Former Gitmo Prisoner To Receive Million$ From Canadian Govt

O.k., I can understand that. But in this case I find the 10 million are well placed. The taxpayers of Canada, represented by their freely elected Government, installed the laws but failed one little Canadian.
How childish of them to now cry and lament over the pay-out of 10 mi. to one of their own, who suffered tremendously! WHY not direct their anger towards the bullies in the US officialdom?
Merven, what goes around - comes around. Pray, you will already have gone to heaven before it's your turn to get hung from the ceiling, or have your knees smashed with baseball bats or your genitals electrified etc.

I hope the old fart will reap his reward soon and in double measure!!
Wasn't she pregnant? Who knows who the father is... doesn't take much imagination.

 

Oh no, what is going on?

 

He's an unrepentant jihad,

Http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/17/trudeau-treating-khadr-with-kid-gloves

 

My what a totally uninformed opinion not based on fact.

BTW - it was ultimately a successful litigation that took over a decade to prosecute. But feel free to spew.

 

Your link doesn't work, but this one does...
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/07/trudeau-treating-khadr-with-kid-gloves

O.k., it reads in part:

This article is dripping with hate propaganda and outright lies!
Certain people just can't handle it, when someone else receives money and they don't. It's as simple as that!

 

The toronto sun is a tabloid newspaper with a right wing populist editorial perspective.
Hence you get people ranting about a child soldier being a terrorist murderer while conveniently ignoring the "minor" moral/ethical/legal issues presented by the charter of rights and freedoms enshrined in the Canadian constitution.

Let's also forget the fact that the kid was also in the middle of a rather brutal firefight in which his father was killed and his brother made a paraplegic. He had no choice about being there or doing what he was doing. When the shooting started exactly what should he have done that would in anyway appease such unpatriotic paranoid whingers?

Principles seem to be worthless when the paranoid haters start ranting.

 

Anyone can win anything in a court of law if they have the legal power to do so.

 

I see some have already made much the same point, but I am going to say it.

The rule of law, morality, and ethics were ignored in this case for over a decade. He should have been (a) charged, and tried by a court of law, or (b)held as a prisoner of war, or(c) just let go. None of which happened. Instead he was held for years, in a purgatory, perhaps tortured, certainly abused. Hence this settlement.

 

Have to laugh when the right wing offers their insane solutions while ignoring the question asked of them.

 

Easier than it sounds.

Let go where?

He was under aged, a terrorist, and had been placed in harm's way by his own family.

Would YOU have taken him in as a foster child? Would other kids in a residential foster program have been safe from him?

 

Yup, and Canada failed him and, as I just learned, several others as well.

In the case of Khadr v. Harper, seeing is believing

Excerpt:
As it happens, that pesky interrogation video is the basis for a new full-length, Canadian-made documentary about Omar Khadr. Now you can finally judge for yourself if a paroxysm or two of moral outrage is warranted or not. You Don't Like the Truth: Four Days Inside Guantánamo, consists of excerpts from seven hours of video footage that were taken over four days in 2003 when a CSIS agent, accompanied by two weirdly silent colleagues (one a CIA woman), arrive to "interview" Mr. Khadr. He is then all of 16 years old.

At first he innocently believes his guest is a Canadian official come to offer him support. But the obvious truth soon dawns on him. The creep is out to get him. CSIS has obviously bought holus bolus the dubious U.S. version of things. Why not? Would the American government lie? Our CSIS spook has no doubt Mr. Khadr is guilty of having murdered an American soldier during a firefight in Afghanistan and hasn't the slightest interest in anything Mr. Khadr says or in child-soldier issues or how a soldier can be said to be guilty of murder during a war anyway.

