Canada to pay a Jihadi murderer $10M

[Loren Pechtel]

You have no clue. And if you had actually bothered to read the Canadian Supreme Court ruling, the facts that Kadr was 15 years old at the time of his capture and the fact he was denied legal representation are 2 major violations of his civil rights. And, in fact, the poll you cite suggests that most Canadians agree with that to a certain degree:

But while Canadians do not agree with the government's move, they widely believe the affair should have been avoided. According to the ARI poll, 74 per cent of Canadians agree that when Khadr was captured by U.S. forces as a 15-year-old, he was a child soldier and should have been handled like one in the first place.

Captured soldiers don't get lawyers or trials.

 

[LordKiran]

You have no clue. And if you had actually bothered to read the Canadian Supreme Court ruling, the facts that Kadr was 15 years old at the time of his capture and the fact he was denied legal representation are 2 major violations of his civil rights. And, in fact, the poll you cite suggests that most Canadians agree with that to a certain degree:

Captured soldiers don't get lawyers or trials.

Child soldiers and members of an allied polity do. Your move, slick.

 

[laughing dog]

You have no clue. And if you had actually bothered to read the Canadian Supreme Court ruling, the facts that Kadr was 15 years old at the time of his capture and the fact he was denied legal representation are 2 major violations of his civil rights. And, in fact, the poll you cite suggests that most Canadians agree with that to a certain degree:

Captured soldiers don't get lawyers or trials.

Captured soldiers are treated like POWS and the internees at Guantanamo were not. Moreover, there is no international agreement about whether captured child soldiers are responsible for their actions.

Finally, Kadr was explicitly denoted as an illegal non-combatant, which means in the eyes of the US (and Canada), he was not a soldier.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Captured soldiers don't get lawyers or trials.

Captured soldiers are treated like POWS and the internees at Guantanamo were not. Moreover, there is no international agreement about whether captured child soldiers are responsible for their actions.

Finally, Kadr was explicitly denoted as an illegal non-combatant, which means in the eyes of the US (and Canada), he was not a soldier.

If he's a soldier he gets POW status--detainment for the duration of the conflict. That's likely life in detention.

If he's not a solider then he's a murderer by US law.

And what's an "illegal non-combatant", a draft-dodger? If he's an illegal combatant he has no rights at all.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well good. Try him for murder then. Or rather manslaughter or something like that since he killed someone in the middle of a fight. We try 15 year olds for that all the time.

What you don't do, however, is what we did here. If we do, then we violated this guy's civil rights and he's owed compensation from us as a result.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well good. Try him for murder then. Or rather manslaughter or something like that since he killed someone in the middle of a fight. We try 15 year olds for that all the time.

What you don't do, however, is what we did here. If we do, then we violated this guy's civil rights and he's owed compensation from us as a result.

1) As I said before, soldiers don't get trials. They just get POW camp.

2) There's no doubt of this guy's guilt in the first place.

3) Manslaughter means killed by accident. That's not what happened here. If you're going to go the civilian route it's first degree murder.

 

[bilby]

Well good. Try him for murder then. Or rather manslaughter or something like that since he killed someone in the middle of a fight. We try 15 year olds for that all the time.

What you don't do, however, is what we did here. If we do, then we violated this guy's civil rights and he's owed compensation from us as a result.

1) As I said before, soldiers don't get trials. They just get POW camp.

And if they are not treated in accordance with international conventions on the treatment of POWs (as in this case), then they have a right to redress for that abuse.

2) There's no doubt of this guy's guilt in the first place.

Western law explicitly does not allow such claims, except from the defendant (who can choose to plead guilty). In the absence of such a plea, he must in law be held to be innocent until his guilt is established in court. If he is treated as though he were guilty, without such a trial, then he has a right to redresss for that abuse.

3) Manslaughter means killed by accident. That's not what happened here. If you're going to go the civilian route it's first degree murder.

That's for a court to determine. But in a situation where two groups are armed and seeking each other with intent to kill, there is a strong case for a preemptive attack to be considered self defence; had he not killed, he had good reason to believe that his life was thereby put in danger. Justified self defence is not a crime; if the court determined that excessive force was used in self defence, or that his intent was not lethal, then manslaughter could well be the determination; but all of this is hypothetical unless and until there is a trial. No trial, no guilt. That's fundamental in western law.

