• 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

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.
 
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?

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

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.
 
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?
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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?

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.

The former journalist had penned a piece titled, “A Terrorist’s Big Payday, Courtesy of Trudeau.”..

By Monday afternoon [July 17] the issue was the No. 1 story on the Fox News website...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com///news/politics/omar-khadr-payout-gets-larger-us-media-attention-as-tory-mp-pens-op-ed/article35711859/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe

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
 
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]
 
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. 
 
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.
 
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.
 
Loachman said:
Yes, it does.

Every single time.

Really, it does.

Honestly.

Without fail.

"Activist courts" is fake news.

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.
 
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/
 
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...
 
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.
 
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/

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/

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.
 
Back
Top