Discussions

It was not the court that awarded him this money, It was the liberal government. The Supreme Court said his rights were violated. This was a civil suit. The liberals worry that this would cost more then 20 million to fight. Yet spend money like drunken pigs. Some things are worth fighting no matter what it cost..  
 
It is a sad day for the great men and women who have served this country, I for one and mad and will fight tooth and nail so Mr. Trudeau and his snowflakes are deafeted next election.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-settlement-analysis-aaron-wherry-1.4189472  
 
Supreme court ruled his rights where violated

Hammer-of-Jor said "Just to inform you, he never did sue the government as you suggest. Trudeau agreed to pay out this compensation before letting the legal system make a decision. We assume to be 10.5 million but Trudeau has not provided proof of the actual amount.     Coincidentally Trudeau paid this amount before the American Soldiers wife was able to file an injunction in Canada. If Trudeau would have waited for it to be decided in courts, the widowed wife would have had a chance of any compensation Omar received to be sent directly to her. So now when her suit goes through in Canada against Omar for killing her husband, she is less likely to receive the funds. "

Says his rights where violated he's been doing pretty good so far winning, if they weren't guilty this would have gone away a long time ago he plans on overturning his US conviction next and lawyers say he has a good case.  
 
Conservatives should also be aware of their own precedent for such compensation: it was Stephen Harper's government that agreed to pay $10 million to Maher Arar in 2007, acknowledging the Canadian government's actions may have led to his torture by Syrian officials in 2002.  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-settlement-analysis-aaron-wherry-1.4189472  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-wins-right-to-to-expand-20m-suit-vs-canadian-government-1.2811226

Good diversion to avoid the facts.  
I suspect you didn't post any links to his case because he wasn''''t a member of ISIS and he didn't live with Osama bin Ladin like our poor little killer did.  
 
Maher Arar actually lived in Canada since 1987, he didn't choose to go try kill Canadians and Americans like our newest Millionaire did.  
 
Maher Arar was just an ordinary telecommunication tech returning to canada when he was wrongly accused.  
 
By the way, also a Liberal screwup. Yes , another Liberal screwup just like our newest millionaire.  
 
Edited by loeog, 2017-07-07 18:30:46

loeog said "Good diversion to avoid the facts.   I suspect you didn't post any links to his case because he wasn''''t a member of ISIS and he didn't live with Osama bin Ladin like our poor little killer did.     Maher Arar actually lived in Canada since 1987, he didn't choose to go try kill Canadians and Americans like our newest Millionaire did.     Maher Arar was just an ordinary telecommunication tech returning to canada when he was wrongly accused.     By the way, also a Liberal screwup. Yes , another Liberal screwup just like our newest millionaire.     Edited by loeog, 2017-07-07 18:30:46"

Did Omar give up his citizenship, under what law or in what court did he lose it, what he did was unforgivable, but we don't pick and choose who gets help and who doesn't, the government is on trial here, so if a hooker gets raped you would drag up, every customer she ever had and say what, she had it coming, the abuses he suffered where before he was found guilty, and they sat back even participated in the interrogations if Im ever in trouble in a forign country I would hope to hear from my government before the trial was over this is about laws not feelings.

In the USA, he was legally charged as an under aged killer as per international law.  
In the USA he played the, " you can't charge me because as a soldier, I didn't commit any war crimes." He claimed he was a soldier and he had the right to kill.  
 
In Canada, he claimed he wasn't a solder, he claimed he was just a child and he didn't understand that killing was wrong.  
 
He claimed that as a victim of his families violent tendencies, Canada didn't protect him. He also claims that it was his fathers brainwashing that made him a killer. That would be the same father that he admits to frequently talking to.  
 
As part of his return to Canada deal, he agreed he wouldn't sue the USA and he would try to profit from his crimes.  
 
Edited by loeog, 2017-07-07 19:18:40

You have made that abundantly clear no argument. but he is still a citizen, your putting him on trial when its the government that abused him, the law is not just nice guys.

loeog said "In the USA, he was legally charged as an under aged killer as per international law.   In the USA he played the, " you can't charge me because as a soldier, I didn't commit any war crimes." He claimed he was a soldier and he had the right to kill.     In Canada, he claimed he wasn't a solder, he claimed he was just a child and he didn't understand that killing was wrong.     He claimed that as a victim of his families violent tendencies, Canada didn't protect him. He also claims that it was his fathers brainwashing that made him a killer. That would be the same father that he admits to frequently talking to.     As part of his return to Canada deal, he agreed he wouldn't sue the USA and he would try to profit from his crimes.     Edited by loeog, 2017-07-07 19:18:40"

Give me a legitimate excuse to deny his rights a legal president law something, other that hes not a nice man, what are the government lawyers saying is the reason his right where violated. or do you believe his rights weren't violated.

