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

[northcrunk]

Were all the boys signing up for WW1 and WW2 at 16 considered Child soldiers?

[OMG!WTF!]

Agreed. "It was the Americans" works about as well as "I'm just one vote on council". If you actually watch the interrogation tapes it's pretty clear what's going on. The Canadian interrogators listen to him begging for medical attention and then say "You look fine to me. I'm no doctor but you still have both eyes. Your feet are at the end of your legs. Your arm is still there. You're good. Now tell us about how you blew that guy up." Follow that with three minutes of begging to be killed and you have to be a total idiot to not get what's going on. It's embarrassing.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Were all the boys signing up for WW1 and WW2 at 16 considered Child soldiers?

12 year olds being married in ancient Rome were not considered child brides either. Things change, thankfully.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Were all the boys signing up for WW1 and WW2 at 16 considered Child soldiers?

From Wikipedia

Currently, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) defines a child soldier as "any child – boy or girl – under eighteen years of age, who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force or armed group in any capacity".[43] This age limit of 18 is relatively new, only introduced in 2002 under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Prior to 2002, the 1949 Geneva Convention and the 1977 Additional Protocols, set 15 as the minimum age to participate in armed conflict.[44]

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Agreed. "It was the Americans" works about as well as "I'm just one vote on council". If you actually watch the interrogation tapes it's pretty clear what's going on. The Canadian interrogators listen to him begging for medical attention and then say "You look fine to me. I'm no doctor but you still have both eyes. Your feet are at the end of your legs. Your arm is still there. You're good. Now tell us about how you blew that guy up." Follow that with three minutes of begging to be killed and you have to be a total idiot to not get what's going on. It's embarrassing.

He actually lost vision in one of them during the battle. I think he has a glass eye now?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

He actually lost vision in one of them during the battle. I think he has a glass eye now?

Yeas. Technically his non functioning, numb right arm was also right there for everyone to see as well.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

So it's not ok to torture bad people, but if you do then an apology, and education bursary is sufficient? If you torture a good person, then monetary compensation is appropriate.

I agree that the adjective should not really matter. As much as I think I might like to see the most heinous people in society (child killers, rapists, etc.) strung up by the balls, I'm not sure what it accomplishes, other than moving the needle down for the entire society.


It's a weird thing to get into quantifying compensation for something like torture. I'm not sure that there is ever a dollar figure that really makes sense. Then again, I don't know what a good alternative really is, either.

In this case, it feels a little off. I wonder if we aren't depriving Khadr from ever living a 'normal' life by dropping a dumptruck of money on him. Lots of lottery winners* end up depressed and broke within a few years of winning.

*Not saying Khadr won a lottery, but the sudden windfall is a similar situation. People start hounding you for money. Cheap wine doesn't taste is good anymore...but you quickly realize that you can't afford $100 bottles every night for life, etc.


If I had to come up with something, it would be $100k/year for life. Enough to live a very comfortable life, but not so much to kill any ambition to do more. I think his life will even be better if he had to live in a [nice] condo for a few years while in school, and save up to move into a house. Even driving a [nice, new] Toyota for five years makes you actually appreciate upgrading to Lexus.

His bank account may be full, but I worry his life will become even more empty.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I agree that the adjective should not really matter. As much as I think I might like to see the most heinous people in society (child killers, rapists, etc.) strung up by the balls, I'm not sure what it accomplishes, other than moving the needle down for the entire society.


It's a weird thing to get into quantifying compensation for something like torture. I'm not sure that there is ever a dollar figure that really makes sense. Then again, I don't know what a good alternative really is, either.

In this case, it feels a little off. I wonder if we aren't depriving Khadr from ever living a 'normal' life by dropping a dumptruck of money on him. Lots of lottery winners* end up depressed and broke within a few years of winning.

*Not saying Khadr won a lottery, but the sudden windfall is a similar situation. People start hounding you for money. Cheap wine doesn't taste is good anymore...but you quickly realize that you can't afford $100 bottles every night for life, etc.


