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

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Ducay

How can his rights be violated? By definition Charter rights, and/or Human rights only apply to humans.

Hopefully we don't all take the bait and let this post derail the discussion in this thread.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Makarov

As far as I understand it, the Delta Force soldier who was killed was not there in a medic capacity (although he was trained as a medic). It was a reconnaissance mission, not a medical evacuation. To me, he would have been indistinguishable from the other soldiers. The area had also just been heavily bombed and strafed by gunfire by American helicopters, killing several members of Khadr's militant unit.

Except and they'll argue that Khadr was not a soldier, he was a illegal combatant so what he did was tantamount to murder.

the child soldier thing and everything else might be fairly irrelevant in a civil suit.

He was equivalent to a gang member hucking a hand grenade at a cop and his actions made him directly responsible for the death of Speer and the wounds to Morris.

If Khadr wanted to get ahead on this one, he'd ask to meet with Speer's widow and Morris and show that his court room "apology" was sincere and write them each a check.

It would be a public relations masterpiece, and show him as a rallying point for reformed radicals, maybe it would even help some of these misguided idiots who are radicalized here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ducay

How can his rights be violated? By definition Charter rights, and/or Human rights only apply to humans.

Stop, I'm not a fan of Khadr's at all, but this is just baiting a thread.

[Tinordi]

Dehumanization always ends well.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except and they'll argue that Khadr was not a soldier, he was a illegal combatant so what he did was tantamount to murder.

the child soldier thing and everything else might be fairly irrelevant in a civil suit.

He was equivalent to a gang member hucking a hand grenade at a cop and his actions made him directly responsible for the death of Speer and the wounds to Morris.

You may have posted this before I edited my post. I agree. And I'm not saying that such an argument has no merit. But I find it problematic for a number of reasons. First, traditionally international law only distinguished between "combatants" and "civilians". The idea of an "unlawful combatant" is a recent phenomenon and was of course unilaterally produced by state actors in the 21st century who increasingly found themselves embroiled in conflicts with non-state actors.

One man's unlawful combatant is another man's freedom fighter and all of that (for example, see Syria).

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I'm not even advocating for that to be honest. Again, these are all just my opinions, but war is war. They are all (presumably) willing combatants. The Americans attacked, and Mr. Khadr, under orders from his dad, along with his militia, fought back. I don't think anyone should be suing anyone here.

The Americans have definitely committed crimes here in detaining and torturing a combatant.

Having a third party (Canadian government) paying reparations just doesn't make sense in my head.

CCIS traveled to Cuba to visit Khadr in jail there and would have presumably offered consular services such as providing a lawyer or at least advising him of his rights and putting up some sort of fight for his rights. Instead they participated in an illegal interrogation and were complicit with the Americans and their multitude of rights violations. The information they gathered from Khadr was given to the Americans and they were never seen or heard from again.

10.5 million is a deal. It should be ten times that. It's a pleasant little reminder that we should never be a lap dog for untrustworthy, corrupt regimes anywhere.

I think I read that Khadr is the only one charged with murder in the several thousand US troop deaths associated with Afghanistan and Iraq.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that unlawful combatant status was defined during the Nuremberg trials, I also believe that it was re-affirmed by the US Supreme Court in and I might be reaching 2001.

Basically its still defined as such and why people that run around disguised as civilians, shooting up other people in the simplest terms aren't protected by the Geneva Convention.

And the one's man unlawful combatant is another man's freedom fighter to me has the horrifying implication that you could suddenly define terrorists as freedom fighters. Or in a stretch legit miltiary.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

He was equivalent to a gang member hucking a hand grenade at a cop and his actions made him directly responsible for the death of Speer and the wounds to Morris.

No, it's not the equivalent. If a Hell's Angel killed a cop with a grenade today as they raided his house today in Calgary, that would obviously be very different than this situation.

They were both participating in a war on the other side of the world.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that unlawful combatant status was defined during the Nuremberg trials, I also believe that it was re-affirmed by the US Supreme Court in and I might be reaching 2001.

Basically its still defined as such and why people that run around disguised as civilians, shooting up other people in the simplest terms aren't protected by the Geneva Convention.

And the one's man unlawful combatant is another man's freedom fighter to me has the horrifying implication that you could suddenly define terrorists as freedom fighters. Or in a stretch legit miltiary.

Not sure about when the idea of "unlawful combatant" started to appear. But its certainly an interesting question.

Another curious (maybe even ironic) wrinkle in the Khadr case is that the deceased soldier (and his colleagues) was wearing traditional Afghan clothing at the time he was killed. Indeed, one wonders whether the grenade fragment that killed him would have had such catastrophic consequences had he been wearing his military helmet rather than said traditional clothes (no idea what the answer to that question is)?

With respect to your last point, I don't think that is a real concrern. Terrorists explicitly target non-combatants. That is the key distinction.

