• 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

ueo

Jr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Isn't "saving money by settling" a term used by BIG industry to defend the indefensible?
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
179
Points
710
There comes a time in every democracy when courts and governments arrogantly lose touch with the people that they work for. Citizens that reign in their governments, control them. Those that don't, become sheep for the slaughter. Stop blaming the courts, governments and Kahdar. The fault lies 100% with the voter for letting our employees run our country contrary to our wishes and refusing to discipline those that do not have Canadians' best interest in mind.

The best that can be hoped for are a series of unexpected demises for our elected rogues. 

Laws be damned. There are times when we need to step back and just do what is right. Good people know this inherently. Politicians and courts not so much.
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
jmt18325 said:
I'm going to go with 9 court rulings (3 from the SCOC) for $1000, Alex.

He's no more special than any other criminal who didn't have a lawyer present while being questioned.  That pig isn't more equal than the other pigs, despite being treated thus.  He just has deeper pockets with his bloodsucker being willing to gold dig longer to hit paydirt than perhaps your average dirtbag out there.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
365
Points
1,010
ueo said:
Isn't "saving money by settling" a term used by BIG industry to defend the indefensible?

Government is big industry  8)

recceguy said:
There comes a time in every democracy when courts and governments arrogantly lose touch with the people that they work for. Citizens that reign in their governments, control them. Those that don't, become sheep for the slaughter. Stop blaming the courts, governments and Kahdar. The fault lies 100% with the voter for letting our employees run our country contrary to our wishes and refusing to discipline those that do not have Canadians' best interest in mind.

The best that can be hoped for are a series of unexpected demises for our elected rogues. 

Laws be damned. There are times when we need to step back and just do what is right. Good people know this inherently. Politicians and courts not so much.

It's up to the voters to change the government if they don't like what they see.

We can't blame the courts, they only uphold the laws they don't make them.
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
recceguy said:
There comes a time in every democracy when courts and governments arrogantly lose touch with the people that they work for. Citizens that reign in their governments, control them. Those that don't, become sheep for the slaughter. Stop blaming the courts, governments and Kahdar. The fault lies 100% with the voter for letting our employees run our country contrary to our wishes and refusing to discipline those that do not have Canadians' best interest in mind.

I don't think that universal human rights are contrary to our interests. 
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,199
Points
910
Our notions of human rights don't apply in China, North Korea, etc. I'm sure everyone is aware of that.
 

gryphonv

Full Member
Reaction score
4
Points
230
Honest question.

Does this settlement open up the flood gates for other Citizens that are incarcerated abroad outside of our legal system? Like the Pastor who was held in North Korea?

I can't help but feeling, any incarcerated citizen who Canada don't use every effort to return them to Canada  can use this settlement as a precedent for their own lawsuit when they get back to home soil.

 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
179
Points
710
Humphrey Bogart said:
Government is big industry  8)

It's up to the voters to change the government if they don't like what they see.

We can't blame the courts, they only uphold the laws they don't make them.

The courts don't make laws.  :rofl: The courts walk a fine line. The courts have been for awhile, and continue to do so. They've trodden on more than a few toes, outside their own jurisdiction.

I'd sooner see the system they have stateside and elect our judges, JP's, police chiefs, city administrators, etc. Politicians are holding Canada for ransom. Sometimes there's room for semantics and lawyer double speak with platitudes about open and just society, that they typically espouse, but seldom follow themselves. There is many starting to move beyond that point, where pitchforks and torches may become more appropriate.

Now, that's just my  :2c:. I am not required to defend what I see with my own eyes. You can decide to agree or not.

 

Attachments

  • slit throats.jpg
    slit throats.jpg
    34.3 KB · Views: 74

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
gryphonv said:
Honest question.

Does this settlement open up the flood gates for other Citizens that are incarcerated abroad outside of our legal system? Like the Pastor who was held in North Korea?

I can't help but feeling, any incarcerated citizen who Canada don't use every effort to return them to Canada  can use this settlement as a precedent for their own lawsuit when they get back to home soil.

The settlement is not about Khadr not being brought home in a timely fashion.  Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled that the executive has prerogative over that.  In short, no.
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
recceguy said:
The courts walk a fine line. The courts have been for awhile, and continue to do so. They've trodden on more than a few toes, outside their own jurisdiction.

I'd sooner see the system they have stateside and elect our judges, JP's, police chiefs, city administrators, etc. Politicians are holding Canada for ransom.

Now, that's just my  :2c:. I am not required to defend what I see with my own eyes. You can decide to agree or not.

You are required to defend your assertion that the courts have made decisions outside of their jurisdiction.

