Omar Khadr cashes in

[basslicker]

11 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

was getting Khadr out of Gitmo asap really an option?  He was a terrorist who killed an unarmed medic.  Not sure how you just "get him out of Gitmo".  He also was the lone survivor of a really bad bunch of Taliban scum.  He had information.  That information probably saved a lot of lives. 

I heard that technically, he wasn't serving as a medic at the time, but had been in the past.  He was a part of an elite squad.

But nonetheless I agree with the majority of what you said.  Medic or no, Khadr killed a member of our ally's forces.

[Wideleft]

1 minute ago, kelownabomberfan said:

and sometimes governments should actually take terrorist scumbag murderers to court and let the courts decide what he should be paid for his "charter rights being violated".  The Charter works when it is used to defend innocent people unjustly accused.  To see it pulled out of people's rectums in this case to defend a murdering scumbag really just shows how laws have to evolve over time, as they may have unintended consequences.

That was the U.S. military's first mistake.  They didn't.  Speaking of laws that evolve - the US also made up a new law saying that soldiers could now be considered "terrorists" - whatever that means.  Khadr was arrested, detained and convicted without the benefit of a lawyer or trial.

Canada's mistake was failing to prevent them from doing so.  As for him being a murderer - that simply hasn't been proven.  Saying it more loudly or more angrily won't change that.

This is an application of law.  Take the facts of this case and remove Khadr from the equation and replace him with any Joe Shmoe.  Then consider if what Canada did was ok.  I'm not a lawyer, but if you can prevent emotion from affecting objectivity, this is pretty simple.  The Supreme Court found in Khadr's favour.  Fighting it would have resulted in a loss of time and probably more money.

[Wideleft]

Just now, basslicker said:

I heard that technically, he wasn't serving as a medic at the time, but had been in the past.  He was a part of an elite squad.

But nonetheless I agree with the majority of what you said.  Medic or no, Khadr killed a member of our ally's forces.

That still has not been proven.  Facts are important to this discussion.

[blue_gold_84]

Just now, basslicker said:

Whoa dude, you have some cooling down to do son.

At the end of the day, the government was under no obligation to pay Khadr anything.  There was no money mentioned in the ruling about his rights being violated.

His reward is being allowed to come back to Canada a free man.  Something he didn't deserve but received anyways.  What's most sick about this whole thing is that our own troops that come back with a lost limb can only receive a max payout of $300k, and this terrorist gets millions.

More clueless commentary. Well done.

I suggest you read up in the links provided in this thread and get a better idea of what's actually going on, instead of telling others to cool down.

[basslicker]

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎11 at 6:11 PM, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Yeah, he must have been what... 13 maybe 14 in that pic- If you don't understand the notion of child soldier, then that piece is lost on you. If you don't believe that the charter of rights extends to EVERY Canadian, then yeah, that piece is lost on you. 

I don't even think you read that article. So keep your snark to yourself.

 

 

I don't buy the child B.S.

No 15 (just short of 16) year old is a child.  That is a young man, a young adult. 

But please, keep on siding with a young man who attacked and killed one our allies......a service member of our closest and greatest ally.

 

*EDIT*  The age minimum of 18 has not even been accepted by the entire international community yet.  As of 2000 it was still 15 in many places.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule136

 

Edited July 13, 2017 by basslicker
Additional info

[kelownabomberfan]

3 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Canada's mistake was failing to prevent them from doing so.  As for him being a murderer - that simply hasn't been proven.  Saying it more loudly or more angrily won't change that.

This is an application of law.  Take the facts of this case and remove Khadr from the equation and replace him with any Joe Shmoe.  Then consider if what Canada did was ok.  I'm not a lawyer, but if you can prevent emotion from affecting objectivity, this is pretty simple.  The Supreme Court found in Khadr's favour.  Fighting it would have resulted in a loss of time and probably more money.

How was Canada supposed to prevent the US from incarcerating a murderer found in Afghanistan?  How were they to know he was even "Canadian"?  As for the fighting this thing would have resulted in more money, I just will never agree that that is true, and in fact just justification for Trudeau fans to let Justin slide off the hook instead of holding him accountable for a really bad decision.

[kelownabomberfan]

4 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

That still has not been proven.  Facts are important to this discussion.

