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

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Well, was it rushed or was it delayed?

How I understood it the payment/settlement was rushed to avoid the widow's injunction, the announcement to the public delayed. Which from Goodale's response it is most likely true as he was quite angry with whoever leaked it to the media.

[Tfong]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I can tell. The amount of edge required to hide behind a troll or sockpuppet account you registered four years ago but trotted out for the first time today is off the charts.

I'm from the original CF boards but i stopped using CP. Someone just pointed me to the thread here because it does contain good discussion and views. I mainly reside at HF. But if anyone had a cache of users back from CF I was one of the more active ones back then.

Not a troll/sockpuppet whatever you want to call it. I just have very different views that I hold, despite not being able to support them in a practical sense. I don't condem other people's views. I like to discuss and share and analyze other people's responses, add those to my research to stay informed.

[Locke]

First of all, I think we can all admit that we're probably not happy with our Government for handing out sacks of cash in a lawsuit, but this scenario is not nearly as simple as some people seem to want it to be.

I'm not happy about it, but I have a hard time qualifying what I'm least happiest about. Is it the money? The torture? Or the actions of our Government?

I'm not sure. But if theres one thing we all should agree on is that its a complicated issue. Theres a lot of moving pieces going on here.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Someone smarter then me can comment.

But I don't think that works as well as it used to. The mythical concept of the whole numbered accounts, or offshore accounts protecting your assets has been killed, most banks now fully cooperate with governments, and the ability to cyber investigate means that they know where your money has gone etc.

Plus Khadr vanishing that money wouldn't help his cause at all of proving that he's reformed.

The first question would be . . . so your money is gone, how much did you give to ISIS.

This is again, complicated. While not strictly true its not incorrect either. Theres lots of places to hide your money if you are so inclined.

And despite the fact that Governments may know about it and where it is that doesnt mean that theres anything they can do about it depending on what jurisdiction its in.

[Tfong]

Also I want to firmly acknowledge that the judicial process is correct in this situation. So stop thinking I deny that.

I just do not believe in being the right thing to do here in a moral sense.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I can't find the story on CTV but I don't have any reason to doubt it. I guess I'm not sure how particularly relevant it is. Maybe it's too early in the day for me and my brain hasn't woken up yet, but what exactly would the injunction have accomplished other than holding up proceedings?

I know it was being discussed on CTV news net this morning and late last night.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Tfong

I just do not believe in being the right thing to do here in a moral sense.

But you consider treating kids the same as adults when it comes to crime and punishment as morally right?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

But you consider treating kids the same as adults when it comes to crime and punishment as morally right?

Its not nearly as simple as that and we all know it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

First of all, I think we can all admit that we're probably not happy with our Government for handing out sacks of cash in a lawsuit, but this scenario is not nearly as simple as some people seem to want it to be.

I'm not happy about it, but I have a hard time qualifying what I'm least happiest about. Is it the money? The torture? Or the actions of our Government?

I'm not sure. But if theres one thing we all should agree on is that its a complicated issue. Theres a lot of moving pieces going on here.

The bolded, none of this happens if at the time the government would have done the right thing. The torture would have stopped and we wouldn't need to be paying any money. It's no more complicated than that.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its not nearly as simple as that and we all know it.

I was referring to this statement the OP had made in a previous post.

Originally Posted by Tfong

Also for background information, I also do not support special legal protection for minors at all in the first place.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I was referring to this statement the OP had made in a previous post.

Okay, fair enough.

[Tfong]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

But you consider treating kids the same as adults when it comes to crime and punishment as morally right?

In the simplest form, major crimes yes. So rape/sexual assault and murder are two things which i associate with this line of thinking.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Tfong

In the simplest form, major crimes yes. So rape/sexual assault and murder are two things which i associate with this line of thinking.

Maybe stating that in the first place would be less confusing for everyone reading your posts. When you state that you do not support it "at all" it kinda leads people to interpret that you don't support it at all.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Tfong

In the simplest form, major crimes yes.

That makes no sense. The Youth Justice system is based on the idea of youths having diminished capacity... how can you rationalize youths somehow having diminished capacity for "minor" crimes but not for major crimes? No sense whatsoever.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Parallex

That makes no sense. The Youth Justice system is based on the idea of youths having diminished capacity... how can you rationalize youths somehow having diminished capacity for "minor" crimes but not for major crimes? No sense whatsoever.

This is getting off-topic a bit but that makes total sense.

A 15 Year old might think snatching a candy bar from a 7-11 is no big deal, but is probably aware that slaying his neighbour is not okay.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is getting off-topic a bit but that makes total sense.

A 15 Year old might think snatching a candy bar from a 7-11 is no big deal, but is probably aware that slaying his neighbour is not okay.

No, it doesn't.

Maybe your hypothetical 15 year old doesn't think swiping the candy bar is a "big deal" but he still knows it's stealing and that stealing is against the law.

[Tfong]

Originally Posted by Parallex

No, it doesn't.

Maybe your hypothetical 15 year old doesn't think swiping the candy bar is a "big deal" but he still knows it's stealing and that stealing is against the law.

