Canada now rewards terrorists

[Altfish]

No doubt.
My point is that his age isn't the issue.

Think we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

People need to get over it.
For one combatent to kill another in battle is not a crime.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aye, we shall see if Canuckistanian courts have "honor".

Of course, I meant "honour" in the sense of paying it heed. Of course, there would be a fair bit of dishonour if Canadian courts went along with this travesty of justice any more.

Canada is a nation founded on the rule of law. Because of American screwups, there's no clear path to making Khadr pays for damages that honours the rule of law. If she's unsuccessful in getting damages from Khadr, I sincerely hope that she goes after Khadr's torturers, jailers, and prosecutors who got in the way of a favourable judgement. I hope that she extracts so much money out of the United States government and Khadr's GITMO jailers personally that she never wants for anything and that the United States never imprison another person without trial oit of fear of the consequences.

 

[Revoltingest]

People need to get over it.
For one combatent to kill another in battle is not a crime.

Are you sure?
If a citizen of one country serves in the army of its foe, it might be criminal.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course, I meant "honour" in the sense of paying it heed. Of course, there would be a fair bit of dishonour if Canadian courts went along with this travesty of justice any more.

Canada is a nation founded on the rule of law. Because of American screwups, there's no clear path to making Khadr pays for damages that honours the rule of law. If she's unsuccessful in getting damages from Khadr, I sincerely hope that she goes after Khadr's torturers, jailers, and prosecutors who got in the way of a favourable judgement. I hope that she extracts so much money out of the United States government and Khadr's GITMO jailers personally that she never wants for anything and that the United States never imprison another person without trial oit of fear of the consequences.

It can be hard to predict what justice will be,
but I hope it's achieved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you sure?
If a citizen of one country serves in the army of its foe, it might be criminal.

This doesn't describe Khadr's situation. He isn't an American citizen.

 

[Revoltingest]

This doesn't describe Khadr's situation. He isn't an American citizen.

I was addressing the general case which the other poster raised, not Khadr's situation.

 

[columbus]

Are you sure?
If a citizen of one country serves in the army of its foe, it might be criminal.

This whole thing should make for some entertaining court room drama. I don't know anything about the case in particular, except bits and pieces mostly from this thread. But the Bush administration pretty thoroughly muddied these legal waters by invading Afghanistan.

If I understand correctly, we are talking about a Canadian citizen in Afghanistan fighting for Afghanistan. He was picked up by the invading military force, taken to Cuba, and tortured into a confession by the invaders.
Now members of the invading military want to sue him for damages sustained while invading another country.

Is any of that incorrect?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

This whole thing should make for some entertaining court room drama. I don't know anything about the case in particular, except bits and pieces mostly from this thread. But the Bush administration pretty thoroughly muddied these legal waters by invading Afghanistan.

If I understand correctly, we are talking about a Canadian citizen in Afghanistan fighting for Afghanistan. He was picked up by the invading military force, taken to Cuba, and tortured into a confession by the invaders.
Now members of the invading military want to sue him for damages sustained while invading another country.

Is any of that incorrect?
Tom

Not quite.
It's not the military who would sue, but individual soldiers &
family who suffered a loss due (allegedly) to Khadr's actions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This whole thing should make for some entertaining court room drama. I don't know anything about the case in particular, except bits and pieces mostly from this thread. But the Bush administration pretty thoroughly muddied these legal waters by invading Afghanistan.

If I understand correctly, we are talking about a Canadian citizen in Afghanistan fighting for Afghanistan. He was picked up by the invading military force, taken to Cuba, and tortured into a confession by the invaders.
Now members of the invading military want to sue him for damages sustained while invading another country.

Is any of that incorrect?
Tom

The timeline is a bit off. There was already a civil judgement against him in absentia in US court. The article Revoltingest linked to referred to that case, not any currently pending civil case against Khadr.

Also, he was fighting for an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group, not for Afghanistan.

And when you say "he was picked up", that's missing some relevant detail:

- American soldiers were attacked entering a compound.
- the soldiers withdrew and called in an air strike. An A-10 attacked the compound with guns and bombs.
- satisfied that everyone inside was dead, the soldiers re-entered the compound.
- while inside, a grenade was thrown over a wall, wounding an American medic and another soldier. The medic later died of his wounds in hospital.
- the remaining soldiers found Khadr in the vicinity of where the grenade was thrown, lying wounded from the air strike.
- later under torture, Khadr confessed to throwing the grenade, but he has since said that he has no memory of the incident and was pressured to confess.

 

[columbus]

Not quite.
It's not the military who would sue, but individual soldiers &
family who suffered a loss due (allegedly) to Khadr's actions.

