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

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Just wondering what the alternative is here. Like say we (the government) doesn't settle. We just battle with the lawyers he has for however long and run the risk of paying more down the road?

I don't love the idea of paying this guy, but if it appears inevitable, let's just get it over with.

Sometimes you(the government) just need to admit you really screwed up, fold, and pay out. It happens all the time, look at residential schools, thalamide, asbestos etc...Save face and call it a day.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sometimes you(the government) just need to admit you really screwed up, fold, and pay out. It happens all the time, look at residential schools, thalamide, asbestos etc...Save face and call it a day.

Haha, don't lump me in with those suckers because I would've handled everything perfectly from the outset to avoid this 15 years down the road!

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

This is a pretty persuasive post. Thanks.

One question, and something I find really offensive. If he is guilty of these crimes, why did he only serve 8 years? That is what bothers me.

Why did Harper even accept him back?

I agree torture is bad and should not happen even to despicable people like Kadr. But he has committed a crime that people on the other side of the debate including me feel he didn't serve enough time for.

Without his confession there wouldn't have been enough evidence to convict him, and if they can't convict him then the Military Commission would be delayed because I guarantee that they wouldn't accept a not guilty decision. So Omar Khadr can leave Gitmo and the Military Commission gets it's conviction even if it's a temporary one.

[WhiteTiger]

So, this is all an issue because he was/is a citizen of Canada still? He's out of the country for half his life at the time, with parents who are doing what they can to convert over...and they neglect to renounce/replace his citizenship? Interesting thing to ignore, to me. Seems like one of the first things you'd get rid of, if you were so for the 'other' side.

But as I understand it, this was all because he was/is still a Canadian citizen? He's not a dual citizen, or a citizen of where his parents took him to? Or has that been sorted out elsewhere/when (Sorry, kinda new to this whole thing with this guy.)

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

So, this is all an issue because he was/is a citizen of Canada still? He's out of the country for half his life at the time, with parents who are doing what they can to convert over...and they neglect to renounce/replace his citizenship? Interesting thing to ignore, to me. Seems like one of the first things you'd get rid of, if you were so for the 'other' side.

But as I understand it, this was all because he was/is still a Canadian citizen? He's not a dual citizen, or a citizen of where his parents took him to? Or has that been sorted out elsewhere/when (Sorry, kinda new to this whole thing with this guy.)

In order to renounce one's Canadian citizenship, one must (among other things) (a) be over 18 years old; and (b) prove that you are or will become a citizen of another state (one cannot just become stateless).

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In order to renounce one's Canadian citizenship, one must (among other things) (a) be over 18 years old; and (b) prove that you are or will become a citizen of another state (one cannot just become stateless).

That's what I was wondering. Having been born in West Germany on a military base, I held dual citizenship until I was 18. My parents always told me that they could have had the WG citizenship revoked but wanted me to make the choice (and when I was 16, explained what it all entailed).

Now, my parents are great folks, and that's why they wanted me to make it. But the implication I always understood was that if they'd wanted to go through the paperwork, they could have and I'd not have had any say in it. I figured that's likely what Omar's parents would have done so that their child wouldn't have been associated or bound to 'that Canada place'.

[ToewsFan]

that ois more or less the same amount the Government gave David Milgaard for serving 23 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

[Northendzone]

And they say crime does not pay. I hope the money is in and out of his hands and the widow sues him and wins.

I can only wonder how much of this money will find it's way to places or organizations outside of Canada.

Nice win for Omar. Terrorism apparently pays, and pays well.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

And they say crime does not pay. I hope the money is in and out of his hands and the widow sues him and wins.

I can only wonder how much of this money will find it's way to places or organizations outside of Canada.

Nice win for Omar. Terrorism apparently pays, and pays well.

Several posters keep saying "crime" and "terrorism", but I don't feel like anyone has really articulated why Khadr's violence was morally different than the violence of the US soldiers that day (apart from the uniform/state-actor distinctions that I've already mentioned)?

Just to be clear: I spent two months travelling in Afghanistana a
couple of years after the fall of the Taliban. It's one of the most beautiful, most hospitable and welcoming countries in the world. I firmly believe that it's people (and its history and culture) were terrorized by the Taliban. I support the Western intervention to usurp the Taliban regime. Generally speaking, when there was a battle between ISAF soldiers and Taliban-friendly militants, I cheered for the ISAF soldiers.