Midway55 said "    loeog said "In the USA, he was legally charged as an under aged killer as per international law.   In the USA he played the, " you can't charge me because as a soldier, I didn't commit any war crimes." He claimed he was a soldier and he had the right to kill.     In Canada, he claimed he wasn't a solder, he claimed he was just a child and he didn't understand that killing was wrong.     He claimed that as a victim of his families violent tendencies, Canada didn't protect him. He also claims that it was his fathers brainwashing that made him a killer. That would be the same father that he admits to frequently talking to.     As part of his return to Canada deal, he agreed he wouldn't sue the USA and he would try to profit from his crimes.     Edited by loeog, 2017-07-07 19:18:40" Give me a legitimate excuse to deny his rights a legal president law something, other that hes not a nice man, what are the government lawyers saying is the reason his right where violated. or do you believe his rights weren't violated. "

You want one reason why I think Canada sold us out.  
 
Under international law he is able to be treated as an adult..  
 
It's OK for Canada to respect international Law when we leave the country to fight terrorist.  
 
It's OK for Canada to respect international Law if we want to detain a terrorist if they are in our country.  
 
But our Liberal Court system doesn't wish to follow international Law if it's a 15 year old terrorist.  
 
In fact we will reward him for running back to the country he turned his back on when he joined a terorist group.  
Poor boy just didn't understand what he was doing.  
 
FYI  
The youngest canadian convicted of murder was 12.  
In Canada, real Canadians can be charged as an adult when they are 14.  
 
This rule seems to work Unless you become a terrorist and turn your back on Canada and kill a couple of Americans.  
 
Edited by loeog, 2017-07-07 20:22:33

this whole mess is the fault of the bleeding heart liberal judges that made the decision . these bleeding hearts come from all political sides and seem to like to trip over each other to prove that they are politically correct . it would be refreshing to have judges that were a bit more responsible to the concept of right and wrong rather than just what is perceived as politically correct

I really think that everyone who automatically assumes that a guilty plea under torture means that the person is actually guilty should read this article. The US government's own evidence is very damning to their case. No matter what, the Canadian government should have been involved in bringing Khadr back to Canada, not helping torture him in a foreign, off-the-books "prison".  
 
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/07/opinion/what-if-omar-khadr-isnt-guilty

JR said "I really think that everyone who automatically assumes that a guilty plea under torture means that the person is actually guilty should read this article. The US government's own evidence is very damning to their case. No matter what, the Canadian government should have been involved in bringing Khadr back to Canada, not helping torture him in a foreign, off-the-books "prison".     http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/07/opinion/what-if-omar-khadr-isnt-guilty "

That was a good article. It brings more questions and should shut some people up.

ichimung said "    JR said "I really think that everyone who automatically assumes that a guilty plea under torture means that the person is actually guilty should read this article. The US government's own evidence is very damning to their case. No matter what, the Canadian government should have been involved in bringing Khadr back to Canada, not helping torture him in a foreign, off-the-books "prison".     http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/07/opinion/what-if-omar-khadr-isnt-guilty " That was a good article. It brings more questions and should shut some people up. "

Ichimung,you are assuming some of these "mind's made-up no matter what" people will actually read the article.

Meanwhile, the Trudeau government continues to challenge in court, at taxpayer expense, Canadian military veterans’ calls for pension and benefit considerations after promising during the 2015 election campaign to treat these Afghan-mission veterans better than the Harper government had.  
 
http://globalnews.ca/news/3584426/while-khadr-receives-10-5-million-canadian-911-widow-hounded-by-ottawa/

Good diversion to avoid the facts.  
 
Edited by standard standard h8r, 2017-07-08 21:30:02

who is responsible for the death of any other person should ever be compensated financially.

Sorry for pointing out the obvious Johnbisonbear, but that is what we do when it comes to the members of our armed forces.