If I had to come up with something, it would be $100k/year for life. Enough to live a very comfortable life, but not so much to kill any ambition to do more. I think his life will even be better if he had to live in a [nice] condo for a few years while in school, and save up to move into a house. Even driving a [nice, new] Toyota for five years makes you actually appreciate upgrading to Lexus.

His bank account may be full, but I worry his life will become even more empty.

That seems a rather paternalistic approach to damages. And do you think that it should be applied in other types of claims?

[rubecube]

It always amazes me to see how many Canadians are just blatantly ignorant of how the common law system works.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Were all the boys signing up for WW1 and WW2 at 16 considered Child soldiers?

No. Just because it had to happen then doesn't mean it should continue to happen now. A few key differences:

- Most of those 16 year olds had lived 16 normal years (for their time period)
- Many of them were signing up under their own 'free will' - making the 'choice' at the age of 16 (albeit with peer pressure and it was considered what they were supposed to do)
- If they really didn't want to go, their ability to not do so was far 'easier' than in Khadr's case (though still not 'easy')
- The same conditions applied to pretty much everyone of the age, in that era. I'm in Khadr's age range - I don't know a single person that faced any pressure in their entire life to enter a fight (let alone be forced to do so).


But ya, bashing gays also wasn't a problem fifty years ago - not sure why everyone is up in arms about it happening today!

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Makarov

That seems a rather paternalistic approach to damages. And do you think that it should be applied in other types of claims?

I agree it's paternalistic - I don't think there is any 'correct' solution, but I think in this especially unique case it merits discussion.

Probably impossible to apply this kind of thinking to other types of claims, and probably not a good idea. But the current 'damages' system is far from ideal. Certain damages warrant huge payouts, while others don't.

Not sure what a solution would be. In a cases where huge punitive damages are awarded in addition to the initial remedy, I'm not sure that money should be going exclusively to the complainant. Spitballing hypotheticals here, but I'd rather see that money funneled towards charities/programs that counter-act the infraction and benefit society as a whole (with no tax benefit to payee). Let's use football as a theoretical - say a court determined the NFL was so grossly negligent about concussions that they owed complainants $1B in damages, + $5B in punitive damages. The punitives could/should go to brain research, and a fund to help all people suffering from brain damage (especially from lower levels of competitive sports) - not directly to the complainants.

Totally spitballing here, and I know it's probably not realistic. In my example, let's say $100K NPV/yr to Khadr for life (~50 yrs) = $5M. The other $5M could/should go to combat child soldier problems. But, the payee should derive no benefit/good-will from the payment. Quantifying non-tangible damages is a pretty wacky exercise in itself to begin with.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by TheFlamesVan

I think the problem is that a lot of people think the torture was justified.

Too many people think the ends justify the means and believe torture is a reliable way to extract information because they've watched every episode of '24'.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Were all the boys signing up for WW1 and WW2 at 16 considered Child soldiers?

At the time yes and that is why they had to lie about their ages, if you want a sobering experience go to France and read the ages of the boys who lay in the fields, read the messages that their parents had written for them on their tombstones that they were likely never to visit. They were definitely child soldiers.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

No. Just because it had to happen then doesn't mean it should continue to happen now. A few key differences:

- Most of those 16 year olds had lived 16 normal years (for their time period)
- Many of them were signing up under their own 'free will' - making the 'choice' at the age of 16 (albeit with peer pressure and it was considered what they were supposed to do)
- If they really didn't want to go, their ability to not do so was far 'easier' than in Khadr's case (though still not 'easy')
- The same conditions applied to pretty much everyone of the age, in that era. I'm in Khadr's age range - I don't know a single person that faced any pressure in their entire life to enter a fight (let alone be forced to do so).


But ya, bashing gays also wasn't a problem fifty years ago - not sure why everyone is up in arms about it happening today!

