• 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

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
736
Points
1,060
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.
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Humphrey Bogart said:
72323cfb9e81c25235a67727a1893609--ancient-aliens-meme-aliens-guy.jpg

Agreed, because for me, paying off the terrorist is out there, like Pluto, as the saying goes.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,848
Points
1,240
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,892
Points
1,040
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.

[:D

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:
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,381
Points
1,060
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,848
Points
1,240
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

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
736
Points
1,060
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. 

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.

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

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,512
Points
1,010
>What exactly makes throwing a grenade in battle a war crime?

Not meeting any of the criteria for being a lawful combatant.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,381
Points
1,060
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,848
Points
1,240
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.

b4ffbea40719ac19852732ac8638fd53f5f61a9495a8a30767f1bcb0bc0a0f1c.jpg







 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,381
Points
1,060
I'm sure the current government wanted to cut its losses with litigation, as they renew the legal arguments against veterans.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,848
Points
1,240
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,381
Points
1,060
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,848
Points
1,240
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
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.
 
Top