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

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by jayswin

So now we get to that awkward part where we see if Transplant99 and others change their tune a little with new information or do they do the thing that human beings are wired to do and dismiss/ignore findings that are contrary to their original, hardline stance?

Im right here.

What is the "new information" exactly?

And what "hardline" stance am i to be reconsidering?

That Khadr should have been charged with treason the minute he was returned to Canada? Cause nothing is going to change that for me. Its a text book case by definition.

Not really sure why you seemed to have honed in on me here, but fill your boots, as i have nothing to hide.

[Red Potato Standing By]

If it is a text book case then why wasn't he charged with it?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

If it is a text book case then why wasn't he charged with it?

Good question.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Good question.

So do you lean towards the side of it being some government conspiracy laden with special interests not to charge him, educated government legal council somehow missing this completely obvious opportunity, or that maybe it is not actually a textbook case like you seem to believe?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So do you lean towards the side of it being some government conspiracy laden with special interests not to charge him, educated government legal council somehow missing this completely obvious opportunity, or that maybe it is not actually a textbook case like you seem to believe?

This is the best explanation i have seen

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 outlying 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.

Doesn't mean they still can't but the liklihood of double jeopardy makes their chances slim. At least that is how i have come to understand it.


http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto...the-case-.html

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This is the best explanation i have seen



Doesn't mean they still can't but the liklihood of double jeopardy makes their chances slim. At least that is how i have come to understand it.


http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto...the-case-.html

There's a pretty key bit of information you're missing because you didn't read the report. All of your desire to prosecute for treason is conditional upon proving the charges against him were true. Or rather, provable. "provided the allegations by the US are true" is the exact wording.

And if you read the link I posted earlier you'd see the real evidence says he didn't throw the grenade. And you have no idea where the bombs he made were used.

But as long as you don't have to think about anything right?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

There's a pretty key bit of information you're missing because you didn't read the report. All of your desire to prosecute for treason is conditional upon proving the charges against him were true. Or rather, provable. "provided the allegations by the US are true" is the exact wording.

And if you read the link I posted earlier you'd see the real evidence says he didn't throw the grenade. And you have no idea where the bombs he made were used.

But as long as you don't have to think about anything right?

I don't understand this. Proving what charges against him were true? Maybe I'm missing something...
You are suggesting he wasn't actively 'at war' with the coalition that Canada was part of? Are you suggesting the bombs he was making were for Canadian forces?
No idea if Khadr would have been found guilty, but that would have been the right action. Bring him home and charge him with treason.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Good question.

This may help ease your frustration. Being 15 at the time he would have likely been tried as a minor under the young offender's act, at the time the maximum sentence for a minor was 10 years. So he essentially served his sentence without a trial. Also under the YOA his identity should have been kept protected, had this happened technically you should have never even known what he did. So he served his sentence, and paid his debt to society and you have your justice, the irony being he didn't actually get a trial. 10 years is too light of a sentence? The law is what it is, but bear in mind most young offenders sentenced under the YOA get sentenced to prison at juvenile institutions not torture at Guantanamo bay.

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

If it is a text book case then why wasn't he charged with it?

Probably because due to the reasons above it would simply be a waste of tax payer's money to have a trial for the sake of a moral verdict.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I don't understand this. Proving what charges against him were true? Maybe I'm missing something...
You are suggesting he wasn't actively 'at war' with the coalition that Canada was part of? Are you suggesting the bombs he was making were for Canadian forces?
No idea if Khadr would have been found guilty, but that would have been the right action. Bring him home and charge him with treason.

Third time...

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017...dr-isnt-guilty

It's too long to quote but it explains what the evidence against Khadr actually is in regards to the grenade he threw and how it would never stand up in court. In fact, it points to his innocence much more so than guilt.

So once you're over that, you have to look at what the video of him making bombs could provide in the way of charges. The report from the U of Ottawa suggests the charge would not be treason but rather some other bomb making charge. That charge however requires a location for where the bombs were used. That doesn't exist.

The other charge is aiding a terrorist organization and in regards to the bomb making video, that charge requires proof of someone using the bombs he made in the same way the first charge would be proven. Like his dad would have to have been caught using Omar's bombs against civilians in a public place.

