The Khadr Thread

[Bird_Gunner45]

Chances are Harper would of fought it to the end, and with Bill C-51, the government had a legal avenue of removing Khadr's citizenship, which I think would of been the path they took. Thus changing any possible outcomes.

We can argue back and forth about the settlement. Saying the Supreme court would of decided one way or another with certainty is a fallacy. You can say what is likely to happen, but until the trial ran it course, nobody can predict with 100% certainty what would of came out of it.

Chance may have been slim for the Government to win, but slim is still enough in most people minds to fight this.


Even outside his conviction, there is plenty of evidence that shows him aiding and colluding with terrorists. Thus he is a terrorist in my mind, and the minds of many Canadians.

Does Terrorist Settlement sound better?

In my mind being a terrorist should override his citizenship. Trudeau don't feel that way, hence why he and his party pushed bill C- 6 so fast 

Whether he is still a terrorist remains to be seen, time will tell, and hopefully nothing more comes out of this.

One thing is for certain, if any of that money ends up traced back to terrorist activity. I can guarantee the Liberal Party won't hold the Power anymore with the next elecction.

Citizenship can and should be seen as a moral or legal compact between the state and it's citizens.

I suspect if Trudeau came out and said that heavy polluters were terrorists (eco-terrorists) and could be stripped of citizenship you, recceguy, and others would be losing your ever loving minds.

It's a slippery slope. End story- khadr us canadian, went and fought against the US in Afghanistan, was captured,  tortured and stripped of his rights. Canada could have had him extricate,  tried here, and justice served. 3 X PMS refused that option

 

[Jarnhamar]

This case and payout makes me think Heinlein's civilian/citizen model is really something to consider.

 

[gryphonv]

Citizenship can and should be seen as a moral or legal compact between the state and it's citizens.

It's a slippery slope. End story- khadr us canadian, went and fought against the US in Afghanistan, was captured,  tortured and stripped of his rights. Canada could have had him extricate,  tried here, and justice served. 3 X PMS refused that option

We were part of the ISAF, So Khadr fought against us as well as any other country part of it at that time. Not just the US.

But let me correct something for you, Canada could of 'tried' to  had him extricate,  tried here, and justice served. There is no way the US would of turned him over. 

Khadr was the Jewel in their crown with who they imprisoned,  There was nothing Canada could do that would of forced the US to turn him over. Espically since their war on terror was still ramping up and their public pretty much out for blood.

Though I do concede they could of made a very public display of trying to get him back. Which would of altered things. Though one thing you left out, the 3rd PM (Harper) did ultimately have him extradited. Yes it was late, but he still did it. Which at the time was still a very unpopular move.

 

[gryphonv]

One thing about all this, which shows how bullshit this is, we have Canadian Citizens all over the world incarcerated in many countries with less than stellar Human Rights (North Korea, China, Myanmar (Burma)) etc.

All of them could argue Canada isn't upholding their Chartered Rights if we let them rot, and likely die in these countries.

A lot of these people's crimes were definitely much less that the ones Khadr has either done or (been alleged of doing, for those who feel his confession isn't valid).

I guarantee these people won't see an official apology or cash reward/settlement/etc, for their mistreatment.

And for those that will argue these are different scenarios for what ever reason, sure, but there are more then enough parallels in a lot of the cases.

In the end there are many Canadian Citizens incarcerated abroad that Canada has little to no power to get them returned to Canada before they server their sentence.

 

[Inspir]

Just throwing a hypothetical situation out here. Say that this went to trial to its full extent. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Kadhr. Roughly $30 million for the sake of argument. The government of the time knowing the public outrage refused the courts order to pay out. What can they do?

 

[gryphonv]

Just throwing a hypothetical situation out here. Say that this went to trial to its full extent. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Kadhr. Roughly $30 million for the sake of argument. The government of the time knowing the public outrage refused the courts order to pay out. What can they do?

Well that is the Crux of the argument here, a party could say they fought it, and were forced to do something vs voluntarily doing something.

This could of been appealed for years, maybe even decades, on both sides. Eventually a decision would have to be abide to. At that point either the Gov pays up, or Khadr gets nothing.

Both have their pro's and cons. The biggest con of letting this play out, means it could of cost much more money. Nothing is certain though, as we can't predict with 100% certainty what the Supreme Court would of decided. Especially with regards to Compensation.

One thing a lot of people seem to forget is this suit has been in the works for over a decade, its just been amended many times to change the compensation being sought. It started at 100k in 2004(may be off on the actual year).

Letting it play out would of had political fall out as well. The opposition could of seized on that and said they were not financially prudent. But I think the political fall out from that would of been less than from their decision to voluntarily settle.

 

[Loachman]

Chances are Harper would of fought it to the end, and with Bill C-51, the government had a legal avenue of removing Khadr's citizenship, which I think would of been the path they took.