What hasn't been proven?  You are saying that Speer is still alive?  Really?

[basslicker]

3 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

That still has not been proven.  Facts are important to this discussion.

Which part is unproven, the slain American serving as a medic or not, or whether Khadr killed him or not?

I was listening to CBC the other day and the Journalist who interviewed Khadr many times mentioned the medic aspect.

[bearpants]

16 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

was getting Khadr out of Gitmo asap really an option?  He was a terrorist who killed an unarmed medic.  Not sure how you just "get him out of Gitmo".  He also was the lone survivor of a really bad bunch of Taliban scum.  He had information.  That information probably saved a lot of lives. 

You're absolutely right... getting him was probably whole lot easier said than done... just seems to me that is where they went wrong... from what I've read, it "sounds" like there wasn't too much effort and it seems like Canada had just as much interest in keeping him there (for information acquisition purposes) as the US did anyways... and of course, it's a lot easier to make that determination in hindsight...

[basslicker]

1 minute ago, bearpants said:

You're absolutely right... getting him was probably whole lot easier said than done... just seems to me that is where they went wrong... from what I've read, it "sounds" like there wasn't too much effort and it seems like Canada had just as much interest in keeping him there (for information acquisition purposes) as the US did anyways... and of course, it's a lot easier to make that determination in hindsight...

I imagine we did, to some point, want him to stay there.  He was an enemy combatant and a possible fountain of useful info, what with his father and family having close ties to known terrorist groups.

[Wideleft]

10 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

What hasn't been proven?  You are saying that Speer is still alive?  Really?

That Khadr was the person who actually killed him.  I'm not saying he was totally innocent - but the US military reports of the incident did change over time.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Wideleft

[Wideleft]

8 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

How was Canada supposed to prevent the US from incarcerating a murderer found in Afghanistan?  How were they to know he was even "Canadian"?  As for the fighting this thing would have resulted in more money, I just will never agree that that is true, and in fact just justification for Trudeau fans to let Justin slide off the hook instead of holding him accountable for a really bad decision.

[Wideleft]

5 minutes ago, basslicker said:

I imagine we did, to some point, want him to stay there.  He was an enemy combatant and a possible fountain of useful info, what with his father and family having close ties to known terrorist groups.

My guess is those are minor factors in comparison to the political capital gained by the Canadian Government in letting him rot there.

[Wideleft]

13 minutes ago, basslicker said:

Which part is unproven, the slain American serving as a medic or not, or whether Khadr killed him or not?

I was listening to CBC the other day and the Journalist who interviewed Khadr many times mentioned the medic aspect.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-army-altered-khadr-report/article668919/  

"In the report's first version, penned the day after the firefight and dated July 28, 2002, the commander identified in court as "Lt.-Clnl. W" says U.S. troops killed the person who attacked Sgt. Speer. Several months later, the report was rewritten to say U.S. troops "engaged" the person who attacked Sgt. Speer, implying the attacker was not killed."

The implications for Mr. Khadr are significant. If the person who attacked Sgt. Speer was himself killed, it could not have been Mr. Khadr. He faces a murder charge in relation to the killing, and the possibility of a life sentence if convicted.

Mr. Khadr's U.S. military lawyer, Lieutenant-Commander Bill Kuebler, revealed the previously secret information at the tribunal yesterday. The prosecution did not contest his account."

Edited July 12, 2017 by Wideleft

[kelownabomberfan]

10 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

That Khadr was the person who actually killed him.  

[voodoochylde]

Hey guys.

 I'll just step in here and ask that we keep all the commentary on the topic and not each other.  

Gracias.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

33 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

What hasn't been proven?  You are saying that Speer is still alive?  Really?

If you would have taken a moment to click on some of those links, you would see that the evidence to convict isn't as rock solid as some would want you to believe. I would link it here... but I know you won't even bother, it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

So I will just quote it here and bold some points for you.

