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

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by 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.

Fair enough. Not sure I'd go all the way to brainwashed, but maybe 'heavily influenced'. They all had similar access to as many of the ideas/information as were available at the time (which admittedly may not have been a lot).

I'd classify child soldiers in WW1/2 was a less than ideal situation (though perhaps a necessary evil for which we should all be thankful); Khadr's situation was completely f***ed (to the benefit of pretty much nobody).

Apples to fried chicken. Not sure the relevance here...

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Do you live in the Montreal?

No . Its is profession that forms his opinion.

[Snuffleupagus]

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.

Does anyone really believe the USA would have just handed over a terrorist who just killed one of their soldiers? Khadr looks more like a liar than a victim and if he is to be considered a victim blame his fathers stupid rancid ideaoligy, nothing else. why is it the Canadian tax payers that have to pay because his father was a nut case?

As for the torture, how the hell else does one get someone who wants to die a martyr to talk? should we just lock them up in a country club, give them 3 squares a day and watch as their partners launch attacks against us for the simple reason they hate our way of life without Islam?

And since no Canadian actually tortured him, how about the tax payers of this country counter sue the Americans for our $10.5m back? yeah that's right, we would be laughed at around the world

[PsYcNeT]

Today I learned that there are people who actually believe torture is an effective interrogation technique.

Next you'll tell me that longer sentencing deterrs crime.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Today I learned that there are people who actually believe torture is an effective interrogation technique.

Of course it's effective. It gets the subject to tell the interrogator whatever they want to hear.

Hell, if I was in Gitmo I'd have confessed to the JFK assassination, and to being Jack the Ripper.

I mean the same interrogator that testified that Khadr confessed to throwing the grenade that killed SFC Speer also testified that Khadr told them that Maher Arar was staying in terrorist safe houses, which was proven false. https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...urt_hears.html

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

why is it the Canadian tax payers that have to pay because his father was a nut case?

Because representatives of the Canadian government were complicit in his treatment at Guantanamo. Canadians were THERE, and they participated in his interrogation.

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

And since no Canadian actually tortured him, how about the tax payers of this country counter sue the Americans for our $10.5m back? yeah that's right, we would be laughed at around the world

See above. Also, yes you would be laughed at around the world because it wouldn't even make sense. The settlement was not for what the Americans did, it was for what we did.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Does anyone really believe the USA would have just handed over a terrorist who just killed one of their soldiers? Khadr looks more like a liar than a victim and if he is to be considered a victim blame his fathers stupid rancid ideaoligy, nothing else. why is it the Canadian tax payers that have to pay because his father was a nut case?

You are still stuck on the wrong issue.

Whether or not the Americans would have turned him over is irrelevant. Whether you consider him a liar more than a victim is irrelevant. Whether his father was a nut case is irrelevant.

From the moment Canadian officials had access to Khadr and discovered he was being tortured, they - and our government - had a Charter obligation to fight for the protection of his rights. Instead, they became complicit in his torture and used it to their own advantage. There is not a single appeal to emotion based argument you can make that overcomes this. Canadian officials violated his Charter rights and three successive governments failed in their duty. That is why the Canadian tax payers have to pay.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are still stuck on the wrong issue.

Whether or not the Americans would have turned him over is irrelevant. Whether you consider him a liar more than a victim is irrelevant. Whether his father was a nut case is irrelevant.

From the moment Canadian officials had access to Khadr and discovered he was being tortured, they - and our government - had a Charter obligation to fight for the protection of his rights. Instead, they became complicit in his torture and used it to their own advantage. There is not a single appeal to emotion based argument you can make that overcomes this. Canadian officials violated his Charter rights and three successive governments failed in their duty. That is why the Canadian tax payers have to pay.

Well this should end the thread. I have my doubts that it will though.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Does anyone really believe the USA would have just handed over a terrorist who just killed one of their soldiers? Khadr looks more like a liar than a victim and if he is to be considered a victim blame his fathers stupid rancid ideaoligy, nothing else. why is it the Canadian tax payers that have to pay because his father was a nut case?

It's already been stated that the USA turned over the European foreign nationals being held in Guantanamo to their respective countries. They were all tried domestic, and then had their convictions overturned.

