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

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

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

Spoiler!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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.

What changes in sympathies and definitions are you referring to?

[EldrickOnIce]

Canada is obligated to protect the rights of its citizens, even traitors and terrorists.
It's as foolish to argue that Khadr's rights as a citizen weren't violated as it is to suggest he was not involved in treasonous acts against that same country who then violated his rights.

[Smartcar]

It's gratifying to see so many here have such an innate understanding of right and wrong that they would have known at the age of 15 to disobey their parents.

[OMG!WTF!]

It's also interesting to note no on has intelligently answered the question... What else should he have done?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

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

but making bombs to attack an invading military force is different than using the bombs on innocent civilians.

not sure why some folks can't parse that difference?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by 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.

^This

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

but making bombs to attack an invading military force is different than using the bombs on innocent civilians.

not sure why some folks can't parse that difference?

Because it doesn't fit their narrative.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It's also interesting to note no on has intelligently answered the question... What else should he have done?

That's because it's obvious. Clearly he should have realized al Qaeda were bad and used his unique situation to single handedly destroy their network from the inside, but noooo he had to come up with this petty get rich slow scheme instead. (This is complete sarcasm on my part, but the sad thing is there are people posting on Facebook who actually believe this kind of crap)

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Canada is obligated to protect the rights of its citizens, even traitors and terrorists.
It's as foolish to argue that Khadr's rights as a citizen weren't violated as it is to suggest he was not involved in treasonous acts against that same country who then violated his rights.

I think that this is the crux of the issue, really. A lot of people don't see it that way.

It's kinda like the 'f*** prisoners' mentality. "Ah, they're just prisoners. They should have been locked up and the key thrown away and we should forget to feed 'em every once and a while. Who gives a f*** about 'em anyhow."

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It seems to me that whether he'd have been convicted in a fair trial would depend on what evidence was available that wasn't tainted by having been obtained in violation of his rights. I don't know the answer to that, but it's entirely possible that evidence was gathered separately from his gitmo detention, or that there's an argument based on inevitability of some sort that would allow enough in to get a conviction.

Either way, he'd presumably still have won the lawsuit, so that's a totally separate question from the settlement figure.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It seems to me that whether he'd have been convicted in a fair trial would depend on what evidence was available that wasn't tainted by having been obtained in violation of his rights. I don't know the answer to that, but it's entirely possible that evidence was gathered separately from his gitmo detention, or that there's an argument based on inevitability of some sort that would allow enough in to get a conviction.

Either way, he'd presumably still have won the lawsuit, so that's a totally separate question from the settlement figure.

His treatment prior to having any sort of a trial is the basis of his lawsuit, it didn't matter what his crimes were. To put this into context take any other criminal case, the charter guarantees you certain protections, when someone gets placed into custody there are limitations to what can be done to them while in custody and how long they can be held without prosecution. If the government is aware this isn't being followed and does nothing(or in this case participates) they are complicit in violating your charter rights, it doesn't matter what you did or are being accused of having done to get there.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by 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.

Embarrassing is probably too light of a word. Frankly I find it disgusting how many people are seemingly fine with the idea that the government should be able to pick and choose which Canadian citizens are granted the rights and freedoms we're all entitled to. It's pretty sad when standing up for charter rights for Canadians gets you labeled an "elitist".

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Reaper

Because it doesn't fit their narrative.

There are all kinds of narratives getting in the way of rational thought in Canada today. How many people passionately defending Khadr's legal rights were doing the same for Gian Ghomeshi last year? Peope tend to support laws and institutions only so long as they don't get in the way of emotional narratives, and these narratives are rooted in cultural and ideological loyalties.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There are all kinds of narratives getting in the way of rational thought in Canada today. How many people passionately defending Khadr's legal rights were doing the same for Gian Ghomeshi last year? Peope tend to support laws and institutions only so long as they don't get in the way of emotional narratives, and these narratives are rooted in cultural and ideological loyalties.

