Omar Khadr awarded $10.5 million

[dj_patm]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So you post a bunch of ideas you pulled out of thin air, then instead of taking the time to educate yourself, you challenge someone to prove you wrong (as if you presented fact?)

Yup, because from what I've read (which I have said was not extensive), what I said was factually accurate and so far no one has pointed out any of it to be wrong. Just dismissed the post in it's entirety.

Please tell me which point is wrong?

- This is a judicial matter.

- Omar did not carry out any terrorist actions outside of the War Zone that the US invaded.

- US Soldiers attacked and killed his family in said foreign land and shot him twice.

- Omar threw a grenade and killed a US soldier.

- Omar was kept in Guantanamo Bay as a 15 year old child, where he was illegally tortured.

- His dad was the piece of shit terrorist.

[Power_Of_Rotary]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What happens when the reason you're convicted as a criminal is because your basic rights were denied to you? Like say, in this case?

So you are saying the criminal (Omar) pleaded guilty only because his rights were violated? He has admitted the fact he did participate in terrorism which led to the deaths and injuries of American soldiers. These facts have not changed and he is not denying them. Anyone with any common sense knows he (and his father) is guilty as fuck.

[Gestalt]

None of you care that there isn't a shred of evidence that Omar did anything wrong?

[JRSC00LUDE]

The Supreme Court found his charter rights were violated, can someone show me where they said a monetary reward of any kind was due?

Also a bit curious why, if he didn't actually do anything, he again apologized for doing it in 2015 - when he was safely in Canada and no longer in any danger of persecution/prosecution?

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Supreme Court found his charter rights were violated, can someone show me where they said a monetary reward of any kind was due?

They didn't, but the highest court in the land ruling that your Charter rights were violated would likely carry a lot of weight when it comes to the civil suit that he was pursuing. This wasn't Trudeau saying "I feel bad for the guy, let's draft an apology letter and transfer some money just to make ourselves feel better." This was a legal team deciding that this was the cheapest and most prudent option in the face of something larger. A court case would have likely lost after a long, drawn out court battle where the government would probably need to reveal actions and policies that wouldn't have looked good for it, and paid more money in the end (both in legal fees and the end settlement). There was also precedent of settlements and apologies to other people the government was complicit in handing information of citizens over to foreign governments which led to their mistreatment.

Khadr's legal team get a big settlement for their client while also avoiding the drawn out court case, and probably settled for a bit less than they could have in order to expedite the payment as well given what was coming at them from down south as well.

Also a bit curious why, if he didn't actually do anything, he again apologized for doing it in 2015 - when he was safely in Canada and no longer in any danger of persecution?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So you are saying the criminal (Omar) pleaded guilty only because his rights were violated? He has admitted the fact he did participate in terrorism which led to the deaths and injuries of American soldiers. These facts have not changed and he is not denying them. Anyone with any common sense knows he (and his father) is guilty as fuck.

It isn't about what he did, it is about the rights he had as a Canadian that the Canadian government was directly involved in violating. Rights he had before any confession was 'extracted', rights he still had after any apology was given, and rights the government is tasked to protect, and not be complicit in violating.

That's what this is about. The Canadian government can't violate a Canadian citizen's Charter rights, and they did. And now they're paying for it. It's not an endorsement of his actions, it's penance for their own actions.

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They didn't, but the highest court in the land ruling that your Charter rights were violated would likely carry a lot of weight when it comes to the civil suit that he was pursuing. This wasn't Trudeau saying "I feel bad for the guy, let's draft an apology letter and transfer some money just to make ourselves feel better." This was a legal team deciding that this was the cheapest and most prudent option in the face of something larger. A court case would have likely lost after a long, drawn out court battle where the government would probably need to reveal actions and policies that wouldn't have looked good for it, and paid more money in the end (both in legal fees and the end settlement). There was also precedent of settlements and apologies to other people the government was complicit in handing information of citizens over to foreign governments which led to their mistreatment.

Khadr's legal team get a big settlement for their client while also avoiding the drawn out court case, and probably settled for a bit less than they could have in order to expedite the payment as well given what was coming at them from down south as well.

