Omar Khadr cashes in

[kelownabomberfan]

I wonder how drunk Elizabeth May is right now celebrating?

 

[kcin94]

Government  of Canada can't figure out how to pay their federal employees, but can figure out how to pay this guy.

 

If this was a foreign country, look at the optics.

 

Someone kills a US medic. Gets put in jail. The country faciliates his release and then gives him a big payday. We would be accusing them of state sponsered terrorism.

[kelownabomberfan]

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-i-suspect-mr-trudeau-will-skip-the-theme-socks-for-the-omar-khadr-apology/wcm/05aa6ed9-bbe2-4976-bedc-219efac565df

[SpeedFlex27]

Now we're rewarding terrorists. Khadr is scum as is his entire family. This will haunt Trudeau right into the next election.

Edited July 10, 2017 by SpeedFlex27

[Mark H.]

The Supreme Court made the decision and awarded the money, not the PM. 

[SpeedFlex27]

1 hour ago, Mark H. said:

The Supreme Court made the decision and awarded the money, not the PM. 

No, the law is the law but the apology & the award was not done by the courts. It was a negotiated settlement by the Trudeau government lawyers & Khadr's. What makes it more sinister was that it was done in secrecy so that the lawsuit filed in the States by Khadr's victims & their families would not get the money. The award was leaked by someone inside the federal government. This will rightly be a yoke around Trudeau's neck played into the election in 2019. You can bet the Conservatives won't let this disappear after this current news cycle. A lot of Canadians won't forget this.

Edited July 10, 2017 by SpeedFlex27

[Jacquie]

There are pages of discussion on this topic in the Random News Thread - no need for a new  thread.

1) The Government was being sued for $20M and negotiated a settlement because there was no way they could win a civil suit that had Supreme Court decisions in the plaintiff's favour. 

2) There is very little chance any of the settlement proceeds would have gone to the widow :

Quote

“They can still try to enforce that judgment … but the court in Canada has to weigh whether the foreign judgment was arrived at properly before deciding whether to enforce it,” Prof. Attaran said. “... Khadr was in prison [at the time of the ruling] and therefore, it shouldn’t be recognized. There is also a broad legal authority that if a judgment is unconscionable it shouldn’t be enforced, and this one is clearly unconscionable because it is an attempt to hold a child soldier liable.”

3) Khadr is appealing his conviction and given how many other convictions stemming from Gitmo have been overturned it is pretty likely his will be too. 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Jacquie

[The Unknown Poster]

No,the Trudeau government voluntarily paid off a terrorist and members of the party have spoken in defense of this guy. 

By the way, there was never any evidence he was "tortured".  He flat out lied about his alleged mistreatment.

Still surprised by the mental gymnastics some are using to defend this.  Its one thing to defend the law but to not even condone this terrorist?  Very sad.

[Mark H.]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

No,the Trudeau government voluntarily paid off a terrorist and members of the party have spoken in defense of this guy. 

By the way, there was never any evidence he was "tortured".  He flat out lied about his alleged mistreatment.

Still surprised by the mental gymnastics some are using to defend this.  Its one thing to defend the law but to not even condone this terrorist?  Very sad.

The same amount of mental gymnastics are being used to make it appear cut and dried. 

[The Unknown Poster]

32 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

The same amount of mental gymnastics are being used to make it appear cut and dried. 

Yes I agree.  Cut and dried in the sense the government had no choice and this terrorist was tortured so he deserves to be paid off.  None of that is true.

[blue_gold_84]

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yes I agree.  Cut and dried in the sense the government had no choice and this terrorist was tortured so he deserves to be paid off.  None of that is true.

What was the alternative? Fight him in court and drag it out longer for much more than the payout was...?

The SCoC determined unanimously several years ago that his human rights were violated. That's why the current gov't chose to pay him compensation and apologize, which is basically closure at this point. The same way the previous gov't paid compensation and apologized to Arar for his having being mistreated/mishandled by government officials.

The optics of this whole debacle are ugly as hell, even without those feeling compelled to politicize it for their own interests.

[The Unknown Poster]

10 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

What was the alternative? Fight him in court and drag it out longer for much more than the payout was...?

The SCoC determined unanimously several years ago that his human rights were violated. That's why the current gov't chose to pay him compensation and apologize, which is basically closure at this point. The same way the previous gov't paid compensation and apologized to Arar for his having being mistreated/mishandled by government officials.

The optics of this whole debacle are ugly as hell, even without those feeling compelled to politicize it for their own interests.

Im neither a lawyer or a politician but there seems to be many of those that disagree with this.  And yes, I'd respect a government that fought til the bitter end.  And I'd respect even more a government that didnt try to keep it a secret so the widow had less of a chance to get involved.  Thats the problem with the Khadr apologists - the government wanted this kept quiet.  Whether the widow had a good chance or a slim chance isnt the issue, it seems our government assisted a terrorist in ensuring she had NO chance.  The government chose the terrorist over the widow of a slain ally.

