Omar Khadr cashes in

[Atomic]

2 minutes ago, Fraser said:

It wasn't  wholy accurate.  Show me where  it shows her saying he's  guilty. 

So now it matters again?

[The Unknown Poster]

[Fraser]

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

tripling down. hahahahahaha

The  whole premise of war  child as an organisation is that 'war children ' are not war criminals and should not be treated and convicted like adults. That is the distinction between commiting a crime and being  guilty of it.

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Fraser said:

The  whole premise of war  child as an organisation is that 'war children ' are not war criminals and should not be treated and convicted like adults. That is the distinction between commiting a crime and being  guilty of it.

its easier if you just apologize.  Your post was terribly insulting and snarky and you know it.  be an adult.  Apologize.

What is it called when you double down four times? 

[Fraser]

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

its easier if you just apologize.  Your post was terribly insulting and snarky and you know it.  be an adult.  Apologize.

What is it called when you double down four times? 

It was snarky  because  you  are obvious  cherry picking a quote from somone  who couldn't  share your opinion less to suit your agenda.

[Mark H.]

27 minutes ago, Atomic said:

They did not rule that he must be paid 10 million dollars.

 

25 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yup and no matter how often the Omar apologists repeat it, they cannot make it true.

The court also did not tell the government to make the deal in secret and help the terrorist avoid even the slimmest risk of losing the cash to the widow of the real victim in all this.  What say the Omar apologists about that?

Of course they didn't, it was an out of court settlement.  The government could either settle with Khadr now or accept whatever ruling Supreme Court made later. The vast majority of civil cases end this way.

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Fraser said:

It was snarky  because  you  are obvious  cherry picking a quote from somone  who couldn't  share your opinion less to suit your agenda.

No that is absolutely incorrect.

You lurked in a discussion looking for an entry point to swing in, chest puffed out, no doubt a smirk on your face and you got it wrong.  You now admit your behavior and still won't apologize for it.

We don't have to agree.  Ive conceded enough on this point because its not about digging heels in and being right, its about an honest discussion.  You're immature and can't admit you were wrong.

We can even split the difference.  You can be adult enough to admit you misunderstood and just apologize for being insulting rather then simply asking in a mature manner.  Ill wait...

[Mark H.]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Most of this is wrong. 

Government provided the settlement not the court. 

US judge rejected claims do torture. Khadr was proven to have lied about his treatment. 

Dont cherry pick which parts of the law you want to believe. 

Many cases of someone being found to have committed a murder years earlier who led a great life. Doesn't excuse the act. 

The sick truth is many people simply believe America deserves it. So they are twisting themselves up to excuse the acts of a murderer. 

In Canada you can be tried as an adult. Why is this case different? Because he spent time in Cuba?  Being deprived of sleep?  Poor him. 

1. I've already clarified the out of court settlement - which should have been obvious enough but somehow required another half dozen posts.

2. It doesn't make sense to keep saying he wasn't tortured, there is enough evidence that proves he was.  The Supreme Court doesn't accept appeals for which there are no legal grounds.

3. I'm not cherry - picking. The court made the decision, not the government. It's this Canadian thing called division of powers.  

4. In Canada, young offenders are rarely tried as adults, even though it's possible.  This a fact that has nothing to do with cherries.

5. Sleep deprivation has already been clarified.

[Mark H.]

9 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

No that is absolutely incorrect.

You lurked in a discussion looking for an entry point to swing in, chest puffed out, no doubt a smirk on your face and you got it wrong.  You now admit your behavior and still won't apologize for it.

We don't have to agree.  Ive conceded enough on this point because its not about digging heels in and being right, its about an honest discussion.  You're immature and can't admit you were wrong.

We can even split the difference.  You can be adult enough to admit you misunderstood and just apologize for being insulting rather then simply asking in a mature manner.  Ill wait...

 

[Fraser]

17 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

No that is absolutely incorrect.

You lurked in a discussion looking for an entry point to swing in, chest puffed out, no doubt a smirk on your face and you got it wrong.  You now admit your behavior and still won't apologize for it.

