Omar Khadr sues Canada for $10 million


hunboldt
Free Thinker
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

rofl

Agreed. I'm not in the 'release the guy tomorrow' camp. I'm looking at this from the 'economics view' - we have him, so what do we do with him?

Lots of young teens fantasise about being a mercenary. If he had targeted a Medic and shot him in cold blood, that is murder, but lobbing out a grenade while you are badly wounded and semi conscious at an unseen target well, that's fighting.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+1
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondoView Post

As a Canadian, I voluntarily forfiet my right to throw grenades at american soldiers. All in agreement, say aye!

Nay!!!
 
tober
+2
#33
A point nobody has yet mentioned is that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. Regardless of whose politics you support, America had no business being there in the first place and even less right to legally prosecute somebody who resisted them. As several posters have noted, Khadr is a Canadian and Canada has a legal obligation to support him. Whether or not we agree with the ideological cause he supported is legally irrelevant.

I think it goes without saying that a US military judge is not impartial. If one of his judges had adjudicated that he was not guilty that judge’s career would have been finished. Khadr's trial was a kangaroo court. Under both international law and Canadian law Khadr's trial and imprisonment are illegal. He is a political prisoner of an extremist right wing war mongering state.

What does the above say about Mr. Harper? Nothing honourable or complimentary. If he is the sort of individual who will abandon Canadians who are detained contrary to international law because there is something about their politics he disagrees with, he does not deserve to govern. He does not have to agree with somebody’s politics to recognize his responsibility as PM to protect their legal rights. He lacks the morals and the intestinal fortitude for the job.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+2
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by toberView Post

A point nobody has yet mentioned is that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. Regardless of whose politics you support, America had no business being there in the first place and even less right to legally prosecute somebody who resisted them. As several posters have noted, Khadr is a Canadian and Canada has a legal obligation to support him. Whether or not we agree with the ideological cause he supported is legally irrelevant.
I think it goes without saying that a US military judge is not impartial. If one of his judges had adjudicated that he was not guilty that judge’s career would have been finished. Khadr's trial was a kangaroo court. Under both international law and Canadian law Khadr's trial and imprisonment are illegal. He is a political prisoner of an extremist right wing war mongering state.
What does the above say about Mr. Harper? Nothing honourable or complimentary. If he is the sort of individual who will abandon Canadians who are detained contrary to international law because there is something about their politics he disagrees with, he does not deserve to govern. He does not have to agree with somebody’s politics to recognize his responsibility as PM to protect their...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
FYI- I have noted the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq as illegal from their inception. There is good reason the US has not followed international law and the Geneva conventions in these actions though. If they did adhere to such laws and treaties everything they have done would be viewed as war crimes. By not declaring war or waiting for UN mandate they avoid having to follow the laws and treaties surrounding wars.
 
tober
+1
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

FYI- I have noted the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq as illegal from their inception. There is good reason the US has not followed international law and the Geneva conventions in these actions though. If they did adhere to such laws and treaties everything they have done would be viewed as war crimes. By not declaring war or waiting for UN mandate they avoid having to follow the laws and treaties surrounding wars.

That is one of the reasons I view America as fascist. Italy did to Ethiopia in the 1930's the same thing America did to Gulf nations. Throughout the fighting America used chemical warfare in the way of napalm and white phosphorous. It's ground forces were unable to maintain control without massive air support. After years of fighting, the US treasury was suffering and American morale was low. It finally took the much-advertised "surge" for the world's only remaining superpower to defeat the desert tribesmen of the Gulf. Italy invaded Ethiopia and resorted to poison gas when its army was unable to defeat Third World tribesmen. The difference is that Italy wasn't a super power. Both are fascist. Both were rogue states, Italy then and America now.
 
Cobalt_Kid
+2
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

FYI- I have noted the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq as illegal from their inception. There is good reason the US has not followed international law and the Geneva conventions in these actions though. If they did adhere to such laws and treaties everything they have done would be viewed as war crimes. By not declaring war or waiting for UN mandate they avoid having to follow the laws and treaties surrounding wars.

There was some legal justification for the US to go into Afghanistan, but due to the utterly corrupt nature of the Bush/Cheney Presidency it soon turned into the bloody farce it has become, we don't even pretend that the Karzai government is remotely democratic now.