I'd argue yes, they were in a very similar situation. They were brainwashed in nationalism to sign up to go die. At the age of 16 this likely wasn't a self determined choice. They were sold the glory and honour of war and believed what they were told.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by GGG

I'd argue yes, they were in a very similar situation. They were brainwashed in nationalism to sign up to go die. At the age of 16 this likely wasn't a self determined choice. They were sold the glory and honour of war and believed what they were told.

Once again, they were not permitted to be there and had to lie about their age in order to serve. Whether the government knew this and was complicit in sending child soldiers is beside the point as the law as it stood in the UK and Allied Nations at the time was that they were deemed to be underage for combat. I don't know enough about the central powers to talk about their use of child soldiers.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

I'd argue yes, they were in a very similar situation. They were brainwashed in nationalism to sign up to go die. At the age of 16 this likely wasn't a self determined choice. They were sold the glory and honour of war and believed what they were told.

All 4 of my bullet points explain why the situations were not very similar, at all.

Khadr's life was not even normal in Afghanistan. There are plenty of brainwashed child-soldier-terrorists, but I'd be surprised if it was higher than 1% of the boys in that demographic.


You might get a little closer comparing him to an 18 y.o. WW2 soldier who didn't really want to go, but felt like it was his only option. It's still not even comparing apples to oranges, though (more like apples to ground beef. similar because both are edible. That's about it.)

[GGG]

I'm saying that the child soliders in World War One and two did not make a free informed choice to go. They were brainwashed by propaganda into serving.

[Dion]

The secret Omar Khadr file

Child soldier. Convicted terrorist. Khadr is about to return to Canada, but no one has been able to see his full seven-hour interview at Guantánamo Bay. Until now.

Maclean’s has viewed a complete transcript of Welner’s seven-hour interview—the most candid glimpse yet of the “real” Omar Khadr. For a man whose story has been told so many times by so many other people (journalists, authors, documentary filmmakers, lawyers from all sides), the Welner interview is a public rarity: Khadr in his own words.

At times, he sounds like the victim he claims to be: a “child” thrust into war, exploited by “everybody” and haunted by nightmares. A “very peaceful person,” he longs to return to Canada—“a place that I could call home”—and move on with his life. (At one point, he reminisced about the girl he hoped to marry, a young friend he met shortly before his capture). Khadr insists, repeatedly, that he did not actually kill anyone that day, and provides fresh details about the torture he has allegedly endured during his decade in U.S. custody. The conversation also suggests that Khadr has endured some form of sexual abuse, either at the hands of adult jihadists in Afghanistan or fellow detainees at Gitmo.

Yet during other moments of the interview, Khadr sounds exactly like the man Welner described on the witness stand: unrepentant and unconvincing. He vehemently denies his father’s al-Qaeda connections—“I know my father, and I don’t accept anybody saying that he’s a bad person”—and compares bin Laden’s training camps to mere martial arts clubs. He skirts around certain questions (about 9/11, his siblings, his father’s death) and when shown a home video of himself expertly wiring and planting improvised explosive devices, he can barely watch the footage. “What’s the point?” he asked.

Not once does Khadr accept even a shred of responsibility for his lot, consistently shifting the blame to everyone else. Except, of course, the man who dispatched him into battle. “I think he was just a normal dad,” Khadr said. “He was just trying to raise his children the right way.”

THREE WEEKS AFTER meeting Omar Khadr, Michael Welner submitted a 63-page report to military prosecutors. His findings were unequivocal: Khadr is conniving, unrepentant, as radicalized as ever—and a “spoiled celebrity.” Although charming and confident, his answers were often so elusive and so self-serving that they bordered on the ridiculous. “His responses,” Welner wrote in his report, “are such departures from the available record that his ability to carry it off as much as he does is impressive as well.”

As for the torture allegations, Welner wrote: “It is my professional opinion that the affidavit he submitted demonstrates his determination to do and say whatever he believes he must in order to help his case.”