I understand this, however I personally feel it was worth fighting the payout for optics alone in this particular situation. The apology for violating Charter Rights can still be made. I also feel it's reprehensible that the Government colluded with his legal team to already pay out the money and prevent the American Suit for the proceeds from having a chance (even though it was already unlikely) - they have circumvented the legal process and should now be sued again, unless I am misunderstanding something (which is possible of course).

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It isn't about what he did, it is about the rights he had as a Canadian that the Canadian government was directly involved in violating. Rights he had before any confession was 'extracted', rights he still had after any apology was given, and rights the government is tasked to protect, and not be complicit in violating.

That's what this is about. The Canadian government can't violate a Canadian citizen's Charter rights, and they did. And now they're paying for it. It's not an endorsement of his actions, it's penance for their own actions.

My comment that you addressed here, I should have quoted Gestalt in. He claims there isn't a shred of evidence he did anything and that he confessed under duress. I find it quite curious that the guy who didn't do anything would yet again apologize for doing it when he was no longer in any danger whatsoever. So from that perspective, it IS about what he did. Why would you continue to acknowledge what you've done if you didn't do it when there are no further penalties to face?

[Gestalt]

There is no evidence against him. The Amercians were caught lying and altering documents.

Its probably some kind of war crime shooting an injured unarmed human being in the back while he is kneeling on the ground. Twice. Yet alone a child.

Its obvious to me sonce I was one of you, that you didnt read the wikipefldia or look at what actually happened.

What he went thru cannot be justified.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is no evidence against him.

Besides him admitting, even after being tried, to building IED's and having a grenade and AK47 in his hands when the raid happened? And that he threw the grenade? I don't mean at trial, I mean you can read the CBC bleeding heart article/interview about it.

Also, a lot of confusion going on in this thread (it's not actually confusion, but pointed misdirection of the facts) that he was in a war. He was not. He was a terrorist. There is a difference.

I always love it of how money is never an object with liberals... until they can somehow show their virtue signaling leading to reduced costs that set future precedent in their war for Social Justice. Then it's "well we SAVE money this way, as long as it follows our beliefs".

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I always love it of how money is never an object with liberals... until they can somehow show their virtue signaling leading to reduced costs that set future precedent in their war for Social Justice. Then it's "well we SAVE money this way, as long as it follows our beliefs".

Now THIS is cognitive dissonance.

[Brent.ff]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Also, a lot of confusion going on in this thread (it's not actually confusion, but pointed misdirection of the facts) that he was in a war. He was not. He was a terrorist. There is a difference.

So...why was it called the war on terror? Something tells me that he felt like he was at war when there was an army at his door?

Regardless, he sued because the Canadian government infringed on his rights. Curious how much money the government previously spent trying to not allow him to win this argument with the supreme court, before paying him out. Or does that not matter as he's a terrorist so we can spend 10x as much on fighting that argument without boo from the public.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I understand this, however I personally feel it was worth fighting the payout for optics alone in this particular situation. The apology for violating Charter Rights can still be made.

"We maintain the government was not complicit in the violation of Mr. Khadr's Charter rights. But at the same time we would also like to officially apologize for violating Mr. Khadr's Charter rights."



Here's what I think is bad for optics and an abhorrent stance for the government to take: admitting complicity in violating Charter rights and fighting against it. Not to get too sappy, but what would make the government better in that situation than Khadr who 'admitted to terrorism' and is 'getting away with it', and the government admitting to violating human rights and getting away with it?

Here's the price of optics: if they lost, then we are out $20M. If they win, then we have precedent that the government can be complicit in the torture and unlawful detainment of a Canadian citizen (a minor, no less).

I also feel it's reprehensible that the Government colluded with his legal team to already pay out the money and prevent the American Suit for the proceeds from having a chance (even though it was already unlikely) - they have circumvented the legal process and should now be sued again, unless I am misunderstanding something (which is possible of course).

Again, it could very well be that the speed of the payment was part of the settlement itself, because paying the money quickly doesn't actually affect the government at all. Their part in the case is done when the settlement is made. They don't need to wait for anything if they don't have to. It's Khadr's group that wouldn't want to wait.

[Seth1968]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Regardless, he sued because the Canadian government infringed on his rights.

So why are innocent taxpayers paying for this, instead of the government officials responsible for it?

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So why are innocent taxpayers paying for this, instead of the government officials responsible for it?