You can argue the legality of it, the court decision. Personally, I can't help but think that the legal system being too lenient played a big part in it, in this case instead of sentencing like in so many criminal cases, finding in his favor. I get it, his charter rights and all that. The thing I don't get though is how so many can feel so sorry for him. Well, I do, but it makes me sick. The way that some on the Canadian left are expressing such sympathy for their darling little terrorist boy makes me want to puke. The guy was a terrorist. His whole family appear to be terrorists and/or terrorist sympathizers, in my opinion. His father was a terrorist and was killed overseas in 2003. After Omar was caught, his own mother is quoted as having said that she wished he had been killed in battle so that he would have been martyred. Maybe you can understand why I don't want him or any members of his family ever getting their hands on any of that money.  
 
The Americans kept the terrorist prisoners at Guantanamo, off American soil, so that the protections of the US constitution would not apply, so that they wouldn't have the same legal rights as if they had been imprisoned in America. It's too bad that the Canadian government couldn't have figured something out at the time. This won't be the last time that something like this happens. Are we going to let ourselves be in the same predicament again? Probably.  
 
Justin Trudeau says the settlement isn't about Khadr's case, but that his rights were violated and that "the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians". Protects us against what exactly? Pierre's Charter doesn't protect the property rights of Canadians at all. Pierre's Charter barely protects Canadian's right to free speech, which explains how government has been able to place so many restrictions on the free speech of Canadians and how Justin and the Libs will likely suppress our free speech even further by passing M-103 into law. Pierre's Charter leaves quite a bit to be desired when it comes to protecting the rights of Canadians if you ask me, however, it does appear to do quite a thorough job of protecting the rights of terrorists.

don brown said "Sorry for pointing out the obvious Johnbisonbear, but that is what we do when it comes to the members of our armed forces. "

Taliban kill people? Because they think their 'God' wants them to? No God wants blood shed and people need to grow up and face facts. Do you think our veterans from years ago are murderers? I don't.

People have some strange ideas when it comes to war, and war like everything else seems to evolve, and not really for the better. This war on terrorism seems to be a evolution of it's own, with everyone trying to circumvent the so called rules we have established regaurding war, one being the Genivia convention and all of it's articles.  
You mention of God, and I'm not great on scripture, but with this war on terror, we a reaping what we sow. There has never been a war where there were no innocent people killed, and things done in the Second World War that accelerated the idea of terrorism, and it was done by all parties involved.  
 
Few questions, if a soldier shoots another soldier who is surrendering, or wounded, is that murder or is that war, if the commanding powers decide to bomb a city, and the majority of casualties are civilians, is that murder or is that war.  
 
My thoughts on the story are really pretty simple, and are based on the idea of war and the rules of war, if they really do exist. We have rules about age that I may not agree with because if you are in a combat area with fighting forces you would likely be classed as volonteer, and would be covered by the Genevia conventions as far as prisoner rights, and this person should have been detained under the articles of that convention until the conflict was over, but nobody wants to go by the rules, so we get situations like this one.

Let's also not forget that he committed treason as well.  
 
So what should it take for a POS to lose citizenship in our country? Apparently being a terrorist and committing treason doesn't count....wtf is wrong with this picture?

standard standard h8r said "Good diversion to avoid the facts.     Edited by standard standard h8r, 2017-07-08 21:30:02"

I'm not sure of the diversion to avoid the facts.  
Interesting video, an opinion piece that uses 3 newspaper opinion articles as reference and a 2 pictures that don't mention the fight that took place after the grenade that he may or may not of thrown.  
The article also suggests the American might of died in friendly fire, like the experts could tell the difference between bullets wounds and shrapnel.  
I'm mostly offended that his case gets a settlement, but our soldiers can't get medical treatments in Canada because the government is fighting them in court!

For one don''''t see Khadr as a child soldier. Why? He wasn''''t fighting for a country, wearing a military uniform with insignias.The Geneva convention is meant to protect soldiers of fighting nations when theu either surrender or wounded and incable of fighting further. He was merely an insurgent fighting for a terrorist organization called the Taliban. The Taliban were not a functional government with a military. They were simply a terrorist organization occupying a country and harbouring other known world terrorists. So, does the Geneva convention extend to protect terrorist organization and their fighting members? I think not, and as such that''''s why he was sent to Gitno. That's where he belonged because he potentialy had important information that could lead to the capture of the worlds most wanted terrorist of the day. The 10Mil is an insult to all of our proud military mwmbers who serve to protect our freedoms and way of life that the likes of Khadr want to destroy and install Sharia law all over. Shame on JT and the Libs for compensating a treasenous individual who sought to kill as many Canadian and NATO soldiers as possible!  
 