When Khadr pleaded guilty—in exchange for that chance to come to a Canadian jail—Welner was just as blunt on the witness stand: “He has great support from certain sectors of the news media who lend legitimacy to him,” and his star power will have an “instant impact on the scalability of what al-Qaeda and the radical jihadist movement is capable of in Canada.” (Under cross-examination, Welner was attacked for relying, in part, on the research of Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist who has said the Koran is “a criminal book that forces people to do criminal things.” Welner told the court he was unaware of Sennels’ “political” remarks.)

When it was finally his turn to address the court, Khadr portrayed a much different version of himself. He personally apologized to Sgt. Speer’s widow “for the pain I caused you and your family,” and said he reached “a conclusion” in jail. “You’re not going to gain anything with hate,” he said, dressed in a suit and tie instead of his orange prison jumpsuit. “Love and forgiveness are more constructive and will bring people together.” (They didn’t testify, but Khadr has also spent hundreds of hours with two mental health experts retained by his defence team: Stephen Xenakis, a psychiatrist and retired U.S. army brigadier-general; and child psychologist Katherine Porterfield. Both have written glowing letters to Minister Toews, praising Khadr’s “remarkably positive outlook” and his wish to “contribute to the world in a way that brings about religious understanding.”)

By now, federal officials have no doubt watched the secret Welner tape. Technically, Toews still has every authority to deny Khadr’s transfer request, despite the diplomatic note that said Ottawa would be “inclined to favourably consider” it. The law that governs the minister’s decision (the International Transfer of Offenders Act) specifically states that an application can be refused on the grounds that the offender is likely to “endanger public safety” or “commit a terrorism offence.” A person who “left or remained outside Canada with the intention of abandoning Canada as their place of permanent residence” can also be refused. In Khadr’s case, there’s an argument to be made for all three.

But it’s not that simple, of course. When it comes to the Khadrs, nothing ever is. The real question facing Toews actually has nothing to do with whether Omar should be allowed to return to the country of his birth. He will come home, at some point, like all Canadians can. The real question is this: which Khadr do we want to welcome back? The one who serves the rest of his sentence in Cuba, only to fly home a completely free man in six more years? Or the one who can be eased into our prison system, and accountable to the parole laws that go with it?

If Omar Khadr is truly a remorseless threat—a jihadist rock star bent on revenge—which option best protects his fellow citizens?

For many of those citizens, another question must also be answered: when is enough enough? Despite everything he has done—and everything his family stands for—Khadr has spent more than 10 years inside a place that is almost as abhorrent. Willing terrorist or exploited child, he was still a 15-year-old kid thrown into a literal black hole. He was locked up for more than two years before he even talked to a lawyer.

A few days ago, Khadr turned 26—his 11th birthday behind U.S. bars. During that 2010 interview with Welner, he said all he wants is “a chance of life, of true life.” A chance to prove people wrong. A chance to go to school and become a doctor. A chance to marry. “I don’t know if I’m going to find somebody who’s going to understand what I’ve been through,” he conceded. “But it’s always a dream that somebody will understand.”

Canadians are still struggling to understand, too. After so many years, and so many contradictory descriptions, the truth about Omar Khadr remains a moving target. Toews demanded to see the Welner tape, hoping it would offer some fresh insights into the man nobody really knows. If anything, though, it will only add more fuel to the endless debate.

Who is the real Omar Khadr? Helpless child soldier? Unrepentant killer? As always, it depends on which snippets of the evidence you’re willing to ignore.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/t...et-khadr-file/

[rubecube]

^^None of that is relevant to the question of whether his rights were violated and whether he deserves compensation. Your rights aren't contingent on how nice of a person you are.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by rubecube

^^None of that is relevant to the question of whether his rights were violated and whether he deserves compensation. Your rights aren't contingent on how nice of a person you are.

It was posted for information purposes and nothing more and should have said as such in my original post.