The documentary's Quebec directors invoke outsiders from time to time to comment on the interrogation. For example, the Toronto Star's national security reporter Michelle Shephard is convinced that Mr. Khadr did not toss the hand grenade that killed an American soldier in the fight. She shows photos of Mr. Khadr buried under rubble after an American plane bombed his compound to smithereens. When he's eventually dug out, he's unconscious, lying face down with bloody bullet holes in his back. He also took shrapnel in one eye. This 15-year old couldn't have killed anyone, the photo suggests.

I (rabble rouser) saw a kid, severely wounded a year earlier, plausibly claiming to have been badly tortured and grilled by Americans back in Afghanistan, and never once wavering during four solid days of duplicitous and unsympathetic interrogation. "I didn't do anything," he insists on the third day. "I didn't do anything to get me here." He insists he wasn't even participating in the fighting when an American soldier found him and shot him three times. Watching his changing body language is a revelation in itself.

By the fourth day the CSIS man, exasperated that he's failed to shake Mr. Khadr's story one iota, demands that he tells him the truth. Mr. Khadr replies: "That's what I told you, the truth. You don't like the truth. ... You just want to hear whatever you want to hear. ... You can't believe me."
This 16-year old is either an Academy Award-calibre actor or he's telling the truth.
Mr. Khadr's lawyers say that in six years, they've had "absolutely no assistance" on the case from the Canadian government. Gar Pardy, a former Canadian diplomat, points out that the government of Canada has "an absolute obligation" to protect all Canadians.

Like Maher Arar and Abousfian Abdelrazik, Omar Khadr is a Muslim. Is this merely a coincidence? Are all ethnic or religious groups equal in the eyes of the ethnic-loving Harper government?

In September, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government had violated Mr. Khadr's rights when CSIS interrogated him. In October, to avoid a 40-year sentence, Omar Khadr pleaded guilty and received a sentence of eight years.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/gerry-caplan/2010/12/case-khadr-v-harper-seeing-believing


Read also in The Toronto Star...

Nothing says more about the mean-spirited, reptilian rule of Supreme Leader Harper than the tragic saga of Omar Khadr. Yes, his ordeal began under a Liberal government, but nobody has exploited his story as eagerly and effectively as Harper, simply to further his anti-Muslim agenda and his bogus war on so-called “terrorism.”

As Thomas Walkom mentions in a recent column, Khadr is nothing more than a political football to be tossed around in the upcoming election campaign. This is disgusting beyond words.

Khadr has been the victim of a mockery and travesty of justice unseen in recent times. The injustice he has been subjected to is a stain on the Canadian body politic. All Canadians should be ashamed of his inhumane treatment.

Amen!

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/let...5/05/02/khadr-saga-a-travesty-of-justice.html

 

Who knows where he should have been sent, but I do know we did everything wrong. And seriously, why not foster him? There would have to have been somebody who would have volunteered especially as the charge of being a terrorist looks to be an ad homimen statement repeated regularly to justified the abuse.

 

Restated, money talks and justice walks.

 

He was fostered, in the only place possible. Prison.

 

We detained tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and only a small fraction of those were sent to GTMO ... did you ever question why that is.

Did you ever ask how we determine who to send to GTMO ... for what period of time ... and for what specific reason. Has the implication of the fact that the vast majority of the people we captured in Afghanistan did not end up in GTMO dawned on you yet? That the were turned over to the Afghans for prosecution.

Do you understand what that means? It means there was always a vetting system set up in accordance with the GC.

Your opinions are the result of not knowing how and why inmates ended up at GTMO in the first place. The analogy to NK is laughable ... I surely hope you don't actually believe that.

If your argument about their having a right to a trial was accurate ... then the Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, and all the combatants we have captured, since the GC was adopted in 1949, have all had a right to a trial in a US Court and with US Constitutional rights ... those pesky if-then questions.

We have never been obligated to put them on trial ... not even the GC provides a right to a trial ... much less with US Constitutional rights.

It took a bunch of pissed off leftys with BDS to even come up something as ridiculous as the notion that captured combatants/soldiers/militia have a right to a trial.

 

You're asking the wrong question and it's the reason why you find this so difficult to understand.

