Canada to pay a Jihadi murderer $10M

[Derec]

. You said he was guilty of high treason when I asked what crime he had committed.

Exactly. You did not as what crime against the US he comitted. By the way, that is easily answered by seeing what crimes he was convicted of, like you later did. But that does not exhaust the list of crimes he actually committed. If Canadian govenrment had any backbone they would have brought treason charges already. In fact, that whole jihadist family should have been stripped of Canadian citzenship long ago. Instead for example the youngest son, Abdulkareem, who was paralyzed while fighting for the Taliban, enjoys free healthcare courtesy of Canadian taxpayers. And Canadian government is preventing extradition of another son, Abdullah, for providing weapons to Al Qaeda.

He could not possibly commit treason against the US since he is not a US citizen.

You don't say!

He received the settlement for his treatment by the US not Canada.

That makes no sense. Why should Canada pay him for the alleged treatment by the US? The basis of the lawsuit is that Omar thinks Canada should have somehow prevented him from going to Gitmo.

So your entire response is nothing more than babble.

No, it was correctlly answering your question. One crime he is guilty of is high treason against Canada. If you wanted to restrict your question to crimes agaisnt US only, you should have said so.

I prefer an explanation from someone who knows what he or she is talking about not some internet know-nothing.

Knock yourself out, but for the record, I know a lot more than you ever will.

 

[Derec]

I just hope his victim's family sues him for the entire $10M.

Update: that actually already happened and the Speer's widow and Morris, the wounded solider, won a large judgment in an US court. Now they have filed an injunction to prevent Omar from actually receiving any of the taxpayer money Justin Trudeau wants to give him.

U.S. soldier’s widow filed application to enforce $134M claim weeks before Khadr settlement

I hope they prevail, as Omar should not get to profit from his jihadist activities, but Canadian courts have been very disappointing in regard to this Islamist family so far.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, Canada should have tried him on top of what the US did.

That is why Khadr sued the Canadian government, and they ultimately settled.

How is Canadian government responsible for what US allegedly did to him?

Because they were part and party to the coalition of forces who Khadr attacked. The minute they found out that the US had one of their citizens in custody for war crimes, they should have demanded that he be remanded in their custody for trial in Canada. Instead, they allowed the US to hold him in a prison that violates the Geneva Convention for 10 years, and allegedly tortured him during that time. Canada has a duty to protect her citizens from such abuse at the hands of their allies. He sued them for failure to live up to that duty.

The reason Canadian government settled is because...

I have no idea why Canada settled, and neither do you. My best guess would be that it was because they knew that they would lose the lawsuit.

 

[Derec]

Because they were part and party to the coalition of forces who Khadr attacked.

That only means that Canada should try him for high treason, not that Canada should somehow be responsible that he not serve any time in US custody.

The minute they found out that the US had one of their citizens in custody for war crimes, they should have demanded that he be remanded in their custody for trial in Canada.

He was held for crimes against US citizens and as such, should have been tried and held by US. Also, Canada has proven not to be a reliable partner in that regard. Even though Khadr has not finished serving his already very lenient sentence, he has been freed by Canada. Had US given up Khadr right away, he probably would not have faced any consequences for his actions whatsoever.

Instead, they allowed the US to hold him in a prison that violates the Geneva Convention for 10 years,

In what way does it violate the Geneva Conventions? Remember, these conventions do not award unlawful combatants like Khadr most of the protections given to lawful combatants.

and allegedly tortured him during that time.

Allegedly.

Canada has a duty to protect her citizens from such abuse at the hands of their allies. He sued them for failure to live up to that duty.

And Canada should have fought that lawsuit.

I have no idea why Canada settled, and neither do you. My best guess would be that it was because they knew that they would lose the lawsuit.

I think the political leansings of the Trudeau government and its sympathy for Omar Khadr played the decisive role, not any real risk management.

 

[laughing dog]

Exactly. You did not as what crime against the US he comitted. By the way, that is easily answered by seeing what crimes he was convicted of, like you later did. But that does not exhaust the list of crimes he actually committed.

