whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
I would agree that it is sensible to punish people for crimes they commit, not what they did not commit.
-
Features
Canada to pay a Jihadi murderer $10M
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
I would agree that it is sensible to punish people for crimes they commit, not what they did not commit.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
To save this sort of problem it would make sense combatants who fought against the US foreign invasions, were not permitted to enter the USA even if they didn't kill anyone.
laughing dog
Contributor
They are fighting a war. Combatants try to kill each other in war. Normally, they are not tried for murder. Nor does your application seem to fit the explanation of
Felony_murder_rule. Your belief does not make it so.
laughing dog
Contributor
Kadr did not voluntarily enter the US. He was captured in Afghanistan and sent to Guatanamo in Cuba where he was tried, convicted and served his sentence until transferred to Canada.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
This is the logic that says segregated schools were pioneering School Choice.
barbos
Contributor
Al Qaeda were in 1988 and they were good guys anyway. Khadr parents emigrated to Canada before 1986 and they were freedom fighters and soviets were bad guys, you know.
The felony murder rule doesn't cause a high incarceration rate. That's caused by our insane handling of drug crime.
There are cases where I think it goes too far but in most cases it comes down to you were doing something you know might get someone killed. Someone got killed.
In this case he was trying to kill US forces. US forces got killed. To me it makes not one iota of difference whether it was due to him or one of his companions. The intent was the same on the part of all of them.
They are fighting a war. Combatants try to kill each other in war. Normally, they are not tried for murder. Nor does your application seem to fit the explanation of
Your belief does not make it so.
Two choices:
1) It's actually war. Then this becomes moot--no trial is needed. He gets detained for the duration of the conflict. Since he was fighting out of uniform we aren't even obligated to do this.
2) It's not war. Then it's a criminal matter, felony murder makes sense.
No. The main part of the forces that we helped went on to become the government of Afghanistan. However, a small part of the force, with Pakistani backing, turned on the rest rather than laying down arms since the war was over. At the time of our intervention in Afghanistan this group had conquered most of Afghanistan. The "Northern Alliance" that we intervened on the side of was the remains of the post-Soviet government of Afghanistan.
- - - Updated - - -
No--this is a subset of my category 1, not a third category.
laughing dog
Contributor
No trial because he committed no crime. He is a POW and must be treated like one (which he was not).They are fighting a war. Combatants try to kill each other in war. Normally, they are not tried for murder. Nor does your application seem to fit the explanation of
Your belief does not make it so.
Two choices:
1) It's actually war. Then this becomes moot--no trial is needed. He gets detained for the duration of the conflict. Since he was fighting out of uniform we aren't even obligated to do this.
No it doesn't. And the US does not have jurisdiction in Afghanistan.
untermensche
Contributor
He was a spy?
Disguised in some way?
How is he an unlawful combatant?
He's just a member of an opposing military at a time of anti-Muslim hysteria.
Derec
Contributor
As usual you are wrong. This is what the Red Cross has to say about it:
The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorismICRC said:
According to ICRC unlawful combatants may be prosecuted under laws of the "detaining state", in this case the US.
- - - Updated - - -
He was not member of an "opposing military". He was acting as a translator and IED assembler for a group of handful of militants, at least one of whom had and used a flagged satellite phone (which is why the Americans came upon the compound in the first place).
laughing dog
Contributor
Thank you for correcting my mistakes.
Outside of the debatable assumption hat Kadr was an unlawful combatant that underpins your entire argument in a well-resourced fact-based argument in contrast to your OP.
Derec
Contributor
Derec
Contributor
They were never good guys.
Khadr's father is Egyptian and his mother a Palestinian. They are not from Pakistan or Afghanistan. That mistake is made often by supprorters of Omar Khadr who say stupid things like "he was merely defending his country from US aggression" even though a) he is supposed to be Canadian and b) his family is not from Afghanistan.
In any case the Khadr Jihadist family is a very good argument why mass migration of Muslims into western countries is such a bad idea. Especially when they are not vetted for extremist views. I think they should get their citizenship revoked anyway. They have ever only used Canada for free healthcare and protection, spending most of the time in Afghanistan and Pakistan waging jihad.
Derec
Contributor
I really don't see how Canadian Supreme Court could possibly get to that decision. What's wrong with Canadian intelligence agents interrogating Khadr and sharing the intel with US? Khadr was an enemy combattant fighting against Canada and US is an ally. Furthermore, Khadr knew Osama bin Laden and thus it was natural that he would be aggressively interrogated. Anything else would be dereliction of duty. The court screwed by big time by siding with Jihadi Omar.
But note that the court did not mandate Khadr be paid millions. That decision is solely the fault of the Trudeau government.
He does not deserve a Beaver, much less a Looney or 10 million of them.
laughing dog
Contributor
You could track down the unanimous Supreme Court decision. Here is a news report about the decisions - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/khadr-repatriation-overturned-by-top-court-1.893059. Here is a link to the decision https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7842/index.do?r=AAAAAQAFS2hhZHIB.
The Canadian government had been found to have violated Kadr's rights. Regardless of your view of that decision, that means there was a very high likelihood of an award of damages, since he did not have to prove any violation of rights. Apparently, the Trudeau gov't concluded that the expense of a trial along with publicity from the trial and the likelihood of a large award was higher than $10.5 million Canadian.
laughing dog
Contributor
You missed the entire context of the response. It was in response to LP's "if it is a war". If our actions in Afghanistan constitute a war against the Taliban and its allies, then he is a combatant.