Canada to pay a Jihadi murderer $10M

[Derec]

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.

It is beyond question that he was a combatant. The problem is that he fought with an Al Qaeda terrorist cell (they were planting IEDs for example) and not an actual army. Terrorists are not lawful combatants.

 

[Derec]

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.

Interesting. So on the one hand, the justices thought Khadr's rights were violated, but on the other, they did not think his rights were violated enough to order the government to try to repartiate him and thus remove him from Gitmo.
I fail to see a justification for making him a multimillionaire based on this decision. So Canadian officals interrogated him while he was sleep deprived. Big whoop! Therefore, I do hope Khadr's victims prevail in garnishing that money and that Khadr is left holding the bag.

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.

But ten million dollars though? Unlikley that any jury would have awarded him nearly that much given his well known history of waging jihad and murdering a US solider or his connections to Osama bin Laden. A jury might even have awarded him as little as $1.

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.

Yet another jurisdiction that hired George Costanza as a risk management consultant. That little guy is doing well for himself recently.
Seriously though, I very much doubt the decision to give him ten million dollars had anything to do with any serious risk management consideratiions. Much more likely is that it was done becuase of left wing politics. Trudeau government has been very soft on terrorism. For example, Harper government sought to strip a convicted Pakistani terrorist Saad Gaya of Canadian citizenship but Trudeau not only stopped that but then released him on parole.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

It is beyond question that he was a combatant. The problem is that he fought with an Al Qaeda terrorist cell (they were planting IEDs for example) and not an actual army. Terrorists are not lawful combatants.

I realize thinking conceptually is difficult for you. If it is war, then there must be lawful combatants. In this war, there is no actual army as an opponent. The "terrorists" are, in essence, the actual army if this is s a war.

 

[laughing dog]

Interesting. So on the one hand, the justices thought Khadr's rights were violated, but on the other, they did not think his rights were violated enough to order the government to try to repartiate him and thus remove him from Gitmo.

That is not what the Canadian Supreme Court decided. They did not wish to interfere with the foreign relations perogatives of the government which is why they did not order a repatriation.

I fail to see a justification for making him a multimillionaire based on this decision. So Canadian officals interrogated him while he was sleep deprived. Big whoop!

Your opinion is irrelevant to the finding his rights were violated.

Therefore, I do hope Khadr's victims prevail in garnishing that money and that Khadr is left holding the bag.

Khadr's victims are supposedly dead. So, they cannot get anything. As you have so consistently pointed out, the money will not bring back the dead.

But ten million dollars though? Unlikley that any jury would have awarded him nearly that much given his well known history of waging jihad and murdering a US solider or his connections to Osama bin Laden. A jury might even have awarded him as little as $1.

Perhaps, then again, maybe they would have awarded him more or the same amount and the gov't would also be out the expense of the trial and possible embarrassing revelations during the trial.

You need to start your own consulting firm to help all these ignorant, bleeding heart risk managers to see the light since you know more than they do, and you understand juries so much better.

[

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nope, three.

Unlawful combatant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

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.

Fighting out of uniform (unless you had no choice in the matter--when you fall under surprise attack) makes one an unlawful combatant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It is beyond question that he was a combatant. The problem is that he fought with an Al Qaeda terrorist cell (they were planting IEDs for example) and not an actual army. Terrorists are not lawful combatants.

The IEDs were targeting our troops--guerilla warfare, not terrorism. Wear proper uniforms, respect the chain of command and they would get POW status. (And no comments about the cost of uniforms, all that is required is a distinguishing indication, not that it be fancy. Come as you are with a red armband qualifies.)

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Child soldier: check
Took a plea deal: check
Served prison time: check
Probably tortured: check

Sounds like a complicated case. Better post pictures of scary Mooslims....

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is beyond question that he was a combatant. The problem is that he fought with an Al Qaeda terrorist cell (they were planting IEDs for example) and not an actual army. Terrorists are not lawful combatants.

I realize thinking conceptually is difficult for you. If it is war, then there must be lawful combatants. In this war, there is no actual army as an opponent. The "terrorists" are, in essence, the actual army if this is s a war.