From the looks of it Canada never even tried to bring Khadr back.

The Canadian taxpayers have to pay, because Khadr was a Canadian citizen. He acquired that citizenship because he was born in Canada.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

You still have to prove a case against him for treason. A video of him making bombs is not going to do it. Were they really bombs? Were they used against Canadian soldiers? Did he throw the grenade? No one saw him. There was another guy alive in the compound. What's more likely, his confession under torture is true, or he has no reliable memory of the event due to trauma and shock? He was blown up. It's pretty reasonable to believe he has no recall of the event. So knock your socks off with a treason charge.

He's on film making and placing bombs for terrorists. It doesn't really matter which specific bombs specific terrorists used in specific places. Even if he was washing the dishes for the people he was with, he'd likely be convicted as a party to their crimes.

It also doesn't really matter whether his father put him up to it or not. He would still be convicted.

The kind of things you're talking about are likely to be mitigating factors to his sentencing. The confession you're talking about was to the murder of the US soldier, which yes would have been difficult to prove in the first place and probably impossible to prove after all the evidence tampering and coerced confessions.

These kind of posts are just as ridiculous as the "let him rot in prison" posts. To promote Khadr as totally innocent is absurd. Stating that his father brainwashed him is probably accurate, but legally that would not excuse him from his actions.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by blankall

He's on film making and placing bombs for terrorists. It doesn't really matter which specific bombs specific terrorists used in specific places. Even if he was washing the dishes for the people he was with, he'd likely be convicted as a party to their crimes.

Were those bombs for terrorism or were they for war? It makes a big difference. People seem to forget that while the taliban were considered a terrorist organization everywhere else, they were the government body in Afghanistan at the time, anything they did to defend against coalition forces were no different than what the Germans did in WWI and II, unless you consider what they did to be acts of terrorism, what Khadr did was not terrorism. The case could be made for treason, but again his age at the time and the upbringing he was born into are significant factors to consider when determine whether or not he could have avoided this scenario.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Guess we know one of roosters triggers... such a snowflake.

Regardless here's a lesson to future and present governments courtesy of the Harper government... If you don't want to pay people settlements, don't violate their rights.

Pretty sure this was a Liberal fiasco that pre-dates Harper and the conservatives run at governing the country....

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are still stuck on the wrong issue.

Whether or not the Americans would have turned him over is irrelevant. Whether you consider him a liar more than a victim is irrelevant. Whether his father was a nut case is irrelevant.

From the moment Canadian officials had access to Khadr and discovered he was being tortured, they - and our government - had a Charter obligation to fight for the protection of his rights. Instead, they became complicit in his torture and used it to their own advantage. There is not a single appeal to emotion based argument you can make that overcomes this. Canadian officials violated his Charter rights and three successive governments failed in their duty. That is why the Canadian tax payers have to pay.

That may well be the case but I would argue that there should not have ever been a settlement. The entire debacle should have been resolved by due process through the courts. The sad thing is that this guy continues to be a pawn of the government to this day. Pretty boy Justin wanted this to go away as quietly as possible whether it was right or not to settle.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

That may well be the case but I would argue that there should not have ever been a settlement. The entire debacle should have been resolved by due process through the courts. The sad thing is that this guy continues to be a pawn of the government to this day. Pretty boy Justin wanted this to go away as quietly as possible whether it was right or not to settle.

This was settled through due process - As in our country neglected due process and the charter so now they have to pay.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Were those bombs for terrorism or were they for war? It makes a big difference. People seem to forget that while the taliban were considered a terrorist organization everywhere else, they were the government body in Afghanistan at the time, anything they did to defend against coalition forces were no different than what the Germans did in WWI and II, unless you consider what they did to be acts of terrorism, what Khadr did was not terrorism. The case could be made for treason, but again his age at the time and the upbringing he was born into are significant factors to consider when determine whether or not he could have avoided this scenario.

Once again, you have exactly the same problem as the let him rot in prison crowd. The fact his rights were violated or that he was a child are totally independent issues from whether or not he was providing material support to a terrorist organization. 2 separate issues.