That was C-24, and would not have applied anyway.

He was born here.

 

[gryphonv]

That was C-24, and would not have applied anyway.

He was born here.

Yeah sorry, got the bills mixed up. But Bill C-24 gave the rights to revoke Natural and Naturalized Citizens Citizenship for offenses such as Terrorism.

Edit: I have to read up on the Bills, but c 51 was the big terrorism bill, it might have been tied into the C 24 bill, I do know one of them gave the Government the power to revoke both Naturalized and Natural Citizens

Edit 2: After reading, it seems it only applied to dual citizens.

 

[jmt18325]

One thing about all this, which shows how bullshit this is, we have Canadian Citizens all over the world incarcerated in many countries with less than stellar Human Rights (North Korea, China, Myanmar (Burma)) etc.

I think you need to go back and understand what this is actually about.

 

[gryphonv]

I think you need to go back and understand what this is actually about.

I know you are mistaken on what I actually understand.

But hey, nice nitpicking a post which I explain my reasonings for that statement, without actually giving any valid counter arguments.

It's starting to get old.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

This case and payout makes me think Heinlein's civilian/citizen model is really something to consider.

Why? Would you prefer the state have the power to decide what is a citizen and change that definition? It's a slippery slope and one we would be foolish to start walking down

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I know you are mistaken on what I actually understand.

But hey, nice nitpicking a post which I explain my reasonings for that statement, without actually giving any valid counter arguments.

It's starting to get old.

You're lack of understanding is getting old. CSIS agents visited him without representation. That violates charter laws. Harper didn't have him released, the SCC did. Past events (the 3 SS members) show we can enforce our law on our own citizens and provide a useful case for a trial.

Further, the "evidence" was gained under torture and would be thrown out in any court in Canada not withstanding the fact his lawyer wasn't there. The evidence is also arguable at best. This conviction wouldn't hold up here and would be equivalent to a north Korean court ruling in this light.

Just because he's a "bad dude" doesn't mean we, Canada, can just flagrantly violate his rights. I'd that was the case there'd be a lot of pedophiles,  rapists, etc that would be candidates for such treatment. We fought in Afghanistan to defend our values, which include the rule of law. Sorry, but your beliefs are based on emptiness,  mob mentality, and not representative of the values we fought to uphold

 

[jmt18325]

I know you are mistaken on what I actually understand.

But hey, nice nitpicking a post which I explain my reasonings for that statement, without actually giving any valid counter arguments.

It's starting to get old.

Your explanation from then on is irrelevant.  It wasn't about him being held in Gitmo.  It was about Canadian officials violating his rights under the Constitution as they applied in Gitmo.  That is what the payout and apology is for.

 

[jollyjacktar]

:crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby: :boring:

 

[gryphonv]

You're lack of understanding is getting old. CSIS agents visited him without representation. That violates charter laws. Harper didn't have him released, the SCC did. Past events (the 3 SS members) show we can enforce our law on our own citizens and provide a useful case for a trial.

Further, the "evidence" was gained under torture and would be thrown out in any court in Canada not withstanding the fact his lawyer wasn't there. The evidence is also arguable at best. This conviction wouldn't hold up here and would be equivalent to a north Korean court ruling in this light.

Just because he's a "bad dude" doesn't mean we, Canada, can just flagrantly violate his rights. I'd that was the case there'd be a lot of pedophiles,  rapists, etc that would be candidates for such treatment. We fought in Afghanistan to defend our values, which include the rule of law. Sorry, but your beliefs are based on emptiness,  mob mentality, and not representative of the values we fought to uphold

Thanks for giving a better counter argument, maybe jmt18325 can learn something, or understand how it makes a post look valid.

Anyways, I agree the some of the evidence would of been thrown out. There is also evidence(video) of him partaking in creating IEDs, that wouldn't be thrown out, that wasn't obtained under torture. Just because his confession was obtained under torture, doesn't negate all of the other evidence against him.

My belief are not based on emptiness, its based on right vs wrong. Helping good people out, punishing people who deserve to be punished. It's not based on mob mentality, as quite often I go against the mob, as I've done on server other topics.

I believe if a person takes up arms against a country, that person should no longer be considered part of that country. Full stop.

This is not about being a bad dude.

And I'm not sorry if that offends you.

The crux of this is, the Liberal Government made a decision that many don't agree with, no law forced them to settle, they took that on its own. There are a lot of what if's and could ofs both before and after that decision, nothing can be certain, as they didn't happen. It's not about the law, its not about what Khadr did ultimately, it's about the settlement and apology. Both of which, regardless of law, is not of any working moral compass in my book.

 

[jmt18325]

Thanks for giving a better counter argument, maybe jmt18325 can learn something, or understand how it makes a post look valid.