You know this how?

If Canadian govenrment had any backbone they would have brought treason charges already. In fact, that whole jihadist family should have been stripped of Canadian citzenship long ago. Instead for example the youngest son, Abdulkareem, who was paralyzed while fighting for the Taliban, enjoys free healthcare courtesy of Canadian taxpayers. And Canadian government is preventing extradition of another son, Abdullah, for providing weapons to Al Qaeda.

You are babbling again.

That makes no sense. Why should Canada pay him for the alleged treatment by the US? The basis of the lawsuit is that Omar thinks Canada should have somehow prevented him from going to Gitmo.

Clearly, someone somewhere thinks there is merit in that claim. It would nice to see a detailed explanation of the facts and reasoning used by the Canadian decision-makers in order to make an informed and rational judgment in contrast to the regular ignorance and bias based kneejerk pronouncements from the usual suspects.

No, it was correctlly answering your question. One crime he is guilty of is high treason against Canada. If you wanted to restrict your question to crimes agaisnt US only, you should have said so.

Babbling a justification for babbling is not a successful tactic.

Knock yourself out, but for the record, I know a lot more than you ever will.

Then why don't you post like you do?

 

[ronburgundy]

The Star reported that Khadr told them in 2015 he was unsure whether he threw the grenade that mortally wounded Speer. He told the newspaper he saw the plea deal as the way to get out of prison.

How can he be "unsure whether he threw the grenade"? There is only one way, and that is that he was throwing grenades and trying to kill US soldiers but just can't be sure that his grenade killed that particular solider. That should make no difference to his punishment.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Knock yourself out, but for the record, I know a lot more than you ever will.

Then why don't you post like you do?

It is curious, isn't it?
Derec spends a lot of time posting on what SHOULD have happened. How trials SHOULD have come out, or what SHOULD have been prosecuted, or who SHOULD have been told to take a hike. But his views on SHOULD so often turn out to be wrong.

And when he expresses his unsupported knowledge of what DID happen, what people's motivations for decisions were, what their priorities were, who influenced what decisions... You have to wonder how close to reality his DID comes to his SHOULD batting average.

 

[KeepTalking]

That only means that Canada should try him for high treason, not that Canada should somehow be responsible that he not serve any time in US custody.

The minute they found out that the US had one of their citizens in custody for war crimes, they should have demanded that he be remanded in their custody for trial in Canada.

He was held for crimes against US citizens and as such, should have been tried and held by US.

And had this been done legally in accordance with international law, then that would have been fine. The problem for Canada is that they did nothing to protect their citizen from being illegally held in a prison that violates the Geneva Convention, where he was allegedly tortured.

Also, Canada has proven not to be a reliable partner in that regard. Even though Khadr has not finished serving his already very lenient sentence, he has been freed by Canada. Had US given up Khadr right away, he probably would not have faced any consequences for his actions whatsoever.

My understanding is that he has been released while awaiting trial. This does not mean he has been "freed". There are likely restrictions on his travel while he is awaiting trial in Canada.

Instead, they allowed the US to hold him in a prison that violates the Geneva Convention for 10 years,

In what way does it violate the Geneva Conventions?

In a way that was ruled upon by the US Supreme Court:

https://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gitmo-the-legal-mess-behind-the-ethical-mess/

The US Supreme Court, in four important decisions, Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that international law applies to Guantanamo detainees, that they cannot be held indefinitely without trial, that constitutional habeas corpus protections apply to them, and that the combatant status review tribunals were unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions.

Remember, these conventions do not award unlawful combatants like Khadr most of the protections given to lawful combatants.

