The Khadr Thread

[Lightguns]

I just hope this is brought up when the House sits in September. Part of me thinks this was leaked now so the controversy will lose steam over Summer Recess.

100% dead on.

 

[gryphonv]

As much as it would be nice to blame the Liberals for this, the Supreme Court actually ruled on this. Plenty of blame to go around between multiple governments Liberal and Conservative.

I have to disagree, the Conservatives were fighting the lawsuit in court, the Liberals settled it. If we let the case play out the compensation may have been the same, may have been more, may have been less, or may have been none. We will never know for sure now.

I honestly believe if the Conservatives were still in power, they would of fought this to the end.

 

[Jarnhamar]

10 mil will buy a whole lot of fertilizer and diesel, and maybe even a big truck to put it in. That way they won't have to go through the scratch and dent inspection at the rental agency. Stay tuned.

Wouldn't that be an epic hindsight moment? 10 million worth of fertilizer and diesel going up

Agreed. It was disgraceful that we allowed a Canadian child to be tortured into confession and detained at Guantanamo. Opinions obviously vary widely but I stand by this 100%. Glad to see we are trying to make this right in some way. 

Do you think we should hold his mother, a Canadian citizen, accountantable for her childs actions? Allowing him to be put in harms way like that?

 

[Remius]

I have to disagree, the Conservatives were fighting the lawsuit in court, the Liberals settled it. If we let the case play out the compensation may have been the same, may have been more, may have been less, or may have been none. We will never know for sure now.

I honestly believe if the Conservatives were still in power, they would of fought this to the end.

They would have but for how long.  Eventually you run out of appeals.  The Supreme Court has been unanimous every time. 

They (the CPC) also did nothing to repatriate him.  Yes we can all cheer that, but we also have to pay the piper at some point for mistakes made.  The liberals under Chrethien screwed this up from the beginning by doing what they thought was right but ended up causing this entire mess in the first place.  Successive Liberals continued by not trying to get bitten twice and the Conservatives continued that.

Unfortunately the CPC set the precedent for the amount to be paid by other settlements they made with others that were mistreated as a result of handing over Canadian Citizens to other governments or just plain leaving them there.

It sucks but sometimes you have to cut your losses.  One can hope he'll never see a dime or that he screws up on something trivial that lands him back in jail.  The best outcome would be for the Speer Family to get that money.

Everything that has been happening is because the courts have been ruling on a series of judicial errors committed by the Canadian government since the 90s.  It finally caught up to them.  And as I said we are now paying the price even though we know and feel that a great miscarriage of justice has happened. 

 

[Lex Justitia]

I honestly believe if the Conservatives were still in power, they would of fought this to the end.

And shelled out more taxpayer money for legal fees required to defend a lost cause? That's not very fiscally responsible.

(Before anyone pulls off a strawman, take this disclaimer that the last line does not explicitly, nor does it implicitly, make the claim that Trudeau and the Liberals have fiscally responsible spending habits)

 

[gryphonv]

And shelled out more taxpayer money for legal fees required to defend a lost cause? That's not very fiscally responsible.

(Before anyone pulls off a strawman, take this disclaimer that the last line does not explicitly, nor does it implicitly, make the claim that Trudeau and the Liberals have fiscally responsible spending habits)

Its a fair argument, but until the case played out, its impossible to be 100% its a lost cause. There are quite a few differences between this case and the other case they used as precedence for the compensation. In one case we were active participants, in the other we were passive and complacent.

But I'm also of the mindset, its better to spend $10 to fight an injustice that would only cost you $1 if you shut up.

If anything, if they dragged it out long enough, Maybe Khadr would of died, there is no way any court would of approved sending the money back up to his family, with proven links to terrorism and who don't have the convenient excuse of saying they were children during their crimes.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Concur, we need a swear on swear off command, this is the time when the gloves should come off.

You can change your filters as you see fit.  I, being a sailor, have switched my filters to sailor mode and you see exactly what I type with no soft, fluffy PC corrections unless I deem it so.

 

[tomahawk6]

Omar was an enemy combatant captured by US troops.He could have been left in Afghan custody,but the possibility of escape was too great. Going to Gitmo was the one sure way he would be held to account. He wasnt innocent so dont act like he was.

 

[Lex Justitia]

E. B. Korcz Forrester

What is your opinion then, of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2012, and the Rights of the victims to collect from "known" and "convicted" terrorists?

I think victims of terrorism should definitely recover from states/governments that sponsor terrorism (pardon me if that's not in there; I admit, I've not read it in full). I'm just perplexed as to why individuals convicted of terrorism offenses need to be singled out under a separate regime when tort law adequately provides? On a cursory search, it looks to me like that Act changes the repose (limitations on when, and under what circumstances, actions can be brought) for actions brought to recover in terrorism-related losses. Otherwise, to have a parallel system for torts through terrorism and all other non-terrorism torts seems like redundant politicization to score points.

I have also tried to look for the default judgment in the Utah court against Khadr. Unfortunately, I can't find a PDF of it that isn't behind a pay wall, but I managed to find the motion brought by Morris et al's attorney(s); and in that motion there is a single reference to "jurisdiction." They write: "The Court’s jurisdiction over Khadr is grounded in the Antiterrorism Act of 1991, 18 U.S.C. § 2333 et seq. (“ATA”)." So they have not relied on the Alien Tort Statute or ATS.