And why must a war have some lawful combatants?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I realize thinking conceptually is difficult for you. If it is war, then there must be lawful combatants. In this war, there is no actual army as an opponent. The "terrorists" are, in essence, the actual army if this is s a war.

And why must a war have some lawful combatants?

Only if you want to claim to follow international law.

 

[LordKiran]

And why must a war have some lawful combatants?

Only if you want to claim to follow international law.

Seriously, Loren. This should be basic stuff for you.

Granted that this is only if you pay any mind to the goofy and preposterous idea of "Lawful War" In reality, It's lawful because the belligerents involved say it is. The opinions of those not involved do not matter in the slightest.

 

[laughing dog]

I realize thinking conceptually is difficult for you. If it is war, then there must be lawful combatants. In this war, there is no actual army as an opponent. The "terrorists" are, in essence, the actual army if this is s a war.

And why must a war have some lawful combatants?

How does a war occur without "lawful" combatants?

 

[RavenSky]

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/883752916204617732

 

[whichphilosophy]

And why must a war have some lawful combatants?

Only if you want to claim to follow international law.

It's frequently difficult to distinguish between lawful and unlawful combatants so I referred to this document

http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus.../h09/undervisningsmateriale/ingrid_detter.pdf

See page 15 of 56 or page 1063

It does elaborate a bit on the next few pages but it's not really easy to tell.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Fighting out of uniform (unless you had no choice in the matter--when you fall under surprise attack) makes one an unlawful combatant.

Bullshit!!!

The US sends Special Forces dressed as civilians all over the place. They many times do not wear a uniform.

Are they all unlawful combatants?

The term is used to describe spies in your territory carrying out acts of war.

If sending people out there with no uniform makes somebody an unlawful combatant then US unlawful combatants are used all the time.

What nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

He's just a member of an opposing military at a time of anti-Muslim hysteria.

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).

So he was attacked and defended himself.

That is no crime. Never was.

The US makes all kinds of bombs. And drops many of them on civilians.

 

[mcc1789]

I guess if not having a uniform is unlawful, then it means all of those militiamen who fought in the American Revolution were unlawful combatants who could have been shot for it by the British then? Perhaps back then even shot without trial. Or did they wear uniforms? Regardless, if they had lost high treason would be the charge to try them under.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I guess if not having a uniform is unlawful, then it means all of those militiamen who fought in the American Revolution were unlawful combatants who could have been shot for it by the British then?

I believe that was the position of the British Government at the time, yes.

Perhaps back then even shot without trial.

Probably. What does 'back then' have to do with the case in this thread? 'Back then' treason was whatever the Crown decided it was. But we don't practice Oral Law anymore. So even Derec won't claim it's treason just to be a Muslim.

Or did they wear uniforms? Regardless, if they had lost high treason would be the charge to try them under.

Thus the benefits of being on the winning side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And why must a war have some lawful combatants?

Only if you want to claim to follow international law.

That doesn't mean they're following the law. They declared war on us, not the other way around.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fighting out of uniform (unless you had no choice in the matter--when you fall under surprise attack) makes one an unlawful combatant.

Bullshit!!!

The US sends Special Forces dressed as civilians all over the place. They many times do not wear a uniform.

Are they all unlawful combatants?

The term is used to describe spies in your territory carrying out acts of war.

If sending people out there with no uniform makes somebody an unlawful combatant then US unlawful combatants are used all the time.

What nonsense.

If they were fighting out of uniform they would be illegal combatants. You aren't required to wear a uniform simply because you're in the area but not fighting.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess if not having a uniform is unlawful, then it means all of those militiamen who fought in the American Revolution were unlawful combatants who could have been shot for it by the British then? Perhaps back then even shot without trial. Or did they wear uniforms? Regardless, if they had lost high treason would be the charge to try them under.

The Geneva conventions didn't exist back then.

 

[barbos]

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.

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.

Point is, Khadr were "good" guys at the time they immigrated to Canada. Same with Ben Laden, he was a good guy as far as West concerned.