And other than that, I'm not aware of any other evidence other than "His whole family is a bunch of friggin terrorists let's friggin hang em".

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Third time...

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017...dr-isnt-guilty

It's too long to quote but it explains what the evidence against Khadr actually is in regards to the grenade he threw and how it would never stand up in court. In fact, it points to his innocence much more so than guilt.

So once you're over that, you have to look at what the video of him making bombs could provide in the way of charges. The report from the U of Ottawa suggests the charge would not be treason but rather some other bomb making charge. That charge however requires a location for where the bombs were used. That doesn't exist.

And other than that, I'm not aware of any other evidence other than "His whole family is a bunch of friggin terrorists let's friggin hang em".

5th time

I do not give a #### about trumped up, coerced confession American charges, assuming that's what it was. Do not care one bit.
There was sufficient grounds for a charge of treason. I care about this.
Khadr should have been brought home immediately and charged with treason.
C'est tout

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

5th time

I do not give a #### about trumped up, coerced confession American charges, assuming that's what it was. Do not care one bit.
There was sufficient grounds for a charge of treason. I care about this.
Khadr should have been brought home immediately and charged with treason.
C'est tout

Whether the charges stuck or not is besides the point, had the government taken this course of action at the very least they would have avoided the lawsuit.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

5th time

I do not give a #### about trumped up, coerced confession American charges, assuming that's what it was. Do not care one bit.
There was sufficient grounds for a charge of treason. I care about this.
Khadr should have been brought home immediately and charged with treason.
C'est tout

What grounds was that? The "his whole family is a bunch of terrorists let's get 'em boys" grounds?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

What grounds was that? The "his whole family is a bunch of terrorists let's get 'em boys" grounds?

I think there was at least sufficient enough evidence for the government to have brought him in for questioning. Whether or not he could have been charged is a different story but you can't deny they had grounds to at least investigate it.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

What grounds was that?

Active 'military' action against is not grounds?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think there was at least sufficient enough evidence for the government to have brought him in for questioning. Whether or not he could have been charged is a different story but you can't deny they had grounds to at least investigate it.

OK. Fair enough.
And if there is no grounds, or if he is charged and not guilty, I'm good with that too.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

OK. Fair enough.
And if there is no grounds, or if he is charged and not guilty, I'm good with that too.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just don't know the legal ins and outs around charging someone for treason, but OMG's post paints a picture of someone who's actions the government had no business even questioning.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Active 'military' action against is not grounds?

I'm pretty sure the Hell' Angels are all just a bunch of drug dealers, fraudsters and theives. Why not just round em up and get rid of them? There are even videos of them doing the stuff they do. Yet here we are. Nice big HA party going on right under your nose and not a damn thing you can do about it. How is Khadr any different? You act like you were there and saw what he was doing for the two years he was in Afghanistan.

An investigation would have been great in 2004. Little late now but you don't get to be a lap dog for your bully friend next door and serve your own justice too.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

And if you read the link I posted earlier you'd see the real evidence says he didn't throw the grenade. And you have no idea where the bombs he made were used.

It's so simple, it took this one statement to figure it out, how stupid of me

Trudeau paid him to hide the truth, he was a 15 year old double agent and the bombs he made were used against al qaeda

[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."

[Fuzz]

But when the Canadian government grossly violates a citizen's rights, I am glad to see redress, if only as a deterrent. I'm a strong believer in the notion that undeterred, the spooks will eventually come for you, too.


I also know this: the last thing we need is our politicians down in the U.S., whipping up even more ignorance and bile toward Canada among American conservatives.


Don't forget, a lot of them still blame Canada for allowing the Sept. 11 attackers into America, which is entirely false, but which lives on in the American mind to this day, despite years of patient fact-checking by Canadian diplomats in Washington.
The conservative American public, guided by a churlish, isolationist president, is looking for whipping boys and imagined foreign enemies at the moment.



They don't need encouraging by politicians who claim to speak for Canadians. Conservatives might try to keep in mind that it's supposed to be the Loyal Opposition.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/canad...218915?cmp=rss

Some good points here. Why are the Conservatives so eager to badmouth us Canadians to the US media?