• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Khadr Thread

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
242
Points
680
Here is reference for that 71%

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-khadr-poll-1.4198306
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
450
Points
1,010
MCG said:
I saw a poll that suggested 71% of Canadians do not approve.  This might have more staying power than one would expect.

Yep, I saw the same thing.  It's an emotive topic for sure. 

I read that the Government has spent $5 million fighting Mr. Khadr already and the suit was for $20 million.  Simple arithmetic tells me that $5 million + $10.5 million = $15.5 million.  On a case where almost every legal expert has said the government doesn't have a hope in hell of winning, I'd say that's as much of a WIN as the Government could have hoped for.  Potential savings of $4.5 million on a bad investment, I say good job cutting your losses. 

Sometimes the most unpopular decisions are the best ones, that's called leadership  :nod:

Whatever you may think of Mr. Khadr, he was a child when this happened and it was war.  The Psychology behind ideological indoctrination is an amazing thing.  What exactly makes throwing a grenade in battle a war crime?  They could have killed Mr. Khadr but he got them first, tough luck, that's war. 

Last time I checked, the United States doesn't participate in the International Criminal Court which puts them at odds with every other NATO and Western Aligned Country.  They only enforce international criminal law when it's convenient for them to do so which, against themselves, is never.

That puts them in the same league as Russia and China, you are the company you keep.   

ICC_member_states.svg

(ICC Member States)

Note that Cuba also isn't a signatory  ;D

Obama should of used this in his "bringing Cuba back in to the fold speech"

"Out of our shared distaste for the International System, Raul Castro and I have decided to put our differences aside"  ;D
 

Pencil Tech

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Humphrey Bogart said:
Yep, I saw the same thing.  It's an emotive topic for sure. 

I read that the Government has spent $5 million fighting Mr. Khadr already and the suit was for $20 million.  Simple arithmetic tells me that $5 million + $10.5 million = $15.5 million.  On a case where almost every legal expert has said the government doesn't have a hope in hell of winning, I'd say that's as much of a WIN as the Government could have hoped for.  Potential savings of $4.5 million on a bad investment, I say good job cutting your losses. 

Sometimes the most unpopular decisions are the best ones, that's called leadership  :nod:

Whatever you may think of Mr. Khadr, he was a child when this happened and it was war.  The Psychology behind ideological indoctrination is an amazing thing.  What exactly makes throwing a grenade in battle a war crime?  They could have killed Mr. Khadr but he got them first, tough luck, that's war. 

Last time I checked, the United States doesn't participate in the International Criminal Court which puts them at odds with every other NATO and Western Aligned Country.  They only enforce international criminal law when it's convenient for them to do so which, against themselves, is never.

That puts them in the same league as Russia and China, you are the company you keep.   

ICC_member_states.svg

(ICC Member States)

Note that Cuba also isn't a signatory  ;D

Obama should of used this in his "bringing Cuba back in to the fold speech"

"Out of our shared distaste for the International System, Raul Castro and I have decided to put our differences aside"  ;D

100%  :salute:
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Humphrey Bogart said:
Yep, I saw the same thing.  It's an emotive topic for sure. 

I read that the Government has spent $5 million fighting Mr. Khadr already and the suit was for $20 million.  Simple arithmetic tells me that $5 million + $10.5 million = $15.5 million.  On a case where almost every legal expert has said the government doesn't have a hope in hell of winning, I'd say that's as much of a WIN as the Government could have hoped for.  Potential savings of $4.5 million on a bad investment, I say good job cutting your losses. 

Sometimes the most unpopular decisions are the best ones, that's called leadership  :nod:

Whatever you may think of Mr. Khadr, he was a child when this happened and it was war.  The Psychology behind ideological indoctrination is an amazing thing.  What exactly makes throwing a grenade in battle a war crime?  They could have killed Mr. Khadr but he got them first, tough luck, that's war. 

Last time I checked, the United States doesn't participate in the International Criminal Court which puts them at odds with every other NATO and Western Aligned Country.  They only enforce international criminal law when it's convenient for them to do so which, against themselves, is never.

That puts them in the same league as Russia and China, you are the company you keep.   

ICC_member_states.svg

(ICC Member States)

Note that Cuba also isn't a signatory  ;D

Obama should of used this in his "bringing Cuba back in to the fold speech"

"Out of our shared distaste for the International System, Raul Castro and I have decided to put our differences aside"  ;D

Thank you for the extremely reasonable position and well thought out analysis.  It's a refreshing change from most of what's said on this topic.
 

gryphonv

Full Member
Reaction score
4
Points
230
Humphrey Bogart said:
Yep, I saw the same thing.  It's an emotive topic for sure. 

I read that the Government has spent $5 million fighting Mr. Khadr already and the suit was for $20 million.  Simple arithmetic tells me that $5 million + $10.5 million = $15.5 million.  On a case where almost every legal expert has said the government doesn't have a hope in hell of winning, I'd say that's as much of a WIN as the Government could have hoped for.  Potential savings of $4.5 million on a bad investment, I say good job cutting your losses. 