We don't have to agree.  Ive conceded enough on this point because its not about digging heels in and being right, its about an honest discussion.  You're immature and can't admit you were wrong.

We can even split the difference.  You can be adult enough to admit you misunderstood and just apologize for being insulting rather then simply asking in a mature manner.  Ill wait...

"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"

 

I'll  admit being  snarky wasn't a great tactic and was wrong.  But your  above quote is completely  wrong. It suggest that war child  thinks  that 15 year  olds should be sent to gitmo  and tried as adults and found guilty. They think he's  a war child, a victim,  not a adult convicted  of war crimes. regardless of what actions  they'll  admit that he did.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Fraser

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, Mark H. said:

1. I've already clarified the out of court settlement - which should have been obvious enough but somehow required another half dozen posts.

2. It doesn't make sense to keep saying he wasn't tortured, there is enough evidence that proves he was.  The Supreme Court doesn't accept appeals for which there are no legal grounds.

3. I'm not cherry - picking. The court made the decision, not the government. It's this Canadian thing called division of powers.  

4. In Canada, young offenders are rarely tried as adults, even though it's possible.  This a fact that has nothing to do with cherries.

5. Sleep deprivation has already been clarified.

The Supreme Court, if I understand correctly, did not rule on whether he was "tortured".  Their ruling concerned the interrogation by Canadian officials which violated section 7 of the charter concerning life, liberty and security.

In effect, what Canada did wrong was not help Khadr.  They interrogated him, without counsel, in an effort to get information to turn over to the American's. 

The US judge (and I believe there were several hearings and potentially multiple judges), ruled he was not tortured and his confession was not coerced.  Keep in mind, Khadr at one point fired his defense team and was going to represent himself.  He accepted a defense attorney who had been working on a plea that would repatriate Khadr to Canada.

The Supreme Court did not rule that Canada had to repatriate him.  They left that up to the government.  They simply ruled Canada violated Khadr's rights pertaining to section 7.

The Omar apologists are twisting things here.  The remark about cherry picking is embracing legal decisions that support your position while ignoring those that dont.

I accept the Supreme Court of Canada's decision.  I dont call it a sham. 

None of that changes the actions of Omar Khadr which many of you refuse to condemn.

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, Fraser said:

"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"

 

I'll  admit being  snarky wasn't a great tactic and was wrong.  But your  above quote is completely  wrong. It suggest that war child  thinks  that 15 year  olds should be sent to gitmo  and tried as adults and found guilty. They think he's  a war child, a victim,  not a adult convicted  of war crimes. regardless of what actions  they'll  admit that he did.

No, stop, what is this 5 times now you're doubling down.  Just stop.  You were wrong.

I never remarked about Nutt's position on war crimes.  As the head of an organization committed to ending child soliders, as you keep saying, we can assume what her position on that is.  As I explained to you, and am doing AGAIN, my point was because there were some claiming Khadr didnt even do anything

My point was that it was interesting that even to someone who would be complete on the side of Khadr, his actions were not up for debate.  He did it. 

So I was accurate.  And it was interesting.  You only find it interesting when it supports your position.  And you implied that I only read "alt right" articles that one would be silly to believe when in fact, I was CLEARLY reading an article that took an opposing view point because I wanted to read all sides.  Try that sometime.

You're not going to apologize and that's fine.  It hurts your own credibility more so than simply admitting you misunderstood and were wrong.  So let's agree to agree you were wrong and move on if you cant be adult enough to actually apologize.  Deal?

[The Unknown Poster]

And for the record (because I was told my response was actually more insulting than your insult, somehow), I apologize for mocking your refusal to apologize.  I was mostly being funny.  if you took offense, I apologize.

If I state a "fact" that is incorrect, Ill gladly admit it.  That's the point of discussion, to share facts and viewpoints.

[Fraser]

4 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

No, stop, what is this 5 times now you're doubling down.  Just stop.  You were wrong.

I never remarked about Nutt's position on war crimes.  As the head of an organization committed to ending child soliders, as you keep saying, we can assume what her position on that is.  As I explained to you, and am doing AGAIN, my point was because there were some claiming Khadr didnt even do anything

My point was that it was interesting that even to someone who would be complete on the side of Khadr, his actions were not up for debate.  He did it. 