Not quite what? Incorrect?
I realize that the "members of the invading army" aren't the military. My question was, "Do members of an invasion force have any legitimate grounds to sue the defenders of the country being invaded?".
You might not like the Afghani government of the day. I don't. But this guy was in Afghanistan fighting for Afghanistan against an invader, whether anybody else likes that or not.
The people suing are from the invasion force, whether anybody likes that or not.
I don't see any grounds to sue him. I think he was terribly misguided, fighting for such an icky government. But liable for damages? No, I don't see it.

I also don't see the legitimacy of his own award. He went to war and things didn't go well for him. Tough poop.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Not quite what? Incorrect?
I realize that the "members of the invading army" aren't the military. My question was, "Do members of an invasion force have any legitimate grounds to sue the defenders of the country being invaded?".

Good question.
If plaintiff & defendant are citizens of the same country, it looks possible.

You might not like the Afghani government of the day. I don't. But this guy was in Afghanistan fighting for Afghanistan against an invader, whether anybody else likes that or not.
The people suing are from the invasion force, whether anybody likes that or not.
I don't see any grounds to sue him. I think he was terribly misguided, fighting for such an icky government. But liable for damages? No, I don't see it.

I also don't see the legitimacy of his own award. He went to war and things didn't go well for him. Tough poop.
Tom

I see merit in the civil case....but this doesn't mean that Canuckistanian law would find the same.
As for his winning compensation for his imprisonment, it doesn't sit well with me either, but the law is the law, & he was wronged.

 

[Willamena]

In a stunning 4th of July announcement, the Canadian government has (unofficially) revealed that they plan to reward Omar Khadir with about 10.5 million dollars for his "terrible pain and suffering."

You do remember Mr Khadir - don't you? The young Canadian jihadist who went to Afghanistan, making IED's and teaching others to do the same. He killed an American medic and blinded another soldier with a grenade. Remember him now?

Well, the left wingnut Trudeau government has seen fit to rub salt into the wounds of American hearts by announcing that they will be rewarding the man for his terrible time he had in an American run jail (where the terrorist punk spent 10 years for murder) with over 10 million bucks and an official apology.

I am so embarrassed to be a Canadian. This announcement makes me ill.

The announcement was neither stunning nor surprising. It's the culmination of a court proceeding that began before Khadir's release. It's not a reward, certainly not for terrorism. It is compensation for the way the previous Harper government treated him.

PS: The award is actually a good thing. It says that Canada holds rights and freedoms very dear, more so than even the United States.

 

[YmirGF]

Based on his history, it seems that he was probably indoctrinated from a very young age.


Are these the same courts that reject confessions gained under torture, respect habeas corpus, and defend the right of an accused to a speedy trial in a civilian court?

I think you rather got the wrong end of the stick on this one @9-10ths_Penguin

I was simply pointing out that we do indeed raise "children" to adult court and hit them with adult sentences. I was not, in any way, implying that the Omar Khadr case fits this scenario, especially after I went to support your own position, in clear, unequivocal terms.

Therein lies the rub, really. ANY court, in almost any jurisdiction, would throw out "evidence" gained by even questionable torture techniques. It's probably the best way for the prosecution to destroy their own case against a defendant. That compensation would follow is almost a no-brainer.

I hard pressed thinking how much clearer I could be.

 

[YmirGF]

PS: The award is actually a good thing. It says that Canada holds rights and freedoms very dear, more so than even the United States.

And as much as part of me would like to see Omar Khadr rot slowly in some hell, I have to agree. He is a Canadian citizen and has rights that were violated by a foreign power, aided and abetted by the very government that was sworn to uphold and protect his rights. As a Harper supporter, I can't say it was his shining hour on how they handled Khadr.

 

[Revoltingest]

The announcement was neither stunning nor surprising. It's the culmination of a court proceeding that began before Khadir's release. It's not a reward, certainly not for terrorism. It is compensation for the way the previous Harper government treated him.

Seems reasonable.

PS: The award is actually a good thing. It says that Canada holds rights and freedoms very dear, more so than even the United States.

I don't know about that.
We gots you beat in some areas.
But still, you guys would make a fine 51st state.

 

[Willamena]

Seems reasonable.

I don't know about that.
We gots you beat in some areas.
But still, you guys would make a fine 51st state.

I think Puerto Rico has dibs.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think Puerto Rico has dibs.

They can be #52.

 

[Nakosis]

I am so embarrassed to be a Canadian. This announcement makes me ill.

I think if you go to war against your country, you lose any rights of protection.

Still at 15 hard to hold him accountable for his actions. I know it was only sleep deprivation but what's the point of doing that to a 15yo?

Probably should have just sentenced him for his crime and been done with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think if you go to war against your country, you lose any rights of protection.

Khadr isn't American.

Probably should have just sentenced him for his crime and been done with it.

He was sentenced. He was sentenced to 8 years in prison. He served about 2.5 years in Canadian prison before being released on parole pending his appeal of his American conviction.