Quote

Inconsistent and inaccurate statements from the prosecution

There was lots to choose from. The U.S. military reports and filed statements describe a hodge-podge of confusing and inconsistent positions, including the following range of scenarios:

(1) The assault team entered, encountered and returned enemy fire and killed the shooter. Omar Khadr, positioned behind a crumbling wall, then threw a grenade at a group of soldiers who were talking. He did not consider them a threat to his safety, but just planned to kill as many Americans as he could (U.S. government stipulation of facts, 2010, paragraphs 41-43, agreed to by Khadr in his guilty plea);

(2) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire, including a thrown grenade. They shot and captured Khadr, who was the only survivor in the compound during the exchange. Being the only survivor, Khadr must have killed Speer (false public position of U.S. military until 2008, as per CBC report);

(3) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire, including a thrown grenade. They killed the shooter who also threw the grenade. They then captured Khadr, who did not throw the grenade (Report by Maj. Randy Watt, senior U.S. officer at battle, July 28, 2002);

(4) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire and a witness identified as OC-1 saw a grenade thrown over a wall. Because of the timing of the shooting and grenade, he did not believe one person could have done both. OC-1 killed the shooter. He then found Khadr seated and facing away from the assault team and shot him in the back. According to OC-1, Khadr was the only person who could have killed Speer (Statement by witness OC-1, dated March 17, 2004, almost two years after the event);

(5) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire and saw a grenade thrown over a wall. They killed the shooter and two Delta Force members confronted Khadr, who was armed and stood facing them. They shot him in the chest (per summary of statements, originally reported by Michelle Shephard in the Toronto Star);

(6) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire and saw a grenade thrown over a wall. Soldiers outside the compound were also throwing grenades in response to the firefight. U.S. forces first killed the shooter, then shot and captured Khadr (per Los Angeles Times report of statement evidence). This opens the possibility that friendly fire accidentally killed Speer.

OR

(7) The photos:

The photo on the left, taken in Ayub Kheyl in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002, shows the scene found by the assault team approaching the area where the shooter was killed. Khadr lies beneath the rubble, apparently beneath a collapsed roof. The photo on the right shows Khadr (figure highlighted) after debris has been pulled back. Classified photos obtained by the Toronto Star from an 18-page submission presented in 2009 by Khadr's former military defence team to an Obama administration task force investigating Guantanamo.

Clearly, the multiple positions and reports advanced by the prosecution can't all be true. In all, either the shooter, or Khadr, or possibly American forces threw the grenade that killed Speer. Some of the reports make no sense at all, and some are clearly false.

Consistency, credibility and reliability are essential to a strong prosecution, and this case was on thin ice.

Photo evidence disastrous for the prosecution

Then came the photographs of the combat scene obtained by the Toronto Star in 2009, which can only be seen as disastrous for the prosecution.

The two photos above apparently depict the scene as found by the assault team in the area where the shooter was killed. The first photo on the left shows the body of the shooter killed in the firefight next to what appears to be a pile of rubble and brush. Omar Khadr was found alive beneath that rubble.

According to the Star, military documents indicate that "a soldier stood on top of Khadr's body before realizing someone was buried."

The second photo on the right—enhanced by the Star for clarity—shows the brush and rubble pulled back to expose Khadr, with bullet entry wounds clearly visible on his back.

In the third photo below, which shows Khadr receiving battlefield first aid (the graphic damage of his exit wounds are obscured), clearly visible is the dried blood from the shrapnel wound to his left eye. Khadr's face is coated in dirt, consistent with being buried in rubble.

Khadr receives battlefield first aid after being injured during a fight in Ayub Kheyl, Afghanistan on July 27, 2002. Graphic exit wounds have been obscured. Photo from Wikimedia Commons, originally obtained by Toronto Star

Khadr could not have thrown the grenade and then completely buried himself under rocks and debris in just a few seconds before the special forces team arrived.

Of all the positions taken by the prosecution above, only (3) and (6) are consistent with the photographs taken in the immediate aftermath of the firefight. Neither version implicates Khadr. Version (3) is the incident report submitted by the senior officer on site the day after the battle, which completely exonerates him.

The only evidence that ties Khadr to the grenade is the statement of OC-1 in version (4), given to investigators almost two years after the event. But OC-1's statement that he found Khadr sitting up and leaning against brush is sharply at variance with photograph 1, in which Khadr lies completely buried under rocks and brush.

 

That's not a small problem for the prosecution. It's a big one.

If the photograph is an accurate depiction of the scene as the special forces team found it, OC-1's statement can't be true. It's more likely that OC-1 discovered Khadr under the rubble after he shot the other combatant, then shot him in the back as he lay there.

