asked if they think he was treated fairly, the biggest group of survey respondents, 42 per cent, say they’re unsure. Mr. Khadr pleaded guilty – he says under duress from U.S. authorities – in 2010 to killing U.S. Army Sergeant Chris Speer with a grenade in Afghanistan when he was 15. But while 74 per cent said they believe he was a child soldier, that clearly doesn’t make them all see him as a victim.

The money is key: There’s a recoil at the $10.5-million settlement. A big chunk of those opposed to the settlement, 25 per cent of those surveyed, said they’d have offered Mr. Khadr an apology but no money. The payout may even have affected the way people view Mr. Khadr: Two years ago, when he was released from prison, 55 per cent said they thought he was a “potential radicalized threat now living in Canada.” Now, more people, 64 per cent, see him that way. “This settlement is affecting how Canadians view Omar Khadr,” said  Shachi Kurl, executive director of the Angus Reid Institute.

The blowback may be affecting the way Canadian see Mr. Trudeau, too. A lot of that seems to be linked to the idea that he had a choice.

Canadians don’t see this as a losing case that Mr. Trudeau had to settle to avoid paying more later, a lawsuit dumped on him by his predecessors that the government could not win. It seems they instead believe it was a matter of choice for the Prime Minister, so the question is: “Why is he giving millions to a bad guy?”

The Angus Reid survey makes that link clear: Those who believe the government had a choice are far more likely to believe it did the wrong thing. And 65 per cent didn’t buy the notion the government had no choice. (The survey was conducted only between July 7 and 10, among a randomized sample of 1,521 Canadian adults who are members of the Angus Reid forum, an online panel.)

Of course, there are different kinds of choice. Clearly Mr. Trudeau’s government could have fought Mr. Khadr in court until it was forced to pay. Mr. Trudeau’s Conservative critics, such as Party Leader Andrew Scheer and former prime minister Stephen Harper, say that’s what he should have done.

It’s hard to imagine that government lawyers held out much hope of winning, since the Supreme Court issued a decision in a judicial review case in 2010 that made strong statements on many of the elements of a damage claim. The court ruled Canadian officials breached his rights and their duty to protect a Canadian youth, that they were partly responsible for his lot in Guantanamo Bay and the damage was ongoing till the government did something to get him out. Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said last week Ottawa spent $5-million on legal fees and had virtually no hope of beating his lawsuit, so the only sensible thing to do was settle.

But either Canadians don’t think that’s true or they wanted the government to fight in court all the way, anyway. It’s hard to imagine Mr. Trudeau or any politician actually wanted to pay Mr. Khadr millions and face the music. But Mr. Trudeau’s defence – that the Charter protects all even when it’s uncomfortable – sounds like he’s arguing the multimillion-dollar settlement was just, rather than just necessary. The immediate verdict in the court of public opinion is that he had a choice, and chose wrong.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/in-the-court-of-public-opinion-canadians-say-trudeau-chose-wrong-on-khadr-settlement/article35651376/

:cheers:
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,886
Points
1,240
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. 


 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
And lead by spaghetti backboned politicians.  I hope this is remembered come next election, I won't forget.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,390
Points
1,040
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,886
Points
1,240
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,390
Points
1,040
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.
 
Top