Khadr to get 10.5 million payment for treason.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
again, and again, and again. Whether he is guilty of what the americans accused him of, is moot when it comes to why the Government of Canada was sued and why they settled. How about you all try finding an argument, with back up, that the Government did not have a responsibility to get Khadr out of Gitmo and that Khadr was not, under international law that Canada signed onto, a child soldier.
Because in this situation the laws don't make any sense. They may make sense in other situations. But in this situation, I don't agree with them.
Hardly moot with an american corpse as evidence, of course our nato partner could have lied about the entire episode making it a moot point had the khadr clan not engaged u.s. forces in support of the taliban. Slice it any way you wish imo rewarding any dud(s) for risking a vacation in a war zone requires a cranium in search of some grey matter....trudough fills the bill.
The law suit that prompted this payment has NOTHING to do with his guilt or innocence. It only has to do with whether or not the Canadian government did right by a legal Canadian citizen.
As for the american corpse.... well.... it is small potatoes compared to the deaths brought about by the americans themselves.
The topic was discussed on "Cross Country Check Up" today. While I wasn't able to listen to all of it, the consensus seemed to be that the P.M. did the right thing. Guess he has to start sometime! 
I'm just curious about one thing. Can someone tell me what date, death in warfare started being classified as Murder?
I'm just curious about one thing. Can someone tell me what date, death in warfare started being classified as Murder?
The topic was discussed on "Cross Country Check Up" today. While I wasn't able to listen to all of it, the consensus seemed to be that the P.M. did the right thing. Guess he has to start sometime!
Not amongst the people I been talking to. Of course most of us don't like trudOWE to start with. However the main opinion is that the Canadian government did not send him to Afganistan, did not force him to join the Taliban, did not force him to murder an American soldier, did not send him to Gitmo bay. So our sole responsibility is to try to ensure he was treated properly by the US government. Since he or his family caused the problem in the first place we are not liable for his problems. The fact that the Canadian government got him out of Gitomo and into a cushy Canadian jail is more than he deserved. No different than anyone else that breaks the law in a foreign country.
...but that's only because you're an idiot. For people with an IQ greater than their shoe size, it has the appearance of an out of court settlement because the government broke it's own laws.
Not relevant. Sorry sunshine
They should have got him out of gitmo YEARS before they did. As in the first year he was in there. They didn't, they broke their own laws, they pay.
A citizen taking up arms against his regime anywhere else in the world is severely dealt with however it appears our charter is ambiguous about such matters giving trudough a mechanism to not only practice his hug a thug mania but reward it with taxpayer money. I'm quite sure the u.s. would vigorously resist if we tried to spring khadr from cuba so our options were limited. How a charter of rites and freedoms can be legislated that obliges gov to reward mutiny escapes me.
Really, strange, other countries, like Great Britain, managed to get their ADULT citizens released from gitmo into their custody. So, are you saying it's only Canada that would have had a problem?
So when did death caused during warfare become murder?
Regardless as a Canadian you are still a child at 15. Even in a worst case scenario no child in Canada has ever served more than 7 years for murder. (If in fact it was murder he committed)
Regardless as a Canadian you are still a child at 15. Even in a worst case scenario no child in Canada has ever served more than 7 years for murder. (If in fact it was murder he committed)
Veteran Blinded by Terrorist Omar Khadr Says Trudeau Guilty of Treason
http://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/07...st-omar-khadr-says-trudeau-guilty-of-treason/
http://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/07...st-omar-khadr-says-trudeau-guilty-of-treason/
Obviously the protection doesn't take into consideration certain important factors
If you disagree with the payout, what would you have said if he won his $20million lawsuit that was about to start?
Too bad Khadr didn't kill an American medic in Canada, those Canadian laws would be applicable.
Omar Khadr is NOT a ‘Child Soldier’ – as per UN laws
August 25, 2009
Just about everyone has heard of Omar Khadr: the one Canadian languishing in Guantanamo Bay detention camp.
Most people – whatever their views and opinions are on the circumstances that lead to his current predicament – agree that his situation is quite tragic. The kid never had a chance to grow up ‘normally’.