We can argue semantics all day long.  The goal posts keep getting moved.  He was tortured.  Well no he wasnt.  He was coerced.  Nope.  He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Nope.  He was forced into it.  meh.  he didnt throw a grenade.  Who cares.  He's a Canadian. so what. 

The question I have which is more pressing, if a Canadian citizen leaves Canada and joins a terrorist group and fights on their behalf, does he get to come home and get a job at Burger King like nothing happened? 

No one here is arguing the Supreme Court ruling didnt happen.  The side against this deal acknowledges the points on the other side.  it seems those in favour of this deal are avoiding any sort of condemnation of this terrorist.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Can someone explain to me how The widow is suing for $134 million?

I don't understand how she gets money and no other widow on either side of the conflict gets this compensation...

 

[The Unknown Poster]

27 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Can someone explain to me how The widow is suing for $134 million?

I don't understand how she gets money and no other widow on either side of the conflict gets this compensation...

 

Her husband was killed when Khadr threw a grenade.  He plead guilty, admitted he did it.  She sued for compensation and won a judgement.  Probably a moral victory since she'd have to try to enforce it and, as we all know, this wonderful man is Canadian.

But what many people find troubling is, even though the widow's efforts to enforce the judgement here would be slim, the Canadian government appears to have gone out of it's way to help Khadr avoid any issues over his compensation.  Satisfying the law is one thing, aiding a known terrorist in funneling funds to who-knows-where is something else entirely.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Her husband was killed when Khadr threw a grenade.  He plead guilty, admitted he did it.  She sued for compensation and won a judgement.  Probably a moral victory since she'd have to try to enforce it and, as we all know, this wonderful man is Canadian.

But what many people find troubling is, even though the widow's efforts to enforce the judgement here would be slim, the Canadian government appears to have gone out of it's way to help Khadr avoid any issues over his compensation.  Satisfying the law is one thing, aiding a known terrorist in funneling funds to who-knows-where is something else entirely.

That's not cool in any way shape or form, I wonder what their explaination for that is going to be...

 

Just did a little research on the suit- seems they won the suit by default because OK could not show up for his defense and the Judge awarded it by default.

I fail to understand how OK was not considered a child-soldier and treated as such? The 'Mericans are a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

 

 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

11 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

That's not cool in any way shape or form, I wonder what their explaination for that is going to be...

 

Just did a little research on the suit- seems they won the suit by default because OK could not show up for his defense and the Judge awarded it by default.

I fail to understand how OK was not considered a child-soldier and treated as such? The 'Mericans are a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

 

 

 

That's really the contentious issue.  And I think it resonates with a lot of people.  if you're going on 16 years old and kill someone in Canada or the US you can be tried as an adult.  Even tried as a child there is a strong desire by many to put more emphasis on consequences than sometimes happens.

It seems Canada felt that his actions, which he admitted were enough to treat him like you'd treat a non-terrorist accused of a similar crime - as an adult which is difficult to argue with.

What's interesting, the head of War Child, which I guess is a lobby group that tries to stop children being used as soldiers, while being critical of Canada acknowledged that there is no doubt Khadr is guilty.

So when you take on face value that at nearly 16 years old, this guy was making bombs with the intent of killing soldiers, engaged in fire fights and killed a soldier while maiming another, its difficult for a lot of people to say he should get off, even if technically he's to be classified as a "child" and given a pass.  Is what he did less heinous than a regular Canadian 15 year old committing a well thought out crime of murder?

Even you accept that he paid his debt by being kept in Cuba by the US, why are we apologizing and giving him money.  For some, an apology on behalf of all Canadians is the most disgusting aspect.  For others, giving a terrorist $10 million dollars, a guy who is from a terrorist family which has financed terror activities in the past, is outrageous and complicit.  And when you consider the government seemingly aided this convicted murderer in keeping his money away from the widow of the man he killed, its really really distasteful.

And the only argument in favour of cuddling the terrorist seems to be "well, the supreme court says so".  Be that as it may, the Supreme Court got it wrong.  And either way, surely the intent of the Charter was not to coddle, reward and assist murders and become complicit in the potential funding of terrorist activity.

Canada just donated $10 million to a terrorist with ties to organizing terror financing. 

Edited July 10, 2017 by The Unknown Poster

[Jacquie]

3 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yes I agree.  Cut and dried in the sense the government had no choice and this terrorist was tortured so he deserves to be paid off.  None of that is true.

You keep claiming there is no proof of torture yet Canadian officials acknowledged there was torture and it was specifically referenced by the Supreme Court of Canada. It's also well known that the Bush government condoned torture at US detention centres. 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, Jacquie said:

You keep claiming there is no proof of torture yet Canadian officials acknowledged there was torture and it was specifically referenced by the Supreme Court of Canada. It's also well known that the Bush government condoned torture at US detention centres. 

 

You'll have to provide a definition of torture.  Because "sleep deprivation" is not likely to be considered torture by many Canadians looking at this case.