Vicarious liability.

[Brent.ff]

I think this is worth a read on the subject..
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017...dr-isnt-guilty

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

snip.

You make a lot of good points to think about, thanks.

[Gestalt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think this is worth a read on the subject..
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017...dr-isnt-guilty

The actual events dont matter to some people here. This was a full on assault by warthawgs, gunships and over 100 troops. Without a doubt, whoever attempted to execute him as a wounded boy should have gone to jail instead.

[max_boost]

Now what if....Omar donates his share to charity or the widow etc?

Will that change the average Joe's opinion?

[Gestalt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Now what if....Omar donates his share to charity or the widow etc?

Will that change the average Joe's opinion?

Was the soldier wronged by his government? His widow should sue the US government for putting him in danger and violating his rights.

Omar deserves every penny.

[ragu]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So why are innocent taxpayers paying for this, instead of the government officials responsible for it?

What if the taxpayer is guilty of supporting and applauding past 16 years of war on terror that included bombing civilians, toppling governments, maintaining concentration camps in Cuba and profiting from arm deals with rebel groups and Saudi...

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Now what if....Omar donates his share to charity or the widow etc?

Will that change the average Joe's opinion?

In Alberta? Nope. We blame oil drop on OPEC or Truuuudo. The conservative mindset here defeats logic. You hear so often, "that makes sense but I'm a conservative"...its like oh I hear logic but I'm dumb.

[tonytiger55]

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/after-...hadr-1.3961508

Just a few points.
The Charter of Freedom and Rights is there for a reason. It what we say 'checks and balances' in the system. One only needs to study the rise of Hitler and see what happened when you don't have government accountable and let them get away with stuff against thier people.
Shit, I learned about this stuff when I was 10 years old. Its taught so we can apply critical thinking and judgement so this does not happen again.

The argument and labelling as a terrorist by the USA is partially flawed. When George Bush made his speeches years ago. Not everyone in the western world agreed with that portrayal. Being from the UK, a lot of people think that wording is flawed. Just because the USA goes gung ho, does not mean everyone else should follow the line, it puts our civic institutions in jeopardy. Also think of existing agreements made around the world with former terrorist groups.. i.e think the of the funds that came from the USA that were given to IRA Terrorists in Northern Ireland. Think of the Good Friday agreement. Think of the release of prisoners etc.

If you label Omar as a terrorist, Then you have to follow due process. You then create the foundations to such a argument to be proven. Its flawed in my view., because when the argument is presented, it can be easily counter argued with points posted above by other members. The process of trail has to be undertaken. Thats what makes us a civic society. You can't just decide on a whim or flavour of the month. How is that any different from burning witches at the stake..? You have to have due process.

You cannot have a foreign government (USA) set a agenda and then have your own government follow it and violate the rights of its own citizens.

The issue of the 10 million is not about Omar in my view. What was the government doing that allowed it to keep doing this? Those are the question that need to be asked. Not a weak emotional reaction. Funny enough it was under the Conservative government when this happened, it happened on their watch. Im not liberal by any means, Trudu is the presidential equivalent of a fuck boy in my view.
If the government was not held accountable, whats stopping it from violating other areas of your rights depending on the issue of the day?

It was argued on the radio that the 10 million creates a political argument, but its a weak legal argument.

kertejud2 posted a argument that was bang on. You cannot have your own government that is complicit in torture.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"We maintain the government was not complicit in the violation of Mr. Khadr's Charter rights. But at the same time we would also like to officially apologize for violating Mr. Khadr's Charter rights."



Here's what I think is bad for optics and an abhorrent stance for the government to take: admitting complicity in violating Charter rights and fighting against it. Not to get too sappy, but what would make the government better in that situation than Khadr who 'admitted to terrorism' and is 'getting away with it', and the government admitting to violating human rights and getting away with it?

Here's the price of optics: if they lost, then we are out $20M. If they win, then we have precedent that the government can be complicit in the torture and unlawful detainment of a Canadian citizen (a minor, no less).


Again, it could very well be that the speed of the payment was part of the settlement itself, because paying the money quickly doesn't actually affect the government at all. Their part in the case is done when the settlement is made. They don't need to wait for anything if they don't have to. It's Khadr's group that wouldn't want to wait.