It gets worse. The prosecution's bigger problem is that its official version (1) makes no sense at all when read with the photographs. Below is the relevant text of the U.S. government's stipulation of facts:

A screenshot of the U.S. government's stipulation of facts in October 2010 regarding the events that led to Sgt. Christopher Speer's death in Afghanistan in 2002, as accepted by Omar Khadr

Clearly, paragraphs 42 and 43 are drafted to defeat any argument that Khadr threw the grenade in self-defence. It's drafted to cast him as the aggressor who, unprovoked, attacked a peaceful group of soldiers clearing up a battle site after a firefight with the other combatant. But that is wholly inconsistent with a photo of Khadr buried in rocks and rubble, lying within inches of his dead compatriot.

Unless the shooter's body had been moved, Khadr was lying under the debris immediately next to him during the firefight. According to OC-1, he shot both the shooter and Khadr within a few seconds of each other.

This doesn't make sense either. Khadr didn't watch his compatriot get killed, throw a grenade, then cover himself in rocks and sticks and wait to be discovered. And what about the Star's account of military documents reporting that a soldier didn't even realize Khadr was there until he stood on him?

Military evidence makes a better case for innocence than guilt

So far, this is all the prosecution's own evidence, and it's a mess before the defence calls a single witness. Without Khadr's confession, obtained essentially by force, there is no compelling evidence that he threw any grenade at all. No one saw him do it, and from all appearances he'd been under that rubble the entire time.

From what’s publicly available at this point, the evidence pointing to guilt is weak and speculative. Taken as a whole, it doesn't really make sense. Multiple statements contradict each other and run all over the map.

These are not small inconsistencies. Something is seriously wrong with the prosecution's account.

Without Khadr's confession, the evidence fails its first and most basic test: that of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt through credible, reliable and consistent evidence that Khadr threw the grenade that struck and killed Sgt. Speer.

So what about that confession?

As is well known today, false confessions are common, especially with malleable young people under duress. The intensity and abusiveness of Khadr's interrogation is unprecedented in law-abiding countries. It's probably fair to say that in 2002 the U.S. military was far more concerned with learning whatever it could about Al Qaeda from Khadr than with getting an admissible voluntary statement for a criminal trial.

The priority was to find and kill Osama bin Laden, and to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

That interrogators went too far is now common knowledge. But the problem with torturous or abusive questioning isn't just that it violates the prisoner's rights, but that subjects will give false information to escape the agony.

Today, Khadr says that he confessed to false things just to please his interrogators and stop the pain, and there's evidence to back that up. For instance, we know that under pressure Khadr falsely identified Maher Arar as having stayed at terrorist safe houses in Afghanistan, when Arar had never been to the country.

It's far more believable that Khadr confessed to stop the pain than that his confession is true. The photographs and the known chronology make it extremely unlikely that he could have thrown the grenade.

Yet without that confession, the prosecution had no case.

First, freshest and best military report points to innocence

The U.S. military’s first, freshest and probably best report of the incident, based on contemporaneous eye-witness accounts by the soldiers involved, was submitted by Maj. Randy Watt the day after the firefight. That report described scenario (3), in which it was believed that the grenade was thrown by the shooter.

It's also consistent with and corroborated by the photographs taken at the scene, where only the shooter would have been in a position to throw the grenade.

However, according to the CBC (at 15:30 in the video), that report was itself subsequently altered without documentation or explanation.

That first report, which contains the best evidence exonerating Khadr, remains today the most coherent account of the events of that day.

Even if it could be established that Khadr did throw the grenade in the middle of a firefight, given his proximity to the shooter it's impossible to rule out self-defence. The stipulation of facts cannot be true.

After all these years and coverage, it's plain that any competent defence lawyer could run a Mack truck through this case in a conventional criminal court.

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by wanna-b-fanboy

[kelownabomberfan]

1 minute ago, voodoochylde said:

Hey guys.

 I'll just step in here and ask that we keep all the commentary on the topic and not each other.  

Gracias.

yes this is rapidly falling apart.  We have diametrically opposed views that aren't going to change, no matter what is stated or said.  It's amazing to me that this discussion once again seems to be falling on political views, instead of on the actual situation.  If you take a step back, it's obvious that this was a sickening outcome.  A bad person was paid out secretly to deliberately screw over the widow.  That to me is inexcusable.