[Fuzz]

While the concept of an unlawful combatant is included in the Third Geneva Convention, the phrase itself does not appear in the document.[1] Article 4 of Third Geneva Convention does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status, and there are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children. In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of this term and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant under United States law. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgment quoted the 1958 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law",[4] because in the opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".[1][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

This should clear up a few of the questions here.

[Fuzz]

Oh, and it appears that 2006 is when the US adopted the term legally:

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answer...stionID=000934

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Not sure about when the idea of "unlawful combatant" started to appear. But its certainly an interesting question.

Another curious (maybe even ironic) wrinkle in the Khadr case is that the deceased soldier (and his colleagues) was wearing traditional Afghan clothing at the time he was killed. Indeed, one wonders whether the grenade fragment that killed him would have had such catastrophic consequences had he been wearing his military helmet rather than said traditional clothes (no idea what the answer to that question is)?

With respect to your last point, I don't think that is a real concrern. Terrorists explicitly target non-combatants. That is the key distinction.

I don't know if the Helmets would have protected him all that well. Grenades are funny things. even if your wearing awesome protective gear there is a good chance that you will still receive fragment wounds. Drop a grenade at center ice at the Saddledome and people in the first two rows are probably going to receive fragments.

Basically the best way to defend against a grenade is either find cover, or get below the fragment cloud.

Honestly I hated the fracking things.


Speer was wearing Afghan garb, however he was with members who were clearly identifiable (going off of memory here), also when he entered the area he was with Delta Force members in uniform.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

CCIS traveled to Cuba to visit Khadr in jail there and would have presumably offered consular services such as providing a lawyer or at least advising him of his rights and putting up some sort of fight for his rights. Instead they participated in an illegal interrogation and were complicit with the Americans and their multitude of rights violations. The information they gathered from Khadr was given to the Americans and they were never seen or heard from again.

10.5 million is a deal. It should be ten times that. It's a pleasant little reminder that we should never be a lap dog for untrustworthy, corrupt regimes anywhere.

I think I read that Khadr is the only one charged with murder in the several thousand US troop deaths associated with Afghanistan and Iraq.

You might be right. But if the damages caused by Canada alone are worth 10 times $10.5 million WTF does the US government owe him? $10 billion? They are the ones who committed the acts of torture. Does every gitmo detainee deserve that dough (plus reparation from his home country)?

What about run of the mill Canadian civilians who commit murder or drug offences in the USA? http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/6-canad...-u-s-1.1208606 Should these guys be given millions in reparations since the government hasn't extradited them back to Canada?

The whole thing about Khadr is unfortunate. A child forced into war by his dad, and the conflict itself was unfortunate. But Canada giving him that dough just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

This is a complicated case.

First we must look at what happened to trigger these events.

A Canadian child whose father was a terrorist was moved from Canada to Pakistan when he was 9; then to Afghanistan when he was 10.

At 15 he was involved in an incident where he allegedly threw a grenade that killed a US solider.

Let's stop there for a moment.

What should then be done? How should the child, not yet of an age to drive a car, be dealt with?

If on Canadian soil, he would have been arrested and tried for murder. Likely, sentenced as a juvenile, and likely a psychiatric evaluation to determine state of mind, and mental competence given the undue influence of the terrorist cell/parent around him.

I think we can all agree, in a civilized society, that is a reasonable outcome, and we let the courts take it as they may.


Now what did happen?

The 15 year old who has been now living among Al-Qaeda for five years, was captured by the US and he was flown to Guantanamo Bay where he was then tortured, denied the ability to go to the washroom, waterboarded, threatened with rape, for ten years. No trial, no due process, no innocent until proven guilty, no security of self, no fair treatment, no dignity. To put it in perspective Charles Manson, Zacarias Moussaoui, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Thomas Silverstein, Ted Bundy, and John Wayne Gacy, were all/are all treated better than this 15 year old was. They all had due process, they all are torture free, they all get their security of person while in prison. However, this 15 year old, who was alleged to have committed a crime lower on the scale than the above was tortured without any due process.

I think it's fair to say that this 15 year old should have been treated, at minimum, the same as Charles Manson, Zacarias Moussaoui, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Thomas Silverstein, Ted Bundy, and John Wayne Gacy. I think we can all agree on that.


But he was at Guantanamo, that a US base. Yes it is. However, Canada sent agents to Guantanamo Bay to see this 15 year old Canadian. Rather than provide aid, legal counsel, and ensure a torture free environment, which was their job, they aided the US, and left this 15 year old as he was.

Can you imagine being arrested by mall security, then tortured, waterboarded, denied the ability to use the bathroom, and threatened with rape, only to have the police come in. You'd think they'd be there to help you, as this unlawful confinement and torture is clearly illegal. Only to have the police then walk out on you and allow this torture to continue for years. Not hours, not days, YEARS.

I think you'd hold the police department with some level of culpability. I know I would.


That's basically where we're at with the Omar Khadr case. A 15 year old was tortured for a decade, and when the people who were supposed to ensure that his human rights and dignity were not violated, arrived, they turned their back.