All of them? I don't recall anyone suggesting that Ghomeshi's rights ought to be breached.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There are all kinds of narratives getting in the way of rational thought in Canada today. How many people passionately defending Khadr's legal rights were doing the same for Gian Ghomeshi last year? Peope tend to support laws and institutions only so long as they don't get in the way of emotional narratives, and these narratives are rooted in cultural and ideological loyalties.

What the hell is this? Two completely different situations, one in which a celebrity was charged properly and then given a fair trial.

People had hopes that he would be found guilty and whatnot, for sure, but people weren't hoping he wasn't treated fairly or that his legal rights were violated. If anything even the most emotional posters wanted everything to go perfect in a legal sense so that he would be convicted. And how does that relate to a Canadian citizen being locked up in a foreign prison, tortured for confession and then ignored by our own government? That's a little embarrassing, Cliff, this was a whataboutism and I know you're smart enough to know that.

I think everyone on one side of this issue has been quite rational and clear in what they're supporting (HUGE HINT - it's not Omar Khadr himself or his actions), while the other side has been quite literally fighting against the very rights that hold this country above most of the world because they're letting their emotions get to them.

C'mon.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There are all kinds of narratives getting in the way of rational thought in Canada today. How many people passionately defending Khadr's legal rights were doing the same for Gian Ghomeshi last year? Peope tend to support laws and institutions only so long as they don't get in the way of emotional narratives, and these narratives are rooted in cultural and ideological loyalties.

I had zero problem with the Ghomeshi trial, and certainly wasn't proclaiming him guilty prior to the trial.

and I have zero issue with the judgment either... some people do... that's fine...

I do agree that some people are getting a bit overly emotional in the argument... at the end of the day, the SCC made a ruling.

They are the experts in all of this...I'll defer to their knowledge and experience in interpreting statute...Arguing about the settlement amount is reasonable: i can see that being a point of contention in terms of actual dollars... but that's hard to really pin down. How much is 'fair'?

Those that are the most outraged...well that just seems to be a lot of caterwauling from one side of the political spectrum, either conflating issues or thinking their layman's opinion somehow trumps people with, you know, actual law degrees.
.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Those that are the most outraged...well that just seems to be a lot of caterwauling from one side of the political spectrum, either conflating issues or thinking their layman's opinion somehow trumps people with, you know, actual law degrees.
.

It doesn't help that the conservatives just unveiled a new leader to take a run at Trudeau in the next election. They're going all in on this, along with conservative media. The timing was perfect for them.

The Calgary Sun sucks but for some reason I still read it and they quite literally have three to four op-ed's on Omar Khadr per day (which is basically all their op'es) and they come off emotional and devoid of rational thought almost every time.

They're purposely working up our old school conservatives and that could make for an ugly time in Canada come next election.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

but making bombs to attack an invading military force is different than using the bombs on innocent civilians.

not sure why some folks can't parse that difference?

Who invaded who?

Since when was Al-Qaeda or the Taliban invited to Afghanistan to run the country?

Khadr was a terrorist making bombs to kill military coalition troops made up from 59 countries who were invited to clear the country from the perverted Islamic freaks that were launching terrorist attacks worldwide for over a dozen years.

Talk about folks can't parse the difference

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by jayswin

It doesn't help that the conservatives just unveiled a new leader to take a run at Trudeau in the next election. They're going all in on this, along with conservative media. The timing was perfect for them.

The Calgary Sun sucks but for some reason I still read it and they quite literally have three to four op-ed's on Omar Khadr per day (which is basically all their op'es) and they come off emotional and devoid of rational thought almost every time.

They're purposely working up our old school conservatives and that could make for an ugly time in Canada come next election.

It's tragic that the blatant political manipulation of this case isn't opening more people's eyes and getting more people to realize things aren't always as they're portrayed to be in the media or by politicians. Even in this thread some people still can't separate Khadr's actions from the government's.