So I was accurate.  And it was interesting.  You only find it interesting when it supports your position.  And you implied that I only read "alt right" articles that one would be silly to believe when in fact, I was CLEARLY reading an article that took an opposing view point because I wanted to read all sides.  Try that sometime.

You're not going to apologize and that's fine.  It hurts your own credibility more so than simply admitting you misunderstood and were wrong.  So let's agree to agree you were wrong and move on if you cant be adult enough to actually apologize.  Deal?

I'll  apologize  for the fact  that I was so snarky. I also  didn't understand where you were going  with with your factually  incorrect  quote,  never the less  it still isnt factual. War childs opinion os that child soldier  are victims and  not criminals. 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Fraser said:

I'll  apologize  for the fact  that I was so snarky. I also  didn't understand where you were going  with with your factually  incorrect  quote,  never the less  it still isnt factual. War childs opinion os that child soldier  are victims and  not criminals. 

 

I tried.  And Ill refrain of really typing what this means...

Not factually incorrect whatsoever.  Very correct.  You're now arguing points that were never made by me.  I never said Nutt's position was he was NOT a child solider.  Just that she agreed he did it.  Do you agree he did it?

[Mark H.]

41 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I tried.  And Ill refrain of really typing what this means...

Not factually incorrect whatsoever.  Very correct.  You're now arguing points that were never made by me.  I never said Nutt's position was he was NOT a child solider.  Just that she agreed he did it.  

The fact that he did it and the fact that he was a child soldier - those two things are not mutually exclusive - they must be viewed together.  

It doesn't matter whether or not you said it, it was part of Nutt said, and it is the context in which she said 'he did it.'

And no, I'm not moving goal posts, those are the goal posts.

[The Unknown Poster]

17 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

The fact that he did it and the fact that he was a child soldier - those two things are not mutually exclusive - they must be viewed together.  

It doesn't matter whether or not you said it, it was part of Nutt said, and it is the context in which she said 'he did it.'

And no, I'm not moving goal posts, those are the goal posts.

I dont disagree with your first line at all.  And we can discuss that if you wish.  But in the context of the debate about Nutt, it wasn't the discussion.  Fraser was free to bring her position into for a wider discussion on child soldier's but he didnt.  And the child solider aspect is probably the most relevant aspect of this case as it relates to moral culpability.

I didn't deliberately leave out facts to twist a statement.  Its as true in this context as it was in the context in which I made the original post that she concedes Khadr did it.  And that's an important fact when there are people presenting their opinions that he didnt do it as fact.

Not a single person here has argued that Khadr was 18+ at the time.  That is a fact not in dispute.

Regardless, Fraser's post and his choice not to acknowledge his error have been discussed and we can move on.  Its disappointing.  I choose to believe if I was wrong, I'd admit it.  We cant have a discussion if we cannot admit error.

As far as the child solider aspect, I do find it fascinating.  This case is complicated.  Khadr's parents were vile and clearly abused their son and all of that should be taken into account.

One fact no one has brought up that I am intrigued about is actually that the Canadian court ruled that the US court's sentence was meant to be a youth sentence where as Canada treated it as an adult sentence.  Khadr was imprisoned upon his return to Canada.  The Conservatives appealed a decision that granted Khadr bail conditions but the liberals dropped the appeal.

Edited July 11, 2017 by The Unknown Poster

[Mark H.]

4 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I dont disagree with your first line at all.  And we can discuss that if you wish.  But in the context of the debate about Nutt, it wasn't the discussion.  Fraser was free to bring her position into for a wider discussion on child soldier's but he didnt.  And the child solider aspect is probably the most relevant aspect of this case as it relates to moral culpability.

I didn't deliberately leave out facts to twist a statement.  Its as true in this context as it was in the context in which I made the original post that she concedes Khadr did it.  And that's an important fact when there are people presenting their opinions that he didnt do it as fact.

Not a single person here has argued that Khadr was 18+ at the time.  That is a fact not in dispute.

