Omar F*****G Khadr is getting $10.5 milion

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by rubecube

TIL in this thread and from the CPC: governments should use public resources to pursue criminal proceedings and litigation they have minimal chances of winning because it makes the general public feel better. And this is the approach being advocated by "fiscal conservatives."

Honestly Rube, unless you can show that the people in this thread advocating for charges or fighting the lawsuit are "fiscal conservatives", that is just a self-serving, Tinordi-esque non-argument.

Also, if one legitimately believes that Khadr should have been charged with treason, and/or one legitimately believes that the government could have won the lawsuit (and I disagree on both counts), being a fiscal conservative is not relevant to the debate. As far as politicians go, left or right, any politician is going to try and take advantage of any opportunity for gain. Accusing them of hypocrisy is like accusing ice of being cold.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Honestly Rube, unless you can show that the people in this thread advocating for charges or fighting the lawsuit are "fiscal conservatives", that is just a self-serving, Tinordi-esque non-argument.

Also, if one legitimately believes that Khadr should have been charged with treason, and/or one legitimately believes that the government could have won the lawsuit (and I disagree on both counts), being a fiscal conservative is not relevant to the debate. As far as politicians go, left or right, any politician is going to try and take advantage of any opportunity for gain. Accusing them of hypocrisy is like accusing ice of being cold.

I'm pretty sure if you asked transplant99 and some of the other vocal posters in this thread where they would place themselves on the economic spectrum, I'm pretty sure they would call themselves fiscal conservative. And I've seen a few of those posters say they believe the government should have fought harder solely for the principle despite the low odds of winning.

To your second point, I think you're partially right, but the Conservatives going on the spree they've gone on is a bit much. I find it pretty telling that despite all of their rhetoric, they have failed to produce any kind of legal argument or legal expert to back up their stance on the subject, and based on how the various court challenges tended to go for the Harper governments, it really does look like not much has changed.

My point is that many of these people are fiscally conservative when it's convenient for them to be.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm pretty sure if you asked transplant99 and some of the other vocal posters in this thread where they would place themselves on the economic spectrum, I'm pretty sure they would call themselves fiscal conservative. And I've seen a few of those posters say they believe the government should have fought harder solely for the principle despite the low odds of winning.

To your second point, I think you're partially right, but the Conservatives going on the spree they've gone on is a bit much. I find it pretty telling that despite all of their rhetoric, they have failed to produce any kind of legal argument or legal expert to back up their stance on the subject, and based on how the various court challenges tended to go for the Harper governments, it really does look like not much has changed.

My point is that many of these people are fiscally conservative when it's convenient for them to be.

I dunno Rube, all I'm asking for is due process, I do believe that evidence exists that could lead to Khadr facing charges. Would he be convicted? I dunno, but I think the crown should have taken a look at it. Clearly they aren't so it's all redundant. And no, I'm not a fiscal conservative or conservative of any sort.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I dunno Rube, all I'm asking for is due process

Omar is that you?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I dunno Rube, all I'm asking for is due process, I do believe that evidence exists that could lead to Khadr facing charges. Would he be convicted? I dunno, but I think the crown should have taken a look at it. Clearly they aren't so it's all redundant. And no, I'm not a fiscal conservative or conservative of any sort.

This is out of genuine curiousity, because I don't actually know if there's a statement out there saying they didn't, but (if not) what makes you think they didn't take a look at it?

Couldn't they have taken a look at the potential charges, the evidence available, and the likely outcome and decide that it wasn't beneficial in any way to pursue it?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This is out of genuine curiousity, because I don't actually know if there's a statement out there saying they didn't, but (if not) what makes you think they didn't take a look at it?

Couldn't they have taken a look at the potential charges, the evidence available, and the likely outcome and decide that it wasn't beneficial in any way to pursue it?

I think it's pretty obvious that the government realizes the optics of letting someone(a minor no less) be tortured for ten years(max sentence length for a young offender at the time) without trial only to bring them back to Canada and sentence them to another 10'years in prison. The litigation costs of the trial and subsequent appeals can't possibly be justified for the sake of a "moral" victory.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This is out of genuine curiousity, because I don't actually know if there's a statement out there saying they didn't, but (if not) what makes you think they didn't take a look at it?