Khadr and his family were also not with the Taliban, which by the time of the incident had been ousted from power so this may be a moot point anyways. Khadr and his family were with Arab members of Al Queda. Their compatriots were part of organizations on Canada and the USA's terrorist lists. Khadr and his father were primarily acting as translators for the foreign Arab Al Queda fighters, who could not speak Pashtun as they were not native to Afghanistan. The videos, however, also show that Khadr was involved in manufacturing weapons. Once again, whether or not his father put him up to this would be a mitigating factor in his sentencing, and not likely a factor in his conviction.

So if Khadr had some kind of official role with the Taliban government, you might be right. If he's travelling across the country with members of Al Queda translating for them and building and planting bombs, you're probably incorrect.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by jayswin

This was settled through due process - As in our country neglected due process and the charter so now they have to pay.

Who's saying anything about not paying? This entire payout is so greasy it doesn't seem real. It should have been concluded by the courts, not a private settlement to make as little noise as possible.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Who's saying anything about not paying? This entire payout is so greasy it doesn't seem real. It should have been concluded by the courts, not a private settlement to make as little noise as possible.

The vast majority of cases settle outside of court. The governments failings are plainly obvious here. We do not need a trial to prove them. I suppose you could have had a trial for settle the issue of damages only.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Who's saying anything about not paying? This entire payout is so greasy it doesn't seem real. It should have been concluded by the courts, not a private settlement to make as little noise as possible.

It would have cost us more for this things to play out in the courts. Costs + settlement payout is more than just paying out when you likely would lose anyway.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

It would have cost us more for this things to play out in the courts. Costs + settlement payout is more than just paying out when you likely would lose anyway.

http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/...hadr-sett.html

if I had been advising the government, I would have urged them to settle. Here’s why. First, don’t underestimate the cost to the taxpayer of fighting:

1. Maybe if you do not care about sharp legal practice, you can wear the plaintiff down through stalling tactics. Let injustice be done, though the sky fall! But sooner or later, you will end up in front of a judge, probably now very irritated and happy to assess costs against you.

2. You won’t win everything in this case. You are almost certain to pay some damages, and quite possibly a lot of damages.

3. Either way, if you fight a trial, here’s what will happen:

Because of what he needs to prove for the negligence and misfeasance causes of action especially, plaintiff will call the former Prime Ministers Chrétien, Martin and Harper, and all of their former foreign affairs and public safety ministers, CSIS, DFAIT and RCMP officials (former and present) and any number of other officials.

Former officials will have their own reputational exposure (at minimum), and will likely want independent legal advice, indemnified by the government of Canada.

Departments will divert resources, as they did during the commissions of inquiry of the last decade. There will be oodles of lawyers and staff time on this – do not underestimate the resources poured into this.

Plaintiff will be seeking confidential information, on top of what is on the public record. Some of that will raise national security interests. It will need to be fought, probably in Canada Evidence Act s.38 proceedings. Those are long and arduous and costly. See above about staff resourcing.

The trial will be several weeks long, and the costs skyrocket. (There is a reason most civil cases settle).

Put another way, this will cost a bundle. And that’s not including resources expended by the court itself. And that’s assuming in the end the government isn’t stuck with the plaintiff’s legal costs (which, as noted, was already starting to happen).

The Arar commission cost $20 million. Commissions and courts are different, but the Khadr case has been a longer process. All costs in, I suspect a full trial in the Khadr matter would have been close to Arar number – certainly more than $10 million. The government had already spent $5 million – and the process looks like it had not yet reached the full discovery process (let alone trial), or resolved the section 38 issues.

So I think an all-in number in the $30-40 million range, including damages, costs to the court, etc was very possible, even likely, and maybe even low-balling.

[Fuzz]

I'd like to thank the Trudeau government for using common sense to save us tax dollars on this one.

I'd also like to announce my intention to sue the government for $10 million dollars where I will be bringing forth as witnesses all living Prime Ministers and Premiers, governor and lieutenant generals, oh, and the Queen. I'll figure out a reason for the lawsuit later. Or they can just settle with me now for a modest 10% of my ask. That sounds fair.

This is totally going to work, right?