They were not "guilty" of a "crime" per se ... they are captured enemy combatants/soldiers/jihadis and the GC says we can keep them until the end of hostilities.

We will never beat the jihadis if we fight this war with law enforcement type tactics and measures ... that's where most people go wrong when thinking about this issue. This is a war ... not a judicial matter.

You think, feel, and believe that. Unfortunately for you "torture", as described by the GC, has an actual and specific definition.

So it doesn't matter what you think, feel, and believe.

 

He had family living in Toronto. They could have sent him home. At one point the US was going to send him back to Canada, but PM Harper refused to let him come home.

 

POWs have to be treated humanely and decently is what the GC also says. BUT the US doesn't want to do that, and therefore they call them "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war. The US makes its own rules.
Excerpt from GC:
One of the treaties created during the 1949 Convention, this defined what a Prisoner of War was, and accorded them proper and humane treatment as specified by the first Convention. Specifically, it required POWs to give only their name, rank, and serial number to their captors. Nations party to the Convention may not use torture to extract information from POWs.

Is the US a party to the Geneva Convention or not?

Yes, it is a self-made war for USrael's benefit. Afghanistan never attacked the United States.

Torture is Torture, no matter what sort of definition you wish to ascribe to it. The Middle Ages are over. We now live in the 21st Century. It is unfitting for civilized people to indulge in this kind of practice.

 

You were asked a specific question but you avoided answering it directly. Would you volunteer to take this person into your home?

 

Yes, I would.

 

The US government should be compensating Khadr, not the Canadian government.

 

You've touched upon the GC, even quoted it, but you still don't understand what it means and it's implications.

The quotes from the GC you need are the ones that deal with how to determine if a captured combatant falls within the guidelines of the convention and therefore entitled to its protections.

The GC is quite specific about who qualifies for its protection and who doesn't. Those conducting warfare outside of the guidelines of the GC are not entitled to its protections. When discussing this issue "POW" is a specific term with a specific meaning.

Foreign jihadis in Afghanistan who terrorize the people who live there, destroy religious symbols and buildings, use religious, educational, and medical facilities for military purposes, and specifically and deliberately target civilians are not entitled to the protections of the GC. They are not considered to be "POW".

Afghanistan was not then and still isn't a functioning country so of course the collective "nation" didn't attack us ... the guy who did lived and operated out of there ... OBL ... perhaps you've heard of him.

As for the Middle Ages analogy you need to keep a perspective. What we did to a handful of jihadis in order to protect innocent civilians would have been a tickle session in the MA.

As far as Afghanistan and "torture" are concerned far worse was done by US Soldiers and Marines during WWII ... we refer to them today as the Greatest Generation ... you would have called them war criminals.

 

Neither did the millions of refugees killed or left homeless have a choice.
So how does "this kid" warrant $10 million dollars in an apology but millions others go starving or live in utter despair?
Liberalism's phony altruism.

 

It's a war against a people who want to establish a particular religious caliphate across the planet and they prefer to use violence to accomplish that goal.

It's a caliphate that is incompatible with Western Culture and basic human rights. If you don't want to fight them please get out of the way of those who recognize the threat and understand what's at stake.

You left out one category of "combatant" ... the individual who is captured while fighting with a force that refuses to follow the guidelines of the GC ... that's the group we're talking about. That captured "person" is not entitled to the protections of the GC.

If you knew what jihadis actually did to the Afghan people you wouldn't be defending them.

Ever heard of the "ticking time bomb" scenario? That's the situation we were in after 911 and that's the situation we're in today even if you don't seem to understand or recognize it.

I would support the use of EIT's on a thousand jihadis if it saves one American life or prevents one jihadi attack.

You call it crimes I call it a prudent use of necessary measures to save innocent lives. We didn't do this for fun or because we wanted to.

Save your tears and teeth gnashing for the victims of this latest jihadi war ... they're the ones who deserve it.