Couldn't they have taken a look at the potential charges, the evidence available, and the likely outcome and decide that it wasn't beneficial in any way to pursue it?

I guess I'm looking at it through a different lens. Clearly he was abused, tortured, tormented in Gitmo. I would gather that's undisputed. Were charges considered? That's something I'd like to know but it hasn't been stated. I really feel that saying charges were considered but not recommended would dump cod water on the fire. My 2 cents

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think it's pretty obvious that the government realizes the optics of letting someone(a minor no less) be tortured for ten years(max sentence length for a young offender at the time) without trial only to bring them back to Canada and sentence them to another 10'years in prison. The litigation costs of the trial and subsequent appeals can't possibly be justified for the sake of a "moral" victory.

Just to be clear, a minor may be charged as an adult in situations such as these. The allegations against Khadr are not what the YCJA intends to deal with.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Omar is that you?

Cute

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I dunno Rube, all I'm asking for is due process, I do believe that evidence exists that could lead to Khadr facing charges. Would he be convicted? I dunno, but I think the crown should have taken a look at it. Clearly they aren't so it's all redundant. And no, I'm not a fiscal conservative or conservative of any sort.

But this is due process. The Crown decides whether cases are worth prosecuting/litigating on a regular basis. I just don't understand the reasoning that goes into thinking the government didn't follow due process in this particular case. They stood to gain absolutely nothing by rushing this through and not tying it up in the courts further.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by rubecube

But this is due process. The Crown decides whether cases are worth prosecuting/litigating on a regular basis. I just don't understand the reasoning that goes into thinking the government didn't follow due process in this particular case. They stood to gain absolutely nothing by rushing this through and not tying it up in the courts further.

Did the Crown come out and say no charges were considered against him against the Canadian Crim Code? I think that's reasonable to expect in a situation such as this.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Just to be clear, a minor may be charged as an adult in situations such as these. The allegations against Khadr are not what the YCJA intends to deal with.

I don't know the sentencing relating to treason, but if he was charged and sentenced as an adult for murder I believe by law he would have received a parole hearing by a maximum of 10 years served.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don't know the sentencing relating to treason, but if he was charged and sentenced as an adult for murder I believe by law he would have received a parole hearing by a maximum of 10 years served.

It is purely at a judges discretion. If tried as an adult for murder and if convicted of same the 25 years without parole (which is so rarely utulised) may apply.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

It is purely at a judges discretion. If tried as an adult for murder and if convicted of same the 25 years without parole (which is so rarely utulised) may apply.

Unless the equally rarely utilized appeals process has a say in it. Are there a lot of examples of a youth being given and adult life sentence with no chance of parole? While treason is a very serious offence, I think sentencing for murder should have heftier sentencing. Just my opinion I have no idea what the legal precedence is.

[OMG!WTF!]

The courts said in no uncertain terms that we violated his rights. You want to try someone for treason who's rights you violated? That puts a hard stop on any and all potential legal charges against Khadr. People get let off the hook if their case takes longer than a couple years to reach trial. They get off if their bloody handcuffs were too tight. So yeah, ten years of human rights abuse in Guantanamo definitely precludes you from a criminal trial.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I guess I'm looking at it through a different lens. Clearly he was abused, tortured, tormented in Gitmo. I would gather that's undisputed. Were charges considered? That's something I'd like to know but it hasn't been stated. I really feel that saying charges were considered but not recommended would dump cod water on the fire. My 2 cents

Treason: There were calls last week to retroactively charge Khadr, now 30, with treason or other crimes punishable in Canada.
In 2008, Ottawa law students, under the supervision of Professor Craig Forcese, wrote a 153-page report given to a Senate Committee on Human Rights outlining the law. They later testified before a House of Commons committee.
The report concluded: “There is good reason to believe that Omar could be prosecuted under Canadian law. Repatriation, therefore, is not tantamount to impunity.”
Had Canada demanded Khadr’s repatriation after his capture, rather than deferring to the U.S., there was a greater possibility he could have been successfully prosecuted here.
Now that is likely impossible due to protections against double jeopardy and the fact that Canada’s courts have denounced the illegality of Guantanamo.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...rlying-it.html


So how I read that is that the senate was advised in 2008 that yes, had Khadr been repatriated there was a case for treason. But because he was left in Guantanamo, he was already being punished for a similar type of charge, so double jeopardy would apply. In essence, for those calling for a treason charge, he was already punished for it with his stay in Guantanamo. Had Harper(or Martin, or Chretien) fought to get Khadr back to Canada earlier, he could perhaps have be charged with treason here.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I dunno Rube, all I'm asking for is due process, I do believe that evidence exists that could lead to Khadr facing charges. Would he be convicted? I dunno, but I think the crown should have taken a look at it. Clearly they aren't so it's all redundant.