Is Khadr innocent? I don't think so. Does that give the US the right to, and allow Canada to aid, torturing him? No.

Have we treated any other alleged criminal like this? No. Paul Bernardo, Allan Legere, Clifford Olson, Robert Pickton, Russell Williams, all treated fairly under the law; but this 15 year old who allegedly killed one; tortured for a decade.

Don't get me wrong, this doesn't excuse the alleged act. And without reading any evidence, I do think he committed it. But due process needs to happen. Hell it's what Christopher Speer was fighting for.


At the end of the day, I don't support torturing people... furthermore I don't support torturing kids.

Let's deal with both of these issues, and deal with them separately. Omar Khadr can be a piece of sh*t, but that doesn't excuse the Government of Canada's actions. That should be looked at independent of his alleged crime; just as his alleged crime should be looked at independent of his torture.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

You might be right. But if the damages caused by Canada alone are worth 10 times $10.5 million WTF does the US government owe him? $10 billion? They are the ones who committed the acts of torture. Does every gitmo detainee deserve that dough (plus reparation from his home country)?

What about run of the mill Canadian civilians who commit murder or drug offences in the USA? http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/6-canad...-u-s-1.1208606 Should these guys be given millions in reparations since the government hasn't extradited them back to Canada?

The whole thing about Khadr is unfortunate. A child forced into war by his dad, and the conflict itself was unfortunate. But Canada giving him that dough just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Well all those guys received proper legal representation so no. We don't owe them anything. They're guilty. Some of their cases were held in the supreme court so they had the best possible representation.

I think yes, the US owes a lot of people much more than money when it comes to atonement for the crimes they committed. The 10.5 mil doesn't leave a bad taste in my mouth at all because in my opinion the proper implementation of western legal process is much more important for all of us than one unfortunate and brutal situation in a tragic and unjust war.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

You might be right. But if the damages caused by Canada alone are worth 10 times $10.5 million WTF does the US government owe him? $10 billion? They are the ones who committed the acts of torture. Does every gitmo detainee deserve that dough (plus reparation from his home country)?

Should the US owe him? I think the US owes a whole lot if half of the stories coming out of there are true.

Will he or any else of them get it? no.

What about run of the mill Canadian civilians who commit murder or drug offences in the USA? http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/6-canad...-u-s-1.1208606 Should these guys be given millions in reparations since the government hasn't extradited them back to Canada?

These guys are afforded the rule of law and due process. They are protected from torture, inhumane treatment and unlawful detention. None of these rights were afforded to Khadr. He was treated like an animal, his home country not only knew about it but turned a blind eye. That is the problem the Supreme Court had with it. Had he been afforded human rights due any normal murderer I don't think this is an issue.

Even if he actually threw the grenade (which is debatable) to defend himself, he was treated worse that the guy who shot up a church.

The whole thing about Khadr is unfortunate. A child forced into war by his dad, and the conflict itself was unfortunate. But Canada giving him that dough just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

All Canada had to do was step in and defend the human rights of one of it's citizens. Actual extradition didn't matter, had the government at least tried to get him home or even do anything to ensure his human rights were being met to our standard there would be no case to stand on. Canada, both the Liberals and Conservatives, sat idly by and let one of it's citizens be tortured. Honestly that leaves a much worse taste in my mouth.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Is this lawsuit happening because these guys were medics or is there something else in play here? I assume that medics have been killed in other wars and there were no lawsuits filed?

You can't sue for death due to act of war. They sued claiming this was terrorism instead. It played well in American courts.

[powderjunkie]

I think this is just a sad situation all around. Everyone is wrong, nobody is right. Money in any direction does nothing to remedy the situation or prevent future occurrences.


The people and systems that failed need to be held to account. There will never be any justice here. There are dozens of atrocities occurring all over the world every day. The victims all deserve $10M. None of them should get it.

[powderjunkie]

Serious question: what is the presumed outcome for Khadr if he had not thrown the grenade?

I don't know the full details of the operation, but why was he left alive when nearly everyone around him was killed? Did he have any reason to believe the incoming soldiers would not have finished the job?

[jammies]

Quite the arrogance in defining someone as an "unlawful combatant" due to him fighting back against an invading army. And how does that jibe with the right to bear arms to use against a tyrannical government? I would theorize that those who agree with the merit of the first position have a large overlap with those who agree with the second, despite its obvious hypocrisy.

As a historical side-note, the German Army's sometimes savage behavior towards civilian resistance in WWI was directly derived from their experiences in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, where French irregulars continued fighting against the invaders despite not being sanctioned by the state, or wearing uniforms. At that time, most Americans strongly disapproved of the German actions, and it was not an inconsiderable element in turning opinion towards the Allies and the eventual American entry into the war on their side. Apparently now, though, it's acceptable to torture and mistreat your civilian enemy - the Kaiser would be so proud!