Sometimes the most unpopular decisions are the best ones, that's called leadership  :nod:

Whatever you may think of Mr. Khadr, he was a child when this happened and it was war.  The Psychology behind ideological indoctrination is an amazing thing.  What exactly makes throwing a grenade in battle a war crime?  They could have killed Mr. Khadr but he got them first, tough luck, that's war. 

Last time I checked, the United States doesn't participate in the International Criminal Court which puts them at odds with every other NATO and Western Aligned Country.  They only enforce international criminal law when it's convenient for them to do so which, against themselves, is never.

That puts them in the same league as Russia and China, you are the company you keep.   

ICC_member_states.svg

(ICC Member States)

Note that Cuba also isn't a signatory  ;D

Obama should of used this in his "bringing Cuba back in to the fold speech"

"Out of our shared distaste for the International System, Raul Castro and I have decided to put our differences aside"  ;D

I have to add this was a political football. No matter what path the government had choosen to take with this, the opposition would of had something to latch onto.

I think those reasons are why the decisipn was leaked while Trudeau was off the continent, and two months before the house sits again.

I disagree with the settlement but even then I can see a payment was pretty much inevitable. Personally I would of fought it tooth and nail until no other legal options were available. Yes that probably would of cost more in the end.

This one issue won't get the liberals to lose their next election, but it will haunt them. As with every elected party in Canada, it's more about what the outgoing party has done then what the incoming promises to do.

One argument though that I disagree with is that the previous government spent 5m on legal proceedings fighting Khadr in court. While the end cost may be accurate, we have to remember most of these lawyers are already on the payroll, that the majority of that money would of been spent fighting another issue as it was fighting this issue.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
504
Points
960
Humphrey Bogart said:
What exactly makes throwing a grenade in battle a war crime?

In my mind:

This from the ICRC:

"acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence"

Combined with this from the agreed statement of facts:

At the time that Khadr threw the grenade that killed SFC Speer and injured another U.S. soldier, Khadr was not under the impression that U.S. soldiers were preparing to charge his position, attack or engage him. Rather, Khadr thought that the soldiers entering the compound were looking for wounded or dead and that the firefight was over.


I think that would be considered an act of perfidy, which is a statutory war crime.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,120
Points
1,060
[quote author=jmt18325]  It's a refreshing change from most of what's said on this topic.
[/quote]

He does bring up a great point. At the same time I'm sorry to see you  inconvenienced by this topic which clearly has reason to hit home for you.
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Jarnhamar said:
He does bring up a great point. At the same time I'm sorry to see you  inconvenienced by this topic which clearly has reason to hit home for you.

This topic inconveniences us all - but not for the reason for which you're mocking me.  This is not about what Khadr did or did not do.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,120
Points
1,060
jmt18325 said:
This topic inconveniences us all - but not for the reason for which you're mocking me.  This is not about what Khadr did or did not do.
So you're the deciding authority on what this is about?  What it means to everyone here?
 

gryphonv

Full Member
Reaction score
4
Points
230
jmt18325 said:
This topic inconveniences us all - but not for the reason for which you're mocking me.  This is not about what Khadr did or did not do.

I don't speak for everyone but it don't inconvenience me. I'm more then willing to debate divisive topics that interest me.
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Jarnhamar said:
So you're the deciding authority on what this is about?  What it means to everyone here?

I'm not the deciding authority on what the payout is actually about - that would be the court and the government.  People here always talk about people needing to stay in their own lanes, yet here they are questioning the decisions of Canada's highest court.  I'm not so arrogant (in this case, anyway).  The payout and apology were made because of those court decisions.  They have nothing to do with Khadr's actions, his guilt (sic), or any feelings that people may have for the various reasons that they may have them.
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
gryphonv said:
I don't speak for everyone but it don't inconvenience me. I'm more then willing to debate divisive topics that interest me.

I'm always willing to debate.  The topic at hand though should concern everyone.  We should expect our government to respect our Constitutionally guaranteed rights.  We should expect them to apologize when they don't.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
450
Points
1,010
ModlrMike said:
In my mind:

This from the ICRC:

"acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence"

Combined with this from the agreed statement of facts:

At the time that Khadr threw the grenade that killed SFC Speer and injured another U.S. soldier, Khadr was not under the impression that U.S. soldiers were preparing to charge his position, attack or engage him. Rather, Khadr thought that the soldiers entering the compound were looking for wounded or dead and that the firefight was over.


I think that would be considered an act of perfidy, which is a statutory war crime.

The entire highlighted bit is what is called supposition.  We will never be certain what happened because Khadr was tried in a Kangaroo Court.  Now if the US had brought him to the ICC, maybe they would have been able to prove their accusations in an independent court.  The US doesn't want that though, they want to make their own rules. 

Khadr is being paid for what happened after he was captured, not what happened before.

I don't give a damn what happened before, it's completely irrelevant to his lawsuit and settlement with the government.

jmt18325 said:
This topic inconveniences us all - but not for the reason for which you're mocking me.  This is not about what Khadr did or did not do.

Amen jmt!

jmt18325 said:
I'm always willing to debate.  The topic at hand though should concern everyone.  We should expect our government to respect our Constitutionally guaranteed rights.  We should expect them to apologize when they don't.