You're very concerned about the [alleged] lack of due process with regards to charging Khadr, but not very concerned about the [proven in a court of law] lack of due process with regards to the most basic human rights, that most civilized people agree should be extended to even the worst monsters?

Spoiler!

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I guess I'm looking at it through a different lens. Clearly he was abused, tortured, tormented in Gitmo. I would gather that's undisputed. Were charges considered? That's something I'd like to know but it hasn't been stated. I really feel that saying charges were considered but not recommended would dump cod water on the fire. My 2 cents

I suppose you can say "I'm just asking the question...", and that's fine. But, is this really the question to be asked? How about "why didn't the Liberal, then PC gov'ts fight to repatriate Khadr to face justice here?

I suppose you need to be spoonfed the answer, because you can't apply Occam's razor and realize that the sensible assumption is that charges were considered, but not laid because they didn't make sense [anymore, or ever]. Not that there is a grand conspiracy to avoid any further consideration of justice by burying heads in sand and simply ignoring certain aspects of the case.

I actually feel pretty comfortable answering your question: charges were almost certainly considered at various points in this process. They were almost certainly considered unnecessary based on shaky evidence, improbability of conviction, and the fact that the accused had already served a harsher sentence than would be expected to be given even in the unlikely result of a conviction.

But, then again, maybe the legal process would have been blind to the multiple mitigating factors in this situation, convicted Khadr as the worst adult criminal in the history of the country and made an exception to give him a public beheading GOT style, because he obviously deserved it.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

You're very concerned about the [alleged] lack of due process with regards to charging Khadr, but not very concerned about the [proven in a court of law] lack of due process with regards to the most basic human rights, that most civilized people agree should be extended to even the worst monsters?

Spoiler!

I suppose you can say "I'm just asking the question...", and that's fine. But, is this really the question to be asked? How about "why didn't the Liberal, then PC gov'ts fight to repatriate Khadr to face justice here?

I suppose you need to be spoonfed the answer, because you can't apply Occam's razor and realize that the sensible assumption is that charges were considered, but not laid because they didn't make sense [anymore, or ever]. Not that there is a grand conspiracy to avoid any further consideration of justice by burying heads in sand and simply ignoring certain aspects of the case.

I actually feel pretty comfortable answering your question: charges were almost certainly considered at various points in this process. They were almost certainly considered unnecessary based on shaky evidence, improbability of conviction, and the fact that the accused had already served a harsher sentence than would be expected to be given even in the unlikely result of a conviction.

But, then again, maybe the legal process would have been blind to the multiple mitigating factors in this situation, convicted Khadr as the worst adult criminal in the history of the country and made an exception to give him a public beheading GOT style, because he obviously deserved it.

You're in fine form this morning, snide comments and all. Have a cup of coffee and relax. This is a totally unique situation where I feel some dialogue with the public ie: were not laying charges against him due to xyz, would dampen a lot of the publics discontent. That's all.

[Flash Walken]

So are Canada's lawyers ethically compromised or incompetent to have not laid charges?

This sounds like a pretty big deal if the trove of government lawyers who have been involved in this for a decade are either so corruptible by politics as to not bring a charge of treason against a terrorist, or perhaps even worse, are so incompetent at applying the law they couldn't manage to bring charges against a treasonous terrorist.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

You're in fine form this morning, snide comments and all. Have a cup of coffee and relax. This is a totally unique situation where I feel some dialogue with the public ie: were not laying charges against him due to xyz, would dampen a lot of the publics discontent. That's all.

I generally try to keep my snide comments proportional to the level of obtuseness I'm dealing with. Not sure I was snide enough.

The xyz has been explained in this thread many times.

Has any reporter asked the question? If not, why not? Perhaps because it's an irrelevant question with an obvious answer...