Born into a family which was legally in Canada, emotionally in Pakistan and philosophically in 8th century Arabia, his childhood could not be considered ‘normal’ by any standards.
Both his parents were religious fanatics (his mother still is, his father gave his life to conduct violent jihad). He was physically bumped around, from living in the ‘Secular West’ at some points to a Muslim school in Pakistan to terrorist training camps. His sister was given in marriage at the age of 15 to an Al-Qaeda buddy of her father (the wedding is said to have been attended by Osama himself), his brothers actively conducted violent jihad (not all survived), and so on.
This is a very, very important decision: whatever action is taken (on not taken) on behalf of Omar Khadr will set THE legal precedent for future situation that are similar.
In order to make the best possible decision, we must objectively examine what Omar Khadr is – and what he is not.
This is an essential step, because it will define under which circumstances the legal precedent set by the ‘Omar Khadr case’ will be applicable.
The most common description of Omar Khadr one hears in the MSM (mainstream media) – as well as one often repeated by his defense lawyers – is that Omar Khadr is a ‘Child Soldier’.
So, let us examine if this is the case:
Is Omar Khadr a ‘Child Soldier’?
The definition of ‘Child Soldier’ has two parts: ‘Child’ and ‘Soldier’.
First: is Omar Khadr a ‘Soldier’?
No, he is not.
At least, not according to the UN laws on the matter (or any other law I am aware of which defines who is, and who is not, a ‘soldier’).
The UN laws were written in order to protect the innocent civilians who get in the way of a war first, then the protection of legitimate soldiers second. And, they are very clear on who is and who is not a ‘soldier’ (again – basic Wikipedia search provides clear answers – but much more material confirming this is easily available through any major search engine…):
‘To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a “fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance” and bear arms openly.’
Omar Khadr, unfortunately, does not satisfy these qualifications.
Not only was he not a part of a recognized military ‘chain of command’, and not wearing any ‘badges’ or ‘distinctive markings’ that could, even remotely, be construed as ‘uniform’ or ‘fixed distinctive marking’: the crime he is accused of having committed is against the laws and customs of war.
Therefore, Omar Khadr DOES NOT satisfy the qualifications of having the status of a ‘soldier’. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a ‘soldier’: a ‘Child Soldier’, an ‘adult soldier’, or any other kind of ‘soldier’.
But, even if Omar Khadr were a ‘Soldier’: would he qualify as a ‘Child Soldier’?
Omar Khadr was aged 15 when he was detained by UN troops and when the premeditated murder of a UN non-combatant medic, which he is accused of having committed, occurred.
Different people mature at different rates: at 15, some people really are still children while others are quite adult. Both individual maturing rates and cultural influences are important in determining if a 15-year-old is ‘an adult’ or ‘a child’. What does the law say?
Omar Khadr straddled two cultures:
- In Canada, a 15-year old is, legally, a child.
- Still, 15-year-olds are able to become emancipated, and legally become adults.
- Under some circumstances, non-emancipated 15-year-olds are charged with crimes as adults – so the ‘legal precedent’ can be applied both ways: it is a bit of a legal ‘gray area’ in Canada.
- In Islamist culture, a 15-year-old is considered to be an adult, without any reservations.
- The Khadr family certainly considers 15 years of age to be ‘adult’ – that is the age at which their daughter was given away in marriage!
OK, ok – so, the ‘multiculturalism’ thing is kind of messed up – and we all know it. Let’s look elsewhere:
What does the International Human Rights Law have to say on the subject?
International humanitarian law
According to Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977:
According to Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977:
‘The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.’
Well, that seems rather clear: once a person has reached the age of 15, he/she cannot be considered to be a ‘Child Soldier’ – even though it’s better to recruit people who are over the age of 18…. 15-year-olds are ‘regular soldiers’!
Omar Khadr HAD ‘attained the age of fifteen years’ – so he IS, according to international law, ‘regular soldier’!
In other words, legally, Omar Khadr CANNOT be considered a ‘Child Soldier’, because he is not a ‘Child’: he would have had to have been FOURTEEN years of age or younger in order to be considered a ‘Child Soldier’!