Amen again!
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,120
Points
1,060
I'm comfortable believing the current government played a big factor in how this decision was reached.

There are other of cases Canadian citizens who aren't murderers and in bed with terrorism having their rights infringed upon and aren't made rich beyond 99. 9% of other Canadians wildest dreams. Firearm owners come to mind.

The families terrorist ties should come into play due tonth chance of that 10 million being used against Canadians IMO.
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
So then, the gist of what I am getting from you pro-payment guys, is that because the poor baby's rights were trampled on, he gets a fat payout.  OK... so what about the rest of us?  Will anyone else get $10.5 tax free everytime they get treated badly?  Usually when your rights get trampled on, you are not convicted/or charged of whatever transgression you're accused of.  How come he's so special?  Why wasn't his convicting then just overturned and his not being incarcerated at Bowden when he was repatriated?  Isn't this going to start a free for all from all the other poor babies out there?  How much do we as taxpayers need to foot and for how long?  Better this should have been fought tooth and nail to the bitter end and only then cough up if we had to.  This opens all sorts of doors to others now and if it does, I won't thank the PM for it.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
450
Points
1,010
Jarnhamar said:
I'm comfortable believing the current government played a big factor in how this decision was reached.

There are other of cases Canadian citizens who aren't murderers and in bed with terrorism having their rights infringed upon and aren't made rich beyond 99. 9% of other Canadians wildest dreams. Firearm owners come to mind.

The families terrorist ties should come into play due tonth chance of that 10 million being used against Canadians IMO.

You're confusing international law with national law.  Two very different things.

The government is paying Khadr out because we violated our own laws by allowing the United States to detain him, torture him and not give him a fair trial.  Not only that, we were complicit in the entire thing.

We would lose the lawsuit so the government paid him and saved you some money.  Be happy it only cost the taxpayer 15.5 million as opposed to 25 million.

jollyjacktar said:
So then, the gist of what I am getting from you pro-payment guys, is that because the poor baby's rights were trampled on, he gets a fat payout.  OK... so what about the rest of us?  Will anyone else get $10.5 tax free everytime they get treated badly?  Usually when your rights get trampled on, you are not convicted/or charged of whatever transgression you're accused of.  How come he's so special?  Why wasn't his convicting then just overturned and his not being incarcerated at Bowden when he was repatriated?  Isn't this going to start a free for all from all the other poor babies out there?  How much do we as taxpayers need to foot and for how long?  Better this should have been fought tooth and nail to the bitter end and only then cough up if we had to.  This opens all sorts of doors to others now and if it does, I won't thank the PM for it.

I'm not pro/for payment, I'm pro law.  We saved money by settling.

Also, this doesn't go to trial so there won't be any precedence set.  Good for us in the long run  8)
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Canada v Khadr (2008)

K is entitled to disclosure from the appellants of the records of the interviews, and of information given to U.S. authorities as a direct consequence of conducting the interviews.  The principles of international law and comity of nations, which normally require that Canadian officials operating abroad comply with local law and which might otherwise preclude application of the Charter  to Canadian officials acting abroad, do not extend to participation in processes that violate Canada’s binding international human rights obligations.  The process in place at Guantanamo Bay at the time Canadian officials interviewed K and passed on the fruits of the interviews to U.S. officials has been found by the U.S. Supreme Court, with the benefit of a full factual record, to violate U.S. domestic law and international human rights obligations to which Canada subscribes.  The comity concerns that would normally justify deference to foreign law do not apply in this case.  Consequently, the Charter  applies. [2-3] [21] [25-26]

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4638/index.do

PM v Khadr (2010)

Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations and contributed to K’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7  of the Charter , not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.  Though the process to which K is subject has changed, his claim is based upon the same underlying series of events considered in Khadr 2008.  As held in that case, the Charter  applies to the participation of Canadian officials in a regime later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by international law.  There is a sufficient connection between the government’s participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K’s liberty and security of the person.  While the U.S. is the primary source of the deprivation, it is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before the Court that the statements taken by Canadian officials are contributing to K’s continued detention.  The deprivation of K’s right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.  The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.


https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7842/index.do

Bowden Institution v Khadr (2015)

Accordingly, we would dismiss the appeal with costs and confirm the order of the Alberta Court of Appeal that Mr. Khadr’s sentence is a youth sentence to be served in a provincial correctional facility for adults.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15359/index.do

Not once did Khadr lose in court.  The government was wrong over and over and over again.  I would submit that is what makes him special.
 

gryphonv

Full Member
Reaction score
4
Points
230
Humphrey Bogart said:
Also, this doesn't go to trial so there won't be any precedence set.  Good for us in the long run  8)
Arguable this settlement used the precedence started from the Maher Arer  settlement.

It don't have to go to trial or a trial to go to completion for a precedence to be set.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
450
Points
1,010
gryphonv said:
Arguable this settlement used the precedence started from the Maher Arer  settlement.

It don't have to go to trial or a trial to go to completion for a precedence to be set.

Agreed but it would set additional precedence.  The last thing the law makers want is more legal precedence filling up the grey areas.
 
Top