I remember that the Bush administration tried to make that argument, but that the US Supreme Court ruled otherwise, as the article linked above also makes clear:

The Bush administration took the position that laws of war and humanitarian law under the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 did not apply to the armed conflict the United States was engaged in with al-Qaeda in the US invasion of Afghanistan. The Bush policy was that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to “unlawful enemy combatants,” such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the US Supreme Court disagreed, finding that Article 3, common to all the Geneva Conventions, did apply to all individuals in the conflict, providing minimum guarantees of fair and humane treatment. The court found that Article 3 requires fair trials for all detainees, prohibits torture and indefinite detention, and binds both the United States and Afghanistan.

and allegedly tortured him during that time.

Allegedly.

Yes, I already said that. And I only said that because I am no sure if the US has admitted to using "enhanced interrogation techniques", otherwise known as torture, in this specific case. We do know that they tortured others at Guantanamo.

 

[laughing dog]

The Star reported that Khadr told them in 2015 he was unsure whether he threw the grenade that mortally wounded Speer. He told the newspaper he saw the plea deal as the way to get out of prison.

How can he be "unsure whether he threw the grenade"? There is only one way, and that is that he was throwing grenades and trying to kill US soldiers but just can't be sure that his grenade killed that particular solider. That should make no difference to his punishment.

So he should be punished for murder even though he may not have actually murdered someone?

 

[Derec]

So he should be punished for murder even though he may not have actually murdered someone?

He was effectively only sentenced to 18 years (including the 10 years at Gitmo). Even without the murder, the other convictions (attempted murder, material support to terrorists etc.) are more than enough to justfiy his sentence length.
He got off too lightly, even without taking into account Canada letting him out early. To suggest that he was somehow hard done by is beyond ridiculous.

World's smallest violin, playing just for Omar Khadr.

 

[laughing dog]

So he should be punished for murder even though he may not have actually murdered someone?

He was effectively only sentenced to 18 years (including the 10 years at Gitmo). Even without the murder, the other convictions (attempted murder, material support to terrorists etc.) are more than enough to justfiy his sentence length.

Ignoring the fact that your response is immaterial to what I wrote, the SCOTUS (as Keep Talking pointed out) ruling strongly suggests your opinion is unfounded on legal grounds.

He got off too lightly, even without taking into account Canada letting him out early.

You really are in the wrong line of work. You need to get into some sort of legal consulting field, telling all these incompetents how to get tougher punishments. Call up Jeff Sessions (a like-minded citizen).

To suggest that he was somehow hard done by is beyond ridiculous.

Suppose we do an experiment - you go to Gitmo for 10 years and undergo enhanced interrogation techniques. Then report back on this.

 

[ronburgundy]

How can he be "unsure whether he threw the grenade"? There is only one way, and that is that he was throwing grenades and trying to kill US soldiers but just can't be sure that his grenade killed that particular solider. That should make no difference to his punishment.

So he should be punished for murder even though he may not have actually murdered someone?

The punishment for premeditated attempted murder should be essentially the same as actual murder. Being incompetent is the only difference between the two.

 

[Derec]

Ignoring the fact that your response is immaterial to what I wrote,

It's not. Even if you took murder off the table, the punishment can be the same since he got off very lightly for murder.

the SCOTUS (as Keep Talking pointed out) ruling strongly suggests your opinion is unfounded on legal grounds.

SCOTUS did not rule on his conviction or sentence.

You really are in the wrong line of work. You need to get into some sort of legal consulting field, telling all these incompetents how to get tougher punishments. Call up Jeff Sessions (a like-minded citizen).

I disagree with Jeff Sessions on a lot of things but one thing I guess we would agree on is that jihadists should not be let out of prison early. Or paid exorbitant sums in compensation.

Suppose we do an experiment - you go to Gitmo for 10 years and undergo enhanced interrogation techniques. Then report back on this.

For $10M I'd definitely do it! Even if its only Canadian dollars.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not. Even if you took murder off the table, the punishment can be the same since he got off very lightly for murder.

Which had nothing to do with my comment about being punished for something he did not do. You are commenting about punishment for acts he did.

SCOTUS did not rule on his conviction or sentence.

SCOTUS ruled the combatant tribunals were unconstitutional which suggests his status as a combatant is in question.