However, I see the Taliban-friendly militants as enemy combatants, not criminals. And I think that enemy combatants, despite being enemies, should still be entitled to basic human rights (because, as history has shown, they don't need to be our enemies forever). War is ugly and terrible. But, morally, Apart from ideological preference, I don't really see a difference between Khadr throwing a grenade and a US soldier throwing a grenade.

[powderjunkie]

^Great post. I've never been able to reconcile that idea either.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Several posters keep saying "crime" and "terrorism", but I don't feel like anyone has really articulated why Khadr's violence was morally different than the violence of the US soldiers that day (apart from the uniform/state-actor distinctions that I've already mentioned)?

Just to be clear: I spent two months travelling in Afghanistana a
couple of years after the fall of the Taliban. It's one of the most beautiful, most hospitable and welcoming countries in the world. I firmly believe that it's people (and its history and culture) were terrorized by the Taliban. I support the Western intervention to usurp the Taliban regime. Generally speaking, when there was a battle between ISAF soldiers and Taliban-friendly militants, I cheered for the ISAF soldiers.

However, I see the Taliban-friendly militants as enemy combatants, not criminals. And I think that enemy combatants, despite being enemies, should still be entitled to basic human rights (because, as history has shown, they don't need to be our enemies forever). War is ugly and terrible. But, morally, Apart from ideological preference, I don't really see a difference between Khadr throwing a grenade and a US soldier throwing a grenade.

It is definitely a moral conundrum. Had he walked up to a group of soldiers on the street, while dressed as a civilian and tossed a grenade into them I can totally see the idea of him being an illegal combatant.

However this situation raises the grey area. While the militants did shoot first, it wasn't until they were told by that the Americans were coming in whether they liked it or not. At this point it became clearly combat in my eyes. They called in an airstrike, strafed with an A-10 and dropped a 500 lbs bomb on the compound. Clearly the Americans saw them as combatants and acted on it.

I especially don't see a difference between throwing a grenade after being wrecked by an A-10. If the commies came knocking I don't think you could find one American who would call themselves a murderer for firing back, "well displayed insignia" or not.

[iggy_oi]

What I find most interesting about this whole situation is that it appears as though less people would have been upset with the government had this gone to trial resulting in the court ruling in Khadr's favour and awarding him the entire $20M as opposed to the government recognizing he had a pretty solid case against them and saving taxpayers from having to foot the bill for an even bigger settlement and additional legal fees.

[FireGilbert]

I'm not a lawyer but this seems like a reasonable settlement for what he has been through. I agree with others that although the line was blurred Khadr was more of an enemy combatant than a non-enemy terrorist.

Looking back what should the Canadian government have done instead? Request the Americans hand him over, try him for treason, and send him to juvenile detention?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

This is a pretty persuasive post. Thanks.

One question, and something I find really offensive. If he is guilty of these crimes, why did he only serve 8 years? That is what bothers me.

Why did Harper even accept him back?

I agree torture is bad and should not happen even to despicable people like Kadr. But he has committed a crime that people on the other side of the debate including me feel he didn't serve enough time for.

First off, thank you for the kind words.

Secondly, in order to be "guilty" of an offence one must have a fair trial. That includes a trial in open court, a full defense, full disclosure, and all that comes with due process. Innocent until proven guilty.

We, as a country, ensure a fair due process for all those accused of an offense, no matter how serious or heinous the crime.

That was not done in the Khadr case. He was tortured, and held in one of the worst prisons on Earth all without any process at all.

Since all accused are innocent until proven guilty (in both the Canadian and American judicial systems), Khadr was technically innocent (or at the very least not-guilty which technically isn't the same as innocent) until his guilt was proven.

So to answer your questions:

1. If he is guilty of these crimes, why did he only serve 8 years? That is what bothers me.

Technically he's not guilty in the eyes of the law, at least not yet. In theory he could be tried as a minor, have the evidence presented and found guilty of whatever the charges happen to be (murder, terrorism, etc).

1. Why did Harper even accept him back?

I don't recall all the politician and legal ins and outs, however the Supreme Court of Canada found that Khadr's rights were violated (you can't contribute to the torture children, imagine that!) and that the Canadian government should have been acting to protect one of their own from unlawful torture. We were not, and thus the Court demanded action (or they'd have opened themselves up to even more liability).

1. I agree torture is bad and should not happen even to despicable people like Kadr. But he has committed a crime that people on the other side of the debate including me feel he didn't serve enough time for.