Major crimes like murder and rape lets say. Why do we care what the mental capacity of the young offender is? The damage to the victim is still the same.

15 year old with a gun kills your family member vs a 20 year old with a gun.

The end result is still the same, a family member has died and the damage to their family remains the same whether or not a 15 or 20 year old committed to it.

Why are we so concerned with how the offender feels rather than the victim? Oh because they have to live with the "guilt?" why are we not looking at the victims case where...they are dead no matter how u cut it.

If your loved one is shot and killed. Are you going to be "aww thats too bad, he didn't know any better?" just because its a young offender?

Its more along the lines of creating exceptions allows for precedents which allows for loopholes. If u make no exceptions then the rest don't exist. Distinction of minor/major crimes are where i draw the line, so petty theft versus murder lets say.

This is the reasoning im applying to "child soldiers". While yes its a shame that he is coerced or brainwashed into supporting enemy troops. But that does not diminish the damage he/she has done. A grenade thrown by a 15 or 20 year old has the same destructive force and a person(s) is still dead. Thats why its a war crime for people to recruit child soldiers. But lets not diminish that a 15 year old with a rifle is as deadly as a 20 year old with a rifle.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Tfong

Major crimes like murder and rape lets say. Why do we care what the mental capacity of the young offender is? The damage to the victim is still the same.

15 year old with a gun kills your family member vs a 20 year old with a gun.

The end result is still the same, a family member has died and the damage to their family remains the same whether or not a 15 or 20 year old committed to it.

Why are we so concerned with how the offender feels rather than the victim? Oh because they have to live with the "guilt?" why are we not looking at the victims case where...they are dead no matter how u cut it.

If your loved one is shot and killed. Are you going to be "aww thats too bad, he didn't know any better?" just because its a young offender?

Its more along the lines of creating exceptions allows for precedents which allows for loopholes. If u make no exceptions then the rest don't exist. Distinction of minor/major crimes are where i draw the line, so petty theft versus murder lets say.

This is the reasoning im applying to "child soldiers". While yes its a shame that he is coerced or brainwashed into supporting enemy troops. But that does not diminish the damage he/she has done. A grenade thrown by a 15 or 20 year old has the same destructive force and a person(s) is still dead. Thats why its a war crime for people to recruit child soldiers. But lets not diminish that a 15 year old with a rifle is as deadly as a 20 year old with a rifle.

Actually no, it's the difference between whether you believe the justice system benefits society better when operated under a punitive model vs a rehabilitative model.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Actually no, it's the difference between whether you believe the justice system benefits society better when operated under a punitive model vs a rehabilitative model.

And the mistaken idea that these are mutually exclusive ideals.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Tfong

Major crimes like murder and rape lets say. Why do we care what the mental capacity of the young offender is? The damage to the victim is still the same.

15 year old with a gun kills your family member vs a 20 year old with a gun.

The end result is still the same, a family member has died and the damage to their family remains the same whether or not a 15 or 20 year old committed to it.

Why are we so concerned with how the offender feels rather than the victim? Oh because they have to live with the "guilt?" why are we not looking at the victims case where...they are dead no matter how u cut it.

If your loved one is shot and killed. Are you going to be "aww thats too bad, he didn't know any better?" just because its a young offender?

Its more along the lines of creating exceptions allows for precedents which allows for loopholes. If u make no exceptions then the rest don't exist. Distinction of minor/major crimes are where i draw the line, so petty theft versus murder lets say.

This is the reasoning im applying to "child soldiers". While yes its a shame that he is coerced or brainwashed into supporting enemy troops. But that does not diminish the damage he/she has done. A grenade thrown by a 15 or 20 year old has the same destructive force and a person(s) is still dead. Thats why its a war crime for people to recruit child soldiers. But lets not diminish that a 15 year old with a rifle is as deadly as a 20 year old with a rifle.

Removing the concept of moral blameworthiness from our criminal law would be a truly radical departure. A purely consequence-focused criminal law would punish the person who negligently kills another person in a car accident exactly the same as a person who plans the deliberate killing of his wife.

Very few people would call that justice.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Tfong

This is the reasoning im applying to "child soldiers". While yes its a shame that he is coerced or brainwashed into supporting enemy troops. But that does not diminish the damage he/she has done. A grenade thrown by a 15 or 20 year old has the same destructive force and a person(s) is still dead. Thats why its a war crime for people to recruit child soldiers. But lets not diminish that a 15 year old with a rifle is as deadly as a 20 year old with a rifle.

Now apply that logic to killing someone with your car. The courts have the ability to consider all factors and proceed accordingly. There is a massive difference between me killing someone while having a medical issue, a pedestrian that popped out into traffic, running someone down intentionally in road rage, drinking and driving, texting and not seeing a red light, etc.

The end result is that someone else is dead, and that sucks. But the law will be applied according to the contributing factors, not in a knee jerk fashion.

Apples to oranges, obviously, but let's not pretend that we'd like the law to be ignorantly black and white.