Rather, they have relied ATA's sec. 2333 (on civil remedies) and the relevant provisions that follow: 2334 (jurisdiction and venue), 2335 (limitations), and 2336 (among other things, an act of war limitation). There may be an issue with 2334(d). Now, if we use my handy Cornell-run LII source, 2334(d) says:


"(d) Convenience of the Forum.— The district court shall not dismiss any action brought under section 2333 of this title on the grounds of the inconvenience or inappropriateness of the forum chosen, unless—                   

(1) the action may be maintained in a foreign court that has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over all the defendants;
(2) that foreign court is significantly more convenient and appropriate; and
(3) that foreign court offers a remedy which is substantially the same as the one available in the courts of the United States."

I don't know how the Utah court concluded that it was a more convenient forum than a Canadian court where the defendant was incarcerated. Morris et al claimants would have had to incur travel expenses to appear, but surely these would not have been a greater inconvenience than that of an incarcerated person who has to seek permission to appear in person, arrange for custodial accompaniment, and incur travel expenses. (No opportunity to appear in person would run counter to due process and confrontation clause; and Boudimene v. Bush implied that constitutional protections in the U.S. apply to non-nationals who are involved in U.S. criminal or civil proceedings).

there is no way any court would of approved sending the money back up to his family, with proven links to terrorism and who don't have the convenient excuse of saying they were children during their crimes.

I can't disagree with that. Definitely wouldn't go to his estate.

Unless his the entirety of his estate was some of the community organizations combatting radicalization? You never know--maybe his counsel advised him to put that in his will as a PR stunt? XD

 

[Altair]

The widow of the soldier killed is going to receive the lions share of that money.

So paying out Khadr is actually helping out the family of the soldier he killed.

I have no issue with that.

 

[jmt18325]

Its a fair argument, but until the case played out, its impossible to be 100% its a lost cause. There are quite a few differences between this case and the other case they used as precedence for the compensation. In one case we were active participants, in the other we were passive and complacent.

But I'm also of the mindset, its better to spend $10 to fight an injustice that would only cost you $1 if you shut up.

If anything, if they dragged it out long enough, Maybe Khadr would of died, there is no way any court would of approved sending the money back up to his family, with proven links to terrorism and who don't have the convenient excuse of saying they were children during their crimes.

Except that in this case, the $10M is to right an injustice.

 

[jmt18325]

Omar was an enemy combatant captured by US troops.He could have been left in Afghan custody,but the possibility of escape was too great. Going to Gitmo was the one sure way he would be held to account. He wasnt innocent so dont act like he was.

He had rights - don't pretend that he didn't.

 

[Altair]

Except that in this case, the $10M is to right an injustice.

Which would still end up in the hands of the widow, so it's a moot point.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Except that in this case, the $10M is to right an injustice.

Yes, if it goes to the Speer family and not to a convicted terrorist who killed their family member.  The injustice is that the Speer family have been given the finger up to this point.  I hope Khadr and any bloodsuckers that are leeching off him don't see a cent come their way.

 

[tomahawk6]

Rights under the Geneva Convention ? He went to Gitmo for his crimes.Kids that commit murder under US law upon conviction get a very stiff prison sentence. How did he come to be in Afghanistan anyway ? Most Canadian youth would have found a less dangerous spot to holiday. Well Omar is living in Edmonton and I am sure is gainfully employed. I dont know if he has given up jihad,but time will tell.

 

[Loachman]

He had rights - don't pretend that he didn't.

He should have been treated as a prisoner of war and held for the duration of the conflict in the traditional manner. Too many of his fellow internees returned to their previous activities once released.

Which would still end up in the hands of the widow, so it's a moot point.

Hopefully, that would indeed be the outcome, and a right and just one, but it is not yet assured.

 

[jmt18325]

Rights under the Geneva Convention ? He went to Gitmo for his crimes.Kids that commit murder under US law upon conviction get a very stiff prison sentence. How did he come to be in Afghanistan anyway ? Most Canadian youth would have found a less dangerous spot to holiday. Well Omar is living in Edmonton and I am sure is gainfully employed. I dont know if he has given up jihad,but time will tell.

When you were 15 and your family went somewhere, did you get to choose whether or not to go?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Correct me if I'm incorrect but I was under the understanding that those deemed to be terrorists are  not legally given the status of prisoner of war there for the rights afforded to POWs under the  geneva conventions technically don't apply. During Afghanistan Canada chose to treat all detainees/prisoners/enemy like POWs but that was our choice.

Does it state somewhere that all combatants under a certain age will be treated as POWs regardless of legal status?

In Canada parents get arrested for their kids drawing a picture of a gun, why was his mother not charged for child endangerment?

 

[George Wallace]

.......  The Supreme Court has been unanimous every time. 

And in my lifetime, I have seen the Supreme Court make some very bad decisions in my opinion.  They are not infallible.  They can make mistakes.

 

[Remius]

And in my lifetime, I have seen the Supreme Court make some very bad decisions in my opinion.  They are not infallible.  They can make mistakes.

No argument there.  we are stuck with what we have though.