I have explained the same thing (in far less eloquent words) several times in this thread.  I'm tiring of explaining the same thing, and then having the same falsehoods repeated over and over.  It's simply not valid to complain that a payout was given for something that it was not.

 

[gryphonv]

I have explained the same thing (in far less eloquent words) several times in this thread.  I'm tiring of explaining the same thing, and then having the same falsehoods repeated over and over.  It's simply not valid to complain that a payout was given for something that it was not.

Well if you are tired, you can simply stop posting in the thread.  >

Anyways, just because you feel it is a falsehood, doesn't make it so. Same goes with how I feel about some 'falsehoods' you say, we are on a board which we posts our opinion, some with more facts to back them up, some with strawman arguments, etc. 

Khadr was a terrorist which is a fact. Whether being a child at the time affects that, is debatable.

This settlement wasn't forced by law, it was done by trying to predict an outcome that hadn't happened yet. That is a fact.

Those two things are the basis of why I and many others feel the Liberals made the wrong move. And as a Canadian Citizen, I'm free to share that, as you are free to nitpick my posts. That is a fact also.

Edit: And just to be clear, I would of been ok with if the Government let this play out and had to pay more in the end. We are talking about  less that .01% of our GDP to fight what the majority of us think is wrong.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Well if you are tired, you can simply stop posting in the thread.  >

Anyways, just because you feel it is a falsehood, doesn't make it so. Same goes with how I feel about some 'falsehoods' you say, we are on a board which we posts our opinion, some with more facts to back them up, some with strawman arguments, etc. 

Khadr was a terrorist which is a fact. Whether being a child at the time affects that, is debatable.

This settlement wasn't forced by law, it was done by trying to predict an outcome that hadn't happened yet. That is a fact.

Those two things are the basis of why I and many others feel the Liberals made the wrong move. And as a Canadian Citizen, I'm free to share that, as you are free to nitpick my posts. That is a fact also.

And as a Canadian, Khadr had the right to not be questioned illegally by CSIS while geld by a foreign nation. We, Canada violated charter rights. I also understand the, "there's Canadians imprisoned elsewhere" argument but don't feel it holds water. The US is our closest ally and we have years and years of extradition cases. If we really wanted him it could have happened.

No one is arguing he's NOT a terrorist or that had the government's done their jobs he wouldn't have been convicted in Canada. It's that we bypassed this for political expediency is why we're paying. While emotion tells us that this is wrong, we're paying for liberal and conservative errors of the past. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll repeat his actions, we'll prosecute him legally, and not defy our own values to get back at someone who clearly lacks them.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Why? Would you prefer the state have the power to decide what is a citizen and change that definition? It's a slippery slope and one we would be foolish to start walking down

I'd prefer it yes.  I think you're discounting the model in that civilians would have rights too but not as many benefits, or perhaps as many rights , as a citizen who actively contributes to society in whatever meaningful way.

Wanna be a citizen? Don't go off and make ieds.




Yeaaaa two wrongs don't make a right but we all know the government has failed to pay up when they were supposed to at times. Paying this shit head is a bad time to start being honest lol

 

[jmt18325]

Well if you are tired, you can simply stop posting in the thread.  >

I'm also dogmatic when I know what I'm talking about - much less so when I'm not as sure.

Anyways, just because you feel it is a falsehood, doesn't make it so. Same goes with how I feel about some 'falsehoods' you say, we are on a board which we posts our opinion, some with more facts to back them up, some with strawman arguments, etc. 

It's not a falsehood because I say it is - it's just a falsehood.  This has nothing to do with any Canadian imprisoned anywhere else in the world, unless we're violating their rights in the same way we did Khadr's

Khadr was a terrorist which is a fact. Whether being a child at the time affects that, is debatable.

Actually, that is not a fact, because of lack of due process at Guantanamo.  I have no belief that he's a great human being - his father certainly isn't one and he spent a lot of time with people that certainly weren't great nurturing influences. 

Khadr was 'convicted' of terrorism through a confession obtained under duress.  The US Supreme Court has ruled that the methods used at Guantanamo do not adhere to the US Constitution.  He was never convicted in an actual court, and it's quite likely that his conviction will be overturned, as have others obtained at Guantanamo using the same methods. 

But lets pretend that he is a terrorist.  It is irrelevant to the reason for the apology and the compensation.

This settlement wasn't forced by law, it was done by trying to predict an outcome that hadn't happened yet. That is a fact.

It was also the right thing to do given that in 2008, 2010, and 2015, the government was told by the Supreme Court of Canada that is had violated Khadr's Canadian Constitutional rights.

Those two things are the basis of why I and many others feel the Liberals made the wrong move. And as a Canadian Citizen, I'm free to share that, as you are free to nitpick my posts. That is a fact also.

The actual reason for the payout is not a nitpick, in my opinion, anyway.