Edited by 70`s guy, 2017-07-09 13:18:25

If this wasn't a questionable issue, why was this done when JT had left the country and why was the payment done so quickly.

Do you consider the American war of independence a war or a terrorist campaign, the patriots did not wear uniforms and carried out actions that were not accepted as actions of a military unit. One thing that maybe could be said by that war was the Americans learned from the British by removing prisoners of war, and placing them on ships anchored off shore, and they were treated horribly on those ships with many dying.  
When there is a war there usually is a declaration, and I have heard many times about the "war on terrorism", and it does seem to have a defined army, just not in uniform.

don brown said "Do you consider the American war of independence a war or a terrorist campaign, the patriots did not wear uniforms and carried out actions that were not accepted as actions of a military unit. One thing that maybe could be said by that war was the Americans learned from the British by removing prisoners of war, and placing them on ships anchored off shore, and they were treated horribly on those ships with many dying.   When there is a war there usually is a declaration, and I have heard many times about the "war on terrorism", and it does seem to have a defined army, just not in uniform. "

My history of the American war is not great so I won't comment except to say that it dates back further than the Geneva convention. Maybe the Un should consider amending the "Geneva Convention" to i:nclude terrorists of terror groups as part of those protected under the "Geneva Convention" charter. I only say though that today, terrorists are not protected by the Geneva convention as they are not soldiers of a governing nation. So, that's why Kadr ended up in GITMO. The Bush administration did not view terrorist as soldiers and therefore were not protected under the Geneva convention charter. Maybe we should all get Trudeau to champion a movement to get the UN to amend the Geneva convention to i:nclude protection for terrorist in custody. I think that's something that he'd be proud to undertake.

Articles of the Geneva Convention  
 
Maybe I have misunderstood the articles that are cover on the first part, but it gives coverage to just about anyone, and even under certain situations must be followed.  
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/25/iraq2

don brown said "Articles of the Geneva Convention     Maybe I have misunderstood the articles that are cover on the first part, but it gives coverage to just about anyone, and even under certain situations must be followed.     https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/25/iraq2 "

Article 4  
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:  
 
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.  
 
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:  
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war  
 
Terrorists may fail several other requirements when cutting prisoners body parts off.  
 
 
The problem is when a Canadian Judge asks the question, "did this group of bin Ladin''s person unit commit any crime during this particular fight."  
The rest of the world must be laughing!  
 
Edited by loeog, 2017-07-09 17:28:16

I am no expert on the subject by any means . My understanding though that in 2002 the Taliban controlled about 90 % of Afghanistan, but was not recognized worldwide as a governing body of the state of Afghanistan. I think the Bush administration of the day also believed this and thus the Geneva convention did not apply as the Taliban was considered a terrorist group controlling parts of a country, in this case Afghanistan. It similar to considering ISIS as a nation when really it isn't and when fighting ISIS I don't believe that the Geneva convention applies as ISIS as is not a Nation even though it self proclaim's itself a nation. The Geneva convention talks about "High Contracting Parties" which were in my understanding the signed on "Nations" of the Geneva convention. The convention states that a conflict between two "High Contracting Parties" must abide by the Geneva Convention and even if only one of the two waring "Nations" go at it then the "High Contracting Party" must abide by the convention rules. Problem is that in Afghanistan there were several "High Contracting Parties" at war in Afghanistan, but they were all on the same side and were part of NATO. The other side was the Taliban, not a nation, but terrorist, guerilas, or drug smugglers. Call them what you want, but they were not fighting for a nation, therefore I don't believe that the convention applied. Yes we have a war on terror, yes we have a war on drugs, but in those cases the convention does not apply as the opposing fighters, whether thugs, terrorists or drug dealers are not fighting for a country.Maybe if all those Canadians or Westerners thinking about joining groups like ISIS would realize that they have no (Geneva rights), but only limited rights as prisoners then that might actually be a good thing. I'm not sure that telling all potential terrorists that Canada will protect you from harm should you be caught by NATO performing terror activities is really a good thing. Futhermore, if Canada fails to protect you as a terrorist then you could very well be awarded millions in a settlement and probably a public apology to boot! Yes, that is quite the message to send to potential terrorist!

The widow of the American medic that was killed by Kdahr is getting her day in court. The money is likely long gone but glad to see she's getting a chance to go after it. Here's a great CTV clip about it. http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1163469&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1