Regardless, Fraser's post and his choice not to acknowledge his error have been discussed and we can move on.  Its disappointing.  I choose to believe if I was wrong, I'd admit it.  We cant have a discussion if we cannot admit error.

As far as the child solider aspect, I do find it fascinating.  This case is complicated.  Khadr's parents were vile and clearly abused their son and all of that should be taken into account.

One fact no one has brought up that I am intrigued about is actually that the Canadian court ruled that the US court's sentence was meant to be a youth sentence where as Canada treated it as an adult sentence.  Khadr was imprisoned upon his return to Canada.  The Conservatives appealed a decision that granted Khadr bail conditions but the liberals dropped the appeal.

Fair enough, clarity appreciated.

 

 

[Mark H.]

In any legal discussion, there are certain things we should be able to assume are part of the discussion.

1. The basics of how the courts function, such as the out of court settlement the government made with Khadr, in lieu of waiting for the Supreme Court decision.

2. The facts surrounding certain evidence and how it works- example: sleep deprivation used as torture

3. The concept of a guilty mind vs. the prohibited act and how they must be viewed together.  Example: viewing Khadr's past as child soldier as being connected to the prohibited act he committed.  

4. The laws concerning young offenders in Canada, including the fact that young offenders are only rarely tried in adult court.

[The Unknown Poster]

27 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

In any legal discussion, there are certain things we should be able to assume are part of the discussion.

1. The basics of how the courts function, such as the out of court settlement the government made with Khadr, in lieu of waiting for the Supreme Court decision.

2. The facts surrounding certain evidence and how it works- example: sleep deprivation used as torture

3. The concept of a guilty mind vs. the prohibited act and how they must be viewed together.  Example: viewing Khadr's past as child soldier as being connected to the prohibited act he committed.  

4. The laws concerning young offenders in Canada, including the fact that young offenders are only rarely tried in adult court.

 

Good post.

Regarding point 1, I think where many people are upset is that there was still some fighting worth doing by the government.  There is some aspect of this that doesnt pass the sniff test.  The Liberals dropped the previous government's appeal and decided to pay him off and apologize.  Its possible they would have lost in court but I think for many Canadians, they'd have rather seen the government Fight and lose than to give in and make it easy.

Additionally, the fact it appears the government tried to keep this quiet and assist Khadr in avoiding his obligations to the widow of the US soldier killed is particularly troublesome.

Regarding point 2, I think it boils down to whether the use of certain techniques in a military prison setting by the US are negative enough to essentially cancel the original crime.  We've seen criminal cases dismissed due to errors or length of time issues in court.  In those cases, the letter of the law and the perception of erring on the side of the rights of the accused seem to take priority over the alleged crime.  In most cases, I think, most of us would agree with the adage that its better a 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be jailed (and associated aspects of that perspective).

But, in saying that, if Khadr was victimized by the US, let him take that up with the US. 

Point 3, that's tough.  Because it opens up a discussion about all crimes and what formed the basis for that criminal intent in the mind of the criminal.  Our jails are over flowing with cases of FASD.  And certainly many criminals have been negatively impacted by their upbringing and environment.  These are worth considering but more so as it relates to sentencing.  If someone commits a bad act, they commit a bad act, especially when its with malicious intent (and not, for example, in the heat of passion).

I think we're beyond the debate of whether Khadr did it.  Not even Khadr claims he didnt do it.  Was he influenced to do it by his father?  Most certainly.  But at his age, he had the capacity to know right from wrong.  This wasn't merely a fire fight that he was caught up in.  He trained, he created bombs with the intent of those bombs killing people.  He was a translator for a terrorist organization.  I think we agree these are facts.

On point 4, you've created a slant in the statement which could also be written as "young offenders are sometimes tried in adult court" (different slants to the same fact).

If a 15 year old in Winnipeg joined a known criminal gang, committed criminal acts, planned acts with the intent of killing and took part in an act that resulted in the death of a police officer, we'd all be demanding he get the book thrown at him.  If the courts tried him as an adult, many people would support that.  Many more, even if they disagreed, would likely not be particularly outraged.