There are two things here:

(1) The law doesn't give a flying frack how you "feel". The law is emotionless, and fact driven. I haven't done any research but keep in mind that a 15 year old will get a lighter sentence than an adult, there's a potential self defense argument of defending his village/neighbours/community/family from a foreign attack, what was his mental state at the time? Should an accused who may be brainwashed be held to the same standard as someone who is of sound mind? I'm not defending Omar Khadr here, nor am I saying any of these argument would be presented or even upheld, just some things to keep in mind.

(2) He wasn't tried for this crime, at least not a fair trial that he is entitled to. There is no statute of limitations on homicide/murder/terrorism, so in theory he could be tried today for the crime, thus rectifying the feeling of injustice for Sergeant First Class Speer.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

I'm not a lawyer but this seems like a reasonable settlement for what he has been through. I agree with others that although the line was blurred Khadr was more of an enemy combatant than a non-enemy terrorist.

Looking back what should the Canadian government have done instead? Request the Americans hand him over, try him for treason, and send him to juvenile detention?

Well that is another interesting point. I was listening to an interview with someone on the radio this week and they were discussing what he could've been charged with in Canada. It sounds like there wasn't much that would fit other than treason.

Which is sort of the crux of this I think. The government of Canada can't get another government to do their dirty work just because they think it should be done. I don't really know if that is how things went here, but purely from the outside and as a layman that strikes me as what took place.

[the_only_turek_fan]

MQS and Makarov: I am not a lawyer, so I don't know all the ins and out.

This question may be silly but here goes: does Canadian law and the constitution apply to an event that happened outside of the nation's borders?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

I'm not a lawyer but this seems like a reasonable settlement for what he has been through. I agree with others that although the line was blurred Khadr was more of an enemy combatant than a non-enemy terrorist.

Looking back what should the Canadian government have done instead? Request the Americans hand him over, try him for treason, and send him to juvenile detention?

I think if the Canadian government was lobbying for this, even if unsuccessfully, that would have absolved them of the liability that they currently hold.

It's not like the Canadian Armed Forces could send in JTF2 into Guantanamo Bay to retrieve Khadr. But acting through the political channels to have the return of a tortured Canadian citizen would be reasonable, even if unsuccessful.

I suppose the other thing could have been to lobby to have him moved to a US prison (even ADX Florence) and given a fair trial.

Heck even if they did nothing, the Government's level of liability would likely have been less.

What did happen was the Canadian government showed up, saw what was happening, then aided the US, and allowed the torture to continue. In retrospect what should they have done? Well, not that.

[Northendzone]

from what I understand omar left Canada to join up with al-queda (sp) to fight againt our allies and we are giving him $10,500,000.

this sin't a situation of him going down to a sandals resort and getting caught up in something. he was an active participant and for that he gets $10,500,000.

Seems pretty sweet to me.

Originally Posted by Makarov

Several posters keep saying "crime" and "terrorism", but I don't feel like anyone has really articulated why Khadr's violence was morally different than the violence of the US soldiers that day (apart from the uniform/state-actor distinctions that I've already mentioned)?

Just to be clear: I spent two months travelling in Afghanistana a
couple of years after the fall of the Taliban. It's one of the most beautiful, most hospitable and welcoming countries in the world. I firmly believe that it's people (and its history and culture) were terrorized by the Taliban. I support the Western intervention to usurp the Taliban regime. Generally speaking, when there was a battle between ISAF soldiers and Taliban-friendly militants, I cheered for the ISAF soldiers.

However, I see the Taliban-friendly militants as enemy combatants, not criminals. And I think that enemy combatants, despite being enemies, should still be entitled to basic human rights (because, as history has shown, they don't need to be our enemies forever). War is ugly and terrible. But, morally, Apart from ideological preference, I don't really see a difference between Khadr throwing a grenade and a US soldier throwing a grenade.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

from what I understand omar left Canada to join up with al-queda (sp) to fight againt our allies and we are giving him $10,500,000.

this sin't a situation of him going down to a sandals resort and getting caught up in something. he was an active participant and for that he gets $10,500,000.

Seems pretty sweet to me.

This is where I think you're wrong. He left when he was 13 with his family. They brought him to Afghanistan. When you're 13 you do what your parents do, not what you plan, train for, dream of doing. He left cause he was a kid doing what his family was doing. That's like the single biggest difference. If he was 18 and on his own then f him. But that's literally the opposite of what actually happened.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

from what I understand omar left Canada to join up with al-queda (sp) to fight againt our allies and we are giving him $10,500,000.

So nine-year-old Omar Khadr moved to Pakistan, and then one year later to Afghanistan, to join Al Queda and blow up Americans?

C'mon, Northendzone. Stop being a caricature and read some of the very well thought out posts in this thread.