If there was any real international justice then both Bush and Cheney would be spending the rest of their lives behind bars for what they did to Iraq on no legal pretext.

And I certainly don't support what Khadr was fighting for, but he was doing it as a child and by abandoning him to what was in fact cruel and unusual punishment in Gitmo, the Harper government has acted to reduce all our rights. It doesn't get to choose who is and isn't protected by national and international law, that's the whole point in having them.
 
hunboldt
Free Thinker
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by CanaduhView Post

I'd say when he chose to fight for a foreign power he gave up any rights he once had as a Canadian citizen.



I can understand this, there is a big difference between allegedly being involved with a terrorist organization and being caught fighting for and killing friendly forces in the name of one.


Which is why he is doing time. The question is :
1. is he entitled to 10 million? Nay.
IS he entitled to transfer to minimum security? Yes.
 
tober
+2
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondoView Post

As a Canadian, I voluntarily forfiet my right to throw grenades at american soldiers. All in agreement, say aye!

Canada might need you to exercise that right some day. Whether or not it ever happens, you should not surrender the right. America is a foreign country, and not always a friendly one.

Quote: Originally Posted by hunboldtView Post

Which is why he is doing time. The question is :
1. is he entitled to 10 million? Nay.

No? How much are years of life and torture worth? How much should the government have to be penalized to make certain it understands that it cannot abandon Canadians because it doesn't like their politics? The question will have to be answered by the courts after evaluating the issues involved. If it doesn't cost the government big time, why shouldn't the government just keep doing it?
 
hunboldt
Free Thinker
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by toberView Post

Canada might need you to exercise that right some day. Whether or not it ever happens, you should not surrender the right. America is a foreign country, and not always a friendly one.



No? How much are years of life and torture worth? How much should the government have to be penalized to make certain it understands that it cannot abandon Canadians because it doesn't like their politics? The question will have to be answered by the courts after evaluating the issues involved. If it doesn't cost the government big time, why shouldn't the government just keep doing it?

For reasons I can't ascertain you are questioning my point #1`- the Supreme courts have decided that Mr. Khadr isn't entitled to the money. If you have anything that the court judgement erred in- produce it.

ITS produce OR BE QUIET TIME, MR TOBER.

On point # 2, he's been a model prisoner, which entitles release to minimum security. I realise that there is a certain baying for blood quorum in here, but that's normal for forums.
The folks that are insisting that he be 'released to the general populace to be executed haven't a CLUE how Min security works. Prisoner are prepping for release, and are pretty much 'live and let live'. The guards don't tolerate or reward murder gangs. Within its narrow limits, its a pretty rational place.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Send him to Afghanistan??? Now THAt is a good idea.

Yep. He can be bribed out by the ISI. Folks there would see him as just another 'reformed former fighting man." Karzai will hire him.
Great translating skills. The Chinese mining consortia will pick him up if the Afghan gov't doesn't

the Pakistani ISI exists to channel American funds to the various insurgents. Balances the pro US forces, keeps the funding flowing in.
 
tober
+1
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by hunboldtView Post

For reasons I can't ascertain you are questioning my point #1`- the Supreme courts have decided that Mr. Khadr isn't entitled to the money. If you have anything that the court judgement erred in- produce it.

ITS produce OR BE QUIET TIME, MR TOBER.

I didn't mean to offend and I was not contradicting you. My recollection is that you (or somebody) wrote that the case had been to the SCC and was going to go back to the lower courts. That usually means that an appeal was successful on a point of law but the appellate court was leaving it up to a trial court to correct the error by deciding the case in accordance with what the appellate court said. This usually happens with a new trial, because he first trial court is biased by reason of the previous trial. I don't know what the courts have said so far, but the matter must be going back to the lower courts for a reason.
Last edited by tober; Sep 26th, 2013 at 08:35 PM..
 

Similar Threads

119
Omar Khadr- Release him now
by JLM | Apr 30th, 2010
65
Omar Khadr- Where's the justice?
by JLM | Nov 24th, 2009
172
Omar Khadr....
by dancing-loon | Apr 23rd, 2009
2
Omar Khadr - Cheney link??
by dancing-loon | Mar 6th, 2008
no new posts