My sense is that people seeing the difference here are being influenced by anti-Americanism and a reaction to Islamaphobia akin to an over-correction when sliding on an icy road.  And I say that because most people arguing here have avoided any sort of condemnation for Khadr's actions.

Whether the government HAD to pay Khadr is moot.  They chose to.  So we dont know what the result would have been.  had they continued to Fight, they might have lost.  They might have had to pay more.  Perhaps the widow would have had her judgement made enforceable in Canada and thus, intervened in Khadr's receipt of the money.  Who knows. 

I hope Khadr is sincere in his apologies and his emphatic statements that he is a good person.  I hope he is free of the influence of his family and that not one cent finds its way to a terrorist action.

I dont think we should execute him.  He did his crime and he did his time.  But an apology and a pay out....?  Thats where I draw the line.

Edited July 11, 2017 by The Unknown Poster

[Fraser]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I tried.  And Ill refrain of really typing what this means...

Not factually incorrect whatsoever.  Very correct.  You're now arguing points that were never made by me.  I never said Nutt's position was he was NOT a child solider.  Just that she agreed he did it.  Do you agree he did it?

The  crux of the issue is with  the  term guilty. Having done done something  and being found guilty of something  are two different  things. Suggesting  that she admitted he was guilty implies that she agreed with  the trying  and convicting of war children. Does that seems like that organizations  position?

Again to  be 100% Crystal clear,  my issue  is with the term guilty. 

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, Fraser said:

The  crux of the issue is with  the  term guilty. Having done done something  and being found guilty of something  are two different  things. Suggesting  that she admitted he was guilty implies that she agreed with  the trying  and convicting of war children. Does that seems like that organizations  position?

Again to  be 100% Crystal clear,  my issue  is with the term guilty. 

Oh please.  You've searched long and hard for a way to avoid simply admitting you were wrong.  You certainly never objected to the word guilty until your more recent posts.  You accused me of lying and implied that if I found an article where she admitted he did it, that it would be a biased article and I was silly for believing it.

I was correct.  You were incorrect.  Its really that simple.  You dont have to apologize for being wrong.  That's not in dispute.  But you were very rude and jumped to an incorrect conclusion because of your opinion.  The best part is, I was quoting an article sympathetic to Khadr and a person sympathetic to him.  I literally added to the discussion a person on the other side of the debate.  And you still insulted me.  Oh well.

I dont think you're convincing anyone.  So lets just move on.

 

[Fraser]

11 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Oh please.  You've searched long and hard for a way to avoid simply admitting you were wrong.  You certainly never objected to the word guilty until your more recent posts.  You accused me of lying and implied that if I found an article where she admitted he did it, that it would be a biased article and I was silly for believing it.

I was correct.  You were incorrect.  Its really that simple.  You dont have to apologize for being wrong.  That's not in dispute.  But you were very rude and jumped to an incorrect conclusion because of your opinion.  The best part is, I was quoting an article sympathetic to Khadr and a person sympathetic to him.  I literally added to the discussion a person on the other side of the debate.  And you still insulted me.  Oh well.

I dont think you're convincing anyone.  So lets just move on.

 

I was rude  but you were wrong. The  organization's opinion  is that  war  children shouldn't  tried for war crimes so it's pretty hard to consider  them  guilty of somesomething they can't  be tried  for as per the Geneva  convention.

 

Oh and my objection to the word guilty was in my first response  to you posting the quote.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Fraser

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Fraser said:

I was rude  but you were wrong. The  organization's opinion  is that  war  children shouldn't  tried for war crimes so it's pretty hard to consider  them  guilty of somesomething they can't  be tried  for as per the Geneva  convention.

I never mentioned what the organization believed.  Also, he was tried.  And plead guilty.  Why are you arguing things that have no relevance to this? 

She agreed there was no doubt he did it.  Do you agree with her?

You were rude and wrong.  Still are.  Can't we move on?

[Fraser]

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I never mentioned what the organization believed.  Also, he was tried.  And plead guilty.  Why are you arguing things that have no relevance to this? 

She agreed there was no doubt he did it.  Do you agree with her?

You were rude and wrong.  Still are.  Can't we move on?

You're  wrong. My objection to the term guilty was in my first response to you posting the quote.