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

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by blankall

You don't need extra statutes the aiding and abetting laws in Canada are well developed. From the criminal code:

Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.

Combine that with the multitude of terrorism offences:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...6/page-16.html

It wouldn't take much. Khadr's translation services would qualify. His bomb making would more than qualify. If he was sweeping the floors or preparing meals for them he might be guilty.

I think this is all a bit of a moot point now though, and I don't see why people continuously defend Khadr's actions. Yes his father may have brainwashed him, but the actions themselves were quite awful. There's no maybes about it. He was building bombs for terrorists. Many of those bombs were used on civilians. Whether the terrorist who killed a bunch of kids happened to pick up a bomb Khadr built or some other person built that day is meaningless.

It's okay to push the point that Khadr was a child and that his rights were violated. However, I don't see why people feel the need to defend what he was actually doing. He's on video doing it.

Its embarrassing actually.

The guy should have been charged and tried for treason at the very least, yet we have the elitists actually defending him because of his circumstances.

He was a terrorist by any definition. Period. If he isn't, then nobody else is either.

[calgaryblood]

Your comments are actually embarrassing TP99. Your thoughts align more with the Afghan culture than Canadian values.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Its embarrassing actually.

The guy should have been charged and tried for treason at the very least, yet we have the elitists actually defending him because of his circumstances.

If only the government would have shown an interest in that as opposed to letting the US do whatever they wanted. People are still missing the point, even if he were to be tried for treason, his charter rights give him the right to a fair trial and the rights and protections provided under the charter are to be upheld until they are legally removed. What is the point of having a charter of rights if the government doesn't have to follow it?

He was a terrorist by any definition. Period. If he isn't, then nobody else is either.

What about the people who actually carry out terrorist attacks?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If only the government would have shown an interest in that as opposed to letting the US do whatever they wanted. People are still missing the point, even if he were to be tried for treason, his charter rights give him the right to a fair trial and the rights and protections provided under the charter are to be upheld until they are legally removed. What is the point of having a charter of rights if the government doesn't have to follow it?

Where did anyone claim he wouldn't have a fair trial?

What about the people who actually carry out terrorist attacks?

Why are they any more guilty of terrorism than the clowns who make the bombs used in the attacks....you know....like Khadr did?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Your comments are actually embarrassing TP99. Your thoughts align more with the Afghan culture than Canadian values.

What?

They have fair trials in Afghanistan for treason? I honestly don't know this but im leaning to no they dont, but we do for sure in Canada.

So i have zero idea what inane rambling you are on about, but continue as its very amusing and very telling.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Where did anyone claim he wouldn't have a fair trial?

It could be the fact that he was held in a dungeon and tortured for years that leads to suspicion about the fairness of any trial.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It could be the fact that he was held in a dungeon and tortured for years that leads to suspicion about the fairness of any trial.

And the hyperbole of the thread award goes to.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It could be the fact that he was held in a dungeon and tortured for years that leads to suspicion about the fairness of any trial.

That trial would have been held in Canada though...because that is who would have charged him once he was released into their custody.

Nothing that happened in Gitmo has any bearing on that. Hell, he had a lawyer before he was ever extradited.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

And the hyperbole of the thread award goes to.

Okay, fair enough. If it wasn't a dungeon, what was it? An island prison? What do you want to call it? We know he was tortured, and it went on for years. The word for the actual place isn't really important in the end.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Where did anyone claim he wouldn't have a fair trial?

He didn't get one was the point. The trial is irrelevant though, his crimes had nothing to do with what he sued the government for. Guilty or not his rights needed to be upheld.

Why are they any more guilty of terrorism than the clowns who make the bombs used in the attacks....you know....like Khadr did?

Ack..I'm not going to get into the whole prove where those bombs were used debate. If those bombs were used in the war in Afghanistan I consider that to be warfare not terrorism. If you believe that any contribution to a terrorist group regardless of what those contributions are or were used for makes the contributor a terrorist you're entitled to your opinion. Let's look at the big picture of that opinion though, he's a terrorist because he made bombs for al Qaeda, ok, the US government funded the creation of al Qaeda, does that make them terrorists too? Since al Qaeda attacked the states does that make their government complicit in treason? (All 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy theories aside)

Circumstances matter, if the argument in response is going to be that the US government at the time had no idea what al Qaeda were or could become and merely thought of them as an aid to fighting the soviets and therefor are not guilty of funding terrorism fine, but how is that any different than Khadr at 15 years old after having been endoctrined and essentially brainwashed by his father since birth contributing to al Qaeda? Do you really believe he was able to see what he was doing was wrong? At that age? Hell, Hitler was able to convince an entire country of educated adult people, that until that point had no ambitions to do so, that getting rid of certain members of society by any means necessary was the key to greatness. They believed it and pushed that agenda believing every step of the way that it was right, even when the world came fighting back.