 

[ksen]

No, Canada should have tried him on top of what the US did.


How is Canadian government responsible for what US allegedly did to him?

Because they were part and party to the coalition of forces who Khadr attacked. The minute they found out that the US had one of their citizens in custody for war crimes, they should have demanded that he be remanded in their custody for trial in Canada. Instead, they allowed the US to hold him in a prison that violates the Geneva Convention for 10 years, and allegedly tortured him during that time. Canada has a duty to protect her citizens from such abuse at the hands of their allies. He sued them for failure to live up to that duty.

The reason Canadian government settled is because...

I have no idea why Canada settled, and neither do you. My best guess would be that it was because they knew that they would lose the lawsuit.

I blame their socialized healthcare system.

 

[laughing dog]

So he should be punished for murder even though he may not have actually murdered someone?

The punishment for premeditated attempted murder should be essentially the same as actual murder. Being incompetent is the only difference between the two.

While there is no difference in the intent, there is a big difference in the outcome. It makes sense to punish people for crimes they do commit, not for crimes they did not commit.

 

[Derec]

I blame their socialized healthcare system.

No, the Canadian socialized healthcare is to blame for Omar getting expensive surgeries for free even though he sustained the injuries while fighting against Canada and its allies. Just a few months ago he underwent a major shoulder surgery, courtesy of Canadian socialized healthcare.
I think Taliban's VA shoulkd pay for his surgeries, not Canadian taxpayers.

 

[laughing dog]

Unsurprisingly, there is more here than the OP lets on:

A Canadian citizen, Khadr was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 at age 15 after a firefight with U.S. soldiers. He pleaded guilty to killing a U.S. Army medic and became the youngest inmate held at the military prison in Cuba.

Khadr later recanted and his lawyers said he had been grossly mistreated. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that Canada breached his rights by sending intelligence agents to interrogate him and by sharing the results with the United States.

Khadr spent a decade in Guantanamo before being returned to Canada in 2012 to serve the rest of his sentence. He was released on bail in 2015 and lives in Edmonton, Alberta.

The Canadian government and Khadr's lawyers agreed on the compensation deal, said the sources, who asked to remain anonymous given the sensitivity. Canada has reached a series of expensive settlements with citizens imprisoned abroad who alleged Ottawa was complicit in their mistreatment. 30, Khadr had sued Ottawa for C$20 million on grounds of violating his human rights. News of the settlement was first reported by the Globe and Mail newspaper.

(source: https://ca.investing.com/news/world-news/update-1-canada-to-compensate-ex-guantanamo-inmate,-apologize:-sources-498282).

So, Kadr already had already established his rights had been violated according to Canadian law by Canada. In other words, the question facing the current Canadian government was the expense of a trial worth the expected damage award given there would be a damage award.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see no other side here.

"Unsure whether he threw the grenade that mortally wounded Speer." How can you be unsure whether you threw a grenade?? All this can mean is he doesn't know if the grenade he threw was the one that inflicted a particular injury--no surprise given the reality of a firefight.

Thus there is no question that he was trying to kill US forces. A failure to succeed doesn't make him innocent.

It would most certainly make him innocent of murder.

Not by US law at least--felony murder rule.

He tried to kill US soldiers. Somebody in his group (whether it was him or not is uncertain) killed a US soldier. It doesn't matter who, everyone in the group is guilty of killing the US soldier.

Canada had a felony murder rule but it has been limited by the courts--but I think he still qualifies.

 

[bilby]

It would most certainly make him innocent of murder.

Not by US law at least--felony murder rule.

He tried to kill US soldiers. Somebody in his group (whether it was him or not is uncertain) killed a US soldier. It doesn't matter who, everyone in the group is guilty of killing the US soldier.

Canada had a felony murder rule but it has been limited by the courts--but I think he still qualifies.

Yeah, the US has lots of completely insane laws like this. They achieve nothing good, unless you like having the world's largest per capita incarceration rate; But that's the land of the free for you.