As the question of charges is only relevant when he is being tried in accordance with the law; and as he was instead unlawfully detained, he is entitled to redress for that abrogation of his rights.

The law doesn't care what might have been if only the enforcement had been done in accordance with the law; it cares about whether or not an individual's rights were denied - and if they were, that individual is entitled to redress, regardless of any other circumstances - the other circumstances must be dealt with separately.

The guy is entitled to compensation for his mistreatment. Whether or not he should also be charged with some offence. However it seems that the actions of those who denied him his rights have seriously compromised any possible case for murder or manslaughter against him - and that's not his problem, nor his fault.

In short, if you are unhappy with the way this case has turned out, it is the US authorities, and their deliberate flouting of the law, that you need to blame. Had they acted lawfully, the person in question might well be serving a life sentence for manslaughter or murder. But they broke the law, and they must accept the consequences.

This is what sets civilisation apart from barbarity - in civilised places, the authorities are not above the law, and are required to comply with it at all times; even when dealing with people whose guilt appears to be beyond doubt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) As I said before, soldiers don't get trials. They just get POW camp.

And if they are not treated in accordance with international conventions on the treatment of POWs (as in this case), then they have a right to redress for that abuse.

He was out of uniform, he doesn't even get that.

2) There's no doubt of this guy's guilt in the first place.

Western law explicitly does not allow such claims, except from the defendant (who can choose to plead guilty). In the absence of such a plea, he must in law be held to be innocent until his guilt is established in court. If he is treated as though he were guilty, without such a trial, then he has a right to redresss for that abuse.

You're looking at formalities rather than facts. He's said he doesn't know if he threw the grenade. That only makes sense if he threw some grenades.

3) Manslaughter means killed by accident. That's not what happened here. If you're going to go the civilian route it's first degree murder.

That's for a court to determine. But in a situation where two groups are armed and seeking each other with intent to kill, there is a strong case for a preemptive attack to be considered self defence; had he not killed, he had good reason to believe that his life was thereby put in danger. Justified self defence is not a crime; if the court determined that excessive force was used in self defence, or that his intent was not lethal, then manslaughter could well be the determination; but all of this is hypothetical unless and until there is a trial. No trial, no guilt. That's fundamental in western law.

No.

1) Self defense does not apply to those with unclean hands. Criminals do not get to shoot at the cops.

2) He had the option of surrender.

The guy is entitled to compensation for his mistreatment. Whether or not he should also be charged with some offence. However it seems that the actions of those who denied him his rights have seriously compromised any possible case for murder or manslaughter against him - and that's not his problem, nor his fault.

Combatant out of uniform, that makes him a saboteur. Rights: Zero. Mistreatment is therefore impossible.

In short, if you are unhappy with the way this case has turned out, it is the US authorities, and their deliberate flouting of the law, that you need to blame. Had they acted lawfully, the person in question might well be serving a life sentence for manslaughter or murder. But they broke the law, and they must accept the consequences.

I'm unhappy with all you guys aiding the terrorists in their lawfare attacks.

Furthermore, even if he was mistreated giving him money is unacceptable because it's just going to fund the terrorists.

 

[laughing dog]

He was out of uniform, he doesn't even get that.

According to Canadian Supreme Court, as a 15 year old Canadian citizen, his civil rights had to be respected by the Canadian government. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the Canadian government violated those civil rights when it co-operated with US government in its interrogations. I previously linked the decision from Canadian Supreme Court. Nothing you have written addresses the basis of the ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court. Your uninformed views as to his guilt, or his treatment are irrelevant to the issues of his civil rights and the ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

He was out of uniform, he doesn't even get that.

According to Canadian Supreme Court, as a 15 year old Canadian citizen, his civil rights had to be respected by the Canadian government. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the Canadian government violated those civil rights when it co-operated with US government in its interrogations. I previously linked the decision from Canadian Supreme Court. Nothing you have written addresses the basis of the ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court. Your uninformed views as to his guilt, or his treatment are irrelevant to the issues of his civil rights and the ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court.

Ya, it's totally irrelevant how guilty he is or what the circumstances of his detention were. THIS RULING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH KHADR. It's all about the Canadian government and the actions of that government's agents. They were required to act in a certain manner in regards to one of their citizens and they did not act in such a manner, so they need to pay a penalty which compensates that citizen for their actions.