As there is no point continuing this discussion with those that seem committed to defending a murdering Taliban scumbag, I'm out.

[blue_gold_84]

3 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

If you would have taken a moment to click on some of those links, you would see that the evidence to convict isn't as rock solid as some would want you to believe. I would link it here... but I know you won't even bother, it doesn't fit your narrative.

There is ample information provided here to show what took place and why the settlement was paid, but it gets wilfully and easily ignored.

Confirmation bias is a really unfortunate affliction.

[voodoochylde]

Just now, kelownabomberfan said:

yes this is rapidly falling apart.  We have diametrically opposed views that aren't going to change, no matter what is stated or said.  It's amazing to me that this discussion once again seems to be falling on political views, instead of on the actual situation.  If you take a step back, it's obvious that this was a sickening outcome.  A bad person was paid out secretly to deliberately screw over the widow.  That to me is inexcusable.

As there is no point continuing this discussion with those that seem committed to defending a murdering Taliban scumbag, I'm out.

Hyperbole from either side does nothing to advance the discussion.  I would encourage anyone who is presented with an argument (or evidence) that contradicts their view to look critically at it .. research it .. find holes in it .. then present an intelligent counter argument to refute that point.  The inability to reason through this is more ideological than it is political (though politics is a central theme to the ongoing discussion).

It's not enough to say it's true because I believe it .. I would expect anyone with strong convictions to say that it's true because I believe it, here's why and here's where your argument falls short.

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

16 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

yes this is rapidly falling apart.  We have diametrically opposed views that aren't going to change, no matter what is stated or said.  It's amazing to me that this discussion once again seems to be falling on political views, instead of on the actual situation.  If you take a step back, it's obvious that this was a sickening outcome.  A bad person was paid out secretly to deliberately screw over the widow.  That to me is inexcusable.

As there is no point continuing this discussion with those that seem committed to defending a murdering Taliban scumbag, I'm out.

If you take facts into consideration, people's views are moot. Seriously, give the above article section a quick read and come back to the table and pick it apart. That would be awesome. 

[sweep the leg]

39 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

yes this is rapidly falling apart.  We have diametrically opposed views that aren't going to change, no matter what is stated or said.  It's amazing to me that this discussion once again seems to be falling on political views, instead of on the actual situation.  If you take a step back, it's obvious that this was a sickening outcome.  A bad person was paid out secretly to deliberately screw over the widow.  That to me is inexcusable.

As there is no point continuing this discussion with those that seem committed to defending a murdering Taliban scumbag, I'm out.

Lol. This is the worst attempt at being the bigger person that I've ever seen.

[Atomic]

21 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

If you take facts into consideration, people's views are moot. Seriously, give the above article section a quick read and come back to the table and pick it apart. That would be awesome. 

That article is all about whether he threw the grenade or not.  But that's only one part of the issue, although it does seem to get the most focus.

Whether he threw it or not, he abandoned Canada and joined a terrorist organization and almost certainly participated in activities such as bomb-building and assisting the terrorist organization in other ways.

I think that's what more people are upset about.  The fact that he was a terrorist and he has now received an apology and large cash settlement from the taxpayer in a shady backroom deal.  Now, it is obviously more nuanced than that, since he was young and impressionable and you may even argue brainwashed.  But you still can't expect that situation to sit well with most people.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

43 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Whether he threw it or not, he abandoned Canada and joined a terrorist organization and almost certainly participated in activities such as bomb-building and assisting the terrorist organization in other ways.

To be fair he was only 9 years old when his father uprooted them and moved out of Canada...9 yrs old.  You make it sound like he willing packed up and moved to Afghanistan to join up with the Taliban...

 

43 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I think that's what more people are upset about.  The fact that he was a terrorist and he has now received an apology and large cash settlement from the taxpayer in a shady backroom deal.  Now, it is obviously more nuanced than that, since he was young and impressionable and you may even argue brainwashed.  But you still can't expect that situation to sit well with most people.

Absolutely this- I agree 100% with this.

[basslicker]

2 hours ago, voodoochylde said:

Hey guys.

 I'll just step in here and ask that we keep all the commentary on the topic and not each other.  

Gracias.

So no more South Park disgusting references?  hahaha.   I can manage that.