I'm also obliged to point out that the US Supreme Court is no more elected than the Canadian one.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
179
Points
710
jmt18325 said:
You are required to defend your assertion that the courts have made decisions outside of their jurisdiction.

I'm also obliged to point out that the US Supreme Court is no more elected than the Canadian one.

You are allowed to discount my OPINION, if you don't agree with it. What you require and what I require are two different things. I'm not obliged to even speak with you if I wish, and I'm most certainly NOT REQUIRED to do a single thing you wish.

And seriously, are you kidding me? The SC is appointed? Holly fuck!!! Stop the presses.

We may not ever agree on things, but let not start calling each other stupid. I mean, if you really want to go down that road, I'm happy to oblige, but I'm sure the owner wouldn't like it. Probably you either.
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
recceguy said:
You are allowed to discount my OPINION, if you don't agree with it. What you require and what I require are two different things. I'm not obliged to even speak with you if I wish, and I'm most certainly NOT REQUIRED to do a single thing you wish.

You're right, you're not required to do anything.  If you expect your assertion to be taken seriously, it would probably be a good idea to back it up.

And seriously, are you kidding me? The SC is appointed? Holly frig!!! Stop the presses.

This particular situation has arisen because of rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada.  Pining for the US system of elected judges wouldn't have changed anything in the case of the Supreme Court, and that's why I pointed it out.

We may not ever agree on things, but let not start calling each other stupid. I mean, if you really want to go down that road, I'm happy to oblige, but I'm sure the owner wouldn't like it. Probably you either.

I haven't called you stupid.  I'm having a discussion. 
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Hamish Seggie said:
and what? Just thought I'd point that out to you.

And in this case, our system of rights applied.  That's why I don't understand the relevance.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
993
Points
1,060
Humphrey Bogart said:
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.

I know you're right I just wish we would be able to find a way around the pay out. I think it's supporting terrorism. 

I don't recall if it was here or elsewhere but I remember the topic about members of the military getting sex changes and boob jobs which pissed a lot of people off (who can't get laser eye surgery)  but I think  the logical explanation was that the CAF has to provide the same kind of care as OHIP etc.. and if it went to court  the CAF would end up losing and it just kissing away money. Figure it's essentially the same when it comes down to numbers.

As for allowing the US to detain him we didn't have many options. I suppose we could have threatened to pull our forces out of the crusade unless they returned our errant Canadian citizen. Or mounted a rescue mission :)

Im just rambling but  I find argument that we're doing the just and right thing a little  hollow. Our PM shows gay pride Islam socks while allowing weapons to be sold to Saudi Arabia.

For sure the numbers game you mention is a legit thing but I think this move  also has to do with the countries slide to left wing politics and policies while cementing that voting base.

 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
365
Points
1,010
recceguy said:
The courts don't make laws.  :rofl: The courts walk a fine line. The courts have been for awhile, and continue to do so. They've trodden on more than a few toes, outside their own jurisdiction.

I'd sooner see the system they have stateside and elect our judges, JP's, police chiefs, city administrators, etc. Politicians are holding Canada for ransom. Sometimes there's room for semantics and lawyer double speak with platitudes about open and just society, that they typically espouse, but seldom follow themselves. There is many starting to move beyond that point, where pitchforks and torches may become more appropriate.

Now, that's just my  :2c:. I am not required to defend what I see with my own eyes. You can decide to agree or not.

I disagree with you.

The courts don't make laws, they apply them as they are written.  I think your sights are lined up on the wrong targets, point them at the politicians and we would be in violent agreement.  There is a mechanism for getting rid of them though, it's called voting.

I understand your contempt for politicians as we all have certain grievances with X and Y political parties; however, I don't get your hate for the courts?

recceguy said:
The courts don't make laws.  :rofl: The courts walk a fine line. The courts have been for awhile, and continue to do so. They've trodden on more than a few toes, outside their own jurisdiction.

When, where and how have the courts trodden on a few toes, walked a fine line or gone outside their jurisdiction?

You can't just make a statement like that and not back it up with an example, fact or source. 

Sorry I lied, you can do that, but it means you don't have an argument and are just trolling.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
38
Points
530
recceguy said:
Laws be damned.

The laws we are discussing here are the Constitution of Canada and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; not carbon taxes and prohibition era liquor control laws.

recceguy said:
There is many starting to move beyond that point, where pitchforks and torches may become more appropriate.

And when this lot shows up with their pitchforks and torches to contest the Constitution and the Charter, I'll be there in my uniform with my Canadian Flag on my shoulder telling them to back the f*** up.  :salute:
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Jarnhamar said:
There's no such thing as universal human rights.

There is if we decide there is and defend said rights - we did that.  Canada's Charter applies to all of us, and we're very lucky to have such a document.
 
Top