How some consider this to be a case of him knowing what he was doing was wrong and doing it anyways is just crazy. It doesn't require a psychology degree to know how impressionable children are. Kids to this day grow up with crazy beliefs based on the teachings of their parents. How many people here were brought up believing there was something wrong with gay people, or different races etc?. Most people can grow out of that kind of thinking when their environments and education provide an opportunity for it, but even in the best circumstances some never do. It becomes ingrained in how they think and what they believe to be right or normal. Even those who do break the cycle rarely do so at a young age.

[transplant99]

just never mind....you are simply the single biggest obfuscator this forum has ever seen and their is zero point in discussing anything with you.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Where did anyone claim he wouldn't have a fair trial?

Originally Posted by transplant99

He was a terrorist by any definition. Period.

Wait, I thought he was entitled to a fair trial first?

[CliffFletcher]

Do people who think Kahdr and his family weren't terrorists also think the IRA weren't terrorists? That because most IRA bombs were used against British squaddies, IRA bomb makers weren't accomplices to murder?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do people who think Kahdr and his family weren't terrorists also think the IRA weren't terrorists? That because most IRA bombs were used against British squaddies, IRA bomb makers weren't accomplices to murder?

It depends. Firstly, IRA bombs during the "Troubles" overwhelmingly targeted civilians. Secondly, those attacks did not take place in the context of a "hot" war. Lastly, some of those attacks took place during negotiated truces between the IRAand the U.K. So it depends.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

just never mind....you are simply the single biggest obfuscator this forum has ever seen and their is zero point in discussing anything with you.

I'm sorry this was the most thoughtful response you could come up with. He sued the government for their violation of his rights, you're bringing up treason as if it has anything to do with his lawsuit or the government's actions. It's unfortunate that you can't understand the difference and would rather insult a poster trying to explain this to you instead of discussing the matter as well as other points you make in your posts, or simply ignoring it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Its embarrassing actually.

The guy should have been charged and tried for treason at the very least, yet we have the elitists actually defending him because of his circumstances.

I agree with you that he should have (well, at least could have) been charged with treason (as a youth under the YCJA of course). But I'm curious: what makes you think that the people "defending" Khadr are "elites"? Sorry, just sounds like a Hannity talking point to me.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

It depends. Firstly, IRA bombs during the "Troubles" overwhelmingly targeted civilians. Secondly, those attacks did not take place in the context of a "hot" war. Lastly, some of those attacks took place during negotiated truces between the IRAand the U.K. So it depends.

Most of the IRA's attacks were on British and Northern Ireland security forces, including off-duty soldiers and their families.

It's curious how sympathies and definitions of terrorism change with the politics of the times.

[AltaGuy]

People must be off their rockers to believe that Khadr would ever be found guilty in a fair trial now on even a balance of probabilities let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence would be absolute crap, and I'm not even sure where anyone is getting these absolute certitudes from about Khadr's actions during the war.

If you think you "know" what Khadr was doing in Afghanistan, why he was doing it, and what crimes he committed, you should really be examining what is causing you to have certitude about something you couldn't possibly know about.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

People must be off their rockers to believe that Khadr would ever be found guilty in a fair trial now on even a balance of probabilities let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence would be absolute crap, and I'm not even sure where anyone is getting these absolute certitudes from about Khadr's actions during the war.

If you think you "know" what Khadr was doing in Afghanistan, why he was doing it, and what crimes he committed, you should really be examining what is causing you to have certitude about something you couldn't possibly know about.

Was the video of him making IED bombs just an example of "fake news"?

[CampbellsTransgressions]

I'm just glad I'm not the kind of person that lets emotion get in the way of rational thought.

It's truly embarrassing how many Canadians take their rights and freedoms for granted.