However, opinion aside, I was referencing the facts of the case where the US judge rejected the claims of torture.  He further rejected claims that Khadr was coerced into a confession.  And in one instance, Khadr claimed he was mis treated during a specific time but unfortunately for him, that incident was video taped and nothing he said took place.  He lied.

I guess we could give an admitted killer and bomb maker, proven liar and terrorist and a guy who even the child solider lobby agrees is absolutely guilty, the benefit of the doubt but why?

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

41 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You'll have to provide a definition of torture.  Because "sleep deprivation" is not likely to be considered torture by many Canadians looking at this case.

However, opinion aside, I was referencing the facts of the case where the US judge rejected the claims of torture.  He further rejected claims that Khadr was coerced into a confession.  And in one instance, Khadr claimed he was mis treated during a specific time but unfortunately for him, that incident was video taped and nothing he said took place.  He lied.

I guess we could give an admitted killer and bomb maker, proven liar and terrorist and a guy who even the child solider lobby agrees is absolutely guilty, the benefit of the doubt but why?

I found this a well sourced (but left biased) bit of reporting that was very informative and parsed the Omar Khadr ordeal. Beware- there is a left slant, but it is factual. 

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/07/opinion/what-if-omar-khadr-isnt-guilty

 

I checked with mediabiasfactcheck.com and the National Observer comes out at:

LEFT-CENTER BIAS but 

Factual Reporting: HIGH

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-observer-canada/

 

Worth a read if not only to further the debate.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I found this a well sourced (but left biased) bit of reporting that was very informative and parsed the Omar Khadr ordeal. Beware- there is a left slant, but it is factual. 

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/07/opinion/what-if-omar-khadr-isnt-guilty

 

I checked with mediabiasfactcheck.com and the National Observer comes out at:

LEFT-CENTER BIAS but 

Factual Reporting: HIGH

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-observer-canada/

 

Worth a read if not only to further the debate.

 

 Its entitled "what if he's innocent".  Cant we apply that to literally anyone who is convicted of a crime?

At what point do we simply let everyone go? 

Im usually more of a bleeding heart when it comes to this stuff.  But not in this case.  Too much evidence to support the fact he was a terrorist making IED's and was engaged in that fight where the soldier was killed.  He admitted it.  He lied about his treatment by the Americans.

Canada's duty was to bring him back (and we can hope that he had been charged here as well).  The real victim is that soldier who was killed and his family.  What do they get?

I think this issue has been clouded by the anti-American crowd and the Muslim Extremist apologists.  Remember after the Boston Bombing, Trudeau said we (as in the ones the bombers hated and wished dead) should think about what we did to make them kill us.  It was our fault.  We're the bad guys.  Trudeaus answer is to apologize for making someone hate us and give them a cheque.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

 Its entitled "what if he's innocent".  Cant we apply that to literally anyone who is convicted of a crime?

At what point do we simply let everyone go? 

Im usually more of a bleeding heart when it comes to this stuff.  But not in this case.  Too much evidence to support the fact he was a terrorist making IED's and was engaged in that fight where the soldier was killed.  He admitted it.  He lied about his treatment by the Americans.

Canada's duty was to bring him back (and we can hope that he had been charged here as well).  The real victim is that soldier who was killed and his family.  What do they get?

I think this issue has been clouded by the anti-American crowd and the Muslim Extremist apologists.  Remember after the Boston Bombing, Trudeau said we (as in the ones the bombers hated and wished dead) should think about what we did to make them kill us.  It was our fault.  We're the bad guys.  Trudeaus answer is to apologize for making someone hate us and give them a cheque.

Trudeau and the payout aside (I am not entirely sold on the pay out and apology), give the article a read. If anything, it is another perspective- unless you are not open to that sort of thing.

Edited July 10, 2017 by wanna-b-fanboy

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Trudeau and the payout aside, give the article a read. If anything, it is another perspective- unless you are not open to that sort of thing.

I did read it.  I've read a lot on this.  I was just pointing out that any article that posits the position "what if we're wrong", well, they've undermined every criminal conviction in history.

[Atomic]

The author, Sandy Garossino, is certainly left-biased but I find her articles to generally be quite fair.  She is very credible when it comes to law-related issues.  And in this article she makes some great points about whether Omar Khadr was guilty of throwing the grenade or not.

But (and I can't speak for everyone on this, only my own opinion), the issue is not whether he threw the grenade.  The issue is that he was part of a terrorist organization (that's a fact) and we just apologized to him and gave him 10 million dollars.

[The Unknown Poster]

13 minutes ago, Atomic said:

The author, Sandy Garossino, is certainly left-biased but I find her articles to generally be quite fair.  She is very credible when it comes to law-related issues.  And in this article she makes some great points about whether Omar Khadr was guilty of throwing the grenade or not.

But (and I can't speak for everyone on this, only my own opinion), the issue is not whether he threw the grenade.  The issue is that he was part of a terrorist organization (that's a fact) and we just apologized to him and gave him 10 million dollars.

I agree.  People getting caught up in the details of whether the grenade left his hand are missing the point and it doesnt really matter either way.